Sunday night is usually a calm time but I have an itch or two which needs scratching.
In Civilisation, Clark writes:
What is civilization? I don’ t know. I can’t define it in abstract terms—yet.
But I think I can recognize it when I see it; and I am looking at it now. Ruskin said: “Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts, the book of their deeds, the book of their words and the book of their art. Not one of these books can be understood unless we read the two others, but of the three the only trustworthy one is the last”. On the whole I think it is true. Writers and politicians may come out with all sorts of edifying sentiments, but they are what is known as declarations of intent. If I had to say which was telling the truth about society a speech by a Minister of Housing or the actually building put up in his time, I should believe the buildings.
To judge beforehand what we absolutely will not be able to judge for years after this election is a waste of time. The political “buildings” of our next president will take years to construct and years after to evaluate. Considering it will take eons to fix the mess we are already in. I think anyone who can think assumes not much will change in the next 4 years, at least not enough to notice. If someone plugs the holes it will be enough. I seriously hope most people aren’t expecting more.
I want to address the “Socialist” label being hurled around via emails, blogs, and FOX news and their minions, so successfully. Successfully because people absolutely have no idea what it really means. Most “socialists” (and by that I mean academic, or politically renown socialists, people educated in, ascribing to, or practicing the ideals of), find Obama to be conventional bourgeois politician. Much like McCain, or any politician who has made it to this point in an election of this magnitude in this country over the last century. The Socialists are correct in this definition of Obama.
That I would have preferred a more progressive candidate goes without saying, but in a country, which at this time by the system it uses, prevents those not of the party from actually gaining any ground in a presidential election Obama is the conventional bourgeois candidate I choose.
The “Socialist” term being bandied about makes it all the more evident the education system in this country is failing.
Transformational yes. Socialist no. Transformational due to his race, demeanor, intellect, worldview, expectations from the electorate, and the fact he has run the most organized, purposeful and successful campaign ever seen, and if he runs his government half as well we might even see things really get done in this country.
So please stop the madness.
Now for the reading assignment this week. ;)
Reversal of Fortune
—
This as a form of expressing my recent obsession with Nancy Sinatra, and because I want to leave you with something non-irritating.
Something to make you go wtf.
An interesting psychedelic-pop song from the late sixties. Could have been a duet contender for sure.
Peace (of my heart)
great clip Cooper…
I haven’t heard this one…reminds me of Ghost Riders in the Sky…
I’m glad you enjoyed it Kim. It has an interesting aura about it.
Great post, wonderful ending…that’s about how I sum it up too.
“Transformational yes. Socialist no. Transformational due to his race, demeanor, intellect, worldview, expectations from the electorate, and the fact he has run the most organized, purposeful and successful campaign ever seen, and if he runs his government half as well we might even see things really get done in this country.”
We are forever o the same path it seems.
we’re kindred, you and me. this just finished playing on my iPod, and i’ve loved it for such a long time now.
I must have been channeling you, it happens sometimes with kindred spirits.
I think misuse of labels, especially philosophical or political ones, is a great epidemic among the human population. It’s difficult enough discovering your own beliefs. I can’t imagine how long of a process it would be to correctly define another person’s.
Unfortunately, people are too quick to call a bird a duck and leave it at that.
Maybe we should get them a picture book.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
Sadly, the word “socialist” is being abused by the right about as often as the word “fascist” is by the left.
Mojo, you’re right. The labels are too easy.
The one that I’m having the hardest time wrapping my head around though is Obama’s “tax cut.” If you have millions who are currently paying no federal income tax, and you “credit” them money they weren’t required to pay in to begin with, how is that a “cut?”
Even worse — deep down, how is that any different than buying votes? You could make the philosophical argument that cutting tax rates will in fact drive revenues up if you’re on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. (JFK did it before Reagan, give props to a Democrat.) And I’m sure there are some greedy types out there who want to keep more of their paychecks, so you might define a tax cut as “buying a vote.” But you can only do that if you assume that the money belonged to the government to begin with, and wasn’t the product of an individual’s utility.
This tax credit thing, though. How do you differentiate that from buying a vote?
Technically fascism, of the cooperate kind, is rather accurate when referring to what has happened over the last few years.
If you are calling it vote buying I think that you can buy votes from the rich or from the poor but what I hear them saying in public to me looks like they are both trying to buy votes in different ways.
