I just realized that I've never spoken the word Bulwark, nor heard it pronounced.

How do you pronounce it?

I was coming off of the B this morning at 42nd street and heard the announcer say that you could transfer to the IRT 7 upstairs. Most people have no idea what the announcer is talking about when they hear IRT, or BMT, or IND from a train conductor, because those are the old names of the lines from before the City took them over. But it is still nice to hear the announcers using the old monikers.

It is reminiscent of the cobblestones that occasionally peek up from fading pavement, reminding us of the past that often does still coexist here with the present. Not the past for the sake of the past, in the historic districts, not new for the sake of the new, in parts of midtown, but somewhere comfortably in between.

I just finished Sandman 6, and I do have to say that it is taking a definite turn back towards addictive.

-=-

The Debate is over, and I am relieved. Kerry came off far better than I thought he would. I think this speaks less to Kerry's strength than to the abilities of the Bush campaign to spread Fear uncertainty and doubt about Kerry. Clearly, the more the better.

Cy is coming in late at night, and likely heading home. Bec is coming in late as well. I've got reservations for 5 at Milk & Honey tomorrow (or is that tonight now?)


Also, Bethany's purse called me out of the blue. My phone returned the call, to everybody's surprise. Her phone relays a "Hi" to yall. B was too busy driving a city Prius.

Prius needs to have the word King in front of it.

This post is through ranchero software's marsedit (from the same guys that have made the indispensable NetNewsWire 2.0 - If you've got a mac try it... My most used program next to Firefox.) It uses the old blogger API, so no headline support until ATOM API support comes in post 1.0. Consider the headline to be:

Hello Fall

And besides, it feels Autumnal this week.

Also, I love Dumbo (the area of downtown Brooklyn next to the Brooklyn & Manhattan Bridges. Washington St, just between the bridges and on down to the East River is amazing. It feels like a spanking new office building area, and yet is in between these massive old bridges, and cobblestones peek through the pavement. A starbucks is opening up (any coffee shop will do) and the area is blocks away from the best Pizza in the City (Grimaldi's - formerly Patsy's) and the A,C and F trains, which all cut underground to Manhattan, far faster than the trains (BDQMNR) that go over the Manhattan bridge. Of course, I can't afford it yet.

Kristof wrote a good piece in the nyt about gender equality becoming the battle of this century. I don't agree with him. I think Genetic Modification of animals and humans will become a far larger issue. I am inclined to wonder if the future ubermensch will also have gender equality issues.

The article talks about Pakistani judicial rape victim Mukhtaran Bibi who's trying to make an impact, despite the death threats of neighbors. You can send money here. The money will actually go to something better than first worlders careening around the third world in NGO SUVs.

The debates start tonight. I'm bracing myself to be very very depressed.

Also, who is coming this weekend? Brendan & Miriam? Caitlin & Cy yes I think. I'm going to make reservations for Milk & Honey tonight for sometime late tomorrow evening.

I'm on Book 5 of Sandman. Is it just me or does the dare I say novelty start wearing off about this point? (Back off... Gaiman is still Amazing...)

So there are strong economic arguments for privatizing social security. But those aren't the republican goals, as described below. I'm going to say this one last time (not likely): Republicans, conservative Democrats, and fellow travelers - Stop Ruining My Country.

Thank you. Bitches.

Are There Reasons to Be in Favor of Social Security Privatization?: "

Duncan Black writes:

Eschaton: The Case for "Privatizing" Part of Social Security: Actually, I don't think there is one. What would be the point? If you think reducing payroll taxes and/or guaranteed benefits in a way which adds up is a good idea then go ahead and advocate that policy. But, what possible good argument is there for a policy roughly like the ones which are floated by the Bushies (without details of course), which would cut payroll taxes by 2 percentage points, cut guaranteed future benefits, and then mandate that you save/invest that 2 percentage points of income. What's with the mandatory savings? If you want to cut benefits, fine. If you want to having all kinds of tax free savings instruments, which we already do, fine. But why force people to save? The only point of doing so is to ensure that people have a reasonable income base when they're of retirement age, but once you take the "insurance" part out of retirement insurance, then a mandatory saving/investment program doesn't achieve that.

I disagree. There are five reasons to be in favor of Social Security privatization. They are:

1. There are large-scale financial market failures which cause the equity premium to be *way* too high: the stock market does a lousy job at mobilizing society's risk-bearing capacity as applied to investment. Privatizing Social Security and mandating that such accounts be invested in stocks rather than holding the public Social Security Trust Fund in Treasury bonds is a powerful way to try to repair this market failure by boosting demand for equities
   
   
2. Too many households are myopic: they do not save enough. Households resist increases in Social Security taxes--they see no link between the taxes and their future benefits. But if Social Security were privatized so that households saw their Social Security contributions as their own, in the future there would be much less objection to upping the contribution rate--and so creating a real and more effective forced saving program to raise the national savings rate.
3. Prefunding Social Security is moral: it is unfair to make tomorrow's young bear the entire burden of financing the retirement of the baby-boom generation. But prefunding requires raising Social Security contributions and building up huge assets in the Social Security Trust Fund--enough assets to give the Managing Trustee of the Trust Fund effective voting control over corporate America. The Managing Trustee is the Secretary of the Treasury. Do we want the Secretary of the Treasury casting the deciding votes in every election for corporate boards of directors? No. Hence privatization is a necessary first step to create the possibility of doing the moral thing--making the boomers build up the assets needed so that they can shoulder a greater share of the burden of financing their own retirement.
   
