Whatever. I'm keeping my head down. MegaMillions is a whole lot more interesting (and just as morally troubling) as the shitshow down whose barrel we are presently staring.]]>
Before Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital bought the rambling SCM factory in Marion, Ind., it was running three shifts a day, making hanging file folders and other office supplies. But on July 5, 1994, everything changed.The new owner, American Pad & Paper, owned in turn by Bain Capital, told all 258 union workers they were fired, in a cost-cutting move. Security guards hustled them out of the building. They would be able to reapply for their jobs, at lesser wages and benefits, but not all would be rehired.
Surely that's not the first Bain Capital horror story you've heard of, but this is a nice piece. It's balanced, too, as it tries to answer the question of whether Romney's claim that Bain Capital created thousands of jobs is valid, and whether the flip side of that claim, that Bain Capital destroyed thousands of jobs, is valid as well. (And answers are never easy.)
But what I would like to see, and I'm not holding my breath, is for a reporter to ask Romney, or at least the Romney campaign: "In the creation of those hundred thousand jobs, how many factories did Bain Capital close to avoid dealing with unions? For each success story like Staples, how many companies were pumped full of debt, sold for parts and then left by the side of the road?"
It's a valid question, to the extent that Romney decides to highlight that portion of his resume as a qualification to hold the Oval Office. And unless they're sitting for "60 Minutes" or something, opportunities to ask those kind of questions just don't arise.
(And the same goes for the president as well. It would be great if someone could ask him why he's a socialist, or why he wants to bring to country to its knees, or... Well, I'm sure there's some equivalent issue out there that could benefit from an actual interview. Probably.)]]>
An increased appetite for such trades had the approval of the upper echelons of the bank, including the chief executive, current and former employees said.
FOOLED YOU. It's from yesterday's NYT, concerning JP Morgan Chase and their free-wheeling ways.
Of course, just because the facts of this little trading event resemble the facts of the near-implosion of the economy four years ago signifies nothing, as it was not banks that caused the Great Recession but rather poor people, who did it purely out of spite.
In fact, is there some way that we can re-repeal the Glass-Steagall Act? Because if there is, we should do it, maybe twice. Anything to keep poor people from trashing the economy yet again.]]>
But by yesterday, when this bit ran on TPM, I'd lightened a bit:
Evangelicals and social conservatives are urging Republicans to make the fight against same-sex marriage an election-year priority and go after President Obama over his new-found support for the cause. So far, the GOP establishment is resisting.
Here's why I am less concerned about the prospects of November's elections. Yes, SSM is a wedge issue, and, yes, it's decidedly a wedge issue in certain swing states. But the social conservative wing of the GOP, the charismatic Christians and (to a large extent) the Tea Party, are not calculating in their positions. Opposition to SSM is, for them, either Scriptural (allegedly) or dogmatic or just plain icky, and therefore they have Right on their side, and given this opportunity they feel that this opposition should be the centerpiece of the campaign. Because, you see, since they are Right, everyone will agree with them.
Basically, they are not cynical at all, and in that void of cynicism, they're not so good at planning things like election campaigns. This is why this wing was so adroitly manipulated in order to elect George W. Bush twice. I'm also pretty secure in my convictions, but I know for a fact that my convictions are not universally shared. Fact of life.
So yeah, if the social conservatives feel strongly that SSM is should be the centerpiece of the campaign, then I find that strangely comforting.
Now this does not affect the simmering resentment of those that think that the president took too long to come to this conclusion. I'd say nothing can be done for that except suggesting that looking forward is more useful than looking back.]]>
So we finally know the truth about Wall Street, a truth most Wall Street observers have known all along:Wall Street can't be trusted to manage—or even correctly assess—its own risks.
This is in part because, time and again, Wall Street has demonstrated that it doesn't even KNOW what risks it is taking.
In short, Wall Street bankers are just a bunch of kids playing with dynamite.
This is in relation to the news from late last week that JP Morgan Chase disclosed a two billion dollar loss in trades, originating in a portfolio intended as a hedge against losses in other divisions of the financial behemoth. Isn't it ironic? And it's just the sort of event that the Volcker Act (or at least some of the provisions that were lobbied out of it) were intended to prevent with regulatory oversight. Of which regulations Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, has been the most visible and beloved opponent.
It's easy for me, know-nothing loudmouth with fundamental problems with the way capitalism is currently prosecuted, to agitate for financial oversight. It's not so easy for Blodget, whose complaints are not so systemic, and whose faith in the free market is unshaken.
