hard heads soft hearts

a scratch pad for half-formed thoughts by a liberal political junkie who's nobody special. ''Hard Heads, Soft Hearts'' is the title of a book by Princeton economist Alan Blinder, and tends to be a favorite motto of neoliberals, especially liberal economists.
mobile
email

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Friday, August 21, 2020
 

 Little talk:


A routine which, if I follow, I am somewhat happy with:


1. Wake up

1.5. If anxious to read, eager to work, then work, or read.

2. Exercise - Exercise or some non-exercise equivalent.

3. Rest

4. SEWP - Service, or errands, or work, or prayer.

One way I have gone wrong is getting annoyed and discouraged when some particularly pointless and aggravating errand has gotten in the way of the More Important Things. On reflection, I think even the pointless and aggravating errands should be considered on par with the more exalted forms of work.

George MacDonald: "There are a great many more good things than bad things to do."

5. PLAT - Play or pleasure or prayer. 

Play.

Pleasure.

Prayer.

Play can involve doing the same thing as work, on the principle of the busman's holiday.

6. Sleep

It's perhaps useful to have minimums and maximums for exercise, and SEWP. The minimum should perhaps be easy enough to do, but enough to maintain, and keep your hand and eye in. The maximum should perhaps be cautious enough to avoid overdoing, but enough to improve and accomplish. The minimum for exercise should perhaps be somewhere in the range of 15 to 90 minutes, the maximum perhaps somewhere in the range of 90 to 360 minutes. The minimum for SEWP should perhaps be somewhere in the range of 40 to 240 minutes, the maximum perhaps somewhere in the range of 240 to 960 minutes.

For exercise, the lower numbers in the range are perhaps for those brave souls who exercise efficiently and well. The higher numbers in the range are perhaps for those of us with a strong preference for low-intensity moseying. (A good column by Tony Norman which discusses Speedy and Slowpoke, as well as more sinister stereotypes. The greatest danger of stereotype-based humor and commentary may be that it opens the door to charlatanism, pretending you are generating impact by writing War & Peace, when in fact you are generating impact by finger-painting taboo words with the blood & tears of an innocent.)

In hindsight, this routine seems to have something to do with F. Scott Fitzgerald's description of the appeal of the sporting life:

. . .It was never that he was completely sold on athletic virtuosity as the be-all and end-all of problems; the trouble was that he could find nothing finer. Imagine life conceived as a business of beautiful muscular organization—an arising, an effort, a good break, a sweat, a bath, a meal, a love, a sleep—imagine it achieved; then imagine trying to apply that standard to the horribly complicated mess of living, where nothing, even the greatest conceptions and workings and achievements, is else but messy, spotty, tortuous—and then one can imagine the confusion that Ring faced on coming out of the ball park.

Instead of "an arising, an effort, a good break, a sweat, a bath, a meal, a love, a sleep", we have "an arising, an effort, a good break, a bath, a meal, a desk, a sleep". Fantastic!

What category is politics? If you enjoy it, it can be play. If you don't, it can be an errand. If you do it well, it can be work, or service.

Big talk:

3 podcasts:

J-POD & Seema Chishti, on the Babri Masjid demolition of 1992:

"Seema Chishti: On a personal note, I was of a mixed Hindu and Muslim parentage. . .so I always had this special affinity with something which was part mosque, part temple. So, yes, there was something personal of interest for me, maybe it came into my voice. . .

Krishna Prasad: It very much did. You know, another woman journalist, Ruchira Gupta, who was 24 at that time, has written about how she was molested by the Kar Sevaks on Dec 6. 1992. She in fact goes to LK Advani to ask him to announce on the microphone that journalists should not be attacked, but Mr. Advani apparently says "Forget what has happened. This is a historic day. Celebrate. Eat something sweet." . . .How were journalists in general, and women journalists in particular, treated at that time?

Seema Chishti: I was not with Ruchira, Ruchira is a friend. . .my experience, they didn't seem to be interested in whether I was a woman or a man, it was a very clear attempt to make sure I was not in a position to record events. . .you have a Sadhu telling us "Do not picture this.". . .so they didn't want evidence, and they basically asked us to vamoose, go away, and hit you enough so that you are totally distracted. . .

Krishna Prasad: I am so happy that you use acronyms like CTO, because I think a whole lot of people wouldn't know that it stood for the Central Telegraph Office . . .the camaraderie among the journalists at that time, the sharing of one phone booth, or one fax machine, is something really alien to most journalists of this era.

