Sunday, September 12, 2010
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
What Do You Do When Profits Go Down?
If you're a socialist like Marx, you call it excess production capacity when profits decline. Power to the working class!
If you're a more traditional Keynesian, you say we have a problem with demand, nothing that a little stimulus won't cure.
If you're a libertarian like Friedman, you say get the hell out of the economy and let the business fail if it's producing things people don't want!
If you're a more traditional Keynesian, you say we have a problem with demand, nothing that a little stimulus won't cure.
If you're a libertarian like Friedman, you say get the hell out of the economy and let the business fail if it's producing things people don't want!
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Sarah Palin: American Law Should Be 'Based On The God Of The Bible And The Ten Commandments'
Hi Leslie and Rob,
Here’s support for your argument that Palin doesn’t know what she needs to know. In this instance, she doesn’t know enough about our constitutional roots:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/sarah-palin-american-law_n_569922.html
The founders differed a great deal among themselves, but they reached broad agreement about matters of church and state. First, discussing God in the public square was just fine. They invoked God and his blessings on the new nation all the time. Lincoln in the nineteenth century and Wilson in the twentieth were two presidents who extended this tradition.
Second, a government that favors a particular church, sect, tradition or faith was not fine. The inter-faith wars in Europe were a recent memory for the founders. They wanted no part of those conflicts in America. Thus the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution. I should know where that phrase appears, but I don’t remember.
So in this country we have two extremes. One group wants to exclude all discussion of God from public discourse, no matter where it comes from. Most recently we saw opposition to a national day of prayer. Another group – led by Palin – wants not only God, but a Christian God central to our public discourse. We had a vision from the founders of a civil society that welcomes publicly expressed religious beliefs, but doesn’t favor a particular church. Current arguments about God’s place in the public square no longer point toward that vision.
Love,
Steve
P. S. In the last campaign, reporters asked Obama why he didn’t wear a flag pin in his lapel. He started wearing one. What would happen if a candidate wore a cross or a star of David in the same location? How about a cross next to the flag? In a healthier political environment, a candidate could wear anything and no one would remark about it. At least, no one would say anything directly to the candidate about the symbol.
It’d be great if a candidate wore a different symbol every day! One problem: Muslims eschew symbols like that, so they’d be left out of the rotation. Plus a male candidate wouldn’t want to wear a head scarf.
/sfg
Here’s support for your argument that Palin doesn’t know what she needs to know. In this instance, she doesn’t know enough about our constitutional roots:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/sarah-palin-american-law_n_569922.html
The founders differed a great deal among themselves, but they reached broad agreement about matters of church and state. First, discussing God in the public square was just fine. They invoked God and his blessings on the new nation all the time. Lincoln in the nineteenth century and Wilson in the twentieth were two presidents who extended this tradition.
Second, a government that favors a particular church, sect, tradition or faith was not fine. The inter-faith wars in Europe were a recent memory for the founders. They wanted no part of those conflicts in America. Thus the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution. I should know where that phrase appears, but I don’t remember.
So in this country we have two extremes. One group wants to exclude all discussion of God from public discourse, no matter where it comes from. Most recently we saw opposition to a national day of prayer. Another group – led by Palin – wants not only God, but a Christian God central to our public discourse. We had a vision from the founders of a civil society that welcomes publicly expressed religious beliefs, but doesn’t favor a particular church. Current arguments about God’s place in the public square no longer point toward that vision.
Love,
Steve
P. S. In the last campaign, reporters asked Obama why he didn’t wear a flag pin in his lapel. He started wearing one. What would happen if a candidate wore a cross or a star of David in the same location? How about a cross next to the flag? In a healthier political environment, a candidate could wear anything and no one would remark about it. At least, no one would say anything directly to the candidate about the symbol.
It’d be great if a candidate wore a different symbol every day! One problem: Muslims eschew symbols like that, so they’d be left out of the rotation. Plus a male candidate wouldn’t want to wear a head scarf.
/sfg
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Political Leaders and Intelligence
Hi Leslie and Rob,
I just saw in Huffington Post that Bill Maher’s nickname for Sarah Palin is Mrs. Moron. That made me smile.
It’s a reminder though of something that Garry Wills wrote a long time ago. He observed that political leaders do much better when they are of middling intelligence – mediocre is the word he used. So why do we want our leaders to be so smart? We don’t want them to be too wealthy, too randy, too pushy, too fussy, or too anything, really. Why do we want them to be so brainy?
Anyway, no one would mistake Palin for a brainiac.
Love,
Steve
P. S. You could say that leaders with extra brains are better problem solvers, or that they’re more entertaining, or that we trust them more, but each one of those reasons sounds pretty doubtful to me.
Nixon was smart, but no one would call him entertaining or trustworthy.
Here’s an interesting case: Kennedy was blessed with high intelligence, and many voters loved him for his leadership qualities. But many individuals, including people in his government who were quite powerful, thought he was not a good leader. As with Julius Caesar, they did not trust him, and his extraordinary intelligence may have been a factor in that.
/S. G.
I just saw in Huffington Post that Bill Maher’s nickname for Sarah Palin is Mrs. Moron. That made me smile.
It’s a reminder though of something that Garry Wills wrote a long time ago. He observed that political leaders do much better when they are of middling intelligence – mediocre is the word he used. So why do we want our leaders to be so smart? We don’t want them to be too wealthy, too randy, too pushy, too fussy, or too anything, really. Why do we want them to be so brainy?
Anyway, no one would mistake Palin for a brainiac.
Love,
Steve
P. S. You could say that leaders with extra brains are better problem solvers, or that they’re more entertaining, or that we trust them more, but each one of those reasons sounds pretty doubtful to me.
Nixon was smart, but no one would call him entertaining or trustworthy.
Here’s an interesting case: Kennedy was blessed with high intelligence, and many voters loved him for his leadership qualities. But many individuals, including people in his government who were quite powerful, thought he was not a good leader. As with Julius Caesar, they did not trust him, and his extraordinary intelligence may have been a factor in that.
/S. G.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Opposition to value-added tax crosses the political spectrum
Opposition to value-added tax crosses the political spectrum
Can you believe what you're reading here?
Can you believe what you're reading here?
'I think we have to remember that low taxes or tax rates are not an end in themselves; they are the means to an end, which is higher growth and greater prosperity,' Bartlett wrote on the blog Capital Gains and Games. 'In this sense, I think right wingers pay far too much attention to the negative economic consequences of taxation while essentially ignoring the negative economic consequences of extremely large deficits.'
Friday, April 09, 2010
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Fein: Beck, Paul could be future for Republicans
Here’s a kernel for you: Time for a Divorce? This could be an interesting one to write!
Here’s something from the Daily Northwestern:
http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/fein-beck-paul-could-be-future-for-republicans-1.2166606
Here’s something from the Daily Northwestern:
http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/fein-beck-paul-could-be-future-for-republicans-1.2166606
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Shaw and Churchill
"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend... if you have one."
- George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill
"Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is one."
- Winston Churchill, in response.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Dancing in the Street - Scott Brown
Here’s an article from a British website:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6995921.ece
A quotation from the article:
Mr. Brown said voters were fed up. “The main thing they want is good government back and to be part of the process,” he said. “I think they sent a very, very powerful message that business as usual is not going to be the way we do it.”
We’ve all heard a lot of analysis, with much emphasis on left vs. right and Republican vs. Democrat. Scott has been out talking with people, and the message he brings back carries a lot of credibility. Obama promised no more business as usual, and the perception, despite all his initiatives, is that the way we do business didn’t change at all.
Obama can’t change things by himself, but he and the people around him have clearly underestimated the anger and anxiety voters feel.
What counts as good government?
· Honest
· Open
· Responsive to citizens’ needs
· Effective leadership
· Competent
One looks at the process of health care reform, and the government does not meet one of these standards. The same goes for financial reform and stewardship of the economy.
It started when the Democrats arrogantly told the Republicans in Congress last spring, “You don’t want to play ball with us? Good. Then fuck off.” Republicans bear some of the blame for that, but with a little more patience the Democrats could have found some Republican legislators who were willing to talk.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6995921.ece
A quotation from the article:
Mr. Brown said voters were fed up. “The main thing they want is good government back and to be part of the process,” he said. “I think they sent a very, very powerful message that business as usual is not going to be the way we do it.”
We’ve all heard a lot of analysis, with much emphasis on left vs. right and Republican vs. Democrat. Scott has been out talking with people, and the message he brings back carries a lot of credibility. Obama promised no more business as usual, and the perception, despite all his initiatives, is that the way we do business didn’t change at all.
Obama can’t change things by himself, but he and the people around him have clearly underestimated the anger and anxiety voters feel.
What counts as good government?
· Honest
· Open
· Responsive to citizens’ needs
· Effective leadership
· Competent
One looks at the process of health care reform, and the government does not meet one of these standards. The same goes for financial reform and stewardship of the economy.
It started when the Democrats arrogantly told the Republicans in Congress last spring, “You don’t want to play ball with us? Good. Then fuck off.” Republicans bear some of the blame for that, but with a little more patience the Democrats could have found some Republican legislators who were willing to talk.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Foxy | The New Republic
I wasn’t going to send this one, as I know the topic can be upsetting! Michelle Cottle addresses the burning question in our family: Is Sarah Palin as dumb as she sounds? I think Cottle’s on to something.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Friday, January 01, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
They were wrong about Medicare, too | Cynthia Tucker
They were wrong about Medicare, too | Cynthia Tucker: "They were wrong about Medicare, too
12:15 pm November 19, 2009, by ctucker
Nicholas Kristof has a great column today on the critics of health care reform and how their criticisms about the dire consequences — socialism! government takeover! — are wrong. How does he know? It’s all been said before. Read his column or just go straight to an audio tape of Ronald Reagan blasting the proposed Medicare plan in 1961.
Reagan was wrong, too.
If you don’t (oppose it), this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Medicare is now so popular that no politician dares talk about trying to change it. That included Reagan, who, when he ran for president, wanted voters to forget his earlier opposition to Medicare."
12:15 pm November 19, 2009, by ctucker
Nicholas Kristof has a great column today on the critics of health care reform and how their criticisms about the dire consequences — socialism! government takeover! — are wrong. How does he know? It’s all been said before. Read his column or just go straight to an audio tape of Ronald Reagan blasting the proposed Medicare plan in 1961.
Reagan was wrong, too.
If you don’t (oppose it), this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Medicare is now so popular that no politician dares talk about trying to change it. That included Reagan, who, when he ran for president, wanted voters to forget his earlier opposition to Medicare."
