Obama Undercuts Long Running Conservative Theme of Being the Taxing Socialist

Obama Feeds GOP

Today Obama put political expediency above long term prudence by temporarily extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, wealthy and otherwise, for another two years. He did manage to get some of what he wanted, which was the extension of unemployment for out of work citizens. But both major components of the compromise agreement rather ignore the national debt issue.

Progressives and fidgety Democrats (those farthest on the left) will see this as a moral and intellectual lapse, with Obama being bullied into concessions. Frank Rich of the New York Times pushed this theme, and Paul Krugman has added his voice to those saying that President Obama needs to say "no" and not be timid.

Part of the problem is that the left has not really taken Obama's writings to heart. He is a problem solver, and not the defiant Moses leading the left to some promised land. They, like many, were blinded by his color. There is an assumption among the left that if anyone is likely to be rigidly left wing, it will be the black voter, the black candidate, the black elected official. Sure you will have a black Republican here and there (Uncle Tom, cough cough), but 90% of blacks know what needs to be done and had better darn do it. And it must be consistently lefty.

Obama is not sticking to script, and the anger is palpable. We know there are masses on the right who dislike him, who call him socialist, and who will disregard every rather centrist element of his policies, like his tax cutting. They will make up untruths to hate about him. The darn Kenyan Socialist Liar. That's called racism.

But there are those on the left too who are enraged and angry, and ready for him to be challenged in 2012 because he did not do what they imagined he, the black president, should do. He did not come down hard on Wall Street or bankers (contrary to their huffing and puffing). He did not push for a single payer system in his health care reform efforts. He has not fought hard on the social issues liberals hold dear. That he named two women to the Supreme Court, one Hispanic, is not enough because he is not doing the exact bidding of those who backed him.

In actuality, he is not their "boy". He is his own man. Every step of the way he has calculated in his mind what might be the best, right now, for the middle American. Step by step he has pushed forward legislation that makes incremental improvements.

By extending the Bush tax cuts for another two years, he is making sure that he has another four years to continue his work. He knows well that if he lets the cuts expire, that action will be twisted into a story of the socialist president raising taxes on everyone. He also knows the left will not vocally protect him on this charge, because they are too busy stewing over the loss of the everything they never would have gotten in any real universe.

Come election time, nobody in their right mind, or cognizant of truth, will be able to play out the long running lie that Obama has raised taxes. That theme has been dominant in conservative circles since forever, and when pressed the liars revert to, "Well he will, when he raises taxes at the end of year." No amount of clarifying the nature of Bush's temporary tax cuts will break through the wall of blindness that lets his detractors see a return to a norm as a whole new tax.

In time Obama's judgment will win out. The problem with his calculation is that is kicks the can down the road for two years. However, that's not entirely bad. What it also does is force the coming presidential campaign to be about real choices and how to reduce the deficit, and Obama won't be clipped by those alluding to him as a tax raiser and socialist.

Palin Embraces North Korea, Bombs Michelle Obama on Turkey Day

Palin Gives Lip Service to N.Korean Allies

We are having a hard time getting ourselves up and organized. We spent the morning halfway sleeping through New York's Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, what with Carrie Underwood urging us to "Undue It," and a creeping suspicion that the balloons are getting lower and lower each year. Eventually, they will just be dragged down the street, weighted floats, to prevent any accidental crashing into skyscrapers and the liability that can theoretically be caused when Mickey's head smooshes some family observing from above the streets.

Over on the internet the main news seemed to center around North Korea, and their holiday bashing of South Korean territory, but this little bit of expected hostility was overwhelmed by Palin's take on the matter:

When asked by Beck how she would handle a situation like the one that was developing in North Korea, Palin responded: "This is stemming from, I think, a greater problem when we're all sitting around asking, 'Oh no, what are we going to do,' and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do."

It is unclear whether Palin is talking about sanctions against North Korea, or U.S. sanctioning -- i.e. approving or supporting -- its actions.

Palin continued: "Obviously, we gotta stand with our North Korean allies," when Beck interrupted and corrected her to say "South Korea." 

"And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes," she responded.

(ABC News)

You can search that stack of hay for the needle of a solution, but there is none. The problem is not really the slip of the tongue. Bush did that all the time, and even Obama has had his share of speaking gaffs. The real issue is that Palin has nothing to offer as far as a solution. It's typical of her. She has tried recently to weigh in on things--Fed policy a week or so back, North Korea today-- but she really has no understanding of what she is talking about. It's all very kiddie pool. It would generous to assume her range of thought is dumbed down by design in order to reach the impatient and simplistic expectations of her most ardent supporters, but that would require at least an initial display of intellectual weight. We've yet to see something so hefty. The so called patriots that her support demand so little, liking their turkey without substantial dressing.

Palin didn't limit her criticisms to Obama's foreign policy. She found time to also take issue with Michelle Obama's focus on childhood obesity.  She questioned the idea of government interfering in the better judgment of parents. I would agree that the rights of parents to raise and instruct their children is the noble default position. But that position does not preclude me from understanding that any number of government initiatives have taken place to make up for human irresponsibility. The actual facts on obesity show that enough Americans have struggled with, or ignored making, the correct choices as far as their kids are concerned. And like seat belt laws, or child labor laws, sometimes the government can step in with a few encouraging words or a push in the right direction. The number of private sector initiatives that resulted from government funding is vast, and conservatives often ignore the fact that government can and does take care of things that we often neglect.

On days like this, I have to wonder who is the real turkey.

American Express Wishes You a Happy Diwali

I don't like to get too anything on this blog. I hope that we hold some sort of middle perspective, and one defined by truth. Getting singularly unhinged over an issue and spouting wild opinion is something we pride ourselves in not doing most of the time. No culture wars here.

Earlier today I couldn't help feeling a bit of holiday cheer rolling in like the smell of a hot pretzel on a Manhattan street.. At work we played a brief snippet of Alvin and the Chipmunks as a lark, and were quickly shouted down. "Turn it off, turn it off! I had to hear Christmas music over and over at Macy's on the weekend," said the tempestuous temp. I wanted to respond with something biting like, "Well, just because you got to hear music on your main job does not mean that I don't get to hear music on my main job ya know?" Or, and more condensed, "You do realize you are just a temp right?"

But I held my tongue.

Later at home I was on the American Express website checking out their assortment of gift cards. It's the ideal gift when one feels a bit lazy or when people are not cooperating by telling you want they like or want. Amex has a nice collection of cards, and you can customize them with your own images if you choose to do so. What caught my attention was the utter lack of cards with a basic Merry Christmas message.

My question is this. How is it that I can get a card celebrating Diwali, that actually says, "Happy Diwali" with a burning flame, or a Hanukkah card with menorah, and yet I still have no card with a simple Merry Christmas?

Nor can I upload my own religious photo for a custom card because among the many restrictions on custom cards, religious imagery is one of them. Huh?  American Express actively promoting other religious holidays while preventing me from promoting via a custom photo card my own holiday, here in, uhm, America? I thought perhaps that I was wrong and turned to Wikipedia, the great leveler that has made all of us into internet gurus and geniuses. Maybe there was no religious aspect to Diwali. Maybe I was getting all riled, all high horse, for no reason.

