The Crime of the Century

WHITECOLLAR REDNECK

Wouldn't tomorrow be a great night to break into Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s house? First of all, you know he's going to be out of town at the beer summit, second of all you can be pretty sure that neighbor lady isn't going to be calling the cops again if she sees any funny business next door, and third of all you can be damned sure the Cambridge cops aren't going to respond to another Gates residence break-in alert anyway.

And just in case someone does rob the place tomorrow, I can tell you right now I will have an alibi. I have a dinner scheduled.

Empathy and Law: A False Dichotomy

PHUTATORIUS
As the Sotomayor confirmation hearings continue this week, and as folks like Jeff Sessions get all worked up about (1) President Obama's invocation of "empathy" as a quality we'd like to see in the judiciary, and (2) whether it's reasonable to suggest that a person's background and life experience might have something to do with what they would decide as a life-tenured judge, it's important, I think, to introduce just an eensy-weensy bit of reality and perspective to the discussion.

Now I know that "reality" and "perspective" are natural enemies of the sort of feigned outrage we're seeing from Sessions, who is, apparently, the GOP's attack dog here. So to suggest that the Junior Senator of Alabama constrain himself to these values is sort of like asking a bulldozer to pause and consider the structural integrity and refinement of the building in front of it. But we're all about lost causes here at Feigned Outrage. (So says Google Analytics, anyway.)
More...
The right-wing talking point goes like this: Judges shouldn't act on mushy concepts like "empathy." They should follow The Law. And if they act on "empathy," they're not following The Law, and they're suddenly — and this is a beloved bromide of the judge haters — "making law rather than applying the law."

And of course anyone who knows anything about how the law works — and this should include you, Senator Sessions, given that you were once Alabama's Attorney General — would know that it is an exceedingly rare occasion on which a judge has to choose between the Empathy Answer and the Law Answer. This for two reasons:

For starters, despite Congressional Republicans' best efforts, Empathy is often incorporated into The Law. In fact, a great deal of our most important and treasured laws — our Constitution's First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, shoot: even the stimulus bill, if you still believe in it — are monuments to empathy.

A bunch of white guys don't pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unless they're capable of empathy. Sure, if you're cynical (and I'm not, by the way: well, not on this point), you could say that they acted in the interest of securing the stability of the nation by extending protections to an increasingly marginalized and dissatisfied underclass. But even to get to that point, to realize that a law was necessary, if not desirable, you have to be able to consider the perspective of someone from a different background. To know the real effect of a law, you have to consider — you have to predict — how it will affect the people subject to it. Sounds like "empathy" to me, and it sounds appealing.

Second, and probably more important: at the Supreme Court level there aren't that many cases in which The Law obviously compels a certain result. Sure, folks in the gallery may feel that way — and the lawyers at the lecterns may argue that way — but the questions before the Supreme Court are the tough ones. They're the questions that Congress didn't anticipate when it enacted a law. They're the questions on which the several Courts of Appeal couldn't come to agreement. The business of the courts isn't just to override the express will of elected officials and legislate by fiat. That's a happy last point of argumentative retreat when you don't like what a court decided. The job of the courts is to fill in the gaps in the law: to decide what the law means and how it applies when the Framers and Congress, despite their best efforts, left open litigation points.

Certainly as a critic, on the sideline, with a vested ideological interest in the outcome of a case, one can talk oneself into believing that The Law compelled a certain result — the result that one favors. And working backward from that point of epistemological certainty (and this is a space folks both on the left and on the right are comfortable working in, although I would submit that liberals may be more susceptible to uncertainty and less attracted to batten-down-the-hatches-style conviction), one can conclude that the judge who ruled in the other direction was necessarily led astray by impermissible considerations — human failings like bigotry, callousness, religious zealotry, provinciality, venality, empathy. (Wait a minute: empathy? Is that so bad?)

But I'd submit that this isn't a fair or realistic way to review the actions taken in most Supreme Court cases — and certainly in most of the high-profile, front-line-of-the-culture-war cases. The fact is that The Law very, very often doesn't compel a certain result, and it's up to the Justices to do their best to untangle the complexities of a given case and decide (gasp!) what result The Law should compel. A whole host of considerations necessarily leak into that process, and we can talk about what considerations should and should not be permissible. But the notion that a judge should draw on his or her own personal background and experience — that is, the accumulated data that form the basis for their exercise of wisdom — should not be controversial. We can idealize a Law that is so compelling that wise white men and "wise Latinas" would spit out the same outcomes. But that Law doesn't exist, principally because law is an artifact of humankind, and it therefore incorporates all of our best intentions and failures to meet them. It reflects our diversity of opinion and interests. Law is emphatically of the people, by the people, for the people, and when a judge is called upon to decide a case, it seems to me entirely appropriate that the judge should keep in mind that his or her decision is not one made in legal abstraction — it's not a matter for cerebral processing or an exercise of rhetoric and logic — but one that will absolutely have consequences, and generally very significant consequences, for real people.

That, at least to me, is the role that "empathy" should have in judging. And I think it's important.

Larry King's Suspenders

PHUTATORIUS
I'm growing increasingly convinced that Larry King's body has grooves that hold his suspenders in place. I mean, look at him.

Now I'm no doctor, nor a chiropractor, either (and for that matter, I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night), but it seems to me there are several ways in which a body might, organically and over a considerable amount of time, develop a suspension-groove system.

One obvious candidate is callouses, but this seems to me unlikely. The callouses would likely accumulate where the greatest amount of friction exists — that is, under the suspenders, such that you'd have the opposite of a groove. You'd instead have a raised, solid "track" over which the suspenders would be perched, rather than nested. Let's discuss other possibilities:

Muscle development could well be in play here. Consider what a bulge in the trapezius could accomplish, if it arose just between the shoulder and the spot where Mr. King customarily lodges his suspenders. The muscle-bulge would act like a notch — you slip the suspender over it and it can't possibly slide off laterally over the shoulder. Now consider that a second, smaller bulge might crop up between neck and suspender, to preclude lateral movement of the suspender in a neckward direction. It seems to me that Mr. King's forward-leaning "lunge" posture could well accomplish these two results, in a bilateral presentation — especially as from all appearances he is straining against the suspenders themselves. All it would take to develop these bulges would be a gradual tightening — if not as well a reduction in the elasticity — of the suspenders over time.

Third and finally, I suggest bone spurs. This hypothesis speaks for itself, I think, and I don't really see much to be gained from elaborating it.

Some Friendly Advice

WHITECOLLAR REDNECK

If you want to go see Transformers 2 with your wife, please ask her if she wants to go see Transformers 2. Do not ask her if she wants to see "the Megan Fox movie". Apparently it makes a difference.

FO News Roundup: July 10, 2009

• China's President says "stability is paramount" and the Uighurs need to be "dealt a blow." Clearly he's more of a Grinch than a Hu. (P)
• North Korea attacks! Well, virtually, anyway. And here we thought they only bought that computer so Kim could play Lode Runner. (P)
• A stampeding bull gores a man to death in Pamplona, while a bear market chastens Wall Street bankers. Can't win for losing. (P)
• Basic services are nice and all, but statuary inspires. So it goes in Uttar Pradesh. (P)
• Next on the agenda, poverty and starvation. Ah, just in the time for the white asparagus and truffle soup. Waiter, can you take these leavings to the African contingent out in the hall? (P)
• "Death by Chocolate": not just a ha-ha funny dessert name anymore. Thanks, menu-writers, for tempting fate. (P)
• (Speaking of tempting fate . . . ) is this really the best al Qaeda can do? (P)
  

Pessimism

PHUTATORIUS
The Economist recently criticized President Obama's kid-glove handling of Congress. The short version of Lexington's critique is that Obama writes the agenda, and Congress writes the laws. Nowhere was this more evident than in the case of the economic stimulus plan: Obama described the size of the bucket, and the Democratic Congress filled it up. This practice became a pattern with the climate change bill (The Economist, again) — although to be fair, lawmakers in the House had to load the law up with giveaways and postpone its efficacy (if not its effective date) for another ten years, just to win a majority.

Because, for better or for worse, I take my cues from The Economist, I'm afraid for the country. Here's why.
More...
Unlike many of the Republican naysayers, I actually believe that certain of America's bigger problems actually require government intervention. I've said my peace on the economy. But the energy and health care sectors, too, have seen the Invisible Hand failing to manage matters with any kind of deftness or dexterity. Let's consider why and how:

* Health Care. — The failures of the health care market are well-documented. It just isn't working. The principal reason for this is that there is no demand curve. Any reasonable person would rather be broke or bankrupt than sick and dying. If you need to spend $200 grand on a lifesaving chemotherapy, you do it. You plunk down the money and you figure out the rest later. Thus, spiraling costs. And there's the fact, too, that the structure of our health care system is an historical artifact of a market distortion: Stateside employers began to provide health insurance benefits to their workers during World War II, in an effort to compete for talent after the government imposed wage controls. Employers are expected to bear this burden today — and what's worse, employees come of age with the expectation that someone else ought to be paying for their health care. (Aha! cries the Republican — see here the long-term unintended consequences of government interference in the market! Yes, GOPer. Duly noted.)

