only because he provides me with such an easy hit. In his op-ed (brought to my attention by Dean Baker in his Beat the Press blog, which you should all be skimming, at least, every day) last week, he was rattling on about what President Obama needed to do to win back disaffected voters. And he seriously makes the argument that people are not concerned about mundane things like jobs and incomes, but about values. And then, of course, he raises the fiction that Americans are addicted to debt and spending, unlike our forefathers and foremothers who, with grim rectitude, spent their evenings checking their balance sheets. But Americans have seen the light, and decided that Republicans are better able to keep us all on the path to debt-reduction.
But he doesn't stop there. It's not just debt-reduction. More values come into play, causing deep distress among the populace. So we find that Obama should: "demonstrate that even though he comes from an unusual background, he is a fervent believer in the old-fashioned bourgeois virtues: order, self-discipline, punctuality and personal responsibility."
Gee, aside from the creepy semi-fascism of the list, I just haven't noticed a lot of concern on the part of the populace that the President is late for appointments. And I'd like to think that the populace is smart enough to figure out that whether or not we're on time would have little impact on the financial meltdown we suffered.
And I don't think Brooks is terribly concerned about the personal responsibility of, for instance, bankers. Otherwise they'd all be heading off to serve long prison terms.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Tenants have been dealing with judges who "interpret" the laws that are supposed to protect them in favor of the banks for years.
One is on his charter schools, the other on his development policies. And I got up this morning to discover this (on the Tenants and Foreclosure blog) in my email:
Anonymous said...
Thank you so much for this amazing pool of information. It is easy to read and informative at the same time. I appreciate it immensely!
I received an email today from someone who wanted to pay for a link on my Tenants and Foreclosure blog. Perhaps I am naive, but I thought that when a blog linked to another blog, the link provided further information, a link to the text being discussed or, at least, a pretty picture. J informs me that this is a common practice. I was upset that anyone reading me would think that I would be willing to do such a thing.
I'm not going to try for a thorough analysis of the recent election. First it would be too depressing. Second others have already done much better and more thorough analysis than I could ever do.
My brother lives in Denver. I Skyped him yesterday to ask why it was that Colorado was a little speck of blue in the otherwise Red Sea of the Midwest and Mountain States. He Skyped back that the Republicans there had nominated Tea Partiers for both Governor and Senator, thus giving the election to the Democrats. "Thank God for Sarah Palin," he Skyped.
But it must be noted that Harry Reid was only able to win against the second-wackiest Tea Partier in the country (the wackiest being Christine "I'm Not a Witch" O'Donnell). I must admit that I actually think O'Donnell's attack on onanism is more entertaining, but that's not suitable for family television. And Democrats like Russ Feingold were beaten by what we can only describe objectively as lesser minds--in the case of Feingold's opposition, a much lesser mind.
In California we elected Jerry Brown for a third term as Governor, and re-elected the moderately-liberal but remarkably ineffective Barbara Boxer as Senator. I voted for Brown, but only because when I voted there was still a chance that Whitman could win. But having lived through both his first stint as Governor (1974-82) and in Oakland when he was Mayor of that city, I'm unimpressed. In Oakland he simply rode the housing bubble up and got out before it collapsed, never noting--and apparently never seeing--that the bubble might ruin the lives of those who bought at bubble-inflated prices. Further the bubble forced thousands of low- and moderate-income Oaklanders to move to far-flung communities and commute back to their jobs. (That's why sustainability ratings should always include a ding for the people who can't afford to live in the community where they work and have to commute.)
Brown also refused to support Measure EE, the "just cause" eviction law passed by the voters there. That's because he raised tons of campaign money--and still does--from developers who want to ugly up the state with cheaply-built, but expensive, housing. And it's probably because he also believes that tenants should be non-persons who can be evicted for any reason or no reason at all. That tenants should have the right to dignity is beyond his ken.
When he was Governor the first time, he refused to advocate for statewide "renter rebate" legislation, which would have forced landlords to share their Proposition 13 tax savings with their tenants. As a young person, with few gray hairs and no wrinkles, I figured out how our little group of demonstrators could get into his office in San Francisco's State Building undetected. We brought our demonstration to his office, where he informed us that the renter's rebate was a "local issue"--uh, Proposition 13 was a statewide initiative, and that we had "Mau-Maued" him. Now I must admit that I'd never before, and haven't since, been compared to Dedan Kimathai and Stanley Mathenge, and was a little flattered. The other lesson I took from that is that the problems of affordable housing and tenants' rights are always somewhere he isn't. If he's a local official, it's a state or federal problem. If he's a state official, it's a local problem--or a federal one. Well, I guess he's consistent.
