Letter to the Creditor

Sorry my last post was so sarcastic, hopefully it was at least entertaining. I had just watched the "big race speech" online, and then surfed over to Fox News for the conservative spin. Forty minutes later I stumbled out of the right-wing echo chamber hating everybody, and hating myself for being stupid enough invite Bill O'Reilly into my house to begin with.

Political analysis after sober reflection? (Winks the man blogging on a Friday night.) The right wingers are launching a FUD campaign (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). And they're doing it now in the hopes of narrowing Obama's delegate lead over Hillary, thus triggering a nasty knife-fight of a convention where half the Democrats end up with wounds that won't heal by November.

The Republican's basic syllogism is this: (1) How well do you know black people? (2) Not very well -- look at the crazy shit this black pastor said about whites! (3) Obama is a black person.

To be fair, the story is also about the pastor being Obama's pastor. But the syllogism is the hidden current that's doing the work.

Anyway, my point in the last post was ( what do white people think goes on in black churches? )

I have something to admit. Like Obama, I too have attended service at Trinity United Church, and even blogged about it. And even if Obama is afraid to condemn his former pastor and his congregation -- even after admitting in his speech today that black anger is sometimes voiced "in the pews" -- I am not. With the help of Fox News, I can now tell what really happened on that day.

There were black people, lots of them. They smiled, shook my hand, and gave me hugs, but I remained wary. They professed faith in a higher power, and appeared to worship Him above all else, including nationalism. People got excited and started shouting, singing, and crying, seeming to forget that they were indoors. The preachers constructed biblical metaphors in an attempt to connect the congregants' sense of disenfranchisement to early Christian prosecution by the Romans and Egyptians. (A act of crazed and misguided Bible interpretation they called "liberation theology.") One preacher even went so far as to suggest that an important contemporary event was the manifestation of His will.

Most shocking, there was no recital of the pledge of allegiance.

I look back on my attendance at this service as a youthful indiscretion. I did not inhale, I did not have sex with that woman, I am not a crook, I will not dignify that question with an answer, read my lips, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a black Christian. And everything I know I learned from watching TV.

I won't defend Obama adviser Samantha Power's off-the-record remark that Hillary "is a monster too". Or spend time on the much-to-be-debated question of whether the reporter was right to publish it. But two things do strike me.

First, Samantha Power is one of the more respected thinkers on the causes of genocide and America's responses to them. Her 2002 book on the topic won the Pulitzer Prize for Non-Fiction. So, a pretty impressive person, albeit one who appears to communicate better thru an editor.

Second, given her credentials, it's pretty cool that Obama picked her as an adviser. It shows that he's serious about changing the way the US treats the rest of the world -- Powers is also an expert on the UN and multilateral cooperation in general (topics of her newest book). Plus she is a deep lefty, which should comfort those who see Obama as too willing to "cross the aisle."


About Obama having less experience than Hillary, I'm surprised no one has pointed out that the same was true of Lincoln. Lincoln served 2 years in the House but was never a US Senator, having lost to Douglas in 1858. The US was also then experiencing an existential crisis, not the time to risk putting an inexperienced whelp into the White House. Still, the Republicans chose Lincoln over the much-more experienced William H. Seward. We now remember Lincoln for his judgment, character, decency, etc.

The best part about Mitt Romney dropping out? It ensures that we'll avoid another 4-8 years under a "CEO" President. I posted about this back in 2006, using Bush's flaws to argue that our next President should have at least some legal training.

Fast forward 18 months to today. McCain, Clinton, or Obama, who has the most appropriate legal training? This article (link) at Slate.com article answers two-thirds of the question. It's another reason to like Obama. His approach to law and the Constitution is not a CEO approach (also the Tim Gunn approach: "make it work") or that of a trial lawyer (how can I argue to my advantage). Instead, Obama was an academic who understands the deep reasons for our system's checks and balances. Plus one of his legal advisers is Cass Sunstein. Swoon.

Just got back from caucusing here in MN. Everyone's excited because 1) this is the first time in memory that we have more than one person to vote for, and 2) Minnesotans are nerdy like that. If the "Presidential preference" vote of me and the people near me is a good indicator, Obama will get 100%.

In other news, I've been traveling a lot. First to Nicaragua to see Anna, then to D.C. and Boston for work, then to Sioux Falls, SD on Saturday to visit a friend. Sioux Falls in February, I dare you. I hope to post a map-up of at least one of those trips, we'll see.

I've also been reviewing my favorite (and least favorite) books over at GoodReads.com, a kind of social networking site based around books. You can view members' (i.e., my) booklist for free, though it does make you choose a login.

Finally, a reason to post again. Thanks mplsmononoke!

Here is how it works. Copy this list. Leave in the bands you've seen perform live. Delete the ones you haven't and add new ones that you have seen until you reach 25. An asterisk means the previous person had it on their list. Two asterisks means the last two people had seen the band, etc.

1. Red Hot Chili Peppers***
2. Outkast
3. R.E.M. (tied for best concert)
4. U2*
5. They Might Be Giants
6. Neko Case
7. Brother Ali*
8. Spearhead*
9. The Roots
10. Atmosphere (other best one)
11. Soul Coughing*
12. Mary Chapin Carpenter
13. Soundgarden
14. Selena
15. George Clinton
16. Willie Porter
17. Astronaut Wife*
18. Mason Jennings
19. The Coup*
20. Har Mar superstar*
21. Nous Non Plus
22. The Jayhawks*
23. Prince*
24. Autumn Leaves*
25. Billy Bragg

Given the recent spate of Presidential-campaign announcements, and the coming policy debates, I’d like to share my way of looking at economic policy debates. Hopefully I'll have time to expand on this in future posts, but as always I'd like to hear other's thoughts on this.
---------

Every debate over economic policy contains within it four underlying questions. This model holds true for debates over tax rates, cuts, etc, but also for debates over environmental policy.

1. Will the policy make the pie bigger? That is, will the proposed change grow the overall economy? If multiple proposals are on the table, which will grow the economy to the greatest extent?

2. Will the policy change the size of the various pie slices? Which interest groups are benefited or harmed by policy? If the policy promotes growth, which groups benefit the most and which benefit the least?

3. What all is included in the pie? That is, what should be included in our definition of the economy? Actual dollars count in most all definitions, but do non-monetary things like quality of life count? Do abstract ideals like personal autonomy or equality count? Do animals, plants, and intact ecosystems count? Do people in other countries count?

4. Is the question one that should be framed in economic terms? This is sort of the zeroth question of the four, i.e., does the model even apply?

The first question often seems to predominate in public debate (to the exclusion of the other three questions). Its common for both sides of a given debate to argue that their proposal makes the pie biggest (i.e., is welfare- or growth-maximizing). But that seems weird, right? ( Continued... )

Aw shit. Moll's gone.

Well, somebody finally took my idea for a coffee-table book w/ skylines from all over the world. You know, so you can recognize the city on the TV/silver screen from the skyline shot alone - would be helpful, no?

The book, Skylines of the World, is currently ranked 124,931 on Amazon. Believe you me, I will be watching it's sales, and bitching accordingly if it starts to make real money.

M. Hill Goodspeed, the book's author, must have spent a fortune (and had quite the adventure) traveling the world to get these pictures. Probably a trust-fund sally with nothing better to do than steal my ideas. Any guesses as to what embarrassing name is hiding behind that first initial?

The particle researchers at the University of Chicago have done it again. (Love that Whetstone bridge shoutout.)