Skip to content

Month: February 2013

QOTD: Krugman

QOTD: Krugman

by digby

Chris Mooney interviewed Paul Krugman on his science podcast and asked him some very interesting questions about economics and science and pseudoscience. This is one of them:

So, we asked, if Keynesianism thinking is the key to fixing our present economic woes, then why won’t people listen? Why are we currently so obsessed with deficits?

Krugman’s answer was twofold: People make up their minds about economics based on heuristics and shortcuts—for instance, the misleading metaphor that likens government finances to the budget of an individual family—and Keynesianism can be complex and counterintuitive. It also runs up against the popular notion that the government shouldn’t lean on the scales, because a fair system is one in which people get ahead or fall behind based on their own merits, without external help. As Krugman explained, that’s not actually how it works at all—you can fail in this world for reasons that are totally beyond your control:

“The economy is an interactive system. Money flows in a circle. My spending is your income, your spending is my income. And that means that your destiny has a lot to do with what other people are doing. You can lose your job, you can be in big trouble, not because we’ve done anything wrong, but because there’s not enough spending and the economy is depressed.

You can listen to the whole podcast here.

.

Gary Wills on “the home of lost causes and nostalgic lunacy”

Garry Wills on “the home of lost causes and nostalgic lunacy”

by digby

The great Garry Wills, a proud Southerner, explains the history of the South and offers some truly fascinating insights into what makes it tick — and what makes it valuable to America as a whole. But he knows that something’s gone wrong, very wrong:

Under the tattered robes of Miss Havisham were hidden the preying hands of the Artful Dodger. Southerners were not really trapped in the past, since they were always scheming to get out of the trap. They were defeated but not dumb. With dreams of an agrarian society, they might denounce the industrial north, but they got the funds to bring electricity to large parts of the South from the government’s Tennessee Valley Authority. They wanted and got government-funded port facilities, oil subsidies in Louisiana, highways and airports and military bases.

But the current South is willing to cut off its own nose to show contempt for the government. Governor Rick Scott of Florida turned down more than $2 billion in federal funds for a high-speed rail system in Florida that would have created jobs and millions of dollars in revenues, just to show he was independent of the hated federal government. In this mood, his forebears would have turned down TVA. People across the South are going even farther than Scott, begging to secede again from the Union…

Humans should always cling to what is good about their heritage, but that depends on being able to separate what is good from what is bad. It is noble to oppose mindless change, so long as that does not commit you to rejecting change itself. The South defeats its own cause when it cannot discriminate between the good and the evil in its past, or pretends that the latter does not linger on into the present: Some in the South deny that the legacy of slavery exists at all in our time. The best South, exemplified by the writers listed above, never lost sight of that fact. Where are the writers of that stature today in the Tea Party South? I was made aware of the odd mix of gain and loss when I went back to Atlanta to see my beloved grandmother. She told me not to hold change between my lips while groping for a pocket to put it in—“That might have been in a ni**er’s mouth.” Once, when she took me to Mass, she walked out of the church when a black priest came out to celebrate. I wondered why, since she would sit and eat with a black woman who helped her with housework. “It is the dignity—I would not let him take the Lord in his hands.”

Tradition dies hard, hardest among those who cannot admit to the toll it has taken on them. That is why the worst aspects of the South are resurfacing under Obama’s presidency. It is the dignity. That a black should have not merely rights but prominence, authority, and even awe—that is what many Southerners cannot stomach. They would let him ride on the bus, or get into Ivy League schools. But he must be kept from the altar; he cannot perform the secular equivalent of taking the Lord in his hands. It is the dignity.

This is the thing that makes the South the distillation point for all the fugitive extremisms of our time, the heart of Say-No Republicanism, the home of lost causes and nostalgic lunacy. It is as if the whole continent were tipped upward, so that the scattered crazinesses might slide down to the bottom. The South has often been defeated. Now it is defeating itself.

If you formed your identity as the defender of slavery, I’d say that’s probably inevitable.

.

