tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83333682024-03-08T06:56:57.707-07:00The SanityPromptThis blog represents some small and occasional efforts to add a note of sanity to discussions of politics and policy.
This blog best viewed with Internet Explorer @ 1024x768Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger414125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-4192378569154669072010-12-24T11:46:00.000-07:002010-12-24T11:46:08.743-07:00Wordle of the SanityPrompt<a href="http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/2922434/My_Blog_Words"
title="Wordle: My Blog Words"><img
src="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/2922434/My_Blog_Words"
alt="Wordle: My Blog Words"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-48164467851391570392010-12-13T22:31:00.000-07:002010-12-13T22:31:34.788-07:00Why the Left is So Mad - Pt II<p>This shows shockingly bad judgment on Peter Orzag's part and goes to the heart of the Left's complaint with this Administration. Despite a campaign based on promises of change and addressing what Washington had become, in its bailout of banks, its tolerance of corporate theft by CEOs (AKA - executive compensation and bonuses), its stimulus, it's failure to push hard for a public option, its indifference to the most progressive and necessary of financial reforms, it has worried progressives that today's Democratic leaders and wonks are so embedded in the oligarchic power structure of the country that they cannot change it.</p><blockquote><p><a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/worse-than-boss-tweed.html">Does Peter Orszag Have No Shame? - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan</a>:</p></blockquote><p>That they are perhaps its embodiment.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-70077247032933113282010-12-08T21:58:00.000-07:002010-12-08T21:58:32.135-07:00Why The Left Is So MadThere's a lot of head shaking going on at the White House and in pundit circles right now about those 'crazy progressives' who want to scuttle the Obama-McConnell tax deal. If you want to understand why they're so pissed off though, it would behoove interested parties, such as, say, a President who may be seeking re-election in 2 years, to try and uncover the source of the anger instead of assuming they fully understand it.<br />
<br />
In the bunker mentality that is any Democratic White House, the enemies appear to lie on all sides so it's easy to scoff that those crazy liberals just don't get it. They want the ideal, or so Obama proclaims, and then he proudly proclaims that he is a pragmatist and wants to get things done. And the political center applauds him. The Right is still unimpressed and the Left fumes.<br />
<br />
So what gives? Are the liberals simply impassioned radicals who would sacrifice progress for principle? Can they not see the good that will come from an extension of unemployment benefits? Can they not appreciate that the deal provides about $120 billion in benefits to those with incomes over $250,000 and about $400 billion in benefits (<a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/why-obama-won.html">that had been opposed by Republicans)</a> to those who live paycheck to paycheck?<br />
<br />
As the dust settles I am sure progressives will come to see the merits of this deal. Hopefully they will also come to see the political realities that Obama faced. It's true Obama could have stared down the GOP and tried to argue in January, when taxes went up, that the GOP was responsible because they preferred tax increases for everyone over tax increases on the rich. But the fact is that January would have seen a GOP Congress' first order of business being an across the board extension of all tax cuts, no pay roll tax cut for working people, and no unemployment benefits extension. Then, the Democrats in the Senate or the White House would have had to veto a GOP extension of Bush tax cuts for all. Democrats would have instantly lost the ability to accuse the GOP of increasing rates.<br />
<br />
What the White House fails to realize though is that the deal isn't what drives progressives and liberals crazy. It's the lack of fight. It's the appearance of a preference for deal making over any kind of stand on principles (or self respect for that matter). And that may describe Obama perfectly.<br />
<br />
But what they cannot square at all is why Obama appears to save his sharpest rhetoric, most pointed barbs and most strident anger for them. Take the example being shown now around this very tax deal. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101209/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts">WH warns tax defeat could trigger new recession - Yahoo! News</a><br />
<br />
Who comes in for the sharpest criticism? Those 'idealists.' Who is threatening recession? Those 'idealists.' Who is endangering the welfare of the country? Those idealists. <br />
<br />
Those idealists stand around looking at each other bewildered. They think - 'You're being called a socialist Muslim terrorist by the other side and they are obstructing good economic policy (tax cuts for the middle class, health care reform), social policy (DADT), and security policy (START) -- but WE are the one's threatening the welfare of the country?"<br />
<br />
I'm sure the White House doesn't remember this incidenty but I can tell you most progressives do. This summer, just weeks after folding like a cheap suit on the public option, Medicare drug negotiations, and all other manner of good, progressive, fiscally sound health policy without so much as a whimper, let alone a cry of anger, the White House threatened to veto Financial Reform. What got their anger up? Was it some poison pill from the Right? No, it was a modest proposal to audit the Fed for its role in the TARP bailout of banks.<br />
<br />
Noam Schreiber ascribes the most recent deal to the GOP victories in November, arguing that this finally allows Obama to be the President he always wanted to be. Here's another reason that Progressives tear their hair out. Obama would rather govern with a GOP House and only 53 Democrats in the Senate than with a solidly Democratic House and almost 60 votes in the Senate?<br />
<br />
To believe Obama prefers to govern under the first scenario, one would have to assume Obama is much much more conservative than the middle of Congress was in the just past Congress. Or one would have to assume that Obama prefers the <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">image</span> of the dealmaker to actually getting progressive victories like Health Care Reform and Banking Reform and improving the lot of the working and middle class. Neither possibility is very reassuring to progressives.<br />
<br />
What drives progressives and liberals crazy is not that Obama is a pragmatic deal maker. It's that he doesn't appear to share their values at all. <br />
<br />
The White House doesn't see that it's lost credibility with the Left because it HAS threatened stands on principle -- but those stands have typically been anti progressive or targeted against progressives.<br />
<br />
When it's come to taking a stand on gay rights, on progressive policies like the Public Option, on rational security policies like opposing torture, illegal incarceration or ending the disgrace that is Guantanamo, or fighting for truly progressive financial reforms Obama has raised a limp hand and whispered "I'm with you." When it's come time to standing with the policy elites and the centrists of the Treasury, his economic council, or the New York Times editorial page though, Obama has been much more strident and forceful. <br />
<br />
It's not that Obama is a progressive pragmatist that upsets. It's that Obama hasn't convinced anyone on the Left that he truly cares about anything those on the Left have cared so much about. They get that he's pragmatic. What they worry is that he's really not progressive at all. And that should be of genuine concern to this White House. Progressives will never vote Republican. But 40 million voters from 2008 stayed home in 2010. 3 million 'idealists' voted for Nader in 2000. Disillusioned Leftists make good fodder for ribbing at White House cocktail parties, but laughing at or scoffing at your base's principles makes for very bad politics.<br />
<br />
Somehow Obama is going to have to convince them that there are just some things he won't compromise on. Clinton was able to do this although he never quite over came the degree to which he alienated the Left with his forceful positions on NAFTA over Global Warming, and Deficit deals over Health Care or Welfare Reform. He's another example of someone who appeared to fight hardest for those things the Left cared the least about or opposed most strongly. As Clinton's example showed, economic recoveries have a remarkable way of making political problems like disaffected bases go away. But without a recovery, Obama is going to need that base. Karl Rove understood this in 2002 and 2004. Will this White House?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-17618405017100204272010-06-14T22:46:00.000-06:002010-06-14T22:46:25.895-06:00DANA MILBANK - Andrew Romanoff's cynical fratricideThe only thing I don't like about this article are the following:<br /><blockquote>I've also admired Romanoff's success in Colorado politics, where he was by all accounts a model legislator, a <a href="http://www.coloradodlc.org/ndu0706.htm" target="">centrist Democrat</a> who built consensus with Republicans on thorny issues such as immigration. But now he has hired Howard Dean's former strategist, Joe Trippi, and he's practicing the Dean style of Democratic fratricide, even as he acknowledges being an "imperfect messenger" for an anti-establishment uprising. </blockquote>In what way is Democratic fratricide a Dean-style thing? If I recall 2000 correctly, it was a bunch of Democrats at the DLC, namely Al From and his buddy Paul Begala, who went out of their way to slip the knives into Dean's surge in Iowa. And since when is a model legislator "a centrist Democrat who builds consensus with Republicans?" Especially when the issue on which he build consensus is essentially how we can scapegoat immigrants a bit more for the economic problems we face.