So I’m minding my own business, waiting for the final Spurs-Heat game, trying to get a little work done to make up for the fact that I got so little done earlier today. And then a tweet pops up from the brilliant but slappable Matt Yglesias. I’m always amazed by these young political nerds who claim to care about professional sports. Chris Hayes is a basketball fan? Josh Barro’s into hockey? Ezra Klein cares about football? (Note: I made up all those; I don’t pay attention to their stupid sports tweets!) But Yglesias’ tweet showed what really matters to these guys:

That’s right. Let’s just call it wonkball and move on.

I’m not a big basketball fan. But I do at least understand the game and, as far as I can tell, appreciate it more than most fans. I really don’t care who wins. But that stat was interesting, and regardless, I always find math more interesting than sports. It turns out, however, that Yglesias is being slightly deceptive. Or anyway, he is trying to be smart so that no one else needs to be. The problem is that although Yglesias is a very smart young man, his math is a little wanting. Here are the raw (Rawish?) data:

So you can see that moderates only prefer the Heat in the sense that they prefer them them more than people do overall. But note: that’s also true of the liberals. They prefer the Heat just slightly more than the base does. This is almost certainly not statistically significant. But it shows that Yglesias is wrong about liberals and conservatives preferring the Spurs. And this is a shame because I had a theory as to why that was: conservatives like the Spurs because they are from Texas, liberals like the Spurs because they are the underdog, and moderates like the Heat because they’ve heard of LeBron James. But it turns out that it’s just that no one but conservatives like Texas.

The first thing you need to know about the farm bill is that the only reason that it failed in the House was that some of the Republicans didn’t think it was horrible enough. So don’t get the idea that its failure was some kind of indication that the House conservatives were evolving hearts. Taking more than $2 billion per year in food away from poor people just wasn’t enough. If some Republicans are to do their jobs, there much be much more suffering!

For the last many decades, the Farm Bill has been a kind of coalition thing. As the number and extent of farmers diminished, there just wasn’t enough political power to keep those farm subsidies going. But poor people are an everyday and everywhere kind of thing here in the United States. And they need to eat. And farmers need to sell their food. So it was a great deal. Provide farmers with help and provide programs like food stamps (SNAP) and lunch programs. (Note: the farm bill is much more than this, but that’s all I’m going to talk about now.)

The fact that the modern Republican party doesn’t understand these ideas should not be at all surprising. They have a two pronged attack to any question. First, help the rich. Second, screw the poor. And the farm bill was a great opportunity to do both. Matt Yglesias provided the following graph this morning before the House voted down their bill:

Note that farmers are doing better than the country as a whole. What’s more, the fact that this graph lists mean and not median values probably reduces the relative differences. Needless to say, the poor who are getting their food stamps cut are doing much worse than the average. So once again, the conservatives are going after chump change that is spent on the poor while ignoring large amounts of money going to the affluent (or at least more affluent). In other words: the perfect Republican bill!

I still hope that somehow Congress will work this all out. The level of villainy and just plain ignorance that is demonstrated by the House Republican caucus is overwhelming. When will they pay for all the harm they are doing?

Paul Krugman wrote a good article on his blog this morning. It is about all of this talk of tapering the Fed’s quantitative easing (QE) program. All this week I’ve been wondering what the hell is up with Bernanke. Whatever happened to keeping interest rates low until at least the end of 2014? Whatever happened to the concerns about dangerously love inflation? Is Bernanke seeing something in the economy that the rest of us have missed?

Of course the answer is no. The number one problem with the Federal Reserve is that it is run by a bunch of people who are completely divorced from the real economy. Yes, it is true that corporate profits are great. Wall Street is doing great. Bankers are rolling in money. There never was a better time to be rich. But the rest of us are hardly doing well. Here is the employment to population ration from late last year. It hasn’t gotten any better over the last year:

The biggest tool that the Fed has is useless: it can’t lower interest rates because they are already effectively at zero. As Krugman noted, that basically leaves one tool: expectations. The Fed could indicate that it will maintain a loose money policy until the economy is well into recovery. But this recent discussion destroys this tool as well. The Fed has effectively proclaimed to the world that the slightest indication of a recovery will cause them to clamp down. God forbid that we have even a tiny amount of inflation which might harm the power elite.

