What are the auto industry's doing?

Ok, so we have a bailout loan for 2 of the 3 big American auto companies which is supposed to essentially be an eased in version of bankruptcy unless their genius turnaround plans work.

What exactly are their genius turnaround plans? I ask because I was watching football on FOX (a dangerous meeting of often willfully ignorant Americans but I do enjoy football) and the two most prevalent commercials were for Dodge and Ford trucks and trucks with hemis in them with "improved efficiency" of 20 mpg.

I'm sorry but that's shitty gas mileage. Don't try and say "well, it's good for a vehicle of that size" cause I don't care. How many people need a vehicle with 390 hp? Maybe 5% of the people who but them. But we still market them in America as if they are what Jesus himself would drive. Americans don't need these behemoths that are peddled to us and anyone who doesn't know that is an idiot. Stop marketing these gas guzzling pieces of shit to us as a status symbol and maybe people would stop buying them. Anyone who really needs to tow or haul something can look hard enough to find a vehicle to suit their needs but these are not leisure vehicles or everyday vehicles.

As conditions of the loan I would've executed all of the executive leadership, pulled all advertising for SUVs and trucks and discontinued immediately all production of those vehicles and convert the factories into hybrid manufacturers and electric/plug in hybrid research centers. If you have a large family get a goddamn station wagon.

Our current goal is to have a minimum fuel economy of 35mpg by 2020. The rest of the developed world AND CHINA will be there or beyond that by 2012. I just don't understand this boneheaded asshole mentality of the American public sometimes.

Etiquette and reinforcing the class structure

I've been meaning to write about this for a while (a couple of weeks ago my office went through etiquette training) but never got around to it but I would really like to address it.

I hate the idea of formalized etiquette, especially when it comes to table manners and how to eat "properly." I am all for being considerate and polite at a dinner table but once you formalize a set of nearly arbitrary rules that you judge people by I think that solely for the purpose of reinforcing the class structure. Someone from a lower class can make money but if they don't learn your precious set of rules they can't join the club.

Well, anyone who judges me, or anyone else, by such rules isn't someone I want to be spending much time with because they are probably a useless piece of shit getting by in life on tradition and legacy instead of talent and skill.

And anyone who thinks "I wish people didn't judge people that way either, but they do so you better learn the rules" can eat my shit because you're just propagating the corrupt, unfair system. Change starts with each individual so stop sucking up to those who have the power and start standing up against corrupt uses of power and obstacles to others to keep them out of power.

Counting the bailout votes

Another way I view the auto bailout is by going to economists I respect and trust. Here is a list of the ones who are my current go-to guys:
Joseph Stiglitz
Paul Krugman
Dani Rodrik
Dean Baker

So far Baker and Krugman are for the bailout, Stiglitz is against, and I haven't been able to ascertain where Rodrik falls although he's been very thoughtful about the financial crisis in general. Check out his blog

My dilemma with the auto bailout

Ok, so I haven't been happy with Democrats, Republicans, or really bloggers on the issue of the auto bailout and I agree with all of them on some of their points. Let me elaborate.

1. I tend to agree with Democrats and bloggers that we need to do something. Bankruptcy may be a market solution that would serve the corporation right but it would be brutal to the work forces of the Detroit area (not like it hasn't screwed them already)

2. I agree with Republicans that Democrats are pushing too fast with a no, or very few, strings attached BS bailout that doesn't adequately change their business model. Unfortunately Republicans also think the only problem is union salaries. The two major problems are (in order) the Big 3's business plan and strategy, Executive pay.

3. I agree with the bloggers that the workers are the most important thing to protect in the situation but I disagree that we need to save the industry at all costs (essentially in its current form) to do that. That's exactly how those corporate snakes want you to think. They keep enough Americans employed so that if something like this happens they scream "but you don't want to hurt the autoworkers do you? so you need to bail us out"

Here are my thoughts on the subject. Centralizing an industry may seem like a good idea at first but it's pretty much the worst idea ever because if that industry needs to move or go away because of competition or technological advances it will destroy an area of the country (read: Michigan). If this industry were spread out better across the country any one area wouldn't be hit as hard and could absorb the shock. So any bailout that doesn't help move A LOT of the American auto industry away from Detroit is a terrible idea.

And as far as unions go, I love unions, I wish we had more of them and I wish they were stronger and more intelligently run but I don't think that something like the UAW should be fighting to make sure that the auto industry always exists in Detroit and always pays high wages. I think their goal should be that AS LONG AS the auto industry exists it should be paying its workers good wages with good benefits (hell, that should be true for every job and every american). But industries have to move and progress. We lost a lot of textile jobs over our history when we became so developed it didn't make sense for us to be producing them on a large scale. We employ less workers in many factories because we can automate the jobs and make them more efficient and use our human resources in other areas. Here's what the auto industry bailout (and larger economic policies) should be based on:
1. Protect the workers (not their current jobs): Social protections, safety nets, education, job retraining, relocation assistance should all be used (in this situation and our society in general) but flat out protectionism of their jobs is BS
2. Make the executives of the Big 3 suffer as much as possible. Offer them no protection, take their money, sue them for negligence to get more, take their positions, and even execute them if you need to (this applies to financial executives too). They created this problem and they should pay for it
3. Encourage the diversification of ALL regions. One industry towns and regions are dangerous. Even if you make Detroits Big 3 manufacture Hyrbrids, Plug in Hybrids, and Electric (which we should) they should not be so centralized.

I'll rant more on this later but I just had to get that off my chest.

Clarification on guns

Ok, I grew up with guns all my life and have no moral objection to the idea of people owning them. But I want to clarify what a semi-automatic weapon is because I think people misunderstand the term:

Semi-automatic means that a gun fires one bullet each time you pull the trigger and you don't have to re-cock the weapon in between. Essentially ALL pistols are semi-automatic.

Uzis and assault rifles often have the ability to switch to semi-automatic but it's automatic weapons that have the machine quality of firing bullets as long as you're holding the trigger down and firing large numbers of bullets per minute.

The only guns that typically are not even semi-automatic are revolvers, and most shotguns and rifles.

I bring this up because recently there was a handgun murder reported in the news and I heard a colleague say "it wasn't just an ordinary gun. It was a semi-automatic .357or something." Okay:
1. That is a pretty normal gun. Most, damn near all, pistols are semi-automatic.
2. People who can commit murder of one or two people with a pistol could kill them just as easily with a single action revolver or shot gun. Automatic weapons would be needed to kill large numbers of people

That being said, I support cities rights to ban guns (although I'm not a huge fan of statewide bans) and in general I think we should regulate the shit out of guns (registration, licensing for gun owners, mandatory gun safety training) because we do have a major problem with gun violence but a national semiautomatic weapon ban seems, to me, to miss the point.

Election Night Kids!

1:04 AM Obama looking good in NC and IN ok in MO and MT. I could live with 364 EVs

12:49 AM Sorry I faded out there for a while. I may not be up much longer cause I have to work early tomorrow but here's what's going on:
Franken is still tight with Coleman
Merkeley is slightly ahead of Smith
Martin is on the brink of losing
Lunsford lost
Musgrove lost
Allen lost
Shaheen won
Hagan won
Still no word on Begich (or alaska in general)
I don't have the energy to stay up and watch prop 8 although it is still in peril
Can't find anything but prop 1 for MA and we smashed it
No more beverage tax and no casinos for ME

Bachmann is going to hold on in MN I think (unbelieveable)
Stevens will probably lose but again Alaska is a black hole
Burner is doing ok but doesn't have it wrapped up yet


9:24 PM Barack Obama wins Ohio and is our new president
9:02 PM Arizona too CLOSE to call. Eat that you piece of shit
8:24 PM Hagan beats Dole for Senate seat in NC
8:05 PM Obama wins PA and NH. Joe Scarborough puts it well: McCain now needs to win NC,IN,MO,FL,VA,NV, and either CO or NM or it's over
6:59 PM Warner wins VA senate (duh). Georgia and Kentucky are senate seats that are too close to call
6:57 PM Just got home from work. Virginia and parts of Indiana are closed. Indiana is close which makes me very excited!

Election night

I hope to be blogging a decent amount on election night. Here's what I'll be watching:
Presidential election (duh)
Senate races specifically:
Franken v. Coleman in MN
Merkely v. Smith in OR
Martin v. Chambliss in GA
Lunsford v. McConnel in KY
Musgrove v. Wicker in MS
Allen v. Collins in ME
Shaheen v. Sununu in NH
Begich v. Stevens in AK
Hagan v. Dole in NC

House races (so many to follow I don't keep track that well)
MN-06 because Michelle Bachmann is a moron
AK-AL because Alaska if full of criminals
WA-08 because whenever you can get a progressive you've got to hold tight with both hands

MA props
CA prop 8
ME props 1 and 2



I voted on Thursday since I'll be working almost all day Tuesday (gone by 7am, maybe get back by 7pm but no guarantees). I was surprised how many people were voting early. I know there has been a lot of early voting is swing states but even in Massachusetts. I'll be interested to see how voter turnout comes in.

So how did I vote? Well to put it bluntly, democratic. Didn't have many choices in the local races (most were running unopposed but Obama and Kerry are one vote closer because of me.

