A few weeks back, David Swenson and Michael Schmidt wrote an op-ed for the New York Times calling for the nonprofitization of newspapers. These nonprofit institutions would be run much like Colleges and Universitites, driven largely by their endowments.

Endowments would enhance newspapers' autonomy while shielding them from the economic forces that are now tearing them down.

As evidence that the newspaper model needs to be revived, the authors point to the declining economic success of the New York Times, Washington Post, and a handful of the nation's other leading daily newspapers. And it's well known that the American media, driven by ratings and traditional modes of economic success, have strayed from covering the most important domestic and international news, to monopolizing print with fluff that will draw hoardes of readers (or viewers) and boost numbers. 

In short, newspapers are no longer educating people about important news. They tell readers what they want to hear. Nonprofit newspapers could resore journalism to its proper purpose by granting the organizations the autonomy to cover the most important news, not only the most shocking. 

Slate has a stupid article up today opposing nonprofit newspapers. One of his reasons for opposing this model is becuase it lacks accountability. 

Who would appoint the directors of the foundation? To whom would the foundation be accountable? To whom would the editors and reporters ultimately report--the foundation directors or the readers?

This concern only shows that the author - Jack Shafer - has little faith in nonprofits in general, not solely the prospects of nonprofit newspapers. Does he think that nonprofit organizations have no one in charge? That no person or group of people is responsible for their success or failure? As in a regular nonprofit organization, the editors and reporters would report to the foundation directors, who report to the organization's Board Directors, who are representatives of the readers. 

Shafer's other argument against nonprofit newspapers is equally unimaginative.

There's also something disconcerting about wanting to divorce the newspaper from market pressures. (If I wanted that sort of news product, I'd watch The NewsHour.) Without some market discipline, how will a newspaper know whether it is succeeding or not[?]

Are you kidding me? Clearly a large hunk of the reason some people want nonprofit newspapers is exactly so that they would not define success by how many people want to read their news. While traveling in South Africa and Europe last summer, I was struck by some of the in-depth BBC stories from Mali, or India, or Mexico that simply would not have been covered by the mainstream American media, obsessed as it is with market standards of success.

Newspapers becoming nonprofits does not mean that all accountability and quality will immediately disappear. It means that excellence will be redefined based on the quality of the reporting and the significance of the stories covered. 

That doesn't sound half bad.

I wrote a few months back about the significant void left by Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden as they embarked to begin their new fancy government positions. Since they were arguably the three most high profile Democratic senators, careful choices for their replacements was especially important. To adequately fill those positions, we needed Obama'svision, Biden's experience, and Clinton's clout.

The choices fell far short of this standard. Roland Burris was appointed by the scandal-plagued Illinois Governor to fill Obama's seat. Though Burris seems like a good man, the controversy surrounding his appointment was not exactly inspiring. And from what I can tell, Burris has offered no substantial vision or agenda. I had high hopes for the potential appointees Jesse Jackson Jr. and Tammy Duckworth, but Blago's controversy unfortunately disqualified each of these contenders.

In New York, Caroline Kennedy - though severely imperfect - would have fulfilled Hillary's standard ofclout in the Senate. As a Clinton, Hillary was able to draw upon Bill's successes and the movement they both inspired as a complement to her intellect and political competence. As a Kennedy, Caroline could have done the same. But it was not meant to be. The support behind Caroline Kennedy was weak and short lived. Kristin Gillibrand, the eventual choice to replace Hillary Clinton, is a moderate in one of the country's most liberal states and is sometimes referred to as "Tracy Flick," a reference to the film Election about a ruthless candidate for High School Students' Council. Though I hope she will deliver, Gillibrand doesn't exactly symbolize clout or vision.

Biden's replacement, his long time aide Ted Kaufman, is the oddest but it fills Biden's experience niche well. The choice is odd because many agree that Kaufman will hold the seat until Biden's son, Beau Biden, Delaware's Attorney General, returns from a tour in Iraq, when he will run for Senate in 2010.

Among this rag-tag group of boring appointments, the replacement for Colorado Senator Ken Salazar - the incoming interior secretary - stands out. Michael Bennet, the superintendent of Denver Schools, has some serious potential to be a powerful voice in the future of the Democratic Party. Prior to serving as superintendent, he was the Chief of Staff for the popular Mayor of Denver, John Hickenlooper, who was also considered to replace Senator Salazar.

