TW: Rami Khouri is an Palestianian-American commentator, who write and opines for various media outlets. I like his stuff, he is level-headed but provides a relatively fresh perspective as so much of what we hear in the US is either Israeli focused or Americans writing about the Arab world.
This piece was written a week before the latest Gaza conflict. The piece outlines Khouri's view on what motivates Hamas. I read frequently that Hamas is either "not like us" whatever that would mean or merely a vicious terrorist organization with only illegitimate policy goals. I agree they are vicious but perhaps at the end of the day they are rational politicians as well.
From Khouri at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...Hamas has stated that it will extend the cease-fire - and indeed for many years has offered Israel a long-term truce - if the Israelis in turn meet their side of the deal, which is to stop killing and arresting Palestinians, colonizing their land and strangling them economically.
The fact that Hamas would consider letting the cease-fire lapse speaks much about its mind-set and the options that it is willing to pursue. This moment allows us to accurately gauge what Hamas is all about, rather than see it through the lens of exaggerated misperceptions.
Reasonable people would expect that Israelis and Palestinians alike prefer a cease-fire to warfare, especially since mutual attacks have never resolved the core conflict. Hamas' decision to extend the cease-fire is not going to be made on the basis of what makes its people more or less comfortable, or what entices Israelis into opening the gates a little bit wider to allow more consumer goods to enter Gaza.
The basis on which Hamas makes such decisions reflects its wider worldview of the character and aims of Israel, and the nature of its confrontation with Israel.
Like other Islamist groups, Hamas calculates on the basis of a longer time frame rather than the next election, shifting public opinion or whether or not it will get invited to tea in the White House. The most important factor in the mind of Islamist leaders who decide such things is whether the agreement to renew the cease-fire reflects mutual respect and an acceptance of the principle of equal rights for Israel and Hamas.
If the deal proposed is seen to have forced Israel to change its position and respect the terms of the agreement, Hamas will extend. If it merely comprises vague Israeli promises in return for Hamas and other militant groups stopping their rocket attacks against Israel, the deal will collapse. Hamas' view is that mutual needs, rather than Israeli security, must be assured for a cease-fire to happen.
The driving force for such a posture is the Islamist sense that the battle to defend and reclaim the land will be a long one, and it will require a heavy price in lives and suffering before Israel negotiates sincerely and sees the Palestinians as humans worthy of the same rights as Israelis.
Hamas showed its strength a few days ago, when some 200,000 supporters rallied in Gaza to mark the group's 21st anniversary. It has generated strong support as well as deep opposition among Palestinians and other Arabs, but more important for it is whether or not it has generated respect in Israel. If the Israelis feel Hamas can fight a long-term battle, then Hamas will feel it has achieved an important goal: the respect of its enemy.
Hamas is well entrenched in Gaza and is prepared for an Israeli military attack, if such an attack takes place. These Palestinian Islamists clearly have learned from their colleagues in Hezbollah and other such groups, who have shown themselves to be the most adept Arabs at fighting Israel militarily. They have obviously used the past year to prepare for an Israeli attack on their little statelet - making the cost to Israel likely to be similar to the price Israel paid when it went into south Lebanon years ago.
Israeli leaders have warned that they will have to take drastic measures if the rockets from Gaza do not stop falling on southern Israel. Hamas ignores such threats because it knows that Israel has reached the limit of what it can do with conventional military force. Israel directly occupied Gaza for decades and used brutal force in trying to pacify it, which only succeeded in giving birth to Hamas. More Israeli tanks in the streets of Gaza would only reflect Israeli renewed perplexity about how to deal with the group, rather than a coherent plan to resolve the conflict.
The main criteria for a renewal of the Hamas-Israel cease-fire are not fear of the other or the ability to inflict military pain, but respect for the other and the willingness to deal as equals."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/18/opinion/edkhouri.php
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Anti-Stimulus At the State Level
TW: This Krugman column frames an issue we have discussed before, state governments contracting spending when the economy most needs it. This state level contraction is occurring for the same reason individuals are contracting, they have less money. In normal times if u have less money, spending less is a great idea in fact in normal times saving some of one's money is a great idea too. Unfortunately most states and most individuals saved little. But now that aggregate demand has plummeted state governments cutting services and investments only exacerbates the economic contraction.
I have a feeling some of the state level announced cuts are game playing as the worse things seem at the state level the more likely perhaps that they will receive federal assistance. Cutting infrastructure spending locally for instance is literally committing economic suicide.
From Krugman at NYT:
"...state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation’s economic future.
These state-level cutbacks range from small acts of cruelty to giant acts of panic — from cuts in South Carolina’s juvenile justice program, which will force young offenders out of group homes and into prison, to the decision by a committee that manages California state spending to halt all construction outlays for six month...
...shredding the social safety net at a moment when many more Americans need help isn’t just cruel. It adds to the sense of insecurity that is one important factor driving the economy down..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1
Things I Like - Food
I think I mentioned my love of recipes and cookbooks in a previous post. I own about 30 cookbooks not including the binders I've put together with clipped recipes from magazines and newspapers. And for those of you who think that's a lot, my chef friend Kim has an eight foot book shelf full of them.I have quite a few that are more than 20 years old - some I picked up at second hand stores, others I have just because I've been around for a while. My Joy of Cooking was published in 1975.
So anyway, Mr. White knows how I feel about cookbooks and sent me this link to an article from the Economist. It's a pretty interesting discussion recounting the history of cookbooks starting with Apicus whose collection of recipes dates from about 400 A.D.
But the point in the article that made me sit up came when they reached a cookbook written shortly after WWII by the British author Elizabeth David. The cookbook, Mediterranean Food, was ground breaking in that it covered more than just recipes; it included descriptions of the land and people that made the food.
"The smells and noises that filled David’s books were not mere decoration for her recipes. They were the point of her books. When she began to write, shortly after the war had ended, it was hard to get hold of cream, let alone capers. She understood this, acknowledging in a later edition of one of her books that “even if people could not very often make the dishes here described, it was stimulating to think about them.”There it was, proof that I am not insane for reading cookbooks even if I have no plans to actually use them for cooking.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12795620
Egypt Lets Hope It Does Not Blow
TW: Egypt is one of those places that stays relatively calm but why is never clear. It is a dictatorship (presumably one of the reasons it is relatively calm), it has increasing Islamic ferment, it is desperately poor yet has an thin upper crust of wealthy elites and its population continues to explode amidst a very small geography of livable land.
Since the transition from British colonization to the relatively secular but highly autocratic rule of Nassar, Sadat and Mubarek, Egypt has remained a pillar of relative stability and for the past 35 years a key ally of the U.S. As a country of 80 million, sitting astride the Suez Canal and providing the most moderate voice amongst the Arabs, they have been crucial. I have met a few Egyptians both here and in Cairo over the years, they have all been great folks.
But the very concerning thing about Barnett's piece is that he frames the issues and risks yet presents no optimistic scenario. Barnett's usual best attribute is finding upsides (even with situations like Iran, Russia etc.), but not in this case, not good.
From Tom Barnett:
"Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarek's "emergency rule" is deep into its third decade, with modernizing son Gamal teed up as the pharaoh-in-waiting. While Gamal's efforts to open up Egypt's state-heavy economy have progressed nicely the past few years, so has Mubarek the Elder's repression of all political opponents, yielding the Arab world's most ardent impression of the Chinese model of development...
At 83, Hosni Mubarek is an unhealthy dictator who's achieved a stranglehold on virtually every aspect of Egyptian life, creating an immense undercurrent of popular resentment. While Washington focuses on Iran's reach for nukes and its upcoming presidential election, Egypt is more likely to be plunged into domestic political crisis on President-Elect Barack Obama's watch...
Since Cairo recognized Israel's right to exist in 1979, Washington has poured more than $50 billion into the regime's coffers, with more than half coming in military aid. As Israel remains diplomatically isolated and strategically vulnerable in the region, it seems that America has bought Egypt's stability and little else...
if Gamal [Mubarek, Hosni's son] fails the succession test, our incoming president will likely face the choice of allowing a military dictatorship to emerge or risk the country's descent into radicalization."
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/28/four-scary-words-egypt-after-hosni-mubarek/
Since the transition from British colonization to the relatively secular but highly autocratic rule of Nassar, Sadat and Mubarek, Egypt has remained a pillar of relative stability and for the past 35 years a key ally of the U.S. As a country of 80 million, sitting astride the Suez Canal and providing the most moderate voice amongst the Arabs, they have been crucial. I have met a few Egyptians both here and in Cairo over the years, they have all been great folks.
But the very concerning thing about Barnett's piece is that he frames the issues and risks yet presents no optimistic scenario. Barnett's usual best attribute is finding upsides (even with situations like Iran, Russia etc.), but not in this case, not good.
From Tom Barnett:
"Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarek's "emergency rule" is deep into its third decade, with modernizing son Gamal teed up as the pharaoh-in-waiting. While Gamal's efforts to open up Egypt's state-heavy economy have progressed nicely the past few years, so has Mubarek the Elder's repression of all political opponents, yielding the Arab world's most ardent impression of the Chinese model of development...
At 83, Hosni Mubarek is an unhealthy dictator who's achieved a stranglehold on virtually every aspect of Egyptian life, creating an immense undercurrent of popular resentment. While Washington focuses on Iran's reach for nukes and its upcoming presidential election, Egypt is more likely to be plunged into domestic political crisis on President-Elect Barack Obama's watch...
Since Cairo recognized Israel's right to exist in 1979, Washington has poured more than $50 billion into the regime's coffers, with more than half coming in military aid. As Israel remains diplomatically isolated and strategically vulnerable in the region, it seems that America has bought Egypt's stability and little else...
if Gamal [Mubarek, Hosni's son] fails the succession test, our incoming president will likely face the choice of allowing a military dictatorship to emerge or risk the country's descent into radicalization."
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/28/four-scary-words-egypt-after-hosni-mubarek/
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Political Cynicism At Its Worst
TW: Our dear friend Blago just smears the pile around some more...
From Taegen Goodard:
"Dan Conley, a former speechwriter for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and a keen observer of Illinois politics, offers his take on today's attempt by Gov. Rod Blagojevich to appoint a new senator.
'The selection of former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to replace President-Elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate has very little to do with the actual seat. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has already made it clear that he will not certify any Blagojevich pick. That will give the Senate Democratic caucus sufficient cause to reject the appointment, which they have already pledged to do. At this point, it would be impossible for the Democrats to backtrack on their earlier pledge, it would implicate them in the Blagojevich sleaze, which is something they will avoid at all costs. So while Burris seems like a winner today, he's a long-term loser.
