Jamison Foser

Bruce Springsteen, Patriot

With the release of a new Bruce Springsteen album featuring references to “promises from sea to shining sea” and flags flying in the wind, we’re likely in for yet another round of the tiresome debate over whether Springsteen is “patriotic.”

Here’s how it goes: Conservatives hear lyrics mentioning a flag, get misty-eyed for Ronald Reagan’s Morning In America, and embrace it as a love-it-or-leave-it anthem to American greatness. That leads to well-meaning rejoinders from liberals that it isn’t really a “patriotic” song; it’s a song that criticizes America’s flaws. These responses have benefit of actually reflecting the substance of Springsteen’s lyrics, but they tend to unwittingly stipulate to the right’s shallow definition of patriotism. Then, once the critical verses are pointed out, you get a round of attacks from the Bill O’Reilly’s of the world that Springsteen is an unpatriotic America-hater because he talks about poor people and unnecessary wars. Like I said: Tiresome.

Patriotism does not mean never thinking your country is imperfect. If that’s what patriotism meant, nobody in the history of the world would ever have been patriotic. It would be a useless word. If it meant what conservatives who use the word to bludgeon their opponents pretend it means, they would be unpatriotic when they criticize “Obamacare,” environmental regulations, and the minimum wage. If it meant nothing more than flying a flag, being a patriot would be substantively indistinguishable from wearing green on St. Patrick’s Day.

Springsteen recognizes that patriotism demands a desire for a nation to live up to its ideals. Kicking off the 2004 Vote for Change tour in Philadelphia, he explained:

We remain a land of great progress. But it’s time, we need to move America towards the fulfillment of its promises that she’s made to her citizens: Economic justice, civil rights, protection of the environment, respect for others and humility in exercising our power at home and around the world. […] America is not always right. That’s a fairy tale you tell your children at night before they go to sleep. But America is always true. And it’s in seeking these truths that we find a deeper patriotism. Don’t settle for anything less.

When Bruce Springsteen sings about unemployed veterans whose country owes them more, or steelworkers cast aside by bosses who got rich on their labor, or a climate of mutual fear and distrust that leads to police shooting an unarmed man 41 times in a vestibule, he does so because he is a patriot: Because he loves his country -- its people and its ideals, not just its flag and its name.

UPDATE: Ann Powers at NPR and Chris Phillips at Backstreets have interesting assessments of “We Take Care Of Our Own,” the new album’s first single.

The Problem With Politifact

After widespread condemnation for selecting the true statement that Republicans voted to “end Medicare” as its Lie of the Year, Politifact has published the most hilariously self-aggrandizing response to criticism since Jonah Goldberg defended his book Liberal Fascism as “a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.” My initial reaction to Politifact’s defense, written by editor Bill Adair, was mockery; the piece seemed to justify little more, light as it was on substance. I’ve changed my mind. Politifact seems to be under the impression that its critics are crass partisans who oppose the concept of independent fact-checking. In fact, its critics, this one included, are fierce advocates of holding public figures accountable for falsehoods and object not to the concept of independent fact-checking but to its incompetent execution.

Since Politifact steadfastly refuses to respond to substantive critiques of its Lie of the Year choice, I won’t re-litigate the selection here; suffice to say it was an absurd decision, both because the statement in question is not a lie and because it overlooked the numerous economic falsehoods that have ensured that America’s economy remains in the ditch. Politifact’s unwillingness to engage substantively amounts to a de facto concession that its choice cannot be directly defended.

Instead, Politifact lashed out at critics with a series of baseless ad hominem insults, interspersed with comical boasts, highlighted by the thoroughly underwhelming insistence that Politifact rulings are “based on hours of journalistic research.” Criticism of Politifact, meanwhile, came from “the liberal blogosphere” and “from people who are sure their side is always right” and people who “love us when we confirm their views that the other side is wrong — and they hate us when we don’t.” (The suggestion that Politifact’s critics are liberals blinded by partisanship would have been more difficult to make had Politifact acknowledged that no fewer than two conservative writers for the National Review have been among the chorus of critics of the Lie of the Year choice. And so Politifact didn’t acknowledge it.)

This suggestion that critics of Politifact’s assessment of the Medicare controversy are knee-jerk partisans who reject independent fact-checking is an offensive slur. To name just a few of the many writers who have taken issue with Politfact’s assessment: Brad DeLong regularly features on his blogs posts titled “Why oh why can’t we have a better press corps,” in which he rebukes reporters for failing to fact-check politicians’ falsehoods -- and for making their own false claim. Dan Froomkin is deputy editor of the Nieman Watchdog project of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard and made a name for himself as one of the few journalists who regularly challenged Bush administration falsehoods about war. Paul Krugman has spent years pushing, prodding, cajoling and outright begging reporters to check their facts, and those of the officials and “experts” they quote. And me? I’ve written tens of thousands of words, at least, about the need for political reporters to focus on facts and tell their readers and viewers what is true and what is false:

Consumers of news lack the time, expertise, and, in many cases, ability to determine which of two contradictory statements by competing political figures is true. They often lack the resources to determine if, for example, President Bush's claim to have "delivered" on the promises he made in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is true. That's where news organizations should -- but, with depressing frequency, have not -- come in. They have -- or should have -- the expertise and the time to assess those claims, and to report the facts. That's what readers, viewers, and listeners need. That's what journalism should be all about.

On the other hand, as consumers of news, we don't need journalists telling us what the "political impact" of something is going to be; how it will "play at the polls." It's our job to decide that. It's our job to decide who we'll vote for and why; how we'll assess the parties' competing agendas and approaches to the problems we face.

