Cheney: I Don't Recall

Old but still reads true...

Boston Globe has an article on impeachment Its from June but it articulates a position I find dead on accurate. If you want to help every day peoples lives more than you want to make petty political points you don't (in my eyes at least) support open movement towards impeachment. I'd love to see Bush impeached. But I have to step outside of my head and my petty psychological passion and consider the fact that this upcoming election is the Democrats to lose. Impeachment throws everything up in the air, granted it might still turn out in the Democrats favor. But why take a chance, I'd rather see a potential to get some kind of health care reform, and a sane Iraqi policy. I have the utmost respect for many people trying to make impeachment happen. In a perfect world I'd be all on board. But here on the ground, in GA's 3rd district I don't see impeachment doing any good for anyone. I talk to conservatives and republicans every day and impeachment would fire them up about something. You can't bring new ideas or arguments to people who have their passions inflamed to hate you.

Plus it makes me think of the economist who wants to make economics a purely mathematical question and uses great reason and logic to explain why and how the models make sense; and what they miss in all of their accurate number crunching is that economics is a behavioral science from the ground up.

interesting comment on republican youtube debate...

Turns out Republicans don't like the youtube debate

But here was an interesting comment as to why... from a TPM comments section

For the Democratic debates, most of the issues that are on the table are pretty mainstream, like healthcare and Iraq and poverty and global warming, and thus its pretty difficult for the standard rank-and-file member of the democratic base to ask them in an amusing viral format like Youtube and still come out as looking too bizarre (unless they happen to be a talking snowman). As far as issues like illegal immigration and "coercive interrogation techniques" go, how does one ask questions like this in a Youtube format in an amusing way? The differences between the GOP base and the political mainstream can seem less extreme when asked by someone like Wolf Blitzer, but if presented from the standard GOP rank-and-file member of the base, it seemed like a great way to show how unhinged the GOP has become on some of these issues.

Jon Stewar doing his thing...

Morning Meditation

From the Art of living by Epictetus.

From now on, practice saying to everything that appears unpleasant: "You are just an appearance and by no means what you appear to be." And then thoroughly consider the matter according to the principles just discussed, primarily: Does this appearance concern the things that are within my own control or those that are not? If it concerns anything outside your control, train yourself not to worry about it.

Markets Plunge: Hundreds of Billions Redistributed to the Less Wealthy

Dean Bakers headline for his blog post on the drop in the marketwhich goes on to state

You won't see that headline in the articles reporting on today's stock market plunge. However, it is in fact true, as can be seen with a moment's reflection.

The stock market's value does not directly affect the country's ability to produce goods and services. We have just as much labor, capital and technical know how after the market plunged as before it opened. The only thing that changed was that the people who hold shares in the market now have about $400 billion less in wealth.

The market's $400 billion loss in value reduced the ability of shareholders to make claims on the economy's output, but It didn't reduce the economy's productivity ability. This means that people who own little or no stock can now claim a larger portion of the economy's output. As a practical matter, this means that the price of some items (e.g. houses) might fall, so that they will be more affordable to people who either don't own a home or would like to buy a bigger home.

[If this is hard to understand, imagine the extreme case where the stock market fell to zero. People like Bill Gates would no longer have the money to keep up their homes. They would be forced to sell them for whatever price they could get. Those without substantial stock or property are suddenly well-situated to buy a house.]

In short, the stock market is often about redistribution. When it falls sharply this is a redistribtuion from the wealthy to the less wealthy. That is not upsetting for everyone, even though the media may not report it that way.

sometimes a picture...

I've decided to start a new tag called "sometimes a picture" and it will be made up of pictures that are very moving. The ones that capture some essence of the human experience. The ones that make me visibly shudder when I see them...

The first is the front page picture in the NYT's this morning
Ali Yussef/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Its a picture of some kids celebrating in the streets after the Iraqi national team beat South Korea to advance to the Asian Cup Championship Match.

