;)
The Commentariat -- February 9, 2015
Internal links removed.
"Nobody Understands Debt." Paul Krugman explains how debt works, macroeconomically speaking. If you memorize (and vaguely understand) this graf, you'll be smarter than everybody else at the party:
Because debt is money we owe to ourselves, it does not directly make the economy poorer (and paying it off doesn't make us richer). True, debt can pose a threat to financial stability -- but the situation is not improved if efforts to reduce debt end up pushing the economy into deflation and depression.
... So when some know-it-all launches into that familiar "fiscally-responsible" rant -- "Stop stealing from our kids," -- you can try to set him straight (and good luck with that -- he's probably more ignorant & more stubborn than Angela Merkel, the thrifty Swabian housewife). CW: It pleases me to no end that the particular know-it-all dunderhead to whom Krugman links ("Stop stealing") is Steve Rattner, because I pegged him for a smart-assed phony years ago. I'll bet Stevie is raging at the breakfast table right now.
Paul Lewis of the Guardian: "A leading member of the Senate banking committee [Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)] is calling on the US government to explain what action it took after receiving a massive cache of leaked data that revealed how the Swiss banking arm of HSBC, the world's second-largest bank, helped wealthy customers conceal billions of dollars of assets. The leaked files, which reveal how HSBC advised some clients on how to circumvent domestic tax authorities, were obtained through an international collaboration of news outlets.... The disclosure amounts to one of the biggest banking leaks in history, shedding light on 30,000 accounts holding almost $120bn (£78bn) of assets. Of those, around 2,900 clients were connected to the US, providing the IRS with a trail of evidence of potential American taxpayers who may have been hiding assets in Geneva."
Guardian: "Angela Merkel will meet Barack Obama at the White House on Monday, as the two leaders aim to resolve a potential split over arming Ukrainian fighters so they can combat Russian-backed separatists. The German chancellor and the US president will also discuss upcoming talks to revive a peace plan for Ukraine. There has been speculation that the US could send 'defensive weapons' to Ukraine, but this has little support among its European allies who fear it could escalate the year-long conflict in east Ukraine."
Ezra Klein interviews President Obama on a wide range of topics. I think the artwork & black set are supposed to be edgy. But definitely in need of two ferns. Ferns or not, Obama demonstrates once again that he's a very smart guy who knows WTF is going on.
Andrew, the Anti-Mario. Jeff Toobin has a useful profile in the New Yorker of Andrew Cuomo.
Margaret Talbot of the New Yorker has the statistical, factual answer to Rand Paul & Co.'s libertarian view of vaccination "options": "What does work is legislation. The highest vaccination rate in the country is in Mississippi, a state with an otherwise dismal set of health statistics. It allows people to opt out of vaccines only for medical reasons -- not for religious or personal ones. States that make it easier not to vaccinate have higher rates of infectious diseases.... What does not help at all is to treat vaccines and the diseases they prevent as partisan political matters." CW: But, hey, illness, death & facts aren't much compared to freeeedom.
Annals of "Journalism," Ctd.
Terrence McCoy of the Guardian isn't too sure of the veracity of the "Brian Williams, Katrina Hero" story. Here's an excerpt: "Somebody tried to push an IV on him [to relieve his debilitating dysentery], which [pop-historian David] Brinkley said he was 'desperately in need of,' but nobly declined. 'There were so many ill people in line who needed it more than me,' he said. 'My conscience wouldn't have felt right if I had tried to pull rank. But I was in pure hell. I had no medicine, nothing.'"
David Carr of the New York Times seems to think the fault, dear Brutus, is in ourselves: "We want our anchors to be both good at reading the news and also pretending to be in the middle of it. That's why, when the forces of man or Mother Nature whip up chaos, both broadcast and cable news outlets are compelled to ship the whole heaving apparatus to far-flung parts of the globe, with an anchor as the flag bearer." ...
... CW: What do you mean, "we," white man? Some of the early teevee news anchors & stars, like Walter Cronkite & Ed Murrow, came up as radio war correspondents. They actually did cover WWII on the ground. But younger anchors were stars before they donned their khakis & made setpieces of war zones. They -- and the suits -- put on these shows by choice, & I doubt many viewers are convinced these anchors are doing real field reporting. Brian Williams cut his reportorial chops in Kansas & Pennsylvania, for Pete's sake. No camo required. Today, he is better at fake news than Jon Stewart, who wears a suit for the show & leaves it to his "reporters" to dress up in outfits appropriate to the shots on the greenscreen.