Why did he agree to be used? Because he's desperate to return to the limelight. It's a sad end to a career that included numerous runs for governor, the U.S. Senate and Mayor of Chicago, plus a term as the state's Attorney General. The truth is, he wasn't much of an Attorney General -- the legal opinions that came out of his office in the early 90s were legally suspect and linguistically challenged -- but he has been a fixture in Illinois politics for years and he's escaped any hint of corruption.
The appointment of Burris is a pure impeachment-defense tactic from Blagojevich. First, he's making a public case that no crime was actually committed. If Burris was appointed without any quid pro quo (highly likely, since Burris has no great wealth or influence), then Blagojevich can argue that all the talk about other possible appointments were just that -- talk. And talk is not a crime. Is anyone going to buy that? Well, even if only ten percent of Illinois voters buy it, Blagojevich will have doubled his support, so why not? There's a certain freedom in nearly complete unpopularity.
But second, and more important for Blagojevich's survival plans, he's chosen to play the race card. To anyone who thought that the election of Barack Obama would diminish the power of racial politics, today's press conference was depressing -- especially the appalling spectacle of Rep. Bobby Rush using the word "lynch" in reference to criticism of Burris, then Blagojevich repeating the phrase while wagging a finger at the press corp on the way out of the room. For a Governor looking to rally support in the House and Senate to avoid impeachment or convinction, it's a smart move. A combination of African American and Latino Senators could be sufficient to save Blagojevich from a conviction in the Illinois Senate. It probably won't work, but Blagojevich has few options left.' "
From Taegen Goodard:
"Dan Conley, a former speechwriter for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and a keen observer of Illinois politics, offers his take on today's attempt by Gov. Rod Blagojevich to appoint a new senator.
'The selection of former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to replace President-Elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate has very little to do with the actual seat. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has already made it clear that he will not certify any Blagojevich pick. That will give the Senate Democratic caucus sufficient cause to reject the appointment, which they have already pledged to do. At this point, it would be impossible for the Democrats to backtrack on their earlier pledge, it would implicate them in the Blagojevich sleaze, which is something they will avoid at all costs. So while Burris seems like a winner today, he's a long-term loser.
Why did he agree to be used? Because he's desperate to return to the limelight. It's a sad end to a career that included numerous runs for governor, the U.S. Senate and Mayor of Chicago, plus a term as the state's Attorney General. The truth is, he wasn't much of an Attorney General -- the legal opinions that came out of his office in the early 90s were legally suspect and linguistically challenged -- but he has been a fixture in Illinois politics for years and he's escaped any hint of corruption.
The appointment of Burris is a pure impeachment-defense tactic from Blagojevich. First, he's making a public case that no crime was actually committed. If Burris was appointed without any quid pro quo (highly likely, since Burris has no great wealth or influence), then Blagojevich can argue that all the talk about other possible appointments were just that -- talk. And talk is not a crime. Is anyone going to buy that? Well, even if only ten percent of Illinois voters buy it, Blagojevich will have doubled his support, so why not? There's a certain freedom in nearly complete unpopularity.
But second, and more important for Blagojevich's survival plans, he's chosen to play the race card. To anyone who thought that the election of Barack Obama would diminish the power of racial politics, today's press conference was depressing -- especially the appalling spectacle of Rep. Bobby Rush using the word "lynch" in reference to criticism of Burris, then Blagojevich repeating the phrase while wagging a finger at the press corp on the way out of the room. For a Governor looking to rally support in the House and Senate to avoid impeachment or convinction, it's a smart move. A combination of African American and Latino Senators could be sufficient to save Blagojevich from a conviction in the Illinois Senate. It probably won't work, but Blagojevich has few options left.' "
Caroline the New Sarah
TW: Them my friends is fightin' words. If I were Caroline I would seriously be looking for Victor David Hanson in order to administer a sack attack.
Thankfully the Economist comes to her rescue...kind of.
From the Economist:
"VICTOR DAVIS HANSON likes to write his columns from a parallel universe much like our own, except that he was right all along about everything. His take on Caroline Kennedy's troubled (we're a news cycle away from calling it "disastrous") Senate un-campaign is a case in point...
Quoting Hanson: 'Compared to Sarah Palin's almost immediate immersion into crowds and public speaking, Kennedy seems like a deer in the headlights before the media that is either ignored or asked to submit written questions. Palin was a natural; Kennedy can't finish a single sentence without "You know" or "I mean.'
Does Mr Hanson know what a "natural" is? Mrs Palin was the most incoherent candidate for national office of the television era. Her "you know" was "also", which she reached for as a kind of rubber cement for disconnected talking points. It was painfully obvious when Mrs Palin was speaking without notes and speaking on one of the many issues she'd had no background in before a briefing from the presidential campaign.
Quoting Hanson: 'Conservative Palin endured liberal Charlie Gibson's glasses-on-the nose pretentiousness, and Katie Couric's attack-dog questions; insider Kennedy I doubt will meet with either, much less sit down with a hostile questioner like a Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly.'
Well... why would she? She's not running for vice president alongside a 72-year old man with recurring cancer. There's national interest in her, sure, because she's a Kennedy, but the stakes and the audience aren't the same at all. And when has Glenn Beck ever done a tough interview? He's a loud, charmless conservative with a cable show: was Mr Hanson outraged when Mrs Palin declined to sit with Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow? Or when Mrs Palin declined, throughout the campaign, to give a televised press conference?
Conservatives with a little more self-awareness than Mr Hanson should be cheered, in a grim sort of way, by the Caroline situation. It's proof that the political media was not acting out of the ordinary when it portrayed Mrs Palin as dizzy and unable to face their questions. If the New York Daily News will print every "you know" uttered by Caroline Kennedy, this is its new standard for working over political rookies. Mrs Palin got treated fairly and failed; so, seemingly, will Mrs Kennedy."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/beyond_the_palin.cfm
Thankfully the Economist comes to her rescue...kind of.
From the Economist:
"VICTOR DAVIS HANSON likes to write his columns from a parallel universe much like our own, except that he was right all along about everything. His take on Caroline Kennedy's troubled (we're a news cycle away from calling it "disastrous") Senate un-campaign is a case in point...
Quoting Hanson: 'Compared to Sarah Palin's almost immediate immersion into crowds and public speaking, Kennedy seems like a deer in the headlights before the media that is either ignored or asked to submit written questions. Palin was a natural; Kennedy can't finish a single sentence without "You know" or "I mean.'
Does Mr Hanson know what a "natural" is? Mrs Palin was the most incoherent candidate for national office of the television era. Her "you know" was "also", which she reached for as a kind of rubber cement for disconnected talking points. It was painfully obvious when Mrs Palin was speaking without notes and speaking on one of the many issues she'd had no background in before a briefing from the presidential campaign.
Quoting Hanson: 'Conservative Palin endured liberal Charlie Gibson's glasses-on-the nose pretentiousness, and Katie Couric's attack-dog questions; insider Kennedy I doubt will meet with either, much less sit down with a hostile questioner like a Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly.'
Well... why would she? She's not running for vice president alongside a 72-year old man with recurring cancer. There's national interest in her, sure, because she's a Kennedy, but the stakes and the audience aren't the same at all. And when has Glenn Beck ever done a tough interview? He's a loud, charmless conservative with a cable show: was Mr Hanson outraged when Mrs Palin declined to sit with Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow? Or when Mrs Palin declined, throughout the campaign, to give a televised press conference?
Conservatives with a little more self-awareness than Mr Hanson should be cheered, in a grim sort of way, by the Caroline situation. It's proof that the political media was not acting out of the ordinary when it portrayed Mrs Palin as dizzy and unable to face their questions. If the New York Daily News will print every "you know" uttered by Caroline Kennedy, this is its new standard for working over political rookies. Mrs Palin got treated fairly and failed; so, seemingly, will Mrs Kennedy."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/beyond_the_palin.cfm
Abstinence
TW: This latest study on abstinence got some press recently. They all do and like the rest will likely change few minds regardless of the results. Obama I would hope would put less focus on abstinence and more on other programs but more importantly move the needle back towards "keeping the government out of the bedroom". Many conservatives love small government except when it comes to sex and other "cultural" initiatives.
From Economist:
"...All this, of course, plows into the debate on abstinence-only sexual education. I don't have much patience for Obama triumphalists who see everything connected to George Bush's eight years as unmitigatedly terrible, ripe for complete transformation in the hands of the president-elect. But when it comes to White House support of abstinence-only education, the change is more than welcome. Mr Bush doubled the abstinence-only sex-education budget; Mr Obama supports sensible, comprehensive sexual education programmes. Time to rejigger those federal incentives.
But don't expect exponents of abstinence-only to fold any time soon. They argue that pledgers are surrounded by a "sex-saturated culture" that encourages them to stray from their oaths. Perhaps. But I shudder to think about how they would have the government fix that."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/shocking.cfm
From Economist:
"...All this, of course, plows into the debate on abstinence-only sexual education. I don't have much patience for Obama triumphalists who see everything connected to George Bush's eight years as unmitigatedly terrible, ripe for complete transformation in the hands of the president-elect. But when it comes to White House support of abstinence-only education, the change is more than welcome. Mr Bush doubled the abstinence-only sex-education budget; Mr Obama supports sensible, comprehensive sexual education programmes. Time to rejigger those federal incentives.
But don't expect exponents of abstinence-only to fold any time soon. They argue that pledgers are surrounded by a "sex-saturated culture" that encourages them to stray from their oaths. Perhaps. But I shudder to think about how they would have the government fix that."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/shocking.cfm
Playing "Games" With the Obama Econ Plan
TW: Nate Silver looks at a little game theory to assess what the Republicans will likely do relative to the Obama economic plan. Basically from a political standpoint, if the economy is demonstrably stronger by the 2010 mid-terms, then regardless of whether the Republicans support the plan or not, the Dems will be positioned to build on their recent electoral strength.
Therefore, the Republicans can strongly oppose the plan knowing that if it fails they will be better positioned to pick up the political benefit. Things are never quite so simple but the gist of what Silver says appears accurate to me. We will hear a great deal of huffing and puffing about Keynes, stimulus, tax cuts and free markets but at the end a simple cynical political calculus will rule.
Btw, this will be one vote where not having 60 Senators will help the Dems. At least one and probably three or four GOP Senators will be needed to achieve cloture in the Senate. Some level of GOP support will be required.
