Frank Rich has a great column in Sunday's Times.
In my view, the rise of the advertising age and the decline in honesty is just about the worst development I've witnessed in my lifetime. So many people are so distrustful of everything - corporations, government, celebrities. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why.
During the Bush administration, I came to distrust everything I heard from the government. I no longer have confidence even in those institutions that I previously felt were above reproach - the Congressional Budget Office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc. The Bushies were so good at deceiving the American public - from doctoring scientific reports on global warming to deceiving the public into going to war with Iraq - that I soon didn't believe a word that was said by them.
And of course, the media enables it all. They broadcast the most obviously false statements and never bother to report on whether or not they are true. There are such things as facts, and they should be reported and when people distort them the media should hold them to account. But that hasn't happened for years and I see no prospects that things will improve.
What a sad state of affairs.
22 December 2009
12 December 2009
10 December 2009
Global Warming Science
Chris Mooney has a very interesting post at Science Progress on the latest bruhaha regarding global warming, and it is a good read. The basic theme is that in the last year global warming deniers have done a great job spreading misinformation regarding the science of global warming, with the result that the percent of American citizens viewing this as a serious problem has declined precipitously in the last few months.
In my view, there are two aspects of this that need to be emphasized. The first is the role of the media in generating all this skepticism. Nothing has changed the overwhelming consensus among scientists that global warming remains a serious issue that must be addressed imminently before it has catastrophic effects. Yet this aspect of the global warming issue is never emphasized by the media. They treat it as solely a political issue, as they do everything, with a he-said, she-said presentation that has no regard for what is actually true. And there is a truth here. Facts are not things that are debatable.
The second is a characteristic of American culture that has been thoroughly discussed over the years and that frankly I don't know how to address, and that is the extreme anti-intellectual nature of large portions of the American public. They are perfectly willing to accept that a scientific breakthrough represents some sort of evil conspiracy. Even if you ask them, why would scientists lie about this, they have no answers. They just don't want to believe their lives have to change in response to scientific advancement.
Of course, it helps when that breakthrough threatens the livelihood of a powerful, such as the fossil fuel industry in this case. They are perfectly happy to exploit American anti-intellectualism for their own selfish ends. And that, my friends, is what is perfectly illustrated in this latest controversy over global warming.
In my view, there are two aspects of this that need to be emphasized. The first is the role of the media in generating all this skepticism. Nothing has changed the overwhelming consensus among scientists that global warming remains a serious issue that must be addressed imminently before it has catastrophic effects. Yet this aspect of the global warming issue is never emphasized by the media. They treat it as solely a political issue, as they do everything, with a he-said, she-said presentation that has no regard for what is actually true. And there is a truth here. Facts are not things that are debatable.
The second is a characteristic of American culture that has been thoroughly discussed over the years and that frankly I don't know how to address, and that is the extreme anti-intellectual nature of large portions of the American public. They are perfectly willing to accept that a scientific breakthrough represents some sort of evil conspiracy. Even if you ask them, why would scientists lie about this, they have no answers. They just don't want to believe their lives have to change in response to scientific advancement.
Of course, it helps when that breakthrough threatens the livelihood of a powerful, such as the fossil fuel industry in this case. They are perfectly happy to exploit American anti-intellectualism for their own selfish ends. And that, my friends, is what is perfectly illustrated in this latest controversy over global warming.
Financial Industry Reform
In his Salon column, Andrew Leonard discusses the "Reformist Manifesto" proposed by the Epicurean Dealmaker, a 10-point plan for reforming the financial industry, specifically, the first point of the manifesto, which is:
Frankly, I see no reason to distinguish between the financial industry and any other industry. The same insidious impact is present in both. The large influence the financial industry has on Congress is more a factor of the large growth in these companies in recent years and their size relative to the economy as a whole. To me the current situation is no different that the influence of, say, the oil, auto, and agricultural industries. All have a stranglehold on Congress when it comes to policies that affect them.
Additionally, limitations on contributions to candidates generally do not have any constitutional implications. This concept goes back to the seminal Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld such limits on contributions to candidates but struck down limits on expenditures by candidates.
