Our Team Rules, Your Team Drools

I understand that there are fundamental differences between a liberal and a conservative perspective. Although I tend more towards the liberal side, I think the debate between the two perspectives is a healthy one, and provides useful checks and balances. When I think of a debate between, say, George McGovern and William F. Buckley over the relative merits of one camp versus another, I become nostalgic because it's the type of discourse that we just don't see anymore. What we have instead is the "us vs. them" paradigm..."our side" vs. "their side". In that sense, political discussions have begun to resemble discussions between fans of rival sports teams.

NY Giants fans loath the Philadelphia Eagles. Boston Red Sox fans despise the NY Yankees. Carl Edwards fans hate Kyle Busch. Jerry Lawler fans wanted Andy Kaufman's blood. They not only enjoy seeing their team beat the rival, but enjoy seeing anybody beat the rival. Back when the Cowboys were perennial champs, it was common to hear somebody say, "I root for my team and for whoever is playing the Cowboys." These fans delight at their rivals' misfortunes.

While all this is good fun and helps build hype for the big game\big race\big match, it's the actual contest that determines the outcome, not the opinions of the observers. The contest is not fought in the press or fan sites. Oh, if politics could be that simple.

It has become impossible for anybody on the Right to criticize a Republican, or praise a Democrat. Do so, and you risk the wrath of Boss Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, et. al. What's more, the bloggy right and conservative pundits look for increasingly vapid criticisms of the smallest details. Consider "Mustardgate". President Obama and Vice President Biden went to a local DC eatery this week for a photo op. Obama ordered a burger with Dijon mustard. The next day,
Crooks and Liars posted a roundup of right-wing pundits criticizing the president for his choice of condiments:

Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh Show guest host Mark Steyn criticized Obama as an elitist because he ordered a burger with "spicy mustard" or "Dijon mustard." Hannity claimed that Obama ordered a "fancy burger" with a "very special condiment," while Steyn asserted Obama is trying "to enlighten us" through his order. Ingraham asked of Obama: "What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup but Dijon mustard?"

Wha? You're kidding, right? Of all the major issues we face, they jump on condiments? Oh well, another silly comment from one of the most partisan talking heads in broadcasting, no surprises. It's a silly issue that will die soon. Nope.

The next day in Huffington Post, Jason Linkins posted a roundup of wingnut Dijon detractors as well as a post spirited defense of burger mustard, including a link to David Frumm, who points out that mustard is the condiment of choice in Texas.

The state of political discourse has gotten ridiculous. My team is great. Everything they do is smart, right, just, and good for the country. Your team sucks. Everything they do (and I do mean EVERYTHING) is stupid, wrong, unjust, and bad for the country.

How are we going to fix our problems when we spend so much time on petty sniping?

Treason From The Right

Remember after the Iraq war started how right wing pundits like O'Reilly and Beck and Hannity would use the term "traitor" to describe anybody who criticized the Bush Administration during times of war? Ah, how an election can change things. We are still fighting those same two wars, but the Wingnut Trifecta now thinks it is perfectly acceptable to criticize the new President. Their hypocricy is nothing new, naturally. I just wonder if they ever watch clips of their own pronouncements.

I would be glad to just chalk it up to media whores looking to incite their mouth-breathing followers, but the rhetoric is starting to get dangerous. These pundits have got to understand the effect they are having on the fringe elements. I was hoping that Beck would tone down his rhetoric after Richard Andrew Poplawski, the man who killed 3 cops in Pittsburg. Recall he was an avid follower of Beck's show, and even posted a Beck video on the Aryan Nation web site. But Beck just shook that off and kept shoveling coal in the crazy train. Nightly he and Hannity admonish their followers that the Office of Homeland Security is labeling them a threat and wants to take away their guns. Beck et al have broken no laws, but I don't know how they can sleep knowing that gun nuts are killing cops because of the incendiary rhetoric.

If these pundits continue in the direction they are headed, I expect laws may soon be broken. First Glen Beck and now Sean Hannity have started to talk about revolt and revolution. It's hard to get a definitive statement from either of them. Hannity is slippery and Beck is insane. But they have to keep upping the ante each show.

They would be well advised to review US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, Section 2385: Advocating Overthrow of Government. The first paragraph starts: "Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence..." That sure sounds like what Hannity and Beck are alluding to.

It's time to stop this nonsense. It would be funny were it not for three dead cops. These guys have no shame. I expect the government is handling this with kid gloves. In the land of freedom, you don't want to see the government arresting journalists (and, in the case of Fox's Three Stooges, I use that term VERY loosely). But you cannot have pundits advocating the overthrow of the legally elected government. I suspect the Secret Service is watching these guys very closely. Personally, I would love to see all three in handcuffs.

More Shame from Abu Ghraib

Somehow, I had forgotten about Charles Graner and Lynndie England. Remember them? They were the poster children for the horrors of the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq. The way prisoners were being treated there had been leaked. The pictures that came out horrified a nation and made us feel ashamed of our troops. Bad apples, our leaders said. Renegade troops, we were told. A total of 12 guards were convicted. Graner got ten years, England got three, and Al Queda got some great photos for their recruitment posters.

I remember being so mad at those guards. I had served in the military. I thought that the guards had betrayed everything our country stood for. The United States does not treat prisoners that way. It's what separates us from the bad guys. That was 2004.

Fast forward to 2009 and we find out that we most certainly DO treat prisoners that way. That way and worse. According to the recently released torture memos, pretty much all of the abuses at Abu Gharaib were devised at the highest levels of goverment. Now, as The London Times recently reported, the guards want new trials because the memos prove that they were just following orders.

It is hard to think of the guards as "innocent" when you look at those pictures from 2004. But when you review the tortured logic of the torture program, it's pretty easy to see what happened. Only four years after 9/11, sentiments would still be running high, and the demonization of the Abu Gharaib prisoners an easy accomplishment. Convinced that their prisoners were evil, and assured by their superiors that the techniques were legal, the guards abused the inmates repeatedly. When word of those abuses came out, the guards found themselves all alone to face the music.

During their trails, the Abu Ghraib guards claimed that they were just following orders.. Their superiors denied it. Now it appears that their superiors lied. Their superiors were involved in a coverup. as were thier superiors, and theirs, and theirs. This coverup went all the way to the White House, because that is where the torture parameters were set. The Bush Administration KNEW that the guards were following orders, but they allowed the guards to be convicted rather than shine a light on the secret torture program. The administration, the Pentagon, and the entire military chain of command threw the guards under a bus just to keep the truth from coming out. Criminal.

The cowardice of the Bush administration appears to have no bottom. I am no longer satisfied to only call for an investigation into the torture program. We need to investigate the lies that led to the conviction of these guards. The torture techniques were devised by some the strongest minds in the country, but executed by some of the weakest. When the spam hit the fan, those strong minds hid like cockroaches. It's time to shine a light on those disgusting insects.

