1. Asobi Seksu/ Then He Kissed Me/ Spaceland Presents Asobi Seksu
2. Estelle/ Superstion/ War Child - Heroes, vol. 1
3. Osibisa/ Sunshine Day/ Putumayo Presents World Party
3. Phosphorescent/ It's Hard to be Humble (When You're From Alabama)/ Here's to Taking It Easy
4. Black Rebel Motorcycle Club/ Weight of the World/ Howl
5. Deerhoof/ Holy Night Fever/ Reveille
6. Art Brut/ Just Desserts/ Art Brut vs. Satan
7. The Spinners/ Could It Be I'm Falling in Love/ The Best of the Spinners
8. Simba Wanyika/ Mwongele/ Pepea
9. Grateful Dead/ Sugaree/ Dick's Picks, Vol. 33
10. The Eagles/ Take It Easy/ The Very Best of the Eagles
Monday, August 22, 2011
Jerry Leiber, 1933-2011
Condolences to his family, friends, fans and disciples. The impact of the legendary Leiber & Stoller songwriting team (Leiber on the left there) on the history of rock music is incalculable. It's impossible to imagine the first decade of the rock era without their songs, and their influence on subsequent generations of artists left an indelible mark as well. Baby, that's rock 'n' roll.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers
My beloved right-wing correspondent continues to forward pieces to me, of varying quality. It's always instructive to see how the other side thinks, and what shapes their thinking. I get Erick Erickson's RedState Briefings every morning for just that reason. I've been busier than a one-legged Riverdancer so I haven't had the time to comment on the torrent of right-wing propaganda in my Inbox, even though I wanted to. I'm up early now so I'll give it a whirl:
This Michael Reagan piece is ridiculously easy to swat down; it's ludicrous. His claim that the Demos has a "death grip" on the Congress during Bush's last years ignores the six years when the Congress gave him nearly everything he wanted in the way of tax cuts and deregulation, the principal causes (along with the housing bubble) of the crisis we're in now. As I've noted several times earlier, Bush's spending spree was far more egregious than Obama's (which is largely driven by automatic stabilizers).
Please note that when the Ds control Congress, they impose "pay-go" rules requiring new programs to be offset by comparable spending reductions or new revenues. When Rs take over the Congress, they repeal those rules.
Several of these article writers suffer from the delusion that Obama's health insurance reforms are a huge drain on the treasury. No, that would be GW Bush's Medicare "reforms," which were not paid for, and represent huge subsidies to Big Pharma and Big Insurance. Obamacare not only pays for itself, but reduces the deficit - by trillions when fully implemented. Repealing it would increase the deficit, as the CBO has repeatedly found.
Bernie Goldberg's sophistry about the tax code is a longtime rightwing trope, often debunked and never abandoned. It involves citing statistics from the income tax alone and ignoring the rest of the tax burden - or lack of same - on Americans of disparate income groups. To pick just a few examples, poor people pay far higher percentages of their income in payroll taxes, and rich people whose income derive largely from investments are paying extremely low capital gains taxes, enjoying much lower tax rates than wage-earners. This is lying with statistics, pure and simple.
Thomas Sowell seriously misstates the causes of the crisis, seemingly believing there was no financial crash at all before Obama took over and started spending like mad:
Why was there a financial crisis in the first place? Because of runaway spending that sent the national debt up against the legal limit. But when all the big spending bills were being rushed through Congress, the Democrats had such an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress that nothing the Republicans could do made the slightest difference.The crash came on Bush's watch, because Greenspan ignored the housing bubble and deregulated banks passed junk bonds based on inflated mortgages around the world. Obama's (partially) successful stimulus spending came later. But he and the Dems never enjoyed an "overwhelming majority" in the Senate, thanks to Ted Kennedy's brain cancer, the litigation over Al Franken's seat, and Mitch McConnell's constitutional hardball. They managed to scrape 60 votes together a few times during the few weeks after Franken was finally seated, before Kennedy was completely incapacitated. The refusal of Republicans to extend the longtime courtesy of canceling out a dying Senator's absence by having one of their own abstain (as Dems did for Strom Thurmond) is part of the hardball I refer to.
This piece by the "Fact-Checker", Glenn Kessler, is the kind of thinking I like to read, whether from the right or the left: fact-based and substantive. He quotes the president speaking to well-heeled donors at a fundraiser, then dissects the claims:
“And by the way, these choices are not radical. When it comes to getting a sustainable debt level, if we went back to the rates that existed when Bill Clinton was president and we made some modest adjustments to Medicare that preserved the integrity of the system, our long-term debt and deficit problems would go away. And most people here wouldn’t notice those changes.”I don't have time to fact-check all his fact-checking myself, but I will say this: I assume that Obama's audience at that fundraiser understood, as I do, that simply allowing Bush tax cuts to sunset in their entirety - as the original law passed by the GOP Congress (with help from Dems) and signed by Bush was designed to do - would, indeed, almost completely erase our projected long-term deficit.
— President Obama, August 8, 2011
I also understand, as his audience no doubt did, that Obama's stated policy and campaign promise was to raise taxes back to Clinton-era rates only for those making over a quarter million a year, and allowing the rest of us to stay at our current marginal rates. This move would only eliminate about 40% of projected long-term deficits, which is still far more than any GOP-proposed spending cuts.
But Obama was saying, correctly, that if we "do nothing" and no additional tax legislation is passed and signed, our deficit (not our debt) will more or less disappear - even without any spending cuts (which Obama is also calling for).
Finally, this Walter Williams piece was both dishonest and despicable. More on that later.
Welcome Back, Blogger
Arrgh, a whole week without a post. Blog, I've missed you.
I'd forgotten just how demanding a profession teaching can be, when you do it right - that is, whole-heartedly. I've seen veteran teachers who mange to use their time more efficiently than I do (erm, and not just teachers, either). But there's a learning curve for me in teaching at this grade level, so I'm burning the candle at both ends.