When I look at the tax policy I also take into consideration the other policy proposals which go along with it to see which one is more likely to increase, the ever decreasing, middle class in this country. Tax policy alone rarely does that.(possibly never does that)
Taxing high income individuals has very little long term negative effect on the economy. Historically.
If you look at the Brooking study updated in September – it takes a bit to read it Obama’s has a better chance of doing that as a stand-alone than McCain’s. Coupled with his education and health care policy his total policy has a significantly better change of doing that overall. The middle class has been decreasing in this country and you know what happens when the middle class disappears. Wages have to be addressed as well.
I also looked at the economists who support McCain and those who support Obama – I found that those who support McCain tend to be either non practicing many rather old and academics whereas Obama tends to have the support of the “more active in today’s world economists”, those who are currently active in figuring out how to adjust and apply the science of economics to the current world we live in. There is a rather large change going on in the world of economics and I’ve been trying to follow it as closely as I can. I also asked my aunt who is an economics at a firm in downtown DC. and the overwhelming feeling of the economist at her firm is that Obama has not only a more workable plan but a better grasp of economics as it applies to the world today ( whether it be actually him or his people I don’t know).
I also don’t necessarily see philosophical arguements very useful when discussing applied economics, which is what we need to be discussing. If you notice those who are prone to philosophize about economics tend to support MCcain, those who actually apply it support Obama.
I can’t handle the Socialist thing anymore. I read a very large New York blog where somebody put a Wall Street Journal op ed piece as proof of Obama’s “socialist” agenda. The person couldn’t even differentiate fact from an opinion piece. It would be sad if it weren’t so scary
It’s also turned me off to the blog which I used to love for its NYstyle free for alls
I can’t wait until this whole thing is over. I try not to think about it but can’t seem to stop.
Cooper, I think you nailed it here. I am not objective. My support for Obama has grown over time. He is neither progressive or socialist and is much as you describe. I’m more willing to settle for a middle of the road politician than you. Especially with the potential he has.
We had our sign torn off our lawn by the way and it has made me furious.
Damn rednecks.
Never heard that song, it’s quite strange. So are you, but in a really good way. ;)
My brother has had two take now he puts the higher up on the hill.
UH,,,,thank you???
People hurling useless epithets do so only because they do not understand the meanings of those words. Some people use the word “socialist” because they believe the use thereof makes them sound smarter when in fact they are real dumbasses. I’ve got about as mush use for those types as I do for those who believe the identity of each and every one of Obama’s girlfriends is relevant.
I, too, had my sign disappeared by someone or some persons last night. Too bad for them because I put up another this morning.
Whoever wins the fight on Nov 4 will be left with a huge mess to clean up. We have two choices: one who will diligently work to keep his finger in the dikehole and one who will likely be gone before the term is over. Which would leave us with an even more terrible choice: a woman who has more of a history of using government to settle personal scores than she does of meaningful public service.
We are up schnitz creek either way thanks to gw and dickless cheney; the choice now is whether we want to go totally up that creek with McCain or whether we want to get off of it with some paddles to be provided by Obama.
My brother was thinking of putting up twenty or thirty just to agitate people and he also considered putting a video camera or two in locations to try and record license plate numbers.
He has been traveling all over due to this world financial meltdown and my future SIL is often home alone, so it bothers him that this is occurring.
I know! Socialist? It’s too funny! The guy has Larry Summers and Robert Rubin on his economic team! They’re killin’ me, Cooper, KILLING me.
Great song. And let’s now forget the Lydia Lunch/Rowland Howard cover of it…it was CREEPY. A long, long time ago, I worked in a record store, and we used to play it to get people out of the store at closing time. Heh heh. That and Captain Beefheart.
Am I going to have to go look up another version of this song….ssssh
Off I go.
I decided to spend the next few weeks ignoring the news, getting my body in shape for a marathon I’ll never run.
Your point in the comment was well taken. Like the tennis women I like the paragraph
“Transformational due to his race, demeanor, intellect, worldview, expectations from the electorate, and the fact he has run the most organized, purposeful and successful campaign ever seen, and if he runs his government half as well we might even see things really get done in this country.”
The last line is more compelling to me than the rest – the rest deserve props.
Did you realize how stupid some people in Maryland are? I just figured out after sitting through a night at a bar/restaurant more out of the city than usual.
What do you think I change my blog name from “partly broken chain” to “part broke chain”?
Naw, leave the name.
Did you know Glichrest endorsed Obama?