Perjury was committed in those trials. Obstruction of justice was committed at the highest levels of the military and of the government. Our military men and women have been abused enough with endless tours of duty in two wars and inadaquate medical care at home. We cannot permit lives to be ruined with wrongful convictions and imprisonment. The guards need to be exhonerated. They need to be reinstated with full back pay, their records expunged, and appologies issued. Those who purjered themselves need to be punished. Of course, they will say that they, too were following orders. In that case, let's start unravelling this mess and see where it leads. I expect that trail of bread crumbs to lead straight to the Bush White House, probably to Dick Cheney's door. Regardless of where it leads, we need answers and we need accountability.

Fixing Democracy by Revamping Lobbying

To me the biggest problem in American politics is lobbying. Lobbying is legalized bribery. And I am not talking about Jack Abramoff - that was REAL bribery. Lobbyists have more say in legislation than voters possibly can under that system - unless the voters get their own lobby. Some do. AARP, NRA, AFLCIO are all examples of lobbies that represent a collection of voters. The more voters they get, the more clout they have. But grassroots organizations cannot pony up the bags of cash that entire industries can offer. The American Bankers Association, the National Association of Securities Dealers, and the Bond Market Association all represent entire industries with very, very deep pockets. If AARP goes up against, one of these giants they will most likely lose.

“Lobbying” is the attempt to influence public policy by petitioning government. Petitioning government is a cornerstone of democracy and appears in such diverse documents as the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. But, none of those documents envisioned a future that included multi-national corporations who have more money than most countries. In Colonial times, individuals would petition the government by writing letters. But there are now too many citizens and politicians have too many complex issues to have ongoing contact with individual constituents (unless they are campaign donors). So the original concept of lobbying - to allow citizens to directly contact and influence legislators - has been bastardized. Now you get access and influence with money. The more money you have, the more access and influence. Bribery.

The bastardization of lobbying has led to a bastardization of the political landscape. It seems that all politicians care about anymore is getting reelected. As this paradigm grew, it created an "arms race" of campaign financing. Races used more radio and television, costing more money, needing more contributions. This need made lobbyists more important to the politicians, giving them more influence.

I have less of a beef with lobbying efforts from groups. AARP and the NRA have become powerful lobbies that get politicians' attention. But these groups have clout moreso because they can mobilize their members, not because of giant bags of cash. They can promote a politician and their members will donate to and vote for that candidate. I many not agree with the organization's agendas, but I agree that their lobbying efforts are a good example of democracy in action, and I think the founding fathers would agree.

I have more of a beef with corporate lobbying. Corporations are able to push though so much legislation that is good for them, but bad for the individual voters. For example, Democrats recently tried to push through legislation to further regulate the $40 Billion "payday lending" industry. These predators charge interest rates that, when annualized, amount to almost 400%. Not wanting to lose their loan shark businesses, the industry ponied up over $1Million to fight legislation that would limit the interest they could charge. When consumer groups condemned a bill as full of loopholes and favoring the industry, bill sponsor Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., said, “While they may not be JP Morgan Chase or Bank of America, they’re very powerful. Their influence should not be underestimated.”

What? You cannot defend against them, Luis? Why not? The answer, of course, is that if he didn't do what he was told, the lobby would give their money to Gutierrez's opponent in the next election. That is when bribery becomes blackmail, and neither one is good for the country. This scenario plays itself out over and over. Play along, and the lobbyists are your best friends. Oppose them and they are your worst enemy.

Yesterday, the Senate failed to pass a bill that would have allowed judges to enable certain homeowners to renegotiate mortgages. Big banks didn't like this idea one bit. Of the 59 Democratic Senators (including new GOP turncoat Arlen Spector), only 45 voted for the bill. A leading supporter of the bill, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), concluded that banks "frankly own the place." How sad. He stood up and said that the banks owned the Senate. I guess that explains all that bailout money flying around without accountability.

So what do we do? I think the first thing is to stop giving corporations the same rights as individuals. Lobbying is considered a right, but it is a right of citizens. Corporations are not citizens, despite their protestations to the contrary. This idea is not new. Over 20 years ago the NY Times ran an editorial entitled Corporations Are Not Persons. The piece points out the example of tobacco companies arguing that advertising to children was their right under the first amendment. As the editorial points out: "Equality of constitutional rights plus an inequality of legislated and de facto powers leads inevitably to the supremacy of artificial over real persons."

As long as corporations have the same rights as individuals, they will own our political system. They have too much money and voters or voter PACs can't compete. The political system should belong to the people, the voters, the citizens. The NRA, made up of individual citizens, should have every right to fight against gun control. The gun manufacturers, should not. The citizens are fighting for thier rights, the manufacturers for their profits. It's our country, not the corporations.

Once it is established that corporations do not have the same rights as individuals, we can start to chip away at their influence. Lobbyists can be prevented from making donations on behalf of any corporations. Only individuals would be allowed to donate. If that would ever happen, Gucci Gulch would become a ghost town and politicians would have to think for themselves instead of do what they are told. We could return to the concept of "citizen legislators" rather than professional politicians.

There are few politicians in Washington who have the guts to take this on. Introduce a bill that denys corporations the same rights as citizens and you will see the mother of all lobbying efforts. I think President Obama just might take this on, if he can clean up some of the current messes taking up his time. My hope is that the GOP will continue to shoot itself in the foot, and the Democrats make even more gains in 2010. Then, armed with that super-majority in both houses and leveraging on his popularity, Obama takes it on. If and when that happens, it will require a massive grassroots campaign. Politicians still repond to voters if enough of them speak out. If it happens, jump in. Donate, volunteer, write, canvass, do whatever you can to help the cause. Our democracy just might depend on it.

Curbing Corporate Evil

Corporations are evil. Corporations profit from war and make unsafe products, they spill oil and coal ash, they encourage children to smoke and deny heath care to the sick. They use third world child labor and pay them pennies, all the while claiming that the kids are better off. Even corporations whose motto is “don’t be evil,” do evil.

Consider this list…AIG, Merrill Lynch, Blackwater, Enron, Haliburton, Philip Morris, Wal-Mart, Dow, Pfiser, Diebold, Exxon…this group of companies has a history that includes fraud, unsafe products, dumping of toxic chemicals, deforestation, union busting and war profiteering. And those are just the easy ones…the low hanging fruit…the ones whose evil you really don’t need to explain. For each on this list there are hundreds of other corporations who are taking more from society than they give.

These corporations are not in the business of evil. They are in the business of profits. But the pursuit of profit without any other consideration sets the stage for some pretty evil stuff.

Corporate wrongdoing is a byproduct of greed. Greed is what makes capitalism work. I am a big believer in capitalism. I have not seen a better system, certainly not the communist model with their five year and ten year plans. Greed and the thirst for profits have led to the creation of some of my favorite possessions. Were it not for this greed, I would not have my cell phone, my laptop computer, my flat screen TV. Yay, profits. Yay, greed.

