Steve on Everything

Ebony and Ivory?

Steve Sims — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:53:41 +0000

In September 24^th 2011’s edition of the Washington Post was an article written under Nia-Malika Henderson’s byline.

The thrust of the article is that President Obama is at risk of losing a significant portion of his base. What is striking in the article is the blatant racism that runs throughout the article.

Readers may argue that it’s not racism, but an easy test to determine if it is would be to just reverse the colors an see if it sounds about the same.

So I did. I swapped every instance of the term “black” to “white.” Every instance of “Obama” to “Bush” (just as juxtaposition) and every instance of “Democrat” became “Republican.”

Below are side-by-side versions, and if it doesn’t sound offensively racist in the re-write, I don’t know what could. Enjoy!

What sounds so perfectly reasonable in the original version….

Is an affront to sensibilities when races and actors are reversed….

When President Obama takes the stage Saturday for his annual address to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, it is certain to be a warm and festive affair, but probably a little less festive and lot more urgent than on previous occasions.In the audience will be Rep. Maxine Waters (D), the California congresswoman who has been a lead critic of the president and his administration for not being sufficiently focused on the stubborn problem of black unemployment. Waters says she expects more from Obama on Saturday.

“African Americans are very proud that there is an African American man who is the most powerful man in the world, and they hold on to that with everything they possibly can, but it’s starting to slip because of the pain of the African American community,” she said.

The speech, which the White House says will focus in part on the American Jobs Act, comes as Obama has faced a softening of support among African American voters and a chorus of criticism from black politicians who now feel free to break what had become the eleventh commandment among black elected officials: Thou shall not speak ill of the first black president.

With fourteen months to go before he stands for reelection, Obama has the challenge of reengaging black voters, a crucial part of the coalition that helped him get elected in 2008. That means making the rounds on black media outlets and shoring up his relationships with the old guard of black political leadership.

This has been trickier than expected. In August, there was grumbling among some members about the president’s approach to the economy — complaints that the White House was not attentive to the pain the recession was causing in black communities.

The president’s recent outreach and his jobs bill have muted some of the criticism, but in some ways the criticism itself was a notable political event, reflective of the harsh economic times.

Polls show that blacks are more likely than before to say that the country is on the wrong track and are less inclined to have favorable views of Obama.

Campaign aides push back on such polls, citing surveys showing Obama grabbing 90 percent of the black vote when matched with a Republican challenger.

But there are concerns about an enthusiasm gap.

No public official has been more vocal and visible in challenging the White House on its economic approach than Waters, who heads the CBC’s jobs initiative.

Last month, in an episode she calls “vintage Maxine,” Waters sought permission from the audience to criticize Obama.

Speaking at a CBC jobs fair in Detroit, she urged the audience to “unleash” black elected officials from the unwritten rule of not openly criticizing the president.

“It was the women in the audience who were angry, and they were insistent that we do something, that we talk to the president, that we get the president to understand what was happening to them,” she said, recalling the incident during an interview in her, adding that she saw widespread discontent in the cities she visited. “It was a moment where I felt that we had to stop shoving it under the rug.”

The CBC’s multi-city jobs fair tour, which several White House staffers attended, embodied the distressingly high unemployment figures in black communities in a way that no statistics could — the snaking lines of thousands of unemployed people in urban centers gave flesh to what had previously been only a talking point for much of Beltway Washington.

Although Obama endorsed the jobs fairs, they put his administration and his economic policies in a harsh light, and Republicans noticed.

“What they have done is picked up on the fact that the president was not specifically talking about it, and what they have done is grabbed that space,” Waters said, noting that six congressional Republicans talked to her about the high unemployment rate in black communities after seeing the jobs fair coverage. “Either they are attempting to embarrass the president or they are attempting to say, ‘We aren’t so bad’ ”

Obama has always walked a racial tightrope, careful not alienate white supporters with overt outreach and policy efforts aimed at African Americans.

But the sustained economic downturn has hit blacks hard.

The black unemployment rate has ticked up to 15.9 percent on Obama’s watch, up from 11.5 percent when he took office, and blacks have also been hit hard by the housing market collapse.

In the past few days, White House officials have met with top black radio personalities to discuss the American Jobs Act, and Obama had his first sit-down interview with Black Entertainment Television, which airs on Monday.

In coming weeks, the Obama reelection team will bring on an African American vote director charged with mobilizing voters and volunteers, launch a Web page for black voters that deals with Obama’s record on issues that are important to black communities, and begin planning events similar to the African American beauty salons and barbershops programming in 2008. White House aides say the president maintains good working relationships with CBC members, especially those with leadership roles, such as Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C), a member of the deficit supercommittee.

