tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60868802024-03-08T15:51:29.782-05:00Solomon Isaacs!Reality-Based Since 2003.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.comBlogger276125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1118719043491099212005-06-13T23:15:00.000-04:002005-06-13T23:19:06.836-04:00Movin' outI'm off to a new location, although I'll keep this around for a bit...probably no one chomping at the big to snare solomonisaacs.blogspot.com. Big hope for the new address, a return to frequency, an expansion of interests, mo' bells and whistles, who knows? Find it Here: <br><br><br /><font size=2><a href="http://www.arbaker.typepad.com/">http://www.arbaker.typepad.com/</a></font>Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1116136222751815222005-05-15T01:33:00.000-04:002005-05-15T01:50:22.756-04:00Tierney at it againJohn Tierney continued his spate of columns arguing for Social Security privatization Saturday. Having already perpetuated myths about Chile's dreadful tangle with privatization, this time he turned to spreading some common misconceptions about Social Security's trust funds. Tierney makes a common, if disingenous plea, privatization is the only way we can keep the trust funds from being spent...since no one can control Congress' spending urges, we should protect ourselves by putting the money where they can't get it--in personal accounts.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1114656678820047692005-04-27T22:17:00.000-04:002005-04-27T22:51:18.820-04:00Poulenc bloggingNew favorite things...the short piano works of Francis Poulenc, specifically, this <a href="http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?name_id1=9660&name_role1=1&genre=122&bcorder=19&album_id=23861">recording</a> by Gabriel Tacchino. If you only know the choral pieces (as I did), the piano pieces are a wonderful distillation of everything that makes that work so distinctive: the humor, the range of colors and tones wrung from spare harmonies. But the piano pieces have something more--a deep, inviting warmth. This Poulenc, personal, ironic, passionate, should be enough to silence anyone who has acccused him of being cold and mechanistic. The recording itself (while I don't have anything to compare it to as yet) is quite fine as well. Tacchino has the sort of light, nimble touch that immediately puts a smile on your face, but when the time comes, he doesn't hesitate to to extract every last drop of knowing humanity out of these simple, yet worldly little essays.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1114489893329413842005-04-25T23:54:00.000-04:002005-04-26T00:31:33.330-04:00You got me....Kevin Drum asks the <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_04/006188.php">million dollar question</a> today: why has Bush gone and blown all his political capital on the loser Social Security debate? Its a question that will linger long after this whole thing has blown over, and, indeed, would probably already be hailed as one of the great political swan dives of our time if the press, public, not to mention liberals didn't accord Bush a sort of super-human political infalliability.<br /><br />But what has been the source of that perception of infalliability so far? Three things: a willingness to push a lowest common demoninator popular sentiment, no matter what the cost in lies and red ink; a right wing machine that only has its (tiny) centrist wing to lose; and a strong coalition of business interests willing to pony up the cash. Unfortunately for G2, the Social Security push is missing two of those things in a major way: its popularity with the public is simply not very resilient (something the pollsters really should have told him in December) and there are a slew more Republicans than just those stuck up Northeasterners that want nothing to do with gutting the program a large number of their constituents rely on. <br /><br />But that still begs the question: why did he do it? At this point, my guess has got to be sheer unbridled ignorance of the situation. Someone pitched this to Bush, Rove, whoever, as an easy issue with broad appeal. They needed a big domestic issue for the second term because they didn't have anything left to stay relevant, and, as we have seen time and again in this White House, once a decision is made, backtracking on it becomes a form heresy. <br /><br />So that's it? They didn't have anything better to do and privatization gained some traction? In part, I think it may be just that simple. The other component is the disconnect between the logic of the Washington think tank world, that has been training very smart people to like privatization for 20 plus years, and the rest of the country. The logic of privatization is, quite simply, very attractive to a large number of people in power because they have been learning it for a long time now. The effect of this groupthink, and how out of step it is with popular opinion is not necessarily obvious, but it should not be underestimated. This is the conservative movement catching up with itself, as expected.