So apparently NBC has decided to move Jay Leno back to his old time slot at 11:30. Now Leno will be on for a half-hour, Conan O'Brien will be on from 12 to 1 and Jimmy Fallon will be on from 1 to 2. This is really disappointing for me, I've been a fan of O'Brien's for over 10 years now and was incredibly excited when he took over the Tonight Show. I enjoyed Leno, but I've always thought of the Tonight Show as a generational thing and it seemed as though it was time for O'Brien's irreverent humor to replace Leno's observational, celebrity oriented style. However at the time of Leno's departure grew near it became clear that he did not want to give up his time slot and maybe he was right. It probably would have been wise for NBC not to make Leno leave, but let him decide when he would leave like Johnny Carson.
Now NBC is deciding to go back on its decision. I don't agree with this, when O'Brien took over Late night from Dave Letterman it took him years to gain any sort of popularity, but NBC stuck with him and it worked out. I understand that NBC doesn't like losing ratings to Letterman at CBS, but the station should give it time. Allow O'Brien to become comfortable in his new, more mainstream role and then they will have a much more prepared host when Letterman retires.
That's just my advice. Do you think NBC is reading this?
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Patriots...
New England Patriots lose in first round to Baltimore Ravens.
No comment. Just a question: Is the Patriot's dynasty over?
No comment. Just a question: Is the Patriot's dynasty over?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Some Thoughts About the Tea Party Movement
In a video I just watched on YouTube taped during a talk Noam Chomsky gave in October (Part 1 & Part 2), he briefly discusses the Tea Party Movement and offers a unique perspective regarding it. (Also, read here for another unique perspective.)
Too often the Tea Party movement has been treated with derision by the elite liberal community (most notably their frequent labeling as "tea baggers"), but this strikes me as counter productive and often elitist. This is likely because the movement has mostly come out in opposition to policies supported by the Democracts, something that was most clearly evident during this summer's town hall meetings. Frequently liberal commentators simply wrote these individuals off as results of 'astroturfing,' meaning that they were payed by some special-interest to protest. Although there was some truth to this argument, the fact remains that these are real people with, as Chomsky say, "legitimate grievances."
These are people who see the massive bailout of the financial industry, the power of lobbyist in Washington and the lack of choice presented by the two-party system and are angered and frightened. But unlike most with similar views they have chosen not to be cynical, but instead have decided to speak up using their inalienable right as citizens. Unfortunately most organization of these people has been precipitated by right-wing groups, who I feel have twisted this massive mobilization of people in order to support position which run contrary to most of these people's self-interest. I don't mean that the protesters are stupid, but I do believe that they haven't been presented with any viable alternatives to those presented by the right.
This lead to Chomsky's most important question, "Why isn't the left organizing these people?" It seems that most of the individuals at these protests are working-class individuals who resent the unholy relationship between government and corporate interests. Oddly, during the health care debate the protests at town hall meetings (not the same thing as the Tea Party protests, but having a similar sentiment) suggested that the status-quo was working. This is understandable. The Democrats, who were the main outlet for the venom of the protesters, only proposed minor adjustments to the system; some of which serve to strengthen the corporate bureaucracy that controls the system.
One can only imagine if the Democrats has proposed true reform in the form of some sort of single-payer system, or Medicare-For-All (as Sen. Bernie Sanders heroically defends here). Certainly the attack could not be any worse than those used over the summer (i.e. death-panels) and at least real fundamental change would be occurring. The Democrats would have more arguments on their side (universal coverage, ending bureaucracy, lower costs), but instead the Democrats proposed a tepid bill; the senate version even lacking a public option which polls continuously showed was supported by the majority of the country.
Maybe it is fanciful to think that the Tea Party protesters would come over to the the other side if these proposals were made, but it certainly could have activated a progressive groundswell in support of reform rather than the opposition most progressives have engaged in. Regardless, it is time for the elites to stop degrading the Tea Party movement and progressives to start organizing in a similar fashion.
Too often the Tea Party movement has been treated with derision by the elite liberal community (most notably their frequent labeling as "tea baggers"), but this strikes me as counter productive and often elitist. This is likely because the movement has mostly come out in opposition to policies supported by the Democracts, something that was most clearly evident during this summer's town hall meetings. Frequently liberal commentators simply wrote these individuals off as results of 'astroturfing,' meaning that they were payed by some special-interest to protest. Although there was some truth to this argument, the fact remains that these are real people with, as Chomsky say, "legitimate grievances."
These are people who see the massive bailout of the financial industry, the power of lobbyist in Washington and the lack of choice presented by the two-party system and are angered and frightened. But unlike most with similar views they have chosen not to be cynical, but instead have decided to speak up using their inalienable right as citizens. Unfortunately most organization of these people has been precipitated by right-wing groups, who I feel have twisted this massive mobilization of people in order to support position which run contrary to most of these people's self-interest. I don't mean that the protesters are stupid, but I do believe that they haven't been presented with any viable alternatives to those presented by the right.
This lead to Chomsky's most important question, "Why isn't the left organizing these people?" It seems that most of the individuals at these protests are working-class individuals who resent the unholy relationship between government and corporate interests. Oddly, during the health care debate the protests at town hall meetings (not the same thing as the Tea Party protests, but having a similar sentiment) suggested that the status-quo was working. This is understandable. The Democrats, who were the main outlet for the venom of the protesters, only proposed minor adjustments to the system; some of which serve to strengthen the corporate bureaucracy that controls the system.
One can only imagine if the Democrats has proposed true reform in the form of some sort of single-payer system, or Medicare-For-All (as Sen. Bernie Sanders heroically defends here). Certainly the attack could not be any worse than those used over the summer (i.e. death-panels) and at least real fundamental change would be occurring. The Democrats would have more arguments on their side (universal coverage, ending bureaucracy, lower costs), but instead the Democrats proposed a tepid bill; the senate version even lacking a public option which polls continuously showed was supported by the majority of the country.
Maybe it is fanciful to think that the Tea Party protesters would come over to the the other side if these proposals were made, but it certainly could have activated a progressive groundswell in support of reform rather than the opposition most progressives have engaged in. Regardless, it is time for the elites to stop degrading the Tea Party movement and progressives to start organizing in a similar fashion.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Senate Race in Massashusetts
Being a resident of Massachusetts I have remained embarrassingly aloof of the race currently going on to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat. This is partially due to the fact that there is no third-party candidate running, aside from the Libertarian (who interesting claims to be the 'tea party' candidate) Joseph Kennedy (no relation to the Kennedy family). I can't muster the support for any of the candidates, although I passively hope that the Democratic candidate Martha Coackley wins seeing her as the lesser of the evils running (not to mention she started out as the district attorney from my county), but I would recommend voting for Kennedy or writing in a candidate to protest the lack of choice presented.
With that said my interest in the race was recently sparked by a video posted by the Republican candidate Scott Brown. In the video clever editing is used in order to juxtapose a clip of president John F. Kennedy announcing his planned tax cuts with the candidate Brown elaborating on the positive effect these cuts would have for the economy. From a propaganda perspective, this tactic could prove to be very effective for the candidate. The Kennedy name has a lot of weight in Massachusetts and by portraying himself as a Representative of JKF's values (something he certainly could not due with Ted Kennedy) he successfully can make use of this influcence.
This, however, does not account for the fact that the connection of those tax cuts to modern reality are historically false. The top bracket income tax today is around half of what it was in 1963 when Kennedy proposed his tax cuts. Not to mention that wealth has become more concentrated in the top tier since then and the tax cuts were proposed during a time of relative economic prosperity, quite different from today.
This argument follows in a similar vein to the one that is heard quite often today, that tax cuts will result in economic prosperity, something that it seems the Bush administrations policies seem to contradict. This argument also ignores the fact that President Obama's far too small stimulus was significantly comprised of tax cuts.
I am no expert on this issue, but I generally subscribe to a Keynesian view of this subject. It seems to me that at a time of economic distress (like the past few years), private interests will be less willing to spend money due to financial precarity and that tax cuts (especially when directed at corporations and the rich) serve only to take money away from essential public institutions.
But like I said I'm not expert and would be very interested in reading suggestion and a discussion on this issue.
With that said my interest in the race was recently sparked by a video posted by the Republican candidate Scott Brown. In the video clever editing is used in order to juxtapose a clip of president John F. Kennedy announcing his planned tax cuts with the candidate Brown elaborating on the positive effect these cuts would have for the economy. From a propaganda perspective, this tactic could prove to be very effective for the candidate. The Kennedy name has a lot of weight in Massachusetts and by portraying himself as a Representative of JKF's values (something he certainly could not due with Ted Kennedy) he successfully can make use of this influcence.
This, however, does not account for the fact that the connection of those tax cuts to modern reality are historically false. The top bracket income tax today is around half of what it was in 1963 when Kennedy proposed his tax cuts. Not to mention that wealth has become more concentrated in the top tier since then and the tax cuts were proposed during a time of relative economic prosperity, quite different from today.
This argument follows in a similar vein to the one that is heard quite often today, that tax cuts will result in economic prosperity, something that it seems the Bush administrations policies seem to contradict. This argument also ignores the fact that President Obama's far too small stimulus was significantly comprised of tax cuts.
I am no expert on this issue, but I generally subscribe to a Keynesian view of this subject. It seems to me that at a time of economic distress (like the past few years), private interests will be less willing to spend money due to financial precarity and that tax cuts (especially when directed at corporations and the rich) serve only to take money away from essential public institutions.
But like I said I'm not expert and would be very interested in reading suggestion and a discussion on this issue.
2010
I've decided to try and start this blog up again, seeing as it tailed off pretty quickly. Looking ahead to 2010 there's a lot to hope for even after the numerous disappointments of the last decade.
Three things that give me hope:
-Ralph Nader may run for Chris Dodd's senate seat in Connecticut, challenging the two party tyranny that rules this country. Sign the petition to encourage him.
-The Gaza Freedom March, although unable to make it into Gaza due to the intrusion of the
Egyptian government, releases the 'Cairo Declaration,' formulating a way forward for peace in the region.
-The KEO time capsule project shows that humanity is still optimistic about it's resilience by launching a satellite with messages from all across the Earth to be opened 50,000 years from now...
There's a lot to hope for looking forward but we all need to keep up the fight for justice, peace and love. Happy New Year!
Three things that give me hope:
-Ralph Nader may run for Chris Dodd's senate seat in Connecticut, challenging the two party tyranny that rules this country. Sign the petition to encourage him.
-The Gaza Freedom March, although unable to make it into Gaza due to the intrusion of the
Egyptian government, releases the 'Cairo Declaration,' formulating a way forward for peace in the region.
-The KEO time capsule project shows that humanity is still optimistic about it's resilience by launching a satellite with messages from all across the Earth to be opened 50,000 years from now...
There's a lot to hope for looking forward but we all need to keep up the fight for justice, peace and love. Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)