TW: To go on the blog...
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Keynes Is On the Way
TW: Paul Krugman and Robert Reich are old veteran economists who have been around for quite awhile. But it is almost as if they have come out of hibernation. Now that Keynes is the new Friedman (i.e. economic flavor of the day), the Friedman acolytes are nursing their wounds while the Keynesian adherents are forefront. At some point things will change again but for now they are to be heard. Because until and unless this demand side weakness is corrected this economy is going nowhere.
What happens after that (i.e. inflation, taxation, budget deficits) will generate a whole separate round of controversies but those are issues many months if not a few years into the future.
From Robert Reich:
"The economy has just about come to a standstill – not so much because credit markets are clogged as because there’s not enough demand in the economy to keep it going. Consumer spending has fallen off a cliff. Investment is drying up. And exports are dropping because the recession has now spread around the world. So are we about to return to Keynesianism? Hopefully. Government is the spender of last resort...
Conservative supply-siders, meanwhile, will call for income-tax cuts rather than government spending, claiming that people with more money in their pockets will get the economy moving again more readily than can government. They're wrong, too. Income-tax cuts go mainly to upper-income people, and they tend to save rather than spend.Even if a rebate could be fashioned for the middle class, it wouldn't do much good because, as we saw from the last set of rebate checks, people tend to use extra cash to pay off debts rather than buy goods and services...
So the government has to spend big time. The real challenge will be for government to spend it wisely -- avoiding special-interest pleadings and pork projects such as bridges to nowhere. We’ll need a true capital budget that lays out the nation’s priorities rather than the priorities of powerful Washington lobbies. How exactly to achieve this? That's the debate we should be having between now and January 20 or 21st."
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/11/rebirth-of-keynes-and-debate-to-come.html
What happens after that (i.e. inflation, taxation, budget deficits) will generate a whole separate round of controversies but those are issues many months if not a few years into the future.
From Robert Reich:
"The economy has just about come to a standstill – not so much because credit markets are clogged as because there’s not enough demand in the economy to keep it going. Consumer spending has fallen off a cliff. Investment is drying up. And exports are dropping because the recession has now spread around the world. So are we about to return to Keynesianism? Hopefully. Government is the spender of last resort...
Conservative supply-siders, meanwhile, will call for income-tax cuts rather than government spending, claiming that people with more money in their pockets will get the economy moving again more readily than can government. They're wrong, too. Income-tax cuts go mainly to upper-income people, and they tend to save rather than spend.Even if a rebate could be fashioned for the middle class, it wouldn't do much good because, as we saw from the last set of rebate checks, people tend to use extra cash to pay off debts rather than buy goods and services...
So the government has to spend big time. The real challenge will be for government to spend it wisely -- avoiding special-interest pleadings and pork projects such as bridges to nowhere. We’ll need a true capital budget that lays out the nation’s priorities rather than the priorities of powerful Washington lobbies. How exactly to achieve this? That's the debate we should be having between now and January 20 or 21st."
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/11/rebirth-of-keynes-and-debate-to-come.html
Things I Like...
LFW: Mr. White has graciously allowed me to contribute to The White House blog - he's doing an excellent job of covering the serious stuff so I'm going to stick to things that amuse me. I've been told that I am easily amused, hopefully you will find some of this entertaining too. Since I'm not all that creative, I figured it would help to have some sort of plan for this. I've decided to focus on a topic or category for each day - let's start with the following
Sunday - Odds & Ends
Monday - Humor
Tuesday - Art
Wednesday - Food
Thursday - Books
Friday - Science
Saturday - TBD
The plan is to post once a day, we'll see how that goes. I hear that this blogging stuff is a lot of work...
It's Sunday - Odds & Ends, basically a catch all category for things that don't really fit in to the other days. I loved this photo - reminded me of the Calvin & Hobbes comic strips from years ago.
www.pixal.us/images/view/attack_of_the_snowmen/
Sunday - Odds & Ends
Monday - Humor
Tuesday - Art
Wednesday - Food
Thursday - Books
Friday - Science
Saturday - TBD
The plan is to post once a day, we'll see how that goes. I hear that this blogging stuff is a lot of work...
It's Sunday - Odds & Ends, basically a catch all category for things that don't really fit in to the other days. I loved this photo - reminded me of the Calvin & Hobbes comic strips from years ago.
www.pixal.us/images/view/attack_of_the_snowmen/
Oops!! Noonan...
"Conservatives are always writing about the strains and stresses within the Republican Party, and they are real. But the Democratic Party seems to be near imploding, and for that most humiliating of reasons: its meaninglessness. Republicans are at least arguing over their meaning.
The venom is bubbling on websites like Kos, where Tuesday afternoon, after the Alito vote, various leftists wrote in such comments as "F--- our democratic leaders," "Vichy Democrats" and "F--- Mary Landrieu, I hope she drowns." The old union lunch-pail Democrats are dead, the intellects of the Kennedy and Johnson era retired or gone, and this--I hope she drowns--seems, increasingly, to be the authentic voice of the Democratic base.
How will a sane, stable, serious Democrat get the nomination in 2008 when these are the activists to whom the appeal must be made? "
Republicans have crazies. All parties do. But in the case of the Democrats--the leader of their party, after all, is the unhinged Howard Dean--the lunatics seem increasingly to be taking over the long-term health-care facility. Great parties die this way, or show that they are dying."
Peggy Noonan Conservative Habitue in the WSJ February 6, 2006
The venom is bubbling on websites like Kos, where Tuesday afternoon, after the Alito vote, various leftists wrote in such comments as "F--- our democratic leaders," "Vichy Democrats" and "F--- Mary Landrieu, I hope she drowns." The old union lunch-pail Democrats are dead, the intellects of the Kennedy and Johnson era retired or gone, and this--I hope she drowns--seems, increasingly, to be the authentic voice of the Democratic base.
How will a sane, stable, serious Democrat get the nomination in 2008 when these are the activists to whom the appeal must be made? "
Republicans have crazies. All parties do. But in the case of the Democrats--the leader of their party, after all, is the unhinged Howard Dean--the lunatics seem increasingly to be taking over the long-term health-care facility. Great parties die this way, or show that they are dying."
Peggy Noonan Conservative Habitue in the WSJ February 6, 2006
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Shockingly Obama Is Not a Radical
TW: Obama has not yet accomplished anything as POTUS and the media honeymoon he is enjoying will end soon enough. Yet, his transitional actions are at least causing some dissonance within the right-wing. Some of it is as Klein points out due to the Right's own myopia but some is because Obama gives every sign of being a progressive pragmatist, which for fans like myself gives me much hope. Folks tend to think of politicians in black and white political terms of left or right, but they never are.
Regarding national security if Obama can re-establish a broad consensus amidst centrist Dems and Repubs then he will have restored the basis for better American foreign policy going forward.
From Klein at Time:
"You have to laugh about the denizens of the political right who are shocked at Barack Obama's moderation: who were they expecting for Secretary of Defense, Louis Farrakhan? Jeremiah Wright at State? Much of this is a result of the right drinking its own koolaid: the mythology of Obama being some sort of crypto-lefty, "associated" with people like William Ayres and Wright, rather than the moderate realist who sent signals throughout the campaign that he was looking to people like Gates and Jones to join his team...
What...the neocons will have to come to terms with now is that they were wrong and they have lost. There is a new national security alliance between multilateralist Democrats and realist Republicans--an alliance that precludes the witless bellicosity of the neoconservative right and the small strain of pacifist idealists on the left. The policy of the new administration will favor diplomacy over the use of force. That is not to say that Obama will never use force--but when he does, the chances are he'll likely known the difference between the local Shi'ites and Sunnis, Tajiks and Pashtuns. And so will his team."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/26/gobsmacked/
Regarding national security if Obama can re-establish a broad consensus amidst centrist Dems and Repubs then he will have restored the basis for better American foreign policy going forward.
From Klein at Time:
"You have to laugh about the denizens of the political right who are shocked at Barack Obama's moderation: who were they expecting for Secretary of Defense, Louis Farrakhan? Jeremiah Wright at State? Much of this is a result of the right drinking its own koolaid: the mythology of Obama being some sort of crypto-lefty, "associated" with people like William Ayres and Wright, rather than the moderate realist who sent signals throughout the campaign that he was looking to people like Gates and Jones to join his team...
What...the neocons will have to come to terms with now is that they were wrong and they have lost. There is a new national security alliance between multilateralist Democrats and realist Republicans--an alliance that precludes the witless bellicosity of the neoconservative right and the small strain of pacifist idealists on the left. The policy of the new administration will favor diplomacy over the use of force. That is not to say that Obama will never use force--but when he does, the chances are he'll likely known the difference between the local Shi'ites and Sunnis, Tajiks and Pashtuns. And so will his team."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/26/gobsmacked/
How NOT To Respond To Terror
From Steve Calabresi in the Politico Arena responding to the Mumbai terror attacks:
"We may not know yet who perpetrated the Mumbai terrorist attacks, but we do know that American and British citizens were singled out for slaughter which makes this an attack on us as well as on India. I think President-elect Obama needs to say that and also do more in responding to this than just issuing the statement deploring it that he issued yesterday. This is the first terrorist attack since the election. Al Qaeda will gauge Obama’s response to see whether he is any tougher than Bill Clinton who usually responded to terrorist attacks by fecklessly firing cruise missiles at abandoned targets.
...Our enemies around the world from Al Qaeda to Russia are sizing Obama up right now, and there will be hell to pay if they conclude rightly or wrongly that he is weak. Moreover, just as the markets needed reassuring last week so too do our allies in the war on terror need a reassurance from Obama this about the seriousness of his intentions. Now would be a good time to talk about boosting our troops in Afghanistan and redoubling our efforts to catch Osama Bin Laden. Our response needs to make clear that we will wage a war on terror that we will win but that we sympathize with moderate Muslims who are often the victims of terror. We need to drive a wedge between the terrorists and Islam as we finally did in Iraq."
TW: The above is egregious stupidity and represents why I very much hope Obama will be different than W. Bush and his right-wing acolytes. Lets parse the above:
1) Obama is not the POTUS for Obama to jump directly into detailed policy implementation of this nature seven weeks pre-inauguration is not constructive and potentially destructive. Calabresi is already cynically attempting to drop terrorist acts into Obama's lap with I am sure soon enough the associated blame for any future attacks.
2) Calabresi prefaces his statement by saying no one knows who perpetrated the attacks but then launches into a series of suggestions which assumes Al-Qaeda is the culprit. Any shoot first ask questions later attitude is dangerous and irresponsible. Ultimately the blind belief that Al-Qaeda is behind every terrorist attack is simplistic and leads to poor policy.
3) Most egregiously is Calabresi's effort to have the U.S. jump at any and all provocations and answer with asymmetrically powerful force. All terrorists and in particular Al-Qaeda thrive on pricking larger forces in hope of drawing heavy-handed and disproportionate responses which only feed the cycle of violence. Letting terrorists drive the agenda by reacting with vengeance instead of cold, hard calculation is exactly the wrong prescription.
4) Calabresi claims a whole host of potential challengers to the U.S. are waiting anxiously to see if Obama will react with "force" to this alleged provocation. In doing so he casually lumps Al-Qaeda and Russia into the same sentence. Russia is not a poster child for world governance but they are not Al Qaeda, lumping them together is dangerous simple minded ignorance.
5) Finally he claims a great victory against terror in Iraq. Anyone claiming "victory" of any sort in Iraq is a fool. A stemming of the casualties for now, a reduction in violence- yes for now, but victory no. To claim that Iraq is somehow the model for fighting terror is dubious in the extreme. Al Qaeda after all did not operate there before we invaded, our presence permitted them to flourish. Now that the Iraqis are moving away from them cannot be considered a template for dealing with Al Qaeda unless you ascribe to circular logic.
Calabresi should be considered a quack instead he is a respected voice of the right-wing.
"We may not know yet who perpetrated the Mumbai terrorist attacks, but we do know that American and British citizens were singled out for slaughter which makes this an attack on us as well as on India. I think President-elect Obama needs to say that and also do more in responding to this than just issuing the statement deploring it that he issued yesterday. This is the first terrorist attack since the election. Al Qaeda will gauge Obama’s response to see whether he is any tougher than Bill Clinton who usually responded to terrorist attacks by fecklessly firing cruise missiles at abandoned targets.
...Our enemies around the world from Al Qaeda to Russia are sizing Obama up right now, and there will be hell to pay if they conclude rightly or wrongly that he is weak. Moreover, just as the markets needed reassuring last week so too do our allies in the war on terror need a reassurance from Obama this about the seriousness of his intentions. Now would be a good time to talk about boosting our troops in Afghanistan and redoubling our efforts to catch Osama Bin Laden. Our response needs to make clear that we will wage a war on terror that we will win but that we sympathize with moderate Muslims who are often the victims of terror. We need to drive a wedge between the terrorists and Islam as we finally did in Iraq."
TW: The above is egregious stupidity and represents why I very much hope Obama will be different than W. Bush and his right-wing acolytes. Lets parse the above:
1) Obama is not the POTUS for Obama to jump directly into detailed policy implementation of this nature seven weeks pre-inauguration is not constructive and potentially destructive. Calabresi is already cynically attempting to drop terrorist acts into Obama's lap with I am sure soon enough the associated blame for any future attacks.
2) Calabresi prefaces his statement by saying no one knows who perpetrated the attacks but then launches into a series of suggestions which assumes Al-Qaeda is the culprit. Any shoot first ask questions later attitude is dangerous and irresponsible. Ultimately the blind belief that Al-Qaeda is behind every terrorist attack is simplistic and leads to poor policy.
3) Most egregiously is Calabresi's effort to have the U.S. jump at any and all provocations and answer with asymmetrically powerful force. All terrorists and in particular Al-Qaeda thrive on pricking larger forces in hope of drawing heavy-handed and disproportionate responses which only feed the cycle of violence. Letting terrorists drive the agenda by reacting with vengeance instead of cold, hard calculation is exactly the wrong prescription.
4) Calabresi claims a whole host of potential challengers to the U.S. are waiting anxiously to see if Obama will react with "force" to this alleged provocation. In doing so he casually lumps Al-Qaeda and Russia into the same sentence. Russia is not a poster child for world governance but they are not Al Qaeda, lumping them together is dangerous simple minded ignorance.
