Injustice: rather pleasant, actually

Phil sends a must-read story that nicely illustrates what I have thought for a long time, which is that affable nitwits in close proximity to each other will buddy up, no matter what. Says Phil:

There's something very charming about this story. It's not just that the man they wrongfully arrested is so damn agreeable (just wait until they start quoting him -- he's such a trooper!). It's that the cops in this story aren't really demonized in spite of their rather ridiculous mistake. We set up these massive legal and procedural systems to maintain civility in this country, but human error always eventually manages to trump justice. I think we usually tend to think of human error as this terrible, exasperating thing, but in this story it seems much more innocent and forgivable. It, in a sense, humanizes human error. Very much like Milos Forman's "The Firemen's Ball."

I would add that I think there's also something distinctly American about the cheerful ineptitude on display at every step of the way that puts a distance between our somewhat serious and melodramatic national mission statement--we are the birthplace and guarantor of freedom, humanity's last best hope, a nation of laws and due process!--and the typical demeanor of actual Americans, which is roughly that of a distracted golden retriever.

"She's gonna have to answer questions"

Sarah Palin has yet to submit to candid and adversarial questioning by the press, and there is virtually no record of her views on governing philosophy, the Iraq War, separation of powers, Constitutional rights during wartime, Guantanamo, free trade, health care, the role of the UN, US geopolitical strategy, China, deficit spending, tax cuts, education, and much, much more.

I wonder what her views are, and what percentage of them were formed in a cram session after she was chosen as McCain's VP.

No posts

As Lindsay points out, Andrew Sullivan didn't have any posts today, which is really weird, since I think that blog's been averaging 20 posts a day since I started reading it.

Goldberg takes on Chabon

This brief interview will make Alex love Michael Chabon even more, but it will take him a year and a half to read it.

A Californian in the linguistic dark

Apparently, calling a black person "uppity" is racist. Being from the San Fernando Valley, I had no idea this was the case. But everyone (including my girlfriend who grew up in Davis) is in agreement that it is.

(Let me reiterate: I'm not arguing that calling a black person "uppity" is not racist; I am simply saying I was ignorant of this fact until I heard about this story.)

GB3 watch

It'll suck, I'm sure, but--Venkman!

Breaking down Romney's convention speech

Key:
Green: coherent and sound
Yellow: puzzling/controversial at best
Orange: a genuinely odd thing to say/basically wrong
Red: detached from reality/complete non sequitor coming out of a Republican's mouth/just plain old non sequitor

For decades, the Washington sun has been rising in the east — Washington has been looking to the eastern elites, to the editorial pages of the Times and the Post, and to the broadcasters from the coast.

If America really wants change, it's time to look for the sun in the west, cause it's about to rise and shine from Arizona and Alaska!

Last week, the Democrats talked about change. But let me ask you — what do you think Washington is right now, liberal or conservative? Is a Supreme Court liberal or conservative that awards Guantanamo terrorists with constitution rights? It's liberal! Is a government liberal or conservative that puts the interests of the teachers union ahead of the needs of our children? It's liberal!

Is a Congress liberal or conservative that stops nuclear power plants and offshore drilling, making us more and more dependent on Middle East tyrants? It's liberal!

Is government spending — excluding inflation — liberal or conservative if it doubles since 1980? It's liberal!

We need change all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big government liberals and elect John McCain!

It's the same prescription for a stronger economy. I spent 25 years in the private sector. I've done business in many foreign countries. I know why jobs come and why they go away. And I know that liberals don't have a clue.

They think we have the biggest and strongest economy in the world because of our government. They're wrong. America is strong because of the ingenuity and entrepreneurship and hard work of the American people.

The American people have always been the source of our nation's strength and they always will be!

We strengthen our people and our economy when we preserve and promote opportunity. Opportunity is what lets hope become reality.

Opportunity expands when there is excellence and choice in education, when taxes are lowered, when every citizen has affordable, portable health insurance, and when constitutional freedoms are preserved.

Opportunity rises when children are raised in homes and schools that are free from pornography, promiscuity and drugs; in homes that are blessed with family values and the presence of a father and a mother.

America cannot long lead the family of nations if we fail the family here at home!

Liberals would replace opportunity with dependency on government largesse. They grow government and raise taxes to put more people on Medicaid, to take work requirements out of welfare, and to grow the ranks of those who pay no taxes at all. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity.

