Common Mistakes

Defensive Poetry

2011-04-21T23:26:00.003-04:00

I was reading some kind of publishing industry research brief today and found the authors quoting Donald Rumsfeld - or what they called a "Rumsfeldian phrase" - that is, stating that they felt there were "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns." It was a bit startling to see that after less than a decade the great Rumsfeld has already been entered into the cannon of American poetry.

Yes, practically a decade has gone by since an American defense secretary became the most lauded accidental post-modern poet who ever lived, but it inspired me to think again of Rumsfeld's great poem, "The Unknown":

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Those of you who would like to peruse more Defense Department post-modern poetry can do so here.

Generation X = Generation Screwed

2011-04-10T11:29:00.001-04:00

While the Democrats and Republicans debate the draconian Medicare cuts in Paul Ryan's budget plan the point that has gotten overlooked is exactly for whom all these benefits would be eliminated: people under 55.

It's a telling number.

Ryan is the first politician to begin to put on the table what so far politician's have yet to discuss: what is going to happen to the retirement planning safety net that most of us have relied on as we struggle to fund our 401K's and figure out how we'll survive in retirement.But believe me, this is just the opening of the conversation.

The age that he picks is certainly no accident. Fifty-five: after the biggest swell of baby boomers have safely secured their government-guaranteed retirement.

Assuming all these negotiations pass next year, then for the rest of us louts born after 1957, it's sorry, sucker.

Or as comedian Bill Maher said on "Real Time" last night (in reference to the Charlie Sheen comedy tour travesty), "already got your f***ing money, dude."

That's what the big mass of Baby Boomers and elderly voters running government are going to be saying to us smaller proportion of Generation X'er as they debate this issue. Sorry there's nothing left for your retirements. Already got your money, dudes.

Ryan's proposal is just the first of the great big screwing us Generation X'ers have coming.

Deconstructing Palin's Rhetoric Against Anti-Rhetoric Rhetoric

2011-01-13T22:57:00.002-05:00

In terms of twisted logic, the speech on Wednesday from Palin posted throughout the internet surely is a mind-bender, but let's unpack what she is saying just the slightest bit.

"“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker,” Ms. Palin said. “It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”"

But Palin's accusers aren't blaming society - they are specifically blaming her. They are saying what she is saying, that Palin should be accountable for her actions of "inciting" hate against people such as Gabrielle Giffords (i.e., creating exaggerated claims such as "death panels" and rhetorically suggesting the death of political enemies). "Because this was your doing," says William Rivers Pitt in one of the most direct connections between Palin and the shootings. "You put the cross-hairs on her, and someone finally pulled the trigger. Run from it all you like, Lady MacBeth, but this blood will never be washed from your hands."

So here is the difference - while those on the left are saying that incitement is an "action" that bloggers and politicians should be held accountable for (as if they had pulled the trigger themselves), those on the right are claiming a right to incitement. Incitement is mere discourse. However, when the left begins to act like the right - when they use the same tactics of casting blame, exaggerating ('this was your doing') and pointing fingers, the right calls this "blood libel."

"Pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn," says Palin, in yet another turn of phrase seemingly designed to provoke controversy. In other words, if anyone accuses Palin's rhetoric of having any effect in the real world, they are inciting violence.

Ok. So Palin's point is, you can only be responsible for inciting violence if you disagree with her. If you agree with her, you are merely using rhetoric that is not responsible for anything.

This is logic that the right uses to reinforce its groupthink. It makes little sense to most people, but if you look at it carefully, Palin's speech is calibrated to capture the minds of only one audience: her followers. With its twisted, unpackable logic and code words, it's explicitly designed to keep them in line and prevent them from, in a moment of tragedy, waking up from the closed in cocoon of isolated derangement she is trying to keep them in.

Will Obama Finally Take the Gloves Off?

2010-03-21T02:21:00.002-04:00

The big question is, if health care wins, will Obama finally take the gloves off - finally discard this mistaken attempt at "bipartisan" negotiations with a party whose only goal is to make the President fail at all costs?

The Republicans have gotten Obama to waste a year on these dalliances. But passage of health care reform may prove that such attempts can be a trap: the more aggressive Obama will seem more Presidential (and also possibly more prescient), and thus see his popularity rise, along with the popularity of his programs. That will give him the wind behind him to make the other needed and hard-fought changes, such as banking reform.

It's a paradox, isn't it? The more Obama tries to be reasonable and reach across the aisle in that negotiable, Senatorial style he has, the weaker he seems, and the more his popularity slips with moderates. In a weird way, then, the best way for Obama to bring the middle of the country along may simply be to be more definite about pushing for his ideas.

We shall see. But I have to say, this new, feisty Obama is more appealing than the one we've had to date.

Pass Healthcare for Spite?

2010-03-21T00:18:00.001-04:00

There are all sorts of good reasons the healthcare bill should pass - but could the degeneration of the Tea Party movement into an ugly, angry mob be the final straw that kicks it over the goal line?

There are a lot of things one might criticize the bill for - though at this point, after a year of tinkering, it's hard to imagine coming up with anything else that would nearly come close to creating real health insurance while also controlling costs. If nothing else, perhaps these demonstration may open people's eyes to just how much the whole issue has become a proxy for something else: the last gasp of American know-nothingingism. And perhaps that will convince that last few wavering senators that the opposition to the bill has nothing whatsoever to do with health care at all.

JK Lassser - Tax Tip of the Day

2010-01-31T09:00:00.001-05:00

Here's a nifty widget giving you a new tax tip every day until April 15th.

Lessons from the Coakley Loss

2010-01-19T22:55:00.004-05:00

Is the Dem's loss of 60 seats in the house today in the Massachusetts special election really a "wake up call" that the Obama agenda is really too far left, as even moderate Dems like Evan Bayh are suggesting?

Or is it, as I might suggest, more a sign that our country has - like California - become completely ungovernable?

The healthcare legislation - massive and weighted with legislative favors as it is - is already a massive compromise that attempts to steer through a forest of self-interested lobbyists and contingencies to make some progress addressing just one issue that threatens to collapse our continued existence as a country. Clearly no one is happy with the result - and from what I'm reading on comment boards, the discontent with it is as much from the left not getting a public plan as it is from the right having anything happen at all. But how could anyone in their right mind possibly think we could get anything better? Or that the current situation is sustainable?

I should add, the Democrats are clearly deluded if they try to rationalize this vote than anything other than a backlash. Unlike Virginia or New Jersey - two races where there were other circumstances where Democrats might rationalize the loss - this vote is a clear signal that Dems have lost the public on the issues. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the two parties are so far apart now that there's not even consensus on what our basic reality is. Independents, meanwhile, don't really want to try new ideas - they just want to punish whoever is in power.

Attempting change means pissing some people off. And voters are clearly pissed off. The message that Massachusetts voters have sent, it seems to me, is f* you, America. I'm sure it feels good to say. Too bad it just leads us all to the brink of the abyss even faster.

Top Ten Conspiracies for 2009: Did Vampire Squids Cause Swine Flu?

2009-12-05T18:09:00.031-05:00

It's that time of year again - time to list the top conspiracy theories from the year that's past.

For those of you new to this annual feature, the full rules are here, but the gist is basically this: every December, I list the conspiracy theories that made the biggest headlines during the past year. To qualify, they need to have an air of the bizarre, and not be the kind of thing proven true (as in an actual criminal conspiracy - of which, this year, thanks to the financial crisis, we certainly have plenty). Rather, these are the fanciful stories that have captured acclaim and started rumors, with no real basis of fact in evidence.

Naturally, as one might expect, with a new party taking office this year, most of the top conspiracies for 2009 now come from the right (as opposed to from the left, as they have for the past several years).

And now, without further ado, let's have a drum roll....and get to our list.

10. The mob killed JFK. Perhaps one of the most enduring conspiracies of all time, this one breathed new life this year with new books and a TV show on Frontline resurrecting one of Oliver Stone's favorite memes.

9. Sarah Palin's "dollar coin" conspiracy was perhaps notable not as much for its wide attention as for it's laughably typical Palin foible: the grand conspiracy plot she refers to (moving "In God We Trust" to the side of the coin) was actually approved in 2005 by George Bush.

8. Did you know that the CIA is following you on Twitter? So that explains all those annoying DM's.

7. Call the fake Obama birth certificate the conspiracy that wouldn't die. Though we reported this one last year, this year even a District Judge was tempted to side with the conspiracy theorists.

6. ACORN this year became the organization that conservatives loved to hate...and so the nutty conspiracy theories flourished. We have the campaign finance law violation conspiracies, the growing "I lost my local election because of ACORN" conspiracies, the tax evasion conspiracy, the ACORN/Obama federal grants conspiracy, the ACORN hooker conspiracy, a lovely little ACORN gun conspiracy, the ACORN stole the Presidential election conspiracy (what else?), and perhaps my favorite, that ACORN caused the financial crisis. At least no one's blamed them yet for the weather.

5. Speaking of conspiracies no one would have expected, who would have expected a swine flu conspiracy this year? So many villains to go around that really, the whole list of them deserve to be condensed into one.

4. Naturally, one would not expect a review of 2009 conspiracies to end without some kind of communist plot making the top of the list. So I nominate Glenn Beck's Apollo Alliance Manchurian Candidate White Board Conspiracy to take the spot.

3. I love the writings and assorted ramblings of Matt Taibbi. And I think his Goldman Sachs vampire squid conspiracy really has to take the cake as the second runner-up for this year's top conspiracy. After all, who didn't want to take a swing at the fat cats at Goldman this year?

2. Coming in second for this year's top conspiracy: global warming has been faked by scientists. Even the UN is investigating this hot conspiracy. I tell you, when a conspiracy is breaking news at the UN, you'd better pay attention.

1. But even that didn't surpass this year's top conspiracy: The Obama Health Care Death Panel conspiracy. When the U.S. Congress gets into the business of spinning conspiracy theories, even the President has to respond.

Moral Hazard Rears Its Ugly Head: What To Do

2009-10-24T14:49:00.008-04:00

With Goldman Sachs now left as a de-facto monopoly supported by the government, there's good reason for public anger - even from conservative financial institutions like the Financial Times - at what are now record breaking bonuses funded by taxpayer money: bonuses that are eye-popping even by the standards of Wall Street.

The Goldman bonuses are perhaps the biggest example of what people mean by "moral hazard." That is, the problems created when governments step in and rescue companies, even companies deemed critical to the economic health of the country.

The problem with Goldman is, there's no longer any downside for the bankers making these obscene bonuses. The company is now "too big to fail," so there's no real risk involved: the traders at Goldman know that taxpayers will step in to support the company if it gets in too much trouble. Thus, traders at Goldman are now able to take insane amounts of risk with what amounts to other people's money - our taxpayer money - but taxpayer's get none of the upside of that risk, only the Goldman traders do.

In essence, then, the bailout has created the biggest sucking sound the world has ever heard: the sound of about a hundred fortunate few sucking the remaining lifeblood out of the world economy.

We knew moral hazard would be an issue when we went into the bailout. And certainly, all the bank regulation in the world, and all the limits on executive pay, ain't going to do a thing to stop the sucking from Goldman, which has already given the TARP money back and thus has escaped any regulation or pay cap talk - and even if they hadn't are so entrenched in the government that they'd find another way to make off with our cash.

Certainly, no good capitalist wants to get into sweeping regulations about pay....and passing a law to tax Goldman Sachs specifically will just create the biggest loophole ever known, when Goldman - which has all the ins in the government it needs to avoid such a fate anyway - simply renames itself. So there seems like there's no good solution, right?

But there is. The solution - which is so obvious, I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else suggesting it - is to raise the top tax rates. At least for people making obscene money in the heart of the recession - let's say, anyone making $1M a year or more. Call it a "windfall tax" and raise the rate to 55%. After all, isn't that the least that the rich bastards can do for our depleted country? That would recapture some of the oomph from Goldman, as well as anyone else making out in our depressed environment (no doubt due to the largess of the government in the first place).

The solution is so obvious, the fact that no one in the Obama administration has suggested it makes me wonder: just how different is this administration from Bush's anyway? On the issue of Goldman managing the economy, it seems: not much.

Barney Against the Rabble

2009-08-22T11:50:00.000-04:00

Joe Klein says the Republican party has gone insane.

I watched a good hour and a half of Barney Frank holding his own against the wailing rabble. Captivating TV, like cage knuckle brawling. Give 'em Hell, Barney.

20 Rules For the Twenty-First Century

2009-07-18T08:58:00.043-04:00

As we really start to dig into this new century, I've been thinking lately about the lessons learned from the past 100 years, and how they so intimately apply to our lives now. Things that have changed our way of being in the world but have also become new insights into the nature of our existence and what it all means. I've been thinking that there seem to be roughly twenty insights for our new times that will underpin how we live in this new century.

1. That a well-functioning society is a complex thing that can easily be quickly unwoven (Katrina) or repaired (the West Bank) by a change in just a few key parameters.

2. That democracies unleash both powerful creative forces (crowdsourcing) and intractable political paralysis (global warming).

3. That all work is about being social, even if it's done at a computer at home alone in your underwear.

4. That compression of the human compound into smaller and more crowded spaces turns us into our basic elements: flesh, sound, and stink.

5. That every generation is a Moses to the next: they can lead us through the desert, but they will never enter the landscape we're destined to inherit.

6. That love is what provides meaning, but not fulfillment. Work is what provides fulfillment, but not meaning.

7. Companies are just big brands that contain and manage smaller brands (products) that are created by assembling contributions from even smaller brands (other products and people). All of these assemblages work best as flexible systems that can easily adjust to constantly changing markets.

8. Rather than right or left or conservative and liberal, a better way of describe competing political forces would be "defensive" and "offensive." And yes, offensive is the old "liberal."

9. That the new meritocracy now most values creative talent, rather than managerial politics.

10. That our educational system now requires rebellion, skepticism, and incredulousness as key personality traits for success.

11. That raising people from poverty requires lowering people from wealth - which can happen both gradually and all at once.

12. That there is nothing more poisonous than a bad idea that seems true.

13. That the more removed we become from physical labor, the more nostalgia we have for the raw dynamics of the earth: pets, gardens, parks, and extreme sports.

14. That sometimes inefficient, low-tech, unhealthy, and complex can have more value than fast, efficient and healthy, if it's emotionally meaningful.

15. That in addition to the four traditional types of labor - making things, destroying things, distracting people, and caring for them - we now have a major new type: managing information. That the United States is really good at three of these: destroying things, distracting people, and managing information - and not so good at the other two; probably due to the natural character of Americans.

16. That the source of celebrity is notoriety, and that celebrity is the source of political power. Ergo, political leadership is the art of being notorious.

17. That all resources are limited, even seemingly unlimited resources like the sun, hope, desire, or lust.

18. That we pay too much attention to avoiding death and not enough to managing it well.

19. That the last unexplored country is the 1/3 of our lives we spend asleep.

and finally

20. That Wall-E is really a movie about how a nerd wins the heart of a sexy girl.

POLL: Is Gay Marriage The New Swing Issue?

2009-06-13T05:40:00.003-04:00

Since his election, Obama has been silent on gay issues - despite his campaign promises. And now, after first offending with the selection of Rick Warren at the inauguration, then his refusal to issue stop loss orders preventing the discharge of gay soldiers, and now most recently, with his DOJ legal team issuing an offensive report supporting DOMA (the law that discriminates against married gay couples with federal benefits), Obama seems to have finally struck out with the gay community.

Interestingly, however, some influential Republicans have started coming out IN FAVOR of gay marriage; even Dick Cheney has voiced his limited support.

So here's an interesting question. If a Republican presidential candidate in 2012 supported gay marriage, would gays support him or her? Could this be the swing constituency that can lead conservatives back to the White House? Take our poll and say your mind.

&amp;amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-33271.html"&amp;amp;gt;Take the poll&amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;br /&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;br /&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&amp;amp;gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;gt;

What's the Matter with Obama?

2009-06-04T12:05:00.023-04:00

or - why are gays becoming increasingly disillusioned with the President?

Quite obviously, Republicans have been quite successful over the past eight years turning gay rights issues into a wedge, and encouraging state-wide initiatives banning gay marriage to help drive conservative voters to the polls. Aside from some stalwart holdouts over at the Log Cabin club, few gays and lesbians are lauding Republicans for these efforts. Yet all evidence suggests that Republican leaders have used the issue as cynically merely to drive their base - few of them seem to really have the heart to push an inimical initiative like, say, a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.

The question then comes to, are the Democrats really that much better? Two of the most destructive laws over the past twenty years - Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT), which requires the expulsion of service members found to be gay, and the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal benefits or recognition to gay couples - were proffered by a Democratic president. While Democrats see gays and lesbians as their base - and therefore pander to them as much as Republicans pander to the homophobes - when the rubber hits the road, the real question gays must ask politicians in both parties is: what have you done for (or to) me lately?

One might argue - and count me in this camp - that it is much better to under promise and over deliver, that to make promises you don't intend to keep (or worse, that set things back, as Clinton did). When Hillary Clinton, in her campaign against Obama, promised to repeal DADT but only to "promote marriage rights" rather than strive for a full repeal of DOMA (as Obama said he would do), she was criticized for "triangulating" - putting politics above principal. Obama, meanwhile, clearly promised action on both DADT and DOMA - to essentially undo the wrong done by the last Democratic president. Whatever his intentions, many took him at his word.

Starting with his inauguration, however, Obama's delivery has become more and more suspicious. While his invitation of Rick Warren angered many in the gay community (who felt that it undercut the optimism of his inauguration), others argued to put aside that emotion for the sake of the long-term benefits that Obama would bring when he fulfilled his campaign promises. While intellectually that argument made sense, however smart it was for Obama politically, emotionally it was difficult to see the new President promoting the same anti-gay speakers that the last President did. Gays and lesbians have become very used to being used as the first group to be "thrown over the bus" for political expediency. The question was raised: would Obama do the same? Would he really be able to deliver on his promises.