Not everyone is greedy for money alone. Some lust for power. We call those people politicians. They play a big part in enabling Corporate evil. Corporations lobby politicians. If the politicians vote for bills that aid the corporations, then the corporations give them bribes that they call “campaign contributions.” It’s a cozy relationship – great for the corporations, great for the politicians, but not so great for the citizens of the US…you know, the customers of the corporations and the constituents of the politicians. Politicians are fond of saying “get government off the backs of business.” They claim that aiding business aids the economy, which aids us all. In some cases that’s true. In many cases it is not.

Take, for example, the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. This act, signed at the height of the Great Depression, separated commercial and investment banking. Commercial banks tend to be very conservative while investment banks take on risk for higher returns. When Glass-Steagall was repealed, it eventually led to commercial banks taking on huge risks as well in pursuit of the kind of profits the investment banks were getting. The result was a global economic crisis that we still cannot see the end of. How could that repeal have been good for the country? The economy was doing well, so it’s not like we needed a boost. So it wasn’t driven by need, it was driven by greed. The financial industry wanted it and they had Phil Graham bought and paid for.

I’m not anti-corporation. Corporations provide needed jobs and tax revenues. We need corporations. And I don’t want to clip their wings like some bad passage from “Atlas Shrugged” (as if there is a good passage to that book). But our society exerts more control over stray dogs than we do over corporate malfeasance. What’s more, unchecked corporate evil comes with a future cost. Pollution costs. Global warming costs. And ask the millions and millions of unemployed around the world if there is a cost to the current economic crisis.

Proper regulation does not prevent corporations from making a profit, it prevents them for making a profit at the expense of the citizens. Make all the money you want, just don’t make a mess. Simple.

We need to rule over corporations, we cannot have them rule over us. And rule over us they have.

Can we put down the pitchforks now?

The New York Times today published an open resignation letter by Jake DeSantis, Executive VP at AIG. Since it's publication, many computer fonts have been spilled about it's portent. Too many of these comments are simply ill-informed. A typical example from the left is digby's from Hullabaloo. I am a fan of digby, and enjoy his blog. But too often I see liberals rant about business practices that they don't seem to understand, and this is a classic example.

First digby rolls his eyes at at an op-ed piece by Martin Feldstein, who claims that President Obama's proposal to limit the tax deductibility of charitable contributions will hurt charities. Without discussing the merits of Feldstein's argument, digby dismisses him because he is a member of AIG's board, and a member of their Finance Committee. Exactly how those facts makes Feldstein's argument moot, digby does not say. But consider this...would a bazillionaire donates $50 Million to a charity if there were no tax deduction? I think not. And I think Feldstein is correct that Obama's plan will disastrous for charities. But don't take my word for it, call the head of fundraising for your favorite national charity and ask for yourself.

Next digby moves on to DeSantis, describing his letter as a "petulant whine." He then goes on to say, "It's very hard to believe that this person knew nothing of the CDO business since it was the focus of the division in which he worked." He quotes MSNBC commentator Carlos who basically said the same thing: "I know and you know that when you're an executive in a large company you sit in those senior management meetings you hear what's going on in other parts of the business." Carlos and digby are simply wrong about this, and their comments lead me to believe they never worked for a large corporation. Busy managers focus on their own departments, and they don't have time to get detailed breakdowns of what others are doing.

MSNBC and digby show a lack of understanding of financial products and large financial organizations. DeSantis worked in commodities, and had nothing to do with CDOs. But digby assumes that every executive working for AIG is guilty by association. It doesn't take every employee to bring down a company. Remember Barings Bank? Barings was the oldest merchant bank in London until its collapse in 1995 after a single employee lost $1.4 billion speculating on futures contracts. One guy killed a 200 year old company.

Just because you worked for AIG does not make you evil or stupid. And we can debate whether anybody deserves to make a $750,000 bonus, but if other executives at other companies were getting similar bonuses (which they were) then AIG executives were not overpaid relatively speaking.

The AIG rhetoric is becoming shrill and is leaving logic behind. digby effectively says that we should not listen to anything that an AIG board member says. The board members deserve their share of blame for this mess. They were wrong about that, but that doesn't make them wrong about everything. DeSantis opened himself up to a lot of scorn by publishing his letter, but I saw it as frustration, not whining. He was angry that the CEO promised to fight for them, then did not. And he was angry that he and the vast majority of AIG employees did nothing wrong, but are being treated like lepers.

I'm not a pro-corporation apologist - far from it. But I think it is important to focus on real issues and not get tied up in witch hunts. Too much has been written about the AIG bonuses. Americans are frustrate at the mess we are in, and want to punish the guilty. I do as well. But a lynch mob is not the answer. Let's put down the pitchforks.

Robert Gates makes a bold move

The Boston Globe reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is going to do the unthinkable. He is going to end costly, high-tech military programs in an effort to cut Defense Department waste, and to shift focus from gadgets to boots on the ground. This is an extraordinary move, and may be the most potent assault on Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" since Ike left office.

The country is broke. We can't keeps spending like we did. But the Military loves their toys, and nobody wants to appear soft on defense. However, now it's pretty obvious that our current enemy is decidedly low tech. So there is no real use in spending money for new jets and destroyers. But I never expected to see a Secretary of Defense reach that conclusion, and I am very pleased that ours did.

Our Navy has not fought a sea battle since World War II. Our cruisers and destroyers have not fired a shot in anger for decades. Aircraft carriers can at least deliver fighters to a theater, but only if that war zone is near enough to an ocean. But if Iraq is any indication, "air cover" is less of an issue because there is nothing to bomb. Insurgents don't present a united front. They don't charge your fort like Indians in a John Wayne movie. The only aircraft that makes sense are helicopters that can swoop in and get your guys the hell out of there. Everybody in the military knows this. But for the Defense Secretary to actually shut down military projects is extraordinary.

Robert Gates took the world's worst job, at a time when it was guaranteed to get worse. He never grandstanded or engaged in subterfuge. When a new administration from the other party asked him to stay on, he did. He has done the best he could with the awful hand that was dealt him, and he has done it with class. But this latest decision is, I think, his bravest. Defense contractors have armies of lobbyists. The Spam has not yet hit the fan. But I think the time is right for this. And I think that the savings will help soften the blow of this, the worst financial year in many generation.

Thank you, Robert Gates, for doing the hard thing.

9000 earmarks

9000 earmarks. The spending bill that Congress is sending to President Obama has 9000 earmarks. At a time when our economy is staggering Legislators still can't stop loading up spending bills with pet projects. When our deficit and our national debt are the highest in history, our elected officials still show no restraint. During his campaign, Obama promised to curtail earmarks. But the White House says that they are going to sign the omnibus bill, which is a holdover from the Bush administration. But they hinted that Obama would veto future spending bills that were loaded with earmarks. Why wait? Why not veto this one? Why not send a message that Congress simply cannot wallow up to the hog trough...especially not now, while Rome is burning.