Seema Chishti: What I take pride in, Krishna, is that a whole lot of journalists had to be beaten up, in order to stop them from telling the story. . .when today there is so much refusal to say it as it is, at least, then, it took sticks and stones and a lot of thwacking and thumping for us to be shut up. . .it was not as if everybody was of one persuasion, there were all kinds of journalists in a group there, but this was clearly a case of vandalism, we were watching a momentous, terrifying, huge event, and we wanted to be around to tell that story and to bear witness to it. . .I think this whole demand for a Hindu nation, that if Pakistan is Muslim, why isn't India Hindu, this seed has been there since before Independence, Advani is a very proud bearer of that. . .if I'm a supporter of media and secular India, then I would say that he dealt a blow to the idea that India belongs to everyone. . ."

Fifth & Mission: Civil rights attorney John Burris:

"John Burris: I grew up in Vallejo, kind of a semi-segregated town . . .I didn't walk away with any kind of deep-seated bias or animosity. . .I will say this, though. . .we didn't seem to have the presence of police around us . . .we didn't have, that I recall, beatings, the kind of stuff that we have now, shootings, that just wasn't part of life. . ."

Into America: Into Black Trans Liberation:

"Raquel Willis: Well, you know what is interesting is we've gotta get out of this space of thinking that transgender people are having some kind of magically different gender experience. Honey, I promise you, I'm not. Like, we all carry insecurities about our gender, about who we are and who we're supposed to be in the world.

Perhaps you could say that trans people may have a more drastic experience, but it's so connected to the ways that boys and men in general are told that they can't have a certain well of emotion, that they can't be intimate and have other ways of moving through the world that don't involve control and domination.

It's not entirely different from how women and girls of all experiences face not being seen as competent, intelligent, brilliant, and capable of leadership. And it also of course extends to folks who are nonbinary or gender nonconforming who straddle all of these struggles. And so we've got to understand that."

One lunch:

Wole Soyinka & David Pilling:

"Few leaders — politicians, generals or the religious zealots behind Boko Haram — have escaped his contempt. Of the latter, he says: “For the first time, I began to accept the existence of the theological concept called ‘evil’. Of course the foot soldiers in any cause are usually obtained from the disenfranchised. But the real initiators of this kind of violence are not. They believe in power.”. . .

. . .Soyinka has spent much time in the US, where he has taught at a number of universities. “My life has been involved with the diaspora on a very personal and visceral level,” he says of his interaction with prominent African-Americans. Donald Trump’s election marked an end to his US sojourn. In what has become known among Nigerians as “Wolexit”, he cut up his Green Card."

I think Soyinka may have been wrong to cut up his green card. I was wrong to say that I find it impossible to respect Trump voters/supporters/enablers. I do still feel it necessary to say that if you are ok with some of the consequences of a Trump presidency, I am not ok with that. But I suppose there is some sort of difference between "find it impossible to respect" and "not ok with". And I think Soyinka is right to identify power-worship as the connecting link between Boko Haram, TrumPutinism, and similar movements. 

It's perhaps important to find a middle ground between worshipping power and worshipping powerlessness, a middle ground between heedless ambition and heedless abdication. No god but God.

There have been many dismaying days of the Trump presidency, but only 2 days that shocked me. 

The first was in the first few days, when reports began to come from the airports that some people with green cards were not being allowed to enter the country. I suppose I thought it was possible that there might be changes in future green cards. But I did not expect them to mess with the lives of people who had already been issued green cards. I did not expect mainstream Republicans to be ok with that kind of malevolence. Logically speaking, if they are ok with millions of Americans not having health care, they would also be ok with any treatment meted out to immigrants, documented or undocumented, but I suppose I had not followed the logic through. I felt like a fool placidly coding at my desk. But I was a contractor being paid by the day, so I did not leave.

The second day was the Comey firing. Until that day, the US was not the kind of country where the President could call in the FBI director, request lenient treatment for friends & family, and fire him when he refused to go along. After that day, it was that kind of country. It took me a while to process it, but eventually I accepted, there is no bottom. The kind of of people who are ok with supporting Trump, or making excuses for Trump, or making excuses for those who are supporting Trump, are very ok with being ok. They would be ok with anything. It is what it is.