Timing is everything: why generational warfare on social security is such a con

Timing is everything

by digby

This is why I so love Pete Peterson and Alan Simpson for launching their generational war. It’s such fun being accused of being a “greedy geezer” when this is the result of the inevitable vagaries of capitalism: somebody’s going to be on the losing side at the moment at which they no longer have time to make it all back.

Young graduates are in debt, out of work and on their parents’ couches. People in their 30s and 40s can’t afford to buy homes or have children. Retirees are earning near-zero interest on their savings.

In the current listless economy, every generation has a claim to having been most injured. But the Labor Department’s latest jobs snapshot and other recent data reports present a strong case for crowning baby boomers as the greatest victims of the recession and its grim aftermath.

These Americans in their 50s and early 60s — those near retirement age who do not yet have access to Medicare and Social Security — have lost the most earnings power of any age group, with their household incomes 10 percent below what they made when the recovery began three years ago, according to Sentier Research, a data analysis company.

Their retirement savings and home values fell sharply at the worst possible time: just before they needed to cash out. They are supporting both aged parents and unemployed young-adult children, earning them the inauspicious nickname “Generation Squeeze.”

But let’s not let that get in the way of the narrative which holds that the baby boomers are the richest generation in history who are working as hard as they can to screw over the young for their own benefit. And it’s a bunch of old millionaires who are funding the propaganda effort:

MISSION

The Can Kicks Back (TCKB) is a non-partisan, Millennial-driven campaign to fix the national debt and reclaim our American Dream.

APPROACH

Young Americans have the most to lose if Washington keeps kicking the can down the road, and our future along with it. We believe it’s time we kick back and demand a solution to our $16 trillion and growing national debt.

To achieve a “grand bargain” that puts our country on a sustainable fiscal path, the calculus among elected officials must change so that the political cost of cooperating and taking action is less than bickering and delaying action.

To this end, TCKB will educate, organize and mobilize over 100,000 young people to pressure elected officials achieve a bold, balanced and bipartisan deficit reduction agreement by July 4, 2013.

Read about our principles.

PARTNERS

• Fix the Debt is a non-partisan movement to put America on a better fiscal and economic path. The Can Kicks Back serves as its Millennial outreach partner.

• Concerned Youth of America (CYA) is a nonpartisan group dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility at the local, state and federal levels and promoting the investments to support future economic opportunities. CYA serves as the 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor of The Can Kicks Back.

Dean Baker has often remarked on the hypocrisy and inconsistency of this propaganda, with Peterson and his pals ignoring any evidence that refutes their narrative:

The granny bashers’ theme is that Social Security and Medicare constitute an enormous generational injustice because the young, and those yet to be born, will be forced to pay for the cost of these programs for retirees and current workers. Of course the reality is that the vast majority of the granny bashers’ horror stories about generational inequity stems from the cost of sustaining a broken health care system, not from programs for retirees.
[..]
But the granny bashers are not interested in fixing the health care system – that would involve confronting powerful interest groups like the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and the doctors’ lobby. In fact, the granny bashers are not really even particularly interested in generational equity. This is just an excuse for their real agenda: cutting Social Security and Medicare.

This point is demonstrated by the fact that their policy recommendations never change even when the evidence changes in very big ways. The granny bashers have treated us to three very dramatic examples of this “different facts, same policy” approach in the last 15 years.

I don’t think most people know the following, but it’s hugely important. This demonstrates perfectly why Democrats are either corrupt or fools (or both) for going along with any of this:

The first example is slightly technical. It has to do with the claim that the consumer price index (CPI) overstates inflation.

The CPI is our yardstick for measuring how much better off people are doing through time. If wages grow 4.0 percent and the CPI tells us that inflation is 3.0 percent, then real wages have grown by 1.0 percent. However, if the true rate of inflation is just 2.0 percent because the CPI overstates inflation by 1.0 percentage point a year, then real wages have grown by 2.0 percent (4.0 percent wage growth, minus 2.0 percent inflation).

