Stephen Marche just wrote an article about the whole Niall Ferguson brouhaha, The Real Problem with Niall Ferguson’s Letter to the 1% at Esquire. He notes that Ferguson charges $50K+ for public speeches, and that this is the audience he is going after: the super wealthy and corporation who can afford such outrageous speaking fees. I don’t accept this idea, but it is a reasonable contention.

I think that Niall Ferguson has allowed his ideology to harm his thinking ability. This more blinded thinking (which was always there as seen in his first book, The Pity of War), made him too cozy with conservative political elites. As we see with Fox News, once you get inside the echo chamber, you are lost. You don’t get good information and your arguments get soggy because no one ever questions them.

So I thought Marche’s article was effectively an apologia for Ferguson—a way of removing some of the shame of his recent work. But despite that, the comments on the article were hostile. The following quote really struck me:

This is typical “Look! I’m in the center! I’m reasonable!” thinking. Regardless, check out that last sentence, “How about an issue of Esquire focused solely on ideas moving forward without cynicism or blame?” This is exactly what we heard from Obama three and a half years ago. There’s a problem with it. Assigning blame is not cynical. Assigning blame is part of the healing process. Not assigning blame indicates that we believe what happened before was okay.

Societies need guidance. Personally, I’m not for major penalties. But I am for holding a person up and saying, “What you did was wrong.” I am for shame. Because shame is something that a society needs. It is something that I need. We all do bad things. When those bad things are public, the shaming should be public.

If Niall Ferguson is just to be forgiven without discussion, then Niall Ferguson and those who believe him will go on spreading lies. In fact, while we have our Very Serious discussion of “ideas,” Niall and his clan will be off in their echo chamber becoming more and more convinced that our society has become a socialistic hell that much be saved through armed revolt.

This I posit, is even more important than discussing the policy ramifications of the ACA. Shame on us if we insist on elevated discussions while the base of our culture crumbles underneath.

Do you remember this bumper sticker? It has always made a lot of sense to me. Just the same, I try to keep calm. In recent years, this has been more and more difficult.

There are two political commentators who I think of when I reflect on, “If You’re Not Outraged, You’re Not Paying Attention!” The first is Eric Alterman, who I write about quite often—most recently, Paul Ryan’s Holy Trinity. The second is Dean Baker, who I also write about often—most notably, Copyright is for Wimps.

Today in a take down of an Ezra Klein article that I haven’t yet read—Still Getting the Housing Bubble Wrong—Dean Baker has a parenthetical comment that I think is infinitely quotable:

Who doesn’t love any professional who thinks lowly of his profession? We need more lovable curmudgeons like Eric Alterman and Dean Baker.

Recently, Jamie Peck over at The Gloss decided to see if she could get away with being topless in New York. It resulted in this picture:

What is most remarkable about this picture is the book: Infinite Jest, David Foster Wallace’s masterpiece sort of about the search for a video tape that is so funny people stop doing anything but watching it. Stylistically, it reminds me much of John Kennedy Toole’s A Confederacy of Dunces. Both of these books seem so off the cuff that they would be easy to hack. Although I find that I can write genre fiction well enough, my sincere attempts to write something in the style of these men have been complete failures—and I have a plot that I think works (more Infinite Jest than Confederacy). I think it comes down to the old line, “I can’t be smart all of the time.” These guys were smart, creative, learned—all the time. And crazy.

It bothers me that both Wallace and Toole killed themselves. In Toole’s case, there seems to have been serious mental dysfunction. I don’t know what to say about it other than that it is sad. Wallace’s case more disturbs me. I think that some people take baby steps—inching ever closer to annihilating themselves. The brilliance of Wallace and Toole could indicate that the rest of us are safe. But I haven’t found that my own mediocrity makes me any more stable.

I discovered the quotation below from John Green on the most recent Crash Course World History video.

Alfred Crosby is a historian who wrote about how European settlers thrived in Neo-European countries. I don’t know much about him. He seems to have added a lot of information about biology to his study of history.

I’m mostly interested in him because he appears to be a lovable curmudgeon. The quote below comes from Crosby’s book The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. It is during a discussion of the difficulties in determining the quality rather than the quantity of food people have eaten. But what the hell, he argues, quantity at least gives us some idea:

Normally, you have to turn to Schopenhauer for such a gay assessment of life.

Most of my friends are women, and that means that I have very few friends who are fans of Breaking Bad. In fact, most of them make derisive comments about the show. So basically, I get to talk about the show with Will (who I disagree with much of the time) and read Matthew Yglesias (who I agree with most of the time). But I think I am diverging from most hardcore fans of the show: season 5 was probably a major mistake.

Let’s start with the fact that the ending of season 4 was perfect. The story had ended, we didn’t need any more: “I won.” Fade out. That’s a rap. Greatest television show ever. Kermit the Frog yells, “Yeeeea!”

