Cool As A Cucumber: How Senator Sherrod Brown Addresses An Issue That Really Matters

Imagine

Imagine that your job is completely dependent upon the opinion of thousands of people from all walks of life. If they like you, you will be paid. If they don’t like you, well, here’s a pink slip. It is in this situation that Senator Sherrod Brown finds himself everyday when he goes to work.

If you were in his shoes, how would you speak to your employers? How would you explain to them the problems that their organization is facing? Who would you approach for assistance first?

What He Did

Senator Brown elected to appeal to the public’s sensitivities and publish an op-ed piece about the current trade deficit America has with China in The New York Times, entitled "For Our China Trade Emergency, Dial Section 301." It is written from a perspective that is against the status quo; Senator Brown is decidedly opposed to our current trade practices and the foundations upon which they were established ten years ago.

He argues that they are robbing Americans of thousands of jobs and, by extension, economic prosperity. Judging by his thoughtful remarks, he perceives this to be a major issue facing America, one that the everyman has a stake in and therefore ought to be educated on.

His case is constructed with logical reasoning derived from empirical and historical data. In building a calculated argument based upon generally-accepted principles, he creates a compelling case for change in America's foreign trade policies with China.

Ultimately, however, his argument's efficacy can be determined by the response of the audience for whom he writes: the internationally-minded intellectual, those whose livelihoods are, or can be, directly impacted by the U.S. trade deficit with China.

As a senator, his own livelihood is reliant upon his ability to rouse his constituents to support changes he feel can better their lives. Thus, his rhetorical approach bears even more consideration when looking at the larger issue he is addressing. But we will get to more of that in a minute.

In the Beginning…

Now, for those of us unfamiliar with how we managed to get ourselves into this mess, the whole reason for the article, here is a crash-course: decades ago, during the Reagan administration, America decided that it wanted to trade with China. This was a daring move, as China was still closed to the outside world.

But press onward we did!

Our trade policies were founded upon the presupposition that capitalism would bring about democracy, and we wanted China to leave its sinister Communist system and embrace liberty and justice, so that we could profit from its economic potential.

Whether or not this assessment of cause-and-effect was correct is currently a moot point. What matters is that the legislation we passed back then is biting us in the hindquarters now. We adjusted the rules so that our companies could export more to China. Instead, the corporations stabbed us in the back by closing their factories in America down and shipping the jobs to the pittance-earning Chinese. How capitalist of us.

So much for Sino-US trade strengthening the American trade position…

Enter Senator Sherrod Brown.

 

Just Who Is This Senator Guy Anyway?

Senator Brown comes to the table as an informed observer, though his role is slightly more interested than the casual newsreader; his political status is being applied to give the issue more visibility. His platform can be strengthened by winning favor of his constituents, so why not milk this problem for all its worth, right?

However, rather than abuse his position, Senator Brown makes a solid argument for reform in regards to Sino-US trade relations. His mention of historical context provides the newcomer to the issue with the basic information requisite to consider his viewpoint. His logical connections between the facts of cause and the suggestions for reaction establish him as one who is rational, reasonable, and educated.

Unlike many political commentators and pundits, he does not force the issue to extremity to gain acknowledgment of his point, like this...

Or like this.

Irrationality or extremism is rarely effective in actually accomplishing anything, which is the antithesis of what Sen. Brown is trying to do—he is trying to rally people, particularly those of influence in Congress, to action. His is a calm and collected call to action, not the raucous, strident call to cultural revolution of extremists. He calls for change; change we can believe in.

To do this, he methodically analyzes the problem and offers a viable response. As a result, his perspective can almost immediately be accepted as credible.

As a senator, Brown is a member of the Democratic Party and a result there are some subtle bits and pieces that are tied to their agenda. His overall suggestion, that Congress grant the president “authority to impose tariffs on China or any other country that unfairly manipulates its currency,” is a classic Democrat big-government objective.

However, in the context of the article it is not functioning to convert Republicans or independents to his party, but rather functions as a suitable and, again, logical solution to the current trade crisis. It maintains his ethos as a writer on a complex topic.

But That’s Not All!

In addition, within the two-line biography of the contributor, it states that he is the author of “Myths of Free Trade.” The title of this book leads readers to automatically assume that he is against many of the current trade policies in place; that he feels there are serious flaws in our economic system. This explains his stance on Sino-US trade agreements, though it also exposes some bias on his part as a writer.

Again, though, his bias does not seem to interfere with his logical reasoning or evidence. And in writing for The New York Times, he places his opinion in the public record to spur conversation and debate among constituents, industrialists, economists, businessmen, entrepreneurs, and politicians alike.

