[Not-so] Love Lockdown, Prologue (1/4): Do Convicted Criminals dream the American dream?

Do convicted criminals dream the American dream?

Sure they do - Just look at freshly sentenced criminals Rajat Gupta (former Goldman board member), R. Allen Stanford (sentenced to 110 years in prison without parole), and of course Grandaddy Ponzi himself, Bernie Madoff. Hell, these guys even lived the American dream, with its fast cars, deep pockets, luxury yachts and diamonds for the ladies in life.

Now, these riches-to-rags storybook characters are scheduled to rot in a Federal penitentiary for the rest of their lives, leaving exponentially more finances and possibly life plans ruined in their wake. All this justice, of course, conducted in order to dissuade other current or would-be criminals from acting...in exactly the only way they know of how to get to the American dream - Get Rich or Die/Go to Jail Trying.

50 Cent was on to something

A rather paradoxical message, given the global rash of government-bank bailouts and the continued reliance on the instruments (i.e. financial markets) of who-dares-wins capitalism. But enough of this suddenly-fashionable bashing of fallen financial idols. It seems like just yesterday when activist judges, juries, and members of the media started defending the rights of convicted rapists, murderers, gang-bangers and the assorted denizens of American death row - new and vindicating/damning DNA evidence notwithstanding - so I'm sure public opinion will grow weary of its latest social witch-hunt sooner or later, and that District Attorneys/Federal Prosecutors will likewise find some other scapegoats upon which to build their reputations on the docket. Sooner or later, our generation's To Kill a Mockingbird of the early 21st century will be published, this time admonishing the veritable inquisition of financial criminals during a time of long-term recession and entrenched unemployment.

Yet even in a time of economic downturn, when Wall Street becomes an easy target of Main Street's wrath, no one seems to be pissing on how the wildly-popular (and mostly plastic) Kardashians, the train-wreck-of-an-excuse-for-a-man Charlie Sheens, or the well-paid, drug-snorting Lindsay Blohan-type celebrities don't pay "their fair share" of American taxes. Plus Justin Bieber- he's CANADIAN!! Where is that money going??

oh...nevermind.

What compelled me to finally write original content for the blog again - and a three-part series, at that - was a combination of many factors, the premier of which was my roommate's comment that, "no offense, but I think the American Dream is more of a Dream than a Reality."

Monday Morning: Daily News and Headlines

Immigration, a major issue in the upcoming presidential elections, has become a major focus today as the Supreme Court has decided to support a section of Arizona law allowing police officers to check the immigration status of people they decide to stop. Has this become a new legal version of racial profiling?

The new wave of marketing? Buying ad space on fire trucks. Struggling cities deal with the economic downturn by turning towards naming rights on city property, with fire trucks becoming the new potential target.

Egypt witnesses another milestone towards Democracy, as Mohamed Morsi wins the first competitive presidential election the country has seen. This marks Egypt's first elected Islamist head of state, as well as the first president outside the military.

And finally, Apple continues on its reevaluation towards the pay of their retail employees. With how expensive many Apple products are, you'd think they would give a little more bang for their buck towards those Apple Geniuses so many of us consider technological saviors.

Lunchtime Blotter: Romney Hearts the Donald

Apart from those poor Apprentice contestants, Mitt Romney might be the only person in America who takes Donald Trump seriously.  Particularly after his crusade to win the GOP nomination by proving that Barack Obama wasn't born in this country went up in flames around this time last year, with Obama releasing his long-form birth certificate and then utterly embarrassing Trump as he sat stone-faced in the audience at the White House Correspondents Dinner, it seemed as though most Americans who even care had dismissed Trump as the worthless fat gadfly he is.  

