Ever wonder about all those Bed Bath & Beyond walls of towels?
Via Buzz Feed, it is all a lie:
Bed Bath & Beyond Lie
Reply
B. F. Skinner Thinks You’re a Terrible Parent
Henrik Ibsen was born on this day in 1828. If it weren’t for him being generally a jerk, I would have given the day to him. He was a hell of a playwright though. I really appreciate Russian painter Illarion Pryanishnikov, who was born in 1840. Most people won’t care, but I have an unnatural love of the Nixon White House: John Ehrlichman was born in 1925. And Fred Rogers was born in 1928. What a group of people!
There are a lot of old people who are still alive. Vera Lynn is 96 today! Carl Reiner is 91! Hal Linden is 82. And there are other birthdays. William Hurt is 63. Spike Lee is 56. Holly Hunter is 55.
But I have to give this day to B. F. Skinner. It isn’t that I don’t think that he wasn’t largely a creepy guy. But he is the only major psychological thinker of the 20th century whose ideas were basically right. And more important: his ideas are actually helpful in a therapeutic setting. I know: most of it is like the Henny Youngman joke, “I went to the doctor and said, ‘Doc, it hurts when I do this!’ So he said, ‘Then don’t do that!'” But it is a hell of a lot better than the Freudian ideas of childhood sexuality or the Jungian ideas of cross generational haunting. (Note: I like Jung, I just don’t find him all that useful.)
So a big “Happy birthday!” to the strange Dr. Skinner.
Afterword
I will use any opportunity to listen to this song:
No comments about the teeth!
Republicans Pushing Debt Ceiling Again
I haven’t been writing about the upcoming Debt Ceiling fight, but it hasn’t been far from my mind. The Republicans only pushed it off for a few months to allow them to regroup. They most definitely have not given up on the idea. In fact, their belief that they won the Sequester fight has only made them more aggressive. As I’ve noted many times before, the only way to negotiate with Republicans is from a position of strength. Any show of weakness or openness to compromise is met with ever greater demands.
On a recent radio interview with Sean Hannity, John Boehner said, “Do you want to risk the full faith and credit of the United States government over Obamacare?” Boehner seems to live in a land where it is always “opposite day.” He isn’t risking the full faith and credit of the US government; Obama is by not giving Boehner everything he wants. Mitch McConnell is saying much the same kinds of things.
Bruce Bartlett has an article on the Economix Blog arguing that Obama needs to be prepared to use the 14th Amendment clause, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” He provides the history of this clause and it is fascinating.
Basically, after the Civil War, a lot of Democrats wanted to just default on the loans the government had taken out to fund the war. Most of these loans were to average people who would have been hurt. The nation changed the Constitution to stop this from happening. Does this really apply to what is happening now? Bartlett thinks so:
The purpose of the debt provision of the 14th Amendment was to say that national debt was beyond the realm of politics. In the words Jack Balkin, a Yale law professor: “It was stated in broad terms in order to prevent future majorities in Congress from repudiating the federal debt to gain political advantage, to seek political revenge or to try to disavow previous financial obligations because of changed policy priorities.”
Republican threats to hold the debt limit hostage to their agenda today present precisely the sort of political situation contemplated by the authors of the 14th Amendment.
The question is whether Obama will really do it. As I have documented before, Obama caved on his “No Debt Ceiling Negotiation” stance. At this point, we may have no other option.
Afterword
I wrote this back in December:
Now I feel more certain than ever that these negotiations will move into January. The problem is that Obama’s last offer will be the starting point for Boehner next year. So we’ll get something like, “You use chained-CPI, raise the Medicare eligibility age, and raise the top tax rate to 37% for incomes over a million dollars. In return, we won’t fight you on the debt ceiling for a year and half. Deal?” And Obama will take it.
And Boehner will again pull the ball away. And why shouldn’t he? The Republicans can just wait a month and use the debt ceiling to force Social Security to be privatized, raise Medicare eligibility up to 90, and repeal Obamacare. What’s the president going to do? Fight? We’d all be very curious to see what that looks like.