This is why gays are so carefully reading Obama's messages. Obviously, the President has learned from Clinton's mistakes, and doesn't want to create a political backlash. But times have changed - a clear majority of Americans now support partner benefits for gay partners, and more and more support full marriage equality. Obama needn't be as careful as Clinton needed to in 1992. Yet still Obama seems to be backtracking on his promises - changing campaign language on his website to "change" rather than "repeal" DODT, and pushing back the deadline for introducing legislation. Worse, while even Dick Cheney can make public pronouncements supporting marriage rights, the White House has remained silent while states enact full marriage rights and in the face of defeats such as the Prop 8 decision in California. Where is Obama's vocal support for full marriage rights? He still claims to only support civil unions: Obama is willing to let Dick Cheney outflank him on the left on this issue, which only gives political ammunition to anti-gay crusaders who use Obama's position against equal marriage an argument to sway voters in individual states. Surely Obama realizes that his lack of support is actively hurting gays as they fight these battles from state to state. Perhaps even more telling, Obama has continued Bush administration policies of dismissing gay service members - not even taking the least of actions to put a hold on dismissals, and not even starting the legislation process that would result in repeal.

Even some of Obama's staunches supporters have noticed that the backtracking on his campaign rhetoric: Andrew Sullivan writes compellingly that Obama is once again falling into the trap of "equal rights can wait," as he uses the economy as an excuse to put off action. Next year the excuse will be mid-term elections, and the year after that the excuse will be that he has to campaign for re-election. There is no convenient time for equal rights, yet every day that goes by without action is a disaster on a million different levels for individuals and their families all across the country. It takes very little courage to say you support doing something for gays ten years from now - or even two. Tell that to Dan Choi, or couples like Laurel Hester and Stacy Andree, for whom even tomorrow is too late. What disappoints gays and lesbians and their families most is that Obama's "fierce urgency of now" seems to exclude us. Gays can wait - and those who lose out in the meantime are expendable - says Obama through his silence.

No one expects Obama to tackle every issue at once. Yet clearly he is able to discuss legislation about every other campaign issue except this one. Obama raised expectations with his very clear promises, and gays supported Obama over Clinton because Obama promised more direct action with less political calculation. Given how things worked out with the last Democratic President, gays have real reason to be suspicious. Now we find an Obama who calculates politics, who hems and haws and delays, just as much as any other politician. It may not be surprising, but don't tell us not to be disappointed.

California's Prop 8 Ruling Exemplifies California's Problems

2009-05-26T13:35:00.004-04:00

Today's ruling by the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8 (which bans gay marriages) while also preserving the marriages that took place during the window in which it was legal, was certainly expected. The suit to begin with was a long shot, even though it was based on a solid argument about how the court found the right to begin with.

However, more than anything this ruling illustrates a few lessons we've learned today about that quirky state called California - for this ruling says more about the peculiarities of California than about anything else.

First, it illustrates just why California is in the financial mess its in. It's a state where any law - no matter how crazy - can be voted in by fifty percent of the population. The Supreme Court has just validated that there is nothing that the voters can't vote into law, even if it deprives groups of their "inalienable rights." Naturally, Californian's will vote in unfunded mandates - cake and ice cream and no bedtime. It is a mob-rule Democracy, completely unable to govern itself or rectify its financial problems, let alone protect minorities.

Secondly, just how will California enforce this new ruling, in which some gay people can be married and some cannot? Will everyone be required to carry around their marriage certificates now? How will gyms, health care companies, hospitals, etc. be able to distinguish between couples married during the California "window" and those married elsewhere in other states at other times? And what about couples who married in Massachusetts when marriage was legal in California? Are those couples "married"? The possibility for legal suits are mind boggling.

But finally, perhaps most interestingly, the ruling - in which six of seven judges who a year ago ENCOURAGED gay people to get married saying it was an "inalienable right," now agree the right is in fact alienable - indicates just how much the court makes its decisions based on comfortable politics, rather than readings of the law. While it was comfortable to grant the right before the Amendment passed, it wasn't quite so comfortable to uphold it afterwards, especially when voters could simply go right back to the ballot box until they got the outcome they wanted. While this ruling may seem like a sage compromise, in fact the one thing its not is courageous - it simply punts the issue back to the voters, and creates an even bigger legal mess in the process.

Welcome to California. Just don't make any legal plans while you're there.

The Obama Economy: 100 Days of Hope

2009-04-25T18:14:00.131-04:00

There are times, lately, I will stop whatever I'm doing for a moment - walking, reading, shopping - and think to myself, "thank God, Obama's President."

I'm not a religious man, and I'm certainly not given to random exclamations of spiritual thanks. And I may be a registered Democrat but I never felt similarly about, say Bill Clinton. And Obama wasn't even my first choice in the primaries. Still, there are times when I am just overwhelmed with a feeling of just how lucky we are this man is our President - and what kind of calamity might have been in store had he lost the election just a few short months ago.

I'm not talking about being an Obama-phile who thinks he's God's gift to the world, or even was ever particularly in love with his platform. And though it'd be nice if he solved our energy problem and addressed global warming and insured 50 million more Americans with health insurance and modified DOMA and restored America's standing the world, I don't even really care all that much about all of that. I thank God Obama is our President because of the state of our economy.

I know, there is certainly a very vocal and highly organized minority of Republicans who feel just the opposite - who worry that Obama is mortgaging our future, building a nanny state, growing a large and useless government bureaucracy - sending us, God forbid, into the hell fires of a European style socialism. I will get to this line of rhetoric in a minute. For the moment, I just want to stand back from all the details and just appreciate how lucky we are, and how, in his first 100 days, Obama has shown he is worthy of our faith in him.

First - and this, I think, is the point that the Obama naysayers never seem to address - we have to recognize just how close to the economic abyss we came (and yes, possibly still are). It seems that part of the problem is that there is no one left alive today who really lived through the Depression; who really experienced a true economic collapse. I certainly didn't, but my grandparents did, and before they died, I had discussed it in detail with them, and listened to their stories. They were - like myself today and most of us - middle class Americans, running a business and raising a family, when the banking crisis hit. Like many caught in the headwinds, they lost their savings, and their business went under. They had to give up the good life: no more evenings out, no more buying new clothes, no more meat on the table six days a week. But they weren't alone - every night, in every town in America, hundreds of formerly middle class Americans found themselves lining up for handouts of food and clothing. My grandparents made what ends meet they could by taking in washing, doing small chores, scraping together pennies here and nickels there. They re-mended old clothes and made a small fistful of meat last a weak. These are stories of survival that are, from our present day of consumer fulfilment, hard to truly understand. And this went on for years - years of raising a family on little, on denying every pleasure, of giving up pride in order to accept the charity of others, and of hoping only for a little bit more meat for dinner.

Now fast forward to 2008. Those who begrudge a stimulus that costs about 1/3 of the total projected costs of Bush's war jamboree, or who think this is just a normal turn of the "business cycle", need to understand just how close to collapse our entire economic system was (and still might be). And what a collapse might mean. First, we are not talking simply about a few banks going out of business (as happened this week, and has for every week since September), the depositors being made whole by the government and taking their money to deposit elsewhere. We're not even talking about depositors losing their savings. We're talking about an international banking system that is far more complicated - and far more interconnected - than anything our grandparents could have imagined in 1931. The failure of Lehman Brothers showed just how interconnected these banks are. Then came AIG. Had AID failed, we know now that a dozen other major banks - Citibank, Bank of America, Chase, and many more - would have also failed, suddenly finding their backing vaporized. And if a dozen major banks had suddenly failed, hundreds more would have immediately followed - and not just banks: car companies, other large employers, entire cities and even states would suddenly be bankrupt. A failure more massive than anything the government could insure...and perhaps leading to a run on U.S. Treasuries themselves and calling into question the financial solvency of the government: which could have led to the kind of complete nightmare scenario of collapse in which massive world-wide food shortages, power outages, starvation, and roving gangs of criminals lead to a real-world Mad-Max scenario.

But even if the Federal government had survived, we would have been seeing massive loss of value - homes plunging in value 75% overnight, retirement savings of millions wiped out, entire cities with no means to pay police and firefighters, a huge rise in crime and millions of workers on the streets immediately. We very well could have seen a financial crisis that would have made the Depression look like a Sunday picnic.

Now, I don't say this just to scare you, but I do lay out this scenario has a highly likely one, and one that our leaders were looking at on the day AIG was about to go under, so that you can understand the depth of the calamity we are talking about. They did what any sane person - Democrat or Republican, Libertarian or Rotarian - who had the means to do so would have done: they acted as quickly as they could to prevent it from happening.

Now, we can argue till the cows come home about whether the money to AIG should have been monitored more carefully or whether the stimulus should have had 5% more tax cuts or 10% more spending. What mattered is that something was done, and the disaster scenario was avoided. The question then was: was it avoided temporarily, did we merely buy ourselves some time? Or did we luck the hell out and possibly save our way of life that all of us - even those who claim otherwise - so dearly cherish?

This was the question the country had on its mind as Obama took the oath of office on January 20th. It was obvious that Bush and company - though they had done, as I said, what any sane person would have done in that situation - weren't up to the task of backing us up from the precipice they'd driven us to over eight disastrous years. They had no plan, and they knew they didn't need one. It was good bye and good luck. And the question on everyone's mind was: Is Obama up to it?

Now, 100 days into his Presidency, it feels like we can say, with all humility and some potential hedging: yes. Obama is up to it. And thank God. Because if he wasn't, I just don't know if I'd be up to a lifetime of living in a real-life Jericho; and personally, I think those apocalyptic right-wingers who are so eager to see everything wrecked for their game boy fantasies of pseudo-militaristic survival of the fittest, would be the first to perish in the long cold winter of our disaster.

But why do I think he is up to it? Let's look at what he and his team have been able to do, in just these few 100 days.

Within weeks, he was able to push through an economic stimulus package that all economists said would be necessary - a necessary MINIMUM - to cushion the coming economic blow. That was all settled and done in just WEEKS, when Clinton couldn't even get his stimulus package passed in his first 100 days.

Within a few more weeks, after yes, a rather fitful and uncertain start, his economic team was able to go to bat a second time with a plan that calmed the jitters of the banks, convinced some rather intrepid investors to pour money into those very "toxic" assets that were causing the failures, and that even the Wall Street Journal called "a good start." They came up with a series of tests for banks that will determine how we walk our way bank from the precipice. Though what happens next is still uncertain, the recent moves have earned the trust of the markets as well as banks and have been critical to abating the crisis mentality griping Wall Street.

But even more importantly, Obama has been able to reassure the public with his speeches and address to Congress (if not inspire members to cross the aisle for their votes.)

But he also wised up after he learned that if the Republican political strategy was going to be to stand in his way and try blame him for any failures, he was better off leaving them behind. So when it came time to pass his budget plan, he did just that: he played hardball in response and abandoned the pretense that Republicans were necessary to get his budget passed. And he learned he would need to do the same thing when it came to delivering the health care reforms that Americans had voted for.

Republicans, on the other hand, made a strategic decision when Obama took office to fight him on every angle in his attempts to address the economic crisis. It may be their only political play: hope that the economy, in four years, is suffering more than it is today, and make Obama own the problem. Yet it is a shame that Republicans have decided to double-down on Hoover economics and political posturing at the same time that former President Bush, who arguably presided over both the decimation of government (re: Katrina) and the borrowing-fueled bubble that led to the current crisis, was - and possibly still is - the one Republican who took some responsibility to address the crisis realistically, and has also been the one Republican leader who has shown both courtesy and respect of Obama's position leading the country (if this attitude leads to a rehabilitation of Bush's image in the history books, perhaps one can say, better late than never). Yet is was clear that after eight trying years, Bush was not the man to lead us out of a crisis of such proportions, when the Bush government didn't even the capacity to save a single American city from a well-predicted hurricane. But he seems to have not bought in to the raging anti-Obama mania that the rest of the party has convinced itself of, and has been the one figure on the right, ironically enough, who has reached with genuine sincerity across the aisle.

Now, I have respect for John McCain, and I believe he might have realized he needed to get creative to solve this crisis. But his campaign showed that he was clearly hostage to the bunker mentality that the far-right created at the worst moments of the Bush administration, and that his closest advisers - who were refusing the recognize the crisis even as it was happening - were not up to taking the steps necessarily to restore both public confidence and economic fundamentals.

It's odd that even when Obama takes a position seemingly further to the right than his Republican predecessor - figuring out a way for Chrysler to go through an orderly bankruptcy, say, rather than simply throwing more money at it as Bush did - he still gets labeled as "leftist" for it. They have to come up with something so in this case, arranging a bankruptcy is derided as enabling "government interference." If this is interference, then give me more! I'd much rather have that than the negligent, criminal incompetence the Right seems to be peddling.

So I wonder why, now, so much intransigence from the new Republican party leaders. Yes, partly, it may be intransigence due to not wanting to admit that their policies were the problem, not the solution. But I don't think that's really it. After some reflection it occurs to me that it has most to do with the dynamics of being out of power: it is much easier for Republicans to sit back and lobby irresponsible accusations and bromides about the economy when they aren't responsible for leading the country out of this mess. I just don't know how great a play this is for them politically, given that the American public largely supports Obama's efforts, and that inevitably, chances are the economy WILL turn around. But for the moment, it seems to be working against them, as their economic policies enjoy their lowest popularity in years and their party suffers in the polls.

Now, it's true, I wish that Obama's budget was more serious about starting to tackle the entitlement crisis that we will most surely be facing in five years, was a little more ahead of the most liberal members of Congress. But these are quibbles - and though certainly they indicate a temperament farther left than we had from the past eight years, not the moves of a rabid socialist. Let's not let ourselves get distracted by the vaporous anxieties and accusations of the tea parties: the one and ONLY thing that Obama has done so far regarding taxes is lower them (Bush's cuts from Clinton's top rates were always temporary, intended only as a RECESSION BUSTING move, remember? - and already set to expire long ago, and well should have; Obama's letting them finaly expire as they should have in 2003 returns rates to a point lower than they were under Clinton.) And yes, ballooning budgets and the potential for rising interest rates are a worry. But with the economy actually in the midst of the first signs of deflation in over fifty years, spending more right now is precisely the right move...and we can worry about inflation when we actually have an economy to inflate.

And in fact, there are signs that with Obama's management, the crisis has reached a bottom and the economy is already stabilizing. The stock market has also stopped its slide - in fact, it's up around 3% since Obama's inauguration, a trend that to many economists indicates that we have reached the bottom far earlier than many expected in Bush's last days in office. Yes, we're not out of the woods. Foreclosures are up, banks are still stressed, local governments are cutting back, many are out of work, and there are still tent cities all over America. And clearly Obama doesn't want expectations of a recovery to build to quickly; Summers said on Monday that the economy will continue to decline for the foreseeable future (i.e., this year). And though the job outlook remains dire for the rest of 2008, we may yet get out of this recession with an unemployment figures no higher than 10 or 12% - far better than the 30% unemployment of the Great Depression, or the nearly universal catastrophe that awaited us in the deepest days of this economic crisis.

But even more than turning around the markets, Obama has turned around America's sense of hope. After 100 days in office, this weekend's ABC poll shows that Obama enjoys a 69% popularity - the same level as Ronald Reagan after his first 100 days, and a remarkable 86% say he is meeting or exceeding their expectations. And even more importantly, the percent of people who think the country is on the right track has risen from 19% during Bush's last days in office to a remarkable 50% today (the highest rating in six years), and Americans rate Obama's handling of the economy as his top achievement since taking office.

What the Great Depression - and what this crisis - had robbed us of more than anything, was the great hope of America: hope that hard work can bring prosperity, that our future is in our hands, not in the hands of princes or barons of industry, that if we dream big enough and are bright enough, each of us has the possibility to not only survive, but to truly be rewarded with the "American Dream." That dream died last fall as we all watched our worst nightmares about to come true, as we watched our savings evaporate, our businesses falter, our homes plunge in value - as we understood the same fears our grandparents once felt - and we all hunkered down for the great winter, as we all prepared for mere survival.

Now, more than anything, Americans have hope again - not just hope, but faith. Faith that this economy will recover, faith that our government is competent, that they are able to do something to restore the American Dream. Americans once again have faith that their plans, their lives, their hopes and aspirations could happen after all, after we just get through this rough patch. It's Obama's faith - not just his economic policies but his youthfulness, his wonkishness, his energy, his belief in government as a force of good, as an expression of the will of the people. And it's not just faith for faith sake. Our economy RUNS on this faith: we give loans, we borrow money, we spend on investments, we build businesses all because we have FAITH, faith that America will be here tomorrow, and making these investments will pay off. Obama's given that faith back to us. He's not perfect, and maybe he'll spend too much money, and maybe he won't, and maybe he'll make enemies, and maybe he won't get to do all his lofty plans, and he'll certainly make mistakes. But an America without faith in itself is a sad place, indeed.

After a mere 100 days, America is on the road to having that faith in the American Dream again. That's pretty remarkable. And we have Obama to thank.

The Right Throws a Tea Party: Everyone Else Sees Mad Hatters

2009-04-15T22:08:00.003-04:00

What a difference forty years makes. In 1969, it was the summer of love, and left-wing radicals were taking the street to protest corporate government, the military-industrial complex, and the stultifying effects of stolid capitalism. Behind them was a philosophy of radical deconstruction: that truth was an ideology propped up by the powerful, a collusion of government and business designed to exploit racial disparities, the middle-class and the working man. They were taking to the streets to get the middle class to wake up to the tragedies of war, capitalism run amok, and the moral hazards of materialism.