 

Except Mitt Romney.  While the Obama campaign sends out fundraising gimmicks to supporters like me advertising the chance to earn a trip to high dollar dinners with Obama and Bill Clinton, or George Clooney, the Romney team mimicked this tactic with its most marketable celebrity last week, offering supporters the chance to "Dine with the Donald."  Romney's bromance with Trump extends even further back to the dog days of the GOP primaries in February, when the former Massachusetts governor staged an elaborate ceremony to celebrate Trump's endorsement, capping it off by remarking wistfully that “there are some things that you just can’t imagine happening in your life. This is one of them.”  Note that this delight in the endorsement of a bombastic real estate magnate most famous for saying "you're fired!" on TV came during the height of Romney's attempts to endear himself to blue-collar Republican voters who viewed him suspiciously, which might be a curious decision if Romney didn't actually see something in the guy.  The question is, what?

Friday Morning: Not Barry Smooth

Anyone who has actually taken the time to look behind the caricature knows that former DC mayor turned DC city council member Marion Barry is a complex individual.  He is neither the arrogant, race-baiting, crack-addicted fool his detractors make him out to be (despite this), nor the civil rights hero and man of the people portrayed by his most ardent believers.  Probably the best take on Mr. Barry comes from this documentary, which tells the story of one of America's more well-known mayors with the level of nuance it deserves.

On to the good stuff though - yesterday, while doing damage control around his latest kerfuffle, Barry managed to cause another stir.  The whole thing initially started when, at his victory party after winning the April Democratic primary in his Ward, Barry said the following about Asian business owners in the city:

"We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops," Barry said. "They ought to go. I'm going to say that right now. But we need African-American businesspeople to be able to take their places, too."

After first doubling down on his comments, and even tweeting a photo in an attempt to further his point, Barry got himself in more trouble by saying the following about Filipino nurses:

In fact, it's so bad, that if you go to the hospital now, you find a number of immigrants who are nurses, particularly from the Philippines. And no offense, but let's grow our own teachers, let's grow our own nurses -- and so that we don't have to be scrounging around in our community clinics and other kinds of places -- having to hire people from somewhere else.

As you might imagine, neither community was particularly happy about Barry's comments, and after a protracted war of attrition between Barry and the media, in which the former mayor accused reporters of trying to "divide the city" through their scrutiny, Barry finally organized a heartfelt press conference with local Asian business leaders yesterday to apologize.  In his apology, Barry tried to contextualize his latest controversy by alluding to other immigrant groups that labored to establish a foothold in America.  See if you can spot the racially insensitive comment:

"America has had racial tensions from the time it was founded," Barry said. "Italians coming here, the Irish came here, the Jews came here, the Polacks came here, the Chinese came here."

There's no word yet on whether or not Barry plans on consulting the city's Polish community on how to handle this most recent round of fallout.  Perhaps he'll tweet about it.  But if the absurd irony of Barry's "bender of racial insensitivity," as Univision's Jordan Fabian described it, has shown one thing, it's that the once high-riding (no pun intended) mayor of the nation's capital has officially lost the ability to get out of his own way.  At this point, following the 76 year-old Barry is like sitting through dinner with your grandparent who still thinks it's okay to say things that aren't okay to say (a friend of mine's grandmother once described sleeveless undershirts - also known irreverently as wife beaters - as "Italian dinner jackets").  You know they can't help it.  You just have to laugh, or something. 

Indeed, people will laugh at Barry's latest misstep and try and fit it once again into the aforementioned caricature of mayor-turned-crack-fiend-turned-federal prisoner-turned-mayor-turned-aging city council member on his way out, but yet again, it will ultimately be Barry who is laughing all the way to his next victory party in four years, if he chooses to run again.  Because while the chattering class might rightfully ridicule how seemingly absurd it is that this man still holds public office, most people fail to appreciate why exactly it is that he is able to get himself in and out of trouble so seamlessly. 