And Californians once again proved that they weren't willing to be grown-ups and pay for the services they want. They added more fees to the list of taxes and fees that require a 2/3 vote for passage, making it more difficult for the state to raise money--and giving a minority control of taxation. In particular Proposition 26 would make it more difficult to force polluters to pay the cost of the damage they do. Did no one note that Chevron was a major funder--Chevron, folks, Chevron! And Proposition 24 went down too, but that's because the campaign against it suggested--no, lied and said--that small business would face higher taxes and California would lose jobs. It was actually a somewhat complicated bill to tax corporations more effectively, and would have had virtually no impact on jobs. But it was complicated enough that most people couldn't understand it.
'Nuf said. Oh, except that I actually got quoted in another blog. I couldn't believe it, but it's here. See the second paragraph from the end. I don't necessarily agree with the author, but being quoted by someone I don't know is so cool.
Update 11/6/10: My brother has become convinced that joining the Tea Party is the way to keep Republicans out of power. In furtherance of this goal, he has apparently signed me up for membership in the local Tea Party. I hope that he was only joking, but should my Tea Party t-shirt and "Mama Grizzlies for Palin" bumper sticker arrive in the mail, I fully intend to burn them both. I wonder if anyone has an anti-Palin bumper sticker in defense of wolves. (One of the grossest things you'll ever see is the "hunting" of wolves in Alaska, which is done by chasing the innocent beasts in helicopters and then shooting the exhausted creature.)
Peon was, very briefly, on the KCRA 11:00 PM news last night. I can't find a link to the video, but here's the article on the Tenants Together website, and here it is from KCRA. I'm discussing the Landlord Hall of Shame. KCRA lights interviewees really well. I asked the camera person if I could take the system home to light me in my living room.
And a wonderful book for people who are interested in things like why forks have four tines -- At Home: A Short History of Private Life, by Bill Bryson.
One of my few skills is the ability to quickly and accurately decide whether applicants for jobs are worth interviewing. I have a simple A, B and C classification system. If you don't have any of the applicable skills, you're a C. If you have some skills, or in some way indicate that we can train you, you're a B. If you have a lot of skills and have done the research to write competently about what the organization does and how much you support the goals of the organization, you're on the interview list.
And unlike some companies and organizations, I actually read all of the cover letters and resumes. Using buzzwords won't get you an interview, and neither will telling me that you're a bundle of energy. (My teeth hurt at the very thought.) But there are a bunch of other things that will get you put in the C pile. First, proofread your cover letter and resume. That means reading the damn thing, and correcting any misspelled words, improperly placed punctuation, and sentence fragments and run-ons. If the first sentence of your cover letter is a fragment, it had better be a really good one. And the comma splice is not used in American English, so unless your resume says you went to Leeds, a comma splice should appear nowhere in your letter.
Don't make me decipher your resume. Tell me where you worked, when you worked there, and what you did. The "skills-based resume" is hard to follow, and I'm going to figure out any gaps in employment anyway. Don't try to confuse me.
Read the instructions carefully, and follow them exactly. This is particularly important if "attention to detail" is one of the job requirements. If we want email only, don't send us hard copy. I, for instance, work remotely, and a hard-copy submission is hard for us to deal with. Don't ever send anything in a format that's difficult or impossible to open. You're a C if I can't open your documents. If I want a PDF, send a PDF. If I want a Word document, send me a Word document. If you can't send in the required format, I should know why.
Finally, no matter what the resume "professionals" tell you, do not telephone us if we ask that you not telephone. It brings you to our attention, but not in a good way. And I have never had anyone telephone who hadn't already been relegated to the Cs.
only because he provides me with such an easy hit. In his op-ed (brought to my attention by Dean Baker in his Beat the Press blog, which you should all be skimming, at least, every day) last week, he was rattling on about what President Obama needed to do to win back disaffected voters. And he seriously makes the argument that people are not concerned about mundane things like jobs and incomes, but about values. And then, of course, he raises the fiction that Americans are addicted to debt and spending, unlike our forefathers and foremothers who, with grim rectitude, spent their evenings checking their balance sheets. But Americans have seen the light, and decided that Republicans are better able to keep us all on the path to debt-reduction.
