Author Archive

Review – The Audacity of Hope

Posted January 17, 2007 By Dave Thomer

The Audacity of Hope is something of a published stump speech – a collection of broad proposals, general principles, and personal anecdotes that gives the reader a sense of where Barack Obama would like the country to go, but not a lot of specifics about how to get there. By no means is it a boring read – Obama has incredible skill with words and a gift for storytelling. But the veering between the personal and the political leaves me, as someone who enjoys both subjects, feeling like the book is shallower than it could be. On the other hand, a reader who is less familiar with Obama, his background, or his stances would probably find this to be a useful introduction.

From the beginning, Obama makes clear that he believes that the tone and style of our political discourse must change. He expresses an interest in finding common ground, and suggests that even though he feels his party is more correct than its opposition, there is room for improvement. This conciliatory tone fits with the Obama I read about in his previous memoir, Dreams from My Father, which was written before Obama began his political career. So I don’t believe that he is engaging in pure political calculation here, trying to make himself look good by making everyone else look bad. I must say I was pretty sure that Obama would be running for president when I saw how much time he spent praising ethanol, as that has become almost stereotypical behavior for candidates looking to curry favor for the Iowa caucus.

While I believe Obama is sincere in what he’s saying in this book, there is a problem with his presentation that is especially noticeable in the chapter on religion, which is an expanded version of a speech Obama gave in the summer of 2006. Obama criticizes the political leadership of the religious right and explains how he reconciles his own faith with his political stances. In doing so, he offers a vision of deliberative democracy, the notion that we must justify our position to others in terms that are publicly accessible. I have strong sympathy with the deliberative democratic position, so I was happy to see Obama support it.

But within the chapter on religion, he exhorts other progressives to be understanding of those who have religious faith, and criticizes “secularists� who want to completely remove religion from the public square. What is noteworthy here is that Obama never cites specific examples or quotes that would indicate that such secularism is a major force within his party, even though he does go into detail about the other side. While I have read various blog posts or comments that take a strictly secular perspective, and I am sure Obama has encountered activists and constituents who feel the same, I can’t think of a leader or public figure who has – and Obama has done nothing to remind me. Without knowing what Obama is specifically talking about, it is very easy to ignore the point altogether because it seems unsupported, or to assume that it is a generalization that applies to a vast majority of Obama’s colleagues. Neither is an effective point.

Even though I agree with many of the policy suggestions Obama makes – such as simultaneously increasing teacher salaries and the expectations that we place on educators – I believe that the most effective parts of The Audacity of Hope are the autobiographical segments – the stories of the conversations he’s had at town hall meetings; the strange experience of senators speaking to an empty chamber and a C-Span camera; the challenges his Senate career has posed for his family. Reading the entire book, there’s an interesting dynamic that plays out in those family stories – when Obama met his future wife, she was a successful lawyer while Obama was beginning his legal career. Now Obama is a senator, and much of the burden of raising their children falls on his wife. He seems more than a little chagrined that his wife feels herself pulled in competing directions far more than he does, which is an interesting commentary on the expectation we place on parents in this day and age. Whatever the situation, it’s when Obama starts talking about people that he seems the most genuine, and the reader can best assess what kind of leader he would be.

Ending It All

Posted January 16, 2007 By Dave Thomer

Interesting post at TVWeek about Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof’s announcement that the producers were talking to ABC about when to bring Lost to an end. I’d read the story elsewhere, but the blog entry is the first indiciation that maybe ABC wasn’t quite so on board with making any pronouncements.

Down the hallway, ABC Entertainment President Steve McPherson is having lunch, and seems less-than-thrilled by the producers’ comments. After all, producers don’t cancel shows, network presidents do. He admits he didn’t know Lindelof and Cuse were going to make the announcement, then objected to the term “announcement.�

Of course, if you read John Rogers at Kung Fu Monkey, you might have the idea that network presidents might not be deciding much of anything for much longer.

And through it all, I can’t help but think of J. Michael Straczynski, who was crazy enough to declare that there would only be five season of Babylon 5. First everyone thought he was nuts for believing the show could go on that long. Then everyone – many of his own cast included – thought he was nuts for ending it on schedule.

State of the State Party? Not So Good

Posted January 15, 2007 By Dave Thomer

Chris Bowers at myDD has been beating the change-the-party-from-the-inside drum for years, and he’s backed up the talk, running for and winning seats on the city and state Demcoratic committees.

His report from the latest state meeting primarily concerns the loyalty-over-everything attitude of the Philadelphia party leadership. This is a really important story, especially since party leader Bob Brady is seriously considering a run for Mayor. He’s definitely moved far down my own priority list, that’s for sure.

Lot of Me to Go Around

Posted January 14, 2007 By Dave Thomer

On Friday I picked up two more academic IDs, bringing my collection of currently-valid university IDs to 4. I feel like one of those con men you see in movies who have bundles of fake IDs for every contingency. Except that mine all have my real name and the same goofy “I don’t want to scowl but I really don’t feel like grinning like an idiot” sheepish half-grin I have on most of my IDs.

Except my passport. I definitely managed to scowl on that one.

I think I’m going to hook all of these IDs up to one lanyard and just walk around with a gigantic identity necklace all the time.

Now I’m a New Orleans Fan

Posted January 13, 2007 By Dave Thomer

I don’t think I’ve ever been less disappointed by an Eagles playoff loss than I was tonight. They played a good game. They had a couple of opportunities that they didn’t take advantage of, but that’s always the way it goes. (I just hope Stephen A. Smith doesn’t find a way to turn this game into an anti-Jeff-Garcia rant. UPDATE: Whew. He didn’t, although even his “Let’s give him credit” column might set a new record for backhanded compliments.)

If the Saints are making life even a little bit easier for the folks in New Orleans, more power to ’em. I just hope that the national attention helps remind us what still needs to be done down there. Especially since certain independent Senators have decided not to aggressively investigate said situation, but that’s a rant for another day.

Congratulations to both teams on good seasons.

Oh Yeah, I’m Screwed

Posted January 12, 2007 By Dave Thomer

So yesterday Pattie sends me a story that suggests that our teachers were on to something when they told us to go with our first instinct: Quick Decisions Might Be the Best.

Then today, I read that a scientist conducting a five-year study on procrastination released the report five years past his deadline to tell us that Procrastination Is Getting Worse.

So my habit for mulling things over to the nth degree means that not only am I taking longer to do things, I’m probably getting them wrong while I’m at it. Great.

I really developed some lousy habits as a writer when I was in high school and college, and I’m really paying for them now. I should get around to breaking them some day.

On the other hand, some experimenting in my kitchen has helped me realize that a little bit of the heavy cream we have left over from baking makes Alton Brown’s cocoa recipe even better. So the week’s not a total write-off.

Fourth Branch, Revisited

Posted January 11, 2007 By Dave Thomer

Way back when Not News became a blog, I posted a brief blurb about Ethan Lieb’s proposal for a fourth branch of government, the popular branch, in which citizen juries would have an opportunity to pass legislation or help establish community standards. As I did more digging into ideas related to deliberative democracy, I decided to buy Lieb’s book, so I figured I’d follow up on that blurb with a more complete description of Lieb’s idea, along with a few of my concerns based on my usual Deweyan perspective.

I would sum up the proposal as follows. Different groups within society would have the ability to submit measures to the popular branch for consideration. Citizens may gather petitions for a bill on a single topic that does not exceed eight pages in length. The existing legislative branch can submit an issue for consideration by a meeting of the popular branch. Also, the judiciary branch can request that a jury offer an opinion on contemporary community standards or beliefs when those standards are implicated in a particular case. Proposals that garner enough support will be presented to a citizen’s jury of 525 members drawn randomly from the population and who will be required to serve or else face potential fines or community service requirements. This process will be overseen by a government agency selected by party officials and direct election by the voters. The agency will be responsible for making sure that proposals are properly drafted and that the popular assemblies are properly selected.

Members of the popular branch will receive briefing materials and will also have the chance to receive testimony from experts. Stakeholders in the issue in question will have means of submitting information to be included in the briefing materials. This process will also be overseen by the agency responsible for the operations of the popular branch. The members will meet in small groups moderated by federal judges who have received special psychological training to prepare them for the role. All deliberations will be made public, but the identities of the members will be kept secret. (This will require the disguising of voices and faces if the proceedings are to be televised, as are current meetings of the legislative branch.) If a supermajority of members vote to approve the proposal, it will become law (in the case of a citizen’s initiative or a legislatively-sponsored referendum). The law will still be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with the constitution, and the executive and legislative branches will have means at their disposal to veto these laws if they deem it necessary. Leib imagines that there would be a considerable price to pay for such a veto in the absence of especially strong justification.

I think this is a really interesting idea, and I think it has potential. My chief concern is whether the citizen juries would be able to gather enough information to make a good judgment. The danger here is that popular participation without popular knowledge does not necessarily result in popular control. If we accept Dewey’s notion of intelligent action, then if we do not anticipate the consequences of our actions, we do not really grasp the meaning of what we are doing. We will not be able to shape future conditions to our liking. Such shaping would seem to be the purpose of the members of the popular branch, and without sufficient knowledge they cannot fulfill this function. Bad policy is one potential consequence of this failure (and some may argue that “bad� policy results are in the eyes of the beholder.) More worrisome would be the potential loss of legitimacy for the popular branch, especially since adding legitimacy is one of Leib’s chief goals in making his proposal.

If the popular branch approves a proposal without grasping how it will affect society, what will happen when the unexpected results occur? Will the members of the jury that passed the proposal feel anger at themselves for not having anticipated the future? Will they blame the experts and stakeholders who contributed to their briefing materials and moderated their panels, and therefore lose faith in the actions of the popular branch? Will other members of the public, who would have access to the deliberations and would therefore know what the popular branch intended to happen, have a similar loss of faith when they see the mistakes that were made? These failures might also give the executive and legislative branches more substantial political cover to overturn laws passed by the popular branch, and make them more reluctant to submit questions for the branch’s consideration.

Like I said, there’s an interesting idea here, and at the very least it serves as an idea of what kind of society we could be working toward. At the moment I’m thinking of the other pieces of the puzzle that would need to be in place for this one to work.

Definition of Insanity

Posted January 10, 2007 By Dave Thomer

I’ve heard it said that insanity is doing something a second time and expecting a different result. So I was struck by this passage from the AP’s coverage of PResident Bush’s speech tonight:

Bush’s blueprint would boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq – now at 132,000 – to 153,500 at a cost of $5.6 billion. The highest number was 160,000 a year ago in a troop buildup for Iraqi elections.

So we’re going to “surge” to a number of troops less than we have had in the past, with personnel and equipment who are a year more exhausted than they were in the past, and we think this is going to be sufficient to turn the situation around?

And that doesn’t even factor in the possibility of allies reducing their troop levels.

I suppose it’s possible that these surging troops will be following some clever new plan that will make them all the more effective. But I can’t say I have a whole lot of confidence in the people coming up with the grand designs these days. And that means more people are going to be hurt.

I thought it was interesting that when Sen. Richard Durbin gave the Democratic response to Bush’s plan, he didn’t focus on the screwups. His argument instead was that we’ve done plenty of good things for Iraq, now it’s time for us to get out and let Iraq take care of itself. I gotta say, that’s not the route I would have gone. And it’s a shame if fear of looking weak or un-American keeps us from acknowledging the ways in which America’s actions have made the situation in Iraq worse, because we’d really better learn these lessons for the next time.

Today’s Moment in Parenting

Posted January 9, 2007 By Dave Thomer

I was getting ready to go to physical therapy this evening, and told Alex I was going to be back soon. She asked where I was going, and reached out her hands to hold mine.

“I’m going to see the guy who helps fix Daddy,” I said, as she walked up my legs and stood on my thighs.

‘Why are you doing that?” she asked, immediately before leaning back, flipping herself over, and sticking the landing, while I reached over to make sure she kept her balance.

“What you’re doing right there, for starters, I replied.

The sad part is, I probably have at least five more years of this and other varieties of human jungle-gym-dom ahead of me before I work off the karmic debt of what I used to do to my dad and my uncles back when I was a kid . . .

Quick Music Bits

Posted January 8, 2007 By Dave Thomer
  • It’s official – R.E.M. will be inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in their first year of eligibility. In a nice bit of timing, Patti Smith, one of Michael Stipe and Peter Buck’s musical idols, will also be inducted. After I posted this, I read a story where Stipe told Reuters that Bill Berry would play with the band at the induction.
  • Speaking of Berry, the R.E.M. fan club single this year included the four-piece performing “So. Central Rain” and “Begin the Begin” at an Athens tribute. “Begin the Begin” rocks – I’m very glad to see that one in their playlist frequently these days.
  • Broke down and started buying some tracks from iTunes. Gotta be careful with that. But it was a quick way to get Dada’s new EP, A Friend of Pat Robertson. The title track is excellent – great harmonies and a beautiful but disconcerting melody. “7 Dot 1” is a good rocker that kinda feels like a followup to “Information Undertow.” I’m not sure about the other three tracks, but for four bucks, I got my money’s worth.
  • Among the other tracks I picked up: Mark Knopfler and Emmylou Harris’s “This Is Us.” I firmly believe that Mark Knopfler knows how to speak Guitar. I don’t know what would be like, but he must do it. The song sounds great, and I love Knopfler and Harris’s performance as a married couple looking back on a happy life together. Hopefully I won’t have too much trouble converting the track into a listenable format in 30 years or so.