Will our economy and society emerge so risk-averse after these experiences that years will have to pass before we return to a system naturally generating vibrant economic growth and a renewed willingness to both borrow and lend? Or will we head in the opposite direction, where faith in ultimate bail-outs will justify the wildest kind of risk-taking? Or will the entire structure collapse from government debts and deficits that turn out to be so unmanageable that chaos is the ultimate result?
I'm struck by the dissonance between the speeches today given by the president and by the leader of the opposition. Here's Obama, shrewdly observed by Al Giordano:
I know that the insurance industry won't like the idea that they'll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect
Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know
that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're
ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save
taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know
that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in
tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy
that will create new jobs and new industries. I know these steps
won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are
invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing
up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: 'So am I.'
I concede I couldn't make it through all of Limbaugh's tirade (it was Castro-esque in its length, bombast and reception).
This is one of a series of photographs celebrating red-heads: "Root Ginger". Money quote from the artist:
“The book is a tribute to
people with this hair colour," says Wicks, “but it is also an investigation
into the genetic lottery that we all play… I was interested to explore the
phenomenon of recessive genes as well as the human tendency to judge and make
snap decisions about people who simply look different to them."
The deepest philosophical treatment of this question I know of can be found after the jump:
I am a small town lawyer in a two-person, general practice firm. My firm has been doing very little of the work we did quite a lot of two years ago (business formation, real estate transactions, construction defect/warranty litigation). On the other hand, our criminal defense and family law practice has picked up. And my partner, who does personal bankruptcies, is doing at least 3-4 new consultations a week. Two years ago, he would have that many in a month, if lucky.
Leanne Shapton, an artist and writer, has done something new: she has captured the full arc of a love affair in a novel that resembles an auction catalogue. "Important Artifacts and Personal Property From the Collection of Lenore Doolan and Harold Morris, Including Books, Street Fashion, and Jewelry" chronicles a four-year relationship through artefacts put up for sale, including romantic notes and ominous letters, diary lists and saved cookie fortunes. Each lot is carefully itemised, priced and arranged chronologically. Their meaning builds incrementally, and the effect is satisfyingly voyeuristic--as compelling as a motor-accident.
Fred Halliday reviews Steve Coll's new book on the family:
To read Coll's book is to enter a universe of perpetual movement and deal-making, but one in which little, if anything, is recorded or written down, where power and money are distributed by means of kin networks, informal gatherings of influential Saudi males, and the mobile phone. The Bin Ladens is not so much a book about Osama bin Laden himself, or his terrorist network and political aspirations, as about the power structures of modern Saudi Arabia. And in this it is most informative. Against much contemporary writing about the Arab world, which tends to explain political and social behavior by analysis of culture and religion, Coll's book is about more secular matters—about sibling rivalry; fascination with modern technology, particularly planes and means of communication; about the attraction of women; and above all, for all the talk of piety, about money.
One of the effects of reading Orwell's essays en masse is to realize how very dogmatic—in the nonideological sense—he is. This is another aspect of his Johnsonian Englishness. From the quotidian matter of how to make a cup of tea to the socioeconomic analysis of the restaurant (an entirely unnecessary luxury, to Orwell's puritanical mind), he is a lawgiver, and his laws are often founded in disapproval. He is a great writer against.
So his "Bookshop Memories"—a subject others might turn into a gentle
color piece with a few amusing anecdotes—scorns lightness. The work, he
declares, is drudgery, quite unrewarding, and makes you hate books;
while the customers tend to be thieves, paranoiacs, dimwits, or, at
best—when buying sets of Dickens in the improbable hope of reading
them—mere self-deceivers. In "England Your England" he denounces the
left-wing English intelligentsia for being "generally negative" and
"querulous": adjectives which, from this distance, seem to fit Orwell
pretty aptly. Given that he died at the age of forty-six, it's scary to
imagine the crustiness that might have set in had he reached
pensionable age.
I've read a lot of Orwell and almost as much about him. This essay captures his Britishness - and avoids hagiography - as well as any I've read.
Stuart Semple released 2057 pink smiley faced clouds in London. He wanted to cheer up the people. They were made of helium, biodegradable soap and vegetable dye. After 30 minutes they dissolved in the air.
