Month: December 2010

Sam Roggeveen contemplates Wikileaks:

One reason there is so much emphasis (in journalism and the intelligence world) on uncovering secrets is that, in a sense, it is an easy problem to address — if you throw more resources and better technology at it, you will usually be rewarded with some startling new piece of information. … But often the problem is not that we have too little information, it is that we fail to correctly interpret the vast amount of information we have. That's a far more difficult problem to solve.

Formula 1 "supremo" Bernie Ecclestone got mugged and beaten up for his £200K Hublot watch. Cue the ad campaign:

Ecclestone apparently sent the image to Hublot himself, and suggested they use it in their advertising. The image appears on the ad above copy that states, 'See what people will do for a Hublot' and is then signed 'Bernie'. It makes for a striking image, despite being seemingly shoehorned into the top of what otherwise seems like any other expensive watch ad. And presumably it is intended to emphasise the value of the watches – but call us weird, wouldn't the thought of being beaten up for the watch you wear put you off buying one?

Ryan Avent fears that last week's unrest in Britain foreshadows greater turmoil:

There is a brewing tension within Britain over the sense that the budget is being balanced on the backs of the working class, while City bankers continue to pull in massive bonuses. It's a tension that will be familiar across Europe; in country after country pain is being exacted on those who feel themselves to be victims, at the behest of those who seem to be doing just fine. In country after country, occasional eruptions of public passion will come close to boiling over, as they did [last week] in Britain. And the real austerity has only begun; the cuts next year will be far more severe than what's happened already. Inevitably, some real trouble will develop somewhere; the near-miss, finally, won't miss. And in the ugly politics that follows, truly distressing scenarios, like a departure of one or several countries from the euro area, could suddenly seem much more realistic.

 

By economist Tom Lawler via Calculated Risk:

Bill O'Reilly has a piece up at Townhall that is as good a distillation as you'll find of how confused many Christian conservatives are about the message of the Gospels. Titled "Keep Christ in Unemployment," here's the key excerpt:

America remains the land of opportunity, but you have to work for it. The unemployment rate for college graduates is 5 percent. For high-school dropouts, it is 16 percent. Personal responsibility is usually the driving force behind success. But there are millions of Americans who are not responsible, and the cold truth is that the rest of us cannot afford to support them.

Every fair-minded person should support government safety nets for people who need assistance through no fault of their own. But guys like McDermott don't make distinctions like that. For them, the baby Jesus wants us to "provide" no matter what the circumstance. But being a Christian, I know that while Jesus promoted charity at the highest level, he was not self-destructive.

The Lord helps those who help themselves. Does he not?

No, actually. The radicalism of Jesus' message is precisely in his endorsement of giving – regardless of the worth of the recipient. I wonder how Bill O'Reilly missed the Sermon on the Mount in Sunday School:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away."

Notice any conditions in there about being a responsible citizen if you want charity? And that's the point of Christianity, and a pretty central one at that. God's mercy is unconditional; so should the mercy and generosity of Christians. Remember – Christians are required to love not just our neighbors or our friends or our families – but our enemies. We are asked to love Osama bin Laden. The Prodigal Son gets more than the loyal one, remember? The rich young man – who was also devout and worthy – was told that he had to give away everything he owned to enter the kingdom of heaven. He was not told to whom. Jesus himself urged us not to worry about material possessions; and he lived as a vagrant, with no source of income. The early Christians were told to seek the mercy and generosity of others in their peregrinations; they were to take as much care of themselves as the lilies in the field. Give us this day our daily bread. Not enough even for tomorrow.

This does not equal an endorsement of the welfare state. It's an entirely different argument how one tries to govern a fallen world. But it does equal a very clear and unsettling attack on the kind of fairness O'Reilly supports. There's a point to O'Reilly's argument. But it isn't a Christian point. The point of Christianity is, in many ways, its irresponsibility – and its injustice by any actual Fox News standards.

The Washington Post tells the tragic story of a new mother's untimely death by annotating her Facebook page.

Yes, we made a profit this year – of $1.8 million. Congrats to Justin Smith, Jay Lauf, James Bennet and Bob Cohn – and the entire leadership of the enterprise. And we at the Dish are proud of the contribution we've made: we now account for more than a quarter of the site's unique visitors and close to half its visits. But none of that would count for much apart from the real skill and dedication of the business team, who feared nothing in grappling with the web and showed that it can not only be exciting, but also … money-making.

In what appears to be an almost epic attempt at political suicide, some Democrats appear so exercized by the very idea that the very rich should continue to enjoy the tax rates of the Bush era that they are willing to push their president, and their own political prospects, over the cliff.

I made my case pretty clear soon after the deal was struck. It was staggering to me how many tangible concessions Obama was able to get for one symbolic give. The GOP got to protect the very rich to the tune of $120 billion for two years. In return, Obama got the $360 billion tax cut for the middle class he wanted, plus $450 billion on extended unemployment benefits, the pay-roll tax cut and EITC and college tuition funding. In the process, he got the GOP to endorse a huge fiscal stimulus for Obama as he runs for re-election – a stimulus that could, according to Morgan Stanley, push economic growth to as much as 4 percent next year. That might be an overshoot – but it's surely salient that no one thinks the package won't boost growth at all.

Charles Krauthammer gets it:

Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 – and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did.

Bill Clinton gets it. The markets get it. The only question is: why doesn't the House move swiftly to pass this as-good-as-it-will-get deal, and then move forward on START, DADT and the DREAM Act? A week is a long time in politics. Two weeks – which the Democrats could give themselves if they want – could turn a coup into a year-end triumph for the president and this party.

It could also lead to a spectacular black eye for the GOP establishment. Does anyone believe that the Tea Party campaigned so hard in order to have the Congress pass a second stimulus – as pricey as the first, and borrowed entirely from the Chinese? Think what happens after the deal is passed, and the truth of it sinks in with the base. The GOP civil war will begin in earnest – especially if Obama outflanks the GOP on long-term debt reduction in the SOTU.

Memo to the Dems: what on earth are you waiting for? Pass the deal. ASAP.

(Photo: U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill on December 7, 2010 in Washington, DC. The Obama administration is pushing for Congress to extend Bush-era tax cuts in a compromise with Republicans. By Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images.)

"In a large survey of museum-going households released in April, it was found that they are significantly better educated and affluent than the U.S. population; they are also overwhelmingly white. The time has come, then, to stop funding the leisure of rich white people: all public monies for the arts should cease. Quite frankly, to make the working class pay for the leisure of the rich amounts to class discrimination. In the spirit of social justice, a better case could be made to fund professional wrestling—it’s what the working class enjoy," – Bill O'Donohue, Catholic League.

The exhibition of gay portraiture he was referring to was funded privately. Frank Rich has more details today.

"If she were the Republican candidate she'd have to show me a lot more than I've seen thus far as far as an understanding of the depth and the complexity of the issues that we face. I mean, I don't know her personally. So I can't comment on that. I mean, she was a governor. But the fact that she left office before even completing her first term is — that's just not a attitude that I think is necessarily in the best interest of your constituents — rather what's in your best interests," – Christie Todd Whitman.