June 22, 2009
The politics of personality
“Senator” Boxer - Only one scenario could justify the upbraiding directed at the General. If the General been addressing all of the male members of the committee as Senator and then responding to Senator Boxer as ma’am, some comment may have been appropriate. Is that the unreported part of the story?
I think it more likely reflects the utter disdain that politicians have for the rest of us. Her remarks did not occur in a combative, emotional exchange. She wasn’t fighting for respect denied her, a temporary casualty of mutual anger. She was expressing her lack of respect by dressing it up as indignation..
Governor Sanford - How difficult is it for the truly arrogant to act humble? Even in situations where humility is clearly the path to take, politicians try to sidestep or finesse.. Is there any other explanation for President Clinton’s apology/lecture reminding us that his indiscretions pale in comparison to our appalling interest in them? How does one explain Mr. Guiliani announcing the end of his second marriage (to everyone including his wife) at a press conference? Or Governor Spitzer parading his wife in front of the cameras for his big moment. After all, what’s humiliation without pictures? John Edwards? Considering the backstory, his withdrawal statement was almost too creepy for words. Remember “don’t worry about me.”
People fall out of love. It happens. But political infidelities often lack that element. Bill Clinton does love Hillary. John Edwards loves Elizabeth.. Their spouses love them. But mere love is no longer sufficient. It is hard to settle for love when adoration is so readily available.
Governor Sanford sounded more sincere than most and his pain was evident. But like most political apologies, there was an awful lot of me talk. This press conference will play less well with each revisiting. The governor acknowledged that he let down his wife, children, staffers and friends. I can’t help but think that his biggest regret is losing life on the pedestal, a claim to respect, deference and admiration that we all crave but seldom feel that we deserve. We are usually right.
David Letterman and Sara Palin – David Letterman looked absolutely perplexed when the reliable groundswell of support for liberal bad taste didn’t occur. Others have made equally distasteful attempts at humor without repercussions but children are off limits.
Circling the wagons around Sara Palin is a mistake about to be made (again). Conservatives should grasp that the criticisms of Sara Palin were all valid ones. Yes, she was great on the stump, personable and her decision-making as governor could be defended, even applauded.
But……..Sara Palin was not disciplined or intellectually curious. She was weak in interviews and even worse didn’t seem interested in getting better. Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers could have articulated the conservative position better than Palin and Representative Michele Bachmann, who struggles against some of the same media bias would have embarrassed her in a debate. Like Palin, Bachmann has had some self-inflicted troubles but she is both a student and architect of policy. Palin is more of a cheerleader.
Sara Palin is no dummy but as a VP candidate, she was a mistake. Republicans were right to defend her, but shouldn’t try to resurrect or reinvent her.
There is a much to admire at Fox News, primarily in the daytime programming. The twenty-four hour Michael Jackson coverage was simply an embarrassment. MacNeil Lehrer News report covered the O. J. Simpson arrest, the opening day of the trial and the verdict because it was a news decision not a business decision. Fox should be ashamed and of course, so should everyone else.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Washington and the real world
Most of us acquire our limited spheres of influence through our own efforts. We work hard in our industry or for our company. We earn credibility. We hold some influence with co-workers, customers and competitors based on skills we have developed and tasks that we have accomplished. The respect our opinions command is based largely on real world experience, ours and the people we interact with.
There are select places where real world experience is less important. In some places across the globe, an accident of birth destines a person to a life of privilege or slavery unrelated to any knowledge or skill that he or she may possess. In the United States, two such places exist. Although we have neither monarchs or a permanent underclass, in Washington D.C. and Hollywood, the rules are somewhat different. credibility and moral authority are ordained, not earned.
