a great op-ed piece in the new york times reminds us of the constant threat forcing the hand of the Israeli government in launching what would be more accurately called a counter-offensive:
To the south, Israel faces the Islamist Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip and whose charter promises to destroy Israel and bring every inch of Palestine under Islamic rule and law. Hamas today has an army of thousands. It also has a large arsenal of rockets — home-made Qassams and Russian-made, Iranian-financed Katyushas and Grads smuggled, with the Egyptians largely turning a blind eye, through tunnels from Sinai. Last June, Israel and Hamas agreed to a six-month truce. This unsteady calm was periodically violated by armed factions in Gaza that lobbed rockets into Israel’s border settlements. Israel responded by periodically suspending shipments of supplies into Gaza. In November and early December, Hamas stepped up the rocket attacks and then, unilaterally, formally announced the end of the truce.
There's nothing nice about civilian casualties, but Israeli sovereignty is infringed upon from all sides, and even within (the portion of the article about the growing Arab minority within Israel is telling). There are plenty of instances in which Zionism seems overwrought, overblown, or unnecessary, but this is absolutely not one of them.
At this eleventh hour of Chapter 11, I remembered this bit of something I had written in December of 2005.
Not intimating any kind of untoward prescience. Just thought I'd share:
"So let's say the country were a car; democracy would be the chassis or, what do you call it, the body? Anyway, the exterior. And capitalism is the engine -- what runs it. So -- I'm afraid we're getting to the point (and some would say, I'm sure, we're there already) where we've got this very powerful, even souped up, engine running a car which clearly shows signs of some reckless driving -- dinged up, dented and a little wrecked; certainly seen better days. What concerns me, what with all the effort and attention spent maintaining and improving the power under the hood, is that one day comes time to find a less road-weary vehicle for that snappy engine to run and transport, leaving behind what will be an empty shell -- obsolete, discarded and going nowhere..."
Clearly I've only taken this metaphor for a test drive.
And so much for that "snappy" engine. I'm afraid a few chipmunks may have been hoarding their nuts under the hood as well.
kudos for today's editorial in which they justifiably rail against the current administration's vendetta against civil liberties under pretenses that are at best spurious and at worst megalomaniacal. here's hoping that the Supreme Court sends a strong message: that the rule of law still has meaning.
kick in the knees to neocon douchebag bill kristol for today's op-ed. I can't believe i have to read his swill instead of getting a glorious dose of paul krugman. in today's swill, he calls small market conservatives naive, and encourages republicans to rally to large-government neoconservatism of which he is an ardent supporter. Don't oppose bailouts - relieve large companies of "burdensome regulations" that will somehow this time not lead to short-term profit maximizing choices by CEOs leading to the necessity for....a bailout. Don't put money into silly public works like building roads and bridges - spend more money on defense! And good god, don't waste any money on "fanciful green investments."
The Financial Crisis 1. The End - Unquestionably, the best article I've read in the last month, and no surprise that it comes from the amazing Michael Lewis. Captures the sordid spirit of Wall Street and its collapse perfectly. 2. Why Wall Street Always Blows It - But this piece by the Atlantic is a close second. Are speculative bubbles part of human nature? 3. Pop Psychology - This next piece by the Atlantic investigates the aforementioned premise even further, and throws in a killer economics experime 4. Anatomy of a Meltdown - My favorite New Yorker piece since the Chuck Hagel profile is this killer profile of Ben Bernanke and a pretty serious critique on his, and consequently the government's, failure of foresight. 5. Deficits and the Future - Why shouldn't we be afraid of running a deficit to rescue the economy? Because Paul Krugman is an economic Batman, and he says so. 6. Too Big Not to Fail - On the other hand, Eliot Spitzer disagrees, and he used government money to sleep with prostitutes. So. 7. A Bankruptcy to Save GM - I'll be honest. I'm not that economically savvy. And apparently the Booth School of Business is renowned for its conservatism. And yet, with this elegant study, they convince me that a controlled bankruptcy is far superior to an auto bailout. Sorry, Democrats. Call me a turncoat. 8. Medicine for the Job Market - But I'll redeem myself! Jonathan Gruber tells us why expanding federal spending on health care is not only fiscally sound, but beneficial for the greater economy! Holla!
The Obama Cabinet 9. What's So Special About a Team of Rivals?: James Oakes wonders just how helpful it is to surround yourself with smart people who don't share your opinions. 10. Calm Before and During a Storm: Jenny Anderson's illuminating profile Tim Geithner last February, as he tackled the emerging credit derivative crisis highlights his pragmatism. 11. Inside Obama's Idea Factory in Washington - Michael Scherer with a phenomenal piece on the birth of the Center for American Progress, the most powerful liberal think tank in Washington. 12. The Return of Larry Summers - David Leonhardt describes the value of Larry Summers to the new Obamanomics team, with particular emphasis on his shift away from his Clinton-era beliefs. 13. Economists Infiltrate the White House; Now What? - My main man Stephen Dubner tries to figure out what all these economists are actually going to do in the new administration. 14. Staying On - Fred Kaplan tells us why Robert Gates staying on at defense is such a good idea. 15. Preliminary Facts and Thoughts About Eric Holder - Well, um, basically what the title says, but good if you don't know anything about Eric Holder. 16. Conflict Zone - Eli Lake wonders whether Jim Jones and Hillary Clinton can just get along when it comes to foreign policy.
Congress Shmongress 17. Bailout - Kick-ASS piece by Michelle Cottle that got me so stoked about Barney Frank that I became his friend on Facebook. 18. Ron Paul Answers Your Questions, Part 1 and Part 2 - Oh Ron Paul. You're so silly and almost an anarchist. Do you pull out another fistful of hair every time someone says "nationalize"? 19. The Last Recount - As if I'd let a top 50 happen without Matt Taibbi on it. Here he tackles the last outstanding Congressional election in Minnesota.
