Wall Street, Main Street, and NPR

I heard an NPR story Friday night that had me scratching my head and talking to myself. That behavior is not out of the ordinary for me anytime I happen to intersect with mainstream media sources. In fact, the story was about intersections--the intersections of Wall Street and Main Street.

"Where Wall Street and Main Street Collide--Literally" by Craig LeMoult and Patty Murray, focused not on any underlying issues driving the current Wall Street financial crisis, or the regulatory oversight (or lack thereof) contributing to the seizing up of credit markets. No, LeMoult and Murray prepared for their five minute spot on Friday night by searching out over 70 communities where these two street names literally intersected.

The story featured two communities--Bridgeport, CT and Green Bay, WI--and people encountered in areas where the twain of Wall Street and Main Street met in these communities.

It appears to me that the reporters have imbibed much of what passes for conventional wisdom among hip, urban professionals like LeMoult and Murray. Here's how it goes for their demographic. The country is in bad shape. The last eight years and in particular, the Bush administration, has been the primary cause agent of the downward spiral of the economy. Simplistically, all we need to fix it is to vote for the man that causes legs to tingle, the man of hope, The Messiah, Barry Obama. Why the hell else would NPR devote the resources and energy to a story that provides nothing towards understanding the underlying issues of the economic crisis? At one time, NPR was a place where stories and issues were delved into, providing one venue where investigative journalism still took place. Now, its just another outlet that tries too hard to be trendy, rather than newsworthy.

I'm pulling one quote out from the piece that to me illustrates how the man (or woman) on the street is entirely clueless about the issues, possibly because newspapers, public radio, as well as mainstream television and cable news outlets provide little that helps most Americans contextualize current events.

The journalists from NPR spoke with a newspaper peddler, in Bridgeport, a man named Paul Conway, selling newspapers with a headline that proclaimed, "Senate OKs Bailout."

Conway's response was telling. Conway, who self-identified as a "lower-class person," typically revealed a general lack of understanding about the U.S. tax system, and illustrated the class divide common among many similar Americans.

"The lower class is getting hurt all the time," he says. "Actually, I'm
going to take that back. I'm going to take a step back, sir. The middle class is
getting hurt. Because the rich people don't pay taxes. And I shouldn't be
sounding prejudiced for the lower-class people — I'm a lower-class person. They
get benefits. And it's the middle-class people that get stuck in the middle —
that are paying all the taxes and paying the brunt of it for everybody."

Conway's belief that the "rich don't pay taxes" is problematic, because in fact, the richest one percent of Americans earn 19 percent of the wealth and pay 37 percent of the taxes. The top 10 percent of income earners pay 68 percent of the taxes, while the bottom 50 percent of income earners earn 13 percent of the total wealth and pay three percent of all taxes.

What I found most interesting was that all the people that LeMoult and Murray spoke to had no problem with the bailout, just that the bloated amount was going to the "wrong" members of society--the Wall Street bankers--rather than to them.

Could the obvious belief among the subjects of this feature that they're all powerless to change their personal paths, and the world they live in, have a connection to how most reporters and media perpetuate the myth that government is the solution to all of their problems?

This is not an Angels-bashing blog

Francisco Rodriguez is one of major league baseball's top closers. Halo fans would argue he is baseball's best, at least when it comes to the regular season. But fans of teams that have tasted postseason success know that October ain't July or August. K-Rod found that out last year in game two, when old friend Manny Ramirez touched him for a game-ending blast.

That was last year, right? Rodriguez registered a ML record 62 saves in 69 chances (his fourth consecutive season of 40+ saves) in 2008 and was one of the reasons why many baseball prognosticators (including some of the Boston beat community, like Bob Ryan) had already knighted the Angels ALDS champs and were talking about a World Series spot. Of course, playing the actual games can often confound the tripe coming from punditry.

With the Red Sox jumping out early (courtesy of Mr. Bay's second home run in as many games), the good guys were up 5-2 after four when the Angels began clawing their way back. Texiera's sac fly tying it in the 8th had me considering the possibilities of going back to Boston potentially all even. Then came Drew's heroics in the 9th.

Maligned of late for not answering the call, a charge that's haunted Drew (who earlier doubled and also made a stellar catch up against the wall) his entire MLB career, he turned around a K-Rod fastball, crushing it to dead center. There was little doubt when he hit it that it was out. Sox up 7-5 and the monkey had climbed squarely back in place for the Angels, a team with little to show (0 for 11) for their postseason efforts against the Sox.

With Beckett back in Boston, ready for game three, the bandwagon seems to be full, with a few standing room spots still available. Hey Mr. Plaschke, you might want to rethink your wet dream of a column predicting an all SoCal World Series.

Red Sox trivia: Jason Bay's homer in the first makes him the first Boston player to ever homer in his first two postseason games.

Nation of idiots

If you read my title and thought, "good lord, give politics a rest, man!" you're in luck. The nation I'm referring to isn't the political nation, divided by partisan loyalties to the candidate of their choice, but the nation of fans that make up "Red Sox Nation."

I know, I've tended to look down my nose recently at the professional variety in my limited posts on sports.

Today, in an attempt at recapturing some sense of sanity, while at the point of media saturation about all things political, I tuned out political talk, and ventured over to WEEI, now available in Maine via the spot on the FM dial, 95.5, where the Big Jab once resided.

I caught bits of Dennis & Callahan this morning, on my drive to Pittsfield, through the torrents of rain, and then, Dale Arnold and Michael Holley this afternoon.

In much the same way that politics causes many (myself included) to take leave of their senses, and often, miss the better part of valor, so sports makes us all dullards at times.

