11/10: Goodfellas Economics
TWO THOUGHTS.
Are we at the end of the Goodfellas Era
of the American Century?
But now Paulie could do anything. Like run up bills on the joint's credit.
And why not? Nobody will pay for it anyway.
Take deliveries at the front door and sell it out the back at a discount.
Take a two-hundred dollar case of booze and sell it out for a hundred dollars.
It doesn't matter. It's all profit.
Then finally, when there's nothing left...
...when you can't borrow another buck from the bank...
...you bust the joint out.
You light a match.
ONE MORE. Explain this:
For years we have clucked at the Chinese for establishing an economy on the backs of working people who labor under sweatshop conditions at slave wages. We don't want that kind of an economy. We want to send all our citizens to college and teach them to earn a living with their brains not their brawn.
My question: why are those poor ignorant bastards the only folks with any savings and the only nation on the face of the earth with solvent banks?
Are we at the end of the Goodfellas Era
of the American Century?
But now Paulie could do anything. Like run up bills on the joint's credit.
And why not? Nobody will pay for it anyway.
Take deliveries at the front door and sell it out the back at a discount.
Take a two-hundred dollar case of booze and sell it out for a hundred dollars.
It doesn't matter. It's all profit.
Then finally, when there's nothing left...
...when you can't borrow another buck from the bank...
...you bust the joint out.
You light a match.
ONE MORE. Explain this:
For years we have clucked at the Chinese for establishing an economy on the backs of working people who labor under sweatshop conditions at slave wages. We don't want that kind of an economy. We want to send all our citizens to college and teach them to earn a living with their brains not their brawn.
My question: why are those poor ignorant bastards the only folks with any savings and the only nation on the face of the earth with solvent banks?
10/10: An American Carol
Category: General
Posted by: an okie gardener
Tonight the wife and I saw An American Carol in a theater in Lawton, Oklahoma. Just four of us in the multiplex room for the 5:30 showing. Too bad.
The film is humorous throughout, and laugh-out-loud funny in spots. I won't summarize the plot, since I assume you've seen the trailers, or at least have seen or read A Christmas Carol. This movie resembles director David Zucker's other works--Airplane, Naked Gun, Scary Movie--with verbal gags and sight gags. Kevin Farley carries the movie reasonably well as Michael Malone (Michael Moore) and Kelsey Grammer get the most screen time of the ghosts as General Patton. I think the most effective work is done by Jon Voight as the ghost of George Washington. Every sacred cow of liberalism gets gored.
At its core, the movie portrays two antithetical world-views. On one side, those who believe that other peoples, nations and their leaders are basically decent, and only would attack us if we provoked them. Since Islamic terrorists are attacking us, we must have done something to provoke them. If we only could change our nation into a pacifist, socialist utopia, and then sit down and talk with our attackers, everything would be well. On the other side, those who believe that some other peoples, nations and their leaders are evil, and mean us harm for reasons that will not change even if we apologize to them for existing.
If you are in the latter category, you'll enjoy the movie.
The film is humorous throughout, and laugh-out-loud funny in spots. I won't summarize the plot, since I assume you've seen the trailers, or at least have seen or read A Christmas Carol. This movie resembles director David Zucker's other works--Airplane, Naked Gun, Scary Movie--with verbal gags and sight gags. Kevin Farley carries the movie reasonably well as Michael Malone (Michael Moore) and Kelsey Grammer get the most screen time of the ghosts as General Patton. I think the most effective work is done by Jon Voight as the ghost of George Washington. Every sacred cow of liberalism gets gored.
At its core, the movie portrays two antithetical world-views. On one side, those who believe that other peoples, nations and their leaders are basically decent, and only would attack us if we provoked them. Since Islamic terrorists are attacking us, we must have done something to provoke them. If we only could change our nation into a pacifist, socialist utopia, and then sit down and talk with our attackers, everything would be well. On the other side, those who believe that some other peoples, nations and their leaders are evil, and mean us harm for reasons that will not change even if we apologize to them for existing.
If you are in the latter category, you'll enjoy the movie.
09/10: More Jazz
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Instapundit links to an Amazon promotion listing "1000 Recordings to Hear Before You Die."
Here is their choice of 133 jazz recordings.
Of course I have some quibbles: Light as a Feather to represent the work of Chick Correa? Give me a break.
