Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Frank Rich on last week's assassination attempt
Frank Rich in the NYT:
As the president said in Tucson, we lack not just civil discourse, but honest discourse. Much of last week’s televised bloviation was dishonest, dedicated to the pious, feel-good sentiment that both sides are equally culpable for the rage of the past two years. To construct this false equivalency, every left-leaning Web site and Democratic politician’s record was dutifully culled for incendiary invective. If that’s the standard, then both sides are equally at fault — rhetoric can indeed be as violent on the left as on the right.Read the rest of this post...
But that sidesteps the issue. This isn’t about angry blog posts or verbal fisticuffs. Since Obama’s ascension, we’ve seen repeated incidents of political violence. Just a short list would include the 2009 killing of three Pittsburgh police officers by a neo-Nazi Obama-hater; last year’s murder-suicide kamikaze attack on an I.R.S. office in Austin, Tex.; and the California police shootout with an assailant plotting to attack an obscure liberal foundation obsessively vilified by Beck.
Obama said, correctly, on Wednesday that “a simple lack of civility” didn’t cause the Tucson tragedy. It didn’t cause these other incidents either. What did inform the earlier violence — including the vandalism at Giffords’s office — was an antigovernment radicalism as rabid on the right now as it was on the left in the late 1960s. That Loughner was likely insane, with no coherent ideological agenda, does not mean that a climate of antigovernment hysteria has no effect on him or other crazed loners out there. Nor does Loughner’s insanity mitigate the surge in unhinged political zealots acting out over the last two years. That’s why so many — on both the finger-pointing left and the hyper-defensive right — automatically assumed he must be another of them.
Have politicians stoked the pre-Loughner violence by advocating that citizens pursue “Second Amendment remedies” or be “armed and dangerous”? We don’t know. What’s more disturbing is what Republican and conservative leaders have not said. Their continuing silence during two years of simmering violence has been chilling.
House GOP has no idea what to replace 'Obamacare' with
They know they want to repeal health care reform, though I doubt any of them could describe what health care reform even did last year, but they have no idea what they want to replace it with. Nice. No plans, other than to say "no" over and over again, alongside "we're number one!"
We're really not number one in health care. We're way down on the list. But these jokers have the best health care in the world because the US government is subsidizing their care, and, if they get sick, they all go to Walter Reed.
It's good to be king. Read the rest of this post...
We're really not number one in health care. We're way down on the list. But these jokers have the best health care in the world because the US government is subsidizing their care, and, if they get sick, they all go to Walter Reed.
It's good to be king. Read the rest of this post...
JP Morgan generated nearly $5 billion in profit last quarter
That anti-business Obama really shut down the banking industry. It's no wonder they were up in arms and throwing money at Republicans to stop the attacks. How will they survive on such small profits? Oh the humanity!
Better-than-expected quarterly profits from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. on Friday bode well for results from rivals next week.So, how's everyone else in the country doing? Surely everyone else has recovered as nicely as the banks, right? Read the rest of this post...
J.P. Morgan reported fourth-quarter net income of $4.8 billion as investment-banking fees remained strong and provisions for bad loans fell. Read more about J.P. Morgan.
J.P. Morgan is the first major U.S. bank to report fourth-quarter results. The company is a big player in all of the major banking businesses, including investment banking and trading, retail banking, credit cards, mortgages, commercial lending, treasury and securities services and asset management.
Weekend thoughts on Morality and money (Leaders & followers edition)
Many have commented on this article by Paul Krugman, in which he examines the divide that cuts through modern America as a morals rift, not a money rift per se.
That is, the battle between the two groups — "liberals" however defined; "conservatives" of both parties — is a fight about the morality of money. One group says it's immoral not to use money to benefit the down-trodden. The other group says it's criminal to take from winners to benefit losers. (And note the difference in the language I assigned to the recipients. For liberals, it's the down-trodden; for conservatives, it's losers. Implicit in these terms is the differing notion of "deserving".)
One aspect of this morality play is described by Krugman in an associated blog post. There he says:
But let's take this further, by applying our notion of Conservative leaders and Conservative followers. In this post, I said:
Followers first. The followers are easy. Like almost all of us, most Conservative followers are motivated by naked self-interest, and not by principle. If they actually thought welfare was confiscation, they'd refuse to receive it. Au contraire, Conservative followers are first in line with their hand out, and first to deny it to others, especially the Dark Undeserving Other.
So if the question is, Do Conservative followers believe welfare is confiscation? — the answer is No. And if you ask Conservative followers if "printing money" is immoral, half would say Huh? and half would say, What does that mean for me? If it means "I get less," it's bad. If it means "I get more," give me two of them.
For followers, it's only a matter of morality in the sense that they need to wrap some morality around themselves as permanent recipients. Easy to do if you demonize the people you're trying to pick clean. (Notice I said "trying". They fail miserably; see below.)
This is why, by the way, when talking with followers, you should always talk about what they're losing economically, and never get caught up in talking about who's deserving. If everyone's deserving by virtue of being human (as we believe), then Conservative followers are also deserving, and you can comfortably switch the discussion to more fertile ground — what actually works to grow their ever-smaller paychecks.
