God bless you and here's to a healthy and prosperous 2010!
 |
| Wikipedia image |
A Christmas greeting and a new domain...
I'd like to wish (all seven) readers of this blog, a safe and joyous Christmas season. This site can now also be accessed at another domain: maddente.com
God bless you and here's to a healthy and prosperous 2010!
God bless you and here's to a healthy and prosperous 2010!
Rick Santelli is right
 |
| Rick Santelli, CNBC |
Rick Santelli was in fine form this morning while debating Steve Liesman. The topic was banking reform and Mr. Santelli made a case for an elegantly simple cure -- raise the banks' capital requirements.
Another CNBC commentator astutely chimed in that this is the same risk premium banks require when a homeowner has a marginal credit history -- the bank looks for more cash in the deal -- a bigger down payment to compensate for the risk of default.
Why can't we use the same mechanism to minimize chances of another banking meltdown? Do we need new federal agencies, reams of new regulations, congressional hearings, class warfare speeches and on and on? I realize that raising the amount of capital that banks must hold affects their profitability, but maybe it's a reasonable way to manage systemic risk.
Medellín, Columbia and Nixon
I've heard from friends with ties to Columbia, that conditions have dramatically improved across the country, although impressions of that nation's difficult past still linger around the world. Tonight during Anthony Bourdain's show about Columbia, I watch as he visits Medellín and interviews locals - many of whom suffered enormously during the Pablo Escobar period of the 1980s. The people appear proud, hopeful, even happy. Mr. Bourdain says something to a local that reminds me of a rueful Richard Nixon speaking to White House staff in the final hours of his presidency:
"Only if you have been in the deepest valley, can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain."
"Only if you have been in the deepest valley, can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain."
S/he who frames the healthcare debate...wins.
When the topic of healthcare reform took center stage this summer, I felt that "healthcare reform" had suddenly become code for "let's change health insurance."
I was certain that I was missing something like the "3.5M jobs saved or created" metric I wrote about last March. I thought I was the only one disturbed by how stimulus programs would be "measured" and conveyed by this administration because I wasn't witnessing views similar to my own.
In my opinion, the healthcare reform yardstick that counts, is the one that actually lowers healthcare costs for the greatest number of patients. But that isn't how we frame the national debate and measure success or failure. Is an expanded insurance pool run by the government going to achieve this goal? I don't know, but uniformly lowering the cost of that pill, that surgery, that MRI, whatever it is -- would benefit us all. I do not see how the House bill will lower health care costs.
President Obama, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, etc. have successfully shifted the narrative from lowering healthcare costs, to demonizing the health insurance industry and expanding government control. All this of course, delights their base. If their bill passes, everyone will be 'covered' by virtue of a new mechanism. That new mechanism is government-mandated, taxpayer funded, healthcare which is not reform at all -- unless one successfully frames the debate that way.
I was certain that I was missing something like the "3.5M jobs saved or created" metric I wrote about last March. I thought I was the only one disturbed by how stimulus programs would be "measured" and conveyed by this administration because I wasn't witnessing views similar to my own.
 |
| Surgeons, Wikipedia |
President Obama, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, etc. have successfully shifted the narrative from lowering healthcare costs, to demonizing the health insurance industry and expanding government control. All this of course, delights their base. If their bill passes, everyone will be 'covered' by virtue of a new mechanism. That new mechanism is government-mandated, taxpayer funded, healthcare which is not reform at all -- unless one successfully frames the debate that way.
When will we reward the savers?
This week, the author of a Barron's cover story posits that it's time for the Fed to raise interest rates. The macro debate for and against doing so, I'll leave for economists. The argument in favor of raising rates, however has advocates at Barron's. The Barron's article titled, "C'mon Ben!" is accompanied by a reminder that keeping rates so low "hurts savers."
The policy notion of incenting savers to save more, seems to fall on deaf ears. The Fed keeps the cheap money flowing, but they also hamper returns from savings accounts, money markets, CDs, etc. to remain at paltry levels. When will we reward citizens who save and invest conservatively, instead of the masses who borrow only to consume?
The policy notion of incenting savers to save more, seems to fall on deaf ears. The Fed keeps the cheap money flowing, but they also hamper returns from savings accounts, money markets, CDs, etc. to remain at paltry levels. When will we reward citizens who save and invest conservatively, instead of the masses who borrow only to consume?
 |
| freepik image |
Of nuts and acorns
Contrast two recent cases that received national media focus: the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and video tape of ACORN employees giving advice to individuals posing as operators of an under-aged prostitution business.
In the first case, the President declares that law enforcement officers in the Gates case, "acted stupidly" then he hosts an awkward reconciliation meeting over beers on the White House lawn.
In the second case, the President demurs when asked to share his opinion about the ACORN workers and Congressional action to stop federal funding for their organization. President Obama did say that actions he viewed on the ACORN videotape were "inappropriate" and deserved to be investigated, but then he added...
"This is not the biggest issue facing the country. It is not something I'm paying a lot of attention to."
Nor should he have paid much attention to a civil disturbance involving one man in Cambridge, Massachusetts...but he did. Mr. Gates, for his part, could have had the last laugh and made buffoons of the Cambridge police, by maintaining his cool. Instead while being questioned, he ranted as though he had been robbed of his human dignity and got himself arrested. That was the whole "news" story.
Back to the President. At the time he uttered the "acted stupidly" remark, I had the feeling he was reacting as a man who had felt the sting of racism himself, possibly conjured by painful episodes from his past.
Let's say hypothetically that 25 years ago, citizen Barack Obama attracted the suspicions of some dim-witted person for no other reason than he was black and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Arousing suspicion for these reasons alone is completely unfair, but it happens and I bet it hurts like hell and leaves one justifiably angry.
In the first case, the President declares that law enforcement officers in the Gates case, "acted stupidly" then he hosts an awkward reconciliation meeting over beers on the White House lawn.
In the second case, the President demurs when asked to share his opinion about the ACORN workers and Congressional action to stop federal funding for their organization. President Obama did say that actions he viewed on the ACORN videotape were "inappropriate" and deserved to be investigated, but then he added...
"This is not the biggest issue facing the country. It is not something I'm paying a lot of attention to."
Nor should he have paid much attention to a civil disturbance involving one man in Cambridge, Massachusetts...but he did. Mr. Gates, for his part, could have had the last laugh and made buffoons of the Cambridge police, by maintaining his cool. Instead while being questioned, he ranted as though he had been robbed of his human dignity and got himself arrested. That was the whole "news" story.
Back to the President. At the time he uttered the "acted stupidly" remark, I had the feeling he was reacting as a man who had felt the sting of racism himself, possibly conjured by painful episodes from his past.
Let's say hypothetically that 25 years ago, citizen Barack Obama attracted the suspicions of some dim-witted person for no other reason than he was black and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Arousing suspicion for these reasons alone is completely unfair, but it happens and I bet it hurts like hell and leaves one justifiably angry.
I get it, but candidate Obama ran his campaign as the "post-racial" choice. Some people who've grown weary of bitter and endless racial debates are also attracted to a person of color that espouses a color-blind agenda. However, acting with complete indifference to race is much easier said than done.
The President would have been well-advised to say as little about the Gates matter as he said about ACORN. To be fair, Mr. Obama wisely distanced himself from the race mongering recently exhibited by former President Jimmy Carter. Sometimes, even racism -- or reverse racism -- is colorblind.
Tea party rocks Milwaukee's lake front
Ever attend a tea party?
They don't serve tea at this kind, but visitors do receive a generous helping of speeches and opportunities to express themselves.
Yesterday on a sunny afternoon at Milwaukee's Veterans Park, thousands of attendees were treated to a litany of views on issues including our federal and state tax climate and sweeping health care and environmental proposals.
This was an audience that is passionate about their country and freedoms, but also well behaved and well informed. Nationally-acclaimed author Michelle Malkin roused the crowd with criticisms of left-leaning figures including Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy whom Malkin referred to as a "Beltway Swamp Creature" (ouch), Attorney General Eric Holder "Chief Endangerment Officer" and "union thugs" (in particular she cited Andy Stern and the S.E.I.U.).
A number of speeches sounded out a call to action. "Joe the Plumber" reminded the crowd of a Ben Franklin maxim -- well done is better than well said.
 |
| John Maddente photo |
They don't serve tea at this kind, but visitors do receive a generous helping of speeches and opportunities to express themselves.
Yesterday on a sunny afternoon at Milwaukee's Veterans Park, thousands of attendees were treated to a litany of views on issues including our federal and state tax climate and sweeping health care and environmental proposals.