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1114112688733195142005-04-21T12:01:00.000-04:002005-04-22T18:01:37.570-04:00Abortion trickeryNo good very bad Brooks <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/opinion/21brooks.html?hp">today</a>; and a nice <a href="http://www.newdonkey.com/2005/04/lets-compromise-do-it-my-way.html">post</a> from Ed Kilgore with all the grisly details on the 10-car logic pile-up contained therein.<br /><br />Of the many sleights of hand Brooks has developed to excuse the excesses of the Christian right, perhaps my personal favorite is the "Christian right as a justified abusive spouse" tack, on view here. Basically: all the bullying, Constitution bashing, intolerance, disregard for the rule of law and other bad behavior that comes out of the right is not pretty but, well, liberals left them no other choice, i.e., "I don't want to hurt you, but you just make me so mad!"Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1113625958676748332005-04-15T23:43:00.000-04:002005-04-16T00:32:38.680-04:00War of the culture persuasionWell, let me come out of hibernation for a moment to comment on the recent back and forth regarding whether Dems should "take on" the entertainment industry. Ed Kilgore and others favor this, while <a href="http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/04/index.html#006096">Matt Yglesias</a> has been an outspoken opponent. <br /><br />I agree with a little of both. I certainly don't want to see more Joe Lieberman posturing, as Matt fears--this is merely a small scale version of the Dems' general misconseption about the value of aping Republican positions and rhetoric. It will pay off for a few individual politicians, maybe, but it horrifies the base and it has no relationship to a larger liberal vision. <br /><br />That said, there is another route for Democrats beyond empty moralizing and fundamentalist pandering. And one they already instinctively sympathize with. As many have pointed out, the "crap culture breeds teen sociopaths" canard doesn't actually resonate with people, becuase they know its not very true beyond some research that is inconclusive at best, impossible at worst. <br /><br />So why are all these red staters up in arms against culture? What's the seed of truth in their anger beyond all the trumped up political hobbyhorses about homosexuality and promiscuity and talking sponges? It's the fact that mainstream culture is for the most part, actually, well, crap. <br /><br />And PS, this is not news to liberals. The great swath of America that is the target of the culture warriors doesn't lie somewhere to the left of Rush Limbaugh and the 700 club, but squarely between those charlatans and your friends who haven't turned on the radio except to listen to NPR in the last decade.<br /><br />I'm not saying there's any hope of an alliance between these two extremes that care deeply about the middle 80 percent, but that these struggles are, in some sense, the same. The only difference is that liberals are refusing to fight right now. <br /><br />This isn't about stealing Pat Robertson's market share. It's about reclaiming the government-culture intersection that liberals used to care deeply about, but have been running scared from for decades now. It says that the culture that makes this a country worth living in shouldn't always have to submit to the whims of profit, and that the government is the right actor to take up the slack.<br /><br />Now, this obviously isn't some magic key to winning elections in the near term, but its the long term work that needs to be done. Government has never divorced itself from culture, yet liberals, frightened by the costs of the 1990s culture wars, have decided they can get along without engaging in that debate. And it is part and parcel of the cut your losses til you have nothing left mentality that is so detrimental to liberalism today.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1108528786360843232005-02-15T23:32:00.000-05:002005-02-15T23:39:46.366-05:00AltermanJeez. It's been a long time, huh...well, to get started, Eric Alterman is <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6968346/#050215">on the warpath</a> about a column by Cathy Young the other week that insinuated he was an anti-semite (of the self hating Jew sort). Good for him. The Boston Globe should be doing better, for humanity's sake. Here's the email I wrote to their Editorial page editor, Alterman has all the contact info listed, you should send something too...<br /><br />From: "Alex Baker" <baker@tcf.org> Add Address to Address Book<br />To: n_king@globe.com<br />Cc: whatliberalmedia@aol.com<br />Date: 02/15/2005 11:24 PM<br />Subject: RE: Cathy Young column<br /><br />Dear Mr. King,<br /><br />I would like to add my voice to what I am sure is already a chorus<br />disapproving of Cathy Young's column "When Jews Wax Anri-Semitic". If the<br />Globe is to maintain its credibility, I think it must deem Young's column<br />outside the bounds of civil public discourse.<br /><br />The label of anti-semitism is a serious and incendiary charge. Applying it<br />to figures with public reputations, academic, political or otherwise, is a<br />heavy business and should rightfully lead to serious damage to a public<br />figure's credibility and standing. So the notion that Eric Alterman, a<br />leading public intellectual, a prominent Jewish writer and speaker, a<br />major voice in debates over U.S. policy in the Middle East and towards<br />Israel, should have the label of anti-semitism attached to him is,<br />frankly, perverse.<br /><br />Anyone is welcome to disagree with Alterman's views about Israel, about<br />the peace process, or about his refusal to condemn the incident with the<br />Muslim group and the Auschwitz memorial. But Young is not arguing with<br />Alterman. She doesn't like his views about foreign policy so she levels an<br />accusation meant to discredit and humiliate him in the hope that it does<br />the job instead. This is character assassination by insinuation, and if<br />our media institutions are to mean anything, it should be kept in the<br />tabloids and on the Internet where it belongs.<br /><br />Publishing that column cheapened your newspaper's standards, cheapened the<br />seriousness of bigotry towards Jews, and cheapened the public discourse. I<br />do hope you can find a way to remedy the situation.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Alex Baker<br />New York, NYAlexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1107410092640295332005-02-03T01:52:00.000-05:002005-02-03T00:54:52.640-05:00Mars, Bitches!!!I wonder if there are a lot of NASA employees who are really bummed tonight? I have to say, I would totally support the Mars initiative if he threw that in the speech. We should totally go to Mars. Bitches. Does Halliburton have interests in the space business? Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1107400394571041292005-02-02T21:51:00.000-05:002005-02-02T22:48:45.360-05:00Snark and quibbles1. I wish Bush and other conservatives for that matter would stop taking credit for any election in any formerly corrupt authoritarian state anywhere. I mean, unless they killed Arafat somehow. That said, the $350 million for Palestine is great...way to put money where the mouth is.
<br />
<br />2. Does anyone think the flypaper and humanitarian rationales for the war are kind of at odds? I can understand different people supporting them at different times, but it doesn't seem like they should get to coexist in one speech, i.e. you can have a democracy, but we're going to fight a guerilla war of attrition with terrorists at the same time.
<br />
<br />3. No big surprises on the Social Security stuff. Check out the <a href="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/duncanblack/ssb.txt">background briefing</a> from ealier today, and the <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05socsec4.htm">CBPP analysis</a> of it.
<br />
<br />4. Oh man, Harry Reid is making me so bored...and we haven't even gotten to the robotress yet! Really makes you appreciate John Kerry's telegenic skills.
<br />
<br />
<br />He's still talking. But I don't care. God's children vs. tax breaks? I read the text of this before and it sounded good.
<br />
<br />5. Shit. It's worse with her. Those eyes are so piercing.
<br />
<br />6. Is there any corollary for the government skipping out on treasury bonds it owes itself by changing the law?
<br />
<br />7. There has been very little insight into the administration's internal thought process on Social Security, and I think that information gap is starting to show. Are people really thinking about this? Really? Or did he just make some decision, and everyone has been toeing the line.
<br />
<br />8. Fuck this Linda Douglas woman on ABC. "These responses to Social Security I've been getting from the Democrats are very shrill." You're shrill. Asshole.
<br />
<br />9. Peter Jennings splitting the private/personal account difference. Totally fucking weak. You know what you're doing, Peter Jennings, just use the goddamn word.
<br />
<br />10. Off-loading price indexing on Tim Penny was soooo weak. Duh...who would think that Bush's own Social Security commission put that on the table 4 years ago? Oh no, it was all Tim Penny's idea. I don't know who the idiots that understand benefit indexation are, but Bush apparently thinks they are out there and ripe for the suckering.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1105392601946085252005-01-31T16:15:00.000-05:002005-01-31T00:42:36.900-05:00The Jack Bauer Rules?I must say, the return of 24 (awesome) in tandem with some <a href="http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/004380.html">using 24-esque scenarios to absolve</a> Alberto Gonzales of his torture-friendly legal opinions (awesomely scary) is a little surreal. It gives one a little window into just how deep the fictionalization of reality is for the armchair terror warriors--their appeal bears little resemblance to the complicated, nuanced and often mundane thing we call reality. Instead, they truly believe that global terrorism somehow rockets 'reality' off its moorings and makes the action movie, and the action movie's morals, come ass-kickingly alive.
<br />
<br />That said, the distinction between the hypothetical "terrorist in NYC who knows where the nuke is" and liberalizing U.S. code to allow or at least weasel around torture needs to be addressed head on. Dry proof about the low efficacy of torture in obtaining reliable information, the mushy question of proportional losses in our soft power from torture scandals, and predictions of retaliation against American troops all seem to fade away in the face of the "Jack Bauer" hypothesis. In the end we have to be realistic about what "laws" and "standards" really are. They don't represent our ultimate moral choice in every instance. Life is messy. Some considerations trump others that did not trump the last time. That is ok. Jack Bauer doesn't need to be thrown in jail cuz he tortured away the imminent nuclear holocaust.
<br />
<br />Laws on the other hand? They're not really for the Jack Bauers and historical singularities. They are for Joe Schmo who doesn't have any better ideas than torture. For states that have something to prove even if they have no idea how to go about proving it. That is who you want anti-torture laws for. Our laws don't provide for every possibility--that's why we insist on a subjective human element mediating between the law and punishments. But laws do set standards, and they make clear which principles are not to be trifled with lightly. Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1107141592100843432005-01-30T22:12:00.000-05:002005-01-30T22:21:37.080-05:00That's what we call mathGregg Easterbrook's stupidity is on the radar today with his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/books/review/30EASTERB.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=">NYT review</a> of the Jared Diamond book and bewilderment from <a href="http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/000252.html">Brad Delong</a> and <a href="http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/003168.html">Crooked Timber</a>. One of these strings ended in an <a href="http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=897">old post from Easterblogg</a> in which he goes on an incredulous tirade about how scientists can go on about "mushy" alternate dimensions but not allow for the "spiritual plane". If I'm not mistaken, it has something to do with "math." If these people are just sitting around making shit up and leaving out God, then I will be the first to cry foul. But I have a feeling that's not the case. My god, that man is such an idiot.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1106284813088041442005-01-21T01:12:00.000-05:002005-01-21T00:20:13.086-05:00(Dead) weightI don't want to seem overly enthusiastic about this, but El Bush's Social Security thing is having trouble, no? Botttom Line: old people vote. They like Social Security cuz' it means they won't be completely broke. Just cuz Bush's communications team decided to leak some stories about how the third rail is dead doesn't mean it is.
<br />
<br />The administration has decided to be very sneakretive about the details of the PLAN, yes, because there's an inauguration on, but also cuz they don't want to say, and frankly, they run their ship on brute loyalty not "convincing." as the pansies say.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1106239578484663922005-01-20T11:38:00.000-05:002005-01-20T11:46:18.483-05:00Coronation indeedWonkette has <a href="http://www.wonkette.com/politics/dc/index.php#liveblogging-the-coronation-030676">all you need</a> to weather the madness. Watching this stuff really makes you step back and marvel at the fact that this man will be president for EIGHT YEARS.
<br />
<br />Also, that sucks they hijacked Susan Graham. Opera singers should not abet Republicanism. And when did our country get sooooo lame? The pre-ceremony muzak was excruciating.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1106029111282425572005-01-18T01:49:00.000-05:002005-01-18T01:18:31.283-05:00Inconsequential thoughts about DNC chairNot that it matters, but my money would be on Dean for DNC chair. My reasons are several-fold:
<br />
<br />1. Dean is never going to run for national office again, unfortunately, but he has a valuable varsity-level perspective on Demcoratic politics that A) should not be wasted and B) didn't really get to shine during the primaries. He really has a very centrist message, but its a centrist message that's about being a really centrist, not a compromising wuss. Look--there's no viable Democratic party existing halfway between the mush we have now and the GOP so get over it. We need to build something new here that has nothing to do with the splitting the difference. That's not something you "figger out one election season", its something that appears after years of work.
