Unclassified Information: politics

Of the many ideas from Eastern religion and philosophy that have permeated Western thinking, the second “noble truth” of Buddhism arguably shines the greatest light on our happiness—or lack thereof. Samudaya, as this truth is also known, teaches that attachment is the root of human suffering. To find peace in life, we must be willing to detach ourselves and thus become free of sticky cravings.

This requires that we honestly examine our attachments. What are yours? Money, power, pleasure, prestige? Dig deeper: Just maybe, they are your opinions. The Buddha himself named this attachment and its terrible effects more than 2,400 years ago in the Aṭṭhakavagga Sutta, when he is believed to have said, “Those attached to perception and views roam the world offending people.” More recently, the Vietnamese Buddhist sage Thích Nhất Hạnh wrote in his book Being Peace, “Humankind suffers very much from attachment to views.”

As the election season heats up, many Americans are attached to their opinions—especially their political ones—as if they were their life’s savings; they obsess over their beliefs like lonely misers, and lash out angrily when they are threatened. This is the source of much suffering, for the politically obsessed and everyone else.

Fortunately, there are solutions.

Little research has been conducted on the direct links between happiness and one’s attention to politics. The indirect evidence, however, is not encouraging. For example, Dutch researchers in 2017 conducted a study on how hard news that tends to provide a political perspective affects well-being. They found that on average, well-being falls 6.1 percent for every additional television hard news program watched a week. They explained this by noting the dominance of negative stories on such programs, and the powerlessness viewers might feel in the face of all that bad news. It’s difficult to imagine that stories about political news in America would have any less of a negative impact—especially given how fraught and contentious United States politics is now.

[Read: Jonathan Haidt is trying to heal America’s divisions]

In an attempt to see more clearly how attention to politics is directly associated with life satisfaction, I conducted an analysis using 2014 data from the General Social Survey. After controlling for household income, education, age, gender, race, marital status, and political views, I found that people who were “very interested in politics” were about 8 percentage points more likely to be “not very happy” about life than people who were “not very interested” in politics.

The Dutch researchers’ point about negativity and powerlessness might play a role here, but something even more important might be happening. I believe that today’s partisan climate, media polarization, and constant political debates are interfering directly with the fuel of happiness, which is love.

To begin with, our growing focus on politics is driving what social scientists call “political homophily,” which means assortative mating by political viewpoint. Scholars studying online dating profiles find that political views are comparable in importance to education levels in choosing one’s romantic partner. Presumably, this reflects a growing belief that people’s votes are a proxy for their character and morals. Right or wrong, this is a joy killer: If politics is so important as to preclude romantic love where it otherwise might have blossomed, happiness will fall as a result.

Parents might also contribute to this amorous sorting. Three decades ago, when I was on a path to marriage, I don’t remember my mom and dad asking about my future wife’s political views. And traditionally, that wasn’t too important for most parents in America. In 1958, according to a Gallup Poll, 33 percent of parents who were Democrats wanted their daughters to marry a Democrat; 25 percent of Republican parents wanted their daughters to marry a Republican. Not so in recent years: Those numbers were 60 and 63 percent, respectively, in 2016. I suspect they are even higher in 2020.

Friendships and family ties are compromised by political disagreements as well. Polling data have shown that about one in six Americans stopped talking to a friend or family member because of the 2016 election. No doubt these were mostly cases where friends and family disagree. But even when people agree politically, expressing intense views, or going on and on about politics, harms relationships. A 2018 data analysis in the journal Political Opinion Quarterly revealed that “even strong partisans dislike too much political discussion—even agreeable discussion.”

And beware especially of in-laws: To quote the researchers, “many people do not want their child to marry someone from their own party if that hypothetical in-law were to discuss politics frequently.” In other words, these days you need to have the right politics for your beloved’s folks, but you can’t be too intense about it. It’s a bit of a high-wire act.

The research doesn’t reveal precisely why we tend to dislike overly political people, but it doesn’t take too much imagination to guess that constant foam-flecked political outrage makes one quite tedious. It also impedes our ability to think clearly: At least one experiment has shown that people become less accurate in interpreting data when the data concern something politically polarizing. And lest you think you are immune to this bias if you are sophisticated with data, the research shows that highly numerate people are the most likely to contort the numbers to fit their views.

Finally, retreating too far into one’s own political bubble makes one more ignorant of the world. A 2012 survey conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University asked a sample of Americans about their news-consumption habits, and quizzed them about U.S. and international political and economic events. They found that those watching the most partisan television news sources—on both the left and the right—were often less knowledgeable about world events than those who consumed no news at all.

Read: Do you speak Fox?

