Titivil

« May 27, 2012 - June 2, 2012 | Main | June 10, 2012 - June 16, 2012 »

June 8, 2012

i been syndicated

This is an interesting feeling.  A couple of days ago the latest for The Awl dropped, a little thing about martinis, which I assumed you are all already experts in, so I wasn't exactly rushing over here to give the heads-up.  But now, as of today, not only is it up at The Awl, it's also "syndicated" (as it were) on Business Insider's The Life page.

BI is the concern of that Henry Blodget guy I go on about sometimes, and it is somewhat notorious as an "aggregator," or a site that prints most of a story from someone else's site, usually with a shrill, overstated headline.  Also favored are slideshows and editorial art of pretty ladies (less clothes the better).  For example, the lead story right now on The Life is a lavishly illustrated FAQ from a Russian mail-order bride website.

But it's not like BI swiped the martini story or anything; actually, BI and The Awl have some sort of content sharing agreement, so this is all above board.

The hilarious thing, however, is that I'm now technically a "BI Contributor," which is totally fine by me, but for the fact that, since I don't have an official-lookin' author photo, they ganked the photo I use as my Twitter avatar, which is me in a watch-cap, glaring.  Not exactly lifestyle-reporting material.  So, haha, I guess.

Lesson learned: probably should get an author photo.  Which I'll do once I figure out how I'm supposed to look in an author photo.

Posted by mrbrent at 10:25 AM

i been syndicated

This is an interesting feeling.  A couple of days ago the latest for The Awl dropped, a little thing about martinis, which I assumed you are all already experts in, so I wasn't exactly rushing over here to give the heads-up.  But now, as of today, not only is it up at The Awl, it's also "syndicated" (as it were) on Business Insider's The Life page.

BI is the concern of that Henry Blodget guy I go on about sometimes, and it is somewhat notorious as an "aggregator," or a site that prints most of a story from someone else's site, usually with a shrill, overstated headline.  Also favored are slideshows and editorial art of pretty ladies (less clothes the better).  For example, the lead story right now on The Life is a lavishly illustrated FAQ from a Russian mail-order bride website.

But it's not like BI swiped the martini story or anything; actually, BI and The Awl have some sort of content sharing agreement, so this is all above board.

The hilarious thing, however, is that I'm now technically a "BI Contributor," which is totally fine by me, but for the fact that, since I don't have an official-lookin' author photo, they ganked the photo I use as my Twitter avatar, which is me in a watch-cap, glaring.  Not exactly lifestyle-reporting material.  So, haha, I guess.

Lesson learned: probably should get an author photo.  Which I'll do once I figure out how I'm supposed to look in an author photo.

Posted by mrbrent at 10:25 AM

June 7, 2012

henry blodget on un-american

Again I'm agreeing with Henry Blodget.  Hrm.

He's got a post up with bunch of charts up demonstrating a bunch of things we already know — employment statistics, corporate earnings, income/wealth disparity, etc.  All great for settling arguments.

But he does lead in with a stem-winder of an intro, in which he is not coy about his opinions:

The problem in a nutshell is this:

In the never-ending tug-of-war between "labor" and "capital," there has rarely—if ever—been a time when "capital" was so clearly winning.

And that's not just unfair.

It's un-American.

This all circles back to labor unions, in uncomfortable ways, because that's a fight we're clearly not winning.  But yeah, if you wanna get all Marxist, the conflict between labor and capital is as conflict-y as it's been since the Jazz Age, and it's a conflict that you're participating whether you want to or not, because you're American (well, if you're American).

I will say, since saying nice things about people is so hard, that Mr. Blodget must be paying himself by the paragraph.

Posted by mrbrent at 4:04 PM

unions

OK let's talk about unions then.  The yawning tragedy of the Wisconsin recall is the confirmation of the "narrative" of labor unions as corrupt and profligate organizations, unfair and un-American.

Actually, forget Wisconsin for a second, and look at the news of the cities of San Diego and San Jose, who voted via referendum to slash public union pensions.  The Right would have you believe this to be "public pension reform," and totally fair because they're better pensions than other people get, and is paid for by public money.  I of course totally disagree, as those pensions are the product of enforceable agreements, and therefore, in the spirit of the "right to contract" (which you'll here a lot about the weaker unions become), as inviolable as the "retainment bonuses" paid to financial services execs of firms that failed.

But the popularity of the "public pension reform" movement is undeniable — I hear it from friends, I hear it from family.  Regardless, it’s bottom-feeding class envy: why should people be doing marginally better than I am? People like the Koch brothers have collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars to reinforce this let’s-you-and-him-fight narrative over the past thirty years, and it is a disappointment that it is so easily fallen for.

This is why we all need to bone up on unions, their history, their utility and the need for them.  Start with this, a brief primer by Hamilton Nolan, "Why We Need Unions":

Our government, in its present form, is controlled by moneyed interests, because we've set up a system in which political power can more or less be directly purchased. In such a system, no reasonable person can expect the the government to use its powers of regulation to serve the interests of workers—and when we say "workers," it is useful to think of your mother, or your brother, or your grandmother, paying for her medication by greeting customers at Wal-Mart. If the workers cannot turn to the government to protect them from the unrestrained predations of corporate capitalism, then the workers must find a way to protect themselves. Unless they plan to plunder the stores where they work for guns and start the revolution, then their best tool is a union. A strong union of workers, standing together, is in a position to bargain with a company, because a company needs employees in order to make money. Employees, alone, are in no position to bargain with a company, because employees need to eat.