* Energy. — The energy markets are failing us. Demand from developing countries will considerably outstrip production in the near and mid-range future. This isn't even a concern we can forget about in the short term. We saw inklings of what is coming last summer, when gas prices shot up over $4 per gallon. Prices are creeping back up again. As hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians lift themselves out of poverty in the coming years, there simply won't be enough fossil fuel production to sustain them and us. This means skyrocketing energy costs, if not something worse — like war. Which brings us to the next factor that calls for government intervention in the energy markets: national security. Terrible, horrible regimes like those in Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia perpetuate themselves on the strength of their oil production. State-owned gas and oil companies in Russia leverage the energy demands of Europe and former Soviet states for the political ends of the kleptocrats in the Kremlin. And worse, we compromise ourselves, we give in on important Western values, in our thirst for oil. We may not be overthrowing democratically-elected governments anymore in Iran, but we do support oil-rich regimes with grievous human rights records. Our need for oil poisons our foreign policy and, to be frank, we'd be better and more principled in our dealings with the rest of the world if we could shake this rotten dependency.

Note that I haven't even talked about the global warming and environmental considerations, which somehow still manage to be controversial among intelligent people. (Shout-out here to V'torix.)

Our energy markets are, of course, distorted by the affirmative intervention of the last Administration in favor of Big Oil. We can ascribe this policy to shortsightedness (voters like the incumbents more when they aren't getting squeezed at the pump) or to venality (oil barons scratch Republicans' backs, and Republicans scratch theirs), but whatever the cause, it's exactly the opposite of the policy we should be pursuing. Giving fossil fuels a market edge when they are already the incumbent technology is emphatically the wrong policy. We need to strike that and reverse it. Government needs to subsidize renewable energy. For our economic interest, for our national security, for our foreign policy, and — what the heck – for the Earth.

And now, the turn:

I earnestly believe that we need the government to tackle these issues — and more than just considering them, we need the government to muck around in the markets. That's the only way these problems get fixed. But then I look over at the two bodies charged with the constitutional power to act on the economy, on health care, on energy — and my heart climbs into my throat, and then it breaks. I have absolutely no faith in the ability of the House of Representatives, or for that matter the Senate, to come up with anything on these issues other than shortsighted, self-serving packages of special-interest giveaways and unintended consequences.

I lack this faith not because of the particular 535 persons who are occupying the seats in the two chambers (although I have to say, quite a few of them are doozies). The problem is our political system. The two parties gerrymander the House districts to protect their seats: as a result, the truly contested elections are primaries that bring the most identifiably partisan — and therefore extreme — candidates into the Capitol. So we have extremist ideologues from both parties dominating the House. Add to this the warped incentives that flow from our politicians' concluding that they win more votes with obfuscatory and infantilizing commercial spots than they do by taking real, principled positions on the issues, and now we have special interests buying and selling our wild-eyed legislators with the campaign contributions that nourish the all-important Media Buys.

It's no wonder the stimulus bill became a Christmas tree, a receptacle for pet projects and pork. It's no wonder, either, that the climate change bill is a toothless pack of giveaways. So now we turn to health care and energy policy, and I cringe, and I again feel like a man without a political home. It's bad enough to live life as a social liberal/economic conservative. Now consider the predicament of the poor blogging soul who shares both the Democrats' conviction that government intervention on certain critical policy issues is absolutely necessary and the Republicans' despair over the ability of a government — and specifically, this government — not to butcher the job.

Somebody tell me everything is going to be all right.

FO News Roundup: July 3, 2009

It's Freud's birthday today, so we're all about sex and death. Actually, we lied: it's not Freud's birthday. Can you ever trust us again?