Fast-forward to 2009. Now, a black man runs America, Democrats control all facets of government, and it’s the conservatives who have taken to the street in protest. Our President pursues progressive policies with the carefulness and “conservativeness” of an establishment CEO, working with the existing system to salvage the economy, create reform, and build business-friendly yet socially and economically aware infrastructure. Meanwhile, it’s the right-wing thinkers who have embraced the radicalism of the Sixties, including its disbelief in truth, its use of street theater, and its sense of moral outrage and demand for urgent change. Their goal: to stop the government from trampling on the greed that in their mind, makes this country great.

Hence today’s “tea parties,” with their echo of America’s revolution and sense of organized demonstration and protest.

What do these right-wing protestors want? These tea parties are not so much about taxation without representation as they are about protesting the swing away from the policies of George W. Bush. Newt Gingrich has put forward an agenda that is broad, diffuse, and unclear, but the gist of it seems to be that they want a right-wing government that would take President Bush’s economics (and foreign policy) as but a starting point for an even more extreme version of trickle-up economics (based on what possibly surviving economy is anyone’s guess – the rich and well connected have already pretty much drained America of most of its resources). Never mind that they didn’t achieve that goal at the ballot box.

In discussing the concept of the tea parties with Michael Leahy, the editor of the tcotreport, Leahy suggests that this sort of street theater and protest is inspired by Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” – a post-Sixties handbook in which Alinksy lays out the principals followed by the left for a generation: make fun of the “oppressor,” reposition the truth, undercut the prevailing corporate PR. Such methods, presumably, are what the tcoters have in mind in regards to their version of the reigning elite (you know, the East Coast liberal media and all those other nabobs) when they make reference of Alinsky. But Alinsky subtitles his book “A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” The tcoters have the radicalism down pat, but what they seem to be missing is Alinksy’s pragmatism and realism. It’s perhaps because of this post-election explicit embrace of the radical strategy that the recent DHS report on right-wing radical groups has struck such a nerve.

Sure, peaceful protest, a long time strategy of the left, shouldn’t be mistaken for radical violence. But as Alinsky says, radicalism, if it’s to have an actually political effect, needs to be embedded in pragmatic realism. So let’s talk realism. What Obama’s budget has proposed is in fact a tax cut for a great majority of Americans. The “rollback” of top tax rates to 1990’s levels – once the economy recovers – would indeed amount to a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. But they would still be rates well below what the rich paid for decades before, and considering that we’ve never financed a war before without some kind of tax increase, this piper has to be paid at some point. Yet at the same time the Republicans would let the financial system implode and march in the street for further tax cuts, they demand Obama balance the budget. Such logic is what brought us to the precipice to begin with: the Bush economics of borrow, lower taxes on the rich, and spend on favored businesses has already done its destruction to our economic health; its doubtful many Americans believe that lowering the tax rate does much good when our debt is skyrocketing and even trickle down economists admit that no economic growth, when no one can find a job, will hardly reduce the deficit – and that the government is the only buyer large enough to stimulate our economy back out of this mess.

But the Republican party, as it’s been conflated with the radical right, hasn’t been too keen on realism, these days. In fact, if an expert says it – whether the expert belongs to one party or another – they pretty much believe the opposite must be true. Whether it’s evolution, global warming, or economic theory, right-wing Republicans have bought into the same kind of postmodernism that their Sixties leftist counterparts once embraced: that there is no “objective” shared truth, no such thing as science (only “ideology” or as they would call it, “belief”), and so any posited principal can be easily disproved by simply believing it isn’t so. While the leftists used this postmodern approach to undercut the prevailing culture with an alternative “counterculture” that claimed equal validity, the right use the same techniques against the progressives now in power, in the hopes, it seems, of bullying the truth into a kind of numbing defeat, defeat brought to bear through control of the media and the sheer volume and stubbornness of their angry believers. Meanwhile, the rest of us have no option but to learn how to tune them out.

Then there’s pragmatism, which the Republican party seems to have left in a ditch as they’ve gone on their vision quest. The Right may be in love with Alinsky but they certainly haven’t read him carefully (if at all). For Alinsky’s primary point is that radicalism isn’t about creating destruction for the sake of protest, it’s about persuading the dissatisfied great middle. To have any effect, the radical must understand that the silent middle is ready to embrace their ideas, if only they are giving the proper push to demonstrate how the system is skewed against them. Simply whining about principals without understanding the real concerns of the vast populous only alienates the majority further.

The problem is, the middle is clearly not with the Republicans on the idea of a further redistribution of wealth to the wealthy. The number of people who think the country is going “in the right direction” has doubled since Obama took office; sixty-six percent of the country approves of Obama generally and 64% specifically approve of his economic plan. There is no general fear that increasing the top tax rate by three percent is going to ruin the country, generally, or a middle-class tax payer, particularly. However, confront a tcoter with these facts and their most likely reply will be that “they don’t trust polls,” which is another way of saying, “people will believe anything and aren’t to be trusted.” But Alinsky’s radicalism depends upon the trust of the people – that the people may be silent, but that they are with you; lose that, and you lose the war. And unlike, say, the gay marriage issue, there is no generational demographic shift that might suggest the public is warming to this conservative message over time; to the contrary, younger voters are if anything MORE supportive of Obama and his economic policies than older voters. So instead of offering arguments – against all expert evidence to the contrary, by the way – that their policies would have a better effect on the economy, they create a publicity stunt in the street and confuse the issue with scare words like “socialism.” But their radical politics seems to have abandoned not only reason and science, but the art of persuasion as well.

So not only are the Republican radicals tilting at windmills, they are doing so against a headwind blowing steadily against them.

As to what Republicans can do about this problem, I have little to suggest, other than this: no political party has succeeded without addressing the legitimate concerns of the majority. Right now, those concerns are what got Obama elected, and the majority seems pretty happy with him. The more radical the conservatives look, the smaller a party they will become.

As for the rest of us, there are several reactions that Independents and Democrats can have to this. The first is an equally strong reactive anger. After all, the strategy of blaming Obama for the mess the country is in is like the brother who breaks the TV and blames his sibling who goes to turn it on. It’s easy to get mad a people who are attempting to deflect blame from themselves, especially when they do so with what can appear to be a manufactured sense of outrage. This reaction, however, leads to little more than name-calling and in a way, falls into the trap that right-wing strategist would like to set.

The second is a kind of self-satisfied bemusement. I think of Krugman’s comment, “it’s not nice to make fun of crazy people.” The smart Democrat looks at the radical right targeting moderates like Arlen Specter for primary defeats and thinks, “hey, let’s just get out of the way and let them self destruct further.” In this case, it’s a little like watching a Risk player double-down on a losing strategy of attacking everyone in sight in order to go out in a blaze of glory. Fun and entertaining as you sit back and let them take themselves out of the game.

I think we want to take the third reaction. Which is hope that by educating the Right on the foibles of their strategy, we can help them become saner, more challenging players. When the only ideas radicals have is to blow things up, good luck trying to have any sort of conversation. Sure, Obama has demonstrated he’s perfectly up to tackling and solving these problems on his own. But it’d sure be nice to also take advantage of some pragmatic, realistic ideas based on conservative principals – if only the Right would have some.

Obama Announces Twitter Bailout

2009-04-01T08:30:00.004-04:00

Macon Phillips, Director of New Media for the White House, announced today that Obama's administration will be supplying a 250 million investment to the founders of Twitter to "promote a beneficial online experience and increased access to Twitter's API stream."

Noting that there has been concern that Twitter may be limiting access to its API as preparation for introduction of a business model, Phillips said that it was essential to the improvement of the economy and well being of Americans that Twitter API be unlimited and available for all. "With so many people unemployed, we see Twitter as an essential resource to use up the free time of Americans."

Philips was asked if the additional money provided to Twitter at this time would delay the development of a valid business model for Twitter. "We see Twitter as an essential lubricant to the American economy, like banks," said Phillips. "Right now Twitter gets clogged. We need to flush out all the toxic tweets."

When asked if it was appropriate for the government to be spending taxpayer money on an internet startup, Phillips replied "we understand from the Twitter founders that the #tcoter's on Twitter are using most of the API. So this bailout will benefit conservatives more than anyone."

Phillips said the new money for Twitter would be available immediately. "Yes - today's April 1st. So we'll have that sucker blowing like Old Faithful today!"

Useful Anger: AIG Illustrates the Importance of Pitchforks

2009-03-29T12:31:00.002-04:00

A lot has been argued against the public's anger over AIG. But intuitively, I've been feeling that the over-the-top anger, the extreme Congressional reactions, the actual public intimidation of bankers, while vague, undirected, and perhaps counterproductive to immediate goals, has actually been important. I might not go as far as Bill Mahr and suggest that a banker or two be strung up from a tree. But I've been feeling that the kind of public intimidation and scapegoating has had a valuable aspect, and today, it occurs to me why.

But first, let's examine the reasons the anger has been counter productive. All are good arguments, and here they are:

1. From the left: That the anger makes it tougher for Geithner and company to get banks to go along with governmental plans to fix the economy.

2. From the right: That vilifying bankers makes it more difficult for capitalism to do its job in turning around the economy.

3. From the middle: That now that AIG is run by the government, hurting AIG only hurts the taxpayers.

4. From bank employees: That most of the people receiving bonuses from AIG aren't responsible for the bad bets that caused this mess, and are essential to helping successfully unwind AIG responsibly.

5. From government watchdogs: That it's a bad idea for Congress to create laws that overreact and attempt to hammer a nail with a bulldozer.

6. From debt watchdogs: That it's short-sighted to focus on 1/500th of the money involved in AIG at the risk of putting much more of that money at risk in a failed recovery.

All perfectly good arguments. But as I watch busloads of angry protesters touring rich towns in Connecticut, as I read AIG executives talk with pique in NYTimes editorials about donating some of their bonuses to charity, and I watch Congress pontificate and the mobs roil on late-night TV, I think that there is one very GOOD thing that this anger is doing. The one good thing: It helps to return the idea of moral hazard to its proper place.

What is moral hazard? As this crisis has evolved, we've seemed to have forgotten this essential concept. But moral hazard is essentially why the Fed let Lehman Brothers fail (and precipitate this mess) in the first place. Moral hazard is the idea that if there is no downside to making bad bets, because the government will step in and help you, then this only encourages even more risky behavior in the future. It seems that in order to save the economy, the government has decided it has to ignore moral hazard.

What's heartening about the AIG anger is that it seems that moral hazard can't simply be wished away. Like the concept of "momentum" in physics, perhaps moral hazard can't be destroyed but has to simply show up someplace else: like anger at AIG. If AIG employees find themselves intimidated, targets of vilification, then moral hazard has done its job: it's shown that there WILL be a price to pay, in some way, for making extremely risky bets.

My feeling is that letting this moral hazard play out is more important, in the long run, than the damage caused by points 1 - 5. And so I cheer on the AIG anger...and hope that the government sees how it can use the anger to maintain a sense of moral hazard, while also taking the short-term business-friendly steps to get our economy going again.

Instant Revisionism: Is Obama's First 60 Days Really That Bad?

2009-03-28T14:07:00.034-04:00

This week, The Economist - one of the international financial papers that backed Obama - produced an editorial essentially claiming buyer's remorse: that Obama's first 60 days had been a disappointment and had made them reconsider the reasons they endorsed him. While Obama has been harpooned constantly by the far right, the editorial needs to be taken seriously, as the change of heart shown by The Economist suggests that Obama's support amongst his middle-right champions may be seriously eroding - and thus eroding Obama's promise of forging a new style bipartisan politics.

There are certainly some things that team O can be doing better, but I want to look at the claims The Economist have made and ask if they are really as serious as they make them out to be, and if after only a mere 60 days, center-right supporters should start fleeing the Obama ship.

Perhaps most serious charge The Economist makes is lack of experience - that Obama has shown to be inept and is learning on the job, contributing to his slide in approval. In essence, they are criticizing Obama's leadership ability (he's been "messed around" by his own party and they exhort him to "lead, damnit.") They support their claims of lack of leadership by citing these supposed failures:

1. He subcontracted the stimulus to Congress and did a "mediocre" job on it, as most of it won't kick in for several years.
2. There are still 23 open slots at Treasuring showing a "lack of focus" on the economy and "administrative drift"
3. His stimulus "broke down" in Congress because it only got the support of three Republican senators.

But have other Presidents done better in their first 60 days? In his first 100 days, Clinton created an uproar over allowing gays to serve in the military, failed to get his stimulus bill passed, butted heads with Congressional Democrats who seemed to want to paint him as inexperienced, and put his wife in charge of his big initiative - health care reform - which eventually was killed without a single bill enacted. He also created a huge scandal with the White House travel office that dominated the airwaves for weeks.

Just one month after Gerald Ford took office, he pardoned Nixon, created a rift with Congressional Democrats, and never recovered to enact any significant legislation.

W. Bush had to grapple with continued protests and suspicions about the election, had no mandate, and the press was more focused on Clinton than anything Bush might have wanted to do in his first term. On average, Bush's appointments weren't confirmed until EIGHT MONTHS after his election (compared with two and a half for Kennedy).

George HW Bush was criticized for having "no agenda," received complaints about his capitol gains tax cuts, and was compared unfavorably to Ronald Reagan by his own party.

What about Ronald Reagan? His tax cuts received heated opposition and a huge uproar in Congress. Then two months into his term there was an attempt on his life: that created a surge in popularity, and his tax cut legalisation went through.

Obama's approval rating now stands at 62%. The only President since Kennedy with a significantly higher approval rating after 100 days was Reagan, who had an approval of 68% after a hundred days and the attempt on his life.

And yet, let's look at what Obama has done in a mere sixty days. He's drafted and passed the largest stimulus package ever created, and he was able to put together a package filled with more tax cuts than Democrats wanted, and attracted enough Republicans for them to pass it easily while still claiming deniability. He filled his cabinet faster than any President in recent history. He's dealt with an unprecedented financial catastrophe that no President has faced since FDR. The actions taken by Treasury and the Fed in a mere two and a half-months have stabilized the stock market (the market has risen by 20% since it's bottom in February) and have produced the first positive economic indicators after more than a year of continual and steep economic deterioration.

That's not to say that there aren't some things that Obama could do better. His experience in Congress has obviously taught him that deference and favors are the way that legislation gets passed - and he's put expediency of legislation ahead of political perception - but now that the stimulus is in gear, he does need to be more politically savvy about signaling to the public that he's the one leading Congress, and not the other way around. Letting Congress strip his cap-and-trade and middle-class tax provisions without any push back was a mistake that - even if he is looking for a way out of these promises - signals exactly the wrong message to the public (his press conference gave him ample opportunity to play this differently). He was successful in his initial baiting of recalcitrant Republicans, which help to shore up his early popularity, but now he's let the worries about the deficit get ahead of perceptions of his budget plans, and old suspicions about his far-left economics have resurfaced. And perhaps most damaging, the policy wonks in his cabinet have failed to put forth truly bold agendas - nationalizing banks in order to quickly disassemble them without the need for huge risky bailouts, touting a healthcare plan that cuts back on entitlements at the same time that it attempts to extend care, fighting for a comprehensive energy plan as part of his budget. In other words, while his early popularity was achieved by convincing people he was a left-leaning moderate who would bring establishment players into his team, his problem now seems to be that his team is coming up with policy that is TOO much a part of the left establishment and doesn't break out of mold radically or dramatically enough to deliver the change Obama's supporters are hoping for.

But it hasn't even been 100 days yet, and Obama has had his hands full just keeping the economy from tanking. Perhaps much of the credit for stabilizing the economy needs to go to the idea that Obama has been able to reassure vested interests and economic players that not too much is going to change. In terms of calculating between long-term perception and immediate need, Obama, a smart political player, has clearly identified that first things must be done first, and there will be plenty of time for radical change later.

In other words, I think that all of us who would like to now claim aha! Obama has been rocky, successful, hesitant, or whatever, just need to step back and realize how little time has gone by. Sixty days into Bush's Presidency, we would have thought it would have been completely uneventful. Sixty days into Clinton's, we would have thought it would have been completely incompetent. And if Reagan hadn't been shot, he might have ended up being considered nothing more than a retired actor with a radical idea of redistributing wealth to the wealthy.

Obama perhaps needs to step back and re-tune his message. And he needs to re-look at the effect of his budget on the long-term health of the country, particularly regarding entitlements and energy reform. But in a mere sixty days, in terms of the most pressing issue at hand - the economy - he's already achieved a great deal. If this downturn starts to turn around before 2010, which would be much earlier than anyone could have reasonably expected a few weeks ago, we may be hailing him as a hero.

A Message to Tcotters On Twitter: Get Over It Already

2009-03-18T00:03:00.004-04:00

Not that I don't say that with love. But I really think it's time you guys worked through the five stages of grief you've been going through over the election. You know: Shock, Anger, Blame, and Denial - and finally accept that Barack Obama is our President.

(For those of you not hip to Twitter lingo, tcot is a "hashtag" or group follow symbol, short for Top Conservatives on Twitter - who have recently launched a website called tcotreport. This article, written from the contrarian view, is for them.)

That doesn't mean you have to love our new Pres. God knows, there was no love lost from Democrats for President Bush (or President Reagan, for that matter). But there's going to be no sudden scandal proving that Obama’s not a US citizen (that issue's been, shall we say, Supremely settled), no flare-up of William Ayers being invited over to torch the White House curtains, no central command order for the federal government to go around knocking on doors to confiscate your guns, resulting in a popular revolt and governmental overthrow. No, Obama is here to stay for at least the next three plus some odd years, presiding over a rather middle-of-the-road/left-of-center Administration. Wouldn’t it be better to learn to live – and dare I suggest – work with him?

