http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/06/03/obama-and-american-exceptionalism/?tid=sm_tw
This is an interesting article, and one that helps me understand a distinction I had not previously recognized. I do not believe America is the greatest country on Earth. Even if such a subjective statement could be quantified, there is no possible metric by which America can be said to stand above all others (and yes, the opening monologue from The Newsroom is on point here) ... except, perhaps, for aspiration.
More people want to be in America, to become American, than any other nation. The reason for that is not (or shouldn't be) quality of life; otherwise, the most popular nation on Earth would be Sweden, probably. And yet people aspire to be like us, or like our best vision of ourselves, because moreso than any other country, we aspire to be better too. And as the article says, it's not been the wealthy and privileged who've striven for continuous improvement in America: it's been "the ability of the unsung and the outsiders to challenge the country’s elite and force change."
Showing posts with label Soapbox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soapbox. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Political blogging and the proper scrutiny of police
I think my problem with blogging is the same as my problem
with writing in general: it's not that I don't have great ideas (or at least,
ideas that I think are great), but that I have difficulty making the transition
from 'diversion' to 'habit' that is necessary to produce writing on a
consistent basis. Weeks will go by in which I either don't think of blogging,
or think, 'oh yeah, I should do that sometime' and then do something else. And
yet I want to stick with it. I finally figured out how to delete an old blog,
and removed the class blog I had to produce sophomore year, and might yet
delete this one, but only after backing up my posts, and only if I am confident
that I will be more successful at sticking to my next one. In the meantime, I
have posts from April and May in various states of completion (and that's
another problem; starting ideas and then trailing off and leaving them in
stasis for months), so hopefully I'll get to those shortly; I'm also mulling
over a future post on the gradual dehipsterization of my taste in music.
In the meantime, more and more often when I think about political topics, I find myself framing it in terms of what I would say were I an elected official dealing with such a thing. Which is an interesting train of thought my mind has been following these last few months, I think. I'm not sure it's a realistic ambition, or even an actual ambition; while I might be ok at the actual law-making part of the job, I'm not sure how someone as introverted as I would fare on the campaign trail, especial when just starting out, when meet-n-greet takes precedence over out-of-state attack ads. But it's a fun thought experiment, and who knows? Maybe if teaching jobs continue not to be found, I can start over with a law or poli-sci degree? In any case, I've already written one such post, and I rather expect I'll be writing more, and leaving them up here for future political foes to dig up and use against me. Good times.
So.
As a diligent reader of the internets, I was of course aware of the recent and hilarious legal kerfluffle involving The Oatmeal, in which a scrubby joke-compiler website hired a scrubby lawyer to make scrubby and unsubstantiated threats to extort money from the writer of the Oatmeal. Who promptly and amusingly retaliated with massive and public scorn, backed by the full force of his large and loyal fanbase and the not-inconsiderable legions among the wider internet community who enjoy making fun of scrubs. Things got much, much funnier when the scrubby lawyer in question, one Charles Carreon, got his undies in a wad and decided to take on Oatmeal, IndieGoGo, The National Wildlife Federation, The American Cancer Society, and pretty much everyone who made fun of him. He later backed down, although not without finding a few new ways to wallow in fail on the way out the door; the matter might or might not rest at that.
But this isn't the topic of this post; this is just background.
In the meantime, more and more often when I think about political topics, I find myself framing it in terms of what I would say were I an elected official dealing with such a thing. Which is an interesting train of thought my mind has been following these last few months, I think. I'm not sure it's a realistic ambition, or even an actual ambition; while I might be ok at the actual law-making part of the job, I'm not sure how someone as introverted as I would fare on the campaign trail, especial when just starting out, when meet-n-greet takes precedence over out-of-state attack ads. But it's a fun thought experiment, and who knows? Maybe if teaching jobs continue not to be found, I can start over with a law or poli-sci degree? In any case, I've already written one such post, and I rather expect I'll be writing more, and leaving them up here for future political foes to dig up and use against me. Good times.
So.
As a diligent reader of the internets, I was of course aware of the recent and hilarious legal kerfluffle involving The Oatmeal, in which a scrubby joke-compiler website hired a scrubby lawyer to make scrubby and unsubstantiated threats to extort money from the writer of the Oatmeal. Who promptly and amusingly retaliated with massive and public scorn, backed by the full force of his large and loyal fanbase and the not-inconsiderable legions among the wider internet community who enjoy making fun of scrubs. Things got much, much funnier when the scrubby lawyer in question, one Charles Carreon, got his undies in a wad and decided to take on Oatmeal, IndieGoGo, The National Wildlife Federation, The American Cancer Society, and pretty much everyone who made fun of him. He later backed down, although not without finding a few new ways to wallow in fail on the way out the door; the matter might or might not rest at that.
