To my loyal fans,
My next posts will be as follows for the next few weeks.
Wednesdays: Interesting Things and Independent Ideas
Fridays: Opinions
I am doing a summer class at the current moment, so this will be the schedule until further notice.
Thanks,
John
Monday, May 31, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Plug the Damn Hole
The DUI trial of Lindsay Lohan seemed to have the American people on the edge of their seats wondering how the judge would respond to Lindsay’s idiotic excuse of “I lost my passport” after going to the Cannes Film Festival. What surprised most of the people was not the charge of a DUI or her erratic behavior, but the way she covered all of it up with the equivalent of “the dog ate my homework.”
Oddly enough, Lindsay can teach President Obama a lot about covering up scandals.
The claims made by Joe Sestak, who recently beat Senator Arlen Specter for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania, that someone in the Obama administration became Don Correlone and made an “offer that he couldn’t refuse,” in this case a job in the administration. If true, then this means that someone in the Obama administration committed a felony. Even worse is if the administration pulls a Lohan to cover up their actions resulting in another “gate.”
Now, I am not saying that Obama himself is guilty of a crime or should be impeached, but at least some sort of cooperation would be good to please the American people. On Wednesday, seven Republicans called for a special prosecutor to look into the matter. Attorney General Eric Holder somewhat laughed it off basically stating that the Justice Department was dealing with the allegations.
This scandal also poses other problems for the Obama administration. First, it feeds the anti-incumbent fever that is spreading with the Tea Party movement of the corrupt Washington politician. This means that when the scandal gets bigger, and if a cover up is discovered, it will mean big losses in November for the Democrats and a general sense of distrust for years to come. Second, the people will see the arrogance of the administration like the Lindsay Lohan, “But, I’m a celebrity” or in this case a politician, nonsense. This will really make Obama look bad and his administration even more unpopular.
So, how should the Obama administration prevent another Watergate. I would say that they need to be as compliant as possible with investigators, show that they have nothing to hide. President Obama also needs to come clean with anything he knows and not cover it up. He already has many issues on his plate to deal with, such as a gushing oil cloud in the Gulf, that another Watergate is not what he needs right now. President Obama should call a press conference on this issue, to say that buck stops here and anyone who committed a crime in his administration will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Finally, do not use this as a political tactic. The Democrats should not say that this is part of the right wing smear machine, it will look like they have something to hide. Try being honest with the American people, trust me it works!
Bad excuses and celebrity/executive privilege never have good results. People hate cover ups. What the Obama administration needs is to be honest. Ask Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, the cover up is usually worse than the actual crime. President Obama should take his own advice and “plug the damn hole” before it gets too messy.
Further Reading:
Explains the Joe Sestak scandal
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=158617
Oddly enough, Lindsay can teach President Obama a lot about covering up scandals.
The claims made by Joe Sestak, who recently beat Senator Arlen Specter for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania, that someone in the Obama administration became Don Correlone and made an “offer that he couldn’t refuse,” in this case a job in the administration. If true, then this means that someone in the Obama administration committed a felony. Even worse is if the administration pulls a Lohan to cover up their actions resulting in another “gate.”
Now, I am not saying that Obama himself is guilty of a crime or should be impeached, but at least some sort of cooperation would be good to please the American people. On Wednesday, seven Republicans called for a special prosecutor to look into the matter. Attorney General Eric Holder somewhat laughed it off basically stating that the Justice Department was dealing with the allegations.
This scandal also poses other problems for the Obama administration. First, it feeds the anti-incumbent fever that is spreading with the Tea Party movement of the corrupt Washington politician. This means that when the scandal gets bigger, and if a cover up is discovered, it will mean big losses in November for the Democrats and a general sense of distrust for years to come. Second, the people will see the arrogance of the administration like the Lindsay Lohan, “But, I’m a celebrity” or in this case a politician, nonsense. This will really make Obama look bad and his administration even more unpopular.
So, how should the Obama administration prevent another Watergate. I would say that they need to be as compliant as possible with investigators, show that they have nothing to hide. President Obama also needs to come clean with anything he knows and not cover it up. He already has many issues on his plate to deal with, such as a gushing oil cloud in the Gulf, that another Watergate is not what he needs right now. President Obama should call a press conference on this issue, to say that buck stops here and anyone who committed a crime in his administration will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Finally, do not use this as a political tactic. The Democrats should not say that this is part of the right wing smear machine, it will look like they have something to hide. Try being honest with the American people, trust me it works!
Bad excuses and celebrity/executive privilege never have good results. People hate cover ups. What the Obama administration needs is to be honest. Ask Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, the cover up is usually worse than the actual crime. President Obama should take his own advice and “plug the damn hole” before it gets too messy.
Further Reading:
Explains the Joe Sestak scandal
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=158617
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Interesting Things and Independent Ideas - II
Interesting Things
Elena Kagan's grades released: I find it fascinating that even a B- can make the news when you get nominated to the Supreme Court. Check out this NYT story from yesterday that talks about this very point.
Original URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/politics/25kagan.html?ref=todayspaper
Lewis Black attacks Glenn Beck: If you have not seen it yet, Lewis Black does a hilarious outburst about Glenn Beck's obsession with Nazism.
Original URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFDvh3eHmvw
Independent Ideas
Sestak Speaks: Did Barack Obama's White House commit a felony, read this article and you be the judge.
Original URL: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=158617
Blumenthal Blunder?: Did James Blumenthal misspeak about his service in Vietnam? Here is the original NYT article that supposedly broke the story into the mainstream for you to be the judge.
Original URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html?scp=3&sq=original%20Blumenthal%20story&st=cse
Elena Kagan's grades released: I find it fascinating that even a B- can make the news when you get nominated to the Supreme Court. Check out this NYT story from yesterday that talks about this very point.
Original URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/politics/25kagan.html?ref=todayspaper
Lewis Black attacks Glenn Beck: If you have not seen it yet, Lewis Black does a hilarious outburst about Glenn Beck's obsession with Nazism.
Original URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFDvh3eHmvw
Independent Ideas
Sestak Speaks: Did Barack Obama's White House commit a felony, read this article and you be the judge.
Original URL: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=158617
Blumenthal Blunder?: Did James Blumenthal misspeak about his service in Vietnam? Here is the original NYT article that supposedly broke the story into the mainstream for you to be the judge.
Original URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html?scp=3&sq=original%20Blumenthal%20story&st=cse
Monday, May 24, 2010
No Post for Tuesday
To loyal fans,
I will be traveling tomorrow, so there will not be an opinion post for Tuesday, May 24. I will try to post an opinion post on Friday. Check out my new features below though!