The first day of the festival, Naraka Chaturdasi, marks the vanquishing of the demon Naraka by Lord Krishna and his wife Satyabhama. Amavasya, the second day of Deepawali, marks the worship of Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth in her most benevolent mood, fulfilling the wishes of her devotees. 

(Wikipedia)

Hmm. So Diwali, or Deepavali,  is a whole mess of myth and spiritualism rolled together, symbolizing light overcoming darkness. I can get with that, to a degree. I can get with that to the degree that I don't have my own actual holiday which symbolizes to me, here in the United States, light overcoming darkness, and good overcoming evil. Funnily enough I do have a holiday though, and it's called Christmas.

As for the card with the menorah, apparently American Express overlooked the fact that the designer of that symbol, beautiful as it is, is actually... wait for it... God. Not so familiar with Exodus, that Amex crowd.  I have less problems with the menorah card, probably because I grew up in NYC where you got Jewish holidays off. Hanukkah growing up seemed like an extension of Christmas, much in the way that Christians (probably to Jewish annoyance) view Christianity as an extension of Judaism. That said, the menorah card poses the same problems as the flaming Diwali Amex card.

The real problem is not that other traditions are being celebrated, but that one original tradition celebrated by almost everyone in the United States is being shortchanged. If I can enthusiastically by a Diwali Amex card for my Hindu friends and wish them a Happy Diwali, I certainly should be able to find a card, secular or religious that expresses Merry Christmas. I am not content with increasingly secular, and now increasingly vague Christmas greetings. In the past you could be as vague (Seasons Greetings) or as religious (Jesus is the Reason for the Season) as you wanted to be, with everything in between. That choice is slipping away.

Given American Express's deep experience with Indian culture via outsourcing, perhaps it's not a surprise to see a Diwali card, but given the actual name of the company, they should remember their place and traditions too.

Kochs, Meet DB Norton. DB, meet the Koch Brothers. You Guys Should Talk.

There is nothing new, just variations on a theme.

As we head into the holiday season, our favorite time of year, we get the opportunity to re-watch, and make all those around us watch or re-watch, some of our favorite films. This would include It's a Wonderful Life, with Jimmy Stewart and Christmas in Connecticut with Barbara Stanwyk. If you combine the director of the former (Frank Capra) with the star of the latter (Ms. Stanywck) you end up with Meet John Doe.

Wikipedia:

Meet John Doe is a 1941 comedy drama film directed and produced by Frank Capra and starring Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck. The film, about a "grassroots" political campaign, created unwittingly by a newspaper columnist and pursued by a wealthy businessman, became a box office hit and was nominated for an Academy Award for best original story (for Richard Connell and Robert Presnell Sr.) 

It's a great film that plays both light and deep and with wonderful performances by its leads. It's also a holiday film, if marginally so, but with a powerful speech about redemption and the role of Christ in dying so we don't have to. But it's a religious film at all. It's a film about populism, about the press, about businessmen, about earning a paycheck, and about manipulators in benefactor's clothing, seeking to control all.

Not so much different from this long piece in New York Magazine about the Koch brothers. David and Charles have spent portions of their vast fortune trying to destabilize President Obama. They are libertarians and pursue a philosophy that fits quite nicely with their business interests. They want lower taxes, fewer environmental restrictions and regulations, and the general dismemberment of a Federal structure. It's amazing that they have managed to actually match (and mask) these goals to a group of people willing to blindly smoke their gas pipe.

The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to “educate,” fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and a historian, who once worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Dallas-based think tank that the Kochs fund, said, “The problem with the whole libertarian movement is that it’s been all chiefs and no Indians. There haven’t been any actual people, like voters, who give a crap about it. So the problem for the Kochs has been trying to create a movement.” With the emergence of the Tea Party, he said, “everyone suddenly sees that for the first time there are Indians out there—people who can provide real ideological power.” The Kochs, he said, are “trying to shape and control and channel the populist uprising into their own policies.”

(N.Y. Magazine)

One might think we have an anti-capitalist bent, or harbor some resentment against billionaires, but you would think wrong. While we find George Soros, the AntiKoch, mildly disturbing with his one world utopian chatter, he has at least worked to bring down totalitarian governments (as opposed to accidentally propping them up per Koch history). People like Gates and Buffet have contributed to American greatness in the public and private sectors. In the back of our heads we wish were James Simons, who from New York City and Long Island overseas Renaissance Technologies, an investment group that has richly rewarded its individual and institutional investors over the years (some, ahem, more than others).

But much of what the Koch brothers stand for is at odds with what might be good for the United States. The fact that they veil their patronage under euphemistic names does not help matters. We hardly imagine that those "foot soldiers" out there raising hell at town halls and rabidly emailing and calling freshman GOP members are fully cognizant of the extent to which they have not merely been co-opted, but outright seduced into ideas not of their own creation.

You can ask a child if they want an apple or a pear, by way of not asking if they want any of the other 50 items in the household. The child will see the presented choice as the universal set. He will never say I want it all, necessarily. It's a mind game, where you limit the choices between what you want someone to have, and what you want someone to have even more.

Many of the ideas propounded in the 1980 campaign presaged the Tea Party movement. Ed Clark told The Nation that libertarians were getting ready to stage “a very big tea party,” because people were “sick to death” of taxes. The Libertarian Party platform called for the abolition of the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., as well as of federal regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Energy. The Party wanted to end Social Security, minimum-wage laws, gun control, and all personal and corporate income taxes; it proposed the legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide. Government should be reduced to only one function: the protection of individual rights. William F. Buckley, Jr., a more traditional conservative, called the movement “Anarcho-Totalitarianism.”

(N.Y. Mag)

This world that the Koch family mafia wants is not nearly what we need to have, or what people will imagine they are getting once they have got it. This is not a benign or pure libertarian stance, since the Kochs and those of that ilk would effectively superimpose their own corporate interests atop the population. They want a type of freedom from any constraints, as though governments have not evolved as they have due to past applications of unchecked power in the private sector.

At the end of Meet John Doe D.B. Norton is shown to be the manipulator and fascist that he is. Gary Cooper very nearly commits suicide in the process of trying to keep discourse pure. It's a remarkable contrast of those getting played, and those playing, and we can only hope our fellow citizens wake up in time.

Republican House Leadership Joins the Strip Club, Enjoying Every Moment

If you thought Republicans were the party of authentic family values, watch them as they eagerly join the strip club in an effort to repeal health care in  the most underhanded fashion, by defunding it. I am not sure what they call this. Strip and dance? Defund and destroy? Somewhere along the way they have suggested that after all this peeling away, that they will improve and replace, but you kind of have to have a lot of faith that the two birds deep in the thorny bush are worth what we have in Obama's hands.

One hopes that people will smarten up when this battle heats up, but it requires those who support the law to stand up and fight for something worthwhile. The new House leadership is wasting no time in showing us where their hearts lie.

