By Scott Beck, September 29th, 2011 
The other day someone working for the mainstream media (MSM) seemed to be undecided about how exactly they should disparage a burgeoning movement. First the hypertext link on MSNBC’s website read, “Protesters want to tame Wall Street’s wild ways, but they’re a little wild themselves.” Later in the day it read, “Wall Street protesters spread murky message.” In both cases, clicking on the link would reveal the title of the article, “Familiar refrain: Wall Street protest lacks leaders, clear message,” with the opening lines, “It’s messy. It’s disorganized. At times, the message is all but incoherent.” With the accompanying photos focusing on the disheveled belongings of the protesters scattered about their home base, Liberty Park, the theme was that the seeming lack of organization and consensus of the “Wall Street Protesters” was analogous to the dysfunctional state of American political discourse. Being unsympathetic, skeptical, or even cynical, reporters do find what they’re looking for. Yet such a jaundiced look at the protests, as is typical of much of the media’s coverage, misses something strikingly obvious: what has largely faded in the rest of the country is still alive in Liberty Park– hope and change.
Last week, a young couple from Virginia Beach paid a visit to the park with their two children, one about five or six years old, the other not older than three. They met a young man who was writing a message on a cardboard to protest corporate malfeasance. The couple asked him to explain to their eldest daughter what it was he was protesting about. The young man smiled, and looked at the girl, who shyly averted his glance. “So basically, a few people have a lot of power, and they’re using that power to take advantage of everybody else.” At that point, the girl began to give the young man her undivided attention. “You know, it’s like a bully, we’ve all had plenty of bullies in our lives, and they think of different ways to better their position. And what we have is just that, on a larger scale, . . .
Read more: The People Should Lead: The Meaning of the Occupy Wall Street Movement
By Eugene Halton, September 28th, 2011 
“Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” Henry Kissinger, 1973
I recently returned to teaching selections from C. Wright Mills’s 1956 book, The Power Elite. The book was written in the midst of unprecedented prosperity in America, what economists Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have called “the great compression,” when the levels of social inequality that peaked in 1929 and muddled through the next two decades were lowered and stabilized in the 1950s and 60s. It was the “good times” fifties. But Mills saw acutely that something had changed in America; that an unprecedented centralization of power “not before equaled in human history” had also been set in motion as the aftermath of World War II, whose continued development would undermine democratic institutions.
Mills claimed that “the Big Three” institutions—Corporate, Government, and Military—powered up into an interlocking directorate. Though he does not mention them, two coups of that era engineered by the CIA provide ample evidence of what Mills was describing. The overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953, which installed the Shah of Iran, was undertaken to secure British and American oil interests. Corporate oil, political, and military (particularly the burgeoning CIA) institutions realized their common interest in overthrowing the democratically elected regime of Mosaddegh. The long-term consequence was the empowerment of Islamic fundamentalism in the overthrow of the Shah in 1979.
In 1954 the CIA directed the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Guatemala, in order to keep the profits of United Fruit at their maximum. The secretary of defense, John Foster Dulles, his brother Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA, and the UN ambassador, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., all had investments in United Fruit, and as David Halberstam states in his book The Fifties: “The national security complex became, in the Eisenhower years, a fast-growing apparatus to allow us to do in secret what we could not do in the open. This was not just an isolated phenomenon but part of something larger going on in Washington—the transition from an isolationist America . . .
Read more: The Megapower Elite
By Lisa Aslanian, September 27th, 2011 
Eminem’s rise from the rubble is well known. A shy white boy from East Detroit, Eminem was trailer park trash raised by a single mother who was often too high to mother. He regularly changed schools, repeated the ninth grade three times and was constantly bullied. By retreating inward — he read the dictionary and riffed rhymes at the floor — Marshal Mathers (M&M) found his way around ridicule and attack.
Like most rappers, words were Eminem’s weapon and escape. Unlike most rappers, however, Eminem is white. He stands out like a sore thumb. The lyrics that express his deep sense of isolation and vulnerability otherwise absent from rap are twice born — first, he uses rap to talk about growing up “white trash, broke and always poor” and second, he is a white dude in a nearly all black art form, and he believes he is isolated, rejected and often singled out because of the color of his skin.
