Via Atrios.
I’ve had a bad feeling about the economy for a long time, especially since the housing bubble burst.
But I’m self-admittedly uneducated about the economy. Jim Cramer, though, is not. Follow the link and watch the video.
Here’s one of the milder comments (transcribed myself so sorry if it’s not exactly accurate).
Fourteen million people took a mortgage in the last three years. 7 million of them took teaser rates or took piggy-back rates. They will lose their homes.
Via Elyzabethe. Even the Supreme Court analysis of the case is very much disingenuous. The so-called “typo” analysis is just an excuse to rule on behalf of the corporate defendant.
The truth is that the legislative intent was so obvious that every other level of court read the statute properly and along the lines of what congress explicitly intended in their committee report.
It’s the type of technicality that so-called “Rule of Law” Republicans and Federalists rail against whenever it works against their interests.
The whole idea that Congress needs to pass a new law (and that Bush is threatening to veto it) just to correct what was obviously the intent of the law in the first place is absurd. And it only seeks to accomplish what is in fact a major goal of the Bush brand of Republicans and his merry band of jurists: frustrating the electorate.
If you get screwed over enough by the government, then maybe you agree with them that the government is just out to screw you over.
The question of why a person decides to have sex is actually more interesting the more I think about it.
There is, of course, the biological imperative. We’re programmed to procreate. And sex is fun. But it can’t be as simple as that, or we’d be thumping like bunnies all the time, everywhere we go.
And unlike this idiot, I don’t think there’s a trick to it.
A couple of UT-Austin psychologists conducted a study exploring why people have sex. This short write-up has a sample of a few of the reasons stated. Some of them are kind of disturbing and others are quite hilarious.
Here are a couple of my favorites.
“The person was a good dancer.”
“It seemed like good exercise”
Heh. I’d like to add a couple of my own. “She paid for dinner.” And “It was either that or talking.” Anyone like to add some of their own?
I spent five years in the U.S. Army. When a soldier was injured and had to be put on a medical profile, which meant that his physical capabilities had to be limited until he recovered, he was often referred to as “broke.”
I remember a drill sergeant at Ft. Leonard Wood who was particularly nasty towards soldiers with profiles. She was a reserve drill sergeant who only served one weekend a month and two weeks during the summer. It was in those two weeks we caught her. She liked to take all the soldiers with profiles, read their limitations, and look for loopholes. If she found one, she’d smoke them, which is the term we’d use to describe punishing a soldier through strenuous physical activity (though it was never called “punishment”), like push-ups, flutter kicks, iron mikes, and any other thing you can think of.
As they were struggling to follow her orders, she’d scream at them that she hated “broke soldiers.” She said she knew that most of them were faking or exaggerating their injuries in order to get out of the most physically strenuous activities but she wasn’t fooled. Her attitude was that these soldiers just needed to be tougher and needed to know she wasn’t playing around. They’d get back in line with the others.
This is the attitude, I think, reflected in General Tucker’s changes at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital detailed in this article in the WaPo.
I was stationed at WRAMC for about three months and was assigned to the Med Hold Company. My medical issue was an illness and fortunately I was able to return to duty after my time there. But since I was a Non-Commissioned Officer, I was made a squad leader and had a lot of duties, on top of my medical treatment, that entailed looking after some of the other soldiers.
So it pains me to read this article as I sympathize completely with the soldiers who are hurt and upset about the tone deaf response of the installation commander. There are many wonderful, intelligent commanders and NCO’s in the Army. Indeed, some of the most dedicated, professional, and wonderful people I have ever met were soldiers.
But there’s a mentality pretty common in the service, an ignorance which is reflected here, that whatever another person’s problem, if he were just a little tougher, we’d all make out like champs. So you’ve got substandard medical conditions, soldiers with terrible life-long injuries being neglected, soldiers with emotional and psychological trauma, and soldiers who feel diminished, ignored, and undervalued. What do you do?
Call the drill sergeants, tankers, and combat veterans who can remind them what real pain and real problems look like!
Seriously?
The WaPo has an article about the upcoming FCC ruling on the Wireless Auction set to take place in January. There are lots of important issues to consider here: the future of wireless services, innovation, creative markets, entrenched corporate interests, and consumer choice.