This rings starkly true to me. Whether partisan news sources can misinform us or not, they shrink our world. By engorging the political, they crowd out nearly everything else; they create a kind of tunnel vision that makes it easy to equate “news” with “politics” and pay little attention to what’s happening in other realms. And thus we become more boring.

In sum, if you spend the election season glued to your favorite partisan news outlet, read and share political outrage on social media, and use every opportunity to fulminate about politics, you might become less happy, less well-liked, less accurate, and less informed.

I am not advocating for everyone to stop paying attention to politics, of course. Good citizens are attentive and active in the political process. However, for quality of life’s sake—yours and others’—you would do well to put boundaries around the time and emotional energy you devote to politics this fall. To this end, I have three suggestions.

1. Get involved instead of complaining.

Earlier this year, the political scientist Eitan Hersh argued in The Atlantic that highly educated people who consume a ton of political news are making true progress harder in this country. Their appetite for constant indignation fuels an outrage-industrial complex in media and politics, and likely makes compromise harder.

“What they are doing is no closer to engaging in politics than watching SportsCenter is to playing football,” Hersh wrote. He recommends active, local citizenship: getting involved in your community and working with others to push for positive change instead of just watching cable TV and ranting about it. Hersh recommends this for the good of the country; I recommend it for the good of your mental health and relationships.

2. Ration your consumption of politics and limit the time you spend discussing it.

A key characteristic of addictive behavior is the displacement of human relationships by the object of addiction. A good way to gauge whether you have a problem is to ask: Is this activity a complement to my relationships, or a substitute? In the case of politics, for many people, an honest answer would clearly be the latter; hence the willingness to damage friendships and romances.

The solution is to ration your consumption of politics, and set proper boundaries around where you talk about it. I recommend limiting the consumption of all news—not just politics—to 30 minutes a day, unless news is your vocation. Much more than that and you might just be upsetting, rather than informing, yourself, or at least becoming one of Hersh’s “hobbyists.” Further, resolve to avoid political discussions during most nonpolitical occasions. It may be hard at first, but I’d wager that eventually you will savor the respite, especially during election season, when politics is everywhere.

3. Turn off ultra-partisan news sources, especially on your own side.

In 2017, the website The Onion introduced a satirical current-events talk show called You’re Right. In it, the host feeds viewers their own beliefs and biases, assuring them that they are right and that those who disagree are stupid and evil.

It’s a parody, of course, but it captures a real reason why people often turn to partisan news sources: It brings emotional satisfaction to hear experts and famous people saying things you agree with, and denouncing those with whom you disagree. But this has deleterious effects on your relationships, and leaves you poorly informed. Once you step away for a while, you’ll most likely start to realize how much of your energy it was consuming, and how much better you feel without these influences.

The fall is going to be rough, politically. The election will be brutal and bitter; there’s no way to avoid this. But Americans have to decide whether we want our own lives to be brutal and bitter as well. Each of us has political views, many of them strongly held. Each of us is convinced that we are right—and some of us might well be. But if we let these views dominate our thoughts, our time, and our conversations, they will harm our relationships and happiness. We can be happier if, sometimes, we follow the Buddha and just let our opinions go.

Especially with the in-laws.

Arthur C. Brooks is a contributing writer at The Atlantic, a professor of the practice of public leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School, a senior fellow at the Harvard Business School, and host of the podcast The Art of Happiness With Arthur Brooks.

Thursday, July 25, 2019

how's the weather

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Only 200 miles separate Michael Tilden and Miranda Garcia in rain-soaked Iowa. But they are worlds apart when it comes to their opinion of the weather.

Garcia, a 38-year-old former journalist and Democrat from Des Moines, thinks flooding has been getting worse in the state, which just came out of its wettest 12-months on record. Tilden, a 44-year-old math teacher and Republican from Sioux City, thinks otherwise: “I’ve noticed essentially the same weather pattern every single year,” he said.

Their different takes underscore a broader truth about the way Americans perceive extreme weather: Democrats are far more likely to believe droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes and tropical storms have become more frequent or intense where they live in the last decade, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The divergence shows how years of political squabbling over global warming - including disputes over its existence - have grown deep roots, distorting the way Americans view the world around them. The divide will play into the 2020 election as Democratic hopefuls seek to sell aggressive proposals to reduce or even end fossil fuel consumption by drawing links between climate change and recent floods, storms and wildfires.

Nearly two-thirds of Democrats believe severe thunderstorms and floods have become more frequent, compared to 42% and 50% of Republicans, respectively, according to the poll.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Bill and Melinda Gates on Trump and philanthropy

In the tenth edition of the Gates Foundation’s annual letter, Bill and Melinda Gates have chosen a different tact, tackling head-on “The 10 Tough Questions” they’re often asked about their $40 billion foundation.

