This originated as a comment on Greg's post, which I couldn't get the system to accept. It seems to me that the discussion (not just here) misses a key point: Obama is not about "kumbaya" for the sake of peace and love; he is about making government an effective tool to deal with the urgent issues that require governmental action, but don't necessarily involve people's emotional and ideological commitments.

Read more »

Ruth Marcus writes a piece in the Washington Post today in which she has the audacity to justify doing nothing against Bush officials who broke the law during his administration, including (and she mentions him by name) Dick Cheney, who recently admitted to being involved in torture:

I'm coming to the conclusion that what's most crucial here is ensuring that these mistakes are not repeated. In the end, that may be more important than punishing those who acted wrongly in pursuit of what they thought was right.

One leading progressive blogger finds the argument absurd and puts forward an analogy:

Glen Greenwald, today:

Much more important than punishing murderers or getting caught up in protracted disputes about prior murders is the need to prevent murders from occurring in the future.  Therefore, we ought to abandon our quest to impose punishments on people who get caught having murdered someone.  To expend resources trying to punish murderers is to squander vital resources on the past, to waste energies that could instead be more productively devoted to preventing future murders.
There are too many important challenges we face to waste time bogged down litigating past murders.  Let's allow murderers to go unpunished so that we can move beyond the past and concentrate instead on the more important priority of minimizing the number of murders in the future.

Hi there, come on in.  No, don't worry about that.  The lights are just low 'cause it feels like a quiet evening.  You know you're welcome ... when have I ever turned you away?  All right, then.  May I get you a glass of wine?  I actually went shopping recently, so I have a small selection.  Find a seat, I'll join you in a minute or two.

 

Read more »

Dear gawd, we have made it down to one last month. It seems the Bush disaster is interminal.  Breath in.  Breath out.  Breath in.  Breath out.

WingNutDaily.com is promoting a book by an alleged psychiatrist, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, titled "The Liberal Mind:  The Psychological Causes of Political Madness".   He compares liberals to spoiled, angry children who rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave. 

"The roots of liberalism - and its associated madness - can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind.   When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

Yontz got probation.

 

This shows a phone number:

703 243 6649

 

to ask about the two cases where he allegedly did copy, share, or sell the information:

NYT: In all but two cases, he did not copy, share or sell the information, prosecutors said.

Read more »

I think folks have this Little Rickie Warren thing all wrong.  Obama promised to meet the leaders of the enemies of America without preconditions early in the campaign.  We all applauded.  Now he is demonstrating his sincerity.  I hope the negotiations for disarmament go well.  If not, perhaps we can build a wall around Rickie's compound.

The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages 
and accepting donations.

The Library will include:

  1. The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.

2. The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember 
anything.

3. The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to 
show up.

4. The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.

5. The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.

6. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to 
find.

7. The National Debt Room, which is huge and has no ceiling.

8. The Tax Cut Room, with entry only to the wealthy.

9. The Economy Room, which is in the toilet.

10. The Iraq War Room. (After you complete your first visit, they make 
you go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth visit.)

11. The Dick Cheney Room, in the famous undisclosed location, complete 
with shooting gallery.

12. The Environmental Conservation Room, still empty.

13. The Supreme Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.

14. The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite 
Republican Senators.

15. The Decider Room, complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija 
board, dice, coins, and straws.

  Note: The library will feature an electron microscope to help you 
locate and view the President's accomplishments.

  The library will also include many famous Quotes by George W.Bush:

1. 'The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.'

2. 'If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.'

3. 'Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother 
and child.'

4. 'No senior citizen should ever have to choose between prescription 
drugs and medicine.'

5. 'I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and 
democracy - but that could change.'

6. 'One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and 
that one word is 'to be prepared'.'

7. 'Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.'

8. 'I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments 
in the future.'

9. 'The future will be better tomorrow.'

10. 'We're going to have the best educated American people in the 
world..'

11. 'One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some 
fantastic pictures.' (during an education photo-op)

12. 'Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not 
having it.'

13. 'We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.'

14. 'It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the 
impurities in our air and water that are doing it.'

15.. 'I stand by all the misstatements that I've
made.'...George W.Bush to Sam Donaldson


PLEASE GIVE GENEROUSLY!

Sincerely,

Jack Abramoff, Co-Chair

G.W. Bush Library Board of Directors

I'm going to post info about the Madoff scandal in the comments below as I come across it. Someone has to take a step back and look at the big picture. 

Media coverage of the Bernie Madoff scandal is as laughably bad as coverage of the Enron scandal was seven years ago. Wall Street got away without taking responsibility for Enron by claiming Enron's operations were so complex, none of the high-prices analysts could have been expected to understand them.

Now we are expected to believe Bernie Madoff singlehandedly siphoned more than $24 billion from investors without anyone in his family or anyone on Wall Street having a clue.

I suspect the family and a lot of other people were in on it and I suspect the revelation of Bernie Madoff's $24 billion swindle was timed to minimize questions about how it happened. Let the story out the week before Christmas and within a few days, it will be set aside until after New Year's. As an added bonus, Bernie's investors can claim a tax deduction for their losses on this year's return.   

The media is quite happy to accept Bernie's characterizion of  the theft as a Ponzi scheme without a shred of evidence. Calling it a Ponzi scheme gives the impression that the oldest investors were being paid with money coming in from the newest investors. But in Madoff's case, he didn't necessarily have to pay out on every account because many of his long time investors never touched their balances. By calling the swindle a Ponzi scheme, Madoff is trying to mask how much money went into his pocket.

Who were the investors who suddenly wanted to withdraw $7.5 billion from Madoff's firm because of market conditions? A Madoff selling point was that he always came through in bad times. Perhaps someone at a regulatory agency passed the word around about Bernie's trouble to select investors.

There were signs of trouble if you knew what to look for.

On August 27, 2008, FINRA sanctioned Madoff Investments for not disclosing short sales data on "electronic blue sheets".  I don't know enough about the stock market to know if this violation signaled a problem with Madoff's investments but someone in the business would know. No one in the media has brought it up as far as I know.

In February 2008, FINRA sanctioned Madoff Investments for failing to disclose customer limits immediately which apparently would have impacted stock prices favorably for his customers. Again, I don't what it means but it seems like Bernie was making money at the expense of his customers. I haven't read anything about this violation either.

It looks like FINRA began taking an interest in Bernie's business just this year. Other than being sanctioned in 2005 for not disclosing customer limits, Bernie had been clean as far as FINRA was concerned since 1963.

Who knew about Bernie's swindle and when did they know it?

It is perfectly reasonable to suspect Wall Street and/or the US government knew about it well  before this month and kept the story quiet until the bailout was in place. News that $24 billion was blatantly stolen from investors by a former chairman of NASDQ would have made taxpayers a lot less inclined to bail out banks or anyone else.

If Bernie was colluding with so-called respectable invesment houses on Wall Street, keeping his crime a secret allowed those firms time to cover their tracks.

Bernie had unilateral control of a large pool of money and could have easily influenced the price of a stock by buying or selling  at certain times. No reason why Wall Street firms couldn't have paid Bernie to make pre-arranged trades they could discreetly profit from. Ever notice how the price of a stock can fluctuate on any given day for no apparent reason?

The extent of corruption on Wall Street is so pervasive that no firm is exempt from suspicion and no economic crime can be ruled out of bounds. And that's what Henry Paulson is trying to hide from his fellow Americans.

Fuck off, Paulson. We've got your number and with a little luck, we'll come up with some hard evidence that even you can't cover up.   

More to come. 

I just want to know why many people call "gay" the new black?

On Thursday the NY Times published a page-long editorial, The Torture Report, indicting, of course, not just the behavior of torture but the government's:

legally and morally bankrupt documents to justify their actions, starting with a presidential order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners of the "war on terror" -- the first time any democratic nation had unilaterally reinterpreted the conventions.

[italics mine]

And the Times editorial board asked that:

A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse.

My response, when I read that editorial?  Finally!

Yes, I've long wanted such a prosecutor.  Who among us with a conscience could hear about what happened to US prisoners (in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and black sites) without concluding it was torture?  And who could read the "torture memos" themselves without feeling our country had betrayed its own ideals in addition to the Geneva Conventions?

Yet this morning, I learned something new.  In a letter to the editor in response to the same editorial:

Re "The Torture Report" (editorial, Dec. 18):

If we are to comply with the Geneva Conventions, political considerations will not relieve the president of his obligation to undertake prosecutions of top officials for the authorization of torture. The conventions themselves require adherents to hold such prosecutions.

This is a question of law, not politics; and those who try to politicize it are rightly dismissed as outlaws.

If defendants have legal defenses, they can raise them. Our legal system will address them, as it does all defenses raised by the accused. The country and the world can then judge the validity of those defenses and our judiciary's decisions on them.

This is the only way to restore our reputation as law-abiding citizens of the world. It has the added virtue of being the right way.

Vincent J. Canzoneri
Newton, Mass., Dec. 18, 2008

The writer is a lawyer.

[my bold]

That line blew me away!  We are obliged to hold prosecutions.  We are obliged.

So I did a little digging.  With the intention of understanding this obligation.  And stumbled upon this article in the Nation, which I commend to your attention.   And there I read:

A growing body of legal opinion holds that Obama will have a duty to investigate war crimes allegations and, if they are found to have merit, to prosecute the perpetrators.

I also learned:

Obama's nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, speaking to the American Constitution Society in June, described Bush administration actions in terms that sound a whole lot more like "genuine crimes" than like "really bad policies":

Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution.... We owe the American people a reckoning."

Wow!  That really nails it!

And if:

Outside the Beltway, a movement to hold Bush administration officials accountable for torture and other war crimes after they leave office is gradually emerging...

Please count me among them!

Now that I've recognized our duty, I feel I must call all of us to become a chorus in this cause.  I have long thought that groups should be convened throughout our nation to study the Constitution.  I have believed we must make sure, in addition, that our nation sign all UN treaties it has failed to sign, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and others.  But now I'm convinced our nation needs to study its own complicity in failing to not only declare human rights but uphold them - in every particular.

Will War Crimes Be Outed?

Thus asks The Nation.  And concludes:

There are a myriad of reasons for urgently holding the Bush regime to account, ranging from preventing unchallenged executive action from setting new legal precedent to providing a compelling rationale for the immediate cessation of bombing civilians in the escalating Afghan war.

But the issue raised by Bush administration war crimes is even larger than any person's individual crimes. As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." The long history of aggressive war, illegal occupation, and torture, from the Philippines to Iraq, have given the American people a moral education that encourages us to countenance war crimes. If we allow those who initiated and justified the illegal conquest and occupation of Iraq and the use of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo to go unsanctioned, we teach the world--and ourselves--a lesson about what's OK and legal.

As countries like Chile, Turkey and Argentina can attest, restoration of democracy, civic morality and the rule of law is often a slow but necessary process, requiring far more than simply voting a new party into office. It requires a wholesale rejection of impunity for the criminal acts of government officials. As Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) put it, "We owe it to the American people and history to pursue the wrongdoing of this administration whether or not it helps us politically.... Our actions will properly define the Bush Administration in the eyes of history."

[italics mine]

I'm convinced.  It is our moral duty.  We cannot flinch!

One of the most important realizations of getting old is that there are some things that you just aren't going to be able to do, or do any more. This can be because of limited time, energy or health, or money. So you have to chose what you are going to attempt and what you are going to forego.

Suppose we postulate that the US has gotten "old". The present downturn may just be an "episode" of ill health, but what if we can see that we can't return to the bloom of youth even after it is over. (I claim Europe has been "old" since the end of the rapid regrowth after WWII ended as well.)

If we are willing to consider this possibility then we need to decide what are the aspects of society that we will keep and what are the ones we will give up.

I maintain that the US has turned the corner and is no longer youthful for several reasons. The original burst of youthful growth took place when the continent was mostly empty and the frontier allowed for rapid expansion of population and the continual finding of untapped resources. This provided the fuel needed for the rapid growth of the society. This period ended at the end of the 19th Century.

During the first half of the 20th Century growth was fueled by a rapid expansion of America's role in international affairs. Two world wars and the reconstruction efforts afterwards provided opportunities abroad for US investment and markets. Similarly an expansion into the areas where traditional colonialism had ceased provided markets and raw materials in less developed areas. This era ended with the turbulence of the 1960's. Since then the US has failed to impose its will on weaker foreign states using military means and has had to yield control even in areas where it was dominant before.

The decline in influence has been masked for the past several decades because of the failure of the Soviet empire. This left the US as the only dominant power in the world and enabled it to procure raw materials and finished goods at very favorable terms. In addition it has been able to force its trading partners to accept IOU's for the items obtained. In other words, just like many individuals, the country has been living on borrowed funds.

Several things have now transpired at once to throw things into disarray. First, there is the sudden rise of the Asian economies. The rapid rise in the standard of living and level of economic activity in China, India and elsewhere has increased demand for natural resources. Couple this with the doubling of the world population in the past 40 years and the pressures are unprecedented.

Second, the financial system which has been dominated by US and European banks has broken down. The source of wealth is now in the Oil States and in other areas which can provide natural resources. The US (and Europe) can no longer supply their own needs and must buy from elsewhere. With existing technology there is no suitable replacement for liquid fuels, for example.

Third, the world has now "filled up" and the prospects for expansion into areas which were underdeveloped or underpopulated no longer exists. Sure there will be many more people squeezed in over the next 50 years (the estimates are an additional three billion), but they will be forced to live in undesirable locations or under substandard conditions. Most of the growth will continue to be in huge cities of 10 million or more where many people live in slums with no services. This has been the pattern over the past two decades and there is little reason to think the trend will be reversed.

Given all of this the US will no longer be the world's only "superpower", but will be only one economic power among others. The military force that has been used explicitly or implicitly will continue to be ineffective. We can blow things up, but we can't force states to yield to our demands. Iraq and Afghanistan are only the latest failures. Having a huge military is so appealing to many interests that it may continue to be funded even though it no longer functions effectively.

If we project that the US will have to consume a proportion of world resources at rate similar to elsewhere then the economy would have to contract to about 25% of its present size. If we are willing to be more generous and assume some continuing ability to coerce trading partners, plus some industrial and economic advantages then, perhaps the economy may only shrink to half. This decline will be disguised by the changes in exchange rates and inflation, so that the nominal size of the economy in dollars may continue to grow, but people won't be able to buy as much as formerly.

So the US is now faced with some unpleasant choices. It can plan for a smaller economy or it can just let it happen. Recent attempts to pump up the economy in the face of the current downturn seem to indicate that it is the latter course of action that will be undertaken. Present steps are aimed at restoring the "good old days" as quickly as possible. Even the scare of $140 oil hasn't awakened political and social leaders to the need to restructure the economy.

What might an unplanned smaller economy look like?

The best we have to go by are examples from history. There have been many cases where empires crumbled. In every case what followed was a rise in poverty for the bulk of the population, while the wealthy used their power to maintain their wealth. When you are the only ones with money it is cheap to buy loyalty from those without, and it doesn't even cost much. The result is a rise of police power and repression of dissent. This fracturing of society into the rulers and the ruled only makes economic conditions worse and accelerates the economic decline. Slaves don't make good workers and have little incentive to improve society. In the worst cases you get civil wars and revolution.

Conservatives like to claim that this has never happened in a democracy, and it is only in states that were autocracies where such things have happened. But one can't argue by historical precedent. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Greece and Rome collapsed and both thought they were democracies of a sort.

What might a planned smaller economy look like?

One could have a society where wealth still maintains most of its privilege, but is willing to throw enough bones at the rest of us so that they forestall revolt. This means providing for relatively full employment, health care and a secure retirement. It does not mean maintaining a level of material wealth seen by many middle class people now. The USSR followed this policy (or at least tried to) when it wasn't at war. Many jobs were pointless, but they kept the population busy and feeling like it was part of the effort. Health care and old age were also provided at some level as well. Notice that when the empire collapsed these social services were the first things to go. Even China tried to keep the population under control by providing some level of services until the recent abandonment of guaranteed services.

At a 25% level people in the US would have lifestyles similar to those in Romania or Bulgaria. That is a place to live, adequate diet, basic consumer items like a TV, and so on. There wouldn't be families with four cars for four people, or McMansions. Public transit would need to be expanded since personal vehicles would be out of the question. They would be too expensive and so would the fuel needed to operate them. In addition this would mean a retreat from the exurbs and sprawl communities and their replacement with more concentrated development so that people could get about without owning cars. In general the level of happiness or life satisfaction for those currently living in such conditions is not much different than those in the US and other wealthy western states. Whether people would maintain there current level of satisfaction during the adjustment period is another matter. In some cases of contraction (say Britain in WWII) the population was willing to put up with the decline because they felt it was for the greater good. How it is received depends upon how the sacrifice is presented.

At a 50% level the standard of living would be comparable to New Zealand. I don't think anyone could argue that people there are deprived in any substantial way.

Planning for contraction

Here are some of the steps I think could be taken to lessen the impact of economic contraction. Remember this will take place over several decades.

1. Restore urban planning so that depopulated cities are rebuilt. This means subsidizing construction of housing, transportation and, perhaps, even giving incentives to firms to relocate in such areas.

2. Increase the amount of regional and long distance mass transit. This is an opportunity for creative thinking. Light rail, monorails, MAG-LEV, electric buses and ideas not yet thought of come to mind. Tiny vehicles like the Smart cars could be leased for short trips where no other options are available. Personal auto ownership would become much rarer. The auto industry would be re-purposed to provide these new forms of transportation.

3. Increase regionalism for (light) manufacturing and agriculture. People will have to once again get used to eating and buying what is available, rather than anything from anywhere on earth. Regionalism will also allow for the return of local differences and make travel more interesting. No longer will one be able to get the same McNuggets anywhere on the planet. This will allow for personal creativity. This also means a change in diet away from the factory farming based upon corn-fed livestock and back towards more grains and vegetables. This is less resource intensive and also healthier. Industrial farming requires vast quantities of fertilizers and pesticides which come from petroleum and will also be in short supply.

4. Replace materialism with community. More time and energy will be spent on community activities. This doesn't necessarily mean everyone takes up bowling or sitting in pubs, the communities can be virtual, but it does mean that doing replaces shopping.

5. Expand social services. This means adopting more of a Scandinavian model: child care, health care, parental leave, free higher education, extended vacations, etc. All these services will require manpower, thus giving employment to those displaced from making "stuff" (or gambling at financial firms).

6. Increased focus on R&D. New discoveries are the best chance for overcoming the limitations now faced by shortages of key raw materials like fossil fuels. A viable fusion system, for example would solve the world's electricity problem. It might even allow substitution of Hydrogen for gasoline in vehicles. We don't know what types of inventions and discoveries might come along. Just look at all the change since the invention of the transistor in 1948.

7. Proper population planning. This one always gets misconstrued. People think that I'm advocating policies similar to those followed by China or the brutal eugenics ideas of racists in the 20th Century. Advanced economies already tend to have low birth rates and can transition to a steady level of population with only a slight change in incentives and family planning. Poor nations need family planning services expanded, education for women and the ability of them to become financially independent, if they wish. Empowered women do their own family planning if they have access to the needed information and resources.

8. Foster democracy. Only democratic states can get the participation of the population that is needed to make such large scale social transformations possible. Autocratic states cannot. People need to feel they are not only part of the process, but helping to design it. The desire to make a better life for one's children is one of the most powerful forces on earth. Better doesn't mean bigger. Given the opportunities and the ability to participate in the planning the people will do the right thing.

Change is inevitable, too many people, too few resources. The current downturn is an opportunity to reconsider how we want the rest of the 21st Century to look, or not.

 

In the Netherlands gay marriage has been legalised since (2001), but the road to that point didn't involve some kind of culture war or liberal takeover where two sides where bitterly divided. Offcourse our situation is different, since we have a multi party system the christian parties are not always in power. At this point they are however and they won't undertake any action to ban gay marriage. The netherlands didn't get to this point by bluntly legalising this form of marriage and shuning people who have problems with it.

The First step was a registered partnership, which was already avaiable at the time to hetrosexuals who didn't feel like tying the knot, but wanted to be able to have thew fiscal and other advantages of marriage. in 1998 this was opened up to gay couples as well, providing them all expept one of the benefits of marriage. (for both gays and straights in such a partnership, children must be recognised seperatly by at least one of the parents.). Now the debate around gay marriage completly changed, the true biggots who where against any goverment aproval of any gay activity gave up, their goals where no longer the same as those of christians who had an very rigid and clasical view of marriage (and ones even opposed divorce...). So now the opposition was smaller the true biggots and homophobes left the debat, or became less active becaus their goals seemed unpobtainable. the christian opposition against the legalisation of true marriage remained but these christians distanced themselfs from other biggogst when it became apperent to them that they did not share their goal of protecting just the word marriage, but where opposed to anything gay.

this split the opposition to gay marriage in two and sepperated the true haters from christian who can't get over the word "marriage" as being thiers. At the same time the gay community was enboldened by their victory, and had most practical problems whith not being able to be lawfully married solved. This mean they could now continu the debate from a better possition, one in which their practical problems where solved and they clearly knew who could be reasoned with (i.e which fractions after a lot of reasoning accepted gay civil unions.)and which where just biggots.

Three years later (2001) the law allowed gays to officially get married, offcourse not many chyurches will allow this to happen between their walls but thats their right. .

So engaging Rick Warren and accepting civil unions isn't accepting defeat, it gives you a
better view of who in your opposition is open to debate and who is a biggot that cannot be reasoned with. At the same time the gay community will see most of its practical problems solved. Find out who in the christian coalition on the right is open for full civil unions those are the people one can engage in debate the others are clear biggots.

Ah, A Wonderful Life. What a movie. A banker as a hero.  Who'd a thought as America was just crawling out of a Great Depression and restructuring after WWII.  And yet, there he was, good old George Bailey.

If you recall, good old George had one goal in life: travel and see the world and build great edifices . So much to see and so little time. But George knocks up Donna Reed (I kind of infer this) and ends up having to run daddy's Savings & Loan in Bedford Falls and he has many children and many great responsibilities..

The S&L has to compete with the bank run by the evil Mr. Potter. We must not forget, there are a lot of evil people who move around in wheel chairs. The S&L has the primary purpose of getting loans to poor people so that they can buy homes.  (As Republicans have pointed out, this is an extremely insidious idea and would eventually throw us all into a new Depression 60 years later)

One fine day George sends his beloved Uncle Billy to deposit the week's cash take of 8 grand in the real bank and, if you recall, Uncle Billy stops to read the funnies in the bank and Mr. Potter's evil co-conspirator steals the money.  

George has a shortfall, something like Mr. Madoff, and the auditor is going to appear shortly to check his books and the auditor is much smarter than Mr. Madoff's auditors and will shortly find the shortfall and will not believe that some dog ate George's homework.  All is lost.

And George now hates his bank, hates his kids, hates his Donna Reed and hates his banister. (I never understood the animosity towards banisters though) Now George, instead of doing the right thing and sitting in his idling car in the garage with the door closed, decides to jump off a bridge.

You see, if he did the car suicide, his widow might be able to get life insurance funds by positing that George died unintentionally.

So an angel comes at the last moment dressed in some sort of long underwear and demonstrates to George how terrible Bedford Falls would have been without George, the S&L and the funding of houses for poor people (much to the chagrin of Republicans like Mr. Potter)

And George gets back to reality and all the poor people who are living in their homes financed by ARMs come to George's house and give him $8,000 so that he does not have a shortfall.  And the auditor who found the shortfall throws in his two dollars, also.

And then George decides he loves Donna Reed, and his children and his banister.

But Wendell Jamieson at the NYT wants to destroy our happiness and our belief
that we can be born again by pointing out a problem in Frank Capra's reasoning.
            
"But isn't George still liable for the missing funds, even if he has made restitution? I mean, if someone robs a bank, and then gives the money back, that person still robbed the bank, right?"

Jamieson writer inquired of ..." Frank J. Clark, the district attorney for Erie County upstate, where, as far as I can tell, the fictional Bedford Falls is set. He thought it over, and then agreed: George would still face prosecution and possible prison time.'In terms of the theft, sure, you take the money and put it back, you still committed the larceny," he said. "By giving the money back, you have mitigated in large measure what the sentence might be, but you are still technically guilty of the offense.'"

"He took this a bit further: "If you steal over $3,000, it's a D felony; 2 ½ to 7 years is the maximum term for that. The least you can get is probation. You know Jimmy Stewart, though, he had that hangdog face. He'd be a tough guy to send to jail.'"

The moral of the story is that even if you love Donna Reed and all your children and your banister and you have an angel helping you out and poor people bring you 8 grand in cash, you still might have to do some real time in the slammer.

THE END



 

   I'm not one of those to overtly question Obama's picks and his transition. Given the circumstances, I guess some hard choices have to be made, and I suppose there are not really that many people qualified to hit the ground running.
   But this is ridiculous. I don't know what else to say. It lends a lot of credence to Nader's arguments, as well as those of other people who think the Federal Government is a rotating cabal of people who do NOT have our interests at heart.
   This post is written by someone who is outside the gates anyway, and looking up at the bright shining tower wondering what the Hell is going on, but hopeful just the same that the victory in November will bring change.
   Telling myself: ignore the Gensler story. Ignore the Gensler story.

This is the 4th blog post in a "CLASS WAR" series. The others can be found by scrolling through the other "CLASS WAR" posts here.

We are told that we cannot presently consider repealing the Bush Tax cuts that were recently passed in support of the wealthiest among us. After all, we need to keep money in the hands of consumers so they will stimulate the economy. This prompts a number of follow-up questions that are raised within five different categories:

Productive Stimulus or Circle Jerk?

Does this increased personal wealth that results from the lower taxes paid by the upper few percent of the economy translate into an increase in consumer spending? Aren't these people more likely to invest this money in the bonds the government is selling to cover the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being offered to the financial markets and now the Big Three Automakers? Are we not therefore essentially giving this money to the wealthiest class of people in this economy and then subsequently paying them for the privilege of borrowing our money back from them to then fund a stimulus plan? Is this a wholly productive economic stimulus plan or simply a stimulus plan preceded by a circle jerk for the wealthy and their subservient pols?

"Autoworkers, Unite!" Solving the Competitiveness Dilemma.

If it is truly in our interest to keep money in the hands of consumers to stimulate the economy, why should we not compel the other automakers to pay a UAW wage rather than compel UAW members to take a major reduction? Wouldn't the workers' "competitiveness" be restored in either case, with the universal UAW wage providing additional stimulus as required?

Tax Subsidies for Foreign Car-Makers: Asking US Workers to Purchase Their Own Noose Via Redistribution of Their Tax Dollars

In his TPM Blog, Kenneth Thomas shows that the foreign automakers who have built plants in the US have received over $3.3 billion in government subsidies. Shouldn't it be a requirement that any manufacturer seeking such government subsidies must agree to pay the prevailing wage? Does it really make sense to instead spend our tax dollars on subsidies that actually encourage these businesses to undercut the present earning capacity of American workers?

Economic Stimulus Plan Requires a Further Widening of the Disparity of Wealth Between Upper and Middle Classes?

If we cannot repeal the Bush tax cuts because we now need to keep that money in circulation to stimulate the economy, what is the possible justification for making it a requirement of the loan to the Big Three that the UAW members must now take a cut in pay for "the good of the economy?"

Can We Effectively Leverage These Billions We Are About to Loan to the Auto Industry?

Of the three major players at the table (The Automakers, the Government, and the UAW) negotiating the Big Three loan package, the UAW members are the least culpable for the problems faced by our car industry. They have shown up for work making cars and have had nothing to do with the lack of oversight on Wall Street that has made a criminal syndicate of our financial markets, nor have they participated in the bad business decisions of the Big Three Management and its shareholders. Yet, of these three groups, the UAW is expected to make the greatest sacrifices to gain loan assistance from the government that is required to keep the industry afloat. Would it not therefore be proper for these loans to be offered to the UAW members instead of to the Big Three directly for purpose of letting the UAW members buy the companies in exchange for their sacrifices? Why is it a foregone conclusion that this money must go the shareholders and not the employees when arguably the latter group has a more vested interest in doing whatever it takes to make the industry viable?

----------------------------------------

I look forward to the discussion. I can't say I know all the answers, but I think it is time someone began asking the right questions.

 

I know. It's a gesture.  He won't be setting policy.  Obama wants to reach out to the various groups in our country.  I get that, I like that about Obama.  But the choice of Rick Warren disappoints.  At first I rationalized it and while not pleased wasn't really perturbed either.  But after learning a bit more about Warren I've become disappointed.  He is not a moderate, he is a far right winger.  His support for AIDS relief and climate control does not make him a moderate, just more palatable.  He is staunchly anti-gay.  Rachel Maddow reported today, as have some blogs, that the Saddleback Church's website states that "unrepentant gays" are unwelcome.  Unrepentant, for who but a sinner should need to repent for their evil deeds, the dirty deed of romantically loving someone of the same gender.  Rick Warren is bigoted. He openly and loudly discriminates against the minority gay community.  If his church openly rejected a racial minority he would not be given the honor of giving the invocation for President-elect Obama's inauguration.  But it's OK, because it's only the gays.

The problem is not that Obama has discussions with Warren, that he listens to him or that they might play golf.  The issue is that he has bestowed a great honor  upon  Rick Warren.  He has elevated Warren's stature and amplified his voice.  There are multitudes of holy men who emulate tolerance, who welcome those who are different and offer them teachings of Christ.  Rick Warren is not one of them. 

I know, LisB, we WON!  It is fabulous, I am so happy and I should STFU.  I will be thrilled by the inauguration and I know my eyes won't be dry.  But when the event begins and our eyes turn to God it will be a representative of intolerance who will be leading the prayer.  In choosing Warren for this prestigious ceremony Obama has cast a shadow on the joy of the inauguration for an entire minority group.  He could easily have chosen someone who would not make anyone feel excluded.  I believe Obama to be a tolerant man and his inauguration will be a joyous event for a majority of Americans, myself included.  But I'm disapointed that some will feel unnecessarily offended.

 

In the mid 60's a friend gave me a stock tip, a gold mining company was about to announce a big find.  He gave me the name of a broker.  I sent him some money.  I checked the stock every morning in the paper.  Three days later the announcement was made, the stock went up ten-fold.  Two days later the friend called, "Get out, now!"  So I did.  The next day the New York State Attorney General announced charges were filed against the gold company, there was no there, there.  The stock went down to zero.  I have never invested in a stock since.

Paul Krugman in today's NY Times dips his toe into the great Ponzi scheme know as the U.S. investment industry.  Krugman wraps his column around Uber scammer Bernard Madoff asking the question, "How different, really, is Mr. Madoff's tale from the story of the investment industry as a whole?"

His answer is Uber frightening:

The financial services industry has claimed an ever-growing share of the nation's income over the past generation, making the people who run the industry incredibly rich. Yet, at this point, it looks as if much of the industry has been destroying value, not creating it. And it's not just a matter of money: the vast riches achieved by those who managed other people's money have had a corrupting effect on our society as a whole.

Who are the beneficiaries?:

Consider the hypothetical example of a money manager who leverages up his clients' money with lots of debt, then invests the bulked-up total in high-yielding but risky assets, such as dubious mortgage-backed securities. For a while -- say, as long as a housing bubble continues to inflate -- he (it's almost always a he) will make big profits and receive big bonuses. Then, when the bubble bursts and his investments turn into toxic waste, his investors will lose big -- but he'll keep those bonuses.

How big is the Wall Street scam?:

We're talking about a lot of money here. In recent years the finance sector accounted for 8 percent of America's G.D.P., up from less than 5 percent a generation earlier. If that extra 3 percent was money for nothing -- and it probably was -- we're talking about $400 billion a year in waste, fraud and abuse.

Who's to blame?:

At the crudest level, Wall Street's ill-gotten gains corrupted and continue to corrupt politics, in a nicely bipartisan way. From Bush administration officials like Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who looked the other way as evidence of financial fraud mounted, to Democrats who still haven't closed the outrageous tax loophole that benefits executives at hedge funds and private equity firms (hello, Senator Schumer), politicians have walked when money talked.

And, who are the biggest losers in this legalized, politicized swindle?  You, of course.  But don't fret, I got a tip that this gold mining company...

The Madoff Economy

It's Friday night, and we're happy over at http://www.lingr.com/room/TPM-aholics .

Come and join us for an hour or more?

 

 

"Geez, these lefties are clueless!  Can't even tell when someone's trying to help them.  They think the way politics works is that they explain to everyone else what right and wrong is, and everyone else agrees.  It would make them really annoying if it didn't also make them so easy to manipulate. 

This thing with Rick is working out beautifully.  Now that I'm President, gays are the new blacks, the new angry outsiders, and this is my Sister Souljah move.  The Left flips its lid over a harmless symbolic gesture, I look really reasonable to everyone else, and my plan to govern with 70% of the electorate behind me so I can override filibusters is perfectly on track.  

That'll help with the stim plan, and with climate change and energy independence and health care.  Hey, I'm gonna need all the political support I can get to push that stuff through the Senate.  Then once the stim plan starts to work and we get some results from the other stuff too, I'll have enough political capital to fight the culture wars. 

Boy, the Lefties are gonna feel silly when I start with that.  I won't push gay marriage, but there's no point, because it's a state issue, not a Federal one.  But I'll reform DOMA so the Federal gov't recognizes gay marriages and civil unions in states that have them. Then, once married gays can file joint income tax returns and get those thousand other Federal marriage breaks it'll push the Overton Window on this issue so much farther to the left that gay marriage will start popping in all the blue states. 

I'll have to do something about the gay-military thing, too.  That's a tough one, because those military guys are such giant homophobes.  Some of them think that if there's a gay guy within a thousand yards of them they'll catch it.  Thank God those guys are trained to obey orders. 

Probably I'll start by allowing gays to serve openly in the Reserves and National Guard, and really enforcing the Don't Ask part of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. If I have a couple of commanders demoted for conducting witch hunts, the others will get the message.  Oh, and anyone who does get kicked out or did before gets an honorable discharge.  That way everyone will see the writing on the wall and the guys who can't handle it will have time to leave.  Then I'll have a commission study the reserves and say that it's great and we'll do it for the rest of the military. 

Before I do that, though, I probably should do something about that U.N. Declaration on gay rights.  My God, people are still going to jail for being gay in half the world!  So primitive.  It's mostly the Muslim and African countries, so they'd have a total shit fit if a black President with a Muslim name started lecturing them.  Their people probably like me better than their own leaders, so I bet the leaders will ease up big time on this if it looks like I'm going to make a big deal about it.  That helps me on this issue politically because everyone in the U.S. will agree with that except the wingnuts, and they'll make the whole antigay agenda look really awful.  

Hey, I'll bet Rick would help with that!  He may be against gays getting married, but he doesn't want to see them getting executed or spending their lives in jail for it, I'm sure of that.  And I'll bet he'd love to make all the Lefties look like idiots by proving he's not a hater.  Note to self: call Rick." 

    

Congress Gets A Raise

Caroline Kennedy is catching a lot of flak lately, all because she thought would offer herself as a candidate to fill a Senate seat once held by her late uncle, Robert F. Kennedy.

To read and listen to some pols and pundits, how dare she!

There are those who claim she's only there because of her political family name. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) went so far as to claim Mrs. Edwin Schlossberg (her married name) has no relevant experience, that she has never held a job let alone elective office. New York papers are beating their chests that she had the nerve to not vote in several mayoral and primary elections. Heaven forbid a Kennedy exercise her Constitutional right to not vote just like several million Americans do each and every election cycle.

Susan Molinari, also a New York Republican and former member of, and daughter of, and wife of former members of  Congress weighed to say all these questions about her perceived lack of experience and political dynastic politics are "fair game." Tough scrutiny, they call it. Hey Susan, meet kettle. 

That got me thinking. (And Lord knows, that is a dangerous thing for anyone to make me do!)

John Adams, John Quincy Adams.

Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Joseph P. Kennedy, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Robert Francis Kennedy, Edward Moore Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, Sargent Shriver, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Mr. Maria Shriver).

Andrew Cuomo (with a Kennedy cousin as an ex-wife, no less), Mario Cuomo.

Prescott Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, George Walker Bush, Jeb Bush.

Guy Molinari, Susan Molinari, L. William Paxson.

Richard Daley, William Daley, Richard Daley, Sr.

Albert Gore, Sr. Albert Gore, Jr.

William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, Jerry Brown.

Ronald Wilson Reagan, Maureen Reagan.

James Wolcott Wadsworth, John Hay, Stuart Symington, J. Fife Symington, John Hay Whitney, James W. Symington, Fife Symington III

Stewart Udall, Mo Udall, Tom Udall, Mark Udall, Gordon Smith, John Hunt Udall, Nick Udall, Rex E. Lee.

George Romney, Mitt Romney.

John Sununu, Sr. John Sununu, Jr.

Basil Paterson, David Paterson.

Thomas D'Alessandro, Jr. Nancy Pelosi, Thomas D'Alessandro, III.

"Moon" Landrieu, Mary Landrieu, Mitch Landrieu, 

(For more poltical families, see this spot at Wikipedia, for this list is by no means definitive.)

For all the big talk about how the United States is not about political dynasties, and all the talk about how "democratic" the process should be to allow the "qualified, but unconnected" people access, it is amazing how all this talk comes from folks who are pretty well-connected themselves.

Even Peter King has some good New York connections: seems Mr. King's father, Peter, Sr., was a New York City policeman. In NYC, having family as part of New York's Finest or Bravest is the ultimate connection to one of those good paying jobs whose nexus is a stone's throw from Battery Park.

The truth is, we like dynastic politics even though we say we don't. We like the idea of fathers and daughters, Guy and Susan or Jack and Caroline, or mothers and sons, like Carrie P. and Kendrick Meeks serving in our government. We feel comfortable with families who've made politics and public service part of the family business.  

Attempting to disqualify Caroline Kennedy on the basis of her family heritage is as petty as it gets. 

6/10/2009: Frank DiPascali's sister works for JPMorgan Chase, not his wife. Another one of DiPascali's sisters, Diane, is married to Robert Cardile who worked for DiPascali on the 17th floor.

Update: Joanne Dipascali actually works out of JPMorgan Chase's Iselin NJ office which is the center of the firm's mortgage business. JPMorgan Chase frantically pushed mortgages to anyone who could sign on the dotted line and then pooled them for resale. The statistics in this 2007 offering tells all. Out of a  $473 million mortgage pool, only $181 million of mortgages issued were supported by any income verification whatsoever. $440 million of the mortgages are interest only, $238 million had second liens at inception and the average outstanding balance is $476k.

Nice family. Frank pushes phony equities and his wife writes worthless mortgages.

Frank Dipascali, referred to in the media as either Madden CFO or senior execuive, is married to Joanne Dipascali, an employee of JPMorganChase National Association, the private banking arm of JPMorgan. Frank is the only non-family employee working on the 17th floor who has been publicly identified to date. (Charles Wiener, another 17th floor employee, is Bernie's sister's son.)

According to a 12/18/08 SEC complaint, Madoff maintained two bank accounts at JPMorganChase and three at Bank of America Mellon. At the end of every reporting period, Madoff's firm reportedly converted its holdings to cash equivalents, i.e. treasury bills, to avoid SEC disclosure requirements. That practice was a big red flag and the SEC should have confirmed Madoff's cash balances at 12/31/05 as a matter of routine during its 2006 investigation.

A couple of posts ago, I speculated as to why the Madoff family trusted someone named Dipascali and whether organized crime is involved in the scandal. Now I read that Joanne Dipascali is from Howard Beach. Not for nothing but a lot of members of organized crime are out of Howard Beach, too. She also lived in Island Park, home of Alphonse D'Amato and Phil Basile.

The Dipascalis now live in Bridgewater NJ and appear to be enjoy marlin fishing on their boat, the Dorothy-Jo. In fact, the Dipascalis like fishing so much, Joanne started a business named  Dorothy-Jo Sportfishing LLC which, according to Manta, is in the Sports Club/Manager/Promoter business. Great way to launder money! 

I am surprised no one in the press has reported the the link between Madoff's firm and JPMorganChase. I don't know if one has to do with the other but the stock fell on 12/15. It also fell substantially in late November. Someone might have had advance notice of pending problems at the bank. 

If Madoff was working with organized crime, the SEC and the exchanges are not going to tell John Q. Public about it, investor confidence and all that.

I'm starting to wonder if Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen is lending taxpayer money to banks to buy other banks to cover up an even bigger scandal in the markets. Maybe  somebody became curious enough to check whether any of the banks now being bought actually had cash on hand and they didn't. 

Remember Businessweek's 1996 story, "The Mob on Wall Street - Part I & II? The wiseguys never got put away like they should have been.  

For what its worth, information about the Dipascalis is fast disappearing from Google.

Whether I'm right or wrong about Bernie and the mob, I want to know why the Madoffs trusted Frank Dipascali with their deepest, darkest secrets and $24 billion.

  

Josh posted and gave us this link to Krugmans latest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=1 

Its easy for someone such as myself who is not schooled in economics to look at all this and make the obvious conclusion. It is nice to know though that if it quacks like a duck chances are good it's a duck.

 

Nobody realized, I guess, that when Francis Fukuyama termed the finale of Cold War ideological combat the "end of history" we were less than 20 years away from the evident implosion of the free-market system - and this time, our own retirement accounts, savings... our futures... would be the history kissed off.

Wow. Have things ever changed in just the past few months! I was breezin' through late summer when - poof! - I woke up one day in mid-September and realized now I'll need to work until I'm 80 f*ckin' years old because that nagging piper who always needs paying finally caught up with our Ponzi-scheme economy.

Since this is my week to propose empty, feel-good gestures, I say we need a red-letter, symbolic end to the corkscrewy ideology of a self-correcting, unfettered market - that plum dream of conservatives, hardcore libertarians, neoconservative economists and hotboxing MBA students with access to that fine, fine prescription bud. Communism's collapse came two decades ago, Francis, with gleeful youth sledgehammering the divide between East and West Germany. How about our own capitalist-based Fall of the Berlin Wall? Maybe... we...truck-bomb Wall Street?

...Metaphorically, of course...

Read more »

This post is intended as a thoughtful and serious response to Randall Wray's "Policy Advice for President Obama (Part One)".  I decided I was likely to go on far too long for a good comment, because his advice to Obama is obviously the product of long thought on these issues.  Obviously, if I just agreed with him, I would have said so in the comments without the necessity of this post.  I'll take his points in order, breaking out sub issues where they arise.  I'm going to leave the overall issues ("Stability is Destabilizing") for another time and talk brass-tacks-policy.

1. Liquidity: Wray seems to be conflating two very separate issues here.  One is (obviously) liquidity, which is very much the Fed's job, and I agree that the Fed should have made money available faster than it did (such a thing being possible).  However, the FDIC, and deposit insurance generally, is a different matter.  Deposit insurance really is insurance; banks pay in, and depositors are paid out if the banks fail.

There's no reason to change the rules and raise deposit insurance limits after the fact.  To the contrary, it is important (for moral hazard reasons) to stick to the rules as written.  The $100,000.00 (or whatever number on whatever date) deposit insurance cap is a safeguard for the taxpayer.  Protecting depositors is the same as protecting any other lender; the taxpayer should not automatically cover their losses.

2. Paulson: Actually the capital injection plan has not been a complete disaster.  Government financed consolidation is a terrible idea, but hardly a big deal.  Nothing Paulson has done has changed the situation one way or the other, really.

3. Insolvency: Unfortunately, while the first statements in this section are admirable (a discussion of the accounting rules that determine insolvency would be helpful, but would muddy up the story as well), the remainder is nonsense.

Once again, the zeal for protecting lenders and depositors is misplaced.  Except to the extent of FDIC insurance, and equity if there is any, lenders and depositors should take the loss.  Taxpayers didn't risk their money on these banks, lenders (including uninsured depositors) did.  Also, closing a bank increases the losses to taxpayers; a going concern, even one operated by the FDIC, is better for the FDIC's principal (the taxpayer).  You can't close the bank and then wait for an economic recovery...

At this point, a pattern is emerging.  I think Mr. Wray is too eager to avoid collateral damage at taxpayer expense.  Most of the collateral damagees knew what they were getting into, and America has an interest in them taking the loss: we have an interest in ensuring that future actors recognize risk.

This is a reason to avoid too big to fail and too big to save as mantras.

4. Tax Relief: I question the use of a payroll tax holiday; payroll taxes feed into the trust funds that fund the enormous and too often ignored liabilities of the government: Social Security and Medicare.  (I can't say this often enough: George Bush wasted more money in ten minutes signing the prescription drug benefit for Medicare than he did in eight years at war).  We ought to look for ways to deny the government money to the general fund (or at least reduce somehow the future liabilities of Medicare and Social Security - probably by indexing them to prices rather than wages).

Also, at 6.2%, payroll taxes aren't at a marginal rate which substantially affects incentives to work and invest.  Cuts in marginal income tax rates would be more effective in stimulating economic activity.  Still, one cannot pretend this is a serious distinction.

5. I am impressed by the attention to state and local governments, a facet of this problem I have seen too infrequently mentioned.  Many states and localities are -raising- taxes in order to meet their boneheaded "balanced budget" requirements or for other reasons.  State highway funds should get block grants too; states all have plans underway or on the shelf for new highway money.

On infrastructure spending, none of it will get underway anytime soon unless there is also legislation exempting the infrastructure projects from the Federal, State, and Local regulations that make these problems take decades or be shelved.  Everything from the EPA to the EEOC to the State Historical Preservation Office of New Jersey needs to be explicitly preempted by Federal legislation in order to get infrastructure projects underway and money spent before the recession is over, even if we take advantage of the States' better planning and situation for beginning these projects.

6. Mortgage Relief: Here's where we part company.  Why is Wray so eager to protect stupid homeowners who got in over their heads, while so eager to slap down stupid bankers who got in over their heads?  These people weren't "duped", they got all the paperwork, and if they didn't read it, they should have.  Taxpayer money should not be used to protect fools from their comeuppance, even if they are individual fools rather than corporate fools.

This is a serious moral hazard issue, and it is just wrong to take money from responsible taxpayers and give it to idiots who took on payments they couldn't afford.

On a related note (according to Wray, since this is the only time he mentions deflation) debt deflation cannot occur unless there is deflation.  There will not be deflation unless the Fed fails to print enough money.  The Fed has shown little shyness in that department of late.

7. Criminal Prosecution: Again, Wray is quick to get on the mortgage lenders, but fails to mention prosecuting all the mortgage holders who lied on their loan applications, and are guilty of fraud.

Myself, I think it's a waste of time and money better spend on roads, trains, fiber optic pipes, and basic research.

This is Cliffs' Notes, folks, so if you have questions or want elucidation, ask and ye shall receive.

Former Costa Rican president, José María Figueres Olsen, with Bubba and a redhead, August 2000

Yesterday I attended a round table discussion about the world "crisis" which was held in one of Spain's largest banks. There were economic and political analysts from the Spanish government, banks, foundations, embassies, etc. The round table was chaired by the former president of Costa Rica, José María Figueres-Olsen, educated at West Point and Harvard, who, in my opinion, said some of the most interesting things of the whole afternoon.

Some of the themes of concern mentioned were the possibilities of:

• Return of protectionism

• End of globalization
  

• Less funds for aid to developing countries

• Change in the balance of world power

• Lack of leadership in the European Union

• Destabilization of China and Russia

Read more »

I feel there is a need to share our experiences during this critical downturn in our economy and how it is affecting each of us personally.  I believe the ramifications are far greater than are being reported in the media.  I am going to start with my personal story and hope you can comment on or add your stories.  All the best.

I mean really, who cares what Rick Warren said about the government of Syria. He's not being asked to become an adviser to President Obama's Middle East policy team.  Nor, I might add, is he being asked to give a sermon on his views of homosexuality, Proposition 8 or gay marriage.  He's being asked to give the invocation to Obama's Presidential inauguration.  The invitation is no more an endorsement of his political views than sitting on a board with Bill Ayers was an endorsement of bombing the Pentagon or becoming a member of Trinity United was an endorsement of damning America. 

It's become a formula for scandal in this country, and I hate it.  You take every person who endorses, or works with, or is honored by, a politician and pour over every single public statement they have ever made.  If you find something controversial, even if it has no connection to their relationship with the politician, you stick it to them and use it to characterize their entire worldview and personality - Rick Warren is the guy who compared homosexuality to pedophilia, just like Jeremiah Wright is the guy who said god damn America.  God forbid that Rick Warren has ever said publicly that gays or Jews or Muslims are going to hell, a position that is more or less required by belief in the Bible.  A juicy quote like that is exactly the kind of thing that would light up the liberal blogosphere, even if the quote is taken out of context or is the result of a bad-faith interpretation of his comments.

The result of this is that we end up with a media - including the non MSM internet media - that is obsessed with hot button, emotional issues that provoke reactions rather than engage conversations.  This kind of reporting is a part of a political culture of outrage (outrage!!!!) that divides us as a nation.  And it feeds into the institutional needs of interest group politics, who always have a fundraising incentive to demonize the opposition rather than constructively engage with them.  This is one of the ways that the media is fueling the culture war.

The other thing this meme has done is discourage politicians from reaching out and listening to people across different segments of our society.  Hysterics over issues like this cause politicians to censor who they talk to, and vet all people they interact with to cover anything that could create a commotion.  It sucks.  I don't want politicians to only interact with people who are sanitized for public consumption.  The fact is, many of the most interesting people I know hold opinions on at least one issue that would be very controversial or out of the mainstream.  I definitely hold at least a half dozen opinions that would infuriate at least one interest group out there.  If anyone who holds such views is effectively removed from appropriate public consideration, we're going to end up with nothing but bland, inside the beltway politicians talking to bland, vetted, boring advisers and cultural and religious leaders.

I understand that many gay rights groups are upset and angry over the abomination that was Prop 8 in California.  I myself am angry and upset with the passage of Prop 8.  And I understand that the invocation is a position of honor.  But this attack on Warren is incredibly counter-productive.  Part of the problem that caused Prop 8 is the continued belief among many evangelicals and conservative Christians that legal equality for gay couples is an attack on Christian values or their own Christian lifestyle, an ignorance that was fed by Warren's absurd view that Prop 8 would lead to prosecution of anti-gay pastors.  Lashing out at Warren and suggesting that he cannot give the invocation at the Presidential inauguration is actually confirming this position in the minds of millions of conservative Christians across the country.  Warren represents tens of millions of people across the country, including unfortunately a majority of voters even in the blue state of California.  We are never going to reach any of those people by declaring that their views are beyond the boundaries of acceptable public discourse.  We might reach them, however, if we are able to move past the us versus them mentality that leads to persecution of gay couples and try to come together as a nation.

Rick Warren, for all his flaws, is an evangelical who sees that there is a major problem with the cultural divisions in America and wants to try to end those divisions.  We should be doing what Obama is doing: welcoming his attempt at conciliation, trying to find areas of common ground, and showing respect for the man, and not demanding a set of concessions (or preconditions) before we engage with him.  And we certainly be going out looking for more reasons to galvanize the left into hating him more. 

I am tired of giving money to the rich.

Dick Cheney still has control of the pentagon's weather machine and has turned it on freeze, thus assuring a heavy demand on the fossil fuels grand finale for his energy buddies before the new administration re-tools energy policy...

We've had snow on the ground and below freezing temperature for almost a week, which is very suspicious given that week live in coastal Oregon.

Hey Mr President - Root Boy Slim

Every year, my firm brings in a student choir from the bosses’ high school to sing traditional carols. In preparation I wanted to hear Xmas at K-Mart. I also ran across the above, which seems awfully appropriate in the current economic climate. Aretha probably won’t sing it at the inauguration, but someone should.

Watch in separate window

Also: Parsing Obama’s Remarks - Tom Whipple

Read more »

Cross -Posted from The End of the American Century

An important element of the loss of U.S. global prestige and influence has been this country's snubbing and flouting of international law and conventions.  The latest example of this is the Cluster Munitions Treaty, which was signed  in Oslo, Norway earlier this month by 94 countries, not including the United States.  One of the 94 signatories was Afghanistan, which agreed to the treaty at the last minute in the face of intense pressure from Washington.

Global souring on the U.S. began even before George W. Bush took over, with the U.S. refusal to ratify a number of important and popular international treaties.  President Bush, though, has done more to damage the U.S. reputation than any previous president, with his arrogant dissing of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, the International Criminal Court, and international law generally.  This pattern continues with the cluster bomb treaty.

Cluster bombs are munitions dropped from the air or launched from the ground that eject smaller submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. They are most commonly employed to kill enemy personnel or destroy vehicles. At least fifteen countries have used cluster munitions, including the U.S in Iraq and Afghanistan, and both Russia and Georgia in their conflict earlier this year. The most extensive use, however, was by U.S. bombers over the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos during the Vietnam War. It is estimated that at least 9 million unexploded bomblets remain in Laos.

These unexploded bombs are the biggest problem with these weapons. Like landmines (which are also banned under an international convention), the unexploded munitions remain a deadly hazard for civilians long after a conflict ends. Often they are brightly colored and look like baseballs, attracting children and with deadly results. A third of cluster bomb casualties are children.

Like the international treaty that banned land mines, the impetus for a cluster bomb ban grew out of an international grass roots movement. The Cluster Munition Coalition brought together some 300 "civil society organizations" from 80 countries, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Handicap International. The coalition also includes the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, an organization that won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.

The convention banning cluster bombs was signed in Oslo by 94 countries, including U.S. allies like Britain, Germany, France and Japan, but not including the U.S. Other non-signatories include Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and Israel. Unexpectedly, Afghan President Hamid Karzai ended up signing the treaty that bans the weapon that have devastated his country. According to the New York Times, Karzai's change of heart was particularly affected by testimony from cluster-bomb victims, including Soraj Ghulam Habib, a 17 year old from the city of Herat who lost both legs when he accidentally stepped on a cluster remnant seven years ago. The Bush administration had urged Karzai not to sign the treaty, so his decision, according to The Times, "appeared to reflect Mr. Karzai's growing independence from the Bush administration."

The U.S. has begun to bend to international pressure on the issue, and has not actually employed cluster bombs since 2003. A State Department official told the Times that cluster bombs were sometimes more humane than conventional ones. "As an example, he said that antennas on a roof could be taken out efficiently with a cluster bomb, without bringing the building down." Some expect Barack Obama to support the treaty, and his team has said it will "carefully review" the treaty. However, as London's The Economist points out, "Mr. Obama will find it hard to change American policy once he realizes that cluster munitions make up more than half of the country's bomb stockpile."

The U.S. refusal to sign this treaty is part of a larger pattern and long-term trend of the U.S. disengaging from international law and the global community.  There is a long list of high-profile international treaties that the U.S. has not ratified. These include the UN convention prohibiting discrimination against women; the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the treaty banning land mines (signed by 122 nations); the Kyoto Treaty on global warming, and the treat establishing the International Criminal Court, which was constituted to try individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. All of these treaties have been signed by the vast majority of the world's nations. The only other country besides the U.S. to reject the Rights of the Child convention, for example, is Somalia, which has no functioning government.

For each of these treaties, the U.S. has its reasons for non-participation. But the very fact of the U.S. not participating in these international conventions sends a bad signal to the rest of the world. It is the seamy side of U.S. "exceptionalism" that sees the U.S. as above and beyond international moral and legal standards.  This attitude has been an important factor in the declining popularity of the U.S. around the world, even before the extremely unpopular Bush administration. The U.S. shift away from international law is particularly ironic because no country was more important in establishing international law and institutions (like the U.N.) in the years after World War II.

The about-face of the Afghan government is also telling in several ways. The Bush administration pressure on the Afghan government to reject the treaty is another unfortunate pattern. While other administrations have failed to ratify international treaties, the Bush White House has gone out of its way to keep other countries from doing so. Shortly after President Bush "unsigned" the ICC statute, he urged Congress to pass the American Servicemembers Protection Act. This legislation gives immunity to U.S. personnel from the court. It also provides for punitive actions against countries that are parties to the ICC, but which refuse to confer immunity to Americans. For many people around the globe, it seemed as if the U.S. was asserting that Americans were above the law when it comes to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

On the other hand, Karzai's rejection of pressure from his protector and benefactor, shows just how weak the U.S. has become in the international arena. The country, and particularly its current president, has become so marginalized that it can not even influence a country that is utterly dependent on the U.S. The U.S. has lost an enormous amount of face in the global community, and has little left in its arsenal of "soft power." It will take a major and sustained effort by the Obama administration to repair the damage. But it is unlikely that U.S. reputation, power and influence will ever return to where it was.

 

There has already been an awful lot of handwringing by the media, the bloggers and the rest of us on the future of PE Obama's governance.  Reconciliation of Truth Commission idea is a prominent issue and maybe more important than anything else ultimately. His future actions on the recovery of the economy is huge.  The Rick Warren issue is a red herring.

 

I, for one, am waiting until the Inaugeration Speech before wringing my hands. This will be his first official, as President, statement that he makes.

 

If you think about it, Inaugeration Day will be PE Obama's first opportunity to tell the Nation how he plans to govern, without the constraints of politically correct campaign talk,  without being premature and without the strings of the Bush Administration attached.   

 

Let us chill and enjoy the holidays. Save the handwringing for January 21. I have a feeling that the Repubs will be doing most of it then.  

Instead of a fight over who gets to bless Obama, I suggest we each come up with a blessing.  It can be a blessing for Obama or for the nation or for the world.  Make it long or short.  But make it from the heart. 

I'll start by conferring a blessing upon all of us.  It's one that "came to me" but which I cannot claim to have "written" so much as "recorded" - exactly as it came - in the middle of the night - after a patient requested a "prayer."   Although it uses the word "god" in places, you can substitute another word - for example "these" blessings or "this" love.  I've often said it that way for people, who might have been distressed by the word "god." 

Let the blessings wash over you.  And all of us.  And then write your own.

                             A blessing for each
                             A blessing for all
                 Now let abundant blessings fall

                             Upon the present
                             Upon the past
                  A rain of blessings that will last

                              Never forgotten
                              Never unknown
                  God's blessings find you and lead you home

                              Healing your mind
                              Healing your heart
                   Healing your soul so you won't be apart

                              Bringing you peace
                              Bringing you love
                   Bringing you solace from heaven above

                   
                    Deep in your heart God's love will abide
                    Deep in your heart - like a nightlight inside
                    Deep in your heart, you're safe in this light
                                  So close your eyes tight
                                  And rest well this night

Peace.

I'm not going to rant about Pastor Rick.  I already did that elsewhere.  But I am going to question the entire notion of the desirability of inserting religion into this most civil of ceremonies. 

Why do we still have an invocation and a closing prayer for the inauguration? Isn't this a civil matter? Don't we have a nation composed of many religions and none? Yet we have a Christian opening and closing -- Joseph Lowrey of the SCLC will give the benediction. Insisting on bracketing this event with Christian symbolism seems to be eliminating a lot of Americans who don't participate in this particular brand of religion. So why not just drop it?

Mr. Obama, his family, and those who choose could very well start the day or precede the ceremony by attending a church service. Or by inviting in a religious leader of his choosing to pray together. But why can't that be a matter of personal choice? Why the need to impose his religious preferences on all of us during what is clearly a civil matter? Isn't it time to end this vestigial practice?

ALASKA --

when Texas just isn't weird enough.

What greater honor for a man of God then to be chosen to give the invocation at the swearing in ceremony for the President of the United States. 

Not just any President, but a leader who has promised to bring us, and the world together, as one. 

Millions, no billions will be watching.  People of all faiths, persuasions, and orientations.  People filled with hope, vision, and the belief that there will be better times for them, their children, and their children's children.

Which Rick Warren will speak in the name of God?  The intolerant Rick Warren?  Or a man who understands his place in history?

I pray for you, Rick Warren.  I pray that you will understand the meaning of intolerance, and man's inhumanity to man.  I pray that you will see that we are all God's children.  I pray that those on the Left, and Right who shun and oppose your choice will be moved by your words.  And, I pray that this experience, and great honor will make you a better Pastor and a better person.

This is your moment, Pastor Warren.  Please use it wisely.  Please make us all proud.

Secretary Paulson, via WSJ:

Today, we have acted to support General Motors and Chrysler, with the requirement that they move quickly to develop and adopt acceptable plans for long term viability ...

... Treasury will make these loans using authority provided for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. While the purpose of this program and the enabling legislation is to stabilize our financial sector, the authority allows us to take this action ...

... As a result of this decision, Treasury effectively has allocated the first $350 billion from the TARP. The actual disbursement of this amount is subject to approval of bank capital applications, many of which remain with the regulators and will not reach Treasury for review until early next year. Disbursement is also subject to finalizing the structure for the Federal Reserve-Treasury consumer credit program (TALF). In the very short-term, the allocated but not yet disbursed TARP balances, in conjunction with the powers of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, give me confidence that we have the necessary resources to address a significant financial market event. It is clear, however, that Congress will need to release the remainder of the TARP to support financial market stability ...

This is how it ought to have been handled from the beginning, but this was nevertheless a good decision.

On a side note, these faux populists are nuts.  I understand criticism: I know that the collapse of Lehman Bros. was a disastrous and environmentally colorblind ideological decision, and that the original reverse-auction request was absolutely bonkers, and that his testimony was full of all the disdain for oversight and blatant hubris that are characteristic of the Bush administration, but Paulson, despite being the world's most terrible communicator, has managed to do some good.  He hasn't been perfect by a long shot, and his successor will likely be more effective (competance seems to roll top-down), but I'm a little disappointed by the onslaught of partisan and intellectually dishonest criticism by the congressional Democratic establishment and some liberal columnists.  I'm not one for split-the-difference equivocation, but the truth here seems somewhere in the middle.

Torture:   The infliction of severe pain as punishment or a forcible means of persuasion, 2. Great suffering or anxiety.

Terrorist: A person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of personal or political aims.

The Wall Street Journal is up in arms against a report issued under the aegis of Senator Carl Levin. The report discloses the actions of the 'higher ups' responsible for incidents of torture perpetrated by 'lower downs' against prisoners of the United States of America. Certain 'lower downs' of course, are in prison as I write this.

"As for Mr. Levin, his real purpose is to lay the groundwork for war-crimes prosecutions of Bush officials like John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Jim Haynes who acted in good faith to keep the country safe within the confines of the law. Messrs. Obama and Holder would be foolish to spend their political capital on revenge, but Mr. Levin is demanding an "independent" commission to further politicize the issue and smear decent public servants."

Senator Levin and others may even be thinking of prosecuting others like Cheney, Doug Feith, Wolfowitz, Rummy, and scores of others.

I am in total agreement with the Wall Street Journal.  Let us see if torture can help get to the truth of things.

"As Mr. Levin put it in laying on his innuendo this week, a commission "may or may not lead to indictments or civil action." It will also encourage some grandstanding foreign prosecutor to arrest Mr. Rumsfeld and other Bush officials like Pinochet if they ever dare to leave the U.S. Why John McCain endorsed this Levin gambit is the kind of mystery that has defined, and damaged, his career. We hope other Republicans push back.

Mr. Levin claims that Bush interrogation programs "damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives." The truth is closer to the opposite. The second-guessing of Democrats is likely to lead to a risk-averse mindset at the CIA and elsewhere that compromises the ability of terror fighters to break the next KSM. The political winds always shift, but terrorists are as dangerous as ever."

These good people of w's administration were trying to save America in crisis. They were acting on the side of Truth, Justice and the American Way.  These men were courageous and took a stand for something.  America is better off because of it. In Times of Crisis extraordinary measures must be taken. As Jason intimated recently, try to find a President who has not broken laws or ignored some clause in the Constitution.

I am in total agreement with the Wall Street Journal.  Let us see if torture can help us  get to the truth of things. If you cannot beat them, join them.
   
Mr. Madoff has admitted to misappropriating over $50 Billion Dollars.  What is the consquence of such a deed as this? 

Thousands lost everything or a substantial portion of the their 401ks.  Many of these people worked their entire lives to build up a fund to take care of them in their old age.  A fund that would insure they could stay in their homes or apartments. A fund that would ensure they could purchase health insurance to cover what Medicare cannot. A fund that could help them as age and illness incapacitates them. 

Was this not the infliction of pain, of loss on an innocent group? Were Mr. Madoff's actions not premeditated.  As premeditated as a man who straps explosives to his chest and blows up a store in Bagdad? 

It turns out that charitable trusts lost billions of dollars due to Mr. Madoff's intentional conduct.These billions provided monies for food shelves.  These billions provided clothes for those wearing rags.  These billions provided warmth for those who faced the cold due to lack of funds for heating oil. These billions provided medical care for the ill and the injured, who had no funds or insurance to help them in their hour of need. 

Was this not the intentional infliction of pain, of loss on an innocent group of human beings, citizens of our country?

Ten of thousands of people in one way or another are directly affected by the actions of Mr. Madoff, and others who were part of his organization.  People who were paid millions of dollars to handle the funds of others. These people were acting  in the position of trustee for those funds.

And there were auditing firms who neglected their duties and were paid millions of dollars to oversee Mr. Madoff's funds.  They acted intentionally and they acted for their own personal aims.

What happened to these funds?  Where are these funds?  Where are the funds that were paid to professionals who shirked their duties over the last ten years? 

If these evil people purchased Ming vases, grand pianos, land or buildings, great pieces of art, stock in other companies, we need to repossess these things and make partial restitution to those who lost everything.

But everything is hidden, deeply, in books, in emails, and in diaries.  We must find this information so that we have all the facts.

Our legal system plods along way too slowly. The oil tanker Valdez destroyed sea shores and wild life.  Its damage was enormous.  Twenty years later the matter was heard by the Supreme Court and SENT DOWN TO THE LOWER COURTS FOR FURTHER DELIBERATION.

Let's grab Mr. Madoff and waterboard him right now.  Let us get the facts right now.

Let's grab Mr. Madoff's entire family and make them stand in the dark for a couple days while they listen to heavy metal music from the eighties without food or water and see what information we can glean from this action.

Let's grab the top members of the auditing firms that were supposed to oversee Mr. Madoff's funds and put them in Sing Sing for a couple weeks.  Lets see what information is gleaned from that.  No lawyers, no visitors, no charges, no inkling as to when they can get out.

Lets grab some people from the SEC, strip them naked, and pile them on top of one another and take pictures of them and then put the pictures on the internet.

All these people are terrorists and have caused more money damages than hundreds of other terrorists.  They have taken monies from poor people, old people, children and the helpless all for their own economic and political gain.

Lets do the same thing to Blago.  We could get some real information concerning how Chicago works.

Lets do the same thing to the people who caused the rest of our economic crisis for their own economic and political gain. The professionals responsible for throwing a million people out of their homes and million people who were thrown out of their jobs.

Torture for Truth Justice and the American Way.



 

Does it strike anyone else as odd timing that Carl Levin goes on Rachel Maddow and talks about war crimes against the Prez etc and then the next day we have the Prez with his plan.  He is so serious and cogent because he knows he can go to jail if he does not do this with Mr. Levin's help.  I had a feeling this war crimes talk was too good to be true.  We will have to see if I am right about this. 

There is a great op-ed in today's Des Moines Register: Restore rule of law to security, foreign policy.  The author, Damon Terrill, a former legal advisor at the State Department, makes this key recommendation:

Obama's national security adviser should coordinate a comprehensive review of the law of America's international relations as it has developed since 2000. A working group composed of the principal legal officers of the departments of state and defense, of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA, and the attorney general should perform that review, in consultation with Congress.

Though this may seem like a conventional argument, the call for the National Security Advisor to play the lead role is significant.  It serves as a reminder that we have to look at outputs, not just process.  Many critics of the Bush Administration have been reluctant to look at the issues of detainees and interrogation through a national security lens, presumably out of fear that doing so would legitimize the administration's unlawful acts.  But, from my perspective, the greatest sin of the Bush Administration is not violation of law in the name of national security, but their violation of law at the expense of national security. 

Simply put: Guantanamo, renditions, torture, and the rest of the extralegal acts of the Bush Administration have made us less safe.  For every genuine terrorist we've kept locked up at Guantanamo, we've created a dozen because of the perceived injustice of the detention system.  For every tidbit of information extracted by torture -- and there are almost certainly at least a few useful ones -- we've created a hundred new plots by the revulsion of these techniques. It isn't that everything we've done has been useless, it is that it has been, on the whole, counter-productive.

The problem with the Bush Administration is that too many of these decisions were made by amateurs trying to burnish their tough-guy credentials.  Terrill's call to involve the national security experts in this debate will help craft a policy that both protects our rights and our nation.

A longer version of Terrill's argument can be found here, as well as my own thoughts on this issues here.

Finally someone we can look at with confidence and trust, a man who has a eye for the love of his family god has to see that we are in big trouble with this economy and I do not think this will ever get better. But I think he can help but he can not everything there is 100 questions our President Elec is facing everyday. The US is facing a hard time with the stock market and the people with theft and all kinds of tricks on others this is a tough time for America, you I am going to keep it real a man of color gets put in this situation for two reasons. One because a nut case name Bush messed it up and two if Obama can fix this he is the knight and shining armor but if things do not go right then lets just say I believe they put him in office to repair the damage they know they have no idea how to fix.

But we as people of color know how to rob peter to pay paul he will come out on top, and one more thing America has to face he is the President they should show him the respect he deserves.

Earlier today Open Left made a post about Barack Obama and gay rights, I made this post in the comment section, essentially disagreeing. Trying not to get too tied up in specifics, the goal of their post was for some reason to argue that Barack Obama agrees with and is identical to Rick Warren on the specific subject of gay marriage, even though they may disagree on other gay rights issues. My comment attempted to respond that even given that he won't say the magic words "I support gay marriage" Obama is an ally on gay marriage in several specific objective ways, including that for example Obama supports federal recognition of same sex marriages where they exist. You can read the posts yourself if you like but the nastiest thing in my response, as far as I can tell, was the line:

Chris, Matt, this is why you have no allies: Because you throw them all away.

A couple minutes after making this post, Open Left showed me as logged out, and my ability to log back in was gone. (Attempts to log back in were met with a password error; attempts to use the "lost password" feature resulted in a new password mailed to me, which also met with a password error.) An email asking for verification as to whether I had been banned was not responded to. I am, apparently, now banned from Open Left.

I have some thoughts about this, and what I am taking away from this incident about the current state of the blogosphere in general.

Read more »

Obama could redeem himself somewhat if he were to "spank" Warren's views in his inaugural address and call for tolerance in a way that rebukes Warren's stated views.

Salon's Mike Madden has the details about how the Obama HQ first tried to shuffle info about the Warren invite under the rug, then lied about who issued the invite, and went on from there:

News of Warren's involvement in the inauguration came out of the congressional committee working on the inauguration instead of from Obama's own inaugural committee, a wholly separate entity.

At least initially, aides for Obama's inaugural committee said the decision had come from Congress, not Obama. In fact, that wasn't the case at all.

"That was solely the choice of the president-elect," said Gil Duran, a spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the congressional committee. Obama'' staff sent explicit orders for whom to include in the inaugural ceremony up to Capitol Hill, since Congress is, technically, in charge of that part of the day.

"Sen. Feinstein obviously disagrees with the views of Rev. Warren on issues that affect the gay and lesbian community," Duran said.

As Madden noted, that was the wheels of Feinstein's bus you heard, at least trying to run over the slippery Obama.

Beyond the lying itself is the nature of the lies of Obama/Obama campaign, speaking of "slippery."

As I get read for Democrats to again accuse me, a left-liberal, of not being liberal -- the lies are Clintonesque, in the same legalistic way. I guess you DO learn a few things at Harvard Law.

Meanwhile, in a mix of irony and petard-hoisting (for someone else, not him), Warren has already told the truth about the invite:

Warren's spokesman, A. Larry Ross, told Salon Obama had contacted Warren to invite him, not the other way around.

In a statement, Warren said, "I commend President-elect Obama for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn't agree on every issue, to offer the invocation at his historic inaugural ceremony."

Wrong, Herr Warren. Obama has no imperial-clothing courage after all.

My office has been going green since the economy went to shit.  I only wish we'd started earlier.

But what we did start earlier, this year, was a beautiful movement for our community:  We started volunteering at the county Food Bank.  One Wednesday each month, we allowed up to 12 volunteers to go to the Food Bank and work their asses off for half a day, while getting paid on company time.

Every time they asked for volunteers, I stayed at the office instead.  I am terrible when it comes to driving to new places, because I always get lost.  So I brought food in, each month, instead, and donated it to the cause.

Well, today, I had no choice but to go up there to the County Food Bank.  Today was the day that my office would usually have a very cushy party at a local swanky Yacht Club where there'd be an open bar, a DJ, a dance floor, and a three-course dinner, if not a buffet consisting of everything from rack of lamb to lobster tail.

But instead, today, we had a pizza luncheon with canned sodas, and the entire office was sent in two shifts to do volunteer work at the County Food Bank.

I got lucky...I had the morning shift.  The morning shift consisted of taking all the donated goods, checking their condition (expiration dates, suitability, pack-ability, etc.) while the afternoon shift had to open unmarked cans and guess what was inside.  I'd like to share that most everyone in the office volunteered for the afternoon shift because they figured they could make an early and easy day of it and then go home.  Ha!

Anyway, here's what it was like:  The warehouse was so cold that most of us wore our winter coats as we worked.  And we did indeed work.  Our CEO himself dragged pallets around and stacked cans and boxes.  Senior VP's rolled their sleeves up and packed and lifted boxes.  We took every donated good available and weighed it's safety, worthiness, and nutritional value and then sorted same by yelling out, "Soup!, "Pasta!", "Protein!" (tuna fish, canned meat, beans, other legumes), "Veggies!", all the while making room on a very small table for the sorting and packing of said goods.

Some of the office guys got busy tearing down the boxes that the donated goods had arrived in, and others got busy labeling and taping up the new boxes that the sorted and examined goods went into.

I jumped around making myself useful as much as I could, telling clueless employees where the soups were supposed to go, telling them they had to open each jar of peanut butter to ensure an unbroken seal, and explaining that glass goods couldn't be boxed up because of breakage/spillage.  When I wasn't busy telling people what to do, I was busy.

After two hours of hard work, we were all given a tour of the entire warehouse, where we walked into a refrigerator the size of my apartment and saw shelves upon shelves of donated eggs and milk and produce and God knows what else, then walked through two rows of warehouse space that held donations from companies like McCormick (the spices smelled so good!!  --  but, alas, they mostly consisted of ground peppercorn and steak rub).  Many local prisons donate their farmed goods, and many local companies donate their damaged cans (forklifts tear boxes and therefore local supermarkets won't accept them, so they go to the Food Bank). 

And then, just as I was feeling good and happy about doing this work for two hours near the holiday, the woman who runs the facility starts to share with us the realities about the people who actually benefit from her services:  Homeless vets who work for her one day a week in order to get their share of two days' worth of food and try to make it last four days.  Disabled people who also volunteer for her and yet can't read the labels of the food they're taking off the shelves when they leave at the end of the day, to go back to their shelter.  Two-income family members who lost both incomes at the same time and have children to feed.

I started crying, finally, when she told us of all the homeless people who are allowed to come to the warehouse 24/7 to pick soup cans off the shelves versus sorting through a dumpster for their dinner.  They all tell her how they like the soup cans that have pop-off lids.  Why?  Because they can take these soup cans to a local fast food place like MacDonald's, go into the bathroom, run the hot water and stop up the sink and then place the soup cans in the steamy hot water in order to "cook" their soup.  Once it seems hot enough, they pop the lid off the soup and gulp it down as they let the hot water drain out of the sink.

I'm sorry, but no one should live that way.   No one.

I'm grateful to have my job this year.  I'm grateful to have a wonderful boss and a great company to work for.  I'm grateful to have a roof over my head, people to buy gifts for and send cards to, and I'm most especially grateful to have a paycheck.  Without my paycheck, I'm just one step away from being homeless myself.

Gives one pause, doesn't it, this season?

 

 

I feel pretty speechless. The President of the United States thinks that our 3 big auto makers collapsing into bankruptcy can be "orderly" in I suppose the way that custody court can be "orderly". Of course his idea of an "orderly" entry into Iraq was anything but, and the exit, well, let's just say our stay hasn't helped our reputation for neatness.

So far Bush's "orderly" response to the crises of the last few months is just to ask for a pile of money (which he got) to pass around any way Paulson sees fit (which changes by diurnal progressions of the moon).

But really, I feel George just calling for an "orderly" of his own, preferably one that will provide personal room service to his own padded cell. Britney, Lindsay, Amy Winehouse, Michael Jackson, all screaming out for help in their own inimicable ways. But the leader of the free world? When he checks out and checks into rehab, well, expect a 6-line pileup.

And what will happen when the Big Three go into reorg themselves? Well, they'll wipe out the pensions and health benefits so someone can come in and buy the assets. Hmmm.... Guess we could have done that ourselves. Maybe we can move them all to Alabama and Tennessee, land of high corporate subsidies and low educational taxes. Sorry, make that "no educational taxes". Who needs to read when you have a job waiting on the line? That's the American dream. Click your heels 3 times and say, "There's no place like home, there's no place like hoooommmmeee...."

There are more then a half dozen articles here on TPM about the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration.  There is also a video of the President-elect responding to the criticism of this decision to honor an evangelical minister at the inauguration.  Opponents state that the pastor is anti-gay because he opposes gay marriage.   People are upset and feel abandoned by Obama because of this decision.  How ironic that we progressives are already breaking apart due to a classic wedge issue without any help from the Christian Reich or Republicans in general.

There was a tremendous milestone made by Barack Obama from the podium to the press.  The President-elect declared that he was "a fierce advoicate for equality of gay and lesbian Americans".  To my mind, this was a brave and bold statement of intent.  Obama is not threatened by Pastor Warren, or any other evangelicals.  It seems the selection is allowing Obama to express his views on the issue of gay rights.  He is bringing the issue into the public square.  Warren is merely the vehicle for the message that gay rights will be advanced during his term.

We can argue how far Obama is willing to go, but we can all agree, I hope, that right now, today, the GLBT community are already much better represented then they have ever been in Washington.  We can all believe also that the GLBT community will be in much better standing at the end of his term(s).  

We should all take note how Obama operates.  He does not encumber himself with posturing.  He is determined to hear all sides of an argument and to retain a respectful discussion of any subject.  It does not seem there is anything he is not willing to address.

If we were expecting him to give the Republicans a taste of their own medicine, we will be disappointed.  If we were looking forward to Obama bringing us all together, bringing us where we can recognize that regardless of what other verbiage we might use to identify ourselves or others, we are all Americans, then we have been encouraged.   That's the change I believe in.  Attacking Obama for merely giving the guy a podium for a few minutes, is more of the same.    

I have been somewhat reluctant to even engage in the discussion about Rick Warren offering the Invocation at the Presidential Inauguration, as there seems to be a whole lot more heat than light being offered in responses made thus far.

But I think CT Voter and amelie have been among the most gracious in pointing out the basic issues in their numerous comments to an earlier posting of Obama On Rick Warren Pick: We Have To Be Able To Agree To Disagree by Greg Sargent on TPM.

Presidential Inaugurations are special. In many respects, they are about symbolism as much as substance, and I think this is especially true in the choice of preacher to give the invocation.

I understand the argument that Obama chooses, politically, to reach across the chasm and share the stage with the Christian Evangelical right-wing "opposition." It is supposedly a magnanimous gesture to showcase a willingness to get past the politics of division.

But this isn't just a White House photo op. Nor is it a gracious invitation to participate in a WH sponsored forum on controversial issues where such an invitation to, and willingness to consider, opposing views on issues such as gay marriage or women's reproductive rights would be appropriate.

This is instead asking Warren to call upon God to bless this Administration and this country as we write the next chapter in our history. It cannot be seen as anything other than an endorsement of Warren as a preacher who not only officially defines ecumenism, but who also understands the role religion might serve in asking for God's support of this secular government.

Warren is not disqualified in this role for reason that he holds theological views that are at odds with mine or with others. After all, that is why we ask for an ecumenical blessing in these circumstances so that the prayer can embrace all religions and its adherents. To submit Warren or any other such candidate for "Ceremonial Preacher" to a qualifying theological litmus test would make it impossible to identify anyone who could appropriately serve as an ecumenical stand-in for all religions.

What disqualifies Warren from giving an invocation at the Inauguration of our President, however, is the fact that he so strongly forces his theological beliefs regarding gays, women's rights, etc., within the POLITICAL arena. To now offer him the honor of representing all God's People in prayer at this Inauguration (Indeed, at perhaps the closest thing our secular government has to a "liturgical ceremony") is to legitimize his inappropriate, and very troublesome, confounding of Religion and Government.

There are obviously innumerable choices that could have been made of ministers who more closely adhere to the separation of Church and State. Think of the manner by which the Rev. Billy Graham has done so in the past. A choice of minister similar to the Rev. Mr. Graham would be a more obviously appropriate candidate to be invited to make an ecumenical invocation at the Inaugural.

Instead, with the choice of Warren as the religous representative to this Inauguration, Obama promotes a continuing and disturbing confluence of Church & State that treads clumsily upon our First Amendment. I think we have a right to expect better, especially as we gather together to celebrate not only the new President, but this country's continued adherence to - and the stability of - our Constitutional principles of governance.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

"The broad parameters of the package are known already. It will include a tax cut designed to pump $50 billion to $100 billion into the economy almost immediately; about $100 billion in aid to state governments, primarily to temporarily assume more of the cost of Medicaid, in hopes of staving off benefit cuts or tax increases; and funding in five main areas: traditional infrastructure, school construction, energy efficiency, broadband access and health-information technology."

There's much to praise, although the figure is a little low.

First, let's define the situation.  The real economy is in serious decline.  Monetary policy must continue to creatively push liquidity and confidence by any means necessary.  But investment and confidence have proven to be relatively inelastic to monetary stimulus, essentially in the limbo and stagnation that many economists call a liquidity trap.  Given these conditions, fiscal stimulus is urgently needed to boost employment and output.  If you disagree with the positive description of this scenario, then your normative prescriptions are understandably different.

Now, let's define some terms.  Let marginal stimulus returns be the increase in output per extra dollar spent by the federal government in the time frame appropriate enough to stimulate the economy immediately.  This common denominator allows for a cross-comparison of opportunity costs by different stimulatory fiscal actions.  This is particularly important because the current fuss over the opportunity costs of a disposable income-side stimulus target seems muddled.  Let federal government outlays be divided into fiscal spending (such as infrastructure), grants to state governments, and tax-rate reductions.

Many economists are partial to fiscal stimulus, because they believe in a fiscal stimulus multiplier that reverberates across the economy higher than other actions.  There is some reason to believe this, but it's a mistake to believe that this development is unbounded.  Let p* be the spending level (in billions) at which the marginal stimulus returns of fiscal spending is maximized.  There is appropriate logic in the belief that maximization does occur: since marginal stimulus returns is defined as the increase in output per extra dollar sent by the federal government in the time frame appropriate enough to stimulate the economy immediately, the list of "shovel-ready" projects seem best able to occupy that time and space. Spending for projects that will materialize far into the future is less useful, and thus less efficient, in this framework.  Anyways, there is a price level above p*, p', which will have marginal stimulus returns of fiscal spending below p*.  Decreasing marginal returns makes all the difference in the allocation of a stimulus package.

Say fiscal spending at p' has lower marginal stimulatory returns than another action, like a tax-rate reduction.  This is an appropriate comparison of opportunity costs: at that point, federal government outlays should be diverted to the other action.  Thus, the result is a cascade of specialization, whereby decreasing returns to scale prompt marginal spending to the action that generates the next-highest marginal stimulus returns.  This is the reason for a diversified stimulus package. 

My (unoriginal) idea?  Start with fiscal stimulus spending, particularly in the areas mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article, although the bulk of that money is for infrastructure investment.  But don't stop there: if that maximization point is (p* = 400), so be it.  Then add to that, as the article says, a bridge grant to state governments to meet their financial obligations: declines in the public education and government services sectors must also be halted and, if possible, reversed.  Finally, provide a disposable-income side stimulus of an across the board payroll tax-rate reduction to the tune of any amount just large enough to alter spending behavior.  The marginal propensity to save will delay a fraction of the marginal stimulatory returns into future investment, but even a supremely fortuitous example rate of (MPS = 0.20), where only 80% of the total expenditure will be spent and then multiplied, ought to be at a point beyond the maximization point of fiscal spending and crossing at a point where decreasing marginal returns has already kicked in (like a p' = 440 billion). 

This is not an either/or moment: there simply are not enough kinds of spending projects available to stimulate the economy quickly enough.

...and all hell breaks loose.  Over religion! 

And from there, it branches off to "He's too conservative!" or "He's not liberal enough" or "I want him to get a mutt versus a poodle".

Chill the fuck out, people!!!

The man hasn't even been sworn in yet, and you're going crazy.

YO!  DEMS!  LIBS!  Be freakin' grateful that we got this far.  And STFU.

Y'all are like those annoying movie-goers who start whining 5 minutes into a new James Bond film.  "It's not fast enough", "It's not sexy enough", "It doesn't have enough action", "He's a weak Bond compared to Connery."

Cop a clue:  You're still watching the previews.

 

As I've mentioned before, given the chronic overcapacity in the North American auto industry, every new assembly plant built has meant that approximately one existing one has closed. Good Jobs First recently added up the damage (www.goodjobsfirst.org). Since Honda first arrived in Ohio in 1980, foreign automakers have built 16 new assembly plants in the U.S. (excluding the GM/Toyota joint venture in California and the Ford/Mazda joint venture in Michigan, both of which preserved existing plants) receiving subsidies of at least $3.3 billion (I'm excluding four engine plants from the GJF total). Of that, $2.8 billion came from southern states, $758 million from Alabama alone. Volkswagen was just given $577 million to locate in Bob Corker's hometown of Chattanooga. As GJF's executive director, Greg LeRoy, emphasizes, these were in the form of tax exemptions and grants, not the loans being discussed in the Big Three bailout.

So just remember that when Richard Shelby and Bob Corker attempt to justify blocking the auto bailout in the Senate.

In what should become Exhibit A in the case of United States v. Richard Bruce Cheney, the recent televised interview of Dick Cheney on ABC News has rekindled the debate on torture. Astonishingly, Cheney essentially admitted to knowledge and approval of the torture of terror suspects.  Here's an excerpt from Cheney's December 15, 2008 interview with Jonathan Karl of ABC News:

 

Q    Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I was aware of the program certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency, in effect, came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do.  And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do, and I supported it.

 

Q    In hindsight, do you think any of those tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others went too far?

 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I don't.

 

Now we all know that one of the "tactics" used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarding. In fact, waterboarding has been defined as torture for centuries by all credible domestic and international legislative bodies and treaties.  It is even so defined in our own U.S. military's Code of Conduct. However, the BushCo, with the aid of a docile Justice Department, sought to redefine torture, so that waterboarding would no longer be considered illegal.

 

And so here we are. This admission is astonishing for a couple of reasons.  First, it has received very little attention by the mainstream media. I did a google search today and found 340 news stories. As opposed to the shoe-hurling incident which, days afterwards, nets over 8,000 news stories. Second, most Americans, indeed most humans, would have some trepidation admitting to a crime on national TV. Yet, a sitting Vice President, with the aplomb and matter-of-factness of a man spewing off his list of accomplishments at a job interview, has admitted to the entire world that he knew of and approved torture. His reason: to save American lives.

 

Here's where the debate on torture takes a wrong turn. Most of the news stories and TV news shows that have covered this have focused solely on Cheney's claim that these "enhanced interrogation techniques" have produced results that saved American lives.  I say that is the wrong focus. What Americans need to decide is whether we are going to be a nation of torturers or not.  That's it. No debate. No trying to discover any terror plots that were real or imagined.  We must decide as a nation what it's going to be: Torture or No Torture.  Years ago, we made the decision to not allow our police departments to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" on suspects. As a nation, we opted for the civilized path and today, beating of suspects or prisoners -no matter whether a confession would be obtained or not - is illegal.

 

It is a mistake to let Dick Cheney define the focus of the debate on torture. Do not respond to this egregious affront to our standards of morality with a "collective yawn", as the Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley called it on the Keith Olbermann Show yesterday. The new president should act quickly to expose the extra-constitutional policies practiced by the Bush administration. The only way to heal this festering wound  that has plagued the nation for 8 years is to identify it, treat it, and make sure it will not happen again. Americans should speak clearly and loudly and decide: Are we a nation of torturers?

I think Madoff encouraged people to think he was "a crook".  It was a part of his con.  But, I think most people, who thought he was a crook, thought he was exploiting some unknown source of insider information.  That's rather different from a Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme can be vulnerable to extortion or rivalrous exploitation, in a way that trading on inside information may not be.  If people had really thought he was engaged in a Ponzi scheme, a lot of them would have been calculating on how to take advantage of that insight.  Instead, the critics got bogged down trying to "prove" that the front story was a lie.  Meanwhile, an equally manufactured backstory was circulating that "explained" the situation adequately to people, who really didn't carry about ethics.

Reading Thers over at Firedoglake  refer to the usual gang of criminals (rightwing bloggers) as 'fuckers' for their upbeat interpretation of the abusive treatment of the notorious Iraqi shoe bomber thrower, I was inspired to offer the following comment:

Great minds think alike.  I enjoy your enthusiasm in posting on this issue, yet personally try to refrain from the obligatory (and totally understandable) use of FUCKERS for purposes of mass communications, but I can't say I've NEVER been outraged or fatigued enough to have done so.

In any event, I thought the same thing about those FUCKERS when I first read the excerpt you cite.  It was from a day or two ago if memory serves, and I probably first became aware of it reading Andrew Sullivan, but at my advanced age, as James Taylor noted some years ago; "time has come and left it's traces, so I lose the names but I know the faces".

I may be wrong, but aren't these some of the same FUCKERS who gobbled up and propagated Bush's WMD lies faster than Jeff Gannon could suck the sweat off Larry Craig's balls?  Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong.  Links to the Free Republic won't suffice.

Are these the same FUCKERS that also put extraordinary sophist rhetoric to use in support of torture (mostly parroted from Rush, Sean, Faux, Bush, Cheney etc. ad naseum)?   Did I miss the memo where these FUCKERS decided they ought to rethink their support of torturing the testicles of little kids, or are they still "On with John!" (Yoo)?

Now back to the original subject (Great minds think alike).  Ready for some more sweet serendipity?  Here's a post I did over at TPM the other day.
The title is "Opportunistic Moral Relativism".  The subject is racism, but the main character is, as one has come to expect, a top level Republican.

The more I think about it, the more I'm willing to overlook your colorful and carnal use of colloquial curse words, so long as I still get to refer to the FUCKERS as enthusiast supporters of the torture of children's testicles.  Maybe Pastor Warren will explain it as necessary to torture the testicles of children because doing otherwise 'might jeopordize the integrity of the unborn'.  Did God not mention his stand on the torture of children's testicles?  Was he so preoccupied with condemning the homosexuals and seafood eaters that he overlooked the obvious? God gave us all noses, ears and and asses, never actually directing us on what their functions were to be used for.  He must have known we were smart enough to figure out our heads from our asses.  Too bad he didn't have the forethought to forcefully and vehemently comment against the torture of toddler testicles.  I thought that issue, (along with the Magna Carta), had been settled long, long ago.

I see a huge opportunity for Condi Rice after this administration, applying the same type of opportunistic moral relativism (OMR?) as we both see expressed in so many ways and in so many FUCKERS.  Here's my suggestion to her and my observations on same over the last few years......

She prayed daily along with the rest of the 'God fearing" Bush White house.  I'm not near as curious about Rove's missing emails as I am on who phoned in on God's daily conference calls after the homo bashing Pastor Ted got caught snorting meth off the foreskin of his male prostitute,   I want to see her notes from God's Daily Briefings (GDB's).  Surely she was keeping tabs?  She must have learned something from missing that big HEADLINE on the PDB shortly before 9-11?  Any normal person would start paying closer attention after such an ordeal.  She can start her new legacy now.  The FUCKERS could all contribute some wingnut welfare and she could open a think tank.  It could be named the "Center Heading Research in Support of Torturing Toddler's Testicles" aka CHRISTTT,  which will of course be more informally referred to as the CHRIST CENTER for purposes of public consumption.  That's just how those FUCKERS roll.

DISCLAIMER:

My early public concerns over the issue of torture are a matter of public record, and my commitment to documenting the torturers and their associates will someday be enshrined at AMERICANTORTUREMUSEUM.COM, a parked domain I bought some time ago for that eventual purpose.

Enjoy.

Let me say for the record that I wish President-Elect Obama had not chosen Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Personally, beyond his vocal and occasionally repulsive opposition to gay and abortion rights, I see him as a peddler of the kind of bland, gauzy personal-gratification spirituality that turns religion into pop-psychology. I would put The Purpose-Driven Life next to the Mitch Albom collection on the bookshelf of books I don't own. But that's hardly for me to say, as I'm a thoroughly secular person with no real business commenting on the spiritual seriousness of anyone's reading choices.


Here's part of Obama's response to a question about his choice of Warren :

I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.

And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.

I was heartened by this response because Obama's first instinct was not what we've come to expect from Washington Democrats: he didn't try to soften their disagreements or play down Warren's objectionableness. He firmly stated his support for gay and reproductive rights. That's good.

But many people have taken issue with the "we can disagree without being disagreeable" line Obama directed toward Warren. John Aravosis sums it up:

Great, then where are the racists, Mr. Obama? We don't see you embracing too many of them in the name of learning to agree to disagree. Or does your desire to create a new "atmosphere," and reach out to our enemies, stop when it's your own people, your own children, you'd be betraying? Funny how you only reach across the aisle when it's someone else's family, gay families in particular, getting the shaft.

Man, I feel that. Obama's choice of Warren is a kick in the gut for all of us who support gay rights and especially for gay families and those of us who come from gay families. That said, in 2008 America, Rick Warren simply is not the equivalent of an openly racist (or insert your own -ist here) preacher. He should be - and I think all of us ought to be treating him as such. But I'm not sure that Obama ought to be treating him as such.

Warren, whether we like it or not (and I certainly don't), is just about the best-known, most admired evangelical preacher in the world. If there were an openly racist cleric in America who'd managed to get the kind of following Warren has, then the analogy would hold. Despite holding some views that ought to relegate him to fringe status, Warren is quintessentially mainstream. How do we deal with that? I just watched Rachel Maddow have a great conversation with SF mayor Gavin Newsom, and they displayed two different responses from two people who are equally disgusted with Warren's anti-gay views.

Rachel believes that Obama ought to rescind the invitation (though she knows he won't). In this view, what we do with views that are unacceptable is we isolate them. Obama needs to show leadership by demonstrating that Warren's beliefs are bigotry, plain and simple, and there is no place for them in our America.

Newsom doesn't think Obama should have invited him, but is hopeful that by bringing in someone so incredibly popular and influential, but maintaining his opposition to those of Warren's views that are so offensive, Obama has the opportunity to spark a productive dialogue. And especially if Obama follows through with his promised pro-gay rights agenda (which Newsom said would be the best way for Obama to make up for making this unpopular choice), Obama can demonstrate an ability to find common ground with those with whom he and his supporters disagree - without compromising any actual legislative principles.

I am genuinely torn between these two views, which I think are both valid. Of course, given that Obama has made the choice and ain't gonna take it back, I'm hopeful about the second option.

But I also think it's important to realize that Rick Warren simply isn't Jerry Falwell or James Dobson. That's like saying Chuck Hagel might as well be Rick Santorum. Yes, Warren's views on gays are odious - but he hasn't made his ministry and his career out of those views. In fact, Warren gets a lot of flak from the Religious Right because he doesn't use his vast pulpit more often to hammer social issues. He holds the requisite right-wing religious social views, but he prefers to talk about fighting AIDS and global warming and Darfur, when he's not talking about finding your purpose or whatever his books are about. (The exception is obviously his advocacy for Prop 8 in California recently, which is of course reprehensible. I'm not defending the man here.)

And Warren's getting flak from the Right right now for accepting the invitation to the inaugural. Let's not forget that this isn't just, as many have suggested, Obama putting Warren up on a pedestal to honor him. This is Warren honoring Obama. If I understand the purpose of the "invocation" correctly, Warren will, at least in part, be invoking God to bless Obama and his Presidency. Will millions of Warren's followers watch the inauguration and think, "I feel so much better about Warren now that he has Obama's approval"? I'm guessing, if anything, more of them will see it the other way around.

And that's important. When Obama starts implementing his social agenda, it will be mightily helpful if religious Americans who are more conservative than he see him as a trustworthy, reasonable opponent, rather than a crusading anti-Bible liberal (the way most leading Democrats get caricatured these days). I've heard several gay rights advocates point out how unacceptable it is that gay rights is being treated as a policy difference rather than a moral imperative. It is unacceptable. It's shameful. And yet politically and legislatively, we may be better off if Obama can successfully frame the debate with evangelicals over gay rights as a friendly but firm disagreement. Bill Clinton threw gays and lesbians under the bus legislatively (don't ask don't tell, defense of marriage act). If Obama wants to pal around with some anti-gay preachers while enacting his pro-gay rights agenda, I won't complain too much.

Again, I wish Obama hadn't chosen Warren. It's hurtful and disappointing. I would have preferred one of the many religious leaders in this country who embrace gay and reproductive rights. But unfortunately, none of those people would have been the most popular preacher in the country. And so I disagree with some of my fellow liberals who say there's nothing to be gained from this. If Obama holds to the equality agenda he's promised, the Warren invocation could be the first step toward nudging the evangelical community toward being less of a monolithic foe. And if Obama breaks his promises...then inviting Warren to the inauguration will be the infinitely smaller tragedy.

Wars can not be won in just one battle overnight. It is a long and tedious process and done step by step. Since there is a separation of Church and State, a simple legalization of COMPANIONSHIP will solve all the legal and social problems in same sex relationship. It doesn't even have to be Same Sex. I think a lot of old people who are alone and lonely will even support you on this. The word Marriage simple has a lot of religious connotations and you can't blame the devout people who would like to maintain the status quo. Maybe, after a period of time and the legalization of COMPANIONSHIP doesn't result in a lot of social and legal problems, then people can become accustomed to it. Maybe at that point in time, it would be opportune to push for the legalization of SAME SEX MARRIAGE. To summarize, COMPANIONSHIP should be the BATTLECRY and this should make the effort easier because deep in their hearts people really do need people and this is something everybody understands.

President Elect Obama should do what President Bush did when with respects to religious groups --- give the opportunity for ALL religions to give their version of Invocation.  Jewish, Hindu, Catholic, etc...  He might also include white, black, female, male, gay or straight.  Give them all 2 minutes to speak.

I believe Bush did this after 9/11 - praying for those American's killed on 9/11.

Brad DeLong asks what is the sector of the economy that can attract new investment? Alternative energy generation and distribution is the answer. Approximately one trillion over the next ten to twelve years, please, should buy us energy independence, abatement of global warming and huge new job growth.

It reminds me of Slick Willy.  Why didn't Obama just say "I did not have any personal contact with Blago but my chief of staff did.  However, I'm confident that my chief of staff did not discuss anything of an illegal nature".  That would have been the more honest approach.

Obama didn't lie but it would have come across alot better.  His actual statement implied (at least to me) that he did not have any contact with the governor regarding Obama's replacement.  He said "I had no contact with the governor's office".  True statement - but his chief of staff gave Blago a list of candidates!  Do you think Rahmbo drafted that list and gave it to Blago without giving Obama a heads up that he would be doing so?

Rahmbo delivered a list of Obama's acceptable candidates to Blago.  Wouldn't Obama consider that to be "contact" with Obama and Blago?

Kos:

Yeah. Where is David Duke's invitation? Or as Blue Texan notes, when do Phelps and Hagee get their invitations? Heck, throw up Tom Tancredo up there for good measure, so us Latinos can feel some of the hate!

Digby:

Obama is validating the views of the Christian Right and they may very well be moved enough by that to become Democrats. But it naturally follows that in order to keep their votes, the Democrats would have to honor their agenda and views --- the evangelicals are big voting bloc and if the Democrats become the social conservative party, they could count on their votes for sure. (If they don't make substantial moves toward social conservatism, this won't work, obviously.)

Greg Sargent:

After all, the decision really gives Warren an extraordinary platform -- not to mention yet another data point supporting the bogus notion that the radical Warren is some kind of "moderate." If the first black president doesn't mind him giving the invocation at his historic inaugural, how bad and bigoted can he really be?

Jane Hamsher (Firedoglake.com):

Rick Warren is a bloated, narcissistic egomaniac who got elevated in the last election because McCain and Obama shared the common goal of diminishing the importance of people like James Dobson.  Warren is cut from the same mold, with just slightly less offensive packaging.  He's a vicious homophobe who used the political power he gained from the Saddleback event to spread the lies that helped to pass Prop 8.

John Avarosis (Americablog):

It's odd, and therefore telling, that Obama considers all of us equals, yet he only seems to reach out to those who bash gays, and not those who bash blacks, or Jews, or people with disabilities, or any other member of America's civil rights community.

Glen Greenwald:

Of all the preachers Obama could have selected to elevate and validate (and, in every sense, it was Obama's choice), Warren is one of the most destructive -- not only having been one of the most vocal supporters for Proposition 8, but also using the most inflammatory rhetoric on gay issues generally, expressing anti-abortion views in the most fanatical terms possible, and even sitting with Sean Hannity recently and urging the murder of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I'm impressed by how many smart, thoughtful ideas have been expressed in this discussion on depression economics.  I'd like to ask all of you which recommendations you think are most likely to be carried out in the next year and why?  And since I'm asking this, I'll also ask the complementary question: which recommendations do you think are least likely to be carried out, and why?

I honestly don't think asset bubbles can be prevented in our economy.  The best solution to this problem is to try to inform the public when a bubble is apparently forming and spell out the risks involved to those who are thinking of joining the party of not-so-irrational exuberant investors, some of whom will, indeed, probably make lots of money.  And those holding the worthless tulip bulbs when the bubble bursts will just have to cry "we, wee, wee," all the way home.

On the other hand, firms and industries whose welfare is so essential to our economy that taxpayers must rush to save in downturns need to be subjected to some sort of government control, regulation in some instances and, perhaps a type of "depression insurance" in others - an FDIC type thing for, say, the auto industry.

Many years ago I was the president of the board of directors of my kids' nursery school (I also belonged to a babysitting co-op - I can't remember that we had a liquidity crisis in ours).  The nursery school, however, did experience a financial crisis, and we were threatened with closing, which would,of course, have meant all our employees - all three of them - would lose their jobs.  I proposed several major changes that were implemented and which saved the school, though not all 3 jobs, but the one most relevant to the our larger economy and the current situation was sliding scale salaries: if the school attracted a large number of parents for the next term, salaries would be higher than if we didn't.  Faculty weren't at all happy that their salaries might drop, but the alternative - no salaries - was worse.  I would suggest that future union contracts consider this.  When the firm is making large profits, the employees share by receiving higher salaries, and when times are tough, employees agree to cuts.  And I would suggest to boards of directors that this apply also to management: no profits, no bonuses. 

In case you hadn't heard, the continuing Blago scandal is "really bad" for President-Elect Barack Obama.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Here are a few more things that are bad news for Obama:

I mentioned "icebergs," and they indeed are bad for Obama. What with all the ships they sink, and the things they hide. Just the tips of icebergs show, so you never know what is lurking underneath.

Fridays are bad for Obama. They are traditionally slow news days. That means the media has to make something last through the weekend. On Fridays, people go to happy hour. That is bad, because they drink, presumably to get happy. Happiness is another bad thing for Obama because happy people are not complaining as much as they are required to. Complaining is also bad for Obama because people complain about things over which he has no direct control, but what the hey, he's "Super President-Elect-in-Chief" so he should be able to fix everything, after all, that's why we voted for him.

And the fact that he hasn't fixed anything yet, is also bad news for Obama. What's he waiting on? What's all this talk about "only one President at a time?" Can't we have more than one President?

Joe Biden got a puppy before Obama. That is seriously bad news. Not only did Biden have the nerve to get a purebred German Shepard, he had to go and get it from a licensed, reputable dog breeder. What, no puppy mill? No rescue dog? He had to go the "elitist" route and get a purebred. Obviously, Biden was trying to make the point that the next President is a "mutt." That is bad news. The only thing worse than that is if Biden named the puppy "Shepard Smith." 

Obama got named TIME's Person of the Year. Great. That is really, really bad news. Everyone knows you only get named Person of the Year if you "pay for play" on the cover of the magazine. What's next? The cover of Rolling Stone? (Oh, yeah... he's done that too.)

An Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at President Bush. That is bad news for Obama because now everyone will be throwing basketball shoes at him. Reeboks, Nikes, Converse Chuck Taylors. (Good thing he doesn't like grunge that much or there'd be flying Doc Martens.) Of course, they won't be throwing shoes because they don't like him. Just because they want him to autograph them and throw them back.

Obama's had news briefings just about everyday for the last two weeks. That is bad news for Obama because he's supposed to be "transparent" because that's what "the American people want" according to a CBS news correspondent. Standing in front of the TV cameras everyday, having a pack of press hounds called "pool reporters" (even though they never go anywhere near a pool) and answering inane questions like "Even though the US Attorney asked you to hold off until next week telling us what you know about how Blago grooms his hair, why are you refusing to tell us now? Aren't you being non-transparent?" is bad news for Obama because he is just not being transparent enough to satisfy these reporters.

President Bush can't make up his mind about bailing out auto industry. That is bad news for Obama. Very bad. Just because it is one more thing he'll have to do later instead of now because he won't contravert the Constitution and just overthrow Bush now instead of this "waiting to be sworn in" thing.

There's more... the whole "competent Cabinet officers" thing. Whatever happened to the "heckuva job, Brownie" mentality. What? Obama just has to show off and choose people who really know how to do the jobs he picks them for. Geez Louise!

Rick Warren is bad for Obama. Sure, (stealing someone else's line) Rick Warren is Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt. But asking the guy to give a prayer at Inauguration is horrifically bad news. Because Rick Warren has issues with gay people. So, if Obama asked Archbishop Wuerl -- who would also have a problem with gays, women in the priesthood, abortion and that little Catholic church sex abuse thing -- that would be better news? What if he asked a Muslim Imam or a Rabbi -- who would have diametrically opposed views on the Middle East one would suppose -- is that better?  Hmmm... wanting us to all "just get along" for at least a few days is really, very, really, very bad news for Obama.

And finally, I'm out of Grey Goose. That is extremely bad news for Obama. But not nearly as bad as the fact that I haven't gotten my personally delivered invitation to the most exclusive Inaugural Ball he and Michelle will be attending, along with my luxury suite at Blair House and one-of-a-kind Badgley-Mischka gown from the transition team yet.

That's so bad I could throw my shoes...

Friday Morning Update: As I predicted, Fridays are defintely bad for Obama. Just this morning, President Bush makes the eleventh hour decision to bailout the auto industry. Bad news for Obama. By now, you don't even need me to tell this is bad news. Actually, you don't even need a reason. If it happened, it's bad for Obama.

Caroline Kennedy didn't vote in 1989!!!! Horrible news for Obama. Why didn't he tell her back then he was running for President in 2008 and she needed to vote because she would decide to allow herself to be considered for the Senate seat once held by her uncle Bobby? Didn't she realize that not working a 9 to 5 job would be bad for Obama?

And just who told Al Franken to run for Senate, while we're speaking of the Senate. Sure he had a 9 to 5 (or longer) job as a comedy writer on Saturday Night Live, but didn't he realize these are serious times? He should have had a serious job like, I dunno Governor of Wasilla or Mayor of Alaska or something. Bad, bad news for Obama.

And Blago speaks! Oh no!!! Whatever he says will be bad for Obama. If he claims he's innocent, that's bad news. If he says he never talked about nothing to nobody, especially a nobody named Emanuel, well, that could be the end of the world as we know it.

Brace yourselves.... 

Josh and a number of other bloggingheads are ecstatic with the choice of Chuck Todd as the new NBC Chief White House correspondent... or as Huffingtonpost had it for a few hours earlier, in a headline far too reminiscent of the Daily Show, the "Chief White Correspondent." (Larry Wilmore retains the job as "Chief Black Correspondent," and Aasif Mandvi stays on as "Chief Brown Correspondent." The other colors have not been announced yet.)

I'm not so impressed. In a cynic's take, some of the last moves NBC News has made seem to be trying to "woo the gods."

Luke Russert is a lovable lump like his dad, the late Tim Russert, but network news material? Not really. David Gregory's a 6'5" long drink of water, who's got some decent (if "White Boy") dance moves, but not really the best choice for Meet the Press. (If he "grows" into the job, he'll be darn near 7 feet tall.)

And Chuck Todd? Chief White House correspondent? Nope. Not my pick.  Here's a guy who spent the majority of this election simply repeating whatever was the day's conventional wisdom and, er, "talking points." Nothing original there. Todd spent day after day repeating and repeating meaningless poll results ("Newsflash: white people who don't like black people will probably not vote for the black guy"), giving us the top ten ways John McCain or Hillary Clinton "can still win!!!!" and his latest, greatest hit, "how Blago and not talking about Blago and being in Chicago where Blago is and knowing someone who knows Blago is BAD NEWS FOR OBAMA!!!!"

If you want to "groom" Chuck Todd, give him a comb and brush set for the holidays. But don't put him in the White House press pool.  

I suggested in a comment or two this week that Fitz had a lot more on Blaojevich than the attempted procurement of monies, credit and/or office for the Illinois open Senate Seat.  ABC news got ahold of a cuy named Cooley who used to work for the FBI. He did undercover work in Chicago and his primary job was investigating Chicago bookie operations.


"He told ABC7 that Mr. Blagojevich regularly paid a so-called street tax to Robert "Bobby the Boxer" Abbinanti, a convicted outfit gambling collector. In the early 1980's, Abbinanti was working for convicted West Side mob boss Marco D'amico. Bookies pay street taxes to the crime syndicate in exchange for being allowed to operate such a racket."

I love this. He was working with Bobby the Boxer. Is this how he worked his way through college?  It reminds me of Sean Connery asking Kevin Costner if he really wanted to find the illegal booze during the age of Prohibition..  When he is convinced that Costner is ready, willing and able to proceed, all Connery has to do is walk him across the street.

And Cooley had his stuff on tape. And twenty years later, he is taking a reporter across the street, so to speak, and demonstrated how  Blago should have gone down in the eighties.

"'The biggest problem you have now and reason for what is happening is that the people in power have money and ability to silence the media so it will never be reported and as long as you have that going on, you will never stop it,' "

But the funniest line in the whole article is:

"I predicted five years ago when he ran the first time that he was a hands on person who would be selling every position in the state of Illinois and that it exactly what happened."

Jack Nicholson could be standing right there shrugging his shoulders: Its Chinatown.
 
Now contrast this story with a story that hit the Daily Beast per Time yesterday.  The Italian government went after the Italian Mafioso.

"The operation, which involved more than 1,200 Carabinieri officers, was yet another blow to the upper echelon of Sicily's legendary crime syndicate, following the capture of the top two godfathers over the past two years. Though not household names in Italy like those captured in 2006 and 2007, many of the men arrested Tuesday are veteran mafiosi, including Salvatore Lombardo, the 87-year-old alleged boss of the town of Montelepre. The suspects face charges of extortion, weapons- and drug-trafficking and belonging to an organized-crime outfit."

By the way, this did not even make the top ten crime stories in Time for 2008.
   
The Feds have arrested a guy  who stands accused of stealing ('Misappropriation' is such a sissy term-always the term used for an aristocratic theft) 50 billion dollars and he ADMITTED to it. He is OUT ON BAIL. OJ could not even get out on bail this time.

OJ had been accused of attempting to steel football paraphernalia.  This guy stole more than the gross national product of Italy.


Our own TPM Wire provides a story about our Justice Department and its pursuit of white collar crime. The TPMW takes you directly to Paper Trail for this story.

It appears that..." the FBI's work in pursuing white-collar cases, which include mortgage fraud and various other crimes, has dropped dramatically since 2001. There has been a nearly 82 percent drop in white-collar criminal prosecutions between 2001 and 2007, the Syracuse University-based Transactional Records and Access Clearinghouse found, using Justice Department data. .. Since 2001, there has been a 36 percent drop in the number of agents assigned to white-collar crime, causing the FBI to struggle in investigating mortgage fraud and other white-collar crimes, according to The New York Times. Over approximately the same time period, the issuance of subprime loans grew dramatically."

You cannot convince me that a whole slew of people did not know what Madoff was doing over the last ten years.  There is some lowly FBI agent or SEC official that knows damn well what Madoff and a bunch of people have been doing when 50 billion dollars is at issue.Hell, there are probably hundreds of them.

Look at this again.  1200 police officers went out and arrested 94 mafioso. IN ITALY.

I would like to see 1200 police officers go into Chicago and arrest at least 94 political crooks.

I would like to see 1200 FBI officers go onto Wall Street and arrest 94 Wall Street big wigs.

I would like to see 1200 FBI officers go into Washington DC and arrest 94 bigwigs working for the w's White House.

To sum up.  A lowly FBI agent in Chicago had been DOCUMENTING Blago's felonious conduct twenty years ago.  Blago never stopped acting as a felon between then and now.
Hopefully Fitz has got Sean Connery in the wings and many other lowly officers who will testify as to what is really going on in Chicago and Blago the last 20 years..

To say that the U.S. is short of funds to go after white collar crime when we are talking about hundreds of billions of 'misappropriated funds' is preposterous. The fines alone could fund the health insurance crisis.

The more white collar felons brought in, the more money the DOJ gets.

We need more Sean Connerys and Kevin Costners

There 16 women serving in our United States Senate.  With the election
of Jeanne Shaheen there will be 17 women. With Hillary Clinton becoming
the Secretary of State, we are back to 16 women.  When Carolyn Kennedy
announced her decision to become a possible successor to the Hillary
Clinton senate seat in New York, it was a bittersweet moment. We would
be back to 17 women; however, what about the other women in the New
York pipeline, who are both experienced and qualified not just in
governance, but in the process of listening to voters and earning the
public trust. Indeed, an interest in holding public office involves not
just governance, but the concern and care that comes with listening to
and learning about your constituency. Caroline Kennedy may well make a
great Senator, but it would be reassuring if there was more evidence
that she sees the value in this, even though she'd be skipping that
process this time around.

Read more »

Barack Obama on his invitation to Rick Warren to provide the invocation at his inaugural:  What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.

*

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

[Interviewer]: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do...

*

Barack Obama asks that we avoid disagreeability; however, he does not consider Warren's comparison of gays to pedophiles and incestuous siblings to be "disagreeable"--just our criticism of his decision.

Obama invited preacher/gospel singer and well-known homophobe Donnie McClurkin to perform at one of his campaign rallies during the Democratic primaries.  Obama defended that decision with similar "big tent," "reach across divides," "I support equality" language.  He has repeatedly stated his opposition to gay marriage.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that Obama suffers toward gays what a great many Americans suffer towards blacks and women--a soft bigotry.  He believes in equality and may vigorously advocate for it, but to him, we remain just a little shy three-dimensionally human.  To him we are "issues" not people.  For him, that some believe we should not exist is a sociopolitical disagreement--like taking exception to where a dam should be built.  It is not disparaging one's being, because, in his eyes, there's a little less human there to begin with. 

Obama would never employ similar tactics or language with anyone who suggested that Israel was a rogue nation or that African-Americans' rights should be "up to the states."  Obama's support for gay rights--and his lingering distaste for gay lifestyle--simply puts him on a par with a majority of Americans.  It's a political win-win for him. 

Like most who harbor soft bigotries, Obama probably considers himself enlightened and free from prejudice.  He hires gays, he reaches out to them, etc.  But I've had several very liberal, very educated, highly "enlightened" whites make excruciatingly racist comments in my presence and not realize what their comments betrayed until confronted. 

When you are taught from birth to revile a certain minority group, smarts and doctorates do not dispel that teaching.  Smarts and doctorates suggest that there is no rational reason for you to feel that way, so you outwardly change your behavior.  But a voice deep down keeps singing... "they're less, they're dirty."   That's when it becomes safe to turn an entire group of people and their ability to live and love as freely as their fellow citizens into an "issue," as opposed to a "right." 

 

Well, I don't really have a defense of Rick Warren. Too much I disagree over. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28294470/

Cross-posted at Project Vote's Voting Matters Blog

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Final election results from the 2008 presidential election reveal that voter turnout was at the "highest level in 40 years." However, the biggest gain cannot just be seen in overall turnout. As Project Vote assessed in a recent report on 2008 voter demographics - now confirmed by other sources - the biggest gain was among minority and young voters. This success signifies a shift towards a more balanced electorate, and may herald election reforms to expand early voting and voter registration opportunities.

Read more »

President Bush answered questions and made comments at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington today.

Did I understand him to say that his administration gave us ANOTHER stimulus package by giving us LOW gas prices since July?  

How come he can claim credit for these LOW prices but NOT the HIGH prices for the past 7 yrs? 

That's like him claiming credit for no terrorist attack since 9/11 but ignoring the FACT that 9/11 happened UNDER HIS WATCH.

If Obama thinks he can give Rick Warren a platform at the inauguration and still keep hope alive, he's wrong.  Between the Hillary bashing I've seen here around the cafe and now this, all the positive feelings I had right after the election are gone.  It's back to the same old same old. 


http://debbiedoesnothing.blogspot.com/2008/12/good-little-christian-elect.html

You can find it here:

http://trueconservative.typepad.com

If President Bush would like to try and mend some of the hate that is out there for him, it would help if he would ask the Iraqi government to release the Shoe Thrower.

If as he put it during that same meeting, it was just a shoe.  Then show your human side Mr President.  Let the man, because of what he and his family have been through over the last couple of years, go free.

Paul Krugman's latest blog post, under the headline, "Do we need the middle class" went down my gullet like some very bad food.  In the post, he writes

"Kevin Drum writes that

One way or another, there's really no way for the economy to grow strongly and consistently unless middle-class consumers spend more, and they can't spend more unless they make more.

"This is a widely held view, and I'm as much in favor of a strong middle class as anyone. Nonetheless, I'd say that in terms of strict economics it's wrong. There's no obvious reason why consumer demand can't be sustained by the spending of the upper class -- $200 dinners and luxury hotels create jobs, the same way that fast food dinners and Motel 6s do. In fact, the prosperity of New York City in the last decade -- largely supported off of super-salaried Wall Street types -- is a demonstration that you can have an economy sustained by the big spending of the few rather than the modest spending of large numbers of people."

You can have an "economy", sure, but what sort of economy is it?  It is the same type of economy we have now; one that Paul Krugman might compare to the economy of many a third-world nation.  It is the economy of the oligarch, a sort of modern day return to the medieval world in which you have the royalty sitting at the top of the pyramid--the misnamed "upper class"--and everyone else, fending for survival below.  It is an economy, all right, but a rather brutal Hobbsian place in which to live and grow.  It is not a place, in fact, in which the "pursuit of happiness" plays a large part.  Most of the people in such a nation are not pursuing happiness, they are pursuing survival, which is a very different thing indeed.

As we await the arrival of Obama in Washington, most of society is hoping it is his and his teams' intention to change the society we now live in into something more like the society we lived in before the Republicans managed to turn what we thought was a free and equal society into a medievalesque oligarchy in which approximately one percent of the people managed to garner 95 percent of the wealth of the nation into their own greedy hands and everyone else was supposed to be grateful and as happy as tithed serfs on the overlord's manor.  It is a strange world the Republicans have managed to construct and keep most of the people of the nation in, all the while saying this way of life is as natural as the changing of the seasons, so what's to complain about?

What's to complain about?  Well, let's not go there.  We know what is wrong.  We know those with power--in America, Power and Money are the same thing--will never freely go back to a world in which we have a progressive tax system designed to spread the wealth of the nation equally across its vast population.  Those whose transport of choice is a corporate jet or private helicopter, will not think there is anything enlightened about the re-building and strengthening of roads and bridges, public transportation or the rail system, good public schools and affordable universities and colleges.  They will certainly have no use for unions, as the Republicans still left in the Senate showed us last week when, rather than actually try to stave off the collapse of America's native-born auto industry, chose to instead try and gut the American auto unions.

There is a lot to change, and the country I was born into, while it no longer looks like a nation in which all men are actually created equal, can become that nation again if it chooses to, and if the leadership waiting in the wings wants it to.  I am counting on its wanting.  I am also counting on Paul Krugman to help us get there, realizing that everything he says does not have to agree with my gullet, especially if it helps me remember what I want or, in this case, don't want.

 

LAGOS, Nigeria (CNN) -- Nneka and Chimezie Ononaku unwittingly poisoned their own four-month-old sonGiving him what they thought was a baby teething medicine, they were in fact dosing him with anti-freeze.  The bottle had been contaminated with a toxic chemical called diethylene glycol.

More than 30 Nigerian children are thought to have died recently after taking the medicine.

When Nigeria's Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) tested the medicine, "My Pikin," the results were terrifying.

It found the medicine contained almost 90ml of diethylene glycol per 100ml.

"It's a bottle of poison," the NAFDAC laboratory said.

The "My Pikin" factory's managing director and eight others have been charged with negligence. The company could not be reached for comment.

You may remember, maybe not, right after 9/11 when our government ask for our opinions on different ways a terrorist might try to harm or attack us.  Well, in my opinion, this is one of the easiest ways to do so.  They may not kill us off but they sure would cause a world wide panic. Americans would refrain from buying medicines which would in turn harm our pharmacies and clinics.  Hospitals would be overwhelmed with sick citizens that refuse to take their medicines.  Medical bills would skyrocket.

You can be certain that the lack of being able to 'trust' our government to protect us from little things like this in our medicines or food could cause more harm and death than those airplanes did on 9/11.

Speaking of trusting our government, are you listening to President Bush's latest speeches?  He and Cheney are revising their legacy.  Bush claims he kept us safe since 9/11.  He forgot to mention one thing however; if he takes claim of the safety we've had over the past 7 years under his watch, that means he must also take the blame for not stopping 9/11 from happening under his watch.

Links to the 990s filed by the Deborah and Andrew Madoff' Foundation in 2004. 2005 and 2006. Link to a late filed 2003  $3 million contribution disclosure.

Link to the 990 filed by the Stephanie and Mark Madoff Foundation in 2007.

In 2004 and 2005, Andrew's foundation was unaudited. In 2006, he engaged PriceWaterhouseCooper's Pittsburgh office. The 2007 990 is not avaialble online.

Mark Madoff formed his foundation in 11/07 and the books were closed on 12/31/07. The Foundation's activity for the two-month period consisted of a single $2 million money market deposit. PriceWaterhouseCooper's Pittsburgh office signed off on the 990.

There is no way of telling whether the brokerage statement submitted by Andrew is real or a cut and paste job. He did not provide evidence that he contributed $500k in cash in 2006.

Mark could have deposited the $2 million in 110/7 and moved it after 12/31/08.

Since I believe the entire Madoff family was in on this scheme, I wouldn't trust any information provided by any Madoff.

For example, a simple 990 was sent to a Big Four's office in Pittsburgh. Was using the NY office where someone might know about the Madoffs too risky?   

 

 

Atrios has exactly the right idea.

If you're at the inauguration, turn your back on Warren when he speaks.

I'll add: if you're watching on television, turn it off or change the channel for five minutes when  Warren's on.

It's a decent way to express dissatisfaction with this decision. If enough people do it and if Warren is really as thoughtful a guy as his supporters suggest then maybe the pastor will see a reason to rethink his position. People like him want us to hear him talk about spirituality, after all. We should signal to him, and all those like him, that we're not going to hear it from people who are on the wrong side of a major unresolved civil rights issue.

Josh's post on the front page brings up a guy named Markoplos who has been telling the SEC Madoff was running a Ponzi Scheme for years. Here's the report Josh linked to that Markopolos sent to the SEC in 2005 http://www.slideshare.net/hblodget/markopolos-madoff-complaint-presentation?type=document .

Was the SEC compliant in the scheme? Will anyone investigate? I hear Madoff was very well connected politically and I see Chucky Schumer has given back contributions from him. Will anyone investigate to see if anyone pulled strings for him?

This is pretty damning stuff. Markopolos tried but no one would listen. Read that document. He lays out how it was totally obvious to many in the industry that Bernie Madoff couldn't possibly be getting the returns he had been getting legally.
Shouldn't someone in the SEC be in prison over this too?

Bumping home in the cab. Broke my toe, and since it's -40 out, no way I'm walking home. Tried that yesterday. Two & a half miles home, in that cold. Thought I'd "test the foot." Somebody should test my head. Anyway, cab rides can be interesting.

I'm headed out of the old industrial North End, down the big boulevard to the Legislature, past the park there, the one with the little statue of William Stephenson. Hometown boy. His story starts small, seemingly not enough to warrant a statue. World War One, just another kid who signs up, gets gassed. But at least he stuck it out. Came home, started his own hardware business, based around some can opener he'd seen in England. Did well, made some money. Typical "little guy does pretty well" story. Not worth a statue though. Even a little one.

But when World War Two rolls around, he becomes something else entirely. A Man Called Intrepid. Churchill's representative to FDR. The guy who helps create MI5, the OSS & the CIA. Part of the whole story around breaking the Enigma code, he also sets up Camp X to train the Allies' secret agents, saboteurs, commandos.

And is apparently the guy Ian Fleming says he built James Bond around.

But in this town... no 007 hype. Even though Stephenson was real, helped win a real War, against real Baddies.

Most of us live in nowhere towns like this, or nowhere parts of bigger towns. And no matter where we are, we tend to think of ourselves as everyday, normal, people. Little people. The Media & the Politicians & the Rich & Powerful like to support us in that self-image. Once every 4 years they preach that it's all about the little people in the small towns, but after that... it's 24/7 for the Big Boys.

Bumpbump, bumpbump, BANG... pothole. No way to ever stop these streets from frost-heaving, I guess. People here complain about the roads, and the cold, same as anywhere else. But they know they're well off not to have to face the cold head-on, full-blast, like earlier generations did. Hard to imagine, the Ukrainians & the Mennonites, the Germans & the Poles, the Brits & the French, who'd spilt so much of each other's blood, coming here, living together. Wintering in sod houses on the open Prairie, or freezing cold shacks in the cities. But when you're little people, and you live half-buried in the ground & half-exposed to a Nature that big, that raw, it humbles you a bit. You learn how to keep your head down, to pull together. You leave the old shit in the old country's latrine.

And you learn how to wink. Like, if you're a guy lucky enough to be named Homer, and with the good fortune to be born halfway between Moose Jaw & Swift Current, and the treble true blessing to be Mennonite - well, you know that's pretty much a one-way ticket to Forgotten-town for you. But if you work hard, and you're patient, and you give your kid a better name, like Matt, maybe someday he'll get lucky, and get to make cartoons on TV. And then he can slip a wink inside the jokes he tosses into all those little towns & little peoples' homes. Like so -

 

This is what I'm thinking about, bouncing along in the cab, through this funny little town. Funny little city, I should probably say. 730,000 people, that's the size of places like Scranton, Youngstown, Syracuse. This one perhaps most notable for the fact that it's the world's coldest capital city. Yep, Moscow & Stockholm & Anchorage & Ottawa are cold. But this place is colder. Not unexpected, when you're 6 hours drive North of Minneapolis, 3 hours North of Fargo. They hired some hotshots to re-brand the region a few years back. Some wit/arse suggested "North of North Dakota." The branding experts from NYC didn't smile. But we did.

This past week though... -40 windchills, every day. -40 being where Celsius & Fahrenheit meet, nod stiffly, and snowshoe on in silence. Too cold to take off the gloves & shake. Cold that makes your breath freeze & fall to the ground. Cold that makes your eyes water, then flash-freezes them shut. This year, I've learned this kind of cold makes new fillings hurt like hell. Nice touch. Coupla years back, it fell to -70 Fahrenheit with the windchill. Walked to work in it, 2 and 1/2 miles each way, just so I could say I did it. 

Ummm... "I did it?" About as smart as "testing the foot."

Now what I hope you're thinking at this point is, "Wow. Not many rich people, powerful people, sexy people, smart people, are gonna rush to a town like that, right?" Right. But it does make the place a good test-zone for what human beings - regular little people - can do for themselves.

And obviously, for starters, they have to find ways to amuse themselves in the mornings. Pet Coffee Tricks, for instance. 

Read more »

NYT reported on a curious twist in state-level impeachment against a state official: That the prospect of a federal prosecution should trump the state impeachment.

In so many words, the prosecutors claim the state impeachment inquiry might interfere with the prosecution.

Our reservation has to do with the delicate balance of power at the state level, which the US prosecutors have no role, authority, or power The Constitution does not delegate any power to the US government or any prosecutor to thwarte state impeachment efforts.

Read more »

As Bush, Cheney and Rove tour the country with their dog and pony show, one wonders if anyone is even listening, or caring.  Evidence suggests that Americans are generally not receptive to BushCo's lively efforts to revise the historical record. Their transparent efforts to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear must stupefy even the most casual observer to the last 8 years of the Bush presidency.

 

After all the books (Fiasco/Ricks; The One Percent Doctrine/Suskind; The War Within/Woodward; The End of Iraq/Galbraith; Hubris/Isikoff & Corn; The Price of Loyalty/O'Neill, to name a few),

and reports (2004 Iraq Survey Group report's underlying conclusion: Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West..; the 2002 9-11 Commission Report: no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaeda in preparing or executing the 9/11 attacks; the April 2006 release of the NIE Assessment Report: The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat,

and editorials, interviews, memos (Joseph Wilson's NYT editorial: "What I Didn't Find in Africa"; the now-famous Downing Street Memo in which the chief of British intelligence said that BushCo were going to fix the facts around the politics; and just about every pre-war press conference and interview given by BushCo was tempered with the phrases like imminent threat and mushroom cloud. Basically they spouted a litany of ills that could befall us that would result in America's complete and utter destruction.

 

And now BushCo wants to revise the record. It wasn't the invasion of a sovereign nation, it was the liberation of 25 million Iraqis. It wasn't that he and his neocons buddies were itching to topple Saddam from day one, it's we decided after 9-11 that he represented a clear and present danger to the U.S. that must be stopped.  And this revisionist/legacy tour is not just about Iraq policy decisions. Suddenly the Katrina fiasco was caused by "...the limitations of government assistance to respond to big natural disasters." Abu Gharib, well that was just a few bad apples as opposed to a shadow policy, not only known, but condoned at the highest levels. But I will stop here - I don't know if there's enough "Internets" bandwith to outlay all of the transgressions hoisted upon the American public, the Constitution, and the global community by this administration. Bush has always said he liked doing things in a big way. Well, I think it's not a stretch to say that he was a universal, if not galactic, walking, or shall I say, tap-dancing, catastrophe!

 

And to those who would say it wasn't just Bush, but also Congress who was complicit by their approval of the Iraq War Resolution, I have one question. Why is only Bush responsible for the surge "working" when Congress had to also approve that, and yet it is both Congress and Bush responsible for the Iraq invasion? That has been the mantra of this administration and its supporters: if it's bad, the Democrats and/or Clinton are responsible; and if it's good, then Bush and/or the Republicans are responsible. I have never heard this president accept responsibility for one thing perceived as a failure -- Katrina, Iraq, the economic meltdown, the Plame outing, etc. It was, and still is, a constant drumbeat of: It wasn't me, They didn't tell me, It happened before I got in office and so on. For a decider he sure dodges the bullet of consequence.  Yeah, I decided, but if something goes wrong, well it was because I decided based on false info.

 

Bush's real legacy: He invaded a sovereign nation, toppled its leader who was later executed, and declared Mission Accomplished 5 years ago.  This ill-advised war has resulted in the deaths of over 4200 American soldiers, over 300 coalition troops, and by some estimates, more than 100000 Iraqi civilians. Almost 31000 U.S. troops have been seriously injured and at least 1 million Iraqis fled their homes, their country in the wake of the U.S. invasion. So what is Bush's real legacy?  What can he say in response to questions about why, about what was worth all the death, devastation, and destruction caused by this pre-emptive war of choice:  So that people could throw shoes and not have to worry about being put to death. Heckuva job, sir.

Bernie owns an interest in Cohmad Securities which has offices in Madoff's building and it has a substantial presence in Boston.

Robert M. Jaffe, now a resident of Palm Beach, Fla., is president and principal shareholder of M/A/S Capital Corporation, vice president and principal of Cohmad Securities Corporation, and a board member of Quosa, Inc.

In Boston, Mr. Jaffe is an overseer of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a member of the President's Council of Brandeis University. He and his wife, Ellen Shapiro Jaffe, are active in civic and cultural organizations in Boston including the Museum of Fine Arts and The Wang Center for the Performing Arts.

According to the Boston Globe, Ellen Shapriro's parents are very wealthy philanthropists who got burned by Bernie.

Hotstocked.com lists these Cohmad Securities brokers:

Alvin James Delaire Jr.
Cyril David Jalon
Marcia Beth Cohn
Rosalie Buccellato

Cohn is the compliance officer and the Massachusetts secretary of state has subpeonaed documents from her.

This firm may be a successor to Cohn, Delaire & Kaufman, a brokerage firm that was around in the '60s.

Maurice J. Cohn of Manhasset made a political contribution in the '80s and listed Cohn Delaire as his employer. Maurice is also on the board of the North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System.

In 2002, Cohn was a sponsor of an exhibit at the Lower East Side Museum which, if I recall correctly, has the support of Peter Madoff, Bernie's brother.

The only information I could find on Cyril David Jalon is this 1984 wedding announcement in the NY Times:

"The marriage of Mary Lucy Tricarico, a daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Vito Tricarico of Mahopac, N.Y., to Allan Michael Jalon, son of Mr. and Mrs. Cyril David Jalon of Mamaroneck, N.Y., took place yesterday. Rabbi Abraham J. Klausner performed the ceremony at the Tower Suite in Manhattan."

Nothing on Rosalie Buccellato.

Interesting that Frank DiPascali was the CFO of the Madoff investment firm. 

I'm pretty sure the entire Madoff family was in on this scheme and I've been wondering if the Italian or Russian mob was involved in any way.  

 

Any TPM afficianadi also listeners to NPR will have noticed how Elizabeth Warren (dare I say, our own Elizabeth Warren is all over (including a spot on *Fresh Air!!I)

Anyway, according to Prof. Warren, it all started with a phone call from Harry Reid.

Granted, he probably had already heard of the venue of her day job (some school near M.I.T.—they play Brown in football, I think…). And she was not without visibility absent her TPM blog.

Yet and still, could it be that when Harry met Liz’ it was middled by Josh?

*I would kill to be across the table from Terry Gross, face to face, and hear her laugh!)

Hi there, come on in.  Find yourself a seat, the sofa is available, as is the ugly blue chair.  Then again, there's always my favorite spot - the floor with a couple of really soft pillows.  Tell you what.  Find your own spot and save me a pillow or two at your feet.  It's been too long and I need the peacefulness of your voice.  Your hand on my shoulder, my elbow on your knee as we laugh together.  Together.  Now there's a great word.  I'll go grab a couple of glasses of Zin for us and be right back.  What?  Oh, goodness, I didn't even notice!  I'm so sorry.  Is it all right at room temperature or should I throw it in the oven on low?

Will you change the music, please?  You know the drill ... you have music duty, you choose the tunes.  Very nice, very mellow.  I knew I could count on - was that the door?  Hi there!  Come on in.  It's never too late, we're all friends here.

 

 

 

Here is a prediction: the culture wars will be left by the wayside as we enter a seemingly new land, the land of the tactically minded chief executive, whose tactics are the tip of a philosophical iceberg.  The executive is Obama and the iceberg is Pragmatism.

Comments regarding Obama's pragmatism constitute something of a cottage industry. These discussions usually involve contrasting Obama's pragmatism, for example, in choosing his cabinet, with the ideological approach of Bush and the neo-cons.  Here the term pragmatism is meant to denote political flexibility, comfort with the expedient, and a willingness to compromise.  For critics it is meant to suggest an unprincipled orientation toward questions of great moment. Given Obama's willingness to label himself a pragmatist, many have been mystified by his commitment to specific values, finding him not only unclassifiable in accepted political categories, but mystifying as a person.  For example, in a recent article in Harpers (Nov. 2008), "The American Void," Simon Critchley treats Obama as, well, a void.  He just can't figure the guy out.   In fact, as I have noted elsewhere (PBS site), there is nothing strange about Obama's political views for those who are familiar with the American philosophical tradition of Pragmatism or the Social Gospel Movement. Interestingly, Critchley makes much of Obama's mother being an anthropologist, but what he fails to mention is that Ann Dunham's thesis director was Alice G. Dewey, John Dewey's granddaughter. (John Dewey may be the most influential Pragmatist of the twentieth century). This is no accident. Obama's thought and practice can be located in the tradition of American Pragmatism (pragmatism with a capital P) and in the liberal Social Gospel Movement that was influential in Chicago during the early part of the 20th century. The latter is still influential in some Chicago churches and community groups, especially those that would have most engaged Obama's attention as a community organizer.

One of the few commentators who has begun to tease out the differences between Obama's pragmatisms is Chris Hayes. He writes in The Nation, "Pragmatism in common usage may mean simply a practical approach to problems and affairs. But it's also the name of the uniquely American school of philosophy whose doctrine is that truth is pre-eminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief. What unites the two senses of the word is a shared skepticism toward certainties derived from abstractions-one that is welcome and bracing after eight years of a failed, faith-based presidency. . . . And if there's a silver thread woven into the pragmatist mantle Obama claims, it has its origins in this school of thought. Obama could do worse than to look to John Dewey....For him, the crux of pragmatism, and indeed democracy, was a rejection of the knowability of foreordained truths in favor of 'variability, initiative, innovation, departure from routine, experimentation.' " The Nation, Dec 10, 2008

Hayes is moving in the right direction.  I would take his claims a step further.  There is no understanding of Obama without an understanding of Pragmatism. Take for instance the question of whether one can have principles and still be a pragmatist.  From the vantage point of philosophical Pragmatism, the question is non-starter.  The use of principles to address philosophical and political issues extends back to Plato and Aristotle, and migrates through Kant's ethics into the twentieth century.  But the Pragmatist wants to bypass this mode of thinking, one that requires us to believe that affirming values requires a principled affirmation of values.  Principles are in fact problematic and counterproductive.  Dewey, for example, railed against Kant during WWI, claiming that the rigidity of his ethics of principled imperatives was reflected in the dictatorial and undemocratic mindset of the German regime.  People who believe in democracy should be suspicious of permanent truths and principles.  As Hannah Arendt argues, debate is at the heart of political life, and Truth (with a capital "T") kills debate. (Obama's father was a man of principle to the point of stubbornness.  He had a failed career and a led a troubled life.  It is hard to read Dreams of My Father and not conclude that Obama came away from his "journey" with a lasting distaste for principles. His mother, on the other hand, was the epitome of a Deweyan in her love of experience, experimentation, novelty, change, and belief in the transformational power of education.)

In the "Epilogue" to Dreams of My Father, Obama reports a conversation that he and his sister, Auma, had with Dr. Rukia Odero, a professor of history.  A central question in the discussion: how should Africans adapt to the values that Westerners have brought to Africa?   That Obama chose to report the conversation is telling.  Rukia, I would argue, is meant to give voice to Obama's views.  She states, "I suspect that we can't pretend that the contradictions of our situation don't exist.  All we can do is choose."  And after discussing the complexities of the issue of female circumcision, she goes on to say, "You cannot have rule of law and then exempt certain members of your clan.  What to do?  Again you choose.  If you make the wrong choice, then you learn from your mistakes.  You see what works."  (Dreams from My Father, New York: Crown, 2004, p. 434)  "Seeing what works" is indeed the mantra of Pragmatism.  Yet as in existentialism, this doesn't mean that one doesn't feel the weight of moral and political decisions.  It means that one can't appeal to principles in advance to justify one's decisions or "what works."

But doesn't being a pragmatist, in both senses of the term, just make Obama a relativist?  No doubt for the ideologically committed, those who fear a leader without a moral compass, this would be a central concern.  But once again this is to frame the issue in the wrong fashion.  Relativism is a problem for moral absolutists.  Without a lasting commitment to absolutes, there isn't a problem of relativism.  Instead there is the problem of deciding what values to hold.  To frame the discussion in terms of absolutism versus relativism is already to accept the framework of the religious right, which is what the Republicans have been notoriously successful in doing for two generations.  However, the choice is not between absolutism and relativism.  It is between different values. Commitments to values arise from numerous sources, including thoughtful deliberation and prudential considerations.  And it is in the realm of "prudence" that one finds a symmetry between upper and lower case pragmatism.  For the Pragmatist prudential considerations do not always trump other values, but sometimes they do, because prudence or tactical maneuvering may be required to realize successfully a greater good.  As a matter of fact, a thoughtful political agent doesn't make dogmatic, read absolutistic, decisions in advance regarding what values and tactics may be the most vital and relevant.

The culture wars have depended on disagreements over specific values and the belief that principles are central to morality.  Or at least this is the way that the religious right has sought to frame the controversy, a perception that neo-cons have used to reinforce their political agendas.  When Obama speaks of being post-ideological, of being a pragmatist, I read him as trying to address logjams over values by avoiding divisive discourses based on principles.  How does one accomplish this?  Well, one way is to sound as if one is not ideological, for example, by showing flexibility on specific moral and political questions.  By so doing Obama is not simply maneuvering. He is not being disingenuous.  He is behaving as if he is a committed Pragmatist, and as such he is seeking to change the ground rules for political discourse.

Obama may very well succeed with a little help from his (several million) friends, and realities on the ground, namely, a serious financial crisis that suddenly has life-long, dogmatic free-marketers running for cover.  He may also succeed because he is attuned to something very basic about the American psyche.  It is no accident that Pragmatism is the most significant philosophy that America has produced.  There is something deeply American about it.  But is it Left, Right, or Center? Once again, this is to ask a misleading question.  Its tent is large enough to contain persons from across the American political spectrum, if one judges political commitments by specific values.  Yet in an American context Obama's Pragmatism presents a much greater challenge to the ideological Right than to the ideological Left.  How so?  If the conversation is shifted away from absolutes, the Right in America will lose the ground from which it has hurled its most potent missiles.  Some on the Right are beginning to recognize the threat that Obama poses.  Some still believe that they can bring back the days of the culture wars. The latter, however, are predicated on the "principled versus pragmatist" distinction, one that is becoming less consequential with each passing day.  So, I wish the dogmatic Right lots of luck. They will need it.  As for the non-dogmatic Right, if debate is crucial to a thriving democracy, I wish them well, and so does the Pragmatist Obama.

UP@NIGHT

   Surely neither Krugman nor Reich would advocate another war as a means of pulling us out of the current economic mess.  True, we can employ untrained, uneducated men and women for many military service jobs, but why can't we use the military for non-war purposes?  Some of the rank and file could be trained to restore our railroads (wouldn't it be great to have a network of fast trains that arrived and departed on time?)  Why not pay returning GIs and, if we can't find enough of them, others, to acquire training in areas where demand is high, such as elementary education and nursing - not just handing out money willy-nilly, but to those with demonstrated aptitude and interest in these jobs?  Perhaps the military could be used to train inner city youth for non-combat jobs here and abroad (the Peace Corps is too elite).  Perhaps the public sector, including the military, could supplement private industry - say, if Firm A hires a returning GI for a particular job, the government will match that hire by paying the firm's cost for employee health insurance or social security or workmen's comp.  I realize this would be messing with the "free"  market, but, hey, ordering bombs and guns and Humvees also alters supply and demand.  And if more people is one way to increase demand, why not open our doors to more immigration? 

Oh boy.  I just had one hell of a difficult time with MoveOn.org.  They sent me a personalized online ballot today via email, wherein I was asked to pick my top three topics (from a total of 10) that I want them to concentrate on in the days ahead.   I shrugged and said to myself, "This should be easy".  But then, as I perused the choices, I found it harder and harder to choose only three items, and even harder to prioritize them from 1 to 3.  The choices:

- Universal health care
- Economic recovery & job creation
- Build a green economy, Stop climate change
- End the war in Iraq
- Improve public schools
- Reform campaigns & elections
- Hold the Bush Administration accountable
- Gay rights/LGBT equality
- Increase access to higher education
- Restore civil liberties

Universal health care is indeed an important topic.  Obama's campaign made it one of their central themes, as did Hillary's.  My heart aches for those who are uninsured and either unable to seek medical care, or unable to pay for the care they received.

Economic recovery and job creation are urgently needed.  No doubt about that whatsoever. 

But building a green economy and stopping climate change are also urgent needs.  Bush just this past week quietly passed a bill that allows chemicals to run into fresh waterways, damn him.  Creating green jobs will help with the bullet point above, too, so it's very hard for me to choose between the two.

End the war in Iraq, well, that was easy.  It's the reason I joined Moveon.org to begin with.  But then again, it seems that Obama is already intending to do just that, so maybe it's not as urgent as the three items above.

Improving public schools is, of course, a must.  That's just as critical as everything else.

Reforming campaigns and elections is definitely important.  Can you say "Diebold"?

Holding the Bush Admin accountable, well, gee, if only someone had made this a top priority every year for the past eight years, we wouldn't even need to discuss this option, would we?

Gay rights/LBGT equality is very important to me.  I'm not gay (although several jokes have been made about my username), but I care about people who love one another and yet can't marry because other people don't think it's "right".  Amazing to think Loving v. Virginia was won only 41 years ago.

Increasing access to higher education is a dire need, especially now when so many parents have lost so much of the money they were investing towards their children's college funds.  

Restoring civil liberties is a must as well.  I don't know about you, but I find it very hard to talk dirty over the phone now, knowing that some FBI or CIA operative might be listening in with the permission of our government and the cooperation of AT&T.  Then again, it sometimes actually makes it a more titillating experience.  But, I digress.

Anyway, you can see my dilemma, here, I'm sure.  This was no easy task for me.  But, I finally completed my online ballot and I hope all you Moveon.org members will do the same. 

 

There is an interesting discussion going on at tpmcafe about what ended the great depression, led by Paul Krugman.  It's great, but something seems to me to be missing from the discussion.  It's inequality.

There are clear historical correlations between income inequality and financial instability. Inequality increased during the early 20^th century, peaking in the late 1920s, when we had asset bubbles that led to a crash and the Great Depression. Then, inequality was greatly reduced during the 1945-1973 period, which was financially stable. After that it started rising again, and so did instability, which became increasingly problematic after the brief stock market crash of 1987. Inequality now has again reached 1929 levels, and 1929-level financial instability is also occurring, with the financial system now in a constant state of crisis. I am very surprised that no one is talking much about a causal connection.

It also seems to me that the cause-and-effect links are pretty obvious. When inequality increases, more people experience absolute declines in their standard of living, and go into debt in attempts to maintain their consumption. Also, people at the top of the income distribution have much more money, which creates much higher demand for financial instruments and this leads to bubbles in financial assets. Ultimately, you would expect two things to happen that would reinforce each other: bubbles burst and debtors default, and then you would have a massive disappearance of wealth and a resulting crash in demand.

This is pretty much what happened with the Great Depression, and it's also a very good description of what is happening today.  This would imply that policies to reduce inequality are a long-term necessity. Am I missing something?

Inequality was reduced after the Depression by the New Deal safety net programs such as Social Security, and also by a very progressive income tax, with very high tax rates for the wealthy.  Conservatives like to claim that this kind of progressive taxation stifles growth, but the postwar period turned out to be a Golden Age economically, with strong growth and little or no financial instability. 

I truly wonder why this issue does not get more discussion.  I have searched regular Google and Scholar.Google,com for books and articles on this relationship, and find very little.  I'm not an economist, so there is probably a literature on it that I'm not familiar with, but I also have a suspicion that this topic may be ignored for political and ideological reasons, some of which may be subconscious.  If high inequality could be demonstrated to be bad for the economy as a whole, then a lot of wealthy interests would be threatened. 

If needs to be reduced, how could this be done?  Well, going back to the more progressive income tax would be an obvious answer, as would taxing capital gains in the same progressive fashion.  So would improving the safety net, with government-sponsored health care.  Stillidealistic has an excellent suggestion in this area on her current blog post "How's This for an Outside the Box Idea?"  Her proposal is to pay parents to stay home with their children, at least while they are young.  In addition to giving children more time with their parents, this would contract the labor supply and drive up wages.  It should be pointed out that this occurred after WWII when many women who had worked during the war left the labor force and had children, and the result was an economy in which a single earner made enough to support a family.   

It seems to me that all these things need to be considered, because the real problem with our economy now is quite simply that spending is too low because too many people don't have enough money.  Reducing inequality in the long term, while maintaining strong enough incentives for work, may be the big economic challenge we face.

I've never heard such lame excuses as Lt. Gov. Quinn saying that a special election will cost too much and take too long.  Oh Please!!  Let's put political parties aside and do what's right for democracy

A lot of religious people have problems with homosexuality, especially with the idea of same sex marriage.  But I can't believe that Barack Obama can't find a supporter of same sex marriage rights to give the invocation at his inaugural.  Rich Warren?  Really?  Why?

I'm sorry but I don't understand Barack Obama's tolerance for intolerance from men of the cloth.  Jeremiah Wright supported Prop 8.  Donnie McClurkin thinks homosexuality is a curable condition. Every time something like this happens, social liberals such as myself get loud about it and are told to chill out.

Now there is one reason to chill: I'm absolutely sure that Obama is smart enough to know that the government has an obligation to treat same sex couples equally under the law and that Obama is way too smart to be a homphobe or anything like that.

I have no such faith in Warren, Wright of McClurkin though and I have to wonder why Obama just never seems to think this issue is serious enough that he'd actually do something about it.  Wright's view on Prop 8 is far more offensive than anything he might have said after 9/11 but you wouldn't see Obama leaving Trinity over something like Prop 8.  McClurkin only appeared with the campaign once but Obama didn't think the man's insulting views about homosexuals were worth too much worry.  Now this with Warren?  What gives?

Can Obama really not find a pastor who is an actual social progressive to deliver the invocation?

This is a truly lame choice and Obama's behavior on this matter is starting to suggest a very annoying pattern. It's not one of homphobia, either.  It's one of damnable tolerance for the last acceptable form of bigotry in the United States.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/12/17/attorney-general-removes-himself-from-madoff-case/
The same relationship that the justice department states requires the AG to recuse himself from the Madoff case is the same relationship that Scalia had with Bush ( Son was part of Law firm representing Bush) and comparable to Thomas's wife being part of the transition team for Bush but no need for their recusals when the fix was needed.

We can't tax or spend our way out of this mess. The bad debt must be defaulted, and this will mean bankruptcies among both people and companies (including banks) - lots of them. This is inevitable. Market-Ticker

"I have abandoned free-market principles to save the free- market system" George W. Bush

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the U.S. and China are becoming two countries, one system. How so? Easy, in the wake of our massive bank bailout, one can now look at China and America and say: "Well, China has a big-state-owned banking sector, next to a private one, and America now has a big state-owned banking sector next to a private one. China has big state-owned industries, alongside private ones, and once Washington bails out Detroit, America will have a big state-owned industry next to private ones." Thomas Friedman

Masters of the craft often insist that it is essential to write every day if you are going to build any writing muscles, there seem to be neural paths that need to be blazed between brain and hand in order to write and the only way to blaze and nurture them is by steadily putting words onto a white space. My brief experience tells me that this is true.

I came to writing late: analyzing world affairs meant having to write on a daily basis and having to write turned into loving to write and that helps me to write every day: a beneficent circle.

The problem in facing the white space is usually where to begin, but world news has always provided me with a wide variety of themes: every morning there was some new event to start the flow of words and ideas moving.

The last few weeks have been heavy going though.

Bush to Blago to Madoff is not the kind of triple play to have the fans on their feet, hoarse from cheering. A steady diet of writing about nothing but criminal stupidity and decadence on a massive scale is finally as appetizing as chugging a barium shake.

Read more »