The Inbox By Steve Stockmar sstockmar@prescottaz.com Courier City Editor Steve Stockmar keeps an eye on dCourier.com’s article comment traffic. He plays referee, examines the best of the big mouths, puts out some fires and starts others.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Cupid must be taking aim early this month. The Senate Republicans are full of love on the Obama Express and are shouting it loudly. Seriously, I’m not kidding.
President Obama is cracking down on Wall Street in the ultimate case of better late than never. Among the proposals is to ban banks with federally insured deposits from casting risky bets in the market. That whole subprime mortgage crisis thing enabled by such bets that turned out so badly? ... That’s what we’re trying to prevent from repeating, no?
The word of the day is "populism." Dictionary.com defines it as "grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism." For those who forgot their notes, egalitarianism is "characterized by belief in the equality of all people."
Republicans were turning cartwheels over their president.
"There is no question that this was presented to stoke and jump in front of a lot of populist furor," Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, told New York Times reporters Sewell Chan and David D. Kirkpatrick. "This is a soak-the-rich populist grab."
Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, was equally giddy. "(Obama)’s basically fanned the fires of populism," which Dictionary.com defines as "grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism."
Oh wait ** lowers pom-poms **. They were being sarcastic.
Being populist – defined as "grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism" – is now a bad thing, according to holding one’s wet finger in the wind. "Populism," Gregg continued, "doesn’t give you either good regulatory activity or strong markets. It undermines both, in many instances."
So if I have this straight ... President Obama is telling Congress to pass legislation that tightens up "risky" Wall Street investments subsidized with the money of tax-paying citizens in an effort to – as defined by the Republicans’ use of the word "populism" – represent working-class people. He is saying those things (as I’m following their logic) but he isn’t doing so because HE thinks it’s the right course of governance but because We the People think it’s the right course of governance. So ... we both want it. And he’s proposing it.
While Senate Republicans are talking about why the president is working toward recovery now and in the future, the president is actually WORKING toward recovery now and in the future.
They just want to be sure that you know the real reason WHY he’s doing it – because of democracy, because of the working class, and because of equality of all people. Because of populism.
If only Senate Democrats could be as complimentary.
- - - -
ONE MORE THING
The Times continued, "The big banks, the lobbyists say, have become increasingly alarmed that the legislative process may move in unexpected directions outside their control."
This is a joke, right? Let me get this straight – 7.2 million Americans have lost their jobs and the big banks who perhaps bear the most responsibility have just now "become increasingly alarmed." The rest of us are glad the memo finally got through. What’s more, big banks fear that their business policies will move "outside their control." Let’s review how things went with taxpayer money INside their control!
On second thought, let’s not. Let’s throw our support behind any measure that makes the big banks "alarmed" and catches "populist furor" among the voice of Americans.
Let’s listen to the Republicans and their president.
- - - -
THE INEQUALITY BOWL
Four days have passed since the CBS network nixed a proposed Super Bowl commercial promoting ManCrunch, a dating service catering to homosexual clientele. The reason given? "Standards and practices," CBS said in a statement.
Two days later, CBS aired the 52nd Annual Grammy Awards. In it, Eminem, Lil Wayne and Travis Barker performed a heavily-censored song called "Drop The World," which features two appearances of the n-word and 26 drop-ins of the f-word. Then, the network gave them time for a second song.
I don't have a problem with the Grammy performance. If you book Eminem, Lil Wayne and Travis Barker for a show, you pretty much know what you're in for. I am having trouble, however, keeping up with CBS's standards policy.
According to network programming this week, Wednesday's prime time CBS lineup includes "Criminal Minds" about a guy with an affinity for "abducting women and keeping them in a state of conscious paralysis," followed by "CSI:NY" where the "brutal stabbing of a young woman" challenges investigators and titillates audiences.
CBS "standards" say the depiction of men torturing (and even killing) women is acceptable, yet a humorous commercial that depicts sparks flying when two male football fans touch hands while reaching into the same bowl of potato chips is unacceptable.