Ken Auletta of the New Yorker: on a point I made yesterday or thereabouts: "... while the spotlight is on Williams's transgressions, a word about the complicity of NBC and the other networks' marketing machines. The networks have a stake in promoting their anchors as God-like figures. By showing them in war zones, with Obama or Putin, buffeted by hurricanes, and comforting victims, they are telling viewers that their anchors are truth-tellers who have been everywhere and seen everything and have experience you can trust."
CW: The real outrage isn't about Brian Williams per se; his yarn-spinning is merely a symptom. People are sick of fake news about fake politicians inventing fake evidence for war & every species of bad policy. Must we suspend disbelief for everything? A Life of Irony is probably not what most of us anticipated.
More Evidence NBC Is the Awesomest Network for News. Evan McMurry of Mediaite: "After President Barack Obama's remarks at last week's National Prayer Breakfast in which he said Christians and others should refrain from getting on their high horses about Islamic violence given their own bloody histories, Chuck Todd wondered if the president was essentially trolling the Prayer Breakfast crowd. 'My question is why he felt compelled to bring this up at all,' said [another pop-]historian Jon Meacham. 'I have my own theory,' Todd said. 'He's not a big fan of the Prayer Breakfast, and I think he almost enjoys creating a rhetorical debate.'" ...
... Wait! There's More. Heather of Crooks & Liars: "Andrea Mitchell was terribly upset that President Obama said the word 'crusades' at the breakfast. The horror! Obviously the Republicans just had no choice but to attack him... 'You can't really go back to 1095,' Mitchell said. 'It's so out of context. It is so much in passing. You don&'t use the word crusades in any context right now, it's just too fraught,' Mitchell added. 'And the week after a pilot is burned alive, in a video shown, you don't lean over backwards to be philosophical about the sins of the fathers.'" CW: You see, my dears, Mr. Obama has broken the Beltway Etiquette Book's Commandment: Thou shalt utter neither thoughts of consequence nor substance. (Corollary: except when touting deficit reduction or "reining in entitlements.") ...
... If, by chance you think I was unfair to the Hon. Mr. Meacham, Charles Pierce has a wonderful, extended takedown of this charlatan-in-cleric's-collar.
CW: The scariest shows on television are not some high-production-values primetime fare but the Sunday morning window into how completely dimwittiest are the brightest bulbs in Washington. Andrea Mitchell, Jon Meacham, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks -- these are our modern-day answers to the post of public intellectual once reserved for the likes of Mark Twain.
Presidential Race
Alexander Burns of the New York Times: "Leaders of New York's Working Families Party on Sunday urged Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to seek the Democratic nomination for president next year, formally calling on her to enter the 2016 race for the White House." CW: See also comments at the end of yesterday's thread by James S. & Nisky Guy.
Chico Harley & Jim Tankersley of the Washington Post (Feb. 6): "'When Hillary Clinton runs, she's going to say, "The Republicans gave us a crappy economy twice, and we fixed it twice. Why would you ever trust them again?"' said Kevin Hassett, a former economic adviser to GOP nominees Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. 'The objective for the people in the Republican Party who want to defeat her is to come up with a story about what's not great' in this recovery, especially wage growth, he said."
Robert Costa of the Washington Post: "Less than a year before Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses, it appears that every Republican contender is making a serious play to win the state, setting up what is likely to be one of the most active, competitive campaigns here in recent memory. Political observers in Iowa say that the field is wide open and that numerous candidates have a legitimate shot to win or do well enough to come out with momentum. That is partly because moderates in the Iowa Republican Party, led by Gov. Terry Branstad, have reasserted themselves into the caucus process after watching social conservatives dominate in 2008 and 2012."
Scenes from the Dunderhead Know-It-All Department. Marc Caputo of the Miami Herald, in a Politico piece, profiles "Professor Marco Rubio," who co-teaches a political science class at Florida International University." CW: Thanks for the puff piece, Marc!
AND another Republican governor/presidential candidate solidifies his international creds with a trip to -- London! Rebecca Kaplan of CBS News: "Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker heads to London Monday for a four-day trade mission...." Take that, Hillary Clinton, Woman of the World. Read Kaplan's article for reminder of how successful Republicans have been in an environment that presents "seeming low levels of risk - no cultural or language differences or complex relationship to navigate."