Not only is this a very bad policy for now, but what will the Fed do if our feeble recovery slows or even reverses? Krugman explained the problem:

In general, the Federal Reserve is a good thing for everyone. It provides stability in the economy. But its laser focus on keeping inflation absurdly low is only done to help the rich. In my opinion, it should not target an inflation rate of 2%. That’s ridiculous! That’s a rate designed only to please the rentier class. It should be targeting 3% or perhaps 4%. Instead, it targets this absurdly low inflation rate and doesn’t seem to care at all what the unemployment rate is. As Matt Yglesias brilliantly asked last year, “If the unemployment and inflation rates were reversed, would the Fed do something about it?” But as long as Bernanke and all his power elite friends are doing well, then everything is a-okay.

Update (21 June 2013 8:26 am)

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis put out a press release this morning. President James Bullard dissented from the FOMC’s Wednesday decision. It stated, “President Bullard believes that to maintain credibility, the Committee must defend its inflation target when inflation is below target as well as when it is above target.” The funny thing is that Bullard is no liberal. He believes in that 2% inflation target. It is just that this stuff is simple: lower inflation is only good up to the point. If you are going to target an inflation rate that is this low, then low inflation is as bad as high. The Fed is acting irresponsibly and not in the public interest.

I was just imagining what would happen if the government decided that violence in film had a really pernicious effect on society. Congress would get to work on a bill and outlawed on-screen shooting deaths. But while they were working on the bill, the lobbyists from Hollywood came in and argued for limitations on the bill. And that’s only right. All people should be able to petition Congress for redress of grievances. And after two months, Congress had a new anti-violence in film law—with the help of the Hollywood lobbyists. It states that no one can be killed with a gun on screen if the bullet used is a 223 Rem. The sponsors of the bill would do a media tour. A few people on the left would complain that the bill is useless because it has a huge loophole (every gun that does not use 223 Rem bullets). Everyone on the right would complain that that freedom is over; dirges would be played. But the mainstream press would hail the bill as perhaps less than perfect but at least something good. Democracy!

A couple of years later, a few mainstream commentators would notice that the bill didn’t seem to do much good. All the filmmakers did was substitute SKSs for AR-15 because the SKS uses 7.62 rounds. It did have the effect of popularizing the SKS and hurt sales of the AR-15, but if anything there were more on screen shooting deaths in the movies. Few would go all the way and admit the obvious: that we don’t live in a democracy—that we live in a dictatorship of the corporation. But most people would know that was the case. It would be obvious. We all see films. We understand what it means for someone to die on screen by being shot.

That imagining may seem fanciful, but that is pretty much what we got with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill. After the banks helped to inflate a dangerous housing bubble and then almost destroyed themselves in the resulting fallout, we got a bill that was mostly cosmetic. What was most important was that we got a bill with so many loopholes and carve-outs that the finance industry has had little trouble doing exactly what they want to. Sure, there are some minor inconveniences on the order of having to use an SKS in a film when you really wanted an AR-15. But otherwise, it’s no big deal.

What’s interesting is that we got this law that was far less than the least one would have thought possible when the banking crisis was going on when the Democrats were in control. And that goes right along with my theory of modern American politics. The Democrats will in general not make things a lot worse, but they won’t do anything that makes things substantially better. In general, they will create bills that are hyper-complicated to both please their various constituencies (mollify the masses but don’t harm the elites) and to try to get the Republicans to support them—which they never do.

It is very likely that Congress would never enact such a stupid law regarding violence in film. It would be too clear to the people that it was nonsense. But when it comes to arcane matters like finance, they are free to do so. It’s not just that the people generally don’t understand this stuff—the people in Congress themselves don’t understand it. And so we get what we’ve come to expect of our elected officials: laws that look like they are doing something without, you know, really doing something. At least that’s the case when it comes to constraining the excesses of the power elite. Who knew when the song said “the land of the free” it wasn’t referring to us all?