This was an audience that is passionate about their country and freedoms, but also well behaved and well informed. Nationally-acclaimed author Michelle Malkin roused the crowd with criticisms of left-leaning figures including Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy whom Malkin referred to as a "Beltway Swamp Creature" (ouch), Attorney General Eric Holder "Chief Endangerment Officer" and "union thugs" (in particular she cited Andy Stern and the S.E.I.U.).
A number of speeches sounded out a call to action. "Joe the Plumber" reminded the crowd of a Ben Franklin maxim -- well done is better than well said.
Midwestern watchdog reporting still works
Here are two current examples of how the Fourth Estate still serves the public interest.
1. Locally, in my home town of Milwaukee, readers were shocked and angry to learn how their tax dollars are squandered (again) by a $350 million state child care program that is routinely plundered by a number of providers, including one -- who as a result of Journal Sentinel investigations -- turned herself in to state authorities. Fine reporting indeed, by Ms. Raquel Rutledge and others at the Journal Sentinel. Read more about the scams they uncovered at www.jsonline.com/cashinginonkids
2. Ninety miles south of me, another series by the Chicago Tribune exposes corrupt admission practices at the University of Illinois, as well as other cheats and cronyism throughout the Land of Lincoln. Here's the spot to read, "State of Corruption".
I'm not sure how we'd learn about these issues if old fashioned, gumshoe reporting didn't occur.
1. Locally, in my home town of Milwaukee, readers were shocked and angry to learn how their tax dollars are squandered (again) by a $350 million state child care program that is routinely plundered by a number of providers, including one -- who as a result of Journal Sentinel investigations -- turned herself in to state authorities. Fine reporting indeed, by Ms. Raquel Rutledge and others at the Journal Sentinel. Read more about the scams they uncovered at www.jsonline.com/cashinginonkids
2. Ninety miles south of me, another series by the Chicago Tribune exposes corrupt admission practices at the University of Illinois, as well as other cheats and cronyism throughout the Land of Lincoln. Here's the spot to read, "State of Corruption".
I'm not sure how we'd learn about these issues if old fashioned, gumshoe reporting didn't occur.
Julie & Julia reviewed
Julie & Julia is a new film starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. I watched the film yesterday alongside sixty or so other theater goers.
For anyone who loves Julia Child (as I do) the film is worth watching. Meryl Streep's depiction of the late great gourmand, is stunningly good. It's easy to replicate the oft parodied high-pitch voice, but Ms. Streep's cadence and accent on choice syllables is so faithful to the real deal, it's almost unsettling. It was a great performance.
The screen writer of this movie is Nora Ephron whose style I didn't care for before the film. Before seeing the film, I listened to two separate Nora Ephron interviews. Her tone and lack of enthusiasm during both interviews left me with the distinct impression she felt she was doing us a favor by sitting for them. At least, that's how she sounded. However, while viewing the film yesterday I realized something else -- she takes cheap shots.
Example: In this movie, Amy Adams plays a character that works in a call center to help 911 survivors and takes a "sick" day to cook a Julia Child dish. She then blogs about the experience to the dismay of her boss who calls her into his office to beseech her for writing the post. He ends his rant by saying, "a Republican would have fired you."
In my case, the theater audience was silent after hearing that little gem. (Perhaps they cheered on the coast). Could Ms. Ephron have had any purpose other than to slam Republicans or Conservatives? Doing so is hardly unusual for Hollywood and inconsistent with the memory of Julia Child who was publicly apolitical.
Finally, there is the weak ending to the film (which I won't disclose here) that leaves one wondering if Ms. Ephron was tired and decided to finish the script too quickly, or whether something else crippled her imagination before limping over the writer's finish line.
All this notwithstanding, the film succeeds on the strength of Meryl Streep's affectionate performance and the unique legacy of the woman she portrayed. On a five star scale, this blogger gives Julie & Julia three stars and a pinch of salt for the screen writer.
For anyone who loves Julia Child (as I do) the film is worth watching. Meryl Streep's depiction of the late great gourmand, is stunningly good. It's easy to replicate the oft parodied high-pitch voice, but Ms. Streep's cadence and accent on choice syllables is so faithful to the real deal, it's almost unsettling. It was a great performance.
The screen writer of this movie is Nora Ephron whose style I didn't care for before the film. Before seeing the film, I listened to two separate Nora Ephron interviews. Her tone and lack of enthusiasm during both interviews left me with the distinct impression she felt she was doing us a favor by sitting for them. At least, that's how she sounded. However, while viewing the film yesterday I realized something else -- she takes cheap shots.