Conservatives Never Learn
This morning, Paul Krugman wrote another article trying to understand why conservatives and moderates who are shown to be wrong time and again never reflect that maybe “all the people they know” just don’t know very much. The specific target is John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog. Yesterday, he was channeling Chicken Little over an immanent economic crisis. Krugman disagrees of course, but also points back to 2005 when Hinderaker mocked Krugman for saying there was a housing bubble.
I went over and looked at that article, That Hissing Sound Is Krugman. In the article, he doesn’t argue against Krugman. He just claims that Krugman is not making an argument—or at least that he doesn’t understand it. This is odd, because the argument for the housing bubble was pretty simple: home prices have always risen at the rate of inflation; at that time, home prices were rising substantially faster than inflation. There was no underlying reason for prices to rise so fast other than that there was a bubble.
The basis of Hinderaker’s argument is just that Krugman is a partisan. He writes:
Well, if we believed anything Krugman writes, we’d be worried all the time. Or at least until we have a Democratic administration, when everything will be rosy again.
So, not only is Hinderaker wrong about the housing bubble, he’s also wrong about Krugman. He should have left out that second sentence. Of course, I don’t think Krugman is pessimistic necessarily; it is just that in these times the rational, knowledgeable position is pessimistic.
But what is really great about John Hinderaker is that he is just as clueless as Krugman says. After being totally wrong about the housing bubble, Hinderaker added the following update to his original article today:
Wow. I see Krugman is at it again, nearly eight years after the fact! It’s time to move on, Paul.
No argument. No admission of being wrong. Just a statement that we need to move on. And as the years go by and there is no economic crisis, Hinderaker will again say it is time to move on. We don’t want to spend any time thinking about how wrong we’ve been! That might cause us to rethink our conservatism.
Tobias Smollett Day
Back in 1860, William Jennings Bryan was born on this day. He has a bit of a bad reputation because he was on the wrong side of the Scopes Trial. But the truth is that he was a good strong progressive. I don’t doubt that today he would accept evolution. Sadly, he died just after “winning” that trial in 1925.
It seems most days are good days for Nazi birthdays, and today is no exception. Hitler’s architect Albert Speer was born in 1905. He spent most of his life after World War II arguing that he didn’t know about the genocide. I tend not to believe him, but I will allow that he wasn’t the evilest of men. Speaking of the evilest of men, Adolf Eichmann was born in 1906. I will give Eichmann this: at least he had the good taste to get captured so we could hang him. (I know, I know: I don’t believe in capital punishment. But if anyone does deserve it, it is Eichmann.)
Philip Roth is 80 today. He’s been spouting a lot of nonsense recently, but he was very important to me when I was younger. Burt Metcalfe, the MASH TV series writer, is 78. There are Hollywood birthdays today: Glenn Close, Harvey Weinstein, and Bruce Willis. If you want more details, go over to IMDb! One birthday today shocked me: Sirhan Sirhan is 69 today. I thought he died years ago.
And finally, the man of the day: Tobias Smollett was born in 1721. He wrote the fourth real English translation of Don Quixote. It is one of two mid-18th century translations (the other being Charles Jervas), both of which are quite readable today, even without modern editing. However, Smollett has the advantage of being edited by Carole Slade for the Barnes & Noble Classics edition. As I’ve written before, this edition is worth its price just for Slade’s notes. Give it a read!
I claim this day, 19 March, as Tobias Smollett Day. Hallmark may start printing the cards!
My Hero Phil Davison
This is a blast from the past. I just came upon it. Two and a half years ago, Phil Davison spoke to the Stark County (Ohio) Republican Party Executive Committee. He wanted to be the Republican nominee for Stark Country Treasurer. When I first wrote about this, I did not embed the video for whatever reason. But here goes. This is only five minutes and I really hope that you will watch it. It is amazing to behold.
