People I wish would just shut up

Jason Lewis.

Here's one of the reasons why I wish he would just shut up.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/14441271.html

People who learned economc theory 40 years ago in college, from 10-year-old-texts, and haven't learned anything since, should have to publish a warning: Reading this column may be hazardous to your understanding of reality.

I'm not an economics expert and don't claim to be. But neither is Lewis.

His Johnny One Note obsession against taxes and government spending leads him astray, thinking he has useful answers when he applies the big words he learned in school to the problems of the day. Jason, your pseudorationale that blames our teetering consumer economy on the looming threat of expiring tax cuts is just as silly as the stimulus plans you are mocking.

Bear in mind, I don't think we need to send everybody temporary money to spend to "save" us from recession, either. But I also don't think simplistic theories that lowering taxes to stimulate people to invest in making more stuff, or working harder (for less) to produce more stuff will do it either.

There are real, new circumstances at work in the world that are threatening more than just our economic survival. Those real, new things have unfortunately coincided with yet another example why government regulation is good for babies and other living things (i.e., subprime mortgages and lending/investment bubbles) to create a pretty scary one, two punch.

So here's what I think, Jason. Maybe we need to produce less (or at least produce what we make more sustainably) and spend more for what we buy. We should pay more because labor is paid more, not because resources cost less (won't happen anymore) or because CEOs manipulate productivity for inordinate shareholder value. Taxes don't disincent labor in America; low wages and the rapidly shrinking inventory of jobs that can pay a decent middle-class living do.

And then there's this boogeyman -- Government Spending. Oooooo, that's scary kids. Where does Jason think government spending goes? Into a black hole to another universe where it is never seen again? Or does it pay wages to laborers who work hard for their money and spend it on necessities and nice-to-haves. Or pay to buy stuff from businesses that pay people to make stuff -- or at least to pick it out from factories in China and bring it here to the U.S. of A?

Even when non-deserving people -- those who can't find jobs that pay them to work harder for less -- get welfare checks and food stamps; Hey, they're buying stuff from businesses that make stuff or fly it in from ... you know where I'm going.l

And somehow, in a global economy, where shrinking oil supplies, climate change, increasing competition with third-world countries for the natural resources that we used to steal, cheat, buy at incredibly low prices for ourselves, nations destablized by economic disparity -- etc., etc., -- I just don't think that the world's stock markets are flipping out over the possibility that George Bush II's tax cuts will expire.

If these savvy economics and investment professionals aren't secretly hoping that the US government will start figuring out how to pay for what it consumes with a realistic approach for matching revenue to spending, its likely because they belong to the "get something for nothing" crowd to which Jason belongs. As long as they've got theirs -- whether its a welfare check or the cream skimmed off the economic backs of the poor schmucks who work hard for their money -- that's all that matters. "Don't tax me for the common good, or to pay for my stupid tax-cuttin' president's stupid decisions to take us to war (It's not like it's even helpeding get us access to more oil). I know best how to spend my money, like on three TVs from China via Walmart and my big, gas-guzzling SUV to keep my family safe in my next fender bender by killing yours."

Oops. I just fell off my chair in the throes of self-righteous blather.

Anyway. I just wish Jason Lews would shut the F... up.

Over and out.

Who's got my vote?

I'm going to vote for the Democratic candidate for president, no matter who that is. And, as a Minnesotan, there won't be much I, with my one-woman, one-vote power, can do to decide.

I could send some money to my favorite, but that's a tough thing. I'm proud of all three candidates and I want what all three have to offer. I want Obama's inspiring rhetoric and vision for the high road. I want John Edwards' fiery domestic agenda. And I want Hillary's passion and skill at the subtle, sleazy, messy, soul-sucking game of politics, which is where the rubber meets the road.

