The morning newspaper was filled with coverage of this year's opening weekend of the New Orleans Jazz Fest. Most of it taken up with Bruce Springteen and Dr. John, rightfully so. No, I was not there, opting instead for the typical Sunday of a lazy, slow start, the newspaper, some talking head television, and yard work. Been to most of the Jazz Fests; sometimes feel I don't need to go to them all. But I must say I remember them, every single one. Here's why.
The recounting of the Spingteen and Dr. John individual performances, as well as their collaborative efforts, centered quite unsurprisingly on the message of outrage and truth-telling regarding the Katrina and BP oil spill abuses visited on this city. The pictures revealed throngs uncountable enthralled.
All were obviously on the same page. However, you and I know that apart from such transcendent occasions as that, the breakdown of opinion would range from acknowledgement of the truth regarding such things all the way to acceptance of the most idiotic right-wing political and corporate clap-trap.
Conversely, Nobel laureate in economics, Paul Krugman, appeared on a television talking-head panel yesterday with a bunch of dolts, none of whom could spell dollar. All of them remained utterly convinced of their respective preconceived renditions of reality, no matter how many times Krugman demonstrated they were full of crap.
So, note to all of us: The truth wants cadence and rhythm; in a word, poetry. Without it, we are unmoved. It has always been so from Homer through Joe Hill, Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Paul Robeson, John Lennon, Phil Ochs, Bob Marley, and Martin Luther King. The truth must be made to sing, else many will never hear it. Talk to you later, after some more clarinet practice.
New Orleans Labor Voice
Monday, April 30, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Father Ryan ... Oh My God!
So, yesterday we were treated to "news" coverage of scoundrel Paul Ryan preaching at us from his peculiarly hateful perspective regarding the poor, while claiming to be a good and faithful Catholic.
At last, we see the Catholic Church really does have enemies among the current national political class. No, not Obama, nor any genuine liberal for that matter. The real threat is from the enemy within.
On the same evening, a nun who has long toiled in the vineyards of poverty and despair among the poor, was interviewed on an MSNBC television program and flatly said the obvious: Paul Ryan is a liar.
Catholic Paul Ryan. Now, that is something that should worry the Hell out of the Vatican.
At last, we see the Catholic Church really does have enemies among the current national political class. No, not Obama, nor any genuine liberal for that matter. The real threat is from the enemy within.
On the same evening, a nun who has long toiled in the vineyards of poverty and despair among the poor, was interviewed on an MSNBC television program and flatly said the obvious: Paul Ryan is a liar.
Catholic Paul Ryan. Now, that is something that should worry the Hell out of the Vatican.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Feel The Burn?
The burn we can expect to soon be feeling is not the type which results from active exercise, just the opposite. Whenever a society becomes so imbalanced by a super powerful and gluttonous elite ruling over an utterly disaffected and outcast majority, trapped in penury and hopelessness, bereft of any opportunity to improve their situation within the confines of the established process, so much so that they have even given up or have had taken from them the right to meaningfully participate in democratic governance, look out.
That is where we are in New Orleans. It just screams at you when an election for a citywide office draws only twenty-four percent turnout, and the establishment brags about it. The first whiff of smoke escapes from the empty voting booths smoldering with resentment. Democracy turns to ashes in the absence of exercise.
That is where we are in New Orleans. It just screams at you when an election for a citywide office draws only twenty-four percent turnout, and the establishment brags about it. The first whiff of smoke escapes from the empty voting booths smoldering with resentment. Democracy turns to ashes in the absence of exercise.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Simply The Best
Read this new post from the Library Chronicles blog. There simply is no more elegant and analytically precise dissection of the woeful state of Amercian faux democracy, race relations, class divisions, and "mainstream" media bias, hypocrisy, and overall banality.
At first glance, it's a relief. It's a relief to
see that despite the rain, the tall ships, and the general not giving a fuck around town, turnout at least managed to bump up a bit from the dismal 18% of
the primary.
And yet 55,293 people is a pretty lame crowd. If the Saints are ever drawing that, Tom Benson might up and move them to San Antonio... or run off and buy a basketball team or something. So maybe we're not exactly In when it comes to our most preferred spectator sport of local politics these days.
The problem could be that the storyline isn't all that compelling. Or maybe it's just that the T-P keeps trying to write the same boring script.
Was this really a "racially charged" election? Just the assertion that it was, in fact, "charged" with anything at all strains credulity. But leaving that aside, let's look at the evidence supplied in Sunday's re-cap.
For an "unspoken rule" the T-P's political reporters sure do an awful lot of speaking about it. In fact, they haven't been able to shut up about it ever since the unspoken rule was tossed away after Oliver Thomas' departure. Two election cycles later, we're still reading about it as if it's the law of the land.
One side note here. A proposed reform would divide candidates in future At-Large elections into two separate races for either seat. If this comes to pass will future candidates conform to the "unspoken" rule by self-segregating themselves into white and black At-Large races? If not maybe then we can stop un-speaking about this business.
But whatever you think of the "unspoken rule" it alone doesn't mean that this election was "racially charged"... at least not any more or less than any citywide election might be. Race is obviously a factor in local politics. But it isn't so neatly divided from context the way the T-P's handling of it would indicate. Let's look again at Michelle Krupa and Frank Donze's Sunday re-cap article.
What a fascinating way to frame those quotes. Here we have each candidate saying equally bland things. Cynthia says it's important for everyone to "have access" and "be heard." Head "counters" this by saying "delivery of governmental services" is "far more important than race." It's a mild exchange that obliquely touches on a debate about whether the question of for whom government services are working is as important as how well they are working. Does that question have a racial element to it? Certainly. Does the article attempt to explain this at all? Nope.
Instead the reporters keep the focus on how "racially charged" all of this is. In their version of the story, Willard-Lewis' having "kept the issue of racial balance in the forefront" was a troublesome matter necessitating a "counter" from Head. Even if we are to accept the dubious premise that this election was any more "racially charged" than is typically seen in New Orleans politics, we are given no means of understanding why race might be a relevant matter. It's lightly implied that the alleged racial charge is probably a bad thing... and that it's mostly Cynthia's fault... but that's all we get.
See, Cynthia "targeted black voters" by having Andrew Young say something pretty elemental about representative government. Meanwhile Head "featured a range of residents" who talked about how she can "get things done." What things are getting done? Head's supporters typically cite her office's responsiveness regarding things like individual permitting and zoning hang-ups. If you own a business or a (well maintained) piece of property in District B, Stacy Head is probably your pal. She gets things done. For you, anyway. Just don't ever say she's "targeting" your vote, though.
Recently, Head voted with her targeted constituency against an ordinance that helps ensure contractors the city is doing business with are in compliance with state and federal labor standards.The law was put forward by interim At-Large Councilman Eric Granderson as a response to widespread complaints of wage theft in New Orleans; a cause taken up by Arnie Fielkow who Granderson replaced on the council. As a result of the special election, Head will now fill that seat.
In Willard-Lewis' ads, when Ambassador Young says, "If you don't have somebody representing you in public office, you really don't get your share," he's talking to people like the exploited day laborers Head voted against. When Willard-Lewis says "it is important that all segments of the community feel 'they have access and that their voices will be welcome, respected and heard,'" this is what she's talking about. But when Times-Picayune reporters reduce these points to mere racial dog whistling they divorce the campaign from any sense of its actual impact on people's lives.
Whenever we talk about issues of economic status and political power, of course race is going to factor into that discussion. But it's going to do that in complicated ways our political reporters don't usually want to unpack. Instead they make a perverse parlor game of isolating race from any meaningful context and then making that de-contextualized extraction the sole focus of their election coverage.
And this is, of course, topped off by tut-tutting at one or both of the candidates for allowing this completely manufactured bullshit to "racially charge" the campaign in the first place. In this election, the brunt of the blame for having "kept the issue of racial balance in the forefront" as Krupa and Donze put it, fell on Willard-Lewis.
Just look at this lede from Donze's report on a WVUE debate between Head and CWL. The debate ranged on a number of topics but Donze picked this.
titillate us offend our sensitive hearts with
the race baiting no-no we all came to shake our fingers at but that didn't work
out and we were starting to get bored so here's what our rabbit ears picked up
"indirectly."
Oh by the way, here's the tackling of "the thorny issue" Donze is referring to. Prepare to have your mind blown.
New Orleans council primary plays out along racial lines
or
New Orleans City Council runoff may be test of trends in the city's racial politics
or
New Orleans City Council endorsement appears to have racial component
There were a lot of these throughout the campaign often with an "appears to" or a "may be" or a "touch on" forced in to connect "City Council" and "race" one way or another. If this election was "racially charged" at all, it acquired this charge as a result of the static generated by the T-P (usually Donze) constantly rubbing those words together.