The House Republican whip, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, described the strategy this way: “If all of Obamacare cannot be immediately repealed, then it is my intention to begin repealing it piece by piece, blocking funding for its implementation and blocking the issuance of the regulations necessary to implement it.”

“In short,” Mr. Cantor said, “it is my intention to use every tool at our disposal to achieve full repeal of Obamacare.”

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said he, too, wanted to shut off money for the new law.

(N.Y. Times)

*

It's also fun to note the use of language by the unstructured conservatives (as I don't want to paint all conservatives with the same brush. We are talking about a certain type). They have converted the name of the legislation into "Obamacare," and while it is used now as some sort of destruction by association, it will be interesting to see how quicly they abandon this moniker if the legislation unfolds and begins to benefit people in a noticeable way. At that point it will suddenly revert back to being called the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".

In any case, remember the date it was signed into law. March 23, 2010. That is a date that will stand alongside other great legislation that has moved America forward and guaranteed quality of life. We didn't pull kids out of factories, or insure basic environmental practices, or labor and construction standards, or the rights of blacks or women to vote, with action that was universally praised at the moment the idea germinated. There was always an opposition that could make the argument against reform.

When you look at videotape of people during the 1950's and 1960's yelling at blacks as they got hosed, or shoved on their way to school or to eat or protest... well many of those people are anonymously alive today, short of memory and hiding their strong, righteous stand on the wrong side of history.

Obama Does Business, Republican Leaders Do Fantasy Island

UK Guardian: Obama Talks Business

Now that the election is over the Republicans presumably can move forward by actually telling us what they will do. They ran on the idea that the "American people," (who seem to live like Keebler elves inside the mouths of Republican leaders), are sick and tired of the economic situation. They ran on the theory that Americans were seeking the dismantling of health care reform, the cutting of taxes for the wealthiest, the reversal of regulatory efforts, and the implementation of fiscal austerity.

Most of the rhetoric has been to accuse Obama of extreme mismanagement. "It's not a communication problem. It's that Americans don't want what you have to offer," we have been told with great seriousness by some very unserious people.

Now that they are in office, early interviews seem to verify that lack of seriousness. The most vocal Republicans have but one main goal and that is to defeat Obama. The great fear is that you finally have a man in office who is willing to do a few unpopular things in order to benefit the majority of the people, and that eventually will see the economy and their lives improve, and realize which way the sun rises. If he succeeds, Republicans lose a lot of power and support.

The task has been to stop or delay or caricature the man, the message, and the legislation. One might think that eventually you will have to stop, present your own policies, and demonstrate how they differ and actually accomplish the goals that you have criticized the president for not achieving. One would think wrong. The policy solutions on offer, like budget deficit increasing tax cuts for the top 5%, don't harmonize with calls for financial prudence or unemployment reduction. People are not likely to rush out and spend any tax cut when corporations refuse to hire (while flush with cash and profits). What will Republicans then do? They will offer fantasy.

J. Boehner (R-OH)

Republican and Tea Party types have so far refused to say exactly what they will cut. People like Rand Paul have suggested across the board cuts, which will not nearly happen in anyone's lifetime. It's a rhetorical/mental trick to suggest the drastically impossible when you are afraid to undertake the realistically doable. They know voters won't pay attention to the lack of detail amongst the details. They know the voters won't listen to anything else if they can keep them sufficiently enthralled to alarmist rhetoric.

You have a politician on one of the news shows today relentlessly suggesting that Obama wants to raise taxes (by letting the Bush temporary tax cuts expire on the wealthiest 5%). Ah, tax increase. And because Obama is already the Socialist, the Islamic shill, the huckster, the birth certificate hiding thief of Republican birthrate (you little Jacob you), it's really not necessary to listen to his side at all. You might discover things. You might discover that his first budget year came in below Bush's last budget year. You might discover that his use of drones on terrorism far exceeds that of Bush. You might discover he is better educated than most of his critics (unless you are of the ilk that there is no practical difference between elite education and being raised by grizzly bears), and used that education to help college students get more direct funding for their educational efforts. You might discover that his stimulus included tax cuts, and that Bush had passed stimulus as well without too much negative blowback.

You might discover a lot if you listened to both sides. But people would rather believe the lie, and politicians would rather tell the lie, spread the lie, like the reporting of his trip to Asia. Republicans have ignored the mission (one of jobs and improving relations in the region where we are war) to find the fantasy, suggesting that the President is somehow on some high spending junket of unprecedented nature.

With this new crowd in office we will get platitudes and the politicians telling us what the people want, while doing nothing and blaming President Obama for artificial outrages. Meanwhile the economy continues to improve, slowly, in the aftermath of the worst slowdown in modern history.

Meg Whitman Loses Wallet During Election Day Frenzy!!

"Oh Crap, I just lost my wallet!"

And that, my dears, is the extent of our election day coverage. It was largely a non news day, with everyone who was expected to win, pretty much winning. History repeats, with the opposite party picking up seats in the off year. No mystery. 

Stimulating America, One State at a Time: Arizona Edition

It must be galling to be against economic stimulus, and yet stuck as a Republican governor having to highlight said stimulus. It's like having to talk out of both ends of your body at the same time. You can find Arizona's humble site here, and we assume every state has something similar. Interestingly we see our good Governor Brewer holding fake stimulus checks, but we see no images of the man, Barrack Obama, who helped make it possible.

Listening to enough people, you get the impression that stimulus money was (and is) entirely vapor, or money tossed into the Grand Canyon, poorly spent and adding to the burdens on our grandchildren... mind you, different grandchildren from the ones we had during the Bush Administration when we didn't really give a hoot about deficits, debt, birth certificates, or, grandchildren.

It amazes that even some of the homeless here in sun country are ranting about Obama. A friend of mine, who feeds a few guys who have managed to stay off their feet and struggling for at least six years, was subject to their invective and ridicule of the President. Stun me and stun me again.. You are sitting in someone else's home, eating their food, being permitted to use their shower, you have no job and are not trying to get one, you are drinking every spare dime you have away, and yet, you have plenty of time to absorb the zeitgeist and come out against Obama the Socialist, while you practice lifestyle socialism. Apparently flawed Republican trickle down economic thought has reached new lows, trickling down to the very people who would benefit by the type of funding the stimulus is designed to temporarily provide.

Boldnesses and nonsenses, I say in outrage and mangled English. Take a look at who has received funds from the Recovery Act here in Arizona, and stop pretending that your feet do not touch the earth, or that your life is not impacted by the President's initiatives. You can debate whether people need this help during the worst financial crisis in 75 years, or whether instead to let citizens take the financial hit in full, but to impart evil intentions to the people making this possible is simply unpatriotic.

The list of benefactors goes on and on, so we included just enough to make a point.

