Religion, Politics, and the Great Pumpkin

The Tea Party, and Know-Nothing Politics

2011-08-04T08:09:00.003-04:00

Once again I find myself cobbling together a blog post out of something I wrote on Facebook. In this case, a response to this article: "Reminder: 44 Percent of Tea Partiers Are on Medicare". It (partly) attacks the hypocrisy of this movement, specifically wondering at the end, "Cutting government spending is all well and good when it's happening in the ghettos; what happens when austerity comes to their door?"

Someone responded to the posting of that link, first saying that it is wrong to paint the Tea Party as one homogeneous movement (point taken... after all, that's how they view everything), but also adding that "in this instance, if they've paid into Medicare over their lifetime there certainly is some significant rationale for wanting to see that returned in some fashion."

Absolutely. But that proves the hypocrisy rather than disproves it.

The underlying hypocrisy(*) is this idea that the Tea Party believe in that the government is some vague, shapeless boogeyman... and this leads them to believe even the most mundane things (ie. the census) are conspiracies to rob them of freedom.

Yes, Medicare is a service that they (and we) have paid in to our entire working lives... and they want it. Why? Because it's a much better deal, and much more efficient system, than private insurance.

And that is the point. This is what government does- it provides services to us that we want (whether police, firefighters, roads, schools, libraries etc on a local level... or entitlements, the EPA, military, FDA, Pell Grants, etc on a federal level), and we pay for those services in the form of taxes (which are at a post-WWII low). This is not oppression, or some Orwellian conspiracy. It's just basic governance in a modern, first-world nation.

Part of people's aversion to government is not taking into account the many things it does for them-- that we take for granted-- believing instead in the boogeyman version that the GOP has manufactured through top-rate spin ("job creators" is my new favorite buzzword). See this chart to see how big that disconnect is:

Of course, government-- like any entity, public or private-- is not perfect. Ours has made some very bad choices in the last decade. The answer to that, though, is to fight to make government better and more responsive to the needs of the many... not to try and kill it by attrition, which has been the Tea Party governing philosophy. Moreover, a movement that fights to elect people who privatize/corporatize vital public services and continue America's upward redistribution of wealth can hardly be called "populist" by any honest definition of that word.

To me, the Tea Party is simply a mix of misdirected populist anger, and a rebranding of old Birch Society or Know-Nothing right-wing politics. That it has gained such a strangle-hold on our national politics is as much a failure of the left (to form its own populist movement) as it is a success of the right.

[*And that's ignoring the hypocrisy of a Republican Party which ran to the left of Democrats on Medicare in 2010 (by misrepresenting, once again, the healthcare reform bill) and then voted en masse in 2011 to support turning it in a privatized voucher system. Spoiler alert: They're planning the same trick again for 2012.]

"Who the hell wants higher texes?"

2010-09-19T19:59:00.003-04:00

Hey, look! I'm updating this again!

The looming expiration of the Bush tax credits is the hot topic right now, and I feel I should weigh in, to some degree. It's funny... much like his pledge to close the Guantanamo prison and some other things, simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire is one of those things that President Obama took for granted when he won the election, and assumed would be a political breeze (because he was naive enough to believe that, just because he won by a landslide, that the GOP would allow him to govern). And-- now faced with actual political fights over these things-- the Democrats are freaking out.

(As an aside, it is one of the more frustrating different standards between the two parties. Watching all these crazy GOP candidates surge higher this year with each progressively wingnutty utterance, one is reminded that-- among other examples-- Obama's nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department was torpedoed simply because she was non-apologetic in her opposition to the torture and civil liberty abuses of the Bush years. Etc.)

Anyway, a friend of mine posted a link on her Facebook to this video showing how Fox News purposely edited a clip from an Obama speech, making it seem as is he is desiring to raise everyone's taxes, when in fact he was discussing the facts of what the Bush tax cuts were designed to do. Someone commented to the link-

even in context this still sucks. Who the hell wants higher texes and even though it is not his fault, he is the president and should be able do do something about it. blaming it on the previous administration is just a cop-out.

Someone replied to that-

Frank, are you also outraged about the massive deficit?

He replied, in turn-

certainly. I am outraged by our government in it's entirety.

Damn you.... government!

I couldn't help myself. I had to respond. Here's what I wrote-

"blaming it on the previous administration is just a cop-out."

When Bush and the GOP Congress *wrote* the Bush tax cut law earlier this decade, the law was written *with* the 2011 expiration in it by design (because federal law does actually have certain guidelines for deficit-ballooning stuff like this). So "blaming" the previous administration for this isn't a "cop-out"... it's a fact.

Again, the Republicans designed the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2011 themselves. Now, because they want a cudgel to beat Democrats with, they are lying and making it seem as if that expiration is something the Democrats are doing. That is a lie, plain and simple.

It is also-- beyond all the lying-- hypocritical to be complaining about the deficit incessantly like the GOP is now doing, and then to also defend the Bush tax cuts, which were the single biggest contributor to the current deficit over the past decade (even more then the wars and bailouts, etc). To put it in a more current context, the GOP complains about the economic recovery package and the health insurance reform bill... well, a renewal of the Bush tax cuts will add more $$ to the deficit than those two bills *combined*. Either they care about deficits or not. Can't have it both ways.

Also, the only people who will be affected by this are those making $250,000 or above. Are they saying protecting their tax cuts is worth doubling the deficit? And the tax rate that would be reinstated with this expiration is that of the Clinton-era... an era of much greater economy than now, and a tax rate *lower* than Reagan instituted.

The other lie is pretending they want to keep these cuts to help jobs. Well, these cuts have been in place since 2003... and unemployment has steadily risen ever since.

The right-- if temporarily, politically hard-- thing to do is to let the Bush tax cuts expire, as they were designed to do. I hope, but am not optimistic, that the Democrats have the balls to let that happen.

These are the facts. And they are the only weapon that the Democrats really need to win this battle. But in an election year where the louder candidate gets to win, it seems the Democrats aren't willing to risk their fates with merely some facts on their side. Hope I'm wrong.

America Goes Insane

2010-08-23T08:26:00.006-04:00

I have put this blog on indefinite hiatus-- too busy, got a life, etc-- but have still been posting some of my political thoughts on Twitter (@blueduck37). Still, I left this blog with a note that if there was a topic anyone wanted me to write about, to just ask. That stands.

Ahab asked the following: "What are your thoughts on the controversy surrounding Cordoba House (which right-wingers have christened 'the Ground Zero Mosque') in New York City?"

An excellent question, and I am happy to answer. First, some disclaimers. I live in New York City (Queens). I was at the Trade Center on 9/11. I am an atheist. I am a liberal Democrat. I am an ACLU member. I like freedom.

The controversy over a planned cultural center-- the Park 51 project, aka Cordoba House-- run by Muslims in downtown Manhattan is one of the most disgusting displays of jingoism we have seen in America in some time. It involves several horrible themes... general mob mentality, the idea that the First Amendment applies less when its specific execution makes people uncomfortable ("Everybody knows America's built on the rights of free expression, the rights to practice your faith, but come on", states GOP House bigshot Eric Cantor), and, of course, post-9/11 Islamaphobia (fueled by the idea that all Muslims bear some connection to, or responsibility for, those attacks). Americans believed/hoped that such sentiments would wash away with the end of the Bush-era, and that an Obama presidency would automatically mean improved relations between us and the Middle East, and this controversy is a reminder that nothing comes easy, and that we still have a way to go.

As an aside, kudos to the Republicans who have stood up against this faux-outrage-- Joe Scarborough, a few former Bush staffers, etc-- and a big thumbs down to the top Democrats too cowardly in an election year to say or do the right thing.

To me, the key thing to this whole debate is how much of it is built on a series of lies and distortions. The so-called "Ground Zero" "mosque" is neither... merely a community center (with Jews and Christians on its board... how many Christian or Jewish groups can say similar?), several blocks away from the site, on the site of an old Burlington Coat Factory. It is no more a "mosque" than a YMCA would be a church if it had a prayer room. Not that it should matter if it were a mosque, of course. There is, of course, already a mosque within blocks of Ground Zero, which predates the World Trade Center-- as well as all of this, closer to the right-wing's favorite ~~political prop~~ 'hallowed ground'-- and one inside the Pentagon. And the Imam at the center of all this-- whom the right has tried to paint as a radical-- is an official ambassador in the effort to build better relations between the U.S. and the Middle East, and the effort to take on actual radicalism in those areas. But these facts don't fit the narrative, so away they go.

Moreover, there was no real, widespread controversy over the center until it was created in the same way that ACORN temporarily became America's greatest villain last year (and here's some facts on that). Last December, for instance, right-wing pundit Laura Ingraham-- no moderate-- interviewed the Imam's wife on Fox News. The two had a genuinely civil back and forth. "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it," Ingraham says of the Cordoba project, adding at the end of the interview, "I like what you're trying to do." That is, of course, until the crazies got their hand on the issue.

The credit for this whole hysteria largely can be traced back to one woman... Pam Geller. Who is Pam Geller? She is one of the right's biggest Islamaphobes and has been staging stunts like this for years. A conspiracy theorist and a racist (don't take my word on that... click the previous link, and make up your own mind), she sees creeping Sharia law in every shadow she comes across. She took her anger at the project and, over the course of 2010 turned it into a national issue, with help from outlets like the NY Post/Fox News and folks like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Behold the birth of a scandal.

The right, of course, not only will not acknowledge that, but has tried to paint their opposition to the project as being merely rooted in respect for the memories of those killed at the Trade Center site on 9/11. It's not about Islam or mosques, they say, but merely about the location and its sacredness (how they get away even with that much without admitting that they equate all Muslims with 9/11 is beyond me). I came across an article by Pat Sajak (a far-right conservative in real life), for instance, defending the anti-Cordoba attacks, stating that he hasn't "heard any mainstream suggestions that mosques shouldn’t be allowed to be built. This... is a location-specific issue". That, of course, is total BS. A few outlets-- including NYC's own The Daily Show-- have compiled news reports from around the country, from Staten Island to Kentucky to California, of mosques being protested because of their... well, being mosques. This has nothing to do with location, other than the location here giving opposition to this particular building extra emotional punch to the protesters.

(Still think it's not about race/religion? Watch what happens a Puerto Rican, a worker at the Ground Zero site, gets mistaken for a Muslim at a protest this past weekend. Such odd behavior from a group of people supposedly concerned with sensitivity.)

This is not an abberation, of course. Even ignoring larger history, the GOP just in the recent past has a record of taking insane memes and going mainstream... freedom fries, Terri Schiavo, death panels, etc. American politics is often enslaved to whatever made-up emergency the right has zeroed in on.

The right, of course, will happily note that polls are on their side on this issue. That part, for the record, is true (ignoring, of course, the other polls showing people who actually live in Manhattan are overwhelmingly supportive of the project). But should that matter? Do we put freedom up to a vote in America? Anti-Prop 8 lawyer Ted Olson asked Fox News' Chris Wallace, who was citing the CA voters' opposition to gay marriage as being disrespected by that recent court ruling, "Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do?" No one at Fox, of course, would ever agree to that. These rights are called "inalienable" for a reason... no matter how angry or uncomfortable the execution of those rights make certain people (including, at times, myself).

So much of me wishes that I-- and everyone else-- could ignore this hysteria. After all, America right now faces real problems-- an economy ravaged by years of short-sighted activities, wars that don't want to end, climate change, outdated infrastructure, etc-- and it hurts all of us when our political system hits the pause button to debate a controversy that ultimately affects no one. But this issue is a test on freedom and tolerance in America in the 21st century, and that does matter. Right now, we are failing that test. And that's worth paying attention to, and worth standing up for.

Ask Jeremy

2009-09-01T17:16:00.005-04:00

Hey, here's an idea to reinvigorate this ol' blog (and was sort of what I was fishing for in my recent post)... post a comment/ask me a question. And I will do my best to respond. My mind is always racing with political debates and it's nice to have an avenue for them.

Also, don't forget to follow my tweeties! It's very serious dialogue!

[PS- A starting point for healthcare questions: 5 Myths About Health Care Around the World]

Camelot Ends With a Whimper, Not A Bang.

2009-08-26T07:55:00.001-04:00

“This is the cause of my life. New hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American - north, south, east, west, young, old - will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege.”
--Senator Ted Kennedy, exactly one year ago today. Rest in peace.

I Tweet, Therefore I Am?

2009-08-24T12:38:00.000-04:00

PS- Still soliciting feedback on what topics to discuss here. Also, I tweet @blueduck37.

With Friends Like These...

2009-08-24T12:11:00.005-04:00

Earlier this month, President Obama called GOP Senator Charles Grassley one of his "Republican friends on Capitol Hill" who was "sincerely trying to figure out if they find a health care bill that works."

Sen. Grassley was so warmed by the President's kind words that he has since gone around stating things like how he won't allow a bill that will "pull the plug on grandma", praising Glenn Beck's new book, stating that Obama needs to be more bipartisan and focus on "getting 80 votes" (!!), and bragging to town hall attendees that his obstruction helped prevent the President from moving the bill forward earlier in the summer. Best friends forever!

The very same Sen. Grassley appeared on CBS' "Face The Nation" yesterday and was asked to explain, and defend, his grandma-killing fear tactics. Grassley explained, with no shame, that-

"I said that because — two reasons. Number one, I was responding to a question at my town meetings. I let my constituents set the agenda. A person that asked me that question was reading from language that they got off of the Internet. It scared my constituents. And the specific language I used was language that the President had used at Portsmouth(*), and I thought that it was — if he used the language , then if I responded exactly the same way, that I had an opposite concern about not using end-of-life counseling for saving money, then I was answering — [...]

...You would get into the issue of saving money, and put these three things together and you are scaring a lot of people when I know the Pelosi bill doesn’t intend to do that, but that’s where it leads people to."

So here you have Sen. Grassley admitting a) that this scary thing isn't actually in the bill, and b) that he lied to his constituents and acted like it was, because he lets them 'set the agenda' based on things they found on the internet. I don't know what is 'scarier' to me... that this man is a U.S. Senator or that the President considers him one of his "Republican friends on Capitol Hill".

[*Note: The President did say that... as an example of the lies poisoning this debate.]

It's my growing belief that Obama's achilles heel is his obsession with getting 'everyone at the table' and insisting that he can negotiate in good faith with Republicans. So many of his early missteps (the watered-down stimulus, failure to get most legislation and political appointees past the Senate, etc) can be traced back to his insistence on taking this path, regardless of the substantive legislative costs. Bipartisanship and compromise are two-way streets... but so far this year, they haven't been. I've read reports that Democrats are considering going it alone on health-care and looking for ways to pass this bill along party-line votes (we do have the majority, you know) so that we don't have to sacrifice any more substance at the alter of bipartisanship. We could only be so lucky.

My biggest fear now is that we will end up, once this process is over, with a bill that makes our health-care system worse... ie. a mandate for health insurance, but without a public option or any substantive consumer protections. And if that's the case, it will be a disaster for America in the important sense, and for the Democrats in the political sense. But hey, at least President Obama and Charles Grassley will still have their beautiful friendship. And that's what really matters, right?

President Bu...?? Can't Remember. Who Were We Talking About?

2009-08-24T11:47:00.003-04:00

So I opened the free Metro newspaper this morning a full-page ad by the "U.S. Citizens Association", positioning themselves seemingly as a non-partisan watchdog group, explaining how Obama and the Democrats are socialists who have plotted for decades to destroy the economy and take all wealth for themselves while bankrupting 99% of America. Because when you think concentration of wealth and the destruction of the poor, you think... socialism.

It blames the collapse in our economy over the past several years on everyone from Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to other figures such as Janet Reno and Barney Frank. AND NO ONE ELSE! The ad can be read here. One could spend all day debunking every point and lie in this ad, but I shall refrain. However, by request (via comments or elsewhere), I will be happy to take on anything in this ad. I am already doing so in my head anyway.

Instead, as is my wont and obsession, I decided to research this organization (using "the googles") and discover exactly who was really behind this "Citizens" organization. My first guess? The Ron Paul loons. Apparently incorrect! Here's what I discovered: This organization-- a lobbying group-- used to call themselves the 'Better Government Association' but was sued by the real Better Government Association (a genuinely non-partisan government watchdog organization that has been around since 1923) and was forced by a court order to change their name. So now they are the "U.S. Citizens Association". The chairman of their board is a man named Ed Rollins, a Republican campaign consultant and advisor who was worked on numerous campaigns, including Reagan-Bush '84 and Huckabee '08 (but has worked with countless other far-right Republicans over the years, such as Newt Gingrich and others). It seems they also have an army of lawyers, who have refused to comment to any press inquiries thus far about the ads. So, you know, a real grassroots citizens group.

