When news surprises people - including those we know in the media - their reactions never cease to amuse us, though we're rarely amazed these days at the things that seem to catch everyone else off-guard.
For example, yesterday, late in the afternoon, Kathleen Sebelius resigned her position as Secretary of Health and Human Services. While some media organizations are pretending to be surprised, there isn't anyone we know in the national political media who is truly astonished at that outcome. Sure, the Affordable Care act exceeded its target enrollment goals with millions more Americans now having health insurance. But the disastrous initial rollout all but guaranteed Ms. Sebelius would end up resigning, once the program was back on its feet.
In another less-than-surprising move, CBS announced yesterday that Stephen Colbert would be taking over for David Letterman, once the elder-statesman of "Late Night" retires next year. However, there have been rumors that Colbert might be the replacement for Letterman for some time, especially among those of us in the national media. So, again, not too surprising.
We're also not surprised, after the Supreme Court's stupid decision in the McCutcheon case, that multibillionaires like the Koch Brothers are now trying to buy political influence all the way down to the most local level. Frankly, you might think those wealthy Koch boys would get tired of all the slobber, the way most Republican politicians suck up to them. Apparently, their very expensive suits must also be quite absorbent.
What has quietly surprised us over the last couple of weeks is that all that money - while still a huge, negative influence - hasn't quite worked out the way rich right-wing groups had planned.
In Wisconsin, the Koch Brothers and other wealthy right-wingers, through front groups with names like "Operation Prosperity" spent massive amounts of money on small, local elections - and they lost big-time. This kind of event isn't just local to Wisconsin, though, and it isn't only on the local political level.
In Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu has had rich bullies like the Koch Brothers and others throwing many millions of dollars in negative propaganda at her all year. Yet, as even a Republican-leaning poll showed this week, Sen. Landrieu has a strong lead against all three of her Republican opponents.
Apparently, we Americans still don't like ultra-wealthy outsiders pouring out piles of their money to buy our local politicians. A growing number of Americans seem to be starting to wake up to the reality that the richest .01 percent of Americans are trying to buy the government away from the other 99.99 percent of us - and we're starting to get mad again.
That Americans still seem to have fight left in them, that we seem more willing to stand up for what's right than our modern entertainment options often lead us to believe about each other? That's a very positive surprise to us, one that mirrors the kind of social courage that President Johnson and the Democratic Party displayed when they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the other equal rights actions of the 1960s.
To us, it's also a sign that Americans may indeed finally be ready to stand up and fight for the rights and freedoms that the extremists in the Republican Party today seem so hell-bent on trying to steal away.
As LBJ himself once said, and as President Obama repeated yesterday, in a celebration for the Civil Rights Act at the LBJ Library, "What the hell's the presidency for if not to fight for causes you believe in?"
Indeed, Mr. President.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Thursday, April 10, 2014
No Debate - On Gender Equality, The Right Is Wrong
While there are plenty of unsavory things about the internet these days - including the growing security issues online - it can also be a fantastic place for serious, substantive debate, among intelligent, thoughtful, and diverse groups of people.
For example, Paul Waldman, Ed Kilgore, and Jonathan Bernstein all had an excellent debate yesterday about whether - and how much - power right-wing "christian" voters have over Republican Party nominees. There has also been a very heated debate recently about race and politics in the age of Barack Obama, between Jonathan Chait and Ta-Nehisi Coates, with some great additions from writers like Jamelle Bouie. Our favorite round-up of that latter debate came Wednesday from writer Goldie Taylor on her Twitter feed.
One of the best features of being able to observe and occasionally participate in these kinds of debates among media professionals is that sometimes one individual will catch a simple problem with the main debate on the topic of the day that the rest of the legitimate media seems to have missed.
This week, the topic of gender pay equity has been dominating much of the media, thanks to two major events: The Executive Actions President Obama signed earlier this week, and the Paycheck Fairness Act bill that Republicans filibustered to death in the Senate yesterday morning. Asking the question of why, in 2014, there's still such pay inequality is a valid and legitimate question to ask - even if the only answer sometimes is because misogynist men can still sometimes abuse the women who work for them.
Not surprisingly, the well-worn, fact-checked, government data-derived, yet still debated statement that the "average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns" was dragged into the debate on this topic by President Obama. Equally unsurprising were the responses from the often misogynist right-wingers that the 77 cents figure is inaccurate, that the pay gap isn't real, or that the White House has its own gender pay gap to worry about.