Questions range from the political to the personal, including,”Are you imposing your values on other cultures?” and, “What do you have to show for the billions you’ve spent on U.S. education?”

However, the most frequently asked question on the Gates’ list is about the current U.S. president: “How are President Trump’s policies affecting your work?”

In the joint letter, Bill Gates, who recently revealed that his father is suffering from dementia, writes that over the past year, he’s been asked “about President Trump and his policies more often than all the other topics in this letter combined.”

The Microsoft founder and billionaire addressed President Trump’s U.S centric foreign policy, writing that “the America First worldview concerns me.”

“For decades the United States has been a leader in the fight against disease and poverty abroad,” he said. “These efforts save lives. They also create U.S. jobs. And they make Americans more secure by making poor countries more stable and stopping disease outbreaks before they become pandemics.”

“The world is not a safer place when more people are sick or hungry,” Gates added.

***

In the letter, the Gates acknowledge the extreme wealth inequality their fortune represents. "No, it's not fair that we have so much wealth when billions of others have so little," says Melinda. "And it's not fair that our wealth opens doors that are closed to most people."

So, "If we think it's unfair that we have so much wealth, why don't we give it all to the government?" asks Bill. "The answer is that we think there's always going to be a unique role for foundations."

Philanthropic foundations can "take a global view to find the greatest needs, take a long-term approach to solving problems, and manage high-risk projects that governments can't take on and corporations won't. If a government tries an idea that fails, someone wasn't doing their job. Whereas if we don't try some ideas that fail, we're not doing our jobs," says Bill.

"We both come from families that believed in leaving the world better than you found it," writes Melinda. "My parents made sure my siblings and I took the social justice teachings of the Catholic Church to heart. Bill's mom was known, and his dad still is known, for showing up to advocate for a dizzying number of important causes and support more local organizations than you can count.

"Our goal is to do what our parents taught us and do our part to make the world better," says Melinda.

Sunday, January 01, 2017

the difference between Republicans and Democrats

I recently asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grew up. She said she wanted to be president of the United States.

Both of her parents, liberal Dems , were standing there, so I asked her what she would do first. She replied: "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people." Her parents beamed.

“Wow, what a worthy goal,” I told her, “but you don't have to wait until you're president to do that. You can come over to my house, mow the lawn, pull weeds and sweep my driveway, and I will pay you $50. Then I will take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house and food.”

She thought it over for a few seconds, then asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over to your house and do the work and you can just pay him the $50?"

I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

-- Anthony Zarrella via Quora

what liberals and conservatives think of each other

Charles Krauthammer once said this: “To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”

-- Stefan Voiculescu-Holvad on Quora

Monday, September 12, 2016

why are our presidents so bad?

Brad Porter on Quora:

I am going to be profoundly contrarian here. It is very, very easy to say “aww hell all politicians are crooks!” or “dammit I hate this candidate, but I hate their opponent more!” or “politics is dirty!” or “the system is rigged!” or whatever else. Cynicism is cheap. We spend much of our time focused, laser-like, on the flaws and controversies of everyone who enters the public sphere. It’s natural, and it’s even constructive.

So allow me a counterpoint.

You can say what you want about any one of these men - notice I will not say a word on the politics of any of them nor will I even discuss their time as president - but let me at least lay it out for you.

Our current president is one of the most gifted orators of the last half century, with a profoundly inspiring background whose very existence as a public figure gives hope to millions. He is an extremely intelligent and profoundly decent man, who rocketed to political success after a background in community organizing, law, and academia and on the basis of an expressed vision that what unites us is stronger than what divides us.

This man [George W. Bush] was the extremely popular two-term governor of one of the nation’s most populous states - when he was reelected in 1998 it was with the highest vote total of any governor in Texas history. He had a knack with connecting with people in a way that many politicians didn’t - he never, in the Southern way of speaking, “put on airs.” Being the son of a President and the brother of a very popular governor of another populous state, he came from a pedigree few could match. When he won in 2000, it was against a primary field that was one of the most impressive ever. And he won in large measure because he espoused a vision of the GOP that was compassionate and big tent.

This man [Bill Clinton] could make a reasonable claim to being among the most intelligent individuals of the late 20th century. A Rhodes Scholar, Oxford educated, tremendously bright lawyer, he chose to enter public service, beginning as Attorney General and then as Governor of Arkansas - he was 32 when he was first elected Governor, the youngest in the country by far and among the youngest to ever hold the office of Governor of any state. When he was elected again in 1982 he then served in the office for ten years straight before bursting onto the national scene.

