re: are we more divided – I could not post as a comment!

I assume you reposted since I wrote, QB, because now it is fully visible and open to comment, to me.

Because I have seen the nation more divided than it is now [IMHO] I believe the comparison is not the proper focal point.  I think the proper focal point is in your positing of the current nature of profound disagreement and of mass and personal communication, and how to address them.

In order to have this discussion, I am assuming [by assumption] that EVERYONE AT THIS TABLE is familiar with the English language as spoken in the USA, and that we all are fluent at a post high school level.

Further, I am assuming that we all have access to all the same news sources and that we understand with substantial clarity what we read and what we hear and what we see.

If my assumptions are correct, we [here] come to our disagreements early.  We choose our reading/viewing material by predisposition or prejudice, if you will. This may be by reason of parental influence, or college experiences, or psychology, which last is beyond my ken.
============================
My father was an Eisenhower R.  He was an anti-communist with a sense of humor.  He despised Joe McCarthy as a fake and a fear monger.  But he correctly believed, as history has now revealed, that Hiss spied for Stalin.  I wrote my senior in high school honors history paper on “Communism in Latin America”.  I predicted Castro and urged that we co-opt him before he took power.

I went to Rice in 1960 on a full ride and turned down a partial scholarship at Yale. At Rice I came face to face with the reality of segregation and I was caught up in the Civil Rights movement, as were all the northern boys on one wing of one dorm in Houston.

In law school at UT, while the rest of the campus seethed with anti-war protest, we went about our business knowing we would sign up for OCS and hoping for JAG slots.

By 1967, I was a Texas D hawk.  When the D Party abandoned the military [I was there for McGovern’s capitulation] I was not amused.  I voted for Ford in ’76.

So I think my predispositions have focused my news reading and my perceptions.  I rely fairly heavily on the “Economist” for facts.  I do not watch any 24/7 cable except when forced to on the treadmill at the gym.

From where I began my “political journey” the Eisenhower Rs are gone.  The far left, when it argues for unilateral disarmament or someting like it, still drives me nuts.

My experiences as an attorney active in local politics and working the last twenty five years on the side of management in labor and employment law have  made me believe much can be achieved by local government when folks are aroused, and my civic mindedness does not immediately turn to “federal” solutions.  Indeed, I have seen what spirited private public local partnerships can do and how much more efficient they are.

My last roommate in Law School was John Carter, still a friend but now the R Congressman from our neighboring CD.  I have been friends with Lloyd Doggett ever since 1971, a D Rep from our neighboring CD.  KBH  is a classmate and I have always voted for her. I recall how tough it was for each of my four female classmates and how gracefully Kay handled it.

Our schoolboard races here are between sane Rs and creationists.  I vote for the sane Rs.  Yes, I think this refusal to acknowledge evolution is nuts.

Ross Perot almost singlehandedly brought Texas public schools into the top 20 in America for a time in the late 80s.  He spent millions of his own money lobbying school reform and going around the state with his persistent flip charts.  I voted for the man twice for Prez without regret.

I worked for a while around 1970 in David Richards’ law office.  He was [still is]a brilliant labor lawyer.  His wife Ann became governor.  I used to go to swim parties at their house.  I worked for Ann’s election.

I did pro bono ACLU work in the early 70s.  Mainly defending court martials at Ft. Hood, of men who were being tried for wearing obscene or political tee shirts, worn off duty.

This began for me with my first federal case in late 68 after I was HD’d from the Navy.  I repped a Defense Atomic Substation worker, an E-7 corporal, who had had his security clearance pulled because my client’s daughter had called the Colonel’s daughter a pothead, which she was.

I sought a due process hearing on the security clearance issue.  The Army lawyers walked in and announced they were offering to reinstate my client’s security clearance.  The Judge asked me to respond, and so stunned was I that I began my opening statement.  Judge Roberts, who knew me already, growled and interrupted.  “MARK, YOU WON.  SIT DOWN.”

I have worked both sides of the labor law aisle, defense/employer since 1980.

So my experiences and background probably have more to do with my current perceptions than failures of communication.  And mine are unique to me as yours are to you.

Where we have common experiences [I busted a big Ponzi scheme in 1989 – headlines in Austin, recovered all of 13% of the “investments”] we still have differences of opinions as to what defines Ponzi and what defines insurance, or finance, or gambling, or tax supported welfare.  I think you focus on the rising number of retirees and think the base can no longer support the top, or as Scott says, will no longer support the top without a change.  I focus on the mens rea and the demographics that actually will ease in another twenty years.

But in an instance like that, I do think we can agree to disagree knowing what each of us are emphasizing.

And that is probably the best as we can do.

Are We More Divided, and Are We Able To Talk About It?

For my first post here, let me just pose two philosophical questions I think about from time to time that relate to the nature of the undertaking. For comment or just thought, either way.