As far as props go I didn't vote strictly 'liberal'
I voted to keep income tax because I think it's stupid not to
I voted to decriminalize 1oz or less of pot
and my one 'non-liberal' vote: I voted to keep dog racing legal.

My rationale for this vote is that the burden of proof is on the people claiming dog abuse because they want to change law and put around 1000 people out of a job. They've had this as a proposition before and it failed and I don't know what is going to happen this year but from everything I read it seemed to be mostly a he said/she said subjective case.

Some neat quotes

I had no idea what else to do with these but I heard both of these yesterday and thought they were neat:

Voting is like driving: Choose R to go backwards, choose D to go forwards

Rosa sat so Martin could walk
Martin walked so Barack could run
Barack runs so our children can fly

mmmm, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

A thought, do you think more people watched the Barack infomercial or the World Series last night? Probably Barack since he was on more stations (including the one the WS came on). Anyway I thought both were great. Congrats to the Phillies and especially Cole Hamels.

My thoughts on the possibility of an assasination

So there has been a lot of rabble rousing this campaign, which seems especially dangerous since most of it is against our first viable African American candidate.

Now news comes that the ATF has foiled a plot to kill Barack Obama. But if you read this plan it was much more of an idea and a fantasy than a 'plot.' The guys were neo nazis who had stolen guns from family and intended to use those to rob a gun store, kill 88 african americans at a school (beheading 14 of them), and then get in a car dressed in white suits and top hats drive very quickly at Obama while firing at him from out the windows. Let me just say:
They had gotten to about step 1 of their 4 step plan (and probably didn't even have their top hats yet)

Clinton and the bushes have had grenades and planes try to kill them and people fire at the white house but the last president to have a person shoot physically at him with a gun was Reagan. I just don't see an assasination happening. Crappy attempts like this, sure. I guess I would say that we just don't have a culture that breeds assasination like we did in the 1960s. Maybe it's just my optimism but I am not nearly afraid of this as most others seem to be.

Belated endorsement note

Al-Qaida endorses McCain

Colin Powell endorses Obama



I think Obama wins this round.

But on a serious note, I'm surprised this came out from Al-Qaida supporters. Any person who pays attention knows that Al-Qaida likes Republicans in power. Bush hasn't gone after Bin Laden or Al-Qaida and instead attacked one of the most secularly run countries in the middle east (basically killing a bunch of the least threatening Muslims). This drives up recruiting for them and puts them in no real danger.

That being said, I think Bin Laden handled this better in 2004 with reverse psychology by addressing Americans and saying he supported Kerry, knowing that people would vote for Bush. These Al-Qaida supporters essentially gave away the whole mind set.

For those who haven't heard Powell's endorsement it is awesome. He finally offers the proper answer to the charge "Obama is a muslim." After noting that he is not he says 'well what if he is?' and goes on to say that a person's religion shouldn't matter and that American Muslim boys and girls at home shouldn't be made to believe that they aren't allowed to be president.

For those who claim Powell had to endorse Obama because he's black I think that is absolutely ridiculous. Are they going to stop inviting him to black conventions? Being a republican probably did that enough.
He's a military man, a republican, a former member of this administration, and has known John McCain for over 20 years. That's like saying Bill Richardson had to endorse Obama over Hillary because they're both minorities. Many more reasons for him to go the other way

Belated congratulations

to Paul Krugman for winning the Nobel Prize in Economics. I can't think of a man more deserving than Krugman. He's incredibly intelligent and probably the best progressive economist there is. I can only pray that Krugman gets a high level job in an Obama administration but I realize that is probably too much to ask. Heaven forbid a progressive actually work his way into government.

Anyway, I find it cool too because Krugman got his Ph.D from MIT and also taught here for some time.

Congrats Paul!

Debate results

The only consistent, reliable ways to say who "won" the debate this season have been CBS and CNN polls of voters watching the debate. It completely dictates the spin. Reception to Obama was lukewarm directly after the debate but changed to being 'how Obama beat McCain.' Instead of being 'flat' Obama became 'cool.' Neat political trick huh?

Anyway here are the numbers
CBS
Who won the debate?
Obama 53
McCain 22

Shares your values

Obama, Before the debate: 54
Obama, After the debate: 63

McCain, Before the debate: 53
McCain, After the debate: 56

CNN
Who won the debate?
McCain 31
Obama 58

Favorable/Unfavorable

Obama, before debate: 63/35
Obama, after debate: 66/33

McCain, before debate: 51/45
McCain, after debate: 49/49

Game over. Nice knowing you John. Now let's see how many electoral votes Obama can rack up and how wide a popular vote gap Obama can get. Here comes a mandate baby

Live blogging the debate

BREAKING NEWS: Nothing changes. CNN and CBS snap polls are worth watching but pundits are lying sacks of crap

Congratulations John McCain! You just set the world record for using the word autism in a debate!

McCain's stock answer to education should be: If everyone in this country had a good education, republican politicians would be out of a job. What happens when republicans leave political office? They go to the private sector and screw the people so anyone who wants to improve education wants to screw the people.

Why is abortion the only issue to get Republicans to say "I'm a federalist"? Constitutional Amendment defining marriage ring a bell republicans?

This just in: McCain doesn't understand healthcare

If Obama had said Wal Mart after saying he would penalize large businesses that can afford to pay for health care for their employees he wins this debate with the country right there.

I think McCain just wants Obama to travel a lot. I don't see why but it's always nice to get travel suggestions

I disagree with Obama's view of free trade. If we make shitty expensive cars and South Korea has better cheaper cars we shouldn't be able to sell ours

Oh, McCain says storing and disposing of nuclear waste is no problem. Good, I was worried about that.

Yeah, why do we need to spend to pay for things? Can't we just deregulate, lower taxes and hope for the best? Seriously, McCain just is not intelligent.

I just shit my pants when McCain said women look up to Palin

Ooooo, McCain, ask him about Jeremiah Wright! What about the fact that he's a secret Muslim terrorist? Wow

What is McCain talking about!? What has been yelled at Obama rallies? EXAMPLES! Why are you letting the kooks who scream shit at your rallies off the hook? You say it happens at all rallies and your supporters are the most patriotic? Is that supposed to make us feel better?

Ooooo, how's McCain going to defend all the evil shit that he hasn't repudiated after it's been said (and widely reported) at his events (and Palins)

This is probably McCain's best debate yet but no one is really scoring any points (cause they're only spouting talking points). That being said, I wish Jim Lehrer was moderating this debate because he was...competent

McCain, shut up about the town halls. You've lost all of the debates (including the town hall). Just cause you want free publicity (cause no one wants to give you money) don't pretend that you are moral in any way

You know what I like about Obama. He answers every charge. Palin and McCain pretty much say "Let me answer the things I want to and ignore the others because they're tough or unsavory"

I like McCain's line about "I'm not Bush" but unfortunately he's so close to Bush that Obama will be able to nail him on that.

Can we just educate the public on earmark spending. How many times does Obama have to say that we need to cut back on stupid spending but earmark spending is not a significant amount of our government spending. You know what is? The war (and more broadly the military and arming our overarmed nation)
Wow, Bob actually called McCain out on his "Iknow how to" stupid lines

Pay as you go? Obama just say no! Demand stimulus and New Deal 2.0 dude!

If Joe the Plumber makes more than $250,000 a year, his taxes should go up.

McCain trying to make Obama sound like a socialist. Might work with the American people because many of them have an irrational fear of anything that sounds like socialism/marxism/communism. Little does he know that we're on the verge of a class year already
Talking points...yawn
Both of them are looking at the camera, not each other...lame.

Here we go again

Jack Cafferty HATES Sarah Palin

In the world of cable news Fox are the republicans, MSNBC are the democrats, and CNN are the "independents" who are accused of bias from both sides and, while inept and balanced when it is not always fair to be so, probably represent the undecideds better that either of the other two. That being said, Jack Cafferty's repeated lashings of Sarah Palin is probably just one in a string of many reasons that McCain is Effed. Here is the play by play.

Cafferty berates the Palin choice from the outset:


Cafferty is stunned by incoherence and ignorance of Palin's answer to Couric's question about the bailout and says she should "scare the hell out of you". "There is no excuse for this":


Cafferty asks how anyone can talk Palin seriously. Also suggests she's committing political suicide by essentially...talking:


Cafferty asks if Palin should be removed and says McCain used bad judgement by picking her:


Cafferty reads emails from left, right, and center saying how unqualified she is:


Ouch! would you like some ointment for that burn?

You know you're on the wrong side when...

you have to calm down your supporters by assuring them that your African American opponent isn't an Arab


you get booed for saying you admire your opponent, telling your supporters he's a decent person who you don't need to be scared of being president and that it's just ideological differences, and when you tell people to be respectful


Maybe instead of fanning these flames and accusing your opponent of treason the week before and then saying essentially you were talking politics or "kidding" you should just not do that in the first place. Obviously some of your supporters aren't smart enough to tell the difference.

A dangerous perception and more on the Nobel Peace Prize

So I was thinking more about Martti Ahtisaari winning the Nobel Peace Prize and noting that, in addition to being president of Finland, Ahtisaari was a diplomat and peacemaker before and after being president.

