Political Wrath?

In an abrupt shift of tone, Barack Obama nixed his stump speech Monday and replaced it with a plea to his supporters to assist Gulf Coast residents who fled Hurricane Gustav.

“I had come here planning to talk about the contributions of the American worker,” Obama said at a Labor Day rally here, explaining the switch of plans. “My main goal today is to ask you to help. … I want everybody to remember there is a time for us to argue politics, but there is a time for us to come together as Americans.”

A day earlier, Obama was still ripping into Republican John McCain on the campaign trail. As late as Sunday night, in Battle Creek, Mich., Obama was giving his usual stump speech that includes digs at his rival.

The Republican National Committee, which had spent the day scaling back its convention schedule, quickly criticized Obama: “It’s unfortunate that Barack Obama is continuing to put politics first and attack John McCain and Sarah Palin. If a natural disaster is not enough to convince Obama to ease off the political attacks, then what is?”

The hurricane has forced the campaigns to weigh the political ramifications of natural disasters and to consider the appearances of remaining in full campaign mode while the Gulf Coast storm forces almost 2 million people to evacuate.Obama aides said the senator decided overnight to switch gears. He is keeping a full schedule Monday in Michigan and Wisconsin. But at each stop, he will ask supporters to contribute to the American Red Cross and other aid organizations.

At the rally here, he spoke for less than 10 minutes, about a quarter of the time he usually spends on stage. “Today is not a day for political speeches,” Obama said. Obama's campaign has been diligent about updating the press on his conversations with Louisiana and federal officials. He added another name to the list Monday: Herbie Johnson, deputy director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

"Sen. Obama was told that evacuation efforts are going well, although officials are still concerned about flooding and will not know the exact extent of the damage for several more hours," the campaign said in a statement.

So how do you think that a natural disaster like this will help or hurt either party?

Welcome Westerners

Welcome to the 3rd Floor! Now that you are here...a bit of bureaucracy.

We covered most of this in class but here are the steps you need to take to comment on a blog.

1) You must first create a username and password.
2) To create this, go to a blog and click on comment.
3) You will then click on "Sign Up Here" next to No Google Account?
4) Your user name will be your FIRST and LAST name along with your CLASS PERIOD #
5) When you comment, it will not show up until I approve it.

Remember, this is a forum for us to communicate on topics of the day. We do not have to agree with each others comments...but your comments must be in line with the student code of conduct that you all signed.
Have fun and welcome!

Happy Birthday Dad

Today would have been my dad's 77th birthday. He was a great man. He was a husband, a farmer, a deacon in the church, a Marine, a politician, a bull rider, 143 pounds of full West Texan. He died the summer before my freshman year of high school so I was not able to fully appreciate everything that he tried to teach me. Some lessons have been learned long after he was gone.
Bob Wills is one of them.
My dad loved Bob Wills. He would play this music all the time. When I was a kid, I was much more into "rock and roll" to appreciate the musicianship that Bob Wills represented. Talk about the Mozart of the 20th Century. He singlehandedly created a new form of music, baked in the hot panhandle dirt of Turkey, Texas. I'm glad I finally got it.
Thanks dad. For all of it.

Does food aid ease hunger, or cause it?

What happened
A group of African finance ministers said in a joint statement that soaring food prices threaten peace and economic growth across the continent. The World Bank estimates that food prices have jumped by 83 percent worldwide over the last three years, exposing 100 million poor people to the risk of starvation. (Kenya’s Daily Nation)

What the commentators said
The dramatic spike in prices for basic food staples has created “the worst hunger crisis in a generation,” said Mike King in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “The U.N.'s World Food Program budgeted $2.9 billion in 2008. But to conduct its feeding programs it needs an additional $755 million.” Emergency food aid won’t solve the problem for good, but it’s a necessary step.

President Bush has pledged $770 million for world food aid, said the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in an editorial, and “we’re pleased as punch” about that. But don’t forget that the money is being folded into Bush’s request to Congress for another $70 billion for the Iraq war. “What's interesting about these two requests is that they also show not only the priorities of our president, but the monetary cost of devastation versus humanitarian aid.”

Unfortunately, food aid, American-style, can have its own devastating effects, said Dr. Joia Mukherjee and Donna Barry in The Boston Globe (free registration). The U.S. has sent surplus grains, purchased from American farmers, into Haiti for years. All that did was drive down prices for locally grown rice and other grains, which was “disastrous for Haiti's small farmers, and resulted in dramatic decreases in local production of this staple.” Only by separating food aid from programs to subsidize U.S. farmers—sending money to buy food aid from local producers, say—can we really help those in need.