In Hollywood, celebrity entitles almost anyone to advise us on how to lose weight, maintain healthy relationships and conduct the country's foreign policy (usually from the front cover of a magazine). But Hollywood is a fantasyland after all and most of us discount the advice of celebrities to a degree. We instinctively grasp that an actor who is four times married at twenty-nine may not be a good resource for relationship advice. Our radar informs us that Larry King's fascination with a celebrity is not evidence of a serious person. We still recognize that while celebrity does not make one smart, there are well-informed celebrities.
Clint Eastwood is a smart guy. Angela Jolie, while diminished by the cult of celebrity, is almost always better informed on any subject than the person interviewing her. We haven't completely lost our perspective on Hollywood. We have lost our minds about the celebrities in Washington D.C.
We treat politicians far too deferentially. During an earlier dust-up concerning the financial health of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters disdainfully dismissed the concerns of critics through the power of rhetorical assertion. Why do we have faith in these people? What qualifies Frank to speak authoritatively on this issue? Does he have those credentials? If so, he is a knowledgeable person who made a mistake. If he lacks the credentials, what does it say about the media or about us? Remember, this is a man who was unaware that a prostitution ring was being operated out if his own apartment. It is at least possible that something could have slipped past him concerning the mortgage giants.
We seldom question whether the actions of the Executive or the Congress reflect constitutional intent. Refer to the "czars" of the current administration. As policy is implemented to deal with the current economic crisis, two questions should be asked and answered. Are the rescuers constitutionally empowered to act as they have? Do they have expertise to deal with this situation at hand or just power?
My sense is that we fight harder with our alderman than our Congressman. My question is why?
There are select places where real world experience is less important. In some places across the globe, an accident of birth destines a person to a life of privilege or slavery unrelated to any knowledge or skill that he or she may possess. In the United States, two such places exist. Although we have neither monarchs or a permanent underclass, in Washington D.C. and Hollywood, the rules are somewhat different. credibility and moral authority are ordained, not earned.
In Hollywood, celebrity entitles almost anyone to advise us on how to lose weight, maintain healthy relationships and conduct the country's foreign policy (usually from the front cover of a magazine). But Hollywood is a fantasyland after all and most of us discount the advice of celebrities to a degree. We instinctively grasp that an actor who is four times married at twenty-nine may not be a good resource for relationship advice. Our radar informs us that Larry King's fascination with a celebrity is not evidence of a serious person. We still recognize that while celebrity does not make one smart, there are well-informed celebrities.
Clint Eastwood is a smart guy. Angela Jolie, while diminished by the cult of celebrity, is almost always better informed on any subject than the person interviewing her. We haven't completely lost our perspective on Hollywood. We have lost our minds about the celebrities in Washington D.C.
We treat politicians far too deferentially. During an earlier dust-up concerning the financial health of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters disdainfully dismissed the concerns of critics through the power of rhetorical assertion. Why do we have faith in these people? What qualifies Frank to speak authoritatively on this issue? Does he have those credentials? If so, he is a knowledgeable person who made a mistake. If he lacks the credentials, what does it say about the media or about us? Remember, this is a man who was unaware that a prostitution ring was being operated out if his own apartment. It is at least possible that something could have slipped past him concerning the mortgage giants.
We seldom question whether the actions of the Executive or the Congress reflect constitutional intent. Refer to the "czars" of the current administration. As policy is implemented to deal with the current economic crisis, two questions should be asked and answered. Are the rescuers constitutionally empowered to act as they have? Do they have expertise to deal with this situation at hand or just power?
My sense is that we fight harder with our alderman than our Congressman. My question is why?
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Unkind tax talk
Eventually, the talk will come back to taxes. Reading through pages of campaign speeches from both the primary and general election season of 2008, I find recurring themes, articulated and implied, that will be employed to support proposed tax increases. I would encourage everyone to question whether these assertions are true.
**** Politicians demonize the rich by suggesting that the rich don’t work for their money. You constantly hear the “rich” and the “working people” in speeches as if the former just has money while the latter works to acquire it. In the past, it was usually working class, but it has morphed into working people. My life experience suggests that the wealthy work just as hard, if not harder,than anyone else. Many take significant risks with their own funds in the pursuit of their success.