Instead of telling us how they think we'll react, we need journalists to give us the information upon which we can make an informed decision. To tell us the facts, and the truth, and the relevant context. Then we'll tell them the political impact.

(And I dare anyone affiliated with Politifact to read this, then tell me Politifact takes the quest for truth more seriously than I do.)

So when Politifact pretends its critics are upset that it has “disrupted the status quo” by “doing what journalists should have been doing for a long time — holding politicians and pundits accountable for their words,” that’s absolute nonsense. Nobody -- nobody -- is criticizing Politifact for holding people accountable for their words. The most vocal critics of Politifact’s Lie of the Year selection have been doing exactly that -- and begging the media to join in -- since before Politifact even existed. We haven’t criticized Politifact for holding people accountable; we’ve criticized Politifact for making bad judgements. If Politifact had an ounce of decency, it would apologize to Krugman and Froomkin and everyone else it smeared with the suggestion of nakedly partisan motives.

More than anyone, Politifact owes an apology to Gawker’s Jim Newell, whose criticism of Politifact was substantive and, not incidentally, correct:

Politifact considers "end Medicare" a lie because Paul Ryan's plan would keep a program called "Medicare" as the public policy solution to the problem of financing health care for old people. But the "Medicare" program, as long as it's been around, has been a single-payer, fee-for-service model. That's what it is, and that's why it's popular. Ryan's plan (at least that version of it) would eliminate that system and deal with the problem of financing health care for old people with a program of "premium support" — distributing coupons for beneficiaries to purchase a health insurance plan in a managed private market. […] Can you say that a program that keeps the name Medicare, but is in fact a totally different program, "ends Medicare"? Sure.

Here’s how Politifact responded:

The most over-the-top response (was it tongue-in-cheek?) was a rant from Jim Newell in Gawker under the headline "Why PolitiFact is bad for you." He conveniently ignored the fact that our fact-checks are based on hours of journalistic research and portrayed them as the work of rogue bloggers with a gimmicky meter.

"PolitiFact is dangerous," he said.

Really? It's dangerous to put independently researched information in the hands of the citizenry?

Talk about over-the-top! Actually, it’s worse than over the top: Politifact’s characterization of Newell’s argument is simply a lie. Newell didn’t write anything even remotely resembling “It’s dangerous to put independently researched information in the hands of the citizenry.” He wrote that Politifact was wrong, explained why, and added that blind faith in their ratings is dangerous. If Politifact actually understood the values it espouses, it would readily agree with this obvious truth. (And why on earth should Newell have written that Politifact’s “fact-checks are based on hours of journalistic research”? That’s entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Politifact was right. Politifact may as well have complained that Newell “conveniently ignored” the fact that three Politifact reporters have golden retrievers.)

Adair concluded Politifact’s screed with this gem:

Yes, PolitiFact is dangerous. We have disrupted the status quo because we're doing what journalists should have been doing for a long time — holding politicians and pundits accountable for their words.

That reminded me of something one of those knee-jerk partisan haters of independent fact-checks once wrote. I refer, of course, to myself:

Checking the truthfulness of a politician’s statements shouldn’t be something a news organization saves for its “Fact Check” feature; it should be present in every news report that includes those statements. It isn’t enough to occasionally debunk a false claim, as I’ve been saying over and over again. […] What I’d like to see isn’t another media organization with a branded, occasional “Fact Check” feature -- it’s a news organization that commits to never reporting a politician’s statement without placing that statement in factual context. I suspect that a news organization that made that -- rather than assessments of how the claim will “play” -- a central value would see at least some of the readership benefits that the special branded features apparently bring. And I’m certain it would result in better journalism and a better-informed readership.

At its best, Politifact does indeed hold people accountable for their words. At their best, all news organizations do this. Unfortunately, Politifact also sometimes confuses more than it illuminates and wastes resources on pointless exercises that trivialize the concept of fact-checking and produces factual and conceptual train-wrecks. When it does so, it’s going to get some criticism. That’s something an organization that self-righteously boasts of “doing what journalists should have been doing for a long time -- holding politicians and pundits accountable for their words” should applaud. Instead, Politifact lashed out, behaving more like the partisans it accuses its critics of being than like a news organization devoted to truth and fact.

***
Compare and contrast:

Politifact, 12/22/11: “[O]ur fact-checks are based on hours of journalistic research.”

Politifact, 9/10/10: “[C]omparing a dozen or more income ranges -- each of which need to be adjusted for inflation -- over a series of nearly 20 separate tax years is a complicated process, and we were not convinced that Obama had actually intended to make the more detailed comparison. So we compared just the top rate.”

***

Politifact calls criticism of the organization for false balance “a sad byproduct of our polarized discourse, from people who are sure their side is always right.” Yet the piece begins by equating Rush Limbaugh with The Huffington Post and Rachel Maddow -- as classic a case of false balance as you could imagine. I admit I may have missed something, but I don’t recall Rachel Maddow ever spreading murder conspiracy theories about a Republican president.

***
In re-reading this February 9, 2011 blog post and the fundamentally flawed Politifact piece it was about, I noticed for the first time that Politifact referred to my post as having appeared “at Media Matters for America, a liberal group” and, in the same piece, referred to the Tax Foundation as “an independent tax research group.”