Sports is often the hobgoblin of the left. The Marxist contention that its an opiate of the masses. And it can be... such as in this image. The existence the kids in this picture have to wake up to every morning is beyond my comprehension. But the joy in their eyes is just as real--for just a moment a football match alleviated the suffering. My complicity in their suffering makes pause. But the eyes and smiles in this picture push me to take all the emotion I feel and try every day to channel it not towards anger at the orchestrator's of my complicity as a US citizen; but towards my capacity to help be a participant in pragmatic and constructive changes in the future.

Mutual Contempt

wow... this is stunning to watch.

Catapult The Propaganda

John Edwards - Post-Debate Webcast

I like the follow up...

John Edwards - Hair

this is good...

Go post at the health care discussion week blog...

Thats where i'm going to be most of the week! So check out the first ever 3rd District Common Agenda discussion week. Post your own thoughts and opinions about health care policies of presidential candidates. Keep it above the fray and about issues and ideas... stay above the Red State/Blue State mentality that directs attention away from the ideas.

Tell others about it as well!

Old paper to read....

On Ethical Naturalism by James Rachels called Naturalism. The essay originally appreared in The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, ed. Hugh LaFollette (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), pp. 74-91.

TPMtv: The New Al Qaeda Bamboozle

Youtube can help change the political landscape if it is used the way TPM is using it.

This is the kind of substance I like in candidate speeches...

That's the soul of the American Dream. It is what draws people from around the world to our shores; it is what has sustained the optimism of the American people; and it is what has helped build the wealthiest nation in history.

But if you go out and talk to people around this country, they'll tell you, they still believe in the American Dream – they just think it's out of reach.

It's hard to call it the American Dream when fewer than a third of Americans thinks life will be better for their children than it is for them.

It's understandable that they feel that way. For the last 20 years, about half of America's economic growth has gone to the top 1 percent.

Today, the top 300,000 Americans now make more than the bottom 150 million put together.

Productivity is up but median income is down. People are making more, while they're making less. Men in their 30s today earn less in real dollars than the men did 30 years ago. More and more women have gone to work, and now married couples with children are working an average of 10 hours a week more than their parents did. Working families with breadwinners in their 40s are almost three times more likely to fall in to poverty than they were a generation ago.

What does all this mean in real terms? It means that our system rewards wealth, not work.

The gap between CEOs and the average worker is out of sight – today, the average CEO makes 400 times what the average worker makes.

Our tax system has been rewritten by George Bush to favor the wealthy and shift the burden to working families. That is simply wrong – and even those who benefit the most from our current system know that it is wrong.

Warren Buffett once complained that his receptionist loses more of her income in payroll taxes than he does. He called it "class welfare," and he meant welfare for the rich.

The candidate is John Edwards

Not a good sign...

I don't want Hillary Clinton to be President. I think she makes a great Senator--which is exactly why I don't think she'd make a good President. But aside from those feelings. Things like this make me not like her policy positions

"I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term."

Ezra Klien makes a great point

Her hypothetical second term happens after the 2012 elections, when Democrats will have to defend a whopping 24 seats while attacking only 9, an even worse schedule than McConnell faces today. How will waiting win us more Senate votes than we're likely to lose then? (And what if she doesn't win a second term?) I don't know whether to doubt Hillary's strategic grasp on how to pass universal coverage, or her desire to do so.

Morning meditation

From the Art of Living by Epictetus

Keep your attention focused entirely on what is truly your own concern, and be clear that what belongs to others is their business and none of yours. If you do this, you will be impervious to coercion and no one can ever hold you back. You will be truly free and effective, for your efforts will be put to good use and won't be foolishly squandered finding fault with or opposing others.