And more often than not, the recipient of the T-P's racial static was Cynthia Willard-Lewis. Even as she was receiving her "crossover" endorsement from the Mayor, Donze managed to describe it as a sly and underhanded "racially charged" move.
Similarly, we would have thought that Austin Badon's subsequent endorsement of Head was an act of political payback. Badon had the backing of the Morrell family during the primary in part because the Morrells have been enemies of Ms. Willard-Lewis as of late. It's also possible that Badon (like President Obama) simply shares Head's interests since we know Badon to be an outspoken supporter of Governor Jindal's scheme to privatize elementary and secondary education in Louisiana.
But when the endorsement actually happened, Krupa included none of this in her account. Instead we got a handicapping of the racial subtext she had read into it for us.
Later, when Badon actually spoke, he didn't mention race at all.
When the T-P excludes all context other than race, their framing lines up this way. Either the voters will "vote along racial lines" and support Cynthia, or overcome this presumed flaw in their character to support Head. Meanwhile Head gets to go right on pretending that her choice of management over labor, or of property owners over renters is really a forward-thinking focus on "service" and Willard-Lewis' rhetoric about "all segments of the community" getting their "voices heard" amounts to some sort of nefarious racial code talk.
Maybe in another 30 years when Head finally grows up to be Jackie Clarkson, our gentle reporters will have to change gears and start covering for her in more of an aw-shucks-that's-our-good-old-buffoon fashion but, man, that is a long time to wait.
Anyway, it should come as no surprise that the political team at the T-P would apply their powers of induction to conclude from the results that they were right all along.
See? This election really was "racially charged" but somehow the forces of ... um... light prevailed due to the "bridging of the divide" or something.
This analysis, including its "Stacy Head's New Orleans City Council victory credited to turnout, black vote" headline is terribly misleading. Technically, the headline is true. But it's only true if we read it as "Stacy Head's victory credited to (low) turnout and (somewhat divided but mostly disengaged) black vote" As written, however, it might imply to the casual headline glancer that Ms. Head benefited from a heavy black turnout.
That isn't very likely, of course. But even the argument Donze is trying to make; that Head won by virtue of picking up a small but decisive percentage of a dismal black turnout; is masked by his attempt to characterize this as some noble "bridge the racial divide" moment. Had a mere 282 more Cynthia voters (less than one per precinct, as Clancy DuBos told us repeatedly) decided to slog through the rain that day, would we be reading today about the "bridging of the divide"? Or would Donze tell us, instead, that those 282 voters had rushed upon us in a loathsome "racial charge"?
Is there a way to explain these results without talking about the racial component? No, of course not. But if you're going to say, on the one hand, that the election was strictly about race, it's unfair to interpret one candidate's victory as a rejection of racial politics. Especially if the numbers don't bear that out.
Among the joys of post-election handicapping these days are Brian Denzer's Pac-Man maps. This one (PDF) shows us the precinct-level vote share along with the intensity of the turnout. It was picked up by The Lens this week along with the following analysis from Denzer.
Stacy Head eked out a slim slim victory from among less than a quarter of all registered voters because her supporters, though small in number, were more enthusiastic than her opponent's. We could speculate as to whether or not Head's supporters were more racially charged up than Cynthia's but, unlike the T-P, I don't really buy that race is what defined this election. It's far more correct to say that apathy did.
And that's hardly surprising given all the bullshit about race taking precedence in the narrative. When voters are given little if any opportunity to learn what either an election might actually be about. Is it any wonder so few of them find it worth their time to be "In" for it?
*The 2006 Mayoral election was, in fact, quite "racially charged."
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
"Unspoken" Rules Of NOLA Political Coverage or Why We aren't "In"
With all 366 precincts reporting, unofficial returns showed Head with 27,787 votes to 27,506 for Willard-Lewis. About 23.5 percent of the city's 235,553 registered voters went to the polls, significantly more than in the primary, although there were no other items on the ballot.
And yet 55,293 people is a pretty lame crowd. If the Saints are ever drawing that, Tom Benson might up and move them to San Antonio... or run off and buy a basketball team or something. So maybe we're not exactly In when it comes to our most preferred spectator sport of local politics these days.
The problem could be that the storyline isn't all that compelling. Or maybe it's just that the T-P keeps trying to write the same boring script.
She appeared to have survived a racially charged contest against former Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis by the narrowest of margins.
Was this really a "racially charged" election? Just the assertion that it was, in fact, "charged" with anything at all strains credulity. But leaving that aside, let's look at the evidence supplied in Sunday's re-cap.
The two Democrats waged a spirited runoff battle focused in part on the so-called "unspoken rule" that for three decades kept the two at-large council seats divided between white and African-American politicians.
The tradition of racial balance in the seats ended in 2007, when Jackie Clarkson, who is white, was elected after Oliver Thomas, who like Willard-Lewis is black, resigned after admitting he took a bribe. Fielkow, the other incumbent at the time, also is white.
For an "unspoken rule" the T-P's political reporters sure do an awful lot of speaking about it. In fact, they haven't been able to shut up about it ever since the unspoken rule was tossed away after Oliver Thomas' departure. Two election cycles later, we're still reading about it as if it's the law of the land.
One side note here. A proposed reform would divide candidates in future At-Large elections into two separate races for either seat. If this comes to pass will future candidates conform to the "unspoken" rule by self-segregating themselves into white and black At-Large races? If not maybe then we can stop un-speaking about this business.
But whatever you think of the "unspoken rule" it alone doesn't mean that this election was "racially charged"... at least not any more or less than any citywide election might be. Race is obviously a factor in local politics. But it isn't so neatly divided from context the way the T-P's handling of it would indicate. Let's look again at Michelle Krupa and Frank Donze's Sunday re-cap article.
During the campaign Willard-Lewis kept the issue of racial balance in the forefront, saying it is important that all segments of the community feel "they have access and that their voices will be welcome, respected and heard."
Head countered that voters are more concerned about which candidate is "going to work hard for their neighborhood, who's going to make sure that the delivery of governmental services is as good as it possibly can be. That's far more important than race."
What a fascinating way to frame those quotes. Here we have each candidate saying equally bland things. Cynthia says it's important for everyone to "have access" and "be heard." Head "counters" this by saying "delivery of governmental services" is "far more important than race." It's a mild exchange that obliquely touches on a debate about whether the question of for whom government services are working is as important as how well they are working. Does that question have a racial element to it? Certainly. Does the article attempt to explain this at all? Nope.
Instead the reporters keep the focus on how "racially charged" all of this is. In their version of the story, Willard-Lewis' having "kept the issue of racial balance in the forefront" was a troublesome matter necessitating a "counter" from Head. Even if we are to accept the dubious premise that this election was any more "racially charged" than is typically seen in New Orleans politics, we are given no means of understanding why race might be a relevant matter. It's lightly implied that the alleged racial charge is probably a bad thing... and that it's mostly Cynthia's fault... but that's all we get.
Willard-Lewis targeted black voters with a pair of radio ads, including one featuring New Orleans native Andrew Young, the former Atlanta mayor and civil-rights leader. He told listeners: "If you don't have somebody representing you in public office, you really don't get your share."
The other ad, which suggested Head was trying to buy the election, urged voters to send her a message that "the vote that our parents and grandparents fought and died for is not for sale, nor will it ever be."
In her TV ads, Head featured a range of residents -- black and white, male and female -- with each supporter praising her ability to get things done.
See, Cynthia "targeted black voters" by having Andrew Young say something pretty elemental about representative government. Meanwhile Head "featured a range of residents" who talked about how she can "get things done." What things are getting done? Head's supporters typically cite her office's responsiveness regarding things like individual permitting and zoning hang-ups. If you own a business or a (well maintained) piece of property in District B, Stacy Head is probably your pal. She gets things done. For you, anyway. Just don't ever say she's "targeting" your vote, though.
Recently, Head voted with her targeted constituency against an ordinance that helps ensure contractors the city is doing business with are in compliance with state and federal labor standards.The law was put forward by interim At-Large Councilman Eric Granderson as a response to widespread complaints of wage theft in New Orleans; a cause taken up by Arnie Fielkow who Granderson replaced on the council. As a result of the special election, Head will now fill that seat.