It is time to stop the spread of government dependency to fight it like the poison it is!

It's time for the party of big ideas, not the party of Big Brother!

Our economy is under attack. China is acting like Adam Smith on steroids, buying oil from the world's worst, and selling nuclear technology. Russia and the oil states are siphoning more than 500 billion dollars a year from us in what could become the greatest transfer of economic wealth in history. This is no time for timid, liberal empty gestures.

Our economy has slowed down this year and a lot of people are hurting. What happened? Mortgage money was handed out like candy, speculators bought homes for free — when this mortgage mania finally broke, it slammed the economy. And stratospheric gas prices made things even worse.

Democrats want to use the slowdown as an excuse to do what their special interests are always begging for: higher taxes, bigger government and less trade with other nations.

It's the same path Europe took a few decades ago. It leads to moribund growth and double-digit unemployment.

The right course is the one championed by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago, and by John McCain today. It is to rein in government spending and to lower taxes, for taking a weed whacker to excessive regulation and mandates, for putting a stop to tort windfalls, and to stand up to the tyrannosaurus appetite of government unions!

It is to pursue every source of energy security, from new efficiencies to renewables, from clean coal to non-CO2 producing nuclear, and the immediate drilling for more oil off of our shores! And I have one more recommendation for energy conservation — let's keep Al Gore's private jet on the ground!

Did you hear any Democrats talk last week about the threat from radical, violent Jihad? Republicans believe that there is good and evil in the world. Ronald Reagan called-out the Evil Empire. George Bush labeled the terror-sponsor states the Axis of Evil.

And at Saddleback, after Barack Obama dodged and ducked every direct question, John McCain hit the nail on the head: radical violent Islam is evil, and he will defeat it!

Republicans prefer straight talk to politically correct talk!

Republicans, led by John McCain and Sarah Palin, will fight to preserve the values that have preserved the nation. We will strengthen our economy and keep us from being held hostage by Putin, Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

And we will never allow America to retreat in the face of evil extremism!

Just like you, there has never been a day when I was not proud to be an American. We inherited the greatest nation in the history of the earth.

It is our burden and privilege to preserve it, to renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.

To this we are all dedicated and I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed.

President McCain and Vice President Palin will keep America as it has always been — the hope of the world.

Why we say, "the GOP is out of ideas"

The following chart shows the top US marginal income tax rate from 1913 to 2003:




In 1980, when Reagan was elected, every dollar you earned past $215,400 was taxed at a rate of 50% (70% for unearned income). After the tax revolt of the 80s, that rate was drastically reduced: to 28% at its lowest point. In the Clinton years that rose back up to 39.6% for dollars earned past $250,000 or so.

Under George W. Bush, that rate was reduced to 35%, where it remains through today. Under Obama, the top rate would move back up to where it was under Clinton: about 40%.*

From the way that Republicans have been pounding their fists and shouting to the rafters, you would think that Obama was proposing a top income tax rate increase of epic proportions. In reality, he is proposing an increase of 5%. That's right: a difference of a nickel of every dollar earned after about $300,000. And the top rate would still remain low overall by historical standards--well under the >50% seen in most of the 20th century.

But what about capital gains (i.e., money earned from investments rather than a paycheck)? The current rate is the lowest it has been since 1933: 15%. Obama would raise that to somewhere in the neighborhood of 25%, which is about where it was in the Clinton years and somewhat higher than it was during much of the 80s. So let's put that increase at 10%.

The final tally, then: the top income tax rate increased by 5%, and the capital gains tax increased by 10%--both levels raised to what they were during the prosperous Clinton years.

The Republicans carry on as if the tax revolt of the 1980s never happened--as though the wealthiest Americans--the investors, the entrepreneurs--were still forfeiting over half of their post-$200,000 income to Uncle Sam. But they are fighting a battle that Reagan already won, and that the Democrats already conceded. There is not one serious politician left who advocates that we return to the pre-Reagan tax rates. And yet still, impossibly, bloody-mindedly, the Republicans insist on more tax cuts--despite dramatically increased federal spending (on both entitlements and two concurrent wars), and despite ballooning deficits. And they continue to depict Democrats as if they were advocating the absurdly high marginal rates of the Great Society years.

