Daily Archives: Sunday, February 1, 2009

The kids, I suspect, are tobogganing

att00002

WWJP (what would jesus plagiarize?)

Focus on the Family hired a new D.C. lobbyist this week, picking up Timothy Goeglein, who is best known for having served as the Bush’s White House’s liaison to the religious right community. Goeglein was forced to resign after getting caught regularly plagiarizing material for a newspaper column he used to write.

from Steve Benen

And they are warped creatures

‘RESPECTING’ THE OFFICE…. Former Bush White House chief of staff Andrew Card complained to right-wing talk-show host Michael Medved that President Obama is insufficiently respectful of the presidency. Apparently, one demonstrates respect for the presidency by their choice of attire:

“…I found that Ronald Reagan and both President Bushes treated the Oval Office with tremendous respect. They treated the Office of the Presidency with tremendous respect. And some of that respect was reflected in how they expected people to behave, how they expected them to dress when they walked into the symbol of freedom for the world, the Oval Office. And yes, I’m disappointed to see the casual, laissez faire, short sleeves, no shirt and tie, no jacket, kind of locker room experience that seems to be taking place in this White House and the Oval Office.”

Torture, not to mention lying a nation into war, allowing the economy to crash, politicizing the JD and pretty much every department of governance, spewing out a refrain that government itself is a destructive element within the nation…all of that and more represents “respecting the office” but more casual dress codes disrespect the office.  I have really come to hate these bastards.  


They just make shit up

Newly-elected RNC Chairman Michael Steele gave a pep talk to House Republicans yesterday, during a retreat to plot strategy for the rest of the year. Steele noted, for example, referencing unanimous opposition to an economic rescue package this week, “[T]he goose egg that you laid on the president’s desk was just beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.” His remarks became less tethered to reality as he went on.

Steele couldn’t praise [House Republicans] enough, and at times, he was at a loss for words. “You and I know that in the history of mankind and womankind, government — federal, state or local — has never created one job,” he said. “It’s destroyed a lot of them.”

There are a couple of ways to look at this. First, I suppose, it’s worth remembering that when Steele was the lieutenant governor of Maryland, and sought re-election, he and his running mate took credit for creating 100,000 new jobs in their state. They also ran ads vowing to … wait for it … create more jobs. This was in 2006. Perhaps Steele has changed his mind.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

Australia facing the most severe heat wave ever

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/parched-australia-faces-collapse-as-climate-change-kicks-in-1522529.html

Pleasing thought

Right this minute, Conrad Black may be pressing out Illinois licence plates.

Washington Post death spiral

Truly pathetic, again.  Another op ed by Amity Shlaes on economics, FDR’s New Deal and the modern situation.

Shlaes has a bachelors degree in English – FOR GOD’S SAKE.

Try to find an op ed on economics from Paul Krugman or Joe Stiglitz (both Pulitzer winners in the field) or Brad DeLong.  You won’t find any.

Update: Steve Benen and Dean Baker on this unbelievable idiocy:

SHLAES STRIKES AGAIN…. Over the summer, the Washington Post ran a piece from conservative writer Amity Shlaes, explaining that the national economy was fine, there was no recession, and that Phil Gramm was right to call us a “nation of whiners.”

Undeterred, in early December, the Post ran another piece from Shlaes, which argued that the federal government shouldn’t try to respond to an economic downturn through stimulus investments. In late December, the Post ran yet another piece from Shlaes, repeating the same point, and arguing that FDR’s New Deal did not improve the economy in the 1930s.

It’s been a month, so the Post decided it’s time, once again, to run another piece from Shlaes, this time arguing — you guessed it — that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal didn’t work. Indeed, Shlaes insists the Great Depression would have taken care of itself, if only FDR hadn’t tried to rescue the nation from financial ruin.

I’ll just let Dean Baker take it from here.