9000 earmarks...I am totally disgusted.

Geithner needs to step up or step aside

I have grown restless lately, waiting for Treasury to step up to the plate and act like a leader. This morning I read a NY Times article that points out a main reason why - Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner still has not staffed up the Department. The Times points out that Geithner has only filled about half of the top spots.

I think we can all agree that the economy is the most pressing issue we face right now, and the Obama administration is dropping the ball big time. As the Times article pointed out, "Of the four major federal departments — State, Justice, Defense and the Treasury — the Treasury has had the fewest nominees even though it is dealing with probably the most significant problems facing the government." That shortfall is on Geithner.

So far Geithner has been a dud. When we need bold action and reassurances, we get a Treasury Secretary that hardly ever appears in public, and when he does his pronouncements are so vague, so uninspiring, that he actually makes the problems worse. Those open Treasury posts are an example of how unqualified Geithner is. To be effective at that job, you need to be not just savvy about economics and the market, but you need to also be a leader, a recruiter, a manager, a coach and a delegater. It appears that the reason Treasury is moving so slow is because Geithner is doing everything himself.

These are extraordinary times, and we need extraordinary effort. We are not getting it. Obama needs to take Geithner to the wood shed. Step up or step aside. We need to know that the best and brightest are working on the economy and our foundering banking system. If Geithner can't do the job, President Obama should cut his losses and replace him.

Foreclosure prevention, or foreclosure delay?

The New York Times reports details of the Obama administration foreclosure prevention initiative today, and it looks like it is only delaying the inevitable. The plan pays lenders a flat fee to reduce loan interest rates to no more than 38 percent of a family’s gross monthly income. Then the government pays the actual cost of reducing the interest rate further to 31 percent of the gross monthly income. This rate would remain for five years, then will rise one percent a year until it is back to its original amount. Let's crunch some numbers, shall we?

According to the National Associate of Realtors (NAR), the average home price in the US as of February 4th is $213,100. According to the census bureau, the average family income in 2007 was $50,233. While figures are not yet available for the current average, we would have to assume it is lower, given layoffs and wage reductions that are so common right now. Let's be conservative and call the average $45,000. Let us further assume that the family has one of those "bad" mortgages that started with low payments but quickly increased them to, 8%. That would be a monthly mortgage payment of $1,562.92 or $18,755.04 per year. This mortgage payment represents 41% of the family's gross income.

Under the Obama plan, the family's mortgage payment would be reduced to $1,162.5, roughly 5.15% interest. That rate will remain in effect for five years, then rise 1% until it is back to 8%, just under eight years total. By then the family will be back in the same boat.

Obviously, the plan hopes that inflation will cause salaries to rise so that the restored mortgage payment will by then be only 31% of gross family income. In order for that to happen, the family income has to be $60,500 by 2017. That is a 34.4% increase in family income over eight years. But according to inflationdata.com, the inflation rate in January was 0.03%. For the family to reach the magic 31% mark, inflation would have to increase substantially. If it does, inflation will not only raise wages, but also the cost of gas, food, clothing, etc. So the family's extra income will be at least partially eaten up by those increases, leaving less for the mortgage.

My question is...are we really solving the problem or just delaying it? Many of the families this plan is designed to help bought at the top of the real estate market. Now that home prices have fallen so drastically (17% in the last year alone, according to NAR), most homeowners who bought in the last several years owe much more than the home is worth. Home prices have fallen so drastically, and the economy is so sluggish, it appears likely that in eight years these rescued homeowners will still owe more than the home is worth. And unless they increase their income past inflation levels, they will again be paying too high a percentage of gross income for their mortgage.

One advantage of this plan is that it stops the bleeding now. Given our current situation, that is not a bad thing. But the plan will not "fix" the problem, as we will see after five years when those mortgage interest rates start to rise again. And those properties will continue to be a sword of Damocles hanging over the real estate market.

Death of newpapers will be felt most in home towns.

UPI is reporting that the Rocky Mountain News will close it's doors on Friday. This comes on the heels of bankruptcy filings for dailys in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Chicago, as well as threatened closures of the San Francisco Chronicle and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and the much publicized financial woes at the New York Times. We may be witnessing the death of the daily newspaper.

I love newspapers, but understand how that business model is outdated. Most news is now available online, which allows readers to get immediate updates rather than wait for tomorrow's newspaper. The internet also killed classified ad sales. Why look in the paper for a car when you can go onto Craigslist or eBay and search for the model you want, get more information about it, and view multiple color photographs of the vehicle? So readership and revenues have been declining for years.

World, National and (to a lesser extent) State news will survive the changeover to online outlets. Indeed, CNN, MSNBC, FOX and other online sources have been doing just that. I fear, however, that it is local news that will suffer. And without the exposure that local coverage offers, I worry about corrupt local politicians operating with impunity as they no longer worry about the journalistic scrutiny that once kept them in check.

Bobby vs Kenneth

As anybody who surfs the Internet more than five minutes a day now knows, Bobby Jindal's awkward rebuttal to President Obama's address last night has been widely panned, and many have compared him to Kenneth the Page from the show 30 Rock. If you want to compare them yourself, check out this clip from the new Jimmy Fallon Late Night show.

Obama home run, Jindal strikeout

Obama's speech last night was simply the most impressive presidential speech in over a decade. After four years of partisan sentiments, empty platitudes, and fractured syntax, it was good to see a president appear presidential. He made a lot of promises, and I am not convinced the numbers add up. But he was inspiring, and that is what the country needs right now.

Governor Bobby Jindal, offering the Republican rebuttal, looked kinda spooky. His walk to the microphone was so awkward, it looked like he was learning how to walk on new legs. His wide-eyed delivery and slow, simple oratory made him look like a Punjabi Mr. Rogers. This guy is a Rhodes scholar? And what was with the long tour guide opening? Many, many people have compared Jindal to Kenneth, the page on 30 rock. If you don't watch the show, you should. It's very funny. If you don't know Kenneth, here is a mash-up of some of his best lines.

The comparison to Kenneth will haunt Jindal for a long time, methinks. If this is the rising star that is favored to be a contender for the GOP nomination in 2012, the Democrats can sleep well.

Never had a helicopter

I know I have been skeptical of President Obama recently, but I do admire how the man operates. The Republicans keep trying to get under his skin and he never takes the bait.

