words.
"...Violent Buddhist mobs (yes, it sounds oxymoronic) are responsible for a spate of recent attacks against Muslims in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, leaving more than 200 dead and close to 150,000 homeless. The clashes prompted the Dalai Lama to make an urgent appeal to end the bloodshed. “Buddha preaches love and compassion,” he said.
And so do Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The problem is that people of faith often become fanatics of faith. Reason and force are useless against aspiring martyrs.
In the United States, God is on the currency. By brilliant design, though, he is not mentioned in the Constitution. The founders were explicit: This country would never formally align God with one political party, or allow someone to use religion to ignore civil laws. At least that was the intent. In this summer of the violent God, five justices on the Supreme Court seem to feel otherwise."
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Faith-Based Fanatics
Friday, July 18, 2014
Thursday, July 17, 2014
words.
for your consideration...
"...our national conversation shouldn’t focus on the fact that some folks are doing much better than others, but instead should work towards creating the social and economic conditions wherein everyone can better their situation. This means addressing falling employment rates and earnings of less-educated workers, particularly men; fixing our broken, failing schools; creating post-secondary options in addition to the four-year BA that address the needs of 21st century firms; healing broken communities, and returning to a culture that feels comfortable discussing duties and responsibilities; reinvigorating civil society and the local institutions that subtly encourage work and responsibility; and more.
Enough with soaking the top one percent. Let’s focus on the 99..."
THE WASHINGTON POST: Stop worrying about the one percent. Their money can’t help the middle class.
"...our national conversation shouldn’t focus on the fact that some folks are doing much better than others, but instead should work towards creating the social and economic conditions wherein everyone can better their situation. This means addressing falling employment rates and earnings of less-educated workers, particularly men; fixing our broken, failing schools; creating post-secondary options in addition to the four-year BA that address the needs of 21st century firms; healing broken communities, and returning to a culture that feels comfortable discussing duties and responsibilities; reinvigorating civil society and the local institutions that subtly encourage work and responsibility; and more.
Enough with soaking the top one percent. Let’s focus on the 99..."
THE WASHINGTON POST: Stop worrying about the one percent. Their money can’t help the middle class.
one hundred.
words.
for your consideration...
"...there is no one — not now, not ever — who can drop a hot 16 and do what Drake did while hosting the ESPYs, as he owned a room full of superstar athletes by somehow vacillating between witty, funny, clever, mean, charming, self-deprecating, corny, and creepy. And sometimes — i.e.: “Honorable Mention” — he was all of those things at the same time.
...He’s able to do these things because he is legitimately witty, funny, clever, mean, charming, self-deprecating, corny, and creepy. Oh, and self-aware. What I saw on stage and in each of those skits was someone completely aware of who he is and what he can do. He knows he can act. He knows he can sing. He knows that being biracial allows him to do a certain type of racial humor that neither a fully Black nor fully White person can pull off. His Drake vs Blake bit might have been the first time in recorded history a light-skinned Black man did Whiteface to emulate a lighter-skinned Black man. His Pacquiao skit managed to be both extremely funny and extremely racist. And no one was offended by it. Because Drake, even when crooning slightly sexist odes to sidepieces and completely creepy peons to Skylar Diggins, is somehow never offensive. And this is a talent. Perhaps his most important one. It’s what enables him to create songs possessing the perfunctory nihilism and misogyny required of rap stars while also getting invited to host SNL. He’s Tony the Tiger. A shark with Invisalign."
VERY SMART BROTHAS: Drake, The Most Talented Rapper…Ever
for your consideration...
"...there is no one — not now, not ever — who can drop a hot 16 and do what Drake did while hosting the ESPYs, as he owned a room full of superstar athletes by somehow vacillating between witty, funny, clever, mean, charming, self-deprecating, corny, and creepy. And sometimes — i.e.: “Honorable Mention” — he was all of those things at the same time.
