Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Happy Birthday J!! (81) | Main | "You have to do what the people want you to do. You can't get stuck in your ideology." »


RW Rogers

Provocative article with extremely interesting chart: Real Reaganites Raise Taxes


It's absurd, what am I doing talking about this stuff? I'm in pre-kindergarten.

So is most of the country, which is why we just close our eyes and charge stuff.

Donna B.

"To contemplate living in a materially more frugal, spiritually richer way isn't "optimistic." --Amba

I'm not so sure I agree with that, but it's likely I don't really understand what you mean.

For me, too many possessions are like quicksand, you sink in them, are bound by them, and the time-consuming care and protection of them, especially if they are expensive.


I agree with you, Donna -- which is to say I don't agree with the "statement" either; I was trying to put words to what seems to be a widespread attitude that material expansiveness (not only inventiveness) is the American way, and that an attitude of frugality is pinched and "pessimistic." For a long time, if you dared to talk about having smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, or renting a home instead of buying, or saving more and spending less, you were Jimmy Carter.


RWR: I've opened that link and am looking forward to reading after the Oscars. Simulsnark anyone?


"what am I doing talking about this stuff? I'm in pre-kindergarten. Nobel Prize winners don't understand it."

It's better to have common sense than a Nobel Prize when trying to figure this out. The expert economists think the economy can be fixed by spending trillions of dollars as fast as possible.

Remember when they first tried to pass the bailout bill, while Bush was still president? The public was overwhelmingly against it, and congress got thousands of calls begging them to vote against it.

Then what happened? The big experts convinced congress to ignore their ignorant constituents, and they finally approved bill.

Then what happened? Wall Street got enormous bailouts, which they did god knows what with, and the economy kept getting worse.

No the Nobel Prize winners don't understand it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't think and talk about it. We probably understand it better than they do, because they are blinded by ideologies and wacko theories.


Second on common sense. More valuable than having any specific education in unknowable topics is having a good bullshit detector, and the temerity to not turn it off simply because someone waves a diploma at you.

Donna B.

My irony meter exploded and shorted-out my bullshit detector.

But I still don't the stimulus is going to stimulate what needs stimulating.

Tom Strong

FWIW, my back-of-the-envelope calculation shows the proposed tax hike would optimistically add about $50b in revenue. Taxes will go up - and not just for the very wealthy - but there's no way spending cuts won't be the major portion of the balancing act. Which in turn will depend on events in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also - just to be annoying - 40% of $250,000 is quite a bit, but the actual difference under discussion is 4%. That's public university tuition, not Ivy League.


40% of $250,000 is quite a bit, but the actual difference under discussion is 4%

Right, which is why Republicans are always wanting taxes to go down, not up. It's a real conundrum, because no one at any income level will agree that it's fair to take 39% of his/her income or that it leaves him/her with "plenty." Well, wrong; some liberal wealthy are saying, "Bring it on, I'm willing to pay more to get more (of what I believe in)." But anyway, if you draw the line too high you don't get enough revenue, and if you draw it too low you put the biggest experienced burden on people who aren't "rich," which is pretty much inevitable anyway: that's where the numbers are and the major loopholes aren't.

Bottom line, spending cuts are unavoidable and indispensable. We need a veritable art of cutting spending.


N.b. taxing the wealthy is sometimes justified by the argument that they are not as self-made as they think they are and owe about, well, about 40 percent of their good fortune to "social capital."

But how do you define "wealthy"?


RWR: Finally read "Real Reaganites Raise Taxes." Sort of intriguing and depressing in equal measure . . . thanks.

Tom Strong

The problem is equal and opposite of the problem with the poverty line - it doesn't take place into account, or obligations. I used to make $20,000 in Atlanta and lived reasonably well as a single person. If I lived in New York and had to make child care payments on that salary I would have been lucky not to be homeless.

At the same time, while I was making that 20K, I once had a few drinks in a bar with a (single, young) NY stockbroker who was making 600K and complaining about her tax burden. Cried me a river, she did.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004