Thanks,
John
I will be traveling tomorrow, so there will not be an opinion post for Tuesday, May 24. I will try to post an opinion post on Friday. Check out my new features below though!
Thanks,
John
Interesting Things and Independent Ideas
To loyal fans,
The purpose of this new feature is to post articles, op-eds, and videos that I find interesting. I also like my readers to draw independent conclusions and not just listen to what I or other pundits say. So, I will also post items that have been brought up in the media (such as bills and videos) that readers can use as a way to make their own judgments.
Interesting Things
Paul Krugman's NYT column on Tea Parties and funding of corporations: what do they stand for?
original URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24krugman.html?ref=todayspaper
The Old Enemies
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 23, 2010
SIGN IN TO RECOMMEND
TWITTER
COMMENTS (304)
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE
So here’s how it is: They’re as mad as hell, and they’re not going to take this anymore. Am I talking about the Tea Partiers? No, I’m talking about the corporations.
Much reporting on opposition to the Obama administration portrays it as a sort of populist uprising. Yet the antics of the socialism-and-death-panels crowd are only part of the story of anti-Obamaism, and arguably the less important part. If you really want to know what’s going on, watch the corporations.
How can you do that? Follow the money — donations by corporate political action committees.
Look, for example, at the campaign contributions of commercial banks — traditionally Republican-leaning, but only mildly so. So far this year, according to The Washington Post, 63 percent of spending by banks’ corporate PACs has gone to Republicans, up from 53 percent last year. Securities and investment firms, traditionally Democratic-leaning, are now giving more money to Republicans. And oil and gas companies, always Republican-leaning, have gone all out, bestowing 76 percent of their largess on the G.O.P.
These are extraordinary numbers given the normal tendency of corporate money to flow to the party in power. Corporate America, however, really, truly hates the current administration. Wall Street, for example, is in “a state of bitter, seething, hysterical fury” toward the president, writes John Heilemann of New York magazine. What’s going on?
One answer is taxes — not so much on corporations themselves as on the people who run them. The Obama administration plans to raise tax rates on upper brackets back to Clinton-era levels. Furthermore, health reform will in part be paid for with surtaxes on high-income individuals. All this will amount to a significant financial hit to C.E.O.’s, investment bankers and other masters of the universe.
Now, don’t cry for these people: they’ll still be doing extremely well, and by and large they’ll be paying little more as a percentage of their income than they did in the 1990s. Yet the fact that the tax increases they’re facing are reasonable doesn’t stop them from being very, very angry.
Nor are taxes the whole story.
Many Obama supporters have been disappointed by what they see as the administration’s mildness on regulatory issues — its embrace of limited financial reform that doesn’t break up the biggest banks, its support for offshore drilling, and so on. Yet corporate interests are balking at even modest changes from the permissiveness of the Bush era.
From the outside, this rage against regulation seems bizarre. I mean, what did they expect? The financial industry, in particular, ran wild under deregulation, eventually bringing on a crisis that has left 15 million Americans unemployed, and required large-scale taxpayer-financed bailouts to avoid an even worse outcome. Did Wall Street expect to emerge from all that without facing some new restrictions? Apparently it did.
So what President Obama and his party now face isn’t just, or even mainly, an opposition grounded in right-wing populism. For grass-roots anger is being channeled and exploited by corporate interests, which will be the big winners if the G.O.P. does well in November.
If this sounds familiar, it should: it’s the same formula the right has been using for a generation. Use identity politics to whip up the base; then, when the election is over, give priority to the concerns of your corporate donors. Run as the candidate of “real Americans,” not those soft-on-terror East coast liberals; then, once you’ve won, declare that you have a mandate to privatize Social Security. It comes as no surprise to learn that American Crossroads, a new organization whose goal is to deploy large amounts of corporate cash on behalf of Republican candidates, is the brainchild of none other than Karl Rove.
But won’t the grass-roots rebel at being used? Don’t count on it. Last week Rand Paul, the Tea Party darling who is now the Republican nominee for senator from Kentucky, declared that the president’s criticism of BP over the disastrous oil spill in the gulf is “un-American,” that “sometimes accidents happen.” The mood on the right may be populist, but it’s a kind of populism that’s remarkably sympathetic to big corporations.
So where does that leave the president and his party? Mr. Obama wanted to transcend partisanship. Instead, however, he finds himself very much in the position Franklin Roosevelt described in a famous 1936 speech, struggling with “the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.”
And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Roosevelt turned corporate opposition into a badge of honor: “I welcome their hatred,” he declared. It’s time for President Obama to find his inner F.D.R., and do the same.
Ann Coulter's view on Republican victories
Original URL: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=369
REPUBLICANS ON TRACK TO SNATCH DEFEAT FROM JAWS OF VICTORY
by Ann Coulter
May 19, 2010
Republican consultants are doing a wonderful job raising expectations sky-high for the November elections, so that now, even if Republicans do smashingly well, it will look like a defeat (and an across-the-board endorsement of Obama's agenda). Thanks, Republicans!
That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago. And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha.
Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it.
The result of the election in Murtha's old district on Tuesday was that the rabidly anti-ObamaCare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate won! Yippee!
But the news on Wednesday morning was that the election "dealt a blow to Republicans," as The New York Times reported.
The reason the Times' description was not utter madness (in violation of New York Times' official policy) is because the anti-ObamaCare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate was a Democrat and, for the past two months, every Republican on TV has been predicting a Republican victory in Murtha's district.
Thanks to all the happy talk, if the Republican actually had won, it would have been Page 16 news. But when the Democrat won, it seemed like an against-all-odds, come-from-behind Hoosiers victory!
Why were Republicans predicting victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1? Given a choice between two candidates who both hate ObamaCare, why would lifelong Democrats not vote for the Democrat?
Republicans are playing the same raised-expectations game with the November elections. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is ludicrously predicting Republicans will pick up 100 seats in the House in November. Newt Gingrich puts the figure at an equally insane (and weirdly precise) 78. He also predicts the Cubs will win 132 games this season and six games will be rained out.
Keep it up, Republicans, and I'm going to keep naming names. I have Nexis.
For more than half a century, the average midterm pickup for the party out of power has been 24 seats.
Your job, Republicans, is not to go on Fox News and whisper sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. Your job is to repeal the Obama agenda. Raising expectations so high that a 30-seat Republican pickup will seem like a loss is not helping.
Moreover, we're not going to pick up any seats this November if Republicans keep chumming around with the Democrats' pals on Wall Street.
