NYCweboy

Could You Cry, A Little, For Me?

In the midst of an overwhelming week, I found myself embroiled in not one, but two long discussions with my good friend Redstar - one which you can witness in the comment thread to the previous post, the other a long discussion via e-mail about our differing approaches to politics and debate.

It's all been great food for thought, especially at a moment when I find myself, well, not blogging with the regularity I once did (oh dear... irregularity). And it got me thinking about the interaction of emotion and reason when discussing politics.

Writing is my passion, and it was flattering, really, to have Red suggest in our e-mails that I write, passionately, about politics. That's not how I see it. If anything, I see myself as ultimately very dispassionate about politics; because I think as a society we tend to be moved, less rationally, by prevailing emotions, rather than by careful, reasoned judgment. But rational judgment is why I'm a liberal, after all: I do, sincerely, believe that if one looks at the problems we have and what it would take to solve them... then the liberal solutions are really the best ones.

He's Your Guy, When Stocks Are High

For more than a week, I've been sitting on this post, hoping, in vain, that someone would provide the insights into the "bank rescue" plans of the Obama Administration. After stalling a day - ostensibly to "settle the stimulus bill" - Tim Geithner offered an explanation of his "plan" that left more questions than answers, and caused the latest wave of downward movement in the stock markets (where, I'd point out, people continue to suggest "we've found the bottom" shortly before another cataclysmic drop... does anyone understand that there's a pattern here?). Geithner's proposal, it seems clear, will not be enough... and that should not reassure anyone putting their faith in Obama's "foreclosure proposal" that arrives later this week - which so far appaears to be a $50 billion promise to rewrite some bad loans... and won't nearly address the problems at that size.

As our conversations - about the stimulus plan, the banking crisis, and our economy more generally - get more heated and less productive (I can't decide whether the conversation out of my Saturday post leaves me thrilled or terrified at the passions its provoked), I think reality is setting in, finally. And the reality is worse than many people want to face, and as bad as I've been suspecting all along.

Red asked over at her new place, a few weeks back, if we could finally have a serious conversation about nationalizing banks. The answer, I think, was pretty clear and has gotten clearer: no, we can't. Aside from the fact that - as I have to patiently explain to my Mom, too - we are not Sweden (it's the herring, I think, that's a deal breaker, not the social policies), we can't nationalize the banks because we lack the structure and the vision to make it so... and also because, that's not exactly our problem, just now.

Should we nationalize? I'd say no, still; not because it might not stave off some painful realities... but because I'm not sure we don't deserve pain. All the flailing around of the past few months - culminating in the horrendous stimulus bill and what I'd guess is our last attempt to "save" the banks - has been attempting to deny the obvious... and I'm inclined, out of it to finally say "let it come."

Cabinet Dropout... Go Back To High School

Your story's sad to tell
A Senate Ne'er do well
Most mixed up northeast GOP in the herd
Your future's in arrears now
two years on your career now
Can't even stick to Commerce on your word

Cabinet Dropout...
Takin' Obama For A Ride
Cabinet Dropout
Beggin' For Work's No Sign of Pride
If you don't like compromises, then don't get in the pool
stop chasing needless jobs... and go back to high school.

Okay, before we drift entirely away on parody... I have no idea what just happened with Judd Gregg. While comservatives are trying to hail this as a sudden burst of principles (on the part of Gregg, who's really shown no particular loyalty to conservatism, never mind the GOP), That hardly seems like the full story here. Nor do I buy a lot of the notions that Gregg had such deep seated objections to, say, the stimulus, that he couldn't swallow his concerns and work at Commerce.

I do buy a little more that the Devil was in the details, and that possibly Gregg, or other forces in the GOP, realized that he would get little or no benefit from running the Commerce Department if he couldn't control the Census. Gregg's been a weird, outspoken critic of the Census, and blocked its funding in the past - truly odd because the Census needs money more than almost any other agency. It's nowhere near fully prepared for 2010, and the past two years - when Congress and President Bush didn't pass full budgets but only Continuing Resilutions - where money for the Census was frozen year to year, neglect the fact that the Census is a sliding increase in budgetary needs, leading up to an enormous expenditure in 2010, when they do the Country's ten-year full enumeration.

Though conservatives would like to salvage this as a victory for good sense... and lots of people, on both sides, would love to hail this as the death of "bipartisanship," the current least favorite word of choice, I  think this will go down as one man's sad folly. Mostly, I think Gregg looked at leaving the Senate in 2010 with little to show for his time there, and thought a Cabinet position would be a nice last placeholder on the resume. Just what gave Gregg cold feet, I think we'll never know... but I'd guess it was omse combination of cold feet and pressure from other Republicans... which is a telling sign of Republican disarray.

