NYCweboy

Why Would You Want To Do That?

In the early days of blogs and internet surfing, I spent a lot of time on Lucianne.com. I've mentioned this before (though not in a long while). At the time it was hard to find a lot of places with interesting content that also had opportunity to comment and engage in discussions with others, and Lucianne Goldberg's idea - post links to news content and offer discussion threads from them - was fairly novel.

Lucianne is also conservative, and the site was not necessarily the most hospitable place for a liberal. I enjoyed it anyway, because I do love a good debate, and I wanted to understand better the differences between liberal and conservative viewpoints. And, by trial and error, I learned a few things about civil discourse - how to respectfully offer counterarguments without getting personal (and how not to take responses personally, either).

For a long time, when I would mention Lucianne's site or things I'd heard there, my friends and family would be mildly scandalized. Why would you engage conservatives like that? What could you possibly hope to gain?

In her fascinating memoir of working at Vogue, Grace Mirabella recounts the old corporate culture of Conde Nast, which was very insular and exclusive. One of the things she observes is that no one ever said "no" directly. Instead they would phrase it as something like  "why would you [or anyone] want to do that?" That's the sense I got of the reactions to my trolling around conservative discussion threads - why would you want to do that?

I mention all of this because I think yesterday's meeting between President Obama and the House Republican caucus has already generated some similar reactions in official Washington. Why would you want to do that? Why would you go into the meeting of your opponents, engage them in debate, discuss your point of view while being respectful of theirs?

I give President Obama a hard time - just ask my mother how unfair I can be - for various things, but I think yesterday's events deserve a fairly unqualified burst of cheering. If this is the way President Obama plans to try and challenge Washington's ways of doing business, engage his popponents and try to make some progress... I think it's something close to genius and worth applading, loudly. The question that remains, really, is whether the forces that resist change, and favor inertia, will prevail in trying to resist even the mildest, most basic sort of change.

Friday Evening Fountain

Drinking, that is.

jinb
 

From A Distance... And Ever The Same

Even before I gave up the requisite hour to hear it, I was pretty sure that the State of the Union was more of the same: even a quick perusal of blog reactions revealed the same divides as ever, the usual disagreements and a return to the same debates just where they'd been left off.

It wasn't a bad speech - at this point I'm inclined to say that I'm not sure the man can give one - but President Obama's address didn't do things that seem vital to making fresh progress from where we are. Lacking any kind of new proposal or overarching approach to governing, the speech wandered through familiar territory, made the usual arguments, touched on the constancy of universal appeals. Hope, God, Patriotism, Children... thank goodness we know Congress still knows when to applaud.

If you like the proposals Obama's made so far - which basically reads "if you're a Democrat" - then the speech, I think, made the case that one expected to be made: try to deal with the economic conditions we have, make some moves to rein in excessive spending, deal with energy and environmental concerns, pass a healthcare bill, of some sort. If not... well don't be a hater, or a divider, or just say no for the sake of saying no. We're better than that. Or at least, Republicans should be.

To give that speech and expect a result other than what we've had for the past year or so is, I think, wishful at best. The policy proposals - such as they were; I don't think his team undersatnds the words "specific" or "actionable" - were not especially exciting, nothing seemed new, and returning to the familiar disputes didn't shed new light as to how things would somehow be different form what's come so far. There is ample evidence and noise out there to suggest that people need a different approach to governing, and especially more leadership and more specific goals from President Obama. I think, in all honesty, he tried to respond to that last night... and that it seemed, ultimately, that he was rigidly sticking to much of his old approach I think tells us a good bit of what we need to know about what to expect from here.

I don't think this next part is going to go very well.

From Tiny Acorns...

For months, I have struggled with a blog post on ACORN and the "video sting" operation of James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, the two young quasi-journalists who staged encounters at a number of local ACORN offices to suggest some sort of wrongdoing and malfeasance. And for months... I simply couldn't do it. Partly it was that I didn't have a dog in the hunt - as much as I disdain the kind of showy, snarky tactics O'Keefe, especially, embodies n the new right's approach to media, I also have never entirely warmed to ACORN.