Eminem does boast but what he brags about having, and having in spades, is unbeatable talent. His linguistic prowess is undeniable, but what separates him is not really his skill — I am not here to say who the best rapper is, though most claim the title — it is what he uses his skill to express: anxiety, timidity, envy and rage. When Eminem digresses on the many shades of depression, he extends rap’s emotional range beyond its hyper-macho comfort zone.
On the debut album 8 Mile, in “Lose Yourself,” Eminem says he cannot:
Stay in one spot, another day of monotony
Has gotten to me, to the point I’m like a snail I’ve got
To formulate a plot, or end up in jail or shot
Success is my only motherfuckin’option, failure’s not
Mom I love you, but this trailer’s got to go
I cannot grow old in Salem’s Lot
So here I go it’s my shot, feet fail me not
This may be the only opportunity that I got
The . . .
Read more: White Rage: Eminem, the Bad Boy from Detroit
By Gary Alan Fine, September 26th, 2011 
On September 21, 2011, two American men, both in their early 40s, were put to death by order of their state government. One death provoked much discussion; the second was widely ignored. However, it is that second death that matters should we as a nation – or as a collection of states – decide to eliminate the death penalty for good and for all.
Outside of Georgia’s Jackson Prison, opponents of the death penalty gathered to hope, pray, and pay witness to the long death of Troy Davis. Mr. Davis was convicted of killing a police officer, Mark McPhail, in 1989. Whoever the killer was did a dastardly deed. And Mr. Davis was, according to the courts, that man. Over the years there came to be real doubts as to whether he was, in fact, guilty. The case depended largely on eyewitness testimony, and since the trial most of those eyewitnesses changed their stories. Perhaps Mr. Davis was not guilty of this crime.
No one, whatever stance they take on the legality of the death penalty, wishes for the state to kill innocent men, letting the real killer go free. Still, Mr. Davis had twenty years of appeals, and he never found a judge or parole board that was persuaded of his innocence. Shortly before his death, the Supreme Court, without dissent, refused to stay his execution. And it was done. Perhaps we must establish a more robust level of proof and be more modest in our certainty. Without doubt Mr. Davis came to be an impressive advocate for his own innocence. He wanted to live. However, shortly after 11:00 on the night of September 21st, he was put to death by lethal injection. CNN’s Anderson Cooper covered the death watch with inspiring intensity, raising issues of Mr. Davis innocence and also the justice of the death penalty.
Eight-hundred miles west of Jackson, in Huntsville, Texas, another death occurred, quietly and without . . .
Read more: Two Deaths
By Tim Rosenkranz, September 23rd, 2011 
I was baffled yesterday when I saw on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” a short question: “Is President Obama also to blame for US economy?” This question referred to an ongoing Gallup poll. And MSNBC presented the answer – 53% of asked people now blaming Obama for the state of US economy. This brief episode of my morning TV routine provides an opportunity for me to revisit the larger problem of the “Power to the Polls,” which I investigated through an article by Jürgen Habermas. I continue to wonder what do polls actually mean in public debate and opinion?
“Is President Obama also to blame for US economy?” This is a bad polling question on so many levels. I am not really an expert on polling, but even I learned in Germany in my “Empirie” class, during my political science studies, that there is a scientific method to polls and questionnaires. One of the first rules: Questions have to be unambiguous, meaning they should be clearly understood. What does “also” mean? Is Obama to be blamed also among other actors? Is Obama to be blamed for the economy also among other issues for which he is to blame?
I could not believe that a professional researcher from Gallup would come up with such a flawed question. So I actually looked at the Gallup poll to which MSNBC’s interpretation refers. The Gallup question is: “How much are George W. Bush and Barack Obama to be blamed for US Economy?” The answer choices are split between Bush and Obama and give the options: a great deal, moderate amount, not much, not at all. This poll is ongoing since 2009. The results published on September 21, 2011 show that 53% of the asked people say for Obama either “a great deal” or “moderate amount” (Bush 69 %). This is what MSNBC translates into 53% say “yes” to the question “Is president Obama also to blame for US economy?”
 . . .
Read more: Problems with Polling
By Michael Corey, September 22nd, 2011 
The public debate about “tax loopholes” is muddled at least in part because “loopholes” and “tax expenditures” have become intertwined. Both are peculiar terms.
