As many of you know, President-elect Barack Obama has selected retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki to be the next Veterans Affairs secretary. The PE made the announcement on NBC's Meet the Press. Shinseki is the first Asian American in U.S. history to be a four-star general and, if confirmed, to lead the VA.

For a detailed bio click here.

As AP reports:

Gen. Shinseki is the former Army chief of staff who upset his civilian bosses in 2003 when he testified to Congress that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the U.S. invasion. He was forced out of his job within months for being "wildly off the mark." But his words proved prophetic after President George W. Bush in early 2007 announced a "surge" of additional troops to Iraq after miscalculating.

To be little more specific, On February 25, 2003, four months before the end of his term as Chief of Staff of the Army, Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he thought an occupying force of several hundred thousand men would be needed to stabilize postwar Iraq. The highly decorated General was truly the first esteemed figure is high office to speak publicly against the adminstration's war strategy .  Below is a video excerpt from his testimony:

This is great choice and a notable reflection of Obama's judgement and intelligence. On an emotional level, this is a plain and simple F U to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bush and years of Iraq policy. This is good news for progressives, more importantly great news for the country.

Further Reading:

New Iraq Strategy Vindicates Ex-Army Chief Shinseki

Shorter Bio

General Critical of Iraq War Is V.A. Chief Pick

Stop reading this for a minute and go read Bill Ayers' column in today's NY Times because it reminds us how empty our political campaigns are which, in turn, explains how the country has been led into the hole into which we are falling. Because the guy we wanted to have a beer with instead of the thoughtful, but maybe boring guy who windsurfs, or the other thoughtful but boring guy who sighs deeply when forced to debate such an imbecile, turned out to be so grossly incompetent we elected the more qualified candidate this time, but the campaign was no different than 2000, 2004 and every other one in recent memory.

Read more »

Clarence Thomas. What can I say about this man. When Bush 41 appointed him, I thought 41 was being cynical. I believe Justice Marshall, from all outside appearances felt Thomas did not measure up to the bench. After all drama during the confirmation, I really came to dislike him more than a person should be allowed to dislike another person. His judicial philosophy is vindictive at best. David Souter and I believe the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed this silly case.

Poor Ol' Clarence Thomas, what a big time asshole!

   Vultures sat around the table. The head vulture of the coven spoke up...

"We have heard of followers, friends and fellow citizens losing their dwellings. The predatory practices approved by the Empire have taken their toll. Now they are living on the street amongst the rot and the filth, with friends and relatives who cannot keep them long, or left to survive beneath abandoned; broken down chariots, left behind by soldiers. They are even being rousted from underneath the rotted carcasses of Roman chariots. My father has spoken to me, 'It's all their myself-damned fault,' he hath said. So let us collect our resources and buy their abodes on the cheap: for it is written: 'let the least amongst us; those who have just lost the most, pull themselves up by their own sandal straps.' Now, onto further matters: one of you will betray me..."

    Nothing could be farther from the truth, right?

    Well, given those who believe God would absolutely approve over reactions to abortion that leads to murder, nailing Gays to fences in Texas, misrepresenting Terry Schiavos condition for political gain...

    Anyone want to bet when these ads encouraging us to take advantage of someone's misfortune by buying their houses on the cheap come on TV, these folks are the first to call "1-800 take advantage2day?"

"And the Lord said, as his followers chimed in, 'Me! Me! When people lose their homes it's all about me and what it will do for... me!!!'"

    And where are all the protests, or "Christian" concern, about the soon to be homeless? Or the predatory practices? Or the 33% rates, driven up at the drop of a feather for damn near any reason; accurate or not? Recently I shoved Chase off the nearest cliff by paying it all. I called and pointed out that my wife; who was responsible for that bill, had been paying our card on time for many years. I told them if they would drop the impossible to pay off percentage from a whopping 34%: just a hair, I would not drop them. The first thing I heard was, "No, you don't qualify." After arguing proved as fruitless as it always does with the greedy, the second thing, the third, the fourth and the fifth things I heard were relayed by several return calls and mailouts... as they plummeted downward like Wiley to the desert floor, "Apply again and we'll drop it nnnnnnnnoooooooooooowwwwwwwww...."

    I won't have anything to do with Chase. Well, that's not quite accurate. I won't... except when that classic vehicle for legalized extortion, Uncle Sam, points his tax weapon at me and says, "Give to the rich and greedy with your taxes now!"

    Is that the sound of another bailout for big business I hear? "Big business," who along with the government, either says, "screw you" to the little guy, or "you don't qualify?"

    And does any of this "qualify" as, "Christian?"

    Hardly. Especially not when it comes to purchasing houses on the cheap due to disgusting lending practices.

"Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas: now get the hell out of your home and don't let the door slam you on what looks a lot like our idea of being 'Christian."

    It is claimed Jesus rode in on an ass. Well today all he would need to do is saddle up one of these self centered gleebs, though their braying might be a bit more bothersome. "A bit?" I under estimate.

    There is little doubt amongst biblical scholars that the disciples shared their meager resources, and some might even consider that to have been a mini-version of socialism, though on a very tiny scale. Considering various teachings and the tipping of tables, one could make the case that today's version of capitalism would seem evil to them. But that's not fair. It was a different time. And if we could hear comments made by people in the distant future... it's as unfair for them to judge us for who they have become, as it is for us to judge people in the distant past for who we are now. People of the distant past simply were not around long enough to affect all the changes that turned us into who were are now.

    But, going back to the time of Jesus, we do know that "usury" was strictly defined and it is very hard to make the following case...

He who had "Christ" stapled to the end of his name, and also had his first name altered from something more resembling "Joshua," would support the actions of people who claim to follow Christ, yet act like vultures. Or would be anything but disgusted by their sneering at the homeless while using the misfortune of the recent homeless to their own advantage.

    No, I think Christ would have wanted us to help them; or at least not facilitate the seizure and sale.

    I'm fairly sure he would consider such "followers" like I do: humans with less ethics than an over eager vulture. I often surmise some forms of Christianity have little to do with Christ, and more to do with a personal need to use the good name of its founder to excuse whatever one wants to do. I know that's a harsh assessment, but history has plenty of examples to provide; including Hitler.

"Gott mit Uns"

    While the man referred to as "Jesus" may have tipped a few tables in his time...

    He went on to no bloody, brutal Crusades, though it could be claimed he was the victim of a specific "crusade" led by certain members of the contemporary Jewish clergy of the time; assisted somewhat reluctantly by the Roman Empire.

    He fought no holy wars.

     ...or made excuses for those who bomb or shoot clinic workers, nailed no one to any cross-like fence, went great distances to make political hay out of one families personal tragedy...

    ...and suggested torturing no one: or went out of his way to shift the definition of torture so he might claim he will 'rid the world of all evil...'"

    ...or took advantage of those tossed out of their own abodes.

   I think we indeed know what Jesus would have done. And it wasn't that. So while their actions may be legal; their very Christianity is at doubt. Not that they care, or won't always find some excuse to claim otherwise. That's what the very kind of people Jesus railed against do. And probably will do until the Sun goes nova, a rock hits the Earth or some other flavor of Armageddon is offered up by life's Fickled Finger of Fate...

    ...one "flavor" of life's sometimes toxic, sometimes pleasing, metaphorical ice cream that Howard Johnsons never got around to offering, thank God. Hopefully I won't be around to taste that flavor. But I'm just unchristian enough to wish many of those who helped take advantage of those losing their homes are.

                                                           -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

With all due respect to Caroline Kennedy's wealth, privilege

and unearned celebrity.  She doesn't even reside in NY.

Why is the NY senate seat a bon-bon for a dowager who

played it safe, never held a job, and now expects NY to fall 

all over itself to give meaning to her life?

Her appointment will send a clear message to NY children:

America is a monarchy.

Work hard all your life, and grovel to royalty.

12/10/08 Update: I learned yesterday that the National Republican Trust PAC did provide the names of individuals who contributed more than $5 million on FEC Form 3X  filed on 11/20. The information, however, was not provided on the Post-General Report filed on 12/4.

Remember the  "Reverend Wright Hates America" and "Obama Hearts Mohammed Atta" ads that ran continously on national television through Election Day?  A month later, the voters still don't know who paid for two of the sleaziest ads of the entire campaign.

The National Republican Trust PAC's much-anticipated Post-General Report was posted on the FEC website yesterday and it's a doozy. The NRT PAC failed to report more than $5 million in individual contributions made between 10/15 and 11/13.

During that four-week period, the NRT PAC filed 24-Hour Contribution Notices in which it reported spending more than $5.3 million for media buys despite having only $205k in cash on hand on 10/15.  

Who gave the NRT PAC more than $5 million in less than three weeks? We still don't know!

The NRT PAC did report total contributions of $11.2 million of which $5.4 million is unitemized. Of the $5.7 million reported as itemized, the NRT PAC only reported the names of individuals who contributed $607k

At Room 8, I raised the question here and here as to whether the National Republican Trust PAC is linked to the same right wing extremists who distributed 28 million dvd copies of the anti-Muslim film, "Obsession: Radical Islam's War On The West" in September.

I also posted info about the NRT PAC here at Talking Points Memo. (Read the comments.)

More to come.

Update: If anyone thinks National Republican Trust PAC treasurer, Peter Leitner, made an unintentional reporting error, read page 5 of the FEC's Reporting Dates guide :

Report: Post-General
Period Covered: October 16 to November 24
Filing Deadline: December 4

The FEC could not be any more clear about the reporting requirement yet Peter Leitner only filed information for the period between November 14 and November 24.

Mistake, my foot.

Yes, the rules say that the governor gets to fill senate vacancies like the one we're about to have here in New York.  But in this case, I really think that New York needs a special election.  Governor David Paterson wasn't elected to his post.  I voted for Eliot Spitzer, not him and I'm not convinced that, had Paterson been the gubernatorial candidate in 2006, that I'd have supported him.

The rumor now is that Paterson will appoint Caroline Kennedy to Hillary's seat.  I know she's popular in the party but she hasn't done anything to convince me that she should be my representative in the senate.  If she ran in a special election as the Democratic nominee I'd likely vote for her, but let's see.  Let's have her make the case.  If anyone would care to tell me why Caroline Kennedy is qualified for the post, please do.  Aside from her last name, I don't see what makes her so special.  I don't think that somebody should get to be my senator just by dint of membership in a moneyed political dynasty.

Having both a governor and a senator who haven't been elected just isn't acceptable and allowing the unelected governor to choose the unelected senator without any input from the people is just ludicrous.

So what is it about these short lists for cabinet positions? Since when has being short been seen as a virtue and tall as a disqualifier? Was this something Robert Reich started? Is Obama worried about competition? In any case I think it should stop. People can be qualified whether they're tall or not, and I look forward to the day when an openly tall person can hold office without being...er... looked down on by his or her fellow public servants.

Why should we throw bags of money at people who got a whole industry into a deep hole? Why not simply nationalize the companies we intend to bail out, steer them through the near-bankruptcy experience and then re-privatize them? What's so wrong with this?

Please copy the following address to see the picture.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ruoS7PzRM-I/STTo75HmYOI/AAAAAAAAAEc/eO-wZG0PZsA/s320/t2.bmp

1. Draw water up as a doctor does medicine with a syringe by valve A, meantime valve B open, valve C closed.

2. Let the water in the cylinder out. (valve B closed, valve C open)

3. Press valve A to the cylinder bottom, close valve C, open valve B.

4. Recycle the operation continually. 

The experiment suggests E1=W(up)=G(water)h(1m),
E2=W(down)=G(water)H(9m),

The energy we get should be: E=E2-E1-W(other waste).
E2=9E1; W(other waste)=E1/1000

SleepinJeezus

Dissociated Press

December 5, 2008

 

(Cairo, Egypt) The Khan Al-Khalili Bazaar has been abuzz recently with reports about the construction of a massive new Pyramid at Giza. Tourists returning from visits to the burial place of the Pharaohs have told of thousands of workers toiling day and night on a building site whose footprint looks to dwarf any of the others ever established at this location.

 

Rumors have circulated regarding the funding of and the purpose for this major undertaking. Tales of international drug warlords or terrorists creating a secure compound have been common, as have stories about Middle East oil barons constructing their own tomb in the desert, much as the famous Pharaohs did before them.

 

Rumors flew anew this week when U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was seen in the bazaar at Cairo negotiating for the services of a number of camel caravans. When asked by reporters, Paulson claimed that the pyramid project at Giza was indeed part of a public works project to be funded from $700 billion in taxpayer monies as approved by the United States Congress.

 

"At first, we considered using this money to offload our bad investments in derivatives and replace them with cold hard cash," claimed Paulson, obviously referring to himself and the coterie of Wall Street bankers who accompanied him to Cairo. "This became untenable, however, when demands were made that we submit to oversight and otherwise account for the monies to be spent. When Congress then went so far as to ask for assurance that this transfer of funds would somehow fix their problems with the economy, we decided to move to Plan B."

 

It seems that Congress and the treasury were at odds over the objectives behind this cash outlay. Fortunately, according to Treasury Dept. experts, House Banking Committee Chair Barney Frank left some room in which to maneuver, saying it was Congress' intent for these funds to be used either within the financial sector or to otherwise be injected into the economy at large to help bolster the economy and limit the damage caused by the recession. Congressman Frank pointed out that most economists agreed that getting additional capital into the hands of consumers or into public works projects that provided jobs could alleviate some of the downward pressure in the economy. According to a Treasury spokesperson, "Secretary Paulson simply picked up the ball from there and ran with it."

 

"Our 'Plan B' effort to determine ways in which this $700 billion could be spread among us to increase consumer spending was not fruitful at first," claimed Paulson when asked about this new direction. "After all, one can purchase only so many mansions and yachts and private jets and gold bathroom fixtures and stock options and undocumented household help before such spending becomes redundant and wasteful.

 

"Fortunately, after many high level meetings convened among my fellow Masters of the Universe it was determined that in fact the one consumer item that none of us possessed and could perhaps use most would be a burial site that was worthy of our station in life when the time comes to meet our maker. As responsible consumers, we therefore settled upon the construction of this monument to free market capitalists as perhaps the greatest public works project since the WPA and the New Deal."

 

Specific features of the pyramid under construction are impressive. It is expected to require as many as a half million workmen to complete, working day and night for the next twenty five years - "hopefully providing good jobs for so long as it takes to overcome this recession," according to Paulson. These men are reportedly conscripted from the lesser tribes of Africa, although some considerable number are U.S. ex-pats that were formerly employed as auto workers.

 

When completed, this pyramid is expected to be half-again as large as the Great Pyramid at Giza, yet will be located in such a way as to not cast a shadow on what is presently the largest and most historic monument to Cheops that is presently on the site. "We wouldn't wish to diminish the light cast upon this other, most impressive monument which stands as a testament to the greatness of our predecessors," claims Paulson.

 

When asked how much the building of the pyramid will cost, Paulson responded that it is expected to cost $700 billion. When asked to further explain how this estimate was determined, the financial expert said the $700 billion figure was chosen because "it was a big number."

 

Paulson was also asked about spending these funds overseas when it seems apparent that Congress intended this money to be used to assist the domestic economy.

 

"Believe me, we tried to get this thing built in Cleveland and therefore provide stimulus here at home," said Paulson. "And although there is presently plenty of unemployed laborers thereabouts to get the job done, they are simply not competitive with the workers we can employ here at Giza. It's a global economy, after all, and it's time in this free market for the U.S. worker to suck it up and make the concessions necessary to become competitive with their foreign counterparts."

 

Paulson went on to point out that the Giza circumstance not only provides a freedom from having to deal with any sort of labor agreements, but also provides benefit wherein any disrespectful complaints about wages or working conditions or chains and shackles can be easily addressed with the application of whips and even beheadings, if required.

 

"It makes for a very productive workforce," claims Paulson "and our human resource cost per unit is arguably as low as anything I've seen. The American investor is therefore getting the biggest bang for his buck, and we are providing jobs along with the most effective stimulus possible to get this economy once again headed in the right direction."

 

Congress is expected to hold hearings soon to learn more about Paulson's bailout plan for the economy. The "Pyramid at Giza for Guilded Geezers" project is expected to gain approval, although some members of the leadership are expected to seek some few concessions, such as an inclusion of a separate burial chamber that will appropriately honor key legislators.

 

Meanwhile, Paulson says we can look forward to plenty of opportunities to contribute tax dollars to additional stimulus projects in the future "for at least as long as the money holds out." Last seen leaving a palm reader's booth at the bazaar, the Treasury Secretary smiled broadly and gave the thumb's up when asked what the future held. "It's all good!" claimed the affable public servant before climbing aboard his own private "ship of the desert," destined for a visit to the site of his final resting place in the sun..

 

COMING UP IN THE BUSINESS PAGES: "Taj Mahal Purchased, Renovated as Headquarters and Flagship for Krewl Grewl International, Inc."

To say that things have gotten absurd is an understatement. There isn't a word for how things have gotten since the only one who knows this word is GOD. But let me tell ya' if he/she/it ain't laughing his/her/it ass off right not he/she/it should be.

What kind of species creates an artificial construct entirely of its own then elevates its importance over and above itself--the construct being money? The human species created money. The human species can do away with it and isn't it all becoming a little ridiculous, this thing with money? I mean, this thing with money could annihilate the entire planet making the obsession even more, ok, inane. (God, is this the word you would use? INANE?).

Imagine a world without money and currency. Go ahead. Take the leap. "How could this possibly work?" you say clutching your wallet in both hands. Now, hang on to your Gucci because this is really going to blow you away. Here is how it would work: everyone would get what they need. Again. Everyone would get what they need. Everyone would be guarenteed a shelter, food, health care (gasp), and transportation. The dying person in Dafur right now? This person would get all of this and how barbaric that this person does not get all this now. You see, money leads to barbarism, lack of compassion, empathy...Money is barbaric.

Even more barbaric is charging people for what they need to live--like for food. For health care, for getting around. For being human. We live on a planet that charges people money because they were born. Because they are alive. You pay. This is all a part of the elevation of a human-created construct over human decency and welfare and it's well, sick. Very sick.

Ok Ok you say. But go on about how this would work.

Everyone gets what they need. Whatever you own right now, you keep. Your house. Your car. Boat. It's yours.

What about hoarding you ask?

Yes, intially there would be hoarding but then it would strike people as incredibly stupid to hoard since anyone can attain what they need anyway. Why would you hoard 8 cars if you can have 8 cars anytime? If you can have anything you want, where is the incentive to hoard, rob, kill, steal, cheat, bomb, shoot, threaten, connive...Without money, much of the things that make us kill one another and kill the planet (climate change) would be totally eliminated.

The government that hoards the money while their own citziens starve to death...well, this would make no sense without money.

We have enough material crap that we could get a little to anyone who wants it. The person dying in Dafur would get a place to live. Would get food. Human love and generosity would finally be totally and completely released. We could finally be kind to one another, help one another, care for one another because this barrier we put up to divide us from ourselves would be completely and totally GONE.

There will come a time, possibly right before the planet dies, when money will be abandoned because our obsession with it will just become impossible to maintain. It will suddenly look really really stupid to shoot someone for their money. We also will not be able to afford planetary death. Climate change, all these disasters, population growth...we are going to price ourselves out of existence at some point and we will not be able to afford money any more. If we do not eliminate money deliberately and replace it with a more humane system, it will happen anyway. Inevitably.

The financial collapse has made us all see how pathetic we are as a species. That the best minds are NOT making the best decisions. That the human species may in fact deserve to go extinct. That chasing this crazy thing we created called money is killing us all. It's killing the planet.

As Carl Sagan pointed out, the tragedy of the human species is it has evolved the capacity for foresight but refuses to use it. Can we use it now? Do we have the fortitude and courage to use it now? The answer will determine the future of the entire world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny.  Not funny ha-ha, funny strange.

After allowing my mind to wander down the trails of youth, gleefully embracing how it felt to be a kid - I'm stumped.  After all, the next reasonable step toward enlightenment would be to rediscover being a grown-up ... right?  The joys and pleasures.  The spectacular moments that astounded, the gentle ones that warmed.  Basically, what made rounding that corner of the unknown worthwhile.  My childhood is over.  Yet, I will be an adult until I die.

It just seems much harder to find the same fascination. 

Read more »

As is reported here:

In the hardest hit states, those
not in a negative equity position
have very little equity remaining
given the current data. This is why
the all-important move-up buyers
are non-existent and over half of
the homes sold are from the
foreclosure stock.

With lending tightened to such a
large degree, sizable down payments
are now required to attain the best
financing. Ideally, a buyer wants
to extract this and all other
purchase expenses through the sale
of the property.  However, with the
median Loan-to-Value's in the
bubble states being so high there
is not enough left over from the
proceeds to pay a real estate
agent, put a down payment on the
new property and cover all of the
other costs associated with
moving.  People are stuck in their
properties unable to move or
refinance.

and here

Nearly one in three Florida
mortgage borrowers owed more on
their loans than their homes were
worth in the third quarter,
according to First American
CoreLogic of Santa Ana, Calif.
About 1.2-million of Florida's
4.2-million mortgages - 29.2
percent - were upside down. If home
prices dip 5 percent, nearly
200,000 more Florida borrowers
would slip under water. Despite
rising foreclosures and job losses,
most homeowners will hunker down
and continue to make mortgage
payments, said Sam Khater, senior
economist at First American
CoreLogic. But negative equity
destabilizes the market. More than
7.5-million properties nationwide
have negative equity. New York had
the lowest rate at 7 percent,
followed by Hawaii at 8 percent and
Pennsylvania at 9 percent.

The mortgage crisis and the economic disaster it helped
to create is far from over. If anything it will only get worse.
So pay not attention to that treasury secretary behind the
curtain. He can throw money at the banks from now until
doomsday and it will have precious little effect.

Until the housing market becomes stable again, the economic
situation will improve little.

C

"...the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."

From:

UNDER THE AXE OF FASCISM

GAETANO SALVEMINI
Former Professor of History at the University of Florence
Visiting Professor, Harvard University
Visiting Professor, Yale University

The Viking Press New York
1936

Nervy old coot. Ended up exiled, and opposing Mussolini, etcetera.

And yet, here we are; again, again.

How do we negotiate this problem?:

"Democracy has lost its spirit and decayed into a mechanism which insists only on numerical superiority without considering the essence of human beings. It says the majority is all good. I do not agree, because it is the majority which is the precise cause of contemporary decadence." -- Nakano Seigo

Fascism, it seems, is strictly dangerous. Unless, like in the present case of massive bailouts, it is not. Does this make me, or anyone else, a hypocrite? The willingly ignorant? The loyal opposition? Or someone with no real choice in the process, and a (willing?!?) victim?

I'd tend to strictly limit the thing to which I apply Nakano Seigo's words; and twist them out of all recognition. I'd focus on the "...numerical superiority..." and "...majority...", and apply it strictly to the "...too big to fail..." problem presented by the collapse of the financial institutions. Elsewhere, people are asking "Why do schools hold bake sales, and the Pentagon does not?" or more locally "Why are billions being tossed at banks but not at schools, or healthcare, or investment in an R&D infrastructure?" (Unless you can tell me how else to describe the capture of a democratic process by monied interests.)

Those with the gold make the rules, that's why. It seems to me that is the biggest impediment to negotiating the problem of individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right now. How many lifetimes could be supported, spent entirely at leisure, by the money spent, thus far, on these bailouts? I have no idea; and lack the tools to successfully measure such a thing; but no one is asking that type of question, it seems to me. I suspect it would be a huge number of lifetimes.

The personal danger? A willingness to turn a blind eye to the possible underside of the Hope theme, of how we can transform ^D^D NO CARRIER.

How close is it to believing that a New Man or New Woman can be created by serving the state in its moment of crisis? Take a look at the number of crises, and their global distribution.

Clearly, it seem to me, we need as U.S. citizens to emphasize our global nature: we are citizens of the planet, first. Second, we are citizens of the fifty states. The latter can be a useful notion. But how do we negotiate with every other such entity, also occupying the planet? The last time such entities globally grappled with renewal, also facing global financial ruin ISTM, some very insalubrious events occurred.

Those people, our not-distant ancestors, did not have things like Global warming to complicate the mix; and while they were wrong about the possibility of "eternal expansion" across the face of the planet (perhaps arguably, at least their imagination did not lack, but was merely incorrect), it seems to me that our species will not have recourse to that placebo; not this time. We're stuck facing each other across a known geography.

How close to the insalubrious aspects of fascism is the question "Anyone up for a New Economy?"

Huffington says that Caroline Kennedy is considering taking Clinton's Senate seat.

Yes.  Definitely, yes.

Kennedy for President 2016

Is there something wrong with being RIGHT about everything that has gone on with this economy over the past decade and more? Is there something wrong with not only endorsing Obama during the primaries but actually being more than qualified for a top level job? Is there something wrong with being a progressive economist (and trust me, I am someone who is staunchly against anyone getting mad about someone not being a "dyed-in-the-wool" progressive)? Is there something  wrong with winning a Nobel Prize in Economics?

 

 

I hear that Summers and Stiglitz can't stand each other's guts. Oh well, suck it up and get to work. I think Obama's team is fantastic both in Economics and Foreign Policy but I truly hope we hear this name in the coming weeks with a spot in an Obama administration (that new council headed by Paul Adolph Volcker would be an alright spot to place him in). I won't say I would be mad or anything of the sort if he isn't. I will just be a bit...................suprised

Jerry Nadler, or someone on his staff, has a sense of humor.

 

The Amendment he proposes would limit the pardon power of the Executive to acts not commissioned by the Executive him- or herself. And since what are pardoned are by definition crimes, that means the President cannot make him- or herself out to be a criminal (an interesting variation on the theme of the Fifth Amendment).

 

 

 

 

 

Read more »

During Obama's run, I followed events closely on the internet and greatly enjoyed communicating with TPM's community.  Inspired by Obama's creative use of the internet, I'll try to swing my election through the cyber crowd. 

Recently, my buddy submitted my recipe for fajita brats to a Johnsonville Brats contest.  We were one of 10 semi-finalists to receive two Green Bay Packers game tickets and to participate in pre-game judging.  We have made the finals and the winner is decided by internet vote.

Take a moment, please, and visit this page:

http://jsonline.upickem.net/engine/Votes.aspx?contestid=4250

Vote for the Fajita Brats (lower left recipe) by clicking the radio button and clicking the Save Vote button. You can zoom in to read the recipe.  In the video photo, my buddy Jeff is wearing the #66 Nitsche jersey and I'm standing to his left.  We're standing on Johnsonville's semi-truck grill truck outside Lambeau Field.  Sorta like standing outside the Pearly Gates.

I've never begged for recommendations before, but I now realize that one tosses his pride out the window during an election.  Give me a rec and take a moment to vote.  In these troubled economic times, I promise "Two Brats in Every Pot!"     

  

 

OJay is a very, very bad man.  In 1994 I refused to watch cable news.  It was nuts.  Every goddamn day the murderer was on. To say that the trial was a circus is simplistic gibberish and a cliche', but how better to typify it?

He won on the standard of 'Reasonable Doubt' and he proceeded years later to lose on a standard of a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Now he will be imprisoned, at the age of 61, for a minimum of 9 years, and I would peg it at 15.
Who cares?  The coverage has made it clear, by letting the judge talk, that everything was on video and audio.  Guns were drawn.

OJay proceeds to tell the judge that he had no idea he was doing anything wrong. blah, blah, blah.

The judge was superb in meeting out the sentence and goodby OJay. The funniest part of the news coverage today was the interview with OJay's attorneys.  "He could have done a lot worse."  I laugh now as I write it.

But my post has little to do with all of this.  On Hardball today, Chris and a couple of talk radio people, reasonable radio people all came to the following conclusion about OJay:


"I look at OJ and I think he was surrounded by too many sycophants. I think he was not that smart. I think he was and is incapable of feeling guilt or remorse. I do not think he was ever challenged intellectually." 

If you had turned onto Hardball at that exact moment.  Who would you think they were tallking about?

This statement is exactly what I think about w. I think our President for eight years was:


I look at w and I think he was surrounded by too many sycophants.  And evil people seeking power. I think he was not that smart. I think he was and is incapable of feeling guilt or remorse. I do not think he was ever challenged intellectually.

What better way to describe the worst president since Coolidge?


 

At the zoo, that is.

There were <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2008/12/the-note-120508.html">rumors</a> floating around earlier today that Caroline Kennedy might be selected to replace Hillary Clinton as New York's next Senator.  I am among the many who have a really high opinion of Caroline Kennedy and would be delighted to see her get the nod. 

When Hillary first ran for the Senate, one of New York's longstanding US representatives, Nita Lowey, also very sharp, more or less was elbowed out of the way according to the accounts I've seen.  She'd be an outstanding choice as well.

 

For those of you, like me, whose lives have been impacted by this disease you will appreciate the stories from these 8 patients. 

Unfortunately, my family has recently been introduced to this disease.  How this person has coped with his diagnosis is nothing short of heroic. 

The drug costs for multiple sclerosis treatment are skyrocketing.  So much so that many insurance companies are no longer able to cover them. 

For those of you who know little about multiple sclerosis and are looking for a cause to crusade for, you should consider devoting some of your resources to multiple sclerosis research and awareness.  Multiple sclerosis affects women at roughly 3 times the rate of men.

If you feel so called, please visit the Multiple Sclerosis Society website.

.

There are moments in life that crystalize your sense of identity and other moments that make you question whether your tongue functions and whether you've remembered your name correctly. Some people are more prone to these affirmations and lapses, people like me, and Barack Obama. 

I mean who is Barack Obama, really? And for that matter, who am I? Once upon a time in the West, these questions were easier to answer: colored or not colored. This was the case in Ohio, too, and elsewhere I'm told. So, please, I'm not singling out the West. As far as aggressive discrimination goes, I regard it much higher, in its discrimination against gays and non-celebrities, just so we're clear. 

Those were simpler times. Frightening and nationally embarrassing times, but simpler. You knew who you were, or at the very least, what you were told you were. Shades of gray were found only on film and in George Wallace's suits. We are no longer provided the luxury of distinction between black and white. 

As you may recall, a Presidential election in which the candidate's race was a famous issue, of famous for not being an issue, depending on who you talk to, was recently held. Not in dispute is the national catharsis we all felt when the results were announced. For a moment we all knew again, who we were and why we cheered. All of us sincere, all of us different. Those were simpler times. 

Al Qaida is a terrorist organization of some note, famous for, among other things, being very difficult for Republican's to catch. After Barack Obama's election, their second in command called our President Elect a "house negro". This is a loaded term. Malcom X, Al Qaida and the Huffington Post so inform me, used the term to describe slaves that lived in their master's houses, implying that they, and by extension contemporary  black leaders that got along with whites, were more servile than the slaves in the field or the foot soldiers of the speaker's movement. The terrorist said the term should be applied to Secretary of State Rice and General Powell, as well. 