Afterword

There is one thing that Dodd-Frank has done for me: it has given my bank an excuse for getting rid of free checking.

On this day in 1623, the great physicist (and much, much more) Blaise Pascal was born. In particular, he did a lot of work in fluid flow and invented the hydraulic press and the syringe. In addition to all of his work in science and mathematics, he was also quite an interesting theologian. Unlike Newton, his ideas are still of some interest. (Actually, I’m not sure that Newton’s theological ideas were ever of any interest.)

The Czech composer Johann Stamitz was born in 1717. During his lifetime, he was better known as a violinist. But his output as a composer was large. It’s always interesting to see how much people produced during this time. I think it was due to the fact that they didn’t have much else to do to entertain themselves. Someday, I’ll write about that in more depth. Anyway, Stamitz had two sons who were both at least as important as he was in terms of composition. Still, his music is very appealing. I would call his music Baroque, but he was certainly picking up on some of the stuff that would become classical. Here is the Ensemble Settecento performing the Andante from his Symphony in E-flat Major:

And then there is Alfredo Catalani who was born in 1854. Although he didn’t even live to be 40 due to tuberculosis, he wrote some extremely beautiful operas. He has sadly been all but forgotten. If you like opera at all, however, you will love the following 4 minutes of Renee Fleming performing “Ebben! Ne Andro Lontana” from Catalani’s most famous opera (that is occasionally performed), La Wally:

Moe Howard of The Three Stooges was born in 1897. When I was a kid, I hated the Stooges. But now I can appreciate the art. When I was young, the violence seemed far too realistic. Now it seems artful, almost like dance. It’s very impressive stuff. Film critic Pauline Kael was born in 1919. And musician Nick Drake was born in 1948. He is one of my very favorite musicians. Here is a video made for his song “Day Is Done”:

Author Salman Rushdie is 66. Ann Wilson of Heart is 63. Kathleen Turner is 59. And yet another blond conservative woman, Laura Ingraham is 49.

But in my long tradition of giving the day to personal crushes, this day belongs to Gena Rowlands who is 83 today. She is a great actor and the widow of one of my favorite filmmakers, John Cassavetes. Here is American Music Club’s Gena Rowlands song, “What Holds the World Together” (the wind that blows through Gena Rowlands’ hair):

Happy birthday Gena Rowlands!

When I was a kid growing up during the Cold War, there was one thing that most disturbed me. It was the same thing that disturbed everyone. Political systems, economic systems, those are important, but they aren’t personal. What was personal was how the power of the state was used to pit children against their families. The truth is, I don’t know how true that was. It could have all been propaganda. But the idea that one should love the state more than one’s family is typical of totalitarian governments.[1]

What has amazed me over the years is how conservatives do the same thing. I remember Reagan (it might have been Bush) praising a young girl for turning in her parents who were supposedly dealing cocaine. Because, you know, filial love should always be trumped by arbitrary drug laws. When I first read about that, I was horrified. But even more horrific was the fact that there was no push back in the mainstream press. It was as though the whole country had turned commie: yes Virginia, you really should honor the state ideology more than your parents.

Yesterday, I saw another example of this. George Republican Representative Phil Gingrey spoke on the floor of the House. He was arguing in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. It appears that children are getting the wrong ideas about gender roles, so he suggested that our schools should step in:

Where do children get their ideas about gender roles? I assume from their parents. But regardless, Gingrey doesn’t want to teach children; he wants to indoctrinate them. The funny thing is that if men really are better at some things than women are, then in general, they will end up doing them. The whole push is to tell little boys that they really ought to be playing with guns and throw those teddy bears away. But that shows a shocking lack of confidence in the validity of their position.

The main issue, however, is that conservatives like Gingrey are not against big government. They are only against big government in as much as it affects businesses. When it comes to individuals, they not only want a big government, they want an intrusive government. And that’s why I say that the Republican Party has become proto-fascist. They aren’t all the way there, but there are lots of green shoots. They want to enforce a limited range of religious beliefs. They want individuals to do what is best for the collective. They believe in crony capitalism. They are jingoistic in the extreme. They are nationalistic. They don’t like non-white races. Remember: hating the Jews was not a fundamental part of fascism (though it was of Nazism). I don’t see huge differences between the Republican Party and other explicitly fascist parties around the world today. And Gingrey is a great example of this.