“Most “socialists” (and by that I mean academic, or politically renown socialists, people educated in, ascribing to, or practicing the ideals of), find Obama to be conventional bourgeois politician. Much like McCain, or any politician who has made it to this point in an election of this magnitude in this country over the last century. The Socialists are correct in this definition of Obama.”
That’s dead on. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
We were drinking the same kool-aid last night.
(Long comment – made into a post.)
It all about agenda. It may sadden us, but the Conservative agenda and puppets of it, did plenty “right” to accomplish their credos.
Engage in a faulty-logic war. Mission complete. Cost: $1 Trillion- 3 Trillion.
Insert conservative judges & lawyers and politicize every issue as an “attack on freedom” and ramp up “fear mongering.”
Huge Tax cuts (or no taxes) on the top-end earners during war time. But those people can fund their campaigns and share in the “free-market” idealogy. (Until the Crash hits – 1 year fall of 40%.)
Remove sane regulations from financial markets. (Or make things so complex no one can figure out how to regulate market instruments.) Ignore rational arguments for a managed growth of investment or minimal benchmarks for creditworthiness.
Ensure Corporate Profits were at all-time highs in 2007. (% wise nearly equal to 1929, familiar?)
Inject fear in people. Fear terrorists. Fear anyone with weird name. Fear taxes – without the caveat that you pay for fire, police, education, infrastructure and courts with those taxes.
It isn’t that governments can’t do things right. At many points in our history, they undoubtedly did do things right. (WWII, for example.) It has only been in the last 30 years that a grand divide has been worked, playing politicians and regular Joe, the plumber (without any real knowledge of Joe’s work), against a concept that any Government intervention must be bad or is “socialistic” in origin.
Funny though, I was taught badly that we should be respectful of the government and put faith in it. (Even though, I am not in action or word.) But these very people who at one turn think we should unrestrain the markets, but think they have rights to monitor what I do regularly in my private areas, are the destructive forces we must finally stop from ruining America and it’s institutions.
Whatever Socialistic agenda Barack would deem to put forth would be a far cry better than the abject failure of 30 years of ruining ordinary Americans lives. He could be just “middle of the road,” but that is better than a Panamian-sized ditch where these neoconservative gutter snipes have driven us to the brink of Great Depression, part II.
How a nation that was at least 40% of World GDP in 1945, had the armaments of all others put together, and an overriding mandate on freedom could come to the point where China has more creditability (aside from human rights, those sticky little things) on a host of issues which begs the question, “what the fuck when so wrong?”
Leadership.
It goes to that always.
A majority of American People will follow anyone with a impressive title and parrot their ideas. And the greater the divide between the top and bottom, and the more insistent the top guy is about what the bottom guy should be doing, the more likely confusion, resentment, ignorance and apathy will transpire down.
And it has.
In my 36 years, with about 30 years of awareness of how people are, when they suffer and who the blame for that is, I can point to my awakening to when America flushed its future: Reagan.
Lauded for his speeches, charisma and “policy” stances, but never examined too closely for what he did to set things in motion, Reagan gave conservatives their in to power. They claimed it, and ran with it.
As a result, he wrecked or starting the process of wrecking FDR programs, talked about reduction of government interference in our lives, while maintaining or increase significant government (and military), and ignore responsibility to real people, while talking to “a class of people” to continue voting strongly against the upheaval of the 1960′s.
Civil Rights. African Americans. Liberals. Non-white. Non-religious.
Nevermind he really didn’t care for those people either. (That class of people.)
But it worked.
Our American history may be defined by how this episode came to be known as “The Downfall of the American Empire.”
It will be written by our decendents of the world with imperfect information – our maybe perfect, how can I really know what 200-500 years future hence will bring? – but written with an eye to how quickly the mighty fell over a period of years.
But what may be possible is to rewrite that history over the next 30 years. Fix those economic, social justice and idealogical problems. And come to terms with ourselves.
Otherwise, I think I’ll dislike the next 30 winters of discontent.
Maybe, but the downfall has occurred and I’m convinced that McCain can’t stop it. I’m also just wish it were over. We are going to have to live with it either way – or change it ourselves which I still believe w e are too lazy to do.
OK, that was kinda puffy but I don’t come here to argue. I come to admire.
You’d be puffy to if you had my assignments. ;)
I so like to argue though. ;(
OK, then. Small s socialist fits Obama fine. The fear that his administration will involve the government in matters best left to the individual is entirely fair based on his rhetoric to this point. Probably not fair from Bush admirers, though. Obama ran an amazing campaign so it semi-follows that he will run a good government, but it doesn’t follow at all that he can run everybody’s business as well. We’ll see, I’m pretty sure.
