dagblog - Comments for "When Will Our Leaders Ask Us To Sacrifice?"

It's just ye olde JFK crap,

artappraiser — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:10:40 +0000

In reply to When Will Our Leaders Ask Us To Sacrifice?

It's just ye olde JFK crap, done poorly (not Nixon, silly.)

To all a youse bellyaching about NYT opinion columnists, I do have something to say: stop clicking on the op-ed pages then.

The op-ed columnists routinely make the # 1 most popular list. Remember back when the Times was trying out their first way to get some subscription fees off the internet? What did they try first? They tried charging for the op-ed columnists only, because they were their most popular features. They help pay for the news, and they demand and get high salaries because they help pay for the news coverage.

I use them this way: if they are on the "most popular" list, I might look at them. Because that tells me something about our culture, what a lot of people want to read in opinion, the argumentsa lot of people find intriguing or want to email to others. If they weren't, I probably wouldn't look at them much at all. I didn't before the internet, unless I knew the columnist might have inside info or sources on a big news item of the day.

But I'd really do wish it was the case that some day I see more news and analysis on the most popular list rather than opinion. And people would feel comfortable making their own opinion on it and not wait to have some columnists or bloggers set the agenda, to react against them or agree with them. And then I would go back to not looking at their stuff much at all, unless, again, they were known to have sources or expertise on something going on in the news.

I don't really care what Frank Bruni thinks about the budget and taxes, his resume doesn't strike me as him having much more to say about it than Joe Blogger or Josh Marshall or Joe Blogger could, and I don't want to waste my time reading them about it when I can go read the opinions of people with more experience on the matter. But if a whole bunch of you are going to argue with him about what he said, then I might take a look at it.

It's like you are waiting for them to set the agenda about what to talk about at the metaphorical water cooler. Destor, if you hadn't pointed this piece out, I would have never considered reading it.

And to be brutally honest, I see you trying out your hand at Reuters op-ed, and then I see you do blog posts arguing with NYT columnists, and what I end up thinking is that destor wants to prove he deserves their job, wants to compete on their level. It's not to say that I'm not interested in your argument, but to say that I really don't see you dissing what they are doing as others are here, but rather, supporting it. As are all other bloggers who hope someday to get paid somehow for their opinions. And all who constantly look to see what David Brooks just said so they can do a blog post disagreeing with it......

(It's the same with cable TV news. If the opinion shows didn't prove the most popular,we'd have more straight news and analysis there, too.)

A mythology can be

Elusive Trope — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:33:50 +0000

In reply to You lost me at the "mythology

A mythology can be understood, among other definitions, as a body of stories about a person, institution, or in this case generation. In most cases, there is a lot of facts, a lot of conjecture, a lot of misinformation (esp over time), and a lot of nostalgia.

Claiming there is a mythology around the "Greatest Generation" is not a claim they were not great. It was not claiming that people did not make great sacrifices.

The claim is that this particular generation had a character that superior to those before or after. The reality, in my opinion, is that the world provided an opportunity for this greatest to be expressed in a particular way. It is the same greatest that one saw during the last big earthquake that hit San Francisco, or any other instance when a real threat is experienced and people put their lives on the line for their neighbor.

The tires and war bonds part was put in there because when people talk about the Greatest Generation, and relate it to our present day crises, they talk about how everyone pitched in, like the kids going out to collect tires, etc.

After 9/11 happened, had Bush turned to the nation and "we need you to do x or y," one would have seen people x or y. Of course the only thing that was asked of them was to go shop. Of course those who were already in the military and who have signed up since then have shown they are as brave and willing to sacrifice as any WWII pilot.

But now there is this whole mythology that surrounds that time in WWII and the Americans who found themselves having to respond to the country being under attack, as if it happened again, today's Americans would respond with yawns and apathy.

You lost me at the "mythology

NCD — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:52:23 +0000

In reply to I think part of the problem

You lost me at the "mythology of the Greatest Generation during WWII", and compounded it with the "we are not being asked to donate tires or buy war bonds in what is hoped to be a short-term sacrifice".

One reason the Greatest Generation was 'great' was that the rich and powerful signed up for combat duty and served with everyone else. Today the rich often don't even pay taxes, and some of the wealthy consider electioneering to be equivalent to service in uniform.

In WW2, it was no 'myth' that a future President was in a boat that was rammed by an enemy destroyer, while a brother of his died in combat in Europe. Another future President signed up at 18 and was shot down off a enemy held island where captive airmen were routinely executed and cooked for dinner. Similar risks were taken by the over 16.5 million Americans who served in uniform in WW2, which comprised about 1/3 of the entire US male population age 18-45 at the start of the war. Those who served also had families. Tire donations and war bonds didn't even come up on the WW2 'sacrifice' radar screen.

I put the responsibility for

Aunt Sam — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:16:02 +0000

In reply to I did have an employee once

I put the responsibility for figuring out how it could work where it was a win/win on her shoulders. It actually was a terrific opportunity for her to learn more about the employer's responsibilities and burdens. She had two weeks vacation coming and that helped.

She discovered that it really wasn't doable for the three months, but worked at creating a feasible plan for six weeks that was viable. Of course, we all did our part and agreed to take on a bit more for those six weeks, so the extra benefit was most got some cross-training and additional skill sets.