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Upcoming Senate Vote on Climate Change
Dear Senator Kerry,
I just read the article in today's Washington Post about the upcoming Senate vote on the climate change bill. Please, please, please vote no on this bill. Do not approve a cap and trade system. It is a bad idea, and bad for your constituents.
I admire the stand you took against the Vietnam war when it was not such a popular stand to take. I hope you'll show similar courage in the debate about the climate change bill.
Clean energy, such as wind power generated off the Cape, is a good idea. A cap and trade system is poor public policy from beginning to end. Please do whatever you can to prevent it.
Thank you,
Steven Greffenius
I just read the article in today's Washington Post about the upcoming Senate vote on the climate change bill. Please, please, please vote no on this bill. Do not approve a cap and trade system. It is a bad idea, and bad for your constituents.
I admire the stand you took against the Vietnam war when it was not such a popular stand to take. I hope you'll show similar courage in the debate about the climate change bill.
Clean energy, such as wind power generated off the Cape, is a good idea. A cap and trade system is poor public policy from beginning to end. Please do whatever you can to prevent it.
Thank you,
Steven Greffenius
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Some Thoughts on Your Next Book
The working title for your next essay is:
Why Global Warming is a Hoax
You want to do one book a year, so you have to work steadily!
John Rich Lyrics - Shuttin' Detroit Down
“I see all these big shots whining on my evening news,
About how they’re losing billions and it’s up to me and you
To come running to the rescue.”
Yes, but let’s not forget, the taxpayers offered big bailouts before any big shots requested them.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Limited Vision
That's enough for now, then,
Stop pushing your perennial pen.
Climb those blasted stairs, my friend,
Sleep’s the eternal cure for men.
Before you close your eyes for everlasting rest,
Ask your master for peace and freedom, lest
When he comes to take you home,
He finds you guilt-ridden, lying prone.
But what, I ask, what if I don’t finish
The work you want me to accomplish?
What’s the joy in that, to go up there
With so little to show, portfolio bare?
“Who are you to say, you haven’t done what I asked?
How can you know the full compass of your life’s meaning?
Do you insist that every accomplishment draw its own picture
In your mind? Do you discredit all the invisible deeds
That don’t feed your ego and lift your self-esteem?”
I won’t try to answer you, Mr. G.
Except to say that I agree.
Take me home, early or late.
By your grace, I’ll watch and wait.
Let me pray, though, one brief hope,
That you reveal, when you’re with me,
What my life meant, beyond its scope.
What did I accomplish, when I couldn’t see?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Why Rush is Wrong | David Frum
Why Rush is Wrong | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com:
"In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I've received a great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when Levin or Hannity or Hugh Hewitt or Limbaugh himself has had something especially disobliging to say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don't agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There's the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don't care how much the party has to shrink to do it. That's not the language of politics. It's the language of a cult."
"In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I've received a great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when Levin or Hannity or Hugh Hewitt or Limbaugh himself has had something especially disobliging to say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don't agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There's the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don't care how much the party has to shrink to do it. That's not the language of politics. It's the language of a cult."
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Treasury's Efforts to Deal with the Financial Crisis
Treasury Begins to Release Details of Loan Plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/business/economy/05loan.html
Note the second word of the headline, begins.
Here’s the difficulty. For months, Treasury has made plans secretly, without public debate. The reason: if we let details out in advance, it could roil the panicked markets even more than they already are. How do the markets, as they’re called, react? They say, we don’t trust what you’re doing back there, because you did it in secret. Moreover, we’re skeptical about supporting it, because we had no input.
If you don’t trust your would be rescuer, you’re not going to have much cooperation between the government and the banking system. What is the result? Treasury pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into the banking system to get loans flowing again, but the financial system remains shut down. Trust has disappeared, and Treasury is not setting a good example by making plans in secret. If the main problem in the financial system is lack of confidence or trust among its parts, you need an open rescue process to make it work again.
No one makes a loan without knowing the net worth of the borrower. Banks won’t lend each other money because they don’t know the value of each other’s assets. They do not trust that borrowers can pay back loans. That’s why the financial system shut down. Forcing banks to accept bailout money doesn’t solve the problem of valuing assets. Banks won’t loan money again until doubts about solvency are resolved. No one has yet figured out a way to value banks’ assets accurately, fairly, and in a way that won’t cause political trouble in the short term.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/business/economy/05loan.html
Note the second word of the headline, begins.
Here’s the difficulty. For months, Treasury has made plans secretly, without public debate. The reason: if we let details out in advance, it could roil the panicked markets even more than they already are. How do the markets, as they’re called, react? They say, we don’t trust what you’re doing back there, because you did it in secret. Moreover, we’re skeptical about supporting it, because we had no input.
If you don’t trust your would be rescuer, you’re not going to have much cooperation between the government and the banking system. What is the result? Treasury pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into the banking system to get loans flowing again, but the financial system remains shut down. Trust has disappeared, and Treasury is not setting a good example by making plans in secret. If the main problem in the financial system is lack of confidence or trust among its parts, you need an open rescue process to make it work again.