The original idea for this blog was to have a free place to park my archives, with occasional newer posts. Then it turned into more fun than I should be allowed to have, and also a bit of a time suck. Now it's a hobby that I really miss having the time for. And blogging, too, can take up a lot of time if you do it right. If anybody wants to pay me for it, I can guarantee a steady stream of pithy posts every day. But for now it's catch as catch can.
So here's your "Friday Night" Video:
I'd forgotten just how demanding a profession teaching can be, when you do it right - that is, whole-heartedly. I've seen veteran teachers who mange to use their time more efficiently than I do (erm, and not just teachers, either). But there's a learning curve for me in teaching at this grade level, so I'm burning the candle at both ends.
The original idea for this blog was to have a free place to park my archives, with occasional newer posts. Then it turned into more fun than I should be allowed to have, and also a bit of a time suck. Now it's a hobby that I really miss having the time for. And blogging, too, can take up a lot of time if you do it right. If anybody wants to pay me for it, I can guarantee a steady stream of pithy posts every day. But for now it's catch as catch can.
So here's your "Friday Night" Video:
Monday, August 15, 2011
Monday Random Ten #22
1. Iron & Wine w/ calexico/ History of Lovers/ In the Reins EP
2. Christina Aguillera/ Beautiful/ Stripped
3. Tom Russell/ Don't Look Down/ Blood and Candle Smoke
4. Godwin Omabuwa/ Dick Tiger's Vistory/ Marvellous Boy
5. The Nguyên Lê Trio/ Madal/ Bakida
6. Roky Erickson/ Goodbye Sweet Dreams/ True Love Cast Out All Evil
7. Jim Lauderdale/Honky Tonk Mood Again/ Country Super Hits
8. DJ Shadow/ You Made It/ The Outsider
9. Pat Hare/ I'm Gonna Murder My Baby/ Sun Records - 25 Blues Classics
10. Heartless Bastards/ The Mountain/ The Mountain
2. Christina Aguillera/ Beautiful/ Stripped
3. Tom Russell/ Don't Look Down/ Blood and Candle Smoke
4. Godwin Omabuwa/ Dick Tiger's Vistory/ Marvellous Boy
5. The Nguyên Lê Trio/ Madal/ Bakida
6. Roky Erickson/ Goodbye Sweet Dreams/ True Love Cast Out All Evil
7. Jim Lauderdale/Honky Tonk Mood Again/ Country Super Hits
8. DJ Shadow/ You Made It/ The Outsider
9. Pat Hare/ I'm Gonna Murder My Baby/ Sun Records - 25 Blues Classics
10. Heartless Bastards/ The Mountain/ The Mountain
Masters of Projection
Paul Krugman is exasperated:
The way this overlaps our projection problem though, is this: they basically assume that whatever the left is in favor of, it must be Keynesianism. And contrariwise, if Keynes advocated some policy, it must be a leftist plot to enslave the poor with chains of dependency and punish the successful for theiradvantageous accident of birth business acumen. Richard Nixon's proclamation that "we're all Keynsians now" is so 20th century.
So that's not actually how to go about debating and solving the problems we face as a nation, but it seems to be working out okay for them so far. For actual intelligent discussion of Keynes and the relevance of his theories to the current crisis, try, oh, I dunno, a Nobel laureate in economics.
UPDATE: Poor Krugman today: "Sometimes I really do wonder whether it’s even worth trying to make rational arguments."
I’m not the first person to notice this, but whenever you read conservatives trying to critique what they think the other side believes, you find them assuming that their opponents must be mirror images of themselves. The right believes that less government spending is always good, regardless of circumstances, so it assumes that the other side must always favor more government spending. The right says that deficits are always evil (unless they’re caused by tax cuts), so they assume that the center-left must favor deficits in all conditions.Yes, I've noticed this as well. It seems like whatever the right-wing power/looting/propaganda apparatus is up to that in any way twinges what's left of their conscience, they make sure to accuse the left of doing that very same thing. Election fraud, racism, gross incompetence, you name it. But Krugman's post is actually about something different: the utter failure to understand Keynesian economics.
The way this overlaps our projection problem though, is this: they basically assume that whatever the left is in favor of, it must be Keynesianism. And contrariwise, if Keynes advocated some policy, it must be a leftist plot to enslave the poor with chains of dependency and punish the successful for their
So that's not actually how to go about debating and solving the problems we face as a nation, but it seems to be working out okay for them so far. For actual intelligent discussion of Keynes and the relevance of his theories to the current crisis, try, oh, I dunno, a Nobel laureate in economics.
UPDATE: Poor Krugman today: "Sometimes I really do wonder whether it’s even worth trying to make rational arguments."
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Some Splainin' To Do
I continue to try to patiently make the case for progressive economic policies in correspondence with a conservative who is dear to my heart. He takes affront at the notion that everything is "Bush's fault," and repeats discredited talking points that Obama has "made things worse." It seems to me that these are actually extremely crucial matters. It makes a great deal of difference how we affix blame for the crisis, and why.
I am not arguing that everything is Bush's fault. I will argue that he was the most economically disastrous president since Herbert Hoover. The statistics bear me out on this, however you want to measure "disaster."
I will argue against anybody who says Obama has "made it worse." Obama has presided over stagnation, and has singularly failed to get the economy moving at the pace necessary for a full recovery. But he inherited the most disastrous economy since Herbert Hoover's. The economy was plummeting like a bowling ball in a jell-o swimming pool, and he stopped that from getting far, far, worse. See above right (h/t Kevin Drum)::
But I don't believe that whatever anemic recovery we've had is solely because of Barack Obama.
Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson, and, yes, the guy who appointed them, GW Bush, deserve some of the credit for averting a complete and utter catastrophe, instead of just a major disaster. Bernanke in particular, was one of Bush's best appointments, or at least one of the least horrible. But credit to those gentlemen is minimal and conditional, as they bore primary responsibility, along with Alan Greenspan, for the abyss they helped us begin to climb out of.
It's worth remembering, though, that Senator Barack Obama, as the more-or-less-obvious next President in the fall of 2008, was instrumental in the decision-making process at White House meetings with Bush and Paulson during those crucial months. Senator John McCain, as the more-or-less obvious loser of the upcoming election, was reportedly sullen and unhelpful during those same meetings - and helped cement his loss with his bizarre public statements as the crisis began to unfold.
