About this time every year, since we began publishing 'The Daily Felltoon' four years ago next month, we do a simple year end wrap up, as we head to our own holiday break. As usual, there will be brand new Paul Fell Cartoons published over the next two weeks, including new Cap News, Oklahoma Gazette Toons, a Paul Fell Prediction cartoon before the Husker game, and of course, the annual Paul Fell Christmas cartoon. So feel free to check PaulFellCartoons.com throughout the holiday season.
Before we continue, we need to thank you, our readers, both old and new, around the world. Whether you view our work in your e-mail box, from Twitter or Facebook, or through an RSS reader; on your computer, your tablet, or on your smartphone; we're glad you keep coming back - and we're even more happy that you keep telling others about us. For the thousands of people we reach each year, we are most grateful.
2011 has been a year filled with changes and many new challenges for all of our staff.
We've gained new contacts, new clients, and new readers - some of whom work in some very important places. We're very glad that our work graces the screens of more high offices in Washington, DC and Nebraska – as well as the screens of great comedians and cartoonists – than it did at this time last year.
We added a new office in West Palm Beach this past year, and at least one of our staff members moved - three times - in 2011, to new homes and apartments. We can't even count the trips we've made this year, including some overseas travel, to new places. Suffice it to say, our frequent flyer miles have come in handy, and our mechanics have kept our vehicles roadworthy.
While we've read new books - and even helped work on at least one - we still logged about 16,000 news, opinion, and commentary stories that we read this past year. We also published about 250 new editions of the Daily Felltoon this year, on top of our other regular jobs.
We were glad to see Daily Kos, one of the most prominent online publications for liberals, add a whole new section for cartoonists this year - a section where they pay their major contributing cartoonists, which we firmly believe in.
There were some new wrinkles in politics this past year too. Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska unexpectedly stood up in opposition to the Keystone pipeline, while Republicans in Congress - specifically in the House of Representatives - finally found a tax cut they couldn't vote for. Not surprisingly, it was a tax cut that benefitted those who actually work for a living.
There was also the new political force known as the Occupy movement, which we think still has some new ways to influence politics that we'll likely see next year.
There are plenty of new leaders around the world too, thanks to the revolutions of the "Arab Spring." North Korea also has a new leader, as does Al Qaeda, though the latter is due to some highly trained U.S. Navy Seals.
There were also some incredibly sad losses this year, including the much revered Steve Jobs.
The United States will enter 2011 doing something new, as a nation, after ending the Iraq War. We'll only be fighting one major foreign war, in Afghanistan – something that hasn't happened in nine years.
No matter what new things make headlines in 2012, we pledge to remain a publication that makes a difference in your lives, with new cartoons and commentaries to keep you laughing, thinking, and talking - with us, and with each other.
May your new year be the best one yet.
Happy holidays.
We'll return to regular publication January 3, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Hype, Help, Hope
As we all zoom toward the end of a shortened work week - and frankly, the end of the year - it seems like everything is traveling faster.
Even the headlines right now seem more brief than usual, though thankfully they're also pretty accurate. "Congress moves toward standoff over payroll tax," or "Paul takes lead in Iowa," or even "Gingrich lead collapses" pretty much tell the tale. Whether or not Republicans put someone else on their Christmas wish list to Santa, the fact is, the GOP candidate for President in 2012 is likely to be Mitt Romney.
Wwith so many of the headlines thankfully brief, we're taking the opportunity to focus on a holiday that's often overlooked: Chanukkah.
In case you don't know, Chanukkah, the Jewish festival of lights, begins tonight at sundown. Unlike Christmas for Christians (the biggest Christian holiday of the year), or Yule for Wiccans (also known as Solstice, the second biggest Wiccan holiday of the year), Chanukkah is often considered by many in the Jewish faith to be a somewhat minor holiday. The hype and commercialization of Christmas, however, has significantly boosted the profile of Chanukkah over the last century or so, especially in the U.S., since Chanukkah almost always falls during the Thanksgiving to New Year's time period.
Like so many events in America that used to hold a more special meaning - for example, having your favorite team win its way to a college bowl game - for some people the real meaning of Chanukkah seems to have gotten lost in all the hype.
Rabbi Marc Gellman, a longtime freelance religion columnist, had a fantastic historical basis for the real meaning of Chanukkah in one of his columns a few years ago. While interesting and scholarly, his piece didn't really seem to boil Chanukkah down to one key theme. In fact, if you search for a single meaning of Chanukkah these days, you're as likely to find a large variety of answers as you are with any other major religion or celebration, all claiming to be the definitive reason for the season.
Of course, there's the story that even many non-Jews know, that of the lamp in the temple having only enough lamp oil for one day, yet somehow - miraculously - the oil lasted eight days (which is exactly the same amount of time it takes to make new lamp oil, by the way). That story, while memorable, is much like the Christian tale of Jesus' birth - by itself, it doesn't often give a deeper meaning. Sure, it's a miracle - but why did it happen?
The ancient season of "Yule", much like that of Christianity and Judaism, also heralded a miracle at this time of year: the birth of a new year, and the hope for better year in the days, weeks, and months ahead. Nearly every belief system has a similar day or time to celebrate hope - many of them around this same time of year. For Muslims, Eid al-Adha is often the most hopeful holiday. For many atheists, their own birthdays represent a reason to celebrate the miracle that the individual in question has made one more trip around the sun.
The real meaning of this season, whatever you believe - like that of most important events - is much easier to see when you don't let yourself get swallowed by all the hype. Simply put, the meaning is...
Hope.
We can't think of a more concise, honest, or positive universal meaning to the season than that.
Even the headlines right now seem more brief than usual, though thankfully they're also pretty accurate. "Congress moves toward standoff over payroll tax," or "Paul takes lead in Iowa," or even "Gingrich lead collapses" pretty much tell the tale. Whether or not Republicans put someone else on their Christmas wish list to Santa, the fact is, the GOP candidate for President in 2012 is likely to be Mitt Romney.
Wwith so many of the headlines thankfully brief, we're taking the opportunity to focus on a holiday that's often overlooked: Chanukkah.
In case you don't know, Chanukkah, the Jewish festival of lights, begins tonight at sundown. Unlike Christmas for Christians (the biggest Christian holiday of the year), or Yule for Wiccans (also known as Solstice, the second biggest Wiccan holiday of the year), Chanukkah is often considered by many in the Jewish faith to be a somewhat minor holiday. The hype and commercialization of Christmas, however, has significantly boosted the profile of Chanukkah over the last century or so, especially in the U.S., since Chanukkah almost always falls during the Thanksgiving to New Year's time period.
Like so many events in America that used to hold a more special meaning - for example, having your favorite team win its way to a college bowl game - for some people the real meaning of Chanukkah seems to have gotten lost in all the hype.
Rabbi Marc Gellman, a longtime freelance religion columnist, had a fantastic historical basis for the real meaning of Chanukkah in one of his columns a few years ago. While interesting and scholarly, his piece didn't really seem to boil Chanukkah down to one key theme. In fact, if you search for a single meaning of Chanukkah these days, you're as likely to find a large variety of answers as you are with any other major religion or celebration, all claiming to be the definitive reason for the season.
Of course, there's the story that even many non-Jews know, that of the lamp in the temple having only enough lamp oil for one day, yet somehow - miraculously - the oil lasted eight days (which is exactly the same amount of time it takes to make new lamp oil, by the way). That story, while memorable, is much like the Christian tale of Jesus' birth - by itself, it doesn't often give a deeper meaning. Sure, it's a miracle - but why did it happen?
The ancient season of "Yule", much like that of Christianity and Judaism, also heralded a miracle at this time of year: the birth of a new year, and the hope for better year in the days, weeks, and months ahead. Nearly every belief system has a similar day or time to celebrate hope - many of them around this same time of year. For Muslims, Eid al-Adha is often the most hopeful holiday. For many atheists, their own birthdays represent a reason to celebrate the miracle that the individual in question has made one more trip around the sun.
The real meaning of this season, whatever you believe - like that of most important events - is much easier to see when you don't let yourself get swallowed by all the hype. Simply put, the meaning is...
Hope.
We can't think of a more concise, honest, or positive universal meaning to the season than that.
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Real Costs Of Mad Men's Dreams
How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?The name of the last man to die in Iraq, for the mistakes of the Bush Administration, was David Hickman. He was the 4,474th member of the U.S. military forces in Iraq to die as a result of that incredible misadventure.
– John Kerry, Vietnam Veteran, 1971
There is no need to beat around the bush about the Iraq War. It was a war of choice, launched by some of the biggest cowards in the history of mankind. These were - and still are - men (and even a few women) who were often too cowardly to fight in America's massive military blunder in Vietnam, and are still too cowardly now to take responsibility for their disastrous failures in Iraq. As promised, President Obama ended the Iraq War, a war he did not start and was opposed to. The withdrawal was even finished this weekend - in time so that most troops will be home for the holidays.
After the cheering and the presents, however, the question any sane person will ask is, "What did this war cost America?"
The numbers are staggering. As we already noted, the Iraq War cost 4,474 combat field deaths. The deaths from PTSD and other post-battlefield trauma can only be estimated, but might push that number of Americans closer to 10,000 over nine years. That doesn't even count the estimated Iraqi deaths, both military and civilian, with numbers ranging wildly from 60,000 to 1 million. Counting the injured - physically, mentally, and emotionally - is a task that boosts the numbers of those directly affected by the war into the stratosphere.
The war that Dick Cheney said would go "relatively quickly," and that Donald Rumsfeld once estimated as taking "Five days or five weeks or five months," lasted nearly nine years. The cost in dollars, estimated by then-Bush Budget Director Mitch Daniels was $50 or $60 billion dollars.
The actual cost of the war in dollars, however, was about $824 billion – and it's only that cheap if you exclude interest on the debt accrued from the war and ignore the cost of veterans benefits associated with the war. If you add those figures, as President Obama's administration does in estimating the total cost of the Iraq War, 'Dick & George's Iraq Adventure' may end up saddling America with a bill easily over one trillion dollars.
What could we have done with one trillion dollars over the last decade?
For starters, how about re-investing in America? The latest census figures now reveal that over fifty percent of Americans are living at or below the poverty level. If that $1 trillion spent in Iraq had been invested here at home, potentially tens of thousands of jobs could have been created, repairing America's infrastructure, schools, and communications needs.
If the money squandered on the Iraq War had been spent here at home there's a great possibility President Obama would never have needed to implement the Stimulus Act - an action that cut the poverty rate in half, by the way. Without the stimulus, the number of Americans in poverty over just the last two years would likely have been closer to 65% of the population.
If that $1 trillion from the war in Iraq had been spent on our national debt and education, inequality could likely have been curbed some, while education would have been improved. Since 1990 – just before the first Iraq War – the richest one percent in America have grabbed nearly one of every five dollars in income earned by ALL Americans, drastically increasing income inequality. Meanwhile, Americans are now so poorly educated that while half of the nation lives at or near poverty level, sixty percent of Americans still see themselves as "haves" - as people who aren't poor.
No matter how the final tally is collected, we know the cost of the Iraq War was too high.
The next time someone in politics begins to talk about war as some kind of gift, as some GOP candidates for President have recently done with Iran, feel free to sock them – loudly and in public – with the bill for the Iraq War. Just make sure to add the cost of the American Dream to their tab.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Friday Funday: What We're Wishing For
With most holiday gifts winging and winding their way through the mail, and the holidays of Channukah, Christmas, and Kwanzaa almost here, we hope that you're just about finished with any holiday preparations you might be making.
We know - many of you might be snorting, laughing, or guffawing at the idea of being finished with holiday plans just days before the real event, instead of hours or minutes before. The fact is, we think this year has already given many people we know some pretty good gifts.
For starters, for every American, President Obama delivered on his initial campaign promise: to end the war in Iraq. We understand not EVERY American will be leaving Iraq, as there will still be nearly 17,000 private contractors and civilian diplomatic employees there. Those are private jobs, however, and unlike our service members, those individuals can leave any time they want.
On a Nebraska note, we're glad to see Coach Carl Pelini get his own head coaching position, right in the backyard of our South Florida offices - where we think our webmaster may become an FAU fan. Just yesterday, it was announced that Marvin Sanders, another former NU coach, will be joining Pelini in South Florida, a smart hire in our minds.
We're also glad to see former Husker coach and playing legend Turner Gill get hired by Liberty University as their head football coach. We hope Liberty will give Gill the time, effort and resources to succeed that the University of Kansas never did.