I came to this country and worked hard also.. and, like you, have been lucky enough to be successful. This
country is wonderful that way - if you work hard you have a good chance
of being successful. But many people work very, very hard and are not
successful - and not because they are stupid, or lazy. The difference
between Obama and his predecessors is that he realizes that the people
who work hard and don't make a lot of money, or work hard and don't
have health insurance, or who worked hard all their lives and now - in
their golden years- have little to show for it also deserve some
minimum level of dignity.
And yes, someone has to pay for it, and I'm
happy for it to be me and people like me, because there for but for the
grace of God. It's not punishing the successful, it's realizing that
hard work is only part of the equation and we as a society need to
recognize our obligations to those people who have held up their part
of the bargain but didn't end up on the winning side (and children get
an automatic pass).
James Surowiecki notes an unusual and positive side to this depression:
Historically, productivity has been “procyclical”: it rose during booms and fell during recessions. But not this time. Even as the economy did a cliff dive in the last quarter, productivity rose an impressive 3.1 per cent. And since, in theory, workers get paid more the more productive they are, their increased productivity has helped them avoid pay cuts.
"The dirty little secret ... is that every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it," - Rush Limbaugh.
I work as a credit analyst for a big bank. I
work in a call center and take calls from people who would like to lower their
interest rates or increase their credit card limits. Yesterday, I talked
to a man in California who for the past five years worked as a "sandwich artist"
at Subway. His salary--and his only source of income? $18,000 per
year. His recently foreclosed mortgage? $380,000.
Its new ombudsman homes in on the critical factual issue in the George Will column:
The editors who checked the Arctic Research Climate Center Web site
believe it did not, on balance, run counter to Will's assertion that
global sea ice levels "now equal those of 1979." I reviewed the same
Web citation and reached a different conclusion.
It said that while global sea ice areas are "near or slightly lower
than those observed in late 1979," sea ice area in the Northern
Hemisphere is "almost one million sq. km below" the levels of late
1979. That's roughly the size of Texas and California combined. In my
mind, it should have triggered a call for clarification to the center.
No such clarification occurred. But surely the deeper point is that 1979 is not a solid data point, and that the sources Will used clearly support the theory of global warming and do not see an increase in ice in the Antarctic as in some way disproving this. Au contraire:
I thoroughly enjoy many aspects of your blog and find it to be very
largely informative. However, I have to take exception with your
description of the aims of liberalism - I believe you know perfectly
well that liberalism doesn't believe in punishing success/wealth-creation any more than conservatism believes
in perpetuating the wealth of the rich on the backs of the
poor/middle-class. These are the types of lump descriptions that just
drive me wild; everyone agrees that this country would be better if
more of its people were successful. So, we disagree on the manner of
achieving that outcome. Big Deal. Let's have the argument about the
specifics of that, and refrain from silly/rote/easy demonizations.
Yeah, that kind of rhetoric isn't very helpful. But it does express my irritation with the way some liberals - and only some - assume a kind of nefariousness among those who have actually made a material success of their lives, and see no real loss in expropriating their moolah. I have a visceral reaction to that assumption. Which is why, I guess, I'm still a conservative.
As a Canadian living in the States, it's been interesting to watch as more and more Americans become aware of their deteriorating healthcare system. For me, it's meant an ever-increasing trickle of people (of broader and broader political perspectives, I might add) who come to me to talk about Canada's system. I begin every conversation the same way: Both systems have their flaws. You'll find unhappy people in both systems. The truest non-empirical test I have is to point out that I have known many people who have lived in both systems (i.e., Canadian and American), and I still have never met a single person who preferred the American one.
I'm one of those “wealthy” people who will be pinched hard by Obama’s tax hike. I came to this country legally 17 years ago with $300.00 in my pocket but with good education. I struggled at the beginning but nevertheless, worked my way up in the high tech world. I too think that the Obama’s tax proposals are extremely unfair as if I don’t pay already enough to Uncle Sam. And this article on a liberal web site just infuriated me beyond belief.
But after listening to and reading about CPAC conference which is held currently in Washington, DC, I realized that I would rather take my chances with Obama than anybody from that group. I can’t imagine that these people were in power for 8 years and yearn for more. This rabid bunch MUST be kept away from any kind of power for all of our sake.