I know from experience this is hard to do. After President Bush was re-elected in 2004, Democrats went through the same period of disbelief, anger, and depression. Sites and movements popped up everywhere saying "it's not my fault." And Democrats even today are loath to credit President Bush with some of his clear successes - for instance, his fight against AIDS in Africa, and especially having the fortitude to correct early mistakes in Iraq and not give up on the surge, even in the face of the war's supreme unpopularity. You are right to point out that these are clear Bush triumphs and that catcalling from the other side of the aisle has distorted the view of both the successes and mistakes of the past eight years.

Obama is a different sort of President and so his successes, and his mistakes, will be different than were Bush's. But I think, as President, he needs to be given some benefit of the doubt - some ability to set policy and show success before the catcalling about failure begins. Certainly Republicans called for such benefit to be given to President Bush. And surely the argument that conservatives made about how supporting the President during time of war is critical for the sake of America, also applies to supporting the President during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. And yes, of course, the far left slung some nasty invective against the last President. But surely, as principled conservatives, shouldn’t engaging in tit-for-tat (they hate Bush so we hate Obama) be above you? If you can't show that you are made of sterner stuff and can be bigger than the far left, then where are your vaunted principles?

Now, with that, of course I will be accused of wanting to sing "kumbaya" or some sad refrain of "can't we all get along." Listen, I know there are deep philosophical disagreements between left and right on issues of size of government, science versus belief, the role of the courts vis-à-vis civil rights, interpretation of the Constitution. Those disagreements aren't going away. And they shouldn't. But testing those beliefs in the sphere of public opinion is what our Democracy is all about. And I think the Founding Fathers set up a pretty well working, self-correcting system, that lets the country steer more right, left, or center as the shifting winds of history carry us to different crises. Clearly, this is a time that has the country steering back to the left. But as it does so, what I'm saying is, the Democrats still need you. They need you to engage your ideas, not your invective and resentment. For invective and resentment will only hurt the Republican Party - and in the long run, a disabled Republican party will hurt the Democrats, too.

So this is what I mean when I talk of bipartisanship. Not that we give up our principles. Not that every solution necessitate a watering down of ideas to some ineffective compromise. No, what I mean is that we get over it - we get past the name calling and invective, we accept the leadership we have, we recognize that people out of power tend not to remain so forever, and we agree to participate in a dialogue with each other with an American spirit of cooperation. We recognize that our ideas need to not only be put forth but be made convincing to the larger public, that sometimes our principles will lose out, that we can accept that, that we can argue and still retain respect for each other's positions. It's about putting what's best for the country ahead of what's best for our political position and special interests, about knowing that sometimes we may be wrong and our opinions may need to change, while sometimes we should hold out when being right also fits into the reality of the moment, and knowing how to judge the difference between the two. As President Obama himself said on Tuesday, “what we need in Washington are not more political tactics – we need more good ideas. We don't need more point-scoring – we need more problem-solving.” It’s about taking the best ideas wherever they may come from, right or left, to address pressing needs identified by the public in this election: the economy, health care, education, and energy. It's about changing the nature of the conversation, not the nature of our philosophies.

And if President Obama isn’t your spokesman, then listen to President Bush, who said recently, "I’m not going to spend my time criticizing him [Obama.]…. I love my country a lot more than I love politics. I think it is essential that he be helped in office."

Naturally, you may not agree with this approach, and you possibly won't agree that any of these issues are pressing needs at all. Bipartisanship is a matter of perspective. All I can say is that the election and opinion polls support the idea that addressing these issues effectively is top of mind of most Americans. Ignore them at your own peril. And I'm not asking for everyone to become bipartisan, either. We need a right as much as we need a left. All I'm saying is that we need a right that doesn't just talk to itself, but also addresses those in the middle and on the left. Otherwise, you hurt no one’s prospects but your own. And the only place to start a conversation is to first have some respect for the people you're talking to.

My sense is that most of the people on tcot are willing to do that; those of us here at bipartreport.com are willing to do the same. So let's get past the Obama boogie-man refrain, accept that he’s our leader – faults and all – for at least a while longer, dealing with the issues identified in this election. And let’s start moving the conversation forward.

Bristol Palin Drops the Other Baby Shoe

2009-03-12T00:14:00.003-04:00

Apparently the Bristol Palin / Levi Johnston shotgun wedding is now off.

Did anyone seriously expect them to go through with this once the campaign had called off their spin enforcement operators? Apparently Bristol "hates" Levi now and doesn't let him see the baby.

I guess Mrs. Palin didn't have enough clout, muscle, or whatever it was the RNC had on him to keep Levi interested until 2012.

Not that the lives of little Palins and their boyfriends really should be anyone's concern anymore. It's just nice to see them not having to concoct a life together just so they could be used as political pawns. I guess if anyone's glad Obama won it must be Bristol and Levi; maybe now they'll actually have a chance to live their lives.

How to Have Conversations Correctly on Twitter

2009-03-04T08:44:00.006-05:00

Or actually, this post is a response to Robert Scoble's (http://twitter.com/scobleizer) list of five reasons Twitter *isn't* for conversation - when I really do think conversations of a key aspect of what makes Twitter social. However, I agree that people abuse conversation on Twitter, but that's just because they don't know how to do it well.

The way to have a conversation is to make sure that every reply you post is recontextualized. Put in the proper subject nouns, avoid pronouns, and make sure that you re-reference the topic of conversation with each post. That way, others who see your post aren't lost and can jump in and take the conversation in new productive directions.

Now, specifically to respond to Scoble's complaints:

1. If you get into something with one other person all your other followers will start complaining.

Not if you apply the rule above. Your replies will seem like brilliant original thoughts. They'll have a way to jump in instead of being mystified.

2. You can't "thread" and "capture" a conversation.

No, you can't, at least not in Twitter itself. But why do you want to capture a conversation on Twitter anyway? Twitter is ephemeral, and I already have too many stored bits of data in email and elsewhere. I actually like that the conversations go away after a time, making new mental space for more thoughts.

3. Most people on Twitter that are joining lately are not people who participate.

Well, I haven't found that to be true. And even if it were, why should that negate the potential of having your own conversations? Maybe people aren't participating with Scoble because Scoble isn't replying?

4.Twitter's expected usage is "what are you doing?" Not "what would you like to chat with your friends?"

Even Evan Williams (twitter.com/ev), CEO of Twitter, says that the "what are you doing" headline is no longer appropriate for the posts on Twitter. In fact, I find the "what are you doing" posts the most boring: chats and resources the most interesting.

5. You can't bundle up a conversation and save it for later.

Maybe true. And I agree that Friendfeed and blogs offer a great way to archive conversations. If you want to do that. But Twitter is about the Twitterstream, dipping in and dipping out. It's valuable precisely because, like IM, it ISN'T archived. And as far as being able to archive some conversational threads, or follow those threads, this may be an enhancement of Twitter that will surely eventually come. It doesn't mean we should stop having conversations now.

A Modest Twitter Proposal: A #bipart Hashtag

2009-02-13T00:32:00.014-05:00

In case you don't yet know about hashtags (or about Twitter, which is another matter all together), these are the cues that people posting on Twitter add to their post, searchable words preceded by the # symbol. These #words help provide a kind of subject matter organization to the rough and tumble conversation on Twitter, as they create a lexicon of popular subjects that people regularly search for.

As Twitter has grown, it's also become a platform adopted by both liberals and conservatives, and just as in the offline world, these two groups have brought their vastly different cultures and concerns to the Twitter environment. As a way of seeking out each other, both have evolved their own hashtags: #tcot (for "Top Conservatives on Twitter) for the gun-totting, god-fearing right-leaning camp, and #topprog (for "Top Progressives") for the Obama loving crowd.

Now, add into the mix the latest Tweetdeck update (Tweetdeck is one of the many tools that help you organize your responses - or tweets - on Twitter), which automatically copies any hashtags in a post anytime you reply, and one can easily find oneself astray in the "enemy" camp. Post a complement about Obama with a #tcot hashtag or a gay put-down to #topprog and you could soon find yourself flooded with angry replies and in a world of hurt.

Yet one of the promises of a social network like Twitter is the opportunity to allow an exchange of thoughts and ideas between people of all views. And just because someone posts 140 characters supporting Israel doesn't mean they are a tcot (or just because they voted for Obama they may not be a topprog). Politics is sometimes more complex than 140 characters makes it seem. Yet hashtags like #tcot and #topprog seem to be reinforcing a kind of strict orthodoxy of thought on both sides, with no room for discussion let along subtly of view.

Don't get me wrong. I think the #tcot and #topprog hashtags have been a great service. They've helped to organize communities amongst the chaos of Twitter. They've helped people find followers they can commiserate with. And they are useful for speading the word, sharing information, and rallying the troops. There are just times, however, when you want a broader philosophical discussion. And as I've found out, posting to both #tcot and #topprog at the same time is NOT the way to make new friends.

Therefore, a fellow Twitterer - http://twitter.com/txvoodoo - and I have come up with a proposal to create a new hashtag: #bipart. To be used by #tcots, #topprogs, and completely unpolitical people of all kinds who want to discuss political issues not with true believers only, and not with the intention of offending others, but with idea of challenging people of all opinions to participate in the exchange of ideas and challenges to orthodoxies or party platforms.

For if we are only going to use Twitter to force each other into politically correct corners, what good is it? I want a Twitter culture that is curious about debate, able to take criticism, and not going to run away at the first voice of a dissenting opinion.

I know, I know - as Obama has found, bi-partisanship is easier said than done. And each of us ultimately has their own point of view, and we aren't giving that up easily. Still - if you have the stomach and the nerve, I challenge you to use the #bipart tag, and speak to people on the other "side."

(Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/martinschecter)

Prop 8 Challenge Hits California Supreme Court

2009-02-04T07:27:00.002-05:00

The court will begin hearing the challenge on March 5.

As I've said before, I think the challenge against 8 has a good case.

Why Obama's Inaugural Addess Was Better Than the Pundits Credit

2009-01-20T20:14:00.011-05:00

I've heard many pundits calling Obama's speech today lackluster. But many writers are praising it, and here's why.

I'm learning that Obama is smarter at speech making than most pundits give him credit for. He doesn't always have to deliver a "knock out" speech with easy soundbites. Instead, he carefully determines the occasion and delivers the type of speech needed for the political moment. When he's in trouble over race, he delivers an inspiring call to move beyond race. When he's accepting the nomination for a tough partisan fight with a divided party, he gives a workmanlike speech that's designed to carefully move voters having trouble warming up to him.

Obama doesn't redeliver his last speech, or the speech you might expect. Instead, he thinks two moves down the road and delivers the speech that's necessary.

In that regard, today's speech - as a launch to four tough years of ambitious policy - may have seemed a bit more proletarian than one might expect, but its overall effect was excellent. He crafted together a call back to history to invoke the spirit of America to begin to elicit broad support for a difficult and all-encompassing agenda, and at the same time, laid the groundwork for the specific policy areas he will be striving to change. Of all the Presidential examples, his speech was closest to Kennedy's - asking us to turn a page and to contribute new efforts towards citizenship.

Being in the thick of history, I think it's hard to see immediately what lines will be remembered by future generations. But let me hazard a guess about some of the more overlooked lines that may gain resonance over Obama's administration.

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works" - of all the things that embody the promise of Obama, it's the idea of moving past the entrenched political ideologies of the past forty years. This sentence simply summarizes both a new governing philosophy as well as the idea of a new generation's approach.

"To all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more." Obama embodies not only the hope of Americans, but the hope of the world. As a President that has the potential to restore the world's romance with America, this sentence may be long remembered as one of Obama's enduring legacies. "America is a friend" is not a phrase that has been heard much lately, but may well be a staple of the next four years.

"In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come." Yes, this is the peroration, the summation of Obama's speech. But throughout, he touches on the theme of hope and virtue: hope that we can overcome our current problems; virtue that is the source of our better angels and the promise of America. These words sum up aptly what Obama calls for in our cultural zeitgeist as we enter this new era.

Yes, it is hard to pick out the sentences that will stand the test of time. But read the whole speech: it is remarkable for how it sets out a mood and a moment, how it weaves its themes of importance and humility while addressing the pressing issues of the day. As a speech that places the everyday concerns our immediate time into the resonance of history, it would be hard to do much better.

Bush versus Obama Approvals: A study in Contrasts

2009-01-17T10:10:00.006-05:00

Bush leaves office with a 22% approval rating, the lowest rating on record.

Meanwhile, Obama's transition gets an 83% approval rating and a near mirror-image of Bush's approval.

You know, one of the reasons why I didn't watch the Bush farewell address is because I just couldn't take the arrogance anymore...it's like listening to a nasty ex that you long ago divorced and no longer have to put up with trying to justify his drunken behavior to you yet again.

Or here's what it is. It's one thing to be robbed blind at gunpoint by a thief and a liar. It's another to have to listen to a lecture on your moral character about why you should be more cautious with your money while the thief is holding you up. Just rob us and go away, already.

Sigh. Just three more days. I can feel the weight lifting already. If you want to read my swan song for Bush, here it is.

Did Obama Once Support Gay Marriage?

2009-01-13T22:07:00.003-05:00

A new memo surfaces that Obama supported gay marriage in Illinois as a state senator and has since backtracked on that position.

Conservatives see this as a liberal hiding his stripes for national stage.

Gays see this as yet one more way Obama is throwing them under the bus.

Liberals see this as a big yawn since anything Obama said twelve years ago in Illinois would have little relevance to what he does now as President.

As with most of this stuff, what you think it says about Obama probably says more about who you you are than who he is....

Palin Slams Bloggers Once Again

2009-01-13T21:59:00.001-05:00

Palin goes after "bored, anonymous bloggers who lie." Since she was referring to the "who's Trig's mom" question, could she possibly mean this guy?

But Andrew isn't anonymous. So maybe she means this?

Does Your Dog Twitter?

2009-01-10T21:43:00.005-05:00

Twitter is starting to explode with growth. Maybe one reason is because everyone and their dogs are getting online.

That's literally. After going to a Twitter presentation where someone presented a gadget that lets your plants Twitter (the plant will twitter you a message when it's getting dry, or if you over water it. You can customize the little green missives so you plant might say, "I'm thirsty" or "Get me some water pronto, Jack," or whatever personality you give it), it occured to me that there's no limit to the number of personalities you might create to Twitter for you.

And after viewing characters like God, Athena, The Joker, and the cast of MadMen twittering online, as well as Sockington the cat, who has over 4700 followers, I figured, why not my dog?

So I got her her own Twitter page. Of course, I'm not the first to think of this, as I immediately found dozens of dogs Twittering on the web. So I had my dog friend some of them.

What does this mean when your pets start Twittering and making friends online? I don't really know. Maybe it means we're all slowly going slightly insane. Who knows.

Responding to the Press Yentas

2009-01-08T08:44:00.009-05:00

The war in Gaza has gone on now to the point where the press Yentas are starting to do their usual worried shtick about disproportionate response and missed opportunities. Here are few pointers in response:

1. It seems to me that a country that has killed 655,000 citizens of another country that didn't even attack it shouldn't be complaining about the "disproportionate response" of Israel.

2. It seems to me that it's obvious that if you stick a pin in someone's arm often enough, eventually that person is going to swat you. Anyone who thinks Hamas didn't WANT Israel to respond this way is deluding themselves.

3. It seems to me obvious that there is little Israel can do with this invasion other than to a) show its population it's doing something and b) try to subdue rocket fire for a while. Anyone who ascribes loftier or more zealous goals to this is overreaching out of some sense that there MUST be a more long-term solution, when there really isn't.

4. Anyone who expected Israel to stop with aerial bombardment only has to wonder what the point of a response is if you are only going to try to blow up things and not at least try to stop the flow of rockets (and how else would that be done, given that the current status hasn't worked)?

5. It seems to me that comparisons between Gaza and the Holocaust come out of either a gross misunderstanding of history or a true feeling of anti-semitism. Such comparisons would be equivalent to saying that Kuwait defending itself from Iraqi attack was a holocaust or England's presence in Ireland was a holocaust and on and on in every situation. So why do we have to rely on only conservative networks like Fox to address this obvious canard?

6. When Hamas refers to "occupation" they mean not Gaza or the West Bank, but all of Israel. Asking Israel to negotiate with this position is like asking someone to negotiate about how you should kill yourself. So let's recognize how words are being thrown out here precisely to distort what's at stake. So far, Hamas has signaled no intention of backing away from that position, as any "truce" they put forward is only meant to be temporary.

7. If people are so concerned about peace they should be working to convince Hamas to accept the terms for international monitoring of peace that Israel already has on the table. Such terms have worked in Lebanon. Israel and Hamas have already agreed to a daily three-hour cease fire to allow a flow of supplies. But understand that the real reason Hamas won't accept a long-term monitored ceasefire has to do with their internal struggle with Fatah, not with Israel. Such a ceasefire would lessen the need for their existance and threaten to unify Palestinians under a single Palestinian Authority that could actually negotiate a long-term peace with Israel. That's the LAST thing Hamas wants. So to stop fighting on Hamas' terms of no recognition and no long-term truce is to give them a victory - as well as to destroy any hope for Palestinian statehood - for all Hamas needs for a victory is to have the world opinion side to allow Israel to withdrawal so it can continue uncriticized its bombardment of Israeli towns by rockets, which will continue to forestall peace and Palestinian unity. So where are the monitors who would make peace possible? So far, the world has seemed more eager to wag their tongues than to do anything would actually force back Hamas's positions and allow for a real peace to start to emerge.

8. In this war, the press is Hamas's greatest ally. Israel may have made a strategic mistake not inviting reporters into Gaza. But still, the press needs to examine how they're being played by terrorists as part of their gambit to create sympathy. It's a shame that rather than either only uncritically defending Israel (Fox) or hand-wringing about the casualties of war (everyone else), the press doesn't do more to examine the real strategic motives of what's going on. That seems to me to be part of the intractable problem in this situation.

Should the Government Bail out The Porn Industry?

2009-01-08T08:28:00.004-05:00

Yes, for a second there I thought it was April 1. I opened the blinds and looked out the window. But no: it's still January. So perhaps this is a serious report that the porn industry is asking Washington for a bailout.

I guess when Congress predicted that soon everyone would be coming to them with their hands out, they weren't kidding. Our could this be one of the touted benefits of the recession: people stop paying to watch porn and have free sex with their partners again?

Bill Richardson Booted

2009-01-04T13:49:00.002-05:00

One of the hazards of Obama's quick cabinet selection process must be that his involved vetting process is only now catching up to some of the appointments: such as with this just announced "pending investigation" forcing Bill Richardson to drop out.

Given the Blagojevich distraction-fest, Obama doesn't need any of this sort of thing occupying his cabinet when he takes office.

Now, if only tainted Bush administration officials had gotten the axe this fast....

Twitter Erupts in Gaza Propaganda War

2009-01-04T01:30:00.003-05:00

You can watch it all in real time here.

Ann Coulter Enters the Bend a Metaphor Department

2009-01-04T01:06:00.003-05:00

To strain a phrase, Ann Coulter criticizing Michele Obama's wardrobe choices is a little more than the pot calling the kettle black.

Let's just say that Michele Obama's wardrobe hasn't be purchased with funds from the DNC.

What is Israel's Way Forward Now?

2009-01-03T08:47:00.003-05:00

I agree that the Gaza operation needs to continue, but I disagree with this post about the West Bank.

Yes, now is not the time to "ceede" the West Bank, but some gesture needs to be made to Fatah for being on the "right side" of the conflict in Gaza. There needs to be easing of life, another degree of autonomy. The wedge this drives into the Palestinian populace in important.

Israel will never know peace until a) there is a unified Palestinian government and b) it accepts the co-existence of Israel. Those objectives can't be achieved without a Palestinian partner.

What the war in Gaza shows is that Palestinian moderates CAN potentially be a partner for Israel. Now is the time to strike deals with them: Help Israel destroy Hamas; earn power, and territory. Show the Palestinian people that Hamas is not the way. But even if they don't agree, even if it is "anti-democratic," Israel and Fatah must impose their will in Gaza. It is Israel's right, and Fatah's reward.

There must be a carrot that goes along with this stick.

Why Gaza Demonstrates the Failure of Bush's Policy in The Middle East

2009-01-01T12:35:00.010-05:00

Ephraim Sneh outlines Israel's real objective in Gaza - removal of Hamas from power, as well as the reason why the status quo could not be tolerated any longer.

Such an objective illustrates the total failure of the Bush Administration's approach to the Middle East: relying on simplistic rhetoric of bringing "democracy" while pursuing a drastically misguided self-interested course in oil politics.

Gaza illustrates the problem perfectly: it's a democratically elected government that is committed to terrorism and the destruction of it's intractably entangled Democratic neighbor. Bringing "democracy" to Gaza has brought nothing but disaster to the Palestinians and terror to Israelis.

The Bush Administration's rhetoric made the U.S. impotent to face such a development, or to move negotiations forward. No peace was achievable as long as Hamas remained in power. Yet Bush's team was powerless to do anything about it, since by championing "Democracy" at the expense of all other results, the U.S. had no position it could take other than to attempt to ignore Gaza as long as possible. But ignoring a ticking time bomb doesn't stop it from eventually going off; in the intervening years, Palestinian society has disintegrated into warring factions, Israel and Fatah have forged relationships in the West Bank, and Gaza has essentially become a prison. Such is what became of the Palestinian aspirations for territorial integrity and self rule.

Paradoxically, Israel's incursion into Gaza is precisely what gives the incoming Obama administration a chance to restart the peace process. The action is timed perfectly with the waning days of Bush so that most military objectives can be completed by the day Obama takes office, and the current lame duck President has little political capital to use to intervene or object.

Both Obama and Bush seem to have at least tacitly - if not willingly behind the scenes - endorsed the interregnum timing, which has a natural expiration date of January 20th, when a new administration is sworn in and will have to be seen to be "doing something."

But by that time, Hamas's leadership will be disorganized, the tunnels and rockets destroyed, and the population disillusioned in their elected leaders. It's only at that point that a new Palestinian leadership can emerge - one that can reasonably negotiate both with Fatah in the West Bank and Israel.

In way, then, Israel has given the incoming Obama administration (as well as Abbas and Fatah in the West Bank) a great gift: a real chance to go beyond the logic of the last eight years and restart the peace process under realistic terms with a more moderate and unified Palistinian government. That is, unless the U.S. and the world pressure Israel to stop it's actions early. But such a stop to the incursion will neither achieve prosperity for the Palestinians or security for Israel. Only the elimination of Hamas from power will do that.

In this case, the Democratic will of the people produced an outcome that was certain to destabilize the entire region. In such a case, the only thing that can result - either sooner, or later - is war. That it has should be no surprise. The result of war is terrible, of course, and there is terrible loss on both sides. Those who regret this should ask themselves, on all sides, whether or not their ideology has stood in the way of finding a way for these two societies to live peacefully next to each other.

And those who hope for peace in the region should join Palestinians in the West Bank in helping Israel to achieve it's immediate objectives as quickly as possible. For until a government exists in Gaza that can accept an Israeli state, no peace is possible.

Presidential Pets

2009-01-01T12:23:00.003-05:00

The Obamas' future puppy isn't the only famous Presidential pet. Warren Harding's Laddie Boy was famous in numerous songs and Zachary Taylor's horse Whitey was an equal celebrity. And let's not forget Nixon's Checkers, who was used to such adroit political effect.

So I think it's fair for the press to be anxiously awaiting the announcement: Some big job awaits the next Presidential pooch.

Magic Money?

2009-01-01T09:04:00.002-05:00

I appreciate that the government needs to spend "close to one trillion dollars" to get the economy moving again, and give aid to states to spend on Medicaid etc etc.

But it seems we've reached a threshold now, and as the population starts hitting retirement just as we are spending like there's no tomorrow, it's like we don't care anymore that this money doesn't have any place to come from. Just spend it!

I mean, how long can we just print money out of nowhere before something REALLY bad happens? I get the feeling that even if the recession ends, there's another shoe that's got to drop here.

Blagojevich Exploits the Audacity of "Nope"

2008-12-31T15:54:00.002-05:00

It's actually kind of hilarious that Blagojevich just goes right on and appoints Roland Burris as the new Illinois Senator and no one seems to be able to do anything to stop him.

My question is, will any reporter have the audacity to ask Burris how much he paid for it?

In the "Enemy of my Enemy is My Friend" Department

2008-12-30T13:20:00.002-05:00

According to Jeffrey Goldberg, Fatah is rooting for Israel to take out Hamas, and is even helping them with intelligence.

If that doesn't illuminate the problem Israel has in finding a singular Palestinian government to negotiate with, I don't know what does.

The Latest Little Palin

2008-12-29T21:19:00.001-05:00

Looks like Bristol finally had her baby.

If you recall, McCain was planning a big Levi Johnston-Bristol Palin wedding to distract the voting populous. Now it seems they're planning a "summer wedding." Though my vote is still on Levi Johnson to sign some kind of PR agent and get out of town before the bill comes due.

Frank Rich Fisks the Obama/Warren Controversy

2008-12-28T08:49:00.003-05:00

And gets it right, I believe.

Quoting Barney Frank: "I think he [Obama] overestimates his ability to get people to put aside fundamental differences." That’s a polite way of describing the Obama cockiness, says Rich.

As I've been saying, the key disillusionment with Obama's tone-deaf choice of Warren is that it calls into question how Obama will triangulate not only domestic disputes, but international ones as well. Does Obama seriously believe he can just will away long-standing, historical resentments without actually doing the hard work of creating any change of heart? That's not change: it's the same old, same old, only wrapped up prettier, and more all the more cynically for being described as change. My worry, too, is that when Obama starts doing this with other issues, we're going to see public disillusionment on a massive scale. Unless he's able to learn something from this. He's a quick learner. We shall see.

My only disagreement with Rich is his criticism of Clinton. At least when Clinton threw us under the bus, he stopped to explain why. That at least gave us the opportunity to discuss it with him. Obama's approach seems to be to throw one side under the bus and smile and deny it, which is much more infuriating.

Of course, as many have argued, symbols aren't policy. But they are still symbols, and carry weight. We're all waiting with baited breath for what's going to happen with policy. If we're to believe what Biden has told us, we're going to have to wait at least another year or more.

Is the Rick Warren Protest Working?

2008-12-27T09:52:00.002-05:00

Nate Silver at Fivethirtyeight.com points out that Obama has now posted some explicit gay rights issue endorsements on the change.gov website.

Of course, just because it's endorsed doesn't mean it'll be delivered. But at least, according to Nate, it's a step further than the public statements on the Obama campaign site. Seems the pressure to respond may have actually generated some public positioning.

It's a start.

Rick Warren's Christmas Revelation: He Loves Himself Some Gays After All

2008-12-23T22:34:00.003-05:00

Yes, it's true: Rick Warren has been spotted in West Hollywood with his arm around an actual gay man. Apparently trying to rehabilitate his reputation before the inauguration.

Let's hope pastor Rick isn't following the Ted Haggard school of theology.

Top 10 Conspiracies of 2008: Do Lizard People Run the Plunge Protection Team?

2008-12-22T21:27:00.028-05:00

It's that time of year - time for the top ten conspiracies of 2008.

For those of you new to CommonMistakes, here are the rules of this annual review of the most delicious conspiracies of the year:

Conspiracies must be primarily associated with news events of 2008, not the kinds of things we hear year after year (i.e., aliens in area 51).

They shouldn't be ACTUAL events (a "conspiracy" to elect Obama) but should be the kind of wild-eyed accusation that has some small air of credibility, and some very large entertainment value.

Rankings are determined by a combination of newsworthiness, salaciousness, and popularity.

And this year, no doubt, the recent election is top of mind, particularly the paranoid mind.

Here then, without further ado, are this year's top ten.

10. There were many weird and wild accusation about Obama this year as part of the attempt to Swift-Boat him with the public before the election. But perhaps the most bizarre was the accusation that a thirteen-year-old Obama had had a gay affair with a pedophile uncle. Weirdest thing about the story - the attempt to insinuate that it was Obama who was the smarmy one for the "affair."

9. Of course, let's not forget the drama of the primaries, and those who thought Obama's ascendancy to be a conspiracy by Democratic party...or the media...to drive out Hillary from her rightful place of honor. I know - some of you may still be arguing this one to be true.

8. More recently, we have the death of Bush IT guru Mike Connell. Here's a story just breaking: while Bush claims that critical emails are missing, the head of his IT consulting company - the person who actually may know what happened to them - dies in a plane crash. Shall we call this Three Days of the Cheney?

7. And by the way, why is the government refusing to release details of the TARP 700 billion dollar bailout program? Some conspiracy theorists have the answer: it's called The Plunge Protection Team, a shadowy group of government agencies and actors. Instead of shoring up banks, this theory holds that the government is really only using the money to buy up stocks - acting as a kind of massive bull on the market artificially keeping it from collapsing completely. The theory has the benefit of being deeply scary as well as plausible.

6. When it comes to shadowy government actors, however, it's hard to beat the drama created by the idea that the seizure of Fannie and Freddie was part of the Global "Fed" Conspiracy (backed by Illuminati, Trilateral Commission, etc.) to control the world.

5. And speaking of the economy, perhaps the most talked about conspiracy of the year is what's "really" behind the Market Crash. According to Rush Limbaugh, it was secretly engineered by liberals to elect Obama. According to others, it was engineered by Jews to make money. And then there's my personal favorite: that it was caused by Legatus, a shadowy Christian religious sect, as part of it's long-term plot to control the world.

4. However, if you follow the tech world, then maybe the biggest conspiracy of the year is what's become known as the Digg "Bury Brigade," or the attempt of this well-known bookmarking site that helps people "discover and share content" to deliberately bury stories it disagrees with politically.

3. But now that we get to the top three, we get to some really influential conspiracies. For instance, the conspiracy that Obama isn't a US Citizen made it all the way to the Supreme Court!

2. Then again, some people have this idea that some people can turn into Lizard people. That seemed a pretty obscure idea until just recently, when we found out that a Lizard person was on the ballot in Minnesota along with Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Next thing you know, they'll be protesting Obama's plans to serve frog legs at the inaugural.

1. But most definitely, the number one conspiracy of 2008 has to be: Sarah Palin's Down Syndrome baby Trig was really the baby of Palin's daughter Bristol. This conspiracy just wouldn't go away, no matter how many press conferences Palin refused to give.

So there you have it. The top conspiracies for 2008. And as we head into a new year of hope and change, let's hope that most of them don't turn out to be true, and that our paranoid worries get a chance to change.

The Other Rick Warren Problem

2008-12-22T17:24:00.003-05:00

Many pixels have been typed about Rick Warren's homophobic comments, but few have discussed the other reason Warren seems a very inappropriate choice for the Obama inaugural.

As I was walking down the street this afternoon I saw volumes of Warren's latest Christmas book all set out and packaged for the holiday shoppers. It's wrapped in a bright red wrapper like some kind of perfume or Christmas video game.

So what about Warren's crass commercialization of religion, of turning Christianity into some kind of Dr. Phil therapy book? It seems to me that this is an equally compelling reason to think that Obama's choice here is a bit inappropriate. Sure, Obama appreciates marketing stars...but is that sort of approach appropriate from a religious leader? Is this the "change" we're looking for?

Just asking.

(image from New York Times)

Ostertag Goes Off

2008-12-22T09:30:00.004-05:00

Bob Ostertag in Huffington post goes off with an anit-marriage rant.

I was waiting for something like this: it's a blast from the sexual past, a luxurious rant against marriage and commitment in favor of sexual freedom etc.

Problem is, Ostertag is out of step with the times.

Message to Ostertag: not everyone in the gay community wants to experiment with leftist dreams of anti-family sexual freedom forever. Some people have grown up. And they want to be treated like adults. Or as Woody Allen might say: they want the right to get married and be as miserable as everyone else.

Obama: Time's Person of the Year

2008-12-21T19:51:00.004-05:00

Sometimes the obvious choice is the right choice.

Obama not only won the election, he created a new political movement based on a grassroots campaign that was able to defeat two of the most established names in politics.

He was able to overcome racial prejudice, religious stereotype and a consistently liberal voting record to win the Presidency with the first a decisive mandate in a generation.

He ushers in a new generation in political office, a generation that brings with it the technology, the world-view, and the experiences that make the old discussions seem even more stale, and the new discussions seem even more urgent.

And perhaps most importantly, his election has drastically changed the world's view of America, and even our view of ourselves.

No other person has been so influential on world events - not only this year, but in many years. This choice was a no-brainer.

Andrew Sullivan: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

2008-12-21T15:22:00.010-05:00

I respect Sullivan and agree with him on many things, but on today's post about Warren and gay rights, Andrew is simply, as John McLaughlin might say, "wrong, wrong, wrong."

Andrew: "And so the notion of the president stigmatizing someone because of his religious views, and the gay movement pressuring to ban such a person from a civic ceremony, strikes me as coming from precisely the wrong place."

Wrong: we aren't trying to "stigmatize" Warren for his views or even "ban" him from the ceremony. Au contraire: most of us would be more than happy to have him at the ceremony. It's that he's GIVING THE CONVOCATION. What is the convocation? It is the role where the *religious leader* of our country invokes the good will of the almighty upon the administration. It is just very hard to imagine that any distancing Obama does from Warren's view could possibly compensate for the validity that putting him in this role gives to them. Could there not be some other role that would be a "reach out" to Warren? There very well could be a hundred other ways to reach out. Why this, which is so insulting?

Andrew: "With Obama's election, power has shifted. Gay people helped win this election. We will be part of this administration in ways that we would never be under a McCain or a Bush."

WRONG: Gay people are so far not much included in Obama's administration. Not that there's a problem, but really, what power is Andrew talking about? Biden is telling people already that gay issues will take a back seat to the economy, we should expect anything in the first year, etc. How is this any different from eight years of the Clinton administration, or what we would have expected under Hillary? At least Hillary told us up front exactly how she would triangulate the issues, and we believed her explanations. Obama, on the other hand, was much more cagey, getting us to think he understood not only the substance but the symbology of the problem, and I believe that Andrew has fallen hard for the sales pitch. It's possible Obama may yet represent something different. But not so far, and that's precisely why the Warren affair is so upsetting.

Prop 8: If we take this issue fairly to the ballot box next time instead of using power to enforce a premature settlement, our victory will have a durability and a legitimacy that will count for generations. So thanks, Jerry Brown, but no thanks. We already have marriage in two states.

WRONG: There is never any guarantee at the ballot box. Prop 8 was losing by big margins till the Mormon money and distortion ad campaign swung opinion. And if these rights can be given at the ballot box, they can be later taken away. Andrew seems to think the courts are somehow inimical to the democratic process, but the courts are an ESSENTIAL COMPONENT to the democratic process. The courts are there precisely to protect the minority against tyranny from the majority. This battle NEEDS to be won in the courts before the long struggle of swaying public opinion can take effect (in fact we wouldn't be here if we hadn't won a battle in the Hawaii courts fifteen years ago to begin with). And besides, having marriage in Massachusetts does little good to gay families in California. There are very real lives at stake here, and asking them to wait ten, four, or even two more years for their inalienable rights causes REAL HARM to REAL FAMILIES. If Andrew wants to make tactical decisions about political fights, fine - but meanwhile, California couples need court relief now. This kind of insensitivity not only to real families but to the role that the courts play in our society, coming from Andrew, specifically drives me bonkers.