I doubt anybody's feelings were particularly hurt by the terrorist's insult. Sticks and suicide bombs, after all. I recommend taking his words with a grain of salt. He's not know for being fair minded. 

In fact, I shouldn't be writing this story, or even discussing his diatribe, because, by doing so I give him a platform. So please, forgive me. I trust that you won't be influenced. If I'm wrong about that, about you being influenced, please don't tell me, and don't for the love of god tell anyone, ever. In fact, just kill yourself, and do something good for someone else, for once in your life. 

I shouldn't be writing this story, but it's frankly got something stuck in my craw. The terrorist used that slur to point out his affiliation with oppressed minorities of color. He said Barack is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans", which, apparently the terrorist counts himself among. Again, forgive me for printing that. 

That terrorist is a white man. He's a white. Osama bin Laden: white man. Saddam Hussein: white man. Andy Rooney: white man. Steven Van Haren: white man. My Indian mother: white. She's the kind that might have ridden an elephant, during childhood, had she not been so adorably short. 

Believe me, I understand that classification of people by race is arbitrary, socially constructed, and unscientific. We've all got a lot in common. But, the last, if ridiculous, categorization of race places Middle Eastern terrorists, and for that matter, South Asian and Oklahoman terrorists, firmly in the caucasian branch of the vastly overgeneralized tree that is race. 

This is  a stupid reason to be mad. I should be mad that anyone would give this wacko a stage, and I am. I should be mad that anybody could talk that way, and I am. I should be mad about a lot of things, and I am. 

I just want you to know that racially, you (most of my readers are white) are more closely related to Al Qaida terrorists than our President. And so am I. And if I ever hear a white person call someone a house negro, again, I am going to find them and take away their Mac Book Air, then make the watch as, one by one, I delete all of their Feist tracks off of iTunes. Also, if you are from Al Qaida, I will kill you without discretion. You have been warned. 

Cross-posted at Blue Jersey.

High-quality, affordable healthcare is not a luxury - it is both a necessity and a right.  In Congress, I'm fighting so everyone has access to the medicine and care they deserve. And when it comes to this right, the health of our children should be our top priority.  That's why I was proud to help create the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) over ten years ago.  Today, CHIP provides health care coverage to six million children nationwide who would otherwise be uninsured.

Still, we must do better.  Yesterday, I read an editorial in the Star Ledger highlighting a recent report by Families USA which touched upon the 267,000 uninsured children here in New Jersey.  This comes on the heels of the Asbury Park Press recently reporting 1.3 million people in our state living without health insurance.   Stark facts like these serve as glaring reminders that it is time to finally expand CHIP - which here in New Jersey is known as FamilyCare.  

Over the past two years, as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, I worked hard to make sure we passed legislation expanding and strengthening CHIP so that we could cover 10 million low-income children.  

Unfortunately, President Bush blocked our efforts, not once, but twice.  He vetoed legislation giving states the resources they needed to both maintain current enrollment levels and add an additional four million children to the rolls of the insured.  Instead of working cooperatively with Congress to develop a bipartisan compromise that would build CHIP up for future generations of children, President Bush set out to completely tear it down.  
 
But now hope is on the way.  In just 46 days, our nation will turn the page on the past eight years and the constant struggle to convince the President of the importance of health care will be a thing of the past.  With Barack Obama as our new President, we will finally have a willing, enthusiastic partner in the White House committed to protecting the health of our children and all Americans.

Still, these will be trying times, as day after day we witness signs that our national economy is falling further into a recession and hard working families are feeling the impact. 

Millions of people who have lost their jobs may also lose their health care coverage in the process.  A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that each time we have a single point increase in the national unemployment rate, Medicaid and CHIP enrollment goes up by one million people as well. Such a change would increase state spending by some $1.4 billion at a time when states are already struggling to balance their budgets.  Moreover, due to shrinking state revenues, states may cut coverage and restrict new enrollment, just when our families - especially our children - need our help most.  Now more than ever, we must make sure that we protect our nation's health care safety net for those families that fall on hard times.  

Earlier this year, I introduced a bill to temporarily increase federal funding for Medicaid to help states like New Jersey make sure they can continue providing health care coverage during this economic downturn.  Without these extra funds states may be forced to reduce eligibility or cut back on critical services just when our friends and families need help the most.  A similar provision was included in the recovery package the House passed in September, that is now stalled in the Senate. 

As the next Congress works to craft a new economic recovery package for January, I will fight to make sure that more funding for Medicaid is included. Because, in this time of great economic uncertainty, I believe we should be promoting policies and programs that provide our families the relief they need.  

Furthermore, short-term increases in federal Medicaid payments are a proven strategy for stimulating the economy.  When Congress passed a similar provision in 2003, New Jersey received $169 million in additional Medicaid payments.  Those funds generated $380 million in new economic activity, $132 million in new wages, and nearly 3400 new jobs. 

Yes, this is a time of great challenge.  But it is also a time of great opportunity.  With our expanded majorities in Congress and with a partner in the White House committed to healthcare for all Americans, we plan on strengthening Medicaid and expanding CHIP so we can follow through on our promise to make certain that every American, especially our children, have access to quality health care coverage.

In the meantime, if you have any ideas to make this a reality, I hope you will visit our website at PalloneForNewJersey.com/Health.  I will continue working hard to make healthcare available and more affordable for everyone, but I need your help.  I want to hear your ideas and experiences first hand, and I hope you'll share some thoughts as to how we can bring real, meaningful health care reform to each and every American family. 
 

With all of the early prounouncements about what kind of president Barack Obama already has will have been, along with all of the hand-wringing about the future of the GOP, I feel that I have to weigh in on the issue of the moment.  What's that you say?  Deuteronomy lupus?  Lobotomy cupid?  I can't understand what you're saying when you talk with your mouth full.  Say, what's that you're eating?  Gubberman cheese?  I'm not sure I've had that variety.  Wait, what?  "It's the economy, stupid?"  Well, I don't appreciate your tone one bit.  Besides, I'm trying to talk about the future here.

Read more »

Mark Halperin has been printing the list of the "five most important people" who can influence the election, the economy, the orbit of the earth...for weeks at this point.  Never mind that we're racking up hundreds of individuals who are supposed to be the most important people ever, today's list is particularly hilarious.

 

Titled in the usual manner, of course: the five most important people who can....

 

There are only four items on the list today.

Halperin's take: the five most important people. Oops. Left one out.

There is the sweetest lady on the Travel Channel with her own show: PASSPORT TO EUROPE.

She is always cheery and full of information. She just travels all over the world with a camera guy following her. She will tell you how to get where she is.  How to book a room and what kind of room to get.

I have seen her in Venice on the gondola, I have seen her in Rome just outside the Vatican, and I have seen her on the Great Wall of China.

Right now she is on a houseboat in Amsterdam and making a joke about peeing over the side.  Then she giggles and shows you the bath facilities.

She'll take you to art museums and right now she is at one featuring the paintings of Van Gogh. She gives you background info and is pretty good.  Not a college course, but informative, none the less.

There is just a touch of June Cleaver in her though.  Or Martha Stewart (I actually like Martha since she is a good dem, but I am not going to watch put doilies on greeting cards). Or Rachael Ray for that matter. She would never say shit if she was up to her knees in it.

There is a politeness and a civility to her.  All her shows could be presented to a third grade class with no 7 second delay.

But today, in Amsterdam,  besides showing us  the Van Gogh paintings and the hiding place of Ann Frank, she took her viewers to a Mary Jane coffee shop.  She went over the Weed Menu with the proprietress.  "Oh this is interesting, what is the difference between some of these?"

 "Do you mean you will actually roll a joint for me?  Can I see one?"

And the entire time during this presentation, smoke is wafting in the back ground like a prairie fire in the Dakotas. There are bongs all over the place. And, of course she does not partake of any of the products except per the second hand smoke.

Now I saw Patton Oswald do a shtick on this and it was hilarious.  If I recall, he says they we playing something like "We are the Champions" in the background as he lit up. It is one of his greatest bits and he even does a bit about going to the Ann Frank home. How can you make a visit to the Ann Frank home funny?  You have to be Patton.

At any rate, seeing June Cleaver go over the hash menu in a coffee shop in Amsterdam is still, one of the greatest things I have ever seen.

Now I have to confesst here, that she has appeared in some of the X-Rated movies I participate in from time to time during my dream sequences.  The next time she appears, however, I am going to share a bong with her.

Believe it or not, she finishes the show by taking us through a red light district in Amsterdam.  Even Patton never did that.

I'm not sure why it occurred to me this morning, as opposed to any other morning, but I suddenly realized that, given the way Obama is incorporating his competitors  into his administration (except Dodd who is needed in the Senate), there is little doubt that John Edwards would by this point be the Attorney General-designee or have been named for some other high post, if only ....   I'd always looked forward to seeing what he would do in a position of real power (having not paid attention to him when he was in the Senate) and was hoping for AG, since certainly had those instincts in a brilliant way.  I'm sorry we won't get to see that, that he won't get to do that.

But he won't (I hope) and he shouldn't.  I don't disagree with those who say that private life should remain private, that we shouldn't have a morality test for our public officials, and so forth.  All that is true.  But we do, and I think we should, have a plain-good-common-sense requirement for them, and I think we should avoid people who are comfortable with very, very high-risk actions.   His disregard for his family is something private and I pray they are able to work through to some peace.  But - given the FACT of how the public would react to disclosures of this sort, especially when they seem hypocritical, the disregard he showed toward his supporters, his party and, quite possibly, for the country (depending on who the Republicans nominated) forever bars him from a position of real responsibility, in my opinion.  

It's one thing to have a transgression that you hope to keep secret but know is a potential stink-bomb that *could* go off any moment.  It's an entirely different thing, however, to run for President, to try to beat out other, qualified people and become the sole standard-bearer for your party knowing that a big, nasty blow-up could happen at any time.  Knowing that if it did come to light at the wrong time, election of the Republican nominee would be simply guaranteed.   So, it isn't the morality of what he did that is the problem when it comes to leadership --- it's the rank stupidity and lack of caring for the welfare of others (a country-full of others!) that disqualifies him. 

And yes, I'm consistent in this view --- felt exactly the same thing about Bill Clinton, that the risks he was willing to take with our Country, not just his conscience and his marriage -- simply "because he could" -- showed a lack of judgment, a lack of caring that I hope never to see in a president.    Both of them were certainly entitled to take risks with their future, and even with their family's future ...... but NOT unnecessary and guaranteed-to-have-effect risks like that with the loyalty of millions of people and the future of our country!

But - it would have been nice if it had turned out differently.  It just seemed fitting to pause, if only for a brief moment, and recognize that.

Back to reality, I don't know what I hope for John Edwards -- peace with his family, I suppose.  It would be nice, however, if Elizabeth's health is such that she will have many more active years, if she were offered and wanted to accept a role in the Obama administration, most logically in the area of health care.  (Not with the fanfare of the announcements being made now - which would only expose the wounds - but a bit later on). For a while I was angry at her also, for acquiescing in his effort to run even after she found out about the affair (something that occurred AFTER he had announced he was running).  But with a little cooling-down and perspective ..... how do you fault someone - for anything! - whe, within a few short months (Jan - Mar 2007), she found out about her husband's unfaithfulness and that her cancer had returned and was incurable.  It would be good, I think, if there could be another on-her-own place for her in public leadership -- if she wanted it, that is.

I suspect I'm not the only one who gets a slight jolt when they show a clip from one of the primary debates or something and suddenly Edwards is there.  It's irrational, but for a second I'm surprised that he didn't disappear from the taped record as well as from our minds (most of the time, at least.)

After listening to the grilling Shelby handed down to the CEOs of Ford, GM and Chrysler, I would really like someone to put him in the chair when it comes around to Alabama recieving federal funds for education.  We wouldn't want to throw good money after bad.  What is his plan to change his state's failing education system.  Maybe make him commit to personally tutoring a few students before he gets any federal funds. 

 

 

 

It's the 75th anniversary of the end of Prohibition:

Rarely in the annals of human experience has so well intentioned an idea been such a monument to failure as America's 13-year attempt to eradicate the evil of alcohol. The National Prohibition (or Volstead) Act was passed by Congress in October 1919, overriding the veto of President Woodrow Wilson. The following January, the Act was ratified as the 18th amendment of the constitution after it had been approved by the required three-quarters majority of US states.

The "noble experiment", as its supporters termed it, did indeed lead to a modest decline in alcohol consumption and an overall improvement in public health. But those meagre and transient advantages were nothing compared to the unintended side-effects of Prohibition: a drastic decline in federal and state revenues, a surge in clandestine binge drinking and of course speak-easies, bootlegging, moonlighting and mobsters, not to mention the criminalisation of millions of US citizens, including some its most eminent politicians, who were technically flouting the law of the land.

Prohibition's passing belongs to a distant age; you have to be 90 years old at least to be a surviving violator. But this 75th anniversary has a rare resonance. Prohibition was brought down by its growing unpopularity, and the indisputable evidence the measure was doing far more harm than good. But the final nail in its coffin was the Great Depression, at its height in 1933. Why should extra misery and deprivation continue to be heaped upon a population suffering so much hardship already? "The human suffering that it [Prohibition] entailed," wrote H L Mencken, journalism's bard of the age, "must have been a fair match for that of the Black Death and Thirty Years War."

Read the entire article by Rubert Cornwell in the UK Independent.

Will you be marking the anniversary tonight? I'll be hoisting a glass and toasting, among other things, all of my comrades here at TPM.

Salud! Kampai! and To Your Health!

President Santa, I want a green economy. And I know mommy and daddy might get laid off, but this problem has been festering since the old people didn't fix it and it would be great if our adolescence and young adulthood could be imbued with the ideal of hope and ingenuity in the of my parents' parents parents.

Written by Rev. Debra Haffner for RHRealityCheck.org - Information, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

There comes a moment in justice movements when society edges forward just enough that once-heated controversies - suffrage, racial integration, interracial marriage - become part of the cultural fabric. Sexism and racism may continue to simmer, but the overall movement can declare victory and move on.

On Election Day, the reproductive justice movement may have achieved its moment. The election of a pro-choice President-elect puts Roe v. Wade back on firm ground. Ballot measures that would have restricted reproductive health rights in three states were all soundly defeated. The Mexico City Policy, which blocks U.S. aid to international family planning organization that counsel women on abortion, is expected to be quickly reversed. A post-election survey by Faith in Public Life showed that a clear majority of Americans want to keep abortion legal.

The fiercest opponents of women's reproductive rights are not giving up. But over the past few weeks, we have heard a commitment from several Catholic and evangelical Protestant leaders to finding a new common ground on abortion. David Gushee, writing for the Associated Baptist Press, notes that, "Over 80 percent of white evangelicals and Catholics believe elected officials should work together to find ways to reduce abortions by helping prevent unwanted pregnancies, expanding adoption and increasing economic support for women who want to carry their pregnancies to term."

I welcome the support and collaboration of Professor Gushee, as well as Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec, Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals and others, who are calling to "reduce the number of abortions." But I am puzzled that their goal is to reduce abortions rather than the unintended pregnancies that force women and families to consider abortion in the first place.

The call to reduce unintended pregnancies is the right one. What we must focus on now are the means to do so - specifically, comprehensive sexuality education (not abstinence-only) and universal access to contraceptive services, including emergency contraception.

