Monday, November 30, 2009
Every Senator Counts
"All of you all over the country -- please remember that Senate seats are not about a particular state. They're about our country. Every vote I take is not about South Carolina. It's about the United States of America."
-- Sen. James DeMint (R-SC), quoted by The State.
TW: DeMint challenges Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma as my least favorite U.S. Senator (Burris being an unelected short-timer gets a mulligan). But this quote is spot on, anyone who puts on blinders and votes for their senator merely based on local parochial issues is bringing the rest of us into their little world at the expense of the greater good.
-- Sen. James DeMint (R-SC), quoted by The State.
TW: DeMint challenges Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma as my least favorite U.S. Senator (Burris being an unelected short-timer gets a mulligan). But this quote is spot on, anyone who puts on blinders and votes for their senator merely based on local parochial issues is bringing the rest of us into their little world at the expense of the greater good.
Totally Agree About...Them
TW: Slow news holiday weekend was ripe for a frenzy over the crashers- of the State dinner and into a hydrant outside his house. Folks can follow what they wish but relative to the State dinner yet another bit of civility and national class suffer a defeat at the hands of the exploiters.
From Tom Schaller at 538.com:
"I am sick to my stomach over That Couple. And now comes news they are peddling their exclusive story to the highest media bidder. Disgusting, but hardly surprising.
I’m not going to use their names because you can be sure that, between giddy calls to their agent and lawyer, they are rushing to their computer every half hour to Google themselves. Who’s talking about us now? What are people saying? Look, another picture of us on the web! We’re more famous than any of our friends—no, all of our friends, combined! Tehehehee—the joke’s on you, America!
No, you’re not famous; you’re infamous. You’re situated squarely at the bottom of an already too-deep and increasingly murky barrel of celebrity culture, celebrity journalism, and (un)reality TV, the depths of which are probably making even Andy Warhol cringe in his grave. I want this to be your fifteenth minute. I want your egg timer to ding now, so you can exit our national discourse as swiftly, completely and permanently as possible.
And, you know what? We can do something about it. We can let the producers of whatever crap program agrees to pay these creepy, pathetic, attention-starved goons for the rights to interview That Couple that not only will we tune out that specific broadcast, but we will tune out that program in the future as well. We can compound the effect by identifying the companies that sponsor the airing of the interview, and boycotting their products or services.
Why? Because there are literally millions of Americans who bust their asses through school and job training, who serve our country in the military in harm’s way, or merely plumb our toilets at home or change our baskets at the office—who, in short, work hard, raise their families and pay their taxes--and do all of that with zero expectation that they should win some version of the public celebrity lottery that suddenly showers them with a degree of fame and fortune that That Couple not merely aspires to, but clearly believe they deserve. When somebody like Captain Sully catapults from nowhere to national stardom--or my fellow Bethlehem Central High School alum Rich Jadick becomes a national hero after re-joining the Marines in his late-30s (and despite having a wife and kids and the chance to make a lot of money safely back in the States) to help the medical Corps revolutionize front-line emergency medical care--at least they earned their fame. And I harbor no complaints about how showmen across the ages—from P.T. Barnum to Muhammad Ali, from Harry Houdini to Madonna—maximized their opportunities in order to achieve greater fame and fortune, because they could boast an underlying talent or social value, and often both.
That Couple offers nothing of the sort. In fact, they offer nothing beyond their naked greed and attention-starved egos. They are private and public leeches..."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/that-couple.html
From Tom Schaller at 538.com:
"I am sick to my stomach over That Couple. And now comes news they are peddling their exclusive story to the highest media bidder. Disgusting, but hardly surprising.
I’m not going to use their names because you can be sure that, between giddy calls to their agent and lawyer, they are rushing to their computer every half hour to Google themselves. Who’s talking about us now? What are people saying? Look, another picture of us on the web! We’re more famous than any of our friends—no, all of our friends, combined! Tehehehee—the joke’s on you, America!
No, you’re not famous; you’re infamous. You’re situated squarely at the bottom of an already too-deep and increasingly murky barrel of celebrity culture, celebrity journalism, and (un)reality TV, the depths of which are probably making even Andy Warhol cringe in his grave. I want this to be your fifteenth minute. I want your egg timer to ding now, so you can exit our national discourse as swiftly, completely and permanently as possible.
And, you know what? We can do something about it. We can let the producers of whatever crap program agrees to pay these creepy, pathetic, attention-starved goons for the rights to interview That Couple that not only will we tune out that specific broadcast, but we will tune out that program in the future as well. We can compound the effect by identifying the companies that sponsor the airing of the interview, and boycotting their products or services.
Why? Because there are literally millions of Americans who bust their asses through school and job training, who serve our country in the military in harm’s way, or merely plumb our toilets at home or change our baskets at the office—who, in short, work hard, raise their families and pay their taxes--and do all of that with zero expectation that they should win some version of the public celebrity lottery that suddenly showers them with a degree of fame and fortune that That Couple not merely aspires to, but clearly believe they deserve. When somebody like Captain Sully catapults from nowhere to national stardom--or my fellow Bethlehem Central High School alum Rich Jadick becomes a national hero after re-joining the Marines in his late-30s (and despite having a wife and kids and the chance to make a lot of money safely back in the States) to help the medical Corps revolutionize front-line emergency medical care--at least they earned their fame. And I harbor no complaints about how showmen across the ages—from P.T. Barnum to Muhammad Ali, from Harry Houdini to Madonna—maximized their opportunities in order to achieve greater fame and fortune, because they could boast an underlying talent or social value, and often both.
That Couple offers nothing of the sort. In fact, they offer nothing beyond their naked greed and attention-starved egos. They are private and public leeches..."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/that-couple.html
A Happy Future?
TW: Dystopian tomes are always around and much easier to find during recessionary or particularly volatile times. Maudlin takes the macro approach to repeat a simple theme- humans despite their obvious shortcomings seem to manage to move things forward. Reading pieces like this breed optimism (even if he veers into happy horse dung territory).
But I would add a challenge, if one assumes human progress is in fact likely, then why not make it better. Why make excuses not to provide universal health care? Why make excuses not to invest more aggressively in infrastructure, education? Why make excuses to insert our heads firmly up our collective backsides in the face of climate change? Correspondingly to some on the left why when faced with clear and present proponents of a dystopian future like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, why do you choose to shrink into a fetal position, shield your ears and hope someone else takes responsibility?
From John Maudlin at the Big Picture blog:
"...My view is that we have a number of waves of change getting ready to erupt on the world stage. The combination of them is what I call the Millennium Wave, the most significant period of change in human history. And one for which most of us are not yet ready.
Some time next year, we are going to see the three-billionth person get access to the telecosm (phones and internet, etc.). By 2015 it will be five billion people. Within ten years, most of the world will be able to access cheap (I mean really cheap) high-speed wireless broadband at connection rates that dwarf what we now have.
That is going to unleash a wave of creativity and new business that will be staggering. That heretofore hidden genius in Mumbai or Vladivostok or Kisangani will now have the ability to bring his ideas, talent, and energy to change the world in ways we can hardly imagine. When Isaac Watts was inventing the steam engine, there were a handful of engineers who could work with him. Now we throw a staggering number of scientists and engineers at trivial problems, let alone the really big ones.
And because of the internet, the advances of one person soon become known and built upon in a giant dance of collaboration. It is because of this giant dance, this unplanned group effort, that we will all figure out how to make advances in so many ways. (Of course, that is hugely disruptive to businesses that don’t adapt.)
Ever-faster change is what is happening in medicine. None of us in 2030 will want to go back to 2010, which will then seem as barbaric and antiquated as, say, 1975. Within a few years, it will be hard to keep up with the number of human trials of gene therapy and stem cell research. Sadly for the US, most of the tests will be done outside of our borders, but we will still benefit from the results.
I spend some spare study time on stem cell research. It fascinates me. We are now very close to being able to start with your skin cells and grow you a new liver (or whatever). Muscular dystrophy? There are reasons to be very encouraged.
Alzheimer’s disease requires somewhere between 5-7% of total US health-care costs. Defeat that and a large part of our health-care budget is fixed. And it will be first stopped and then cured. Same thing with cancers and all sorts of inflammatory diseases. There is reason to think a company may have found a generic cure for the common flu virus.
A whole new industry is getting ready to be born. And with it new jobs and investment opportunities.
Energy problems? Are we running out of oil? My bet is that in less than 20 years we won’t care. We will be driving electric cars that are far superior to what we have today in every way, from power sources that are not oil-based.
For whatever reason, I seem to run into people who are working on new forms of energy. They are literally working in their garages on novel new ways to produce electric power; and my venture-capital MIT PhD friend says they are for real when I introduce them. And if I know of a handful, there are undoubtably thousands of such people. Not to mention well-funded corporations and startups looking to be the next new thing. Will one or more make it? My bet is that more than one will. We will find ourselves with whole new industries as we rebuild our power grids, not to mention what this will mean for the emerging markets.
What about nanotech? Robotics? Artificial intelligence? Virtual reality? There are whole new industries that are waiting to be born. In 1980 there were few who saw the rise of personal computers, and even fewer who envisioned the internet. Mapping the human genome? Which we can now do for an individual for a few thousand dollars? There are hundreds of new businesses that couldn’t even exist just 20 years ago.
I am not sure where the new jobs will come from, but they will. Just as they did in 1975.
There is, however, one more reason I am optimistic. Sitting around the dinner table, I looked at my kids. I have seven kids, five of whom are adopted. I have two Korean twins, two black kids, a blond, a (sometimes) brunette, and a redhead. They range in age from 15 to 32. It is a rather unique family. My oldest black son is married to a white girl and my middle white son is with a black girl. They both have given me grandsons this year (shades of Obama!). One of my Korean daughters is married to a white young man, and the other is dating an Hispanic. And the oldest (Tiffani) is due with my first granddaughter in less than a month.
And the interesting thing? None of them think any of that is unusual. They accept it as normal. And when I am with their friends, they also see the world in a far different manner than my generation...
I find great cause for optimism in that. I am not saying we are in a post-racial world. We are not. Every white man in America should have a black son. It would open your eyes to a world we do not normally see. But it is better, far better, than the world I grew up in. And it is getting still better...