...He’s able to do these things because he is legitimately witty, funny, clever, mean, charming, self-deprecating, corny, and creepy. Oh, and self-aware. What I saw on stage and in each of those skits was someone completely aware of who he is and what he can do. He knows he can act. He knows he can sing. He knows that being biracial allows him to do a certain type of racial humor that neither a fully Black nor fully White person can pull off. His Drake vs Blake bit might have been the first time in recorded history a light-skinned Black man did Whiteface to emulate a lighter-skinned Black man. His Pacquiao skit managed to be both extremely funny and extremely racist. And no one was offended by it. Because Drake, even when crooning slightly sexist odes to sidepieces and completely creepy peons to Skylar Diggins, is somehow never offensive. And this is a talent. Perhaps his most important one. It’s what enables him to create songs possessing the perfunctory nihilism and misogyny required of rap stars while also getting invited to host SNL. He’s Tony the Tiger. A shark with Invisalign."
VERY SMART BROTHAS: Drake, The Most Talented Rapper…Ever
queen.
a video.
from perfume genius.
PITCHFORK: Perfume Genius Plays "Alternative Universe Forrest Gump" in "Queen" Video
from perfume genius.
PITCHFORK: Perfume Genius Plays "Alternative Universe Forrest Gump" in "Queen" Video
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
thank you very much.
a secret public access tv show.
starring jack antonoff & his bleachers.
ROLLING STONE: Thank You Very Much: Inside Bleachers' Secret Public-Access TV Show
starring jack antonoff & his bleachers.
ROLLING STONE: Thank You Very Much: Inside Bleachers' Secret Public-Access TV Show
real talk.
an ongoing discussion/moment of clarity.
words.
"To an extent we seldom acknowledge, the two major parties today are the lineal descendants of the forces shaped by the civil-rights movement and those shaped by the “Southern strategy.” Both play out the logical extensions of their points of origin. Holder memorably referred to the U.S. as a “nation of cowards” when it comes to race, but that could be a better state of affairs than the one we now have. It’s far more damning that this is a nation of self-declared racial innocents, blithely detached from its past and their prejudices. Cowards have no choice but to understand their own fearfulness. Innocents recognize no culpability, and thus are blamelessly capable of anything at all."
THE NEW YORKER: Talking Openly About Obama and Race
words.
"To an extent we seldom acknowledge, the two major parties today are the lineal descendants of the forces shaped by the civil-rights movement and those shaped by the “Southern strategy.” Both play out the logical extensions of their points of origin. Holder memorably referred to the U.S. as a “nation of cowards” when it comes to race, but that could be a better state of affairs than the one we now have. It’s far more damning that this is a nation of self-declared racial innocents, blithely detached from its past and their prejudices. Cowards have no choice but to understand their own fearfulness. Innocents recognize no culpability, and thus are blamelessly capable of anything at all."
THE NEW YORKER: Talking Openly About Obama and Race
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
queen.
starring perfume genius.
PITCHFORK: Perfume Genius Announces New Album Too Bright, Shares "Queen", Tours
a moment of clarity.
words.
"How many Americans know how health reform is going? For that matter, how many people in the news media are following the positive developments?
I suspect that the answer to the first question is “Not many,” while the answer to the second is “Possibly even fewer,” for reasons I’ll get to later. And if I’m right, it’s a remarkable thing — an immense policy success is improving the lives of millions of Americans, but it’s largely slipping under the radar.
...as I suggested earlier, people in the media — especially elite pundits — may be the last to hear the good news, simply because they’re in a socioeconomic bracket in which people generally have good coverage.
For the less fortunate, however, the Affordable Care Act has already made a big positive difference. The usual suspects will keep crying failure, but the truth is that health reform is — gasp! — working."
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Obamacare Fails to Fail
"How many Americans know how health reform is going? For that matter, how many people in the news media are following the positive developments?
I suspect that the answer to the first question is “Not many,” while the answer to the second is “Possibly even fewer,” for reasons I’ll get to later. And if I’m right, it’s a remarkable thing — an immense policy success is improving the lives of millions of Americans, but it’s largely slipping under the radar.