First, do you think America is more divided today than in the past (Civil War aside, we can stipulate)? More starkly, more irresolvably?

This is often said, and I do think it is true in significant respects, and that it is magnified by mass media and what passes for education and culture, as well as the course of history and events. I also think that it flows inherently from the rise of ideologies in the 20th century — principally ideologies on the left. But, I’m not sure I am right about this.

Second, how much of this political argument and disagreement do you think is a function of miscommunication and innocent misunderstanding? I see a fair amount of this in reading blogs and commentary, although I think that willful misunderstanding and demagoguery are more prevalent. I see clarity of expression and reasoned statement as indispensable, while admittedly failing to achieve them with regularity. Achieving memorable and penetrating clarity of expression is one reason some works are timeless. Thucydides comes to mind. And I am something of a sucker for believing that clear communication can go a long way toward bridging disagreements.

That being said, however, I reject strong versions of this theory that posit that miscommunication is the source of most or all disagreement. I am not that familiar with the literature and thought in this area, but I think it all but undeniable there are unbridgeable divisions in what people believe, disagreements that can be better understood but not erased by understanding.

And this leads to a question of what, then, is gained by understanding why we disagree.

Well, let’s see, did I figure out how to post?

Update (yes, my first Update, on my very first post!):  Mark emailed that he isn’t able to comment on this post. I have tried to determine why, but I am clueless. Options are set to allow comments. It may relate to my outdated Explorer version, which Blogger says will cause problems, or some other ineptitude of mine. Perhaps Kevin will be able to diagnose my error.

The Revolution Will Be Televised

No, sorry. I meant, this post will be repeatedly updated. I’ll probably stick a link to it in the sidebar while things are still in “flux”, as it were. Currently (updates are posted up top):

*Updated: 12:01 PM Central, 9-15-2011

Everybody currently signed up is an administrator now. Scott added the links gadget, and lots of people have contributed links now, so good.

QuarterBack discovered how folks using IE 7 can post a comment. Anyone who doesn’t see their comment box can log out, and log back in, and uncheck the “stay signed in” option when logging back in. This apparently fixes the comment box problem.

I only have one technical project, which is getting a custom URL. I’ve set suekzoo to purchase a custom domain which, once purchased, I will link to the website. This should bypass various net nanny filters that block blogger, but the proof will be in the pudding.

Otherwise, it’s just a matter of getting people signed up, and having people contribute to the threads. 


2:12 PM Central, 9-14-2011

Visited links have been changed to be the color of regular links. If this bothers anybody, let me know, but the current gray was too light and distracting for me. Every post I’d read, even administrative pages, turned light gray. I don’t like that, so I changed it.

I’ve looked a little into the gadgets. Once we take the blog public again, we will be able to do a few extra things, like have the search box I added work (it doesn’t work, apparently, if the blog is private). More to the point, I should be able to add a gadget that lists the most recent comments. If you’ve never been on a blog that deploys these, these are very useful for keeping track of comments, and can help encourage a comment on and old post, because if you stop and check the sidebar, you’ll see the recent comments. I believe this depends on the RSS feed, however, which isn’t generated with the blog is private. And we’ll also be able to offer a working RSS feed, and email subscriptions. Not entirely sure how that will work, but . . . there it is.

I also added a news gadget to run down the side of the blog. Considering we are topical, this seemed appropriate. If anybody finds it too distracting, we can take it out.

Also, added a popular posts link. Not as useful as latest comments, but it works. Although it’s not terrible relevant, as there are about as many posts now as there are slots for popular posts. But soon, my friends. Very soon . . .

More as this story develops.

from the socialist party of one

Now the World Bank is blaming its parents.
Can you believe this?
“The head of the World Bank said Wednesday the world had entered a new economic danger zone and that Europe, Japan and the United States all need to make hard decisions to avoid dragging down the global economy.” Reuters
Hey World Bank, who owns you? Are you sucking up to China now too?
Sheesh, yesterday we had a Russian oligarch inviting European oligarchs to kill themselves, now our own creation, our neo-colonialist front-bank, says we need to get in shape. What is the world coming to?

is the microphone on?

Oh, that was easy. This time it just worked.

Who Are You? Who-Who, Who-Who?

If you are unknown, make yourself known! Click on your unknown self under “Contributors”, then click on the button labeled “Edit Profile” and update your display name. Also, add an avatar while you’re at it.

