The Commentariat -- April 20, 2014
Cliven Bundy, Writ Large. Kristen Moulton of the Salt Lake Tribune: "It's time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah's Capitol on Friday. More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.... The summit was in the works before this month's tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, [Utah Speak Becky] Lockhart said. 'What's happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,' Lockhart said." ...
... Kieran Suckling of the Guardian has more on Bundy.
... CW: For those who want to see the environment go to hell, turning federal lands over to the states is an excellent way to go. ...
... ** Evan Halper of the Los Angeles Times: "The Koch brothers and large utilities have allied to reverse state policies that favor renewable energy. Environmentalists are pushing back, but the fight is spreading and intensifying." Surprise, surprise -- ALEC & other usual suspects are in there, too, fighting renewable energy policies. CW: Read the whole story. Fuckin' greedy bastids.
Peter Baker of the New York Times: "... President Obama and his national security team are looking beyond the immediate conflict to forge a new long-term approach to Russia that applies an updated version of the Cold War strategy of containment. Just as the United States resolved in the aftermath of World War II to counter the Soviet Union and its global ambitions, Mr. Obama is focused on isolating President Vladimir V. Putin's Russia by cutting off its economic and political ties to the outside world, limiting its expansionist ambitions in its own neighborhood and effectively making it a pariah state. Mr. Obama has concluded that even if there is a resolution to the current standoff over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, he will never have a constructive relationship with Mr. Putin, aides said."
Sarah Kliff of Vox: "15 charts show our health care prices are totally insane."
Jonathan Martin of the New York Times: Common Core, which sets national education standards, is dividing the Republican party, ever since Barack Obama embraced it. (CW: Although Martin doesn't mention it, President Bush advocated it again in his speech at the LBJ Library. Bush linked national education standards to the civil rights movement. See yesterday's Commentariat.) ...
... Jonathan Martin: "Many of those helped by the health care law — notably young people and minorities -- are the least likely to cast votes that could preserve it, even though millions have gained health insurance and millions more will benefit from some of its popular provisions." And Democratic candidates are still conflicted about it.
White Houses Hosts Young Plutocrats Society. Jamie Johnson of the Johnson & Johnson family, in the New York Times "Style" section: "On a crisp morning in late March, an elite group of 100 young philanthropists and heirs to billionaire family fortunes filed into a cozy auditorium at the White House. Their name tags read like a catalog of the country's wealthiest and most influential clans: Rockefeller, Pritzker, Marriott. They were there for a discreet, invitation-only summit hosted by the Obama administration to find common ground between the public sector and the so-called next-generation philanthropists, many of whom stand to inherit billions in private wealth.... Policy experts and donors recognize that there's no better time than now to empower young philanthropists." CW: Right. Because young billionaires just don't have enough power. ...
... Kathy Geier: The whole article is creepy beyond belief. ...
... Digby: "It's very nice that many of these young idealistic aristocrats want to do good deeds. But this is really nothing more than good old fashioned noblesse oblige which basically leaves the betterment of man to the whims of rich people." ...
... CW: Both Digby & Geier home in on this graf by Johnson: "(Disclosure: Although the event was closed to the media, I was invited by the founders of Nexus, Jonah Wittkamper and Rachel Cohen Gerrol, to report on the conference as a member of the family that started the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical company.)" ...
... Matt Murphy of Gawker: "At a conference for such refined people as these, not just any reporter will do. No, it must be a writer who intimately knows the struggles of the young and wealthy, and who can accurately transmit the ways in which they're saving the planet to the unwashed Times-reading masses."
... CW: Reality Chex readers may remember Jamie Johnson from his documentary dissing "The One Percent," which I embedded here some months back.
... If Mitt Romney thinks the only appropriate place to talk about income inequality is "in quiet rooms," Barack Obama does his pandering to the .01 percent "in quiet rooms." I guess that's the difference between Republicans and Democrats -- a difference without much of a distinction.