If an employer invokes the 'team' theory, then it needs to be across the board - employees need to be able to understand the employers role and burdens, just as vice-versa. The 'No Dumping' rule is the best, as employees have to at least attempt to come up with a viable solution - and the employer 'brainstorms' with them to tweak it if needed.

I think part of the problem

Elusive Trope — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:34:54 +0000

In reply to When Will Our Leaders Ask Us To Sacrifice?

I think part of the problem around the discourse on sacrifice is that it gets filtered through the mythology of the Greatest Generation during WWII. Although we are currently fighting numerous wars, the sacrifices we are discussing are more about what could be considered peace time sacrifices. In other words, we are not being asked to donate tires or buy war bonds in what is hoped to be a short-term sacrifice (after the victory, we will be able to return to "normal" and the particular sacrifice is no longer needed). Instead, we are looking at what amounts to a permanent or long-term sacrifice, a sort of giving up something for good for all intents and purposes.

The other part of the discourse problem, and related to filtering it through a war time sacrifice prism, is that it is seen as requiring a singular national response. Instead, for so many of the problems, experienced nationally, the solutions lie in local grassroots responses that are able to mobilize the local resources and expertise able to deal with the particular local dynamics. The federal (and state) government can provide some resources (including money), but it is up to the people working in the trenches, from the business community to the schools to the nonprofits to the churches and social clubs, to find and implement the answers.

This is true from improving early childhood education to senior care to access to health care.

The sacrifices for many have more to do with time and energy than they do with writing a check. It is about getting and staying involved. Unfortunately, the discourse on sacrifice becomes about how many dollars will be required of each person or what percentage of their take home income is it going to be take.

A Teddy Roosevelt / Karl

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:45:57 +0000

In reply to I am pretty sure Obama has

A Teddy Roosevelt / Karl Marx-type Democrat. "You deserve a brick today", I think was the old McDonald's ad...

Yeah, I didn't go there, but

Michael Maiello — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:34:29 +0000

In reply to Frank Bruni? The same

Yeah, I didn't go there, but it is ridiculous that a Manhattan-based food critic who has wined and dined with kings and queens is lecturing the rest of us about sucking up some sacrifice.

I did have an employee once

Michael Maiello — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:30:37 +0000

In reply to Having been both an employer

I did have an employee once who wanted three months off (for travel) and I told her if she could submit a plan to me on how her job would get done, how the other employees and business would not suffer any type of loss - then we could sit down and try to work it out. She did - but her decision, her time off was reduced to six weeks.

Good on you, Aunt Sam. Most working people will never get 6 continuous weeks for their own purposes and your employee will likely never see it again. It's great that you were willing and able to put yourself out a bit to make it happen. Most employers won't or can't. But, in a system where such arrangements were universally available, it could be less of a hardship for everyone. Presumably, your employee had the means to fund at least 6 weeks of travel and what you offered was a promise to resume working and no interruption in benefits. In ad hoc arrangements, that's as much as we could hope for. In a universal system, we might be able to do much more.

Apparently, Belgium has something of a workable system, though there is rampant abuse (not so much by employees but by employers).

Frank Bruni? The same

oldenGoldenDecoy — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 02:23:06 +0000

In reply to When Will Our Leaders Ask Us To Sacrifice?

Frank Bruni?

The same Frank Bruni who has never pushed a free meal away in his assignment as the "food writer at large" at the Times?

I have never in my lifetime worshiped self-indulgence and consumption, as Bruni used from Jimmy Carter's quote.

This type of rhetoric is bull-crap and plays to the elitists. Something along the lines of, Gee, now that I have mine and I want it all, could you serfs please sacrifice some more?

This guy should seriously consider returning to his days as chief restaurant critic there at the Times. Other than that, Frank can kiss my 66 year old tailfeathers and jam his head up his own asteroid-orifice!

~OGD~

I am pretty sure Obama has

Dan Kervick — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 01:24:59 +0000

In reply to When Will Our Leaders Ask Us To Sacrifice?

I am pretty sure Obama has been reasonably direct in calling for the rich to pay higher taxes. But I guess that kind of sacrifice isn't enough for the Manhattan crowd.

This is one of the key reasons I don't feel like a liberal anymore why I've stopped paying attention to the old flagship opinion institutions of American liberalism - the NY Times, the networks, NPR, the Atlantic and most of the other mags and rags. It's become abundantly clear since 2008 that those institutions are now dominated by people who speak for the wealthy. They are elite, obtuse snobs who think the American middle class is too spoiled, too ugly, to uppity, too highly paid, and too craving of government benefits. And they think it is their job to inflict some tough love, punish people, and reinforce social discipline.

These guys want to bestow the same disaster on the US that Merkel and Company are giving to Europe - even though US citizens don't enjoy nearly the level of competent government services that the Europeans do.

It's not that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between rank and file Democrats and rank and file Republicans. But there really isn't a dimes worth of difference between the elites of the two parties. I'm so sick of Friedman, Zakaria, Rogoff. Geithner, Brooks, the elite think tanks and foundations and the other such-like privileged assholes who are telling the smart set what to do, and to whom Obama pays far too much attention.

Most days I feel like just a good old-fashioned Scandinavia-style social Democrat. But every time I hear the supercilious purring of NPR anchors, or read one of these typical NY Times pieces, I get a strong urge to throw a copy of Das Kapital through somebody's window and hit someone with a stick.