Archive: January, 2012
Underneath the eruptions of news from South Carolina to State College, the broader trends that really shape our day-to-day world grind on. The most important story in any paper today is arguably this one in the New York Times, which probes why Apple doesn't manufacture its products in the United States.
It's not a pretty picture:
"The winds of fate can turn you around, run you aground, sink you, and sometimes you can't do a thing about it. You can commit yourself to accomplishing a goal, doing something good, winning a game. Just to make that commitment to something you believe in is winning - even if you lose the game."
-- Joe Paterno
This is the real man that America seeks to honor tomorrow:
Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken -- the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.
America is going into a really critical presidential election with two big problems. You may have heard about one of them -- the laggard economy -- and the sort-of good news is that the November election should give voters a real choice between a candidate, Mitt Romney, committed to beating back "envy" and defending the interests of the 1 Percent, and a candidate, President Obama, who at least understands how unfairness and inequality is ripping after the fabric of America.
The very bad news is that there'll be no debate on the other key issue that eats away at our national soul: An ever-expanding national security state that concentrates too much power in the White House while destroying the commitment to basic rights that once fueled a bona fide American exceptionalism. Whoever wins the 2012 election is on board with expanding the government's power to kill American citizens or detain them indefinitely or spy on them in the name of an Orwellian permanent "war on terror."
Attytood's coverage of the Penn State alumni "town hall" in King of Prussia:
There was no unruly throng flowing through the wide parking lots of King of Prussia last night, just a orderly single-file line of well-dressed Penn State alums filing into a carpeted hotel meeting room with a stage decked out in soothing flowers and tall potted plants. Despite an air of hostility toward a news media that one questioner accused of “McCarthyism,” there was never a thought of flipping over any of the news vans lined up on the outskirts of the Radisson Valley Forge.
Earlier this week, I promised a megapost on Mitt Romney, which would have focused on the facts that a) his campaign for president was based largely on lies and b) no one seems to be mentioning this. That post won't be coming, as I've been ordered to cover Penn State tonight and then start my furlough to write the 1948 Eagles project.
Instead, I will note that Romney's lies have caught the attention of the public editor of the New York Times. How should the paper handle the problem? He has not a clue.
When Rick Santorum virtually tied for first in the Iowa caucus, I watched his "victory" speech and -- don't fall out of your chair -- I thought it was the most positive moment of the GOP race so far. Although I don't agree with Santorum's policy solutions, his meditation on his father fleeing Mussolini's Italy in the 1920s and pursuing his dreams in America was moving and uplifting.
It's interesting that there's more to the story:
The only person who could rally to stop Mitt Romney (pictured above with some extras from "The Lawrence Welk Show") from getting the GOP nomination would be Tim Tebow, but I don't think he's entering the race. Here's why, from our running feature this week called tomorrow's news today:
In past years, New Hampshire primary voters have had something in common with Mitt Romney: They‘ve liked being able to fire overconfident presidential frontrunners-- and shake up the conventional wisdom.