Category Archives: Media Criticism

Obama Subtitled

The Grauniad, of all places, has his number:

Nick Robinson: “A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn’t the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?”

Brown immediately swivels to leave Obama in pole position. There is a four-second delay before Obama starts speaking [THANKS FOR NOTHING, GORDY BABY. REMIND ME TO HANG YOU OUT TO DRY ONE DAY.] Barack Obama: “I, I, would say that, er … pause [I HAVEN’T A CLUE] … if you look at … pause [WHO IS THIS NICK ROBINSON JERK?] … the, the sources of this crisis … pause [JUST KEEP GOING, BUDDY] … the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause [I’M IN WAY TOO DEEP HERE] … a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system … pause, close eyes [THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE A CROCK OF SHIT BACK HOME. HELP].

People see what they want to see.

The Journochat

Iowahawk has managed to penetrate the Journolist, and found a copy of the latest chat session:

SPENCER ACKERMAN: did katha leave?

MATTHEW YGLESIAS: yeah

SPENCER ACKERMAN: shes a total bitch but she’s right… none of the hot media girls will hang out with us

EZRA KLEIN: i/k, but i don’t get it… i know i used to have kind of a complexion problem but it cleared up after i started using ProActiv

CHRIS HAYES: i/k a couple of us are a little chubby but were all pretty cute and it’s not like we wear gross clothes or anything

SPENCER ACKERMAN: ya but the only girls who will talk to us are ugly av club lepers like katha and jane hamsher and amanda marcotte

EZRA KLEIN: dont forget the two naomis

MATTHEW YGLESIAS: ewwwwww

JOSH MARSHALL: sometimes i really hate my body… does anyone know any good fast diets?

ERIC ALTERMAN: dont fall in that trap josh… read the article in the May Teen Utne about dealing with body image

MATTHEW YGLESIAS: idk if im ready to really be with a girl

KATHA POLLITT has entered the room.

KATHA POLLITT: this is katha and jane and amanda!! we are at amandas house and we have been reading EVERYTHING you boys said!!!! F/U!!! i hope your happy, jane is crying in the bathroom!!!

EZRA KLEIN: oh s**t sorry

KATHA POLLITT: tell it to jane you JERK-O-LIST AZZHOLES!! And guess what ezra?? I have a screen cap of the whole thing!!! I bet mickey kaus will be interested in seeing it!!!!

EZRA KLEIN: come on dont do that katha

KATHA POLLITT: too late ezra, and you can write ur own f**king blogpost for 1st period. FTW!!!

KATHA POLLITT has left the room.

MATTHEW YGLESIAS: faaaaack

EZRA KLEIN: we’re screwed

JOSH MARSHALL:

Highlarious.

How We Got Here

A useful talk on the cause of the financial crisis:

Before talking about how we did get here, let me say a quick word about what didn’t cause this mess. Those who wish to blame greed for the crisis need to explain how and why it is that greed seems to causes crises only at specific times, despite the fact that it is omnipresent as a feature of human nature and market economies. As the economist Larry White has noted, if we saw a bunch of planes crash all on the same day, we wouldn’t blame gravity. It’s always there. Something else must be at work. I would argue that the key is the set of institutions through which greed or self-interest is channeled. That is, good institutions can cause self-interest to generate desirable unintended consequences, and bad ones can cause undesirable ones. So perhaps we should be looking at institutions and policy.

Those who wish to blame deregulation or the supposed “laissez-faire” philosophy of the Bush Administration are going to have to identify the deregulation in question, which will be a challenge given that the last deregulatory legislation in the financial industry was in 1999 under Clinton. These folks will also have to explain how the enormous growth in the Federal Register and domestic spending over Bush’s two terms reconciles with his supposed belief in laissez-faire. Answer: it doesn’t.

The two key causes of this crisis are expansionary monetary policy on the part of the Fed and a series of regulatory and institutional interventions that channeled that excess credit into the housing market, creating a bubble that eventually had to burst. In other words, the boom (and the inevitable bust) are the product of misguided government policy, not unbridled capitalism.

The Fed drove up the money supply and drove down interest rates very consistently since 9/11. When central banks do so, they make long-term investments relatively cheaper than short-term ones, thus the excess funds flow toward such goods. Historically, these were producer goods in capital industries, but in this particular case, a set of other government interventions and policies pushed those funds toward housing.

A state-sponsored push for more affordable housing has been a staple of several prior administrations. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are key players here. Although they did not orginate the questionable mortgages, they did develop a number of the low down-payment instruments that came into vogue during the boom. More important, they were primarily responsible for the secondary mortgage market as they promoted the mortgage-backed securities that became the investment vehicle du jour during the boom. Both Fannie and Freddie are, we must remember, not “free-market” firms. They are “government-sponsored entities,” at one time nominally privately owned, but granted a number of government privileges, in addition to carrying an implicit promise of government support should they ever get into trouble. With such a promise in place, the market for mortgage-backed securities was able to tolerate a level of risk that truly free markets would not. As we now know, that turned out to be a big problem.

Read all. It also points out the ways that this mess is the debris of the New Deal and the depression.

And yet the lies that got Obama elected — that this was caused by “greed,” “deregulation,” and “tax cuts” continue, and continue to be used to justify running up the national debt to insane levels and nationalizing vast swathes of the economy.

[Update at 9 PM Pacific]

Richard Epstein:

…we take [failing enterprises] away from bankruptcy judges, who are experts, and give them to a collection of congressional individuals who are charitably called clowns. When you bring commercial decisions to Congress they become politicized, and politicized decisions become destructive decisions.

Charitably indeed.

How Did It Go?