I am not fond of the thought that government needs to control everything. The problem is that the privatization of pubic services, which Republicans have been very fond, McCain especially so, over the last 8 years ,and the potential for continuation of that trend is nothing more than giving to the rich. If I have to choose I don’t choose that.
What I fear is privatization of public services.
The whole school choice game is based on that privatization which is great except, as is the case with health care, when once privatizes those services taking the government out of it the best services go to those with money. Less government control of education does not give a family in Appalachia, where I don’t see an abundance of private school choices, or even Baltimore where the choices are large but where the average tuition of a private non parochial school is as such
Tuition at selected schools
Bryn Mawr School: $21,400 – $21,990
Gilman School: $19,415 – $21,690
McDonogh School: $19,480 – $21,680
Park School: $20,490 – $22,110
Friends 15,6000 -19,000
St Paul 20,000- 20,500
Boys Latin 17,500 – 20,000
Archdiocesan Catholic schools: average $4,200 (elementary); average $9,000 (high school)
There’s more of course and this doesn’t include DC
Archdiocesan Catholic schools: average $4,200 (elementary); average $9,000 (high school)
I am going to guess in other urban areas it is much the same, rural areas are not likely to have much of a choice either, so who really gets the choice?
A choice program allows for public schools to further deteriorate and really gives no choice at all for a majority of Americans, unless you are planning to start a chain of private schools run for virtually nothing in rural and urban America.
If government control of that is socialism than hell yeas lets get to it but let’s do it correctly. History doesn’t always dictate the future. It is the very presuming that it does which prevents us from really making the government programs we need work well.
Now there’s a debate! I think government control is pretty much socialism, so this is the right topic. Not whether or not someone is socialist but what we can do well socially and what we can’t, should or shouldn’t.
Just on the school choice thing, I’m sympathetic with the view that schools that have to compete for funding probably ought to perform better than those that don’t.
My understand of what has happened in DC is the kids that went to the private schools did get a good education with improved scores( there is some debate over this) over the time so far, but the public schools are still a disaster, no worse but no better than prior to the vouchers.
I don’t see much indicating Freidman was right in the case of applying this kind of thing to to days world.
The competition and the profit motive seem to be a singularly conservative or Republican view.I just don’t see anywhere that is has been successful enough. I’ve read the Milwaukee program touted as successful only to find it wasn’t really successful. I’ve yet to see any substantial evidence that it is workable.
In Milwaukee, which has had a voucher program for some time 1991 or so, the private ed didn’t even increase the literacy or performance and the public schools still suck.
The theory now is focusing on job creation, support for public schools or improved housing and health care would have been a better option.
The study done on Milwaukee – The EPI study tested for improved student performance in public schools resulting from increased competition from voucher schools. Overall, according to the study’s Executive Summary, “our analysis finds little or no indication” that pupils in Milwaukee public schools were better off academically due to increased competition from voucher schools.
I’ll spend more time on this eventually, but unless everyone can actually attend a good private school the program in most places is pretty much doomed to failure, and if you have even forty percent of the country of a rural nature, with no competition in the way of private schools,that really sucks for those public schools and their students.
I don’t doubt a competitive model would work say.. in the county I live in, where the all the public schools are all already pretty top notch, and always( high schools) listed in the top 1000 in the country. I do not think it will work in economically stressed or rural areas.
Vouchers however are pretty much in state control though – right? I see a need for some kind of national mandate for education, I just do.
The one thing which has been studied,though as with anything there is always the codicil- needs further study- is smaller student teacher ratio. It is singularly one of the most proven effective strategies for improving performance in both reading and math, at least at the elementary level, which is after all where we get the base which follows us through-out. Too much “other time” has spent trying to find more inexpensive ways. There probably aren’t more effective ways. If the cost of this had not been considered prohibitive a long time ago, and usually the road less traveled, we might be in a better place today.
Maddow’s Law (corrolary to Godwin’s Law as explained on the Rachel Maddow Show last night, though the application of the naming convention is mine) dictates that the more apparent it seems that Democrats are going to prevail in a given election, the more likely it becomes that one or all of them will be called socialists. Like Godwin’s Law, it only ever serves to discredit and embarrass those who invoke it.
