I hate to sound like a typical liberal. In fact, I hate to sound like a typical anything. But humanitarian aid workers, as a group, have my undying admiration. One can save the bureaucracy and politics of aid for another debate. This essay in The Christian Science Monitor reminded me just how amazing these folks are.
Many people lump Peace Corps volunteers, of which I was one, in that group. Though Peace Corps volunteers do good work, humanitarian aid workers are on a whole different level. Most aid workers are people who could have regular jobs in comfortable offices in western countries. They could live in air conditioned apartments, drink filtered water and have easy access to public transportation. They could spend their weekends at the cinema, sipping on lattes at their favorite coffeehouse or cheering on their preferred soccer team. Instead, they spend their time in dusty villages or overcrowded megapolises in the developing world.
Except, they don't spend their time in just any dusty villages or overcrowded megapolises, they do so in the worst ones. They live in war zones, in refugee camps, in places where death and disease are the norm and where clean drinking water is considered a luxury. And they do so voluntarily.
This is not their job, it's their life. At least while they're there. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They have no days off where they can slip out to an amusement park or to see an opera. Even when they're not on duty, they're on duty.
And for what purpose? They feed the hunger, clothe the naked, bring water to the thirsty, house the homeless. I'm sure there's certainly an element that favors adrenaline junkies, but there are certainly easier ways to get a high than negotiating for your life with drugged up boy soldiers.
They choose this lifestyle because they have a burning desire to serve their fellow man. Not to destroy things, not to enrich themselves, not to exercise power, not to shop til they drop but to help people. And not just any people, but those with the greatest need and living in the most miserable conditions.
The word 'hero' is so overused that it threatens to devalue the word itself. I don't use that word casually. I do not consider athletes or politicians to be heroes, at least not solely because of their profession. I do think that humanitarian aid workers merit the appellation.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Friday, January 14, 2005
Reasonable expectations
After militants killed six Israelis at a check point, the government of Ariel Sharon announced that it would cut all contacts with the Palestinian leadership of President-elect Mahmoud Abbas. "Israel informed international leaders today that there will be no meetings with Abbas until he makes a real effort to stop the terror," Mr Sharon's spokesman Assaf Shariv said.
I'm glad to know the Israeli government keeps its expectations of the Palestinian leadership on a wholly reasonable level. President Bush, the most dominant military in the world and its allies can't eradicate terrorism in occupied Iraq. The Israelis and their strong military couldn't eliminate terrorism in the Occupied Territories when they administered that land. But the Israelis expect exactly that of the leader of a pseudo-government who hasn't even been sworn in yet.
I'm glad to know the Israeli government keeps its expectations of the Palestinian leadership on a wholly reasonable level. President Bush, the most dominant military in the world and its allies can't eradicate terrorism in occupied Iraq. The Israelis and their strong military couldn't eliminate terrorism in the Occupied Territories when they administered that land. But the Israelis expect exactly that of the leader of a pseudo-government who hasn't even been sworn in yet.
More on media credibility
Speaking of media credibility, I forgot to mention how the administration paid a right-wing commentator named Armstrong Williams to promote its so-called No Child Left Behind law. Naturally, Williams made no mention of this connection when promoting it. And not surprisingly, he said he still would've supported the law even without the payoff.
Perhaps. I don't mind partisans promoting their pet causes, but I think they should be straight-forward about it. When the Democratic National Committee chairman goes on TV to bad mouth Bush and talk about Democratic ideas (such as they are), I know he's being paid to promote the Democratic agenda. It's his job. I can take it or leave it based on this knowledge. But full disclosure is important to determining credibility.
Curiously, two Fox News commentators slammed Williams for his alleged indiscresion: making money. A curious thing for conservatives to criticize. In fact, the true crime (quite possibly in the legal sense) was committed by the administration's use of tax dollars to pay off so-called journalists.
The White House says that this was an isolated incident.
Williams himself, said "This happens all the time."
Perhaps. I don't mind partisans promoting their pet causes, but I think they should be straight-forward about it. When the Democratic National Committee chairman goes on TV to bad mouth Bush and talk about Democratic ideas (such as they are), I know he's being paid to promote the Democratic agenda. It's his job. I can take it or leave it based on this knowledge. But full disclosure is important to determining credibility.
Curiously, two Fox News commentators slammed Williams for his alleged indiscresion: making money. A curious thing for conservatives to criticize. In fact, the true crime (quite possibly in the legal sense) was committed by the administration's use of tax dollars to pay off so-called journalists.