Oh, and PS... ACORN!

PS.

2009-08-20T14:28:00.006-04:00

One final addendum for the day on health-care...

I was watching this clip of Matt Taibbi being interviewed on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' about health-care (two plugs in one day, Matt, you owe me a kickback!) and some of the pundits objected to his criticism of the U.S. health-care system. The standard pushbacks were thrown against Taibbi... that most Americans like the health-care they get, that we have done great innovative work on this front, that many foreign people come here because our system is so awesome, and etc. I didn't think Taibbi did the best job responding to these specific points-- though they got there in the end-- so let me give my response, since they always come up.

I agree with those points in general... America does have amazing facilities and doctors (I'll leave the drugs out of this for now), and many Americans are satisfied with both. But... that's not the point and it's not the issue. The issue is that the greatness or horrors of a system is moot if you don't have access to it. And our current system of a profit-based, private insurance monopoly-- except for all those socialist old people and veterans who have a... wait for it... public option already-- is on the wrong side of that. Don't have, or can't afford, insurance? You're screwed. Have insurance? You're screwed anyway, because between denied claims and cancelled policies and increasing co-pays, countless Americans are being driven into poverty for the crime of having gotten sick. It's a corrupt system that is overly complicated and puts profits ahead of health. Nearly a third of all premium dollars go toward administrative costs, not toward paying claims and actual care. That is the issue.

The idea that since the occasional foreign millionaire may come to the U.S. to see a particular specialist (unlike the majority of Americans, who could never afford that) all this is negated is laughable. But it's part of the narrative tide we are fighting against. For every such anecdote, I can find you (very easily) a hundred of these heart-breaking stories. I'm sure the latter is more tragically familiar to most Americans too.

This is not a good system. Period. There is a reason the World Health Organization ranks us #37 in this regard. And I'll note again, in conclusion, that the idea of replacing this system was taken off the table from the start... at best, all that is being proposed is an option for something better, with some regulations here and there to help the rest. If we're the greatest country in the world, we deserve at least that much.

Yes We Can't.

2009-08-20T12:45:00.004-04:00

Yes, I'm still neglecting this blog like a bad parent, but I still like to peek my head in every so often and make sure it hasn't choked on any blocks. Looks okay, so let's proceed!

The political debate this months leads us right back to where we were the last time I posted... health-care reform. The last time I blogged about this, my pessimism was showing, but my aura of hope remained. What have I missed since then? Of yes... America went completely insane. I'll get to that, fear not.

For me, I've been trying to stay as focused as possible on the substance of where this is all headed. This past month I thought, I can't be the only who noticed that the fight for 'universal healthcare' became 'health care reform' and now is simply 'health insurance reform'. And that's the bigger story. The Democrats-- elected to their most powerful majority in decades less than a year ago-- still endlessly bargaining away their own agenda. For all the oxygen being consumed by right-wing loons and cable news pundits and lobbyists, etc, a failure to get meaningful reform passed (if that's what ends up happening) will really be a story of a Democratic leadership that failed to actually lead, and also became a victim of the very special interests they set out to vanguish.

People like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin (and countless numbers of angry tea-baggers shaking their fists, and guns, from coast to coast) may be shameless and loud and good at what they do, but they don't hold any political office. They don't control the White House or congressional committees. But people like President Obama and Senator Baucus and Rahm Emmanuel and their colleagues do. These are supposed to be smartest guys in Washington and they are blaming their failures on a bunch of people who think that Obama forged a U.S. birth certificate so he can take over America and put us all in FEMA concentration camps and grind grandma up into soylent green. That is not acceptable when the stakes are this high.

The cynic in me wonders if, at this point, Congress wants to pass a reform bill (any reform bill) just to check it off the list, and move on. To what? That's unclear. The key question I'd ask if I were a White House reporter is this... is there any health-care bill that Congress could pass that'd be so watered-down and unacceptable to the President that he would veto it? That answer would clarify a lot.

Of course, the media has made matters worse by making the story not the issue itself, but the anger. When President Obama held a lengthy press conference on the issue, the story for the next week was about the Professor Gates controversy that he commented on in the final question of the hour. When Sarah Palin (Unemployed - Alaska) wrote a rant on Facebook about imaginary 'death panels', it immediately took over the entire debate. Etc. It's not hard to figure out why so many Americans remain uninformed about the substance.

And, finally, to the liberals who helped elect Obama... yes, we should draw a line in the sand... a public option is non-negotiable. I'm with Howard Dean on this. Without it, all you've got, after all this time and energy and political capital, is some mild insurance reforms that will likely have huge loopholes in them anyway. That's not reform, and it's worth the time and money that's being asked for it.

I still want to have great faith in Obama's leadership. But we've got over three years left (with an option for four more), and if we can't accomplish this now, under these circumstances, what can we accomplish? The answer to that would clarify even more.

Health-Care Links

2009-08-20T12:40:00.005-04:00

Two good stories that play up the angles from which I'm following this...

NY Times: A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform

AP: FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root

Business Week: The Health Insurers Have Already Won--
How UnitedHealth and rival carriers, maneuvering behind the scenes in Washington, shaped health-care reform for their own benefit

...and here is a must-watch segment from the last 'Real Time w/ Bill Maher' showing who's angry and who's not with all of this, and what that says about the state of U.S. health-care.

A Month Old Now...

2009-08-20T11:38:00.005-04:00

...But still deserves to be posted. It's Matt Taibbi's story on Goldman Sachs-

The Great American Bubble Machine-
From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they're about to do it again

To me, the big political story of 2009 so far (other than health-care, natch... more on that later) is how the economic collapse of 2007-2008, which was supposedly going to shake the American economic status quo to its core, has essentially changed nothing ... other than putting countless more Americans out of work. The bailouts and back-room deals of 2008 coupled with the failures this year to get any meaningful Wall Street/banking reforms passed have ensured that the same system that nearly destroyed the global economy will remain untouched. Nobody likes learning lessons and it seems that we all collectively decided not to.

And what passes for economic reporting in this country isn't helping. We have publications like Newsweek insisting that the recession is over... while simultaneously acknowledging that conditions on the ground (jobs, foreclosures, etc) haven't improved yet. So why "over"? Because Wall Street had a few bubble-licious good weeks? I'm not seeing anyone on a large forum asking these questions.

And the President who hired Larry Summers-- yes, this Larry Summers-- as his top economic adviser is supposedly a socialist.

There's that old cliche that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and I think that's apt here. And when the next economic crisis hits us down the road, it will be very hard not to feel that we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Tom Ridge confirms that the sky is blue!!

2009-08-20T10:39:00.002-04:00

Tom Ridge, reasonably sane Republican and former head of the Department of Homeland Security has-- what else?-- a new (tell-all?) book coming out, called "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege... and How We Can Be Safe Again". Reports indicate Ridge "wants to shake 'public complacency' over security" (complacency? I still have to go through airport security in my socks and surrender my toothpaste).

They also say Ridge indicates he "was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over." This is a shock to almost no one, except maybe Joe The Plumber and that blond woman from Fox and Friends. Of course, it wasn't just one incident. It was a recurring theme. Keith Olbermann took a break from yelling at stuff a couple of years ago to do a really good report on the many terror-alert 'coincidences' during the Bush years-

I am posting this because a) history shouldn't so easily forget this aspect of the immediate post-9/11 political environment, and b) it's some good perspective as conservatives (well, the extremes anyway) go nuts insisting that there is no bigger threat to freedom than an affordable public health-insurance alternative.

Quote of the Year

2009-07-18T07:28:00.001-04:00

"Rather than shaping public opinion, he is running scared of it. And so, even more, is Congress."
--The Economist, on the leadership of President Obama

One More Thought on Health-Care...

2009-06-17T18:28:00.001-04:00

The real debate now is on whether a public option plan will be included in the health-care reform bill (and if it's not, I'm with Howard Dean... we should pass no bill at all, because it isn't worth it to throw a few billion dollar $$ at our current system). Conservatives say the idea of a public system peacefully coexisting with the existing private system sounds crazy to them and cannot work.

But we already have a such a public/private system in place on another level. Schools. Some Republican leaders may even have attended some.

The basic, default system we have for educating kids in America is a public school, funded by tax dollars and available to all children regardless of income or location. In most areas, this system works very well (I would know, I attended several in multiple states up until 7th grade). They are not mandatory, of course. Why? Because our country also has numerous private schools, and many parents choose to spend the extra $$$ to have their children educated there instead. Those parents, however, still pay taxes for public schools. There may be some quiet grumbling about that by some, but for the most part it's a non-issue.

But, as with my previous entry, for some reason we view health-care differently. And that's wrong.

[PS- And that's not even getting into the fact that the presence of a public option will force the private companies to behave like human beings to compete for customers. And that's good for everyone. Unless you like the idea of practices like this continuing forever without accountability or consequence.]

A Thought Exercise

2009-06-17T18:25:00.000-04:00

So conservatives claim that they're ideologically opposed to government involvement in health-care because ~~they exist solely as a party of contrarians now~~ they don't believe it is the government's place to provide this service. Okay, fair enough, that's a question of differing political philosophies and I will take it at face value.

But it is an inconsistent philosophy and I will help the GOP out by using my imaginary executive powers to rectify that. In addition to the removal of other public services (libraries, parks, etc), I am hereby dissolving all police and fire departments across the nation, and passing the tax savings back to Americans so that they can go forth and be better consumers. The issue of solving crimes and putting out fires will now be a free-market issue.

Instead of one taxpayer-funded police force, there will now be numerous private security forces opening up in your areas. There will also be companies selling crime insurance, which you can buy (or may be provided, in part, by your employer). When a crime happens to you, you will contact one of these private security forces and they will come to your service. Pricing plans will differ by crime and by area... smaller amounts for minor crimes like a mugging, but a larger fee for big crimes like rape. Don't have insurance? It's okay; you can get security help, and you will simply be billed for it later. Say, around $1,500 for their work catching your car's thief (remember, refusing to pay this bill may damage your credit score). Do have insurance? Well, be careful, it may be difficult to get good coverage in areas with preexisting crime conditions. We also recommend reading the fine print ahead of time... your house may have been robbed, but your policy does not cover home invasion. You're paying for that police response out of pocket. Only $2,000 though! There is no cause for complaint, however, as our nation's security forces are the envy of the world!

Fire-based assistance will work much in a similar way. We recommend getting that insurance as well, as paying out of pocket to have a fire put out has been shown to lead to financial ruin in some extreme cases. Be preemptive by better fire-proofing your home and neighborhood. Put the personal in personal responsibility!

This is a great, socialism-free system that Americans will tolerate and love. You're welcome.

Stories I Wish I Had More Time To Blog About...

2009-06-17T15:40:00.004-04:00

...President Obama's regulatory reform: real or paper tiger? How the fact that some top banks started offering to pay back some TARP money just as the government was gonna increase conditions for it on them proves what a scam this whole bailout was from the start. Why no one seems to care about job creation anymore. The populist uprising in Iran (the revolution will be Tweeted!). Why cable news thinks I'm supposed to still give a shit about Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Etc.

Alas, I am a lazy lazy man.

President Obama Hates Gay People...

2009-06-17T15:33:00.000-04:00

...true story.

President Obama Gets Realistic At Last

2009-06-17T15:32:00.001-04:00

My Head Hurts

2009-05-20T12:46:00.009-04:00

If there's one (satirical) video that highlights why I remain on blogging hiatus, it's this-

(And that doesn't even include how conservatives are rallying around the awesomeness of torture, while somehow simultaneously being pissed as all fuck that Nancy Pelosi may have received a memo about it once. Kill me.)

Let's face it... for better or worse, we have only two major political parties in America. One political party seems to literally have gone insane and has nothing of substance to offer to the national debate on any issue that actually matters. The other party-- the one that controls everything right now-- remains too scared of said crazy party to really act on the things they were elected to. And so we get lots of half-measures (on health-care, climate change, etc) that only worth celebrating because they contrast well with the inaction of the previous administration. And my poor, meager brain is not capable of processing all of this.

Just today, I read news that "the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and denied the [Obama] administration the millions it sought to close the prison." Why? Because perpetual coward Harry Reid is forcing himself to regurgitate GOP talking points that pretend that closing Guantanamo means sending its prisoners out in the streets of America... rather than in a secure military/Supermax prison like we have always done before. We're better than this.

And then there's this crazy news. And this disappointing news. And it just keeps piling up and my head starts to hurt, and then I feel like I need to walk away, though I know this important and I must keep informed.

I know, it's too early to judge. And I love being proved wrong. Just not optimistic anymore.

[UPDATE (5/26): Obama has picked his nominee... let the crazy, stupid fight begin!]

Congratulations, Banks!

2009-05-12T18:17:00.002-04:00

Treasury Sec. Geithner speaks on how his stress tests have solved this crisis forever...

Video Recaps | Full Episodes | Webisodes

In Which Your Absent Author Expresses His Cynicism Once Again...

2009-05-12T14:59:00.004-04:00

Is the health-care industry playing President Obama? Almost certainly. Is he going to let them?

The answer to that question is what will determine whether we actually get substantive health-care reform in this country, or just simply the appearance of it. Despite some positive signs, I am not optimistic.

A big problem, of course, is that our political discourse is ruled by rich people (who can afford quality care) and, of course, politicians (who don't want to give the rest of the country an option for a public plan like the one they all enjoy). I am reminded of when Tony Snow (rest his soul) left his White House gig in 2007, he said it was because he couldn't afford to live on-- particularly with his medical bills-- his salary of $168,000 a year. And yet the average American, who makes significantly less and doesn't have a government job, is told to just deal with it.

And the opposition party is freaking out that healthcare reform is even on the table right now... while admitting that they have nothing to offer themselves on the issue. (Other than Frank Luntz's talking points, which they've wasted no time in embracing, naturally.) The fact that President Obama has discussed using the reconciliation budget process to get health-care passed is the only sign that he truly understands the nature of this opposition.

The bottom line is that we need to start getting families like this on TV more often (and I'm sure everyone here has nightmare stories of their own... feel free to share!), and then we'll see the debate start to shift, and the legislation along with it.

[UPDATE: Why I'm not optimistic... Obama caved on this issue and this one, he can be made to cave here too.

UPDATE #2 (5/15): Cynicism validated already... Lucy pulls the football away from Pres. Charlie Brown.]

Quick Thoughts

2009-05-12T14:48:00.003-04:00

So it seems that America is (very slowly) becoming totally gay for same-sex marriage. This is one of the few bright spots in the otherwise dark sky of political news in 2009.

How much of the Bush-Cheney push for torture in 2002 was about building a case for invading Iraq? That's key, I think. And reality is about to smack around the pro-torture crowd yet again.

Rush Limbaugh is a ~~racist~~ very serious person. And Dick Cheney loves him.

President Obama doubles down on Afghanistan. For better or worse.

2009 White House Correspondents Dinner

2009-05-10T08:54:00.002-04:00

Watch it here... President Obama, pt. 1, pt. 2, Wanda Sykes, pt. 1, and pt. 2.

Viva la revolución, GOP! (Pt. II)

2009-05-06T11:30:00.004-04:00

I wrote my entry last night before watching 'The Daily Show'... and awesomely enough, they did a segment on the same issue I was writing about. So as an addendum, here is the video-

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Republicans: The Lost Party

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Viva la revolución, GOP!

2009-05-05T23:24:00.008-04:00

The Republicans cannot seem to understand not only why they are in the minority... but increasingly so. Starting with their congressional losses in 2006, they decided it was because their party wasn't conservative or pure enough. This has resulted in them purging anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin from the party (Arlen Specter, who has spent his first week as a Democrat opposing everything that Obama wants was a 'RINO' to them), which results in a party that is increasingly only inhabited by the lunatic fringe, which results in them losing more voters and elections, which results in them deciding the party needs to be more pure... and, well, you get the idea.

And, on the other hand, away from the teabaggin' purists, you have the party bigwigs who are busy having pizza parties to discuss how best to 'rebrand' the party... but not actually come with anything new of substance to win back disgruntled voters. According to Mitt Romney, these geniuses are revolutionaries.

As I said in my previous entry, my big political obsession right now-- since, despite my many disagreements with the current administration (the bailouts/bank policies, Afghanistan, etc), I do feel comfortable that actual grownups are in charge again-- is the slow mental unraveling of the conservative movement and the GOP in general. So I have decided to use this blog to keep track of (every so often) the crazy things that come from them on a daily basis.

Republicans, keep in mind: A big part of Democratic popularity is because this alternative-

ThinkProgress: EXCLUSIVE AUDIO: Limbaugh Mocks Recession During Speech To Wealthy Right-Wing Donors

HuffPost: Republicans Defend Tax Havens Against Obama Crackdown

ThinkProgress: At meeting with Obama, GOP leaders were ‘unprepared’ to make any ‘concessions’ on health care.

YouTube: Rep. Pence denies global warming and evolution

HuffPost: Joe The Plumber Slurs Gay People: I Would Never Let "Queers" Near My Children

Salon: The Republicans are against it! Whatever it is: Led by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the GOP is already preparing to oppose President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court as a radical leftist -- whoever he or she is.

TPM: Historian Michele Bachmann Blames FDR's "Hoot-Smalley" Tariffs For Great Depression

ThinkProgress: Bush officials lobbying Obama Justice Department to ‘water down’ torture report.

I found all these within 10 minutes of blog searching. One week. But hey, Joe Biden has gaffes and stuff, so it's all equal.

Pres Obama's 100 Days: Everyone Agrees... Good Start, Needs To Be More Liberal

2009-04-29T18:08:00.002-04:00

I could sit here and discuss all of the things that President has accomplished in this (very) early stretch of his presidency... passing a stimulus bill, expanding children's health insurance coverage, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (the latter being holdovers from the last Congress), beginning the process of closing Guantanamo and ending the Iraq war, reversing some bad Bush-era policies on stem cells and carbon emissions and other issues, diplomatic overtures. Or the things he has yet to accomplish... an exit strategy for Afghanistan, figuring out what the hell to do with TARP, health-care reform, real climate change action (beyond cap-and-trade proposals), taking a real stand on controversial issues like gay marriage or the war on drugs, other big issues. But I won't because, a) those issues have been exhausted elsewhere (one example), and b) I think that the tradition of grading a President based on the arbitrary 100-day mark is kind of stupid.

So instead I'll write about the topic that is endlessly fascinating me lately... the slow mental unraveling of the conservative base in America. As the tea parties showed, they are mad as hell and they are not gonna take it any more!! Except they're still trying to figure out what "it" is. They know they hate Obama and that he's destroying America, but they're unable to explain why without going on insane rants about forged birth certificates and secret Muslims and socialism and FEMA concentration camps. (And let's not even get into the Republicans in Congress who are voting against Obama on everything so they can run against him as a do-nothing President in 4 years.)

They no longer have consistent positions on anything of consequence. For instance, ask them these basic questions and watch them dissemble like crazy.

(Give 'em time... they'll figure it out-- ??-- eventually)

One interesting side aspect of that has been that so many of their complaints about Obama seem to be that he hasn't changed enough from the Bush-era policies... despite their endless defending of Bush, if they even acknowledge his presidency existed at all. The first time I noticed this phenomenon was months ago when Rush Limbaugh-- who's been the ringleader of this circus-- cited the bank bailouts as a reason why he disapproved of Obama. This was said not only before Obama was even sworn in, but also with no acknowledgment that the bailouts were the design of President Bush and Henry Paulson. And you would not believe how pissed Limbaugh is at Obama for lying about why we went to war, or the housing bubble, or his failure to save New Orleans! Fascist!

I've been spending (way too much) time debating conservatives on LJ communities and keep seeing this time and time again. Here's one guy (when he's not arming himself to defend America from the socialists) giving President Obama faux-shit over his maintaining of some of Bush-era CIA programs... when, in theory, he should be praising Obama for that. Or this guy who stated that "it's obama who wants to do away with civil lilberties." When pressed for an example, he cited a news story noting that 'President Barack Obama has already provoked controversy by backing the continued imprisonment without trial of enemy combatants in Afghanistan and by limiting the rights of prisoners to challenge evidence used to convict them.' So, once again, the anger is that Obama is failing to fully end all of the horrible, destructive policies that Bush set in motion years ago. Now I completely agree that is the biggest failure thus far of his presidency... but do they? Again, asking them to answer that will elicit no rational response.

Still, it's nice to know that, in theory, all of America agrees that to become a stronger President, Obama needs to become more progressive and to move even further away from the excesses of his Republican predecessor.

As Paul Krugman said of the Specter move, the political schizophrenia on the right "is not good for American democracy– we really do need two major parties in competition. But I’ll settle for getting that back after we get universal health care and cap-and-trade."

Blueduck Shrugged

2009-04-29T15:20:00.002-04:00

A guy on my LJ friends list, Jim Smith, just wrote an entry puzzled at the recent surge of interest in libertarian hero Ayn Rand's classic novel, 'Atlas Shrugged'. Jim writes-

I don't know a lot about the book, but the article says it "concerns a group of corporate chieftains and individualists who go on strike in protest of government intervention in business." This would seem to be of great interest to, y'know, corporate chieftains, but are there enough of them to create a sales spike? I would think you'd need to bring the masses on board, and lately the masses are all upset about their perception that the government is intervening on behalf of corporate chieftains.

I have to admit the article piqued my curiosity about the book, since I don't really get libertarianism and I'd be interested to read an argument in favor of it. Just within the article Rand's Objectivism seems to be completely undercut, when it cites Alan Greenspan's subscription to the philosophy and then quotes his statement to Congress about the failure of laissez-faire economics to self-regulate:
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity -- myself, especially -- are in a state of shocked disbelief," Greenspan told a congressional hearing in October.

This is the sort of statement that makes promoting libertarianism an uphill climb--Greenspan doesn't seem to have a plan on how free markets can now turn around and fix the problem free markets failed to prevent. I'm not one to suggest the government will fix everything or that we'll be better off permanently nationalizing shit, but at this point I would think increased government intervention can accomplish more than Alan Greenspan standing around being shocked.

Because this type of thing frustrates me as well, I felt compelled to respond. Here goes...

The great success of modern conservatism (Reagan conservatism, as opposed to say, classic Eisenhower conservatism) is convincing average Joes-- middle class, working class, or worse-- that protecting corporate chieftains from government regulation or intervention is their cause too.

It's no coincidence that the tea party movement originated from a rant by CNBC pundit Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago stock market, in which he not only called for the tea parties, but also insisted that those facing foreclosure were "losers". Or that the taxes that the teabaggers were ranting about affect only those making over $250,000 while most of America (including, I'm sure, 98% of the teabaggers) got a tax break from Obama. They've taken corporatism and repackaged it as a populist movement.

And it's a mix too... people scared by the current economy that they're attempting to find solace in that, but it's also a lot of conservatives angry at being in the minority after many years of political ascendancy using this for solace too (I've read lots of rants on conservative LJs that they fear the government will soon enslave us all).

The good news, I suppose, if polls can be believed, is that these people are increasingly a minority. It's hard to convince people that the free-market is infallible and that government is evil when right now the government is the only thing keeping the mess caused by the free-market gods from completely imploding our economy.

That's not to say we go all the way in the other direction, but it's clear that, despite a small surge in book sales, Americans are way opposed to the Rand worldview.

[PS- Jim also writes in that entry about how Rand's worldview connects with what Bernie Madoff did, and failed to get away with. Good stuff there too. I responded to that as well, which can be read here.]

Sen. Specter: Principled Defender of his Right to be a Senator

2009-04-29T12:31:00.003-04:00

Democrats are jumping with joy over Sen. Specter's decision to leave the GOP and become a Democrat. But at least nobody, even the Senator himself, is pretending that this was a principled decision.

Faced with a likely primary defeat next year from far-right candidate Pat Toomey (who would then have gotten his ass kicked in the general election by the Democratic candidate), Specter decided to just bypass all that unpleasantness and become the Democratic candidate himself. Seat = safe!

Democrats, of course, are just happy to have a new Senator who will, after Norm Coleman runs out legal last resorts in MN, bring their number up to magical 60. But this isn't like 2001, when Sen. Jeffords' leaving the GOP changed control of the Senate... we already have the majority in the Senate, and by a good margin. The 60 number is just the votes needed to prevent filibusters. Therefore, Specter is only useful to Democrats in so much as he will vote with them on cloture on the key issues we need (labor issues, health-care, etc). But every indication so far is that he cannot be counted on and the GOP filibusters may well continue.

Let's hope that Democratic leaders in DC are not too busy splooging themselves to realize that important fact. Specter shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the benefits of being in the majority party-- committee assignments, a safe seat-- without giving the Democrats back in return what they need the most... that 60th vote. If Specter refuses, then give him in 2010 what he tried to run away from in the first place- a serious primary fight.

Tortured Logic

2009-04-29T08:04:00.002-04:00

Last night on 'The Daily Show', Jon Stewart had another classic interview... this time with conservative pundit Cliff May. The issue was torture. The interview ran long again, and was edited for TV. The full, unedited interview is available for viewing online: Parts 1, 2, and 3. Worth watching.

PS- I'll have another post up later with some quick thoughts on general matters.

Quick Hits

2009-04-08T14:24:00.007-04:00

So I'm still on blogging hiatus for a while, but I have some free time today, and I saw a couple of things recently that were worth posting on.

The first is that both Iowa and Vermont (courtesy of their state Supreme Courts, and state legislature, respectively) have both legalized gay marriage within the last week. Forget abortion-- soooo 1990s!-- this is the 'culture war' wedge issue that the religious right will be working from for the next decade. I remain hopeful that 2006 and 2008 were not aberrations, and that America as a whole is moving past this insanity and embracing the inevitable... meaning realizing that letting gay Americans have equal rights for marriage and family will not cause God to turn us all into pillars of salt or whatever.

Jon Stewart had a great segment on how the right-wing is going absolutely bonkers in the wake of the Obama presidency. Google 'Obama tea party' for just a small taste, and/or watch 10 seconds of Glenn Beck. Or listen to Rush Limbaugh tell a caller that you're not a real Republican if you oppose torture. Or watch conservatives call military spending increases a "cut". Etc etc.

Ed Schultz has a new show on MSNBC; last night he had a report on the Employee Free Choice Act and how Congress is allowing it to be killed. Have a Democratic Senator in a conservative district? Call 'em up; raise hell.

On that note, I'll add that I'm still very frustrated with the way the economic rescue is going (though I won't add much... my posts in recent months speak for themselves). Last year, I was hoping we'd be seeing a New Deal/FDR-esque push for a new green economy to put Americans back to work and get the country moving again. Instead, Obama has allowed himself to be dragged down into bailout mode, and so is missing the forest for the Wall Street trees. A shame, though there is still time to correct. I'll add that the European leaders during the G20 were correct in insisting that pushing now for tighter and stricter financial regulations is more important-- long-term specifically-- than pushing for more stimulus, like Obama wanted. President Obama ran as the anti-Bush... one way he can be just that? Allow for constant course-correction. Please.

So I read this article about Obama climate change plans... and all I thought of was this.

Finally, last week I attended one of the Radio City 'Speaker Series' shows... it featured Anderson Cooper moderating a discussion with Mike Huckabee, Arianna Huffington, and D.L. Hughley. Someone in the audience snuck in a camera and it's on YouTube: Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

"It's not a fucking game."

2009-03-13T07:34:00.003-04:00

So, Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer have been taking some back-and-forth shots at each other ever since Stewart ripped CNBC's head-in-the-clouds financial reporting a new one last week. Last night, Cramer walked into the lion's den to take his lumps in person. It was not disappointing.

The version seen on TV last night was edited down for time. Here is the full interview-

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Interview Outtake Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Interview Outtake Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Interview Outtake Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

[Yahoo TV Blog: Stewart vs. Cramer: Winner Take All / Reactions- here.]

And On That Note...

2009-03-05T16:36:00.003-05:00

...A random comment on a blog discussing the Stewart/CNBC piece from last night links to this great video from August of 2006. In it, Peter Schiff (president of a brokerage firm, libertarian, and well-known face on cable economic news shows) accurately predicts the coming economic meltdown with remarkable specificity. The other guest on the show, Arthur Laffer (of Reagan's Laffer Curve fame), laughs this all off and discusses how people are working two jobs not because of bad economic conditions... but because they love the low taxes. Genius!

I give Schiff credit for this (though I'm sure I disagree with his politics in many regards... he's not a fan of government intervention), though I don't think it took a genius to predict this outcome. Hell, I found in my blog archives here a July 2006 post in which I described the economy as "a well-stacked Jenga pile with no real substantive support". Am I an economist? Some brilliant analyst of world events? No, but a) I have eyes, and b) my head is not inside of my ass.

It's amazing how many people were in denial-- and, for the most part, still are-- about the serious, deeply-rooted economic problems staring them right in the face. This goes well beyond stock numbers and mortgages. It's about what our priorities are, what we produce and what we don't, our trade deficiencies, debt, a system that increasingly focuses on the top instead of the bottom, and more. And it seems that the worse things get, the more we lose sight of that bigger picture.

Like most Americans, I remain (cautiously) optimistic about President Obama and his ability to steer our country in a better direction. On many issues, he appears to be doing that. Still, many of his efforts-- ie. the stimulus bill-- are aimed at short-term aid rather than long-term programs and changes. Of course, his presidency is young, there's still time. It should be remembered that Clinton also inherited a bad economy (though nowhere near the level we are now) and turned things around, creating a celebrated expansion, and remains popular today. But he will never go down as an all-time great because, ultimately, he didn't make any fundamental changes to America in the way someone like Roosevelt or Kennedy did.

I have a few problems with Obama (he seems to be picking his Cabinet based on name recognition rather than specific expertise except on the energy and labor fronts, he's doubling down on Afghanistan without a real plan, and he allowed Republicans to water down a stimulus bill they were never going to vote for... and appears ready to make the same mistake again on health-care), but my biggest concern is that he will settle for competent, likable leadership rather than going big and changing the system in a way that will ensure that we don't have to keep having this same debate over and over again.

Call me greedy... I want a zeitgeist shift. This old one is getting really boring.

Jon Stewart Takes on CNBC, Conservative Dow Watchers.

2009-03-05T08:04:00.009-05:00

I wasn't planning on blogging today, but last night was the best Stewart/Colbert one-two punch in months. First up, Stewart looked at CNBC's 'populist' uprising over President Obama's agenda, and provided a hilarious reality check on their economic genius. He followed this up with another segment on the conservative talking point that the ups and (increasing) downs of the stock market are a sign that America hates Obama, and an interview that helps put all of this into context. The entire episode is worth watching-

And over on 'The Colbert Report', Stephen does a brilliant sendup of the paranoid craziness of Glenn Beck. A classic. Watch that here.

There were many who wondered where Stewart and Colbert would find humor in the new Obama era (after all, he isn't an intellectually incurious disaster or a horny hillbilly like his two predecessors), and it appears that the increasingly insane remnants of what remains of the die-hard conservative base (see my latest adventures for an example) will be the gift that keeps on giving... for late-night political satire, and the Democrats as well.

Advice to Obama- let them rant and rave. You keep running the country. The contrast will, and is, speak volumes.

This American Banking Collapse

2009-03-03T12:02:00.003-05:00

Last year, public radio's (oMg socializzm!1!) 'This American Life' did a show on the housing bubble, how it related to the growing economic meltdown, and what it all meant for the average Joe. It was explained in a way that would allow anyone to understand it. Now, they have a done a similar followup show... this one focusing exclusively on the ongoing collapse of the U.S. (global?) banking system. If you've been listening to the cable news blather about these matters and found yourself growing dumber by the second, this is the antidote.

It's an hour long; listen to it in the background at work. Assuming you still have a job that is.

Look Out Obama... The GOP's Making a Comeback!

2009-03-03T08:48:00.002-05:00

This past weekend was the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which I assume is basically Comic Con for hardcore conservatives. As you know, conservatives are making a comeback by defining themselves in opposition to the incredibly unpopular polices of President Obama. But surely they've redefined themselves in a larger ideological sense, right? Came up with some new old ideas and policies for this complicated new century? Well, let's check in...

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CPAC After Party

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

A party that understands that its future lies in the capable hands of Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Bobby Jindal, and Newt Gingrich is surely headed nowhere but up.

My favorite part of CPAC is that a featured speaker was Jonathan Krohn, a 13-year old who wrote a book on defining conservatism. It apparently has something to do with "personal responsibility", which is the first phrase that comes to mind when I think of the modern Republican party. The Huffington Post interviewed him, who asked him how he got into politics. He responded, "I got into politics when I was eight years old.... And I got involved because I started listening to talk radio. It goes back to one event. The Democrats filibustered something in the Senate when I was eight years old. I don't remember what it was on and I didn't honestly care when I was eight years old." Yes, that's modern conservatism in a nutshell... a bunch of people don't really what they're angry about, or why, all that they know is that they are angry (Obama destroyed the economy!11). It's a party-- as even their de-facto leader Mr. Limbaugh proudly boasts-- of reactionaries, not thinkers.

President Obama is imperfect and has more than his share of serious problems (an increasingly embattled economy, Afghanistan, the coming health-care battle, climate change, etc), but I really don't think worrying about a GOP comeback is something he's losing sleep over right now.

Are We Really Leaving Iraq?

2009-03-03T08:43:00.003-05:00

Some have been skeptical about President Obama's withdrawal plan announced last week (withdraw most troops next year with a 50,000 support contingent left behind, then remove the rest by the end of 2011). After the efforts by Bush and company to make sure our presence there is permanent, it's understandable. Juan Cole makes the case for optimism.

Now about that Afghanistan thing...

The Speech

2009-02-24T22:58:00.004-05:00

If you missed tonight's (unofficial, but kind of really) state of the union address to Congress, you watch it... here.

[UPDATE: I just wanted to add this: Jindal/Palin '12! The future of the party... today!]

Reality Has A Well-Known Liberal Bias

2009-02-24T22:51:00.004-05:00

A great montage showing the disconnect between news chatter and the American people-

[PS- And where's the GOP? Judging by their chairman, continuingly circling the drain.]

If Only America Were More Like India... (Pt. II)

2009-02-21T08:37:00.005-05:00

My YouTube conversations/debates continued. Here's the followup. I'll put the comments directed at me in bold, and leave my responses in regular type, for clarity.

I was commented to-

"Bush also lowered interest rates, as a means of back door taxes, and expanded regulations. Both of those actions were anti free market. Bush only paid lip service to the free market, while upholding Keynsian socialist principles, just like his father who said, "Read my lips. No new taxes."

The idea that politicians care about workers or the lower economy is naive."

I responded-

"The idea that George W. Bush-- ignoring that he spent his last year bailing out his failed comrades on Wall Street-- was somehow not friendly enough to conservative economic policies is insane. The people who believe this probably buy the myth that Reagan was some pure conservative hero too.

There's no such thing as a free market. A market, by definition, is a construct of the society that created it, and is subject to the norms and rules of said society. It is supposed to serve society's needs."

His response-

"Bush ADDED to regulation. Bush lowered interest rates in order to prop up housing prices. How this is not government intervention is beyond me. A market is not by definition a construct of society. It is the term used to describe the buying and selling between various individuals in a society. With or without rules, it exists. To say that the market is supposed to serve society's needs, is like saying the ocean is supposed to ship products across its waters. W/or w/out ships, it exists."

Mine-

"The idea that the housing bubble was a result of too MUCH government interference, rather than two little (even the McCain/Palin crew agreed on that much), is a leap from reality. The housing bubble was not only Wall Street's ultimate free-market triumph (this decade, anyway), it was also the underpinning for Bush's 'ownership society'... the key domestic achievement celebrated at the 2004 GOP convention.

Very convenient of conservatives to launch him to two terms, then disown when he fails."

I also responded to his comment about free markets and their nature-

"Water exists in nature. Air exists in nature. Etc.

A market does not exist in nature.

It is a construct of society... the buying and selling between individuals is a construct of society (birds don't have a market, for instance). It exists within the norms and rules we establish for it, and these vary between societies, cultures, countries. It is not some magical, pure thing.

As long as the GOP comes off as a party that cares more about magic markets than actual people, they're in trouble."

His response, which went back to the issue of the housing crisis-

"You obviously have not studied credit markets. The government purposely lowered interest rates to encourage people to spend money. It was specifically directed at the housing market, pushing housing prices further up. At no point did the government create any new buyers or did they make housing more affordable (in principle payments) to those who currently rent (such as myself)."

Mine-

"Lowering interest rates to encourage people to spend more money sounds like GOP economics to me... after all, it's basically the same general defense for tax cuts.

And yes, the government did create new buyers for homes. Through the deregulation (etc) which started at the end of the Clinton years and flourished under Bush, they helped create an anything-goes financial market, which lead to banks giving out mortgages and loans to people who couldn't afford them (and then repackaged them for profit), when a better system of regulations and checks would've curbed this."

And then his next response was back to the question of outsourcing jobs to India-

"So is it wrong for managers of pro ball teams to let go of their aging players for those with better stats? No. Those aging players deserve job security. Did you ever stop to ask why Indian laborers are cheaper? Here we are driving up the cost of capital goods and bailing out companies so prices won't deflate, thereby disallowing the average American to afford to live on cheaper wages. We can't compete, because our government won't let us compete.

Don't diss India for OUR failures."

I responded-

"The goal should NOT be to create conditions that make it easier for Americans to live on the increasingly low wages they receive. The goal should be to get Americans more jobs and better wages, and to create an environment-- better health-care etc-- where we can live comfortably.

I assure you if you ran for office on the platform you espouse (in which humans beings and their work are dismissed as a commodity), there might only be two districts in the entire country where you'd have a shot."

His response?

"I'm not trying to run on a popularity contest on false promises."

And that's pretty much how we left it. I'll also throw in the caveat that I'm no economist. This is just one layman's semi-educated take on all of this... particularly my belief that anyone who looks at this economic crisis and believes it's the fault of too much regulation rather than the vice versa is not someone who's worldview I'm likely to ever understand.

Another user jumped in at the end, and asked me this-

"Jeremy, I don't get it, can you seriously look at yourself in the mirror, and tell yourself that government regulation and high taxes are good your country? Do you seriously trust your government to make the correct decisions in regards to red tape and spending other people's money? Because it seems to me that this is what you advocate."

I responded, again within the space limits of the YouTube comment system-

"I believe we live in a complicated society with many needs, and I see economic libertarianism (I am a social libertarian, however) as anarchy. We've seen how businesses behave when there is no check on them (Enron, the housing bubble scam, savings and loans in 80s, etc). Believing in self-regulation takes a naive view of what motivates businesses.

In recent decades, top salaries increased by thousands of %s while base wages have remained stagnant. This is not good for America or capitalism.

As for taxes, well they pay for police, firefighters, parks, schools, public assistance, etc. All good things. I want the private sector to run stores and restaurants, not the parks or fire department. I'm less concerned w how much I pay, and more concerned that the $ goes to worthy places (instead of military boondoggles or other pork).

The problem is too many people take what we got from the New Deal for granted. I've yet to hear, for instance, of libertarians refusing their unemployment benefits."

Finally, in regards to that last comment, I don't think anyone who's read this blog over the years can accuse me of being a blind supporter of government... or, in recent months, a blind supporter of our new President. However, I am a liberal, and not a knee-jerk one, and I believe the case for this ideology was made recently by that peskiest of debaters... reality. Again, this is just one man's opinion. I'm also happy, if any readers desire, to back up any and all statements I made with supporting links (which wasn't possible in YouTube).

Thoughts?

[UPDATE: My friend emails me this reality check link about the quality of life in India.]

Quick Hits

2009-02-21T08:31:00.003-05:00

The White House (politely) fires back at those poor, suffering CNBC pundits.

The Obama administration makes a key decision on detainee rights. It's, ummm, not good.

Spoiler alert... we're never leaving Iraq. Or solving climate change.

If Only America Were More Like India...

2009-02-20T16:32:00.003-05:00

One of the things I have been doing since I lost the focus to keep up this blog is debating politics elsewhere on the internet... see my recent adventures with the conservative LiveJournal community, for instance. I don't go looking for arguments, but sometimes I come across something so stupid or infuriating and just go off.

Case in point: This video on the YouTube channel of the libertarian magazine Reason, entitled 'What Slumdog Millionaire can teach us about economic stimulus'. Their description reads in part-

Indians were enthusiastic about self-rule, but "the problem was that the Indian political leaders had this very Fabian Socialist idea," says Shikha Dalmia, a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and native of India. "And that completely thwarted the entrepreneurship of the country."

For decades would-be entrepreneurs staggered under the weight of corruption and bureaucracy...

...But in the 1990s, India emerged as a high-tech powerhouse. What changed?

"In the 1990s India started liberalizing its economy," says Dalmia, "and it did three things: cut taxes, liberalized trade, and deregulated business." Although they failed to cut the kind of red tape that entangled Slumdog's orphans, the reforms did make it easier for more Indians to start businesses and hire employees...

...Yet here in America we're turning away from market reform. Says Dalmia, "It's just this great conundrum that at the same time that deregulation and markets have produced such dramatic results in India, they are falling into suspicion in America." Dalmia's prescription for India is at odds with what politicians have chosen to "stimulate" the United States. "What India needs to do is continue apace with its liberalization effort, but expand it to include the poor. Release them from the shackles of government corruption and government bureaucracy."

Yes, it's obvious what causes poverty... government corruption! If only we'd reform our markets (and by that I mean, natch, getting rid of all that pesky regulation and taxes), we could reach our full potential. Just like India!

I responded, within the space limits of the YouTube comment section-

"Yes, India's economy is doing fabulous... at the expense of the U.S. economy.

Our greedy execs have sent so many U.S. jobs there precisely because of the deregulated, lower wage atmosphere the text to the right there wants us to celebrate. If the type of economy that we see in India-- hardly a major world economic power-- and its effect on the U.S. job market is supposed to be a model for us to emulate and celebrate... well, I weep for the 21st century.

We used to aim higher."

I received (so far) two replies to this, and six thumbs down. I suck, I know.

The first response I received-

"If we had similar deregulation, wouldn't that mean those greedy execs wouldn't have to outsource their jobs to other countries like India, and we could get some of those jobs back."

My response back-

"No, it wouldn't mean that. We've seen now what good comes here from deregulation. Both businesses and individuals acting as if there are no rules.

Another example... tax cuts. Bush defended his cuts saying it'd make businesses hire more etc. Instead, companies laid off more than ever and slashed benefits and cut hours in recent years (pre-recession even), and just increased their own top-level profits.

The idea that execs care about workers or the lower economy is naive."

The second response I received?

"So we hould stay rich and India poor? God forbid that anyone else has an opportunity to work and to feed themselves. No we should continue our protectionist policies, keep 3rd world countries poor, and pay them only charity in return for political and military favors. And as Gavinthorp mentioned below, you've already stated how we can be competative and get those jobs back. What in the stimulus package does any of that?"

And my response back, in turn-

"If India getting richer means we get poorer, then yes I absolutely disagree with that. Do a nationwide survey on that too... I think you'll find the vast majority would agree, particularly the growing # of unemployed.

Why can't India pull itself up by its own bootstraps? Why should they rely on our handouts? WINK!

We need to take care of our country's problems-- creating new industries, fix healthcare etc-- and stop sending jobs to some countries while becoming a debtor nation to others."

I ignored his question about the stimulus, because I think that was changing the subject. For the record, I won't pretend to believe that that package will solve all our problems, though, under the circumstances, there's enough good starts in there to at least hope for the best.

I'll also state, in conclusion, that I am not a protectionist or anti-trade. Trade is good. It's a big world, and we all have lots of ideas and goods and culture to share. But the type of trade celebrated here is very one-sided. If the U.S. is in a position of seemingly unstoppable growth and expansion and shared prosperity for all its people, then yes we can reach out a helping hand to struggling nations. But we are not in that position, and haven't been for decades, with the '90s boom as a temporary reprieve. So, two things... a) I don't feel there is anything protectionist about wanting us to get our own house in order before we start throwing away jobs with one hand while unloading our growing debt to China and other nations with the other, and b) I will never be so naive as to think business leaders want to help out the greater good, you know, if only we'd stop regulating them so much.

I'm sure 'Slumdog Millionaire' can teach us something, but I don't believe that's it.

Hit-and-Run 2/20/09: Wall Street Tea Party Edition

2009-02-20T16:04:00.007-05:00

Here's some more quick hits of news and commentaries before I fall asleep again...

President Obama unveiled his mortgage/homeowner relief plan earlier this week and, while struggling homeowners are probably optimistic, the super-in-touch folks at CNBC are not. One network star, Rick Santelli, has gained cult-hero status on the right (look out, ~~Sam~~ Joe the Plumber!) for his rant, in which calls those facing foreclosures "losers" and calls for a new Boston Tea Party. As one blogger stated, "The revolution has begun. These workaday stock traders are going to take back this country for the laissez-faire capitalists who are entitled to it." Bailed-out fat cats of the world unite!

You may have seen the above story pimped enthusiastically by Drudge who, as Time's Joe Klein points out, is also rooting for Obama to fail. You can see this every day for the last month, how the entire structure of his page is dedicated to tearing down the administration and highlighting every piece of bad news. Just another reminder of how the President is naive to assume that the current GOP-- who lost by running a base campaign, but seem determined to try again anyway-- can ever be negotiated with in good faith. The stimulus proved that their votes are not needed in the end, we have the majority... cut them out of the process. They'll come around, or get voted out. Either way, he wins.

Speaking of... top GOP governors act tough for said base, claiming they will refuse stimulus money for their states. Spoiler alert: they won't. Unlike random GOP congressfolk, they have some sense of political self-preservation.

And with growing talk over "nationalization", the right again engages in false debate to scare people. No one is talking about some mass nationalization of the financial sector (Bush already did that [/sarcasm]). To the extent that such a thing is being discussed, it's merely (and would be temporarily) for the handful of top banks who took bailout $$ but seem incapable of correcting themselves. At this point, I say just do it and get over it. Or shut up.

The National Review throws Schwarzenegger under the bus?

Random thought... the Democrats are having some shitty Senate luck this year.

Moving on to international news-- I'm ignoring Hillary Clinton's trip, because it seems like all PR-- this situation in Pakistan with the Taliban seems very disturbing. This is where 7+ years of ignoring a mess takes you. I'm also ambivalent about the Obama decision to send more troops to Afghanistan because, while I admire his commitment to fixing this mess, I think we're just way past a point for any kind of major military solution. What's my suggestion? I have no clue, and I don't think anyone else does either.

Finally, Obama promised to end the Bush/Cheney war policies. So is he?

Recommended Viewing

2009-02-20T15:59:00.002-05:00

The issue of how our economy got to this place is a complicated matter (though the discussion still tends to ignore the 30-year-old trend of squeezing the middle class, and how this is is also the dominoes from that going over). Here is another video which tries to make sense of it-

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Or: If you're a conservative... it's all Barney Frank's fault. That fag.

How To Debate a Fox News Host

2009-02-18T15:37:00.003-05:00

The mayor of Lansing, Michigan shows you how.

We need more people pointing out the double standard of economic accountability in this country. Kudos.

Hit-and-Run 2/17/09: Economic Girlie Men Edition

2009-02-17T16:48:00.004-05:00

Here's one of those quick hit-and-run posts I mentioned. Enjoy...

President Obama signed the stimulus package into law today, and set up a website-- Recovery.gov-- to track its progress (in theory). Polls indicate the public is optimistic about this. My feelings? It's probably not good enough, but certainly better than whatever nightmare McCain/Palin would've inflicted upon us. Here goes nothing.

And why was Treasury Sec. Geithner's financial rescue press conference last week so vague? The answer? They're still not fully sure what to do about this mess. And, to me, that may be a good thing given the mindless clusterfuck that was the 'plan' they inherited.

Bill Clinton on his role in the economic crash... Don't blame me. STFU.

And is it time to nationalize the big, failed banks? A once-crazy idea now seems more reasonable.

Speaking of the economy, depressing news from California: "California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said layoff notices would be sent to about 20,000 workers starting Tuesday, after legislators failed to pass a plan to help close a projected 42-billion-dollar state budget deficit." More here. Part of the stimulus package, by the way, opposed by Arnold's DC GOP counterparts, is designed to send aid to prevent these scenarios. For some reason, I'm having a flashback to 2004...

Gen. Petraeus and some other Bush-era military leaders have been fighting Obama over the Iraq pullout (staying forever is way funner). Now others are fighting them on that effort.

The U.S. Mint is apparently trying to turn every coin into a collector's item.

Bristol Palin states the obvious about conservative abstinence-only obsession.

Finally, why do people insist Rush Limbaugh is a juvenile bigot? I just don't see it. {*cough*}

The State of the Blog

2009-02-17T16:43:00.002-05:00

So maybe you've been wondering (?), as I have, where this blog stands. The sad fact is that I don't have the mental energy right now to devote to it as I did in years past. I hope that changes again soon, I do enjoy the process of blogging, and my passion for politics remains.

I will continue to post here as I find the time, though likely in shorter, more hit and run-ish posts than usuals. As always, if anyone is curious for my take on a subject, just post a comment, and I'll respond with an entry.

I am also considering a podcast. More thoughts on that in the weeks to come.

'I Have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Invade Me.'