The advocates for a new common ground correctly note the correlation between poverty and abortion rates. But they fail to mention how poverty first contributes to unintended pregnancies. Adoption alternatives and economic support for poor pregnant women are important - but these strategies do not address the fact that poor women are at least five times more likely than other women to become pregnant unintentionally.

Here's what the Guttmacher Institute's Susan Cohen wrote the last time an abortion reduction strategy was floated by Democrats for Life in 2006: "While it is theoretically possible that increased social supports for pregnant women and even more 'adoption-positive' problem-pregnancy counseling could have some impact, neither can hope to approach the real reductions in the abortion rate that could be achieved by preventing unintended pregnancy in the first place." (Emphasis added.)

This is the real moral challenge we face. I've worked with thousands of women facing unintended pregnancies. They aren't looking for "abortion on demand"; with only a handful of exceptions, these women sat with me (often with their partners or parents beside them), and they wept as they tried to decide what was best to do. Often they did have financial concerns - not so much about how they would pay for prenatal care or infant care, but about how they could afford to raise a child (or in many cases, another child) to adulthood. Too often, they did not have partners who they wanted to spend their lives with or who could support them. As one of my colleagues has said, such women have "too much responsibility already and too few resources, both personal and economic."

So here is my suggestion for common ground. Let's stop talking about reducing the number of abortions as a goal in itself. Such talk obscures what should be the principal objective - reducing unintended pregnancies - and leads to counterproductive strategies that would place restrictions on abortion access. It also misrepresents the platform that President-elect Obama ran on, which affirmed a woman's right to choose and opposed "any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." The Democratic platform called for "access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives," as well as economic support for pregnant women.

Let's start talking about reducing unintended pregnancies. This is not only the better public health position, it is a faithful and moral one as well. Five years ago, the Religious Institute published an Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision, which includes this eloquent and irrefutable statement: "The sanctity of human life is best upheld when we assure that it is not created carelessly."

Surely this is the common ground where all of us - the new Administration, the new Congress, even my Catholic and evangelical colleagues - can proudly stand.

I've been watching the congressional hearings and listening to the Detroit CEOs project demand for their cars, not just next year, but years beyond.  As I understand it, sales are expected to flatten a bit in the short term, drop by a few million at some point, and then reach and maintain or even exceed last year's sales. 

I'm currently taking a foreign policy rhetoric class and our final assignment was to craft the foreign policy section of Barack Obama's innaugural address in 500 words. I tried to draw on earlier Obama themes, Kennedy, and many other American rhetorical traditions in this speech (american exceptionalism,self reliance, etc). I also kept Obama's unique ethos as an agent of unity and change in mind. I just turned this in yesterday. Tell me what you think in the comments!

Fellow Citizens of the World

We live in an increasingly uncertain world:
Two wars, the threat of a nuclear Iran, a global financial crisis, and a crippling dependence on foreign oil.
In these trying times, the world will once again look to America to pave the path out of the darkness.
How will we respond?

The war in Iraq has been long and treacherous.
Reputations have been ruined, old alliances have been stressed, and the lives of Americans and Iraqis alike have been lost.
As we bring this war to an end with dignity and deliberate haste,
How will we apply the lessons learned to new challenges in the Middle East?

On this day exactly 47 years ago, in the year of my birth, John F. Kennedy passed the torch to a new generation.
That generation put a man on the moon, passed the Civil Rights Act, and brought an end to the Cold War.
As the first decade of this new millennium draws to a close, we must ask ourselves:
How will history remember us?
What will we accomplish?
How will we answer the defining questions of our age?

The way we choose to answer these questions today will lay the foundation for our children's tomorrow.

We can repeat our mistakes or we can learn from them.
We can fight terrorists with naked force or we can better use our intelligence.
We can wallow in future wars or we can strive for a lasting peace.
We can look at the world economy as a zero-sum game where one nation wins only when the other loses or we can work together toward mutual progress in a globalized world.
We can use our differences to divide us or we can identify in our similarities:

The stockbroker in Moscow and the CEO in New York may speak different languages, but they both feel the same pain when they see their net worth plunge 40% in a week's time.

The textile worker in Tehran and the mill worker in Gary may not share the same faith, but they both know how it feels to struggle to put food on the table for their families.

We are all human.
We may have different perspectives and different backgrounds but ultimately we want the same things:
Liberty, justice, and opportunity.

These are the same sacred principles that young American men and woman have fought for and died for throughout this nation's history.
In this new millennium, will we stand up for them as they have stood up for us?

I pledge that as long as I hold this office no veteran will be denied the care they deserve when they return home.
I pledge that we will never send American troops to war unless it is absolutely necessary.
I pledge that we will favor diplomacy over engagement and intelligence over brute force.
And I pledge that we will work with our allies rather than against them.

Ultimately, I alone cannot answer the many challenges of our time.
We must stand together, united, as Americans, and as fellow citizens of the world.
I realize that the world will never be perfect, but together we can make it more perfect.

DoJ's written responses strangely side-step similar issues DOJ sidestepped in the Wecht trial.  Think, "Sinking tugboat attempting to salvage the oil-leaking Exxon Valdez."

The key similarity between the responses to the Siegelman and Wecht cases are the government's convoluted arguments as a smokscreen from the improper prosecutions.

The motion mirrors the finding there is a muckrakable relationship between the Siegelman and Wecht prosecutions; and the the White House applied lessons of Siegelman to the Wecht prosecution.

Read more »

It looks like Kay Bailey Hutchison is going to run against Gov. Rick Perry in the primaries in 2010.  Kay Bailey is well liked around these parts, but I think her support of Roe v Wade will certainly hurt her chances with the conservatives, while her terrible record on environmental issues may hurt her with independents. Being pro-choice definitely didn't help Rudy Giuliani, who was supported by Gov. Rick Perry, in the presidential primaries. Abortion is a hot-button in Texas, and while it probably shouldn't be much of a factor in a gubernatorial race, I'm sure the attack ads will get pretty nasty.

I can't help but think that Hutchison may have her eye on something bigger than being governor.  Palin's nomination for vice-president may be having Kay seeing new possibilities.  It's hard to ignore the sensation that Palin created and Kay Bailey may believe that the time is right to make her move.  It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

First, lets start with a link to calculated risk.  Second, I would like to thank Atrios for linking to this yesterday. 

Now for a quote:

I've heard from industry insiders (not confirmed) that Fannie Mae is putting a limit on the debt service-to-income (DTI) ratio of borrowers regardless of the Automated Underwriting System (AUS) decisions for loans requiring mortgage insurance (Loan-to-value (LTV) > 80%). This is apparently due to pressure from the mortgage insurers (MIs).

I think regulating mortgage terms for the GSE's is a probably smart in the short term.

Despite what many on the right claim, Fannie and Freddie had a very small percentage of subprime mortgages in their portfolios (see this congressional testimony).  The problems the GSEs came across had a lot to do with automated underwriting which used statistical analysis to get a better idea of default risk. During the bubble, this automated underwriting system allowed some sketchy loans because the statistical indicators weren't showing much default risk. However, the reason for this wasn't a problem with the system - it was a problem with the market. The reason it wasn't showing any risks of default was that no one was defaulting!

The GSEs should continue to gather data through this collapse, get a better idea of risk, then let the automated underwriting programs get back to work.  Statistical analysis means a better idea of risk, a better understanding of risk is always a good thing

Looking at Politico's report about Richardson's somewhat controversial corporate-funded air travel, I was thinking I hadn't heard any complaints about his campaign debt before, so I traipsed down memory lane to note that Bill was leaving some small vendors hanging in the lurch back in May and still in June, but the weird thing is I don't remember anyone complaining about it, and I'm sure people would have noticed, because they all stick up for the little people when chips are down.

Lessee, another report today that the GOP spent $180,000 on Sarah's clothes plus another $100K on her hair dresser and other staff. So say $300K total. Which compared to the $10 million she helped McCain raise in 3 days and perhaps another $50-80 million she helped raise over a couple of months (say thank you, Saxby Chambliss) probably isn't a bad return. Maybe we can send Henry Paulson over to ask her how to get a better deal for the $700 billion we put down.

Politico also notes Obama's brought in 20 or so of his Harvard friends to help with the transition,  which starts to moot the idea that the Chicago Machine would run the new show, as well as once more lower expectations that the new government will be packed with people from outside the traditional corridors of power.

There's some suspicion that Caroline Kennedy may be appointed to fill in the soon-to-be-open New York Senate seat, which funny enough is how Uncle Ted, who she interned with, got his start in the Senate. I'm waiting for the columns to appear to decry the Dynasty and her lack of relevant experience, though at least she can't be called much of a carpetbagger, having lived in Manhattan for some time. It remains to be seen whether her well-known designer husband can be controlled and will not interfere with her new career. Having designed the Pope John Paul II Center there is some concern about a conflict of interest (though Carolyn's father seems to have defused this in his race for the President), and there will undoubtedly be some interesting revelations when the pair comes to divulge their rather mixed and diverse income from multiple well-known and lesser-known sources.

Then again...who among us is?

When I saw the YouTube on the front page of TPM this morning, I was struck by how much Stone looks like an older, healthier brother of Ben Stein. Sounds a little too much like him, too.

Stone...Stein...one of them adopted? Separated at birth? Or are they both ashamed of each other enough to deny each other? One for being a swinger, the other for being a nerdy dork?

ha ha

Unemployment may not be everything you think it is. You probably assume it's an accurate picture of the status of the American work force, which is tied to the stock market, which is a reflection of the US economy. I did some journalism for you, actually going undercover to infiltrate the unemployed. For the record, I thought this one was going to work out. But now my UC benefit is reduced by my ('07 revenue divided by 52 weeks). Ouch. This means I really don't have a safety net, just part of a week's grocery bill or a week of commute gas. In business, my UC Referee explained, is that you could make a whole lot of money or go broke. In the end, it's a choice. My business, though it wasn't really operating, was open. If I close it now, I'll be a closed business and no longer an unemployed worker. Mine was still open, so it was open. That's that. I will appeal that decision, knowing it will go nowhere. Because I have the time.

About a month ago Newsweek magazine compared Obama to FDR while Time used Lincoln. However the president that Obama seems to resemble the most is JFK. In his view about nuclear weapons, getting out of quagmires, and picking cabinet members, Obama is very similiar to JFK. After reading Robert Dallek's book about JFK, Obama seems to have the same views about nuclear weapons and the need to abolish them. Kennedy thought that nuclear weapons were strategically useless and needed to be abolished and that nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to American security, Obama has shared the same views in his current proposal to eliminate nuclear weapons. JFK wanted to get out of Vietnam as soon as possible while Obama wants to create a 16 month timetable for withdrawl in Iraq, Finally Kennedy picked cabinet members from the other party, and Obama has picked cabinet members that strongly disagree with him on foreign policy such as Gates and Clinton. I'm suprised that the mainstream media has not really picked up these similiariities.

Hopeful as that sounds, using bullshit to fuel the recovery of the Big Three is not a viable option. Of course, you'll find a hippie living in the desert who would invest in a bullshit-burning car, and then maybe help prop up the fossil-fuel consumption industry by requiring tons of bullshit to be hauled from Minnesota or Illinois to refineries in Ohio... But the bullshit we're talking about is already airborne, and would have to be compressed and shipped as a refrigerated liquid, still requiring a daunting capital investment in our infrastructure.

Whoops.  One of Obama's politically appealing ways to get elected was to propose a windfall tax on the energy companies.  Apparently they were gouging, manipulating prices, etc.  But I guess now with $44 oil these companies are no longer profiteering?

I guess they're not doing it anymore because the windfall tax is now off the table.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/6143060.html

 

It was a smart way to get votes, but it made no economic sense.

But don't worry - we'll still raise revenues by taxing the rich.  Or will that get shelved too?

 

Relative to the financial bailout it should be of no consequence who the investors are. In this case it happens to be taxpayers.

In all cases when an investor puts up his or her money and when that investment is significant, the customary and practical condition is the investor exercises a commensurate degree of control upon corporate direction. In this case that customary condition has been abandoned. Taxpayers have involuntarily made this investment and in that context I would think the customary scheme would be more of an obligatory condition.

Frankly, I find it entirely unacceptable and actually stupid that taxpayers have been asked to cough up trillions of dollars and have little or no say in events that follow and are having access to many of the details hidden from them.

I hope I'm not the only person who happens to think this contrary scheme is totally wrong and is absolutely backward relative to how this normally works. I see this as another and very glaring example of how the vast majority of citizens of this country are not equitably represented. Which happens to be the precise reason we are in this mess in the first place. In many ways the citizens of this country have had their rights trashed by the Bush administration and by congress. You know that 'wrong track' thingy that is often talked about? Well guess what?

If Barack Obama keeps his campaign pledge to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months, that could still leave over 2/3 of the troops there, roughly 100,000. How's that? They're not combat troops, they're "service and support troops". But don't worry, Washington Whispers are that after 2011 this will only be 30,000 to 50,000, with a few sourpusses claiming more like 70,000.

Note that not all combat troops would have to leave, as they could be "re-missioned" with service and support titles. Troop levels today are higher than at the start of the now-finished surge exactly because of these numbers.

Nevertheless, Obama's intent on Day 1 is to end the war "responsibly, deliberately, but decisively". Not that withdrawn combat troops would be coming home - many would be redirected to Afghanistan. And Obama's #1 priority contains actually 2 or 3 priorities depending on how you count - to keep our troops safe in the transition, to make sure the Iraqi people are well-served by their government, and the Iraqi government is taking increased responsibility for their security.

But Obama is not grandstanding - he plans on listening to his advisors, and Gates makes clear, the question is now "how quick and how low". Which acknowledging that means a decrease, a skeptic might rephrase this, "how slow and how little". We went down that road in the early 70's though with a much better supplied opposition. I can't figure out why this withdrawal should take more time.

And I'm still a bit puzzled. I supported our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, but not because it was run by primitives blowing up Buddhist treasures or keeping girls out of school, but because they were harboring and in all practice helping Al Qaeda attack us. Now that that's out of the way, and we'll certainly pre-emptively take out Al Qaeda where they pop up obviously, I don't think our #1 foreign policy is policing the Hindukush for some unobvious goal. Nor is capturing Bin Laden an important task unless it gives a real security benefit or a PR victory worth the cost. (Futilely trying to take Stalingrad because of its name remains one of the most classic military blunders of all time).

Anyway, Obama's chosen his team and he'll be listening to them. I hope I like what he hears.

I have to admit it.  I'm feeling guilty.

In my last post I admitted that I had thrown in the towel.  Rather than go to bat again for my patient whose medication had been denied by his new insurance company, I gave in and prescribed an alternative that might not work as well.

Well, today the guilt got me going so I re-read the two page denial letter.  Again I found the words explaining the reasons for the denial, two of which amounted to advocating for unscientific medicine, even malpractice.  And I found the additional sentence, buried about two thirds of the way down page two, which said that I could call the "800" number on the page to talk with the doctor who had reviewed the case and denied my prescription request.

Read more »

Two days ago I made a case for current CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen to be Governor of CA.

Much interesting discussion came out of that, and a fair bit of support for Bowen. However, I noticed that many folks assumed that Bowen planned on running for the US Senate (to replace Feinstein, perhaps) and not for Governor.

This post makes the case for Debra Bowen to run for Governor, not for a Senate seat. As part of that effort, please join the “Draft Debra Bowen for Governor” Facebook group.

Read more »

FDL's Jane Hamsher has an article on Huffington Post (with this title) presenting an angle to the automotive issue I'd never seen before.  Apparently foreign automakers are already incentivized with tax dollars to compete with our own corporations.

