burnedoutdem's Blog

The Entitlement of Children (or grown-ups who never grew up)

2009-09-18T13:19:34Z

There's been a lot of talk about how racism factors into the health care reform drama, and so far the debate has focused on a) yes, people who protest reform are racist and b) no, they're not.
I've been firmly in category c) some of the protesters appear to be racist, but it's not fair to paint everyone with that brush.
Now, I'm starting to see a new category: d) conservatives have developed an over-inflated sense of entitlement these past 8-16 years and some use racist language or imagery to lash out and re-claim a sense of their lost power.
It's the grown-up equivalent of "Hey, I want my ball back! Oh, yeah? Well, you're stupid and your dad's a GARBAGEman!"
]]> "Can I use the car, tonight?" "No, I have to head back to work after dinner." "Oh, so since you suck so bad at your job that you can't get your work done during the day I have to miss out on a birthday party? Why can't you do anything right the first time?"
Oh, teenagers.
Conservatives saw during the primaries how quickly the left flips out over even the teeniest hint of racism - even to the point of destroying the reputations of established members of our own party. Which means, we gave them a big fat button to push whenever they're trying to change the subject.
Yes, some conservatives are definitely racist. No question. BUT, I think some couldn't care less about Obama's skin color, except that it's handy to use it to get instant press coverage. Want to make the evening news, get loads of coverage on the 24 hour networks and have Stewart and Colbert mention you to the ill-informed crowd? Say something racist! Outcome: people who weren't voting for you anyway like you less, people who support you won't believe you meant it, and you might even pick up the votes of a few genuine racists who didn't know your name the day before.
For those of their ilk who are holding signs at protests, it's just a childish lash-out. SOME comes from deep seated racisim, no question, but some are just trying to push our button. Their party's out of power, they're feeling ignored, and pushing the racist button will get them the attention they so desperately miss (kind of like when my middle brother would punch my little brother if he was feeling ignored. Sometimes ANY attention is good attention).
"But I wanted the OLD guy to win." "Sorry, everyone else wants change" "But I don't LIKE change!" "I know, but it will be good for you. Lower taxes, better health care. Try it. You might like it alot." "I don't want to try it! I don't want change! I wanted the OLD guy or the DUMB guy! Stop ignoring me...you...N-Word...NAZI!"
I stumbled on this little nugget from the WSJ that to me beautifully illustrates the unmitigated sense of entitlement and the childish need to demand attention at all costs. It's not an example of racism, but it is DEFINITELY an example of the juvenile temper tantrums that have been employed. If this particular story continues to get little attention, someone will probably invoke a racist slur just for the headlines:

Protesters who attended Saturday's Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.

Rep. Kevin Brady called for a government investigation into whether the government-run subway system adequately prepared for this weekend's rally to protest government spending and government services.

The Texas Republican on Wednesday released a letter he sent to Washington's Metro system complaining that the taxpayer-funded subway system was unable to properly transport protesters to the rally to protest government spending and expansion.

"These individuals came all the way from Southeast Texas to protest the excessive spending and growing government intrusion by the 111th Congress and the new Obama administration," Brady wrote. "These participants, whose tax dollars were used to create and maintain this public transit system, were frustrated and disappointed that our nation's capital did not make a great effort to simply provide a basic level of transit for them."

A spokesman for Brady says that "there weren't enough cars and there weren't enough trains."

He concludes that it "appears that Metro added no additional capacity to its regular weekend schedule."

Oh, boo HOO! Yes, the city should have turned itself inside out for them!! And why didn't the government spend more money to accommodate them as they were coming down to protest excessive government spending!?! It must be a conspiracy...
Because, of course it isn't possible that folks from Southeast Texas forgot to consider that a city hosting an event might be...crowded?
"Maybe we should leave for the Mall a little early..." "Nah, DC is lucky we're here! They'll do whatever is needed to make our visit better!" "Hey, this subway station is CROWDED!" "Everyone has signs, lawn chairs and coolers! It's hard to fit on the trains!" "We're going to be late!" "It's the city's fault! It's the PRESIDENT's fault!" "I bet they would have had more trains for a DEMOCRAT rally!" "That's it! I'm making another Nazi poster to show CNN! That'll show 'em!"
*sigh* Children.