Here was my reaction at the time:
So Phil: if we are ever in the same town, I would definitely like to take you out for a beer. To be honest, you could use it! This may be the opportunity you are waiting for! Forget that treasurer business. Forget about infestation. I’m talking about the opportunity to drink beer with me in a well fumigated bar where we can watch football—not touch-football—winner take all, football! Let me repeat that so there is no miscommunication: if we are ever in the same town, I would definitely like to take you out for a beer and watch non-touch football in a well-fumigated bar! In all honesty, I think it would be fun. Because, like it or not: you are a nut. (And I mean that in the best way!)
Thank you very much!
Phil Davison was not given the nomination.
Afterword
Here is the Volkswagen commercial that used Davison and other internet spazzes with Jimmy Cliff doing a really great version of the Partridge Family’s “Come On Get Happy!”
Tricky Apes
I mentioned the song “The Walls Came Down” to a friend of mine. It got me thinking about Jericho and so I did a little research and I found that the wall of Jericho is extremely old: 9,000 BC. That’s really interesting, because the events in Joshua are supposedly less than 2,000 BC. What’s more, I read that the wall was primarily for flood control. I also read about the great archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon who had done the most important digs there. This kind of stuff fascinates me, so I went looking for any documentaries on the archaeology of Jericho.
It didn’t go well. Almost everywhere I looked, I found videos where people were trying to prove that the events depicted in Joshua are true. There are two problems with this. First, I’m interested in the earlier settlements. Second, honest (non-apologetic) digs have shown that Jericho was not populated at the time of Joshua; at best, there was a small number of squatters, but certainly no city.
This is a big problem with religious dogma: it limits what you can think. These people can’t just enjoy the wonderful stories that archaeology can tell us. They must shoehorn the data in pre-existing narratives. I’ll admit, it is pretty cool when history and literature do intersect as in, for example, the Iliad. But it isn’t necessary: either for the story or the place.
My searches for documentaries led me to Netflix where I found a History Channel production of Ape to Man. But I was immediately annoyed because the description alerted me, “This film is: controversial.” After watching it, I can tell you the only controversial thing about Ape to Man is that it doesn’t accept the biblical dogma that the earth is only 6,000 years old. But then, I’ve found that the History Channel often panders to biblical fundamentalist. It is but one of very many problems with the network.
The documentary itself wasn’t bad. It can be forgiven getting some things wrong. As they even note in the video, the field moves so fast that things are always changing. Now, for example, it isn’t generally believed that humans drove the Neanderthals to extinction. But one thing that always seems to be present in these documentaries is a very pro-human take on the competition of the two species. Humans had more complex social groups or humans had better communication skills or humans had something else. That’s the reason that the Neanderthals went extinct. Never mentioned is that humans very nearly went extinct. To me it is just dumb luck.
Most of what is wrong with us as a species comes from our unjustified belief that we are some quantum level above the rest of the universe. That’s why many people deny natural selection. But even among those who do accept it, there is a tendency to think that we are special because we build houses, drive cars, and watch television. We really aren’t. I was thinking about this earlier. The first settlement of Jericho was right around the time of the Neolithic Revolution: when humans started to farm. We did that for 2,000 years before we invented pottery—8,000 years ago. At that time, the people making pottery were like the people designing rockets for NASA today. If we survive another 8,000 years (which I highly doubt), it is unimaginable what we will be doing. And we will look back on who we are now as apes with a few tricks. Of course, that’s what we are now and what we will be then.
Afterword
They blew the horn, and the walls came down!
The US Has Always Been at War with Ghana
Earlier today, Glenn Greenwald took “reasonable” Republican David Frum to task for his revisionist look back on Iraq, David Frum on the Rhetoric of Iraq. In particular, he demolishes Frum’s claim that he was never that impressed with Ahmed Chalabi. But somehow the unimpressed Frum wrote of Chalabi in 2004 in The National Review, “Compared to any other possible leader of Iraq—compared to just about every other political leader in the Arab world—the imperfect Ahmed Chalabi is nonetheless a James bleeping Madison.” But who knows? Madison believed in democracy and Frum is a Republican, so maybe Frum isn’t that impressed with Madison.