Danielle Ivory, et al., of the New York Times: "G.M.'s chief executive, Mary T. Barra, has called the company's slow response [to replace faulty ignition switches] an 'extraordinary' situation. But an analysis by The New York Times of the automaker's recalls since it emerged from bankruptcy in 2009 shows its handling of the ignition problem was not an isolated event: G.M. has repeatedly used letters, called technical service bulletins, to dealers and sometimes to car owners as stopgap safety measures instead of ordering timely recalls, The Times found." ...
... AP: "General Motors waited years to recall nearly 335,000 Saturn Ions for power steering failures despite getting thousands of consumer complaints and more than 30,000 warranty repair claims, according to government documents released Saturday."
John Milburn of the AP: "A furor over what the Topeka school district considers an honor has erupted after plans were announced for [Michelle] Obama to address a combined graduation ceremony for five area high schools next month an 8,000-seat arena. For some, it was the prospect of a tight limit on the number of seats allotted to each graduate. For others, it was the notion that Obama's speech, tied to the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education outlawing segregation in schools, would overshadow the student's big day." CW: And whaddaya bet many of those parents think Brown v. Board of Ed, which outlawed segregated schools, was a horrible decision. ...
... Digby: "Well, they aren't lining up in front of the courthouse to block her entrance so I suppose they've evolved. I think we know what's really going on here don't we? Yes, the people they interviewed said they were all very upset because it took the spotlight off the kids. And that might even make sense if having guest speakers at graduations wasn't something you see all over the nation every single year." ...
... Steve M. disagrees. ...
... Jelani Cobb of the New Yorker: "... sixty years after Brown, it is clear that the notion of segregation as a discrete phenomenon, an evil that could be flipped, like a switch, from on to off, by judicial edict, was deeply naïve. The intervening decades have shown, in large measure, the limits of what political efforts directed at desegregation alone could achieve, and the crumbling of both elements of 'separate but equal' has left us at an ambivalent juncture."
Oh, Jesus. Sarah Jones of Americans United: "An Oklahoma school district has approved the use of a Bible curriculum designed by Steve Green, the controversial owner of Hobby Lobby. The Mustang public schools will begin offering the curriculum next academic year.... [Based on a speech Green made in 2013,] this class isn't intended to teach the Bible. It's intended to teach Christian apologetics and promote a fundamentalist view of that tome. And there lies the trouble." Via Steve Benen.
Marsha Shuler of the Advocate: "Louisiana legislators advanced a bill Thursday that would make the Holy Bible the official Louisiana state book, despite concerns the move could prompt litigation." Also via Benen.
News Lede
New York Times: "Rubin (Hurricane) Carter, a star prizefighter whose career was cut short by a murder conviction in New Jersey and who became an international cause célèbre while imprisoned for 19 years before the charges against him were dismissed, died on Sunday morning at his home in Toronto. He was 76."
Share Article
Reader Comments (20)
Is it possibly possible that Elizabeth Warren will throw her hat in the ring for 2016? Gotta admit--I much prefer her to Hillary. I do believe that she is the "real deal." She did kick out her first husband who apparently was an amazing asshole! Also, she admits that scooping her granddaughter out of her crib was for HER own needs--not for the baby. I find that (and her entire career) wonderfully refreshing.
readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/23210-focus-elizabeth-warrens-non-campaign-is-underway
Much as I would like to see Dr. Warren as the next President, she simply is not electable, and a Warren candidacy would be more likely than not to give us a President Paul. Remember folks, this is not an abstract exercise, this is real life. ANY Democrat is better than ANY Republican - so let's make sure that we put up the one who can actually be elected.
Since it's Easter Sunday and the bunnies have all gone back into their bunny holes after spending the whole night hiding chocolate eggs and other goodies for little children to hunt and find it's appropriate to turn our attention to the REAL reason for this holiday––RESURRECTION. Last night viewed the last of the French film series "The Returned" (about dead people who come back). There is a scene where a priest is confronted by a person who tries to convince the priest that he knows of someone who had died but is now back in town. The priest tells him that is impossible. "Yet, you want us to believe that Christ came back from the dead, don't you?"