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-13208002219269350092010-05-19T22:44:00.000-06:002010-05-19T22:44:32.572-06:00George Bush and History | Mother Jones"There's an odd myth in Republican circles that presidents should act like CEOs, and the way CEOs act is to hire good people and then get out of their way. But nobody who's been a CEO actually believes that. Different managers have different appetites for hands-on management, but no good CEO thinks that she can just hand out some marching orders and then head off to the links for a quick nine holes. Execution matters. But George bought into the myth as thoroughly as any president in history, and he (and we) paid the price for that."<br /><br /><br />Read more at <a href="http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/05/george-bush-and-history">George Bush and History | Mother Jones</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-80462371057671392422010-05-18T21:41:00.000-06:002010-05-18T21:41:10.256-06:00U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call VoteDorgan's amendment to ban naked credit default swaps gets tabled by too many Dems and a White House that appears to live on planet Brain-Dead in the galaxy of Insanity when it comes to financial reform. This means Banks get to play, literally gamble, with taxpayer backed funds. Not sure how that makes economic sense...so is it only about the campaign contributions that explain this?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00156">U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Akaka (D-HI)</span><br />Alexander (R-TN)<br />Barrasso (R-WY)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Baucus (D-MT)</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bayh (D-IN)</span><br />Bennett (R-UT)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bingaman (D-NM)</span><br />Bond (R-MO)<br />Brown (R-MA)<br />Brownback (R-KS)<br />Burr (R-NC)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Carper (D-DE)</span><br />Chambliss (R-GA)<br />Coburn (R-OK)<br />Cochran (R-MS)<br />Collins (R-ME)<br />Corker (R-TN)<br />Cornyn (R-TX)<br />Crapo (R-ID)<br />DeMint (R-SC)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Dodd (D-CT)</span><br />Enzi (R-WY)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Gillibrand (D-NY)</span><br />Graham (R-SC)<br />Grassley (R-IA)<br />Gregg (R-NH)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hagan (D-NC)</span><br />Hatch (R-UT)<br />Hutchison (R-TX)<br />Inhofe (R-OK)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Inouye (D-HI)</span><br />Isakson (R-GA)<br />Johanns (R-NE)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Johnson (D-SD)</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Kerry (D-MA)</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Kohl (D-WI)</span><br />Kyl (R-AZ)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Landrieu (D-LA)</span><br />LeMieux (R-FL)<br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 0); font-weight: bold;">Lieberman (ID-CT)</span><br />Lugar (R-IN)<br />McCain (R-AZ)<br />McConnell (R-KY)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mikulski (D-MD)</span><br />Murkowski (R-AK)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Nelson (D-NE)</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Reed (D-RI)</span><br />Risch (R-ID)<br />Roberts (R-KS)<br />Sessions (R-AL)<br />Shelby (R-AL)<br />Snowe (R-ME)<br />Stabenow (D-MI)<br />Thune (R-SD)<br />Vitter (R-LA)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Warner (D-VA)</span><br />Wicker (R-MS)<br /><br />- Sent using Google Toolbar"Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-42811459049457640832010-05-11T22:26:00.001-06:002010-05-11T22:28:24.924-06:00The Nature of the Deficit<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4bfxtDHJBXA/S-orXIFG0tI/AAAAAAAAAPY/m-zEocUwGsI/s1600/revenues+as+pct+of+GDP.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
<img border="0" height="290" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4bfxtDHJBXA/S-orXIFG0tI/AAAAAAAAAPY/m-zEocUwGsI/s400/revenues+as+pct+of+GDP.GIF" width="400" /></a></div>There have been numerous stories about the first meeting of the Debt Commission last week. My of my state's Democratic Congressman recently <a href="http://www.facebook.com/#%21/polis?v=wall&story_fbid=125377617475287">celebrated that taxes were at their lowest since 1950.</a> He seems to think that if we just cut defense spending by 15% and freeze discretionary spending, we'll be good to go. I'd like him to look at the attached charts.<br />
<br />
What you'll see is a number of things that you won't hear among the conventional elites in DC as they blather about the deficit and the need to cut entitlements. <br />
<br />
Look at Figure above first - You'll see that we don't have a spending crisis as much as we have a general revenue crisis. It's great that people are realizing that the budget crisis is most easily managed by tackling the spending in Social Security and Medicare - but note that they're getting the blame for the deficit, which isn't fair. In fact, the so- called Social Security Crisis that pre-occupied so much of DC's time in the Bush II era has always really been a general revenues crisis.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4bfxtDHJBXA/S-orsm3jM5I/AAAAAAAAAPg/FeP1bxEHYgM/s1600/SS+and+Medicare+spending+as+pct+of+GDP.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="272" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4bfxtDHJBXA/S-orsm3jM5I/AAAAAAAAAPg/FeP1bxEHYgM/s400/SS+and+Medicare+spending+as+pct+of+GDP.gif" width="400" /></a></div>The next image, SS and Medicare spending as a percent of GDP, shows that Social Security (the blue line) isn't really slated to rise much in terms of spending as a percent of GDP. What growth you see is probably a function of demographics and an aging population. But it's hardly indicative of a problem in runaway entitlements' spending.<br />
<br />
What you do see in this second attachment is that runaway Medicare spending (the red line) is a problem we have to get a hold of. We've only just touched the surface of the kinds of things we'll need to do to control Medicare spending in the health care reform bill. Nothing in the health care debate leads me to think this society and polity are prepared to discuss end of life issues and shaping benefits coverage to match tests of reasonableness for treatments and procedures. Continually cutting payments to doctors and hospitals for certain procedures will only take us so far. I'm skeptical that the deficit debate (and the Debt Commission) will ever go there, despite their political insularity.<br />
<br />
But most importantly, the top most graphic shows that General Revenues as a percent of GDP have fallen off the cliff. This is where our real budget problems lie. Yes, in the last 10 years spending as a % of GDP has risen substantially above historical levels - we have GWB to thank for that. And much of the last two years growth is directly related to the bailouts and stimulus so they are temporary (see the purple line below).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4bfxtDHJBXA/S-oj0NabrXI/AAAAAAAAAPE/JF3f-t6_Q3M/s1600/revenues%20%26%20outlays%20as%20pct%20of%20GDP.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="290" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4bfxtDHJBXA/S-oj0NabrXI/AAAAAAAAAPE/JF3f-t6_Q3M/s400/revenues%20%26%20outlays%20as%20pct%20of%20GDP.GIF" width="400" /></a></div>However our structural problems lie fundamentally on the revenue side. We've cut taxes repeatedly for the middle class, so that only the highest earners or those without homes and children pay substantial amounts of tax on their income. The tax base itself is so dependent on the wealthy that it's extremely prone to economic fluctuations. Much of the deficit would disappear if growth would simply return. Sadly, what is needed is a broad tax base that can also be fair and progressive. But the Debt Commission, the President, the Congress and the public seem unwilling to acknowledge or discuss this fact. Maybe in 10 years Bruce Bartlett thinks. I think he's optimistic.<br />
<br />
There have been three periods of significant declines in general revenues - two times under Bush II and once early in the Reagan years. There was also a modest decrease in general revenues under Bush I. But otherwise, general fund revenues rose under most of Reagan's and Clinton's terms - most likely because economic growth was so robust. <br />
<br />