Fifteen years ago, many economists and pundits (including much of the granny basher lobby) embraced the claim that the CPI overstated the true rate of inflation by at least 1.0 percent a year. If this claim was true then it undermined the core of the granny bashers’ story. It would mean that our children and grandchildren would be far richer than we ever imagined possible and that many older workers and elderly grew up in poverty.

If annual wage growth was 2.0 percent rather than 1.0 percent, then in 40 years, wages will be more than 220 percent of the current level, instead of just 50 percent higher. The granny bashers embraced the claim of the overstated CPI in order to justify cutting Social Security (retiree benefits are indexed to the CPI), but they never followed through the logic of this claim for their generational equity story.

This would be comparable to Al Gore maintaining a drive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions even after new evidence showed that the planet was actually cooling. Honest people don’t ignore such evidence.

The exact same issue arises with the speed up in productivity growth in the mid-90s. The granny basher crusade against Social Security and Medicare dates from the mid-80s when productivity growth was just 1.5 percent a year.

Productivity growth determines the rate at which society can, on average, get richer. In the mid-90s, the rate of annual productivity growth increased by a full percentage point – in effect bringing about the more rapid gains in real income that would have been implied by an overstated CPI. However, none of the granny bashers noted how the productivity growth speedup had enormously improved the prospects of future generations. They just maintained their insistence on cutting Social Security and Medicare.

And he goes on to discuss the evidence in the original article excerpted above: many baby boomers lost a huge chunk of wealth in this recession and will not be able to make it back before they are too old to work:

[T]he recent collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting stock market plunge have reduced the wealth of older workers and retirees by close to $15 trillion. This is a transfer to the young, since they will be able to buy the housing stock and the corporate capital stock for a far lower price than they would have expected to pay just two years ago.

In fact, the real downside for the younger generation will be the fact that many of those older people will be forced to work much longer than they originally planned because their retirement income from pensions, 401Ks and real estate holdings were depleted which could have an effect on the job prospects for younger people. In that case, and further depletion of retirement security and health care through the plans such as those advanced by Peterson and Co will make things worse for the young people they are supposedly trying to “help.” And it goes without saying that young people will someday get old — if they’re lucky — and many of them will also need these programs. It should not escape their notice that the deepest cuts come to them, not the older generation.

In fact, they should look at what happened to this baby boom generation as an object lesson in timing. You just never know when the bottom is going to fall out and all your best laid plans for saving and accumulating wealth are shot to hell because a bunch of greedy bankers and financiers decided to gamble with other people’s money. Most of those who wind up depending on Social Security are hard-working people who did everything right.

And that’s why these millionaire plutocrats are such con artists. They are trying to preserve America for the young, alright. But it’s for their own heirs. That’s how moneyed elites turn themselves into Aristocrats.

.

Serving macho vanity

Serving macho vanity

by digby

What’s the story with the AR-15?

THE phone rings again at Pasadena Pawn and Gun, and a familiar question comes down the line: “Got any ARs?”

The answer is no. Pasadena Pawn and Gun, a gun retailer and pawnshop 15 miles south of Baltimore, is pretty much sold out of America’s most wanted gun, the AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle. Since the massacre in Newtown, Conn., in December, the AR-15, the military-style weapon that the police say was used in the shootings, has been selling fast here and across the nation.

Before Newtown, the rifles sold for about $1,100, on average. Now some retailers charge twice that. At Pasadena Pawn, on the wall behind glass counters of handguns, are three dozen or so AR-15-style rifles. Dangling from nearly every one is a tag that says “Sold.”

“The AR-15, it’s kind of fashionable,” says Frank Loane Sr., the proprietor. His shop has a revolving waiting list for the rifles, and a handful of people are now on it. “The young generation likes them, the assault-looking guns.”

It turns out that this has been a masterful marketing campaign by the gun manufacturers — in response to gun control legislation:

When certain rifles and features were banned under federal law from 1994 to 2004, gun makers tweaked their manufacturing specifications — and introduced more AR-15-style rifles than ever. With ads celebrating the rifle’s military connections, they lured a new and eager audience to weapons that, not long ago, few serious gun enthusiasts would buy.