The facts on the gender pay gap could settle much of this debate, if all the participants simple were willing to accept them. The 77 cent gender pay gap figure is based on hard government data, the gender pay gap is sadly all too real, and the White House also has a pay gap (that they're working to shrink). It's also true that when critics in a debate are merely shills paid by multibillionaires like the Koch Brothers to advocate against their own obvious interests, it's hard to take that kind of person seriously.
The key element in the gender pay gap discussion that struck us over the last twenty-four hours, however, was a single comment by journalist Irin Carmon, in her latest great piece at MSNBC.com about who the real losers of the equal pay debate are. Carmon inserted a little snark and a slap of reality when she asked everyone fighting over a particular corner of the debate "…question for everyone arguing over 77 cents figure: What’s the precise amount of discrimination you’re OK with?"
That simple problem that Ms. Carmon pointed out is the key: Americans today shouldn't be ok with ANY amount of discrimination in pay, for gender, race, age, or physical limitations. If a person can perform whatever job they have at an equal or better level than others in the same position, then they should at least be paid the same basic amount - period.
That so many on the political right attempt to divert any debate on gender pay inequality away from that simple fact doesn't negate its truth. It also doesn't justify unequal treament, no matter what your boss says.
For example, Paul Waldman, Ed Kilgore, and Jonathan Bernstein all had an excellent debate yesterday about whether - and how much - power right-wing "christian" voters have over Republican Party nominees. There has also been a very heated debate recently about race and politics in the age of Barack Obama, between Jonathan Chait and Ta-Nehisi Coates, with some great additions from writers like Jamelle Bouie. Our favorite round-up of that latter debate came Wednesday from writer Goldie Taylor on her Twitter feed.
One of the best features of being able to observe and occasionally participate in these kinds of debates among media professionals is that sometimes one individual will catch a simple problem with the main debate on the topic of the day that the rest of the legitimate media seems to have missed.
This week, the topic of gender pay equity has been dominating much of the media, thanks to two major events: The Executive Actions President Obama signed earlier this week, and the Paycheck Fairness Act bill that Republicans filibustered to death in the Senate yesterday morning. Asking the question of why, in 2014, there's still such pay inequality is a valid and legitimate question to ask - even if the only answer sometimes is because misogynist men can still sometimes abuse the women who work for them.
Not surprisingly, the well-worn, fact-checked, government data-derived, yet still debated statement that the "average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns" was dragged into the debate on this topic by President Obama. Equally unsurprising were the responses from the often misogynist right-wingers that the 77 cents figure is inaccurate, that the pay gap isn't real, or that the White House has its own gender pay gap to worry about.
The facts on the gender pay gap could settle much of this debate, if all the participants simple were willing to accept them. The 77 cent gender pay gap figure is based on hard government data, the gender pay gap is sadly all too real, and the White House also has a pay gap (that they're working to shrink). It's also true that when critics in a debate are merely shills paid by multibillionaires like the Koch Brothers to advocate against their own obvious interests, it's hard to take that kind of person seriously.
The key element in the gender pay gap discussion that struck us over the last twenty-four hours, however, was a single comment by journalist Irin Carmon, in her latest great piece at MSNBC.com about who the real losers of the equal pay debate are. Carmon inserted a little snark and a slap of reality when she asked everyone fighting over a particular corner of the debate "…question for everyone arguing over 77 cents figure: What’s the precise amount of discrimination you’re OK with?"
That simple problem that Ms. Carmon pointed out is the key: Americans today shouldn't be ok with ANY amount of discrimination in pay, for gender, race, age, or physical limitations. If a person can perform whatever job they have at an equal or better level than others in the same position, then they should at least be paid the same basic amount - period.
That so many on the political right attempt to divert any debate on gender pay inequality away from that simple fact doesn't negate its truth. It also doesn't justify unequal treament, no matter what your boss says.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Running Out Of Excuses
College sports is a running theme for millions of Americans this week, and for some of our staff too. The week began with both the men's and women's NCAA basketball championships and several collegiate "Spring Game" scrimmages are set for this next weekend - including the annual Red-White game for the Nebraska Cornhusker football team.
For us, the experience of college sports is a bit different, as multiple members of our staff have had long associations with both college education and college sports. Our Editor-In-Chief, namesake, and cartoonist Paul Fell has been both college professor and college football player, while our writing staff includes the former Executive Producer of the Husker Sports Radio Network. Paul's long-running HuskerNutz cartoon series has also long mocked and celebrated the peculiar nature of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's unusual fans.
