Note to all the conservatives who insist that English be the official language in America: At least have the political leaders pronounce it properly.
Both John Boehner and Eric Cantor, among others, say "siddown" (one word) when they demand that President Obama sit down for negotiations over their differences.
The expression calls for two distinct words, with a T followed by a D. Not a double D rolled into a single word.
And never mind the hifalutin' gobbledygook, as Rep. Cathy Rodgers did when she said they "hope to begin a meaningful dialogue." Did she mean straight talk?
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Managed Catastrophe
"Danger, Will Robinson. That does not compute." -- Robby the Robot.
News items: The government is closed, nobody's talking except to blame the other guy, and the approval rating for Congress is down to 5 percent. Considering the margin of error for polling, it's more likely zero; nobody likes what they're (not) doing.
Meanwhile, the forecast for the economy is "skewed to the downside," according to the Federal Reserve. And that's a phrase from the minutes, released today, of their meeting nearly a month ago, before the shutdown. How much worse can it be now?
Republicans are claiming it's a "managed catastrophe," whatever that is, and denying that the government will run out of money next week. There's plenty of revenue coming in, they say, for the government to pay the interest on its bonds, etc., while "negotiations" take place to resolve disagreements over the budget, the debt ceiling and the new health care law.
However, there apparently wasn't enough money to pay promised death benefits to the families of military personnel killed in the line of duty. There wasn't enough money to keep national parks open. There wasn't enough money to keep scientific research agencies functioning. There's isn't enough money to keep social service agencies working to help Americans in need.
But there's plenty of money to keep Congressional salaries flowing.
As for people out of work and unable to pay their bills, five federal regulatory agencies are urging banks to be lenient with customers affected by the shutdown.
And news media are finally getting to the story that an American government shutdown will, in fact, affect other economies and nations. When the world's largest economy hiccups, it's bound to affect others. How could it not?
Add this to the story: The Pentagon says military aid to Egypt will be cut. The given reason is the failure of the Cairo leaders to bring peace to that country. It's also true that with no budget in place and revenue dropping, the U.S. is running out of money. And if Washington is running out of money to keep its own operations running, it follows that it's running out of money to help others. So as the money flow stops, other economies also face a downturn.
Result: A worldwide crash.
"Failure to lift the debt ceiling would ... be a major event. Prolonged failure would lead to an extreme fiscal consolidation and almost surely derail the U.S. recovery." That from Olivier Blanchard, Economic Counsellor and Director of the Research Department at the International Monetary Fund. Moreover, Blanchard added, "The effects of any failure to repay the debt would be felt right away, leading to potentially major disruptions in financial markets both in the United States and abroad."
As for managing a catastrophe, that's a non sequitur. At best, it doesn't follow, and at worst, it's dumb.
Let's hope Congress gets its act together.
News items: The government is closed, nobody's talking except to blame the other guy, and the approval rating for Congress is down to 5 percent. Considering the margin of error for polling, it's more likely zero; nobody likes what they're (not) doing.
Meanwhile, the forecast for the economy is "skewed to the downside," according to the Federal Reserve. And that's a phrase from the minutes, released today, of their meeting nearly a month ago, before the shutdown. How much worse can it be now?
Republicans are claiming it's a "managed catastrophe," whatever that is, and denying that the government will run out of money next week. There's plenty of revenue coming in, they say, for the government to pay the interest on its bonds, etc., while "negotiations" take place to resolve disagreements over the budget, the debt ceiling and the new health care law.
However, there apparently wasn't enough money to pay promised death benefits to the families of military personnel killed in the line of duty. There wasn't enough money to keep national parks open. There wasn't enough money to keep scientific research agencies functioning. There's isn't enough money to keep social service agencies working to help Americans in need.
But there's plenty of money to keep Congressional salaries flowing.
As for people out of work and unable to pay their bills, five federal regulatory agencies are urging banks to be lenient with customers affected by the shutdown.
And news media are finally getting to the story that an American government shutdown will, in fact, affect other economies and nations. When the world's largest economy hiccups, it's bound to affect others. How could it not?
Add this to the story: The Pentagon says military aid to Egypt will be cut. The given reason is the failure of the Cairo leaders to bring peace to that country. It's also true that with no budget in place and revenue dropping, the U.S. is running out of money. And if Washington is running out of money to keep its own operations running, it follows that it's running out of money to help others. So as the money flow stops, other economies also face a downturn.
Result: A worldwide crash.
"Failure to lift the debt ceiling would ... be a major event. Prolonged failure would lead to an extreme fiscal consolidation and almost surely derail the U.S. recovery." That from Olivier Blanchard, Economic Counsellor and Director of the Research Department at the International Monetary Fund. Moreover, Blanchard added, "The effects of any failure to repay the debt would be felt right away, leading to potentially major disruptions in financial markets both in the United States and abroad."
As for managing a catastrophe, that's a non sequitur. At best, it doesn't follow, and at worst, it's dumb.
Let's hope Congress gets its act together.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Talking Points
Challenge the non-responsive response.
Reporters score solid journalism points when they challenge politicians who dodge questions and pivot to the day's preselected "talking points."
"Stay on message" is the politician's goal. "Answer the question" should be the response from reporters.
Today's plaudit goes to Don Lemon of CNN, who regularly runs a segment he calls "no talking points," as well as all others who challenge non-responsive responses.
Normally, news reporters and interviewers keep their opinions to themselves. But this is different. Interview subjects who consistently ignore questions, instead prattling on about their own designated "talking point" of the day are only spreading propaganda. And reporters who go along with this dodge are derelict in their duty.
For too long, reporters have been acquiescing to this tactic, caving in to the threat of losing access to the source. It's not exactly like the politician is dictating the questions and topics in advance, but in practice it's not much different if the candidate gets away with avoiding, side-stepping or pivoting away from a specific question to chatter about his preferred "message."
Reporters must stop being manipulated and used as platforms for political propaganda. It's long past time to challenge the prattlers, and say "Never mind the talking points, answer the question."
Advice to candidates, officials and executives: Hire some good PR people who can advise you on which reporter from news outlet will ask which question. Pay attention to what they advise, especially when they propose answers to specific questions. Especially when you don't like the question. Crossing out some of the suggested answers because you don't like the question and don't want to deal with it won't make it go away. That's a form of denial.
Telling your PR advisor that you don't like the question won't change the reality that the question will be asked. And a PR professional will be able to tell you which reporter from which news outlet WILL ASK that very question. If it turns out that the said reporter does not asked that very question, you come out ahead. Either way, you were prepared.
Keep in mind that the reason some politicians don't like news reporters is because they can't control them.
Reporters score solid journalism points when they challenge politicians who dodge questions and pivot to the day's preselected "talking points."
"Stay on message" is the politician's goal. "Answer the question" should be the response from reporters.
Today's plaudit goes to Don Lemon of CNN, who regularly runs a segment he calls "no talking points," as well as all others who challenge non-responsive responses.
Normally, news reporters and interviewers keep their opinions to themselves. But this is different. Interview subjects who consistently ignore questions, instead prattling on about their own designated "talking point" of the day are only spreading propaganda. And reporters who go along with this dodge are derelict in their duty.
For too long, reporters have been acquiescing to this tactic, caving in to the threat of losing access to the source. It's not exactly like the politician is dictating the questions and topics in advance, but in practice it's not much different if the candidate gets away with avoiding, side-stepping or pivoting away from a specific question to chatter about his preferred "message."
Reporters must stop being manipulated and used as platforms for political propaganda. It's long past time to challenge the prattlers, and say "Never mind the talking points, answer the question."
Advice to candidates, officials and executives: Hire some good PR people who can advise you on which reporter from news outlet will ask which question. Pay attention to what they advise, especially when they propose answers to specific questions. Especially when you don't like the question. Crossing out some of the suggested answers because you don't like the question and don't want to deal with it won't make it go away. That's a form of denial.
Telling your PR advisor that you don't like the question won't change the reality that the question will be asked. And a PR professional will be able to tell you which reporter from which news outlet WILL ASK that very question. If it turns out that the said reporter does not asked that very question, you come out ahead. Either way, you were prepared.
Keep in mind that the reason some politicians don't like news reporters is because they can't control them.
Compromise
"As long as you stick to your principles, compromise is not a dirty word." -- Chris Christie.
"This is not some damn game." -- John Boehner
GOP Obamaphobes, listen up. Compromise has become a dirty word to the hard core of do-it-my-way-or-elsers who demand negotiation over things that are not negotiable.
Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey gained a reputation as a bully for his forceful manner of politics but later changed his approach after Superstorm Sandy ravaged the New Jersey Shore. Christie embraced the President Obama and the federal government's ability and willingness to help the recovery and rebuilding effort.
Speaker of the House John Boehner is right when he said the dispute over the budget and the debt ceiling, linking both to health care, is not a game. At least it shouldn't be. But why are so many of the players trying to score points against the opposition so they can win?
"This is not some damn game." -- John Boehner
GOP Obamaphobes, listen up. Compromise has become a dirty word to the hard core of do-it-my-way-or-elsers who demand negotiation over things that are not negotiable.
Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey gained a reputation as a bully for his forceful manner of politics but later changed his approach after Superstorm Sandy ravaged the New Jersey Shore. Christie embraced the President Obama and the federal government's ability and willingness to help the recovery and rebuilding effort.
Speaker of the House John Boehner is right when he said the dispute over the budget and the debt ceiling, linking both to health care, is not a game. At least it shouldn't be. But why are so many of the players trying to score points against the opposition so they can win?
Politickle Diss-Connect
We don't hear much opposition to universal health care from the insurance industry.
The Obamaphobes have lost their marbles and sent everyone else home.
Congressional behavior would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.
The politickle diss-connect was brought on because some few felt they didn't get the respect they thought they deserved. As if such behavior deserves respect. And because a small minority has been unable to persuade the majority to overturn a three-year-old law, which was passed by Congress, signed by the President and approved by the Supreme Court.
Now the House is attempting to erode the government's position piecemeal, by throwing pebbles against the budget impasse mountain, all the while complaining that the other side refuses to talk things over and negotiate.
The time for negotiation was six months ago, when the budget was due to be set up.
Still, the mouthy minority is using the budget and the debt ceiling as levers to overturn a legal program that is in place and that clearly people want. Proof of that is the flood of applications on Day One that the Affordable Care Act and the health insurance marketplace opened for business.
Opponents claim that the jammed computer system is proof that "it doesn't work," and that people don't want it. On the contrary, when millions of people try to access the online system on Day One, it's proof that people do indeed want it.
Reality check: Beyond Medicare and Medicaid, the government is not providing health insurance at all. The law requires everyone to have health insurance. Many already do, through their employers, on their own, or through Medicare (for seniors) and Medicaid (the poor and disabled). And if they don't have health insurance, they go to a government-sponsored marketplace to get it -- with a private company.
There are already many government-mandated insurance programs, including unemployment insurance, old-age pension insurance (Social Security), disability insurance, automobile insurance, and liability insurance for such professions as law and medicine.
This is another business opportunity.
The Obamaphobes have lost their marbles and sent everyone else home.
Congressional behavior would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.
The politickle diss-connect was brought on because some few felt they didn't get the respect they thought they deserved. As if such behavior deserves respect. And because a small minority has been unable to persuade the majority to overturn a three-year-old law, which was passed by Congress, signed by the President and approved by the Supreme Court.
Now the House is attempting to erode the government's position piecemeal, by throwing pebbles against the budget impasse mountain, all the while complaining that the other side refuses to talk things over and negotiate.
The time for negotiation was six months ago, when the budget was due to be set up.
Still, the mouthy minority is using the budget and the debt ceiling as levers to overturn a legal program that is in place and that clearly people want. Proof of that is the flood of applications on Day One that the Affordable Care Act and the health insurance marketplace opened for business.
Opponents claim that the jammed computer system is proof that "it doesn't work," and that people don't want it. On the contrary, when millions of people try to access the online system on Day One, it's proof that people do indeed want it.
Reality check: Beyond Medicare and Medicaid, the government is not providing health insurance at all. The law requires everyone to have health insurance. Many already do, through their employers, on their own, or through Medicare (for seniors) and Medicaid (the poor and disabled). And if they don't have health insurance, they go to a government-sponsored marketplace to get it -- with a private company.
There are already many government-mandated insurance programs, including unemployment insurance, old-age pension insurance (Social Security), disability insurance, automobile insurance, and liability insurance for such professions as law and medicine.
This is another business opportunity.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Readability
No matter how esoteric, any topic can be written about at a high school level, and can be explained to teenagers -- assuming they listen. For that matter, don't even use the term "esoteric." It's too esoteric.
Instead, use obscure, or unclear. The word esoteric is from Greek roots meaning "inner world" and suggests that the subject will only be understood by a small group -- the "in crowd." The term is also used in a spiritual sense, to refer to an Otherworld. A related word is "exoteric," the outer world, meant to be understood by the general public.
But in writing, remember that the goal is communication. If your readers don't understand at first run-through and have to read the piece again, you have not communicated. Granted, they can read it a second or third time, but don't make them.
Postings on this blog tend to be at the ninth or tenth grade level, according to the Fleisch Readability Quotient. And that's deliberate. Or as Einstein is reputed to have said, "If you can't explain it to a ten-year-old, you don't understand it yourself."
Instead, use obscure, or unclear. The word esoteric is from Greek roots meaning "inner world" and suggests that the subject will only be understood by a small group -- the "in crowd." The term is also used in a spiritual sense, to refer to an Otherworld. A related word is "exoteric," the outer world, meant to be understood by the general public.