Is the subject matter too personal? Too much too soon for younger viewers? Just plain not what folks want to deal with on the politically-free distraction that is Super Bowl Sunday? Consider that CBS has accepted a Super Bowl Sunday ad featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow supporting pro-life causes, even discussing in the ad his mother's own past struggle with the choice. However important that discussion (and it is), that’s indeed some personal politics sure to add some squirm factor to a family of football fans on the sofa this Sunday.
And the CBS programming marches on. The latest episode of "Gary Unmarried" features two women ogling each other for more than 20 seconds (nearly as long as ManCrunch's 30-second ad) as a humorous distraction to Gary, complete with laugh track. Next Sunday CBS will run back-to-back episodes of "Amazing Race 16" and "Undercover Boss" titled, respectively, "Your Butt" and "Hooters."
American society handled Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction quite painlessly. The country even survived living rooms filled with Joe Namath in nylons.
America, however, will never tolerate the kind of open discrimination on display at CBS.
Reader Comments
Posted: Friday, February 12, 2010
Article comment by:
weather watcher
Wow, snow in Florida and Georgia. Dude, that's because it's COLDER than normal. So, tell us again, how does that whole "CO2" thing make it COLDER? And please, no more of that B.S. about how "climate" and "weather" are so completely different.
Posted: Sunday, February 07, 2010
Article comment by:
Beam me up Scotty
Ah! I can see the picture more clearly now.We surely cannot afford the great one's new budget,nor any other budget that comes from the Great White House on the Hill,or the Hill period.Both parties have sold out this country
I recently have taken up the challenge of speaking Chinese,although difficult,it might serve me when it comes to buying a loaf of bread,on the other hand I could get my head chopped off.O! well we all have to go one way or another does it really matter? BUT CHINA OWNS US,STILL CAN'T BELIEVE IT.
Sometimes in order to keep your head straight you just have to throw your head back and laugh at the insanity of the whole thing.God Bless Us Every One
Posted: Saturday, February 06, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
But aren't you also a devoted believer in the hoax known as man-caused global warming/climate change? And you expect us to value your opinion on other important matters? Now that just wouldn't make sense, now would it?
Posted: Friday, February 05, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
For years the Senate and Congressional Democrats insisted that Banks make loans to people not qualified to pay back those loans.
This in the name of "fairness."
In 2004, When the Republicans warned about the pending failure of these loans through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, they were shouted down by the Dems in the house and Senate.
Video Evidence from hearing on youtube:http://tinyurl.com/3nkrp7
Posted: Friday, February 05, 2010
Article comment by:
Steven Ayres
Steve: I've been a little hesitant to say anything that might jinx it, but I've been noticing that copy editing on the Courier has been much better of late. The rampant, glaring typos and embarrassing headlines that have been standard fare in the paper for many years are lately much diminished. I don't know who should get the credit for this, but kudos to whomever. I'd love to hear from inside whether there have been relevant policy changes.
Posted: Friday, February 05, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
Thank you Mr. Stockmar. Way to get right to the heart of the matter. This stuff in the comment about not being able to afford Obama is, however, absurd. GW Bush went on a spending binge at a time when balancing that budget was actually possible had he used real revenues and responsible taxation (instead of deferred taxation in the form of debt). Obama is running deficits to allow us to weather a recession. This is accepted as good economics by nearly every economist not employed by the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation. The fact is that nothing is "just that simple" when you are trying to steer an economy of this size. Also, great points about the hypocracy in network "standards." But it is not just CBS, it is the entire industry. Just look at movie ratings: there are all kinds of sexual inuendos and such that send the wrong messages to kids that make the cut in PG movies, and yet a depiction of a real loving homosexual relationship almost always pushes the movie up to an R or beyond. I want better for my kids, and I'll start by sending a note to CBS.
Posted: Thursday, February 04, 2010
Article comment by:
We can't afford this guy
Mr. Obama's new proposed budget adds another $1.9 TRILLION to the national debt in one year. He is the problem at this point. The nation cannot afford someone who whines about the debt while steadily increasing it at a pace that is 3-4X what George Bush did and was dead wrong for doing so. Liberals in the press like Mr. Stockmar have just stopped thinking critically, while rushing to give Mr. Obama his daily tongue bath. Adding TRILLIONS every year to the debt is just irresponsible (regardless of the party doing it), it's that simple.