In short, we have some significant collective experience in professional media, athletics, and education at the collegiate level.
That's why, to some degree, while we were disgusted and dismayed at the stories coming out of the NCAA men's basketball tournament this year - about the coach's $350-thousand-plus bonuses, while some students complain of going hungry. We've also been cheered by the recent efforts by Kain Coulter and the Northwestern University football team to unionize.
The realities of liberty seem to finally be running down the cartel of the NCAA.
One of our favorite reporters on politics and sports, Dave Zirin of The Nation, has been covering the death spiral of the NCAA closely. If Zirin's dissection of the UConn Huskies men's basketball team on Tuesday didn't convince you there are massive problems with college sports that the NCAA is not only ignoring but encouraging, your problems might be deeper than facts can help.
From UConn's abysmal 8% graduation rate for their student athletes, and UConn's budget deficits and tuition hikes facing their students, to the coach's and network's million and billion dollar paydays, to the NCAA regulations that keep student athletes from even being able to accept meals at times - Zirin is right when he calls top college athletics today 'The Real Hunger Games.'
As Zirin also noted earlier this year, the NCAA has no intention of letting the cash cow star athletes get away without a fight. It's certain the NCAA won't just be throwing legal fees at this issue. They'll also be using all the stereotypical political tricks, including appealing to the basest level "logic."
Indeed, as so many Americans already say, "The kids are getting a free education, right? So what do they have to complain about?"
For the student athletes who go to schools like UConn, 92% of them don't get an education that will help them the rest of their lives. They get lifelong injuries and often have to take on piles of debt (like most college students today). Maybe they get to take with them a few memories of time when they were special - before the next crop of momentary superstars arrived on campus.
It's long past time someone ran down the NCAA and the corrupt system they operate, and truly looked out for the best interests of the students.
If that someone happens to be Kain Coulter and the football team at Northwestern, along with the help of the unions, many of those who've been involved with college academics and athletics will be there to cheer them on - hopefully to a better future for all college students.
For us, the experience of college sports is a bit different, as multiple members of our staff have had long associations with both college education and college sports. Our Editor-In-Chief, namesake, and cartoonist Paul Fell has been both college professor and college football player, while our writing staff includes the former Executive Producer of the Husker Sports Radio Network. Paul's long-running HuskerNutz cartoon series has also long mocked and celebrated the peculiar nature of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's unusual fans.
In short, we have some significant collective experience in professional media, athletics, and education at the collegiate level.
That's why, to some degree, while we were disgusted and dismayed at the stories coming out of the NCAA men's basketball tournament this year - about the coach's $350-thousand-plus bonuses, while some students complain of going hungry. We've also been cheered by the recent efforts by Kain Coulter and the Northwestern University football team to unionize.
The realities of liberty seem to finally be running down the cartel of the NCAA.
One of our favorite reporters on politics and sports, Dave Zirin of The Nation, has been covering the death spiral of the NCAA closely. If Zirin's dissection of the UConn Huskies men's basketball team on Tuesday didn't convince you there are massive problems with college sports that the NCAA is not only ignoring but encouraging, your problems might be deeper than facts can help.
From UConn's abysmal 8% graduation rate for their student athletes, and UConn's budget deficits and tuition hikes facing their students, to the coach's and network's million and billion dollar paydays, to the NCAA regulations that keep student athletes from even being able to accept meals at times - Zirin is right when he calls top college athletics today 'The Real Hunger Games.'
As Zirin also noted earlier this year, the NCAA has no intention of letting the cash cow star athletes get away without a fight. It's certain the NCAA won't just be throwing legal fees at this issue. They'll also be using all the stereotypical political tricks, including appealing to the basest level "logic."
Indeed, as so many Americans already say, "The kids are getting a free education, right? So what do they have to complain about?"
For the student athletes who go to schools like UConn, 92% of them don't get an education that will help them the rest of their lives. They get lifelong injuries and often have to take on piles of debt (like most college students today). Maybe they get to take with them a few memories of time when they were special - before the next crop of momentary superstars arrived on campus.
It's long past time someone ran down the NCAA and the corrupt system they operate, and truly looked out for the best interests of the students.
If that someone happens to be Kain Coulter and the football team at Northwestern, along with the help of the unions, many of those who've been involved with college academics and athletics will be there to cheer them on - hopefully to a better future for all college students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)