[1] Jesus asked the same thing of his followers. Belief Net provides a good overview of some of Jesus’ anti-family sayings.

For a long time, I said nothing. I hid my true feelings. I resisted the impulse to scream, “Doesn’t the Washington Post hire copy editors?!” Or even decent IT professionals, because the problem that most bugs me is more a technical problem than a grammar problem. And it is the kind of thing that ought to bother everyone because it is really obvious.

But I will be silent no longer. When the Washington Post was free, that was one thing. But now that they are charging $9.99 for 4 weeks, they ought to be able to get it together.

Here is a typical Wonk Blog error:

That closing quote at the beginning of the sentence happens in most articles. But surprisingly, not consistently. I don’t know why it is, but there ought to be a simple solution, especially at this cost. But that isn’t the only kind of problem. There are all kinds of problems. Here is a similar one:

But at least that single quote is opening. Thank God for small favors.

At the beginning of the IRS scandal, I was really angry when the White House forced the resignation of IRS chief Steven T. Miller. Even at that time, it was well known that Miller was not in charge when the scandal was going on. It was Shirley Sherrod all over again. Our current president has no tolerance for even a whiff of scandal and there is no end to the number of people he will roll over on in order to keep himself safe. It’s pathetic. I know that I am a pretty bad follower and have little regard for leaders. But the one thing I do respect in a leader is loyalty and Obama again and again shows he is far more interested in systemic protection than justice or mercy for those working under him.

I’ve been thinking about this for the last few days. To start with, there was the claim by Holly Paz that the term “tea party” was not used to indicate a conservative political organization but any political organization. That could just be her perspective, especially given that she works in Washington and thus had relatively little contact with the Cleveland office. Then there was the revelation from Elijah Cummings’ release of all the hearing testimony that indicated that the IRS put similar groups together so that they would be consistent in their findings. All of this indicates that there isn’t even a scandal here.

Most of the media are only interested in this case as far as it may lead to the White House. Those on the right are screaming about how the White House must have been pushing the IRS to go after Obama’s enemies. Those on the left are screaming just as loudly that the White House had nothing to do with it and that it was entirely an internal IRS scandal. But no one seems particularly interested in asking the most basic question, “Was there any scandal at all?” It’s looking more and more like Norm Scheiber may have been overstating the scandal when he wrote:

It might be even less than that. I doubt we will ever get to the bottom of it, though. As it becomes clear that this supposed scandal doesn’t reach to the White House, both sides will lose interest. But the Republicans will need to save face, so they will use the opportunity to vilify the IRS. The Democrats won’t push back because it doesn’t really touch them. In the end, it will be another turquoise socks controversy: no real evidence of wrong doing, but enough allegations that people assume something nefarious must have been going on.

More important to me is the fact that the whole nation can’t take the time to figure out what is really happening. This is an issue that I commonly deal with in talking to individuals about politics. People (conservatives especially but hardly exclusively) are forever getting angry about this or that outrage. But in almost all cases, the real situation is far more complex. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t real outrages, but it never hurts to slow down and find out a little more about the situation. Like in this case: would it really have hurt the country to wait and see if the IRS scandal was real before freaking out? Would it have hurt to allow Steven T. Miller to serve out his term? These are not life-and-death issues. We have time to figure out the truth.

As I’ve reported before, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has an odd signature. Essentially, it is just a bunch of circles. When he was nominated Treasury Secretary, there was much discussion about how horrible his signature would look on our currency. Given that we have a pyramid topped with an eye on our cash, I hardly see how Lew’s curious signature could bring down its aesthetic quality. In my opinion, our cash is quite ugly. Whenever I go outside the country, I am struck by how much more attractive (And harder to counterfeit!) almost any other currency is. But I will allow that ours is getting better.

