One of the topics of fierce discussion (and disagreement) these days, both on this blog and in our country, centers around economic principles.  Specifically, the role of government in the economy when it comes to intangible goods from which everyone (is supposed) to benefit.  Think fire fighting, policing, schooling and, potentially, health insurance.

Ghandi said, "That economics is untrue which ignores or disregards moral values."

I suppose more than any other factor, what turns me off on radical/total free market-ism is its lack of morality...even its encouragement of amorality (as witnessed by economic disasters from Madoff to Enron to Goldman Sachs).

Do you believe there's a place for morality within economics? 
 
 
In my leisurely troll through past Oscar-winners, I ordered Kind Hearts and Coronets from Netflix a while back.  This week, with Dad and Sally up to care for me during chemo week, it seemed like a good time to play the Best Picture winner for 1949.  Sadly, it seems that the picture did NOT win an Oscar (as I'd been led to believe by Netflix) but a BAFTA.

Happily, it was a fine flick.

The plot concerns the son of a disinherited English woman and her son's growing obsession with regaining what he sees as his mother's birthright.  The role of the son, Louis, was played by Dennis Price.  Price had to more than hold his own against Alec Guinness (playing 8 members of the family D'Ascoyne) and against his two leading ladies, Valerie Hobson and Joan Greenwood.  Hobson plays the virtuous woman, Joan...not so much.

As expected for a film from 1949, KH&C has a different pace from today's films.  If one were to logline the movie these days to a potential producer, it would be Dexter meets The Pink Panther, and the film would be full of loud bangs, bloody spatter and at least a clever CSI agent or two.  Instead, we get a droll English lesson on envy and a delightful survey of Guinness's many skills as an actor.

Long story short, I'd recommend this BAFTA winner over Olivier's Hamlet any day.  Besides, I'd already seen that one. 
 
Humbling 11/17/2009
 
Under the topic of "Be Careful What You Wish For," I had a humbling experience yesterday.  Was Facebooking with a college chum and things turned to matters political.

I responded to a response, rather than to the article she'd posted and lo, there I was engaging the political.  Not the issue.

At the same time, I've been giving some thought to gossip lately (more on that at a later date) and it occurs to me that political tit-for-tatting shares a lot with gossip.  It's communication for putting the other person down/proving they're wrong and/or communication with the intent of aggrandizing yourself and your opinion.

So at least I've learned out of this how to parse my own communication better, especially on political issues.  Am I discussing the issue to grapple with solutions?  Or am I discussing it to show how right I am (in a left sort of way).

Good food for thought and, if I match my intentions and actions, it should improve my argumentation, too.
 
 
As a former Democratic political columnist, a liberal(ish) blogger and a fairly assertive woman--well, I get my share of forwarded emails and recycled Limbaugh/Fox News/Conservative Talk Radio opinions.

Mostly, I read them, point out factual errors and leave it at that.  I recently got one that I commented extensively on (apparently written as a guest blog for Glenn Beck and currently making its way around the internet as a forward).  My issues with the blog led me to do some thinking about what I want out of politicians, fellow citizens and myself when it comes to political thought and action.

So here's my list so far:

From Politicians I want:

--Proactive, problem solvers rather than obstructionists or mere party loyalists.
--Someone who's capable of looking beyond the next election cycle.
--Individuals who hold views that are consistent with their behavior (or who behave in a way that's internally consistent with their professed views).
--Someone who's more willing to work than posture.

From fellow citizens (and fellow discussers of matters political), I want:

-People who talk about problems and their solutions rather than politics.
--People who back up their arguments with facts and critical thinking.
--People who, when their arguments are challenged, discuss the challenge rather than change the subject.
--People who are willing to say, "I don't know."
--People who understand that someone can be perfectly intelligent and yet disagree with her or his take on an issue.
--People who do their homework.
--People who see the middle ground and the other side as worthy of both exploration and understanding.
--People who do more than get angry and write diatribes.

From myself, I want:

--All of what I asked above from fellow citiens.
--The ability to focus on the major issues, not the minor political tempests.
--To deal justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly.
 
 
Okay, I am ticked off about Maine.  There is no legitimate, governmental or cultural protection basis for denying same-sex marriage.

Other than that important issue, I find myself a bit flabbergasted by all the brouhaha on the left and the right about what the election of two Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey.  As stated in an article in today's LA Times, this has some folks quite rattled.

Blue Dog (some call them moderate) Democrats are supposedly shaking in their boots over the idea that these two gubernatorial elections (quite different from congressional elections, imho) bode poorly for those who dare side with the "ultraliberal" Obama.

The problem with that argument is twofold:

1.  The Blue Dogs AREN'T siding with Obama.  Yet, anyway.
2.  At least one of the losing Democratic candidates in Tuesday's election distanced himself deliberately from Obama.  And lost.

I think the Blue Dogs will take more of a licking from independents if they continue to drag their feet and acquiesce to the party of "no" rather than the party that promised change and hope.

Just one chemo-soaked gal's opinion this fine Thursday.  (Somewhat bolstered by Anna Quindlen's recent Newsweek op-ed.)
 
 
Three years ago, when Dan and I were returning from our 25th Anniversary cruise, we had a few over-limit items to declare upon our wee-hours arrival to Miami airport.  It took the customs agent quite a while to figure out what we owed for which purchase (apparently there being different customs taxes for various types of purchases from various countries).  The agent had to look up what we owed in a "Pep-Boys" style of loose leaf books.

As is my habit during such situations, I made a small joke.  I said something like, "At least we're spending all this time to help pay your salary."  The agent looked at me with a completely blank face and said, "Oh, no ma'am.  Your duty payment goes to Washington.  We're paid by the Customs Agency."