Takin' Names...

2009-09-10T13:57:08Z

I teach a speech class, and the second day of class we cover Ethical Communication. Since listening is half of the communication process, Ethical Listening comprises half of the lesson. I try to make it clear - to be ethical you don't have to agree with the speaker, but you do have to show them the same respect you'd expect when you give a speech (there's a lot more to it than that, but that's one of the underscored points). In my class, individuals who don't listen respectfully to their classmates' speeches are asked to leave and they'll see their own speech grades deducted 20%. Listening is HALF of the communication process. If you don't listen, you can't learn. And you can't expect others to listen to you.
Joe Wilson is taking a lot of flack for his boorish behavior last night, and he should be. Shouting like a buffoon at the President of the United States who was a guest on the floor of the House of Representatives was a new and shocking low, and it needs to be admonished swiftly. I don't care if he gave a non-apology apology. He behaved like a three year old and should be put in time out (by "time out" I mean his website which is still down, and his career which is looking shaky now that his outburst is raising funds for his opponent).
But, Joe Wilson ended up being the scapegoat for a lot of bad Republican behavior. There were other things shouted last night - mostly indistinguishable because the instigators waited for applause (unlike Wilson who interrupted the president with his name-calling). Others held up signs and bills like opposing fans at a baseball game. Eric Cantor - poster child for disengaged from reality now that W is retired - spent the speech playing on his Blackberry (Tetris, maybe?). If Cantor had been in my class, he would have been kicked out immediately for his inattention, and I guarantee you none of my freshmen speak like President Obama. Feigning attention shouldn't be that hard.
Altogether, their behavior is deplorable in any public speaking setting, doubly so because they are elected representatives listening to the President. You hear that, South Carolina? Joe Wilson's behavior represented YOU. YOU disgraced yourself in front of the President because you elected this joker to speak for you in DC.
So, while Wilson's site is out of commission, I want the names of the other Congresspeople who were disrespectful to the President. I want them to share in the disgust I've been channeling at Rep. Wilson. They too need to be put in time out. For now, that will mean their websites, but hopefully in the future that will mean early retirement. If you recognize some of the faces, please post their names below, and help me in carpetbombing their offices with our discontent.

I Heart Al Franken

2009-09-04T21:33:23Z

Finally, someone from the gov't who can speak rationally and honestly about Health Care

So...where's the junior senator from NY?

2009-01-05T17:25:51Z

If the Senate's swearing in this week, doesn't Patterson have to get going on his appointment? Wouldn't his appointee need to, you know, find a place to live and get started? What's the hold up? Is he lost on the SNL set, or something? Just curious.

Roland Burris! Huh.

2008-12-30T20:03:02Z

Okay I'm mixed on this one. On one hand, Blagojevich is psycho. I've never wanted him for governor and only voted for him in the general election because the Republicans didn't have anyone better. And, yeah he's under indictment and pretty crooked. Not a good guy.

But, I don't want that senate seat to go vacant. In his press conference today Blago pointed out that we're entitled to representation and I personally don't want to be underrepresented while the state either a) fights over who gets to make the appointment if Blago can't or b) spends way too much money on a special election that will leave us without a senator for the few months it will take to get one set up. And for those of you who think option a) is a good idea then I would ask you - do you really think the people leveraging for the power to appoint or receive the appointment are any less corrupt? Certainly they are not, they're just more subtle about it.

And here's where it gets murkier - I kind of like Burris. I think he'd be a good senator. I've actually voted for him in a few primaries (including 2002 when he ran against Blago). He's done a good job, and unlike most of the representation we get to D.C., he's from downstate, not Chicago. It is HARD for a politician from downstate to achieve a statewide office because of the close-knit Chicago machine and the expense of running ads in the Chicago media market. This is pretty much the only way a dude from downstate can get spot as a US senator in Illinois.