Twenty years ago China was seen as a huge military threat. Now we are worried about them not buying our bonds and becoming an economic power. Niall Ferguson writes about “Chimerica” as two countries joined together in an increasingly tight bond. In 20 years, will Iran be our new best friend? I think it might be, and in much less time than that, as an increasingly young and frustrated population demands change, just as they did 30 years ago. Will it be a smooth transition? Highly unlikely. But it will happen, I think.
...I believe the world of my kids is going to be a far better world in 20 years. Will China and the emerging world be relatively better off? Probably, but who cares? Do I really begrudge the fact that someone is making their part of the world better? In absolute terms, none of my kids will want to come back to 2009, and neither will I. Most of the doom and gloom types (and they seem to be legion) project a straight-line linear future. They see no progress beyond that in their own small worlds. If you go back to 1975 and assume a linear future, the projections were not all that good. Today you can easily come up with a less-than-rosy future if you make the assumption that things in 20 years will roughly look the same as now. But that also assumes there will not be even more billions of people who now have the opportunity to dream up their own psychic income and work to make it happen.
We live in a world of accelerating change. Things are changing at an ever-increasing pace. The world is not linear, it is curved. And we may be at the beginning of the elbow of that curve. If you assume a linear world, you are going to make less-than-optimal choices about your future, whether it is in your job or investments or life in general.
In the end, life is what you make of it. With all our struggles, as we sat around the table, our family was content, just like 100 million families around the country. Are there those who are in dire distress? Homeless? Sick? Of course, and that is tragic for each of them. And those of us who are fortunate need to help those who are not.
We live in the most exciting times in human history. We are on the verge of remarkable changes in so many areas of our world. Yes, some of them are not going to be fun. I see the problems probably more clearly than most.
But am I going to just stop and say, “What’s the use? The Fed is going to make a mess of things. The government is going to run us into debts to big too deal with? We are all getting older, and the stock market is going to crash?”
Even the most diehard bear among us is thinking of ways to improve his personal lot, even if it is only to buy more gold and guns. We all think we can figure it out or at least try to do so. Some of us will get it right and others sadly will not...
All that being said, while I am an optimist, I am a cautious and hopefully realistic optimist. I do not think the stock market compounds at 10% a year from today’s valuations. I rather doubt the Fed will figure the exact and perfect path in removing its quantitative easing. I doubt we will pursue a path of rational fiscal discipline in 2010 or sadly even by 2012, although I pray we do. I expect my taxes to be much higher in a few years.
But thankfully, I am not limited to only investing in the broad stock market. I have choices. I can be patient and wait for valuations to come my way. I can look for new opportunities. I can plan to make the tax burden as efficient as possible, and try and insulate myself from the volatility that is almost surely in our future – and maybe even figure out a way to prosper from it.
A pessimist never gets in the game. A wild-eyed optimist will suffer the slings and arrows of boom and inevitable bust. Cautious optimism is the correct and most rewarding path..."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/why-i-am-an-optimist/#more-44950
But I would add a challenge, if one assumes human progress is in fact likely, then why not make it better. Why make excuses not to provide universal health care? Why make excuses not to invest more aggressively in infrastructure, education? Why make excuses to insert our heads firmly up our collective backsides in the face of climate change? Correspondingly to some on the left why when faced with clear and present proponents of a dystopian future like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, why do you choose to shrink into a fetal position, shield your ears and hope someone else takes responsibility?
From John Maudlin at the Big Picture blog:
"...My view is that we have a number of waves of change getting ready to erupt on the world stage. The combination of them is what I call the Millennium Wave, the most significant period of change in human history. And one for which most of us are not yet ready.
Some time next year, we are going to see the three-billionth person get access to the telecosm (phones and internet, etc.). By 2015 it will be five billion people. Within ten years, most of the world will be able to access cheap (I mean really cheap) high-speed wireless broadband at connection rates that dwarf what we now have.
That is going to unleash a wave of creativity and new business that will be staggering. That heretofore hidden genius in Mumbai or Vladivostok or Kisangani will now have the ability to bring his ideas, talent, and energy to change the world in ways we can hardly imagine. When Isaac Watts was inventing the steam engine, there were a handful of engineers who could work with him. Now we throw a staggering number of scientists and engineers at trivial problems, let alone the really big ones.
And because of the internet, the advances of one person soon become known and built upon in a giant dance of collaboration. It is because of this giant dance, this unplanned group effort, that we will all figure out how to make advances in so many ways. (Of course, that is hugely disruptive to businesses that don’t adapt.)
Ever-faster change is what is happening in medicine. None of us in 2030 will want to go back to 2010, which will then seem as barbaric and antiquated as, say, 1975. Within a few years, it will be hard to keep up with the number of human trials of gene therapy and stem cell research. Sadly for the US, most of the tests will be done outside of our borders, but we will still benefit from the results.
I spend some spare study time on stem cell research. It fascinates me. We are now very close to being able to start with your skin cells and grow you a new liver (or whatever). Muscular dystrophy? There are reasons to be very encouraged.
Alzheimer’s disease requires somewhere between 5-7% of total US health-care costs. Defeat that and a large part of our health-care budget is fixed. And it will be first stopped and then cured. Same thing with cancers and all sorts of inflammatory diseases. There is reason to think a company may have found a generic cure for the common flu virus.
A whole new industry is getting ready to be born. And with it new jobs and investment opportunities.
Energy problems? Are we running out of oil? My bet is that in less than 20 years we won’t care. We will be driving electric cars that are far superior to what we have today in every way, from power sources that are not oil-based.
For whatever reason, I seem to run into people who are working on new forms of energy. They are literally working in their garages on novel new ways to produce electric power; and my venture-capital MIT PhD friend says they are for real when I introduce them. And if I know of a handful, there are undoubtably thousands of such people. Not to mention well-funded corporations and startups looking to be the next new thing. Will one or more make it? My bet is that more than one will. We will find ourselves with whole new industries as we rebuild our power grids, not to mention what this will mean for the emerging markets.
What about nanotech? Robotics? Artificial intelligence? Virtual reality? There are whole new industries that are waiting to be born. In 1980 there were few who saw the rise of personal computers, and even fewer who envisioned the internet. Mapping the human genome? Which we can now do for an individual for a few thousand dollars? There are hundreds of new businesses that couldn’t even exist just 20 years ago.
I am not sure where the new jobs will come from, but they will. Just as they did in 1975.
There is, however, one more reason I am optimistic. Sitting around the dinner table, I looked at my kids. I have seven kids, five of whom are adopted. I have two Korean twins, two black kids, a blond, a (sometimes) brunette, and a redhead. They range in age from 15 to 32. It is a rather unique family. My oldest black son is married to a white girl and my middle white son is with a black girl. They both have given me grandsons this year (shades of Obama!). One of my Korean daughters is married to a white young man, and the other is dating an Hispanic. And the oldest (Tiffani) is due with my first granddaughter in less than a month.
And the interesting thing? None of them think any of that is unusual. They accept it as normal. And when I am with their friends, they also see the world in a far different manner than my generation...
I find great cause for optimism in that. I am not saying we are in a post-racial world. We are not. Every white man in America should have a black son. It would open your eyes to a world we do not normally see. But it is better, far better, than the world I grew up in. And it is getting still better...
Twenty years ago China was seen as a huge military threat. Now we are worried about them not buying our bonds and becoming an economic power. Niall Ferguson writes about “Chimerica” as two countries joined together in an increasingly tight bond. In 20 years, will Iran be our new best friend? I think it might be, and in much less time than that, as an increasingly young and frustrated population demands change, just as they did 30 years ago. Will it be a smooth transition? Highly unlikely. But it will happen, I think.
...I believe the world of my kids is going to be a far better world in 20 years. Will China and the emerging world be relatively better off? Probably, but who cares? Do I really begrudge the fact that someone is making their part of the world better? In absolute terms, none of my kids will want to come back to 2009, and neither will I. Most of the doom and gloom types (and they seem to be legion) project a straight-line linear future. They see no progress beyond that in their own small worlds. If you go back to 1975 and assume a linear future, the projections were not all that good. Today you can easily come up with a less-than-rosy future if you make the assumption that things in 20 years will roughly look the same as now. But that also assumes there will not be even more billions of people who now have the opportunity to dream up their own psychic income and work to make it happen.
We live in a world of accelerating change. Things are changing at an ever-increasing pace. The world is not linear, it is curved. And we may be at the beginning of the elbow of that curve. If you assume a linear world, you are going to make less-than-optimal choices about your future, whether it is in your job or investments or life in general.
In the end, life is what you make of it. With all our struggles, as we sat around the table, our family was content, just like 100 million families around the country. Are there those who are in dire distress? Homeless? Sick? Of course, and that is tragic for each of them. And those of us who are fortunate need to help those who are not.
We live in the most exciting times in human history. We are on the verge of remarkable changes in so many areas of our world. Yes, some of them are not going to be fun. I see the problems probably more clearly than most.
But am I going to just stop and say, “What’s the use? The Fed is going to make a mess of things. The government is going to run us into debts to big too deal with? We are all getting older, and the stock market is going to crash?”
Even the most diehard bear among us is thinking of ways to improve his personal lot, even if it is only to buy more gold and guns. We all think we can figure it out or at least try to do so. Some of us will get it right and others sadly will not...
All that being said, while I am an optimist, I am a cautious and hopefully realistic optimist. I do not think the stock market compounds at 10% a year from today’s valuations. I rather doubt the Fed will figure the exact and perfect path in removing its quantitative easing. I doubt we will pursue a path of rational fiscal discipline in 2010 or sadly even by 2012, although I pray we do. I expect my taxes to be much higher in a few years.
But thankfully, I am not limited to only investing in the broad stock market. I have choices. I can be patient and wait for valuations to come my way. I can look for new opportunities. I can plan to make the tax burden as efficient as possible, and try and insulate myself from the volatility that is almost surely in our future – and maybe even figure out a way to prosper from it.
