Porcupine Tree, "The Incident"

Gov. Walker's Reaganesque Power Grab

For my 300th post, I re-publish the following column. This is a sign of two things: (1) I lack the time to state my own view on this matter and my reasons for it; (2) Krugman and I are in complete agreement on this matter. Click here for an explanation of the title of this post. 

Wisconsin Power Play

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: February 20, 2011

Last week, in the face of protest demonstrations against Wisconsin’s new union-busting governor, Scott Walker — demonstrations that continued through the weekend, with huge crowds on Saturday — Representative Paul Ryan made an unintentionally apt comparison: “It’s like Cairo has moved to Madison.”

It wasn’t the smartest thing for Mr. Ryan to say, since he probably didn’t mean to compare Mr. Walker, a fellow Republican, to Hosni Mubarak. Or maybe he did — after all, quite a few prominent conservatives, including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum, denounced the uprising in Egypt and insist that President Obama should have helped the Mubarak regime suppress it.

In any case, however, Mr. Ryan was more right than he knew. For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side.

Some background: Wisconsin is indeed facing a budget crunch, although its difficulties are less severe than those facing many other states. Revenue has fallen in the face of a weak economy, while stimulus funds, which helped close the gap in 2009 and 2010, have faded away.

In this situation, it makes sense to call for shared sacrifice, including monetary concessions from state workers. And union leaders have signaled that they are, in fact, willing to make such concessions.

But Mr. Walker isn’t interested in making a deal. Partly that’s because he doesn’t want to share the sacrifice: even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers’ ability to bargain.

The bill that has inspired the demonstrations would strip away collective bargaining rights for many of the state’s workers, in effect busting public-employee unions. Tellingly, some workers — namely, those who tend to be Republican-leaning — are exempted from the ban; it’s as if Mr. Walker were flaunting the political nature of his actions.

Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state’s budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there’s not much room for further pay squeezes.

So it’s not about the budget; it’s about the power.

In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.

Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.

You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.

And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.

There’s a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence.

So will the attack on unions succeed? I don’t know. But anyone who cares about retaining government of the people by the people should hope that it doesn’t.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21krugman.html

For Your Further Enlightenment XIII

• Think Progress: "Allen West Unwittingly Endorses Stimulus-Funded Government Industries To ‘Turn Around’ The Economy"
• Leiter Reports: "More Thoughts on Reagan and the Collapse of the Soviet Union"
• Andrew Sullivan: "Dear President Bush, Americans want, and need, to move on from the debate over torture in Iraq and Afghanistan and close this tragic chapter in our nation’s history. Prosecuting those responsible could tear apart a country at war. Instead, the best way to confront the crimes of the past is for the man who authorized them to take full responsibility. An open letter to President George W. Bush" (from 2009)
• Frances Fox Piven, The Guardian: "The real threat of Glenn Beck's fantasies: It's harm not to myself, but to American democracy that I fear from the Fox News host's paranoid theories of social collapse"
• The Lookout: "WikiLeaks: Saudis running out of oil"
• NPR: "Speaking in Defense of Science"
• William Saletan, Slate: "The Abortion Tax: The Republican plan to prevent your abortion by holding your tax money hostage"
• Ezra Klein: "Gov. Peter Shumlin: The man who'd bring single-payer health care to Vermont"
• CNN Money: "How the Middle Class Became the Underclass"
• Mother Jones: "Are You Sure You Want an Abortion? Which states use scare tactics, guilt trips, and discredited science to keep women from getting abortions" 
• The Cutline: "Iraqi defector admits lying about WMD claims" 
• Think Progress: "Wisconsin Gov. Walker Reiterates That The ‘National Guard’ Will Be Used Against A Worker ‘Walk-Off’"
• Associated Press: "Teacher strikes nerve with 'lazy whiners' blog"
• Associated Press: "Scientists connect global warming to extreme rain"
• William Saletan, Slate: "Be Nice To Bigots: Republican leaders tiptoe around the smear campaign against Obama's faith and citizenship"

Hard Up

I'm going with the Nobel Prize-winning economist and the scientific community on this one.

Source

RedState's Vladimir has taken it upon himself to write another ignorant post about climate change. (This is what I had to say about one of his previous posts.)