However we don't have a Social Security crisis. We don't really have an entitlements crisis. We don't even have a spending crisis once we get past the stimulus spending. If we had preserved the Clinton era surpluses we'd have some savings to tap for the time (in the next 5-10 years) when entitlement outlays exceed entitlement revenues -- which is what we were supposed to do with the 1986 fix to Social Security - save those funds for the rainy day when our General funds needed to subsidize elderly entitlements. Yet the heart of the US fiscal crisis - like all historical fiscal crises dating back to the English Revolution that cost King Charles his head - is at heart a revenue crisis. We simply refuse to raise the general funds to pay for our general funded program appetites.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-38585135491336224052009-03-31T09:03:00.000-06:002009-03-31T09:03:08.436-06:00Why the Democrats Can't Govern<span style="text-decoration: underline;">S</span>igh...<br /><br />What was is that Will Rogers said? I am not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.<br /><p class="articleText">"George W. Bush came to office having lost the popular vote, with only 50 Republicans in the Senate. After his disputed election, pundits insisted Bush would have to scale back his proposed massive tax cuts for the rich. Instead, Bush managed to enact several rounds of tax cuts that substantially exceeded those in his campaign platform, along with two war resolutions, a Medicare prescription drug benefit designed to maximize profits for the health care industry, energy legislation, education reform, and sundry other items. Whatever the substantive merits of this agenda, its passage represented an impressive feat of political leverage, accomplished through near-total partisan discipline.</p><p class="articleText">"Obama has come into office having won the popular vote by seven percentage points, along with a 79-seat edge in the House, a 17-seat edge in the Senate, and massive public demand for change. But it's already clear he is receiving less, not more, deference from his own party. Democrats have treated Obama with studied diffidence, both in their support for the substance of his agenda and (more importantly) their willingness to support it procedurally."</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-23674608833600110742009-03-01T09:58:00.003-07:002009-03-01T10:05:21.116-07:00Cry me a freakin' river<a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/the-view-from-9.html">The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan (March 01, 2009) - The View From Your Recession</a><br /><br />A reader writes into Andrew Sullivan:<br /><blockquote>I work for a small, 5-year old non-profit arts organization in Illinois. A couple of our usual big donors have indicated we should be prepared for smaller donations this year, and possibly none in the next couple of years. The are mentioning Obama's tax plans and their need to save money now in anticipation of that. A lot of my colleagues in the not-for-profit world are really scared right now, and we are not happy with Obama. We hear the rhetoric that the government is going to have a reserve to give to non-profits that will make up for some of the lost donations, but the fact is, we have never received federal aid, and likely never would (assuming the organization could even make it that far). Organizations are going to be killed under Obama's plan. I may have voted myself out of a job, and voted a whole community of kids out of art-making opportunities. Frankly, this sucks.</blockquote>Too bad. I'm sorry you may lose your job. But I'm also sorry millions have already lost their jobs...and their health insurance. If Obama's tax hike on wealthy families causes your non-profit some financial discomfort, it will be because our nation is finally righting an embarrassing wrong from over the last 100 years. While all of our developed competitors and allies offer health insurance to all their citizens, we do not. Obama's tax increase will finally assure health care to all Americans. If a few kids have fewer arts opportunities as a result, you want me to what? Cry for you? DON'T WAIT AROUND TOO LONG.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-29391101151020036852009-02-18T21:06:00.001-07:002009-02-18T21:08:26.908-07:00From the Brothel to the BroadsheetEliot Spitzer joins the people at Slate to opine on the issue of CEO pay. And talks some sense. The issue has never been the pay. It's been the collapse of corporate governance and the failure of institutional investors and boards to do their jobs.<br /><br />GUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-24775893693286289612009-02-14T11:06:00.003-07:002009-02-14T11:46:01.017-07:00How Far Are We from the Swedish Bank Bailout Model: And What does the Market Know?Andrew Sullivan, whom I'm liking more and more each day, has some interesting speculation about the Obama Bank Bailout 3.0 which casts the whole thing in a whole new light for me. <br /><br />There are two lines of speculation about the direction the Obama team will go. One, the most likely, is the 'bad bank' model in which the government buys up the toxic assets and helps get the banks off their feet; the other is nationalization, in which the government applies a "<span style="font-style: italic;">stress test</span>" on the largest most troubled banks, and for those that fail, declares them essentially insolvent, wiping out the shareholders and taking them over directly (aka the Swedish model). <br /><br />Some feel the secret plan is to pursue the Swedish model covertly, since the country is not ideologically ready for it and the GOP will make tons of political hay over it. But most feel that Geithner won the debate with more politically populist elements in the Administration such as Emanuel and Axelrod ie., the Bad Bank model won. Hence, the Administration is likely to have to seek trillions more from Congress to buy up those assets and face the politically troubling question of what price to pay. When asked directly, Obama has ruled out nationalization, although not in a way that inspires confidence that he understands what nationalization would entail. More and more economists are coming forward with the stated realization that Nationalization is probably the way we have to go.<br /><br />Observers of Geithner's weak performance this week commented that markets didn't like the vagueness and ambiguity of the plan, so they went down sharply on the day he spoke. But what if we look at this another way? What if the market's direction provides an indication by buyers and sellers of the way in which the Administration is likely to go. If indeed bank shareholders are worried that they are going to have a bad year, and if indeed there are a number of large banks that are essentially insolvent, then bank stocks' downward direction is not a statement that the Administration is being vague, but an expression of the likelihood that the Administration will eventually need to adopt the Nationalization strategy and wipe their value out. If I were an owner of bank stocks, I'd be really, really nervous right now.<br /><br />It's in the Administration's strategic interest to keep the question open for as long as they can, so they can hedge their policy bets. But it's in the bank shareholder's interests for Obama to commit to the 'bad bank' model as quickly as possible. Here's hoping he chooses continued ambiguity and options over assuaging the shareholders.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-75212761319844568072009-02-05T22:26:00.001-07:002009-02-05T22:27:57.140-07:00It's the Priorities StupidBetween 2003 and today, the United States spent almost $600 billion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan without anyone in Congress batting an eyelash. Most of that money went towards Iraq of course and to this day, no one can explain in an either coherent or compelling fashion what was at stake in that country and what threat it posed to the United States. But today, some in Congress such as John McCain or Susan Collins or even the Democrat's Ben Nelson can't swallow the size of the stimulus package when our entire economy is in dire trouble? The recently defeated McCain alternative to the stimulus came in well under $500 billion, far less than any economist who thinks government should work to end the recession has said is necessary.<br /><br />The United States just spent a decade handing out tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, with limited job creation and a paltry economic growth rate and now, essentially nothing to show for it. As we all painfully know, the Bush years have ended in the worst economic contraction in 60 years. And now the GOP's main objections to the stimulus are that there is not enough being spent on tax cuts and that the tax cuts need to go to,...wait for the other shoe to drop,...wealthier taxpayers. The GOP house members and Senators object that too much of the tax breaks in the bill are going to working class and lower income families. <br /><br />It might seem shocking that after so many years of being told that we should wait for the rich to shower down their wealth upon the rest of us, after we watched Congress and the White House vote trillions in economic benefits for corporate America and the wealthiest taxpayers, that we are asked to believe yet again in this Golden Calf. But the capacity for shock seems to have long left the building.<br /><br />The sad truth is, that despite all protestations to the contrary, the GOP isn't interested in fixing the stimulus package but in rendering it less effective. As their chief advisor, Rush Limbaugh has said, they don't want Obama to succeed. They don't want the Democrats to succeed. They have a vested interest in their failure. In fact, many on the Right feel that the recession should be allowed to run it's course so that Americans develop a proper appreciation for the fickleness of the market's awesome power. If you don't believe me, ask the several hundred Right-wing economists the CATO Institute got to sign an ad in the New York Times.<br /><br />When James Carville felt that the Clinton campaign staff was failing to pay proper attention to the message that would draw the proper contrast with their opposition, he famously wrote on a board in the campaign office, "It's the economy stupid." Well someone ought to go into the bullpen, or wherever it is Democratic strategists meet these days to ponder how to counter the avalanche of duplicitous concern demonstrated by their bipartisan colleagues from across the aisle, and write upon the wall "It's the priorities, stupid."