What I took away from the article, however, was Greenwald’s statement, “Americans are quite good at regretting their past wars but quite poor at applying the lessons to newly proposed ones.” To document this, he links to two recent articles. First, one in The Hill that discusses a Gallup poll that showed that people think we shouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq:
Fifty-three percent say their country “made a mistake sending troops to fight in Iraq,” according to a new Gallup poll released on Monday. Forty-two percent say the decision was not a mistake.
Second, an article from CBS News that discussed a CBS News/New York Times poll that shows that people think we should start a war with Iran:
The poll, which surveyed more than 1,000 adults nationwide between March 7 and 11, showed that 51 percent of Americans would support U.S. military action in Iran for purposes of stopping the country from developing a nuclear weapon. Thirty-six percent say they would oppose such action, and 13 percent say they are unsure.
Imagine it: March 2023! In Newsweek, a prominent Obama speechwriter would publish, “Jon Favreau on the Rhetoric of Iran.” In it, he would write something like, “It seems amazing to people today, but ten years ago, everyone thought Iran had a nuclear weapons program. How could we have known?” At the same time, Gallup would release a poll that showed that most people think it was a mistake to start a war with Iran. But CBS News would report that most Americans think we should go to war to stop that dangerous Ghanaian Navy!
Attorney General to Appeal Milke Case
As I reported last week, Debra Milke’s conviction for the murder of her son 23 years ago has been overturned. So of course the Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne has decided to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
The statement from Horne is typical of these people. He doesn’t defend the conviction at all. Instead, he dredges up the tragedy of the boy’s death as though he thinks that the wrongful conviction and continued punishment of the boy’s mother will somehow bring him back. We all understand how horrible the crime was; that doesn’t make his mother a murderer.
It seems likely that the Supreme Court will not take the case. But Horne’s efforts in this regard show that his only real intent is to save face for the Arizona justice department. It has only been a couple of days since Milke’s conviction was overturned. There certainly hasn’t been sufficient time for him to look at the case anew and determine that it should be appealed.
This is very easy. We have a broken criminal justice system. It is a system that rewards police and prosecutors for punishing innocent people. And even when the innocents are exonerated, these same people are not only allowed to continue in their careers, they are allowed to make public statements about how they just know that this or that person is guilty. Because in their minds, everyone is guilty. It’s good for business.
Afterword
Note that Tom Horne is not calling for a retrial. How could he? The state has no case. Instead, he wants to appeal so that Milke can be put to death on the bad evidence that convicted her in the first place. I wonder: if everything went wrong and she was to be put to death, would Obama have the courage to pardon her? I doubt it.
Bing Still Losing Big to Google
This is just pathetic. I am inundated with commercials for Bing. As you may remember, I took the “Bing it on” challenge and Google won 4-0-1 (one tie). But with the constant Bing commercial assault, I question myself. Maybe I was unfair. So I’ve gone back three more time, putting in more and more unusual searches. And the result? Google always wins. This most recent time, I searched for: cashew chicken recipe; 47% video; St. Patrick; lightning rod; and Reinhard Hardegen. Google won this time 5-0-0.
What I try to do is avoid looking at the images and other presentational elements. Instead, I look at the results and ask myself, “Which list provided the data I was actually looking for?” And the closer I look, the better Google looks. Bing has a strong tendency to turn every search into a shopping trip. When I searched for “lightning rod,” the third result Bing provided was some place selling lightning rods. I suspect that only one out of a hundred people searching for this were looking to purchase one.
I can see what Microsoft is up to and why they think they can offer the “Bing it on” challenge. Bing generally does a better job of presentation. There are more images, for example. But even in the short time that I’ve been doing these challenges, Google seems to be changing its output to be more pleasant to look at. That’s to be expected. It is a relatively easy matter to present data more appealingly. Improving the actual data is much harder to do.
After four challenges, all of which Google won overwhelmingly, it is clear that Bing has fundamental problems that no amount of marketing will fix. As I’ve said before: Bing is far better than it used to be. But that doesn’t mean that much in this comparison. People are used to Google. Bing will need to offer something distinctly better than Google before people will switch in large numbers. Thus far, Bing isn’t even matching Google.