A pessimist never gets in the game. A wild-eyed optimist will suffer the slings and arrows of boom and inevitable bust. Cautious optimism is the correct and most rewarding path..."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/why-i-am-an-optimist/#more-44950
Sunday, November 29, 2009
"One Lonely #!@& Pig"
via Boston.com
TW: The above is allegedly the only pig in Afghanistan where obviously the porcine are not embraced. To quote from Jules Winnfield (aka Samuel Jackson) in Pulp Fiction, that must be "one lonely mf'n pig" (apparently also well taken care of however).
Schadenfreude Alert: Dubai Edition
TW: Obviously we should be careful on the Schadenfreude front given our precarious economic performance since 2001 but why not...
Obama Is Doing the Right Things
TW: When the economy is doing well the Republican want to cut taxes on the wealthy, when the economy is doing poorly they wish to cut spending. The results of such policies have been poor yet many folks hue their line. Here is a progressive economists take on the situation. Demoguery is a bi-partisan sport but the demoguery on the right is reaching new heights. When someone a viciously bad as Karl Rove is writing editorials in the WSJ about the need for conservative fiscal policy, one knows the shark has been jumped.
From Brad Delong at Project Syndicate:
"From the day after the collapse of Lehman Brothers last year, the policies followed by the United States Treasury, the US Federal Reserve, and the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have been sound and helpful. The alternative – standing back and letting the markets handle things – would have brought ... higher unemployment than now exists. Credit easing and support of the banking system helped significantly...
The fact that investment bankers did not go bankrupt last December and are profiting immensely this year is a side issue. Every extra percentage point of unemployment lasting for two years costs $400 billion. A recession twice as deep as the one we have had would have cost the US roughly $2 trillion – and cost the world as a whole four times as much. In comparison, the bonuses at Goldman Sachs are a rounding error. ...
The Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus has also significantly helped the economy. Though the jury is still out on the effect of the tax cuts in the stimulus, aid to states has been a job-saving success, and the flow of government spending on a whole variety of relatively useful projects is set to boost production and employment in the same way that consumer spending boosts production and employment.
And the cost of carrying the extra debt incurred is extraordinarily low: $12 billion a year of extra taxes ... at current interest rates. For that price, American taxpayers will get an extra $1 trillion of goods and services, and employment will be higher by about ten million job-years.
The valid complaints about fiscal policy ... are not that it has run up the national debt..., but rather that ... we ought to have done more. Yet these policies are political losers now: nobody is proposing more stimulus. This is strange... Good policies that are boosting production and employment without causing inflation ought to be politically popular, right?
With respect to Obama’s stimulus package, it seems to me that there has been extraordinary intellectual and political dishonesty on the American right, which the press refuses to see. For two and a half centuries, economists have believed that the flow of spending in an economy goes up whenever groups of people decide to spend more... – and government decisions to spend more are as good as anybody else’s. ...
Obama’s Republican opponents, who claim that fiscal stimulus cannot work, rely on arguments that are incoherent at best, and usually simply wrong, if not mendacious. Remember that back in 1993, when the Clinton administration’s analyses led it to seek to spend less and reduce the deficit, the Republicans said that that would destroy the economy, too. Such claims were as wrong then as they are now. But how many media reports make even a cursory effort to evaluate them?
A stronger argument, though not by much, is that the fiscal stimulus is boosting employment and production, but at too great a long-run cost because it has produced too large a boost in America's national debt. If interest rates on US Treasury securities were high and rising rapidly as the debt grew, I would agree... But interest rates on US Treasury securities are very low...
Those who claim that America has a debt problem, and that a debt problem cannot be cured with more debt, ignore (sometimes deliberately) that private debt and US Treasury debt have been very different animals – moving in different directions and behaving in different ways – since the start of the financial crisis. /blockquote>
What the market is saying is not that the economy has too much debt, but that it has too much private debt, which is why prices of corporate bonds are low and firms find financing expensive. The market is also saying – clearly and repeatedly – that the economy has too little public US government debt, which is why everyone wants to hold it."
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/delong96/English
From Brad Delong at Project Syndicate:
"From the day after the collapse of Lehman Brothers last year, the policies followed by the United States Treasury, the US Federal Reserve, and the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have been sound and helpful. The alternative – standing back and letting the markets handle things – would have brought ... higher unemployment than now exists. Credit easing and support of the banking system helped significantly...
The fact that investment bankers did not go bankrupt last December and are profiting immensely this year is a side issue. Every extra percentage point of unemployment lasting for two years costs $400 billion. A recession twice as deep as the one we have had would have cost the US roughly $2 trillion – and cost the world as a whole four times as much. In comparison, the bonuses at Goldman Sachs are a rounding error. ...
The Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus has also significantly helped the economy. Though the jury is still out on the effect of the tax cuts in the stimulus, aid to states has been a job-saving success, and the flow of government spending on a whole variety of relatively useful projects is set to boost production and employment in the same way that consumer spending boosts production and employment.
And the cost of carrying the extra debt incurred is extraordinarily low: $12 billion a year of extra taxes ... at current interest rates. For that price, American taxpayers will get an extra $1 trillion of goods and services, and employment will be higher by about ten million job-years.
The valid complaints about fiscal policy ... are not that it has run up the national debt..., but rather that ... we ought to have done more. Yet these policies are political losers now: nobody is proposing more stimulus. This is strange... Good policies that are boosting production and employment without causing inflation ought to be politically popular, right?
With respect to Obama’s stimulus package, it seems to me that there has been extraordinary intellectual and political dishonesty on the American right, which the press refuses to see. For two and a half centuries, economists have believed that the flow of spending in an economy goes up whenever groups of people decide to spend more... – and government decisions to spend more are as good as anybody else’s. ...
Obama’s Republican opponents, who claim that fiscal stimulus cannot work, rely on arguments that are incoherent at best, and usually simply wrong, if not mendacious. Remember that back in 1993, when the Clinton administration’s analyses led it to seek to spend less and reduce the deficit, the Republicans said that that would destroy the economy, too. Such claims were as wrong then as they are now. But how many media reports make even a cursory effort to evaluate them?
A stronger argument, though not by much, is that the fiscal stimulus is boosting employment and production, but at too great a long-run cost because it has produced too large a boost in America's national debt. If interest rates on US Treasury securities were high and rising rapidly as the debt grew, I would agree... But interest rates on US Treasury securities are very low...
Those who claim that America has a debt problem, and that a debt problem cannot be cured with more debt, ignore (sometimes deliberately) that private debt and US Treasury debt have been very different animals – moving in different directions and behaving in different ways – since the start of the financial crisis. /blockquote>
What the market is saying is not that the economy has too much debt, but that it has too much private debt, which is why prices of corporate bonds are low and firms find financing expensive. The market is also saying – clearly and repeatedly – that the economy has too little public US government debt, which is why everyone wants to hold it."
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/delong96/English
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Who Receives v. Who Pays Tax $
TW: (click on image to enlarge)- it is always interesting to see who is paying federal tax $ v. which states are receiving the larger shares. Obviously many variables, not the least of which are military bases, factor into the equations; but frequently some of those bitching the most about taxes are those who receive the most $ back into their state.Friday, November 27, 2009
A Pause
From David Wood at Politics Daily:
"... My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Wilfred Owens' ghastly homage to youth and war, written in the dark winter of 1917-1918, sprang to mind recently as I flew into Columbia, South Carolina. I sat beside a teenager wearing a buzz cut, a Transformers Autobot T-shirt, baggy jeans and a nervous grin. He chattered nonstop until our little commuter jet touched down. He told me he was on his way to Fort Jackson to begin basic training, and that he'd enlisted for the steady income, to support his wife and baby back home in small-town Kentucky. He was 20 years old and that was his first airplane ride, ever"
"... My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Wilfred Owens' ghastly homage to youth and war, written in the dark winter of 1917-1918, sprang to mind recently as I flew into Columbia, South Carolina. I sat beside a teenager wearing a buzz cut, a Transformers Autobot T-shirt, baggy jeans and a nervous grin. He chattered nonstop until our little commuter jet touched down. He told me he was on his way to Fort Jackson to begin basic training, and that he'd enlisted for the steady income, to support his wife and baby back home in small-town Kentucky. He was 20 years old and that was his first airplane ride, ever"
Governing an Entire Nation
TW: If the economy does not get markedly better the Dems will face a tough time in 2010, it has always been so regardless of the incumbent party. That said as long as Obama's numbers, which ultimately are the metaphor for the overall Dem numbers regardless of what folks might say, hold with the above; then the Dems and Obama will be fine. These numbers tell me that the Fox/Limbaugh wing of the American populace truly do not like our POTUS. As for the rest they appreciate (mostly) what the guy is trying to do.
Cutting Government Fraud And Abuse
TW: Folks are getting increasingly concerned about the deficit. Demagogery usually rules the day as folks avoid the tough decisions on entitlements, defense etc. But fraud is real and programs like the one outlined below do not make headlines but IF they are actually implemented can make a difference.
From 538.com:
"You hear a lot of talk about waste, fraud and abuse in government, and how eliminating it might solve our fiscal problems. It won't. Like John McCain's repeated, annoying complaints about porkbarreling monies, which if completely eliminated would hardly dent our national deficit, the notion that, say, Medicare fraud is reason for our health care cost problems is a joke.
But that doesn't justify waste through improper government payments, which is a serious and remediable problem that cost the government $98 billion last year--nothing to sneeze at, and a sharp uptick from $72 billion the previous fiscal year. So last Friday President Obama signed an executive order that requires a systematic review of relevant agencies to correct the problem of improper payments in federal programs. Within three months, the Office of Management and Budget will identify agencies with serious payment problems, and within six months the OMB director, in conjuction with the Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury to implement a process to correct identified problems.
...Looking at the improper payment rates above...it's clear that some of the cabinet and non-cabinet agencies that liberals tend to defend and conservatives oppose are among those with the most embarrassing improper payment rates. Holding aside the Treasury Department--which tops the list by far in the share of improper payments, at 25.5%, all of which is for the Earned Income Tax Credit program--many of the most wasteful programs are liberal favorites. Because the table above would have been too noisy, I didn't list every one of the 72 measured programs, but among the programs above the national average of 5.0 percent are the Ag Department's School Breakfast (24.6%) and School Lunch (16.4%) programs; HHS’ Medicare Fee-for Service (7.8%), Child Care and Development Fund (11.9%), Medicaid (9.6%) and Medicare Advantage Part C (15.4%) programs; Homeland Security’s Disaster Relief Fund Vendor (8.8%) and Homeland Security Grant (18.8%) programs; Labor’s Unemployment Insurance program (10.3%); Treasury’s EITC (25.5%), and the VA’s Pension (11.2%) and Fee (17.0%) programs.
This is an unacceptable level of fraud and waste in programs that are often unable to fully serve the needs of populations that require serious help. It will be interesting to watch as this oversight process takes shape, and I'll check back in six months from now to see what OMB has learned--and what they are going to do about it."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/government-waste-through-improper.html
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Dealing With End Of Life
TW: Have posted on this several times. No doubt end of life is a challenging ethical dilemma. It is interesting that most discussion is framed on the elderly when in fact most of the same issues are relevant for everyone including premies, infants, children and middle-aged folks for that matter.
The challenge boils down to we have finite resources how do we manage them. When life and death is the topic such simplistic framing seems inadequate but without framing there is no basis upon which to address the challenge.
From Economist:
"IN RESPONSE to a post of mine from Friday, commenter MaverEcon made an insightful point: "Whenever people talk about death, it's all about platitudes. We're unwilling to have serious and respectful debates on the topic." The unseriousness is exemplified by those who toss around terms like "death panels" and "rationing" in an effort to close off debate on how end-of-life care should be managed. In reality, though, that is where the debate should begin.
In September, Lexington devoted his column to Americans' fear of death, noting
'Health reformers always smash up against two unpalatable truths. We are all going to die. And the demand for interventions that might postpone that day far outstrips the supply. No politician would be caught dead admitting this, of course: most promise that all will receive whatever is medically necessary. But what does that mean?'
For one thing, it means that Medicare spent $50 billion last year to care for patients in the last two months of their lives. As "60 Minutes" pointed out on Sunday, "that's more than the budget of the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Education." It means we give liver transplants to the terminally ill, defibrillators to those with untreatable cancer. It means we use lots of money and resources, as if we have an endless supply of both, in order to briefly delay the reaper, or avoid looking him in the eye.
As a nation, perhaps that is how we want to spend our money. That's fine (if foolish). But we have so far reached that conclusion without having an honest debate over the benefits and costs. As others have pointed out, we condemn "rationing" as if we don't already do it. For example, instead of buying some of those defibrillators and paying for some of those transplants, we could computerise America's medical records. At this time, someone holding up a placard might accuse me of "killing grandma". In reality, though, my decision would save many more grandmas—a study found that between 2002 and 2004 nearly a quarter of Medicaid beneficiaries died due to safety incidents, many of which were likely preventable with better record keeping. But improving record keeping doesn't quite have the emotional appeal of caring for the elderly. So we give grandma her procedure, whatever it may be, while ignoring the fact that more money spent in one place means less money spent in another. Ignoring that every excessive procedure comes with a cost, in terms of the nation's overall health.
If nothing else, let's debate this (with Godwin's law in mind). I'm not arguing for a "Boomsday" scenario where we start enticing the elderly to end their lives early. But I do think we should become acquainted with the reaper before he comes for us. Not only will it allow us to have more honest discussions about how we use our limited resources (by the way, feel free to use your own money to pay for any care you want), but it will also lead to more dignified deaths. I know that sounds odd, but so does this statistic presented by "60 Minutes": "A vast majority of Americans say they want to die at home, but 75% die in a hospital or a nursing home." That is because we and our loved ones often do not consider death before it is upon us. That was the idea behind the so-called "death panels"—to make dying more dignified, not to bring it on more quickly. As a nation, we've so far dealt with that topic in a very immature way.
Any debate dealing with decisions about death will stir certain emotions. We should not ignore those feelings, but we should also not let them cloud our good judgment. There was a moving seen during the "60 Minutes" report where a doctor asked an elderly patient suffering from liver and kidney failure about one end-of-life scenario:
"Either way you decide, we will honor your choice, and that's the truth," [Dr Ira] Byock reassured [Charlie] Haggart. "Should we do CPR if your heart were to suddenly stop?"
"Yes," he replied.
"You'd be okay with being in the ICU again?" Byock asked.
"Yes," Haggart said.
"I know it's an awkward conversation," Byock said.
"It beats second place," Haggart joked, laughing.
The doctor thought Mr Haggart was condemning himself to a "bad death", suffering on machines with little to no chance of recovery. In this case, though, the goal wasn't to change Mr Haggart's decision. It was to make sure it was an informed one. But would it be wrong for me to point out that his ICU care would've cost up to $10,000 a day? That same money could pay for a year's worth of care for a person with type-2 diabetes. Let the debate begin."
The challenge boils down to we have finite resources how do we manage them. When life and death is the topic such simplistic framing seems inadequate but without framing there is no basis upon which to address the challenge.
From Economist:
"IN RESPONSE to a post of mine from Friday, commenter MaverEcon made an insightful point: "Whenever people talk about death, it's all about platitudes. We're unwilling to have serious and respectful debates on the topic." The unseriousness is exemplified by those who toss around terms like "death panels" and "rationing" in an effort to close off debate on how end-of-life care should be managed. In reality, though, that is where the debate should begin.
In September, Lexington devoted his column to Americans' fear of death, noting
'Health reformers always smash up against two unpalatable truths. We are all going to die. And the demand for interventions that might postpone that day far outstrips the supply. No politician would be caught dead admitting this, of course: most promise that all will receive whatever is medically necessary. But what does that mean?'
For one thing, it means that Medicare spent $50 billion last year to care for patients in the last two months of their lives. As "60 Minutes" pointed out on Sunday, "that's more than the budget of the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Education." It means we give liver transplants to the terminally ill, defibrillators to those with untreatable cancer. It means we use lots of money and resources, as if we have an endless supply of both, in order to briefly delay the reaper, or avoid looking him in the eye.
As a nation, perhaps that is how we want to spend our money. That's fine (if foolish). But we have so far reached that conclusion without having an honest debate over the benefits and costs. As others have pointed out, we condemn "rationing" as if we don't already do it. For example, instead of buying some of those defibrillators and paying for some of those transplants, we could computerise America's medical records. At this time, someone holding up a placard might accuse me of "killing grandma". In reality, though, my decision would save many more grandmas—a study found that between 2002 and 2004 nearly a quarter of Medicaid beneficiaries died due to safety incidents, many of which were likely preventable with better record keeping. But improving record keeping doesn't quite have the emotional appeal of caring for the elderly. So we give grandma her procedure, whatever it may be, while ignoring the fact that more money spent in one place means less money spent in another. Ignoring that every excessive procedure comes with a cost, in terms of the nation's overall health.
If nothing else, let's debate this (with Godwin's law in mind). I'm not arguing for a "Boomsday" scenario where we start enticing the elderly to end their lives early. But I do think we should become acquainted with the reaper before he comes for us. Not only will it allow us to have more honest discussions about how we use our limited resources (by the way, feel free to use your own money to pay for any care you want), but it will also lead to more dignified deaths. I know that sounds odd, but so does this statistic presented by "60 Minutes": "A vast majority of Americans say they want to die at home, but 75% die in a hospital or a nursing home." That is because we and our loved ones often do not consider death before it is upon us. That was the idea behind the so-called "death panels"—to make dying more dignified, not to bring it on more quickly. As a nation, we've so far dealt with that topic in a very immature way.
Any debate dealing with decisions about death will stir certain emotions. We should not ignore those feelings, but we should also not let them cloud our good judgment. There was a moving seen during the "60 Minutes" report where a doctor asked an elderly patient suffering from liver and kidney failure about one end-of-life scenario:
"Either way you decide, we will honor your choice, and that's the truth," [Dr Ira] Byock reassured [Charlie] Haggart. "Should we do CPR if your heart were to suddenly stop?"
"Yes," he replied.
"You'd be okay with being in the ICU again?" Byock asked.
"Yes," Haggart said.
"I know it's an awkward conversation," Byock said.
"It beats second place," Haggart joked, laughing.
The doctor thought Mr Haggart was condemning himself to a "bad death", suffering on machines with little to no chance of recovery. In this case, though, the goal wasn't to change Mr Haggart's decision. It was to make sure it was an informed one. But would it be wrong for me to point out that his ICU care would've cost up to $10,000 a day? That same money could pay for a year's worth of care for a person with type-2 diabetes. Let the debate begin."
Who Cares!
From Politics Daily:
"His job approval numbers may be facing a rocky stretch, but President Obama still leads all the possible Republican challengers for 2012 that Public Policy Polling tested in a survey conducted Nov. 13-15.
Obama leads Mike Huckabee by 49 percent to 44 percent with 7 percent undecided; Sarah Palin by 51 percent to 43 percent with 5 percent undecided; Ron Paul by 46 percent to 38 percent with 16 percent undecided; and Mitt Romney by 48 percent to 43 percent with 9 percent undecided..."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/20/obama-still-leads-potential-gop-challengers-for-2012/
TW: This stuff is such a waste. One of my big disapointments over the past year has been the evolution of media both MSM and blogosphere towards horse race/process stories 24/7. Will we ever get off the merry-go-round long enough to actually govern something. Barring tragedy Obama is POTUS for three more years regardless of circumstances. I post very little on the 2010 elections much less 2012. These polls are irrelevant. Process is easy journalism substantive more expensive to produce and more difficult to create.
"His job approval numbers may be facing a rocky stretch, but President Obama still leads all the possible Republican challengers for 2012 that Public Policy Polling tested in a survey conducted Nov. 13-15.
Obama leads Mike Huckabee by 49 percent to 44 percent with 7 percent undecided; Sarah Palin by 51 percent to 43 percent with 5 percent undecided; Ron Paul by 46 percent to 38 percent with 16 percent undecided; and Mitt Romney by 48 percent to 43 percent with 9 percent undecided..."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/20/obama-still-leads-potential-gop-challengers-for-2012/
TW: This stuff is such a waste. One of my big disapointments over the past year has been the evolution of media both MSM and blogosphere towards horse race/process stories 24/7. Will we ever get off the merry-go-round long enough to actually govern something. Barring tragedy Obama is POTUS for three more years regardless of circumstances. I post very little on the 2010 elections much less 2012. These polls are irrelevant. Process is easy journalism substantive more expensive to produce and more difficult to create.
"Socialism" In Action
From the Big Picture:
"This is actually terrific news:
“The Obama administration’s push to solve the nation’s energy problems, a massive federal program that rivals the Manhattan Project, is spurring a once-in-a-generation shift in U.S. science.
The government’s multibillion-dollar push into energy research is reinvigorating 17 giant U.S.-funded research facilities, from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory here to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. After many years of flat budgets, these labs are ramping up to develop new electricity sources, trying to build more-efficient cars and addressing climate change.
In fiscal 2009, the Obama administration increased the funding by 18%, to $4.76 billion, to the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, which oversees 10 national labs and funds research at another seven. The office will receive $1.6 billion in government stimulus spending, as well, much of which it will also channel to these laboratories.”
We have had a series of incremental gains in various alt.energy technology. What we need is a major breakthrough in Physics — on a fundamental level — in solar energy efficiency, battery storage, transfer technology, wind resources, wave/tide conversion, etc."
TW: These are exactly the programs many Republicans would kill. War spending up, prison spending up, science research not so much.
"This is actually terrific news:
“The Obama administration’s push to solve the nation’s energy problems, a massive federal program that rivals the Manhattan Project, is spurring a once-in-a-generation shift in U.S. science.
The government’s multibillion-dollar push into energy research is reinvigorating 17 giant U.S.-funded research facilities, from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory here to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. After many years of flat budgets, these labs are ramping up to develop new electricity sources, trying to build more-efficient cars and addressing climate change.
In fiscal 2009, the Obama administration increased the funding by 18%, to $4.76 billion, to the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, which oversees 10 national labs and funds research at another seven. The office will receive $1.6 billion in government stimulus spending, as well, much of which it will also channel to these laboratories.”
We have had a series of incremental gains in various alt.energy technology. What we need is a major breakthrough in Physics — on a fundamental level — in solar energy efficiency, battery storage, transfer technology, wind resources, wave/tide conversion, etc."
TW: These are exactly the programs many Republicans would kill. War spending up, prison spending up, science research not so much.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Spoiled Monkeys
TW: Apparently in Brazil if the temps get too hot at the zoo the monkeys get popsicles.Food For Thought
From Economist:
"...It is rather counter-intuitive that many investors, who are fervent believers in the free market system and resentful of "big government" in America, tend to have great faith in the ability of Chinese communists to manage their economy."
TW: I would add it is not just investors but politicians and the public. Many of whom are deathly fearful of losing influence to the COMMUNIST run Chinese economy yet shriek and bitch and claw at the thought of alleged proto-socialistic policies in the U.S. These whiners would not know Karl Marx if he smacked them across their face.
"...It is rather counter-intuitive that many investors, who are fervent believers in the free market system and resentful of "big government" in America, tend to have great faith in the ability of Chinese communists to manage their economy."
TW: I would add it is not just investors but politicians and the public. Many of whom are deathly fearful of losing influence to the COMMUNIST run Chinese economy yet shriek and bitch and claw at the thought of alleged proto-socialistic policies in the U.S. These whiners would not know Karl Marx if he smacked them across their face.
Why Not Pay For Wars?
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"A couple of weeks back, Matthew Yglesias had an insightful post noting that 'by far the fastest way to end the war in Afghanistan would be to ask General McChrystal’s staff to produce a plan to make it deficit neutral and find sixty votes in the Senate for his financing plan.'..."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/death_and_taxes.html
From Joe Klein at Time:
"Congressman David Obey, who called for a tax to pay for the war in Iraq two years ago, has done it again. He's calling for a tax to pay for Afghanistan. It's a very good idea for several reasons:
1. A war is, one would hope, a temporary aberration from budget norms, requiring a jolt of new revenues. It is also the most consequential decision that a President and Congress can make; therefore, they should be willing to put their money where their mouths are.
2. The notion of shared sacrifice has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle. If we really "support" the troops, we should support the troops...In a war, every citizen should have to contribute something to the effort.
Some will say: it won't pass, and we have national security interests in Afghanistan. Trye enough. I'm in favor of continuing the Afghan campaign, and I'd be more than willing to pay my fair share for it...But there's a larger national interest that needs to be tested: in the Reagan era, a disconnect has developed between the people and their fiscal responsibilities. Any tax that ties one to the other over a concrete matter, like a war, will help rebuild the necessary relationship between spending and taxing. For Republicans who favor the war but oppose taxation, this would be a particularly crucial test of citizenship. (Although it should be noted that the Democrat Lyndon Johnson was the first to fudge the funding of a war, in Vietnam.)
If the public honestly wants the Taliban to return to power in Afghanistan and increase the risk of an Islamist military coup in Pakistan, then its views should be honored. I can't believe that will be the case...if the case is properly made. But if the public believes that U.S. national security requires a continuing presence in Afghanistan, then it should be willing to pay the tab."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/23/obeys-war-tax/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fswampland+%28TIME%3A+Swampland%29
"A couple of weeks back, Matthew Yglesias had an insightful post noting that 'by far the fastest way to end the war in Afghanistan would be to ask General McChrystal’s staff to produce a plan to make it deficit neutral and find sixty votes in the Senate for his financing plan.'..."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/death_and_taxes.html
From Joe Klein at Time:
"Congressman David Obey, who called for a tax to pay for the war in Iraq two years ago, has done it again. He's calling for a tax to pay for Afghanistan. It's a very good idea for several reasons:
1. A war is, one would hope, a temporary aberration from budget norms, requiring a jolt of new revenues. It is also the most consequential decision that a President and Congress can make; therefore, they should be willing to put their money where their mouths are.
2. The notion of shared sacrifice has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle. If we really "support" the troops, we should support the troops...In a war, every citizen should have to contribute something to the effort.
Some will say: it won't pass, and we have national security interests in Afghanistan. Trye enough. I'm in favor of continuing the Afghan campaign, and I'd be more than willing to pay my fair share for it...But there's a larger national interest that needs to be tested: in the Reagan era, a disconnect has developed between the people and their fiscal responsibilities. Any tax that ties one to the other over a concrete matter, like a war, will help rebuild the necessary relationship between spending and taxing. For Republicans who favor the war but oppose taxation, this would be a particularly crucial test of citizenship. (Although it should be noted that the Democrat Lyndon Johnson was the first to fudge the funding of a war, in Vietnam.)
If the public honestly wants the Taliban to return to power in Afghanistan and increase the risk of an Islamist military coup in Pakistan, then its views should be honored. I can't believe that will be the case...if the case is properly made. But if the public believes that U.S. national security requires a continuing presence in Afghanistan, then it should be willing to pay the tab."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/23/obeys-war-tax/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fswampland+%28TIME%3A+Swampland%29
So What Would You Do?
TW: This is another chart from the Economist piece on fiscal policy. It is a 
useful chart though in that provides a framework to evaluate fiscal policy alternatives. They use 2014 as the base year reflecting their understanding that cutting spending amidst a demand contraction like many Republicans (and a few Dems) would be economically foolish. Review the choices.
The chart suffers a bit from the reality that bending spending categories like retirement ages and social security benefit increases take time to materialize into significant savings. The savings in year one are quite modest but the power of compounding would turn them into very material savings over time. The Economist also chose to leave out reducing defense spending as an alterantive.
So what would you suggest?
useful chart though in that provides a framework to evaluate fiscal policy alternatives. They use 2014 as the base year reflecting their understanding that cutting spending amidst a demand contraction like many Republicans (and a few Dems) would be economically foolish. Review the choices.
The chart suffers a bit from the reality that bending spending categories like retirement ages and social security benefit increases take time to materialize into significant savings. The savings in year one are quite modest but the power of compounding would turn them into very material savings over time. The Economist also chose to leave out reducing defense spending as an alterantive.
So what would you suggest?
Monday, November 23, 2009
My Food Post For TGiving
TW: Watch out Ms. Blogger, Mr. Blogger is moving into your space...
"MAKES 12 SERVINGS
4 tablespoons butter
1 large white onion, peeled and diced
1/2 head celery, diced
1 pound brown mushrooms, sliced
1/2 ounce fresh sage, chopped
1 tablespoon paprika
¼ teaspoon fresh grated nutmeg
18 White Castle hamburgers (no pickles), chopped into 1-inch pieces, or 1 small loaf white bread, cubed and toasted
1 cup chicken stock
Salt and pepper
Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
In a large saute pan, heat butter until foamy. Add onions and celery and cook until tender but still slightly crisp. Add mushrooms and some salt. Cook until mushrooms are brown and liquid is gone.
Add sage, paprika and nutmeg to the pan and cook until spices are fragrant.
Pour the mixture into a bowl and add diced White Castles; toss together. Put the stuffing in a baking dish and drizzle chicken stock over. Toss again and season to taste.
Bake for 20 minutes, uncovered, until the top is brown and crispy.
Jill and Chris Barron
Nutrition facts per serving: 162 calories, 10 g fat, 5 g saturated fat, 22 mg cholesterol, 13 g carbohydrates, 6 g protein, 259 mg sodium, 1 g fiber
From Chi Sun-Times
"MAKES 12 SERVINGS
4 tablespoons butter
1 large white onion, peeled and diced
1/2 head celery, diced
1 pound brown mushrooms, sliced
1/2 ounce fresh sage, chopped
1 tablespoon paprika
¼ teaspoon fresh grated nutmeg
18 White Castle hamburgers (no pickles), chopped into 1-inch pieces, or 1 small loaf white bread, cubed and toasted
1 cup chicken stock
Salt and pepper
Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
In a large saute pan, heat butter until foamy. Add onions and celery and cook until tender but still slightly crisp. Add mushrooms and some salt. Cook until mushrooms are brown and liquid is gone.
Add sage, paprika and nutmeg to the pan and cook until spices are fragrant.