Handouts aren’t the answer, said Kim B. Staking in The Denver Post. Food prices will only continue to rise as consumption climbs in booming Asian economies, as energy costs soar, and as bad policies encourage the use of food to make fuel. The only way to help poor countries reduce the “risk of starvation” is to help them boost “local food production and income” using “technology and know-how.”

NMA

So I've been on a Southern Rock kick over the last year or so. I never grew up listening to some of the older bands but have recently gotten into some of the new crop of southern fried rock.

The following are the North Mississippi Allstars. On a hot sticky afternoon...you can almost see the kudzu hanging from the trees!

Psuedo

Politics, Pandering, and Policy at the Pump: Who Wins?

We've made it clear how we feel about the gas tax holiday being proposed by Sens. McCain and Clinton: It's a boondoggle.

Seemingly every economist in America agrees. But the economists are in the wrong subfield of punditry: they look at the relevant numbers, come to a conclusion, and viola — their moment in the spotlight is over. On the other hand, political analysts and campaign correspondents, unburdened by facts, can and have speculated for weeks about a question like which candidate the gas tax kerfuffle helps more. I've avoided entering this discussion, because the only way to comment seriously is to go to Indiana and North Carolina and conduct in-depth conversations with dozens of voters.

But what the heck.

There is some polling suggesting the universal condemnation the gas tax holiday has received from economists and editorialists has penetrated to the voters' level. Seventy percent of likely voters in a NYT/CBS poll say that politicians pushing the gas tax are doing so because it helps them politically. McCain's reputation for straight talk obviously inoculates him on this issue: 62 percent believe Hillary Clinton says what she thinks people what to hear, compared to 43 percent for Obama and 41 percent for McCain.

Obama has made hay out of the situation, hammering the idea that Clinton's willingness to pander on an issue as important as the energy crisis is emblematic of the race as a whole. The refrain is familiar by now: She is the same old politics, he represents a fresh start. She plays politics as a cynical game, he respects the voters' intelligence and speaks hard truths. Is it working? Who knows? But the fact that the situation fits perfectly into frames that the media has adopted (Clinton as untrustworthy and willing to say anything to win; Obama as elitist and out of touch with those all-important blue-collar voters), definitely helps keep the controversy alive.

Clinton is pushing hard on the issue. Her initial defense was that people are hurting and deserve whatever small relief the holiday affords. But over the weekend, she introduced for the first time the idea that she is proud not to have the experts' support. In a conference call on May 1, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said, "Sometimes the president will do things that the quote-unquote experts will agree with, and sometimes the president will do things that experts quote-unquote don't agree with." The comment was mocked in the press because of its similarity to the anti-science, anti-expert approach of the Bush Administration (which edits global warming reports from government scientists, for example). But Clinton has embraced this know-nothingism. She is now saying that she is happy "elite opinion" isn't on her side, because "elite opinion" doesn't understand the plight of everyday working people.

And she's gone even further:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you name one economist, a credible economist who supports the suspension?
CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I think we've been for the last seven years seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion basically behind policies that haven't worked well for the middle class and hard-working Americans....
STEPHANOPOULOS: But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?
CLINTON: Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists, because I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.
Two obvious problems. First, the idea that the elite opinion opposing the gas tax holiday, which includes many liberal economists, is somehow the same elite opinion that has driven the domestic policies of the Bush Administration is a joke. In fact, it's insulting to voices on the left who use their expertise to serve progressive goals. The Clinton-friendly Paul Krugman has come out against the gas tax holiday — and he's been a passionate voice, indeed an elite voice, against the Bush tax cuts and other Bush Administration ideas that have helped to drive the economy into the ground these past eight years.

Second, the Bush Administration's problem isn't listening to elite opinion. It is the opposite — the Administration is driven by ideology and heeds experts only when they confirm previously held beliefs.

But slamming the elites, even the ones who are usually on your side, is a perfectly acceptable move in American politics. If Clinton went out tomorrow and slammed small-town Americans as an undifferentiated group, she be absolutely massacred. But economists are not a beloved bunch in Indiana and North Carolina, and they can be thrown under the bus in pursuit of a few extra delegates.

All of that said, Obama probably wins on the gas tax holiday for a far simpler reason: It takes Jeremiah Wright off the front pages. The fact that the talking heads on TV, the newspaper columnists, bloggers like me, and the candidates themselves are discussing something else — and a policy matter at that! — is a victory for Obama. But the fact that many Americans now think a gas tax holiday is a worthwhile part of America's approach to the energy crisis means that serious solutions on climate change are the likely loser.