That said, this press conference is a joke and Burris, despite his resume, doesn't seem prepared for the spotlight he's been pushed into (and what's with Bobby Rush rushing the stage?!?). I also would like to know more about the campaign contributions Burris' firm made to Blago.

However, I sincerely hope Harry Reid does ONE thing right and does not dismiss Burris out of hand because of Blago - that would be doing the people of Illinois a big (and expensive) disservice.

Back at Home!

2008-12-29T02:13:16Z

Thanks for the good wishes - we "survived" O'Hare and are now back at home. Sadly, we never made it to our destination, but we were able to get easy seats back to our home airport. So, here we are, a little defeated but safe and sound. On the upside, we were able to host an impromptu holiday dinner for some friends last night, and had a wonderful time.

Anyway, the whole experience gave me a renewed appreciation for all the "families" we have - the ones we came from who called often to cheer us up at the airport, the new one we are forging in our first year of marriage, the friends who met us at home with re-gifted gifts and a bottle of booze and let us thank them with a delicious dinner the following night, and my "virtual" family whose posts were definitely entertaining and thought provoking and whose comments to my post were encouraging and funny.

Many thanks to you and my best to Quinn. I hope you made it home safe and sound too.

Next battle is to get a refund from United...and I hear that despite promises by their call center that's much easier said than done. Whee!

Merry Christmas from Gate B10!

2008-12-25T19:49:50Z

If you've been following the news you (may) know that O'Hare airport is still a delayed mess after the storms earlier this week. And I should know, because I've been here for a day and a half! Yay! Unfortunately, I'd be on Southwest except it flies out of Midway and doesn't have any commuter lines from the boondocks town I live in (and flying United seemed easier than driving the two hours to Midway - a mistake I'll never make again!).

Anyway, I finally vulture-stalked my way towards a seat with an outlet which is how I was able to log in to say hi. I see other vultures watching to see if I'm leaving soon...guess they're in for a bit of a disappointment. Haha!

So, hello and Merry Christmas! I hope it is warm, cozy and mood-lit (unlike this terminal)! If you wouldn't mind posting your favorite airline horror story I'd love to hear it - after the last couple of days it would be comforting to know that this isn't the WORST it could get :)

And, i any of you are United employees can you please explain why United only has THREE flights to our destination today when Southwest has ELEVEN (and is cheaper and doesn't charge bag fees)? Sorry, don't mean to be grumbly. Merry Christmas, and good wishes to the sweet maintenance guy who brought gifts for the little kids in our gate area...it's the only thing that has felt Christmas-y since I've been here!

A Little bit of Hope for the Holidays

2008-12-24T14:46:38Z

This story made me weepy. Back in October, Archway cookies shuttered a plant in a small town in Ohio without warning. About 300 people suddenly lost their jobs, and none of them ever expected to work at the plant again.

Then, Lance cookies bought the plant and started to reopen it. Right now, about 60 employees are back at work, and the new owners expect to bring everyone back soon.

The part that made me cry, though, was this:

When it promised to reopen the bakery, Lance gave all 300 former Archway workers a $1,500 prepaid debit card.

So, even with companies using the lousy economy as an excuse to give the shaft to employees and customers who have supported them for years, there's at least ONE company that is run by decent human beings. I plan to go find some Lance products for our Christmas stockings and I hope everyone else will support this responsible employer.

If any of you know of or work for companies that have been behaving decently in this rough time please post them here - they deserve our dollars!

The choice of Warren should not be a surprise (and we should try not to take offense)

2008-12-23T15:05:42Z

This debate about Rick Warren at Obama's swearing in ceremony has been interesting to read and I'm in the unusual position of seeing both sides (unusual for me, I mean). On one hand I absolutely see where Loki (here and here) is coming from and feel that the choice of Warren so soon after the passage of Prop 8 was a lemony-salt mixture in an open wound to the very people who did the grunt work to get Obama elected. On the other hand I also agree with Stillidealistic (here) that anger and hatred won't get us far - we need to find some common ground in order to make progress.

What intrigues me is that folks who have supported Obama and voted Obama (and say they know his platform well) are surprised by his choice of Warren. Maybe they are truly surprised that the PR-savvy campaign chose the guy who lead the Prop 8 movement, but if we take Prop 8 out of it, there really shouldn't be any surprise whatsoever. Back at the Saddleback-hosted forum I predicted Warren would speak at the Inaugural (and my husband chided me for jinxing the election...proof positive that there's no such thing as jinxes).

Back in 2006, then-Senator Obama gave the keynote address to the Sojourners Call to Renewal convention. At the time I subscribed to the Senator's podcast, and as much as I've been a junky for his rhetoric since well before the DNC keynote in 2004, this speech in particular left me speechless. I can't put a single adjective to the mixture of emotions it made me feel, but I did appreciate his candor, reasonableness and conviction.

Before I go any further, I should stress that I am not religious. I am sort of spiritual in the superstitious way that Catholic-school alumni can be. I was trained in the catechism but do not trust organized religion and its politics. And, while I have a respect for intelligent people of faith and spiritualism I have NO respect for people who use religion as an excuse to be ignorant, horrible and hateful to others.

Obama's speech in 2006 addressed that dichotomy (spirituality and reason) and described the personal fulfillment of faith, that spirituality can move people in beautiful ways and to do good works. But, he calls out to both atheistic/agnostic progressives and religious conservatives to recognize the truth and good in what the other side is arguing and has to offer.

He praises both sides for their efforts and good intentions, but calls them both out for extremism and unwillingness to try to see the other side's point of view.

For example, He cites Rick Warren by name as a religious leader who is involved in aid projects for causes that are underfunded by the government, but also calls out that group of leaders for not recognizing that social policy cannot be premised by religious teachings because we are a pluralistic society and our laws must be universalized for the common good.

Ultimately Obama argues:

So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.

I think what a lot of us forget is that when we fell for Obama's dreamy spell of Hope, he is that he was offering attempts to bring both sides together and foster a "purple" country, not a promise to only promote OUR side of every issue. After the "so what?" attitudes of our current President and Vice President to anyone who isn't in the "conservative base" it's hard not to want someone who will give the conservatives the "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" and uber-liberal policies they so richly deserve. But, that's not how Obama defined himself and is not what he promised.

In a world of black-and-white stances on the issues, Obama is trying to take a measured, reasonable, gray approach...and in the end I think it's refreshing to have a politician with maturity who is trying to make this country a better place.

Anyway, the speech text is available here - I recommend that everyone read it, because it's a pretty clear and eloquent take on Obama's perspective.

Credit Card Reform in the Works?

2008-12-17T14:26:18Z

I don't know how I missed this (although most of my research has been in balance chasing), but it looks like the Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision, and the NCUA are voting tomorrow on some major credit reforms including:

Prohibiting credit cards from raising interest rates unless the cardholder is more than 30 days late.
Change how banks are allowed to apply payments when there are two APRs on the account (paying the higher APR balance first)
Banning "universal default" interest rate hikes
Banning "double-cycle" billing.
Prohibiting companies from charging fees or overdraft protection unless customers are given the chance to opt out (WaPo makes it sound like this last one won't pass).

It's about time, and I really hope these pass! I haven't found a recommended timeline for implementation, but if the Fed is willing to drop interest rates like they did yesterday then maybe there's hope. It makes sense - if we're not being hamstrung on interest rates, then maybe we'll spend more money.

Of course there's always the possibility that chasing down balances will become more common as lenders, now unable to hike up interest rates, try to dump higher-risk customers from their books.

On the surface that doesn't sound like a bad idea - if you can't afford high balances, then maybe you shouldn't have one - but the fact is, credit companies are improperly profiling people when deciding who to chase down. If you live in an area with a lot of foreclosures, if you work in an industry with a lot of lay-offs, if you start charging small things like coffee or groceries, or if you make unusual charges like to a therapist or marriage counselor (indicating that your life circumstances have changed), you can see your limit lowered to just above your existing balance. Then the domino effect: your debt to credit ratio goes up, your FICO score goes down, and your interest rates across the board go up.

So, while the reforms on the table are outstanding, I would like to see this last practice addressed as well.

I hope American Express shrivels up and dies

2008-11-20T17:14:55Z

So I got an email from American Express today. It's the second one in two months where they tell me (without providing a reason) that I'm going to get a spending limit decrease.

When I called American Express for the second time to explain why that's a bad idea (it will destroy my debt to credit ratio, which will destroy my credit score, which will cause an interest rate hike on my Visa, which means I can't spend any more money with Am Ex, which means they'll be losing money on me over time - especially when I pay off and close the darn account) I was told that I wasn't alone. In fact (according to the lady I spoke with), eighty-nine percent of cardholders have received similar limit reductions including my service representative (who claimed to have had 4 AmEx cards since 1991) and her supervisor.

]]> Does anyone else see this as corporate suicide? I don't run a large balance, I always pay my card on time and as close to "in full" as I can each month. Why would they choke off the source of reliable revenue they have in me when I have steady employment (I have tenure...how much steadier can you get in this economy?).

As I watched Congress grill the execs from the Big 3 yesterday, I couldn't help but wonder, "why aren't financial companies getting the same public grilling for poor business practices?" And I don't mean the yahoos who created the real estate mess, I mean the yahoos who are running the credit card system in a bassakwards way. How can they hope to stay in business when they 1) issue cards to people who don't have money to repay, 2) charge those same poor people insane interest rates so they really can't ever pay, and 3) punish the customers who HAVE means and HAVE been responsible with higher rates and decreased limits which makes it harder to be a good customer?

The evidence of this stupid view on customer service is evident in the increase of delinquencies they've experienced in the past few months: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a.SS7_usmSqk&refer=us

Forget reliable and responsible corporate policy. Instead, keep giving away money to stupid causes (or at least causes that aren't really necessary just now), and make your loyal customers PRAY for you to go out of business.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20081120005209&newsLang=en

Here's the plan for them to get away with maintaining their boneheaded operation: Become a bank holding company so they can get a chunk of the free money Congress is handing out. That way they can dump on their customers and still enjoy business as usual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/business/11amex.html?_r=1&em

I'll bet AmEx executives are still enjoying THEIR private fleet of jets because no one has been grilling them on their shoddy business model.

So, here's what I plan to do: pay off the card and never use it. I reap the benefits of available credit and they do not get another penny from me. I don't care about offers of low rates, miles, whatever. Screw them. I hope they all go out of business.

Moreover, I'm writing letters to my legislative reps demanding that they call AmEX on the carpet for this mess. If that 89% number is correct, then clearly I'm not the only one dealing with this. I can afford to pay the balance on my card quickly, but this will definitely put an unnecessary squeeze on families who CAN'T pay it off quickly, and use their cards to make it to the next payday. This is insane, and if they expect to get their hands on bailout cash, it should come with an opening of their books and minimum customer service standards.

Anyone else have this problem or ideas on how to deal with it?? I swear I've never felt so angry or powerless as I did while that rep spent ten minutes tell me about how AmEx screwed HER over...

Republicans need their mamas

2008-09-30T13:51:27Z

It sure does seem like Republicans have lost their rhetorical touch. It's irrelevant to argue whether or not Pelosi was the reason why their voting bloc disappeared - the fact that they cited this as THE reason is really pathetic. "The lady was MEAN! She hurt our feelings! We don't care if it costs the country $1 Trillion dollars [the amount Bush said we lost on Wall St. yesterday]...she needs to be NICE to us! Don't say WE screwed it up...we need to be re-elected!"

This is a rationale for voting for Homecoming court (and maybe Prom Queen if the b*tch stole your boyfriend, too), NOT a bill.

I wonder if they actually READ it? They couldn't find ONE clause in the bill that would kill it and use that as a reason? They had to use meanness as an excuse?

You'd think grown ups could swallow their pride in the name of getting the job done...it would have made for a (comparatively) stronger press conference if they'd voted for it and THEN said, "we're better people than mean old Pelosi."

Side note: Anyone else notice that it's nearly impossible to send the House an email right now? I think the server's flooded...