In Willard-Lewis' ads, when Ambassador Young says, "If you don't have somebody representing you in public office, you really don't get your share," he's talking to people like the exploited day laborers Head voted against. When Willard-Lewis says "it is important that all segments of the community feel 'they have access and that their voices will be welcome, respected and heard,'" this is what she's talking about. But when Times-Picayune reporters reduce these points to mere racial dog whistling they divorce the campaign from any sense of its actual impact on people's lives.
Whenever we talk about issues of economic status and political power, of course race is going to factor into that discussion. But it's going to do that in complicated ways our political reporters don't usually want to unpack. Instead they make a perverse parlor game of isolating race from any meaningful context and then making that de-contextualized extraction the sole focus of their election coverage.
And this is, of course, topped off by tut-tutting at one or both of the candidates for allowing this completely manufactured bullshit to "racially charge" the campaign in the first place. In this election, the brunt of the blame for having "kept the issue of racial balance in the forefront" as Krupa and Donze put it, fell on Willard-Lewis.
Just look at this lede from Donze's report on a WVUE debate between Head and CWL. The debate ranged on a number of topics but Donze picked this.
It seemed like a good bet that, as the African-American candidate in the April 21 runoff for an at-large New Orleans City Council seat, former state Sen. Cynthia Willard-Lewis would be the first to broach the subject of the council's white majority. But in the contest's first face-to-face, post-primary meeting, it was her challenger, Stacy Head, one of the council's four white members, who tackled the thorny issue, albeit indirectly.Translation: "It seemed like a good bet" that nasty Cynthia would
Oh by the way, here's the tackling of "the thorny issue" Donze is referring to. Prepare to have your mind blown.
The discussion of race during their appearance Monday on WVUE-TV was triggered when Willard-Lewis asked Head whether she was supporting President Barack Obama's re-election in light of the "significant Republican support" she has in the race.Ok quick fact check time. Does Stacy Head enjoy "significant Republican support"? Why indeed she does! It's maybe a little cheap but still understandable that CWL might want to see if she can exploit that given the President's overwhelming popularity in Orleans Parish. It's unclear, however, exactly why this is a "thorny" or even "indirectly" racial issue as Donze suggests. Anyway here's Head's response.
"So, I think that President Obama has been one of the greatest leaders for the country because he's a man who doesn't look like me," Head said. "But he represents my interests."And, you know, she's right. The President who is bringing us legalized stock fraud under the Orwellian guise of "Job creation" does indeed represent the interests of people like Ms. Head. But that digression aside, does the side-issue of either candidate's opinion of the President really merit front-and-center attention in an article about a municipal election? If it's kind of "indirectly" related to race a little bit, it apparently does. Even so, how does such a silly, weak bank shot bring us to describe the entire debate with this headline?
New Orleans City Council candidates touch on raceProbably the same way we got
New Orleans council primary plays out along racial lines
or
New Orleans City Council runoff may be test of trends in the city's racial politics
or
New Orleans City Council endorsement appears to have racial component
There were a lot of these throughout the campaign often with an "appears to" or a "may be" or a "touch on" forced in to connect "City Council" and "race" one way or another. If this election was "racially charged" at all, it acquired this charge as a result of the static generated by the T-P (usually Donze) constantly rubbing those words together.
And more often than not, the recipient of the T-P's racial static was Cynthia Willard-Lewis. Even as she was receiving her "crossover" endorsement from the Mayor, Donze managed to describe it as a sly and underhanded "racially charged" move.
Mayor Mitch Landrieu never made direct reference to the touchy subject of the New Orleans City Council's white majority Thursday as he endorsed former Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis in the April 21 runoff to fill an at-large seat on the city's legislative panel. But it was clear by what he did say that the thorny issue of race was a key factor in his decision to choose Willard-Lewis, who is black, over her white opponent, Councilwoman Stacy Head.Oh good another "indirect" reference to "the thorny issue." Want to read it?
"I need someone who's going to be a partner with me to represent all of the people of the city of New Orleans," Landrieu said to a cheering crowd of more than 100 gathered at the New Orleans Healing Center on St. Claude Avenue.Did you miss it? Well you see Mitch says he's looking for someone to "represent all the people of the city of New Orleans" which, in Donze's interpretation, must "indirectly" mean something racial. Evidently there's something about the word "all" that Donze takes as exclusionary. Recall that when Donze and Krupa compared these two statements,
During the campaign Willard-Lewis kept the issue of racial balance in the forefront, saying it is important that all segments of the community feel "they have access and that their voices will be welcome, respected and heard." Head countered that voters are more concerned about which candidate is "going to work hard for their neighborhood, who's going to make sure that the delivery of governmental services is as good as it possibly can be. That's far more important than race."They judged Head's to be the more racially inclusive for some reason. Without Donze and Krupa around to read the tea leaves for us, we would have guessed that Mitch was endorsing Cynthia partially as repayment for her having "crossed racial lines" to back his 2006 campaign against Ray Nagin* and also probably as a slap at Head who has bucked his administration from time to time since he has become Mayor. But apparently there's this "racially charged" thing the Mayor and Ms. Willard-Lewis keep trying to force on us. And we might have missed that without the benefit of the Times-Picayune's political team.
Similarly, we would have thought that Austin Badon's subsequent endorsement of Head was an act of political payback. Badon had the backing of the Morrell family during the primary in part because the Morrells have been enemies of Ms. Willard-Lewis as of late. It's also possible that Badon (like President Obama) simply shares Head's interests since we know Badon to be an outspoken supporter of Governor Jindal's scheme to privatize elementary and secondary education in Louisiana.
But when the endorsement actually happened, Krupa included none of this in her account. Instead we got a handicapping of the racial subtext she had read into it for us.
New Orleans voters split along racial lines in the March 24 primary, with Head, who is white, claiming 96 percent of votes cast by whites and Willard-Lewis and Badon, who are black, taking 95 percent of the votes cast by blacks, an analysis by University of New Orleans political scientist Ed Chervenak shows.
Whether Badon's supporters again will vote along racial lines or cast a vote against Willard-Lewis or stay home altogether will be a critical factor for Saturday's victor.
Later, when Badon actually spoke, he didn't mention race at all.
"I want someone who speaks with quality and not quantity," Badon told a roomful of Head supporters.We would have expected Donze to delve into this statement and pull out the "indirect" means by which Badon was actually beating around the "thorny issue" of race. But for some reason, that never happened. Maybe it's because we're already supposed to assume it always "seems like a good bet" that only Willard-Lewis' camp engages in the racial subterfuge.
"I don't want a 'yes' woman on the City Council. New Orleans doesn't need someone who is just going to put their stamp of approval on issues without proper evaluation. I want someone who is analytical. I want someone who is going to bring all of the department heads to the table and ask the tough questions."
When the T-P excludes all context other than race, their framing lines up this way. Either the voters will "vote along racial lines" and support Cynthia, or overcome this presumed flaw in their character to support Head. Meanwhile Head gets to go right on pretending that her choice of management over labor, or of property owners over renters is really a forward-thinking focus on "service" and Willard-Lewis' rhetoric about "all segments of the community" getting their "voices heard" amounts to some sort of nefarious racial code talk.
Maybe in another 30 years when Head finally grows up to be Jackie Clarkson, our gentle reporters will have to change gears and start covering for her in more of an aw-shucks-that's-our-good-old-buffoon fashion but, man, that is a long time to wait.
Anyway, it should come as no surprise that the political team at the T-P would apply their powers of induction to conclude from the results that they were right all along.
Willard-Lewis, who is black, picked up only about 5 percent of the non-African-American votes on a day when white turnout nearly doubled black participation, according to the analysis.
"Turnout and crossover vote were the keys for Head's victory," Chervenak said Sunday.
In his review, Chervenak found that turnout in precincts where 90 percent or more of the registered voters are white was 30.3 percent, compared with 16.8 percent in precincts containing 90 percent or more black voters.
While those heavily African-American precincts contain 32,000 more voters, Chervenak said there were less than 300 more votes cast in those areas than in the heavily white precincts.
Bridging the racial divide was seen as the likeliest path to success for either candidate in what quickly developed into a racially charged battle.
See? This election really was "racially charged" but somehow the forces of ... um... light prevailed due to the "bridging of the divide" or something.
This analysis, including its "Stacy Head's New Orleans City Council victory credited to turnout, black vote" headline is terribly misleading. Technically, the headline is true. But it's only true if we read it as "Stacy Head's victory credited to (low) turnout and (somewhat divided but mostly disengaged) black vote" As written, however, it might imply to the casual headline glancer that Ms. Head benefited from a heavy black turnout.