I feel the same way. I came from a modest background in another country and arrived in the US with barely a cent of my own money. I've worked hard and earned the American dream - and now have to work for the government for well over half the year (a government that still persecutes me for being an HIV-survivor). Obama will take more of my money - and much, much more in the future. Liberalism believes in punishing hard-working successful people in this manner - and the more you succeed, the more they will punish you. But if I had to pick between him and the party of Sarah Palin and Joe The Plumber, it's really no contest.
Americans love the idea of small government. They just don’t seem to actually care about shrinking the government outside of rhetoric. Americans love their entitlements. They like having an FDA and a host of other regluatory bodies. They don't want to reduce the military budget significantly. They want, and have come to expect, an awful lot of things from government. The fact that they say they want small government means no more than the fact that they say they want a balanced budget. It’s theater, and it’s rhetoric. It’s not founded on anything politically actionable. I’m sorry, but people who say that they want small government yet refuse entitlement reform and a shrinking military budget are not to be taken seriously. They are not dedicated to the idea to the degree that they are actually willing to sacrifice to make it a reality.
Larison agrees. But what of us who do favor entitlement reform, defense cuts, Medicare cuts and social security means-testing?
Rocky Mountain News reporter Myung Oak Kim pauses before leaving the newsroom on her last day of work on February 27, 2009 in Denver, Colorado. Today's edition was the last for the nearly 150-year-old daily, Colorado's oldest newspaper. Parent company E.W. Scripps Co. announced yesterday that the paper would close after efforts to find a buyer failed. Kim was one of some 200 staffers to lose their jobs. By John Moore/Getty.
"Until conservatives can practice some painful introspection, looking with a self-critical eye at the reasons for the debacles of 2006 and 2008, most in the movement will continue to delude themselves that simply reaffirming conservative love of small government, low taxes, and less regulation will be enough to convince a majority of Americans that they recognize their shortcomings and have changed their tune. There must be a reckoning with those who violate the very nature of conservatism by obstinately adhering to exclusionary, anti-intellectual precepts that have thrown classical conservatism over in favor of ranting, ideological tantrums," - Rick Moran.
Surprise! There's a significant correlation between consumption of online porn and Christianism:
Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral
votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and
Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured
Barack Obama. Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages
boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly
restrict gay marriage...
States
where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have
old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more
subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority
disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might
be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."
Utah is the country's single biggest consumer of online porn. You've got to love those Mormons.
If Fred Hiatt wants to pretend that critics
of Will's falsehoods are welcome to debate Will, Fred Hiatt can start
by regularly running op-eds by (more honest) liberal equivalents of Will,
Krauthammer and Gerson. And no, Richard
Cohen does not count.
Funny how quickly the right discovers its hostility to spending as soon as a Democrat takes office. But this metaphor seems a little unhinged to me (from an email posted by Glenn Reynolds):
As someone who has studied (and blogged) protest as an act of democratic revolution and people power in the post-Soviet area, I know a lot about the dynamics of mass civil society unrest, government transition, etc…
What we are seeing now is truly huge POTENTIAL for massive civil unrest against the American government gone lunatic with spending. Realistically, 400-1000 people at a protest, even at a dozen protests across the country, will do nothing to change the minds of our idiot leaders.
However, it creates the POTENTIAL that each protest could have a million.
The Orange Revolution in Ukraine did not start out with two million people camping in tents in downtown Kiev. It started with only a few hundred diehard activists.
Yes, it's comparable to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine - you know, when the rightful winner of an election was denied office by the post-Soviet order. The only difference is that this current protest is against a president just elected in a landslide with approval ratings of 67 percent.
I wouldn’t recommend bankruptcy any more than I would recommend amputating part of a leg. But if you have late stage bone cancer and you’ve exhausted every other possible treatment option, you do what you have to do.
"Archbishop Cranmer" blogs about religion and politics in England. He takes on the death of Ivan Cameron:
The suspension of Parliament as ‘a mark of respect’ may not have been appropriate, but it felt it. Politics, like theology, has to embrace the vernacular. And the narrative has become that of illogic and unreason. It may not be right or good, or even conducive to the rational and reasonable, but it is real and it is now. Politicians, like priests, either use it, or they cease to communicate and simply confirm their utter irrelevance.