Beyond the Beltway
The George Wallace of Our Times. Alan Blinder of the New York Times: "In a dramatic show of defiance toward the federal judiciary, Chief Justice Roy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court on Sunday night ordered the state's probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on Monday, the day same-sex marriages were expected to begin here.... The order, coming just hours before the January decisions of United States District Court Judge Callie V. S. Granade were scheduled to take effect, was almost certainly going to thrust this state into legal turmoil. It was not immediately clear how the state's 68 probate judges, who, like Chief Justice Moore, are popularly elected, would respond to the order." ...
... UPDATE. Amy Howe of ScotusBlog: "The Court today denied Alabama's request to stay a federal judge's ruling striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The state had asked the Court to delay the implementation of that ruling until after the Court rules on the pending challenges to similar bans in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Michigan. Because the Alabama ruling is scheduled to go into effect today, the Court's order effectively cleared the way for same-sex marriages to go forward in Alabama. ...
... UPDATE 2: Chris Geidner & Tasneem Nashrulla of BuzzFeed: "It was not immediately clear how probate judges across the state would react to the seemingly conflicting orders -- although one, a spokesperson in Montgomery County Probate Judge Steven L. Reed's office, confirmed to BuzzFeed News that they are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples this morning. ...
... UPDATE 3: Here are the latest developments, via the New York Times' Alan Blinder. "Alabama became on Monday the latest state to allow same-sex marriage, as many probate judges defied an order by the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and began issuing licenses and performing weddings."
Maureen Groppe of USA Today: "A West Virginia lawmaker has apologized for saying that while rape is awful, a child that results from a rape is beautiful. The comment from state Rep. Brian Kurcaba was made Thursday when members of the West Virginia House of Delegates debated a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The bill does not allow for an exemption in cases of rape." CW: No indication Kurcaba is sorry he's a hateful misogynist.
News Ledes
Hill: "Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will undergo a second operation on Wednesday morning to repair damage to his right eye following an exercise accident. The operation is a follow-up to a procedure he underwent on Jan. 26 and will be performed at the George Washington University Hospital in Washington."
Slate: "Drew Peterson, the ex-cop currently serving a 38-year sentence for the 2004 murder of his third wife, was charged on Monday with trying to hire a hit man to kill the state attorney who prosecuted his case." The Chicago Tribune story is here.
Share Article
Reader Comments (8)
Four quickies from yesterday and today:
Of course Rattner chooses to misunderstand debt; he lives in and profits immensely from the financial world, and banksters don't like anything that might lead to inflation. Inflation punishes those who have and rewards those who don't. The old "cross of gold" thing is still very much with us.
The Working Families Party remains little more than a nice idea for most of the nation. Where fusion voting exists, its progressive vision can and does have an impact, limited maybe, but real. According to one of the party's Oregon spokespersons, whom I recently interviewed, the party, the Oregon WFP is adjusting its emphasis from large-scale political engagement to support of specific issues--in Oregon a pay it forward college tuition plan--that they see garnering popular approval...The whole WFP story is not yet told, but it already illustrates how difficult it is for third parties to get established. Fusion voting offers an entree but most states--read: the R's and D's--won't allow it.
And on norms: Would recommend "American Nations" by Colin Woodward, an easy to read presentation of when which parts of the North American continent were settled and by whom. The point? Waves of settlement by very different cultures and their attendant cultural/social norms were created in different parts of what we (jokingly?) call the United States. Haven't finished the book yet, so don't know if Woodward's last chapter tells us how to suture our long-established divisions into a happy whole, but I'm guessing he punts.
Finally, have to say real reporters have provided me some of the most inspiring reading I've ever encountered. A brief roll call. Eric Sevareid's "Not so Wild a Dream." William Shirer's multi-volume autobiography. Howard K. Smith's "Last Train from Berlin." As Marie says, these were real reporters, of another generation whose early life experiences prepared them for life outside the plastic media bubble that over the years formed around TV "news." Many were Midwest boys, who lived through the depression and made their way the hard way to New York and eventual international success. Two generations removed from the likes of Abraham Lincoln and John Muir, who also had some success of their own, their lives paralleled their Midwest predecessors. In current parlance, they were grounded, not free-floating purveyors (and in William's and in many other cases, certainly a high proportion of Congresspeople or congressional wannabes, victims) of the "truthiness" that blurs the line between fact and fiction and that too often defines our times.