A serious, serious omission: John Coltrane Complete 1961 Village Vanguard Recordings. Even though this music was recorded 47 years ago, it still sounds like its coming at you from the future. I don't mean "futuristic" in the sense of gimmicks; I mean a body of work so complex and complete, so perfect, that it transcends simple chronology to achieve the timelessness of a true masterpiece. I have posted on this recording before.
Here is their choice of 133 jazz recordings.
Of course I have some quibbles: Light as a Feather to represent the work of Chick Correa? Give me a break.
A serious, serious omission: John Coltrane Complete 1961 Village Vanguard Recordings. Even though this music was recorded 47 years ago, it still sounds like its coming at you from the future. I don't mean "futuristic" in the sense of gimmicks; I mean a body of work so complex and complete, so perfect, that it transcends simple chronology to achieve the timelessness of a true masterpiece. I have posted on this recording before.
08/10: Great Jazz Drummers
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
A while back I did a post on the greatest jazz drummer of all time, the man many regard as simply the best drummer ever--Buddy Rich.
And now, as a break from politics, a few of the other greats, men who deserve to be mentioned in the same post as Mr. Rich.
Gene Krupa. When Buddy Rich was young, Krupa was the man he was measured against. Krupa biography. The man helped develop the modern drum set or drum kit, and created the definitive role for the drummer within a jazz orchestra. The Gene Krupa Band in a 1941 movie; yes, that trumpet soloist was black--Krupa integrated his band much earlier than most. If "Drum Boogie" does not make you want to get up and swing dance, then check your pulse. The Gene Krupa Quartet, "Swing, Swing, Swing." And finally, Gene and Buddy go stick-to-stick.
Louis Bellson. Biography. You have perhaps heard of his wife, Pearl Bailey. Though overshadowed by Krupa and Rich, both men admired Belson. In fact, during a hospitalization Rich asked Belson to fill in for him. The Louis Belson Band. (Yes, a jazz drummer is not great unless he can lead a band.) A drum solo. And, Bellson and Rich mano-y-mano.
Billy Cobham. Biography. Born in Panama, the only one of these drummers who could step over to play rock and fusion when he chose. With Ron Carter and Herbie Hancock doing traditional jazz combo work. In a fusion mood.
There are very good young drummers out there today, catch a listen to Dave Weckl, for example; jazz replenishes itself each generation. These four are the O.D.'s, the Original Drummers whose influence continues.
And now, as a break from politics, a few of the other greats, men who deserve to be mentioned in the same post as Mr. Rich.
Gene Krupa. When Buddy Rich was young, Krupa was the man he was measured against. Krupa biography. The man helped develop the modern drum set or drum kit, and created the definitive role for the drummer within a jazz orchestra. The Gene Krupa Band in a 1941 movie; yes, that trumpet soloist was black--Krupa integrated his band much earlier than most. If "Drum Boogie" does not make you want to get up and swing dance, then check your pulse. The Gene Krupa Quartet, "Swing, Swing, Swing." And finally, Gene and Buddy go stick-to-stick.
Louis Bellson. Biography. You have perhaps heard of his wife, Pearl Bailey. Though overshadowed by Krupa and Rich, both men admired Belson. In fact, during a hospitalization Rich asked Belson to fill in for him. The Louis Belson Band. (Yes, a jazz drummer is not great unless he can lead a band.) A drum solo. And, Bellson and Rich mano-y-mano.
Billy Cobham. Biography. Born in Panama, the only one of these drummers who could step over to play rock and fusion when he chose. With Ron Carter and Herbie Hancock doing traditional jazz combo work. In a fusion mood.
There are very good young drummers out there today, catch a listen to Dave Weckl, for example; jazz replenishes itself each generation. These four are the O.D.'s, the Original Drummers whose influence continues.
I am not sure what this is worth, but will offer the following for consideration.
I teach an American History Course on Ft. Sill over the lunch hour. The class is mixed military and civilian, many of the civilians being post workers or military spouses.
I was surveying the 90s today, and the Clinton Administration. I remarked about Clinton still providing fodder for late-night comedians. Blank looks. I asked, "You folks have heard the Clinton jokes on late night TV haven't you?" Negative response. "Do any of you watch Letterman, Leno, Conan, Ferguson?" Negative responses.
It turns out that NO ONE in my class watches the late-night comedy/talk shows, even on Friday night. It's not that they did watch and for some reason quit watching. They just do not and have not watched these programs.
I knew that today's youth watch far less TV than previous age cohorts, instead playing video games, chatting on the internet, or watching videos. But I had no idea so many are unaware of the monologues.
