IN DEFENSE OF LOCAL NEWSPAPERS

I have wanted to convey my thoughts on small town newspapers in general and the Observer Reporter (O-R) in particular for some time.  The topic didn’t percolate to the top of my list until the Facebook posts of a local politician and his cronies caught my eye.  The posts painted the O-R as biased, inaccurate and to coin a phrase: “not worth the paper it is printed on.”  This attitude struck me as immature and shortsighted at best.  At worst and by all appearances an accurate conclusion, this position smacks of another example of the misplaced conservative cultural revolution.  The self serving individual voice is more important and accurate than the journalistic voice, representing the community as a whole.

No one would argue that the O-R prints typos and occasional inaccuracies.  When I first came to Washington my wallet was stolen at the Cameron Wellness Center.  By the time the police report was documented in the paper, my twenty dollar loss had grown to a two thousand dollar theft.  Some of my new friends in Washington thought I was wealthy.  The others thought I must be a drug dealer.  In either case I had a new found notoriety.

Humor aside, what is amazing to me about the O-R is not the number of misprints, but rather the high quality of local journalism that is published, day in and day out, seven days a week, both in print and on the internet.  Fact checking and proof reading are expensive and time consuming endeavors which involve a cost benefit analysis.  Do we want all of the local news, published timely, or a mistake free publication that is shadow of the present newspaper. 

I do not believe the readers of the O-R are primarily seeking investigative reporting, in depth analysis of national and world events, or Pulitzer Prize winning journalism.  Although some of this material is available to O-R readers through the wire services, there are hundreds of news sources for this type of reporting.  O-R readers want to know what they can find nowhere else. They are interested in who died, who graduated, who got engaged and who was arrested, along with the other vicissitudes of life that reflect the character and personality of Washington and Greene Counties.  They want Editorials that impact them directly.  Leave it to other sources to scope the newest Lindsay Lohan crisis. O-R readers want to know the latest crisis facing Washington parking meters.

I have no idea what the business model of the Observer Reporter calls for in the long run.  I do know that small town and local newspapers are a dying breed because the cost structure of many publications is not sustainable.  Print advertising has plummeted.  Internet access is free of charge.  Young people do not purchase subscriptions.  I will go on record as saying that the O-R is important to my daily socialization, typos and all.  I would gladly pay an increased subscription rate or internet access fee to keep the paper viable.

Lastly, I will return to our friends on Facebook.  I pray to the Gods of Journalism that there never comes a time when the O-R building becomes a tattoo parlor and I must rely on social networking for my local news. Politicians and other hyper active types on social media, who push their individual self serving agendas, with a chorus of believers, are a frightening proposition.  This is particularly so when they attack the local newspaper.  They forward the neo con agenda of individual rights and opinions at the expense of society as a whole. “Listen to my version of events because the media is biased.”

Consider a public meeting in Washington. No one would have the time or patience to review the tweeter feeds of the Mayor, the members of counsel, the speakers, the solicitor and all the involved family members to understand what happened.  That is why we have journalists.   A good newspaper, and the O-R is a good newspaper, presents fair reporting with opinion representing all points of view.  It represents all of us, every day.

UNEMPLOYMENT & DEFICIT REDUCTION

The Republican leadership is counting on unsophisticated citizens and those who dislike the President on any account, to swallow the tea party/conservative economic fantasy that somehow unemployment and deficit reduction spring from the same set of problems and require the same solutions.  Of course this is nonsense.  The dilemma has always been that lowering unemployment requires more borrowing, lending and spending to jump start the economy.  Attacking the deficit requires the opposite.

Jobs are created through economic growth and demand for goods.  Balancing the federal budget, without raising taxes on wealthier Americans, requires the draconian cutting of federal entitlement programs and employment initiatives to the middle class and poorest of Americans. This makes less money available to grow the economy and impossible to increase the demand for goods. 

One recent example of this  point is that without the payroll tax cuts to the working poor and middle class and the extension of unemployment insurance negotiated by Congress last autumn, we would likely be facing a double dip recession.  Without these deficit increasing policies in place over the last 10 months (agreed to by republicans) there would have been inadequate individual cash flow to keep the economy moving.  To grow jobs you must grow demand by putting disposable income in the pockets of the unwashed majority.

Accordingly, it is irresponsible if not ludicrous to talk about cutting the unemployment rate and reducing the deficit through cutting entitlement programs in the same breath.  Any politician who claims to “have a plan” to do both “with the same policies” is either uninformed or untruthful, or both.  If Grandma cannot get her medicine under Medicare, she will not be shopping at Wal-Mart or buying graduation gifts for her grandchildren.

My view is that the Republican agenda is to lower the deficit on the backs of our less fortunate citizens by giving lip service to unemployment and to blame Obama for both spending too much and keeping unemployment too high.  Hopefully, the well informed independent voters who will ultimately be called upon to reelect our President will see through this voodoo economic fallacy.

.

TEA PARTY MEMBERS ARE SELECTIVE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS

I have a new definition for tea party members. One who uses this title: “is a selective social democrat who believes the individual and the family are paramount to society as a whole unless a certain public policy or program benefits them or their family.”  Under this definition, ethanol subsidies are wrong unless the tea party member is an Iowa farmer. Support for higher education is an affront unless there is a student who needs it.  Universal health care is an abomination unless the bread winner is out of work and without health care.  Medicaid is socialism for the poor unless a close relative suffers from a severe handicap.  We can do without the Post Office unless the family’s small business needs 6 days of postal service.  Extended benefits for veterans are a governmental handout, unless a son or daughter is returning from Afghanistan.