Euro crisis

The “Plum Line” itself seems useless to me this morning – its morning discussion points just brought out Obama love/hate.  So now for something completely different to chew on:

The euro crisis

Time is running out

Sep 12th 2011, 18:39 by The Economist | BRUSSELS
WHEN Russia worries publicly about the financial stability of the European Union, as opposed to the other way around, you know the euro is in real trouble. There is a sense in Brussels that the defenders of the euro zone have run out of ammunition and out of ideas.
One reason is that the politicians cannot keep up with the markets. The euro zone has yet to implement the decisions of July’s summit, but the next shock wave has already struck. Another is that the performance of Greece under the EU-IMF programme has been so poor that every quarterly assessment to approve the next tranche of loans becomes a cliff-hanger.
So each episode of market panic is worse than the previous one, the weapons in hand look inadequate, contagion spreads, while governments and institutions lose their nerve.
The proposed increase in the firepower of the main bail-out fund, the EFSF, will not be enough to protect Italy should it go under, as it has threatened to do in recent weeks. As one German official put it to me: “Italy will have to deal with its problems on its own.” The ructions at the European Central Bank exposed by the resignation of its German chief economist, Jürgen Stark, raises concern about how much longer the ECB can keep buying up the bonds of vulnerable euro-zone states. The German constitutional court has not blocked the temporary bail-out system, but appears to have all but killed off the idea for now of issuing joint Eurobonds, the one idea that might have arrested the crisis in the short term (though lots of people think they might make the long-term problems worse).
German politicians now talk openly of cutting off Greece’s lifeline and letting it fall out of the euro, causing another seizure in the markets, where French banks have now come into the firing line.
Greece’s departure from the euro, if it happens, will be painful for both Greece and the rest of the euro zone, as Jean Pisani-Ferry, director of the Bruegel think-tank, points out. And there is the question nobody can answer: will Greece’s exit remove the source of contagion, or ensure it spreads? Until now, nobody has dared test the proposition.
It is not impossible that the euro zone will be able to muddle along a bit longer: Greece may have done just enough in its latest plan to cut spending and raise revenues to receive the next tranche; the German parliament may be coaxed into approving the July decisions; the revamped EFSF may then be able to take up the bond-buying task from the ECB and a problem may be found to the problem of Finland’s demand for collateral. Then what?
The situation is so dire that any bit of bad news would easily cause another collapse in the markets. So at the same time as Germany is talking of giving up on Greece, it is also talking about redesigning the euro zone. Done right, a new European architecture may ensure that such a crisis does not recur.
But as Barry Eichengreen points out, the problem is now, not tomorrow. It will take years to renegotiate and ratify new treaties, even assuming there is no blockage of the sort that beset the Constitutional Treaty. But the euro zone faces critical days and weeks.
=================
I suggest that the “Eurozone crisis” is not a Main Street crisis here or there, but a financial crisis.  Thus it can cause panic.  But what if nobody panics?  Then, what is the effect?

Bob Turner Wins by a Weiner

Bob Turner (R) wins in New York, a seat previously assumed to belong exclusively to the Democrats.

The GOP should be thanking Anthony Weiner. Good job!

Of course, as someone who won a solid victory in the face of what was once considered a guaranteed Democratic win could have learned from his opponents earlier, apparently unfounded, sanguinity.

We have lit one candle today. It’s going to be a bonfire pretty soon.

Is it just me, or are massive political sea changes predicted more often than they actually happen? Anyhoo, what do we think? Is this a bellwether for 2012? And if so, for who? Obama (don’t make me dig out my statistics on the difficulty of beating an incumbent president), or senate Democrats, several of whom could potentially be vulnerable?

More at the Gothamist:

http://gothamist.com/2011/09/14/bob_turner_wins_weiners_district_fo.php

Ground Rules-Please Read & Discuss

Okay, so tonight was a little chaotic. I don’t actually have any ground rules just some ideas. I’ll throw them out there and then we can all discuss them. Kevin and I thought that the first 15 to 20 plumliners could all be administrators, that way there’s someone around to monitor the site for strangers that don’t contribute to the dialogue in a meaningful way. As administrator you can edit or delete posts, but we need to decide when that would be appropriate. I’m a free speech advocate and don’t have much trouble avoiding or ignoring commenters without engaging them so I’m probably not the best person to decide. I do think we should use the privilege very judiciously and maybe give a warning or a reason first just to be honest or discuss amongst ourselves via email or something.

Second set of commenters, if we get them, could be authors and post the longer comments or diaries at the top of a thread the same way administrators can but would not be able to edit or delete other posts. We could wait and see how their comments are first if it’s someone we’re unfamiliar with and make it an invitation only deal.

I think we should all try really hard not to intrude on the Plumline and talk about our new blog too much. I know we’re trying to recruit some of the better commenters from there but we need to be careful. And for now at least, I don’t think we should ever link to our blog there. Right now it’s closed to the public but it won’t stay that way.

One last thing, the success of this blog and the enjoyment and education we receive from it depends on our willingness to begin new threads with interesting ideas and links so I hope everyone will participate. Also, AFAIC off topic is fine in any thread.

This was quick and dirty so forgive any mistakes. The floor is yours.