[in Alabama] We have Hyundai Motor Company that got $252 million in incentives. Toyota there got $29 million in incentives. Honda, $158 million and Mercedes $253 million in incentives. It just seems odd to us that we can help the financial institutions in this country and that we can offer incentives to our competitors to come here and compete against us but at the same time, we are willing to walk away from an industry that is the backbone of our economy.

I'm really pretty uninformed on the economics of the issue.  But I do know that Japan, Germany, and Korea all routinely finance their automakers - especially R&D.  So essentially, our companies have to spend profits on things competitors receive government funding for.  When you think about it, no wonder they have been innovating. I don't know about Japan, but Korea even has market protection for their vehicles.

What I didn't realize is that our own state governments were also funding these same companies with taxpayer dollars.

An interesting fact offered by a HuffPo commenter: "From 1981 to 2005 Michigan got back $.85 for every dollar in taxes sent to the federal government. Alabama got $1.71 for every dollar sent to the federal government."  Alabama gives around $700 million per year to foreign manufacturers.

I don't know what, if any, bearing this has on the bailout, but I think it's worth asking...Are the decks being stacked against our own automakers?

While the media and our elected officials obsess about how to make sure the rich stay rich, the ordinary American family is being heaped with the debts they are generating to do this.  Problem is, throwing money at the perptrators of the economic catastrophe is doing no good at all.  What to do?  What to do?

I propose two things.  One that Obama has voiced support for and another he hasn't breathed a word about.

First, the one Obama hasn't said anything about: the fastest and most supercharged stimulus that Congress and the new President could enact would be to offer refinancing of every existing mortgage at either 3% or 4% at a fixed 30 year rate.  Every homeowner in America would be eligible for the refi on their primary residence so it is inherently fair and equitable.  Few (if any) people have rates that low so nearly every homeowner would benefit right away and not just a little bit. 

The US Government would make these mortgages directly, bypassing the banks and finance industry who are now hoist on their own petard of greed and irresponsibility, thus eliminating all the superfluous fees they charge.  With current interest rates, the government would actually realize a profit on the mortgages in the long term even though they would offer mortgages at historically low rates.  Furthermore, since this would lower every mortgage payment in the country for every family, literally hundreds of billions would be instantly freed for other purposes without balooning the deficit even further or rewarding the crooks who wrecked the financial industry and caused this economic catastrophe.  All the bad mortgages out there would be paid so we eliminate the whole "distress" asset problem with respect to mortgages.  This is a damn sight better, in terms of addressing the real problem at the heart of the credit crunch than it is to simply dole out money that will never be repaid to banks who will not lend it out.  Nearly every family in America directly benefits and the nation as a whole benefits tremendously.

Second, the solution Obama has said he supports and that Democrats have always been for anyway: a massive, sustained infrastructure rebuilding program nationwide.  Bridges and roads that need repair could be rebuilt but a higher priority should be put on building a national rail system for passengers, mass transit light rail systems in every city of over 100,000 people, and rebuilding and expanding where need be the frieight rail system.  We can build schools and public facilities and require that they all have a minimum percentage of the energy required to operate them come from renewable resources---specifically solar, wind, and water.

It is far better to spend public funds on the public and the public good than it is to try and prop up failed businesses run by greedy crooks, scheisters, con-men and thieves.  It is also far better to use the people's money to make the lives of the people better than it is to take their money to make the lives of a few better.  There is no reason for the new Democratic President not to support such measures, particularly in solving the mortgage crisis which is at the heart of the panic and meltdown in our economic system.  It's time to start addressing the needs of the nation first instead of the needs of the richest and most powerful interests.  Besides, if it doesn't work, the people will at least gotten something for their money.  Under the current schemes passed and proposed, the people get screwed coming and going.  It's time people raised their voices loudly in demanding these sorts of solutions and let the financiers and other thieves from Wall Street regain their position the old fashioned way: earn it.  It is bound to improve the moral character of the rich if we take this approach as they will, for the first time, have had to work for the money they get instead of looking to Uncle Sugar for a handout.

Since I'm a relative newbie here, I would like to take some time out from my tedious policy discussions to let you know what I'm all about.  Before digging in, I have really enjoyed becoming a member of the TPM community and have appreciated all the blogs that I have read and the comments others have made on mine. 

Now, I am under no grand illusions that what I have to say will garner a large readership or a lot traffic, but I do believe that my experience with government and my chosen profession as a policy analyst has inspired me to take a rather unique approach to political blogging.  If your willing to read on, I'd like to tell you about it.

I believe in numbers.  And I believe that Political Ideology can destroy the process with which you gather and interpret numbers.  Unfortunately there a lot of cynics that would tell you that you can make numbers tell you what you want to know.  Even more unfortunately, those cynics are right.  Numbers in the hands of someone with an agenda can make them tell you whatever they want to tell you.

However, that is why public policy must be approached from a scientific and analytical perspective.  Formulate hypotheses, test those hypotheses using your statistical tools, then rigorously analyze the story those statistics tell you. Look at the distribution of your data to determine the effect on the entire population (the poor, the rich, minorities, etc.) and not just the mean; then test the same model using different tools to figure out exactly how robust your findings are.

Political Ideology precludes people from specifying and interpreting data correctly and thus leads to poor public policy decisions and failed policies.  I think that the TANF post I wrote earlier today is prime example of this.  Bill Clinton, seeking to triangulate between ideologies on the left and the right designed a policy that was completely ineffectual.  The President allowed the states and localities to continue to play the chief role in determining eligibility and benefits to satisfy conservatives on the right, completely overlooking the fact that the decentralized system was designed to keep African Americans off of the roles by 1935 southern Democrats.  This fractured the risk pool and crippled the program.

I am a Democrat because the numbers take me there.  This is not because Democrats do not let their ideology skew their analysis.  It is because Republican conservative ideology has become nothing but mere ideology that cannot be supported by any rigorous analysis. 

Thus, I will continue to bore you with tedious discussions on complicated issues that are critically important.  I hope that you will take the time to read along and comment on the way with your input.  Thanks.

OK.  Enough of the smokescreen and verbal subterfuge.  This meme that all the Big 3 are asking for is a "bridge loan" is crap.

A bridge loan connects two events, and is required because of a timing mismatch between the two events.  Hence the name bridge, because it spans that time mismatch.

So exactly waht are the two events that this BAILOUT is bridging?  And what is the collateral that ensures repayment.

This is a business deal.  Let's take off the ideological blinders and treat it as such.  The first step is to answer the above two questions.

A nearly Zen phrase, given what I'm typing about here...

No sob stories from me right now (millions of others doubtless have it worse), but I've added PayPal buttons to my 'usual' blog, The Miserable Annals of the Earth, and the home of the Red Tiger, Redline Comics. 

I'm not just begging.  There are seven novels, one novella, a military memoir, 50+ geek topic articles, 25 or so short stories, and around two dozen cartoons available from the sidebar at Miserable Annals, all by yours truly, any or all of which are available entirely free, and, you know, at least reasonably entertaining.  Whether you want hours of bemusement or just minutes, you can find something there.

Meanwhile, at Redline Comics, you have an entire original 17 page superhero comic. 

So, if you're bored, and have some time to spare in front of your monitor, and you enjoy geek pop culture stuff related to science fiction, fantasy, geek TV shows, or superhero comics, you could do far worse. 

If you find anything you like over there, it wouldn't bother me, or my wife, or my kids, if you hit the PayPal tip jar while you're there. And by all means, tell your friends.

Thanks.  And happy holidays!

Consensus Grows At Senate Hearings: Reform Or Bankruptcy By March 31

As good an account of today’s Senate Hearing as I’ve seen:

Not long after this astonishing display, Sen Corker again had the floor, and he worked steadily towards a compromise based on reality. He pointed out that Gettelfinger literally could not force his union brothers to accept any sacrifices unless “bankruptcy is the endgame.” His solution: force the UAW to reduce its labor costs to transplant levels and turn at least half of VEBA into equity and get GM bondholders to drop their debt at 30 cents on the dollar by March 31, at which point the federal government would assume debtor-in-possession financing for a reorganization. He also recommended that Chrysler merge with GM and said that Ford was simply “tagging along” for money it admits it doesn’t need.

The special runoff election for Louisiana's 2nd District is this Saturday, Dec. 6.

Malik Rahim is running for Congress  on the Green platform against incumbent William Jefferson, he of "money on ice" fame from a Congressional office refrigerator bulging with Ben Franklins.

But, this post is about change, not the same old, same old.

Per Rahim's campaign bio:

Malik Rahim is the founder of Common Ground Collective Under Malik's leadership, the Common Ground Collective opened the first free health clinic in the city of New Orleans, helped reopen schools, gutted over 3,000 homes that needed repair in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, and provided direct services to nearly 200,000 returning residents.

You can learn more about Rahim here and contribute to his campaign here.

This is a chance to help elect a truly independent voice to Congress.

He can still use your money (he's already gotten some of mine) or other help, such as doing GOTV calls.

Hot on the heels of the "Emoluments Clause" controversy over Obama's nomination of Hillary to his cabinet, is the latest go-round in the never-ending wingnut crusade to disprove Obama's birth certificate and status as a natural-born US citizen, reported here from the Honolulu Advisor:

Another legal effort to force state officials to produce a copy of President-elect Barack Obama's birth certificate has been filed, this time in federal court.

Similar legal actions have been filed here and in several other states, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, Georgia and Mississippi.

Circuit Judge Bert Ayabe last month dismissed the suit filed in state court here, upholding arguments from Gov. Linda Lingle's administration that birth records are confidential under state law.

The new challenge is an outgrowth of a legal suit filed in Mississippi, which questioned whether Obama is a "natural born citizen" of the U.S.

Plaintiffs in that suit subpoenaed a copy of the birth certificate Nov. 26 from the Hawai'i Health Department. The plaintiffs include conservative political activist and failed presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois.

Marc Ambinder does a nice job batting down, once again, this absurd notion:

A thinner version of the claim holds that Obama is a citizen, but not a natural born or naturalized citizen and this constitutionally ineligible. This claim rests on a fairly tendentious argument about Obama's father and mother. Obama Sr., wasn't a citizen; therefore, his son could not have been born to two U.S. citizens; to be a naturalized citizen, both parents have to be U.S. citizens. Also: the law requires citizen-parents to have spent a certain length of time in the state; Obama's mother was a woman of the world.

But the two-citizen parent rule, which is no longer in effect, applied to people born outside the U.S.  Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii, a U.S. state since 1959; (had he been born earlier, it wouldn't matter -- U.S. law granted natural born citizenship to every Hawaiian born after 1900.)

Now -- the 14th amendment is fairly clear on the subject:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

A further objection: to be "natural born," as the constitution requires, is to be born on U.S. soil (check) to two citizen parents (x mark.)  Again -- that claim has no basis in federal law, Supreme Court precedent, or English common law.

Is anone keeping a list of the Obama "conspiracies" yet? We could call it the "O-Files". 

 

Name Dropping Continues for Ag Secretary

Speculation over President-elect Barack Obama's new agriculture secretary is boiling over but the only thing that is clear right now is that nothing is clear. Following a letter from the U.S. Congressional Hispanic Caucus on Tuesday recommending names for possible cabinet posts, Rep. John Salazar's name came up in the Denver Post as a possible agriculture secretary nominee. DTN Political Correspondent Jerry Hagstrom reported Salazar, a farmer and a third-term congressman, has talked with the Obama transition team but has not been interviewed. In response to a request for comment from the Denver Post Wednesday, Salazar said, "I am humbled that I may be under consideration as a possible nominee for secretary of agriculture. Should President-elect Obama honor me with a nomination to Agriculture, I would certainly consider it. However, at this time, I am continuing my work on behalf of my constituents in the 3rd Congressional District and preparing for the many difficult challenges facing the 111th Congress." Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has reportedly told people she is not interested in the agriculture secretary job. Yet, the Washington Post reported Thursday that Sebelius is one of the candidates on the short list being considered. The Post article also referred to former Texas Rep. Charles Stenholm, who now is a lobbyist in Washington, as well as Dennis Wolff, the agriculture secretary for the State of Pennsylvania. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., has said he is not interested in the job but people I spoke with have said Peterson has talked with Obama's transition team in the past week and did not turn down the job. Peterson is quoted in an accompanying Washington Post story Thursday regarding all of the major issues facing USDA. Peterson is emphasizing an overhaul of USDA and the interesting notion behind that is he may very well be able to do a great deal more in that effort as part of the administration than as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Just some food for thought. It's also somewhat odd that some names mentioned often just a week ago were not raised in the Post article, such as Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union or John Boyd Jr., president of the National Black Farmers Association. From the 'No Foolin' File Sen.-elect Mike Johanns, R-Neb., at an event unveiling his painted portrait as agriculture secretary on Wednesday at USDA, told a reporter he would like to serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee.

As everyone knows, the Big Three U.S. automakers are in big trouble. One problem has been overcapacity in the North American auto industry, which has been true for at least 20 years. A significant factor contributing to the maintenance of overcapacity has been the use of subsidies by state and local governments to attract new, mostly foreign, assembly plants. The new firms have generally located far from union areas, have no retirees, and have workers who are younger and therefore less expensive to insure. Given the fact of overcapacity, each new assembly plant leads to the closure of an existing plant, often on a one-to-one basis. This has made a big dent in the Big Three's market share.

Solving the crisis is a huge challenge, and I want to focus on health care. This alone contributes $1500 to the cost of a Big Three vehicle. As far as I can tell, the Obama health plan does nothing to address this issue, although I suppose it's possible the companies and the union could agree to opt into the default system. However, even this leaves the Big Three with large amounts of spending on health care.

Single payer, by contrast, would wipe out the $1500 cost immediately. Health insurance would be finance out of general tax revenue, and the money-losing automakers aren't going to have any profits to tax, probably for several years.

This brings us to the last link in the chain. If the health care system is paid through tax revenues, it is imperative that corporations not be able to game the system. That is, it must be made impossible for companies to abuse transfer pricing (prices for intra-corporate transactions), frequently using affiliates in tax havens, to make their profits show up in low-tax jurisdictions rather than the U.S. The easiest way from a technical standpoint is to adopt worldwide unitary taxation, whereby the IRS determines what portion of a multinational's opererations are in this country (usually based on sales, employment, and assets), and then taxes the company on that percentage of its worldwide profits. Transfer prices would then be irrelevant.

Politically, this is a tall order. Needless to say, multinationals worldwide are vociferously opposed, and it is not popular in the main forum for tax negotiations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (I like to tell my students the OECD is the most powerful organization they've never heard of.) But the rest of the OECD's 30 members are in the same boat we are on the financial crisis, and the OECD wants to stamp out tax havens, an effort that has been hamstrung by the Bush administration. The renewal of the tax haven consensus with Obama's election may provide an opportunity to change the rules and end these tax shenanigans.

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, <a href="http://projectvote.org/index.php?id=263">Voting Matters</a>

<strong>Weekly Voting Rights News Update</strong>

By Erin Ferns

Recent analyses of the 2008 general election find that overall participation increased on November 4, with a <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/rg_20081125_6075.php">significant surge in voter participation</a> among historically underrepresented Americans. Yet, while some lawmakers have been inspired by the recent voter turnout to propose election reforms that expand access to voting rights, others continue to focus on creating additional barriers to voting. 