If my class is anywhere close to representative, then the late-night comics are not affecting the youth vote by their monologues on Old McCain, Moose Hunter Sarah, or Hair Plug Biden. (Rarely do I hear or read jokes about Obama on late night.)
I teach an American History Course on Ft. Sill over the lunch hour. The class is mixed military and civilian, many of the civilians being post workers or military spouses.
I was surveying the 90s today, and the Clinton Administration. I remarked about Clinton still providing fodder for late-night comedians. Blank looks. I asked, "You folks have heard the Clinton jokes on late night TV haven't you?" Negative response. "Do any of you watch Letterman, Leno, Conan, Ferguson?" Negative responses.
It turns out that NO ONE in my class watches the late-night comedy/talk shows, even on Friday night. It's not that they did watch and for some reason quit watching. They just do not and have not watched these programs.
I knew that today's youth watch far less TV than previous age cohorts, instead playing video games, chatting on the internet, or watching videos. But I had no idea so many are unaware of the monologues.
If my class is anywhere close to representative, then the late-night comics are not affecting the youth vote by their monologues on Old McCain, Moose Hunter Sarah, or Hair Plug Biden. (Rarely do I hear or read jokes about Obama on late night.)
Assertion: Every American adult should pay Federal Income Taxes.
Reasons:
(1) At present we have a severe disconnection between what we demand from the Federal Government, and any sense that such demands will cost us anything. Paying Federal income tax reminds us that nothing is free.
(2) At present, it is too easy for the majority of Americans, who pay little or no Federal taxes, to demand increased services because someone else will be paying for them. This places politicians in the position of promising more and more to the masses in order to gain votes ("Promising to rob Peter to pay Paul usually will gain the vote of Paul") while threatening to destroy the producers of wealth (see "The Goose Who Laid the Golden Egg"). Such practice could eventually mean the end of Democracy through demagoguery (see Plato, The Republic).
(3) The present system described above works against virtues such as industry and prudence, and encourages vices such as imprudence and sloth (turning "The Ant and the Grasshopper" upside down).
(4) At present too few people pay attention to decisions made by the Federal government. Most adult Americans know more about their favorite sports team, than about their Congressional delegation. Paying Federal income taxes would give every American adult a vested interest in knowing what the Federal government is doing.
Assertion: Except during declared emergencies such as war, Federal spending and Federal taxes should be yoked together such that the percentage increase, or decrease, in Federal spending is matched by the same percentage increase or decrease in the amount of Federal taxes paid by each individual.
Reasons:
(1) Such a linkage would reinforce Reasons (1) and (2) above.
(2) Americans would be motivated to demand less spending by the Federal government in order that taxes would decrease.
Assertion: this plan still would work with a progressive system of income taxation.
Reasons:
(1) An increase in spending leading to a corresponding increase in taxes, for example 3%, is noticable whether that means the individual's tax increases $30,000 per year, or $30.
Reasons:
(1) At present we have a severe disconnection between what we demand from the Federal Government, and any sense that such demands will cost us anything. Paying Federal income tax reminds us that nothing is free.
(2) At present, it is too easy for the majority of Americans, who pay little or no Federal taxes, to demand increased services because someone else will be paying for them. This places politicians in the position of promising more and more to the masses in order to gain votes ("Promising to rob Peter to pay Paul usually will gain the vote of Paul") while threatening to destroy the producers of wealth (see "The Goose Who Laid the Golden Egg"). Such practice could eventually mean the end of Democracy through demagoguery (see Plato, The Republic).
(3) The present system described above works against virtues such as industry and prudence, and encourages vices such as imprudence and sloth (turning "The Ant and the Grasshopper" upside down).
(4) At present too few people pay attention to decisions made by the Federal government. Most adult Americans know more about their favorite sports team, than about their Congressional delegation. Paying Federal income taxes would give every American adult a vested interest in knowing what the Federal government is doing.
Assertion: Except during declared emergencies such as war, Federal spending and Federal taxes should be yoked together such that the percentage increase, or decrease, in Federal spending is matched by the same percentage increase or decrease in the amount of Federal taxes paid by each individual.
Reasons:
(1) Such a linkage would reinforce Reasons (1) and (2) above.
(2) Americans would be motivated to demand less spending by the Federal government in order that taxes would decrease.
Assertion: this plan still would work with a progressive system of income taxation.
