B: Diana called me this morning.
ID: I smell a segue.
B: She wanted me to remember that today is the Day of the Disappeared; it’s actually the first, although the UN has had a working group monitoring the issue since 1980. Specifically, the disappeared are people who have been taken by governments.
ID: It’s hard to see where anyone could take issue with that. Oh. Wait. Isn’t that basically a veiled criticism of Guantanamo Bay?
B: Please don’t knee-jerk about this. This is so much bigger than our extraordinary rendition program. It’s so much larger than our one nation.
ID: Okay, that wasn’t a bad side-step. But now I’m asking you, flat out, what you think of Guantanamo and the black sites. Do people in those facilities qualify as the disappeared?
B: This isn’t about our government. It’s about all governments. It’s about all people, everywhere. It’s about all of us, deserving due process.
ID: So basically it’s a way for you to blow the one world government while giving the finger to our anti-terror programs, at the same time.
B: All right, I can see you’re like a puppy with a bone.
ID: Is that some kind of autofellatio joke?
B: I’m ignoring you so I can answer your slightly less obnoxious question, about Guantanamo. Speaking as an American, I think the most important thing is to try and live by our ideals. That means trials, even for terrorists. That means not torturing, and not quibbling over the definition of what that is. It means making sure the people we have are actually guilty of the crimes we’re holding them for.
But as the Batman… it’s grayer. Through that lens, I have one, overarching goal, making innocent people safer. I’ve captured the Joker a dozen times- but I haven’t always had enough evidence for a solid conviction. Thankfully, with someone like him, having him involuntarily committed is simple enough- and the handful of convictions we have gotten on him are enough to ensure that he’ll be locked in Arkham the rest of his natural life.
ID: Provided they can hold him.
B: Which is a side issue. Terrorists… we may not have enough to convict them. And they’re people arguably as dangerous as the Joker. It’s possible that people like that need to be a separate, special case, that maybe the existing criminal justice system can’t work in that situation. And for the first year, or two, after 9/11, you could make the case that we didn’t have a process in place, that we were caught unawares and we had to improvise with the laws we had on the books at the time.
But it took five years before the Military Commissions Act was passed- and only then because the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfield ruled military tribunals unconstitutional. Even then, the Act’s suspension of the writ of habeus corpus was struck down as unconstitutional- because it very specifically contradicted what the suspension clause is all about. The founders had escaped a monarch who abused the court system to stamp out his dissenters; the writ is about challenging that kind of detention.
ID: So you take issue that the government operated extralegally? Isn’t that fundamentally hypocritical, from a man who went outside the law to fight crime. From a man who broke the law, and did some of the things you’re criticizing? Torture, unlawful kidnapping and detention.
B: Maybe. It could be. Ben Franklin, one of the founders, said consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, after all. But I think not. I think that what I did was different. I think that what I did, I did to enhance the law- to help it do the things it couldn’t. Maybe there are areas where the government shouldn’t operate, but private citizens should.
But the difference I see is Gitmo and the black sites are the opposite of what I did. They epitomize the concept of government refusing to work within its own rules; maybe that’s the salient difference. I was working outside someone else’s rules; while the government was breaking its own. And if we can’t keep the government from breaking its own rules, then we’ve opened the door to dictatorship.
So we were disturbingly close to being one of those unaccountable governments who do disappear people in the night- maybe for a while we were. But I think this is one of those things that validates the American experiment. Our executive branch overstepped, and the judiciary shot them down. The legislative branch overstepped, and the judiciary shot parts of that down. But at the end of the day, with all three branches weighing in, I think we reached an imperfect but workable compromise. I’m still not happy about Guantanamo, but I don’t think it’s a black hole we toss our enemies anymore, either.
But all of this is a side issue. There are still thousands of people internationally unaccounted for. And that’s the ones we suspect have been taken by governments- not at all touching the issues of human trafficking, slavery. Diana’s right, that this is important. We may not have a forum with millions of listeners, but it’s the forum we have. This is absolutely worth paying attention to, worth donating, to the UN, to Amnesty, to the Red Cross. Aside from making a sizeable donation myself, I’ve been consulting with the UN OHCHR,
ID: Were you having a seizure there, or was that an acronym?
B: Acryonym. The Human Rights Council, who have jurisdiction over the disappeared. I have some experience man-hunting- even internationally. I’ve got some experience as a detective and a forensic tech. Unfortunately, a lot of the disappeared are dead, but it’s rewarding work. And it lets me stretch my mental legs.
But finally segueing back to our look at the women I’ve loved, I thought we’d talk about Zatanna. Because she’s a magician- you know, who disappears.
ID: I would have gone with the obvious, “Wonder Woman called me this morning,” but whatever, it’s your dime.
B: But in honor of Zatanna, I figured I’d use a bit of misdirection.
ID: Clever.
[ed. note: I’m carving this up into two segments due to length and girth, and posting the second part Saturday, or earlier, if I feel like it]
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Love(s) of My Life: Journalists
[Ed. Note: Continuing from last week’s interview about the Loves of Bruce’s Life]
ID: But thankfully, you have a type. Specifically, journalists. Why do you think that is?
B: Because in my lines of work, I meet a very specific subset of women: businesswomen, lawyers, heroines, and reporters. Lawyers and businesspeople tend to be too... neurotic. Women in costume, well, they tend to be complicated
ID: As complicated as yourself?
B: Maybe even more so- and I’m complicated enough for several relationships. And of the four, reporters were the ones who I was obligated to actually sit down and have real conversations with.
ID: So you don't think it had anything to do with your search for the truth, about yourself, about your motives- things they were likely to root around for? Don't you wonder if it was just a hidden desire of yours to be unmasked, to be seen for the person you are, rather than the persona you pretended to be?
B: Maybe.
ID: That sounds like a yes, to me, but tell me about Vicki Vale.
B: She was a reporter, too, originally a social gossip columnist; she took her own photos, too. That's how we met. That was a fluff piece. What I liked about her, intially, was that Vicki wasn't complicated. Unlike Lois, she seemed to be happy with a superficial love affair. And I think at that time it was exactly what I needed.
But it wasn't where we went. I think it was foolish of me to think that that stage of a relationship could persist- though thankfully by the time our relationship evolved, I was a fairly different man. About that time, Vicki started investigating the Batman. I had saved her, accidentally, really, while she was investigating one of the criminal organizations- I think it was the Ventriloquist's group. She became obsessed with Batman; from the way she talked about him I think she loved him- and hated that, too. She hated feeling like a damsel in distress, hated that there were aspects of her affection that rewarded that kind of paternalistic behavior.
ID: So you were your own rival?
B: It sounds more glamorous than it was. She was being torn in different directions by her affections for different men. And I know because of it both of me were going to lose her; I thought seriously about telling her the truth. Ultimately, I didn't. And I did lose her.
ID: You sound like you regret that.
B: I wonder what would have happened. Would we have stayed together? Would I have retired earlier? Would it have put her in danger? It asks so many questions, so many possibilities… Ultimately, she’s alive, and happy, and so am I. I doubt the world would be better for the change.
ID: So she’s happy?
B: When the Luthor’s cataclysmic earthquake decimated Gotham, Vicki stayed in the city, documented the tragedy. Her photography won her the Pulitzer. She spent the next several years traveling to war zones and documenting the evil that men do. She found a purpose that I don’t think she would have if she stayed with me.
ID: Because if she’d stayed with you she would have put away her camera for an apron? It sounds like she made her career in Gotham. What would have changed?
B: I don’t think she would have left. I think she would have won a Pulitzer for her work in Gotham. But I don’t think she would have spent time in Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia.
ID: I presume at last some of this gallivanting is on a Wayne Foundation grant?
B: Occasionally. I'm proud of the work she does, and happy to be even that small part of it.
ID: And what ever happened to her investigation into you?
B: I suspect she eventually found me out- and then decided not to print it.
ID: How sweet. And the last journalist whose ink you dipped your pen into
B: Classy
ID: I'd wanted to do something with a printing press, but it was just too unwieldy. Anyway, Vesper Fairchild. We know it ended in tragedy, but how did you meet?
B: Vesper was a late night radio host. I don’t even remember the topic of our conversation anymore. But I remember she wore these stupid, hipster glasses, but they were really worn; by the end of the conversation, I started to believe she didn't wear them because they were trendy, but because she’d always worn glasses like that.
I think that’s a suitable metaphor for Vesper: if you saw her, she seemed like a journalist, hipster stereotype, but underneath that was a compassionate, thoughtful, intelligent, incisive woman. When the earthquake hit Gotham, she left the city with me. She tried to use her contacts in the journalistic world to spread news of just how bad the disaster was.
When I came back to the city, she stayed away, because that was where she could do the most good. It was because of that that we drifted apart. And even after she got back to the city, there was always a distance between us. We tried picking up where we left off, but… I think she knew something was wrong. Maybe she even knew I was Batman, but she started looking into him. And that put a tension between us, even before…
ID: Before she was murdered, and the assassin, David Cain, made it look like you were her killer.
B: At the behest of Lex Luthor, yes.
ID: I know you humiliated Luthor. I mean, you took away all his companies, his assets, and sent him to Federal take it in the pooper prison. Directly because of your efforts- obviously with Clark’s help- he went from being the President of the United States to the most recent inmate admitted into the Stonegate infirmary for unremitting rectal bleeding. How does that feel?
B: Like it was too little, far too late. Vesper’s dead. There’s nothing I could do to Lex to make up for that.
ID: But I assume you haven’t stopped trying.
B: Meaning?
ID: I mean I have this report- okay, a facsimile of this report, which makes me feel incredibly old school. It's from the first week he was in prison. Lex had just gotten back from the infirmary after his first altercation with some prisoners. And he shows back up again the next morning. He was found after lock-down with multiple complex fractures. The prison doctor was surprised, and I’ll quote here from the report, “at the precise, methodical nature of the wounds, designed to inflict maximal pain and damage, and ensure the longest possible recovery time, while presenting the least likelihood of lethality.” Half the bones in his body were broken, some of the muscles torn away from them. This was some serious vengeance- and that sure as hell sounds like your modus operandi.
You’re not going to confirm or deny this, are you? But that looked like, almost, the hint of a smile, as I read the quote- I mean, trying to read behind all the rage you obviously feel for Luthor, and probably for me for asking the question or bringing him up. I can’t imagine.
B: No. You really can’t.
ID: But I am sorry. For your loss. And for Vesper. Truly.
B: I know. I just… I hate that she died because of me. Luthor's plot. It was just to get at me, to frame Bruce Wayne.
ID: I don't know if that's true. You said that she went with you to Washington, when you tried to get Federal and national support after the earthquake, right? And you going up against Luthor, that's why he tried to frame you, right? Well, if Vesper was there, working with you against him, it would make sense that he'd hold a grudge against her, too. What I'm saying is, maybe it wasn't your fault. Maybe she was killed for standing up for something that was right, that she believed in.
And that should make you feel, okay, maybe not better. But I hope you can feel a little less guilty. God knows you're already carrying enough of that around.
ID: But thankfully, you have a type. Specifically, journalists. Why do you think that is?
B: Because in my lines of work, I meet a very specific subset of women: businesswomen, lawyers, heroines, and reporters. Lawyers and businesspeople tend to be too... neurotic. Women in costume, well, they tend to be complicated
ID: As complicated as yourself?
B: Maybe even more so- and I’m complicated enough for several relationships. And of the four, reporters were the ones who I was obligated to actually sit down and have real conversations with.
ID: So you don't think it had anything to do with your search for the truth, about yourself, about your motives- things they were likely to root around for? Don't you wonder if it was just a hidden desire of yours to be unmasked, to be seen for the person you are, rather than the persona you pretended to be?
B: Maybe.
ID: That sounds like a yes, to me, but tell me about Vicki Vale.
B: She was a reporter, too, originally a social gossip columnist; she took her own photos, too. That's how we met. That was a fluff piece. What I liked about her, intially, was that Vicki wasn't complicated. Unlike Lois, she seemed to be happy with a superficial love affair. And I think at that time it was exactly what I needed.
But it wasn't where we went. I think it was foolish of me to think that that stage of a relationship could persist- though thankfully by the time our relationship evolved, I was a fairly different man. About that time, Vicki started investigating the Batman. I had saved her, accidentally, really, while she was investigating one of the criminal organizations- I think it was the Ventriloquist's group. She became obsessed with Batman; from the way she talked about him I think she loved him- and hated that, too. She hated feeling like a damsel in distress, hated that there were aspects of her affection that rewarded that kind of paternalistic behavior.
ID: So you were your own rival?
B: It sounds more glamorous than it was. She was being torn in different directions by her affections for different men. And I know because of it both of me were going to lose her; I thought seriously about telling her the truth. Ultimately, I didn't. And I did lose her.
ID: You sound like you regret that.
B: I wonder what would have happened. Would we have stayed together? Would I have retired earlier? Would it have put her in danger? It asks so many questions, so many possibilities… Ultimately, she’s alive, and happy, and so am I. I doubt the world would be better for the change.
ID: So she’s happy?
B: When the Luthor’s cataclysmic earthquake decimated Gotham, Vicki stayed in the city, documented the tragedy. Her photography won her the Pulitzer. She spent the next several years traveling to war zones and documenting the evil that men do. She found a purpose that I don’t think she would have if she stayed with me.
ID: Because if she’d stayed with you she would have put away her camera for an apron? It sounds like she made her career in Gotham. What would have changed?
B: I don’t think she would have left. I think she would have won a Pulitzer for her work in Gotham. But I don’t think she would have spent time in Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia.
ID: I presume at last some of this gallivanting is on a Wayne Foundation grant?
B: Occasionally. I'm proud of the work she does, and happy to be even that small part of it.
ID: And what ever happened to her investigation into you?
B: I suspect she eventually found me out- and then decided not to print it.
ID: How sweet. And the last journalist whose ink you dipped your pen into
B: Classy
ID: I'd wanted to do something with a printing press, but it was just too unwieldy. Anyway, Vesper Fairchild. We know it ended in tragedy, but how did you meet?
B: Vesper was a late night radio host. I don’t even remember the topic of our conversation anymore. But I remember she wore these stupid, hipster glasses, but they were really worn; by the end of the conversation, I started to believe she didn't wear them because they were trendy, but because she’d always worn glasses like that.
I think that’s a suitable metaphor for Vesper: if you saw her, she seemed like a journalist, hipster stereotype, but underneath that was a compassionate, thoughtful, intelligent, incisive woman. When the earthquake hit Gotham, she left the city with me. She tried to use her contacts in the journalistic world to spread news of just how bad the disaster was.
When I came back to the city, she stayed away, because that was where she could do the most good. It was because of that that we drifted apart. And even after she got back to the city, there was always a distance between us. We tried picking up where we left off, but… I think she knew something was wrong. Maybe she even knew I was Batman, but she started looking into him. And that put a tension between us, even before…
ID: Before she was murdered, and the assassin, David Cain, made it look like you were her killer.
B: At the behest of Lex Luthor, yes.
ID: I know you humiliated Luthor. I mean, you took away all his companies, his assets, and sent him to Federal take it in the pooper prison. Directly because of your efforts- obviously with Clark’s help- he went from being the President of the United States to the most recent inmate admitted into the Stonegate infirmary for unremitting rectal bleeding. How does that feel?