We cannot, as the backwards saying goes, have our cake and eat it too. To acknowledge the necessity for a modern infrastructure, a quality education system, a functional healthcare scheme, and a superior military is to acknowledge the necessity of a tax rate that is high enough to cover these tremendous costs. Perhaps there was a time when we could believe that the Republicans would offset their tax cuts with reductions in federal spending, but George W. Bush and his agenda of big government conservatism--and his pet war, Iraq--put that idea to rest.

I've noticed lately that I've been describing the Democrats as "adults" and Republicans as "children". No where is this more true than in fiscal policy. While the Republicans shout gleeful impossibilities in between schoolyard taunts--"Obama is a celebrity! I'll pay for $1000 billion worth of tax cuts by cutting $72 billion in earmarks!** Obama eats arugula!"--the Democrats reasonably suggest, as a starting point, that we return to a tax rate scheme that has been shown to work in the past. It is almost as if the Republicans themselves don't really believe that they'll be in power, and that all they have left is the grim catharsis of pretending to be Ronald Reagan in front of an audience of their peers.


*Hm..but is this quite right? According to one blogger, the de facto rate could be higher: "Senator Obama would raise the top individual tax rate back to 39.6 percent, impose an additional 2 to 4 percent tax on earnings for some over the existing Social Security wage cap, and bring back the phase-out of the personal exemption and certain itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers. When added up, the top effective marginal tax rate rises...from 37.9 percent to roughly 48 to 50 percent." If true, this argues against my point--however, it is unclear from this post whether the additional nickel and diming would affect a large number of wealthy people or a relative few, or what. Also, it would be unfair to factor in these hidden costs of Obama's plan without also factoring them into the historical tax rates that form the baseline we are comparing against. So I think the most reasonable thing to do is ignore the de facto tax rates for now, and look naively at the explicit tax rates to give us a general idea of where Obama's plan stands historically.

**"Permanently extending the tax cuts would reduce tax revenue by $1 trillion over four years. If Mr. McCain eliminated every earmark (including money for the gas pipeline that Ms. Palin wants to build in Alaska), the savings would total about $18 billion a year. He hasn’t offered any idea of where he’ll get the rest of the money." (NYT editorial)

Surf's up on premise beach

From what I can tell from the commercial for Lakeview Terrace, the premise is that Samuel L. Jackson is a really inconsiderate neighbor, but that no one can call the cops on him because he is a cop. So it shows him, like, cutting down his neighbor's flowerbed and shining a bright light into their house at night. I find the whole idea very absurd, and exactly the sort of plotline my dad would invent at around the halfway point of his scotch.

From Kennedy to Clinton

From Bill Clinton's speech to the convention, a truly Kennedy-esque inversion:

People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.

What a wonderful, succinct way of drawing the contrast between the demented Republican view of the world--in which we are forever serving up bluster and brinkmanship out of some abstract fear of "emboldening the enemy"--and the coolly pragmatic and principled view offered by Barack Obama. What an immense difference in maturity, pragmatism, temperament, optimism, and basic human decency there is between Clinton's speech and Giuliani's sneering diatribe against "liberals", against civil liberties, against imagined Democratic "elites" who, he fantasizes, spend their days looking down on their fellow countrymen and devising politically correct ways of saying the word "terrorist". One man is reasonable, says reasonable things, and is grounded in the empirical world; the other is completely unserious, says unserious things, and seems to be living in some kind of grotesque cartoon where upholding the Constitution comes in a distant third to eavesdropping on the American population carte blanche and unilaterally bombing the shit out of some distant country to show someone, somewhere, who is boss.

I mean--really. This has got to be the lowest, most ideologically bankrupt, most shameful moment in the history of the Republican Party. There are no ideas, only a Down Syndrome baby passed awkwardly from Palin to Palin. There is no acknowledgment of reality, only the bizarre and Orwellian spectacle of a ruling party calling for a "change" in Washington as if it hadn't had a stranglehold on power for the previous eight years. Stern promises that suspected terrorists will be tortured are met with whoops and energetic chants of "USA! USA!" Declarations that evil will be defeated are swallowed whole by an eager audience that is either unaware of or unconcerned by the fact that such statements contain virtually no information, that they are vapid, trivial appeals not to reason but to the raw emotions of nationalistic fervor.

That Republican convention hall is a crystal ball filled with dark, dark visions of a possible future that I hope with all of my being never comes to pass. And over the last few days, listening to the Clintons, Kerry, Gore, Obama--the decent ones, the right ones, the calm ones, the adults--I have never been prouder to be a Democrat.