Example: In this movie, Amy Adams plays a character that works in a call center to help 911 survivors and takes a "sick" day to cook a Julia Child dish. She then blogs about the experience to the dismay of her boss who calls her into his office to beseech her for writing the post. He ends his rant by saying, "a Republican would have fired you."
In my case, the theater audience was silent after hearing that little gem. (Perhaps they cheered on the coast). Could Ms. Ephron have had any purpose other than to slam Republicans or Conservatives? Doing so is hardly unusual for Hollywood and inconsistent with the memory of Julia Child who was publicly apolitical.
Finally, there is the weak ending to the film (which I won't disclose here) that leaves one wondering if Ms. Ephron was tired and decided to finish the script too quickly, or whether something else crippled her imagination before limping over the writer's finish line.
All this notwithstanding, the film succeeds on the strength of Meryl Streep's affectionate performance and the unique legacy of the woman she portrayed. On a five star scale, this blogger gives Julie & Julia three stars and a pinch of salt for the screen writer.
The Atlantic meets The Economist
Check out this article by Michael Hirschorn in The Atlantic (July/August 2009) in which Mr. Hirschorn examines how a printed magazine like The Economist can thrive, while other printed weeklies it competes with -- notably Newsweek and Time -- are languishing.
Print publishing success in the digital age may lay in what Mr. Hirschorn describes as "razor-sharp clarity and definition" and owning and knowing a particular niche instead of trying to replicate one owned elsewhere.
In the case of The Economist, Mr. Hirschorn asserts that the magazine "...canvasses the globe with an assurance that no one else can match" and "...prides itself on cleverly distilling the world into a reasonably compact survey.''
Mr. Hirschorn, a contributing editor at The Atlantic, made a frank admission that his own magazine, "...has never delivered impressive profit margins." Impressively profitable or not, his piece is worthwhile for anyone interested in the devolution of paper-based, weekly news products.
Print publishing success in the digital age may lay in what Mr. Hirschorn describes as "razor-sharp clarity and definition" and owning and knowing a particular niche instead of trying to replicate one owned elsewhere.
In the case of The Economist, Mr. Hirschorn asserts that the magazine "...canvasses the globe with an assurance that no one else can match" and "...prides itself on cleverly distilling the world into a reasonably compact survey.''
Mr. Hirschorn, a contributing editor at The Atlantic, made a frank admission that his own magazine, "...has never delivered impressive profit margins." Impressively profitable or not, his piece is worthwhile for anyone interested in the devolution of paper-based, weekly news products.
Rather than add a new Palin post...
I'll simply provide a link to a CBS poll, taken this month, that reports an astonishing share -- 51% -- of the GOP views Ms. Palin as unqualified to be an effective President. I guess I posted too early. Here's the link, if you care to review the poll description.
I'm seeing more evidence to support my suspicions and I'll probably post no more about Ms. Palin as a VP choice because -- as the data increasingly shows -- I don't need to.
I'm seeing more evidence to support my suspicions and I'll probably post no more about Ms. Palin as a VP choice because -- as the data increasingly shows -- I don't need to.
Nearly forty percent of GOP doubts Palin's abilities
Glad I'm not alone. A recently-released ABC News/Washington Post poll with a sampling error of plus or minus 3% shows that not only is Ms. Palin's support waning across the political spectrum, it is also slipping among Republicans as a whole.
Like the 83% of Republicans surveyed, I believe that Ms. Palin shares our values. However, almost four out of ten Republicans (and 57% of Americans overall) also say we doubt her ability to "understand complex issues." Which is another way to say what I first wrote last November - that, as much as we like what she stands for, she lacks credentials for national office.
The Washington Post quoted one gentleman, thus: "Rick Buila, 38, of Sharonville, Ohio, who works in finance and voted for the McCain-Palin ticket in November, said his opinion of the governor has changed. `I don't think that she is cut out to be on the national stage,' he said. `I look at her education and her background and the way she carries herself and her [resignation] speech, and when you have someone who's out there saying 'You betcha' about 50 times, I don't think that's the person we want to have negotiating with other countries.'
Sadly, a few blowhards will seize on a remark like Mr. Buila's "You betcha" comment and dismiss any GOP criticism of Ms. Palin as elitist, or worse. That's unfortunate and wrong. We don't begrudge her for her style, we simply believe that she is not ready - and frankly might never be ready - for The White House.
We can do better. We must do better.