Reasons:
(1) An increase in spending leading to a corresponding increase in taxes, for example 3%, is noticable whether that means the individual's tax increases $30,000 per year, or $30.
UPDATE: My slot on Political Vindication Radio described below has been postponed for one week. PLease tune in next Tuesday, October 14th.
This Tuesday (October 7th, 8:00 CDT), I will be a guest on Political Vindication Radio. Always an honor to sit in with Frank and Shane. This week's topics: some discussion on the Palin-Biden debate and a few thoughts on democracy.
In that vein, here is a snippet of a conversation from last week on Osler's Razor (following the House vote in the negative on Monday). I averred that, "the will of the people is not always the same as the public interest. This is why self government based on representation by courageous statesmen is far superior to the tyranny of the majority (see James Madison et al, 1787)."
Professor Osler countered:
Madison knew what he was doing. He constructed a government (through the Constitution) with two features that play directly into this outcome:
1) The lower house of the legislature would be elected, in whole, every two years.
2) All spending bills must originate in that lower house.
Madison, then, said that spending would be controlled by people who are constantly up for election. That seems to me to be a system which demands that proposed spending bills respond to the desires of the electorate, which is what happened today.
I replied:
Your historical analysis is spot-on concerning the Lower Chamber; it really is (as intended by Madison) the people's house.
On the other hand, Madison knew there would be rare times when even the House needed to defy the People and take its lumps.
The [Rescue] was/is a moment when representatives need to lead rather than follow.
A statesman who loves his office more than the public good is a politician. We had a few too many politicians in this country this afternoon [last Monday].
Professor Osler had also taken me to task for my lack of "faith...in small government, the will of the people, or the basic and broad intelligence of Americans."
As for the "broad wisdom of the people," it is amazing to me how often it really is correct. Our history of "getting things right" collectively so often over time is almost enough to make one believe in Providence.
However, there are also numerous instances in which the broad wisdom of the majority is just flat wrong: 200 years of insensitivity on race comes to mind.
Also, I think this thread [Osler's] began with you chastising popular ignorance on offshore drilling. A large majority of Americans demand offshore drilling. Should they be given their head?
A more optimistic (or perhaps pessimistic) reading of democracy is that this week may bring an abrupt awakening. The people are feeling like this is someone else's problem right now. If the crisis begins to snowball in the days to come, we may very well see a throbbing electorate feeling suddenly at risk and clamoring for action.
End Loose Quote.
In closing, let me be clear, Madison was no fan of democracy. The democratic revolution of the early nineteenth century was Jeffersonian and Jacksonian--not Madisonian. The Constitution throws a bone to democracy with the Lower House, but, in truth, the framework of 1787 was established to hold back democracy, "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."
As Madison and Alexis de Tocqueville well knew, there are some serious perils to democracy. Join us for the conversation on Tuesday [NEXT TUESDAY--see note above)--or listen to the archive (as, unfortunately, the program runs concurrent to the McCain-Obama debate).
This Tuesday (October 7th, 8:00 CDT), I will be a guest on Political Vindication Radio. Always an honor to sit in with Frank and Shane. This week's topics: some discussion on the Palin-Biden debate and a few thoughts on democracy.
In that vein, here is a snippet of a conversation from last week on Osler's Razor (following the House vote in the negative on Monday). I averred that, "the will of the people is not always the same as the public interest. This is why self government based on representation by courageous statesmen is far superior to the tyranny of the majority (see James Madison et al, 1787)."
Professor Osler countered:
Madison knew what he was doing. He constructed a government (through the Constitution) with two features that play directly into this outcome:
1) The lower house of the legislature would be elected, in whole, every two years.
2) All spending bills must originate in that lower house.
Madison, then, said that spending would be controlled by people who are constantly up for election. That seems to me to be a system which demands that proposed spending bills respond to the desires of the electorate, which is what happened today.
I replied:
Your historical analysis is spot-on concerning the Lower Chamber; it really is (as intended by Madison) the people's house.
On the other hand, Madison knew there would be rare times when even the House needed to defy the People and take its lumps.
The [Rescue] was/is a moment when representatives need to lead rather than follow.
A statesman who loves his office more than the public good is a politician. We had a few too many politicians in this country this afternoon [last Monday].
Professor Osler had also taken me to task for my lack of "faith...in small government, the will of the people, or the basic and broad intelligence of Americans."
As for the "broad wisdom of the people," it is amazing to me how often it really is correct. Our history of "getting things right" collectively so often over time is almost enough to make one believe in Providence.
