Slate on the Horse Race January 26, 2008
Posted by Greg Jerome in 2008 Election, Media, Politics.1 comment so far
Jack Shafer at Slate doesn’t see much wrong with covering the Presidential Primaries like a horse race. Since I wrote about this yesterday I was interested to see what he has to say. His main point is, the primaries are a race, so the media does need to cover them that way, at least in part. It is important to know who is winning, who is raising money, and who is picking up endorsements. I understand that the media should and must cover this as news, as long as it’s not the only news.
Shafer maintains the the press has been covering the issues and, in any case, if you need more information just get on the internet and find it.
The most telling point Shafer makes is that voters do make decisions based on horse race data, looks, and style.
But these subjective impressions also convey essential information that helps voters decide which candidate will govern best. For instance, in this campaign the difference among the Obama, Clinton, and Edwards health-care plans are negligible compared with the changes likely to be mandated by a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party. To make an intelligent decision about which one of these three to vote for, a citizen needs horse-race data.
There lies the problem, we have a race for the Democratic nomination between three candidates barely discernible by anything other than race and gender. If you are looking for a candidate left of center you do not have a meaningful choice when it comes to policy. You may pick the individual you like the most, but you are stuck with the same platform no matter what.
The Primaries Are Boring Me To Death January 24, 2008
Posted by Greg Jerome in 2008 Election, Media, Politics.2 comments
I am becoming less and less interested in the Presidential Primaries every day. As usual the races have digressed to personal attacks and meaningless sound bites. This is probably the way all campaigns go, I am simply not old enough to remember that many. I can deal with candidates being negative and I can deal with them speaking in platitudes, what irritates me the most is the lack of substance.
Sit back and listen to the news coverage of either party. The main concern of the national media is the horse race, who is leading who in the polls. The story is all about momentum, spin, and strategy. Rarely do the momentum and strategy have to deal with issues that voters want to hear about. We hear about who is surging, who is faltering and who looks and acts the most presidential.
I want to hear what each candidate has to say about the issues, health care, education, Iraq, social security. I want analysis of where they stand so I can decide who to vote for and who to support. Take a look at Select A Candidate, a game produced by American Public Media. In about three minutes it will tell you which candidate most reflects your values. My result was Kucinich with a score of 29. That was about what I expected; I’m glad I know what I stand for.
That game is the kind of basic analysis we need from the media. I want them to say, “If you are in favor of this kind of policy, then this should be your candidate.” Many people don’t have the time or energy to sort through the BS and find the real policy issues, they simply consume the information available. Give them something useful and they will make better decisions. We can be the enlightened citizenry that the founders hoped we would be.
In Defense Of Food January 5, 2008
Posted by Greg Jerome in Books, Economics, Environment, Health.1 comment so far
“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” That is the guiding principle behind Michael Pollan’s book, In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. I have never reviewed a book before I read it, but I was lucky enough to hear the author on NPR’s Science Friday yesterday discussing his new book; the interview is 35 minutes and fascinating, listen while your are making dinner tonight!
Pollan’s idea is that we need to return to eating real food, not “foodlike substances” that we find in the center aisles of the grocery store. If your great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize it as food, don’t eat it. If it has more than five ingredients, don’t eat it. If you can’t identify some of the ingredients, don’t eat it. We need to eat foods that are natural, made of real ingredients, and probably require some real cooking.
This is a real progressive issue for many reasons. Corporations are making us sick by selling us band food, are ruining the environment with unsustainable farming practices, are driving local farms out of business, and leading to huge medical bills as we try to fix the problems that these garbage foods cause. If we eat real food we will be healthier, support sustainable agriculature, support real farmers, and maybe even save some money.
I have been trying to each healthier for several years, following these basic principals which I had read from a variety of sources. My guiding principal has been, don’t eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn’t eat. This makes it so easy. I avoid almost all processed food. Be honest, what place in your diet do potato chips, brownies, soda, white bread, and ritz crackers have? None of those are real food, and they are not going to make you healthy.
If you don’t believe me, better yet if you do, just try it. For three days, one week. Eat like it is 1900. You will be amazed at how much better you feel. You won’t get tired after lunch, you won’t feel sluggish after dinner. You won’t eat a meal and be hungry again in an hour. You will have more energy and just feel better. When you try real food you feel like everything you used to eat gave you a stomach ache. I know I will never go back.
My Secular Christmas December 28, 2007
Posted by Greg Jerome in Atheism, Politics, Religion.1 comment so far
Christmas time can be very interesting for someone who doesn’t believe in God. Every year the media reports on the so-called “War on Christmas,” where secular, Muslim, and Jewish elements fight with Christians over religious displays in the public square. We wait with baited breath to find out if Wal Mart employees with wish us “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas.” As a progressive and an atheist I am inherently uncomfortable with Christians shoving Christmas down the throat of the entire nation, but as someone who celebrates a secular Christmas, this debate is not all that interesting to me.
I am more interested in, and comforted by, the overwhelming secularization of the holiday I see in my daily life. To the average person I know, Christmas is about spending time with your family and exchanging gifts. I do not see an emphasis on celebrating the birth of Jesus. Many people I know attend church, and do so on Christmas Eve, but that does not seem to be the focus of their holiday observance. Ask someone what he or she did for Christmas; they will tell you what family they saw, what parties they went to, and what gifts they gave and received, I doubt you will hear about how they celebrated their belief in the birth of Jesus.
As a atheist I wish people “Merry Christmas,” I go to parties, I exchange gifts, I even went to church. I feel comfortable celebrating the modern American Christmas. Let’s face it, this holiday is about parties, Santa Clause, friends and family, the arrival of winter, and buying gifts. I’m okay with that.
Fuel Economy Standards: Going Up December 23, 2007
Posted by Greg Jerome in Environment, Global Warming, Politics.3 comments
For the first time since 1975 fuel economy is going to rise. The new Energy Bill “requires automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of cars, small trucks and SUVs by 40 percent, to an average 35 miles per gallon by 2020.” Car, light trucks, and SUV’s must currently meet a standard of 27.5 miles per gallon. This rise in fuel economy will certainly have a huge impact on CO2 emissions, gas consumption, and oil prices.
While it is good to see that our cars are getting greener, I find it amazing that we have been gliding along based on standards set more than 30 years ago. As usual, it has taken a tremendous rise in gas prices and an environmental awakening to cause this change. Both automakers and consumers must share the responsibility for our failure to become more efficient. Manufacturers have done little to make cars run cleaner and have offered few desirable models that save fuel. Consumers have been unwilling to give up power and performance for the sake of efficiency.
The technology to make cars run further on a gallon of gas is there, just ask the Europeans. We may have to, God forbid, drive smaller cars with less powerful engines. We certainly will have to sacrifice size, speed, and comfort; sacrifices that Americans are not used to making.
Our country is facing an energy crisis and we are being called to account for our lack of vision and willful ignorance of the problems we face. We desperately need national leadership that will point us in a new direction, create a meaningful plan, and tap our creative resources to find new solutions.
Mormons, Aetheists, and Jews December 7, 2007
Posted by Greg Jerome in Atheism, Peace, Politics, Religion.3 comments
An absolutely amazing post from Daisy at Our Descent Into Madness dealing with Romney’s Mormon speech and the implications of theology in American politics and life. Easily one of the most well written essays I have found lately. Here’s a little to whet your appetite.
And it’s not people who think that “freedom requires religion.” It’s not someone who would equate a “believer in religious freedom” with “any person who has knelt in prayer.” It’s not someone who completely discounts atheists, implying that being an American, and appreciating American freedom, requires a belief in his God.
As a woman, an American, a religious person, and a Jew, I trust the atheists, the agnostics, the secular humanists, the intellectuals. To whatever extent that fellow religious people overlap with those groups, I trust them, too. These are my real allies. An enemy of secular values is my enemy, too.
It’s worth the read.
Should We Care That Romney Is A Mormon? December 6, 2007
Posted by Greg Jerome in Atheism, Politics, Religion.4 comments
Mitt Romney gave a speech today seeking to alleviate fears about his Mormon religion. His faith is seen as a sticking point for many Christians who view Mormonism with skepticism; many believing it is a cult. I am not really interested in the differences between the Mormon church and Evangelical Christians, they are all Christians after all, but in the idea or electing men and women of faith to public office.
I have heard the following attacks on the Mormon Church: They have sacred texts other than the bible, they practice polygamy, they did not allow African-American members until 1978, and their view of the afterlife is perverse. Some of these criticisms are based in fact, others may not be. Let’s look at what Evangelical Christians believe:
God speaks directly to them and informs their decisions, Jesus was dead for three days before he came back to life, the world was created around 6000 years ago in six days, and the world will end as described in Revelation. How can I vote for someone who not only holds these beliefs, which have no founding in science or history, but may actually act based on them?
I find it terrifying that we trust our President with nuclear weapons when be believes God speaks directly to him and tells him what to do. What if he thinks God told him to start a holy war to destroy Islam? What if he thinks we are entering the end times, the world is about to end, and the rightouse are about to be saved? These can not be the things we want on the mind of the leader of the free world. I want my country lead by someone looking at the facts of the world around him, not looking to some mystical book.
Those who enact public policy based on religious beliefs have no place in government.
How Do I Feel About Hugo Chavez? December 3, 2007
Posted by Greg Jerome in Class, Economics, Politics, Poverty.add a comment
Chavez lost a referendum yesterday that would have given his government greater power to nationalize industry, control the media, and allow him to run for president as many times as he would like. The vote was very close, around 51 to 49 percent with many former supporters turning against Chavez.
It is difficult to know what to make of the Venezualan leader. He consistently attacks President Bush, famously on the floor of the United Nations, and seeks to establish a socialist state through ballot measures. Venezuela is a country wth very poor people and great oil wealth. As is often the case, this wealth has not trickled down to the people, even after years of rule by Chavez. Is he just another Latin American strongman or a real reformer trying to offer security to his people?
The socialist experiment has be tried many times and Latin America and has always failed. We may never know how these many attempts should have played out had it not been for U.S. intervention (read William Blum’s Rouge State). Cuba, for example, has been kept cripplingly poor by United States sanctions.
I am a populist and believe the government should control industry and utilities to a large degree. Does this make me a socialist, communist, Chavist? I don’t really know. Part of me hopes that Chavez is in this for the right reasons and that he can successfuly make reforms that would benefit the poor in his country. At the same time I am wary of what often seem like heavy-handed approaches to grabbing and centralizing power.
For a gentler version of Chavez (and perhaps more authentically socialist) check out Evo Morales, President of Bolivia. He may be the true hope for Latin America.
Junk Food In Schools December 2, 2007
Posted by Greg Jerome in Economics, Health, Politics.1 comment so far
If you have been in a school cafeteria lately you know the kind of junk food that is available to students. This certainly varies by state and district, but often includes: potato chips, ice cream, soda, cookies, etc. Not to mention the items the schools pass of as part of the daily meal: breaded chicken nuggets, french toast sticks, BBQ rib patties, cheese pizza; it’s really very scary.
The NY Times reported on an effort to limit the junk food options available to kids by way of the Farm Bill. The bill would be very much a compromise, still allowing chocolate milk, diet soda, sports drinks, and smaller portions of snacks. It’s certainly not a perfect fix, but what can you expect with the enormous power of the food lobby.
The idea that any kind of junk food is available in schools is really amazing. I am a teacher myself and we believe that if a school is nothing else, it must be safe. We go to great lengths to ensure the physical and emotional security of our students in all school settings. We know that for many students, school is the only place where they are truly safe. That we are allowing them to poison their bodies flies directly in the face of our most important objective.
Money is of course the issue, even at the school level. I have seen a lot of junk food leave schools in recent years and those decisions were made with the knowledge that the school would lose a significant amount of money from those sales. We have all seen school projects paid for my Coke and Pepsi, and there are fast food restaurants inside high schools. This may be a difficult issue, but there really is only one right answer. We need to protect the kids.
Am I A Strict Constructionist? November 27, 2007
Posted by Greg Jerome in Constitution, Politics.4 comments
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case on the Second Amendment, it’s first such case on the subject since 1939. At issue is D.C.’s ban on privately owned handguns which is being challenged by a local security guard.
The Gun Control issue always seems to fall pretty clearly along ideological line; the right favors fewer restrictions and the left favors more restrictions. Those on the right are often strict constructionists and those on the left are loose constructionists. Now lets look at the amendment in it’s entirety.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It seems clear to me that a strict reading of the amendment would lead one to conclude: if you are in a militia you have the right to bear arms, otherwise you do not. That is literaly what the amendment says and exactly what the Founders meant. A loose reading might conclude: Civilian militias no longer exist in the same way as they did in the 18th century, we should adapt our reading and allow people to keep arms that are not related to military activity. This seems like a reasonable adaptation of the text.
The odd thing is that the strict constructionists of the right wing are arguing for less gun control while the left is arguing for more gun control. Either I have this completely wrong or these groups are being inconsistent with what they claim to believe.
As a Progressive I believe that the government is responsible for our protection and guns that are designed only to kill people have no place in our society. But the real question may be: am I a strict constructionist?