And the Democratic National Committee, which bought radio spots for Obama’s jobs bill on urban airwaves, and the campaign team will begin to bring on more cable-ready surrogates from the ranks of black elected officials and black academia, which will add to Al Sharpton’s presence on MSNBC.

Sharpton and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (D), who is emerging as a top surrogate, have been especially protective of Obama, saying that criticism by blacks could lead to low voter turnout.

“It’s unfair for members of our community to try to force this president to prove his blackness by making some affirmative appeal which weakens him for the general election,” Reed said. “We have to be aggressive in making this president’s case and out there saying things that in many instances he cannot say around race.”

Staff writer Vanessa Williams contributed to this report.

When President Bush takes the stage Saturday for his annual address to the Congressional White Caucus Foundation, it is certain to be a warm and festive affair, but probably a little less festive and lot more urgent than on previous occasions.In the audience will be Rep. Maxine Waters (D), the California congresswoman who has been a lead critic of the president and his administration for not being sufficiently focused on the stubborn problem of white unemployment. Waters says she expects more from Bush on Saturday.

“Caucasian Americans are very proud that there is an Caucasian American man who is the most powerful man in the world, and they hold on to that with everything they possibly can, but it’s starting to slip because of the pain of the Caucasian American community,” she said.

The speech, which the White House says will focus in part on the American Jobs Act, comes as Bush has faced a softening of support among Caucasian American voters and a chorus of criticism from white politicians who now feel free to break what had become the eleventh commandment among white elected officials: Thou shall not speak ill of the first white president.

With fourteen months to go before he stands for reelection, Bush has the challenge of reengaging white voters, a crucial part of the coalition that helped him get elected in 2008. That means making the rounds on white media outlets and shoring up his relationships with the old guard of white political leadership.

The president’s recent outreach and his jobs bill have muted some of the criticism, but in some ways the criticism itself was a notable political event, reflective of the harsh economic times.

Polls show that whites are more likely than before to say that the country is on the wrong track and are less inclined to have favorable views of Bush.

Campaign aides push back on such polls, citing surveys showing Bush grabbing 90 percent of the white vote when matched with a Republican challenger.

But there are concerns about an enthusiasm gap.

No public official has been more vocal and visible in challenging the White House on its economic approach than Waters, who heads the CWC’s jobs initiative.

Last month, in an episode she calls “vintage Maxine,” Waters sought permission from the audience to criticize Bush.

Speaking at a CWC jobs fair in Detroit, she urged the audience to “unleash” white elected officials from the unwritten rule of not openly criticizing the president.

The CWC’s multi-city jobs fair tour, which several White House staffers attended, embodied the distressingly high unemployment figures in white communities in a way that no statistics could — the snaking lines of thousands of unemployed people in urban centers gave flesh to what had previously been only a talking point for much of Beltway Washington.

Although Bush endorsed the jobs fairs, they put his administration and his economic policies in a harsh light, and Republicans noticed.

“What they have done is picked up on the fact that the president was not specifically talking about it, and what they have done is grabbed that space,” Waters said, noting that six congressional Republicans talked to her about the high unemployment rate in white communities after seeing the jobs fair coverage. “Either they are attempting to embarrass the president or they are attempting to say, ‘We aren’t so bad’ ”

Bush has always walked a racial tightrope, careful not alienate white supporters with overt outreach and policy efforts aimed at Caucasian Americans.

But the sustained economic downturn has hit whites hard.

The white unemployment rate has ticked up to 15.9 percent on Bush’s watch, up from 11.5 percent when he took office, and whites have also been hit hard by the housing market collapse.

In the past few days, White House officials have met with top white radio personalities to discuss the American Jobs Act, and Bush had his first sit-down interview with White Entertainment Television, which airs on Monday.

In coming weeks, the Bush reelection team will bring on an Caucasian American vote director charged with mobilizing voters and volunteers, launch a Web page for white voters that deals with Bush’s record on issues that are important to white communities, and begin planning events similar to the Caucasian American beauty salons and barbershops programming in 2008. White House aides say the president maintains good working relationships with CWC members, especially those with leadership roles, such as Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C), a member of the deficit supercommittee.

And the Republican National Committee, which bought radio spots for Bush’s jobs bill on urban airwaves, and the campaign team will begin to bring on more cable-ready surrogates from the ranks of white elected officials and white academia, which will add to Al Sharpton’s presence on MSNBC.

Sharpton and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (D), who is emerging as a top surrogate, have been especially protective of Bush, saying that criticism by whites could lead to low voter turnout.