But to read the WaPo article, you’d think the real issue is whether a young, brash, upstart Google company can be a member of the kewl kidz club on Capitol Hill.
Kim Hart, the WaPo reporter, spends the first five paragraphs setting the stage, introducing the main characters (Google, AT&T, Verizon Wireless, and the FCC) and ends the sixth paragraph with her angle.
But the auction is also testing the political might of Google, which has to this point been somewhat of an outsider in Washington.
The rest of the article is basically about that point, with only cursory attention being given to the differences between Google’s plans and FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin’s counter-proposal.
But don’t worry, we do get an anonymous source from the FCC staff with this bit of snark.
Like the culture at many Silicon Valley technology companies, Google’s clashed with Washington’s. Some FCC staff members said the company’s tech gurus came across as arrogant in meetings with commissioners.
“They’re used to getting what they want rather than having to make a case for what they want,” said one staff member who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Maybe I’m a bit naive or dumb or prejudiced or don’t know what the hell I’m talking about. But doesn’t that sound like the comment of someone who just sat in a meeting with intelligent people who discussed concepts he really did not understand and decided to respond with “too cool for school?” There’s a real us vs. them mentality there. Imagine experts in the field assuming they’d be listend to. Imagine the gall of these internet hippies who assume that the real issue is coming up with the best possible plan without political considerations.
What possible relevance does this quote have anyway?
I think in a perfect world the lobbying strength, or lack thereof, of Google might be an important article to write as an addendum to the real news of the day.
And I think we all know why this article was written and not the informative one where we actually get an idea of the plans being put forth and discussed. We’re too stupid to understand or appreciate that article. We’d only be interested in the story if it’s portrayed as a death cage match between lobbyists.
Writing the informative article assumes we’ll take the time to understand it and even possibly (gasp!) write/call the FCC to tell them what we think.
Don’t bother with the details. Just pass the popcorn.
For the next couple of days, I will be guest blogging over at Yellow is the Color. I might post one or two things here this week which might be more appropriate for this blog but for the most part I’ll be writing over there.
I don’t have anything more profound to say about it right now but hopefully I will soon. After reading Bill Simmons of ESPN.com’s Page 2, I realized that nearly every major professional athletic association is in the midst of a major controversy.
The NFL has been battling huge image problem with its players running into serious assault and criminal issues (of which Vick is simply the biggest).
With Barry Bonds about to cement his place in infamy by breaking Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record, MLB has been unable to put to rest its steroid problem. And its complicity in that problem.
And finally, with the news that NBA ref, Tim Donaghy, has been fixing games for the mob through his officiating, the NBA is finally forced to deal with what has been a problem for many years, namely suspicious and piss-poor officiating.
The NHL gets a lot of crap for being unpopular and failing to generate decent television ratings. But as far as sports leagues go, at least it’s honest.
Harrington chokes, only for Garcia to end up choking even worse. That sounds oddly familiar to me…
Big Law gives back; if only we could all be so charitable…
Contrary to what the Len Pasquerelli’s, Chris Mortensen’s, and John Clayton’s of the world are saying, the NFL is clearly setting the stage to suspend Mike Vick regardless of whether he has been convicted of a crime. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has already set a precedent for suspending players whose conduct he deems detrimental to the integrity of the NFL before the players whose conduct is in question have been convicted of any crime, which is well within his power to do. The NFL’s first statement after Vick’s indictment on conspiracy charges may have slightly hinted at a “wait and see” approach, but it also may have revealed the league’s leanings on the matter, stating:
“We are disappointed that Michael Vick has put himself in a position where a federal grand jury has returned an indictment against him.” [emphasis added]
Today, in responding to protests outside the league’s office by PETA, the NFL issued a statement saying, in part:
“The alleged activities are very disturbing, and we are extremely disappointed Michael Vick has put himself in this position.” [emhpasis added]
The NFL offices are ran by lawyers who, as such, carefully choose which words to use in describing the current situation. Its words, while avoiding any presumption of guilt for commission of the acts alleged in the indictment, belie the league’s feelings that regardless of the level of Vick’s individual, direct involvement in the alleged acts, he is responsible for the firestorm that is raining down upon him and bringing negative attention to the league. The NFL has taken the stance that Michael Vick has put himself into his current position, and that, along with the precedent already set, suggests that the NFL has already made up its mind to take action against Vick; the league’s supposed “wait and see” approach is likely directed only toward just how harsh such action will be.
I’m not a libertarian but I really liked this post over at the Cato at Liberty blog. Gene Healy raises an interesting question.
Is libertarianism really a political philosophy that tells you what to think about mandatory recycling and restrictions on the interstate shipment of wine, but has virtually nothing of interest to say about when it might be morally permissible to use daisy cutters and thermobaric bombs?
I’m not really sure what the answer is, to be honest. I have a slightly more than passing familiarity with libertarianism and I sympathize with the notion that individuals should have as much autonomy as possible, but only if it is socially responsible.
I don’t see government as an extension of our families and therefore I think it should stay out of family business.
But I do think that the collective will of persons should be reflected to a large extent in their government, especially when it comes to protecting an individual’s autonomy.
What does this have to do with Iraq? I suppose that depends on what we’re doing there. Is it to protect our people? I think that claim hardly has any credibility anymore. Is it to open markets for our corporate/oil interests? I don’t consider corporations to be persons, legal fictions be damned, so it is inappropriate for our government to be serving those interests.
I’ve thought a little bit about this and I really cannot come up with the libertarian rationale for the war.
Anyway, check out the link. Definitely good stuff there.
I took the title of this post from a Grover Norquist quote.
I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub
The true power of this statement was on display in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and it was on display this last week when a steam pipe burst in New York City. Rick Perlstein has more.
And while you’re at it, check out the final installment of his “Foreclosing of America” series. Rick finishes off his series by comparing the conservative and progressive approach to the housing crisis and offers a compelling vision of the progressive program.
It would rescue millions of Americans from everyday anxiety in a way not seen since the passage of Medicare in 1965.
But it would do much more. It would spur a virtuous circle that would succor not merely millions of Americans, but 300 million Americans—every American. Spur consumption without expanding consumer debt. Preserve home values in every neighborhood. Make taking a flier on a first house or a bigger house or a nicer house a safe thing to do and not a reckless thing to do. Disincentivize corporate fleecing. Save the capital markets from volatility. Dissolve some of the inequality that comes of structurally more volatile capital markets. Save the middle class. Expand the tax base. Use that expanded tax base to vouchsafe programs—universal healthcare, affordable college—that expand the middle class, spur entrepreneurship, and take us back to the top: spurring consumption without expanding consumer debt, preserving home values, etc., etc., etc.
Virtuous circle.
That’s the way liberal government used to do it. It seized upon crises to produce solutions that closed down the possibility of future crises. Insurance. Some wise person once remarked that a government is an insurance firm with an army. Well, our insurance firm sucks. The foreclosing of America proves it. Fix it, and—listen closely, ambitious politicians—you remind people that government is there to help them. The stock of the party that people traditionally associate with government skyrockets. They stop voting for the party that affects to despise government.
Adrienne over at Girl From the South wrote this about the upcoming election.
Obama, Hillary and Edwards are pushing for expanded funding for abortion? Are they insane? Democrats are going to vote for them no matter what. Why are they pushing such a controversial issue this early in the campaign? After the Democratic party won the 2006 election by masquerading as Republicans, are they going to out-liberalize each other now?
Earlier in the post, she also wrote this –
Want to motivate conservatives to vote on Election Day so that you get a Republican in the White House?
Not to pick on Adrienne in particular, but she’s got it exactly wrong. I’ve noticed a number of misconceptions about what it takes to win elections, weaknesses and strengths of both Republicans and Democrats, and the electoral prospects of Republicans.
First of all, it simply is not true that the conservatives just need to motivate their base and they get elected. This was the cover story for the Rove strategy in 2002, 2004, and 2006. It had two effects.
One was that it allowed Bush and congressional candidates to “talk to the right,” without isolating independents. The idea being that all the conservative talk was just a part of the “strategy” and Bush would govern more moderately.