• Look, dude. You didn't have to propose to her to get her to say "yes, yes, yes, like 500 times super fast in a row." Oh, no, wait: you're a Jonas Brother, so maybe you did. (P)
• The Delhi High Court has upheld the right to gay sex between consenting adults. A "director's cut" of the Kama Sutra will hit the streets next week. (P)
• Debbie Rowe was a "baby machine" for Michael Jackson, who apparently ditched her at the hospital and ran off with his newborn daughter "with all the placenta all over her." Somewhere, a middle-aged Billy Jean just kicked a hole in the wall. (P)
• If you thought Billy Mays was only an American icon, think again: Chinaview.cn is covering his death. And so it is that great cultural gaps are closed by a dab or two of Mighty Mend-It. (P)
• A new study shows that cardiac arrest is a really dangerous and shitty thing to happen to you. (P)
• No link here — it's been taken down — but CNN was advertising a feature that purported to cover the "highlights of Michael Jackson's life and death." My favorite part of his death was the bit where he came back as a zombie and began to dance, in block formation, with some acquaintances from the cemetery. Well, that and the cardiac arrest. No. The zombie dancing bit was probably better. Less edgy. (P)
• Last, but not least: we're all going to die this fall. Thank you, and good night. (P)

Ask Feigned Outrage

MITHRIDATES
One of our many loyal readers recently wrote in seeking advice on how to respond to the following note received by her neighbor, left on top of her shipment of bottled water:

Dear Neighbor,

I couldn't help but notice you recently received a shipment of bottled water. Can I suggest you try Chicago tap water? It's some of the finest in the country. Or at the very least use a Brita water filter. That way you can do your part to help save the planet.

Thanks,

Your fellow global citizens

This is a delicate situation, with both the planet and neighborly relations at stake, so after much careful consideration I offer the following response:

Dear Fellow Global Citizens,

Thanks for the wake-up call and alerting me to all the damage I am doing to our beloved Mother Earth. You've inspired me to do some research and I can't help but agree that we'd all be better off if I stopped getting bottled water and switched to pure Chicago tap water. Even though the plastic bottles are recycled, this process uses a bit of energy and slightly increases carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, carbon dioxide emissions from many sources are harming our planet and under the new climate change bill, carbon dioxide is an official pollutant. Every time you drive a car, or even exhale, you cause immeasurable and irreparable harm to the climate of our dear planet.

So let's make a pledge to help the Earth together. I'll cancel my shipments and try out Chicago tap water and you cease any unnecessary exhalations. You can use sign language all you want, but never utter another word to anyone — every time you do you emit carbon dioxide and contribute to global warming. Moreover, you can save trees by cutting down on self-righteous notes to your neighbors. Now that you're aware of these facts, I know you can't resist such an opportunity to help save the planet. We all win. The planet cools down and no one will ever again be subjected to your obnoxious, holier-than-thou proclamations, either written or oral.

Once again, thank you for bringing my dangerously negligent behavior to light. I look forward to working with you to make our planet more livable. Thanks,

Your neighbor and fellow concerned global citizen

Dear readers, please continue to email us with your most troubling issues. We're always here to help.

Empathy, Activism, and Consipracy

MITHRIDATES
As a liberal (debate the small "l", if you must), I'm happy with the outcome of the case. I empathize with the firefighters who passed their exam but weren't promoted because they weren't the right color. But anyway, all I'm saying here is that if I were a conservative and didn't want Sotomayor confirmed, I'd want this one particular case decided this way. And I'd want it decided just before the Supreme Court session ends so that it will be the most recent case during her confirmation hearings. That way I could loudly make the (somewhat circular) argument that she's not fit to replace the Bush appointee who voted to uphold her decision because the current Supreme Court overall disagreed with her 5-4.

I'm happy with the ruling, though, and am glad that Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas took into consideration the unfair treatment of the firefighters instead of just heartlessly and rigidly applying the law.

Bernie Madoff

WHITECOLLAR REDNECK

Now, I've heard a couple people remark that a 150 year sentence, the maximum the judge was allowed to impose, seems excessive for an old man who's going to be dead in a few years anyway. Some of those people have pointed out that a lot of the victims of Madoff's crimes either knew or should have known that something sketchy was going on, and I suppose there's some truth in that.

But to me the most striking aspect of Madoff's guilty plea, and the aspect that makes him deserving of the maximum punishment allowable, is that he's provided exactly zero help to investigators. Sure, he's admitting his guilt, after it wasn't possible to hide it anymore. But he hasn't said word one about who helped him, how much various other figures knew, where the money went, or how he orchestrated it all. A truly contrite man, one deserving of mercy, would have come clean about everything. And a man who's not at all contrite, who only admits what can already be proven and offers nothing more beyond, seems like a man at whom the book ought to be thrown.