5) Finally he claims a great victory against terror in Iraq. Anyone claiming "victory" of any sort in Iraq is a fool. A stemming of the casualties for now, a reduction in violence- yes for now, but victory no. To claim that Iraq is somehow the model for fighting terror is dubious in the extreme. Al Qaeda after all did not operate there before we invaded, our presence permitted them to flourish. Now that the Iraqis are moving away from them cannot be considered a template for dealing with Al Qaeda unless you ascribe to circular logic.
Calabresi should be considered a quack instead he is a respected voice of the right-wing.
Greatest Hits: Steve Calabresi (Oct edition)
TW: A monthly feature, we present Steve Calabresi's most memorable quotes from the month of October. Attached also find the September edition-http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/11/greatest-hits-steve-calabresi-sept.html
On whether the US has a leadership crisis?
"The biggest weakness of the Bush Administration has been the president’s inability on television to communicate with the American people and with global public opinion. If Ronald Reagan was the Great Communicator, Bush is in contrast the Great Mangler of Sentences. But communication is only a part of leadership. The other part is staking out correct positions, popular or not, and persevering until you prevail. In these respects, Bush has been another Harry Truman. Truman was also deeply unpopular when he left office too, but he sure looked great in hindsight. I think the same thing will happen with Bush."
October 1, 2008
On who won the VP debater?
"Palin was likeable, warm, knowledgeable, and well informed on every issue contrary to all the predictions of the mainstream media. I predict she will connect better with swing voters in the West and Midwest than does Biden who often seemed angry and like someone tooting his own horn. Neither candidate committed any gaffes so this debate will probably leave us with a close election in which Obama is for the moment slightly ahead...
October 2, 2008
On who won the last POTUS debate?
"McCain did a terrific job tonight in painting Obama as one of the most liberal members of Senate: a man who wants to raise taxes and shut down free trade the way Herbert Hoover did in 1929; a man who wants eventually to get America to a single payer health plan; a man who sends his own kids to private schools but who opposes vouchers which would allow anyone to do that; a man who will “look at” oil and gas drilling and nuclear power but focus his energy on building windmills; and a man who repeatedly accuses McCain of being a clone of George Bush even though everyone in the country knows he broke with Bush on strategy in Iraq,on torture, and on opposing Bush’s huge expansion of government spending. McCain was awesome tonight, and the debate was by far the best general election debate this season. The one silver lining for Obama is that he made no big mistakes and the evening produced no sound bite moment that will haunt Obama. But, overall, McCain clearly won. Whether it will be enough to close the 5% gap in this race is anyone’s guess."
October 15, 2008
On whether the McCain was done by October 24st?
"The bottom line here is that as investors have come to expect an Obama presidency with around 60 Democratic senators, the stock market has crashed and expectations of a severe recession have risen. There are many causes of all of this, but Obama's tax and regulatory plans are one of the reasons for the plunge. If he wins, we should expect further losses and less social wellbeing than we have enjoyed over the last eight years"
October 24, 2008
The Arena solicited endorsments
"...On economic policy, Senator Barack Obama is pledged to repeat Herbert Hoover’s mistake of raising taxes and reducing free trade in response to a stock market downturn.This will turn a recession into a depression the severity of which we have not seen since at least the days of Jimmy Carter’s misery index.
The stock market is going down in direct relation to Obama’s poll numbers going up. It will drop a lot more if he wins and pursues the policies he has pledged to pursue."
October 25, 2008
On whether the US has a leadership crisis?
"The biggest weakness of the Bush Administration has been the president’s inability on television to communicate with the American people and with global public opinion. If Ronald Reagan was the Great Communicator, Bush is in contrast the Great Mangler of Sentences. But communication is only a part of leadership. The other part is staking out correct positions, popular or not, and persevering until you prevail. In these respects, Bush has been another Harry Truman. Truman was also deeply unpopular when he left office too, but he sure looked great in hindsight. I think the same thing will happen with Bush."
October 1, 2008
On who won the VP debater?
"Palin was likeable, warm, knowledgeable, and well informed on every issue contrary to all the predictions of the mainstream media. I predict she will connect better with swing voters in the West and Midwest than does Biden who often seemed angry and like someone tooting his own horn. Neither candidate committed any gaffes so this debate will probably leave us with a close election in which Obama is for the moment slightly ahead...
October 2, 2008
On who won the last POTUS debate?
"McCain did a terrific job tonight in painting Obama as one of the most liberal members of Senate: a man who wants to raise taxes and shut down free trade the way Herbert Hoover did in 1929; a man who wants eventually to get America to a single payer health plan; a man who sends his own kids to private schools but who opposes vouchers which would allow anyone to do that; a man who will “look at” oil and gas drilling and nuclear power but focus his energy on building windmills; and a man who repeatedly accuses McCain of being a clone of George Bush even though everyone in the country knows he broke with Bush on strategy in Iraq,on torture, and on opposing Bush’s huge expansion of government spending. McCain was awesome tonight, and the debate was by far the best general election debate this season. The one silver lining for Obama is that he made no big mistakes and the evening produced no sound bite moment that will haunt Obama. But, overall, McCain clearly won. Whether it will be enough to close the 5% gap in this race is anyone’s guess."
October 15, 2008
On whether the McCain was done by October 24st?
"The bottom line here is that as investors have come to expect an Obama presidency with around 60 Democratic senators, the stock market has crashed and expectations of a severe recession have risen. There are many causes of all of this, but Obama's tax and regulatory plans are one of the reasons for the plunge. If he wins, we should expect further losses and less social wellbeing than we have enjoyed over the last eight years"
October 24, 2008
The Arena solicited endorsments
"...On economic policy, Senator Barack Obama is pledged to repeat Herbert Hoover’s mistake of raising taxes and reducing free trade in response to a stock market downturn.This will turn a recession into a depression the severity of which we have not seen since at least the days of Jimmy Carter’s misery index.
The stock market is going down in direct relation to Obama’s poll numbers going up. It will drop a lot more if he wins and pursues the policies he has pledged to pursue."
October 25, 2008
Clinton Is a Good Pick
TW: Certainly there has been much angst about Hillary Clinton becoming Sec State. My view is that it is a good choice. She is hyper-talented, well versed in international policy, and few have better contacts worldwide with top decision-makers. The selection reflects well on Obama's own self-confidence in having a strong presence at State and most importantly it speaks to the potential for the State Department to regain some of the prestige and power it has lost over the past 12-15 years.
Bill Clinton did not have particularly strong Sec. of State, quick name them (Warren Christopher and Madelaine Albright). W. Bush famously neutered Colin Powell and Condy Rice for all her talent has been mainly an acolyte overseeing a greatly diminished Presidency.
Into the void has risen the Pentagon which now formulates and implements vast swaths of American foreign policy via the very powerful area commanders such as Petreaus but also the leaders of PacCom and AfriCom. This evolution while subtle and mostly not noticed has been profound. To the extent we can move back toward a foreign policy driven by diplomats the better off we shall likely be. Putting a world renowned power player into the Dept of State will greatly increase the odds of such a shift.
From Economist:
"...the case against the appointment is nevertheless exaggerated. Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton have remarkably few ideological differences: they are both pragmatists who believe in working through diplomacy if possible but in resorting unhesitatingly to force if necessary...
Mrs Clinton will also bring an impressive list of qualities to Foggy Bottom. One is star power. The former first lady and erstwhile presidential candidate will have no trouble attracting attention wherever she goes. Another is knowledge. Mrs Clinton has a unique combination of experience of both America’s soft power and its hard power: as first lady she visited 80 countries, and as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she oversaw the American military machine. And Mrs Clinton will be as well placed as any secretary of state for a generation to make progress in the Middle East: she knows most of the main characters personally, she sees eye to eye with Mr Obama, she can draw on her husband’s legacy and she is nothing if not relentless. Defeat and humiliation only seem to make her stronger—the perfect qualification for dealing with the Middle East.
... The machinery of policymaking has been wrenched out of shape, particularly at the State Department. Sending a big beast like Mrs Clinton over to the State Department is undoubtedly risky. But sending a small beast to do such a big job might be riskier still."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12679009
Bill Clinton did not have particularly strong Sec. of State, quick name them (Warren Christopher and Madelaine Albright). W. Bush famously neutered Colin Powell and Condy Rice for all her talent has been mainly an acolyte overseeing a greatly diminished Presidency.
Into the void has risen the Pentagon which now formulates and implements vast swaths of American foreign policy via the very powerful area commanders such as Petreaus but also the leaders of PacCom and AfriCom. This evolution while subtle and mostly not noticed has been profound. To the extent we can move back toward a foreign policy driven by diplomats the better off we shall likely be. Putting a world renowned power player into the Dept of State will greatly increase the odds of such a shift.
From Economist:
"...the case against the appointment is nevertheless exaggerated. Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton have remarkably few ideological differences: they are both pragmatists who believe in working through diplomacy if possible but in resorting unhesitatingly to force if necessary...
Mrs Clinton will also bring an impressive list of qualities to Foggy Bottom. One is star power. The former first lady and erstwhile presidential candidate will have no trouble attracting attention wherever she goes. Another is knowledge. Mrs Clinton has a unique combination of experience of both America’s soft power and its hard power: as first lady she visited 80 countries, and as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she oversaw the American military machine. And Mrs Clinton will be as well placed as any secretary of state for a generation to make progress in the Middle East: she knows most of the main characters personally, she sees eye to eye with Mr Obama, she can draw on her husband’s legacy and she is nothing if not relentless. Defeat and humiliation only seem to make her stronger—the perfect qualification for dealing with the Middle East.
... The machinery of policymaking has been wrenched out of shape, particularly at the State Department. Sending a big beast like Mrs Clinton over to the State Department is undoubtedly risky. But sending a small beast to do such a big job might be riskier still."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12679009
Friday, November 28, 2008
Rebutting Gay Marriage Opponents
From Time:
"Arguments against gay marriage tend to fall into three broad categories: it is a threat to tradition (the idea is historically not sanctioned; the bible does not approve); it is a threat to children (kids will learn about homosexuality in school, confuse gender roles, or even become gay themselves); and it is a threat to heterosexual marriage (the straight family structure will collapse).
The first argument, tradition, is the one closest to faith. It is not subject to much debate. If one believes that God condemns homosexuality, then that's what one believes, no matter what the American Psychological Association says. But precisely because this argument is so personal, and so religious, it is the least used by opponents of gay marriage in public debate. You don't see many quotes from Leviticus being read on the Senate floor.
The second argument, children, tends to only show up at the most heated political moments, often with devastating effect. During the Proposition 8 campaign in California, opponents of gay marriage repeatedly evoked innocent children in their advertising campaign. The campaign claimed that a state constitutional amendment to ban men from marrying men, and women from marrying women, had "everything to do with schools." This is an indirect argument, of course. No one has proposed teaching second graders about homosexuality. But if the state officially sanctions gay unions, the notion that gay unions are not an abomination (see tradition) is certain to filter down. The secondary argument, about gay parents and gender roles, meanwhile, is based on an unfounded fear, at least according to scientists at the American Psychological Association. There is no evidence that children of same-sex parents are worse off, nor is there evidence children of same-sex parents are more likely to become gay.
The third argument, that gay marriage threatens straight marriage, is the most prominent in the public debate. Outspoken opponents of gay marriage, like Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, can expand at length about Nordic marriage trends, where gay unions are not so frowned upon. This argument follows from the idea that marriage is a singular societal institution that is instrumental in keeping straight couples together. If the definition of the institution changed, goes the argument, then straight couples would be less likely to think marriage is important, and therefore less likely to stay together for the sake of their children. As President Bush likes to say, "Changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."
As a straight guy who grew up in San Francisco, where gay culture is ubiquitous, I have never felt the tug of this argument. Why would the gay couple next door make me less interested in monogamy, my fidelity to a woman I loved, or my desire to provide a stable family structure for my children?..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/26/feminism-and-the-3-arguments-against-gay-marriage/
"Arguments against gay marriage tend to fall into three broad categories: it is a threat to tradition (the idea is historically not sanctioned; the bible does not approve); it is a threat to children (kids will learn about homosexuality in school, confuse gender roles, or even become gay themselves); and it is a threat to heterosexual marriage (the straight family structure will collapse).
The first argument, tradition, is the one closest to faith. It is not subject to much debate. If one believes that God condemns homosexuality, then that's what one believes, no matter what the American Psychological Association says. But precisely because this argument is so personal, and so religious, it is the least used by opponents of gay marriage in public debate. You don't see many quotes from Leviticus being read on the Senate floor.
The second argument, children, tends to only show up at the most heated political moments, often with devastating effect. During the Proposition 8 campaign in California, opponents of gay marriage repeatedly evoked innocent children in their advertising campaign. The campaign claimed that a state constitutional amendment to ban men from marrying men, and women from marrying women, had "everything to do with schools." This is an indirect argument, of course. No one has proposed teaching second graders about homosexuality. But if the state officially sanctions gay unions, the notion that gay unions are not an abomination (see tradition) is certain to filter down. The secondary argument, about gay parents and gender roles, meanwhile, is based on an unfounded fear, at least according to scientists at the American Psychological Association. There is no evidence that children of same-sex parents are worse off, nor is there evidence children of same-sex parents are more likely to become gay.
The third argument, that gay marriage threatens straight marriage, is the most prominent in the public debate. Outspoken opponents of gay marriage, like Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, can expand at length about Nordic marriage trends, where gay unions are not so frowned upon. This argument follows from the idea that marriage is a singular societal institution that is instrumental in keeping straight couples together. If the definition of the institution changed, goes the argument, then straight couples would be less likely to think marriage is important, and therefore less likely to stay together for the sake of their children. As President Bush likes to say, "Changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."
As a straight guy who grew up in San Francisco, where gay culture is ubiquitous, I have never felt the tug of this argument. Why would the gay couple next door make me less interested in monogamy, my fidelity to a woman I loved, or my desire to provide a stable family structure for my children?..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/26/feminism-and-the-3-arguments-against-gay-marriage/
Russia Has Been And Still Is a Paper Tiger
TW: They may have a very bad attitude and Putin has played a pretty weak set of cards well but they remain largely feckless. And those on the Right here in the U.S. that would like to stir up Cold War 2.0 are foolish as we have plenty of other matters with which to deal. I remain hopeful that at some point Russia will wise up (with appropriate outreach from the West) and join closely with us to combat our true challenges (e.g. jihadism, relative economic decline).
From Tom Barnett commenting on the attached NYT piece:
"Note how, now, Putin's strong words and hectoring are reduced to merely promising his people that Russia won't suffer the same bankruptcy and international humiliation of 1991 and then 1997-98--meaning his core accomplishment is now being put at risk.