Even though season 5 started right where season 4 ended, it seemed like we were starting all over again. But there were important and unhelpful changes. Skyler, instead of continuing on her arc was suddenly afraid of Walt. As the season has progressed, she is mostly there to have this very boring fight about whether the children should continue to live with them. I don’t buy any of it. If she cared about her children and feared Walt that much, she would have secretly ratted out Walt and gone into witness protection.

The bigger problem is the change of Walter from protagonist to antagonist. Over the course of the first four seasons, Walt had become much more morally ambiguous. But he wasn’t evil and he wasn’t megalomaniacal. In the most recent episode, he’s gone from evil to just plain stupid. He justifies not selling out the business because he’s lost his wife and children; the business is all he has left. Can he really be blind to the fact that he has lost his family because he is in the meth business?

This week we get a little more information on Gray Matter—the company Walt help start. Unfortunately, the information conflicts with the other information we’ve been given. The implication earlier was that the others at Gray Matter had screwed Walt, not that there was a lover’s triangle (implied in the recent episode) and he went of his own free will. But this brings up an important question. Walt is passing up five million dollars in order to be the meth king. But with five million dollars, Walt could start a reputable chemistry company. If he really wants to get back at the Gray Matter people, wouldn’t that be the way to go? If he really wants to be respected, isn’t that the way to go? Hasn’t it been clear for at least two seasons that it drives Walt crazy that he can’t go up to Hank and tell him that he’s been punking him?

Another problem is that in six episodes, Breaking Bad has featured two heists. This indicates a certain desperation on the part of the writers. I justified the first one as a necessary set up for the rest of the season. But in episode five we have another heist that is largely resolved in episode six. We are likely halfway through the current season. This no longer seems like set up.

Where is this show going? Chaos is not the same thing as dramatic momentum. I fear that Vince Gilligan may have forgotten this. Regardless, I am not hopeful about the rest of this season.

Afterword

My biggest argument with Will is over the character of Jesse. I think he is by far the most sympathetic of the major characters. At first, he was just a punk. But as time has gone on, he’s matured. For a man of his age, this makes sense. It certainly makes more sense than Walter’s devolution. Breaking Bad is filled with narcissistic characters. Jesse cares about other people and that’s a major step up from even Saul—the second more sympathetic character.

Update (20 August 2012 1:29 pm)

In the episode “Gray Matter,” it is clear that there was some kind of a lover’s triangle. In the episode “Peekaboo” it is expanded on where it is clear that at least Walt thinks he was screwed. The video is on this Facebook page. It ends badly:

Ladies (or as I like to think of you, baby vessels), Representative Todd Akin wants you to know that he’s got your back. Or your vagina, he didn’t get into specifics. By being against the right to abortion even in cases of rape, he isn’t saying that you should have to give birth to the rapist’s child. In secret discussions with doctors, Akin has learned that in “legitimate” cases of rape, women rarely become pregnant. There’s a lot to break down in this bit of news, so let me take it point by point.

First, I wonder if these doctors that Akin talked to aren’t doctors of theology. That would make sense. Let’s face it, most people are anti-choice because they are Christians. That’s really where all this stuff comes from. And note that nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about abortion. As a medical guide, the Bible sucks. I think it might have something to do with the scientific ignorance of the people who wrote it. The book has some doozies; the flat earth is my favorite. But the main thing is that the Bible is silent on the question of abortion and it was only through the efforts of lots of theologians over the years that they decided that abortion was wrong. It was the same reasoning they used to determine if Adam and Eve had belly buttons and how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. (What kind of dance do you suppose they were doing? I’m thinking the Bachata!)

Second, I’m real interested in what a legitimate rape is. Is it one that occurs when a woman’s skirt reaches to her knees? When she isn’t wearing make-up? Or perhaps when she’s not menstruating and putting out those mysterious ha cha cha chemicals that drive men mad? I’m sure that Akin isn’t suggesting that some women are just asking for it. And he couldn’t be saying that women pretend to be raped after a nice man helps them to lower their ha cha cha levels. One thing is clear, if we make abortion only available to women who have been raped, I’m sure we will see a lot of women pretending that they’ve been raped—ha cha cha or no.

Third, Akin is correct in saying that women rarely become pregnant as a result of a rape. Between 3% and 6% of rape victims become pregnant as a result. This is indeed rare. But still, researchers at the University of South Carolina calculated that over 30,000 rape induced pregnancies occur each year. This is what we call math: small percentages of large numbers are large numbers. It’s like the death penalty for innocent people: even if the percentage is small, it still sucks if you are in it.

I know that Akin and his ilk believe that women have mysterious anti-ha cha cha chemicals that determine that the lady parts are having No Fun and go out and surround the egg with bayonet wielding defenders. “Stand back you unwanted sperm!” But there are, in fact, no such chemicals. Many studies have found that rape victims are just as likely to get pregnant as are ha cha cha women. In addition, one study by two researchers at St. Lawrence University found that rape victims were roughly twice as likely to get pregnant. They concluded this was because women often choose not to have consensual (ha cha cha) sex when they were fertile. Rape victims have no such control. What’s more, the rapists may be more driven to their acts of violence when women are fertile.