He Knows His People...

The audience of The New York Times tends to be an educated demographic. They are directly affected by the events on Wall Street, they have white-collar jobs, and they are well versed in the international arena. As such, Senator Brown had to write his piece with them in mind; else he would be viewed as one on a lower intellectual level. Brown acknowledges this and writes with references to actual current affairs. He does not brief them on the whole issue, as it would be redundant, but he alludes to other relevant information that the globally aware reader would already be familiar with. He gains respect and authority with this technique as he can be seen as an equal, instead of a pandering politician or pretentious armchair economist.

 

He Has Skills...

Senator Brown writes to his audience in language that they are accustomed to, language that others may find to be more advanced. However, again, he dodges pretentious language by speaking with a voice that is uniquely his. He does not abuse a thesaurus to command attention. He does not misuse his vocabulary, a common hallmark of a false authority.

And while he is intelligent and sophisticated in his tone, he remains somewhat conversational. He does not move to the realm of inaccessibility by sounding haughty and removed; he prefers to use inclusive pronouns like “us” and “our.” By doing so, he is appealing to the voters’ sense of community and esprit de corp, an important element of any communication by a politician to any form of audience—he is always on the campaign trail.

His writing feels fresh and organic and resembles the commentary one might encounter at a family gathering with a certain politically-inclined uncle. In fact, that is what gives this piece strength. Senator Brown does not force readers to his point. Rather, he makes it clear that to think otherwise may not be the best decision they have ever made; he does not ostracize those who disagree.

...And He's Good At What He Does!

In short, Senator Brown is a skilled writer. However, more importantly, he is a master of rhetoric. Regardless of who you are, what your background is, what your political affiliation is, or what your personal philosophies are, Senator Sherrod Brown will convert you to his belief that change must happen, and he will do it with inimitable efficacy.

He will not assault you with loaded or “gotcha” questions; he will not beat or bludgeon you with numbers and statistics; he will not strangle you with circular reasoning; he will not insult your belief system; he will not compare you to Hitler or Mussolini or Stalin; he will use calm, cool reasoning to bring you around to his way of thinking. Just like a good politician ought to.

*Note: Also published on Python's Philosophies blog.

LeBron James, Supreme Ruler of the Sports World

Who here has heard of LeBron "King" James?

My guess is that anyone who knows someone who knows basketball has heard about the 20-something basketball sensation.  The only reason why he has not captured space on the tabloids is because there has not been a marital scandal like Kobe's moment of infamy.

Yet he seems to have a mind-blowingly strong choke hold on the basketball world.  This year, several A-list players became free-agents.  For the layman, that means they are individual players who have completed their contracts with their previous team and are available to sign with another team.  They announced that they might have a Summit of Stars, where, according to sources, they would discuss their professional goals and determine the future power balance of NBA teams.  This apparently did not happen.

Sports fans have since waited on the edge of their seats to hear who the most highly-touted NBA player will choose to play for next season.

He will announce his decision Thursday.

It seems that LeBron and his entourage have been milking this opportunity for all it's worth.  Almost the point of nausea, in my opinion.  Granted he is a talented player.  But he was extremely disappointing in the NBA playoffs.  My bracket was ruined when he played poorly against Boston, who then went on to face-off against the Lakers in the 2010 Finals.

But every aspiring basketball franchise has been throwing ridiculous salary offers, business deals, and more at this one individual.  Some even went to great lengths to clear space in their salary caps to afford this player.

LeBron is predicted to be one of the most successful players in NBA history.  Akin to Michael Jordan or more.  The difference, in my opinion, between James and Jordan is that Jordan didn't hog the spotlight.  He allowed attention, but didn't work to hype himself.  He let his skills speak for himself.  That's why I think he remains as a legend.

Even though he has a ridiculous moustache right now.

As to where LeBron will end up, Cleveland seems to have the best chance.  Money, plus he doesn't have to move.  And we all know how inconvenient moves are.

But we'll see on Thursday if I am right.

Until next time...

Arizona: Paving The Way For A Barbed Wire Fence

According to a recent Gallup poll, 88% of Americans have heard about Arizona's recent legislative action to allow law enforcement personnel to check suspected illegal aliens for proper documentation (USA Today article). 

What is not touted in the media is that, according to the same Gallup poll, 59% of Americans who know about the bill support it.  Only 39% do not.  Interesting, considering how the media has effectively announced that Arizona is an un-American state with this bill and that no sane American is in support of it.

As usual, celebrities have jumped into the fray, denouncing Arizona lawmakers and lambasting the policies that it seeks to enact.  But let's take a quick breath and think about the effects that this bill has.  I am not an educated political scholar, but I think that the bill would be beneficial to America as a whole.