There does seem to be a definite difference between the post-Trump GOP and the pre-Trump GOP. The ethos of the pre-Trump GOP was "Do what we say, and nobody gets hurt." The ethos of the post-Trump GOP is "Do what we say, and nobody who matters gets hurt." And the list of people who they suspect might not matter keeps increasing.

It is perhaps worth thinking about why, until recently, there were relatively few negative consequences of the Trump presidency for the median voter. Here is my attempt to explain it: Trump has 3 abilities as a politician.

1) The ability to transgress norms without suffering consequences. This is not an ability of Trump, per se, but is an ability conferred on him by the large number of men, and some women, who are covering for him, either because they want to transgress norms in their own lives, or for some other reason. If these enablers lose either the ability or willingness to cover for him, this ability may leave him.

2) The ability to provide a steady supply of thought-inhibiting, attention-deficit creating noise. If you want to think, and want to be able to concentrate, this is a bug. If you are afraid of a lack of noise, and fear being alone with your thoughts, this is a feature.

[The function of noise] is to prevent thought and conversation, and to shut out any natural sound, such as the song of birds or the whistling of the wind, that might otherwise intrude. The radio is already consciously used for this purpose by innumerable people. In very many English homes the radio is literally never turned off, though it is manipulated from time to time so as to make sure that only light music will come out of it. I know people who will keep the radio playing all through a meal and at the same time continue talking just loudly enough for the voices and the music to cancel out. This is done with a definite purpose. The music prevents the conversation from becoming serious or even coherent, while the chatter of voices stops one from listening attentively to the music and thus prevents the onset of that dreaded thing, thought.

3) The ability to cut checks with borrowed money. This is related to his willingness to transgress norms. When crooked banks or financiers are looking for someone to launder money, or to turn illicit money into illicit goods and services, they know Trump is a safe choice to do the money laundering, or worse. One aspect of the Trump financial scandals that I don't understand is why Deutsche Bank continued to finance him even after he sued them. Obviously something crooked was going on with some manager or executive at Deutsche Bank, but I don't know what it was. 

For those of us who respect, even revere, Obama, it is somewhat galling that his careful, cautious nature led him to be careful and cautious in cutting checks with borrowed money, perhaps leading to a slightly slower recovery than would otherwise have been. While Trump's shamelessness in cutting checks with borrowed money may have succeeded in slightly goosing an economy that was, if not in need, then not averse to some goosing. 

A short digression on MMT: There seems to me a weak MMT and a strong MMT. 

Weak-MMT: It is possible to stimulate the economy in a deep recession without large increases in the debt/GDP ratio. 

This seems to me to be true and important. But Paul Krugman says this is wrong, so it probably is, for reasons I don't understand.

Specifically, Krugman seems to me to be making 2 claims:

1) When facing strong economic headwinds, like the collapse of a housing bubble, it is not possible to stimulate the economy without running a large deficit, and having a large increase in the debt/GDP ratio.

2) Even if it is theoretically possible, it is not important, at all.

I don't understand either 1 or 2.

Strong-MMT: Deficits don't matter.

This seems to me synonymous with saying money doesn't matter. In which case, what are we arguing about, exactly?

In any case, if (weak) MMT advocates ever succeed in getting helicopter money enacted, it may one day be possible to stimulate the economy without cutting checks with borrowed money. 

If Paul Krugman is wrong.

Which he probably isn't.

Pandemic preparedness has shown us, in a horrible way, that there's more to life than cutting checks with borrowed money, and carefulness and cautiousness is not always a sin. Which may mean that Trump's goose is cooked. Maybe.

One thread: (between me and WMC)

WMC: I've been thinking about this 'akramam' going on with the removal of mail sorters from the post offices of various districts and Trump trying to screw the postal service under the pretense of "mail fraud". It got me thinking about the election.

Me: Yes. There is no bottom. [censored because of Godwin's law]

WMC: Now worst case scenario, he wins the election again. What do leftist folks do then?

Me. In any case, the fight against TrumPutinism will be a multi-decade effort. Make calls / write postcards a few times a week or fortnight or month. March / protest / canvas a few times a month or quarter or year.

WMC: Call who, exactly?

Me: Yeah, don't know. But a politician I trust is Stacey Abrams.

WMC: Because either outcome of the election sucks. Just that one sucks more than the other. 

Me: No, I would dispute that, Biden and Harris do not suck, they just do not rock as much as Bernie / Warren.

