Tuesday, November 13, 2007

The Green Demon

Money enters campaigns through a new avenue, the Times pointed out yesterday. Basically, non-profits will buy TV advertisements to promote their issue, all the while promoting a particular candidate's work thereof, even when the issue doesn't merit the airtime:

The so-called Wounded Warriors Act, legislation intended to improve health care for veterans, has attracted nearly unanimous, bipartisan support in Congress. So why would the newly formed Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America begin running a television commercial urging the citizens of South Carolina to tell Congress to pass it?

The answer lies in the commercial’s glowing images of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican banking on a South Carolina victory to jump-start his cash-poor Republican primary campaign. The group that paid for the advertisement operates independently of Mr. McCain’s campaign, but was set up and financed by his supporters seeking to help him as much as possible up to the limits of the law.


Highlight of the whole business:

Mr. McCain has crusaded for years against just this sort of unencumbered political spending and has publicly called upon the foundation to stop the advertisement, a request competitors say seems half-hearted and the group’s leader has ignored.


I don't think it was a planned venture, but I'm not sure it matters. After someone knows that a group backs her/him because a particular stance, will they be willing to to reconsider given new information? Won't the carrot of continued support hold them in place? That's the problem with money in politics. Any ideas on how we're going to solve that? I hate the idea of federal finds, but it seems like one of those lesser evil things now.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Free Rice


The site blows my mind. Participate!

This Gender Thing is History

But let me tell you, this gender thing is history. You're looking at a guy who sat down with Margaret Thatcher across the table and talked about serious issues.
--George H. W. Bush

I don't know whether to be appalled or incredulous about the World Gender Equality rankings. Didn't we solve this question a number of years ago? I mean, there's only four areas of assessment:
differences between men and women's salaries, access to education, political representation and health including life expectancy. Shouldn't we be doing better? It makes me wonder if there still people in the U.S. that would agree that it's permissible to pay women less for doing the same job.

Salaries, access to education, health? I'm willing to hear arguments about political representation and potentially consider that a person doesn't necessarily have to look like me to represent my beliefs, but the other standards are undoubtedly factors we talk about in the U.S. as points of pride, right? Maybe I've got this all wrong, but I'm pretty sure I learned in school, "America is better, cuz we're free and equal." Damn teachers, lied to me.