Arizona is a state where illegal immigrants are known to cross the border into the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.  They bring hopes, dreams, ambition, hard work ethics, and, frequently, drugs and weapons.  The first half of the list is what we want in future Americans.  The latter two items, though, we could do without. 

While it is in the the Second Amendment that we have a right to bear arms, and I am in full support of that policy, the guns brought in are not registered, nor are the bearers licensed.  They can do whatever they want with them and law enforcement agents have no method of tracking down the actual owners in the event of a murder.  How does that make America safer?

Financially-challenged immigrants have been the backbone of this nation's growth.  The Brooklyn Bridge, Empire State building, the entire New York subway system, among other famous structures and systems, were all built with the blood and sweat of people trying to feed their families and make a life in the Land of Opportunity.  I have immigrant ancestors who struggled and prevailed, and I am proud of that heritage.  But the nation has shifted from the conditions under which the immigrants of the past earned their living.

These days, we have equal opportunity employment legislation.  This is a very good thing.  We have Worker's Compensation programs, another great measure designed to help those of the working class.  We have unions, guilds, and other associations that ensure that exploitation in the workplace becomes a thing of the past.  Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and other programs have helped keep the disadvantaged from slipping into complete destitution.  America has realized that all citizens deserve fair and just treatment as well as a fair chance to succeed.  Both are major strides in human and civil rights.

However, despite good intentions, illegal immigrants are straining the government programs.  They do not mean to be a problem, but the government is spending a lot of money with little-to-no return, i.e.: taxes.  I have many friends who are honest, hardworking people, but do not have a fully-legal status in this country, though many are working towards that.  But they do not understand the concept of taxes, the importance of them, and therefore do not file them.  Taxes are a source of income for the government, which is then channeled into various programs, initiatives, and other costs of running a country.  The average tax-paying citizen, while their taxes may not be very substantial in the overall scheme of things, are at least some amount of help for the government to keep up with their expenses.

With no malice intended, these illegals immigrants are leeching off of the system.  Sure, they take jobs doing tasks that are often undesirable, but legal citizens are still unemployed.  If we were stricter on illegal immigration, those jobs would probably end up being filled by someone who has a social security number, official allegiance to the country, and is obligated by law to pay taxes on their income.

Also, recently, Congress passed the healthcare bill.  This granted the millions of Americans who did not have health insurance the opportunity to sign up under a policy.  How many of those who will be covered under this new bill are not legal citizens of the United States of America?  Also, how many of those under Medicare and WIC programs are not documented citizens?  How much money is the government spending on programs that are not required to differentiate between citizens and illegal aliens and therefore giving the latter parties the opportunity to continue taking advantage of our government?

Is it honestly wrong to say that suspected illegal immigrants should be checked for documentation?  Is it wrong to be less welcoming to those who knowingly sidestep our laws to gain access into our country?  I can understand that racial profiling is an inevitable side effect and that it is not fair for Americans of ethnic heritage.  I am in full support of developing policies to prevent that.  But in all reality, it is primarily those of ethnic heritage that are sneaking across the border.  If we overlook that point, we are only kidding ourselves.

We have immigration procedures.  They are there for a reason.  We have a border patrol, both employed and volunteer.  It is there for a reason.  We spend billions of dollars on national defense.  We do that fora  reason.  We have ICE.  It is there for a reason.

Why is it that Arizona, under states' rights, establishing a harsher procedure for identifying illegal immigrants is a travesty?  We cannot rely on federal agencies to micromanage the country.  Allowing a state to delegate those responsibilities, albeit under strict enforcement policies, sounds like a good idea to me.  It is not racist.  It is not un-American.  It is enforcing our established laws and legislation.

No Way! Pres. Obama is Anti-Vegas?

Welcome, Dear Readers.

Now, I am sure you all, like me, were shocked-- just absolutely floored, when you heard about Pres. Barack Obama’s insulting reference to Las Vegas.

Wait, audience, what is that you’re saying? What do you mean you don’t watch the press conferences? Are you kidding me? I’m very disappointed in you.

Now, if we look at his remark in depth we can understand that the people who care most are the people affected least-- the nation’s growing political peanut gallery (I am not an official “peanut”) and representatives from both sides of the political spectrum (do I smell something “mavericky” in the air?) whose voters tend to reside in non-Nevada states.

Here are Obama’s precise words, “You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay a mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices.” (Full Story)

Well I am flabbergasted! How dare he suggest to us how to spend our money! I say we cash in our college savings and run to Vegas, just to spite him! However, since I have a brain and am capable of rational thinking, and also since I try to be a champion of the misunderstood and misrepresented, I would like to point out a few elements within the speech that were ignored.

