Category Archives: Uncategorized

Politics and Paranoia

I have an old friend (old meaning duration, not age, although neither of us is getting any younger) who has remained resolutely Republican despite his own distress at the party’s current incarnation. Presumably because of that affiliation, he is evidently on some sort of list that allows him to get the sort of emails that I rarely see, and from time to time, he shares them. (I think he likes to imagine me with my hair on fire as I read them.)

The other day, he sent me one that began:

The American Dream ended (on November 6th) in Ohio. The second term of Barack Obama will be the final nail in the coffin for the legacy of the white Christian males who discovered, explored, pioneered, settled and developed the greatest Republic in the history of mankind.

A coalition of Blacks, Latinos, Feminists, Gays, Government Workers, Union Members, Environmental Extremists, The Media, Hollywood, uninformed young people, the “forever needy,” the chronically unemployed, illegal aliens and other “fellow travelers” have ended Norman Rockwell’s America.

Next time someone solemnly assures you that their problems with Obama have nothing to do with bigotry or mean-spiritedness–and that what is really racist is to suggest that they do–think about this diatribe.

From the far Right, we increasingly hear these laments–the whine of the poor white male Christian victims. What we get from the far Left is more likely to be naiveté and annoying immaturity, but it also can descend into paranoia.

I have a Facebook friend who is constantly sending email “alarms”–with lots of exclamation points and highlighted passages–bemoaning President Obama’s “sellout” and viewing every presidential or congressional action as a conspiracy against “the 99%.” No one gets the benefit of the doubt. All Republicans are evil, all Democrats are disappointing pussies and/or fellow-travelers.

Interestingly, at the very end of the “Patriot’s” screed, he warns darkly that the nation can only be “saved” by zealots with guns. A similar thread runs through my leftist friend’s hysterical “alerts”–only by taking to the streets can “real Americans” prevail.

Thanks to the Internet, it is sometimes hard to remember that the vast majority of Americans are pretty sensible people who would very much like to see the crazies from both ends of the spectrum return to their caves or wherever they came from.

Most of us think it would be nice if our elected officials spent less time placating hysterical extremists and more time attending to the nation’s problems.

Comments

Mitch and Purdue: More Evidence of a Bad Fit

One of the most troubling aspects of the current wave of anti-intellectualism we are experiencing is Congress’ declining support for basic research. No matter that we have ample evidence that such research pays massive dividends down the road– the focus on austerity has provided a convenient excuse for cutting the grant opportunities that have led to breakthroughs in science and medicine and have provided the foundation on which technological advances have been based.

In the face of this disinvestment, university presidents and chancellors representing 165 institutions signed a letter in July calling on President Barack Obama and Congress to close what they called the nation’s widening “innovation deficit.”

As JC Online reported,

The letter — signed by presidents of Yale, MIT, most Big Ten universities and all of Purdue’s self-designated peer universities — says declining federal investments in research and cuts as a result of sequestration could lead to fewer U.S.-based innovation and scientific breakthroughs in the future.

Purdue’s President, Mitch Daniels, refused to add Purdue to that list of signatories, citing the deficit. ” I abstained from signing it, in my case, because of its complete omission of any recognition of the severe fiscal condition in which the nation finds itself.”

Where to start?

First, despite Republicans’ adamant refusal to notice,  the U.S. deficit has declined steadily   during the Obama administration.  It will decline 155 billion just in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In fact, we are experiencing the most rapid deficit reduction since WWII.  The reasons for that decline can be debated–as ill-considered as the sequester was, it may well have contributed–but the fact that the deficit has been significantly reduced cannot be denied. Citing the nation’s “severe fiscal condition”  as a reason for Purdue’s non-signatory status simply reinforces a growing public conviction that Mitch Daniels is a partisan politician who does not understand the mission of the university he leads.

The problem is not a prior career in political life. Others have made the transition from politician to academic, and done so successfully. The problem is that Daniels seems utterly unaware of the difference between partisanship and scholarship, between ideology and philosophy, and–as the Zinn controversy so clearly illustrated–between indoctrination and education.

As we know, Daniels orchestrated his move to Purdue, appointing the Trustees who would–surprise!–choose him to lead the University. He evidently viewed the job as simply another platform for partisan persuasion– with the added benefit of seeming disinterestedness. But he clearly didn’t understand what universities are about. Failure to recognize the importance of funded academic research–failure to appreciate the centrality of that research to classroom performance, among other things–is refusal to understand the interests of the institution he leads.

With his refusal to sign the letter, and his purported reason for that refusal, Daniels has chosen Republican talking points over the needs of his University.

It’s really a shame. Had he chosen to use his formidable political skills and partisan connections on behalf of Purdue’s scholarly mission, Daniels could have been a great asset as President, despite the clouded process that delivered him to the office.

That he did not make that choice is becoming clearer by the day.

Comments

I’m as Ethical as Scalia is NOT a Persuasive Argument

A couple of days ago, the Sierra Club, Citizens Action Coalition, Spencer County Citizens for Quality of Life and Save the Valley [update: the organization was Valley Watch, not Save the Valley] filed a petition asking Indiana Supreme Court Justice Mark Massa to recuse himself from hearing a case that will determine the viability of the controversial Rockport coal gasification facility. (I’ve written before about this boondoggle, birthed by political insiders and totally contrary to the free market principles to which the Daniels Administration paid so much verbal homage.)

Not even 20 hours after the petition was filed, Massa issued a ruling denying it. Clearly, the ruling had been written well beforehand–the lawyers who crafted the brief could have saved their (written) breath.