In today's fiscal summit, Obama asked Sen. John McCain if he had any thoughts he would like to share on procurement. McCain sited Defense Department overruns, and pointed to the fleet of 28 new Marine One helicopters built by Lockheed Martin Corp. (a deal established during the Bush administration). McCain noted that the program is now over budget at $11.2 billion and will cost more than Air Force One. Obama responded that he had already instructed Defense Secretary Gates to review that program, and added, “The helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me. Of course, I’ve never had a helicopter before, so, you know? Maybe I’ve been deprived and I didn’t know it." He got a good chuckle from the crowd. But, more importantly, he shut down that flatulent windbag from Arizona without the slightest hint of vitriol. This is how politics should be. Bravo, Mr. President.

Bailout Double Standards

CNN ran an interesting commentary this morning by Frank Micciche, managing director of the Next Social Contract Initiative, a bipartisan think tank. Micciche's basic premise is that it's easier to get billions for banks and the auto industry than to get a small grant. "Small nonprofits and community organizations that receive federal grants will tell you that the paperwork and scrutiny that comes with even the most modest federal award is often so exhaustive as to nullify the benefits of the grant," Micciche says. "Not so, apparently, if your request is in the billions."

This is why I don't support the bailout - not so much because it isn't needed, but that it would not be effectively executed. Does anybody know where the $350 billion went that Paulson gave away in TARP I (other than executive bonuses, that is)? And with Chrysler and GM asking for another $21 Billion, do we know what they did with the $17 billion they recently got?

Too much money is going too many places with too little oversight and only a hope of success. Let the banks and automakers go to bankruptcy court and use that bailout money instead for direct support of those who lost their jobs in the meltdown.

TARP I cost over $1,150 for every man, woman and child in the country (not counting interest) and nobody seems to know where it went. The Obama administration estimates that bank bailout will cost taxpayers $2.3 trillion ($7,570 per person). And Bloomberg News recently pegged the entire cost of the all bailout funds (including banks, automakers, stimulus package and mortgage rescue) at $9.7 trillion ($31,712 per person). If you have a family of five, your family's share is $158,560. As the Bloomberg article points out, that's "enough enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages." Here is the math and links to the numbers:

TARP I $350 billion/305,878,088 = $1,150
Bank Bailout $2.3 trillion/305,878,088 (US population) = $7,570 per US citizen
Bailout Total $9.7 trillion/305,878,088 = $31,712 per US citizen
Family of 5 $31,712 * 5 = $158,560 for a family of five

An interesting question is what would happen if the government actually did use that money to pay down mortgages? That money would flow right to the banks, making them flush with cash and ready to lend again. With the mortgages paid down or, in many cases, paid off, consumers would be able to use that mortgage money to buy cars and TVs, giving a boost to manufacturers. But most important, the US taxpayers would actually get something of real value for their bailout money.

Of course, it will never happen. And the bailout would unfairly help mortgage holders over renters, who would still be on the hook for their $31K. But at least there would be tangible, predictable results.

The Treason of Alan Keyes

Alan Keyes has always been a wing nut, but he is dabbling in treasonous rhetoric in this interview. He drags out the most popular lie about the president: that Obama is not a US citizen (a silly notion that has been disproved with the online posting of Obama's birth certificate). He says that Obama must be stopped, even though the President was elected by a comfortable majority. But worse is his suggestion that the military should not follow Obama's orders. That's treason, in my book.

It is getting harder and harder to ignore the hateful rhetoric of the right, and I fear that somebody is going to get seriously hurt as a result. Obama appears to be ignoring the rabble (his warnings not to listen to Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding). But I hear little condemnation of this kind of behavior on either side. The Republicans should denounce such hate speech, but they far angering talking heads with a bully pulpit. But where are the Democrats? Rush et al already hate them, so they don't risk anything by denouncing the hate speech. And what about newspapers? The New York Times Opinion page has been silent on the topic. The only denouncements have come from the blogosphere, which is pretty partisan to begin with.

Maddow's Obama List

First of all, let me say I love Rachel Maddow. She is smart, articulate, and appears to enjoy the irony that exists in politics every day. She often smiles at stories she reports, reveling in the double-speak and hypocrisy that our elected officials use daily. She is left of center, like me, so I usually agree with her perspective. But Maddow is more generous with President Obama than I.

Yesterday Maddow wished Obama a happy one-month anniversary, and listed 17 accomplishments of his first month. I have recreated her list, and give my take on each:

Announced strict new rules for lobbyists - Great idea...and how unfortunate that only two days later Obama broke his own rules by nominating William Lynn, a lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Pay caps for WH staff - A mostly symbolic gesture that won't impact the financial crisis. Still, it would be hypocrisy to raise staff salaries in these troubled times, so a good PR move.

Hillary Clinton confirmed Secretary of State - So far this is looking like one of Obama's best cabinet picks. Hillary has not yet been tested in her diplomacy skills, but early results look promising.

Signed an Executive Order closing Gitmo and secret CIA prisons overseas - But he has not set a date for the closure. Even with it's end planned, the longer Gitmo is in operation the more it's stink spreads from the last administration to this one. (It's all one America to the radicals who use Gitmo as a recruiting tool.) And while he closed CIA prisons, he also signed an executive order three weeks ago that allows the CIA to continue using renditions. And today the White House announced that they would not change Bush administration policy of denying constitutional rights to terror suspects held in Afghanistan. So his results in this area are decidedly mixed.

Named George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke Special Envoys to Middle East - The jury is still out on Mitchell and Holbrooke, although they are both very experienced. I have high hopes for them, but let's see how they fair under pressure (we probably won't have to wait long).

Made first agency visit to the State Dept, symbolically reviving diplomacy - This is smart management, but I don't see it as much of an accomplishment.

Appeared on Arab TV network - I think it was a good move to help open up more dialogue with the Arab world.

Signed Lily Ledbetter Act - The Ledbetter act, which forbids pay discrimination on the basis of sex, is so overdue, until I heard of it I thought these protections already existed. Kudos for Obama for getting it on the books.

Eric Holder confirmed - When he was nominated, I thought Holder's most appealing quality was that he wasn't Alberto Gonzalez. But I don't think Gonzales would have put his foot in his mouth like Holder did recently when he said America was "a
nation of cowards" when it came to racial issues. Holder's comments were divisive and earned him the enmity of whites who thought Holder was only talking to them (he wasn't, but that point is lost in the din). Holder's poorly chosen words didn't help the administration, and he will have to really shine in the coming months to distance himself from them.


Signed S-ChIP legislation - Bravo! This bill expands publicly funded health insurance for children. It is shameful that the GOP and Bush Administration has not stepped up to the plate on health care for children. No matter what you think of "socialized medicine", children should not be denied care because they are poor.

Canceled 77 land leases around Arches National Park - Another Bravo. I have spent lots of time in Arches, as well as other National Parks in that region. It is an area of unspeakable beauty and unique geology not found anywhere else. The idea of oil derricks dotting that landscape is obscene.