That got me thinking...being a diplomat is some pretty freaking important foreign policy experience and would seem to stress the peaceful/negotiation side. What is it with our country that "general" or "war hero" are taken to be foreign policy experience. It is to some extent but it is a very confrontational form of foreign policy experience and seems to speak volumes of our view of how we deal with other nations.

Why can't we have a president like this guy?

Former Finnish president and peace mediating "go-to guy" Martti Ahtisaari won the Nobel Peace Prize today. Congrats to him and it makes you wish that leaders of America were viewed as impartial and good peace mediators.

Wouldn't that be a cool place to be in the world?

Funniest clip ever

This is probably inappropriate because swing votes are who we need to sway but there is so much truth to this

McCain doesn't understand the war on terror

During this debate it became painfully clear that McCain doesn't like answering questions and doesn't understand wars that aren't with specific countries (if there was any doubt left)

Example: Obama said if we knew al Qaeda (bin Laden and top member of al Qaeda actually) were in Pakistan and Pakistan couldn't or refused to act then we should to kill them.

McCain implied that this was attacking Pakistan and that it was crazy but then saying that he would get bin Laden no matter what.

That begs the question: WHAT IF HE STAYS IN PAKISTAN AND PAKISTAN CAN'T OR REFUSES TO ACT?!

McCain doesn't seem to understand that al Qaeda isn't a country, it's a group that can move to different places. McCain really is better suited to Cold War type wars

Debate live blogging

Ok, I'm going to take a break for a while

9:29 PM: Everyone got drunk, what do you do?
Obama calls earmark hawkery not as significant as McCain makes them out to be
McCain claims Obama will raise taxes
9:24 PM: What sacrifices will people have to make to keep the American Dream alive?
McCain parrots Obama about looking at all programs and eliminating those that don't work. Holy shit, McCain talks about reducing defense spending. Now suggests spending freeze on everything except veterans benefits and defense.
Obama talks about clean coal and safe storage of nuclear energy. He also called people to serve instead of just shop.
9:23 PM: Brokaw makes joke about going overtime
9:20 PM: Brokaw asks to prioritize the following: Healthcare, Energy, Entitlement programs (social security, etc.)
McCain evades the question by saying we can work on them all at once.
Obama prioritizes (like he says families have to): 1st Energy, 2nd Healthcare, 3rd Education (apparently entitlement programs can go eff themselves)
9:15 PM: How can we trust either party when they both got us into this?
Obama explains how government budgets are slightly different than personal budgets and then points out that the economy was awesome under Clinton and sucky under Bush
McCain talks about bipartisanship. I think he's missing the point. Does it do any good to be bipartisan if both parties suck? Ok, now he's talking about cutting spending (blah blah blah, earmarks). This is more in line.
9:07 PM: Is it just me or is this essentially the same question about how the bailout helps average Americans?
McCain rails on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and Obama's 'cronies' although I don't know who they would be)
Obama explains the bailout in a fairly teacherly fashion. I like it. Now he's correcting McCain and saying this is a deregulation problem and that McCain is a deregulator.
9:05 PM: Asked about Secretary of Treasury. Says Warren Buffet (doesn't make sense) and Ann Whitman from Ebay
Obama says Buffet would be a good idea (no he wouldn't because he is such a private investor who has gamed the system that he couldn't be trusted)
9:01 PM: First question about bailing out everyday Americans
Obama's answer rails on Bush deregulation and talks about infrastructure, health care, job creation, and ways to keep people in their homes
McCain's answer talks about taxes and energy independence. Not a bad slant except for McCain's is a tax cut for the wealthy and a hike for the lower and middle class. He makes a good point about renegotiating home loans at new market prices
8:58 PM: Candidates have seen the questions

We're getting ready for another debate. this one in Nashville in a town hall format with questions only from people in the hall and on the internet. I usually hate these because they pander to "Lipstick on a pig" and "Lapel flag pin" bull crap. Let's hope this one is better.

Enviroment and Globalization

Another interesting discussion in my globalization class today. Something I have thought about a fair amount: Europe and America developed economically by exploiting workers (slaves, women, children, low wages, long hours, unsafe working conditions) and raping the environment.

This brings up questions with developing countries today. Many of our low skilled laborer jobs are moving to developing countries (as they historically do) but also to questionable labor standards (obviously by our standards) but possibly more importantly to lower environmental standards.

Many authors have pointed out that even low worker standards are much higher than they used to be and that low standards in factories are still better than the options of working on a farm or as a prostitute. While this is not ideal progress it still is some progress.

The bigger economic issue is that the environment is in a really bad place right now and it is LARGELY due to American industrialization and individualism since we become more developed. Even if China and India weren't developing and using more energy and polluting more than they used to Americans would/should still cut back on their energy consumption and pollution drastically. The argument that I have heard (and heard widely reiterated in my globalization class) is that it is unfair to put American environmental standards into our trade agreements with others because since we polluted to develop it would be hypocritical of us to not allow other countries to develop by being horrible polluters.

The problem with this is that the world can't afford to let this happen. I agree it is a dick move for us to ruin the world by polluting too much and then hindering others growth by telling them not to develop as unfettered as we did. My solution wouldn't be to allow everyone to pollute as much as they want but to have America subsidize other countries clean efforts to not make the developing countries bear the entire brunt of the costlier development. If we are able to do this and keep strict environmental regulations then I think that the world community should also be able to enforce strict regulations on America's pollution levels to cap them and then bring them down with harsh fines for failure to comply.

I think this is the only way to save the environment and expand the international economy responsibly because two wrongs do not make a right. We need to both atone for our atrocious wrong and prevent others from making the same mistakes.

Culture shock (and fun with globalization)

I thought being at Bowdoin was culture shock to me because I was acutely aware that I was one of the least wealthy people there. I felt that I had an entirely different perspective and frame of reference. In hindsight I must say that at least most people that I met there seemed inquisitive and open minded and not openly malicious in any way. I may have still had a chip on my shoulder at times but most people's priorities (or at least the ones I surrounded myself with) had their priorities in the right place.

Fast forward to today. I'm now taking a class in the political science department that is simply called "Globalization." I could certainly expect that there would be a fair number of economically minded folk in the class but I assumed, also, that there would be some social science minded people who brought a balancing perspective to the class.

Today we talked in class about why most economists think that free trade and globalization are a very good thing and why public opinion has been against them and is only growing more opposed to them. Most seemed to be either puzzled by or dismissive of the fact. I didn't think it was too hard to figure out (hell we've been reading about it) that American workers are becoming more skilled in general so it does not benefit our economy to doing mass amounts of unskilled labor when other countries can be doing that while we are doing more technical tasks. Low skill workers are the ones losing their jobs and a lot of them can't easily transistion to other jobs and our country is shitty about job retraining programs. And since healthcare is tied to jobs in America, unemployment is much more perilous here than in the rest of the developed world.

Basically, globalization is good for our 'economy' but bad for a fair amount of our people. And those who haven't lost their jobs may either fear that they will or know someone who has. Add this to the fact that our jobs are rapidly transitioning from manufacturing to service (often a hard transition to make) and that many manufacturing jobs were unionized and provided good pay and good benefits and most lower level service jobs (think Wal Mart) have shitty pay and few benefits.

I think it was put very well by one of my classmates that the benefits of globalization (lower prices) are distributed evenly to everyone whereas the losses are more concentrated (job loss of mostly lower and middle class).

I don't know. Maybe I'm a marxist but there was an overwhelming feel of "yeah, I wonder why they don't get it." I agree that globalization is a good idea and, if done properly, will be very good for our country and others but we have to acknowledge that we're bad at it right now.

We set up these falls (in our country and in others) by creating artificial markets and protecting industries and distort the markets. Instead of protecting everyone by trying futilely to make sure that no one loses their current job, we need to make it easier to find new jobs, get trained for career shifts, and make unemployment not so devasting and stigmatized. I think most developed countries have done a better job of this than we have. Also underemployment is a huge problem in our country (although I've found it hard to find numbers on this for other countries)

Debate blogging part 2

10:26 PM: Haha, Palin tries to jab the media for being big meanies
10:12 PM: WOW! Palin has to look down every second to read her talking points and it's caught on camera
10:10 PM: HOT BUTTON: Palin suggests VP should have more power over the senate
10:08 PM: Palin claims referring to Bush and past (ie track record) is apparently unfair. Palin says teachers rewards are in heaven. How about you reward them on earth you dipshit?
10:06 PM: Despite Palin's stupid "we're mavericks" rhetoric I actually like her McCain and I disagree sometimes and giving the example of ANWR
10:05 PM: Aw yeah, Biden throws it back and says this is the most important election since FDR
10:03 PM: advice to Palin: don't say 'pundits will show who did and said what' come with your own proof dummy