Read more »

I was no more perceptive than anyone else; during the bull market years [of the late 1990s] some people did send me letters claiming that major corporations were cooking their books, but - to my great regret - I ignored them. However, when Enron - the most celebrated company of its time, lauded as the very model of a modern business enterprise - blew up, I immediately saw the implications: if such a famous and celebrated company could have been a Ponzi scheme, it was very unlikely that the rest of U.S. business was squeaky clean. In fact, it quickly became clear, the bubble years were both the cause and effect of an epidemic of corporate malfeasance. Paul Krugman, The Great Unraveling (p. 26) - Quoted in Wikipedia

"That's how we got here -- a near total breakdown of responsibility at every link in our financial chain, and now we either bail out the people who brought us here or risk a total systemic crash." Thomas Friedman - NYT

The US driven, world economy appears to many to be a pyramid scheme. There is nothing new about financial pyramids, what is new is the sheer size of this one. There are things whose very magnitude make them difficult to process. Things like the size of the bailout, the size of the US current account debt, or the size of Angelina Jolie's lips immediately spring to mind. This universal pyramid, the one that is collapsing around our ears at this moment, is bigger than all of that.

One of the largest pyramids up till this great American cum-universal one was the scam perpetrated on the Albanian people not long after the collapse of Communism. The poor Albanians at least had the excuse of knowing absolutely nothing about money, investment, capitalism or much else besides raising goats and the "thought" of Enver Hoxha. (post-pyramid Albanians have learned a lot about trafficking prostitutes and stolen cars. Will we be so lucky?)

Read more »

BENEATH THE SPIN ERIC L. WATTREE

The Art of Global Politics (in B Flat)

The problem with many on the left who are already criticizing Barack Obama's cabinet appointments is that they're neither as smart nor as creative as he is. As Barack so deftly pointed out in his interview with Barbara Walters--regardless to who he appoints to his cabinet, he's the president, and he will set policy.

Think about it. Who better to draw down the troops than a hawk? Obama is a student of history. He realizes that it took Nixon to approach the Chinese, had a liberal president attempted it the conservatives would have staged a march on Washington to call him a Communist. The same is true in other areas. It took a Southerner, President Lyndon Johnson, to broach the subject of civil rights effectively, just as it took Reagan to approach the Soviet Union.

President-Elect Obama is looking for talent, experience, and brains-he'll handle the direction of national policy. One of the major criticisms against him during the election was that he lacked experience. He assured America that he would use good, sound judgment to offset any shortcomings that he might have in that area, and that's exactly what he's doing.

How is he going to find experience in the Democratic Party without drawing from the Clinton administration? And further, by appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, we also get Bill. Thus, when that phone rings at 3:00 a.m. In the morning, it'll be answered by a very formidable President Obama, who will undoubtedly be firmly in control. But in essence, there'll be two presidents on the line, along with an extremely no-nonsense Secretary of State-and our enemies will know that.

Americans will have two challenges to adapt to with a President Barack Obama. They'll not only have to get use to a Black face in the White House, but also a Black way of thinking. I know it's not politically correct to acknowledge that there are differences between us, but the fact is, there are. While no one group is any better than another, we tend to excel in different areas of knowledge. I call it sociological niches. It is true that Jews tend to excel as merchants and in business; it is true that Asians tend to excel in math; and it is undeniably true that Blacks tend to excel in creativity. Let me make it clear, however, that my position is not that these talents are innate in any way, but rather, due to cultural focus--or what a given culture view as important to their way of life.

What makes this point so significant is that Obama has already started to demonstrate to America, and the Black community, that the creativity that the Black community has nurtured over the centuries, has distributive properties. In other words, that very same creativity that goes into making a Charlie Parker, an Aretha Franklin, or a Ray Charles, is just as effective in excelling in other disciplines far beyond the scope of music.

As I mentioned above, we've already seen many characteristics of the Black community at work during the election, and ironically, they contributed greatly to Obama being elected. One example, is Obama's ability to remain cool under fire. That comes directly from the fact that part of being Black in the country has made it necessary for Black people to become comfortable in dealing with adversity. Adversity is no stranger to us. That explains why during height of the Great Depression when many on Wall Street were jumping out of windows, the Black community was in the midst of the Harlem Renaissance. It was better than business as usual-we never had better time. "Depression, what depression? I was broke before it started-now I got company." While it was like the end of the world for White people when they couldn't pay their rent, Black people would just throw a "rent party."

What brought this to mind is the fact that the current economic downturn has had a serious impact on me personally. My son and daughter are so worried about me that they're about to have a nervous breakdown. They're calling me and e-mailing me everyday. I think what makes them so nervous is that I seem to be so laid-back about it, and they can't understand it. But the fact is, they see adversity through the eyes of White folks, because they've never known it-my late wife and I managed to shield them from it. But I've been there before, so I know the importance keeping a clear head while I work to resolve the issue.

That's the kind of thinking that we saw in Obama during the campaign. When the economic crisis first broke, McCain was suspending his campaign, running to Washington, making contradictory statements, and generally, flopping around like a chicken with his head cut off. That's what caused him to lose the campaign. On the other hand, Obama remained calm and began to gather and consult the very experts in economics that we not see in his cabinet. He made sure that he had some idea of what he was talking about before he made a statement. And he also had the foresight to start quietly building his cabinet.

So what we have in Obama is a man who's fully acquainted with adversity-- and there is nothing more impressive than a person who's been dragged through the pits of Hell, as I'm sure that he has, and then come out the other side as a well rounded and highly educated individual. He had to obtain a Ph.D. in problem solving and perseverance on the fly, even before his higher education began. Then when you add the creativity, that is a trademark of the Black community, you're left with a very formidable individual indeed.

So Obama's critics on the left need to get use to a new way of thinking. Because again, I predict both America, and the Black community, is about to get a lesson in the many varied uses of creativity. The world didn't call Ray Charles a genius for nothing-and just like Ray, Barack Obama's thinking two bars ahead of the band.

"So what we about to do now, ladies and gentlemen, is Geo-Global Politics-In B Flat."

"Uh, count it off, Fathead."

Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

Rick Wagoner parks on the stripes before asking Congress to save his industry. To offset the bad PR of flying to the last hearing in a private jet, Wagoner reportedly drove from Detroit to a DC hotel in a mild hybrid Malibu, then giddyapped the Cruze/Volt test mule from there to the congressional lot above. Ford CEO Mullaly drove a Ford Escape hybrid, a model that is actually for sale, if you can find one that hasn’t been snapped up.

Despite support from Senators Dodd and Schumer, and warnings about the trickle down effects of bankruptcy, Bloomberg reports that Congress has not been receptive. Although the auto execs and union officials are publicly against it, congressional staff members have been broaching the idea of a planned bankruptcy, or reorganization.

No matter what the outcome, I suspect the big loser will be auto workers that have been counting on health care and retirement benefits, and a UAW that will find themselves in a poor bargaining position with the restructured companies and/or new owners in other countries.

Read more »

The auto industry execs have been pilloried for their private jet excursions to the first congressional hearing, and deservedly so. Obviously, the executives are in no position to point this out, but this might be a good time to draw some parallels between the stewardship of these companies and the stewardship of our country.  I wonder if anyone in congress flew on a private or chartered government plane to attend these hearings?  Will any of them agree to work for $1 a year until or government's financial house is in order?  Perhaps they should work for the average U.S. income of $36,764 (2002 figure from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). The only real difference between the two is that while the auto companies are up against market limits to their borrowing, our government is still aggressively testing theirs.

...that so many lefty voices I run into on the Internets Tubes say they want a ruthless, uncompromising and ideological market type choice of action from the gummint towards the Big Bad Automakers...

Think for a minute what your town will resemble once Congress leaves the American Auto Industry to twist in the wind.  What kind of spirit will people have when they drive down the miracle mile of the local dealershis and see that all the dealerships have only foreign cars.  We are already close, but you have to board up the windows of the American dealerships to really get the picture.  You also have to question how the rest of the automakers will make it as overnight the economy goes Supernova and more then a million jobs turn to dust.

Having the Connecticut dealerships represented in Washington DC today provided a better look at the gravity of the present situation.  Connecticut lost 25 dealerships this year alone.  The 29th most populous state might offer a pretty good representative of average America on the one hand, but due to it's population density, it is actually a poor example.  Less densely populated states with more isolated communites are going to suffer much worse then this.  It seems probable that the "death toll" will continue to rise in 2009 as well.

If one listens objectively, one has to admit that Detroit has already been tranforming itself.  They began long before Paulson cried, "Uncle!!!"  The recently released fact that we have been in a recession for more then a year is NOT news to Detroit.  In fact, one could argue it is not news to any other automaker in the world.  Those foreighn auto makers are also begging their government for assistance as well.  Detroit is assking for loans in a credit crisis.  If Wall Street has $700 billion, why aren;t they lending Detroit the money?  Detroit is asking for a small fraction of the funds being given to Wall Street.

What the US automakers have not yet been able to achieve is a perceptive change in the American people.  Has anyone ever truly let it sink into their heads that Chevrolet has more vehicles doing better then 30 mpg then any other manufacturer.  I assumed that honor would go to Japan, or Korea!  Didn't you?  Did anyone know Chrysler is actually the leader in electric cars at this time?  The Chevy Volt is soon to arrive.  It's far past being a concept car.  They're simply fine tuning the final poroduct at this point.  But I thought the leaders were Honda and Toyota in the race to power vehicles with alternative energy?  In fact, it is not so.

It seems this whole attack on the US auto industry is nothing more then union busting.  There is a great deal of resentment that autoworkers have managed to retain their pensions and their healthcare.  It's not fair!!!  What? It is not fait that autoworkers have managed to retain their benefits, or that others have lost their's in industries that lack organized labor?  People should realize that maybe, if they had stuck together, they would not have lost been subject to the broken promises.  They could have had someone at the table who truly represented them.  Bash the unions, but it's better to have soe evoice at the table then none at all.  It's better to have another set of eyes on the books then just the owners/managers.

Michael Jordan's late father used to ask, when someone would question him whether the glass was half full or half empty, "Who's pouring?"  Congress is pouring and they have filled the glasses of Wall Street and the are neglecting not merely Main Street, but the Miracle Mile.  This will be the end of the American dream if we let the domestic auto industries fail.  But it will be the beginning of a new world order, one where workers have less say in how they are compensated.  In twenty years, when people ask an old, frail Dubya how did his Presidency go he will say only two words, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!"  

The Obama Presidency, paying dividends already:

Earl W. Stafford, 60, who grew up as one of 12 children of a Baptist minister...wants to bring to the inauguration disadvantaged people, terminally ill patients, wounded soldiers and others down on their luck. :

"We wanted to . . . bless those who otherwise wouldn't have an opportunity to be a part of the great celebration, the inauguration and the festivities," he said in an interview yesterday. "Our objective is to bring in a cross-section of society -- those who are distressed, those who are terminally ill, those who are socially and economically disadvantaged, those veterans who are wounded and served our country."

Stafford said the idea was inspired by his deep religious faith and the good fortune that has come his way. The inauguration is an opportunity to remember the less fortunate and remind the country of its traditions of benevolence, he said.

"We've gotten away from those core values that made America great...We just need to get back to caring about one another."

Give yourself a holiday gift and read the whole article.

If we can turn around what leads to status in this country, it would look like this:  People giving of themselves and providing for others who are lacking or in need or simply don't have the access or the privileges or the wherewithal.   There are so many ways to do this.

[Hat tip to Deanie Mills who flagged this.]

Via atrios at eschaton: Was clearing brush just a campaign prop, too? Or is that the only thing George W. Bush is actually qualified to do?

First Lady Laura Bush and President George W. Bush are moving back to Dallas when the president's term expires in January, the Associated Press is reporting.

The AP says the first lady's press secretary confirmed Wednesday that the couple are purchasing a home in Dallas.

Bush's family bought the place about one year before he began to run for President. I'm not even sure if George W. Bush actually holds the deed in his own name.

Worst President Ever. Let's make a list of all the ideas of what we could do with Bush's 'ranch' down in Texas. War Pig farm, anyone?

Tata Motors has all these small, cheap cars and all they need is a better line-up of trucks and SUVs and they'll be a real global auto industry powerhouse. So, instead of bailing out all those fat cats in Detroit, let's just have the U.S. EXIM Bank arrange a low-interest export loan for the soon-to-be bankrupt automakers to sell off their manufacturing equipment to India and just let them build the cars we need cheaper than we can make in the U.S. (and give Ralph Nader a new lease on life investigating unsafe autos). Then we can spend the savings on retraining workers in some new industry, like beading bracelets, weaving baskets or some other high dollar enterprise like that.....

Or maybe not. Maybe the idea of letting the automakers go bankrupt, as advocated by Mitt Romney, Sen. Shelby and other GOPers, is just complete and utter ideological nonsense. Romney basically said last month that we should let automakers fail, gut the unions, cut retiree benefits and THEN extend financing to the automakers in their restructuring.

Well, I suppose the fallout from the possible implosion of U.S. automakers could be seen as a good thing if you were a stockholder of Toyota, Renault or BMW. However, it makes very little sense if you are a U.S. taxpayer or concerned about America's long-term industrial competitiveness.

Consider that the government would be spending $1-2 billion EACH MONTH on just the unemployment benefits that would be required for laid-off workers if just a fraction (25-40%) of the 3 million or so jobs directly and indirectly related to the auto industry were lost. Throw in the costs to Medicaid and local hospitals forced to take care of the health care needs of these unemployed workers and you have several hundreds of millions of dollars more. Lost income tax receipts from workers? Again, lots more dollars lost.

So, it makes very little sense to throw these companies into bankruptcy court (while at the same time leaving their banks, bondholders, and credit default insurers in the lurch as well. What is more, why is the American government abandoning the auto industry when our competitors are supporting and have supported their auto companies in times of crisis?

German politicians are falling over themselves coming up with various plans to support the German auto industry, even going so far as to contemplating 1 billion Euro loan to support GM-owned Opel!?!?

Japan has regularly leapt to the rescue of its automakers. Mitsubishi received a multi-billion dollar infusion in recent years that was put together by a government-led, public-private sector bank loan package (with direct government loans and loan guarantees). When Nissan was in trouble in the late 90s the Japanese government even provided loans to a FOREIGN auto company, Renault, to take over the company. U.S. companies have faced comparatively high lending/financing costs the last 10 years while Japanese automakers have benefited from bargain loan and bond interest rates, effectively subsidizing their current investment and operations. Meanwhile, as the credit markets constrict in Japan the Bank of Japan has come up with a plan to specifically help corporate lending and bond markets.

The main problem that the American auto industry is facing is not directly related to their normal management and business plans. First, this year's historic spike in oil prices dramatically altered U.S. auto consumer buying patterns, then the economic meltdown scared off buyers, and finally the continuing credit crisis has compounded these troubles by dramatically reducing the financing alternatives companies rely on for everyday business operations, while dramatically increasing the borrowing costs of any remaining alternatives ( in the U.S., Japan, and elsewhere.)

If the automakers are forced into bankruptcy the likelihood is that the fire sale of manufacturing assets would only further weaken the companies, while giving new and current rivals a jump start in their global operations. Just look at what is happening to AIG, they are selling off profitable and growing insurance units in East and Southeast Asia - the only region of the globe that continues to see current economic growth. The most valuable assets of U.S. auto manufactures, and those which would result in significant cash in a sale, are not likely to be those U.S. based factories, but those in profitable markets in Europe and Asia. These factories would be sold off to local Asian firms and other global automakers that are looking to expand - Tata Motors, Kia, Hyundai, et.al.