Since Politifact’s posts are “based on hours of journalistic research,” I’m sure they know that the Tax Foundation’s president previously worked at Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Heritage Foundation, and helped found the Heartland Institute, all of which are conservative organizations. The Tax Foundation's board of directors consists of well-known conservatives like former Republican Congressman Bill Archer and former Bush and McCain aide Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Former board members include Reagan OMB Director James Miller and Bush economic adviser Glenn Hubbard. The Tax Foundation is funded by a who’s-who of right wing foundations, including those affiliated with Richard Mellon Scaife, Koch Industries, and Exxon Mobil. The Tax Foundation favors the repeal of the estate tax and low capital gains taxes, both of which disproportionately benefit the rich, and its president says the deficit is a “spending problem” that should be addressed “on the spending side only” -- all of which are conservative positions long advocated by Republicans.

I wonder, then, why Politifact thought it appropriate to describe the Tax Foundation as “an independent tax research group” -- particularly when it made sure to identify my blog post as having appeared on the web site of “a liberal group.” I ask that this imbalance be corrected in the article, and that Politifact explain how it came to provide such favorable treatment to a conservative organization.

***
Politifact’s claim that it is a lie to say Republicans voted to “end Medicare” rests on the contention that because something called “Medicare” would continue to exist, and continue to have something to do with senior citizens, the program has not “ended,” even though it is entirely different from Medicare as it has always existed. I’d love to see Politifact reconcile that position with its “Mostly True” ruling on Tommy Thompson’s boast that as Governor of Wisconsin he “ended welfare”:

Thompson declared that as governor, "we ended welfare." His W-2 program didn’t eliminate every program that might be considered a handout. But it did end the entitlement program most commonly known as welfare, replacing it with one that requires nearly all recipients to work for their benefits.

We rate Thompson’s statement Mostly True.

Thompsons’s claim is actually far less true than the “end Medicare” statement Politifact called Lie of the Year. That’s because unlike Medicare, Welfare isn’t a single, specific government program; it’s a broad colloquialism that has been applied to programs like AFDC and food stamps. Saying Thompson “ended Welfare” because he ended AFDC is like saying Republicans ended health care for senior citizens because they ended Medicare: It conflates a specific program with a broad concept.

In short, Politifact has it backwards: Thompson’s claim is a far greater falsehood than the statement that Republicans voted to “end Medicare.” At the very least, it’s hard to see how you can reconcile Politifact’s two rulings.

How Syracuse Basketball Coach Jim Boeheim's Public Statements Contribute To A Poisonous Atmosphere

Syracuse University head basketball coach Jim Boeheim’s controversial reaction to molestation allegations against his longtime assistant, Bernie Fine, is only the latest in a decades-long pattern of questionable public statements about alleged misconduct by members of his basketball program. During Boeheim’s tenure, Syracuse basketball players have been accused of sexual misconduct, physical violence, burglary, and more -- and Boeheim has repeatedly downplayed allegations and questioned the credibility of people who accuse his players of wrongdoing.

When allegations against Fine became public, Boeheim lashed out at his friend’s accuser:

Asked what Davis’ possible motivation would be to tell his disturbing story at this time, Boeheim hesitated not at all.

“Here's why,” he said. “The Penn State thing came out and the kid behind this is trying to get money. He's tried before. And now he's trying again. If he gets this, he's going to sue the university and Bernie. What do you think is going to happen at Penn State? You know how much money is going to be involved in civil suits? I'd say about $50 million. That's what this is about. Money.”

Boeheim has since apologized, saying "I deeply regret any statements I made that might have […] been insensitive to victims of abuse." CBS Sports columnist Gregg Doyel isn’t satisfied, and argues that Boeheim should be fired:

[W]hat Boeheim did on Nov. 18 was make it even harder for them to come forward.

[…]

Boeheim is the most powerful, most popular man in Syracuse. And for that guy, in that town, to ridicule Fine's accusers as liars and opportunists -- as deceitful frauds looking to make a quick buck -- Boeheim laid down a very public gauntlet to anyone else who might have been interested in telling the police they were molested by Fine:

Come after Fine, and you're crossing me.

That's what Boeheim was saying on Nov. 18. Whether it was intentional, whether he even knew what he was doing, isn't the point. The point is, that's what he did on Nov. 18. And that's not the kind of mistake that Syracuse University can look back on and say, "Oh well. Nobody's perfect.”

It should be noted that this is not the first time someone connected to Jim Boeheim’s basketball program has been accused of serious wrongdoing. Nor is it the first time Boeheim has attacked an accuser.

In 2008, Syracuse starting guard Eric Devendorf was suspended after allegedly hitting a female student in the face. Though Devendorf had already been on probation for a previous incident in which he caused physical harm to a student, Boeheim said the suspension was too severe, kept Devendorf in the lineup while he appealed (saying “Based on the information I have, he should be playing basketball right now”) and questioned the credibility of the woman his player allegedly struck. Sports Illustrated’s Seth Davis wrote at the time:

Devendorf was already on disciplinary probation at Syracuse for causing physical harm to another student last spring

[…]

Devendorf has admitted to getting into a verbal argument with [Kimberly] Smith and pushing her away from him, but he denies hitting her in the face. During the four-hour judicial hearing last Thursday, three of Devendorf's teammates -- Paul Harris, Rick Jackson, Arinze Onuaku and Justin Thomas -- gave testimony supporting his version of events. Nonetheless, the student panel recommended Devendorf be placed on indefinite suspension for at least one academic year, partly because it found the testimony given by Devendorf and his teammates to be "scripted and biased." The board was likely influenced by three text messages sent to Kimberly Smith by Thomas asking her to drop the charges. One invited her to call Boeheim and included the coach's phone number. Another said, "i hope u can find it in ur heart to forgive my teammates thanks."