Live blogging the debate

Ok, gonna start a new live blog thread cause this one's getting long

10:00 PM: Palin: 'Oh golly gee willickers I'm such a Joe Sixpack Washington outsider'
9:53 PM: HAHAHAHA. Palin basically says "we can have nuclear weapons cause we're the good guys and ours deter others from violence. They can't have them cause they're bad guys." I wonder if the guys on the other side think the same way in reverse
9:51 PM: Palin is essentially saying about Bush's massive fuck ups: Whoopsy Daisy, our bad, no biggie
9:47 PM: Biden understands issues. Palin is a parrot.
9:40 PM: Palin isn't blatantly looking stupid in this debate by her lack of prep but she is sounding stupid because she sounds like an uninformed talking point parrot
9:35 PM: It's painfully clear from this and the Couric interview that Palin doesn't understand questions worded in English
9:33 PM: Biden's answer on homosexuality may not be popular but I can't wait to hear Sarah Palin.
9:31 PM: Dear Sarah Palin, Natural Gas isn't "clean and green" Sincerely, anyone with a brain
9:29 PM: THANK GOD SOMEONE (BIDEN) FINALLY POINTED OUT THAT YOU WOULD BE SHITTY AT DEALING WITH GLOBAL WARMING IF YOU DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE A MAJOR CAUSE
9:27 PM: Palin evades the causes of global warming and loses any intelligent person by doing so
9:24 PM: Palin deflects question about court refinancing of mortgages to talk about what she already planned to talk about. Her debate is too much like a talking point speech
9:23 PM: Biden is very teacherly when it comes to skewing someone's voting record in regards to tax breaks to big corporations. He also turns Palin against McCain with windfall profits tax on big oil.
9:22 PM: Biden is really hammering the $4B tax cut to ExxonMobil
9:20 PM: Palin just referred to two companies and a monopoly (I don't get it. Doesn't monopoly mean one?)
9:19 PM: Biden calls corporate tax havens unpatriotic
9:16 PM: Biden pwns McCain's bs, corporate, inadequate healthcare and slips in a bridge to no one jab (which gets a chuckle)
9:15 PM: Palin doesn't seem to understand what she's saying but she's been briefed pretty well. She knows all of her points.
9:13 PM: Biden defending middle class and calling it a values issue
9:11 PM: Palin admitted she's not going to answer the questions/charges posed to her directly by Biden. You gotta like Biden here. Answering charges then going on the attack.
9:10 PM: Biden smacking Palin in the mouth on her lies. Tell it Joe! Tell it!
9:08 PM: Biden is really pinning this deregulation stuff on McCain. that's exactly what he needs to do. This is what's wrong, this is why it's McCain's fault. Biden slips in a story about a guy named Joey. Nice connection without being too hokey (cough Palin)
9:06 PM: Biden is being respectful and looking at Palin. Meanwhile Palin is delivering her stupid Joe Sixpack lines
9:05 PM: Palin had a nice moment when she looked at Biden but she looks less personable by being robotic and speaking with a blank stare at the screen
9:04 PM: There you go Biden. Don't let Palin's bs about McCain slide
9:01 PM: Palin's answer is ok but I think she should have challenged Biden's answer instead of going off on her own
9:00 PM: Well spun by Biden. Bailout is not the best or worst of congress. Just evidence of the shitty position Bush's policies put us in
8:59 PM: Seems cordial. Sarah Palin asked if she could call Biden 'Joe'
8:57 PM: Let's get it on!

Talk about Obama being a blank slate...

People used to say about Obama in the primaries that he didn't really put views forth and that he just talked about hope and people would project their beliefs on him.

Well Sarah Palin's recent trouble naming what she reads to get her news suggests that she just reads whatever people put in front of her. Take a look


So maybe we just need to start to control what is being put in front of her to keep her from being crazy.

Also she must be a fast reader. She reads "all of them"

American nonproliferation hypocrisy

I love how much we push nuclear nonproliferation in this country. Don't get me wrong I think it is a great idea especially when it focuses on disarmament but I can't blame Pakistan and other countries that are not big fans of nonproliferation and disarmament for being suspicious.

We have lots of nukes (and are big Israel fans) and now that our side has them we all of a sudden think that no one should continue to make them. I think our stance would be less hypocritical if our nonproliferation talk were proceeded by disarmament. It's probably too risky to do unilaterally but I think real nonproliferation can only happen with disarmament and we have no right to demand it from others until we start disarming in a massive way ourselves.

I feel like I have more to say on the topic but this was the gist.

Good and bad aspects of the Senate bailout passed

So first of all, for those who hadn't heard the Senate passed their version of the bailout 74-25 tonight. The house will vote on it Friday.

You many not have noticed though because it's called the "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007." Nope, not joking. This was bundled with a bunch of other bills that were up for consideration to make it seem more appealing. So here's what they were bundled with:

• Tax credits for renewable energy
• Requiring group health care to include mental health and addiction treatment
• Alternative minimum tax extension/protection
• Temporarily raising FDIC from $100k to $250k

Couple notes: Obama, Biden, and McCain all voted for this so the vote itself is a wash (economy still favoring Obama).
Here's a question: shouldn't McCain be opposed to this because this $700B bailout was hidden/attached to a bill that had nothing to do with it?

Even though a lot of great progressive economists (Krugman, Stiglitz, and Kuttner) now favor the bailout I still have my apprehensions and applaud the 24 senators who voted against it (yeah Sanders and Feingold). I especially applaud those who think there is a different way or that we are being pushed into the bailout without exploring how necessary the bailout is or better alternatives. This gives Feingold the only senate trio (against War in Iraq, Patriot Act, and Bailout) although I will say that Sanders was in the house not the senate.

Bill Clinton the rollercoaster

So Bill Clinton was at his first rally for Obama today at the University of Central Florida. Initially I thought Clinton seemed to be avoiding talking about Obama by talking about his own history and Joe Biden but he ended on a fairly strong note and seemed to have delivered a very good speech. If he keeps this up I think he'll be an effective surrogate although I'm glad Obama may not need him because he has been fairly erratic.

I say he may not need Bill because of recent polling which shows Obama's national lead anywhere between 5 and 10 percent which could rival Bill Clinton's 5.3 percent victory in 1992. And with a strong performance in Indiana and Missouri (RCP and fivethirtyeight.com show Obama ahead in CO, FL, VA, NH, NC, OH, and NV) Obama could win 375 EVs which would best Clinton's 370 mark in 1992.

Lessons learned from business school...and applied to the bailout

Ok so let me give you the gist of a case/session I've seen presented by one of the faculty members of the MIT Sloan School of Management present several times to one of our biggest executive education clients.

The basics of it are a negotiation exercise where two employees are having a disagreement and a third person (the boss) is acting as arbiter. The boss has $50,000 to use as a bonus or incentive as they see fit but the employees do not know that the boss has the money to give so until the boss brings it up (or the boss doesn't have to bring it up).

When the professor does the debrief he tells a story about his kids arguing and asks the class what happens when he offers his children money to stop arguing. Inevitably most of the class understands guesses that the children stop fighting for a short period of time but only learn that they can make money by fighting. This does not solve the problem it merely postpones it and in most cases it enforces bad/destructive habits

So, tell me again why essentially irresponsible organizations should be given $700B without severe regulations? Won't they learn from this that acting irresponsibly is profitable and that the government will always bail them out?

I encourage everyone to read the progressive alternative to the bailout proposed by Rep. Donna Edwards and others.

Oh wow the markets are back up again, I guess that means...

little to nothing except that the stock market realized that it over reacted to the failure of the bailout. Everyone just needs to calm down and let this bailout/rescue plan run its course. I'd rather we take our time and get it right than rush into it (like the war and the patriot act).

The sky is not falling chicken little and if it is then this is the situation of the boy (Bush) who cried wolf. Either way, let's not mess this one up too by listening to the fanaticism, panic and fear of Bush and the bankers and economists who got us into this mess.

Mmmm, market over-reaction

So there is a credit crisis but the markets today went crazy and over-reacted and lost more in one day than they've ever gone down before (number wise, not percentage wise).

So republicans tried to saddle democrats with the bill (thinking that democrats were going to whole heartedly support it) and then they were going to run against the democrats on this. There was also some far right resistance because they hate regulations and accountability for corporations.

There were also some moderate democrats (who also didn't vote for this for electoral reasons) also did it because they are budget hawks and hate spending for anything.

There were progressive democrats who didn't support it because they think it's irresponsible, not the only way to improve the economy, and more bullying by an irresponsible administration.

All of these groups claim to want to protect the taxpayers. I'm not sure how much truth there is to that but I do think that a great portion of the crisis is created by stock holder panic.

Credit is tightening but that is due in large part to the mega banks making crappy loans and cooking the books (or lying to themselves about risk). Here's a question: where are the small regional banks who were less greedy and made sound investments and have decent liquidity? I imagine that they could really grow in a situation like this. I'm sure credit would still drastically tighten but isn't this how the markets work? Some corporations are irresponsible and have to sell their assets (even good ones) at firesale prices to corporations who can take on a little extra risk if it comes cheap. Or maybe the large corporations just sell off pieces of themselves at firesale prices until they achieve some liquidity and can survive as smaller companies.

Bail out home owners who were preyed upon but I'm still needing a really good explanation to bail out some greedy bastards.

Anyone catch Sarah Palin with Couric?

This just in: Sarah Palin may be the stupidest person who has ever gotten this close to the president (don't worry W, I said may be)

Braindump and when your bs philosophy comes crashing in on you (Republicans and the $700B bailout)

Ok, so much shit to talk about concerning this bailout. I'll delve into the details about some of these points but there is a lot of just random things I would like to note.