The inclusion of the Christian religion into public schools under the guise of teaching biblical history has got to be curtailed. As far as Louisiana's plan to make the Bible their state book, well, god bless and one hopes more of their citizens actually read it and perhaps change their minds–––maybe opt for "All the King's Men," instead.
@Kate: Yes, Warren does indeed seem like the real deal and because of that I'm afraid she'd be a poor candidate for president at this time. It's such a nasty business and she'd get torn to pieces. Hillary, on the other hand, has cut her teeth on calumny and would be able to handle the barrage of slings and arrows. If this country is to have their first female president it better be someone who has had the experience and fortitude of a Hillary––you got to know how to throw back the poo. I deeply admire Warren and would like her to remain in the senate––and in time...And yes, picking up her grandchild because SHE needed to––I liked that, too.
Re: The world is going to hell in a basket; a Easter basket. Who wants the squishy little, # 5 dye yellow chicken? Who wants the chocolate egg with mystery creme filling? Who wants jelly beans to put up their nose? Who wants a nice slice of watery ham from a factory pig? Wow! what's the occasion?
Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus the laborer, we worked him to death. And then he went to his second job. The great American dream. The great land of opportunity. The promise of a decent life, a new beginning. Work hard, study harder. America, the country of Easter. Those that came before you welcome you, nurture you, encourage you to join in on a level playing field; opportunity for all.
Ah, Jesus; ah, Easter. Did I tell you that a bunny brings us painted eggs?
Do read the piece about the conclave in Salt Lake City wherein the usual suspects complain that state should have the exclusive right to manage and control public lands within their borders (exclusive of Federal parks) because, among other things, the U.S. Government is on shaky financial footing. This sentence especially tickled the ole irony meter:
"Utah gets 32 percent of its revenue from the federal government, much of it unrelated to public lands."
Yes, if the conservative controlled Western states get their mitts on al that Federal land, what COULD go wrong? Hint: unrestricted grazing, mining, drilling and logging. Of course, the right to the aforementioned will go to the highest bidders, who will in turn funnel a bunch of the money back to the state pols. A virtuous circle!
As a retired development professional who spent 30-some years trying to get wealthy people to open their wallets for human service causes, I don't share your disgust at the idea of getting the next generation of philanthropists together. It's a reality that some people have a lot of money, and it's also a reality that many of them do try to do good works with their wealth. Unfortunately, intelligent philanthropy is pretty much an oxymoron. Most giving is short-sighted and fad-driven. Long term solutions are rarely given a chance to mature. Fifteen years ago, the flavor of the month was adolescence. Then the flavor changed to birth to age five, and much of the money for adolescent programs dried up. But even with the emphasis on preschoolers, do you think I could get anyone to fund a program that taught parenting skills to mothers of Head Start children? Hell no. Getting Millennial millionaires together and thinking about doing it right seems like a good idea. I sure hope they do better than the previous generations have.
Horrors! If the states usurp (or do it legally) federal land, that surely will land this country in the pit of hell as Victoria above counts the ways. Man oh man––-imagine the freedom to roam where you will, dig where you will, chop down where you will, fish where you will, etc. Chalk that up with bible thumping, repeal of the ACA, closed abortion clinics, Rand Paul as President and we's got a real American horror story.
@Jackie: Thanks for your comment which I found most interesting. Your statement, "intelligent philanthropy is pretty much an oxymoron" and that much of the giving is "short-sighted and fad-driven" is disappointing to say the least. Why is that do you suppose?
I understand the unease in response to convening of young scions at the White House and the idea of "noblese oblige" certainly fits, however, this site - and particularly CW - have always had one foot rooted in reality as they pursue our truly progressive agenda.
In this case it is a fact that these young folks are out there, they will inherit and control hundreds of billions of dollars and many corporations. They will have a profound influence on the lives of all Americans and many, many beyond our borders. It is foolish to let the only voices they hear be those of the plutocracy and if in some small way they may be affected by conferences such as these ti is a worthwhile endeavor. After all, like it or not, things will not change so quickly that these .01 percenters will lose all their power and influence or even have it meaningfully reduced in the near future so if any of their attention can be focused or redirected to causes that benefit us all, that is a valid exercise.