Pour the mixture into a bowl and add diced White Castles; toss together. Put the stuffing in a baking dish and drizzle chicken stock over. Toss again and season to taste.
Bake for 20 minutes, uncovered, until the top is brown and crispy.
Jill and Chris Barron
Nutrition facts per serving: 162 calories, 10 g fat, 5 g saturated fat, 22 mg cholesterol, 13 g carbohydrates, 6 g protein, 259 mg sodium, 1 g fiber
From Chi Sun-Times
Looking Outward, Not Inward
From Economist:"JOHN JUDIS had a nice comparison in the New Republic of coverage of Barack Obama's South Korea visit in two American newspapers, on the one hand, and the Financial Times, on the other..."Both the Post and the Times focus not on South Korea per se, but on Obama's taking a 'stern tone' toward North Korea in his discussions with the South Koreans," Mr Judis writes. "OK, pardon me if I yawn." In the FT's story, by contrast:
'The headline reads, “Seoul trades on better ties with Beijing than Washington.” Hmm. That’s interesting and says something important about the balance of power in Asia and the world. Now here are the opening paragraphs:
'When George Bush senior visited Seoul as US president 20 years ago, things were simple – the US was the undisputed main ally and trade partner. Astonishingly, there was only one weekly flight from South Korea to China, the communist foe.'
'Barack Obama on Wednesday visits a South Korea where the US is no longer the only show in town. China is now the main trade partner, with 642 flights each week.'
...the American focus on North Korea derives from an obsession with military threats, which Americans find the most interesting stories in foreign affairs. That attitude is to some extent a holdover from the way America built its predominant international position during the cold war, so it's an attitude shared by the people who staff government. But it's also a broadly held popular worldview. Americans are not as interested in the intricacies of world trade. The kinds of shifts in the world that are reflected in the number of daily flights between South Korea and China don't really register with Americans. And that fact is not unrelated to the fact that America has spent the last decade focused on two largely fruitless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while China was focusing mainly on its commercial relationships with both emerging economies and the developed world"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/11/action_sequences.cfm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economist%2Fblogs%2Fdemocracyinamerica+%28The+Economist%3A+Democracy+in+America%29
TW: Things they are a changing, I pound the table repeatedly about the need for American governance to compete more effectively in this evolving world where America's relative power is in decline. But the only that governance will improve will be if our populace engages and demands actual broad-minded, innovative (read non-entrenched, non-reactionary) policies. This does not mean America "surrenders" or weakens its resolve relative to core values but it does mean we look at things through evolving lens.
Revenue Flat, Spending Up
TW: Economist has been doing some work on U.S. fiscal policy. They are a good source, fiscally conservative but not dogmatic on either spending or taxes in other words realistic. This chart starts in 1980 not by coincidence. 1981 was when the Reagan Revolution introduced the U.S. to massive deficits. What does this chart say to you?To me I see revenues as a % of GDP gyrating but at the end of the day staying roughly flat. The gyrations related primarily to the Reagan tax cuts, then the W. Bush tax cuts (for the wealthy) and finally the Great Recession which decimated tax receipts.
On the spending side Reagan increased spending (largely on defense) then Clinton balanced the budget (with zero Republican votes in '93) partially on the back of the Peace Dividend as well as strong overall economic growth. Then spending began to rise again with W. Bush before skyrocketing with the bailouts in late 2008 and 2009 combined with some stimulus. In the out years spending rises as social security and Medicare begin to bite hard, note the spending rise has little to do with any new Obama policies as they have yet to be enacted and the health care reform would show up as essentially deficit neutral in this type graph.
Fundamentally this graph portrays a nation whose taxes have remained flat (at least at the federal level), yet whose consumption of social security, health care and defense continue unabated and are rising faster than GDP. When a cost is rising faster than GDP then either that cost curve must be bent downward or one has a bad problem.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
46 Years Ago
TW: Walter Cronkite passed away earlier this year. This clip captured as well as any the contemporaneous shock of the event he covered 47 years ago today.
Drang nach Osten
From Wikipedia:
"Drang nach Osten (German for "yearning for the East",[1] "thrust toward the East",[2] "push eastward",[3] "drive toward the East"[4] or "desire to push East"[5]) was a term coined in the 19th century to designate German expansion into Slavic lands.[4] The term became a motto of the German nationalist movement in the late nineteenth century.[6] In some historical discourses, "Drang nach Osten" combines historical German settlement in Eastern Europe, medieval military expeditions like the ones of the Teutonic Knights, and Germanisation policies and warfare of Modern Age German states like the Nazi lebensraum concept..."
From Palin interview with Barbara Walters:
"PALIN: I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.
WALTERS: Even if it’s [in] Palestinian areas?
PALIN: I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expand."
TW: I am not equating Drang nach Osten with Israeli policy. I am equating their policy with colonialism which in this day and age should raise serious red flags. In fairness to the Germans relative to Drang nach Osten, numerous Western powers created bullshit arguments for their own colonial ambitions.
The Palin quote though shows what happens when immature, ill-informed folks attempt to articulate policy without having the basis to do so. Consistently when faced with the most rudimentary policy questions, Palin issues incoherent or worse dangerous rhetoric. This particular stance on settlements is the proto neo-con position supported by many fundamentalist Christians as well. Usually more artfully stated (in a way I suppose) by relying upon biblical texts etc. rather than the bald-faced population expansion angle. Being a "real" person means many things to many people, but it should not mean placing a Palin type person on a stage in which she could do great harm to our national interests.
"Drang nach Osten (German for "yearning for the East",[1] "thrust toward the East",[2] "push eastward",[3] "drive toward the East"[4] or "desire to push East"[5]) was a term coined in the 19th century to designate German expansion into Slavic lands.[4] The term became a motto of the German nationalist movement in the late nineteenth century.[6] In some historical discourses, "Drang nach Osten" combines historical German settlement in Eastern Europe, medieval military expeditions like the ones of the Teutonic Knights, and Germanisation policies and warfare of Modern Age German states like the Nazi lebensraum concept..."
From Palin interview with Barbara Walters:
"PALIN: I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.
WALTERS: Even if it’s [in] Palestinian areas?
PALIN: I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expand."
TW: I am not equating Drang nach Osten with Israeli policy. I am equating their policy with colonialism which in this day and age should raise serious red flags. In fairness to the Germans relative to Drang nach Osten, numerous Western powers created bullshit arguments for their own colonial ambitions.
The Palin quote though shows what happens when immature, ill-informed folks attempt to articulate policy without having the basis to do so. Consistently when faced with the most rudimentary policy questions, Palin issues incoherent or worse dangerous rhetoric. This particular stance on settlements is the proto neo-con position supported by many fundamentalist Christians as well. Usually more artfully stated (in a way I suppose) by relying upon biblical texts etc. rather than the bald-faced population expansion angle. Being a "real" person means many things to many people, but it should not mean placing a Palin type person on a stage in which she could do great harm to our national interests.
>
Things I Like - Odds & Ends
Let’s hope that climate change is addressed before we melt the ice caps…
New York City after a catastrophic flood - might not be so bad.
5th Avenue at 53rd Street
Broadway and 29th Street
Times Square
Drawings by Studio Lindfors.
See more at BLD BLOG
New York City after a catastrophic flood - might not be so bad.
5th Avenue at 53rd Street
Broadway and 29th Street
Times Square
Drawings by Studio Lindfors.
See more at BLD BLOG
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Deep Thoughts
"If any vegans came over for dinner, I could whip them up a salad, then explain my philosophy on being a carnivore: If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?"
-- Ms. Palin in her tome "Going Rogue"
TW: I am still pondering this one...
-- Ms. Palin in her tome "Going Rogue"
TW: I am still pondering this one...
Things I Like - Chicago
This is BIG - today is the grand opening of a new bookstore in Chicago, Open Books. Yes, the fact that a bookstore is opening and not closing is good to hear, but the big news is that this used bookstore is also a non-profit entity that promotes literacy.
Open Books, located at 213 W. Institute Place,
… will look and operate like any other except that proceeds will fund literacy programs for children and adults in the same building. It's the next step for the organization founded three years ago to run programs aimed at improving reading and writing skills.So check out the new store, check out the website, buy some books and help support literacy in Chicago.
Through viral marketing, word-of-mouth and savvy salesmanship, Keaty, 31, and Ratner, 37 -- two business professionals with a shared background in corporate marketing and small-business entrepreneurship -- quickly amassed a volunteer list totaling 4,000, a small staff, corporate grants and thousands of books donated from Itasca to Iraq.
Their model is already bringing queries from literacy advocates in other cities who hope to raise awareness -- and funds -- in their communities.
~ Chicago Tribune
Friday, November 20, 2009
All In the Game Yo
TW: The Wire is rightly regarded as classic TV. The above captures 100 top quotes. If you are not comfortable with the F word used in all of its grammatical formats I would strongly suggest alternative programming.
Byrd Sets a Unfortunate Record
TW: Completely agree with Klein here. The tradition of folks holding on far too long especially in the Senate and often on the Supreme Court is unfortunate (same could be said of some college football coaches). This dynamic demonstrates the power of incumbency which creates a self-fulfilling inertia. We have retirement ages for many professions for a reason. Why the Senate (or House etc.) should be different is not clear to me.
From Ezra Klein:
"Robert Byrd Jr...the 91-year-old West Virginian is officially the longest-serving member of Congress, having cast more than 18,000 votes and served for more than 20,000 days. Congratulations?
This will reveal me as something of a skunk, but these records are bad things, not good ones. Byrd has spent the past year too sick to reliably carry out his day-to-day duties. It's routinely mentioned that Democrats can't count on 60 votes because they don't know whether Byrd will be able to cast his vote. Similarly long-serving public figures such as Strom Thurmond and Thurgood Marshall spent their final years virtually incapacitated, totally reliant on staff.
There's a tendency in Washington to celebrate extremely long careers despite the fact that the extra length often extends the career beyond the point of useful service. People are honored for sticking around, when the courageous and hard thing would be to cede their seat or position. The celebration and historical permanence given to these sorts of records is part of why they do it. Byrd has accomplished much in his career, and there's plenty in his service worth honoring (his eloquent opposition to the Iraq war, for instance, but this isn't a record I'm eager to see others emulate."
