Krugman: Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

I spent some time reding this and the comments of other readers -- especially comment #31:

Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com: "I’ll be frank: the discussion of fiscal stimulus this past year and a half has filled me with despair over the state of the economics profession. If you believe stimulus is a bad idea, fine; but surely the least one could have expected is that opponents would listen, even a bit, to what proponents were saying. In particular, the case for stimulus has always been highly conditional. Fiscal stimulus is what you do only if two conditions are satisfied: high unemployment, so that the proximate risk is deflation, not inflation; and monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound."

Rich -- I Just Read This Thoughtful Essay

(c) 2010 F. Bruce Abel

It's not just "immigration" for breakfast anymore. With Limbaugh and Beck and WLW's Bill McConnell, Fox's Sean Hannity, all day, every day, ...

Click on heading for the NYT story.

Now read this from

"Phil in the mountains of Kyushu Japan"
May 2nd, 2010 6:40 am

Yes, nativist white hysteria isn't new to American life.

But it's getting much worse insofar as too many are losing grip on decent humanity for other reasons.

If Americans knew how to see, acknowledge, and connect with "others" as human beings, there wouldn't be so much fear. But Americans have been learning a strange new form of "humanity" which denies nuance, which allows tendencies to stereotyping and to full-blown ignorance.

Consumerism does this most clearly. All advertising says all the most-desired human qualities come simply by buying the stuff marketed to your group. At some level everyone knows this is, to be kindest, a cute joke. But it comes incessantly. As in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," all go to sleep for it to some degrees.

All accept consumerism's beguilements for another reason -- that when the schools practice impersonality, they major-digress away from the engagement with skills for seeing, acknowledging, and connecting with really complicated and ever-elusive real people. Elusive because we all lack cores to ourselves. We all change -- to some degrees. We're all capable of better -- and worse.

I won't list here the ways that schools avoid engagements with the human -- the really human. Well, yes I will: 1) silos of specialization, 2) standardized tests, 3) teachers' own needs to appear de-personalized super-elevated.

And I'll also conclude that this white-hysteria-fear index is getting worse -- by looking again at the perverted form of "humanity" that the Supreme Court has elevated for the corporate form of it in Citizens United.

It's all bad. It's getting worse. But I'm not going to quote Pink Floyd to say "Hey, teachers, leave them kids alone." I'm quoting Pink Floyd to urge teachers and schools to do the opposite: engage more with the human in all its forms and interconnections in all disciplines and all their interconnections.

Teddy

(c) 2009 F. Bruce Abel

I'm watching the Charlie Rose from last night re Teddy, and how wonderful a program it is.

I will be writing on this as we go along.

The Judicial Nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the US Supreme Court

You should read this NYT article on Obama's choice of Judge Sotomayor this morning, and my comment posted therein, which I repeat here:

Sotomayor’s Rulings Are Exhaustive but Often Narrow
8:11 am

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

News Analysis: Sotomayor’s Rulings Are Exhaustive but Often NarrowBack to Article »
By ADAM LIPTAK
Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s opinions are marked by diligence, depth and unflashy competence, but reveal no larger vision.
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment
Editors' Selections
RSSAll Comments - Oldest First

May 27th, 2009 8:10 am
This article, and the discussion of the case that was handled in a cursory fashion, leads to a hitherto unreported shame of the federal courts -- the skirting of the rules to dismiss discrimination cases at the "summary judgment" stage, so that there is no opportunity to have the jury hear and decide the case.

As a trial and appellate lawyer representing individuals who have been discriminated against, and practicing in Cincinnati, where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals "resides," (more on "resides" later) I have personally witnessed (and suffered from) this tragedy in case after case, by both Republican and Democratic (and so-called liberal) appointments, and I have attended a Federal Bar Association conference at the Hilton at Weston in Columbus (2005 or so) where the first speaker, speaking mainly to federal judges and corporate defense lawyers, called discrimination cases "the slip and fall cases of the federal bar," thus "educating" the newer attendees that it was all right to throw the cases out, or into the dustbin.

From the federal judge's point of view (I imagine) these cases take a lot of time as each one is fact-intensive and the issue is not simple (to decide)--whether there was "intent" by the employer (to discriminate). Also, once the judge has heard the case at the preliminary stage of summary judgment he becomes bored with the prospect of having to sit through a week trial while the jury hears the same facts, so he dismisses it.

This problem does not exist so much in the state courts on these types of cases, nor in "good cause" cases where there is a public employee or union and a statutory duty of the employer not to dismiss an employee except for good cause. In state courts, however, there are other problems dealing with quality and knowledge-base of the judge.

I am also struck by the articles and interviews (e.g. Charlie Rose last night) over yesterday's appointment, that are ignorant that on the federal circuit courts cases are heard only by a panel of three (out of perhaps 18 judges) and therefore one judge may not sit in on many cases or "know" another given judge. Plus the judges live scattered and separated lives throughout the circuit (usually 3-7 states) territory and only fly in for the week they are hearing cases.

Your article should be read along with the New Yorker's recent piece by Jeffrey Toobin on Justice Roberts. I was especially interested in the obvious fact that Justice Roberts, along with many of the judges in the federal system, have spent their professional lives (pre-appointment) among other millionaire lawyers, in the big cororate law firms (I started out in one myself and know the environment), and cannot even comprehend the environment of the practicing plaintiff's lawyer representing discrimination victims.

Grisham's recent book, "The Associate," has already started to turn heads and the concept of "the chargeable hour." I have taken the time to "Nuance" and therefore quote verbatim a couple of passages from that book on my blog http://www.natgagu.blogspot.com/ (search for "Grisham" therein).