There have been some other recent gifts falling into the lap of a few others we know outside of Nebraska, including Ben Smith of Politico, someone we read regularly. After five years of being the go-to man for seemingly everything at Politico, Ben is handing primary control of his blog at Politico to Dylan Byers, and is moving from politics to social media as the new editor-in-chief of Buzzfeed, where he'll get to build a new team of writers and journalists from the ground up.
Looking ahead to 2012, there are a lot of things on the wish lists of our staff. Good health for all of us and our family members tops the list, along with decent weather and steady income. Of course, we're not worried about having subjects to draw or write about. We think the GOP nomination race will easily last until May or later, and the rest of the year will more than likely be filled with plenty of political news, on every level. Frankly, as the field of 2012 GOP presidential candidates proved once again last night, we think President Obama is getting an amazing gift heading into his re-election battle next year. We doubt next year will deliver the same kind of gift to those fighting for seats in Congress.
If there was one single thing we could hope for in 2012, it would be that people listen to one another. We'd hope that those making fun of the Occupiers open their ears and minds and understand how truly dire things have become for many of our fellow citizens right here in the U.S. We'd hope that our political representatives learn to listen to one another, and more importantly, to their constituents who want the rich to pay more taxes, and for budgets to be used with more wisdom.
Sure - we could have said we wished for world peace. We were trying to be a bit more grandiose, though, with our big wish.
As far as physical gifts that we might get this year?
As a local television commercial we saw recently put it: it doesn't really matter what most of us get this year - because most of us already have everything we could truly want.
Or as the Rolling Stones put it, you can't always get what you want - but sometimes, you get what you need.
Our staff is pretty well set. We hope that you and your family and friends get what you need this holiday season, too.
We know - many of you might be snorting, laughing, or guffawing at the idea of being finished with holiday plans just days before the real event, instead of hours or minutes before. The fact is, we think this year has already given many people we know some pretty good gifts.
For starters, for every American, President Obama delivered on his initial campaign promise: to end the war in Iraq. We understand not EVERY American will be leaving Iraq, as there will still be nearly 17,000 private contractors and civilian diplomatic employees there. Those are private jobs, however, and unlike our service members, those individuals can leave any time they want.
On a Nebraska note, we're glad to see Coach Carl Pelini get his own head coaching position, right in the backyard of our South Florida offices - where we think our webmaster may become an FAU fan. Just yesterday, it was announced that Marvin Sanders, another former NU coach, will be joining Pelini in South Florida, a smart hire in our minds.
We're also glad to see former Husker coach and playing legend Turner Gill get hired by Liberty University as their head football coach. We hope Liberty will give Gill the time, effort and resources to succeed that the University of Kansas never did.
There have been some other recent gifts falling into the lap of a few others we know outside of Nebraska, including Ben Smith of Politico, someone we read regularly. After five years of being the go-to man for seemingly everything at Politico, Ben is handing primary control of his blog at Politico to Dylan Byers, and is moving from politics to social media as the new editor-in-chief of Buzzfeed, where he'll get to build a new team of writers and journalists from the ground up.
Looking ahead to 2012, there are a lot of things on the wish lists of our staff. Good health for all of us and our family members tops the list, along with decent weather and steady income. Of course, we're not worried about having subjects to draw or write about. We think the GOP nomination race will easily last until May or later, and the rest of the year will more than likely be filled with plenty of political news, on every level. Frankly, as the field of 2012 GOP presidential candidates proved once again last night, we think President Obama is getting an amazing gift heading into his re-election battle next year. We doubt next year will deliver the same kind of gift to those fighting for seats in Congress.
If there was one single thing we could hope for in 2012, it would be that people listen to one another. We'd hope that those making fun of the Occupiers open their ears and minds and understand how truly dire things have become for many of our fellow citizens right here in the U.S. We'd hope that our political representatives learn to listen to one another, and more importantly, to their constituents who want the rich to pay more taxes, and for budgets to be used with more wisdom.
Sure - we could have said we wished for world peace. We were trying to be a bit more grandiose, though, with our big wish.
As far as physical gifts that we might get this year?
As a local television commercial we saw recently put it: it doesn't really matter what most of us get this year - because most of us already have everything we could truly want.
Or as the Rolling Stones put it, you can't always get what you want - but sometimes, you get what you need.
Our staff is pretty well set. We hope that you and your family and friends get what you need this holiday season, too.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Going Over The Edge
While the political death match of the 2012 GOP presidential candidate nomination continues, we thought we might pull our attention today towards a slightly less distracting, but equally intense piece of news released earlier in the week.
In case you missed it, the NTSB - the National Transportation Safety Board - released an official recommendation earlier this week, calling for a blanket ban on the use of all cell phones and text message devices while driving. The instant the recommendation hit the news media, we began seeing a steady stream of e-mails, tweets and texts - some of them likely coming from people driving motor vehicles.
The NTSB's recommendation may seem like common sense, to a degree. After all, distracted drivers are more dangerous than those who are focused on driving. Multiple studies over many years have proven that to be true.
The sad thing is, the NTSB's recommendation appears to be based on a study with both questionable methodology and questionable findings.
In recent statistically significant studies from both the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and major auto insurer State Farm, about 60-to-70% of Americans admitted to talking on their cell phones while driving, while between 30 and 40% of Americans admitted to texting behind the wheel.
While the numbers may be staggering, the reaction by millions of Americans, on all sides, is a mix of understanding and horror. Americans seem to understand the statistics generated from distracted driving deaths and accidents - but they're horrified that a government agency could take away what they see as their right to do whatever they please behind the wheel.
Everyone has their own excuse, too, as to why they shouldn't have to give up their rights to mobile communication. From small business persons to law enforcement officers - some of whom now have cars that look like the cockpit of the Space Shuttle - most Americans believe their abilities to drive and communicate should allow them to avoid any kind of ban that might come from the recommendation of the NTSB.
Technically, the NTSB has no direct way to turn its recommendation into action. As an independent federal agency responsible for investigating transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety, the NTSB has no legislative powers at its disposal.
What it does have, however, is the ability to influence how Congress distributes money to the states for things like roads and bridges. In much the same way that the NTSB pushed states to adopt seat belt laws, and has pushed auto manufacturers to adopt higher safety standards, the NTSB has now publicly stated their intentions to put mobile communications in their influential crosshairs.
What they may find, however, is an automotive and telecommunications industry aligned together against them, along with millions of Americans - especially at the state level of politics - who have no intention of being silenced behind the wheel.
While we are firmly against texting and driving, and we tend to recommend hands free use of any mobile communication, we think the NTSB may have just driven this idea off the end of the proverbial cliff. The fact is, some people may actually be able to drive and hold a conversation. Unfortunately, far too many Americans are somehow allowed behind the wheel simply because they still have a pulse.
If the NTSB wants to put out blanket recommendations to encourage better safety on America's roads, they should start by putting forward tighter rules for who should be allowed behind the wheel in the first place.
In case you missed it, the NTSB - the National Transportation Safety Board - released an official recommendation earlier this week, calling for a blanket ban on the use of all cell phones and text message devices while driving. The instant the recommendation hit the news media, we began seeing a steady stream of e-mails, tweets and texts - some of them likely coming from people driving motor vehicles.
The NTSB's recommendation may seem like common sense, to a degree. After all, distracted drivers are more dangerous than those who are focused on driving. Multiple studies over many years have proven that to be true.
The sad thing is, the NTSB's recommendation appears to be based on a study with both questionable methodology and questionable findings.
In recent statistically significant studies from both the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and major auto insurer State Farm, about 60-to-70% of Americans admitted to talking on their cell phones while driving, while between 30 and 40% of Americans admitted to texting behind the wheel.
While the numbers may be staggering, the reaction by millions of Americans, on all sides, is a mix of understanding and horror. Americans seem to understand the statistics generated from distracted driving deaths and accidents - but they're horrified that a government agency could take away what they see as their right to do whatever they please behind the wheel.
Everyone has their own excuse, too, as to why they shouldn't have to give up their rights to mobile communication. From small business persons to law enforcement officers - some of whom now have cars that look like the cockpit of the Space Shuttle - most Americans believe their abilities to drive and communicate should allow them to avoid any kind of ban that might come from the recommendation of the NTSB.
Technically, the NTSB has no direct way to turn its recommendation into action. As an independent federal agency responsible for investigating transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety, the NTSB has no legislative powers at its disposal.
What it does have, however, is the ability to influence how Congress distributes money to the states for things like roads and bridges. In much the same way that the NTSB pushed states to adopt seat belt laws, and has pushed auto manufacturers to adopt higher safety standards, the NTSB has now publicly stated their intentions to put mobile communications in their influential crosshairs.
What they may find, however, is an automotive and telecommunications industry aligned together against them, along with millions of Americans - especially at the state level of politics - who have no intention of being silenced behind the wheel.
While we are firmly against texting and driving, and we tend to recommend hands free use of any mobile communication, we think the NTSB may have just driven this idea off the end of the proverbial cliff. The fact is, some people may actually be able to drive and hold a conversation. Unfortunately, far too many Americans are somehow allowed behind the wheel simply because they still have a pulse.
If the NTSB wants to put out blanket recommendations to encourage better safety on America's roads, they should start by putting forward tighter rules for who should be allowed behind the wheel in the first place.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Fortunetelling
About this time every year, news media and entertainment organizations float even thinner skeleton crews than many already run on a normal basis. That results in a proliferation of "Best Of" lists and "Top Story Of The Year" lists littering the media landscape, like holiday decorations strewn about. Some few even attempt to look into the future of the next year, though most of their attempts are usually nothing more than poorly written fiction.
There a few, however - like us - that are still on the job as the holiday draws near.
Thankfully, polling guru Nate Silver and his team at FiveThirtyEight.com are also working through the holidays - and their first look at the 2012 political race is anything but fiction.
In fact, Nate released FiveThirtyEight's first polling-based Iowa GOP Caucus forecast Tuesday night, and in short, the GOP race is without question... wide open.
While Nate's conclusion isn't entirely surprising, the data that Nate released early was very surprising - as it shows that any of five different candidates could legitimately win the Iowa caucus.
To savvy political observers, the conclusion that either Gingrich, Romney, or even Ron Paul could win the Iowa event hasn't been that big of a stretch. The latest poll from the well-known pollster Public Policy Polling released late yesterday proves that while Gingrich's surge appears to have peaked and may now be falling, Rep. Ron Paul may be the GOP's first flavor of the month in 2012.
We agree with many of you - the political horse race IS ridiculous, and attempting to forecast the winner may seem even more ludicrous. There are some very serious problems U.S. citizens should focus on solving - not to mention the potential horrors facing those in politics, economics and media in Europe.
If you truly want to see a political "Ghost of Christmas Present" that will set your hair on end, try imagining the dreams of France's President Sarkozy or Germany's Angela Merkel.
For the Republican Party, though, there's a political ghost of their own that's been waiting in the wings for years, that they'll finally be forced to face in 2012.
To put it bluntly, Republicans don't know how to play as a team anymore - and they're tired of pretending they do.
For much of the last twenty years, the Republican Party has increasingly marched in lock-step, and ostracized or shouted down any dissension within its ranks. Reagan's so-called "Eleventh Commandment" - "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican" - has become an ideological straight-jacket of orthodoxy that has strangled the sense out of much of the Republican Party.
For many in the Democratic Party, watching the upcoming battle royal on the right may be just the kind of political present they've asked political Santa to deliver for years.
Still, if we were in the Democratic Party hierarchy, we'd wait before any champaign corks were popped.
What Nate Silver's data says, and what our own experience tells us, is roughly the same thing that we've always said in political races before they're finished: It ain't over 'till it's over.
There's only a couple of things thing we're certain of when looking at next year's political races: they won't be dull - and they won't be clean.
Batten down the hatches, folks. 2012 looks to be a bumpy ride.
There a few, however - like us - that are still on the job as the holiday draws near.
Thankfully, polling guru Nate Silver and his team at FiveThirtyEight.com are also working through the holidays - and their first look at the 2012 political race is anything but fiction.
In fact, Nate released FiveThirtyEight's first polling-based Iowa GOP Caucus forecast Tuesday night, and in short, the GOP race is without question... wide open.
While Nate's conclusion isn't entirely surprising, the data that Nate released early was very surprising - as it shows that any of five different candidates could legitimately win the Iowa caucus.
To savvy political observers, the conclusion that either Gingrich, Romney, or even Ron Paul could win the Iowa event hasn't been that big of a stretch. The latest poll from the well-known pollster Public Policy Polling released late yesterday proves that while Gingrich's surge appears to have peaked and may now be falling, Rep. Ron Paul may be the GOP's first flavor of the month in 2012.