[…]

Boeheim paints a much different picture than the one described by Kimberly Smith. "There are three witnesses who said Eric did not touch anybody, did not hit anybody. The five-person student panel chose not to believe those witnesses. I do," he said. "They all said basically the same thing. The girl got out of the car, then she started yelling at Eric. Eric yelled back, the girl approached Eric, got right up next to him, they were yelling at each other, Eric pushed her away in the chest area, one time, and then walked away. Okay? That's the information I have."

[…]

Boeheim would not come right out and say Smith is lying, but he did claim her credibility is in doubt because she has changed her story. For example, the report filed by the Syracuse police department indicated that Devendorf hit her with a "closed fist," but Smith testified to the judicial board that he hit her with the heel of his open hand. Smith's attorney, Richard Kesnig, told me that the term "closed fist" came from the officer, not his client, so her story has stayed consistent. "She never used the words 'closed fist' and she never claimed she was injured," Kesnig said.

[…]

I would be less unsettled by Boeheim's position if he indicated he was even the slightest bit conflicted. Instead, he said, "It's not a hard decision. This is one of the easiest decisions I've ever made. I talked to the witnesses and they told me what happened. If I suspend Eric, I would lose the whole team. I can't look them in the eye and say I'm not going to believe you.”

Note that Boeheim initially said “Eric did not touch anybody,” then acknowledged “Eric pushed her away in the chest area, one time.” That’s a bigger discrepancy than the difference between Devendorf hitting Smith with a “closed fist” or the “heel of his open hand,” the alleged discrepancy Boeheim used to question Smith’s credibility. Note also a panel of their fellow students found that Devendorf’s teammates had given “scripted and biased” testimony on Devendorf’s behalf -- and that Boeheim, rather than being upset at the possibility that his players had conspired to give false testimony, used that testimony to justify his defense of Devendorf.

Jim Boeheim could have accepted the judgement of Devendorf’s peers. Or he could have simply said “I believe my players.” Instead, lacking any first-hand knowledge whatsoever, he chose to question the credibility of a woman who said one of his payers struck her in the face, even after a student panel had ruled. What message does that send to others in the Syracuse community who might know of wrongdoing by Boeheim’s players? The same message sent by Boeheim’s forceful insistence that Bernie Fine’s accuser is lying in hopes of scoring a quick payday: Anyone who speaks out against a member of the Syracuse basketball program better be prepared for attacks from the school’s most famous figure.

In 1993, six Syracuse basketball players were involved in a late-night confrontation at a Syracuse bar. Bouncers at the bar said players Michael Edwards and Anthony Harris refused to leave for 30 minutes as bar employees were trying to close up at 1 am. According to the bouncers, Edwards challenged them to a fight, at which point, they tried to push the players out the door and Harris fell down some steps and broke his teeth. The players say the bouncers assaulted them. After the scuffle, Harris and Edwards went to the apartment of teammate Conrad McRae, got a hammer, and picked up three teammates at another club, at which point the six players -- with the hammer -- went back to the bar to confront the bouncers. The Syracuse Post-Standard reported on January 9, 1993:

About 2:40 a.m., Edwards pounded on the bar's Plexiglas windows with the hammer, demanding that the bouncers come outside and fight, bar manager Frank Rinaldo told police. Rinaldo said he called for police. He heard glass breaking and saw Edwards smashing his Jeep's windows, Rinaldo told police. Edwards' hands were bleeding, police said. Windows were also smashed on cars owned by people who had nothing to do with the bar, police said.

Edwards was suspended for the incident, though the other players were not punished. And, incredibly, Jim Boeheim publicly defended the players:

Boeheim said the players went back to the bar because they were concerned with Harris' welfare.

"They didn't go to fight. They went because they were concerned about him (Harris)," he said.

Witnesses told police the SU players, including Harris, went back and challenged the bouncers to come out and fight.

"He (Edwards) was one of the players who came back and I believe acted in emotion - an extremely emotional state - and did something he shouldn't have done, for which he's being suspended from the basketball team. I don't condone it, but I understand it," Boeheim said.

That’s absolute nonsense. The players, including Harris, had left the bar. They went to a teammate’s apartment. If they were “concerned about” Harris, they’d have taken him to the hospital. Instead, they picked up a weapon and three teammates and went back to the bar, where they allegedly challenged bar employees to a fight and smashed the windows of at least one vehicle. And Jim Boeheim said those were the understandable, if not acceptable, actions of people concerned about their teammate’s welfare. They didn’t go to fight, according to Boeheim. So why did they take the hammer?

In reporting the incident, the Post Standard recounted several previous incidents involving Syracuse basketball players:

Other Syracuse University basketball players who have been investigated by police or charged with a crime include:

SU player Conrad McRae was charged by police in April 1992 with obstructing governmental administration, resisting arrest and criminal mischief, all misdemeanors, after he was accused of bear-hugging a police officer who was trying to arrest a friend of McRae's outside a Crouse Avenue tavern. A judge dismissed the charge, but ordered McRae to perform 40 hours of community service and pay $50 restitution to an SU student whose car was damaged in the fracas.

City police asked a judge to issue a criminal summons in 1991 charging Adrian Autry with harassment for allegedly punching an ex-girlfriend. No charges were filed. The woman withdrew her complaint against Autry.

In February 1990, a 19-year-old Syracuse man told police he was pummeled by player Billy Owens and three other men for throwing a snowball at a car Owens was driving. Owens was not arrested. The man declined to press charges.

Player Dave Johnson was the focus of an investigation by Syracuse police into possible sexual misconduct involving a 14-year-old girl. No charges were filed against him. SU put Johnson on probation for a year because of the relationship.

Player Derrick Coleman was charged with a misdemeanor count of criminal mischief and harassment, a violation, in 1988 following a fight and break-ins at two students' apartments. Coleman later pleaded to charges of harassment and disorderly conduct, and was sentenced to 50 hours of community service.

Boeheim had an excuse for Coleman’s behavior, reported the Toledo Blade on December 16, 1990:

Coleman received national publicity after being reprimanded by the university for participating in a campus burglary and a fight. The athlete also was involved in two other bar fights while at Syracuse. Coleman maintains the correct version of each incident was never told, although he refused to talk with reporters after each episode.

“Unfortunately, that’s the problem in a small town. The focus is on us all the time and things tend to get blown out of proportion,” Boeheim said.

Yeah, small towns really do tend to blow three fights and a burglary out of proportion, don’t they?

Among current Syracuse basketball players, Fab Melo faces a criminal mischief charge after allegedly breaking the turn signal off his girlfriend’s car during an argument; Melo has been ordered by a court not to have any further contact with the woman, who has told police Melo was violent several other times. And Scoop Jardine was placed on probation and ordered to participate in a domestic violence education program after being cleared of sexual assault allegations.

Boeheim isn’t responsible for everything his players and coaches do on their own time, but he is responsible for the message he sends them, and the broader community, through his public statements. And, too often, he has made excuses for serious misconduct and attacked the credibility of people who dare level allegations against members of his program. It isn’t hard to conclude that those statements contribute to an unhealthy atmosphere around the Syracuse basketball program.

How ABC Got The Buffett Rule Wrong

The “Buffett Rule” is the idea that really rich people like Warren Buffett shouldn’t pay lower effective tax rates than middle-class people, like their secretaries. This sometimes happens when the really rich people in question make much of their money via capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than typical salaries/wages. Buffett has been making this point since the Bush administration.

Today, Warren Buffett said this:

“My program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low. Not just high incomes. Somebody making $50 million a year playing baseball, his taxes won't change. Make $50 million a year appearing on television, his income won't change. But, if they make a lot of money and pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what other people pay."

What Buffett is -- very clearly -- saying is that if you make $50 million in salary as a baseball player or television star, your taxes wouldn’t change under the Buffett Rule, as you’re already paying higher effective taxes than a secretary. If, however, you “make a lot of money and pay a very low tax rate” like Buffett does, because that money comes not from your salary but from, for example, capital gains, you might pay higher taxes.

That is very clearly what Buffett is saying, because that is the whole point of the Buffett Rule in the first place: Certain types of income, like capital gains, are taxed at a low rate, allowing a small number of super-rich people who have a great deal of capital gains income to pay lower effective taxes than middle-class people who don’t have much capital gains income. I can’t state clearly enough: This is the whole point of the Buffett Rule.

Now, here’s how ABC reported Buffett’s comments:

“Later on CNBC Buffett said if it were up to him, people earning $50 million would not see any tax increases, only people who ‘make a lot of money and pay a very low tax rate, like me.’ Buffett did not put on a number on what he considers a ‘very high income.’”

This is absolute nonsense, and suggests a complete misunderstanding of what the Buffett Rule is and how tax rates differ for different types of income. Buffett absolutely did not say that “if it were up to him, people earning $50 million would not see any tax increases.” It simply didn’t happen. He said that people who earn $50 million in salary and therefore already pay (relatively) high taxes wouldn’t see increases. But if they “pay a very low tax rate” on $50 million in capital gains income, they would see tax increases if it were up to Buffett.

Buffett was very clearly talking about types of income, not levels. This is obvious from the fact that he mentioned two specific professions -- athletes and television stars -- and from the fact that, again, this is the whole point of the Buffett Rule. So ABC’s statement that “Buffett did not put a number on what he considers a ‘very high income’ misses the point entirely. And ABC’s claim that Buffett said “people earning $50 million would not see any tax increases” is simply false.

And, again, this is a point Buffett has been making for several years. It isn’t new. It isn’t particularly complicated. Anyone who has any knowledge of either the point Buffett has been making for years or the disparate taxation of capital gains and income from wages should have immediately understood what Buffett was saying today. And anyone who doesn’t have that knowledge probably shouldn’t be in charge of producing reporting about those topics.

There are other problems with the ABC report. The most fundamental problem is that it suggests Buffett does not support the Buffett Rule, which is absolute nonsense. He has for years, he did today, and he will tomorrow. I focus here on the $50 million part because it’s simply a flagrant misquote, and one that suggests that the people responsible simply have no understanding of the topic they’re covering.

President Obama's Jobs Speech

A few quick thoughts about President Obama’s address to Congress about jobs last night:

1) I have some substantive and rhetorical concerns -- the suggested need to cut Medicare benefits for future retirees, for example, and the stipulation that job-creation not come at the expense of increasing the short-term deficit. And, of course, it’s impossible to fully assess either the substance or the rhetoric until we know what’s in the President’s “more ambitious deficit plan” to come.

2) That said, the speech was a welcome step in the right direction. As Krugman notes, it was bolder than expected and the plan, if enacted, “would probably make a significant dent in unemployment.” It’s still smaller and more focused on tax cuts than I’d like, and I wish the President done more to articulate a progressive Keynesian view of how the economy works and what it needs.

3) Big picture, though, there was a lot about the speech to be happy about. The mere fact of it, first of all: An address to Congress about the jobs crisis was long overdue. Speaking of which: Right there in the first paragraph, the President made clear that it is a crisis: “Tonight we meet at an urgent time for our country. We continue to face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless, and a political crisis that’s made things worse.” At various times over the past few years, he’s said things like “we are past the crisis point in the economy,” which were perhaps defensible if you defined “crisis” as “dangerous times for banks” rather than “massive, sustained unemployment.” We’re still in a crisis, and I’m glad to see it described as such.

4) That said, the President has previously given speeches that suggest he’s going to engage more aggressively on jobs, with little follow-up. If this is a one-off speech, there isn’t much point to it. If it’s the beginning of a sustained period of intense focus on jobs and economic growth, that’s better. If you want people -- the public, the media, members of Congress, etc -- to focus on job creation, you talk all day every day about job creation, not deficits. You appoint bipartisan jobs commissions, not bipartisan deficit commissions. And so on. There needs to be more like this -- much more -- and not just from the President. The administration as a whole, Democratic members of Congress, too.

5) Will it work? Depends on what work means.

6) If work means “pursued Congress to pass legislation that will provide significant economic stimulus and create jobs” … No, probably not. But trying is more likely to succeed than not trying. And success is more likely if people who want it to happen fight like hell for it rather than feeding into the assumption that it can’t pass. Speaking of which: It’s probably useful to remember that Michelle Bachmann and Jim DeMint aren’t the people blocking urgent job creation: Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown and the couple dozen least conservative members of Congress are. Congressional passage of legislation is not determined by what the most extreme members of the opposition will accept, but by what the most moderate members of the opposition do. What might happen if President Obama and the Democratic leadership decided to just ignore Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and focus all of their efforts (positive and negative) on the Snowes and Browns of the Republican party? Would that be more likely to succeed? The better question might be: How could it be less likely?

7) If work means “enhance the President’s political standing, and that of the Democratic party” … That, too, is a heavy lift. By a huge margin, the most important factor in the President’s political standing is going to be the condition of the economy. If he can enact job-creating legislation, that’ll help him politically. If not, he’s in trouble. (This, of course, creates unfortunate incentives for Republicans.)

8) That said, if the economy is terrible, it’s probably better to be seen as having been thwarted by the opposing party in your attempts to fix it than it is for people to think you got what you wanted and it didn’t work. This is one of the many problems with the administration’s decision to go small with the 2009 stimulus package: Had they asked for the roughly $1.3 trillion their economists thought they needed and gotten it (or more, and settled for $1.3 trillion) it likely would have worked better than the much smaller package they got. (Though, as we now know, it still would not have been sufficient.) And had they not gotten it -- had $800 billion really been the most Congress would pass under any circumstances -- they wouldn’t have been as vulnerable to the perception that they got the massive stimulus they wanted and it didn’t work. They’d have been better positioned to seek more later, and to say “If you’d given us what we said we needed, things would have been better.”

9) Again, though, that’s playing around at the margins: By far the best political outcome is to improve the economy. But if you can’t do that, it’s better to have a plausible story about how you tried and the Republicans stopped you. “We would have tried to do more, but we didn’t bother, ‘cause we knew Republicans wouldn’t go along with it” isn’t as good as showing people a lengthy, acrimonious fight in which you actually try to do more and Republicans block it. (To those who worry that such an approach would result in appearing weak: You look weak anyway.)

10) If work means “reverse the decades-long skepticism among both elites and the public at large about progressive approaches to the economy and accomplish fundamental reform that addresses the massive and growing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a tiny elite that results from a system rigged in their favor” … No. Of course not. That will require years of sustained effort by many people. But it’s a broad goal progressives should keep in mind and try not to undermine by doing things like stipulating to the importance of cutting taxes and regulations for “job creators” who already enjoy historically low taxes. We have a tough enough climb without shooting ourselves in the foot.

11) So if it’s unlikely to result in the passage of legislation that improves the economy, or to significantly enhance the President’s political standing in the absence of such improvement, or to shift the playing field on which economic debates occur, why do it? Because it’s the only option, other than going along with an approach that lines the pockets of a tiny portion of the country and screws everyone else.

In Defense Of The Rising

Gawker’s John Cook marks the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks with a post entitled “Against The Rising,” arguing that Bruce Springsteen’s 2002 album “is a failure.” The Rising’s popularity among both music buyers and critics makes the contrarian nature of Cook’s piece irresistible to Slate, which declares it a “must read for Springsteen fans.”

Nonsense. The only people for whom Cook’s piece is a must-read are those who will be surprised to learn that such a hackish and ill-considered argument can win high praise from a significant media outlet. If that sounds harsh and impolite, consider Cook’s own tone: “The problem with this is that The Rising is a terrible, bad, no-good record that cheapens us all.”

Cook insists “The Rising is a failure. It purports to document a nation's rupture and guide us toward salvation,” but fails to do so. It’s worth noting that Cook follows this assertion of what The Rising “purports” to do not with a quote from Springsteen about the album’s purpose, but with one from “one Catholic critic.” It is also worth noting that much of The Rising was written before the September 11 attacks occurred, and that Cook overstates the extent to which the album is a direct and literal response to those attacks.

In any case, Cook’s central argument is that the album wasn’t what “we” needed:

You can almost feel the weight of Springsteen's duty on the record—these are his people, these firefighters. This is his backyard. A nation turned its weary eyes to the Boss, and he keenly felt the need to answer. But the answer was overwrought, grandiose, bombastic. He went big. We didn't need anymore big things.

The grandiosity and bombast “we didn’t need” was, in fact, an absolutely essential form of catharsis for some of us. Not all of us, perhaps -- I don’t presume to speak for the nation quite as confidently as John Cook does -- but some, certainly.

In his one and only direct commentary on a song contained on The Rising, Cook contrasts the title track with an earlier Springsteen masterpiece:

The rousing, inspirational number is at the same time too on-the-nose and too off-key (does a dying man really grasp to a "dream of life... like a catfish dancin' on the end of a line" in his last moments? Just like a catfish?).

Contrast that with "Streets of Philadelphia," in which Springsteen obliquely and subtly addressed the AIDS crisis. There's no hammer in that song—no IVs, no pills, no gaybashing—just the pain of mortality and loneliness and the yearning for companionship.

Note that even Cook acknowledges “The Rising” to be a “rousing, inspirational number.” That he cannot, or will not, see that rousing and inspiring was exactly what some people needed at the time speaks volumes about his ability to assess what “we” needed. And that he would find it noteworthy that “Streets of Philadelphia” lacked “gay-bashing” probably says something about his familiarity with Springsteen’s work.

Now that Cook has explained how The Rising failed -- by being rousing and inspirational, but too on-the-nose -- he tells us how it could have succeeded:

If there's art to be found in the carnage of 9/11, it is at the periphery, among the ordinary and the living. Nobody alive knows what it was like to march to their death on 9/11. And a relative few know what it was like to lose a loved one on that day. Anthemic stadium-chants about those losses are empty exercises. But we all know the low-grade fear, the numbness, the confusion, the small heartbreaks. That's the territory that The Rising—or any album that seeks to do justice to that day as it was lived, as opposed to how it was televised—should have inhabited.

One record that did live there is the criminally overlooked Summer of the Shark, by Portastatic—Superchunk frontman Mac McCaughan's other band. Released in 2003 to little fanfare, Summer of the Shark catalogs the small moments, the mundane calamities that reverberated out from Ground Zero.

Again, what Cook derides as “empty exercises” provided, for some, a rousing, inspirational, and uplifting emotional release and a feeling of community. But look at what Cook wishes he heard on The Rising: Expressions of “the ordinary and the living” and a catalogue of the “small moments” and “mundane calamities” that followed September 11. Well, if that’s what Cook wanted, he would have been well served to listen to all of The Rising, not just the anthems.

Songs like “You’re Missing,” “Nothing Man,” “Empty Sky” do exactly what Cook says the album should have done. Here’s Cook’s praise for McCaughan’s work:

"In the Lines" (you can listen to it below) is about the near-universal experience of trying, and failing, to check in by phone on friends in New York City after the attack: "I got this woman on the phone, wrong number / Even she starts crying."

And here’s a passage from “You’re Missing”:

Too much room in my bed, too many phone calls How's everything, everything? Everything, everything You're missing, you're missing

Cook mocks “all of Springsteen's empty churches and grasping hands and na-na-nas” for failing to capture “what it was like to be an American in the weeks after 9/11.” Well, I attended eight shows on The Rising tour, and I don’t remember any fist-pumping or na-na-na-ing during “You’re Missing.” I do remember tens of thousands of people moved by Springsteen’s ability to capture what those weeks and months after September 11 were like, and tens of thousands of people grateful that rather than three straight hours of re-living one of the most emotionally wrenching experiences of their lives, they got the occasional na-na-na to lift things up a bit. Some of us needed both of those things. And that’s where Springsteen excels: He gives us both “Born to Run” and Nebraska.

Cook needn’t like The Rising -- maybe he finds “You’re Missing” and “Nothing Man” unsatisfying for one reason or another. That’s fine. Unlike Cook, I don’t presume to speak to what everyone needed at the time, or what everyone appreciates in art. But to ignore the existence of these songs while complaining that the album lacked anything like them is either stunningly dishonest or stunningly ignorant. Either he failed to listen to the album before declaring it “a terrible, bad, no-good record that cheapens us all,” or he intentionally misrepresented it.

(It must be noted -- as Cook does, near the end of his piece -- that Cook co-wrote a book with McCaughan, whose work he praises by misrepresenting Springsteen’s work.)

In the end, Cook’s portrayal of The Rising as a simply an album full of fist-pumping, na-na-na-ing anthem is as ill-considered as descriptions of “Born In The U.S.A.” as a flag-waving expression of Reagan-era Morning in America optimism. And, like those facile characterizations, it says more about the reviewer than about the album.

Hurricane Preparations

Perhaps if I lived in an area in which things like earthquakes and hurricanes are more common, I'd prepare for them by stocking up on shelf-stable food products and duct tape. Lacking such survival instincts, I instead write memos:

Do I Have To Say His Name?

“He walked to the stage, and said…”

    “I want to play with you.”

“What could I say? I said, ‘sure.’ And he put his saxophone to his lips, and I heard somethin’ as cool as a river … and I heard a force of nature comin’ out of him ...”

Buffalo, 11.22.09

Memorial Day

Memorial Day weekend 2010, Santa Monica, CA

The Movies of 2010

As of this writing, two days before the Oscars, I’ve seen 36 films released in 2010, which I’m quite certain is a personal record.

I’m not sure I saw a 2010 movie that I’d describe as truly great, though several were very good. Of the ten Best Picture nominees, two (The King’s Speech and 127 Hours) are simply bad movies, another (Toy Story) is nothing special at all, and at least two more won nominations that should have gone to better films. Natalie Portman’s performance in Black Swan is the most acclaimed acting performance of the year and will likely win her an Oscar, which is a bit like giving the Best Picture award to the film with the biggest explosions.

Anyway … Here are the 36 2010 movies I’ve seen as of this writing, in (rough) order of quality. My numerical rating scale is explained at the end.

Winter’s Bone: 8.5: Probably the best film of 2010, and it probably won’t win a single Oscar.

The Fighter: 8: This ground has been plowed countless times, but rarely this well.

Rabbit Hole: 8: A subtle film that trusts its audience -- most notably, trusts it not to need expository dialogue.

Another Year: 8: This year’s Rachel Getting Married: An exquisite, patient, and wonderfully-acted film that will turn off viewers who need protagonists with whom they can identify in exclusively positive ways.

[UPDATE: I inexplicably left Blue Valentine off this list. It’s an 8.]

The Kids Are All Right: 8: Had the potential to be overly saccharine, self-important, or both, but it wasn’t. Very nicely done.

True Grit: 7.5: Very well-crafted, but I can’t say that I care.

Biutiful: 7.5: Javier Bardem’s upcoming Best Actor loss will be one of the evening’s travesties. Another: Biutiful was not nominated for cinematography, while the thoroughly bland King’s Speech was. Like every other Iñárritu film I’ve seen, Biutiful approaches, but doesn’t quite reach, true greatness. (Or maybe it does, but loses me along the way?)

Please Give: 7.5: A small, quiet film about the problems of relatively comfortable people. (Hey, not everything has to be a tragedy.) Superb cast. New Rule: If Nicole Holofcener makes a movie featuring Catherine Keener, see it. You won’t be disappointed.

The Town: 7.5: Like The Fighter, The Town didn’t innovate, but it executed well.

Fair Game: 7.5: A chapter of a much larger story. For some viewers, awareness of the unexplored portions of the story may have enhanced the telling, but for me, it distracted.

The Social Network: 7.5: Well made, but why? And why take such liberties with an ostensibly true story about contemporaneous figures? And what’s with the portrayal of women? It’s the favorite for the adapted screenplay Oscar, which is a shame, as that’s where the film’s (significant) problems are.

The Promise: The Making of Darkness on the Edge of Town: 7: Fantastic, intimate portrayal of an artist at work. I’m probably overcompensating for my bias in favor of the subject by underrating it here.

Black Swan: 7: Visually striking, a strong first hour, and as good a performance as you could ask for from Natalie Portman, but her character’s unsympathetic starting point and straight-line descent into madness remove any real emotional resonance or suspense, making for a surprisingly dull second half. Portman’s likely Oscar win will come at the expense of at least three more-deserving nominees (Williams, Lawrence, Kidman.)

Inception: 7: Eye candy.

GasLand: 7: Good thing there’s a banjo; without it, the flammable drinking water might be too much to take.

Morning Glory: 7: Media types who wrongly thought it was about them trashed it -- but if they hadn’t gone in hoping for Broadcast News, they might’ve focused instead on Rachel McAdams’ emergence as a charming Diane Keaton-style comedic lead.

Animal Kingdom: 6.5: Well-acted but didn’t keep my attention. (In fairness: This may have been due to viewing circumstances rather than the film itself.)

Hot Tub Time Machine: 6: More depth than the title suggests -- the frequent 80s-movie references aren’t just cheap gags; they’re wry nods to the fact that we aren’t that young any more, and things didn’t go the way we expected. Still, basically a frivolous (but good) comedy.

Date Night: 6: Exactly what you want and expect it to be, assuming you want it to exist in the first place.

The A-Team: 6: Serves its purpose.

RED: 6: Mary Louise Parker, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich … How bad can it be?

Get Him to the Greek: 6: I expected funnier. If it’s the kind of movie you’re inclined to see, you probably won’t regret watching it. But you won’t regret missing it, either.

Runaways: 6: If you care about the subject matter, it’s good enough. If not … probably not.

Iron Man 2: 5: The first one was a 7 or an 8. This one would’ve been a 3 or 4 if it starred almost anyone other than Robert Downey Jr.

Salt: 5: Pretty much a paint-by-numbers action flick, but it gets points for being the rare action movie that casts a woman (rather than her breasts) in the lead.

Knight And Day: 5: Some entertaining moments.

The Ghost Writer: 5: Sterile and dull and made by a fugitive from justice.

The Other Guys: 5: There’s a good, funny movie in here. Unfortunately, there’s an extra 20 minutes of bad, unfunny gags spread throughout.

Greenberg: 5: Seems like there should have been more here.

The Losers: 5: Meh.

Toy Story 3: Nothing special -- and, ideally, kids movies wouldn’t reinforce gender stereotypes this much.

127 Hours: 5: Nicely captures the feeling of sitting through The King’s Speech. Actually, it wasn’t that painful … which is the problem. A movie about a guy who cuts off his own arm after being trapped in a hole for five days shouldn’t be this light and empty. James Franco is good, but director Danny Boyle made a 90 minute Mountain Dew commercial. Boyle seems to enjoy making horrific situations as beautiful and pleasant to watch as possible. Let’s hope he never gets around to making a holocaust movie.

The King’s Speech: 4: Tedious crap. This would be a 3 were it not for Colin Firth. All the actors did their jobs well, actually (though none as well as their Oscar nominations would suggest.) Unfortunately, nobody else did. Slow, repetitive and aimless.

Killers: 4: Bad.

The Bounty Hunter: 4: Worse.

Cop Out: 3: Kevin Smith is funny. Tracy Morgan is funny. What happened?

What the ratings mean:

10: A truly extraordinary, Annie Hall-level film. I don’t see many 10s.
9: An excellent movie that I’m happy to see win major awards. Most years, the 1-3 best films I see will be 9s.
8: A very good film and a legitimate Best Picture nominee (in a 10-nominee field) but not something I think should win.
7: Usually a good, well-made movie of modest ambition, or ambitious, generally good movie with significant flaws.
6: An adequately enjoyable time-waster but not worth going out of your way to see.
5: Worth watching on a long flight, but that’s about it.
4: A bad movie, to be avoided even on long flights.
3: An awful movie with absolutely no redeeming qualities. May involve Keanu Reeves or time travel.
2: An awful movie that has pretensions of greatness and depth.
1: Vanilla Sky.