Original headline (as indicated by the URL):
Then, of course, we getObama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General
with the new headline
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The President writes a children's book...
... and Fox News make asses of themselves.
Original headline (as indicated by the URL):
Original headline (as indicated by the URL):
Monday, November 15, 2010
Francoise Hardy...
...incomparable. She apparently does not like her version of this song, and the music is something of a departure from other renditions. It ranks as amongst my favorite versions, however, and the simplicity of her voice could carry the song even were one not to like the latin beat.
Obama might believe the GOP wasn't elected on a mandate of gridlock...
... but he doesn't seem to really be holding out for a lot of progress being made in the next Congress.
“They are not going to want to just obstruct, that they’re going to want to engage constructively,” he said of his Republican adversaries. “And then we’re going to have a whole bunch of time next year for some serious philosophical debates.”There's nothing like "whole bunch of time" for "some serious philosophical debates" to really inspire a belief that any significant legislation will be passed in the 112th Congress.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Dumbest thing you'll read today...
... from Douglas Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell.
It involves such gems as
But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents.This, by the way, from a former Clinton (both Hillary and Bill) adviser. Now they I don't think Schoen [1] actually believe this. He was an adviser to Bill Clinton, who was also drubbed in the first midterms. It is also beyond ironic for Schoen to write
Obama can and should dispense with the pollsters, the advisers, the consultants and the strategists who dissect all decisions and judgments in terms of their impact on the president's political prospects.This, from the man who insisted that they shouldn't pass health care reform because it would negatively impact the Democrats at the polls. They suggest a national unity government, and claim that "if he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party, but as somebody who stands above politics, seeking to forge consensus." Now this is standard 'third party' claptrap. Without actually changing the institutions of governance, this would result in a largely ineffective President who had few allies whose fates were tied to him and so could cut him loose at will. We have seen this movie before; Mr. Tyler I am thinking of you.
Schoen and Caddell claim that
Forgoing another term would not render Obama a lame duck. Paradoxically, it would grant him much greater leverage with Republicans and would make it harder for opponents such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - who has flatly asserted that his highest priority is to make Obama a one-term president - to be uncooperative.This is nonsense. They do their best to shuffle away from providing any mechanism by which this supposed increase in leverage would be accomplished. And they ignore the fact that if Obama were to announce that he was not seeking another term it would feed the Republican (and Schoen/Caddell) narrative that Obama's agenda has been repudiated. It is not a paradox that this would strengthen him; it is a lie.
Also, lines such as
Moreover, if the president were to demonstrate a clear degree of bipartisanship, it would force the Republicans to meet him halfwaymight as well have been written in 2009. Oh wait, they were. But the Republicans stuck to their game plan of 'no' and were handsomely rewarded. Not to say that this will always work, but that it can, especially when the economic factors are favorable. All in all, this is the dumbest article I've read in weeks. There is an argument with shallow explanations and with no mechanism. It lunges across the line from ironic to hypocritical. And it has about as much likelihood of influencing the President as I do of being elected President. But that's not the point. The point is to feed the narrative to achieve policy (and political) objectives, namely, the repudiation of any progressive gains, hardline military stances against Iran, and possibly the re-ascendancy of the Schoens and Caddells of the world in the Democratic party.
[1] Did you know that Schoen wrote a biography of Enoch Powell? Presumably a PhD dissertation. Given my own interests, I am pretty sure that sooner or later I will be reading up on the old Ulsterman.
Working class anthems...
...inspired by the recurring joy I've been getting from remembering Stan Rogers' classic. The criteria here is not necessarily songs about working class life, but rather songs that get everyone singing when they are played at the bar. If there is a gathering at a house, and the whisky's been flowing, these are the songs that most people know and everybody sings.
Now the immediate impulse is to go with another Stan Rogers, maybe "Barrett's Privateers" or "The Mary Ellen Carter" [1]. But the morbid, fatalistic lyrics of Dark as the Dungeon will get any good bar going [3]. It'll start off as a low hum, and when it is done will leave the bar empty of sound, as everyone stares into the drinks and remembers or imagines the loved ones dead on the job.
Now the only question is whether to go with Cash, Travis, or Ernie Ford. I think I'll go with Travis, which includes the often-skipped final stanza
[1] Don't think this is a working class anthem? Go to any bar in the Maritimes and many bars in the west or Ontario, put this one on the juke, and hear the slowly gathering crescendo [2].
[2] I recognize and disregard the redundancy.
[3] Eventually we'll bring these selections up to date a little; it's not just the old hands singing, but the young'uns as well.
Now the immediate impulse is to go with another Stan Rogers, maybe "Barrett's Privateers" or "The Mary Ellen Carter" [1]. But the morbid, fatalistic lyrics of Dark as the Dungeon will get any good bar going [3]. It'll start off as a low hum, and when it is done will leave the bar empty of sound, as everyone stares into the drinks and remembers or imagines the loved ones dead on the job.
Now the only question is whether to go with Cash, Travis, or Ernie Ford. I think I'll go with Travis, which includes the often-skipped final stanza
The midnight, the morning, or the middle of day,
Is the same to the miner who labors away.
Where the demons of death often come by surprise,
One fall of the slate and you're buried alive.
[1] Don't think this is a working class anthem? Go to any bar in the Maritimes and many bars in the west or Ontario, put this one on the juke, and hear the slowly gathering crescendo [2].
[2] I recognize and disregard the redundancy.
[3] Eventually we'll bring these selections up to date a little; it's not just the old hands singing, but the young'uns as well.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
More on the Chairmen's Mark...
Two charts tell the story of the proposed reduction of the top rate of taxation to 23%, and how this reduction has been labeled a tax increase.
This shows the proposed tax rates under a number of different scenarios. The one that they suggest is the "Eliminate all Tax Expenditures," including the mortgage tax credit, the health care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and other political favorites. Now some of these are policy favorites as well, especially the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, and so the chairmen propose first getting rid of them all (making this the Zero Expenditure Plan), lowering the tax rates accordingly, and then raising the rates according to which of the tax credits are brought back.
So the top bracket gets a decrease in their tax rates under the zero expenditure scenario of 35%, that is from 36% of income to 23% of income. (I'm going to assume that the Democrats cave, of course, and all the Bush tax cuts are extended.) The lower top rate gets a 30% reduction, from 33%-23%. The current bottom rate, introduced by the Bush tax cuts, is 10%, and this decreases to 8%, a 20% reduction. The next lowest is at 15%, and decreases to 8%, a reduction of 46.7%. The lower middle, currently at 25%, gets a 44% reduction to 14%, while the upper middle gets a decrease of 50%, from 28% of income to 14% of income.
Of course this still benefits the top bracket the most, as their 36% decrease will--in actual dollar terms--dwarf the decrease of the middle's 50% reduction. It is not exactly progressive, although in percentage terms it benefits the middle more than the top (less so, however, if the Dems don't actually extend the Bush tax cuts for the above $250,000 crowd). And the slim reduction for the bottom bracket? We call that "broadening the base," on the grounds that the $0-$8,375 crowd currently isn't contributing their fair share from the less than nothing they have left over after scraping by another goddamned year.
But when we assume that the major tax expenditures are not going to be eliminated (the most likely scenario in my view), then this changes somewhat. The bottom bracket gets a tax increase, from 10% to 13% (30% increase), the upper bottom gets a 13% reduction from 15% to 13%, the bottom middle gets a 16% reduction, from 25% to 31%. The upper middle gets a decrease of 25% (from 28 to 21% of income). The lower top gets a 15% decrease and the upper rate gets a 20% decrease.
So to be clear, under the most likely scenario
The next chart is the distribution of benefits from tax expenditures. It is effect of the credits on the after-tax income, by income quintile.
The benefits of the tax expenditures go disproportionately to the wealthy. Surprised? So eliminating some of these might mean a progressivization of the income tax, although it depends on which are eliminated.
The devil will be in the details. On the whole it seems likely to make the tax code less progressive (which is troubling, given that federal income taxes are pretty much the only progressive element to the American tax system). But that overall it will likely be a reshuffling and simplification of the existing rates.
This shows the proposed tax rates under a number of different scenarios. The one that they suggest is the "Eliminate all Tax Expenditures," including the mortgage tax credit, the health care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and other political favorites. Now some of these are policy favorites as well, especially the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, and so the chairmen propose first getting rid of them all (making this the Zero Expenditure Plan), lowering the tax rates accordingly, and then raising the rates according to which of the tax credits are brought back.
So the top bracket gets a decrease in their tax rates under the zero expenditure scenario of 35%, that is from 36% of income to 23% of income. (I'm going to assume that the Democrats cave, of course, and all the Bush tax cuts are extended.) The lower top rate gets a 30% reduction, from 33%-23%. The current bottom rate, introduced by the Bush tax cuts, is 10%, and this decreases to 8%, a 20% reduction. The next lowest is at 15%, and decreases to 8%, a reduction of 46.7%. The lower middle, currently at 25%, gets a 44% reduction to 14%, while the upper middle gets a decrease of 50%, from 28% of income to 14% of income.
Of course this still benefits the top bracket the most, as their 36% decrease will--in actual dollar terms--dwarf the decrease of the middle's 50% reduction. It is not exactly progressive, although in percentage terms it benefits the middle more than the top (less so, however, if the Dems don't actually extend the Bush tax cuts for the above $250,000 crowd). And the slim reduction for the bottom bracket? We call that "broadening the base," on the grounds that the $0-$8,375 crowd currently isn't contributing their fair share from the less than nothing they have left over after scraping by another goddamned year.
But when we assume that the major tax expenditures are not going to be eliminated (the most likely scenario in my view), then this changes somewhat. The bottom bracket gets a tax increase, from 10% to 13% (30% increase), the upper bottom gets a 13% reduction from 15% to 13%, the bottom middle gets a 16% reduction, from 25% to 31%. The upper middle gets a decrease of 25% (from 28 to 21% of income). The lower top gets a 15% decrease and the upper rate gets a 20% decrease.
So to be clear, under the most likely scenario
- $0-$8,375: tax increase of 30%
- $8,375-$34,000: tax decrease of 13%
- $34,000-$82,400: tax decrease of 16%
- $82,400-$171,850: tax decrease of 25%
- $171,850-$373,650: tax decrease of 15%
- $373,650-above: tax decrease of 20%
- $0-$8,375: tax decrease of 20%
- $8,375-$34,000: tax decrease of 46.7%
- $34,000-$82,400: tax decrease of 44%
- $82,400-$171,850: tax decrease of 50%
- $171,850-$373,650: tax decrease of 30%
- $373,650-above: tax decrease of 35%
The next chart is the distribution of benefits from tax expenditures. It is effect of the credits on the after-tax income, by income quintile.
The devil will be in the details. On the whole it seems likely to make the tax code less progressive (which is troubling, given that federal income taxes are pretty much the only progressive element to the American tax system). But that overall it will likely be a reshuffling and simplification of the existing rates.
Deficit Commission
The key point in the Deficit Commission's Chairmen's Proposal[1]:
The main problem is political: "require President to submit and Congress to consider reforms to lower spending." Now there might be some mechanisms that could require Congress and President to do this, but I can't think of any off the top of my head that would not be easily avoided by a Congress or President who didn't want to take on health care. The exception, of course, is that if health care costs continue to rise at the rate they've been rising, then eventually there will be so much pressure to tackle the deficit (interest rates will be high and the Fed will say that interest rates are where they need to be to maintain price stability) that some course of action, almost certainly involving caps, rationing, and withdrawal of coverage, will be necessary.
But avoiding this seems to be the whole point of a Deficit Commission. So "mandating" these changes doesn't really make much sense to me, if the only real mechanism for making the President and Congress act is the fact that the problems of a large debt have already arrived.
[1] Note the qualifiers--this is not the Deficit Commission's proposal, as they are unlikely have the 14 votes needed to approve the report. Rather, this is the Chairmen's proposal, sent out to the media in order to dominate the conversation. Its release was not approved by the full commission, many of whose members are surprised that the chairmen did this, considering they have yet to vote on these proposals. Furthermore, the Deficit Commission is not a congressionally established Commission--it has no privileged procedural rules, as was originally proposed, and so its primary influence is in shaping the conversation. Which is partly why having staffers whose salaries for working on the commission are paid for by hard-right conservative institutes and centrist New Democrat institutes is such a scandal. Kevin Drum puts it well:
Set global target for total federal health expenditures after 2020 (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, exchange subsidies, employer health exclusion), and review costs every 2 years. Keep growth to GDP+1%.Well hell, if the CBO could just say keep health care inflation to GDP+1%, then we wouldn't need a Deficit Commission in the first place. And their mechanisms for achieving this?
If costs have grown faster than targets (on average of previous 5 years), require President to submit and Congress to consider reforms to lower spending, such as:
- Increase premiums (or further increase cost-sharing)
- Overhaul the fee-for-service system
- Develop a premium support system for Medicare
- Add a robust public option and/or all-payer system in the exchange
- Further expand authority of IPAB
Now that's all well and good. I recognize that each of these could in fact lower the health care inflation rate. And I certainly like the "Add a robust public option and/or all-payer system in the exchange," although I suspect that when crunch time came we would have a premium increase, a premium support system for Medicare, and maybe, just maybe, an expansion of the authority of the IPAB.
The main problem is political: "require President to submit and Congress to consider reforms to lower spending." Now there might be some mechanisms that could require Congress and President to do this, but I can't think of any off the top of my head that would not be easily avoided by a Congress or President who didn't want to take on health care. The exception, of course, is that if health care costs continue to rise at the rate they've been rising, then eventually there will be so much pressure to tackle the deficit (interest rates will be high and the Fed will say that interest rates are where they need to be to maintain price stability) that some course of action, almost certainly involving caps, rationing, and withdrawal of coverage, will be necessary.
But avoiding this seems to be the whole point of a Deficit Commission. So "mandating" these changes doesn't really make much sense to me, if the only real mechanism for making the President and Congress act is the fact that the problems of a large debt have already arrived.
[1] Note the qualifiers--this is not the Deficit Commission's proposal, as they are unlikely have the 14 votes needed to approve the report. Rather, this is the Chairmen's proposal, sent out to the media in order to dominate the conversation. Its release was not approved by the full commission, many of whose members are surprised that the chairmen did this, considering they have yet to vote on these proposals. Furthermore, the Deficit Commission is not a congressionally established Commission--it has no privileged procedural rules, as was originally proposed, and so its primary influence is in shaping the conversation. Which is partly why having staffers whose salaries for working on the commission are paid for by hard-right conservative institutes and centrist New Democrat institutes is such a scandal. Kevin Drum puts it well:
It's just a draft presentation put together by two guys. Do you know how many deficit reduction proposals are out there that have the backing of two guys? Thousands. Another one just doesn't matter.I disagree on the "just doesn't matter point," largely because I think the Chairmen knew damn well that the headlines were going to be "Examining The Deficit Commission's Proposals" (NPR) and "Examining The Deficit Commission's Proposals" (Examiner.com) and "Factbox: Deficit commission tax cut ideas" (Reuters) and "The President's Deficit Commission Makes Recommendations" (Nightly Business Report) rather than "Two Guys Spew Off."
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Bush, McCain, and Obama
Bush had a remarkable candor with other politicians; Bush was always willing to lie to his constituents; Bush got a kick out of screwing with people; Bush saw very little in Obama that would unsettle the basic achievements of his administration; Bush can hold a grudge.
All of these and more might explain the following:
All of these and more might explain the following:
The venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.
Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain’s campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.
Not a chance. “I probably won’t even vote for the guy,” Bush told the group, according to two people present.“I had to endorse him. But I’d have endorsed Obama if they’d asked me.”
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Many summers were spent driving through Saginaw, Michigan
A classic "gone west" song. Note the differences with The Idiot: here the reason to go west is to earn enough to marry his love, not his own sense of dignity, which a changing economy has not denied to him; here the contrast is not between work and "lying down," between a rotted soul and self-respect, but between greed and humble living. It is probably more in line with the classic themes of country music, and it lacks some of the moral complexity of Stan Rogers' song.
But its a different time, and I wonder what the song would be if it was about the end of the Saginaw fishermen, the collapse of that industry, and the fact that you could no longer support your family, not even taking her father's avarice and standards into account.
But its a different time, and I wonder what the song would be if it was about the end of the Saginaw fishermen, the collapse of that industry, and the fact that you could no longer support your family, not even taking her father's avarice and standards into account.
The End of the World...
...or, why Obama shouldn't have reappointed Bernanke.
Now there are many things about a hyper-polarized media and political environment that are probably harmful to the achievement of desirable public policy. But, given that right now expectations of future high inflation would be a net positive, inducing people and companies to invest in the present, it would have been nice to use the hyperactive bombast that already characterizes so much of our political and policy debates to good use.
In short, we should have dumped Bernanke. It might not have been the End of the World, in the way that going off the gold standard signaled the collapse of Western civilization, but surely in this media environment it would have led to (greater circulation among influential voices of) claims that Obama is interfering in the Fed, undermining its independence, and trying to loosen up monetary policy with reckless disregard for the future costs of inflation. We might not had CNBC or Bloomberg making comparison with Zimbabwe or Wiemar, but I'd bet a pretty penny that they'd be raising the possibility of Venezuela or Argentina (they would couch it in "such an action could potentially lead to high inflation, which Argentina and Venezuela are currently experiencing" language.)
My reading of Obama's keeping on Bernanke was that he wanted (and wanted to stress) continuity in the economic management of the crisis. This seemed, in part, an effort to assuage markets and conservatives, similar to his keeping on Gates at Defense in order to not be accused of undermining the American war effort. This seems to me to have been politically disastrous, but I'm increasingly convinced that assuaging the markets was also a bad policy move. Whether a non-Bernanke Fed Chair would actually have been able to get the Fed to pursue more expansionary monetary policy sooner is unclear; but I expect that replacing a Republican with a Democrat (hell, even a centrist Democrat) would have led to expectations of more expansionary monetary policy. It is unlikely that this would have had a similar impact as going off the gold standard, but with 24 hour news needing to fill time with ratings-grabbing bombast, it probably would have been portrayed as a huge regime change, the expectations of which would have been for higher future inflation. And that in itself would likely have been helpful.
Now there are many things about a hyper-polarized media and political environment that are probably harmful to the achievement of desirable public policy. But, given that right now expectations of future high inflation would be a net positive, inducing people and companies to invest in the present, it would have been nice to use the hyperactive bombast that already characterizes so much of our political and policy debates to good use.
In short, we should have dumped Bernanke. It might not have been the End of the World, in the way that going off the gold standard signaled the collapse of Western civilization, but surely in this media environment it would have led to (greater circulation among influential voices of) claims that Obama is interfering in the Fed, undermining its independence, and trying to loosen up monetary policy with reckless disregard for the future costs of inflation. We might not had CNBC or Bloomberg making comparison with Zimbabwe or Wiemar, but I'd bet a pretty penny that they'd be raising the possibility of Venezuela or Argentina (they would couch it in "such an action could potentially lead to high inflation, which Argentina and Venezuela are currently experiencing" language.)
My reading of Obama's keeping on Bernanke was that he wanted (and wanted to stress) continuity in the economic management of the crisis. This seemed, in part, an effort to assuage markets and conservatives, similar to his keeping on Gates at Defense in order to not be accused of undermining the American war effort. This seems to me to have been politically disastrous, but I'm increasingly convinced that assuaging the markets was also a bad policy move. Whether a non-Bernanke Fed Chair would actually have been able to get the Fed to pursue more expansionary monetary policy sooner is unclear; but I expect that replacing a Republican with a Democrat (hell, even a centrist Democrat) would have led to expectations of more expansionary monetary policy. It is unlikely that this would have had a similar impact as going off the gold standard, but with 24 hour news needing to fill time with ratings-grabbing bombast, it probably would have been portrayed as a huge regime change, the expectations of which would have been for higher future inflation. And that in itself would likely have been helpful.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Blue Yodel No.9
One of Louis Armstrong's last performances?
The Jimmie Rogers version is perfect, but it's always nice to see Cash in action.
The Jimmie Rogers version is perfect, but it's always nice to see Cash in action.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Cheers...
Classic Cheers
I think this scene captures Cheers at its best. The back story is that this man has come in with a problem, and wants to talk to the former owner Gus about it. The problem, which he has already stumped Coach with, is that his son has just come back from college with his fiancee, who is black.
The rest is just golden.
I think this scene captures Cheers at its best. The back story is that this man has come in with a problem, and wants to talk to the former owner Gus about it. The problem, which he has already stumped Coach with, is that his son has just come back from college with his fiancee, who is black.
The rest is just golden.
Felix Salmon on QE
There have been a number of excellent discussions on the new round of quantitative easing and what exactly that means. My understanding is that it is an effort by the Fed to impact the long term interest rates, with this round of QE being aimed at the interest rate on 5 year Treasury notes. The Fed will 'print' off some cash, buy 5 year Treasury notes--in increments of $1 million--and thereby lower long-term interest rates (the short term interest rates are already up against the zero-lower bound). Felix Salmon's summary in particular is worth a read.
The way that QE works is that the Fed will publish a schedule of how many Treasury bonds it intends to buy and when. It will then go out and buy those bonds from “the Federal Reserve’s primary dealers through a series of competitive auctions operated through the Desk’s FedTrade system.”... what that means is that the New York Fed has a direct line to the biggest banks in the world (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, etc — 18 in all). And it gets all those banks to compete with each other, either directly or on behalf of their clients, for who will sell the Fed the Treasury bonds it wants at the lowest price. The winners of the auction get the Fed’s newly-printed cash, and give up Treasury bonds that they own in return. The people selling Treasury bonds to the Fed, then, are big banks, who are told in advance exactly how many Treasury bonds the Fed wants to buy. As a result, they’re likely to buy Treasuries ahead of the auction, with the intent of selling them to the Fed at a profit....Once the banks have made that profit, it’ll get paid out in bonuses to the people on the bank’s Treasury desk, with the rest going to their shareholders. We’re not exactly helping the unemployed here.... [T]he Fed isn’t going to be buying any more bonds than the Treasury is issuing — so it’s not going to be lifting a lot of holders of Treasury bonds out of their long-term investments. But insofar as the Fed is forced to offer such high prices that investors simply can’t say no, those investors are probably just going to take the proceeds and invest them in agency debt instead from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That debt is just as safe as Treasuries, and it even yields more than Treasuries, to boot.What’s emphatically not going to happen is that the people who used to own Treasury bonds will take the Fed’s billions and suddenly turn around and spend them buying croissants at their local family-owned bakery. We’re talking about monetary policy here, not fiscal policy: the aim here is to bid up the price of Treasury bonds, which means that the yield on Treasuries will fall, and that those lower interest rates will somehow feed through into greater economic activity. The aim is not to take $600 billion and spend it on stuff in the real economy. That would be a second stimulus, and the chances of a second stimulus right now are hovering around zero. Which is why Brad DeLong puts the value of buying $600 billion in Treasury bonds at about $7 billion in total, rather than anything near the headline $600 billion figure. The Fed is playing around with interest rates here — that’s its job. It’s not trying to directly stimulate demand.Of course its Congress's job to directly stimulate demand. But that is not going to happen, and so we are dependent on what looks to be pretty weak sauce, which has the wonderful appeal of being another giveaway to the banks.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
On Dignity
I went to a George Kateb lecture the other day, on the subject of Human Dignity. Very interesting, although I must admit to squirming through his discussion of "Nature!" and "Science!" One does not often meet a High Victorian Liberal these days, who brandishes "Science!" as our greatest achievement but dogmatically[1] refuses to accept the actual scientific research of the last 75 years. It is totemic, not something to be engaged with but something to be brandished. As a friend mentioned, it makes one realize that Derrida is not in fact only arguing against straw men and long-dead men. And that's all well and good.
But he wants to use the concept of human dignity as a foundation for human rights, and accordingly he wants dignity to be an ascribed characteristic of every human, one that is non-forfeitable (although it can be assaulted) and one that is shared equally by all humans. And I'm fine with that in theory, and certainly I hope to treat all people in line with this basic Kantianism precept.
I have long been playing with dignity as a basis for a political project. And I'm increasingly despairing that one cannot articulate a politically relevant conception of dignity that does not draw a boundary of exclusion; that is, all conceptions of dignity that seem capable of doing any political work (that is, tell an ethically constitutive story that motivate political behavior and commitments) require the establishment of a set of conditions for its achievement. And these conditions necessarily create a boundary of exclusion. Where that boundary is drawn matters enormously, and Kateb wanted to draw it such that it includes all human (and all humans equally) but no animals.
And it's on that thought that I bring to you The Idiot. No, not Dostoyevsky; Rogers, Stan Rogers.
I often take these night shift walks when the foreman's not around.
I turn my back on the cooling stacks and make for open ground.
Far out beyond the tank farm fence where the gas flare makes no sound,
I forget the stink and I always think back to that Eastern town.
I remember back six years ago, this Western life I chose.
And every day, the news would say some factory's going to close.
Well, I could have stayed to take the Dole, but I'm not one of those.
I take nothing free, and that makes me an idiot, I suppose.
So I bid farewell to the Eastern town I never more will see;
But work I must so I eat this dust and breathe refinery.
Oh I miss the green and the woods and streams and I don't like cowboy clothes;
But I like being free and that makes me an idiot I suppose.
So come all you fine young fellows who've been beaten to the ground.
This western life's no paaradise, but it's better than lying down.
Oh, the streets aren't clean, and there's nothing green, and the hills are dirty brown,
But the government Dole will rot your soul back there in your home town.
So bid farewell to the Eastern town you never more will see.
There's self-respect and a steady cheque in this refinery.
You will miss the green and the woods and streams and the dust will fill your nose.
But you'll be free, and just like me, an idiot, I suppose
The line I think of most is "Well, I could have stayed to take the Dole, but I'm not one of those."
This is a line of great ambiguity for the modern left; we reject it, we hate it, we don't like it's "no life on the dole" poor-bashing. But we get so damned lost in fighting back against this that we miss the fundamental point: our culture values work, values independence, and the left will only be able to make any progress if we take these values to heart. (As an aside, this is why I've always wanted to reframe welfare as a wage)
But can we make the claim that the government dole will rot your soul, and therefore we need a government that will commit itself to creating and maintaining good jobs where one is able to live a relatively decent life, without embracing--subtly or forcefully--the claim that those on the dole are degraded? I am less and less sure, although I think that it is worth finding out.
[1] "I cannot accept..." was probably the most frequent rejoinder.
But he wants to use the concept of human dignity as a foundation for human rights, and accordingly he wants dignity to be an ascribed characteristic of every human, one that is non-forfeitable (although it can be assaulted) and one that is shared equally by all humans. And I'm fine with that in theory, and certainly I hope to treat all people in line with this basic Kantianism precept.
I have long been playing with dignity as a basis for a political project. And I'm increasingly despairing that one cannot articulate a politically relevant conception of dignity that does not draw a boundary of exclusion; that is, all conceptions of dignity that seem capable of doing any political work (that is, tell an ethically constitutive story that motivate political behavior and commitments) require the establishment of a set of conditions for its achievement. And these conditions necessarily create a boundary of exclusion. Where that boundary is drawn matters enormously, and Kateb wanted to draw it such that it includes all human (and all humans equally) but no animals.
And it's on that thought that I bring to you The Idiot. No, not Dostoyevsky; Rogers, Stan Rogers.
I often take these night shift walks when the foreman's not around.
I turn my back on the cooling stacks and make for open ground.
Far out beyond the tank farm fence where the gas flare makes no sound,
I forget the stink and I always think back to that Eastern town.
I remember back six years ago, this Western life I chose.
And every day, the news would say some factory's going to close.
Well, I could have stayed to take the Dole, but I'm not one of those.
I take nothing free, and that makes me an idiot, I suppose.
So I bid farewell to the Eastern town I never more will see;
But work I must so I eat this dust and breathe refinery.
Oh I miss the green and the woods and streams and I don't like cowboy clothes;
But I like being free and that makes me an idiot I suppose.
So come all you fine young fellows who've been beaten to the ground.
This western life's no paaradise, but it's better than lying down.
Oh, the streets aren't clean, and there's nothing green, and the hills are dirty brown,
But the government Dole will rot your soul back there in your home town.
So bid farewell to the Eastern town you never more will see.
There's self-respect and a steady cheque in this refinery.
You will miss the green and the woods and streams and the dust will fill your nose.
But you'll be free, and just like me, an idiot, I suppose
The line I think of most is "Well, I could have stayed to take the Dole, but I'm not one of those."
This is a line of great ambiguity for the modern left; we reject it, we hate it, we don't like it's "no life on the dole" poor-bashing. But we get so damned lost in fighting back against this that we miss the fundamental point: our culture values work, values independence, and the left will only be able to make any progress if we take these values to heart. (As an aside, this is why I've always wanted to reframe welfare as a wage)
But can we make the claim that the government dole will rot your soul, and therefore we need a government that will commit itself to creating and maintaining good jobs where one is able to live a relatively decent life, without embracing--subtly or forcefully--the claim that those on the dole are degraded? I am less and less sure, although I think that it is worth finding out.
[1] "I cannot accept..." was probably the most frequent rejoinder.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Norman Jewison's an asshole
....we can now add ...And Justice for All to the pile.
Evidence includes (1) his cheap take on the elderly, (2) his portrayal of Ralph, the transvestite mugger. I'm still suffering through, so I'm sure there will be more.
Update: Not sure whether it is standard to be practicing so many different types of law at once: accidents, paternity suits, muggings, murder defenses, rape. Truly impressive practice this guy has. Plus, as plot developments, hostage takings are usually one of the cheaper tricks. Almost as cheap as throwing cafeteria plates and a judge tackling a lawyer. The thing that makes Jewison such an asshole is that he things everyone else is an asshole, and artlessly throws his shit at the wall and hopes it will stick.
Update 2: I wonder if Norman is killing off Al's clients (2 of em dead now) so as to make room for the promised plot? I suspect the main motivation was to somehow have a hostage negotiation scene, and that killing off the client was the only way he saw fit to move on to the next scene.
Update 3: Better and better..... Al has just been given a series of polaroids from one of his many clients (paternity suit/accident) showing the judge, the head of the ethics committee, and a hooker engaged in S&M. See Update 1.
Evidence includes (1) his cheap take on the elderly, (2) his portrayal of Ralph, the transvestite mugger. I'm still suffering through, so I'm sure there will be more.
Update: Not sure whether it is standard to be practicing so many different types of law at once: accidents, paternity suits, muggings, murder defenses, rape. Truly impressive practice this guy has. Plus, as plot developments, hostage takings are usually one of the cheaper tricks. Almost as cheap as throwing cafeteria plates and a judge tackling a lawyer. The thing that makes Jewison such an asshole is that he things everyone else is an asshole, and artlessly throws his shit at the wall and hopes it will stick.
Update 2: I wonder if Norman is killing off Al's clients (2 of em dead now) so as to make room for the promised plot? I suspect the main motivation was to somehow have a hostage negotiation scene, and that killing off the client was the only way he saw fit to move on to the next scene.
Update 3: Better and better..... Al has just been given a series of polaroids from one of his many clients (paternity suit/accident) showing the judge, the head of the ethics committee, and a hooker engaged in S&M. See Update 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)