Ezra Klein: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SPOUSAL ABUSE.
This is a bit off the beaten path for this blog, but Hilzoy's post on the psychology of spousal abuse should be read, and linked, by everyone. It's one of the best blog posts I've ever read. An excerpt:
To start with, it helps to know that (last time I checked) the two most common times for violence to start were the honeymoon and the first pregnancy. By the time you reach either point, you're already in a pretty serious relationship, and leaving is not something that anyone would do lightly.
Moreover, the violence often comes as a real surprise. It's not that there aren't signs: there are. But they are often things like: he falls for you too hard and too fast, or: he wants to be with you all the time. You'd have to be either paranoid or a victim of a previous abusive relationship to leap to the conclusion that either of these things means that abuse might be in your future. (Imagine, in particular, someone whose last relationship was with someone who didn't seem to care about her: imagine her saying to herself: last time he didn't care enough; this time he seems to care too much; am I impossible to please?)
So imagine yourself, in love with someone, on your honeymoon or pregnant, when suddenly this guy just goes ballistic, often for very little reason, and hits you. For a lot of women, this is profoundly shocking and disorienting. There are things that are comprehensible parts of the world, even if they're rare, like having your car stolen; and then there are things that are unexpected in a completely different sense, like having your car turn into an elephant before your eyes: things that make you wonder whether you're completely crazy. Being beaten up by someone who apparently loves you is one of those things.
What this means is that precisely when a woman needs as much confidence in her own judgment as she can muster, the rug is completely pulled out from under her. And it's not just that she questions her judgment because she got involved with this guy in the first place; she questions her judgment because something so completely alien to the world she thinks she knows has just happened.
As I was trying to go to sleep last night, I kept thinking "Just breathe through your nose" and laughing out loud. So, in the interest of spreading my insomnia, here's a repeat:
Smooth like Remy: Thank You Spencer Ackerman
I am sure I am not the only one who has been a little bit worried (ok maybe more than a little) about President Obama's relationship with the military leaders especially with respect to Iraq. Earlier this year I posted about a story that alledged that Generals Ray Odierno and David Petraeus were both seeking to undermine President Obama's intention to withdraw from Iraq. It turns out that the story didn't seem to be accurate much if at all. Still because of some of the rhetoric on the campaign trail my suspicions lingered. Well today I happened across a piece in the Times of London with the provocative headline "General Ray Odierno: we may miss Iraq deadline to halt al-Qaeda terror" and my antennae went crazy. Rather than reflexively posting on the article which again made it seem as if General Odierno was undermining President Obama in the press I decided to send Spencer Ackerman, one of the best foreign policy bloggers around, a tweet and ask him what he thought about it. Well he looked into it and did a great job of debunking much of the Times article. Not only that he gave me a shout out in said post. So I just wanted to publicly thank him both for fisking the article and throwing my link up on the post. It is GREATLY appreciated!via SGW, a great Media Matters video on the responsibility of cable news for whipping up conspiracy theories.
Sully: The Tea Tantrum Mystery
But seriously, what is this teabagging about? April 10: Rachel Re: As silly as the terminology may be for the tea partying teabaggers, they still represent the most organized idea on the right of the political spectrum. Rachel Maddow puts (most) kidding aside for a look at the essential principles of the tea party movement.
This helps. A reader writes:
I live in Kansas and have several family members who fit the mold of these Tea Partiers. The sense I get from them is much like what I felt after the 2004 election - absolute disbelief that this country could make such a decision. The reason that my relatives are so concerned is that Bush stood for everything they truly believed in - US primacy, nationalism, God (the Christianist version), guns, no gays, no illegals, where criminals get a fair trial before we hang them. In their mind, Obama repudiates all of that.
These rallies are an effort by a group that feels highly marginalized to find some comfort in the company of others with similar beliefs, and to express their fear and frustration over what they see happening to their country. At least, that's why my uncles and grandparents will be there.
I agree that it's a tantrum, but not over the issues you mention. Their issue is far more about their world-view than any one of these policy concerns. In their minds, this is the "conservative" equivalent of the Watts and Stonewall demonstrations. And when you (and others) dismiss these concerns as "adolescent, unserious hysteria," it only hardens their resolve. What will make this go away is time, and the realization that America has "survived" the threat posed by a President who represents so much that they find threatening.It does make much more sense when you see it that way. If you're concerned, as I am, about the reach of government, you might think that Bush's supension of habeas corpus, claimed right to suspend the First and Fourth Amendments and authorization of torture would have concerned them. But nah. If you're concerned about spending and borrowing, you might imagine they'd have been in the streets against Bush in 2003, instead of rallying behind him. If you're concerned about pork, then the obvious culprits were the Bush Republicans. If you're concerned about spending, then you'd be campaigning against Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. But they're having an ostensible tax revolt just after the Democratic candidate offered, against his party's liberal base, a tax cut for middle class Americans! And they have taken up revolt against government spending at the very moment that even conservative economists think a little relaxation of fiscal discipline does more good than harm.