Matthew Yglesias on Edwards

Given the objective realities of the situation, his campaign's doing pretty well. He's leading in Iowa. Lefty intellectuals love him. Progressive bloggers love him. Labor leaders love him. If he continues to establish a lot of good will among opinion leaders on the left, plus continues to be a white man in a world where a lot of people think a white man is more electable than a woman or a black guy, and pulls off a win in Iowa, then he just might be able to "bounce" his way to victory. How much better could he realistically be doing?

left off reading....

I have to get going in my day but I was reading the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on value ethics. Check it out if you have time...

Morning meditation

From The Art of Living by Epictetus

Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle: Some things are within our control, and some things are not. It is only after you have faced up to this fundamental rule and learned to distinguish between what you can and can't control that inner tranquility and outer effectiveness become possible.

New Bill Richardson Ad

Authors@Google: George Lakoff

excellent... watch it. And it got me to thinking. You never see conservative neuroscientist, linguists, psychologists talking about the why's they do and believe the things they do. At least i'm not aware of them.

NYT Economics Coverage Shrinks

From Market Movers

Was there too much economics in the NYT, which is literally shrinking in August and might need to make cuts? Elsewhere in the NYT there's Paul Krugman, of course, with his own op-ed columns, but those are rarely particularly economics-based these days. And every so often the Levitt 'n' Dubner team writes a Freakonomics column in the Sunday magazine – there have been four of those so far this year.

This is not good news for economic discourse in the mainstream press. One column every two months is not much of a platform: it will take years for readers to get a decent feel for where each of the columnists stands. And while the Economic View column was not always scintillating, it was a million times better than the half page of undigested tripe filed every week by the dreadful Ben Stein. To kill View but to keep Stein alive betrays a sense of priorities which can't bode well for the NYT Business section.

Did you know? John Edwards is rich!

The Media Cares About Whether John Edwards Cares About Poor People

To say this explicitly, it's okay to be rich if you act rich. The amount of flak Edwards is getting for being both wealthy and concerned with the working class versus the amount of criticism Giuliani and Romney are getting for being uber-rich and utterly unconcerned with issue of class and wage fairness is telling. The press doesn't care if you're loaded and out-of-touch, or self-interested. But to both make a lot of money and think other people should make relatively more money?

This is not good...

There is talk of Cynthia McKinney running for the Green Presidential nomination. First let me clarify my position. I don't dislike McKinney. If I were to come across her in my everyday world. I would find her views great. I would love to see more citizens speak more to the social good, and social justice tinge. I cringe because she doesn't handle herself well. If you are going to hold some of the positions she holds you have to not have a personality that allows your opponents to use your behaviors to denigrate your ideas. I don't begrudge her. First off I don't really think she's as bad as people make her out to be, though I have a feeling there is some justification for the sentiment even though the sentiment has more to do with the inability of McKinney to articulate in a manner that is historically and politically accurate to the nth degree. But the average person doesn't do that. Heck the average Representitive in the US house dosen't do that. So I don't dislike Mckinney. But I so desperately don't want the green party to deligitmize itself via a circus act. I want them to deligitimize themselves via policies that are pro social justice and pro democracy.

Sen. Jim Webb and Sen. Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/15/webb-v-graham/

interesting point...

from Ezra Klien

Like many others, I'm cool to the idea of Rupert Murdoch buying the Journal. But there is an upside to it. While many professional media observers have the secret decoder manual that tells them to ignore the paper's Neanderthaloid editorial page and only pay attention to the top-notch reportage, most of the Journal's millions of subscribers don't know to make such a distinction, and so the newspaper's terrific reputation also bolsters an unbelievably pernicious and problematic op-ed page, which in turn exerts great influence on the country's monied set (and that set matters). If Murdoch took over the paper and ran its reputation into the ground, we'd lose a lot of good reporting, but the editorial page would also lose influence, becoming something more akin to The Washington Times. I can't decide if, on the whole, sacrificing the news to kill the opinions would be a net benefit or a net loss, but I'm thinking about it.

Bashir lies, Darfur dies

new Save Darfur commercial...