McCain hasn't voted in the Senate since April 8th. Not for the FISA vote, not for the medicare vote (that Ted Kennedy left the hospital to vote for). And people in McCain's campaign have the audacity to criticize his 'present' votes in the Illinois legislature? Even after liberal groups with a stake in the votes have already defended Obama's present votes. And even though McCain is suspending his campaign (not really) to return to talk about the bailout he's still not sure if he'll show up for that vote.

Henry Paulson's initial proposal was one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Give me $700B dollars and make sure the courts or government has no authority to question or prosecute me because of the way I use it. (I encourage you to read this bull esp. Section 8 because it's very short and then you will be ahead of John McCain. I guess he's banking on the fact that American's don't like voting for readers).

Ok now here's the interesting bit and what stake everyone has in it:
Bush and Paulson: Stupid/evil fucks who were laughing (along with other Republicans) when they were deregulating and allowing their crony buddies to engage in predatory lending practices. There buddies lost money so they need to give them money with no stipulations (they don't care about the debt because they're on their way out.

House/Senate Republicans: Many are up for re-election so they still have to be republicans and cry anytime we want to regulate anything but they are torn because big business are the people who fund them so they want a bill that helps big business but has nothing to do with regulation or taxes. So they want to use this opportunity to suspend capital gains taxes for individuals and corporations (something they could have never dreamed of in normal circumstances because it's such an elitist idea that favors the rich and does nothing for the poor)

Blue Dog democrats: They're wringing their hands over the national debt and don't understand any other aspect of this debate (record numbers of people losing their homes and being crushed by debt, credit freeze or anything like that). They'll have no good options because the republican plan will decrease government revenues while democratic plans will spend money (if history repeats they will probably cave to republicans because theirs has a smaller short term effect).

Typical democrats: Do not question the fact that a massive bailout is needed. Suggest regulations and stipulations on the money such as

1. Government purchases sketchy securities and sees benefits on any that pan out (ie taxpayers pay for it they should see some benefits/get as much back as they can)
2. Cap on executive pay
3. Give courts the right to restructure bad mortgage

That being said, democrats will probably fold on enough important issues to make most of their gains meaningless (in the interest of "bipartisanship")

Progressives and people who care about the people: They are a little split on the issue and I can see why they believe the following things

1. Some think that there is no crisis and this is just a last ditch effort of the Bush administration to grease the palms of his corporate buddies (the 'YOU HAVE TO DO THIS NOW OR WE'LL ALL DIE' rhetoric was already used for the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act and we now realized we we're lied to
2. Some make very compelling cases that the sum should be MUCH smaller (and there should be all the regulations that other democrats suggest)
3. Bernie Sanders has proposed a great idea that charges the rich for this bailout (because they're the ones who got us into it) and addresses systemic causes that lead to the situation in the first place

I think all of these can be rectified. There is a situation that could develop into a crisis but it is not crucial that a solution happens in the next 20 seconds, the sum should be smaller, and we need to sufficiently fix these problems systemically and fix the problems for the future.

I still don't get why McCain and Obama were invited to Washington (neither are economic whizzes and it only serves to politicize the issue and slow down progress). I will say that McCain is probably in the toughest political spot because he's already claimed (parroting Paulson) that something needs to get done now and the proposal getting pushed through is a democratic taxpayer model with regulation so it can't seem to be partisan and vote against it.

What do I think will happen?
Mediocre deal (hailed by limp wristed democrats) that spends $700B with some regulations but not enough

What is the best thing that might be able to realistically happen?
$200B - $350B initial bailout with pledge to revisit it later and all democratic stipulations including judicial right to renegotiate

Replies to posts

Is it just me or are the only comments I get not related to the post?

Of all the people to give McCain a break...

Bill Clinton today says that McCain's suggestion to delay the debates was in good faith. Wasn't this the man getting attacked left and right by Republicans when he was in office? Bill Clinton knows exactly what's going on and he's politically posturing AGAINST Obama. What a sack of shit. He's been in the political game long enough. He can see through McCain's bull and he's intentionally choosing to be coy and 'diplomatic.' Now I'm not sure if Hillary's pledge to campaign for Obama in Ohio is genuine or is just hedging.
Hedging in this sense:
If Bill's McCain pander works and Obama loses and Hillary runs in 2012 she can say she did everything she could to help.

Every time I begin to respect Clinton again he pulls some stupid shit like this. If I were Obama I would anticipate winning with little or no help from the Clintons.

Today's reasons why McCain is a moron

Ok so what's wrong with McCain today. Let's list some things:

1) Did anyone catch that McCain's campaign and Palin herself said that we need to pass the bailout quickly to avoid "an economic calamity the likes of which has not been seen since, potentially, the Great Depression"? What happened to the 'fundamentals of our economy are strong'? That was just a week ago.

2) What is with this suspend the debates and your campaign bullshit? How does that help anything? I tend to agree with Harry Reid that McCain should stay away from DC because it would only politicize the talks and slow them down. Apparently W doesn't feel the same because he's invited Obama and McCain to DC.

Those are the two major points that are pissing me off about McCain today. I'm sure tomorrow will bring more.

Live Blogging W's address to the nation

Bush is addressing the nation about the national economic situation.

8:59 PM Call me crazy but Bush doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. Not very teacherly and understanding like FDR

9:01 PM Bush is not really being honest. He's blaming this ENTIRELY on the borrowers who 'borrowed more than they could pay.' Just tell America that mortgage lenders got greedy, gave too many high-risk high-reward loans and then jacked up the prices to unreasonable levels

9:04 PM Foreclosures have already risen traumatically moron.

9:05 PM What do McCain and Obama have to offer specifically? I mean really? Neither of them are financial whizzes and it will just bring a circus around the process

9:07 PM WOW! Bush just became a whipping boy. 'Protect the taxpayers. Avoid windfalls for high level executives' those aren't Bush's talking points. He hates those things

9:08 PM Did Bush just imply that we ARE going to buy the securities at fire-sale prices AND get the profits back in the government? This might end up being a good deal if judges have the ability to restructure mortgages.

9:10 PM Mmmmm, don't forget to suck cock at the altar of capitalism there Bush. BEST SYSTEM EVER IN THE BEST COUNTRY EVER! WOOO! You're a dick.

Overall thoughts: Bush is stupid, was a lap dog to Paulson's bullshit plan until everyone who knows anything said he was a stupid evil fuck. This may be a moment in history where politicians and Americans wake up and realize that the republican party line is an evil piece of shit in this case and Democrats are the party of helping people.

Note: Watching Chris Dodd's response to the speech on the Rachel Maddow show. He is holding back but he did say two important points
1. There were regulators but the 'cops weren't on the beat'
2. Fannie and Freddie weren't the huge culprits of Fannie and Freddie
3. Dodd bitch slapped McCain by saying he's just politicizing and didn't seem to care about the issue before it started hurting him

The economic scoop

This week we have proof that the conservative de-regulation theory of the economy doesn't work. Aka greed will catch up to you in the end.

From now on if someone suggests to you that deregulating industries is the best way to get low prices and 'let the market work' don't bother arguing with them. Their brain doesn't work and it is impossible to talk any sense into them because they will be unable to understand it.

I'm not saying that a market economy is bad. Here's what I'm saying:
1. Conservatives think free market=laissez faire economics. First of all the term 'free market' is a bullshit term so let's stop using it and laissez faire economics is what got us into our current mess
2. Markets (like children or sports) need structure and rules because they (or those participating in them) are too stupid and self destructive on their own.
3. Certain things should not operate on a economic market: health, justice, education, and possibly more that I am not thinking about currently.

These are the basics of sifting through some or most of the bullshit that conservatives have been trying to feed the world for more than a century. More on John McCain's ridiculous economics and the proposed Wall Street bail out when I'm not so tired.

Sarah Palin is a disgraceful VP pick

I don't know how else to frame it. Sarah Palin is from one of the most corrupt and mooching states in the US, she has no experience, is essentially George W. Bush in a dress but possibly even less informed and she is a candidate for VP of the United States. Let's go through various sorts of crazy scandals/facts about Palin

1. She would be the first VP in AT LEAST 40 years to have not met with a Head of State before being nominated for VP

2. She has lied about the why she fired Walt Monegan (Trooper Gate).

3. She lied about being against the bridge to nowhere and then kept the money even though it wasn't used for the bridge

4. Palin claims to be against earmarks (as does McCain) but Palin is in one of the most earmark laden states and Palin requested large numbers of earmarks as governor and hired lobbyist as Mayor of Wasilla (something no other Mayor of Wasilla had ever done).

She doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is, doesn't know what the VP does, is a pathological liar, least experienced person on a major presidential ticket in more than a century...phew. I could go on forever but let's leave it at her being an insanely terrible choice from the perspective of being a good human being or being competent at anything useful

Where have you gone Joe Biden? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you...woo woo woo

So it is noted that Sarah Palin is an overexposed vice president who is getting more press than most but where the hell is Joe Biden? It seems he disappeared for weeks and now he's reemerged but just barely.

I don't understand. He gave an impassioned speech at the DNC that suggests that he understands the problems facing our nation and can connect with people. Apart from his gem about rich people paying taxes being patriotic he really hasn't been seen or heard much.

Now Biden's most recent is that Obama's add about McCain's computer illeteracy is "terrible." Nice message control Joe. That may be a character attack on John McCain but it's also important because it means that McCain essentially isn't part of this century. He isn't part of society. People essentially don't work without computers now and new laws and policies are being crafted about and around the computer and the internet. How can we elect a president who doesn't even understand the basis of these problems?

Anyway I digress. I think Biden may be good but he's been a ghost for a while and I'm not sure if that's a good thing

Update(s) tonight

Ok there is a lot of stuff going on and I should be blogging it. I promise to have at least one blog post tonight. I intend to address

• economic meltdown
• proposed 700 billion dollar bailout
• Sarah Palin antics
• John McCain antics
• Joe Biden

I'm not sure if there is much else I should be railing about but that will probably be a few posts tonight

Finally...

I finally finished the book I was reading ('Against All Enemies' by Richard Clarke). It had been 2 and a half weeks which is quite a long time to not finish a book I think (especially when the book isn't really that long)

Random thing I did today: Rev Run (of Run DMC and MTV's "Run's House") was at Brookline Booksmith signing his new book on parenting with his wife and his two youngest sons so I got to meet (actually it was more like see) them and get my book signed by all four of them.

And finally Barack Obama chose a running mate. Congrats to Joe Biden. I love him as a guy and his policies are ok. He was better than Kaine or Bayh and his smarminess will be fun to watch on the campaign trail. Although it seems that (if Obama is elected and re-elected to a second term) we may have another VP who won't run for president after his VP term is up. That would be two in a row. Very strange if it happens.

Just tell me the your VP is already so I can relax

I'm sure this is all part of his master plan of suspense but I'm mentally and physically exhausted because I've been expected a text message with the name of Obama's VP since Wednesday morning. I am about to have a heart attack and I feel run down. The Capitol is reserved allegedly starting at noon on Saturday and I may not get any rest until then.

If he wanted to build suspense he has done it but this also means his pick better not disappoint (that means no Bayh or Chet Edwards). I guess it's like Christmas, I just have to wait and hope I don't get crappy presents.

Rest in Peace Stephanie Tubbs Jones

Congresswoman from Ohio Stephanie Tubbs Jones died today after having a brain aneurysm. I didn't know much of her but from everything she was a popular and pioneering congresswomen and I suppose her politics don't matter much at this point and it's sad to hear of her death.

Patriotism

Ok, so I'm not a huge fan of the word patriotism (hell, I'm not even sure if I'm a fan of patriotism in general) but it is quite obvious to me that Republicans have hijacked the term so I want to see if I can even figure out what it means.

First some dictionary definitions to build off:
Most generic definition I could find: Love of and devotion to one's country (American Heritage Dictionary)
So that doesn't really mean anything because you can easily redefine that

Ok now let's look at a few excerpts from more pointed definitions:
1) Love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it (WordNet)

2) Devotion to the welfare of one's country (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)

3) The passion which inspires one to serve one's country (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)

Ok, so in 1) it is still we get the idea of willingness to sacrifice for it. Well what does this mean? Are we talking sacrificing money, time, your life, or what?

There is a quoted quip that says soldiers fight for their buddies beside them and not necessarily for their country so is being a soldier proof positive that you are sacrificing for your country? Is this the only type of sacrifice and therefore the only true patriots are soldiers? If you're talking about sacrificing money then wouldn't someone who favors higher taxes (or at least those who desire to pay them) be more patriotic?

Maybe 1) is kind of hinting at what 3) says. That 'sacrifice' really means 'service to one's country.' This may seem to favor those who served in the military. Well I guess that calls into question why Bush was viewed as more patriotic than Kerry even though Kerry served in Vietnam.

For that matter, served could mean served the government in any capacity. If the draft were instituted working in the State department (or being a senator) would count as 'serving' your country (ie you would not be drafted into the military) so I guess any government employee is patriotic.

If 2) is your definition then the Republicans fair very poorly in the sense that they are notoriously against 'welfare' and think that everyone should fend for themselves. The economy is notoriously bad during Republican administrations and fewer social programs are supported. I guess if you want to define welfare as moral welfare and you subscribe to the far right's view that abortion should be illegal in all cases and that homosexuals and minorities should be allowed no rights then I guess Republicans are better for the welfare of the country

So I guess that's it. Patriotism is keeping women, minorities, homosexuals, and anyone who isn't in a position of power marginalized and unequal citizens while giving everyone the opportunity to die for their country by picking fights around the world. Oh yeah, and wearing flag pins, displaying flags everywhere, screaming "USA" loudly and frequently.

Wait, why am I proud to be an American again? What do we have over Canada again?

I AM SO EFFING HAPPY!

As of September 8th Rachel Maddow has her own show on MSNBC at 9 PM! For those of you who watch, know and love MSNBC like I do this has been a long time coming and one of the biggest oversights and 'duh' choices on cable news.

I don't know what this is going to mean for Verdict with Dan Abrams (whose time slot she is going into) but I hope it sticks around cause it's a pretty good show and Abrams does a good job.

If I had to make a suggestion I would get rid of Hardball's re-air and do something like this:
5PM Race for the White House with David Gregory
6PM Hardball with Chris Matthews
7PM Verdict with Dan Abrams
8PM Countdown with Keith Olbermann
9PM Rachel Maddow's new show (untitled as of now)
10PM Countdown reair

I'm not married to the order of the 5-7 PM programs. I also think they could slide Abrams back to 11PM but I would also like to see a reair of Maddow's show (maybe at midnight or 1)

Update: Apparently Abrams is just losing his show but staying on as head legal analyst for NBC and MSNBC. If Tucker Carlson is any hint Dan is going to see a severe cut in his time. It's too bad because I thought he did a good job.

Underage Olympians

Ok, does anyone really care that several of the Chinese gymnasts aren't 16? The argument is that it's against the rules because younger kids have an advantage...ok...so what? It's not an unfair and unnatural advantage.

Would we care if underage kids played in other Olympic sports? I wouldn't because they'd get their asses beat. Do you think a 13 year old stands a chance of outrunning Usain Bolt, dunking on Kobe, blocking a Misty May spike, or out swimming Michael Phelps? Of course not. A 13 year old would stand no chance in any of those events because 13 is no where near the peak age of performance in any of those events. If 13 year olds can beat 16 year olds in gymnastics I say either let them compete or take those events out of the Olympics.

Call me overly competitive or an athletic capitalist but I think the Olympics are worth nothing if they aren't showing us who the best in the world are. If they are showing us who the best in the world are under certain stipulations that's bs.

It's also a double standard in that I'm sure that a 50 year old gold medalist would be celebrated as stretching the bounds of what we thought was possible. Why shouldn't we also celebrate the youngest gold medal winners? We marvel at Michelle Wie and Freddie Adu yet these gymnasts are criminalized. Doesn't make much sense to me. Congrats to them.

Although you are free to claim that Nastia Liukin was robbed and that her routine was gold medal worthy on merit alone.

I almost forgot

That I never intended this to be purely a political blog. I figured it might evolve into one because of political season but I've been forcing that over the past few months and I think I would like to retain some of the personal in it as well.

That being said, this post was to talk about a political book I'm reading.

Over the past month or two I've gotten into an author by the name of Charles Derber. He is a sociology professor and activist from Boston College. I have been absolutely delighted by everything of his I've read so far.

Derber is honest and intellectual and comes from an informed far left position. He compares our current government the Roman and British Empires and in our "morality" to Nazi Germany and the Slave South. He's hard hitting and intellectual and makes you want to arrest republican politicians on sight. Before reading him I disagreed with and disliked republicans now I'm fairly thoroughly convinced that to be republican you must be either naive, ignorant, evil, or some combination of the three. He is an absolute must read.

Oil profits riddle

Ok so we all know by now that crude oil and gas prices are both very high. I think most people have also heard that American's are driving a lot less as a result. So if people are buying less gas then how are oil companies continuing to make record profits?

While overall production dropped 8 percent the major oil companies profits rose between 13 and 33 percent for each of the major companies. Producing less, selling less, making more. Well it's good to know that their profit margins aren't hurting.

McCain doesn't speak for...McCain

I guess the Republican party is running as John McCain here and not McCain running as the republican candidate as is usually the practice in politics.

John McCain, who had previously said he would not raise taxes, now says it's not off the table. That's not the best part. McCain spokesmen Tucker Bounds says that McCain will not raise taxes...basically McCain's words do not represent McCain's views. So either he's lying, flip-flopping, or (what I think is most likely) he forgot what 'his' position (read: the party line) is. He had a brief stint of honestly and sanity and he had to be corrected by a spokesman. I'm glad republicans keep reminding me why I'm not one of them.

Bush: worst economic president ever?

So I've already done a two post series on how bad republicans are for the national economy in just about every way imaginable but I just had to mention this:

Federal Budget Deficit will reach record low of $490 billion

The previous low was $413 billion (also under Bush). Consider that Clinton left with a $236 billion SURPLUS and you come up with Bush adding $726 billion to the deficit. In an eight year presidency that's $90.75 billion a year! That's more than any president (except for Bush Sr.) has lost in the entire presidency going back through JFK (and that's only as far back as I can find records).

I think any Republican running for national office should have to admit that Bush is the worst president since Hoover (I would say he's probably worse but I want push this on them cause that's debateable) before they can get their name on the ballot. He has ruined/is ruining our country and it will be a glorious day when he leaves office.

Brian Williams talks with Ahmadinejad?