What I have appreciated in the past about both Andrew and Obama have been a kind of intellectual honesty and moral courage. But to attempt to justify the Warren pick as anything other than a political calculation at the expense of gay people is just so intellectually dishonest that I really can't keep my respect for people trying to put this stuff out there.

The more that people like Andrew and the Obama try to justify this this way, the more and more suspicious and disillusioned with them I become. And the more I appreciate Hillary Clinton's approach, and wisdom. It really is one thing to be triangulated against and told, "yes, I realize I'm triangulating, but I think this is all that I can accomplish right now, and I believe it will be the best way to take one step forward without having to later take two steps back." That's Clinton's approach to these issues, and I really do appreciate being treated like an adult and told exactly what a politician expects to be able to accomplish.

But it's quite another to go on and on about what a great friend you are and all the great things you'll be doing in some mythical future while at the same time undermining right now what we're trying to achieve. It's really really hard to keep having faith in that kind of pandering when you have nothing to base that faith on, and years and years of history that proves the opposite. It's like Obama just expects everyone to believe in him like Santa Clause. And Andrew is his greatest apostle. Just be good, and you'll get your presents. But he's not Santa Clause, he's a politician. It'd be nice if he would treat us as adults.

In Every Administration's Last Days: A Silver Lining

2008-12-21T12:12:00.002-05:00

It seems that in the last few months of every administration, when they know they are going soon, when all campaign promises and obligations have been either fulfilled or thwarted, when there's no more use for spin or even party ideology, when there's nothing left but to think about their legacy and how they will be remembered, one actual altruistic policy is attempted.

With Clinton, it was a real effort to broker an Israeli / Palestinian peace agreement.

With Bush, it may just be his lifeline to save the American auto industry.

Nice gesture. Too bad, however, it doesn't make up for this.

Mysterious Plane Crash of Bush Technology Consultant

2008-12-21T12:09:00.002-05:00

Ok, all you conspiracy theorists, here's something to mull over.

Seems innocent enough, until you combine it with this.

Sounds like the premise for a good thriller.....

Rich Warren Satire Flies Over Heads

2008-12-19T23:50:00.002-05:00

Huffington Post gives brilliant satire of Rick Warren convocation...though from responses it seems like many won't even get that this is satire.

So how can we "dialogue" when so many of us don't even understand what we're saying to each other?

Just askin'

Rick Warren Blowback

2008-12-19T22:36:00.004-05:00

Could the ultimate blowback from the Rick Warren inaugural pick be that the California Supreme Court overturns Prop 8?

If so, it would be pretty delicious.

THEN what would Obama say.....

Caroline Kennedy versus Sarah Palin

2008-12-19T19:57:00.002-05:00

I realize that people are going to be endlessly comparing everyone to Sarah Palin, but in this matchup between Kennedy and Palin, people who are saying Palin is "more experienced" conveniently forget that Palin was running for Vice President of America - to essentially stand in at a moment's notice as President and represent all of America - not for a Senate seat from a notoriously liberal state.

I'd certainly have been aghast had Obama picked Caroline Kennedy as his running mate.

But that's not the situation here. So I fail to see why there's even a comparison being made at all.

Why Obama's Rick Warren Pick Is Such a Shock

2008-12-19T00:29:00.017-05:00

I understand what Obama's doing in picking Warren for his inaugural - part of his "building dialogue," and Obama made no bones about his interest in Christianist outreach.

And I've been thrilled with Obama's centrist administration so far.

Still, I think he's starting to overdo it on the outreach. Couldn't he have given the liberals at least one cabinet member? Salazar, for instance, seemed like a bit of a slap in the face to environmentalists. Why go there, when he's already built a solid centrist cabinet on the economy and defense?

Now, we have Warren, a solid supporter of Prop 8.

What's upsetting is that Christianists have just had eight years of outreach from Bush. And gays and lesbians have had eight years of being pushed to the back of the bus. Given that when we're not at the back of the bus, it's because we're being thrown under it, this initial gesture from Obama I think stretches the faith in him past most people's tolerance.

It's not just that Warren getting the plumb spot is insulting (and, if truth be known, also turns me off to the idea of even wanting to watch the inaugural now). It's that there were many other ways Obama could have considered outreach to the homophobic far right for his inaugural. And where's his outreach to us (and no, the gay marching band bringing up the back of the bus doesn't count)? Where is that great inclusion of the gay and lesbian American into Obama's rainbow? Does Obama not get it? Does he not see this as the equivalent of Lyndon Johnson inviting George Wallace to give a major speech at his inauguration, while the black marching core gets to do a baton number at the back of the parade? Is he that politically tone deaf? Or still that naive? Is this is "gays in the military" moment, where he makes his first momentus symbolic blunder?

Or is Obama really all just rhetoric, as his fiercest critics claim? I never would have believed it...but now....maybe Obama's critics have a point.

Color me disillusioned. It's a dangerous thing, having your Obama-faith dashed like this. Now, you might believe anything about him, even the worst. At the very least, after this, expectations of getting any kind of joy from the Obama administration just got dashed. After the passage of Prop 8 - and after all the hope we put into him - that's particularly depressing.

No doubt, Obama could still end up surprising us. But with this sort of shocking initial foot forward, I'm kind of wondering...we could have gotten this exact same economic and security team from Hillary. And Hillary may have triangulated the gay issues...but at least you knew where she was going to stand...and you knew that whether it came to mullahs at home or mullahs abroad, she wasn't going to blithely reward intolerance.

So why was it again that I didn't vote for her?

Until now, I'd been having high hopes for the "era of hope." Now, I'm surprised that I'm already starting to wonder about my vote... and what else Obama's slick sales pitch might have sold me on...and he hasn't even taken office yet.

Scales, dropped. It's like that commercial. I want to slap my head and say, "damn, I could have had Hillary."

Fed Fund Rate at Zeo: Now Enter Stage Left, The Democrats

2008-12-16T16:51:00.005-05:00

Our patient, the economy, is lying flat on the table, and the Fed just gave it the last shock to the system that it had in its battery.

So now that the Fed Funds rate is officially 0, there's nothing left for the Fed to do to fight this deflationary spiral. Enter stage left: the Democrats.

Now it will be up to Obama to spend our way out of the Depression/Recession. Fortunately, with debt interest so low, we can spend to our heart's content, and this is a task that Democrats are well suited for.

Only two questions remain.

1.) Was today's jolt enough to keep our economy alive until January 20th?

2). And once the economy does recover, what are we going to do when we find out that every man, woman, and child in America is in debt to the government to the tune of $350,000?

Who's going to bail out the U.S. Government?

I suppose this would be a good time for the space aliens hoarding intergalactic technology to make themselves known to us. We might just be ready to ask them for a loan.

Joe the Cobbler

2008-12-15T13:01:00.002-05:00

One of the most interesting things about the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at Bush over the weekend is that he's become a kind of overnight media celebrity on Arab television.

Apparently, a Palestinian shoe company is even turning it into a new marketing campaign, offering the guy "shoes for life."

Just wondering when he's going to get his press agent and book deal.

Bush Dodges Shoes, Hit By The Obvious

2008-12-14T21:50:00.004-05:00

Imagine if Krushchev had thrown his shoes, instead of banging them. The result might have been a little like this.

The best part is that afterwards, Bush gives that classic shrug and chuckle. "It's a little like being at a political rally," Bush says. "It's obviously some sort of protest."

Something of which W. knows a little bit about.

Obama Attack Dogs Are Unleashed

2008-12-13T14:21:00.012-05:00

I was wondering how long it would take until the right-wing would start going after Obama - apparently, just as Obama's had the fastest transition team in history, the right wing has assembled the fastest attack machinery in history and are already calling for impeachment before he takes office.

The supposed "smoking gun"? Apparently, Rahm Emanuel gave Blagojevich a list of people who would be "acceptable" as a replacement for Obama's vacated Senate seat, even though Obama said he hadn't "personally spoken" to Blago about it, and would find out what contacts his staff might have had.

This is supposedly evidence that...well, I'm not quite sure what. That Obama was trying to sell his own Senate seat and dispatched Emanuel to broker a deal (BEFORE Emanuel was ever even tapped as part of his administration), and then lied about it? But if Obama said he would reveal the staff contacts, how is revealing Emanuel's contact a lie? And how could Obama sell the seat if Blago was doing that? And if there was anything sinister about Emanuel's calls to Blagojovich, the FBI would have something incriminating on tape - which they say they don't.

It's unfortunate that this Blagojevich seems to be the Democratic equivalent of Jack Abramov. But if Abramov had been the biggest scandal of the Bush administration, we'd be calling W. a saint. And while it's a black eye on the Democratic party in Illinois, other than it being Obama's Senate seat, it still mystifies me how this has anything to do with him.

But then - given that there's still a conspiracy contingent believing that Obama is a secret Manchurian terrorist, this sort of thing must be absolute PROOF that if they just keep digging, at some point they'll reveal that Obama is really Satan, Rasputin, Boss Tweed, Stalin, Nurse Ratchet, bin Laden, and Malcolm X, all rolled into one.

Then again, maybe all the right-wing moonbattery is due to the full moon.

Globe TV Nominations

2008-12-12T12:31:00.003-05:00

Now, on to the TV nominations.

I'm glad to see Mad Men dominating the nominations again. There's nothing else on TV that compares with that show.

I hated the first few episodes of True Blood, but by the end of the season, I was totally addicted...it really is a delightfully sexy, bloody, nasty concoction that plays well on cultural hot buttons. A real guilty pleasure. Glad to see it recognized.

I'm a little sorry "Life on Mars" didn't get any nods. The show is a little rocky, but it's starting to come together, and could really end up having quite a brilliant concept. Guess it just didn't come together as fast as True Blood. Maybe next season.

Betty continues to dominate comedy nominations, as it should.

John Adams dominates the miniseries category, as it should.

Golden Globes Sleight Milk

2008-12-12T11:54:00.005-05:00

Sean Penn is nominated for best actor in Milk, but there's no nomination for best picture, screenplay, or director.

Since most of the nominated films haven't been released, it's hard to compare. Still, having seen Milk, I find it difficult to imagine that all five of those films could possibly be that much better. They would all have to be pretty amazing films - a group of the best movies of all time, ever (in the Best Comedy nominations, for instance, I've seen 3 of the films, and I can tell you some of them are pretty mediocre).

The movie "Milk" is a pretty amazing film, authentically depicting an era as well as movingly portraying the arch of a person's life as it intersects with a greater social movement. A kind of "Ghandi" meets "Brokeback" tinged with a bit of Fincher's "Zodiac."

While Penn's performance is great, how come I get the feeling that the Globes are basically awarding Penn the nomination for "playing gay" - while dismissing the movie itself? This wasn't the reception that Brokeback received...and while Brokeback was beautiful and tragic, Milk is inspiring, lovely, deep, and - in my mind - much more authentic. Yet Brokeback received a much better reception.

Do the Globes have a rule that only straight performers, writers, and directors can be nominated for gay movies?

Congressional Republicans - Once Again - Force the Worse of All Choices

2008-12-12T11:37:00.003-05:00

Lovely. Republicans scuttle a deal that would force the car companies to restructure and provide strict oversight - because they argue that it wasn't strict ENOUGH - and so the government has to step in and provide the money with no restructuring and no oversight.

Could we somehow pass legislation that would provide politicians with at least a minimum of fore-sight?

700 Billion for Banks. Nothing for Jobs

2008-12-11T18:25:00.003-05:00

It's not immediately clear which of the following the Republican's scuttling of the auto bailout deal falls under:

A) Rank self-interest in giving an advantage to their foreign-owned auto industry in Southern states.

B) Pure political obstructionism and a long-term strategy to destroy the economy, and with it, plan a political resurgence for 2010.

C) An attempt to break the unions (while opening up the wallets for Wall Street managers parachuting out with taxpayer billions).

D) A genuine "enough-is-enough" feeling of capitulation for any more bailouts (since Wall Street is coming back for more, this one seems highly unlikely).

E) Hard-ball negotiating from a genuinely commonsensical business equation that unless the credit burdens of the companies are better relieved, the bailout is a waste of money.

F) An attempt to structure a deal that is closer to a government managed bankruptcy, that effectively restructures company obligations and allows a working corporation to emerge.

G) All of the above.

While E and F are commendable, D is laughable, A is typical political corruption, C is detestable, and B is...dare I say...borderline treasonous.

If it's G, all of the above - well, all I can say is, I hope this gambit works: because if the economy gets much worse, I wouldn't want to be them.

Newsweek Precipitates The Gay Rights Tipping Point

2008-12-11T00:12:00.015-05:00

One result of the passage of Proposition 8 in California and the subsequent backlash (coinciding with Obama's election on a platform of inclusion) is that we may be reaching a kind of gay rights tipping point in the culture at large: the point at which the majority begins to start thinking of gay issues in civil rights terms, begins to actual embrace gay equality and take a moral stand against discrimination.

It is much the same today for gays, I think, as the mid-seventies for women, the late sixties for blacks. It is no longer just gay people advocating for our broader inclusion in society; saying the "gay" word is no longer immediately toxic for politicians; a significant vocal minority of straight allies have opened their eyes to the inequality, and are now willing to speak up about it. And those who would hide behind religion or other zealotry to promote discrimination are starting to find themselves - for the first time - on the defensive.

I open with all this to introduce this article on the religious case for gay marriage in Newsweek - which provides a framework for a religious understanding of gay equality - and this article in Power Line, summarizing the far right-wing backlash.

The argument has shifted, subtly, but dramatically. It is no longer about whether gays should be "tolerated." It is no longer considered "balanced" journalism to have to "balance" any discussion of gays and their issues with those who would question whether gays themselves are moral or legitimate.

Instead, the argument is about what "mainstream" means. Newsweek is attempting to frame a discussion about religious acceptance of gays as being, just by itself, mainstream - as would be a discussion about the black middle class or woman's roles in the workplace. Those who would stigmatize gays suddenly find it is THEIR anti-gay viewpoint that's the excluded minority, the questioned viewpoint, that OUTSIDE viewpoint that's considered as odious as racism or sexism.

This is what they have feared, all along: that the day would come when it would be considered "bigoted" to object to gay people. That they would no longer be able to hide behind their Bible and cry for tolerance for their bigotry. That they would no longer be on the offensive in society, but find themselves suddenly in the minority of opinion, and increasingly on the defensive.

Their reaction has been swift and fierce. Because they cannot let this tide turn - because they have finally been cornered on their bigotry. They have finally run out of arguments to justify their opinions as anything other than "troglodytish," to quote one of their own phrases. They have found that their one and last reaction, to say "because the Bible tells me so," is now longer enough - no longer cows the mainstream into abject silence - and that's a development they can't countenance, not without attempting to totally discredit the messenger as "in the tank." In the way that anyone who doesn't buy into their viewpoint is "in the tank."

But it's a story we've heard before. The same phenomenon happened with women. And Blacks. And Asians. And anyone who fought for their full equality in this society, and had to slowly but surely argue for their equality against the fierce backlash of those who's positions and power were most threatened by change in status of a despised minority: whether those people be white slaveowners, businessmen exploiting cheap Asian labor, men satisfied with their wives keeping a silent and subservient place in the home, or religious fakes and self-aggrandizing fanatics who make millions of dollars and build vast empires by stigmatizing gay people.

It's interesting - when you point out to the religious zeolots the passages in the Bible that were used thirty years ago to justify that women stay in the home, the passages used fifty years ago to justify that black people were inferior and interracial marriage shouldn't be allowed, the passages that were used a hundred and fifty years ago to justify owning slaves - when you point these passages out, people say, "oh, well, those passages are parables...they aren't meant to be taken literally." But when it comes to the few English interpretations of the Bible (which aren't the original meaning, by the way) where it supposedly condemns gay people, then suddenly it's not a parable meant for interpretation, it's suddenly literal. But it's a real question: which is it? Literal? Or a parable? It can't be both - you can't just pick and choose when it suits you.

And these right-wing profiteers know that no one would take them seriously if they tried to argue that people should take everything in the Bible literally. Why, they'd be...Al Qaeda. No, that's just not a very tenable tact for them to take. So all they can do, really, is attempt to rant and obscure, as the public wakes up, and turns against them.

Face it, my right-wing friends. The day when the mainstream takes away your gay whipping boys has come. The day you can hide behind your Bibles is quickly going to end. Bible or not, look forward to hearing yourselves being described as bigots. And not just by gay people, but by the "mainstream" press.

It's a shoe whose measurements have been assiduously taken over the past thirty years...and I fear it will be very easy...and very quick...to slip you into it.

FuckedCompany 2.0

2008-12-10T17:24:00.004-05:00

Back in the days of the dot-com bubble and bust, there was a great site, FuckedCompany, run by Pud, that allowed employees to send in anonymous tips about which hot tech companies were going to lay off people next or go belly up. It was filled with juicy insider stories etc. and became the kind of hot insider website where people would go looking for shorting tips and just plain gossip.

With Yahoo handing out a managers guide to laying people off (hot tip: don't say "I'll probably be next"), looks like we're ready for a second generation FuckedCompany, this time about the whole economy. Call it FuckedEconomy.

Favreau and Hillary, Sittin' in a Tree

2008-12-10T15:40:00.005-05:00

K - I - S - S - I - Dee - Dee.

Dee Dee Myers' (former Clinton speechwriter) take on the Favreau groping Hillary picture here.

Money quote:

If he’s old enough and wise enough and mature enough to write for the president of the United States—and not just any president but one who seems poised to take words more seriously than any since Abraham Lincoln—than he’s clearly old enough and wise enough and mature enough to avoid getting his picture taken behaving in a way that is embarrassing to him.

Two points about this. As I understand it, the picture was taken before the election. So Favreau wasn't "writing for the president" - he was writing for a candidate. A small distinction, perhaps, but in an article where Dee Dee Myers is carefully parsing the distinctions of this photograph, why make this mistake? It seems to undermine her argument.

As to the point as to whether a brilliant 27-year-old speechwriter is capable of behaving like an ordinary frat-jock boob and get his picture shot in a drunken compromising pose that he probably hadn't given two seconds thought to, I'd have to say, definitely yes: I have no cognitive dissonance with that notion.

Interesting that Obama will have two staffers who've had similar sexist lapses, with Summers on his cabinet.

Interesting question: which is worse, Favreau making rude sexual gestures to a poster of (then) political opponent, or Summers suggesting there are innate differences in male and female math capability?

While I'd like to be outraged by both (and in a way, I am), I'm also, in a way, oddly sanguine.

Is the gesture meant to demean? Of course, in the way that all politicians wish to demean their opponents in a heated campaign. Is it sexism? Sure, and there's no doubt Hillary had to suffer sexism from the press as well as many others. Though it seems to me valid to ask where there is a possible psychological wall between the drunken party hemisphere of Favreau's brain and the part the creates brilliant words for Obama, and if that wall may, I don't know, preserve the integrity of what's on the other side.

Perhaps not. Perhaps I simply disagree with Myers that Favreau's gesture is the equivalent of a campaign staffer brandishing a hood over an Obama poster. I think it may be more equivalent to Lisa Lampenelli making a crude joke about Obama's schlong. Tasteless and out of place in the White House. But possibly excusable in the heat of a campaign....I, for one, would have loved to have seen a Hillary staffer making a similar gesture, and would have found it equally creepy and...possibly...forgivable.

Jokes.com

Lisa Lampanelli - Dating Black Guys

Blagojevich Mania

2008-12-10T14:11:00.004-05:00

You know, I haven't said much about this because it seems hard to find anything to say that hasn't already been.

There's also this and this. Scandal and recession, scandal and recession. I think we'll hear this theme music for a while.

I don't know if it's true that Rahm Emanuel tipped off the FBI, and this suggests an Obama administration that won't tolerate Bush-era corruption. Or whether the scandal will come back to haunt Obama.

It's just a little peak into the sausage making that is Illinois (and New Jersey) politics. So none of it really surprises me.

Obamanomics: Most Laughable Scare-Mail Marketing

2008-12-10T12:35:00.003-05:00

Here's something in my in box today:

Subject: Obama Stock Market Crash Coming?

You need to read Newsmax Magazine's Special Report...

Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy.

Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending.

Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate — something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress.

Blah...blah...blah...blah.

Aren't these guys about one year too late? Didn't we just experience the Bush Market Crash and failed economy?

These people, I swear. It's a little like, "no I didn't, you did, nyah, nyah....."

People, please...if your going to spam me, at least offer me something that has some basis in reality, like a million dollars free for transferring some King's ransom from Nigeria, or impossibly long-lasting erections. At least those offers aren't quite so ironically laughable.

How Bad Will The Economy Get?

2008-12-05T21:49:00.002-05:00

Well, that's anyone's guess, but the blogger Live Grenades gives a pretty informative run-down of where we are right now.

Despite all the pain, I've been feeling, so far, that this isn't as bad (yet) as 2001. 2001 - 2002 was a terrible business year. Then again, I was in New York, where business stopped cold after 9/11 and didn't really start again until 2003.

This time, business hasn't stopped cold. But the mood out there is that it's continuing to worsen. According to the analysis at Live Grenades, job losses so far have been on par with the 1990/91 recession. Having just entered the job market during that recession I can say, yeah, right now, this feels just like that.

However, my sense is that things are going to get worse before they get better. NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE YET TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. It's egregious they're going to let this go on another two months like this, but there it is. Bush's final parting gift to America.

So it's impossible to think that December or January will bring any joy. If Detroit is bailed out and money gets released to states immediately after Obama takes office, February may slow the trend, but don't bet on a decreasing trend in losses (let alone job GAINS) until March 09.

That's three more months of big loss numbers to look forward to, or another million and a half jobs lost before things start to turn around. Given that, it's likely this recession will still end up topping the biggest post-Depression recession of 80/81.

I was in college then. Made money in summers selling door-to-door encyclopedias. Now, selling old books on e-bay may be how we pay the bills....

Now It's Save OR Create Jobs

2008-12-05T10:45:00.003-05:00

Now even Obama is saying “we need an economic recovery plan that will save or create at least 2.5 million more jobs over two years....”

Before he had said "save and create." Save and create is a plus.

Save OR create is a dodge.

So what, pray tell, does he mean?

Obama to Create or Save Jobs...Which Is It?

2008-12-04T11:20:00.003-05:00

Again, the Times reports, "Mr. Obama has said that his goal is to create or save 2.5 million jobs in the next two years."

But which is it, create....or save? There's a big difference. Save implies no growth. Create implies growth.

But from what I've read, what Obama actually said was, "create and save" [emphasis mine].

Create AND save seems to imply doing both: saving jobs that are going away AND creating new ones.

But the way the reporters phrase it, however, it's like Obama has the choice: he could decide to create some jobs. Or he could decide to just save them, and keep things from getting worse.

But those aren't the same thing. And it's not what Obama said.

Recession Pain and More Pain: For How Long?

2008-12-04T09:47:00.003-05:00

Predicting a recession is a fools game, but its safe to say that the sick economy was run over in September and is now, as everyone warned, bleeding profusely.

But the hemorrhaging of jobs and wages is always the last (and most painful) domino to fall in the recession line. And it may signal we are gathering steam toward the bottom.

On another front, long-term interest rates may be starting to fall. And with the Fed set to lower the prime rate yet again (and if on January 20th the Democrats can start opening up loans to prevent foreclosures), we may finally be about to put a salve on the biggest wound in our economy: the housing market. And by the indications of the success of Cyber Monday, consumer spending may be holding up its bit even despite the Great Depression.

It's too bad we didn't start applying this salve in March of 2008, when Hillary Clinton first suggested it. That might have lessened the pain of this crisis.

Now, it looks like we're going to have to wait until February 2009, at the earliest, till we start to get some relief.

That will still take a few months to work its way through the system.

So by all indications, things are going to get worse - likely in a slow, seeping fashion - till May of 2009. Being a lagging indicator, then, the job market is likely to stay bad well into 2010.

But you'd better put your money back into stocks well before then.

Fun With Hate

2008-12-03T18:49:00.001-05:00

Proposition 8, the musical, staring Jack Black.

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Disco Dancing Elf Dog

2008-12-03T18:22:00.004-05:00

Really, I had to research one of these "put yourself in an elf" gizmos at work so, thinking our dog Zoey looks kind of like the Grinch's dog, I reduced her to a dancing dog in an elf costume.

It's pretty goofy.

Send your own ElfYourself eCards

Banning Gay Marriage Causes Recession

2008-12-02T21:47:00.003-05:00

Yes, it's true!

California votes to overturn gay marriage, and look what happens: they suddenly face a huge and scary budget crisis!

Meanwhile, Connecticut and Massachusetts allow gay marriage, and start creating jobs and bringing in millions of dollars.

Come on, New Jersey - don't you want to gay marriage your way out of recession too?

Obama's Foreign Policy: Change Is In the Process, Not Necessarily the Policy

2008-12-01T10:48:00.009-05:00

As everyone tries to read the tea-leaves of the Obama foreign policy team, people are naturally wondering if Obama has changed his views and become a hawk, or whether he'll convince people like Clinton to change hers.

But I would argue that Obama's views aren't changing so much as evolving. And in a good way.

His earliest positions - on Iraq, for instance - were clearly one dimensional. Iraq was a mistake, he said in his first major speech on the subject (and he even said then that war was still a good policy tool, in the last resort). But claiming Iraq as a mistake is not foreign policy. In 2002, it was prescient and courageous; by 2004, it was obvious.

So Obama next tried to lay out a principal that would contrast with the Bush doctrine: we should talk to our enemies.

But clearly the initial formulation of that struck some people as naive. What "we" did Obama mean? He responded by clarifying his position to the point where in the end, it was hardly much different from Bush's own (which had also evolved over the same period): send low-level people to do talks, save Presidential visits for rewards.

It seems that both Obama from the left and Bush from the right have evolved into this centrist, "realistic" foreign policy assessment.

The difference is that Obama evolved swiftly, over a matter of months, and before he could actually take office and mess things up with a naive policy. He clearly listened to people who knew something about these things, and he even more clearly changed his mind. Yes, he had to weave his changing position and thread a pretty unconvincing semantic needle between "preconditions" and "preparation." Obama had realized he needed to modulate his position, and it was hard to do that while drawing a line back to earlier statements without effecting some awfully awkward Clintonian distinctions.

Bush, on the other hand, got to be naive for six years, and did a hell of a lot of damage, before his administration wised up and tried the same modulation.

So here's the thing. When Obama speaks of change, he doesn't mean that there won't be politics to the way he characterizes his approach, and he doesn't means that everything he does will be the policy opposite of Bush. People who draw these distinctions do so at their peril, and without much close reading of Obama himself. His approach to this - like the economy - has been pretty consistent: He means that the process of government will change. It will be smart, open-minded, bipartisan, and nimble, not slow, obstinate, ideological and naive.

If that was your biggest complaint about the last eight years - and it was mine - then that's change we can still believe in.

It also should be noted, however, that there will apparently be a very clear difference between Obama's emphasis on an array of foreign policy tools, and Bush's "attack first, ask questions later" approach - which even if he finally abandoned when he installed people like Gates - who agree with Obama - he never clearly corrected into a coherent policy.

Could The Coming Depression End Up Being...Not That Bad?

2008-11-29T14:10:00.006-05:00

Okay, I will probably once again end up eating crow for saying this. But I would like the throw out the possibility that we have now sufficiently scared everyone into just how bad a downturn we're in and that perhaps...it may end up being...not quite as bad as the worst fears.

I'm not saying unemployment won't continue to increase. I'm not saying there aren't still liquidity and credit problems. I'm not saying we won't have at least two more quarters of negative GDP. I'm not saying that the consumer is going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly realize it's okay to go on a spending binge. I'm not even saying we've seen the last of the declining home values, which precipitated all this mess.

I'm not even saying that Paul Krugman is wrong to say we are entering an era of Depression Economics. After all, he's a Nobel laureate. What do I know?

All I am saying is, it seems to me that the American consumer is a) scared shitless and b) having trouble tapping into credit. The former is a bad thing; the latter is actually not so bad. And given the way that Obama has reassured the markets this past week, what would happen if Obama's administration hits the ground running in January with a similar level of calm reassurance?

What if the end of January sees the markets start to recover, and a Dow back over 10,000, even as unemployment continues to rise, all as a result of restored confidence in our leadership? After all, this would be the expected bust/recovery pattern.

Wouldn't that both a) make consumers a little less scared and b) help out struggling financial companies whose beaten-down stocks are driving down their cash reserves, and encourage them to be a little less stingy lending out their dough? In other words, wouldn't this take the vice off the consumer spending freeze, and get the consumer shopping a bit more again?

And wouldn't that be the kind of good news that would signal a recovery on the way, and encourage businesses and others to invest? Not to mention the 700 billion of stimulus that would be headed our way?

Again, not that 2009 won't open with pain, unemployment, soup lines, and foreclosures headlining the news. But 90% of Americans will still be working. And once they realize the world isn't going to fall off a cliff, they may start doing again what Americans do: living their lives, and spending what it takes to do it.

In other words, I'm just wondering if the financial crisis isn't being exacerbated by a crisis in leadership that's creating a much larger crisis of confidence - a George W. Bush crisis. Once we have new leadership, a leadership that seems completely on top of things followed by a natural turning of the financial cycle - the end of 2009 may end up looking nothing like the end of 2008.

Then again, if I'm wrong, crow may be the only thing I'll have around to eat.

UPDATE: Then again, we could just take Latvia's approach and arrest everyone who reports bad news.

Hoards of Shoppers Trample Walmart Employee

2008-11-29T08:54:00.003-05:00

What seems worse than the tragedy of zombie shoppers trampling to death the employee trying to let them into the store is the uncontrolled moralizing that has ensued. The conclusion on the left is that capitalism corrupts the soul and on the right that liberalism turns poor people and minorities into mindless zombies.

I just wonder if the panic to get the last discount doohickey or die trying isn't anything more than a sad symbol of how much I hate this time of year.

"Milk" - Best Movie of the Year?

2008-11-28T10:35:00.004-05:00

The film about the life and times of gay activist Harvey Milk receives a 93% rating on Rottentomateos (a higher rating than Oscar-worthy films like Frost/Nixon, Australia, The Changeling, Appaloosa, Burn After Reading, Body of Lies, and Vicky Christina Barcelona. Of released movies this year with substantial reviews, only Wall-E rates higher).

Could the Academy decide to make up for the slighting of Brokeback Mountain by giving this year's Oscar to Milk?

Victory: Mormon Church Investigated for Role In Prop 8

2008-11-27T09:48:00.003-05:00

The Mormon's have finally been outed.

The Fair Political Practices Commission has notified the Mormon church that it will investigate a claim that the church did not disclose the value of non-monetary campaign activities.

Maybe all this attention will make them think twice before they launch the next campaign to take away people's rights in other states.

Florida Gay Adopton Ban: Maybe Unconstitutional?

2008-11-27T09:41:00.003-05:00

I know I should be more exited about the news that a judge in Florida ruled its archaic, thirty-year old gay adoption ban unconstitutional. But this case still needs to go to the Florida Supreme Court, so it's not over yet.

I'm more closely concerned about what's going to happen in California. If the Court rules against gays, then the next step is getting a repeal on the ballot in 2010. But a YES on repeal is going to be harder to achieve than the YES on 8 (always harder to repeal). Unless the campaign is well organized and well funded (and even if it is), it's going to be a tough fight.

I'm also more interested in the case wending it's way to the court in Iowa. I lived in Iowa. It's hard to believe that gays in Iowa would be able to get married before those in New York City or San Francisco. But I suppose anything's possible.

No Girly-Dog For Obama

2008-11-26T20:47:00.023-05:00

Obama tells Barbara Walters he doesn't want a fru-fru "girly-dog" like a Havanese. He wants a "real man" dog. Presumably a Rottweiler or Pit Bull.

I understand the point. My husband felt the same way. Wanted a big dog to romp around and toss a stick with. Until we got Zoey. Who is, I will say, unique and all her own creature.

Not all small dogs are "girly" dogs. Beagles are very loyal and great scent hounds; Terriers are athletic, fun-loving things that are great at sports like agility; Sheep dogs are medium size bundles of energy that will herd your sheep, goats, kids, you, and anything else that requires rounding up for bedtime.

And there's one other point. Just because he doesn't want a "girly-dog," I hope Obama won't rule out a female dog. Not that I have anything against the male of the species, but while male dogs can get to be a bit obsessive about the one thing they like to play with (think boys watching football), female dogs really do exhibit a broader range of emotions, and really do seem to think of themselves as another member of the family. Just be sure they're spayed.

Some of Zoey's many moods.

The Republican Factions: Need To Fix Their Message, Not Give In To Narrow Interests

2008-11-26T11:01:00.005-05:00

Dave at Political Machine makes the case that Republicans need to unite all three wings of the party: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign policy conservatives - if they are to have a winning coalition.

Reagan did it, but in a much different way. Here's what's changed, and I think this is what people like Kathleen Parker are getting on about when they start criticizing the overly influential religious right.

In Reagan's day, the social conservatives were shock troops. But they didn't carry the party message. Reagan carried a party message that was a strong amalgam of fiscal conservatism and foreign policy conservatism (the former a response to '70's economic malaise, and the latter primarily being a response to Iran, and the Cold War).

What W. Bush has done is emboldened the social conservatives - so that they seem to be out front now, leading the message - while completely undermining the Republican's fiscal conservative brand (they may talk small government, but no one is convinced they know how to handle the economy any more). The war in Iraq also did a lot of damage to the strong foreign policy brand ("strong" got to be tied up with "stupid" and "irresponsible").

As Bill Clinton so wisely intuited, it's the economy, stupid. Voters are always going to lead with their pocketbooks, except possibly in a time of war, when foreign policy may weigh in. Social conservative values are never going to be the primary interests for anyone other than the small, 25% hard-right religious minority. And that minority is getting smaller over time.

Republicans may need to unite all three wings, but what they need to do first is rebuild their credibility on fiscal conservatism and foreign policy, before voters will trust them again. Right now, Obama is putting together a stellar team both in terms of the economy and foreign policy that will likely put the nail in that coffin for years.

If Obama can convince enough voters that he's also more in touch with social values than the shrill anti-gay, anti-science social conservatives roiling the Republicans, he'll have trumped the Republicans on all three messages.

If I were them, I wouldn't be trying to do again what lost this thing for them in 2008. I'd be scared about the political genius who just took over the White House, and trying to figure out how not to get outflanked by him on all three of their message coalitions.

Marriage Equity March on Washington: Self Organizing on Facebook?

2008-11-25T23:29:00.005-05:00

The call for a marriage equity March on Washington seems to be picking up steam. There are already three Facebook networks planning a march and this page devoted to discussion the best time for it to occur.

My vote is mid-September. Any time before summer is too soon to organize well. But you want to do it before school gets going too much, but August is a terrible time to plan anything in DC. So September, I think. Though timing it in October for the 30th anniversary of the first March isn't a bad idea either.

Should Bush's Dog Barney Get a Pardon?