Arizona:
Top Recipients Amount
(Feb 17, 2009 - June 30, 2010)
TRANSPORTATION, ARIZONA DEPT OF $404,556,264
PHOENIX, CITY OF $258,073,381
OFFICE OF THE GOVENOR, ARIZONA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY, THE $234,665,262
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA $171,454,609
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY $155,942,726
CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC. $141,104,620
HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO $116,911,168
ROUGH ROCK SCHOOL BOARD, INC. $107,958,319
DEPT OF EDUCATION ARIZONA $107,222,392
ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING CORPORATION $100,196,560
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY $75,494,068
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY $74,068,312
NAVAJO NATION DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS $70,242,837
PIMA COUNTY $68,853,131
SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT $56,859,359
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ARIZONA $55,608,603
MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 $53,614,990
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY $48,180,007
TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT $46,430,582
MARICOPA, COUNTY OF $46,302,869
NAVAJO TRIBAL UTILITY AUTHORITY COMPANY $43,965,703
CITY OF TUCSON $43,146,993
GENERAL DYNAMICS ADVANCED INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. $41,561,916
VALLEY METRO RAIL, INC. $40,122,519
NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY $37,491,154
ARCHER WESTERN CONTRACTORS, LTD. $36,247,473
NAVAJO HOUSING AUTHORITY $34,412,126
MESA, CITY OF $29,216,958
TEMPE, CITY OF $28,456,033
INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS, INC. $27,255,485
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE $24,475,405
PEORIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 11 $23,626,318
SULPHUR SPRINGS VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC $23,482,107
GILBERT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #41 $23,442,056
THE NAVAJO NATION TRIBAL GOVERNMENT $22,842,953
PHOENIX UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 210 $22,325,159
DEER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT #97 $22,178,709
Chandler Unified School District $21,828,706
MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT $21,392,257
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA $21,282,122
PARADISE VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 69 $21,041,111
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. $21,038,852
YUMA, COUNTY OF $20,000,873
Washington Elementary School District 6 $19,661,728
Cartwright School District 83 $18,703,186

Don't Let Republican Stubbornists Touch Your No No Spot on Tuesday

Just a reminder a few days before the election. Don't be fooled.

That will be hard for many people, who under the coordinated Republican onslaught of figmentations and outright nonsense are determined to oust Democrats and any politician connected to the evils associated with President Barrack Obama.  It amazes to see the number of people who are easily swayed every time they hear the words Pelosi, or Stimulus, or Obamacare.

It's like the holy trinity in reverse, invoked as damnation by knowing political operatives and naive political stooges alike.

Don't be fooled.

Let us talk about the stimulus for just sec. It's officially the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and while the title borders on the grandiose, it cannot be dismissed and ridiculed in the manner that it has without some mental disconnect in a willfully stupid segment of the population that is intent on not eating its spinach, but perfectly comfortable in letting strange Republicans touch their no no spot.

The broad provisions of this $787 billion piece of legislation?

• $288 billion was allocated toward tax cuts, including $116 billion to individuals in the form of payroll tax credits. Throw into this amount child tax credits, unemployment tax exemptions, college and home buyer credits. $51 billion was directed toward businesses.

• $155.1 billion was directed toward health care related issues. This included an allocation of  $86.8 billion for Medicaid, $25 billion in Cobra subsidies for the unemployed, and various veteran related initiatives.

• $100 billion was aimed at education. $53.6 billion of this went toward local states and municipalities to prevent layoffs and maintain schools. The next highest allocations were toward expanding Pell Grants and increasing support for low income kids.

Let's pause a moment. Remember Jesus? A guy we all claim to love, and that conservatives claim an especially close relationship with? I recall him saying something like, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which is really hard to do when they are sick, or can't read the map to find Jesus hang'in in Washington Square Park. And will they have the energy to pull themselves up to Jesus's lap by their stolen bootstraps? (Ah, I see your skepticism with that "Are there no prisons, no workhouses" face on your face).

• $82.2 billion was set aside for retirees, unemployed workers and low income workers. This amount included $40 billion to increase and expand unemployment benefits. Another $20 billion was cut out for food stamps, and $14.2 to give a few extra dollars to the old folks on Social Security. Additional funds went to such nonsense like "Meals on Wheels" and local food banks.

Clearly, and thus far, this Stimulus, this Stimuli, this beast of unnecessary legislation is pure horror and waste. According to some Republicans, many conservatives and virtually all Tea Partisans, the opposite of this bill was the better path. No state medicaid help. No unemployment benefit increase. No modernizing Defense Department facilities. No education funding. None of that crazy stuff, that wanton, lewd spending stuff.

The opposite. Because Stimulus is bad. Just saying it should make it's badness self evident. And unfortunately there is a large enough group of narrow thinkers out there who can buy into the rhetoric and see black as white, up as down, and their President as the evil democracy destroying trickster.

The above is only part of the American Recovery Act (the Stimulus). Wikipedia lists most of it, including the various portions allocated to infrastructure, scientific and technology investment, and rebuilding. We focused on the pure people part, because while you might argue that $100 million for upgraded National Guard facilities does not directly affect you, you cannot ignore the funding stimuli that raises your paycheck, or keeps your kid's teachers employed, or your neighbor from losing all while being laid off. (And mind you, these layoffs are coming at a time of huge corporate profits, so who is the real problem, government or the private sector?)

One could make the argument that you don't spend money you don't have, and that's often the argument being made by the critics of President Obama. But consistency is not a strong point in this line of reasoning when America's economic structural problems have been ongoing for many years. It is a strange world when a middle of the road centrist president can inspire such vocal and irrational opposition after the worst economic collapse in 75 years, and a collapse he had no hand in creating and made every effort to offset.

Don't be fooled, by fools.

Fair State of Arizona

All the bloody world is asleep--friends, foes, lovers, the indifferent multitudes--and I am awake. Jesus knows what it feels like when people are asleep to you, on you, near you, from afar. Every night he goes to bed probably saying, "Oh come on world, am I that dull, are you that tired?" Of course today he and his crew choose to remain invisible, willing to risk the lack of company in the present, to gain loyal friends and company later. But a God can hardly complain too much when his earthly friends are asleep, can he? Especially when he often chooses to speak only in sign language.

As for me, my flesh was made word, and dwelt among those who know me, but nobody reads, or cares. Every mind for itself, and perhaps that is my sin too.

Was at the Arizona State Fair today on opening day. Went there after work with others, mostly to eat and shop, not to go on any rides. It was a motley crowd full of the young and their still younger offspring. Women in ill fitting garb playing the sexy potato. The female Hispanics of high school age had their hair poofed like a wind slap, or flattened down over the eye, neither flattering or respective of unique head shapes. And lamb, sheep, was on the grill too. Barbecued, along with chicken and huge turkey legs.

People walked around with kids, with girlfriends, with friends, with turkey legs, sifting sands killing moments beneath the high loop of two ferris wheels, Ferris Buellering the early evening hours. One could see sausages, both on the grill and walking down the long path, plus numerous fried things from bugs to butter to bread to people too tired or dazed to walk or eat anymore. One middle class couple sat on the next bench over. They had a maybe two year old and the father insisted that the best way to keep the kid from crying was to roll a basketball back and forth in the main path in front of the oncoming hoards. The crowd could not penetrate the sanctity of his personal family unit, nor distort the clarity of his inconsideration of their existence. He was in his own world, acting as though all was delightful, as though putting on a delightful show, and stealing glances your way as if to say, "See me playing with my delightful boy."  Deep inside you laugh meanly when he accidentally pegs delightful two year old in his delightful head with delightful basketball. Maybe, just maybe he will sit down and get out of people's way now. But no. Two year old is resilient and bounces back from pegged head.