Roughly since the Harding administration, Wall Street has overwhelmingly favored Democrats. According to a recent report from ABC News, for example, the five largest hedge funds gave "almost all their donations to Democrats."
For the past year, the Democrats' Wall Street BFFs have had lower public approval ratings than Hitler. (When I say "Hitler," I don't mean Dick Cheney or George W. Bush; I actually mean Adolf Hitler.) While Hitler continues to enjoy great personal popularity, there is a growing dissatisfaction with his policies.
How could Republicans possibly screw that up? We try harder.
No sooner had the news come out that Goldman Sachs (Joseph Goebbels in this metaphor) had given Obama an astronomical $1 million in campaign donations, than Republican John Boehner decided that this was the time to suck up to Wall Street! So Boehner flew to New York to meet with Wall Street bankers and ask them to be Republicans' friends.
Boehner is like the guy who just got raped in prison and doesn't know what happened to him. Hey -- what was that? Should I have thanked the guy?
As Pat Caddell says, Democrats are whores, but they expect to be paid; Republicans' names are scrawled on the bathroom wall: "For a good time, call the GOP!"
As depressing as it is to watch the Republican Party dive headlong off a cliff, at least we have Dick Blumenthal.
Connecticut's attorney general, pompous, freakishly ambitious, self-righteous, hold-a-press-conference-every-day Blumenthal, was a shoo-in to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat this fall.
After all, he was a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart winner from his days as a four-star general in Vietnam. (And captain of the Harvard swim team to boot!)
But now we find out from a front-page article in The New York Times that, despite Blumenthal's repeated references to serving "in Vietnam" -- he was never in Vietnam. He got five draft deferments and then joined an elite unit of the Marine Reserves to avoid going to war, serving in their heroic "Toys for Tots" brigade.
He also wasn't on the Harvard swim team. (Oddly enough, though, the story Blumenthal likes to tell about owning a necklace of human ears? That one's actually true.)
Blumenthal may as well have shown up for a press conference in a dress. Suddenly, Connecticut is in play!
Naturally, therefore, Republicans are planning on running a World Wrestling Entertainment "impresario" against Blumenthal. Yes, in Connecticut ... a state that is among the wealthiest and most highly educated in the nation ... a state that isn't Minnesota. The average Nutmegger doesn't even know what a turnbuckle is, and that includes me.
Republicans could run Rob Simmons, a Connecticut legislator with a distinguished record of service in the House of Representatives, the CIA, and as a Yale political science professor -- who actually did serve in Vietnam, winning two Bronze Stars and retiring as a colonel.
But defeat is so close! Republicans can almost taste the bitterness of yet another crushing loss!
COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
Independent Ideas
Rachael Maddow vs. Rand Paul - this video has caused a lot of problems for Rand Paul on Civil Rights Act. Make your own independent judgement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS_qya7w0hs
New Arizona Immigration Law - Does this cause racial profiling? You decide
Original URL: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
The purpose of this new feature is to post articles, op-eds, and videos that I find interesting. I also like my readers to draw independent conclusions and not just listen to what I or other pundits say. So, I will also post items that have been brought up in the media (such as bills and videos) that readers can use as a way to make their own judgments.
Interesting Things
Paul Krugman's NYT column on Tea Parties and funding of corporations: what do they stand for?
original URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24krugman.html?ref=todayspaper
The Old Enemies
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 23, 2010
SIGN IN TO RECOMMEND
COMMENTS (304)
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
REPRINTS
SHARE
So here’s how it is: They’re as mad as hell, and they’re not going to take this anymore. Am I talking about the Tea Partiers? No, I’m talking about the corporations.
Much reporting on opposition to the Obama administration portrays it as a sort of populist uprising. Yet the antics of the socialism-and-death-panels crowd are only part of the story of anti-Obamaism, and arguably the less important part. If you really want to know what’s going on, watch the corporations.
How can you do that? Follow the money — donations by corporate political action committees.
Look, for example, at the campaign contributions of commercial banks — traditionally Republican-leaning, but only mildly so. So far this year, according to The Washington Post, 63 percent of spending by banks’ corporate PACs has gone to Republicans, up from 53 percent last year. Securities and investment firms, traditionally Democratic-leaning, are now giving more money to Republicans. And oil and gas companies, always Republican-leaning, have gone all out, bestowing 76 percent of their largess on the G.O.P.
These are extraordinary numbers given the normal tendency of corporate money to flow to the party in power. Corporate America, however, really, truly hates the current administration. Wall Street, for example, is in “a state of bitter, seething, hysterical fury” toward the president, writes John Heilemann of New York magazine. What’s going on?
One answer is taxes — not so much on corporations themselves as on the people who run them. The Obama administration plans to raise tax rates on upper brackets back to Clinton-era levels. Furthermore, health reform will in part be paid for with surtaxes on high-income individuals. All this will amount to a significant financial hit to C.E.O.’s, investment bankers and other masters of the universe.
Now, don’t cry for these people: they’ll still be doing extremely well, and by and large they’ll be paying little more as a percentage of their income than they did in the 1990s. Yet the fact that the tax increases they’re facing are reasonable doesn’t stop them from being very, very angry.
Nor are taxes the whole story.
Many Obama supporters have been disappointed by what they see as the administration’s mildness on regulatory issues — its embrace of limited financial reform that doesn’t break up the biggest banks, its support for offshore drilling, and so on. Yet corporate interests are balking at even modest changes from the permissiveness of the Bush era.
From the outside, this rage against regulation seems bizarre. I mean, what did they expect? The financial industry, in particular, ran wild under deregulation, eventually bringing on a crisis that has left 15 million Americans unemployed, and required large-scale taxpayer-financed bailouts to avoid an even worse outcome. Did Wall Street expect to emerge from all that without facing some new restrictions? Apparently it did.
So what President Obama and his party now face isn’t just, or even mainly, an opposition grounded in right-wing populism. For grass-roots anger is being channeled and exploited by corporate interests, which will be the big winners if the G.O.P. does well in November.
If this sounds familiar, it should: it’s the same formula the right has been using for a generation. Use identity politics to whip up the base; then, when the election is over, give priority to the concerns of your corporate donors. Run as the candidate of “real Americans,” not those soft-on-terror East coast liberals; then, once you’ve won, declare that you have a mandate to privatize Social Security. It comes as no surprise to learn that American Crossroads, a new organization whose goal is to deploy large amounts of corporate cash on behalf of Republican candidates, is the brainchild of none other than Karl Rove.