That's why the hysterical crowd on Georgia over here were wasting their breath--the correction was preordained. Adding insult to that financial injury would have accomplished little but useless enmity that simply complicated the negotiations to come over more important matters.
The grand strategist picks his battles carefully, and remembers that the clock is always on his side if he's smart enough to keep adding friends and reducing his enemies load.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/world/europe/21putin.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
From Tom Barnett commenting on the attached NYT piece:
"Note how, now, Putin's strong words and hectoring are reduced to merely promising his people that Russia won't suffer the same bankruptcy and international humiliation of 1991 and then 1997-98--meaning his core accomplishment is now being put at risk.
That's why the hysterical crowd on Georgia over here were wasting their breath--the correction was preordained. Adding insult to that financial injury would have accomplished little but useless enmity that simply complicated the negotiations to come over more important matters.
The grand strategist picks his battles carefully, and remembers that the clock is always on his side if he's smart enough to keep adding friends and reducing his enemies load.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/world/europe/21putin.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
TW Topics: Grouping "Terror/Terrorists" Into a Single Very Large Bucket
TW: Am going to delve into my own archives of emails from the past couple of years, pre-blog and post some of my own thoughts. First topic, the misuse of "terror and terrorism". It is particularly a propos given the Republicans (unsuccessful thankfully) effort to tar Obama with the "terrorist" label through his tenuous association with Bill Ayers.
The word terror/terrorist has always been used for decades too broadly by those seeking to frame their enemies. It was used by the US to describe the Viet Cong. It was used by the British to describe the original Israelis, now it is used by the Israelis to describe the Palestinians and the Palestinians to describe the Israelis. There are many flavors of enemies, however, in American minds “terrorist” post 9/11 has come to mean a particularly horrible type of individual. The Bush administration has used this post 9/11 meaning of terrorist very frequently and very broadly. The primary manifestation was the bonding of Al-Queda initially to Saddam Hussein and then to the “insurgents”, this led to ineffective policy and what is generally now considered a morass.
We have not yet come up with a good way to define and frame properly the threat posed by those radical Islamic groups who seek to cause great harm to Western liberal democracy. I believe radical Islam is actually a great threat, although Al-Queda is but one branch of this threat. The antidote will require sophisticated, subtle and well executed diplomacy and military policy. The blunt use of force applied in largely unilateral manner based upon false predicates exemplified by the Bush Iraq policy does not meet the required standards.
The word terror/terrorist has always been used for decades too broadly by those seeking to frame their enemies. It was used by the US to describe the Viet Cong. It was used by the British to describe the original Israelis, now it is used by the Israelis to describe the Palestinians and the Palestinians to describe the Israelis. There are many flavors of enemies, however, in American minds “terrorist” post 9/11 has come to mean a particularly horrible type of individual. The Bush administration has used this post 9/11 meaning of terrorist very frequently and very broadly. The primary manifestation was the bonding of Al-Queda initially to Saddam Hussein and then to the “insurgents”, this led to ineffective policy and what is generally now considered a morass.
We have not yet come up with a good way to define and frame properly the threat posed by those radical Islamic groups who seek to cause great harm to Western liberal democracy. I believe radical Islam is actually a great threat, although Al-Queda is but one branch of this threat. The antidote will require sophisticated, subtle and well executed diplomacy and military policy. The blunt use of force applied in largely unilateral manner based upon false predicates exemplified by the Bush Iraq policy does not meet the required standards.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Media Bias- More Perspective
TW: To provide additional perspective on the issue of media bias I post comments from Jim Leach former Republican House member from Iowa although an Obama supporter.
From Leach via Politico's Arena:
"There is no doubt that, with the exception of one network and a small number of newspapers, most of the news of the last election was slanted to Sen. Obama. But despite the well documented fact that the majority of the media leans to the liberal side of most issues, it is not clear that the media was unfair to John McCain. A lot depends on how one defines fairness and balance.
If one suggests that a definition of balance is to give each side in a dispute or race equal billing as if there is equal substance and imagination and historical perspective at play, then of course there was an unfair tilt to reporting in the last election. On the other hand, what happens if one candidate sets forth substantive approaches and holds newsworthy events and the other doesn't, is it balanced or fair reporting to give equal billing and neutral appraisals. Likewise, if the national and international circumstance reflects a national hemorrhaging and one candidate calls for change and the other represents policy continuity with only hints of pseudo-change, is it balanced news analysis to ascribe equal judgment to each. One of the above perspectives would vindicate the case that a startling news failure occurred. The other might indicate how extraordinary it is how much uncritical attention was given the candidate of the status quo."
From Leach via Politico's Arena:
"There is no doubt that, with the exception of one network and a small number of newspapers, most of the news of the last election was slanted to Sen. Obama. But despite the well documented fact that the majority of the media leans to the liberal side of most issues, it is not clear that the media was unfair to John McCain. A lot depends on how one defines fairness and balance.
If one suggests that a definition of balance is to give each side in a dispute or race equal billing as if there is equal substance and imagination and historical perspective at play, then of course there was an unfair tilt to reporting in the last election. On the other hand, what happens if one candidate sets forth substantive approaches and holds newsworthy events and the other doesn't, is it balanced or fair reporting to give equal billing and neutral appraisals. Likewise, if the national and international circumstance reflects a national hemorrhaging and one candidate calls for change and the other represents policy continuity with only hints of pseudo-change, is it balanced news analysis to ascribe equal judgment to each. One of the above perspectives would vindicate the case that a startling news failure occurred. The other might indicate how extraordinary it is how much uncritical attention was given the candidate of the status quo."
Mumbai
From Tom Barnett
"We have to see how this unfolds, but I would expect a strong Indian response."
TW: The Mumbai attacks are getting attention but somewhat muted given our holiday. But the strong response Barnett references likely means something against Pakistan the likely culprit at least in terms of tacit support for the terrorists. If so things could get very interesting...
"We have to see how this unfolds, but I would expect a strong Indian response."
TW: The Mumbai attacks are getting attention but somewhat muted given our holiday. But the strong response Barnett references likely means something against Pakistan the likely culprit at least in terms of tacit support for the terrorists. If so things could get very interesting...
Aux Barricades Citoyens!
From Packer at New Yorker:
"Swiss bankers are not known as paragons of transparency and moral accountability, so it’s a nice surprise to read that the top officials of UBS, the foundering financial institution recently bailed out by the Swiss government, will forgo twenty-seven million dollars in compensation and bonuses. It appears that these Swiss bankers have a faint pulse of shame...
It has not gone remarked upon enough that their American counterparts apparently have none...
The moral code of these Wall Street executives corresponds to stage one of Lawrence Kohlberg’s famous stages of morality: “The concern is with what authorities permit and punish.” Morally, they are very young children. The Swiss bankers are closer to stage four, most common among late teens, where a concern for maintaining the good functioning of society takes hold. Stage six, an elaboration of universal moral principles based on an idea of the good society, is a distant dream for the titans of global finance...
I would like to see these malefactors of great wealth apologize to the country. I would like to see them organize their own press conference in a lineup on Wall Street and, in the manner of disgraced Japanese officials, bow low to the pavement, express contrition, and beg their countrymen’s forgiveness. Such a scene would go some way toward cleansing the smell of the financial crisis.
Of course, nothing like this is going to happen. So instead, like the parents of two-year-olds, the next Congress should summon them to Washington and publicly punish these executives who, in Kohlberg’s terms, “see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/11/the-moral-stage.html
"Swiss bankers are not known as paragons of transparency and moral accountability, so it’s a nice surprise to read that the top officials of UBS, the foundering financial institution recently bailed out by the Swiss government, will forgo twenty-seven million dollars in compensation and bonuses. It appears that these Swiss bankers have a faint pulse of shame...
It has not gone remarked upon enough that their American counterparts apparently have none...
The moral code of these Wall Street executives corresponds to stage one of Lawrence Kohlberg’s famous stages of morality: “The concern is with what authorities permit and punish.” Morally, they are very young children. The Swiss bankers are closer to stage four, most common among late teens, where a concern for maintaining the good functioning of society takes hold. Stage six, an elaboration of universal moral principles based on an idea of the good society, is a distant dream for the titans of global finance...
I would like to see these malefactors of great wealth apologize to the country. I would like to see them organize their own press conference in a lineup on Wall Street and, in the manner of disgraced Japanese officials, bow low to the pavement, express contrition, and beg their countrymen’s forgiveness. Such a scene would go some way toward cleansing the smell of the financial crisis.
Of course, nothing like this is going to happen. So instead, like the parents of two-year-olds, the next Congress should summon them to Washington and publicly punish these executives who, in Kohlberg’s terms, “see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/11/the-moral-stage.html
More Validation On the Strength Of Obama's Picks
TW: More whin, whin from the left...look out Republicans!!
From Pethoukoukis at USNWR:
"The media and Wall Street might be thrilled with Obama's economic picks, but not some left-of-center folks. Here are some Daily Kos comments today on the Paul Volcker/Austan Goolsbee selections:
1) "Goolsbee's straight out of the University of Chicago's "free trade" think tank."2) "Goolsbee' s about as solidly right wing as they come."
3) "Volcker is a questionable choice because he seemed more than willing to let jobs die on the altar of taming inflation."4) "How do create/Keep 2.5MM Jobs with someone who's paranoid about inflation. The Voice in the chorus argument doesn't hold since he's the chair."5) "I can only assume that Obama is not his own man at this point, or is ignorant of the real persons he is nominating. Volcker is an advocate of Americans "trimming" their standard of living. He is wall street bankers personified, a plutocrat. Google Volcker and standard of living."
Me: First of all, use of the word "plutocrat" is usually my signal to sign off. Second, it seems to me that most liberals want infrastructure spending, green energy investment, and healthcare reform. Obama's picks seem to be on that wavelength. But anyone waiting for them to tear up NAFTA or put tariffs on Chinese goods or push tax rates back to 90 percent, keep waiting."
From Pethoukoukis at USNWR:
"The media and Wall Street might be thrilled with Obama's economic picks, but not some left-of-center folks. Here are some Daily Kos comments today on the Paul Volcker/Austan Goolsbee selections:
1) "Goolsbee's straight out of the University of Chicago's "free trade" think tank."2) "Goolsbee' s about as solidly right wing as they come."
3) "Volcker is a questionable choice because he seemed more than willing to let jobs die on the altar of taming inflation."4) "How do create/Keep 2.5MM Jobs with someone who's paranoid about inflation. The Voice in the chorus argument doesn't hold since he's the chair."5) "I can only assume that Obama is not his own man at this point, or is ignorant of the real persons he is nominating. Volcker is an advocate of Americans "trimming" their standard of living. He is wall street bankers personified, a plutocrat. Google Volcker and standard of living."
Me: First of all, use of the word "plutocrat" is usually my signal to sign off. Second, it seems to me that most liberals want infrastructure spending, green energy investment, and healthcare reform. Obama's picks seem to be on that wavelength. But anyone waiting for them to tear up NAFTA or put tariffs on Chinese goods or push tax rates back to 90 percent, keep waiting."
Quotes Of the Day
"This is a nightmare, which will pass away with the morning. For the resources of nature and men’s devices are just as fertile and productive as they were. The rate of our progress towards solving the material problems of life is not less rapid. We are as capable as before of affording for everyone a high standard of life—high, I mean, compared with, say, twenty years ago—and will soon learn to afford a standard higher still. We were not previously deceived. But to-day we have involved ourselves in a colossal muddle, having blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the working of which we do not understand. The result is that our possibilities of wealth may run to waste for a time—perhaps for a long time....
At this moment the slump is probably a little overdone for psychological reasons. A modest upward reaction, therefore, may be due at any time. But there cannot be a real recovery, in my judgment, until the ideas of lenders and the ideas of productive borrowers are brought together again; partly by lenders becoming ready to lend on easier terms and over a wider geographical field, partly by borrowers recovering their good spirits and so becoming readier to borrow.
Seldom in modern history has the gap between the two been so wide and so difficult to bridge. Unless we bend our wills and our intelligences, energized by a conviction that this diagnosis is right, to find a solution along these lines, then, if the diagnosis is right, the slump may pass over into a depression, accompanied by a sagging price-level, which might last for years, with untold damage to the material wealth and to the social stability of every country alike. Only if we seriously seek a solution, will the optimism of my opening sentences be confirmed—at least for the nearer future"
John Maynard Keynes 1930 from his Great Slump of 1930 essay
TW: The good news is unlike 1930 when the Hooverites ruled the roost and basically implemented policies which only exacerbated the problem, economists of all stripes have learned from GD 1.0. And while they may still differ in terms of exactly how to act, their is a general consensus to act and act aggressively to stimulate the economies worldwide without devolving into protectionist shells.
At this moment the slump is probably a little overdone for psychological reasons. A modest upward reaction, therefore, may be due at any time. But there cannot be a real recovery, in my judgment, until the ideas of lenders and the ideas of productive borrowers are brought together again; partly by lenders becoming ready to lend on easier terms and over a wider geographical field, partly by borrowers recovering their good spirits and so becoming readier to borrow.
Seldom in modern history has the gap between the two been so wide and so difficult to bridge. Unless we bend our wills and our intelligences, energized by a conviction that this diagnosis is right, to find a solution along these lines, then, if the diagnosis is right, the slump may pass over into a depression, accompanied by a sagging price-level, which might last for years, with untold damage to the material wealth and to the social stability of every country alike. Only if we seriously seek a solution, will the optimism of my opening sentences be confirmed—at least for the nearer future"
John Maynard Keynes 1930 from his Great Slump of 1930 essay
TW: The good news is unlike 1930 when the Hooverites ruled the roost and basically implemented policies which only exacerbated the problem, economists of all stripes have learned from GD 1.0. And while they may still differ in terms of exactly how to act, their is a general consensus to act and act aggressively to stimulate the economies worldwide without devolving into protectionist shells.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Obama Continues To Dis-arm the Right
TW: I repeat myself but appointing centrists is the best way to implement more leftish policies. The left-wing blogs do not appear to get this somewhat obvious but certainly fundamental points. Again as long as the loudest shrieking and moaning is coming from the left then if I were Republican I would be very afraid...
From Economist:
"...Is Andy McCarthy of the National Review still convinced that Barack Obama is a "radical" leftist in "thin post partisan camouflage"...In what universe is this belief still tenable? Mr Obama came to fame with a speech decrying partisanship. He ran as a centrist, and is running his transition as a pragmatist. He has now handed out the three top jobs to an admired barely-partisan technocrat, his bitterest primary rival and the Republican who has run the Iraq war these last few years. Its almost as if he prized competence above all. It's bizarre.