   
4. We need to raise our national savings rate. But if we just raise Social Security taxes, Congress will treat these taxes as general revenue and spend them. Only by funneling Social Security contributions into some vehicle that Congressional representatives cannot interpret as a resource available to fund current spending can we raise the national savings rate. And private accounts are the best vehicle we can find to (a) accumulate contributions without (b) allowing Congressional representatives to seize them as resources available to fund current federal spending.
5. At present, your Social Security benefits are yours only by grace of Congress: Congress could cut them if it wished. But if your privatized Social Security account were *yours*, then it would be yours not by grace of Congress but by right of property: courts would stand ready to defend it against any casual attempt to cut or confiscate it.

The problem is that I cannot see any of these as a reason for George W. Bush to be in favor of Social Security privatization. (It does seem likely to me that (1) and (3) are Marty Feldstein's and Andrew Samwick's reasons for being strong advocates of privatization, and that (4) is Kent Smetters's reason for being a strong advocate of privatization. But their reasons aren't the administration's reasons, and hence whatever plan a second Bush administration might ultimately propose would be unlikely to be crafted to achieve goals (1), (3), or (4).

Why are other groups inside a second Bush administration likely to be in favor of Social Security privatization? What's in it for them? I can see three possibilities:

• Enormous fees for the mutual fund industry...
  
  
• Huge capital gains for current investors as stock prices rise in anticipation of the enormous flow of stock purchases by private accounts...
  
  
• Over time as the contribution rate to private accounts is upped and the resources to pay for the still public system fall, the finances of the public system get worse and worse as the relatively young place less and less reliance on it and more and more on their private accounts. Eventually the balance of political support tips--and the public system's benefits can be slashed and then the public system itself shut down.

I don't think the Bush administration itself knows why it is in favor of Social Security privatization. It only knows that it is.

Nevertheless, I accept Duncan Black's big point: most of the good arguments for privatization are simply not accessible to people on the right: they are inconsistent with their view of the world.

"

(Via Semi-Daily Journal.)

My g-d its full of stars.

Brendan & Miriam may be stopping in next weekend. Miriam's supposed to be giving a talk at a conference in Istanbul the week after, so we'll see what happens. I for one hope that they come in and we have a grand old time.

Friday night we got the kids off to a bang for Yom Kippur through communal gorging at Outback. Dave had this funny notion that if you aren't going to eat for 25 hours, you should eat lots of carbs before you start fasting.

Ummm, no.

Allen, Dave, Yulia Jeanne & I made good use of the meat provided. Afterwards, we introduced Allen to play Dr. Mario, and warmed ourselves by the glow of Heathers.

Saturday, a pleasant albeit fruitless walk many blocks down Flatbush in search of an even moderately reputable looking establishment to find breakfast. After capitulation and return to the apartment, we succumbed to an afternoon of football and some movie with a blonde beardless Chuck Norris playing a zen trucker. We sat for a while wondering of it was actually Norris, and eventually saw a signature fight scene. But folks, Truckers vs Hillbillies? Need I say Rock!

All in all a well spent day, culminating in a search for a bar to hold Dave's birthday party (observed) next weekend. Which is actually pretty tough in the village. You find a bar that's too popular, and there's a line to get in, and expensive drinks (even worse, you may find an establishment so cocksure the bartender doesn't know how to make any drinks). You find a bar too ratty, and you end up with lots of old people and or frat boys.

We think that we found a possible sweet spot in the East Village. Reasonably priced drinks. A pool table. A dart board. Bathrooms cleaner than at Peculier (you ask about our standards...) And as Jeanne points out "a waitress/bartender with a skirt that's ... short."

Cue to the events of today. Plenty of time to catch a game or two on TV.

I'd like to point out for the record that Cy's Jets went yet a third week undefeated.
(Bye week or not)

It was Jeanne's turn on the dinner rotation tonight, and the bar was rose yet again.

A leg of lamb (there are pictures of Allen gnawing at the bone at the end of the night), squash, polenta, strawberry shortcake, and well, really the leg should be listed twice. Yup, that big. Eight people big.

The poor cat, frightened by the prospect of the apartment population rising from 3 to 8, huddled on a chair under a table. Ok, not just because of the dinner party, because you see earlier today Jeanne & Yulia went to

Target (hereafter to be also known as the Robot Pound). She picked up a Roomba [paid for it] and brought it home. And wow. wow.

The little robot spun around the rug and mindlessly cleaned it...and the room... eventually. It was quite strange to see a resurrection of the slave - overseer relationship in the room. Jeanne picking up the roomba, and putting it down in a different place to make sure it cleaned in a region it kept constantly missing. It took about 4 times as long to clean the room as it would have taken a person with a vacuum. Though brownie points to Yulia for calling the vacuum "Sweetie" when it kept running into her in the kitchen.

I do have to say this about the Roomba. It (He? She? And don't you dare say automaton - there was very little ato about it) helped me discover the 4th law of robotics today.

4th law: Thou shalt stare in awe at a machine doing a person's job, even if the machine does the job poorly.

fare well. Next weekend: birthdays & portuguese cooking, but is it kosher?