Ron Brownstein is the latest to take up the "What's the matter with Obama's parroting of What's The Matter With Kansas" topic, following Paul Krugman and Prof. Bartels.
But Obama’s words are worth scrutinizing because they reflect a bedrock belief on the left, the conviction that Republicans have seduced blue-collar whites by diverting their focus from economic issues toward the emotional social issues that Obama cited. That perspective reached its apotheosis in "What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America," the 2004 best-seller by Thomas Frank that portrayed Republican blue-collar gains as a form of mass “derangement” driven by the “hallucinatory appeal” of “cultural wedge issues like guns and abortion.” Physically, Obama was in California when he described the working-class as “bitter,” but mentally he was in Frank’s Kansas.
...Most important, the idea that working-class people have been uniquely bamboozled to vote on their cultural affinities rather than their economic status ignores the parallel change at the top of the income ladder. As Obama might have noticed in San Francisco, a growing number of upper-income and well-educated Americans are also voting against their “class interests,” preferring Democrats even though the party routinely supports raising taxes on top earners. In presidential elections from 1960 through 1972, Democrats won, on average, only 37 percent of the votes of white college graduates. Since 1992, they have won an average of 47 percent. Those voters (especially the ones with graduate degrees) have trended Democratic largely because they hold liberal positions on the same social and foreign-policy issues that helped Republicans crack the working class. Culture is replacing class as the glue of both parties’ coalitions.
That is all very well, but I am going to take a bold step in a brand new direction and offer the notion that working class Americans aren't idiots. People who wonder where the Democratic vision of prosperity through higher taxes and stricter regulation would take us need look no further than Europe. And I will echo Michelle Obama by saying that in my adult lifetime I have never been proud of Europe's ability to create jobs or absorb immigrants.
Even today (OK, as of 2006, following the 2004 bamboozlement), their employment and growth statistics lag the US. Higher unemployment rates, lower employment rates, lower employment growth, lower GDP growth - why should American workers, or anyone else, believe that America can tax and regulate its way to growth when Europe's decades long experiment has failed to do so?
A 2008 employment report shows that the European employment rate is now 66%; their unemployment rate has dropped to levels not seen since the early 1990's, plunging to 6.9%; this is in contrast with the current US rate of 5.1%.
A Puzzle I Can't Solve: The Euro report linked and copied here shows a US employment rate in the low 70's; the US statistics show an employment rate of 66%, which is at roughly the same level as the New Europe. Presumably the people who compile these Euro stats have their reasons, and are doing something to make the numbers comparable. Que pasa?
WELL, YES: This is the "What's the matter with Sweden?" argument that swirls through the net from time to time.
"In presidential elections from 1960 through 1972, Democrats won, on average, only 37 percent of the votes of white college graduates. Since 1992, they have won an average of 47 percent. Those voters (especially the ones with graduate degrees) have trended Democratic largely because they hold liberal positions on the same social and foreign-policy issues that helped Republicans crack the working class. Culture is replacing class as the glue of both parties’ coalitions."
Might I suggest another reason for the shift? The dumbing down of America's universities--from admissions to course work to grades and graduation figures.
When half literate people are admitted to college to major in auto education or area studies and graduate at half levels, you really mustn't expect them to exercise the same level of rational choice that grads use to when they had to be qualified to enter, do the work and majored in engineering/math/science/or liberal arts and social studies programs that were substantive.
As for "especially those with graduate degrees"--in a booming economy , what sort of folks stick around for graduate degrees, and did you notice--men are not-- at least not in the number women are?
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 09:59 AM
**and graduate at hIGH levels**
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 10:00 AM
"In presidential elections from 1960 through 1972, Democrats won, on average, only 37 percent of the votes of white college graduates. Since 1992, they have won an average of 47 percent. Those voters (especially the ones with graduate degrees) have trended Democratic..."
More education does not necessarily translate into more wealth. So when the author writes "Democrats even though the party routinely supports raising taxes on top earners" it isn't really supported.
Bush crushed Kerry at the upper incomes. $100k and up 58% Bush, 41% Kerry. $200k+ 63% Bush, 35% Kerry. But Kerry won the post-grad education 55% to 44%. So Kerry wins the Philosophy, African studies and Home economics grads and the unemployed/welfare folks while Bush wins the others.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Posted by: Bartels and James | April 19, 2008 at 10:35 AM
"Qu[e] pasa?"
