Archive for the ‘Guest Contributor’ Category

Nov 6, 2008 12:55 AM
I’m proud of my country for the first time in my life…
I feel like an American for the first time in my life. For the very first time in my life I feel like a part of the fabric that is America.

This bears some explanation. Up to this point in history, America has not kept its promise of liberty and justice for all so when asked to stand and say the pledge, I would sometimes stand but my hands remained at my side and never over my heart during the recitation. Or I would recite it but change the words to: “…with liberty and justice for ‘some.'” If I was feeling especially rebellious I would respectfully decline to even stand up.

Why? Well, being born black I have witnessed and experienced directly and indirectly — racism and sexism so I never felt a part of The United States of America. Not really. I felt no particular loyalty nor even patriotic in regards to this country. The flag was just a piece of colored material to me. Nothing more. I even told my Canadian friends that I may become a refugee and asked if I could sleep on their couch. I enrolled in French classes because at least the French hate everything and everyone equally.

As Kermie said, “It’s not easy being green.” Try black Kermie. Sometimes it’s downright fucked up.

After 9/11, I was equally as horrified, saddened, enraged and heartbroken as my fellow citizens — but when my workplace gave us free lapel pins of the American flag, mine quietly went into my desk drawer. I did not put a flag on my car. I didn’t care if the flag touched the ground and would have wiped my ass with it with no hesitation whatsoever if no toilet paper was available. I remember riding in the car with some co-workers who saw a car with a faded and wind-tattered flag. They both exclaimed, “Hey Buddy! Show some respect! Get a new flag.” What I felt was indifference, apathy and sometimes outright disgust towards my citizenship in the US because it did not include me. I was in it but not of it.

You see, America has been a bitter pill stuck in my throat my whole life. No, I was never a slave but my grandmother’s half-brother was missing several fingers. Fingers that his master chopped off for disobedience. Yes, disobedience. I can’t even imagine getting my dog’s tail docked much less doing this to another human being.

The wealth of this country was built on this free labor system and enforced with terror and brutality and those people never received back pay once slavery was abolished. But they did get more grief and terror in the years to follow. Many black people ended up as tree ornaments in the years to come. They also tried to deny us citizenship! The U.S. Government actually sanctioned this hateful chapter in American history.

Many captured German soldiers were treated FAR better than the black men in uniform fighting for this country during World War II. After living through the 1960’s and seeing everyone who spoke of peace, love and equality murdered — I just could not put my hand over my heart or fly a flag. After knowing of and witnessing the struggle for the simplest of freedoms — all people of color for decades had to go through – my hand would not, could not cover my heart for the pledge because this American didn’t include me. For the Forth of July — when the groomers at Petsmart put red, white and blue bows in my dog’s hair – I had them remove them. Yes, my dispassion, vitriol and lassitude ran deep.

I loved Larry Flynt for using the flag as a diaper during his First Amendment fights. Good ‘ole Larry! When I would hear people say, “This is the greatest country in the world!” I always had to suppress a sarcastic sneer. “For you maybe — but not for me.” There were days that I just didn’t want to be black anymore. I wanted a day off. I just wanted to be a person.

So when I cast my vote in the primary, it was for Hillary. I wanted someone who would positively defeat the Republican candidate. Then when Obama began to pull ahead, I still don’t think I really believed he’d win. I never dreamed that I’d see a black president in The White House in my lifetime. I cast my vote about 2 weeks ago but I refused to watch the returns last night. I wanted to just turn on the TV at 4am and know who the next president was. But at about 8:45pm, I had to take a peak.

No one was more stunned to the point of speechlessness than I when they referred to “President-elect Obama.” I just sat there agog with my mouth wide open – slack-jawed — but my heart was racing. Then my eyes filled with tears. I felt like The Grinch when his heart grows three times its size. Then a feeling COMPLETELY alien to me began to fill my heart…pride in my country!!!!!

Say what? Say what? Say what? Yes…pride. This is now my America…and your America. It’s OUR America. A majority of our voices spoke — and elected a man who happened to be black — for President of the United States of America. America didn’t care that he was black but thought he was most fit to lead this country. We are a family now.

I even pimped out my myspace page with…an American flag theme.

America, FUCK YEAH!!!!!!

I was moved by his candor, his refusal use negative campaign ads, and his message of inclusive rather than exclusive and unity rather than division. I had grown so tired of negative campaign ads, personal attacks, and hitting-below-the-belt politics that I would just hit the mute button on the TV for all commercial time.

I’ve become more and more enlightened and positive over the years and I had high hopes. Our new president-elect now proves that I am a part of The United States of America. Though I have no children, my niece and nephews now know that if they study and work hard, they too can become whatever they want. Before yesterday, there was the mute clause of, “But you can’t be president!” That is gone now. Women, Native-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latino Americans, African-Americans, gay, lesbian and Jewish-Americans can now hold the highest office in the country. This is not a victory for African-Americans but for all Americans period.

We chose a candidate who believes in peace and unity. We voted for renewable energy, stem cell research, lower fuel prices, and to stop global warming. We voted to end the theocracy, idiocy and utter lunacy of the last eight years. We voted for separation of church and state. We voted that science should be taught in science class and not Intelligent Design. What the fuck is that anyway? Sounds like an oxymoron. It belongs in church, not science class. We voted for gay rights and women’s rights.

I just couldn’t be more proud of my country for the first time in my entire life!

Well, this morning I couldn’t find ENOUGH red, white and blue to wear. When I spoke to my father last night he said he was going to purchase his first American flag. I rummaged through my desk drawer but all I could find was my red, white and blue liberty bell pin so I put that on too.

One of my Republican friends said, “George W. Bush fucked it up so bad for the Republicans that American would have elected a grapefruit rather than another Republican!” Yeah…maybe so. Or maybe the pickin’ were better… stronger…faster than the last two times.

My only disappointment was the fact that Proposition 8 passed. But I was damned proud of Samuel L. Jackson for his commercial against it. But maybe our new President can do something on the federal level. I sure hope so!

Hope. Such a lovely word.

I feel so much hope for our country.

America, FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oct 29, 2008 1:58 AM
An Open Letter to the CEO of Citigroup
In 1994 I had the opportunity to have dinner one-on-one with the current CEO of Citigroup, Vikram Pandit. At the time I was employed as a trader in the Japanese equity derivatives department at Morgan Stanley, which Mr. Pandit oversaw. He struck me as a decent, thoughtful, ego-free person. Given that he is now a central player in crafting the changes that are occurring in the financial markets, I wanted to share my thoughts with him on the proposed reforms. It is my belief that all of the measures currently under consideration miss the most important aspect of the overall picture — i.e. the role of money. It is my hope that someone in a position like Mr. Pandit’s might promote the argument that the reforms currently under consideration are inadequate and that if we fail to address the fundamental problems with money itself we will at best accomplish a temporary fix for our problems.

Following is the text of the letter:

Oct. 29, 2008

Dear Vikram,

I know that your time these days is subject to intense demands, so I don’t expect that you will necessarily have the time to read (much less respond to) this letter. That being said, I have spent a good deal of time over the past several years thinking about issues of monetary economics, and I have some thoughts which are relevant to the current crisis.

As I watch the unfolding drama of the attempt to save the financial system, I can’t help but despair that all of the proposed reforms ignore the most fundamental cause of our problems. We can (and should) update our regulatory framework, improve transparency, etc., but unless we address the heart of the matter – i.e. the nature of money itself – we will only be instituting a temporary fix for a perpetual problem. It will always be the case that in the aftermath of a crisis there is outcry for reform and regulation, but as the memory of a crisis recedes, the pursuit of profit inevitably overwhelms the abilities and resources of the regulators. New abuses arise which eventually lead to the next crisis.

Since I recall that you were an economics professor before you became a banker, I wonder if you are familiar with the work of Silvio Gesell. Gesell was a German monetary theorist from the first part of the 20th century. His ideas largely fell into obscurity due to the fact that he was on the losing side of two world wars, but Keynes was a great admirer of his work (which is how I became acquainted with it). Keynes believed Gesell’s thinking on the subject of money to be unsurpassed and famously predicted, “the future will learn more from the spirit of Gesell than from that of Marx.”