Republicans Blind to Racism
There was a racist dust up at CPAC on Friday during a K. Carl Smith session sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots on how to get African Americans to vote Republican. Smith’s talk was filled with divisive and irrelevant lines like, “I’m not going to join the KKK. The Democratic Party founded the KKK.” During the question period, Voice of Russia radio host Kim Brown apparently asked how many black women were at CPAC and the whole session went off the rails.
She was shouted down and told she wasn’t wanted there. But then a young white supremacist spoke. He said that all this outreach to blacks was just going to alienate young white males. Smith responded with what I think is a non sequitur about how Frederick Douglass forgave his slavemaster. The young man replied, “For giving him shelter? And food?” At that point the session exploded.
Benjy Sarlin reported all of this for Talking Points Memo. After the whole thing was over, he talked to a number of people who had been at the event. And they were all angry. But not at the white supremacist. They were angry at the young black woman, Kim Brown. The session speaker Smith later released a statement saying Brown “rudely interrupted” him. But all he could say of the white supremacist was that he made a “racially insensitive” comment but that they “left as friends.”
This illustrates what is wrong with the Republican base. Smith isn’t trying to get the Republican Party to be more appealing to African Americans; he is just trying to brand the Democratic Party as racist. On the details, he’s right: the Democratic Party has a long history of racism. But for my entire life, the Republican Party’s main electoral power has come from its implicit and explicit appeals to white racial resentment. If it were 1850, I would almost surely be a Republican. Is that really all that the Republican Party has to offer?
Of much greater concern is the reaction of the attendees to the white supremacist. No one would say that he was wrong or that his statement was repugnant. Instead, they made excuses for the remarks. When asked if he was offended by the white supremacist, one of the few blacks at the event even said, “No they were just telling the truth.” There is a strength in this kind of behavior: Republicans apparently stick by each other no matter what. That helps in their quest for power. But there is obviously a very dark side to this. And what’s more: it seems that the reason the Republican Party claims not to be racist is that they don’t even know it when they see extreme examples of it.
Naive Democrats Make it Easy for Republicans
Ah naivete! If it is authentic, it can be charming. But if it is inauthentic, it is just annoying. Yesterday morning on Up with Chris Hayes, Kyrsten Sinema was on the panel.
She is a member of the “Gang of 32” — the bipartisan group of new House members who are getting together to solve those problems they can agree on.
That’s all fine. But at one point she said, “This may surprise you, but our Gang of 32 statement—the very first thing we talk about is protecting and strengthening Social Security and Medicare.”
After she says that, Sam Seder almost jumps out of his chair. Here’s the question: is she naive or just stupid?
Republicans Don’t Mean What You Think They Mean
Can Sinema really think that when Republicans say they want to “protect and strengthen” entitlement programs that they mean literally that they want to protect and strengthen entitlement programs? Because that is most definitely not what they mean.
Republicans have been very clear on this point. In fact, it was a big deal in the last presidential election. Republicans want to savagely cut entitlement programs so that the programs will be around in the coming years.
The theory is that we just can’t afford the entitlement programs so we must cut them. Then we will be able to have some shadow of the programs in the decades to come—with the same name!
Block Grants
The best example of this is the block-granting of Medicaid. The idea here is that the federal government will give each state a block of money to support healthcare for the poor. The states can do with this money as they please.
But the big aspect of it is that the money will not keep up with the increasing price of healthcare. Eventually, Medicaid will be so starved for funds that it will be irrelevant as a program. But it will still exist! And in its uselessness, it will be robust!
With Pros Like Sinema
Yesterday, Jonathan Bernstein asked why it was that the “neutral” press was so in favor of cutting the budget deficit. If professional Democratic politicians like Kyrsten Sinema don’t understand the subtext of Republican claims to “strengthen” entitlement programs, how can the mainstream press, much less the average voter?
I fear that Sinema is both naive and stupid.
Image cropped from Kyrsten Sinema by Gage Skidmore under CC BY-SA 2.0.