Maybe there’s hope for me, after all.
Minds that break free, that are compelled to wander, can sometimes achieve more than those of us who are more inhibited, more orderly, the study suggests. Or, as Jonah chose to put it, there are “unexpected benefits of not being able to focus.”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/11/18/142467882/leonardos-to-do-list
Wow!
"
“The working class, plus the professional class, represent 99 percent,” said Arizona’s first governor, George W. Hunt, after a major labor showdown in 1916. “The remaining 1 percent is represented by those who make a business of employing capital.”
“It will be a happy day for the nation when the corporations shall be excluded from political activity … and vast accumulations of capital cannot be employed in an attempt to control government,” he declared.
"http://www.salon.com/2011/11/09/what_happens_in_arizona_doesnt_stay_in_arizona/
"
The economy cannot possibly get out of its current doldrums without a strategy to revive the purchasing power of America’s vast middle class. The spending of the richest 5 percent alone will not lead to a virtuous cycle of more jobs and higher living standards. […]
Moreover, an economy is not a zero-sum game. Even the executive class has an enlightened self-interest in reversing the trend; just as a rising tide lifts all boats, the ebbing tide is now threatening to beach many of the yachts. The question is whether, and when, we will summon the political will.
"Jobs Will Follow a Strengthening of the Middle Class - NYTimes.com
"One of the really amazing things about New York City is the extent to which the city anticipated its own growth. It built elevated rail systems to neighborhoods that didn’t exist. A grid that went into the Bronx when the city barely made it to 14th St. A huge city park in the middle of nowhere. Tech guys have to think like that. So few do. Seriously."
"
No marginal income tax increase, no matter how extreme, would “tax the rich into the middle class”. Marginal tax rates apply only to the last dollar. So even if the U.S. instituted an Eisenhower-era 91-percent income tax on income over $1 million, those earning over that amount would only pay that rate on income after the first million earned. If you want to argue that tax rates on the super-wealthy are already high enough, fine. But don’t argue that Buffett’s proposal, or a restoration of Clinton-era tax rates, amounts to “soaking the rich” or “screwing the rich” or “taxing the rich into the middle class”. It’s sophistry.
It’s easy to understand why the rich tech elite support Democrats on economic issues. They’re smart enough to wish we could return to an economy like we had under Bill Clinton.
"Daring Fireball Linked List: Mike Arrington’s Taxes Are Too High
"So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do. More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government."
"The truth is that the United States doesn’t need, and shouldn’t have, a debt ceiling. […] if Congress really wants to hold down government debt, it already has a way to do so that doesn’t risk economic chaos—namely, the annual budgeting process. The only reason we need to lift the debt ceiling, after all, is to pay for spending that Congress has already authorized. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, we’ll face an absurd scenario in which Congress will have ordered the President to execute two laws that are flatly at odds with each other. If he obeys the debt ceiling, he cannot spend the money that Congress has told him to spend, which is why most government functions will be shut down. Yet if he spends the money as Congress has authorized him to he’ll end up violating the debt ceiling."
James Surowiecki: Why We Don’t Need a Debt Ceiling : The New Yorker
"Governments can control their policies. And the policy that did the most to magnify future deficits is the Bush-era tax cuts. You could argue that the stimulative effect of those cuts is worth it (“deficits don’t matter” etc). But you cannot logically argue that we absolutely must reduce deficits, but that we absolutely must also preserve every penny of those tax cuts. Which I believe precisely describes the House Republican position."
James Fallows
(Source: The Atlantic)
Pottermore: 'Harry Potter' Goes Digital - NYTimes.com
Makes me think of the Craig Ferguson skit. “Do you know what I call $160 million? Tuesday! Look: I’m rich! I’m rich!”