If there's a problem for the Obama team, I think it's that the fiasco of filling Commerce is indicative of the growing clarity of the difference between the Administration's strengths and weaknesses. The stimulus bill, despite griping all around, really does show that Obama can get what he wants, and at least bend the process to his will, if not make the processof government something that makes us warm and proud day to day. But what this Administration already seems hung up on is clear statements of policy goals: so far the list for Commerce Secretary has been a wealthy heiress and high profile donor, a Hispanic competitor in need of a political payoff... and a Republican of dubious principles. Never mind the obvious scraping... what in the hell ties these selections together as an approach to running the business and trade relations of the government?

Up to now, I've been working on the assumption that while we don't know Obama's guiding political philosophy, he does; I'll admit I was naive not to realize that perhaps we didn't see a guiding philosophy... because there isn't one. And so, we have an enormous messy brand of "stimulus" where everything gets a little something but nothing gets enough emphasis... and we get a banking plan of stunning vagueness to be followed by a much-hoped-for foreclosure solution that, too, is likely to disappoint... and still, no idea of where the President draws a line, or takes a stand.  It's easy to make fun of Judd Gregg; it's less funny to consider that, outside of solving a complicated political puzzle by turning Gregg's seat over to a Democrat, there seems to have been no particular reason to appoint Judd Gregg over anyone else. You're the One That I Want? Not Really. Turn in your keys and phone... and go back to high school.

 

Standing Athwart The Film Projector, Crying “Stop!”

Is there a "conservative" movie?

National Review this week insists there is - 25 in fact, not counting the 25 more they relegate to a sad box afterward - and raises the question I so often have with these exercises: can we really classify films in terms of doctrine?

The whole idea matters to criticism, I think, because there is the constant temptation to review a film's politics, or other esoteric thematic concerns, rather than simply evaluate how a film tells a story. And as a critic, I hate to be locked into a narrow frame - my approach to film encompasses a lot of ideas I've encountered over the years: feminism, liberalism, socialism, social justice... and yes, even conservatism. But ultimately, I think, the question I bring to each film is more basic: does it work at its primary goal - to entertain an audience? Because a film that fails as a film, I think, can't be an effective vehicle for any thematic or political message.

Whereas, I think, a film that succeeds as a film often transcends its more didactic politics. Take, for instance, the top "conservative film" on the NR list: The Lives Of Others, a recent winner of the Oscar for Best Foreign Film. It's true that you can see in that film a clear indictment of the repressive politics of East Germany just prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall... but to narrow the film's thematic message to just the politics misses the compelling human drama unfolding around it. The complexities of the relationships between a playwright, his actress girlfriend, the Stasi official obsessed with her, and the low level functionary sent to spy on them, reveals layers of complexity in human interaction. Is all of that "conservative"? I'd argue no... but really, it's the argument that's beside the point; The Lives of Others is such a transcendent piece of filmmaking, I think it defies easy categorization, and demands wide viewing.

Friday Evening (Faux) Flowerlude

 

jinb

Learning To Fail

I'm sorry for the relative silence - I've been balancing a lot of work/life needs, and struggling with what to write... as well as when to write it.

Now that the stimulus bill is pretty much a done deal, I think it bears repeating: I think we got a bad bill. The question, which many people seem to be pursuing just now, of whether what we ultimately got was worse than what we started out with still seems to miss the point - what we started with was bad. Where we wound up... was pretty much in the same place.

That said, if you had to pick the perfectly wrong ways to "fix" the spending side of the stimulus, striking funding for school construction seems pretty much perfectly mistaken. It's one of the few genuinely stimulative measures, and the payoffs of better classrooms and newer schools would help drive improvements in educating students, something that's seen as a real way to grow our way past this crisis.

Still, the bill is bad because it so large, so messy, so kitchen sink. I still maintain that the blame for that rests with Nancy Pelosi and the House leadership, who seemed to have no ability to measure different proposals and their general stimulative value. Handing Republicans - and more to the point, movement conservatives - so many examples of bloated spending plans was, I think, just the organizing principle they needed in the aftermath of the election.

And the saddest thing is that a bill that is largely intact, and essentially what it set out to be - a combination of spending and tax cuts - is viewed as a failure for all concerned. Liberals are appalled at spending cuts to worthwhile projects (when really, the whole notion of the spending is enormous, even now), conservatives call the whole thing "porkulus," Democrats blame Obama for foolishly chasing "bipartisanship", while Republicans make hay claiming to be left out almost entirely. None of that is entirely true, and certainly not thw whole story... but they touch on truths, and as the storyline of this bill, they will stick.

The problem, ultimately, is we have no idea if any of this will work. Part of the hangover of regret, I think, is a buyer's remorse at falling for the idea that we had to race, with few questions and not enough dicsussion, to put massive spending and debatable tax cuts in place with few guarantees of success. It is very likely that job losses in private industry will swamp the mild gains from givernment projects. There's no real way to know that thsi spending can be accomplished ina short enough time frame. And we've layered on $1.4 trillion of new government debt, including the stimulus and TARP, with no real discussion of how we plan to pay for it.