I have been asking people in the know what it is that responsible, non-psycho murderers use this weapon for. And I can’t get much of an answer.

Here’s one man’s opinion:

In a piece today on humanevents.com titled “The AR-15: The Gun Liberals Love to Hate,” NRA president David Keene blasted those critics who “neither understand the nature of the firearms they would ban, their popularity or legitimate uses.” Keene noted there are several valid, non-murderous uses for rifles like the AR-15—among them recreational target shooting, hunting, and home defense—and argued that law-abiding firearms owners shouldn’t be penalized because of homicidal loners who use semi-automatics like the AR-15 for criminal purposes.

I generally consider myself a Second Amendment supporter, and I haven’t yet decided where I stand on post-Newtown gun control. I would own a gun if New York City laws didn’t make it extremely difficult to do so. But I nevertheless find Keene’s arguments disingenuous. It’s odd to cite hunting and home defense as reasons to keep selling a rifle that’s not particularly well suited, and definitely not necessary, for either. Bolt-action rifles and shotguns can also be used for hunting and home defense. Unfortunately, those guns aren’t particularly lucrative for gunmakers. The lobby’s fervent defense of military-style semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 seems motivated primarily by a desire to protect the profits in the rapidly growing “modern sporting rifle” segment of the industry.

The AR-15 was designed in 1957 at the behest of the U.S. Army, which asked Armalite to come up with a “high-velocity, full and semi auto fire, 20 shot magazine, 6lbs loaded, able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle,” according to ar15.com. When it entered Army service in the 1960s, it was renamed the M16, in accordance with the Army Nomenclature System. “AR-15” came to refer to the rifle’s semi-automatic civilian equivalent. From 1994 to 2004, AR-15-style rifles were subject to the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Since then, the rifle and others like it have become tremendously popular. Last month, I estimated that upward of 3.5 million AR-15-style rifles currently exist in the United States. People like the rifle because it is modular and thus customizable (one article calls the AR-15 “perhaps the most flexible firearm ever developed; in seconds, a carbine can be switched over to a long-range rifle by swapping upper receivers”), because it is easy to shoot, and because carrying it around makes you look like a badass.

But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA’s Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn’t really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn’t offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, “spray and pray” hunters to waste ammunition. (The official Bushmaster XM15 manual lists the maximum effective rate of fire at 45 rounds per minute.) As one hunter put it in the comments section of an article on americanhunter.org, “I served in the military and the M16A2/M4 was the weapon I used for 20 years. It is first and foremost designed as an assault weapon platform, no matter what the spin. A hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games. I see more men running around the bush all cammo’d up with assault vests and face paint with tricked out AR’s. These are not hunters but wannabe weekend warriors.”

In terms of repelling a home invasion—which is what most people mean when they talk about home defense—an AR-15-style rifle is probably less useful than a handgun. The AR-15 is a long gun, and can be tough to maneuver in tight quarters. When you shoot it, it’ll overpenetrate—sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor’s house—unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact. (This is true for other guns, as well, but, again, the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster.)

I’m going to assume that gun owners know all this. What they may not know is that they are marks for the gun manufacturers:

AR-15-style rifles are very useful, however, if what you’re trying to do is sell guns. In a recent Forbes article, Abram Brown reported that “gun ownership is at a near 20-year high, generating $4 billion in commercial gun and ammunition sales.” But that money’s not coming from selling shotguns and bolt-action rifles to pheasant hunters. In its 2011 annual report, Smith &Wesson Holding Corporation announced that bolt-action hunting rifles accounted for 6.6 percent of its net sales in 2011 (down from 2010 and 2009), while modern sporting rifles (like AR-15-style weapons) accounted for 18.2 percent of its net sales. The Freedom Group’s 2011 annual report noted that the commercial modern sporting rifle market grew at a 27 percent compound annual rate from 2007 to 2011, whereas the entire domestic long gun market only grew at a 3 percent rate.

This is what these guns are all about, not personal safety, not hunting, not “government tyranny.”