In college, I had the good fortune of attending a community meeting in a Baptist church east of the Anacostia River where Barry was present.  As the councilman for Ward 8, where the meeting was held, Barry was introduced before the meeting began, and the crowd stood on its feet and roared.  He received rock star-level approval.   I wondered - how can a guy who has screwed up so many times, raised and dashed so many hopes, still be given a hero's welcome, time and time again?  Do they cheer like that for Jack Evans over in Ward 2?  To be fair - far from every Ward 8 resident shares the same sentiments, as evidenced by the breadth, if not the depth, of Barry's opposition in this year's Democratic primary.  But it's clear that if nothing else, the former mayor has a special flair for tapping into something very personal on the part of the people he has represented in some capacity for 29 out of the last 37 years.  Granted, he has also betrayed the trust, time and again, of the very folks who have given him chance after chance.  But if, like your eccentric friend who can't quite get it together but who you can't quite cut loose, Barry can keep winning people over, you have to at least wonder how he somehow keeps doing it.

Maybe he should quit while he's still ahead, kind of.  But he won't, and won't have to, because at the end of the day, until someone else comes along that can articulate in as personal terms as Marion Barry why the former mayor has actually used the faith placed in him for his own selfish ends time and time again, while continuing to appeal for that faith on the grounds that he has been unfairly persecuted, even though he has been given every chance in the world and come up short every time, the Barry bender of con artistry will continue unabated.

Perhaps he's not such a complex individual after all. 

Thursday Links: The Cult of Personality

As election season starts getting underway, we are now getting the good stuff on the Obama-Romney match-up. It makes me laugh when the Obama folks talk about how much Obama is in touch with the country, then scratch their heads at why he is so opposed. Maybe, he isn't really in touch with much of the country, and you aren't either?

State of the Economy: Part II

Over the past several weeks, the writers of Conflict Revolution have been exchanging a series of emails on the state of the US economy.  This is Part II of an ongoing debate that seems to have some serious legs - see where it takes us, and share your own thoughts, below:

Also see: State of the Economy: Part I

Matt: Stephen, you've conceded that the stimulus created some jobs.  Are you accepting it as an Obama accomplishment?

Stephen: I’m not going to argue that spending does nothing, that’s a bit absurd. But let’s look at your math. The average of 3.6M, 1.97M, 2.1M and 1.5M is definitely not 3.9M… my numbers say its 2.29M – which I’ll still give you is significant. But, like I said above, all of these studies are done on economic models which basically assume that the inputs always work (which is how we get the saved number – the group is saying it should give us this, so if they didn’t really exist then they must just be saved jobs). So at best, we can say that these numbers are fuzzy; econometric models, which also have problems, think it was either entirely useless or helped about 2M jobs.  If your point was that the recession could have been worse, I’ll concede you the point. However, what I see as the real issue is effectiveness of the stimulus and if it’s actually helping to “stimulate” the economy. It seems to me like it was more of a Temprapetic bed than a Viagra.

Matt: On those numbers, you took the low baselines for all the analyses and I took the median, which seems fairer, and yields 3.9 million jobs created between 2009 and 2011.  Even if it was your number, I thought any job created was a good thing?  Either way, I'm not arguing that stimulus should fuel our economy forever.  In fact, if you were actually going to make an honest argument, you would acknowledge that the stimulus was only through 2010.  But the fact is, where else do you expect demand to come from in an economy where everyone is losing their job?  Give me a better answer than government stepping in to help out and maybe I'll consider it.

Monday, Monday: Links for 5/14/12

Happy belated Mother's Day to all the mamas out there.  Since very few of them are likely reading this blog, go ahead and pass along our best wishes to your mother, when you get the chance.  No, that wasn't a backhanded joke.  Here at Conflict Revolution, we're nothing if not genuine.

No one would ever confuse Monday with Sunday, glorious bastion of the fun day.  Still, here's hoping you got a little bit of rest last night, so that the 9:00 hour isn't treating you too terribly.  Or who knows, maybe you're just waking up.