Over the course of the long discussion that Red references in her post, I did come to realizing something in myself, a sense of acceptance that makes living with the result possible. I can't get angry and exercised like I did as a youth about all the injustice in the world, and about how disastrous this bill was, never mind the brken process that spawned it. We have made our choice, and we will have to live with the consequences. All we can do is try to figure out what now, and what not to do next time. The thing is, I'm not sure we even learned that, just yet.

Enjoy The Silence

As I dilly-dally bit in getting things done, I tripped over live coverage from the Bank Hearing in Washington in the House today, via the New York Times.  It's been kind of interesting to watch and they're about to resume (as I write this at 10 after 1), so you may want to tune in. Or not.

The most interesting thing is not the hectoring lectures from House members (which in the new bipartisan style, come from right and left), but the stony silences of the bankers - asked to anwer, or make even the mildest defense of their practices, almost no one volunteers, and many only gudgingly answer even when asked a direct question. Suggestion for next time: bring them in one at a time, and make them squirm individually.  Or, as an alternative, just schedule some Kabuki Theater. At least it would have have better makeup, but be just as pointless.

Doobie Doobie Do... Er, Don't

Since I gave into discussing the Phelps story, I suppose its worth mentioning two recent developments.

First, angry potheads have launched a boycott of Kellogg's, for dropping Phelps, the only company to do so. That seems fair, after all, since Kellogg's is calling pot smoking incompatible with representing wholesome cereals (part of a complete breakfast... if you eat a lot of other actually nutritional stuff). Still, I'm not quite sure eliminating the munchie market for late night gobbling of Froot Loops or Apple Jacks constitutes an impactful boycott... and, well, have you ever seen potheads follow through on this sort of thing? Okay, have you ever seen potheads follow through on... hey, are those brownies? In fact, have you really seen a lot of angry potheads? ("You're bringing me down, man.") I'm trying to take it seriously, honest... but I can't stop giggling. Or maybe that's the weed.

Second, the South Carolina sheriff who threatened to prosecute Phelps has followed through, sort of; so far, there have been eight arrests, many for possession and one for intent to distribute, and the guy who was the owner of the bong had it confiscated and was arrested, even though wasn't at the party (but apparently tried to sell the thing on e-Bay). Many of the "live free or die" legalization folks hope this sideshow will underscore the needless prosecution of drug possession... I'm not so sure; though I think we waste a lot of time and money and resources chasing down drug offenses, I think the pro-legalization arguments are simply shot through with flaws that can't be surmounted (and pot legalization types struggle to separate their case from heroin and cocaine, which are much dicier arguments). Better, I think, if the Phelps sideshow can reinvigorate the larger discussion of drug use and abuse in America, and get us to focus more seriously on treatment rather than prosecution for people caught using. I'm not sure some college dude caught with pounds of pot is going to evoke a lot of sympathy for legalization. Unfortunately, I think a lot of partying college students also don't create the right frame for looking at people with drug problems who desperately need help, either.

In sum I think all we've got is an entertaining evening of bong hits, froot loops, and Court TV. And so it goes.

Keeping The Plates Spinning

I have to be honest - the next few weeks include an increase in working hours at the coffee place (which, despite what you may hear, is not on the verge of collapse), and I'm still trying to figure out how to be 100% when I'm there and still have the energy to write when I'm not there. I'm leaving for work as I type this, and I expect to be pretty tired when I get home, so I think I'll stay quiet until either late this evening or early tomorrow. So, while I'd love to post my thoughts on what I think the bank plan will look like when Geithner announces it - and why it'll be a bad plan - that will have to wait.

So, when you watch Geithner... just ask yourself "does it sound like he has any idea how to solve the mortgage and foreclosure mess?" My guess is, he won't, because he doesn't.

I Wuz Gonna Go To Work...

I wasn't going to say anything about the sideshow of Michael Phelps and the water pipe... but lucky for me George Vescey said what I wanted to say, anyway: that it's well past time for Phelps to get back to doing something, rather than wandering from party scene to party scene.

Since the pictures of Phelps doing a bong hit at a South Carolina college party surfaced, there's been the usual collection of reactions that we get when people toke - a weird combination of sensational moralizing and free spirited denial that marks our convoluted approach to drug policy in the US.

More than a few liberal bloggers - surely with some, er, awareness of the subject - have done the "what's the big deal" posts, the ones where pot is largely harmless, everyone lights up now and then, it's way less bad than, you know, alcohol or heroin... and on and on. While the uptight moralists respond with decrying Phelps as "an example to our children" and a sign of Our Nation's Moral Decay who should never be allowed to endorse anything - certainly not Wheaties - ever again.

And then there's William over at Shakesville who suggested, at length, that in terms of male athletes acting out in bad behavior, Phelps is way less of a deal than your average woman-abusing football star.

Who can argue with that?

Well, I can, and I tried... but got a little lost.