The White House says that this was an isolated incident.
Williams himself, said "This happens all the time."
Media credibility and accountability
It's been said that the reputation of a thousand years can be lost by the conduct of a single day. That's equally true for media outlets who try to be objective.
When my mother was in college in the late 60s, TIME magazine did an article on her university. Apparently, a graphic misidentified one or more of the buildings on campus. It had little bearing to the content of the article but my mother was still appalled. She quite logically reasoned, "If they mess up the things I know, how can I trust them to report the things I don't know?" To this day, she refuses to buy or subscribe to TIME, even 35 years later.
This anecdote demonstrates how precarious media credibility is.
The media has had a rough time of it in the last few years. Jayson Blair. Jack Kelley. The failure to be skeptical about the administration's pre-Iraq war claims.
The most recent media hand-ringing has come because of a controversial CBS News on President Bush's service in the Air National Guard.
As CBS itself noted: an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with a “rigid and blind” defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report.
Which is interesting since it's exactly the same approach that got the BBC in trouble last year. Always under fire, sometimes fairly and sometimes not, media outlets tend to be hypersensitive. All questioning is dismissed as partisan. This bunker mentality ends up killing them when the criticism has justification.
As is often the case, competitive pressures blinded CBS to basic journalistic standards.
The panel said a "myopic zeal" to be the first news organization to broadcast a groundbreaking story about Mr. Bush’s National Guard service was a key factor in explaining why CBS News had produced a story that was neither fair nor accurate and did not meet the organization’s internal standards.
Additionally, While the panel found that some actions taken by CBS News encouraged such suspicions, “the Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the segment or its content.”
The panel, which included former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, also offered four recommendations to prevent a reoccurence. Including [fostering] an atmosphere in which competitive pressure is not allowed to prompt airing of reports before all investigation and vetting is done.
It also brings up an interesting point that my father was raising as far back as 15 years ago. Networks used to not expect that news divisions would make money. They were called 'loss leaders.' They would lose money themselves but they would bring prestige, and thus viewers, to the network which would translate into higher revenues on entertainment shows.
Now, news divisions are expected to make money too. Not surprisingly, the line between news and entertainment is becoming increasingly blurred. That's why the suggestion to reduce competitive pressures, however nice in theory, won't work in practice. Unless CBS is truly willing to commit to quality journalism, even if it means diminished profits for the news division.
Four CBS staffers, including two high ranking ones, were fired. At least some organizations hold themselves accountable when they screw up.
Even liberal Salon.com called CBS' mistakes "shocking" and "rudimentary."
It baffles me that such a piece, which was sure to be very controversial, would be done in such haste.
I remember a few years ago, CNN started a new investigative documentary series whose title I forget. The first story was on something called Operation Tailwind. For months, CNN promo'd the heck out of the series and this first story. They ran ads for it approximately every 54.2 seconds. I've rarely seen a documentary series promoted so heavily. They ran the first story. It causes controversy. Less than a week later, CNN had to retract the story.
That was serious blow to CNN's credibility. Though CNN is still the only cable news network worth watching even occassionally, I still don't trust it the same way since. Not only did it screw up, but it screwed up on something it had promoted ad nauseum. It had screwed up on something it had based the entire series on. If there's any story where you should be extra sure of its credibility, it's the one you promote that heavily. They put all their eggs in one basket and the basket fell apart.
As I said, media credibility is fleeting. This NPR column points out that 2004 should have been a great year for CBS. It broke the shameful Abu Ghraib scandal in March. It also revealed that a Pentagon analyst passed classified information to Israel. Those accomplishments were quickly overshadowed by the National Guard flap.
Furthermore, the mess harms CBS even on stories that are journalistically solid. As the NPR column notes, another CBS story explored how Bush administration officials were duped by forged documents -- no joke -- when they claimed that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase materials from Niger to make weapons of mass destruction. That link was used to help justify the invasion of Iraq.
The story was displaced by the National Guard story and hasn't aired since. Even though there have been no journalistic problems reported with the Niger story. Why? Because the Guard story ruined CBS' credibility, on all stories. The Guard story made people believe (or confirm their suspicion) that CBS was liberal or anti-Bush. Therefore, they are hesitant to run another story critical of the administration, even if it's journalistically solid.
The mainstream media needs to be more careful. It's far too important to make itself irrelevant by such bungling. Without the media, we'd never have learned about the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay scandals that were being done in name of America. Without the media here in New York state, we'd know nothing about the corruption and secrecy of our state government.