We agree with many of you - the political horse race IS ridiculous, and attempting to forecast the winner may seem even more ludicrous. There are some very serious problems U.S. citizens should focus on solving - not to mention the potential horrors facing those in politics, economics and media in Europe.
If you truly want to see a political "Ghost of Christmas Present" that will set your hair on end, try imagining the dreams of France's President Sarkozy or Germany's Angela Merkel.
For the Republican Party, though, there's a political ghost of their own that's been waiting in the wings for years, that they'll finally be forced to face in 2012.
To put it bluntly, Republicans don't know how to play as a team anymore - and they're tired of pretending they do.
For much of the last twenty years, the Republican Party has increasingly marched in lock-step, and ostracized or shouted down any dissension within its ranks. Reagan's so-called "Eleventh Commandment" - "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican" - has become an ideological straight-jacket of orthodoxy that has strangled the sense out of much of the Republican Party.
For many in the Democratic Party, watching the upcoming battle royal on the right may be just the kind of political present they've asked political Santa to deliver for years.
Still, if we were in the Democratic Party hierarchy, we'd wait before any champaign corks were popped.
What Nate Silver's data says, and what our own experience tells us, is roughly the same thing that we've always said in political races before they're finished: It ain't over 'till it's over.
There's only a couple of things thing we're certain of when looking at next year's political races: they won't be dull - and they won't be clean.
Batten down the hatches, folks. 2012 looks to be a bumpy ride.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Of Matchsticks And Money
As the holiday season blooms in full force, we're enjoying some of our favorite holiday songs and stories, as we hope you are. Something we've noticed in past years, however, struck a chord with us today, as we were scanning the recent political news.
In many of those traditional holiday tales - from Hans Christian Anderson's Little Match Girl to Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol - the theme, whether good or bad, is how things are now and how they might be, if only the protagonist acted differently. Strangely, Americans are facing a similar choice themselves when it comes to the problem of money in American politics. The difference is that the horrors we're all seeing as the 2012 races approach aren't just the ghosts of future elections - they're a terror that's already here, and getting worse.
Just yesterday, a federal appeals court in Wisconsin followed the misguided lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in their Citizens United decision last year, striking down a state law limiting how much any one person can donate to independent political action groups. With decisions like these, wealthy individuals, political lobbying groups, and corporations have effectively reduced elected officials of either major political party to little more than pets on leashes.
Even as the winter of our political discontent continues to grow less hospitable to good government, an independent U.S. Senator and a Democratic member of the U.S. House may have begun to bring light to legitimate campaign finance reform.
In case you missed it last Friday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to help shrink the influence of money in politics. If you think we've made mention of similar proposals earlier this year, we have. There were no less than five similar measures proposed in 2011, though most of them have loopholes Santa can drive a sleigh through. This one is different.
The Sanders amendment in the Senate is the identical twin to an amendment proposed by Florida Representative Ted Deutsch in the U.S. House. The amendment plainly and clearly states that the Constitution ONLY fully protects and outlines the rights of "natural persons" - real-life, flesh and blood human beings. No corporations. No unions. No amorphous outside political groups that can take as much money as they want, without disclosing clearly where that money came from. Those groups have severe limitations under this amendment, different from natural persons - because outside groups, unions, and especially corporations are not people.
We're well aware a constitutional amendment as proposed by Sanders and Deutsch is an incredibly small light in the darkness, a massive challenge to pass at any rate, let alone quickly.
That said, any number of great American leaders, from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln, to even our most recent leaders, have faced off with big banks and corporations. These groups have attempted to control far too much for the benefit of far too few, leaving most of us to shiver in the cold. Still - some of our leaders have attempted campaign finance reform. Some have even been successful for a short time.
Just as Scrooge questioned whether the terrifying future he was confronted with was what he truly had to live with, so too our future doesn't have to be one where only those with the most money have freedom.
Do we shiver in the alley, looking on as the fat cats treat our politicians like their pets? Or do we follow the lead of those like Sanders and Detusch, who reach out to help us, even at their own peril?
The choice is still ours. Let's hope we all make the best decision in 2012.
In many of those traditional holiday tales - from Hans Christian Anderson's Little Match Girl to Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol - the theme, whether good or bad, is how things are now and how they might be, if only the protagonist acted differently. Strangely, Americans are facing a similar choice themselves when it comes to the problem of money in American politics. The difference is that the horrors we're all seeing as the 2012 races approach aren't just the ghosts of future elections - they're a terror that's already here, and getting worse.
Just yesterday, a federal appeals court in Wisconsin followed the misguided lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in their Citizens United decision last year, striking down a state law limiting how much any one person can donate to independent political action groups. With decisions like these, wealthy individuals, political lobbying groups, and corporations have effectively reduced elected officials of either major political party to little more than pets on leashes.
Even as the winter of our political discontent continues to grow less hospitable to good government, an independent U.S. Senator and a Democratic member of the U.S. House may have begun to bring light to legitimate campaign finance reform.
In case you missed it last Friday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to help shrink the influence of money in politics. If you think we've made mention of similar proposals earlier this year, we have. There were no less than five similar measures proposed in 2011, though most of them have loopholes Santa can drive a sleigh through. This one is different.
The Sanders amendment in the Senate is the identical twin to an amendment proposed by Florida Representative Ted Deutsch in the U.S. House. The amendment plainly and clearly states that the Constitution ONLY fully protects and outlines the rights of "natural persons" - real-life, flesh and blood human beings. No corporations. No unions. No amorphous outside political groups that can take as much money as they want, without disclosing clearly where that money came from. Those groups have severe limitations under this amendment, different from natural persons - because outside groups, unions, and especially corporations are not people.
We're well aware a constitutional amendment as proposed by Sanders and Deutsch is an incredibly small light in the darkness, a massive challenge to pass at any rate, let alone quickly.
That said, any number of great American leaders, from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln, to even our most recent leaders, have faced off with big banks and corporations. These groups have attempted to control far too much for the benefit of far too few, leaving most of us to shiver in the cold. Still - some of our leaders have attempted campaign finance reform. Some have even been successful for a short time.
Just as Scrooge questioned whether the terrifying future he was confronted with was what he truly had to live with, so too our future doesn't have to be one where only those with the most money have freedom.
Do we shiver in the alley, looking on as the fat cats treat our politicians like their pets? Or do we follow the lead of those like Sanders and Detusch, who reach out to help us, even at their own peril?
The choice is still ours. Let's hope we all make the best decision in 2012.
Monday, December 12, 2011
The GOP And The First Rule of Holes
While we're certain that most of you were busy this weekend getting ready for any number of holiday festivities, shopping for gifts, and enjoying a few holiday concerts, the Republican candidates for President had yet another debate Saturday night, this time in Iowa. In case you'd forgotten in the midst of the holiday hubbub, the 2012 Iowa Caucus will be held three weeks from tomorrow, so - in theory - a political debate might have made sense.
Indeed, it might have made sense, if any of the contenders had used the event to prove they were ready. Instead, most of the Republican field spent the evening digging themselves deeper in their own political holes.
For Mitt Romney, his debate performance was clearly upstaged by his snap response to Rick Perry over a claim that Perry has made previously - and been proven to be wrong about twice before. Even so, Romney couldn't keep his cool after Perry pushed him, offering to bet $10,000 to Rick Perry to prove that Perry was lying.
Of course, that drew an immediate avalanche of post-debate attacks, from Romney's fellow candidates and the Democratic National Committee. Romney's snap reaction may have proven more than just how much more wealthy and disconnected than he is from the average American. It may have also broken the Mormon prohibition on gambling, and brought Romney's biggest problem issue - the right-wing reaction to his religion - to the forefront again.
While the general consensus was that Newt Gingrich won Saturday night's debate, he did so by directly attacking one of the other candidates, Romney - which Gingrich himself said multiple times this year that candidates shouldn't do. That proven hypocrisy by Mr. Gingrich is no surprise to anyone who remembers that the former Republican Speaker of the House was also the first U.S. House speaker in history to be reprimanded by the House for ethics violations. This took place less than five years after Newt engineered the so-called 'Republican Revolution' of 1994.
Mr. Gingrich completely put his foot in his mouth, however, when he not only called Palstinians an "invented people", but then proceeded to childishly make faces and mouth "No", even as Mitt Romney tried to give Ginrich a way to not be quite so insulting. If Newt is the historian he's claimed to be, he shouldn't need to be reminded that every nation of people is technically an invented people, since government is a social invention.
The rest of the GOP field had their own problems at the debate and the lies were coming so fast and furious from every candidate, ABC should have re-categorized the entire event as a fiction fest.
In short, the latest GOP debate only served to hurt the entire field, as most of their recent campaigning has done.
The biggest proof of this is the latest NBC/Marist poll that was released over the weekend. While Gingrich may have opened up a big lead over Romney in South Carolina - a Republican bellweather - the most striking numbers were noticed by Josh Marshall of TPM.
Right now, just weeks before the Republican primary in South Carolina, President Barack Obama leads BOTH Gingrich and Romney, the dueling GOP frontrunners. That lead - in deep-red, Republican South Carolina - has happened over the last couple of months, and appears to be trending to increase for the President as 2012 begins.
Our only advice for the 2012 GOP field is to follow the words most often attributed to British politician Denis Healey.
"The first law on holes," Healey said, " is when you're in one, stop digging!"
Indeed, it might have made sense, if any of the contenders had used the event to prove they were ready. Instead, most of the Republican field spent the evening digging themselves deeper in their own political holes.
For Mitt Romney, his debate performance was clearly upstaged by his snap response to Rick Perry over a claim that Perry has made previously - and been proven to be wrong about twice before. Even so, Romney couldn't keep his cool after Perry pushed him, offering to bet $10,000 to Rick Perry to prove that Perry was lying.
Of course, that drew an immediate avalanche of post-debate attacks, from Romney's fellow candidates and the Democratic National Committee. Romney's snap reaction may have proven more than just how much more wealthy and disconnected than he is from the average American. It may have also broken the Mormon prohibition on gambling, and brought Romney's biggest problem issue - the right-wing reaction to his religion - to the forefront again.
While the general consensus was that Newt Gingrich won Saturday night's debate, he did so by directly attacking one of the other candidates, Romney - which Gingrich himself said multiple times this year that candidates shouldn't do. That proven hypocrisy by Mr. Gingrich is no surprise to anyone who remembers that the former Republican Speaker of the House was also the first U.S. House speaker in history to be reprimanded by the House for ethics violations. This took place less than five years after Newt engineered the so-called 'Republican Revolution' of 1994.
Mr. Gingrich completely put his foot in his mouth, however, when he not only called Palstinians an "invented people", but then proceeded to childishly make faces and mouth "No", even as Mitt Romney tried to give Ginrich a way to not be quite so insulting. If Newt is the historian he's claimed to be, he shouldn't need to be reminded that every nation of people is technically an invented people, since government is a social invention.
The rest of the GOP field had their own problems at the debate and the lies were coming so fast and furious from every candidate, ABC should have re-categorized the entire event as a fiction fest.
In short, the latest GOP debate only served to hurt the entire field, as most of their recent campaigning has done.
The biggest proof of this is the latest NBC/Marist poll that was released over the weekend. While Gingrich may have opened up a big lead over Romney in South Carolina - a Republican bellweather - the most striking numbers were noticed by Josh Marshall of TPM.
Right now, just weeks before the Republican primary in South Carolina, President Barack Obama leads BOTH Gingrich and Romney, the dueling GOP frontrunners. That lead - in deep-red, Republican South Carolina - has happened over the last couple of months, and appears to be trending to increase for the President as 2012 begins.
Our only advice for the 2012 GOP field is to follow the words most often attributed to British politician Denis Healey.
"The first law on holes," Healey said, " is when you're in one, stop digging!"
Friday, December 9, 2011
Friday Funday: Getting Into The Spirit
As the holiday season really begins to envelop all of us, some of our staff are rushing around getting ready to do a little holiday traveling, while others are preparing to receive some holiday guests.
We're neither as hurried or as harried as we were last year at this point, and we're even beginning to feel a bit more of the holiday spirit - even with the warmer than usual temps in our DC and West Palm Beach quarters. Where our positive energy is coming from, even we're not sure - but we do know doing good things for the right reason is contagious.
It's also something a young man from Lincoln, Cameron Freeman would have appreciated.