Holy cow! I hope there were pre-conditions to this interview. Doesn't Brian Williams know how international relations work? Why would NBC aid terrorism like this?

Oh wait. Those are all right wing talking points. Nevermind. Tonight Brian Williams sits down to talk with Ahmadinejad. It sounds like their nuclear program will be the primary focus. I wonder if he'll get Mahmoud to admit that he terrorist fist bumps Obama at their weekly Muslim meetings?

Politics, like comedy, is all about timing

McCain was going to give a speech supporting offshore American drilling. He was supposed to deliver this speech on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico but it was cancelled due to weather. I guess the weather was too nice.

It couldn't have anything to do with the 400,000+ gallon oil spill in the Gulf yesterday. Hmmmm, at least he has the brains to cancel it but this is just bad timing for McCain. Can we just add this to the list of reasons to diminish our dependence on oil...period (not just foreign oil).

Al-Maliki lays the smack down

Now I'm sure that the republicans will spin this in some way but this does not bode well for republicans, Bush, McCain, or anyone who criticized Obama's timetable for withdrawl. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html

So yeah, Al-Maliki pretty much says Obama has a really good idea with the timetable. And since McCain himself had said we would have to respect the Iraqis request to withdraw. Um, yeah, smackdown.

My take on the New Yorker cover today

I don't intend this to be a long post but since the New Yorker cover is the topic in the news today I thought I'd just weigh in with my opinion on the topic.

I understand the satire of it and I don't particularly have a problem with it because I agree that most New Yorker readers will understand the satire but my one thought on it is that it could've been done better. Here's the issue: satire needs to have someone they're lampooning or ridiculing and they are usually, if not always, the center of the satire. Whether it's a person, a group, a system or idea I feel like the object of satire needs to be front and center. The awkwardness of the New Yorker cover is that the only thing presented is Barack and Michelle Obama. I think it would be more acceptable if it were Karl Rove or some right wing pundit describing this pictorally on the cover or a picture of the McCain camp denying helping the spread of the rumors at all.

I acknowledge the satire and can see the humor, but it's not really that well done (especially considering it's the New Yorker).

Jesse Jackson (no, it's not what you think)

I'm not using this post to comment on the recent "scandal" of Jesse Jackson's comments because, frankly, it's silly. Whatever.

What this incident reminded me of in a roundabout way is that if Obama is elected president his senate replacement will have to be appointed and this whole fiasco has reminded me that there is at least a decent chance that someone like Jesse Jackson Jr. (son of Rev. Jesse Jackson and Ill congressman).

He's been an illinois congressman for 12 years, there's something to be said for replacing the only african american senator with another african american, and would be a more liberal senator than Obama. I just think he would be a great choice and I hope he gets serious consideration.

Today in the senate

So the FISA fight officially died today. There were 28 heroes who voted against FISA and for all of the amendments (a few who voted against it did actually vote for cloture and as much as I'm not a fan of the cloture vote the other votes were the important ones)

A note that Clinton was one of these heroes but Obama was not. Obama, in what can only be construed as a pandering political move, voted for all of the amendments (to appease the left) but then when they were all defeated voted for cloture and for the bill with immunity (pissing off the left but appeasing people in the middle and the right so that John McCain can't falsely accuse him of not protecting our country). It just seems like a silly move to me and ultimate capitulation to stand up and say "we should have all of these amendments to this bill" and then when told 'no' you just say "ok, nevermind, I guess the bill is fine as it is." You just rewarded their stubbornness and showed yourself to be weak. Very frustrating, although not entirely unexpected I guess.

In very uplifting news from the senate, the medicare bill that was in danger of not passing (or at least not passing with a veto-proof majority) but then Ted Kennedy made his first appearance since his diagnosis to vote for it. This argueably swayed a few fence-sitting republicans needed so that the motion passed with 69 votes.

Oh and not that these votes were important or anything but McCain couldn't be bothered to show up.

Republicans are bad with money part 2

Ok, so yesterday I used unemployment rates and the budget deficit as examples of how bad Republicans have been with money during the presidency. Although I'm sure I could find more examples I think the examples I've used and will use here cover important bases of money matters:

1) Unemployment rates - represent economic effect on the electorate. availability of jobs has direct effects on people
2) Budget deficit - how good the government/president is at budgeting, using only money that we have.
3) GDP growth - overall health of the economy. The president may not always have an extremely direct effect on the economy but Washington polices do effect economic health. So let's see if there are patterns here

President Party %GDP growth %GDP growth per year
FDR Dem 180.64 15.08
LBJ Dem 28.89 5.78
JFK Dem 13.28 4.43
Clinton Dem 33.81 4.23
Reagan Rep 30.63 3.83
Carter Dem 13.67 3.42
Eisenhower Rep 25.83 3.23
Nixon Rep 17.88 2.98
Ford Rep 5.46 2.73
Bush 2 Rep 17.82 2.55
Bush 1 Rep 8.81 2.20
Truman Dem 10.06 1.26
Hoover Rep -25.60 -6.40

What can we learn from this chart? The Depression was really bad (it killed growth during Hoover and the recovery rocketed FDR to the top of our list). What else? Democrats are much better for growth, generally except Truman, and Reagan is still pretty good for a Republican.

So what does it all mean other than Republican presidents are bad for out country economically? I don't know. Maybe that blanket tax cuts are pandering and not a viable economic plan? Maybe along with assuming Republicans are "tough on crime" we can take it for granted that Republicans are bad for the economy.

Now let us all look at McCain's financial plan and laugh

My new blog

Check out my new movie review blog "Fat Flicks" at www.fatflicks.blogspot.com

Republicans are bad with money part 1

So the title of this post probably doesn't surprise most people but every time I look at any numbers I just have to laugh. Let's look at some numbers:

First let's look at unemployment from 1950 to the present

Ok, in case you hadn't figured it out the red areas are during a Republican presidency. Notice that unemployment always goes down during democratic presidencies (except for Carter who came out even) and that the republicans always raise unemployment (except for Ronald Reagan who actually decreased it substantially). Here are some numbers broken down and sorted by unemployment percentage decrease.

President Party Beginning End Change
Clinton Dem 7.30% 4.20% -42.47%
LBJ Dem 5.70% 3.40% -40.35%
Reagan Rep 7.50% 5.40% -28.00%
Truman Dem 3.40% 2.90% -14.71%
JFK Dem 6.60% 5.70% -13.64%
Carter Dem 7.50% 7.50% 0.00%
Bush 2 Rep 4.20% 5.50% 30.95%
Bush 1 Rep 5.50% 7.30% 32.73%
Ford Rep 5.50% 7.50% 36.36%
Nixon Rep 3.40% 5.50% 61.76%
Eisenhower Rep 2.90% 6.60% 127.59%

So basically the Democrats won't do any harm and will usually create jobs and, more often than not, Republicans are going to do much more harm than good. Coincidence? Hmmm, I would tend to say no but I acknowledge I'm probably bias.

Not enough for you? How about the US budget/deficit by presidency since JFK?

Let's rank these to make them a little more visual

President Party Increase/Decrease of Deficit in Billions

Clinton Dem $526 Nixon Rep $19 Carter Dem $0 JFK Dem -$7 LBJ Dem -$18 Ford Rep -$68 Reagan Rep -$81 Bush 1 Rep -$135 Bush 2 Rep -$632

So Nixon does ok but again, you're much better off with a democrat than a republican. For those who aren't convinced I'll return with some GDP stats tomorrow.

But yeah, lesson for today Republican+government+money=bad

Aliens have invaded!

Is anyone watching the "Compassion forum?" First of all, the whole thing seems like a terrible idea because no one is going to say anything even remotely honest and open. All politicians know that on a national level that you have to appear Christian but not "really" Christian.

I have to laugh and punch myself in the head while listening to Hilary's answers to these first few questions. I can't remember the last time I heard someone use so many words to say NOTHING! I'm not sure if she's even speaking English. I must say that I don't expect Obama to be much better but Hilary Clinton seriously is an alien who is giving responses to some crazy questions that only hears. My guess at the question: "Could you please just babble on about how difficult making decisions is before we vote for you for one of the most important decision makers in the world?"

And I love that she mentions that she loves having people around her whose views make her uncomfortable...hmmm...like...JEREMIAH WRIGHT! Oh wait, no that couldn't be true because he makes you uncomfortable and you would've left his church.

Hilary, please give democrats (or the human race in general) SOME idea that you are a semi-intelligent, compassionate person and not just some scheming, calculating, person who cares about no one but yourself and your own success.

NEWS FLASH: Clinton's chances have been terrible for a while

I know American's are math averse but this is ridiculous. Why can't more news organizations publish things like this.

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic
presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of
winning...Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote —
which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that
achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory.
An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he
won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.
People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger
is a game of make-believe.

So then, Bill Clinton, would it be fair to say that Hillary's chances are a big 'fairy tale?' The article goes on to say that the media plays this as a close race because it makes better news than a race that's dragging on for no reason. Although I will say that I firmly believe that many news commentators may not understand that it is over and basically has been for some time.

The fact that Hillary is holding out knowing full well that she's hoping Obama will slip and/or the super delegates will overturn the will of the people. Mmmm, bush-tastic. I hate our media coverage.

