This Week: A Stroll Through the News With Nygaard

Quote of the Week

Sunglasses Get Apology, Press Remains in the Dark

Social Health in Long Island. And Your Town?

The War Against Terror (The WAT?): Profit Report
Don't Trust Alex Trebek
"The State of Mind of Buying"
"Two Very Different Philosophies"

Greetings,

Last week I said that this week might be a  "Stroll Through the News With Nygaard."  For once, my prediction about my own behavior was accurate!  That's what we have this week, and I actually think I'll do another one next week.  It's fun summer reading, after all, and there have been a lot of fascinating, amusing, and/or horrifying things in the news lately, so I could "stroll" my way right through the summer, if I wanted to.  I don't want to, but I think one week will not be enough.  I've never done back-to-back "Strolls" before, but I'm the editor, and I say "Why not?!"

So, sit back, have some iced tea or the beverage of your choice, and stroll with me through the wild and wonderful territory known as "The News."

See ya next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

This week's "Quote" is from "The Anti-Empire Report: Some Things You Need to Know Before the World Ends," by William Blum, the June 21st 2006 edition.

Blum recalled a June 6th story about an interview that National Public Radio had with a "moderate" senior Shiite cleric who had been jailed by Saddam Hussein and forced into exile. The NPR reporter asked him: "What would you think if you had to go back to Saddam Hussein's days here?"  The cleric, according to the reporter, replied that he'd "rather see Iraq under Saddam Hussein than the way it is now."

In an attempt to understand this comment, Blum proceeded to "compile a list of the many kinds of misfortune which have fallen upon the heads of the Iraqi people as a result of the American liberation of their homeland."  It's an impressive list, and at the end of it Blum says this:

"[D]espite the fact that it would be difficult to name a single area of Iraqi life which has improved as a result of the American actions, when the subject is Iraq and the person I'm having a discussion with has no other argument left to defend U.S. policy there, at least at the moment, I may be asked: 'Just tell me one thing, are you glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power?'
"And I say: 'No."
"And the person says: 'No?'
"And I say: 'No. Tell me, if you went into surgery to correct a knee problem and the surgeon mistakenly amputated your entire leg, what would you think if someone then asked you: 'Are you glad that you no longer have a knee problem?'  The people of Iraq no longer have a Saddam problem.

"And many Iraqis actually supported him."

Sunglasses Get Apology, Press Remains in the Dark

On June 15th an odd little story ran that, in its own way, was quite revealing about the relationship between George W. Bush and the media.  The headline of the Associated Press story that ran in my local paper read: "Bush Apologizes for Razzing Reporter Over 'Shades.'" The story -- sort of a cute "human interest" story, I guess -- explained how the "President" apologized "after he poked fun at a reporter for wearing sunglasses without realizing they were needed for vision loss."

But the most revealing sentence came in the next-to-last paragraph, where the AP reported that the reporter in question took the apology good-naturedly, and then went on to say that the reporter's "only complaint" was that "the president didn't answer his question at the news conference."

Here's another question: Why is Mr. Bush's apology a news item and his failure to answer the questions of reporters not a news item?  Answer: I don't know.  Ask your local newspaper editor.

Social Health in Long Island. And Your Town?

On the bottom of page C14 in the New York Times (All The News That's Fit To Print!) of June 16th ran a story headlined "Report Finds Lots of Hardship Amid Plenty on Long Island."  The article was about an important study, just released by Adelphi University's "Vital Signs" project, that attempts to assess "the social health status of the people and communities of Long Island."

For those who aren't familiar with the term "social health," you could go to the Nygaard Notes website and look at Nygaard Notes #84 "How Are We Doing?: Toward a National Social Report."  The concept is simple: the "Social Health" of a nation or community is assessed by looking at things like hunger, the cost of housing, domestic violence, AIDS, teen pregnancy, homelessness, asthma, diabetes, crime and suicide.  All of the things, in other words, that make a community a good, or not-so-good, place to live.

The "Vital Signs" report says that "the story of contemporary Long Island is a tale of two suburbs.  On the one hand, many residents are living out the American Dream.  On the other, largely hidden from view, growing numbers of the poor, working and middle class, people of color, immigrants and seniors are struggling to get by each day."

"Largely hidden from view," they say.  Hmmm...  Have you seen a report recently--ever?--in your local media on the social health of your community?  That's the political and social meaning of "hidden from view."  To look at the Vital Signs report, go to  http://www.adelphi.edu/vitalsigns/

The War Against Terror (The WAT?): Profit Report

From the "Earnings" report in the Business Section of the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) on April 26th:  "Lockheed Profit Soars 60 Percent."  Lockheed, for those who don't know, is "the nation's largest supplier of military hardware and technology."

An analyst explained the Big Bucks: "We've got a very high tempo of activity related to the war on terror, and that requires a lot of support and services."

Don't Trust Alex Trebek

One of the disturbing aspects of the current hysteria about immigration is the strengthening of the so-called "English-Only" movement.  I don't know how big a "movement" it really is, but there's a group called "U.S. English, Inc. Toward A United America" that claims to be "the nation's oldest, largest citizens' action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States."  They say they have 1.8 million members these days, and their advisory board includes such notables as Charlton Heston, Arnold Palmer, James Schlesinger, and Alex Trebek.  Alex Trebek, readers may know, has been the host of the English-only TV show Jeopardy for a couple of decades.

