"Mansion on the Hill" - The National
I really like this cover of the Springsteen song -- I heard it on an E Street Radio segment with the great name "Cover Me."
It was a busy holiday weekend with the boy back in town, the eating to excess, and a surprising amount of housework -- probably a strategic error given how unseasonably balmy it's been here -- it is 64 right now, which is really quite nice for November 27th. We saw "The Descendants" and "My Week with Marilyn," both of which I quite liked and thought extremely well acted. It is interesting to watch George Clooney make himself look more ordinary -- largely through body language and a less than flattering wardrobe. Michelle Williams, on the other hand, is pretty successful transforming herself into the impossibly iconic Monroe. We also rented a terrific English film on Friday night -- "Made in Dagenham" -- about a strike by women machinists at a Ford plant over the issue of getting pay equal to that enjoyed by men. It's the kind of film that is almost never made in the U.S. anymore -- you'd have to go back to the era of "Norma Rae" or "Matewan" I guess to find anything comparable. Anyway, it's well worth a look.
- Frank Bruni, who is proving to be an enormous waste of time on the NY Times Op-Ed pages, has a classic "both sides do it" piece, anticipatorily bemoaning the lies that will be slung in the upcoming presidential race. Its initial focus is on Romney's deceptive ad in which Obama is said to be afraid to talk about the economy. In the end, though, it is Obama who in Bruni's eyes, told a comparable lie about John McCain. Well, other than the fact that the McCain campaign admitted that they did not really want to talk about the economy in the home stretch of the 2008 election. It is, as always, completely equivalent on both sides.
- It will be interesting to see if the endorsement by the notoriously right wing Manchester Union Leader is of any help to the Gingrich campaign. Dave Weigel points out the mixed record that New Hampshire's largest newspaper has had over the last 35 years. I feel like we are mired in the "phony war" phase of the GOP primary season right now -- I am anxious to see what happens when the lunatics actually start voting.
Time to pay a few bills, walk Stanley and then settle down to watch the Patriots.
What's going on with all of you?
False equivalency is always a nice handy fallacy to trot out when one camp is being ostentaciously rude and partisan. I just had a short e-mail exchange today with a republican acquaintence. I asked in all innocense, isn't it true that when the cost of material or labor or transport or any other factor in you business goes up that you raise your prices? He answered yes. I then said well isn't it logical then that when the cost of government goes up the government should raise taxes?
Needless to say, all I got back was a long and howlingly disingenuous rant about how government is not a business and taxes are not a price.
Back into the bush tomorrow, I will be out of reach for a few days, the rivers are full, we are going to boat down the Rio Tucana' to its confluence with the Juruena if possible. I hope to collect sediment samples from every tributary in the watershed. We are hoping the high water will allow us to float over the falls and white water areas instead of doing portages.
Posted by: KN | November 28, 2011 at 01:28 AM
KN,
Good luck -- yours is an adventurous life.
Posted by: Sir Charles | November 28, 2011 at 07:50 AM
Barney Frank's retiring from Congress.
Posted by: oddjob | November 28, 2011 at 11:26 AM
Boston.com's particulars about Frank's retirement.
Posted by: oddjob | November 28, 2011 at 01:52 PM
Is anybody getting concerned that the Eurozone is about to collapse probably precipitating another liquidity crisis similar to 2008 and a subsequent deep recession ? They're talking about 14-15% unemployment.
Posted by: Joe S | November 28, 2011 at 04:15 PM
oddjob,
It looks like Barney didn't really have the stomach after 30 years of the battle for running in a newly configured district. Can't say that I blame him.
He was my rep for a short time while I was at Brandeis.
I don't know that I will ever have an elected representative I like better.
Joe,
I am certainly concerned. I think the Euro is doomed.
Posted by: Sir Charles | November 28, 2011 at 04:58 PM
yeah, really going to miss barney. but i don't think he will disappear, which is a good thing. don't think we can expect anyone to put up with so much, for so long, and then again to go through what they would put him through for re-election. he's going emeritus; now he can really say what he thinks.
Posted by: kathy a. | November 28, 2011 at 05:02 PM
My impression is that for quite some time his district has been safe, but very gerrymandered. The map they created in 2000 was frankly ridiculous, with a very skinny connection between Brookline, Newton, Fall River and New Bedford. While the first pair and second pair are natural pairings for each other the only thing the first two have in common with the second two is that they dependably vote Democratic.
The legislature did away with that this time and while reducing the number of districts to nine they also more or less created a new one with its focus on southeastern Massachusetts. To do that they cut that gerrymandered connection that Barney has relied on (& legitimately served well) for decades.
My representative is John Tierney. He also is perceived as vulnerable because three Republican areas were switched from Nikki Tsongas' district to his, and also because his wife has run afoul of the law (possibly unwittingly) for aiding & abetting her brother in an illegal scheme. There's no real evidence demonstrating Tierney himself was ever involved, but nonetheless.
Posted by: oddjob | November 28, 2011 at 06:08 PM
Here's a follow-up in the Guardian to whatever Naomi Wolf was up to last week which I mentioned in the Thursday, 'Talking Points for Turkey Day' thread.
These charges will never go away now, no matter how much more information is brought to bear. This sort of inflammatory carelessness that gets 'out there' is so predictable. Let's all now walk into the 'useful idiot' trap, shall we?
Usual game on. The one that has worked for the right again and again.
Posted by: nancy | November 28, 2011 at 08:05 PM
Sir C, I think its time to be more than concerned. I wasn't talking about 14-15% unemployment in Europe. I was talking about 14-15% unemployment here given the amount of credit European banks provide to the U.S. Market.
Posted by: Joe S | November 28, 2011 at 08:07 PM
barney's district was oddly shaped, but it was sort of a thing of beauty the way it brought the affluent liberals together with the working middle and poor, a great symbol of barney from bayonne and harvard. i wonder which world barney feels more comfortable in? me, i still feel like i'm trespassing when i visit a friend from brockton who now lives in newton.
i am concerned, not for the fate of the euro per se, since long ago, i thought it a not-so-workable idea, relying on those such as krugman who said so, but for the havoc we may see and with it president newt. it can't happen here. actually for the most part i don't think it will happen here, but i do worry if there is another financial crisis in 12.
Posted by: big bad wolf | November 28, 2011 at 08:09 PM
Here's Jeff Fecke on topic: 'An Open Letter to the Left.'
Over the weekend I tweeted, forwarded, linked to this, and so might y'all. And I am not an O'bot soldier. Just one who has been around long enough to know how divide and conquer works. President Gingrich anyone?
Posted by: nancy | November 28, 2011 at 09:02 PM
nancy,
Good piece by Fecke -- really good. One small correction to it is that it was the House and not the Senate that killed the public option -- at least according to Paul Starr. He indicated that the hospitals -- and in many smaller cities, the local hospital is now the biggest emploer -- put a huge amount of heat on a number of key liberals, arguing that they could not survive if too many patients were being compensated for at Medicare rates, which presumably would be the rate for a public option. Pelosi could not garner a majority to support it as a result.
bbw,
Barney strikes me as oddly comfortable in both places. I loved that he extolled the fact that retiring menat that he wouldn't have to pretend to like people he doesn't like.
oddjob,
Tierney is my parents rep too. I have a hard time believing he will be vulnerable in a high turnout race, which is what I anticipate in Massachusetts.
Joe,
I don't think the collapse of the Euro would bring about quite that catastrophic a reaction in the U.S. It would definitely not help though.
I do not believe that Gingrich can win a general election in any circumstances short of Obama being caught on film in an orgy with Jerry Sandusky.
Posted by: Sir Charles | November 28, 2011 at 10:30 PM
i loved that too, SC. it resonated; i'm a bit worn out myself after 23 years of fighting and having to be nice to people who are out to screw me and my client.
the national cover is very fine.
Posted by: big bad wolf | November 28, 2011 at 11:23 PM
I have a hard time believing he will be vulnerable in a high turnout race
You're probably right about that, but even so Tierney's perceived as vulnerable enough that a prominent (on the state level), credible candidate is going to run against him (former Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei). That's far different than Tierney's last race, when a nutjob Tea Partier/Birther ran against him. (Nutjob is running again, but I'll be shocked if he wins the primary.)
Posted by: oddjob | November 29, 2011 at 09:54 AM
I loved that Barney promised to be neither a lobbyist nor a historian! ;)
Posted by: oddjob | November 29, 2011 at 09:56 AM
SC, finally got a chance to listen to the song. i like it.
Posted by: big bad wolf | November 29, 2011 at 11:29 AM
oddjob,
I am cautious enough that I remember the seat going Republican for a couple of terms in the 90s -- Peter Torkildsen I think was the Republican. But I think that in a year in which Obama is at the top of the ticket and Warren will be on the ballot for Senate that turnout will be quite robust and that is usually going to work for the Dem in the Sixth.
bbw,
I thought this was a really great cover -- one that brings out the beauty of the underlying melody but stays true to the song's spareness.
Posted by: Sir Charles | November 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM
SC, yes. i might like springsteen's vocal a bit better, but the national's arrangement more.
Posted by: big bad wolf | November 29, 2011 at 01:10 PM
bbw,
Agreed -- although Matt Berninger, the National's lead singer, has the kind of deep mournful voice that works well with the song. I could imagine him singing stuff like Point Blank or Stolen Car -- of course in the case of the latter one would expect a hipster car of some sort.
Posted by: Sir Charles | November 29, 2011 at 02:00 PM
Utterly utterly heartbreaking story.
Posted by: nancy | November 29, 2011 at 04:20 PM
Ezra excerpts and summarizes a UBS analysis of the possible consequences of a Euro breakup. Short version: very, VERY scary.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | November 29, 2011 at 04:28 PM
nancy - a heartbreaking story indeed. It's just outrageous that anyone of consequence thinks it makes sense to deport people who've been living in America since they were little kids, and barely (if that) remember the country of their birth.
This young man, who had lived here since he was six months old, was just as American as any of us. Except for his birth certificate, that is. (And his skin color too, as far as the wingnuts are concerned.)
But thanks to one entire political party that is resolutely opposed to common sense or decency or generosity of spirit on just about anything, this young man was at constant risk of being identified as a furriner, and getting sent 'home' to a place he'd never been before.
He should have had a wonderful life to look forward to, and he had so much potential, so much to contribute to the lives of his would-be countrymen. Instead, he's dead.
Maybe someone should invite Mitch McConnell to his funeral.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | November 30, 2011 at 09:29 AM
Heartbreaking indeed. and yes, ltc. you are right about the skin color. I can imaine four NY HS friends, one Irish, one Russian, one Japanese, and one German, all equally 'illegal' with exactly similar stories, all reading the story, sad at the loss, but secure in knowing that, except in formal situations when everyone has to show papers, they will probably never be challenged on their immigrant status. (And knowing as well that the odds are that no one will inspect their papers they way they would if one of them was Hispanic, even in 'formal situations.')
Have McConnell at the funeral? Never, what a profanation. But tape the funeral -- and send copies to every Congressperson -- and at least to every announced Democratic challenger.
And as for the other 'illegals' I mentioned. I'm waiting for one person, reporter, political oponent, whatever, who will challenge one of the extreme 'protect our borders' type what -- if anything -- they would do about the non-Hispanic illegals, and how the lawmen who are supposed to enforce these laws should act when they meet an obvious, but white, 'furriner.'
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Prup - I was thinking of McConnell at the funeral for two reasons: (1) so that Joaquin Luna's relatives can be given the introduction to him that "THIS is the monster who wouldn't even let the Senate consider giving your son the chance to earn his citizenship," and let them do what they will; and (2) so that he is brought face to face with the consequences of his choices, assuming of course that he survives the encounter.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | November 30, 2011 at 10:46 AM
On the other hand, I still regret that the Dempcrats, on this as on so many issues, are taking the 'welllll, okay, so republicans have a point, only they are just taking things too far.'
I want to see a Democrat reminding us all of how important, how beneficial immigration has been to this country. I want -- I know it ain't politically correct -- people to celebrate the 'melting pot.' (Maybe a stew pot is a better image, where all the ingredients retain theit identity but make a composite more than themselves.)
I want those people who say 'yes, my ancestors arrived here, but they came legally' to be reminded of, for how many of them, they arrived when there were no barriers. Get here, get off the boat, sign up for the Democratic party -- and, if Irish, the local police force, and start your citizenship process. (Only a slight exaggeration in the pre-1921 period. Here's a list of all the US Immigration laws something which might be worth having.)
Maybe even just remembering what so many people felt -- and wrote about, or their children did -- when their first glimpse of America was the welcoming beacon of Lady Liberty. Once it really did define America -- now it is a piece of gereen foam worn at football games.
But somehow, we aren't saying this, we Democrats. We figure -- as with gay marriage, a woman's unquestioned right to choose an abortion on her own grounds, or the 'deficit problem' -- or the supposed problem with 'overpaid state employees'-- we don't have to defend the right side -- all we have to do is show how awful the Republicans truly are and we'll 'automatically' pick up the votes of everybody they have offended and attacked.
I know, I know, it's a dream. We just don't like offending people -- even bigots and Christianists. We'd never actually campaign on immigration as a beneficial thing, as gays not just 'deserving to be given the right to call themselves married' but being as truly married as any heterosexual couple, on a woman deserving the freedom to decide that her family is big enough for whatever reason -- even of the sex that resuylted in the pregnancy was consensual, even marital.
But we aren't even running against the bigots. We aren't sending out petitions condemning Congresscritters for 'lending the prestige of their offices' by appearing on shows run by Bryan Fischer, or Bradlee Dean, or Pam Geller, or Pat Buchanan, for appearing on the same stage with the madmen (and women) of the NAR, or with Phyllis Schlafly, or the like.
Who us? Why stir up a hornet's nest? "They" know we are really behind them and will vote fot us without our needing to show any actual courage.
[Yeah, I'm back, grumpier than ever. For lighter stuff -- and some cooking advice I need -- I hope to get something up on the Thanksgiving thread -- as usual, if I have a chance.]
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM
ltc: a beautiful thought, but the results would be just to strengthen the bigot's arguments. Besides, funerals are for celebrating the beauty of what was and what could have been, not for hatred of the dead. If a family member of yours had died, would you invite the murderer, the drunk driver, the incompetent physician, or the other direct cause of the death to that solemn a day -- and would the family member have wanted you to?
The next day and a dark alley, and that's different. Maybe I wouldn't approve, but I'd understand. But the guilty one has a whole lifetime to be made guilty, this is the last chance to celebrate the life that was ended.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 30, 2011 at 11:27 AM
As I've noted here several times, I would have put immigration reform on the top of the agenda early in 2009. It is a problem that can only solved through legislation.
Having said that, it is, as I have also argued, a vexing problem in its present state. The large scale presence of this exploitable work force is having a devastating effect on certain workers in certain sectors and is some of the reason -- not a majority of it by any means -- for the hostility you see.
Posted by: Sir Charles | November 30, 2011 at 12:36 PM
Oh
my
god.......
Posted by: oddjob | December 01, 2011 at 04:26 PM
Finally. Der Spiegel says what needs saying. Pass it on.
Oddjob, one wonders. Tone deafness: learned or inherited trait?
Posted by: nancy | December 01, 2011 at 04:44 PM
I saw that Der Spiegel piece.
I was immediately reminded of a saying I've seen recently:
Posted by: oddjob | December 01, 2011 at 06:07 PM
nancy, from what I gather he may have inherited it. Apparently during Romney's unsuccessful run for the Senate (in '94) his wife said something similar about the "little" that George Romney gave them as a wedding present with which to start their own investment portfolio.
(I forget the details, but I remember that as I read the quote I was struck by her tone deaf understanding of "little". IIRC I read this in the Boston Globe back when Mitt was running for governor.)
Posted by: oddjob | December 01, 2011 at 06:12 PM
Newtie's favorite word.
Hat tip, Sully.
Posted by: oddjob | December 02, 2011 at 02:17 PM
Terrific (& cautionary) New York Times Magazine article on Elizabeth Warren.
Posted by: oddjob | December 02, 2011 at 06:31 PM
oddjob, i love that piece about warren. except that it does too much of the "oh, but it's all impossible for one person to change things" thing. that style of journalism is so freaking defeating. why should we think any one person can change everything? she should be elected because she is so qualified, and she tells the truth out loud, and she will be a strong voice for the good.
Posted by: kathy a. | December 02, 2011 at 08:09 PM
How bout that Black and Gold?!!!
Posted by: americangypsy | December 03, 2011 at 08:24 AM
why should we think any one person can change everything?
Yet lots of people do that, especially with politicians greeted with the enthusiasm Warren (& Obama) generate(d).
Posted by: oddjob | December 03, 2011 at 12:36 PM
Oh~What i got a great idea over here,now thanks for you sharing and say hope see you nice article in next time!~~~
Posted by: Christian Louboutin Sale | December 19, 2011 at 01:57 AM