So it's only fair to call him out, approvingly. (And his argument is convincing and laid out at length, you'll see if you click through, which I'm sure he hopes you will.)]]>
But fortunately one of the wife things was going on a date to see "The Avengers" (or is it "Marvel's The Avengers"?), so I shouldn't be complaining about that. And one of the project thingies was yesterday's Colleen O'Donnell Memorial Golf Tournament, which exists to raise money to fund brain cancer research in the memory of my sister-in-law, and while I didn't actually play golf, the time I could've spent working in the club house I spent sipping Miller Lite and catching up with family and friends. So I can't really complain about that.
See, now you know so much about me that we're actually friends, right? Gonna go call my mom now. You go call yours.]]>
The ultimate task for the people is to remain vigilant and aware ~ that the government, their government is out of control, and this moment, this opportunity, must not be forsaken, must not escape us, for we shall not have any coarse but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November ~ This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years underneath this political socialist ideologue.
I know what you're thinking: "Aren't they threatening to feed the tree of liberty with the blood of the whomever like all the time?" Yes, of course they are. It makes them feel important.
No, I'm sharing this not out of outrage or pique or anything like that, but mostly to make fun of the author, Ponch K. McPhee who is actually the editor of the newsletter, for using some of the most spritely em-dashes I've ever seen in the "coarse" of writing his little screed. But let's do keep the government's hands off his grammar, shall we?]]>
We live in a representational democracy. Basically, that means we ("we" the citizenry) get to influence our government without having direct control, because we are not voting on each individual act of government, but rather on the slate of people, professionals we hope, that will be going to town hall or the state house or the Beltway, etc. So in a general sense, we do NOT control our own fates. We choose the captain(s) that sail the ship, and we get the chance to replace them if we are displeased.
Now there is the device of the referendum, where an specific issue is put before the voters, issues like, "Should women vote?" or, "Should slavery be legal?" (not really, little joke there), and then it gets decided, up or down. This is indeed direct democracy, though in practice, it's really just an end-run around the government. If the people want something bad enough (and can get a couple millionaires behind them) that may be politically untenable, then to the ballot it goes.
So these referendums, or ballot initiatives, pretty much suck, in the same way that the Citizens United decision sucks, as it presents an opportunity for special interests to attain policy goals (masked as the "Will of the People") without having to bother with the whole legislative process.
Further, these referendums sometimes are concerning language in the different state constitutions — amendments, insertions, deletions, etc. Now whether you agree with me about the fecklessness of the referendum process or, hopefully you will agree that voters are not qualified to speak to the construction of language to be added to constitutions. I say this only as someone with long experience in the field of law. It's just a different language that's nothing like conversational English, plus also the language actually has effect in the real world.
So questions like, "Should marijuana be legal?" I get that, and it's a yes/no question. Go ahead. Ask the voters. But to ask them to be able to read proposed constitutional language and be sage enough to speak to its merit, ignoring the intention for one second? It's a ridiculous idea.
(Coincidentally, did you know that, aside from my home state, North Carolina has produced more people that I've ended up calling friend than any other state? I guess maybe the argument is that maybe they shouldn't have left.)]]>
When I asked The Awl’s publisher John Shankman about that over email he said their strategy starts with finding good writers with vision and passion, then finding the right outlet for them. “Wirecutter is a very specific vision that Brian Lam has. Approve This Message is a tool that’s fun and useful and appropriate for who and what The Awl is and our readers are,” he said. “With that said, though, design and how to architecture our information better is something we’re considering a lot.”
I guess it's no secret that not only am I an Awl contributor, I'm also (and was from the get go) a huge fan, and that bit there goes a long way in explaining why.
And I think that ATM is a solid concept too. Rage-y sarcasm over politics on the Internet has now been around long enough to be called venerable, and having it condensed into a bare headline will certainly wash the DailyKos right out of your mouth.]]>
Because, you see, the Troika (the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank) believe strongly in austerity, as does Germany, the largest economy in the EU. They come from a Chicago School of Economics background, subscribing to the notion that the state must be cut back in favor of the free markets — elimination of unions, job protections, price protections, privatization of state industries, eschewing of business regulations, that sort of thing. (Or, "Paul Ryan Budget," between you and me.) These sorts of things are awesome for private enterprise (ever wonder why the GOP wants to kill the Post Office? Because there is a GOP contributor somewhere that would very much like to make a buck off that business and its already-captive market), it tends to be pretty shitty for the rank and file. Eliminate job and price protections and jobs are supposed to get better paid and prices do down? Erm, no.
So the poor and the middle class are getting hosed at the insistence of the banker class, and now everyone is shocked that they pretty much rose up as one to deinstall austerity regimes. This may come as a shock to Americans, but sometimes voters actually vote in their own self-interest. The Troika overplayed its hand, and totally forgot that there is a political aspect to this economic goalpost-moving.