His target: Paul Krugman. He quotes Krugman as writing the following:

While several factors have contributed to soaring food prices, what really stands out is the extent to which severe weather events have disrupted agricultural production. And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate — which means that the current food price surge may be just the beginning.

Vladimir responds to Krugman as follows:

[H]aven’t we heard this all before?

“Gee, this is some crazy weather we’ve been having.”

I’m old enough to remember some pretty darn extreme weather, like Hurricane Camille, a monster Cat 5 storm that devastated the Mississippi Gulf Coast in 1969. There was the Super Tornado Outbreak of April, 1974: a complex of 148 twisters that spun across hundreds of mile of the Midwest, killing 148, injuring 5,300, and wiping the town of Xenia, OH off the map. And lest we forget the record cold winter of 1977-78, when natural gas supplies ran low.

Many of our impressions of current extreme weather conditions have to do with the fact that 1) they’re fresh in our memories; 2) we have better communications and 3) higher population densities than in times past.

Complaining about extreme weather is part of the human condition. 

Vladimir then goes on to cite 19 stories about extreme weather dating back to 1888 (I am assuming that none of them were fabricated), and in some cases the extreme weather prompted speculation that the climate was changing. I take it that Vladimir considers that speculation to have been unfounded.

So, what's wrong with Vladimir's response?

Vladimir is attributing to Krugman the following argument:

1. There have been recent outbreaks of severe weather. 
2. Therefore, global climate change is real. 

Granted, Vladimir says nothing about global climate change, but there is little doubt that Vladimir's response is intended to convince his readers that recent severe weather is not evidence that the climate is changing. That is, Vladimir is arguing that the truth of (1) isn't sufficient evidence for the truth of (2).

But if you put the quotation in context and read the rest of Krugman's column, you'll find that Krugman's argument is much stronger than the one Vladimir attributes to him:

It’s true that growth in emerging nations like China leads to rising meat consumption, and hence rising demand for animal feed. It’s also true that agricultural raw materials, especially cotton, compete for land and other resources with food crops — as does the subsidized production of ethanol, which consumes a lot of corn. So both economic growth and bad energy policy have played some role in the food price surge. 

Still, food prices lagged behind the prices of other commodities until last summer. Then the weather struck.  

Consider the case of wheat, whose price has almost doubled since the summer. The immediate cause of the wheat price spike is obvious: world production is down sharply. The bulk of that production decline, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, reflects a sharp plunge in the former Soviet Union. And we know what that’s about: a record heat wave and drought, which pushed Moscow temperatures above 100 degrees for the first time ever.  

The Russian heat wave was only one of many recent extreme weather events, from dry weather in Brazil to biblical-proportion flooding in Australia, that have damaged world food production.  

The question then becomes, what’s behind all this extreme weather?  

To some extent we’re seeing the results of a natural phenomenon, La Niña — a periodic event in which water in the equatorial Pacific becomes cooler than normal. And La Niña events have historically been associated with global food crises, including the crisis of 2007-8.  

But that’s not the whole story. Don’t let the snow fool you: globally, 2010 was tied with 2005 for warmest year on record, even though we were at a solar minimum and La Niña was a cooling factor in the second half of the year. Temperature records were set not just in Russia but in no fewer than 19 countries, covering a fifth of the world’s land area. And both droughts and floods are natural consequences of a warming world: droughts because it’s hotter, floods because warm oceans release more water vapor.  

As always, you can’t attribute any one weather event to greenhouse gases. But the pattern we’re seeing, with extreme highs and extreme weather in general becoming much more common, is just what you’d expect from climate change.

Clearly, Krugman is not making the hasty, crude inference Vladimir attributes to him. Krugman's reasoning is more sophisticated than that. Krugman is making what has been called an inference to the best explanation. The idea is this: we are justified in inferring the truth of what best explains what we observe or already know. The mere occurrence of extreme weather does not alone justify the claim that the climate is changing, obviously. But extreme weather, combined with all the other evidence Krugman mentions, does, because if the climate were changing, the phenomena we're observing is exactly what we would expect to observe, i.e., we wouldn't be surprised to make the observations we are in fact making. And that means that the hypothesis that the climate is changing is probably true.

