I wrote this in 2005 and it was published in the My View column of the commuter daily newspaper Metro.  I thought I'd repost given Obama's history speech in Cairo.

Islam's presence in America is older than the United States itself.  Not only were some members of the slave population Muslims it is a little known fact that Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Qur'an and studied it in detail.  History tells us that Jefferson extracted the best from all codes of law during his quest for the ideal form of government. The Qur'an contains the core democratic principles such as representative government and freedom from oppression that Jefferson advocated in the Declaration of Independence and much of our country's initial legislation.  The teachings of Islam are part of the foundation of the American spirit of universal equality and the rights for all humanity.  

 

While the Qur'an serves many purposes, Jefferson focused on its moral and legal code. In today's Muslim world, this code is often abused by autocratic governments and extremists looking to maintain and/or perpetuate their grips on power. These individuals and institutions have abused the Qur'an, resulting in rabid misinformation about the religion that considers it a Divine source.

 

In recent weeks, the Qur'an has been in the news for unfortunate reasons.  The reports of the desecration of the Qur'an by US interrogators and Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi claiming  the Qur'an sanctifies the killing of innocent people for the greater cause of 'jihad' has been a source of distress for most Muslims.  John Espisito, professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown, articulated the first issue very simply, "the Qur'an is to Islam what Jesus is to Christianity."  He also accurately compares the feeling of Muslims as the same sentiment Americans feel when the flag is burned. 

 

Even more dangerous for the 7mm Muslims in America and the billion plus throughout the world, is the misrepresentation of Islam by the extremists and the media.  The word jihad is often erroneously translated as holy war, while the actual meaning is 'struggle'.  In its purest form, this struggle is for the defense of Islam's principles.  It ranges from simply telling the truth to defending an Islamic society against an invading power much like the US-backed mujahadeen did in Afghanistan.  It is true, however, that Muslims believe martyrs go to heaven.  We also believe, to paraphrase the Qur'an, that killing an innocent person is like killing all of humanity.  While jihad by the sword is an element of a Muslim's struggle, it is given lesser importance than other forms.  Ali, the Prophet's nephew and the fourth caliph of Islam, said, "the ink of a scholar's pen is more sacred than the blood of a martyr."

 

Americans must attempt to understand the fastest growing religion in the world and the words that inspire its believers.  We must embrace 'moderate' Muslims throughout the world and give them a platform to defeat the extremist element within it. As a Muslim American I've benefited from the law that Thomas Jefferson and the Qur'an helped inspire.  We must all realize that the American Spirit and the Qur'an share the common goals of life, liberty and the humble pursuit of happiness.

Every time someone speaks about jihad, either in a news story or to justify horrific acts, the true meaning of the word and the principles of Islam usually get lost.  The story about last night's arrest of four men who allegedly were plotting terrible violence is no different.

According to scholar John Esposito, Jihad requires Muslims to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society."

This tenet is not exclusive to any religion, faith, philosophy, or societal structure.  Live well.  Live pure.  Help others.  Promote justice.  Be humble before your fellow man and your Creator (whatever you believe that to be).

Islam's presence in America is older than the United States itself.  Not only were some members of the slave population Muslims it is a little known fact that Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Qur'an and studied it in detail.  History tells us that Jefferson extracted the best from all codes of law during his quest for the ideal form of government.  The Qur'an contains the core democratic principles such as representative government and freedom from oppression that Jefferson advocated in the Declaration of Independence and much of our country's initial legislation.  The teachings of Islam are part of the foundation of the American spirit of universal equality and the rights for all humanity.  

 

While the Qur'an serves many purposes, Jefferson focused on its moral and legal code. In today's Muslim world, this code is often abused by autocratic governments and extremists looking to maintain and/or perpetuate their grips on power.  These individuals and institutions have abused the Qur'an, resulting in rabid misinformation about the religion that considers it a Divine source.

 

In recent weeks, the Qur'an has been in the news for unfortunate reasons.  The reports of the desecration of the Qur'an by US interrogators and Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi claiming  the Qur'an sanctifies the killing of innocent people for the greater cause of 'jihad' has been a source of distress for most Muslims.  John Espisito, professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown, articulated the first issue very simply, "the Qur'an is to Islam what Jesus is to Christianity."  He also accurately compares the feeling of Muslims as the same sentiment Americans feel when the flag is burned. 

 

Even more dangerous for the 7mm Muslims in America and the billion plus throughout the world, is the misrepresentation of Islam by the extremists and the media.  The word jihad is often erroneously translated as holy war, while the actual meaning is 'struggle'.  In its purest form, this struggle is for the defense of Islam's principles.  It ranges from simply telling the truth to defending an Islamic society against an invading power much like the US-backed mujahadeen did in Afghanistan.  It is true, however, that Muslims believe martyrs go to heaven.  We also believe, to paraphrase the Qur'an, that killing an innocent person is like killing all of humanity.  While jihad by the sword is an element of a Muslim's struggle, it is given lesser importance than other forms.  Ali, the Prophet's nephew and the fourth caliph of Islam, said, "the ink of a scholar's pen is more sacred than the blood of a martyr."

 

Americans must attempt to understand the fastest growing religion in the world and the words that inspire its believers.  We must embrace 'moderate' Muslims throughout the world and give them a platform to defeat the extremist element within it.  As a Muslim American I've benefited from the law that Thomas Jefferson and the Qur'an helped inspire.  We must all realize that the American Spirit and the Qur'an share the common goals of life, liberty and the humble pursuit of happiness.

Today, the Obama Administration is going to announce a new federal emissions and MPG standard for America's automobiles.  This is truly historic and a very necessary step towards improving our chances to combat the climate crisis. There's a lot more work to do, but this is something to celebrate because it is a significant policy that will reduce emissions from cars:

The new standards would cut greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles by about 30% by 2016, while boosting the industry average fuel efficiency standard to 35.5 miles per gallon.

This standard satisfies environmentalists and States like California, who believed the old EPA standard wasn't good enough and decided to enact stricter and more responsible rules.  Simultaneously, it drags the industry into the future in a way that also makes the automakers' life easier, by giving them a little bit more time and making a national standard that allows them to plan a single rollout.

While the policy excites me as someone who is concerned for our planet, the way this policy was achieved, excites me even more because it shows the possibilities for transformation that we have with this fantastically talented and intelligent President.  Coalition and consensus building is critical to achieving the change we voted for.  This specific success seems to be a tangible example of President Obama's ability to bring people together and produce results:

"What´s significant about the announcement is it launches a new beginning, an era of cooperation," said Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance [of Automobile Manufacturers]. "The president has succeeded in brining three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and many environmental groups to the table," he said. "We´re all agreeing to work together on a national program."

Some quiet noise is coming from the Obama Administration that may please progressive critics of the Financial Stability Plan.  Amongst other things, some are upset that taxpayers are getting a raw deal from the bailout and not getting enough ownership in the banks that receive TARP money. Other concerns include firing management and breaking up institutions that are too big to fail. This is a step-by-step process, and slowly but surely, the Administration is moving things in the right direction.  Regulation will come (see this article from a U of Chicago professor. I am guessing he is connected to Goolsbee and Obama via U of Chicago so his opinion may filter to the officials in charge of devising new regs) and the government will start wielding its axe, creating change at the management and board level.  It looks like the administration will use the leverage gained form the stress-test results, the need for new capital infusions, and common stock voting rights to enact these changes.  The FT reported that government officials are planning for the possibilities of replacing Vikram Pandit, the Citi CEO:

Ahead of Citi's annual investor meeting, it has emerged that senior officials at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation privately discussed who might replace Mr Pandit if the bank needed more government aid

"It is unthinkable that Vikram could stay on if Citi requires more federal funds," said a person familiar with the matter. "It is prudent to be thinking about different scenarios."

But other financial experts believe it is the beginning of a broader and necessary reshaping of Wall Street, too long dominated by a handful of major players that helped to fuel the financial crisis. The country may be better off if the banking industry is less concentrated, they say.

"If the risk-taking spreads out to these smaller institutions, it is no longer a systemic threat," said Matthew Richardson, professor of finance at the Stern School of Business atNew York University. "And innovation is spreading out too. This is a good thing."

I could be way off, but I don't think I am or maybe I hope that I'm not.  Focusing on the big picture, I think the administration is taking the appropriate steps, and six months to a year from now, I'm optimistic that we'll be able to  look back on a fairly effective financial stability plan, that pleases a lot of different stakeholders.  Also, obviously, I don't address the PPIP in this post, because I figure people already either hate it or don't mind it/can stomach it.  Time and execution will tell us, which side is right.

A few weeks back, because of an interview with David Simon, former journalist and the creator of the HBO show The Wire, I pondered the future of the news business and specifically, how local news would be covered in the future.

"Cramer is a buffoon," said Roubini, a New York University economics professor often called Dr. Doom. "He was one of those who called six times in a row for this bear market rally to be a bull market rally and he got it wrong. And after all this mess and Jon Stewart he should just shut up because he has no shame."

Not that he needs it, but Roubini just continues to add to his credibility.  Another key point in Roubini's recent comments at a bears conference in Toronto:

Roubini said the latest surge is just another bear market rally following the pattern of other rallies after the government intervened. He expects the market will test the previous low because of worse than expected macroeconomic news, disappointing earnings and because banks will fail after the stress tests come out.

This article also shows that the two most prescient and accurate predictors (Roubini and Meredith Whitney) of the financial crisis see things differently than the progressive conventional wisdom.  In addition to believing the stress tests will cause banks to fail and be put into receivership, he also supports the Geithner plan:

Roubini said he supports Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's plan to remove toxic assets from the banks.

Roubini made the comments before appearing with bank analyst Meredith Whitney and Canadian bears Ian Gordon and Eric Sprott at a Toronto event titled "A Night with the Bears." They all correctly predicted the current financial meltdown.

Whitney, among the most bearish of bank analysts, said that some of the 19 banks undergoing government stress tests may not pass.

"I think the big banks will get through and some of the smaller banks may not," Whitney said in interview with The AP.

Meredith Whitney is arguably the top authority on the US banking system and its solvency.  It's been her job to know the ins and outs of the US banks and she accurately predicted the US banking systems' woes over the last two years.  To me, her word carries more weight than Krugman.  She doesn't have an ideological axe to grind and her track record speaks for itself.

Mr. Roubini says he believes that the Treasury's plan does not preclude nationalization. Rather, he said, it will help to clear the way to full government takeover of some troubled institutions.

"I see the option of nationalization" and the one presented by the Obama administration "as being complementary," Mr. Roubini said. He believes that the stress tests the government plans on conducting on the banks will reveal which are solvent and which are insolvent.

In his view, those banks that are deemed insolvent will not participate in the toxic-asset plan and will be taken over by the government. Banks deemed solvent will be the ones that get to participate.

He cited Tuesday's Congressional testimony by the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

"The most important thing is what Bernanke and Geithner said today about the need for an insolvency regime for systemically important institutions," Mr. Roubini said. "You are going to need that not just for the A.I.G.'s of the world, but also the bank holding companies as they go into Chapter 11."

He added, "You are going to need that in shutting down, potentially, a bank likeCitigroup."

Finally, it looks like Washington is quietly looking to learn a lesson from the Swedes. 

The debate at the G20 about fiscal stimulus between France/Germany and the 'anglo-saxan' leaders has made me think.  My initial reaction was that they need to do their part to spend and stimulate demand but after second thought, I can understand and respect where Angela Merkel is coming from.  (BTW, I love how BHO is lumped into the anglo-saxon contingent).

This January, I had the great pleasure of watching all five seasons of the HBO show The Wire from start to finish.  The creator of the show, David Simon, was a reporter at the Baltimore Sun for 12 years before he began his television career.  Simon and his writing partner, Ed Burns, a former Baltimore homicide detective and schoolteacher, told the story of the American City from a different perspective each season: the street, the dying working class, city hall, the school system, and the city newspaper, in this case the Baltimore Sun.

I don't like the TPM headline this morning, 'Poor early reviews for Geithner Plan'.  The view from some ideological economists is not favorable, but that doesn't represent all opinion on the subject.  The people who don't like the plan are operating based on certain assumptions, which may be wrong.  They believe Larry Summers and Geithner want to give Wall Street a handout and would go puppy hunting with Dick Cheney if they had more free time.  They also are assuming that toxic assets are all worth zero.  As some of you probably noticed, DC Danny argued against this assumption in a great post over the weekend that triggered a firestorm of conversation.

Also, I'm not too happy about how he made it snow on the first day of spring either.  It's supposed to be a low of 27 degrees tomorrow.  What an ASSHOLE.  Don't even get me started on his friend Obama...

So, by no means am I going all Santelli here, saying $165 mm is no big deal.  It's twisted that the individuals who may be most responsible for the global financial crisis are getting paid millions and not going to jail.

There's been a chorus of pessimism from all fronts about Tim Geithner.  It's being expressed by liberal columnists/bloggers, comedians, most pundits, and the ideological right.  It's one of the few things these disparate groups are united on.  On one hand, some of the criticism may be legit as the financial stability plan's expectations management by the Administration and Treasury was poor.  On the other hand, I believe most of the criticism is unfair when you examine the context of the situation.  Geithner's task is no less than saving the world.  If the financial system and the economy collapse, the future we voted for that Obama wants to implement will be impossible.  Around the world, nationalism and extremism will rise, and bad actors will be able to exploit fear and economic distress.  It's scary to think about it, but in that world the only way to get out of economic depression is to start a massive war.

It looks like the Obama administration is beginning to formulate the next steps of their financial stability plan, as per yesterday's dense, jargon-filled statement from the treasury. Here's my interpretation (with a few notes in parentheses):  

Under this program, which will be initiated on February 25, the capital needs of the major U.S. banking institutions will be evaluated under a more challenging economic environment.

Stress test starts today...

Should that assessment indicate that an additional capital buffer is warranted, institutions will have an opportunity to turn first to private sources of capital.  Otherwise, the temporary capital buffer will be made available from the government.  This additional capital does not imply a new capital standard and it is not expected to be maintained on an ongoing basis. Instead, it is available to provide a cushion against larger than expected future losses, should they occur due to a more severe economic environment, and to support lending to creditworthy borrowers. 

Any government capital will be in the form of mandatory convertible preferred shares, which would be converted into common equity shares only as needed over time to keep banks in a well-capitalized position and can be retired under improved financial conditions before the conversion becomes mandatory.

Previous capital injections under the Troubled Asset Relief Program will also be eligible to be exchanged for the mandatory convertible preferred shares.  The conversion feature will enable institutions to maintain or enhance the quality of their capital.

"Currently, the major U.S. banking institutions have capital in excess of the amounts required to be considered well capitalized.  This program is designed to ensure that these major banking institutions have sufficient capital to perform their critical role in our financial system on an ongoing basis and can support economic recovery, even under an economic environment that is more challenging than is currently anticipated. 

The customers and the providers of capital and funding can be assured that as a result of this program participating banks will be able to move forward to provide the credit necessary for the stabilization and recovery of the U.S. economy.  Because our economy functions better when financial institutions are well managed in the private sector, the strong presumption of the Capital Assistance Program is that banks should remain in private hands."

Third, we will act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times. And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy.

Many, including TPM, have called attention to the semantics of the terms nationalization and receivership.  Roubini, Greenspan, Graham, Krugman, and most progressives are actually proposing receivership and not nationalization.  The news made today (if I'm interpreting things correctly) is that it looks like Citi has offered the government nationalization in the true sense of the word.  So far, I haven't seen anyone point out this irony...

See this clip of sleazy politician Clay Davis from the HBO show The Wire.  He's a baltimore version of blago except Clay is a little more silver-tongued.  It's priceless.