B: Like it was too little, far too late. Vesper’s dead. There’s nothing I could do to Lex to make up for that.
ID: But I assume you haven’t stopped trying.
B: Meaning?
ID: I mean I have this report- okay, a facsimile of this report, which makes me feel incredibly old school. It's from the first week he was in prison. Lex had just gotten back from the infirmary after his first altercation with some prisoners. And he shows back up again the next morning. He was found after lock-down with multiple complex fractures. The prison doctor was surprised, and I’ll quote here from the report, “at the precise, methodical nature of the wounds, designed to inflict maximal pain and damage, and ensure the longest possible recovery time, while presenting the least likelihood of lethality.” Half the bones in his body were broken, some of the muscles torn away from them. This was some serious vengeance- and that sure as hell sounds like your modus operandi.
You’re not going to confirm or deny this, are you? But that looked like, almost, the hint of a smile, as I read the quote- I mean, trying to read behind all the rage you obviously feel for Luthor, and probably for me for asking the question or bringing him up. I can’t imagine.
B: No. You really can’t.
ID: But I am sorry. For your loss. And for Vesper. Truly.
B: I know. I just… I hate that she died because of me. Luthor's plot. It was just to get at me, to frame Bruce Wayne.
ID: I don't know if that's true. You said that she went with you to Washington, when you tried to get Federal and national support after the earthquake, right? And you going up against Luthor, that's why he tried to frame you, right? Well, if Vesper was there, working with you against him, it would make sense that he'd hold a grudge against her, too. What I'm saying is, maybe it wasn't your fault. Maybe she was killed for standing up for something that was right, that she believed in.
And that should make you feel, okay, maybe not better. But I hope you can feel a little less guilty. God knows you're already carrying enough of that around.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Love(s) of My Life
ID: I’ve been editing the old interviews with Clark for a collected edition. I think the fact that he was dying, the fact that he was married and had a very specific life worked out, gave his interviews an urgency, and a clarity, that ours have sometimes lacked.
B: I’m sorry I’m not dying faster.
ID: You should be. Nearly two years worth of on and off-again interviewing ruined. So I’ve decided to poison you. Or to ask you a question. An important one. I assume you’re not dating anyone at the moment.
B: Why?
ID: Because it might interfere. And as a journalist, that’s basically a no, by the way. I want to know about the love of your life. Clark had Lois. Madonna had Sean Penn. I want to know who Bruce Wayne had. Now I’m going to turn off the tape recorder for a second, because I have an idea.
[click]
ID: We’re back, and see, now I know. But the thing is, we’re not going to come out and say it; we’re going to make it like a game show count down, where we talk about the various, um, we’ll call them lesser loves, as we count down to the love of your life.
Now, we're going to go for the low-hanging fruit, someone who you've talked about before, and who, I think obviously, is not your soul mate: Lois Lane. How did you two meet?
B: I was in Metropolis. I'd just started working as Batman, just started operating my businesses myself. Ostensibly I was there looking into some acquisitions. Metropolis has always been a center of high tech industry. I was actually looking into acquiring S.T.A.R., or at least luring away some of their top talent- though eventually we just ended up partnering our Wayne Tech divisions with them instead on a project by project basis. It's funny, but at the time Lex Luthor's businesses were fledgling enough that I was also considering a buy out of him, too- not that Lex was entertaining such a bid.
And I had also only been in the cowl a few months at that point. Every time a new, colorful person in a costume popped up, bad things happened. So I wanted to get out ahead of whatever threat Clark might have presented. Alternately, there weren't a lot of people in costume, and everything I'd heard about Clark pointed to him being on the right side of things, generally speaking, but powerful. I was curious about the prospect of, like I was doing then with my companies, harnassing his power to greater purpose.
And, like I said, I was new to the CEO position. My secretary set up an interview with the local daily, which was supposed to be a puff piece. Instead, it got handed to Lois, who was anything but fluffy; she's actually quite sharp-edged- which is not a joke about her being boney.
The interview was one of my first, and certainly the most incisive, and invasive. Lois was everything in her professional persona that I wanted Batman to be: relentless, but righteous, tough, but incredibly fair-handed. I actually asked her out three times.
The first came about twenty minutes into the interview; she told me it would be unprofessional for her to agree in the middle of an interview. I asked again at the interview's conclusion, and she said it would be unprofessional before she finished her write-up. And I asked her again after the story went to print, and she said yes.
What I liked the most about Lois was she made me think. She asked me questions that made me question things I'd always taken at face value, and just presumed. Um, I'm trying to think of an example. She asked me, after appetizers arrived during our first date, why now, after spending years gallivanting across parts of Europe and Asia, had I decided to come back to the US to take control of my family's empire.
And it was a question I hadn't thought about. I mean, I was back in the country because I'd finished my training, which did include at least some education in business. But why hadn't I just put on my cowl and let the business continue to be run by the men my father had had on his board?
ID: And the answer was...
B: I think the same as the reason why I was doing what I was doing in a cape. There was still more good to be done. My companies were good places to work, that churned out American manufactured products at reasonable enough prices. But there was a vast gulf between the empire I owned and the potential of my family's wealth. There was still so much more good I could do by taking over.
But that's to the side of the point. Lois challenged me. I think just as Clark said, that she challenged me to be a better man. She wanted me to be a better man. I think part of the problem was, back then, I wasn't.
ID: What do you mean?
B: I mean I wasn't Clark. Clark always wanted to be a better man. I was... more focused than that. I wanted to end crime. Sometimes that meant fighting poverty, which I did with my companies. And sometimes that meant scaring the hell out of criminals until they pissed themselves; occasionally it meant putting a killer in a wheelchair. It's a subtle difference, I think, but at the end of the day, her sharp edges to the side, Lois really is a sunny-eyed optimist. She wants the best out of and for people. And sometimes I just wanted to scare the hell out of people until they behaved themselves; I don’t always see the good in people.
ID: Okay. I don't know if Lois is quite enough fodder. But thankfully, you have a type. Specifically, journalists. [Ed. Note: continued next update]
B: I’m sorry I’m not dying faster.
ID: You should be. Nearly two years worth of on and off-again interviewing ruined. So I’ve decided to poison you. Or to ask you a question. An important one. I assume you’re not dating anyone at the moment.
B: Why?
ID: Because it might interfere. And as a journalist, that’s basically a no, by the way. I want to know about the love of your life. Clark had Lois. Madonna had Sean Penn. I want to know who Bruce Wayne had. Now I’m going to turn off the tape recorder for a second, because I have an idea.
[click]
ID: We’re back, and see, now I know. But the thing is, we’re not going to come out and say it; we’re going to make it like a game show count down, where we talk about the various, um, we’ll call them lesser loves, as we count down to the love of your life.
Now, we're going to go for the low-hanging fruit, someone who you've talked about before, and who, I think obviously, is not your soul mate: Lois Lane. How did you two meet?
B: I was in Metropolis. I'd just started working as Batman, just started operating my businesses myself. Ostensibly I was there looking into some acquisitions. Metropolis has always been a center of high tech industry. I was actually looking into acquiring S.T.A.R., or at least luring away some of their top talent- though eventually we just ended up partnering our Wayne Tech divisions with them instead on a project by project basis. It's funny, but at the time Lex Luthor's businesses were fledgling enough that I was also considering a buy out of him, too- not that Lex was entertaining such a bid.
And I had also only been in the cowl a few months at that point. Every time a new, colorful person in a costume popped up, bad things happened. So I wanted to get out ahead of whatever threat Clark might have presented. Alternately, there weren't a lot of people in costume, and everything I'd heard about Clark pointed to him being on the right side of things, generally speaking, but powerful. I was curious about the prospect of, like I was doing then with my companies, harnassing his power to greater purpose.
And, like I said, I was new to the CEO position. My secretary set up an interview with the local daily, which was supposed to be a puff piece. Instead, it got handed to Lois, who was anything but fluffy; she's actually quite sharp-edged- which is not a joke about her being boney.
The interview was one of my first, and certainly the most incisive, and invasive. Lois was everything in her professional persona that I wanted Batman to be: relentless, but righteous, tough, but incredibly fair-handed. I actually asked her out three times.
The first came about twenty minutes into the interview; she told me it would be unprofessional for her to agree in the middle of an interview. I asked again at the interview's conclusion, and she said it would be unprofessional before she finished her write-up. And I asked her again after the story went to print, and she said yes.
What I liked the most about Lois was she made me think. She asked me questions that made me question things I'd always taken at face value, and just presumed. Um, I'm trying to think of an example. She asked me, after appetizers arrived during our first date, why now, after spending years gallivanting across parts of Europe and Asia, had I decided to come back to the US to take control of my family's empire.
And it was a question I hadn't thought about. I mean, I was back in the country because I'd finished my training, which did include at least some education in business. But why hadn't I just put on my cowl and let the business continue to be run by the men my father had had on his board?
ID: And the answer was...
B: I think the same as the reason why I was doing what I was doing in a cape. There was still more good to be done. My companies were good places to work, that churned out American manufactured products at reasonable enough prices. But there was a vast gulf between the empire I owned and the potential of my family's wealth. There was still so much more good I could do by taking over.
But that's to the side of the point. Lois challenged me. I think just as Clark said, that she challenged me to be a better man. She wanted me to be a better man. I think part of the problem was, back then, I wasn't.
ID: What do you mean?
B: I mean I wasn't Clark. Clark always wanted to be a better man. I was... more focused than that. I wanted to end crime. Sometimes that meant fighting poverty, which I did with my companies. And sometimes that meant scaring the hell out of criminals until they pissed themselves; occasionally it meant putting a killer in a wheelchair. It's a subtle difference, I think, but at the end of the day, her sharp edges to the side, Lois really is a sunny-eyed optimist. She wants the best out of and for people. And sometimes I just wanted to scare the hell out of people until they behaved themselves; I don’t always see the good in people.
ID: Okay. I don't know if Lois is quite enough fodder. But thankfully, you have a type. Specifically, journalists. [Ed. Note: continued next update]
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Crime and Punishment
ID: We’ve talked about revenge before, at great length. So I imagine you want nothing more than to fly to Norway and punch Anders Behring Breivik. Repeatedly.
B: I want to beat him to death, resuscitate him, and do it again, for every single child he murdered.
ID: Ladies and gentlemen, your Batman, star of your children’s video games, lunch boxes and SpaghettiOs.
B: You didn’t let me finish. I think it’s completely natural for that to be your first reaction. Children, in a very real sense, are our future. Genetically, we’re predisposed to protecting them, whatever the costs. And our instincts even push us to protect one another- an instinct society reinforces. So an eye for an eye, it makes sense, as a gut reaction.
ID: And that’s why I wanted to talk about this specific case. Because the Norwegian justice system leans entirely in the other direction. Under current law, Breivik could only be sentenced to 21 years in prison. That’s mostly because sentences don’t compound.
B: Though there is a possibility he could be tried against a “crimes against humanity” statute passed in 2008 which would put him away for thirty.
ID: But thirty years… that doesn’t seem like enough. I mean, [Timothy] McVeigh, even if he hadn’t been put to death, would have spent several lifetimes in jail. It’s probably long enough to keep him from committing more terrorism when he gets out- I mean, he’ll be 62, not many 62 year old terrorists.
B: Except in leadership. But outside of the Middle East, most terrorist groups remain pretty small, and there are fewer old men involved.
And I think you’re right. 21 years, 30 years, 100 years- I don’t think there’s a number high enough that it would feel all right. I don’t think we could put him to death and get the kind of closure we want, either; killing one man who killed 69, that’s not a trade I can happily make. In some respects, particularly given that he’s a violent and disturbed individual, I’d say perhaps the criminal justice system isn’t the answer for him, anyway. Keeping him away from the public, where he can be treated, might make more sense- terrorism’s a special case, I think. But I think the question needs to not be what will make us feel better- that justice has been done- and what’s going to stop those kinds of things from happening- that’s why terrorism is maybe a separate issue.
Generally speaking, I think Norway’s criminal justice system has a lot to teach us. The country has 10% of our per capita prison population, and their recidivism rate is a third of ours. Counter-intuitive as it might seem, their whole open society could be one answer.
But I think it’s dangerous to oversimplify. Overall, I think the Norwegians know what they’re doing. But their solution is also uniquely Norwegian; I don’t know if you could lift that system out of Norway, drop it in another country, and achieve the same or even similar results. But I do think it’s worth looking at.
Just like it’s worth looking at the Japanese system; their recidivism rate is similarly low, and their per capita prison population is even lower than Norway’s.
DI: And Japan has that 99% conviction rate?
B: That’s actually a little misleading- though true. A study found that Japanese conviction rates are high because of understaffed and overworked prosecutor offices. Because of that, prosecutors only pursue their strongest cases- the ones where they’re most likely to achieve a conviction. Another facet was that until 2009, trials were conducted in front of before a judicial panels, not a jury, but the important point is the statistic in isolation is meaningless. It doesn’t mean more criminals are brought to justice in Japan- just that a higher percentage of those charged are found guilty.
DI: So just because we know their batting average doesn’t tell us whether or not they’re going to hit us any home runs or bat in any runs?
B: Basically. And while we’re on Japan, I’d like to mention something in parallel. Japanese culture has a history of accepting what I think we could safely call more extreme forms of pornography than western countries; fictional portrayals of rape, incest, pedophilia. At first I was pretty disgusted, but if you look at the statistics, the incidence of actual sex crimes in Japan is tiny by comparison.
And for several years now there’s been correlation between the availability of high speed internet and a decline in sexual assault in the US.
DI: But correlation is not causation.
B: Of course it isn’t. But wouldn’t the burden of proving the contrary then fall on those who argue for a closed society.
DI: But what about the children? Won’t somebody think of the children.
B: I think people have been lamenting the downfall of society since the first society. People predicted comics would ruin our children, then rock and roll, and now video games, or pornography.
And on the subject of violence- whatever the media- I’ve seen far more compelling research concluding that people with a predilection for violence gravitate towards violent media. It’s true, video games can lead to heightened emotional response and aggression, but that’s because they tap into primitive parts of the human mind, the fight or flight aspects. And this effect has only proven to last between 15 and 30 minutes. You’d see the exact same thing coming from athletes in competitive sports.
Mostly what I’m advocating is honest study and debate. There are countries that do better than we do at controlling criminals. We should be asking why, because we have the world’s largest prison population, and it costs us about $70 billion dollars a year to operate our prisons. There are 2.5 million people in prison, where they aren’t contributing to the economy, aren’t paying taxes.
And we’re just talking about sentencing; one reason why the Japanese and Norwegian systems might be more effective, is because they focus on rehabilitation. That can mean a lot of things, GED programs, apprenticeships, counseling, but most importantly, a greater focus on rehabilitation has proven to cut 10% off of our recidivism rate. That’s huge.
About half the people in our prison right now are repeat offenders. So 10% of that is more than 100,000 people- $2.5 billion dollars. And even if it cost us the full $2.5 billion to make our rehabilitation programs work, that’s 100,000 fewer victims.
ID: But if you’re so enamored of cost saving, what about private prisons?
