Alexandra Ottaway's Blog
About the Author
Current Events
Re: Bill Clinton's Rescue of the 2 journalists:
Boy you'd never know George Stephanopolous once worked in the Clinton Administration.
If Bill Clinton had averted a comet from hitting Manhattan or DC with his right hand,
then TV pundits would lament that he had unnecessarily forestalled The Rapture.
Did I fret about the "unintended consequences" of George W. Bush's donotcall.gov? No.
Credit where credit is due.
Boy you'd never know George Stephanopolous once worked in the Clinton Administration.
If Bill Clinton had averted a comet from hitting Manhattan or DC with his right hand,
then TV pundits would lament that he had unnecessarily forestalled The Rapture.
Did I fret about the "unintended consequences" of George W. Bush's donotcall.gov? No.
Credit where credit is due.
This is a pretty even-handed analysis of what might be motivating these people at town halls who are trying to 1) shout speakers down, 2) threaten to lynch Congressman, 3) lynch them in effigy, 4) call Obama a Nazi(certainly a lack of discernment of the differences!) and 5) deny the right of free speech to people who are trying to explain the new health care bill to the mis-, dis- and uninformed.
While I'm not sure I agree with Rachel Maddow that crying "Nazi" equals intent-to- have-someone-killed(I didn't call Bush a Nazi(though that's setting the bar awfully low and some Iraqis may see it differently) or wish W. ill(on the contrary, if he had been mentally/spiritually healthier, the US would now have a much brighter future), I do agree with Maddow that, in fringe elements, this talk of lynching, aside from being evidently racist, could cause murderous thoughts; and it worries me. So here's PK's more cool-headed yet emotional enough analysis:
Krugman on Angry Mobs at the Health Care Town Halls
I might add that Ken Mehlman, who was chairman of the Republican National Committee from2005-2007 and served as the campaign manager for George W. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, apologized for Republicans fomenting racial hatred in the 60's when Nixon was President(something he could conveniently not do anything). But now that it's convenient for them, some Republican leaders are fomenting racism again.
In my book a real apology is not, "I'm sorry IF," but rather, "I'm sorry. It won't happen again," or "I'll do my best to make sure it doesn't happen again."
I think newspapers might have lasted a little longer if William Randolph Hearst had not lobbied to outlaw hemp because, as a much cheaper alternative, it was threatening his timber holdings.
First drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution
were written on it, and it is because they were written on that material that
we still have those documents today, because without acid, paper lasts longer.
Hemp was the working medium of the Revolutionary Era
+ many books and other documents were written on it.
If we still used it today, it wouldn't be such a big deal to add, e.g.,
4 more pages to a daily.
First drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution
were written on it, and it is because they were written on that material that
we still have those documents today, because without acid, paper lasts longer.
Hemp was the working medium of the Revolutionary Era
+ many books and other documents were written on it.
If we still used it today, it wouldn't be such a big deal to add, e.g.,
4 more pages to a daily.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html
Yikes! Look out and listen to this, Obama!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html?em
What bright editor wrote this headline in a leading financial journal:
"(Obama) Bit Off More Than He Can Chew"?
No president, however intelligent, should have to chew
what Bush-Cheney left in their eight-year wake,
but it never fails to astound me that the GOP isn't grateful
that someone uniquely qualified like Obama
has stepped up to take out their trash.
"(Obama) Bit Off More Than He Can Chew"?
No president, however intelligent, should have to chew
what Bush-Cheney left in their eight-year wake,
but it never fails to astound me that the GOP isn't grateful
that someone uniquely qualified like Obama
has stepped up to take out their trash.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
On some of the bad-faith lies that were used for arguments all last weekend:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?em
Can Labor Revive the American Dream?
by ESTHER KAPLAN
This article appeared in the January 26, 2009 edition of The Nation.
January 7, 2009
The financial markets are in tatters, consumer spending is anemic and the recession continues to deepen, but corporate America is keeping its eyes on the prize: crushing organized labor. The Center for Union Facts, a business front group, has taken out full-page ads in newspapers linking SEIU president Andy Stern to the Rod Blagojevich scandal. The Chamber of Commerce is capitalizing on the debate over the Big Three bailout to claim that "unions drove the auto companies off the cliff," while minority leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators insist on steep wage cuts. A December 10 Republican strategy memo revealed their central obsession: "Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor," the memo read. "This is a precursor to card check"--a clear reference to the Employee Free Choice Act.
This simple amendment to federal labor law, which would, among other things, allow workers to unionize when a majority sign cards rather than requiring a bruising election, has galvanized the business community in a way even the $700 billion bailout couldn't. "I get the sense that this is more important to them than even taxes or regulation," says the AFL-CIO's director of government affairs, Bill Samuels. "This is about power. And the business community is not going to give up power willingly." Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said as much to a meeting with analysts in October. "We like driving the car," he told them, "and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us." Read More »
by ESTHER KAPLAN
This article appeared in the January 26, 2009 edition of The Nation.