Here’s a graph of Anti-HumanityEarth Hour’s effects in California.

It doesn’t really surprise me. Even if a lot of people dimmed lights, the amount of electricity used for lights in CA isn’t that huge a percentage of the total demand. For instance, one of the biggest drivers, particularly in the Bay Area, 24/7/365, is server farms, and no Virginia, even in the land of fruits and nuts, they’re not going to shut them down for a stupid political propaganda stunt.

[Update a few minutes later]

Martian Achievement Hour?

Just What We Need Right Now

A new fantasy history about FDR:

Nothing to Fear claims to provide a “riveting narrative account of the personal dynamics that shaped the tumultuous early days of FDR’s presidency.” Although entertainingly written, it provides little new evidence and even less analysis. What it does offer is an account of Roosevelt’s first 100 days—what Cohen terms “the third great revolution in American history”—for readers whose faith in that revolution remains unshaken and who wish to reclaim the New Deal legacy today. Cohen’s heroes gamely overcome the “business interests” and “powerful financial interests” who try to derail or at least temper Roosevelt’s bold policies.

The result is a polemic that inadvertently raises more questions than it answers. Ray Moley, for instance, became an outspoken critic of the New Deal after leaving the administration, writing in 1939 that Roosevelt suffered from “a kind of mental autointoxication.” By 1948 he was warning about creeping statism, and by 1960 he was a full-fledged Goldwater Republican. Whatever doubts Moley had about the New Deal at the time go unmentioned in Nothing to Fear, and his recantation is the subject of just one paragraph in the epilogue. A pivotal character in American political history is thus reduced to a one-dimensional apparatchik.

Well, what do you expect from the New York Times? It took them years to admit the (Pulitzer-winning) lies and propaganda of Walter Duranty.

Don’t Know Much About Geography

An amusing article about LA-based “24” producers, and tales set in DC. I find this kind of attitude among producers infuriating:

Howard Gordon, “24’s” executive producer, concedes that the show’s writing staff isn’t exactly all that knowledgeable about the lay of our land. “We’ve all been to Washington,” he says from “24’s” production offices in Los Angeles, “but none of us are Washington residents. I’m the closest thing. I’m from New York.”

The show’s chief research tool on Washington geography: “We have a big map in our office.”

If so, how to explain the crash of a passenger jet in the alleged Washington suburb of “Edgeboro, Md.”? Or that Jack is able to maintain his tail on a suspect on “New York Avenue” by driving across a very large (and utterly imaginary) park?

Gordon says the names and locales need only to be plausible, if not literally accurate, since almost all of the 11 million who watch “24” each week have no idea what’s where in the nation’s capital. “The only people who really care about this are people with too much time on their hands,” he says.

Yes, just like the only people who care about getting the science right are people “with too much time on their hands.” I guess they don’t mind being a laughingstock as long as they get laughed at all the way to the bank. And does this guy really believe that scuba diving into the White House basement from the Potomac is “plausible”?

[Update in the afternoon]

I have the same thought about this as I do about directors and producers of SF. Would it kill you, would it break the bank, to hire a consultant to review a script and say, “guys, that doesn’t make any sense, because…” They wouldn’t have to take his/her advice if they thought fixing it would really screw up the dramatic story line, but it would spare them from completely needless stupidity and cluelessness.

[Evening update]

There’s a pertinent link in comments, explaining Hollywood and verisimilitude.

Mindless

Here’s an article that demonstrates the vapidity of thought of those who oppose self defense on campus (and anywhere else):

In April 2007, he was a student at Virginia Tech when his girlfriend and several other people he knew there were gunned down in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Thirty-two people died, plus the gunman.

There were times when Woods thought that maybe he should get a gun.

“Then I learned pretty fast that wouldn’t solve anything,” said Woods, who is now a graduate student at UT. “The idea that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible. It’s reactive, not preventative.”

Huh?

How did he “learn” that at all, let alone “pretty fast”? Who provided the lesson? Was it in graduate school at UT?

And what’s wrong with “reactive” as a fall back when “preventative” doesn’t work (as it clearly didn’t in Blacksburg)? Particularly when “preventative” seems to consist of putting up “unarmed victims heregun-free zone” signs?

Whatever he learned, or how fast he learned it, he didn’t learn it from these students, who disarmed a gunman up the road from his school back in 2002.

Opponents say that if guns are allowed on campus, students and faculty will live in fear of classmates and colleagues, not knowing who might pull a gun over a drunken dorm argument or a poor grade.

Note, they have difficulty finding any actual examples of this to justify their bizarre paranoia. And they don’t seem to live in fear of the psychopaths among them who ignore the “gun-free zone” signs, who are the only ones with guns under their setup.

Woods, who wore a maroon “Virginia Tech Class of 2007” T-shirt during an interview, said he hasn’t heard from any survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting who supports guns on campus.

And therefore, since he hasn’t heard of any, none must exist. Great logic, that.

He figures a classroom shooting would be too sudden to stop, even if a student or teacher had a gun.

How he “figures” that, just as how he “learned it pretty fast,” remains unexplained.

“Everything happens too quickly,” Woods said. “You either play dead or you are dead.”

Really? Tell it to this woman.

Idiot.

[Monday morning update]

If I am in possession of my faculties, I will refuse to go into a nursing home unless it is a “shall issue” nursing home. I would at least want some of the staff to be armed.

[Update after the Instalanche]

If there are any new readers here, you might want to check out the rest of the blog. I have some thoughts on the president’s south Asian speech affectations, press coverage of the Fargo floods, whether or not there is really nothing that we can do about the North Korean launch, and who controls the means of production.