It’s fashion:

In other words, most of the people who are rushing to buy this weapon are just being predictable consumers of macho imagery. Considering that the weapon really isn’t useful for anything but mowing down large numbers of people, which all but a small handful of people who own these guns will never do, all this caterwauling about the Second Amendment is overwrought. This is about masculine vanity and consumerism. Which means the whole debate is silly when you think about the downside of what happens when that very small minority of crazies get their hands one one. Is it really worth it?

.

Your important lesson for the day

Your important lesson for the day

by digby

From Rick Perlstein:

Recently a young blogger, in a nice profile of the diverse [survivalist]subculture as it thrives now, unfortunately described preppers as a “nascent” movement. That ain’t so. As I’ve insisted earlier, “too much of what we observe today on the right we act as if started the day before yesterday. Always, we need to set the clock back further—as a political necessity. We have to establish deeper provenances. Or else we just reinvent, and reinvent and reinvent the wheel.” Let’s think about this: for generations we have shared our American with Americans who fear change, fear difference, fear you and me, fear everything falling apart. So much so that they organize their lives and politics around staving off the fear—which often entails taking political action that only makes America more fearful and dangerous in for everyone; which destroy the trust and love it takes to sustain communities; and who reinforce one another in their fear to such a degree that the less crazy among them surely play a positive role in spurring the more crazy to the kind of awful acts we see around us now. We need to better understand where that comes from, and why it is not going away.

So let’s get down to work.

Please, please read the whole thing. His point is so important and so often ignored: the conservative American political culture has always been with us … and always will be. And yet, somehow, every time they lose power (for whatever reason) liberals assume that they have been vanquished for all time. We won, huzzah! Ding dong the witch is dead! But it just ain’t true.

Wingnuttia is as American as apple pie (I’m sorry to say) and it will always be with us. Progressives must accept this and be prepared to exploit the openings when conservatives are weak and defend when they are strong. It’s the ongoing state of the American political condition. Reinventing the wheel every few years is a huge waste of energy and opportunity.

.

Sheepdogs and wolves, by @DavidOAtkins

Sheepdogs and wolves

by David Atkins

The Washington Post profiles Rob Farago, gun fundamentalist and owner of one of the top gun blogs in the world. He and his mentor Mr. Kenik have a philosophy of “situational awareness”:

A couple of hours later, the two men dig into dinner at a swank Italian restaurant, both of them choosing chairs that let them face the entrance.

“Look at the way Robert and I are facing,” Kenik says. “Crime happens everywhere. There’s no place to feel safe.”

“That’s your opinion,” Farago says, distancing himself a bit.

“It’s in the back of my mind,” Kenik says…

Exiting the restaurant, he poses a question: What business in this little commercial area would criminals most likely target? The jewelry store, obviously. That’s situational awareness.

Standing on the patio at Starbucks, he tells a story. A while back, he was right in this spot when the alarm went off across the street at the Bank of America branch office. Amazingly, people ignored it. They kept walking up to the bank to use the ATM. They didn’t seem to register the alarm at all.

Farago reckoned that, if a gunman emerged from the bank, he’d take cover inside the Starbucks, putting a brick wall between himself and the shooter.

“If I have incoming fire, I’ve got a plan ready to go,” he says.

There was no gunman. Just a false alarm.

But that’s not the point. The point is that Farago was alert to the potential danger in the world. He was prepared to defend himself, if absolutely necessary, with his Glock. Even though, so far in his incarnation as a gun guy, he’s never had any reason.

These are scared little men who live in a fantasy land of movie villains and armed thugs that has no bearing on the reality most of us live in.

Their justification for owning instruments of mass death?

“We have sheep and we have sheepdogs. Robert and I are sheepdogs,” Kenik says. “Getting rid of the sheepdogs will not get rid of the wolves.”

No, Mr. Farago. You’re not a sheepdog. You’re a wolf. A scared little wolf perpetuating horrific gun violence–more than 1500 gun deaths since Newtown alone. Not that Mr. Farago cares about gun death:

Over a sushi lunch, Farago addresses the fact that so many people turn guns on themselves.