While the basic argument has the form of a no evidence if counter-factual assertion (e.g. the good fairy of the market would have set things right, if only Roosevelt didn’t get in the way), the discussion is contradicted by the known facts of the era. Roosevelt’s New Deal Agenda lowered the unemployment rate from 25 percent in 1933 to 10 percent in 1937. None of us would be happy with 10 percent unemployment, but it difficult to complain about policies that reduced the unemployment rate by an average of almost 4 percentage points a year. The annual growth rate over these four years averaged 13.0 percent. It is always possible that the magic of the market would have done better, but there is no reason that we should believe so.

Shlaes is correct in pointing out that things turned bad again in 1937. The Blue Dogs of the Roosevelt era won sway and got Roosevelt to cut spending and raise taxes. This threw the economy back into a serious recession, just as any good Keynesian would have predicted.

When it comes to writings on economics, the Post’s Outlook section is probably best viewed as a jobs program rather than a source for serious ideas.

Paul Krugman explained in November that there’s “a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse.” Shlaes is, alas, at the top of this enterprise.

Now, if only someone would explain to me why the Post‘s op-ed editors feel compelled to publish the same misguided piece from Shlaes, making the same misguided argument every month or so, I’d appreciate it.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016699.php

The practical man versus the intellectual

American historian Richard Hofstadter would not be surprised by the rise of anti-intellectual extremism we see in the modern American right.  Discomfited, surely, but not surprised.  As he detailed with wonderful fluency (he’s a historian who is fun to read) in “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life”, this is an old philosophical or mythical conflict that has been a part of the American national character since the beginning.  He understood and detailed the cyclical nature of the phenomenon (as he puts it in reference to the early 60′s when he wrote the book, “the New Dealers have been replaced by the car dealers”).

But I wanted to offer up a particular portrayal of this “practical man” vs “the intellectual” dichotomy from, originally, a story by Washington Irving which was interpreted by the animators at Walt Disney.  It is a perfect illustration of this old mythic structure in American culture.  Though there’s much more to be said regarding how the narrative of this story aligns with the illustrations and the myth.  AND there’s much more to be said as regards how Republican/conservative propaganda/marketing utilizes this myth to portray themselves in one way and Democrats/liberals in another way.  I’ll just plop in the illustrations here and leave you to consider those other elements.

ichabod61

Conversation with John Updike

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/01/27/books/1231546398585/a-conversation-with-john-updike.html

Because it’s beautiful

att00027cawk54g2

Frank Rich

The crisis is at least as grave as the one that confronted us — and, for a time, united us — after 9/11. Which is why the antics among Republicans on Capitol Hill seem so surreal.

…“It’s up to me to hijack the Obama honeymoon,” Limbaugh soon gloated, “and I’ve done it.” In his dreams. He has hijacked what’s left of the Republican Party; the Obama honeymoon remains intact. The nightmare is that we have so irrelevant, clownish and childish an opposition party at a moment when America is in an all-hands-on-deck emergency that’s as trying as war. To paraphrase a dictum that has been variously attributed to two of our most storied leaders in times of great challenge, Thomas Paine and George Patton, the Republicans should either lead, follow or get out of the grown-ups’ way.

Read the full column here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01rich.html?_r=1

Frank Rich has become one of the most clear-sighted and honestly-spoken writers working in the large modern dailies.   In the first part I’ve quoted above, he analogizes our present economic situation with 9/11.  It’s an appropriate and illuminating analogy and, surprisingly, I’ve not seen anyone else make it.

I’ve argued (along with many others) that the modern party and movement have divested themselves of moderate ideas and people.  The resulting extremism has the failing of any extremism – an evisceration of internal systems which would foster or permit resiliency.  Their ‘base’ of voters/activists have been purposefully pushed to extreme and exclusionary views (“bi-partisanship is date rape”, “government is the problem”, “liberalism is the cause of all that’s wrong in the country”) by a propaganda regime which itself can now no longer move to a more moderate stance because it would then become – within its own ideological framework and to that audience it has fostered – an example of irresolute weakness and lack of principle.  If they (Limbaugh, Hannity, Boehner) are not actively hating and fighting against the deadly liberal/Democrat enemy within, their identity and purpose are gone.  There are not two sides to their story.