What Obama should say

I'll admit to having a thing for Sorkin-like political speeches. Sorkin is the liberal id. He has his politicians speak the way we want to hear them speak, not in the political BS-talk they all use. Even the Congressman I worked for and admire in part because he speaks his mind more often than most politicians speaks politically sometimes. Grad school pounded some of this out of me. I understand that politicians are very concerned with reelection and are thus very risk averse. Many of them think it's just not worth it to possibly say something that could get them in trouble. A lot of them still get into trouble when they are trying to be careful.

But there are times when not only do I think the blunt truth, spoken in "real" talk, would not only satisfy the liberal id, but would actually be beneficial to the politician's agenda (be it policy or reelection). We kind of saw this with Obama after Senate Republicans filibustered gun legislation requiring background checks. He seemed a bit more angry and blunt with his comments. I'm sure that was genuine. But I also bet his communication staff didn't have a problem with that tone because they thought they were on the right side of the issue in regard to public opinion.

The Obama administration probably won't make that calculation often. Obama will very likely continue to speak as he always has, very carefully and very politically. But given the pretty shitty week he's had lately, which has probably put him in not the best mood, Ezra Klein spoke to some ex-aides and came up with what Obama might say if he just said the hell with it and said what he really thought:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. At this point, though, can the American people actually trust their government? There’s a sense that these issues might just be the tip of the iceberg.

OBAMA: [Long pause.] Are you kidding me?

No, the American people can’t trust their government. They can’t trust their media either, I might add. But that’s not because of a couple of I.R.S. agents out in Cincinnati. We can fix the Cincinnati office. Let me be clear: We’re already fixing the Cincinnati office. This problem was solved a year ago. The guy who solved it just got fired anyway because you all wanted to see some blood on the walls and I’m just political enough to give it to you.

Look, the reason the American people can’t trust their government is here in Washington. Right now sequestration is cutting unemployment checks by 10 or 11 percent. Do you hear anyone talking about that? Or doing anything about it? No. You hear Republicans aides telling Politico, anonymously, that the speaker is quote “obsessed” with Benghazi. You know, I don’t think most of the Republicans screaming about Benghazi could find Libya on a map. I don’t think 10 of them knew our ambassador’s name. And, let me be clear, Speaker Boehner certainly wasn’t obsessed with giving us the money we asked for to keep the embassy’s safe.

But now he’s obsessed with Benghazi. And not even Benghazi. The Benghazi talking points. Are you kidding me? He’s not obsessed with global warming or unemployment or rebuilding our infrastructure. And now that there’s conflict, all of you are obsessed with Benghazi talking points too, and meanwhile, we’re cutting the National Institutes of Health and we’re cutting too deep into the military and we’re making life harder for the unemployed and we’re doing nothing to keep this planet in good shape for our kids.

Look, this is why the American people can’t trust their government. Because this town is obsessed with conflict and political advantage and not with real problems. We worry about the wrong things so much that we don’t even have time to talk to the American people or each other about the right things. And that’s not the I.R.S.’s fault.

What would it hurt to say that? Republicans are going to hate anything he says no matter what. At least if he said that liberals might rally around him and give him some support while trying to handle those issues. I won't quote any more of it since what I quoted above is long. But read the rest. It's good. And I don't see how it would hurt Obama. So many people are cynical about politics. Maybe if Obama or someone else spoke openly and honestly more often people would trust them more. That's how it works the rest of the time in the real world isn't it? I'm not sure why it wouldn't work more often in politics

New Girl season finale

As with a lot of tv I was late to New Girl. I guess I just assume everything on network tv is crap unless I'm repeatedly told otherwise. Pajiba.com finally beat the drum for New Girl long and hard enough for me to give it a try. I'm glad I did, which means I now regret that I've come to it so late. I've only seen about the last half of this season. So I don't know much of the backstory between Nick and Jess and CeCe and Schmidt. But I liked Nick, Jess and Schmidt enough right from the start to care about their relationships. I hope I'm missing something with CeCe because I'm not really feeling her.