Also, I have no doubt that Wall Street and the White House had been scrambling to keep the more-or-less-obvious impending collapse from occurring until after the November elections - which only made it that much worse when the house of cards finally did blow over.
I'm happy to give some of the blame to Bill Clinton, too – for reappointing Greenspan, and also for signing the disastrous GOP repeal of FDR's Glass-Steagel Act. If you want to blame Pelosi and Reid, I'll grant them some measure of responsibility, too, but it's beyond ludicrous to try to place the major blame on the 110th Congress. If they had been one-tenth as obstructive of Bush's policies as McConnell and Boehner have been of Obama's - during a national emergency in the latter case - we might have been stuck in a slightly shallower hole when the crash came. Instead, yes, they mostly enabled his continued recklessness.
So, no, not everything was GW Bush's fault, but he and Greenspan deserve the lion's share of the responsibility. There were historical currents at work in the global economy during those years, and we may well have had a crash in 2007-09 if Al Gore had served two terms as president - especially if he left credit default swaps unregulated and failed to address the housing bubble. Somehow I doubt he would have done the latter, and he certainly would have made better appointments at Treasury and the Fed.
The biggest problem in all this is that conservatives, with very few exceptions, have been utterly unwilling to acknowledge the enormity of the mistakes their policies represented, let alone to learn from them. So they continue to advocate the same tax-cuts-and-deregulation agenda that brought on the crash. Worse, they're leveraging their influence in the divided government and the media to advocate for austerity budgeting. That was Hoover's biggest error, and FDR's too, in 1937. It is demonstrably re-crashing economies across Europe. This goes well beyond a failure to learn from history; it amounts to an obstinate refusal to do so.
I am not arguing that everything is Bush's fault. I will argue that he was the most economically disastrous president since Herbert Hoover. The statistics bear me out on this, however you want to measure "disaster."
I will argue against anybody who says Obama has "made it worse." Obama has presided over stagnation, and has singularly failed to get the economy moving at the pace necessary for a full recovery. But he inherited the most disastrous economy since Herbert Hoover's. The economy was plummeting like a bowling ball in a jell-o swimming pool, and he stopped that from getting far, far, worse. See above right (h/t Kevin Drum)::But I don't believe that whatever anemic recovery we've had is solely because of Barack Obama.
Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson, and, yes, the guy who appointed them, GW Bush, deserve some of the credit for averting a complete and utter catastrophe, instead of just a major disaster. Bernanke in particular, was one of Bush's best appointments, or at least one of the least horrible. But credit to those gentlemen is minimal and conditional, as they bore primary responsibility, along with Alan Greenspan, for the abyss they helped us begin to climb out of.
It's worth remembering, though, that Senator Barack Obama, as the more-or-less-obvious next President in the fall of 2008, was instrumental in the decision-making process at White House meetings with Bush and Paulson during those crucial months. Senator John McCain, as the more-or-less obvious loser of the upcoming election, was reportedly sullen and unhelpful during those same meetings - and helped cement his loss with his bizarre public statements as the crisis began to unfold.
Also, I have no doubt that Wall Street and the White House had been scrambling to keep the more-or-less-obvious impending collapse from occurring until after the November elections - which only made it that much worse when the house of cards finally did blow over.
I'm happy to give some of the blame to Bill Clinton, too – for reappointing Greenspan, and also for signing the disastrous GOP repeal of FDR's Glass-Steagel Act. If you want to blame Pelosi and Reid, I'll grant them some measure of responsibility, too, but it's beyond ludicrous to try to place the major blame on the 110th Congress. If they had been one-tenth as obstructive of Bush's policies as McConnell and Boehner have been of Obama's - during a national emergency in the latter case - we might have been stuck in a slightly shallower hole when the crash came. Instead, yes, they mostly enabled his continued recklessness.
So, no, not everything was GW Bush's fault, but he and Greenspan deserve the lion's share of the responsibility. There were historical currents at work in the global economy during those years, and we may well have had a crash in 2007-09 if Al Gore had served two terms as president - especially if he left credit default swaps unregulated and failed to address the housing bubble. Somehow I doubt he would have done the latter, and he certainly would have made better appointments at Treasury and the Fed.
The biggest problem in all this is that conservatives, with very few exceptions, have been utterly unwilling to acknowledge the enormity of the mistakes their policies represented, let alone to learn from them. So they continue to advocate the same tax-cuts-and-deregulation agenda that brought on the crash. Worse, they're leveraging their influence in the divided government and the media to advocate for austerity budgeting. That was Hoover's biggest error, and FDR's too, in 1937. It is demonstrably re-crashing economies across Europe. This goes well beyond a failure to learn from history; it amounts to an obstinate refusal to do so.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Gil the Cat, 2007-2011
I've known a lot of cats in my day, having lived with twelve of them over the years. But I just buried the eleventh one, a feisty character named Gil. He's survived by his sweeter but dimmer brother Gus.Gil and Gus came from the same litter, we were told at the adoption agency, and Gil had survived some sort of ailment that left one eye permanently clouded. He was a sickly kitten, but soon made up for it with a prodigious appetite, and grew up to a healthy weight.
Gil, unlike his brother, did not suffer fools gladly. Gus will let any toddler manhandle him any which way for hours on end. But if Gil didn't like the way you were petting him, he'd let you know about it. Nevertheless, he was always friendly with strangers, sidling up to plumbers and other visitors, sometimes leaping right up into their arms.
With me, he had a way of just draping himself around my neck like a mink stole, purring away while I craned my arm back to try and pet him where he preferred. When I came home from work, he'd come running up like a little dog to greet me. Gil was a one-man cat, and I was his man. I was his best friend in the world. I've loved many a cat, but never had one love me quite that much.A few months ago, Gil developed what looked like an infected bug bite on his nose. It was treated with antibiotics, antibacterials and antifungals, but nothing seemed to work. At that point the docs had pretty much ruled out everything but cancer, and it was too far along. Radiation therapy was the only hope, but the chances of surviving that ordeal were slim. By last week we had reached the unmistakable point where the kindest thing we could do for him is to set his spirit free. We spent a last day together trying to pour a bit more love into him while we could.
