anchor link to jump to start of content

The Seattle Times Company NWclassifieds NWsource seattletimes.com
seattletimes.com Home delivery Contact us Search archives
Your account  Today's news index  Weather  Traffic  Movies  Restaurants  Today's events
  NWCLASSIFIEDS
  NWSOURCE
  SHOPPING
  SERVICES

Welcome to Backyard Blog, our group online journal for this election season. We've asked a broad array of people with deep ties to the region to share their views on politics during the 2004 campaign.
Send your comments to bbcomments@seattletimes.com.

space space space space

Photo of Garrett Ferencz
Garrett Ferencz
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries

Photo of Donald Gilbert-Santamaría
Donald Gilbert-Santamaría
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries

Carl Gipson
Carl Gipson
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries

Shalini Gujavarty
Shalini Gujavarty
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries

Photo of Anna Kleppert
Anna Kleppert
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries

Photo of Libby Liming
Libby Liming
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries

Photo of Will Mari
William Thomas Mari
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries

Photo of Sierra Michels-Slettvet
Sierra Michels-Slettvet
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries

Photo of Michael Moretsky
Michael Moretsky
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries

Photo of Jay Porter
Jay Porter
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries

Matthew Ranger
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries

Photo of Stephen Russell
Stephen Russell
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries

Photo of Stephanie Sanguinet
Stephanie Sanguinet
E-mail
Blog entries

Photo of Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
E-mail | Bio
Blog entries



space

October 19, 2004

Get real
Posted by Donald Gilbert-Santamaría at 11:42 AM

I’ve always been under the impression that America is a land of pragmatists, can-do people who look at a problem up and down until they find a solution based on the facts and an analysis of those facts.

We created the most dynamic economy on the face of the planet, we put a man on the moon, we saved Europe from fascism.

And isn’t that supposed to be the creed often wielded to great effect against soft-headed liberals with their pie-in-the-sky ideals? While liberals dream of world peace and ending poverty, conservatives talk about practical politics and getting things done. They’re fiscally conservative, free-traders, and above all, they believe in the capacity of the individual to solve his or her own problems without the intervention of Big Brother.

Well, it would appear that I’m living in the past. In the Bush regime, they have a new term for those of us who still cling to empirical evidence when making judgments about the world we live in. We are part of that passé group known collectively as “the reality based community.” So says an aide to Bush, who reportedly went on to describe a new vision for America: “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Welcome to the empire, a place where power is its own justification.

I must confess that this little Nietzschean morsel frightens me more than anything I’ve read about the administration since the campaign season began.

If we take this aide at his word, this administration feels that all its actions are by definition justified. No explanations are required, either for the exercise of state power or for the consequences that ensue as a result. And above all, no accounting to the facts. Everything is reduced to the simple tautology that power is its own reason for being.

The New York Times Magazine article from which the quote is taken links this idea back to Bush’s faith; that is, to his religiously inspired belief in his righteousness, empirical reality be damned. But in the statement above power doesn’t even require a religious justification. It just is.

What is perhaps most astonishing about this vision of America, however, is its profoundly anti-democratic nature. While Bush goes around the country pounding podiums in defense of freedom, one is left with this vision of his apparatchiks plotting the empire’s next move, insulated from any sense of accountability to either the American people or--and this is perhaps the most disturbing part--the facts themselves.

Respond


The popular kid
Posted by Garrett Ryan Ferencz at 11:16 AM

At the ripe old age of 28, this blogger has finally entered that precarious time when life calls us to go back. That is right, I am talking about the High School reunion. A time when we do silly things like start our first diet, rent a Ferrari, and actually iron a shirt for the first time. All my friends have been plagued by such events this past year and after comparing notes I have realized there is a lesson to be learned regarding this election.

The popular kid.

Remember the kid who everyone admired? Perfect looks, perfect friends, great clothes, and flawless skin. (perhaps in our memories we were that kid, but most of us being honest were not). Well, the truth hits home when we make the return to that place that was once, ten years ago, the center of our lives. The "popular kid" is now just a normal human being; in fact in many cases was not nearly as attractive as some of his or her classmates. We just bought into the idea that someone was most popular.

USA Today ran a poll that blared Bush is up by eight points. My sister, an undecided, had seen the polls and sounded more like she was going to vote for Bush because of it. Does this make sense? If higher polls make people more likely to vote for such a winner, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is when I realized that part of the game with public opinion polls is the same game we played in high school.

Everyone wants to like the popular kid, because they are popular. For this blogger such a phenomenon seems a bit troubling.

For all the hot polls this is a great site to keep track of the horse race.

Respond


The future of Social Security
Posted by Carl Gipson at 09:58 AM

One of the wonderful things about technology (e.g. Backyard Blog) is that it helps to link up younger people with modern issues. Chances are many of us readers and writers would be less inclined to pay attention to some of today’s hot-button issues if we were not provided this arena of debate.

Why am I talking about this? Because this avenue (blogging) is primarily aimed at us, the younger generation of twenty-somethings who will shape the future of public policy in this nation. Indeed, maybe blogging—among other technological innovations—will help us get a head start on considering such important issues when it’s our turn to lead.

What I’m getting at is that there are several issues this younger generation should pay absolute attention to. We’ve talked about the two most prevalent issues this year -- national security and the domestic economy. But there’s another issue that needs to be addressed on the national scale.

Social Security.

John Kerry’s assumptions about “privatizing” Social Security cannot go without challenge. Senator Kerry is taking the party line against the privatization of Social Security by scaring seniors into thinking they will be hung out to dry if Bush’s plan comes to fruition. That’s hogwash but I want to focus on one claim he made and leave the others for a later discussion.

Senator Kerry claimed that if Bush’s Social Security plan goes into effect it will be a financial windfall for Wall Street. He claims that Wall Street fatcats will stand to earn $940 billion over the next 25 years if America’s future workers (you and me) place our money into personal retirement accounts managed by private mutual fund firms.

What the Senator does not say is that the study he’s citing also says that the $940 billion over 25 years is merely the administrative fee paid by us to private money managers to make us money (something everyone does for a mutual fund). The study used an administrative fee of 0.08% of contributions per year. Seems reasonable.

I, and other people much smarter than me, did the math on this equation. While Wall Street does in fact collect $940 billion over the next 25 years, it also means that just over $117 trillion is pumped into the market and our economy.

While the government currently squanders any Social Security surplus and the rate of return on our Social Security “investment” is staggeringly low, I’d be willing to pay 0.08% of my Social Security withholdings to make the kind of rate of return a private investment account will ensure.

Hmmm…American workers in control of their own financial future with their own money…sounds pretty far-fetched to me. I don’t remember the Constitution saying anything about our Commander-in-Chief also playing Chief Financial Officer with our retirement earnings.

Respond



 October 2004
S M T W T F S
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

 ARCHIVES
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004

 RECENT ENTRIES
Get real
The popular kid
The future of Social Security

 LINKS

The Booth, complete politics coverage on seattletimes.com

Other seattletimes.com blogs to watch

Behind the Curtain
Between the Lines
NEXTopia
STOP


Powered by
Movable Type 2.51


seattletimes.com home
Home delivery | Contact us | Search archive | Site map | Low-graphic
NWclassifieds | NWsource | Advertising info | The Seattle Times Company

Copyright

Back to topBack to top