The real problems arise from the proliferation of bundling of contributions and of political action committees. These activities allow the pulling of resources so that an industry can make huge contributions without running afoul of the contribution limitations applicable to individuals. One company I know of established its own PAC and aggressively sought contributions from its senior management to pursue its lobbying activities. Should these kinds of activities be permitted? I don't think so.
Even further, however, I have never understood the concept that corporations have constitutional rights. First of all, they are not people. They are legal fictions created by statute. Their very existence depends upon statutes enacted to permit their existence and govern their activities. Why should such an entity ever have rights greater than what they are granted by statute? In other words, if their very existence is based on statutory law, shouldn't legislatures be able to enact statutes that limit their rights, even those that individuals enjoy under the Constitution? Never made sense to me.
Of course, the problem goes beyond mere contributions. Big industries employ armies of lobbyists composed of people of influence (former congressmen and the like), whose cacaphony drowns out anything an ordinary citizen may say about a particular law or regulation. Until this particular issue is addressed, contribution limitations will not be very effective.
(1) Ban political campaign contributions by the financial industry. We currently have the best politicians money can buy. I suspect it might be conducive toward better governance should this channel of undue influence be severed. Can you disagree?Citing the Baseline Scenario, Leonard notes that there may be an obstacle to this, which is a constitutional one - namely, the freedom of speech rights of the financial industry that would be impaired by this proposal. He suggests that one way to deal with the First Amendment issue is to ban contributions related to specific legislation or regulations in which the contributor clearly has an interest in influencing the outcome. Under this reasoning, the Supreme Court might just accept a limit on contributions. Of course, the ability to link a contribution to a specific outcome is difficult, and this difficulty would likely impose a barrier to effective enforcement of the limits.
Frankly, I see no reason to distinguish between the financial industry and any other industry. The same insidious impact is present in both. The large influence the financial industry has on Congress is more a factor of the large growth in these companies in recent years and their size relative to the economy as a whole. To me the current situation is no different that the influence of, say, the oil, auto, and agricultural industries. All have a stranglehold on Congress when it comes to policies that affect them.
Additionally, limitations on contributions to candidates generally do not have any constitutional implications. This concept goes back to the seminal Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld such limits on contributions to candidates but struck down limits on expenditures by candidates.
The real problems arise from the proliferation of bundling of contributions and of political action committees. These activities allow the pulling of resources so that an industry can make huge contributions without running afoul of the contribution limitations applicable to individuals. One company I know of established its own PAC and aggressively sought contributions from its senior management to pursue its lobbying activities. Should these kinds of activities be permitted? I don't think so.
Even further, however, I have never understood the concept that corporations have constitutional rights. First of all, they are not people. They are legal fictions created by statute. Their very existence depends upon statutes enacted to permit their existence and govern their activities. Why should such an entity ever have rights greater than what they are granted by statute? In other words, if their very existence is based on statutory law, shouldn't legislatures be able to enact statutes that limit their rights, even those that individuals enjoy under the Constitution? Never made sense to me.
Of course, the problem goes beyond mere contributions. Big industries employ armies of lobbyists composed of people of influence (former congressmen and the like), whose cacaphony drowns out anything an ordinary citizen may say about a particular law or regulation. Until this particular issue is addressed, contribution limitations will not be very effective.
Hypocrites
It never ceases to amaze me how Republicans perfectly illustrate everything they say is wrong with the government. Talk about a waste of time.
09 December 2009
Quote of the Day
"The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."
-- H.L. Mencken
05 December 2009
Quote of the Day
I'm falling a little behind with these.
"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office."
- H. L. Mencken
Liberal Dems Show Some Spine.
Seems that in their zest to kill the public option, two Republican senators, Coburn and Vitter, co-sponsored an amendment that would require members of Congress to use whatever public option ultimately emerges in the final bill. They reasoned that members would vote down the public option because they wouldn't want to have to live with the shitty coverage it would provide. Low and behold, liberal senators, including freshmen senators Al Franken and Sherwood Brown, and liberal independent Bernie Sanders, are supporting the amendment. They reason that if members realize they are going to have the use the public option, they won't let it provide shitty coverage. If the amendment passes, an interesting game of chicken will begin. For that reason alone, the amendment will probably fail.
Via C&L.
Via C&L.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