Stephen has gone fishin' for the day (when your office is in Tampa, FL, you do business in weird places), so in a break from our normal routine, you get a left-leaning start to your work week.  Whether you're just getting to your desk, just waking up, or have no plans to do anything at all today, dive into some CR morning links to get your Monday started off right:

****
1) The New York Times explores our generation's big, ugly sleeping giant of student loan debt in an ongoing series.  Something should probably be done about this - but what?  ["A Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College," NYT, 5/12/12].

Also see: Should Higher Education Be Free? 

2) Liberal Catholic E.J. Dionne takes the Freedom From Religion Foundation to task for targeting liberal Catholics in a new ad, but reserves some harsh words for the conservative wing of the Church as well.  As a liberal, intermittent church-going Catholic myself, I can attest to often feeling like I'm stuck between an ecclesiastical rock (the Church's hard-line position on social issues) and an ideological hard place (the outright skepticism - if not open hostility - of many on the left toward organized religion).  Dionne navigates this contradiction well, showing that ultimately, neither side is well-served by constantly being at each other's throats... sadly, these sorts of narratives are beginning to sound depressingly familiar ["I'm not quitting the Church," Washington Post, 5/14/12].

Also see: Just When You Thought the Culture Wars Were Over...

3) Are billionaire dual citizens choosing to give up their US citizenship in order to avoid paying higher taxes?  Will this factor into a broader case for overall tax reform, or just convince more on the Right to advocate for deeper cuts on existing rates?  ["Facebook Co-Founder Saverin Gives Up U.S. Citizenship Before IPO," Bloomberg, 5/11/12].

4) Speaking of the Right, leading the House of Representatives into the ideological abyss wasn't enough for the Tea Party, so they've now got their sights set on the Senate ["For Tea Party, Focus Turns to Senate and Shake-Up," NYT, 5/13/12].

5) Finally, the latest presidential tracking polls continue to show a close race - Rasmussen has Romney with 48% of the vote to Obama's 44%, while Gallup shows Obama with a 1 point advantage (46% - 45%) [Real Clear Politics Poll Average, 5/12/12].

Pop, lock and drop Conflict Revolution into your Bookmarks Toolbar for more updates later in the day, when we'll post Part II of Stephen's and my ongoing debate on the current state of the U.S. economy.

Stay dry out there, folks.

Email Debate: State of the Economy, Part I

It's election season, and one guy is running for re-election, which means this isn't the first, and will likely be far from the last time you read the words, "are you better off than you were four years ago?"  Still, as amateur members of the American punditocracy, Stephen and I could not suppress the urge to fire the first shots.  Here's Conflict Revolution on the State of the Economy (Part I):

Stephen: Hey Matt, do you think the economy is better today than it was 4 years ago?

Matt: Well, considering that in late April 2008 the global financial system was about four months away from near collapse, the auto industry was about to die, and American households were as debt-saddled and overleveraged as ever... yes, yes I do.  State your claim to the contrary. 

Stephen: Let's start with GDP, since that's the only thing that has really gone up. GDP has risen by an unimpressive $235.6B, which is a total of 1.8% or 0.4% annually. Let's ignore the fact that people have been expecting the US economy to take off now for 3 years (I won't say it has no chance this year, just that its a heavy underdog). Now, I'm sure you are familiar with how GDP is calculated, GDP = C+I+G+(X-M). That G piece (government) has increased by 681.2B. So we can see where the new growth is coming from right? And after three years, it's still unimpressive. At what point do we say this is the problem and not the solution? (But let's try to stay off that for now, that's an entirely different debate)

Unemployment - the unemployment rate is at 8.1%, up from 5%. But that probably doesn't tell the whole story since labor force participation is constantly declining... look at the U-6 rate (unemployed/underemployed/"marginally attached workers" aka people who dropped out of the labor force but want a job) and that's up to 14.5% from 9.2%.  Total payrolls are down 5.9% as well.