But won’t the grass-roots rebel at being used? Don’t count on it. Last week Rand Paul, the Tea Party darling who is now the Republican nominee for senator from Kentucky, declared that the president’s criticism of BP over the disastrous oil spill in the gulf is “un-American,” that “sometimes accidents happen.” The mood on the right may be populist, but it’s a kind of populism that’s remarkably sympathetic to big corporations.
So where does that leave the president and his party? Mr. Obama wanted to transcend partisanship. Instead, however, he finds himself very much in the position Franklin Roosevelt described in a famous 1936 speech, struggling with “the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.”
And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Roosevelt turned corporate opposition into a badge of honor: “I welcome their hatred,” he declared. It’s time for President Obama to find his inner F.D.R., and do the same.
Ann Coulter's view on Republican victories
Original URL: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=369
REPUBLICANS ON TRACK TO SNATCH DEFEAT FROM JAWS OF VICTORY
by Ann Coulter
May 19, 2010
Republican consultants are doing a wonderful job raising expectations sky-high for the November elections, so that now, even if Republicans do smashingly well, it will look like a defeat (and an across-the-board endorsement of Obama's agenda). Thanks, Republicans!
That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago. And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha.
Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it.
The result of the election in Murtha's old district on Tuesday was that the rabidly anti-ObamaCare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate won! Yippee!
But the news on Wednesday morning was that the election "dealt a blow to Republicans," as The New York Times reported.
The reason the Times' description was not utter madness (in violation of New York Times' official policy) is because the anti-ObamaCare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate was a Democrat and, for the past two months, every Republican on TV has been predicting a Republican victory in Murtha's district.
Thanks to all the happy talk, if the Republican actually had won, it would have been Page 16 news. But when the Democrat won, it seemed like an against-all-odds, come-from-behind Hoosiers victory!
Why were Republicans predicting victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1? Given a choice between two candidates who both hate ObamaCare, why would lifelong Democrats not vote for the Democrat?
Republicans are playing the same raised-expectations game with the November elections. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is ludicrously predicting Republicans will pick up 100 seats in the House in November. Newt Gingrich puts the figure at an equally insane (and weirdly precise) 78. He also predicts the Cubs will win 132 games this season and six games will be rained out.
Keep it up, Republicans, and I'm going to keep naming names. I have Nexis.
For more than half a century, the average midterm pickup for the party out of power has been 24 seats.
Your job, Republicans, is not to go on Fox News and whisper sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. Your job is to repeal the Obama agenda. Raising expectations so high that a 30-seat Republican pickup will seem like a loss is not helping.
Moreover, we're not going to pick up any seats this November if Republicans keep chumming around with the Democrats' pals on Wall Street.
Roughly since the Harding administration, Wall Street has overwhelmingly favored Democrats. According to a recent report from ABC News, for example, the five largest hedge funds gave "almost all their donations to Democrats."
For the past year, the Democrats' Wall Street BFFs have had lower public approval ratings than Hitler. (When I say "Hitler," I don't mean Dick Cheney or George W. Bush; I actually mean Adolf Hitler.) While Hitler continues to enjoy great personal popularity, there is a growing dissatisfaction with his policies.
How could Republicans possibly screw that up? We try harder.
No sooner had the news come out that Goldman Sachs (Joseph Goebbels in this metaphor) had given Obama an astronomical $1 million in campaign donations, than Republican John Boehner decided that this was the time to suck up to Wall Street! So Boehner flew to New York to meet with Wall Street bankers and ask them to be Republicans' friends.
Boehner is like the guy who just got raped in prison and doesn't know what happened to him. Hey -- what was that? Should I have thanked the guy?
As Pat Caddell says, Democrats are whores, but they expect to be paid; Republicans' names are scrawled on the bathroom wall: "For a good time, call the GOP!"
As depressing as it is to watch the Republican Party dive headlong off a cliff, at least we have Dick Blumenthal.
Connecticut's attorney general, pompous, freakishly ambitious, self-righteous, hold-a-press-conference-every-day Blumenthal, was a shoo-in to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat this fall.
After all, he was a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart winner from his days as a four-star general in Vietnam. (And captain of the Harvard swim team to boot!)
But now we find out from a front-page article in The New York Times that, despite Blumenthal's repeated references to serving "in Vietnam" -- he was never in Vietnam. He got five draft deferments and then joined an elite unit of the Marine Reserves to avoid going to war, serving in their heroic "Toys for Tots" brigade.
He also wasn't on the Harvard swim team. (Oddly enough, though, the story Blumenthal likes to tell about owning a necklace of human ears? That one's actually true.)
Blumenthal may as well have shown up for a press conference in a dress. Suddenly, Connecticut is in play!
Naturally, therefore, Republicans are planning on running a World Wrestling Entertainment "impresario" against Blumenthal. Yes, in Connecticut ... a state that is among the wealthiest and most highly educated in the nation ... a state that isn't Minnesota. The average Nutmegger doesn't even know what a turnbuckle is, and that includes me.
Republicans could run Rob Simmons, a Connecticut legislator with a distinguished record of service in the House of Representatives, the CIA, and as a Yale political science professor -- who actually did serve in Vietnam, winning two Bronze Stars and retiring as a colonel.
But defeat is so close! Republicans can almost taste the bitterness of yet another crushing loss!
COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
Independent Ideas
Rachael Maddow vs. Rand Paul - this video has caused a lot of problems for Rand Paul on Civil Rights Act. Make your own independent judgement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS_qya7w0hs
New Arizona Immigration Law - Does this cause racial profiling? You decide
Original URL: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Changes and First "Interesting Things"
To loyal fans,
First, I want to thank you for reading my blog. Second, I am going to make some changes to my blog. I plan to start posting "Interesting Things and Independent ideas." I plan to post this on days that I don't post opinions. Normally, I will post my opinions on Tuesdays and Fridays and "Interesting Things and Independent Ideas" on Mondays and Wednesdays. Tell me if you like it!
Thanks,
John
First, I want to thank you for reading my blog. Second, I am going to make some changes to my blog. I plan to start posting "Interesting Things and Independent ideas." I plan to post this on days that I don't post opinions. Normally, I will post my opinions on Tuesdays and Fridays and "Interesting Things and Independent Ideas" on Mondays and Wednesdays. Tell me if you like it!
Thanks,
John
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The New Deal
On Monday, a deal between Iran, Turkey, and Brazil was announced to help curb Iran's nuclear program. This deal is quite problematic for the U.S., not just because it sends the sanctions into a tailspin, but it also points to a new era of international politics.
