tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1419294723786512162024-03-13T06:08:13.602-04:00ExpoundingAn market-based approach to American politics and policy.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-85903779559783806382012-07-09T15:09:00.001-04:002012-07-09T15:13:01.302-04:00Some Are More Equal Than OthersThe LA Times <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story?track=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=56325">covers</a> Mitt Romney's Hamptons fundraiser:<blockquote>A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.<br></br><br></br>"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think <b>if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works</b>, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact." (bold mine - JMG)</blockquote>While quotes like this are not that surprising, it is no less nauseating to see the well-to-do parade around their own high-minded opinion of themselves. Even worse — in my mind — is the heads I win, tails you lose logic to it; if you're poor, you're not educated enough to make the decision I agree with, and if you're educated like me, you'll vote for the candidate that wants to slash Federal investments in education[1], among other things.<br></br><br></br>[1]From the <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658">CBPP</a>:<blockquote>The cuts that would be required under the Romney budget proposals in programs such as veterans’ disability compensation, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for poor elderly and disabled individuals, SNAP (formerly food stamps), and child nutrition programs would move millions of households below the poverty line or drive them deeper into poverty. The cuts in Medicare and Medicaid would make health insurance unaffordable (or unavailable) to tens of millions of people. The cuts in non-defense discretionary programs — a spending category that covers a wide variety of public services such as elementary and secondary education, law enforcement, veterans’ health care, environmental protection, and biomedical research — would come on top of the deep cuts in this part of the budget that are already in law due to the discretionary funding caps established in last year’s Budget Control Act (BCA).</blockquote>Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-69716541926206551632012-07-09T11:05:00.000-04:002012-07-09T11:55:13.749-04:00Constitutional Originalism and Linguistic PlasticityThis is something I have been meaning to write for sometime, and now that the Affordable Care Act has been decided, and we've just celebrated our nation's 236th birthday, I think it's the appropriate moment to give it a try.<br></br><br></br>Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia, well know from his originalist streak in Constitutional analysis, gave an <a href="http://www.callawyer.com/clstory.cfm?pubdt=NaN&eid=913358&evid=1">interview</a> last January. He made the point that as far as he reads the Constitution, women have protections against discrimination inherent in the original text.<blockquote>You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. <b>It doesn't.</b> Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. <b>If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box.</b> You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society. (bold mine - JMG)</blockquote>Reading Scalia's response, one of the immediate thoughts that jumped into my head was that the justice's instance that “You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box” breaks down with various groups in society are not enfranchised to use said ballot box. I mean, yes, it is very simple and elegant when all you need is to persuade you fellow citizens about what you believe to be the proper policy or representative; but when the issue is about fundamental rights like suffrage or equal status under law, then no, it's not simply just "a legislature and a ballot box." Agitation for fundamental protections (like say, the legal ability to have a spouse) almost always requires cultural shift. In other words, it is really easy for Scalia to glibly extoll on the virtues of the democratic process, when the entire apparatus of the democratic system favors his European, heterosexual male viewpoints.<br></br><br></br>Linking this back to questions about how much 'original intent' plays into judicial interpretation, I am really bothered by Scalia's lack of recognition to the plasticity of language. Dr. Steven L. Taylor touches on this in a recent <a href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/what-is-constitutional/">essay</a>.<blockquote> The words simply do not mean the same to readers now as they did then. Not only has the language itself changed, but the way we comprehend the world is different. Regardless of one’s view of the ACA, the fact of the matter is that the word “commerce” means something different to a person in 2012 than it did to a person in 1787. Consider the following terms and do a quick mental trip through time: “war,” “army,” “arms,” “Commander-in-Chief,” and so forth. Beyond the specific words and their meanings over time, there is much in the Constitution that is simply vague. What, pray tell, is (to pick a big one) “the general welfare”?</blockquote>Concepts like "who 'citizens' are?", or "what does 'equal protection under law' mean?" are legally important (and discrete), but very philosophically abstract. The intent of the phrase "all men are created equal" was really really groundbreaking at the time it was made, but today its originalist meaning of enfranchising only white, male landowners strikes me (and, I would hope—most) as hopelessly patriarchal. To me there's a bit of intellectual cowardice in the insistence on being exclusively concerned about original intent, because it is a real failure to engage messy concepts like context and viewpoint. Sure, the Founding Father's didn't intend for women to be enfranchised citizens; but that's highly related to the fact that we were still fighting wars over enlightenment concepts like individual self-determination and representative government.<br></br><br></br>Just because we had a prevailing understanding of a word in 1776, it does not follow that we should preserve this understanding in amber for all time, for all generations of Americans to be subject to. The <i>context</i> of the Constitution's development, and the <i>viewpoints</i> of its writers should be very pertinent to our current interpretation of the document's meaning, but we need to reconcile how the diversification of legal and intellectual perspectives advances the core ideals of the United States Constitution; namely a government of the people, by the people, for the people.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-18710360736461363422012-05-09T18:59:00.002-04:002012-05-09T18:59:50.099-04:00My President<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.11NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzMzY2MDQwNzUwNzcmcHQ9MTMzNjYwNDA4MTQwOSZwPSZkPSZnPTImbz*xNjM1NGQwM2Q*ZjA*MDlmYTg5YjY3M2Fi/OTFjOTg*MSZvZj*w.gif" /><object name="kaltura_player_1336604319" id="kaltura_player_1336604319" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowFullScreen="true" height="221" width="392" data="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/0_51laolv5/uiconf_id/5590821"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><param name="movie" value="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/0_51laolv5/uiconf_id/5590821"/><param name="flashVars" value="autoPlay=false&screensLayer.startScreenOverId=startScreen&screensLayer.startScreenId=startScreen"/><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com">video platform</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_management">video management</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/solutions/video_solution">video solutions</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_publishing">video player</a></object>Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-44814393941925793432012-05-02T12:23:00.000-04:002012-05-02T12:25:45.452-04:00More Gateway Sexual ActivityJust a quick update, just to prove I'm not making anything up. <a href="http://www.newsy.com/videos/tn-gateway-sexual-activity-awaits-governor-approval/">Newsy</a> has put together a well sourced compilation on the story, and it includes actual people who actually think the law is a good idea.<br></br><br></br>
<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?video_pcode=xneHI6081hLXj1duY_dA3FefmUV0&height=360&embedCode=t0NmlsNDo4CQFp8Ov_1bYoN4TbwuHJYT&deepLinkEmbedCode=t0NmlsNDo4CQFp8Ov_1bYoN4TbwuHJYT&width=500">
</script><br></br><br></br>The one thing I am really struck by, is how uncertain everybody seems to be when it comes to actually defining what "gateway sexual activity" is. The bill itself is described as one intended to make sure Tennessee's sex education classes remain focused on abstinence[1], and seems to penalize educators who encourage non-abstinent behavior or contraceptive use. Representative John DeBarry, a supporter of the bill <a href="http://wreg.com/2012/04/27/lawmakers-pass-gateway-sexual-activity-ban/">explains</a>:<blockquote>“I think you and I both would know when we’re looking at a kiss, and when we’re looking at, for lack of a better way of saying it, someone who is trying to open the door to more activities,”</blockquote>Somewhat related, <a href="http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/30/tennessee-passes-abstinence-based-gateway-sexual-activity-bill/#ixzz1tYoMmBRw">TIME</a> states that <br />
<blockquote>Some detractors argue that it could unreasonably punish teachers for allowing students to cuddle, hold hands or even hug, whether in the halls between classes or at a school dance.</blockquote>Even after Barry's explanations, we're right back where we started; with a bizzare tautology that makes a person liable or condoning an activity that is literally defined as condoning said activity. If all the bill's supporters have is vauge allusions to door-openings and and "more activities", then I'm not quite sure how this will withstand even the most cursory legal scrutiny.<br></br><br></br>[1] Surprise!Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-6258577366502399042012-05-01T18:16:00.000-04:002012-05-03T10:59:45.671-04:00Social Networks and General Speech<a href="http://i.imgur.com/lvNNG.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://i.imgur.com/lvNNG.jpg" width="200" /></a>We invest a lot of time and money into making communication faster, and our communication gadgets fancier. I don't think this is a bad thing at all, but I am also not convinced its is wholly a good thing either. I get text messages and e-mails sent to a device I <i>carry in my pocket</i>, a fact that continues to ever so slightly blow my mind. The internet and smartphones certainly improve people's efficiency and productive capacity.<br />
But it also provides more opportunities to share things that aren't necessarily 'ready' for sharing, or weren't really meant to be shared in the first place. I continually resist the urge to share the latest cute cat picture on Facebook because, well, they're are enough cute cats all over the internet. Private thoughts tend to be best left to private places, and I think we're still working on what <i>is</i> private as participants in this developing world of social media.<br />
<br />
Near the end of chapter 13, Vonnegut creates an extended section of Kilgore Trout fiction[1], which describes something remarkably similar to our current trajectory. In the fictional universe of Trout's novel, people from earth can gain steady work across the galaxy as "language teachers". Why? Well:<br />
<blockquote>
The reason creatures wanted to use language instead of mental telepathy was that they found out they could get so much more done with language. Language made them so much more active. Mental telepathy, with <b>everybody constantly telling everybody everything, produced a sort of generalized indifference to all information.</b> But language, with its slow, narrow meanings, made it possible to think about one thing at a time—to start thinking in terms of projects. (198 emphasis mine - JMG)</blockquote>
Some of you may remember an essay I <a href="http://expounding28.blogspot.com/2012/04/social-networks-and-political-speech.html">wrote</a> about Arendt's <i>The Human Condition</i>, in which I probed some of Arednt's ideas of 'the public sphere'. Arednt was specific on how speaking or thinking the public sphere entailed of shaping one's thoughts for public consumption, and more specifically;<br />
<blockquote>
[...] that everything that appears in public can be <b>seen and heard by everybody</b> and has the widest possible publicity (50 emphasis mine - JMG) </blockquote>
Now, I want to make a few qualifications here; Arendt is talking about publicly available communications (in a political context). Vonnegut/Trout is envisioning an existence with universal mental telepathy, where all thoughts are by definition public. While I don't think we're anywhere close a grim future where we're all plugged into each other, <i>a la</i> The Matrix, but more and more communication tools are in the business of <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sPXMvqlNGdY/Tvtt8ev5mvI/AAAAAAAANf8/lIo_leJvSF4/s1600/When%2BDid%2BFacebook%2BTurn%2BInto%2BMy%2BGirlfriend.jpg">encouraging</a> personal disclosure (e.g. Facebook, twitter). We are certainly entering a period of redefinition of what thoughts are acceptably public or private, and I do think that Vonnegut's imagination should serve as a cautionary example of unfettered exchange.<br />
<br />
[1] Vonnegut's use of science fiction within his own fiction reminds me of Alan Moore's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen#Tales_of_the_Black_Freighter">"Tales of the Black Freighter"</a> within Watchmen.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-50164574617576861022012-05-01T10:51:00.000-04:002012-05-01T14:55:28.123-04:00A Man of PrincipleMassachusetts junior Senator Scott Brown has thrice voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but he has <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/05/01/scott_brown_acknowledges_using_part_of_health_care_law_he_wants_to_repeal/">told</a> the Boston Globe that "of course" he includes his 23-year-old daughter on his congressional health plan.<br></br><br></br>For those who are unfamiliar with the details of health law and policy, prior the the Affordable Care Act, the health insurance industry's standard was that dependent children were no long eligible for coverage under their parent's plan upon college graduation.<br></br><br></br>As someone who only has insurance coverage because of the current Massachusetts law, and could only get coverage in other states because of the national law, I find Sen. Brown's callous insistence on voting to revoke healthcare coverage for his constituents, while glibly acknowledging how he and his family benefit form the very law he supposedly opposes on deep philosophical grounds, to be a microcosm of everything wrong with conservative legislators.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-5883600708379757542012-04-30T22:01:00.001-04:002012-05-01T18:58:28.783-04:00Gateway Sexual ActivityNew name for a rock band? No, just the <a href="http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120428/NEWS0201/304280042/-Gateway-sexual-activity-bill-heads-to-Haslam">latest</a> from Tennessee's legislature.<br></br> <br></br>Once again the party of 'limited government' and 'personal responsibility' looks for new ways to legislate individual sexual conduct. The bill itself <a href="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB3621.pdf">defines</a> such activity as:<blockquote>(7) “Gateway sexual activity” means sexual contact encouraging an individual to engage in a non-abstinent behavior. <b>A person promotes a gateway sexual activity by encouraging, advocating, urging or condoning gateway sexual activities</b>;</blockquote>According to <i>The Tennessean</i>, the bill passed the state's House "68-23, with all but one Republican for it."<br></br><br></br>I understand that the GOP's fundamental organizing base is evangelical christian networks, and that these type of bills make perfect sense from a strategic perspective. But this is becoming grimly comical. The bill passed the Senate 28-1 on April 5. This will be an actual law that actual Tennesseans will have to live with.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-20691402286453739042012-04-30T14:36:00.000-04:002012-04-30T14:53:20.845-04:00Chutzpah. Also Amnesia.The Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/mitt-romneys-aides-point-to-candidates-lighter-side/2012/04/28/gIQAJsZnnT_story.html">quotes</a> Mitt Romney's "senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom" asserting that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008%E2%80%932010#United_States">Auto Industry Bailout</a> was really his bosses idea.<br />
<blockquote>
“[Romney's] <b>position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed,”</b> Fehrnstrom said. “He said, ‘If you want to save the auto industry, just don’t write them a check. That will seal their doom. What they need to do is go through a managed bankruptcy process.’<br />
<br />
“Consider that the crown jewel. The only economic success that President Obama has had,” Fehrnstrom said, “is because he followed Mitt Romney’s advice.”</blockquote>
Unsurprisingly, if not predictably, a quick Google search yields an op-ed penned by Mr. Romney and published in <em>The New York Times</em>, on November 18th, 2008 titled:<br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1">Let Detroit Go Bankrupt</a></blockquote>
The op-ed itself is an exercise in free-market lionization and general supply-side tropes, without any specific plan, aside from "[...] automakers should come up with a win-win proposition," by undergoing a managed bankruptcy in a historically tight credit market.<br />
<br />
Not only that, Mr. Romney also <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/210495-romney-op-ed-defends-auto-bailout-opposition">wrote</a> <i><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/mitt-romney-detroit-news_n_1277229.html">another</a></i> op-ed<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">[1]</span>, published on Feburary 14th, this year, lamenting that:<br />
<blockquote>
“The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.”</blockquote>
and <br />
<blockquote>
“The indisputable good news is that Chrysler and General Motors are still in business. The equally indisputable bad news is that all the defects in President Obama’s management of the American economy are evident in what he did.”</blockquote>
What makes Mr. Fehrstrom's assertion so outrageous is not only the chutzpah required to say that Mr. Romney's advocacy to force GM, Ford and Crysler into a managed bankruptcy "was exactly what Obama followed," but the amnesia required to ignore Mr. Romney's own written statements decrying the President's decisions that are, according to Mr. Fehrnstrom, supposed to be his own.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">[1] A note on the citations: </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">The Detroit News</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"> does not have a digital copy of Mr. Romney's op-ed on their website. The quotes were taken from </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">The Hill's</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"> Ballot Box, which is linked above.</span>Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-12056849330995628312012-04-25T09:43:00.000-04:002012-04-25T09:56:47.153-04:00SwaggerThe Politico is reporting today that "<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75558.html#ixzz1t3eidawB">Mitt Romney aims to rock the youth vote</a>". How? Well, I am not sure, and it seems like the Romney campaign is not so interested in the details either[1]:<blockquote>Though the Romney campaign did not share specifics of their strategy, an aide told POLITICO that they view the youth vote as key to their strategy in November and that they plan to put significant resources into turning out young voters for Romney.</blockquote>I am interested to see what, if anything comes of it; but I do not think the former Massachusetts Governor is going match this kind of swag:<br></br><br></br><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vAFQIciWsF4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br></br><br></br>[1] It's also possible they just don't want to tip their hand.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-49654656010719261662012-04-21T11:43:00.001-04:002012-04-21T11:43:25.879-04:00Quote of the DayWhy can't Mitt Romney be a little more honest about his <a href="http://www.samefacts.com/2012/01/income-distribution/mitt-romney-and-ann-the-students-struggling-so-much-that-they-had-to-sell-stock/">wealth</a>?<blockquote>Look. I don’t begrudge Romney’s having had his college tuition and living expenses paid for with family money. Mine were too. My background, though not as fancy as Mitt or Ann Romney’s, was privileged enough. But the guy should just come out and admit it: “I was a child of privilege and have my parents’ wealth to thank for my education. That said, I worked very very hard in business, and the vast majority of my fortune I earned myself.”<br></br><br></br>But there is of course a reason he can’t say that: such a statement is customarily followed by an expression of gratitude and a willingness to give something back to society. And gratitude and a willingness to give something back are precisely what Romney lacks—in common with the party he’s aspiring to represent.</blockquote>Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-8286883187051646032012-04-11T16:58:00.000-04:002012-04-13T12:51:37.174-04:00Social Networks and Political Speech IFacebook devils me. It is a social networking website that allows anyone with an internet connection - for free - use their server space to host a profile page. The catch, I gather, is that you become the <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21541047">product</a> Facebook intends to sell. When I think about it, it is clear that the 'social media' business model revolves around personal information, to help make more targeted marketing. The more personal information a social media firm can gather and offer to advertisers, the more revenue potential a firm (like Facebook) has.<br></br><br></br>But there is something more fundamental to Facebook specifically, and social media in general, that piques my interest; the notion of the 'public sphere' entering one's ostensibly private 'social networks'.<br></br><br></br>First, I'd like to outline my terms a bit. I consider myself an 'Arendtian', so my understanding of the public sphere is largely based on Arendt's definition. In her opus <i>The Human Condition</i> Arendt asserts<blockquote>[...] that <b>everything that appears in public can be seen and heard by everybody</b> and has the widest possible publicity. For us, appearance—something that is being seen and heard by others as well as by ourselves—constitutes reality. (50 emphasis mine — JMG)</blockquote>Nowadays, if I have a witty joke joke or a short piece of personal news I want to share, I put it on Facebook; if I have a larger or more unweidly point that I want to examine, I post an essy on this blog. I'm doubtful that my one-liners about the weather, or latest observation on Rick Santorum is "seen and heard by everybody". But it <i>is available</i> for public consumption. I think that the quality of "availability" is important when trying to distinguish between a "public" comment and a "private" thought. The problem now is that private thoughts are publicly available, depending on your security settings. But availability is not the only concern. A speaker's intent certainly has to play a role in distinguishing private and public speech.<br></br><br></br>Ardent continues: <blockquote>Compared with the reality which comes from being seen and heard, even the greatest forces of intimate life—the passions of the heard, the thoughts of the mind, the delights of the senses—lead an uncertain, shadowy kind of existance unless and until they are transformed, deprivateized and de-individualized, as it were, <b>into a shape to fit them for public appearance</b>" (50 emphasis mine — JMG)</blockquote>Look at you newsfeed an ask yourself; are your or your friend's postings being "shape[d] to fit" for public consumption? Does the average facebook poster engage in the mental process of shaping their thoughts for public consuption? Does Facebook "count" as a part of the public sphere under Arendt's framework in the first place?<br></br><br></br>I ask these questions, becasue ultimately; to be social is to be political. I don't mean this in a heavy-handed "friends don't let friends be convervative/liberal" kind of way. I mean that our individual ethics and political convictions are untimatly products of "being social". Of <i>inter homines esse</i>, as Arendt put it. I think that new social media technology is certainly changing some of those dynamics, and perhaps warping some of our (or Arendt's) longstanding assumptions about how the "private" and "public" spheres are distinguished.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-75882658577998419262012-04-11T15:28:00.003-04:002012-04-11T18:38:15.777-04:00Everything is a Culture WarDave Weigel continues his <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/02/02/_if_you_re_a_democrat_you_re_my_enemy_.html?wpisrc=obinsite">invaluable</a> constituent interviews during the waning days of the this cycle's Republican nomination contest. The latest I have read is from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Republican_caucuses,_2012">Nevada caucuses</a>, which took place back in early February. The news itself is a bit old, but the constituent's quote is pertinent my contention on the 'culturalization' of political debates.<br></br><br></br>Kent, an escavator from Virginia City, Nev. explains his views on partisanship:<blockquote>"This is going to sound rough," he said. "But if you're a Democrat, you are my enemy. Democrats piss me off. They've gotten extremely socialistic." What did that mean? "Every time they get in, they raise taxes. They screw things up. I've got a jeep I've had for ten years; I pay $100 a year on the license plate. We just got a new Dodge; $600 to license it. <b>You pay your money, they pass it on to the Mexicans, the colored people. Free education, handouts, all of that.</b>" (emphasis mine - JMG)</blockquote>I want to link this back to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's earlier <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/gov_christie_nation_is_becomin.html">comments</a> about how we are turning into a nation of "people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check," and how a lot of economic policy questions are being transmogrified into <a href="http://expounding28.blogspot.com/2012/02/morality-and-markets.html">morality plays</a> of how the 'government' poses a threat to concepts of 'independence' or 'virtue'. Once you start examining these kind of statements through the perspective of economic theory or social policy, you start to see how devoid of substance these kind of sentiments are. But a lot or people do not care to consider viewpoints of economic theory or social policy for all kinds of reasons. (If I had to guess the probable causes, I would suggest lack of technical understanding or a need for worldview that eliminates ambiguity.)<br></br><br></br>Now, a lot of people (myself included) complain about the lack of good faith in debates between our ideologically opposed representatives. A lot of people, myself excluded, diagnose the problem as an issue of party-driven polarization. Well, that is not quote right. I do agree that there is an issue of party-driven polarization, but I find that the <i>drivers</i> of party polarization are party participants and constituents like Kent and Gov. Christie. Representatives are less and less amiable to 'bi-partisanship' because the people they represent are less 'bi-partisan'.<br></br><br></br>Now, if you are frustrated with the way things are right now via-a-vis partisanship and gridlock (and I think you should be), then the first thing I think you should focus on attacking, is this idea that all policy disagreements can fundamentally be explained as 'us' against the 'enemy'. I think this goes for both camps, but I certainly do not think there exists an equivalence in degree or severity. Especially since Barack Obama has been president, conservative constituents and party actors have seemed more than comfortable to resorting to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy">more</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories">more</a> <a href="http://i.imgur.com/C4PtB.jpg">brazen</a> appeals to paranoia and 'otherness' as a tool to gain political advantage.<br></br><br></br>So I think I understand <i>why</i> people like Kent from Nevada feel that Democrats "raise taxes" and "pass it on to the Mexicans, the colored people", but I do not think that 'partisanship' any real excuse for statements like that. If anything, I find it all the more to be an indictment against the conservative opposition to progressive tax policy or a robust social safety net.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-15909691062216055572012-04-11T14:20:00.002-04:002012-04-11T14:40:08.177-04:00Heads I Win, Tails You LoseNew Jersey Governor Chris Christie is decrying the the current state of the country, lamenting that the <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/gov_christie_nation_is_becomin.html">'Nation turning into 'people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check'</a>. Gov. Christie's exact complaint is that:<blockquote>When the American people no longer believe that this is a place where only their willingness to work hard and to act with honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life, then we’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check,</blockquote>I bring this up because I am honestly not sure how the $102.4 million Panasionic <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/nyregion/christie-gives-new-jersey-firms-tax-breaks-for-short-moves.html?_r=1&hp">received</a> from the Christie administration in tax credits (to help incite a headquarter move on the electronic giant's part) services Gov. Christie's dream of an America where "honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life".<br></br><br></br>I don't quite get why this snakeoil keeps getting sold, let alone bought. The logic Gov. Christie is presenting here, from what I gather, is that tax breaks for individual citizens, particularly low-income citizens, is somehow a signal for the end of an America where "honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life"; while tax preferences for large multinational conglomerates is just a part of 'staying competitive'. Not only is this internally inconsistent, it is just naked, anti-competitive corporate welfare disguised as pro-market policy. Markets need its participants, as well as firms, to be competitive.<br></br><br></br>I think the most flagrant thing about this, is what a horrible deal it is for the taxpayers of New Jersey. According to the self-reported jobs creation projections, <blockquote>the companies have promised to add 2,364 jobs, or <b>$387,537 in tax credits per job</b>, over the next decade.</blockquote>Gov. Christe is giving Panasonic, Goya Foods and Prudential Insurance almost $400,000 for each job they create? Only 2,364 jobs over the next decade? <i>And he has the gall to complain about citizens whose poverty is so abject they perhaps need public assistance?</i> Absurd.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-56028246610661718632012-03-23T19:31:00.000-04:002012-03-23T22:54:55.112-04:00Complaints and ComplimentsDave Weigel <a href="http://www.slate.com/slideshows/news_and_politics/why-did-obama-win.html#slide_1">reports</a> from Alabama and Mississippi's March primary, asking some of the Republican primary voters "why did Obama ever win in the first place?" The answers are for the most part conservative boilerplate; voter fraud, white guilt, naïveté of young voters, etc. I wanted to highlight one respondent's statements, because I think it revels some of the idiosyncrasies of the conservative mindset.<br></br><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5pk0lM7EQ1A/T2zYwJOZHlI/AAAAAAAAAG0/F8a-UsCp4vg/s1600/KAnderson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="320" width="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5pk0lM7EQ1A/T2zYwJOZHlI/AAAAAAAAAG0/F8a-UsCp4vg/s320/KAnderson.jpg" /></a></div><br></br><a href="http://www.slate.com/slideshows/news_and_politics/why-did-obama-win.html#slide_6">Kerry Anderson</a> of Biloxi, Mississippi* laments that: <blockquote>“[Obama] fooled the young people, mostly. He fooled the people looking for an easier way of life, and <b>he made them belief life would be easier, the government would take care of things if he won.</b> It bothers me that young people aren’t better-informed. We older people, we stay informed. I should say: I’m on Medicare, but I still work. I was on the election commission in the county this year.” (emphasis mine - JMG)</blockquote><br></br>The criticism Ms. Anderson is trying to make here is quite clear, and is a part of the longstanding, implicit conservative <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XObcP69dhCg">allergy</a> to government solutions to social problems - especially at the federal level. But the literal complaint; that if elected life <i>wold</i> be easier and that the government should <i>step in</i> to solve social problems, well, I have to agree that that was part of the logic of Obama's candidacy.<br></br><br></br>Take healthcare: Barack Obama campaigned on, and signed legislation enshrining, the idea that it should be <i>easier</i> to purchase health insurance, and that government would <i>solve the issues</i> of adverse selection and pre-existing conditions that has plagued the United States' heath insurance market since (arguably) the Truman administration. I understand Mrs. Anderson is articulating a complaint, but really it sounds like a compliment.<br></br><br></br>*For disclosure, I am a native of, and still have roots in, Biloxi and Gulfport, MS.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-86872287794714475382012-03-23T10:40:00.001-04:002012-03-23T22:55:15.409-04:00Good Lord! (Updated)Can we all agree that Geraldo Rivera is awful, and we hate <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/geraldo_rivera_blames_trayvon_martins_death_on_his.php?ref=fpb">him</a>?<br></br><br></br><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2Yyqkcc-a8U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><blockquote>“I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was,”</blockquote>For those of you unfamiliar with the details of Trayvon Martin's death, you can start <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/geraldo_rivera_blames_trayvon_martins_death_on_his.php?ref=fpb">here</a>, and read on <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/the-sham-investigation-into-trayvon-martins-killing/254776/">here</a>.<br></br><br></br>Update: Mr. Rivera seems to <a href="http://geraldoinahoodie.tumblr.com/">ignore</a> is own advice.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-26627196010593005372012-03-22T00:14:00.000-04:002012-03-22T00:14:59.387-04:00A ReachI'm not sure what Mitt Romney is trying to say <a href="http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/mitt-romney-george-w-bushs-policies-prevented-a-great-depression.php?ref=fpb">here</a>, but he sounds very confused:<blockquote>“I keep hearing the president say that he’s responsible for keeping America from going into a Great Depression,” Romney told a crowd at a town hall meeting in Maryland Wednesday. “No, no no. That was President George W. Bush and Hank Paulson that stepped in and kept that from happening.”</blockquote>So, George W. Bush rescued America from the Great Depression he <i>caused?</i><br></br>At any rate, I thought the internal conservative logic was that Bush/Paulson's TARP program was not "conservative" in the sense that conter-cyclical fiscal policy is the anathema of freedom.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-83257091540678834662012-03-21T12:21:00.001-04:002012-03-23T20:13:36.073-04:00Context MattersJust a quick point made by <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/03/21/the_real_foxconn.html">Matthew Yglesias</a> that I wanted to co-sign; context matters:<blockquote>The big picture that emerges, I think, is simply of a China that's still exceptionally poor <b>by American standards</b>. (emphasis mine - JMG)</blockquote>There has been a lot <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_38/b4195058423479.htm">excellent</a> (and not so <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/19/stop_digging_mike_daisey_.html">excellent</a>) of coverage over the working conditions at Foxconn's factories. I am not going to add commentary to the conditions themselves, but rather how we talk about working conditions in general.<br></br><br></br>Standards of living and working conditions are relative ideas. Just like the adjectives "hot" or "cold", "quality working conditions" or "low standards of living" implies there's some baseline for comparison; usually our own. This is not to say that there is ever an excuse for barbaric working conditions, or standards of living that traumatizes a basic regard for human beings. But we need to be aware of (and appreciate) the quality of life that middle-class American citizens enjoy is the result of decades, if not centuries, of progressive social movement and advocacy for those on society's lowest rungs (e.g. child labor laws, protected classes, minimum wages, etc).<br></br><br></br>There is a bit of hubris in the expectation that the rest of the globe, especially the parts that are in the process of developing, to conform to the standards of an industrialized, western, middle-class lifestyle without a deeper commitment to understanding the context of the Foxconn employee, or the Malaysian Clipsal worker, or the Moroccan OCP miner.<br></br><br></br>If you'd like to learn more about supplier standards that created your iPhone, Apple's CSR reports are available <a href="http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/">here</a>.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-81095641126534946012012-03-20T14:12:00.000-04:002012-03-20T14:12:07.047-04:00An Honest MistakeAt Business Insiders, Michael Brendan Dougherty <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/can-you-guess-the-one-thing-missing-from-paul-ryans-big-explanation-of-government-debt-2012-3">reads</a> Paul Ryan's new budget <a href="http://budget.house.gov/fy2013Prosperity/">plan</a> so you don't have to.<br></br><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tsOAt9juLNg/T2jHwVb8MNI/AAAAAAAAAGo/N9wDHHYnQSg/s1600/paul-ryan-what-drives-gov-spending.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="299" width="400" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tsOAt9juLNg/T2jHwVb8MNI/AAAAAAAAAGo/N9wDHHYnQSg/s400/paul-ryan-what-drives-gov-spending.png" /></a></div><br></br>Can <i>you</i> spot what is missing from Rep. Ryan's colorful chart? Hint: In <a href="http://costofwar.com/media/uploads/security_spending_primer/discretionary_budget_m_vs_nm.pdf">FY 2011</a>, it comprised of 58% of the Federal Discretionary Budget.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-91248746043036195112012-03-20T12:05:00.000-04:002012-03-23T20:15:00.717-04:00We Will Take Your Word For ItKaren Santourm assures us that, if elected, women have "nothing to fear" from her husband's espoused views on contraception.<br></br><br></br><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/B5ag5k6a3jQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br></br><br></br>I supposed we will just have to take her word for it? Or perhaps <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/04/santorum-contraception-a-grievous-moral-wrong/">his</a>?<br></br><blockquote>“The Blunt amendment was broader than that,” Santorum told Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday. “It was a conscience clause exception that existed prior to when President Obama decided that he could impose his values on people of faith, when <b>people of faith believe that this [contraception] is a grievous moral wrong.”</b> (emphasis mine - JMG)</blockquote>Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-54323392582910856672012-03-20T11:43:00.000-04:002012-03-23T20:12:57.609-04:00No One Has a Monopoly on LibertyThe <i>The New York Times</i> has a wonderful <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/health/policy/women-still-pay-more-for-health-insurance-data-shows.html">piece</a> on gender gap on health insurance costs. They key lesson of the article:<blockquote>In a report to be issued this week, the <a href="http://www.nwlc.org/">National Women’s Law Center</a>, a research and advocacy group, says that in states that have not banned gender rating, <b>more than 90 percent of the best-selling health plans charge women more than men</b>.(emphasis mine - JMG)</blockquote> Buttressing this, <i>The Atlantic Wire</i> has <a href="http://bit.ly/FQTC5S">great</a> compilation of similar articles all pointing out the same thing: there is a inherent gender disparity in healthcare costs and services, that the current contracetion "debate" only serves to highlight.<br><br/>I bring this up because I have seen and read a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577265461876605408.html">handful</a> of <a href="http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/daily-contraception-mandate-lie-who-started-it/423361">conservative</a> <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293565/sandra-sideshow-ramesh-ponnuru">opinions</a> concerning the mandate that all health insurance plans provide for contraception without co-pay. I am not going to take time to delve into the policy specifics right now. Instead I want to make a broader point about conceptions of liberty.<br></br>The conservative/libertarian point against a contraception mandate is couched in terms of contractual "liberty". Namely <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293152/our-ridiculous-contraception-debate-charles-c-w-cooke?pg=2">that</a>:<blockquote>[...] there is no need to be your sister’s keeper when she can keep herself.</blockquote>What these opinions ignore, or cannot seem to comprehend, is that one class or group of people <i>do not have a monopoly</i> on "liberty".<br></br><br></br>Some people want the liberty to set the terms of their contract between their health insurer, free of regulatory mandates. I think women should have the liberty to choose the timing, spacing, and numbers of their child births. A freedom they do not have if there are barriers to contraception. I also think a people should be free from economic and medical discrimination based on their gender. A freedom women do not have, as illustrated by the above <i>New York Times</i> and <i>Atlantic Wire</i> articles.<br></br><br></br>"Liberty" is not some empirically, objectively established concept that one side gets to hold as a cudgel in political debate. It is a concept and a value that requires us to make normative judgments about what is, and is not, important to us as a society and polity.<br></br><br></br>Just because you want to be "free" from some onerous regulatory mandate does not make you a brave crusader for individual liberty. It just makes you a advocate for your own opinion of what liberty should mean in a regulatory context.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-29235197442558116422012-03-19T11:01:00.000-04:002012-03-19T11:01:44.860-04:00The Inmates Run The Asylum cont.I am not <a href="http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/santorum-charges-ahead-with-anti-porn-crusade.php?ref=fpa">sure</a> what Rick Santroum thinks he's <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/03/santorum-giving-moderates-suburbanites-people-creeped-out-penn-state/50041/">doing</a>, but this is the 2012 election cycle, not 1912.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-3623452457056316482012-03-19T10:44:00.001-04:002012-03-19T10:45:52.199-04:00Lobbying as a Legislative SubsidyEzra Klein has written a great <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/our-corrupt-politics-its-not-all-money/">piece</a> for the New York Review of Books; diagnosing some of the ways money does, and does not, corrode our political system.<br></br>In many of the conversations I've privately had with liberal friends and acquaintances, money and politics is often reduced to a kind of arithmetic: Money + Politics = Corruption. I do not completely disagree with the assertion, but I certainly think there is more to it that that (as I've touched on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FApgUdf&h=WAQHGrVkRAQG2iDsqEJG1y_TS86AgK8DEUDauuKhlPpf58g">here</a>). Why I like Klein's piece so much is that he really plumbs the depths of causation mechanisms between well financed lobby interests and favorable legislative results. The problem with the "lobbying as a form of bribery" hypothesis is that it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny in the real world:<blockquote>[...] lobbying, at least in its bluntest form, doesn’t seem to work. For many Americans, lobbying is a form of bribery. A rich lobbyist goes to a corrupt congressman, money changes hands, and the lobbyist gets his vote while the congressman gets money for his campaign. Many researchers have tried to find systematic evidence of vote buying. Very few have succeeded. Lessig quotes research by Dan Clawson, Mark Weller, and Alan Neustadtl, which concluded, “Many critics of big money campaign finance seem to assume that a corporate donor summons a senator and says, ‘Senator, I want you to vote against raising the minimum wage. Here’s $5,000 to do so.’ This view, in its crude form, is simply wrong.”</blockquote>Klein explains that lobbying, instead, is more a form a legislative subsidy:<blockquote>In addition to providing campaign contributions and employment prospects to outgoing elected officials and their staffs, [lobbyists] provides legislative expertise. Political scientists call this “the legislative subsidy” model of lobbying, and it poses a serious challenge to the view that lobbyists are little more than parasites.<br></br>The theory was first proposed by Richard Hall and Alan Deardorff in a 2006 paper entitled “Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy.” The paper was an attempt to solve a problem that, at first glance, should not have needed to be solved, because it should not have existed in the first place: Why is the behavior of lobbyists so hard to predict?<br></br>For instance: you would think that lobbyists would concentrate their financial power and well-honed connections on the politicians they need to persuade. But they don’t. They concentrate it on the politicians who are already most convinced of their positions.</blockquote>In a lot of ways, the money spent on lobbying is not so much a direct attempt at vote buying or bribery, as it is an indirect attempt at agenda setting and coalition building. Certainly there's going to be "ol' boys club" type glad handing, which favors those who already are familiar and participants in networks of privilege. But that does not necessarily mean that levels of financing is the only factor.<br></br>One last thing that I think is very important, and is not mentioned nearly enough, is the fact that the "expenditure effect"; that is, the amount of influence lobbyist spending has on an issue, recedes in relation to the issue's prominence. Klein explains:<blockquote>Take any issue that you’ve actually heard a lot about. The headline clashes. The big-ticket bills. They’ve all got money on both sides. They’ve all got platoons of lobbyists swarming onto Capitol Hill. They’ve all got activists and interest groups and even ordinary Americans pestering their congressmen. And they all go the same way: the Democrats vote with the Democrats, and the Republicans vote with the Republicans.<br></br>That’s true even when the big money lines up in favor of another outcome. In 2011, the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO joined together to call for a major reinvestment in American infrastructure. None passed. In 2010, most of the health care industry was either supportive or neutral on the Affordable Care Act, and if any one of them could have swung the votes of even a few Republican senators or congressmen, the desperate Democrats would have let them write almost anything they wanted into the bill. But not one Republican budged. In 2009, the Chamber of Commerce endorsed the stimulus bill as a necessary boost to the economy. Not one House Republican voted for it. Almost every major business group has been calling for tax reform and a big, Simpson-Bowles-like deficit reduction package for years now. But Congress remains deadlocked.</blockquote>I do not want to imply that I do not think money is an issue in American politics; it is. But I think we need to look at the effect money has on our political system in less ideological way, and in a more scientific way.<br><br/>Bonus: Ta-Nehisi Coates' own <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/lobbying-and-the-gift-economy/254352/">thoughts</a> on Klein's work.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-3992855247931472892012-03-02T23:24:00.000-05:002012-03-02T23:24:55.570-05:00Rush Limbaugh Sinks to New Lows/Reaches New HeightsIf Rick Santourm is calling you <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/02/santorum-calls-limbaugh-comments-absurd/">absurd</a>, well, that's absurd.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-63091417931808482592012-03-02T21:51:00.001-05:002012-03-03T09:25:05.483-05:00CatnipTPM has a new headline that I just can't resist:<br></br><a href="http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/romney-urged-obama-to-embrace-individual-mandate-in-2009.php?ref=fpnewsfeed">Romney Urged Obama To Embrace Individual Mandate In 2009</a>.<br></br>Mitt has been trying parse his signature achievement by making a state/federal distinction. Apprently, his 2009 <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romneys-advice-for-obamacare-look-at-romney">op-ed</a> failed to do so.<br></br>These are the kind of problems you have when you're a presidential candidate, and you decide you don't really care, as long as people vote for you.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141929472378651216.post-73553743480558246632012-03-01T19:13:00.000-05:002012-07-09T14:59:15.432-04:00I Don't Even...I would like to submit <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/wall-street-bonus-withdrawal-means-trading-aspen-for-cheap-chex.html">Exhibit A</a> in the case against the fallacy that the rich "<a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/redefining-what-it-means-to-work-hard/?pagemode=print&scp=1&sq=Duke%20privilege&st=cse">just work harder</a>" A sample:<blockquote>Executive-search veterans who work with hedge funds and banks make about $500,000 in good years, said Arbeeny, managing principal at New York-based CMF Partners LLC, declining to discuss specifics about his own income. He said he no longer goes on annual ski trips to Whistler (WB), Tahoe or Aspen.<br></br>He reads other supermarket circulars to find good prices for his favorite cereal, Wheat Chex.<br></br>“Wow, did I waste a lot of money,” Arbeeny said.</blockquote>Yes, "wow".<br></br>Bonus: Matt Taibbi <a href="http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/04/10/brooks-let-them-eat-work/">tearing</a> into David Brooks for his wealth worshiping foolishness.<br></br><br></br>h/t <a href="http://www.ginandtacos.com/2012/03/01/a-bunch-of-people-who-need-to-be-severely-beaten-get-the-fjm-treatment/">Gin and Tacos</a>Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00085127306428754057noreply@blogger.com0