Should we get into household income or housing? They are both down, housing by as much as 50%. Or how about the S&P 500, which is generally used a gauge of American business performance? Its down about 10% still from its 2007 highs and just about equal with its 2008 high. Oh and did I mention that QE1, 2 and Operation Twist have managed to push the money supply into stupid levels? Or that inflation has increased by 7% since Obama took office (I understand these is totally normally inflation rates, but it puts into perspective how bad things are since NOTHING else is increasing so rapidly).

Obama Supports Marriage Equality - What's Next?

In case you missed it, the big news from yesterday was Barack Obama coming out in support same-sex marriage.  Regardless of how you personally feel about the president or even about the issue overall, it is hard to deny the significance of a sitting president declaring his support for a historic expansion of civil rights.  I for one, feel similar to how I felt when Don't Ask, Don't Tell finally got repealed: truly proud to be an American, and not only because this is a watershed moment for liberals.  Proud because any time our country does itself one better in terms of actually living up to our lofty ideals, it should be something to celebrate.

 

Of course, the president's backing won't actually extend full marriage rights to any one single person currently lacking them.  It is merely a statement of support.  And it will be interesting to see what actions might follow this announcement.  Obama tempered his words by noting that while he supports gay marriage personally, he continues to believe that states should decide the issue.  And with the GOP in control of the House, any legislative activity will indeed have to come from the ground up, as it has since Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004. 

Still, it matters what presidents say.  This one just set the tone for his entire administration, the entire federal government, and the future platform of his political party by coming down on the side of the civil rights pioneers.

Does "Anti-Incumbency" Make Any Sense?

In his daily links yesterday (we just can't seem to get off the subject of socialism, can we?), Stephen highlighted the most recent news out of France, where opposition candidate Francois Hollande defeated outgoing French President Nicholas Sarkozy in a runoff election this weekend.  Hollande's victory, in addition to parliamentary elections in Greece that saw the rejection of both major parties, were spun by the media as a sign of a vast, anti-incumbent wave beginning to sweep Europe, and Stephen, citing the latest Gallup Poll results (Obama 47/Romney 45 in a poll of 12 swing states), wondered aloud whether that wave could hit home in time to make Willard Mitt Romney our next president in November.

Of course, the irony to the "anti-incumbency" argument is that the very same austerity policies voters just rejected in Europe are the policies that Romney, together with a House GOP majority that is probably safe, would be compelled to pursue should Barack Obama himself fall prey to anti-incumbent sentiment in November. 

Pages of pixellated and non-pixellated ink alike have been spilled over whether voters always understand the implications of their decisions, especially in America, where our two-party system lends credence to the visceral sense that if things aren't going as well as we would like under one guy, we should give the other guy a chance.  This might make sense on a gut level, but any glance across the pond at Europe tells us it would be a disaster if anti-incumbency wins the day here in America.

Email Discussion: Osama bin Occupied, Part II

Yesterday, Conflict Revolution began to explore the media convergence between the Occupy Movement's spring coming-back-out party and the one-year anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death.  After Stephen slung a few insults in the direction of OWS, and Matt expressed his disappointment in the movement's outcomes thus far, we're at it again this afternoon, this time exploring the other side of the week's big news in a discussion on how much credit Barack Obama should get for the killing of the fallen al-Qaeda leader. Without further adieu: 

****
Stephen: Matt, we always hear about how the economy wasn't Obama's fault and that he inherited it from Bush. The wars the same thing. If you believe there is credence in this (and I'd agree) should he not also give credit to Bush for laying the groundwork for killing Osama bin Laden? This seems necessary unless you have some evidence that Obama tossed out all the intelligence gathered before his term.

Matt: Absolutely, Barack Obama does not get full credit for the raid.  For one, he didn't crash land any helicopters or charge up any stairs to shoot the world's most wanted terrorist in the head.  And a lot of that intelligence was in fact gathered during the later Bush years.  However, since it WAS Obama who came into office ordering his national security team to re-focus on bin Laden after the effort had stalled, and since it was Obama who ordered the raid itself over the advice of his Vice President and top general (not saying Bush wouldn't have, but BHO did), he certainly gets to take his share of the credit, especially if holding it up as an example of gutsy national security leadership under pressure.  