The details of the deal were negotiated in Tehran with the three powers mentioned above. According to today's New York Times, the deal would allow Iran to ship 2,640 pounds of Uranium to Turkey for an exchange of lower enriched Uranium isotopes that are used to treat cancer patients. The Uranium that Iran will receive would be enriched by other nations, although which ones appears unclear. The purpose of the deal is to offer an alternative to sanctions.
“They are continuing enrichment – and that defies the Security Council still – but what they are doing as a confidence-building measure is getting rid of some of that pile of fissile material they have,” says Mr. Chubin, author of the book Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions told the Christian Science Monitor. “So in a sense it delays the accumulation of their fissile stockpile that could be used for a weapon.”
Now, last fall a plan was set in motion in Geneva that was very similar to this one accept that the Uranium would be shipped to Russia. In the end, Iran backed out of the deal. The difference between the deals is that the newest deal does not force Iran to stop enriching Uranium or make them answer to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. These small details anger the U.S. because it appears to undermine the main mission of negotiating with Iran. It also looks like a last minute deal for Iran to get out of sanctions, which is probably true.
In response, the U.S. has finally put the finishing touches on a deal for new Sanctions against Iran that will be sent to the U.N. Security Council for approval. All the permanent members, including China and Russia, appear to be on board for the vote. A minor kink in the hose is that Brazil and Turkey both are nonpermanent members of the Security Council.
I want to stress that this deal means something much bigger than just sanctions against Iran, it addresses a new change in the balance of power. Both Turkey and Brazil are rising stars in the international community. They are both developing nations that see an opportunity to make their marks on diplomatic history, so they took it. Needless to say, this might make the U.S. and other developed nations scared. The fact that none of them might be needed to make diplomatic breakthroughs is shocking. It shows that the world is changing, and maybe it does not involve them. While there are problems in this new deal, especially with inspection, it represents an ability to compromise.
The advice that I would give President Obama and the U.N. right now is to look at this deal closely. It does not have all the components in it that they wanted, but it is a start towards negotiation with Iran. Let this victory be had between Brazil and Turkey. As I talked about before, Ahmadinejad does not trust the West. He believes that he is representing the underrepresented of the world. Turkey and Brazil also represent that group. While this is not a perfect plan, at least it is a start.
Further Reading:
Iran Deal: New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html?ref=todayspaper
Iran Deal: Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0517/Iran-nuclear-fuel-swap-deal-What-it-involves-and-how-it-will-affect-US-push-for-sanctions
New Sanctions announced: BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8690206.stm
The details of the deal were negotiated in Tehran with the three powers mentioned above. According to today's New York Times, the deal would allow Iran to ship 2,640 pounds of Uranium to Turkey for an exchange of lower enriched Uranium isotopes that are used to treat cancer patients. The Uranium that Iran will receive would be enriched by other nations, although which ones appears unclear. The purpose of the deal is to offer an alternative to sanctions.
“They are continuing enrichment – and that defies the Security Council still – but what they are doing as a confidence-building measure is getting rid of some of that pile of fissile material they have,” says Mr. Chubin, author of the book Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions told the Christian Science Monitor. “So in a sense it delays the accumulation of their fissile stockpile that could be used for a weapon.”
Now, last fall a plan was set in motion in Geneva that was very similar to this one accept that the Uranium would be shipped to Russia. In the end, Iran backed out of the deal. The difference between the deals is that the newest deal does not force Iran to stop enriching Uranium or make them answer to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. These small details anger the U.S. because it appears to undermine the main mission of negotiating with Iran. It also looks like a last minute deal for Iran to get out of sanctions, which is probably true.
In response, the U.S. has finally put the finishing touches on a deal for new Sanctions against Iran that will be sent to the U.N. Security Council for approval. All the permanent members, including China and Russia, appear to be on board for the vote. A minor kink in the hose is that Brazil and Turkey both are nonpermanent members of the Security Council.
I want to stress that this deal means something much bigger than just sanctions against Iran, it addresses a new change in the balance of power. Both Turkey and Brazil are rising stars in the international community. They are both developing nations that see an opportunity to make their marks on diplomatic history, so they took it. Needless to say, this might make the U.S. and other developed nations scared. The fact that none of them might be needed to make diplomatic breakthroughs is shocking. It shows that the world is changing, and maybe it does not involve them. While there are problems in this new deal, especially with inspection, it represents an ability to compromise.
The advice that I would give President Obama and the U.N. right now is to look at this deal closely. It does not have all the components in it that they wanted, but it is a start towards negotiation with Iran. Let this victory be had between Brazil and Turkey. As I talked about before, Ahmadinejad does not trust the West. He believes that he is representing the underrepresented of the world. Turkey and Brazil also represent that group. While this is not a perfect plan, at least it is a start.
Further Reading:
Iran Deal: New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html?ref=todayspaper
Iran Deal: Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0517/Iran-nuclear-fuel-swap-deal-What-it-involves-and-how-it-will-affect-US-push-for-sanctions
New Sanctions announced: BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8690206.stm
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thailand: The Future of Afghanistan and Iraq
Over the past few years, predictions about the two countries of Iraq and Afghanistan have either made people see them as shining examples of democracy or the image of a Somalia style failed state, which is the view that I held for a long time. Surprisingly, I will say that both nations will probably land somewhere between both extremes. I call the balance of this scale Thailand.
As an observer of international politics, I do not think that Thailand often receives the press coverage that deserves, but a recent wave of protests showed me that this country might end up predicting the future of both U.S. democratic experiments.
For those not familiar with the Thailand political landscape, it is a nation in Southeast Asia. For years, the nation was governed by a monarchy. To keep the story short, the monarchy fused into a political party called the Peoples' Alliance for Democracy (PAD), who represent themselves by wearing yellow shirts. Most of them consist of middle class business men and elites who supported the monarchy. The other side is the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), who wear red-shirts. This party mostly represents the rural poor.
In 2006, the red shirts, represented by Thakskin Shinawarta, won the parliamentary elections, but his government was later overthrown by the yellow shirts in a coup. The yellow shirts claimed that Mr. Thakskin had some corrupt business dealings. He was then exiled from the country and Abhisit Vejjajiva was put in charge for the yellow shirts who still remain in power. For the last few years both sides have squared off in protests, but recently the red shirts have been holding protests in the business district of Bangkok, keeping it shut down, demanding that the red shirts be restored to power. Over the last few days, the violence has intensified. Despite a political deal to call elections in November, the red shirts continue to press forward with angry protests.