In brief, I would summarize Gesell’s thinking as follows. Traditional money is a fundamentally flawed tool for accomplishing the purposes for which it is intended. More precisely, of the two purposes for which it is intended – i.e. as a medium of exchange and a store of value – only the former is proper and appropriate. By trying to accomplish both, we are asking the impossible, since the two are not fully compatible, and when they work at cross purposes the results can be extremely harmful. He argues that by asking money to serve also as a store of value, we end up with a fatally flawed medium of exchange.

In more concrete terms, Gesell starts from the most basic proposition of economics – i.e. that commerce operates as a result of the interaction of supply and demand. He then observes that, while real goods are subject to a natural “penalty to hoarding” (i.e. storage costs, decay, etc.) and are therefore compelled to be offered for sale regardless of whether the producer incurs a profit or loss, money is subject to no such compulsion. (Incidentally, I noticed today that the top financial headline is about the White House urging banks to stop hoarding money. Well, of course they’re hoarding money; it is the only logical thing to do under these conditions.)

Money is therefore able to exact a “tribute” (i.e. interest) for its services and will withdraw if this tribute is not assured. This is why deflation is the greatest nightmare of the financial authorities. In a deflationary environment money withdraws, and monetary policy is powerless to compel its circulation. In Gesell’s words:

“The present form of money acts as intermediary for the exchange of wares only on condition that it receives a tribute… No tribute, no exchange… This profit has nothing in common with the merchant’s profit; it is a separate effect produced by money itself, a tribute which money is able to extract because, unlike all other wares, it is free from the material compulsion of being offered for sale… Without this tribute, money will not be offered in exchange, and without money to effect exchanges no wares will reach their destination. If, for any reason, money cannot exact its accustomed tribute, there is a crisis; wares lie where they are and rot… If we now consider the conditions upon which money offers its services as medium of exchange, we see that commerce is mathematically impossible with falling prices.”

It is this property of traditional money that is largely responsible for the seemingly inevitable crises that plague modern capitalism. This is what is at the root of the dilemma facing the Fed right now. We are in a classic Keynesian “liquidity trap”, and the Fed is “pushing on a string” in an effort to stimulate the economy. They can print as much money as they want and lower interest rates to zero, but as long as people anticipate further price declines and don’t perceive solid investment opportunities, they will not spend or invest. However, if money was subject to the same “penalty to hoarding” that applies to real goods, it would not systematically withdraw during times of instability. And to repeat, it is precisely because money is designed to be a store of value that this problem occurs.

Gesell proposes reconstituting money in such a way that it intentionally loses value over time according to a predetermined schedule of depreciation. This would create a disincentive to hoarding, promote freer and more reliable circulation of money, and reduce the likelihood of a liquidity trap. Even in times of economic uncertainty, holders of money would be faced with an incentive to “use it or lose it”. Furthermore, such a monetary medium would likely achieve a much higher “velocity”, which would lead to a more vibrant and robust economy and a more equitable distribution of wealth.

Of course, I realize that what Gesell suggests is nothing short of revolutionary. Such a change would alter every aspect of our economic and political landscape. As such, the points in history at which it would be politically feasible to attempt such a change are extremely rare. Only a painful crisis is capable of awakening the public to the importance of our monetary arrangements, and if we attempt to deal with the current crisis while leaving the most important part of the puzzle untouched, we will be missing out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a change that could solve our existing problems and prevent their recurrence.

Of course, I understand that your main concern these days is ensuring the survival of Citigroup, and an issue like monetary reform may be beyond your purview. I also realize that as the CEO of a bank, such a fundamental change in the nature of money would be threatening to your business model. On the other hand, I believe that banks which embrace a new-and-improved monetary medium would prosper at the expense of those who resist the change. For someone in your position, I would think the prospect of being able to put your company on the cutting edge of a new era in finance while simultaneously contributing to the well-being of mankind would represent an exciting and compelling opportunity.

In any case, Vikram, I wish you wisdom and luck in this monumentally challenging time. I don’t know if these thoughts might be of any use to you, but I figured that, at the very least, they would represent a different perspective. In the unlikely event that you find yourself with a few minutes to spare, I would love to hear you thoughts on all of this.

Warm regards,

Josh Sidman

Nov 2, 2008 6:59 PM
The Last Gasps of the Conservative Era
On McCain and Palin calling Obama a Socialist:

“Well, for me, it’s just an exciting moment to be alive, when you see that kind of desperation.

…

It’s the last gasps of the conservative era, where the economics of greed, the culture of indifference and the politics of fear, have been brought together in such a way that it hides and conceals the plight of poor working people.

Look at what they said about Martin Luther King, COMMUNIST. Jesus loved the poor, COMMUNIST. Amos, loved the poor, COMMUNIST.

So, in that sense it’s an exciting thing to behold, but we are in a transitional moment. The real question is can we generate a commitment to fairness and justice in the face of greed, can we generate compassion in the face of indifference, and can we generate hope in the face of fear. That is what Brother Barack is all about.

…

We don’t need another Clinton, we need a Lincoln. We don’t need a master politician, we need a statesman.

…

The reason why this is the last gasp is this is the dogma of unregulated markets running into a stone wall, and you can see this led to catastrophe, and they are holding onto the dogma for dear life.”

Dr. Cornel West

I have noticed that in addition to the “Socialist” line, there is an under tow of abortion creeping into the discussion. I want to throw this out there. I did a little research about Roe v Wade, and this is what I found. Republicans have fooled everyone about abortion.

Roe v. Wade happened in 1973. Who was president? Nixon, a Republican. Since 1973, 35 years, we have had a Republican president for 23 of those years, and in the last 8 years the Republicans held power in the white house and both houses of congress several of those years. John McCain has been in congress 26 of those years too.

You might say, J, it is a supreme court issue. Ok:

All current justices of the supreme court have been put on the court since Roe, all 9. 7 were put on the court by Republicans. 7 out of 9, that is a pretty big majority, so why has Roe not been over turned yet? If Roe is bad law, why is it still law?

As for McCain, how many times has John McCain tried to change Roe? NONE! How many times have the Republicans tried to change Roe? NONE!

BTW, this is McCain on Roe:

On August 25, 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that McCain had told its editorial board:

“I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. … But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations.”

The Chronicle added:

But on Sunday [August 22, 1999], in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, McCain said he favors the ultimate repeal of Roe vs. Wade, “but we all know, and it’s obvious, that if we repeal Roe vs. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be (undergoing) illegal and dangerous operations.”

Some may not like Obama’s stand on Roe, but he is at least honest. He doesn’t try to lie to you, tell you he supports something that he does not want to change. He refuses to push his morals on Americans.

Instead he would rather work to help the needy to bring down the number of abortions (which have gone up under Bush, as have teen pregnancies), and to help the youth of America with health care. You know like the S-CHIP, the program that provides health care for millions of American children, the one that McCain and Bush opposed. How Christian of them.

BTW, America’s stand in the world on infant mortality has gotten worse under Bush. We are 29th in the world. So, if you can’t stop abortion, don’t you think that the least we could do is raise the level of health care to that of the rest of the world so that our babies don’t die???

Just remember, Barack Obama went to Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years which to some prove he is a Muslim, and John McCain doesn’t go to church, which to some proves he is a Christian…

(Big ups to Bill Maher Friday tonight)

Are you ready to Vote???

J

Oct 22, 2008 2:42 PM
Barack Hussein Obama
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda

There! I said it, Barack Hussein Obama, and I’ll keep on saying it. Why?

I read Cynic’s blog yesterday, and I realized that I have been guilty of having a negative view of a lot of things. After all, what’s in a name?

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda

I’ll tell you what’s in a name, especially in a name like Barack Hussein Obama. It sounds like a Muslim name, doesn’t it? Kind of like Mohammad. I wonder how many Mohammads there are in America, that are “Real Americans”? How many Americans, born and raised in America, in the United States Army are named Mohammad?