That isn't very likely, of course. But even the argument Donze is trying to make; that Head won by virtue of picking up a small but decisive percentage of a dismal black turnout; is masked by his attempt to characterize this as some noble "bridge the racial divide" moment. Had a mere 282 more Cynthia voters (less than one per precinct, as Clancy DuBos told us repeatedly) decided to slog through the rain that day, would we be reading today about the "bridging of the divide"? Or would Donze tell us, instead, that those 282 voters had rushed upon us in a loathsome "racial charge"?
Is there a way to explain these results without talking about the racial component? No, of course not. But if you're going to say, on the one hand, that the election was strictly about race, it's unfair to interpret one candidate's victory as a rejection of racial politics. Especially if the numbers don't bear that out.
Among the joys of post-election handicapping these days are Brian Denzer's Pac-Man maps. This one (PDF) shows us the precinct-level vote share along with the intensity of the turnout. It was picked up by The Lens this week along with the following analysis from Denzer.
“Stacy Head received an average 26 percent turnout in precincts that she won, compared to 17 percent turnout in precincts that Cynthia Willard-Lewis won,” Denzer said.Overall turnout was around 24%. Clancy (see above) thinks that's pretty good. Maybe he means it's "indirectly" good since it's higher than it was in the primary but I think it sucks. This was a war of attrition where Head benefited from strong turnout in her base precincts, particularly in Lakeview and along the Carrollton and St. Charles Avenue corridors Uptown. Turnout among Willard-Lewis' base precincts in the East was OK but tepid compared to what Head was able to muster.
He also said that based on his analysis, Head won only eight precincts that were majority black, compared to Willard-Lewis, who won 215 majority-black precincts.
“In a city that is 60 percent African-American…and in a contest which heavily favored Cynthia Willard-Lewis by voters’ racial preferences, the deciding factor was the overwhelming turnout for Stacy Head compared to Cynthia Willard-Lewis — and even then, the vote returns coming in all night showed a very close contest that was ultimately won by only 281 votes,” Denzer said.
Stacy Head eked out a slim slim victory from among less than a quarter of all registered voters because her supporters, though small in number, were more enthusiastic than her opponent's. We could speculate as to whether or not Head's supporters were more racially charged up than Cynthia's but, unlike the T-P, I don't really buy that race is what defined this election. It's far more correct to say that apathy did.
And that's hardly surprising given all the bullshit about race taking precedence in the narrative. When voters are given little if any opportunity to learn what either an election might actually be about. Is it any wonder so few of them find it worth their time to be "In" for it?
*The 2006 Mayoral election was, in fact, quite "racially charged."
Labels: Austin Badon, Cynthia Willard-Lewis, Mitch Landrieu, New Orleans, politics, race,
Stacy Head
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
It's Getting Real Now
Robin Wells, a.k.a. Mrs. Paul Krugman, and an outstanding economist in her own right, has a nice piece in The Guardian, which Krugman linked on his site yesterday. Wells reports on the political turmoil currently burning through the Eurozone, as a result of the ignorant, counter-productive, and punishing austerity policies being imposed on the poor and working people of the continent, to enrich and the secure the choke hold of the super rich there across all borders. It can be found by simply clicking here: http://gu.com/p/374d2.
The most interesting point Wells makes, and the one that demands our attention, is that real time experience in this depressed worldwide economy is proving day after day that cutting government spending in these circumstances only further depresses economic activity, and ironically increases deficits. In a demand starved economic environment, reducing government purchases and outlays actually brings on proportionately more debt than that which it unburdens. That is to say, to cut debt by 1% in these circumstances, it is necessary to reduce spending by some greater percentage because revenues fall as the economy suffers from the cuts. A classic downward death spiral.
The upshot: Republicans and conservatives, as we have been saying all along, are dead wrong about everything. What more proof do you need? How much longer do you want to suffer? Are you really willing to risk a deepening crisis and greater depression than the "Great" one, because of some hateful anti-poor and working class rhetoric you have bought to fuel your bigotry?
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Wage Subsidy
I suppose most people do not think of child care assistance for poor working women as a wage subsidy from which an employer benefits just as much as or more than the worker, but that is exactly what it is. If you are a conservative and disposed to resist that assertion, then take your complaint to your own economic Godfather, Adam Smith.
Yeah, I know, Smith lived and wrote in the late 1700s when such programs did not exist, but what he said about free market wage levels are instructive and relevant here. And as a liberal, I am among that group of folks who have, unlike the vast majority of conservatives, actually read the man whom ultra free market right wingers claim as their inspiration.
In The Wealth of Nations, Smith holds that market competition over time sets wages at subsistence levels, which essentially means an amount sufficient to attract needed workers by providing enough compensation, but just enough, to assure those workers have both the ability and incentive to come back for more, day after day. Assuming - and this is a big assumption - Smith had something useful to tell us in this highly nonspecific and basically intuitive formulation, a detailed fulfillment of such a broad assertion is dependent on a multitude of factors regarding the the overall standard of living in a given society, as well as its mores. Consider, for instance, the fact that workers by the hundreds of thousands in one factory town in China are content to be housed in mass dormitories like inmates in a penal colony, while workers here are usually partial to having their own digs. In a free country, which says something significantly more moral than simply a free market, workers rights are protected and the general welfare is respected by the civil authority, i.e. law. Hence, unions participate in the economic dynamic which determines the allocation of the revenue generated in the market among the participants responsible for its production, and the indigent are extended various forms of assistance for essential needs such as child care and housing.
And here is the crux of the matter. A free country, like that referenced above, is typically said to be a liberal society. Conservatives say they oppose all things liberal. But when it comes to some features, such as child care, Romney is full square in support. Why? Well, because the world is far more complicated than anything right wing economic theories can be stretched around, especially those that arise from the failure to even read, let alone understand, the implications of the writings of people like Adam Smith. Employers do not, and can not always provide for every need of every potential worker in the labor pool, which they would like to draw upon to staff their operations. In a free country, people have vastly differing lifestyles and needs, even those of similar education levels and economic circumstances. Some are single parents, some not.
A child care subsidy has the net effect of expanding the potential labor pool for employers, without requiring them to cover the real costs of tending to the subsistence needs of all of their employees. Hence, they can keep wages at the level they want, and have more folks to choose from when hiring. At the same time, folks who otherwise might not have been able to hold a job can afford to take one. Just too tough for most anti-liberals to get their minds around.
Yeah, I know, Smith lived and wrote in the late 1700s when such programs did not exist, but what he said about free market wage levels are instructive and relevant here. And as a liberal, I am among that group of folks who have, unlike the vast majority of conservatives, actually read the man whom ultra free market right wingers claim as their inspiration.
In The Wealth of Nations, Smith holds that market competition over time sets wages at subsistence levels, which essentially means an amount sufficient to attract needed workers by providing enough compensation, but just enough, to assure those workers have both the ability and incentive to come back for more, day after day. Assuming - and this is a big assumption - Smith had something useful to tell us in this highly nonspecific and basically intuitive formulation, a detailed fulfillment of such a broad assertion is dependent on a multitude of factors regarding the the overall standard of living in a given society, as well as its mores. Consider, for instance, the fact that workers by the hundreds of thousands in one factory town in China are content to be housed in mass dormitories like inmates in a penal colony, while workers here are usually partial to having their own digs. In a free country, which says something significantly more moral than simply a free market, workers rights are protected and the general welfare is respected by the civil authority, i.e. law. Hence, unions participate in the economic dynamic which determines the allocation of the revenue generated in the market among the participants responsible for its production, and the indigent are extended various forms of assistance for essential needs such as child care and housing.
And here is the crux of the matter. A free country, like that referenced above, is typically said to be a liberal society. Conservatives say they oppose all things liberal. But when it comes to some features, such as child care, Romney is full square in support. Why? Well, because the world is far more complicated than anything right wing economic theories can be stretched around, especially those that arise from the failure to even read, let alone understand, the implications of the writings of people like Adam Smith. Employers do not, and can not always provide for every need of every potential worker in the labor pool, which they would like to draw upon to staff their operations. In a free country, people have vastly differing lifestyles and needs, even those of similar education levels and economic circumstances. Some are single parents, some not.
A child care subsidy has the net effect of expanding the potential labor pool for employers, without requiring them to cover the real costs of tending to the subsistence needs of all of their employees. Hence, they can keep wages at the level they want, and have more folks to choose from when hiring. At the same time, folks who otherwise might not have been able to hold a job can afford to take one. Just too tough for most anti-liberals to get their minds around.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Suddenly Liberal Again
By now everyone is familiar with the hypocritical Romney, as in Romney the fire-breathing conservative. After all, he was the Governor of Massachusetts who proposed and pushed through the "universal coverage" legislation which became the model for so-called "Obamacare." Many folks, most especially those among the radical right, think of this quite pale imitation of a liberal position on the issue as being an extreme example of left-wing policy making. And Romney today claims to be in steadfast opposition to such wild-eyed liberal market meddling. So, okay, for the sake of argument, let's accept that Obamacare is an example of liberalism run amok, even though most of us see it largely as a massive sellout to insurance and drug companies.