Bennett, also considered for Education Secretary, has a serious record of education reform. But he was the least experienced candidate considered for Salazar's Senate Seat. A former Denver School Board member, Lucia Guzman, indicated that Bennet's inexperience and vision could be a strength in his forthcoming Senate career.

"He's like how Barack Obama has been depicted, constant and confident [...] He's a visionary, able to look far and wide and very deep into the issues at hand."

I guess its time to get things started. Unfortunately, though, that does not mean the anticipation period is complete. It just means that the anticipation is more pressing. At any moment, President Obama could do something huge! He has already issued the order to stop all trials at Guantanamo Bay. And in his first foreign call as President, Obama reached out to Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, the leader of the moderate Fatah party. And it looks like Obama is going to ask for even more money for the economic stimulus package, now nearing $900 Billion.

And that's in 24 hours, many of which were filled with dancing and (I'd imagine) sleep. That makes you wonder what will happen in the remaining 1,460 days of Obama's first term.

Politico says be afraid, be cautiously afraid. Though I don't agree with many of their reasons to be skeptical, this one stood out: beware "the herd instinct."

But the instinct for bipartisanship overlooks an inconvenient fact: Some of Washington's biggest blunders occur when the government moves to do big things with big support. Bush won the much-regretted Iraq war resolution of October 2002 with strong Democratic backing.

The current economic crisis produces similar pressure to get on board the train -- never mind for sure where it's going.

While I think that a large, wide-reaching stimulus plan must pass for us to have any chance of surviving this economic downturn, I hope that our leaders will strive for the best plan, even if its not the quickest or the most politically safe.

I was expecting the inaugural address to ask Americans to sacrifice in order to help weather this storm. After 9/11, former President Bush wasted enormous political capital to unite Americans behind a common purpose. Instead of asking us to sacrifice for our country, he told us to shop. And he has been widely criticized for it. I think Obama is faced with a similar opportunity to unite Americans through simple sacrifices for their country.

But will a request for sacrifice, when actually made, be lauded or rebuked?

Ultimately, it depends on what kinds of sacrifices are requested. In Politico'sThe Arena today, policy wonks and writers guess what kinds of sacrifices President Obama might ask for. This entry, by a contributing editor for the Daily Kos, stood out to me:

The main thing to understand is that fixes will not be quick. That means unemployment isn't instantly reversed. Race relations aren't instantly made whole. Iraq isn't instantly evacuated. Gitmo is not instantly closed. These things will be addressed. They will not be completed today or in the next 100 days. And since things aren't so great as they are right this second, it will rightly feel like sacrifice to be patient and build for the long term.

Other sacrifices mentioned were doing away with 8-figure salaries on wall street and throughout the corporate world and enduring some uncomfortable changes to health care policy. 

But a lot needs to get done. And even if the Obama administration hits the ground running, some important promises are going to have to take a back seat to the pressing concerns of today, including the economic stimulus plan and the turmoil in the Middle East.

But I'm ready to give more than patience; and I think lots of others are too.

Three Steps Forward

Watching 24 definitely makes you think about the morality of torture in a fictional world. But as a liberal in the real world, is it possible to enjoy 24 despite its implicit support for terrorism? This week's season 7 premier proves the answer to be yes, but AmericaBlog asks this difficult question.

Wherever you land on that important issue, it is difficult to deny that by far the most horrendous legacy of President Bush's two terms is the torture at Guantanamo Bay that was not only approved by the President, but became de-facto law. AmericaBlog reports that Obama will announce his plans to close Guantanamo after he is inaugurated on January 20. This does not mean that the detention facility will close immediately. President-elect Obama has already said that it could take a year to finalize the end of Guantanamo Bay because of the deeply complicated nature of international law and the difficulty of placing the 250 terrorist suspects, many of whom have not been charged with any crime, in an appropriate setting.

Although it is not soon enough, this is an extremely encouraging development that says a lot about the Obama administration. First, the United States no longer supports torture. Throughout the campaign I was surprised by how few times Obama, Biden or other democratic surrogates mentioned torture. Under the leadership of George W. Bush, this country that has stood as a beacon and freedom for so many across the world for hundreds of years, embraced torture as national policy. The reality of that is both terrifying and deeply sad. Though closing Guantanamo Bay does not make up for that, it shows that we are at least willing to admit this error and attempt to rebrand our moral image.

