Hugo Chavez recently lambasted the sport of golf, describing it as a sport for rich, fat, lazy people. In some ways golf is a sport for the rich, be it with high green fees and expensive clubs, but there are ways to play on the cheap. There are indeed some heavier hitters in the game, but try walking 18 holes in the hot sun and tell me it isn't a workout. I just hope golf courses in Venezuela do not retaliate to these unfair and daft comments. Otherwise they may, like the Venezuelan press, be deemed a threat to Venezuela's security.
Chavez' golf remarks are almost as keen as his failed law to prevent parents from giving their children names that are invented, difficult to pronounce in Spanish, or exotic. Guess we don't have to say adios to Richard Nixon Rodriguez.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Political Capital
I find the idea of political capital quite intriguing. Essentially, people define political capital as the popularity or trustworthiness of a leader. This capital can then be leveraged by said leader to enact certain policies or ideas that, without such popularity, would be impossible to accomplish.
There is no way around political capital, but I find it somewhat outlandish. The idea of a popularity contest being the prerequisite for pursuing important policy is, in my humble opinion, backwards. A leader will make mistakes, especially early on in their tenure, and will (hopefully) learn from those mistakes. Without grace from the public, said leader will have "spent" all of their political capital making mistakes. Wouldn't we wish for a seasoned leader to be able to have the benefit of experience on their side when making important policy decisions? If mistakes were made early on, or if unpopular policies were enacted, and this person is bankrupt of political capital, should social security reform receive the ax? Currently the president finds himself in a quandary of finite political capital; in a push to enact healthcare reform, financial regulation reform will hit the back-burner. Isn't the failure of financial regulation what got us in this recession in the first place?
I'm not critiquing the President's agenda, I'm critiquing the idea that popularity drives reform. Any leader that reforms the entitlement system is bound to bear the scorn of the public, even if they do a good job. In our current environment, damn any politician that is courageous in undertaking truly necessary reforms. Forget ensuring that our Baby Boomers can retire without being penniless, politicians should, instead, focus on creating show trials in which to burn greedy bankers and businessmen at the stake. It is only then that the American public is satisfied with their leaders and precious political capital can be accumulated.
There is no way around political capital, but I find it somewhat outlandish. The idea of a popularity contest being the prerequisite for pursuing important policy is, in my humble opinion, backwards. A leader will make mistakes, especially early on in their tenure, and will (hopefully) learn from those mistakes. Without grace from the public, said leader will have "spent" all of their political capital making mistakes. Wouldn't we wish for a seasoned leader to be able to have the benefit of experience on their side when making important policy decisions? If mistakes were made early on, or if unpopular policies were enacted, and this person is bankrupt of political capital, should social security reform receive the ax? Currently the president finds himself in a quandary of finite political capital; in a push to enact healthcare reform, financial regulation reform will hit the back-burner. Isn't the failure of financial regulation what got us in this recession in the first place?
I'm not critiquing the President's agenda, I'm critiquing the idea that popularity drives reform. Any leader that reforms the entitlement system is bound to bear the scorn of the public, even if they do a good job. In our current environment, damn any politician that is courageous in undertaking truly necessary reforms. Forget ensuring that our Baby Boomers can retire without being penniless, politicians should, instead, focus on creating show trials in which to burn greedy bankers and businessmen at the stake. It is only then that the American public is satisfied with their leaders and precious political capital can be accumulated.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Some thoughts on biographies
I love reading biographies because I am always interested in the inner thoughts and motives of some of the extraordinary people from the past. More than presenting historical facts, good biographers delve in to the hearts of some amazing people, giving readers insight in to their thoughts, writings, and personal lives.
Sometimes I come across minor historical figures in books that I'm sure only historians know about. Then there is a blurb about said minor historical figure's son or daughter with details provided by their biographer. So I must ask the question, at what point does one deem it necessary to have a biographer? Are these people hired by the minor historical figure's son or daughter, or do biographers throw themselves at the opportunity of documenting the life of somebody few people care about? Is there some sort of wealth threshold that must be crossed, or a predetermined amount of notoriety extending beyond the 15 minutes of fame?
I then started thinking what it would be like if I had a biographer... I will let you in on my inner monologue.
P Sell's biographer: "Patrick, do you come from royal blood?"
Patrick: "Yes, royal Arkansas blood"
P Sell's biographer: "Did your father profit from a large racketeering scandal or come in to wealth through shady means?"
Patrick: "My father drove a Ford Contour for most of my life"
P Sell's biographer: "Is your family a political dynasty that influences worldwide policy?"
Patrick: "My Mom takes morning walks with a judge"
P Sell's biographer: "What sets you apart from anybody else in this world?"
Patrick: "I have a biographer"
Sometimes I come across minor historical figures in books that I'm sure only historians know about. Then there is a blurb about said minor historical figure's son or daughter with details provided by their biographer. So I must ask the question, at what point does one deem it necessary to have a biographer? Are these people hired by the minor historical figure's son or daughter, or do biographers throw themselves at the opportunity of documenting the life of somebody few people care about? Is there some sort of wealth threshold that must be crossed, or a predetermined amount of notoriety extending beyond the 15 minutes of fame?
I then started thinking what it would be like if I had a biographer... I will let you in on my inner monologue.
P Sell's biographer: "Patrick, do you come from royal blood?"
Patrick: "Yes, royal Arkansas blood"
P Sell's biographer: "Did your father profit from a large racketeering scandal or come in to wealth through shady means?"
Patrick: "My father drove a Ford Contour for most of my life"
P Sell's biographer: "Is your family a political dynasty that influences worldwide policy?"
Patrick: "My Mom takes morning walks with a judge"
P Sell's biographer: "What sets you apart from anybody else in this world?"
Patrick: "I have a biographer"
My First Blog
I'm a little late on technology and am now writing my first ever blog.
Before I begin I would like to take a minute to explain the content of this blog. I'm a bit skeptical about blogs because anybody with an internet connection can be "published" and their thoughts propagated to the entire world. I am joining this cacophony of publication with one disclaimer: I have no credentials that would make anybody want to read what I write. I simply wanted a medium to voice some of my thoughts, even if they are not read by anybody. If you stumble across this page and you feel inclined to respond to my musings please feel free.
Generally I will post some sort of question that I am pondering. These questions will generally comprise of one of these topics: current events, Christianity, history, and maybe some sports. Normally I will not answer my questions, but if you have an answer please provide it.
Thanks!
Before I begin I would like to take a minute to explain the content of this blog. I'm a bit skeptical about blogs because anybody with an internet connection can be "published" and their thoughts propagated to the entire world. I am joining this cacophony of publication with one disclaimer: I have no credentials that would make anybody want to read what I write. I simply wanted a medium to voice some of my thoughts, even if they are not read by anybody. If you stumble across this page and you feel inclined to respond to my musings please feel free.
Generally I will post some sort of question that I am pondering. These questions will generally comprise of one of these topics: current events, Christianity, history, and maybe some sports. Normally I will not answer my questions, but if you have an answer please provide it.
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)