Ξ September 27th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Interesting|
I happened to catch a BBC interview with Jake Adelstein, who was a crime reporter for Japan’s largest daily newspaper and came out with a book relating his exploits called Tokyo Vice. Fascinating stuff – the Japanese criminal world he describes is very surreal. I’d try to relate some of the stories that he tells (“Why won’t you drink my green tea?” is going to be a meme for a while, I think), but it’s well worth it to listen to the interview. It runs about half an hour, but the really good stuff is in the first fifteen minutes.
Also, I discovered he had an appearance on the Daily Show last year, which is more abbreviated, but really humorous for Jon Stewart’s dead-pans.
Ξ September 14th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Politics|
Watching Sean Hannity, who’s an O’Donnell supporter, misconstrue the arguments of the intelligentsia. Weekly Standard and company supported Rubio, supported Toomey. They aren’t for “establishment” candidates – and no one is particularly sad to see Lisa Murkowski go. They’re looking at the facts on the ground, and the facts are that O’Donnell can’t win. Toomey and Rubio are polished politicians. Rand Paul and Joe Miller are running in very red states. Everyone I know of supported Nikki Haley, especially given the mud thrown at her in that race. But O’Donnell is a bridge too far, and saying so isn’t elitism or a matter of “good-old boys”. The “establishment” these people are ranting about isn’t the GOP establishment – it’s the conservative establishment.
Ξ September 14th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Politics|
Today is primary day in Delaware. There is a nasty Senate race between Republicans Mike Castle and Christine O’Donnell. Castle had been the favorite by a mile, and is favored to win the general election by 11 points.
Then, a few weeks ago, Sarah Palin endorsed Christine O’Donnell, and all hell broke loose.
Palin’s endorsement was followed by Jim DeMint (one of the Senate’s most visible conservative members), and now O’Donnell is up by three in the primary.
Conservative intelligentsia is collectively going “are you guys nuts“? There is a standing rule amongst conservatives, handed out by William F. Buckley, that conservatives support the most conservative candidate *electable*. Castle is no conservative, and has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of only 52%, but that’s far better than any Democrat would have from Delaware, a very blue state. O’Donnell was trounced when she ran for Senate in 2008, and no poll shows her within 10 points of the prospective Democratic nominee.
Mark Levin, the caustic talk-show host, initiated the fratricide by going (rhetorically speaking) postal on one of the Powerline Blog guys. I like Powerline (wiki entry) a lot – good, intelligent posts and they did yeoman’s work during the Rathergate scandal. They’re one of the more influential blogs that most people haven’t heard of. And they are certainly no David Frum (a notable conservative who tends to reject popular conservative memes).
Powerline’s position on O’Donnell is the same as The Weekly Standard, The National Review, Ace of Spades, Hotair, etc, etc – that she is kooky and not electable. For Levin, however, pointing this out amounts to treason, and launches into a series of ad hominem attacks and rather blatant mischaracterizations of one of the authors at Powerline – Paul Mirengoff. In fact, Levin was so unhinged he’s managed to alienatemostoftheconservativeestablishment.
Heaven save the right-wing from friends like Mark Levin.
Ξ September 8th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Interesting|
I decided that my old stove needed to be replaced. I actually decided that right after I moved in, but felt I could live with it until other things had been taken care of. A year and a half later, Lowe’s had a 20% off labor-day sale, so I decided to see what I could get. The stove I wanted was a grand on their website. It was $900 in the store. $100 off, and that’s before the %20 discount. I found out I also get a discount from work, for another %10. Fifteen minutes later, I had bought what was a $1000 before-tax stove for $700 after tax. And it’s tax-deductible as a home improvement.
Paul Krugman is an economics columnist at the New York Times, and received the Nobel Prize in economics for work he did in the late 80′s. Those two things give him a certain cachet in the realm of economics policy. However, ever since George W. Bush was elected in 2000, he has turned nearly totally partisan, using his clout to attack conservatives and defend liberalism, at the expense of intellectual integrity. His latest column is an example of how wrapped up in partisan rhetoric he is.
Krugman is a Keynesian. Keynesians believe that in economic downturns massive government spending must take place to turn the economy around. This was the prevalent school of thought in the FDR administration, and the economic policies of the 1930′s reflect that. However, Krugman goes too far with his attempts to interpret Keynesian success from the 1940′s:
From an economic point of view World War II was, above all, a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise. Over the course of the war the federal government borrowed an amount equal to roughly twice the value of G.D.P. in 1940 — the equivalent of roughly $30 trillion today.
Had anyone proposed spending even a fraction that much before the war, people would have said the same things they’re saying today. They would have warned about crushing debt and runaway inflation. They would also have said, rightly, that the Depression was in large part caused by excess debt — and then have declared that it was impossible to fix this problem by issuing even more debt.
But guess what? Deficit spending created an economic boom — and the boom laid the foundation for long-run prosperity. Overall debt in the economy — public plus private — actually fell as a percentage of G.D.P., thanks to economic growth and, yes, some inflation, which reduced the real value of outstanding debts. And after the war, thanks to the improved financial position of the private sector, the economy was able to thrive without continuing deficits.
I’m no economist, nor even an economic historian, but it strikes me fairly obvious that America’s economic prosperity following WWII might have had something to do with the fact that it was the only industrialized nation that hadn’t been devastated by war. Germany, Russia, Britain, France – all had their industrial centers ravaged, their male populations decimated. BMW and Mitsubishi weren’t exactly in a position to challenge GM, Ford or Chrysler in 1946. Britain didn’t end food rationing until 1954 – nine years after the war ended.
I’m sure America’s economy would see an uptick if the rest of the world’s industrial infrastructure crumbled overnight. I don’t think we’d even need to go into public debt if it did happen to trigger the boom. I’m just not sure how Krugman is proposing for it happen.
A Bit of Wit
“A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'”