My point, and I better get to quickly, is that if we, Americans can elect a person named Barack Hussein Obama as president of the United States of America, then we will be telling the world that America is back.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda

The rest of the world will know that we fear no one. That America is a melting pot, not just of White Conservative Christians, but of all people.

From the sonnet, “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus, as inscribed on the interior of the pedestal at the Statue of Liberty

“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset hates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lighting, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she

With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

I want the people of the world to continue to come to America, those that are “yearning to breathe free!”

I want America to solve the worlds problems, and I don’t care if they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Wicca. White, Brown, Yellow, Red, I don’t care. All I do care about is that we, Americans, continue to create new solutions to the growing problems our world faces. From power to climate, the only way America will continue to be relevant is to create the solutions the world needs.

So yea, I’m voting for Barack Hussein Obama for president of the United States of America, and I am damn proud of it because I am not afraid, I’m an American!

Had enough of the politics that would divide us?

J

Sunday, October 12, 2008 – 1:49 PM
Mortgages, Troopergate and Flea Medication
Politicians and commentators on both sides of the political divide have predictably used the current financial crisis to bash their opponents. Democrats point fingers at the Bush Administration, while Republicans blame Democratic lawmakers who ignored calls to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Some blame Alan Greenspan. Others blame predatory lenders.

The truth is there is plenty of blame to go around, and there has been a complete failure of leadership from both political parties. But rather than comb through the minutiae of what went wrong and figure out just who to blame for what, I believe my cats can actually be more instructive than all of the talking-heads on TV.

I am the proud owner of two lovely one-year-old female cats. They are indoor animals and had never been exposed to biting insects prior to last week. I took the girls on their first road-trip to visit my family in New York, and they came back itching like mad. They had picked up a nasty case of fleas.

I was advised by a friend to get Frontline flea medication, so I went to the local supermarket. When I got to the pet aisle I was unable to find Frontline, but there were flea products offered by Sergeant and Hartz. I figured flea medication is flea medication, so I bought the Sergeant product.

Over the next two days the cats’ condition got significantly worse. They were scratching even more than before and were shaking and twitching, so I called my vet. When I told her that I had used the Sergeant product, she told me that I needed to bathe my cats immediately, since the product was toxic to cats. In addition, she said, it doesn’t kill fleas.

I was understandably shocked to hear this news. I’ve bought plenty of products before that don’t work, but I couldn’t believe that a product specifically designed for cats could be toxic to cats. When I did some research online, I discovered that there are numerous cases of people who have had similar experiences. Many pet owners recounted experiences in which Sergeant and Hartz products caused skin irritation, foaming at the mouth, convulsions, and even death. Both companies have received numerous complaints about their products, but rather than fix them, they simply responded by adding a warning to the packaging advising pet owners to contact their veterinarian in the event of an allergic reaction.

Now, I could call the FDA and do some research to find out why such products are on the shelves in the first place, but when I thought about it I realized the explanation is obvious. Sergeant and Hartz are both big corporations with deep pockets, while individual pet owners don’t have the resources to compete in the influence-peddling game in Washington. Therefore these corporations are free to put poison in a bottle and sell it as flea medication, and those who suffer the consequences are just shit out of luck.

It goes without saying that not all claims in advertisements are true. There are different degrees of untruth in advertising. Sometimes the falsehoods are inconsequential, as in the case of a diner that untruthfully advertises the “world’s best coffee”. Other times the untruths can be more harmful, as in the case of my cats. However, regardless of whether there are harmful consequences, the fact is that the public understands that it is being lied to on a regular basis. This may be more harmful in the long-run than any faulty or dangerous product. When we learn to live with untruthfulness, the consequences are dangerous and wide-ranging.

The degree to which the public has become used to being lied to has been on a noticeable upswing in recent years. The signs of this are everywhere. For example, I recently noticed that the “small print” (or “fast talking”) in radio advertisements now sometimes comes before, rather than after, the commercials. Fast talking was always a joke anyway, since it was too quickly spoken to be properly understood, but apparently marketing executives realized that they could guarantee incomprehension by putting it before the commercial so that the listener doesn’t even know what product it refers to. Obviously the advertisers are legally required to disclose this information, but they have become increasingly adept at following the letter of the law while violating its spirit.

The increasing deceptiveness of the American marketplace is one of the leading causes of the financial meltdown. For years I would listen to radio advertisements claiming that homeowners could “save” money by using subprime, rather than conventional, mortgages. The “savings” referred to the hundreds of dollars per month that borrowers didn’t have to pay in the early years of a loan. What the advertisements didn’t mention was that the up-front “savings” came at the cost of ruinous payments in later years. The purveyors of these products were allowed to lie to the public about their toxic products, make a quick buck, and leave the resulting mess to the American taxpayer.

At issue is a principle that is central to a free-market economy – i.e. caveat emptor, or “buyer beware”. Since it would be impossible for the government to monitor and regulate the claims of every company in America, it is thought that the burden ought to fall to consumers to educate themselves and make informed decisions. According to the principle of caveat emptor, it was my responsibility to research pet products to ensure that I didn’t end up putting poison on my cats.

Of course, we acknowledge that there must be limits to the application of caveat emptor. It would obviously not be OK for a company to sell cyanide pills and advertise them as vitamins. But we don’t need to have a government department in charge of going to every diner that claims to have the “world’s best coffee” and fining them if they don’t actually have the world’s best coffee. In a democratic, capitalist society, we must always be balancing our freedoms with the demands of public safety. Unfortunately, at a time when most Americans understand that our own President lies to us on a regular basis, this delicate balance has been thrown badly off-kilter, and millions of homeowners, pets, and others are suffering the consequences.

The presidential campaign is no exception to the increasing trend of untruthfulness. There are endless lies and half-truths told by politicians from both parties – from Hillary Clinton’s sniper fire in Bosnia to John McCain’s claims that the streets of Baghdad are safe. It has gotten to the point where we expect and accept the fact that our leaders are lying to us.

Case in point is Sarah Palin’s alleged opposition to the Bridge To Nowhere. Palin burst onto the national scene claiming to be an opponent of corruption and pork-barrel spending. She repeated over and over again that she had said “thanks, but no thanks” to the bridge. When the details of the bridge project came to light, it became clear that Palin had actually supported the project until it became a national emblem of wasteful spending, at which point she reversed her position. During her interview with Charles Gibson, she was basically forced to admit that her professed opposition to the project was untrue. The truly amazing part, though, is what happened next. Palin returned to the campaign trail and continued to trumpet the “thanks, but no thanks” line as if the interview with Gibson had never happened. Caveat emptor.

Another example of Palin’s embrace of caveat emptor is her handling of the Troopergate scandal. When charges originally surfaced that Palin had abused her power by trying to get her former brother-in-law fired from his job as a state trooper, she said she had “nothing to hide” and would fully cooperate with the investigation. In actuality, though, she did everything she could to hamper the investigation, from refusing to testify to setting up her own competing investigatory body. This so-called “maverick” and “reformer” tried every trick in the book to avoid taking responsibility for her own actions and even went so far as to release her own report to contradict the findings of the bipartisan investigatory body that she had “unlawfully abused her authority”. This would be like having the Sergeant Corporation release its own research stating that its products are safe, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary.

Palin, McCain, Bush, Sergeant, and Hartz are all symptoms of a common illness. Rather than refraining from telling lies or removing faulty products from the shelves, the onus is on the individual to separate fact from fiction. Those who are willing to take the time to research things for themselves will be able to make informed decisions, while those who don’t will continue to put poison on their pets and vote for corrupt “reformers” and phony “mavericks”.

The cats are doing fine, by the way…

October 2, 2008 – Thursday – 10:09 AM
Biden v Palin
Biden v Palin, no Governor, that’s not a supreme court decision, but I thought you would have at least remembered:

EXXON SHIPPING CO. ET AL. v. BAKER

Isn’t she the governor of Alaska? Isn’t she all about the oil industry?