I don't know why anyone would listen to the Republicans who are pushing for auto industry bankruptcies when these are the same losers who oversaw the great declines in U.S. manufacturing in the 1980s and 2000s. These idiots seem to have no clue about the value that manufacturing has had in our current national standard of living and its importance for our sustained wealth and prosperity. If the auto industry goes down the drain, it will be one more

It was immediately obvious this week that the Mumbai attacks would be the source of much loss and pain in India. As the US is a land of immigrants, it is always worth remembering how connected to any world event some segment of our population will be in these moments. So is the case now, and Rupa Dev of New America Media presents us with insights gleaned from interviews with a collection of young South Asian Americans in Mumbai Attacks Hit Home For Young South Asian Americans.

Living here in the United States, do you feel detached from violence in India?

Urvi Nagrani, 21, Student, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA
Maybe I'd be able to feel detached if I lacked personal ties to the situation, but I've been to all of the sites that were attacked, I have family members who live very close to all the sites. I was unable to enjoy the luxury of apathy.

For those who have immigrated to the United States, this makes for a powerful overlap in causes and a unified struggle for rights here in the land we now share, as is touched upon in Asian Americans Reluctant to Stand Up for Immigration Issues.

According to The World Journal, a survey of 412 Asian Americans [showed that] 80 percent of [those polled] were "very concerned" or "concerned" about immigration. The study shows that 58 percent of Asians are sympathetic to undocumented immigrants and 52 percent of them are supportive of the idea of legalizing undocumented immigrants. About 33 percent of the Asian Americans surveyed said they would become involved in collecting signatures on petitions for immigration issues, but only nine percent said they were willing to do anything further, such as participating in public protests.

The headine positions the data as revealing a failure among Asian Americans to "stand up" for Immigration Issues, but why? Thirty-three percent of a community willing to collect signatures seems not a bad amount to this writer! Do you agree that the only way to "stand up" for rights is to "protest"? 

The New York Times lead story is U.A.W. Makes Concessions to Help Automakers. The article is pretty aptly titled because the NYT chose to focus entirely on the evil UAW parasites that are sucking the poor, helpless automakers dry through ludicrous demands such as job security and pension/health care payments.

The Big Three claim their industry is tanking not because of their refusal to change their big, heavy, gas-guzzling car designs, but because evil workers are demanding their contractually promised benefits. The Big Three are failing not because the rest of the world is building fuel-efficient cars, but because the UAW demands that CEOs pay their salaries between the time their jobs get shipped to Mexico, and they find new sources of employment.

Read more »

I never thought getting 60 senators in the D column was such a big deal, as some of the Dems are very conservative and wouldn’t necessarily hang with Obama anyway. Nate Silver lays it all out here:

Who Are The Swing Senators?

… Moderate Republicans are an endangered species these days, but there are still a few of them left, as well as several other quasi-moderates who either get along with Obama or are under some form of electoral pressure in their home states. Conversely, there are more than a couple of Democrats in the chamber whose votes Obama can’t take for granted.

In practice, there will be a group of four or five senators in each party who line up just to either side of the 60-seat threshold and will find that they’re suddenly very much in demand. If Obama’s approval ratings are strong, he should have little trouble whipping the couple of Republican votes he needs into shape, and should clear 60 comfortably on key issues. But, if Obama proves to be unpopular, there remain enough conservative, red-state Democratic senators to deny him a simple majority on key issues, much less 60 votes.

Also, Ped Shed, a great blog on urban issues, has come back to life.

TDM-pedia

In his latest post Laurence Aurbach includes a link to the Online Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Encyclopedia from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, a wonderful resource.

TDM is sort of like carbon offsets, but better:

Contributions to TDM measures are more visible, immediate, local and effective than offsets. TDM measures encourage non-auto travel and carpooling, make better use of transit-oriented development, and so multiply the beneficial impacts of transit-oriented development investments. Carbon offsets may send that money to other countries where they mainly have value as charitable donations to energy projects.

I couldn't really get settled in and focused on the Blackann & Hirni indictments. I was busy running back and forth between the computer and the kitchen cabinets. One minute I was checking for updates on the breaking stories, and the nest, eyeballing the cereal boxes and trying to decide which grand-kid gets which cereal box toy for the joyful 2008 sub-prime Christmas.

Hopefully, I'll have the whole cereal box toy thing figured out by the time we move past United Rental, and onto the juicy details of the Indian Affairs letter. That is, all except for this skeletal Santa Claus with the Phil Gramm belly laugh. I think he might be going back home to the cereal aisle at Wal-Mart.

The starving Santa may be a suitable symbol for the ass-biting, end result failure of Republican Outreach Programs such as Wally Worlds, but I really don't care to have this Enron In Red packaged with my amber waves of grain.

Wally World should limit their outreach program to their normal wide stance in the GOP men's room. Should they then care to extend that reach, they can always find some underpaid associate, or the GOP Rep in the next stall, to record their toe-tapping rendition of the Stars Spangled Banner for National Public Radio.

As far as I'm concerned, their outreach director should be led away in handcuffs and fired. (Oh, that's Hirni. And, he was fired!)

Well, it's a good thing. I was half tempted to write a letter and complain to the CEO of Wal-Mart. (Oh, he's stepping down?)

Well, we can turn that into a good thing too. I'll just keep the cereal box Gramm Grinch and chain him in the basement. I can teach the grand-kid how to water-board for Enron truths with a bowl of milk. (Kit Bond says that it's just like swimming, anyhow.)

I don't know how happy that will make the Dairy Farmers of America, but tough titties. Cow herds don't have Geneva Conventions - just milk and crooked lobbyists.

But, you can't really blame the poor cows. Nowadays, even people can't tell the difference between a Sam's Club and an Uncle Sam's Club. And, as evidenced by Blackann, it was rather difficult to distinguish between Congress and the Sons Of Anarchy Club House.

Prospect Blackann was lucky that the Feds only found him stuffing United Rental toys into boxes of Lucky Charms. We all know what happens when you get caught opening the kitchen cabinet doors for Wally World. And, it's not a Gramm Grinch.

Warning: Policy Wonkish post below.

I have been meaning to blog about this NYT article on the recession and America's safety net for quite some time:

Unemployment insurance is not as generous now. Yet the unemployment rate is at 6.5 percent and some forecasters say it could top 8 percent next year. It hit 10.8 percent in the early 1980s.

This is also the first severe economic slump since President Bill Clinton overhauled the welfare system and made it tougher to qualify for, and keep receiving, benefits. Many people who lose their jobs now and fall into poverty may not qualify for public assistance. Other programs designed in part to counter hard times -- like job training and housing subsidies -- have also been cut back.

If you are a follower of my blog or know me personally, you have probably picked up on some anti-Bill Clinton sentiment.  The primary reason for my President Clinton hate is the 1996 PRWORA welfare-reform bill which should serve as primary example as to how triangulated policies result in very bad policies.  I will get to the NYT article, but first let me point out TANF's  (welfare) failures:

1. By establishing welfare as a maintenance-of-effort grant, states are tasked with setting benefit levels themselves.  This has the effect of fracturing the risk pool.  By doing so, it is impossible for high poverty risk states (poor states like Mississippi) to be subsidized by the low poverty risk states (wealthy states like Connecticut).  This has made it impossible for TANF to actually reduce poverty rates as the states where poverty is concentrated cannot afford to payout enough benefits to the impoverished.
2. Because 54% of African Americans live in the South, where conservative ideology, racial stereotypes of welfare recipients, and poverty are concentrated, TANF has perpetuated the wage differentials between races.
3. It is economically inefficient - the argument behind unemployment insurance is that substantial time is required to match our labor resources with our employment opportunities.  If someone has to settle on the first job available to them, it is an inefficient allocation of the nation's labor resources.  However, if someone loses their job but does not qualify for  Unemployment, they are forced to take TANF which mandates that they be employed to receive benefits.  Thus they are incentivized to take the first job offered to them no matter if they are overqualified or not.
4. By capping the number of months that can be spent on benefits, recipients must go off TANF every month that they possibly can.  Thus many recipients live in constant flux between the TANF rolls and living around the poverty line.

The function of an effective welfare system should be to cycle people out of poverty and into stable jobs.  However, TANF, by forcing recipients to take the first job available to them, often with little prospect for advancement, and then forcing them to live floating between the rolls and barely scraping by capping the number of months benefits are available, we have created a system that is economically inefficient and does not reduce poverty. 

Now, to bring it back around to the NYT article.  The next few years will drastically test TANF's ability to serve the poor during this recession.  It has been 12 years since welfare reform, 12 years of recipients floating on and off the rolls.  As unemployment continues to skyrocket, many of these current and past recipients will be cycled off the payrolls and forced to find menial work in order to receive TANF benefits.  Given the severity of this recession, it is likely that  the labor market will take 2-3 years to recover.  It is thus likely that we will begin to see the first round of TANF recipients that exhaust their benefits.  They will not have any more benefits available to them for the rest of their life.  If this happens, poverty rates will begin to rise again and we will be forced to revisit welfare reform.

UPDATE - This was cross-posted to a Daily Kos diary, where I was honored by its mention in the Diary Rescue 

The New York Times' TV critic, Alessandra Stanley, is under fire for her piece from Monday entitled "A Concession Wrapped in an Acceptance" where she claims, without providing evidence, that "plenty of viewers" saw Hillary Clinton's acceptance of her new role as Secretary of State as "the moment when Mrs. Clinton finally conceded the election for real."


The following is the reaction of Progressive blogger Matt Browner Hamlin, who has also blogged for the Huffington Post, campaigned for Chris Dodd and works for the SEIU:

[A]t no point in the time since June 7, 2008, has Hillary Clinton ever suggested that her concession of the Democratic nomination for the presidency was not "for real." Again, Stanley is making things up.

Media Matters' Eric Boehlert warns Stanley: Speak for yourself, Alessandra:

First off, my hunch is that most people assumed Clinton conceded the election "for real" when she, y'know, conceded the election in June. Or maybe when she endorsed Obama at the convention in August, or when she campaigned for him nationwide in October. But for The Village, it wasn't until December that Clinton conceded the election "for real."
...
Note the "plenty of viewers" language. We've noted this media trend before. Almost nobody in the real world shares the media's Clinton obsession, so in order to couch it as news,  pundits simply pretend they're speaking for the masses, so Stanley goes with the "plenty of viewers."

Again it's just a hunch, but I think if you could find 100 people anywhere in the country who actually saw Clinton's SoS acceptance as her de facto election concession, then 95 of them probably work for elite media news orgs.

Meanwhile, Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler describes Stanley thusly:

Stanley is a pal of Dowd's; she often displays the same desire to force her own foolish dramas onto your most important news topics. And let's state the obvious: This group will never stop working this way, until widespread ridicule makes them stop. They live inside a sumptuous palace--and their flighty minds are full of dime novels. They're too dumb to see the world other ways. They'll insist on novelizing your news until they're finally stopped.

Atrios of the Eschaton blog honored the journalist with his "Wanker of the day" award.

Even Bloggers for Change, whose mission is stated as bringing Obama to power and "keep the Clinton Machine as muted as possible," protested:

Stanley, offering no examples of those "plenty of viewers," apparently forgot about Clinton's concession speech, her speech at the Democratic National Convention, or the following night when she moved that Barack Obama be "selected by this convention by acclamation." Apparently in Stanley's mind, none of those very public statements, nor the campaigning Clinton did for Obama, counted.

Contact Alessandra Stanley.

Update: Add the Washington Monthly to the list.

People talk a lot about not wanting to reward people who made bad decisions about buying houses. But who exactly are the bad decisionmakers?

boarding house
$200 a week
blow through $4K in a month instead
and now it's rehab in another psych ward

3 hots and a cot
you got a lot
of nerve

i've got boxes full of your crap
and now your family has them too
we've all got pieces of you
as we all watch you fall to pieces

you got a lot of them
can the cot hold them all?

do I care?
i guess I do
because I still have
these pieces of you

to pick up
and sweep away
hoping for
a better day

for all of us

3 hots and a cot
is all you got
and it's all you ever wanted

i wanted so much more

 

It's no secret that higher education is too expensive in this country; private colleges are really expensive; Ivy League schools are ludicrously so. But the latest biennial report from The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education should make us pause to consider what that might mean in the long term. Describing the report, the New York Times says, "The rising cost of college -- even before the recession -- threatens to put higher education out of reach for most Americans.

"If we go on this way for another 25 years, we won't have an affordable system of higher education," said Patrick M. Callan, president of the center, a nonpartisan organization that promotes access to higher education.

"When we come out of the recession," Mr. Callan added, "we're really going to be in jeopardy, because the educational gap between our work force and the rest of the world will make it very hard to be competitive. Already, we're one of the few countries where 25- to 34-year-olds are less educated than older workers."

Although college enrollment has continued to rise in recent years, Mr. Callan said, it is not clear how long that can continue.

According to the report, the net cost -- that is, a year's tuition, fees, room and board, minus financial aid -- at a four-year public university last year amounted to 28 percent of the median family income, while a four-year private university cost 76 percent of the median family income. 76 percent! And among families with incomes in the lowest 20%, even a public university would be 55% of median income for one year.

There are innumerable consequences to a less-educated American populace, many of which are addressed by the report's authors, including reduced international competitiveness and deteriorating standards across American industries. And for those of us who still harbor the quaint notion that being educated is good for its own sake, it's dispiriting to see it growing further out of reach for more people.

But as someone who attended an Ivy League school (full disclosure: I went tuition free, as my father works there) and, just recently, taught there, this latest report also confirms a disturbing trend that the upper echelons of American higher education both demonstrate and reinforce: a move toward a more permanent educated overclass and a less upwardly mobile underclass.

This has always been the case in America to a greater or lesser degree, but it has escalated in recent years with the uber-concentration of wealth and the increase in college costs. And, as the cartoon above implies, it's not just the costs directly related to education and basic needs. The upper-class environment pervasive at Ivy League and other private colleges makes it exceedingly expensive for students to participate in college life. My alma mater, Columbia, is in New York City, which made social life particularly expensive. But wherever you are, if everyone around you has lots of expendable cash, you'd better have some too if you want to tag along (and thereby make the connections that will be so important later on in your professional life).

I spent a year of my undergraduate education matriculated at Oxford University, where, despite free tuition (a few years ago it became I believe $1500-2000 a year), students to this day disproportionately come from Britain's upper classes. It's a place where tuxedos are required for certain university events, and admission is based largely on personal interviews between applicants and the professors who will teach them one-on-one - all of which puts at a disadvantage young applicants not trained in the manners and mannerisms of the upper class. (This is not to say there aren't innumerable people at Oxford working hard to make the system more inclusive...not to mention that Britain's mechanisms of financial aid tend to be more reliable than those in the U.S.)

But the economic discrepancies that increasingly make the upper echelons of American higher education unavailable to most people (not just costs once college begins, but the costs of test prep and private high schools where guidance counselors have personal relationships with Ivy League admissions officers, etc) is furthering more of a British-style class discrepancy between a small group of highly educated young people and everyone else.

I was stunned at the affluence of the vast majority of my students when I went back to teach at Columbia. (Perhaps it had gotten more exclusive in the few years since I'd graduated...more likely I was not as aware of it when I was a student myself.) A couple of times I attempted to teach a Barbara Ehrenreich essay on the social meaning of the expanding number of live-in domestic workers in the U.S., and many if not most of my students found her analysis to be a personal attack: they all had live-in maids at home.

This isn't a rebuke to my students, who were for the most part intelligent and lovely people. Rather, it speaks to my worry that those of us who have the privilege to attend great universities and who may go into powerful or influential jobs in business, politics, media, etc, are increasingly cut off from the vast majority of Americans - and they from the opportunities available to us. This isn't a revelatory observation, of course - it's just another iteration of John Edwards' two Americas. But it's another element of why it's so important that Barack Obama follow through on his pledge to make higher education more affordable.

I used to be a funny looking kid.  Or a cute kid.  Guess it depends on who you ask.  Of one thing, however, there is no doubt - I was a happy kid with a pretty screwed up family life.  Seemed normal enough to me, even if different from most of my friends.  Probably grew up a bit sooner than I should have but definitely learned how to love with a fierceness I treasure.  Likely heard too many loud and angry voices that nevertheless taught me the importance of quiet compromise.  Chances are I cried too often to ever forget the necessity to laugh out loud.  All things considered, being a kid served me well.

Just a few reasons how ....

Read more »

I feel so bad. My villa in the Caribbean was reserved. Saudis were ready to meet with me. Thirteen year old girls were contracted to meet us on the cruise ship. They were Asians with proper papers. Thirteen is the cut off.

Halliburton was going to be there. It is hard to get a good Dubai corporation to cooperate in the pursuit of freedom. Four Republican Senators and fifteen Republican Congressman were chartered to appear. Seventeen Federal Agencies were going to be represented at this function. One of the Reps wanted only women 17 years old or older because of some religious charter. This was all set per the Chamber of Commerce in Mississippi. Shrimp and crablegs and roe--from Russia of course-along with the best beefo from Omaha. We kind of had to lay off of pork. Its a Jewish and Muslim issue. I really never understood this taboo.

 But the issues that were going to be discussed were of the utmost importance to the Western World. Slave trade, 50 cent an hour labor forces, outsourcing to companies that really had no 'on the ground so to speak' function, lead based paints (we found a way to make mercury go away), golf tournaments where close to 3% of the gross went to charities that support Republican candidates...I could go on and on.

What happens? Not one of the slated Congressman were reelected. Denny Hastert would not even return my call. Delay's reps said they could not comment until all judicial proceedings were completed. The Pentagon Procurement Office would not even take my call. What in the hell is going on?

I thought, this O'Bama guy from Chicago would be easy to deal with. Irishmen are usually easy to approach as long as you have some money. It is like my whole world has been turned upside down.

If none of the sources of our energy are working, why keep working?

What was so wrong with claiming some land and working it instead of claiming to work and grabbing land and calling that landing some work?

If someone can no longer afford a room in a boarding house, how can they afford a psych ward if they have no insurance?

Is a psych ward safer than prison?  Each provides 3 hots and a cot, and a roof over one's head, but who ends up paying for it, and who really gains from it if a lesson is not learned?

If one is born of two Republicans and becomes a Liberal, is one a throwback, or a throwforward?

If a woman who's been seeking out "Daddy" all her life suddenly starts falling for guys 10 years younger than herself, does this mean she's grown up, or grown old?

Lastly, how many more cabinet members does Barack have to appoint before we get bored about it?

Oh, wait, that wasn't last:  Anyone who can get me the Tim Curry version of Joni Mitchell's "Cold Blue Steel and Sweet Fire" wins a kiss when they meet me in DC next month.

Dear Bloggers:

 

I am currently working on an honors thesis for my American government class.  I am currently conducting my research for the paper.  I would greatly appreciate it if you answers my questions and sent them to my email, lamour1_dani@bentley.edu.

 

What got you interested in politics?

What is your current educational level?

How old are you?

What is your gender?

What ethnicity are you?

What is your current career?

What was your focus during your educational experience?

How long have you been reading, posting, and responding to political Blogs?

Do you read opposing political blogs?

If so, which ones?

Over the past six presidential elections, typically which party have you voted with?

Do you feel your political blogging has influenced or swayed others?

Prior to, or other than blogging, what other forms of political activism have you or are you participating in?

Have blogs ever changed or influenced your opinion on political issues?

Do you consider any of these arguments valid?

How frequently do your blog?

What other, if any, newspapers and news channels do you use to obtain political knowledge?)

How often do you refer to these newspapers and/or news channels?

If applicable, where did you tend to go for political news before the internet?

Monday marked the 20th annual World AIDS Day. And to "commemorate" the occasion, President George W. Bush received a P.E.A.C.E.medal from mega-church Pastor Rick Warren for his work combating the epidemic, reports Mother Jones' Tay Wiles. In my latest piece in RH Reality Check, I discuss how the newly-minted medals are part of Warren's campaign to insinuate himself into the mainstream AIDS-fighting movement, nationally and internationally.

President-Elect Barack Obama chose to release his pre-recorded World AIDS Day speech at Warren's ceremony while George Bush personally accepted the medal. In his pre-recorded remarks, Obama stressed the need for "partnerships" between the government and religious groups in the fight against AIDS. Should we worry if some of our most powerful "partners" oppose key tenets of science-based AIDS control strategy?

Speaking of anti-science propaganda, watch Amanda Marcotte of RH Reality debunking some anti-choice propaganda about condoms. http://www.vimeo.com/2211143

Birth control in a Frito? Andrew Leonard notes in Salon that a new study purports to show that mice fed for generations on agribusiness giant Monsanto's genetically modified corn are less fertile. The PR war is in full-swing with Greenpeace sounding the alarm and Monsanto retrenching. Monsanto has a legitimate point, the study-like claims about douching with Diet Coke and doing it standing up-hasn't been peer reviewed.

In healthcare political news, a huge coalition of progressive and union forces is gearing up for a massive battle over healthcare, Alexander Zaitchik reports for AlterNet. They're called Health Care for America Now and their goal is to win a "guarantee of quality, affordable health care for all by the end of 2009."

If you think that plan is a long shot, Dean Baker pushes back in The American Prospect against those who say that healthcare reform is good, but that it's too expensive right now. Baker contends that healthcare reform spending should be part of the economic stimulus package, where we expect to borrow money now to get the economy going again:

In fact, the government is planning a large-scale stimulus package where it is looking for areas in which it can usefully spend money. If health care reform would require an initial increase in spending, before subsequent savings could be achieved, then it would be an obvious target for the stimulus. The Post should have noted that Grassley's claim about the lack of money for such an investment is contradicted by the vast majority of economists from both political parties.

There's an old healthcare saying, "Don't call a surgeon unless you want an operation." MaiaSzalavitz weighs in on the next Obama nomination front and says don't call a Drug Czar unless you want a drug war:

Historically, our czars have actively opposed sensible drug policy: They have gone on crusades against medical marijuana, interfered in state initiatives aimed at promoting treatment over punishment, and most notoriously, stopped President Clinton from letting his HHS secretary legalize federal funding for needle exchange when the data was incontrovertible that it helps fight AIDS and doesn't increase drug use.

Moving on to the legal drugs. The results of ALLHAT, one of the largest comparative studies of high blood pressure drugs in history, are in. ALLHAT was a clinical trial that could have been a reality TV show: $130,000,000, 42,000 patients, 4 drugs. Which would emerge victorious from the ALLHATBlood Pressure Cage Match of Science?!

The winner was the humble diuretic, one of those old, cheap drugs that make you pee a lot. You'd think think diuretic sales would be booming, now that they're proven to work better and cost less than the alternative. Yet, as Ezra Klein notes in the Prospect, sales have only gone up a couple points because the manufacturers of the more expensive drugs have already started spinning, cajoling and working the refs to distract from the results of a study that proved their products suck. Says a lot about our profit-driven healthcare system, doesn't it?

Other news from the world of medicine: A revolutionary new stem cell-based treatment restored a Spanish woman's windpipe, Jonathan Stein reports in Mother Jones.

And last but not least, in a society where black children don't necessarily get a lot of positive media attention Sasha and Malia Obama have become national icons, brimming with health and vitality.Juleyka Lantigua of The Progressive hopes that their example will motivate Americans to ensure that every child can be as healthy as the Obama's beloved daughters.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care. VisitHealthcare.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare affordability, healthcare laws, and healthcare controversy. And for the best progressive reporting on the ECONOMY, and IMMIGRATION, check out, Immigration.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net.

This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder.

Maybe Ted Stevens conviction on 7 felony counts HAS had an effect on Alaska politics.  Sarah Palin is trying to cover her tracks of past breaches of the public trust and Alaska ethics laws by revealing free trips she "forgot" to report:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081203/ap_on_el_pr/palin_ethics

I wonder what other violations she will "remember" as time passes.  I'm so happy to see the Republican party clinging to this empty shell as the future of their party.  She is the gift that keeps on giving!

First, I want to compliment TPM Muckraker on an outstanding job of outlining the Treasury Department's approaches (or lack of them) administering this financial industry bailout into which we were so rushed earlier this fall. Second (and I apologize if this has been covered or is common knowledge) but has there been some emergency re-regulations installed to keep derivatives exchanges from collapsing the world economy even further?

It seems to me the utter lack of oversight in these highly risky instruments is what drove losses to what some economists are calling hundreds of trillions of dollars. If that's true, we haven't hit the nut of that catastrophe yet - the $700 billion bailout is a shovelful of coverage in a Grand Canyon-sized money pit. But has anything stopped this insanity? Is it still going on? Are financial whiz kids throwing our futures away on a now-worthless crap game?

Read more »

...the Red Tiger lives... and dies... and lives... again!

Sometime in 1978, I believe, I created, for Russ Wiseman's art class at Holland Central High School, a comic book written and drawn by myself featuring a poorly designed character named Paul William Baker, rather melodramatically code named "Fury". Fury was a secret agent type who had been blown up by a supervillain and rebuilt with solid steel fists that could fire some sort of energy beam out of them. He rebelled against the villain, natch, becoming the villain's worst enemy (as the Late Great Jeff Webb once wryly noted, the number of villains who have stupidly created their own worst enemy by taking some stubborn heroic sort and doing something mean to him which ended up giving him superpowers is just staggering. You'd think they'd stop doing it, it never works out.)

I wanted to make the dreadful thing look as professional as possible, so I created a company name for the cover -- Redline Comics. I don't know why I called it that; it had nothing to do with the concept of things going broke, but rather, with the idea of an engine working at some kind of overdrive speed... past the red line, as it were. But that was what I had on top of the cover, instead of the Marvel Comics Group tag I was so obviously ripping off, at least, graphically.

Anyway, CODENAME: FURY (very nearly FIGHTING FISTS OF FURY, but at the last minute I, probably wisely, demurred) was an appalling thing indeed, but for some reason it impressed a classmate and fellow comics fan of mine who drew somewhat better and wrote somewhat worse than I did. And this guy, Jim Marek, proposed that we collaborate on a project together.

So, I sat down and wrote a script (literally wrote, by hand, on lined notebook paper) for a character called the Red Tiger. I had no idea what the Red Tiger looked like, but my artistic collaborator, whom I never quite got to the point of actually being friends with, took the script and drew up the first issue.

Jake (as Mr. Marek preferred to be called by his friends, and even, I guess, by me) and I went on to collaborate on one more title, REBEL, FIGHTER FOR FREEDOM FROM THE FAR FLUNG FUTURE, before our partnership lapsed. I no longer have either comic, of which there was only ever one issue (literally, one issue) which I somehow wound up with. But it's worth noting that the Red Tiger, such as he is visually, was entirely the creation of James Marek. (That's not a knock. While the red trunks over tights, crimson wifebeater, and odd mask concealing much of the face but leaving the lower nose, mouth, jaw, and hair revealed was savagely iconic of the 1970s, still, it's a look I love, and I especially like the tiger stripes on the headband, gloves, boots, and belt... it lends itself to an iconic look in silhouette, rather like Batman's cape and chest symbol.)

I don't think Jake did his best work on our collaborations, and certainly my scripts were weak, to say the very least. But 30 years later (for all I know, to the day) I've finished a new version of RED TIGER #1. Alas, my only collaborator on the title's current incarnation is myself, and my artwork at the age of 47 is far, far worse than Jim Marek's was at the age of 16... and I doubt my scripting is much improved over the past 30 years, either.

But, for what it's worth, here it is. The art is horrible, the concept is stupid, and the script is... well, I can't judge my own writing, but it's probably pretty fucking bad, too. But there it is. Do with it as you will.

Written beside the American creed of hating terrorists and loving the Irish and Italians should be the footnote and we ignore poor people. Poor people always get the shit end of every deal usually because they can't get the attention of politicians or pundits, and because of this the poor people in New Orleans and India have a lot in common.

India has more than 100,000 millionaires, and is creating new ones at a rate rivaled only be Russia. Meanwhile, nearly half of Mumbai's 14-18 million residents live in slums. In the United States, poor people suffer under a specialized caste system that masquerades as a functioning democracy. In the good ole' US of A, the top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

Yet, in the 2008 election, neither major candidate uttered the word "poor" in the thousands of hours clocked speaking into cameras. But the sickness of ignoring the poor goes beyond John McCain and Barack Obama. The United States government and the corporate media systematically ignore the suffering of the poor, too.

Read more »

At this writing I am sixty four years old and the immense bubble that has burst and is now deflating all around us has been inflating itself since I was a tiny child.

This bubble world is the world that I have always lived in and, unless you are considerably older than I am or live in an undeveloped country then, it is your world too.

When I was very young the "commie menace" hysteria began, and one of my earliest TV memories in suburban America, beside Howdy Doody, of course, was of the McCarthy hearings and the Korean war.

Karl Marx and all who sailed in him were taboo, trefa, haram. Compared to what Karl Marx was then, today's villain, Osama bin Laden, is Brad Pitt.

Read more »

Read more »

Cross-posted at genelewisperry.com.

The media has given plenty of attention to what Obama will do with his unprecedentedly large and detailed database of voters collected during the campaign.  This was the backbone of their wildly successful fundraising from small donors, but even before election day, the flush with cash campaign's pleas for ever more money grew increasingly absurd.

I laughed out loud at one e-mail from Oct. 30 that cited "unexpected spending against us in Montana and West Virginia."

As we saw on election day, if the GOP was having to spend money to defend Montana and West Virginia, Obama did not need any more of our money to beat them.

(Unlike most e-mails which came from luminaries like Joe Biden, David Plouffe, or Obama himself, it was from "Chief Financial Officer Marianne Markowitz," perhaps because the others were too embarrassed to put their names to that particular beg.)

But hey, them's elections.  I don't hold it against them.  Even when the odds look good, the presidency is too important to worry about e-mail dignity.

But now that it's over, they can devote this valuable resource to more altruistic ends, right?

Not so far.

The most recent plea promises a "limited edition sterling silver Obama keychain" for giving $30 or more to the Democratic National Committee.  Leaving aside that they are relying on tactics reminiscent of the Home Shopping Network, what the Democrats need now is not more money from us.  They will soon control the Congress and Presidency based on millions of selfless contributors and volunteers, and now it's their turn to prove they deserved it.

Not to mention that improving the country, putting our economy back on track, bringing us health care and renewable energy... all of these things will do far more to get them reelected than a $30 contribution for a keychain.

It's not a frivolous complaint.  The economy sucks, many people are hurting, and there are plenty of groups out there that could use that $30 to do much more good than putting it into the ad budget of the DNC.

And if they do eventually put the list to better ends, the attrition of those who unsubscribed because they were as annoyed as I was will make it that much less useful.

Obama has a powerful resource in the database and social network of committed donors and volunteers, but, unlike some of the critics have said, we aren't a mob of mindless supporters.

Appeal to our desire to restore our communities and give us the tools to do so, and we will take action in a million beneficial ways.  Treat us like a bag a money to occasionally shake, and you may get a few extra dollars, but you will lose the potential for real community organizing and a new kind of politics that you claim to represent.