Krugman's succinct and easy to understand description of the basics of national debt make it all the more puzzling why so many have taken such drastically wrong-headed steps to alleviate the problem. It can't be true that that many individuals, pundits, politicians, heads of state, leaders of media empires, voters, are ALL that stupid.
And it's probably not the case. Most people, it would seem, simply misunderstand the problem, as Krugman suggests. But there is reasonable misunderstanding and there is willful ignorance, those who choose not to understand so as to insist upon their own brand of moralistic economics.
I think it's useful to try to understand why so many apparently smart people can act in ways that are demonstrably inefficient and even dangerous, for danger is inherent in bad economic policies, especially those which lead to economic disaster. Political philosopher and public policy researcher Seymour Martin Lipset viewed a strong economy as essential to a healthy democracy.
His writings on political psychology also led him to conclude that economic straits, combined with forces that convince enough of the middle class to believe that they are being used and abused, tyrannized and marginalized, are essential to the rise of fascism. So we have a two pronged attack on democracy being orchestrated (too conspiratorial?) or at least abetted by those for whom democracy is an impediment to their goals (Koch Brothers), but for whom the sham of democracy is a necessary screen (the GOP).
Economics is often portrayed as a value-neutral operation. Prices go up and down based on availability of goods. But this is a baloney skin tire ploy trotted out by such as Paul Ryan, a "Who, me?" useful response when they are called for willfully misleading the public about the economy for ulterior motives. "Why, I don't have my thumb on the scale, look!" But these denials and the bases of their economic pronouncements are informed, in part, by a noxious brand of moralistic weighting. The idea of just deserts being one of them. You work hard enough, you save, you're thrifty, or a Swabian housewife, in Angela Merkel's vision, and in twenty or thirty years, you too may be able to purchase a broom closet in which to house your family of six.
But should you waver, morally, should you be deemed lazy or salacious, or a taker, unheeding of the all the fingers being wagged in your face, you will be considered undeserving. And you must tighten your belt.
The problem is that this willful misunderstanding or at the very least, ideologically and moralistic weighting of debt, tightens belts around the neck.
It's unclear how much or this weighting is conscious, but I would suggest that the same ideological tentacles that clamp onto a clear understanding of economics and debt also preclude rational responses in so many other areas.
Yesterday there was a link to a piece about last week's prayer breakfast that caused wingnut heads to explode in concert across the continent. It was indicated that the writer was attempting to explain history to teabaggers.
My first thought was that that would be like trying explain Newton's Laws to a four year old. Their mental appliances are simply unrated for that kind of load. This morning I thought I'd go back and reread Krugman from the point of view of a teabagger. I got 147 words into the piece and that was it. At that point Krugman says "Let's look at the facts". Full stop. Krugman is about to bombard me with "made up 'liberal' facts".
Last week I heard an interview with Shankar Vedantam, author of "The Hidden Brain" talking about the barriers standing between rational conviction and the irrational fears of anti-vaxxers. His claim, which seems eminently reasonable, was that the harder you try to convince these people of the fallacy of their thinking, the more they believe you are trying to lead them astray, lying to them, part of the conspiracy. So what to do? His solution is to appeal to the heart rather than the intellect. I'm not sure how one would go about this since emotional appeals are what support many of these people, whether they're anti-vaxxers, or debt nags, in maintaining their obdurate positions.
There's so much to unpack when considering the intersection of economics and politics and ideology, especially when you think of all the irrational processes involved and the plethora of internal contradictions (Fundamentalist Christian support for unbridled market economies that wreak havoc on the poor and middle class alike, eg) that further muddy the swamp.
Then you have people like Ryan and McConnell and others who likely know better but are perfectly willing to endanger millions of people including (no exaggeration because they've done it once already) the world economy, purely for political and ideological points.
Despair is a terrible thing before noon. There oughta be a law.
I think Ken's point about truthiness in reporting is important for the context it provides.
The problem for such as many of us, and, apparently quite a few others, is that we still, as Marie indicated over the weekend, expect a baseline of truth in what we get from people like Brian Williams. I know in my head that he's not Walter Cronkite, but I at least hold out some hope that he's also not Sean Hannity.