<br /><br />A quick glance at the proposed cuts by the 'moderate cabal' reveals that those who confess opposition to the structure of the stimulus package aren't driven by ideology or a coherent philosophy. They certainly aren't driven by any kind of rational economic thought. State and local governments, school districts and public universities are facing drastic budget cuts that could force layoffs and will certainly be recessionary in their impact. Medicaid rolls are swelling just when states have no money to pay the tab for thousands of newly impoverished and needy enrollees. Whether taken as a layoff, a furlough or a salary reduction, a 10% reduction in state personnel costs is 10% of state payroll taken out of the economy. But the moderate cabal has proposed axing state stabilization money, dollars intended to help governments deal with the fiscal impacts of the recession, by $25 billion, and a further $15 billion in direct assistance for states. <br /><br />They've proposed cutting $6 billion from education programs. At one point they were considering cutting $14 billion from Pell Grants, even though seeking education and retraining is an economically sound way for a person to deal with a layoff or a drop in employment opportunities. You might be tempted to think that transportation spending would be at the heart of any stimulus package supported by a member of Congress, regardless of Party affiliation. But the 'Moderate Cabal' has proposed cutting Transportation grants. They've taken an axe to 5.5 billion in energy efficiency programs. <br /><br />After all this, the group could still only come up with $77 billion in cuts. It's become popular to decry the waste in the stimulus package and lament its composition. Liberals bemoan the pork and the pet projects that may not be stimulative. But a look at the dubious spending propositions the Moderate Cabal has left in the bill and been unwilling to cut underscores that they've been driven by expediency rather than any kind of judicious or economically informed standard.<br /><br />Could the bill be improved? Certainly. Would it be preferable if we didn't have to watch the Congressional sausage fest up-close. Absolutely. But the fact is that it is impossible for our democratic institutions to tackle a challenge of this sort without allowing local politics and pet projects to creep in. It is economically impossible to almost spontaneously inject nearly $1 trillion in new government spending into the economy within 18 months in a way that doesn't occasionally raise eyebrows or cause consternation. Think of the billions that we know were wasted in Iraq. But Americans, and certainly the members of the Moderate Cabal, never let that stop them from approving the flood of dollars into that fiscally porous endeavor.<br /><br />The main objective the Democrats should focus on is the difference in Republican priorities and their priorities. Republicans want to give more tax cuts to the rich; Democrats want to give direct assistance to state governments to prevent drastic budget cuts and rollbacks in services. Republicans want to spend less than any sound economist recognizes is needed; Democrats want to spend what is necessary to get the economy, and revenues for every level of government back on track as soon as possible. Republicans want the wealthy to spend. Democrats want to make lasting improvements to the physical infrastructure and capital assets of this country. Republicans want to dither, while Democrats want to act.<br /><br />Economists estimate that $1-1.3 trillion is being pulled out of the economy by this recessionary collapse. Poorly conceived tax cuts won't put that money back. But soundly conceived tax cuts and large amounts of government spending are the only ways to offset this loss of money. No other entity in American Society can rise to this challenge. The Fed has tried and it has nearly exhausted its policy options. The states cannot because they cannot spend more than they raise. And the private sector, as we all know, is bereft.<br /><br />Public spending of any type will flow directly into the economy and ripple through, lifting economic activity and offsetting the imminent job losses and wage cuts facing millions of Americans. This cash will be used to pay salaries and build things that will last long after the recession passes. It will help states prevent adding a further drain onto our already troubled economy. It will keep stores open and factories running and work crews humming. Economists call this the multiplier effect of public spending. Some projects have higher multipliers than others. But with so much money coming down the pipe, policy makers have to scramble to find any policy that promises to multiply its benefit across the economy and some of those will do more for job creation and capital development than others.<br /><br />But only government can do this -- can help our fellow citizens and heal this nation. Americans used to know this. The Republicans and their media brethren have hypnotized them into worrying about a misspent billion or two. Americans are once again worrying that tax dollars might go to a fellow citizen who is somehow unworthy. It's up to Democrats to remind them why in November they found their faith in change and in the power of government to stabilize our lives and secure our future. And how to find it again.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-61029238436514177162008-09-12T23:44:00.001-06:002008-09-12T23:47:31.912-06:00Matt Damon - Most Effective Obama Ad so far...<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/anxkrm9uEJk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/anxkrm9uEJk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-76225458019093692872008-04-29T18:58:00.006-06:002008-05-05T23:36:55.334-06:00What Obama Needs To Do Now<span style="font-size:100%;">Barack Obama continues to struggle in the polls in the wake of the return of the Rev Wright affair. His campaign <a href="http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/05/fear-not-barack-stumper-readers-to-the-rescue.aspx">appears to be faltering at a crucial time</a> and we'll find out just how much tomorrow. His loss in Pennsylvania was just large enough to raise questions and concerns about him as a nominee, but not large enough to swing the election back to Hillary as a credible front - runner -- Nancy Pelosi's "leader after all the primaries are done."<br /><br />Obama had no choice but to make a sharp clean break with the Reverend Wright. After Wright's performance, his clownish high-fives, declaring Zionism a gutter religion, that it was equivalent to racism, that the American government could have released AIDS in a ploy to decimate minority populations, etc etc etc., Obama had no other choice. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24371827/">His sadness</a> at the development was evident on the day of his press conference. But his anger was somewhat muted. And the move, while it may have stopped the hemorrhaging of support, hasn't stopped the slow bleed. <a href="http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3909">Hillary now leads Obama nationally among Democrats 47 to 40</a>, which is fateful heading into a convention. She leads in Indiana and has closed the gap in North Carolina. So how can Obama win back momentum, shake the perception that he's too liberal, distance himself sufficiently from his divorce from Wright so that it won't be seen through the lens of political expediency at best, and a serious failure of judgment in the first place for having trusted Wright so much?<br /><br />He needs to return to the big picture, thematic messages of his 'big-mo' period in February and March. Not to the policy particulars, and not just the small scale meet-and-greets and one-on -ones of Iowa. He needs to find an issue where talking about ideas, and about realities captures the imagination of people, reminds them that here is someone different, and restores the confidence and faith that has been shaken by the last three weeks.<br /><br />No surprise there -- the challenge is how to do this.<br /><br />My humble (OK I admit it, not so humble) suggestion is that he take on the social challenge of race in America in the way that only he can. After his speech on race in Philadelphia, <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/128548">one wag wrote that</a> one benefit of Obama's stature, his candidacy, and a potential presidency was his capacity to tackle the problem of race from the full spectrum of both the politics and substance of the problem. In a speech in Texas that the author (Newsweek's Jonathan Alter) cites, Obama is quoted as addressing the problems within the black family that can often undermine and stymie a child's social and educational development and success (<a href="http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=574&Itemid=1">for an alternative perspective see here</a>).<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;">A woman asked about health care and Obama explained how, for the first time in human history, thousands of obese children, many of them black, were being diagnosed with adult-onset diabetes—a disease that is killing millions and helping bankrupt the health-care system. He told the crowd that kids couldn't keep on "drinking eight sodas a day," then went in Bulworth's direction. "I know some of y'all got that cold Popeye's [chicken] out for breakfast. I know," Obama said with a smile. He continued: "That's why y'all laughing. You can't do that. Children have to have proper nutrition. That affects also how they study, how they learn in school … It's not good enough for you to say to your child, 'Do good in school,' and then when that child comes home, you got the TV set on, you got the radio on, you don't check their homework, there is not a book in the house, you've got the videogame playing." Instead of being jeered, he was cheered wildly.<br /></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;">Obama has been tarred, by Wright's actions and words, by HRC's campaign, and by the Right-Wing attack machine, as a liberal elitist. Implicit behind this is, of course, the subtext these code words fill-in for -- the subtext that plays on the dark heart of America's soul -- it's fear of the 'other,' it's unwillingness to confront racism and it's legacy, and blackness itself. The counter offensive in other words has moved Obama from a figure of hope appealing to the mainstream to a figure on the radical fringe of society. They have made Obama black in white eyes. Black like Al Sharpton. Black like Jesse Jackson. Black like Louis Farrakhan. Such figures are popular in the black community but have limited appeal beyond it and are threatening to millions of (admittedly mostly white) Americans.