Edumacation 20. The Lightning Rod - Michelle Rhee is fascinating. I think I like her, but she might also be an unsympathetic social darwinist. It's a fine line. (Between what and what? I don't know. But the article is great.) 21. Public School Parents, Unite! - An impassioned piece by Sandra Tsing Loh encouraging community activism among public school parents. See? Community organizers get shit done. 22. Change Our Public Schools Need - Terry Moe of the WSJ on education policy. Unsurprisingly he is not a big fan of teachers' unions (calling it a "faustian bargain" between unions and democrats) and favors accountability, etc.
and finally...
Science!!!! 23. Now, the Rest of the Genome - Carl Zimmer takes us beyond genes, to epigenetics, viral genes, and beeeyyooooonnnndddd. (It's getting late.) 24. The Promise and Power of RNA - RNA interference is so many cool things. It's a legitimately paradigm shifting technology, its something that will make you sound savvy at parties, and ... well, I do it. I interfere, RNA-ly.
I was somewhat disappointed by Obama's performance. In particular, his out-of-hand dismissal of Tom Brokaw's question regarding raising the gasoline tax. Certainly this is a complex issue, especially with the country facing a recession and rising unemployment, but it took $4 gasoline to get the country focused on energy reform. With oil prices dropping, consumers will revert to their old behaviors unless serious steps are taken to address this issue. Let's not underestimate the ability of Americans to adjust to differing economic realities. Why not demonstrate our commitment to reforming our domestic energy policy at the same time that we're holding the Big Three's collective feet to the fire? That would require the kind of bold leadership that Obama promised to bring to his administration. Watch below during the 8th minute:
Perhaps a gasoline tax would be included among the "long term incentives" that Obama alluded to in his answer, but I doubt it. Indications suggest that Obama will propose a restructuring of our energy grid to accommodate a wind and solar works project but that money will have to come from somewhere. Why not kill two birds with one stone and raise the gasoline tax now while American consumers have the stomach for it? Additionally, the revenue from a gasoline tax would put a dent in the rapidly expanding proposed budget deficit for next year while only minimally deflating consumer demand in the overall economy.
Firstly, if in the previous post, I want to be clear that violent actions promoting religious isolationism has been highly bidirectional with guilty parties on all sides. Read this Wiki entry on the 2002 riots in Gujurat if you are not convinced (a bloody event that many are convinced was at least partially the motivation for the attacks in Mumbai).
Secondly, I plan on returning to pontificating on domestic issues TONIGHT, but in the meantime, a wonderful op-ed from the New York Times on Mumbai that says it much better, obviously, than I did.
Hi, I'm pre-empting my overdue post on domestic issues to talk about Mumbai, and more importantly, the Indian and Pakistani response to the Mumbai attacks.
Obviously, as an Indian and a Hindu, I'm very sympathetic to feelings of betrayal and exploitation by the 80% Hindu population in India. I'm well aware of the cynical and growing belief amongst the citizenry that this exploitation comes from a desire by elected government officials in India to appease/retain the minority vote in order to stay in office. I'm sure that as a result of attacks such as the one this week, an increasing number of Hindus in India want to see India declared a Hindu state, open to people of all religious faiths but transparent in seeking as its primary objective to protect Hindus from what must appear to be increasingly dangerous external forces.
Despite these sympathies, I'm categorically against such a move. I would ask anyone trending towards such a view to first truly consider both the motives and the path to success for terrorists such as those organizing this most recent attack. So. Why do terrorists attack? Yes, ultimately, their goal is the establishment of some sort of religious state atop which they would presumably be perched, but in the short term, they are looking for capital, both monetary and human, with which to continue their agenda. And in seeking to gain such capital, they benefit from either promoting, or exploiting 1) financial disparity, and 2) religious extremism/isolationism. Financial disparities increase a class of poor and disenfranchised people, who are more susceptible to groups such as Al-Queda that offer them a sense of community and purpose in the absence of economic promise. Isolationism and religious fervor promote the cause for obvious reasons.
So how does this apply specifically to India and to Mumbai? India suffers from a tremendous amount of financial disparity, with a majority of its 13% Muslim population at the short end. Nevertheless, widespread belief among the Hindu majority is that the government has been too quick to coddle the Islamic minority for aforementioned vote-related reasons, including but not limited to a) permittance of Shari'a law in some circumstances for muslims and b) a presumed "soft" stance on terror. This has driven the majority increasingly towards Hindu nationalist parties such as the BJP, whose emphasis on domestic counterterrorism has a clear isolationist stance. The growth of parties such as this further marginalizes the already poor, underrepresented Muslim population in India, no doubt providing ample incentive for them to become more radical.
Now you add the attack on Mumbai. First, the attack is on a financial centerpiece of India. Disrupting economic growth is a surefire way to drive more people towards religious extremism, and remember: an increase of extremism of either Muslims or Hindus is an unequivocal win for terrorists because of a multiplier effect (extremism in one direction drives extremism amongst opposing constituents). It's an attack on a city with many Hindus and Muslims living in tenuous, but functional, cohabitation, and so the attack has tremendous symbolism. And finally, we have the potential of this attack to lend more weight to the voices of political parties promoting religious isolationism. And while i understand the tendency for that type of protectionism, I would say this: one of the most wonderful aspects of India is its secular embrace of all cultures (something it has in common with America). I mean, there is a professed Islamic state just next door, and yet there are more Muslims living in India that in Pakistan, and why? Partially, yes, because they were living in India before the partition, but at least partially because, especially for more secular Muslims, its probably much nicer to live in India than in Pakistan. For all its faults, India still has a functional democracy whose ability to maintain the rule of law is orders of magnitude better than Pakistan's. India is the one country in South Asia still offering hope for a religiously integrated hegemony of all people rather than a series of religiously isolated states privately stoking the fires of resentment , each progressing towards inevitable conflict.
Does this mean that I think there should be no response to a terrorist attack - of course not. But let me quote the awesome Fareed Zakaria:
The problems of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are now bleeding into one another, and any purely national approach is not going to work. The best outcome of these attacks would be if they spurred cooperation and reform. If instead they feed rivalry, bitterness and finger-pointing, the victims will have died in vain, and there will be more victims and an insecure neighborhood.
The crucial point is to remember the common enemy. When discussing causes and cures, never forget who is to blame first and foremost: the terrorists, the evil men who chose to deliberately kill innocent men, women and children, to burn young families to death. They are the ones who did it.
And while Indians have many troubles, they have one great counterterrorism policy—resilience. The Mumbai stock exchange reopened last Friday and closed higher. The country will persevere, the city will bounce back, and all those who have reasons to go there should not be deterred.
I could not agree more. Let the response to this attack be strong, but properly directed - unflinchingly at terrorists, and terrorism of any and all kinds. Certainly, I think that India should strengthen their counterterrorism initiatives, including increased surveillance at ports, increased power to police in dealing with terrorism suspects, ability to prevent extradition of terrorists, etc. There is a great opportunity for the Indian government to work with Pakistan to seek out the perpatrators of this attack. But let their stance be against terror, and not against Islam. Don't give the terrorists what they want, and put a wall between Muslims and Hindus. Instead, seek to protect all citizens, and protect the cultural and religious diversity that is so great about Mumbai, and India.
since santosh still is deep in ruminations, i figured i would post this gem of an article by joe klein, time magazine.
" In the end, though, it will not be the creative paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one. "
yikes. i don't even know where to start, but here are some of the issues on which i plan to ruminate later today. probably in the evening.
1. Obamaland appointments - not because this is the most critical, but because its the most fun. Clinton, Geithner, and Daschle are sure to be atop my love-fest on the Obama meritocracy.
2. Obamanomics and the stupidity of lame duck presidency - some blather on issues that i understand the least, including but not limited to: Citigroup, the automotive big 3, construction of a service-based economy, a green "war" time economy, etc.
3. A few thoughts on congresspeople: Lieberman? Barney Frank? Who knows?
4. Recent cultural observations: Slumdog Millionaire, Quantum of Solace, Decadancetheatre, the first chapter of The War Within, Saturday Night Live, 30 Rock, Keith Olbermann, This Week, the Planet Money podcast, the return of Radio Lab.
amazing interview of rachel maddow on the colbert report. see them be awesome, and then realize that in 3 states, one of these people can't marry the person she loves. soapbox, off.
i dont know that much yet, but from what i read about him in rolling stone, i like. a hard-nosed pragmatic former clintonite with a penchant for getting things done and taking no prisoners, whose political ideology seems well matched with Obama's...seems good to me. plus, who doesn't like this kickass anecdote:
The night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting "Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!" and plunging the knife into the table after every name. "When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape," one campaign veteran recalls. "It was like something out of The Godfather. But that's Rahm for you."
Awesome.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
At first when I heard Obama's speech after the win in the Iowa primary, I dismissed it as being insubstantial. (a criticism Obama has since sought to dispel.) Then I realized that in fact the idealism, the rhetoric, and the slogans that Obama employs are perhaps more deeply significant and profound than any policy and plan he could offer. The Obama victory is nothing short of a shift in the American zeitgeist. He is not a reflection of America (post-modern, cynical, suspicious), but represents a transformation of it. A step forward but also a step back, to the beacon on a hill imagery he referenced in his speech last night. There is something both progressive and nostalgic about him. In the grandiosity and idealism of his rhetoric. That he has been able to mobilize Americans behind that rhetoric, that message, is incredible, and is a change that I believe will significantly alter how our country functions, as well as how it is perceived. I have never before felt patriotic. I do today.
look. john mccain was awesome on SNL. and in many ways, he's probably a cool guy. but lets not pretend, even for a second, that the stump, neocon john mccain of the last 8 years hasn't put funny john mccain in the backseat. case in point: his attacks on obama concerning "socialism" and "sharing the wealth". the new republic, like many of us, has been confused about this line of attack, because americans, particularly in pennsylvania, overwhelmingly favor a progressive tax system. So why would he be using this argument?
Certainly, Pennsylvanians seem to see McCain's argument here as something other than an attack on the principle of progressivity in taxation. The Boston Globereports: "Still, there remains a deep distrust of big government programs here, and strong skepticism about Obama. A number of voters feared he would transfer wealth from the middle class to help people "who don't work" or who don't deserve it. ..."
It's not like I think that McCain has run an intolerably lowbrow campaign. His resistance to Reverend Wright references is certainly commendable. But he hasn't been above more insidious forms of race-baiting, and this is a classic example.
“I feel like we are talking to the Germans after Hitler comes to power, saying ‘Oh, well, I didn’t know,’ ,” Ann Coulter, the conservative commentator, told Mr. Hannity on Thursday.
uh....no, i don't!! who is the other anti-semite?! mel gibson? walt disney's cryogenically frozen corpse? hitler? wagner? is will.i.am. secretly anti-semetic??
you know that keith olbermann idolizes edward r. murrow (his "good night, and good luck" stuff), but its really nice to see when he has an opportunity for sincerity instead of duking it out on bill o'reilly's terms. this is a phenomenal comment.
i've been busy/away for a week and im away for the next week which will make it tough to post. but there's been a lot of press about ACORN and Obama's ties to it, so I thought I'd post a link.
Voter fraud isn't real. At least, it isn't a real problem. Study after study has demonstrated that voter fraud is either completely, or mostly, a myth. It mostly serves as a clever front to enact widespread voter disenfranchisement and intimidation, 2 things that are a huge problem. Exaggerating a negligible fear in order to further one's political agenda....does that sound familiar? Don't buy into more of this GOP-sponsored bullshit.Slate sums it up pretty well.
And by the way, this Joe the Plumber nonsense is just that, nonsense. I'm sorry, but his claim to Obama that he was "planning on starting a small business making between 260 and 280 thousand dollars a year"...first of all, who exactly thinks of a business they are starting in terms of its yearly gross? Jesus. Make your plants a little less obvious. For example? Try to make sure that they're not related to Charles Keating. Oh, you should probably also make sure that he is a registered voter who doesn't owe back taxes. Oh yeah, and he probably shouldn't compare Obama to Sammy Davis, Jr.
I think Tina Fey said it best: "If [McCain/Palin] wins, I'm leaving Earth."
Barack Obama accepted Nature's invitation to answer 18 science-related questions in writing; John McCain's campaign declined. Obama's answers to many of the questions are printed here; answers to additional questions (on topics including biosecurity, the nuclear weapons laboratories and US participation in international projects) can be found at http://www.nature.com/uselection. Wherever possible, Nature has noted what McCain has said at other times on these topics.
People in Rensaelaer County in New York got ballots with "Barack Osama" listed as the candidate? Really? And this was checked by 6 people before the ballots went out? COME ON!
Via Blogger Interrupted. this dude went to a McCain-Palin rally in Strongsville, Ohio the other day and talked to some mccain-palin supports, who of course, think he's a terror-loving terrorist. (TM tina fey)
Err on the safe side: don't wear your Obama buttons/gear to the polls. Apparently in some states, showing partisanship can DQ you from voting.
At least 10 states -- Delaware, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont -- explicitly prohibit the wearing of pins, buttons, stickers, labels, or other "political insignia."
You just know some republican goon is gonna be out there monitoring for this, so just be on the safe side.
TPM quick blurb on this: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/09/do_not_wear_your_obama_hoodie/
just because i can't pass up the chance to annoy tosh:
the new york times had this dumb article the other day about a beautification software that uses algorithms of nose to philtrum length, width b/w the eyes, etc. to transform faces into "beautiful ones." its so dumb, Hi trying to make people devoid of any character. BUT this made me laugh.
"The before and after shots of the actor James Franco were almost indistinguishable, suggesting his classically handsome face is already pretty perfect."
Less than a month left. A nice behind-the-scenes video of the Obamas at the DNC. How can you not tear up at this stuff! I love this family. barack is seriously the coolest cucumber. the last 1 minute is really cool - can you imagine mccain ever being so light-hearted and jovial? plus michelle and barack slapping five because michelle arranged for malia and sasha to meet the jonas brothers? what super cool parents (the 10 year old in me would love it).
after a little manny tearfest in my previous post, i owe a few props to jason bay, our return on the manny dump. there are so many things to like about this guy:
toiled away in pittsburgh on an awful team, never once asking to be traded and putting up huge numbers
has a sense of the moment (hitting 2 huge homeruns in the ALDS)
has learned how to play the Monster well in less than half a season (well, either that, or it's not that hard, and we gave Manny waaaay too much credit)
under 30, cost controlled, puts up >900 OPS. I don't think i really need to 'sell' this guy.
i insist that everyone refer to him as "the canadian, jason bay."
follow this link to read a nice SI article (yes, sports illustrated still exists) on how Bay is the real deal.
do we need more proof that michelle obama is the freakin shit? one millionth case-in-point: she goes on larry king live and kicks ass in the way we want her to kick ass. She's first ladyesque in exactly the same lofty, inspirational way that barack obama is presidential, particularly in recent days: an ambitious campaigner, an aspiring policy maker, a proud mother, and absolutely uncompromising in any of these respects. Plus, she refuses to be baited by any of the rampant negative campaigning surrounding her and barack obama in recent days:
What you heard in that debate, when you saw his passion, it was when he was talking about the health care crisis, and he talked about his mother dying of ovarian cancer, and how angry it made him to see her worrying about the insurance company and the payments rather than worrying about getting well. And that's what we're seeing. That's the kind of stuff that makes Barack angry. It's not the back and forth. It's not something said about him. I think Barack said today, he can take, you know, any name-calling or the back and forth that -- you know, that stuff doesn't bother him. But the unfairness that we're seeing across the country, that makes him mad.
and on Sarah Palin, despite attacks by Governor Palin suggesting that her husband sympathizes with terrorists:
I think she provides an excellent of example of all the different roles that women can and should play. You know, I'm a mother with kids and I've had a career and I've had to juggle. She's doing publicly, what so many women are doing on their own privately. What we're fighting for is to make sure that all women have the choices that Sarah Palin and I have. To make these decision and do it without hurting their families.
Everyone should read the transcript of her amazing interview with Larry King. I truly come away with absolutely equivalent respect and admiration for her as for her husband every time I get to read or see anything about her. You rock, Michelle.
Taxation, Spending, Patriotism, Friedman. There is an incredibly important point that was made eloquently by Thomas Friedman in a recent opinion piece. It speaks of McCain's, and even more so Palin's, characterization of taxation as unpatriotic, and as government programs as waste. Friedman disagrees:
Sorry, I grew up in a very middle-class family in a very middle-class suburb of Minneapolis, and my parents taught me that paying taxes, while certainly no fun, was how we paid for the police and the Army, our public universities and local schools, scientific research and Medicare for the elderly. No one said it better than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.”
And I agree with him. This demonization of taxes as unpatriotic is ridiculous. You might argue that the government is inefficient in how it uses taxpayer money (the bailout perhaps being a prime example), but the idea of paying taxes is woven into the fabric of what makes us a democracy: citizens donate a certain portion of their income that can be better utilized by a governing body for services that should be provided to everyone (military protection, health care, education, etc.) Am I wrong?
There is an unbelievable amount of material on which I have yet to post, and I hope to get to it tonight. Including:
The New England Journal of Medicine's report on the health care proposals of both candidates (thanks Amana)
My increasing attempts to understand the basis and marketing of Democratic and Republican ideology, including a great piece Rosa sent me as well as an awesome documentary called The Power of Nightmares, which Todd showed me.
2 phenomenal pieces from the new yorker begin today's post: 1. the new yorker endorses barack obama. This campaign has been so long and wearying that it took quite a bit to inspire me. and the editors of the new yorker did just that, with this stirring piece in which they remind all of us of what we've forgotten. I had forgotten the extent to which the idea of Obama restores every facet of life in which we find ourselves betrayed by government. and this is important, when you turn to another riveting feature on 2. evaluating voter tendencies in ohio. george packer paints a compelling, if concerning, portrait of the struggles of ohio voters to accept a candidate of obama's mold: lofty, young, and liberal with a littany of promises. While Obama has the coherence to validate his proposals, is this marketable to low-income white voters who have been burned by democrats over the years and are conditioned by the subtle prejudices of race and class? a legitimate question, and a concerning when when you consider the critical swing states (colorado, nevada, florida, ohio, north carolina, pennsylvania, new hampshire, minnesota).
Next, paul krugman skewers the mccain health care plan. the argument is very simple. mccain cuts the tax breaks for employers to provide insurace. so obviously, they don't. then everyone gets some money to buy health care. people with money have some extra money to buy it -- great! sick people and poor people get fucked - bad. what encapsulates the mccain campaign better?
But the people gaining insurance would be those who need it least: relatively healthy Americans with high incomes. Why? Because insurance companies want to cover only healthy people, and even among the healthy only those able to pay a lot in addition to their tax credit would be able to afford coverage (remember, it’s a $5,000 credit, but the average family policy actually costs more than $12,000).
Meanwhile, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most: lower-income workers who wouldn’t be able to afford individual insurance even with the tax credit, and Americans with health problems whom insurance companies won’t cover.
Note: post-debate, this has got to be the biggest point that obama scored over mccain, particularly in noting how people with pre-existing conditions get left out. well, that and mccain's insane plan to buy all the bad mortgages, which is either a) already in the bailout, in which case, who cares, or b) not in the bailout, in which case, wtf is the bailout for, and c) way to increase government ownership, stalin. oh, and also mccain's insane "speak softly"/"next up, baghdad" gaffe.
Sarah Palin Ruminations The new republic has a very nice piece entitled, "barracuda". the critical point here: palin often took challenges personally, turning dissenters into political opposition, and devoting herself to eliminating her detractors. does this sound...eerily familiar? (new york times subnote: cheney! cheney! cheney!) Part of the reason i found the article so fascinating was that it paints palin as motivated very little by logic, and very strongly by victory. and that seemed to work out quite well for her. slate's ten to toss i absolutely loved slate's "ten to toss"article. in this article, the awesome emily bazelon along with chris wilson tear apart 10 of president bush's most egregious executive orders (reminiscent of this american life's evisceration of bush's "signing statements"). from presidential secrecy to separation of church and state to violations of the geneva convention, there are are some great orders to toss in this list, and the list itself is a reminder that we did not have merely a well intentioned neophyte in office, but a president/VP tandem determined to covertly push forward a socially neoconservative agenda while protecting their consituency at every turn.
the red sox advance, defeating the angels 3-1. what are the key points here:
jon lester. amazing. even if he didn't beat anaplastic large cell lymphoma, amazing. but he also did that.
jason bay. the kind of 5 tool player i love.
theo epstein. this red sox team is the 4th iteration since their first championship. they continue to be competitive in a way that's one step ahead of the market by being flexible. by the way, this is also a testament to terry francona's managing.
justin masterson. jesus, the guy is a rookie. he's not ready to be your 8th inning setup guy. okajima and delcarmen can do the trick. save masterson for 6th/7th innings eating. trust me; with daisuke, you're going to need to fill those middle innings.
the rays are a great team that terrifies me. great pitching, good OBP guys, great defense, great speed. we'll see.
i'll leave you with a graph that teaches us what makes people go to grad school. sad, really.
it's really tough for me to comprehend, as the baseball playoffs start, that i'm not going to see manny donning a red #24 and hitting cleanup for the red sox ever again. my personal history with baseball is a weird one. when my family moved to boston, i was 6, and looking for a hobby. i settled on baseball cards, and adopted the red sox as my baseball champions. i really loved baseball as a kid, especially because my dad would often score tickets to baseball games (i didn't go to a basketball game until I was in college, and I barely remember the one football game I attended.) I went through a lull in my fandom from about age 8-16, mostly because I wasn't in Little League, and additionally because of the baseball strike. My love for baseball was brought back by 3 seminal Red Sox: Nomar Garciaparra, Pedro Martinez, and Manny Ramirez. Nomar, a brilliant but brooding hitter, took business negotiations from the front office personally and was sent packing in 2004. Pedro helped deliver the first Red Sox championship in 86 years before cashing in on one last paycheck (sorry Mets fans), but Manny stuck it out until this year. From a fan's perspective, Manny was always a joy to watch. We loved his goofy personality (including ridiculous handshakes individualized for each of his teammates, my favorite being his 'gunslinger' handshake with Millar) that served as a perfect counterpoint to how locked-in he always was at the plate. I'll never see anything in baseball as great as the 1-2 punch of Manny and Ortiz: Ortiz with his ability to just muscle anything over the fence, and Manny, the hitting savant par excellence.
But the other reason I loved Manny is that he recognized baseball for what it is: a game. He loved baseball, worked hard at it, and was great, but his life didn't end on the field and he said as much. Sportswriters hated this about him, and always got on his case about not being the kind of 'gritty, dirt-dog, hustler' types that they always love. Here's a hint about why writers hate Manny and love David Eckstein. The gritty dirt-dogs? They're always white. Guys who 'play the game the right way'? Always white. Guys like Manny, whose combination of athletic ability and work ethic make his at-bats look easy? They're lazy (and they're usually black or hispanic). These are the same guys who think that the great era of basketball was in the 80s, because everyone was slower, and Larry Bird was amazing. Anyways, I'll miss you, Manny, and if the Sox go down in the playoffs, I'll be rooting for the Dodgers, no doubt. Well, actually, maybe not. I'll probably root for the Cubs, with their 100 year drought, or for the Phillies (because I'm getting slightly worried about the psyche of Philadelphia sports fans). But I'll watch the Dodgers, and when Manny hits a bomb, watches it for 3 seconds too long, jogs around the bases, and does a 14-move handshake with a bewildered and slightly annoyed Jeff Kent, I'll cheer.
By the way, the Sports Guy wrote an awesome article about Manny, so if you're a sports fan, read it.
And in other thoughts, voter disenfranchisement! I went to rolling stone to read an awesomely vicious takedown of John McCain's seemingly spotless biography (I loved it, but if you like McCain, you'll hate it, and maybe hate me) and ended up reading a 23 page report on voter disenfranchisement in Ohio in 2004. In an example of everyone's tendency to revise history in order to make it more palatable, I had completely forgotten about how overwhelmingly exit polls had favored Kerry and how incomprehensible it was that the polls were off by as much as they were (John Zogby called the explanation for the discrepancy, that democrats had participated more in exit polling than Republicans, "preposterous.") Well this piece painstakingly reconstructs all of the separate voter intimidation, voter exclusion, and plain old fradulent tactics conducted in Ohio, at the behest of the GOP. Upon reading this, I immediately thought 3 things:
It's really sad that voter disenfranchisement may be my number one fear about why Obama might not win on November 4th. After all, we've already seen examples of voter intimidation in Michigan, and I certainly don't feel confident that the type of organized intimidation orchestrated in the last 2 elections is going to either suddenly cease or be overcome in this election.
There's a really interesting article in the Times that talks about George W. Bush, and how his likeability may very well increase when he is a former president, as his personality shifts to the forefront and his policy decisions fade into the background (the article notes similar transformations for Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter). But I think its important that we not forget that beneath his charm, and even beneath his "aw shucks, I'm not that smart" populist sensibilities was someone not afraid to break the rules to win, and certainly not hesitant to expand executive power to push his agenda forward, even if it included trampling basic rights of American citizens to privacy, habeas corpus, etc. If anything, I think in the future, I'll look back on President Bush as a genius for hoodwinking everyone into believing he was too dumb to be sinister. And this brings me to my most important point:
Potential voters need to recognize the GOP they are voting for. Republicans at this point (no matter what talking points they parrot) are not the party of small government and self-reliance. They're the party of lobbyists, fat cats, and influence that say that if you can't win by the rules, make sure you've got enough money and power to change the rules, and make sure of it by buying off all the people who've got the money and enforce the rules. It's a smart plan, honestly, but its vile, and lets not pretend that it has anything to do with the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. This is a party that guts the financial security of Middle America by preying on their hatred of gays, immigrants, and abortion so they can give kickback to the billionaires that illegally finance their re-election campaigns.
More soapboxing after the VP debate. The Times had tons of weird, non-political stuff, and I plan to talk about it. For now, enjoy Homer Simpson's attempts to vote!
ive got a pretty wonky post building up, but for now, enjoy this clip about roe v. wade. not because it continues to make me wonder if sarah palin has a slowly growing subdural hematoma, but because it shows how reasoned and, honestly, likeable, joe biden is.
Quick post because I really wanted to share this link: I know there have been oodles of articles about what Sarah Palin's candidacy means in terms of the feminist movement, but this pretty much sums it up. Perfectly articulates what I and so many of my wonderfully intelligent and accomplished friends have been feeling-- that it's tragic how Sarah Palin is our first chance att having a woman in the white house.
Found this interesting article in the Christian Science monitor written by Andrew Halcro. He debated Palin for the governorship 2 years ago and knows her tactics.
From the article:
On April 18, 2006, Palin and I sat together in a hotel coffee shop comparing campaign trail notes. As we talked about the debates, Palin made a comment that highlights the phenomenon that Biden is up against.
"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.
While policy wonks such as Biden might cringe, it seemed to me that Palin was simply vocalizing her strength without realizing it.
i don't even know why i am posting this. i don't want to mock her skills, i played the flute and i was really bad. it's just so surreal to watch these clips, LOL.
Some prospective thought about the debate tomorrow from the NYT website. They found vids of Sarah Palin's debates from when she ran as governor in Alaska.
i didn't have time to load my usual podcasts this morning, so i re-listened to the podcast that really got me into this american life, called The Audacity of Government. In case anyone missed it at the time, its worth hearing.
Today, im a little politically overwhelmed - not that its impeding my ability to absorb new information but more that i feel a little saturated with perspectives and am thus unable to offer any of my own. mostly because ive been inundated with so much press feedback and interpretation of both the bailout saga and the first debate that its a little difficult to express fresh opinions. so in this post, after a few direct thoughts, i'll attempt to highlight a few tangential, yet interesting pieces ive encountered in the last few days.
The Bailout honestly, im not exactly sure how to react, since responses are all over the place. On one hand, I have come to believe that a bailout is probably necessary - I was roughly convinced of this by a very effective Planey Money podcast, which talked about two very interesting ideas: that the slowing of the economy validates ben bernanke's "financial accelerator" theory, and that the seriousness of the situation is reflected in money market funds "breaking the buck."
So, a bailout is probably helpful. But it has had detractors on two sides. House Republicans oppose what they view as the socialization of America, and Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich on Democracy Now articulated a disappointment with the lack of taxpayer and homeowner protection, bankruptcy protection, and ceo income capping. I might be way off here, but it sounds somewhat like Republicans don't want the government getting involved, and Democrats are annoyed that their involvement doesn't seem to be defending taxpayers as much as it should.
The Candidates How did the candidates react to this? Well, John McCain returned to Washington last week, and attempted to co-opt the bailout proposal that emerged as evidence of his bipartisanship, despite the fact that a proposal had existed before he ever showed up (and temporarily collapsed on his arrival). All weekend, we heard how great John McCain was at bringing Republicans and Democrats together. Yesterday, we saw that that was horseshit, as House GOP members summarily rejected the proposal. So, naturally, after taking credit for encouraging bipartisanship, McCain would recognize his failure to successfully achieve it, right?
Not really - his only response to the failed bill was a hilarious statement in which he blamed Obama for Democratic partisanship. Wow. I loved the analogy (can't remember whose) that compared the hypocrisy of that statement to the guy who murdered his parents, then begged for clemency because "he was an orphan." So, McCain's an idiot, and lets not waste anymore time with that.
(EDIT: This morning, McCain released a statement echoing Obama's FDIC proposal below, so I'll back off of the 'idiot' comment. Of course, he'll probably take credit for this proposal, and I reserve the right to put 'idiot' right back out there when that happens.)
Obama, meanwhile, released a very smart suggestion yesterday, calling for the FDIC limit to be raised to $250,000 in order to protect small businesses. A measured, thoughtful, reasonable response. HOW IS THIS ELECTION CLOSE? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Anyways. The crisis of today raises parallels with the Great Depression and FDR's landmark New Deal legislation. So, should we be looking for Obama to be an FDR-type president? Here are some interesting articles. The first discusses the New Deal and its appropriateness in a modern context. The second discusses a call from progressive Democrats for resurrection of New Deal era legislation. The final one asks how Obama might implement some of FDR's policies. The truth is, though, you're probably not going to see much of this behavior. Obama isn't a proponent of government over-regulation. As has been discussed before, he's a University of Chicago style Democrat, believing largely in the power of markets. I think you will see an increase in government oversight and consumer protection, but other than that, don't expect to see the market in chains. (For the record, I think that this is probably a good thing. So do some dudes from Freakonomics, and they're very smart.)
I guess this stuff isn't as tangential as I thought. Alright, some random other thoughts:
Lay off of Bill Clinton, already! Look, Im pretty unashamed with my Clinton homerism, but honestly, why is it the end of the world that his endorsement of Obama is a pragmatic one? There are more than enough people with (justifiable) Obama crushes. I would think that a few people out on the trail whose endorsement seems more subtle and reasoned might play well with independent voters who are sick of over-the-top swooning over his candidacy. Plus, on Meet the Press, you could see him really passionate about his work with the Clinton Global Initiative as he promoted successes in Africa and railed against those who undermined local successes by refusing to look more closely than at the total 'African diaspora.' He's doing honest, important work, and we should cut him some slack.
Killer This American Life episode. Called 'Going Big', it talks about people who "take grand, sweeping approaches to solving problems of all sorts." Particularly inspiring is the first story on Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children's Zone. I can't wait for next week's piece on the economy.
Everyone listens to the Moth podcast, right? I realize not everyone can detach themselves from all social interaction and listen to as many podcasts as I do, but The Moth is once a week for 15 minutes, and is hilarious. Come on, people.
Baseball Playoffs!!!!!!! I really need to save this for a separate post, but my beloved Red Sox once again square off with the dreaded Angels! Will we send them to playoff oblivion as we have done en route to our last 2 World Series victories? Alot depends on the health of 3 of our best players: Josh Beckett, J.D. Drew, and Mike Lowell. Yeah. I need a separate post for this. Later.
instead, today's post, which I hope to get to later in the day, will be on tangential topics, some political, many relating to some really great podcasts I've heard this morning. Until then, I'll wonder outloud what I've wondered to many of my friends already: Is Murakami the book version of David Lynch? I'm 70% through The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, and its starting to sound like a Lois Cook novel. (Anyone get that reference? Anyone? Bueller?)
Readers in Iowa and Wisconsin [and Virginia] emailed to say that they saw seen McCain ads on the air this morning, though he's said he's taking them down.
What exactly constitutes a "suspended campaign?" Well, Team McCain is still working away this morning. Joe Pounder, the indefatigable press aide, blasted out his morning email of clips and quips to reporters with just a bit of dissonance.
Go to McCain’s website, and you’ll see he’s still collecting campaign contributions and still running his trashy anti-Obama video spots. He’s still doing interviews (just not Letterman!)...
Despite McCain's claim that he's put his campaign on hold, two of [his advisers] directly attacked Barack Obama in political terms on television this morning.
The important thing, of course, is that John McCain will not attend debates until the Republic is saved, or doing so will get his running mate out of her debate, whichever comes first.
Clips of Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric. This is painful. Now to be fair, I haven't seen the whole thing to put it in context... but... these seem like fairly direct questions to me...
Gawker has a longer compilation of similar bites from the interview, I just can't figure out how to embed it http://gawker.com/5054523/worst-of-sarah-palins-katie-couric-interview-so-far
in case you missed this last night: letterman straight up harshing on mccain and a wry keith olbermann joins in the fun. the good stuff is 6-7 mins onward.
well, what else would you call mccain's plea for a 'timeout'?? its a shenanigan, plain and simple. (yes, i am enjoying the use of the word 'shenanigan'. both in its singular and plural forms).
So, anyone, what the hell is this all about? Is it just a stopgap to try and piece together a new strategy after the "Palin/Change" combo didn't have the lasting effect the campaign hoped?
By the way, Rachel Maddow is awesome, so it was a nice to read an article that describes how she rose to success by sticking to her political guns instead of turning into a hack. You rock, Maddow.
is the title of a scintillating Op-Ed by Hillary Clinton. Everyone should read it in full, so I'll just post a few quotes and be done with it. READ THIS. The Bush administration is proposing a new rule that would require any health care entity receiving federal funding to certify that none of its employees are required to assist in ANY MEDICAL SERVICES THEY FIND OBJECTIONABLE.
The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.
This is an abomination. Does anyone know how to participate in the 30-day comment period? People at NYU, could we somehow get a comment from higher-ups or something?
so, a few podcasts to kick this off: NPR: Planet Money is a great podcast for people (like me) trying to understand what the whole credit/mortgage crisis means. It's run in part by Alex Blumberg, who did many of the economics segments for This American Life. I've also been enjoying KCRW's Left, Right, and Center. It's a roundtable discussion, very straightforward, but manages to recruit more interesting voices (read: less partisan TV faces who just vomit talking points) to the discussion.
So.
It seems like there are kind of 2 economics-related debates going on, although they both relate to the central idea of government 'meddling' in the free market. Now, I left all the cool articles I printed out at home, so I can't link to all of them right now, but the gist of it (and feel free to disagree if you want) is that progressive approaches to the market seem to be more successful than supply side approaches. It's still unclear whether a perfectly unfettered market will outperform both of these approaches, but frankly, Ron Paul isn't going to be president, so we don't have to worry about that. I'm sorry to Reaganites, but frontloading the uber-wealthy with money doesn't work. Now, it works if your definition is to increase the GDP over time, but the "trickle down" portion - not so much. I'll leave this with a quote from a recent Times editorial:
For decades, typical Americans have not been rewarded for their increasing productivity with comparably higher pay or better benefits. The disconnect between work and reward has been especially acute during the Bush years, as workers’ incomes fell while corporate profits, which flow to investors and company executives, ballooned. For workers, that is a fundamental flaw in today’s economy. It is grounded in policies like a chronically inadequate minimum wage and an increasingly unprogressive tax system
The other portion of the debate is over the bailout. It's almost impossible for anyone to argue that the bailout is unnecessary. The questions are: who are the true culprits, and how do we protect from what appears to be happening (a reverse Robin Hood situation in which the taxpayers are funding economic relief for CEOs). In discussion of all of this, one of the most insane ideas is a call for some sort of ironclad plan for 'solving' this crisis. This is a talking point that John McCain has been parroting: he came out with a definitive "step to take" (fire Chris Cox) whereas Barack Obama has offered more nuanced responses. (Apparently, 'nuance' has jumped the connotation fence from positive to negative). So, lets take 'stock' (ha!) of our most important "deciders", shall we?
1. Henry Paulson 'King' Henry is trying to pull the exact same BS that we've gotten from the Bush administration before. He has taken a crisis and is attempting to capitalize on its emotional component, proposing a $700 billion bailout plan with no protection for taxpayers and ownership over allocation of said funds with absolute immunity over his decisions. His response to authoring a 2 page plan to outline an enormous investment in what amounts to "toxic waste" loans? He says, "Now is a time for action." With the unspoken, "and later is a time for questions, but never for me."
Does this sound familiar? This type of "we have to do what I say, and there's no time to explain why" attempts at mob hysteria are exactly what got us unto untenable situations with no roadmap in our recent foreign policy blunders. And its what is leading Paulson to promote a plan that (and get ready for a string of NY Times articles here - I told you, I left my bigger, cooler set of articles at home) Paul Krugman calls "cash for trash." William Kristol shares his concern:
I’m doubtful that the only thing standing between us and a financial panic is for Congress to sign this week, on behalf of the American taxpayer, a $700 billion check over to the Treasury...[it] would enable the Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion There are no provisions for — or even promises of — disclosure, accountability or transparency.
Let's also not forget: Henry Paulson used to be the CEO of Goldman Sachs. And while defenders of Paulson suggested that we "not question the firemen who are here to put out the fire," Stephen Colbert awesomely noted that these 'firemen' also happen to be the arsonists, so some questions might not be so bad. 2. John McCain
This brings us to our GOP candidate. McCain is in love with this sort of knee-jerk decisiveness. This recently surfaced with respect to the Russia-Georgia crisis. McCain called it"the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War" (forget that whole 'Islamic terrorists' thing he's been hooting about), suggested to pull Russia out of the G8, and threatened military action, while deriding Obama's nuanced approach, which he likened to "voting present." It has continued with this economics discussion. McCain has derided Obama's nuance, while touting his own decisiveness in suggesting the firing of SEC chairman Chris Cox. Decisive!
Too bad its been universally derided. And by universal, i mean "including George Will":
I mean, he says that McCain "once again substituted vehemence for coherence". If there's a more thorough indictment on rash decision-making, I'd like to see it. Well, maybe there is, in Will's followup article:
But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.
Yeah, this guy is no Michael Bloomberg. Now, the other issue referenced in Roundtable was McCain's attempt to rebrand himself as a deregulator, something that is categorically opposite to McCain's economic instincts.
3. Phil Gramm
And this is because he is an economic protege of Phil Gramm, the former senator who also used to be McCain's campaign advisor until he made that unwise remark about "a nation of whiners" and was excused officially as a McCain advisor while still traveling with McCain and, frankly, continuing to advise him. Gramm authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act which reduced government regulations in existence since the Great Depression separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities. Gramm and McCain are supply-side deregulators attempting to paint themselves as something else, in an era in which deregulation has been catastrophic, and that's the bottom line. Let's remember this when we wonder if John McCain learned his lesson from the Keating Five scandal, in which he aided the chairman of Lincoln Savings and Loan during the Savings and Loan crisis.
So what does he do? He specializes in the kind of counterbranding successfully used by Roger Ailes and Fox News. He repaints himself as a regulator and "fresh-blood" in Washington with an unparalleled show of "truthiness". (Read that truthiness article by Frank Rich). He pushes to "otherize" his opponent, playing on bigotry and xenophobia. (Amana should enjoy that Kristof link).
But recent polls have suggested that he pushed too far with this type of propaganda and that his contentions are finally being rejected in favor of the truth. And this brings us to the first presidential debate. New York magazine has a nice article on the challenges facing each candidate. Will Obama tame his tendency to over-ruminate? Will McCain's increasingly innacurate catch-phrases win the day? We'll find out. And I want to extend an invitation to anyone reading: I'm going to attempt to live-blog the debate. If anyone else also wants to live-blog the debate and send me your thoughts, I will pool everyone's comments and publish a presidential debate live megapost next week!!!!! Cool.
2 final thoughts: 1. There was a NYTimes Magazine article that I can't find on how fish are basically disappearing. Well, I heard something very cool on the Takeaway yesterday, called The Blue Ocean Fishphone. Basically, when you're considering ordering fish at a market or restaurant, you can send a text, find out the environmental cost of ordering this fish (based on fishing practices, species population, etc) and get viable alternatives. Sounds awesome.
2. Such a cool Op-Ed that I'm going to post it separately.
a great op-ed piece in the new york times reminds us of the constant threat forcing the hand of the Israeli government in launching what would be more accurately called a counter-offensive:
