Three items from the Washington Post today well worth a read. The first is an analysis of why people are so much gloomier about the economy than the data on inflation and unemployment really merit.  Several explanations are put forward by economists, and probably all of them contribute.  My experience discussing the economy with people tends to lend credence to this one:

The biggest reason for people’s gloom might be because of what they’re used to. In the 1980s and ’90s, memories of the double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation from the 1970s were still fresh.

“People expected very little out of the economy,” said Richard Curtin, who has administered the University of Michigan’s survey of consumer sentiment for 35 years. “Compared to what their frame of reference was, the performance of the economy was absolutely tremendous.”

But now, coming off two decades of prosperity and low inflation, Americans have come to treat low unemployment and inflation as givens. We have gotten so used to things being good, in other words, that even when conditions become somewhat bad, it feels terrible.

This is especially true of my fellow young people.  We didn’t live through Jimmy Carter and sky-rocketing inflation and rationing of gasoline, so to us, the current situation seems terrible.
Speaking of gas, Robert J. Samuelson, in addition to having the best mustache of all the WaPo columnists, has some great ideas for how to reduce the political and economic consequences of $135 a barrel oil:
The first thing is to get out of denial. Stop blaming oil companies and “speculators.” Next, we need to expand domestic oil and natural gas drilling, including in Alaska. Although we can’t “drill our way” out of this problem, we can augment oil supplies and lessen price strains. It might take 10 years or more, because new projects are huge undertakings. But delay will only aggravate our future problems.

How commonsensical.
Meanwhile, my love/hate relationship with Michael Gerson continues apace.  In today’s column, he takes on Al Franken’s so-called satire:
The whole op-ed is really worth a read, because it lists some of Franken’s greatest hits, but I think these two paragraphs really cut to the heart of the problem with people like Franken.  Satirists like Jonathan Swift were certainly hard on their objects of ridicule, but there was a wicked intelligence to their work that someone like AL Franken lacks.  The Left is hard on our pundits, but Al Franken makes Ann Coulter look like Miss Manners.
As for Gerson, here’s what I’ve decided: he shouldn’t write about anything that has to do with actual policy.  Especially if there is money or numbers of any kind involved.  But as a critic of the culture, he has a lot of potential.

Our popular culture, of course, violates even these expansive boundaries of tastelessness with regularity. We laugh at comedies featuring the C-word and at cartoons of foul-mouthed third-graders. In the cause of relevance and realism, our common life is already decorated with excrement. Why should political discourse be any different?

For at least one reason: Because vulgarity is often the opposite of civility. This is not, of course, always true. I know a brilliant and large-hearted academic with roots in south Philly who uses the F-word with the frequency of “like” or “and.” But the vulgarity of “The Jerry Springer Show” or misogynous rap music — the cultural equivalents of Franken’s political “satire” — generally expresses contempt and cruelty. Franken is not content to disagree with Karl Rove; he calls him “human filth.” He is not satisfied to criticize Ari Fleischer; Franken terms him a “chimp.” The objects of Franken’s humor — including political opponents and women — are not merely mocked but dehumanized. His trashiness is also nastiness. Rather than lampooning the emptiness and viciousness of our political discourse — a proper role for satire — Franken has powerfully reinforced those failures.