<br /><br />Figures from the black community like Oprah, Michael Jordan, and, for a time, Michael Jackson, who achieve extreme success across the spectrum and full market of American society seem to conquer white society by appearing to 'transcend' their blackness. I know I am on dangerous ground here and I am not speaking sympathetically of this perception, but it almost seems that Americans forget that their hero is black. There is, of course a term or two in the black community to describe this development. Initially, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/17/poll.blacks.democrats/index.html">Obama's candidacy was greeted skeptically and warily by black political leaders</a>. Many endorsed HRC early and his support nationally among African American voters was, before the Iowa caucus, divided almost evenly with her. His success changed all that, of course, once the possibility of an African American leader of this nation became a suddenly viable possibility. But this early hesitation, combined with Obama's message and his background made him also a figure, unlike Jesse Jackson (much to Bill Clinton's befuddlement and bemusement) who appealed across the racial, economic and political spectrum of this society. Obama's challenge now is to return to this state and I think the way there is to channel <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6615-2004Sep8.html">Bill Cosby for a moment.</a> Consider for a moment the following:<br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-size:100%;">48% of all black children grow up in homes without a father. </span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Blacks constitute 63 percent of all drug offenders admitted to state prisons</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" >Blacks comprise 49 percent of those in prison</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" >Black male life expectancy is 68.8 years while that of white males is almost 76 years</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" >The black drop out rate from HS is twice that of whites</span></li><li><span class="story" style="font-size:100%;">Black children spend more time watching television than children of any other racial or ethnic group</span></li></ul><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" >Does racism persist in America? Of course. Has racism become institutionalized within the fabric of society in the form of unequal opportunities, services, and infrastructure? Sure. But can black families begin taking initiatives that will directly improve the lives of their children and themselves without waiting for whites to wake up? Absolutely. And millions of Americans know this complex reality but are frustrated that no one takes it on.<br /><br />Obama can exercise leadership on this dimension. The very leadership on which his campaign is predicated. The kind of leadership that can cross divisions in society and heal old wounds. The kind of leadership that can begin to solve problems that are not just a matter of tax dollars or government programs. The kind of leadership Americans of all colors, religions, and creeds long for.<br /><br />I recognize that this is dangerous ground socially. I understand that he may be criticized by some as <a href="http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=574&Itemid=1">blaming the victim.</a> I recognize that some in America will see no further than his critique of black social dysfunction to accept their own culpability in and obligation to address the underlying problems. I am fully cognizant that this position can be easily accused of being just <a href="http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=574&Itemid=1">another instance of liberal racism</a>. My hope is that eventually Obama can establish sufficient social and political capital with white society that he can tackle the full spectrum of American hypocrisy about race.<br /><br />In my mind the culpability lies on both side -- who are complicit in an unwritten social compact in which white and black agree not to call the other to account. Following the early successes of the Civil Rights movement, the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and 1965, it faltered in its momentous surge to transform American society. And with the murder of leaders like the Kennedys and King, the self-immolation of Johnson (and American Liberalism) over the fires of Vietnam, it became convenient for whites to reassure themselves that their work was done. Of course all the nation had accomplished was to grab the low-hanging fruit of political expediency. The rise of debates over affirmative action and economic and social injustice (and the nation's economic stumbles in the Seventies) eventually turned the political tide against a further consideration of racial policy. And the country settled down into its current self-satisfied, and unsustainable compact. Whites wouldn't criticize the black community's problems or failures of leadership, and blacks wouldn't push too hard for social justice or in pointing out the pathological racism inherent in the system. To see just how real (and powerful) this social compact was, just consider for a moment how marginalized in political society figures like Jeremiah Wright and William Bennett are.<br /><br />In one sense, my suggestion is admittedly a cynical political move. I suggest that Obama tackle race again by addressing the short-comings that the black community needs to tackle and address in order that he can restore the comfort level of potentially sympathetic whites. I suggest that he campaign by moving to the right of HRC. To the right even of McCain for a time. Is this potentially a move to appeal to the worst in America in order to appeal to what might become the best in America? Yes. But it is a move that returns Obama to a position of leadership AND race neutrality. It allows him to recapture the spotlight in a way that <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKE-4IfukkM">playing basketball,</a> or <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/03/30/politics/p040715D63.DTL">bowling</a>, or visiting <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120994334960866053.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">a barbecue in Fort Wayne</a> will never do. It's a<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bound-Man-Excited-About-Obama/dp/1416559175"> move that Shelby Steele has alluded to but doubts Obama will ever make</a>. And it's a move that positions him to once again recapture the imagination of millions of Americans who dream about what his victory could portend for this country nationally and internationally. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-39292726270803913462008-02-24T22:41:00.003-07:002008-02-24T22:49:04.037-07:0060 Minutes, the US Attorney's Scandal, and the Democrat who went to jailTo my friends,<br /><br />Imagine this. A local leader of the political opposition in a country is targeted by the party in power — which controls all branches of the government. The President’s henchmen line up a criminal case against the opposition figure, but their first effort is thrown out of court. On their second try the jury deadlocks twice over the trumped up charges before ultimately voting to convict the political figure for corruption. The leader is sent away to prison for 7 years, with his legs and wrists shackled. With their main rival behind bars, the President’s Party goes on to capture two local elections in a row.<br /><br />Where is this? Putin’s Russia? Mugabe’s Zimbabwe? Assad’s Syria? No, sadly, it’s right here in the USA.<br /><br />Tonight, 60 Minutes documented the disturbing story of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Several months ago he was sentenced to jail for 7 years for bribery. That’s not a remarkable story — until you hear the details. First, remember that behind this story lies the broader question of whether the Bush White House put pressure on US Attorneys throughout the country to file criminal charges against it’s political enemies. And then it fired and replaced those who wouldn’t go along with these efforts to enlist the justice system to settle political scores.<br /><br />Then consider the details in this case. Don Siegelman was the successful Democratic governor of Alabama, a mostly Republican state. His enemies, under instructions from Bush Svengali Karl Rove, first hired investigators to catch him in compromising sexual positions. But that didn’t pan out. So they enlisted the help of two US Attorneys in Alabama — one of whom was married to the campaign manager of his gubernatorial opponent. Their first effort to try Siegelman was thrown out of court by a judge after hearing opening arguments — so flimsy was their case. So they tried again. On their second try, prosecutors charged him with bribery. His crime? Accepting $250,000 for a campaign effort to pass a lottery in the state that could be used to pay for improving public education. According to the Justice Department, businessman Richard Scrushy gave $250,000 to the lottery campaign fund in return for a promise to be re-appointed to a state board charged with determining the clinical need for hospital and related health care construction in the state. Now there are two problems with this allegation from a legal and ethical standpoint.<br /><br />First, the state’s case rested on the testimony of one man, a former aide, who claimed he saw Siegelman emerge from a meeting with Scrushy with a $250,000 check in his hand and heard Siegelman explain that the check was in return for the seat on the state board. But there were two problems with this testimony. First, the check was actually cut many days after this supposed meeting, so the aide could not have seen it when he claimed. Second, the aide was himself facing charges of extortion for misusing his office and looking at a 10 year sentence unless he agreed to cooperate. He has claimed that it took him several days and repeated attempts to write out his testimony as the prosecutors wanted it. But the prosecutors never provided these various versions of testimony to the defense, as they were legally obligated to. In fact, the Justice Department has repeatedly declined all requests for an explanation about this missing testimony, even subpoenas by Congress.