Gov. Romney: Dems Would Lead Us Down The Wrong Path

shocking...

Foreclosures Up in Georgia: Who Could Have Known?

The NYT has a piece this morning reporting on the surge in foreclosures in Georgia. This one is interesting because Georgia is not a state with a depressed economy like other states with high foreclosure rates. This one is simply driven by the reversal of an overheated housing market, although this market certainly did not stand out as a center of the bubble. In those cases, the wave of foreclosures will hit somewhat later (people have accumulated more equity), but considerably harder.

This piece should have included comments from David Lereah (former chief economist of the National Association of Realtors) or some of the other experts who were regularly cited during the housing boom. It would be interesting for readers to learn why they apparently ended up being so wrong about the state of the market.

2006 Supreme Court

This years rulings have been disturbing. Not merely for the actually decisions but for the open doors many of these decisions predict for future cases. The next 25 years (as proclaimed in Martin Garbus's new book) will be a tough one from a judicial perspective.

We'll be seeing more editorials such as this mornings at the end of every term. Last Term’s Winner at the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism

The conservative activism that is taking hold is troubling in two ways. First, it is likely to make America a much harsher place. Companies like Philip Morris will be more likely to injure consumers if they know the due process clause will save them. Employees will be freer to mistreat workers like Lilly Ledbetter, who was for years paid less than her male colleagues, if they know that any lawsuit she files is likely to be thrown out on a technicality.

We have seen this before. In the early 1900s, the court routinely struck down worker protections, including minimum wage and maximum hours laws, and Congressional laws against child labor. That period, known as the Lochner era — after a 1905 ruling that a New York maximum hours law violated the employer’s due process rights — is considered one of the court’s darkest.

We are not in a new Lochner era, but traces of one are emerging. This court is already the most pro-business one in years, and one or two more conservative appointments could take it to a new level. Janice Rogers Brown, a federal appeals court judge who is often mentioned as a future Supreme Court nominee, has expressly called for a return to the Lochner era.

The other disturbing aspect of the new conservative judicial activism is its dishonesty. The conservative justices claim to support “judicial modesty,” but reviews of the court’s rulings over the last few years show that they have actually voted more often to overturn laws passed by Congress — the ultimate act of judicial activism — than has the liberal bloc.

It is time to admit that all judges are activists for their vision of the law. Once that is done, the focus can shift to where it should be: on whose vision is more faithful to the Constitution, and better for the nation.

Didn't see this yesterday...

But the New York Times editorial board is finally openly calling for the withdrawal of US Troops. THey've beat around the bush(sic) for a while.
The Road Home

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

This is all good to see but the stunning inability to take responsibility and leadership that has shown through from the New York Times Editorial board since this all began pops up again...

There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who have been displaced within their country.....

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need more international help. That, of course, means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors’ conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis.

No mention of reparations for violating international law. No mention to the world while we call for their action--out of "global responsibility" and self-interest.

IMPEACH DICK CHENEY

pssst... do something.

Impeach Cheney

I am a Muslim not a Commodity

I am a Muslim not a Commodity
Originally uploaded by Edge of Space

Not sure how to link this...

Just go read these three posts... outside the issues within them the posts make me smile for the internet/blogosphere and how it helps issues and ideas spread. And there is no news reporter intermediary!

Here is the opening by Jared Bernstein


The follow up by Greg Mankiw who is an economist at Harvard who was in the Bush Administration for a while...

And finally a third party jumps into the mix, that being the Berkeley Economist Brad Delong....

Then I come along and get to watch these minds work. Which is a pleasure on my Saturday off from work....

Georgia Health Care Op-ed

Georgia s healthcare another Perdue flop is a great opinion piece. He gets to the core...

More important than that, the Grady crisis stands as just another reminder that Georgia has taken a sharp turn down the wrong path on one more quality-of-life issue: health care.

And then points out the main problem, that of current leadership...