On Sunday I drove him down to the vet to get Gil a ticket to the next world, and held him in my arms while the injections ceased his suffering. We buried him in the yard under a rainy moonlit sky, next to four of my other twelve cats who have passed on since we moved to this house. I sang "Brokedown Palace" for him, and my grieving children tossed handfuls of dirt on his little cardboard coffin.
Now it's just us, and Gus. Plus that goofball dog we live with. But it'll never be the same without Gil, and I miss him every day. So long buddy, and thanks for all the purrs.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Monday Random Ten #21
1. Betty Harris/ Ride Your Pony/ In the Saddle
2. Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong/ They Can't take That Away From Me/ The Complete Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong
3. Beach House/ Real Love/ Teen Dream
4. Roseanne Cash/ Pink Bedroom./ Rhythm & Romance
5. Lefty Frizzell/ Silence/ Life's Like Poetry
6. Willie Nelson/ Stardust/ One Hell of a Ride
7. Ali Farka Toure/ Nijarou/ Savane
8. John Butler Trio/ Zebra/ Sunrise Over Sea
9. The Jacksons/ I'll Be There / Live at the Carre Theatre
10. Lady Gaga/ Retro Physical/ The Fame Monster
2. Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong/ They Can't take That Away From Me/ The Complete Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong
3. Beach House/ Real Love/ Teen Dream
4. Roseanne Cash/ Pink Bedroom./ Rhythm & Romance
5. Lefty Frizzell/ Silence/ Life's Like Poetry
6. Willie Nelson/ Stardust/ One Hell of a Ride
7. Ali Farka Toure/ Nijarou/ Savane
8. John Butler Trio/ Zebra/ Sunrise Over Sea
9. The Jacksons/ I'll Be There / Live at the Carre Theatre
10. Lady Gaga/ Retro Physical/ The Fame Monster
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Last Night's Video
Time intervals are so arbitrary... let's go back to 1994, shall we?
BTW, Mr. Malkmus has a new long-player hitting the stores soon... assuming any stores near you still sell CDs.
BTW, Mr. Malkmus has a new long-player hitting the stores soon... assuming any stores near you still sell CDs.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Some Folks Will Never Get It
Before I've even had my coffee, this is what Erick Erickson of RedState.com left in my inbox:
It. Is. The. Other. Way. Around.
The reason we have an historically high budget deficit is that we have an historically high unemployment rate. Fourteen million people are out of work, and those people are not paying taxes to the federal government. Nor are they going out to restaurants or furniture stores. As a result, businesses, with their customer base decimated, are not paying much in taxes to state and local governments, either.
So those governments, in the grip of austerity budgeting, are laying off workers by the hundreds of thousands, and all the teachers, park rangers, pothole fillers and cops who used to have jobs are also not paying much in taxes, nor visiting their local restaurants and furniture stores.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Then we have George Will, who would make me spit up my coffee if I had any, perseverating over the number of people on government assistance:
You in the back? That's right, because conservative dogma crashed the economy. Enormous housing bubble, not only ignored but encouraged. Record income inequality, exacerbated by regressive tax policies. Businesses and households leveraged to the hilt, squeezed by anemic job growth. Reckless deregulation and lax oversight, encouraging Enron-style accounting across the financial sector. An accident waiting to happen. And then it happened.
Now, what has happened since then, we can argue about until the cows come home, and they ain't coming home for quite some time. But the economy has not recovered and is teetering on the brink again. The initial plunge in GDP was much worse than anyone knew at the time, and hence we had inadequate stimulus, which has since petered out. Then we fell into the grip of austerity budgeting, which has only made the problem worse, a la 1937. The Europeans, too, have been in the grip of austerity budgeting, and so they, too, are teetering on the brink.
And while I was typing all this, the new jobs data came out. Once again, private sector added jobs, though not nearly enough – while public sector continues to shed jobs, creating further drag on the economy. What a surprise.
As the global markets freak out, conservative dogma doubles down, insisting that even greater austerity budgeting is the only answer, and that government must cut spending still further, thus shedding even more jobs. Makes one want to rhythmically tap one's cranium against the nearest vertical masonry edifice.
Despite being dispirited by the one-sided nature of the debt ceiling deal, most of us were looking forward to reaping the rewards from its only ancillary benefit; the impending stock market rally. Much to our chagrin, the Dow dropped precipitously, losing over 800 points since the opening bell on Monday. After the initial euphoria from the debt ceiling hangover began to subside, people have been forced to confront an inconvenient reality. The problem with the economy is not the debt ceiling; it is the debt – and all that it represents; overbearing and job-killing government.Let me say this nice and slow: The debt "crisis" is not the cause of the jobs crisis. It is the other way around.
It. Is. The. Other. Way. Around.
The reason we have an historically high budget deficit is that we have an historically high unemployment rate. Fourteen million people are out of work, and those people are not paying taxes to the federal government. Nor are they going out to restaurants or furniture stores. As a result, businesses, with their customer base decimated, are not paying much in taxes to state and local governments, either.
So those governments, in the grip of austerity budgeting, are laying off workers by the hundreds of thousands, and all the teachers, park rangers, pothole fillers and cops who used to have jobs are also not paying much in taxes, nor visiting their local restaurants and furniture stores.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Then we have George Will, who would make me spit up my coffee if I had any, perseverating over the number of people on government assistance:
Regarding the federal regime: Before this debate, who knew that the government sends more than 100 million checks or electronic transfers a month to employees, vendors and — much the largest group — entitlement beneficiaries, including 21 million households receiving food stamps?O Flying Spaghetti Monster, please grant me patience. Again, nice and slow. Why do we have record numbers of people on food stamps, forcing higher government expenditures and thus increasing the deficit? No, not because big-government liberals want to create slavish dependency so they can maintain their dictatorial grip on the nation's lifeblood.
