This was hilarious. Armey lets slip the dogs of politically incorrect war. He hits Joan Walsh with no less than "glad you can never be my wife", a comment that was over the top, to be sure.
But on the general contours of the stimulus discussion, it's becoming a commonplace for the Democrats to talk around the stimulus bill rather than about it, a sure sign that something's rotten in Denmark. There's suddenly very little direct explanation of how the stimulus happens. This was, I suspect, Dick Armey's frustration, a man with a Ph.D. in Economics (not that this gives anyone much of a leg up these days...) and of course the former House Majority leader.
Republicans, whatever you think of them as a party, have a point when they harp on the details of the stimulus package that just passed the House. They're doing the people's work right now more than the party in charge. Mad Money's Jim Kramer -- hardly an apologist for Conservatives -- said as much today. But Armey I think forgot himself on Hardball tonight...
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Decaf Drinkers Shut Out
Starbucks nixes decaf after noon. I'm sure people will be screaming in the streets with this latest.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Sam
My wife brought our dog Sam back from the animal shelter Spring of 2006. He was a sickly puppy at the time, full of worms, with a running eye, and a pensive, shy demeanor. But he won over my wife, with his tawny fur and big, innocent eyes. He was Paul when we took him home, and when he reached our house he was Sam.
Sam's running eye was harmless, according to the vet, and the worms clinging in his swollen belly were let loose by the pills we embedded in his food. He grew larger by degrees I'm sure, but as we experienced him his progress was discreet, so that he was suddenly a larger pup, and then an adolescent, with no stages in between. Sam took to chewing everything in our back yard, which caused me great consternation, and prompted ongoing friction between my wife and I, as she remonstrated me on my lack of patience, and I her on our lack of unpunctured water hoses, and unchewed bushes, and boards on our deck free of marks from puppy teething.
Sam was a classic mut, a pound puppy that was listed as a cross between a Pit Bull and a Labrador, the faintly discernible drops in an ocean of breeds comprising his motley origin.
Sam's running eye was harmless, according to the vet, and the worms clinging in his swollen belly were let loose by the pills we embedded in his food. He grew larger by degrees I'm sure, but as we experienced him his progress was discreet, so that he was suddenly a larger pup, and then an adolescent, with no stages in between. Sam took to chewing everything in our back yard, which caused me great consternation, and prompted ongoing friction between my wife and I, as she remonstrated me on my lack of patience, and I her on our lack of unpunctured water hoses, and unchewed bushes, and boards on our deck free of marks from puppy teething.
Sam was a classic mut, a pound puppy that was listed as a cross between a Pit Bull and a Labrador, the faintly discernible drops in an ocean of breeds comprising his motley origin.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Troubles in Texas - New Evidence in the Larry Swearingen Case
A man on death row in Texas who is scheduled to be executed Tuesday for the murder of a nineteen year old college student received last minute hope from forensic pathologists -- including one who performed the original autopsy on the victim -- who have concluded that the prosecution's case does not square with further forensic analysis of the victim's body.
In 1998, Larry Swearingen was found guilty of the strangulation death of Melissa Trotter, whose body was discovered dumped in the woods of East Texas. The original autopsy concluded that her body was discovered about twenty five days after her murder, a conclusion that coincided with the last time she was seen alive, having lunch with Mr. Swearingen.
The latest forensic analysis since the 1998 murder, however, suggests a far different picture -- her body was discovered at most within fourteen days of her death, and probably within two to three days. The forensic evidence supporting this conclusion is substantial, including well-known decay rates for organs, levels of bacteria in the body, absence of factors such as bloat, lack of animal mutilation, loss of body weight, and others.
If the forensic scenario is correct, Mr. Swearingen could not have committed the murder, since he would have been in jail for unpaid traffic violations when the murder occurred. "It's just scientifically impossible for him to have killed the girl and thrown her into the woods," said James Rytting, Swearingen's appellate lawyer. "It's guilt by imagination."
In the original trial of Mr. Swearingen, the prosecution built its case on strong evidence, including "a match between the panty hose leg found around Trotter's neck and the stocking remnant found in a trash dump next to Swearingen's mobile home." Additionally, hair samples from Ms. Trotter were found in Swearingen's truck, and witnesses say that she had had lunch with Swearingen the day she disappeared.
In 1998, Larry Swearingen was found guilty of the strangulation death of Melissa Trotter, whose body was discovered dumped in the woods of East Texas. The original autopsy concluded that her body was discovered about twenty five days after her murder, a conclusion that coincided with the last time she was seen alive, having lunch with Mr. Swearingen.
The latest forensic analysis since the 1998 murder, however, suggests a far different picture -- her body was discovered at most within fourteen days of her death, and probably within two to three days. The forensic evidence supporting this conclusion is substantial, including well-known decay rates for organs, levels of bacteria in the body, absence of factors such as bloat, lack of animal mutilation, loss of body weight, and others.
If the forensic scenario is correct, Mr. Swearingen could not have committed the murder, since he would have been in jail for unpaid traffic violations when the murder occurred. "It's just scientifically impossible for him to have killed the girl and thrown her into the woods," said James Rytting, Swearingen's appellate lawyer. "It's guilt by imagination."
In the original trial of Mr. Swearingen, the prosecution built its case on strong evidence, including "a match between the panty hose leg found around Trotter's neck and the stocking remnant found in a trash dump next to Swearingen's mobile home." Additionally, hair samples from Ms. Trotter were found in Swearingen's truck, and witnesses say that she had had lunch with Swearingen the day she disappeared.