The definition of the "civilian noninstitutional population" in the US includes everyone above 16 years old. That's the divisor used for the workforce participation rate of 66%. The EU report cited uses their definition of the population constituting the divisor:
(from Eurostat).Appples to apples comparison would require that the US divisor drop everyone above the age of 64 plus the 15 year olds. That would raise the US rate to 80%. Use the BLS stats here and the Census stats here to derive the numbers.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 19, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Bartles and James:
"So Kerry wins the Philosophy, African studies and Home economics grads and the unemployed/welfare folks while Bush wins the others."
You made my weekend.
Posted by: Scott Meyer | April 19, 2008 at 10:40 AM
"But Kerry won the post-grad education 55% to 44%. So Kerry wins the Philosophy, African studies and Home economics grads and the unemployed/welfare folks while Bush wins the others."
True, but the real kicker is the inclusion of teacher credentials as "post-grad". One might as well toss in UAW membership as post-grad. More material for a "How to Lie Using Statistics" course.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 19, 2008 at 10:45 AM
This is a bit of a mind bender for me. It seems that Thomas Franks created a false consciousness about the consciousness of working-class Americans.
Posted by: MikeS | April 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Excellent spadework Rick.
And in case any of our prog friends are reading that is not a coded reference to BO.
Posted by: Barney Frank | April 19, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Clarice, I watch your comments here with respect and, while not always agreeing 100%, can agree to disagree on the odd accasion. The denigration of "area studies" is however a recurring theme of yours and I'm a bit curious about that. As an example how does a "half literate" student cope with much less even graduate at "half levels" with becoming literate and conversationally capable in Japanese, Chinese or Korean. Language is just one component of the course work and the remainder at least as demanding (ok, that's moderately sarcastic ;-) as any liberal arts or social studies program - at least at those universities who are serious about these disciplines.
Posted by: George G | April 19, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Thanks Barney. I did screw up the percentage though - it's actually 76%. The 15 year olds have to be added rather than subtracted.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 19, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Why can't the progs understand that the rubes also find it in their economic interest that the country be defended?
Posted by: Chris | April 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Why can't the progs understand that the rubes also find it in their economic interest that the country be defended?
Because the progs can't understand why anyone would want AmeriKKKa defended.
Posted by: Barney Frank | April 19, 2008 at 11:28 AM
BF,
Good point.
Posted by: Chris | April 19, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Why can't the progs understand that the rubes also find it in their economic interest that the country be defended?
The progressives think the only significant threat to America is from within - from the neoconservatives, the Christianists, the right. The threat from abroad is minimal if not non-existent and is only used by the right to scare people into voting for them.
E.g., Keith Olbermann.
Posted by: SteveMG | April 19, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Rick,
Do you have to subtract armed services and 'employed' prisoners from the numerator and denominator and 'unemployed' prisoners from the denominator to translate from US to Euro statistics, or are they already taken out?
...auto studies...
My brother has a PhD in that. Oddly enough, he is an exemplar of your hypothesis, as he is no doubt one of the more liberal MechE professors at CalPoly-SLO. Though most of his colleagues with similar experience tend to sit on the right side of the aisle. (This may be related to the usually mandatory service in Detroit and environs.)
Posted by: Walter | April 19, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Walter,
I think both samples exclude prisoners and military and are measures of 'non institutional' and 'civilian' labor only.
might be interesting to see what effect public sector, either civilian or military, had on the stats.
Posted by: Barney Frank | April 19, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Thanks, George G--I am certain some area studies programs are substantive-- Most however--womens/hispanic/ black/native American etc-- are absurd pastiches of easy courses designed to provide employment for idiot leftists like Ward Churchill and celebs like Spike Lee while giving those improperly admitted something to do for a couple of years until they graduate and can get work in pet stores or as community organizers or holding womens workshops decrying the patriarchy.
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 12:06 PM
...teacher credentials..
My youngest brother finished his PhD in physics last May. He decided to teach at his old high school.
Public service, giving back, and all that. No problem, right? After all, he's been teaching sections for 18-year-olds for a few years--what's the difference with teaching 17-year-olds?
Turns out he needed to go back to school to get certified.
Blows me away that a person with an english degree and a year of 'knowledge aquisition theory' is allowed to teach physics but that he wasn't qualified.
In fact, because he used an accelerated qualification program, he is not allowed to teach calculus without additional schooling. No wonder why math and science are so difficult for our students to learn if the teachers have never used the subjects in their daily lives.
Posted by: Walter | April 19, 2008 at 12:10 PM
In DC you cannot teach physics in the high schools without getting credentials from the local college--one of the things you need to get certification for is teaching remedial English.
This, of course, is a national disgrace where local institutions gang up with local school boards and unions to keep employed everyone except those with the talent and drive to actually teach.
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Walter,
This is just one method that the educrat establishment uses to ensure that no one with actual knowledge (who might take issue with the agreed-upon pedagogy) enters the education field. If it is too much of a pain in the ass, the science Ph.D. will find better employment elsewhere, leaving a higher percentage of dupes for the ed schools/classrooms.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 19, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Clarice, I see we are on the same page. I also agree with your assessment of area studies (perhaps excluding languages, as George G pointed out). Essentially, area studies allows a student to go to college and major in himself.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 19, 2008 at 12:22 PM
As I read the chart, the "plunge" is to 7.9%.
Posted by: Barry | April 19, 2008 at 12:26 PM
A quick google yields a 1994 estimate of < 10% employed in US prisons. My quick back of the envelope calculation ((.1*2,000,000+1.00*2,000,000)/4,000,000) = 2.1/4 = 52.5% employment. Seems that including the excluded would bring the US closer to the Euro number.
Posted by: Walter | April 19, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Walter,
Barney is correct about prisoners. I'm not sure how the EU regards the military but the BLS A-1 table drops them from both sides of the equation. Why? It probably goes back to a definition that would regard the draft as "involuntary" employment.
The problem I have with the composition of the worker participation rate as published by the BLS is that the 66% figure leads people to believe that there is a pool of 34% of the population available for employment. T'ain't so. Trim out the over 65's,the full time students between the ages of 16 and 22 and 8,000,000 women who are expecting or caring for a child less than a year old and 66% becomes 90%. Then trim out the mentally deficient, the hopelessly addicted and the just plain unemployable - 4%/8% and the 'additional population available for employment' isn't very large at all.
We're actually in for a very interesting period if the Boomer/geezers hang it up at the "old" expected rate. The "new" expected rate is dependent upon observations made by the BLS during the '90's - when the tail of the cohort of those born just prior to or during the Depression reached retirement age. Now there's a real apples and oranges comparison.
I'm not betting on the Boomers staying on the treadmill. Contrary to leftist generated misconceptions, as a group they have stashed away more than enough to retire any time they choose.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Speaking of American universities, this is scary:
Harvard Goes Halal
Posted by: Ann | April 19, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Errata:
"knowledge acquisition theory"
"2.2/4 = 55%"
And that was with preview!
Posted by: Walter | April 19, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Clarice, I see we are on the same page. I also agree with your assessment of area studies (perhaps excluding languages, as George G pointed out). Essentially, area studies allows a student to go to college and major in himself...
uh huh. I'm glad nobody brought up student-athletes..esp. basketball players.. the graduation rate isn't that good.
going to the airport in 1 hour to see Jordan..Woo-hoo!!
Posted by: hoosierhoops | April 19, 2008 at 12:57 PM
If you haven't read Steyn today, it is a must read:
Mark Steyn: Guns and God? Hell, yes
Did you know that a writer for the London Daily Mirror said this in 2004:
"Were I a Kerry voter, though, I'd feel deep anger, not only at them returning Bush to power, but for allowing the outside world to lump us all into the same category of moronic muppets. The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', nonpassport ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest d*** in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong.'"
Posted by: Ann | April 19, 2008 at 01:02 PM
HH,
We will all be there with you.....Woo-hoo!!
Posted by: Ann | April 19, 2008 at 01:06 PM
Ann,
It probably doesn't come as a surprise to you that I'm in favor of teaching Islamic finance. After all, if we can't get them to invest here or hire us to invest for them there, how can we
fleeceprovide good service to them?If Harvard has only this year allowed people to postpone exams because of religious reasons, I'll eat my hat (And I have the hat to this day!).
The use of the profits to subsidize terrorism is wrong, but also illegal already. Are we really ready to make the argument that muslims may not earn money because some of them might spend it on bad things? Should we apply that reasoning to suburban kids and fast cars/smoking accessories?
