Regular readers may know that I have a bit of an obsession with the surreal world of Kim Jong-il. So when a friend set me this (thanks, Steffany!) I almost died of happiness. And then of laughter. Check out this amazing collection of photos of Kim Jong-il collected by the Boston Globe:
Kim Jong-il, continuing a practice begun by his father, Kim Il-sung, makes these visits to factories and facilities throughout the country, purportedly to offer his personal guidance. Followed by army officers, security personnel and plant managers – most carrying pencils and notepads to record the guidance of “Dear Leader” – he examines, listens, gives a talk, poses, then moves on, entourage in tow.
Among the students in my Political Management Master’s program, there were a few who I think we all looked at a little askance because they seemed to really like the fundraising aspect of politics. As in, they were good at asking people for money, and they liked doing it. We always though these people were weirdos. Too bad they’re also the ones who go on to be politicians. I like how Ezra Klein puts it here:
The thing about the current political system is that no matter how much you like or agree with a politician, unless they’re self-funded, you have to look at them and recognize that this is someone whose core competency is spending 30 percent of his or her time asking people for money, meeting and talking with people who might have money to give in the future, and generally figuring out how to pay to be a politician.
And these are the people who we’re counting on to pass laws without the influence of lobbyists. Hmmm.
I’m sick today. Terrible sinus infection. Luckily, I have health care. Unluckily, 45,000 Americans don’t and this is what the debate around the issue is starting to sound like. Enjoy and happy weekend!
On this day in 1978, I was born. This is monumental only to myself, and yet perhaps someday citizens worldwide will celebrate my birthday. Hopefully this is when I am dead, or too old to care that I am old. For the record, I am not old now. I consider 32 young, and so do political campaigns, in which “young voters” are those under 35. So there, world. I will be celebrating my birthday by eating at a delicious Indian restaurant and potentially, some sort of ice cream product as well. I may watch a few episodes of the original Star Trek series, which my husband and I are working through courtesy of Flickr. I’ll probably read a bit, and then go to bed since I have to work tomorrow.
Children, this is what happens when you are 32. Don’t be scared. It’s actually quite a relief, after all those years of “what bar are we going to hit tonight and who with and what are the social implications of this and is there any possibility of seeing any action and is there a show happening tonight and is it within walking distance and am I going to freeze in this downtown and so-and-so’s creepy friend better not come and what if so-and-so is there and do I have to talk to her?” It really is.
Also, Jessa Crispin at Bookslut makes me laugh quite often, aloud in my office. And this was no exception. So, so true. I wish I knew what book she meant.
Sometimes when an author comes up with a really great idea, and with it creates a monster of disappointment and despair, destroying every good thing that could have been, I wish it was okay for another author to do a cover version. Like all those Leonard Cohen songs with the weird women’s backing vocals, which are always so much better when someone else sings them.
Also, John Cole is being very emo about the Senate today. Which is perfectly appropriate, I think.
Finally, a summary of reconciliation’s recent history, over at NPR. Just in case you were curious.
In Abigail Thernstrom’s new book, “Voting Rights–And Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections,” she suggests several grave problems with the VRA. There’s an interesting review of the book over at TNR’s The Book, including this summary of Thernstrom’s argument:
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 “was one of the great moments in the history of American democracy” and “the death knell of the Jim Crow South.” Over the years, however, it has been twisted into an engine of racial rigging and polarization. This has been accomplished by misguided judges, unwise and self-serving congressional Republicans (as well as Democrats), and liberal ideologues in civil rights groups and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Indeed, those forces have transformed the Voting Rights Act into “a brake on true racial progress today.”
I disagree that the Voting Rights Act’s usefulness or uses are over and done, but I do think that Thernstrom’s point that the act has led to some major problems with gerrymandering impeding racial integration is a valid one. The book sounds like an interesting, well-thought-out one, albeit one I may not fully agree with.
Chris Matthews said, after watching Obama’s State of the Union address, “I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.”
Judging by the way Twitter and Facebook starting burning up at the time, for pretty much everyone under the age of 45 this was a major WTF moment. I should say for the record, by the way, that I generally really like Chris Matthews, even if he is kind of obtuse at times, because his politics are generally in the right place and he’s one of the only journalists even attempting to challenge spin and status quo out there. (And for real, not in Olbermann’s theatrical, safe-zone way.) And I admire Matthew’s honesty in openly talking about something that he knows may not be flattering to him. I’m sure a lot of people his age feel similarly about Obama. But.
A lot of liberals seem to think so. I’m one of them. I hadn’t really distilled my current disappointment with the Obama administration down to its essence, until I read this piece from Greg Sargent at the Plum Line.