<br /><br />Second, focus on the charge of bribery for a moment. Typically, in a bribery case, an individual derives a direct, personal benefit from the use of his political office. In an unrelated case, a former Republican governor of Alabama, Guy Hunt, personally pocketed $200,000, but prosecutors sought probation — not jail time. In this case, however, the money went to the Lottery Campaign Foundation — an effort to raise money to improve the state’s schools. If this is bribery, then by this reasoning any time a political donor is named to an ambassadorship, or a deputy cabinet position, or any state board, there’s been a crime. In other words, every governor, numerous Senators and Congressmen, and even the President are guilty of bribery. But in those cases the money pays for person’s own election effort. Here, the money went for school improvement! I probably dislike the campaign finance system as much as anyone, but I don’t think our current system represents a violation of bribery laws.<br /><br />There have been many occasions during the last seven years of the Bush Administration to weep for America. A senseless war whose justifications evaporated about the same time it became evident that it was being mismanaged into catastrophe. The sullying of our international reputation by first the effort to justify torture and then the vast evidence that our country has both sanctioned and executed torture repeatedly in the last six years. Invisible and visible ‘detention’ centers around the globe, where ‘enemies’ of America can be held without charge merely because the Administration has labeled them ‘enemy combatants.’<br /><br />But this case sticks in the throat like few others. Here, the victim is an American citizen. A high ranking member of the political opposition. Governor Siegelman may be no saint. But the decision to run for office ought not to subject you to the threat of prosecution by your enemies. Sadly, under our criminal justice system, any one of us can be indicted for one thing or another. As a friend once told me, “with a Grand Jury, you can indict a head of cabbage.” And if anyone looks hard enough, long enough, they’ll find something on just about anyone. That red light you ran last week, that time you drank and drove last year. That pot you smoked in college. The error you made on your tax form. That’s why the justice system is not to be used to investigate people but to investigate crimes.<br /><br />In this case, Bush’s Justice Department tore apart a man’s life looking for one thing on which to build a case. They looked until they found what they felt was something, no matter how small. The Republican governor's campaign manager’s wife (Leura Canary, wife of Bill Canary) led the investigation and filed the charges, despite a clear conflict of interest. She only recused herself after the case was in the courts. The judge who tried the case had been appointed by the Republican governor. A former Republican aide has testified that she heard the governor’s son, Richard Riley, state that the Judge would “hang Don Siegelman.”<br /><br />Siegelman has been in jail for 242 days and still has not received a trial transcript to ready his appeal. Yet the law requires that the transcript be delivered to the defendant within 30 days of conviction. The law also allows a defendant 45 days after conviction to prepare for surrendering to the Bureau of Prisons so that affairs can be put in order and a legal appeal readied. In Siegelman’s case, on conviction, the Judge ordered the governor shackled and bound in the courtroom, where he was immediately removed and taken away to Federal prison — a practice typically reserved for the most dangerous criminals or the criminally insane. 44 former state Attorneys General, both Republican and Democrat have signed a letter urging Congress to investigate the circumstances surrounding this case.<br /><br />I don’t normally write these kinds of letters. I don’t normally involve my friends in these kinds of email chains. But I simply cannot sit still and do nothing in the face of this gross injustice. But there’s more than injustice here. There is a perversion of our democracy, a sullying of everything we believe in as American’s. Because democracy cannot thrive where the state can be enlisted to take sides in political debates, and its power can be used to crush dissent and opposition. Please take a moment to visit the website of Don Siegelman’s friends to learn how you can help.<br /><br />http://www.donsiegelman.org/pages/MAIN/home.html<br /><br />Copy and paste this in an email and forward it to your friends. Write your Congressperson. Write the Judiciary Committee. Or donate to the legal defense fund. Thank you<br /><br />Dr Kwanda<br /><br />PS. Oh, and if all this wasn’t enough to send chills up your progressive spine, how’s this tidbit from Siegelman’s Wikipedia entry: “He was defeated for reelection in November 2002 by Representative Bob Riley by the narrowest margin in Alabama history: approximately 3,000 votes. The margin was controversial, as a voting machine malfunction in a single county produced the votes needed to give Riley the election. The recount, however, of that county's votes was affirmed by the state's Attorney General.”Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-1164864286128943252006-11-29T22:18:00.000-07:002006-11-29T22:24:46.163-07:00Mourning the Passing of Jacob Wilhelmus SmitI just opened the Nov/Dec CC Today and discovered with shock and sadness that Professor Jacob W. Smit (Professor Emeritus History Columbia) had passed away earlier this fall. I never had the privilege of knowing him as Wim although I have taken a great appreciation in reading the remembrances posted at a memorial site and in the memorial tributes of his friends and family. I am sorry that I never got to know him like this, but my exchanges with him were no less profound for that failure.<br /><br />I had Prof. Smit for CC or Contemporary Civilization in my Sophmore year. It was the first profound intellectual experience of my life and I can say easily and honestly from the vantage point of 20 years on, that Prof Smit touched my life as few have and helped Columbia to shape me as the person I am today.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I only had Prof Smit for one semester as he traded off the spring term with Prof Ainslee Embree. But the fall semester remains indelibly in my mind and I remember the envy of my dormates and classmates as I described the fascinating lectures and discussions of that fall term.<br /><br />I came to Columbia from a family of professors and intellectuals, Univ of Chicago grads and Litvaks. So I arrived with an especial eagerness for the famed core curriculum. My dad, an English professor, spoke of how reading Plato, especialy the Symposium, at Chicago in the late 30s had changed his life. In my freshman year I struggled with Lit Hum. I too read Plato, The Republic, The Symposium, The Apology. But they didn't change my life. They seemed distant and opaque. I didn't really connect to the readings until late in the spring semester when we read Crime and Punishment. And my struggles further alienated me from a father who seemed somewhat aloof to begin with, to inhabit a world far different from mine.<br /><br />I like to think that Prof Smit had a role in changing some of that. I entered CC in my second year and we began by taking up the Republic again. And this time, through Prof Smit's eyes it was like reading a new book. The text came alive. The notion of Platonic ideals took on deep and personal meaning. And the hypothesis that justice is called for because we know in our hearts it is right connected with me on some deep and almost anti-intellectual level.<br /><br />I still read my Columbia alumni publications religiously and with great interest. It always amuses me a little the way the College pats itself on the back for its Core. But I realize that for me the Core worked. It did its magic. I discovered the wonderful life of the mind. I put together the natural questions of a (somewhat) engaged 19 year old with the canonical works of generations and was able to explore them within the structured approaches of great minds that have come before us. I went on to major in American History and came to see the relationships between our structure of government and the way the Founders thought on the one hand, and the works of Locke, Hobbes, Montesquie, Rousseau on the other.<br /><br />When I first struggled with Lit Hum my freshman year, I went, being the earnest freshman I was, to see my professor to ask what was wrong with me. 'Why did I hate the readings and feel they were so dry when my father claimed they changed his life?' My professor at the time laughed and told me to be skeptical of anyone who claimed reading Plato changed his life. Maybe reading Plato didn't change my life, but I discovered in the next year that reading Plato with Prof. Smit changed the way I thought about life and justice, and politics, and policy, and how to live, for the rest of my life.<br /><br />I went on to get a masters in public affairs at Princeton and a doctorate in public policy at Harvard and my first reaction at both places was the immediate sense of how different the campuses were because they did not have a core curriculum. Harvard struggled to reform its Core when I was there and I could only feel bemused by the great difficulty they had in realizing what Columbia realized 80 years ago and continues to realize today. Intellectual life seemed more vibrant at Columbia. The students seemed more engaged in their classes and in the world. I am sure some of this is attributable to self selection. But what was striking to me was how the students in Professor Smit's class seemed to feel as I did that what we were talking about was life today, not the life of the ancients, about the questions of the globalized, modern world, not the questions of ancient Athens. That the world outside the campus at Morningside Heights mattered and that what we discussed in class actually related to that world. I am sure this is unfair, but at Harvard and Princeton, students, by and large, seemed no different from my grade obsessed, ambitious high school classmates for whom courses, classes, homework, and school were all means to an end rather the end in themselves.