That provides a rather telling backdrop for Romney's recently articulated position on the issue of child care subsidies for poor working women. He is all for it, and in whatever amount it takes to get impoverished mothers out of the house and strapped to the wheel, in any old cheap-ass, hell-hole place of employment which fails to pay sufficient compensation to allow them to care for their children without government assistance. So, pray tell, dear reader, exactly to whom is the benefit of the subsidy flowing, the poor working woman who no longer is a stay-at-home mom, or the stingy Scrooge of an employer who pays poverty level wages which come short of providing for basic needs? And to whom do you really think Romney sees it going? Liberals would say the first question is a rather sticky one; both parties really could be said to benefit. But there can be little doubt Romney sees the business welfare side quite clearly. He is once again revealed as a liberal when it suits him.
More on this in the next post, when time permits a look at the opinion of Adam Smith, the founder of classical conservative economics.
That provides a rather telling backdrop for Romney's recently articulated position on the issue of child care subsidies for poor working women. He is all for it, and in whatever amount it takes to get impoverished mothers out of the house and strapped to the wheel, in any old cheap-ass, hell-hole place of employment which fails to pay sufficient compensation to allow them to care for their children without government assistance. So, pray tell, dear reader, exactly to whom is the benefit of the subsidy flowing, the poor working woman who no longer is a stay-at-home mom, or the stingy Scrooge of an employer who pays poverty level wages which come short of providing for basic needs? And to whom do you really think Romney sees it going? Liberals would say the first question is a rather sticky one; both parties really could be said to benefit. But there can be little doubt Romney sees the business welfare side quite clearly. He is once again revealed as a liberal when it suits him.
More on this in the next post, when time permits a look at the opinion of Adam Smith, the founder of classical conservative economics.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
I Like People ... Pretty Well
A dollop of fresh egg orange fire shimmered a spring afternoon course through the ice blue sky while I partied at the French Quarter Festival yesterday. A river cooled breeze chased off the heat and conducted arcs of squawking gulls high and low over their mile wide feeder flow.
Stages spotted on countless corners of closed streets and along lanes traversing blocks and blocks of the town's original settlement sounded the syncopated rhythms of sweet and soulful New Orleans. Jackson Square, our original Place d'Armes and the first public center for Church and State, served as temporary headquarters for an army of open air kitchens and taverns crafting fascinating flavors and fare found nowhere but here. And the world squeezed in to get its fill. I like people pretty well, but not all of them in one small place at the same time, however fun the occasion.
On the other hand, there are some significant economic effects which should not be overlooked. This annual selling frenzy of small plates at big prices and overpriced booze is euphemistically said to be free. But if you can spend more than two hours in attendance and leave less than fifty bucks lighter in the wallet, courtesy of the food and drink vendors, you are a master of self-restraint. Hence, our civic and business leaders uniformly praise and promote this important part of the city's huge tourism industry.
To me, though, its very enactment also serves as a clear example of the downside to relying on tourism as a key element in the community's economy. The point of sale for every revenue producing item in this industry is always in our own lap. Every customer has to come here to buy it. For all the money it raises, it also takes quite a toll on our resources and private lives. It can be a considerable nuisance.
A greater and too little remarked negative is the fact that, compared to almost every other industry, proportionately more of the revenue generated through the tourist trade winds up as profit for the few business owners than as compensation for the legions of minimum wage, tip dependent workers. A fairer and healthier distribution usually obtains for workers in fields which traditionally require they be better educated or trained, so more highly skilled, and in which they are more likely - oh, my - to be unionized.
It would be much appreciated if our business and political leaders would stop cheating on us by showering their affections only on tourists, and show some love for the average New Orleanian. We should focus on building an economy that builds things which can be shipped for purchase somewhere else. Is it too much or wrong for us to think New Orleans belongs to New Orleanians? This, at least in the sense that we should welcome visitors on our own terms, because we want to share our beloved traditions, rich culture, and generous spirit with them, not because we are desperate for their money.
Stages spotted on countless corners of closed streets and along lanes traversing blocks and blocks of the town's original settlement sounded the syncopated rhythms of sweet and soulful New Orleans. Jackson Square, our original Place d'Armes and the first public center for Church and State, served as temporary headquarters for an army of open air kitchens and taverns crafting fascinating flavors and fare found nowhere but here. And the world squeezed in to get its fill. I like people pretty well, but not all of them in one small place at the same time, however fun the occasion.
On the other hand, there are some significant economic effects which should not be overlooked. This annual selling frenzy of small plates at big prices and overpriced booze is euphemistically said to be free. But if you can spend more than two hours in attendance and leave less than fifty bucks lighter in the wallet, courtesy of the food and drink vendors, you are a master of self-restraint. Hence, our civic and business leaders uniformly praise and promote this important part of the city's huge tourism industry.
To me, though, its very enactment also serves as a clear example of the downside to relying on tourism as a key element in the community's economy. The point of sale for every revenue producing item in this industry is always in our own lap. Every customer has to come here to buy it. For all the money it raises, it also takes quite a toll on our resources and private lives. It can be a considerable nuisance.
A greater and too little remarked negative is the fact that, compared to almost every other industry, proportionately more of the revenue generated through the tourist trade winds up as profit for the few business owners than as compensation for the legions of minimum wage, tip dependent workers. A fairer and healthier distribution usually obtains for workers in fields which traditionally require they be better educated or trained, so more highly skilled, and in which they are more likely - oh, my - to be unionized.
It would be much appreciated if our business and political leaders would stop cheating on us by showering their affections only on tourists, and show some love for the average New Orleanian. We should focus on building an economy that builds things which can be shipped for purchase somewhere else. Is it too much or wrong for us to think New Orleans belongs to New Orleanians? This, at least in the sense that we should welcome visitors on our own terms, because we want to share our beloved traditions, rich culture, and generous spirit with them, not because we are desperate for their money.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
We Let Our Golden Chances Pass Us By
Listening to WWOZ, our hometown "indigenous music" public radio outlet while cutting the grass and tending to other yard work this morning, I enjoyed dancing the lawn mower and curb edger through the tail end of the Traditional New Orleans Jazz show, followed by the Irish themed, Music From The Glen, and the start of the Latin based, Tiene Sabor.
We have always been a port city to beat the band. In fact, this whole country has been a great safe harbor in the storm for wave after wave of immigrants. We should be awash in a multitude of languages, but we never quite picked-up on the chance to get the lingo. Mind you, I really do not believe this arose so much from some sort of oppressively suffocating jingoism, imposed by the already established citizen base, as from the determination by the newly arrived to insist their children shed the old country markers, especially the language, and adopt that of the dominant culture. Who could blame them? Assimilation on all fronts was the ticket to upward mobility. Yet, I can't help thinking, "What a shame!"
My maternal grandmother, Eva Bielenberg, managed to retain some German; I have none. My paternal grandmother was English; oh, well, you might say, but I did manage to learn American. And too well do I know that that is not nearly the same as the rich inheritance of a completely distinct intellectual and cultural legacy. I studied Spanish for two years in secondary school, and two semesters in college. But today I have very, very little Spanish. Absent complete immersion or at least a daily dip in or dousing by a new language, becoming fluent in it is very hard woik. As you can see, though, I have a natural affinity for the pleasures of diverse linguistic patterns, as reflected by my undying affection for the Irish Channel neighborhood dialect of my New Orleans roots.
Today, the rising world is coming up and coming at us in the music of many tongues. And while I believe we have been tone deaf for far too long, this should in no way be taken as some sort of hard boiled criticism of this great country. Hardly. I am, in fact, rather hard core red, white, and blue for a raft of reasons, parochial and general. Some of which I would bet my life even our most hard bitten critics would have to bow to. Here I have in mind the fact that this great land of freedom and liberty and fealty to the principle of individual human dignity sacrificed mightily and successfully fought like hell to rescue the world from the scourge of Nazism, Imperialism, and Communism during most of the last century. If it does nothing else worthy of praise in the course of human events, that alone will stand through the ages as testament to a great people.