Stephen: So how often does he mention this? Because he definitely mentions that Bush was responsible for the economy all the time.

Links for Lunch: Thursday Edition

Stephen and I have several debates brewing right now.  It's actually been kind of a joy, exchanging occasionally mean-spirited messages with a friend thousands of miles away while I step away briefly from whatever it is I'm supposed to be doing instead.  Very Mean Girls, if you get where I'm going.  Stephen's even got a burn book, but he only writes about me.

 
Just know this: when we unleash these debates from the shackles of their cyberspace cages, the ripples will cascade down the information superhighway like a torrent of toxic chemicals.  That may not seem like an appealing analogy to you, but my worthy debating opponent - and his preferred presidential candidate - definitely likes it when people (corporations are people, my friend!) spill toxic chemicals just about anywhere, so you can surely bet that he'll be in support.

In the meantime, here's some links to tide you over while we fine-tune our latest snark:

1) Slate examines the possible consequences of a possible cyberattack.  I wrote a paper about this once, but I think I came to a far more ominous conclusion ["How Dangerous is a Cyberattack?" Slate, 4/27/12].

2) The Basketball Franchise Formerly Known As The New Jersey Nets makes their move to Brooklyn official ["Brooklyn Nets unveil logos," ESPN, 4/30/12]

3) Obama beats his chest over Osama, and then makes a surprise visit to Afghanistan to share the high fives with Hamid Karzai ["Obama makes surprise visit to Afghanistan to sign key pact, mark bin Laden raid," Washington Post, 5/1/12]

4) Speaking of bin Laden's bad day, why Republicans are the last political party with any credibility to criticize the President for politicizing national security.  Did these guys forget they had a 2004 nominating convention?  ["How the GOP Became a Party of Whiners Over Osama," The Daily Beast, 5/1/12]

Stay with us throughout the day for the second leg of Osama bin Occupied, and some philosophy to your dome from a loyal Conflict Revolution reader who likes to write about this stuff.  Go eat lunch outside on this lovely Thursday... and then come back to your favorite blog, for some mid-afternoon delight.

Over and out.

Hump de Bump: Wednesday Links After the Jump

As we hurtle into the middle of the week, it's time for another morning update - this one, Politico-themed:

- President Obama made a "surprise visit" to troops and Afghan leadership yesterday in Kabul, pledging to abide by existing plans for a full withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by 2014. NATO troops will stay in the country for at least a decade after 2014, ensuring that some U.S. presence in the region will remain [Politico; CNN].

- Ric Grenell, Foreign Policy spokesman for Mitt Romney's campaign, has resigned over "personal issues"

- Think you've seen it all before? Think again: Congress is getting even more bipartisan and split along the "core ideologies" of both parties. But does this necessarily preclude passing critical legislation?

Speaking of seen it all...Anyone familiar with The Burning Man festival?



one of the tamer images that come up in a search. He will be burning.


We've been speaking of anarchy for the past day, and The Burning Man is like the anarchist's Mecca - "radical inclusion," "decommodification," "radical self-expression" are the order of the day, but now the festival's organizers and lobbyists have descended upon the Capitol (as in D.C., not Hunger Games) to promote the event. The festival has been placed on probation this year by the Bureau of Land Management for exceeding its 53,000 capacity limit, but hopes to expand to 70,000 in the future.

The festival has captured the imagination of popular culture along with the likes of DayGlow, Warped Tour, Coachella et. al., but still retains its original indie vibe and distinctive character. In fact, long-time "burners" would probably regurgitate at my comparison of TBM with the aforementioned festivals.