Tonight we all get to see exactly how deep our vice presidential candidates are. Are they well versed in the world, do they know policies of their presidential candidate, how will they fair on the big stage without a teleprompter?

These are the questions I want to have answered, but I’m pretty sure all we will see is a preview to Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live.

Watch for content over zingers. Frankly I say we elect the smartest people, not the funniest or the “Joe Six Pack”. While I’m at it, how many of you want to see “Joe Six Pack” in the White House? Me neither.

For now, here are a few jokes to warm the crowd up, I’ll be here all day and night, so don’t forget to tip your servers… I’ll be updating through out the day and tonight as the debate unfurls.

Now for the jokes:

Sarah Palin’s been practicing for the big debate tonight in Arizona. Earlier today, we heard she shot a donkey.

Palin’s staff has tried to find a stand-in to pretend to be Joe Biden, but so far all they’ve come up with is a tree stump. Which actually sounds about right.

Even though she’s not expected to do well in the debate, she is favored heavily in Friday’s swimsuit competition.

Top Ten Things Overheard at Sarah Palin’s Debate Camp

10. Let’s practice your bewildered silence

9. Can you try saying ‘Yes’ instead of ‘You betcha’?

8. Hey, I can see Mexico from here!

7. Maybe we’ll get lucky and there won’t be any questions about Iraq, taxes, or healthcare

6. We’re screwed!

5. Can I just use that lipstick-pit bull thing again?

4. We have to wrap it up for the day — McCain eats dinner at 4:30

3. Can we get Congress to bail us out of this debate?

2. John Edwards wants to know if you’d like some private tutoring in his van

1. Any way we can just get Tina Fey to do it?

During the Sarah Plain interview with Katie Couric on CBS News, Sarah Palin could not remember the name of a newspaper or magazine that she reads. I was thinking, “Wow — possibly, a leader of the country who doesn’t read.” Then I thought, “Well hell, it’s worked pretty well for George Bush.”

A new poll shows only 1 out of 4 people approve of the job President Bush is doing. That means when he’s having dinner with his wife and two daughters, he’s the only one at the table who thinks he’s doing a good job.

Economists are now claiming that our nation’s leaders didn’t properly explain the bailout plan to the public. After hearing this, President Bush said, ‘While you’re at it, someone should explain it to me.”

It’s been reported that John McCain is taking an herbal supplement to improve his memory. Apparently, McCain is having trouble remembering why he picked Sarah Palin.

Last night during an interview on CBS, Sarah Palin said, ‘One of my best friends is a lesbian, and I love her dearly.’ After hearing this, Bill Clinton said, ‘Prove it.”

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg says he’s interested in running again, but there’s resistance because the law would have to be changed to allow for a third term. It’s not that people have a big problem with Mike Bloomberg, they just don’t want to give President Bush any ideas.

John McCain said he turns to Sarah Palin for foreign policy advice. And then he turns to his wife Cindy, to get her to cut his meat.

Scary day in Washington today — they found a hand grenade in a park. At first they thought the worst, but it turns out Cheney just went for walk, and it fell out of his pocket.

Have any good warm up funnies?

Need more, or had ENOUGH?

J

Friday, September 26, 2008 – 11:26 AM
The Bailout
The other day I received an e-mail from my uncle asking for my thoughts on the economic crisis and the proposed bailout. Below is his e-mail followed by my response.

———

Josh,

Maybe you can help me. I am trying to apply an aging physicist brain to the current economic situation and I could use some help.

Admitted bias upfront, I tend to see things more positively by reflex.

Premise 1
Inflation is caused by an increase in the “money supply” without a corresponding increase in goods and services causing more money to chase the unchanged supply of goods thereby increasing the price.

Premise 2
The value of “bad” mortgages was part of the “money supply” when the mortgages were good
and therefore marketable. Now that the mortgages are “bad” and unsellable they are no longer
part of the “money supply”, or have radically decreased in value, thus the “money supply” has decreased as a result.

Question 1
If the government prints money to e. g. buy the illiquid mortgages, (for less than 100 cents on the $)is it not just replacing the money which the illiquidity of the mortgages removed, and thus is “neutral” effect on the “money supply”?

Premise 3
The root of the problem is the decline in housing prices which “removes” wealth from the system,
and is thus “deflationary”.

Question 2
Does not the effect of Premise 3 give the treasury room to “print money” to balance it without
increasing the overall money supply and thus being neutral on the inflation front.

Sincerely wanting to understand,

Unc

P.S. Henry Paulson is: A. a socialist B. an idiot C. Someone whose career evidences a solid understanding of the system, and who is a believer in “capitalism”. D. Other (Please specify)

———-

Hey Unc,

I’ve had a chance to think about your questions, and while I don’t have any conclusive answers, I do have some thoughts that might help flesh out the picture a bit.

For starters, I will observe that your premises/conclusions are based on an oversimplification that is typical of most mainstream discussion of economics – i.e. considering economic phenomena in terms of broad homogeneous categories rather than as aggregations of an infinitude of discrete and varied elements. For example, when the government measures GDP, no distinction is made between a dollar spent on a TV-set and a dollar spent on education, although obviously their effects on the economy are very different. Of course, we have to lump together many disparate things in order to measure them, but the fact remains that according to this type of analysis, we could redirect every dollar currently spent on education to providing children with cigarettes, and the economy would be just as “healthy” in terms of GDP.

The point is not to argue against using the standard tools of macroeconomic analysis. Obviously it would be impossible to quantify the consequences of every individual transaction in an economy, and we must resort to abstract techniques if we want to be able to measure anything at all, but we must also avoid falling into the trap of mistaking man-made concepts like “GDP” and “money supply” for the actual economy.

So, when we talk about the “money supply”, what we are really talking about is an infinitely varied collection of instruments which have potential purchasing power. A dollar hidden under the mattress of a miser does not impact the economy in the same way as a dollar in the hands of a drunk at a blackjack table, but from the point of view of a monolithic concept like “money supply”, the two are indistinguishable. And, while we are all familiar with the big-picture monetary hazards called “inflation” and “deflation”, in actuality what is harmful is monetary instability in general. In fact, the very worst monetary scenario is “stagflation” in which aspects of inflation and deflation occur simultaneously. [For a more detailed discussion of money and the consequences of monetary instability, see my article entitled “American Economy: The Veil of Money”.]

So, while it is conceivable that the government could exactly offset the amount of money that has been wiped out by the credit crunch and thereby leave the “money supply” unchanged, this doesn’t mean that the result wouldn’t still be catastrophic. For example, the fact that the government is creating money by buying bad debts from banks is of little consolation to the family that is losing its home.

Another way of thinking about the economy is by way of metaphor. I like to think of the role of money in an economy as analogous to that of blood in a physical organism. Blood flows in different ways throughout all parts of an organism, and the overall health of the organism is dependent not only on the quantity of blood but also on it flowing properly. Maladies occur whenever the flow is too fast or too slow or impeded or misdirected. This metaphor is useful for addressing your question about why the government can’t just print an equivalent amount of money to the amount that has been destroyed in order to achieve a neutral effect on the economy. It would be as if we took a trauma patient who has lost a lot of blood and gave him a massive transfusion without knowing his blood type (although, whereas a random blood transfusion might end up working just based on blind luck, in the case of the economy, since there is an infinite number of “blood types”, a random transfusion cannot possibly work).

Another metaphor that I like to use when thinking about the role of money in an economy is to visualize a fertile river valley in the middle of a desert. The volume of water in the river determines how far in either direction crops will grow. So, for example, while in a drought year crops might only grow right next to the river, in a year with abundant rainfall the margin of cultivation will lie at a greater distance from the river. Now, let’s imagine that the flow of water is suddenly increased by artificial means. This will allow crops to be grown over a larger area of land than usual for as long as the artificially large flow is continued, but as soon as the unsustainable flow is interrupted, all of the crops that ordinarily would never have sprung up in the first place will wither and die.