The new scabs

While reading Senator Dorgan's book "Take This Job and Ship It" one thing that has become abundantly clear is that foreign labor has now become the equivalent of scabs and union busters and may be even more difficult to overcome.

I can appreciate that people in other nations need jobs but I fail to see how the American worker can compete against workers who make 30 cents an hour and work 60, 70, and 80 hour weeks or more. This will merely lead to jobs leaving America at a breakneck pace waiting for every other country that America could possibly outsource jobs to to raise their labor standards to the point where American laborers can compete. This is unreasonable.

I do think that at the current time it is unsustainable and unreasonable to refuse to trade with any country that doesn't meet our labor standards. It would essentially mean the end of most of our international trade for years. I think that, as Dorgan suggests, we should close tax break loopholes and make it at least profit neutral to export jobs so that American workers can compete. This will also serve to make sure that American corporations are paying their FAIR share of taxes that they have gotten on the back of the American consumer.

On a closing note, the one thing that I think we may eventually be able to legitimately learn from free trade with places like Canada is that universal health care is a great idea. A country that provides universal healthcare can afford to pay lower wages to its workers because those workers do not have to worry about buying healthcare. Because of this I'm not sure that America will ever be able to keep up in free trade with Canada until we have a single payer (or at least universal) health care system.

Sorry to beat a dead horse

I've meant to post on this article by Pat Buchanan since it came out Friday. I know I've talked a lot about the whole Ferraro incident but I feel like this article is the epitome of the misunderstanding of this entire issue.

What Geraldine Ferraro said is palpably true, and everyone knows it...John
F. Kennedy would not have gotten 78 percent of the Catholic vote had he not been
Catholic. Hillary would not have rolled up those margins among white women in
New Hampshire had she not been a sister in trouble. Mitt Romney would not have
swept Utah and flamed out in Dixie were he not a Mormon. Mike Huckabee would not have marched triumphantly through the Bible Belt were he not a Baptist preacher and evangelical Christian. All politics is tribal.

I agree with the last bit, but this does not imply that what she said was true. In fact, it helps illustrate that it is false. Buchanan is exactly right that Romney ran away with Utah because he was Mormon and 'flamed out in Dixie' because he was a Mormon. Would Buchanan maintain that being a Mormon was beneficial to Romney? The fact is it wasn't. If you're running for governor of Utah I bet it helps but on a national scale there are many more people who are uncomfortable with the idea of a Mormon president than there are Mormons who would unfailingly vote for a Mormon. That is one of the reasons there aren't many nationally successful Mormon politicians.

All of the cases he mentioned were/are running against the odds. Why was it such a big deal when JFK got elected if being catholic was such an advantage? Why haven't we had a black or female president if they are such advantages? It's because they help in certain demographics but hurt overall. All of these traits may make a politician unique and stand out but it does not help them win elections and history bears that out quite completely.

You know what is an advantage in American politics? Being white, male, and protestant.

Come on now, Pat Buchanan. You have been on the political scene not to believe this Ferraro nonsense. It makes absolutley no sense and I'm surprised anyone didn't laugh when they heard it.

Am I missing something?

So, as I've mentioned before Geraldine Ferraro's statements about Barack Obama were not racist but they were intensely misguided, misinformed, ignorant, offensive, and insensitive. The problem is that Ferraro is claiming that she's being called a racist and anyone who says something about Obama is being called a racist. Now I'm not naive. I know that many people are calling her racist. These are people commenting on blogs and sending her hate mail. I think that is drastically different than Barack Obama or any of his campaign or surrogates calling her racist. Ferraro, and all of us, must make this distinction (even while Ferraro herself is accusing the media of sexism). Here is Obama adviser David Axelrod's criticism of Ferraro's statement:

Leadership in campaigns comes from the very top, and the signals that have been
sent from the Clinton campaign have been very unfortunate. Not just in
this instance, where they offered a light statement of disagreement in response
to what was an offensive statement coming from Congresswoman Ferraro. But
this has been a pattern that we've seen throughout the campaign, whether it was
the Bill Shaheen incident, the Bob Johnson incident, Sen. Clinton's own
inexplicable unwillingness to make a direct statement on '60 Minutes' about Sen.
Obama's Christianity, even though they've shared prayer groups together in
Congress. All of it is part of an insidious pattern that needs to be
addressed.

Note that the statement (and previous ones) were referred to as "offensive." And rightly so. Her statements were offensive. The closest it comes to racism is having racist underpinnings that may draw (intentionally or unintentionally) the racist dixiecrats and those who perceive that they have been personally cheated by affirmative action.

The best response I have heard to this (and to any news story this year possibly) was Keith Olbermann's first ever special comment directed at a democrat on Wednesday night. It had made me sick to my stomach to hear so many democrats and republicans claim Ferraro spoke the truth but I have never felt as good as when I watched Keith Olbermann's special comment and breathed a sigh of relief that somebody else gets it.

A nuanced understanding of a Reagan comparison

Remember when Obama got grilled for saying the Republican party was the "party of ideas" for the last 10 or 15 years and said that Reagan changed the trajectory of our nation in a way Nixon and Clinton didn't. I must say that I enjoyed the statement and do believe that democrats should embrace Reagan comparisons and understand them in a nuanced way. Here is the way in which Obama is/should be like Reagan:

1. Reagan was running as a republican at a time when the democrat in the white house was extremely unpopular and even democrats were ready for change and unhappy with their party. Obama is running as a democrat where the republican in the white house is extremely unpopular and even republicans are ready for change and unhappy with their party.

2. Reagan was very charismatic and ran on change, almost as an outside. Obama is possibly even more charismatic and is running on change, and framing himself as an outsider.

3. Reagan had vast national appeal and changed the political map despite not being the centrist candidate in his party. Due to his likeability and inspiring of optimism in america he was able to get elected and get bipartisan support for very partisan ideas. If this holds true, Obama (even though generally on the left of Hilary) may be able to change the political map and take back states thought not in play (Hilary is already conceding many of these states in the general). He is very likeable and inspires optimism so he may be able to push through very liberal/partisan idea with bipartisan support. that is what obama means by forming a bipartisan coalition for change; not pandering and running to the center (ala Bill Clinton) but being so persuasive that even those of the other party go along with your agenda.

That is what I think Obama needs to/can do and what makes him different that Bill Clinton. Clinton had to offer change and hope by having such centrist policies that everyone could find something they liked. Obama, like Reagan, is using his charisma to make his political opponents to support him.

I think it's a good and apt comparison to make and I hope democrats understand the nuance behind it and embrace because comparing obama to reagan could also convince old Reagan supporters to come back to the democratic party

Geraldine Ferraro's remarks

Ok, so I'm sure most people have heard about Geraldine Ferraro's remarks recently but I will quote the relevant ones in order to comment on them.

She said:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued.
"And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He
happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the
concept."

Yeah, it's been a real boon to candidates to be African Americans in politics hasn't it. 29 women (8 currently) have been acting governors in our country compared to 3 African Americans (1 currently). There have been 216 women in the US House and 35 women in the Senate. There have been 116 African Americans in the US House and 5 African Americans in the Senate.

So where does the part about being lucky to be African American come in? When did America decide to wake up and say "wouldn't it be cool to have an African American president?" I agree that it has helped him with the AA vote but doesn't anyone else think that it intensely hurts him among many voters who won't vote for a black man? Don't you think this is why we haven't had more AA successful politicians? Or are we supposed to believe that AA politicians have been squandering their national advantage and that they are just naturally worse politicians?

Also let me note that Democrats typically win 90% of the AA vote in national elections and isn't possible that one candidate can be immensely popular among them compared to other democrats (like Hilary with Asian Americans or Latinos, or Bill Clinton was with African Americans).

If it is such an advantage to be black why haven't Al Sharpton, Allan Keyes, and Jesse Jackson been successful in their bids for the white house? It's because Barack Obama is a better candidate running at a time better suited to his particular message.

Barack Obama is as charismatic as Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and John Kennedy and is a better speaker than all of them with the possible exception of Kennedy.

His positions may not be vastly superior to Hilary's but it is incomprehensible to me that they cannot see the value and the appeal of being charismatic and a truly inspirational speaker.

Ferraro then went on to defend herself:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and
says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're
accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in
two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white.
How's that?"

So I do not think that Ferraro is a racist in the least degree but I do believe she seems almost like a dixiecrat or someone who would deny that racial discrimination still exists. Even though it is not her intent, her comments seem to play to lower class white voters who are veiled (or not so veiled) racists or at least those that somehow believe that affirmative action is an unfair advantage that helps black people to be better off in society than white people as opposed to something that is trying to meagerly level the playing field.

Ferraro's comments are not racist but they show a deep misunderstanding of how society works and the ingrained truths of institutionalized racism.

Can I just say that I also find it amusing that in the first article Ferraro claims that the press has been sexist in their coverage yet is hurt that anytime someone says anything bad about obama they're called racist. Hypocrisy much, Geraldine?

Can I just ask Hilary and her supporters to consider the fact that maybe your candidate doesn't play well in the media because she just has a bad image, comes off as cranky and petty, doesn't speak well, and seems very insincere and hawkish? Not everyone has to like you. Regardless of whether your policies are better (debateable), the fact is that you are not as marketable, media friendly, or appealing in most ways.