Finally: remember ladies, Todd Akin doesn’t hate you. He’s looking out for you. He is thinking about you all the time. All the time. That’s right. He can just imagine the horror of a legitimate rape. He can see it! That man holding you down. Pushing your skirt up revealing your soft skin. Yeah. He can just see it. Ha cha cha!

On today’s Up with Chris Hayes, he deconstructs the right wing claim that they will not change Medicare for anyone over 55. I’ve been complaining about this for years, but especially last week. As I wrote then, “In other words: if you are young you probably won’t vote for us anyway, so fuck you!”

The idea is most clearly: if you are people who will vote for us, we will protect you. If you aren’t, oh well.

Here is 13 seconds of video where Chris Hayes lays out exactly what’s going on.

Update (Right Away)

You knew Paul Ryan was a hypocrite, right?

There are existential threats all around these days. In the long run, I believe the rich are facing one. In the short run, I am. And the poor always are. Here are a few thoughts on modern American.

Class Warfare

If there really were class warfare between the 99% and the 1% (actually, more like the 0.1%), then it would no longer be metaphorical. When numbers are this lopsided, the small minority will either be taken out or forced to change. I think the fact that no one is calling for revolution (Even the Occupy Movement just wants a discussion!) indicates we as a people are committed to our political institutions and accepting of high levels of inequality.

Claiming that people who would like to see a wee bit more equality are engaged in class warfare is the height of right wing whining. The truth is that the rich (Especially the super-rich!) should want to see a slightly more egalitarian society. Their lives are great. They should want to preserve it. They should be all for giving alms to the poor—even or perhaps especially the “undeserving” poor. They should be all for calming the anxieties of the middle class. They should be all for fighting environmental threats. If the world goes on tilt due to global warming or there is a revolution because of inequality, all I have to lose is the continued struggle of my crappy life. The rich, however, have very much to lose.

Risk Taking

Another thing that bugs me is this idea that people should be rewarded for “risk taking.” We’ve heard this a lot from Mitt Romney, I gather, because if he is deserving of his hundreds of millions, it is because of the risks he’s taken. On its face, this doesn’t make a lot of sense, because Romney was never risking his own money or even his job or reputation. But there is a much bigger issue here: stakes.

Sheldon Adelson is said to be worth roughly $25 billion. I am worth about $10,000. This means that just based upon the numbers, Adelson could invest $10 million in a new company and this would be equivalent to me investing $4 in—What?—a used book for research. So I don’t see why Adelson should be rewarded for his risk taking—he isn’t taking any risk! This goes further, because Adelson could “risk” $20 billion without really risking anything. He would still be wealthy beyond imagining. On the other hand, for me to risk $1000 is a huge risk. It is an existential risk. Adelson would have to risk something like $25.999 billion to start to face an existential risk.

Romney-Ryan 2012!

I found this on Crooks & Liars. As bad as Obama is, the stakes in this election are too high to protest. Romney-Ryan really are an existential threat to this country. And this video is very funny in pointing this out:

As much as I have problems with his policies and the way that he dealt with the Republicans, the President it great on the campaign trail. He really has the people’s touch. It makes me want to follow him. But then I remember that he was going to sell out Social Security and Medicare for a tiny tax with Boehner. And I remember that he isn’t good, he’s just better than the Republicans—who are crazy and evil. Still, you can’t but be impressed with this:

Chris Hayes was fantastic today. He discusses how Paul Ryan’s biography betrays his philosophy. He also notes the hypocrisy of Ayn Rand and other conservative icons, but puts it in context. “It’s not hypocrisy that bothers me so much as the ridiculous self-serving selective vision of those who have benefited from personal privilege, social connection, family name, and yes, the welfare state, constantly hectoring others to sink or swim on their own and taking determined effective steps to destroy policies that give other folks some of the same cushion they had. That’s a problem much bigger than Paul Ryan.” Watch:

Later in the show, Michael Hastings gets in an argument about Julian Assange with pretend reasonable but really fucktard conservative Josh Barro. Barro makes the argument that the government should be able to keep secrets because of its diplomatic needs. But Hastings destroys the argument by pointing out that it isn’t the press’s job to support the government’s diplomatic missions. What Barro is saying crosses the line from conservative to fascist. I’m not sure if he realizes it. Watch it, it’s great:

David Rakoff died last week on 9 August 2012. He was 47 with a long history of cancer. Today, This American Life did a show dedicated to him. I always really liked him. Listening to him you could tell that he wasn’t terribly comfortable in his skin. This I understand.

At the end of the program, This American Life replayed “Wedding Toast” from its Frenemies episode. They describe it, “David Rakoff demonstrates—in rhyme—how to make a wedding toast for people you never wanted to see married in the first place.”

The whole poem is about a guy expected to perform the toast at the wedding of a couple with whom he has a complicated relationship. (It can be found on the Ceremony Ceremony Blog.) He has been hurt past the point where he considers them friends, but he doesn’t want to cause a scene or look bad himself. The poem continues:

David Rakoff always seemed a gentle soul. If he does not deserve to rest in peace, no one does.