Look at the argument Vladimir attributes to Krugman again. It's bad. Vladimir's post might leave his readers with the impression that those of us who believe that climate change is real accept bad arguments for our belief. But the evidence for climate change is much, much stronger than the argument Vladimir attributes to Krugman. And no amount of bullshit from non-scientists like Vladimir will convince me otherwise, much as I would like it to, because what we face is terrifying.

Perhaps you choose to ignore the evidence because you're not emotionally equipped to deal with the reality of global climate change. Perhaps you have an economic interest in ignoring it, like those Republicans who have been bought by the energy industry. Perhaps you are comforted by the lie that God won't allow global climate change to do serious damage to the planet and those who live on it; perhaps you turn to the Bible for scientific enlightenment. Maybe you're ready to simply continue leading your life as you have always led it because it is comfortable and familiar, and it is good to live in the adolescent haze of the belief that we can release as much carbon dioxide into the environment as we like without consequence. And even if it turns out that the scientific predictions are correct, maybe you won't have to deal with the worst of it, and what do you care if your children, and your children's children, have to live in a far less hospitable world? Why should you care, really?

Sorry, Vladimir. I'm going with the Nobel Prize-winning economist and the scientific community on this one.

Stick to What You Know

I usually enjoy listening to Petros and Money (Petros Papadakis and Matt "Money" Smith) on Fox Sports Radio.

Minutes ago, I heard Money bitching about light bulbs.

According to Money, the government will ban the incandescent light bulb starting next year. (I haven't taken the time to verify this claim, because I barely have time to eat and sleep and go to the bathroom these days, much less check everybody's facts.) Those of us who wish to light their homes at night will have to opt for the compact fluorescent light bulb once the ban is in effect.

Money claims that some people who are upset about this are stocking up on incandescent light bulbs.

So what's wrong with the CFL? According to Money, they flicker, and the light they produce is too blue for his taste. In short, the CFL is just like those long fluorescent light bulbs all of us are accustomed to seeing in certain public buildings.

Money doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

I've used CFL's in my home since 2006, and they are more or less just like the incandescent light bulb. Except that I'm not constantly replacing them. And they use a lot less energy than incandescent light bulbs, which saves me money.

He must think that CFL's must be just like other fluorescent light bulbs because they are called "compact fluorescent" light bulbs. If he had actually spent any time under one, he wouldn't have made such an ass of himself just now. 

Not only does Money look like an idiot, but he is feeding the irrational desires of those who don't know any better.

Stick to what you know, Money, and avoid talking about anything unrelated to sports, all right?

Bonus rant

There are probably some people out there who believe that such a law is an illicit infringement on the liberty of private citizens. If I want to buy an incandescent light bulb, and someone wants to manufacture one and sell it to me, then what business is it of government?

Indeed!

And if I want to use asbestos in my home, then I should be free to do so, don't you think?

And if I want to buy an automobile without air bags, seat belts, laminated windshields, or crumple zones, then what concern is it of the government?

And I have a right to buy as much melamine-laced infant formula and dog food as I want! And if I want to brush my teeth with toothpaste containing diethylene glycol, the government has no right to tell me that I can't!

And the government has no business putting fluoride in my tap water and polluting my precious bodily fluids!

And if I want to spend eight hours a day in a dangerous workplace and eat food that hasn't been been inspected by some Department of Agriculture communists, I should be free to do so! 

And if someone wants to serve up a delicious helping of soylent green for me to chow down on, then that's my fucking business, isn't it? I don't need any nanny-state do-gooders forcing anyone to include nutrition facts on the labels of the food I buy. If I don't want to know what I'm putting in my eating hole, then that's my right, isn't it?

And if the private sector wants to have their way with me in the name of profit, then who is the government to stand in their way?

If the government discourages me from doing anything I wouldn't do if I were in my right mind, then has it really restricted my freedom in any important way?

For Your Further Enlightenment XII

Source

I have more than a few posts in me, but I don't have the time to write them. So here's some more links. 

Pravda's criticism of Palin is overly harsh for my taste, but think about it: why assume that those who claim to speak for America aren't in reality a threat to America? Is the President a threat to America, or are the people who do are willing to do anything to undermine the Commander-in-Chief?