It will be interesting to see how Obama closes the detention facility. Back in November, the newly elected Obama unveiled plans to pursue out-of-the-box methods of prosecuting terrorists. They endorsed a "hybrid approach" which would combine necessary aspects of military courts with the liberties associated with civilian courts. As I wrote back in November, Republicans oppose this approach because it could bring terrorist suspects to US soil, and Democrats are weary about it because these suspects would not receive all the rights guaranteed for American citizens. For that reason, the plan is constitutionally unstable and, if implemented, would probably require the Supreme Court's attention.

The closing of Guantanamo Bay also indicates, as AmericaBlog writes, "that Team Obama is starting to realize that it needs to reach out to the left, and not just the right." This is the third issue that surfaced in the past few days on which Obama has made statements that satisfied the liberal base of the Democratic party.

But the meaning of closing Guantanamo Bay seriously transcends politics. It shows that Obama might make good on the hope that he inspired during his campaign to begin a process that re instills pride in our country.

In an interview with The Atlantic this week, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the internationally acclaimed peace activist, spoke of his disappointment that the United States now uses torture.

He must close Guantanamo Bay immediately. That must be one of the first things he does. You know, for someone who comes from South Africa, it is one of the greatest letdowns I've ever experienced that America, Britain, whom we had regarded as--I mean, they were our starlode. Or is it lodestar?

Hoo hoo! Yes, our lodestar. These countries were so insistent in the days of apartheid. When we had detention without trial in South Africa, they condemned it out of hand. I mean, it is one of the greatest letdowns that these countries should, without batting an eyelid, be using the same arguments that were used by the apartheid government. You feel so, so despondent.

Have you ever noticed how bread does not last long enough? You'll buy a loaf, use four slices immediately, and then let it sit on the shelf for two weeks. By the time you try to use the remaining slices, its stale, or even worse, moldy. Well this loaf is a lot like Barack Obama's political capital if it is not used quickly and correctly. In his first 100 days, President Obama could make delicious tuna and PB&J sandwiches. But recently it looks like he'll let the bread mold grasping for bi-partisanship.

It's clear that Obama's economic stimulus plan doesn't cut the mustard. By trying to get 80 votes in the Senate, he risks losing too much trying to appease Republicans. Obama doesn't have to do this. The stimulus plan will pass easily with the 59 Democrats and a handful of moderate Republican Senators who support it.

But Obama is making good on the promise to be the President for everyone, not just liberals. While this is a laudable goal, Obama risks wasting his mandate even before his first term begins. When you have political capital, use it to make big advances on important issues, not to grab 15 unnecessary votes that will only weaken a desperately needed economic stimulus plan.

Obama's popularity complex worries John Judas, too. He is concerned that "the president elect is underestimating the problem he and the country faces." Judis calls for a much more extensive stimulus plan that includes funds to increase high speed public transportation. The closest equivalent we have to Europe's impressive example is Amtrak's Acela line, which is limited largely to the northeast corner of the country and is very expensive. But the extension of high speed transit would require a massive investment, which Congress has not even come close to supporting. 

Judas continues:

Investing in high-speed rails would be very expensive, but unlike tax cuts--the benefits of which can be siphoned off in the purchase of imported goods--the money spent would go directly to reviving American industry and improving the country's trade balance. That doesn't just mean jobs creating dedicated tracks or new rail stations: Though the U.S. abandoned train manufacturing decades ago to the French, Germans, Canadians, and Japanese, this kind of production could be undertaken by our ailing auto companies or aircraft companies--if the federal and state governments were to place orders. And building trains that would run on electricity would be a paradigmatic example of the "green jobs" that Obama often touts.

In short, its worth the investment. Krugman agrees. $800 Billion is a lot of money, but if it funds an incomplete and insufficient plan, then it is wasted. I'd rather see a more expensive stimulus plan that serves as the final word and gets us back on track. We can kill two birds with one giant, expensive stone. Build a much-need U.S. high-speed transit system and stimulate the economy. This is possible without pandering to Senate Republicans.

Congressional Democrats are rightly frustrated by Obama's concessions, and they are not afraid to show it. The stimulus issue was the final and most important disappointment in a week of Democratic division which included the Blago/Burris Illinios scandal, the Panetta/Fienstein miscommunication, and the choice of TV star Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General. 

Obama is the President of all Americans, red, blue, and purple. But he won a huge mandate in November's election, supported by large majorities in the House and Senate. Obama needs to use that advantage to pass a working stimulus plan, even if it squeaks by with 61 votes.

Otherwise, he's wasting perfectly good bread. 

Read more: threestepsforward.wordpress.com