“election season”

Usually, I agree with Bob Herbert, he’s one of my favorite columnists. I was reading his article entitled “Two Different Worlds,” about the gap between the haves and the have-nots. I fully expected to agree with him, and I was…until I got to this part:

The American economy is on its knees and the suffering has reached historic levels. Nearly 44 million people were living in poverty last year, which is more than 14 percent of the population. That is an increase of 4 million over the previous year, the highest percentage in 15 years, and the highest number in more than a half-century of record-keeping. Millions more are teetering on the edge, poised to fall into poverty.

More than a quarter of all blacks and a similar percentage of Hispanics are poor. More than 15 million children are poor.

The movers and shakers, including most of the mainstream media, have paid precious little attention to this wide-scale economic disaster.

I’m pretty sure I don’t agree with this. I think the mainstream media has done a great job of covering poverty in America insofar as the recession goes and especially as it pertains to the housing and hunger crisis.

I can even begin to count the number of articles and TV reports that are issued on a daily basis on these subjects. Even before the housing crisis reached epic levels, the media was reporting that people’s incomes weren’t keeping up with housing costs and expressing surprise and concern that housing sales were going up and up and up.

There “may” be a lack of well-executed coverage in the places where most people get their news e.g. small town newspapers and local and nightly news, but in the papers and television media outlets the “movers and shakers” Herbert refers to read and watch, there’s plenty of information that captures the full scale weight of how hard the past few years have been for many people.

Maybe part of the reason the media is being blamed is because our first instinct is to give people the benefit of the doubt and subsequently look for a reason to understand why they seem so grossly mis or uninformed about a subject. In other words, we think “there’s no way that anyone could be so heartless, OBVIOUSLY, they just don’t understand what’s going on.” If only that were true.

Unfortunately, there are too many cases where human beings can be given massive amounts of easy-to-understand information about a pending problem and solution and they won’t take any action if it involves self-risk…that is…until it affects them personally. I think that in large part accounts for the lack of “urgency” on the part of the politicians and other influential people Herbert mentions in his piece.

Unfortunately, right now there’s no consequence politically for not helping the poor.

Many of the Republican governors and legislators who oppose things like extending unemployment benefits are from States like Texas and Mississippi and Louisiana that have large populations heavily affected by the economic downturn. The Democrats are spinning their wheels trying to tackle everything at once while trying to shield themselves from the job losses they could, themselves, experience if they push for some of the policies Herbert and other sensible people would like them to.

Whatever the case, there’s simply no way that any politician isn’t hearing the cries of the needy people in their area and across the country. Ignoring, or at least not adequately acting to change, the circumstances is a choice they’re making. Let’s not let them off the hook.

I am enjoying the media’s emphasis on personal stories of poverty because I’m learning so much.  But each piece is more heartbreaking than the next. Like Herbert, I wonder what it will take to motivate people to act.

This is the first time I’ve written anything about Sarah Palin since 2009 when a writer over at The Grio tried to illustrate Palin’s so-called commonalities with black women. Needless to say, I took issue with that on my personal blog. But mostly, since Palin and McCain were roundly beaten in the Presidential election, I’ve ignored Palin’s existence because she’s pretty much irrelevant.

On Friday, I decided to use tweetdeck’s trusty global filter, to mute all tweets with the words “Sarah Palin” or “Glenn Beck” in them. Quite frankly, I’m tired of people on the left making a big deal over every single thing Palin and Beck say. The obsession the left has with “calling out” people like Palin is a massive waste of time. When I mentioned this on twitter, of course people disagreed saying that Palin and Beck are influential and that we have to speak out against people who threaten our…something…or other. Frankly, I don’t know and I don’t care.

It’s time for the left to take responsibility for Palin. Sure the right made her relevant insofar as the election was concerned. But after that, her existence and any remaining attention she’s gotten has been provided to her by the liberal crowd–whether it was Oprah’s questionable decision to have her on her show to promote her “book” or the constant overreactions to every idiotic thing she says.

This is a pattern with the left and it feeds into Palin’s plans. If people remember, way back after the election when conservatives governors met for their annual meeting, the media kept asking whether or not Palin was a leader in the party. GOP Governors and members of Congress spent the entire week trying to shrug off questions about the moose-hunting mother of five. It was clear they didn’t know what role, if any, she should play in their party going forward. Even her speaking role at the conference was begrudgingly allowed. But the mainstream media and the media on the left continued to make her role an issue.

Continue Reading…

While everyone else was focusing on being so jealous of Michelle Obama’s trip to Spain that they made much adieu about nothing, I was focused on a different inappropriate partier: the senior Congressman from New York Charlie Rangel. Every year he has a big birthday bash (don’t get me started on over-celebrating birthday boys and girls) and this year is no different even though he is currently in the midst of an ethics scandal.

Now I could opine about whether or not this is good for Rangel’s image…and the comments section is open if people choose to do so, but I’m more concerned about the people he’s invited. Part of the charges against Rangel involve instances in which he [allegedly] selfishly put his own needs above that of his constituents and he appears to be doing the same thing by insisting upon holding his annual birthday gala. And although, some people, such as the Post’s Eugene Robinson, think the charges are no big deal it’s still hardly a time to celebrate. And certainly not a good time to drag your peers into the muck with you.

Rangel is putting his colleagues and friends in awkward situation with his tone def celebrating and his ever shrinking guest list proves it. Rangel is far into his 70s, he’s celebrated his birthday plenty of times. Why make your associates choose between their friendship and regard for you and their concern that the public will think they, like you, aren’t too worried about the charges leveled against you?

In a time where Democrats are approaching a very heated election season, I can’t help but think that Rangel’s birthday bash should have been scaled all the way down (if not canceled) for his sake and others around him. But maybe I’ve caught the oversensitivity bug that can be so common in media politics. But I do believe that it’s important to note that when you are in a position of power, the way in which you manage your public image can have an impact on others. I guess Rangel doesn’t care.

Comments?