The whole thing is mystifying unless you see it as a tantrum designed as therapy. I'm just waiting for them to get serious about the debt and start proposing real spending cuts that will actually do something. That's a tea-party I'd happily join. When is it scheduled?
- Matthew Yglesias adds:
I haven’t said a great deal about the burgeoning “tea party” “movement” because (a) it’s incredibly stupid, and (b) I knew some colleagues were working on some more in-depth efforts in this regard than I could possible stomach. But here’s Lee Fang showing the role of corporate lobbyists in organizing these “grassroots” outpourings of sentiment and here’s Victor Zapanta’s compilation of Fox News’ relentless efforts to hype the tea parties ...Part of the underlying absurdity of this, however, is that it’s just so transparently silly to be pouring so much time and energy into trying to make Barack Obama appear unpopular when he’s not unpopular. There’s such a thing as opinion polling and it can answer this sort of thing pretty conclusively:
People like Barack Obama. Not everyone! 30 percent or so of the people say they disapprove. And in a country of 300 million, that means it’s easy to get together a big meeting of people who really hate Obama. But it’s clearly a relatively modest minority of the population, comparable in size—and probably largely overlapping with—the group of people who approved of the job George W. Bush was doing all the way ’till the end. But even Doug Holtz-Eakin now concedes that the Bush tax cuts should expire.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
One might think, given the severity of the global economic crisis, Republican leaders would be anxious to prove to Americans that the party takes the downturn seriously, and wants to do everything possible to help.atrios: Not Necessarily A ContrastDownplaying the crisis, and laughing off dire economic conditions, seems like an unusually bad idea. And yet, there was Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele yesterday, guest-hosting Bill Bennett's talk radio show.
CALLER: I can really debate about how about that economic crises is because I look around and I don't see people spending any less money than they have been.
STEELE: I've heard a number of people say that across the country. [LAUGHTER] The malls are just as packed on Saturday. [LAUGHTER]
CALLER: The malls are just as packed. ... You still can't get seat in a restaurant.
As a factual matter, this exchange doesn't make any sense. Malls are losing stores at a record pace; mall management corporations are struggling badly; and consumer spending has dropped off dramatically. It's what happens during a severe recession.
As a political matter, what possesses Michael Steele to say things like this? It's in Republicans' interest to prove that they realize just how serious the recession is. And yet, last week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) suggested Democrats are "overreacting" to the crisis, and this week, the chairman of the RNC is laughing about how crowded the malls are.
Maybe Steele says bizarre things like this as part of an elaborate strategy to help him "understand [his] position on the chess board." Or maybe Steele just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Disagreeing slightly with Eric at the mothership, I'm not sure the quoted excerpts reflect vastly different opinions. I don't hate newspapers. I doubt Markos does. I'd be sad if something similar to printed newspapers didn't continue to exist. I'd be more sad if the best of what those news organization provide ceased to be in any form because the business model went away.
I think what happens in these discussions - and I've been guilty of it myself - is the conflation of a few different issues. One conversation is about how newspapers could change, perhaps shrugging off certain somewhat odd constraints, to be a more appealing product. That's the subscriber side. Another conversation is about the various reasons, other than declining readership, for declining advertising revenue. Still a third conversation is about all the awesome things newspaper organizations coulda shoulda and maybe still could do to improve their internet business model.
And Markos is referencing a fourth conversation,the quietest one, about how some of the companies who own newspapers are in trouble not because the business models are in trouble, but because they just made stupid fucking business decisions. That is, they bought the companies at absurd prices, or just built a shiny new skyscraper, or invested in Egyptian cotton futures, or whatever. These are things which are completely divorced from the daily operations of the newspaper, but which could still bring the companies down.
digby says: Give Me The Post Office Any Day
In the coming debates over health care, when your Uncle Bob pulls out the old conservative trope asking, "would you really want government bureaucrats to be in charge of your health care?" give him this article:Ezra Klein: ROBERT FRANK ON WHY WE SHOULD MAKE WALL STREET POORER.Five months ago, Rose Camilleri was a superstar at the Zales outlet at Woodbury Common Premium Outlets.
In November, the diminutive grandmother with an Italian accent was flown to Dallas, home of Zales' headquarters, where she was honored with a 1-carat diamond necklace for making $1 million in sales last year.
[...]
It was the fifth diamond Camilleri had earned during 4½ years at Zales, where she received nearly a dozen commendations.
"I loved my work," she said. "I loved the people, and I loved it when people came in and asked for me."
But in early March, Camilleri developed bronchitis and went for a chest X-ray and an MRI. Her doctor discovered an aortic aneurysm, a weakness in the wall of the aorta, which, without prompt treatment, might rupture and cause quick death.
Camilleri told Zales she would need surgery as soon as possible.
"I told my manager I can't get upset because it could explode any minute," she said. "I typed up a letter asking for time off and guidance from human resources."
One week later, on March 14, she was asked to attend a meeting with a new regional manager.