B: The largest issue with private prisons is that they cut corners. Their main goal is making money, not protecting its staff or the general public. So they’ve become notorious for hiring fewer or less well trained staff. This leads to a 50% increase in violence, both to the staff and inmates. Private prisons have also inflated their ability to cut costs by refusing more expensive inmates.
I think there’s also a question of legitimacy. I think on some level, inmates believe that in a state run facility they’re being treated as fairly as possible with taxpayer dollars. I think in a for-profit prison, they feel like any short-comings of the prison are coming at their expense, so someone can make money off them.
And finally, private prisons have so far been more expensive. In Arizona, $1,600 more per inmate. Right now, private prisons don’t work.
I’m obviously not a libertarian- I don’t think the government should get the hell out of our business whatever the circumstances- far from it. And I have an agenda, in this discussion, a very specific one. I don’t want people murdered in the streets. I don’t want children orphaned. I don’t want what happened to me to happen to anyone else, ever again. And the evidence suggests that there are things we can do better to make our country safer. There’s absolutely no explanation for why we aren’t even trying.
ID: But aren’t private prisons potentially like charter schools, little laboratories where new ideas can be tested out?
B: They could have been, and maybe they could be still. But they haven’t. They’ve been focused on trying to make money off our penal system. I’d welcome a prison that was experimenting, and trying to bring down our appalling recidivism rates- even if it were being run for profit- but it’s foolish not to acknowledge the conflicting interests at play there.
And I think prisons are only a part of the equation. Our prison population is as high as it is because of longer sentences. Some of that is a consequence of minimum sentencing guidelines and the war on terror- which is a side issue- but overall, it’s a justice issue as much as a penal one.
ID: Heheh, you said penal.
B: Thanks for keeping the conversation on a high road.
B: I want to beat him to death, resuscitate him, and do it again, for every single child he murdered.
ID: Ladies and gentlemen, your Batman, star of your children’s video games, lunch boxes and SpaghettiOs.
B: You didn’t let me finish. I think it’s completely natural for that to be your first reaction. Children, in a very real sense, are our future. Genetically, we’re predisposed to protecting them, whatever the costs. And our instincts even push us to protect one another- an instinct society reinforces. So an eye for an eye, it makes sense, as a gut reaction.
ID: And that’s why I wanted to talk about this specific case. Because the Norwegian justice system leans entirely in the other direction. Under current law, Breivik could only be sentenced to 21 years in prison. That’s mostly because sentences don’t compound.
B: Though there is a possibility he could be tried against a “crimes against humanity” statute passed in 2008 which would put him away for thirty.
ID: But thirty years… that doesn’t seem like enough. I mean, [Timothy] McVeigh, even if he hadn’t been put to death, would have spent several lifetimes in jail. It’s probably long enough to keep him from committing more terrorism when he gets out- I mean, he’ll be 62, not many 62 year old terrorists.
B: Except in leadership. But outside of the Middle East, most terrorist groups remain pretty small, and there are fewer old men involved.
And I think you’re right. 21 years, 30 years, 100 years- I don’t think there’s a number high enough that it would feel all right. I don’t think we could put him to death and get the kind of closure we want, either; killing one man who killed 69, that’s not a trade I can happily make. In some respects, particularly given that he’s a violent and disturbed individual, I’d say perhaps the criminal justice system isn’t the answer for him, anyway. Keeping him away from the public, where he can be treated, might make more sense- terrorism’s a special case, I think. But I think the question needs to not be what will make us feel better- that justice has been done- and what’s going to stop those kinds of things from happening- that’s why terrorism is maybe a separate issue.
Generally speaking, I think Norway’s criminal justice system has a lot to teach us. The country has 10% of our per capita prison population, and their recidivism rate is a third of ours. Counter-intuitive as it might seem, their whole open society could be one answer.
But I think it’s dangerous to oversimplify. Overall, I think the Norwegians know what they’re doing. But their solution is also uniquely Norwegian; I don’t know if you could lift that system out of Norway, drop it in another country, and achieve the same or even similar results. But I do think it’s worth looking at.
Just like it’s worth looking at the Japanese system; their recidivism rate is similarly low, and their per capita prison population is even lower than Norway’s.
DI: And Japan has that 99% conviction rate?
B: That’s actually a little misleading- though true. A study found that Japanese conviction rates are high because of understaffed and overworked prosecutor offices. Because of that, prosecutors only pursue their strongest cases- the ones where they’re most likely to achieve a conviction. Another facet was that until 2009, trials were conducted in front of before a judicial panels, not a jury, but the important point is the statistic in isolation is meaningless. It doesn’t mean more criminals are brought to justice in Japan- just that a higher percentage of those charged are found guilty.
DI: So just because we know their batting average doesn’t tell us whether or not they’re going to hit us any home runs or bat in any runs?
B: Basically. And while we’re on Japan, I’d like to mention something in parallel. Japanese culture has a history of accepting what I think we could safely call more extreme forms of pornography than western countries; fictional portrayals of rape, incest, pedophilia. At first I was pretty disgusted, but if you look at the statistics, the incidence of actual sex crimes in Japan is tiny by comparison.
And for several years now there’s been correlation between the availability of high speed internet and a decline in sexual assault in the US.
DI: But correlation is not causation.
B: Of course it isn’t. But wouldn’t the burden of proving the contrary then fall on those who argue for a closed society.
DI: But what about the children? Won’t somebody think of the children.
B: I think people have been lamenting the downfall of society since the first society. People predicted comics would ruin our children, then rock and roll, and now video games, or pornography.
And on the subject of violence- whatever the media- I’ve seen far more compelling research concluding that people with a predilection for violence gravitate towards violent media. It’s true, video games can lead to heightened emotional response and aggression, but that’s because they tap into primitive parts of the human mind, the fight or flight aspects. And this effect has only proven to last between 15 and 30 minutes. You’d see the exact same thing coming from athletes in competitive sports.
Mostly what I’m advocating is honest study and debate. There are countries that do better than we do at controlling criminals. We should be asking why, because we have the world’s largest prison population, and it costs us about $70 billion dollars a year to operate our prisons. There are 2.5 million people in prison, where they aren’t contributing to the economy, aren’t paying taxes.
And we’re just talking about sentencing; one reason why the Japanese and Norwegian systems might be more effective, is because they focus on rehabilitation. That can mean a lot of things, GED programs, apprenticeships, counseling, but most importantly, a greater focus on rehabilitation has proven to cut 10% off of our recidivism rate. That’s huge.
About half the people in our prison right now are repeat offenders. So 10% of that is more than 100,000 people- $2.5 billion dollars. And even if it cost us the full $2.5 billion to make our rehabilitation programs work, that’s 100,000 fewer victims.
ID: But if you’re so enamored of cost saving, what about private prisons?
B: The largest issue with private prisons is that they cut corners. Their main goal is making money, not protecting its staff or the general public. So they’ve become notorious for hiring fewer or less well trained staff. This leads to a 50% increase in violence, both to the staff and inmates. Private prisons have also inflated their ability to cut costs by refusing more expensive inmates.
I think there’s also a question of legitimacy. I think on some level, inmates believe that in a state run facility they’re being treated as fairly as possible with taxpayer dollars. I think in a for-profit prison, they feel like any short-comings of the prison are coming at their expense, so someone can make money off them.
And finally, private prisons have so far been more expensive. In Arizona, $1,600 more per inmate. Right now, private prisons don’t work.
I’m obviously not a libertarian- I don’t think the government should get the hell out of our business whatever the circumstances- far from it. And I have an agenda, in this discussion, a very specific one. I don’t want people murdered in the streets. I don’t want children orphaned. I don’t want what happened to me to happen to anyone else, ever again. And the evidence suggests that there are things we can do better to make our country safer. There’s absolutely no explanation for why we aren’t even trying.
ID: But aren’t private prisons potentially like charter schools, little laboratories where new ideas can be tested out?
B: They could have been, and maybe they could be still. But they haven’t. They’ve been focused on trying to make money off our penal system. I’d welcome a prison that was experimenting, and trying to bring down our appalling recidivism rates- even if it were being run for profit- but it’s foolish not to acknowledge the conflicting interests at play there.
And I think prisons are only a part of the equation. Our prison population is as high as it is because of longer sentences. Some of that is a consequence of minimum sentencing guidelines and the war on terror- which is a side issue- but overall, it’s a justice issue as much as a penal one.
ID: Heheh, you said penal.
B: Thanks for keeping the conversation on a high road.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Hostage Crisis
[note: this image made more sense with the original title, “America Pulls a Boehner,” and it's still too good not to keep; courtesy of superdickery, though I'm sure owned by DC]
DI: Last year, Obama used the metaphor of a hostage crisis for the Republican negotiation over the Bush tax cuts. He ended up relenting, because he wasn’t willing to let them hurt the hostage, when the hostage was the American people. But you’ve dealt with some real-world hostage situations, so I’d like to get your opinion on this latest negotiation.
B: I don’t negotiate hostage crises; I end them.
DI: Probably by breaking through a hostage taker’s skylight then kicking them until they go to prison.
B: In a nutshell.
DI: Do you provide the nutshell, or do Gotham’s hostage-takers provide their own?
B: Clever.
DI: I have my moments.
B: But there have been circumstances where I’ve had to negotiate. It’s a favorite tactic of the Riddler, making sure he and his victims are hidden somewhere, so I have to deal with him remotely. It’s the only way he could ever get me to play his games at first.
DI: At first?
B: We came to an understanding about ten years ago: he stopped kidnapping people and I agreed to solve one of his riddles a month.
DI: So you enabled his lunacy. Wonderful.
B: The Riddler’s obsessive and compulsive, but not violently insane in the same way as someone like the Joker. All he really cared about was his puzzles, and one time, as I was taking him to the police, frustrated, I asked, “Next time can’t we just skip to the part that you care about?” And he laughed. But then he thought about it, and asked if I was offering what it sounded like I was offering. And I hadn’t been, but now that we were both thinking about it, it made a weird kind of sense.
Because he’d been terrorizing innocent people needlessly. He didn’t want a ransom. And he never actually hurt his hostages. He just wanted to play the game.
DI: But given that you negotiated with terrorists
B: Actually, you’ll note that I negotiated an end to the terrorism.
DI: But at the time he was a terrorist and you negotiated- and that makes President Bush cry- so what would you say of the current stalemate?
B: Well, first, looking back at the first hostage negotiation, Obama was being stupid. I think his metaphor fails, in that we weren’t talking about really hurting the American people, just whether or not some of them paid marginally higher taxes- at the rate they paid them under Clinton. Regardless, he did the worst thing possible: he caved- which only encourages more hostage-taking.
By contrast, I think the current debt ceiling negotiations, and maybe to a lesser extent the budget fight earlier this year, are closer to hostage negotiations. Because the debt ceiling allows us to pay for services that really will hurt Americans who lose them. And unlike taxes, which have a large lobby constantly agitating against them, those Americans tend not to have powerful political allies. So damage done to those Americans could well end up permanent.
DI: Then what do you think of the debt ceiling bill Boehner got passed in the House?
B: I liked Jonathan Chait’s description of the Boehner ‘deal’: “it's like a kidnapper demanding for the release of your child $100,000 and your other child.” Because Boehner’s deal extracts cuts without revenue, but then ensures that there will be another debt ceiling standoff in six months’ time.
This may be the reason that, according to CNN, the House plan championed by Speaker Boehner would likely lead to a downgrade of US credit from Standard and Poor’s, while the Senate plan championed by Harry Reid wouldn’t. [note: the Reid plan offers a ceiling extension that should see us to 2013]. We’ll see, I suppose, in the next few days, if that does anything to change the debate. I suspect not. John Boehner’s been painted into a corner. I suspect he’s not long for this political world; he was barely able to craft a bill that mustered Republican support in the House, but it’ll never make it through the Democratic Senate. His options now seem to be to throw his speakership under the bus to vote with the Democrats, or to try to preserve his speakership by tacking right, which means not voting for whatever compromise comes out of the Senate, and means the Republicans get hammered for the consequences and probably lose their majority and the speakership anyway.
Not that I’ll lament his loss. In attempting to sell his bill to the House, Boehner called the other options default or giving Obama a blank check. Now, I hate to go against Hanlon’s razor, but I can’t believe that the Speaker of the House misunderstands government so badly. The President doesn’t spend money- he executes the laws as passed by the Congress. Spending- the power of the purse- that’s Congress. The Congress, one half of which Boehner “leads,” set spending levels. Which makes it either blatant propaganda or criminal stupidity.
DI: You’ve placed a lot of people under citizen’s arrest in your time. Ever for stupidity?
B: I’ve caught a lot of people because of stupidity, but that was never the charge.
DI: You’ve been a pretty passionate proponent for raising the debt ceiling, even when a majority of Americans were against it.
B: I think most Americans are busy. They don’t want government to be a major thing in their lives- because they’d rather do something else, work, spend time with friends, family, just screwing around. So most Americans don’t pay a lot of attention to politics until it’s something important, something that gets in their face and demands attention. So the fact that most people didn’t understand what the debt ceiling was, I think accounts for most of the change in polls. But selling the increase - explaining why I’ve favored it, beyond what could go wrong- is a different thing. And I’ve said it before, but it’s about a different vision of the country.
Let me ask you a question: do you like our country? Right now, looking around, at the state of our roads, at the state of our national parks, at the state of our national security apparatus. Do you like this country, and want it to be able to continue at this level?
DI: Generally speaking, yeah. At least at this level.
B: Okay, these are the things our government spends money on. But how about the things you may not like, that the government isn’t doing as well with: the state of our schools, our crumbling infrastructure, high unemployment, the fact that seniors are edging closer to poverty as a group- these are all things that will require more spending in the future. Not unlimited spending- in some cases, like infrastructure, just a down payment- but increases over what we spend now.
I think most Americans are fairly happy with the country today. So I don’t understand that zealousness on the part of conservatives to take apart something we value.
DI: But you’re a dangerous socialist.
B: I’m a liberal. And maybe in the Europe I’d be a social democrat. I’ve never tried to hide that. And yes, personally, I’d favor robust government spending, to put us back on top of the world in education and technology, which is quite honestly where we belong. We’re the richest country in the world, and we still have an opportunity to cement our place at the head of that table; to me, that’s an America to dream about. It would require higher taxes- but if we made serious efforts to make the tax code fair- and I’m talking about treating all income equally, not the Orwellianly named ‘fair’ tax- it wouldn’t require a lot of sacrifice, either. To the average American, it would be more than worth it, to know that Medicare and Social Security were going to be there for them, and their kids.
But let me be clear: that’s not what I’m advocating here. I’m saying that, at a minimum, we should be trying to keep America strong. We don’t have to be the best. But we shouldn’t be willing to watch our nation slide further and further away from being the center of innovation, growth and prosperity. We’re still about as rich as the EU, but every day we fall further behind on the education and technology curves- and the further we fall back, the harder it is to regain position.
We should be looking for ways to ensure our nation’s stability and prosperity going into the future. We shouldn’t be looking to cut benefits for the elderly, while maintaining tax cuts for the oil industry. Those kinds of trade offs just don’t make sense.
DI: So how do you feel about the Reid plan?
B: The Reid plan isn’t wonderful. It has its flaws, namely a pretty large reduction in the government’s ability to protect its citizens. It does attack the deficit, and on that front it’s remarkably like the Beohner plan, both in how much gets cut and how quickly. So it tries to have the least effect during the downturn, which is a plus.