“Loopholes” have a history. Some accounts report the term as originally referring to the narrow slits (larger on the inside and smaller on the outside) cut into castles. They made it possible for defenders to peer out and watch with relative safety, and when necessary, fire arrows or other projectiles to protect the castle. Some loopholes in castles were slightly larger and could be used as an escape when necessary. Other explanations of the origin of the term point to alternative Dutch words meaning “to run” and “to watch”. Others refer to an English term, suggesting “to leap.” A number of references cite poet Andrew Marvell (1621-1678) using loopholes to communicate the ability to evade or squeeze through. Today, loophole is a symbolically rich term that is intended to mean that something unseemly is taking place through such evasion and squeezing.
Are tax expenditures an entirely different matter? The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) defines tax expenditures as, “…revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of liability.” That is, in plain English: tax expenditures are lost tax revenues caused by special exceptions to tax laws. By law, a list of “tax expenditures” must be included in the President’s budget in a section titled “Analytical Perspectives,” prepared by the Office of Management and Budget. The list for 2012 includes 173 “tax expenditures (p241 – 251),” which total over one trillion dollars for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2011. As objective as this may sound, the list and estimates of “cost” is actually quite subjective, because analysts posit the starting point of the tax baseline.
 . . .
Read more: Against “Tax Loopholes”?
By Daniel Goode, September 21st, 2011 
The tendency to reduce an understanding and appreciation of cultural achievements is a limitation of the thought in Marx and Marxism, as I suggested yesterday. Such reduction, though, is actually a more general problem, as is explored here in another of Goode’s thumbnail reviews about music and life. -Jeff
Why should we care? Because some of us love the music. Some of us even commit that chauvinist crime of saying: “He’s the greatest Jewish composer” as if there were a contest out there. (He was reviled with anti-Semitism in Vienna during his lifetime, especially around his directorship of the Vienna Court Opera). But two of the most progressive conductor’s, Leonard Bernstein and Michael Tilson Thomas (both Jewish), both of whom regarded Mahler as central to their lives, are just full of the usual clichés about him. Oh, like: that those wonderful and suggestive, disintegrating endings to his final works are “about death” or about his death. Well, maybe they are, but HE never said that.
The latest slew of these interpretations came in a visually elegant public television program conceived by Tilson Thomas called “Keeping Score.” I won’t list instances here, maybe some other time. Actually the best one-liners came from the first clarinetist, Corey Bell, of the SF Symphony (featured in the film). He spoke about the “skin-of-your-teeth tonalities” in the Scherzo of the 7th Symphony, and of the “corners to hide out in.”
Thomas does get off one perceptive analysis: tracing the use of the musical “turn” from Mahler’s first work, “Songs of a Wayfarer” to the final movements of his last two completed works. And the importance of the tone A in that early work and then in the climax of the first movement of his 10th Symphony.
A final shot of Thomas at Mahler’s grave in Grinzing, a suburb of Vienna, shows without comment, stones placed in the traditional Jewish manner on top of the gravestone. Mahler’s remains were not allowed to be buried in the same cemetery as Beethoven and Schubert. “Those who love me will find me,” he . . .
Read more: Against Clichés about Mahler’s Music
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, September 20th, 2011 
I am teaching the foundations course in our graduate program this year: “Classical Sociological Theory.” It’s a challenge. The last time I taught such a class was thirty years ago. Yet, it’s a challenge worth taking. Aside from the matters of departmental needs and resources, this is something that I believe will be particularly interesting for me, and also for my students. Over those thirty years, I have actively thought about the events of the day, and about my research, using foundational thinkers (though some more than others), “standing on the shoulders of giants.” It is exciting to revisit old friends, including, among others, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Georg Simmel and George Herbert Mead, and spend some time, introducing them to students at the beginning of their professional training.
The first theorist was easy, Alexis de Tocqueville. I have taught an undergraduate class on his masterpiece, Democracy in America, frequently. My new book, Reinventing Political Culture: The Power of Culture versus the Culture of Power, is not only informed by Tocqueville’s approach to culture and democracy. It is in a sense in dialogue with Tocqueville. And as the readers of Deliberately Considered know when I look at current events, I often interpret them using the insights of Tocqueville from understanding the nature of the American party system and for contemporary political debate, such as the struggle over workers’ rights in Wisconsin.