• Pravda: "Spankin' Sarah Palin: A clown short of a circus"
• Paul Krugman, "Ideas Are Not The Same As Race"
• Leiter Reports: "Ronald Reagan: The President Who Sent America Off the Rails"
• William Kristol: "Stand for Freedom"
• Think Progress: "For 3rd Straight Year, Americans Paying Less In Federal Taxes Than They Did Under Bush"
• Ezra Klein: "The Obama administration has raised some taxes and cut many others. They should admit that"
• The Atlantic Wire: "Scientology: Slave Labor, Beatings, and an FBI Investigation?"
• Slate: "Exceptionally Articulate: Obama's eloquence fails to quiet charges that he does not believe in God or America"
• Slate: "The Irrational Anthem: Sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in English? Who's Bush kidding?" (From 2006. Once, I was lucky enough to hear the national anthem sung in a different key on Prairie Home Companion, and I was pleased to find that I could sing the entire thing.)
• Big League Stew: "Bueller? For which Cubs game did Ferris play hookey?"
• Slate: "Know-It-All: Donald Rumsfeld may be even worse at writing a memoir than he was at being secretary of defense"
• Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker: "Offense and Defense: The battle between Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon" (from 2003)

Meet XTC

For Your Further Enlightenment XI

• Slate: "Snow Shovels of Death: How to remove snow from your front walk without killing yourself"
• Slate: "Separate/Together: Do couples who share some but not all of their money have a lot of hassle or the perfect compromise?"
• Slate: "Reagan's Record: Sorry to spoil the birthday party, but …"
• The Onion: "Republicans Vote To Repeal Obama-Backed Bill That Would Destroy Asteroid Headed For Earth"
• Ezra Klein: "The case for Wyden/Brown gets stronger"
• The Lookout: "‘Tree octopus’ is latest evidence the internet is making kids dumb, says group"
• Think Progress: "Why Has Every Pro-Repeal GOP Lawmaker Given Their Congressional Staff Taxpayer-Funded, Gov Health Care?" ("If Republicans are eventually successful with their repeal campaign, data from Harvard Medical School estimates that about 32,000 people will die every year from lack of health insurance." So much for that pro-life stance.)
• FiveThirtyEight: "A Graphical Overview of the 2012 Republican Field"
• Think Progress: "Bush-Appointed Federal Judge Tosses Out Challenge To Health Reform" 
• Bitch, bitch, bitch. (You probably think this blog is about you, don't you? Actually only about 10% of it is. Your mistake is not surprising: you have said, after all, "I don’t like math. Icky. Oh, so icky." When you have a mature, substantive response to any of my criticisms, let me know.) 

For Your Further Enlightenment X

• Leiter Reports: "Ayn Rand, Welfare Queen"
• Andrew Sullivan: "What States are Best At," "What States are Worst At"
• The Daily Mail: "'Please don't shoot me:' Girl, nine, begged for her life before she and her father were shot dead by 'anti-immigrant vigilantes'"
• Think Progress: "Boehner Admits Failing To Raise Debt Ceiling Would Be ‘A Disaster,’ But Takes It Hostage Anyway"
• Media Matters: "CNN's Erick Erickson Suggests 'Mass Bloodshed' May Be Necessary If Roe Isn't Overturned"
• The Atlantic: "Contemporary Student Life"
• FiveThirtyEight: "Poll: Egyptian Public’s Views Toward United States Are Much Improved" ("Egyptian popular opinion toward the United States has substantially improved over the course of the past 2 to 3 years.")
• Science: "The Science Hall of Fame" (Check out the philosophers on the list, including the man at the top.) 
• Think Progress: "Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson ‘Borrows Heavily’ From Family Research Council To Invalidate Health Law"
• Think Progress: "Judge Vinson Adopts Tea Party Rhetoric In Overturning Health Reform"
• Slate, "Into the Void: How the Democrats gave a conservative judge an opening to invalidate the health care law"
• Slate: "Can Obama Make You Buy Health Insurance? An inquiry into health reform's constitutionality"
• Ezra Klein: "The 'weak link' in Vinson's decision"