Stickybuffalo.com

Okay, a serious question for those of you on Facebook: is there anything which would get you to quit? And please believe me, I ask only out of sincere curiosity; if Facebook makes you happy then go right on using it, I’m not looking for material to start a “quit” campaign. You know me.

But I am curious, after reading the latest round of (to me) disturbing pronouncements about how Facebook intends to push users into more “sharing,” and expects to go right on doing so.

I mean, is there some point at which the company finally overreaches and pushes you away, some point at which Mark Zuckerberg sounds too sinister and megalomaniacal for you? Or is Facebook access like having a phone number for you, now, or like the internet itself, and the idea of voluntarilly pulling the plug one which you can’t even consider a practical question?

Meanwhiles, I feel like I could just re-post a lot of this right now; both the general feeling of “it’s all just coming unglued, isn’t it” and most of the details still apply. I’m starting to think that there’s another corallary to / problem with the old conventional wisdom of “don’t do anything unless there’s a crisis,” which is that unfortunately, once a crisis arrives, it becomes really really difficult to coordinate any kind of helpful response because there’s a fucking crisis screwing everything up.

I think we can remember this particular week, when we look back on the lengthy unfolding compound mess, as the week when Uncle Paul just kind of broke down for a moment and publicly sagged beneath the weight of despair.

Other notes… (more…)

A number of even leftish observers, including me, have occasionally wondered lately if Uncle Paul is getting a bit off-course. (And really, I can’t blame him; this stuff drives me to drink as a mere amateur, so I can only imagine the effect if I had a Nobel-level grasp of economics and yet had to regularly swim against the surging tide of unreality as part of my job.)

Whether or not Krugs needs a vacation, though, he can still do a remarkable job sorting reason from insanity and lies. His review of the basic logic behind health care systems, today, is almost beautiful in its logic and simplicity. Reading it, I couldn’t help wondering why Democrats didn’t try to spell things out this way during the 2009/10 round of this endless war. Of course, I know that it probably wouldn’t have helped because even this simple, sensible explanation would inevitably be warped and distorted by America’s debased, Twitter Age media-political-complex.

Still and all, this is a fine piece of writing by Krugman, at least momentarilly appeasing even many of my doubts and complaints. (Krugman’s vision certainly strikes me as far more convincing than, say, this recent alternative proposal by the vexing Iowa City blogger WW. Which is either every bit as much wishful-thinking gobbledygook indulgence of dogma as it seems, or else it’s simply going completely over my head and, while I’ll sound like an asshole for saying so, if I can’t understand it then I can pretty much guarantee you it’s not politically saleable to the general American public.)

Of course, even in the reality-based community, there is at least one immediate protest left unanswered by Uncle Paul’s recital, i.e. “all of this seems entirely reasonable, Mr. Krugman sir. I’m convinced of your logic. But health insurers are still bleeding us dry—?!”

I assume that responses would probably include some or all of the following: (more…)

Over the weekend, The Economist‘s Lexington columnist wrote:

The political puzzle that Barack Obama and the Democrats need to figure out is just why such a large chunk of America’s white middle class appears to feel that American honour and values are in jeopardy, and why they appear to blame this president for this perceived danger…. Why is it so widely believed? … I am genuinely perplexed.

I actually didn’t even leave a comment, aside from one directed at another comment which was shockingly racist and hate-filled, at any rate by the standards which usually prevail at The Economist site. I kept thinking about the question, though, and over night (yes, crazies, you haunt me even in my sleep) came up with probably the closest to an answer I can suggest.

Then I woke up and found that our scruffy pal at The Times had already written up the idea for me. He pretty much got everything; the only thing I would have specifically added was to connect the fact that “a significant number of Americans just don’t consider government by liberals — even very moderate liberals — legitimate” with a complete “us vs them” mentality.

Democrats are seen as illegitimate because we’re “the enemy,” and we’re the enemy not because of anything we do but just because we aren’t part of their “us.” After all, these people didn’t give a fart about deficit spending, expanding government, reduced individual liberties, etc., etc., etc., so long as the role of the big tribe’s alpha male was occupied by their guy.

Call it identity politics, whatever you want, but that’s basically what’s going on. In the sense of some kind of “substantive” explanation in terms of issues, there’s nothing for Obama, et al. to “figure out.” These people don’t have genuine, rational grievances that Democrats can somehow “understand” and respond to; Democrats, ourselves, are their grievance.

And, really, what can be done about that? Krugman, per his usual pugilistic instincts, suggests that Obama basically needs to fight harder, “on the economic front in particular.” But, of course, Krugs is also by this point well aware that such encouragement to activity is likely to go unheeded.

Man, I really don’t know if I can stomach another out-for-blood reactionary congress…