We first heard about Cameron Freeman last year, though not via the newspaper or television. Cameron was the student of a longtime friend and acquaintance of ours, one of Cameron's teachers. He died in a horrible accident in Kansas in November, 2010, caused by a drunk driver who hit the car Cameron and his friends were traveling in.
Cameron's parents could have turned to anger, or turned inward, but as Peter Salter of the Lincoln Journal Star wrote last year, they began an effort to do something good, something right, to change the world in the name of their son. Mr. Salter followed up on the story this year - as did several Lincoln businesses, including Union Bank & Trust. As Salter's story explains, quite a number of people in Lincoln were given money by their employers earlier this week, and told to go out and do something good, for someone who needed it.
You can check out the stories of those who gave on the The Cameron Effect website - and some of those stories are quite good. Good enough, however, isn't. It never has been in our book.
We're well aware of the resumes and connections of many of our readers - those on Capitol Hill, in legislatures in multiple states, and even a few involved in presidential campaigns, not to mention all the well-connected members of the media across the country.
So we're going to go out on a limb, today - not for us, but for Cameron.
Or, as we'd bet he'd want us to do, for people who really need the help this holiday season.
We're not asking you to spend money you don't have, to randomly give to someone you don't know - though if you want to donate to a needy charity, we certainly won't dissuade that action. We ask that you do what Cameron's folks ask of people on his birthday - December 7 - but also on every other day of the year.
Do something compassionate, forgiving, and nice for someone else. Then take a moment, and write about it on The Cameron Effect webpage. We hope you'll do something unexpected - not just for the recipient of your gift, but also for you. Maybe you'll donate your time at a soup kitchen - but don't do it on Christmas or New Years. Do it on a random Tuesday. Just because.
If you see a homeless person in the street, as you're walking? Maybe you could take the time to buy them a meal. If you have an extra five dollar bill in your wallet, and you're at the counter of the store while someone is struggling to make change to buy that gift - the one you don't approve of? Give them your five bucks. When they're surprised and ask if you're sure you want to do that? Just smile, and say, "No problem. It's the right thing to do. You'll take care of someone else next time."
Regardless of what you believe in, spiritually, the holiday season is supposed to be about joy and peace. You might even say it's a time of year we try to bring a little happiness to everyone.
We think that's the kind of thing that Cameron Freeman might approve of.
We're certain that you'll feel a bit more of the spirit of the holiday season if you take our advice.
We're neither as hurried or as harried as we were last year at this point, and we're even beginning to feel a bit more of the holiday spirit - even with the warmer than usual temps in our DC and West Palm Beach quarters. Where our positive energy is coming from, even we're not sure - but we do know doing good things for the right reason is contagious.
It's also something a young man from Lincoln, Cameron Freeman would have appreciated.
We first heard about Cameron Freeman last year, though not via the newspaper or television. Cameron was the student of a longtime friend and acquaintance of ours, one of Cameron's teachers. He died in a horrible accident in Kansas in November, 2010, caused by a drunk driver who hit the car Cameron and his friends were traveling in.
Cameron's parents could have turned to anger, or turned inward, but as Peter Salter of the Lincoln Journal Star wrote last year, they began an effort to do something good, something right, to change the world in the name of their son. Mr. Salter followed up on the story this year - as did several Lincoln businesses, including Union Bank & Trust. As Salter's story explains, quite a number of people in Lincoln were given money by their employers earlier this week, and told to go out and do something good, for someone who needed it.
You can check out the stories of those who gave on the The Cameron Effect website - and some of those stories are quite good. Good enough, however, isn't. It never has been in our book.
We're well aware of the resumes and connections of many of our readers - those on Capitol Hill, in legislatures in multiple states, and even a few involved in presidential campaigns, not to mention all the well-connected members of the media across the country.
So we're going to go out on a limb, today - not for us, but for Cameron.
Or, as we'd bet he'd want us to do, for people who really need the help this holiday season.
We're not asking you to spend money you don't have, to randomly give to someone you don't know - though if you want to donate to a needy charity, we certainly won't dissuade that action. We ask that you do what Cameron's folks ask of people on his birthday - December 7 - but also on every other day of the year.
Do something compassionate, forgiving, and nice for someone else. Then take a moment, and write about it on The Cameron Effect webpage. We hope you'll do something unexpected - not just for the recipient of your gift, but also for you. Maybe you'll donate your time at a soup kitchen - but don't do it on Christmas or New Years. Do it on a random Tuesday. Just because.
If you see a homeless person in the street, as you're walking? Maybe you could take the time to buy them a meal. If you have an extra five dollar bill in your wallet, and you're at the counter of the store while someone is struggling to make change to buy that gift - the one you don't approve of? Give them your five bucks. When they're surprised and ask if you're sure you want to do that? Just smile, and say, "No problem. It's the right thing to do. You'll take care of someone else next time."
Regardless of what you believe in, spiritually, the holiday season is supposed to be about joy and peace. You might even say it's a time of year we try to bring a little happiness to everyone.
We think that's the kind of thing that Cameron Freeman might approve of.
We're certain that you'll feel a bit more of the spirit of the holiday season if you take our advice.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Rolled Over, Snowed Under
Every year, while we watch the calendar days tick off, and the weather get steadily colder, the same thing happens: at some point the weather freezes us in our tracks and we're dumbly surprised by it. In hindsight, it's nearly always obvious that we should have expected it. For some reason, however, one or more of our staff members inevitably ends up caught in the weather, delaying travel or meetings of one kind or another.
That feeling of impending doom is never a good one when its happening to us - though it's one we've recognized on the faces and in the writings of many of our conservative friends recently, especially on the subject of taxes.
As our acquaintance David Cay Johnston of Reuters noted this week, most of the major Republican political figures in the U.S. have snowed themselves in on the subject of taxes, thanks to a pudgy, arrogant little lobbyist by the name of Grover Norquist.
We're fairly certain you've heard of Mr. Norquist. He's one of the most polarizing figures in American politics - and he's the reason that nearly every Congressional Republican has committed to his pledge that they should never raise taxes, ever, on anything, for any reason ever again.
Point blank, Mr. Norquist is a powerful anti-tax lobbyist, who has previously held enough money and power to scare most Republicans into following whatever his marching orders are - a fact he hasn't been shy about shoving in other people's faces.
As our colleague Mr. Johnston points out, however, it's this blind loyalty to Mr Norquist, above their duty to their country, that has led the Republicans to paint themselves into a corner.
In short, GOP members have been trained like Pavlov's dogs by Mr. Norquist to always bark in favor of tax cuts of any kind, while always opposing an increase in taxes for any reason - including the expiration of short-term tax reductions.
When President Obama convinced the Congress to cut the payroll tax rate as a short-term stimulus, it wasn't just an economically sound and sensible idea. It was also a political stroke of genius. Short-term stimulus of any kind - by definition - is short term. Whatever effects that stimulative action has on a federal or state budget, or an economy, are designed to be temporary.
This puts Congressional Republicans in the kind of bind that Mr. Johnston notes that not only could have been a major political stroke in their favor - but should have been something that they or Mr. Norquist should have seen coming a mile away.
Now, President Obama has put Republicans on a slippery political slope, with a potentially massive increase in taxes rolling toward Americans during the holiday season - one that Republican politicians will be responsible for, if the increase goes through. At the same time, it clearly displays how extremely hypocritical Norquist - and anyone who follows his lead - truly are.
We're aware that most on Capitol Hill say the increase won't likely happen, that the payroll tax cut will likely continue, along with an extension of unemployment benefits.
Still - just like that nasty winter weather that happens every year, the failure of Republicans to compromise with Democrats is something we've seen time and time again, most recently on the not-so-supercommittee. This time, we're prepared for that snowball to come rolling down from The Hill.
Too bad for them, Congressional Republicans didn't see this one coming.
They should have.
That feeling of impending doom is never a good one when its happening to us - though it's one we've recognized on the faces and in the writings of many of our conservative friends recently, especially on the subject of taxes.
As our acquaintance David Cay Johnston of Reuters noted this week, most of the major Republican political figures in the U.S. have snowed themselves in on the subject of taxes, thanks to a pudgy, arrogant little lobbyist by the name of Grover Norquist.
We're fairly certain you've heard of Mr. Norquist. He's one of the most polarizing figures in American politics - and he's the reason that nearly every Congressional Republican has committed to his pledge that they should never raise taxes, ever, on anything, for any reason ever again.
Point blank, Mr. Norquist is a powerful anti-tax lobbyist, who has previously held enough money and power to scare most Republicans into following whatever his marching orders are - a fact he hasn't been shy about shoving in other people's faces.
As our colleague Mr. Johnston points out, however, it's this blind loyalty to Mr Norquist, above their duty to their country, that has led the Republicans to paint themselves into a corner.
In short, GOP members have been trained like Pavlov's dogs by Mr. Norquist to always bark in favor of tax cuts of any kind, while always opposing an increase in taxes for any reason - including the expiration of short-term tax reductions.
When President Obama convinced the Congress to cut the payroll tax rate as a short-term stimulus, it wasn't just an economically sound and sensible idea. It was also a political stroke of genius. Short-term stimulus of any kind - by definition - is short term. Whatever effects that stimulative action has on a federal or state budget, or an economy, are designed to be temporary.
This puts Congressional Republicans in the kind of bind that Mr. Johnston notes that not only could have been a major political stroke in their favor - but should have been something that they or Mr. Norquist should have seen coming a mile away.
Now, President Obama has put Republicans on a slippery political slope, with a potentially massive increase in taxes rolling toward Americans during the holiday season - one that Republican politicians will be responsible for, if the increase goes through. At the same time, it clearly displays how extremely hypocritical Norquist - and anyone who follows his lead - truly are.
We're aware that most on Capitol Hill say the increase won't likely happen, that the payroll tax cut will likely continue, along with an extension of unemployment benefits.
Still - just like that nasty winter weather that happens every year, the failure of Republicans to compromise with Democrats is something we've seen time and time again, most recently on the not-so-supercommittee. This time, we're prepared for that snowball to come rolling down from The Hill.
Too bad for them, Congressional Republicans didn't see this one coming.
They should have.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Delivering Insanity
The recent news that - once again - the U.S. Postal Service continues to have major money problems didn't surprise us. It's a story that has upset our entire staff for a variety of reasons, for some time now.
For many years now, it's been obvious that the U.S. Postal Service, like virtually every postal system around the world, has had its previous business model threatened by the reach and growth of the internet. This past year has been especially hard on U.S.P.S., as pressures from many directions have come to a head - especially from those in politics who'd either prefer to privatize the whole system or would prefer to use the postal service budget money elsewhere.
The fact is, if the postal service were allowed to implement some of the ideas that many in the postal system have suggested for years, there would be no problem at all.
As the radio and tv commercials you may have seen and heard, correctly point out, one of the Postal Service's biggest financial liabilities is their pension fund. Thanks to a 2005 change by Congress, the postal service pension fund is required to be fully-funded at all times, unlike virtually every other pension fund for either private businesses or public unions.
For the U.S.P.S., that adds up to roughly $5.5 billion annually - and it means the Postal Service pension fund is currently way overfunded. Even by conservative measures, the postal service pension fund currently has more than $75 billion more than it needs, something the Postal Service has been trying to change for several years now.
The U.S. Postal service hasn't been blind to the internet, either. More than once over the last decade, proposals have been presented or floated which would have allowed the Postal Service to follow in the footsteps of Deutsche Post, the German federal postal system.
In Germany, many years ago, they saw that physical mail volume was decreasing, so - like any smart business - they attempted to broaden their potential market. Deutsche Post gained the right to act as a small-scale banking service, developed a service to sell long-distance phone cards, and worked out deals to act as a payment service for bills from many different companies, including utilities, phones, and internet providers. They even took their delivery services overseas, through DHL, which Deutsche Post owns.
All of these would be great options for the U.S. Postal Service as well - if only they were allowed by Congress to make changes of this nature.
Unfortunately, as a constitutionally mandated but semi-autonomous arm of the government, whenever the Postal Service wants to make a change of virtually any kind, they have to go through extensive Congressional wrangling. As Congress has become increasingly paralyzed by partisanship and inaction, even the simplest measures have gotten hopelessly tied up in petty politics and bureaucracy.
Instead of standing up and boldly stating what needs to be done - as President Obama did in Kansas on Tuesday - the U.S. Postal Service and its management has surrendered, proposing massive cuts to services, massive cuts to postal service jobs, ending next-day delivery, and ending Saturday delivery as well.
Not only would those measures devastate rural communities from coast to coast, they will also likely harm the long-term success of the Postal Service -- which, as a constitutionally mandated government organization, can't go away, and can't be privatized without significant Congressional action.