Like the 83% of Republicans surveyed, I believe that Ms. Palin shares our values. However, almost four out of ten Republicans (and 57% of Americans overall) also say we doubt her ability to "understand complex issues." Which is another way to say what I first wrote last November - that, as much as we like what she stands for, she lacks credentials for national office.
 |
| Sarah Palin, Wikipedia |
The Washington Post quoted one gentleman, thus: "Rick Buila, 38, of Sharonville, Ohio, who works in finance and voted for the McCain-Palin ticket in November, said his opinion of the governor has changed. `I don't think that she is cut out to be on the national stage,' he said. `I look at her education and her background and the way she carries herself and her [resignation] speech, and when you have someone who's out there saying 'You betcha' about 50 times, I don't think that's the person we want to have negotiating with other countries.'
Sadly, a few blowhards will seize on a remark like Mr. Buila's "You betcha" comment and dismiss any GOP criticism of Ms. Palin as elitist, or worse. That's unfortunate and wrong. We don't begrudge her for her style, we simply believe that she is not ready - and frankly might never be ready - for The White House.
We can do better. We must do better.
Peggy Noonan in today's WSJ & the Palin factor
I can't match Ms. Noonan's eloquence, but I can identify with what she says in this piece entitled, "A Farewell to Harms" in which she pours some truth serum with her signature wit.
 |
| Peggy Noonan, Wikipedia |
If you are one of my
Look, I recognize and deplore the torrent of abuse leveled at Ms. Palin and her family by the vicious Left, but we can't trot out unqualified national candidates and expect the jerks that take cheap shots to remain mute. We have to plan for the jerks using more knowledgeable, more bullet-proof candidates that can do more on the trail than just say the`right' things on cue. We need depth and agility.
I admire Ms. Palin, but she was hopelessly in over her head last year. The aforementioned Noonan piece is not a tired rant to criticize Ms. Palin's work. It's more of a description as to what is needed to rebuild the GOP.
So let's end on a hopeful note - shall we? Yes we can!
Think of the Gopher State with it's schizophrenic voting populous that can elect Comic Al Franken but also install what may be our best chance for a 2012 run at the White House - Tim Pawlenty. There is hope.
Milwaukee County furloughs and remembering Reagan
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports today that a judge has allowed the furloughs (days off without pay) of some public union workers to commence in accordance with Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's order -- starting Monday.
It's unfortunate, that instead of supporting his fiscal responsibility, the County Board continues to jawbone the County Executive and the unions, of course, continue to file lawsuits. All this for a measly five hours off a week.
I have never understood why organized labor behaves as though pay (and benefits most of us dream of) ought to be guaranteed. I have not read their contract, but I cannot fathom any responsible authority agreeing on behalf of county taxpayers to anything more than the rest of us live with AKA an "at will" employment arrangement. The concept is quite simple. Either party (employer or employee) can sever their relationship with the other, for any reason, at any time.
This morning I recalled former President Ronald Reagan's decision to fire striking air traffic controllers in 1981. The union organization, known as PATCO, sought to express its grievances with a strike and jeopardize the safety of American travelers. After the President warned PATCO members that if they did not show up for work they would be fired, they tested him and he kept his word.
It was something of a milestone. Organized labor has continued its decline since. Baseless threats, lawsuits and strikes are not part of an effective career strategy.
Now flash forward to modern day Milwaukee County and consider its fiscal challenges. We see all the labor vitriol we had on a national level back in 1981. . . over five hours a week.
Somehow I think that if Mr. Walker's furlough order was twice as stringent, the sun would still come up the next day. I commend Governor Doyle's plan for limited furloughs and wish only that he and the Democrat-controlled legislature, went further to reduce state spending and lower taxes.
It's unfortunate, that instead of supporting his fiscal responsibility, the County Board continues to jawbone the County Executive and the unions, of course, continue to file lawsuits. All this for a measly five hours off a week.
I have never understood why organized labor behaves as though pay (and benefits most of us dream of) ought to be guaranteed. I have not read their contract, but I cannot fathom any responsible authority agreeing on behalf of county taxpayers to anything more than the rest of us live with AKA an "at will" employment arrangement. The concept is quite simple. Either party (employer or employee) can sever their relationship with the other, for any reason, at any time.
This morning I recalled former President Ronald Reagan's decision to fire striking air traffic controllers in 1981. The union organization, known as PATCO, sought to express its grievances with a strike and jeopardize the safety of American travelers. After the President warned PATCO members that if they did not show up for work they would be fired, they tested him and he kept his word.