Arguably one of the most accomplished Americans of his generation - and it was a doozy - this man [George H.W. Bush] joined the Navy on his 18th birthday, following Pearl Harbor, became an aviator (quite literally the youngest aviator in the entire United States Navy at the time), left the service at the end of the war, breezed through Yale in two and a half years, founded an oil company, and was a millionaire by the age of 40. He chose to become a public servant then, was elected to the United States House of Representatives, became the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, then a special envoy to China at a critical time, then became the director of the CIA. Following that he became a two-term Vice President, before being elected President himself.

Raised poor, this man [Ronald Reagan] started out as a radio announcer, then as an actor. While his acting career was not that noteworthy, he was held in such high esteem by his peers that he was chosen to lead the Screen Actors Guild as president, twice elected during the 50s when that was arguably one of the most important unions in America. Like Obama, his “coming out” was as a convention speaker, where he showed an uncanny vision for an optimistic Republicanism. He was then elected Governor of the most populous state in the union, and won reelection easily. He ran unsuccessfully for president twice, gaining tremendous respect and national exposure in the process, before finally winning the nomination and then the office. He was subsequently reelected by the largest electoral college margin in American history.

[and so on..]

Beyond that, I think there is something we don’t often realize.

Public service is a very crappy way to become rich or famous.

It’s true! If you are an extremely smart individual, and your goal is fortune - you do not give up your career on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley to go run for the open seat in AZ-2. Typically, the people who get elected to state office are people who have been paying their dues for years, organizing voters, signing people up with clipboards, schmoozing donors, and on and on. You wind up spending all of your 20s and most of your 30s doing mundane work for no pay. Your peers, typically, are busy making partner or getting VC funding while you’re worrying about yard signs. It is a lousy way to get rich.

If you are an extremely vain individual, and your goal is popularity or power - public service is likewise an awful avenue. You spend most of your life in public service eating shit. You have to sit there and listen to constituents tell you every crazy reason in the book why you’re a Jew Illuminati and you just smile and nod. Before you even sniff ballot access as a major party candidate, you have to pay your dues shadowing small-ball idiots who nevertheless you have to treat as the next JFK. And, most people who run for office….well, lose. They don’t tell you that part. Hell, even in my little above exercise, nearly all of those guys got stomped at one point of another. And most people don’t even get that far - they die on the vine trying to build name ID for a local congressional race in New Hampshire. It is a lousy way to get famous.

And this is all way before we’re talking a presidential run.

The truth is: a person who has dedicated their life to public service, has typically done so because they believe in something.

And, more to the point, the very fact that they are running for office usually means they are sacrificing something to try to make a difference. That they have paid dues, come through the ranks, offered something of themselves.

It’s not for everyone! There are smarter people around - Elon Musk, I’m sure, has maybe better ideas…but would he make a better public servant? I don’t know. I actually doubt it.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Lady Gaga: hostile foreign force

Lady Gaga has reportedly been added to a list of hostile foreign forces banned by China’s Communist party after she met with the Dalai Lama to discuss yoga.

The American pop singer, who has sold more than 27m albums, met the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader on Sunday before a conference in Indianapolis.

A video of the 19-minute encounter – in which the pair pondered issues such as meditation, mental health and how to detoxify humanity – was posted on the singer’s Facebook account.

The meeting sparked an angry reaction from Beijing, which has attacked the spiritual leader as a “wolf in monk’s robes”.

The Dalai Lama, who fled into exile in March 1959, insists he is merely seeking greater autonomy from Chinese rule for Tibetans.

But China’s rulers consider him a separatist who they claim is conspiring to split the Himalayan region from China in order to establish theocratic rule there.

Following Lady Gaga’s meeting, the Communist party’s mysterious propaganda department issued “an important instruction” banning her entire repertoire from mainland China, Hong Kong’s pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily reported on Monday.

Chinese websites and media organisations were ordered to stop uploading or distributing her songs in a sign of Beijing’s irritation, the newspaper said.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Krugman calls for more debt?

Rand Paul said something funny the other day. No, really — although of course it wasn’t intentional. On his Twitter account he decried the irresponsibility of American fiscal policy, declaring, “The last time the United States was debt free was 1835.”

Wags quickly noted that the U.S. economy has, on the whole, done pretty well these past 180 years, suggesting that having the government owe the private sector money might not be all that bad a thing. The British government, by the way, has been in debt for more than three centuries, an era spanning the Industrial Revolution, victory over Napoleon, and more.

But is the point simply that public debt isn’t as bad as legend has it? Or can government debt actually be a good thing?

Believe it or not, many economists argue that the economy needs a sufficient amount of public debt out there to function well. And how much is sufficient? Maybe more than we currently have. That is, there’s a reasonable argument to be made that part of what ails the world economy right now is that governments aren’t deep enough in debt.

