Paul Krugman - Authentic? Never MInd

Ever get sick of the "pundits?"

Authentic? Never Mind
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 11, 2007
Rich liberals who claim they’ll help America’s less fortunate are phonies.

Let me give you one example — a Democrat who said he’d work on behalf of workers and the poor. He even said he’d take on Big Business. But the truth is that while he was saying those things, he was living in a big house and had a pretty lavish summer home too. His favorite recreation, sailing, was incredibly elitist. And he didn’t talk like a regular guy.

Clearly, this politician wasn’t authentic. His name? Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Luckily, that’s not how the political game was played 70 years ago. F.D.R. wasn’t accused of being a phony; he was accused of being a “traitor to his class.” But today, it seems, politics is all about seeming authentic. A recent Associated Press analysis of the political scene asked: “Can you fake authenticity? Probably not, but it might be worth a try.”


What does authenticity mean? Supposedly it means not pretending to be who you aren’t. But that definition doesn’t seem to fit the way the term is actually used in political reporting.

For example, the case of F.D.R. shows that there’s nothing inauthentic, in the normal sense of the word, about calling for higher taxes on the rich while being rich yourself. If anything, it’s to your credit if you advocate policies that will hurt your own financial position. But the news media seem to find it deeply disturbing that John Edwards talks about fighting poverty while living in a big house.

On the other hand, consider the case of Fred Thompson. He spent 18 years working as a highly paid lobbyist, wore well-tailored suits and drove a black Lincoln Continental. When he ran for the Senate, however, his campaign reinvented him as a good old boy: it leased a used red pickup truck for him to drive, dressed up in jeans and a work shirt, with a can of Red Man chewing tobacco on the front seat.

But Mr. Thompson’s strength, says Lanny Davis in The Hill, is that he’s “authentic.”

Oh, and as a candidate George W. Bush was praised as being more authentic than Al Gore. As late as November 2005, MSNBC’s chief political correspondent declared that Mr. Bush’s authenticity was his remaining source of strength. But now The A.P. says that Mr. Bush’s lack of credibility is the reason his would-be successors need to seem, yes, authentic.

Talk of authenticity, it seems, lets commentators and journalists put down politicians they don’t like or praise politicians they like, with no relationship to what the politicians actually say or do.

Here’s a suggestion: Why not evaluate candidates’ policy proposals, rather than their authenticity? And if there are reasons to doubt a candidate’s sincerity, spell them out.

For example, Hillary Clinton’s credibility as a friend of labor is called into question, not by her biography or life style, but by the fact that, as The Nation recently reported, her chief strategist — a man Al Gore fired in 2000 because he didn’t trust him — heads a public relations company that helps corporations fight union organizing drives.

And where do you start with Rudy Giuliani? We keep being told that he has credibility on national security, because he seemed so reassuring on 9/11. (Some firefighters have condemned his actual performance that day, saying that rescue efforts were uncoordinated and that firemen died because he provided them with faulty radios. “All he did was give information on the TV,” said a deputy fire chief whose son died at the World Trade Center. “He did nothing.” And the nation’s largest firefighters’ union has condemned his handling of recovery efforts in the weeks following 9/11.)

But he’s spent the years since then cashing in on terrorism, and his decisions about Giuliani Partners’ personnel and clients raise real questions about his seriousness. His partners, as The Washington Post pointed out, included “a former police commissioner later convicted of corruption, a former F.B.I. executive who admitted taking artifacts from ground zero and a former Roman Catholic priest accused of covering up sexual abuse in the church.”

The point is that questions about a candidate shouldn’t be whether he or she is “authentic.” They should be about motives: whose interests would the candidate serve if elected? And think how much better shape the nation would be in if enough people had asked that question seven years ago.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ex=1181707200&en=2142512dd4fd8ad7&ei=5121&emc=eta1

Flashback - September 6, 2005

6/9/07 - Life continues to get crazier and crazier. I wonder if the Democrats have a plan here or they're just stumbling along? As a friend of mine keeps saying, how did I end up in this sorry-ass party?

The feet are healing. We're finally making good progress furnishing the new place. We're going to contract with a local builder to put some bookcases against the western wall in the living room. Gonna have a few parties over the next few weeks. If you are reading this post, you are invited to the party on June 23. Food and drink supplied. Transportation not included.

Flashback to TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 - Amsterdam

Sleeping late is a good thing. Everyone should do it when you can, especially on vacation. Sure, there's a lot to do and see in a brand new place, but there's no point in rushing around like idiots, trying to squeeze in as many attractions as you can. Lay back, smell the chlorine and take it easy. Recharge those cell-phone batteries.

I took so many pictures from Monday (with my ancient Canon S10 digital camera) that I filled up both of my flash cards. I'd hoped to find a way or a place to upload my photos to a website so that I could erase my flash cards, use them again, and then be able to access all those photos from the web when we returned to Houston. Simple, eh? It oughta be.

The Amsterdam American Hotel was fully wi-fi'd, but I'd deliberately left my laptop at home, thinking that it was too large for travel, and I just didn't want that extra hassle. That was probably a mistake. It's got a 17" screen on it, and I just didn't want to lug it all over Europe. In hindsight, I should have taken it. I would have happily paid the wi-fi charges and could have uploaded pictures from the hotel room. But without the laptop, I had to find another way to get my pictures on the web. In addition to supplying a wi-fi signal, the hotel also provided several computers scattered around it's lobby and second floor, but they charged an absurd 15 Euro/hour, and they looked at me funny when I asked if they had USB plugs. Turns out they did, but I can't just plug the USB from the digital camera into any computer. First you have to install some software on the host computer to transfer the pics, yadda yadda yadda, and most computers at hotels or internet cafes are not going to let you download any programs onto them. So, the only solution is to find a card reader into which I could plug my flash memory cards. So the hotel was out, for that. Anyway, 15 Euro/hour is really steep.

We slept pretty late, lounging around and ... showers! Great shower in the hotel. Big.
We decided that we needed a few items from a drugstore, so we asked at the front desk and were told that there was a drugstore over on Overtoom, and by the way, there is an internet cafe over there too called SRS.

Still without breakfast or even coffee (oh, the horror!), we walked west to Overtoom and found a few (closed) restaurants. Hardly anyone opens for breakfast around here! A drugstore was open, however, so we bought a few things, and by the time we were out of there, a place called Tig Barra was opening up. The cook wasn't there yet, but the bartender said he'd make us some coffee and bring it outside. Cool. So we sat outside, the first and only patrons at 11:30am, and had some coffees until the cook arrived. He wandered in only about 15 minutes later, and we hungrily consumed an omelette and something stuffed inside ciabatta bread. Finally, breakfast, at 12:15pm. Of course, back in Houston, it was only 5:15am. So, what the hell.

Just across the street was the internet cafe SRS. As I feared, as with so many places in Europe, there was no air conditioning in the place. Fortunately the day hadn't gotten too hot yet. The attendant took my flash cards, plugged them into a card reader and transferred them over to station #6. Presto! There they were, on drive Y. Unfortunately, the Webshots website where I hoped to upload all the pics would only accept one photo at a time. The computer prohibited the addition of software that would have allowed me to upload all the pics at once. Not a big surprise. They don't want people downloading all sorts of crap on their computers. Can't blame them. Would you want a visitor puttin' crap all over your hard drive? SRS charging only 3 Euro/hour, though, so it wasn't so bad. It gave me a chance to check some email while uploading pics.

After about an hour, I'd uploaded all the pics from both cards, so we took off back to the Leidseplein. Grabbing some Euros from an ATM at ABN Amro bank right across from our hotel, we headed towards the Flower Market along the Singel canal, the innermost of the four main canals in Amsterdam.

We casually strolled through the market. I got scolded by a shopkeeper for touching the beautiful tulip bulbs. There were large signs all over, "Do Not Touch." Somehow I didn't see any of them. Funny thing, vision. It can be very selective.

We stopped at another outdoor cafe along the Singel canal for some lunch and a beer or two. The waiter at this place was named "Rafi," he was a young guy, maybe 25 years old, and was from Iraq. We had a long conversation with him about Bush, Saddam and Iraq. Since there were only four people in the restaurant, including us, he had plenty of time to talk. While he hated Saddam, he said that life for most Iraqi's was probably better before he was ousted.

"At least people could go out for dinner, or see a movie, without fear of being assaulted or kidnapped on the street. Everyone knows someone who has been kidnapped or killed," he tells us. While he disagreed with Bush's actions in Iraq, he still was wanting to move to the states. Some of his family had left before Saddam fell and was already living in Los Angeles. He was going to college in Amsterdam and barely making ends meet, but still thought he was going to end up in America.

Slightly intoxicated and no long hungry, we wandered thru the Flower Market some more. It's a riot of color and flora, and odd-looking people. Mostly tourists, presumably. It's like a freak parade half the time.

They sure have some tiny cars over here. And some tiny parking spaces too. Gas is not cheap over here, so you want something that's going to get good mileage, like a bicycle, or a "Smart Car." We saw tons of these tiny cars, and they're just adorable. (Ed. note - 2007 - we've put down our deposit on a Smart Car for when they widely available in the US. Estimated delivery January 2008.)

It was now time to call up Marc and see if we could still hook up that evening. You have to purchase a calling card to use some of the public phones, but they are clean and actually do work, unlike just about all of the public telephones in the US these days, which are vandalized and baring their guts to passers-by.

Marc was available and kindly offered to take us on a personal tour of the canals in his boat. Introduced to Marc via an online friend, I was expecting quite a nice houseboat, loaded with amenities. He suggested that we bring some cheese and bread along and we would have a picnic/dinner on the canals, which seemed like an excellent idea, so we found a vintner at the Flower Market, in a low-slung semi-basement that was musty and dark. When I asked the shopkeeper what this one particular wine was like, he replied, in a French accent, "Ees dreenkabull." Ok. Hey, I'll take it. We can drink it.

We walked all the way over to Marc's place, but even though it was technically "across town," it wasn't really that far. Maybe a mile, maybe two kilometers. We took our time walking from the Flower Market to the Jordaan, taking pictures along the way.

We found a grocery store almost to the Jordaan and picked up some cheese and bread. Strange things, these grocery stores. From the outside, they look like your typical small and narrow row-house, but step inside and they open wide and curve left and right. The front can look quite small, but inside they can be quite large.

Fully supplied and finding Marc's address, we rang the bell and he buzzed us inside. Up steep, narrow stairs to the fourth floor (no elevators here) and Marc's place opened into a basic square, divided into four rooms. He showed us around his place and inside the courtyard in the middle of the block. Nice view. Airy. Pretty spartan but very pleasant. And very, very expensive.
Marc gathered up his bag and a couple of sticks that he claimed was a new "experiment" for the boat, and we took off back down the stairs and westward to the canal where he moored his yacht.

I had to chuckle when we got to his boat. It was your typical, small, bass-fishing boat with three wood benches for seats and a single motor on the end. Pretty far from the described "luxury houseboat." Yet, functional. His "experiment" was a clamp that would go on the front of the boat, where I sat, which would keep a stick perpendicular to the water, from which we hung a votive candle encased in a glass frame. This would be our "running light" if it got dark. A single candlepower. Simplicity. Before we launched, Marc's girlfriend, Vicky, arrived. She works at the same place as Marc: Doctors Without Borders. She had brought more cheese, more bread, and other munchies, such as olives, carrots and celery. Ah! Once launched, Marc discovered he'd forgotten to bring his bottle of chardonnay. We'd have to make do with only our bottle of merlot.

It was a pretty cool trip along the canals of Amsterdam. Marc and Vicky know quite a bit of the history of Amsterdam, politically and architecturally. A more personalized tour of the canals you're unlikely to get. It's interesting to see the varieties of boats on the water. Houseboats, party boats, tour boats, tugboats, kayaks, paddleboats. About the only type of water activity you won't see is skiing, although I'm sure they do it now and then. In the winter when some canals freeze, they'll go ice-skating on the canals. Cool.

We stayed on the water till dark and headed back. The single candlepower light wasn't really enough light after all. Marc had some more work to do that evening, so we headed on back to our hotel. Even though Vicky had brought her bike with her, she volunteered to walk us all the way back to our hotel, which was very nice of her. People around here are just very nice.
Once at the hotel, Vicky took off for home on her bike and we, a bit tired from the long walk, went up to the room and had a little room service. Modesty prevents me from giving any further details.

Next up, Wednesday, September 6, 2005

Joke of the Day

A thief stuck a pistol in a man's ribs and said, "Give me your money."

The gentleman, shocked by the sudden attack, said "You cannot do this, I'm a United States Congressman!"

The thief said, "In that case, give me my money!"

WTF, SIR?!

Is it an imitation of Will Ferrell? Harry Carey? A US soldier?

Sunday (Not So) Funnies

Remember now, if you click on the toons, either a new window will open or you will be re-directed to a larger view of the toon.

America Likes an Idiot

America Likes an Idiot, but It Needs Al Gore Jun 1, 2007 By Eugene Robinson WASHINGTON—Al Gore has been in town launching his new book, “The Assault on Reason,” and you could have predicted the buzz: Is he about to jump into the race? What you probably wouldn’t have predicted, because it’s insane, is the counterbuzz—that Gore, poor fellow, is just too ostentatiously smart to be elected president. In the book, you see, Gore betrays familiarity with history, economics, even science. He uses big words, often several in the same sentence. And in public appearances—get this—he doesn’t even try to disguise his erudition. These, supposedly, are glaring shortcomings that should keep noncandidate Gore on the sidelines, rereading Gibbon and exchanging ideas about the structure of the cosmos with Stephen Hawking. Like I said, insane. Leave aside the question of whether Gore is even thinking about another presidential run, or how he would stack up against the other candidates. I’m making a more general point: One thing that should be clear, to anyone who’s been paying attention these last few years, is that we need to go out and get ourselves the smartest president we can find. We need a brainiac president, a regular Mister or Miss Smarty-Pants president. We need to elect the kid you hated in high school, the teacher’s pet with perfect grades. When I look at what the next president will have to deal with, I don’t see much that can be solved with just a winning smile, a firm handshake and a ton of resolve. I see conundrums, dilemmas, quandaries, impasses, gnarly thickets of fateful possibility with no obvious way out. Iraq, of course, is the obvious place he or she will have to start—engineering a U.S. withdrawal and dealing with the aftermath. I want a president smart enough to figure out how to minimize the damage. I want a president who reads newspapers. I want a president who reads books other than those that confirm his worldview. I want a president who bones up on Persian history before deciding how to deal with Iran’s ambitious dreams of glory. I want a president who understands the relationship between energy policy at home and U.S. interests in the Middle East—a president smart enough to form his or her own opinions, not just rely on what old friends in the oil business say. I want a president who looks forward to policy meetings on healthcare, and has ideas to throw into the mix. I want a president who believes in empirical fact. I want a president whose understanding of spirituality is complete enough to know that faith is “the evidence of things not seen,” and who knows that for things that can be seen, the relevant evidence is fact, not belief. I want a president—and it’s amazing that I even have to put this on my wish list—smart enough to know that Darwin was right. Actually, I want a president smart enough to know a good deal about science. He or she doesn’t have to be able to do the math, but I want a president who knows that the great theories underpinning our understanding of the universe—general relativity and quantum mechanics—have stood for nearly a century and proved stunningly accurate, even though they describe a world that is more shimmer than substance. And I want the next president to know that the two theories are incompatible—neither makes sense in terms of the other. I want him or her to know that there’s a lot we still don’t know. I want the next president to be intellectually curious—and also intellectually honest. I want him or her to understand the details, not just the big picture. I won’t complain if the next president occasionally uses a word I have to look up. The conventional wisdom says that voters are turned off when candidates put on showy displays of highfalutin brilliance. I hope that’s wrong. I hope people understand how complicated and difficult the next president’s job will be, and how much of a difference some real candlepower would make. I don’t want the candidates to pretend to be average people, because why would we choose an ordinary person for such an extraordinary job? I want to see what they’ve got—how much they know, how readily they absorb new information, how effectively they analyze problems and evaluate solutions. If the next president is almost always the smartest person in the room, I won’t mind a bit. After all, we’re not in high school anymore. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at symbol)washpost.com.

Russell-Einstein Manifesto

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

Issued in London, 9 July 1955

IN the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft.

We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-Communism.

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?

The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow.

No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed.

It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish. No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.

Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert's knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy.

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term "mankind" feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited.

This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious.

Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First, any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second, the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step.

Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West.

There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.


Resolution:

WE invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution:

"In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them."


Max Born
Percy W. Bridgman
Albert Einstein
Leopold Infeld
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Herman J. Muller
Linus Pauling
Cecil F. Powell
Joseph Rotblat
Bertrand Russell
Hideki Yukawa