“Why should society be organized to stop those suicides?” he says. “Do we as a society intervene to prevent people from hurting themselves? Freedom isn’t free. People are going to die. People die all the time.”

A wolf in sheepdog’s clothing. Contemptible and deserving of society’s righteous opprobrium.

.

Saturday Night at the Movies — “56 Up”: What the hell happened to me?

Saturday Night at the Movies


56 Up: What the hell happened to me?



By Dennis Hartley

Have you ever stumbled across one of your own childhood photos and mused, “How could this grinning idiot have not seen a future in computer science?” Or, “Pardon me, but…have we met?” Granted, perhaps that is not what every person would think, but you get the gist (“If I’d only known then what I know now…”). The tendency many of us have to brood ever more obsessively over a life tragically misspent with each successive birthday is bad enough…but imagine doing it on national TV, whilst thousands of voyeuristic strangers look on, parsing your every thought and action. If that reminds you of The Truman Show, you’re not too far off the mark. Back in 1964, a UK television film series-cum-social experiment kicked off with Paul Almond’s 7 Up, a documentary profiling fourteen 7 year-olds from a full spectrum of socio-economic backgrounds, sharing their dreams, hopes and aspirations. 7 years later the same subjects appeared in 7 Plus Seven, with the eclectic (and prolific) director Michael Apted taking over the helm. Seven year updates continued with 21 Up, 28 Up, 35 Up, 42 Up and, wait for it…49 Up.

 Which brings us to Apted’s latest installment in the series, 56 Up; like its 7 predecessors, it has been picked up for a limited theatrical run. First, it’s nice to see that everyone is still above ground (currently being 56 and ¾ myself, I find this particular fact somehow…reassuring). This is not to say that, by this point in their lives, the participants haven’t been put through life’s wringer in one way or another. Health issues, multiple marriages and financial problems abound. Some are doing better than 7 years ago, some worse; most seem to be maintaining the status quo. Some are happy, some not so much (lives of quiet desperation, and all that). For me, the most fascinating character continues to be Liverpool native Neil Hughes, who is like a real life version of Jean Valjean from Les Miserables. A charming and funny little kid in 7 Up, he was a homeless, mentally troubled university dropout by 21 Up. Over the next two installments, he remained directionless and homeless, moving first to Scotland, then to the Shetlands. By 42 Up, however, he had discovered a knack for politics, in which he seems to remain ensconced.

In this age of dime-a-dozen reality TV shows and smart phone attention spans, the idea of a filmed series where the audience has to wait seven years between episodes may seem trite; perhaps even downright anachronistic. But if you think about it for at least 10 seconds, I strongly suspect that sitting down to watch any number of episodes of, say, Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, over any number of years, would not be likely to provide you with any kind of keen insight into the human condition (it’s much more likely that a roomful of monkeys with typewriters could eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare…and in much less time). At least here, there were/are noble intentions; and you certainly cannot say that Apted, having devoted 40 years of his life (and counting) to the project doesn’t have “the vision thing”. Interestingly, not all participants share in the altruism; in 56 Up some of the interviewees continue to badger the director to hang it up and be done with it. Granted, 10 to 15 minutes of screen time, every 7 years cannot give you the whole picture of someone’s life, and that’s one of the primary issues in question.

As far as the “social experiment” aspect of the project is concerned, that has been off the table for some time now, especially when you consider that the participants have become celebrities in the U.K. One of the interviewees (a cab driver) tells a great anecdote about having a rather famous person in his cab. An excited passerby tapped on his car window, asking for an autograph. The driver says he tried to wave the person away, basically indicating that his passenger didn’t wish to be bothered, but was surprised when the persistent fan indicated that it was the cabbie’s autograph that he was after. So it appears that over the years, the “experiment” has become a little less Margaret Mead and a little more Andy Warhol. Indeed, one gentleman, who has declined to participate since his strident anti-Thatcher rants in 28 Up made him a pariah in the British press and led to his resignation as a teacher, makes no effort to sugarcoat his cynicism. “I’ve only agreed to come back” he tells Apted, “…because I want to promote my band.” Still, for the most part, everyone is game. And there’s a real sense of poignancy this time around, especially since Apted has a sizable archive of clips for each interviewee, from all periods of their lives (he makes good use of the flashbacks and flash-forwarding). The lives depicted here may not be glamorous or exciting, but most people’s lives aren’t, are they? And as cliché as this sounds, it all seems to boil down to that most basic of human needs: to love or be loved. You know what? I’ll bet that’s what was making me smile in my childhood photo.