DI: So what’s so bad about the Boehner plan, then?
B: To get it out of the House, Boehner had to make the ceiling increase, or a second one, since he cuts a Reid sized increase in two, contingent upon passage of a balanced budget amendment. We’ve discussed how pointless such an amendment is, and this provision guaranteed that it could never even be considered by the Senate.
The thrust of the problem with a balanced budget amendment is it’s unenforceable, so it’s a rule which would only keep honest politicians honest.
DI: So the same way that, say, gun control only keeps honest gun owners honest?
B: One can of worms at a time.
And maybe I’m being cynical here, but I think Democrats have learned from pay as you go rules that they will try to live within the system, but Republicans won’t. Republicans, you’ll recall, got rid of pay as you go rules as soon as they took the House, and replaced them with cut as you go rules. The irony of which is that the party now obsessed with debt and deficits changed the rules to make it even easier to increase both.
But the other problem with Boehner’s plan we already mentioned. It’s the reason I think S & P has talked about downgrading our credit even if we pass the Boehner plan: it sets this whole hostage crisis back up again in six months. And even if we managed to talk the crazy people off the ledge this time, that doesn’t mean that next time we’ll be so lucky. In fact, since they’re likely to view this as a loss, and I speak from a long history with vengeful crazy people, they’re likely to be crazier, and more likely to throw us all off the ledge next time.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Unbalanced
B: I can tell you think you’re being clever. So out with it.
DI: I have two topics I’d like to talk about with you; unfortunately I’ve been having trouble coming up with an overarching theme, but they are Michele Bachmann and the budget.
B: And I’ll take a wild guess and assume you’re going to title the piece, ‘unbalanced.’
DI: On the nosey. We’ll start with the one that’s the furthest out of whack.
B: Michele Bachmann?
DI: Correct. Michele Bachmann really first came to prominent national attention when she called Barack Obama anti-American. Most notably because he was palling around with Bill Ayers, a member of the Weathermen, a group that bombed several government buildings in the 70s, and was friendly with Obama.
B: Obama served on a charity board with Ayers, and lived in the same neighborhood. I was friends with Harvey Dent- I actually cooked for him, in my home, once. I gave to his campaign when he was running for DA. By that standard, Michele Bachmann would believe that I condone any and everything Harvey’s ever done.
Which is stupid if not unbelievably cynical. Harvey was one of my best friends. When his… issues broke him, it was hard on me. But that never stopped me from beating the hell out of him every single time he put innocent people in danger. I don’t condone his actions; I despise them. I hate what Harvey became- and it’s all the sadder knowing where he came from, and who he could have been.
DI: But is that fair? Obama knew Ayers after he’d been in the Weathermen.
B: Okay. Say that Harvey reformed- which he’s tried, several times. Let’s say this time he makes it, and like Ayers he’s an honest, normal citizen for twenty years. Let’s say he gets his law license back, somehow, and runs for DA. I’d donate to his campaign all over again.
DI: I’m just going to lay my cards on the table, here, and just quote from Wikipedia: following comments by China proposing adoption of a global reserve currency, Bachmann introduced a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to bar the dollar from being replaced by a foreign currency.
B: I have no words. (pause) You’re not going to say anything else until I respond, are you?
DI: Nope.
B: It’s just… lunacy. The existence of a global reserve currency would have nothing to do with the US. All China is saying is that it doesn’t like being tied to US policy. They don’t like the idea that all the wealth they’ve generated is denominated in dollars, because they could lose their shirts if we were to do something stupid, like, say, reneg on our debts by refusing to lift the debt ceiling. So they’d rather have a currency that wasn’t related to any single country- sort of a gold standard without tying the reserve currency necessarily to any particular commodity.
DI: She also made headlines when she fretted publically about the census.
B: Which was ironic, given her self-proclaimed love for the Constitution- because that’s where the Census comes from. Every ten years the government performs a count and accounting of the citizenry- largely for the allocation of representatives for the house, but also the distribution of funds.
DI: And during the health care debate, she read an article by the notorious Betsy McCaughey on the floor of the House.
B: It’s unclear how much Bachmann’s persona is cynical shtick and how much of it is actual, diagnosable paranoia. But I can’t, looking at the evidence, believes it’s all an act; she went on record saying she wanted to “wean” people off Social Security and Medicare. She was talking about keeping people in the system there, and making sure people who wouldn’t get it had time to prepare- similar in spirit to the Ryan budget, but also throwing Social Security under the same bus- but that’s an incredibly unpopular mindset to have in this country. Frankly, I’m surprised she’s getting any traction at all.
DI: In 2004, Bachmann said, “We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders”
B: Given my long career in dealing with people with mental dysfunctions and identity disorders, I can tell you I have profound compassion for people like Bachmann, surpassed only by my compassion for the poor people of Minnesota she represents.
DI: That was catty. You’re getting catty in your old age.
B: Maybe I’ve been spending too much time around Selina. Kitten has claws.
DI: But conveniently, Bachmann has been at least on the outskirts of the skirmish over the debt ceiling. She tends to make wacky sounding demands- actually, I imagine that’s your wheelhouse, since you’ve been involved in hostage negotiations with the Joker.
B: To be fair, Bachmann isn’t going to kill anyone; she’s just threatening to hurt the country and its interests. Both dire, I admit; but I want to make sure we don’t step too far into hyperbole, here. Bachmann isn’t a murderer, and while I’d question her ability to properly grasp reality, she’s far from the Joker in that regard.
DI: Noted; also, aren’t I supposed to be the grown-up, here?
B: That’s what I keep asking.
DI: But what I was trying to say about Bachmann’s demands; she has, if I’m remembering this right, demanded at one point a balanced budget amendment, and at another, repeal of the ACA.
B: It’s hard to watch. I don’t know how many people were reading you and Clark’s discussions, but I can’t help but feel the ACA- it’s a part of Clark’s legacy. It’s a part I think he was proud of, even though he didn’t get to see its final passage. But so often, he, and I’m in a similar position, we get to help people in a way that’s immediate, and visceral.
But after you’ve saved someone from the burning building, you set them back down on the sidewalk and you fly away. And the circumstances that had them living in that poorly built building that wasn’t up to code, with the badly functioning smoke detectors that they couldn’t afford to replace- those all stay like they were. So it’s hard to feel like you saved them, really- you just postponed the inevitable.
I’m in a more unique position, in that I can afford and have the resources to come back later, and try to help out. There were a lot of times, especially when I was starting out, that I’d say to people: “Batman told me you could use a hand.” And little kids, I mean, the first thing they’d say is, “You know Batman?” And their eyes would light up; and it always felt like the answer was “only slightly.” Because he’s a part of me, but he’s not a part of me I have access to when I’m out with people like that. He’s as much an enigma to me, at those moments, as he is to everyone else.
But the point I was trying to get at, that I think I’ve wandered away from, is that at least in my mind, the ACA is something he advocated for, at the end. The last hurrah in his campaign for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. And I remember, when the debate over the bill got really nasty, he called me, depressed. Because he couldn’t understand how people could question the patriotism of the idea that everyone should have medical coverage. He asked me, “What’s more American than all of us, together, helping every American succeed, and prosper? Is there anything more American than that?”
At the time I didn’t say anything. It was rhetorical, but beyond that he had a way about him- even when he said something corny, something I wanted to laugh about- I couldn’t. He made you want to believe silly things. I don’t think the ACA is actually silly- but I believe it’s aimed to make the world better, in a way that sometimes I want to dismiss as hopelessly and romantically idealistic. But I also think it’ll save more lives than Clark or I ever did. And I know that’s what Clark hoped, too.
DI: That’s all well and good, but don’t you hate freedom?
B: I once punched Captain America in a comic book- but I don’t think that counts. I’ll cop to the fact that Bachmann and I don’t see eye to eye on the purpose of government. But I also believe that in a democracy you actually have to govern, that means voting for budgets on time, it means funding agencies even if you may not like the way they work; it means doing the business of the American people like a professional.
As to the budget, itself, I think it’s silly to attempt to balance the budget immediately. Aside from the fact that taking billions if not trillions out of the economy in the midst of the recession is a bad idea, I think it’s unfair and irresponsible to the people who have come to rely on certain government programs to suddenly do without. You’ll note, this is the exact same logic Bachmann wants to use for Social Security and Medicare, and at least as a methodology I can agree with it. Weaning people off of government funding is better than suddenly slamming the door shut and saying no more. You’d be dealing a huge blow to the economy, and just as important, really hurting a lot of people.
I agree, that over the long term we have to make up the difference between revenue and spending; reasonable people can disagree on the balance, there- and I’m hopeful that more reasonable people are elected in 2012 to make it a more adult conversation.
DI: So you don’t like the current state of the negotiations?
B: It’s difficult to know what the current state is, actually. But last I heard, Obama was pushing for $3.5 trillion in spending cuts, against about $1.2 trillion in additional revenue. To people who look at the debt the last couple of years, that might sound great. But to anyone paying attention to the long-term it’s a kick in the crotch.
$3.5 trillion is slightly less than what the Bush tax cuts cost every decade. Raising revenues by $1.2 trillion might sound like a good idea, but $.8 trillion of that comes off letting the Bush cuts for those earning more than $250,000 expire. Why that’s a crappy deal is it’s basically asking for the least investment in the country from the wealthy, and asking for the most pain endurable by everyone else. If you like the idea of the elderly staying above the poverty line, if you like the idea that the US might remain a well-educated country, these are not the kinds of cuts you want to see.
Which isn’t to say that this isn’t necessary. It’s possible that we really are spending so far beyond our means that we have to cut $350 billion out of our budget every year- which is around 10%. But I don’t like that we’re being forced to cut our budget by that much this quickly; the appropriate time to examine your finances is not while your house is on fire.
And I think if we’re going to ‘tighten our belts’ that it shouldn’t come on the backs of the poor and the vulnerable. There are a trillion dollars being basically wasted every decade through these so-called ‘tax expenditures.’ You can argue whether or not this is spending or it’s a tax cut, but that’s semantic; at the end of the day, it’s the government picking winners and losers. Giving some people preferential treatment through the tax code is, most of the time, a bad idea. It distorts markets, which can make it harder for certain businesses to compete.
After that trillion, I would say rescinding all the Bush tax cuts makes sense. If we really, really can’t afford our government, we should start things back at zero- because before those cuts was when we had a balanced budget. And from there we can have the sober discussion of how high we think taxes should be, versus the things we think the government should do.
And maybe the conclusion would eventually be, well, we want to pay fewer taxes even if that means a smaller military and smaller Social Security checks and maybe some rationing in Medicare. I don’t claim to speak for the American people on this. But I think we should start the conversation there- after we’ve put out most of the fires.
And personally, since I imagine you’re soliciting my economic expertise as a kind of poor man’s Warren Buffet, I’d suggest backloading the cuts. Because whenever you cut spending it’s going to take money out of the economy. If you aim it properly, some of it will be replaced by private investment- but that’s a matter of timing it so that it happens after the recovery actually gets stronger- no more of this see-sawing.
DI: Give yourself a little credit. You’re almost exactly like Warren Buffet, only you have a more interesting personal life- by which I mean your fetish gear fashion sense. And also your sex life.
B: Thanks for that.
DI: I have two topics I’d like to talk about with you; unfortunately I’ve been having trouble coming up with an overarching theme, but they are Michele Bachmann and the budget.
B: And I’ll take a wild guess and assume you’re going to title the piece, ‘unbalanced.’
DI: On the nosey. We’ll start with the one that’s the furthest out of whack.
B: Michele Bachmann?
DI: Correct. Michele Bachmann really first came to prominent national attention when she called Barack Obama anti-American. Most notably because he was palling around with Bill Ayers, a member of the Weathermen, a group that bombed several government buildings in the 70s, and was friendly with Obama.
B: Obama served on a charity board with Ayers, and lived in the same neighborhood. I was friends with Harvey Dent- I actually cooked for him, in my home, once. I gave to his campaign when he was running for DA. By that standard, Michele Bachmann would believe that I condone any and everything Harvey’s ever done.
Which is stupid if not unbelievably cynical. Harvey was one of my best friends. When his… issues broke him, it was hard on me. But that never stopped me from beating the hell out of him every single time he put innocent people in danger. I don’t condone his actions; I despise them. I hate what Harvey became- and it’s all the sadder knowing where he came from, and who he could have been.
DI: But is that fair? Obama knew Ayers after he’d been in the Weathermen.
B: Okay. Say that Harvey reformed- which he’s tried, several times. Let’s say this time he makes it, and like Ayers he’s an honest, normal citizen for twenty years. Let’s say he gets his law license back, somehow, and runs for DA. I’d donate to his campaign all over again.
DI: I’m just going to lay my cards on the table, here, and just quote from Wikipedia: following comments by China proposing adoption of a global reserve currency, Bachmann introduced a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to bar the dollar from being replaced by a foreign currency.
B: I have no words. (pause) You’re not going to say anything else until I respond, are you?
DI: Nope.
B: It’s just… lunacy. The existence of a global reserve currency would have nothing to do with the US. All China is saying is that it doesn’t like being tied to US policy. They don’t like the idea that all the wealth they’ve generated is denominated in dollars, because they could lose their shirts if we were to do something stupid, like, say, reneg on our debts by refusing to lift the debt ceiling. So they’d rather have a currency that wasn’t related to any single country- sort of a gold standard without tying the reserve currency necessarily to any particular commodity.
DI: She also made headlines when she fretted publically about the census.
B: Which was ironic, given her self-proclaimed love for the Constitution- because that’s where the Census comes from. Every ten years the government performs a count and accounting of the citizenry- largely for the allocation of representatives for the house, but also the distribution of funds.
DI: And during the health care debate, she read an article by the notorious Betsy McCaughey on the floor of the House.
B: It’s unclear how much Bachmann’s persona is cynical shtick and how much of it is actual, diagnosable paranoia. But I can’t, looking at the evidence, believes it’s all an act; she went on record saying she wanted to “wean” people off Social Security and Medicare. She was talking about keeping people in the system there, and making sure people who wouldn’t get it had time to prepare- similar in spirit to the Ryan budget, but also throwing Social Security under the same bus- but that’s an incredibly unpopular mindset to have in this country. Frankly, I’m surprised she’s getting any traction at all.
DI: In 2004, Bachmann said, “We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders”
B: Given my long career in dealing with people with mental dysfunctions and identity disorders, I can tell you I have profound compassion for people like Bachmann, surpassed only by my compassion for the poor people of Minnesota she represents.
DI: That was catty. You’re getting catty in your old age.
B: Maybe I’ve been spending too much time around Selina. Kitten has claws.
DI: But conveniently, Bachmann has been at least on the outskirts of the skirmish over the debt ceiling. She tends to make wacky sounding demands- actually, I imagine that’s your wheelhouse, since you’ve been involved in hostage negotiations with the Joker.
B: To be fair, Bachmann isn’t going to kill anyone; she’s just threatening to hurt the country and its interests. Both dire, I admit; but I want to make sure we don’t step too far into hyperbole, here. Bachmann isn’t a murderer, and while I’d question her ability to properly grasp reality, she’s far from the Joker in that regard.