<br /><br />I never had the courage to speak up in class because I was amazed at the pace of our discussions, of the way the ideas would flow and the dialogue unfold. Before Prof Smit and some of the other students I always felt three steps behind. But I knew I was in the presence of greatness in the classroom so I would steal to his office hours to talk with him about the works of the week. He was always gracious and kind and eager to talk about the works, even though we would often go over the same ground that we would discuss in class. I remember the way his office smelled, the smell of books and what seemed in my mind to be a lingering sense of a farmers lunch of good dutch cheese with bread. Prof Smit did for me what no one had yet done. He made me rediscover how fun and engaging school and study could be. He helped me connect with my father on a level we hadn't until then. He was in short my most profound and heartfelt connection to what is best about Columbia and I mourn along with those here his too soon passing. I wish his family and friends the best and treasure the moments I shared with this great man.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-1161919806284231322006-10-26T21:29:00.000-06:002006-10-26T21:30:06.300-06:00You have to do thisFrom time to time you have to post to your blog to keep it active I suppose.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-1149133762254055602006-05-31T21:49:00.000-06:002006-05-31T22:01:22.906-06:00Learn Something New Everyday<a href="http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofstat.shtml">Baseball Almanac - Hall of Fame Fast Facts</a><br /><br />So I was wondering tonight if pitchers have a fair shot at getting in the Hall of Fame. Checking out the evening's box scores I realized that as good a pitcher as Mike Mussina is (he almost threw a six hit shutout and is 7-1), he isn't likely to get into the Hall of Fame. And the thought struck me that it must be really hard to get into the Hall of Fame as a pitcher. Such a player has to win a lot of games, avoid losing a lot of games, have a good number of strikeouts and shutouts and such, AND, (and this is key) help himself by winning some major championship caliber games -- playoffs and World Series. So I wondered, if 10-11 pitchers are on every 25-man roster, are a similar proportion in the Hall of Fame? Do pitchers have a similar likelihood of getting into the Hall of Fame given their frequency in the game? What would constitute evidence of bias?<br /><br />But along the way to finding out, something else happened. I learned that trivia lovers record all kinds of statistics about the Hall, including, the number of inductees from each team. Guess which team has the most inductees?<br /><br />Nope, not the Yankees. The Giants! And the funny thing is, it's not even close. 23 Giants players are in the Hall. The runner up is the Cardinals with 16. After that the Yankees have 15 and the Cubs (yes the Cubs!) have 14 to round out 4th place. The Cubs have as many players as the Negro Leagues. Which tells you something about the voting process and the influence of large media markets. How many Cubbies fans around the world think that players like Ron Santo, Dick Williams, and Dave Kingman are Hall of Fame material?<br /><br />Now let's looks at team performance. The Yankees have lost more Series than all but four other teams have been in total. They have won 26 Championships. Overall, they have been in the Series 39 times. The Cubs have been in 10, which isn't shoddy, but have only won it all twice -- and we all know how long that's been. The Giants have been in 17 Series (3rd place on the all-time list) with a neck squeezing record of 5-12.<br /><br />Go figure!<br /><br />Oh, and the fraction of pitchers in the Hall? 31%<br /><br />The fraction on a typical Major League roster? 44%Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-1149095247762113492006-05-31T11:07:00.000-06:002006-05-31T11:07:27.856-06:00Peter King calls Derek Jeter the best ever?<a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AiuhwI14MEjbzc4sJtrCNftDubYF?slug=cnnsi-earlyfavorites&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns"><em>Early favorites - NFL - Yahoo! Sports</em></a><em>: "2. I think I said something to my bride the other night that I never thought I'd say about a New York Yankee. As many of you may have divined from this column over the years, that's not my favorite franchise on earth. Anyway, I said to her: I'm not sure about this, but I think when Derek Jeter retires, I will say he's the best baseball player I ever saw. </em><br /><em><br />Living in Jersey, I see the man come to bat maybe 300 times a season, and I watch him in the field maybe 40 percent of his innings. But Jeter personifies effort every time he puts on the uniform; there is never anything but 100 percent effort. Every at-bat is quality. Every ball hit to him, and some only close to him, are gobbled up with certainty. And the way he carries himself ... He is baseball's Tiger Woods. He is this Yankee generation's DiMaggio. And I think he'll go down as better than Mantle, because though Mantle was truly great, he also squandered much of his ability through wild living."</em><br /><br />That's pretty impressive praise for a guy who isn't the best fielder or hitter at his position on his own team. But one I completely agree with. The guy is just a winner through and through and I would take him over ARod on my real team (not fantasy) any day.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-1149016434604020942006-05-30T13:13:00.000-06:002006-05-30T13:13:54.793-06:00Had Enough?Can someone make this into a bumper sticker already?<br /><br /><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060512/cm_thenation/1583537">Had Enough? - Yahoo! News</a>:<br /><br /><strong>The Nation -- </strong><br /><br /><em>"Had Enough?<br /><br />"It's a phrase Newt Gingrich adapted from an ad exec in 1946 and popularized. Now he's telling Democrats to use it against his own Party. For once, Democrats should heed Newt's advice."</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-1149012703856194202006-05-30T12:11:00.001-06:002006-05-30T12:11:43.860-06:00Two Days in OctoberExcellent, excellent, moving documentary about events involving the Vietnam War both abroad and at home in 1967. Catch it on TV if you can or read the transcript here (click below). Dr. Maurice Zeitlin of the University of Wisconsin, Madison gives just about the most perfect take on that troubled time and the actions of men and women on both sides of the debate at home over the war.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/twodays/filmmore/pt.html">American Experience Two Days in October Transcript PBS</a>:<br /><br />"<strong>Maurice Zeitlin</strong>: I have only respect for the men who fought in that war, because they didn't make the war, they didn't choose to fight in that war, but they accepted a responsibility that they thought was theirs as an American citizen, okay? They carried the burden of being an American citizen. When they were sent to war, they fought. And I carried the burden, not at all comparable, of being an American citizen by opposing that war. And I had the choice and they didn't. And, for that, I was privileged and they weren't, but we were both doing our duty."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-1142292680492000522006-03-13T16:31:00.000-07:002006-03-13T16:31:20.576-07:00Feingold Draws Little Support for Censure - Yahoo! NewsProfiles In Courage<br /><br /><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060313/ap_on_go_co/feingold_censure">Feingold Draws Little Support for Censure - Yahoo! News</a><br /><br />By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer<br /><br />WASHINGTON - Democrats distanced themselves Monday from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's effort to censure President Bush over domestic spying, maneuvering to prevent a vote that could alienate swing voters. Republicans dared Democrats to vote for the proposal.<br /><br />"Some Democrats in Congress have decided the president is the enemy," Vice President Dick Cheney' told a Republican audience in Feingold's home state.<br /><br />Feingold, a potential presidential candidate, said on the Senate floor, "The president has violated the law and Congress must respond."<br /><br />"A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first step to assure the public that when the president thinks he can violate the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him accountable," Feingold said.<br /><br />Even as he spoke, Democratic leaders held off the immediate vote that Majority Leader Bill Frist requested. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he didn't know if there ever would be one.<br /><br />Throughout the day, Feingold's fellow Democrats said they understood his frustration but they held back overt support for the resolution.<br />Several said they wanted first to see the Senate Intelligence Committee finish an investigation of the warrantless wiretapping program that Bush authorized as part of his war on terrorism.<br /><br />Asked at a news conference whether he would vote for the censure resolution, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada declined to endorse it and said he hadn't read it.<br /><br />Sen. Joe Lieberman', D-Conn., said he had not read it either and wasn't inclined simply to scold the president.<br /><br />"I'd prefer to see us solve the problem," Lieberman told reporters.<br /><br />Across the Capitol, reaction was similar. Feingold's censure resolution drew empathy but no outright support from Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.