At the moment, there are laws and proposed laws all over the place, state and federal, aimed at addressing the irrational fears of the language xenophobes.  The "National Language Act," and the "English Language Unity Act" are two laws before the U.S. Congress.  26 states have some sort of "official English" laws.

On the other hand, consider some words from the Los Angeles Times of this past Sunday, June 18, in an editorial headlined "Why `Multiculti' Shouldn't Scare You."  In that piece, scholar Gregory Rodriguez notes that "Perhaps the best example of the undue fear of cultural separatism is the English-only movement."  He adds that "By 2050, half the planet is projected to speak it proficiently.  It seems foolhardy to suggest that its power eludes families who put down roots within our own borders."

He then quotes sociology professor Richard Alba, a specialist in immigration and assimilation, who says that "There has probably never been a period in U.S. history when English was so dominant."

"The State of Mind of Buying"

I realize that most people do not go to the local shopping mall to escape commercialism.  Still, a recent article in the Advertising Section of the New York Times might be disturbing to some denizens of the shopping environment.

"A giant advertising company is teaming up with a giant property company for a venture that aims to help turn the shopping mall into a medium not unlike television..." led off the article in the May 12th Times.  It seems that the joint venture "will sell commercial time on screens to be placed at or near the entrances, food courts, escalators and corridors of ... malls across the country."

The reason?  "As consumers find new ways to avoid or skip commercials on the first screen, television (thanks to technologies like TiVo and iPod), the efforts to put ads in front of them on other screens are growing."

The medium is the message!

Since the environment at a mall "is already heavily commercialized... shoppers expect ads in stores."  Even so, a mall marketing officer says, "we were very sensitive" to making sure that the screens "do not detract from the shopping experience."  Added an advertising executive, "We want to provide a space to catch shoppers in the state of mind of buying."

"And, Of Course, Advertising."

In a related development, the Associated Press reported on June 5th that we can now watch TV while we're buying gas.  The AP reported that "Gas Station TV, based in the Detroit suburb of Oak Park, has been testing its service for several months in Dallas with TV monitors installed above gas pumps that show short clips of news, weather and traffic, and, of course, advertising."

"Two Very Different Philosophies"

On June 21st National Public Radio had a feature on the show "All Things Considered" with the title "Democrats, Republicans Fight Over Minimum Wage."  It was about the Senate's failure that day to approve an increase in the federal minimum wage, which remains at $5.15/hour.  That adds up to $10,700 a year, a little more than 10 percent above the official poverty level for a single person, and more than 15 percent below the poverty level for a two-person household.  (The official poverty level is a sad joke, as it's far too low to reflect reality.)  The minimum wage hasn't been raised since 1997, which ties the Reagan era for the longest period that these workers have failed to get a raise since the minimum wage began in 1938.

Perspective: If the minimum wage had simply kept up with inflation since 1968, it would now be over $9.00 per hour.

In the NPR story we heard Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, speaking about the debate on raising the minimum wage.  He said:

"The debate we've heard this morning is a classic debate between two very different philosophies. One philosophy that believes in the marketplace, the competitive system that we have in the United States of America, competition and entrepreneurship.  And secondly is the argument that says that government knows better and that top-down mandates work."

I highlight this particular comment for two reasons.  The first reason is to show how willing and able are people like Mr. Isakson to lay out their positions on issues--any and all issues--in terms of philosophy.  This willingness to remind people that they are animated by a philosophy, and are not simply reacting  to the "other side," is something that the "other side" does not often do.

The second reason I quote Mr. Isakson is because of his characterization of the philosophy of the "other side."  Isakson says that Democrats believe that "government knows better," and that's why they want to raise the minimum.  Now, it may well be true, in this case, that "government knows better" if that means that it is "better" to pay people wages that lift them out of poverty. 

But forget about that for a moment, and think, instead, about how it is that he is able to get away with saying this.  It's because the "other side"--in this case, Senate Democrats--fail to explicitly state their own philosophy, the one that might be the foundation of their call for an increase.  Instead, they simply react to the Republicans, and label the failure to raise the minimum wage "obscene."  That may be true, but this failure to lay out their philosophy allows the Republican side to lay out a philosophy for them.  Those who don't speak for themselves, after all, will find that someone else will speak for them.  That's what we see in this case.

Part of the problem here may well be that, in the realm of philosophy, I don't think there is much difference between Democrats and Republicans.  They both seem to believe in "the marketplace, the competitive system."  Maybe Democrats want to soften the edges a bit (say, by raising the minimum wage), but whatever their philosophy, it doesn't seem to call for much more than that.

A couple of issues back in Nygaard Notes I spelled out a different philosophy ("Imagining a Different Philosophy," NN #331).  That philosophy says that people are fundamentally interested in the welfare of others.  It goes with an ideology that says that people tend to be Social and Cooperative, not Individualist and Competitive.  From that philosophy and ideology come the values of Solidarity, Justice, and Compassion, which all speak to the need for all workers to make a wage that can support them in dignity.  A lot of "liberals" these days seem to focus on how the proposals of the "conservatives" are "obscene."  But then, what?

Since this debate about the minimum wage is in the news these days, let me recommend a look at a brand-new report from a wonderful group that I have mentioned before, the National Center for Children in Poverty called "When Work Doesn't Pay: What Every Policymaker Should Know."  NCCP's Family Resource Simulator is something that everyone should know about.  Go look at the report, and the Simulator, on the web at  http://nccp.org/pub_wdp06.html