DI: Noted; also, aren’t I supposed to be the grown-up, here?
B: That’s what I keep asking.
DI: But what I was trying to say about Bachmann’s demands; she has, if I’m remembering this right, demanded at one point a balanced budget amendment, and at another, repeal of the ACA.
B: It’s hard to watch. I don’t know how many people were reading you and Clark’s discussions, but I can’t help but feel the ACA- it’s a part of Clark’s legacy. It’s a part I think he was proud of, even though he didn’t get to see its final passage. But so often, he, and I’m in a similar position, we get to help people in a way that’s immediate, and visceral.
But after you’ve saved someone from the burning building, you set them back down on the sidewalk and you fly away. And the circumstances that had them living in that poorly built building that wasn’t up to code, with the badly functioning smoke detectors that they couldn’t afford to replace- those all stay like they were. So it’s hard to feel like you saved them, really- you just postponed the inevitable.
I’m in a more unique position, in that I can afford and have the resources to come back later, and try to help out. There were a lot of times, especially when I was starting out, that I’d say to people: “Batman told me you could use a hand.” And little kids, I mean, the first thing they’d say is, “You know Batman?” And their eyes would light up; and it always felt like the answer was “only slightly.” Because he’s a part of me, but he’s not a part of me I have access to when I’m out with people like that. He’s as much an enigma to me, at those moments, as he is to everyone else.
But the point I was trying to get at, that I think I’ve wandered away from, is that at least in my mind, the ACA is something he advocated for, at the end. The last hurrah in his campaign for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. And I remember, when the debate over the bill got really nasty, he called me, depressed. Because he couldn’t understand how people could question the patriotism of the idea that everyone should have medical coverage. He asked me, “What’s more American than all of us, together, helping every American succeed, and prosper? Is there anything more American than that?”
At the time I didn’t say anything. It was rhetorical, but beyond that he had a way about him- even when he said something corny, something I wanted to laugh about- I couldn’t. He made you want to believe silly things. I don’t think the ACA is actually silly- but I believe it’s aimed to make the world better, in a way that sometimes I want to dismiss as hopelessly and romantically idealistic. But I also think it’ll save more lives than Clark or I ever did. And I know that’s what Clark hoped, too.
DI: That’s all well and good, but don’t you hate freedom?
B: I once punched Captain America in a comic book- but I don’t think that counts. I’ll cop to the fact that Bachmann and I don’t see eye to eye on the purpose of government. But I also believe that in a democracy you actually have to govern, that means voting for budgets on time, it means funding agencies even if you may not like the way they work; it means doing the business of the American people like a professional.
As to the budget, itself, I think it’s silly to attempt to balance the budget immediately. Aside from the fact that taking billions if not trillions out of the economy in the midst of the recession is a bad idea, I think it’s unfair and irresponsible to the people who have come to rely on certain government programs to suddenly do without. You’ll note, this is the exact same logic Bachmann wants to use for Social Security and Medicare, and at least as a methodology I can agree with it. Weaning people off of government funding is better than suddenly slamming the door shut and saying no more. You’d be dealing a huge blow to the economy, and just as important, really hurting a lot of people.
I agree, that over the long term we have to make up the difference between revenue and spending; reasonable people can disagree on the balance, there- and I’m hopeful that more reasonable people are elected in 2012 to make it a more adult conversation.
DI: So you don’t like the current state of the negotiations?
B: It’s difficult to know what the current state is, actually. But last I heard, Obama was pushing for $3.5 trillion in spending cuts, against about $1.2 trillion in additional revenue. To people who look at the debt the last couple of years, that might sound great. But to anyone paying attention to the long-term it’s a kick in the crotch.
$3.5 trillion is slightly less than what the Bush tax cuts cost every decade. Raising revenues by $1.2 trillion might sound like a good idea, but $.8 trillion of that comes off letting the Bush cuts for those earning more than $250,000 expire. Why that’s a crappy deal is it’s basically asking for the least investment in the country from the wealthy, and asking for the most pain endurable by everyone else. If you like the idea of the elderly staying above the poverty line, if you like the idea that the US might remain a well-educated country, these are not the kinds of cuts you want to see.
Which isn’t to say that this isn’t necessary. It’s possible that we really are spending so far beyond our means that we have to cut $350 billion out of our budget every year- which is around 10%. But I don’t like that we’re being forced to cut our budget by that much this quickly; the appropriate time to examine your finances is not while your house is on fire.
And I think if we’re going to ‘tighten our belts’ that it shouldn’t come on the backs of the poor and the vulnerable. There are a trillion dollars being basically wasted every decade through these so-called ‘tax expenditures.’ You can argue whether or not this is spending or it’s a tax cut, but that’s semantic; at the end of the day, it’s the government picking winners and losers. Giving some people preferential treatment through the tax code is, most of the time, a bad idea. It distorts markets, which can make it harder for certain businesses to compete.
After that trillion, I would say rescinding all the Bush tax cuts makes sense. If we really, really can’t afford our government, we should start things back at zero- because before those cuts was when we had a balanced budget. And from there we can have the sober discussion of how high we think taxes should be, versus the things we think the government should do.
And maybe the conclusion would eventually be, well, we want to pay fewer taxes even if that means a smaller military and smaller Social Security checks and maybe some rationing in Medicare. I don’t claim to speak for the American people on this. But I think we should start the conversation there- after we’ve put out most of the fires.
And personally, since I imagine you’re soliciting my economic expertise as a kind of poor man’s Warren Buffet, I’d suggest backloading the cuts. Because whenever you cut spending it’s going to take money out of the economy. If you aim it properly, some of it will be replaced by private investment- but that’s a matter of timing it so that it happens after the recovery actually gets stronger- no more of this see-sawing.
DI: Give yourself a little credit. You’re almost exactly like Warren Buffet, only you have a more interesting personal life- by which I mean your fetish gear fashion sense. And also your sex life.
B: Thanks for that.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Making Amend(ment)s
DI: We had an animated conversation the other day, and I’d like to talk about something similar: Republicans in the House have been saying they want a balanced budget amendment; in fact, they’re refusing to vote on the debt ceiling without it being tied to a balanced budget amendment. And you told me that was the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard.
B: The problem with a balanced budget amendment is it’s pointless. Because even if a congress were to violate the amendment- even if Congress decided to go completely off the deep end and stop collecting any taxes while also double all spending, an amendment would be powerless to stop them.
DI: And why’s that?
B: There are a couple of issues tied up here, both having to do with enforcement. The first hurdle has to do with the mechanism of enforcement. How do you write an amendment that guarantees that the budget be balanced? The most creative method I heard came from Warren Buffet, who suggested the amendment state that sitting congresspersons could not be reelected if there was a deficit. But even the budget hawks probably wouldn’t go for that- since even the most ambitious budgets won’t achieve balance for several years. And realistically, putting a revolving door into the Congress would likely increase spending, rather than decrease it. I mean, if you’re not going to have to be accountable to the voters at all, why not? Even assuming you could come up with language for an amendment that would be able to get through the constitutional process- which takes years and comes with no guarantees- you come up against the second issue.
When there’s a contention, rather than if, it’s ultimately the courts who are responsible for enforcing the Constitution. But the courts have refused to hear the case in similar circumstances. The courts have argued that plaintiffs don’t have standing to sue, even a case where congresspeople argued that their ability to carry out their constitutional prerogatives was being thwarted.
DI: And for those of us who have thusfar avoided being the targets of lawsuits, what’s standing?
B: Standing basically says that you personally were hurt by an action. For better or worse, the current court tends to favor executive power. So these suits get thrown out for lack of standing if there are any shades of gray.
But even if you assume for a moment that a court- any court- decides to set aside the concept of standing. Maybe they’re mad as hell, too, and want to see if anything can be done about it. They hear the case, and decide that indeed Congress is exceeding it’s authority by spending more than they’re bringing in. What then?
The court can’t decide on its own which spending is improper- they don’t have a line item veto: there’s nothing approaching that in the court’s authority. The court would then be left with the choice of either declaring the entire government unconstitutional, or admitting that it couldn’t do anything to change it. And even if a judiciary so vastly overstepped that it declared the US government illegitimate, what then? Does the Congress just turn in their parking passes and go home. Or do they flip the Court the bird and keep on trucking?
I want to be clear, here: I want a balanced budget, and sooner is certainly better than later. But this slash it now now NOW attitude pervading the conservatives in Congress- especially when coupled with intransigence on taxes- is purely political. It has nothing, zero, to do with the long term health and viability of the government or the country- and even less to do with the well-being of its citizens. Republicans are using the current budget issues as an excuse to try and dismantle the social programs they have never particularly liked.
Ironically, the largest drivers of our current financial woes, were enacted by Republicans who had gotten rid of pay as you go rules and scoffed at the idea that they should have to pay for their agenda. Congressional Republicans are playing chicken with the global economy, and what they claim to be holding out for is this amendment. But it’s pointless and toothless.
DI: I read in the Washington Post that Michelle Bachman has said that she will not vote for a debt ceiling increase. The reporter said that placed her to the right of some other conservatives.
B: But it’s not ideologic, it’s just idiotic.
This is unprecedented. Never in the history of this country have we defaulted. That’s why we have good credit. Seriously, this would be like the head of a household declaring to his family, “We’re just not going to pay the credit card bill.” Years of good credit history would disappear, and borrowing rates, for the car, the kid’s student loans, the home, would all go way up. And even delaying payments a month would make the interest rates on any existing debt skyrocket. There is absolutely no good reason to do this. It borders upon insane.
DI: But don’t we have to cut spending?
B: Sure. Absolutely. And there are ways to do that that don’t put the financial future of the country at risk, that don’t put the global economy at risk. The sane thing to do would be to pass a clean debt ceiling hike today. The ambitious but still not crazy thing might be to push for, not some empty amendment, but a binding budget agreement that says that budgets over the next ten years we need to cut 10% of the deficit annually. As an enforcement mechanism, the law could automatically cut budgets across the board at the decade mark to make up for whatever deficit was left. Add in that repeal of this law takes a three quarters majority of both houses and you have a balanced budget law that’s even stronger than pay as you go rules the Democrats used to operate under.
DI: But isn’t that undemocratic?
B: So’s a balanced budget amendment. But just maybe to be responsible, we can’t be all that democratic. To make it fair, though, you could make sure the law can’t take effect without three quarters of both houses voting for it- so it takes an equal amount to pass it as repeal it.
Alternatively, you could reinstate the old pay as you go rules, with the change that you don’t just have to pay for changes, but pay a ‘surcharge’ on changes, of say 10%, so every time Congress made adjustments to programs they would have to find savings or revenue to cover the difference, plus ten percent. There are lots of ways to get us back in the black- and the vast majority are simple math problems that don’t require destroying Medicare or gutting Social Security or even telling the poor that we’re okay with them dying.
But the amendment, and especially tying an amendment or budget cuts, to the debt ceiling? That’s playing with fire. And it’s all of us that are going to get burned.
DI: You feel better? Farther away from a coronary than when we started? I hope so, because to make amends to our readership for your crazy polemics- I’m kidding; please don’t hit me- you know what time it is?
B: Where were we?
DI: Diana had just been to Cale Pharmaceuticals with the Gotham Police to investigate Danielle’s story, and came up empty.
B: Okay, we’re back in the embassy, then.
Wellys:
Diana, I swear to you, it should have been there.
Diana:
Start at the beginning.
Wellys:
I thought we'd hit a dead end in our research. We'd missed all of our milestones. When Veronica called me in, I thought it was because we were going to have all of our funding pulled. But she said she'd found a benefactor, one that was going to keep funding our project, and had some... ideas about getting over our hurdles.
DI:
Diana:
What hurdles?
B:
Wellys:
The human body doesn’t like tech. Whether it’s an artificial hip or nanites, we tend to react pretty violently to a foreign object implanted in the body- hence anti-rejection meds. The project, we were calling it “Silver Swan” to keep it secret, involved nanotec cosmetics. The idea was to stop putting makeup on the body, and start making the body itself beautiful. But all of our subjects were getting sick. Several of them developed tumors. It was a mess. This new investor brought in a truckload of cash and some kind of know-how. Within 72 hours all of our problems were gone. At first I was thrilled- I’ve been working on this project for six years, practically my entire professional life- and finally it was getting somewhere. Then I saw what they used it for. And it just, I knew they were taking shortcuts. Because that kind of a breakthrough, from where we were, it wasn’t possible.
Diana:
That's because it wasn’t science. It was magic. And I know someone with plenty of it.
DI: I think I know where you’re going with this. CUT TO poolside, a beautiful woman in a bikini, with long purple hair, is lounging beside the pool.
B: She sets her drink down on a tray held up by a male waiter who is dressed like a Chippendales dancer. He takes the drink away, and as he’s going, she wiggles her fingers, and his trunks become loose and nearly fall off before he catches them, giving us the hint of an untanned but firm butt.
DI: Thanks for that.
B: Somebody needs to help keep the ratio of T & A to man candy equitable. Besides, Circe really is man crazy. Circe lays back down, relaxing. A shadow looms over her, and she assumes for the moment it’s the waiter as she sits up to speak.
Circe
A little more salt on the rim this time if you- oh. It’s you.
DI:
Diana
Cale Pharmaceuticals. I have reason to believe that someone’s been trying to magic up some miracle make up.
B:
Circe
And you’re tired of trying to conceal those crow’s feet? Wish I could help you, Diana, really I do. But have you forgotten what happened last week?
Circe pushes down her sunglasses to reveal a black eye.
DI:
Diana
Oh, right. I punch a lot of people. Sometimes I forget who.
B:
Circe
I haven't had time, or frankly the perspicacity, to engage in another endeavor. Give me another week, maybe two, at poolside and perhaps I'll have something fun we can get up to, but today, I'm only lounging at the pool. But did you try Ares? Of course not. You came here hoping it was me. Because you don't enjoy the prospect of locking horns with the god of war- though as a lady I'd be happy to lock his horn any day of the week.
DI:
Danielle
Lady might be a bit of a stretch.
B:
Circe
Meow. Kitten’s got claws.
Diana
But if you're lounging around here, who's tending to your flock?
Circe
We witches call it a coven. And I forget the young man's name, but he looks excellent without a shirt on.
DI:
Diana
At least you remember the important details.
B:
Circe
I note you're chirlishly disapproving tone, Diana. But if L. Ron Hubbard can have his own clan of religious zealots, why can't I? Speaking of clans of zealots, how are the Amazons?
Diana
That's right. I hit you because you were trying to turn every Amazon on Themiscyra into a pig.
Circe
I've been in the market for another island- and I am a sucker for the classics.
B: The problem with a balanced budget amendment is it’s pointless. Because even if a congress were to violate the amendment- even if Congress decided to go completely off the deep end and stop collecting any taxes while also double all spending, an amendment would be powerless to stop them.
DI: And why’s that?
B: There are a couple of issues tied up here, both having to do with enforcement. The first hurdle has to do with the mechanism of enforcement. How do you write an amendment that guarantees that the budget be balanced? The most creative method I heard came from Warren Buffet, who suggested the amendment state that sitting congresspersons could not be reelected if there was a deficit. But even the budget hawks probably wouldn’t go for that- since even the most ambitious budgets won’t achieve balance for several years. And realistically, putting a revolving door into the Congress would likely increase spending, rather than decrease it. I mean, if you’re not going to have to be accountable to the voters at all, why not? Even assuming you could come up with language for an amendment that would be able to get through the constitutional process- which takes years and comes with no guarantees- you come up against the second issue.