I'm not sure if my equally blank look conveyed to him on any level that the Customs Department is funded by "Washington."  I hope the coin has had a chance to drop in the last three years.

Probably not if he's listening to Rush.  I just got home from a scan and was listening to Senor Limbaugh on my way.  He was taking a call from a man who is incensed over the idea that if we have "public health care" (something that's not really on the table right now, but we'll let that pass), then someone else will decided which services you can receive in terms of treatment.

Gasp!  As if his insurance company doesn't do so now?

Rush egged this guy on with horror stories loosely connected to his diatribe of the day which is limiting bonuses for senior management where their companies have accepted bailout monies.  Imagine, said Rush, what would happen if the government started deciding how much to pay police or firemen?  What happenes if government were suddenly to decide which crimes to prosecute and which to let go.

Hello?  The government does decide how much to pay these folks.  The adminstrative arms of these branches of local government do decide how to prosecute fire protection, suppression, which crimes to focus on and which they don't have the manpower to fight despite the law.

Sheesh.  A little intellectual integrity would be nice...a sort of through line of reasoning.

Now I'm going to go get disconnected from my chemo.  I'll have to watch some good ol' trash tv to get the Rush taste out of my brain.
 
 
What a great morning for gardening...and that's what I did.  I am happy to report that my pots in the front are all respectably trimmed back and replanted as need be.

I treat myself to music and (to the dismay of neighbors) off-key singing during gardening.  One of this morning's songs, World by Five for Fighting, had me singing especially loud. The key lyric in the refrain is:

"What kind of world do you want?"  The song invites you to imagine what you might do if you could start it "at the start" and "build a masterpiece."

So that's today's question.  What kind of world do you want?

(Be careful what you wish for...history starts now.)
 
 
Tim Rutten wrote an interesting op-ed in the LA Times today about what he called the Obama administration's immigration policies.  I have to quibble a bit with his labelling.  It's actually Bush administration policies being enforced (as they are still the law of the land) by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

Rutten's main beef seems to be that rather than deporting improperly documented workers at a local LA garment maker, ICE required the company to fire the workers.  I find his position interesting because it seems to be inconsistent with his liberal positions on immigration reform (in the same op-ed piece).

(If the investigation had concluded under Bush, the undocumented workers would have been deported in addition to losing their jobs...somehow that's "better" to Rutten than the milder penalty.)

I was also interested on my own reaction to the article.  In my former life with a Food Pantry, we regularly provided assistance to folks who were likely undocumented workers.  We also provided the same food to folks who were clearly American citizens.  My friend, Pat's explanation was always the one that convinced me.  She said when she had someone question our policies, she offered to line up the children we helped feed and then she would allow the offended party to choose which ones would go hungry.

I would still do the same thing at the Pantry.  I am still in favor of a more reasonable policy for immigration and for seasonal workers/non-American workers.  And I don't agree at all with Rutten or the folks he quotes that this situation is a horror.  If anything, ICE chose the middle road.  Deportation would have been worse for those families affected.

Conservatives and antii-immigration folks will no doubt be upset that there weren't any deportations.  But will they agree that it's better for these folks to be employed, paying taxes, buying goods and services than to be jobless and still here?

Liberal and pro-immigration forces are clearly outraged that prosecution of this case continued after Obama took over as President...but are they willing to do what it takes to get the law changed to match their views...or are they just content to carp about "the Administration?"

And me?  I wonder how many of our 9.8% unemployed citizens will be applying for the 1,800 garment worker positions that are now open.
 
 
My friend, Steve, is rereading all of the "classic" economics tomes (think Wealth of Nations et al).  An admirable pursuit, indeed.  Since my reading speed these days is just slightly more highbrow than The Bobbsey Twins, I will not be emulating Steve in this endeavor.

I did want to refer folks, however, to a great article in the September 6th New York Times Magazine by Paul Krugman entitled "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?"  In the article, Krugman (who is an economics professor at Princeton) does a great job of keeping the discussion centered on economics and out of the shoals of political posturing.  As a result, it's a great summary of the flaws in the descendants of free market and Keynesian economics.

The article is lengthy indeed, but well worth the investment.  Especially if, like me, you prefer a primer to an exhaustive review of the literature.  (Go Steve!)
 
 
Dan and I just finished watching (courtesy of netflix.com) the HBO special on John Adams.  Amazing performances all around by Paul Giamatti as the title character, Laura Linney as Abigail Adams, Tom Wilkinson as Ben Franklin and Stephen Dillane as Thomas Jefferson.

The film helped me grasp, in a more visceral way than I had before, just how delicate the state of our nation was when it was born.  For those who admire politics over principle, there is plenty to like in the film's portrayal of Benjamin Franklin.  For those who prefer principles over the strum and drang of political wrangling, Adams is your man (despite my disagreement with the Alien and Sedition Act).

But for sheer strength of character, I admire the fictionalized version of Abigail Adams the most.  She brought out the best in John, called him on his stubborn nature and his pride, and loved him with passion and humor.  (Necessary in the loving of curmudgeons...just ask Dan who loves yours truly!)

At the end of the movie, there's a moment where John is walking with his son, Thomas.  He has a moment of nearly ecstatic vision wherein he says, "Abigail was always after me to appreciate the [pedestrian things] in life."  He tries to fall to his knees, exclaiming, "Praise always."  Thomas is bemused but as someone who daily counts the blessings of egrets, butterfly bushes and the monarchs they attract, thistles that some count weeds...well, words to live by indeed.

I highly recommend viewing the series if you have not!