I have to admit that I have a slight preference for Hillary as "my" candidate. I trust her intentions impeccably, even if I don't always like her methods. I think that she, like her husband, knows how to play the game, pit the powerful against the powerful to duke it out for the people, and take their campaign contributions with one hand while the other is busy moving the pieces on the board so that the advantage goes to pragmatism, balance and consensual forward progress.

But I doubt she's "electable" in this campaign. The pundits calling the horserace have decided. The talking points that label her every utterance as "cold and calculated" block the message and sap its energy. She's suffering "front-runner" and "thats-easy-for-you-to-say" syndromes. In primary season, people want archetypes that differentiate one candidate from another. But she's stuck as the consummate policy wonk, answering to pros and cons of issues that sound like waffling but are more about teachable moments and not making promises you can't keep.

Besides, there are the Hillary haters. Those people who still blame her for acting like a policy aide instead of First Lady. Or who have bought into that ball-busting myth. Or who think she should have dumped Bill. Or who can't understand how a woman who says that every abortion is a tragedy -- which it is -- can still support a woman's right to choose the tragic course, because nobody should be able to tell me that I must or must not bring a child into the world I live in.

So, I will vote for whomever becomes the next Democratic candidate for president. And I hope to God (yes I'm still a believer of sorts), that the winning candidate is just as good at the unpretty side of being a politician so that real, not just rhetorical progress is made in our climb out of this pit we're in.

Over and out.

Run, eat, shop in London

We're back from not-so-sunny London (UK), where we celebrated Laurie and Tom,, The Wedding Trilogy, Episode III.

Although it was a whirlwind trip -- Christmas Day to New Year's Eve -- we managed to pack in some good times; the right mix of local culture, family gatherings and even a 5-mile (how many K is that again?) run in the heart of Hammersmith.

We arrived on Boxing Day (Dec 26) with just enough energy to drink a pint or two and go to bed. Our hotel was a funny mix of American Holiday Inn and Euro-hostelry. We had two twin beds an ensuite bath and shower for roughly 70 pounds per night. I'm told that's cheap for London, thanks to the "American Retired Persons" rate available to Mr. P. There are advantages to being married to a geezer (she said with a loving twinkle in her eye, of course).

We got up just in time to have a fine Indian dinner with Laurie, Tom, his dad and his brother.

Thursday, I got up and had my London run. I was less than a mile from the Thames and a lovely running trail, but I couldn't find it, so I ran along a nondescript street, dodging dog poo and breathing the quaint exhaust of the double-decker red buses. Kept me on my toes, remembering where to look to avoid being struck down by a bus or a smart car.

Later we met up with Laurie to visit the Tower of London, a prime tourist destination we missed on our last visit. As we traipsed through the turrets, towers, great halls and prison rooms, I couldn't help but wonder if William the Conquerer ever thought a thousand years ahead and wondered what would have been going on in his White Tower. Would he have throught it would still be standing? The bustle of peasantry shuffling through snapping digital pics and having can-you-hear-me-now conversations on cell phones would have been unimaginable.

These lofty thoughts were interrupted when we filed past a laundry line with underpants and Christmas towels hung out to dry. Apparently the place is still home to the "beefeaters" who perform guarding rituals and protect the crown jewels.

Speaking of which, that treasure trove is pretty impressive (I'm a sucker for sparklies), but also a tad on the silly side; I think I've seen too much Monty Python to take seriously the jewel encrusted orbs, swords, mace, wine cistern, cups, saucers and plates "of state" on display.

We were sobered again as we passed through prison rooms with 400-year-old graffiti, carved into the walls by prisonsers, many who spent years in custody and then were "hung, drawn and quartered" as punctuation to the display of power such treatment demonstrated. And by the poigniant glass monument on the lawn where some of the most famous beheadings in Western history took place. It would be nice to think we'd put this all behind us, but Abu Ghraib, Al Qaida, slaughter in Kenya and assassinations in Pakistan are reminders that we haven't lost any of our ability to do harm to each other in the name of tribe, country, faith, or just plain greed. And now we are able to kill each other on scales that would also have been unimaginable to the builder of that first white tower.