2009-02-13T17:55:00.004-05:00

Last night, former GOP Senator John Sununu stopped by The Daily Show to discuss the stimulus bill and other political matters. Stewart seemed in no mood-- more so than usual-- to swallow bullshit. It made for a good interview.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

John Sununu

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

Oh, and my take on the whole Gregg/Commerce Secretary debacle? Obama got played... another Lucy/Charlie Brown/football teaching moment for the Democrats. As Bill Maher noted to Larry King last night, there aren't any more moderate Republicans in Congress. They all retired or were voted out in favor of moderate Democrats. All that is left is the far-right base which is scared of Rush Limbaugh, is acting like immature frat boys, thinks FDR caused the Great Depression, and thought Sarah Palin was their savor.

And Andrew Sullivan is also correct... they have declared war on Obama; it is all they have left. If Obama thinks he can win the opposition over with Cabinet appointments, his endless legislative compromise, and dinner invitations, he is mistaken. The public remains on his side, and he has a decent majority in Congress, that should be enough for now. If the remaining Republicans want to avoid further electoral bloodshed in 2010 and beyond, they will come around, at the least on the big issues. If they don't, it's their funeral.

The President at this point should abandon any illusions he has about bipartisanship, and just focus on making sure his agenda is successful. He wasn't elected to make John Boehner happy, he was elected to get shit done (not to mention clean up the mess caused by a certain opposition party's eight years in office). I think they're (slowly) starting to realize it.

[UPDATE: The stimulus has passed. How will it be spent? Read up here and here.]

Context

2009-02-10T13:59:00.000-05:00

How close did the U.S. and the world come to complete economic collapse last year? Pretty damn close.

Meanwhile...

2009-02-10T13:06:00.004-05:00

So, apparently, the President's Wall Street tax cheat Treasury Secretary convinced him to take any and all teeth out of the second part of the bailout plan. The corporate free-for-all continues.

I'll let the lower headlines on this Huffington Post screengrab speak for themselves-

The full details-- beyond the infuriating headlines-- are available in the AFP wire service report, which states the plan "also includes new efforts to boost consumer lending [and] limit home foreclosures." That is all well and good, but the real problem behind this overgrowing economic avalanche is that the system is broken. And no one, except the type of Democrats who you only ever see if you watch Rachel Maddow, seems to view fixing it as a priority. Basically, the house is crumbling from bottom to top, and they're worried about buying new curtains. We are fucked.

Also, the Senate has passed the battered stimulus package. Our last remaining hope is that Democratic leaders can un-fuck it up in the conference committee. That's the story to watch now.

We have a lot of serious problems as a country to resolve besides even this huge one (health care, energy, etc). Let's hope President Charlie Brown (and I say that with affection) has learned his lesson in how to deal with his political opponents before he ends up on his back again. More of the fiery Obama we saw in last night's press conference-- one assertive and not afraid, because he has the facts on his side-- and less of the one who lets Geithner dictate policy to him rather than the vice versa.

Clusterfuck to the Poor House

2009-02-10T07:59:00.004-05:00

The Daily Show sums up the stimulus debate to date-

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - The Death of Hope

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

On the plus side, Pres Obama finally took his case to the nation last night... watch it here.

What They Said.

2009-02-03T18:30:00.003-05:00

Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson on the tiny arguments of the anti-stimulus GOP-

Republicans are threatening to derail the stimulus package because it is “wasteful.”

Now they’ve released a list of its 32 worst provisions — one of which ($400 million in STD prevention funding) has already been stripped.

The remaining 31 items total a bit over $18 billion. Now, $18 billion is serious money. Wall Street bonus money. And if we can save it, let’s. But some perspective: It’s just 2 percent of the $880 billion stimulus package. The Republicans are nibbling around the edges here.

And look at what the GOP considers to be pork in this bill:

The biggest line item is $6 billion for greening federal buildings.

This is stimulus at its best. Thousands of labor-intensive American jobs. Hundreds of millions in new orders to American manufacturers for windows and weather stripping and caulk and insulation. And it has the added bonus of saving taxpayers millions down the line: You reap long term savings in energy costs and have the added bonus of reduced greenhouse emissions. The only justification for calling this “wasteful” is Cheneyite ideology...

...For every arguably porky proposal — $88 million for a Coast Guard arctic icebreaker (wasteful because it’s soon to be obsolete?) — there are four undeniably stimulus-related-program-activities: $750 billion to build and furnish a real headquarters for Homeland Security, $500 million for state and local fire departments, $500 million for Mississippi River flood control projects, $200 million for computer centers at community colleges, a $125 million D.C. sewer-system upgrade, and on and on.

If this is the best the GOP can offer to justify its obstructionism, then the objective is clearly not about saving money.

It’s about forcing a popular president to expend political capital.

Paul Krugman, meanwhile, is frustrated with how stupid the debate over the stimulus is getting, and how the media is striving to present every argument as fair and equal, even when it's not-

Josh Marshall gives us David Broder talking about stimulus — which he says failed to achieve the predicted results the first time. It’s not clear whether he was referring to the TARP or the early 2008 stimulus package, but either way it’s a poor comparison. The TARP isn’t stimulus; the early 2008 package was 1/5 the size of the Obama proposal, and contained nothing but tax cuts.

But the part that really got me was Broder saying that we need “the best ideas from both parties.”

You see, this isn’t a brainstorming session — it’s a collision of fundamentally incompatible world views. If one thing is clear from the stimulus debate, it’s that the two parties have utterly different economic doctrines. Democrats believe in something more or less like standard textbook macroeconomics; Republicans believe in a doctrine under which tax cuts are the universal elixir, and government spending is almost always bad.

Obama may be able to get a few Republican Senators to go along with his plan; or he can get a lot of Republican votes by, in effect, becoming a Republican. There is no middle ground.

'Bipartisanship' = Doing everything the GOP way. Just ask our new Commerce Secretary.

And, finally, Josh Marshall from TPM has thoughts on both those matters, and calls out the President-

I've been hollering for days about this or that Republican's picayune complaints about the Stimulus Bill -- either line items for minuscule dollar amounts or bogus complaints about spending items that demonstrably will create lots of jobs and improve the economy over the long term. And now, according to the Post, President Obama is "frustrated by the public perception that the recovery bill was becoming laden with partisan pet projects."

The good news for the country and President Obama is that Obama remains extremely popular, the Stimulus Bill is pretty popular and the Democrats have big majorities in both houses of Congress. So there's little doubt his bill will pass Congress in something like its current form.

But there also shouldn't be much question why Republicans are having such a field day spreading disinformation and simple nonsense about this bill. We've heard virtually nothing over the last couple weeks about the big issue, which is that the economy is in severe free-fall because of a once-in-a-century financial crisis. And because of that, the federal government needs to step in with big short term spending to create jobs to see us through the crisis. Those jobs are needed in the short-term to prevent unemployment from getting out of hand and in the longer term to reshape the economy so that we're not dependent on recurrent bubbles to keep the economy afloat. This is an emergency jobs bill. And it costs a lot of money because we're in a deep crisis. But this basic point has disappeared almost entirely from the public debate...

...Look at what people are talking about and you wouldn't get the sense that we're actually in the midst of a major economic crisis that will likely send unemployment well into double digits if nothing is done quickly -- and a crisis that is in large measure the result of the economic policies that the Boehners and Cantors and McConnells are telling us, all the evidence to the contrary, will now save us. Everyone who's taking this situation seriously realizes that spending is the pivotal part of what the government needs to do to stabilize the economy in the face of this crisis. The multipliers for spending versus tax cuts simply leaves no question about that. ... The solid critiques from the right aren't about whether spending is needed but which types are most efficient.

Without a clear argument about why this whole exercise is necessary, it's inevitable that the debate will be ground down to the inconsequential minutiae which is the aim of its opponents. Big things need a president to argue for them.

Here's what I would like to see... President Obama has a primetime address within the next few days, in which he clearly and passionately makes a case for the stimulus package. He urges Americans to contact their representatives and Senators to support it, and explains why the criticism has no merits. Etc.

Basically, take the debate away from the cable pundits and GOP flunkies that serve as their frequent guests, and take it back for yourself. Engage the public, and call them to action. It's how he won the election, and how he'll win this battle too. Wining and dining GOP dead-enders is now clearly a waste of time. And we can't spare any.

Pwned.

2009-02-03T18:28:00.001-05:00

Rep. Barney Frank nails the GOP on their hypocrisy between the stimulus concerns and the blank check for Iraq.

Random Thoughts

2009-02-03T18:11:00.002-05:00

No time for serious blogging right now, so here's some hit-and-runs...

I'm sure some might read my recent rants and think, "Jeremy, aren't you being hyperbolic about the GOP? You talk about them like a one-dimensional cartoon!", but then I come across headlines like this...

'Bailout Watchdog Calls for Financial System Overhaul, but GOP Dissents'

...And I just sit there and nod. Then I realize how fucked we are.

(And if they don't wanna be thought of as cartoons... no mas, por favor.)

And for all the kvetching about the minutia of the stimulus bill (more on that in a followup post), no one still seems to give a shit that we gave $700 billion to the people who caused this mess, and no one knows/cares where it went. Because the economy is gonna get worse before it gets better.

I, for one, am glad that Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination (seriously, President Obama, did you vet these clowns at all?). And it's not just the tax thing... it's also because he's a huge whore.

Despite the fact that we were told Gen. Petraeus was an apolitical animal, he is already working to undermine the President on the Iraq withdrawal issue. In an ideal world, Obama would ask for his resignation immediately. I won't hold my breath, however.

Finally, Kiefer Sutherland disappoints right-wingers everywhere... reminds them that '24' is not a documentary.

"Peculiar thing about this document... it was never notarized."

2009-01-28T20:54:00.002-05:00

After days of courting congressional Republicans (and weeks of watering down the bill to be more to their liking), President Obama finally saw the fruits of his labor. The outcome was not a surprise to anyone with a brain... the House passed the bill, with every Republican voting against.

Now it's off to the Senate, and another tough fight (tougher probably, Senate rules allow the minority greater flexibility to obstruct votes). Lesson learned for Obama? Stop wasting energy appeasing a minority party that answers to Rush Limbaugh; just focus on making your agenda the best it needs to be, and worry about getting the public's support only. I'll stop pretending my opinion matters now.

"Compromise"

2009-01-27T15:20:00.004-05:00

Still on this same subject (because it's so maddening... and so important), I saw that former LJDemocrats moderator, and well-meaning centrist, Robert Peate wrote today in his journal the following query-

There are those who faulted Bill Clinton (called him "the last good Republican president", etc.) for what they called his "triangulation". By this term they seemed to mean he looked at the extremes of Society and chose a path right down the middle, in an effort to win the most support. Naturally, this was viewed as a political decision that lacked principle, and was considered contemptible. "Triangulation" itself became an insult.

And now we have Barack Obama, whom I think is already doing a good job. But he is being praised for his "bipartisan" approach to everything. He says himself that he wishes to abandon "old politics" (I'm not sure what that means) in favor of "working together to get things done". What's the difference, and why is it that (if there is no difference) it is acceptable for Barack Obama to compromise but not Bill Clinton?

It's a completely fair question. And while President Obama is being widely praised-- and justifiably so, in my opinion-- for his progressive and immediate actions on government transparency and detainee policies and science policies and auto emissions, etc, there still remains a quiet concern among his supporters that his desire to be please everyone shows that he hasn't learned from the mistakes of the last Democratic president.

I wrote in response-

You are correct... there is no difference between the compromises Clinton made and those Obama seems inclined to make at this early point.

And, for those like me, there will be no difference in our anger towards Obama over such a betrayal (particularly because of how strongly I supported him from so early on). What Clinton compromised away were not small things... it was a stronger progressive agenda (his caving on trade policy, financial regulations, gay rights, etc etc). And what did he get in return for all that? Years of partisan attacks and conspiracy theories and ultimately an impeachment trial. It was like Charlie Brown and the football, and obviously the GOP remains the Lucy in this metaphor.

Now we see Obama preparing to cave... oops, I mean 'compromise'... to the GOP left and right on his economic recovery plan, taking out many provisions of long-term benefit that progressives wanted (transit spending, family planning funding, etc) and putting in a lot of provisions of short-term benefit-- at best-- that the conservatives demanded (misguided tax cuts, etc). And what does he get in return for this one-sided compromise? A grassroots conservative movement actively rooting for his failure and a GOP leadership in Congress vocally determined to ensure said failure. Why? Because they fear Obama's success will doom the GOP electorally. God bless America!

Compromising with these people is a waste of time. Obama won (and by a bigger margin that any Democrat has in over 40 years), and he needs to start acting like it.

Bob Herbert writes in his NY Times column this morning that-
"The question that I would like answered is why anyone listens to this crowd anymore. G.O.P. policies have been an absolute backbreaker for the middle class. (Forget the poor. Nobody talks about them anymore, not even the Democrats.) The G.O.P. has successfully engineered a wholesale redistribution of wealth to those already at the top of the income ladder and then, in a remarkable display of chutzpah, dared anyone to talk about class warfare...

...When the G.O.P. talks, nobody should listen. Republicans have argued, with the collaboration of much of the media, that they could radically cut taxes while simultaneously balancing the federal budget, when, in fact, big income-tax cuts inevitably lead to big budget deficits. We listened to the G.O.P. and what do we have now? A trillion-dollar-plus deficit and an economy in shambles.

This is the party that preached fiscal discipline and then cut taxes in time of war. This is the party that still wants to put the torch to Social Security and Medicare. This is a party that, given a choice between Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, would choose Ronald Reagan in a heartbeat.

Why is anyone still listening?"

The problem? Obama is still listening. And he's reacting. He shouldn't be.

Will he be a great President compared to Bush? Unquestionably. But that's a low bar, and we need better. We need a strong progressive leader willing to fight the status quo, and not compromise away our needs because he wants some fake atmosphere of one-way 'bipartisanship'. The jury is still out on whether Obama is that leader.

So what should the President do? He should have the congressional leaders-- Pelosi, et al-- craft the bill exactly the way he wants it... put back in all the removed spending, put the focus back on infrastructure, with no add-ins meant to appeal to right-wing conservatives. Let every Republican in Congress vote against it if they wish; the bill will pass anyway due to simple majority math. Then let the voters see the stark difference between the two parties, judge whether the stimulus did what it was supposed to be, and make a decision accordingly. I'm not holding my breath, but I have to retain hope that, on some level, the President realizes he's being played here.

[UPDATE: Right on cue, Charlie Brown goes running for that football.]

Reality Has a Well-Known Liberal Bias

2009-01-27T15:18:00.001-05:00

Another reality check, on the same subject as I've been obsessing on, via Rachel Maddow-

What He Said.

2009-01-27T13:28:00.001-05:00

Talking Point Memo's Josh Marshall on the obvious reality the media is ignoring-

I hear a lot of talk about whether Obama's governing approach can be 'bipartisan' if a good number of Republicans don't vote for his Stimulus Bill. But that dubious point seems to be obscuring a more obvious and telling reality: the Republican leadership in both houses has decided that it's in their political interest to oppose the Stimulus Bill no matter what.

In the most cynical of evaluations, it's not clear to me that they're incorrect. If the stimulus is judged a success, their political gain from adding more votes to what will be seen as Obama's bill will not be that great. So they're figuring that only failure will work for them politically; and they judge that they want Obama to own it entirely.

One can pick apart the political ethics of their stand, but the reality of it is clear. They want to criticize as many provisions of the bill as possible, push for as many non-stimulus inducing tax cuts as possible at the expense of spending on infrastructure, and then vote against the final bill en masse. I think it's possible Obama will get a smattering of moderate Republicans in the senate. But that is the Boehner/McConnell approach -- and the one few if any reporters seem to have the wherewithal to say out loud.

And...

The McConnell/Boehner plan is to fix the Bush mess by pushing through more of the former president's policies. Again. Totally clear. I don't think they'd even deny it. Why is this off-limits to say out loud?

The answer? DARN THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!

[PS- Bonus trivia question: What was the slogan of the GOP's 2008 campaign? Answer- "Country first". Hahaha! Ohh, good times.]

Odds and Ends

2009-01-27T13:18:00.005-05:00

Here's another collection of news I came across in the last day or so. Enjoy.

Conservative columnist/genius George Will looks on the free-market bright side of the battered economy... McDonald's is doing really, really well now because people can't afford to eat anywhere else. "And over time, that's the market sorting this out," he proudly boasts. I can't wait for diabetes and heart disease and obesity to 'sort out' all those pesky poor people.

Newsflash for the 1,000th time to world-renowned scientist Matt Drudge... yes, it's winter and it's cold and snow still exists. But that doesn't mean that climate change isn't a fast-accelerating problem. You're welcome.