Still, I think the net result of all of it was for ACORN something of a vindication; even with a number of management issues and concerns about their work, severe wrongdoing out of the videos - as with the pointless allegations of "voter fraud" that dog their efforts to register poor, urban voters - have turned out to be groundless. And coming into this week, O'Keefe's work was fading, rightly, into the usual background noise of other extreme rightwing shenanigans.

Well, until yesterday, anyway... when James O'Keefe and three associates were arrested in New Orleans after some sort of attempt to "interfere" with the phone systems in Mary Landrieu's local Senate office.

Finally, I have my way in.

Whatever the results of the arrest - and given what we know, this is going to be a messy unraveling, at least - it seems clear that the mistake of the right was overstating the value of O'Keefe and his work as something of a gadfly to liberal interests and causes. His work, such as it is, offers a good look, right now, at what passes for journalism on the right, and why, unless conservatives make a more serious, sober effort to develop their own journalistic resources with more depth and integrity, they will damage their cause and weaken their overall credibility as critics. And that means, in part, letting go of a destructive, dangerous level of snark and sarcasm and disrespect for authority that rival similar "gonzo" efforts from the left.

Afternoon Coffee Cake Morsel

Tilda Swinton remains awesome. That is all.

If You Could See It Through My Eyes (It Wouldn't Look Desperate At All)

After a lull that seemed to me to go on for months - but probably covered the period from Thanksgiving to Christmas and maybe into New Year's - I've lately found myself re-energized to write political stuff. I think the burst of energy - which does, decidedly, stem from the events leading to Scott Brown's victory - for me is the sense that a lot of people (not, though, many of my regular readers, all 8 of ya) are coming to terms with stuff I've been knowing for a while. And all around me, people seem to be freaking out and suddenly anxious.

Me, I've gotten strangely calmer. A lot of the political winds that seem to be blowing bad news for Democrats strike me as overdue, and maybe, if we learn a thing or two now, we can set off on a better course, sadder maybe, but wiser. Not, just to underline the point, unlike the way Haitians need to start over, in a way. The worst thing it seems to me that we could do now - as liberals, progressives, Democrats, what have you - is to freak out, get desperate, and lurch around, wildly smashing and breaking and screaming all the while.

There's a lot of that right now. And it's weird... me being in the cooler head place and all. I can see why cooler heads prevail, now.

Look, there's no denying things are pretty rough; but it's not that bad. And with that in mind, here are a few observations about  where things stand, and why I'm, not, well, freaking out about it all.

Money Can Change People Sometimes

I know I'm supposed to be really upset about the "corporate money" decision of the Supreme Court, but I can't quite muster the requisite outrage. Glenn Greenwald - to my utter shock - actually lays out the complete case for my own ambivalence, and beyond his take... I don't necessarily have more to say on it.

Well, just this: I think if people plan to be serious about campaign finance reform, then it can't just be a fair-weather exercise in opposing the money raised by your opponents, or trying to punish those who give to them. To get good, serious reform, everyone has to take a hit. And until progressives see that... nothing, really, can change.

In the last few election cycles, for a number of reasons, Democrats finally solved some fundamental "money parity" problems with the GOP. Partly, it was the internet, which greatly expanded options to fundraise from people with lower incomes who could give small amounts or in small increments. That unleashed a deep reserve of goodwill among less well off liberals whose money could, in aggregate, amount to substantial amounts.

But part of the gains, too, stem from the shift of EEP (Educated, Elite Professionals) to the left; with bankers, lawyers, and others in a position to give now interested in liberal causes, parity with wealthy Republican donors was easier to achieve. And with it came natural increases in corporate donations from entities controlled by these wealthy individuals: law firms, high tech companies, and as has been for a good while, the entertainment industries and media firms.

