Oratores

Barack Obama, clearly a gifted speaker, was in rare form in St. Paul last night. The contrast - between McCain's subdued crowd, uncomfortable delivery and Obama's raucous arena and professional oration - could not have been more stark. But some of the content of Obama's speeches feels unchallenged, presumably because it sits comfortably in the middle of such rousing rhetoric.

"From the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls."
This has just got to stop. It is not as elegant and poetic as the Obama campaign seems to think it is: we all know he has travelled the country and that people have voted across the continent. We’re also familiar with the geological/topographical variety that defines America so the sooner we could stop talking about the campaign moving from snow to sunshine, from wheat fields to streets, from mountains to coasts, ad infinitum the better.

"It’s not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college — policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt."
Growing income disparity may well be an issue worth exploring (as long as we don’t devolve into talking about “literally” two Americas). But describing the Bush economic policy as failing to create jobs is empirically false. Setting aside the fact that fifty-two months of job growth – the longest uninterrupted streak ever – ran from August 2003 through January 2008, isn’t it possible that Presidents shouldn’t “create” jobs?

"While we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn’t making the American people any safer."
How is this responsible or acceptable rhetoric from a man who hopes to be commander in chief of the US military? I would say killing al-Zarqawi made America safer. I would think that occupying the attention of al Qaeda with an offensive effort makes it harder for them to attack us. But I don’t know for sure. How does he? And since he does know for sure, could he enlighten us with the metrics and data he uses to make this sweeping statement?

"A college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American."
This is absurd. Taken at face value, the logic here is classic entitlement utopian socialistic nonsense. Why not make law school the “birthright” of every American? Not everyone can do college-level work and not everyone should feel they’re supposed to. Further, if a college education existed only for the “wealthy few,” what would we label government grants and, indeed, the thousands of merit-based scholarships? (Not to mention the “free” US Naval Academy, West Point, AFA, etc).

Bobby H

Bob Herbert, recipient of much MSNBC praise recently, has soberly decreed: "Argue substance. And then let the people decide." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20herbert.html)

How does Mr. Herbert's article advance his noble cause? What does a fly-by job of mentioning healthcare as a "scandal" have to do with substance? What about mentioning a few books (and quoting them!) helps the people decide? How does discussing the tragic and heartbreaking Sgt. Andersson anecdote substantiate discussion of the issues?

Didn't Mr. Herbert mean to say that only those nettlesome forms of "distraction" ("fear-mongering, bogus arguments over who really loves America, race-baiting, gay-baiting") were to be proscribed? And if so, then a lot of issues on which the American electorate disagrees with Bob Herbert are now off limits. If not, then I'm sure we'll see restraint in future hyperbolic umbrage/indignation - notificiations of high offense - ukases.

Outrage!

From hysterical pop smug sports commentator and drama queen of regular indignation (Keith Olbermann):





"She actually said those words.
Those words, Senator?
You actually invoked the nightmare of political assassination.
You actually invoked the specter of an inspirational leader, at the seeming moment of triumph, for himself and a battered nation yearning to breathe free, silenced forever.
You actually used the word "assassination" in the middle of a campaign with a loud undertone of racial hatred - and gender hatred - and political hatred."

Sigh. Always outraged by fear mongering and fear as a political tool, KO has decided to take a clearly chronological statement about Democratic nominees campaigning in June and turn it into a fresh new outrage. Not surprising, of course, since his entire brand is mindless outrage and anger.

What does he think of the possibility that HRC mentioned RFK because, as was so clear in the quotation's context, he was still campaigning in June? Does he entertain this possibility before leaping wildly to full blown indignation or is this too arduous? Could we also please get over the tendency to treat every historical analogy or example as an "insulting" or "offensive" comparison?

Grading Graydon

Graydon Carter wrote a fatuous piece in this month's Vanity Fair (to see the "editor's letter"):

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/06/graydon200806.

A few thoughts in response:

The hardest part about issuing a failing grade - which Carter so clearly deserves - is knowing where to begin in explaining it. I assume I must not have fully comprehended the editor’s remarks. I enjoy Vanity Fair, and can’t stand to see lovely articles – like this month’s on RFK – tainted with the stain of high school newspaper like editorializing. The “arguments” and tropes in his opening to the June 2008 issue are so well-worn and poorly reasoned that it is not even a surprise when we get to the last sentence and Carter summarizes the president’s job as “telling us how to live our lives.” How will we ever elect someone to satisfy his understanding of the executive branch?
But what forced the response was the hilarious list of areas where the Bush Administration earned Mr. Carter’s disdain and omniscient scorn. Setting aside the debatable (which Mr. Carter fully ignores the complexity of), a few of Graydon’s grievances are especially amusing and baffling - in red below. Answers to the questions below each bullet might help us understand how an age complete with incredible modernization and development – and all the associated societal benefits - could be likened to the Dark Ages:
· “Our reputation, military, and economy in tatters?—F.”
Does Mr. Carter consider our reputation more important than our national interest and, even if not, how does he measure “reputation?” Has the military’s expansion into Afghanistan and Iraq since 2002 propagated any benefit and, even if not, how does he score the realized gains and costs to reach that conclusion? If Mr. Carter ties the “economy” so closely to the President’s governing policy, how does he explain the healthy economic growth from 2002-2008? (If he chooses to cite “stagnating wages” in his response, could he also elaborate on why GDP is not a relevant metric during the selected timeframe?)
· “Wall Street an unregulated disaster?—F.”
Would Mr. Carter like to see more zealous and righteous persecution of Wall Street a la Spitzer or of a different variety? Does Mr. Carter think anyone other than hedge fund cowboys benefit from a thriving financial infrastrucutre through securities, mutual funds, pensions, etc?
· "Banks in crisis and airlines in bankruptcy?—F."
How exactly should the President begin meddling in the affairs of specific industries – either when they are profitable or struggling? Is this related to him telling “us how to live our lives” if we work in the airline or banking industry?
· "Oil at more than $113 a barrel?—F."
How exactly should the President begin meddling in the affairs of commodity pricing? Could, for example, other commodities be used as a success metrics during other administrations (e.g. is Jimmy Carter to blame for feeder cattle futures more than doubling in 1978-9)?
· "A tax system that favors the rich over the poor?—F."
Would Mr. Carter agree that the tax system is wildly progressive and that the “rich” pay the vast majority of the government’s revenues? If so, and if he still calls this favoring the rich over the poor, what would he call a regressive – or even a flat – tax?

Dedication

To deconstructing ideas and opinions so frequently delivered as to seem true or unquestionable; do they stand up to rational questioning and, if not, why do they survive?