This says it all:
…fairly or not, liberals saw in him someone who would use his extraordinary communications skills to expand the field of what’s pragmatically possible, to move public opinion — not someone who would ever play by the other side’s rhetorical rules. Each time he falls short of this ideal, people grow less willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Hence the outcry about the freeze — even if the details of the freeze are proving less onerous than initially thought.
“Each time he falls short of this ideal, people grow less willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.” Exactly. Obama failed to use his popularity to attempt to move public opinion on gay marriage. Then he he failed to attempt to move public opinion on military spending, the useless war in Afghanistan and the role of the commander-in-chief. Then he failed to attempt to move public opinion on the public option in the health care debate. Finally, with the spending freeze, he’s taken an ice pick to the core principles Dems hold dear on taxing and spending, and deficit reduction, which is hugely disappointing for those of us who cheered him on during the campaign when he derided McCain’s spending freeze idea as excessive and foolish.
Yes, Obama’s always been a pragmatist, a realist. And I was never one who drank the Kool-Aid and saw Obama as some sort of super-lefty-liberal. I liked that he was a moderate lefty, and willing to compromise.
But again and again? And always ceding all the ground to the other side? As Sargent says:
Obama is one of the most gifted public communicators in decades. His campaign was premised on the idea that liberals needn’t shy away from arguments with the right or cede them any rhetorical turf. For this reason, each time Obama does cede rhetorical ground on this or that issue, liberals see Obama engaging in a larger capitulation. He seems to be giving up on his own potential for persuasion.
And why? To seem bi-partisan, even in a climate with a hyperbolic, hyperventilating right wing bent on his destruction? That ship sailed after the stimulus bill passed. Why give up your greatest gift for nothing, when you could be at least trying to persuade and shift public opinion? I think that’s what’s got liberals like me tearing our hair our lately.
Paul Krugman argues Obama’s sagging approval numbers reflect a failure to do what Ronald Reagan did: present a consistent narrative for why sweeping problems are the fault of the previous administration.
It’s instructive to compare Mr. Obama’s rhetorical stance on the economy with that of Ronald Reagan. It’s often forgotten now, but unemployment actually soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Reagan, however, had a ready answer for critics: everything going wrong was the result of the failed policies of the past. In effect, Reagan spent his first few years in office continuing to run against Jimmy Carter.
Mr. Obama could have done the same — with, I’d argue, considerably more justice. He could have pointed out, repeatedly, that the continuing troubles of America’s economy are the result of a financial crisis that developed under the Bush administration, and was at least in part the result of the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate the banks.
So why didn’t he?
Maybe he still dreams of bridging the partisan divide; maybe he fears the ire of pundits who consider blaming your predecessor for current problems uncouth — if you’re a Democrat. (It’s O.K. if you’re a Republican.)
Here’s hoping Obama can get that narrative back on track in a hurry, long before November. Of course, if we lose Coakley’s seat and health care, the narrative no matter what will be that the country’s turned against Democrats. And Americans love a self-fulfulling prophecy.
The problem with Washington journalists, writes Sullivan in this excellent post, is that:
they value one another by the proximity of their ties to the powerful. In a business sense, they can also brag about their close ties to Cheney as a way to get major corporations to buy ads under the impression that the powerful read the Politico. This is the model. And it’s a problem.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion that journalists are really accountable to their readers, that the powerful should be afraid of them rather than their best buddies, and that the goal is to challenge government, not act as its informational tool. Politico is to the US government what Blackwater was for the US military. It acts as an ancillary privatized forum for the powerful to express themselves outside of the box of, say, releasing statements to the press in general.
It’s a really excellent point. And increasingly, it’s the way mainstream journalism works in Washington. It’s a good thing those Cheetoh-chomping bloggers in their mothers’ basements didn’t die off as the “fad” the jealous MSM kept predicting they would. With a few exceptions, bloggers are the serious journalists now, while the MSM are the toadies.
An exotic dancer.
A folk singer.
A cliche phrase in truly terrible poetry.
A Montgomery County High sprinter.
A speech therapist in Pennsylvania.
A science blog.
Regular readers may know that I have a bit of an obsession with the surreal world of Kim Jong-il. So when a friend set me this (thanks, Steffany!) I almost died of happiness. And then of laughter. Check out this amazing collection of photos of Kim Jong-il collected by the Boston Globe: 
Among the students in my Political Management Master’s program, there were a few who I think we all looked at a little askance because they seemed to really like the fundraising aspect of politics. As in, they were good at asking people for money, and they liked doing it. We always though these people were weirdos. Too bad they’re also the ones who go on to be politicians. I like how Ezra Klein puts it
A 