Red Sox fandom, now able to bask in World Series glory twice in the past four years, after a drought of nearly 90 years, has developed an entitlement mentality. How else can one explain callers absolutely giddiness this morning after Lester's seven innings of stellar pitching, and a longball from Jason Bay that put to rest any concerns about his ability to perform in the postseason? This, after many of these same fans and announcers voicing their belief that the Angels might sweep the Sox in three games! Granted, the talented Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim might win the next three and send Boston home for the winter, but if anyone would rather hedge their investment portfolio's gadawful performance with something less volatile, putting money on Boston's postseason track record against California seems like a fairly safe bet.

I like the chances of the Sox, knowing that Matsuzaka has been lights out on the road, and Josh Beckett seems to be ready to go in game three. Lester, Bay, Ellsbury and the supporting cast guaranteed a road split after Wednesday night's win, so Boston is playing with the house's money on Friday, set to return home no worse than 1-1 on the west coast.

The bandwagon still has room, in fact there are a few front row spots still available given some of the defections. Don't delay climbing back aboard, however, because in another week, you might end up being wait listed.

And speaking of idiocy. Has anyone read Bill Simmons's 11 page article on Manny? I'm on record as being a fan of Simmons's writing, but come on Bill, you're a great writer--couldn't you have coalesced the Manny piece to four, or five pages?

My prediction: Sox in five.

Political déjà vu

Over the past 25 years, I’ve occupied real estate at both ends of the political/ideological spectrum. I’m not sure why that is—I’m sure its some kind of character flaw, at least that’s how the flawless types might explain it.

Engaging in my own uniquely personal self-assessment, I could say it was a search for “truth” that lead me first, during the teenage political genesis, to the polar left as a starting point, at least what one understands of the left, as a wet-behind-the-ears 17-year-old.

Next came my wilderness years, marooned on a desert isle of right-wing fundamentalism. A loss of faith, burgeoning family obligations (along with house and car payments), as well as a job that kept me behind the wheel of a truck for much of my workday hooked me up with talk radio and several hours per day listening to Rush.

Housecleaning brought me face-to-face with my leftist past, and books by Chomsky, Zinn, and others aligned with various other isms.

One thing is clear to me having spent enough time living to glean some modicum of wisdom, is that truth is often a mirage. Seeking it as an ends can leave you disappointed, deluded, taken for a ride, or worse, lacking the kind of Pollyannaish optimism that’s required to be “clubbable” today, a condition made possible by disassociating with a reality-based worldview, and/or heavy dosages of pharmaceuticals.

Fed up with our two-party clusterfuck of a political system, I've chosen to unenroll, and plan on remaining that way. I’ve made the decision to cast my lot with one of the solitary third-party figures, residing in what could be called, the "ghetto of unelectability." I like to say it’s a principled choice, but it probably has more to do with disillusion and cynicism than anything else. Whatever the underlying rationale might be, I now have an amazing sense of being freed from the chains of voting for the evil of two lessers once again.

Whether I define it as the Libertarian left, or post-Xian pragmatism (a town where the right and left join forces), there are fewer and fewer sources of information that provide me with some sort of context, and a rendezvous point with fellow travelers. One such zip code is Counterpunch, where most of the contributors would probably self-identify as left of center, but lack the ideological straitjacketing that is prevalent at most other news/commentary sites.

I’ve found a rash of articles that nail just how I feel about so much that passes for the political these days.

Glen Ford’s article cuts through all the BS of Obama’s mantra of change and hope, portraying him as just another craven politician, with his fingers wound tightly around the bag of loot, sneaking out the back door.

Obama's party is wedded to Wall Street. At the local level the Democrats have long been the party of "developers" - the money bags who shape urban policy to fit the needs of corporations. These gentrifiers are the "Renaissance Men" that insist black politicians earn their campaign and graft payments by helping to expel their own constituents from the cities, so as to make them more congenial to business. Betrayal starts at home. So it's not surprising to find Rep. Charles Rangel (NY), the corporate-loving Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, among the 18 members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to vote with the Bush-McCain-Obama Wall Street axis. Edolphus Towns (NY), Gregory Meeks (NY), and Artur Davis (AL) are also in their element, reeking as they do of corporate contributions. However, it is strange - and sad - to see Maxine Waters (CA), Gwen Moore (WI) and other relatively progressive members aligned with the rump end of the Black Caucus.

When we wake up November 5, Americans will again find we've been visited by one of two lessers not worthy an attempt at a parsing.

As they say, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss," or maybe it should be, friends don't let friends vote Demican/Republicrat.

Congress and Senate stooges smarter than economists

When our economic vitality depends on the whims of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and "Dingy" Harry Reid (feel free to insert almost any other politician's name, right, or left), rather than those with the credentials and background to make wise decisions, we're all on borrowed time.

Casey B. Mulligan, an economist at the University of Chicago has a blog post explaining that Wall Street isn't where our focus should be.

There was a time when people believed that the Sun and stars revolved around the Earth. Of course, now we know that the Earth is not the center of the universe, or even the center of our little solar system. In the somewhat more recent past, economists thought that the non-financial sector in a modern economy revolved around financial markets, despite the facts that only 4 percent of the workforce was employed in the financial sector (including insurance and real estate), and even today that sector employs only 6 percent of the total. President Bush and supporters of the recent massive Wall Street bailout plan still believe Wall Street to be the center of the entire economy.

According to Mulligan, economic research dispels that idea.

If you care to expand your knowledge base and learn something new, you can read the rest of Mulligan's ideas here. Otherwise, continue to take your marching orders from your two presidential wannabes, and the other apologists for oligarchy.