Two – it provided a plausible enough reason for the success of their candidates. The so called GOTV operation of conservatives masked the voter suppression effort that was being conducted nationwide, especially in key districts. What history will show, and is starting to show more clearly with the investigations into the U.S. Attorney firings, is that Rove organized and directed voter suppression operations which when run in conjunction with getting out the vote, was effective in providing the winning margin in close races.
It is also not true that many winning Democrats in 2006 ran as Republicans. In fact, many of the more conservative Dems (for example, Harold Ford) who ran on conservative values lost. Adrienne has fallen for one of the post-election spins put forth by Republican strategists to mask what was a resounding defeat for Bush’s agenda and the war.
And supporting abortion rights will not hurt Democratic candidates. The pro-choice position is the majority position in this country.
The one thing, in my opinion, that will turn voters off more than anything is pandering. Most voters, conservative and progressive, want moral clarity from their candidates. They don’t like candidates who split hairs or have cute middle of the road positions on everything. A candidate who unequivocally supports abortion rights will not be harmed by losing support from independents. But a candidate who appears to be nervous about the issue and talks out of both sides of her mouth will be.
From 2000 – 2005, Rove did an excellent job providing cover to conservative candidates who spoke unequivocally about their values. They also did an excellent job forcing Democrats to vacillate in moral ambiguity between what amounted to a lot of false choices (i.e., support Bush or support the terrorists).
The difference in 2006 for the candidates that won was that they carved out their positions with clarity and from that perch offered a compelling criticism of the Bush agenda.
And the real ironic thing, in my opinion, is that the moral clarity of many Republicans has proved to be quite hollow. Has there been a party in recent history more compromised by politics, sexual mores, corruption, and factionalism?
Plot to assassinate political enemy is undercovered and foiled.
This is total crap.
One of the new memes being pushed by the Bush Administration to bolster their shaky performance in Iraq is this idea that the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan is operating in Iraq.
And wouldn’t you know it? One day after releasing an unclassified version of the NIE, which despite intense efforts at sanitizing and spinning could not hide the fact that Al Qaeda is no worse for wear after six years of the Global War on Terror, the Bush Administration announces capturing the “leader” of the Iraqi version of Al Qaeda.
Their official story is full of information which conveniently enough echoes the contention that the real Al Qaeda has been giving orders and controlling/influencing the Iraqi Al Qaeda. So we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here or in Afghanistan/Pakistan. So pulling resources out of Afghanistan/Pakistan and into Iraq wasn’t stupid. It was far-sighted.
Puh-leeze.
Here’s what the Bush administration still doesn’t get about Al Qaeda. It’s decentralized. You can’t cut off the head and expect it to wither away.
The Bush administration has been guilty since the day they took office of seeing terrorism as a state-sponsored threat. It is exactly why they didn’t take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously in the first place. And they are still applying the top-down state model to any analysis involving them.
They replaced the government in Afghanistan and expected Al Qaeda to go away. They pressure the government in Pakistan to “crack down” on Al Qaeda on the Western border, as if the Pakistani government could simply stop it if they wanted to. They keep talking about capturing the “No. 2” or the “No. 3” guy in the organization.
This is basically a reflection of the analysis we’d use to construct war plans against the Soviets. Everyone knew that the Soviets ran their organizations from the top down, with little or no room for improvisation on the ground. That is why we employed a “cut off the head” strategy against them in our war planning.
We are used to constructing our foreign policy and war planning against centralized governments. Well, Al Qaeda developed a management style that placed a premium on improvisation and adjustments on the ground. It was an absolute necessity when fighting against vastly superior resources of the Soviets in the ’80s and everyone else in the ’90s.* Less organizational control meant more operational security and a better chance to survive even the biggest setbacks.
So take the recent news with a hefty grain of salt. The fact that they are spinning the story in this way, in my opinion, belies a total lack of competence and progress on the ground.
* For simplicity’s sake, I’m conflating the Afghan fighters from the ’80s with Al Qaeda, even though as a distinct entity Al Qaeda did not exist until the early to mid-’90s. Al Qaeda was heavily influenced by the success of the mujahideen and so the point I am making is still relevant, even if technically anachronistic.