It was something of a milestone. Organized labor has continued its decline since. Baseless threats, lawsuits and strikes are not part of an effective career strategy.
Now flash forward to modern day Milwaukee County and consider its fiscal challenges. We see all the labor vitriol we had on a national level back in 1981. . . over five hours a week.
Somehow I think that if Mr. Walker's furlough order was twice as stringent, the sun would still come up the next day. I commend Governor Doyle's plan for limited furloughs and wish only that he and the Democrat-controlled legislature, went further to reduce state spending and lower taxes.
Taxes, polls and pols
 |
| Tom Barrett, Wikipedia |
At one point, Mr. Barrett cited two separate polls to conclude: few citizens want services cut (one poll), yet few want to pay for them in the form of higher taxes (a second poll). Of course.
However, if you require people to choose between them (think one poll question), perhaps many would choose to hang on to more of their own money, even if the service pool shrinks. Leadership requires one to make unpopular choices. That's why we see relatively little of it.
My dowdy prediction
A week has elapsed since I wrote about Maureen Dowd. I thought by now she would have acknowledged an intentional 43-word copy job, followed by a sorry-I-forgot-to-attribute apology. I think that's all it would have taken to make this saga go away.
Ms. Dowd points out that she had indeed given proper credit to two other writers and so by her reckoning, she could not have planned to copy from a third. Two out of three isn't bad.
I'd have preferred to hear her say she was working too quickly, or she was distracted when a bird smacked into her office window, or whatever, but that after she used the work of another writer, she simply forgot to credit the author, but had meant to do so. I would have bought that, but it isn't what we are asked to believe, which is why this episode is extraordinary.
The essence of her account is this: After communicating with a friend about another person's work, she plopped some sentences in her column and then discovered she was using the same 43 words after bloggers told her. Here's what she wrote to explain her actions (repeated from Michael Calderone's space at Politico.com): "i was talking to a friend of mine Friday about what I was writing who suggested I make this point, expressing it in a cogent -- and I assumed spontaneous -- way and I wanted to weave the idea into my column. but, clearly, my friend must have read josh marshall without mentioning that to me. we're fixing it on the web, to give josh credit, and will include a note, as well as a formal correction tomorrow."
My prediction that within a week Ms. Dowd would be finished if still bereft of a plausible explanation, was completely wrong. I misjudged how serious the matter would be taken by the New York Times. I see reader and writer outrage and some scorn, but little from the Times itself.
I think Ms. Dowd made a mistake, got rattled during the firestorm and then made more mistakes by blaming her quotable friend. My reasoning is that she didn't need to take risks deliberately, so it probably wasn't theft. She's already a famous, award-winning columnist in little danger of losing her space, so she doesn't need to lift other people's work including the unremarkable 43 words she borrowed.
I rarely agree with her (save for the attention she aptly paid to Bill Clinton's peccadilloes in the 90s). So I admit that my antennae went up easily when I learned about her ordeal. Perhaps too easily.
However, I'd like to think that if a columnist I normally agree with like Noonan, Krauthammer, or Goldberg, had inserted 43 words written by another writer and then proffered such a lame excuse, that I'd have been equally critical. When and if something like that happens, we'll see if I rise to the task.
Ms. Dowd points out that she had indeed given proper credit to two other writers and so by her reckoning, she could not have planned to copy from a third. Two out of three isn't bad.
I'd have preferred to hear her say she was working too quickly, or she was distracted when a bird smacked into her office window, or whatever, but that after she used the work of another writer, she simply forgot to credit the author, but had meant to do so. I would have bought that, but it isn't what we are asked to believe, which is why this episode is extraordinary.
 |
| Maureen Dowd, Wikipedia |
My prediction that within a week Ms. Dowd would be finished if still bereft of a plausible explanation, was completely wrong. I misjudged how serious the matter would be taken by the New York Times. I see reader and writer outrage and some scorn, but little from the Times itself.
I think Ms. Dowd made a mistake, got rattled during the firestorm and then made more mistakes by blaming her quotable friend. My reasoning is that she didn't need to take risks deliberately, so it probably wasn't theft. She's already a famous, award-winning columnist in little danger of losing her space, so she doesn't need to lift other people's work including the unremarkable 43 words she borrowed.