I believe that the last century indeed deserves the title, "American century." Our energy enlivened almost every crucial area of human societal organization; it was clearly dominant, and, for the most part, undeniably admirable. You can hear it to this day in the American songbook of great standards from the 1940s and 50s, feast on it from the most bountiful tables agriculture has ever produced, and take heart that despotism and tyranny of every form will one day be chased from the face of the earth, as our imperfect but consistently freedom loving voice chastises and challenges both the dauntingly powerful dictatorial regimes in places like China and Russia, as well as the tin-pot potentates of a lesser order.
I also believe we can and will be a light unto the world in the century now unfolding. Two friends I have made while building the new Algiers Regional Library during the last eight months are Ricardo and Carlos, a painter and carpenter, respectively. They are de Honduras. And they have been graciously indulging my rudimentary Espanol, while generously endeavouring to assist me in acquiring a stronger facility. They both are pretty damn proficient in English, and they are determined to pass both Spanish and English on to their children. To which I say, "Salute!"
These sentiments are those of a committed labor advocate. The plutocratic, profit seeking, greed driven approach to the globalization of economic affairs has undermined unions and working standards in this country, as well as driven many desperately poor and dislocated "third world" people to illegally find a way here. The immigrant, legal or illegal, is not your enemy. He and she are you and me, only differently situated. It is up to us to come together to overcome our common enemy. And to tell the truth, in whatever language I can get it across to you, the first enemy is bigoted ignorance.
We have always been a port city to beat the band. In fact, this whole country has been a great safe harbor in the storm for wave after wave of immigrants. We should be awash in a multitude of languages, but we never quite picked-up on the chance to get the lingo. Mind you, I really do not believe this arose so much from some sort of oppressively suffocating jingoism, imposed by the already established citizen base, as from the determination by the newly arrived to insist their children shed the old country markers, especially the language, and adopt that of the dominant culture. Who could blame them? Assimilation on all fronts was the ticket to upward mobility. Yet, I can't help thinking, "What a shame!"
My maternal grandmother, Eva Bielenberg, managed to retain some German; I have none. My paternal grandmother was English; oh, well, you might say, but I did manage to learn American. And too well do I know that that is not nearly the same as the rich inheritance of a completely distinct intellectual and cultural legacy. I studied Spanish for two years in secondary school, and two semesters in college. But today I have very, very little Spanish. Absent complete immersion or at least a daily dip in or dousing by a new language, becoming fluent in it is very hard woik. As you can see, though, I have a natural affinity for the pleasures of diverse linguistic patterns, as reflected by my undying affection for the Irish Channel neighborhood dialect of my New Orleans roots.
Today, the rising world is coming up and coming at us in the music of many tongues. And while I believe we have been tone deaf for far too long, this should in no way be taken as some sort of hard boiled criticism of this great country. Hardly. I am, in fact, rather hard core red, white, and blue for a raft of reasons, parochial and general. Some of which I would bet my life even our most hard bitten critics would have to bow to. Here I have in mind the fact that this great land of freedom and liberty and fealty to the principle of individual human dignity sacrificed mightily and successfully fought like hell to rescue the world from the scourge of Nazism, Imperialism, and Communism during most of the last century. If it does nothing else worthy of praise in the course of human events, that alone will stand through the ages as testament to a great people.
I believe that the last century indeed deserves the title, "American century." Our energy enlivened almost every crucial area of human societal organization; it was clearly dominant, and, for the most part, undeniably admirable. You can hear it to this day in the American songbook of great standards from the 1940s and 50s, feast on it from the most bountiful tables agriculture has ever produced, and take heart that despotism and tyranny of every form will one day be chased from the face of the earth, as our imperfect but consistently freedom loving voice chastises and challenges both the dauntingly powerful dictatorial regimes in places like China and Russia, as well as the tin-pot potentates of a lesser order.
I also believe we can and will be a light unto the world in the century now unfolding. Two friends I have made while building the new Algiers Regional Library during the last eight months are Ricardo and Carlos, a painter and carpenter, respectively. They are de Honduras. And they have been graciously indulging my rudimentary Espanol, while generously endeavouring to assist me in acquiring a stronger facility. They both are pretty damn proficient in English, and they are determined to pass both Spanish and English on to their children. To which I say, "Salute!"
These sentiments are those of a committed labor advocate. The plutocratic, profit seeking, greed driven approach to the globalization of economic affairs has undermined unions and working standards in this country, as well as driven many desperately poor and dislocated "third world" people to illegally find a way here. The immigrant, legal or illegal, is not your enemy. He and she are you and me, only differently situated. It is up to us to come together to overcome our common enemy. And to tell the truth, in whatever language I can get it across to you, the first enemy is bigoted ignorance.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Twice Trapped
We are caught and having one hell of a time shaking free. Why? Is it because the thing holding us back is beyond our understanding or just too damn powerful to break from? Let's give it some thought and see what turns up.
By now, the central economic malady is very plain. There is a terribly insufficient demand in the private sector to produce a healthy rate of economic growth, or perhaps any persistent growth at all. The arguments over what is needed to get us out of this mess have been blowing at full gale since the collapse of 2008.
But anyone with an open mind realizes that the serious debate part of the economic storm has long passed. The liberals, with Noble-Prize winner Paul Krugman in the lead, have the wind at their backs, and the conservatives have been blown away. What we need, what the global economy needs, is to follow the same prescription which rescued a gone to rot, moribund capitalist system from being measured for a shroud during the Great Depression.
We need the public sector to step in massively and revive an impotent and wasting private sector, which otherwise will bury all but the Romneyrich in poverty and pain for generations to come.
The present crisis has in no way been occasioned by government debt. On the contrary, the crash was completely a function of towering private debt, brought on by largely unregulated piratical financial sector excesses, combined with the most wide-spread and ridiculously unsustainable real estate bubble in history. Now, the vast majority of citizens here, and in other parts of the developed world, are significantly less flush than before the fall. Millions are still drowning in underwater mortgages, while remaining shackled to other forms of consumer borrowing for household expenses as well as education. In such circumstances, almost everyone tries to cut back, pay-off old bills, and save for the future. But a society in which everyone wants to be a saver is one in which the economy essentially stops growing. Hiring stops. People lose jobs by the millions. Opportunities for new investment dry-up. And when the chances of maintaining, let alone improving income disappears, the difficulty of working off debt increases exponentially. This is known to economists as the paradox of thrift.
In a healthy economy, individual saving can be a sound strategy for improving one's financial health. But in a crash, wide-spread retrenchment produces much slower potential for growth on the upswing, a much delayed upswing, or even no upswing at all, meaning intractable stagnation possibly marinated in a double-dip decline.
This is where we are. Even though most people don't have a lot of money, more people are trying to save it than almost ever before. So, on balance there is a lot more of it than what is needed or desired for investment. Hence, interest rates have remained at historically low levels for years, without regard to the growth of government debt, which results from declining tax revenues and climbing safety net expenses, exacerbated by the general economic pain.
The Federal Reserve has virtually pulled out the stops and used all of its tools to restore growth, by pushing even harder to lower interest rates, but there is a limit against which the Fed is leaning, it is known as the zero bound. Money simply can't get any cheaper than free. And, after accounting for the albeit scant inflation we are experiencing, short term interest has been essentially zero for some time. But the private economy does not want the money, because it sees no sufficiently profitable opportunity for investment when no one is in the market to buy whatever new goods and services may be produced. The only quick way out of such a sticky patch is for the government to use a lot of this free money to put millions of businesses and people back in business and working to repair and rebuild the innumerable areas of our common physical and social needs, so long neglected during the long dark night of mindless conservative economic confusion and corruption. For now, we are stuck in this mire known to economists as a liquidity trap. We have a lot more money piled up than the private sector is willing to use. So we save and suffer, and save and suffer some more.
This is not only obvious, but is daily proven over and over again by examples throughout Europe, wherein the austerity regime has produced only greater pain and suffering, along with a second round of the catastrophic recession. Here at home, even though we have thus far managed - because of the too small, yet literally life saving Obama stimulus - to avoid a double-dip, we are barely limping along, and easily could stumble again if the radical reactionary right has any political success in the near term.
Not a pretty picture. But the second trap is even uglier. It grew out of the great and noble successes of the progressive movements in the middle part of the last century, which were embodied in the general policies of the Democratic Party. The backlash by white working class people against the civil rights victories of the 1960s led to their wholesale abandonment of every decent and sound social and economic principle, which had provided the basis for a middle class lifestyle and a progressively better economic outlook generation after generation. So we are in the mess we have today.
To be sure, the typical working class conservative is probably no longer as given to crass racism as once was the case, but that was the juice which produced their allegiance to the suicidal hatred of all things the government can do and must do in the interest of justice and social stability. We remain trapped in grave error because too many have imbibed a discredited economic and political theory like a delicious poison and been overtaken by it. They cannot be persuaded by mere facts.