I guess there is a scandal: that we're surprised that this can still happen in America."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/11/gatesgate.cfm
From Economist:
"...Is Andy McCarthy of the National Review still convinced that Barack Obama is a "radical" leftist in "thin post partisan camouflage"...In what universe is this belief still tenable? Mr Obama came to fame with a speech decrying partisanship. He ran as a centrist, and is running his transition as a pragmatist. He has now handed out the three top jobs to an admired barely-partisan technocrat, his bitterest primary rival and the Republican who has run the Iraq war these last few years. Its almost as if he prized competence above all. It's bizarre.
I guess there is a scandal: that we're surprised that this can still happen in America."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/11/gatesgate.cfm
Media Bias the Halperin Kurfuffle
TW: Mark Halperin from Time got much attention over the weekend with his diatribe alleging that the MSM was in the tank for Obama. I am so biased as to not even attempt to comment but Economist (as usual) has a good and relatively balanced viewpoint. I will say Halperin has made more than his fair share of stupid comments in the past and comparing Obama coverage to the Iraq debacle is on its face dubious.
From Economist:
"MARK HALPERIN..on how the media covered the race.
'It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.'
Halperin scours the media for giving Mr Obama a pass on his double-back on campaign finance. After signing an agreement to work toward a public-financing agreement, Mr Obama decided to opt out and ask his 3m donors for money instead. If John McCain had done that, Mr Halperin asks, "Do you think the press would have said he's buying the election by running a negative campaign, and questioned him on it?" The media instead wanted to see Mr Obama "etched in stained glass and on Mt. Rushmore simultaneously."
...Halperin's argument might become conventional wisdom, but is it true? The 2008 election put American political reporters in the unusual position of covering two politicians that were generally well-liked, by voters as well as reporters. Both candidates were underdogs, and that led to bursts of positive coverage just as it would in sports journalism or celebrity journalism. Both candidates consistently trailed in national polls for the entirety of 2007 (in the case of Mr Obama) and from the summer through December (for Mr McCain).
The press was not particularly tough on either candidate until February, when the New York Times ran a confusing story linking Mr McCain to an attractive lobbyist, and March, when ABC News ran footage of Mr Obama's pastor ranting from the pulpit.Both campaigns launched character and background attacks on the other—Mr McCain's attacking former terrorist Bill Ayers, Mr Obama's attacking 1980s scammer Charles Keating. Both campaigns complained that these associations were not covered enough. But that happens in every campaign. Ask a Democrat who worked for Al Gore whether the media did enough stories about George W. Bush's sale of stock in Harken Energy.
But clearly, Mr Obama's accomplishments were given more play than those of Mr McCain, as everything he did was a historical first. As National Review's Jim Geraghty points out, Mr Obama made the cover of Time magazine 23 times to only 10 times for Mr McCain. (The two men shared five covers.) But several of Mr Obama's covers were probing pieces about race, and several covered his extended primary battle with Hillary Clinton.
It was her doing, not Mr Obama's, that kept Mr McCain out of headlines from February to June.Liberal pundits will argue to the death with Mr Halperin: it was their belief that the media was overly fond of Mr McCain and gave him, not Mr Obama, a free ride until his choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate curdled their affections. The truth is that the race was historic, that there wasn't much investigation of either candidate, and that after April (and the Wright and "bitter, clinging" scandals) Mr Obama ran a largely gaffe-free campaign and was rewarded for it, while Mr McCain made catastrophic blunders ("I'm suspending my campaign") and was punished. It is hard to imagine Mr Obama getting the positive coverage that Mr Halperin regrets if he had run a blunder-a-week race like John Kerry or Al Gore."
From Economist:
"MARK HALPERIN..on how the media covered the race.
'It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.'
Halperin scours the media for giving Mr Obama a pass on his double-back on campaign finance. After signing an agreement to work toward a public-financing agreement, Mr Obama decided to opt out and ask his 3m donors for money instead. If John McCain had done that, Mr Halperin asks, "Do you think the press would have said he's buying the election by running a negative campaign, and questioned him on it?" The media instead wanted to see Mr Obama "etched in stained glass and on Mt. Rushmore simultaneously."
...Halperin's argument might become conventional wisdom, but is it true? The 2008 election put American political reporters in the unusual position of covering two politicians that were generally well-liked, by voters as well as reporters. Both candidates were underdogs, and that led to bursts of positive coverage just as it would in sports journalism or celebrity journalism. Both candidates consistently trailed in national polls for the entirety of 2007 (in the case of Mr Obama) and from the summer through December (for Mr McCain).
The press was not particularly tough on either candidate until February, when the New York Times ran a confusing story linking Mr McCain to an attractive lobbyist, and March, when ABC News ran footage of Mr Obama's pastor ranting from the pulpit.Both campaigns launched character and background attacks on the other—Mr McCain's attacking former terrorist Bill Ayers, Mr Obama's attacking 1980s scammer Charles Keating. Both campaigns complained that these associations were not covered enough. But that happens in every campaign. Ask a Democrat who worked for Al Gore whether the media did enough stories about George W. Bush's sale of stock in Harken Energy.
But clearly, Mr Obama's accomplishments were given more play than those of Mr McCain, as everything he did was a historical first. As National Review's Jim Geraghty points out, Mr Obama made the cover of Time magazine 23 times to only 10 times for Mr McCain. (The two men shared five covers.) But several of Mr Obama's covers were probing pieces about race, and several covered his extended primary battle with Hillary Clinton.
It was her doing, not Mr Obama's, that kept Mr McCain out of headlines from February to June.Liberal pundits will argue to the death with Mr Halperin: it was their belief that the media was overly fond of Mr McCain and gave him, not Mr Obama, a free ride until his choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate curdled their affections. The truth is that the race was historic, that there wasn't much investigation of either candidate, and that after April (and the Wright and "bitter, clinging" scandals) Mr Obama ran a largely gaffe-free campaign and was rewarded for it, while Mr McCain made catastrophic blunders ("I'm suspending my campaign") and was punished. It is hard to imagine Mr Obama getting the positive coverage that Mr Halperin regrets if he had run a blunder-a-week race like John Kerry or Al Gore."
An Early Eulogy On the W. Administration
TW: Eulogies on the W. Bush Presidency will become the topic du jour after the holidays so I thought I would grab an early brief one and then try to avoid most of the following onslaught. Only the most biased observers (largely those who for whatever reason believe Al-Queda would have run rampant but for W. and/or those who ritually drink rabid social conservatism for breakfast) I believe could describe his Presidency as anything but a disaster.
From Klein at Time:
" At the end of a presidency of stupefying ineptitude, he has become the lamest of all possible ducks. It is in the nature of mainstream journalism to attempt to be kind to Presidents when they are coming and going but to be fiercely skeptical in between...
So I've been searching for valedictory encomiums. His position on immigration was admirable and courageous; he was right about the Dubai Ports deal and about free trade in general. He spoke well, in the abstract, about the importance of freedom. He is an impeccable classicist when it comes to baseball. And that just about does it for me. I'd add the bracing moment of Bush with the bullhorn in the ruins of the World Trade Center, but that was neutered in my memory by his ridiculous, preening appearance in a flight suit on the deck of the aircraft carrier beneath the "Mission Accomplished" sign. The flight-suit image is one of the two defining moments of the Bush failure. The other is the photo of Bush staring out the window of Air Force One, helplessly viewing the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. This is a presidency that has wobbled between those two poles — overweening arrogance and paralytic incompetence...
In the end, though, it will not be the creative paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1862307,00.html
From Klein at Time:
" At the end of a presidency of stupefying ineptitude, he has become the lamest of all possible ducks. It is in the nature of mainstream journalism to attempt to be kind to Presidents when they are coming and going but to be fiercely skeptical in between...
So I've been searching for valedictory encomiums. His position on immigration was admirable and courageous; he was right about the Dubai Ports deal and about free trade in general. He spoke well, in the abstract, about the importance of freedom. He is an impeccable classicist when it comes to baseball. And that just about does it for me. I'd add the bracing moment of Bush with the bullhorn in the ruins of the World Trade Center, but that was neutered in my memory by his ridiculous, preening appearance in a flight suit on the deck of the aircraft carrier beneath the "Mission Accomplished" sign. The flight-suit image is one of the two defining moments of the Bush failure. The other is the photo of Bush staring out the window of Air Force One, helplessly viewing the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. This is a presidency that has wobbled between those two poles — overweening arrogance and paralytic incompetence...
In the end, though, it will not be the creative paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1862307,00.html
Its Curmudgeon Day
TW: Two curmudgeons in a row, a nice start to the day...Craig Crawford speaks the truth, however. Reagan started us down this path of ruin by throwing balanced budgetery out the window so that he could "slay" the evil Soviets, provide tax cuts to the wealthy and in the process put the Republicans in electoral control for the next 25 years.
Obama is now talking of preventing GD 2.0 whilst bringing fiscal discipline back. Obviously a big difference between the guy who would start such a fiasco versus end it but the problem remains. Most support fiscal discipline as a concept but few are willing to abide the discipline actually entailed (e.g. support a tax increase or spending decrease relative to your own interests). Are you?
From Crawford:
"Why are we so gullible? Ronald Reagan promised that he could vastly increase defense spending, preserve entitlement programs and balance the budget. Instead, we got the biggest increase in the national debt since our nation was founded.
Barack Obama says he can "jolt" the economy with a boost in federal spending the likes of which we've not seen since Franklin Roosevelt's time - and still manage to control spending.
On Tuesday the President-Elect called for spending restraint and a federal budget overhaul even as he called for a deficit-exploding economic recovery bill expected to be signed on the day he takes office in January.
"If we are going to make the investments we need, we also have to be willing to shed the spending we don't need," Obama said in Chicago.
What is the spending we don't need? Not much detail on that yet. Don't bet much on ever finding out."
Obama is now talking of preventing GD 2.0 whilst bringing fiscal discipline back. Obviously a big difference between the guy who would start such a fiasco versus end it but the problem remains. Most support fiscal discipline as a concept but few are willing to abide the discipline actually entailed (e.g. support a tax increase or spending decrease relative to your own interests). Are you?
From Crawford:
"Why are we so gullible? Ronald Reagan promised that he could vastly increase defense spending, preserve entitlement programs and balance the budget. Instead, we got the biggest increase in the national debt since our nation was founded.
Barack Obama says he can "jolt" the economy with a boost in federal spending the likes of which we've not seen since Franklin Roosevelt's time - and still manage to control spending.
On Tuesday the President-Elect called for spending restraint and a federal budget overhaul even as he called for a deficit-exploding economic recovery bill expected to be signed on the day he takes office in January.
"If we are going to make the investments we need, we also have to be willing to shed the spending we don't need," Obama said in Chicago.
What is the spending we don't need? Not much detail on that yet. Don't bet much on ever finding out."
Sclerotic Leadership v. Obamanism
TW: The curmudgeonly Dana Milbank frames a real issue for the Republicans especially in the Senate. Despite some of their tired, old lions retiring or gettting pushed out (e.g. Stevens, Warner, Domenieci etc.), their leadership remains stale and backward oriented.
From Milbank at WaPo:
"House Republicans are holding leadership elections at this hour in a grand Ways and Means Committee room in the Longworth House Office Building. But at the rate they've been going, the GOP will be able to hold their caucus meetings in a phone booth.
...as...Republicans filed into the Senate Republicans' lunch meeting yesterday afternoon, it looked like a Team of Losers: George Allen. Elizabeth Dole. Larry Craig. Ted Stevens. John McCain. Dick Cheney. Even Bob Dole..."I'm going to tell 'em how to win," said the '96 Republican presidential nominee. And his advice? "Everybody says they need some candidates," Dole said. "I'm here to throw my hat in the ring." That was a joke. We think.
Actually, congressional Republicans seem inclined to reward the leaders who led them to this month's electoral debacles. Yesterday, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, whip Jon Kyl and caucus chairman Lamar Alexander were reelected to their leadership positions by acclamation. It's much the same on the House side today, where minority leader John Boehner is expected to defeat with ease a challenge by California's Dan Lundgren. Virginia's Eric Cantor, who had been chief deputy whip, will be promoted tominority whip because Roy Blunt vacated that position.
Cantor this week delivered a strong rebuke of his own party. "Where we have really fallen down is we have lacked the ability to be relevant to people's lives," he told the Washington Times.
How to increase House Republicans' relevancy after their 20-seat loss?
Simple: Reelect and promote their leaders."
From Milbank at WaPo:
"House Republicans are holding leadership elections at this hour in a grand Ways and Means Committee room in the Longworth House Office Building. But at the rate they've been going, the GOP will be able to hold their caucus meetings in a phone booth.
...as...Republicans filed into the Senate Republicans' lunch meeting yesterday afternoon, it looked like a Team of Losers: George Allen. Elizabeth Dole. Larry Craig. Ted Stevens. John McCain. Dick Cheney. Even Bob Dole..."I'm going to tell 'em how to win," said the '96 Republican presidential nominee. And his advice? "Everybody says they need some candidates," Dole said. "I'm here to throw my hat in the ring." That was a joke. We think.
Actually, congressional Republicans seem inclined to reward the leaders who led them to this month's electoral debacles. Yesterday, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, whip Jon Kyl and caucus chairman Lamar Alexander were reelected to their leadership positions by acclamation. It's much the same on the House side today, where minority leader John Boehner is expected to defeat with ease a challenge by California's Dan Lundgren. Virginia's Eric Cantor, who had been chief deputy whip, will be promoted tominority whip because Roy Blunt vacated that position.
Cantor this week delivered a strong rebuke of his own party. "Where we have really fallen down is we have lacked the ability to be relevant to people's lives," he told the Washington Times.
How to increase House Republicans' relevancy after their 20-seat loss?
Simple: Reelect and promote their leaders."
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Oh the Urbanity...
TW: Joe Klein continues the theme from my post earlier today regarding Obama's urban heritage. Diversity comes in many forms....
From Klein at Time:
"...Obama will be our first urban President...at least, since modern urban culture--that Starbucks admixture of young urban professionals and impoverished minorities--came to pass in the last 30 years.