However, there are also numerous instances in which the broad wisdom of the majority is just flat wrong: 200 years of insensitivity on race comes to mind.
Also, I think this thread [Osler's] began with you chastising popular ignorance on offshore drilling. A large majority of Americans demand offshore drilling. Should they be given their head?
A more optimistic (or perhaps pessimistic) reading of democracy is that this week may bring an abrupt awakening. The people are feeling like this is someone else's problem right now. If the crisis begins to snowball in the days to come, we may very well see a throbbing electorate feeling suddenly at risk and clamoring for action.
End Loose Quote.
In closing, let me be clear, Madison was no fan of democracy. The democratic revolution of the early nineteenth century was Jeffersonian and Jacksonian--not Madisonian. The Constitution throws a bone to democracy with the Lower House, but, in truth, the framework of 1787 was established to hold back democracy, "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."
As Madison and Alexis de Tocqueville well knew, there are some serious perils to democracy. Join us for the conversation on Tuesday [NEXT TUESDAY--see note above)--or listen to the archive (as, unfortunately, the program runs concurrent to the McCain-Obama debate).
Category: Mainline Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
The conservative Diocese of Pittsburgh voted to split from the Episcopal Church. The plan is to remain within Anglicanism and unite with a South American Anglican province. Story here.
Pittsburgh joins the Diocese of San Joaquin in splitting. This fall two more Diocese will take their final votes on leaving--Quincy, Illinois, and Ft. Worth, Texas.
The issue is Biblical Interpretation in general, and same-sex practice in particular.
While I am not predicting Civil War, I will point out that we saw denominations split over slavery in the decades leading up to Secession. Slavery was one issue this nation could not solve politically and so did by force of arms. The inability of the Christian denominations to resolve the slavery issue and remain united previewed the political split.
As a nation we are divided on several cultural issues--abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. The splits in the churches probably tells us that there is no compromise solution possible in our national life. We will continue to fight over the issues.
Pittsburgh joins the Diocese of San Joaquin in splitting. This fall two more Diocese will take their final votes on leaving--Quincy, Illinois, and Ft. Worth, Texas.
The issue is Biblical Interpretation in general, and same-sex practice in particular.
While I am not predicting Civil War, I will point out that we saw denominations split over slavery in the decades leading up to Secession. Slavery was one issue this nation could not solve politically and so did by force of arms. The inability of the Christian denominations to resolve the slavery issue and remain united previewed the political split.
As a nation we are divided on several cultural issues--abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. The splits in the churches probably tells us that there is no compromise solution possible in our national life. We will continue to fight over the issues.
Here.
Everything you need to know about the Sub-Prime Loan mess we now are in, and as taxpayers are now committed to bailing out.
Everything you need to know about the Sub-Prime Loan mess we now are in, and as taxpayers are now committed to bailing out.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Story.
British model Lily Cole posing for the French edition of Playboy. My problem is with the cover: Cold has a very young looking face (she is 20) and is posing with a large teddy bear and has her hair in pigtails.
She is participating in the ongoing sexualization to men of young girls.
Maybe we are hard-wired before birth with certain sexual proclivities.
But, as an historian I know that sexual stimuli preference has differed from culture to culture. Men of some cultures commonly have regarded girls as young as 9 or 10 as sexual objects of desire. Men of some cultures have regarded boys, but not men, as objects of sexual desire. These variations in addition to the fat versus thin, etc.
In other words, speaking historically, it seems that our culture shapes what we perceive as sexy and what we do not.
Western Culture is now teaching men to regard younger and younger women as sexual creatures.
I remember the Bible saying something about the nations that forget God being cast into hell.
British model Lily Cole posing for the French edition of Playboy. My problem is with the cover: Cold has a very young looking face (she is 20) and is posing with a large teddy bear and has her hair in pigtails.
She is participating in the ongoing sexualization to men of young girls.
Maybe we are hard-wired before birth with certain sexual proclivities.
But, as an historian I know that sexual stimuli preference has differed from culture to culture. Men of some cultures commonly have regarded girls as young as 9 or 10 as sexual objects of desire. Men of some cultures have regarded boys, but not men, as objects of sexual desire. These variations in addition to the fat versus thin, etc.
In other words, speaking historically, it seems that our culture shapes what we perceive as sexy and what we do not.
Western Culture is now teaching men to regard younger and younger women as sexual creatures.
I remember the Bible saying something about the nations that forget God being cast into hell.