The argument for recusal rested on the long and intimate relationship between Massa and Mark Lubbers, whose personal fortunes are closely tied to the results of the lawsuit, and upon Massa’s friendship with and service to then-governor Mitch Daniels, who rammed the deal through over the qualms of both Republican and Democratic legislators. As columnist Charles Pierce wrote yesterday in his Esquire blog, “Massa couldn’t be more tied into the people who want to build the plant if he came to work every morning in one of those NASCAR firesuits festooned with logos.”

Massa’s ruling relied heavily on Cheney v. United States District Court, the infamous case in which Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself from a pending case despite the fact that he had gone duck hunting with the Vice-President–a named party— while the case was pending. Massa neglected to note that the Indiana Supreme Court, unlike the US Supreme Court, is governed by one of those pesky codes of ethics. (Can we spell “appearance of impropriety”?)

At least he didn’t defend himself by pointing out that Clarence Thomas sits on cases in which his wife has an interest, while he and Lubbers are just best buds. (Actually, relying on Scalia or Thomas for ethical guidance makes me think of that old adage about fish rotting from the head. But I digress.)

In a particularly disingenuous passage, Judge Massa wrote:

“I have a friend who works for General Motors; must I recuse if GM is a party to a case before our court?” he wrote. “All of us on this Court have many friends who are lawyers, some of whom appear before us, including several to whom I am closer and see more regularly than Mr. Lubbers. If mere friendship with these lawyers were enough to trigger disqualification, my colleagues and I would rarely sit as an intact court of five.”

Well Judge, if you had a friend who worked for General Motors, that would be a lot different than having a friend whose continued, highly lucrative employment depends upon a favorable verdict– a friend who got you your first political job 30 years ago, a friend with whom you have subsequently shared many meals and social occasions, a friend who was one of the very few invitees asked to speak at the robing ceremony when you were sworn in as Judge.

I’m disappointed, but not surprised. This is the man who, as a candidate for Marion County Prosecutor, ran an ad asserting that his opponent was unfit for the office because in his private practice he had represented a criminal defendant. (I know several Republican lawyers who had supported Massa until that ad ran, but based on its intellectual dishonesty, instead voted for Terry Curry.)

Massa evidently couldn’t see an appearance of impropriety if it bit him.

Comments

Maybe “Allah” Would Have Been Okay

File under: Just kill me now.

A couple–evidently unmarried–went to court because they couldn’t agree on which of their last names to give their baby. Granted, this does not seem to bode well for future family amity, and does seem to call into question the parents’ common sense.

But they would seem to be paragons of rational behavior in comparison with Judge Lu Ann Ballew, who ordered the parents of 7-month-old Messiah DeShawn Martin to change the baby’s name to Martin DeShawn McCullough.

Why this order? What conceivable business does a Judge have interfering with a parent’s right to name a baby? Glad you asked.

“The word Messiah is a title and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ,” Ballew said.

Ballew even ruled that the parents had to go back and change the baby’s name on the birth certificate.

Now, I note that this throwback to a time when members of the nobility could name the children of the peasants who worked their land (and sample a bride’s ‘favors’ before turning her back to the bridegroom) does not appear to be a genuine Judge; she is identified in the news reports as a Child Support Magistrate. She has, however, been allowed to exercise judicial authority, despite the fact that she has quite obviously never encountered the Constitution, Rule of Law principles, or the 21st Century.

The baby’s stunned mother is quoted as saying, “I didn’t think a judge could make me change my baby’s name because of her religious beliefs.”

Of course, in the world inhabited by sane people, she can’t.

Now, granted, a kid named “Messiah” is going to have some dicey moments. But he should be able to grow up and blame his parents for his problems like everybody else.

Comments

Big Mac Attack

In the face of walkouts by fast-food employees, and negative publicity over the “budgeting advice” provided by McDonalds to its workers, opponents of a higher minimum wage have  gone into high gear, warning that jobs will be lost and prices will rise precipitously if the minimum wage is increased.

What–they ask in ominous tones–would a Big Mac cost if the workers preparing and serving it made 15.00 an hour?

As it happens, we know the answer to that.

The Economist Magazine created and maintains a “Big Mac Index,” making it possible to compare the price of Big Macs in different countries with different wage scales. In Australia, where the minimum wage is 15.00 and the minimum wage for fast food workers is, for some reason, slightly higher–on July 1st, the fast food rate went up from $17.03 an hour to $17.98 an hour–a Big Mac costs 70 cents more than it does in the U.S.

Salvatore Babones is a senior lecturer in sociology and social policy at the University of Sydney in Sydney, Australia, and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.. As he explained in a recent interview, 

What you get for that in Australia is you get to go to a fast food restaurant where you know that everybody behind the counter has full health insurance, everyone behind the counter gets a really good wage, they’re treated well, and they have, you know, options in life…

What about the argument that raising the minimum wage necessarily means fewer jobs?

There’s a theory that raising the minimum wage will result in fewer jobs. And that theory seems to make intuitive sense, that when wages are higher, you know, people hire fewer people. And in isolation that would be true. There’s an assumption economists like to make called ceteris paribus, which means all other things remaining equal, this would happen.

 But all other things are never equal. For example, if you raise the minimum wage, people make more money. That’s the first thing that’s not equal. As people make more money, they spend more, they pay more in taxes. The entire character of the economy changes.

As Babones points out, study after study confirms that no matter how “intuitively” persuasive the argument that raising the minimum wage will depress employment, it is an argument that has no empirical support. In the real world, it doesn’t work that way.

Interestingly, Australia was also the only rich country to dodge the Great Recession.

Comments