- New York Times readership up, Washington Post not so lucky - although at less than a million online subscribers, the NYT can hardly be compared with the dedicated userbases of the social networking giants. I wonder how much the "Social Reader" app can help or harm the struggling journalism industry in general?

- Politico's Roger Simon: Stay outraged at the Supreme Court's (SCOTUS) blatant partisanship

- And finally, more of our favorite Secretary of State: Hillary sends rejection letter to Jason Segal

</3

OWS: Socialist Anarchy, or Anarchistic Socialism?

RE: Socialism and the state of the Occupy Wall Street movement as of May Day [WaPo], it strikes me (no pun intended) as extremely ironic that the "anti-institutional" core beliefs of a movement, which invokes "V for Vendetta" and Guy Fawkes-inspired images of anarchy at every turn, would suddenly throw its weight behind a socialist message - the most naturally institutional cause of all, as an artificially-induced redistribution of capital. Indeed, besides the effects of winter and getting kicked out of protest spaces by law enforcement, OWS failed to capitalize on any meaningful policy gains despite international media attention because it lacked centralized leadership or central figures around which the movement could coordinate and focus its impact.

http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-political-meaning-for-guy-fawkess.html

The idea of no centralized leadership and the destruction of institutions is so fundamental to anarchy that it stands in complete conflict with any idea of an institutionalized social compact between the state and its people, and history shows that the possibility of an alliance between anarchism and socialism is logically impossible. Yet as Stephen has already alluded in his morning update, political socialism is once again on the march around the world and in the United States, even if many social welfare policies are precisely what have bankrupted Europe and sent America spiraling into debt. It's also what is most politically feasible [WaPo] given the harshness of existing economic conditions and future austerity measures: In a world with zero or negative growth and stagnating employment, capitalism quickly loses its luster. 

Hit the jump to read more on how OWS can revive itself in 2012...

Morning Links: May Day (International Workers’ Day): the Socialist’s Christmas

For those of you were were not history majors or somehow got here and know nothing about socialism (if you got here knowing Matt, this seems highly unlikely) here's some info on May Day (International Workers’ Day). 

Since today is May Day, let’s do a socialist themed morning update.
 

Friday Links: Heresy, Innovation, and Disappointing GDP

Ice Cube knows it, you do too.  What?


That's right, it's Friday.  So get your open containers ready because Conflict Revolution Daily Links are about to go DOWN.  Let's take a look at what's in the news today:

1) The United States economy grew at a disappointing rate of 2.2% on the first quarter of 2012, lower than the median rate of 2.5% forecasted by economists and lower than the 3.0% growth between October and December of 2011.  Some silver lining?  Consumer confidence hit the highest level in a year, indicating improving demand, while household purchases ticked up by 2.9%, exceeding even the most optimistic estimates.  Also, Germany and Japan's economies are shrinking, and Britain is officially in a double-dip recession... so at least we're not them. ["Economy in US Grew Less Than Forecast in First Quarter," Bloomberg, 4/27/12]

2) Stephen Siena, CR's other esteemed writer, has long argued that modern, Western secularism is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian thought and stressed that this really makes the US a Christian nation. So is Western secularism just another in the long line of Christian heresies? ["Bad Religion," Slate, 4/19/12]

3) CNN's John Avlon gives a well-reasoned perspective on tax reform, but how anyone sees the Republicans and Democrats as being equally intransigent is completely beyond me.  Call me when 95 percent of congressional Dems sign a pledge to NEVER cut spending. ["Why tax reform talk a dead end," CNN, 4/17/12]

4) Former Bush speechwriter David Frum on what Barack Obama can learn from Lyndon Johnson ["Read this book, Obama!," The Daily Beast, 4/15/12"]

5) Finally, from an excellent blog on urban living, why cities with lower carbon emissions are more innovative ["What Makes Some Cities Greener Than Others," The Atlantic Cities, 4/22/12]

The British economy is in recession, but so is the time left in your work week.  Kick back but don't switch back... the Conflict Revolution will not be televised, but it is available on the internet.