I know that may sound crazy. After all, we’ve spent much of the past five or six years in a state of fiscal panic, with all the Very Serious People declaring that we must slash deficits and reduce debt now now now or we’ll turn into Greece, Greece I tell you.

But the power of the deficit scolds was always a triumph of ideology over evidence, and a growing number of genuinely serious people — most recently Narayana Kocherlakota, the departing president of the Minneapolis Fed — are making the case that we need more, not less, government debt.

Why?

One answer is that issuing debt is a way to pay for useful things, and we should do more of that when the price is right. The United States suffers from obvious deficiencies in roads, rails, water systems and more; meanwhile, the federal government can borrow at historically low interest rates. So this is a very good time to be borrowing and investing in the future, and a very bad time for what has actually happened: an unprecedented decline in public construction spending adjusted for population growth and inflation.

Beyond that, those very low interest rates are telling us something about what markets want. I’ve already mentioned that having at least some government debt outstanding helps the economy function better. How so? The answer, according to M.I.T.’s Ricardo Caballero and others, is that the debt of stable, reliable governments provides “safe assets” that help investors manage risks, make transactions easier and avoid a destructive scramble for cash.

Friday, August 07, 2015

Jon Stewart signs off

Genuine warmth is an extraordinarily rare commodity on television, which is why Jon Stewart’s final “The Daily Show” was something to be treasured, savored and maybe even played back a few times. As with most media-hyped events, Stewart’s exit came with such inflated expectations that it’s the sort of thing the host himself would have delighted in skewering. Yet the parade of former correspondents who lined up to bid him farewell not only celebrated what he called “the talent that has passed through these doors” but the guy who gave them that opportunity as he rides into the sunset.

Stewart opened by pretending to cover the Republican debate (which actually took place after his taping), which turned into an extended series of cameos by practically everyone who has worked for the show on camera. The producers even squeezed in testimonials from other luminaries, from Craig Kilborn – from whom Stewart inherited the franchise – to Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Bill O’Reilly.

Still, the real emotional gut punch fell, appropriately, to Stephen Colbert, who forced Stewart – who has resisted attempts to lionize him building up to the finish – to listen to a testimonial on behalf of all those who had worked for him. “You were infuriatingly good at your job,” Colbert said, and if Stewart was acting when he began to choke up, then he has a career in movies ahead of him that has nothing to do with directing.

Frankly, that would have been enough to make the hour wonderfully memorable. But the show followed that up with an extremely clever “Goodfellas” spoof, introducing everyone who had worked on the show in one extended tracking shot (and throwing in a Martin Scorsese cameo for good measure). It’s become standard operating procedure for latenight hosts to acknowledge their staffs, but this effort brought more flair to the process than most.

In the night’s ultimate highlight, Stewart then channeled the late George Carlin, and perhaps a bit of David Steinberg, in offering what amounted to parting words of advice to his audience, an extended rumination on the “bull—-” that permeates our politics, and the one word that can inoculate the public against it: vigilance. In a strange, sweet way, it felt almost like an older relative addressing a kid, telling him or her what to look out for when he’s no longer around to run interference.

Each of these segments, and especially that last one, showcased what Stewart has uniquely brought to “The Daily Show.” In an age of news coverage where partisanship often demands getting both sides of even the most absurd argument, he astutely knifed through the clutter, in a way that frequently spoke to people who had the same thoughts but didn’t hear them articulated much – or nearly as well – in other venues.

Stewart has always brought a self-effacing quality to the desk, which is part of his comedic persona. But his goodbye, in which he described his time hosting the show as a “privilege,” sounded heartfelt and sincere. The biggest non-surprise, frankly, was that he would turn the final minutes over to Bruce Springsteen, a natural sendoff for a native son of New Jersey.

Despite all the inevitable analysis regarding Stewart’s legacy, the sun will still rise Friday. But come Monday – when Stewart would have had an opportunity to weigh in on that aforementioned Republican presidential debate – Thursday’s finale merely reinforced the sense that there’s going to be a void in a lot of people’s lives more significant than just that extra half-hour four nights a week. And Trevor Noah – who came out to measure Stewart’s desk – certainly has his work cut out for him.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

where the presidential candidates get their money

There will probably be more money flowing into the 2016 presidential race than in any election in U.S. history. The most important new trend is the hundreds of millions flowing into “super PACs” and other outside spending groups, which can accept unlimited amounts from rich donors and spend it on ads and other efforts to support favored candidates or help defeat their opponents.

The gusher of political money flowing from “economic elites” may even endanger democracy itself, according to a recent study by two leading academics, since it concentrates political influence among a small number of billionaires while disenfranchising typical voters.

With crony capitalism and income inequality likely to be prominent issues in the election, Yahoo Finance will track the big donors funding each candidate, and why they might be doing that.

Hillary Clinton. Fundraising tier, out of 3 levels: Highest

Prominent donors: Most of the usual big Democratic givers, including Tom Steyer, Fred Eychaner, James Simons, George Soros, Marc Lasry, Reid Hoffman, Jeffrey Katzenberg and John Doerr.

Advantages: A vast network of rich contacts from her years as a senator and Secretary of State, and of course her husband Bill’s years as president.

Vulnerabilities: Clinton may seem such a shoe-in that donors grow complacent and hold back, leaving her at a funding disadvantage against Jeb Bush or whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be.

Jeb Bush. Fundraising tier, out of 3: Highest.

Prominent donors: Big names in business and finance, such as financier Henry Kravis, New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, Chicago banker Byron Trott, oilman T. Boone Pickens and cellphone pioneer Craig McCaw.

Advantages: Inherits mainstream GOP fundraising network cultivated by his brother George W. Bush, his father, George H.W. Bush, and 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Vulnerabilities: May need to spend a lot of money slogging through drawn-out primary elections.

Scott Walker. Fundraising tier: Middle.

Prominent donors: GOP heavyweights Sheldon Adelson and Charles and David Koch have contributed to Walker as Wisconsin governor and could back him for president (though Walker probably won’t declare his candidacy until early July).

Advantages: Walker’s anti-union crusade in Wisconsin has made him a favorite of conservatives impressed by action as well as talk.

Vulnerabilities: Few voters know much about Walker, which could make him too much of an underdog in the eyes of some donors.

Marco Rubio. Fundraising tier: Middle.

Prominent donors: Oracle’s Larry Ellison, Florida billionaire Norman Braman, Florida sugar baron Jose “Pepe” Fanjul.

Advantages: At 44, Rubio has a bright political future even if he doesn’t win in 2016—perhaps running for Florida governor in 2018. That should attract some donors who wouldn’t otherwise support an underdog.

Vulnerabilities: Could become overdependent on a small number of rich donors.

Ted Cruz. Fundraising tier: Middle

Prominent donor: Hedge funder Robert Mercer of Renaissance Technologies.

Advantages: Cruz is on the far right of the political spectrum, which makes him the favored candidate of many Tea Partiers and ultraconservatives such as Mercer.

Vulnerabilities: Though his wife has been a senior Goldman Sachs executive, Cruz has alienated the business community through efforts to shut down the federal government and other disruptive political tactics.

Lindsey Graham. Fundraising tier: Middle to lowest

Prominent donor: Michael Bloomberg, who donated to Graham’s super PAC as a way of promoting bipartisanship.

Advantages: The South Carolina senator’s hawkish views on the Middle East have strong appeal to Jewish conservatives such as billionaire Sheldon Adelson (who hasn’t yet endorsed a candidate).

Vulnerabilities: Graham’s hawkishness alienates libertarians, independents and (needless to say) most Democrats.

Carly Fiorina. Fundraising tier: Middle to lowest

Prominent donor: Herself. Fiorina spent nearly $6 million of her own money running for the Senate in California in 2010. (She lost.)

Advantages: As the only woman among a male-dominated parade of GOP candidates, Fiorina might emerge as a vice-presidential running mate to Jeb Bush or another frontrunner.

Vulnerabilities. Big GOP donors who supported Fiorina as a Senate candidate—such as T. Boone Pickens, Paul Singer and Ken Griffin—seem likely to back other candidates now that the presidency is at stake.

Rick Perry. Fundraising tier: Middle to lowest

Prominent donors: Texas businessmen Thomas Friedkin and Kenny Trout.

Advantages: Texas, where Perry was governor, is a big state with big money.

Vulnerabilities: Perry’s listless performance as a presidential candidate in 2012 makes a lot of donors wonder why he’s doing it again.

Mike Huckabee. Fundraising tier: Lowest

Prominent donor: Televangelist Kenneth Copeland.

Advantages: The former Arkansas governor, a fundamentalist southern Baptist minister, has a considerable following thanks to his former gig as a Fox News commentator and frequent appearances at Christian gatherings.

Vulnerabilities: Huck, as he’s known, has little appeal beyond Christian conservatives, which is why he ranked 11^th in fundraising when he ran for president in 2008.

Ben Carson. Fundraising tier: Lowest

Prominent donor: Harry Bettis, an Idaho rancher who supports Republican candidates and causes.

Advantages: Personal rags-to-riches narrative that could inspire small donors.

Vulnerabiliites: No natural constituency, other than voters who are sick of all the usual candidates.

Rick Santorum. Fundraising tier: Lowest

Prominent donors: Bill Doré and Foster Friess.

Advantages: His supporters tend to be true believers inspired by Santorum’s religious and moral positions.

Vulnerabilities: There aren’t nearly enough of them.

George Pataki. Fundraising tier: Lowest

Prominent donor: He’s desperately seeking one.

Advantages: Three terms as New York governor left Pataki well-acquainted with many East Coast businesspeople, including some top GOP donors.

Vulnerabilities: George who?

Wait! There's one more guy...

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

the solution to inequality

Between 2000 and 2013, every single state in the United States saw its share of middle-class families shrink, according to analysis from the Pew Charitable Trusts. In some states like Wisconsin and Ohio, that number fell by more than 5 percentage points; middle-income families now make up less than half of those states' populations.

It’s not a new narrative but the modern story of inequality goes much deeper than stagnant wage growth. It's inequality of opportunity as well. It's something Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has studied and written about a great deal. He talks with Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer in the video above.

In his new book, “The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them,” Stiglitz traces the modern divide of inequality back to the Reagan era. Though inequality was a huge problem at the turn of the last century and in the lead up to the Great Depression, Stiglitz says the income divide in the U.S. was reduced after World War II and that the country “grew at its fastest pace” and “grew together.” He says the turning point was the Reagan Administration and its rolling out of supply-side economics, deregulation, and lower tax rates. The goal of these policies was to spur economic growth overall and make everyone wealthier. Stiglitz says it caused a divide instead.

Watch the full Stiglitz interview here

In his book, Stiglitz offers three ways to bridge this growing inequality gap. First, he says, reform the tax and transfer system in the U.S. to “make it at least fair that those at the top pay at least the same share,” that we don’t have these distorting provisions which weaken the economy and create more inequality.

Second, Stiglitz says we need to look at the basic structure of the economy and our laws and regulations. It is “the way our economy works that creates this inequality,” he says. Stiglitz points to “ineffective and ineffectively-enforced” anti-trust laws and corporate governance laws that, he says, allow those at the very top to seize a larger and larger share of the corporate pie. As a result, that leaves “less for investment, less for wages.” He says it's a structural problem that needs to be fixed because "effectively every law and regulation is tilted to create an untilted field."

And finally, Stiglitz says, we need to provide equal access to education to bridge the inequality divide. “We spend more even in the public school on the children of the rich than we do the poor,” he says. This has long-lasting effects. “We are transmitting advantages and disadvantages across generations, and that is the most important factor in creating this inequality of opportunity.”

Monday, April 20, 2015

ranking the presidents

RantPolitical ranks the presidents, George W. Bush is ranked just ahead of Obama.

There have been 43 presidents.

43. Andrew Johnson
38. Herbert Hoover
37. Jimmy Carter
36. Obama
35. George W. Bush
31. Gerald Ford
30. Nixon. "The reality is Nixon was a good president, aside from his criminal activity of course."
18. George H. W. Bush
16. Lyndon Johnson
15. John F. Kennedy
14. Clinton. "He was willing to compromise and get things done."
9. Reagan
8. Eisenhower. Established DARPA which would give birth to the internet
7. Truman
5. Thomas Jefferson
4. Theodore Roosevelt. He was a naturalist who gave us many of our National Parks. Ordered construction of the Panama Canal
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His New Deal is often credited with ending the Great Depression which was truly ended by WWII.
2. George Washington.
1. Abraham Lincoln. There was a lot that he did that was considered unconstitutional.

***

Checking wikipedia. Lincoln, FDR, Washington are consistently ranked at the top of the lists.

In 2012, Newsweek magazine asked a panel of historians to rank the ten best presidents since 1900. The results showed that historians had ranked Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama as the best since that year.

A 2013 History News Network poll of 203 American historians, when asked to rate Barack Obama's presidency on an A–F scale, gave him a B- grade. Obama, whom historians graded using 15 separate measures plus an overall grade, was rated most highly in the categories of communication ability, integrity, and crisis management, and most poorly for his relationship with Congress and transparency and accountability.

A 2015 poll, administered by the American Political Science Association among political scientists specializing in the American presidency, had Abraham Lincoln in the top spot, with George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Andrew Jackson, and Woodrow Wilson cracking the top 10.

*** [7/19/15]

Obama up to #18?

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Jon Stewart vs. Fox News

As Jon Stewart's time on the air nears its end, so does his patience for Fox News.

Stewart literally threw down the gauntlet at Fox's feet Wednesday night, proclaiming, "I challenge you, Fox News, to a Lie Off!"

Lately, neither party is pulling any punches in its coverage of the other. Fox News hosts have called "The Daily Show" a clear case of "selective editing" with "no foothold in the facts," while Stewart has said that "even watching [Fox News] is killing me." But Stewart has upped the ante by challenging Fox News to provide any proof that his show has ever lied.

Oh, and Stewart did his homework. Behold: "50 Fox News Lies In 6 Seconds."

[via twitter]

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Mike Huckabee and Beyoncé

Has anyone else noticed how Mike Huckabee can’t stop talking about Beyoncé?

First, he comments that her husband, Jay-Z, is undoubtedly “exploiting his wife” like a “pimp” (for all the reasons this is wrong, see my colleague Alyssa Rosenberg) and that her dance moves belong in the “bedroom.”

But he won’t stop! He told People that he can’t believe the Obamas let their daughters listen to her music, whose lyrics he has called “obnoxious and toxic mental poison.” (That would be a passable album title.) “I don’t understand,” he told the magazine, “how on one hand they can be such doting parents and so careful about the intake of everything — how much broccoli they eat and where they go to school … and yet they don’t see anything that might not be suitable” in Beyoncé’s lyrics.

Mike, is everything all right? What has brought on this fixation?

Some theories about what led to this moment:

-- by Alexandra Petri, Washington Post

Thursday, December 18, 2014

George Bush: smarter than you think

Our nations leaders aren't as dumb as we think.

Except for Bill Clinton. The legendary democrat scored a 1020, which was more than 200 points less than George W. Bush's 1206. President Obama refuses to release his academic history.

The men that criticize politicians--talk show hosts--all scored extremely high. Bill O'Reilly snagged a 1585, Rush Limbaugh, 1530, and Ben Stein, 1573. [Does Al Franken know this?]

Several big name actors and actresses did surprisingly well on the SAT. Although Natalie Portman refuses to disclose her number, it is rumored that the beautiful actress achieved a near perfect score, the Daily Mail reported.

Scarlett Johansson, on the other hand, bagged a measly 1080. She said it made her feel like "a big dummy" (although 1080 is still above the U.S. average).

Courtney Cox fared similarly, landing a 11000.

Geniuses include Ben Affleck, James Franco and Will Smith, all of whom apparently achieved near perfect scores. Singer Ke$ha snagged an impressive 1500.

Famous dummies include Alex Rodriguez (910) and Howard Stern (870). Bill Cosby, shockingly, scored below 500.

***

[Who cares? They're all richer than you.]

[see also the smartest athletes]

Friday, August 01, 2014

different values and allies

It's come to this.

Russia is turning to Twitter to drop a sissy bomb on President Obama, using photos to challenge the manliness of America's commander in chief, while pumping up their main man, President Vladimir Putin.

The post by Russia's deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin included side-by-side images of the two presidents. In one, Putin is confidently holding a majestic leopard. In the other, a notably younger Obama is holding a small, fluffy dog.

The caption: "We have different values and allies."

Burn.

***

The above was from FoxNews? And what's the deal with the inserted picture of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog?

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

TV shows watched by liberals and conservatives

A new survey reveals political partisans are divided when they reach for the TV remote, too. And not just between Fox News and MSNBC.

Larry the Cable Guy and Jon Stewart appear to split conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats as surely as President Barack Obama's health reform law.

Republicans prefer competitive reality TV and shows about hard work, while Democrats are looking for sarcastic humor and complex characters.

Some seem obvious: Democrats love the Daily Show with Jon Stewart for the biting criticisms of (often Republican) politicians and wry wit that the program dishes out from New York City.

Conservatives list Jon Stewart's program as one of their most hated for his sarcastic commentary and his pretentious media-watching.

Republicans, meanwhile, are drawn to Only in American with Larry the Cable Guy, a show featuring the self-styled plain-talking comedian and his adventures exploring everyday people doing strange jobs across the United States.

To liberals, Larry the Cable Guy is a caricature of a redneck, an anti-intellectual who plays the the lowest grade of humor. They rank his show among the worst on TV.

On the late-night lineup, Republican viewers love Jay Leno, while Democrats split their time between David Letterman, Craig Ferguson and Conan O'Brien.

This was the 2011 survey.

***

The 2012 Survey by Experian Simmons rates the shows in these categories: Super Democrats (The Daily Show with Jon Steward), Ultra Conservatives (College Football on ESPN), Mild Republicans (Rules of Engagement), On The Fence Liberals (The Graham Norton Show), Green Traditionalists (Lizard Lick Towing).

***

And according to Conservapedia:

The Worst Liberal TV Shows

The Greatest Conservative TV Shows (including Family Ties, The Office, The Six Million Dollar Man, The Cosby Show, Ozzie and Harriet, American Idol, Star Trek, The Waltons, The Lawrence Welk Show, Little House on the Praire, The Bob Newhart Show, Dick Van Dyke Show)