From Ezra Klein:
"Robert Byrd Jr...the 91-year-old West Virginian is officially the longest-serving member of Congress, having cast more than 18,000 votes and served for more than 20,000 days. Congratulations?
This will reveal me as something of a skunk, but these records are bad things, not good ones. Byrd has spent the past year too sick to reliably carry out his day-to-day duties. It's routinely mentioned that Democrats can't count on 60 votes because they don't know whether Byrd will be able to cast his vote. Similarly long-serving public figures such as Strom Thurmond and Thurgood Marshall spent their final years virtually incapacitated, totally reliant on staff.
There's a tendency in Washington to celebrate extremely long careers despite the fact that the extra length often extends the career beyond the point of useful service. People are honored for sticking around, when the courageous and hard thing would be to cede their seat or position. The celebration and historical permanence given to these sorts of records is part of why they do it. Byrd has accomplished much in his career, and there's plenty in his service worth honoring (his eloquent opposition to the Iraq war, for instance, but this isn't a record I'm eager to see others emulate."
My Fellow Americans...Such As They Are
From Ezra Klein:
"A couple of days ago, Ross Douthat and I spoke to a class that E.J. Dionne teaches. At some point, I was riffing about how it's a pretty odd political system in which a solid 45 percent of the people believe in death panels and yet public opinion on health-care reform is closely split. Douthat replied that he'd seen research showing that most of the people who say they hold extreme opinions do not, if questioned more deeply, hold those opinions. It's more of a group identification thing. I'm choosing to believe he's right, because I don't really know what to do with a polity in which 52 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the election from John McCain."
TW: I agree with Douthat, kinda. If pressed do people really believe this stuff, most probably not, but what group exactly are they identifying with?
From Andrew Sullivan:
"A new poll finds that 51 percent of Americans think canceling the rest of the stimulus would create more jobs. Derek Thompson is slack-jawed:
The idea that canceling the stimulus would create more jobs implies that passing the stimulus has actually killed more jobs than it's created, which is bonkers. Let's say you don't want to consider infrastructure spending or green technology spending or a single job that might have been created in the private sector. If nothing else, the tens of billions we've sent to state budgets have, without question, saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, like teachers, that are supported by state taxes. It's just a very basic fact.
They're watching Fox. Facts don't matter."
"A couple of days ago, Ross Douthat and I spoke to a class that E.J. Dionne teaches. At some point, I was riffing about how it's a pretty odd political system in which a solid 45 percent of the people believe in death panels and yet public opinion on health-care reform is closely split. Douthat replied that he'd seen research showing that most of the people who say they hold extreme opinions do not, if questioned more deeply, hold those opinions. It's more of a group identification thing. I'm choosing to believe he's right, because I don't really know what to do with a polity in which 52 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the election from John McCain."
TW: I agree with Douthat, kinda. If pressed do people really believe this stuff, most probably not, but what group exactly are they identifying with?
From Andrew Sullivan:
"A new poll finds that 51 percent of Americans think canceling the rest of the stimulus would create more jobs. Derek Thompson is slack-jawed:
The idea that canceling the stimulus would create more jobs implies that passing the stimulus has actually killed more jobs than it's created, which is bonkers. Let's say you don't want to consider infrastructure spending or green technology spending or a single job that might have been created in the private sector. If nothing else, the tens of billions we've sent to state budgets have, without question, saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, like teachers, that are supported by state taxes. It's just a very basic fact.
They're watching Fox. Facts don't matter."
Things I Like - Sciences
In the “It’s a good thing but I’m still grossed out” category, a nutritionist in Nigeria thinks she has the answer to the problem of malnutrition in Africa – the giant snail.According to Ukpong Udofia of the University of Uyoa, these babies (which grow up to 12 cm or 4 ½ inches long) are more nutritious than beef. The giant snails are found in forests and swamps but can also be cultivated. And since they consume far less water, space and food than cattle (or most any other protein source), they are economical too.
The only time I’ve ever seen snails of any size eaten (note that I’ve seen them eaten, I’ve never had them myself), is the French preparation of escargot. Lot’s of butter and garlic which can usually make anything taste good. Apparently, the African preparation of choice is snail pie.
Mmm, tasty.Via Treehugger
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Rise And Fall Of Western Empires
Visualizing empires decline from Pedro M Cruz on Vimeo.
TW: Very cool visual representation of the evoluation of European colonies through time. Via Paul Kedrosky.
http://vimeo.com/6437816
Stewart Nails Another One
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| ||||
TW: Stewart nails the Palin thing like no other...his riff starts about 3:00 minutes into the clip although the Lieberman tangent is good too (and shame on Ratigan! that sloppiness feeds Palidiocy).
Fiscal Conservatism?
TW: If Obama is to be a great POTUS, one of the attributes will need to be navigating the swirling fiscal currents which integrate the realities of our economic situation with the frequently contradictory realities of our political system. The public is always left with its head spinning. Should one care about deficits? "Deficits don't matter" said VP Dick Cheney, when the wealthy were being showered with tax cuts, $ poured into Iraq and Medicare prescription drug benefits doled out like crack. "The country is headed into a fiscal hell" says most every Republican now that some $ is being spent on stimulus and financial stabilization.
When should Obama shift to fiscal conservatism? That is a question, another would be whether Americans could actually accept fiscal conservatism. Taxes? Spending cuts not on someone else but on something that impact YOU? I obviously wish him well.
From Andrew Sullivan at Atlantic:
"...I've been arguing that the Obama administration needs to pivot swiftly from health insurance reform to fiscal responsibility in the coming months. The recession made deficit cutting in the here and now imprudent in his first year; but now addressing the long-term debt is itself necessary for stabilizing the economy - and reassuring independent voters that he, unlike his predecessor, gives a damn about fiscal health. Well: the good news is that he's going to do exactly that:
'President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs...'
This classic Politico piece..fails to mention a few things about Obama's spending in his first year.
Item one: the recession.
To treat the stimulus package as if it were something he just felt like doing - because he's a big government maniac - is a lie, a piece of propaganda that has seeped into the lazy Beltway desire to describe everything - even now - into the big government/small government, red-blue paradigm.
Item two: The health insurance reform almost painfully tries to pay for itself - something that Bush's Medicare entitlement didn't even pretend to do.
Item three: there's a big big difference between spending on green and infrastructure investment and slashing taxes or increasing Medicare entitlements.
The way in which cynical and amnesiac Republicans have tried to portray this as classic big government liberalism is a lie. You can debate the merits of each initiative, but this is obviously not an administration as fiscally reckless as the last one. Mercifully, they have a chance to show it in earnest next year. And to call the bluff of those Republicans yelling about spending while having absolutely no plans or ideas for cutting it."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/obama-deficit-hawk.html#more
When should Obama shift to fiscal conservatism? That is a question, another would be whether Americans could actually accept fiscal conservatism. Taxes? Spending cuts not on someone else but on something that impact YOU? I obviously wish him well.
From Andrew Sullivan at Atlantic:
"...I've been arguing that the Obama administration needs to pivot swiftly from health insurance reform to fiscal responsibility in the coming months. The recession made deficit cutting in the here and now imprudent in his first year; but now addressing the long-term debt is itself necessary for stabilizing the economy - and reassuring independent voters that he, unlike his predecessor, gives a damn about fiscal health. Well: the good news is that he's going to do exactly that:
'President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs...'
This classic Politico piece..fails to mention a few things about Obama's spending in his first year.
Item one: the recession.
To treat the stimulus package as if it were something he just felt like doing - because he's a big government maniac - is a lie, a piece of propaganda that has seeped into the lazy Beltway desire to describe everything - even now - into the big government/small government, red-blue paradigm.
Item two: The health insurance reform almost painfully tries to pay for itself - something that Bush's Medicare entitlement didn't even pretend to do.
Item three: there's a big big difference between spending on green and infrastructure investment and slashing taxes or increasing Medicare entitlements.
The way in which cynical and amnesiac Republicans have tried to portray this as classic big government liberalism is a lie. You can debate the merits of each initiative, but this is obviously not an administration as fiscally reckless as the last one. Mercifully, they have a chance to show it in earnest next year. And to call the bluff of those Republicans yelling about spending while having absolutely no plans or ideas for cutting it."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/obama-deficit-hawk.html#more
Things I Like - Books
When you would rather read a book than do just about anything else, obtaining new reading material can become a chore. And of course, there’s the issue of what to do with the book once you’ve finished reading it – unlike Mr. Gaiman, I do not have an entire basement that can be given over to book storage.It’s a good thing we have an internet connection here at the White House. Not only is there a tremendous amount of fiction available for on-line enjoyment at any time, there is no storage issue to deal with once you’ve finished reading.
A couple weeks ago, I mentioned Corduroy Mansions, the on-line serialization by Alexander McCall Smith. Well, I’ve run across another one – this time by Cory Doctorow who is serializing his latest book Makers on Tor.com. Actually, he serialized the first 10 chapters of the book several years ago on Salon.com under the name Themepunks. The current series on Tor will be the complete book which was published in the US last month.
There are 81 chapters scheduled and 3 are posted each week (on Monday, Wednesday and Friday), chapter 59 came out yesterday.
Doctorow is a science fiction writer of the post-cyberpunk variety*. I had seen his name before but hadn’t read anything until I found the on-line novel. I’m up through part 4 and find it pretty interesting. I will definitely add him to my list of authors to look up next time I’m in a bookstore.
One other thought – I find that I’m kind of liking the whole serialization approach. Sometimes I’ll get so caught up in reading that I won’t stop until I’m finished. Not only does this take up a lot of time, it also contributes to my constant need for new reading material. I’ve never been one for pacing myself. Thank goodness I still have 55 chapters of Makers to go.
*Btw - I had no idea what cyperpunk meant, let alone post-cyperpunk. Per Wikipedia,
Cyberpunk is a genre of science fiction noted for its focus on "high tech and low life"…It features advanced science, such as information technology and cybernetics, coupled with a degree of breakdown or radical change in the social order.