Meanwhile, postal workers are deeply unsure of their future, and terrified of the present, but they still keep on delivering presents, letters, and packages on time, and at prices no private company can or would ever match, to places that Fed Ex and UPS simply don't go.
From our perspective, the actual workers of the U.S.P.S. seem to be the only people who are delivering any sanity into this subject.
Sadly, it is Congress and the Postal Service executives who are in control of the future of the very folks who do all the heavy lifting at the U.S.P.S.
For many years now, it's been obvious that the U.S. Postal Service, like virtually every postal system around the world, has had its previous business model threatened by the reach and growth of the internet. This past year has been especially hard on U.S.P.S., as pressures from many directions have come to a head - especially from those in politics who'd either prefer to privatize the whole system or would prefer to use the postal service budget money elsewhere.
The fact is, if the postal service were allowed to implement some of the ideas that many in the postal system have suggested for years, there would be no problem at all.
As the radio and tv commercials you may have seen and heard, correctly point out, one of the Postal Service's biggest financial liabilities is their pension fund. Thanks to a 2005 change by Congress, the postal service pension fund is required to be fully-funded at all times, unlike virtually every other pension fund for either private businesses or public unions.
For the U.S.P.S., that adds up to roughly $5.5 billion annually - and it means the Postal Service pension fund is currently way overfunded. Even by conservative measures, the postal service pension fund currently has more than $75 billion more than it needs, something the Postal Service has been trying to change for several years now.
The U.S. Postal service hasn't been blind to the internet, either. More than once over the last decade, proposals have been presented or floated which would have allowed the Postal Service to follow in the footsteps of Deutsche Post, the German federal postal system.
In Germany, many years ago, they saw that physical mail volume was decreasing, so - like any smart business - they attempted to broaden their potential market. Deutsche Post gained the right to act as a small-scale banking service, developed a service to sell long-distance phone cards, and worked out deals to act as a payment service for bills from many different companies, including utilities, phones, and internet providers. They even took their delivery services overseas, through DHL, which Deutsche Post owns.
All of these would be great options for the U.S. Postal Service as well - if only they were allowed by Congress to make changes of this nature.
Unfortunately, as a constitutionally mandated but semi-autonomous arm of the government, whenever the Postal Service wants to make a change of virtually any kind, they have to go through extensive Congressional wrangling. As Congress has become increasingly paralyzed by partisanship and inaction, even the simplest measures have gotten hopelessly tied up in petty politics and bureaucracy.
Instead of standing up and boldly stating what needs to be done - as President Obama did in Kansas on Tuesday - the U.S. Postal Service and its management has surrendered, proposing massive cuts to services, massive cuts to postal service jobs, ending next-day delivery, and ending Saturday delivery as well.
Not only would those measures devastate rural communities from coast to coast, they will also likely harm the long-term success of the Postal Service -- which, as a constitutionally mandated government organization, can't go away, and can't be privatized without significant Congressional action.
Meanwhile, postal workers are deeply unsure of their future, and terrified of the present, but they still keep on delivering presents, letters, and packages on time, and at prices no private company can or would ever match, to places that Fed Ex and UPS simply don't go.
From our perspective, the actual workers of the U.S.P.S. seem to be the only people who are delivering any sanity into this subject.
Sadly, it is Congress and the Postal Service executives who are in control of the future of the very folks who do all the heavy lifting at the U.S.P.S.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Theory, Practice, and Harvesting Anger
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." - St. Bernard of ClairvauxIt seems like the news these days just keeps repeating. The GOP Presidential contest has become a circus, along with the continuing - and seemingly perpetual - standoff in Congress over extending the payroll tax cut and federal unemployment benefits. So we thought we'd turn our attention today to a different manufactured disaster, this time in farm fields and barns across America.
In case you missed it, the U.S Labor Department is on the verge of approving new child safety standards for working in agriculture, for the first time since 1970. In theory, setting higher safety standards for kids and young teens, in one of the most dangerous fields of employment in the nation, sounds like a good idea - and it's one we'd normally applaud. The childhood injury rate on farms has fallen nearly sixty percent from 1998 to 2009, according to the National Farm Medicine Center. The fact remains that fatality rates for young people working in agriculture are still many times higher than the rates for American young people working in any other industry.
The problem with the Labor Department's standards isn't their intent. It's what they call for kids and teens not to be able to do.
Current federal labor law already limits, to some degree, what young people can do, both on farms that their parents own, as well as other farms they might work at - such as extended relatives, family friends, or even 4-H and FFA farm project centers. However, the new proposed regulations may limit kids so much they can't be involved in groups like the FFA or 4-H. They may not even be able to take odd jobs, like hauling hay - or summer jobs, like detasseling.
While consumer protection and advocacy groups like Public Citizen have said the new regulations don't actually ban young people from detasseling, the new regulations from the Department of Labor don't specifically make it clear what regulations apply in certain circumstances. This may actually make things worse for everyone involved - teen workers, the farmers that depend on seasonal teen labor, and even ag support groups, like the FFA and 4-H.
We understand the concerns of Americans who enjoy farming, those who want to teach their kids about the family business, as well as those young people who rely on ag-related jobs for the money they use for everything from prom and presents, to school lunches and their first car.
We also understand where those in the Department of Labor are coming from; it's their job to make sure every worker in America has safe working conditions, especially children that we allow to be in our workforce.
The problem is that groups on both sides of this debate don't seem to be talking to each another at all. Sadly, just like the idiots in Congress, instead of moving toward a better government with better solutions for everyone, both sides of this battle seem to want to sow seeds of anger and misunderstanding, blaming the other side as blind fools who don't know squat about the subject in contention.
As with Republicans and Democrats in Washington, DC, if all we ever plant is hate and distrust, we can't see how either side will reap anything but more trouble.
Monday, December 5, 2011
A Tempest - Or Much Ado About Nothing?
To say this past weekend had a bit more drama than necessary certainly wouldn't be going too far, in our collective opinion.
The media - especially the conservative punditry - unnecessarily attempted to build suspense for Herman Cain's big announcement on Saturday, that he was suspending his bid for the Presidency. Anyone who has ever been in a serious relationship knew that after Cain met with his wife when he got home on Friday, he'd be leaving the Presidential race - or his wife would likely be leaving him.
The conservative alternate reality also got all worked up over a Saturday night television event that was anything but a debate. The Fox-hosted spectacle had three state attorney generals, six GOP candidates for President, more bull than a rodeo, and more failed attempts at humor than Saturday Night Live.
The saddest bit of right-wing wing holiday dreaming over the weekend came from Nebraska, however, via the New York Times' Jeff Zeleny.
Zeleny, in an article published Friday afternoon, noted that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have been not-so-quietly begging Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman to do what Heineman already has said - more than once - he would not do: challenge Democratic Senator Ben Nelson for the U.S. Senate seat in Nebraska, in 2012.
Sadly, Gov. Heineman may indeed change his mind about running for Senate, after promising he wasn't going to do so - a process that Republicans call lying when Democrats do similar things.
We're unsure if Heineman is serious, or if his statement to Zeleny about McConnell and Cornyn's entreaties is simply a follow up to the low-level, perpetual grudge match between Nelson and Heineman. That battle saw another round last week when Nelson knocked Heineman for taking a $5 million federal grant to help set up insurance exchanges for the Affordable Care Act - something that Heineman has been dragging his feet on doing.
Aside from the hypocritical nature of Heineman's actions, or the obvious desperation of the Republican Party in begging Heineman, the facts remain the same now as they were when Paul drew the cartoon and we wrote the commentary in November of 2010 - when Heineman officially announced he would NOT be running for the seat Nelson now occupies in the U.S. Senate.
We understand the polls say Nelson's race in 2012 - if he decides to undertake it - will be brutal and ugly, no matter what.
It will also be incredibly expensive. In a year when the campaign war chests of both major parties will be stuffed full of money from who knows where, campaign spending will be tighter than ever. For a Republican party that increasingly looks to be in an ugly political financing situation nationally, doing something that would likely waste a huge amount of money, while not generating a certain or even likely win isn't a fiscally responsible investment of campaign contributions - whether from the party directly, or those supporting the GOP line.
If the Republican leaders are truly fiscally responsible, they'll let Heineman go, and let the Democrats slug it out against current Nebraska Attorney General - and likely GOP nominee - Jon Bruning.
To be or not to be? We bet Democrats and Republicans alike will find out before mid-January.
The media - especially the conservative punditry - unnecessarily attempted to build suspense for Herman Cain's big announcement on Saturday, that he was suspending his bid for the Presidency. Anyone who has ever been in a serious relationship knew that after Cain met with his wife when he got home on Friday, he'd be leaving the Presidential race - or his wife would likely be leaving him.
The conservative alternate reality also got all worked up over a Saturday night television event that was anything but a debate. The Fox-hosted spectacle had three state attorney generals, six GOP candidates for President, more bull than a rodeo, and more failed attempts at humor than Saturday Night Live.
The saddest bit of right-wing wing holiday dreaming over the weekend came from Nebraska, however, via the New York Times' Jeff Zeleny.
Zeleny, in an article published Friday afternoon, noted that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have been not-so-quietly begging Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman to do what Heineman already has said - more than once - he would not do: challenge Democratic Senator Ben Nelson for the U.S. Senate seat in Nebraska, in 2012.
Sadly, Gov. Heineman may indeed change his mind about running for Senate, after promising he wasn't going to do so - a process that Republicans call lying when Democrats do similar things.
We're unsure if Heineman is serious, or if his statement to Zeleny about McConnell and Cornyn's entreaties is simply a follow up to the low-level, perpetual grudge match between Nelson and Heineman. That battle saw another round last week when Nelson knocked Heineman for taking a $5 million federal grant to help set up insurance exchanges for the Affordable Care Act - something that Heineman has been dragging his feet on doing.
Aside from the hypocritical nature of Heineman's actions, or the obvious desperation of the Republican Party in begging Heineman, the facts remain the same now as they were when Paul drew the cartoon and we wrote the commentary in November of 2010 - when Heineman officially announced he would NOT be running for the seat Nelson now occupies in the U.S. Senate.
We understand the polls say Nelson's race in 2012 - if he decides to undertake it - will be brutal and ugly, no matter what.
It will also be incredibly expensive. In a year when the campaign war chests of both major parties will be stuffed full of money from who knows where, campaign spending will be tighter than ever. For a Republican party that increasingly looks to be in an ugly political financing situation nationally, doing something that would likely waste a huge amount of money, while not generating a certain or even likely win isn't a fiscally responsible investment of campaign contributions - whether from the party directly, or those supporting the GOP line.
If the Republican leaders are truly fiscally responsible, they'll let Heineman go, and let the Democrats slug it out against current Nebraska Attorney General - and likely GOP nominee - Jon Bruning.
To be or not to be? We bet Democrats and Republicans alike will find out before mid-January.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Friday Funday: Discovering Our Own Holiday Miracle
It seems to happen to a greater or lesser extent every year. The holiday season sneaks up on all of us, and then suddenly it's here. This past year seemed to zip by (Check your calendar - it's December), and the insanity that appears in the news everyday doesn't always carry much with it in the way of holiday spirit.
Look at the world right now: the GOP primary resembles nothing so much as some new, twisted reality show, like something they'd air on Fox. Maybe they could call it, "The Ego Factor." Yes, the economy appears to be recovering slightly - but we're not sure how long that'll last.
The bankruptcy of American Airlines also has us a bit down. While it doesn't appear that it'll disrupt holiday travel, the malfeasance of most of the airline's executives certainly may disrupt the jobs and lives of many of its employees in the new year. Sadly, most executives at American - who are responsible for running the airline into the ground - won't likely suffer much at all.
With all the bad news, we were so glad yesterday when a commentary talking about World AIDS Day - which was Thursday - caught our eye.
The piece was written by Bono - yes, the lead singer of U2 and worldwide rock star. He's also the founder and a driving force behind two of the most influential advocacy and aid groups in the battle against AIDS, namely ONE, and the (Product)RED campaign.
Just over a decade ago, the AIDS epidemic was still astoundingly appalling. Two million people worldwide died of the disease, with more deaths every year. Three million more people were becoming newly infected with AIDS everyday.
As Bono pointed out in his commentary, those numbers have DRASTICALLY changed over the last decade. More than six million people worldwide now take anti-retorviral drugs - and scientists think they're on the edge of a long-term solution.
What gave us the most hope though, was how that change over the last decade happened.
"How did we get here," Bono wrote. "America led. I mean really led."
