A book is not fast enough

I recently finished reading Naomi Klein’s new book No Is Not Enough (site | amazon | globe and mail | guardian), which she rushed out in response to Trump’s insanity. The funny thing is how hilariously out of date it already is. It came out in early June, and even forgetting about the lead time required to write, edit, print, and distribute the book, that release date predates a bunch of failed healthcare reform attempts, the Jeff Comey hearings, emails showing Trump’s son met with Russian officials ahead of the election, the Anthony Scaramucci saga, a Twitter escalation with a now-nuclear North Korea, Trump barring transgender individuals from service in the military (without telling the military), the firing of White House chief of staff Reince Preibus, and a refusal to condemn neo-Nazi rallies in Virginia. It’s been two months and she could probably write a second volume.

I fear the physical publishing business simply won’t be able to keep up with the sheer volume of the man’s idiocy. Best of luck to all the authors + editors out there.

"And the Danny's small brain grew 3 sizes that day."

Last week New York governor Eliot Spitzer wrote an editorial in the Washington Post about the predatory lending practices of some large US banks beginning in 2003, and about the Bush administration’s part in allowing them.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

The tool they used for this, Spitzer says, was the obscure Office of the Comptroller of Currency:

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government’s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

The result, as everyone knows, is economic instability in America and thousands of lost homes. Of course, the blame for this lies in a number of places: the banks offering these predatory loans, the buyers whose eyes were bigger than their wallets, the investors who made sub-prime debt part of their portfolio and those who sold it to them, and on and on. I won’t debate who’s most to blame. What got my attention is the new light in which I see stories like this.

I’m no fan of the Bush administration, nor do I tend to agree with Republican policies*, be they social or fiscal. I tend to be very cynical in my assumptions about their actions (though that probably has less to do with their being Republican than their being politicians in general) so accounts like this would usually suggest the motivating factor was greed. My mind immediately leaps to the corrupting influence of lobbyists in cases like this, and it simply seems natural to me that the large American banks would throw piles of money at government officials, urging them to somehow keep these predatory lending practices legal. While I still consider this a possibility, I no longer leap to it as the most likely scenario.

Perhaps I could blame it on Naomi Klein‘s Shock Doctrine, or perhaps it’s all the Friedman-worship one runs across in the course of an MBA program, but I now consider another motivation on the part of the Bush administration: free market purity. Perhaps the administration believed in the power of unfettered markets so strongly that the notion of state governments’ interference in a company’s right to profit was unacceptable, and they removed the roadblock. It would be a nice bit of irony that, in their quest to remove a government barrier from the path of capitalism, the only tool available to them was more government bureaucracy: the OCC.

I’m not saying either of these theories is what actually happened. I don’t claim to be particularly insightful in matters economic or political. I was merely interested to notice that, because of these new things I have read and learned, my immediate bias has changed. I’m probably no less cynical about politics than before, but I now consider things in another light. That’s something, I guess.

To sum up: reading makes you smarter. Duh.

* Truth be told, I don’t really agree with Democrat policies that often either; it simply strikes me as the lesser of two evils.

[via Brijit]

[tags]eliot spitzer, predatory lending, milton friedman, naomi klein, shock doctrine, education[/tags]


Canada’s oldest bookstore, The Book Room in Halifax, is closing. I don’t have any particular problem with it closing, I just thought it was cool that the oldest bookstore in Canada was in Halifax.


Today was challenging at times but things started to gel a bit toward the end. I’m going to have to do some work tonight; need to catch up and prepare some study materials. I still have some work work that I want to do but I don’t think I can spare the time. I don’t want to mess up this exam; it’s much too late in the game to mess up now.


I finally finished the Naomi Klein book this week. It drifted toward the end — I think the entire section on Israel was a little too micro to carry the same weight as earlier sections — but it was still a very interesting companion piece to this MBA I’m doing. It’s not as if Friedman worship flares up often, but there’ve been some discussions that in class that’ve sounded eerily similar to some neo-liberal scripture.

I think next I might read Incendiary by Chris Cleave (amazon | indigo). I didn’t realize it’d been made into a movie, so I’d like to read it before that comes out.

[tags]halifax, the book room, mba, naomi klein, shock doctrine, incendiary, chris cleave[/tags]

"Hence I am cautiously optimistic."

Interesting stuff found via Brijit, both of which relate to the book I’m reading right now: The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

From The Washington Post: A Chance to Defend Themselves (Thomas B. Wilner)

More than 300 prisoners remain at Guantanamo. Most have been there almost six years. We now know that the great majority were not captured on any battlefield. They were not even captured by U.S. forces. Rather, as the National Journal reported last year after an exhaustive study into government records, many were simply “innocent, wrongly seized noncombatants” who were “handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis and Afghan warlords” in exchange for bounties.

From the New York Times: What’s Your Consumption Factor? (Jared Diamond)

The population especially of the developing world is growing, and some people remain fixated on this. They note that populations of countries like Kenya are growing rapidly, and they say that’s a big problem. Yes, it is a problem for Kenya’s more than 30 million people, but it’s not a burden on the whole world, because Kenyans consume so little. (Their relative per capita rate is 1.) A real problem for the world is that each of us 300 million Americans consumes as much as 32 Kenyans. With 10 times the population, the United States consumes 320 times more resources than Kenya does.

The outlook of the second article is more encouraging than the first, which at least ends with cautious optimism from the author, but its central issue is no less troubling.

[tags]brijit, naomi klein, guantanamo, jared diamond, consumption[/tags]


That was how my barber answered the phone today, as if he were four years old and his best friend had just run into his yard. He might just be the happiest guy I know. Here’s the typical conversation when I sit down in the chair:

Ralph: “So, how’s it going?”

Dan: “Pretty good, Ralph. How’re you doing?”

Ralph: “Ay, life is beautiful, my friend. As long as we’re here and we’re healthy, what else can you ask? #3 on top and #2 on the sides, right?”

Whether it’s Ralph or his buddy Nick who cuts my hair, I’ve never left there without a smile on my face. It’s a big reason I keep going back, really. It’s not like it takes a lot of hard-to-find expertise to cut my hair.


It’s a sad state of affairs when gay Dumbledore and a fainting Marie Osmond occupy the top of the news pile. One gets the feeling that if the Californian wildfires weren’t so ferocious we’d be discussing proper dancing hydration or wizard-cruising. For fuck’s sake, people, one of them’s fictional and the other might as well be.


The Dooney’s Cafe website has a great review of Naomi Klein’s new book The Shock Doctrine. I’m not making much headway on the book; I keep getting distracted by MBAishness.

[tags]barbers, dumbledore, marie osmond, california wildfires, naomi klein, the shock doctrine, dooney’s[/tags]