So Bernie, we'll see you in 2159 - you can watch the NBA finals at my place.

"Business lawsuits vex ex-hoops stars"

WHITECOLLAR REDNECK

Apparently being hated by 98% of sports fans is not enough for Christian Laettner - he's trying to be hated by 98% of the investment community too.

Awesome!

WHITECOLLAR REDNECK

Well, I'm thrilled that all the protests in Iran worked out OK, and the Waxman-Markey bill that would change America beyond recognition didn't end up happening. At least, I'm assuming that's the case, because the news is spending all their time talking about Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett, which I'm sure they wouldn't be doing if there were momentous issues still in play right now.

"Program Pays Girls a Dollar a Day Not to Get Pregnant"

WHITECOLLAR REDNECK

Those girls are getting $1 a day not to get pregnant. Can I get $20 a day for not getting twenty girls pregnant?

Walk the Line

MITHRIDATES
While the usual knee-jerk conservatives spout out their predictable objections, it's worth noting the delicacy of the situation in Iran. While most Americans obviously wants an end to the Ayatollah's theocracy and a peaceful, prosperous, and friendly Iran, the questions is how best to get there.

The posturing right demands a strong statement from the President affirming our support for the protesters. But to what end? An open declaration of support from the US President plays directly into the hands of the oppressors in Iran. It gives credence to their claims that the protests are orchestrated by their enemies and might help unite much of the country behind the regime. The obviousness of this predicament has not prevented condemnation of the President from some corners, and some conservatives, such as Peggy Noonan and George Will, should be credited for noting the foolishness of such criticism.
More...
Let's be fair. Not every conservative is as moronic as Jeff Jacoby and some argue reasonably for stronger words or at least acknowledge the potential downside.

We'll just quietly give thanks for a leader who thinks about the best course of action to effect the most favorable outcome and makes the necessary adjustments as circumstances change — unlike, well, you know . . .

What the Iranian people need is to know that the rest of the world supports them. Obama is trying to do this without giving any credence to the regime's claims of foreign interference. It's a delicate line to walk, and we wish the President success. And whether he got to this speech because of Republican criticism or just a reasonable reassessment of changing circumstances, it's still a damn good one. The man can talk, and right now the right words matter.

Top 10 Harvard-Globe Comments

MITHRIDATES
The Internet has changed journalism forever. You heard that first here. One of the great improvements over old-fashioned print media is the comment section at the end of an online article. This is where you learn that — however reasonable you originally thought the article was — it's really just either socialist propaganda from the left-wing media machine or fascist rhetoric from the corporate/Christian right.

Don't be fooled by a seemingly bland article about an apparently apolitical topic . Somewhere there's a communist plot — and our commentators are going to find it for us. Nowhere is this more apparent than in a supposedly left-leaning (left-wing, socialist, COMMUNIST!) paper's article about an allegedly liberal (radical, anti-American, MARXIST!) institution.

So without further ado, here are the top 10 comments from Harvard to Lay off 275 in the Boston Globe:
More...

1. Ah, the poetic justice is intoxicating. These Universities were the most fervent supporters of President Obama in his run. The Liberal minded Professors slamming any opposition to him on campus. Now, with benefactors getting hammered left and right with taxes, threats to take their wealth, and so forth and so on, they are running for the proverbial hills. Which leaves the previously mentioned Professors scrambling to retain their jobs. I wonder what they think of their CHOSEN ONE now. He conned everyone he came in contact with, and is now dismantling the very same establishment which put him in power. The sweet smell of buyers remorse is in the air. - Posted by Jim

2. See what communists does? It runes the eckonomy by redistributting the wealth. Now those Harvard libruls can feal it.
   We need Free Markets, deregulation on Wall Street and TAX CUTS for the top 5 percent in order to make this economy better for all of us teabaggers.
   Who cares about educashun and evoloution when you don't get a job?? Knot me. - Posted by Jonny Wingnut

3. billions in the bank and laying people off??? Not for profit??? something is not right here? LIke everyone else said, why arent they paying taxes? This state is a JOKE. Why do we still live here?If they only had a BILLION in the bank it shouldn't matter. - Posted by rayhags

4. Harvard can't dip into its endowment to save some of these jobs? Got to build another gigantic building, but let go of all the personnel? I thought communism was all about redistributing wealth to everyone? - Posted by realist