They just don't GET it.

2008-09-05T14:47:09Z

Okay, I was prepared for a vicious series of RNC speeches. Republicans attack...that's what they do...and they do it fiercely when they're losing.

I figured they would fail to roll out a real agenda - despite the pressure they put on Obama to do just that - because all that "policy" and all those "details" stink of elitist intellectualism, and don't boil down nicely into 10-word-answers and slogans.

So, based on who they are, the bar was set really low. I was curious to see what they did with their "Service" theme, and as usual, they seem to think the only real way to "serve" is in the military. Big surprise.

But then Palin made the crack about community organizers and I wanted to vomit. They want small government. They want to cut funding for social programs. They think the people and the markets should take care of themselves. AND THEN THEY DENIGRATE THE VERY PEOPLE WHO TRY TO DO THAT.

McCain urged his audience to "stand up and fight for your childrens' future," but what he didn't say is that everyone should only look out for their own; once you try to organize a community, suddenly you're a second class citizen.

So, while the Republicans were failing to roll out an agenda to talk about how can improve, say, public schools, Reverend Meeks in Chicago was rolling out a city-wide boycott of the Chicago Public Schools to protest inequities in school funding. He took 2000 children and parents to attend classes on the lawns of schools like New Trier (a very well funded suburban school). Then he took them to corporations in the Chicago Loop highlight the issue to businesspeople (and to show the students what a good education could get them). Teachers conducted classes in lobbies and hallways (and on the tv news they said the conditions in the hallway were better than their classrooms). All of this was organized and executed in the name of helping all students get a quality education.

The system is broken and unequal, but the problem of our school system not only doesn't merit a bullet point in ANY Republican speech, they take it upon themselves to MOCK the people who are actually trying to fix it.

No, Governor Palin - Community Organizers are not assigned specific "responsibilities." That's because they are VOLUNTEERING to do the work you don't want to bother with. They take the responsibility on themselves, they aren't assigned to it. Dr. King was a community organizer. Are you trying to tell me that his work was useless because he wasn't told what to do? Because he wasn't paid for it?

There are real people in this country who are working their hearts out for NOTHING (or next to nothing), to clean up the messes made by our Republican government while the folks who were ASSIGNED to do this work were sitting around, stealing, lying, picking up cops in bathrooms, firing their brothers-in-law, sending troops into stupid wars, and misspending our tax money. Yes, we should ABSOLUTELY mock these people for all that they do. That's definitely the MORAL choice. Thank you so much for making that clear for all of us.

They just don't get it.

Awesome poll interp site

2008-08-25T13:28:02Z

I was going to post this in response to Desidero on a different thread, but figured I could just share w/ the whole class!

There's a freaky blog up by Nate Silver (for baseball nuts he's the one with the PECOTA algorithm that predicts player and team performance with scary accuracy). Silver's algorithm also predicted primary results down to the percentage split. Anyway, it seems that polls are good predictors when you pull vast quantities of data from the right responses, combine them with demographic data and voting patterns from past elections and monitor them over the long term - very cool!

I call shenanigans!!

2008-08-25T06:27:28Z

I heard this as an aside on CNN and it turns out it's true. Florida and Michigan had their full votes reinstated. And Florida got front row seating (couldn't tell if Michigan also got princess treatment).

WTF?

Why did the DNC put us through all these shenanigans if they were going to just give them full-seating later? And, what does this say to the leaders of those states who created the shenanigans in the first place (especially since Michigan in particular has made primary-jumping a habit)? Hold out long enough and you'll get your way? What a crock!

And...in the interest of full-disclosure, I've been an Obama supporter since he was in the Illinois legislature. At the time, I thought the outcome of the DNC meeting earlier this summer was fair. But, right now I can't help but feel Sen. Clinton got screwed with her pants on. Why take away a chance to continue only to hand it back when it's too late? Does this open a back door for the Clintons?

Sorry for the rant...but, it's late, I haven't posted in nearly two months and I feel compelled to call SHENANIGANS!

I still like Obama...not sure about the Party, though.