Apparently election rhetoric penetrates down into middle school.
Talking to my brother this morning, he told me that his 12-year-old daughter was quizzing him about socialism. “Are Democrats socialists, Dad? I need to know this.”
The kids are talking about this stuff, which is good. Of course, they’re also obsessing about Sarah Palin’s makeup artist, but who can blame them? The media is, too.
My brother couldn’t give her the answer she wanted before her ride to school came. Too long and complicated.
Nah. It’s actually quite simple. Yes, Democrats are socialists. So are Republicans. Democrats favor socialism for the poor: “Spreading the wealth around.” Republicans favor socialism for the rich: Spread the wealth to defense contractors on no-bid contracts and bail out investment bankers.
The productive middle class foots the bill. Simple. Take your pick.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The quiet before the election
It’s a quiet day today; the phones aren’t ringing much and the election-season flood of letters has ceased.
It’s a strange kind of quiet, accentuated by the gloomy skies. It feels like people are holding their breath, waiting to see what happens next Tuesday.
We’ll have the local election results posted at www.nuggetnews.com as soon as they are available on Tuesday night. The print edition will, as always, lag a week behind. So it goes as a Wednesday weekly with a Tuesday press time.
The local option question and the city council election are the main points of local interest. I think the local option will pass, but not by a comfortable margin. Too many people are feeling pinched by the economy to expect a mandate for local school funding.
My guess is that Mayor Brad Boyd will hold on to his council seat, and so will Lon Kellstrom. I think that Jerry Bogart will take the third seat, but that’s just a guess based on what I hear on the street and that’s mostly a self-selecting sample.
A couple of people have taken exception to the fact that The Nugget did not mention Wendy Holzman at all in our endorsement a couple of weeks ago. It has long been our practice to offer our reasons for endorsing those we choose and not to discuss reasons for not endorsing a candidate.
It’s an effort to be positive, but I can see how it could be taken amiss.
One online commentator wonders if it’s “a problem with women.” Sigh. Well, someone’s always going to impute sinister motives... Sorry. It ain’t nearly so dramatic. That’s the kind of thing that makes me love politics so much.
Endorsements are just another opinion. An informed and educated opinion, but only that. I hope the opinion is valued, but it should only be a part of the mosaic good citizens put together for their voting decisions.
One thing I try never to lose sight of in this job — or in life — is that no matter how much research you do, how much thought you put into making a decision, no matter how passionately you believe in your position, you could be wrong.
Examples I’ll never live down: I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought he was the lesser of two evils. Wrong. We endorsed Greg Brown for Sheriff. Twice. Wroooong!
I’ve made my picks, made my call on ballot measures, put my ballot in the slot at City Hall. I hope I made the right choices, but I’m not sure. I did my due diligence and I think I’m right. But, you know, I could be wrong.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
It’s a strange kind of quiet, accentuated by the gloomy skies. It feels like people are holding their breath, waiting to see what happens next Tuesday.
We’ll have the local election results posted at www.nuggetnews.com as soon as they are available on Tuesday night. The print edition will, as always, lag a week behind. So it goes as a Wednesday weekly with a Tuesday press time.
The local option question and the city council election are the main points of local interest. I think the local option will pass, but not by a comfortable margin. Too many people are feeling pinched by the economy to expect a mandate for local school funding.
My guess is that Mayor Brad Boyd will hold on to his council seat, and so will Lon Kellstrom. I think that Jerry Bogart will take the third seat, but that’s just a guess based on what I hear on the street and that’s mostly a self-selecting sample.
A couple of people have taken exception to the fact that The Nugget did not mention Wendy Holzman at all in our endorsement a couple of weeks ago. It has long been our practice to offer our reasons for endorsing those we choose and not to discuss reasons for not endorsing a candidate.
It’s an effort to be positive, but I can see how it could be taken amiss.
One online commentator wonders if it’s “a problem with women.” Sigh. Well, someone’s always going to impute sinister motives... Sorry. It ain’t nearly so dramatic. That’s the kind of thing that makes me love politics so much.
Endorsements are just another opinion. An informed and educated opinion, but only that. I hope the opinion is valued, but it should only be a part of the mosaic good citizens put together for their voting decisions.
One thing I try never to lose sight of in this job — or in life — is that no matter how much research you do, how much thought you put into making a decision, no matter how passionately you believe in your position, you could be wrong.
Examples I’ll never live down: I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought he was the lesser of two evils. Wrong. We endorsed Greg Brown for Sheriff. Twice. Wroooong!
I’ve made my picks, made my call on ballot measures, put my ballot in the slot at City Hall. I hope I made the right choices, but I’m not sure. I did my due diligence and I think I’m right. But, you know, I could be wrong.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Congratulations, Mr. President. Lucky you.
In a week and a few hours, this long and grueling presidential race will be over — and one of these two poor saps will be declared the ... winner (?).
The next president will inherit two wars, an economy farther in the tank than it’s been in my lifetime and a nation that remains fractured along culture war fault lines.
This is like running a marathon and climbing to the podium where a tree-limbed hulk in an executioner’s hood hits you over the head with a sledgehammer.
Ain’t you glad you won?
Let’s assume the trend holds and Obama is the winner. An historic moment. Congratulations. Now, get to work.
He’ll have to assemble a transition team that immediately starts to work in concert with the Bush Administration on administering the trillion dollars in bailouts and he’ll have to participate in the pending decision whether to extend the bailout to the wheezing U.S. auto industry.
A decision will have to be made as to what to do with the dead-letter status of forces agreement in Iraq.
And on and on...
There is no time for a relaxed transition, no time for a victory lap. Obama will have to be the most active and engaged President-elect in U.S. history.
