A Revival In American Manufacturing, Led By Brooklyn Foodies
This four-minute piece, produced by NPR's Planet Money, explores one route which might enable our land of highly skilled workers and highly particular consumers to compete in the global market. Food for thought.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
2012.02.25 Weekly Address: An All-Of-The-Above Approach to American Energy
Four Billion Dollars in Context
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
In the interest of developing an "all-of-the-above" approach to American energy, President Obama has reissued his call to end oil subsidies. Without such generous tax breaks, more money could be invested in the development of alternative energy sources or used to pay off the deficit.
But by reducing the oil company's profits, we will, in the short term, reduce domestic production and increasingly rely on foreign oil. Gas prices will rise due to transit costs and tariffs. Without the ability to produce our own energy, our influence in negotiations with foreign governments will dwindle.
Furthermore, the money that oil companies lose will not be taken from monstrous corporate salaries and bonuses. Big oil will simply save the difference by investing in oil production abroad, thereby dodging the matter. The rich will remain rich, and many American refineries will go the way of mid-century mills and plants.
Alternatively, if these companies were incentivized to drill in America, they would be subject to the rules and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Internal Revenue Code, and US labor laws. But unless there is some impetus to produce domestic oil, profit-driven transnational corporations will inevitably opt for the lax environmental regulations and labor laws of production of Russia, the OPEC nations, and international waters.
"Drill, baby, drill," crooned the GOP, at least until the Deepwater Horizon BP Gulf oil spill of 2010. This call to drilling has been mocked, rightly, as economically backwards, Islamophobic, and ignorant of environmental risks. However, an anti-oil backlash, too, would yield economic and environmental devastation, so long as Americans continue to use oil. We often hear about the quest for energy independence, but an equally important priority is the collection of tax revenues from oil companies - revenues that can be invested in the development of alternative energy sources and used to pay off the deficit.
American oil production, along with the extraction of natural gas (fracking) from Marcellus Shale, can ease our reliance on foreign oil. If the government seriously considers the warnings of scientists and environmental activists, these endeavors can be less environmentally dangerous than foreign extraction, cut down on wasteful transit, and support the American economy.
So, with any luck, President Obama will not spend the entire election season playing word games about saving "four billion dollars of your money" by eliminating tax breaks for oil companies. Surely, he realizes that we could save a great deal more by investing in stringent regulations, incentivizing oil companies to stay in America with tax breaks, and using the revenue to ease the tax burden and invest in alternative energy. Unfortunately, this is not a logical opportunity for the 99% to take their revenge against wealthy CEOs, who will simply take their business abroad if we give them no reason not to.
~
For a more detailed analysis of the economic consequences of these options, you might like to read Scott McNally's guest post on Scientific American's PluggedIn blog.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
In the interest of developing an "all-of-the-above" approach to American energy, President Obama has reissued his call to end oil subsidies. Without such generous tax breaks, more money could be invested in the development of alternative energy sources or used to pay off the deficit.
But by reducing the oil company's profits, we will, in the short term, reduce domestic production and increasingly rely on foreign oil. Gas prices will rise due to transit costs and tariffs. Without the ability to produce our own energy, our influence in negotiations with foreign governments will dwindle.
Furthermore, the money that oil companies lose will not be taken from monstrous corporate salaries and bonuses. Big oil will simply save the difference by investing in oil production abroad, thereby dodging the matter. The rich will remain rich, and many American refineries will go the way of mid-century mills and plants.
Alternatively, if these companies were incentivized to drill in America, they would be subject to the rules and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Internal Revenue Code, and US labor laws. But unless there is some impetus to produce domestic oil, profit-driven transnational corporations will inevitably opt for the lax environmental regulations and labor laws of production of Russia, the OPEC nations, and international waters.
"Drill, baby, drill," crooned the GOP, at least until the Deepwater Horizon BP Gulf oil spill of 2010. This call to drilling has been mocked, rightly, as economically backwards, Islamophobic, and ignorant of environmental risks. However, an anti-oil backlash, too, would yield economic and environmental devastation, so long as Americans continue to use oil. We often hear about the quest for energy independence, but an equally important priority is the collection of tax revenues from oil companies - revenues that can be invested in the development of alternative energy sources and used to pay off the deficit.
American oil production, along with the extraction of natural gas (fracking) from Marcellus Shale, can ease our reliance on foreign oil. If the government seriously considers the warnings of scientists and environmental activists, these endeavors can be less environmentally dangerous than foreign extraction, cut down on wasteful transit, and support the American economy.
So, with any luck, President Obama will not spend the entire election season playing word games about saving "four billion dollars of your money" by eliminating tax breaks for oil companies. Surely, he realizes that we could save a great deal more by investing in stringent regulations, incentivizing oil companies to stay in America with tax breaks, and using the revenue to ease the tax burden and invest in alternative energy. Unfortunately, this is not a logical opportunity for the 99% to take their revenge against wealthy CEOs, who will simply take their business abroad if we give them no reason not to.
~
For a more detailed analysis of the economic consequences of these options, you might like to read Scott McNally's guest post on Scientific American's PluggedIn blog.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
guest post
Who Cares About Obamacare Versus Romneycare?
By Jamal Jefferson
During a recent Republican primary debate in Jacksonville, Florida, Senator Rick Santorum questioned Governor Mitt Romney's electability. Governor Romney, who was the probable nominee at the time (Senator Santorum has won three of the five primaries since), continues to defend his involvement in Massachusetts’s Health Care Insurance Reform, which he engineered while serving as governor of Massachusetts. The issue at hand is that the Massachusetts law is similar in its framework to President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Senator Santorum called this a "fundamental issue" that Republicans could not tolerate. The "fundamental issue" is that both the Massachusetts law and the new federal law require individuals to purchase health insurance.
The individual mandate is a feature that is considered by many to be anathema to conservative philosophy. Governor Romney, if he wins the Republican nomination, will have to answer tough questions in the general election as he defends why he would repeal the PPACA when Obama himself claims that Romney's reform was the model for the national bill. In a heated quarrel, Santorum said, "I read an article today [and it] has 15 different items directly in common with Obamacare." Unfortunately, it has been difficult to locate this article.
