edwards

Should I go ahead and post up the Owens 2008 Endorsement?
E.J. Dionne Jr. writes, for today's Post, a column on John Edwards, and the speech that Edwards will deliver during the first weekend of February. for those wondering about my favorite politician's plans in three years, the speech will be in New Hampshire.

What if the problem the Democrats face cannot be explained by all the careful calculations of the careful political calculators? What if their 2004 loss was not primarily about losing a few Catholics here and a few married women there? What if the Democrats' challenge is about passion, not positioning?

John Edwards is wagering a lot, maybe his whole political future, on that list of what-ifs. The 2004 vice presidential nominee, the guy with the dad in the mill who gave the most remembered stump speech of the Democratic primary campaign, will rejoin the debate with a new speech in New Hampshire on the first weekend in February.

...

Moral issues matter, Edwards says, but Democrats won't look moral by getting into a bidding war over how often they can invoke the name of God. Instead, Democrats should speak with conviction about an issue that has always animated them: the alleviation of poverty. "I think it is a moral issue; it's something we should be willing to fight about and stand up for," he says.

Those who counsel caution, he says, would let calculation push Democrats away from their historical commitments. "They think it's associated with some political label," he says, carefully avoiding the L-word himself. "They think that a lot of people who live in poverty don't vote and don't participate and so they don't think there's a lot of political capital there."

Edwards, who is planning to set up a center to study ways to alleviate poverty, is enough of a politician to insist that he wants to advocate not only on behalf of the destitute but also for those just finding their footing on mobility's ladder. But he offers the unexpected claim that the very voters who have strayed from the Democrats would respond forcefully to the moral imperative of aiding the poor.

"The people who love their guns and love their faith, they care about this," Edwards says. "There is a deep abiding feeling of moral responsibility people have about those who are doing everything right and are still having a hard time."

Okay, okay, it's bound to be said that Edwards is making a shrewd political wager that Democrats have tired of capitulation. The test will be whether he sticks with it. It's a fair bet that someone who talks about a real moral issue for the next four years will at least be easier to listen to than politicians who place all their money on yesterday's focus groups.

take on hollywood

Democrats vs Hollywood.
In light of some recent discussions on O.R., I found David Callahan's piece in The New Republic especially delightful. He argues that Democratics ought to challenge Hollywood and big media. Moreover, and this is where the article is of most service, he makes the case that such a challenge is natural and obvious to the left. Important read.

Here is the thrust, from TNR:

Once you get past the issue of free speech--more on that in a minute--attacking the entertainment industry is a natural fit for Democrats. Republicans court charges of hypocrisy when they bash crass popular culture, since it is a relentless focus on the bottom line, typically an unquestioned good on the right, that propels the entertainment industry forward, as anyone who works in Hollywood can attest. For Democrats, the connection between an unfettered market and toxic values is exactly the point--and a point that can serve as the linchpin of an authentic new progressive moralism.

The argument here is simple: When financial self-interest is touted as one of society's greatest virtues, as it has been lately, individuals will behave badly. The recent paroxysm of greed and dishonesty at places like Enron, Tyco, and scores of other companies is evidence of this point. So is the terrible ethical climate in law and medicine, where a money culture is increasingly subverting professional ethics. The epidemic of cheating in schools and even the steroid problems in sports also show how today's outsized imperative to get ahead can bring out the worst in people.

Ditto for what goes on in the entertainment industry. Why do well-educated professionals in television expose our children to some 18,000 visual images of murder by the time they are adults? Why do record executives market misogynist and violent music that they wouldn't want their own children to hear? Why do the producers of reality TV shows try to turn contestants into depraved social Darwinists? Why do makers of video games like Grand Theft Auto promote criminality? Why do daytime talk show hosts seek out the most pathological examples of human interaction to spotlight on national television? Money, that's why. The bottom line reigns supreme in the entertainment industry, and the more frantic the chase for dollars has become, the trashier our culture has gotten. Here, as elsewhere, extreme capitalism and moral decline go hand-in-hand.

None of this is to say that there aren't great movies, fantastic TV shows, and fine record albums. There are. But just because an industry makes some great products doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized for polluting. In stepping forward with such criticism, Democrats should speak from their own core values--affirming the sanctity of free speech while arguing that our popular culture shouldn't be so heavily shaped by market forces. Steering clear of anything that smacks of censorship, they should demand more aggressive voluntary steps by Hollywood to clean up its act by strengthening and enforcing content ratings, and by building on the V-Chip concept to give parents more ways to control what their children see and listen to.

Far more importantly, though, Democrats should outline a bold vision for expanding the sphere of publicly supported culture and mass media. This could include much more funding for public broadcasting, new support for independent film (as in Europe), and a revival of the regulatory vision behind the founding of the Federal Communications Commission in 1934--namely, that broadcasters must serve the public interest in exchange for access to the airwaves. Among other things, this would mean forcing television stations to give free air time to candidates and to broadcast educational programming for children.