“It’s unfair for members of our community to try to force this president to prove his whiteness by making some affirmative appeal which weakens him for the general election,” Reed said. “We have to be aggressive in making this president’s case and out there saying things that in many instances he cannot say around race.”

Staff writer Vanessa Williams contributed to this report.

Our Tax Dollars at Work

Steve Sims — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:07:11 +0000

So, what’s the deal with our Federal Government, and their endless meddling with successful companies?

What prompts this semi-rhetorical question is the recent news that the Federal Trade Commission is launching a loosely specified fishing expedition “investigation” into Google and their business practices.

What makes this sort of thing particularly offensive is the repeatedly evident fact that, when it comes to innovation, efficiency, ethical behavior or sane decision-making, the U.S. Government would finish dead last in any comparison.

Mind you, this is the same government that, in all but name, nationalized the U.S. Banking industry. The same government that rushed to the rescue of the U.S. Auto industry, despite that segment’s failing business model caused, in no small part, by bureaucratic meddling by Washington. (Their “defense” in this misadventure is that they don’t forecast to lose nearly as much of their bailout money as they’d originally forecast. In other words, Uncle Sam’s mischief makers cannot even forecast money-losing propositions accurately.)

Compare to Google: I haven’t heard of any stories of Google’s leadership team involved in escapades of tawdry sexting; one goes to Washington to get that. Google can balance a budget; Washington can’t. Google can identify a program or initiative that’s not working, and pull the plug; Washington only throws more taxpayer money at the problem.

In other words, Google, and many other examples of commercial enterprises, have a proven ability to define a business model, make a buck, innovate, bring successful products to market, and adapt to changing externalities, to their advantage. Washington can do none of these things. (Or, to be fair, they can do none of these things on a reliable, predictable basis.)

So, the Washington insiders huddle and conspire against American innovation and success. “What can we do?” they cry to each other. “I know! Let’s investigate them! Regulate them! Pillory them for their success!”

Aside from providing a vehicle for uninformed, inept legislators to grandstand and vilify Google, what benefits does this “investigation” provide? Some might say that Google needs to be monitored carefully because they “have a vast treasure trove of information on individuals.” That may be, but I don’t know of any legislation that permits Google to perform warrantless wiretaps on users. (Uncle Sam enjoys, and abuses, this privilege.) I am unaware of any action Google has taken (or, could take) that locks in their users; competitors are only a click away. Try to find any second sources of government services; there are none.

And the monopolistic services we do receive from our government are monstrosities spun completely out of control. The public asks for an agency to improve the safety of airline travel. We get an authoritarian regime that intimately gropes everyone from Grannies to infants.

We ask for a strong military to defend our shores, and we get a decade long misadventure in Afghanistan.

We expect our government to secure our borders. We get federal agents selling weapons to members of Mexican drug cartels.

The U.S. Government represents the mother of all monopolies. In every crack, corner or crevice of contemporary life, the government claims a compelling, overarching interest. I defy you, Gentle Reader, to name any activity in American life that doesn’t carry the faint aroma of government’s foul breath. From public actions of individuals to their most intimate personal details, the U.S. government has its grimy hands on American lives, in every regard.

No, I correct myself: It’s not limited to America. Woe upon you if you’re a Libyan. Because the U.S. Government cares so deeply for the rights of Libyans yearning to be free, the U.S. Military has free rein to bomb targets, at will, in Libya. Our feckless leader states (with a straight face!) that these actions are “in support of NATO” and don’t qualify as “hostile actions.” Last time I checked, Google hadn’t bombed anyone, whether it was in support of one of their business partners or not. (PS: Note to President Obama: Here’s a good coarse-grain filter for what constitutes “hostile action:” If the Swiss were doing it to Florida, and it pisses us off, it’s hostility. You’re welcome.)

So, I’ll answer my own question: Why is the Government doing this to Google? It’s complicated, but it distills down to three simple principles:

1) Money: Google’s competitors have deep pockets, and our slatternly “representatives” are delighted to take their money for “campaign” funding. (In Washington, this is called “lobbying.” Everywhere else in the world, it’s called “corruption.”) And when a big money contributor has a problem with a competitor, well, just ask Uncle Sugar for a little intervention. After all, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

2) Accountability: What makes Google and other commercial organizations different from Washington is accountability. A brief run of missed revenue forecasts and Wall Street is screaming for the executive team’s heads. Over a decade of budget deficits in Washington is a good re-election platform. Allegations of sexual misconduct will get you bounced out of corporate America quick as a wink. In government, it’s the fast path to getting your wife named Secretary of State.

