No one could have predicted....

Ezra Klein said this a couple of days ago:

The original stimulus package should've been bigger. Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, says the Treasury Department originally asked for $1.4 trillion. Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wanted $1.2 trillion. What we got was a shade under $800 billion, and something more like $700 billion when you took out the AMT patch that was jammed into the package. So we knew it was too small then, and the recession it was designed to fight turned out to be larger than we'd predicted. In the end, we took a soapbox racer to a go-kart track and then realized we were competing against actual cars. [....]
[...]
Wrong. Ten percent unemployment and a terrible recession ended up discrediting the people trying to do more for the economy, as their previous intervention was deemed a failure. That, in turn, empowered the people attempting to do less for the economy. So rather than a modestly sized stimulus leaving the door open for more stimulus if needed, its modest size was used to discredit the idea of more stimulus when it became needed.

Oh wait, Paul Krugman predicted that this exact thing would happen. Hoped it wouldn't but, thought it was incredibly likely that it would:

So here’s the picture that scares me: It’s September 2009, the unemployment rate has passed 9 percent, and despite the early round of stimulus spending it’s still headed up. Mr. Obama finally concedes that a bigger stimulus is needed.

But he can’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies has plummeted, partly because his policies are seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies are conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts. And as a result, the recession rages on, unchecked.

So lets recap, because the stimulus wasn't big enough, it is now starting to run out. Still leaving a massive hole in the economy.

So of course the problem was doing the stimulus in the first place. Not that it was inadequate. The is the simply Boolean logic our of political dialog. This was a problem of not thinking big enough and that is entirely the fault of the Administration. They played small ball here, and hoped. They constantly talk about the "Art of the Possible", that they forget sound policy will go much further.

-Cheers

Nerdy goodness....

Got two trailers today for y'all. I must say I am might giddie about both.

First: DC Universe online


And a shakey-cam for "The Walking Dead" (h/t Liz):


Nerd friendly world!

-Cheers

Dissappointment in the Administration...ctd

I just wanted to highlight this post by Ta-Nehisi Coates, because I feel this line absolutely encapsulates the feeling of rage I feel during "Sherrod-gate" (emphasis added Ben Smith):

The argument has been made that this isn't Obama, just the people working under him. That theory elides the responsibility of leaders to set a tone. The tone that Obama has set, in regards to race, is to retreat with great velocity in the face of anything that can be defined as "racial." Granted, this has been politically smart. Also granted, Obama has done it with nuance. But it can not be expected that the president's subordinates will share that nuance.

More disturbingly, this is what happens when you treat the arrest of a black man, in his home, as something that can be fixed over beers. This is what happens when you silently assent to the notion that racism and its victims are somehow equally wrong. The ground, itself, is rigged with a narrative of inversion that goes back centuries. When you treat the two side as equals, expect not just more of the same. Expect worse. ...

On the great American scourge of racism, this administration must stand, sometimes publicly, for something. Failing that it will fall — indeed, already has fallen — for anything.

I think this is the thrust of it. If we want to talk about race in this country we need to do it. Horrible things were done to minorities over the years, and the rise of the "reverse racism" charge needs to be put in its proper place.

Update: Thought this post by Adam Serwer provides a much better analysis then I could.

For all the sound and fury, Breitbart's video was nothing more than an alibi, an attempt to collectively exonerate the right from a charge of racism by turning it back on the NAACP. This is the precise origin of the oppositional culture developed by some conservatives in the aftermath of the 2008 election. It is broadly premised on convincing conservatives they face a similar kind of institutional racism black people have faced throughout history, while maintaining that the sole obstacle to black advancement is the same culture of grievance they're so desperate to imitate. Glenn Beck saying today's America is "like the 1950s except the races are reversed," isn't an observation; it's a demand for absolution. This is the same selfish white guilt rightly mocked when possessed by liberals, curdled into a bitter stew of defensive anger and epic self-pity. Yet even Beck thinks Sherrod was wronged.

[emphasis added mine]. That pretty much sounds correct to me. As someone who has been followed around a store, for simply browsing and been stopped 3 times in the span of 4 city blocks, because they "fit a description", this is all very illuminating to me.

-Cheers

Dissappointment in the Administration...

At least with me, continues to grow. Their handling of the Shirley Sherrod situation is an exercise in extreme cowardice, and my respect for them continues to diminish. If you are not familiar with the issue, I would point you here, here, and here.

This episode dredges up some extremely virulent racial anxieties I have.

I forget, from time to time, that being a minority makes you the other in this country. Even if your family can date its roots back to the antebellum south, you are somehow still not American enough. I am sure most people have no idea what I am talking about here, tribalism being what it is. But it is the reason why I would be loathe to run for any sort of national political office.

I would be hounded to the end of my days about whether I was pursuing a "black agenda". Rarely are any Caucasian candidates/office holders/pundits, questioned in this way. Don't believe me? Just look at the sorts of accusations the president has to deal with, Glenn Beck on the Affordable Care Act: "It's Reparations!". Why? I am not really sure. I think it has something to do with all black people being poor, and our half-black mooslum President wanting to make all those hard working white folks out their pay up for slavery.