"...It’s a tale of strange bedfellows: the gay community, evangelicals and scruffy student activists in a weird sort of harmony; military men calling AIDS in Africa a national security issue; the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee and John Kerry in lock step with Bill Frist and Rick Santorum; Jesse Helms, teary-eyed, arriving by walker to pledge support from the right; the big man, Patrick Leahy, offering to punch out a cranky Congressional appropriator; Jeffrey Sachs, George Soros and Bill Gates, backing the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; Rupert Murdoch (yes, him) offering the covers of the News Corporation.
Also: a conservative president, George W. Bush, leading the largest ever response to the pandemic; the same Mr. Bush banging his desk when I complained that the drugs weren’t getting there fast enough, me apologizing to Mr. Bush when they did; Bill Clinton, arm-twisting drug companies to drop their prices; Hillary Rodham Clinton, making it policy to eradicate the transmission of H.I.V. from mother to child; President Obama, who is expected to make a game changing announcement this World AIDS Day to finish what his predecessors started — the beginning of the end of AIDS.
And then there were the everyday, every-stripe Americans. Like a tattooed trucker I met off I-80 in Iowa who, when he heard how many African truck drivers were infected with H.I.V., told me he’d go and drive the pills there himself.
Thanks to them, America led. Really led."
For all the turkeys we each have to deal with in our lives each day, its still incredibly worthwhile to realize: when we ALL work together, REALLY work together, the kinds of things we can accomplish together are miraculous.
If we can get a hold on AIDS in just a couple decades, imagine what we could do for our government - and for ourselves - if we worked together and gave our all for each other.
It may feel like winter outside, but for us, hope springs eternal.
Look at the world right now: the GOP primary resembles nothing so much as some new, twisted reality show, like something they'd air on Fox. Maybe they could call it, "The Ego Factor." Yes, the economy appears to be recovering slightly - but we're not sure how long that'll last.
The bankruptcy of American Airlines also has us a bit down. While it doesn't appear that it'll disrupt holiday travel, the malfeasance of most of the airline's executives certainly may disrupt the jobs and lives of many of its employees in the new year. Sadly, most executives at American - who are responsible for running the airline into the ground - won't likely suffer much at all.
With all the bad news, we were so glad yesterday when a commentary talking about World AIDS Day - which was Thursday - caught our eye.
The piece was written by Bono - yes, the lead singer of U2 and worldwide rock star. He's also the founder and a driving force behind two of the most influential advocacy and aid groups in the battle against AIDS, namely ONE, and the (Product)RED campaign.
Just over a decade ago, the AIDS epidemic was still astoundingly appalling. Two million people worldwide died of the disease, with more deaths every year. Three million more people were becoming newly infected with AIDS everyday.
As Bono pointed out in his commentary, those numbers have DRASTICALLY changed over the last decade. More than six million people worldwide now take anti-retorviral drugs - and scientists think they're on the edge of a long-term solution.
What gave us the most hope though, was how that change over the last decade happened.
"How did we get here," Bono wrote. "America led. I mean really led."
"...It’s a tale of strange bedfellows: the gay community, evangelicals and scruffy student activists in a weird sort of harmony; military men calling AIDS in Africa a national security issue; the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee and John Kerry in lock step with Bill Frist and Rick Santorum; Jesse Helms, teary-eyed, arriving by walker to pledge support from the right; the big man, Patrick Leahy, offering to punch out a cranky Congressional appropriator; Jeffrey Sachs, George Soros and Bill Gates, backing the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; Rupert Murdoch (yes, him) offering the covers of the News Corporation.
Also: a conservative president, George W. Bush, leading the largest ever response to the pandemic; the same Mr. Bush banging his desk when I complained that the drugs weren’t getting there fast enough, me apologizing to Mr. Bush when they did; Bill Clinton, arm-twisting drug companies to drop their prices; Hillary Rodham Clinton, making it policy to eradicate the transmission of H.I.V. from mother to child; President Obama, who is expected to make a game changing announcement this World AIDS Day to finish what his predecessors started — the beginning of the end of AIDS.
And then there were the everyday, every-stripe Americans. Like a tattooed trucker I met off I-80 in Iowa who, when he heard how many African truck drivers were infected with H.I.V., told me he’d go and drive the pills there himself.
Thanks to them, America led. Really led."
For all the turkeys we each have to deal with in our lives each day, its still incredibly worthwhile to realize: when we ALL work together, REALLY work together, the kinds of things we can accomplish together are miraculous.
If we can get a hold on AIDS in just a couple decades, imagine what we could do for our government - and for ourselves - if we worked together and gave our all for each other.
It may feel like winter outside, but for us, hope springs eternal.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Terminal Stupidity
There's a phrase that has been brought up in our internal discussions in the past - gingerly and with some discomfort - that originated with our webmaster. The phrase is "terminal stupidity", a pairing of words that has a sad and unusual validity for what's been happening over the last year in regards to Nebraska's death penalty.
In case you've missed the series of events we've linked to this year, the short version goes something like this: The State of Nebraska tried to purchase - on the cheap - the necessary chemicals to enact the state's current death penalty, beginning back in January. In April, the foreign company that Nebraska made the agreement with changed their minds, and decided they would not sell sodium thiopental for use in executions any more. In May, the Nebraska Supreme Court got involved, along with the U.S. DEA - who found out the State of Nebraska didn't have a legitimate license to import sodium thiopental.
This fall, the State of Nebraska got the proper license and announced they'd made a new agreement to purchase the drug from a company in Switzerland. However, the company recently discovered the State of Nebraska tried to obtain the drug deceitfully - so they are now demanding its return. Now the state of Nebraska is being dragged before the State Supreme Court - again - and Jon Bruning, Nebraska's Attorney General, is being asked to recuse himself from the case because of the state's previous reckless behavior on this issue.
In short, the state of Nebraska has not taken seriously its responsibility in using the death penalty - a concept we find HIGHLY offensive.
We do not take the topic of ending a life early - including through the use of the death penalty - as a frivolous or lightweight topic. That's why we even have difficulty with the phrase, "terminal stupidity".
As our staffer has defined it, "terminal stupidity" is a combination of three factors: lack of knowledge, lack of concern, and lack of wisdom. It's the, "I don't know, I don't care, and I don't have to care" combination that can endanger the lives of individuals or those around them.
Sadly, in this case, the phrase oddly fits.
The chain of lies and malfeasance on the death penalty in Nebraska this year has been well documented, both by Nebraska media organizations like the Omaha World-Herald and the Lincoln Journal Star, as well as national and international news organizations, like the Washington Post, and the International Business Times.
The basic facts of the matter are these: the death penalty should NEVER be used lightly. The chances that any government may kill an innocent person are well-known - and are the primary reason why many other countries around the world have banned the death penalty.
In the case of Nebraska, it is obvious that the state not only mishandled its responsibilities once, but it fumbled its authority at least twice this year. As the person holding the top legal responsibility in Nebraska for carrying out legal orders of the state, Attorney General Bruning failed - spectacularly - in using his authority. So did Governor Heineman, as well as officials in the Nebraska Department of Corrections.
That the state of Nebraska now wants to keep the illegally obtained sodium thiopental - and use it to kill those sentenced to death under Nebraska law - only serves to make the situation worse.
Those who have created this completely inexcusable chain of failures have jabbed every Nebraskan - and Americans in general - in the backside with their uneducated, ignorant, and thoughtless behavior. Frankly, they have no right to take a life with their ill-gotten gains.
We, however, have the right to call them what they have proven themselves to be, in this case: terminally stupid.
We only hope that no one dies as a result of their total disrespect for ethics and the law.
In case you've missed the series of events we've linked to this year, the short version goes something like this: The State of Nebraska tried to purchase - on the cheap - the necessary chemicals to enact the state's current death penalty, beginning back in January. In April, the foreign company that Nebraska made the agreement with changed their minds, and decided they would not sell sodium thiopental for use in executions any more. In May, the Nebraska Supreme Court got involved, along with the U.S. DEA - who found out the State of Nebraska didn't have a legitimate license to import sodium thiopental.
This fall, the State of Nebraska got the proper license and announced they'd made a new agreement to purchase the drug from a company in Switzerland. However, the company recently discovered the State of Nebraska tried to obtain the drug deceitfully - so they are now demanding its return. Now the state of Nebraska is being dragged before the State Supreme Court - again - and Jon Bruning, Nebraska's Attorney General, is being asked to recuse himself from the case because of the state's previous reckless behavior on this issue.
In short, the state of Nebraska has not taken seriously its responsibility in using the death penalty - a concept we find HIGHLY offensive.
We do not take the topic of ending a life early - including through the use of the death penalty - as a frivolous or lightweight topic. That's why we even have difficulty with the phrase, "terminal stupidity".
As our staffer has defined it, "terminal stupidity" is a combination of three factors: lack of knowledge, lack of concern, and lack of wisdom. It's the, "I don't know, I don't care, and I don't have to care" combination that can endanger the lives of individuals or those around them.
Sadly, in this case, the phrase oddly fits.
The chain of lies and malfeasance on the death penalty in Nebraska this year has been well documented, both by Nebraska media organizations like the Omaha World-Herald and the Lincoln Journal Star, as well as national and international news organizations, like the Washington Post, and the International Business Times.
The basic facts of the matter are these: the death penalty should NEVER be used lightly. The chances that any government may kill an innocent person are well-known - and are the primary reason why many other countries around the world have banned the death penalty.
In the case of Nebraska, it is obvious that the state not only mishandled its responsibilities once, but it fumbled its authority at least twice this year. As the person holding the top legal responsibility in Nebraska for carrying out legal orders of the state, Attorney General Bruning failed - spectacularly - in using his authority. So did Governor Heineman, as well as officials in the Nebraska Department of Corrections.
That the state of Nebraska now wants to keep the illegally obtained sodium thiopental - and use it to kill those sentenced to death under Nebraska law - only serves to make the situation worse.
Those who have created this completely inexcusable chain of failures have jabbed every Nebraskan - and Americans in general - in the backside with their uneducated, ignorant, and thoughtless behavior. Frankly, they have no right to take a life with their ill-gotten gains.
We, however, have the right to call them what they have proven themselves to be, in this case: terminally stupid.
We only hope that no one dies as a result of their total disrespect for ethics and the law.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Ignorance Is Not Bliss
No matter how many times we have discussions with readers, colleagues, friends - and even people we just stumble into conversation with at the store - we continue to be amazed at how little so many Americans know about what's going on in their world today.
We're aware that it's not exactly easy for many folks to keep up with news that's actually important and will impact their lives. In a world where so many Americans have multiple part-time jobs, multiple family members to take care of, and the main media focus is on everything from Husker football to dying comedians - but not nearly enough on real news - staying informed isn't always easy. Being a watchful citizen requires reading, learning, listening - and NOT watching Fox News.
You may have missed the latest study from Fairleigh Dickinson University, released last week, which proves that once again, people who watch Fox News are not only misinformed, but are actually LESS informed than people who read or watch no news at all. While this poll was conducted exclusively in New Jersey, it's only one of a handful of polls that have proven that FNC, while great at propaganda and television graphics, is almost criminally bad at delivering honest factual information.
One of the key successes of President Obama's first term has been the Affordable Care Act, Already, millions of young American adults who didn't have health insurance are now covered. So "ObamaCare" has already proven a success in some ways - though you wouldn't know it if you watch Fox or listen to the screamers on right-wing radio.
Thankfully, our friend, journalist Rick Ungar, recently took a good look at at a real, live success in keeping health care costs low that uses some organizational structures similar to those in the ACA - what many on the right call, "Obamacare."
As Rick points out in Forbes, in Grand Junction, Colorado, over the last thirty years, physicians, the community, and a not-for-profit insurance company have worked together to create an original - and amazingly effective health care delivery system.
Chronic diseases are way down in Grand Junction, while coverage for low-income and Medicaid participants is around 88 percent - more than double what it is in all of Western Colorado. Costs are kept down for everyone, while doctors and medical centers are kept in line not by bigger government, but by their peers. Meanwhile, doctors, nurses, and other medical staff still earn very healthy incomes.
The Grand Junction experiment proves several things - including the fact that "consumer-driven health care", and fee for service care simply don't work.
It also proves that on contentious issues, solutions that benefit everyone without costing too much can be found - IF those involved are willing to commit to fixing the problems and are ready to compromise.
Of course, it helps to be as informed and educated as possible.
We recommend you start by turning off Fox News and seeking factual information elsewhere. Anywhere.