<br />
<br />2. Democrats did good things in the last election, and it will be a mighty shame to let them slip into oblivion. All of the talk since the election, if not explicitly backbiting, has nonetheless been an exercise in willful memory loss, and an attempt to pretend none of the last year, or any of the people connected with it, ever happened. Why? Because isolating and ostracizing the losers is a natural reaction. But this is the fundamental flaw of Democratic politics: thinking that your bet on the wrong horse means its all the horses fault, and has nothing to do with the 200 pound jockey or the foot deep mud. There's no reason to throw Dean overboard. I'm glad he wasn't the nominee, probably, but he represented many of the lasting lessons of this campaign season, and selectively forgetting those lessons will only end in more treading of water. Let's praise what works for us, what gets us a following and what gets us excited. There can be some middle ground between throwing all our chips in one basket and denying the basket every existed.
<br />
<br />3. The rest of these people are same old, same old. Probably a part b to the last reason, but can anyone tell me why we should stand behind a no-name insider when everyone is complaining the Democratic party sucks because it is a cabal of no-name insiders with no connection to the human beings they are trying to mobilize? Let's remember that the vast, vast, majority of the country will never know who the chairman of the Democratic National Committee is, so why worry if your choice has some "baggage" attached? We have to stop making these decisions with the Republican attack machine in mind (don't you remember what they wrote about the screaming thing? we can't give them more bait!!!) and start thinking about what the people who are really interested in the party want to see. Hint: it's not Tim Roemer.
<br />
<br />This whole business about handicapping the race is kind of silly of course, as the job is really a glorified schmoozer and sometime cable TV head, but its what we've got right now, so why shouldn't we make a choice that has some excitement and continuity attached to it? Dean is a great speaker, a man with some heft and power attached to him, and is good talking to people. He shows that the Democratic party is serious about leadership and wants to make popular choices. I'm glad Tim Roemer, Simon Rosenberg, and the rest are providing the behind the scenes backbone for the party, and nothing could be more important. But the Dems need to prove they can make leaders right now, and you don't do that by electing a smarter Terry McAuliffe. When people see that, they see some guy in a suit doing his job, but mostly responsible for people much richer than you whom you will never meet. Dean will simply not come off like that because he already has a public persona to draw on. That's the singular face of the Democratic party for the next four years. Let's make it a memorable one. Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1105839291636120002005-01-15T19:29:00.000-05:002005-01-15T20:34:51.636-05:00Kos 'scandal'I don't usually discuss Hugh Hewitt here, partly because reading him takes me to a dark place that I should probably keep to myself, partly because its just too exhausting. But his petty hackery trying to <a href="http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1283">make an equivalency</a> out of the Armstrong Williams really deserves a nod for sheer hutzpah. As the Republican party's least personality-saddled online water-carrier, he knows that any negative story about his people need not be disproven, but only neutralized by any shred of trumped up equivalent story for liberals. What an asshole.
<br />
<br />Frankly, I think the whole debate over disclosure and ethics rules for bloggers is being way overblown. Look--responsible bloggers who respect their readers and whatever tiny place they occupy in public discourse will find it in their interest to disclose whatever conflicts of interest they have. But these are still private enterprises and they don't have anywhere near the same limitations that media institutions have. As anyone who reads the site knows, Markos Zuniga is a paid political consultant. He is a severely partisan Democrat who makes no secret that his professional and non-professional time is devoted to electing Democrats. A journalist could never maintain that lifestyle, and that's why, hello, he isn't a journalist. He runs a damn Web site for political insiders and hangers on. He has no public education mission, and he controls no media real estate larger than the amount of bandwidth he is willing to personally purchase. It works out because his readers understand he's a pro (and it's a big reason why they read) but they keep coming back because there's a certain amount of trust that he's a pro with his own nuanced ideas. I mean, what's the danger here? That he's going to start hyping a Democratic candidate for pay when he somehow doesn't mean it?
<br />
<br />Personally, I don't really have much of a problem with the whole Thune/Daschle thing either. Sure it comes off as a bit sleazier since it is a smaller operation, but again, these are private enterprises, and they are allowed to get paid to say stuff and not disclose who is paying them. The consequences are brutal, of course, but that's the only insurance you can ask for. A) Political campaigns will always try to find ways to shape media coverage outside of direct journalist contact, and B) what are you doing to do about it? It's the internet for christ's sakes. He says politics is his job...if you think he starts sounding like a hack, or want a disinterested perspective on the news, then go read the New York Times.
<br />
<br />Armostrong Williams, on the other hand, is A) vouched for by a number of major corporate news institutions with a reputation, billion dollar operations, and huge distribution networks to protect. He makes his living as a disinterested 'journalist' who is paid solely for the distribution of his opinions. He has an integrity to look after that truly is harmed by improrieties. If Kos announces he is getting out of the consultant business to be a full time journlist pundit and keeps the web site, then we'll have valid conflict of interest questions. As long as he is an admitted pro, then you read at your own risk and have only him to complain to.
<br />
<br />PS to Hewitt. This, my friend, is why the media is important despite your inane crowing about old media and its downfall. To protect us from your precious blogs.
<br />
<br />Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1105384500752989552005-01-10T14:08:00.000-05:002005-01-10T14:21:41.263-05:00Post's follyI think Josh Marshall has the <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_09.php#004375">best take down </a>of the Post's real stupid Social Security <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59778-2005Jan8.html">editorial yesterday</a>, which has some theoretical value: what does an editorial about Social Security look like that feigns complete ignorance of the actual choices being presented in the debate it presumes to write about? A year of reading this crap is going to get old real fast.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1105211560957119322005-01-08T13:36:00.000-05:002005-01-08T14:12:40.956-05:00PSMargaret Juntwait is kind of annoying on the Saturday Met broadcasts. But, obviously, she is a lot better than nothing.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1104902688031574102005-01-04T23:37:00.000-05:002005-01-05T00:24:48.030-05:00Ray of hopeKilgore soothes my troubles and calmly <a href="http://www.newdonkey.com/2005/01/brooks-and-his-straw-men.html">takes apart</a> David Brooks' dumbass column from this morning. Gracias.
<br />
<br />Sometimes I get kind of down thinking that Brooks gets to write this crap with impunity for the next four years, and I question if there's a point to even reading it, much less arguing with it. But things like this remind me that discussing in detail why he is a blot on our national debate can be a worthwhile even gratifying exercise.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1104858432356004452005-01-04T10:57:00.000-05:002005-01-04T12:07:12.356-05:00It's a planThe major newspaper coverage of the Social Security debate has really been quite good, I think, despite some <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41423-2005Jan1.html">abiding misconceptions</a>. Plus, editorial pages are almost unanimously opposed. If the Social Security battle is the second coming of the Iraq war propaganda machine, it certainly is off to a much shakier start. The truth is that A) the absurdity of focusing on the Social Security question now is pretty obvious if you stop to think about it out for a few minutes, as these reporters now have, and B) the Bush administration has no credibility whatsoever to try to take on such a harebrained scheme as mass liquidation of the system.
<br />
<br />But ultimately that may not really matter. Reading columns like <a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richtucker/rt20050103.shtml">this</a> piece of idiocy demonstrate that the Social Security reform campaign will be mostly waged by preying on the ignorance of the American people. Straight to the source.
<br />Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1104811545978965202005-01-03T22:55:00.000-05:002005-01-03T23:05:45.976-05:00More like thisHere's hoping Brad DeLong braves David Brooks columns more often, i.e., this <a href="http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/000090.html">fine takedown</a> of the bizarro tsunami column the other day. As far as I'm concerned, this is one of those columns where Brooks started out knowing exactly the pathetic little hit he wanted to score on behalf of the administration, but for the life of him couldn't figure out how to pad it with 740 words. So he just wrote some shit that doesn't make sense and tagged it on at the end:<blockquote>It's certainly wrong to turn this into yet another petty political spat, as many tried, disgustingly, to do...</blockquote>Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1104778462659718062005-01-03T13:47:00.000-05:002005-01-03T13:54:22.660-05:00YikesThere must be fire code violations in having <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_01_02_corner-archive.asp#049295">this many assholes</a> in a room at once.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1104730598559419892005-01-02T23:33:00.000-05:002005-01-03T00:36:38.560-05:00The last waveIf you have any desire to learn about the life of Brahms, let me highly recommend Jan Swafford's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679745823/qid=1104726919/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-3631861-1197632?v=glance&s=books&n=507846">recent bio</a>. This is a fascinating and extremely well-written piece of history...Swafford combines detailed storytelling with accessible musical analysis and a unique and compelling perspective on the context of Brahms life...in art, history, politics and the mechanics of culture. It is remarkable to think about how much the world changed in Brahms lifetime--at his birth, the 'rediscovery' of Bach was still in its infancy. At his death in 1896, Mahler had already penned his second symphony and Schoenberg was already writing. As Swafford eloquently describes, Brahms at this point was not so much a 'throwback' (his voice and genius were too distinct for that) but representative of a sort of historical road not taken--what history and art might have been had the passions and upheavals of the 20th century not broken so violently with the past.