2008-11-25T22:02:00.005-05:00

Some people are up in arms about Bush's potentially pardoning "every appointee and employee he has ever had - and their dogs."

However, if anyone in the Bush administration deserves to get a pardon, I think it should be Barney.

After all, when it comes down to biting reporters, at least Barney can argue it was just instinct.

Barney is caught in the criminal act.

Another Prop 8 Blacklist "Success"

2008-11-25T21:11:00.005-05:00

Richard Raddon, the director of the LA Film Festival, resigns over his donation to Yes on 8, and the angry mob celebrates.

Yes, I still endorse boycotts and protests.

And I think Bill Condon is wrong to defend Raddon's contribution as his "personal religion." Raddon's right to his private personal religion stops at the point where it starts to take away MY rights.

Yet I still don't believe in a blacklist. However, I think in this case, Raddon probably had to go.

Now, all of you are going to be probably a bit put off by the distinction I'm making here, but here it is:

In the first "blacklist" case, an artistic director was drummed out of his job. That's a classic example of a blacklist, and it's disconcerting. As I've said, people do have a right to their own personal bigotry, and bigots should be able to earn a livelihood, even if their bigotry is politically offensive (as long as it's legal).

In Raddon's case, however, he was Chairman of the Board of a non-profit foundation. Quite a lot of the public were upset with the foundation that someone who Chaired their board was promoting discrimination.

The board wanted to support him. The public didn't. In this case, it makes sense for Raddon to leave, if the Film Festival wants to remain a respectable festival. Or he could stay, and the Film Festival can become the equivalent of the Neo-Nazi film festival or the Mormon Film Festival or some other kind of special interest travesty.

In other words, Raddon wasn't "blacklisted" from working and making a living. He was essentially put into a position where if he didn't resign, the group he represented wouldn't be able to continue to afford the respect it wanted from the community it wanted to serve.

Which was, I think, essentially correct. Raddon's resignation was the proper response to a properly targeted boycott. He's perfectly capable of going out and volunteering for some other organization that's more reflective of his views.

By the way, all those of you on the right who think people should stop declaring boycotts over the Prop 8 issue - where were you when these guys were declaring a boycott of Google for supporting No on 8?

Seems you only like boycotts if they're on your side of the issue.

Obama Picks Gates, Goes for Unity

2008-11-25T20:17:00.007-05:00

Tapping Gates for Secretary of Defense once again reveals the tensions between the two Obamas.

It's beginning to become clear that what Obama is doing is assembling the Pragmatist Cabinet.

Being a pragmatist myself, I personally like this cabinet.

But it's clear that if Obama's going to keep his base happy, he's going to have to lead this band with a bit more of Obama the Idealist.

Or, to borrow the violin metaphor from David Rothkopf ("hold power with your left hand, play the music with your right"), looks like Obama's building a pretty first class bow. What we don't know anything about yet is what kind of violin he's going to play.

Unless you believe this analysis of Obama's violin by Nate Silver.

A Republican Agrees That Republicans are Anti-Science

2008-11-25T15:46:00.006-05:00

A Republican agrees with me that the anti-science attitude of the Republican party is one of its two biggest - and hardest to change - losing core planks.

(The other is a kind of twin phenomenon of gay- and Hispanic-bashing, though they may correct the latter before the former.)

How can you win more votes when you are campaigning both against reality and against voters?

Predicted Breakup of U.S. Into Separate Countries

2008-11-25T14:31:00.016-05:00

Today, a Russian analyst predicted the breakup of the U.S. into six separate countries due to the faltering economy.

I actually think he's underestimating: I've come up with ten separate regions for the impending breakup. They're mapped out below.
Hey, let's do the capitols too.

Country: Capitol City
Gaymarriagia: Amherst, MA
New Obama Beach: Washington DC
The Auto Wastelands: ----- (no government exists)
South Canada: Chicago, IL
Walmarshlands: Bentonville, AK
Gunrackistan: Mount Rushmore, SD
Hispania: Las Cruces, NM
Republic of California: Sacramento, CA
Pallinville: Wasilla

280000 Per Job? Only If You Add, Not Subtract

2008-11-25T11:15:00.004-05:00

This professor might be good at economics; he's not very good at math.

He claims the Obama stimulus plan comes out to $280,000 per job, by dividing the amount of stimulus by the number of jobs Obama claims he will add (2.5 million).

What he forgets to do is subtract the number of jobs that would be lost in the downturn if we did nothing. If it's already a million, there'll probably be another million lost after Obama takes office early in 2009. And you need to figure out how many jobs would be lost WITHOUT the stimulus. Three million? Five? Obama needs to make up for the jobs potentially lost before he can create the additional 2.5 million. So that money is closer to $100,000 a job, if that. And that only gets us back to today's 6.5% unemployment rate. If we want to go back to 5% unemployment (before this crisis hit) we'll need another 250,000 jobs.

$100,000 a job is still a lot, though.

Bush's Legacy: Trillion Dollar Deficits

2008-11-25T10:49:00.006-05:00

I'm all for government stimulus to get the economy moving again, but this number is eye-popping.

The deficit, Mark Zandi, chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, said at Senate Budget Committee hearings last week, "could easily exceed $1 trillion in fiscal 2009 and go even higher in 2010." He said borrowing by the Treasury could top $2 trillion this year....

The debt, which stood at about $5.7 trillion in 2007, topped the $10 trillion mark in October and now stands at about $10.6 trillion.

(Actually, I think he means $5.7 trillion in 2001, at least according to this graph. Note that the graph only goes to 2007. For 2008, it's going to be off the charts.).

So to put this in perspective: Clinton had three years of budget surpluses his last three years in office, including giving Bush a $127 billion surplus.

Bush is giving Obama a trillion dollar deficit.

Talk about binging on your credit cards....

Republicans Talking Down The Economy Are Unpatriotic

2008-11-24T23:20:00.004-05:00

You know, when Democrats criticized the war, Republicans went on endlessly about how ANY criticism of the war was unpatriotic, giving solace to the enemy, etc. etc. Democrats didn't ACTUALLY say things like "I hope Al Qaeda wins" or "there should be another terrorist attack," they just said that they WAY Bush was fighting the war on terrorism was muddle-headed and wrong. Yet the administration did all it can to paint such views as giving comfort to the enemy.

Here's Cheney on Meet the Press, a perfect example.

I have no compunction about Republicans criticizing Obama's plans for fixing the economy - when he comes up with some - if they can offer anything better (and better than what their own party has been doing this year).

But Republicans seem to be ACTUALLY ROOTING AGAINST a recovery. Here's another one:

There is a bright side. Now that the Democrats control the White House and Congress, they will get blamed for everything that goes wrong.“Things can turn,” the senator says, growing less glum. “These are pretty tough times to be in charge. These are pretty tough times to have power.”

So I say, shouldn't we start calling this rooting against Obama and against the recovery for what it really is: treasonous?

Certainly more so than Democrats criticising a bungled war.

Not All Right-Wing Bloggers Have Lost Their Sense of Humor

2008-11-24T23:12:00.002-05:00

Here's one today that still appreciates a little sarcasm.

Brilliant opener:

Ending weeks of speculation and rumors, President-Elect Barack Obama today named Bill Clinton to join his incoming administration as President of the United States, where he will head the federal government's executive branch

I actually think the rest is pretty funny too.

Lizard People May Cost The Dems Their 60 Votes

2008-11-24T10:56:00.003-05:00

Who said your vote doesn't count?

This guy wrote in "Lizard People" (along with Al Franken) on his ballot, and now the entire fate of the U.S. congress may come down to his vote.

Would kind of love to see a televised cage-match ultimate fight between the Lizard People and Joe the Plumber, wouldn't you? The winner gets to pick who goes to the Congress.

Not only, I think, would it be just as fair as our current vote challenge system, it would also be more entertaining.

Republicans Are Dangerously Off-Base About Economy

2008-11-24T08:32:00.006-05:00

Here's Boehner quoted in the Washington Post today:

"But the American people know that more Washington spending isn't the answer."

Uh - excuse me, no. With disinflation picking up speed, more spending (on the right sorts of stimulation) is EXACTLY the answer.

But why would anyone listen to these idiots about the economy now? It was stupidity like this that got us into this mess. Someone should stuff Boehner in a closet while the rest of the room tries to save our asses, and quickly.

Or is it simply, as some suggest, that Republicans WANT to turn this into a Great Depression so that Obama will get the blame? I'd hate to think they were that cynical, but after reading this, I have my doubts.

What a Twenty-First Century Depression Might Look Like

2008-11-23T13:42:00.003-05:00

There are a lot of arguments today on the blogosphere about whether we are really teetering on a Great Depression or whether the analogy is not quite correct.

I'll leave the prognostications about the economy to others. All I will say is that sure, things could continue to get worse. Then again, Obama could take office on January 20th with a $700 billion stimulus plan in hand and things could slowly start to turn around.

Either way, one thing is certain: we're in for some pain for a while. And if this crisis did turn into something approximating a real financial collapse, what we might see might be a whole lot different than the 1930's.

First of all, most of us may be losing retirement nest eggs. But if we have any savings at all, it's likely to be safe. We won't find ourselves suddenly out on the street without some kind of warning. The wealth we are losing now is largely something we planned on for the future. So even though the financial pain we have now might be lessened, that future we planned may not be as secure as we imagined, especially when the government runs out of money to supplement it. The stock market may not recover for decades either. In other words, our poverty will be more spread out for the rest of our lives, as our investments and government safety nets dwindle into our old age, instead of something we feel immediately.

Secondly, the pain is likely to be unevenly distributed geographically. Whole towns in Michigan and California might turn into ghost towns of empty, abandoned houses. But systems like ATMs, grocery stores, video games, the Internet, and gas pumps will likely still function, and areas in the Northeast, in the mountain West, may actually continue to function close to normal. Instead of Joads crossing a dust bowl, we'd have families downsizing to apartments and relatives all over the country.

Thirdly, jobs may disappear, but from what I hear from my laid off friends is that rather than work for companies, people are looking to become free agents, forming temporary project based associations to accomplish small tasks. However, with 30% of the country looking for freelance work, expect there to be stiff price competition. The average American will likely earn something close to the average Indian or Belarussian.

And so - this is how we get to our lower standard of living. This is the inevitable result of globalization and the end of empire. We don't become beggars in bread lines starving on the street. Instead, we move into smaller homes, smaller apartments, earn less, work harder, with little job security, and postpone or forget about retirement. We become a second world country, scraping by to afford food and shelter, and that's the Great Depression of the 21st Century.

Unless we do something to stop it.

Smart Obama Changes His Mind On Taxes

2008-11-23T11:32:00.005-05:00

Who said Obama wasn't a smart guy?

In today's New York Times:

Mr. Obama is also said to be reconsidering a key campaign pledge: his proposal to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. According to several people familiar with the discussions, he might instead let those tax cuts expire as scheduled in 2011, effectively delaying any tax increase while he gives his stimulus plan a chance to work.

Obama's insistance on sticking with the Bush tax rollbacks was the one position of his I disagreed with. I was hoping he was sticking to it during the election as a political calculation that any change of mind on it would create a political firestorm, not because he really believed that raising taxes during a Depression was a good idea.

Obama once again proves something that those of us who have been around a while have been having a hard time believing: we might actually be able to have faith in the good judgement of a politician.

Goodbye George W. Bush - A Thanksgiving Remembrance

2008-11-22T12:49:00.029-05:00

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W. Bush, August 5, 2004

As Thanksgiving approaches, many are wishing for no better gift than for George W. Bush to resign early. And while some would like to eulogize Bush's accomplishments, I, instead come not to praise W., but to bury him.

For, early or not, in just a couple more months, the terrible disaster of the George W. Bush presidency will be over.

But...hold your cheers for a moment. For now, as the great American holiday of Thanksgiving is upon us, let us take a journey down memory lane to remember the amazing accomplishments of the past eight years of this magnificent Presidency, and to give thanks.

For who could forget our beloved leader reading the importantly instructive "My Pet Goat" while the twin towers fell, and his immensely inspiring twenty minute pause for inner reflection during this time of mass panic?

There is then, of course, the revelation of the infamous report, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the U.S.," proving the White House was more than prescient in its attitude to ignore the threats about domestic terrorism.

Let us remember that the Administration reacted swiftly to the crisis, demonstrating a clear facility and ease for manufacturing false intelligence (otherwise known as the "miracle of the yellowcake") as well as the brilliant insight required to re-employ journalists as tools for suppressing descent and White House operatives for smearing political opponents and committing perjury.

And who, indeed, was not "shocked and awed" by the invasion of the country that had nothing to do with the attacks - Iraq - and swift resolution of our purpose there to find weapons of mass destruction...ahem, I mean route out and destroy Al Qaeda...ahem, I mean establish a shining beacon of American democracy in the middle east...ahem, I mean, depose Saddam and reap the economic benefits of middle-eastern oil...ahem, I mean, establish a permanent military base in the middle east...ahem, I mean, just see if we can stop the internecine bloodshed for long enough to get our asses out of there? And was the mission not successfully accomplished to much brouhaha and fanfare, as our leader proclaimed in 2003?

After such clear early success, Bush became truly a new-technology pioneer, uniting phone and Internet companies with the visionary goal of creating a vast new secret government network for spying on American citizens.

And will not Guantanamo Bay and the policy of "secret rendition" of political enemies to far-flung ex-Soviet-block countries for torture-interrogation programs forever be remembered as one of America's most inspiring programs for democracy?

However, I think, for some of us, what we will miss most is the extraordinary literary focus of Bush Administration, with for instance Bush's eloquent speech titled, "Fool me Once, Shame On — Shame On You. Fool Me — You Can't Get Fooled Again," and the particularly remarkable poetic ode by Staff Existentialist, Donald "Shit Happens" Rumsfeld: "Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns."

There was also, of course, the conservative genius of attempting to shrink government through the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the most massive dysfunctional bureaucracy in U.S. history, followed quickly by the even more wonderful government bureaucracy of the Prescription Drug Program, otherwise known as Welfare for Pharmaceutical Companies. And let's not forget successes that Bush has had in other areas, such as the massive success that No Child Left Behind has had in lowering teaching standards, and the ability of the Clear Skies act to lower anti-pollution standards.

Who then, could forget Bush's miracle of being able to squander the Clinton budget surplus in less than a single year, and go on to triumphantly create ever larger and larger budget deficits than even the best accounting minds could predict!

Who could also forget the Bush's family masterful touch at foreign policy, as Bush Jr. followed up his father's vomiting on the Prime Minister of Japan by staring lovingly into the eyes of Putin and groping the German Chancellor, Merkel.

But I think we were all, perhaps, most amazingly touched by the unexpected and powerful Karmic Alluvial Tidalwave & Relocation In North America program (otherwise known as "KATRINA"), which vastly improved our flood plains management in the Louisiana Delta area while also relocating impressive numbers of pesky undesirables (and the occasional tourist) either to their grave or to government trailer parks in states across the South. "Heckuva job, Brownie!" said Bush to the program's manager, and rightly so!

But we did not foresee that this was just the start, with Bush being able to successfully transform all levels of government through the simple formula of filling government with political hacks and incompetent cronies - especially so in the Interior and Justice Departments (though, unfortunately, Bush's political enemies prevented him from achieving similar success on the Supreme Court).

Thus, we can credit Bush and his administration cronies with delivering on at least one campaign promise for his constituency: sending the price of oil to $140 a barrel and making Exxon Mobil the richest corporation in the world.

Of course, Bush has also made housing more affordable for everyone by presiding over the largest decrease in home values in our nation's history.

And so, let's pay homage to some straight facts about Bush's amazing management of the economy. By the time he leaves office in January, Bush will have been able to increase the unemployment rate from it's terrible historical low at the end of 2000 of 3.9% to over 8%; increase the number of Americans without health insurance by 7.2 million; and successfully decrease the median household income by $2,000. These are achievements indeed quite rare in the history of our great country.

But lest you be in awe of all of that, let us not forget George W. Bush's greatest masterwork, the Market Crash and Financial Crisis of 2008 and Great Depression, 2.0, where Bush competed to outdo our last great Republican disaster President, Herbert Hoover, both in residing over the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and becoming the worst - and most unpopular - President in modern history.

My friends, the end of the Bush era is truly a moment in history we all will miss, the way we miss a cancer or especially bad case of pneumonia. Most especially comedians on late night and Comedy Central will miss our dear President, as the dearth of head-slapping belly-groaning jokes at our nation's leader will soon be in short supply.

And because January 20th cannot possibly come soon enough, let us all remember the swift and certain two-year success of the Obama campaign, and give thanks that the nightmare of George W. Bush will, in a matter of mere weeks, be over.

Goodbye, dear George W. Bush. I will pray that your spiritual inheritor, Sara Palin, enjoys a Thanksgiving feast over a turkey in your name.

Sarah Palin's Thanksgiving Day Massacre - Left-Wing Fun - Yehaw!

2008-11-22T09:59:00.005-05:00

MSNBC gets to comically riff on Sarah Palin's turkey dustup, filming her as she stands in front of a horrible "turkey slaughter" machine. Right-wingers get to feel outraged.

You know, FOX has been doing this kind of shit for years to its liberal guests. So now we have a left-wing network that gets to make fun of Republicans and film them in situations that make them look bad? Yehaw!

So the tables have turned. Get over it, you right-wing spoiled brats - dial back to FOX and take a Valium.

Watch Palin's Thanksgiving Day Massacre

The State of Hillary

2008-11-21T09:20:00.003-05:00

For people who wondered why Obama didn't pick Hillary as VP, this is why.

I'm was happy with the idea of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. But apparently, the team of creepy backstabbing Hillarybots and big-ego Bill-sulking comes along with the package. So now, not so much.