Friday Reading

Lots of good stuff caught in the net this morning:

Gold is not just for bugs anymore as the chorus grows of those who see a monetary crisis on our hands.

Bloomberg Opinion:

The prospects for an orderly unwinding of the extreme posture of global monetary policy are zero. Bernanke, Jean- Claude Trichet and Mervyn King, his counterparts in Europe and the U.K. respectively, are huddling en masse upon the most precarious perch in the history of monetary affairs. These alleged guardians of monetary stability, in their attempts to shore up the system, have simply created the incinerator for paper money. We are past the point of no return. Quantitative easing may well become a way of life.

 Washington Post:

Trichet offered this startling but seemingly well-founded estimate: Bailouts for the world's banks, corporate entities and bankrupted governments mounted by the U.S. Treasury, the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and other institutions since 2008 amount to 25 percent of the global production of all goods and services. One dollar in every four earned by all the world's workers and businesses this year has been committed, if not already paid out, essentially to keep the world from spiraling into a depression.

"I emphasize to every banker I meet that this will not be done twice," Trichet said. When I asked him if he had evidence that the bankers understand this, he quickly responded that what they thought was beside the point: "I am saying democratic governments cannot do this again." They lack the resources as well as the will.

 In defense of marriage (and the poor) from the reductionist heights this author helps us understand the uncriticized assumptions of those who think they know better.

His interpretation of the “facts” assumes an impoverished anthropology that treats man as little more than a self-interested animal who vigilantly performs a cost/benefit analysis for every decision in life, including when and whom he should marry. In his view, the only reason for marriage is economic. His reductionist anthropology cannot imagine marriage as a genuine gift of self that is oriented toward the procreation of new life.

And for that reason, he fails to imagine children.

Science has finally gotten around to affirming what has been observable for some time now but is going to be met with shock by our youth oriented culture: getting older ain't all that bad.  At least not when it is met with a level of acceptance.

The concerns are valid, but a new Stanford study shows there's a silver lining to the graying of our nation. As we grow older, we tend to become more emotionally stable. And that translates into longer, more productive lives that offer more benefits than problems, said Laura Carstensen, the study's lead author.

 Finally, it is always fun to see the sword of deconstruction turned in new and interesting ways, like at John Stewart. 

This is the essential communication form for Jon Stewart.  He sends messages that contain both authentic and artificial interpretations.  He then plays against the receiver's selection to create tension and humor.  Since he always controls the floor in all interactions, Stewart is free to commit Double Binds to his advantage, comedic or persuasive.

He employs the strongest double bind communication against receivers who will not cooperate with the process (i.e. deny the double bind as a norm of conduct and try to be authentic) or the content (i.e. defend an unattractive position and try to be persuasive).  Since Stewart's work appears within an entertainment context any attempts to call him on the game indict the receiver as overly serious, dogmatic, or foolish while permitting Stewart to appear merely doing his job.

Of course the double-bind is, as advertising has become, a key propaganda technique.

Such a double bind is frequently found in contemporary advertising, advertising which this essay argues is more accurately defined as propaganda than as classical rhetoric, for it exhibits many of the characteristics of propaganda; chief among these characteristics is a speaker’s reliance on self-interest (rather than the good of the audience), anonymity (or the suppression of ethos), the use of saturation or repetition of messages (rather than the delivery of formal speeches), and the employment of emotional appeals (rather than logical ones). Advertising meets these criteria insofar as it is, in the words of Twitchell, “ubiquitous, anonymous, syncretic, symbiotic, profane, and, especially, magical”

With minor tweaking, I can see no difference between this description of advertising and the left-of-center ethos Stewart represents.  Glenn Beck (to pick on the other side of the political spectrum) is different only in that one is acceptable in polite society and the other is not, thus indicating which side of the spectrum is involved in propaganda and which is engaged in counter-propaganda, to what ever extent such a distinction matters..

What do Wisconsin Voters Want? R-E-S-P-E-C-T

It seems the New York Times editorial page has become an expert on how the people of Wisconsin think and vote: we’re weak-minded Midwesterners. Of course in good professional fashion the Times put it in a more sophisticated manner than my plain Midwestern speech. Specifically, the paper believes Ron Johnson is leading in the polls due to:

• The public’s lack of attention to detail.
• The misinformation and simplistic solutions propounded by talk radio.
• Wisconsin has become “like other Midwestern states” (what exactly do you think of the other Midwestern states Mr. New York Times?).

Ironically it is the very assumptions present in the editorial which is leading so many citizens of Wisconsin to abandon Russ Feingold in an election which has been effectively nationalized. Russ is victim less to the talk radio or an ignorant population but rather a national progressive movement which seems Hell bent on insulting large portions of America on a regular basis. Whether it is Congressman Grayson of California implying that there is no difference between traditional Christians and the Taliban in a re-election ad or the dismissal of deficit concerns by waiving Pay-Go legislation thirty-one times since it was passed in 2007, middle-America knows when its person and values are being taken for granted and pushes back.

It would appear the height of hypocrisy when a progressive movement which claims to stand for importance of individual rights to be so blatantly dismissive of swing voters for exercising the very right upon which the nation is founded: the right to exercise independence at the ballot box. The criticisms of Wisconsin’s leaning toward Ron Johnson arise from districts and states which, for the most part, have not seen a competitive race in decades. Having been effectively trapped by a slavish commitment to one party where November elections are decided by capturing the power of a party machine in the run-up to a primary or caucus, the same people who forget that there are baseball teams outside New York and Boston also appear speechless that an independent people might make a statement to the nation’s leadership through the only means open to them: the exercise of the ballot. The New York Times is right to ask why Wisconsin is leaning Republican. It is arrogant to lean on thinly veiled stereotypes of “the Midwest.”

The course toward restoring Midwest Progressivism will not be found in attacking the electorate or culture of the Midwest. It will be found by offering the minimum of respect to the cultures and values of the Midwest which grow along side and contribute to progressive ideals in our political eco-system. When a progressive in Florida calls an opponent “Taliban” in a very misleading ad, it hurts Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. It is our literal-minded Christianity which leads some of us to support many a Progressive initiative, perhaps other progressives should learn to be tolerant of that? When a national paper like the New York Times portrays voters who are swinging toward Ron Johnson as nothing but nodding Ditto heads, it re-enforces the narrative that the leadership of the progressive movement on the coasts does not understand Middle America frustration. It is difficult for a Democrat in middle America to defend how the progressive movement is “for us” when an editorialist, supposedly trying to sway minds in a progressive direction, can causally say things like “and become more like other Midwestern states” as if that is a bad thing.

I will vote for Russ Feingold on November 2^nd because I think he is the better of the two candidates. Progressives in the Public Sphere, however, make it next to impossible for me to articulate a convincing argument to that effect to my neighbors. For the most part they don’t dislike Russ or think Ron is the bee’s knees. They quite rightly feel the disdain of a national media and political leadership who looks down upon them as ignorant imbeciles. Their only way to resist or speak against being treated in such a manner is to vote against Russ Feingold. Russ may not be to blame but he bears the consequence.

The New York Times knows little of the Wisconsin electorate. Luckily if its editorialists want to know why Wisconsin may not return Russ Feingold to Washington they do not need to be. In the age of a nationalized media they need only look at how they are reflected and spoken of by the nation’s progressive leadership and on their own pages. The swing-voter in Wisconsin is only acting like a people who insist on being treated with respect and dignity. What could be more American than that?

Mid-term brackets

I never really got into the "March Madness" tradition of working through the brackets with one's own prediction on how the tournement will turn out.  While I share a desrire to make verifiable predictions on the future, I am ignorant of basketball.

Unlike college basketball, I do follow politics and in the spirit of "March Madness" I offer my own predictions of the 2010 mid-terms.  Like the student from MIT who predicts Duke will run the table, I offer the disclaimer that I am trying to predict what I think will happen, not what I want to happen.  Picking the teams you want to win is a quick way come in last in the office pool.

Senate: GOP 52  Dem 48

This requires a number of upsets.  The biggest being California but I also predict that Republicans will carry Wisconsin, Washington and West Virginia.  I am a little nervous about this prediction since I am not leaving myself any room on the Republican side to act as a safety net for a last minute error.  I am confident in saying that the GOP will not get 53 Senate seats.  They could easily bring home only 51, 50 or 49.

House: GOP 244  Dem 191

Nearly all of the "toss-up" districts are held by Democrats.  I am playing the trend here.  The real fun with predicting the house will be in 2012 after the redistricting which will take place in the next two years (in response to the 2010 census).  Again, however, the risk in this prediction is in the direction of a smaller GOP gain.

Govenors:

Ca:  Brown (D)
MN: Dayton (D)
WI: Walker (R)
IL: Brady (R)
FL: Scott (R)
VT: Shumlin (D)

Other states' govenors' races are the hardest to follow and the hardest to predict.  There are local issues I cannot know about so I have selected only the most interesting to offer predictions for.   My predictions for FL and VT were decided with a ceremonial coin flip.

So I offer the standard prediction of divided government.  I am, by background and ideology prone to think that this is a good thing.  I cannot help but remind myself that there are a variety of problems "baked into the cake" of the near and mid-term future.  The question is not if we will face them but how, it is not if we will need good leadership but if it will be in place on the day that it is needed.  I'll remain agnostic that any of the options we have before us wil meet the problems better than others but it is a fun distraction to read about the horses and pick out some favorites to win the race.  Only time will tell if they can plow a field.