The call to prayer? I am not so much in favor, but I seem to recall hearing church bells over the din in the Yard. It's hardly an establishment of one over the other. Harvard pretty long ago gave up any pretension that it is a religious institution. (Now, if BC went that way, I'd be a bit more excited).
My local church lets most within a half-mile know that services will start in 10 minutes so that we can make it there on time. (It then lets us know when the services start, so that we can feel guilty about being late--or smug about making it on time. I love my church.) I'm in no position to throw stones. So to speak.
Posted by: Walter | April 19, 2008 at 01:16 PM
Clarice, Thank you for expanding on the subject of "Area Studies" and appreciation also to Porchlight for chiming in. I'm on the other side of the world and, having digested both of your posts, it's obvious the definition of what constitutes these degree programs is different in the US. To the outsider they look much the same on the surface eg degrees from the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies are known heavy stuff and have been for almost a century while Latin American studies at Yale along with the Hispanic subset appear to be in the same league. The contamination caused by the examples you both cite must be very disappointing to the academics in the serious faculties.
Posted by: George G | April 19, 2008 at 01:34 PM
You're welcome, George. To have a better view of area studies here's the dope on aa professor at the U of Ariz Women's studies program:
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mirandaj/
Or you can read about Ward Chrchill--numbskull, liar about his background; lacking all academic credentials and known plagiariser.
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 01:43 PM
Several years ago the NYT Magazine had a story about Yale's admittance of the former spokesman for the Taliban. I'm sure the elites at both Yale and the NYT were flabbergasted when this news wasn't well-received among the unenlightened who took issue with Yale's welcoming someone from a regime whose many sins included denying education to females. My favorite quote was from the clueless Yale Admissions Office head:
"Richard Shaw said the admissions office had once had another foreigner of Rahmatullah's caliber apply for special-student status. "We lost him to Harvard," he says. "I didn't want that to happen again."'
Posted by: DebinNC | April 19, 2008 at 01:45 PM
I hadn't thought of it that way, George, but I'm sure that must be true. Thanks for pointing it out. As Clarice indicated, area studies in the US is unfortunately one of the least rigorous "discplines" in academia.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 19, 2008 at 02:15 PM
The contamination caused by the examples you both cite must be very disappointing to the academics in the serious faculties.
I can assure that on most campuses in the US any disappointed faculty will be encouraged and taught through various shunning and other penalties, not to vocalize any sort of disappointment or even to suggest that the programs become more rigorous. It is an apostacy that will be greeted with much more than stoney silence.
The reception that big liberal Lawrence Summers got when he strayed from the one true path is not lost on most academics who need the income.
Posted by: GMax | April 19, 2008 at 02:18 PM
porchlight: Essentially, area studies allows a student to go to college and major in himself.
ha! Perfect!
Posted by: MayBee | April 19, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Well, Obama likes some people who cling to guns:
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | April 19, 2008 at 02:35 PM
Speaking of clueless educrats:
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | April 19, 2008 at 02:43 PM
Barack Obama has daddy and abandonment issues that make Steven Spielberg look like he was raised by Ward Cleaver.
Pretty much every life choice he has ever made seems to have been guided by a desire to emulate a created image of a father he never knew.
That's harmless enough in a movie director, but it concerns me in a man who wants to be responsible for the safety of a country.
Posted by: richard mcenroe | April 19, 2008 at 03:14 PM
a self-confessed hip-hop and Jay-Z fan
This is one of the primary reasons to wake up at night and pray Obamessiah doesn't become POTUS: A President who confesses allegiance to the MTV culture of ignorance and coarseness.
If he is elected, we will truly have seen the final triumph of form over function.
Posted by: Soylent Red | April 19, 2008 at 03:26 PM
Actually Soylent, on that score I think he thinks that MTV culture is beneath him BUT like his membership in that goofy church,it fits. He's decided he has to play Black American sometime and MTV and Wright are how he sees that culture.
Frankly, I think he belongs nowhere exactly--as Spengler noted, he is really his mother's son, an anthropologist observing the natives.
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 03:41 PM
Nor was it supposed to be "lost".
Posted by: Barry | April 19, 2008 at 03:51 PM
I'd like to get a look at his iPod Clarice. You can tell a lot about a person by the music they listen to.
Probably his is a mixture of emo-weenie crap and Gil Scott Heron.
Posted by: Soylent Red | April 19, 2008 at 03:56 PM
I agree, Soylent. Gil Scott-Heron, LOL. But of course!
Meanwhile, on Bush's iPod (a couple of years ago)
Posted by: Porchlight | April 19, 2008 at 04:06 PM
Soylent..I want an IPOD but I've no idea how to program one. When you get here, I will feed you and in exchange you will help me pick out an IPod and show me how to download music to it.
Deal?
I'm a great cook.
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 04:32 PM
Rick,
A point about the DEms with grad degrees;over half are in ed or social work type degrees.These aren't "real' grad degrees in the sense of the recipients possessing more skills/knowledge or intellect than Bachelor's level folks
Posted by: corwin | April 19, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Roger that Clarice. I just made the switch over to iPod from another brand.
Now I'm straight crazy for the iPod.
Posted by: Soylent Red | April 19, 2008 at 04:52 PM
I know I'd be crazy for it, too,Soylent, if I could only figure it out. Then I could get docking stations for it here and my apt in Fla and have music wherever I want to.
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 05:01 PM
I'll tell you what's wrong with Sweden. They're clinging to their blondes and herring out of economic frustration.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | April 19, 2008 at 05:02 PM
For a meal from you clarice, I would be willing to fly out to DC to program your iPod. ;-)
Posted by: MayBee | April 19, 2008 at 05:04 PM
Clarice,
You are shameless when it comes to flirting with the great men here at JOM. But so am I ..............
Soylent,
If you are ever in Ohio, I have a saloon in the library, and an A 12 shotgun you can practice with on my shooting range. ::wink::
Posted by: Ann | April 19, 2008 at 05:17 PM
MayBee, you are welcome, too.
It's just that Soylent's about to be stationed here, which is why I thought of him first.
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 05:27 PM
George G
A year or so ago someone here posted a link to the excellent "Durham in Wonderland" blog. It was a listing of the 88 Duke Professors involved in the LaCrosse slander, and specifically what they were Professors of and what courses they taught. One taught Roman History, one taught I believe Econ, and a 3rd some basic Physics. The other 85 were entirely in the Artsy-fartsy agrieved social nonsense mode of Ward Churchill. Reading the list of courses they were planning to teach for the upcoming semester was simply frightening. I apologize for not knowing how to link to it, but if somehow out there could, I think it would well illustrate the chunk of academia that I believe Clarice is referring to.
Posted by: Daddy | April 19, 2008 at 05:30 PM
Here--though you'll have to search there for the particular post Daddy referenced.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 05:37 PM
I'll tell you what's wrong with Sweden. They're clinging to their blondes and herring out of economic frustration.
That excuse is as good as any.
As long as it works for the blondes.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 19, 2008 at 05:42 PM
Here--the group of 88 and their academic affiliations:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/FODU_Open_Board/index.php?s=0ebdf4a0b04224405ba64fa7eb5a25d5&showtopic=4&st=0&#entry2429674>Academic asses
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 05:43 PM
It's just that Soylent's about to be stationed here, which is why I thought of him first.
hah, you're sweet. I'm excited for you two to meet.
I do love it when you write about your cooking, though. You need your own show where you cook and discuss politics. When I own a network, I'm hiring you.
Posted by: MayBee | April 19, 2008 at 05:51 PM
Clarice,
I hope you know I was kidding and would love to know what your favorite cook book is.
MayBee, that is an excellent suggestion!
Posted by: Ann | April 19, 2008 at 06:04 PM
Harumph,
I can program an IPOD and cook. Come visit me.
Posted by: Jane | April 19, 2008 at 06:20 PM
Of course I can't write to save my life.
Posted by: Jane | April 19, 2008 at 06:25 PM
Thank you Clarice. That wasn't the exact link, as the specific courses they were teaching were a lot more revealing of their inanitities, but that'll point me back in the right direction.
Posted by: Daddy | April 19, 2008 at 06:54 PM
Didn't Obama's new pastor, Moss, claim that gangsta rap was a way for the "man" (scary quotes) to get blacks to kill each other?
Posted by: Sue | April 19, 2008 at 06:57 PM
Of course, I could be so out of touch with rap music that I don't realize Jay-Z is not considered gangsta rap. Anyone?