Cyberpunk plots often center on a conflict among hackers, artificial intelligences, and mega-corporations…The settings are usually post-industrial dystopias but tend to be marked by extraordinary cultural ferment and the use of technology in ways never anticipated by its creators…
…typical post-cyberpunk stories continue the focus on a ubiquitous datasphere of computerized information and cybernetic augmentation of the human body, but without the assumption of dystopia.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The U.S. As a Tube Map
(click to enlarge)
TW: Those of you familiar with the London tube maps will recognize this format...
TW: Those of you familiar with the London tube maps will recognize this format...
No Apology Ever On Hiroshima
From an Economist blogger in a recent post:
"...I doubt there will be an American apology in my lifetime for the holocausts of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. I count them as atrocities, and don't buy the convenient line that they saved tens of thousands of American lives..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2009/10/history_wars.cfm
TW: My response to the blogger in a comment was "oh really, please explain", of course he never did, he just threw out a not unique but outrageous statement casually. As WWII fades from collective memory to merely long ago history, folks tend to bending history in different ways. The world was damn lucky the U.S. got the bomb first and used it only twice during a period of a week. Folks throw out names like Hitler and Stalin with no clue as to what those guys truly represented, likewise accusing the U.S. of holocausts is facile nonsense. Americans are naive idealists at times but usually (but not always) a better option than the alternatives.
From Tom Barnett:
"Without a doubt, it was a brilliant call by Truman that saved tens of thousands of American lives and far more Japanese lives. The villain in this show was never Harry [Truman], but the Emperor, who blithely let so many of his countrymen die in the futile final months of his regime's brutal war of conquest that brought untold suffering to people throughout Asia.
I have always found Japan's efforts to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cast Imperial Japan as innocent victim as one of the most distasteful lies of the 20th century--right up there with Holocaust deniers. That regime absolutely got what it deserved, and found some salvation only in serving as the warning to others regarding the damage nukes can cause."
"...I doubt there will be an American apology in my lifetime for the holocausts of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. I count them as atrocities, and don't buy the convenient line that they saved tens of thousands of American lives..."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2009/10/history_wars.cfm
TW: My response to the blogger in a comment was "oh really, please explain", of course he never did, he just threw out a not unique but outrageous statement casually. As WWII fades from collective memory to merely long ago history, folks tend to bending history in different ways. The world was damn lucky the U.S. got the bomb first and used it only twice during a period of a week. Folks throw out names like Hitler and Stalin with no clue as to what those guys truly represented, likewise accusing the U.S. of holocausts is facile nonsense. Americans are naive idealists at times but usually (but not always) a better option than the alternatives.
From Tom Barnett:
"Without a doubt, it was a brilliant call by Truman that saved tens of thousands of American lives and far more Japanese lives. The villain in this show was never Harry [Truman], but the Emperor, who blithely let so many of his countrymen die in the futile final months of his regime's brutal war of conquest that brought untold suffering to people throughout Asia.
I have always found Japan's efforts to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cast Imperial Japan as innocent victim as one of the most distasteful lies of the 20th century--right up there with Holocaust deniers. That regime absolutely got what it deserved, and found some salvation only in serving as the warning to others regarding the damage nukes can cause."
Things I Like - Food
Time for another recipe – this one is in regular rotation at the White House. It’s easy to make and hard to mess up, very tasty although not necessarily pretty. I’m talking about Escarole, Sausage & White Bean Pasta.
The name pretty much sums it up – add some garlic (ok, a lot of garlic), crushed red pepper flakes and chicken broth and you’re good to go. A great dish now that the weather is turning cold, serve with a glass of wine and some Italian bread.
See the comments for the recipe and enjoy.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Hypocrisy
TW: Klein hits all the notes. Read the list of folks who voted for the Medicare Prescription Benefit, almost everyone of them has at some point this year pontificated about deficit spending blah, blah, blah. What makes my teeth itch is that folks cannot wrap their collective heads around the notion that deficits should be addressed when times are good, NOT when times are bad. None of these hypocrites lifted a finger during the W. Bush administration as national security spending exploded, medicare increased unabated and tax cuts for the wealthy were doled out like luxury candy.
Yet as Obama seeks to address a gaping hole in American society, the lack of universal coverage, a problem that is growing as more and more folks are squeezed out of coverage; all we hear from the hypocrites is blaaaah, guvmint is taking over, baaaaah.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
Quoting Matt Yglesias-
'John Breaux and Bill Frist have an op-ed in Politico whose exoteric message is that Congress should use the 2003 Medicare bill as a model for bipartisan health reform. The esoteric message is a reminder that the easiest way to get a bipartisan deal passed is to just have bipartisan agreement not to pay for it at all. That was the secret to the 2003 bill. First you take something a bloc of voters want — in this case prescription drugs — then you figure out a way to provide it in a manner that’s very good for the interests of stakeholders in the business community. Easy as pie.'
It is insane that the people who voted for the deficit-financed, $700 billion Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit are allowed to scream about fiscal rectitude this year. Just amazing. The occasional defense I've heard is that 2003 wasn't the middle of the most severe recession in memory. That's a defense in much the same way that poking yourself in both eyes so you can't see your assailant is a defense. Deficit spending makes more sense during recessions, not less. Deficit spending is also cheaper during recessions, as interest rates are lower because investors want to buy treasuries.
By the way, for those keeping score, the senators who voted for Medicare Part D and are still in the Senate are:
Lamar Alexander, Max Baucus, Bob Bennett, Kit Bond, Jim Bunning, Tom Carper, Saxby Chambliss, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Kent Conrad, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Byron Dorgan, Mike Enzi, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, James Inhofe, Jon Kyl, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Dick Lugar, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Ben Nelson, Pat Roberts, Pete Sessions, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, George Voinovich and Ron Wyden. Lieberman did not vote.
None of these people have any authority to complain about the spending in health-care reform. When the CBO scored Medicare Part D, it concludes that the bill "would increase mandatory outlays by $407 billion for fiscal years 2004 to 2013 and would raise federal revenues by $7 billion over that period." In other words, it was a vote to add about $400 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years, and trillions more in the decades after that.
The health-care reform bills currently under consideration in both the Senate and the House actually cut money from the deficit, but they are being criticized as fiscally irresponsible by many of the people who voted for Medicare Part D. It's like watching arsonists calling the fire department reckless."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/the_lessons_of_medicare_part_d.html
Yet as Obama seeks to address a gaping hole in American society, the lack of universal coverage, a problem that is growing as more and more folks are squeezed out of coverage; all we hear from the hypocrites is blaaaah, guvmint is taking over, baaaaah.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
Quoting Matt Yglesias-
'John Breaux and Bill Frist have an op-ed in Politico whose exoteric message is that Congress should use the 2003 Medicare bill as a model for bipartisan health reform. The esoteric message is a reminder that the easiest way to get a bipartisan deal passed is to just have bipartisan agreement not to pay for it at all. That was the secret to the 2003 bill. First you take something a bloc of voters want — in this case prescription drugs — then you figure out a way to provide it in a manner that’s very good for the interests of stakeholders in the business community. Easy as pie.'
It is insane that the people who voted for the deficit-financed, $700 billion Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit are allowed to scream about fiscal rectitude this year. Just amazing. The occasional defense I've heard is that 2003 wasn't the middle of the most severe recession in memory. That's a defense in much the same way that poking yourself in both eyes so you can't see your assailant is a defense. Deficit spending makes more sense during recessions, not less. Deficit spending is also cheaper during recessions, as interest rates are lower because investors want to buy treasuries.
By the way, for those keeping score, the senators who voted for Medicare Part D and are still in the Senate are:
Lamar Alexander, Max Baucus, Bob Bennett, Kit Bond, Jim Bunning, Tom Carper, Saxby Chambliss, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Kent Conrad, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Byron Dorgan, Mike Enzi, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, James Inhofe, Jon Kyl, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Dick Lugar, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Ben Nelson, Pat Roberts, Pete Sessions, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, George Voinovich and Ron Wyden. Lieberman did not vote.
None of these people have any authority to complain about the spending in health-care reform. When the CBO scored Medicare Part D, it concludes that the bill "would increase mandatory outlays by $407 billion for fiscal years 2004 to 2013 and would raise federal revenues by $7 billion over that period." In other words, it was a vote to add about $400 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years, and trillions more in the decades after that.
The health-care reform bills currently under consideration in both the Senate and the House actually cut money from the deficit, but they are being criticized as fiscally irresponsible by many of the people who voted for Medicare Part D. It's like watching arsonists calling the fire department reckless."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/the_lessons_of_medicare_part_d.html
Plus ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose. (cont.)
TW: Sound familiar? Fear has always been a very powerful force in American politics, usually for the worst. Paranoia will destroya...and the rest us if we are not careful. I grew up in and around small towns, they are nice but they hold no moral highground even if many of their occupants feel otherwise.
From David Halberstam's Coldest Winter:
"...the other wing of the Republican Party was very different: it was essentially more grassroots; it reflected old, abiding, small-town American...fears...where among the governing circles in many small towns and cities there was a fundamental hatred of almost everything Roosevelt was doing on the domestic scene, of his New Deal, which these critics passionately believed was, to use their favored word, socialistic...
...but the small-town wing knew that they were the real Republicans...that their values were the truer ones because they were the more American ones...
...The more it lost, the angrier it became. Each time, its representatives had come to the national conventions confident of their greater truths, only to the nomination hijacked by an elite...
...[in the successful Republican 1946 elections] Republicans had campaigned not so much against the Democratic Party as against Communism and subversion..."
From David Halberstam's Coldest Winter:
"...the other wing of the Republican Party was very different: it was essentially more grassroots; it reflected old, abiding, small-town American...fears...where among the governing circles in many small towns and cities there was a fundamental hatred of almost everything Roosevelt was doing on the domestic scene, of his New Deal, which these critics passionately believed was, to use their favored word, socialistic...
...but the small-town wing knew that they were the real Republicans...that their values were the truer ones because they were the more American ones...
...The more it lost, the angrier it became. Each time, its representatives had come to the national conventions confident of their greater truths, only to the nomination hijacked by an elite...
...[in the successful Republican 1946 elections] Republicans had campaigned not so much against the Democratic Party as against Communism and subversion..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)