Furthermore, this incident shows the increasing influence of the blogosphere. It was bloggers who first pointed out questionable aspects of the CBS story. While you can't necessarily take a blogger's word as law anymore than a newspaper's, this doesn't mean bloggers have no value. Bloggers serve an increasingly useful role in this era of media consolidation. They offer points of view that often ignored by the corporate media. And, like in the CBS case, they frequently call mainstream media outlets on mistakes, inaccuracies and other sloppiness that might otherwise get glossed over. Bloggers are now an important part of the Fourth Estate and the media magnates would do well not to brush off their influence with a wave of the hand.
The CBS flap reinforces something I've said all along. If you want to be a truly informed citizen, you can not rely on a single news source. Sorry, there are no short cuts!
When my mother was in college in the late 60s, TIME magazine did an article on her university. Apparently, a graphic misidentified one or more of the buildings on campus. It had little bearing to the content of the article but my mother was still appalled. She quite logically reasoned, "If they mess up the things I know, how can I trust them to report the things I don't know?" To this day, she refuses to buy or subscribe to TIME, even 35 years later.
This anecdote demonstrates how precarious media credibility is.
The media has had a rough time of it in the last few years. Jayson Blair. Jack Kelley. The failure to be skeptical about the administration's pre-Iraq war claims.
The most recent media hand-ringing has come because of a controversial CBS News on President Bush's service in the Air National Guard.
As CBS itself noted: an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with a “rigid and blind” defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report.
Which is interesting since it's exactly the same approach that got the BBC in trouble last year. Always under fire, sometimes fairly and sometimes not, media outlets tend to be hypersensitive. All questioning is dismissed as partisan. This bunker mentality ends up killing them when the criticism has justification.
As is often the case, competitive pressures blinded CBS to basic journalistic standards.
The panel said a "myopic zeal" to be the first news organization to broadcast a groundbreaking story about Mr. Bush’s National Guard service was a key factor in explaining why CBS News had produced a story that was neither fair nor accurate and did not meet the organization’s internal standards.
Additionally, While the panel found that some actions taken by CBS News encouraged such suspicions, “the Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the segment or its content.”
The panel, which included former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, also offered four recommendations to prevent a reoccurence. Including [fostering] an atmosphere in which competitive pressure is not allowed to prompt airing of reports before all investigation and vetting is done.
It also brings up an interesting point that my father was raising as far back as 15 years ago. Networks used to not expect that news divisions would make money. They were called 'loss leaders.' They would lose money themselves but they would bring prestige, and thus viewers, to the network which would translate into higher revenues on entertainment shows.
Now, news divisions are expected to make money too. Not surprisingly, the line between news and entertainment is becoming increasingly blurred. That's why the suggestion to reduce competitive pressures, however nice in theory, won't work in practice. Unless CBS is truly willing to commit to quality journalism, even if it means diminished profits for the news division.
Four CBS staffers, including two high ranking ones, were fired. At least some organizations hold themselves accountable when they screw up.
Even liberal Salon.com called CBS' mistakes "shocking" and "rudimentary."
It baffles me that such a piece, which was sure to be very controversial, would be done in such haste.
I remember a few years ago, CNN started a new investigative documentary series whose title I forget. The first story was on something called Operation Tailwind. For months, CNN promo'd the heck out of the series and this first story. They ran ads for it approximately every 54.2 seconds. I've rarely seen a documentary series promoted so heavily. They ran the first story. It causes controversy. Less than a week later, CNN had to retract the story.
That was serious blow to CNN's credibility. Though CNN is still the only cable news network worth watching even occassionally, I still don't trust it the same way since. Not only did it screw up, but it screwed up on something it had promoted ad nauseum. It had screwed up on something it had based the entire series on. If there's any story where you should be extra sure of its credibility, it's the one you promote that heavily. They put all their eggs in one basket and the basket fell apart.
As I said, media credibility is fleeting. This NPR column points out that 2004 should have been a great year for CBS. It broke the shameful Abu Ghraib scandal in March. It also revealed that a Pentagon analyst passed classified information to Israel. Those accomplishments were quickly overshadowed by the National Guard flap.
Furthermore, the mess harms CBS even on stories that are journalistically solid. As the NPR column notes, another CBS story explored how Bush administration officials were duped by forged documents -- no joke -- when they claimed that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase materials from Niger to make weapons of mass destruction. That link was used to help justify the invasion of Iraq.