I would liken the monetary policies of Alan Greenspan to the artificially high river. Rather than allow the boom & bust of the dot.com bubble to run its course, Greenspan turned the spigots wide open and let the river flow at an abnormally high rate that averted short-term pain but assured much greater destruction later on. All you have to do to see this with your own eyes is to take an airplane flight into Las Vegas (or Phoenix, or Miami, or Los Angeles…) and look at the massive number of housing developments in various stages of completion around the margins of the city. These developments are the equivalent of the crops that under normal circumstances never would have sprung up in the first place. As a result of artificially abundant money all of this excess housing stock has come into existence and must now be reckoned with before we can get the economy back on a sound footing. And simply printing money will not remedy the fact that the economic organism developed along unsustainable lines.

All of that being said, I am not arguing against the use of fiscal and monetary policy to deal with the current crisis. I am just not optimistic about our chances of success. I believe we will be unable to avert a crisis for two reasons.

First, to use yet another metaphor, imagine that the job of the financial authorities is to steer a ship through a winding channel. One side of the channel represents unemployment and economic stagnation, while the other side represents inflation and “irrational exuberance” (to borrow a Greenspan-ism). Under ordinary circumstances it is a difficult but manageable task to keep the ship safely within the channel and not to err too badly in either direction. However, the steering mechanism of the ship is highly imprecise and cumbersome. Much like steering an actual ship, you must always be thinking ahead and compensating before your errors become evident. If you fail to stay ahead of the curve, you have to resort to increasingly risky maneuvers in order to avoid harmful divergences, and each of these risky measures makes the next maneuver that much more difficult to execute safely until a point is reached at which there is no way to avoid a painful crack-up.

I would argue that this is the position that Bernanke and Paulson find themselves in right now. They are steering a ship that is careening wildly in an ever narrower channel. The truth is that most of the blame for the current situation lies not with Bernanke or Paulson but with their predecessors. Bernanke and Paulson could be the most intelligent, upright people in the world and still fail to avoid a collapse. Personally I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other as to the abilities or integrity of either one, although I think it is worrisome that Paulson is one of the people who profited most from the abuses which caused the crisis in the first place. Putting Paulson in charge of the bailout is like a bank hiring the best safe-cracker to run its security department. He might in fact be the best guy for the job, but you have to question his motives, and with the kind of absolute, non-reviewable power the current plan seeks to give him, I wouldn’t take it for granted that he’ll do what is in the best interests of the average American.

Add to all of this the fact that we are in the middle of a presidential election (which means that most parties in Washington are just as concerned with their own political futures as they are with the state of the economy), and I just don’t see much cause to be hopeful that they will be able to thread the needle and come up with just the right set of solutions to avoid a painful and protracted crisis.

ptember 23, 2008 – Tuesday – 9:07 AM
You don’t introduce new products in August
”From a marketing point of view,” said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort, ”you don’t introduce new products in August.”

It’s September, Card said this about the roll out of the Iraq War in 2002. Will this be the book end of the Bush Doctrine? Empty the treasury!

History repeats itself, the classic squeeze play. Closing in on the election, the White House rolls out the new fleecing of America, the mother of all financial meltdowns.

The Iraq war has taken upwards of one TRILLION dollars. How much does the Bush White House want, let’s start with $700 BILLION and see how that works.

As Treasury buys bad assets, how do we know that they won’t grossly over pay or those assets putting profits on the balance sheets of the very companies that have caused this mess?

Treasury also wants to do this with no oversight, and they plan to contract out the actual work. Give us the money and trust us to solve the problem we helped create.

Liberals will do almost anything to get something for society, including shoot themselves in the foot. I watched the Sunday morning news shows, and wasn’t sure what was wrong, but I knew something was up.

So, the liberals plan is to attach stimulus to the bill, for you and I, but are they just going to be putting lips stick on a pig of a bill?

As this works it’s way through the legislature, remember, this is being offered by the Bush White House. This is not an idea hatched by Congress. So, as Dems vote on this issue, will they be painted as the cause? Watch for the classic tactic of American rightwing propaganda:

Always accuse one’s opponent of doing the very thing that one is doing, especially if one has been caught or exposed while doing it.

That’s what they are doing today. Blaming the Dems for Gramm’s The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, the act that deregulated banking, insurance and investment, causing this problem.

Remember whose plan this is. Remember who the deregulator is, and who is for strong regulation. Remember who is who, and don’t fall for the scare tactic.

ENOUGH!

J

By Deanna: A new guest writer.

The stakes just got higher. If McCain/Palin manage to take control of the White House, it is very bad news. I certainly have major concerns about government policies that only serve the wealthy at the expense of our financial security, the ecology, the Constitution, to name a few. The republican party has been hijacked by extremists who’ve laid waste. But, this election cycle there is something far more insidious brewing. It’s called: Troopergate.

It’s not just that Palin may be guilty of abusing her power as govenor of Alaska, but it’s American’s complacency when it comes to this kind of behavior that’s particularly upsetting. That we could even begin to conceive of lifting someone to the highest office in our nation who may have abused her governmental powers. That we are not demanding the truth be known immediately. That we are not outraged by McCain and Palin’s attempts to squash the investigation with blatantly ridiculous complaints of partisanship.

Americans. Abuse of power is a big deal. It betrays absolutely everything our country is supposed to be about. It is the stuff of totalitarian regimes. Historically, the way the most corrupt leaders have governed.

Every single American, must take this matter into perspective. Put ourselves in Monegan’s shoes for a moment. It is very important.

Imagine your name is Walt Monegan. You aspire in your career to be a high ranking police officer. You work hard, earn the respect of your peers, perform with integrity and after years of persistence, you obtain the position of Chief of Police, Anchorage Alaska. These are American ideals. Across all party lines, across our entire nation we hold fast to the doctrine that if we work hard and perform with integrity, we can succeed and prosper in this great land.

Ms. Palin is your governor.

You are then compelled by Palin to open a closed investigation of a trooper’s misconduct. The trooper’s name is Mike Wooten and he happens to be her former brother-in-law, someone that she is clearly “none-too-fond-of”. According to policy and procedure, to reopen Wooten’s case without additional evidence would be improper and you decline.

Suddenly Palin fires you. The Alaskan Legislature is shocked because they know you’re a highly respected officer, so they ask you about it. No, you could not carry out a personal vendetta of the governor and fire Wooten. That would be wrong, it would taint your entire career and everything you stand for. You stood by your principles.

You lost the job you worked so hard to get. Your colleagues look upon you with suspicion even though you are innocent of any wrongdoing. Your reputation is now questioned because you honored your position of power and refused to do something unethical.

Now imagine Palin in the White House. Running our nation. Our homeland security. Our foreign affairs. If the Troopergate investigation turns out to be true and she makes decisions like this, it is cause for very grave concern. VERY GRAVE.

What makes it even scarier is that McCain and Palin have made several moves to obstruct the investigation. If the polls are accurate, and so many Americans are willing to vote for this pair in light of this behavior, I am deeply concerned about the future of freedoms in the country. I would expect that she’d want to clear her name right away were she innocent. Wouldn’t you? It becomes very suspect.

How could we even conceive of electing such people to the highest office in our nation? To be the guardians of our Constitution, our freedoms, our rights. Any of us could be Monegan in any given situation. Targeted for destruction, defamed, stripped of one’s livelihood, Lord knows what else, for standing up to governmental corruption.

America. We must know the truth about Troopergate. McCain and Palin’s attempts to quash the investigation disqualify them both from the highest office in our nation. Period. Because to not know is an incredibly terrifying proposition.

09/19/08 12:58AM
You Can’t Run Away From Who You Are!

How do you know you’re a Republican?

You voted along with your party, the REPUBLICAN Party, over 90% of the time. You’re a REPUBLICAN!

You voted along with the other REPUBLICANS, for deregulation every time you had the chance to do it, and offered up legislation to deregulate whenever you could. You’re a REPUBLICAN!

You still believe in trickle down economics. You’re a REPUBLICAN!

You believe that enabling someone to buy a Ferrari for $240,000 is the same for the economy as enabling 12 people to buy 12 Chevys for $20,000 each. You’re a REPUBLICAN!