Let them bray all they want. It won’t put them in the White House. It’ll just make them look monumentally dumb.
Actually, I would love for that to be taken literally. We should have a monument to the ramifications of stupidity on our politics. It should be erected in Washington and passers-by should be encouraged to throw rocks at it as if it’s a Jamarah.
Bray. I like that term, though due to the fact that they are elephants we should possibly use the term trumpet. ( I had to look that sound up, are you impressed yet?)
I’m not convinced yet that braying won’t put them in the White House.
I guess I like elephants too much to ever really buy into that characterization.
I’m mostly amused that you called attention to the use of the word “bray” and not “Jamarah” =P
Yes he has been called a socialist, and some have even gone as far as to call him a Marxist. What they are doing is preying off of old cold war fear.
I am almost amused when I hear people panic about socialism because I realize that they are not aware that they don’t live in a pure capitalist state. If you have things like welfare, social security, etc., then you must admit that you are already prepared to live with certain elements of socialism.
You are right to point out that the only reason this label can be bandied about is because of a general ignorance on the part of the population. To be clear Obama is a centrist, and is as far from a true socialist as I am from being the Queen of England. If anything this should serve as yet another reason to invest in education. You cannot have a political discussion when the populace does not understand the basics.
yea, I’m getting ready to post Chomsky’s endorsement. Centrist is one of his favorite terms. lol
Liked the education facts.
Yeah, the idea of calling one a “Socialist” then going home and eagerly awaiting social security and VA benefits, while considering that the good of Capitalism is a bit much to bear.
Praying on fear like Renee said.
And the current Government intervention into the “free market” seems to be Bush’s last ditch effort not to look like Hoover – and go down as the worst President ever. I bet even the older Republican folks would choose Carter over Bush II now.
And people want to vote for a guy who actually said, ” I voted 90% of the time with Bush…” (I bet McCain wished he’d rephrased the answer in the form of a question before running his mouth.)
Shooting from the hip got him a bum leg to stand on for a candidacy.
Ike,
You’re absolutely right. Just like in 2004 when Bush bought some extra votes in Florida by signing Medicare Part D.
The problem is that when the GOP got into office, they spent themselves silly too.
There is no hope for this country. We peaked and now we’re going to tax the wealthy and productive out of this country.
You see wealthy people used to come to this country because they could pay less taxes here and the IRS was glad to collect. Once we’ve turned ourselves into a second rate European Union wannabe with ridiculous taxes, the wealthy and productive will move on.
My problem is my military retirement I’ll collect eventually. I will have to sell the annuity before I bail on this country for one that is less hostile towards the productive.
Check this out…China has less corporate taxes than the US.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/8/22/20-reasons-to-kill-corporate-taxes.html
As the UK Telegraph said, “We’re all Socialists now, Comrade.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/09/do0901.xml
Perhaps we can get the Chinese to resurrect capitalism. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/081009/oddities/finance_banking_australia_china_offbeat
Danny where have you been? Doug needs some support here. ;)
Taxing high income individuals has very little long term negative effect on the economy. Historically.
I think the fact is the difference in econ plans is the middle class expansion is much more likely under Obama which is why practicing or active economist support him while old academic economist support McCain.
The corporations benefit in ways people just still don’t get- my father personally pays and hasn’t paid income tax in years because of his corporation.It a small corporation as they go of course but this is pretty much the same for many people I grew up knowing. Wonder how much Dell paid probably not as much as you and ost of their employees are no in India.
The corporate welfare Program has grown – so much over the last 8 but rally starting with Reagan years it’s almost impossible to believe. Without any
economic benefit to the people.It is in theory only at this point that corporate incentives work to stimulate our economy.
the federal government alone shells out billions a year in corporate welfare – not even considering what the states are doing. Huge quantities of tax breaks and subsidies and (we subsidize corporations and these corporations are not providing jobs, they have not contributed to the people they have gone overseas anyway. The hope is to hold incentives for corporations which do provide an economically sound reason for us to do so but not to provide the incentives and subsidies for those who do not.
We need a middle class.it’s disappearing, and as it disappears we redefine it, but the fact is we need a middle class – a stable middle class – for the kind of nation we have, it needed for economic and political transitions, and it’s needed for development.
I just happen to believe Obama has a better chance of getting us back to where our middle class is growing or at lease stable and most economist who actually practice applied economics feel that way as well.
Without a middle class we become something else altogether.
Nice to see you back it’s been forever hasn’t it?