Posted by: Sue | April 19, 2008 at 07:04 PM
Moss:
Posted by: Sue | April 19, 2008 at 07:06 PM
Sorry. I forgot to close a tag. The following from above is my quote, not Moss's.
Again, I don't know the difference between Hip-Hop and Gangsta rap, except I love Snoop and DMX. So sue me!
Posted by: Sue | April 19, 2008 at 07:07 PM
Sue, I have no idea, I used to listen to rap quite a bit in college but totally stopped paying attention in the early 90s. (I still love those old early Public Enemy records though.)
Posted by: Porchlight | April 19, 2008 at 07:12 PM
Jay-z isn't gansta. Come on, he's married to Beyonce and she wouldn't marry a gangsta.
Jane- when I get my network, you'll do a cooking and snark show.
Posted by: MayBee | April 19, 2008 at 07:29 PM
According to Wiki, Public Enemy was not gangsta rap. I'm still looking to see if Jay-Z is considered gangsta.
Posted by: Sue | April 19, 2008 at 07:30 PM
I'm in MayBee.
I'm friends with a local guy who owns a local radio station. He's a Clinton/ Dukakis democrat. I'm trying to convince him to let me have a right wing radio show on his station. Of course I don't have a clue what to do if he says "yes".
Posted by: Jane | April 19, 2008 at 07:34 PM
Well, for what it's worth, googling Jay-Z and gangsta gets you http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jay-z+%2B+gangsta>this.
Posted by: Sue | April 19, 2008 at 07:38 PM
The name of one of his albums is American Gangster. Okay. I'm starting to not like my potential president listening to Jay-Z on his ipod.
Posted by: Sue | April 19, 2008 at 07:40 PM
Here's a review of American Gangster (the album Obama mentioned):
American Gangster
It appears to be a concept album, inspired by the film of the same name, where Jay-Z portrays the life of a Brooklyn gangsta. In other words, something of a put-on where Jay-Z can employ all the typical gangsta rap stereotypes yet claim distance because "he's only portraying a character." No wonder Obama likes it. ;)
Posted by: Porchlight | April 19, 2008 at 07:54 PM
Of course I don't have a clue what to do if he says "yes".
I am sure many of us would be happy to call in with pithy commentary.
Posted by: ben | April 19, 2008 at 07:56 PM
I'm trying to convince him to let me have a right wing radio show on his station. Of course I don't have a clue what to do if he says "yes".
You just plunge in! I have faith in you.
Just don't mud wrestle clarice on radio. Save that for tv.
Posted by: MayBee | April 19, 2008 at 07:58 PM
"Of course I don't have a clue what to do if he says "yes"."
Digging up JMH's political positioning chart might be a good start. I don't think you're very far out on that "right wing". I'd go for "just right" as more apt - Goldilocks (in the very best sense) rather than Goldwater.
Of course, I'm a moderate right winger myself. I slot right in between Scipio Africanus and Attila. That's the proper place for a Burkean with tendencies towards Oakeshott.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 19, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Jane,
I think you would be great on radio...really snark-a-licious!
Do you have a Boston accent?
Posted by: Ann | April 19, 2008 at 08:18 PM
Rick,
What is JMH's political positioning chart?
Posted by: Ann | April 19, 2008 at 08:20 PM
I have a friend who used to say he was to the right of Attila the Hun but to the left of Genghis Khan, whatever that meant.
Posted by: ben | April 19, 2008 at 08:22 PM
She already has her on-air personality name...Jane Bean!
Posted by: Sue | April 19, 2008 at 08:24 PM
Jane:
You should see if they have a public or community radio station. Usually they have slots open for volunteers to do shows, and you can get your FCC licensing through them as well, at no cost.
I did this when I was in college. Big fun and it didn't matter if you screwed up because no one was listening.
The other thing you could do right now, is do a podcast. Then you could hone your craft with the luxury of doing multiple takes. I'd subscribe.
Posted by: Soylent Red | April 19, 2008 at 08:29 PM
The proper term in the USA is Angry Studies.
==
BTW as a member of the vast right wing Freak Show, I plan to do my best to help Obama Freak Out.
Posted by: M. Simon | April 19, 2008 at 08:43 PM
Jane, I'd love to hear you on the radio (or podcast). I think you'd be wonderful at it.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 19, 2008 at 08:44 PM
Ten reasons why the US will still be the only Superpower in 2030.