Nevertheless, I have come across several websites that stack up Obamacare vs. Romneycare. Some of the same issues raised during the passage of PPACA bill appear. Yet some of these points were, and still are, irrelevant.
The national healthcare law is over 2,000 pages long, while the Massachusetts bill is only 70 pages. This is a fact that cannot be disputed, but it does not come as a surprise. As the national bill pertains to all 50 states and not just one, it makes sense that the bill is more complicated, and it follows logically that lawmakers needed more trees to create the bill. PPACA was about 1,000 pages in its genesis, but doubled to a little over 2,000 as lawmakers made amendments in efforts to make sure that the bill appeased both sides of the aisle.
Such length is not unusual for national legislation. Major spending bills frequently run more than 1,000 pages. According to Slate Magazine, "[the 2009] stimulus bill was 1,100 pages. The climate bill that the House passed in June [of 2009] was 1,200 pages. Bill Clinton's 1993 health care plan was famously 1,342 pages long. In 2007, President Bush's [budget bill] ran to 1,482 pages."
Furthermore, if you actually read the bill, or any bill, you will notice that not every page is filled like a textbook, or even an essay with 12 point font and one inch margins. Page numbers can be misleading because of these assumptions. In fact, if you take a look at the number of actual words, the bill is as long as a Harry Potter book (counting substantive language), though probably not as gripping, entertaining and comprehensible if you haven't attended law school.
A shallow comparison of these two separate bills allows us to say that they are indeed different, but nothing definitive about the content. However, in the following weeks I will examine the substantive differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. In the mean time, check out Governor Romeny's plan to repeal and replace PPACA that he presented last May in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Jamal Jefferson works as an aide to a radiologist in Cincinatti, Ohio. He graduated from Williams College in 2011 with a major in Biology. Jamal posts regularly as part of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
By Jamal Jefferson
During a recent Republican primary debate in Jacksonville, Florida, Senator Rick Santorum questioned Governor Mitt Romney's electability. Governor Romney, who was the probable nominee at the time (Senator Santorum has won three of the five primaries since), continues to defend his involvement in Massachusetts’s Health Care Insurance Reform, which he engineered while serving as governor of Massachusetts. The issue at hand is that the Massachusetts law is similar in its framework to President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Senator Santorum called this a "fundamental issue" that Republicans could not tolerate. The "fundamental issue" is that both the Massachusetts law and the new federal law require individuals to purchase health insurance.
The individual mandate is a feature that is considered by many to be anathema to conservative philosophy. Governor Romney, if he wins the Republican nomination, will have to answer tough questions in the general election as he defends why he would repeal the PPACA when Obama himself claims that Romney's reform was the model for the national bill. In a heated quarrel, Santorum said, "I read an article today [and it] has 15 different items directly in common with Obamacare." Unfortunately, it has been difficult to locate this article.
Nevertheless, I have come across several websites that stack up Obamacare vs. Romneycare. Some of the same issues raised during the passage of PPACA bill appear. Yet some of these points were, and still are, irrelevant.
The national healthcare law is over 2,000 pages long, while the Massachusetts bill is only 70 pages. This is a fact that cannot be disputed, but it does not come as a surprise. As the national bill pertains to all 50 states and not just one, it makes sense that the bill is more complicated, and it follows logically that lawmakers needed more trees to create the bill. PPACA was about 1,000 pages in its genesis, but doubled to a little over 2,000 as lawmakers made amendments in efforts to make sure that the bill appeased both sides of the aisle.
Such length is not unusual for national legislation. Major spending bills frequently run more than 1,000 pages. According to Slate Magazine, "[the 2009] stimulus bill was 1,100 pages. The climate bill that the House passed in June [of 2009] was 1,200 pages. Bill Clinton's 1993 health care plan was famously 1,342 pages long. In 2007, President Bush's [budget bill] ran to 1,482 pages."
Furthermore, if you actually read the bill, or any bill, you will notice that not every page is filled like a textbook, or even an essay with 12 point font and one inch margins. Page numbers can be misleading because of these assumptions. In fact, if you take a look at the number of actual words, the bill is as long as a Harry Potter book (counting substantive language), though probably not as gripping, entertaining and comprehensible if you haven't attended law school.
A shallow comparison of these two separate bills allows us to say that they are indeed different, but nothing definitive about the content. However, in the following weeks I will examine the substantive differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. In the mean time, check out Governor Romeny's plan to repeal and replace PPACA that he presented last May in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Jamal Jefferson works as an aide to a radiologist in Cincinatti, Ohio. He graduated from Williams College in 2011 with a major in Biology. Jamal posts regularly as part of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
guest post
Whistling Past the Center
By Stefan Ward-Wheten
Bemoaning the failures of the democracy we have is the spectator sport of every election season. The refrain is a familiar one. The two-party system is broken, so goes the logic: left- and right-wing partisans alike are to blame for both the hyperbolic ignorance of the public discourse and the failure of our political institutions to effectively address the acute and growing issues at hand. Columnist David Brooks recently offered up a neat opening statement for the prosecution in the New York Times. "The Democratic and Republican parties used to contain serious internal debates - between moderate and conservative Republicans, between New Democrats and liberals. Neither party does now." Brooks closed by prognosticating that some "third force" would emerge to sweep away the gridlock in Washington in a quasi-Biblical flood.