Dirty. Arizona's fair distorts all visual imagery one might have in the head upon hearing the words "state fair". If sufficiently innocent, maybe from one of the real cities, like New York or Chicago or Boston, you imagine a fair to have grass and trees and apple butter, and cows and jam and livestock judges and horses and rhubarb and the you name it Family Singers and cheese and biggest pumpkin contests. Not here in Phoenix. It's the only city-like feature the city has, that it can make a fair seem quite filthy and urban.

I exaggerate some, but I can do that, because my friends are gone or asleep, and nobody can hear me. A pox on you sleepers and faders. May you dream of me and remember my name when I am gone.

Top Financial Firms Make Huge Money Under Socialist President

In case you were worried that Obama de Socialiste is killing business, think again.

Pay on Wall Street is on pace to break a record high for a second consecutive year, according to a study conducted by The Wall Street Journal.

Compensation on Wall Street is on pace to break a record high for a second consecutive year, as more than three dozen top banks and securities firms will pay $144 billion in salary and benefits. Elizabeth Rappaport, Bob O'Brien and Neal Lipschutz discuss. Also, Guggenheim Partners's Scott Minerd discusses why he thinks that despite record highs, gold can be expected to rise even higher.

About three dozen of the top publicly held securities and investment-services firms—which include banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges—are set to pay $144 billion in compensation and benefits this year, a 4% increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, according to the survey. Compensation was expected to rise at 26 of the 35 firms. 

The data showed that revenue was expected to rise at 29 of the 35 firms surveyed, but at a slower pace than pay. Wall Street revenue is expected to rise 3%, to $448 billion from $433 billion, despite a slowdown in some.

(WSJ)

Which is why some progressives are deeply moody over the President, and most conservatives are absolutely delusional over the President, and why we remain quite content with the Goldilocks president. As much as people like to demonize entities--Ivy League graduates, lawyers, Mark Zuckerber, corporations, bankers, Wall Street, Chinese, you name it, we still think it's a good thing when our financial sector is beginning to function according to normative levels of greed and ingenuity.

Government Efficiency vs. Business Efficiency: Sign Language Edition

 "Mind Your Business!"

Let's ask ourselves again if the private sector is more efficient than government. It's an ongoing debate in politics and finance, and one that fuels the Republican strategy of doing nothing. Government is the problem, they say. We know that is artful nonsense.

One of the reasons unemployment remains stuck at 9.6% despite low interest rates, government spending (stimulus) and targeted tax cuts is because the business world is relentlessly refusing to cooperate in a manner befitting the times. Pundits, economists and politicians put out the line that businesses are confused, frozen even, amidst the uncertainty of life under the Obama Administration. This discounts the very real resistance that is going on that prevents any sort of finality that would create more optimism. In the same way that Republicans weaken or kill new policies by virtue of a solid stone wall, so too businesses do their little bit to slow down progress. And if slowing progress means a meandering economy, so be it. Better to profit now by processing mortgage foreclosures in half baked fashion, or to stop writing new child insurance policies, than do something that benefits middle Americans and America long term.

Today we have the 50 attorney generals across the United States looking into how the banks rushed through foreclosures. This news has led, and will continue to lead, to moratoriums on further action against homeowners.

This might seem good, even humane, but in actuality it further delays the process of forcing assets into the right hands and at the right price. Without a final unwinding of inflated assets, the economy cannot fully normalize.
Our large banks in their desire to speed the process, cut corners. So while raking in bundles of money on the one end, they sacrificed deliberate and careful process on the other, shafting homeowners out of adequate home settlement resolutions.

"The depositions paint a surreal picture of foreclosure experts who didn't understand even the most elementary aspects of the mortgage or foreclosure process -- even though they were entrusted as the records custodians of homeowners' loans. In one deposition taken in Houston, a foreclosure supervisor with Litton Loan couldn't define basic terms like promissory note, mortgagee, lien, receiver, jurisdiction, circuit court, plaintiff's assignor or defendant. She testified that she didn't know why a spouse might claim interest in a property, what the required conditions were for a bank to foreclose or who the holder of the mortgage note was. "I don't know the ins and outs of the loan, I just sign documents," she said at one point."

(Huffingtonpost.com)

The argument is not that people should be allowed to keep their homes. In fact we feel the contrary. Those who woefully overpaid will likely default even with an adjustment, and cases like that need to be allowed to find their own natural death. Equally, we are not suggesting that businesses are evil, or that the banking sector bares any sort of blanket responsibility for our economic situation.

What remains egregious is that the financial sector can push back at President Obama, even as they now rake in profits and bonuses, while at the same time not taking care of business. They were bailed out, rightfully so, but the minimal least they can do, is to keep their mouths shut, and focus on handling the mess they helped create.

That would mean looking at the foreclosure documents and making wise and careful decisions on who should be allowed to keep their homes, and who remains a lost cost. You can't do this if you are shedding workers, or better, devoting profits to massive bonuses. That money could be put to use hiring better staff, and thus lowering the unemployment rate.

With that hiring you get a double economic bang. More people working, and used to unclog the mortgage mess that lingers across the system like a fat lady on a chaise.

But nope. Instead it's all push back and political funding and outrage. And this:

For a housing recovery to occur, all the foreclosed properties -- which could account for 40 percent of all residential sales by 2012 -- need to be re-scrutinized by the banks and resold on the market. Now, with so much inventory under a legal threat, the process will become severely delayed.

"This just adds more uncertainty to the whole mortgage process, so buyers are asking themselves: do I want to buy a home in this environment?" says Cris deRitis, director of credit analytics at Moody's Analytics. "We need to fix these issues before the economy can recover."

(Huffingtonpost.com)

Now whose fault is that, and who is being inefficient?

Christine Has No Light Under Her Bushel.

This is what we are getting from Tea Party candidates... nothing. One would expect a little more thoughtfulness from someone entering a high level of government, but the electorate, or perhaps merely Republican financiers, are thoroughly willing to dispense with the pesky requirements of the job at hand. A pox upon all that book learn'in and command of facts. Better to hide your lack of light under a bushel. The N.Y. Times reports that Maryland Senate candidate Christine O' Donnell has perfected the invisibility cloak, largely avoiding interviewers, voters, and uncontrolled environments.

It is not clear, however, when or where she has been meeting the people of Delaware, at least since the primary. She has canceled a series of public events and television interviews and has barely been seen in public, though she re-emerged Friday at an opening for her campaign headquarters in Wilmington.

(N.Y. Times)

She is pretty much following the Palin Way of all Truth. Don't let yourself be caught facing people who are smarter or better informed, and definitely not in front of cameras. Keep a low profile except when in carefully calibrated settings, surrounded by a security blanket of unquestioning supporters.

She seems likable enough, if scattered, and thus totally inappropriate for the times we are in.

TARPY Goodness

Today, Sunday, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, comes to a close. Two points. This was Bush's baby, and strongly supported and run by Obama. Now, two years later, and after much hullabaloo about bailing out "THE BANKS" at taxpayer expense to the tune of $700, we see that the program was largely successful. If anyone has suggested you could prevent the collapse of our economic system for $100 billion or less, those with a clear understanding of these matters might have laughed.

Yet here we are, and better for it.

A wildly unpopular government rescue program credited by economists with preventing another Great Depression will go out of business Sunday, two years to the day it was created.

On Oct. 3, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as the bank bailout bill, loses authorization to make new expenditures. From that point forward, TARP will be in wind-down mode, although much of money lent out already has been repaid - at a profit for taxpayers.

Originally envisioned as a blank check for the government to spend as much as $700 billion to rescue the financial system, the actual cost to taxpayers is estimated now to be only a seventh of that amount. The government has earned almost $13 billion in dividends from the bank stock it received in exchange for the taxpayers' investment, and earned another $8.2 billion from the sale of preferred stock.

The Treasury Department estimates that taxpayers are still on the hook for about $100 billion at this point - a number expected to shrink with continued repayments and asset sales. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently put the estimated total TARP cost at around $66 billion.

(Miami Herald)

Don't expect many of the candidates to herald any of this. A certain portion of the electorate is caught between personal ignorance and shotgun dissatisfaction and lacking a framework to address the hydra that is our economic situation. The Tea Party in particular has formalized and personified this ignorance with a slate of candidates that will be entirely useless should they actually get hired by voters. Intellectual garbage in, intellectual garbage out.

Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb, said, "TARP turned out to be a slush fund,"  and it's this type of nonsense that we should expect to hear repeated, no matter how stupid or unreflective of what it means to do nothing and let credit dry up for the entire financial, corporate or entrepreneurial sector. You cannot hold capitalism in your right hand and indifference to credit markets in your left, clap, and make a coherent sound.

Education Assumptions All Shifty

I've always had the utmost disrespect for the dubious assertion that their are calculable and meaningfully comparative multiple intelligences to be found in our children. It was an idea that gave comfort to the parents of kids who could not put two and two together, but who could, if not asked, and without listening, paint a picture of three elephants. Okay that's too much. We exaggerate. Or do we? Couldn't help wondering at this paragraph in the New York Times about learning styles and preparing your kids for homework:

"Take the notion that children have specific learning styles, that some are “visual learners” and others are auditory; some are “left-brain” students, others “right-brain.” In a recent review of the relevant research, published in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a team of psychologists found almost zero support for such ideas. “The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing,” the researchers concluded."

(N.Y. Times)

There are probably a lot of things in the education world that serve a reality that certain people want to have, rather than reality as it actually exists. The piece goes on to express a learning value in standardized testing, and quite frankly we are shocked that such thoughts are getting an airing. Perhaps a side effect of political changes in the air?

Glenn Beck Takes His Fables on the Road

"MLK's So-Called Birth Certificate"

The radio host and fable-izer Glenn Beck held his big rally in the nation's capital, steps away from the President's house and atop the ground where Martin Luther King made memories. He reportedly kept to moral themes and vague chatter about restoring America, and one can only assume that the proximity to President Obama, who he has been trashing for months on end, has caused a certain amount of rhetorical restraint. You don't want to look too much the embodiment of oxymoron when you are leaning on the actions (Obama) and words (MLK) of blacks to propel your career and self image and message of hate forward.

There was a noticeable absence of blacks in this supposed American rally, but we hardly think that would matter to the enthusiasts, who have the mental dexterity to trash, disregard, and leap over the living blacks, while praising the dead one. It was the type of family event to bring your kids to, so that you could pass down all your vague, illogical concerns to the next generation.

From Huffington Post:

Ricky Thomas, 43, a SWAT team police officer from Chesapeake Beach, Md., brought his 10-year old son Chase to the Beck rally. "I wanted my son to see democracy in action," Thomas said.

He said he wants government to stay out of people's lives. He acknowledged that he works for government, but said it's "a part of government that helps people when they are in trouble."

 Better publicity money can't by.

Lacking Evidence, Republicans and Graham Take Obama at His Word

Christian or Buddhist? 

Wanna see something neat? No really. As you know, some Republicans and conservatives, the less responsible ones, have been pushing the idea that our President is not a Christan. In pleasant theory our system should allow someone of any religion, or no religion, to be president. There is no "Christians only" clause. But we can understand the impulse given our own inclinations. We (meaning "I") lean toward candidates that profess some belief in God, and better yet, in Jesus. That's how we are here. But we also recognize that politicians are likely to slant, fade or enhance the truth. Many people will talk God, but are far from him in actual practice. And many people will be silent, but in deed and quiet thought and inner beliefs are every part the authentic Christian.

And by authentic we mean a person who prays, who reads the Bible, who believes that Jesus is a part of the god-head and a component in our salvation. It's hard to be an authentic Christian without the prayer, Bible and faith parts.

In most cases the nation falls into the "cultural" Christian category. We like our churches and recognize the benefits of organized "do gooding". It's social, a good example for the kids. A nice way to spend a Sunday if we get there. Makes us feel good. It's just another American structure--like the government, the media, colleges, health organizations--that affirm to us that we are not on edge of backwardness or like the heathens (you know, like Africans or whatever godless communists are still lurking about).

The President has been under attack directly for having an odd name and being the son of an Islamic father. His father was mostly atheist, but the cultural bent appears to the critics to be Islamic. It's just very hard as an American politician to get labeled outside of our religious cultural preferences. Usually if not particularly religious, you at least put out the idea that you believe in a higher power and that you pray in times of distress. You may take on a certain vague spirituality, but you never say, "I am an atheist" or, "I sorta believe but frankly I am just too lazy or life is too much fun or too busy to focus on the religion stuff". No can do.

I suspect Obama is about as religious as the average John. John is a friend of mine. He is moral for the most part. He sends his kids to Catholic activities,  but without any great love of Catholicism. He rails against his hypocritical born-again type neighbors. He is a responsible worker and father who loves his wife and has been a huge asset to the companies he works for and the people around him. Good people person. Frankly, he does not feel he needs a really specific God, or set of rules that define that God down too much. He does not need a structure that limits his own freedom, given that he is not out really killing or hatching plans to fly planes into the tallest building in Iran. I suspect this is somewhat what Obama is like.

Obama is trying to play it low key as a marginally religious Christian, but comes with all the cultural baggage that makes him an easy target. An eclectic background with unusual name, growing up in other lands,  and with his differentness, it's harder for him to find cover on subtle vagueness. He is probably a little more honest than Clinton, who could periodically pop into churches, especially black ones, and nod his head and bite his tongue while daydreaming of Monica biting him down below.