...as I suggested earlier, people in the media — especially elite pundits — may be the last to hear the good news, simply because they’re in a socioeconomic bracket in which people generally have good coverage.
For the less fortunate, however, the Affordable Care Act has already made a big positive difference. The usual suspects will keep crying failure, but the truth is that health reform is — gasp! — working."
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Obamacare Fails to Fail
Monday, July 14, 2014
american pie.
a moment of clarity.
with john oliver.
SLATE: Watch John Oliver Explain Income Inequality With a Ridiculous Powerball Lottery
with john oliver.
SLATE: Watch John Oliver Explain Income Inequality With a Ridiculous Powerball Lottery
Friday, July 11, 2014
Thursday, July 10, 2014
fam and foolies.
starring sulaiman & chance the rapper.
FADER: Sulaiman and Chance the Rapper Laugh At Life’s Lows On “Fam and Foolies”
FADER: Sulaiman and Chance the Rapper Laugh At Life’s Lows On “Fam and Foolies”
Wednesday, July 09, 2014
for your consideration.
words.
"Last Monday, President Obama defied Republican threats to file suit against him for his use of executive orders. “If House Republicans are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions,” the president said, “the best solution to that is passing bills. Pass a bill, solve a problem.
Republican obstruction is so extreme that House Speaker John Boehner can’t even get what he wants done, much less what the country needs. House Republicans have blocked countless jobs plans, stonewalled immigration reform, stopped a hike in the minimum wage and prevented emergency unemployment benefits from even getting a vote.
...Republicans want to make an election issue out of Obama’s use of executive actions to overcome their obstruction? The president should double down and raise the stakes. Democrats would win that fight — and they would deserve to win."
THE WASHINGTON POST: Obama should set his sights higher
"Last Monday, President Obama defied Republican threats to file suit against him for his use of executive orders. “If House Republicans are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions,” the president said, “the best solution to that is passing bills. Pass a bill, solve a problem.
Republican obstruction is so extreme that House Speaker John Boehner can’t even get what he wants done, much less what the country needs. House Republicans have blocked countless jobs plans, stonewalled immigration reform, stopped a hike in the minimum wage and prevented emergency unemployment benefits from even getting a vote.
...Republicans want to make an election issue out of Obama’s use of executive actions to overcome their obstruction? The president should double down and raise the stakes. Democrats would win that fight — and they would deserve to win."
THE WASHINGTON POST: Obama should set his sights higher
Tuesday, July 08, 2014
clap your hands say yeah.
with crosby, stills, nash, & "young".
PITCHFORK: Crosby, Stills & Nash Perform Iggy Azalea's "Fancy" on "Fallon" With Jimmy Fallon as "Neil Young"
PITCHFORK: Crosby, Stills & Nash Perform Iggy Azalea's "Fancy" on "Fallon" With Jimmy Fallon as "Neil Young"
Monday, July 07, 2014
Sunday, July 06, 2014
Saturday, July 05, 2014
up with people.
an ongoing discussion/moment of clarity.
words.
"The nation’s fast-food restaurants, which employ many of the country’s low-wage workers, are at the center of the debate over low pay and raising the federal minimum wage — fueled by protests demanding that fast-food chains establish a $15 wage floor. McDonald’s was pilloried last year for a hotline that advised employees how to seek food stamps and public assistance for heating and medical expenses.
...Complaining of low profit margins that generally accompany inexpensive menu items, most fast-food restaurants try to keep wages down — the median hourly wage for fast-food workers nationwide is $8.83, compared with $11.50 at Boloco and $10.70 at Shake Shack.
...When Harry Moorhouse opened his first Moo Cluck Moo restaurant 15 months ago in Dearborn Heights, Mich., its minimum pay was $12 an hour. Since then, it has raised that to $15 and opened a second restaurant in Canton, Mich., with plans to open a third in October and perhaps additional restaurants in Chicago and California next year.