Signed the Stimulus Bill - I applaud President Obama for getting the bill he wanted pushed through congress in a very short time. However, this bill breaks Obama's "sunshine before signing" promise, whereby the public would be given time to review and comment on important bills before he signed them. The Stimulus bill got not public review, and we are still wading through the 1000+ pages to see what goodies (or horrors) it contains. Also, I am unconvinced that the stimulus will do anything other than heap debt on future generations. The cynic in me thinks Obama only did it to appear strong in the face of the crisis. The optimist in me hopes my worries about the bill are unfounded.

Announced his home foreclosure prevention plan - After so much attention is paid to Wall Street, it's great to see a little love for Main Street. This plan really only helps a small group of those facing foreclosure, but it's a start.

Took first foreign trip to Canada - I'm not sure how much of an accomplishment it is to visit our nearest neighbor. But they have better beer up there, so I hope he downed a few, eh?

Banned budget gimmicks - This is a great ruling. The Bush Administration used budget gimmicks that would make Enron accountants blushed.

Met with mayors - Yawn...I'm sorry, what? Urban centers are a Democratic stronghold, so he's preaching to the choir with this group. Not much of an accomplishment, methinks.

Signed Executive Order for Office of Gulf Coast Recovery - A good move, but he extended it for six months when local Pols wanted two more years. It is a disgrace that this long after Katrina, most of the money allocated for the Gulf Coast's recovery has not been spent.

All in all, I think Obama has done pretty well. But
it's still a fairly uneven list.

Obama continuing shameful Bush practices

The Obama administration announced yesterday that it will maintain the Bush Administration practice of denying U.S. constitutional rights to terror detainees held in Afghanistan. This comes on the heels of an Obama executive order three weeks ago that allows the CIA to continue using renditions. Despite Obama's campaign promises to change the way the US deals with terror suspects, it appears that no real changes will be made.

In a related story, The Pentagon announced that they had completed an Obama ordered review of Guantanamo Bay conditions and that prisoners there were treated according to the Geneva Convention. But in his new book Inside the Wire, Sgt Erik Saar paints a different picture. Saar sites examples of beatings and sexual humiliation, casting doubt on the truth of the Pentagon Report.

I was constantly disgusted by the way the Bush administration's thuggish approach to terror suspects. The use of torture, the use of rendition, the denial of rights flew in the face of what I thought this country stood for. I was ashamed that our country was doing those things. And, yes, I understand that there we are holding some very dangerous people. We are also holding some very innocent people, and without the burden of due process, the military does not have to even worry about which is which. In the mean time, our reputation as a paragon of liberty and virtue is getting tarnished beyond recovery.

I voted for Obama because I really thought he would change these practices. But the biggest change I am seeing if from Obama to candidate to Obama the president.

President Obama...Nationalize Banks At Your Peril

The issue of nationalizing banks is getting more and more attention. Within the last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan have all suggested that nationalization should be looked at. Obama would be foolish to do so.

First, I agree with those who say that we should not rescue failing banks. There will be casualties in this financial crisis, and failing banks should be among them. We simply cannot continue to bail out companies that bankrupted themselves through unsound business practices, especially when to do so would add to the rapidly growing debt we are piling on our children. Furthermore, as near as I can tell from my research, Nationalization would be a bad idea. The best explanation of why that I have found is from the Motley Fool.

Second, if Obama nationalizes banks it will give the GOP and the RRR (Rabid Right Radio) enough ammo to really make a difference in the next election. Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, and their servants in the GOP have already labeled Obama a socialist with scant evidence to back it up. Nationalizing banks would be the smoking gun they need and they will pound that topic into the ground.

Third, I don't think main street cares about the banks. Nationalization would be unpopular, and would be seen as just another examples of the Wall Street fat cats getting the money while the regular guys get the shaft.

Nationalization would be a long, costly process and two years from now the only result would be that those banks will not have failed. They won't have recovered by then, and will still be seen as propped up by the government. In the mean time the GOP will have made Obama look like a cross between Hugo Chavez and Eugene Debs. It will hurt the entire Liberal agenda for, I think, very little gain.

Obama has been silent on nationalization so far, so I think he understands the dangers here.

Something in the air

The New York Times this morning reports that the Environmental Protection Agency is going to start regulating carbon dioxide. Pardon my ignorance, but I thought they already did. Almost two years ago, the Supreme Court ordered the EPA to determine is carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare. That seems like one of those silly studies, like determining if eating nothing but Twinkies makes you fat. Of course it's harmful. Fill a room with carbon dioxide and everyone in it will die.

I have a friend who grew up in Los Angeles during the 60's. He told me that he would go outside to play and after an hour he would have to go inside because he was coughing and wheezing. Granted, that is anecdotal evidence, but still, you don't need to be a scientist to understand the issue.

The Supreme Court order was in response to Massachusetts v. E.P.A. and was issued April 2, 2007. Under the Bush administration, the E.P.A. simply ignored the court order, go so far as refusing to regulate the carbon dioxide emissions of coal fired power plants.

The GOP has long opposed environmental issues. Many deny that global warming is happening, and they use junk science to prove their point. Now, I understand that the Republicans are fervently pro-business at the expense of all else. So they oppose raising pollution standards because they add cost to businesses. But at what point do they say "enough"? How thick with smoke does the air have to be before the GOP helps clean it up? How much does the polar ice have to recede before they acknowledge global warming? How many oil rigs would be too many in our national parks? It's a myopic, foolhardy position they take.

One thing you can say about the GOP, they cater to their base. They don't think about the future any farther than the next election. Nobody is falling down dead in the streets from pollution, so why worry about it? And the Democrats? They fear that if they push the issue too much, they will be labeled anti-business, as usually happened on environmental issues. The GOP needs to get a clue, and the Dems need to get a spine.

Really cool photos

Hey, kids...do you like cool pictures? The Boston Globe has got 'em:

Toxic Real Estate

Back in 2003-4, I was shopping for a house and frustrated by the rapidly rising home prices. My ex and I had purchased a house in Los Angeles in 2000 for $265K. That seemed like a crazy-high mortgage to me at the time. Now it makes me nostalgic. By the time we split in 2003, the house was worth over $400K. She sold it in late 2006 for $780K (smart woman). Now, Zillow lists the house at $561K. Good luck getting that price in today's market.

The house was on a hill side with a commanding view and the neighborhood did "pop" after we bought, so it retained more value than many homes in LA. Still, the buyer lost 28% of the home value on paper, and probably over 35% if he were to sell. Houses built in far outlaying communities at the height of the boom have lost over 50% of their value. That's if you can get anybody to buy them, which you probably can't.

The big crisis in the housing bubble burst came because too many people got mortgages who should not have. During the go-go years of the housing boom, some people were absolutely frantic to buy a home. Everybody else had one, the prices kept going up and up and up, and if you didn't own a house you could not get any of that free money falling from the sky. So crazed buyers would have bidding wars, and houses would sometimes go for 10-15% over the listing price. I suspect the winners of those bidding wars are feeling like losers now.