The story was displaced by the National Guard story and hasn't aired since. Even though there have been no journalistic problems reported with the Niger story. Why? Because the Guard story ruined CBS' credibility, on all stories. The Guard story made people believe (or confirm their suspicion) that CBS was liberal or anti-Bush. Therefore, they are hesitant to run another story critical of the administration, even if it's journalistically solid.
The mainstream media needs to be more careful. It's far too important to make itself irrelevant by such bungling. Without the media, we'd never have learned about the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay scandals that were being done in name of America. Without the media here in New York state, we'd know nothing about the corruption and secrecy of our state government.
Furthermore, this incident shows the increasing influence of the blogosphere. It was bloggers who first pointed out questionable aspects of the CBS story. While you can't necessarily take a blogger's word as law anymore than a newspaper's, this doesn't mean bloggers have no value. Bloggers serve an increasingly useful role in this era of media consolidation. They offer points of view that often ignored by the corporate media. And, like in the CBS case, they frequently call mainstream media outlets on mistakes, inaccuracies and other sloppiness that might otherwise get glossed over. Bloggers are now an important part of the Fourth Estate and the media magnates would do well not to brush off their influence with a wave of the hand.
The CBS flap reinforces something I've said all along. If you want to be a truly informed citizen, you can not rely on a single news source. Sorry, there are no short cuts!
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Thoughts on tsunami relief
Some people are annoyed by all the attention currently being paid to tsunami relief. How come tsunami victims get all the attention but not victims of [insert person's pet cause]?
I've certainly wondered why some crises get massive public attention and others don't. One theory I have is that natural disasters get more attention than disasters perceived to be man-made.
In natural disasters, there are only innocent victims (at least by most people's standards). So sympathy is easy to give.
In disasters perceived to be man-made, such as wars or genocide, people's sympathy is complicated by the urge to apportion blame. Some people get caught in the 'both sides are committing atrocities' trap. 'Both sides' usually doesn't take into account civilians or the possibility that one side is committing 95% of the atrocities and the other side 5%.
The more interesting case is disasters that are man-made but aren't perceived to be. A great example of this was the huge refugee crisis in eastern Zaire (now DR Congo) that gained much attention in 1996. The refugee crisis was caused by the Rwandan genocide and civil war. The subsequent humantarian crisis provoked by millions of refugees include cholera and other horrible diseases.
The crisis was exacerbated by the fact that Hutu militias (the side that committed the genocide but lost the civil war and fled) had effective authoritarian control of the refugee camps. The militias compelled relief agencies to distribute aid through them... and they surely took a nice cut. A few agencies quit Zaire in disgust, rather than collaborate with genociders. However, most relief agencies portrayed the cholera and general miserable conditions in the camp as a 'humanitarian crisis.' This is a much more neutral term than, say, 'politically- and militarily-provoked humanitarian crisis.'
Another example is in Darfur, eastern Sudan. Aid agencies typically refer to Darfur as a 'humanitarian crisis' because it implies something that simply happened out of the blue. Human rights groups, the US government and anyone else offering a wholly truthful assessment refer to Darfur as a 'genocide,' because that's exactly what's going on.
Aid agencies don't refer to Darfur as 'genocide' because they know that any such usage will immediately degenerate into a pointless academic debate over whether it's legally genocide going on or if it's 'merely' ethnic cleansing, war crimes or other supposedly isolated atrocities. People won't donate money to something associated with controversy, to a disaster where everyone isn't seen as pure and innocent. So they wisely use the more neutral 'humanitarian crisis.' This nuance originates from the fundamentally different roles played by humanitarian relief organizations and human rights advocacy groups.
This article from The New York Times demonstrates why I don't object to the attention paid to tsunami relief, even if I prefer to support less celebrated causes such as War Child (who works to rehabilitate child soldiers).
In reality, the attention to tsunami relief will fade in a few weeks, but the problems will remain for years. Do you remember the flooding a few years ago in Mozambique? Last year's huge earthquake in Iran? Hurricane Mitch's devastation in Honduras? Those were all crises that galvanized the world's attention every so briefly in recent years.
As The Canadian Press reported: Amy Barry of Oxfam said on average countries pay only 50 per cent of their pledges. An Oxfam statement said that even in high-profile disasters like hurricane Mitch in Central America in 1998, less than a third of the promised $11 billion Cdn [about US$9.2 billion] materialized. "In Afghanistan in 2004, the United States delivered only $200 million of the $450 million it promised," it said.