Or it is instead about trying to beat a political opponent through whatever means are necessary. Even if it means destroying the life of a woman with this background:

Sherrod is an obscure bureaucrat who helps rural farmers. She is black. As a little girl, she lived in a place where there were lynchings and cross burnings, and she dreamt of going north. Before she came of age, white men murdered her father and were never jailed for it. As a result, she made a pledge to herself: that rather than abandon the South, she would help as many of its black residents as possible.

In a moving speech before the NAACP, she explained how that attitude persisted until an occasion 24 years ago, when she was working for a small nonprofit. She was assigned to help a white farmer whose superior, less-than-friendly attitude she resented.

At first, she gave the farmer less help than was in her power, pawning him off on a white lawyer. Soon, however, God helped her to see the error in her ways, she helped the farmer to keep his land, and ever since she's understood that her calling to help people isn't about black and white, it's about aiding poor people of any color.

This woman was fired, when she should be lauded for what she has done. She has shown amazing courage and this was her reward. Mr. Coates and Mr. Greenwald I think have the best comments on this episode.

I expect more of the President then this. Not because he is black. But because he is the god damned President, and he should not cater to these glorified bomb-throwers.

Mrs. Sherrod deserved better then this.

So absolutely shitty job, by the media, the NAACP, the Administration, and of course the Right wing activists who have no interest in anything other then destroying their political rivals.

I am sure the media that fell for this will be more skeptical in the future....oh wait, I remember the 90's.


-Cheers

The most depressing article I have read in a while....

I can honestly say that this article is just downright disheartening.

The basic gist of the piece is that we are all screwed. Facts are actually more useful in cementing a disagreement then in resolving it:

The Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels analyzed survey data from the 1990's to prove this point. During the first term of Bill Clinton's presidency, the budget deficit declined by more than 90 percent. However, when Republican voters were asked in 1996 what happened to the deficit under Clinton, more than 55 percent said that it had increased. What's interesting about this data is that so-called "high-information" voters⎯these are the Republicans who read the newspaper, watch cable news and can identify their representatives in Congress⎯weren't better informed than "low-information" voters. According to Bartels, the reason knowing more about politics doesn't erase partisan bias is that voters tend to only assimilate those facts that confirm what they already believe. If a piece of information doesn't follow Republican talking points⎯and Clinton's deficit reduction didn't fit the "tax and spend liberal" stereotype⎯then the information is conveniently ignored. "Voters think that they're thinking," Bartels says, "but what they're really doing is inventing facts or ignoring facts so that they can rationalize decisions they've already made." Once we identify with a political party, the world is edited so that it fits with our ideology.

Now we all do this to a greater and lesser degree, but it is still disappointing. I understand the notion of cognitive dissonance, yet I am still susceptible to it. What is worse, in my estimation, would be this bit:

A striking recent example was a study done in the year 2000, led by James Kuklinski of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He led an influential experiment in which more than 1,000 Illinois residents were asked questions about welfare -- the percentage of the federal budget spent on welfare, the number of people enrolled in the program, the percentage of enrollees who are black, and the average payout. More than half indicated that they were confident that their answers were correct -- but in fact only 3 percent of the people got more than half of the questions right. Perhaps more disturbingly, the ones who were the most confident they were right were by and large the ones who knew the least about the topic. (Most of these participants expressed views that suggested a strong antiwelfare bias.)

Emphasis added mine. I have to agree with Mr. Lehrer it is a wonder Democracy works at all in this world, and I find his words on pundits to be even more appropriate.

I have had many political arguments over the years, and try as I might I am sure I have fallen prey to this from time to time. But in our current political environment this sort of research does not fill me with confidence. I understand that on some level the difficulty of bias and the limitations of our own perceptions (the desire to venerate those we agree with and denigrate those we don't). But shouldn't observable facts help combat that? At least that is what I have always consoled myself with. I have always believed that a well reasoned argument would be more convincing the demagoguery. If it is this frustrating to me I can only imagine how it must be for someone with actual policy expertise like Dr. Krugman, who must be about to pull their hair out over this stuff.

-Cheers

Rush is a Bigot....

First off, some changes to the comment section: I will be moderating the section more heavily. A few to many spambots have been popping up. So time to for a change.

Now on to the rant. So Rush Limbaugh has once again, inserted his corpulent foot in is bulbous mouth.



Evidently the President created the Recession (that started before he was elected), in order to revenge upon America for the inequities that have been heaped upon minorities for the 230 years of the countries existence (though for accuracy, slavery existed in the States well before the Union was formed).

If you wonder why we never seem to be able to accomplish anything in this country, look no further. He makes it clear as day, those who disagree with him inherently have lesser affection for the country, than he. They do not understand it and even work against it, because they want to see it fail. Not that they may disagree on the best course forward for the country. There is only one correct choice for the country and it is the one that he has championed.

This is the opinion maker of the Republican party.

-Cheers