I don't live in my mothers basement!!!

anymore.


Ta-Nehisi Coates:
The problem with "traditional media"

I'm with Matt. I just don't have much sympathy of people working at big newspapers whining about the netroots attacking them. Reporters--if they're doing their job--spend their lives bringing scrutiny to other people. There's something weak about complaining when someone does the same to you. Matt points to this particularly egregious quote by Richard Cohen:

"I used to get a lot more on the right," said columnist Richard Cohen, who broke with liberals when he supported the Iraq war. More recently, the left has picked apart columns that are perceived as being favorable to John McCain.

"If you're a little bit critical of Barack Obama, you get really a pie of vilification right in the face," Cohen said, adding that his liberal critics "were born too late, because they would have been great communists."

Dude, you get paid to state your opinion. Why do you care what some D&D-playing, popcorn eating, living in his mother's basement blogger is saying? I mean really. These guys want the megaphone, and then not the criticism. All power. No responsibility.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Social Security

Part of the reason the public is misinformed about social security... "its not going to be around when we need it..." is the media does not do its job.

Outsource to Dean Baker:
The Washington Post War On Social Security Continues

The Post yet again is complaining that politicians who are unwilling to deal with a Social Security shortfall that is first projected to hit in 2049, when John McCain will be 113 years old. To try to makes it case sound more compelling it refers to the date 2018 when the Social Security trustees project that tax revenues will first be inadequate to meet benefit payments.

Of course 2018 is completely irrelevant to the finances of the program. At that point the program is projected to have accumulated more than $5 trillion in government bonds. But the Post wants to scare readers to advance their Social Security agenda so they trot out 2018 as though it is a date that anyone needs to worry about.

The positive side of this story is that Social Security's finances look much better than the Post's. If it keeps making up scare stories about Social Security, perhaps the date of its demise will be hastened.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

to the question of changing ones mind, political expediency, and other question we like to talk about politically...

McCain's performance was less consistent than Obama's. This fact cannot be disputed in the critical, unbiased mind. I wonder at the primary cause for McCain's change in performance from "maverick critic of the Bush administration" to supporting Bush-policy 95%. Is this action a simple change of mind, an indication of political ambition, or a combination of the two scenarios? My inquiry is of a strictly personal nature, and not of true political concern; as it relates to neither your motivation for this post nor my final decision come this November. What are your thoughts to my question?

I avoid mind-reading... (thats a response that I stole from economist dean baker and philosopher David Pacini). Baker criticizes news articles when they discuss politics from the question of personal beliefs and personal political philosophy.

These are things these leaders and decision makers may or may not hold but there is no way to verify. How can we trust a journalist who is only seeing certain aspects of candidates and elected officials? Plus they only interact in certain way and politicos are aware they are interacting with a reporter--there is no such thing as off the record.

I flip the question around as something that might be interesting in an abstract way. But I tend to focus those kinds of discussions to philosophers, artists, and other cultural animals. Politics should be serious discussions since it is serious life or death issues at stake. I don't like the cult of personality that the media and voters fixate on.

I always respond by pointing to this negative tendency within out political culture.

They can't read minds can they? No, they can report on the facts, the policies, the positions, contributors, x...y...z...

We can't read minds can we? Its not meant to be condescending to the question since I do think its interesting. But I'm up to my ears in serious politics and most of my interactions with voters have to do with petty issues that are of no importance. Its a very sad state of affairs... and it explains how we've ended up with the corruption and apathy that we now have. We reap what we sow... no?

they can't read minds. I think this is part of my issue with individualizing candidates. I don't comprehend at all the "I vote for the best person." "I like him as a person"

This individualization and personification... has nothing to do with political policy or leadership. Conservatives are often passionate--Liberals can do so as well--about personal politics.

Hell I know the name of Clinton's cat--socks...

why in the world do I need to know that...

we want people discussing political differences. When the news media and political junkies talk about someones political philosophy as the instigator or certain decisions we confuse what we are talking about... as well as what we are capable of knowing.

I'd be intrigued to have philosophical discussions with these people. But that's neither here nor there when it comes to leadership and policy decisions.

I get--whats a good word--frustrated when we talk about candidates doing things for philosophical or political expediency. Talk about the context of verifiable facts; people will infer what they will. But its like the race question... Obama has no need to respond to it. He's a sucker cause he keeps responding which is what McCain wants.

I don't think this speaks to the voters as people who only care about petty stuff. I just think they know there is no point in caring about the important stuff... its driven into them by the media, the two major political parties--who need each other to play the devil, and core gropus who enjoy the status quo while they bemoan the apathy and corruption. When one profits and enjoys the perks of the status quo... one will do and say anything to make it stay the way it is.

The only solution... organize, participate, and never give in...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

John McCain... more of the same...

WSJ forgets to mention that fact...

Summary: The Wall Street Journal reported that the RNC "made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly." But in citing only the CQ 2005-2006 "party unity" scores provided by the RNC, the Journal failed to note that according to a 2008 CQ study, McCain voted in support of the Bush administration's position 95 percent of the time in 2007, making McCain the administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate that year.


In an August 13 Wall Street Journal article, Elizabeth Holmes and Amy Chozick reported that the Republican National Committee (RNC) "criticized" Sen. Barack Obama "for, in its view, his lack of bipartisan accomplishments." The article continued: "They made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly." But in citing only the Congressional Quarterly 2005-2006 "party unity" scores provided by the RNC, Holmes and Chozick failed to note that according to a 2008 Congressional Quarterly study, McCain voted in support of the Bush administration's position 95 percent of the time in 2007, making McCain the administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate that year. Indeed, in a January 13 article (accessed via Nexis), CQ reported that "McCain's 95 percent support [for Bush] score for last year was the highest in the chamber." Moreover, CQ also found that McCain has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time over the seven-and-a-half years of Bush's presidency.

In addition, discussing the establishment of "Republicans for Obama," Holmes and Chozick wrote: "Despite Sen. McCain's bipartisan activity, including on campaign finance and immigration, the Republicans behind the Obama support group express dismay with how his candidacy has evolved." But in citing immigration as an example of McCain's "bipartisan activity," Holmes and Chozick did not note that, under pressure from the Republican base, McCain reversed himself on a key component of immigration reform, now saying that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective. McCain further stated during the January 30 Republican presidential debate that he would not vote for the comprehensive reform bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) if it came to a vote on the Senate floor.

From the August 13 Journal article:

Sen. McCain echoed the same sentiment in his opening statements. "I know Americans are tired of the partisanship," he said before opening the floor up to questions. "I have a record of reaching across the aisle, reaching across the aisle and working with my friends, whether it be Joe Lieberman or Ted Kennedy."

The Arizona senator's comments were supported by the Republican National Committee, which criticized the Illinois senator for, in its view, his lack of bipartisan accomplishments. They made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly.

Despite Sen. McCain's bipartisan activity, including on campaign finance and immigration, the Republicans behind the Obama support group express dismay with how his candidacy has evolved.

Mr. [Lincoln] Chafee said that he supported Sen. McCain on a number of issues while he was in the Senate but said he's seen a sharp change. "It's a different John McCain," Mr. Chafee said, pointing to the candidate's reversal from previous stances to support offshore drilling and Bush tax cuts. "Seeing the two different John McCains is a fracture in his credibility."

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

something to reflect on now that we are in the midst of Iraq 2008

Media Coverage: A View from the Ground

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

behaviors Jim needs to do more of...

William Kristol on Tim Russert

Tim showed up one day, looked around, and took a few of us out for a beer. It took me about two minutes of conversation to realize that Tim was far savvier about politics — especially New York Democratic politics — than we at headquarters were, but he was polite and pretended to listen to our observations. In fact, as Tim told me later, he quickly concluded that most of us had no idea what we were doing — which was certainly the case.

I tend to shoot my mouth off... need to not do that... listen to people... learn from people. Ask David Pacini has always taught me... "when someone wants to know your opinion they'll ask you." Telling them what you think won't teach them anything... they'll never here you...

Bill Moyers addresses NCMR 2008

WTF???

So I've been reading newspapers since about 5:10 this morning... its now 6:36 and I just came across this in the Jeruselam Post: 'Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term'

I don't know anything about the Jerusalam Post. Is this just Bush PR going to Isreal? Is it legit--and if so why isn't in the Financial Times or New York Times??? My hunch is Bush PR but gee I never thought the American public would think invading Iraq was a good idea--so what do I know.

A real artist...

understands that music is to be shared. If you want to make profits... go to business school.

Cheers to Madonna... go see her youtube intro message

Economics...

One of the things I oberserved working as a legislative aide this session was the lack of economic understanding--across the board from both Democrats and Republicans. This is concerning to me since having a strong economy is about a fundamental as it gets to what government should focus on.

I was studying for my economics class today and I came across this statement...

The measure that economists really care about is not money but people's happiness or welfare.

I was caught off gaurd because I realized that a lot of the focus in the media is on money.

Much of the Republican parties message and agenda is on money ("money in your pocket", "its your money"...) and it has always seemed off putting. Now I have a better frame of reference. Money isn't the issue, the issue is people's welfare and happines. When money is the focus the bigger picture is missed. This either speaks to a misconception of what economics is all about or an attempt to get off the subject of citizens quality of life; i'm not sure which.. or maybe its a little of both depending on the situation.

I also think part of this is in the media not doing its job.

Are jokes fair play in politics?

David Corn via Brad Delong

Did John McCain really say, in public, "The reason Chelsea Clinton is so ugly is that her father is Janet Reno"?