Over and out.

Daily Links: Priests, Undercooked IPOs, and America v. Europe

Links from today, and the past week, in your Thursday internet roundup:

1) Color me a bit surprised: despite the emerging liberal narrative (endorsed by yours truly) that the rigid and uncompromising Catholic opposition to the Obama contraception mandate signals a church in decline, new ordinations in the priesthood are up over the past decade ["Traditional Catholicism is Winning," The Wall Street Journal, 4/12/12]

2) Speaking of the Catholic Church, the good news is that they don't ONLY care about contraception. Give credit where credit is due... ["Catholic Bishops Criticize Ryan Budget Cuts to Food Stamps," The Hill, 4/17/12]

3) The Carlyle Group, the second biggest private equity firm in the country, may be "the most undercooked IPO of 2012," according to Stephen ["Carlyle is Said to Seek Value of up to $8 Billion in IPO, Bloomberg, 4/11/12]

4) Barack Obama tries to channel Ronald Reagan to argue for his millionaires' tax, but fudges on the facts ["Obama's Misleading Reagan Reference," CNBC, 4/13/12]

5) Nazi lobbyists? No, seriously... ["Nazis Get Their Own Lobbyist," US News, 4/13/12]

6) The Weekly Standard's Irwin Stelzer compares the relative resilience and divergent debt reduction policies of the US vs. European economies. Mr. Stelzer alludes to America's deficit challenges toward the end of his article, but am I wrong to interpret him as being somewhat sympathetic to Keynesian intervention in the short term, given how poorly austerity has worked out for Europe so far? ["America vs. Europe," The Weekly Standard, 4/14/12]

If you haven't already, don't forget to check out my take on Tuesday's DC space shuttle flyover. Stephen and I are working on two simultaneous email debates, so stay tuned for more Conflict as you count down the hours to the end of another workweek.

Happy Thursday!

"BUFFET RULE" TAX PLAN FAILS IN SENATE TEST VOTE

So, what's next?

Also, check out this assessment of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement: It's dead. Is it?

(Photo credit to Craig Hudson)

The Precursor to Conflict Revolution...

Honk if you think Stephen and I should re-enact this scene from an old Comedy Central hit:

'Strange Bedfellows' Segment 1: Arianna Huffington And Al Franken

Looks like Steve would be Arianna.

Email Discussion: Do Tax Returns Matter?

In one of Conflict Revolution's more civil discussions, Stephen and Matt discuss whether or not politicians should be compelled to release their tax returns, and whether wealth matters when you're running for President.

As always, these are real emails from real people...

****

Stephen: Matt, with tax day nearing and Obama's tax return out there... do you think there is any reason for releasing tax returns for the general public's information?

Matt: YOU OPPOSE THIS? THERE IS NO HOPE. Just kidding. Maybe you don't actually oppose it. But seriously, I had never thought much about the tax return question. I guess it's just one of those things I came to take for granted about presidential campaigns. What's your objection (if you have one)?

Stephen: My objection is that they don't really mean anything (tax returns do not affect one's policies) yet the media plays them up. Instead, they are used as a distraction in order to (largely) create a disconnect between a candidate and voters (who likely don't make as much) - this is a particularly useful tactic on the left. It seems to me like it's only utility is to raise class issues. But I believe it was Jon Stewart who defended Obama's elitism by claiming (and I agree 100%) "shouldn't the president be of above average intelligence?" Well if that is true, and again I couldn't agree more, what's so crazy about the president being of above average wealth?

Matt: I see your point. Who really cares exactly how rich Mitt Romney is, since it's not like we didn't know already that he worked in private equity, where one could reasonably make the assumption that he made a lot of money. Pretty sure the awkwardness and general tone-deafness that people attribute to his well-heeled background would also have shone through regardless. On the other hand, don't we want as much information as possible to be out there on the people whom we are going to consider electing?