First, where are all the boat manufacturers in this debacle, huh? Pres. Obama slighted boat-makers just as much as Vegas! Apparently they don’t hang on every word that comes forth from the president’s mouth. And if they did, they must not care that much.  Unlike some, apparently…

Second, it is a known fact that the odds are against you when you gamble in a casino. I was once given wise counsel to this effect: set fire to your money instead, at least you can sit and watch the flames. Las Vegas knows that it thrives on tourism, popularly interpreted as gambling.

However, they cannot accuse Pres. Obama’s admonition for people not to spend extravagantly in a city that, by the way, is infamous for overindulgence, during tough times as being anti-Vegas. That’s a bit of an overreaction. He correctly used it as an example of tourism that should take a backseat to a college education. I think it would be a lot less effective of an example to say, “You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Legoland when you’re trying to save for college.” It is sound advice for the financially un-savvy. Everyone’s thinking it; he’s just saying it.

His comment last year that bailout money should not be used for corporate trips to Vegas is also under fire. Why? The president gave them the money. He is not enforcing his words with Gestapo. He is like a father telling his son not to spend his entire allowance on gumballs and jawbreakers.

And to be perfectly frank, how is traveling to Vegas going to help a company reorganize and streamline, not to mention cut costs and spending, when they’re paying $1600-a-night for a penthouse suite on the Strip? That doesn’t sound very thrifty to me. Pres. Obama is merely trying to steer the country, as a whole, where it needs to be going.

And as for the reaction of Las Vegas, where Mayor Oscar Goodman announced that Pres. Obama is no longer a welcome guest to Las Vegas, and that, “I will do everything I can to give him the boot.” He added, “The president is a real slow learner.” That is a bold statement, Mayor Goodman. Maybe even borderline unwise.

Somehow, to me, in my little politically-ignorant mind, shunning the President of the United States of America from your city over a poorly-chosen statement does not sound like a smart idea. Especially since Pres. Obama has previously remarked that he enjoys visiting Las Vegas.

Additionally, Pres. Obama's remarks included, “You prioritize. You make tough decisions.” That sounds like a hidden complement to me. He is implying that a Las Vegas trip is a great experience, but one that must be postponed in order to achieve goals of greater significance.

Sorry, Mayor Goodman, but your knee-jerk reaction will keep Las Vegas from not only not getting corporate bailout money flowing through Las Vegas casinos, but the city will not be getting the president’s personal income, also known as “our tax dollars at play,” either.

In summary, what is the ultimate impact of Pres. Obama’s allegedly anti-Las Vegas statement? I think the ultimate outcome will be negligible. Those that want to go to Vegas will still find a way to go. Those that were not planning on visiting will not. Those on the fence needed the financial advice anyway, and what Pres. Obama gave was solid.

On the other hand, this event might actually help Sin City-- Pres. Obama is suffering in the popularity polls, so the public might deliberately do the opposite of his suggestions.

It would be an ironic twist, to be sure.

Well, until next time…

Weir-ing Fur Was Apparently a Bad Decision

This afternoon, while trolling Yahoo!News, I came across an article about U.S. figure skater Johnny Weir's decision to include tufts of fox fur on his costume and animal right organizations' vehement opposition and condemnation of the action.  What follows is my response to the article (Full story here).

"I think, frankly, it's none of our business what he wears. This country was founded upon the principles of liberty and freedom. We should all be allowed to live (and wear) according to the dictates of our own conscience without fear of reprisal. If we are not, we are no better than the stifling governments that immigrants to this great nation were fleeing from. He made a decision regarding his design. He's not a villain.

"And anyway, why is he on the chopping block? He did not order the fox killed. He does not run a fox-slaughtering company. He is not blatantly mocking animals. Rather, he recognizes the beauty of the animal and has selected his own way of honoring it. Let's keep the accusations focused on the proper culprits- poachers of the animals and the groups that brutalize the animals.

"His mention of Haiti was a simple example of a situation in which hundreds of thousands deserve our immediate attention more than a fox, at least at this current time. When foxes become a higher priority than our fellow men, and countrymen, in need, society has indeed lost its perspective.

"I do not condone animal cruelty, but I feel like this situation has gotten out of control. Let's save the animals. But, personally, I choose to focus my energy on rehabilitating the infirm and the addicted, providing homes for the homeless men, women, and children of the world, creating jobs for the unemployed, educating the illiterate, and mentoring the disadvantaged and orphaned.

"These causes, in my opinion are the real first steps to be taken if we are to curb the abuse of the planet."