The choice for followers is always — You can be poor and punishing; or well off by doing what works. And it should always be presented that way.
Now leaders. Conservative leaders are actually of two types. On the one side are the billionaires who absolutely believe that anything that takes a dime from their pocket is theft, unless they pull out the dime themselves. That's what the drive to be rich is all about. (The softer souls are among the rich who inherit, like FDR.)
In this sense, leaders are just like followers, but with real money to protect. For leaders who are still acquiring, confiscation is only theft if they're not the confiscator — a contradiction, as we've seen. But for leaders who are mainly protecting their wealth, they really do believe in Krugman's morality play, and without that pesky internal inconsistency.
For the record, I'd put hedge fund managers in the first group of leaders, the acquiring ones. These are the bailout kings and bankers. I'd put the always-been-there billionaires in the second group, the Scaifes and Ahmundsons. For me, these are the only true believers.
At the second layer down from the top leaders, however, are the executors and enablers — the run-of-the-mill senators, congressmen, Executive branch officials (elected and appointed) and pundits of various stripes and media (TV, radio, print, and Conservative newsletter writers, of whom there are many). I've sometimes called them "retainers".
Their job is to make sure Conservative followers are fed the lie that confiscation is only wrong when followers are victims of it. And thus the irony of the world folds back on itself — by convincing Conservative followers that they are victims, Conservative leaders make that true, by picking them clean themselves. (This is why I treat Conservative followers as an education project, not a punishment one. We really are in the boat together, as victims.)
At that layer of the Conservative movement, the second one down, I'm convinced this morality explanation falls apart. This second layer isn't rich by billionaire standards, but its members are certainly well off. Peter Orszag, for example, went to Exeter (and yes, I include him in this layer, among the enablers). They're still acquiring, but they're also doing more; they're using their good educations to fool the followers. After all, that's their job, and they spend each day doing it.
Many really do have good minds. I'd therefore be stunned if more than half of them didn't see through their own BS — while thanking God every night that they get to ladle it out, and not someone else. Courtiers and career-builders are as low as you can get in the Shakespeare universe, and for a reason. They're all minor Judases, though prettied up, and most don't get the full 30.
To put it more bluntly, I'd be shocked if Rush Limbaugh drank his own swill on the weekend. (I hear he has a cave to die for.)
So there you go. Krugman is probably right, and his article is a good read. But apply it with care. The internal dynamic within the Conservative movement is rich and complex. It mirrors, in fact, the three main divisions in a classic agrarian economy — rulers (recipients of the theft); retainers (agents of the theft); peasants & slaves (those whose work is converted to stealable wealth).
In modern Conservative culture, the interests of these groups are different, and only those at the top have the luxury of anything that looks like integrity.
Mes weekend centimes,
GP Read the rest of this post...
That is, the battle between the two groups — "liberals" however defined; "conservatives" of both parties — is a fight about the morality of money. One group says it's immoral not to use money to benefit the down-trodden. The other group says it's criminal to take from winners to benefit losers. (And note the difference in the language I assigned to the recipients. For liberals, it's the down-trodden; for conservatives, it's losers. Implicit in these terms is the differing notion of "deserving".)
One aspect of this morality play is described by Krugman in an associated blog post. There he says:
You see, if you’re the kind of person who views being taxed to pay for social insurance programs as tyranny, you’re also going to be the kind of person who sees the printing of fiat money by a government-sponsored central bank as confiscation. You may try to produce evidence about the terrible things that happen under fiat currencies; you may insist that hyperinflation is just around the corner; but ultimately the facts don’t matter, it’s the immorality of activist monetary policy that you hate.He's right as far as he goes, and the whole "morals rift" concept is getting a lot of deserved comment these days.
But let's take this further, by applying our notion of Conservative leaders and Conservative followers. In this post, I said:
The interests of the leaders is different than the interests of the followers, and each should be treated differently.If I'm right, the key question then breaks into several questions. Do the leaders believe "printing money" and welfare programs are confiscation? And do the followers also believe that? Or is there daylight between them?
Followers first. The followers are easy. Like almost all of us, most Conservative followers are motivated by naked self-interest, and not by principle. If they actually thought welfare was confiscation, they'd refuse to receive it. Au contraire, Conservative followers are first in line with their hand out, and first to deny it to others, especially the Dark Undeserving Other.
So if the question is, Do Conservative followers believe welfare is confiscation? — the answer is No. And if you ask Conservative followers if "printing money" is immoral, half would say Huh? and half would say, What does that mean for me? If it means "I get less," it's bad. If it means "I get more," give me two of them.
For followers, it's only a matter of morality in the sense that they need to wrap some morality around themselves as permanent recipients. Easy to do if you demonize the people you're trying to pick clean. (Notice I said "trying". They fail miserably; see below.)
This is why, by the way, when talking with followers, you should always talk about what they're losing economically, and never get caught up in talking about who's deserving. If everyone's deserving by virtue of being human (as we believe), then Conservative followers are also deserving, and you can comfortably switch the discussion to more fertile ground — what actually works to grow their ever-smaller paychecks.