But this isn't the topic of this post; this is just background.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Democrats, take note
<mounts soapbox>
You know what I would say if I were in Congress and I heard talk about how we shouldn't tax 'job creators' because 'their investments drive the economy,' etc. etc.?
(I'm not bothering to find or post specific examples; if you aren't aware of the line of reasoning of which I speak, you clearly need to watch http://www.thedailyshow.com/ more often.)
There appears to be a false dichotomy in the minds of many people between investment and the government. They say that we cannot tax the wealthy at even the same rate as their blue-collar employees because doing so will 'discourage' investment. Since when was paying taxes not an investment? When a citizen or corporation pays taxes, they are absolutely making an investment. They are investing in roads, bridges and airports to help them bring their products to market quickly, cheaply and safely. They are investing in an education program that will produce a more capable, flexible and competitive workforce to create said products. They are investing in a military capable of safeguarding American assets, public, private or corporate, in any market around the world. They are investing in law enforcement, retirement benefits, and social programs that will keep their workforce and their customer base healthy and happy. They are investing in scientific research in everything from biotechnology to aerospace engineering that will produce breakthroughs to drive our economy through the next century and beyond. They are investing in the responsible and sustainable development of our natural resources. Their investment will create jobs in education, construction, research and development, manufacturing, and beyond, all of which will drive economic growth and direct commerce back at them and their companies. If someone came up to me and offered me shares in that investment, I'd say it was a darned fine deal.
Of course, the people who are opposed to this might have another meaning of the word 'investment' in mind, so let me tell you what investing in America will not do. It will not buy out smaller companies, strip them of their assets and leave them for dead. It will not bundle junk mortgages into booby-trapped credit swaps and sell them to retirement funds or pension plans. It will not drive massive bonuses into the pockets of executives whose businesses are going under. If that's the kind of investment people want to make, that's their decision, but I wouldn't expect the American people to slash their taxes to cover it. Because America has tried that. America has tried giving corporations and Wall Street free reign, and it led us into the worst depression since the great one. So if you want to invest, fine. But invest in America first.
<dismounts soapbox>
You know what I would say if I were in Congress and I heard talk about how we shouldn't tax 'job creators' because 'their investments drive the economy,' etc. etc.?
(I'm not bothering to find or post specific examples; if you aren't aware of the line of reasoning of which I speak, you clearly need to watch http://www.thedailyshow.com/ more often.)
There appears to be a false dichotomy in the minds of many people between investment and the government. They say that we cannot tax the wealthy at even the same rate as their blue-collar employees because doing so will 'discourage' investment. Since when was paying taxes not an investment? When a citizen or corporation pays taxes, they are absolutely making an investment. They are investing in roads, bridges and airports to help them bring their products to market quickly, cheaply and safely. They are investing in an education program that will produce a more capable, flexible and competitive workforce to create said products. They are investing in a military capable of safeguarding American assets, public, private or corporate, in any market around the world. They are investing in law enforcement, retirement benefits, and social programs that will keep their workforce and their customer base healthy and happy. They are investing in scientific research in everything from biotechnology to aerospace engineering that will produce breakthroughs to drive our economy through the next century and beyond. They are investing in the responsible and sustainable development of our natural resources. Their investment will create jobs in education, construction, research and development, manufacturing, and beyond, all of which will drive economic growth and direct commerce back at them and their companies. If someone came up to me and offered me shares in that investment, I'd say it was a darned fine deal.
Of course, the people who are opposed to this might have another meaning of the word 'investment' in mind, so let me tell you what investing in America will not do. It will not buy out smaller companies, strip them of their assets and leave them for dead. It will not bundle junk mortgages into booby-trapped credit swaps and sell them to retirement funds or pension plans. It will not drive massive bonuses into the pockets of executives whose businesses are going under. If that's the kind of investment people want to make, that's their decision, but I wouldn't expect the American people to slash their taxes to cover it. Because America has tried that. America has tried giving corporations and Wall Street free reign, and it led us into the worst depression since the great one. So if you want to invest, fine. But invest in America first.
<dismounts soapbox>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)