I mention those two relationships because they were the big focus on this half of the season, and especially the season finale. CeCe, for some reason I'm still not sure of, decided to have an arranged married. We thought her and Schmidt had moved on from each other. But magically, during Schmidt and Winston's sabotage of the wedding, CeCe realized that she wanted to be with Schmidt. And we found out that CeCe's fiance wanted to be with Taylor fucking Swift (stay the fuck away from my things Swift). This was all ridiculous. But it didn't bother me because the whole idea of CeCe going through with an arranged marriage was more ridiculous to begin with. So because it was funny I didn't mind. Though I did mind how CeCe put Schmidt on the spot in front of his current girlfriend (who was also his former girlfriend when he was fat).

The other part of the finale was Jess and Nick's new relationship. Nick has always been the screwup, slacker guy. That's part of what made him endearing to me and probably Jess. But they were both worried that because of those qualities, Nick wouldn't be good long-term boyfriend material. Part of why I've come to really like this show is I just love Nick. There's something so genuinely likable about him. When he told Jess that they should break it off because he wasn't responsible enough to be in the relationship I loved him even more. He could easily ignore his doubts just so he can keep having what has to be some pretty hot sex with Jess (just the way they kiss is really hot). But he didn't. And Jess thinks there's something between them. So she is willing to give it a shot. I mean, how could she not want to after Nick made what I had thought was one of the worst songs ever tolerable, maybe even good:

Grizzlies beat Thunder in 5

When we beat the Clippers and were set to face the Thunder without Russell Westbrook I thought we had a good chance to win. But I didn't think we would beat a good team in 5 games. Westbrook is a good player. But they are still a very good team, in large part because Kevin Durant is a great player, just behind LeBron James. And even though the Griz won in 5 games, all 5 were close games at the end. We were definitely the better team. But they weren't far off.

The Griz won the same way they always do, with grit and grind. That means throwing it down in the post to Gasol and Randolph, or Gasol in the high post. Or it means running screens for Mike Conley and letting him create something. Defensively it means letting Tony Allen do what he does best and having Gasol guard the paint in case someone gets by Allen, Conley or Prince. And once the shot goes up we have pretty good rebounders at each position, a very good one in Randolph.

The only weakness I see in this team is 3 point shooting on both ends. Defensively we leave 3 point shooters open too much. Late last night we left Derek Fisher (I'm not sure why he was in the game. But thanks Scott Brooks) wide open several times. That happened throughout the series. And that could be a big problem facing either the Spurs or Warriors, both of whom shoot the 3 very well. Offensively we don't have many good 3 point shooters. Conley is pretty good. But Allen and Prince aren't, which kind of hurts since it would probably make it a bit easier on ZBo and Gasol if they could pass to shooting threats out of the post. That was always the hope with Rudy Gay, that he would be that shooting threat to take pressure of them. But he just didn't shoot efficiently enough to do that.

Quincy Pondexter is a good 3 point shooter. But Lionel Hollins likes Tayshaun Prince's defense too much to give Pondexter more minutes. I can understand that when we are playing Kevin Durant. But I think Pondexter could help more against our next opponent. Whoever that team is I'm almost certain they will give us a longer series than the Thunder did. Both are better offensively right now than the Thunder. The Spurs probably aren't much worse than the Thunder defensively. And I would bet that Andrew Bogut will give both ZBo and Gasol more problems than Perkins and Ibaka did. Both teams also have better offensive players. They both have a lot of shooting depth. And stars like Tony Parker and Steph Curry can go off almost as well as Durant.

So it will be tough to get to the Finals. We are going to have to play very well to win each game. And even if we do play well might not be enough sometimes, like game 1 against the Thunder. But at worst the Griz will give the Spurs or Warriors a tough series. This is the furthest the franchise has ever gone in the playoffs. And everyone here in Memphis is excited to see if we can keep making history. We'll be here anxiously awaiting the Spurs or Warriors, waiting to follow the lead of The Grindfather.

Grizzlies really need game 2 against Thunder

Game 1 hurt. No lead in the NBA is safe. But when you have a lead in the 4th quarter after playing better than the other team the whole game you should expect to win. The obvious criticism from game 1 was Tony Allen playing less than two minutes in the 4th quarter. I don't think this was as completely unreasonable as most seem to. Lionel's logic seemed to be that Quincy was having a good game offensively and Tayshaun is a better defensive matchup on Kevin Durant. So putting Tony in would deprive us from a good 3 point shooter or put Tony in the very tough position of guarding Durant.