That's why I was pleased to hear on the BBC World Service that the UN will occassionally release lists of how much donor countries have pledged to tsunami relief and how much they've actually donated. Often times, amounts actually donated to such causes fall far short the amounts pledged. Because, after all, a pledge does nothing in and of itself.
I've certainly wondered why some crises get massive public attention and others don't. One theory I have is that natural disasters get more attention than disasters perceived to be man-made.
In natural disasters, there are only innocent victims (at least by most people's standards). So sympathy is easy to give.
In disasters perceived to be man-made, such as wars or genocide, people's sympathy is complicated by the urge to apportion blame. Some people get caught in the 'both sides are committing atrocities' trap. 'Both sides' usually doesn't take into account civilians or the possibility that one side is committing 95% of the atrocities and the other side 5%.
The more interesting case is disasters that are man-made but aren't perceived to be. A great example of this was the huge refugee crisis in eastern Zaire (now DR Congo) that gained much attention in 1996. The refugee crisis was caused by the Rwandan genocide and civil war. The subsequent humantarian crisis provoked by millions of refugees include cholera and other horrible diseases.
The crisis was exacerbated by the fact that Hutu militias (the side that committed the genocide but lost the civil war and fled) had effective authoritarian control of the refugee camps. The militias compelled relief agencies to distribute aid through them... and they surely took a nice cut. A few agencies quit Zaire in disgust, rather than collaborate with genociders. However, most relief agencies portrayed the cholera and general miserable conditions in the camp as a 'humanitarian crisis.' This is a much more neutral term than, say, 'politically- and militarily-provoked humanitarian crisis.'
Another example is in Darfur, eastern Sudan. Aid agencies typically refer to Darfur as a 'humanitarian crisis' because it implies something that simply happened out of the blue. Human rights groups, the US government and anyone else offering a wholly truthful assessment refer to Darfur as a 'genocide,' because that's exactly what's going on.
Aid agencies don't refer to Darfur as 'genocide' because they know that any such usage will immediately degenerate into a pointless academic debate over whether it's legally genocide going on or if it's 'merely' ethnic cleansing, war crimes or other supposedly isolated atrocities. People won't donate money to something associated with controversy, to a disaster where everyone isn't seen as pure and innocent. So they wisely use the more neutral 'humanitarian crisis.' This nuance originates from the fundamentally different roles played by humanitarian relief organizations and human rights advocacy groups.
This article from The New York Times demonstrates why I don't object to the attention paid to tsunami relief, even if I prefer to support less celebrated causes such as War Child (who works to rehabilitate child soldiers).
In reality, the attention to tsunami relief will fade in a few weeks, but the problems will remain for years. Do you remember the flooding a few years ago in Mozambique? Last year's huge earthquake in Iran? Hurricane Mitch's devastation in Honduras? Those were all crises that galvanized the world's attention every so briefly in recent years.
As The Canadian Press reported: Amy Barry of Oxfam said on average countries pay only 50 per cent of their pledges. An Oxfam statement said that even in high-profile disasters like hurricane Mitch in Central America in 1998, less than a third of the promised $11 billion Cdn [about US$9.2 billion] materialized. "In Afghanistan in 2004, the United States delivered only $200 million of the $450 million it promised," it said.
That's why I was pleased to hear on the BBC World Service that the UN will occassionally release lists of how much donor countries have pledged to tsunami relief and how much they've actually donated. Often times, amounts actually donated to such causes fall far short the amounts pledged. Because, after all, a pledge does nothing in and of itself.
Iraq war officially based on falsehood: WMD search abandoned
You remember Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? You could excused for forgetting since no one in the administration is talking much about them anymore.
But in case you forgot, Saddam Hussein's alleged huge program of weapons of mass destruction was supposed to pose a major threat to American security. So much so that we had to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq, overthrew his regime and rebuild the country. If we didn't, the Evil Doers would've invaded America, pillaged our cities, raped our women and slaughtered our children, we were hysterically told.
In case you forgot, the weapons of mass destruction theory was the absurd premise upon which most Americans supported the aggression against Iraq, a country which had never done anything against us or threatened to.
Now, I read that the US has officially given up the search for those WMDs.
Intelligence officials say US chief weapons' investigator Charles Duelfer has left Iraq and is not planning to return.
Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago.
Additionally, Duelfer said Saddam Hussein had still had the desire to restart WMD programmes.
Which is odd since before the invasion, didn't the administration tell us that Iraq already had active WMD programs?
Just in case you forgot.