Why so much bad philanthropy? Early in my career, a grant writer didn't have to work very hard to get money. You said, "We're going to do something great," and everyone got stars in their eyes. Then a couple decades ago, funders became aware that they weren't getting much bang for their bucks, and that quite a few nonprofits are badly governed and badly managed. The response by funders was to get serious about the whole process of deciding where their money went. In so doing, the nonprofit sector lost esteem in their eyes--and deservedly so in too many cases. Suddenly funders decided they not only brought money to the table, but training, capacity building, due diligence, etc. etc. The emphasis zeroed in on outcomes and evaluation, with the funders believing everything they did was "value-added" for the benighted nonprofits. Foundations joined together in associations and had conferences where they talk about how to fix nonprofits, etc. Slowly, foundations even began to drive the nonprofits' missions. If a nonprofit needs money to survive, it might well contort itself to please a funder--or disguise its day-to-day operations as some special trick pony of a project in order to get money. And the application process has become labyrinthine. In recent years I actually told some foundations that their $10,000 wasn't worth the staff time and effort required to gain their consideration. In all of this, the foundations lost sight of the fact that people in the trenches, though they may not be greatly sophisticated or literate in statistical analysis, they do know what is actually happening on the street and within their own organizations. And then the recession hit, and many foundations saw their portfolios crash while they had multi-year funding commitments to some organizations. The upshot of this is most foundations now will only give money for a single year at a time, or maybe yearly, but no promises. It's a mess.
So does this Bundy guy think that if Nevada, or any private entity, owns this land he will be allowed to graze there for free? Do people like him really think they will be able to compete with the big moneyed interests for control and use of that land? He better be careful what he wishes for. He doesn't realize how good of a deal he has now as an American citizen to feed a cow for $1.35/month on public lands.
What I don't understand: If we do not have the BLM (which virtually nobody, right or left, likes for a host of reasons) or something very much like it managing public lands and deciding who gets to graze where, we're going to have the range wars all over again. Is that what small-timers like Bundy want?
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/video-of-snowden-asking-putin-about-surveillance/
Robert Mackey in the nytimes about Snowden asking Putin about Russian government surveillance.
Do you really think Putin would answer Eddie's question honestly?
Let me tell you a story. Back in the 1970's my wife went on a guided tour of Hungary, which was behind the Iron Curtain at the time. (I couldn't go because of my security clearance.) the Hungarian authorities collected all passports at the border.
One day, the group was to go to the "dollar store" where Hungarian goods were sold for US currency only. Hungary was desperate for dollars at the time. My wife decided she would rather go to a local art museum, and was waiting at the bus stop when she noticed a well-dressed man standing next to her. He pointed out to her that she was away from the group and that she should rejoin them. She explained that she would rather go to the museum. The man politely said "Madam, we have your passport." Very courteous, but firm. She rejoined the group. That's the way authoritarian regimes operate. I submit that Snowden is in the same boat. He is only as free as the Russians allow him to be.
Mr. Stuart says, "...It is foolish to let the only voices they hear be those of the plutocracy..."
What the hell are you talking about? They ARE the plutocracy.
That they are being allowed to inherit these billions is the tragedy here; something Jefferson wouldn't have countenanced. The existence of these kids as billionaires, and their presence at the White House, is proof positive of a de facto aristocracy in the United States. How many of them would actually have been there were they not about to inherit?
While we may not have a system of inherited titles, the titles are inconsequential as long as we have a system of inherited wealth and power. Those kids at the White House haven't done anything other than be born into the right families. What have they ever done to earn that kind of access? What can any of us ever do to earn that kind of access?
I don't often get to sound off about a topic about which I know anything (my wife will tell you that it seldom matters) but: Jackie has identified a fundamental issue with philanthropy that has counterparts in many contexts. And no simple solutions. I retired from a career in the biomedical sciences, and have sat on many NIH grant review panels. The NIH extramural grant award process, which had catalyzed the most explosive advances in physiology and medicine in human history, was not broke, but they fixed it anyhow. From its inception until the '80's or so, the individual scientist was considered to be in the best position to know how to advance his or her respective line of research, and so the lions' share of funding was awarded to ad hoc, investigator-initiated applications. Under pressure from Congress, the Executive (HHS) and lobbyists, who thought they knew better, administrative-staff- and steering-committee-crafted initiatives that set aside funding for specific targets proliferated, and began to eat up an increasing share of the extramural budget (NIH also has an intramural research program in Bethesda, which operates under a completely different process). Focus on basic research gave way to much more applied, disease-targeted research that seldom provides more than incremental advances in either understanding or application. But it sounds so good in PR campaigns. We in the trenches, being no fools, and dependent on extramural funding for our jobs, learned to play the game, and tailor our grants to satisfy RFA objectives. We were able to poach some of the awards to continue with lines of work we knew were more relevant and productive, but still had to pay the piper with what were, in the end, trivial studies. At embarrassing cost. At the same time development departments in our universities and research institutes (I was on the faculties of both) courted individual philanthropists. A few development departments required donors to give without restrictions, while most let the donors call some or occasionally all of the shots. The donors were (are) all well-meaning, grateful patients but, having little or no education or experience in biomedical research, cannot be expected to provide credible input into individual research projects. But when that does not deter them, much development money pours into boondoggles, and investigators scramble after the funds like so many schoolyard kids grabbing up marbles when the recess bell rings (sorry to show my age). Diminishing bang for the buck in biomedical research in part reflects this dynamic.
Jackie and Whyte refresh my memories of grant/RFP writing days. It was as they describe, maybe worse.
Through no career-path planning on my part, I had been lured into writing the first HMO feasibility grant proposal and the first National Health Service Corps technical assistance grant proposal.
Less than 6 months later, the National Academy of Sciences hired me to babysit the final reports of the first ever Institute of Medicine research project. That task, I learned (on the job, of course), consisted mainly of making sure that the foundations contributing money to the project were always and forever mentioned in any public announcement about the project—press release, scientific paper, book… anything. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Commonwealth Fund, Hartford Foundation were to be first and foremost, maybe NAS/IOM in the endnotes.
The three books that emerged from the project still stand, particularly “Infant Death.” Robert Coles wrote the intro. I doubt anyone gives a shit about Johnson’s, Commonwealth’s, or Hartford’s association with them. I know I don’t.
Noodge,
I know they are the upcoming plutocracy, but they are still human beings capable of thought and making their own decisions. Ever raise a teenager or two? While we agree the system is a mess and we all want to and are working to change it, the change won't happen quickly and in the meantime offering a different voice than they hear regularly in their environment won't hurt and might influence a few of them to make better choices.
Obviously, inherited land and capital goes to the young plutocrats. Always has.
Steve Erlanger writes about Thomas Piketty's new book in an article titled: "Taking On Adam Smith (and Karl Marx)."and includes, "Wealth was best achieved in these stories (the realist novels of Jane Austen and Balzac) through a clever marriage; everyone knew that inherited land and capital was the only way to live well, since labor alone would not produce sufficient income."
(Piketty) "punctures earlier assumptions about the benevolence of advanced capitalism and forecasts sharply increasing inequality of wealth in industrialized countries, with deep and deleterious impact on democratic values of justice and fairness."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/business/international/taking-on-adam-smith-and-karl-marx.html?hp
An aside, how do you pronounce the Frenchman's name? According to Erlanger: Mr. Piketty — pronounced pee-ket-ee ...but, per Krugman's blog last week: "By the way, the man himself pronounces it pick a TEA." Vive la difference!
Thanks to Whyte and James Singer for chiming in. They address a whole 'nother screwed up situation: state and federal grants. I could write a book on that, too.
My parting advice to anyone or any organization that must depend on major donors, foundation grants, state and federal grants and/or contracts: Be careful what you wish for.
Nobody will be roaming anywhere if those federal lands are taken over by the states. They will be sold to the highest bidder - fenced off - padlocked - and exploited. Maybe Bundy will get his slice - and then the evil me hopes his cattle soon pollute and destroy all his water sources and grassland.