But in writing, remember that the goal is communication. If your readers don't understand at first run-through and have to read the piece again, you have not communicated. Granted, they can read it a second or third time, but don't make them.
Postings on this blog tend to be at the ninth or tenth grade level, according to the Fleisch Readability Quotient. And that's deliberate. Or as Einstein is reputed to have said, "If you can't explain it to a ten-year-old, you don't understand it yourself."
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Rollout Erosion
It's complicated.
And you thought insurance was complicated before!
"Insurance exchange" is just another term for an open market and private enterprise, with the new twist that everyone must have a health plan as Obamacare rolls into the marketplace. (If you already have one -- private, Medicare, or Medicaid, for example -- you're OK. Otherwise, you must get one or pay a penalty.)
So with such a huge, mandatory customer base, why are the bastionic speakers of corporate America opposing a market opportunity? Especially one that can wring big bucks from unwary consumers?
It's been estimated that for a family of four with $50,000 annual income, the cost of a health insurance policy can be some $500 a month. That's $6,000 a year, or 12 percent of their income. There's also a $10,000 cap on benefit payments, according to one estimate. Anyone who has dealt with hospitals knows that such a cap can be reached in a matter of days.
We can only guess that the battle is really over who gets credit for universal health care. For more than 50 years, politicians have tried to set up such a program on a national level, but each time it was blocked by the opposing political party. Until three years ago, when President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party succeeded.
But the Republican Party, despite a similar plan being put in place in Massachusetts under the governorship of its most recent presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is trying to sabotage Obamacare even as it rolls out and becomes available to millions. Is it expensive? It can be. But there are numerous ways to trim the premiums, so the new program will provide health insurance coverage to millions of middle class working families -- traditionally solid Republican voters. As a result, these voters may bolt to the Democratic side of the ballot. And this is what is really scary to the GOP. Their voting base is eroded.
Not only do they not get credit for the program, but they also get blamed for trying to block it, in the process shutting down the government and causing an economic tsunami that may well disrupt the entire world.
Meanwhile, the American economy stands to take a billion-dollar hit every week as more than 800,000 furloughed federal workers sit home and hope for their paychecks to resume.
And as business in America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. Put another way, as the International Monetary Fund did this week, "The global economy is in better shape, but the road to a robust and comprehensive recovery remains bumpy."
None of which has stopped the ballot-hungry GOP from erecting barriers, digging potholes and doing whatever it can to stop Obama, in the processing sabotaging an already tentative economic recovery in the U.S. and around the world.
And you thought insurance was complicated before!
"Insurance exchange" is just another term for an open market and private enterprise, with the new twist that everyone must have a health plan as Obamacare rolls into the marketplace. (If you already have one -- private, Medicare, or Medicaid, for example -- you're OK. Otherwise, you must get one or pay a penalty.)
So with such a huge, mandatory customer base, why are the bastionic speakers of corporate America opposing a market opportunity? Especially one that can wring big bucks from unwary consumers?
It's been estimated that for a family of four with $50,000 annual income, the cost of a health insurance policy can be some $500 a month. That's $6,000 a year, or 12 percent of their income. There's also a $10,000 cap on benefit payments, according to one estimate. Anyone who has dealt with hospitals knows that such a cap can be reached in a matter of days.
We can only guess that the battle is really over who gets credit for universal health care. For more than 50 years, politicians have tried to set up such a program on a national level, but each time it was blocked by the opposing political party. Until three years ago, when President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party succeeded.
But the Republican Party, despite a similar plan being put in place in Massachusetts under the governorship of its most recent presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is trying to sabotage Obamacare even as it rolls out and becomes available to millions. Is it expensive? It can be. But there are numerous ways to trim the premiums, so the new program will provide health insurance coverage to millions of middle class working families -- traditionally solid Republican voters. As a result, these voters may bolt to the Democratic side of the ballot. And this is what is really scary to the GOP. Their voting base is eroded.
Not only do they not get credit for the program, but they also get blamed for trying to block it, in the process shutting down the government and causing an economic tsunami that may well disrupt the entire world.
Meanwhile, the American economy stands to take a billion-dollar hit every week as more than 800,000 furloughed federal workers sit home and hope for their paychecks to resume.
And as business in America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. Put another way, as the International Monetary Fund did this week, "The global economy is in better shape, but the road to a robust and comprehensive recovery remains bumpy."
None of which has stopped the ballot-hungry GOP from erecting barriers, digging potholes and doing whatever it can to stop Obama, in the processing sabotaging an already tentative economic recovery in the U.S. and around the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)