Few of these ideas are new. Today, though, the public's intense concern about values gives liberals a new chance to push for alternatives to market-controlled culture. The catch is that this effort won't succeed without attacking the industry that now shapes that culture.

phili

Philadelphia. Home of my favorite NFL team (in lieu of Carolina). And, today, home of my favorite editorial. From Phili's Inquirer:

This failure was also, and perhaps more important, a failure to honor the moral contract that journalists have with viewers and readers to be truthful, even when it means challenging conventional wisdom and ferreting out unpleasant facts.

Those who defend the [Iraq] prewar coverage argue that reporters are only as good as their sources. They say they reported accurately the falsehoods leaked to them by those who sought to wage war. By making such an argument they are also saying they are morally neutral, that they are little more than conduits for lies, half-truths and truths all rolled into one unintelligible message. They forget the contract.

There is a concerted attempt to destroy this contract. Balance and objectivity have become code words to propagate the insidious and cynical moral disengagement that is destroying American journalism. This moral disengagement gives equal time, and sometimes more than equal time, to those who spread falsehoods and distort information. It tacitly sanctions the dissemination of lies. It absolves us from making moral choice. It obscures and often shuts out the truth.

This sophistry has come to characterize the circus that goes by the name of journalism on cable news shows. Facts on television are largely interchangeable with opinions. The television reporter, like a game show host, makes sure each warring party has his or her time to vent. The veracity of what is said is irrelevant. But the disease of moral neutrality is no longer confined to the poseurs on television, who are, after all, entertainers posing as journalists. It is seeping into those organizations that are still attempting to report the news. Objectivity is not the same as moral disengagement. Balance does not mean giving everyone the same space. We are more than dutiful court stenographers. Journalists have a contract with viewers and readers. This contract was broken. We must make sure it is not broken again.

spoil sport

Upon the release of the latest JibJab, I shall be the spoil sport. Am I alone in finding JibJab utterly un-funny? I've watched three now--the Jab-tacular this land is your land, the get out and vote, and this latest "four more years in wash-ing-tun." Not only are they not cracking my smile, I think I actively don't like them, and what they're all about.

The latest JibJab is a warm fuzzy. In fact, they all are as far as I've seen; ending with two political foes arm in arm united by their shared life in politics. It is, though, that very dropping of the arms that irks me. And it is not because I desire some prolonged antipathy. Rather, the moral of each of these cartoons is that our heated disputes that drive us apart are merely games of politics. You like X and I like Y, but once the game's over, only sore losers and weirdos go on about those differences. Politics are entertainment just as a Duke Carolina game.

This is also the moral of late night monologues, shows like the defunct crossfire, and, increasingly, mass-media news.

What Jib Jab and mass media do not do is attempt any serious attempt to learn/instruct us in policy. Sure, that's not JibJab's job; but, JibJab is resoundingly popular because of this trend. Absent is any sense that real policy differences matter. Also absent, importantly, is any sense that the sides should have any vulnerability. I maintain, this is just like sports. In the end, it doesn't matter, it's just a game. At the same time, only a fool would try to convince me to like Coach K.

Lest we forget, politics are not entertainment. Policies lead us to war, they determine the fate of families without shelter, the protection of elders without a nest egg, the kind of food we eat, the stuff we watch, and the business we engage in, ad infinitum. Increasingly, though, and despite this wonderfully high turnout in November, we just don't care. Increasingly, Bush and Kerry are no different than K and Williams.

And this is destroying our national dialogue. We are too often aligned to our respective sides without any particularly good reason. And the media, in their laziness and subsequent reliance on merely playing two sides of an argument, feeds the habit. Where, I wonder, is the search for truth?

(I do not suggest we end our two party system. Usually, as it happens, we Democrats are only mostly right.)

But politics today reminds me of the way secular people supposedly compliment religion. "I'm all for it," I hear endlessly, "because it is a great comforting tool." Bet the concentration camp ghosts and old Martin Luther are thrilled to hear that one.

Fortunately, politics, usually, concerns only our physical lives. Still, it is a noble struggle for what is right. I think alot of us kindof get that. What we have lost is the sense of duty to really struggle with that question. Instead, we each have our Limbaughs to entertain us and poke fun at the other side. (sadly, having developed this cheerleader analogy, that last sentence brought a disturbing image to mind.)

To turn political thinking into entertainment is, ultimately, to turn us away from civic duty. Watch your Jib Jab, shrug your shoulders at the red or blue colors, and avoid any real thought into policy. It hurts, and takes up too much of your time. And besides, American Idol's on.