You in the back? That's right, because conservative dogma crashed the economy. Enormous housing bubble, not only ignored but encouraged. Record income inequality, exacerbated by regressive tax policies. Businesses and households leveraged to the hilt, squeezed by anemic job growth. Reckless deregulation and lax oversight, encouraging Enron-style accounting across the financial sector. An accident waiting to happen. And then it happened.
Now, what has happened since then, we can argue about until the cows come home, and they ain't coming home for quite some time. But the economy has not recovered and is teetering on the brink again. The initial plunge in GDP was much worse than anyone knew at the time, and hence we had inadequate stimulus, which has since petered out. Then we fell into the grip of austerity budgeting, which has only made the problem worse, a la 1937. The Europeans, too, have been in the grip of austerity budgeting, and so they, too, are teetering on the brink.
And while I was typing all this, the new jobs data came out. Once again, private sector added jobs, though not nearly enough – while public sector continues to shed jobs, creating further drag on the economy. What a surprise.
As the global markets freak out, conservative dogma doubles down, insisting that even greater austerity budgeting is the only answer, and that government must cut spending still further, thus shedding even more jobs. Makes one want to rhythmically tap one's cranium against the nearest vertical masonry edifice.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Big Sigh
Jane Hamsher's behind-the scenes account of the debt ceiling negotiations is bound to make you feel even worse about the way the whole debacle was handled. Just go read the whole thing, if you're feeling excessively chipper today.
Letter to a Right-Winger
However, I'd be happier if the articles were more fact-based than this one. I have little use for this kind of piece when it comes from the left: "Look at all the mean/outrageous things right-wingers say about us!" I could find an equal number of nasty quotes from the right, compile them, and send them to you, but it'd be a waste of both our time. If you listen to Mark Levin, read Ann Coulter, or watch Bill O'Reilly, then you get no shortage of them on a daily basis.
I'm happy to stipulate that civility is a virtue, one practiced imperfectly on both sides of our political culture, each of whom feels themselves to be the more aggrieved. Moreover, I'll agree that one needs to be careful with one's metaphors, though I also don't want to live in a world where colorful language is suppressed.
But it also seems to me that if Republicans take genuine, rather than feigned, offense at being called or compared to terrorists - you know, the way Sarah Palin and her acolytes referred to Barack Obama in 2008 - then they ought to forswear tactics such as those Mitch McConnell describes here:
"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this—it's a hostage that's worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done."The political culture in DC is more toxic than ever, and anger at both parties, and within both parties, is at fever pitch. Part of the reason is that the GOP is, more or less unilaterally, playing a game called constitutional hardball, in which tactics not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, but prohibited by generations of established political norms, are embraced to gain maximum leverage.
Republicans are clearly within their rights to do things like mid-decade redistricting, routine filibustering, blocking executive appointments at unprecedented levels, requiring voter ID and then closing down the offices necessary to obtain them only in Democratic districts, or threatening to shut down the government if they don't get their way. But such tactics do come at a certain price, and diminished civility is part of it.
And I'd argue that part of the reason our political culture has become so feverish is that the Democratic Party has been much more reluctant to play constitutional hardball when it's to their advantage - as in the failure to reform the filibuster, advance DC statehood, mitigate the Citizens United decision, or any number of things they (once) had the power to do. This is is part because the liberal outlook is by nature more conciliatory, and in part because the Democratic coalition is more heterogenous.
But however angry we get at Republicans for changing the rules mid-game (as in Calvinball), it's also true that the increasing polarization of our parties is a natural outgrowth of the successes of the civil rights movement. Pro-segregation politics made for strange bedfellows in both parties, and over the decades since, we've seen liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats migrating to the party that best matches their ideology. We still have more of the latter than the former, adding to the friction, but this is a process that will continue. Constitutional hardball is a part of this process, but the danger is that if pushed too far, it will lead to a constitutional crisis.
What happened last month unprecedented, but it was only the latest unprecedented outrage. The GOP went well beyond threatening to, or succeeding in, shutting down the government. They were playing chicken with the full faith and credit of our government. If the default had occurred and our credit ratings downgraded, our interest payments would have gone up, adding billions more to the deficit. But beyond that it would have created shock waves in our national and global economy, and in fact, the use of the tactic has already spooked both markets and consumers. Moreover, the success of the tactic, in cutting spending during a recession, will demonstrably slow down growth, at a time when the economy seems to already be slowing. This may well spark a double-dip recession.
Under the circumstances, it seems like the epithets Mr. Goldberg quoted were relatively mild, but in any case, a waste of everybody's time. Both sides should be concentrating their minds on the grim economic data unfolding before us and fashioning adult, responsible solutions, rather than manufactured crises that address the budgets of 2013 and beyond.
However, I will say this: any party that has employed Karl Rove as their chief political operative has forfeited the right to complain about civility for at least a generation to come.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Perils of EduBlogging
During my orientation for "new" teachers the district's lawyer gave a PowerPoint on legal issues for teachers. Most of it centered on mandatory reporting issues for students at risk, most of which was not new to me. But she also mentioned how it would be deemed inappropriate for a teacher to blog disparagingly about their students or colleagues.This got my antennae up. I asked her afterwards about the grey area in such matters. We're a long way from the days when a teacher could be dismissed for interracial dating or for being gay (in some states, anyway). Obviously I'd be protected if I wrote a letter to the editor about educational policy, and if I blog about education issues or philosophy, I should expect the same rights.
But there's a grey area in between, and I wanted to know more about where the borders are. Her reply was that it would take an hour to answer my question and she didn't have an hour. But she advised me to simply stay out of the grey area, and to do a google on, say, "first amendment teachers rights" and see what comes up. At the top of the results, as you can see, is the website for "First Amendment Schools," a resource for both students and teachers, which I immediately bookmarked.
As if on cue, driving to work the next morning I heard a report on NPR about a teacher who had been suspended for... blogging disparagingly about her students or colleagues. The anchor seemed to think it amusing that she had been "sentenced" to going back and teaching those same students. And according to the account on HuffPo, she's mulling over whether to return.