When there’s a contention, rather than if, it’s ultimately the courts who are responsible for enforcing the Constitution. But the courts have refused to hear the case in similar circumstances. The courts have argued that plaintiffs don’t have standing to sue, even a case where congresspeople argued that their ability to carry out their constitutional prerogatives was being thwarted.
DI: And for those of us who have thusfar avoided being the targets of lawsuits, what’s standing?
B: Standing basically says that you personally were hurt by an action. For better or worse, the current court tends to favor executive power. So these suits get thrown out for lack of standing if there are any shades of gray.
But even if you assume for a moment that a court- any court- decides to set aside the concept of standing. Maybe they’re mad as hell, too, and want to see if anything can be done about it. They hear the case, and decide that indeed Congress is exceeding it’s authority by spending more than they’re bringing in. What then?
The court can’t decide on its own which spending is improper- they don’t have a line item veto: there’s nothing approaching that in the court’s authority. The court would then be left with the choice of either declaring the entire government unconstitutional, or admitting that it couldn’t do anything to change it. And even if a judiciary so vastly overstepped that it declared the US government illegitimate, what then? Does the Congress just turn in their parking passes and go home. Or do they flip the Court the bird and keep on trucking?
I want to be clear, here: I want a balanced budget, and sooner is certainly better than later. But this slash it now now NOW attitude pervading the conservatives in Congress- especially when coupled with intransigence on taxes- is purely political. It has nothing, zero, to do with the long term health and viability of the government or the country- and even less to do with the well-being of its citizens. Republicans are using the current budget issues as an excuse to try and dismantle the social programs they have never particularly liked.
Ironically, the largest drivers of our current financial woes, were enacted by Republicans who had gotten rid of pay as you go rules and scoffed at the idea that they should have to pay for their agenda. Congressional Republicans are playing chicken with the global economy, and what they claim to be holding out for is this amendment. But it’s pointless and toothless.
DI: I read in the Washington Post that Michelle Bachman has said that she will not vote for a debt ceiling increase. The reporter said that placed her to the right of some other conservatives.
B: But it’s not ideologic, it’s just idiotic.
This is unprecedented. Never in the history of this country have we defaulted. That’s why we have good credit. Seriously, this would be like the head of a household declaring to his family, “We’re just not going to pay the credit card bill.” Years of good credit history would disappear, and borrowing rates, for the car, the kid’s student loans, the home, would all go way up. And even delaying payments a month would make the interest rates on any existing debt skyrocket. There is absolutely no good reason to do this. It borders upon insane.
DI: But don’t we have to cut spending?
B: Sure. Absolutely. And there are ways to do that that don’t put the financial future of the country at risk, that don’t put the global economy at risk. The sane thing to do would be to pass a clean debt ceiling hike today. The ambitious but still not crazy thing might be to push for, not some empty amendment, but a binding budget agreement that says that budgets over the next ten years we need to cut 10% of the deficit annually. As an enforcement mechanism, the law could automatically cut budgets across the board at the decade mark to make up for whatever deficit was left. Add in that repeal of this law takes a three quarters majority of both houses and you have a balanced budget law that’s even stronger than pay as you go rules the Democrats used to operate under.
DI: But isn’t that undemocratic?
B: So’s a balanced budget amendment. But just maybe to be responsible, we can’t be all that democratic. To make it fair, though, you could make sure the law can’t take effect without three quarters of both houses voting for it- so it takes an equal amount to pass it as repeal it.
Alternatively, you could reinstate the old pay as you go rules, with the change that you don’t just have to pay for changes, but pay a ‘surcharge’ on changes, of say 10%, so every time Congress made adjustments to programs they would have to find savings or revenue to cover the difference, plus ten percent. There are lots of ways to get us back in the black- and the vast majority are simple math problems that don’t require destroying Medicare or gutting Social Security or even telling the poor that we’re okay with them dying.
But the amendment, and especially tying an amendment or budget cuts, to the debt ceiling? That’s playing with fire. And it’s all of us that are going to get burned.
DI: You feel better? Farther away from a coronary than when we started? I hope so, because to make amends to our readership for your crazy polemics- I’m kidding; please don’t hit me- you know what time it is?
B: Where were we?
DI: Diana had just been to Cale Pharmaceuticals with the Gotham Police to investigate Danielle’s story, and came up empty.
B: Okay, we’re back in the embassy, then.
Wellys:
Diana, I swear to you, it should have been there.
Diana:
Start at the beginning.
Wellys:
I thought we'd hit a dead end in our research. We'd missed all of our milestones. When Veronica called me in, I thought it was because we were going to have all of our funding pulled. But she said she'd found a benefactor, one that was going to keep funding our project, and had some... ideas about getting over our hurdles.
DI:
Diana:
What hurdles?
B:
Wellys:
The human body doesn’t like tech. Whether it’s an artificial hip or nanites, we tend to react pretty violently to a foreign object implanted in the body- hence anti-rejection meds. The project, we were calling it “Silver Swan” to keep it secret, involved nanotec cosmetics. The idea was to stop putting makeup on the body, and start making the body itself beautiful. But all of our subjects were getting sick. Several of them developed tumors. It was a mess. This new investor brought in a truckload of cash and some kind of know-how. Within 72 hours all of our problems were gone. At first I was thrilled- I’ve been working on this project for six years, practically my entire professional life- and finally it was getting somewhere. Then I saw what they used it for. And it just, I knew they were taking shortcuts. Because that kind of a breakthrough, from where we were, it wasn’t possible.
Diana:
That's because it wasn’t science. It was magic. And I know someone with plenty of it.
DI: I think I know where you’re going with this. CUT TO poolside, a beautiful woman in a bikini, with long purple hair, is lounging beside the pool.
B: She sets her drink down on a tray held up by a male waiter who is dressed like a Chippendales dancer. He takes the drink away, and as he’s going, she wiggles her fingers, and his trunks become loose and nearly fall off before he catches them, giving us the hint of an untanned but firm butt.
DI: Thanks for that.
B: Somebody needs to help keep the ratio of T & A to man candy equitable. Besides, Circe really is man crazy. Circe lays back down, relaxing. A shadow looms over her, and she assumes for the moment it’s the waiter as she sits up to speak.
Circe
A little more salt on the rim this time if you- oh. It’s you.
DI:
Diana
Cale Pharmaceuticals. I have reason to believe that someone’s been trying to magic up some miracle make up.
B:
Circe
And you’re tired of trying to conceal those crow’s feet? Wish I could help you, Diana, really I do. But have you forgotten what happened last week?
Circe pushes down her sunglasses to reveal a black eye.
DI:
Diana
Oh, right. I punch a lot of people. Sometimes I forget who.
B:
Circe
I haven't had time, or frankly the perspicacity, to engage in another endeavor. Give me another week, maybe two, at poolside and perhaps I'll have something fun we can get up to, but today, I'm only lounging at the pool. But did you try Ares? Of course not. You came here hoping it was me. Because you don't enjoy the prospect of locking horns with the god of war- though as a lady I'd be happy to lock his horn any day of the week.
DI:
Danielle
Lady might be a bit of a stretch.
B:
Circe
Meow. Kitten’s got claws.
Diana
But if you're lounging around here, who's tending to your flock?
Circe
We witches call it a coven. And I forget the young man's name, but he looks excellent without a shirt on.
DI:
Diana
At least you remember the important details.
B:
Circe
I note you're chirlishly disapproving tone, Diana. But if L. Ron Hubbard can have his own clan of religious zealots, why can't I? Speaking of clans of zealots, how are the Amazons?
Diana
That's right. I hit you because you were trying to turn every Amazon on Themiscyra into a pig.
Circe
I've been in the market for another island- and I am a sucker for the classics.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Performance Enhancement
DI: Roger Clemens is in the news at the moment because he lied to Congress- which is a pretty hilarious thing in and of itself, given that politicians are probably the most consistently untruthful people on the planet.
B: It’s true that politicians lie. But I think it’s fair to ask why. And fundamentally, I think it comes down to the fact that the electorate doesn’t like consistency.
Look at the current Republican Presidential nominees. They’re vilified for taking what, at the time, weren’t even controversial stances on issues: Romney on health care, Pawlenty on cap and trade, even Gingrich on the Ryan budget. So they’ve largely denied ever taking those stances, or at least walked them back.
Note that I’m not condoning the behavior. I think if those three men, longtime party members with broad appeal and respect, stood up and together said that the politics of immolation can’t continue- that they took stands they believed in, and wouldn’t retreat just because something they liked was polling well- it would go a long way to changing things.
DI: But isn’t that a fairly undemocratic idea?
B: Let me explain. I have some socialist leanings- anyone who likes Medicare or Social Security does, frankly- but I’d go a step beyond. I’d like to see a higher minimum wage. I’d even support a maximum wage. If I were given the keys to the kingdom tomorrow, and told to remake the US to make it the best country I could, I’d push for more social democratic programs, similar to what exists in Europe, socialized medicine, for a start. But on the other hand, if I were running for or elected President, that’s a different story. Elected leaders aren’t chosen to represent their own ideas and interests, they’re there to represent the people. On a lot of issues I’ve been disappointed with Obama, but in that regard, I really feel he’s tried to be President not just of blue states but of all the states. You might not know it from all of the Nazi/Socialist rhetoric, but he’s a fairly centrist President; I’d say he’s not even as far left as Bush was right.
DI: Okay, but what I wanted to talk about was why Clemens is in the hot seat. He lied. Specifically about using performance enhancers. Or at least that’s the contention. And I know we touched on it briefly, I think around last Halloween- so I’ll try and keep us from rehashing. But I want to know, as a former performance enhancer, how you feel about performance enhancement.
B: Why do I shudder to think what you’ll name this blog entry? But it’s a tough question, and there’s a lot of nuance to it, so I’ll start at the general and we’ll get more specific from there. I think we’re living on the cusp of a new evolution in humanity. Some heroes are aliens, some have magical assistance, but some- I’d say most- of them truly represent what we’re doing or will do to ourselves as a species. Cyborg is a pretty good example. He’s part man and part machine. Call it post, trans, or metahumanity, but we’re changing, evolving; I doubt we’ll recognize the human race in 50 years.
And there are all sorts of mechanisms. Cybernetics, gene therapy, chemicals, nanotech. I don’t know how we’re going to get there, but I think it’s clear from what’s happened in the hero community that we’re changing. I think the people who put on spandex and fight crime- or commit it- are just the precursor.
Which is why I see what’s happening in our sports as a choice. If we decide, as seems to be the overriding thought of the day, that sports ought to be a throwback to what humans can do without technological aid, then so be it. So long as those are the rules. I think the reason there’s been so much trouble is that the rules were technically that performance enhancement was wrong, but in reality everyone was looking the other way. So honest athletes were put at a severe, perhaps even crippling disadvantage. Which is wrong.
Now what the capitalist in me imagines for sports is that we’ll eventually end up with two of everything- a natural and an enhanced version. People or athletes who for whatever reason want to see the pinnacle of human achievement without certain kinds of technology, we have the Olympics and equivalent associations. For those who want to see a man kick a football as far as he can by whatever means, you’d have sports leagues that allow enhancements.
And whichever people pay to watch on TV, whichever people buy merchandising for, that’s what will determine which brands survive. And maybe it’ll be a case, like the NCAA and the NBA, where there’s an audience for both that overlaps. I don’t know.
DI: That was a fairly obvious caveat where you mentioned ‘certain kinds’ of technology being prohibited in the Olympics.
B: Well, there’s a reason why Olympic world records today tend to outstrip records from fifty years ago: the world changed. Nutrition, and sports medicine, equipment and training have all come a long way since then. And it’s only going to get more complicated. Taking your vitamins is okay; but what about eating a genetically modified fruit that secretes small amounts of human growth hormone? That’s probably a silly, and obvious, example, but there’s a lot of nuance that’s going to continue to complicate things. But what about a macrobiotic diet that includes bacteria designed to secrete small amounts of pain killers?
DI: Okay, so continuing to regulate the line between natural and not is complicated. But won’t somebody think of the children? Isn’t telling our youth that it’s all right to trade their health and longevity for success damaging?
B: That’s what sports already do. Even athletes that don’t take performance enhancing drugs are putting their bodies through tough exercise regimens with constant stress on them, and frequent injuries. Even sidestepping the amount of people football grinds up and spits out, athletes tend to trade time off their life for their sport. As someone who kept himself in peak physical condition for nearly thirty years, and engaged in some of the most demanding and damaging activities you can find, I can tell you, it took its toll. I took Venom less than a year, so the side effects I’ve suffered were fairly minimal from that. But there are days I have so much pain I can’t get out of bed- at least not until I get some pain relief. And that’s the reality of modern athletics.
DI: Okay, but do you regret using drugs- as someone who is frequently held up as a role model for children?
B: But I’m not a role model for children. I wasn’t plastering myself on the sides of cereal boxes or putting toys into happy meals, I was trying to help people. Even the merchandising, that was all done for charity- and I think even most children can understand the difference between the cartoon caricature and me doing what I’ve done.
But on the record, I regret my use of Venom. But that’s because it made me irrationally aggressive, even violent- not because it was wrong on the morals. If I had to trade time off my life to save that little girl, to just save that one little girl I failed to save- I’d do it. In a heartbeat. And I wouldn’t feel bad about it.
DI: So the take-away from you is that there should be a decision at the organizational level to use performance enhancers or not in sports, right?
B: Generally, yeah.
DI: And do you know of any heroes currently operating who take performance enhancing substances?
B: No- even among people who don’t believe there’s anything wrong with enhancers, there’s still a stigma about it. But I’d be surprised if I was the only one who ever did.
DI: And given what we’ve been discussing, do you think that’s wrong?
B: I think if it’s an issue of vanity, either to look bigger, or to perform better, purely as a function of ego, that’s wrong, or at least counterproductive. I think steroids and other current enhancers often have nasty side effects, and that having compulsory, de facto steroid use in sports is wrong, too. It’s a choice, not just for the commissioners, but for each player to make, too. There may come a day when players are forced to choose between enhancement and not playing the game anymore- which is unfortunate, but could be the reality.
But as for our League, I’d say that I think anyone who puts their own health at risk to try and help people- whether it’s through enhancement or just walking into a burning building- that’s the definition of a hero. And I’m proud that I know so many people who fit that description.
B: It’s true that politicians lie. But I think it’s fair to ask why. And fundamentally, I think it comes down to the fact that the electorate doesn’t like consistency.
Look at the current Republican Presidential nominees. They’re vilified for taking what, at the time, weren’t even controversial stances on issues: Romney on health care, Pawlenty on cap and trade, even Gingrich on the Ryan budget. So they’ve largely denied ever taking those stances, or at least walked them back.
Note that I’m not condoning the behavior. I think if those three men, longtime party members with broad appeal and respect, stood up and together said that the politics of immolation can’t continue- that they took stands they believed in, and wouldn’t retreat just because something they liked was polling well- it would go a long way to changing things.
DI: But isn’t that a fairly undemocratic idea?
