Only a crazed sports fan would relate to what I am about to write.
How superstitious should I be today? Should I adhere to my time-honored practice of sitting in our den to watch the NY Giants on our 35-inch, 21-year old Mitsubishi console television, a TV that has served me well during the recent playoff drive and previous Super Bowl contests (let’s forget, for now, the debacle in 2001), or should I tempt fate and lay on my bed to watch the Giants take on the Green Bay Packers on our wall-mounted 52-inch LCD, High Definition Sharp Aquos television?
Normally, Gilda prefers I seclude myself in the den, but she’ll be at the gym later. I lean towards going with what’s gotten me, and the Giants, to their present possibility of upsetting the Packers, but I am tempted by Saturday’s viewing of the Saints-49’ers game on the big screen. No doubt about it, everything popped brighter, more vibrantly upstairs. It was indeed sharper on the Sharp.
But if the Giants lose, will I blame myself for switching? Non-sports fans (if they’ve read this far) are no doubt shaking their heads at the absurdity of my thoughts. How infantile can I be?, they are saying. They just don’t understand sports superstitions. Never have. Never will.
From Sports to Politics: You don’t need a TV screen to follow the tussles within the Republican party presidential primary. I’ve got a passing (yes, pun intended) interest in Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
For Gingrich, my link is to his money-bagged buddy, Sheldon Adelson. As I wrote back in May, Adelson was not one of my favorite business contacts. He is transfixed on what he sees as right, and uses his money and influence to advance his causes. Here’s what I wrote eight months ago: http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2011/05/my-link-to-newt.html
Memory fails to confirm if I ever met Mitt Romney some 20 years ago when I interviewed several Bain Capital executives about their interest in retail companies, such as Staples. This much I do remember—the three men I did meet all dressed the same. They could have stepped out of a Brooks Brothers catalog with their blue suits, white buttoned down shirts, rep ties, and black oxford shoes. They were clean-shaven with short, dark hair, not one strand out of place.
No, I can’t say Romney was among them. I have met two presidents before they became our nation’s chief executive. Jimmy Carter crossed my path during his 1972 presidential campaign while I was covering an event attended by Rep. John Monaghan of Connecticut. Carter was testy that night, I recall.
Bill Clinton was a guest at an annual shareholders meeting of Wal-Mart about 30 years ago. Sam Walton always liked to have the governors of Arkansas make an appearance and talk about the business-friendly climate in the Razorback state and how Wal-Mart was good for the local economy. A few years later Walton solidified his ties to Clinton by appointing Hillary to Wal-Mart’s board of directors. She served from 1986 to 1992.
Showing posts with label Gingrich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gingrich. Show all posts
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Random, and Not So Random, Acts of Kindness
They are beautiful, heartwarming gestures I do not mean to belittle. But the anonymous charity of Secret Santas randomly giving out $100 bills to those they think are in need, or paying off a stranger’s layaway charges at Kmart, is not the answer to the paralyzing and pervasive poverty enveloping our nation. They are not the solution to a capitalist system that has divided our country, indeed, large parts of the rest of the world as well, into spheres of plenty and spheres of void.
However generous they are, random acts of kindness should not lull us into believing they can relieve our fellow citizens of the trauma of unemployment, of the despair of having a loved one in need of medical care without adequate health insurance, of squelching the pangs of hunger that ache each night in the bellies of too many of our young.
My conservative friends and relatives tell me government is not the answer. They would have the hungry and the needy rely on the generosity of their fellow human to ease their pain and tribulations, all the while exhorting them to bootstrap themselves into success. Newt Gingrich would dismiss child labor laws and have children of poverty clean schools so they can learn a work ethic, as if taking away the functions of school janitors is any way to reduce unemployment or increase the take-home pay of the working class.