It looks to me like her comments truly were inappropriate, and though she was blogging with the expectation of anonymity, that expectation was unrealistic in this day and age. Those are the kinds of things you wouldn't say over a restaurant dinner, either, because you never know who might be in the next booth. And it's nothing that I would ever blog about, since I'm concerned with policy, which one would hope is at the other end of the spectrum. But note that her completely tactless comments were protected enough that she was reinstated.
On the other hand, First Amendment rights for students have generally been found by the courts to have fewer protections and more restrictions. There's a grey area there too, but this cyberbullying case clearly falls on the wrong side of that, an issue to which we shall no doubt return.
In the meantime, there is so much fertile ground to plow in the protected area of the sliding scale that there's barely enough time to discuss it all. Case in point: gotta get to work.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Monday Random Ten #20
Here are the first ten songs to pop up on my iPod; Artist/ Song/ Album:
1. Conjunto Clasico/ Somos Iguales/ The Rough Guide to Salsa Gold
2. Mary J. Blige/ Sweet Thing/ What's the 411?
3. Thione Seck/ Yaye Boye/ Best of Thione Seck
4. Captain Beefheart & the Magic Band/ Neon Meate Dream Of A Octafish/ Trout Mask Replica
5. Paramore/ That's What You Get/ Riot!
6. Stanger and Patsy/ Down By The Train Line/ Let's Do Rocksteady
7. Nusrat Ali Fateh Khan/ Jewell/ Ecstasy
8. B-52s/ Good Stuff/ Good Stuff
9. Rhonda Harris/ Think of Me Naked/ Rhonda Harris
10. Talib Kweli/ Beautiful Struggle/ Talib Kweli
1. Conjunto Clasico/ Somos Iguales/ The Rough Guide to Salsa Gold
2. Mary J. Blige/ Sweet Thing/ What's the 411?
3. Thione Seck/ Yaye Boye/ Best of Thione Seck
4. Captain Beefheart & the Magic Band/ Neon Meate Dream Of A Octafish/ Trout Mask Replica
5. Paramore/ That's What You Get/ Riot!
6. Stanger and Patsy/ Down By The Train Line/ Let's Do Rocksteady
7. Nusrat Ali Fateh Khan/ Jewell/ Ecstasy
8. B-52s/ Good Stuff/ Good Stuff
9. Rhonda Harris/ Think of Me Naked/ Rhonda Harris
10. Talib Kweli/ Beautiful Struggle/ Talib Kweli
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Negative Interest Rates!
I know we're all weary... so, so weary. But just in case facts matter to the people you discuss this fiasco with, please take a moment to remind them that right now, the federal government can borrow money at negative interest rates. I know it's hard to wrap your brain around, but it's still true. This is not only not a debt crisis, it's the exact opposite of a debt crisis. Our debt service payments are much lower now than they were back before the debt "exploded" – because Uncle Sam can borrow at negative interest rates!

Under the circumstances, with fourteen million people out of work, it's nuts not to borrow and spend the money necessary to hire back all the teachers, cops, construction workers and others tossed out of work by this zombie austerity movement. Why, oh why are we ruled by such lunatics?
Oh yeah, see previous post.

Under the circumstances, with fourteen million people out of work, it's nuts not to borrow and spend the money necessary to hire back all the teachers, cops, construction workers and others tossed out of work by this zombie austerity movement. Why, oh why are we ruled by such lunatics?
Oh yeah, see previous post.
Toward Better Wishing
Well, it looks like I'm about to get my wish: for this whole sordid, excruciatingly stupid ordeal to be over. But as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. For one thing, of course, we're bound to go through this again, and fairly soon, as the GOP tests the efficacy of the Madman Theory as it applies to the Catfood Commission, as well as the next round of budget negotiations.
Moreover, of course, just having this over with is small comfort, since it's bound to be a bad deal – though the extent to which it's an evil-Spock/anti-Keynes deal remains to be seen. Whippersnapper Matt Yglesias suggests a bad deal was inevitable:
There's much to agree with in BooMan's defense of BHO-Man. The problem for me is the line I bolded at the end of that last paragraph. IIRC. the president was using anti-Keynesian rhetoric long before the midterm elections, and gave up on Keynesian economics well before the GOP forced his hand. Some of that was baked into the peculiar results of the '08 legislative races, with the bad luck of Al Franken's contested race and Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.
But if we're talking about how well BHO has played the cards he's been dealt, we also have to talk about how effectively he played cards available to him to influence the outcome of of the '08 and '10 legislative races. He had a tremendous war chest in '08 and a floundering opponent. There were grumblings at the time that a few cash infusions could have swung a Senate seat or two the other way (the GOP wins in Kentucky and Georgia were surprisingly close). There were grumblings as well that placing Napolitano, Sibelius, Salazar and Vilsack in the cabinet removed some formidable '10 Senate contenders from contention, as well as any incentives for John McCain or Chuck Grassley to behave themselves. (Never mind the decision by BHO and party leadership to support the Connecticut for Lieberman Party nominee in '06 instead of the Democrat.)
But the place where the grumblings were loudest, both inside and outside the White House, was the debate over the size of the stimulus. Hindsight is 20/20, but plenty of people at the time (no link required) could see both that the stimulus was too small to fully jumpstart the economy, and that consequently it was likely to affect the results of the '10 midterm elections. The way that hand was played means that the player has fewer chips to bargain with today.