You believe that giving someone that doesn’t have a tax liability of $5,000 a $5,000 tax credit to buy insurance is a health plan. You’re a REPUBLICAN!

You believe that if someone’s house goes through foreclosure, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote. You’re a REPUBLICAN!

You believe voting while black is a crime. You’re a REPUBLICAN!

You believe anything you can do to DRIVE DOWN THE VOTE is a good thing. You’re a REPUBLICAN!

You believe that an African American Man, raised by a single mother, on food stamps, went to college on scholarships and student loans, worked for $12,000 a year, for a church, after graduating, is an elitist. You’re a REPUBLICAN!

You believe that profits made in the market should be private, and should be taxed at the lowest levels. You also believe that if the market goes to hell in a hand basket the tax payer should bail you out. You’re a REPUBLICAN!

You had a convention to nominate the REPUBLICAN candidate, but you never used the word REPUBLICAN. You’re still a REPUBLICAN!

You believe it is ok to scare the hell out of the nation to get elected. You’re a REPUBLICAN! By the way, if you believe in the scare tactics, you may think you’re a Republican, but you’re really a sheep!

I have been watching the news a lot lately. I have money in the market/bank/mother with money… so I have a vested interest. I am fucking amazed that there is not a single Republican in the world that will admit that they have run this economy into the ground.

You have held the White House for the last 8 years, the congress for 12 of the last 14 years, have a toss up Senate, turned a $281 B surplus into a $357 B deficit, a $5.7 T debt into a $9.7 T debt, yet you have zero responsibility in the melt down in the market. Man the Hell Up!!! You’re still a REPUBLICAN!

Please, offer your own if you like.

Enough!

J

09/15/08 11:26PM
A Remarkable Day
“The fundamentals of this economy are strong”

John McCain September 15, 2008

I am a firm believer in looking at ones past to determine how they will do in the future. The last time America saw a huge housing bubble was in the 1980s, aka the Savings and Loan meltdown. I had just moved back from Japan, and was stationed in Phoenix AZ. When I arrived there were over 100 empty new homes within a 10 mile radius, and many subdivisions were half built, the remainder of the land held in court after Lincoln Savings went belly up.

McCain in the Keating Five scandal in the 1980s sought to undercut bank regulators and then refused to hold himself accountable for the ensuing bank failures.

Are we to believe that John McCain will be the man to bring change to Washington? Will we just see more empty rhetoric of change? McCain’s economist, Phil Graham, as a senator pushed through legislation that deregulated the financial and energy markets. This is what has allowed huge speculation in energy, and has brought together banks, traders, and insurance companies.

Speaking of which, this last weekend Merrill Lynch (Trader) sold themselves to Bank of America (Bank), Lehman Brothers (Investment Bank) went belly up, and AIG (Insurance Company) was seeking $50 B in loans.

Are you better off today than you were 8 years ago?

Inauguration Day 2001 Now

Unemployment Rate 4.2% 6.1%

Budget $281 B $357 B

Surplus Deficit

Debt $5.7 T $9.7 T

Oh, and we just lost $500,000,000,000 today in the stock market.

John McCain is a Republican, he supports the same economics that BushCo have supported, laissez-faire economics, pre-depression style regulations. They don’t work!!!

ENOUGH!

J

Sunday, September 14, 2008 – 10:53 PM

Lehman, Bear, Freddie, Fannie: What Does It All Mean???
With the ink not yet dry on the massive bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today Lehman Brothers is expected to announce its bankruptcy, making it the second of the top ten American investment banks to go under this year. The numbers involved are so staggering that it is difficult to put them in perspective. How are we to make sense of a $10 billion loss, a $100 billion loss, a $1 trillion loss? For most people these numbers are beyond comprehension, and many Americans are left scratching their heads wondering what it all means.

As John Maynard Keynes – the greatest economist of the 20th Century – remarked after World War I, “The vast expenditures of the war, the inflation of prices, and the depreciation of currency, leading up to a complete instability of the unit of value, have made us lose all sense of number and magnitude in matters of finance. What we believed to be the limits of possibility have been so enormously exceeded. And those who founded their expectations on the past have been so often wrong, that the man in the street is now prepared to believe anything which is told him with some show of authority, and the larger the figure the more readily he swallows it.”

The media and government tell us (with as much show of authority as they can muster) that the choices we currently face involve trade-offs between private interests and American taxpayers. This is a misleading oversimplification. After all, when the government backed the $30 billion takeover of Bear Stearns, our taxes didn’t go up. (In fact, the government sent us all a nice tax rebate check right around the same time.)

It is basic common sense that we can’t spend hundreds of billions of dollars on wars while simultaneously bailing out banks without a corresponding increase in taxes. The US government owes almost $10 trillion. It’s the biggest debtor in the history of the planet, so what does it really mean when the Treasury offers to lend money to failing financial institutions? Where does this money come from?

The answer is that the US government has the power to print money, and they have been doing so at an ever increasing rate in order to hold off the financial tsunami that threatens to sink the entire economy. The problem is that doing so does nothing to solve the problems that caused the tsunami in the first place and only makes matters worse in the long run.

So, in reality the trade-off involved when deciding whether to bail out a bank is not between private interests and taxpayers, but rather between debtors and creditors. There is nothing stopping the Treasury from printing $1 trillion every day. With that amount of money they could bail out every bank in the country. Of course, simply adding indiscriminately to the money supply (without a corresponding increase in production of real goods and services) would lead to a massive fall in the value of the currency (i.e. inflation).

Herein lies the real trade-off involved when the government prints money to bail out debtors (whether they be huge investment banks or millions of struggling homeowners). Since debts are denominated in dollars, they must be repaid in dollars. But no one ever said that the value of the dollar must remain the same between the time a loan is made and when it is repaid. If the government decides to drastically increase the money supply in the meantime, anyone who borrowed money will be repaying their debts with depreciated dollars. Thus inflation amounts to a windfall for debtors at the expense of creditors.

Since it is becoming increasingly obvious that individuals, corporations, and the US government have borrowed more money than they can ever hope to repay, the temptation is very strong to debase the currency. Its much more politically expedient than to institute the massive tax increases that would be required to balance our national finances. People don’t like tax increases and vote against them, but how do you vote against inflation? As Keynes said, “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of Society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner than not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

Just consider the uproar over rising gas prices. Everyone in government and the media tells us that it is due to increased Chinese demand, stagnant production, or speculation. Did they ever stop to think that maybe the value of oil hasn’t been going up so much as the value of the US dollar has been going down?

Of course, the financial authorities will always pay lip service to “maintaining a strong dollar”, but actions speak louder than words. For every problem we face today, the government’s response is the same – just print more dollars. The actions of the government make it abundantly clear that they are willing to sacrifice the dollar in order to avert a massive wave of defaults. Unfortunately, the ones who will pay are those who behaved responsibly – those who worked hard, avoided debt, and saved.

And, paradoxically, this state of affairs gives people more incentive than ever to act irresponsibly. If we know that the US government is going to cause the dollar to depreciate severely, the sensible course of action is to run out and borrow money to purchase real assets. After all, if the dollars we have to repay will be worth a fraction of what they’re now worth, that house, car, or gold coin will still be worth a house, a car, or gold coin.

This observation also sheds light on another aspect of the “credit crunch” that the government and the media never talk about. We are told that all of a sudden banks have “tightened up their lending standards”, and this is to blame for the horrible state of the real estate market. Could it also be that those who have money to lend are wising up and don’t want to lend money at 6% if inflation is going to run 10% or higher? (If there’s anyone out there who wants to lend me some money for 10 years at 6% interest, please get in touch!)

As Keynes observed, there is “an almost unbroken chronicle in every country which has a history, back to the earliest dawn of historic record, of a progressive deterioration in the real value of the successive legal tenders which have represented money… The creation of legal tender has been and is a Government’s ultimate reserve; and no State or Government is likely to decree its own bankruptcy or its own downfall so long as this instrument lies at hand unused.”