5. Harvard isn't going to hell, it's already there. E-gad what a horrible bunch of people. - Posted by Jack Higgins

6. This is almost entirely fault of former Harvard President Larry Summers.
   I just hope he would not screw our nation/federal government.- Posted by Rudy Biden
   

7. Economic problem precipitated largely by Harvard Alum's and now it comes home to roost. Maybe a revision of the Ethic's Standard and Practice courses would be apropos! - Posted by DanB

8. Sure .... Destroy the economy and lose 275 jobs. Justice??
   What a bunch of elitist clowns at that place...
   They do not get it at all... Answer - Do not respect these low life bone heads. Show them massive disrespect wherever they go. They are the elite gone mad. - Posted by Terry Wise

9. I find it interesting that a large majority of comments on this subject are barely literate. - Posted by Ed

10. Is there a sensible reason why there is a commentary section for articles published in this newspaper? The quality of the reactive screes that people write is an embarrassment. It is a forum for those that need somehow to express their anger at anything that stays still long enough to tag with graffiti.

    It is hardly any better than that.

    I think that this newspaper should rethink the premise on which researched news articles are plastered with these random splatters of anger. - Posted by David
    

Ah, the delightful bashing of: one of the best of our world-leading institutions of higher education; a great contributor to the advancement of science; a source of pride for the U.S. and the state of Massachusetts; one of the state's top employers; one of the top attracters of talent from around the world to the United States; a leader in providing affordable debt-free education to top students; and a contributor to the education of the general public through its Extension School . . . thank God for the Internet!

FO News Roundup: June 24, 2009

This Roundup started like any old Roundup. But the twists and turns of the Mark Sanford story just took it over.

• "Arthur Caplan, Ph.D." wants to know how Steve Jobs got to the front of the transplant line. Like any of 100,000 Macopaths wouldn't offer up his liver to Jobs free of charge. (P)
• Off the grid and inaccessible for days on end. Just what we want in a [Republican] President? (P)
• Turns out Governor Sanford was up hiking the Appalachian Trail . . . on Naked Hiking Day. We'll take the high road here (pun intended) and assume that wasn't his plan. (P)
• Oh, no wait. He wasn't on the Appalachian Trail; he was in Argentina. "We knew he was somewhere that started with an A," said staffers. (P)
• Wait wait wait, there's more: speaking of A's, Sanford ought to be wearing a scarlet one. Please, oh, please let the Argentine paramour's name be Elizabeth. I've been trying to find a way to work "I'm coming, Elizabeth!" into this post for hours now. (P)
• Same link, new bullet: Sanford has taken the extreme atonement step of resigning his post as President of the Republican Governor's Association. Word is he also plans to kick himself out of the Columbia Kiwanis Club. (P)
  

FO News Roundup: June 23, 2009

Poisonous Burkas, Poisonous Ayatollahs, Poisonous Preachers, and Poisonous Cookie Dough:

• Take, for example, zis lovely wife of mine, yes? Next slide, s'il vous plait. How would I know I wanted to marry zis woman, if I had not seen her tremendous — 'ow you say zis? — breasts in these Italian magazines? (P)
• This product could give you vomiting, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea. On the other hand, it's delicious chocolate chip cookie dough. And you thought Hamlet's decision was hard. (P)
• Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my clients did threaten and harass Mr. Bierfeldt. But I ask you to consider the uncontroverted evidence, which shows he is kind of a self-righteous dick. (P)
• You asked for a right-winger's conundrum, Redneck? Well, you got it. What's a decent, red-blooded, wolf-hunting, bible-thumping, rootin'-tootin', Real American supposed to think about the right of terrorists to buy guns? (M)
• Jeremiah, you got to listen to your pal the Ayatollah. It's Zionists controlling the media, not Jews controlling the President. Get your poisonous, hateful, and insane rhetoric right, would you? (M)
  

Iran, Iran So Far Away

PHUTATORIUS
You may win this round — and for that matter, you may win the bigger fight. You have the guns, the gas, the sticks, the vans, the torture rooms. And most importantly, you have the disregard for life and human dignity. All that's going for you, to be sure.

But the rest of us have the Internet, and whatever happens tomorrow, or the next day, or down the road — there will always be a record of this day, the day you ran screaming down the road for cover, like the little fascist bitches you are.