From Silver:
"...let's say that the economy still sucks in 2010 -- which, frankly, is a pretty good bet. That's going to work much, much better for you if you've voted against the stimulus. Not only can you pin the blame on the donkeys, but you can campaign on tax cutting and fiscal responsibility -- the stimulus will "prove", once and for all, the wisdom of conservative economic principles. And then think about this: the Democrats are going to be trying to spend $800 billion in taxpayer dollars as quickly as they can possibly get away with it. Somewhere along the way, they're going to wind up funding a Woodstock Museum or a Bridge to Nowhere. Somewhere along the way, an enterprising contractor is going to embezzle a bunch of stimulus money, or cook up some kind of pay-to-play scheme. Maybe if you're really lucky, this will happen in your District. Better to keep the whole thing at arm's-length and make sure that Democrats get the blame for that.
So it seems to me that your risks and rewards are pretty asymmetrical. The public loves Obama, whereas that (R) beside your name is still causing you problems, especially when every Newt and Bobby and Sarah out there is perfectly happy to throw you under the bus. Fact is, you're not going to get the benefit of the doubt. If the stimulus package is seen as a success, you aren't going to get an ounce of credit for it. But if it's seen as a failure, you'd better make damned sure that you've distanced yourself from it.
Maybe you can go through the motions of soliciting a compromise -- all the better that way to say I-told-you-so later on. But do you actually want a compromise? I think not. Better to let the Democrats be careful what they wish for, and make sure that they get it."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/you-are-republican-socratic-dialogue-on.html
Therefore, the Republicans can strongly oppose the plan knowing that if it fails they will be better positioned to pick up the political benefit. Things are never quite so simple but the gist of what Silver says appears accurate to me. We will hear a great deal of huffing and puffing about Keynes, stimulus, tax cuts and free markets but at the end a simple cynical political calculus will rule.
Btw, this will be one vote where not having 60 Senators will help the Dems. At least one and probably three or four GOP Senators will be needed to achieve cloture in the Senate. Some level of GOP support will be required.
From Silver:
"...let's say that the economy still sucks in 2010 -- which, frankly, is a pretty good bet. That's going to work much, much better for you if you've voted against the stimulus. Not only can you pin the blame on the donkeys, but you can campaign on tax cutting and fiscal responsibility -- the stimulus will "prove", once and for all, the wisdom of conservative economic principles. And then think about this: the Democrats are going to be trying to spend $800 billion in taxpayer dollars as quickly as they can possibly get away with it. Somewhere along the way, they're going to wind up funding a Woodstock Museum or a Bridge to Nowhere. Somewhere along the way, an enterprising contractor is going to embezzle a bunch of stimulus money, or cook up some kind of pay-to-play scheme. Maybe if you're really lucky, this will happen in your District. Better to keep the whole thing at arm's-length and make sure that Democrats get the blame for that.
So it seems to me that your risks and rewards are pretty asymmetrical. The public loves Obama, whereas that (R) beside your name is still causing you problems, especially when every Newt and Bobby and Sarah out there is perfectly happy to throw you under the bus. Fact is, you're not going to get the benefit of the doubt. If the stimulus package is seen as a success, you aren't going to get an ounce of credit for it. But if it's seen as a failure, you'd better make damned sure that you've distanced yourself from it.
Maybe you can go through the motions of soliciting a compromise -- all the better that way to say I-told-you-so later on. But do you actually want a compromise? I think not. Better to let the Democrats be careful what they wish for, and make sure that they get it."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/you-are-republican-socratic-dialogue-on.html
Things I Like - Art
You may need to look at these a couple times to believe what you're seeing. But they're all short. I wonder if the books were any good...
Economists At War: The Kudlow Chronicles (cont.)
TW: Part 2 of the Kudlow Chronicles, this time he was off on his "goldilocks economy" theme. Due to the mystical power of tax cuts for the wealthy, the housing market was going to keep going up forever etc. Anyone who invests by listening to ideologues or flag wavers is foolish.
From Larry Kudlow's blog at National Review March 11, 2006:
"Despite the grim picture the mainstream media continue to paint about just about everything...there’s one thing they just can’t taint: This U.S. economy remains very healthy...
It’s always amazing to listen to conventional demand-side economic pundits and mainstream reporters who try as hard as they can to minimize the excellent performance of the American economy ever since lower marginal tax-rate incentives were put into place almost two-and-a-half years ago. The latest chant is that..a day of reckoning marked by a housing-price crash and an overwhelming debt burden is headed our way. This is utter nonsense...
Reagan economic guru Art Laffer taught us thirty years ago that lower tax rates ignite economic growth. Now, the Laffer curve is tracking a business-led expansion that is throwing off record budget revenues while corporate profits are soaring. Profits are the mother’s milk of business, the economy, and stocks, and are laying the foundation for even more hefty job gains...
In the months ahead, Ben Bernanke will follow the anti-inflation thinking of Milton Friedman. President Bush will continue to embrace the pro-growth Laffer curve. And the anti-worker Phillips curve will be pushed into the dustbin of history. In other words, economic growth principles will keep American capitalism on the prosperity path."
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200603111211.asp
From Larry Kudlow's blog at National Review March 11, 2006:
"Despite the grim picture the mainstream media continue to paint about just about everything...there’s one thing they just can’t taint: This U.S. economy remains very healthy...
It’s always amazing to listen to conventional demand-side economic pundits and mainstream reporters who try as hard as they can to minimize the excellent performance of the American economy ever since lower marginal tax-rate incentives were put into place almost two-and-a-half years ago. The latest chant is that..a day of reckoning marked by a housing-price crash and an overwhelming debt burden is headed our way. This is utter nonsense...
Reagan economic guru Art Laffer taught us thirty years ago that lower tax rates ignite economic growth. Now, the Laffer curve is tracking a business-led expansion that is throwing off record budget revenues while corporate profits are soaring. Profits are the mother’s milk of business, the economy, and stocks, and are laying the foundation for even more hefty job gains...
In the months ahead, Ben Bernanke will follow the anti-inflation thinking of Milton Friedman. President Bush will continue to embrace the pro-growth Laffer curve. And the anti-worker Phillips curve will be pushed into the dustbin of history. In other words, economic growth principles will keep American capitalism on the prosperity path."
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200603111211.asp
Monday, December 29, 2008
Ships Passing In the Night...
Mortgaging the Future State By State
TW: We posted a month ago about the absurdity of Chicago's plan to capitalize its parking meter revenues in order to close short-term funding gaps.
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/12/these-privatization-programs-are-insane.html
Apparently numerous other governmental entities have the same insane idea. I am telling you these deals are absolute fiscal cancer!!!
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/12/these-privatization-programs-are-insane.html
Apparently numerous other governmental entities have the same insane idea. I am telling you these deals are absolute fiscal cancer!!!
From Yahoo News:
"Like families pawning the silver to get through a tight spot, states such as Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts and Illinois are thinking of selling or leasing toll roads, parks, lotteries and other assets to raise desperately needed cash.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has hinted that his January budget proposal will include proposals to privatize some of what the state owns or does. The Republican is looking for cash to help close a $5.27 billion deficit without raising taxes [TW: pawning the silver instead of facing up to reality!!!]...
Taxpayers, too, can lose out if the arrangements don't work...Higher tolls on privatized roads can push drivers onto state-operated roads, wearing them down faster and raising public costs over time.
"You're privatizing some profits in this process and socializing some losses,"...
Selling or leasing public assets can produce an immediate infusion of cash for the state, while foisting the tough decisions, such as raising tolls, onto private operators instead of the politicians.
"The downsides are often after they leave office," said Phineas Baxandall, a researcher with the consumer-oriented U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Boston.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081227/ap_on_re_us/meltdown_selling_assets
Raise the Gas Tax Now!!
TW: Tom Friedman advocates something that I strongly support, raising the federal gasoline tax. He does not define an amount but I would suggest at least $0.50 per gallon. Each $0.01 per gallon raise roughly $1.4 billion annually, so a $0.50 per gallon tax would raise about $70 billion.
The logic is simple. We continue to ride an energy rollercoaster whereby prices gyrate creating economic disruption (the three most severe recessions of recent times, '73, '81 and today, have followed oil price spikes), creating funding for some of our worst foes (e.g. Chavez, Putin, Iran etc.) and creating the need to deploy troops to secure those supplies.
A gas tax, preferabaly with some flex built in to reduce the tax if prices spike, would seek to smooth the ride. The tax would fund some of the various programs (e.g. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) or shortfalls (e.g. medicare) we already possess. In addition, providing consumers with a strong signal that gasoline prices in the future will be higher would reduce the whipsaw in demand for SUVs and hybrids which lead to the dreaded bailouts.
Will this happen, of course not, it is highly logical but political suicide. The day I see a Republican of any stature propose the tax will be the day I believe it will happen.
From Friedman at NYT:
"...where gasoline prices go up, pressure rises for more fuel-efficient cars, then gasoline prices fall and the pressure for low-mileage vehicles vanishes, consumers stop buying those cars, the oil producers celebrate, we remain addicted to oil and prices gradually go up again, petro-dictators get rich, we lose. I’ve already seen this play three times in my life. Trust me: It always ends the same way — badly.
So I could only cringe when reading...on Dec. 22: “After nearly a year of flagging sales, low gas prices and fat incentives are reigniting America’s taste for big vehicles. Trucks and S.U.V.’s will outsell cars in December ... something that hasn’t happened since February. Meanwhile, the forecast finds that sales of hybrid vehicles are expected to be way down.” Have a nice day. It’s morning again — in Saudi Arabia...
A gas tax reduces gasoline demand and keeps dollars in America, dries up funding for terrorists and reduces the clout of Iran and Russia at a time when Obama will be looking for greater leverage against petro-dictatorships. It reduces our current account deficit, which strengthens the dollar. It reduces U.S. carbon emissions driving climate change, which means more global respect for America. And it increases the incentives for U.S. innovation on clean cars and clean-tech.
Which one of these things wouldn’t we want? A gasoline tax “is not just win-win; it’s win, win, win, win, win,” says the Johns Hopkins author and foreign policy specialist Michael Mandelbaum. “A gasoline tax would do more for American prosperity and strength than any other measure Obama could propose.' "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28friedman.html?ref=opinion
The logic is simple. We continue to ride an energy rollercoaster whereby prices gyrate creating economic disruption (the three most severe recessions of recent times, '73, '81 and today, have followed oil price spikes), creating funding for some of our worst foes (e.g. Chavez, Putin, Iran etc.) and creating the need to deploy troops to secure those supplies.
A gas tax, preferabaly with some flex built in to reduce the tax if prices spike, would seek to smooth the ride. The tax would fund some of the various programs (e.g. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) or shortfalls (e.g. medicare) we already possess. In addition, providing consumers with a strong signal that gasoline prices in the future will be higher would reduce the whipsaw in demand for SUVs and hybrids which lead to the dreaded bailouts.