Karl Marx, the second theorist we examined in our class, is another matter. Like many intellectuals since his time, I have a history with Marx. As I told the class in an introduction to our discussions last week, when I was young and especially critical, I thought that to be critical required one to read, know and act through Marx. I remember having a course in high school which I found particularly upsetting, “The Problems of Communism.” The author of the class text was J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the F.B. I. Talk about the state ideological apparatus, as . . .
Read more: Teaching the Classics: Reflections of an Ex-Marxist Wannabe
By William Milberg, September 19th, 2011 
Beyond the 1937-like craze in Congress today over cutting the budget deficit, there is a more serious debate going on in the US over how to stimulate aggregate economic demand in order to spur more rapid job growth. In this debate, there are competing views over whether to raise spending or cut taxes – sometimes referred to as left Keynesians and right Keynesians. Macroeconomists have mainly favored the spending route because the historical evidence is that spending gives more bang for the deficit buck since the initial impact brings a one-for-one boost to demand, while a tax cut initially loses some bang because tax cut recipients initially save a part of their higher disposable income. But there is agreement among those who engage in this debate that tax cuts too will stimulate demand and job growth, especially when they are aimed at lower income Americans who spend more of their disposable income on the margin than do the rich.
In fact, the greatest moment of success of Keynesian policy in the history of the United States is not the New Deal, as is often claimed by proponents of greater deficit spending in the current crisis. The height of the influence and success of Keynesian policy advisers was the Kennedy administration’s income tax cut of $13.5 billion over three years. The policy was strongly urged by President Kennedy’s Council of Economic Advisers, led by the great American Keynesian economists James Tobin, Walter Heller and Arthur Okun. Facing unemployment rates around 7 percent, the economists sought to bring it down to 4 percent. By early 1964 (after Kennedy’s death), the proposal was passed into law. The tax cut is attributed with moving the economy to 4 percent unemployment and a very high rate of capacity utilization. In his history of that era, Michael Bernstein (A Perilous Progress) writes that “by the fall of 1964 the success of the tax cut was so apparent that, in the words of Arthur Okun, ‘economists were riding . . .
Read more: Do the Right Thing: Responding to the Economic Crisis
By Nachman Ben Yehuda, September 16th, 2011 
The Israeli summer: Hundreds of thousands took to the streets in one demonstration after another. Hundreds erected tents in the middle of cities and other public places and lived in them. Protests were not about war and peace, but social concerns, a strong, angry and frustrated cry against the high cost of living and the quality of life. The demonstrators were particularly concerned about the price of housing (both for purchase and rent), low salaries, and the retreat of Israel from its previous social welfare commitments and the transformation of the state into what has become known as a “swine capitalism.” In July and August of this year, the unprecedented happened. Irit Dekel has already reported and appraised at Deliberately Considered earlier developments. Here, I consider a hopeful sign, and suggest how the concerns of the protestors might be addressed, even though I think this is unlikely, given the nature of the present government of the country.
A Hopeful Sign
As the massive civil protests were taking place, supporters were concerned that the sharp edge of this genuine social and political protest may be neutralized if a military threat suddenly erupts. Possible scenarios included President Assad of Syria or Hezbollah in Lebanon igniting Israel’s northern border in order to deflect international attention from Assad’s brutal suppression of the revolt against him. While this did not happen, in mid August, Israel’s southern border was ignited as Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza exchanged fire. This heightened military tension immediately set the agenda for the news. Coverage of the protest by the media all but disappeared. Yet, the protest did not abate.
Given this persistence, the political authorities are under great pressure to respond. Yet, Netanyahu and his government, at best, will try to placate the protestors, making minor changes, merely alleviating some of the despair, stress and misery that fueled the protests. A significant response to the Israeli summer would require changed national priorities. Although I don’t think there is a political will for this by the ruling parties, important changes are possible, practical policy . . .
Read more: Civil Protest in Israel: Reflections of a Science Fiction Fan
|
Blogroll
On the Left
On the Right
|