Answer: Yes:

David Corn:

[T]his new standard in the practice of journalism seemingly does not extend to other political figures, at least not media darlings like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Earlier this month, at a Republican Senate fund-raiser, McCain told a downright nasty joke making fun of Janet Reno, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chelsea Clinton. The fact that McCain had made the tasteless joke was reported in major newspapers, as was the vain attempt by his press secretary to initially deny what McCain had done. But... the Washington Post... said the joke "was too vicious to print." The Los Angeles Times... provided an oblique rendering... that did not fully convey its ugliness.... Maureen Dowd... wrote that McCain "is so revered by the press that his disgusting jape was largely nudged under the rug." But Dowd chose not to relay the joke, either.

The joke did appear in McCain's hometown paper... the Associated Press did report the joke in full... But by censoring themselves, the Post, the Times and others helped McCain deflect flak and preserved his status....

[T]his is what [McCain] reportedly said: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."...

McCain's two-liner conveys some interesting insights... particularly since it was delivered to a Republican crowd... the party that champions pro-family values.

McCain's lapse in judgment... may be a significant clue into aspects of his "character."... But many voters have been spared this insight, thanks to the censors in the press....

McCain is also unusually popular with the media. He gives good quotes; he is outspoken. He takes positions that contradict the Republican leadership. When you talk to McCain, he converses in the manner of a real person, seemingly telling you what he thinks. That is rare among elected officials.... [T]he joke revealed more than a mean streak.... It also exposed how the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times play favorites when reporting the foibles of our leading politicians.

Now certainly it is important to highlight the conservatives aren't the party of family values. And all and all the concept of one sector of society being the representation of family values is outlandishly absurd. We all have families, we all have values... and you know what? I've found that when I sit down and talk to just about everyone... when I sit and listen to the core values and priorities they have I can respect them.

I'm not saying that I agree at all with many views, opinions, or policy positions they may hold. But when I sit and talk to pretty much anyone and try to find the core of their values I find things I can respect and admire.

So my question is this: Are jokes off limits to political figures. Are there off the record moments or not? Now that technology and the Internet are making the concept of a private vs. a public world seem rather obsolete.

I don't know? Is that a big deal? I'm not sure... it was just something to think about.

When are humans going to catch up to technology

I sometimes get the feeling my Dad and I are trying to do the same thing in different forums. He's working the energy market in the Philippines, i'm working the political scene and social justice movement in Georgia.

I just titled this post... When are people going to catch up to technology. But then I rewrote it. When are humans... human beings. The people that care, feel, hurt, and love. People... randomized automatons. They already plug into tv, vapid consumerism, and such. They are already on board with technology, but like technology they don't care...

I'm weary of leaning on carelessness as a solution. Vain narcissistic randomness and careless revelry is not going to fix anything, only be a release. My dad works in the energy Field. His business, is something I know next to nothing about. But he's in it for the right reasons. He wants markets to work FOR people, not just blind profit. Blind profit hurts human beings. He wants to use technology to make his little detailed sector of expertise work for humans.

I want to use technology to make my little sector of expertise policy wonkishness and political theory work for humans.

We're both trying hard to use technology to help. I struggle to make it work. I think he goes through the same struggles. I look to his recent post Journalist Interviews and Blogs and think if we keep at this it might just work!

We might just be the generation that helps human beings use technology. Not to eradicate cultures, bomb a city, or suck another dollar out of labor. But break free information, giving the informed and wise a way to network, communicate, and the tools to make those ventures beneficial to everyone in society.

I think my Dad may take it too far...

I may begin declining phone interviews much more frequently. I prefer to be in the open, on the record, and unfiltered - although I realize there will be need for exceptions at times. The on-line conversations are much more robust.

Technology, is a tool for humans. And human beings deal in and thrive off of personal relationships. Insider games, and elitism, are the things that are eradicated by the openness of the internet. But that doesn't replace personal relationships. Relationships with neighbors, economists, reporters. Whatever your goal is, people are that which stands in your way. The questions is how to make people humans. And you do that by talking, listening, and having a cup of coffee. Blog posts, online comments, social networks. For all of their perks, will never sit across from another person, look them in the eye and say "yeah, I give a shit too....."

Highly complex society's suck the life out of humans. They lose attachment to what counts. THe soul I guess is what poets would call it. And you don't relate to people, teach people, lead people.... if you negate that which we are trying to save. At least we that get it. And know they may be few and far between. But many times I think thats an illusion too... But forget that for a moment. How does one live? Together or alone?

I vote for together.

update with a quote from "No Paradise" by Anti-Flag that I was listening to as I wrote without realizing it speaks to what i'm talking about....

We want the truth
It isn't going to be no paradise
Forget the claims
Oh no
We need to take the world back now
We need to take control right now

Promises of a better tomorrow
Promises bought on borrowed dollars
No disaster ever looked so great
So while I say
As old men delivered that league of terror; war
We ask ourselves what are we dying for?