According to RealtyTrac, there were over 3 million foreclosure filings in 2008 (up 81% from 2007 and 225% from 2006). Banks repossessed over 850,000 properties in 2008, more than double the previous year. And 2009 is looking much worse. By the end of this year, we could have over two million repossessed homes sitting empty, waiting for meth heads to remove their fixtures and render them even less valuable. My question is...what do we do with those properties, and how can we stabilize real estate prices with that much inventory and no buyers?

One big problem is that nobody knows where the bottom is. It is entirely possible that the home that seems like a bargain today because it fell from $400K to $280K, could lose another 10 to 20% of it's value, maybe more. Who knows? That uncertainty is effecting the housing market big time. To me, the biggest challenge is those millions of empty homes. It's like gangreen has infected your foot and spread up to the ankle and knee, heading for your hip. The only solution is to cut it out. So one might conjecture that bulldozing those empty houses would decrease supply to meet demand, and stabilize prices as a result. But the banks own those houses. Even though they are upside down on each one, they cannot walk away from whatever value is in them.

According to the National Association of Realtors, the average home price in December was $213K. Let's assume that the average value of reposessed homes is much lower, say $120K. That would mean there is $240Billion of inventory on the market that, for the most part, nobody wants to buy. While we address the financial crisis, much attention has been paid to "toxic mortgages". These are typically bad loans where the home owner didn't read the fine print and the monthly mortgage payment keeps rising until they can't afford to pay it. All of that is part of the banking crisis. But nobody is talking about toxic real estate. And as long is the situation isn't addressed, I fear the gangreen will continue to spread.

The sorry state of our State

If you have not been following it...the State of California is facing a huge fiscal crisis. The laws of the state require a 2/3 majority to approve a budget. Republicans are refusing to sign any budget that increases taxes, even in the face of overwhelming need. Without a budget the State cannot operate. So our useless Governor is closing State office, laying off 20,000 State workers, and shutting down all State construction projects. The cost of restarting those construction projects will be over $100 Million, which we can't afford. For a great blow-by-blow, check out www.calitics.com (funny and well written). Calitics reporters are the only ones there full time covering the most important legislative session in years (Hello? LA Times? SF Chronicle? Sacramento Bee? Anybody home?).

The Democrats need three Republicans to get the votes they need. They have two, and need only one more vote to pass the budget. The state Senate will be in session indefinitely until this thing is resolved (just what we need, sleep deprived politicians).

Courage Campaign has put our a request to call Republican Senator Abel Maldonado, asking him to "Yes" on the budget. I did, and invite you to as well. Check out their site: www.couragecampaign.org/SaveCalifornia. And please encourage all your friends to do the same.

Oh Eric!

I have not had a chance to form much of an opinion about Eric Holder so far. I figured a brick doorstop would be an improvement over all of Bush's picks for Attorney General. But Holder really put his foot in his mouth during a speech at the Department of Justice African American History Month.

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."

I suspect that Holder felt he was saying what had to be said based on his experience, but it was particularly ill timed after the election of the first black president. Yes, racism still exists in this country...big time. But Holder's comments did not help one bit. It is going to be read and remarked and rehashed as a slam against whites in this country. It does not appear that was Holder's intent. In the very next sentence in his speech he said:

"Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."

OK, so he is talking about everybody of every race. Fine. But which part of the quote do you think Drudge, Malkin, Limbaugh, and O'Reily will use, the damning "Coward" part or the clarification? Stupid move, Eric. You just threw an underhanded lob and the Righties are going to hit that out of the park, then find the ball and pound it into the pavement. I predict that years from now Right-leaning pundits will still refer to him as "Eric Holder, the Attorney General who called Americans a Nation of Cowards." The right will brand you as a race-baiter forever. And, you know what? You will have deserved it.

After Geitner's rambling, uninspiring bailout speech and Holder's fumble, I think Obama needs to keep his cabinet members away from the microphone.

Great new name for Sarah Palin

Interesting article in the Washington Post about how Palin is faring in her home state. My favorite line...

"One Alaskan GOP legislator calls [Palin] "Dan Quayle with a ponytail..."

The article points out that Palin's biggest problems seems to be getting respect from her own party: "What did I say about her during the campaign when somebody asked me if she was qualified?" asked state Rep. John Harris, taking a moment to ponder his own question, smiling. "Oh, I said something like 'She's old enough and a registered voter.' " Another smile.

Ouch. Talk about damning with faint praise.

Read the entire article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/17/AR2009021703437.html?hpid=topnews

Another Broken Obama Promise

The pile of broken promises is getting larger, and Obama has only been in office a few weeks.

During the campaign, Obama promised to reverse Bush's executive order allowing religious groups who receive money in federally funded "faith-based" programs to discriminate on religious grounds. Obama signed his own executive order revamping the programs, but left out a key change that he had promised to make. During the campaign, Obama promised, “First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use the grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs.” But none of that language found its way into the new executive order. Obama was well aware of that oversight, it seems. As the New York Times pointed out in a recent editorial, Obama signed the order in private. So much for the new openness

Mr. Obama's choice to lead the faith based initiative, Pentecostal Minister Joshua DuBois, said that Obama's executive order allows for a case-by-case review to decide if grants to faith-based organizations are consistent with the law. But without the changes Obama promised, the law still allows a blurring of church and state.

I cannot figure out this broken promise. Obama either doesn't want to piss off religious groups, or doesn't want to piss off the Republicans. But he sure pissed me off. And I am not the only one. Check out this LA Times story about Liberals frustrated with Obama campaign promise amnesia.

Also, PolitiFact has a great ticker that tracks Obama's promises and where they stand.

The Palin Condom

I am speechless.

http://www.thepalincondom.com/

Not sure I could keep it up with this in my Johnson.

Band of Phonies

One cheats and the rest support him. This is a great take on the latest sad chapter of baseball's steroid scandals.

Thanks to Jeff Pearlman for his insights. But rather than vomit his Honey Nut Cheerios (TM), he should get Kelly to give A-Rod a Betchslap.

Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh's pronouncement that he hopes Obama fails has been derided by the left and (to a lesser extent) the right. Heck, even Pat Robertson denounced Rush's comments, and Robertson is a crazy wing-nut of the highest order. But I think I can shed some light on why Rush is like he is.

Rush, above all else, is an entertainer. His job is not to be reasonable, or even correct. His job is to get people to listen to his show. Period. He will be more successful if his audience knows what to expect. His show is not about presenting new ideas. It's about presenting a comfortable sameness on which his listeners can rely.