We're aware that it's not exactly easy for many folks to keep up with news that's actually important and will impact their lives. In a world where so many Americans have multiple part-time jobs, multiple family members to take care of, and the main media focus is on everything from Husker football to dying comedians - but not nearly enough on real news - staying informed isn't always easy. Being a watchful citizen requires reading, learning, listening - and NOT watching Fox News.
You may have missed the latest study from Fairleigh Dickinson University, released last week, which proves that once again, people who watch Fox News are not only misinformed, but are actually LESS informed than people who read or watch no news at all. While this poll was conducted exclusively in New Jersey, it's only one of a handful of polls that have proven that FNC, while great at propaganda and television graphics, is almost criminally bad at delivering honest factual information.
One of the key successes of President Obama's first term has been the Affordable Care Act, Already, millions of young American adults who didn't have health insurance are now covered. So "ObamaCare" has already proven a success in some ways - though you wouldn't know it if you watch Fox or listen to the screamers on right-wing radio.
Thankfully, our friend, journalist Rick Ungar, recently took a good look at at a real, live success in keeping health care costs low that uses some organizational structures similar to those in the ACA - what many on the right call, "Obamacare."
As Rick points out in Forbes, in Grand Junction, Colorado, over the last thirty years, physicians, the community, and a not-for-profit insurance company have worked together to create an original - and amazingly effective health care delivery system.
Chronic diseases are way down in Grand Junction, while coverage for low-income and Medicaid participants is around 88 percent - more than double what it is in all of Western Colorado. Costs are kept down for everyone, while doctors and medical centers are kept in line not by bigger government, but by their peers. Meanwhile, doctors, nurses, and other medical staff still earn very healthy incomes.
The Grand Junction experiment proves several things - including the fact that "consumer-driven health care", and fee for service care simply don't work.
It also proves that on contentious issues, solutions that benefit everyone without costing too much can be found - IF those involved are willing to commit to fixing the problems and are ready to compromise.
Of course, it helps to be as informed and educated as possible.
We recommend you start by turning off Fox News and seeking factual information elsewhere. Anywhere.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Time To Ditch The Leftovers
If you're like many Americans - including some of our staff - the last of your Thanksgiving leftovers may still be taking up a lot of space in your refrigerator or freezer. Depending on what you do with them, leftovers can be quite tasty, when served as turkey pot pie, for example.
The problem some folks have however, is knowing when to cut their comestible losses and get rid of leftovers that have been around too long.
For the Republican Party, they keep opening their political icebox - but the stench isn't going away.
In fact, Monday afternoon, the stench of the former prime choice Herman Cain gained a new aroma of failure, as a Georgia woman came forward to accuse Cain of a thirteen year affair. For Cain, when you add this scandal to the host of gaffes and other sexual misconduct allegations, his political goose is far more than cooked.
We're aware that for some politicians, affairs may not seem like a big deal these days. After all, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich not only is known to have had sexual affairs - he even left one of his spouses while while she was undergoing cancer treatment, to marry his next wife.
Speaking of Newt and leftovers, we keep thinking Mr. Gingrich is the Republican Party's version of the embarrassingly old jar of jelly or can of vegetables that too many of us have buried in the back of our food pantries. Newt's claims about being a historian expired back in 1995, when Washington Monthly exposed him to be a factually challenged student of history. Despite his current poll numbers and endorsements, his current campaign has failed to build any serious infrastructure and is dangerously empty. Like a nearly empty pie shell rotting in the fridge, Newt's campaign only looks good until you put some pressure on it - then it crumbles.
Not to be outdone by Cain or Gingrich, the man who is still the likely nominee for the GOP in 2012, Mitt Romney, got strung up by four minutes of his own words on Monday. Admittedly, the new campaign mini-movie, 'Mitt v Mitt' is a creation of the Democratic Party. Still, there are plenty of other websites where the former governor's harsh words and past positions are shown to strongly contradict his own current positions. In short, Mitt's already turned on himself - not a good sign for the GOP's most likely dish.
We realize there are more potential Presidential candidates for the GOP than just Romney, Gingrich, and Cain. That said, the strong likelihood is that one of those three will be the main political course the Republican Party serves up in next year's presidential contest.
Democrats shouldn't be claiming their political kitchen is spotless either - especially in light of the widening scandal at the Federal Reserve. If this disgusting display of mismangement had been contained to President Bush's adminstration and ended when President Obama took office, we could say this was simply another example of Republican hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, this mess at the Fed appears to have begun under Bush's people, and continued into the Obama administration - where it seems that the policy recipes for secrecy of Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner have grown far worse than simply growing stale.
After looking at the full menu of what's currently on political display, we have no doubt the appetites of some Americans may be curbed for a short time - a good thing, in light of the way too many of us stuffed ourselves this year.
The problem some folks have however, is knowing when to cut their comestible losses and get rid of leftovers that have been around too long.
For the Republican Party, they keep opening their political icebox - but the stench isn't going away.
In fact, Monday afternoon, the stench of the former prime choice Herman Cain gained a new aroma of failure, as a Georgia woman came forward to accuse Cain of a thirteen year affair. For Cain, when you add this scandal to the host of gaffes and other sexual misconduct allegations, his political goose is far more than cooked.
We're aware that for some politicians, affairs may not seem like a big deal these days. After all, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich not only is known to have had sexual affairs - he even left one of his spouses while while she was undergoing cancer treatment, to marry his next wife.
Speaking of Newt and leftovers, we keep thinking Mr. Gingrich is the Republican Party's version of the embarrassingly old jar of jelly or can of vegetables that too many of us have buried in the back of our food pantries. Newt's claims about being a historian expired back in 1995, when Washington Monthly exposed him to be a factually challenged student of history. Despite his current poll numbers and endorsements, his current campaign has failed to build any serious infrastructure and is dangerously empty. Like a nearly empty pie shell rotting in the fridge, Newt's campaign only looks good until you put some pressure on it - then it crumbles.
Not to be outdone by Cain or Gingrich, the man who is still the likely nominee for the GOP in 2012, Mitt Romney, got strung up by four minutes of his own words on Monday. Admittedly, the new campaign mini-movie, 'Mitt v Mitt' is a creation of the Democratic Party. Still, there are plenty of other websites where the former governor's harsh words and past positions are shown to strongly contradict his own current positions. In short, Mitt's already turned on himself - not a good sign for the GOP's most likely dish.
We realize there are more potential Presidential candidates for the GOP than just Romney, Gingrich, and Cain. That said, the strong likelihood is that one of those three will be the main political course the Republican Party serves up in next year's presidential contest.
Democrats shouldn't be claiming their political kitchen is spotless either - especially in light of the widening scandal at the Federal Reserve. If this disgusting display of mismangement had been contained to President Bush's adminstration and ended when President Obama took office, we could say this was simply another example of Republican hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, this mess at the Fed appears to have begun under Bush's people, and continued into the Obama administration - where it seems that the policy recipes for secrecy of Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner have grown far worse than simply growing stale.
After looking at the full menu of what's currently on political display, we have no doubt the appetites of some Americans may be curbed for a short time - a good thing, in light of the way too many of us stuffed ourselves this year.
Monday, November 28, 2011
While You Were Out... Cold...
After a few days off, it's good to get back in the swing of things - especially if some of that time off involved avoiding certain people swinging at each other and spraying pepper spray. We're not just talking about the cops involved in attacking students and others in the Occupy movement.
Yes, the retail melees among holiday shoppers heated up while we were away, and the Republican party's slugfest to find the "Not Mitt Romney" candidate also continued - though we think the GOP may be punch drunk as Newt Gingrich is now the current flavor of the month.
Attacks on and evictions of Occupy protests have also continued in a confusing and contradictory fashion. And speaking of confused, Europe still hasn't figured out what to do about its collective finances. In the Middle East, Yemen's President Saleh finally resigned, while the second revolution in a year in Egypt sprang up in Tarhir Square, on the edge of their first post-Mubarak election.
Finally, the Congressional Supercommittee proved they were not-so-super after all, as they admitted they could not come up with a budget compromise. This was an outcome many people - including us - had been quietly expecting, the closer the deadline approached.
The failure of the not-so-supercommittee - which was primarily due to Republican members not willing to compromise - was actually one of the first things that occurred in our absence. It may have landed one of the strongest political punches of anything that happened over the Thanksgiving break.
As Ezra Klein, who kindly kept working over the holiday break, pointed out last week, the failure of the supercommittee to come to an agreement now forces Republicans to face not just one but two sets of fiscal triggers set to go off a year from now.
The first trigger happens on January 1, 2013, when the Bush tax cuts run out, returning tax rates on all Americans to their Clinton-era levels - effectively a $3.8 trillion boost to our nation's finances. The second trigger - caused by the failure of the supercommittee - will trigger $1.2 trillion dollars in cuts, mostly from military spending.
What that ends up delivering to Americans is massively progressive legislation that will reduce the U.S. deficit, while showcasing the failure of hard-line extremists on the right - exactly at the beginning of the 2012 election.
To make matters worse for intransigent Republicans, the President is urging a vote this week by Congress to extend the payroll tax cut for workers and for extension of federal unemployment benefits. Many in the 1% strongly support extending both benefits - because without them, those of us in 99% will stop spending partway through the holiday season, and certainly after January 1. If we in the 99% don't spend, many in the 1% may be joining the rest of us in a tight financial situation far sooner than they'd like.
Congressional Republicans have a choice these next two weeks: vote in favor of a tax cut, along with unemployment benefits, and maybe their constituents won't put coal in the stockings of those congresspersons. Or they could vote against a tax cut and UI benefits - and be Scrooges to 100% of Americans.
No matter what happens, we're pretty sure many Republicans - especially those on the supercommittee - aren't going to end up on Santa's "Good" list this year.
Yes, the retail melees among holiday shoppers heated up while we were away, and the Republican party's slugfest to find the "Not Mitt Romney" candidate also continued - though we think the GOP may be punch drunk as Newt Gingrich is now the current flavor of the month.
Attacks on and evictions of Occupy protests have also continued in a confusing and contradictory fashion. And speaking of confused, Europe still hasn't figured out what to do about its collective finances. In the Middle East, Yemen's President Saleh finally resigned, while the second revolution in a year in Egypt sprang up in Tarhir Square, on the edge of their first post-Mubarak election.
Finally, the Congressional Supercommittee proved they were not-so-super after all, as they admitted they could not come up with a budget compromise. This was an outcome many people - including us - had been quietly expecting, the closer the deadline approached.
The failure of the not-so-supercommittee - which was primarily due to Republican members not willing to compromise - was actually one of the first things that occurred in our absence. It may have landed one of the strongest political punches of anything that happened over the Thanksgiving break.
As Ezra Klein, who kindly kept working over the holiday break, pointed out last week, the failure of the supercommittee to come to an agreement now forces Republicans to face not just one but two sets of fiscal triggers set to go off a year from now.
The first trigger happens on January 1, 2013, when the Bush tax cuts run out, returning tax rates on all Americans to their Clinton-era levels - effectively a $3.8 trillion boost to our nation's finances. The second trigger - caused by the failure of the supercommittee - will trigger $1.2 trillion dollars in cuts, mostly from military spending.
What that ends up delivering to Americans is massively progressive legislation that will reduce the U.S. deficit, while showcasing the failure of hard-line extremists on the right - exactly at the beginning of the 2012 election.
To make matters worse for intransigent Republicans, the President is urging a vote this week by Congress to extend the payroll tax cut for workers and for extension of federal unemployment benefits. Many in the 1% strongly support extending both benefits - because without them, those of us in 99% will stop spending partway through the holiday season, and certainly after January 1. If we in the 99% don't spend, many in the 1% may be joining the rest of us in a tight financial situation far sooner than they'd like.
Congressional Republicans have a choice these next two weeks: vote in favor of a tax cut, along with unemployment benefits, and maybe their constituents won't put coal in the stockings of those congresspersons. Or they could vote against a tax cut and UI benefits - and be Scrooges to 100% of Americans.
No matter what happens, we're pretty sure many Republicans - especially those on the supercommittee - aren't going to end up on Santa's "Good" list this year.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Friday Funday: Reasons For Thanks
As we mentioned earlier this week, we are indeed taking a few days away from publication for the Thanksgiving holiday here in the U.S. There WILL be new cartoons next week, so we'll publish a special pre-Thanksgiving edition next week on Wednesday - including the annual Thanksgiving cartoon, and Paul's Iowa-Nebraska Prediction toon.
For the most part, we're thankful to have a chance to take a break next week. The year, so far, has been anything but slow, both for the personal lives of our staff members, and for the subjects we've covered.