Saturday Night at the Movies review archives

.

Punxsatawny Phil, the messiah

Punxsatawny Phil, the messiah

by digby

Punxatawny Phil says it’s going to be an early spring. Huzzah. But what about this?

Today, the people of Punxsutawney will be holding their heads as high as any. For the 117th consecutive year the people of this small town will hold aloft a small, rat-like creature and, by its subsequent behaviour, seek to forecast the weather. Records suggest that the forecasters usually get the prediction correct, but either way the town’s Groundhog Day has become world famous, and tens of thousands of people will flock to this part of Pennsylvania to participate in it.

Much of that has to do with the success of the 1993 film Groundhog Day, starring Bill Murray as a brash TV weatherman who is dispatched to Punxsutawney to cover the annual festival. Yet the movie has achieved far more than simply luring crowds to a Pennsylvanian town – what is usually described as a romantic comedy has become a crucial teaching tool for various religions and spiritual groups, who see it as a fable of redemption and reincarnation that matches anything that Fred could tell me at the bar.

“At first I would get mail saying, ‘Oh, you must be a Christian because the movie so beautifully expresses Christian belief’,” the film’s director Harold Ramis recently told The New York Times. “Then rabbis started calling from all over, saying they were preaching the film as their next sermon. And the Buddhists! Well, I knew they loved it because my mother-in-law has lived in a Buddhist meditation centre for 30 years and my wife lived there for five years.”

Firstly, a brief synopsis of the film: Murray’s arrogant and curmudgeonly character, Phil Connors, having been sent to Punxsutawney for the fourth year in a row, finds himself inexplicably trapped in a seemingly endless cycle in which he is forced to repeat that 2 February day over and over again. Nothing he can do – not suicide, not prayer, not visits to the psychiatrist – can break the circle. At first he uses the repetitious cycle to his advantage, learning to play the piano and to speak French in an effort to seduce his producer, played by Andie MacDowell.

It is all in vain. Every day at 6am he wakes up in the same bed with the same crushed pillow in the same small hotel, the same tinny radio on the bedside table playing Sonny and Cher’s “I Got You Babe” and the same obnoxiously cheerful local-radio presenter reminding everyone – just in case they had forgotten – that it is Groundhog Day. It is only when, an endless number of days later, Murray learns humility, understanding and acceptance of his fate that he breaks the cycle.

Unknown to Fred, and probably to most of the people in snow-bound Punxsutawney, Groundhog Day is now associated in the minds of many spiritual seekers with redemption, rebirth and the process of moving to a higher plane. Professor Angela Zito, the co-director of the Centre for Religion and Media at New York University, told me that Groundhog Day illustrated the Buddhist notion of samsara, the continuing cycle of rebirth that individuals try to escape. In the older form of Buddhist belief, she said, no one can escape to nirvana unless they work hard and lead a very good life.

But in the teachings of the slightly more recently established Mahayana Buddhism, no one can escape samsara until everyone else does. “That’s why you have what are called bodhisattvas who reach the brink of nirvana and come back for others,” she said. “The Dalai Lama is considered one living bodhisattva, but Bill Murray could also be one. You can see [in the film] that he learns.” Zito shows the film to her undergraduates in New York without any explanation beforehand. “Most of them know the film,” she said. “I think they find it interesting.”

But Ramis is quick to point out that it is not just Buddhists who are able to draw parallels with the film. Scholars of Judaism have also leapt on it, and Ramis claims that many Buddhists in the US started out as Jews. “There is a remarkable correspondence of philosophies and even style between the two,” said Ramis, who was raised in the Jewish tradition but practises no religion. “I am wearing meditation beads on my wrist, but that’s because I’m on a Buddhist diet. They’re supposed to remind me not to eat, but they actually just get in the way when I’m cutting my steak.”