In short, unions are the only way that workers can protect themselves, because not only will no one else protect them, also they cannot protect themselves all alone.  Right?

Also, keep an eye on the op-ed columns of Joe Nocera, who was recently seconded to the Op-Ed page of the NYT.  He's about the loudest voice out there, with the biggest megaphone, when it comes to highlighting labor issues.

Take for example his most recent column, "Turning Our Backs On Unions":

The result is that today unions represent 12 percent of the work force. “Draw one line on a graph charting the decline in union membership, then superimpose a second line charting the decline in middle-class income share,” writes [Timothy] Noah [in his book The Great Divergence, “and you will find that the two lines are nearly identical.” Richard Freeman, a Harvard economist, has estimated that the decline of unions explains about 20 percent of the income gap.

Eat this stuff up, write about it, yak about it at your convenience; the only way to combat the Bad Union narrative is with a better narrative.

Posted by mrbrent at 9:44 AM

June 6, 2012

morning after

This may be overly spiteful, but it's worth Scott Walker winning the Wisconsin recall if the GOP will now consider Scott Walker a "rising national star."  He's just not a charismatic guy, and this is for a party that had brief flirtations with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich in recent months.  I hate to objectify someone for their looks, but there is more than a little Ned Beatty in the visage of Scott Walker (specifically, Ned Beatty as "Otis" in "Superman").  It's just not a face that speaks of leadership, you know what I mean?  A little bit smug, a little bit dopey.

I mean, really?  At least Paul Ryan has people duped that he's smart or something.  Scott Walker is notorious for one thing and one thing only: busting unions.

But maybe that's a legitimate appeal for certain types?  Like, "That guy busted up that union good, he should totally run for Senate!"

I'm gonna give myself a couple more hours to start making sense.

Posted by mrbrent at 10:08 AM

June 5, 2012

david brooks playing tonsil hockey with scott walker

I was all fixing to yammer on and on about the Wisconsin recall, maybe even point your attention to this super-useful graphic detailing the independent spending discrepancy (on top of the nearly $30 million Gov. Scott Walker raised due to a campaign law loophole), but I made the mistake of reading this morning's David Brooks, so instead I'm sharing this, what he wrote, with you:

Walker’s method was obnoxious, but if he is recalled that will send a broader message, with effects far beyond Wisconsin. It will be a signal that voters are, indeed, unwilling to tolerate tough decisions to reduce debt. In Washington and in state capitals, it will confirm the view that voters don’t really care about red ink. It will remove any hope this country might have of avoiding a fiscal catastrophe... A vote to keep Walker won’t be an antiunion vote. It will be a vote against any special interest that seeks to preserve exorbitant middle-class benefits at the expense of the public good.

David Brooks sometimes overreaches, and he has an inflated sense of the value of his own advice, and it's fun (though probably mean-spirited) to point these things out, tell a few jokes, etc.  But that passage up there?  That's the dumbest fucking thing I've read in a month of Tuesdays.

I don't expect David Brooks to agree with us on the fecklessness of Scott Walker, and how emasculating it must be for Scott Walker to be such an obvious sock puppet for the Koch Brothers.  But to paint this recall as a referendum on fiscal responsibility is an obvious blithe fabrication from a writer clearly nervous that his moral high ground is neither moral nor high.

I mean, come on.  There's gotta be some level to which David Brooks stoops that would alarm (or at least puzzle?) his editors.

Posted by mrbrent at 9:48 AM

June 4, 2012

recall scott walker

You know what's starting to hack me off?  The pessimism surrounding the Wisconsin recall, that's what's starting to hack me off.

Obligatory recap: Gov. Scott Walker, Republican, was swept into the State House of Wisconsin in the last mid-term elections, leaving him with majorities in both houses of the state congress, whereupon he, at the behest of the Koch Brothers and the like-minded, set about to take a sledgehammer to the state, culminating in the very unpopular yanking of the collective bargaining rights of most of the public service unions.  So unpopular, in fact, that it lead to a recall election of Gov. Walker, taking place tomorrow.

Over which there is now only pessimism.  A good example is this, The Atlantic's Molly Ball wondering, "Why are Democrats losing the Wisconsin recall?"

The gelling conventional wisdom that Walker is set to triumph was bolstered by a Marquette Law School poll released Wednesday afternoon that showed Walker ahead by 7 percentage points. The independent poll, conducted May 23-26, put Walker at 52 percent of the vote to Barrett's 45 percent, outside the 4.1-point margin of error. And you couldn't really argue that the poll was slanted toward the GOP: It also showed President Obama leading Mitt Romney, 51 percent to 43 percent.

Polls: meow meow meow.

And frequently in these pieces you will find the argument that this recall election is some sort of bellwether for the presidential election.  Because Wisconsin is a swing state, etc. etc.  Sorry, if you are a political writer in June before a presidential election, pretty much every damn thing is a bellwether for the election, much in the same way that if you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It's an election, and a close enough one that we don't know how it will turn out.  If the odious Walker loses, then hooray, let's have a party with soda pop and cake!  And if he loses, then way woo/unsmiley-face, but there will be another election some other time.

For me, the most significant aspect of the recall is the amount of money being spent, and the disparity thereof.  Tom Barrett, the challenger?  He's spending $3 million.  And Walker is spending $21 million.  Now ask yourself if Citizens United is a gamechanger or not.

Posted by mrbrent at 10:29 AM