09/12/08 1:51PM
Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free…
It’s been 7 years since the attacks of 911, to the minute. As I write this there is a replay of that fateful day running on the network news. As if any of us would forget the feelings we felt that day. As if we needed a real life reminder.

My life has changed in these last 7 years as much as a life can change in that period of time. My changes are my changes. Were they spurred by the events of 911? Perhaps.

After 911 I felt vulnerable at first, a little flag waving as well, but all of that settled into my desire to live the life I wanted to live, not the life that I thought was expected of me. I wanted to get right with my path.

I didn’t find religion, I didn’t find nationalism (as a retired Airman I think I found that when I was a teen), instead I found life.

I thought of what it meant to be an American. I thought of how we were different than the people that attacked us, our way of life, our sense of security. I thought that they were little people. Small in their understanding of the world, small in their understanding of right and wrong, small in their sense of self. They were extremists, fundamentalists; they had a closed view of the world, were not accepting of anything different, not accepting of the rights of others, anti everything the USA stood for.

Today, 9/11/2008 we are in the middle of one of the most divisive elections of our history. One side wants to instill hope not fear, the other wants to guarantee protection from religious fundamentalists. Both are now running on a “Change” platform, whatever that means anymore.

Clearly, we Americans are ready for change. Not just in the war policy, not just in the price of gas, but in the message we carry as Americans throughout the world. We can not protect everything that is important to us. We can not guard every bridge, every monument, every large building in every town and city. I’m sorry John McCain, we can not “defeat evil”, we can not win a “war on terror”, but we can find ourselves, again, and protect what it means to be an American.

Last week, as the RNC lit up with screams of “Drill Baby Drill”, and Oil Sheiks cheered, I thought, what would America, pre-911 do today? In 2000 McCain called the religious right “agents of intolerance.” Today he has put a Religious Fundamentalist on the ticket with him. Is that what Americans would do?

NO!

We would turn a deaf ear to the intolerance; we would accept everyone at our table, and work together to make the world a better place. We would not hunker down behind a false sense of security. We would work to open the world’s eyes to the wonders that come from real freedom. Freedom of thought, celebrating the differences we all have, proud of the fact that we are the melting pot of the world, where all are welcome.

As the Statue of Liberty looked on at the violent acts of 911, I wonder if she would even remember the country we were a mere 7 years ago. I wonder if she would still stand, telling the world, “Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free…”

I wonder, how can you measure victory in this war against extremism. Perhaps it can only be measured by how much it changes you, not how much you can change the world. We can not huddle behind false security, we can only save what makes us Americans.

ENOUGH

J

I didn’t properly introduce you to J after posting his first contribution. I’ve been reading this guy for over a year and he is consistently accurate, truthful and possesses the rare ability see the forest instead of the trees individual. He’s a gifted writer and an honest analyst. I’m proud to post his work. You rock J.

What is the difference between McCain/Palin and a Lobbyist? Lipstick! UPDATE FINAL
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) write today in the Wall Street Journal that the “bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is another outrageous, but sadly necessary, step for these two institutions.” They pledge to end the use of “taxpayer backing to serve lobbyists, management, boards and shareholders” and call lobbyists “primary contributors” to the crisis:

We will make sure that they are permanently restructured and downsized, and no longer use taxpayer backing to serve lobbyists, management, boards and shareholders. […]

[The federal bailout] terminates future lobbying, which was one of the primary contributors to this great debacle.

The feigned outrage of McCain and Palin at the inaction of Congress and the influence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists is ironic considering the fact that “at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” in recent years.

More troubling is the fact that McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, “served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” that worked to cripple regulatory initiatives in Congress because the two institutions feared that “Congressional meddling would lower their healthy profits.” As the Politico reported in July:

Davis headed the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie, Freddie, nonprofit groups, real estate agents, homebuilders and consumer advocates. … [The group] worked to oppose congressional efforts to tighten controls on Fannie and Freddie.

In July 2003 for example, Davis “wrote to the American Banker, taking issue with an opinion piece…arguing that Fannie and Freddie should operate with greater transparency.” Such transparency and greater regulatory controls might have averted the current crisis.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/09/mccain-lobby-fannie-freddie/

Let me repeat that last paragraph for emphasis:

In July 2003 for example, Davis “wrote to the American Banker, taking issue with an opinion piece…arguing that Fannie and Freddie should operate with greater transparency.” Such transparency and greater regulatory controls might have averted the current crisis.

Now, for the J’s rules:

You can’t say you are against lobbyists when your campaign manager headed the group that lobbied to deregulate the very industry that just folded.

You can’t say “I told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks,’ on that Bridge to Nowhere.” When you campaigned for it, and kept the money anyway.

You can’t say “I put it on eBay.” implying the plane was sold on eBay, when you didn’t sell it on eBay and actually sold the plane to a campaign contributor for $300k less than the list price.

You can’t say you “fired the chef” when the chef is still a state employee and still cooks for your family.

You can’t say you took on big oil when you support more drilling and are opposed to investments in clean and renewable energy.

You can’t use windmills and solar panels in your commercials when you opposed legislation that would have supported wind and solar.

You can’t say you are a government reformer and are against government waste when you billed your state for 312 nights you stayed at your own home.

What is the difference between McCain/Palin and a Lobbyist? Lipstick!

ENOUGH!

J

UPDATE, More rules!

You can’t disparage Obama for putting in for “nearly $1 million for every working day” he spent in the Senate, when you actually out did him. Using the same formula as the McCain campaign, the calculation for Palin’s time in office is 447 days. According to the Anchorage Daily News, Palin’s administration has asked for a total of roughly $453 million. That’s not “nearly” that’s more than! I guess she wins!

Note, I guess Palin is one heck of a disparager, Judge Suddock, the judge in the divorce case of Palin’s sister repeatedly expressed concern about what he termed the Palin family’s “disparagement” of Wooten. “Disparaging will not be tolerated — it is a form of child abuse,” Suddock said at one hearing, adding, “Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives.” Hosenball reports that Suddock even considered restricting Palin’s sister’s custody rights regarding her children because of this disparagement.

You can’t call for “reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs,” but never cite a single program to eliminate or reduce.

You can’t use 911 as a political ploy at your convention, when seven years later there is still a mammoth, gaping hole at Ground Zero.

You can’t claim your opponent did something wrong by turning down public financing when you broke the public finance rules and had your twin Bush replace the FEC chairman when he called you on it.

You can’t use Alan Keyes, Tucker Carlson, and Michelle Malkin for your attack adds on education, well, you just can’t do it!

You can’t claim that your opponent will raise taxes on the poor and middle class when both, your opponent won’t do that, and you will do nothing for them yourself.

A Video for your entertainment:

Sorry kids, I gotta figure out this link thing -admin.

FINAL UPDATE:

Torie Clarke, a former McCain adviser, wrote a book called, “Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game. Hmmmm 😉

September 6, 2008 – Saturday – 2:03 PM
Shockingly Bad, UPDATED II Let them Eat Cake, and go to the ER

“I found it shockingly bad” -Jeff Toobin CNN

But after the two conventions, it looks as if Obama and Biden are going to do their best to focus voters’ attention on issues — the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, energy, and the environment. And it looks as if McCain and Palin have decided to run on a platform of personal history. -Eugene Robinson

After the RNC song and dance, or as it became, “The Sarah Palin Show”, I was left with one question. Is the Republican Party running against the record of the Republican Party? They introduced no new POLICY, nothing to help home owners losing their homes to foreclosure, nothing at all for the middle class or the poor, just more of the same, the same as in the current Republican administration. Is that change?

Well, we did get to see another really sad 911 tribute. I must ask, is the Republican Party any more than a Noun, a Verb, and 911? I can see Rove behind the curtain yelling “Play the fear card!”

As an aside, a Republican Congressman let the cat out of the bag:

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a conservative Republican from Georgia, let slip today what critics have been saying is the subtext of many of the attacks on Barack Obama: He’s “uppity.”

According to The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, Westmoreland was discussing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech outside the House chamber today when he veered into his thoughts on Michelle and Barack Obama.

“Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mister Obama, Senator Obama, they’re a member of an elitist class individual that thinks that they’re uppity,” Westmoreland said.

Given the chance to take it back, or clarify, he didn’t.

Westmoreland briefly gained some national attention when he sponsored legislation to post the Ten Commandments in the House and Senate chambers. Asked by Stephen Colbert in 2006 to name all ten, Westmoreland stumbled. “Um, don’t murder, don’t lie, don’t steal,” he offered, before confessing, “I can’t name them.”

So, as the RNC held their convention, in front of a 99.9% white audience, we get to see what a Real Republican looks like. Seeking to be given privacy in the CHOICE Palin’s daughter made to keep her baby, the Republicans would ensure that no American has the same CHOICE. Since when did less government mean more government in your lives?

The Republicans decided to run against the current administration, Republicans running against Republicans. That should win it for them!

ENOUGH!

J

UPDATE:

Lindsey Graham in his speech last night said: “American combat brigades, who made up the surge, have returned home in victory.”

This just in, Gen. David Petraeus has recommended against any significant reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq before the end of the year. What troops was Graham talking about?

UPDATE II:

Let them eat cake — and go to the emergency room

There’s been a lot of buzz today over the statement by John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis — which is, despite its anodyne name, a hard-right think tank — that nobody is uninsured in America, because you can go to the emergency room. Goodman has described himself, as recently as July 30 in the Wall Street Journal, as a McCain adviser. But now that there’s a stink, the campaign says that he hasn’t been advising them since “earlier this summer.” (How much earlier?) And the campaign says that it doesn’t agree with his views.

But what Goodman says is what a lot of Republicans, from W to Tom Delay, say.

Truly, these people have no idea how the other 99.9 percent lives.
Paul Krugman

This from another excellent writer who’s agreed to let me repost: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.Confirm&friendID=38827954

09/01/08 7:01AM
Sarah Palin: Government Corruption Up Close & Personal
As more information comes to light about Sarah Palin — the “reformer” Governor who supposedly “took on corruption” in state government — a fascinating recording has surfaced of a phone call from Palin’s office in which direct pressure is brought to bear on the Police Department to fire State Trooper Mike Wooten.

By way of back-story, Wooten was married to Palin’s sister, and the couple went through an acrimonious divorce. Prior to Palin’s election as Governor, the Palin family presented a list of 14 accusations against Wooten to the Police Department (including using his patrol car to pick his kids up from school and illegally shooting a moose). The charges were investigated, and Wooten was given a 10-day suspension.

When Palin took office, she, her husband, and her staff began putting pressure on the Commissioner of the department, Walt Monegan, to fire Wooten. Dozens of communications were made to the Department by the Mayor’s staff. Monegan resisted the pressure and did not fire Wooten. Monegan was subsequently fired from his job as Police Commissioner.

When allegations were made that Monegan had been improperly terminated, Palin initially denied that she or her staff had put any pressure on Monegan. (She then changed her story once recordings surfaced showing members of her staff directly pressuring police officials to fire Wooten, at which point she claimed that the calls were unauthorized.)

Following is a link to a recording of a phone call between Frank Bailey (the Mayor’s Director of Boards & Commissions) and Lieutenant Rodney Dial of the Public Safety Department. Its fairly long, so readers might not want to listen to the whole thing (although if you have the time, its a fascinating case study in the slimy methods by which public officials exert pressure without actually saying anything incriminating).

Recording of Phone Call Between Frank Bailey and Rodney Dial

Excerpt: After a lengthy discussion of all of the reasons why Wooten should not be kept on as a trooper, Bailey (the Mayor’s Director) says to Dial (the police lieutenant), “Todd and Sarah [Palin] are scratching their heads, ‘Why on earth hasn’t this, why is this guy still representing the department?’ He’s a horrible recruiting tool, you know.” Dial assures Bailey that the department wants to do anything it can to keep the Mayor happy. Bailey’s response is an example of classic back-room political sleaze:

Dial: You know, its very important for us that the Governor have a good opinion and impression of the [police] department. I mean we care very deeply about what she thinks about the department. And, you know, I don’t want it to appear that we don’t.

Bailey: You know, you know I appreciate that so much, and I’m telling you, honestly I mean, she um, you know she really likes Walt [the Police Commissioner] a lot, but on this issue, she feels like its… she doesn’t know why there’s absolutely no action for a year on this issue. Um, its very, very troubling to her and her family. You know, I can definitely relay that. You know?

Dial: Well, um, please tell her that, you know, I certainly am concerned, and I will immediately get on the phone after we’re done and see if there’s something that the department does not know about this, um something more that can be done, maybe some additional information that you don’t have that I can pass on.

——–

Hmm, on second thought, maybe Palin actually does have all the “experience” she needs to be Vice President…

note from admin:
This is a guest blog that originally included a hyperlink. I’m a smartard so it was fifty fifty. Here’s a a cut & paste for ya.

08/29/08 7:04PM
The Cynicism Of John McCain
I’ve never bought into the “experience” argument with regard to the presidency. There is no job on the planet that can adequately prepare someone to be President, so no one can be considered truly experienced for this job. Good judgment and values are far more important in a presidential candidate than experience. After all, look at all of the experience among the members of the Bush Administration, and look at the horrendous mess they have gotten us into.

But, the experience argument is really beside the point with regard to McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running-mate. What this decision demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt is that John McCain has no integrity whatsoever and will do or say anything in order to get elected. McCain has spent the last few months making the argument that Barack Obama is “dangerously inexperienced” and that electing him would put the country at risk. How can he then turn around and put Sarah Palin (a woman with zero experience in national politics and a grand total of 2 years experience as the Governor of Alaska) a heartbeat away from the presidency? There is one (and only one) explanation for this unexpected move. John McCain is a pure politician and believes that putting Palin on the ticket will help him with key demographics that he needs to win in November.

This conclusion should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed McCain’s career over the years. The fact that McCain has been able to reinvent himself as a “maverick” and “straight talker” is one of the most impressive PR jobs in recent history. This is a man who was investigated and cited by the Senate Ethics Committee for interfering with a federal investigation of Lincoln Savings & Loan – a bank which eventually went bankrupt and cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars. Five Senators (the infamous “Keating Five”) were cited and investigated in the matter – three of them had their careers ended, while one of them re-branded himself as a “straight-talker” and is now the Republican nominee for President.

The only thing that is surprising about McCain’s selection of Palin is that he believes the American people will either not notice or will overlook the blatant hypocrisy and political opportunism that this move so clearly demonstrates. Does McCain really expect us to believe that his decision was motivated by the desire to select the most qualified person for the job of Vice President?

The selection of Palin is obviously motivated by two factors. First, many recent polls have indicated that a large percentage of Hillary Clinton’s female supporters have not lined up behind the candidacy of Barack Obama. McCain’s selection of Palin is an obvious ploy to try and win over feminist voters who feel slighted by Hillary’s loss. McCain supporter Mike Huckabee stated today, “Governor Palin … will remind women that if they are not welcome on the Democrat’s ticket, they have a place with Republicans.” What could be more simple-minded and cynical than this statement? (“Hey you disgruntled women, never mind that one candidate is for the war in Iraq and one has been consistently against it, never mind that one is for universal healthcare and one is against it, just vote for us because we put a woman on the ticket!” Man, they must really think the women they’re targeting with this argument are stupid. If I was a woman I’d be enraged by such an obvious insult to my intelligence.)

The second factor is McCain’s need to compete with the “historical candidacy” of Barack Obama. McCain fears that the standard ticket of two old white guys isn’t going to cut it against a candidacy that has captured the imagination of the world. So, what does he do? He goes out and tries to create his own “historical candidacy”.

There is nothing daring or “maverick” about this move. All it does is confirm the fact that John McCain is the ultimate Washington insider. He has been playing the game for decades and will stop at nothing in pursuit of the brass ring he’s had in his sights for so many years. John McCain is the embodiment of the cynical Washington status quo, and anyone who believes that he would provide anything but “more of the same” is simply not paying attention.