By now, the central economic malady is very plain. There is a terribly insufficient demand in the private sector to produce a healthy rate of economic growth, or perhaps any persistent growth at all. The arguments over what is needed to get us out of this mess have been blowing at full gale since the collapse of 2008.
But anyone with an open mind realizes that the serious debate part of the economic storm has long passed. The liberals, with Noble-Prize winner Paul Krugman in the lead, have the wind at their backs, and the conservatives have been blown away. What we need, what the global economy needs, is to follow the same prescription which rescued a gone to rot, moribund capitalist system from being measured for a shroud during the Great Depression.
We need the public sector to step in massively and revive an impotent and wasting private sector, which otherwise will bury all but the Romneyrich in poverty and pain for generations to come.
The present crisis has in no way been occasioned by government debt. On the contrary, the crash was completely a function of towering private debt, brought on by largely unregulated piratical financial sector excesses, combined with the most wide-spread and ridiculously unsustainable real estate bubble in history. Now, the vast majority of citizens here, and in other parts of the developed world, are significantly less flush than before the fall. Millions are still drowning in underwater mortgages, while remaining shackled to other forms of consumer borrowing for household expenses as well as education. In such circumstances, almost everyone tries to cut back, pay-off old bills, and save for the future. But a society in which everyone wants to be a saver is one in which the economy essentially stops growing. Hiring stops. People lose jobs by the millions. Opportunities for new investment dry-up. And when the chances of maintaining, let alone improving income disappears, the difficulty of working off debt increases exponentially. This is known to economists as the paradox of thrift.
In a healthy economy, individual saving can be a sound strategy for improving one's financial health. But in a crash, wide-spread retrenchment produces much slower potential for growth on the upswing, a much delayed upswing, or even no upswing at all, meaning intractable stagnation possibly marinated in a double-dip decline.
This is where we are. Even though most people don't have a lot of money, more people are trying to save it than almost ever before. So, on balance there is a lot more of it than what is needed or desired for investment. Hence, interest rates have remained at historically low levels for years, without regard to the growth of government debt, which results from declining tax revenues and climbing safety net expenses, exacerbated by the general economic pain.
The Federal Reserve has virtually pulled out the stops and used all of its tools to restore growth, by pushing even harder to lower interest rates, but there is a limit against which the Fed is leaning, it is known as the zero bound. Money simply can't get any cheaper than free. And, after accounting for the albeit scant inflation we are experiencing, short term interest has been essentially zero for some time. But the private economy does not want the money, because it sees no sufficiently profitable opportunity for investment when no one is in the market to buy whatever new goods and services may be produced. The only quick way out of such a sticky patch is for the government to use a lot of this free money to put millions of businesses and people back in business and working to repair and rebuild the innumerable areas of our common physical and social needs, so long neglected during the long dark night of mindless conservative economic confusion and corruption. For now, we are stuck in this mire known to economists as a liquidity trap. We have a lot more money piled up than the private sector is willing to use. So we save and suffer, and save and suffer some more.
This is not only obvious, but is daily proven over and over again by examples throughout Europe, wherein the austerity regime has produced only greater pain and suffering, along with a second round of the catastrophic recession. Here at home, even though we have thus far managed - because of the too small, yet literally life saving Obama stimulus - to avoid a double-dip, we are barely limping along, and easily could stumble again if the radical reactionary right has any political success in the near term.
Not a pretty picture. But the second trap is even uglier. It grew out of the great and noble successes of the progressive movements in the middle part of the last century, which were embodied in the general policies of the Democratic Party. The backlash by white working class people against the civil rights victories of the 1960s led to their wholesale abandonment of every decent and sound social and economic principle, which had provided the basis for a middle class lifestyle and a progressively better economic outlook generation after generation. So we are in the mess we have today.
To be sure, the typical working class conservative is probably no longer as given to crass racism as once was the case, but that was the juice which produced their allegiance to the suicidal hatred of all things the government can do and must do in the interest of justice and social stability. We remain trapped in grave error because too many have imbibed a discredited economic and political theory like a delicious poison and been overtaken by it. They cannot be persuaded by mere facts.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
In Our Favor
I wish this could be a celebratory post on good economic news. But, alas, the most recent monthly employment numbers will not permit that. Likewise, would that I could express at least partial sympathy with my fellow football fans, who rashly - and with impressive ferocity - have come out in full-throated support of the New Orleans Saints organization. Unfortunately, in my opinion that outfit has now incontrovertibly been shown to have operated as a criminal enterprise.
But, do not despair, for as I was pleasantly reminded yesterday, there is so much more to our story. In the morning I rode my bicycle to view the running of the Crescent City Classic 10K footrace, where it passes through the Treme neighborhood along Esplanade Avenue. Last year, I got to my favorite spot just in time to catch my older son as he ran by, and pass an ice cold sports drink to him. It was a pretty hot and humid day, and I felt good for having done what I could to help insure his safe conduct of the long run. This year, I was too late getting there, and shortly realized I had missed him. But the morning was fairly cool and the air relatively dry. And knowing how strong a runner he is from having done this endurance race with him numerous times in years gone by - um, too many years gone by - I had no concern for his easy negotiation of the route. So, I settled in to enjoy the rest of the procession.
What a procession: tens of thousands of New Orleanians and visitors poured out a traveling tableau of sweating humanity, colorfully costumed in an assortment of wardrobes bespeaking everything from the most serious of athletic commitment to spooferry of the highest hilarity. The sleekest from the Reebok collection to the silliest of Bunny Rabbit outfits were raced and tumbled along in accordance with the specific or peculiar personal calculus behind their exhibition. It was almost as if the Mississippi River at the foot of Esplanade Avenue had opened up and spilled out some heavenly treasure trove of living party favors. Three fellow carnival club members shouted greetings as they passed, and another IBEW union member pulled-up for a brief chat and sports drink hand-off.
Then, as the end finally neared, a remarkably strange, rather surprisingly inappropriate image and thought came to me. Out of nowhere, memories of countless pictures of rutted roads, choked with desperately bedraggled crowds of human misery, fleeing the advance of ruthless armies throughout history caused me to surrealistically speculate about what big, bad army could have been pushing all these folks down the Avenue. I decided to stay as long as it took to see.
And, just as I suspected, it turned out that the long and gaily outfitted parade was being trailed by a mere couple of non-menacing municipal vehicles. I delighted in the fancy that years ago three boyhood friends and I with sling-shots could have easily overwhelmed them. All of a sudden, I was consciously grateful for living in a civil and stable society, despite its infirmities. We are lucky not to have to wake up in a new world every day, as so many throughout history have had to and so many still do.
On the bike ride back home, I stopped by the weekly Farmers Market at the corner of Magazine and Girod. I picked-up four little potted herb plants, which fit comfortably in my basket, and ate a remarkable and delicious Avocado Cream ice-cream bar. I admit there was a lot more cream and sweetness to the taste than anything else, but the color and flavor of avocado were both definitely in evidence. Later in the day, I joined my son - the runner- and daughter-in-law for yet another annual public party, which fills up seven or eight blocks of Freret Street with food and music and fun.
As I said, we are lucky. This truth perhaps is most pointedly anchored in the fact that we can sensibly and confidently make plans to prepare to happily engage in events even another year away. I have done so by promising myself, and "threatening" my son, to be in shape enough to once again personally test his strength as an endurance runner in the next Crescent City Classic.
In other words, I have decided to give my knees a break. No, not the literal kind that Greg Williams specializes in, but by not lying on them anymore. I am going to stop blaming them for my giving in to laziness and age. I am actually going to run the Classic with my son again. I'm coming back. As the saying has it, "Next year in Jerusalem." Shalom and Happy Easter.
But, do not despair, for as I was pleasantly reminded yesterday, there is so much more to our story. In the morning I rode my bicycle to view the running of the Crescent City Classic 10K footrace, where it passes through the Treme neighborhood along Esplanade Avenue. Last year, I got to my favorite spot just in time to catch my older son as he ran by, and pass an ice cold sports drink to him. It was a pretty hot and humid day, and I felt good for having done what I could to help insure his safe conduct of the long run. This year, I was too late getting there, and shortly realized I had missed him. But the morning was fairly cool and the air relatively dry. And knowing how strong a runner he is from having done this endurance race with him numerous times in years gone by - um, too many years gone by - I had no concern for his easy negotiation of the route. So, I settled in to enjoy the rest of the procession.