No one makes a loan without knowing the net worth of the borrower. Banks won’t lend each other money because they don’t know the value of each other’s assets. They do not trust that borrowers can pay back loans. That’s why the financial system shut down. Forcing banks to accept bailout money doesn’t solve the problem of valuing assets. Banks won’t loan money again until doubts about solvency are resolved. No one has yet figured out a way to value banks’ assets accurately, fairly, and in a way that won’t cause political trouble in the short term.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Monday, March 02, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Bumper Sticker on the New Administration
I'll keep my guns, freedom and money... You can keep the 'change.'
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Massachusetts Liberty - January 2009
Click Massachusetts Liberty to open the January issue of LPMA's January newsletter.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Post-Election Humor
We have to count our blessings...
One sunny day in February, 2009. an old man approached the White House from Across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer President, and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer President, and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine yet again, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably curious at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand just fine. I just love hearing it!"
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir."
One sunny day in February, 2009. an old man approached the White House from Across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer President, and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer President, and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine yet again, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably curious at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand just fine. I just love hearing it!"
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir."
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Obama's War - Fearing Another Quagmire in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
Obama's War - Fearing Another Quagmire in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com:
'...during her confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Afghanistan a “narco-state” with a government “plagued by limited capacity and widespread corruption.”'
Well we can't say that the IRS is skimming profits from drug smuggling, but the rest of Clinton's description sounds pretty accurate. The government in DC doesn't know what it's doing, and one reason it's so incompetent is that it's so corrupt. That was an accurate description until January 21, anyway. Let' hope and hope some more that corruption and incompetence ended that day.
'...during her confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Afghanistan a “narco-state” with a government “plagued by limited capacity and widespread corruption.”'
Well we can't say that the IRS is skimming profits from drug smuggling, but the rest of Clinton's description sounds pretty accurate. The government in DC doesn't know what it's doing, and one reason it's so incompetent is that it's so corrupt. That was an accurate description until January 21, anyway. Let' hope and hope some more that corruption and incompetence ended that day.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Reagan wouldn't recognize this GOP - Los Angeles Times
Reagan wouldn't recognize this GOP - Mickey Edwards - Los Angeles Times
"In the present crisis," referring specifically to the high taxes and high levels of federal spending that had marked the Carter administration, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." He then went on to say: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work." Government, he said, "must provide opportunity." He was not rejecting government, he was calling -- as Barack Obama did Tuesday -- for better management of government, for wiser decisions.
"In the present crisis," referring specifically to the high taxes and high levels of federal spending that had marked the Carter administration, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." He then went on to say: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work." Government, he said, "must provide opportunity." He was not rejecting government, he was calling -- as Barack Obama did Tuesday -- for better management of government, for wiser decisions.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Peggy Eaton
Peggy Eaton
The women who ostracized Margaret Eaton did not act out of mere snobbish rejection of a tavern-keeper's daughter; social mobility was not despised in the Jackson administration. The women saw themselves defending the interests and honor of the female half of humanity. They believed that no responsible woman should accord a man sexual favors without the assurance of support that went with marriage. A woman who broke ranks on this issue they considered a threat to all women. She encouraged men to make unwelcome advances. Therefore she must be condemned severely even if it meant applying a double standard of morality, stricter for women than for men. This conviction was widespread among women, not only in the middle class and regardless of political party. The women who had the courage to act upon it, standing up to Andrew Jackson and risking their husbands' careers, insisted that expedient politics must not control moral principle. They believed that women acting collectively could advance the moral state of society. Theirs was the attitude that justified women's role in contemporary moral reform causes like temperance and antislavery. And although most or all of them would have been shocked if it had been pointed out, theirs was the attitude that would lead in a few more years to an organized movement on behalf of women's rights. [Daniel Walker Howe, "What Hath God Wrought," 2007, p.338]
The women who ostracized Margaret Eaton did not act out of mere snobbish rejection of a tavern-keeper's daughter; social mobility was not despised in the Jackson administration. The women saw themselves defending the interests and honor of the female half of humanity. They believed that no responsible woman should accord a man sexual favors without the assurance of support that went with marriage. A woman who broke ranks on this issue they considered a threat to all women. She encouraged men to make unwelcome advances. Therefore she must be condemned severely even if it meant applying a double standard of morality, stricter for women than for men. This conviction was widespread among women, not only in the middle class and regardless of political party. The women who had the courage to act upon it, standing up to Andrew Jackson and risking their husbands' careers, insisted that expedient politics must not control moral principle. They believed that women acting collectively could advance the moral state of society. Theirs was the attitude that justified women's role in contemporary moral reform causes like temperance and antislavery. And although most or all of them would have been shocked if it had been pointed out, theirs was the attitude that would lead in a few more years to an organized movement on behalf of women's rights. [Daniel Walker Howe, "What Hath God Wrought," 2007, p.338]
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
NY Civil War Draft Riots
NY Civil War Draft Riots Were Racist Attacks on Black People « COMMUNISM NOW!:
Here is a piece of clear thinking from American Communists:
"We must never forget the severity of U.S. racism, both historically and today. It’s central to every aspect of U.S. capitalist history, and remains today the most significant tool that helps the capitalists stay in power."
Here is a piece of clear thinking from American Communists:
"We must never forget the severity of U.S. racism, both historically and today. It’s central to every aspect of U.S. capitalist history, and remains today the most significant tool that helps the capitalists stay in power."