Will this happen, of course not, it is highly logical but political suicide. The day I see a Republican of any stature propose the tax will be the day I believe it will happen.
From Friedman at NYT:
"...where gasoline prices go up, pressure rises for more fuel-efficient cars, then gasoline prices fall and the pressure for low-mileage vehicles vanishes, consumers stop buying those cars, the oil producers celebrate, we remain addicted to oil and prices gradually go up again, petro-dictators get rich, we lose. I’ve already seen this play three times in my life. Trust me: It always ends the same way — badly.
So I could only cringe when reading...on Dec. 22: “After nearly a year of flagging sales, low gas prices and fat incentives are reigniting America’s taste for big vehicles. Trucks and S.U.V.’s will outsell cars in December ... something that hasn’t happened since February. Meanwhile, the forecast finds that sales of hybrid vehicles are expected to be way down.” Have a nice day. It’s morning again — in Saudi Arabia...
A gas tax reduces gasoline demand and keeps dollars in America, dries up funding for terrorists and reduces the clout of Iran and Russia at a time when Obama will be looking for greater leverage against petro-dictatorships. It reduces our current account deficit, which strengthens the dollar. It reduces U.S. carbon emissions driving climate change, which means more global respect for America. And it increases the incentives for U.S. innovation on clean cars and clean-tech.
Which one of these things wouldn’t we want? A gasoline tax “is not just win-win; it’s win, win, win, win, win,” says the Johns Hopkins author and foreign policy specialist Michael Mandelbaum. “A gasoline tax would do more for American prosperity and strength than any other measure Obama could propose.' "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28friedman.html?ref=opinion
And One Wonders Why We Are Screwed
TW: The old double dip is being taken to new levels in Florida. Apparently many state employees can "retire" for a month, then return with their old salaries plus a pension and in some cases a lump sum retirement payment as well. Nice.
From the St.Petersburg Times:
"It's a new crop of double dippers, taking advantage of a loophole in state law that allows them to "retire'' by taking 30 days off and return to work in their old jobs with a salary and a pension. Many also collect a lump-sum "retirement'' payment that can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. At least 25 of those spending December at home were re-elected in November — sheriffs, property appraisers, court clerks and tax collectors, six circuit judges and one state attorney...
the state retirement system had about 8,000 members collecting paychecks and pensions at the same time. By June that number had risen to 9,397, and it's still growing...
Meggs [North Fl. State Attorney] said he simply changed his mind about plans to retire. "It's my cotton-picking money,'' he said of deciding to collect a lump sum benefit of $519,995, his $153,139 annual salary and a monthly pension of $7,749...
Bills to ban or limit double-dipping were introduced during last year's legislative session but none won approval. Lawmakers promise to try again this year..."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article950391.ece
From the St.Petersburg Times:
"It's a new crop of double dippers, taking advantage of a loophole in state law that allows them to "retire'' by taking 30 days off and return to work in their old jobs with a salary and a pension. Many also collect a lump-sum "retirement'' payment that can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. At least 25 of those spending December at home were re-elected in November — sheriffs, property appraisers, court clerks and tax collectors, six circuit judges and one state attorney...
the state retirement system had about 8,000 members collecting paychecks and pensions at the same time. By June that number had risen to 9,397, and it's still growing...
Meggs [North Fl. State Attorney] said he simply changed his mind about plans to retire. "It's my cotton-picking money,'' he said of deciding to collect a lump sum benefit of $519,995, his $153,139 annual salary and a monthly pension of $7,749...
Bills to ban or limit double-dipping were introduced during last year's legislative session but none won approval. Lawmakers promise to try again this year..."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article950391.ece
Things I Like - Humor
We've all seen those alternative motivational posters - perhaps not so motivational but they do make me laugh.
Here are a couple I hadn't seen before
Now go be productive.
Here are a couple I hadn't seen before
Now go be productive.
Economists At War: The Kudlow Chronicles
TW: Those who read the blog know I do not care for Larry Kudlow. As part of the on-going Economists At War series here at the White House, we will examine some of LarBear's gems from the past several years. Fox News and the right-wing radio hacks are engaging their minions to wage a pre-emptive attack on Obamanomics. Perhaps they are right, but then that would mean they have gotten a lot smarter since they uttered some of these bits of wisdom.
From Larry Kudlow's blog in the National Review June 20. 2005:
"Homebuilders led the stock parade this week with a fantastic 11 percent gain. This is a group that hedge funds and bubbleheads love to hate...So have all the bubbleheads who expect housing-price crashes in Las Vegas or Naples, Florida, to bring down the consumer, the rest of the economy, and the entire stock market...the homebuilders index has increased 76 percent over the past year, with particularly well-run companies like Toll Brothers up about twice as much. The bubbleheads missed all this because they haven’t done their homework...
It is plain to see that the family demand for homes has far outstripped the supply of newly built residences. So it should not be shocking that home prices have tended to rise on a steady basis...
Homebuilding also faces another obstacle with the effects of price-hiking. Local zoning and environmental regulations have restricted the availability of land on which new residential units can be built. So while housing demands are white hot, the green lobby has cooled down new designs..." [TW: damn those greenies otherwise we could have built even more homes!!!]
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNhMDFhNmJmYmU3NDQyZTAyOWNhMmYzNTY3NDNiODA=
From Larry Kudlow's blog in the National Review June 20. 2005:
"Homebuilders led the stock parade this week with a fantastic 11 percent gain. This is a group that hedge funds and bubbleheads love to hate...So have all the bubbleheads who expect housing-price crashes in Las Vegas or Naples, Florida, to bring down the consumer, the rest of the economy, and the entire stock market...the homebuilders index has increased 76 percent over the past year, with particularly well-run companies like Toll Brothers up about twice as much. The bubbleheads missed all this because they haven’t done their homework...
It is plain to see that the family demand for homes has far outstripped the supply of newly built residences. So it should not be shocking that home prices have tended to rise on a steady basis...
Homebuilding also faces another obstacle with the effects of price-hiking. Local zoning and environmental regulations have restricted the availability of land on which new residential units can be built. So while housing demands are white hot, the green lobby has cooled down new designs..." [TW: damn those greenies otherwise we could have built even more homes!!!]
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNhMDFhNmJmYmU3NDQyZTAyOWNhMmYzNTY3NDNiODA=
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Reading List
1) Many of those oil exploration projects started in response to the oil price spike have now been canceled, thereby creating an increased liklihood of the next oil price spike.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/15/business/oil.php
2) A pogrom (Olmert's term) on the West Bank, this time with Israelis as the culprits
http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12773187
3) A New Yorker article on how voting procedures in the US have always been fraught with controversy and inaccuracy
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/13/081013fa_fact_lepore
4) Economist article on a proposal to detected and prevent genocide, I am skeptical regarding its feasibility and efficacy. Genocide flourishes not because it is not detected but because the perpetrators know the costs of intervening for outsiders is too high to justify.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12773216
5) New Yorker in depth article from October on the contrasting styles and substance of Obama and McCain. Two months later it is interesting to see how the policies look in retrospect, what will really be interesting is to see how the policies age a year or more from now.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/13/081013fa_fact_lemann
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/15/business/oil.php
2) A pogrom (Olmert's term) on the West Bank, this time with Israelis as the culprits
http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12773187
3) A New Yorker article on how voting procedures in the US have always been fraught with controversy and inaccuracy
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/13/081013fa_fact_lepore
4) Economist article on a proposal to detected and prevent genocide, I am skeptical regarding its feasibility and efficacy. Genocide flourishes not because it is not detected but because the perpetrators know the costs of intervening for outsiders is too high to justify.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12773216
5) New Yorker in depth article from October on the contrasting styles and substance of Obama and McCain. Two months later it is interesting to see how the policies look in retrospect, what will really be interesting is to see how the policies age a year or more from now.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/13/081013fa_fact_lemann
The War in Gaza
TW: Yet another chapter of the war between Israel and the Palestinians has commenced. This one could expand to include Lebanese Hizbullah amongst others. Time will tell. Haaretz (moderate Israeli newspaper, as opposed to the rabidly right-wing Fox equivalent Jerusalem Post) promises to run a two part series identifying and responding to the common refrains of the left (too harsh) and right (not harsh enough) against Israeli military actions. They start with the leftist arguments (I will keep an eye out for the rightist arguments).
From Haaretz:
"It is, abruptly and again, wartime. Across the globe, the selective pacifists of the left and the recliner Rambos of the right are spoiling for their next battle, the war in Gaza. They will fight one another in letters to Congress, in cable news sound bites, in raucous talk-radio phone-ins, in the virtual mega-heroics of the online battlefield of the talkback...
Leftist 1: Israel's true motive in bombing Gaza, is genocide against the Palestinian people and extermination of their right to statehood.
Rebuttal- Israel's genuine interest in this campaign is strikingly similar to Hamas' interest in firing scores of rockets into Israeli population centers: Forcing a cease-fire on better terms than the one just ended. For Hamas, this largely means easing Israeli economic sanctions against Gazans. For Israel, this centers on ending shelling by Qassam and Grad missiles and mortar shells. For both sides, this means a prisoner exchange, centering on Gilad Shalit and hundreds of jailed Hamas members.
Leftist 2: The Palestinians have no recourse but to defend themselves, and the makeshift rockets they fire are nothing compared to the world's most advanced warplanes and munitions, which the IDF is using against them.
Rebuttal- The Human Rights Watch organization has been unequivocal in condemning the use of Qassam rockets as a direct violation of international humanitarian law and the laws of war. The firing of Qassams and mortars against civilian populations also constitutes collective punishment against hundreds of thousands of innocent Israeli men, women and children...
Leftist 3: All that Hamas is asking, is recognition as the democratically elected government of Gaza, and an end to the Israeli economic embargo. Were they to attain these goals, there would be calm on both sides of the border.
Rebuttal- It is both unrealistic and dangerous to believe that Hamas has abandoned its clearly stated and often reiterated goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in all of the Holy Land, including all land claimed, annexed by, or in any way occupied by Israel. Beyond that, Hamas has strong alliances with the Egyptian opposition Muslim brotherhood, as well as working partnerships with the Iran-dominated Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Israeli restraint, when practiced, has been met with contempt and additional Hamas and Hamas-tolerated strikes against civilian populations.
Leftist 4: The Israeli blockade against Hamas is state terrorism and any means to fight it are legitimate.
Rebuttal There is every reason to believe that Israel's economic siege against Gaza is misguided, but not for an essential cruelty, rather because Hamas taxes collected on the influx of goods imported through tunnels from Egyptian territory have subsidized and cemented Hamas rule.