3) Competition: Government hates competition. And the competition in this case is Google. Sure, Google’s big. Just like the Government. But unlike Uncle Sam, Google knows how to give their customers what they want, knows how to make sound decisions; knows how to recruit and retain the best and brightest; knows how to cut out the dead wood. And knows how to manage a bottom line. Government knows how to do none of these things, and would be very, very uncomfortable if their constituents ever asked, “Why can’t government run as efficiently as Google?”

And, of these, it’s primarily about anti-competitiveness. Washington’s. Google’s “Do no evil” ethos provides a basis for comparison that Washington neither needs nor wants. Washington can’t stand that kind of competition.

It Was Chocolate Milk What Done It.

Steve Sims — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 00:30:38 +0000

A recent article in the Washington Post threatens to unravel the knot of utter incompetence that is the public education system. The story puts its finger on what is, quite possibly, the most destructive, the most menacing, threat facing educators today: Chocolate milk.

The long national nightmare is over; a new era of academic excellence is upon us. The scourge visited on our nation’s children shall be lifted. Arise, ye test scores! Violence in the classroom shall be banished to faint and fading memory.

Because there is a consensus among educators that chocolate milk is, quite possibly, the root of all problems. And it should therefore be banned. Even parents are getting into the fray. According to Penny McConnell, director of food and nutrition services for the Fairfax, VA school system, “We got 10 to 20 e-mails a day … [i]t was a lot of pressure.” Left unstated, by both Ms. McConnell and other members of the school’s administration, was the number of e-mails the school system receives related to the abysmal academic performance of its students. The reader is left to assume the volume of mail from parents concerns with other topics is somewhat less than the flood of chocolate milk e-mails.

As a parent, I see first-hand the shortcomings of public schools in Virginia. A significant number of high school students I’ve met read well below their grade level (if at all). Even the most rudimentary “story problem” lies beyond the arithmetic grasp of the students I am familiar with. Homework is seldom assigned, and even more infrequently graded. Zealous bureaucrats routinely craft exquisite educational policies, with scalpel-like precision, only to have them ignored by parents, teachers and students alike. (Or often worse, implemented and enforced to the letter, and to the detriment of the students.)

I will grant you, there are some notable exceptions. There are students who do manage to thrive and obtain a quality education from Virginia’s public schools. (My niece is one. Hi, A!) But academic excellence is infrequent enough that it garners attention when it does occur.

The Post article cites several pitfalls associated with that demon drink, chocolate milk: Students are overweight. Students don’t always get proper nutrients in their diet. Apparently these are the two most significant challenges facing our kids. And apparently this challenge is the school’s alone to solve, and parents take the hindmost.

Never mind the fact that the schools have gutted physical education from student’s curricula. Never mind that the meals served in most schools are prepared in remote factories, laden with crap and preservatives. Never mind that weight control is not an expected first-order academic outcome.

In another Post article, Valerie Strauss hints at the real problem: in a 2010 report, conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the scholastic abilities of 15-year-olds were assessed across 65 nations.

The United States students ranked 10th in reading abilities, 13th in science, and 18th in mathematics.

I’ll make this simple for you to understand, since you are probably a product (as am I) of our public schools:
- Korea churns out better readers than does the United States.
- Finland produces far better science students.
- Poland’s kids could teach our children a thing or two about math.

In all, over a dozen of the countries participating in the assessment scored “statistically significantly [sic] above the OECD average.” The United States was not among them.

The report shows that, after a decade of government involvement, pouring unknown and unknowable billions of dollars into “education,” the U.S. test scores for 15-year-olds are at about the same level as they were in 2003.

Let’s do some quick math. (I’ll go slow for you 15-year-olds. Put down your Angry Birds for a second and follow along, will ya’?)

The 2011 U.S. Federal budget for the Department of Education is $69.9 billion. For discussion’s sake, let’s call that $70B. Close enough for government work, I always say.

Over the past decade, then, the U.S. Government has (ahem) “invested,” um, 70 times, um, 10? equals, uhhhh, carry the one, $700 billion dollars in public education.

Now, that’s not the end of the story, by any means. Anyone who pays attention to their state and local governments know that a big chunk of money pours in from those sources as well. In Virginia, the 2011 budget for education is a rather staggering $14.6 billion. Over the past decade, that tallies up to about $150 billion. Just in Virginia!

And, in the county where I live, the 2011 budget for “Schools” is $569 million; roughly half of the county’s total budget. (This serves, according to the Board of Education’s web site, 58,000 students.)

So no matter how you slice it, public education, across the fruited plain, receives one heckuva lot of money.

And despite this terrific money pump, and all the public and parental interest in education, U.S. kids are performing at right about the same level as they were in 2003.

So where’d the money go? What did we, as a society, as parents, as students; what did we get from that investment?

Besides, of course, learning that chocolate milk is the problem?