The choice for followers is always — You can be poor and punishing; or well off by doing what works. And it should always be presented that way.
Now leaders. Conservative leaders are actually of two types. On the one side are the billionaires who absolutely believe that anything that takes a dime from their pocket is theft, unless they pull out the dime themselves. That's what the drive to be rich is all about. (The softer souls are among the rich who inherit, like FDR.)
In this sense, leaders are just like followers, but with real money to protect. For leaders who are still acquiring, confiscation is only theft if they're not the confiscator — a contradiction, as we've seen. But for leaders who are mainly protecting their wealth, they really do believe in Krugman's morality play, and without that pesky internal inconsistency.
For the record, I'd put hedge fund managers in the first group of leaders, the acquiring ones. These are the bailout kings and bankers. I'd put the always-been-there billionaires in the second group, the Scaifes and Ahmundsons. For me, these are the only true believers.
At the second layer down from the top leaders, however, are the executors and enablers — the run-of-the-mill senators, congressmen, Executive branch officials (elected and appointed) and pundits of various stripes and media (TV, radio, print, and Conservative newsletter writers, of whom there are many). I've sometimes called them "retainers".
Their job is to make sure Conservative followers are fed the lie that confiscation is only wrong when followers are victims of it. And thus the irony of the world folds back on itself — by convincing Conservative followers that they are victims, Conservative leaders make that true, by picking them clean themselves. (This is why I treat Conservative followers as an education project, not a punishment one. We really are in the boat together, as victims.)
At that layer of the Conservative movement, the second one down, I'm convinced this morality explanation falls apart. This second layer isn't rich by billionaire standards, but its members are certainly well off. Peter Orszag, for example, went to Exeter (and yes, I include him in this layer, among the enablers). They're still acquiring, but they're also doing more; they're using their good educations to fool the followers. After all, that's their job, and they spend each day doing it.
Many really do have good minds. I'd therefore be stunned if more than half of them didn't see through their own BS — while thanking God every night that they get to ladle it out, and not someone else. Courtiers and career-builders are as low as you can get in the Shakespeare universe, and for a reason. They're all minor Judases, though prettied up, and most don't get the full 30.
To put it more bluntly, I'd be shocked if Rush Limbaugh drank his own swill on the weekend. (I hear he has a cave to die for.)
So there you go. Krugman is probably right, and his article is a good read. But apply it with care. The internal dynamic within the Conservative movement is rich and complex. It mirrors, in fact, the three main divisions in a classic agrarian economy — rulers (recipients of the theft); retainers (agents of the theft); peasants & slaves (those whose work is converted to stealable wealth).
In modern Conservative culture, the interests of these groups are different, and only those at the top have the luxury of anything that looks like integrity.
Mes weekend centimes,
GP Read the rest of this post...
Sunday Talk Shows Open Thread
Good morning.
If you going to watch any of the Sunday shows this morning, you probably won't be surprised the main topic: the shootings in Tucson. That's what most of the talkers will be talking about. ABC's Amanpour even hosted a "Town hall discussion" in Tucson.
FOX is hosting prospective GOP presidential candidates Tim Pawlenty and Chris Christie.
The full lineup is here. Read the rest of this post...
If you going to watch any of the Sunday shows this morning, you probably won't be surprised the main topic: the shootings in Tucson. That's what most of the talkers will be talking about. ABC's Amanpour even hosted a "Town hall discussion" in Tucson.
FOX is hosting prospective GOP presidential candidates Tim Pawlenty and Chris Christie.
The full lineup is here. Read the rest of this post...
The Beatles - Nowhere Man
It's another perfect winter day over here. Sunshine, blue skies and warm. I rode along the Marne River yesterday and it's still very high. The snow from last month flooded the river and along the bike path, it's only a few feet below the path in some areas. Despite an ideal day yesterday, there was hardly anyone out there on the path besides a few joggers and a kid riding his new bike with his dad.
How's the weather where you are? Read the rest of this post...
Following deal with Russia, BP to drill in sensitive Arctic environment
They're bouncing back like the banks after the bailout. Just imagine how bad things might be when they have yet another drilling disaster, but in a remote area. This is incredibly bad news for the environment.
The Arctic is to become the "new environmental battleground", campaigners warned yesterday after BP announced plans to drill in one of the last great unspoilt wildernesses on earth.Read the rest of this post...
Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) have vowed to confront BP's American boss, Bob Dudley, over the agreement with the Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft to explore the Kara Sea, north of Siberia. The British energy firm was branded the world's "environmental villain number one" by Friends of the Earth (FoE) yesterday in response to its move to exploit potential oil reserves in the remote waters.
Environmentalists are dismayed that BP, which announced the deal on Friday night, has decided to set up rigs in an area of great biodiversity and treacherous weather conditions. The region is one of the few remaining havens left for a number of endangered species, including polar bears, walruses and beluga whales. And while the waters of the Kara Sea are relatively unexplored, they are known to house key fish species such as halibut, capelin and Arctic cod.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