Moreover, of course, just having this over with is small comfort, since it's bound to be a bad deal – though the extent to which it's an evil-Spock/anti-Keynes deal remains to be seen. Whippersnapper Matt Yglesias suggests a bad deal was inevitable:
The rumored deals flying around Washington today all sound pretty bad. And how could they not be? The White House started with a position that:
1. Failure to raise the debt ceiling is unacceptable.
2. The country should enact substantial deficit reduction in 2011.
3. Any deficit reduction package must include revenue increases.
But (1) and (3) were in significant tension. The White House strategy for getting (3) was to persuade the public that (3) was the correct position. They did that, and all polls showed that public opinion was on their side. But then an underpants gnome problem arose. They didn’t dissolve parliament and call for a snap election. Eric Cantor said “no” and once he said “no,” (1) collided with (3) and the White House dropped (3). Once you’re there, how is the deal not going to be bad?Meanwhile whippersnapper Ezra Klein likewise opines that failure was always an option:
It’s difficult to see how it could have ended otherwise. Virtually no Democrats are willing to go past Aug. 2 without raising the debt ceiling. Plenty of Republicans are prepared to blow through the deadline. That’s not a dynamic that lends itself to a deal. That’s a dynamic that lends itself to a ransom.On the other hand, greybeard BooMan argues that Obama played his cards about as well as could be expected:
Let's look at where we stand this weekend. As soon as the ink was dry from the 2010 midterm elections it was clear that we would be seeing something never seen before. We would be seeing a link between raising the debt ceiling and cutting the deficit dramatically. I believe MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell discussed this on the air on election night, or within days of it anyway. So many new members had pledged to make this link that it was inevitable that the link would be made.
How did the president respond? At first he made the obvious argument that such a linkage had never been made before and should not be made now. But it wasn't something the Republicans could be deterred from doing by mere rhetoric. In fact, raising the debt ceiling polls very poorly and educating the public about it would entail a months-long effort to justify the government's inability to live within its means. The president's mission wouldn't be merely to improve those poll numbers to parity, but to convince an overwhelming number of people so that immense pressure would be placed on Republicans serving in conservative districts to abandon their linkage. This would have been an impossible task, even if his own party remained united behind him. But they wouldn't have remained united; increasingly they would have become divided.
As should be obvious by now, the new Speaker of the House never had the votes to pass a clean hike in the debt ceiling. He never had the votes to pass any reasonable or acceptable or even sane hike in the debt ceiling. And this wasn't any great secret. By no later than early spring it was clear that decoupling was impossible and that some deal must be struck. It was also clear before long that the Speaker couldn't deliver any fair or reasonable deal. What I'm saying here is that our present situation was not avoidable. We should not be debating why we're debating the debt ceiling. We're debating it because we lost the 2010 midterms, badly, to a bunch of fire-breathing debt-crusaders. It's fair to place some blame on the president for those midterm losses, but we have to keep things in context.
There's much to agree with in BooMan's defense of BHO-Man. The problem for me is the line I bolded at the end of that last paragraph. IIRC. the president was using anti-Keynesian rhetoric long before the midterm elections, and gave up on Keynesian economics well before the GOP forced his hand. Some of that was baked into the peculiar results of the '08 legislative races, with the bad luck of Al Franken's contested race and Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.
But if we're talking about how well BHO has played the cards he's been dealt, we also have to talk about how effectively he played cards available to him to influence the outcome of of the '08 and '10 legislative races. He had a tremendous war chest in '08 and a floundering opponent. There were grumblings at the time that a few cash infusions could have swung a Senate seat or two the other way (the GOP wins in Kentucky and Georgia were surprisingly close). There were grumblings as well that placing Napolitano, Sibelius, Salazar and Vilsack in the cabinet removed some formidable '10 Senate contenders from contention, as well as any incentives for John McCain or Chuck Grassley to behave themselves. (Never mind the decision by BHO and party leadership to support the Connecticut for Lieberman Party nominee in '06 instead of the Democrat.)
But the place where the grumblings were loudest, both inside and outside the White House, was the debate over the size of the stimulus. Hindsight is 20/20, but plenty of people at the time (no link required) could see both that the stimulus was too small to fully jumpstart the economy, and that consequently it was likely to affect the results of the '10 midterm elections. The way that hand was played means that the player has fewer chips to bargain with today.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Werner Herzog's Dreams
Cave of Forgotten Dreams, like all Werner Herzog films, is in some measure about Werner Herzog. In this case, the old boy shows up often in front of the camera, and rather than choose a distinguished narrator like Morgan Freeman or Helen Mirren to convey his awe, we are treated to his own wizened, accented croak. And whether in spite of this or because of it, the film is a triumph.
It's probably true of all great filmmakers that their movies are, in some measure, about themselves (Scorsese springs to mind). But Herzog has a knack for intertwining his subject matter with his own idiosyncratic vision – one of the many films about him is, after all, entitled I Am My Films. Herzog and his camera crews have a way of becoming part of the story, enhancing the viewing with sometimes apocryphal tales of the arduous shoot.
Herzog's methods have become legendary, whether it's trekking to the rim of an active volcano (La Soufrière), schlepping his entire crew up to the source waters of the Amazon (Aguirre, the Wrath of God), hypnotizing his onscreen actors (Heart of Glass), going to extreme lengths to mollify a disgruntled all-dwarf cast (Even Dwarves Started Small), going to extreme lengths to stare down a prima donna star (Aguirre, again), or most famously, literally – and disastrously – dragging a ship over a mountain, just like his megalomaniac title character (Fitzcarraldo),
After that glorious fiasco, it's a wonder anyone gives him financing anymore, but we're all the richer that someone did. And Herzog's reputation has recovered sufficiently (Oscar noms always help) that the History Channel and the French government thought it would be a good idea for him to be granted filming priveleges inside the amazing Chauvet Cave, site of the world's oldest known cave paintings.
Herzog's sense of wonder at the "abyss of time" represented by these 32,000-year-old images is palpable. Though the scientists and art historians he interviews have interesting things to say, the paintings themselves are the true star of the film. With their delicate, sweeping lines, subtle shading and the detailed, emotive empathy with the animals depicted, any contemporary artist would be proud to have created such images. And the evocative choral score by Ernst Reijseger masterfully reflects the majesty of the site.
But Herzog the filmmaker also notices that the cave painter anticpated the use of motion in painting by, for instance, depicting an ox with eight legs. This recalls Duchamp's 1911 "Sad Young Man On a Train" and other painterly reactions to the birth of cinema. Herzog makes other explicit connections to moviemaking, as when he compares the artist's torchlit figure painting to a clip of Fred Astaire dancing with his own projected shadows. One interviewed archaeologist points directly at the camera lens to make the point that the Chauvet painter basically invented the medium of communicating with a future audience - "just as that camera does."