Leftist 5: The world overwhelmingly sympathizes with the Palestinians against Israel, and unreservedly backs their struggle for independence.
Rebuttal- In an era of global revulsion against radical Islamic terror, Hamas' protracted program of suicide bombings, drive-by murders and shelling of civilian populations, coupled with its refusal to renounce violence, recognize Israel, or accept past peace agreements, coupled with its ideology of militant jihad, have drained the Palestinians of international sympathy and have, in fact, legitimized Israeli arguments of military self-defense. Nothing has been more instrumental in harming the cause of Palestinian independence than Hamas, with its brutal take-over of Gaza in a war with brother Palestinians, and its frank efforts to build a large-scale regular army force in the Strip.
In Part Two, in the coming week: The second five will be newer claims, the Alpha-male displays of the Israel-bashing right, the group which constantly berates the government and the IDF for not bombing Gaza into a parking lot, for not shooting and starving and freezing innocent civilians to death."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050421.html
From Haaretz:
"It is, abruptly and again, wartime. Across the globe, the selective pacifists of the left and the recliner Rambos of the right are spoiling for their next battle, the war in Gaza. They will fight one another in letters to Congress, in cable news sound bites, in raucous talk-radio phone-ins, in the virtual mega-heroics of the online battlefield of the talkback...
Leftist 1: Israel's true motive in bombing Gaza, is genocide against the Palestinian people and extermination of their right to statehood.
Rebuttal- Israel's genuine interest in this campaign is strikingly similar to Hamas' interest in firing scores of rockets into Israeli population centers: Forcing a cease-fire on better terms than the one just ended. For Hamas, this largely means easing Israeli economic sanctions against Gazans. For Israel, this centers on ending shelling by Qassam and Grad missiles and mortar shells. For both sides, this means a prisoner exchange, centering on Gilad Shalit and hundreds of jailed Hamas members.
Leftist 2: The Palestinians have no recourse but to defend themselves, and the makeshift rockets they fire are nothing compared to the world's most advanced warplanes and munitions, which the IDF is using against them.
Rebuttal- The Human Rights Watch organization has been unequivocal in condemning the use of Qassam rockets as a direct violation of international humanitarian law and the laws of war. The firing of Qassams and mortars against civilian populations also constitutes collective punishment against hundreds of thousands of innocent Israeli men, women and children...
Leftist 3: All that Hamas is asking, is recognition as the democratically elected government of Gaza, and an end to the Israeli economic embargo. Were they to attain these goals, there would be calm on both sides of the border.
Rebuttal- It is both unrealistic and dangerous to believe that Hamas has abandoned its clearly stated and often reiterated goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in all of the Holy Land, including all land claimed, annexed by, or in any way occupied by Israel. Beyond that, Hamas has strong alliances with the Egyptian opposition Muslim brotherhood, as well as working partnerships with the Iran-dominated Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Israeli restraint, when practiced, has been met with contempt and additional Hamas and Hamas-tolerated strikes against civilian populations.
Leftist 4: The Israeli blockade against Hamas is state terrorism and any means to fight it are legitimate.
Rebuttal There is every reason to believe that Israel's economic siege against Gaza is misguided, but not for an essential cruelty, rather because Hamas taxes collected on the influx of goods imported through tunnels from Egyptian territory have subsidized and cemented Hamas rule.
Leftist 5: The world overwhelmingly sympathizes with the Palestinians against Israel, and unreservedly backs their struggle for independence.
Rebuttal- In an era of global revulsion against radical Islamic terror, Hamas' protracted program of suicide bombings, drive-by murders and shelling of civilian populations, coupled with its refusal to renounce violence, recognize Israel, or accept past peace agreements, coupled with its ideology of militant jihad, have drained the Palestinians of international sympathy and have, in fact, legitimized Israeli arguments of military self-defense. Nothing has been more instrumental in harming the cause of Palestinian independence than Hamas, with its brutal take-over of Gaza in a war with brother Palestinians, and its frank efforts to build a large-scale regular army force in the Strip.
In Part Two, in the coming week: The second five will be newer claims, the Alpha-male displays of the Israel-bashing right, the group which constantly berates the government and the IDF for not bombing Gaza into a parking lot, for not shooting and starving and freezing innocent civilians to death."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050421.html
Southern Republican Ideologues Drive the Agenda For Their Party
TW: Obama appointed a moderate Republican, Ray Lahood, as Transportation Secretary. David Broder explores the likely irony of Lahood confronting obstructionist mainly Southern Republican Congressmen who will likely fight the Obama stimulus plans tooth and nail. Broder also addresses the growing Southernization of the Republican Party.
From Broder at WaPo:
"...As transportation secretary, LaHood will be at the center of the road and bridge construction projects Obama plans to make the highlight of his almost trillion-dollar stimulus program. All the signs are that the stimulus spending will be opposed by congressional Republicans, whose shrunken ranks are increasingly dominated by right-wing Southerners who care not what their stance does to harm the party's national image. The spectacle of LaHood facing off in congressional testimony against those naysayers will dramatize a split that is crippling the GOP.
The danger became apparent as far back as 2007. With Bush weakened by the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina and the midterm election losses of 2006, a Southern-led revolt killed his immigration reform bill. Junior senators such as Jim DeMint of South Carolina directed the rebellion, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, unable to stem the insurgency, joined it.
The price was paid in the 2008 presidential campaign. Despite his personal credentials as a sponsor of comprehensive immigration reform, John McCain was caught in the backlash of anti-GOP voting by Hispanics. It contributed to his loss of Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida and other states...
The Southern domination of the congressional Republican Party has become more complete with each and every election. This year, Republicans suffered a net loss of two Senate and three House seats in the South, but they lost five Senate seats and 18 House seats in other sections. No Republican House members are left in New England, and they have become ever scarcer in New York and Pennsylvania and across the Midwest..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601129.html
From Broder at WaPo:
"...As transportation secretary, LaHood will be at the center of the road and bridge construction projects Obama plans to make the highlight of his almost trillion-dollar stimulus program. All the signs are that the stimulus spending will be opposed by congressional Republicans, whose shrunken ranks are increasingly dominated by right-wing Southerners who care not what their stance does to harm the party's national image. The spectacle of LaHood facing off in congressional testimony against those naysayers will dramatize a split that is crippling the GOP.
The danger became apparent as far back as 2007. With Bush weakened by the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina and the midterm election losses of 2006, a Southern-led revolt killed his immigration reform bill. Junior senators such as Jim DeMint of South Carolina directed the rebellion, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, unable to stem the insurgency, joined it.
The price was paid in the 2008 presidential campaign. Despite his personal credentials as a sponsor of comprehensive immigration reform, John McCain was caught in the backlash of anti-GOP voting by Hispanics. It contributed to his loss of Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida and other states...
The Southern domination of the congressional Republican Party has become more complete with each and every election. This year, Republicans suffered a net loss of two Senate and three House seats in the South, but they lost five Senate seats and 18 House seats in other sections. No Republican House members are left in New England, and they have become ever scarcer in New York and Pennsylvania and across the Midwest..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601129.html
Things I Like - Odds & Ends
Bags made of beautiful used Sports Equipment Leather & Athletic Mats
"Every piece is handcrafted and unique, extreme resistant, carrys sweat – inducing and informatory memorys with it and is not only interesting for sport freaks."
One word: ICK.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Economists At War: Wise Advice From Mankiw
TW: There is a war emerging between conservative and liberal economists. The conservatives usually adherents of Milton Friedman are petrified that they will lose their pre-emiment position gained since the rise of Reaganism as the economy tanks. The liberals usually adherents of Keynes are gearing up for 2009 and the Obama Administration as they seek to provide their suggestions to address the economic quagmire.
Greg Mankiw is a conservative economist, biased certainly but level-headed and not merely a shill for the Republicans like a Kudlow; who has worked for Reagan and Bush but his response to an aspiring economics student was useful. Neither side has all of the answers.
From Mankiw's blog:
"[question from student] What advice would you give to a college undergrad being exposed to so many different ideologies at the same time? I can go from being told by my ECON 301 (Intermediate Micro) professor that we should, for example, let the banks fail and let the market do it's work, and I can see his point. I can then go talk to my ECON 302 (Intermediate Macro) professor and he will say that it's ludicrous to not do SOMETHING regarding the financial crisis, and I can also see his point."
[Mankiw answer]
"1. The current economic environment is a particularly hard time to learn economics. There are a lot of topics about which economists agree, but the diagnosis and best remedy for the current economic downturn are not among them. It is therefore no surprise that your econ profs express disparate views about the appropriate policy in the current environment. Don't read too much into this fact. I bet there are many other topics about which these economists would come to similar conclusions. Ask them about rent control, or international trade, or Pigovian taxes, for instance, if you want to find broad areas of agreement.
2. You are lucky that you have professors with different viewpoints. Your job, as a budding economist, is to learn from all of them. Ideally, at the end of the day, you should be able to understand and appreciate (although not necessarily agree with) each point of view. You should try to construct in your mind a debate between your Friedmanite professor and your Keynesian professor. What points would each raise, and how would the other respond?
3. As you come to grips with these various points of view, you will be in a better position to judge which you find most cogent. But don't expect to reach unequivocal positions easily. In my view, it is best to consider all knowledge as tentative. The best scholars maintain an open-mindedness and humility about even their own core beliefs. Excessive conviction is often a sign of insufficient thought, which in turn may be derived from a certain pig-headedness. Intellectual maturity comes when you can maintain the right balance between informed belief and honest skepticism. You sound like you are on the right path."
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/question-about-learning-economics.html
Greg Mankiw is a conservative economist, biased certainly but level-headed and not merely a shill for the Republicans like a Kudlow; who has worked for Reagan and Bush but his response to an aspiring economics student was useful. Neither side has all of the answers.
From Mankiw's blog:
"[question from student] What advice would you give to a college undergrad being exposed to so many different ideologies at the same time? I can go from being told by my ECON 301 (Intermediate Micro) professor that we should, for example, let the banks fail and let the market do it's work, and I can see his point. I can then go talk to my ECON 302 (Intermediate Macro) professor and he will say that it's ludicrous to not do SOMETHING regarding the financial crisis, and I can also see his point."
[Mankiw answer]
"1. The current economic environment is a particularly hard time to learn economics. There are a lot of topics about which economists agree, but the diagnosis and best remedy for the current economic downturn are not among them. It is therefore no surprise that your econ profs express disparate views about the appropriate policy in the current environment. Don't read too much into this fact. I bet there are many other topics about which these economists would come to similar conclusions. Ask them about rent control, or international trade, or Pigovian taxes, for instance, if you want to find broad areas of agreement.