The current situation in Thailand, in my view, shows a revealing trend that could carry over into Iraq and Afghanistan. The similarities between all three nations are quite striking. All three nations have an impoverished group of rural people who want greater representation. The candidates in all three countries (Karzai, Al-Maliki, and Vejjajiva) all are incumbents clinging on to power with a very resentful population. Each country is surrounded by loyalists making the political process difficult. Finally, in all three cases, the judiciary needed to step in to make a ruling on the elections, usually because of fraud.
Some critics might say that all of the similarities are very common in most countries and that all three nations have distinct political cultures. I will concede that this is true, but the conditions listed above can have devastating consequences, as we see in Thailand. I predict that once the U.S. leaves Iraq and Afghanistan both countries will not fall to anarchy, but instead will turn into a Thailand style of democracy where a few elites will control the political landscape and the outsiders will protest. All this will eventually lead to some sort of coup de tat every few years. The coups will then be settled by court decisions and power sharing agreements.
What President Obama needs to understand is that this will become the future of both democracies. In my belief, both countries have political parties that are too collectivized to have the country fall to ruin. While it it not be a pretty picture or a dream democracy, Obama should be thankful that neither country will slide into the nightmares that are failed Somalia and authoritarian North Korea.
Further Reading:
Thailand Political situation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7584005.stm
As an observer of international politics, I do not think that Thailand often receives the press coverage that deserves, but a recent wave of protests showed me that this country might end up predicting the future of both U.S. democratic experiments.
For those not familiar with the Thailand political landscape, it is a nation in Southeast Asia. For years, the nation was governed by a monarchy. To keep the story short, the monarchy fused into a political party called the Peoples' Alliance for Democracy (PAD), who represent themselves by wearing yellow shirts. Most of them consist of middle class business men and elites who supported the monarchy. The other side is the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), who wear red-shirts. This party mostly represents the rural poor.
In 2006, the red shirts, represented by Thakskin Shinawarta, won the parliamentary elections, but his government was later overthrown by the yellow shirts in a coup. The yellow shirts claimed that Mr. Thakskin had some corrupt business dealings. He was then exiled from the country and Abhisit Vejjajiva was put in charge for the yellow shirts who still remain in power. For the last few years both sides have squared off in protests, but recently the red shirts have been holding protests in the business district of Bangkok, keeping it shut down, demanding that the red shirts be restored to power. Over the last few days, the violence has intensified. Despite a political deal to call elections in November, the red shirts continue to press forward with angry protests.
The current situation in Thailand, in my view, shows a revealing trend that could carry over into Iraq and Afghanistan. The similarities between all three nations are quite striking. All three nations have an impoverished group of rural people who want greater representation. The candidates in all three countries (Karzai, Al-Maliki, and Vejjajiva) all are incumbents clinging on to power with a very resentful population. Each country is surrounded by loyalists making the political process difficult. Finally, in all three cases, the judiciary needed to step in to make a ruling on the elections, usually because of fraud.
Some critics might say that all of the similarities are very common in most countries and that all three nations have distinct political cultures. I will concede that this is true, but the conditions listed above can have devastating consequences, as we see in Thailand. I predict that once the U.S. leaves Iraq and Afghanistan both countries will not fall to anarchy, but instead will turn into a Thailand style of democracy where a few elites will control the political landscape and the outsiders will protest. All this will eventually lead to some sort of coup de tat every few years. The coups will then be settled by court decisions and power sharing agreements.
What President Obama needs to understand is that this will become the future of both democracies. In my belief, both countries have political parties that are too collectivized to have the country fall to ruin. While it it not be a pretty picture or a dream democracy, Obama should be thankful that neither country will slide into the nightmares that are failed Somalia and authoritarian North Korea.
Further Reading:
Thailand Political situation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7584005.stm
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Importance of Coalitions
After the slim victory of the Conservative Party, also called the Tories, in the British Parliamentary elections the secret back room dealing will surely begin to decide who will run the next government. Unlike American politics, if neither party in Britain gets an outright majority, then a coalition must be formed by one of the majority parties by a minority party, the Liberal Democrats in this case. Even though the U.S. does not have this system, it can teach the U.S. a few interesting lessons about the current political situation, specifically the role of coalition building.
The Liberal Democrats in Britain only gained 23% of the vote, but they were led by a charismatic leader named Nick Clegg. The narrative of the party was that neither the Conservatives or the Labour Parties could fix the problems in Britain, so they would become the alternative. While this message did not give the Liberal Democrats a majority, it did provide a chance for some vote stealing from the other two parties. In the U.S., the people have also become disillusioned with the current political climate using the Tea Party brigade as the way out. Although the Teabaggers did win a primary in Utah on Saturday to unseat Robert Bennett, this does not mean that they will go on to win control of the House or the Senate. However, it does mean that both Republicans and Democrats will need to do some coalition building of their own.
There are two reason why the Teabaggers will not become a majority party, if you want to call them a party. First, they do not have strong, unifying leader. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are nice figureheads, but this group is a "grassroots organizations," with the term grassroots loosely defined. Grassroots means local groups with different needs championing different causes, thus making it hard to have a leader. Unless they get a Nick Clegg of their own, winning will be difficult. Second, the Teabaggers will inevitably alienate moderate Republican voters and independents who do not not want to vote for the radical side of the party. Moderates and independents decide elections, they will go with what they trust and at this moment that is either the Republicans or the Democrats.
Since these two factors seem to be standing in the way of the Tea Party Express from reaching its final destination, that means they will have to work with other parties and form coalitions with those parties. While I do not endorse the Tea Party, they will ultimately become a force in politics. In my view, they will probably put forth Ross Perot type candidates to steal votes from Republicans. This will force Republicans to work with them, since they probably will not side with the Democrats. However, this means that the Tea Party will have to compensate some of its core beliefs for Republicans who do not support all of their stances, and vice versa.
It seems that British politics can teach this nation a lot about coalition building. Populism does force change in politics, sometimes not for the better. Nonetheless, if Washington is to function rationally, or at least as rational as it can, it must have a culture of bipartisanship in the form of coalition building. The Republicans will have to reach across the aisle for to the Tea Party. For their sake, I hope they bring crumpets.
Further Reading:
British Elections
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/default.stm
Liberal Democrats of Britain
http://www.libdems.org.uk/home.aspx
Tea Party win in Utah
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100509/ap_on_el_se/us_utah_stakes
Tea Party Websites
http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/
http://www.teaparty.org/
The Liberal Democrats in Britain only gained 23% of the vote, but they were led by a charismatic leader named Nick Clegg. The narrative of the party was that neither the Conservatives or the Labour Parties could fix the problems in Britain, so they would become the alternative. While this message did not give the Liberal Democrats a majority, it did provide a chance for some vote stealing from the other two parties. In the U.S., the people have also become disillusioned with the current political climate using the Tea Party brigade as the way out. Although the Teabaggers did win a primary in Utah on Saturday to unseat Robert Bennett, this does not mean that they will go on to win control of the House or the Senate. However, it does mean that both Republicans and Democrats will need to do some coalition building of their own.