What a procession: tens of thousands of New Orleanians and visitors poured out a traveling tableau of sweating humanity, colorfully costumed in an assortment of wardrobes bespeaking everything from the most serious of athletic commitment to spooferry of the highest hilarity. The sleekest from the Reebok collection to the silliest of Bunny Rabbit outfits were raced and tumbled along in accordance with the specific or peculiar personal calculus behind their exhibition. It was almost as if the Mississippi River at the foot of Esplanade Avenue had opened up and spilled out some heavenly treasure trove of living party favors. Three fellow carnival club members shouted greetings as they passed, and another IBEW union member pulled-up for a brief chat and sports drink hand-off.
Then, as the end finally neared, a remarkably strange, rather surprisingly inappropriate image and thought came to me. Out of nowhere, memories of countless pictures of rutted roads, choked with desperately bedraggled crowds of human misery, fleeing the advance of ruthless armies throughout history caused me to surrealistically speculate about what big, bad army could have been pushing all these folks down the Avenue. I decided to stay as long as it took to see.
And, just as I suspected, it turned out that the long and gaily outfitted parade was being trailed by a mere couple of non-menacing municipal vehicles. I delighted in the fancy that years ago three boyhood friends and I with sling-shots could have easily overwhelmed them. All of a sudden, I was consciously grateful for living in a civil and stable society, despite its infirmities. We are lucky not to have to wake up in a new world every day, as so many throughout history have had to and so many still do.
On the bike ride back home, I stopped by the weekly Farmers Market at the corner of Magazine and Girod. I picked-up four little potted herb plants, which fit comfortably in my basket, and ate a remarkable and delicious Avocado Cream ice-cream bar. I admit there was a lot more cream and sweetness to the taste than anything else, but the color and flavor of avocado were both definitely in evidence. Later in the day, I joined my son - the runner- and daughter-in-law for yet another annual public party, which fills up seven or eight blocks of Freret Street with food and music and fun.
As I said, we are lucky. This truth perhaps is most pointedly anchored in the fact that we can sensibly and confidently make plans to prepare to happily engage in events even another year away. I have done so by promising myself, and "threatening" my son, to be in shape enough to once again personally test his strength as an endurance runner in the next Crescent City Classic.
In other words, I have decided to give my knees a break. No, not the literal kind that Greg Williams specializes in, but by not lying on them anymore. I am going to stop blaming them for my giving in to laziness and age. I am actually going to run the Classic with my son again. I'm coming back. As the saying has it, "Next year in Jerusalem." Shalom and Happy Easter.
Friday, April 6, 2012
The Turn For Home
In the last post, we spoke of the loss of Martin Luther King, Jr. This is the day another man made the ultimate sacrifice in service to the rest of us.
I know to many this sounds blasphemous. Many of those lost souls adore Ronald Reagan, who campaigned against Medicare relentlessly, while on the payroll of GE and other Corporate Plutocratic interests, as LBJ was working day and night to get it passed. They also tend to think the wrong side won the Civil War. They worship false idols, and celebrate Easter. Now, how's that for blasphemy?
For the real moral majority, a word about the long race. Yes, we stumble, get boxed in, cut off, sometimes even thrown from our horses, but we keep getting back in the saddle. One day we will make that big turn for home, and finish the race against all odds.
I know to many this sounds blasphemous. Many of those lost souls adore Ronald Reagan, who campaigned against Medicare relentlessly, while on the payroll of GE and other Corporate Plutocratic interests, as LBJ was working day and night to get it passed. They also tend to think the wrong side won the Civil War. They worship false idols, and celebrate Easter. Now, how's that for blasphemy?
For the real moral majority, a word about the long race. Yes, we stumble, get boxed in, cut off, sometimes even thrown from our horses, but we keep getting back in the saddle. One day we will make that big turn for home, and finish the race against all odds.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
It Matters
"What good is having the right to sit at a lunch counter if you can't afford to buy a hamburger?"
Martin Luther King, Jr.
On this day in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee, where he had gone in support of striking sanitation workers. Suddenly, it was all about class, it was all economics, it was the end game. Just as suddenly, it was over.
Wealth had won, and its power would not soon be challenged again. The great organizer and leader, the man who had proven a broad based people's movement could take on, take down and take out social injustice, no matter how hardened and strong, through the much greater strength of moral conscience, had been felled by the only weapon a ruling elite finally has for its own otherwise unsustainable maintenance: raw violence. Whether the actual deed was done by some lone wolf nut case or not, the ultimate winner was the top sliver of concentrated and abusive economic power, in an egregiously unjust and imbalanced social order.
But there is an even greater violence. It is the pounding and punishment the poor and average working people have taken ever since. The poor have been so marginalized they no longer have any semblance of political identity, awareness, or effective action. And it has become nearly impossible for average workers, union or not, to secure a middle class existence for themselves and their families. Middle class itself seems to be a term entering into some weird and pitiful stage of nonviable economic life support. This will not get better if left alone. The body politic is not self-healing. Revival has be undertaken with intention.
And what you do, or choose not to do, matters.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
On this day in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee, where he had gone in support of striking sanitation workers. Suddenly, it was all about class, it was all economics, it was the end game. Just as suddenly, it was over.
Wealth had won, and its power would not soon be challenged again. The great organizer and leader, the man who had proven a broad based people's movement could take on, take down and take out social injustice, no matter how hardened and strong, through the much greater strength of moral conscience, had been felled by the only weapon a ruling elite finally has for its own otherwise unsustainable maintenance: raw violence. Whether the actual deed was done by some lone wolf nut case or not, the ultimate winner was the top sliver of concentrated and abusive economic power, in an egregiously unjust and imbalanced social order.
But there is an even greater violence. It is the pounding and punishment the poor and average working people have taken ever since. The poor have been so marginalized they no longer have any semblance of political identity, awareness, or effective action. And it has become nearly impossible for average workers, union or not, to secure a middle class existence for themselves and their families. Middle class itself seems to be a term entering into some weird and pitiful stage of nonviable economic life support. This will not get better if left alone. The body politic is not self-healing. Revival has be undertaken with intention.
And what you do, or choose not to do, matters.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
911
911
Hello.
Yeah, Captain Lynch with the neighborhood Mob.
Again?
Yeah, huah, huaah, huaahh, I keep tryin'.
What you got?
Another bad actor, these a-holes always huah, huaah, huaahh get away.
He's running away?
Huah, huaah, huaahh, huaahhh Don't know how they move so fast with all that hardware.
You're chasing him?
Huah, huaah huaahh, huaaahhh F'ing coon.
We don't need you to do that.
Huaaahh all you do is huaahhhh huaaahhhh answer the fucking huaahh huaaaahhh phone.
- - - - - -
Huaaahhhh stohuaaahhhp STOP!
Why you following me?
Huaahh hand huaaah huaaah it over... Who the fuck you thhuaaahhhink yohuaaahu are, Ice T?
- - - - - - - -
Officier, I had to shoot. Self defense.
What happened to your head?
I was just gonna grab him, but he juked me out, and I fell on my fat ass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well, partner, what do you think? If we let him go, before you know it Al Sharpton and his gang will be down here.
Let's take him for a ride, maybe take him in, and think about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All and all, it looks like a legit shoot to us.
Yeah, besides, even if Sharpton comes, no one else gives a shit. In New Orleans all they protest over is their millionaire scab coach being bitch slapped..
You're free to go Captain.
Hello.
Yeah, Captain Lynch with the neighborhood Mob.
Again?
Yeah, huah, huaah, huaahh, I keep tryin'.
What you got?
Another bad actor, these a-holes always huah, huaah, huaahh get away.
He's running away?
Huah, huaah, huaahh, huaahhh Don't know how they move so fast with all that hardware.
You're chasing him?
Huah, huaah huaahh, huaaahhh F'ing coon.
We don't need you to do that.
Huaaahh all you do is huaahhhh huaaahhhh answer the fucking huaahh huaaaahhh phone.
- - - - - -
Huaaahhhh stohuaaahhhp STOP!
Why you following me?
Huaahh hand huaaah huaaah it over... Who the fuck you thhuaaahhhink yohuaaahu are, Ice T?
- - - - - - - -
Officier, I had to shoot. Self defense.
What happened to your head?
I was just gonna grab him, but he juked me out, and I fell on my fat ass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well, partner, what do you think? If we let him go, before you know it Al Sharpton and his gang will be down here.
Let's take him for a ride, maybe take him in, and think about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All and all, it looks like a legit shoot to us.
Yeah, besides, even if Sharpton comes, no one else gives a shit. In New Orleans all they protest over is their millionaire scab coach being bitch slapped..
You're free to go Captain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)