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Congress Did the Right Thing Today
This was a big day for our country! When my wife told me the result
of the vote on the phone, I said, "There's hope for the republic
yet." The wise men in Washington thought they had it in the bag, and
democracy won for once. After eight years of watching democracy die,
we had a hopeful sign today.
One of the best parts of the whole scene was Nancy Pelosi's speech
just before the vote. For five days, leader after leader on the Hill,
on campaign, and at the White House said, "We have to set aside our
differences for the sake of the country. Let's put aside the partisan
acrimony of the last years and act in a bipartisan spirit to save the
economy." Then what did Pelosi do? She stuck it in the Republicans'
face just before the vote! She blamed the mess on them and made it
clear the Democrats would ride in to save the day. These are not the
words of someone who believes she might lose the big vote. Not long
after that speech, with the noes stacking up during the roll call,
she and her lieutenants are scurrying around with their cell phones
trying to secure enough votes to pass the bill. What leadership!
Ninety-five Democrats voted with the Republicans to defeat the
legislation. Pelosi didn't even know it ahead of time.
One could say a lot about the vote, the deteriorating economic
situation, and the efforts of government officials to address it.
I'll just comment briefly on a column Steve Pearlstein published in
the Washington Post. I've liked his analysis as we go through these
interesting times. When I saw the title of today's column, They Just
Don't Get It, I thought, "He can't be that condescending. That's not
like him!" Well, he wasn't condescending in tone, but the column did
indeed suggest that if people realized how serious things are, they
would not have told their representatives to vote against the so-
called bailout. Here is the message I wrote to Steve in response to
his article:
Your last sentence is the key to your whole article:
"But it is a measure of how little trust remains in both Washington
and Wall Street that voters are willing to risk a serious hit to
their wealth and income rather than follow their lead."Voters don't trust Washington and Wall Street because they aren't
worthy of trust. This economic crisis has been developing for a long
time, and we can wait a few more months until we have new leadership.
Never throw good money after bad. The current leadership proved
itself unworthy a long time ago. Voters were right to reject their
leadership now.
My representative, Democrat Stephen Lynch, voted with the opposition
on this one. He stood with only two other members from the
Massachusetts delegation. He may have voted with his seat in mind,
but in fact his seat is secure. His district is solidly Democratic.
He stood on principle, and they are the right principles. Hooray for
courageous congressmen! Through this whole terrible war in Iraq, they
have been spineless wonders. Now at last both Republicans and
Democrats had a chance to repudiate the White House as well as their
own leadership in Congress, and they did it. They picked the right
issue and they did the right thing.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Buy a Toyota
All right, I know I get impatient when hear these same old arguments,
and they just don't make any sense. I mean it, they don't make any
sense, and people keep repeating them as if they do.
and they just don't make any sense. I mean it, they don't make any
sense, and people keep repeating them as if they do.
Take this argument about the trade deficit. It is based on economic
nationalism, an incorrect conception of the nation. The nation is not
an integrated economic unit. The idea that the nation acts as an
economic unit is an incoherent concept. Yet we hear that we are a
debtor nation, and our indebtedness is tied to our so-called current
account, or balance of payments. And the balance of payments is tied
to the balance of trade.
Well let me tell you, these numbers and these concepts are
meaningless in our global economy. A government can be in debt. A
family can be in debt. A business can be in debt. A nation can't be
in debt. What is a nation, from an economic point of view? A nation
doesn't make purchasing decisions. Individuals, families, businesses,
and governments make purchasing decisions. Nations don't decide to
borrow money. Individuals, families, businesses, and governments do.
It makes no sense at all to track balances of payments or balances of
trade, unless you think the nation is an important economic unit. But
it's not. From a global perspective, it doesn't matter if I buy a
Toyota or a Ford. I just want a reliable, safe car - one that gives
me good value for the purchase price. I don't care whether a company
in Japan or a company in Detroit benefits from the purchase. Why
should anyone else care? The companies want to make money and the
purchasers want a good car. How is the nation a relevant actor in
this transaction? Why do we care at all whether the money I pay for
the car stays in the United States or not?
Here is a telling instance where we don't bother to track current
accounts. No one knows the balance of trade between Massachusetts and
North Dakota. No one cares. No one knows the balance of trade between
any two states. There's a good reason for that. The states aren't
economic units. They're taxation units and regulatory units, but
they're not economic units that make purchasing and borrowing
decisions. We don't bother to track their balance of payments,
because to track those numbers for units that don't make such
decisions is meaningless. We're only interested in those numbers for
units that have revenues, expenditures, and debts. Households,
businesses, and governments have revenues, expenditures, and debts.
States don't. Neither do nations.
In the latest economic crisis, we're told by sober experts that we've
been living beyond our means. Economic decision making units can live
beyond their means because they decide to do so. Nation are not
economic decision making units, and they cannot live beyond their
means. National governments can decide to borrow money or inflate the
money supply if public expenditures exceed tax revenues, but nations
as a whole can't live beyond their means. It's just not a coherent
way to think.
Let's say you took the Johnsons in Minneapolis, the Harrisons in
Seattle, the Olsons in Miami, and the Sullivans in Boston. Throw in
the Andersons in Albuquerque and the Dawsons in Denver to increase
the number of households to six. With an average household size of
four, we have twenty-four people in our group. Now suppose we
calculate the balance of payments for these six households. Their
annual income averages $60,000, each household carries so much debt
and pays so much interest, and so on. Why should we care about those
figures? We don't, and there's a reason we don't. These four families
have no economic relationship except that they happen to live in the
United States. Their money-making, purchasing, and borrowing
decisions have nothing to do with each other. In no way do they act
as an economic unit.