Then there was the armory. Swords and guns arranged like the June Taylor dancers in decorative displays. And a huge suit of armor worn by Henry VIII. Most armor I've seen is tiny compared to today's average-size fighters. But Henry was a big guy -- wide and tall. And there was some other guy, John of Gaunt, who was even bigger (taller, at least -- 6-plus feet).

Finally, it was off to the gift shop, to buy big glass "diamonds" to take home to commemorate the trip. I guess that shows what impresses me most: pretty, happy sparklies.

Back in Hammersmith we had cocktails with Tom and his mom, then had dinner in a local pub.

Friday was Party Day. Tom's mom hosted a gathering of the clans in her row-house living room. It was very nice to meet Tom's cousins, aunts, uncles and old family friends. After the formal affair ended, we repaired to a nearby pub. Tom's cousins can rival the Parkers (and Deckers) for crazy, drunken fun.

Saturday we slept in, after drinking for roughly 8 hours the day before. Then we met up with Laurie to go shopping on Portobello Road, a world-reknown flea-market.

We learned a good lesson from that trip; don't bring dads or husbands on shopping trips that involve shoving through state-fair-density crowds. Mr. P certainly had his fill much sooner than Laurie or I did. But he did enjoy overhearing a couple of American, Chicago type husbands and wives in this conversation:

HE: "Let's get out of here and go to Buckingham Palace."

SHE: "It will be just as crowded there."

HE: "Yeah, but we won't be looking at this bunch of crap"

OTHER HE: "... bunch of shit"

Laurie and I managed to make a couple of purchases in time to get Mr. P out of the crowd before he melted down. We escaped to a quiet restaurant for lunch before heading up to north London for more shopping. We were planning to meet Laurie's best friend from Glasgow University at the sandwich shop she and her sisters just opened. If you're ever in London, head to Crouch End for some good shopping. Then gather strength for your return journey at Hot Pepper Jelly. You won't regret it. Laurie got a cute coat for half-price (full-price, American).

Dierdre gave us dinner that evening, and we said good-bye to Laurie and Tom who had to fly back to Chicago next day.

On our last day, we decided to go to Greenwich to visit the Royal Observatory and the Prime Meridian. We had an interesting Light-Rail trip through the Docklands. I remember them from Dickens as dark, dangerous slums. But over the past decade or so there has been much redevelopment. We saw scads of new condos, shopping, hotels and more. Didn't have time to tour the Docklands museum, but would recommend it anyway, because I really wanted to go there.

Once in Greenwhich, we climbed the hill to the observatory, one of the birthplaces of modern astronomy. Its free and fascinating, especially for someone like me who enjoys reading about the history of science. One exhibit featured the clocks made by John Harrington, the country-clock-maker who won a Royal Society prize for helping to solve the "longitude" problem in the 18th century. He invented a clock accurate enough aboard ship to calculate the position of the stars measured against the meridian position back in Greenwhich.

We also toured the National Maritime Museum. One of the most interesting exhibits showed the British naval uniforms across the centuries. There also was a good exhibit on the history of transatlantic ocean travel. It was kind of funny that the American Revolution scored just one small corner of the exhibit. It did include a hand-written copy of the Declaration of Independence, thought to be the first copy to arrive in England. The story of the slave trade was another sobering reminder of how ruthless "commerce" can be when it comes to devastating the lives of everyday people. We're still doing it, just not as blatantly and crudely these days.

We topped off our trip with a pilgrimmage to Nando's, a "fast-food" chain featuring charcoal grilled peri-peri chicken. We'd eaten there several times ten years ago, and were so happy to find it just as tasty and cheap(ish) as we remembered.

The next day was a travel day and then home again. I've got a traveler's cold, a big sparkly glass gem, a couple of tee-shirts and a healthy chunk of credit card debt to show for it; but it was worth every bit.