Years ago, in another lifetime, I was a professional stand-up comedian. One thing I prided myself on was being an expert on the mechanics of comedy. If you look at successful comedians, you will often find that they are one-dimensional characters. Richard Lewis is the "Neurotic Jew". Larry the Cable Guy is the "Redneck Philosopher". Louis Black is the "Angry Guy". The more they stay in character, the more the audience knows what to expect from them, the bigger the laughs. Break character and you lose them. If Larry the Cable Guy tried to do the kind of intellectual humor that, say, Eddie Izzard uses, it would fly in the face of audience expectation and the disconnect would cause the joke to fall flat. The more they stay in character, the less the audience has to think and the more they can just roll with it.

In many ways, Rush is similar to the "Morning Madness Crew" in radio stations all over the country (Bob & Tom, JohnBoy & Billy, or Drew & Bean are the most widely syndicated examples). Their shows are long and they burn up a lot of material. But they can't let up or they lose listeners. Those listeners tune in because they know what to expect. The DJs will be outlandish, mocking and politically incorrect. They can't break off from that format to, say, have a serious discussion about the banking crisis. They would turn off their audience who would turn THEM off. They have to have a consistent character and remain true to it. So it is with Rush.

Rush also bears a striking resemblance to another entertainer of the airwaves...the televangelist. Watch any televangelist show and you will soon hear about some crisis that needs to be addressed - gay marriage, prayer in schools, abortion. There is always a crisis that needs immediate attention. So it is with Rush. In both cases, then try to incense the audience and then engage the audience to act. In the case of the televangelist, the required action is to send money. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, the action is to send letters to Congress. But in both cases the goal is the same - more power for the broadcaster.

Rush Limbaugh has actually become a major force withing the Republican party. This would not have happened if he had thoughtfully weighed the pros and cons of every issue. He got that way be being a dependably shrill, partisan neocon. Saying that he hoped Obama fails gained Rush more listeners, more money, more power (not to mention tons of free PR).

As near as I can tell, Rush is a smart guy. In my heart of hearts, I don't think he believes everything he says. But he has to keep one-upping himself so he can continue to enrage his listeners. I feel the same way about all the pundits on the airwaves. No matter what they are like in private, they have to be one-dimensional caricatures in order to succeed. Don't expect reasonable discourse from talk shows. That would be out of character.

So I understand why Rush is Rush. I still think he is a douchbag of epic proportions. But I understand.

More on Obama

DC Examiner had an interesting take on Obama's "Sunlight before Signing" pledge. You can find it here:

http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/For-Obama-its-more-about-showmanship-than-sunlight-39689777.html

Another campaign promise swept aside.

Speaking of Bill Clinton...

In a recent Today Show interview, Ann Curry asked Bill Clinton if he thought he should take any blame for the current financial crisis. Bill responded, "Oh no... My question to them is: Do any of them seriously believe if I had been president, and my economic team had been in place the last eight years, that this would be happening today? I think they know the answer to that: No." What a preening, self agrandizing turd this man is!

Changes his administration made to the Community Reinvestment Act led to relaxed mortgage rules so that more socially disadvantaged borrowers could qualify for home loans. A major component of the housing bubble bursting was too many people who had mortgages they could not service, and should not have gotten in the first place. That's on Bill.

Then there is the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Glass-Steagall ensured the separation between commercial banks and investment banks. Commercial banks accept deposits, and take a conservative approach. Investment banks accept invest money and take risks, sometimes large risks. When the two merged, the banks realized that there was a high profit in risk, so guess where they put their money? The current banking crisis is a direct result of too many banks putting too much money into risky investments. Had Glass-Steagall remained in place, the conservative commercial banking side would have offset the risky investment banking side and the banks would not be in nearly as much trouble. To be fair, the repeal of Glass-Steagall was authored by Senate by Republicans Phil Gramm and Jim Leach and passed along party lines in both the House and the Senate. But Clinton’s Treasury Secretary,Robert Rubin, had testified in Congress in 1995 that the Clinton Administration was ready to repeal Glass-Steagall, so the administration was complicit in its repeal.

The Guardian recently published an article entitled "Twenty-five people at the heart of the meltdown ...". (Read that article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/26/road-ruin-recession-individuals-economy). Clinton was the third person named. Perhaps not the third most culpable, but not innocent either.

So, to answer Bill's question of "Do any of them seriously believe if I had been president, and my economic team had been in place the last eight years, that this would be happening today?" My answer is, "Yes, without a doubt."

Clinton's denials only add to his legacy as a double-talking, self-serving hack of the highest order. He should join the GOP, because he would fit right in with the current crop.

Losing Hope

As the last election was drawing near, I found myself being hopeful. I was more convinced that Barak Obama would win the election, ending eight years of what I considered the worst presidential administration in my lifetime. Bush was leaving, either way, and even McCain was better in comparison (if only slightly). But I found myself encouraged that Obama could really change the course our country was on. After Obama won, I was impressed with how quickly he assembled his cabinet, and how much he spoke about the financial crisis and other issues of the day, even though he was still months from taking office. Perhaps this guy is different from all the other politicians. Perhaps he could rise above the fray. Then I remembered the last politician I felt hopeful about...Bill Clinton.

It was not unusual for a president to abandon some campaign pledges once they get into office. But Clinton developed amnesia. He promises to cut 100,000 bureaucrat jobs and put 100,000 more police on the streets. He promised to increase funding for AIDS research. He promised a jobs program. It was not long before I realized that this guy was not the shining knight I had expected. He was a political opportunist, just like the rest of them. I could not really blame Bill any more than I could blame the guy dealing three-card monte...conning is just what they do.

My initial enthusiasm was soon replaced by cynicism. In the end, the Monica Lewinsky affair was just another bizarre chapter of a presidency that operated from polling data rather than a firm moral compass. When I heard Clinton respond, "...it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" I realized the full depth of my gullibility. I was ashamed that I had once allowed myself to be enthralled with this self-serving, weasel. Rather than admit he screwed up and move on, his ego allowed the country to get mired in the shit. And I had actually admired the guy once - what a fool I was.

No presidential candidate from Clinton on pierced the armor of my cynicism for the next 12 years. They all sounded the same. And any that seemed like they might actually have something to offer turned out to be just another vote whore once you got to know them. Then came Obama.

Obama always caught my eye because he taught at my Alma Mater, The University of Chicago, one of the top ten universities in the world. He was thoughtful and articulate. He was consistent with his message and his positions. And the idea of a black man being elected president would say so much about how far we have come as a people that I got excited despite myself. Yes we can, and all that.

But the moment of excitement is over. He is no longer a symbol, he is an actual working president. He has been in office long enough that we can start to scrutinize his actions. And I am getting that uneasy feeling again. Obama announced new rules that lobbyists cannot join the agency they have been lobbying, then he immediately breaks that rule. He promised the troops would leave Iraq within 18 months and that date has already slipped to 24 months. And despite the lack of Republican cooperation, I think he could have done a lot more to create bipartisan cooperation. I sure hope I didn't fall for another smooth talking campaigner. I would only have myself to blame.