There are two reason why the Teabaggers will not become a majority party, if you want to call them a party. First, they do not have strong, unifying leader. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are nice figureheads, but this group is a "grassroots organizations," with the term grassroots loosely defined. Grassroots means local groups with different needs championing different causes, thus making it hard to have a leader. Unless they get a Nick Clegg of their own, winning will be difficult. Second, the Teabaggers will inevitably alienate moderate Republican voters and independents who do not not want to vote for the radical side of the party. Moderates and independents decide elections, they will go with what they trust and at this moment that is either the Republicans or the Democrats.
Since these two factors seem to be standing in the way of the Tea Party Express from reaching its final destination, that means they will have to work with other parties and form coalitions with those parties. While I do not endorse the Tea Party, they will ultimately become a force in politics. In my view, they will probably put forth Ross Perot type candidates to steal votes from Republicans. This will force Republicans to work with them, since they probably will not side with the Democrats. However, this means that the Tea Party will have to compensate some of its core beliefs for Republicans who do not support all of their stances, and vice versa.
It seems that British politics can teach this nation a lot about coalition building. Populism does force change in politics, sometimes not for the better. Nonetheless, if Washington is to function rationally, or at least as rational as it can, it must have a culture of bipartisanship in the form of coalition building. The Republicans will have to reach across the aisle for to the Tea Party. For their sake, I hope they bring crumpets.
Further Reading:
British Elections
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/default.stm
Liberal Democrats of Britain
http://www.libdems.org.uk/home.aspx
Tea Party win in Utah
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100509/ap_on_el_se/us_utah_stakes
Tea Party Websites
http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/
http://www.teaparty.org/
Friday, May 7, 2010
The Other Side of History
This week, the U.N. hosted a conference to revamp the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The conference itself was typical U.N. policymaking and discourse except for one very special guest, the President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Interestingly, Ahmadinejad, was the only head of state to show up at the conference to spout off his points. While this did not receive much news coverage, probably because of the oil spill off the Gulf Coast, the flooding in Tennessee, and the attempted car bomb in Time Square, it still was a significant event.
Now what I found fascinating about Ahmadinejad's visit was not the fact that he inserted anti-western rhetoric and attacked the state of Israel, as he normally does in most of his speeches, it was the agenda that he is claiming to represent. While most of his speech talked about how to reform the NPT, he did discuss other reforms such as changing the representation of the U.N. Security Council to more developing nations, which I am not against. Although, this represents a much broader issue, a viewpoint if you will about what Ahmadinejad thinks he is doing.
I found a 2006 address to the U.N. given by Ahmadinejad which he discussed how the U.S. and other nations of the Security Council, being the victors of World War II, oppressed the world to control the central international institutions. In that same speech he also talked about how Israel oppressed the Palestinians. What Ahmadinejad believes he is doing is representing the other side of history, the developing nations who were under the attacks of neocolonialist practices. In addition, he wants to use anti-western and bellicose rhetoric as a way to get the attention of the international community, such as wanting to blow Israel off the face of earth. Even though I do not agree with this method, I understand what he is trying to do.
If we look back to the conference this week, he tried to espouse similar rhetoric and try to reform the international community using equality with the NPT, to make it a lot more fair. I encourage you read both of the speeches to understand what I mean. It did not help that the U.S. delegates walked out in the middle of his speech. Instead of just ignoring his concerns, the U.S. should at least listen to them. If the advocate of the developing world or the other side of history is what Ahmadinejad wants, let him do it.
So, what should the U.S. do? First, pay attention to the criticism, move beyond the harsh rhetoric to understand what Ahmadinejad wants, they will find it goes beyond wanting to acquire nuclear weapons. Second, I wish the White House would reconsider not applying another round of sanctions to Iran. Sanctions usually do not work. Furthermore, engagement, though not the most successful so far, can have benefits if time is allowed. Finally, the international community should come down on Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust and using violent rhetoric, but allow for a forum that he can let the "other side of history" be heard.
My point here is not to praise Ahmadinejad or Iran's motives for acquiring advanced nuclear technology. I think a nuclear Iran would be dangerous, but I also think that this goes beyond nuclear weapons to achieve another agenda, to give the developing world a voice.
Further Reading:
Ahmadinejad's speech from 2010 NPT conference
http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2010/statements/pdf/iran_en.pdf
Ahmadinejad's speech to UN in 2006
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6107339
Now what I found fascinating about Ahmadinejad's visit was not the fact that he inserted anti-western rhetoric and attacked the state of Israel, as he normally does in most of his speeches, it was the agenda that he is claiming to represent. While most of his speech talked about how to reform the NPT, he did discuss other reforms such as changing the representation of the U.N. Security Council to more developing nations, which I am not against. Although, this represents a much broader issue, a viewpoint if you will about what Ahmadinejad thinks he is doing.
I found a 2006 address to the U.N. given by Ahmadinejad which he discussed how the U.S. and other nations of the Security Council, being the victors of World War II, oppressed the world to control the central international institutions. In that same speech he also talked about how Israel oppressed the Palestinians. What Ahmadinejad believes he is doing is representing the other side of history, the developing nations who were under the attacks of neocolonialist practices. In addition, he wants to use anti-western and bellicose rhetoric as a way to get the attention of the international community, such as wanting to blow Israel off the face of earth. Even though I do not agree with this method, I understand what he is trying to do.
If we look back to the conference this week, he tried to espouse similar rhetoric and try to reform the international community using equality with the NPT, to make it a lot more fair. I encourage you read both of the speeches to understand what I mean. It did not help that the U.S. delegates walked out in the middle of his speech. Instead of just ignoring his concerns, the U.S. should at least listen to them. If the advocate of the developing world or the other side of history is what Ahmadinejad wants, let him do it.
So, what should the U.S. do? First, pay attention to the criticism, move beyond the harsh rhetoric to understand what Ahmadinejad wants, they will find it goes beyond wanting to acquire nuclear weapons. Second, I wish the White House would reconsider not applying another round of sanctions to Iran. Sanctions usually do not work. Furthermore, engagement, though not the most successful so far, can have benefits if time is allowed. Finally, the international community should come down on Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust and using violent rhetoric, but allow for a forum that he can let the "other side of history" be heard.