To Herzog, this stunning artwork represents "the dawn of the modern human soul," and he asks his scientists what is perhaps the central question in all his work: "What is human-ness?" And from exploring the world of the deaf and blind to the solitary work of a grizzly bear afficionado, this has concerned Herzog throughout his career. In Cave of Forgotten Dreams, after years of pointing his camera at extraordinary sights, he's found a subject that both illuminates and deepens this mystery.
It's probably true of all great filmmakers that their movies are, in some measure, about themselves (Scorsese springs to mind). But Herzog has a knack for intertwining his subject matter with his own idiosyncratic vision – one of the many films about him is, after all, entitled I Am My Films. Herzog and his camera crews have a way of becoming part of the story, enhancing the viewing with sometimes apocryphal tales of the arduous shoot.
Herzog's methods have become legendary, whether it's trekking to the rim of an active volcano (La Soufrière), schlepping his entire crew up to the source waters of the Amazon (Aguirre, the Wrath of God), hypnotizing his onscreen actors (Heart of Glass), going to extreme lengths to mollify a disgruntled all-dwarf cast (Even Dwarves Started Small), going to extreme lengths to stare down a prima donna star (Aguirre, again), or most famously, literally – and disastrously – dragging a ship over a mountain, just like his megalomaniac title character (Fitzcarraldo),
After that glorious fiasco, it's a wonder anyone gives him financing anymore, but we're all the richer that someone did. And Herzog's reputation has recovered sufficiently (Oscar noms always help) that the History Channel and the French government thought it would be a good idea for him to be granted filming priveleges inside the amazing Chauvet Cave, site of the world's oldest known cave paintings.
Herzog's sense of wonder at the "abyss of time" represented by these 32,000-year-old images is palpable. Though the scientists and art historians he interviews have interesting things to say, the paintings themselves are the true star of the film. With their delicate, sweeping lines, subtle shading and the detailed, emotive empathy with the animals depicted, any contemporary artist would be proud to have created such images. And the evocative choral score by Ernst Reijseger masterfully reflects the majesty of the site.
But Herzog the filmmaker also notices that the cave painter anticpated the use of motion in painting by, for instance, depicting an ox with eight legs. This recalls Duchamp's 1911 "Sad Young Man On a Train" and other painterly reactions to the birth of cinema. Herzog makes other explicit connections to moviemaking, as when he compares the artist's torchlit figure painting to a clip of Fred Astaire dancing with his own projected shadows. One interviewed archaeologist points directly at the camera lens to make the point that the Chauvet painter basically invented the medium of communicating with a future audience - "just as that camera does."
To Herzog, this stunning artwork represents "the dawn of the modern human soul," and he asks his scientists what is perhaps the central question in all his work: "What is human-ness?" And from exploring the world of the deaf and blind to the solitary work of a grizzly bear afficionado, this has concerned Herzog throughout his career. In Cave of Forgotten Dreams, after years of pointing his camera at extraordinary sights, he's found a subject that both illuminates and deepens this mystery.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Some Things Bear Repeating
It's been said before, and plenty of times, that Bush's policies are contributing far more to our so-called "debt crisis" than Obama's policies do. The New York Times lays it out for us one more time.
A couple of things stand out for me in this presentation. The first is, no matter how much rightwingers harp on "Obama's failed stimulus," you'll notice that Bush put a stimulus package together, too, in response to the global financial meltdown. That was all tax cuts, and added on top of the original tax cut bill. And that failed pretty spectacularly, too, since the economy continued to melt down, oh, until Obama's stimulus bill passed.
One could argue, I suppose, that Bush's stimulus, and Obama's, added together, were finally enough to keep the entire global economy from going over the cliff into Great Depression II. But to make such an argument, you'd have to embrace the now- quaint notion that Keynesian counter-cyclical measures are a good idea. How I miss living on that planet.
The second thing that occurs to me is that, unlike Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, Obama didn't even vote for most of the Bush policies that dug us into deeper debt. It's true that he did help whip the TARP deal, but that still leaves the GOP holding most of the shovels at the bottom of a pretty deep pit.
Also, note that this chart shows projections for two full terms in office for President Obama, based on policies implemented to date. You'll note that Obama has already cut spending, something Bush didn't do during his entire eight years. Obviously at this point we can expect further spending cuts, even if Obama never gets a second term.
Finally, this chart concerns only the policies each president put in place. It doesn't even address the main reason we have record deficits right now: the ongoing jobs recession, which deprives government of revenue – at all levels – and impels higher payments to individuals and institutions – again, at all levels.
So, just to review: on whose watch did the global economy implode?
A couple of things stand out for me in this presentation. The first is, no matter how much rightwingers harp on "Obama's failed stimulus," you'll notice that Bush put a stimulus package together, too, in response to the global financial meltdown. That was all tax cuts, and added on top of the original tax cut bill. And that failed pretty spectacularly, too, since the economy continued to melt down, oh, until Obama's stimulus bill passed.
One could argue, I suppose, that Bush's stimulus, and Obama's, added together, were finally enough to keep the entire global economy from going over the cliff into Great Depression II. But to make such an argument, you'd have to embrace the now- quaint notion that Keynesian counter-cyclical measures are a good idea. How I miss living on that planet.
The second thing that occurs to me is that, unlike Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, Obama didn't even vote for most of the Bush policies that dug us into deeper debt. It's true that he did help whip the TARP deal, but that still leaves the GOP holding most of the shovels at the bottom of a pretty deep pit.
Also, note that this chart shows projections for two full terms in office for President Obama, based on policies implemented to date. You'll note that Obama has already cut spending, something Bush didn't do during his entire eight years. Obviously at this point we can expect further spending cuts, even if Obama never gets a second term.
Finally, this chart concerns only the policies each president put in place. It doesn't even address the main reason we have record deficits right now: the ongoing jobs recession, which deprives government of revenue – at all levels – and impels higher payments to individuals and institutions – again, at all levels.
So, just to review: on whose watch did the global economy implode?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)