There seems to be a widespread belief that the rich don’t work for their money. But almost all of the wealthy people I know started working at the minimum wage, had some post high school education, are literate, have reasonably good social skills and a sound work ethic. Most all of them entered the working world and some into their marriages at earnings levels in the poverty range. They acquired their wealth over time and they built their fortunes over their own working life. There is some wealth that seems to travel from generation to generation but no one is more adept at that than politicians.
**** The rich don’t need their money. This suggestion is made surprisingly very overtly.
Democrats are always saying that Republicans want to give tax cuts to people who don’t need them. While need is a legitimate calculation in the dispersion of revenue (for the recipient), it is hardly relevant in determining the contributor’s tax rate . Who can possibly determine when, if and how much of any persons money is needed by its owner. That would be impossible in real time, much less looking into the future. And how does that translate into a justification for taking it from them. This is a calculus employed by those who steal from their employers and insurers as well as those that rob banks. ( This scenario does not even entertain a more interesting question, whether those individuals who don’t need their money would put it toward more productive uses than the government).
Isn’t it a bit arrogant? - deciding how much of people’s earnings they should be allowed to keep based on the beneficiaries perception of the providers need.
**** The private accumulation of wealth is somehow bad for the economy. I am not threatened by accumulated wealth and neither are you. Would society be better served by transferring Bill Gate’s wealth in large part to the government? I don’t know anyone who has less wealth because Mr. Gates has much.
There are very few things that I am absolutely sure about, but one is – Those of us who pay federal taxes in the ten or fifteen percent bracket or pay no tax at all are not the helpless victims of those who pay 25 or 28 or 35 percent (or those who will likely pay 39.6 percent soon). We could all stand to be a little less angry and perhaps a bit more grateful.
**** Politicians demonize the rich by suggesting that the rich don’t work for their money. You constantly hear the “rich” and the “working people” in speeches as if the former just has money while the latter works to acquire it. In the past, it was usually working class, but it has morphed into working people. My life experience suggests that the wealthy work just as hard, if not harder,than anyone else. Many take significant risks with their own funds in the pursuit of their success.
There seems to be a widespread belief that the rich don’t work for their money. But almost all of the wealthy people I know started working at the minimum wage, had some post high school education, are literate, have reasonably good social skills and a sound work ethic. Most all of them entered the working world and some into their marriages at earnings levels in the poverty range. They acquired their wealth over time and they built their fortunes over their own working life. There is some wealth that seems to travel from generation to generation but no one is more adept at that than politicians.
**** The rich don’t need their money. This suggestion is made surprisingly very overtly.
Democrats are always saying that Republicans want to give tax cuts to people who don’t need them. While need is a legitimate calculation in the dispersion of revenue (for the recipient), it is hardly relevant in determining the contributor’s tax rate . Who can possibly determine when, if and how much of any persons money is needed by its owner. That would be impossible in real time, much less looking into the future. And how does that translate into a justification for taking it from them. This is a calculus employed by those who steal from their employers and insurers as well as those that rob banks. ( This scenario does not even entertain a more interesting question, whether those individuals who don’t need their money would put it toward more productive uses than the government).
Isn’t it a bit arrogant? - deciding how much of people’s earnings they should be allowed to keep based on the beneficiaries perception of the providers need.
**** The private accumulation of wealth is somehow bad for the economy. I am not threatened by accumulated wealth and neither are you. Would society be better served by transferring Bill Gate’s wealth in large part to the government? I don’t know anyone who has less wealth because Mr. Gates has much.
There are very few things that I am absolutely sure about, but one is – Those of us who pay federal taxes in the ten or fifteen percent bracket or pay no tax at all are not the helpless victims of those who pay 25 or 28 or 35 percent (or those who will likely pay 39.6 percent soon). We could all stand to be a little less angry and perhaps a bit more grateful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