For those who do not remember Jack Lew’s signature, here it is:

But that was then. Jack Lew has changed his signature. And guess what? Now people are complaining about the new signature! The Huffington Post commented, “Now it’s not only indecipherable, but boring too!” And they document a number of others who are none too impressed. Here it is:

For the record, I think this is a great new signature. It is still charming without being nearly as ostentatious. What’s more, it is not indecipherable at all. Lew’s full name is Jacob Joseph Lew. I clearly see the J-J-L. As for the rest, who cares? My signature is no more accurate—it is basically F-[squiggle]-M-[squiggle]. But what’s more interesting is that the man just can’t catch a break. Most people’s signatures really do look dreadful. Both of Lew’s signatures are pretty and distinctive. What more must a signature be?

On this day in 1511, the Italian sculptor and architect Bartolomeo Ammannati was born. I think his sculptures are beautiful but they aren’t held in high regard because he so much copied Michelangelo. But if you are going to copy someone, copy the best. Anyway, I really like Michelangelo, so it makes sense that I would like Ammannati. It doesn’t much matter that he wasn’t innovative. He was considered a far better architect during his life.

The Baroque opera composer Antonio de Literes was born in 1673. One doesn’t much hear Baroque opera these days, but I don’t much understand it. It is wonderfully varied. The following video is a good example of his work. It is from a lyric-drama, Acis y Galatea. The song is “Confiado Jilguerillo”:

French neoclassical painter Joseph-Marie Vien was born 1716. I’m very fond of his work. Illustrator James Montgomery Flagg, famous for the Uncle Sam recruiting poster, was born in 1877. The great lyricist Sammy Cahn was born in 1913. Actor E.G. Marshall was born in 1914. And our president’s father, Barack Obama, Sr was born in 1936.

Perhaps the greatest songwriter of the 20th century, Paul McCartney is 71. I don’t much like him as a performer and I am quite tired of his work. But he is a towering figure in songwriting. I rather like John Lennon, but he wasn’t half the songwriter McCartney was. Let me just mention a couple of truly great tunes: “Yesterday” (very likely the greatest pop song ever written), “Penny Lane,” and “Lady Madonna.” But I really could go on and on and on. He also wrote by far the best John Lennon tribute song:

Two childhood crushes Carol Kane and Isabella Rossellini are both 61. And singer Misia is 57.

The day, however, belongs to movie critic Roger Ebert who was born on this day in 1942 (the same day as McCartney). As everyone knows, I am not keen on movie critics. And there is much to complain about with Ebert. But he did know film and he loved it. And when you get right down to it, the biggest problem with critics is that they don’t love the art form. In a better time, Ebert might have been really great. If he had had time to spend with the films and not do all those horrible “one off” reviews. Still, his reviews were always interesting to read. His knowledge of film history helped. But even more important: he was a really good writer. He is missed.

Happy birthday Roger Ebert!

As you have probably heard, Michael Hastings died this morning in a car crash. Rolling Stone has a good obituary for him that you ought to read. I noticed that last November I wrote what could have stood as it’s own obituary in an article, Michael Hastings Ruining Journalism… Again. “I really like Michael Hastings. Like most people, I learned about him when he published his explosive The Runaway General in Rolling Stone. I didn’t give the article itself that much thought. A reporter had a good scoop. It was the reaction to the article that made me take notice of him. It seemed you couldn’t turn the page of a magazine without being confronted with another journalist explaining why Hastings’ article was a bad thing. Never again would the disgraced Stanley McChrystal trust him.”

Of course, that wasn’t what I most liked about him. I continued, “My opinion of Hastings went even higher when he appeared on Up with Chris Hayes in August and dismantled Josh Barro’s fascist argument against Julian Assange. Even more than Jeremy Scahill, Hastings seems determined to get at the truth regardless (or perhaps because) of powerful interests.”

Here he is in that exchange saying what ought to be understood by all journalists, “My job is not to help the US government fulfill their diplomatic objectives.”

And here he is on CNN with the evil idiot Piers Morgan:

Hastings’ death is a great loss to journalism. It shouldn’t be. He should have been typical. He was anything but. And now he’s not even around as an example of how the job should be done.