I seem to recall George H.W. Bush more than 20 years ago waxing euphoric over a “thousand points of light” to help transform the country. Perhaps people are more charitable these days. But the number of families living at or below the poverty level keeps growing. The gap in income between the average worker and the average chief executive keeps growing. “Shared sacrifice” is a phrase that needs to be parsed in a new way—corporate executives get more shares, while the rest sacrifice.
Temporary generosity has but a temporary impact. Even if all of those who can afford it tithed, we would still require government intervention to bolster the economy and provide a safety net. How else to explain corporate America’s reluctance to invest in the United States, to hire more workers, even as companies sit on a treasure trove of cash. Neither government regulation nor a high tax rate is strangling our economy. Rather, it is the way we compensate our executives. They manage for short term gain, their bonuses tied to an annual bottom line. Say what you will about Amazon.com’s products and services, you can’t deny founder/CEO Jeff Bezos has stuck to his guns in defending a long-term strategy that has bedeviled Wall Streeters seeking more immediate returns.
Mitt Romney wants everyone to know not all businesses succeed, so don’t blame him if some of the companies his Bain Capital acquired filed for bankruptcy or had to lay off workers. Fair enough. So then let’s not allow him to scald President Obama for investing U.S. funds in Solyndra, a solar energy company that went belly up. New technologies need government assistance, sometimes direct, sometimes indirect. An example of the latter is the sales tax exemption many online retailers have enjoyed versus brick and mortar stores.
Compassionate conservatism is another hollow term. Even when conservative dogma is based on religious belief, as with the Right to Life movement, compassion for the unborn is not extended to the newborn. Conservatives want cuts in aid to dependent children, in early education programs, in school lunch programs.
Let’s not abandon the less fortunate. Let’s continue to donate food, clothing, dollars to worthy charities and individuals. But let’s not forget that without government assistance far too many of the citizens of the richest country on earth would not have a roof over their heads, meals to be eaten, schools to attend, pre- and post-school programs to enrich their growth years, doctors to visit, jobs to go to each day. These are not random acts of kindness. They’re the very foundation of what a government is supposed to do—protect and care for its citizens.
However generous they are, random acts of kindness should not lull us into believing they can relieve our fellow citizens of the trauma of unemployment, of the despair of having a loved one in need of medical care without adequate health insurance, of squelching the pangs of hunger that ache each night in the bellies of too many of our young.
My conservative friends and relatives tell me government is not the answer. They would have the hungry and the needy rely on the generosity of their fellow human to ease their pain and tribulations, all the while exhorting them to bootstrap themselves into success. Newt Gingrich would dismiss child labor laws and have children of poverty clean schools so they can learn a work ethic, as if taking away the functions of school janitors is any way to reduce unemployment or increase the take-home pay of the working class.
I seem to recall George H.W. Bush more than 20 years ago waxing euphoric over a “thousand points of light” to help transform the country. Perhaps people are more charitable these days. But the number of families living at or below the poverty level keeps growing. The gap in income between the average worker and the average chief executive keeps growing. “Shared sacrifice” is a phrase that needs to be parsed in a new way—corporate executives get more shares, while the rest sacrifice.
Temporary generosity has but a temporary impact. Even if all of those who can afford it tithed, we would still require government intervention to bolster the economy and provide a safety net. How else to explain corporate America’s reluctance to invest in the United States, to hire more workers, even as companies sit on a treasure trove of cash. Neither government regulation nor a high tax rate is strangling our economy. Rather, it is the way we compensate our executives. They manage for short term gain, their bonuses tied to an annual bottom line. Say what you will about Amazon.com’s products and services, you can’t deny founder/CEO Jeff Bezos has stuck to his guns in defending a long-term strategy that has bedeviled Wall Streeters seeking more immediate returns.
Mitt Romney wants everyone to know not all businesses succeed, so don’t blame him if some of the companies his Bain Capital acquired filed for bankruptcy or had to lay off workers. Fair enough. So then let’s not allow him to scald President Obama for investing U.S. funds in Solyndra, a solar energy company that went belly up. New technologies need government assistance, sometimes direct, sometimes indirect. An example of the latter is the sales tax exemption many online retailers have enjoyed versus brick and mortar stores.