I don't think that logic is totally misguided. But while Tony Allen isn't the 3 point shooter Quincy Pondexter is or is as tall and long as Tayshaun Prince is, he is a better overall player than both. At worst he should be splitting time with one or both of those players. I don't see why Tony or Quincy couldn't guard Durant for a while. Anyway, the point is that Tony Allen should be playing more in the 4th quarter than he did in game 1.

Lionel needs to make adjustments quickly because I think it will be harder to win this series if we go down 0-2 than it was against the Clippers. Chris Paul is great. But Durant is just a bit greater, particularly on the offensive end. He is close to being (if not there) in the company of Michael Jordan as a scorer. He shot 50% from the field and 40% from 3 this season, while taking a ton of shots. We won't be able to keep him from going off for four straight games. Or if we somehow can do that, there's a chance the rest of the Thunder team plays well enough to win (Ibaka won't shoot less than 20% again). What happens if Durant and a few other players are on at the same time? They could easily steal a game in Memphis, leaving us in a lot of trouble.

Russell Westbrook is a good player. But he isn't a great player. Ignore his point totals. He's only about an average shooter (career 52% true shooting %, average for PGs is 52.7%). But he does most other things well and is certainly better than the Thunder's other PGs, especially Derrick Fisher (I don't know what the fuck got into him in game 1). So Westbrook being hurt isn't quite the blow that most think it is. This Thunder team is still really good. And we obviously have to win a game in OKC to win the series. We had a great opportunity to do that in game 1. It will be easier to win this series if we get that win in game 2 and try to take care of business at home. So let's not go against the Grindfather again and get a win tonight.

Today's economy and a generation's struggles

I went to a wedding this weekend for a longtime childhood friend of mine. A lot of people I went to K-12 with were there and it was nice catching up with them. And aside from the religious nature of the ceremony (along with the gendered nature of it and the digs at gay marriage), it was nice to see people get married and be happy. One common theme in my talks with old friends (who are all the same age as me) was how hard it is in today's economy. We all graduated at about the same time and we've all had a hard time finding good work. Because of that, many of us still have student loan debt and still live with our parents in order to compensate for that and low wages.

The big reason I haven't been blogging basically at all lately is that I've been doing another unpaid internship (though I at least got a gas stipend this time). That's been occupying most of my mental energy when it comes to politics. I just don't feel like blogging when I've been thinking about politics all day. Just recently I was offered a paying job at the firm I've been interning for. It's a very small start-up consulting firm with a good reputation. But because it's small and it's a down time in the election cycle there isn't much revenue coming in. So my boss can't pay me very much. But I took it because I simply haven't found anything else. And I've applied to a wide range of places, from Target to Best Buy to Starbucks. Even though this job doesn't pay much I think I'm probably lucky to get it since it's something I will enjoy doing as opposed to other jobs that might pay a bit more but I wouldn't enjoy doing at all.

I write this post to in part explain why I haven't been blogging much and why that might continue. But I also wrote this to let other people in similar situations know that you aren't alone. I've talked to a lot of you who have gotten degrees, worked hard, paid dues and still can't find a good job. I know how frustrating it is to send out dozens and even hundreds of resumes and cover letters out and not get a single positive response. I know it's frustrating to have student loan payments come in month after month and not being able to pay them on your own. And as someone who pays attention to politics, I know it's beyond frustrating to see our leaders basically ignore us and only serve the interests of people who aren't struggling in this economy.

I'm not sure I have any great advice. But I'm at least willing to listen if anyone wants to share their story and seek some advice. And I'm interested in hearing from people who may have some advice for people who are struggling. So feel free to share in the comments section. Meanwhile I'll try to find more time to post more and share my experience in today's tough economy.

When our eyes deceive us

Conor Friedersdorf has a good post up about the coverage of the incident in Boston and how some conservatives are already reacting to what they think the media will do. Here's a point I want to add to:

There are times when journalists bungle this sort of coverage in ways that are unfair to the right and times when they handle things in ways that are unfair to Muslims. But as a general matter, tolerance is urged when the perpetrator is Muslim, and not when the perpetrator is a white right-winger, not because journalists only value tolerance in one situation, but because when guys like Tim McVeigh perpetrate terrorism, there's never an irrational backlash against white men.

That racial and ethnic tolerance will prevail goes without saying.