President Obama grants the first interview of his presidency to Al-Arabiya TV. Watch it here.

But his plan(s) for fixing Afghanistan... is it realistic??

Finally, that digital TV switchover? It may be delayed.

President Obama... So Far, So Good?

2009-01-23T16:34:00.005-05:00

Sitting here just a few days in and pretending to have any idea how the Obama presidency will turn out is a pointless and masturbatory exercise, but that's not stopping anyone else, so let's go nuts!

President Obama's speech on Tuesday afternoon worked for me, and I found the reactions odd, but telling. The pundits seemed to be hoping for historically soaring rhetoric, the type that'd be remembered for decades, ala Kennedy or Reagan. Instead we got a speech that was light on fancy, but was very sober and specific instead (and yes, he took some shots at Bush... you know, the very, very unpopular man whose messes he was elected to clean up) and seemed indicative of a man looking to get straight to work. After eight years of a man-child and his evil sidekick running the show, we had a President speaking to us like adults. As we're seeing from all the cable news freakouts over everything the last few days-- and sorry conservatives, I'm seeing a freakout, not a love-in-- it's obvious that pundits love the idea of Obama, but are shocked about just how serious he was about the promises of change he made. They like his pretty words, but seem uncomfortable by the boat-rocking we've seen (slow down, Barry, you're scaring us!). The status quo was going so well, you know.

In particular, I loved this line-- "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward." Not only was it a necessary swipe at the post-Reagan brand of conservatism whose failures became so evident in the last eight years, but it's also a point I've made myself many times. I only hope he really means it.

The first few days have brought a greater deal of activity from the administration than many--including me-- expected... executive orders to restore government transparency and openness, the immediate order to begin closing Guantanamo prison (newsflash to America: we're just going back to normal here, Bush's policies were the extreme), an end to the torture/rendition program, reversing Bush-era anti-abortion policies, and plans to sign legislation on equal pay and on children's health insurance. These are all encouraging early signs. But we're still in the honeymoon period, which I expect to be short-lived, not due to Obama's own failings, but due to increased GOP insanity (see last entry, for example).

The real test, of course, will be how Obama handles the economy. The stimulus plan is imperfect (it should be solely focused on projects of long-term benefit-- infrastructure, transit, job creation, etc-- and not short-term tax-cut schemes, but I've done that rant already), but remains the best idea we've got so far. The goal should also be to attach strings and oversight to every step of the process, to make sure the money is spent wisely, and not just turned into a free-for-all like George W. Bush and Henry Paulson's $700B Wall Street free-cash giveaway for failed banks. This is important because a) we all want to see the economy improve, and b) a failure to do this correctly will ensure Obama will never be able to get the rest of his agenda-- on health-care, energy, etc-- through Congress without a serious, and long, fight.

Already, conservatives are drawing a line on the stimulus plan. Why? They'll figure that out later. For all the hemming and hawing coming from conservatives about the plan, what is their counter-idea? (And no, calls for lowering capital gains taxes don't count). As in the general election, their primary argument is that Obama sucks, they have no real plan of their own, and that is why they lost. Luckily, Obama seems-- for now, anyway-- to remember that and isn't scared to remind congressional GOP leaders of that reality. And with well over 80% of Americans in support of the general focus on the spending, he has public support as a weapon in this fight. Bill Clinton caved too early and often. If Obama makes the same mistake(s), he will fail.

To use my favorite analogy, Charlie Brown isn't being "bipartisan" when he runs at that football Lucy is holding for him, he's just being stupid.

Like most Americans, I am continuing to give our new President my support, and the benefit of the doubt for now. These problems were caused over a long term, and they will be fixed (?) over a long term too. Hopefully, four years from now, Obama is beginning his second term... not because I like him, but because that would mean he kept his promises, and voters rewarded his successes with another four years. But that is unknowable.

For now, I'll just bask in the feeling of being proud of my country again, and hopeful for it.

Fair and Balanced

2009-01-23T07:53:00.001-05:00

The right-wing decides to put partisanship aside and wish our new President success in these serious times...

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Fox News Fear Imbalance

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Nothing To See Here, Move Along, Move Along...

2009-01-23T07:51:00.000-05:00

Reuters: Antarctica is warming, not cooling: study

President Obama

2009-01-20T13:58:00.003-05:00

Watch Barack Obama be sworn in as President-- despite attempted verbal sabotage by Chief Justice Roberts (jerk!111!)-- here. Speech text here. Thoughts on the next four years coming soon.

Watching Online

2009-01-20T11:43:00.002-05:00

[edit]

Welcoming Our New Overlords

2009-01-20T00:01:00.003-05:00

We're now officially 12 hours away from the end of the Bush presidency (you remember, he's the guy said who said in his 2001 inaugural address that "encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats", that "government has great responsibilities for public safety and public health, for civil rights and common schools", and who warned that "if we permit our economy to drift and decline, the vulnerable will suffer most") and the beginning of the Obama presidency (you remember, he's that guy who seems capable of actually doing the job with basic competence and dignity). So that's pretty exciting.

I'll be at work today (ugh), but will, like many Americans, I'm sure, be listening to streaming audio/video of the inauguration at my desk. It's hard not to like that this one event has the vast majority of Americans in an optimistic mood in a decidely un-optimistic time for the country. Can he follow through on that optimism? I'll follow the lead of the national mood and remain cautiously optimistic for now.

More thoughts later after the whole shebang is official. PS, Barack Obama is unelectable.

(Picture taken this weekend recreating the inauguration scene at LegoLand California)

One Last Goodbye

2009-01-19T23:56:00.001-05:00

Keith Olbermann presents... the Bush presidency in eight minutes. Au revoir.

How Does One Sum Up 8 Years?

2009-01-14T08:24:00.002-05:00

It is now officially less than one week until George W. Bush leaves office, and Barack Obama begins the thankless task of attempting to repair the damage. Somewhere, a widget is counting down.

The topic of the Bush legacy is obviously a big one. Bush and his dead-end defenders insist that history will vindicate him, and I suppose that helps them sleep at night. It is hard to see how he is remembered as anything other than our nation's worst President. The best he can hope for is to be remembered as an affable simpleton in over his head and controlled by his inner circle. To take away that level of personal responsibility would be wrong, in my opinion, as I think Bush was politically smarter* (if intellectually incurious on policy and economics and any other matter) than some might give him credit for.

(*For the record, unlike many, I don't see Hurricane Katrina as where the wheel fell off that bus. It started earlier in 2005 with the Terri Schiavo mess-- which outed the religious right as the opportunists they are-- and the failed attempt to privatize Social Security, which was a bridge too far on the GOP dismantle-the-New-Deal train. Katrina just toppled an already weak foundation.)

Beyond just his personal decisions, actions, and policies, he quickly created a political and economic culture in this country that is the reason the damage is so widespread. When you hire people who hate government to run it, when you hire people who hate regulation and oversight to oversee vast agencies and economic apparatuses, when you hire people who view civilian deaths as 'collateral damage' to run foreign policy, when you use divide and conquer as electoral/political strategy... well, you get the idea. The current economic collapse and the lack of accountability for it, for instance, didn't exactly come as a surprise for those with long enough attention spans to remember Enron. All of this enacted by a party that still seems more concerned about whether gay people might get married than learning any lessons from all of this.

So how do you sum it all up? Some folks give a try...

Rachel Maddow also shared her two cents the other night with several segments... the first focusing on war on terror policies, the second on the Katrina aftermath, and the third on the economy. Worth watching.

More links below. And let's keep counting down.

The Atlantic: Then and Now: The nation Barack Obama inherits

San Francisco Chronicle: Bush: Only time will tell about his legacy

CQ Politics: Bush's Non-Mea-Culpa Tour of 2009

WashPost: Economy Made Few Gains in Bush Years: Eight-Year Period Is Weakest in Decades

As A Gay Person...

2009-01-14T08:03:00.000-05:00

...I have this to say to Log Cabin Republicans: Ha ha!

[PS- President-elect Obama is throwing us an inaugural bone. I'll take it.]

Odds and Ends

2009-01-13T16:55:00.004-05:00

Yea, I'm slacking, but Mario Kart doesn't play itself. Here's some news...

President-elect Obama, hearing a lot of progressive criticism of his stimulus proposals, said last week he is open to making changes if he hears better ideas. It seems that has begun, with Obama making concessions to congressional leaders, including plans to "grow the size of an energy-tax incentive package and modify proposed tax credits for individuals and for businesses that hire new employees". An encouraging start.

Also... spoiler alert... the Republican Party has suddenly (and mysteriously!) become budget hawks again. Trillions for war(s) and failed banks? That's fine, but if you start talking about funding 'infrastructure' and 'state governments' and other crazy ideas like that, they will be on your ass like white on rice. So yea, good luck with that, Barry.

Hey, speaking of the bank/Wall Street bailout billions... Obama will be soon be gaining control of what's left of that. He says he intends to "fundamentally change the way the second half... is spent, focusing some of the relief on housing and small businesses." Transparency in this whole mess was also promised, and wouldn't that be an interesting experiment?

For those interested in the FCC and related issues, Obama's chairman choice is revealed.

And after earlier saying that closing the Guantanamo prison would be a "challenge", Obama's people released a statement clarifying that closing it remains an early priority for the President.

Also, please forward this article to Obama: 'U.S. finds Iraq tactics don't work in Afghan war'.

'60 Minutes' had a great report this past weekend on the oil bubble. Recommended.

'Joe' the 'Plumber', the right-wing blogosphere's new international war correspondent (?!!) shares more of his trademark wisdom, insisting that reporters are evil and shouldn't be allowed to report honestly on wars, once again demonstrating that he is the right-wing base's living id.

Finally, '24' is back... and conservatives still seem to think it's a documentary.

Hard To Disagree With Any of This List...

2009-01-13T13:48:00.001-05:00

The Beast: 50 MOST LOATHSOME PEOPLE IN AMERICA, 2008

Somebody Needs To Tell President Bush...

2009-01-10T16:35:00.001-05:00

...To quit while he's behind and just leave this poor country alone for his remaining 10 days.

Washington Post: Bush Prepares Request for Rest Of Bailout Funds--
If Congress Votes Down Measure, Veto Power Could Come Into Play

What He Said.

2009-01-10T12:40:00.004-05:00

Last night, Bill Moyers gave his take on the situation in the Middle East (the Gaza situation specifically, but also touches on Iraq and U.S. foreign policy in general). I'll concur and leave it at that.

[Related reading: Israel tells Gazans to brace for war escalation (AP)]

Barack Delano Obama?

2009-01-08T00:06:00.002-05:00

The news that President-elect Obama is back in Washington DC, and meeting with congressional leaders about his economic stimulus plan, is-- by any measure-- the big news story of the week. But equally important is the smaller story buried in there... namely, that Obama has included $300 billion in tax cuts, accounting for 40% of the overall stimulus plan. While this is, of course, technically fulfilling a major campaign promise, it is also "a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package."

Spoiler alert for Mr. Obama... no such luck. Have Democrats really never watched Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football?

It's on this note-- how Obama's insistence on appearing 'bipartisan' and his fear of appearing overzealous may ultimately prevent any real change-- that I have concerns about a stimulus plan that I'd otherwise be excited about.

There's a couple of problems with the plan as it seems from reports. Tax cuts are a) giving conservatives the inch they'll need to take a mile, and b) missing the larger problems. Whatever little extra it puts into people's pockets will be eaten up right away. Most Americans are so pinched by the rising costs of food and heat that their measly salaries don't pay enough. Ideally, you'd figure out ways/incentives to get corporations to start paying decent salaries to American workers. But that's "socialism" (omgz!1!), so forget that. Let's just throw some bucks at everyone like President Bush did and hope for the best? What you actually need to do is put the money towards long-term projects and tangible results.

And yes, Obama will be very good at doing that type of spending we need to get things back up to speed (in terms of infrastructure repair and investment, etc), and that's good news. But it remains more unlikely than not that he will go the full FDR and made radical (and necessary) changes to the way our economy operates. He may want to on his own, but as we are constantly reminded (ie. this now-resolved Feinstein/Panetta saga), the Democratic party is run by fratricidal wimps and they (may) have already reigned him in. Obama wants to be "bipartisan" and that seems to translate to 'not picking any fights', which is counterproductive.

This is a decisive moment in history... exactly the time when we need to pick one or two big fights. Our most memorable presidents-- FDR on the left, Reagan on the right-- picked fights. People want things shaken up (and are also a lot more progressive than it is often noted). Our most memorable Presidents made making radical changes a key part of their time in office. Those who settled for tinkering around the edges are often lost to history.

Imagine, for instance, if President Kennedy had been "bipartisan" on civil rights. That would've meant-- to not cause any icky fights with conservatives or racist Southern Democrats-- being told by them, "Okay, we won't give blacks any rights, but we'll be nicer to them." Likewise, if Obama thinks that people like Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell want to compromise in good faith, he's in for a rude awakening. "Okay, I'll build new bridges and solar panels, but I don't wanna pick a fight with CEOs and hedge-fund managers, or rethink American free-trade policy." You get the picture.

I remain cautiously optimistic for now, but I'm not sure how high our hopes should be.

Video Smörgåsbord

2009-01-07T18:24:00.003-05:00

I'll have a better post for you later. In the meantime, enjoy some videos...

Jon Stewart has a few things to say about the situation in Gaza. He also takes a look at the super-serious work of the U.S. Senate. Stephen Colbert, meanwhile, gets to better know congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT).

Rachel Maddow talks stimulus.

Finally... flashback time! In August of 2001, Barack Obama appeared on the local Chicago food show, "Check, Please!". The future President gives the peach cobbler a thumbs up, and issues a warning on johnnycakes.

More Odds and Ends

2009-01-07T13:36:00.004-05:00

The world moves fast. I try to help you keep up. Here's some news...

Here's something interesting: "President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that reforming massive government entitlement programs — such as Social Security and Medicare — would be 'a central part' of his effort to control federal spending." He named Nancy Killefer as chief performance officer, "a new White House position aimed at eliminating government waste and improving efficiency."

Congress also makes efforts (?) on earmark reform/transparency.

CNN's Sanjay Gupta... Surgeon General??! Michael Moore = pissed.

Also, optimism still seems warranted on Obama reforming military policy on accepting gays.

And brace yourself, folks... I'm actually reporting something good that President Bush did... here goes: "The home of a giant land crab, a sunken island ringed by pink-colored coral, and equatorial waters teeming with sharks and other predators are being designated national marine monuments by President George W. Bush in the largest marine conservation effort in history.... All will be protected as national monuments — the same status afforded to statues and cultural sites — under the 1906 Antiquities Act." Wow, that felt weird.

This news about new U.S. Medal of Freedom recipients? Notsomuch.

Are Senate leaders caving on their silly Roland Burris fight? Seems likely.

Finally, despite rumors of a ceasefire, it (sadly) appears like business like usual in Gaza.

How Do You Render a Conservative Speechless?...

2009-01-06T13:56:00.001-05:00

...Ask them to justify the disparity between their angry rhetoric about greedy union workers and the auto bailout and their near-silence about the corporate/bank bailout that's turned into a trillion dollar free-for-all.

The divide-- in terms of $$$, transparency, demands for accountability, etc-- between the recent auto bailout and the larger Wall Street bailout has been a pet cause of mine (see this recent post in which Rachel Maddow shows you just how pissed off you should be). But also of interest to me is the divide between how conservatives discuss the two, because I believe it encapsulates what is so wrong with the modern GOP base. Remember how ballistic they went when Democrats tried to expand children's health insurance assistance in 2007? I do. Remember their big fight to rein in corporate excess before it consumed the global economy? Me either.

For instance, to get back on point, during the auto bailout discussion(s) last months, there was a lot of hand-wringing on Fox News, talk radio, Drudge Report, etc, about how awful these auto companies are (and hey, I'm not saying they're not) and how greedy and lazy union workers are. Stuff like that. Stories like this on the other hand? Notsomuch. Let the Moonbat Maddow worry about that stuff!

Failed billionaires > struggling auto workers? I intended to find out.

There's a political cartoon community on LiveJournal that I am a member of, and I'd seen lots of cartoons about the UAW and the Big Three in recent weeks, but none on the financial bailout. These cartoons had tons of comments and back and forth arguments, particularly from the defensive conservatives who posted them. I decided to respond, regarding auto workers in general, with this-

"Blue-collar work ain't glamorous. But it used to be the American dream (work hard, get a good contract, a raise, new house, etc). But now apparently the American dream is to work at Walmart and barely make ends meet.

And also like I said, now apparently we are a nation that subjects blue-collar workers to the level of scrutiny and condescension that failed CEOs, bankers, and executives only get in Nation magazine editorials. If Republicans want to know why they lost states like Ohio and Indiana, etc, this is it in a nutshell."

The responses I got? More rants about the unions. Nothing about the larger point(s) I was attempting to make. Which kind of proved my point in the end.

I decided to post a cartoon of my choosing, and see if I could finally get someone to address this. No such luck. I reposted the above quote to one prominent conservative member. No response. She later called BS on the idea that auto workers were being forced to take an unpaid vacation. When I posted the link to back that story up, she conceded and-- finally-- commented on the bank issue by stating, "my whole thing about this situation is--no, i don't agree with what the banks are doing with the bailout money. that's my money, dammit. they're using it to send all their employees to high-class resorts for a month. eff that... but what bothers me is they try to paint the auto industry as oh-the-poor-struggling-auto-industry. oh those poor union workers. but the thing is, when you produce an inferior product and no one wants to buy it...why should the government throw more money at you?" Translation: 'Yea yea, I'm super upset at this bank business... but how about those fucking unions, huh!??! Fuck 'em!'. Realizing I had received a comment that, again, proved my point, I responded back-

"I'm glad we can agree on that much then.

But notice that I had to keep nudging and nudging you before you even commented on that bailout... you know the one that is $683 billion more than the one that the auto companies are getting. The reason I posted this particular cartoon is because all the bailout-related posts here have been about the auto thing, completely ignoring the fact that their collapse-- while not discounting the failures of management and vision that lead to it-- was largely fueled by the larger economic collapse caused by the failures of Wall Street, etc. Wall Street got a $700B bailout with little scrutiny, little ridicule, and absolutely no strings attached. The auto industry got a $17B loan with tons of scrutiny, ridicule, and a whole lot of strings attached. Now that's not a comment or defense of the auto companies, just a simple noting of the obvious disparity there.

The point I made above still stands, and no one has really challenged that it is the case."

And I received no further reply.

I'll let this all speak for itself, though I'd be happy to get some feedback here.

[UPDATE: I have some more fun, continue to be proven right here, etc.]

Colbert and Colmes

2009-01-06T12:25:00.001-05:00

Stephen offers Sean Hannity's former minstrel sidekick a new home...

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Colbert and Colmes - Roland Burris Appointment

Colbert at Christmas
Colbert Christmas DVD

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

Meanwhile, in Iraq...

2009-01-06T08:50:00.001-05:00

Last week: U.S. says to Iraq, the Green Zone is all yours!...

This week: ...Except for this huge friggin' embassy! Your tax dollars, at work!

Odds and Ends

2009-01-05T17:57:00.000-05:00

It's back to work in Washington this week. So, ya know, no big deal. Here's news...

President-elect Obama seems to have made a good pick in naming former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to be the new CIA Director. Panetta wrote in an op-ed last year that "Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive. And yet, the president is using fear to trump the law." Sounds right to me.

He also made some key Justice Department appointments-- including former Clinton administration, ACLU, and Yale alum Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel-- which are garnering praise from all the right people.

And VA Gov. Tim Kaine is taking over the DNC Chair position from Howard Dean.

(Meanwhile the RNC Chair race seems to be revolving around whether it's funny to refer to black people as "negroes"-- Fox News says yes!-- in another sign that party has no intention of learning any lessons of any kind.)

More good news: "Tom Vilsack, President-elect Barack Obama's choice for agriculture secretary, said he would put 'nutrition at the center of all food assistance programs,' a signal that he will get involved next year when Congress moves to reauthorize nutrition programs that support school breakfasts and lunches as well as summer food for children."

Less good news, as Obama seems to want to revert back to Cold War-era insanity and misplaced spending... He may "tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China." Yikes.

In other news, Sen. Webb (D-VA) is tackling the overdue issue of prison reform.

Some recommended reading from Paul Krugman. First, in a blog post, he explains why Katrina began the unraveling of the Bush presidency. Then, his regular column, he looks at President Bush, the legacy of the modern GOP, and what it means for the future.

Finally, clean coal strikes again!

Random Thoughts

2009-01-05T16:03:00.004-05:00

So the two biggest issues during my hiatus-- based on cable news coverage, anyway-- seem to be the whole Blagojevich fiasco and, of course, the ongoing war in Gaza. I offer brief thoughts on both.

The situation in Gaza appears to be getting worse... Israeli ground troops have now joined the air strikes in attacks, Hamas isn't exactly backing down, and world leaders' calls for a ceasefire are falling on deaf ears all-around. It's a mess. And it's, sadly, par for the course. What can be said about this latest outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian conflict that hasn't been said already? The Palestinians won't stop the violence until the Israelis make key concessions (giving back land, etc). But the Israelis won't make concessions until the Palestinian violence stops. But the Palestians... you get the picture. And then things escalate as they have until there's almost no one to root for... except, of course, for all the civilians dying senselessly.

And none of this matters because the public debate on this issue is beyond skewed. Like I said, it's a mess. I really hope that Obama is up to the task.

Next up, the Senate. It looks like Al Franken will be the junior Senator from Minnesota, and-- despite conservative protests-- Harry Reid insists he be seated as such, as is his right. Reid, of course, wants to stop Roland Burris from becoming Illinois' junior Senator, because of the Blagojevich taint. My thoughts? Franken should be seated. As should Burris. There is nothing wrong (thus far) with Mr. Burris (ummm, I may be taking that back) on paper. Yes, Blagojevich is a criminal who a) is likely to be in jail in the near future, and b) showed some real chutzpah in going through with this appointment. But the appointment itself remains legal, though Reid may have options. They forgave Joe Lieberman-- who's worked overtime in recent years to undermine the agenda of the Democratic party-- but they'll waste energy on this fight? Let the man spend 2 years in the Senate, and use him for every vote you can count, and then primary him out in favor of a better candidate in 2010. Pick battles better.

Oh, and in Colorado, former Denver public schools superintendent Michael Bennet is off to the Senate too. But there's no controversy there. How boring!!

Meet The Cabinet

2009-01-05T07:33:00.005-05:00

Yay, back to blogging!? Did you miss me?

First up, the Charlotte Observer site has this handy guide to all of Obama's Cabinet picks thus far. Click each title and a box opens up with background info on each member. I'm sure they all look forward to the huge mess(es) they'll have to clean up starting in 15 days.

Needs updating obviously. Still contains Bill Richardson, who's out. Shoulda kept the beard.

Happy 2009!...

2008-12-31T18:43:00.002-05:00

...And good riddance to 2008!

I should be back to blogging in a few days. I hope everyone has a peaceful New Year's.

Merry Christmas from President Bush

2008-12-25T11:07:00.000-05:00

Happy Holidays.

2008-12-24T11:46:00.002-05:00

Okay, time to put this blog to bed, probably through the weekend. I hope everyone reading this is having a good holiday. I'm going to play Mario Kart now and then go see my family. See you next week!

Reader's Choice #4: Our Fancy New Depression

2008-12-24T11:39:00.001-05:00

Blog reader 'fannyanns' wants me to write about the "economic meltdown... cause what are the long-term consequences? and the like? can Obama turn it around? and is there going to be more stimulus?"

Ohh there will be plenty of stimulus... though not in the mail-everyone-a-check-and-call-it-a-day George W. Bush way. But I'll get to that in a minute.

The long-term consequences, of course, are further economic collapse, more job loss, and the increasingly likelihood of the dreaded "D"-word being thrown around. But that's still a hypothetical. I'm more interested in what is knowable... namely, how did we get here?

I've written quite a few posts in the past few weeks that have touched on how deregulated, anything-goes, top-down Reaganomics nearly killed the thing it was created to worship: capitalism. But it's more than that. The larger problem is so much of what we, as a nation, do now is focused on short-term gains at the expense of long-term protection (that's been true of our foreign policy too... just ask Reagan's allies of convenience, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Bush's tax cuts? Like a microwave burrito, it tastes great going in, but leaves a bit of a mess behind. Cheap gas and big cars? Fun for now, but ignores our long-term energy needs. Taking $$$ from the education budget, Social Security pool, etc, helped free up cash for other fun things (like missile shields!), but creates headaches we will complain about in a few years as if we have no idea of their making. And, of course, Bush's "ownership society"-- the domestic center of his 2004 GOP convention reelection speech-- was just another name for the giant Jenga mortage ponzi scheme we've seen come crashing down on everything the past year and change. Etc.

As has been said so many times, we used to be a country that made things, sacrificed, and worked for common goals. Now we settle for canonizing the 'greatest generation' while decrying anyone who seeks to recreate the economic policies of that era a 'socialist'.

So how can Barack Obama fix this mess? Well, if he has secret magic powers, that will help. But I will settle for hoping that he keeps his eye on the long-term, even if at the cost of short-term gratification. John F. Kennedy said of the goals he laid out in his inaugural address, "all this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1000 days, nor in the life of this administration, nor perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin." He spoke later that year of making plans to put a man on the moon. And it happened. It took eight years (and Kennedy had been dead for five of those), but it happened. Franklin Roosevelt signed Social Security into law in 1935. The first check wasn't mailed out until 1940. It's about planning for years down the road, not just about the now. This is the kind of leadership we need of Obama.

Here is an early preview of what Obama is thinking in terms of initial stimulus-

President-elect Barack Obama is laying the groundwork for a giant economic stimulus package, possibly $850 billion over two years...

...Obama's plan would feature spending on roads and other infrastructure projects, making government buildings energy-efficient, building and renovating schools and adopting environmentally friendly technologies.

There also would be some form of tax relief, according to the Obama team, which is aware of the political difficulty of pushing such a large package through Congress, even in a time of recession. Any tax cuts would be aimed at middle- and lower-income taxpayers, and aides have said there would be no tax increases for wealthy Americans...

...In addition to spending on roads, bridges and similar construction projects, Obama is expected to seek additional funds for numerous programs that experience increased demand when joblessness rises, one Democratic official said.

Among those programs are food stamps and other nutrition programs, health insurance, unemployment insurance and job training programs.

Now doesn't this sound better than just writing everyone a check, and hoping for the best?

Yes, it will cost money. Lots of it. But a fixed economy will pay back these costs quickly enough, and unlike Bush's free-money giveaways, this is actually going to tangible things. And, yes, these measures alone won't fix all the economic problems. We'll need better leadership at every level-- federal, state, and local governments; business leaders; etc-- and commitment to seeing these things through. But, for now, it seems like a good start.

[Related listening: Will Federal Money Mean Economic Recovery? (KCRW's 'To The Point')]

Reality Has a Well-Known Liberal Bias

2008-12-23T17:51:00.004-05:00

Time magazine's Michael Scherer has a new blog post up-- 'Dark Days Ahead: Why Republicans Need Xmas Vacation'-- of the now-ubiquitous 'the GOP is an outdated party without ideas that speak to modern realities' nature. It notes, correctly, that the current economic crisis is making it harder for the free-market cheerleaders to sell their wares. As Paul Krugman said to Bill Maher a few months ago, "There are no atheists in foxholes and there are no libertarians in financial crises."

He looks at the changing political landscape, and the different ways the two parties have responded to the crisis, and concludes, in what would make the GOP proud... Eh, fuck it, they should just try to market themselves better. He discusses a strategist who says that "Republicans... should claim the mantle of innovative government, not just small government." Yes, their style of governing has been very innovative.

But here to me was the more news-worthy part of his post-

With his own Rolodex under strain, House Majority Leader John Boehner has put out a public call for any economist who can give some rationale for opposing the Obama stimulus package. The response is so far less than impressive. At best, conservatives have retrenched to argue that the stimulus should focus more on tax cuts then spending. [BLUEDUCK'S NOTE: Tax cuts! Genius! Why didn't anyone think of that before!] There is a highly technical debate going on between economists about why spending on public works should provide more stimulation than tax cuts for business and the wealthy. (In the classic textbooks, at least, the spending argument beats the tax cut argument.) It does not help the conservatives that their principal academic reference point to argue for tax cuts is a controversial interpretation of a paper written by Christina Romer, the expert on depression economics who is helping to draft Obama's spend-heavy stimulus plan.

Yep, that's GOP leadership in a nutshell: "My blind ideology tells me I am against this. Now I just need to find someone, anyone, to tell me why."

He then notes that the likely response to this dangerous dose of reality will be for Republicans to "retrench to a guerrilla war, a tactical battle much like the one adopted by McCain at the end of the general election." And that worked out excellently for everyone.

The Saga of the Invisible Hand, Continued...

2008-12-23T12:52:00.004-05:00

Rachel Maddow had a great segment last night that not only encapsulated the disparity between how the rich banks applying for federal $$$ get treated versus how the average working Joe gets treated when he needs a little bit of help... but it also shows you what a huge scam the bailout process actually is.

Remember what went wrong here. It's a) all the unions' fault, b) regulation sucks, c) mentioning how tilted the economic scales are = class warfare, and d) Obama is a socialist. That's what Rush Limbaugh told me anyway.

[PS- Some required bailout reading, all of which I've posted before... here, here, and here.]

A New Era

2008-12-23T12:47:00.002-05:00

So it is with great sadness that I retire this banner...

...And replace it with this one-

I, for one, welcome our new Obama overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted internet personality I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

Odds and Ends

2008-12-22T17:49:00.007-05:00

Yay! A short week! Presents! Yay! But first, here's a few odds and ends-

This just in... Vice President Cheney is a monster. That is all.

Free-market capitalism at work: "[A]fter receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it... The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest? None of the banks provided specific answers."

Here's where some of it went, though... executive bonuses! This is all the union's fault!!

CA's Attorney General urges the repeal of Proposition 8. Meanwhile, its supporters ask the state Supreme Court "to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative." Christ would approve!

President Bush's new presidential portrait is disturbing.

Finally, in true political form, Howard Dean is proven right by history, but shafted anyway.

Quote of the Day

2008-12-22T14:03:00.001-05:00

"Only [when he is actually President] will we know whether Obama's embrace of every establishment and even right-wing figure he can find is a reflection of what the substance of his governing will be, or whether -- as many of his supporters claim -- it's a master strategy designed to diffuse tension and hostility in order to enable easier enactment of his progressive agenda. If Obama devotes genuine efforts to repealing DOMA and don't-ask-don't-tell, I doubt anyone will care how many times he hugs Rick Warren -- just as if Obama really closes Guantanamo, withdraws from Iraq and forges a diplomatic peace with Iran, few people will care how much he embraces Joe Lieberman -- though obviously those are very, very large 'ifs.' Only time will tell."
--Glenn Greenwald, on the debate around the new politics of Barack Obama.

Reader's Choice #3: In What Respect, Charlie?

2008-12-20T19:16:00.002-05:00

Hey look, this is back! Blog reader 'elisaana' asks: "will Obama's new [foreign policy] team be able to counter these threats effectively without a Bush-style overreaction?"

This is an excellent question... and one that I think is central to what kind of presidency the Obama one will be. Barack Obama, of course, defeated Hillary Clinton in the primary for a number of reasons (better campaign, broader appeal, etc), but central to his appeal to Democratic voters was the fact that she had supported the invasion of Iraq, and he didn't. Voters wanted a clean break from Bush-style foreign policy and war.

Will we get it? This won't be known until next year, but let's examine the clues.

First off, let's state the obvious. Barack Obama is not Dennis Kucinich. The hardcore anti-war crowd is likely to find many reasons to be upset at him over the next ~~four~~ eight years. His retention of Bob Gates as Defense Secretary, the curious selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State (I'm sorry, I still don't fully get it), and his intention to commit serious military energy to resolving the Afghanistan (and Pakistan, by proxy) issues shows that he is a man who plans to move ahead with a very aggressive (read: I don't mean aggressive in a Bush-Cheney way) foreign policy. Contrary to the spin by the Fox News dead-enders this past year, we elected a pragmatist, not a peacenik.

Still, we have a man who has promised to end our occupation of Iraq, to close down Guantanamo and end U.S.-sanctioned torture, and to take seriously the roles of diplomacy and alliance-building in foreign policy. So this is improvement, if not perfection.

Let me also point out that it was obvious even before his presidency that George W. Bush was a petulant and impatient man, whose foreign policy team was stacked by Project for A New American Century neocons just itchin' for an excuse to start Mideast wars. How that translated into his presidency is now clear. Obama, however, has come across as a patient and deliberate thinker in his character. If that translates into his presidency as well, we have room for optimism here.