Compassionate conservatism is another hollow term. Even when conservative dogma is based on religious belief, as with the Right to Life movement, compassion for the unborn is not extended to the newborn. Conservatives want cuts in aid to dependent children, in early education programs, in school lunch programs.
Let’s not abandon the less fortunate. Let’s continue to donate food, clothing, dollars to worthy charities and individuals. But let’s not forget that without government assistance far too many of the citizens of the richest country on earth would not have a roof over their heads, meals to be eaten, schools to attend, pre- and post-school programs to enrich their growth years, doctors to visit, jobs to go to each day. These are not random acts of kindness. They’re the very foundation of what a government is supposed to do—protect and care for its citizens.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The Bin Laden of U.S. Politics
Sarah Palin is the Osama bin Laden of U.S. politics. She’d blow up much of the government we know if given a chance, all in a quest to restore America to its original state, much like Osama wanted to turn the Muslim world back in time, to an era when it was dominant.
Americans wonder with more than a little trepidation if the popular Arab spring uprisings in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen et al will result in democracy or in a different version of tyranny, one tinged with Islamic fervor and intolerance. Our eyes seem to focus on the uncertainty overseas while unable to visualize that populism at home has its dangers, as well. Palin and Tea party members are intolerant of any principled position that doesn’t adhere to their vision of America. Too often they resort to ridicule and aspersion to de-legitimize their opponents, ignoring the foundation reasons why America has become vulnerable, economically and militarily. Most of those reasons developed from 2001 to 2009, during the Bush presidency.
Osama bin Laden got lucky when the Twin Towers collapsed, but his real strength was manipulating the media. For 10 years we waited with our hearts in our throats for his next electronic message. He commanded attention, though not a military response during the Bush years. Similarly, Sara Palin has the media wrapped and warped around her finger. The media desperately want a “story line” for the 2012 election, now that President Obama has seemingly cleared up doubts among all but ignorant, intolerant non-believers that he’s Hawaiian-born.
Trump proved to be a chump. Daniels’ on-off-on-again wife would have sent the press into a frenzy trying to dredge up details. Alas, Indiana Mitch chose family stability and privacy over national exposure. Huckabee (and his wife) learned it’s a lot comfier spreading the gospel of conservatism when handsomely paid to do so. For all his alleged credentials, Gingrich showed no more political savvy than a newt. He did perform a public service, however, enunciating the tyranny of the right’s attempt to socially engineer Medicare and showing the world what happens to a politician who dares deviate from party dogma. So much for the GOP being a party of ideas worth debating.
The media needs Sarah Palin to spice up a bland Republican primary season. Palin needs the media to keep her standing as America’s picture of lost innocence. Her poll numbers among all voters are paltry. Her reality show failed to secure a second season. She does, however, talk in sound bites, and for that the media is eternally grateful. She’s also the best looking GOP pol out there (sorry Mitt).
If she could only talk sense. It might be au courant to tweet, but the public deserves leaders who can think beyond 140 characters. 140 characters lets you get off some nifty one-liners; governing, however, requires nuance and complex programs. Of course, Palin decided governing the great state of Alaska was too limiting a challenge, so her bona fides as a leader working within the system are not especially developed. Her Fox News gig has netted her big bucks, but she has failed to put forward a creditable platform.
Yes, she wants to put America back to work. She wants a strong military. She wants to rein in spending. But what does it all mean? Would she have allowed GM and Chrysler to go under? Would she have sent troops to Libya? Would she have had the foresight to send backup helicopters on the Seal Team 6 mission to get bin Laden? Does she believe the economic stimulus plan prevented a worse disaster? Does she believe government has a responsibility to patrol the workplace to ensure workers do not toil in unsafe conditions? Does she believe the government has a responsibility to ensure the safety of our food and water? Does she believe corporations would act humanely if there were no government inspector looking over their shoulders? Does she believe we were better off in the Happy Days time when women mostly stayed home raising children?