In one he makes the simple but amazingly correct point that once the top-of-class star is wined and dined the one summer, going to Yankee games, doing simple but interesting tasks, socializing with designated partners, then is hired the following spring (big NY law firm practice), "his life is essentially over." Plain and simple.
— bruce abel, cincinnati
Back to Article »

Good Quote From Heligson Article Just Discussed

"In my own case, I realized that I needed to develop a thick skin, feel comfortable promoting myself, learn how to negotiate, stop being a perfectionist and create a professional network — abilities that men are just more likely to have already."

It's Labor Day -- Where's Your "Network?"

For women, but also for some men too.

writePost();
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/jobs/31pre.html
By HANNAH SELIGSON
Published: August 30, 2008
I WAS born in 1982 — about 20 years after the women’s rights movement began. Growing up in what many have called a post-feminist culture, I did not really experience institutional gender bias. “Girl power” was celebrated, and I felt that all doors were open to me.
When I was in college, the female students excelled academically, sometimes running laps around their male counterparts. Women easily ascended to school leadership positions and prestigious internships. In my graduating class (more than half of which was female) there was a feeling of camaraderie, a sense that we were helping each other succeed.
Then I left the egalitarianism of the classroom for the cubicle, and everything changed. The realization that the knowledge and skills acquired in school don’t always translate at the office is something that all college graduates, men and women, must face. But for women, I have found, the adjustment tends to be much harder. It was certainly hard for me — I lasted only nine months in my first job out of college.
Inspired by my own rocky entrance into the work world, I decided to interview other young women and discovered that many of them, like me, were facing a steep workplace learning curve. What was it, I wondered, that was making our first career steps so wobbly when we had been so accomplished and self-assured in school?
Every workplace is different, but certain patterns began to emerge. I experienced and heard of instances when some women, instead of helping a new female colleague, tried to undermine her. Rather than giving “the new girl” the tools to succeed, they might try to sabotage her advancement.
I saw some men, raised in a different era, who refused to take young women seriously, focused on their appearance and gave them the least desirable assignments. Even in this day and age, I saw women becoming “assistant-ized”— saddled with all the coffee runs and photocopying.
Some workplaces are more sexist than others. A women should never accept a job offer without first finding out whether the odds are already stacked against her. This background check will assess how a potential employer treats its female employees, how many women are in leadership positions and whether there is a history of pay discrimination or sexual harassment.
But outside forces are only part of the story. I have also seen young women — myself included — getting in the way of their own success. I have found that we need to build a new arsenal of skills to mitigate some of our more “feminine” tendencies. Having lived in a cocoon of equality in college, we may have neglected these vital, real-world skills.
In my own case, I realized that I needed to develop a thick skin, feel comfortable promoting myself, learn how to negotiate, stop being a perfectionist and create a professional network — abilities that men are just more likely to have already.
The more traditionally “feminine” trait of sensitivity, while often appreciated, is not always an asset in the work world. I have spent too much time being rattled by terse e-mail from editors, agents who have told me that I’d never get a book deal, and bosses who have berated me as not being “detail-oriented.” I think that in order to break through any kind of glass ceiling, or simply to get through the day, you have to become impervious to the daily gruffness that’s a part of any job.
I used to think that perfection was the pathway to success. Not so, according to women I have interviewed who have reached the apex of their professions. Rather, it can lead to paralysis. Women, I have found, can let perfectionism stop them from speaking up or taking risks. For men, especially if they are thick-skinned, the thought of someone telling them “no” tends not to be viewed as earth-shattering.
One tactic I’ve found useful in getting over the perfectionist tendency is a shock therapy called soliciting feedback. Not only does it demystify what your boss thinks about you, but it also gives you the data to become a more valuable employee.
The other dose of shock therapy I’ve undergone is reprogramming my brain to think that, yes, girls do brag. I’ve indoctrinated myself with the idea that my job is a two-part process. One part is actually doing the work and the second part is talking about it, preferably in bottom-line terms.
The old-boys’ club proves that men have long known that a professional network is imperative to success. Women don’t have as much of a tradition of business networking (“Do you want to go grab a beer?” doesn’t quite roll off our tongues) and, understandably, they may feel awkward or clueless about how to do it.
I can tell you that it doesn’t work to go up to someone and say, “Will you be my mentor?” That’s the workplace equivalent of “Will you be my boyfriend?” A more organic approach — saying something like, “Can I pick your brain about some ways to transition out of my entry-level position in the next year?” — has been much more effective for me.
Young women also need to learn how to speak salary, a language that many men already seem to know. Coming into the work force, I thought that, just as my professor had given me the grade I deserved on my political science midterm, my company would pay me what I “deserved.”
RECENTLY I had a conversation with a male friend, a reporter in his mid-20s, about how hard it is to ask for money and negotiate for raises. He looked puzzled that I’d have an aversion to something that he does with ease, telling me: “When I want a raise, I just ask for it. And even if they say no, I’ll keep asking for it.”
The American Association of University Women found that men who are a year out of college make 20 percent more in weekly pay than their female co-workers do. Why? Because my friend and scores of other young men understand the central tenet of a bigger paycheck: ask and you shall receive.
The pay disparity speaks to a larger issue that women, coming directly out of the colleges that nurtured and rewarded them and gave them every advantage, may have trouble grasping. For me, it was crystallized in a comment made to me by Myra Hart, a retired senior faculty member at Harvard Business School who studies women as entrepreneurs:
“By and large women believe that
the workplace is a meritocracy, and it isn’t.”