“Our people work really hard, and $15 impacts their lives in a very positive way,” Mr. Moorhouse said. “The whole notion that it’s all kids starting out and they don’t deserve to be paid much, that’s all specious. We’re paying people $15 an hour so they have a living wage, so they really care about you when you come in the store.”"
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Paying Employees to Stay, Not to Go
SEE ALSO:
THINK PROGRESS: Rents Are Rising, But People Aren’t Making Any More Money
words.
"The nation’s fast-food restaurants, which employ many of the country’s low-wage workers, are at the center of the debate over low pay and raising the federal minimum wage — fueled by protests demanding that fast-food chains establish a $15 wage floor. McDonald’s was pilloried last year for a hotline that advised employees how to seek food stamps and public assistance for heating and medical expenses.
...Complaining of low profit margins that generally accompany inexpensive menu items, most fast-food restaurants try to keep wages down — the median hourly wage for fast-food workers nationwide is $8.83, compared with $11.50 at Boloco and $10.70 at Shake Shack.
...When Harry Moorhouse opened his first Moo Cluck Moo restaurant 15 months ago in Dearborn Heights, Mich., its minimum pay was $12 an hour. Since then, it has raised that to $15 and opened a second restaurant in Canton, Mich., with plans to open a third in October and perhaps additional restaurants in Chicago and California next year.
“Our people work really hard, and $15 impacts their lives in a very positive way,” Mr. Moorhouse said. “The whole notion that it’s all kids starting out and they don’t deserve to be paid much, that’s all specious. We’re paying people $15 an hour so they have a living wage, so they really care about you when you come in the store.”"
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Paying Employees to Stay, Not to Go
SEE ALSO:
THINK PROGRESS: Rents Are Rising, But People Aren’t Making Any More Money
Thursday, July 03, 2014
the shout out louds.
a moment of clarity.
words.
"... In the past year, the venture capitalist Tom Perkins and Kenneth Langone, the co-founder of Home Depot, both compared populist attacks on the wealthy to the Nazis’ attacks on the Jews. All three eventually apologized, but the basic sentiment is surprisingly common. Although the Obama years have been boom times for America’s super-rich—recent work by the economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty showed that ninety-five per cent of income gains in the first three years of the recovery went to the top one per cent—a lot of them believe that they’re a persecuted minority. As Mark Mizruchi, a sociologist at the University of Michigan and the author of a book called “The Fracturing of the American Corporate Elite,” told me, “These guys think, We’re the job creators, we keep the markets running, and yet the public doesn’t like us. How can that be?” Business leaders were upset at the criticism that followed the financial crisis and, for many of them, it’s an article of faith that people succeed or fail because that’s what they deserve. Schwarzman recently said that Americans “always like to blame somebody other than themselves for a failure.” If you believe that net worth is a reflection of merit, then any attempt to curb inequality looks unfair.
...If today’s corporate kvetchers are more concerned with the state of their egos than with the state of the nation, it’s in part because their own fortunes aren’t tied to those of the nation the way they once were. In the postwar years, American companies depended largely on American consumers. Globalization has changed that—foreign sales account for almost half the revenue of the S&P 500—as has the rise of financial services (where the most important clients are the wealthy and other corporations). The well-being of the American middle class just doesn’t matter as much to companies’ bottom lines. And there’s another change. Early in the past century, there was a true socialist movement in the United States, and in the postwar years the Soviet Union seemed to offer the possibility of a meaningful alternative to capitalism. Small wonder that the tycoons of those days were so eager to channel populist agitation into reform. Today, by contrast, corporate chieftains have little to fear, other than mildly higher taxes and the complaints of people who have read Thomas Piketty. Moguls complain about their feelings because that’s all anyone can really threaten."
THE NEW YORKER: Moaning Moguls
words.