We have an onslaught of people who are plainly just against the man, but are ginning up multiple straw reasons for their visceral dislike, including the idea of President Obama as Muslim infiltrator. That is not an actual disqualification for the job constitutionally speaking, no matter how much that might annoy us. (And, it would in fact annoy us to be honest).

Leaving the direct approach of slander to the loonies, Obama's political opponents are being more subtle. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says to Meet the Press host David Gregory, "The president says he's a Christian. I take him at his word. I don't think that's in dispute," (Huffington Post).

Notice here that Republicans have been willing to spend time on debates or theorizing about the President's Christianity. That's the first problem. Second, they always present it as something mysteriously vague, rather than just affirming the stated preference of Obama. After all, we never really know who is Christian since one can profess Christianity and live like hell, or not profess it and be thoroughly the real deal. The norm is to call a person who says, "I am a Christian" a Christian and not waste undue time speculating on that or saying, "I don't know but I will take them at their word." Or saying it's not in debate while continuing to foster debate.

Which brings us to Franklin Graham, son of the great Billy Graham and a decidedly more politically minded minister than his father. Oddly (and yet not), his tonality of response in addressing the President's Christianity is similar to that of Republican professional orthodoxy. Says Franklin on CNN:

"Now it's obvious that the president has renounced the prophet Mohammed and he has renounced Islam and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That's what he says he has done, I cannot say that he hasn't. So I just have to believe that the president is what he has said."

(Talking Points Memo)

Sounds similar doesn't it. It's such a mystery that we just have to take the President at his word. Christianity stands in for all that is normal, all that is American, all that is mainstream and yet, for some reason, nothing in Obama's actions leads them to suspect he is Christian. A man of one wife, raising two daughters, who went to American colleges and attending a Christian church (albeit not a good one), and yet it's a mystery.

The politicians doing the stargazing are not hard core authentic Christians per se, but their supporters are. Many of these politicians fall into the cultural Christian vein and should recognize exactly what type of Christian Obama is: a fellow cultural Christian.

But to voice instant support and say, "Of course he is a Christian" does not serve political ends when you could suggest that it's a total mystery and that we have nothing to go on visually and must accept on faith Obama's word. The same word that you have been knocking down when it comes to every other issue, from birth certificate to foreign policy.

We know how this works. We see the slight of tongue here. Don't cast outright doubt and put yourself on the line as being a total crackpot (and in defiance of American religious freedom to boot). Instead suggest that there is mystery and confusion about the facts. Plausible deniability and all that. It's like saying, "I am sure Obama probably does not beat his wife, as far as we know." It's all in the usage of language and some politicians are masters of language, but not policy.

*

More:
Here is New York Magazine talking further about Obama and his Muslim problem, and how some are saying it's Obama's own lack of clarity that leads people to assume he is Muslim. NY Mag smacks that down.

G.M. Begins Great Escape from Obama the Nefarious

G.M., get back in the house!

Well well. Amidst the rather shaky economy news we find General Motors beginning the process of moving out of Obama's house. This should be a stunning antidote to those working under theory (and inspired by mental linguists like Glen Beck) that President Obama had intentions to rework a thoroughly capitalist nation while everyone was asleep at night. G.M. announced an I.P.O. to begin the next step in restructuring itself. We don't doubt that there are still considerable problems with how our car companies run day to day operations. They dug themselves into a hole in the first place through bad designs and expensive legacy benefit obligations to retired workers. Reversing a culture of stagnation is a complicated process requiring extraordinary people with a will to move forward. This I.P.O is a move forward.

The move includes the U.S. government selling at least a portion of its ownership stake in GM that came about as a result of the government bailout of the auto industry after the financial crisis caused by the recession in the past several years. The U.S. Treasury Department has a 61 percent ownership stake in GM after the federal government spent $50 billion to keep GM afloat.

GM is not selling any shares and will not receive any money from the offering. The shareholders selling are the U.S. government, and other large owners.

(Portfolio.com)

None of this will matter to alarmists and the host of sudden ubber patriots that are busy moving their shallow kiddie pools to the garage to make room to grow their own vegetables when the Nefarious One takes away all we know and love. These people are not looking at facts, nor do they know how to string together the economic process in a way that makes any sense. Obama is president now and things look shaky now, therefore it must be Obama. It's like walking down the grocery aisle and confusing the person cleaning up the pickle jar spill with the person (long gone down to the frozen chicken patty aisle) who actually caused the spill and got things slippery and hazardous on Aisle 1.

Reality impedes, with a clear example that bailing out the car companies was no more a grab at America's private enterprise system than was bailing out the banks. You can rightfully argue the merits of bailing out the car companies since they are not integral to the capitalist financing system like banks are. So the criticism should have been, "Hey President Obama, why the somewhat arbitrary bailing out of one manufacturing industry." The minute a critic goes beyond that and starts talking socialism, you can be sure their real problem is not with actual economic reality.

We can go a step further though into a more obvious and important point. Right now we still here the claims that bailing out the major financial firms--"the banks," "Wall Streeters"-- was somehow shafting the little guy. "It's all a game," say the cynical wise men, failing to question exactly how an entrepreneur raises money for a new business, or how an existing business gets funding for expansion or other activities.

Take note:

GM said Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morgan, BofA Merrill Lynch, Citi, Goldman, Sachs Co., Barclays Capital, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank Securities, RBC Capital Markets, and UBS Investment Bank will be the joint book-running managers for the offering.

The list of names is like a Wall Street roll call. What are they up to? Helping a major American manufacturing company facilitate a necessary business transaction. The transaction is the virtual opposite of what Obama is accused of, but also, it shows the great utility in having a vibrant and multi-headed financial sector.

G.M. is playing it safe in getting so many firms involved, but that is a necessity in these times. The fact that G.M. can spread the task to so wide a group shows the rightness of the TARP bank bailouts. Half these firms would probably be collapsed or seriously unable to function without the action initiated by Bush and perpetuated by President Obama.

How many agitated folks, up in arms and ready to pronounce Obama the Nefarious as destroyer of everything are seriously taking each new piece of data, linking it to history, to economic theory and practice, and forming logical progressions that would help them understand policy choices in the right context?

Jason Bateman On Katherine Hepburn in NY Mag

Jason Bateman's thoughts on Katherine Hepburn (my least favorite of the Heps), were the most interesting part of the interview he did with New York Mag recently.

"She only wore white Reebok high-tops, so for a dress-up scene, she’d just pull black socks over them. That's what she was like. She hit ‘fuck it’ a long time before I met her."

See, that's the moment I long for, when I can afford to take it or leave it. Of course I would have to have a lot of my own "it" before I could shrug off other people's "it" and be like, "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Totally unrelated, but fittingly, the last large combat brigade in Iraq is headed home, in keeping in line with Obama's campaign prognostications. And while we can say that we more or less completed our tasks in that country, we have to wonder if we should take a more callous, contemptuous, Cartman-esque attitude toward our allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And leave.