(Though interesting to think: a century ago, European nation-states blew off steam by invading each other — now they do so buy shorting each other's sovereign debt.)
But yeah, the thing I'm looking forward to is to see how the Troika, and Friedmanites in general, react to this. Because their asses just got handed to them; this economic blackmail doesn't work so well without a junta to back it up, if you know what I mean.]]>
If you lean in one direction politically, you've got a bunch of guys who've been held extra-legally, tortured for half a decade and dragged out for a show trial with the outcome predetermined. So yeah, I'm not so shocked that they're not tearfully begging for the mercy of the court.
And if you go for less complex, more American! narratives, then the freedom-hating butchers will do nothing to kill as many people at all times always (as long as the targets love freedom, or are standing next to those who do). In which case: yeah they're trying to disrupt the trial, they've the bad guys.
Not so surprised at the clumsiness of the media on this; more like I'm mildly disappointed at the faux quelle horreur!. This is not the first AQ trial, and won't be the last.]]>
Which is like duh, and if you want to take this little exercise in the less-than-serious way that it's intended, then the answer to that What If? question is that I'd find a way to make more money, like get a second job or something. Which of course translates into raising taxes on the federal government-side, which is of course not the desired effect of the Heritage Foundation.
But to take it actually seriously: comparing a family to the federal government is like comparing an apple to a Ford Escort. For one, as a family, we get our revenue from third parties. For the government, a bunch of that revenue (not all, of course) comes from what would be called family members — citizens, corporations, etc. So the more accurate way to posit this is, "If all of your family's revenue came from levies on your family members and then also you were spending more than these levies brought in then why are you even still reading this asinine piece of logic?"
And of course there are also the vast differences between the purposes of families vs. the purpose of governments, which differences are just blithely skipped right over by the Heritage Foundation because everything they do is in the service of some Rand-ian Eat The Poor dogma that they try to mask with little juvenile false equivalencies like that.
Which is why I'm happy to welcome the Heritage Foundation to Tunblr, where they can try to compete in an actual marketplace of ideas and not a crony DC power breakfast.]]>
And here of course are all the things that I wanted to fit in but at eleventy million words already opted not to:
First, the point must be made that the superhero genre of comic books now has not always been the dominant paradigm. Throughout the Golden Age, and especially right at the end there before Fred Wertham killed the business, there was a vast array of genres: cartoony stuff for kids, war stories, crime stories, even romance comics. It was a lot like what Japan and France turned into, with comics being more a medium than a paradigm of people who fight crime and wear their underwear on the outside. Even in the Silver/Modern Age, the publishers of the Richie Rich titles, and the Archie comics, were moving units. It seemed unfair to exclude them, but then again you have a hard time finding these titles at certain comic stores (as that is not the audience they are marketing to).
Also, we went round and round a bit over whether comics, the industry, is in jeopardy, because that seems to be a conclusion that could be extrapolated. The short answer is no, the industry is fine — it's transmogrifying, from a publisher to the manager of certain intellectual property. And keep in mind that the ancillary use of comics characters (the movies, the TV shows) is by no means a novel thing. Superman was turned into a radio serial not two years after his debut, and Batman was turned into a movie serial a year after that. I guess the question is whether the actual comic book, the thing that you hold in your hand, will die off. If you ask me, probably not (though the major publishers would LOVE to see that happen, because of expense and hassle of physical printing and distribution), but it will probably become more and more expensive, an artifact that only the serious (and old) collector will part money for.
It that it? It's never it. But hey thanks!]]>
I mean, just who does he think he is, rapelling out of a helicopter into Abbottabad in full Navy SEAL uniform and actually spiking an actual football with the words MISSION ACCOMPLISHED painted on it? It was a tad unsightly.
(Is it just me, or are most of these manufactured controversies most easier answered with a fuck you?) ]]>
This is not entirely surprising. Nearly 80 years later, it’s hard to know if the New Deal did much to end the Great Depression.
And from this morning:
So far, though, the 2012 presidential campaign is fitting into none of these categories. It’s being organized according to a different metaphor. This year, both organizations seem to visualize the campaign as a boxing match or a gang fight. Whichever side can hit the other side harder will somehow get awarded the champion’s belt.
How a man that thinks the relationship between the New Deal and the Great Depression is a head-scratcher, that there has never been a negative presidential election in modern history, is not only widely thought of as sage and reasonable but also paid actual money to write is so far beyond me that it's in another time zone.
This is not, "Oho sir, I disagree with you on the merits of your argument!" (which I prefer, believe it or not), but rather, "You, sir, are a dumb-ass, an embarrassment to your family and your name."]]>