Our state leaders stand mute as Grady sinks from sight. They are too preoccupied with trying to determine how many more children they can deprive of health-care insurance. While other states are working to make health coverage available to every child, Georgia's current leadership is worse than silent - they are hostile to the idea.

Indeed, just a few years back, Georgia was not satisfied to rival other New South states like North Carolina and Virginia. We were determined to position ourselves to lead the nation. Now we are content to fade into the backwaters of states that have been left behind, like Mississippi and Louisiana.

Our mantra is no longer to lead; it is to settle.

When Gov. Sonny Perdue junketed to Europe recently, he told reporters that Georgia's economy was much like booming Ireland's.

Poor guy, he must have lost his bearings. Or else he can't tell the difference between Ireland and Alabama.

Baker on airline economics...

Trouble in Air Travel and the Rate of Inflation

The NYT had an article today on the increasing delays in air travel. There have been other pieces in recent months about other ways in which service has deteriorated, such as increased crowding and dirtier, less sanitary planes.

I find this especially interesting because I remember back in the days when there was a debate over the accuracy of the consumer price index (CPI), all the big honchos in the profession argued that the CPI overstated inflation because it didn't fully pick up improvements in quality. I was arguing the other side, pointing out that there were also cases where the CPI missed deteriorations in quality. Air travel was one of my main examples.

One of the reasons that air travel has come down in price is that airplanes are almost completely filled. This is obviously efficient from the standpoint of the airlines, because the marginal cost of carrying an additional passenger is close to zero as long as there are empty seats.

However, it makes a big difference to the passengers whether a plane is filled or one third empty. On a plane that is one-third empty, everyone has a vacant seat next to them (or a wiindow/aisle seat). How much more would you pay to be guaranteed a vacant seat next to you?

Anyhow, the CPI picks up the price decline allowed by fully booked planes, it missed the deterioration in quality associated with more crowded planes. In this area at least it clearly overstates inflation. For some reason, the honcho economists were not interested in looking at this one.

Jobs US workers won't do?

Dean Baker on Immigration

NPR had a segment this morning in which it interviewed an immigrant woman who faced deportation after being arrested for working without proper documentation. She explained that she had a dangerous job that U.S. citizens don't want to do.

It would have been interesting to raise the obvious question in this context, "why do we have jobs that U.S. citizens don't want to do?" Most dangerous jobs can be made safe with a bit more investment. Some simply don't have to be done -- we can get by without them. Many of the jobs that U.S. citizens don't want to do are simply jobs U.S. citizens don't want to do at the wages that employers want to pay. Rather than accomodating the employers with a workforce willing to work for lower wages, we can accomodate the employees with higher pay.

In a country where most people get the vast majority of their income from their wages, there is a real contradiction between wanting to see everyone with a decent standard of living while at the same time constantly finding new immigrant workers to fill jobs that U.S. citizens don't want to do. As countries get richer, some jobs disappear because people don't want to do them at the wage employers are willing to pay. That is a natural process of economic growth.

On Libby (all Via TPM which was on Libby way back before your grandmas Dem. presidential candidate thought Libby was good press)

Fitzgerald Statement on Libby

We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative.

We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.” The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.

SurveyUSA has released a poll done quickly tonight, measuring public reaction to the Libby commutation. The results among those respondents familiar with the case:

• 60% say the prison sentence should have been left in place.

• 21% agree with the commutation.

• 17% say Libby should have been pardoned entirely.

Among respondents, 55% were familiar with the case. And 40% of Republicans said the prison sentence should have been kept in place, along with 77% of Democrats and 56% of independents. The margin of error was 3.4%.

From Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT):

“The President’s muted words and deeds in the aftermath of this conviction pale in comparison to what he said before the investigation was launched.
"The President has the constitutional power to do this. But accountability has been in short supply in the Bush Administration, and this commutation fits that pattern. It is emblematic of a White House that sees itself as being above the law."

Matt Drudge sums up the Republican media strategy.