But we have not yet completely internalized the fact that nearly all mainstream media is owned by gigantic corporations who have more than one horse in every race. I'm not suggesting that Comcast CEO Steve Burke gets on the horn every night and tells Williams and other NBC producers what they can and cannot run (unlike, say, Rupert Murdoch), but I don't think anyone believes that all MSM newscasts are free from influence.
Let's face it, in many operations, News is a vital link in the entertainment chain, and in many ways becomes a form of entertainment itself. Ask yourself how often you're in the kitchen getting dinner ready and, hearing something come across on the nightly news, implore anyone within earshot to explain "How is that possibly, in any universe, considered News?"
Yeah. A LOT.
But news operations have benefited for decades from the hazy memories of the "good old days" when anchors were actually reporters first, when they were people whose opinion could change a president's mind, and if you saw them in a combat setting, there was a reason for it. The rule for years in TV news has been if there's something going on, send the anchor there. A big storm, a disaster, a war, Dick Cheney admits he's an asshole, anything huge like that, the whole show sets up a remote. It's not like the anchor is going out interviewing people in the field, but it looks great. It's great drama. And if that's the coin of the realm, what better way to up the ante than to put yourself in the place of danger? All well and good, until you start making it up or drastically exaggerating that danger.
And it further diminishes the trustworthiness of subsequent network reports that attempt to uncover wrongdoing or report on actual news. The claim "they all do it" becomes that much harder to rebut.
And speaking of butts, I do have to reiterate a complaint that the firestorm over the Williams stunt stands in stark contrast to the relative silence attending the eternal, quotidian, and flagrant lying by everyone on Fox.
Two quick questions:
First, do thrifty Swabian hausfraus have anything resembling a Republican cloth coat?
And if so, will Angela Merkel wear one to the White House today? Just to show that profligate Obama fellow her seriousness about frugality?
And while I'm free associating, does Bibi own a dog? And will he talk about that dog when he comes to visit President Boehner?
"We have a little dog, a little pit bull sent to us all the way from Texas. My kids love that little dog. They named him Checkmate. And I'm telling you right now, we're gonna keep him, even if Obama wants to hand him over to the Iranians."
Oh...hold on. I have a call. It's Paul Ryan. He says there's no such thing as free association. I think he means lunch, but never mind. I wouldn't freely associate with him anyway.
Just watched/read the VOX interviews with Obama. I can't imagine a Bush (41, 43, or a 45!!!!), much less a Cruz, a Christie, or any currently potential R-candidate sitting down and speaking so intelligently and thoughtfully about world issues.
In fact, I'd like to dispense with term limits! Obama '16
If I were Brian Williams, I'd be getting myself, and my family, ready for a Stephen Glass/Jayson Blair style fine toothed combing of everything I've ever read and said for the last 20 years. Not saying that Williams is a Rand Paul type plagiarist, but he's given anyone with a lot of time on their hands and access to his stuff reason to start fishing for past whoppers.
Batten down the hatches, Bri.
Just think. Any day now it could be The NBC Nightly News with Chuck Todd. And won't that be fun? He can do stories about wars that should have been, and what he might have seen and done had he been reporting from the front lines, microphone in one hand, RPG launcher in the other.
@ Akhilleus: "Krugman's succinct and....." Good one.
I've been mulling over the question raised in your first paragraph since late 2008. I can only conclude that the Chicago school has much to answer for. I haven't much respect for my Prime Minister but at least, an economist, he never followed the international conservative mantra of slash, slash, slash.
Of course Republicans never ask the people to stretch intellectually, to educate themselves. It's always simple answers to complicated questions. Worse, shortly after taking office Obama adopted the same concern over the debt. Now I read Hillary has talked to 200 economists. It's what I would think of as a good way to confusion, not clarity as if doubling the NSA phone taps would make it easier to find a terrorist.
David Gergen has a surprisingly sympathetic and eloquent review of David Axelrod's book about his experiences with President Obama, both on the campaign trail and in the White House. The "Yes we can!" slogan was formulated by Axelrod, and he us justly proud of it. I was a quite early supporter of Obama, and my personal take on the phrase differed from the intent. I took it to mean "Yes we can WIN." I said as much speaking on Obamas behalf at our local caucus in 2008. After 8 years of Bush, I was tired of Democrats losing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/books/review/david-axelrods-believer.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad