Okay, I know nobody cares about this topic, but something has seriously got to be done about John Solomon. That the guy is a right-wing political operative masquerading as a journalist is one thing. Fine. There are plenty of these folks writing for all of the major national publications. There are reporters with liberal political views that also misrepresent themselves as objective arbiters of the truth. It's "balance," right?
But this guy's work is just breathtakingly bad. And for the second time in about a month, the Washington Post has given an embarrassing non-story by Solomon front-page coverage. At some point, even Insight magazine types have to start presenting facts that substantiate their bizarre fantasy narratives.
Seriously. How many left-wing flacks are writing for the New York Times or Washington Post at the moment, and how many of them get high-profile space to publish simple DNC opposition research talking points? The Liberal Media charge, which might have had its day in court fifteen or twenty years ago, is simply not credible anymore.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum on Solomon's latest "story."
VERY LATE UPDATE: The New York Times does its best imitation of Fox News and John Solomon. There is a crisis in today's mainstream media, and it has been caused by reporters' and editors' willingess to print Republican opposition research as if it were actual journalism. The results are startling.
Baldacci's School Consolidation Plan
And now, for something I know absolutely nothing about. Gov. Baldacci was in Presque Isle yesterday trying to sell his educational consolidation plan, which seems to have won him mixed reviews. The plan, as I understand it, involves reducing school administrative units from the current 290 down to just 26 units. The thought of eliminating redundant school administrators makes me tingle with excitement, particularly since the governor's staff claims they can realize $44 million in savings from the plan.
On the other hand, local control would appear to be a casualty of any such consolidation. It's my sense, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the plan would effectively disband municipal boards of education in favor of a more regional elected body which would oversee each of the 26 units. The same core proposal was floated in New Jersey over the past month or two (can't find a link), but the overwhelmingly hostile reaction forced Gov. Corzine and NJ Democrats to abandon the idea.
My view is that redundant school administration is a problem, but the most important cause of skyrocketing property taxes in Maine and New Jersey is health insurance costs. When these costs grow by 10 to 20 percent each year, and the public sector provides insurance to the majority of its employees, one way or another those costs will find their way into your property tax bill. Why do health insurance costs grow as much as they do every year? Now there's something to debate.
Thoughts on Baldacci's plan? Counterproposals? I'm all ears.
On the other hand, local control would appear to be a casualty of any such consolidation. It's my sense, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the plan would effectively disband municipal boards of education in favor of a more regional elected body which would oversee each of the 26 units. The same core proposal was floated in New Jersey over the past month or two (can't find a link), but the overwhelmingly hostile reaction forced Gov. Corzine and NJ Democrats to abandon the idea.
My view is that redundant school administration is a problem, but the most important cause of skyrocketing property taxes in Maine and New Jersey is health insurance costs. When these costs grow by 10 to 20 percent each year, and the public sector provides insurance to the majority of its employees, one way or another those costs will find their way into your property tax bill. Why do health insurance costs grow as much as they do every year? Now there's something to debate.
Thoughts on Baldacci's plan? Counterproposals? I'm all ears.
Bickering
Yahoo! Canada had an interesting headline/question today: Do politicians bicker too much?
My initial response was, "No. Ideally, we should elect people who will bicker on our behalf." Hence, Taxfighter Smith's anger against taxes did little for him around Presque Isle this fall. We want people who have proven action, people with the interests of the public and, in a perfect world, an interest in the greater good.
Then I remembered that we aren't living in an ideal world. The fact is, many of our politicians bicker for their self-preservation. Despite some personal feelings on parties supported by Rush Limbaugh (who is the poster child for self-preservation), this is really a trans-partisan problem. I think part of why Clinton and Obama have risen to the top of many lists is because they do both. I think both candidates have proven action in the government, much of which has supported the greater public (not my) opinion and has made an attempt at keeping the US on top globally. Still, they know how to play the game. A lot of their bickering is against other people, simply to remind everyone of how good they are.
Now, before I make this into more Clinton - Obama discussion, I'm going to broaden this. What politicians can we think of who have bickered in a good way? (I think of people like FDR, one of my favorites.) What about people who just bicker? What is the likelihood that we can get good bickering in the White House and national legislature in 2008?
My initial response was, "No. Ideally, we should elect people who will bicker on our behalf." Hence, Taxfighter Smith's anger against taxes did little for him around Presque Isle this fall. We want people who have proven action, people with the interests of the public and, in a perfect world, an interest in the greater good.
Then I remembered that we aren't living in an ideal world. The fact is, many of our politicians bicker for their self-preservation. Despite some personal feelings on parties supported by Rush Limbaugh (who is the poster child for self-preservation), this is really a trans-partisan problem. I think part of why Clinton and Obama have risen to the top of many lists is because they do both. I think both candidates have proven action in the government, much of which has supported the greater public (not my) opinion and has made an attempt at keeping the US on top globally. Still, they know how to play the game. A lot of their bickering is against other people, simply to remind everyone of how good they are.
Now, before I make this into more Clinton - Obama discussion, I'm going to broaden this. What politicians can we think of who have bickered in a good way? (I think of people like FDR, one of my favorites.) What about people who just bicker? What is the likelihood that we can get good bickering in the White House and national legislature in 2008?
Senators vote away souls + jobs
Senator Collins flip flops on today's vote for cloture on the non-binding (already pitifully cowardly) resolution asking Bush politely and sheepishly to stop with his Iraq policy. Initially, I thought this resolution was utterly pointless and typical of a weak-kneed Democratic party afraid to lead and reveal who they really are. Turns out, this vote will have astronomical repercussions for '08. All the Republicans up for re-election in '08 will own this war and be held to account for it by the voters.
I realize politics is politics and partisans will recognize when something is politically advantageous. Ultimately, this vote is a bad thing because it eliminates debate and procedural efforts to check Bush's authority. It is souless, immoral, and wrong. All of the senators who voted to cut off debate have blood on their hands. By the same token, Republicans have made themselves more vulnerable in '08 and given voters all the more reason to elect Democrats who will do the right thing. I try not to look at these situations from a politically kaniving perspective and try not to divorce myself from doing what's right. I wish the pundits, bloggers, strategists, electected officials, etc. would do the same and just follow their gut, but it must be acknowledged in this case that there are deep political ramifications even though more people will be killed because of this vote.
As for Collins and Snowe, they once again revealed what pitiful, subordinate, and spineless cowards they are. Collins has been Bush's waterboy on this war since day one and only voted with the Democrats to save her hind in '08. She's well aware that Tom Allen poses a credible challenge to her re-election bid. I don't want to speculate on the dynamics of an Allen-Collins race at this point (we'll have plenty of time in the future) but suffice to say, Allen is one of the top 2 Democrats in Maine that could beat Collins (I guess that's not saying much... we're talking about the Maine Democratic party here!) And Snowe... glad I voted for Hay Bright. It's distressing and an injustice that a liberal state like Maine has somebody like Snowe poisoning our reputation. But hey, at least we're a bunch of "independents" and mavericks who have the eagles eye view over all this silly partisan squabbling. We sure are enlightened here in Maine.
I realize politics is politics and partisans will recognize when something is politically advantageous. Ultimately, this vote is a bad thing because it eliminates debate and procedural efforts to check Bush's authority. It is souless, immoral, and wrong. All of the senators who voted to cut off debate have blood on their hands. By the same token, Republicans have made themselves more vulnerable in '08 and given voters all the more reason to elect Democrats who will do the right thing. I try not to look at these situations from a politically kaniving perspective and try not to divorce myself from doing what's right. I wish the pundits, bloggers, strategists, electected officials, etc. would do the same and just follow their gut, but it must be acknowledged in this case that there are deep political ramifications even though more people will be killed because of this vote.
As for Collins and Snowe, they once again revealed what pitiful, subordinate, and spineless cowards they are. Collins has been Bush's waterboy on this war since day one and only voted with the Democrats to save her hind in '08. She's well aware that Tom Allen poses a credible challenge to her re-election bid. I don't want to speculate on the dynamics of an Allen-Collins race at this point (we'll have plenty of time in the future) but suffice to say, Allen is one of the top 2 Democrats in Maine that could beat Collins (I guess that's not saying much... we're talking about the Maine Democratic party here!) And Snowe... glad I voted for Hay Bright. It's distressing and an injustice that a liberal state like Maine has somebody like Snowe poisoning our reputation. But hey, at least we're a bunch of "independents" and mavericks who have the eagles eye view over all this silly partisan squabbling. We sure are enlightened here in Maine.
The Worst Reporter in the United States
Further evidence for why Adam Nagourney is one of the three worst reporters in the United States. He joins the incompetent and wilfully misleading John Solomon, and the fact-free administration stenographer Elisabeth Bumiller atop this pyramid of failed journalists.
Who else should be considered for this dubious distinction?
Who else should be considered for this dubious distinction?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