The GOP's Attention to Deficits Disorder

PHUTATORIUS
I'll start this by acknowledging I hold the status of The Last Writer On This Blog Anyone Will Confuse With An Economist. Be wary, then, of my seductive appeals to logic and common sense over intricate egghead theories of the economy supported by charts and graphs.

The Republicans in Congress have had an awakening recently about the federal budget and deficit spending. Of course, this is hypocritical, given their spending record earlier in the decade, and the Democrats have hammered away at this point when- and wherever they can. But politicians would have to credit the electorate with a memory before they would ever hold themselves bound to a value like "consistency." And of course many of the Democrats who would spend spend spend now were begrudging the consignment of debt dollars to Republicans' pet projects back in the day. To my mind, then, the question to ask isn't "who is inconsistent?" but "is there a right side to the inconsistency, and if so, who is on it?"

This is where you lose, Republicans.
More...

Most reasonable people understand that if there is a magic bullet that someone can fire to kill off a spiraling recession, it's government spending. A failing economy absolutely needs an infusion of dollars to jump-start the recovery. It has to come from somewhere, and the federal government is emphatically the best entity to provide it, for at least three reasons that I can discern:

(1) Like it or not, the federal government is the single biggest unitary actor in the economy. It can make the big Trillion Dollar Splash that is required.

(2) The federal government's mandate is different from that of any other economic actor. It is capable of a kind of selflessness that the regular investor, personal or institutional, is not. I don't mean to suggest a value judgment here about selfishness and capitalism. What I mean to say is that private investors rightly think hard about what they themselves will gain from their investments, and there's just no incentive for a private investor to kick money into a busting economy on the attenuated theory that, if everyone else throws their money at the problem, too, things will get humming again at a macro level and we'll all do better. The government's gig is to examine the larger picture.

(3) The government can raise the money. There's some suggestion right now that this will not always be the case, but there's a reason why the T-bill confers the lowest rate of return on your investment: it's the safest investment you can make. Sure, we thought institutions like GM and Lehman Brothers would be around forever, but this recession has proved us wrong. If there's a safe bet out there, it's that the United States government is here for the long haul.

So, duh: anyone with half a brain can figure that the federal government is the best and only bet to spend us all out of this. Note that I didn't say the government should generally be trusted to run the economy, and I didn't say I think the government isn't susceptible to all sorts of conflicts of interest, rent-seeking, and competence issues that will undermine its ability to target and direct its spending in the most efficacious, recovery-inducing way. But at a time like this, there's no better solution out there, and no one better to undertake it.

On to deficits, then. We know that there is an economic cycle of boom and bust, of growth and recession. The prudent government knows that it will need to spend spend spend — and possibly spend more than it brings in — during the downturns. The prudent government will prepare itself for that part of the cycle by working to generate a budget surplus during the boom times. Sure, we can carry a certain amount of debt from one generation to the next, but it makes sense to keep that practice to a minimum, so that — ahem! — we don't get in a habit of it, such that it gets out of control.

Working with a Republican Congress, President Clinton was able to balance the federal budget during the boom times of his second term. Both sides of the aisle are due some credit for this, but it's worth noting that Clinton didn't demand all sorts of tax cuts and extra spending to max out the economic growth. We were content with the prosperity that we had. Enter President Bush, and we instantly cut taxes, a recession followed (probably not related) and when we came out of that, we threw more than a trillion dollars at a war of convenience and added a massive GOP-championed federal entitlement in the form of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. These three significant deficit-creating events — the tax cuts, the Iraq war, and the drug benefit — have three things in common: (1) they all happened when the economy was running smoothly, (2) they were all championed by the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress, and (3) they were all unnecessary gestures of political convenience.

The government should run a surplus in boom times and spend into the red during economic crises. That's an "inconsistency," to be sure, on the question of deficit spending. But it's an inconsistency that makes sense. The Republicans were drunken sailors during the good times and are budget hawks now. They've got it completely backward, because they care more about politics than about the economy and the federal budget. Hypothetically, would the Democrats have done the same if they'd been running the show for the past eight years and the Republicans were in power now? Possibly. Probably. But it's the Republicans who have been actually stupid and wrong, to our detriment. Let them answer for that, and let the Democrats learn from it.

This Not Remotely an Economist has spoken.

"BILLY JOEL'S THIRD MARRIAGE COMING TO AN END"

WHITECOLLAR REDNECK

I hope the Piano Man had a prenup, or his next release is going to be a blues album.