<br /><br />Pelosi "understands Sen. Feingold's frustration that the facts about the NSA domestic surveillance program have not been disclosed appropriately to Congress," her office said in a statement. "Both the House and the Senate must fully investigate the program and assign responsibility for any laws that may have been broken."<br /><br />Hello! Yo Pelosi - it's not that they didn't tell Congress. It's that they broke the law and eavesdropped without a warrant. In defiance of established law.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-1142281624148950452006-03-13T13:25:00.000-07:002006-03-13T13:27:04.166-07:00Former Navy Aviator Returns his WingsPresident George W. Bush<br />The White House<br />1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW<br />Washington, D.C. 20500<br /><br />Dear Mr. President:<br /><br /> As a young man I was honored to serve our nation as a commissioned officer and helicopter pilot in the US Navy. Before me in WWII, my father defended the country spending two years in the Pacific aboard the USS Hornet (CV-14). We were patriots sworn "to protect and defend". Today I conclude that you have dishonored our service and the Constitution and principles of our oath. My dad was buried with full military honors so I cannot act for him. But for myself, I return enclosed the symbols of my years of service: the shoulder boards of my rank and my Naval Aviator's wings.<br /><br /> Until your administration, I believed it was inconceivable that the United States would ever initiate an aggressive and preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to us. Until your administration, I thought it was impossible for our nation to take hundreds of persons into custody without provable charges of any kind, and to "disappear" them into holes like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. Until your administration, in my wildest legal fantasy I could not imagine a US Attorney General seeking to justify torture or a President first stating his intent to veto an anti-torture law, and then adding a "signing statement" that he intends to ignore such law as he sees fit. I do not want these things done in my name.<br /><br /> As a citizen, a patriot, a parent and grandparent, a lawyer and law teacher I am left with such a feeling of loss and helplessness. I think of myself as a good American and I ask myself what can I do when I see the face of evil? Illegal and immoral war, torture and confinement for life without trial have never been part of our Constitutional tradition. But my vote has become meaningless because I live in a safe district drawn by your political party. My congressman is unresponsive to my concerns because his time is filled with lobbyists' largess. Protests are limited to your "free speech zones", out of sight of the parade. Even speaking openly is to risk being labeled un-American, pro-terrorist or anti-troops. And I am a disciplined pacifist, so any violent act is out of the question.<br /><br /> Nevertheless, to remain silent is to let you think I approve or support your actions. I do not. So, I am saddened to give up my wings and bars. They were hard won and my parents and wife were as proud as I was when I earned them over forty years ago. But I hate the torture and death you have caused more than I value their symbolism. Giving them up makes me cry for my beloved country.<br /><br />Joseph W. DuRocherUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-1137729619935943442006-01-19T20:37:00.000-07:002006-01-19T21:00:20.006-07:00The Silence is DeafeningSeveral great posts by angry blogger David Sirota. If this stuff doesn't make you angry then you are not paying attention.<br /><br />What his posts make clear is the urgent need for public financing of campaigns. There I said it. Let's not pussy foot around this anymore. There is simply no other solution than to take the business of campaign contributions out of the political process for they amount to nothing more than legalized forms of bribery -- whatever the Supreme Courts warped view of bribery as constitutionally protected speech. All the reforms about gifts and junkets and meals will come to nothing until the central problem is recognized and dealt with -- politicians depend on fundraisers and lobbyists use the fundraiser as the coin of the realm to buy their way to influence.<br /><br />Sirota <a href="http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/01/corruption-digest-january-19-2005.html">skewers both the Democratic and Republican efforts at casting themselves as reformers</a>. If our media was worth anything they would have already persuaded Americans that the proposals amount to little more than window dressing which preserves the central perks of the incumbents.<br /><br />He also highlights the scandalous emergence of United from bankruptcy protection. Not only is United practically back on its feet, but <a href="http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/01/court-rubber-stamps-united-execs-rip.html">the bankruptcy judge approved a plan to award a large fraction of the shares in United to a small handful </a>of executives. And this comes <a href="http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/01/pension-battle-becomes-new-front-in.html">on top of news that United, which managed to wring concessions totalling $4 billion from its workers, has awarded executives at the company $500 million in bonuses</a>. <br /><br />He goes on to tackle issues like pension reform, identity theft, and the Abramoff scandal. Always a great read, this stuff is guaranteed to get your blood boiling. But the central point is clear, the pathetic response of Democrats, the failure to honestly tackle corruption and to highlight the scandalous pillaging of American companies by corporate executives stems from the essential need to keep those with the deepest pockets placated so that the political contributions flow. A politician who wasn't beholden to those interests might be more willing to shine the light on the scurrying cock roaches as they make off with our future.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8333368.post-1137628523619963062006-01-18T16:55:00.000-07:002006-01-20T11:19:22.323-07:00If you don't believe sports has something to teach you about lifeCheck out this discussion of the NFL's byzantine rules in Salon.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.salon.com/sports/col/kaufman/2006/01/18/wednesday/index1.html">Salon.com King Kaufman's Sports Daily</a>: Why Does Football Have Such a Complex Rules Book?<br /><br /><em>"Good question. A capital-letter-eschewing oedipus has an answer, pointing out that 'soccer is governed by only 17 laws, the first six of which are essentially administrative ... However, it's this byzantine codification that gives Americans something they pride themselves on doing: creating unnecessary government.' </em><br /><br /><em>Case in point: The various American soccer bodies, which govern youth soccer, high school, college, etc., have added complicated rules on top of the FIFA set that works for the rest of the world. </em><br /><br /><em>'It's an American concept to complicate something as simple as sport so that you create a field of 'knowledge experts' who have something to be experts on,' oedipus writes. </em><br /><br /><em>I don't know if it's native to the Colonies to complicate things up, but it's certainly the prime directive of the NFL, the most bureaucratic, technocratic operation in North American team sports. "</em><br /><em></em><br />It's not government that is corrupt and inefficient by nature. It is the way a people approach their government which helps determine the degree to which inefficiencies and inanities dominate the business of government. Because Americans are so afraid of their government and so terrified of "waste, fraud, and abuse," they saddle public action with complex reporting requirements and rules of behavior. When you don't want partisanship & cronyism to dominate the hiring process, you develop complex civil service rules that prevent managers from flexibly employing the best candidates. When you are terrified that civil servants will appropriate resources and steal, you make them go through a central administrative purchasing agent that must approve every purchase and make you follow a rigorous set of procedures. When you emphasize the democratic process and the right of Congress to oversee every step of the bureaucracy, you get a system dominated by cautious bureaucrats who won't take any initiative not pre approved by Washington politicians. Americans emphasize process over results - hence we have a rules-based, process oriented system. And we rarely get the results we want. We see this in the overwhelming bureaucracies of our public schools. In the myriad forms of the public health system. In the list of requirements for public programs like welfare. <br /><br />The football example and the anecdote from soccer chillingly reminds us that our love of rules pretty much gets in the way of getting the government we want -- flexible and efficient and responsive to immediate challenges. <br /><br />For more on this topic check out my favorite bureaucratic tome -- James Q. Wilson's Bureaucracy which begins with the example of the the French fighting the Germans in World War II. Despite our collective perception of the vaunted German fighting machine, Wilson informs us that the French had more tanks, more soldiers, and more weapons than the Germans. What they didn't have was the initiative based system under which German officers were allowed to make decisions on the fly and held accountable only for results. The French, by contrast had a hierarchical system in which they had to check on every decision with the very top so their units were less mobile and less reactive. We like to think that decisions take a long time in the public sector because that is the way of things. But they don't have to. We design public systems this way in our legislatures.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0