<br />
<br />Brahms, like most great artists, was a master of synthesis, of creating new meaning and unique beauty by pulling together disparate strains of thought, technique and history. That quality in his art perhaps explains his popularity during his own lifetime, when liberal 19th century Europe in a sense embodied this outlook on life. Unfortunately for Brahms' immediate legacy, and perhaps the Western world at large, this sort of hero was not what the 20th century had in mind. Instead of the synthesizer, the mediator, the modest individual, the 20th century would praise the artistic hero which Wagner championed during Brahms' own lifetime: the 'absolute' artist, uncompromising, transformative, contemptuous of all pre-existing codes and morality--a religion unto himself.
<br />
<br />The tragedy of the book is that Brahms later years bore witness to the crumbling of his social and artistic world. Swafford records Brahms' response to the proto-fascism and virulent antisemitism which was beginning to flower in his last years as dumbfounded. While Brahms could not have known the depths to which Europe would ultimately sink, Swafford suggests he dreaded the future for the sort of art and culture he championed and exemplified. Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1104472633470634622004-12-31T01:36:00.000-05:002004-12-31T00:57:13.470-05:00Stop the madnessEd Kilgore brings up how Democrats can fight the culture war <a href="http://www.newdonkey.com/2004/12/lessons-learned-part-iii.html">here</a>. As I mentioned several weeks ago, the war against television should be an easy one for liberals...hell, that's why we're single-handedly keeping PBS in business. Why is it so hard for liberals to speak out on this issue? We support government funding of the arts and like-minded sophisticated culture, so why don't we feel the government has a right to talk about primetime TV? After all, liberal vision was the force behind the fairness doctrine, PBS, and other schemes to make television a tool for enlightenment. For my money, refusal to talk about things like television betrays a grander failure of vision among liberals today. Liberals don't keep quiet about television because they believe criticizing reality TV dreck is like censorship. They do it because television is "too mainstream" an arena for change, and thus seen as a "somewhere down the road" project. And there you have it, the mindset keeping good liberals down. An organizing principle for society that considers some public spheres off-limits is a principle bound for permanent minority status.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1104473080836592662004-12-31T01:03:00.000-05:002004-12-31T01:04:40.836-05:00Strong medicineKilgore lays the cards on the table for Democrats and national security. It's not very pleasant, but everyone concerned should read <a href="http://www.newdonkey.com/2004/12/lessons-learned-part-ii.html">this post</a> to get on the same page about WHAT JUST HAPPENED.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086880.post-1104426787897800892004-12-30T13:11:00.000-05:002004-12-30T12:13:07.896-05:00SickGood Frank Rich <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/arts/02rich.html?8hpib">here</a>. Try the last paragraph in the piece:<blockquote>Washington's next celebration will be the inauguration. Roosevelt decreed that the usual gaiety be set aside at his wartime inaugural in January 1945. There will be no such restraint in the $40 million, four-day extravaganza planned this time, with its top ticket package priced at $250,000. The official theme of the show is "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service." That's no guarantee that the troops in Iraq will get armor, but Washington will, at least, give home-front military personnel free admission to one of the nine inaugural balls and let them eat cake.</blockquote>Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15748408812275965064noreply@blogger.com0