But in case you forgot, Saddam Hussein's alleged huge program of weapons of mass destruction was supposed to pose a major threat to American security. So much so that we had to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq, overthrew his regime and rebuild the country. If we didn't, the Evil Doers would've invaded America, pillaged our cities, raped our women and slaughtered our children, we were hysterically told.
In case you forgot, the weapons of mass destruction theory was the absurd premise upon which most Americans supported the aggression against Iraq, a country which had never done anything against us or threatened to.
Now, I read that the US has officially given up the search for those WMDs.
Intelligence officials say US chief weapons' investigator Charles Duelfer has left Iraq and is not planning to return.
Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago.
Additionally, Duelfer said Saddam Hussein had still had the desire to restart WMD programmes.
Which is odd since before the invasion, didn't the administration tell us that Iraq already had active WMD programs?
Just in case you forgot.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Poverty doesn't mean lack of dignity or compassion
African nations have a reputation of being overly reliant on foreign aid. This reputation is not entirely undeserved. But despite the reputation and despite the ofter overwhelming poverty at home, sometimes Africans end up as the givers.
I was interested to read this article at the IRIN news service which reported that a number of West African nations, some of the world's poorest, have donated funds to victims of the Asian tsunami.
This would be hardly surprising to those familiar with the region. I suspect any westerner who's spent any time in West Africa has had the experience of being invited to share a meal or given a bed by an African villager or city-dweller whose living conditions are exponentially more difficult and whose incomes are a mere fraction of their own.
I was interested to read this article at the IRIN news service which reported that a number of West African nations, some of the world's poorest, have donated funds to victims of the Asian tsunami.
This would be hardly surprising to those familiar with the region. I suspect any westerner who's spent any time in West Africa has had the experience of being invited to share a meal or given a bed by an African villager or city-dweller whose living conditions are exponentially more difficult and whose incomes are a mere fraction of their own.
Reform comes to Albany... perhaps
How was NY Gov. George Pataki's state of the state speech received last week? Depends on who you read.
'Speech a hard read: Focus on the past spurs queries on Pataki's future': headline of the Albany Times-Union on the state of the state speech.
'Pataki unveils a bold agenda: Governor plans action on schools, medicaid and economic growth': headline of the Glens Falls Post-Star on the same speech.
'Pataki focus: Achievements, not budget': headline of (Long Island) Newsday.
I'm generally not a big fan of state of the union/state/municipality speeches regardless of who's giving them. Years of following politics have taught me that actions speak louder than words. State of the [entity] speeches are designed primarily to send a message. To the speaker's base supporters. To the political opposition. To the media. But not really to the ordinary people.
State of the [entity] speeches are a laundry list of things the speaker believes or advocates in theory. They have no relationship to the speaker's priorities. These speeches give no indication of which things the chief executive will lobby hard to implement and which things he merely wants the public to think he supports without him actually having to push for.
For example, most of the attention on President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech focused on the half of the speech justifying the impeding invasion of Iraq. However, the first half of the speech dealt with a lot of domestic issues. One of the things the president mentioned was a federal initiative to support research into hydrogen fuel cells.
Shortly thereafter, a Bush-supporting friend of mine wrote me an email saying something like, "A Green such as yourself should be thrilled that Bush advocated this hydrogen cell thing." Implicit in his email was the sentiment, "Why don't you actually praise him in your blog for once?"
As I said before, this is mainly because I give little weight to such speeches, be they by Bush or anyone else. Actions speak louder than words. I told him it was a good thing in theory, but I'd be thrilled to praise Bush when this program was sufficiently funded, supported by the administration and started producing results.
I don't think I've heard the president mention the hydrogen cell initiative a single time since the 2003 State of the Union.
Gov. Pataki's state of the state speech made a number of calls for reform, since pretending to be in favor of reform in Albany is a necessity nowadays. (Though as the blogger NYCO rightly pointed out: Publicly pretending to reform is a big first step toward actual reform.)
As The Times-Union reported: Republican Pataki's speech called for improving accountability and restoring public trust. He called for ending lobbying for state contracts and banning gifts from lobbyists, reforming the budget process to create on-time budgets, capping Medicaid costs for local governments and improving the public authority system.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, a Democrat and Republican respectively, have also fallen over themselves calling for reform.
Pataki, Silver and Bruno have EACH been in power for over a decade, making them the longest serving triumvirate in state history. Needless to say, there's a bit of skepticism at letting the inmates reform the asylum.
The governor also called for an end to 'back door borrowing.' This is another issue that's been in the public eye, thanks particularly to a groundbreaking investigation by the Syracuse Post-Standard.