So all the kids are sick and tired of the news today
Sick and tired of all your lies
We want the truth
It isn't going to be no paradise
Forget the claims
Oh no
We need to take the world back now
We need to take control right now

There is some blue haired 15 teen year old singing those words today. But there is also a political activist in his late 20's and a energy consultant in the Philippines living those same words today as well.

Bloggers, not an alien race after all

Over at Daily Kos, Kagro X takes on an LA Times op-ed on bloggers chanllenging the assumption that bloggers didn't exist at some point.

But there never was a time when bloggers did not exist. Because -- again -- bloggers are not an alien race who fell from the heavens on a meteorite. They are people. And in fact, they are the very people for whom journalists have always been writing, and for whom they always will write. We have always been here, and we have always been a vital part -- perhaps the most vital part -- of the journalistic equation. You just didn't count us because you couldn't hear us.

Can you hear us now?

Good.

We were always talking to you. Always talking about you. Always had the exact same things to say about you and your reporting that we're saying now. We just lacked the technology to make you aware of it. Maybe you liked it that way. Maybe you'd rather it had stayed that way. But it didn't, and no amount of elitist scorn is going to change that, just as it was never able to contain it in the past. The "blogger's" disdain for shoddy reporting (and truthfully, sometimes even for quality reporting -- I have to acknowledge that) has always existed and likely always will. Blogs are just the most effective tool we've yet found to plug that disdain into.

No journalist who fails to grasp this will ever be able to write insightfully about blogs, bloggers or the blogosphere. It can't be done. You can write, of course. No one can stop you. But you can't be right. You can't be right about bloggers until you acknowledge who they actually are.

Markets Plunge: Hundreds of Billions Redistributed to the Less Wealthy

Dean Bakers headline for his blog post on the drop in the marketwhich goes on to state

You won't see that headline in the articles reporting on today's stock market plunge. However, it is in fact true, as can be seen with a moment's reflection.

The stock market's value does not directly affect the country's ability to produce goods and services. We have just as much labor, capital and technical know how after the market plunged as before it opened. The only thing that changed was that the people who hold shares in the market now have about $400 billion less in wealth.

The market's $400 billion loss in value reduced the ability of shareholders to make claims on the economy's output, but It didn't reduce the economy's productivity ability. This means that people who own little or no stock can now claim a larger portion of the economy's output. As a practical matter, this means that the price of some items (e.g. houses) might fall, so that they will be more affordable to people who either don't own a home or would like to buy a bigger home.

[If this is hard to understand, imagine the extreme case where the stock market fell to zero. People like Bill Gates would no longer have the money to keep up their homes. They would be forced to sell them for whatever price they could get. Those without substantial stock or property are suddenly well-situated to buy a house.]

In short, the stock market is often about redistribution. When it falls sharply this is a redistribtuion from the wealthy to the less wealthy. That is not upsetting for everyone, even though the media may not report it that way.

now now now...

Dean Baker once again commits the sin of having a good memory...

Due to immigration Canada Has Too Many Doctors

That's the word from an immigration lawyer quoted in an NYT article on immigration reform. According to the lawyer, because of Canada's point system, which favors more highly educated immigrants "we have some professionals, like doctors, who perform low-skill occupations such as driving taxis until they can find more appropriate work. "

Wow, Canada has so many doctors that they have to drive taxis to find work! I seem to remember reading somewhere about how Canada's health care system was collapsing, in part because they have a shortage of doctors. Hmmmm, where was that article? Let's see, here's a quote, "With the population aging, waiting lines for care growing and doctors and nurses becoming sparse, especially in rural areas, opinion polls indicate that satisfaction with medical services has declined in the last decade."

Yep, that was from a NYT article a bit more than three years ago. So the NYT is telling us that both Canada has a doctor shortage, but because of the skills preference in its immigration system, it has too many doctors. That doesn't seem to fit.

Religion in the media...

more from media matters...

In order to begin to assess how the news media paint the picture of religion in America today, this study measured the extent to which religious leaders, both conservative and progressive, are quoted, mentioned, and interviewed in the news media.

Among the study's key findings:

Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders.


On television news -- the three major television networks, the three major cable new channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders.


In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.

Despite the fact most religious Americans are moderate or progressive, in the news media it is overwhelmingly conservative leaders who are presented as the voice of religion. This represents a particularly meaningful distortion since progressive religious leaders tend to focus on different issues and offer an entirely different perspective than their conservative counterparts.

Gender & Ethnic Diversity on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows

From Media Matters:

Not only are the Sunday morning talk shows on the broadcast networks dominated by conservative opinion and commentary, the four programs -- NBC's Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday -- feature guest lists that are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male.

lala land...

All you need to know about the Beltway journalist mind