January 7, 2009
The financial markets are in tatters, consumer spending is anemic and the recession continues to deepen, but corporate America is keeping its eyes on the prize: crushing organized labor. The Center for Union Facts, a business front group, has taken out full-page ads in newspapers linking SEIU president Andy Stern to the Rod Blagojevich scandal. The Chamber of Commerce is capitalizing on the debate over the Big Three bailout to claim that "unions drove the auto companies off the cliff," while minority leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators insist on steep wage cuts. A December 10 Republican strategy memo revealed their central obsession: "Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor," the memo read. "This is a precursor to card check"--a clear reference to the Employee Free Choice Act.
This simple amendment to federal labor law, which would, among other things, allow workers to unionize when a majority sign cards rather than requiring a bruising election, has galvanized the business community in a way even the $700 billion bailout couldn't. "I get the sense that this is more important to them than even taxes or regulation," says the AFL-CIO's director of government affairs, Bill Samuels. "This is about power. And the business community is not going to give up power willingly." Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said as much to a meeting with analysts in October. "We like driving the car," he told them, "and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us." Read More »
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/nyregion/17flight.html?pagewanted=3&ref=nyregion
"Barack Be Good"
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 25, 2008
"Times have changed. In 1996, President Bill Clinton, under siege from the right, declared that the era of big government is over. But President-elect Barack Obama, riding a wave of revulsion over what conservatism has wrought, has said that he wants to make government cool again."
Read More »
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 25, 2008
"Times have changed. In 1996, President Bill Clinton, under siege from the right, declared that the era of big government is over. But President-elect Barack Obama, riding a wave of revulsion over what conservatism has wrought, has said that he wants to make government cool again."
Read More »
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/paul-krugman-schools-geor_n_144298.html
For some reason live link is not available to me, but if anyone wants to give me a lesson on it,
feel free.
For some reason live link is not available to me, but if anyone wants to give me a lesson on it,
feel free.
I just had to note what CNN's Fareed Zakaria said to Obama on his weekly GPS show
(Global Public Square) this last Sunday(11/16/08) at 1 PM: "GO BIG!"
After that: two Russia experts debated what our policy toward that country should look like.
Then one of the "architects" of the surge in Iraq debated another NYU expert whether
to put more troops in Afghanistan, what a surge there could look like,
and how it would be a lot more difficult to unify Afghanistan.
You can catch some of this on YouTube.
(Global Public Square) this last Sunday(11/16/08) at 1 PM: "GO BIG!"
After that: two Russia experts debated what our policy toward that country should look like.
Then one of the "architects" of the surge in Iraq debated another NYU expert whether
to put more troops in Afghanistan, what a surge there could look like,
and how it would be a lot more difficult to unify Afghanistan.
You can catch some of this on YouTube.
Before I start this, I want to say that the difference between this election and the two wins
of W. 43, is that Barack knows he does not have a mandate to overreach; I think he will really try to bring the country forward with as many people as possible on-board. It was a
campaign of change, but for many of it was a campaign of "At least change it BACK" to
an administration where the leaders are political and/or emotional grown-ups, if maybe
not always both at the same time.
Not sure I agree with Paul that Obama has a complete liberal mandate, but what I'd like
readers to take form this Op-Ed I have encased in stars, like this: ***.......***
That being said, here's Krumgan's push into the future.
The Obama Agenda
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 7, 2008
....
Right now, many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small. Some make the case on political grounds: America, they say, is still a conservative country, and voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left. Others say that the financial and economic crisis leaves no room for action on, say, health care reform.
Let's hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice.
About the political argument: Anyone who doubts that we've had a major political realignment should look at what's happened to Congress. After the 2004 election, there were many declarations that we'd entered a long-term, perhaps permanent era of Republican dominance. Since then, Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign.
Bear in mind, also, that this year's presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies, and the progressive philosophy won.
Maybe the best way to highlight the importance of that fact is to contrast this year's campaign with what happened four years ago. In 2004, President Bush concealed his real agenda. He basically ran as the nation's defender against gay married terrorists, leaving even his supporters nonplussed when he announced, soon after the election was over, that his first priority was Social Security privatization. That wasn't what people thought they had been voting for, and the privatization campaign quickly devolved from juggernaut to farce.
This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a redistributor, but America voted for him anyway. That's a real mandate.
What about the argument that the economic crisis will make a progressive agenda unaffordable?
***Well, there's no question that fighting the crisis will cost a lot of money. Rescuing the financial system will probably require large outlays beyond the funds already disbursed. And on top of that, we badly need a program of increased government spending to support output and employment. Could next year's federal budget deficit reach $1 trillion? Yes.