WMC: Harris has put so many black folks in jail though.

Many for marijuana charges.

Then talked about how she smoked it in college while listening to tupac.

 (tupac wasn't even a rapper in the 80's)

Me: She went to Howard, she was in a black sorority.

WMC: They're the wish.com option.

Me: If Stacey Abrams vouches for her, I trust Stacey Abrams.

WMC: Do you think blue is running a strong campaign?

Me: She is not a left politician, but she is a center-left politician. If a marijuana decriminalization bill crossed her desk, she would sign it.

WMC: Right now the general impression is that it's the "we're not Trump".

Me: Politics in many countries is organizing into an inclusive coalition versus an exclusive coalition.

WMC: Bolsanaro.

Supposedly his ratings are at an all time high.

Gross.

Me: The inclusive coalition has a free rider problem: people who rely on the inclusive coalition as a fallback option, and then carefully police their speech to avoid offending the exclusive coalition.

Like women in socially conservative circles who are glad planned parenthood exists, but are not willing to say so publicly.

WMC: Interesting

That doesn't seem like a sizeable 'silent majority' though

Me: What does the inclusive coalition have going for it? Perhaps only this: that the kind of people who target vulnerable minorities for exclusion, tend to be in the grip of resentment, or greed, or malice, or pride.

And if you give people in the grip of those things enough power, horrible things start to happen.

Have enough horrible things happened to turn people against the idea of exclusion, and in favor of the idea of inclusion? We'll find out!

WMC: Except the reporting on these "horrible things" is contested as "fake news" or "false flags paid off by Soros" etc.

Me: The Nazis took the idea of exclusion to its logical extreme, and when they were defeated, the defeat of the Nazis built a protective taboo against the more extreme forms of exclusion.

WMC: They were defeated by warfare.

Me: That taboo lasted 2-3 generations. Now it has eroded, and no longer has the same protective force. 

Right, so now the question is whether new defeats can be inflicted on the forces of exclusion, and new taboos established.

Hopefully, the defeats can be inflicted at the ballot box.

WMC: I don't think that will defeat the forces that created Trump and his ilk.

They're still around and in power.

Me: The BLM protests have helped. But it will be a multi-decade effort.

In a weird way, what should the message of the forces of inclusion be? The message of the Andrew W K song, "You're Not Alone".

It's a song that's big and dumb and good-hearted, 3 things the Democratic party arguably needs to be: bigger, dumber, and gooder-hearted.

WMC: Agreed.

Why dumber though? Do you mean dumb down the way they express their ideas?

Me: And if people are feeling isolated and vulnerable, they're more likely to avoid speaking out in favor of inclusion.

Avoid speaking out, avoid confrontation, avoid doing anything that might make you a target.

Eg. some of the DACA recipients who were courageous enough to protest and speak to the media are being targeted by ICE for deportation.

One thing I mean by dumber: universal programs rather than means-tested programs.

Another thing I mean by dumber: programs with simple, user-friendly rules, rather than complex, lobbyist-friendly rules.

WMC: Hmmmm.


A post by Billmon after the 2004 convention:
In the end, though, the show - the speakers and the videos and the repetitive feeds of selected average Joes (or Juans) from Canton or Los Angeles or Little Rock - didn't matter much. . .

What was important to me was what I saw when the camera panned the delegates - black and white and every shade in between, male and female, gay and straight, young and old, union guys from Cleveland and lesbian couples from San Francisco, Irish pols from Boston and Hispanic pols from East L.A. Asian American businessmen from Seattle and African American teachers from Harlem.

God knows that's not the full picture of the Democratic Party - not even close. I'm sure there was no shortage of vile hacks and corporate fat cats in the audience. And when it comes to actual policies, it's pretty clear the party has about as much progressive backbone as a bowl of corn meal mush. . .

But. . .It may not be my party, but those are my people. . .I wish I could be there with them.

 

Noble RFK-ian sentiment from Siegfried Farnon:
"Do you know, when I think of some of the dreams I had as a young man, and the obstacles that stood in their way, they seemed so enormous at the time, but looking back, of course, they were all surmountable. . .I can't allow myself to tread on anyone else's dreams with anything but the softest of footfalls. We spend a lot of our life looking for the way home, James, and the thing is, we don't have the aptitude for it that cats do. . ."


Next post: 1-21-21