My point here is not to praise Ahmadinejad or Iran's motives for acquiring advanced nuclear technology. I think a nuclear Iran would be dangerous, but I also think that this goes beyond nuclear weapons to achieve another agenda, to give the developing world a voice.
Further Reading:
Ahmadinejad's speech from 2010 NPT conference
http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2010/statements/pdf/iran_en.pdf
Ahmadinejad's speech to UN in 2006
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6107339
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Next Celebrity Fad: Education
In the 1990s, the U.S. and the world were introduced to a splurge of new celebrity themed restaurants. Planet Hollywood and the Model Cafe demonstrated the tenacity of celebrities to bring together the nostalgia of show business to ordinary people and at the same time have expensive mediocre themed food. Sadly, these restaurants did not last long and were added to the list of failed celebrity projects. Recently, the newest fashion is to have celebrities create or fund already existing charter schools to revamp the dismal American education system. The problem is exactly the same as the theme restaurants, it takes more than a celebrity popping in the school once in a while to give a large check to fix the American education system.
It seems that celebrities such as Bill and Melinda Gates, the Walton family, Sting, Katie Couric, Hugh Jackman, among others have decided to enter the field of education as profiteers. Although, recent evidence shows that charter schools may not be performing up to snuff with already established public schools. A study by Stanford University in cooperation with the Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that only 17% of charter schools provide superior education, 50% of charter schools also do not show a difference to local schools as far as test results. Even more surprising is that 37% of charter schools perform significantly worse than their public school counterparts.
This recent trend of celebrity funding and shocking statistics points to another debate about the private sector trying to work against the public sector current. A commonly held belief is that if only entrepreneurs could work separately from the government, these problems could be solved. Who could blame them for trying, with the federal government only spending an average of $52 billion per year on education, accounting for only 22% of the budget compared with the $742 billion spent on military projects.
The other problem with this model is that while it is good to have different schools pursue different types of educational experiments, it creates different standards for curriculum. Susan Jacoby recently wrote in the New York Times that it is time to end this federal versus state/private versus public split and come together in pursuit of a better national curriculum.
So, can Planet Hollywood come to the planet of policymaking to work with Washington? My answer is yes we can as Obama loves to point out. First, the funding provided from celebrities can help fund different research and development studies at the federal level. Innovative methods such as paying students for work in school have a very interesting impacts, as Harvard Economist Robert Fryer, Jr. has discovered. His answer is to treat students like human being and create a monetary incentive like the working world. Hundreds of other education innovators are at there, the federal government just needs the resources to fund them.
This leads to my second point which is celebrity funding. Celebrities are great at having benefit concerts, such as the recent "Hope for Haiti" concert that raised $58 million dollars in just one night. Combine that with the federal budget and amazing things can happen. Celebrities also can be incentives themselves. Maybe if a school does well Lady Gaga or Sting can put on a concert.
Finally, new standards of national education need to be put in place. This problem can only be solved if it is put in the public arena. If celebrities put on benefits and work in tandem with the federal government, the public can become aware of it. Using shows like South Park and Family Guy as satire for how bad the standards are can work as a great way to get the public's attention. Only by having national education standards can the problem be solved and a goal can be in site.
If put in these terms, the world of restaurant themed Hollywood the federal government are not that far apart on the spectrum. Celebrities have used their status before with the "Just Say No" campaign for defeating drug usage and other campaigns for the environment and international problems. With the Obama's new "Race to the Top" initiative the celebrities can be the Public relations cheerleaders for the campaign. Everything is on the menu, it just has to be the right price.
Further Reading on this topic:
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/education/02charters.html?pagewanted=3&ref=todayspaper
Time Magazine - paying students
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978589-1,00.html
Stanford Study on Charter Schools
http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf
Susan Jacoby New York Times Op-Ed on National Education Standards
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/opinion/19jacoby.html?pagewanted=1
It seems that celebrities such as Bill and Melinda Gates, the Walton family, Sting, Katie Couric, Hugh Jackman, among others have decided to enter the field of education as profiteers. Although, recent evidence shows that charter schools may not be performing up to snuff with already established public schools. A study by Stanford University in cooperation with the Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that only 17% of charter schools provide superior education, 50% of charter schools also do not show a difference to local schools as far as test results. Even more surprising is that 37% of charter schools perform significantly worse than their public school counterparts.
This recent trend of celebrity funding and shocking statistics points to another debate about the private sector trying to work against the public sector current. A commonly held belief is that if only entrepreneurs could work separately from the government, these problems could be solved. Who could blame them for trying, with the federal government only spending an average of $52 billion per year on education, accounting for only 22% of the budget compared with the $742 billion spent on military projects.
The other problem with this model is that while it is good to have different schools pursue different types of educational experiments, it creates different standards for curriculum. Susan Jacoby recently wrote in the New York Times that it is time to end this federal versus state/private versus public split and come together in pursuit of a better national curriculum.
So, can Planet Hollywood come to the planet of policymaking to work with Washington? My answer is yes we can as Obama loves to point out. First, the funding provided from celebrities can help fund different research and development studies at the federal level. Innovative methods such as paying students for work in school have a very interesting impacts, as Harvard Economist Robert Fryer, Jr. has discovered. His answer is to treat students like human being and create a monetary incentive like the working world. Hundreds of other education innovators are at there, the federal government just needs the resources to fund them.
This leads to my second point which is celebrity funding. Celebrities are great at having benefit concerts, such as the recent "Hope for Haiti" concert that raised $58 million dollars in just one night. Combine that with the federal budget and amazing things can happen. Celebrities also can be incentives themselves. Maybe if a school does well Lady Gaga or Sting can put on a concert.
Finally, new standards of national education need to be put in place. This problem can only be solved if it is put in the public arena. If celebrities put on benefits and work in tandem with the federal government, the public can become aware of it. Using shows like South Park and Family Guy as satire for how bad the standards are can work as a great way to get the public's attention. Only by having national education standards can the problem be solved and a goal can be in site.
If put in these terms, the world of restaurant themed Hollywood the federal government are not that far apart on the spectrum. Celebrities have used their status before with the "Just Say No" campaign for defeating drug usage and other campaigns for the environment and international problems. With the Obama's new "Race to the Top" initiative the celebrities can be the Public relations cheerleaders for the campaign. Everything is on the menu, it just has to be the right price.
Further Reading on this topic:
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/education/02charters.html?pagewanted=3&ref=todayspaper
Time Magazine - paying students
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978589-1,00.html
Stanford Study on Charter Schools
http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf
Susan Jacoby New York Times Op-Ed on National Education Standards
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/opinion/19jacoby.html?pagewanted=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