It's interesting to compare Obama's first big presidential speech with Roosevelt's. On the all-important Reassure-o-Meter, I'd call it a tie. Roosevelt wins points for venturing into dangerous areas. For example, he talked at length about "the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success." Can you imagine what Fox News could do with a line like that if a Democratic president (let alone a rich Democratic president) uttered it today?
Now it takes a comedian (and no apologies for reposting this). But remember how Obama made this very point nonetheless? By pointing to that multi-millionaire businessman who gave all his buy-out money to his employees and former employees. Because it was the right thing to do.
Now, of course, is also the time for the churches to remind us of the limits of acquisition. Will they?
... for about 100% of the market value of Citi, plus insurance guarantees worth as much as 500% of its value (~$275 billion), we got less than 1/10 of a company that in total was worth 1/5 of our investment.
Obama's approval ratings jump to 67 percent. But the more ominous development for the GOP: Republican approval went from 27 to 42 percent in a week. Cantor just got pwned.
I'm a technical writer, 58 years old. I was laid off December 31 from a tech writing contract because the startup I worked at couldn't afford me anymore. Though I can outwork and outthink and outperform most people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, the hiring people won't know that, and won't take a chance on me.
I may never work in a real job again, I realize, if the economy doesn't come back relatively quickly.
The WSJ asked economists how to best spend the extra $8 most Americans will get from the stimulus. As usual, Tyler Cowen's response is among the more interesting:
In my view, fixing the banking sector is more important than getting the stimulus right. So if you can afford to lose the money, go to a large bank (more likely to be insolvent), find their most overpriced service, and buy as much of it as you can. That way you are doing your part to recapitalize our banking system.
If you’re stuck for ideas, just keep on using ATM machines, owned by other banks, so you can pay large fees to take out small sums of money from your checking account. When you need to, take all of your withdrawals and deposit them back in the account once again and start all over with the process.
We got a real one-two punch of dismal housing data this month, with today's new home sales report looking just as ugly as yesterday's existing home sales release.
...that big middle group that mostly thinks national healthcare is probably good for the country but isn't sure if it's good for them? They're the ones most easily swayed by conservative scare talk. Altman notes that these poll numbers are better than the ones Bill Clinton enjoyed in 1993, which is good, but 43% is still a huge number. That's the battleground.
Budget experts were still sorting through the details on Thursday, but it appeared that various tax cuts and credits aimed at the middle class and the poor would increase the take-home pay of the median household by roughly $800. The tax increases on the top 1 percent, meanwhile, will most likely cost them $100,000 a year.
Over the coming weeks you will hear this described as a form of radicalism. It is not. It is liberalism--and more: it is purest bright line available to divide liberals from conservatives in American politics. Let the screeching begin.
I'm not going to screech. That I did when alleged "conservatives" made all this possible.
I wondered why Derb's article confronting Limbaugh didn't appear in NR and suspected it was "because NR's editors do not dare take on Limbaugh, Hannity and the gang." Derb says AmCon commissioned the piece and NR had nothing to do with it. But why would AmCon be prepared to run such an interesting piece and NR not? That's my point. The real debate on the right is taking place outside many of the current bullwarks. Amcon, NewMajority.com, The American Scene, Beliefnet - let alone Cowen and McArdle And Larison et al: all these places are more relevant right now than National Review and the Weekly Standard. And maybe that's a good thing.
I have been hearing for years and years about how the financial services sector pays such exorbitant wages because the people who work there are so immensely talented that they are cheap at $50 million a year. I never particularly bought that line before. But I never imagined that all those Masters of the Universe would do quite this badly. If we had paid them $50 million a year to go far, far away and leave our financial system alone, it would have been a bargain.
Q: In December you talked about people 40 and under having a very different view on the environment. Is there a similar generational gap on gay rights?
A: You hit on the two issues that I think carry more of a generational component than anything else. And I would liken it a bit to the transformation of the Tory Party in the UK…
February 22, 2009 - February 28, 2009
Site Meter 
