Isolated

Perhaps the ugliest demand of politics is that tragedies often have political implications, and at some point those must be discussed. The end result, of course, is the often undignified spectacle of pundits trying to score public relations points in the face of human suffering and sorrow.

To wit, I'm pretty sure I just heard, on BBC's Newshour, one of the right-wing authors cited in Norway shooter Anders Brevik's outsize manifesto compare himself to The Beatles.

Or a blogger for Crooks and Liars suggesting that FOX News is unwilling to describe Breivik as a "conservative" extremist. And while there is no question about why FOX News might want to protect the word "conservative" from any negative associations, there really isn't a dignified way to go about that discussion:

As you can see, the host is getting away with blaming social media, Norway's law enforcement authorities for not monitoring social media more closely for people like this, and just about everything but coming out with the truth: Brevik was not a "domestic extremist." He is a radical right-wing cultural warrior who has been influenced by many different people, including Tim Phillips, director of Freedomworks, apparently.

Herridge, instead of discussing the fundamental problem here, spends an inordinate amount of time blaming the Internet for his views. There is some truth to what she says. It's easy to turn social media, blogs, and other content into an echo chamber which then magnifies anger and hate. Just have a look at Andrew Breitbart's timeline sometime for an example. He specializes in that kind of tactic. Still, it's beside the point. The point here is that Brevik espoused extreme right-wing political positions and acted on them to inflict political mayhem on his countrymen.

Let's not forget that he didn't just target a random group of people. He chose to target the youth movement of the current political party in power, which is further evidence of just how far he was willing to go to eradicate opposition

Consequences

Who: Peter Gorenstein
What: "5 Consequences If America Doesn't Raise the Debt Ceiling", Yahoo Finance
When: July 22, 2011

... David Walker -- the former Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office -- says it's imperative both sides of the aisle find a compromise that also sets conditions to lower our long-term debt and get us back on track. If they don't, the rest of us will pay.

Here's what he says will happen if the federal government can't reach a deal:

1. $4 billion-plus a day will come out of the economy.
2. Government and civilian military workers will be laid off temporarily. That will result in penalties for late payment, to be paid by taxpayers.
3. Social security payments will be delayed.
4. No one knows how bad the reaction will be, but Walker is confident it will be negative for the stock and bond markets and the economy.
5. Interest rates will rise. For every 1% rise in interest rates, taxpayers will be on the hook for an additional $150 billion in debt payments.

There seem to be some in the GOP who actually want these sorts of things to happen. Nate Silver discounts that theory, and reasonably so, though it seems worth mentioning that an associate the other day referred to the prospect of not raising the debt ceiling a chance for the GOP to accomplish something "right and meaningful".

Making Excuses for the GOP

Who: Eugene Robinson
What: "Don't blame 'both sides' for debt impasse", Washington Post
When: July 11, 2011

Washington has many lazy habits, and one of the worst is a reflexive tendency to see equivalence where none exists. Hence the nonsense, being peddled by politicians and commentators who should know better, that "both sides" are equally at fault in the deadlocked talks over the debt ceiling.

This is patently false. The truth is that Democrats have made clear they are open to a compromise deal on budget cuts and revenue increases. Republicans have made clear they are not.

Put another way, Democrats reacted to the "grand bargain" proposed by President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner by squawking, complaining and highlighting elements they didn’t like. This is known throughout the world as the way to begin a process of negotiation.

Republicans, by contrast, answered with a definitive "no" and then covered their ears. Given the looming Aug. 2 deadline for default if the debt ceiling is not raised, the proper term for this approach is blackmail.

Yet the "both sides are to blame" narrative somehow gained currency after Boehner announced Saturday that House Republicans would not support any increase in revenue, period. A false equivalence was drawn between the absolute Republican rejection of "revenue-positive" tax reform and the less-than-absolute Democratic opposition to "benefit cuts" in Medicare and Social Security.

The bogus story line is that the radical right-wing base of the GOP and the radical left-wing base of the Democratic Party are equally to blame for sinking the deal.

Twitterpating

Who: Ethan Porter
What: "Tweeting Toward Bethlehem", Democracy Journal
When: Summer, 2011 (#21)

Central to the complexities of this moment is the power of the Internet. As Yeats and his contemporaries were grappling with a grand shift in technological capacity, so are we. It was only 20 years ago that the World Wide Web was mostly just a novel idea than a tool; now it is inescapable, as much a part of everyday life in America as the television or automobile. In the decade just completed, the developing world, while still lagging behind the developed, began to catch up. Measures of Internet penetration replaced measures of electrification as a basic barometer of modernity.

The Problem With Financial Experts

The problem with financial experts is that, to the one, they have tremendous influence over people's outlooks on wealth security. To the other, they are utterly useless to people who don't have wealth security.

Or, as Mark Steel offers the view from across the Pond:

One of the most touchingly innocent lines of thought you hear is from financial experts when they're giving advice about the need to provide for our pensions, now the state pension is unreliable. "The earlier you start, the better," they say. And: "It's best to top up your contributions to £400 a month."

I never get further than that but I presume they continue: "Because all of us have several hundred pounds spare at the end of each month that we can't think what to do with. Some of us spend it on crack, or buy antique furniture and set fire to it, or have our pets gold-plated or take out a super-injunction but it makes much more sense to put that annoying leftover cash in a pension fund."

Now, in response to the disturbing news that more of us are living longer, selfishly placing an unbearable strain on the nation's finances, the Association of British Insurers has been public spirited enough to find a solution. They suggest "workers should be forced to pay towards the cost of their long-term care in old age", adding "almost two-thirds of adults have given no thought to how they would afford a place at a residential home".

They might not be exactly right, as most people have given it a thought, but the thought has been: "I'm buggered if I know HOW to pay for it, I just hope I keel over in one go". In any case what sort of 23-year-old says: "Ooh no, you go to Glastonbury if you like, but I'm putting that revenue into my care home fund. You might think you're enjoying yourself but you'll regret it in 73 years when I'm the one getting sponged down regular."

And then there are those of us who don't give it a thought because there is no point to it. Winning the lottery, writing a bestseller, or maybe dealing drugs.

Or I could hope for American socialism.

No, seriously though. There are a lot of people in our society who do important, or, at least, gainful work that just won't see the point of putting whatever pittance they have beyond necessity—or, I suppose, whatever pittance they have, period, regardless of whether it meets necessity—toward retirement.

It sort of reminds me of the lectures we used to get from our parents about financial responsibility. Sometimes it seemed as if the calculations about money presumed human beings need no substantial recreation in order to maintain their sanity. Of course, if we all took up meditation, we wouldn't be spending much at all in our recreation.

Maybe that is the key: We should all live like monks in order that we can give that excess income to the financial experts; after all, it's rightly their money, anyway. Right?