Broder on Winter

I had overlooked, until now, David Broder's wonderful article on Governor Winter, of Mississippi, and a speech Winter delivered in Chapel Hill. From Broder's column:

Winter said the rift "is not, of course, just a southern problem, [but] I would like to believe that we who live in the South have a special insight" into how the problem might be overcome.

It's "a matter of trying to be honest with ourselves and each other. It is a matter of developing a sense of trust based on everyone -- black and white -- trying to start from the same place. That is admittedly harder for blacks to do than for whites. For black people have more to forgive, even if they cannot and probably should not forget. But there must come a time when we have to recognize that we are all in this together -- when we must move past the old divisions of race and understand our common interests and our common humanity."

The comment is good, give a read.

eye on I day

Four years on the Environment. The Natural Resources Defense Counsel offers their comprehensive review of Bush's first four years of environmental policy. Read the pdf here. From the overview:

Not surprisingly, after four years, the Bush administration's relentless anti-environmental agenda has translated into real damage on the ground. A recent Knight Ridder analysis of government data shows that Americans now face a dirtier environment while polluters largely get a free pass. Since the Bush administration began, health warnings to avoid eating locally caught fish have doubled and completed cleanup of toxic wastes at Superfund sites have fallen by 52 percent; yet civil citations issued to polluters have dropped by 57 percent and criminal prosecutions of polluters have fallen 17 percent.

Meanwhile, the administration is making every effort to keep the public in the dark about the policies that contribute to these degraded environmental conditions. It has taken unprecedented steps to cut citizens out of the decision-making process for a number of critical public health and land management policies.

For instance, just days before this past Christmas holiday, the administration gutted its public comment process for federal forest management plans. It also routinely shares working drafts of public health standards with polluters and chemical manufacturers, and takes their suggestions but gives the public only 60 days to comment on the final version.

It is unsuprising that this group released a critical piece on the President. What is useful is that report's catalogue of administration initiatives. Have a look.

paper trails

The Times comments, today, on North Carolina's Ag Commissioner. Well, the lack thereof.

When the returns came in for the agriculture commissioner race, two things were clear: the Republican, Steve Troxler, and the Democrat, Britt Cobb, were just 2,287 votes apart, and a voting machine in Carteret County had lost 4,438 votes. The machine had mistakenly been set to keep roughly 3,000 votes in its memory, which was not enough. And in a spectacularly poor design decision, it was programmed to let people keep "voting" even when their votes were not being saved.

The editorial rightly uses this as another call for paper trails. It might be the old fashioned and it might be the paranoid in me--the part of me that checks to see the letter went down the mail shoot and that my keys are still in my pocket--but having some fairly hard-copy record of a vote just makes sense. The Times:

North Carolina's plight underscores a basic point about elections: because there are often problems, there must be a mechanism for a recount. If the Carteret County voting machine had produced a voter-verified paper record each time a vote was cast, these paper records could have been be counted and the matter would be resolved. But electronic voting machines that do not produce paper records make recounts impossible.

sentencing guidelines explained

Mark Allenbaugh gives a roundup of the sentencing guidelines cases that the Court handed down a couple days ago. The first ruling is unsuprising, after last term's Blakely. Facts that determine a defendant's sentence must be found by a jury. The second case, as Mr. Allenbaugh explains, is far less clear. It answers the question: if judicial factfinding is unconstitutional, what do we do with federal sentencing guidelines that call for such factfinding?

The Court ruled that the federal guidelines, rather than being defunct, are now voluntary rather than mandatory. Allenbaugh wonders how this will pan out in practice.

don't go a-pigeonholing

don't go a-pigeon-holin.
A good number of political savy pundits rely on a common wisdom that the Court is split 5-4, with the same Justices allied on respective sides. The ruling today will, I hope, serve as a reminder that those chummy politicos don't know the book behind the cover.

Stevens, Scalia, Thomas and Souter. That's the dissent with which I agree. Hey Chris Matthews, figure that out.

bribed

An important lesson that dawns all to slowly when thinking of our international policy (international, including our action under treaties, what we sign on to, and foreign policy) is that same lesson older siblings likewise learn too slowly: big brothers get copied.

One would imagine that, once old enough to occupy grand public positions, the lesson would be lifestyle. Such is not the case. Policy makers and pundits seem entirely willing to act as if our national actions take place in a vacuum. No no, enters mom. You're little brother's watching you. And what you do, he'll do, and don't you forget it. Thus the importance to respect treaties that we want other states to respect. Thus, the several generals' complaints at the disregard to the Geneva Convention. Thus ad infinitum, seemingly, for this administration.

We recently saw the administration's bribe to commentator Williams to trump up No Child Left Behind. Today, the Financial Times reports something similar from Mr. Allawi. Hmm.