Europe's economy is considered to be 22 years behind the US in development.
Posted by: GK | April 19, 2008 at 08:49 PM
Obama is the anti-Gil Scott-Heron.
For Obama the revolution will be televised.
BTW I have a GSH album. I like it. But I don't let politics interfere with my choice of entertainment except in extreme cases.
I still like the Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane. And Country Joe's Section 43.
Posted by: M. Simon | April 19, 2008 at 08:53 PM
Do you have a Boston accent?
Not even a vague hint of one.
Soylent - how did you prepare for your radio show? I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the whole concept, but I'd truly love to do it.
Posted by: Jane | April 19, 2008 at 08:57 PM
Yeah, Jane! Do you have an easily recogizable accent? Y'know, when you decide to do that podcast? I for one would tune in.
Posted by: centralcal | April 19, 2008 at 09:01 PM
Mine wasn't a talk radio show. I did a music genre type of show.
Show prep consisted of lining out track times (still back in the vinyl days) and doing research for factoids and so forth. Pretty easy.
I will say that even though it wasn't a political show, I had to watch very carefully what I said on MoonbatRadio. I would regularly get angry phone calls and letters over some perceived slight or non-PC turn of phrase.
Still, lots of fun.
Now, there was a guy who came on several hours after me who did a political show. The way he managed show prep was that he researched a theme for each week (he was weekly) and then rehearsed 15 minute sections to account for PSAs and IDs and so forth. He actually was doing right wing talk radio before Rush went national, which I thought was cool.
As the only right-wingers, he and I shared many disdainful moments working in that place.
Posted by: Soylent Red | April 19, 2008 at 09:07 PM
M. Simon:
I have to laugh because my iPod contains:
Gil Scott-Heron
Jefferson Airplane
The Chambers Brothers
Bob Dylan (the entire catalog)
The Greatful Dead
as well as
NAS
Ice-T
Public Enemy
So if nothing else, I have the soundtrack to the Revolution. Which will not be televised.
Posted by: Soylent Red | April 19, 2008 at 09:11 PM
Durham in Wonderland is/was a wonderful document that eviscerated the 88 professors and nitwits at Duke that preached racial hatred and extra-constitutional treatment of the innocent lacrosse players. I live in Durham, and could go on and on about what it is like to live where the DA cares more about increasing his pension than he does about enforcing the law or seeing that justice is served.
But be very clear about this - professor Johnson, who ran that blog, is an Obama-ite. He sees no conflict in his position and what he reported. Talk about a major disconnect...
Posted by: hoodie in teh south | April 19, 2008 at 09:26 PM
It's an inaccurate analogy at best, because neither Genghis nor Attila, could really be considered right in a standard sense. The Mongols were pre-feudal in theirorientation;
as far left in the communitarian sense as it could possibly be.
One recalls that Brownstein started with a form of 'pidgin Marxist' C. Wright Mills analysis for Nader called Reagan's Ruling Class; which classifies the incoming administration in clearly class based terms.
Posted by: narciso | April 19, 2008 at 09:57 PM
That sounds like fun, Jane. I know one person who hosted a political program so if you do get a show I can put you in touch.
I did this when I was in college. Big fun and it didn't matter if you screwed up because no one was listening.
That describes my experience pretty well, though it was more a case of "when" rather than "if" as far as messing up was concerned.
I worked in the sports department and if one of our games took up the majority of someone's music show whoever was engineering the broadcast had to DJ the balance of the music show. I always preferred it to be a jazz show because there were usually lots of lengthy songs on the albums in rotation, thus giving me time to write everything down on the program sheets and set up the PSAs and station identification stuff.
Hip-hop, with it's short tracks, was always a challenge. Plus, you had check each album to see which songs were marked with an 'X' and unsuitable for broadcast over the air.
Posted by: Elliott | April 19, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Ann, that's a hard question--I have so many cookbooks I like. For every day type stuff, I guess Cuisine Rapide by Pierre Franey..but really that's more or less a guess. Because I really use most of them.
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Re: radio - If I ever convince him to give me the gig, it will be a JOM endeavor if I can talk you guys into it. I worry about those senior moments, when I can't quite remember how I got where I am...
No accent at all Centralcal. I left the northeast for 3 years in college, and for some reason lost any vestige of a Boston or MA accenr and it never came back. I'm not crazy about the Boston (or any) accent, so that's probably why I speak exactly like I type.
Posted by: Jane | April 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM
"it concerns me in a man who wants to be responsible for the safety of a country"
There's your problem right there, Richard McEnroe - Obamalamadingdong doesn't want to be responsible for the safety of this country.
But I'm pretty sure he has
Iransome other countries in mind....Posted by: Barbara Skolaut | April 19, 2008 at 10:50 PM
You're on, Jane!
Posted by: clarice | April 19, 2008 at 11:13 PM
George: While I do think that area studies programs that focus on East Asia are generally better than programs that focus on more politically contentious ares, I think you are making a big assumtion when you say: "...with becoming literate and conversationally capable in Japanese, Chinese or Korean."
In my experience very few people who study Japanese or Chinese as undergrads become literate or conversationally capable in Japanese or Chinese. I don't speak Korean, so I can't speak from experience there, but I suspect that the same is true of Korean programs. It's too bad- four years ought to be enough to take someone from no knowledge of Japanese to a pretty high level, and if Japanese programs had the kind of standards engineering programs have they would do so. Chinese is a bit more difficult, but I'd say pretty much the same thing about Chinese programs.
Posted by: Duncan | April 20, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Sue - if you like DMX and politics, have you seen this?
(It's an interview with a rapper, so take care if you have any restrictions on your browsing. Like having taste, for instance.)
An edited excerpt:
Are you following the presidential race?
Not at all.
You’re not? You know there’s a Black guy running, Barack Obama and then there’s Hillary Clinton.
His name is Barack?!
Barack Obama, yeah.
Barack?!
Barack.
What the fuzz is a Barack?! Barack Obama. Where he from, Africa?
Yeah, his dad is from Kenya.
Barack Obama?
Yeah.
What the fuzz?! That ain’t no fuzzin’ name, yo. That ain’t that African American’s name. You can’t be serious. Barack Obama. Get the fuzz outta here.
You’re telling me you haven’t heard about him before.
I ain’t really paying much attention.
I mean, it’s pretty big if a Black…
Wow, Barack! The African American’s name is Barack. Barack? African American named Barack Obama. What the fuzz, man?! Is he serious? That ain’t his fuzzin’ name. Ima tell this African American when I see him, “Stop that silliness. Stop that silliness” [laughs] “That ain’t your fuzzin’ name.” Your momma ain’t name you no darn Barack.
So you’re not following the race. You can’t vote right?
Nope.[probably related to his 14 arrests.]
Posted by: bgates | April 20, 2008 at 01:09 AM
Duncan, Thank you for the comment and also to Gmax and Daddy. From Clarice's Durham link I can see exactly what you mean. The language proficiency one for Asian Studies is fair comment also but doesn't have to be the case. The Australian Prime Minister for example studied Chinese at university, fleshed it out with time in China (2 years in the embassy so not a lot) and is able to converse quite well with his counterparts.
Korean is a very tough language - ranked by the CIA in the most difficult category for full immersion study. Nonetheless rigorous Asia Studies programs specializing in the language, when reinforced by a year at a Korean university, turn out quite good results. The people still need to work in country for another year or two but that's reality for any language.
It's a shame to see the standards have been compromised so severely in the US as it's an area that's in the national interest and shouldn't be neglected. I guess it does explain however why all of the US expat lawyers I meet in Seoul are former Mormon missionaries - their program is very effective. Fun but very dry company however in a place with Seoul's reputation for conviviality.
Posted by: George G | April 20, 2008 at 01:46 AM
Soylent,
I got a chuckle out of that.
Posted by: M. Simon | April 20, 2008 at 02:13 AM
four years ought to be enough to take someone from no knowledge of Japanese to a pretty high level, and if Japanese programs had the kind of standards engineering programs have they would do so. Chinese is a bit more difficult, but I'd say pretty much the same thing about Chinese programs.
I expect both are far more difficult than learning French or German. However, when I read the above all I could think of was my small town in Pennsylvania where I took 4 years of French and 3 years of German at the high school level and by the 3rd year we were expected to take essay tests and do book reports using nothing but the foreign language and we were forbidden to speak English in class, so by the 4th year we were reading, writing and speaking fluently. But, that was small town Pennsylvania and may not be typical of those big time elite universities churning out moonbats with degrees. /sarc
Posted by: Sara | April 20, 2008 at 02:17 AM