Citizens United is, without a doubt, a problematic decision; it invites new troubles, restores an avenue for excessive ad spending, and will, no doubt, unleash a string of unintended consequences... ones that, I suspect, Republicans have to know don't all work in their favor (unions and other lefty groups free to advertise against Republicans is going to hurt. A lot). But we're here because the regulations, as written, never really made a lot of sense and undermine our faith in free speech. There are other, better ways to address questions of "corporations as people" and even other ways to reform campaign financing. But mostly, we have to stop doing campaign reform that's conveniently tailored to help us and hurt them, whoever "they" are.

One of the results of the decision has been a lot of blogging under variations of "Money Money Money... Money" meant to evoke the O'Jays signature hit "For The Love of Money", surely one of the great songs of all time. As I've been vaguely out of sync with the anger over Citizens United, I've been more than a little taken aback over the use of the song. Darker, dirtier than most people realize, Foe The Love Of Money paints a bleak picture (it was the seventies and it was ugly in the urban jungle) of all of us and what we'll do for money. But the point is... it's all of us. None of us get to stand outside, untouched. Don't let money change you... but it probably will.

We don't like to talk about all the money Barack Obama raised from Goldman Sachs. Or the way Joe Biden is the recipient of enormous sums from the law firms of the civil bar (tort reform, anyone? Anyone?).  We like even less asking questions about why enormous donations of money and time from Unions doesn't, in its way, have a distorting effect on liberal politics... not always to the good (teaching standards, merit pay, removing bad teachers... I know there's a link here, somewhere). It's easy for us to look at a few bad actors on the right - Mormons paid for Prop 8! Oil companies oppose environmental reform! - rather than admit that, deeply, money touches all of our politics, affects most of what we do, and don't do. And explains why we do - and don't do - it.

I do believe, deeply, that we need reform of campaign financing... but part of the change, really, is things we have to change in ourselves - not letting advertising drive our every decision making process, but at the same time, persuading people with ideas and policies, rather than shouting and name calling. Or we can grow up, and admit that this is who we are and what we have to live with, that money in our system has to go somewhere, and the distorting effect of money on our campaigns will never, really, go away. Money changes... everything. And all of us.  And for the love of money... well, do you?

All Over Your Face, Man!

All I can say is... thank God for Susie - how else could I find out about these things?

It's Like Rain, On Your Wedding Day

As we move into election season, and everyone gets more anxious, I'm noticing a rise in a bad verbal (and written) tic that really ought to get nipped, soon. It's, well, like using a metaphor or simile to make your point, except the chosen phrase is either a) a cliche or b) not really a germane comparison... or both.

A lot of post Scott Brown agonizing over the healthcare bill has drifted into football metaphors to explain the "pass the damn bill" logic - it's "fourth and goal" or we're "just inches away from a touchdown" usually meant to imply that Barack Obama is Peyton Manning or Brett Favre... oops, maybe not Brett Favre. That sort of thing.

Then tonight, watching Maddow, she was turning apoplectic (I didn't say we should outlaw big fancy words, did I) over the idea that Obama might propose some sort of spending freeze in next year's budget. After spluttering through a series of comparisons, she settled on "it's like pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out" meant to suggest that it would increase the recession, rather than decrease it. Although, to my way of think... in that example you wind up with more fire. In the increased recession... you wind up with less.

Mostly, this is just lazy, sloppy imprecise terms - and in the case of the sports metaphors, also the kind of stupid mindless sexism where we're all boys and get the boy metaphors meant to show we're competitive and butch - and it's doing nothing to increase the substantive analysis of ideas and issues. Maddow, for one, tends to use this as a crutch, convinced, I think, that if we can just relate the new outrage du jour (oooh, throws in weird foreign term) to similar examples... then we'll GET IT. Get it??? GET IT???

Later, I'll complain some more about Maddow's excessive use of sarcasm.

