At the Campaign for America's Future, Richard (RJ) Eskow writes Incredibly Guilty: Despite Lowenstein's Defense, Wall Street's Still A Nest Of Criminality:
In a piece called "Wall Street: Not Guilty," financial columnist Roger Lowenstein attempts to defend Wall Street against allegations that it's a viper's nest of rampant criminality. His mischaracterization, mockery, and vague suggestions of McCarthyism are strident, flat, and fail to get the job done. But Lowenstein's piece is well worth reading, if only as a case study in the moral and cognitive blindness that's reached epidemic proportions in influential Washington and Wall Street circles.
Lowenstein shows us how people who are undoubtedly thoughtful and ethically-minded in their personal lives can lose their way when confronted with complex moral and legal issues, especially ones involving people they know personally. And his misdirection and vituperation suggests how unsettled they become when their worldview is challenged.
It's a shame. The analytical and moral flaws in Lowenstein's piece obscure some of the very sound points he makes about the wrongheadedness of our country's financial culture, a topic that deserves more thoughtful discussion. Without a clear rebuttal, this wrongheaded view is likely to become tomorrow's conventional wisdom.
Lowenstein unselfconsciously mocks "armchair prosecutors" even as he appoints himself armchair defense counsel, armchair judge, and armchair granter of blanket amnesty. His basic argument is that "risk-taking and stupidity aren't criminal," as the subheading to his piece puts it; that there may have been crimes committed, but they're minor and incidental to the financial collapse; that no greater purpose is served by a massive investigation of Wall Street; and that people who argue otherwise are angry, misguided, self-righteous persecutors. ...
• • • • •
At Daily Kos on this date in 2010:
The blogosphere truly became a force in 2004; ActBlue became a major online fundraising (and organizing) tool in 2006; Obama campaign's use of the internet for organizing gained widespread attention in 2008. Democrats clearly did better at campaigning, organizing, and fundraising online. Then in 2010, Scott Brown kicked Martha Coakley's ass across the entire internet. Suddenly the story became "can Democrats catch up online?"
That's a stupid question, because one race in which an effective candidate out-organizes a deeply flawed and inept candidate does not partywide dominance make. But it suggests we absolutely should be paying attention to how campaigns are doing at online organizing.
• • • • •
Looking for a good diary to read? Try Window for Afghan War Drawdown Waning by Rep. Michael Honda, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus's Peace and Security Taskforce.