Nonetheless, the Texas death penalty case is particularly troubling for the prosecution -- and more generally for advocates of capital punishment -- because it reveals that even when death penalty cases have seemingly indisputable, damning evidence and even after a lengthy appeals process, new evidence can surface that may call into question the guilty verdict. When such evidence is compelling, as it appears to be in this case, concerns about the innocence of the condemned should receive further, serious review. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of course for all criminal trials in our judicial system; it does not appear, given the apparently exculpatory forensic findings in the case against Mr. Swearingen, that the standard has been met.
With days left before the state is scheduled to execute Mr. Swearingen for the murder of Melissa Trotter, one can only hope that the execution is stayed while the additional forensic evidence is reviewed.
Source article here.
Common Sense Stimulus
Conservatives assure us that the New Deal didn't work for supply side reasons; FDR raised taxes at the wrong time. Assuming this analysis is correct, what follows? Does this mean, then, that Conservatives ought to concede that the New Deal might have worked if taxes hadn't been raised? Liberals, for their part, offer that the New Deal -- while a success -- was nonetheless limited by FDR's failure to infuse the economy with enough cash, and at the right time (NYT's Paul Krugman is here paradigmatic). What does this mean? Their hedging suggests that an economic stimulus is not sufficient to recover from a recession. The economy has to be stimulated the right way.
From the 1930s to the 1960s. Here, JFK is often credited with helping pull the economy out of recession with broad tax cuts. Does this mean, then, that stimulus in the 1930s Keynesian sense is in fact not necessary? Supply siders shout this from the mountain tops. (I'm not sure how the Keynesian crowd treats this case; my guess is that they credit the recovery with exogenous factors, rather than the tax cuts.)
Anyway, the point is, economists -- supply and demand side -- weigh in with sound and fury about effective remedies to recession whenever one occurs, but I think the absence of anything approaching consensus on the well studied, historical cases speaks volumes. It seems that the experts don't really know. What to do?
For our current economic woes, I'd like to take a stab at what I'll call common sense economics. I suspect it won't please either side of the ideological divide. But perhaps it would work.
First, let's forget cutting taxes on the rich right now, since a broad consumer recovery will rely more on everyday purchasing. Cut the middle to lower middle class taxes -- from 15% to 10%, for instance, for the middle class. That larger paycheck will, eventually, start burning a hole in millions of American wallets, and soon the Average American -- much more numerous than the Rich American -- will be getting that flatscreen T.V. he's wanted, and will resume taking his dear wife out to dinner and a movie again.
Second, cut the payroll (FICA) tax on small businesses. We can then, many of us, meet payroll, instead of going further into debt, and with enough wind in the sails we'll hire that new employee that we so desperately need. Multiply this by thousands and thousands, and we've got ourselves moving toward recovery.
Finally, we can address demand side job creation. I'm not a demand sider, so whatever I add about this will likely sound hand-wavey, but how about this: if we're in such a serious bind, and we need to act now, let's take our printed money and pore it into projects that attract work for people now. The world will be vastly different in two years; accordingly, our horizon for understanding what needs to be done to stimulate the economy cannot extend very far. Jobs now. Common sense.
In short, I propose that we recharge consumer spending by stimulating the middle class, and get the small business engine revved up again with a temporary relief from the onerous payroll taxes, and we spend stimulus money on projects that get people working now. It'll make a difference. And no ideological wars required.
From the 1930s to the 1960s. Here, JFK is often credited with helping pull the economy out of recession with broad tax cuts. Does this mean, then, that stimulus in the 1930s Keynesian sense is in fact not necessary? Supply siders shout this from the mountain tops. (I'm not sure how the Keynesian crowd treats this case; my guess is that they credit the recovery with exogenous factors, rather than the tax cuts.)
Anyway, the point is, economists -- supply and demand side -- weigh in with sound and fury about effective remedies to recession whenever one occurs, but I think the absence of anything approaching consensus on the well studied, historical cases speaks volumes. It seems that the experts don't really know. What to do?
For our current economic woes, I'd like to take a stab at what I'll call common sense economics. I suspect it won't please either side of the ideological divide. But perhaps it would work.
First, let's forget cutting taxes on the rich right now, since a broad consumer recovery will rely more on everyday purchasing. Cut the middle to lower middle class taxes -- from 15% to 10%, for instance, for the middle class. That larger paycheck will, eventually, start burning a hole in millions of American wallets, and soon the Average American -- much more numerous than the Rich American -- will be getting that flatscreen T.V. he's wanted, and will resume taking his dear wife out to dinner and a movie again.
Second, cut the payroll (FICA) tax on small businesses. We can then, many of us, meet payroll, instead of going further into debt, and with enough wind in the sails we'll hire that new employee that we so desperately need. Multiply this by thousands and thousands, and we've got ourselves moving toward recovery.
Finally, we can address demand side job creation. I'm not a demand sider, so whatever I add about this will likely sound hand-wavey, but how about this: if we're in such a serious bind, and we need to act now, let's take our printed money and pore it into projects that attract work for people now. The world will be vastly different in two years; accordingly, our horizon for understanding what needs to be done to stimulate the economy cannot extend very far. Jobs now. Common sense.
In short, I propose that we recharge consumer spending by stimulating the middle class, and get the small business engine revved up again with a temporary relief from the onerous payroll taxes, and we spend stimulus money on projects that get people working now. It'll make a difference. And no ideological wars required.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