As that paper explains:
The system works like this: The Legislature creates a pot of money for unnamed projects. Then, Pataki, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Majority Leader Joseph Bruno sign a memo in private that splits the money three ways. They direct two state authorities - Empire State Development for the Republicans and the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York for the Democrats - to issue bonds for them.
[...]
Then the leaders decide who gets grants. Like all pork-barrel spending in Albany, most of the money goes to legislative districts represented by members of the majority political parties.
The state uses its income tax collections to pay off the bonds.
Again, since Pataki's fellow Republicans benefit from the secret slush funds, it remains to be seen how hard the governor will push this issue.
Since 'publicly pretending to reform' has become mandatory, the legislature is getting into the act as well. The Democratic Assembly passed changes to their internal rules requiring lawmakers to actually be present in the Capitol when they want to vote on bills.
In the past, Assembly members would be counted as voting 'yes' on all bills after they signed in for the day, unless they specifically signaled otherwise. Even if they were out to lunch or in committee meetings.
Only in Albany would requiring legislators to be present while voting be considered revolutionary.
The Republican Senate offered retrograde changes that not only weren't reform, but didn't even present the facade of reform. They tried to require senators to be present in their seats only when they vote no, which has the added benefit of requiring their opponents, the Democrats, to hang around all day to try to block the bills that the Republicans bring to the floor. In other words, they were going to the system that the Assembly just scrapped as too arcane.
Though apparently, public outcry at this absurdity was too much and the Republican leadership in the Senate put the changes on hold for two weeks. Amazingly, this was done after the Republican leader met with his Democratic counterpart, in a rare example of a majority party in Albany actually consulting with the minority.
In another unexpected show of bipartisan consultation, both Assembly leaders announced changes that rank-and-file lawmakers get more time to introduce and try to force votes on bills. Allowing rank-and-file lawmakers to introduce bills is another thing that would only be revolutionary in Albany.
A joint rule would require a budget adoption schedule and public budget negotiating committees of senators and Assembly members. Secretive negotiations have produced over 20 consecutive years without an on time budget, to the serious detriment of local school districts.
Though Pataki's speech talked a lot about "bold, sweeping fundamental change," it's interesting what he didn't mention: some of the state government's most pressing issues.
Not once in his 69-minute speech did Pataki mention the state's estimated $6 billion budget deficit or even hint at impending fiscal difficulties. He even called on the Legislature to phase out tax increases passed two years ago in 2005 rather than 2006.
Nor did he address such major issues as looming deadlines in the federal Help America Vote Act, a health care funding bill that expires this year or a multimillion-dollar transportation aid package that must be renegotiated.
Pataki made only passing mention of court-mandated education reform that will likely require billions more in state aid to New York City schools.
Reform that the legislature was supposed to approve months ago, lest it be referred to a court-appointed panel.
I also have to give a major thumbs up to the state's media outlets. Most newspapers, in particular, have been vocal advocates for cleaning up the morass in Albany. Without them, we'd be completely ignorant of the complex chicaneries going on in the Capitol.
Similiar props are owed to advocacy groups like the New York Public Interest Research Group and Common Cause who have beat the anti-corruption drum for years, long before it become the issue du jour.
'Speech a hard read: Focus on the past spurs queries on Pataki's future': headline of the Albany Times-Union on the state of the state speech.
'Pataki unveils a bold agenda: Governor plans action on schools, medicaid and economic growth': headline of the Glens Falls Post-Star on the same speech.
'Pataki focus: Achievements, not budget': headline of (Long Island) Newsday.
I'm generally not a big fan of state of the union/state/municipality speeches regardless of who's giving them. Years of following politics have taught me that actions speak louder than words. State of the [entity] speeches are designed primarily to send a message. To the speaker's base supporters. To the political opposition. To the media. But not really to the ordinary people.
State of the [entity] speeches are a laundry list of things the speaker believes or advocates in theory. They have no relationship to the speaker's priorities. These speeches give no indication of which things the chief executive will lobby hard to implement and which things he merely wants the public to think he supports without him actually having to push for.
For example, most of the attention on President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech focused on the half of the speech justifying the impeding invasion of Iraq. However, the first half of the speech dealt with a lot of domestic issues. One of the things the president mentioned was a federal initiative to support research into hydrogen fuel cells.
Shortly thereafter, a Bush-supporting friend of mine wrote me an email saying something like, "A Green such as yourself should be thrilled that Bush advocated this hydrogen cell thing." Implicit in his email was the sentiment, "Why don't you actually praise him in your blog for once?"