It’s almost impossible to say. She refuses to talk to the media except if they are hand-picked and part of the Fox-wing conspiracy. Yet reporters and editors chase her more doggedly than Bush pursued bin Laden. Palin is a weapon of mass media destruction. Instead of focusing on issues, the media points klieg lights on her. I’m no fan of Michele Bachmann, but at least she has a record we can scrutinize (and shake our heads at).
Americans wonder with more than a little trepidation if the popular Arab spring uprisings in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen et al will result in democracy or in a different version of tyranny, one tinged with Islamic fervor and intolerance. Our eyes seem to focus on the uncertainty overseas while unable to visualize that populism at home has its dangers, as well. Palin and Tea party members are intolerant of any principled position that doesn’t adhere to their vision of America. Too often they resort to ridicule and aspersion to de-legitimize their opponents, ignoring the foundation reasons why America has become vulnerable, economically and militarily. Most of those reasons developed from 2001 to 2009, during the Bush presidency.
Osama bin Laden got lucky when the Twin Towers collapsed, but his real strength was manipulating the media. For 10 years we waited with our hearts in our throats for his next electronic message. He commanded attention, though not a military response during the Bush years. Similarly, Sara Palin has the media wrapped and warped around her finger. The media desperately want a “story line” for the 2012 election, now that President Obama has seemingly cleared up doubts among all but ignorant, intolerant non-believers that he’s Hawaiian-born.
Trump proved to be a chump. Daniels’ on-off-on-again wife would have sent the press into a frenzy trying to dredge up details. Alas, Indiana Mitch chose family stability and privacy over national exposure. Huckabee (and his wife) learned it’s a lot comfier spreading the gospel of conservatism when handsomely paid to do so. For all his alleged credentials, Gingrich showed no more political savvy than a newt. He did perform a public service, however, enunciating the tyranny of the right’s attempt to socially engineer Medicare and showing the world what happens to a politician who dares deviate from party dogma. So much for the GOP being a party of ideas worth debating.
The media needs Sarah Palin to spice up a bland Republican primary season. Palin needs the media to keep her standing as America’s picture of lost innocence. Her poll numbers among all voters are paltry. Her reality show failed to secure a second season. She does, however, talk in sound bites, and for that the media is eternally grateful. She’s also the best looking GOP pol out there (sorry Mitt).
If she could only talk sense. It might be au courant to tweet, but the public deserves leaders who can think beyond 140 characters. 140 characters lets you get off some nifty one-liners; governing, however, requires nuance and complex programs. Of course, Palin decided governing the great state of Alaska was too limiting a challenge, so her bona fides as a leader working within the system are not especially developed. Her Fox News gig has netted her big bucks, but she has failed to put forward a creditable platform.
Yes, she wants to put America back to work. She wants a strong military. She wants to rein in spending. But what does it all mean? Would she have allowed GM and Chrysler to go under? Would she have sent troops to Libya? Would she have had the foresight to send backup helicopters on the Seal Team 6 mission to get bin Laden? Does she believe the economic stimulus plan prevented a worse disaster? Does she believe government has a responsibility to patrol the workplace to ensure workers do not toil in unsafe conditions? Does she believe the government has a responsibility to ensure the safety of our food and water? Does she believe corporations would act humanely if there were no government inspector looking over their shoulders? Does she believe we were better off in the Happy Days time when women mostly stayed home raising children?
It’s almost impossible to say. She refuses to talk to the media except if they are hand-picked and part of the Fox-wing conspiracy. Yet reporters and editors chase her more doggedly than Bush pursued bin Laden. Palin is a weapon of mass media destruction. Instead of focusing on issues, the media points klieg lights on her. I’m no fan of Michele Bachmann, but at least she has a record we can scrutinize (and shake our heads at).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