In fact, we've had precious few urban sorts as President in the nation's long history. There have been more Presidents born in log cabins than in tenements. The last flagrantly urbanite to be nominated for the office was New York's lovely Roman Catholic Al Smith, who really was born in a tenement and had an accent like my grandmother's. (Her "Have some more toikey" has been sorely missed at Thanksgiving since her passing.) Teddy Roosevelt was born in a New York row house, but spent most his adult life trying to prove that he wasn't a city-sissy. Richard Nixon may have been the last U.S. President--indeed, the only one--to live a significant part of his adult life in a luxury apartment building (during the six years after his failed 1962 attempt to become Governor of California).
This says a great deal about the presiding American fantasy that rectitude and our national soul reside in small towns. As I wrote during the campaign, that was the Sarah Palin mythology...and it didn't work, at least, not this time. Indeed, as the weeks have passed since the election, I've felt--as an urban creature myself--less restricted, less defensive. Empowered, almost. Is it possible that, as a nation, we're shedding our childlike, rural innocence and becoming more mature, urban, urbane...dare I say it, sophisticated? Cosmopolitan, even? (Rudy Giuliani--that noted Brooklyn hayseed--attempted to slur Obama as too "cosmopolitan" during the Republican convention.) Did someone mention the price of arugula at Whole Foods and still get himself elected President? Yes, we can. Would anyone care for a latte? Yes, we can. (Or a corned beef sandwich from Chicago's fabulous Manny's, where every sandwich comes accompanied with the fattest potato pancake I've ever seen. Oy, we shouldn't!)
This is not to slag rural life. Dirt is fine with me. But so is pavement. It will be spiritual progress--perhaps of a profound sort--to live in a country where dirt and pavement are celebrated equally. That is yet another sort of a deal--such a deal! as my grandmother would say--inherent in the Obama presidency."
From Klein at Time:
"...Obama will be our first urban President...at least, since modern urban culture--that Starbucks admixture of young urban professionals and impoverished minorities--came to pass in the last 30 years.
In fact, we've had precious few urban sorts as President in the nation's long history. There have been more Presidents born in log cabins than in tenements. The last flagrantly urbanite to be nominated for the office was New York's lovely Roman Catholic Al Smith, who really was born in a tenement and had an accent like my grandmother's. (Her "Have some more toikey" has been sorely missed at Thanksgiving since her passing.) Teddy Roosevelt was born in a New York row house, but spent most his adult life trying to prove that he wasn't a city-sissy. Richard Nixon may have been the last U.S. President--indeed, the only one--to live a significant part of his adult life in a luxury apartment building (during the six years after his failed 1962 attempt to become Governor of California).
This says a great deal about the presiding American fantasy that rectitude and our national soul reside in small towns. As I wrote during the campaign, that was the Sarah Palin mythology...and it didn't work, at least, not this time. Indeed, as the weeks have passed since the election, I've felt--as an urban creature myself--less restricted, less defensive. Empowered, almost. Is it possible that, as a nation, we're shedding our childlike, rural innocence and becoming more mature, urban, urbane...dare I say it, sophisticated? Cosmopolitan, even? (Rudy Giuliani--that noted Brooklyn hayseed--attempted to slur Obama as too "cosmopolitan" during the Republican convention.) Did someone mention the price of arugula at Whole Foods and still get himself elected President? Yes, we can. Would anyone care for a latte? Yes, we can. (Or a corned beef sandwich from Chicago's fabulous Manny's, where every sandwich comes accompanied with the fattest potato pancake I've ever seen. Oy, we shouldn't!)
This is not to slag rural life. Dirt is fine with me. But so is pavement. It will be spiritual progress--perhaps of a profound sort--to live in a country where dirt and pavement are celebrated equally. That is yet another sort of a deal--such a deal! as my grandmother would say--inherent in the Obama presidency."
Roubini Thinks Obama Has Made the Right Picks
TW: Some of you may have seen Noriel Roubini commenting on the economic situation. He has been a very bearish economist who unfortunately has been very right. He remains bearish on the economy but he likes the Obama economic team as it is currently envisioned.
From Roubini interview in Newsweek:
"NEWSWEEK: What are your thoughts on the team Obama assembled?
Nouriel Roubini: The choices are excellent. Tim Geithner is going to be a pragmatic, thoughtful and great leader for the Treasury. He has experience at the Treasury and the IMF, then the New York Fed. I have great respect for both Geithner as well as Larry Summers. I think both of them in top roles in economics in the administration were good moves.
What are the first things they need to tackle?
First one is the fiscal stimulus, because the troubled economy is in a freefall, so we really need to boost aggregate demand, and the sooner and larger the better. The second thing they should do is recapitalize the financial system. Most of the $700 billion is going to be used to recapitalize banks, broker dealers, finance companies and insurance companies. To do it aggressively and fast is going to be important.
The plan Obama has talked about includes spending on infrastructure and energy development to create jobs. How likely is that to produce long-term aid to the economy?
We need to do it because demand and spending and housing are literally collapsing. That will get a boost from public-sector spending: [spending on] infrastructure, unemployment benefits, state and local government aid, more food stamps. We're going to have to think larger, but I don't think you can pass most of it until January when [Obama] comes to power. We're going to have to wait, because nothing seems possible for the time being. But I expect most of his plans will pass once the new administration is in power.
Obama is largely powerless for the next two months. What's your outlook from now through January?
The lame-duck session of Congress really needs to spend on unemployment benefits, aid to save the local governments and on food stamps. Those things are very short-run and are very important. It's really the most we can do for now.
Your view of the economic future is often a bit less than optimistic. What does Obama's team signal about what could be coming?
Look, he wants to get things done, so he's choosing a really terrific team. To me, it says that he's choosing people who have great experience. He's choosing people who are pragmatic and who realize the severity of the national problem we're facing. They're knowledgeable about markets, about the economy and the political process in Washington. These are the very best people he could have chosen. I can't look too far, but it's a very good signal of what he wants to do."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/170712
From Roubini interview in Newsweek:
"NEWSWEEK: What are your thoughts on the team Obama assembled?
Nouriel Roubini: The choices are excellent. Tim Geithner is going to be a pragmatic, thoughtful and great leader for the Treasury. He has experience at the Treasury and the IMF, then the New York Fed. I have great respect for both Geithner as well as Larry Summers. I think both of them in top roles in economics in the administration were good moves.
What are the first things they need to tackle?
First one is the fiscal stimulus, because the troubled economy is in a freefall, so we really need to boost aggregate demand, and the sooner and larger the better. The second thing they should do is recapitalize the financial system. Most of the $700 billion is going to be used to recapitalize banks, broker dealers, finance companies and insurance companies. To do it aggressively and fast is going to be important.
The plan Obama has talked about includes spending on infrastructure and energy development to create jobs. How likely is that to produce long-term aid to the economy?
We need to do it because demand and spending and housing are literally collapsing. That will get a boost from public-sector spending: [spending on] infrastructure, unemployment benefits, state and local government aid, more food stamps. We're going to have to think larger, but I don't think you can pass most of it until January when [Obama] comes to power. We're going to have to wait, because nothing seems possible for the time being. But I expect most of his plans will pass once the new administration is in power.
Obama is largely powerless for the next two months. What's your outlook from now through January?
The lame-duck session of Congress really needs to spend on unemployment benefits, aid to save the local governments and on food stamps. Those things are very short-run and are very important. It's really the most we can do for now.
Your view of the economic future is often a bit less than optimistic. What does Obama's team signal about what could be coming?
Look, he wants to get things done, so he's choosing a really terrific team. To me, it says that he's choosing people who have great experience. He's choosing people who are pragmatic and who realize the severity of the national problem we're facing. They're knowledgeable about markets, about the economy and the political process in Washington. These are the very best people he could have chosen. I can't look too far, but it's a very good signal of what he wants to do."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/170712
Obama Appointee Bios
TW: A reader asked for a list of bios on the new members of the Obama team, go to the attached link for detailed bios of I believe all of the appointees.
http://www.change.gov/newsroom/
http://www.change.gov/newsroom/
More Accurate Figures On the Cost To Create Jobs
TW: Some conservative and/or lazy commentators are making hay out of suggestions (by a respected economic blogger, Greg Mankiw, but who made a very simplistic calculation) that the Obama stimulus package would cost $280K/job created. Mark Thoma does the calculations and comes up with a much more likely accurate and smaller figure per job created. Thoma comes up with a figure of $60K+ created. The calculation is not particularly complicated but it is lengthly so read the attached article if you are so interested. The point is Obama, despite protestations to the contrary that you will likely hear on shows such as Hannity etc., is not an idiot.
From Thoma:
"Some people are claiming that Obama's job package will cost $280,000 per job. The actual cost is not trivial, but I don't think that figure is correct (it simply divides a proposed stimulus amount, $700 billion, by the stated job goal of 2.5 million). I've also seen the claim that the $700 billion number is simply pulled out of a hat, but that's not right either, it's based upon transparent calculations...."
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/11/how-much-does-i.html
From Thoma:
"Some people are claiming that Obama's job package will cost $280,000 per job. The actual cost is not trivial, but I don't think that figure is correct (it simply divides a proposed stimulus amount, $700 billion, by the stated job goal of 2.5 million). I've also seen the claim that the $700 billion number is simply pulled out of a hat, but that's not right either, it's based upon transparent calculations...."
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/11/how-much-does-i.html
The Natives Are Restless
TW: Craig Crawford and even apparently Republican eminence grise, James Baker, are echoing a common if wishful theme- In with Obama, Out with Bush, Now. An obvious sentiment I suppose, although it will not happen in substance (certainly not form) nor should it. In practical terms Obama and Congress need these weeks to get a responsible, effective plan together.
There is a huge difference between the torniquets Paulsen has been applying to keep the patient alive and the structural measures Obama needs to implement to re-direct the overall course of our economy. By various means the markets will stagger along until Jan 20th. And frankly the worse the crisis gets the more room Obama is going to have for the bold changes that are needed to become acceptable.
From Crawford:
"George W. Bush is so unpopular, so discredited and so completely without authority to rule that Barack Obama has the right, the opportunity and, indeed, the imperative to take charge now. That is what Bush family confidant James Baker was implicitly suggesting in calling for joint action by the incoming and outgoing administrations in order to restore confidence of the markets and the public.
In these extra-ordinary times, there is no "one president at a time," as Obama has understandably and appropriately observed. There is only the future - and Obama is it.
Obama gets it. Saying "we don't have a minute to waste" in announcing his economic team on Monday, the President-Elect exercised his right in these circumstances to take over now.
Bush is not only a lame duck. He's done."
From Jim Baker on Meet the Press:
"...joint action by the incoming and outgoing administrations could go a long way to restoring confidence of the markets and the public. Something very useful might even come out of the two of them sitting down together and addressing not the, not the midterm, not the mid and long-term problem that we face . . . but addressing stability of our financial system and to see if there isn’t something that they could do jointly, together, over the next 58 to 60 days that would help us make sure that the financial system is stabilized and, secure.
I think just the mere fact of their sitting down together and seeing if there’s not one thing that they could come together on would do a lot to restore confidence and remove the anxiety and fear that’s out there”
There is a huge difference between the torniquets Paulsen has been applying to keep the patient alive and the structural measures Obama needs to implement to re-direct the overall course of our economy. By various means the markets will stagger along until Jan 20th. And frankly the worse the crisis gets the more room Obama is going to have for the bold changes that are needed to become acceptable.
From Crawford:
"George W. Bush is so unpopular, so discredited and so completely without authority to rule that Barack Obama has the right, the opportunity and, indeed, the imperative to take charge now. That is what Bush family confidant James Baker was implicitly suggesting in calling for joint action by the incoming and outgoing administrations in order to restore confidence of the markets and the public.
In these extra-ordinary times, there is no "one president at a time," as Obama has understandably and appropriately observed. There is only the future - and Obama is it.
Obama gets it. Saying "we don't have a minute to waste" in announcing his economic team on Monday, the President-Elect exercised his right in these circumstances to take over now.
Bush is not only a lame duck. He's done."
From Jim Baker on Meet the Press:
"...joint action by the incoming and outgoing administrations could go a long way to restoring confidence of the markets and the public. Something very useful might even come out of the two of them sitting down together and addressing not the, not the midterm, not the mid and long-term problem that we face . . . but addressing stability of our financial system and to see if there isn’t something that they could do jointly, together, over the next 58 to 60 days that would help us make sure that the financial system is stabilized and, secure.
I think just the mere fact of their sitting down together and seeing if there’s not one thing that they could come together on would do a lot to restore confidence and remove the anxiety and fear that’s out there”
Another Reason Obama Will Succeed!
From Economist:
"BEFORE Barack Obama, who was the last president to claim a big city as his home turf? Note that I'm asking less about fact than self-representation: the Bushes have a big footprint in Houston, but claim Midland and some sort of WASPy patrician New England neverland (that's son and father, respectively, just to be clear). Do you have to go all the way back to Jack Kennedy?
Mr Obama's urbanity seems a more significant political influence than his race: George W Bush's "my way or the highway" attitude is archetypically Texan, just as Reagan's somewhat daffy optimism smacks of California. What makes a city a city is the close proximity of millions of people from different backgrounds living together, and no city in America makes as much of its multiethnicity as Chicago. It was in this proving ground that Mr Obama's pragmatism was formed."
"BEFORE Barack Obama, who was the last president to claim a big city as his home turf? Note that I'm asking less about fact than self-representation: the Bushes have a big footprint in Houston, but claim Midland and some sort of WASPy patrician New England neverland (that's son and father, respectively, just to be clear). Do you have to go all the way back to Jack Kennedy?
Mr Obama's urbanity seems a more significant political influence than his race: George W Bush's "my way or the highway" attitude is archetypically Texan, just as Reagan's somewhat daffy optimism smacks of California. What makes a city a city is the close proximity of millions of people from different backgrounds living together, and no city in America makes as much of its multiethnicity as Chicago. It was in this proving ground that Mr Obama's pragmatism was formed."
Never...Ever, Listen To Realtors!
TW: I continue to derive sick amusement from the disingenuous PR tripe issued by the National Association of Realtors. All industry PR is highly biased but these folks set the bar for unadulterated propaganda. When folks complain about the media fanning the flames of the current crisis I always hark back to the flip side. When things were smoking in the real estate and financial markets was the media tamping down the propaganda? NO. The sum of the Norris post relates to the still very weak housing market but he ends with a quote.
From Floyd Norris/NYT quoting Barry Ritholz:
"...Funny, I do not seem to recall [Natl Assoc. of Realtors] warning about upward distortions of prices due to the combination of absurdly easy credit, ultra-low rates, and the appraisal fraud some of their membership helped to promote.
The simple fact is that these “distressed” sales were the unavoidable result of money being lent to people who never should have received it, and these borrowers then buying homes they could not afford.
The so-called distortion took place years ago, and the current distressed sales are the repair of that distortion.
That the National Association of Realtors refuses to acknowledge this only further reinforces their image as absurd cheerleaders and idiot naifs. They have a significant degree of culpability in the entire housing debacle"
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/go-west-foreclosure-man/
From Floyd Norris/NYT quoting Barry Ritholz:
"...Funny, I do not seem to recall [Natl Assoc. of Realtors] warning about upward distortions of prices due to the combination of absurdly easy credit, ultra-low rates, and the appraisal fraud some of their membership helped to promote.
The simple fact is that these “distressed” sales were the unavoidable result of money being lent to people who never should have received it, and these borrowers then buying homes they could not afford.
The so-called distortion took place years ago, and the current distressed sales are the repair of that distortion.
That the National Association of Realtors refuses to acknowledge this only further reinforces their image as absurd cheerleaders and idiot naifs. They have a significant degree of culpability in the entire housing debacle"
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/go-west-foreclosure-man/
Monday, November 24, 2008
Caricature Economics
TW: From Paul Krugman in a post entitled "Caricature Economics" alternatively it could be called another reason our economy is screwed-
"The answer is, eliminate the capital gains tax. Now, what was the question?
John Boehner:
“If we’re really serious about creating jobs, what we ought to do is, we ought to eliminate the capital gains tax for the next two years on any equities that are purchased,” he said. He argued that cutting the corporate income tax would help boost employment.
This brings back a memory: on Sept. 13, 2001, I got frantic calls from staffers on Capitol Hill. They informed me that Republican leaders in the House were trying to use the terrorist attack to ram through, you guessed it, a cut in the capital gains tax."
"The answer is, eliminate the capital gains tax. Now, what was the question?
John Boehner:
“If we’re really serious about creating jobs, what we ought to do is, we ought to eliminate the capital gains tax for the next two years on any equities that are purchased,” he said. He argued that cutting the corporate income tax would help boost employment.
This brings back a memory: on Sept. 13, 2001, I got frantic calls from staffers on Capitol Hill. They informed me that Republican leaders in the House were trying to use the terrorist attack to ram through, you guessed it, a cut in the capital gains tax."
A Growth Industry: American Prisons
TW: Conrad Black certainly has a checkered background (convicted mega fraudster) and writes his piece with obvious bias as he is currently a convict. However, he is an articulate writer and he frames an important issue. The huge and growing role of the "prison economy" in the US. Over the past thirty years, prisons- building, servicing and guarding them- have become a massive business with the associated interest groups (e.g. builders and guard unions) agitating for more. Some regard this evoluation as progress, I most definitely do not.
From Black via the Time of London:
"...The US is now a carceral state that imprisons eight to 12 times more people (2.5m) per capita than the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany or Japan. US justice has become a command economy based on the avarice of private prison companies, a gigantic prison service industry and politically influential correctional officers’ unions that agitate for an unlimited increase in the number of prosecutions and the length of sentences. The entire “war on drugs”, by contrast, is a classic illustration of supply-side economics: a trillion taxpayers’ dollars squandered and 1m small fry imprisoned at a cost of $50 billion a year; as supply of and demand for illegal drugs have increased, prices have fallen and product quality has improved."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5213243.ece
From Black via the Time of London:
"...The US is now a carceral state that imprisons eight to 12 times more people (2.5m) per capita than the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany or Japan. US justice has become a command economy based on the avarice of private prison companies, a gigantic prison service industry and politically influential correctional officers’ unions that agitate for an unlimited increase in the number of prosecutions and the length of sentences. The entire “war on drugs”, by contrast, is a classic illustration of supply-side economics: a trillion taxpayers’ dollars squandered and 1m small fry imprisoned at a cost of $50 billion a year; as supply of and demand for illegal drugs have increased, prices have fallen and product quality has improved."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5213243.ece
Citigroup v. the Big Three: Why One But Not the Other
TW: I remain somewhat agnostic on the automaker bailout. I believe the choice between Chapter 11 bankruptcy and a "bailout" is a false one. My belief is that the Big Three will ultimately receive considerable federal aid in one form or the other either before or after bankruptcy or perhaps as part of a "pre-packaged" bankruptcy. Robert Reich surfaces again the question of how to reconcile "Wall Street" bailouts with Big Three bailouts, why one but perhaps not the other? I have yet to hear a good reconcilation.
From Robert Reich:
"...Citigroup is not much different from General Motors. It's a company that once made lots of money but, through a series of management blunders, is now losing money hand over fist. Just like the shareholders and creditors of GM, Citi's shareholders and creditors are taking a beating.
So why save Citi and not GM? It's not clear. In fact, there may be more reason to do the reverse. GM has a far greater impact on jobs and communities. Add parts suppliers and their employees, and the number of middle-class and blue-collar jobs dependent on GM is many multiples that of Citi. And the potential social costs of GM's demise, or even major shrinkage, is much larger than Citi's -- including everything from unemployment insurance to lost tax revenues to families suddenly without health insurance to entire communities whose infrastructure and housing may become nearly worthless. I'm not arguing that GM should be bailed out; as I've noted elsewhere, GM's creditors, shareholders, executives, and workers should have to make substantial sacrifices before taxpayers should be expected to sacrifice as well...."
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-citigroup-is-about-to-be-bailed-out.html
From Robert Reich:
"...Citigroup is not much different from General Motors. It's a company that once made lots of money but, through a series of management blunders, is now losing money hand over fist. Just like the shareholders and creditors of GM, Citi's shareholders and creditors are taking a beating.
So why save Citi and not GM? It's not clear. In fact, there may be more reason to do the reverse. GM has a far greater impact on jobs and communities. Add parts suppliers and their employees, and the number of middle-class and blue-collar jobs dependent on GM is many multiples that of Citi. And the potential social costs of GM's demise, or even major shrinkage, is much larger than Citi's -- including everything from unemployment insurance to lost tax revenues to families suddenly without health insurance to entire communities whose infrastructure and housing may become nearly worthless. I'm not arguing that GM should be bailed out; as I've noted elsewhere, GM's creditors, shareholders, executives, and workers should have to make substantial sacrifices before taxpayers should be expected to sacrifice as well...."
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-citigroup-is-about-to-be-bailed-out.html
The Citi Bailout
TW: This is a good rundown of economist reactions to the latest Citi bailout. Without getting into too much detail the consensus seemed to be:
1) Citi is in very bad shape (and probably not alone)
2) The US gov't is committing massive $ with little upside and not very much pain inflicted upon Citi mgmt.
3) Even more US $ will likely be necessary for Citi eventually
4) The futures market reacted positively to the news, the economists were skeptical as to why given items 1-3 above
5) The hypocrisy of "bailing" out the Citis of the world v. the automakers becomes more clear
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/11/the-citigroup-b.html
1) Citi is in very bad shape (and probably not alone)
2) The US gov't is committing massive $ with little upside and not very much pain inflicted upon Citi mgmt.
3) Even more US $ will likely be necessary for Citi eventually
4) The futures market reacted positively to the news, the economists were skeptical as to why given items 1-3 above
5) The hypocrisy of "bailing" out the Citis of the world v. the automakers becomes more clear
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/11/the-citigroup-b.html
Closing Guantanamo Will Not Be So Easy
TW: One way or the other closing Guantanamo needs to happen and will happen. The actual implementation will be tricky. There are only about 260 inmates at Guantanamo creating a symbol of poorly defined justice that needs to be eliminated. Amidst those 260 are apparently 50-100 difficult to place but very legitimate security threats. My suspicion is that one way or the other we can find a way to deal with them short of keeping a symbol of American failure open.
From Economist:
"...disposing of the 260-odd (in every sense) inmates still incarcerated there won’t be easy.
A few dozen are small fish—not to mention innocents—who we could easily send home. But there are some whose governments don’t want them, and others (eg, those Chinese Uighurs) whom their governments might torture or execute. International law says you can’t repatriate them. We’ll ask friendly countries to take a few, but you will end up having to let most go free in the United States. Some might well return to the battlefield after all we’ve done to them. But as General Barry McCaffrey has said (we’ll keep the quote handy), it’s going to be cheaper and cleaner to kill them in combat than sit on them for 15 years...
Then there are those 80 or so really hard men. President Bush wanted to try them, and could never get the law right...there’s a group the Agency is sure are dedicated terrorists but on whom we have nothing that can stand up in any sort of court. The human-rights purists say you must bite the bullet and set these unconvictables free in America. But if you follow their advice it won’t just be Republicans who will say you are putting the republic in danger...Safer would be to move them to the mainland, where they would be held under some kind of preventive detention"
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12638668
From Economist:
"...disposing of the 260-odd (in every sense) inmates still incarcerated there won’t be easy.
A few dozen are small fish—not to mention innocents—who we could easily send home. But there are some whose governments don’t want them, and others (eg, those Chinese Uighurs) whom their governments might torture or execute. International law says you can’t repatriate them. We’ll ask friendly countries to take a few, but you will end up having to let most go free in the United States. Some might well return to the battlefield after all we’ve done to them. But as General Barry McCaffrey has said (we’ll keep the quote handy), it’s going to be cheaper and cleaner to kill them in combat than sit on them for 15 years...
Then there are those 80 or so really hard men. President Bush wanted to try them, and could never get the law right...there’s a group the Agency is sure are dedicated terrorists but on whom we have nothing that can stand up in any sort of court. The human-rights purists say you must bite the bullet and set these unconvictables free in America. But if you follow their advice it won’t just be Republicans who will say you are putting the republic in danger...Safer would be to move them to the mainland, where they would be held under some kind of preventive detention"
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12638668
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Quote To Ponder
"One thing that we know will be fun is watching Mr Paulson defend the purchase of $100 billion of Citi's junk, while simultaneously arguing that Detroit shouldn't get a dime from TARP"
--From An Economist Blogger
--From An Economist Blogger
In 1964 Things Looked Different
TW: This is a photo from Rockville, MD circa 1964. It comes from a site, Shorpy.com, that publishes old photos that folks dig up from their files. I find them interesting at times although they tend to come mostly from the East Coast. This one caught my eye as it combines some nostaligic grocery scenary (brands etc.) with a demographic snapshot that has certainly evolved over the past 40+ years.
The Bright Side: Obama Is Moving Fast To Fill the Void
TW: Am starting a new feature amidst these challenging times, The Bright Side. Rest assured the dim reality will continue to receive coverage as well. Robert Reich outlines how Obama is moving with all appropriate haste to position his administration to hit the ground running come January 20th. Appoint the best people and prepare a massive stimulus plan focused on investment in those areas in which the U.S. has under-invested.
From Reich:
"Obama's immediate challenge is to fill the leadership vacuum created by a lame-duck president with historically-low approval ratings who seems to have lost interest in his job (at this writing, he's out of the country) and who's disappeared from the media...
How does Obama manage this feat? Two ways: (1) appointing a highly-capable economic team, and (2) telling the nation what he plans to do starting the afternoon of January 20. Specifically:
1) The members of Obama's new economic team fit the bill...They're relatively young, in their late 30s or 40s, representing a generational change and a fresh start. Despite their youth, they're also experienced...All are pragmatists...They are not visionaries but we don't need visionaries when the economic perils are clear and immediate. We need competence. Obama could not appoint a more competent group
2) The President-Elect has also signaled the country what he wants to do: enact an "Economic Recovery Plan" that will mean 2.5 million more jobs by January of 2011...about $600 to $700 billion [stimulus plan]. Its focus will be on infrastructure of a sort that will not only put people to work but also improve the productivity of the economy. His words: "We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels; fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead.
At a time when aggregate demand is shriveling because consumers aren't spending and investors have stopped investing, and exports are shrinking, Obama recognizes that government must be the spender of last resort. He will combine old-fashioned Kaynesian economics with newly-fashioned public investments to pull the economy out of its slump.By putting his economic team in place barely three weeks after he was elected, and telling the nation what he plans to do immediately after he takes office, the President-Elect is asserting leadership at a time when the the Bush administration has all but abdicated."
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-obama-is-already-taking-charge.html
From Reich:
"Obama's immediate challenge is to fill the leadership vacuum created by a lame-duck president with historically-low approval ratings who seems to have lost interest in his job (at this writing, he's out of the country) and who's disappeared from the media...
How does Obama manage this feat? Two ways: (1) appointing a highly-capable economic team, and (2) telling the nation what he plans to do starting the afternoon of January 20. Specifically:
1) The members of Obama's new economic team fit the bill...They're relatively young, in their late 30s or 40s, representing a generational change and a fresh start. Despite their youth, they're also experienced...All are pragmatists...They are not visionaries but we don't need visionaries when the economic perils are clear and immediate. We need competence. Obama could not appoint a more competent group
2) The President-Elect has also signaled the country what he wants to do: enact an "Economic Recovery Plan" that will mean 2.5 million more jobs by January of 2011...about $600 to $700 billion [stimulus plan]. Its focus will be on infrastructure of a sort that will not only put people to work but also improve the productivity of the economy. His words: "We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels; fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead.
At a time when aggregate demand is shriveling because consumers aren't spending and investors have stopped investing, and exports are shrinking, Obama recognizes that government must be the spender of last resort. He will combine old-fashioned Kaynesian economics with newly-fashioned public investments to pull the economy out of its slump.By putting his economic team in place barely three weeks after he was elected, and telling the nation what he plans to do immediately after he takes office, the President-Elect is asserting leadership at a time when the the Bush administration has all but abdicated."
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-obama-is-already-taking-charge.html
Moving the Pressure From the U.S. To Others To Show Their Diversity
TW: Have posted in the past regarding how the election of Obama and just as importantly the passing of the W. Bush Administration shifts the focus somewhat from how the U.S. has "failed" to address to world problems to how the rest of the world needs to step up as well.
From Bowring at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...It has long been an article of faith in much of Asia, and China in particular, that for all the U.S. talk of being a multi-racial, melting-pot country, in reality it was run by and for white people. Non-whites were a sporting and entertainment sideshow.
To say the least, that perception will need radical revision, which in turn raises question marks over race-based policies pursued in several East Asian countries. By implication it asks questions about a Han civilization obsessed with China's failure to deal fairly and effectively with Tibetan, Uighur and other minorities.
It may also make the Chinese think twice about their own ingrained attitudes to black and brown people. For Japan and Korea, it highlights the failure of policies of racial exclusiveness which make the immigration of people without Japanese or Korean ancestry extremely difficult, with the result that with their very low birth rates, their populations are headed for steep decline.
It puts into focus the increasingly grotesque nature of Malaysia's policy of preferences for Malays, originally designed to bring about economic equality, but which has become a system of dominance over Chinese and Indian minorities...
There is no mileage for the United States in lecturing others about their records on racial or dynastic politics...But the profound impact that the United States has had in the past and can have again merely by setting an example should not be forgotten even at this time when its economy is badly wounded and the limits of its military power exposed..."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/06/opinion/edbowring.php
From Bowring at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...It has long been an article of faith in much of Asia, and China in particular, that for all the U.S. talk of being a multi-racial, melting-pot country, in reality it was run by and for white people. Non-whites were a sporting and entertainment sideshow.
To say the least, that perception will need radical revision, which in turn raises question marks over race-based policies pursued in several East Asian countries. By implication it asks questions about a Han civilization obsessed with China's failure to deal fairly and effectively with Tibetan, Uighur and other minorities.
It may also make the Chinese think twice about their own ingrained attitudes to black and brown people. For Japan and Korea, it highlights the failure of policies of racial exclusiveness which make the immigration of people without Japanese or Korean ancestry extremely difficult, with the result that with their very low birth rates, their populations are headed for steep decline.
It puts into focus the increasingly grotesque nature of Malaysia's policy of preferences for Malays, originally designed to bring about economic equality, but which has become a system of dominance over Chinese and Indian minorities...
There is no mileage for the United States in lecturing others about their records on racial or dynastic politics...But the profound impact that the United States has had in the past and can have again merely by setting an example should not be forgotten even at this time when its economy is badly wounded and the limits of its military power exposed..."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/06/opinion/edbowring.php
Bush Judicial Legacy Will Outlast Him By Decades
TW: Have posted on this before but any POTUS especially a two-termer has tremendous opportunity to re-shape our federal courts not only at the SCOTUS level but at the appeals court level as well. W. Bush alas has not been an exception. W. Bush has added dozens of judges to those appointed by his father and Reagan to create the most conservative judiciary since the 1920's. The Republicans also tend to appoint younger judges, a trait Obama would do well to emulate.
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"After a group of doctors challenged a South Dakota law forcing them to inform women that abortions "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" - using exactly that language - President George W. Bush's appointees to the U.S. appeals courts took control...
His administration has transformed the U.S. federal appeals courts, advancing a conservative legal revolution that began nearly three decades ago under Ronald Reagan...Bush pointed with pride to his record at a conference sponsored by the Cincinnati chapter of the Federalist Society, the elite network for the conservative legal movement. He noted that he had appointed more than a third of the federal judiciary expected to be serving when he leaves office, a lifetime-tenured force that will influence society for decades and represents one of his most enduring accomplishments.
Bush's judges were among the youngest ever nominated and are poised to have an unusually strong impact...They have arrived at a time when the appeals courts, which decide tens of thousands of cases a year, are increasingly getting the last word. While the Supreme Court gets far more attention, in recent terms it has reviewed only about 75 cases a year - half what it considered a generation ago. And Bush's appointees have found allies in likeminded judges named by Bush's father and Reagan.
Republican-appointed judges, most conservatives, now make up 61 percent of the bench, up from 50 percent when Bush took office. They control 10 of the 13 circuits, while Democrat-appointed judges have a dwindling majority on just one circuit.
The consequences of the evolving judiciary are only beginning to play out...Bush's commitment to moving the courts rightward has been important not only to elite conservative thinkers, but also to the social conservatives who have constituted his base of support..."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/28/america/judges.php
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"After a group of doctors challenged a South Dakota law forcing them to inform women that abortions "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" - using exactly that language - President George W. Bush's appointees to the U.S. appeals courts took control...
His administration has transformed the U.S. federal appeals courts, advancing a conservative legal revolution that began nearly three decades ago under Ronald Reagan...Bush pointed with pride to his record at a conference sponsored by the Cincinnati chapter of the Federalist Society, the elite network for the conservative legal movement. He noted that he had appointed more than a third of the federal judiciary expected to be serving when he leaves office, a lifetime-tenured force that will influence society for decades and represents one of his most enduring accomplishments.
Bush's judges were among the youngest ever nominated and are poised to have an unusually strong impact...They have arrived at a time when the appeals courts, which decide tens of thousands of cases a year, are increasingly getting the last word. While the Supreme Court gets far more attention, in recent terms it has reviewed only about 75 cases a year - half what it considered a generation ago. And Bush's appointees have found allies in likeminded judges named by Bush's father and Reagan.
Republican-appointed judges, most conservatives, now make up 61 percent of the bench, up from 50 percent when Bush took office. They control 10 of the 13 circuits, while Democrat-appointed judges have a dwindling majority on just one circuit.
The consequences of the evolving judiciary are only beginning to play out...Bush's commitment to moving the courts rightward has been important not only to elite conservative thinkers, but also to the social conservatives who have constituted his base of support..."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/28/america/judges.php
An Obama Bush Foreign Policy Consensus: A Cause For Optimism
TW: That would be Bush the father not the idiot son just to be clear...Klein outlines how the Obama national security team is lining up. Yes HRC is a centrist too but if I hear anymore of this tedious "Team of Rivals" meme I am going to puke. The key is the other players and the re-emergence after a couple of decades of a bi-partisan approach to national security. Foreign policy post WWII (and largely pre- as well was a bi-partisan effort, this consensus broke down largely with Reagan and completely fell apart with W. Bush.
The more Obama re-establishes the consensus, the better off our policy will be. Furthermore as a partisan Dem and a nationalist American, to the extent Obama can blunt Republican criticisim of his national security policies the greater room he will have for BOLD domestic policies.
From Klein at Time:
"Hillary Clinton "on track" to become Secretary of State, retired General Jim Jones said to become National Security Adviser (while Republican realist Brent Scowcroft has been advising Obama on National Security)...and some strong flutterings that Obama wants to retain Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense...
If true, this is an extremely strong, and wise, national security team. It would reflect a powerful desire on Obama's part to return to the tradition of bipartisan foreign policy, with politics stopping at the water's edge. And it would reflect a growing centrist consensus in the foreign policy/national security spectrum that includes most members of the Bush 41 and Clinton teams--in favor of the primacy of diplomacy over militarism, ready to begin talks with those the Bush Administration considered pariahs (the Taliban, Syria, Iran), but not averse to the use of force--against Al Qaeda, in particular--when necessary...
In any case, this group sends an indelible signal that the President-elect is a confident fellow and absolutely intent on creating a new national unity (and sanity) in Foreign Policy and Security matters. That is very good news."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/21/national-security-team-of-rivals/
The more Obama re-establishes the consensus, the better off our policy will be. Furthermore as a partisan Dem and a nationalist American, to the extent Obama can blunt Republican criticisim of his national security policies the greater room he will have for BOLD domestic policies.
From Klein at Time:
"Hillary Clinton "on track" to become Secretary of State, retired General Jim Jones said to become National Security Adviser (while Republican realist Brent Scowcroft has been advising Obama on National Security)...and some strong flutterings that Obama wants to retain Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense...
If true, this is an extremely strong, and wise, national security team. It would reflect a powerful desire on Obama's part to return to the tradition of bipartisan foreign policy, with politics stopping at the water's edge. And it would reflect a growing centrist consensus in the foreign policy/national security spectrum that includes most members of the Bush 41 and Clinton teams--in favor of the primacy of diplomacy over militarism, ready to begin talks with those the Bush Administration considered pariahs (the Taliban, Syria, Iran), but not averse to the use of force--against Al Qaeda, in particular--when necessary...
In any case, this group sends an indelible signal that the President-elect is a confident fellow and absolutely intent on creating a new national unity (and sanity) in Foreign Policy and Security matters. That is very good news."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/21/national-security-team-of-rivals/
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Obama Is Bringing In Talent: He Will Need It
TW: Brooks echos the sentiments of many in regards to the quality of the Obama appointments announced to date. The key for me is the lack of ideology, as I have said before Obama can provide enough ideology the rest of them need to implement. They will have much to do and quickly. Appointments are merely the start of a very long road but at least so far so good.
From Brooks at NYT:
"...This truly will be an administration that looks like America, or at least that slice of America that got double 800s on their SATs...as much as I want to resent these overeducated Achievatrons...I find myself tremendously impressed by the Obama transition...Unlike past Democratic administrations, they are not just handing out jobs to the hacks approved by the favored interest groups. They’re thinking holistically — there’s a nice balance of policy wonks, governors and legislators. They’re also thinking strategically...Most of all, they are picking Washington insiders. Or to be more precise, they are picking the best of the Washington insiders...
Obama seems to have dispensed with the romantic and failed notion that you need inexperienced “fresh faces” to change things...As a result, the team he has announced so far is more impressive than any other in recent memory...these are open-minded individuals who are persuadable by evidence...they are admired professionals...they are not excessively partisan...they are not ideological...there are many people on this team with practical creativity...
...the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He’s off to a start that nearly justifies the hype."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?_r=2
From Brooks at NYT:
"...This truly will be an administration that looks like America, or at least that slice of America that got double 800s on their SATs...as much as I want to resent these overeducated Achievatrons...I find myself tremendously impressed by the Obama transition...Unlike past Democratic administrations, they are not just handing out jobs to the hacks approved by the favored interest groups. They’re thinking holistically — there’s a nice balance of policy wonks, governors and legislators. They’re also thinking strategically...Most of all, they are picking Washington insiders. Or to be more precise, they are picking the best of the Washington insiders...
Obama seems to have dispensed with the romantic and failed notion that you need inexperienced “fresh faces” to change things...As a result, the team he has announced so far is more impressive than any other in recent memory...these are open-minded individuals who are persuadable by evidence...they are admired professionals...they are not excessively partisan...they are not ideological...there are many people on this team with practical creativity...
...the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He’s off to a start that nearly justifies the hype."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?_r=2
Couric Un-Packing the Palin Interviews
TW: I found this Couric appearance on Letterman interesting in terms of outlining how a person like Couric goes about her business when prepping and framing an interview. Despite Palintologist protests to the contrary, the process was not built to make Palin a fool, Palin managed that on her own.
Iraqis To U.S.: Do Not Let the Door Hit You In the Ass
TW: It has largely been lost amidst the economic carnage, but the U.S. and the Iraqis have reached a tentative agreement regarding the disposition of U.S. forces in Iraq. Such a pact would have at various times over the past two years have been the absolute lead story, it has now after 4,000+ American and innumerable Iraqi lives lost become a non-front page issue. On one hand the eagerness of the Iraqis for us to leave is a good sign as it represents their growing confidence in providing for their own security. On the other hand, why did we ever go in the first place.
The implications remain profound nevertheless. Bush (and most Republicans) had long opposed a timetable, now there is a firm one. While the timetable is longer than that proposed by Obama while campaigning, one can assume he will acquiesce to the schedule. The larger question is whether the various factions in Iraq will similarly acquiesce, we shall see.
From Economist:
"A “withdrawal agreement” approved by the Iraqi cabinet on November 16th requires American troops to pull out of Iraqi towns and cities by the end of June next year, and to leave Iraq altogether by December 31st 2011...
...there would be no permanent American bases. Iraq could not be used to attack others (ie, Syria or Iran). There would be, he promised, “no detainees any more, no detention centres any more…no searches or raids of buildings or houses, until there is an Iraqi judicial warrant and it is fully co-ordinated with the Iraqi government.”
http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12637072
The implications remain profound nevertheless. Bush (and most Republicans) had long opposed a timetable, now there is a firm one. While the timetable is longer than that proposed by Obama while campaigning, one can assume he will acquiesce to the schedule. The larger question is whether the various factions in Iraq will similarly acquiesce, we shall see.
From Economist:
"A “withdrawal agreement” approved by the Iraqi cabinet on November 16th requires American troops to pull out of Iraqi towns and cities by the end of June next year, and to leave Iraq altogether by December 31st 2011...
...there would be no permanent American bases. Iraq could not be used to attack others (ie, Syria or Iran). There would be, he promised, “no detainees any more, no detention centres any more…no searches or raids of buildings or houses, until there is an Iraqi judicial warrant and it is fully co-ordinated with the Iraqi government.”
http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12637072
A Long Two Months
TW: Krugman addresses a point already made here regarding the void in DC while we wait for the Obama Administration. As most realize by now the last time we were in a similiar situation was the winter of '32-'33 when the US had to wait until mid-March for FDR to arrive after his November election. At least now after that disaster they pushed the transition date up two months. Regardless Jan 20 is a ways off and this week's fumbling in DC symbolizes why in times like these one needs strong, decisive leadership of the type difficult to provide by any lameduck much less one as discredited as W. Bush.
From Krugman/NYT:
"... In 2008, as in 1932, a long era of Republican political dominance came to an end in the face of an economic and financial crisis that, in voters’ minds, both discredited the G.O.P.’s free-market ideology and undermined its claims of competence...the long stretch between the election and the actual transfer of power, was disastrous for the U.S. economy, at least in part because the outgoing administration had no credibility, the incoming administration had no authority and the ideological chasm between the two sides was too great to allow concerted action...
maybe letting the auto companies die is the right decision, even though an auto industry collapse would be a huge blow to an already slumping economy. But it’s a decision that should be taken carefully, with full consideration of the costs and benefits — not a decision taken by default, because of a political standoff between Democrats who want Mr. Paulson to use some of that $700 billion and a lame-duck administration that’s trying to force Congress to divert funds from a fuel-efficiency program instead..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
From Krugman/NYT:
"... In 2008, as in 1932, a long era of Republican political dominance came to an end in the face of an economic and financial crisis that, in voters’ minds, both discredited the G.O.P.’s free-market ideology and undermined its claims of competence...the long stretch between the election and the actual transfer of power, was disastrous for the U.S. economy, at least in part because the outgoing administration had no credibility, the incoming administration had no authority and the ideological chasm between the two sides was too great to allow concerted action...
maybe letting the auto companies die is the right decision, even though an auto industry collapse would be a huge blow to an already slumping economy. But it’s a decision that should be taken carefully, with full consideration of the costs and benefits — not a decision taken by default, because of a political standoff between Democrats who want Mr. Paulson to use some of that $700 billion and a lame-duck administration that’s trying to force Congress to divert funds from a fuel-efficiency program instead..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Kathleen Parker Strikes Again
TW: Parker is my nominee for the new conservative columnist at NYT (not sure she would regard that as sufficient upgrade from Wash Post though). Regardless she addresses a point obvious to us secular types- the Republicans have become far too reliant on religion to define their base. Religion when applied stridently becomes a polarizing force (which has implications far beyond the Republican Party but that is for another time). While preaching the old time religion truly fires up say 25% of the population, it does not work so well with the rest including those crucial independents.
From Parker at WaPo:
"...To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.
Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that....
So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners...
Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle...It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts...
Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting...Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802886.html
From Parker at WaPo:
"...To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.
Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that....
So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners...
Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle...It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts...
Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting...Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802886.html
And This Is the Future Of the Republican Party?
TW: As the Economist properly excoriates Mike Pence, you might as well get to used to seeing him. He is regarded by many in his party as a bright star in their increasingly warped galaxy. If this is what the Republicans are going to try to re-build with either they will fail miserably or we will be in a heap oh dung (as if the one we are in is not enough of a stinking pile). Pence is a rabid social conservative and is fighting against any government intervention relative to the current economic crisis.
He is starting out in his new position as 3rd ranking Republican House member by using a favorite Republican tactic, the straw man. Make up a target and attack it, in this case the fairness doctrine. This doctrine which was eliminated 20 years ago originally required media to present demonstrably balanced political coverage. Its recision opened the airwaves for unadulterated biased coverage (e.g. right-wing radio etc.). The Rush Limbaughs of the world whip their minions into a frenzy claiming lurid Dems are about to re-instate the doctrine. The only problem being there is no evidence Obama plans to do so.
From the Economist:
"...Mr Pence was elected in 2000 and quickly, forcefully established himself as a crusader for modern conservatism: pro-life, pro-Iraq War and anti-tax...While he's incredibly popular on the right, Mr Pence's signature issue is, frankly, risible. He is the Congress's best-known crusader against the "Fairness Doctrine"...
But...the new president has no interest in doing so. Conservative worries about the doctrine are confined to a few theoretical comments by liberal members of Congress who occassionally ache about Fox News..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/11/mike_pence_versus_the_phantom.cfm
He is starting out in his new position as 3rd ranking Republican House member by using a favorite Republican tactic, the straw man. Make up a target and attack it, in this case the fairness doctrine. This doctrine which was eliminated 20 years ago originally required media to present demonstrably balanced political coverage. Its recision opened the airwaves for unadulterated biased coverage (e.g. right-wing radio etc.). The Rush Limbaughs of the world whip their minions into a frenzy claiming lurid Dems are about to re-instate the doctrine. The only problem being there is no evidence Obama plans to do so.
From the Economist:
"...Mr Pence was elected in 2000 and quickly, forcefully established himself as a crusader for modern conservatism: pro-life, pro-Iraq War and anti-tax...While he's incredibly popular on the right, Mr Pence's signature issue is, frankly, risible. He is the Congress's best-known crusader against the "Fairness Doctrine"...
But...the new president has no interest in doing so. Conservative worries about the doctrine are confined to a few theoretical comments by liberal members of Congress who occassionally ache about Fox News..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/11/mike_pence_versus_the_phantom.cfm
Friday, November 21, 2008
Just What You Want To See Amidst Worldwide Crisis
TW: Not a single foreign leader risking a photo of him or her shaking the hand of the POTUS. I obviously regard W. Bush as a disgrace but their behavior is equivalent.
Beware Politicians With Hidden Agendas
TW: Sen. Richard Shelby (Republican AL) has become the poster boy for the anti-bailout Congressional leaders. Shelby is not a neutral observer, his state is an aggressive solicitor of foreign car manufacturers willing to invest in greenfield production sites. Our Big Three are a disaster but a significant contributor to their problems has been the ability of foreign manufacturers to produce without the legacy costs (e.g. retiree expenses and existing infrastructure) burdening the Big Three. The Shelby's of the world would like to blame incompetent management and especially greedy unions but the story is more complex.
From Salon:
"When Michigan Sen. Carl Levin makes statements supporting a bailout for U.S. automakers, he is generally dismissed as a spokesperson for his constituents -- Michigan, of course, is ground zero for the Big Three. No state in the union employs more autoworkers.
So how come Richard Shelby, R-Ala., doesn't get the same treatment? In Congress, Shelby is the most outspoken opponent of a bailout, routinely declaring that the Big Three are "dinosaurs." But if there was truth in advertising, every time he opens his mouth there should be a disclaimer: Sen. Shelby represents the interests of his constituents -- non-union employees of foreign-owned automobile manufacturers...
Hyundai, Honda and Mercedes-Benz all have state-of-the-art plants in Alabama, producing, among other things, the kind of low-gas-mileage luxury sport utility vehicles that most U.S. consumers are currently reluctant to buy....
So who do you think would benefit most from a collapse of Ford, GM and Chrysler? How about states such as Alabama and the rest of the South, which have long been busy turning the industrial Midwest into the Rust Belt, well before outsourcing and offshoring and globalization became working-class swear words.
'In other words, Shelby isn't opposed to car companies that are stupidly committing and recommitting to SUVs. Rather, he's just opposed to car companies that make SUVs with union labor.' "
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/11/19/shelby_and_the_bailout/index.html
From Salon:
"When Michigan Sen. Carl Levin makes statements supporting a bailout for U.S. automakers, he is generally dismissed as a spokesperson for his constituents -- Michigan, of course, is ground zero for the Big Three. No state in the union employs more autoworkers.
So how come Richard Shelby, R-Ala., doesn't get the same treatment? In Congress, Shelby is the most outspoken opponent of a bailout, routinely declaring that the Big Three are "dinosaurs." But if there was truth in advertising, every time he opens his mouth there should be a disclaimer: Sen. Shelby represents the interests of his constituents -- non-union employees of foreign-owned automobile manufacturers...
Hyundai, Honda and Mercedes-Benz all have state-of-the-art plants in Alabama, producing, among other things, the kind of low-gas-mileage luxury sport utility vehicles that most U.S. consumers are currently reluctant to buy....
So who do you think would benefit most from a collapse of Ford, GM and Chrysler? How about states such as Alabama and the rest of the South, which have long been busy turning the industrial Midwest into the Rust Belt, well before outsourcing and offshoring and globalization became working-class swear words.
'In other words, Shelby isn't opposed to car companies that are stupidly committing and recommitting to SUVs. Rather, he's just opposed to car companies that make SUVs with union labor.' "
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/11/19/shelby_and_the_bailout/index.html
Who Do You Want Running Things?
TW: Doves who would have conservatives attacking any move they try to make. Or, moderates led by a pragmatist so that when they make dovish moves they can tell the conservatives to go pound. The left-wing of the Dem party is already getting into a tizzy but they are foolish. The last thing Obama should do is appoint doves into key leadership positions. You need one dove, the POTUS, the rest will follow and if he is executing his plans with moderates he stands a far better chance to actually implement real change with a leftward tilt. Idealogues never get these things and burn up precious political capital in the process.
I will repeat to the extent the loudest shrieking and moaning during the transition comes from the left the better, if so the Republicans should really get scared that a locomotive will run them over legislatively in February.
From LA Times:
"Reporting from Washington -- Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues...
The activists -- key members of the coalition that propelled Obama to the White House -- fear he is drifting from the antiwar moorings of his once-longshot presidential candidacy. Obama has eased the rigid timetable he had set for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and he appears to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts. The president-elect has told some Democrats that he expects to take heat from parts of his political base but will not be deterred by it....
It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix," said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy..."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-foreign-policy20-2008nov20,0,2687012.story
I will repeat to the extent the loudest shrieking and moaning during the transition comes from the left the better, if so the Republicans should really get scared that a locomotive will run them over legislatively in February.
From LA Times:
"Reporting from Washington -- Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues...
The activists -- key members of the coalition that propelled Obama to the White House -- fear he is drifting from the antiwar moorings of his once-longshot presidential candidacy. Obama has eased the rigid timetable he had set for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and he appears to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts. The president-elect has told some Democrats that he expects to take heat from parts of his political base but will not be deterred by it....
It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix," said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy..."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-foreign-policy20-2008nov20,0,2687012.story
Helene Thomas And Media Accountability
TW: Obama will be Helen Thomas' 10th POTUS to cover. As her days dwindle, she has taken to expressing openly her thoughts on various topics. She is no fan of W. Bush (but then who is) or how she and her colleagues covered the lead-up to the Iraq War. As we enter a new era, hopefully some lessons have been learned and will be applied to the next similar crisis.
From a Hotline interview with Thomas:
"NJ: What were key challenges you had reporting about the run-up to the [Iraq] war?
Thomas: I think it behooves every reporter to find out what's going on; what is the motivation; why do we go to war. Every day we were propagandized about the threat. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of State, said the smoking gun will turn into the mushroom cloud if we don't go in. On every Sunday talk show she was warning about that, and it was not true. And I have not heard any apologies from her yet. Too many people are dead -- too many people have paid the price for things they didn't do.
NJ: When Watchdogs of Democracy? came out, what was the reaction from your colleagues?
Thomas: Silence. I asked, why did we go to war. I asked, why do we torture people. Even a serial killer gets a fair trail. We have hundreds of prisoners in Guantanamo who've never been charged, never been tried, never been convicted, are unable to contact their families. They live in total limbo. Many have suicided. That's not America. That's not how Americans see themselves. Torture? Sending dogs in? Waterboarding, which is near-drowning? It's just incredible that we would have that kind of an albatross around us. And we will, forever, because of Bush's policies.
NJ: How do you think George W. Bush will be remembered?
Thomas: I don't think he'll have the halo that he thinks he's going to have of vindication. I don't think America ever wants to be saddled with starting a war against a country that did nothing to us; bombing innocent people for totally no reason that he can explain. And to this day he has not explained why we attacked Iraq, because every reason he gave us has proved to be not true: no weapons of mass destruction; no ties to al Qaeda; no threat from a Third World country against America, the superpower. Where are the American people? Why don't they call his hand on that?"
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/11/on_helens_mind.html
From a Hotline interview with Thomas:
"NJ: What were key challenges you had reporting about the run-up to the [Iraq] war?
Thomas: I think it behooves every reporter to find out what's going on; what is the motivation; why do we go to war. Every day we were propagandized about the threat. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of State, said the smoking gun will turn into the mushroom cloud if we don't go in. On every Sunday talk show she was warning about that, and it was not true. And I have not heard any apologies from her yet. Too many people are dead -- too many people have paid the price for things they didn't do.
NJ: When Watchdogs of Democracy? came out, what was the reaction from your colleagues?
Thomas: Silence. I asked, why did we go to war. I asked, why do we torture people. Even a serial killer gets a fair trail. We have hundreds of prisoners in Guantanamo who've never been charged, never been tried, never been convicted, are unable to contact their families. They live in total limbo. Many have suicided. That's not America. That's not how Americans see themselves. Torture? Sending dogs in? Waterboarding, which is near-drowning? It's just incredible that we would have that kind of an albatross around us. And we will, forever, because of Bush's policies.
NJ: How do you think George W. Bush will be remembered?
Thomas: I don't think he'll have the halo that he thinks he's going to have of vindication. I don't think America ever wants to be saddled with starting a war against a country that did nothing to us; bombing innocent people for totally no reason that he can explain. And to this day he has not explained why we attacked Iraq, because every reason he gave us has proved to be not true: no weapons of mass destruction; no ties to al Qaeda; no threat from a Third World country against America, the superpower. Where are the American people? Why don't they call his hand on that?"
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/11/on_helens_mind.html
The Gift That Keeps On Giving
TW: If u have ever wondered how your Tgiving turkey transitions from the living to the soon to be eaten or if u would like to listen to a fool babble, u will enjoy this video.
Maybe Healthcare Reform Will Have a Chance
TW: The one benefit of a crisis as serious as the current is that an environment for action is created. Obama will have a plethora of issues demanding his attention. As Carney points out in his piece, given the importance of health care as an economic stimulative perhaps the prospects for reform will actually go up amidst the carnage of the crisis.
From Jay Carney at Time:
"Three key developments over the past 15 years have made this moment possible. First, the number of uninsured Americans now tops 45 million. Meanwhile, all the proposals under serious consideration — starting with Obama's — would allow Americans to keep their current insurance coverage if they're happy with it. The specter of the feds ordering everyone into a mandatory government-managed plan is fading away. Most important, the cost of health insurance to both the employers who provide it and the employees who pay premiums has continued to soar. Because of that, companies of all sizes — from corporate behemoths to corner stores — have switched sides on the issue of comprehensive reform. Having fought to defeat Clinton's plan in 1993, they are now some of reform's loudest advocates. "This is the No. 1 priority for small businesses," says Todd Stottlemyer, president of the National Federation of Independent Business. "We see it as a matter of national economic security."
Even the weak economy may be an impetus to reform. An expected spike in unemployment will increase the rolls of the uninsured, driving more of them into emergency rooms and boosting premiums on the insured. Struggling companies may be forced to cut or kill their employee coverage just to survive. And while the cost of Obama's reform is high — an estimated $75 billion a year — a big price tag hasn't kept Congress from raiding the Treasury to fix the economy's many other ills..."
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1860289_1860561_1860651,00.html
From Jay Carney at Time:
"Three key developments over the past 15 years have made this moment possible. First, the number of uninsured Americans now tops 45 million. Meanwhile, all the proposals under serious consideration — starting with Obama's — would allow Americans to keep their current insurance coverage if they're happy with it. The specter of the feds ordering everyone into a mandatory government-managed plan is fading away. Most important, the cost of health insurance to both the employers who provide it and the employees who pay premiums has continued to soar. Because of that, companies of all sizes — from corporate behemoths to corner stores — have switched sides on the issue of comprehensive reform. Having fought to defeat Clinton's plan in 1993, they are now some of reform's loudest advocates. "This is the No. 1 priority for small businesses," says Todd Stottlemyer, president of the National Federation of Independent Business. "We see it as a matter of national economic security."
Even the weak economy may be an impetus to reform. An expected spike in unemployment will increase the rolls of the uninsured, driving more of them into emergency rooms and boosting premiums on the insured. Struggling companies may be forced to cut or kill their employee coverage just to survive. And while the cost of Obama's reform is high — an estimated $75 billion a year — a big price tag hasn't kept Congress from raiding the Treasury to fix the economy's many other ills..."
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1860289_1860561_1860651,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)