B: Let me explain. I have some socialist leanings- anyone who likes Medicare or Social Security does, frankly- but I’d go a step beyond. I’d like to see a higher minimum wage. I’d even support a maximum wage. If I were given the keys to the kingdom tomorrow, and told to remake the US to make it the best country I could, I’d push for more social democratic programs, similar to what exists in Europe, socialized medicine, for a start. But on the other hand, if I were running for or elected President, that’s a different story. Elected leaders aren’t chosen to represent their own ideas and interests, they’re there to represent the people. On a lot of issues I’ve been disappointed with Obama, but in that regard, I really feel he’s tried to be President not just of blue states but of all the states. You might not know it from all of the Nazi/Socialist rhetoric, but he’s a fairly centrist President; I’d say he’s not even as far left as Bush was right.
DI: Okay, but what I wanted to talk about was why Clemens is in the hot seat. He lied. Specifically about using performance enhancers. Or at least that’s the contention. And I know we touched on it briefly, I think around last Halloween- so I’ll try and keep us from rehashing. But I want to know, as a former performance enhancer, how you feel about performance enhancement.
B: Why do I shudder to think what you’ll name this blog entry? But it’s a tough question, and there’s a lot of nuance to it, so I’ll start at the general and we’ll get more specific from there. I think we’re living on the cusp of a new evolution in humanity. Some heroes are aliens, some have magical assistance, but some- I’d say most- of them truly represent what we’re doing or will do to ourselves as a species. Cyborg is a pretty good example. He’s part man and part machine. Call it post, trans, or metahumanity, but we’re changing, evolving; I doubt we’ll recognize the human race in 50 years.
And there are all sorts of mechanisms. Cybernetics, gene therapy, chemicals, nanotech. I don’t know how we’re going to get there, but I think it’s clear from what’s happened in the hero community that we’re changing. I think the people who put on spandex and fight crime- or commit it- are just the precursor.
Which is why I see what’s happening in our sports as a choice. If we decide, as seems to be the overriding thought of the day, that sports ought to be a throwback to what humans can do without technological aid, then so be it. So long as those are the rules. I think the reason there’s been so much trouble is that the rules were technically that performance enhancement was wrong, but in reality everyone was looking the other way. So honest athletes were put at a severe, perhaps even crippling disadvantage. Which is wrong.
Now what the capitalist in me imagines for sports is that we’ll eventually end up with two of everything- a natural and an enhanced version. People or athletes who for whatever reason want to see the pinnacle of human achievement without certain kinds of technology, we have the Olympics and equivalent associations. For those who want to see a man kick a football as far as he can by whatever means, you’d have sports leagues that allow enhancements.
And whichever people pay to watch on TV, whichever people buy merchandising for, that’s what will determine which brands survive. And maybe it’ll be a case, like the NCAA and the NBA, where there’s an audience for both that overlaps. I don’t know.
DI: That was a fairly obvious caveat where you mentioned ‘certain kinds’ of technology being prohibited in the Olympics.
B: Well, there’s a reason why Olympic world records today tend to outstrip records from fifty years ago: the world changed. Nutrition, and sports medicine, equipment and training have all come a long way since then. And it’s only going to get more complicated. Taking your vitamins is okay; but what about eating a genetically modified fruit that secretes small amounts of human growth hormone? That’s probably a silly, and obvious, example, but there’s a lot of nuance that’s going to continue to complicate things. But what about a macrobiotic diet that includes bacteria designed to secrete small amounts of pain killers?
DI: Okay, so continuing to regulate the line between natural and not is complicated. But won’t somebody think of the children? Isn’t telling our youth that it’s all right to trade their health and longevity for success damaging?
B: That’s what sports already do. Even athletes that don’t take performance enhancing drugs are putting their bodies through tough exercise regimens with constant stress on them, and frequent injuries. Even sidestepping the amount of people football grinds up and spits out, athletes tend to trade time off their life for their sport. As someone who kept himself in peak physical condition for nearly thirty years, and engaged in some of the most demanding and damaging activities you can find, I can tell you, it took its toll. I took Venom less than a year, so the side effects I’ve suffered were fairly minimal from that. But there are days I have so much pain I can’t get out of bed- at least not until I get some pain relief. And that’s the reality of modern athletics.
DI: Okay, but do you regret using drugs- as someone who is frequently held up as a role model for children?
B: But I’m not a role model for children. I wasn’t plastering myself on the sides of cereal boxes or putting toys into happy meals, I was trying to help people. Even the merchandising, that was all done for charity- and I think even most children can understand the difference between the cartoon caricature and me doing what I’ve done.
But on the record, I regret my use of Venom. But that’s because it made me irrationally aggressive, even violent- not because it was wrong on the morals. If I had to trade time off my life to save that little girl, to just save that one little girl I failed to save- I’d do it. In a heartbeat. And I wouldn’t feel bad about it.
DI: So the take-away from you is that there should be a decision at the organizational level to use performance enhancers or not in sports, right?
B: Generally, yeah.
DI: And do you know of any heroes currently operating who take performance enhancing substances?
B: No- even among people who don’t believe there’s anything wrong with enhancers, there’s still a stigma about it. But I’d be surprised if I was the only one who ever did.
DI: And given what we’ve been discussing, do you think that’s wrong?
B: I think if it’s an issue of vanity, either to look bigger, or to perform better, purely as a function of ego, that’s wrong, or at least counterproductive. I think steroids and other current enhancers often have nasty side effects, and that having compulsory, de facto steroid use in sports is wrong, too. It’s a choice, not just for the commissioners, but for each player to make, too. There may come a day when players are forced to choose between enhancement and not playing the game anymore- which is unfortunate, but could be the reality.
But as for our League, I’d say that I think anyone who puts their own health at risk to try and help people- whether it’s through enhancement or just walking into a burning building- that’s the definition of a hero. And I’m proud that I know so many people who fit that description.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
The Poor Man’s Economic Argument
B: I’m a businessman, but only in the loosest of meanings of the word. I don’t spend my nights hovering over financials. I don’t personally oversee hiring, firing, buying- I’m a businessman in the most abstract of terms.
At my level, I speak in generalities. Because when you’re making multi-billion dollar decisions, spreadsheets don’t win people over. You still need those, because other people operating at this level had their own accountants who want to make sure the numbers add up, but to win over the bosses, you have to be able to craft a story.
And I think I finally have one for this economy.
Imagine our economy is a poor man. He works hard, but he doesn’t make enough to pay all his bills. So he’s deeply in debt.
Then he becomes ill. It’s not life-threatening, but it’s that kind of long, lingering illness that will stay with you for weeks, perhaps months, if untreated. He manages to go to work, but his productivity plummets, and his piece-rate wage dips.
So now he’s ill, and having even more difficulty making his bills. He’s worried that perhaps his credit can’t take the hit.
He’s not sure what to do. Medicine, and good food, could help him get healthy faster. It would also mean going deeper into debt. But there’s the chance that if he gets healthy faster, his productivity might go back up fast enough to make up for whatever extra debt he took on. He could even come out of it ahead.
It’s essentially the same argument I’ve been making, and it’s the same one Paul Krugman has, as well- though this is certainly closer to a parable.
DI: But the nutshell, basically, is that austerity during a fiscal crisis might be counterproductive.
B: Exactly. If the economy were healthy, telling the man in our scenario to do more to live within his means would be completely appropriate. But with a frail economy, it is harder to see how doubling-down on shrinking the economy is a good idea.
DI: Okay, you lost me.
B: Government spending doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It goes to contractors and workers who then filter that money to other parts of the economy. If that money suddenly disappears, then it takes money out of the economy. Put another way, a highway construction worker who eats a cheeseburger every day for lunch who gets laid off is no longer buying that cheeseburger. Worse, you’re only partially defraying the costs, since he’s likely to go on unemployment, so you’re still paying for some of his work, only with none of his productivity.
There’s nothing wrong with asking how large a government we should have, what functions it should provide, and how much we’re willing to pay for it. But I’m worried that the spending cuts we’re looking at now, they aren’t helpful, and they may even be like ancient physicians trying to bleed a patient back to health.
DI: I want to come back to your specific formulation, there. You were very deliberate in saying “how much we’re willing to pay” for government. Why was that?
B: Because it’s unfair to say, “this is how much I want to pay” for something. Ideally, government would be free. In a perfect world, food and shelter would be free, too. And when I stop at a burger place, I don’t want to pay seven bucks for a burger- but that’s how much it costs, after paying for the ingredients, the rent, the staff, and a reasonable margin of profit for the owners.
And government exists largely within the same constraints. I don’t want to pay $1300 per person for Medicare, but that’s how expensive it is- and those costs are 40% cheaper than private insurance would be.
There’s tension, between how much we want government to be able to do for us, and how much of that we’re willing to pay for. And that’s certainly a discussion we should be having, on a continual basis that we aren’t.
I see similar problems in discussions of the debt ceiling. A majority of Americans favor not raising the debt ceiling.
I understand those poll results, in the context that people conflate the debt with the budget. But the ceiling isn’t the budget. The ceiling is the credit card bill. These are things that previous Congresses approved, laws already enacted, spending already carried out. This is money owed, money that other people are expecting to come in- that individuals and businesses and potentially entire economies are counting on.
Part of the reason the financial crisis had such reverberations is that people who were responsible, who shouldn’t have been in trouble, suddenly weren’t being paid for services rendered. But the government is several times larger than any failed company- and the splash its default would make is tough to even comprehend.
But the worst problem is that even when the ceiling gets its eventual raise, this grandstanding about not raising the debt limit could drop our credit rating.
DI: Crap. And then our rates go up. And we enter the debt death-spiral basically anyone whose ever been poor or in college is familiar with- and that includes journalists who paid their way through school. But can’t not fixing our debt problems also destroy our credit?
B: This is definitely a danger. But what markets want is long-term sustainability. They want to see that the government is going to be able to keep paying it’s bills. One way to do that is to stop using the heat in the house. The other is to bring home more revenue.
And there’s nothing- save for the Republican leadership- saying we can’t try a combination of both. My preference has always been for finding ways that the government can be leaner, without destroying its ability to help its citizens. And frankly there are a lot of people out there who don’t pay their fair share of the taxes- largely because of a disparity of lobbying power.
DI: Okay, I think we’ve filled out space quota. But you know what happens whenever you rant politically, don’t you? We live-write some more Wonder Woman pilot. The last bit was here, but why don’t you give us a quick, “Last time one Wonder Woman” synopsis.
B: Last time, on Wonder Woman, she punched me through a window to safeguard a woman wanted in connection with a murder investigation. We open on Cale Pharmaceuticals, specifically their Gotham research facility. Diana is dressed in smart business attire, with her hair up in a bun.
DI: Sounds very naughty librarian.
B: She’s only there to observe. She’s with Detective Bullock, overweight and overbearing, with a cadre of uniformed officers. They’re investigating the claims about Kapatellis.
DI: You’re telling, not showing.
B: Diana watches as Veronica Cale, who flew there in her helicopter, argues with Bullock about the validity of his warrant. Her lawyer gave up minutes ago, but she’s still staring angrily at Bullock.
Bullock:
Amanda Waller, Department of Metahuman Affairs. She’s the person you’ll have to take that up with. The ambassador is here as a courtesy; the information for our warrant came from her embassy. Everything else, including the thousand dollar words and the ten-thousand dollar mouthpiece, are above my paygrade. Now if you’ll allow me through, I’d hate to have to charge you with obstruction.
Her lawyer nods, and Cale steps out of the way. Diana and Cale exchange an icy stare, but Diana plays her cards close to the vest. She believes Cale is up to something, but isn’t ready to stake her name and reputation on it. Yet.
We cut to cops looking through lab material. And cut again, to the cops leaving, tails between their legs. Cale is triumphant. Bullock is talking to Diana.
Bullock.
Nuthin.
Diana:
Nothing?
Bullock:
No Kapatellis, none of the equipment you expect to find, either. Looks clean.
Cale:
You were expecting, what? Frankenstein monsters and imprisoned orphans? This is a pharmaceutical company in Gotham, not the Liberal conception of a third world sweat shop. Now if you’re done, I have a business to run.
Bullock tips his hat at Cale.
Bullock:
Ma’am.
Are you going to join in anytime soon?
DI: Sorry. I was transfixed by that accent you were doing for Bullock.
B:
Lawyer:
Unless you require anything further, I can start drafting a harassment complaint against the Amazon.
She waves him away with her hand. The solid wall behind her shimmers, and a man, handsome and tall, steps through where it had been.
DI: Behind him, we can see indeed a grotesque menagerie of scientific and surgical apparatuses. Bathed largely in shadow is the face of a young woman.
Doctor:
They only saw what we wanted them to see.
B:
Cale:
Thank you, Edgar.
DI: We zoom in on that face in the background, as the woman eye opens wide, panicked and afraid. Cut to black.
B: And a commercial break?
DI: You aren’t that lucky. We’re back on the sidewalk. Diana exits the building. We see a black limousine parked on the curb.
B: Don’t.
DI: We here a man’s voice from offscreen, behind Diana.
Bruce:
Diana. I didn’t expect to see you back in Gotham so soon.
DI: She recognizes the voice, and smiles as she turns to see Bruce Wayne.
B:
Diana:
Bruce, how are the ribs?
Bruce:
Fine.
Diana:
You’re breathing heavily.
DI:
Bruce:
You have that effect on men.
B: I hate you.
Diana:
I’m sorry.
DI: He can’t let it go that easily. But then he smiles, wide, because they’re not alone anymore.
Bruce:
Always a pleasure, Madame Ambassador. And I’ll have my office get in touch with yours about that fundraiser.
You shake hands, and yours lingers, just a moment. There’s a lot in that handshake.
And now we mercifully go to commercial.
At my level, I speak in generalities. Because when you’re making multi-billion dollar decisions, spreadsheets don’t win people over. You still need those, because other people operating at this level had their own accountants who want to make sure the numbers add up, but to win over the bosses, you have to be able to craft a story.
And I think I finally have one for this economy.
Imagine our economy is a poor man. He works hard, but he doesn’t make enough to pay all his bills. So he’s deeply in debt.
Then he becomes ill. It’s not life-threatening, but it’s that kind of long, lingering illness that will stay with you for weeks, perhaps months, if untreated. He manages to go to work, but his productivity plummets, and his piece-rate wage dips.
So now he’s ill, and having even more difficulty making his bills. He’s worried that perhaps his credit can’t take the hit.
He’s not sure what to do. Medicine, and good food, could help him get healthy faster. It would also mean going deeper into debt. But there’s the chance that if he gets healthy faster, his productivity might go back up fast enough to make up for whatever extra debt he took on. He could even come out of it ahead.
It’s essentially the same argument I’ve been making, and it’s the same one Paul Krugman has, as well- though this is certainly closer to a parable.
DI: But the nutshell, basically, is that austerity during a fiscal crisis might be counterproductive.
B: Exactly. If the economy were healthy, telling the man in our scenario to do more to live within his means would be completely appropriate. But with a frail economy, it is harder to see how doubling-down on shrinking the economy is a good idea.
DI: Okay, you lost me.