He's completely correct. And I think people have this reaction in part because it's a numbers game. Sure, there are some people who are just going to be outright racist regardless of what the facts say. But other well meaning people don't automatically start suspecting every white man they see is a terrorist or criminal after a white man committed an act of terrorism or a more normal crime because most of the white men they interact with on a daily basis don't do those things.

In the case of a white man doing those things, their eyes and experience are telling them the proper statistical conclusion, that not all white men are criminals. This one white man who did so is an outlier who isn't representative of the majority. It's an easy conclusion to come to because our sample size in the US is enormous. There are simply a ton of white men, so much so that even if they were disproportionately more likely to be criminals, we wouldn't recognize it as much because the number who aren't criminals is just so big.

In the case of a Muslim people the opposite is the case. A big part of the Muslim intolerance is also the media and the freakishness of 9/11 (that it actually happened and on the scale it did). But it's also that most Americans don't interact with Muslims at anywhere close to the same rate they do white men. If they did it would be just as obvious that they should be treated with the same tolerance as white men.

The difficult thing is that our eyes and brains seem to work this way naturally. We group, order, and make judgements about these types of things in our minds without actively telling our brains to do so. It just happens naturally because it's the most efficient way to process all of the information we receive in a quick manner. So what Conor is saying is that it's the media's job to process the same information we are all receiving and relay the more accurate data to us so that we can make better judgements. Because most of us simply don't have either enough data or the right data to make the best judgements, which leads to things like intolerance toward Muslims. So don't always trust your eyes.

Southern Heritage and Accidental Racist

If you haven't heard about it, Accidental Racist is a song put out by LL Cool J and Brad Paisley. I haven't listened to the song because I despise country music and rap isn't really my thing. But I've read some of the lyrics and it's about as dumb as the title would suggest. Yeah, their hearts seem to be in the right place. But jeez are they ignorant of history. And being ignorant isn't really an excuse when you take on a subject like racism, nor does it make anything an accident.

Apparently, in explaining himself, Paisley invoked the whole souther heritage excuse as a reason for liking the rebel flag and whatever other stuff he talks about in the song. Lawyers, Guns, and Money has a post up pointing out how you can celebrate southern heritage without doing things Paisley does, like wearing a rebel flag:

Paisley wants to know how he can express his Southern Pride. Here are some ways. He could hold a huge party on Martin Luther King’s birthday, to celebrate a Southerner’s contribution to the world of democracy. He could rock a T-shirt emblazoned with Faulkner’s Light In August, and celebrate the South’s immense contribution to American literature. He could preach about the contributions of unknown Southern soldiers like Andrew Jackson Smith. He could tell the world about the original Cassius Clay. He could insist that Tennessee raise a statue to Ida B. Wells.

Scott Lemieux points out that those things aren't really what people mean when they say they want to celebrate southern heritage. A local story here in Memphis shows how bullshit the southern heritage thing is. Nathan Bedford Forrest (a Confederate general and member of the KKK) is buried in one of our parks, the name of said park bearing his name. Memphis being a majority black city along with a significant number of white people who aren’t racists, the city council decided they wanted to change the name of the park to commemorate someone or something that represents the city’s heritage without invoking as much racism (I would say any racism but I’m not that confident in the city council).

But the Republicans in the state legislature (who have a supermajority and control the governor’s seat) decided that this wasn’t a local matter (Yeah, I was shocked, SHOCKED, that they didn’t concede to local control despite “believing in federalism”) and are trying to pass a law basically saying we can’t change the name of the park. They tried to couch it in terms that didn’t explicitly direct it at Memphis and the NBF park. But it’s obvious that they only really care about a certain type of souther heritage.

The talk about heritage kind of reminds me of the line from Pulp Fiction by Marcellus Wallace, “Pride only hurts.” I have a similar attitude towards heritage and nostalgia. They can be good in small doses, especially nostalgia. But heritage seems like a waste considering none of us had any control over where or when we grew up. If I was given a choice I likely wouldn’t have chosen to be born in Memphis or many other places in the south. It’s not that I don’t like Memphis or TN or the south in general. There are good things about each. But they likely wouldn’t be at the top of my birth list. Also, how about a little less looking back at the good ole times (times that weren’t really all that good except for rich white men, which not coincidentally are usually the ones who want to celebrate racist southern heritage) and focus more on improving things now and for the future. Let’s do shit that’s actually worth being nostalgic about.