Now suppose we throw in a few more families: one from Osaka, another
from Bangalore, a third from Venice, and a fourth from Cairo. Now we
have ten families. This group of ten families is no more or less
coherent as an economic group than the original six. They're just ten
economic units that have nothing in common except that they share the
same planet. That's the point. We want to understand the economic
decisions of actors that actually make decisions. Why would we care
about numbers that aggregate the economic behavior of groups that
have no decision making power whatever?
What's the conclusion here? What's the summarizing point? Let's look
at numbers that affect real decisions. People who cite the trade
deficit have a reason. They say that when we buy more than we sell
overseas, that's bad for the nation. They say that it's bad for the
nation because we're shipping dollars overseas, which makes us
poorer. It's especially bad because they lend the dollars back to us
to cover our profligate spending, so now we're in debt to the people
we've been buying from. It's all balderdash. First of all, it's not
bad to ship dollars overseeas if we're getting so many good things in
return. We buy those goods because we get good value from the
purchases. We'd rather have the reliable car than the money. Thank
heavens, we say, that the Japanese make such good cars.
Now about the borrowing: we don't necessarily go into debt to buy the
Japanese car. If we do borrow to pay for the car, the loan isn't
necessarily held by a foreign bank. If the loan is held by a foreign
bank, who cares if the interest rate is fair? Yes, shipping dollars
overseas makes it easier to loan large amounts of money to the United
States government and United States banks. You can't blame the trade
deficit for those loans, though. If U. S. institutions want to borrow
money and foreign banks have cash because exporters have deposited
their profits with them, why shouldn't they loan it to us. Now we've
benefited twice: we have all those high quality cars on good terms,
and we have access to relatively cheap credit as well. Moreover, not
one decision maker in this chain has been coerced or tricked into
making a choice contrary to his or her interests.
Economists and politicians worry about this chain because we don't
want people and institutions here to be in debt to foreign banks. But
why? Why do we care who holds our loans? I just want the bank that
holds my home mortgage to treat me fairly and honestly. Whether the
bank's owners live in the United States or elsewhere doesn't affect
me at all.
The worriers have one big ace up their sleeves. What if we go to war,
they say? Then economic nationalism makes sense. We have to have
energy independence because our enemies could cut off our oil supply.
We have to cut down our foreign debt because our enemies could cut
off our credit. We have to become self-sufficient in every way,
because if we go to war that's the only way we can survive. If you
want to base all of your economic policies on the possibility that
you'll go to war, without even knowing who your enemies are, go
ahead. It doesn't look like a wise path to me.
The fact is, these ideas about economic nationalism go so far back
it's hard to trace them. We all know about mercantilism, the first
organized form of economic nationalism. People took a lot of pride in
their nation - they saw their nation as their extended family as it
supplanted the tribe and the clan. No wonder they wanted it to do
well economically. No wonder they took notice if other countries did
better. No wonder they wanted their current account to show a
positive balance at the end of the year. Let the gold pile up in the
treasury, for gold is good. We are a rich nation.
Things don't work that way anymore, Dorothy. The gold in our treasury
is an economic throwback, that's for sure. Who's to say that the
Japanese are better off than we are, when they have a lot of money in
the bank and we have millions of Toyotas to transport us all around?
By people's decisions, we have the cars we want and they have the
money they want. If General Motors can't make a profit, that's not
your neighbor's fault, it's not Toyota's fault, and it's certainly
not the United States' fault. It's not a sign of weakness, either, or
a sign of living beyond our means. No one has made a bad decision
here, except for the managers at General Motors, of course. But for
their poor stewardship, they might have competed successfully with
their brothers in Tokyo.
I'd say that's enough for now, wouldn't you? Someday you might draw a
diagram to illustrate the chain you describe above. If people can see
the diagram, they'll understand your analysis and criticism better.
Friday, September 26, 2008
We Were a Democracy
We are a democracy.
Let political parties say what they like, but end propaganda by
elected officials, using public money to pay for it.
Let religious organizations be active in political arguments, but
stop public leaders who use religious organizations to advance their
aims. No to claims of moral authority that derive from religious
beliefs.
Let us defend ourselves against our enemies, but say no to torture,
no to illegal wars, no to occupations, and no to prison camps.
Let political leaders offer persuasive arguments for what they would
like to do, but no to fear mongering, panic, lies, distortion, and
intimidation.
Let us maintain our system of distributed power and shared
responsibility - squash the theory of the unitary executive.
Let us restore the Senate and House of Representatives to a place of
strength and influence. We don't want a compliant legislature that
bends to the executive's will.
Let us keep freedom alive in every way. We won't tolerate security
measures that give the government more power, and that put people in
more, not less danger.
Let us set an example of freedom for our friends and our enemies. End
now the aggression, intimidation, fear, and every other way we have
lowered our standing in the world.
We are a democracy, or at least we were. We were admired everywhere,
now we have truly lost all we held dear.