The thing is... I was taught to avoid a lot of "like or as" phrasing. Things which are just like... that other thing... are probably not, really (oh wait. Avoid "really"). We try too hard to be ironic, to let metaphors carry the weight of explaining why issues matter, and why we're troubled. We try to falsify urgency by relying on those sports metaphors - it's not fourth and goal or anything else on healthcare reform - because it's easier to substitute frantic urgency for the hard work of explaining why things matter.

Needless to say (then why say it?), conservatives bear a lot of the blame here; the reliance on cheap cliches and shorthand analogies drives a lot of what's supposed to represent thoughtful opposition to liberal ideas and causes, but is mostly glib, sarcastic rejoinders strung together with little real thought behind them.

Of course... who am I to say? Being a language and usage stickler isn't my forte; I always mix up metaphor and simile (that's the one with like or as... right?), and my pal J is way more on this than I. I just think treating your readers as if they're nine, unable to draw conclusions with a footbal metaphor or visions of gas on flames to illustrate obvious examples... well, you get the idea, you know, it's like when you're serving for triple match point... or something.

The Thought Of Food, The Food For Thought

As a Starbuckian in the New York City region, I get to live one of the latest trends up close and personal: while a nation debates the moves of "Nanny" Bloomberg to reign in health issues and food, I get the day to day insight on what it means to eliminate trans-fats, or put calorie counts on a menu.

At least 2 or 3 times a week, someone will ask, "So... have people stopped eating now that the calorie counts are there?" or some such question meant to get us to admit, sadly, that everything goes to hell when people discover that cake is, well, fattening. (The next most popular question is "are you losing business because of Dunkin Donuts", because they recently opened up near us. No.)

The reality is not that simple - and it's the reason why, while I was mildly annoyed with the idea of the counts, I've become much more inclined to back them. If you generally favor people being informed, I think you will probably agree - it's better to provide more information rather than less, and calorie counts on menus do provide the initial pieces of information for people to make better, or at least different, decisions. And that seems like a good thing. A very good thing.

Still, it's not everything. Not all decisions based on calories turn out to be helpful - a distinct subset of people who take in the information seem to become bargainers, adding calories here (whip cream!), subtracting calories there (nonfat milk!) in ways that don't really help the bottom line. There's the "what the hell, I'll splurge" crowd that always seem to be able to justify a brownie, this time, in exchange for some other transaction later... and like some sort of pusher, I find myself using the "why don't you splurge" line a lot less.

But people ask, and what we've found, in our slightly more than anecdotal, but not formal study, way is that calorie counts get a lot of people to think and change their order. Not give up entirely and leave, and not swing (mostly) to extremes. But to do things a little differently - to try the skim milk, or the sugar free syrup. Or the pastry with fewer calories.

I bring this up because, as it turns out, actual studies confirm much the same thing. A new study of Starbucks found that people's food choices are in fact changing:

average calories per transaction falls by 6%. The effect is almost entirely related to changes in consumers’ food choices—there is almost no change in purchases of beverage calories. There is no impact on Starbucks profit on average, and for the subset of stores located close to their competitor Dunkin Donuts, the effect of calorie posting is actually to increase Starbucks revenue. Survey evidence and analysis of commuters suggest the mechanism for the effect is a combination of learning and salience.

A new study in Pediatrics suggests similar things about parents and their choices for kids: armed with information, parents make healthier, lower calorie choices.

The thing is... we can give the information... but we can't expect the choices. Not all behavior changes because of calorie counts, and I think a lot of food activists don't seem to know how to draw a distinction between a suggestion and a requirement. We can require calorie counts on menus (and we can, and should, require greater clarity in those counts at many fast food restaurants)... but we cannot insist everyone make the choices we'd like them to make. In part because we don't have that kind of control... but also because, as I've said before, this notion that we "know" what every person needs to be eating is itself a bit of a fallacy.

Mostly, I think Bloomberg got it right, too, in starting with the basics. Calorie counts is a start. Trans fats is a start. And reducing sodium, as he's proposed, is a good next step. Let's get down the basics of food information and policy... and then let's see if we need to do more. Give the food for thought... and don't try to do the thinking for everyone else.