"... In the past year, the venture capitalist Tom Perkins and Kenneth Langone, the co-founder of Home Depot, both compared populist attacks on the wealthy to the Nazis’ attacks on the Jews. All three eventually apologized, but the basic sentiment is surprisingly common. Although the Obama years have been boom times for America’s super-rich—recent work by the economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty showed that ninety-five per cent of income gains in the first three years of the recovery went to the top one per cent—a lot of them believe that they’re a persecuted minority. As Mark Mizruchi, a sociologist at the University of Michigan and the author of a book called “The Fracturing of the American Corporate Elite,” told me, “These guys think, We’re the job creators, we keep the markets running, and yet the public doesn’t like us. How can that be?” Business leaders were upset at the criticism that followed the financial crisis and, for many of them, it’s an article of faith that people succeed or fail because that’s what they deserve. Schwarzman recently said that Americans “always like to blame somebody other than themselves for a failure.” If you believe that net worth is a reflection of merit, then any attempt to curb inequality looks unfair.
...If today’s corporate kvetchers are more concerned with the state of their egos than with the state of the nation, it’s in part because their own fortunes aren’t tied to those of the nation the way they once were. In the postwar years, American companies depended largely on American consumers. Globalization has changed that—foreign sales account for almost half the revenue of the S&P 500—as has the rise of financial services (where the most important clients are the wealthy and other corporations). The well-being of the American middle class just doesn’t matter as much to companies’ bottom lines. And there’s another change. Early in the past century, there was a true socialist movement in the United States, and in the postwar years the Soviet Union seemed to offer the possibility of a meaningful alternative to capitalism. Small wonder that the tycoons of those days were so eager to channel populist agitation into reform. Today, by contrast, corporate chieftains have little to fear, other than mildly higher taxes and the complaints of people who have read Thomas Piketty. Moguls complain about their feelings because that’s all anyone can really threaten."
THE NEW YORKER: Moaning Moguls
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
cause = time.
a moment of clarity.
words.
"If it is not the inexorable laws of economics that have led to America’s great divide, what is it? The straightforward answer: our policies and our politics. People get tired of hearing about Scandinavian success stories, but the fact of the matter is that Sweden, Finland and Norway have all succeeded in having about as much or faster growth in per capita incomes than the United States and with far greater equality.
So why has America chosen these inequality-enhancing policies? Part of the answer is that as World War II faded into memory, so too did the solidarity it had engendered. As America triumphed in the Cold War, there didn’t seem to be a viable competitor to our economic model. Without this international competition, we no longer had to show that our system could deliver for most of our citizens.
Ideology and interests combined nefariously. Some drew the wrong lesson from the collapse of the Soviet system. The pendulum swung from much too much government there to much too little here. Corporate interests argued for getting rid of regulations, even when those regulations had done so much to protect and improve our environment, our safety, our health and the economy itself.
...The American political system is overrun by money. Economic inequality translates into political inequality, and political inequality yields increasing economic inequality. In fact, as he recognizes, Mr. Piketty’s argument rests on the ability of wealth-holders to keep their after-tax rate of return high relative to economic growth. How do they do this? By designing the rules of the game to ensure this outcome; that is, through politics.
So corporate welfare increases as we curtail welfare for the poor. Congress maintains subsidies for rich farmers as we cut back on nutritional support for the needy. Drug companies have been given hundreds of billions of dollars as we limit Medicaid benefits. The banks that brought on the global financial crisis got billions while a pittance went to the homeowners and victims of the same banks’ predatory lending practices. This last decision was particularly foolish. There were alternatives to throwing money at the banks and hoping it would circulate through increased lending. We could have helped underwater homeowners and the victims of predatory behavior directly. This would not only have helped the economy, it would have put us on the path to robust recovery.
OUR divisions are deep. Economic and geographic segregation have immunized those at the top from the problems of those down below. Like the kings of yore, they have come to perceive their privileged positions essentially as a natural right. How else to explain the recent comments of the venture capitalist Tom Perkins, who suggested that criticism of the 1 percent was akin to Nazi fascism, or those coming from the private equity titan Stephen A. Schwarzman, who compared asking financiers to pay taxes at the same rate as those who work for a living to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
Our economy, our democracy and our society have paid for these gross inequities.