In terms of situations that can be resolved diplomatically (ie. with North Korea), we are obviously better off with Obama. He will be taken more seriously on these issues, and his team is obviously more invested in genuine detente than was, say... John Bolton. In terms of situations that are outside the ability of diplomacy to resolve (ie. what happened in Mumbai last month), I also have faith in Obama to a) not be overly hawkish/rash about using force, and b) be more interested in using our intelligence resources wisely, instead of as a means to expand presidential powers.

In the early '60s, we saw a rookie President make a huge mistake by being too rash (the Bay of Pigs), but saw the following year that same President learn from his mistake and resolve a related-- and more serious-- global crisis by responding in a calm and calculated manner (Cuban missile crisis). Good news for Obama... he shouldn't have to screw up to learn from mistakes; he has eight years worth of them already to look back on.

Finally, I would add that I believe Obama gets the big picture... he understands the ways in which threats grow and are interconnected. In his interview in Time magazine this week, he discusses his foreign policy priorities ("Recognizing that it is not simply an Afghanistan problem but it's an Afghanistan-Pakistan-India-Kashmir-Iran problem"), but also adds-

"[K]eep in mind that some of the long-term priorities I identified in the campaign remain just as urgent today. I already mentioned nuclear proliferation. I already mentioned climate change. I think dealing with development and poverty around the world is going to be a critical component of our foreign policy. It's good for our security and not just charity. And so, part of the goal ... is moving our foreign-assistance agenda to the center of our national-security conversations as opposed to the periphery. Paying more attention to Latin America. You know, we have neglected our neighbors in our own hemisphere, and there is an enormous potential for us to work with other countries — Brazil, for example, which is in some ways ahead of us on energy strategies. That, I think, would be very important."

And this is key. Being able to respond well to crisis is great. Being able to preemptively take on the root causes of crisis and aggression... even better.

If he strays from this, and gets stuck in the traps Bush has left for him, then we worry.

The War on Gays

2008-12-20T17:01:00.000-05:00

Getting back to the subject of gays, here's another fun story from the past week-

An unprecedented declaration seeking to decriminalize homosexuality won the support of 66 countries in the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, but opponents criticized it as an attempt to legitimize pedophilia and other 'deplorable acts.'

The United States refused to support the nonbinding measure, as did Russia, China, the Roman Catholic Church and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference...

What great company we keep. We are a very forward-thinking nation.

President Bush: Bailout Accomplished

2008-12-19T19:32:00.002-05:00

President Bush, dreading the thought of having his disastrous term end with the collapse of America's auto industry, bypassed Congress and took it upon himself to save the companies, in what I feel was probably a necessary evil. The AP has the details-

Citing imminent danger to the national economy, President Bush ordered an emergency bailout of the U.S. auto industry Friday, offering $17.4 billion in rescue loans and demanding tough concessions from the deeply troubled carmakers and their workers.

[Blueduck's note: So far, only the latter is happening. Natch.]

Detroit's Big Three cheered the action and vowed to rebuild their once-mighty industry, though they acknowledged the road would be anything but smooth as they fight their way back from the brink of bankruptcy.

The autoworkers union complained the deal was too harsh on its members, while Bush's fellow Republicans in Congress said it was bad business to bail out yet another big industry.

....

[President] Obama will be free to reopen the arrangement from the government's side if he chooses, and the head of the United Auto Workers said the union would be appealing to the new president and the strongly Democratic new Congress on that subject...

...Some $13.4 billion of the money will be available this month and next — $9.4 billion of it for General Motors Corp. and $4 billion for Chrysler LLC, two auto giants that have said they could be facing bankruptcy soon without government help. GM is slated to receive the remaining $4 billion in loans after more money is released from the financial rescue account. Ford Motor Co. says it doesn't need federal cash now but would be badly damaged if one or both of the other two went under.

Under terms of the loans, the government will have the option of becoming a stockholder in the companies, much as it has with major banks, in effect partially nationalizing the industry. Bush said the companies' workers should agree to wage and work rules that are competitive with foreign automakers by the end of next year.

And he called for elimination of a "jobs bank" program — negotiated by the United Auto Workers and the companies — under which laid-off workers can receive about 95 percent of their pay and benefits for years. Early this month, the UAW agreed to suspend the program.

Ahhh yes, once again the folks on the bottom-- who do all the hard work-- are asked/forced to make sacrifices and do more with less, while the folks at the top-- who made all of the major decisions and policies-- of the chain are handed golden parachutes to land gracefully onto piles of free money.

Or, as The Washington Note's Steve Clemons opines, this "doesn't mean that Chrysler will keep the switch turned on at 30 plants it is completely shutting down over the next 30 days. It doesn't mean that any of these firms will stop laying off American workers. And it doesn't mean that this loan money from the government will stop the offshoring of American jobs overseas." Ahhh, true, but it does kick the can down the road for someone else to clean up... and that is a George W. Bush specialty.

Finally, in news of that other bailout, Hank Paulson is asking Congress for the second half of the $700 billion Wall Street cash. He's apparently blown through the initial $350 billion already. On what? And to what greater benefit to American society at large? My guess is-- as with the billions of $$$ poured into the sands of Iraq-- we'll likely never fully find out. It's our fault; we should've asked for a receipt.

I think it's very sad that the end of the Bush administration is now just one month away.

Weekend Odds and Ends

2008-12-19T17:29:00.004-05:00

I have Christmas parties to attend, but first I'll throw some news at you...

President-elect Obama named many more Cabinet officials this week, including nominees for the Labor Secretary, U.S. trade representative, and Transportation Secretary positions.

One of his picks from earlier in the week-- former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack as the new Agriculture Secretary-- is creating a lot of controversy from people concerned about the future of U.S. agriculture and energy policy.

The WSJ reports that there are "a swath of abortion and other reproductive-health issues under review by the Obama team, which is preparing to reverse a variety of Bush measures." This is, needless to say, much more encouraging news.

On a related note (of getting back to reality-based government), there's also reports that "Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already looking ahead to pumping more science-related spending into the massive economic recovery bill Democrats will begin moving through Congress next month." This may include "investing in renewable fuels, improving the electric grid or investing more in the National Institutes of Health."

Al Franken opens up a lead in the Senate race that will never end.

Cable news debate fiesta!! Earlier this week, Chris Matthews took Iraq war supporter Frank Gaffney to task. Later, Matthews and Christopher Hitchens debate conservative radio host Micheal Smerconish on the merits of U.S. torture policy.

Prime Minister Brown reiterates... the UK is leaving Iraq next year.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, the "Iraqi journalist arrested for throwing his shoes at US President George W. Bush has written to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki apologising over the incident." He has been denied bail, and is asking for a pardon. I believe he received a beating instead.

Finally, Watergate hero Mark 'Deep Throat' Felt has passed away. Ben Stein = stoked.

What Does The GOP Stand For?

2008-12-19T13:20:00.003-05:00

Last week, Colin Powell lamented the far-right positions and close-minded approach of the current GOP. Unfortunately for them, they are not listening (maybe he should've held up a vile of scary-looking white powder).

My usual journeys around conservative intelligentsia have shown that they are just digging in deeper, as usual insisting-- despite all polling data to the contrary-- that the party's woes are the fault of them not being far enough to the right. Limbaugh/Palin '12!

Here's my favorite such post of the past week, from National Review's Andy McCarthy. He writes about the Senate Armed Services report about detainee abuse (which concludes that the 'physical and mental abuse of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was the direct result of Bush administration detention policies'), and quotes Sen. McCain reacting to this by stating "These policies are wrong and must never be repeated."

McCarthy reacts angrily to this disgusting sentiment by pansy leftist John McCain by stating himself that "I haven't liked the last four weeks so I imagine I'm gonna like the next four years even less. But I must confess I don't find myself thinking, 'If only McCain had been elected ...'".

Yessir, George W. Bush may be a failed President on almost every possible front, but at least he liked torturing people. This is the kind of feel-good, populist message that will ensure that 2010 GOP comeback (maybe they can promise to waterboard greedy CEOs?). The party of ideas is back!

Barack Obama Selects Crazy God-Dude To Speak at Inauguration

2008-12-18T15:09:00.005-05:00

As one of them homos who is single-handedly destroying the fabric of American society by existing, I have been encouraged by little news tidbits here and there in this magical new Obama era where all our dreams will come true. Such as the news that "Barack Obama's Presidential Inaugural Committee has chosen the Lesbian and Gay Band Association, with members from across the country, to march in the inaugural parade." Or the buzz that William White, an openly gay man, is being considered for the Navy Secretary position.

Like I said, this is encouraging. This, however, is not-

Musical luminaries Aretha Franklin, Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman will be among the performers at Barack Obama's presidential inauguration, organizers said Wednesday...

...After welcoming remarks by [Sen.] Feinstein, and a religious invocation by evangelical Pastor Rick Warren, Franklin will perform...

Yo-Yo Ma?!! Fuck you, Obama!!! Oh no, wait, that's not what I'm supposed to be mad at.

For those who don't know who Rick Warren is, he is the asshole who has appointed himself the religious leader of America... and the nation's political establishment seems willing to oblige. Both Barack Obama and John McCain went down to his Saddleback Church (wow, that's gay) in CA this summer to ~~pander to religious voters~~ discuss key issues with the pastor (he does care deeply about issues like climate change and AIDS, etc). Warren's defenders are proud to note that compared to folks like James Dobson or Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson, he is quite open-minded. And that's certainly true... if you ignore what a disturbingly low bar that is.

Mother Jones runs down the case against Pastor Saddleback: "He strongly supported Proposition 8. He considers stem cells 'non-negotiable.' He compares abortion to the Holocaust. He has admitted the difference between between him and James Dobson is primarily 'a matter of tone.' In a move that would make George Orwell proud, he just gave George W. Bush an 'International Medal of P.E.A.C.E.'" It's that first part that is pissing off the gay community (and just those in general who... ya know, don't fucking hate gay people), but boy that last one is doozy as well.

Barack Obama defended the decision in a press conference (where he was announcing his regulation team), stating we can "disagree [with Warren] without being disagreeable." Umm... okay? Look, there's no doubt that many of Obama's picks-- whether it's this or appointing conservatives to key positions (like his new Transportation Secretary)-- are meant to keep his potential critics at bay, in this case the religious right (left?). Still, it's upsetting and there's no also no doubt that his answer here is a bit of a dodge.

Liberals/progressives/Democrats/whatever will certainly have many disagreements with President Obama over the next few years, and-- unlike the conservatives who defended/worshipped George W. Bush until the 11th hour-- we should be honest and vocal about these disagreements. That doesn't mean that we should expect our pet causes to be the President's #1 priority (that's just ridiculous), but holding his feet to the fire is the best thing we can do to keep him from becoming the type of politician he ran against.

[Related reading... Dan Savage blasts the 'I have gay friends!' dodge that homophobes use.]

Facts are stubborn things.

2008-12-17T23:56:00.001-05:00

Since we're getting to the time of year when global warming denialists insist that the continued existence of things like 'cold' and 'winter' disproves the entire science of climate change* (see the comment section of this LJ entry, for instance), it's important to keep things in perspective.

Here's a reality check-

More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming...

..."It's not getting better; it's continuing to show strong signs of warming and amplification," [NASA ice scientist Jay] Zwally said. "There's no reversal taking place."

Scientists studying sea ice will announce that parts of the Arctic north of Alaska were 9 to 10 degrees warmer this past fall, a strong early indication of what researchers call the Arctic amplification effect. That's when the Arctic warms faster than predicted, and warming there is accelerating faster than elsewhere on the globe.

As sea ice melts, the Arctic waters absorb more heat in the summer, having lost the reflective powers of vast packs of white ice. That absorbed heat is released into the air in the fall. That has led to autumn temperatures in the last several years that are six to 10 degrees warmer than they were in the 1980s, said research scientist Julienne Stroeve at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.

.....

A second study suggests even larger amounts of frozen methane are trapped in lakebeds and sea bottoms around Siberia and they are starting to bubble to the surface in some spots in alarming amounts, said Igor Semiletov, a professor at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. In late summer, Semiletov found methane bubbling up from parts of the East Siberian Sea and Laptev Sea at levels that were 10 times higher than they were in the mid-1990s, he said based on a study this summer.

The amounts of methane in the region could dramatically increase global warming if they get released, he said.

That, Semiletov said, "should alarm people."

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... Oh, I'm sorry, were you saying something?

[*I'd add that, here in NYC, it was around 60 degrees on Monday. The following day, we had snow showers. If this is considered to be normal northeast winter activity, consider me confused.]

Time's Person of the Year is...

2008-12-17T08:07:00.004-05:00

...Barack Obama!

Runners-up include that Alaska lady, Bush's bailout buddy, and some Chinese Olympic dude.

[UPDATE: Jonah 'Liberal Fascism' Goldberg throws a sarcastic hissy fit over at the National Review. I look forward to schaudenfrade-prone liberals making 'Obama Derangement Syndrome' jokes over the next ~~four~~ eight years.]

The Invisible Hand of the Free Market

2008-12-16T18:10:00.001-05:00

As the Republican party (once again) decides that organized labor/working people are the enemies to be destroyed in this economic crisis (using both the auto bailout and the... Blagojevich scandal?), reality continues to pack a one-two punch. Here's some of this week's most exciting free-market news.

There was this news this morning...

A record plunge in consumer prices in November puts pressure on the Federal Reserve to act decisively to guard against a debilitating bout of deflation.

The Fed wraps up a two-day meeting Tuesday. Economists expect the central bank to cut the federal funds rate.

...And then this followup this afternoon-

The Federal Reserve has cut its target for a key interest rate to the lowest level on record and pledged to use "all available tools" to combat a severe financial crisis and prolonged recession.

The central bank on Tuesday said it had reduced the federal funds rate, the interest that banks charge each other, to a range of zero to 0.25 percent. That is down from the 1 percent target rate in effect since the last meeting in October.

Now I'm no economic expert, but this seems... rash? Which means the market loved it.

I also came across this criminally underreported story yesterday-

Congress wanted to guarantee that the $700 billion financial bailout would limit the eye-popping pay of Wall Street executives, so lawmakers included a mechanism for reviewing executive compensation and penalizing firms that break the rules.

But at the last minute, the Bush administration insisted on a one-sentence change to the provision, congressional aides said. The change stipulated that the penalty would apply only to firms that received bailout funds by selling troubled assets to the government in an auction, which was the way the Treasury Department had said it planned to use the money.

Now, however, the small change looks more like a giant loophole, according to lawmakers and legal experts. In a reversal, the Bush administration has not used auctions for any of the $335 billion committed so far from the rescue package, nor does it plan to use them in the future. Lawmakers and legal experts say the change has effectively repealed the only enforcement mechanism in the law dealing with lavish pay for top executives...

Now I'm sure that a) President Bush doesn't want to come off as cartoonishly evil and that, b) the GOP doesn't want to be seen as the party of the rich and big business, so I'm advising them to be a little less obvious next time. You're welcome.

And, finally, one of the week's biggest stories is a heartwarming story of unchecked greed-

Commentators sharply criticized the US financial system Tuesday as more firms announced losses in the suspected multi-billion-dollar swindle run by ex-Wall Street heavyweight Bernard Madoff...

..."The supposed meticulous supervision by (US financial watchdog) the SEC has failed in the task of preventing massive fraud," Spanish newspaper El Pais said Tuesday.

...Madoff, 70, was arrested Thursday and allegedly confessed to defrauding investors of 50 billion dollars in a scam that collapsed after clients asked for their money back due to the global financial crisis.

US authorities allege that Madoff delivered consistently strong returns to clients by secretly using the principal investment from new investors for payments to other investors, in what is known as a pyramid scam.

...US Vice President Dick Cheney said in a radio interview Monday that the alleged scam was "very disturbing" and blamed a few "bad apples."

'A few bad apples'? Seriously, Dick Cheney? I'd pick a different phrase, if I were you.

In conclusion... we need to kick some union ass. The bastards.

Odds and Ends

2008-12-16T16:06:00.001-05:00

Yes, it's once again time for my patented (except not) news roundup...

The electoral college makes it official... Barack Obama has been elected the 44th President.

Cabinet appointments continue at a regular pace, with Obama naming "Arne Duncan, the tough-minded Chicago schools superintendent, as the next secretary of education with a mandate to overhaul failing US schools." At the press conference, Obama spoke about his vision for reform.

Obama also named New York City's housing commissioner (w00+) to lead the Housing and Urban Development Department. And Sen. Salazar (D-CO) has been selected for Secretary of the Interior.

Finally, Bill Moyers spoke with constitutional lawyer/blogger Glenn Greenwald this past weekend about the state of the rule of law in U.S. government. And Rachel Maddow interviews warrantless wiretapping whistleblower (say that three times fast) Thomas Tamm.