As I said before, this is mainly because I give little weight to such speeches, be they by Bush or anyone else. Actions speak louder than words. I told him it was a good thing in theory, but I'd be thrilled to praise Bush when this program was sufficiently funded, supported by the administration and started producing results.
I don't think I've heard the president mention the hydrogen cell initiative a single time since the 2003 State of the Union.
Gov. Pataki's state of the state speech made a number of calls for reform, since pretending to be in favor of reform in Albany is a necessity nowadays. (Though as the blogger NYCO rightly pointed out: Publicly pretending to reform is a big first step toward actual reform.)
As The Times-Union reported: Republican Pataki's speech called for improving accountability and restoring public trust. He called for ending lobbying for state contracts and banning gifts from lobbyists, reforming the budget process to create on-time budgets, capping Medicaid costs for local governments and improving the public authority system.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, a Democrat and Republican respectively, have also fallen over themselves calling for reform.
Pataki, Silver and Bruno have EACH been in power for over a decade, making them the longest serving triumvirate in state history. Needless to say, there's a bit of skepticism at letting the inmates reform the asylum.
The governor also called for an end to 'back door borrowing.' This is another issue that's been in the public eye, thanks particularly to a groundbreaking investigation by the Syracuse Post-Standard.
As that paper explains:
The system works like this: The Legislature creates a pot of money for unnamed projects. Then, Pataki, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Majority Leader Joseph Bruno sign a memo in private that splits the money three ways. They direct two state authorities - Empire State Development for the Republicans and the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York for the Democrats - to issue bonds for them.
[...]
Then the leaders decide who gets grants. Like all pork-barrel spending in Albany, most of the money goes to legislative districts represented by members of the majority political parties.
The state uses its income tax collections to pay off the bonds.
Again, since Pataki's fellow Republicans benefit from the secret slush funds, it remains to be seen how hard the governor will push this issue.
Since 'publicly pretending to reform' has become mandatory, the legislature is getting into the act as well. The Democratic Assembly passed changes to their internal rules requiring lawmakers to actually be present in the Capitol when they want to vote on bills.
In the past, Assembly members would be counted as voting 'yes' on all bills after they signed in for the day, unless they specifically signaled otherwise. Even if they were out to lunch or in committee meetings.
Only in Albany would requiring legislators to be present while voting be considered revolutionary.
The Republican Senate offered retrograde changes that not only weren't reform, but didn't even present the facade of reform. They tried to require senators to be present in their seats only when they vote no, which has the added benefit of requiring their opponents, the Democrats, to hang around all day to try to block the bills that the Republicans bring to the floor. In other words, they were going to the system that the Assembly just scrapped as too arcane.
Though apparently, public outcry at this absurdity was too much and the Republican leadership in the Senate put the changes on hold for two weeks. Amazingly, this was done after the Republican leader met with his Democratic counterpart, in a rare example of a majority party in Albany actually consulting with the minority.
In another unexpected show of bipartisan consultation, both Assembly leaders announced changes that rank-and-file lawmakers get more time to introduce and try to force votes on bills. Allowing rank-and-file lawmakers to introduce bills is another thing that would only be revolutionary in Albany.
A joint rule would require a budget adoption schedule and public budget negotiating committees of senators and Assembly members. Secretive negotiations have produced over 20 consecutive years without an on time budget, to the serious detriment of local school districts.
Though Pataki's speech talked a lot about "bold, sweeping fundamental change," it's interesting what he didn't mention: some of the state government's most pressing issues.
Not once in his 69-minute speech did Pataki mention the state's estimated $6 billion budget deficit or even hint at impending fiscal difficulties. He even called on the Legislature to phase out tax increases passed two years ago in 2005 rather than 2006.
Nor did he address such major issues as looming deadlines in the federal Help America Vote Act, a health care funding bill that expires this year or a multimillion-dollar transportation aid package that must be renegotiated.
Pataki made only passing mention of court-mandated education reform that will likely require billions more in state aid to New York City schools.
Reform that the legislature was supposed to approve months ago, lest it be referred to a court-appointed panel.
I also have to give a major thumbs up to the state's media outlets. Most newspapers, in particular, have been vocal advocates for cleaning up the morass in Albany. Without them, we'd be completely ignorant of the complex chicaneries going on in the Capitol.
Similiar props are owed to advocacy groups like the New York Public Interest Research Group and Common Cause who have beat the anti-corruption drum for years, long before it become the issue du jour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)