Keeping track of hypocrisy

There's a lot out there to keep straight:

• "And [Sarah Palin] already has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket." -Rudy Giuliani, RNC speech. The hypocrisy: By this reasoning, she also has more executive experience than John McCain. So however negatively this charge is meant to reflect on the Democrats, it cross-applies to McCain with equal measure.
• "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." -The Obama campaign. The hypocrisy: Obama himself has "zero foreign policy experience" as well. In fact, during the primary he labored to make the distinction between having experience and having good judgment, arguing that having the one does not guarantee the other and vice versa. If the Obama campaign wants to attack Palin, it cannot be for her lack of experience per se; the campaign will have to show that Palin has demonstrated poor judgment in specific instances.
• Any accusation by McCain that Obama is too inexperienced to sit in the Oval Office. The hypocrisy: If McCain thinks that having lots of experience is a necessary condition for occupying the White House, then he undermines this by choosing as his vice-president someone who is very inexperienced (Palin was mayor of a small town and then governor of a non-populous state for two years). If McCain tries to wriggle out of this by claiming that Palin is indeed qualified because she--unlike Obama--has executive experience, then he implies that he himself might not be qualified, because he has no executive experience. The only way for McCain to navigate out of the thicket would be to maintain that either having lots of legislative experience or a small amount of executive experience is necessary for being president, but that having a small amount of legislative experience doesn't cut it.
• Any acknowledgment by the Bush administration that John McCain was tortured in Vietnam. The hypocrisy: the terrible things done to McCain as a POW are precisely the same things that the Bush administration ordered done to detainees in Guantanamo Bay--and are the same things, it is worth mentioning, that McCain himself believes the CIA ought to be able to carry out. Andrew Sullivan makes the argument.
  

Humdingers are easy when you just lie a lot

I imagine most people will say that Sarah Palin's speech went well, but it contained at least one cynically bald-faced lie.

Palin says:

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves.

It turns out that Palin actually supported the construction of the $223 million bridge that would serve a population of a few dozen residents. According to Reuters, her support continued until the outrageous earmark became a national punchline, at which point she dropped her support for the project--but not really:

National fury over the bridge caused Congress to remove the earmark designation, but Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion.

Last year, Palin announced she was stopping state work on the controversial project, earning her admirers from earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation. The move also thrust her into the spotlight as a reform-minded newcomer.

The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said [Ketchikan Mayor Bob] Weinstein and [Mike] Elerding [a Republican who was Palin's campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city].

In fact, the Palin administration has spent "tens of millions of dollars" in federal funds to start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said.

Ah yes--she was so against the bridge in principle that she kept all of the earmarked money and began work on a road that would connect...to the bridge. Alaska state politics is awesome!

It's facsinating to me that Palin included her "opposition" to the Bridge to Nowhere right there in the middle of her big speech--an appluase line, no less--as if it weren't possible to expose the deception in literally one minute using an invention called "the Google". I wonder if whoever wrote her speech is hip to the internet thing. With the McCain campaign, I guess you never know.

Sarah Palin wreaks cognitive dissonance on us SF hipster types

The problem is that she looks like a cute Starbucks barista, but is in reality the Republican governor of Alaska and running-mate of John McCain.

But she looks like she's into Portishead, I swear...

To be anti-abortion is to be anti-abortion without exception

Sarah Palin opposes abortion without exception--even in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is endangered.

Moderates point to this as evidence that she is on the fringe, but really I have always thought--and I know many of my friends agree--that if you are pro-life, then it would be incredibly odd not to oppose abortion in those instances. After all, you are presumably pro-life because you believe that fetuses are human beings and eliminating them is equivalent to murder. Within this set of beliefs, I don't see why a fetus being caused by rape or incest would make that fetus any less human or its elimination any less of a murder. Even in cases where bringing the fetus to term would endanger the life of the mother, I think it would be difficult to make an argument that would justify killing one human being in order to save another.

And so I think Palin's stance on abortion is perfectly normal and consistent (albeit one I happen to disagree with).

Free the bear

Probably the weirdest bit of news that's happened since I went incommunicado for Burning Man is the fact that McCain has chosen for his running mate someone who was once a member of a party that advocated Alaskan secession from the Union. Hopefully views like this will continue to find their way into the mainstream, so that we Californians can realize our lifelong dream of a roaring, progressive Bear, unrestrained by a parasitic federal government and the vote-diluting bullshit that is the electoral college.