Due to some public handwringing over Harry Potter by some literary mavens, there’s been some discussion at various blogs about the so-called “death” of reading in our culture. The response started with Matt Yglesias, moved over to Atrios, and then Amanda jumped in.
I think Amanda makes the most important point.
Basically, if you want people to read more, start pushing for the labor liberal agenda of more economic equality. Otherwise, people simply will be worrying too much and working too hard to take time to read intricate novels.
Reading literature is a leisure activity, which is not to say that it isn’t important. Only in this country would leisure be associated with frivolity. For those of us who do have jobs, we simply do not have time for the most important things in life, which in my opinion includes having time to read.
And it’s not just reading we don’t have time for. I was a teacher in an inner city school for a bit and one thing I realized is that people simply do not have time for many things anymore. Parental involvement is the surest indicator of student success at school. And in my experience many parents wanted to be more involved with their kids’ education. They didn’t have the time for it.
When you’ve got an economy that requires a dual income from most families just to keep up with mortgage payments, afford rising health care costs, pay for school, and otherwise make ends meet, reading is a luxury most families don’t have time for.
I’m all for literature that exercises and nourishes the mind. But the practical reality is that nowadays, we read, watch tv, and go see movies to escape our lives, not enrich them.
ESPN’s John Clayton has got it all wrong, and I’m not just talking about the Shaub trade “seem[ing] to be the wise thing” at the time (is it ever a wise thing for a team to trade away it’s best quarterback?). Clayton writes,
Vick must be treated as a first-time offender in the league’s new conduct policy, so he must be found guilty or admit guilt before the commissioner can suspend him.
This is plain WRONG. The NFL’s drug policy this is not; there is no differentiation made between first-time and repeat offenders in the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement section on off-the-field player misconduct, and any differentiation made in the league’s new conduct policy is there solely to drive home the point that repeat offenders will be treated harshly. Make no mistake, under the CBA “negotiated” in 2006, the Commissioner has sole discretion in doling out punishment for “conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football” and has the sole final say in any appeal of his disciplinary decisions (see CBA Article XI, Sections 1(a) and (b), linked above). Argue all you want about the wisdom of such a policy, it’s what is currently in place due to poor negotiating on behalf of the NFLPA (and argue all you want about the legality of the policy, I am too lazy myself to do any research on the topic; regardless, the Commissioner can take action under the CBA and it’d be up to the player in question to fight the legality of the CBA disciplinary and appeal process).
The bottom-line is that it is in Commissioner Goodell’s sole discretion to dole out whatever punishment he sees fit for Mike Vick’s alleged actions and involvement in Bad Newz Kennels, whether Vick is ultimately convicted or not. In the court of public opinion, which is where the Commissioner’s power to make and enforce disciplinary decisions regarding “conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football” grows from, Vick has already lost. Vick’s actions have further harmed the reputation of the league and its players, and if the public won’t stand for him to be let off the hook, Goodell has standing and will perhaps be compelled to make certain that Vick’s alleged misdeeds, or neglect that allowed the misdeeds of others to occur and/or continue, won’t go unpunished, regardless of what happens in a court of law.
And because of that, don’t expect “Ron Mexico” to play a down this year.
Update: The guys at ProFootballTalk.com bring up another policy that Commissioner Goodell has at his disposal: the league’s gambling policy.
PFT writes:
The league’s gambling policy prohibits “[a]ssociating with gamblers or with gambling activities in a manner tending to bring discredit to the NFL.” Vick is charged with conspiracy to utilize interstate commerce with intent to promote, manage, etc. a business enterprise involving gambling. Indeed, the indictment contains multiple references to gambling arising from the dog fights in which Vick was involved.
Under the league’s gambling policy, a violation may result in “severe penalties,” up to and including a suspension from the NFL for life.
For more of perhaps the best coverage of the Vick Investigation/Indictment on the net, visit PFT.
Update #2: The guys at PFT (linked to several times above) have also pointed out this morning that even if it is assumed that the Conduct Policy requires only counseling for first-time offenders, which I emphatically do not believe, Vick is not being charged with one first-time offense. Vick’s first charged offense happened in 2001, and he is charged with several repeat offenses from 2001 until April 2007.
The Burning Couch 
Recent Comments