Right on cue, a third force has indeed emerged from the wings. Americans Elect, a cohort of largely anonymous movers-and-shakers of diverse partisan shades, is organizing a political movement on the sidelines. They've already qualified for the ballot in 14 states, and the campaign, utilizing more than three thousand paid organizers, has raised $22 million so far. The kicker? There isn’t even a candidate yet. Once a slate is assembled, Americans Elect will host the nation's first online primary in June: the candidates will answer questions from AE's members (about 300,000 so far have signed up through the website), and then one will be elected on the Web. Among the prospective hopefuls: Jon Huntsman, former U.S. ambassador to China and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Third parties are often relegated to the butt end of jokes, or at least the quixotic end of political idealism, languishing as they often do under a steep disadvantage in media access, organizing ability and, most crucially, money. Even billionaire Ross Perot, who garnered millions of votes in the 1992 and 1994 elections, garnered mostly derision from his portrayals in the press. This time may be different: Americans Elect appears to have the support, or at least the sympathy, of both the conventional media and of some deep-pocketed donors. Though the full list isn't public, most of known backers come from preeminent business or financial backgrounds. The coverage has been markedly favorable so far, as well. Thomas Friedman, another gadfly from the pages of the Times, eagerly anticipated that the new kids on the proverbial block would "blow the doors off" this election. "Write it down: Americans Elect," Friedman insisted.
One reason for this preemptive welcome, aside from the prospect of spicing up the news cycle, is that rather than distinguishing itself with innovative policies or campaign tactics, Americans Elect presumes to speak from the ideological center. "Our goal is to open up what has been an anticompetitive process to people in the middle who are unsatisfied with the choices of the two parties," declared Kahlil Byrd, CEO of Americans Elect, speaking to Friedman in that same piece. Unlike outsider mavericks like Perot or systemic critics like consumer advocate Ralph Nader, Ackerman and company claim to represent a frustrated but heretofore disenfranchised swath of "middle America" - a new silent majority, if you will.
Such sentiments dovetail nicely with those of commentators like Friedman and Brooks. It is less clear, however, that they will find such a comfortable niche in the current electoral marketplace. Other critics have been less kind to the neophyte caucus. "No one from labor, the clergy, the environmental community, civil or women's rights groups, anti-tax organizations, or any political activist group of any persuasion is on the list," notes Harold Meyerson, writing in the American Prospect. Richard Hasen, a prominent political scholar, pointed out bylaws in the campaign that allow the board and its selected committees to overrule candidate nominations even over members' objections, lambasting the project's leaders for its "democratic deficit."
More partisan critics are quick to point out that the political "center" is a crowded place. "We already have a centrist party," groused Robert Kuttner at the left-liberal online journal AlterNet. "It's called the presidential Democratic Party." By this logic, centrism is based on a misguided belief that both parties have raced towards the radical margins. However, President Obama has aroused the ire of many in his own party by compromising on budgetary and policy issues, and even the more ideologically rigid Republican base sees electability in Mitt Romney’s moderate image. Neither party will cede ground among moderate voters without a fight.
Despite financial heft and media savvy, Americans Elect may well be muscled out of the running by the institutional strength of the 'Big Two,' have many third party hopefuls before them. Still, it's telling that an as-yet-untested electoral model can muster this amount of buzz. For the first time in recent memory, nearly every sentient American is deeply dissatisfied with the political system. Such collective disenchantment, however, disguises fundamental differences in opinion regarding just how to fix things. Staunch left-liberals like Kuttner and Paul Krugman offer a separate diagnosis of current political ills from that of David Brooks, who in turn sees things very differently than libertarians like Ron Paul.
A true "e pluribus unum" moment will not come to pass unless the public is allowed to have honest debates about what they want the United States of America to look like. A high-minded appeal to vague cross-partisan solidarity is unlikely to spark such a moment, and certainly not one that eschews policy in favor of rhetoric. Instead, it requires a transparent and accountable political and business class, an independent and rigorously accurate news media, and a genuine willingness on the part of every citizen to take seriously the task of democratic self-governance. Reformers of any stripe should see to it that these demands, uncomfortable though they are, do not fall by the wayside.
Stefan Ward-Wheten graduated from Williams College in 2011 with majors in Political Science and Comparative Literature. His post is one of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
By Stefan Ward-Wheten
Bemoaning the failures of the democracy we have is the spectator sport of every election season. The refrain is a familiar one. The two-party system is broken, so goes the logic: left- and right-wing partisans alike are to blame for both the hyperbolic ignorance of the public discourse and the failure of our political institutions to effectively address the acute and growing issues at hand. Columnist David Brooks recently offered up a neat opening statement for the prosecution in the New York Times. "The Democratic and Republican parties used to contain serious internal debates - between moderate and conservative Republicans, between New Democrats and liberals. Neither party does now." Brooks closed by prognosticating that some "third force" would emerge to sweep away the gridlock in Washington in a quasi-Biblical flood.
Right on cue, a third force has indeed emerged from the wings. Americans Elect, a cohort of largely anonymous movers-and-shakers of diverse partisan shades, is organizing a political movement on the sidelines. They've already qualified for the ballot in 14 states, and the campaign, utilizing more than three thousand paid organizers, has raised $22 million so far. The kicker? There isn’t even a candidate yet. Once a slate is assembled, Americans Elect will host the nation's first online primary in June: the candidates will answer questions from AE's members (about 300,000 so far have signed up through the website), and then one will be elected on the Web. Among the prospective hopefuls: Jon Huntsman, former U.S. ambassador to China and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Third parties are often relegated to the butt end of jokes, or at least the quixotic end of political idealism, languishing as they often do under a steep disadvantage in media access, organizing ability and, most crucially, money. Even billionaire Ross Perot, who garnered millions of votes in the 1992 and 1994 elections, garnered mostly derision from his portrayals in the press. This time may be different: Americans Elect appears to have the support, or at least the sympathy, of both the conventional media and of some deep-pocketed donors. Though the full list isn't public, most of known backers come from preeminent business or financial backgrounds. The coverage has been markedly favorable so far, as well. Thomas Friedman, another gadfly from the pages of the Times, eagerly anticipated that the new kids on the proverbial block would "blow the doors off" this election. "Write it down: Americans Elect," Friedman insisted.
One reason for this preemptive welcome, aside from the prospect of spicing up the news cycle, is that rather than distinguishing itself with innovative policies or campaign tactics, Americans Elect presumes to speak from the ideological center. "Our goal is to open up what has been an anticompetitive process to people in the middle who are unsatisfied with the choices of the two parties," declared Kahlil Byrd, CEO of Americans Elect, speaking to Friedman in that same piece. Unlike outsider mavericks like Perot or systemic critics like consumer advocate Ralph Nader, Ackerman and company claim to represent a frustrated but heretofore disenfranchised swath of "middle America" - a new silent majority, if you will.
Such sentiments dovetail nicely with those of commentators like Friedman and Brooks. It is less clear, however, that they will find such a comfortable niche in the current electoral marketplace. Other critics have been less kind to the neophyte caucus. "No one from labor, the clergy, the environmental community, civil or women's rights groups, anti-tax organizations, or any political activist group of any persuasion is on the list," notes Harold Meyerson, writing in the American Prospect. Richard Hasen, a prominent political scholar, pointed out bylaws in the campaign that allow the board and its selected committees to overrule candidate nominations even over members' objections, lambasting the project's leaders for its "democratic deficit."
More partisan critics are quick to point out that the political "center" is a crowded place. "We already have a centrist party," groused Robert Kuttner at the left-liberal online journal AlterNet. "It's called the presidential Democratic Party." By this logic, centrism is based on a misguided belief that both parties have raced towards the radical margins. However, President Obama has aroused the ire of many in his own party by compromising on budgetary and policy issues, and even the more ideologically rigid Republican base sees electability in Mitt Romney’s moderate image. Neither party will cede ground among moderate voters without a fight.
Despite financial heft and media savvy, Americans Elect may well be muscled out of the running by the institutional strength of the 'Big Two,' have many third party hopefuls before them. Still, it's telling that an as-yet-untested electoral model can muster this amount of buzz. For the first time in recent memory, nearly every sentient American is deeply dissatisfied with the political system. Such collective disenchantment, however, disguises fundamental differences in opinion regarding just how to fix things. Staunch left-liberals like Kuttner and Paul Krugman offer a separate diagnosis of current political ills from that of David Brooks, who in turn sees things very differently than libertarians like Ron Paul.
A true "e pluribus unum" moment will not come to pass unless the public is allowed to have honest debates about what they want the United States of America to look like. A high-minded appeal to vague cross-partisan solidarity is unlikely to spark such a moment, and certainly not one that eschews policy in favor of rhetoric. Instead, it requires a transparent and accountable political and business class, an independent and rigorously accurate news media, and a genuine willingness on the part of every citizen to take seriously the task of democratic self-governance. Reformers of any stripe should see to it that these demands, uncomfortable though they are, do not fall by the wayside.
Stefan Ward-Wheten graduated from Williams College in 2011 with majors in Political Science and Comparative Literature. His post is one of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
2012.02.18 Weekly Address: Continuing to Strengthen American Manufacturing
How to Bring Jobs Home
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Though China can produce goods more cheaply, "we can make things better." And the cost of setting up shop abroad is rising. And so, the President says, with middle-class families struggling through a slow recovery, we need to give tax breaks to companies that manufacture at home, and not the other way around.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Though China can produce goods more cheaply, "we can make things better." And the cost of setting up shop abroad is rising. And so, the President says, with middle-class families struggling through a slow recovery, we need to give tax breaks to companies that manufacture at home, and not the other way around.
Apple springs to mind. Apple has taken a torrent of flack over the past few weeks as human rights organizations, including SumOfUs.org and Change.org, have singled out the labor conditions of its factories in China.
President Obama doesn't mention this controversy. Instead, he announces that "we can make things better," by which presumably he means 'higher quality,' a claim that anyone who has laid their hands on an iPhone knows is false. Even if products 'Made in America' were, once upon a time, objectively better than imports, this is no longer so. The myth of American exceptionalism is a wan distraction from the threats and opportunities of emerging economies.
President Obama doesn't mention this controversy. Instead, he announces that "we can make things better," by which presumably he means 'higher quality,' a claim that anyone who has laid their hands on an iPhone knows is false. Even if products 'Made in America' were, once upon a time, objectively better than imports, this is no longer so. The myth of American exceptionalism is a wan distraction from the threats and opportunities of emerging economies.
Apple, and plenty of other companies, have figured out a way to manufacture goods abroad both cheaply and well. This leaves the President with only one indisputable leg of his argument: that jobs continue to seep offshore, and the government needs to stem the tide as our nation gropes for a semblance of economic vitality.
Tax breaks for companies that manufacture in our country make complete sense. This is a straightforward approach to leveling the playing field in our country of high living costs and stringent labor laws. The President would strengthen his argument by acknowledging the disparity between American labor laws and those of China, India, and other outsourcing hubs. Perhaps this is what he means by saying that "we can make things better," but we can't afford to grant President Obama the benefit of the doubt.
The iPhone may never come home. But if the President wants to bring any jobs back to America, he needs to make a clear case that labor conditions abroad are unacceptable and come down hard on companies that pay little heed to the rights of their employees. Not only could this be considered a moral obligation, it would be a much more compelling case for moving jobs home than "we want them back."
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, and waxing eloquent about the quality of American goods won't move the bottom line. The President wants to adjust the tax code, and there is a good reason to do it; we are waiting for him to spell it out.
Tax breaks for companies that manufacture in our country make complete sense. This is a straightforward approach to leveling the playing field in our country of high living costs and stringent labor laws. The President would strengthen his argument by acknowledging the disparity between American labor laws and those of China, India, and other outsourcing hubs. Perhaps this is what he means by saying that "we can make things better," but we can't afford to grant President Obama the benefit of the doubt.
The iPhone may never come home. But if the President wants to bring any jobs back to America, he needs to make a clear case that labor conditions abroad are unacceptable and come down hard on companies that pay little heed to the rights of their employees. Not only could this be considered a moral obligation, it would be a much more compelling case for moving jobs home than "we want them back."
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, and waxing eloquent about the quality of American goods won't move the bottom line. The President wants to adjust the tax code, and there is a good reason to do it; we are waiting for him to spell it out.
Monday, February 13, 2012
2012.02.11 Weekly Address: Extending the Payroll Tax Cut for the Middle Class
Culture War Queen
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Much ado has been made of the American tendency to vote against our own economic self-interest. In his famous response to Karl Rove's 'conservative coalition' of the 2004 presidential election, Thomas Frank published a book entitled What's the Matter with Kansas? Mr. Frank makes the case that social issues are used as a distraction while the conservative elite push through discriminatory tax and spending policy.
In a two-party system, there might not be a candidate who opposes gay marriage while favoring progressive tax policy, and poor evangelical Christians don't have the option of mixing and matching.
Eight years after the beginning of President Bush's second term, social issues - the 'culture wars' - remain at the fore, but the terrain has shifted. As state after state legalizes gay marriage, LGBT rights are increasingly considered civil rights, if only as a matter of grudging pragmatism. Other social issues that were once blamed on immorality and the degradation of Western culture, such as abortion rights and environmental activism, have been complicated by a richer understanding of our circumstances. Less often, today, do we hear about the supposed Judeo-Christian origins of our nation. Tempers and passions may not have chilled, but a sense of slight chaos has permeated some of these most iconic ideological standoffs.
Budget concerns, on the other hand, have emerged as the latest opportunity for posturing and political feud. It's clear that over time, all but a few pariah states will legalize gay marriage, but no one is sure how the budget mess will resolve. In this sense, it is a perfect political tool, allowing for grandstanding and condescension from all angles.
Furthermore, though Americans have been receiving handouts from the government since the Declaration of Independence, it seems to have become passe to publicly ask for them. This is a familiar and sad perversion of 'self-sufficiency,' a most treasured folk value firmly grounded in American exceptionalism.
In his weekly address, President Obama asks us to consider how $40 per paycheck might impact a working family's financial situation. It's clear where he is going with this. Will the underprivileged masses vote with their wallets, or will they buy a manufactured narrative of warped nostalgia that disregards their economic needs? Will they choose cash or pride?
Republican voters have found in a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, the embodiment of their oppressor. The enormously wealthy Mr. Romney doesn't seem to viscerally feel the 'culture war' values of the Republican base, but he croons conservatism and callous economic policy. It remains to be seen whether Republicans primary voters will buy his pitch.
Certainly, Mr. Romney's family wouldn't miss $40 per paycheck. But how would he answer President Obama's thought experiment? Regardless of whether Mr. Romney really believes conservative economic policy is best for our GDP, does he realize how it would impact an average family? Has he ever bought his own groceries or a tank of gas?
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Much ado has been made of the American tendency to vote against our own economic self-interest. In his famous response to Karl Rove's 'conservative coalition' of the 2004 presidential election, Thomas Frank published a book entitled What's the Matter with Kansas? Mr. Frank makes the case that social issues are used as a distraction while the conservative elite push through discriminatory tax and spending policy.
In a two-party system, there might not be a candidate who opposes gay marriage while favoring progressive tax policy, and poor evangelical Christians don't have the option of mixing and matching.
Eight years after the beginning of President Bush's second term, social issues - the 'culture wars' - remain at the fore, but the terrain has shifted. As state after state legalizes gay marriage, LGBT rights are increasingly considered civil rights, if only as a matter of grudging pragmatism. Other social issues that were once blamed on immorality and the degradation of Western culture, such as abortion rights and environmental activism, have been complicated by a richer understanding of our circumstances. Less often, today, do we hear about the supposed Judeo-Christian origins of our nation. Tempers and passions may not have chilled, but a sense of slight chaos has permeated some of these most iconic ideological standoffs.
Budget concerns, on the other hand, have emerged as the latest opportunity for posturing and political feud. It's clear that over time, all but a few pariah states will legalize gay marriage, but no one is sure how the budget mess will resolve. In this sense, it is a perfect political tool, allowing for grandstanding and condescension from all angles.
Furthermore, though Americans have been receiving handouts from the government since the Declaration of Independence, it seems to have become passe to publicly ask for them. This is a familiar and sad perversion of 'self-sufficiency,' a most treasured folk value firmly grounded in American exceptionalism.
In his weekly address, President Obama asks us to consider how $40 per paycheck might impact a working family's financial situation. It's clear where he is going with this. Will the underprivileged masses vote with their wallets, or will they buy a manufactured narrative of warped nostalgia that disregards their economic needs? Will they choose cash or pride?
Republican voters have found in a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, the embodiment of their oppressor. The enormously wealthy Mr. Romney doesn't seem to viscerally feel the 'culture war' values of the Republican base, but he croons conservatism and callous economic policy. It remains to be seen whether Republicans primary voters will buy his pitch.
Certainly, Mr. Romney's family wouldn't miss $40 per paycheck. But how would he answer President Obama's thought experiment? Regardless of whether Mr. Romney really believes conservative economic policy is best for our GDP, does he realize how it would impact an average family? Has he ever bought his own groceries or a tank of gas?
Friday, February 10, 2012
guest post
Santorum Rising
By Meredith Annex
Every time Romney's imminent nomination is banally announced, something seems to happen that re-opens the fray. This week, that 'something' was Rick Santorum's three-fold victory in Minnesota, Colorado, and the Missouri "beauty contest."
Colorado and Minnesota are both states that Romney won in the 2008 primary season. As Maggie Haberman of Politico notes, "four years ago, when [Romney] won Colorado and Minnesota, John McCain was the likely nominee, and the former Massachusetts governor was seen as the electable conservative alternative." Now, Romney is the likely nominee, and the 'electable alternate' is, well, questionable. Until a few days ago, I would have said Newt Gingrich: a man with a proven track record of upholding Republic ideals, if not family values. But something, perhaps the growth of the Tea Party, has led caucus voters to find themselves with Santorum.
Even more worrying, in this light, are the results in Missouri. Sure, the Missouri poll doesn’t result in delegates. But in 2008, John McCain, the front-runner and by most standards the moderate candidate, was voted as Mr. Missouri. How, then, can we interpret the fact that Missouri finds Santorum prettier than Romney?
Really, the most certain conclusion is that voters are still looking for alternatives to Mitt Romney. In the October Straw Poll, Nevada voters rode the concurrent Herman Cain wave, giving the pizza guru a 31% approval to Romney’s 29%. Similarly, Public Policy Polling found in August 2011 that, on the verge of Rick Perry’s rise, Coloradans were equally split between Perry and Romney. Given the historic eagerness of these voters to support alternatives to Romney, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised to find Santorum topping these caucus results. That’s not a silver lining for the Romney campaign, but it’s not a resounding endorsement for Rick either.
A similarly ambiguous factor is the role of the recent news outbreaks in the United States regarding abortion rights. Politico’s Heberman notes that the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood controversies likely motivated support from the ultra-right, whose political positions tend to favour Santorum. If news coverage actually had a significant role in shaping the primary results, then this goes to show the volatility of every candidate’s popularity right now.
A final factor to consider is, of course, money and campaign effort. The Washington Post reports that, "Gingrich did not compete in Missouri and spent limited time in Colorado and Minnesota. He looked past Tuesday's contests and instead campaigned in Ohio, one of several delegate-rich states voting on Super Tuesday." The Post's analysis may explain Gingrich’s lower performance, but cannot account for Romney's poor showing despite having the best-funded campaign. Perhaps, here, Santorum is on the money when he stated: "If money made the difference, we wouldn’t have won four primaries so far...We’re not running for CEO of this country – we’re running for someone who can lead this country."
Given this, what should we look for going into Super Tuesday on March 6? Romney’s superior campaign finance may give him a slight edge, but so far this hasn’t translated into clear-cut victories. The polls also indicate a bumpy few weeks. An October poll has Maine voters supporting Herman Cain over Mitt Romney, suggesting that this state’s caucus on February 11th could easily follow a similar pattern to Minnesota and Colorado. Any “surprise” victories for Gingrich, Santorum, or both in the caucuses leading up to Super Tuesday would be yet another obstacle for Romney’s nomination and would make the Republican field that much messier. Yet winning in Maine, Michigan, and Arizona can’t ensure a victory for Gingrich and won’t clear a pathway for Santorum either. Super Tuesday has the potential for some very close races that could change the tides in this Republican primary season. In the meantime, I’d suggest keeping up with roller-coaster headlines and finding a comfortable seat.
Meredith Annex is pursuing a master's degree in Environmental Economics and Climate Change at the London School of Economics. She graduated from Williams College in 2011 with a major in Economics and concentration in Environmental Studies. Her post is one of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
By Meredith Annex
Every time Romney's imminent nomination is banally announced, something seems to happen that re-opens the fray. This week, that 'something' was Rick Santorum's three-fold victory in Minnesota, Colorado, and the Missouri "beauty contest."
Colorado and Minnesota are both states that Romney won in the 2008 primary season. As Maggie Haberman of Politico notes, "four years ago, when [Romney] won Colorado and Minnesota, John McCain was the likely nominee, and the former Massachusetts governor was seen as the electable conservative alternative." Now, Romney is the likely nominee, and the 'electable alternate' is, well, questionable. Until a few days ago, I would have said Newt Gingrich: a man with a proven track record of upholding Republic ideals, if not family values. But something, perhaps the growth of the Tea Party, has led caucus voters to find themselves with Santorum.
Even more worrying, in this light, are the results in Missouri. Sure, the Missouri poll doesn’t result in delegates. But in 2008, John McCain, the front-runner and by most standards the moderate candidate, was voted as Mr. Missouri. How, then, can we interpret the fact that Missouri finds Santorum prettier than Romney?
Really, the most certain conclusion is that voters are still looking for alternatives to Mitt Romney. In the October Straw Poll, Nevada voters rode the concurrent Herman Cain wave, giving the pizza guru a 31% approval to Romney’s 29%. Similarly, Public Policy Polling found in August 2011 that, on the verge of Rick Perry’s rise, Coloradans were equally split between Perry and Romney. Given the historic eagerness of these voters to support alternatives to Romney, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised to find Santorum topping these caucus results. That’s not a silver lining for the Romney campaign, but it’s not a resounding endorsement for Rick either.
A similarly ambiguous factor is the role of the recent news outbreaks in the United States regarding abortion rights. Politico’s Heberman notes that the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood controversies likely motivated support from the ultra-right, whose political positions tend to favour Santorum. If news coverage actually had a significant role in shaping the primary results, then this goes to show the volatility of every candidate’s popularity right now.
A final factor to consider is, of course, money and campaign effort. The Washington Post reports that, "Gingrich did not compete in Missouri and spent limited time in Colorado and Minnesota. He looked past Tuesday's contests and instead campaigned in Ohio, one of several delegate-rich states voting on Super Tuesday." The Post's analysis may explain Gingrich’s lower performance, but cannot account for Romney's poor showing despite having the best-funded campaign. Perhaps, here, Santorum is on the money when he stated: "If money made the difference, we wouldn’t have won four primaries so far...We’re not running for CEO of this country – we’re running for someone who can lead this country."
Given this, what should we look for going into Super Tuesday on March 6? Romney’s superior campaign finance may give him a slight edge, but so far this hasn’t translated into clear-cut victories. The polls also indicate a bumpy few weeks. An October poll has Maine voters supporting Herman Cain over Mitt Romney, suggesting that this state’s caucus on February 11th could easily follow a similar pattern to Minnesota and Colorado. Any “surprise” victories for Gingrich, Santorum, or both in the caucuses leading up to Super Tuesday would be yet another obstacle for Romney’s nomination and would make the Republican field that much messier. Yet winning in Maine, Michigan, and Arizona can’t ensure a victory for Gingrich and won’t clear a pathway for Santorum either. Super Tuesday has the potential for some very close races that could change the tides in this Republican primary season. In the meantime, I’d suggest keeping up with roller-coaster headlines and finding a comfortable seat.
Meredith Annex is pursuing a master's degree in Environmental Economics and Climate Change at the London School of Economics. She graduated from Williams College in 2011 with a major in Economics and concentration in Environmental Studies. Her post is one of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
guest post
A Fallacy of Comparison
By Jamal Jefferson
In President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, health care was scarcely mentioned. Only in a segment of his speech in which he speaks about the oil spills off the Gulf of Mexico does he add, "I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men."
Meanwhile on the Republican presidential trail, the candidates have not been shy on the matter. The remaining four candidates all vows to repeal the bill once elected as President. And if the front runner of the Republican Party, Mitt Romney, does in fact become the Republican Party nominee, this issue will be one of the hot topics of debate, as many claim the Massachusetts health care reform law ("Romneycare") is the framework of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare").
Outside of politics, some in academia are looking at the health care problems in a different light. Instead of focusing on the issues of clinical medicine, some are focusing of the issues of preventative medicine. But the problems are interdigitated between clinical and preventative health and solutions will not come from one branch of medicine or the other. Therefore, strong proponents of preventative health may also miss the mark when it comes to finding truly effective solutions to the US’s health issues.
On December 8th, 2011, Dr. Elizabeth H. Bradley, professor of public health at Yale and faculty director of its Global Health Leadership Institute, and Lauren Taylor, a program manager at Yale’s Global Health Leadership Institute, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times entitled "To Fix Health, Help the Poor." The authors point out that the US spends more on health care than any other country, yet still ranks low in life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality among developed nations. They claim that the US does not spend enough on social programs, which in turn relates to our sub-par health care statistics. According to Dr. Bradley’s research, in 2005, "Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark dedicated 33 percent to 38 percent" of their gross domestic product to health and social services combined, compared to the US, which only spent 29 percent. But is it so easy to look at these numbers and simply conclude that spending more on social services would improve US health statistics?
It is doubtful that the reallocation of funds from health care to social programming will have a significant effect on our world health rankings. The article did not present any "real" or applicable examples of reallocation and relied primarily on a macroeconomic approach which would naturally support their conclusion. In fact, the issues preventing the US from improving their world health rankings are far more complicated. When describing the factors particular to health inequity among women in Detroit, where white women experience 4.6 deaths per 1,000 live births while black women experience 16.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, Dr. Talat Danish of the Wayne County Health Department suggested six different issues: 1) unemployment, 2) a lack of education, 3) women being socially isolated, 4) poverty, 5) a lack of gender equity in pay, and 6) the social perception of women. These deeply rooted issues are the crux of many of our health disparities in America. The article did not provide enough evidence to support the rudimentary claim that more money in social programming will sufficiently tackle these complicated issues plaguing America.
The authors' macroeconomic stance bears fallacy because it compares the United States with other countries with dissimilar health care systems. They do not mention that developed countries like Sweden and France have some kind of basic health care systems funded by taxes and levies, allowing citizens access to health care free of charge (not including taxes, of course). For example, preventative health measures are more easily accessed in countries with universal health care systems because they do not pay out pocket for health services. The fundamental differences in how the health care systems work do not allow for accurate systematic comparisons, leading the authors to inaccurate conclusions.
I agree that social programming is needed to improve our health disparities in our country. However, the authors’ large scaled comparison is too simplified for such a complex issue.
Jamal Jefferson works as an aide to a radiologist in Cincinatti, Ohio. He graduated from Williams College in 2011 with a major in Biology. Jamal's post is the first in an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
By Jamal Jefferson
In President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, health care was scarcely mentioned. Only in a segment of his speech in which he speaks about the oil spills off the Gulf of Mexico does he add, "I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men."
Meanwhile on the Republican presidential trail, the candidates have not been shy on the matter. The remaining four candidates all vows to repeal the bill once elected as President. And if the front runner of the Republican Party, Mitt Romney, does in fact become the Republican Party nominee, this issue will be one of the hot topics of debate, as many claim the Massachusetts health care reform law ("Romneycare") is the framework of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare").
Outside of politics, some in academia are looking at the health care problems in a different light. Instead of focusing on the issues of clinical medicine, some are focusing of the issues of preventative medicine. But the problems are interdigitated between clinical and preventative health and solutions will not come from one branch of medicine or the other. Therefore, strong proponents of preventative health may also miss the mark when it comes to finding truly effective solutions to the US’s health issues.
On December 8th, 2011, Dr. Elizabeth H. Bradley, professor of public health at Yale and faculty director of its Global Health Leadership Institute, and Lauren Taylor, a program manager at Yale’s Global Health Leadership Institute, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times entitled "To Fix Health, Help the Poor." The authors point out that the US spends more on health care than any other country, yet still ranks low in life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality among developed nations. They claim that the US does not spend enough on social programs, which in turn relates to our sub-par health care statistics. According to Dr. Bradley’s research, in 2005, "Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark dedicated 33 percent to 38 percent" of their gross domestic product to health and social services combined, compared to the US, which only spent 29 percent. But is it so easy to look at these numbers and simply conclude that spending more on social services would improve US health statistics?
It is doubtful that the reallocation of funds from health care to social programming will have a significant effect on our world health rankings. The article did not present any "real" or applicable examples of reallocation and relied primarily on a macroeconomic approach which would naturally support their conclusion. In fact, the issues preventing the US from improving their world health rankings are far more complicated. When describing the factors particular to health inequity among women in Detroit, where white women experience 4.6 deaths per 1,000 live births while black women experience 16.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, Dr. Talat Danish of the Wayne County Health Department suggested six different issues: 1) unemployment, 2) a lack of education, 3) women being socially isolated, 4) poverty, 5) a lack of gender equity in pay, and 6) the social perception of women. These deeply rooted issues are the crux of many of our health disparities in America. The article did not provide enough evidence to support the rudimentary claim that more money in social programming will sufficiently tackle these complicated issues plaguing America.
The authors' macroeconomic stance bears fallacy because it compares the United States with other countries with dissimilar health care systems. They do not mention that developed countries like Sweden and France have some kind of basic health care systems funded by taxes and levies, allowing citizens access to health care free of charge (not including taxes, of course). For example, preventative health measures are more easily accessed in countries with universal health care systems because they do not pay out pocket for health services. The fundamental differences in how the health care systems work do not allow for accurate systematic comparisons, leading the authors to inaccurate conclusions.
I agree that social programming is needed to improve our health disparities in our country. However, the authors’ large scaled comparison is too simplified for such a complex issue.
Jamal Jefferson works as an aide to a radiologist in Cincinatti, Ohio. He graduated from Williams College in 2011 with a major in Biology. Jamal's post is the first in an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
In response to yesterday's post, a reader brought this Super Bowl ad to my attention, "Halftime in America." Whether or not American values are held in common, whether or not they exist at all, this spot leaves little doubt that the very notion remains powerful in our popular culture.
Moralizing political narratives or otherwise, we've got some soul-searching to do.
Moralizing political narratives or otherwise, we've got some soul-searching to do.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
2012.02.04 Weekly Address: It’s Time for Congress to Act to Help Responsible Homeowners
Doing The Wrong Thing
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Since I'm still here, I'll pass along a news bit of interest from the UK. There's been a row with Argentina, apparently, about the status of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands were uninhabited until colonial powers started bickering over them in the seventeenth century, and not much has changed since. Today, a few thousand Brits live there, but the Argentinians feel sovereign, as the islands rest on their continental shelf. This all resulted in a war and hundreds of deaths in 1982. So, the question has been kicking around certain circles of London: are these islands really worth it? Why not just repatriate these southerly Brits and end the madness?
For one thing, there might be oil there.
This week, President Obama paints with broad strokes, his narrative of the past decade grounded in morality and "American values like fairness and responsibility." When some of us strayed from those values, our society was punished with a housing crisis and financial collapse.
The President could make just the same policy proposal - providing financial assistance to responsible homeowners who were swindled by the financial industry - without the tale.* But it is election season now, a time of oversimplified scripts that blame a faceless enemy (or an incumbent president) for the nation's woes. For President Obama, especially as the Occupy movement resonates and a campaign against Candidate Romney emerges, bankers and investors provide an excellent moral foil.
President Obama is practiced in making a case based on "doing the right thing." He, as so many American politicians, speaks often of "American values." Perhaps such platitudes from all angles are what have made it so difficult to muster a coherent exchange of ideas.
American values? What are these, and what do we Americans have in common that might endow us with a set of values? Not a common heritage, not a common religion. Our cultural chaos, if anything, might be our most legitimate claim to individuality among nations. Some things that we do have in common, such as democracy and freedom of speech, are no longer especially American. Other things, such as the deranged consumer culture that we export like opium, America could do without. The treasures and shames of our local folk cultures are hardly universally shared or understood.
Fairness and responsibility? Our nation may have been founded upon these ideas, but they are far too subjective to use as a basis for a policy argument. This has been proven time and again, with politicians of all stripes crooning to their bases about "doing the right thing." Because we have so little in common, there is no consensus on what the "right thing" is, so naturally, nothing is accomplished.
On the other hand, we might accomplish a great deal if we seriously engage a popular question of today: what are the government's actual responsibilities? More specifically, what is the government legally obligated to do? As much as I'd like the government to act morally, I know that sometimes it won't, according to my personal views. Put another way, I know that it usually hasn't, and I'm not foolish enough to expect moral justification to suddenly swing in my favor.
I don't expect that Congress would suddenly function if we stop posturing about morality. But it couldn't hurt. And maybe then, once we've acknowledged the absence of a moral consensus about anything, our government could return to its proper business of providing citizens with the services we are willing and able to finance at tax rates that don't favor the oligarchs.
__________________________
*But who is really responsible when a big bank deceives an uneducated homebuyer and bets on their failure, all while managing to obey the law?
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
Since I'm still here, I'll pass along a news bit of interest from the UK. There's been a row with Argentina, apparently, about the status of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands were uninhabited until colonial powers started bickering over them in the seventeenth century, and not much has changed since. Today, a few thousand Brits live there, but the Argentinians feel sovereign, as the islands rest on their continental shelf. This all resulted in a war and hundreds of deaths in 1982. So, the question has been kicking around certain circles of London: are these islands really worth it? Why not just repatriate these southerly Brits and end the madness?
For one thing, there might be oil there.
This week, President Obama paints with broad strokes, his narrative of the past decade grounded in morality and "American values like fairness and responsibility." When some of us strayed from those values, our society was punished with a housing crisis and financial collapse.
The President could make just the same policy proposal - providing financial assistance to responsible homeowners who were swindled by the financial industry - without the tale.* But it is election season now, a time of oversimplified scripts that blame a faceless enemy (or an incumbent president) for the nation's woes. For President Obama, especially as the Occupy movement resonates and a campaign against Candidate Romney emerges, bankers and investors provide an excellent moral foil.
President Obama is practiced in making a case based on "doing the right thing." He, as so many American politicians, speaks often of "American values." Perhaps such platitudes from all angles are what have made it so difficult to muster a coherent exchange of ideas.
American values? What are these, and what do we Americans have in common that might endow us with a set of values? Not a common heritage, not a common religion. Our cultural chaos, if anything, might be our most legitimate claim to individuality among nations. Some things that we do have in common, such as democracy and freedom of speech, are no longer especially American. Other things, such as the deranged consumer culture that we export like opium, America could do without. The treasures and shames of our local folk cultures are hardly universally shared or understood.
Fairness and responsibility? Our nation may have been founded upon these ideas, but they are far too subjective to use as a basis for a policy argument. This has been proven time and again, with politicians of all stripes crooning to their bases about "doing the right thing." Because we have so little in common, there is no consensus on what the "right thing" is, so naturally, nothing is accomplished.
On the other hand, we might accomplish a great deal if we seriously engage a popular question of today: what are the government's actual responsibilities? More specifically, what is the government legally obligated to do? As much as I'd like the government to act morally, I know that sometimes it won't, according to my personal views. Put another way, I know that it usually hasn't, and I'm not foolish enough to expect moral justification to suddenly swing in my favor.
I don't expect that Congress would suddenly function if we stop posturing about morality. But it couldn't hurt. And maybe then, once we've acknowledged the absence of a moral consensus about anything, our government could return to its proper business of providing citizens with the services we are willing and able to finance at tax rates that don't favor the oligarchs.
__________________________
*But who is really responsible when a big bank deceives an uneducated homebuyer and bets on their failure, all while managing to obey the law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)