2. You are lucky that you have professors with different viewpoints. Your job, as a budding economist, is to learn from all of them. Ideally, at the end of the day, you should be able to understand and appreciate (although not necessarily agree with) each point of view. You should try to construct in your mind a debate between your Friedmanite professor and your Keynesian professor. What points would each raise, and how would the other respond?
3. As you come to grips with these various points of view, you will be in a better position to judge which you find most cogent. But don't expect to reach unequivocal positions easily. In my view, it is best to consider all knowledge as tentative. The best scholars maintain an open-mindedness and humility about even their own core beliefs. Excessive conviction is often a sign of insufficient thought, which in turn may be derived from a certain pig-headedness. Intellectual maturity comes when you can maintain the right balance between informed belief and honest skepticism. You sound like you are on the right path."
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/question-about-learning-economics.html
Free Trade And the Ipod
TW: If there was one campaign position where I disagreed strongly and more or less unequivocally with Obama is was free trade. Am more or less an unadulterated free trade proponent. Hopefully Obama's campaign rhetoric will turn out to be over-heated political pandering (he did back off in the general election). Especially as the worldwide economic mess could turn even more scary if folks started reverting to selfish trade policies (this may happen anyway and it is obvious that almost no one wants a strong currency these days which is a disguised form of trade protectionism but that would be different post).
This article walks through the economic impact of the Ipod. Even though the manufacturing of the Ipod occurs overseas the study indicates the strong majority of economic value of the Ipod resides at home in the good old USofA.
From Economist:
"...They tally the number of jobs and wages associated with the production, development and distribution of all Apple iPods in 2006. Apple (an American company) invented the iPod, but they, and the intermediate goods they require, are mainly manufactured abroad. So other than enjoying more music, have Americans benefited from the creation of iPods?
The answer is yes. The authors found iPods employed 41,170 people worldwide. About 27,000 of those jobs went overseas, but most of those were the low-wage and low-skill jobs involved in production. Only 30 Americans had jobs involved in iPod production. But 13,890 jobs were created in the engineering or retail sector. These Americans earned $753m from iPods, while overeases employees earned $318m. Americans earned more because Apple kept the high-skill jobs (the R&D side) at home and sent its manufacturing abroad. But America's lower-skill workers also benefited, mainly in the retail, non-professional sector. These jobs earned American workers more than $220m.
As long as America has a labour force of competitive, skilled workers, it will still reap the benefits of innovation and benefit from trade..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2008/12/who_benefits_from_ipods.cfm
This article walks through the economic impact of the Ipod. Even though the manufacturing of the Ipod occurs overseas the study indicates the strong majority of economic value of the Ipod resides at home in the good old USofA.
From Economist:
"...They tally the number of jobs and wages associated with the production, development and distribution of all Apple iPods in 2006. Apple (an American company) invented the iPod, but they, and the intermediate goods they require, are mainly manufactured abroad. So other than enjoying more music, have Americans benefited from the creation of iPods?
The answer is yes. The authors found iPods employed 41,170 people worldwide. About 27,000 of those jobs went overseas, but most of those were the low-wage and low-skill jobs involved in production. Only 30 Americans had jobs involved in iPod production. But 13,890 jobs were created in the engineering or retail sector. These Americans earned $753m from iPods, while overeases employees earned $318m. Americans earned more because Apple kept the high-skill jobs (the R&D side) at home and sent its manufacturing abroad. But America's lower-skill workers also benefited, mainly in the retail, non-professional sector. These jobs earned American workers more than $220m.
As long as America has a labour force of competitive, skilled workers, it will still reap the benefits of innovation and benefit from trade..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2008/12/who_benefits_from_ipods.cfm
Things I Like - Chicago
Harper's Weekly, drawing by Theodore R. Davis Of the ten most populous cities in the U.S. (based on 2007 figures), Chicago is the 5th oldest with its first permanent settlement established in 1781. So we have some history.
I like old stuff, especially old buildings. Of course, not much in Chicago dates from before 1871... pesky fire. Fewer than 20 buildings or structures that survived the fire are still standing today. Among them are
Clarke House (the oldest, built in 1836)- Hull House (1856)
- St. Ignatius College Prep (1869)
- the Water Tower & Pumping station (1869)
You can find photos and drawings along with brief 'bios' of these as well as many other historically significant buildings at the Chicago Landmark webpage. The site offers a number of approaches to exploring Chicago's landmarks including 'tours' of buildings and structures by location and subject.
Did you know the restaurant on LaSalle that used to be Jordan's and is now the Mexican place LaLo's used to be the LaSalle Street cable car powerhouse? Did you even know that Chicago used to have cable cars??
Did you know the restaurant on LaSalle that used to be Jordan's and is now the Mexican place LaLo's used to be the LaSalle Street cable car powerhouse? Did you even know that Chicago used to have cable cars??
Another interesting site I ran across was a joint effort by the Chicago Historical Society and Northwestern University commemorating the Chicago Fire. The on-line exhibit has both images and essays documenting the fire. Anyone growing up in the Chicago area will have heard about the Great Fire, but reading the accounts written by people who lived through it make it very real.
Take a look at the Hesler panorama - a series of 11 photographs taken in 1858 from atop the original courthouse. One might be forgiven for thinking that the fire was a good thing overall - Chicago was a total mess at that point.
Friday, December 26, 2008
A Reverse Marshall Plan?
TW: If things ever come to this, then we will know the worm has truly turned.
ps dont laugh as it may happen
From Bloomberg:
"Japan should write-off its holdings of Treasuries because the U.S. government will struggle to finance increasing debt levels needed to dig the economy out of recession, said Akio Mikuni, president of credit ratings agency Mikuni & Co.
The dollar may lose as much as 40 percent of its value to 50 yen or 60 yen from the current spot rate of 90.40 today in Tokyo unless Japan takes “drastic measures” to help bail out the U.S. economy...
The U.S. government needs to spend on infrastructure to maintain job creation as it will take a long time for banks to recover from $1 trillion in credit-market losses worldwide...
Japan should also invest in U.S. roads and bridges to support personal spending and secure demand for its goods as a global recession crimps trade, Mikuni said...
Combining debt waivers with infrastructure spending would be similar to the Marshall Plan that helped Europe rebuild after the destruction of World War II, Mikuni said.
“U.S. households simply won’t have the same access to credit that they’ve enjoyed in the past,” he said. “Their demand for all products, including imports, will suffer unless something is done.”...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFgHlh.Dn4Lc&refer=home
ps dont laugh as it may happen
From Bloomberg:
"Japan should write-off its holdings of Treasuries because the U.S. government will struggle to finance increasing debt levels needed to dig the economy out of recession, said Akio Mikuni, president of credit ratings agency Mikuni & Co.
The dollar may lose as much as 40 percent of its value to 50 yen or 60 yen from the current spot rate of 90.40 today in Tokyo unless Japan takes “drastic measures” to help bail out the U.S. economy...
The U.S. government needs to spend on infrastructure to maintain job creation as it will take a long time for banks to recover from $1 trillion in credit-market losses worldwide...
Japan should also invest in U.S. roads and bridges to support personal spending and secure demand for its goods as a global recession crimps trade, Mikuni said...
Combining debt waivers with infrastructure spending would be similar to the Marshall Plan that helped Europe rebuild after the destruction of World War II, Mikuni said.
“U.S. households simply won’t have the same access to credit that they’ve enjoyed in the past,” he said. “Their demand for all products, including imports, will suffer unless something is done.”...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFgHlh.Dn4Lc&refer=home
Blameless (aka Shameless) Until the Bitter End
TW: W. Bush and Cheney are making the rounds as they near enshrinement into the Franklin Pierce/James Buchanan/Herbert Hoover pantheon of miserably bad POTUSes. Do they express any regrets, of course not. Why would they, right? It was not their fault, it was tough circumstances and a "toxic political culture". Pretty rich stuff emanating from the mouths of a guy like Dick "F You" Cheney and W. "How Did We Here" Bush.
From Politico:
"Faced with a faltering economy and a precarious national security position, President George W. Bush made the best of a bad situation and sought to unite the country in spite of Washington’s toxic political culture.
That’s how Bush views his tenure in office, according to a recent round of exit interviews he and Vice President Dick Cheney have done as part of an effort to wind up their administration on a positive note...
“I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived,” Bush told ABC’s Charlie Gibson, glossing over his long record as a deregulator, which stretches back to his time as governor of Texas...
“[Bush] I’ll be frank with you. I don’t spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history,” he told Gibson. “I guess I don’t worry about long-term history, either, since I’m not going to be around to read it.” [TW: A truly insightful thinker until the bitter end indeed]"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16800.html
From Politico:
"Faced with a faltering economy and a precarious national security position, President George W. Bush made the best of a bad situation and sought to unite the country in spite of Washington’s toxic political culture.
That’s how Bush views his tenure in office, according to a recent round of exit interviews he and Vice President Dick Cheney have done as part of an effort to wind up their administration on a positive note...
“I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived,” Bush told ABC’s Charlie Gibson, glossing over his long record as a deregulator, which stretches back to his time as governor of Texas...
“[Bush] I’ll be frank with you. I don’t spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history,” he told Gibson. “I guess I don’t worry about long-term history, either, since I’m not going to be around to read it.” [TW: A truly insightful thinker until the bitter end indeed]"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16800.html
Things I Like - Sciences
CNN.com posted an article (12/12) listing what they believed were the top 10 ideas that changed the world. Not the top 10 ideas of 2008, but the 10 ideas having the greatest impact on the world since the beginning of human life on Earth.To their credit, CNN realizes that others may have different ideas for the list and ask for reader input. Comments so far are limited...
Perhaps that is an indicator of a less than engrossing topic, but I thought it was interesting. Here are the 10 ideas from CNN:
- Farming
- The unconscious
- Relativity
- Vaccination
- Human rights
- Evolution
- World Wide Web
- Soap
- Zero
- Gravity
Think about it. Before those merchants got together at Mr. Lloyd's coffee house in London and agreed to share the risk of shipping ventures, merchants and business owners of all kinds were one big loss away from total ruin.* Prior to this, growing or expanding a business was all but impossible for any but the very wealthy who could absorb losses like a cargo rotting or an establishment burning and live to do business another day. Insurance allowed the little guy (or at least, the less than wealthy guy), to take on risks that would otherwise not be feasible without partners. Business today could not exist without insurance - the ability to limit potential loss makes it possible for everyone from the Mom & Pop hardware store to manufacturing giants like Procter & Gamble to operate. Without modern insurance, we would be a world of individual traders, and a very small world at that.
OK, maybe insurance doesn't rank up there with the concept of zero, but it's definitely in the top 20.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/21/tenthings.changedtheworld/index.html
*Actually, the concept of distribution of risk originated with the Code of Hammurabi (c.2100 BC) and maritime insurance contracts were used from the mid-1300's, but the modern practice of insurance dates back to 1860's London in response to the Great Fire of 1666. And I've always really like the Lloyd's coffee house story.
The Conservative Of the Year: Sarah Palin
TW: Anne Coulter has written just a fine column on why Human Events magazine has named Sarah Palin "Conservative Of the Year". Coulter is the poster child for the sytle of conservatism that shames those serious conservatives who actually have relevant ideas. Naturally Coulter seriously hearts Palin who personfies that brand of conservatism which relishes ignorance and wallows in its own insecurities and resentments. If Palin truly is the Conservative of the Year then that pretty much tells you where conservatism stands.
From Coulter Human Events:
"...I assume Palin was chosen because McCain had heard that she was a real conservative and he had always wanted to meet one -- no, actually because he needed a conservative on the ticket, but that he had no idea that picking her would send the left into a tailspin of wanton despair...
It seemed like the media would introduce an all-new double standard each day throughout the two glorious months of Palin’s candidacy. I don’t remember, for example, zealous inquiries into the supposedly peculiar religious practices of any candidates in past elections. No one in the press touched on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s religious beliefs when he was Kerry’s running mate...[TW: I guess Ms. Coulter missed the whole Obama is a Muslim thing]...
Palin is the sort of genuine American that brings out the worst, most egregious pomposity of liberals. For weeks, Carl Bernstein was showing up on TV to announce: “We still don’t have the date of first issuance of her passport.” Members of the establishment would be astonished to learn that more Americans have guns than passports...
Despite their phony championing of “women’s issues” (i.e. abortion) there was not one Democrat woman who could win a head-to-head contest with Palin. [TW: are u kidding me?!!] Especially not if we got to see their faces. Democrats may have a fleet of women politicians, but they don’t have a deep bench of attractive ones. You don’t even think of most Democratic woman as women: Rosa Delauro, Nita Lowey, Patty Murray, Janet Napolitano -- and the list goes on. Oh, sure, there are the odd female Democrat sex kittens -- your Janet Renos, your Donna Shalalas -- but they're the exception to the rule...[TW: real classy Coutler is not...]
Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? She was running with John McCain! There was no chance that ticket was going to place her anywhere near the presidency. In fact, I can’t think of a better place to put someone you wanted to keep away from the White House than on a ticket with McCain. Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode. Other than his brave military service, introducing Sarah Palin to Americans is the greatest thing John McCain ever did for his country..."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29995
TW: ps Coulter claims Human Events was Ronald Reagan's favorite mag...go figure...
From Coulter Human Events:
"...I assume Palin was chosen because McCain had heard that she was a real conservative and he had always wanted to meet one -- no, actually because he needed a conservative on the ticket, but that he had no idea that picking her would send the left into a tailspin of wanton despair...
It seemed like the media would introduce an all-new double standard each day throughout the two glorious months of Palin’s candidacy. I don’t remember, for example, zealous inquiries into the supposedly peculiar religious practices of any candidates in past elections. No one in the press touched on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s religious beliefs when he was Kerry’s running mate...[TW: I guess Ms. Coulter missed the whole Obama is a Muslim thing]...
Palin is the sort of genuine American that brings out the worst, most egregious pomposity of liberals. For weeks, Carl Bernstein was showing up on TV to announce: “We still don’t have the date of first issuance of her passport.” Members of the establishment would be astonished to learn that more Americans have guns than passports...
Despite their phony championing of “women’s issues” (i.e. abortion) there was not one Democrat woman who could win a head-to-head contest with Palin. [TW: are u kidding me?!!] Especially not if we got to see their faces. Democrats may have a fleet of women politicians, but they don’t have a deep bench of attractive ones. You don’t even think of most Democratic woman as women: Rosa Delauro, Nita Lowey, Patty Murray, Janet Napolitano -- and the list goes on. Oh, sure, there are the odd female Democrat sex kittens -- your Janet Renos, your Donna Shalalas -- but they're the exception to the rule...[TW: real classy Coutler is not...]
Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? She was running with John McCain! There was no chance that ticket was going to place her anywhere near the presidency. In fact, I can’t think of a better place to put someone you wanted to keep away from the White House than on a ticket with McCain. Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode. Other than his brave military service, introducing Sarah Palin to Americans is the greatest thing John McCain ever did for his country..."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29995
TW: ps Coulter claims Human Events was Ronald Reagan's favorite mag...go figure...
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Things I Like - Art
As promised - some Christmas Art.
In honor of our friends at Grolsch
Merry Christmas!
See the link below for more creative Christmas Trees from Toxel
http://www.toxel.com/inspiration/2008/12/11/unusual-and-creative-christmas-trees/
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Meandering Aimlessly Through the Wilderness
TW: The Republicans need to pick a new chairperson for their party. They appear to have some wonderful choices. I have posted before about how the Republicans are at a fork in the road, either move to modernize the party (i.e. moderate a bit, legitimately appeal to Hispanics and others etc.) or just keep singing from the same tired hymnal. I suspect they will have to fall further in before choosing the former...
From Economist:
"Mr Duncan and his five rivals...have made their sales pitches to the conservative Leadership Institute.
Saul Anuzis [MI] argued that the Republicans' problems were due to a rotten "brand", thanks to an unpopular president and votes for "higher spending and bridges to nowhere"...Mr Anuzis does not believe that Republicans needed to re-evaluate their policy stances or their message in order to win...Mr Anuzis argued that the party could overcome its problems with more activism, smarter messaging, and wider outreach...That combination of nostalgia and resistance to self-examination is one reason Democrats aren't spending much time worrying about the opposition these days."
Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina GOP. Big idea: Project 3141, to build the party in every American county, and "infiltrate areas that are solidly Democrat."
Michael Steele, chairman of the conservative political training group GOPAC. Big idea: "Recruit and train 25,000 grassroots activist leaders by 2012 drawn from every state in the union."
Ken Blackwell, former secretary of state of Ohio. Big idea: "I will end any practice of the RNC that withholds support for candidates based solely on the fact that they are more conservative than others."
Chip Saltsman, former campaign manager for Mike Huckabee. Big idea: "A 'watchdog' division within the national party should be established whose sole mission is to monitor and report on the actions of Washington, D.C. Democrats."
The whole survey is...an interesting snapshot of what possible Republican leaders think is wrong with their party. Messaging, technology, volunteers... and not much else. The election of Joseph Cao in New Orleans is trumpeted as a path-breaking win for the party, which is a stretch: Democrats didn't pretend that their capture of Mark Foley's seat in 2006 was meaningful, because scandal-driven wins almost never are."
From Economist:
"Mr Duncan and his five rivals...have made their sales pitches to the conservative Leadership Institute.
Saul Anuzis [MI] argued that the Republicans' problems were due to a rotten "brand", thanks to an unpopular president and votes for "higher spending and bridges to nowhere"...Mr Anuzis does not believe that Republicans needed to re-evaluate their policy stances or their message in order to win...Mr Anuzis argued that the party could overcome its problems with more activism, smarter messaging, and wider outreach...That combination of nostalgia and resistance to self-examination is one reason Democrats aren't spending much time worrying about the opposition these days."
Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina GOP. Big idea: Project 3141, to build the party in every American county, and "infiltrate areas that are solidly Democrat."
Michael Steele, chairman of the conservative political training group GOPAC. Big idea: "Recruit and train 25,000 grassroots activist leaders by 2012 drawn from every state in the union."
Ken Blackwell, former secretary of state of Ohio. Big idea: "I will end any practice of the RNC that withholds support for candidates based solely on the fact that they are more conservative than others."
Chip Saltsman, former campaign manager for Mike Huckabee. Big idea: "A 'watchdog' division within the national party should be established whose sole mission is to monitor and report on the actions of Washington, D.C. Democrats."
The whole survey is...an interesting snapshot of what possible Republican leaders think is wrong with their party. Messaging, technology, volunteers... and not much else. The election of Joseph Cao in New Orleans is trumpeted as a path-breaking win for the party, which is a stretch: Democrats didn't pretend that their capture of Mark Foley's seat in 2006 was meaningful, because scandal-driven wins almost never are."
More Year End Highlights: Conservative Insights
TW: Talking Point Memo grabbed their top conservative insights for the year. There were several good ones below I show my favorites:
From TPM:
"Now it's just a circular firing squad with everybody attacking each other and no coherent belief system, no leaders. You got half the party waiting for Sarah Palin to come rescue them. The other half waiting for Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, to come rescue them. But no set of beliefs, really a decayed conservative infrastructure. It's just a world of pain."
--David Brooks NYT
"...Unfortunately, when Republicans have tried to be in touch, they've been tempted to be irresponsible. In September, more than a few were ready to risk the global banking system's collapse in the hopes that they could ride anti-Wall Street populism to victory."
--Matt Continetti Weekly Standard
"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
--Alan Greenspan (no longer so revered) former Fed Chairman
"The movement created by that superelite, but never elitist, William F. Buckley Jr. was handed over to Joe Six-Pack. Know-nothingness was no longer a stigma, but a badge of honor. The Republican Party's Baghdad Bobism with regard to Palin, a denial so pernicious that party operatives were willing to let her sit a heartbeat away from the presidency in a time of war and financial collapse, revealed what really ails the party..."
--Kathleen Parker WaPo
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/19/the_top_dozen_insights_of_cons/
From TPM:
"Now it's just a circular firing squad with everybody attacking each other and no coherent belief system, no leaders. You got half the party waiting for Sarah Palin to come rescue them. The other half waiting for Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, to come rescue them. But no set of beliefs, really a decayed conservative infrastructure. It's just a world of pain."
--David Brooks NYT
"...Unfortunately, when Republicans have tried to be in touch, they've been tempted to be irresponsible. In September, more than a few were ready to risk the global banking system's collapse in the hopes that they could ride anti-Wall Street populism to victory."
--Matt Continetti Weekly Standard
"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
--Alan Greenspan (no longer so revered) former Fed Chairman
"The movement created by that superelite, but never elitist, William F. Buckley Jr. was handed over to Joe Six-Pack. Know-nothingness was no longer a stigma, but a badge of honor. The Republican Party's Baghdad Bobism with regard to Palin, a denial so pernicious that party operatives were willing to let her sit a heartbeat away from the presidency in a time of war and financial collapse, revealed what really ails the party..."
--Kathleen Parker WaPo
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/19/the_top_dozen_insights_of_cons/
Things I Like - Food
If it's the holidays, it must be time for a party! Following are three of my all-time favorite, go-to Hors d'Oeuvre recipes. They all take less than 3o minutes to make and can either be made in advance or, in the case of the first two, put together early and popped into the oven just before guests arrive.I don't do step-by-step photos so you'll have to imagine what that looks like...
Caramelized Onion Tart
1/2 of a refrigerated pie crust
3 large Vidalia or other sweet onion - thinly sliced
2 TBS unsalted butter
1 1/2 TBS Sherry vinegar
4 ounces crumbled blue cheese
Salt & freshly ground pepper
- Preheat oven to 375
- Roll out the pie crust to fit a 9 x 13 cookie sheet. Press into sheet and prick bottom with fork to allow steam to escape during baking. Pop into oven before starting step 2 to pre-bake the crust. Remove when crust starts to puff up.
- Cook the onions with the butter and sherry vinegar in a large saute pan over medium heat, stirring occasionally, for 15 - 20 minutes or until the onions are golden brown and caramelized.
- Season with salt & pepper and mix in 3 ounces of the blue cheese crumbles.
- Turn onion mixture onto baked crust and dot with remaining blue cheese. (If making in advance, cover with plastic wrap and store in refrigerator up to 24 hours)
- Bake for 10-12 minutes or until cheese has melted
- Allow to cool 5 minutes and slice into squares to serve.
Goat Cheese in Tomato Sauce
2 TBS olive oil
2 cloves garlic, chopped
28 oz can crushed tomatoes
1/2 TBS sherry vinegar
1 1/2 teaspoons sugar
1/4 cup fresh basil
pinch dried thyme
10 oz goat cheese, cut in thirds
Salt & freshly ground pepper
- Saute garlic in oil over medium heat until fragrant (do not allow garlic to turn brown). Add tomatoes, salt, pepper, thyme, sugar and sherry vinegar. Simmer over low heat for 5 minutes.
- Remove from heat. Chiffonade the basil and stir into sauce. (If preparing in advance, store the sauce in a non-reactive covered container in the refrigerator for up to 3 days. 45 minutes prior to serving, remove sauce, assemble per step 3 and allow to rest for 30 minutes or until the chill is off. Continue with step 4 as directed)
- Place a spoon of sauce in the center of a small baking dish, place the 3 cheese pieces flat end up in a row on top of the sauce. Spoon the remaining sauce around the cheese towers - you should have enough to reach the top of the cheese but not to cover it.
- Bake at 375 until bubbly, about 10 minutes.
- Serve with crusty bread
Olive Tapenade
1/2 cup kalamata olives - pitted
3 anchovy filets
1 teaspoon drained capers
1 large garlic clove
2 TBS olive oil
1. Place all ingredients except the olive oil in a mini-food processor or the prep bowl of a standard processor
2. Pulse until combined. Drizzle in olive oil while processing on low until everything is finely chopped and resembles a chunky paste.
3. Serve with breadsticks or small baguette slices plain or spread with goat cheese.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
A Little Whine With Your Cheese
TW: I predict Obama will better manage this stuff than just about anyone but hearing this stuff never stops being annoying.From Economist:
"SURE, Barack Obama answered an under-the-radar liberal wish and assembled a cabinet that's less than 50% white and male. Has he satisfied minority groups? Don't be naive. Says one anonymous member of the Congressional Black Caucus: Mr Obama “isn’t doing enough for the black folks.” Says Kim Gandy of the National Organization for Women: "You have such a small number of women in the room when the big decisions are being made, there need to be a lot more women's voices in this administration."
Are they serious? Sort of. A feminist group (or an African American group) that announces it's run out of grievances is a group that doesn't matter anymore. It has to find something awry with Mr Obama. And it has to beat the drum about that if it will pressure the president-elect's team to choose more women and minorities for subcabinet posts and lower-level jobs. This isn't a subtle game being played, but it's striking that not even the first black president gets a few points when it starts."
Are they serious? Sort of. A feminist group (or an African American group) that announces it's run out of grievances is a group that doesn't matter anymore. It has to find something awry with Mr Obama. And it has to beat the drum about that if it will pressure the president-elect's team to choose more women and minorities for subcabinet posts and lower-level jobs. This isn't a subtle game being played, but it's striking that not even the first black president gets a few points when it starts."
The Return Of Competence
TW: Cohen gets a rare two poster from one column out this piece from me. The first point relates to the nature of dissent in the White House as initially embodied in the Obama cabinet.
From Roger Cohen at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...I'm thankful for many things right now...The first is that Barack Obama is a man of sufficient self-confidence to entrust the critical job of Secretary of State to his former rival, Hillary Clinton. She has the strength and focus to produce results. The second is that he's a man of sufficient good sense to retain the remarkable Robert Gates as Defense Secretary.
President Bush had one overriding criterion in choosing his inner circle: loyalty. The result was nobody would pull the plug on stupidity. Obama wants the kind of competence and brainpower that challenge him. The God-gut decision-making of The Decider got us in this mess. Getting out of it will require an Oval Office where smart dissent is prized."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/26/opinion/edcohen.php
From Roger Cohen at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...I'm thankful for many things right now...The first is that Barack Obama is a man of sufficient self-confidence to entrust the critical job of Secretary of State to his former rival, Hillary Clinton. She has the strength and focus to produce results. The second is that he's a man of sufficient good sense to retain the remarkable Robert Gates as Defense Secretary.
President Bush had one overriding criterion in choosing his inner circle: loyalty. The result was nobody would pull the plug on stupidity. Obama wants the kind of competence and brainpower that challenge him. The God-gut decision-making of The Decider got us in this mess. Getting out of it will require an Oval Office where smart dissent is prized."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/26/opinion/edcohen.php
Some Year End Awards
TW: Rothenburg put together some year end political awards, categories included:
Master of Self-Destruction
Strongest Republican swimmer against the tide
Time to stop running
Most Overhyped House Candidate
Biggest Long-Shot Winner
Best Name in the New Congress
Most Religious-Sounding Name
Most Overhyped, Self-Important, Delusional Presidential Candidate
Some good stuff (of course Sarah "Dave/Fembot" Palin deserved her own category but was snubbed)
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2008/12/rothenbergs-end-of-year-awards-for-2008.html
Master of Self-Destruction
Strongest Republican swimmer against the tide
Time to stop running
Most Overhyped House Candidate
Biggest Long-Shot Winner
Best Name in the New Congress
Most Religious-Sounding Name
Most Overhyped, Self-Important, Delusional Presidential Candidate
Some good stuff (of course Sarah "Dave/Fembot" Palin deserved her own category but was snubbed)
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2008/12/rothenbergs-end-of-year-awards-for-2008.html
Things I Like - Books
I know that Tuesday's are supposed to be Art, but I am switching out with Thursday this week since I have some Christmas themed Art. So today is Books - no connection to Christmas...
I ran across an interesting link the other day - the American Book Review put out a list of the 100 Best First Lines from Novels. There was no discussion of how the list was put together but a link on the site titled 'Nominated Best Last Lines from Novels' indicates that there was some reader input to the list. Regardless, it was interesting to read through - I've copied the first 10 below:
100 Best First Lines from Novels
I ran across an interesting link the other day - the American Book Review put out a list of the 100 Best First Lines from Novels. There was no discussion of how the list was put together but a link on the site titled 'Nominated Best Last Lines from Novels' indicates that there was some reader input to the list. Regardless, it was interesting to read through - I've copied the first 10 below:
100 Best First Lines from Novels
- Call me Ishmael. —Herman Melville, Moby-Dick (1851)
- It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. —Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (1813)
- A screaming comes across the sky. —Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow (1973)
- Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice. —Gabriel García Márquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude (1967; trans. Gregory Rabassa)
- Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. —Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita (1955)
- Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. —Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina (1877; trans. Constance Garnett)
- riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs. —James Joyce, Finnegans Wake (1939)
- It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. —George Orwell, 1984 (1949)
- It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair. —Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1859)
- I am an invisible man. —Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man (1952)
And no, that wasn't a typo on #7, that's just Joyce.
This got me to thinking about great novels and whether or not there was any correlation between a great first line and the novel as a whole. There are plenty of lists out there of the Top 100 Novels - some put out by publishers, some by magazines or papers and others are based on user recommendations. I also found a list that consolidates 10 different Top 100 lists (see the link below for the complete list as well as a description of the methodology used to compile). This seemed like a good source for checking out the First Line / Great Novel connection. The first 10 novels from this list were:
Best 100 Novels
- Nineteen Eighty-Four / George Orwell
- The Great Gatsby / F. Scott Fitzgerald
- The Grapes of Wrath / John Steinbeck
- The Catcher in the Rye / J.D. Salinger
- Catch-22 / Joseph Heller
- One Hundred Years of Solitude / Gabriel Garcia Marquez
- Gone With the Wind / Margaret Mitchell
- Ulysses / James Joyce
- On The Road / Jack Kerouac
- The Lord of the Rings / J.R.R. Tolkien
A quick comparison of the lists shows that 2 of the novels with a Top 10 First Line made the top 10 on the Novel list. If you look at the next 10 novels, you pick up another 3 First Line winners. What's more interesting is that the authors of the top 10 First Lines represent 9 of the top 20 novels.
You always hear about writers agonizing over the opening line to their novel - it seems they know what they're doing.
http://americanbookreview.org/100BestLines.asp
http://neilbowers.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/a-unified-list-of-the-best-100-novels/
Bush And Lincoln
TW: Karen Tumulty at Time Mag uploaded this photo to the Time blog and asked for comments. The thought that came to my mind was one which had been germinating anyway. W. Bush has recently referred to some Lincoln bios while describing his own approach to the Presidency. After having recently read, "Team of Rivals" and many others over the years on Lincoln, I say "I 'knew' Abe Lincoln and you sir are no Abe." W. Bush referencinig Abe Lincoln is a prime example of someone knowing just enough about a topic to be dangerous.W. Bush governed as an ideologue, while in his mind relying upon Lincolnesque indomitable will and pride of purpose. Unfortunately W. Bush missed the chapters where Lincoln's charisma, intellectual curiosity and pragmatic flexibility came to the fore. These latter characteristics enabled Lincoln to weave through the massive ideological gulfs separating the Radical Republicans of the North (primarily New England abolitionists) from the rest of the tenuous coalition by which he held together the Union during prolonged and excruciating obstacles.
By the end of Lincoln's Presidency many of his former foes had evolved into some of his greatest admirers (i.e. Ed Stanton). With W. Bush we merely impatiently await his departure while the next guy confronts the myriad of messes left behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)