...We need not just a new war on poverty but a war to protect the middle class. Solutions to these problems do not have to be newfangled. Far from it. Making markets act like markets would be a good place to start. We must end the rent-seeking society we have gravitated toward, in which the wealthy obtain profits by manipulating the system.
The problem of inequality is not so much a matter of technical economics. It’s really a problem of practical politics. Ensuring that those at the top pay their fair share of taxes — ending the special privileges of speculators, corporations and the rich — is both pragmatic and fair. We are not embracing a politics of envy if we reverse a politics of greed. Inequality is not just about the top marginal tax rate but also about our children’s access to food and the right to justice for all. If we spent more on education, health and infrastructure, we would strengthen our economy, now and in the future. Just because you’ve heard it before doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try it again."
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Inequality is Not Inevitable
words.
"If it is not the inexorable laws of economics that have led to America’s great divide, what is it? The straightforward answer: our policies and our politics. People get tired of hearing about Scandinavian success stories, but the fact of the matter is that Sweden, Finland and Norway have all succeeded in having about as much or faster growth in per capita incomes than the United States and with far greater equality.
So why has America chosen these inequality-enhancing policies? Part of the answer is that as World War II faded into memory, so too did the solidarity it had engendered. As America triumphed in the Cold War, there didn’t seem to be a viable competitor to our economic model. Without this international competition, we no longer had to show that our system could deliver for most of our citizens.
Ideology and interests combined nefariously. Some drew the wrong lesson from the collapse of the Soviet system. The pendulum swung from much too much government there to much too little here. Corporate interests argued for getting rid of regulations, even when those regulations had done so much to protect and improve our environment, our safety, our health and the economy itself.
...The American political system is overrun by money. Economic inequality translates into political inequality, and political inequality yields increasing economic inequality. In fact, as he recognizes, Mr. Piketty’s argument rests on the ability of wealth-holders to keep their after-tax rate of return high relative to economic growth. How do they do this? By designing the rules of the game to ensure this outcome; that is, through politics.
So corporate welfare increases as we curtail welfare for the poor. Congress maintains subsidies for rich farmers as we cut back on nutritional support for the needy. Drug companies have been given hundreds of billions of dollars as we limit Medicaid benefits. The banks that brought on the global financial crisis got billions while a pittance went to the homeowners and victims of the same banks’ predatory lending practices. This last decision was particularly foolish. There were alternatives to throwing money at the banks and hoping it would circulate through increased lending. We could have helped underwater homeowners and the victims of predatory behavior directly. This would not only have helped the economy, it would have put us on the path to robust recovery.
OUR divisions are deep. Economic and geographic segregation have immunized those at the top from the problems of those down below. Like the kings of yore, they have come to perceive their privileged positions essentially as a natural right. How else to explain the recent comments of the venture capitalist Tom Perkins, who suggested that criticism of the 1 percent was akin to Nazi fascism, or those coming from the private equity titan Stephen A. Schwarzman, who compared asking financiers to pay taxes at the same rate as those who work for a living to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
Our economy, our democracy and our society have paid for these gross inequities.
...We need not just a new war on poverty but a war to protect the middle class. Solutions to these problems do not have to be newfangled. Far from it. Making markets act like markets would be a good place to start. We must end the rent-seeking society we have gravitated toward, in which the wealthy obtain profits by manipulating the system.
The problem of inequality is not so much a matter of technical economics. It’s really a problem of practical politics. Ensuring that those at the top pay their fair share of taxes — ending the special privileges of speculators, corporations and the rich — is both pragmatic and fair. We are not embracing a politics of envy if we reverse a politics of greed. Inequality is not just about the top marginal tax rate but also about our children’s access to food and the right to justice for all. If we spent more on education, health and infrastructure, we would strengthen our economy, now and in the future. Just because you’ve heard it before doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try it again."
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Inequality is Not Inevitable
Tuesday, July 01, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)