But standard textbook economics says that it's O.K., in fact appropriate, to run temporary deficits in the face of a depressed economy. Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn't stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn't take effect until 2011.***
Beyond that, the response to the economic crisis is, in itself, a chance to advance the progressive agenda.
Now, the Obama administration shouldn't emulate the Bush administration's habit of turning anything and everything into an argument for its preferred policies. (Recession? The economy needs help! Let's cut taxes on rich people! Recovery? Tax cuts for rich people work. Let's do some more!)
But it would be fair for the new administration to point out how conservative ideology, the belief that greed is always good, helped create this crisis. What F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address, "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics," has never rung truer.
And right now happens to be one of those times when the converse is also true, and good morals are good economics. Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it's also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it's also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy's slump.
So a serious progressive agenda, call it a new New Deal, isn't just economically possible, it's exactly what the economy needs.
The bottom line, then, is that Barack Obama shouldn't listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself.
of W. 43, is that Barack knows he does not have a mandate to overreach; I think he will really try to bring the country forward with as many people as possible on-board. It was a
campaign of change, but for many of it was a campaign of "At least change it BACK" to
an administration where the leaders are political and/or emotional grown-ups, if maybe
not always both at the same time.
Not sure I agree with Paul that Obama has a complete liberal mandate, but what I'd like
readers to take form this Op-Ed I have encased in stars, like this: ***.......***
That being said, here's Krumgan's push into the future.
The Obama Agenda
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 7, 2008
....
Right now, many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small. Some make the case on political grounds: America, they say, is still a conservative country, and voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left. Others say that the financial and economic crisis leaves no room for action on, say, health care reform.
Let's hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice.
About the political argument: Anyone who doubts that we've had a major political realignment should look at what's happened to Congress. After the 2004 election, there were many declarations that we'd entered a long-term, perhaps permanent era of Republican dominance. Since then, Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign.
Bear in mind, also, that this year's presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies, and the progressive philosophy won.
Maybe the best way to highlight the importance of that fact is to contrast this year's campaign with what happened four years ago. In 2004, President Bush concealed his real agenda. He basically ran as the nation's defender against gay married terrorists, leaving even his supporters nonplussed when he announced, soon after the election was over, that his first priority was Social Security privatization. That wasn't what people thought they had been voting for, and the privatization campaign quickly devolved from juggernaut to farce.
This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a redistributor, but America voted for him anyway. That's a real mandate.
What about the argument that the economic crisis will make a progressive agenda unaffordable?
***Well, there's no question that fighting the crisis will cost a lot of money. Rescuing the financial system will probably require large outlays beyond the funds already disbursed. And on top of that, we badly need a program of increased government spending to support output and employment. Could next year's federal budget deficit reach $1 trillion? Yes.
But standard textbook economics says that it's O.K., in fact appropriate, to run temporary deficits in the face of a depressed economy. Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn't stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn't take effect until 2011.***
Beyond that, the response to the economic crisis is, in itself, a chance to advance the progressive agenda.
Now, the Obama administration shouldn't emulate the Bush administration's habit of turning anything and everything into an argument for its preferred policies. (Recession? The economy needs help! Let's cut taxes on rich people! Recovery? Tax cuts for rich people work. Let's do some more!)
But it would be fair for the new administration to point out how conservative ideology, the belief that greed is always good, helped create this crisis. What F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address, "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics," has never rung truer.
And right now happens to be one of those times when the converse is also true, and good morals are good economics. Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it's also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it's also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy's slump.
So a serious progressive agenda, call it a new New Deal, isn't just economically possible, it's exactly what the economy needs.
The bottom line, then, is that Barack Obama shouldn't listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself.
The title says it all. Some days in the WSJ, south is north and up is down. Obama is one of the most vetted candidates we've ever seen, simply because of the painstakingly honest book he wrote before thinking of becoming president, called Dreams of My Father. Audacity of Hope is more of a campaign book, but still useful. How can the republicans say there's an essential Obama we don't know? Just beware the spin machine. A few weeks ago, I was at dinner with some former Hillary democrats. They were saying, "Well, if Hillary has so many negatives and the independents and republicans really prefer Obama...." I answered, "It's not that simple!" this is a Bait-N-Switch!" And sure enough right off the mark-- the very second Barack wins the nomination--WSJ is there the very next morning, with their anti-Obama innuendo. Also please Google "Project Vote": http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/Policy_Briefs/Project_Vote_Policy_Brief_8_Voter_ID.pdf In it you will see the horrifying project conservatives have to disenfranchise huge swaths of Obama voters(also Hillary voters): These Voter-ID laws are serious! Read More »
Posts By Month
Posts