Love him, hate him, remain ambivalent, we’d all better wish the man well. I’m glad I’m not him right now.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
The next president will inherit two wars, an economy farther in the tank than it’s been in my lifetime and a nation that remains fractured along culture war fault lines.
This is like running a marathon and climbing to the podium where a tree-limbed hulk in an executioner’s hood hits you over the head with a sledgehammer.
Ain’t you glad you won?
Let’s assume the trend holds and Obama is the winner. An historic moment. Congratulations. Now, get to work.
He’ll have to assemble a transition team that immediately starts to work in concert with the Bush Administration on administering the trillion dollars in bailouts and he’ll have to participate in the pending decision whether to extend the bailout to the wheezing U.S. auto industry.
A decision will have to be made as to what to do with the dead-letter status of forces agreement in Iraq.
And on and on...
There is no time for a relaxed transition, no time for a victory lap. Obama will have to be the most active and engaged President-elect in U.S. history.
Love him, hate him, remain ambivalent, we’d all better wish the man well. I’m glad I’m not him right now.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Economic development in Sisters? What’s that?
As we watch the surreal spectacle of a “conservative” Bush Administration preside over the socialization of the nation’s financial institutions, Sisters has its own economic questions to wrestle with.
Economic development has become the centerpiece of the City Council election.
“Economic development” is one of those mom-and-apple-pie things: Nobody is against it. Everybody wants family-wage jobs and clean industry that is compatible with Sisters’ quality of life. The tricky part is how you get them.
The Chamber of Commerce and the City look at each other like a pair of outfielders who are waiting for there other to call the pop fly: “You got it!” “No, you got it!”
The current pop fly is the idea of creating an economic development director position. I’m not so sure that’s a good idea. What would such a person do? We have two business parks ready for development; it seems to me that the developers themselves are best placed to try to attract clients.
What could a quasi-governmental economic development director do that the private developers can’t do better?
The fact that the two business parks remain empty testifies to the challenges Sisters faces in attracting family-wage jobs and clean, compatible industry. Land costs are comparatively high. Sisters is off the beaten path for quick transportation. Redmond has an enterprise zone. There is a lack of workforce housing.
And, right now, the national economy is working against us.
The City could do more to attract business — reducing development fees, offering tax incentives. But actions like that are not as simple as they seem. Reducing SDCs would require a charter amendment and would reduce the city’s ability to offset the impacts of development. Tax breaks don’t always translate into successful business locations.
Sisters does need to get all its agencies and interest groups on the same page regarding economic development, but we should not fool ourselves. There is not easy formula for getting what we say we want here and even if we all agree, it may not be possible.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Economic development has become the centerpiece of the City Council election.
“Economic development” is one of those mom-and-apple-pie things: Nobody is against it. Everybody wants family-wage jobs and clean industry that is compatible with Sisters’ quality of life. The tricky part is how you get them.
The Chamber of Commerce and the City look at each other like a pair of outfielders who are waiting for there other to call the pop fly: “You got it!” “No, you got it!”
The current pop fly is the idea of creating an economic development director position. I’m not so sure that’s a good idea. What would such a person do? We have two business parks ready for development; it seems to me that the developers themselves are best placed to try to attract clients.
What could a quasi-governmental economic development director do that the private developers can’t do better?
The fact that the two business parks remain empty testifies to the challenges Sisters faces in attracting family-wage jobs and clean, compatible industry. Land costs are comparatively high. Sisters is off the beaten path for quick transportation. Redmond has an enterprise zone. There is a lack of workforce housing.
And, right now, the national economy is working against us.
The City could do more to attract business — reducing development fees, offering tax incentives. But actions like that are not as simple as they seem. Reducing SDCs would require a charter amendment and would reduce the city’s ability to offset the impacts of development. Tax breaks don’t always translate into successful business locations.
Sisters does need to get all its agencies and interest groups on the same page regarding economic development, but we should not fool ourselves. There is not easy formula for getting what we say we want here and even if we all agree, it may not be possible.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The definition of obscene
Seems that executives from AIG, in gratitude for being bailed out by the American taxpayer, went on a $440,000 Caribbean junket.
Breathtaking arrogance. Abysmal judgment. Total ethical bankruptcy.
Perhaps the next time the term bailout is used it should involve bail bondsmen.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Breathtaking arrogance. Abysmal judgment. Total ethical bankruptcy.
Perhaps the next time the term bailout is used it should involve bail bondsmen.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
How about some issues?
Tired of a national political campaign that sometimes seems like Dancing With the Stars (without the pizazz)? Want to grapple with the actual issues instead of the superficialities that dominate the news and the canned responses that pass for “debates”?
This week’s issue of The Economist contains an excellent special section on the election, featuring analysis of the issues and the candidates’ positions on them. It covers the economy; regulation and trade; foreign policy; Iraq and Afghanistan; health care; immigration; energy and the environment; education; crime; and values.
This is the kind of analysis the rest of the media owes us — and never gives us. It’s not talk radio partisan bloviating; it’s not TV news infotainment — this is real substance, put together in a package that is easily read in an evening.
The Economist is available at Barnes & Noble and online. It’s well worth tracking down, whether you’ve made up your mind or not.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
This week’s issue of The Economist contains an excellent special section on the election, featuring analysis of the issues and the candidates’ positions on them. It covers the economy; regulation and trade; foreign policy; Iraq and Afghanistan; health care; immigration; energy and the environment; education; crime; and values.
This is the kind of analysis the rest of the media owes us — and never gives us. It’s not talk radio partisan bloviating; it’s not TV news infotainment — this is real substance, put together in a package that is easily read in an evening.
The Economist is available at Barnes & Noble and online. It’s well worth tracking down, whether you’ve made up your mind or not.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