Proverbial Wisdom from Around the World
As They Say in Zanzibar, by David Crystal
In this captivating tour of humanity's received wisdom, one of Britain's best-known and best-selling authorities on language, David Crystal, brings together more than 2,000 delightful proverbs from 110 countries--the first new book of world proverbs to appear in nearly eighty years.
Here readers will find proverbs they have known all their lives--such as
"Everything comes to those who wait" and
"Once a crook, always as crook"
--alongside such lesser known gems as
"One generation plants the tree, another gets the shade" (China) or
"When two elephants tussle, it's the grass that suffers" (Zanzibar).
Indeed, one of the great virtues of this volume is that Crystal serves up proverbs almost certain to be unknown to the reader, providing many fresh and wonderful surprises. Readers will find shrewd and incisive sayings from virtually every continent, ranging
from Finland ("Even a small star shines in the darkness")
to Ethiopia ("The smaller the lizard, the greater its hope of becoming a crocodile")
to Japan ("Too much courtesy is discourtesy").
Loosely following the method of Roget's Thesaurus, which groups words with similar meanings, Crystal has gathered these proverbs in 468 fields such as sameness and difference, small amount and large amount, thus placing similar and antithetical proverbs in close proximity. In addition, there are more than thirty side panels on special topics, such as proverbs in Shakespeare ("Brevity is the soul of wit"), biblical proverbs ("Pride goeth before destruction"), and much more.
Proverbs are fascinating in what they tell us about another culture's view of life. Each proverb in this book adds a tiny bit more to our understanding of the world's cultural diversity, and thus helps us grasp more fully what it means to be human.
THE WISDOM OF THE WORLD:
A coconut shell full of water is a sea to an ant (Zanzibar)
Don't call the alligator a big-mouth till you have crossed the river (Belize)
A bit of fragrance always clings to the hand that gives you roses (China)
They dread a moth, who have been stung by a wasp (Albania)
God heals and the doctor gets the money (Belgium)
The nail suffers as much as the hole (Netherlands)
When you sweep the stairs, you start at the top (Germany)
In this captivating tour of humanity's received wisdom, one of Britain's best-known and best-selling authorities on language, David Crystal, brings together more than 2,000 delightful proverbs from 110 countries--the first new book of world proverbs to appear in nearly eighty years.
Here readers will find proverbs they have known all their lives--such as
"Everything comes to those who wait" and
"Once a crook, always as crook"
--alongside such lesser known gems as
"One generation plants the tree, another gets the shade" (China) or
"When two elephants tussle, it's the grass that suffers" (Zanzibar).
Indeed, one of the great virtues of this volume is that Crystal serves up proverbs almost certain to be unknown to the reader, providing many fresh and wonderful surprises. Readers will find shrewd and incisive sayings from virtually every continent, ranging
from Finland ("Even a small star shines in the darkness")
to Ethiopia ("The smaller the lizard, the greater its hope of becoming a crocodile")
to Japan ("Too much courtesy is discourtesy").
Loosely following the method of Roget's Thesaurus, which groups words with similar meanings, Crystal has gathered these proverbs in 468 fields such as sameness and difference, small amount and large amount, thus placing similar and antithetical proverbs in close proximity. In addition, there are more than thirty side panels on special topics, such as proverbs in Shakespeare ("Brevity is the soul of wit"), biblical proverbs ("Pride goeth before destruction"), and much more.
Proverbs are fascinating in what they tell us about another culture's view of life. Each proverb in this book adds a tiny bit more to our understanding of the world's cultural diversity, and thus helps us grasp more fully what it means to be human.
THE WISDOM OF THE WORLD:
A coconut shell full of water is a sea to an ant (Zanzibar)
Don't call the alligator a big-mouth till you have crossed the river (Belize)
A bit of fragrance always clings to the hand that gives you roses (China)
They dread a moth, who have been stung by a wasp (Albania)
God heals and the doctor gets the money (Belgium)
The nail suffers as much as the hole (Netherlands)
When you sweep the stairs, you start at the top (Germany)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Journler Entry
We are a democracy.
Let political parties say what they like, but no to propaganda by
elected officials, using public money to pay for it.
Let religious organizations be active in political arguments, but no to public leaders who use religious organizations to advance their
aims. No to claims of moral authority that derive from religious
beliefs.
Let us defend ourselves against our enemies, but no to torture, no to
illegal wars, occupations, and prison camps.
Let political leaders offer persuasive arguments for what they would
like to do, but no to fear mongering, lies, distortion, and
intimidation.
Let us maintain our system of distributed power and shared
responsibility - no to the theory of the unitary executive.
Let us restore the Senate and House of Representatives to a place of
strength and influence - no to a compliant legislature that bends to
the executive's will.
Let us keep freedom alive in every way - no to security measures that
give the government more power, but that don't make people safer.
Let us set an example of freedom for our friends and our enemies - no
to aggression, intimidation, fear, and all the other ways we have
lowered our standing in the world.
We are a democracy. Or at least we were.
Friday, September 19, 2008
A Melancholy Man of Letters
A Melancholy Man of Letters - WSJ.com: "It is an interesting question whether a person who thinks that he is on the brink of insanity is indeed so."
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Republican VP Selection
Alaska made it into the news suddenly last week, and for an unusual reason! We’ve been reading about Sarah Palin down here, of course. Naturally I had to look her up online. John McCain may have picked her in order to strengthen his vote-getting among women, but it’s men who care about how she looks!
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Am I my brother's keeper?
Am I my brother's keeper?
Barack Obama asserted in his acceptance speech that we have a responsibility to each other, that each of us is our brother's keeper. Perhaps. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between taking care of your brother and being a busybody. What's entirely clear is that the government is not your brother. Obama's vision is that we should take care of our brothers via the government's good offices. Don't do it! The government is a necessary evil, not a caring brother. It is not even a good channel for caring brothers. It's good for a very limited number of purposes, and caring for your brother isn't one of them.
Here is the link to Obama's speech.
Barack Obama asserted in his acceptance speech that we have a responsibility to each other, that each of us is our brother's keeper. Perhaps. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between taking care of your brother and being a busybody. What's entirely clear is that the government is not your brother. Obama's vision is that we should take care of our brothers via the government's good offices. Don't do it! The government is a necessary evil, not a caring brother. It is not even a good channel for caring brothers. It's good for a very limited number of purposes, and caring for your brother isn't one of them.
Here is the link to Obama's speech.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Obama Secures Historic Nomination - NYTimes.com: "Mr. Obama himself arrived in Denver Wednesday afternoon. He recently gave reporters a brief hint of the acceptance speech he will deliver at Invesco Field at Mile High Thursday night. “I’m not aiming for a lot of high rhetoric,” Mr. Obama said. “I am much more concerned with communicating how I intend to help middle-class families live their lives.”"
Thursday, July 03, 2008
First Message in a Long While
Hi Everyone,
A few days ago, I finished a year-long term as president of STC Boston. That’s the Boston chapter of the Society for Technical Communication. During that time – July 2007 to June 2008 – I pretty much shut down my e-mail communication beyond narrow limits. I struggled to keep up with STC traffic, let alone other interests and obligations. That’s over now, so I’ve wanted to exit the STC honeycomb and check out the broad world again.
First of all, happy Fourth of July to all. You remember that the Fourth was Ronald Reagan’s favorite holiday. This year is the ninety-seventh anniversary of his birth in 1911. Sean Wilentz’s recent book, The Age of Reagan, suggests that the man’s legacy becomes more important each year. We have two books now called The Age of Reagan, the first by Steven F. Hayward and the second by Sean Wilentz. More books will come, with different titles but a similar appreciation of Reagan’s importance.
Now for the main news about editorial policy. I think I wrote something similar a couple of years ago, before TLJ went into hibernation. The journal needs to broaden its subject matter beyond Reagan and his beliefs, beyond the Iraq war and its difficulties. It is after all a journal of democracy and public affairs. It’s bound to reflect my own interests, which point toward both libertarian and mainstream politics in this election year. A lot of interesting things occurred during this spring’s primary season, and the general campaign should be interesting as well.
One part of TLJ’s editorial policy won’t change. It remains open to articles and letters from anyone who would like to contribute. Please write to me at steveng@techwritepublishing.com if you have an article, or an idea for an article. A letter to the editor is the easiest format, of course. Write and let me know what’s on your mind.
That’s enough for today. If you like what you read here, please forward TLJ to a friend or family member. If you don’t like it much, please unsubscribe with no hard feelings. And thanks for your interest through many months and changes.
All the best,
Steven Greffenius
A few days ago, I finished a year-long term as president of STC Boston. That’s the Boston chapter of the Society for Technical Communication. During that time – July 2007 to June 2008 – I pretty much shut down my e-mail communication beyond narrow limits. I struggled to keep up with STC traffic, let alone other interests and obligations. That’s over now, so I’ve wanted to exit the STC honeycomb and check out the broad world again.
First of all, happy Fourth of July to all. You remember that the Fourth was Ronald Reagan’s favorite holiday. This year is the ninety-seventh anniversary of his birth in 1911. Sean Wilentz’s recent book, The Age of Reagan, suggests that the man’s legacy becomes more important each year. We have two books now called The Age of Reagan, the first by Steven F. Hayward and the second by Sean Wilentz. More books will come, with different titles but a similar appreciation of Reagan’s importance.
Now for the main news about editorial policy. I think I wrote something similar a couple of years ago, before TLJ went into hibernation. The journal needs to broaden its subject matter beyond Reagan and his beliefs, beyond the Iraq war and its difficulties. It is after all a journal of democracy and public affairs. It’s bound to reflect my own interests, which point toward both libertarian and mainstream politics in this election year. A lot of interesting things occurred during this spring’s primary season, and the general campaign should be interesting as well.
One part of TLJ’s editorial policy won’t change. It remains open to articles and letters from anyone who would like to contribute. Please write to me at steveng@techwritepublishing.com if you have an article, or an idea for an article. A letter to the editor is the easiest format, of course. Write and let me know what’s on your mind.
That’s enough for today. If you like what you read here, please forward TLJ to a friend or family member. If you don’t like it much, please unsubscribe with no hard feelings. And thanks for your interest through many months and changes.
All the best,
Steven Greffenius
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Three Quotations
“He took words and sent them out to fight for us.” ~ Margaret Thatcher on Ronald Reagan and the Cold War
“The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.” ~ Ronald Reagan
“They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over two hundred years, and we're not using it anymore.” ~ Anonymous
“The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.” ~ Ronald Reagan
“They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over two hundred years, and we're not using it anymore.” ~ Anonymous
