Reading "The Room Where It Happened" by John Bolton.
It's Trump porn, appealing to my liberal distrust of Trump and his administration. But that aside, I'm amazed Bolton stayed as long as he did. Either Trump is more charismatic, in the sense of being able to make people lose their common sense when in his presence, or Bolton was very power hungry.
Rachel Laudan has a recent post on the variety of food stores within a 6 mile radius of her Cincinnati home.
I could do a similar post about the Northern Virginia area, centered on Reston. One notable addition: we have Wegmans.
It's a big change since I was a boy. Tyler Cowen did an early book arguing this point, although focused on art, IIRC--i.e., that while the world was becoming more similar, the diversity within many cultures/countries was growing.
"Economist Tyler Cowen argues that the capitalist market economy is a vital but underappreciated institutional framework for supporting a plurality of co-existing artistic visions, providing a steady stream of new and satisfying creations, supporting both high and low culture, helping consumers and artists refine their tastes, and paying homage to the past by capturing, reproducing, and disseminating it. Contemporary culture, Cowen argues, is flourishing in its various manifestations, including the visual arts, literature, music, architecture, and the cinema."
I think this is the book I remember.
Yesterdays failure in the Senate to take up the Jan 6 commission bill has evoked renewed discussion of the filibuster.
My memory of politics in the 1950's and 1960's was that the filibuster became an issue only in connection with a "civil rights bill". There might have been other uses, but civil rights was the key, meaning the liberals were perpetually frustrated. That's very unlike today, where the filibuster becomes a factor in most partisan issues. In the 1950's and early 60's the big obstacle to liberal proposals on issues other than civil rights was Rep. Howard Smith and the House Rules Committee. It took years of work by both JFK and, I think, LBJ to change the House rules to get more liberals added tot he committee.
Back in those days breaking a filibuster required 67 votes, an almost impossible hurdle. But because party ideology was less important, national media in state elections of senators not important at all, LBJ was able to nickel and dime enough members to pass the civil rights bills, one reason why I regard him as a great flawed president.
As a glutton for punishment I'm reading that book. One chapter discusses the Mueller investigation in the context of special prosecutors and the criminalization of oversight. The authors ding Congress for lack of effective oversight, instead ceding oversight to the criminal process of investigations through the special prosecutors.
I wonder if Congress shouldn't delegate its oversight powers to an agency set up like GAO. GAO works for Congress, not the executive, and has a good reputation, I think, unless you're a bureaucrat being critiqued. But GAO focuses on the bureaucracy and on policy, worrying whether the laws Congress passes are being effectively administered by the executive branch. It's my impression they rarely interview the big shots, the presidential appointees, and never those close to the president. I'm not sure why; whether it's historical precedent or their legal charter at work.
The problem I see with my idea is that it seems like the old special prosecutor--giving a body authority to investigate without establishing limits. That problem led to both parties agreeing not to reauthorize the statue which existed for about 20 years.
Maybe we could look to the Congressional ethics committees, which police the members of Congress? Maybe a standing bipartisan committee could work, relying on political forces to restrain it? The problem there might be shown in the Federal Election Commission, which is supposed to be bipartisan but has been deadlocked with vacancies for years.
No answers here.
Elizabeth Hinton (who was on BBC news yesterday) argues for "rebellions" instead of "riots" to describe the events in the inner cities in the mid to late 1960's. Having lived during that period, although I haven't read her book, I think she's wrong.
To me "rebellion" means a degree of central planning and organization, elements which I think were shared through many of the slave "revolts" discussed here. A "riot" usually has an instigating event, a central focus which draws in participants, but there's no central figure like Nat Turner or John Brown.
Hinton has a point that the events from 1964 through 1968 have a continuity and similarity which makes "riots" seem an inadequate terminology.
I blogged previously worrying about the impact of inflation, if it occurs, on people on fixed incomes.
I've a second thought--it may be true that since the inflation of the 1970s that use of inflation-indexing has increased. IIRC it once was true that Congress would pass legislation increasing social security payments (also reducing income tax rates) to compensate for inflation. These days both are indexed, so the impact on the elderly may be less.
Megan McArdle has a twitter thread going on the rise in homicide rates. (Kevin Drum has pointed out that while homicides have risen, violent crime hasn't.
I'm going to write a longer column on this but I think that the people reassuring each other that the urban crime spike is only homicide, while other violent crime fell last year, should not assume that those trends will keep diverging.
— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) May 25, 2021
I offered two comments in twitter, neither totally serious. One was recalling a past discussion on the impact of medical advances on homicide rates--ER's might save more victims. The other was suggesting that criminal gangs were losing revenue from the effects of the lockdown and the legalization of pot, so they might be fighting over a shrinking pie.
I'm wondering how the trends will evolve.
Bob Somerby today has a post about Godel and Wittgenstein. It seems he got deeply into philosophy in his college days, and he often refers to them, as well as others (like Bertrand Russell just last week). Douglas Hofstadter wrote a famous book in 1979 on Godel, Escher and Bach. I was one of those who bought the book but never finished it.
I'm someone whose identity is tied up in their mind--i.e, all my life (almost) I've been "smart", so I don't like to admit there's stuff I can't understand. Bob is a mix of the esoteric, the cranky, and the right-on, whom I find mostly worthwhile to read, but I do skip paragraphs and occasional posts.
Seeing media stories about the possibility of inflation. Apparently the Biden administration is not worrying, nor is the Fed.
I understand the logic--prices may rise for food and gas, but the underlying trend may not be above the Fed's target for long. And the rise in wages for restaurant and food service workers is good; it helps the lowest paid.
But my cynicism is up today. I'm worried about people on fixed incomes--the retired--will be disproportionately affected by the inflation that occurs. And worried that people vote more on the basis of what they've lost than what they have gained, meaning Democrats in 2022 will lose more elderly votes than they gain from the wage gainers.
I'm intrigued by the idea that some hidden factors account for economic gains:
