Barack Obama mentions Ronald Reagan, and Paul Krugman has a fit. He proceeds to revise Reagan’s legacy, because Clinton failed to change the narrative and Republicans are trying to rewrite history. Seriously.

Here’s the column, by celebrated New York Times columnist, former Enron adviser, and economist extraordinaire, Paul Krugman.

Debunking the Reagan Myth
By PAUL KRUGMAN
January 21, 2008

I thought, “Well, that was a quick read”, and was just about to retire for a power nap, when someone asked me for comment. So I thought, “Well, that’ll make a nice fisking.”

And it turned out to be very much worth fisking. Writes Krugman:

Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.

It’s not the perception that matters, it’s the economic policies and principles that matter. Whether the New Deal was or was not sound economic policy matters very much, because it is on such historical lessons that many base their decisions of today.

And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.

Indeed. Maybe that’s because the Reagan era still matters immensely for Americans (not to mention the rest of the world).

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

And low taxes, the defeat of inflation, low oil prices, and the defeat of the Soviet Union. A Gilded Age indeed.
Read the rest of this entry »

The medicine-registration leaflet of herbal remedies provide unexpected amusement. Outside politics, one wonders, can less be said in more formal-sounding words?

I’m one of those people who enjoy bitters. Not just rock shandy, not just sweet Jägermeister. Not just the light aromatic aperitif-style stuff, but heavy stomach bitters, as an after-dinner or night-cap digestif. The stronger, the better. There’s nothing quite like sipping a small glass of Fernet-Branca, Unicum or Underberg along with a tall glass of ice water.

Jurgen Gothe, an upstanding member of the Canadian cognoscenti, writes a fine paean to all things bitter, in All hail Fernet-Branca, the foulest liqueur on Earth. Hail, indeed.

So it was with some pleasure that I discovered, in my local pharmacy, a concoction known as Schweden-Bitter, made by PharmaNatura, “the natural medicine company”. Despite its relatively low price (compared to, say, Fernet-Branca), it compares pretty well to digestif bitters you’d find in the better bars or liquor stores around town. It’s less smooth and rounded, perhaps, but look, this is supposed to be medicine. Forget castor oil. This is the stuff I’d feed to moaning brats complaining about mysterious stomach pains to get off the homework hook.

Still, Schweden-Bitter isn’t a scheduled drug, or anything. So it was with some surprise that I discovered a package insert, just as the law requires of real medicine. Apparently, it is classified in the pharmacopoeia as “A. 34 Other”. Seeking somewhat greater clarity, I turned to the pharmacological action, which is described thus:

This preparation is designed to correct imbalances within the unhealthy body and so enables the organism itself to overcome the disease condition. The constituents in their indicated form work accordingly.

Okiedokey, then. Glad we cleared that up. A friend, who’ll remain nameless, said: “You see, that makes perfect sense to me.” But then, I’ve long ago given up arguing with them about what does and doesn’t make sense.

There’s more. After all, this is a very official and quite formal medicine registration notice, as required by Act 101/1965.

Side-effects and special precautions:

None known.

Known symptoms of overdosage and particulars of its treatment:

None.

Now I’m no doctor, and I have no clue what any of the 20 curiously-named herbs from which this “ethanolic extract” is distilled might do to a person, in great quantities. And to be fair to the makers, it is not recommended to exceed the maximum dosage of a teaspoonful four times a day.

But I do know what a concoction that contains 40% alcohol per volume could do, and I can guarantee you, this piece of paper isn’t going to get me off the hook if I have a few tots of this good stuff and get behind the wheel. I’m also fairly convinced alcohol has symptoms of overdosage (though I am, of course, entirely innocent of the particulars of its treatment).

Now, let’s assume a tot of this stuff to be equivalent to a standard drink, which is about right, given the alcohol content. Based on the information on alcohol overdose kindly published by John Brick, Ph.D., M.A., F.A.P.A., of the Rutgers University Centre for Alcohol Studies (when I grow up, that’s where I want to work), consuming a bottle (500ml) of this stuff in four hours has a 50% chance of killing a 90kg man.

I’d think death is a fairly significant symptom of overdosage, though I can see why they’d omit the particulars of its treatment.

Now, for that tot I just photographed. Your health!

A lot of South African politicians and public officials can take a lesson from Peter Hain’s resignation today. According to Sky News:

Cabinet Minister Peter Hain has resigned after the Electoral Commission announced it had referred the issue of undeclared donations to his deputy leadership campaign to the police.

Mr Hain said: “In view of the Electoral Commission decision today, I will be resigning to clear my name.”

The Prime Minister has accepted his resignation. […]

Sky News Political Editor Adam Boulton said: “Peter Hain has had to come back repeatedly and correct what he has been saying.

“At best he has not been on top of what is going on in terms of fund-raising, at worst, he has been less than frank about what is going on.

“That is what appears to have convinced Gordon Brown, or indeed, Peter Hain himself, that his position is untenable.

“This is a serious blow to the Government.”

He claims innocence, citing mere administrative oversights. He was a respected member of cabinet, in charge of a large, important ministry, and politics was his life.

Yet he didn’t wait for the police investigation to start. He didn’t wait for formal charges to be filed. He didn’t wait to be found guilty in a court of law. He didn’t wait to be fired by the prime minister. He offered to resign, on the spot. No ifs, buts, or maybes. And they still call it “incompetence, economic turmoil and political sleaze”.

Here, sleaze is the order of the day, and an honourable resignation seems to be the last thing on the minds of our gravy train passengers.

Granted, were its members to follow the example of the corrupt British captalist imperialist pigs, the ANC National Executive Committee would be sorely understaffed. The South African cabinet would be gravely depleted. On the other hand, imagine the many new job openings the government could claim credit for creating!