            Of course, it is laughable to believe that an individual can cherry pick their political and moral beliefs.  But it is also human nature.  Unless confronted with a threat to their security and well being, people chose the easier and softer way.  Nancy Regan was a strong opponent to stem cell research until her husband suffered from Alzheimer’s. Dick Cheney had no kind words for homosexuals until his daughter announced her sexual preference. Many an NRA member renounced their membership, only after a senseless act of gun violence close to home.

            Our country faces many tough decisions in the coming months.  The budget debate and the fate of our less fortunate citizens should not be a “show down at high noon”, but rather a rational discussion about priorities.  We must let our political leaders know that we reject the nihilistic individualism of the far right, which in the final analysis, very few citizens actually want or believe in.

I just finished "Ill Fares The Land" written by the historian and political philosopher Tony Judt, shortly before his death this year. A powerhouse polemic on social democracy. "Social democrats beleive that the state can play an enhanced role in our lives without threatening our liberties."  Highly recommended

SIXTY IS THE NEW EIGHTEEN

As I get ready to turn 60 in a few months, it is gratifying to read that this landmark is considered by some sociologists as the new adolescence. If 50 is the new 30, than 60 is the new 18.  We boomers have an added 30 years to our lives compared with our ancestors in 1900.  We don’t feel old and are ready for liberation and growth. Similar to our adolescence, we have cut the ties that bind us.  Free from children, jobs and the other socially constricting realities of middle age, we are ready to kick up our heels and make a difference. 

 Recently I have been reflecting on those events that were most transformative in my life.  The important ones seem to be centered on the time I was a young adult, moving away from my childhood toward career and family.  At 17 I graduated from high school.  That summer I attended Woodstock.  For better or worse, sex, drugs and rock and roll, shared by 500,000 kindred souls over 3 days was transformative. The power of youth to change the world was everywhere.  In college I would attend the DC marches, the Bobby Seale rally in New Haven, campaign for McGovern. The first time I was tear gassed by my government was transformative.  Seeing the father of my high school friends, David Dellinger, put on trial with the Chicago 7 was transformative.  Maybe I could live my life as a social activist.

 The parallels with the recent Arab Spring were overwhelming to me as the power of organized, idealistic youth took to the streets to begin the messy business of democracy.  Let us not forget that the Freedom Riders in Alabama and Mississippi, well before my time, and the students at Kent State, suffered more injuries and deaths than the young protestors on Tahrir Square.

Other adolescent transformations for me were more mundane.  My first day at that small liberal arts college, where every freshman seemed smarter and more self assured, taught me that the world was not only a big place, but a tough place to make your way.  There was much to learn.  The basics of science, history, theology, economics, sociology, political science, philosophy, art history at first seemed so abstract.  Later these disciplines would become clear, overlap and give me transformative ways to see the world.  Lastly, travel as a young student was a transforming experience.  To interact with other cultures, where families sometimes survived on a dollar a day gave me a new prospective.  The American way was not the only way.  The world economy was out of whack.

I know now, that my own transformation was more assured than the transformation of society as a whole.  Liberal boomers in the late 60s and 70s got a lot of things wrong.  Our views on sexual liberation fed the Aids epidemic and encouraged the trend toward single mothers.  Our views on drug experimentation fed the crack epidemic among the poor families we were trying to help.  Our views on communism did not differentiate between the menace of totalitarianism and the promise of social democracy.

            Of course we also got some things right.  I believe that by scrambling some eggs in our youth, the Obama presidency was made possible.  I further believe liberal boomers set the stage for racial, social, gender and sexual equality.

By 1980, the transformation of many liberal boomers, were youthful memories.  The liberal arts educations gave way to focused professional careers in medicine, law, engineering and accounting.  We thought we could argue liberal issues at cocktail parties and vote our conscious to keep the flame alive.  In truth, families and careers became our concern, social climbing rather than social reform our responsibility.  There were few David Dellinger’s among us.

If the pundits are right and 60 is the new 18, bring it on. As long as we are willing to step back, consider the options and take some risks, our remaining years may be as individually transformative as our young adulthoods.  Now we actually have some knowledge and money to go with our exuberance.  We have time to read, learn and rediscover the world. We can live out every liberal boomer’s dream: to change the world a second time.

 Next year, Obama will need help getting reelected and I’ll be 61.  Just give me time to take a nap.

THE LIBRARY MAKES US A BETTER COMMUNITY

It is ironic that Citizens Library is in danger of closing its doors because the Washington and Trinity school districts may not provide their yearly stipend.  The school districts are already under water from the State budget.  This is like asking Social Security to save Medicare, or the City Mission to bail out public housing.

Whether the library closes or not, the fact we are having the discussion is pathetic.  Libraries are essential institutions in a democratic society because they play a non-partisan role in providing the information that allows all of our citizens, including the less fortunate, to make informed decisions.  Citizens Library is the heart of the sick entity known as the City of Washington.  Turn out the lights and the old lady sputters and maybe dies.

Washington County is experiencing an economic revival like few places in our country.  If the County government, private enterprise and our more affluent citizens cannot come up with $50,000.00, there is something wrong with our priorities.

JUSTICE FOR HEDGEHOGS

by Gary Stout

All of our elected officials (and most of the rest of us) should read JUSTICE FOR HEDGEHOGS by Ronald Dworkin. This philosophical essay starts from the premise that while the fox knows many things, the hedgehog knows one really big thing. In this remarkable book, the one big thing is what differentiates right from wrong. Dworkin develops a clear path, by explaining ethics, morality, freedom, liberty and equality. It is possible (actually it is mandatory) to live well and be good. One must know the rules.

· · Share · Delete