Thursday's Occupy march on Manhattan was a perfect example of how the subjects we've covered this year have grown, changed, and evolved in unexpected ways.
The Republican Presidential nomination trail hasn't been what we thought it would be either. To say it's been colorful is an understatement; in many ways, it's been more like a circus.
The economic roller coaster that the world has been strapped into has also been a wild ride for us as members of the media, while the rapid fire change of governments throughout Europe and the Middle East this year has left most news gatherers scrambling to keep up.
Many of the subjects we've been been covering this year aren't likely to reach a conclusion before the new year. Most of the 2012 political races haven't even really started yet - and if you think Wall Street and the big banks are done trying to stick you with hidden charges, think again. The Keystone pipeline issue is also far from settled, and we highly doubt the battle over taxes and deficits will be solved by the supercommittee before next Wednesday.
On a personal note, this year, our staff has visited members of the military with other cartoonists, moved cross-country at least three times, and learned to chase a toddler around, all in multiple locales in the U.S.
In short, it's been a generally positive year for the Daily Felltoon group, one that has given us a great deal to be thankful for.
Next week, whether you're celebrating with a group of friends or with family at home, or if you're going on the road to a distant celebration, we hope that you continue to count The Daily Felltoon as one of the things you're thankful for.
We're certainly thankful for your continued readership.
Enjoy the week - and have a happy Thanksgiving.
For the most part, we're thankful to have a chance to take a break next week. The year, so far, has been anything but slow, both for the personal lives of our staff members, and for the subjects we've covered.
Thursday's Occupy march on Manhattan was a perfect example of how the subjects we've covered this year have grown, changed, and evolved in unexpected ways.
The Republican Presidential nomination trail hasn't been what we thought it would be either. To say it's been colorful is an understatement; in many ways, it's been more like a circus.
The economic roller coaster that the world has been strapped into has also been a wild ride for us as members of the media, while the rapid fire change of governments throughout Europe and the Middle East this year has left most news gatherers scrambling to keep up.
Many of the subjects we've been been covering this year aren't likely to reach a conclusion before the new year. Most of the 2012 political races haven't even really started yet - and if you think Wall Street and the big banks are done trying to stick you with hidden charges, think again. The Keystone pipeline issue is also far from settled, and we highly doubt the battle over taxes and deficits will be solved by the supercommittee before next Wednesday.
On a personal note, this year, our staff has visited members of the military with other cartoonists, moved cross-country at least three times, and learned to chase a toddler around, all in multiple locales in the U.S.
In short, it's been a generally positive year for the Daily Felltoon group, one that has given us a great deal to be thankful for.
Next week, whether you're celebrating with a group of friends or with family at home, or if you're going on the road to a distant celebration, we hope that you continue to count The Daily Felltoon as one of the things you're thankful for.
We're certainly thankful for your continued readership.
Enjoy the week - and have a happy Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The Root Of The Problem
Over a week ago now, the sordid and horrible story of former Penn State Assistant Coach Jerry Sandusky and the kids that he is charged with sexually assaulting, blasted its way into the headlines. While we've mentioned it a few times, we'd hoped that by now, the facts of the case would have come further into focus, so that we could discuss this incredibly hurtful, shameful, twisted and far-reaching subject with a better knowledge of the facts.
After a little more than a week, we can't hold our silence on this issue any longer. Those individuals at Penn State who were aware of what was going on already held their own silence on this issue for years.
The allegations in the indictment are appalling enough - and you may read the indictment yourself, if you wish, though be prepared, as the content is explicit. What's been more appalling in this story, however, are the new discoveries every day, each more shocking and horrible in its own way than the one before.
Did you know the incidents with Sandusky appear to go back to the 1990s - but that similar incidents are being alleged at Penn State as far back as the 1970s? Did you know that a major market radio sportstalker published and discussed the story back in April of this year - and the major national media did nothing with it? Even the previous conduct of Sandusky's lawyer, on the issue of sex with minors, is appalling.
There are more details coming out every day, and the rumors associated with this story are even worse. Furthermore, the rumors not only appear to be spreading in all directions, but an astounding number of them appear to be panning out as true, upon further investigation.
What burrows into our hearts and minds most about this entire story isn't what happened to the kids, surprisingly - though that tears us up and sickens us greatly.
No, the worst part, to us, is that time and time and time again, adults failed to stand up, to step up, to do whatever it took to stop what was going on.
As we mentioned yesterday, we're certain the motivations for some of those who knew and did nothing were centered around protecting the brand of Penn State - including and especially the money their football team provides to the school and the community of State College, Pennsylvania.
In the broad experience of our staff, we've worked with college teams, major politicians, and major corporations in industries from drug manufacturing to retail. We're well aware how far reaching and endemic some forms of corruption are today - especially when dealing with a fiscal situation of the magnitude involved at Penn State.
At the heart of this entire disaster seems to be the nearly pathological need for those involved to remain silent, not to dig up any more trouble, not to stop the growth of the problem.
There is far too much of that kind of thing going on in our society today.
Sometimes, even when it comes to those that others consider legends and heroes, we simply have to be willing cut them off at the knees, if that's what it takes to do the right thing.
Allowing this kind of cancer to grow to this size is simply inexcusable.
After a little more than a week, we can't hold our silence on this issue any longer. Those individuals at Penn State who were aware of what was going on already held their own silence on this issue for years.
The allegations in the indictment are appalling enough - and you may read the indictment yourself, if you wish, though be prepared, as the content is explicit. What's been more appalling in this story, however, are the new discoveries every day, each more shocking and horrible in its own way than the one before.
Did you know the incidents with Sandusky appear to go back to the 1990s - but that similar incidents are being alleged at Penn State as far back as the 1970s? Did you know that a major market radio sportstalker published and discussed the story back in April of this year - and the major national media did nothing with it? Even the previous conduct of Sandusky's lawyer, on the issue of sex with minors, is appalling.
There are more details coming out every day, and the rumors associated with this story are even worse. Furthermore, the rumors not only appear to be spreading in all directions, but an astounding number of them appear to be panning out as true, upon further investigation.
What burrows into our hearts and minds most about this entire story isn't what happened to the kids, surprisingly - though that tears us up and sickens us greatly.
No, the worst part, to us, is that time and time and time again, adults failed to stand up, to step up, to do whatever it took to stop what was going on.
As we mentioned yesterday, we're certain the motivations for some of those who knew and did nothing were centered around protecting the brand of Penn State - including and especially the money their football team provides to the school and the community of State College, Pennsylvania.
In the broad experience of our staff, we've worked with college teams, major politicians, and major corporations in industries from drug manufacturing to retail. We're well aware how far reaching and endemic some forms of corruption are today - especially when dealing with a fiscal situation of the magnitude involved at Penn State.
At the heart of this entire disaster seems to be the nearly pathological need for those involved to remain silent, not to dig up any more trouble, not to stop the growth of the problem.
There is far too much of that kind of thing going on in our society today.
Sometimes, even when it comes to those that others consider legends and heroes, we simply have to be willing cut them off at the knees, if that's what it takes to do the right thing.
Allowing this kind of cancer to grow to this size is simply inexcusable.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Clearing The Court
Since it's Wednesday, and we're preparing for a holiday vacation next week, we thought we'd shoot from the top of the key, as they say in basketball, and tie multiple stories together today with one we've barely mentioned: the NBA lockout.
At first glance, these stories and the NBA lockout may seem to have little in common. From the coordinated attacks by city officials across the country on the Occupy movement, to the supercommittee meetings in DC, to the ongoing Penn State abuse disaster, to the NBA lockout, there is a common thread tying them all together - and it isn't just money.
It seems the battle between players and team owners right now is a third-grade game of whack-a-mole between multi-millionaires and multi-billionaires. To some degree, that characterization isn't completely wrong. NBA athletes usually make large sums, and owners make even more.
What the argument boils down to, though, isn't just a simple labor dispute between the team owners and the workers who actually do the work.
The problem the NBA is looking at is similar to what the supercommittee faces. In the supercommittee, the problem is that one side thinks those who have a significant amount of money should pay just a bit more in taxes, so that our entire country can benefit. The other side thinks those who have more should keep what they have - and to hell with those who already have too little.
In the NBA, the issue at hand is revenue sharing - both between the players and between teams. Every team must have a full roster and a full bench, and every team must have a full schedule of games to play. Some teams - like the L.A. Lakers, Miami Heat, and Boston Celtics - almost always make a lot of money. Meanwhile, some teams don't make as much, like the Indiana Pacers or Denver Nuggets. Without all the players and teams in the league, though, everyone loses.
However, some players and some owners aren't willing to share - much like most of the Republicans on the supercommittee.
There's another similarity, too. Like the not-so-secretly coordinated attacks on lawful and peaceful Occupy protesters that happened in many cities on Monday night, the team and league owners also appear to have been working together behind the scenes, while the players played by the rules and bargained through their union.
When league president David Stern issued an ultimatum, thinking the league would force the hand of the players' union, the union disbanded - allowing the players to attack the league and teams individually through their own lawsuits. Now the league is far more likely to have to fend off many smaller, individual legal assaults that can potentially do more damage. Think of guerrilla warfare instead of traditional fighting, where those who have must protect what they see as theirs from many different directions, instead of from a single enemy.
At Penn State, it now appears that current Assistant Coach Mike McQueary did stop the alleged rape of a ten year old boy by then Assistant Coach Jerry Sandusky - but Penn State officials appear to have done nothing when McQueary told them. They were protecting what was their brand.
In a similar way, NBA players are more worried about their own individual brands, just as the team owners are worried about their brands. Both groups are worried more about their own interests, over all the other people in their communities who will be affected by an NBA season that doesn't look like it's going to happen.
If you can't figure it out, the single thread that ties all these things together is selfishness, at a level that would make any pro in any industry look like an amateur.
Maybe it would be better if there were a pro league for those who are blindly selfish - though we're not sure we could bring ourselves to watch that, either.
At first glance, these stories and the NBA lockout may seem to have little in common. From the coordinated attacks by city officials across the country on the Occupy movement, to the supercommittee meetings in DC, to the ongoing Penn State abuse disaster, to the NBA lockout, there is a common thread tying them all together - and it isn't just money.
It seems the battle between players and team owners right now is a third-grade game of whack-a-mole between multi-millionaires and multi-billionaires. To some degree, that characterization isn't completely wrong. NBA athletes usually make large sums, and owners make even more.
What the argument boils down to, though, isn't just a simple labor dispute between the team owners and the workers who actually do the work.
The problem the NBA is looking at is similar to what the supercommittee faces. In the supercommittee, the problem is that one side thinks those who have a significant amount of money should pay just a bit more in taxes, so that our entire country can benefit. The other side thinks those who have more should keep what they have - and to hell with those who already have too little.
In the NBA, the issue at hand is revenue sharing - both between the players and between teams. Every team must have a full roster and a full bench, and every team must have a full schedule of games to play. Some teams - like the L.A. Lakers, Miami Heat, and Boston Celtics - almost always make a lot of money. Meanwhile, some teams don't make as much, like the Indiana Pacers or Denver Nuggets. Without all the players and teams in the league, though, everyone loses.
However, some players and some owners aren't willing to share - much like most of the Republicans on the supercommittee.
There's another similarity, too. Like the not-so-secretly coordinated attacks on lawful and peaceful Occupy protesters that happened in many cities on Monday night, the team and league owners also appear to have been working together behind the scenes, while the players played by the rules and bargained through their union.
When league president David Stern issued an ultimatum, thinking the league would force the hand of the players' union, the union disbanded - allowing the players to attack the league and teams individually through their own lawsuits. Now the league is far more likely to have to fend off many smaller, individual legal assaults that can potentially do more damage. Think of guerrilla warfare instead of traditional fighting, where those who have must protect what they see as theirs from many different directions, instead of from a single enemy.
At Penn State, it now appears that current Assistant Coach Mike McQueary did stop the alleged rape of a ten year old boy by then Assistant Coach Jerry Sandusky - but Penn State officials appear to have done nothing when McQueary told them. They were protecting what was their brand.
In a similar way, NBA players are more worried about their own individual brands, just as the team owners are worried about their brands. Both groups are worried more about their own interests, over all the other people in their communities who will be affected by an NBA season that doesn't look like it's going to happen.
If you can't figure it out, the single thread that ties all these things together is selfishness, at a level that would make any pro in any industry look like an amateur.
Maybe it would be better if there were a pro league for those who are blindly selfish - though we're not sure we could bring ourselves to watch that, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)