B: Government spending doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It goes to contractors and workers who then filter that money to other parts of the economy. If that money suddenly disappears, then it takes money out of the economy. Put another way, a highway construction worker who eats a cheeseburger every day for lunch who gets laid off is no longer buying that cheeseburger. Worse, you’re only partially defraying the costs, since he’s likely to go on unemployment, so you’re still paying for some of his work, only with none of his productivity.
There’s nothing wrong with asking how large a government we should have, what functions it should provide, and how much we’re willing to pay for it. But I’m worried that the spending cuts we’re looking at now, they aren’t helpful, and they may even be like ancient physicians trying to bleed a patient back to health.
DI: I want to come back to your specific formulation, there. You were very deliberate in saying “how much we’re willing to pay” for government. Why was that?
B: Because it’s unfair to say, “this is how much I want to pay” for something. Ideally, government would be free. In a perfect world, food and shelter would be free, too. And when I stop at a burger place, I don’t want to pay seven bucks for a burger- but that’s how much it costs, after paying for the ingredients, the rent, the staff, and a reasonable margin of profit for the owners.
And government exists largely within the same constraints. I don’t want to pay $1300 per person for Medicare, but that’s how expensive it is- and those costs are 40% cheaper than private insurance would be.
There’s tension, between how much we want government to be able to do for us, and how much of that we’re willing to pay for. And that’s certainly a discussion we should be having, on a continual basis that we aren’t.
I see similar problems in discussions of the debt ceiling. A majority of Americans favor not raising the debt ceiling.
I understand those poll results, in the context that people conflate the debt with the budget. But the ceiling isn’t the budget. The ceiling is the credit card bill. These are things that previous Congresses approved, laws already enacted, spending already carried out. This is money owed, money that other people are expecting to come in- that individuals and businesses and potentially entire economies are counting on.
Part of the reason the financial crisis had such reverberations is that people who were responsible, who shouldn’t have been in trouble, suddenly weren’t being paid for services rendered. But the government is several times larger than any failed company- and the splash its default would make is tough to even comprehend.
But the worst problem is that even when the ceiling gets its eventual raise, this grandstanding about not raising the debt limit could drop our credit rating.
DI: Crap. And then our rates go up. And we enter the debt death-spiral basically anyone whose ever been poor or in college is familiar with- and that includes journalists who paid their way through school. But can’t not fixing our debt problems also destroy our credit?
B: This is definitely a danger. But what markets want is long-term sustainability. They want to see that the government is going to be able to keep paying it’s bills. One way to do that is to stop using the heat in the house. The other is to bring home more revenue.
And there’s nothing- save for the Republican leadership- saying we can’t try a combination of both. My preference has always been for finding ways that the government can be leaner, without destroying its ability to help its citizens. And frankly there are a lot of people out there who don’t pay their fair share of the taxes- largely because of a disparity of lobbying power.
DI: Okay, I think we’ve filled out space quota. But you know what happens whenever you rant politically, don’t you? We live-write some more Wonder Woman pilot. The last bit was here, but why don’t you give us a quick, “Last time one Wonder Woman” synopsis.
B: Last time, on Wonder Woman, she punched me through a window to safeguard a woman wanted in connection with a murder investigation. We open on Cale Pharmaceuticals, specifically their Gotham research facility. Diana is dressed in smart business attire, with her hair up in a bun.
DI: Sounds very naughty librarian.
B: She’s only there to observe. She’s with Detective Bullock, overweight and overbearing, with a cadre of uniformed officers. They’re investigating the claims about Kapatellis.
DI: You’re telling, not showing.
B: Diana watches as Veronica Cale, who flew there in her helicopter, argues with Bullock about the validity of his warrant. Her lawyer gave up minutes ago, but she’s still staring angrily at Bullock.
Bullock:
Amanda Waller, Department of Metahuman Affairs. She’s the person you’ll have to take that up with. The ambassador is here as a courtesy; the information for our warrant came from her embassy. Everything else, including the thousand dollar words and the ten-thousand dollar mouthpiece, are above my paygrade. Now if you’ll allow me through, I’d hate to have to charge you with obstruction.
Her lawyer nods, and Cale steps out of the way. Diana and Cale exchange an icy stare, but Diana plays her cards close to the vest. She believes Cale is up to something, but isn’t ready to stake her name and reputation on it. Yet.
We cut to cops looking through lab material. And cut again, to the cops leaving, tails between their legs. Cale is triumphant. Bullock is talking to Diana.
Bullock.
Nuthin.
Diana:
Nothing?
Bullock:
No Kapatellis, none of the equipment you expect to find, either. Looks clean.
Cale:
You were expecting, what? Frankenstein monsters and imprisoned orphans? This is a pharmaceutical company in Gotham, not the Liberal conception of a third world sweat shop. Now if you’re done, I have a business to run.
Bullock tips his hat at Cale.
Bullock:
Ma’am.
Are you going to join in anytime soon?
DI: Sorry. I was transfixed by that accent you were doing for Bullock.
B:
Lawyer:
Unless you require anything further, I can start drafting a harassment complaint against the Amazon.
She waves him away with her hand. The solid wall behind her shimmers, and a man, handsome and tall, steps through where it had been.
DI: Behind him, we can see indeed a grotesque menagerie of scientific and surgical apparatuses. Bathed largely in shadow is the face of a young woman.
Doctor:
They only saw what we wanted them to see.
B:
Cale:
Thank you, Edgar.
DI: We zoom in on that face in the background, as the woman eye opens wide, panicked and afraid. Cut to black.
B: And a commercial break?
DI: You aren’t that lucky. We’re back on the sidewalk. Diana exits the building. We see a black limousine parked on the curb.
B: Don’t.
DI: We here a man’s voice from offscreen, behind Diana.
Bruce:
Diana. I didn’t expect to see you back in Gotham so soon.
DI: She recognizes the voice, and smiles as she turns to see Bruce Wayne.
B:
Diana:
Bruce, how are the ribs?
Bruce:
Fine.
Diana:
You’re breathing heavily.
DI:
Bruce:
You have that effect on men.
B: I hate you.
Diana:
I’m sorry.
DI: He can’t let it go that easily. But then he smiles, wide, because they’re not alone anymore.
Bruce:
Always a pleasure, Madame Ambassador. And I’ll have my office get in touch with yours about that fundraiser.
You shake hands, and yours lingers, just a moment. There’s a lot in that handshake.
And now we mercifully go to commercial.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
I Can See Your Underpants
DI: Okay, now I have something to ask you. You’re usually a pretty practical guy. So I assume that even when you do something strange, you do it for a reason. So why did you where your underwear outside your pants.
B: You’ll have to be more specific. But if you’re talking about last New Years, I’d have to say liquor.
DI: Cute. But no, I’m talking about your costume. Black or blue underpants on the outside? Were you just trying to copy Clark, or what?
B: He has the excuse of it being a Kryptonian design. I, well, I needed extra support. And protection. The earliest costume I wore, which didn’t last long, was basically just a black unitard. That got replaced quite early on, because I kept getting hit in the balls. Even untrained criminals know to aim for the weak points, apparently. Even the costume that followed was basically still a unitard, only with several sheets of Kevlar sewn into the chest. The crotch padding was difficult, though, because without having the suit custom-sewn, it was going to cause a really odd crotch bulge. Alfred had the bright idea of making the padding part of a design that looked almost like underpants- I was afraid it would make me look like I was wearing a diaper, but it had the effect of leading the eyes away from the bulge. After I adopted a sleaker, more armored design to the costumes, it was pretty simple to conceal the padding, but at that point the design had become a part of the persona, and it kind of stuck. I’ve used hundred of different costumes through the years, so not all of them had the underpants design- but there it is. Mystery solved.
DI: But on that note, DC Comics, the subsidiary to Warner whom you and the League lease your license rights to for the sake of charity, are relaunching most of their books. And there’s apparently an editorial edict, one demanding that all of the female characters cover up their legs. Notably, this has effected characters like Zatanna- known popularly for her magical feats and fishnet leggings- though not necessarily in that order.
B: That’s a travesty.
DI: You say, as someone quite familiar with Zatanna and her leggings.
B: Careful.
DI: I don’t meant to imply anything by it. Just that you’re at the very least friendly with her. Colleagues. And I’m sure, as a connoisseur of the female form, you’ve at least taken in the sight.
B: She’s a friend. And we’ve worked together, extensively. She’s a hell of a magician- and she’s got some excellent legs- a fact I know she’s proud of.
DI: Really?
B: Of course. You can’t magic up legs like that. She works out. She shows them off because she’s proud of them. There’s also an element of distraction to it, too, but that isn’t all of it.
DI: Hmm. Because of a fairly recent change to her costume, at least in comics, Wonder Woman isn’t being affected. In fact, her costume change seems to be a precursor. What did you think about that, when it happened?
B: I agree with Gloria Steinem’s reaction, actually- which extends to the entire line. Making it so superheroes have to wear pants make it seem like only pants are powerful. Which is of course blatantly untrue. She cited the ancient Greeks, who basically wore armored skirts into battle, and sumo wrestlers. What’s more insidious, I think, is that it takes away choice from the equation. I think Diana said something similar, in her response about the MAC make-up collection she endorsed, but feminism should be about choice.
DC having the standard heroine costume be skimpy is sexist. Dictating that heroines cover-up, almost burqa-like, is just as sexist. It might make it harder to objectify them, but it’s no less sexist. And more to the point, the new costumes are still skin-tight, the art used on them still ridiculously over-accentuates the female form. There are lots of things DC could do to make their heroines both more realistic and healthier representations of femininity, but forcing all of them into pants is not one of them.
Speaking of Diana specifically, her usual outfit, the one-piece bathing suit, is the casual version. Her actual costume looks a lot like Greek armor- the one-piece is what she wears under all the leather armor. But unless she’s planning on being smacked around with a sword and a shield, wearing around the armor everywhere is impractical- not to mention uncomfortable. And she sweats in it. A lot.
DI: And nobody wants to buy BO Wonder Woman action figures.
B: No. And I know how that feels. I’ve got some armor that’s basically everything-proof; anything short of someone drop a Sherman tank on my head wouldn’t hurt. But my entire body smells like the inside of a marching boot for a week after wearing it.
DI: And is your opinion maybe the least bit biased by having spent time with women in phenomenal shape who seem to have a collective aversion to fabric.
B: Of course. I am an unapologetic admirer of the female body. Always have been. But I’m pretty sure that’s a biologic necessity- not something to feel ashamed of.
DI: Even though you came out?
B: Just because I’m no longer looking to buy a new sports car doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate ones that drive down the street.
DI: I can’t tell if you’re ironically objectifying women.
B: I’d say it’s more accurately categorized as a metaphor. Women are of course people, with thoughts, feelings, desires and the right to be treated with respect. But that doesn’t mean men can’t or shouldn’t appreciate the way they look, or how the way they look makes us feel. And vice versa. We’re all of us human beings, and our sexuality is very much a part of the experience of being human. It doesn’t make sense to deny that part of ourselves.
B: You’ll have to be more specific. But if you’re talking about last New Years, I’d have to say liquor.
DI: Cute. But no, I’m talking about your costume. Black or blue underpants on the outside? Were you just trying to copy Clark, or what?
B: He has the excuse of it being a Kryptonian design. I, well, I needed extra support. And protection. The earliest costume I wore, which didn’t last long, was basically just a black unitard. That got replaced quite early on, because I kept getting hit in the balls. Even untrained criminals know to aim for the weak points, apparently. Even the costume that followed was basically still a unitard, only with several sheets of Kevlar sewn into the chest. The crotch padding was difficult, though, because without having the suit custom-sewn, it was going to cause a really odd crotch bulge. Alfred had the bright idea of making the padding part of a design that looked almost like underpants- I was afraid it would make me look like I was wearing a diaper, but it had the effect of leading the eyes away from the bulge. After I adopted a sleaker, more armored design to the costumes, it was pretty simple to conceal the padding, but at that point the design had become a part of the persona, and it kind of stuck. I’ve used hundred of different costumes through the years, so not all of them had the underpants design- but there it is. Mystery solved.
DI: But on that note, DC Comics, the subsidiary to Warner whom you and the League lease your license rights to for the sake of charity, are relaunching most of their books. And there’s apparently an editorial edict, one demanding that all of the female characters cover up their legs. Notably, this has effected characters like Zatanna- known popularly for her magical feats and fishnet leggings- though not necessarily in that order.
B: That’s a travesty.
DI: You say, as someone quite familiar with Zatanna and her leggings.
B: Careful.
DI: I don’t meant to imply anything by it. Just that you’re at the very least friendly with her. Colleagues. And I’m sure, as a connoisseur of the female form, you’ve at least taken in the sight.
B: She’s a friend. And we’ve worked together, extensively. She’s a hell of a magician- and she’s got some excellent legs- a fact I know she’s proud of.
DI: Really?
B: Of course. You can’t magic up legs like that. She works out. She shows them off because she’s proud of them. There’s also an element of distraction to it, too, but that isn’t all of it.
DI: Hmm. Because of a fairly recent change to her costume, at least in comics, Wonder Woman isn’t being affected. In fact, her costume change seems to be a precursor. What did you think about that, when it happened?
B: I agree with Gloria Steinem’s reaction, actually- which extends to the entire line. Making it so superheroes have to wear pants make it seem like only pants are powerful. Which is of course blatantly untrue. She cited the ancient Greeks, who basically wore armored skirts into battle, and sumo wrestlers. What’s more insidious, I think, is that it takes away choice from the equation. I think Diana said something similar, in her response about the MAC make-up collection she endorsed, but feminism should be about choice.
DC having the standard heroine costume be skimpy is sexist. Dictating that heroines cover-up, almost burqa-like, is just as sexist. It might make it harder to objectify them, but it’s no less sexist. And more to the point, the new costumes are still skin-tight, the art used on them still ridiculously over-accentuates the female form. There are lots of things DC could do to make their heroines both more realistic and healthier representations of femininity, but forcing all of them into pants is not one of them.
Speaking of Diana specifically, her usual outfit, the one-piece bathing suit, is the casual version. Her actual costume looks a lot like Greek armor- the one-piece is what she wears under all the leather armor. But unless she’s planning on being smacked around with a sword and a shield, wearing around the armor everywhere is impractical- not to mention uncomfortable. And she sweats in it. A lot.
DI: And nobody wants to buy BO Wonder Woman action figures.
B: No. And I know how that feels. I’ve got some armor that’s basically everything-proof; anything short of someone drop a Sherman tank on my head wouldn’t hurt. But my entire body smells like the inside of a marching boot for a week after wearing it.
DI: And is your opinion maybe the least bit biased by having spent time with women in phenomenal shape who seem to have a collective aversion to fabric.
B: Of course. I am an unapologetic admirer of the female body. Always have been. But I’m pretty sure that’s a biologic necessity- not something to feel ashamed of.
DI: Even though you came out?
B: Just because I’m no longer looking to buy a new sports car doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate ones that drive down the street.
DI: I can’t tell if you’re ironically objectifying women.
B: I’d say it’s more accurately categorized as a metaphor. Women are of course people, with thoughts, feelings, desires and the right to be treated with respect. But that doesn’t mean men can’t or shouldn’t appreciate the way they look, or how the way they look makes us feel. And vice versa. We’re all of us human beings, and our sexuality is very much a part of the experience of being human. It doesn’t make sense to deny that part of ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)