"He said, 'You're terminated,'" Camilleri recalled. "I tried to keep myself very calm because I knew something could happen to me. I said, 'You're joking — you've never been in my store.' He said, 'It's the best thing.'"
It also meant Camilleri had to postpone her March 26 surgery until she could convert her insurance to a self-pay plan known as COBRA.
Two weeks later, Camilleri had not even received the paperwork.
Her son e-mailed the Times Herald-Record.
"We are told that it could take up to 45 days," Charles Camilleri wrote. "I lay awake every night fearing the worst."
Contacted by the Record, Zales would not comment. Charles Camilleri called Zales' human resources, explaining it was a life-or-death matter, and he simply needed a fax from Zales to start the COBRA process. He was floored by the employee's response.
"She said, "Well, if the surgery was rescheduled, then it's probably not a life-or-death situation," Charles Camilleri recalled. "I absolutely was blown away
Once again, the Record contacted Zales' corporate office, stressing that Rose Camilleri's condition could be fatal.
That afternoon, Charles got good news from Zales.
"They're turning my mother's health coverage back on today and expediting the COBRA information," he said.
After paying the first premium of $830, Rose had surgery last week and was back home on Sunday. "I don't think we would have had the surgery so soon if it weren't for your e-mail," Charles Camilleri said. "They probably would have kept us hanging."
If people really think that dealing with private industry bureaucrats is any improvement over government bureaucrats, they need their heads examined. Human resources is a cost center not a profit center and most businesses do not put their best employees there. (That's not to say there aren't good HR people out there, just that they are the step children of the business world.)
The sad thing is that this woman's fight is only getting started because she hasn't even begun to deal with the insurance company yet. Lord knows what awaits her with that. In that industry, they actually give bonuses to their employees for denying coverage to their policy holders.
I know that people think the government is cumbersome and unresponsive. But I have had dealings with the IRS that are far more efficient and pleasant than anything I've ever done with an insurance company. The post office almost never loses a letter. Airplanes rarely run into each other in the sky and until George Bush came in, we didn't have a lot of food born illness or drugs malfunctioning. They actually do a pretty good job, if only because the people raise holy hell if they don't and have some ability to affect who the bosses are.
I would much prefer a government run bureaucracy than a for profit bureaucracy. In the first I am at least a stakeholder. In the latter I'm simply a cost.
h/t to bb
I asked Cornell economist Robert Frank to comment on my earlier post about limiting Wall Street salaries. He wrote back this afternoon, arguing that finance is a special case requiring more aggressive interventions than would normally be wise. In particular, he argued that there's another reason to disproportionately high pay in finance: It steers people away from more productive endeavors:
The problem with high pay in the financial industry isn't just that it tempts people to do illegal or unethical things. It also sucks a lot of talent out of other occupations in which it would do vastly more good. (I explain this point in some detail in the attached file.)
In general I think we should let markets sort out pretax pay, and if we don't like the resulting distribution, we should then use the tax system to change it. That's because we generally benefit from a price mechanism that assigns the most talented people to the most important jobs. IBM has annual earnings of about $10 billion. If it can hire someone who will improve its bottom line by just 3 percent, that's $300 million better for both the company and for society as a whole. Executives would obviously be willing to work hard for a tiny fraction of today's salaries (they always used to and still do in many other countries). Market-determined pay is important not because it elicits greater effort but only because it steers the right people to the right jobs. IBM will be less likely to be able to attract the most talented executives if it pays the same salary as smaller companies. But because it's primarily relative pay that people care about it, the current allocation mechanism would work equally well even if the top marginal tax rates on income were 80 or 90 percent. With a tax system like that in place, everyone would have reason to celebrate when an executive signed a lucrative contract.
As far as allocative efficiency is concerned, the finance industry is the glaring exception to all. Unlike most other industries, where company profits are closely linked to social value added, there is virtually no such link in the financial industry. When we send smarter people to financial firms, they just figure out more devious ways to increase leverage and unload hidden risk on the rest of the system. They make the total economic pie smaller, not bigger. So an incentive system that steers society's brightest to the financial industry is actually counterproductive.
We really don't need smart people to do the essential service that this industry needs to perform, which is to make capital available to worthwhile investment projects. There is almost never a worthwhile investment that fails to happen for lack of finance. Most projects can be operated initially on a small scale (Jobs and Wozniak, for example, started in their parents' garages). If you have a killer idea and a bank won't lend to you, a group of friends can, say, by taking second mortgages on their houses. Then once the idea's viability is clearly established, traditional lending institutions will stumble all over themselves to provide additional capital. Geniuses aren't required here.
So in the financial industry, we actually have the luxury of entertaining the possibility of adopting one of the populist pay cap proposals that would be folly in almost any other industry.
In general, I read Frank as arguing for a pretty explicit tradeoff here: Interventions into market pay are bad. Letting financial compensation continue to inflate the relative attractiveness of the industry, however, is worse. I don't know that this really gets to the question of how, precisely, you go at these earnings. But it's a fair argument for why you want to get at them.
No comments:
Post a Comment