I rarely agree with her (save for the attention she aptly paid to Bill Clinton's peccadilloes in the 90s). So I admit that my antennae went up easily when I learned about her ordeal. Perhaps too easily.
However, I'd like to think that if a columnist I normally agree with like Noonan, Krauthammer, or Goldberg, had inserted 43 words written by another writer and then proffered such a lame excuse, that I'd have been equally critical. When and if something like that happens, we'll see if I rise to the task.
Is Maureen Dowd in trouble?
Forty-three words without attribution, a poor excuse and by now, I suspect, a truth audit of her work is well underway.
Had Ann Coulter done this, the New York Times (and perhaps Ms. Dowd herself) would have hung her from the highest limb. My prediction is that Ms. Dowd will either come out and declare she knew what she was doing after all and apologize profusely within the next week, or she's finished as a nationally-syndicated columnist.
French lessons
We are fortunate to have a young student from France living with us these days. It is her first visit to the US and we are learning as much (or more) from her, as she is learning from us.
Here's an example. After attending high school classes with my younger daughter for a week or so, we prompted our guest to share her honest impressions of class here in America. She told us that students here strike her as more disrespectful to their teachers than what she is accustomed to in her native France.
Where are our children learning how to behave this way? Oh, that's right -- it's us.
Here's an example. After attending high school classes with my younger daughter for a week or so, we prompted our guest to share her honest impressions of class here in America. She told us that students here strike her as more disrespectful to their teachers than what she is accustomed to in her native France.
Where are our children learning how to behave this way? Oh, that's right -- it's us.
Saved or created? That is the question.
It hit me while driving someplace and listening to the radio, maybe a month ago. The President was talking about the outcome of his stimulus package while using the now oft-repeated phrase about three and half million jobs being, "saved or created."
I'm hearing it again as I watch one of President Obama's acolytes on "Meet The Press" and so I'll ask you dear reader...
How does one measure a job saved? How can one record a job loss that didn't occur, but might have occurred under the circumstances?
Data on new jobs created are obviously available and broadly examined -- but jobs saved? It seems like a clever mechanism to avoid any rigorous assessment of the relative success or failure of the stimulus plan.
What's actually been created, is a new rhetorical device called "jobs saved". That phrase is designed to portray an anemic employment picture as something more robust, even if the 'metric' can't be measured.
 |
| (Freepik image) |
I'm hearing it again as I watch one of President Obama's acolytes on "Meet The Press" and so I'll ask you dear reader...
How does one measure a job saved? How can one record a job loss that didn't occur, but might have occurred under the circumstances?
Data on new jobs created are obviously available and broadly examined -- but jobs saved? It seems like a clever mechanism to avoid any rigorous assessment of the relative success or failure of the stimulus plan.
What's actually been created, is a new rhetorical device called "jobs saved". That phrase is designed to portray an anemic employment picture as something more robust, even if the 'metric' can't be measured.
_________________________________________________________
Submitted to US Senator Herb Kohl moments ago...
"Dear Senator Kohl,
I am writing as a private citizen to voice my strong opposition to the bill misleadingly labeled as the `Employee Free Choice Act' also known as Card Check.
The coercive leadership of organized labor does not need additional tools to intimidate ordinary men and women who prefer to remain outside the union. I would urge you to speak out against this legislation and expose it for what it is -- a catalyst for union demagoguery.
I am not against organized labor per se, but I am against bullies and thugs gaining ground with sanction from Congress.
Respectfully,
John J. Maddente"
I am writing as a private citizen to voice my strong opposition to the bill misleadingly labeled as the `Employee Free Choice Act' also known as Card Check.
The coercive leadership of organized labor does not need additional tools to intimidate ordinary men and women who prefer to remain outside the union. I would urge you to speak out against this legislation and expose it for what it is -- a catalyst for union demagoguery.
I am not against organized labor per se, but I am against bullies and thugs gaining ground with sanction from Congress.
Respectfully,
John J. Maddente"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Is that what heaven looks like?
L ast week before leaving Thailand (more about that trip shortly), I learned my brief reader's comment about financial advisory services...
-
This morning, I attended a seminar about the "Psychology of Golf". The topic intrigued me because all of my personal golf instruc... -
Pointed, brilliant drifts of snow pierce the evening of winter. Curving upward they arch to a luminous, cyclopean moon. A guest, humble, I s... -
In Oliver Stone's 1995 biopic film about President Richard Nixon, there's a memorable passage attributed to H. R. Haldeman . Hald...