Dr Niles Goldstein, the author of Lost Souls: Finding Hope in the Heart of Darkness, is rabbi of the New Shul congregation in Greenwich Village. He recently said that there was a resonance in Murray’s character being rewarded by being returned to earth to perform more good deeds, or mitzvahs. This was in contrast to gaining a place in heaven (the Christian reward) or else achieving nirvana (the Buddhist reward). He is considering using the film as an allegory when he speaks to his congregation. “The movie tells us, as Judaism does, that the work doesn’t end until the world has been perfected,” he said.

As Ramis has been told by Jesuit priests among others, the film clearly also contains themes found within the Christian tradition. Michael Bronski, a film critic with the magazine Forward and a visiting professor at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, where he teaches a course in film history, said: “The groundhog is clearly the resurrected Christ, the ever-hopeful renewal of life at springtime, at a time of pagan-Christian holidays. And when I say that the groundhog is Jesus, I say that with great respect.”

Not everyone in Punxsutawney buys into the Groundhog Day cult. Rev Mary Lewis of the town’s First Baptist Church felt the idea that the film illustrated resurrection was taking matters too far. “However, to me, in terms of Christian values I see that [Murray] is growing as a person. He starts out as a creep only out for himself, but gradually he begins to actually become a better human being.”

The morning after the night in the bar, I drove up to Gobbler’s Knob to inspect Phil’s temporary home. Bill Cooper, the president of the Groundhog Club, and Butch Philliber, another member, were shovelling away the overnight snow and throwing down salt in anticipation of today’s crowds.

Cooper, an affable banker from Pittsburgh who moved to Punxsutawney some years ago, knew all about the religious groups who had jumped on the movie, and he appeared to approve of the spiritual element attached to the event. “With the forecasting, it depends who you listen to,” he said. “Some people say we get it right a lot, others say we usually get it wrong. But if you’re the sort of person who is going to come and argue about that, then Groundhog Day is not for you.”

Who knew? I love this movie too and I’m known for being one of the most unspiritual people in the world.

That piece was a feature in the Independent from a few years ago. When I went looking for it I found that tons of religious groups had linked to it, from evangelicals to Wiccans. So there you go.

h/t to RLP

Conservative sex

Conservative sex

by digby

From Katie Halper:

A woman at a panel held Wednesday night by the right-wing Independent Women’s Forum on how to reach out to woman had the same take. Leslie Paige, 55, who works for an advocacy group promoting smaller government, had her mind on bigger things when she took the mic and said, “I just want to say one small word and the word is sex.” Paige explained that college-aged women see Republicans as “a bunch of prudish, anti-sex, anti-reproductive freedom people.” So Paige has a brilliant suggestion for combatting the image problem: bumper stickers that say “We Like Sex Too.” The room went silent for a second, but then broke into a round of applause and hoots.

Great. Whatever. They still want to turn every sexual encounter into a possible compulsory childbirth, so I don’t really give a damn.

But this isn’t the first time we’ve heard this by a long shot. Right wingers are always insisting that they are hotter than hot in the old bedroom.

Like this guy, who made a fetish of talking about it:

He did know a lot about hot sex, for sure. With a little help from meth and prostitutes.

Not that I think those Independent Women’s Forum people are all cavorting with male prostitutes too, although some of them might be. But let’s just say that if they are having hot sex, which is totally possible — just look at Ted Haggard — I’m going to guess it’s of the more exotic type, if you know what I mean.

An Alabama minister who died in June of “accidental mechanical asphyxia” was found hogtied and wearing two complete wet suits, including a face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head mask, according to an autopsy report. Investigators determined that Rev. Gary Aldridge’s death was not caused by foul play and that the 51-year-old pastor of Montgomery’s Thorington Road Baptist Church was alone in his home at the time he died (while apparently in the midst of some autoerotic undertaking).

Just saying.

.