As many of you know, my computer's a piece. As at least one of you knows, I'm taken to being obsessed with comparison shopping.
I'm down to Sony and Toshiba. I figure I want a dvd/rw, a screen over 15", and some slick aesthetics. Beyond that, any advice?

Reckon I should admit this whole post is an excuse to submit the Office Space picture. Hope you liked it.

Torts

MedMalMyths
The Times' editors address the faux crisis of malpractice recovery.

We hold no brief for the current medical liability system, which does a poor job of compensating most victims of medical malpractice. An authoritative study of thousands of patients in New York State found that the vast majority who were harmed by medical errors or negligence never filed suit, whereas the vast majority of those who did file suit were not actually harmed by negligent doctors. Some studies suggest that, once a suit is filed, the courts do a reasonably good job of sorting out who deserves compensation, while other research has found that juries are swayed more by the severity of a plaintiff's injuries than by evidence of negligence. But in a medical system that is coming under increased fire for failing to deliver consistent quality in hospital care, it is clear that only a small number of people are being compensated for malpractice.

The supposed solution of capping rewards in malpractice suits assumes the egregious and common mantle of oversimplicity, and, largely, inaccuracy (the mistaken belief that high rewards are the cause of high insurance rates.)
As the Times argues, the problem is far more complex. We have deserving, injured people going without compensation. We have insurance companies abusing public perception. We have cases going to court that should not.
I have always thought that the way to cut out undeserving malpractice suits is to better filter the incoming cases- and the Times makes this point. We already have penalties for frivolous lawsuits. These are in the Rules of Civil Procedure and lawyer ethics codes. If we want more, lets set up a structure--grand jury style--to measure the merits before trial. Seems like a clear solution. Unfortunately, it is not a solution that the insurance and medical industry lobbies want to accept.

integrity

Inte(l)Grity.
Evidence 3B for the case of The People against Machiavelli. 3A, you'll remember, was the fake news bit promoting Bush's prescription drug plan. Now, let us marvel at the audacity of paying off a prominent op-ed columnist to push your domestic policy agenda. Unless it is to correct an error in USA Today's report of the facts, I can't see appreciating any defense to this use of our tax dollars.

Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.
...
The contract, detailed in documents obtained by USA TODAY through a Freedom of Information Act request, also shows that the Education Department, through the Ketchum public relations firm, arranged with Williams to use contacts with America's Black Forum, a group of black broadcast journalists, "to encourage the producers to periodically address" NCLB. He persuaded radio and TV personality Steve Harvey to invite Paige onto his show twice. Harvey's manager, Rushion McDonald, confirmed the appearances.

Williams said he does not recall disclosing the contract to audiences on the air but told colleagues about it when urging them to promote NCLB.
...
Williams' contract was part of a $1 million deal with Ketchum that produced "video news releases" designed to look like news reports. The Bush administration used similar releases last year to promote its Medicare prescription drug plan, prompting a scolding from the Government Accountability Office, which called them an illegal use of taxpayers' dollars.

Williams, 45, a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is one of the top black conservative voices in the nation. He hosts The Right Side on TV and radio, and writes op-ed pieces for newspapers, including USA TODAY, while running a public relations firm, Graham Williams Group.

It is one thing to have an intellectual investment in a policy. This is another thing altogether.

To be clear, this is not about catching someone red-handed. To be fair, I am very interested in research on this kind of thing happening generally, be it Democratics' or Republican PR work. I had heard, when the fake news promoting the HHR plan came out, that such government submitted "info-peices" were not altogether uncommon. But I have not found other examples. Go to it, folks.

The scandle is in the bigger picture- it is that what should be thoughtful debate about policy has become something for sale. And sales = manipulation. Buying off this commentator is the same thing as paying a big breasted 17 year old to sell potato chips. That is what our civic discussion is becoming. And this administration is at the cutting edge of the new advertising.

Update
Josh Marshall, knowingly I'm sure, takes up my request to dig into the frequency of this near propaganda. See his post, here (it's the second down, I believe).

Grahaming it up

Grahaming it up?

Via Volokh, read what Sen. Graham had to say to Nominee Gonzales on Thursday. Interesting reading- importantly reminding us that complaints about the nominee's torture memos are not limited to the left.

power out

The story of my life whilst in New York this fall, the Times captures in detail.

As a consequence, knowing the location of a well-placed (and unused) electrical outlet may be considered more vital than knowing the closest public bathroom.

As my computer has no battery, finding both a hot spot and a free outlet dictated my migration path during my stay. Let me offer these: Pier 17 at the Sea Port. Upstairs is a food court, and outlets along the massive windows facing the Brooklyn Bridge. And, of course, the back right corner of Big Cup Tea in Chelsea...if you're man enough.