Yum Junk

Interesting article in the New York Times about various junk food trends and how they got their start. I remember those early days of huge sodas, ushered in by 7-Eleven with their Big Gulps. I used to get mine on Northern Boulevard in Bayside, Queens, along with Ne-Mo's cakes (the only mass produced cake I actually enjoy). Oh the innocence of new found soda pop gluttony! It was as close a taste of everlasting life as one could get without embracing Jesus. Endless sodas where you could take a huge sip, and then another, and know that there was plenty more, and more than you could ever hope to consume (until you eventually learned to consume it all, and regained your liquid mortality).

1976

7-Eleven convenience stores helped launch the era of fast-food and junk-food supersizing that continues today by introducing the 32-ounce Big Gulp. But even the Big Gulp seemed small after a while. In 1988, the company started selling the 64-ounce Double Gulp.

In junk food, as in Silicon Valley, creativity is limitless. In 1998, the Big Gulp cup was refined and redesigned. The new cup was taller, and now it fit in most car cup holders. Progress, of some sort, had been made.

(N.Y. Times)

University of Phoniness, Federally Funded?

High Education

Huffington Post gives us an interesting rant about the for-profit University of Phoenix. We don't want to go out on a limb and be harsh critical, since we know people who have graduated from that school, and who are far smarter or more organized that we ever hope to be. Often enough, things are what you make of them, and if we assume a reasonable and general level of responsibility on the part of Apollo Group, which owns the U of P, then a motivated student is likely to get something from the program.

Despite the successes of people those we know, it is probably imperative that the financial ties between the government and the schools be cut. Conservatives often like to point out the wonders of the private sector, and how government needs to step out of the way. Well they can begin with the for-profit education industry. Too often what some conservatives are pushing is a mere parody of economic freedom and self-reliance. Sarah Palin herself, the quitting governor, talked the independence game while Alaska itself depended on largesse redistributed via the federal government from other parts of the nation.

What we have with for-profit universities is a funding dysfunction. The students are dependent on the federal government to fund the tuition, but the schools do not show a similar commitment to student success.

These schools are not getting the education job done in terms of either graduation rates or cost. Nor can we underestimate the size of the elephant in the closet that largely gets ignored. To the extent a for-profit is also largely internet based, what is the quality of that education in terms of academic honesty? One can legitimately question the rigor of these programs and the structure, given the cost and the graduation rates.

One often hears the refrain that our non-profit colleges--public and private--can cost just as much and leave the graduate equally saddled in debt and just as bad off. That may be true, but most colleges that are non-profit rely on physical plant, academic rigor, student body, and reputation to attract the "top" educators and maintain decent, if not high, graduation rates. It's a concern for them. They place marketing value in the success of a broader base of their students. And, importantly, they are not beholden to shareholders. Further, in the non-profit sector one is able to pursue a costly education, or find a cheaper version at the community college. There is a school of quality for nearly every budget, with success or failure of student body tracked.

No such options with private colleges, charging you top dollar and shifting more of the education on the student. In some cases you find yourself listening to your team members educate you rather than anything definitive from the instructor. Then again, it is far less of a rigorous progress when applying to be instructors at the for-profit schools. True professionals don't aspire to teach at DeVry or College America. If given the choice to teach at the University of Phoenix or ASU, the entire staff of the former would probably get up and walk away across town.

In most cases the federal government ends up on the hook for inferior product.

The incentives are all wrong. Instead of being there to help students receive an education at an affordable cost to better prepare them to join the workforce, these "for-profits" are employing the most egregious money-grubbing tactics to bilk their students and the federal government. How's that for an Alma Mater? Senator Harkin and the GAO's work has exposed once and for all how utterly corrupt these for-profit "universities" and "colleges" really are.

(Huffington Post)

Another of our chums has repeatedly expressed a desire to go back to school. She has opted for College America thus far, and one can travel to that website and get no up front information as to the cost. That's typical of these schools. The idea is to get you in, to get you talking to a face, to get you signing on the dotted line. It was suggested to her that she should instead just enter one of Phoenix's many community college programs. Unlike in the past, community colleges today often serve a variety of practical needs, offering low cost or specialization in certain work related fields of study. At the end of your time there, you can leave with a certificate or associates, or even transfer up to a four year school. There is flexibility for that low cost, but also a broader harmony with the educational structure as whole.

Not so with the for-profits. Our friend does not want to hear too much wisdom from knowing heads, rejecting advice. The advisor she spoke with made a good pitch and she wants to give it a go. Whether she completes the program is another story, but if she starts the program, the school will reap the greater immediate reward.

What we have here is a good demonstration on how the private sector is not doing a better job in the education department. The entire for-profit education structure at the college level is dependent on financing from the federal government and it would be an interesting exercise to see if they could function without that steady, reliable flow of cash. We seriously doubt it.

The government is not off the hook either, since they are the partner providing the funding and foundation for this shaky edifice; oversight is lacking all around. Let's not kid ourselves next time we hear someone randomly and fervently praising the private sector or privatization as inherently more virtuous or cost efficient. Often both sectors are woefully managed and quite wasteful and yet each is capable--theoretically capable--of handling a responsibility if responsible minds are in charge.

Let us praise the private sector when the business model is truly independent of the government and getting the job done.

Update:
Here, via Bloomberg and Dealbreaker, we have some additional university news. Young gal pays ridiculous amount of money for a worthless degree at a for-profit school in Florida that has revenues in the billions. Due to lack of appropriate job, she is now stripping. The corporate backers, including Goldman, Sachs, have done well, but many of the students have suffered. Amusing in so many ways. The idea that a parent would sell their home an invest so much into an obviously-not-26 year old daughter's education by being impressed by a three building campus stains the imagination. You don't pay $70 per meal for a meal at McDonald's and then get disappointed at the taste.

Missourians Headstrong On Rejecting Healthcare Reform

Mo. Residents Use Their Heads

Talking Points Memo spotlights the wizened voters of Missouri who are on the brink (Aug. 3) of passing a law that would essentially destabilize Federal attempts at healthcare reform. The idea is to exempt people from the requirement of carrying and paying for insurance. But it's actually really stupid, and you just have to wonder if Missourians have totally put away their thinking caps after blessing the nation with Branson.

I had this same debate with coworkers; they resented the idea that something could be mandated or coerced from "above." While fighting the idea of Obama's soothing medicinal hands, they accept the rough hands of the state for things like auto insurance. Apparently it's okay to mandate something (insurance) if you want to drive, but it's outrageous to mandate something (insurance) if you want to not die from bad health. "Well a person does not have to drive, and further, it's the state government which is different from Federal stuff" goes the refrain.

Of course, people don't have to have good health either, and like people not driving or people not driving with auto insurance, those costs all come back to you in the form of spending on emergency care, higher premiums (to cover that emergency care), spending on public transportation (for non drivers) spending on unemployment or welfare (for those non-drivers) and higher auto premiums or coverage mandates (to cover those driving uncovered).

We are all destined to get sick, and those not covered transfer their costs to those that are. The power of the mandate is not for the government to impose its will, but to spread costs so that more services can be covered for everyone, and ultimately at less cost once everyone is fully on board.

A good example of this can be found at Groupon.com. That website lets you sign up for daily deals that give you huge discounts on products. There is a catch. A threshold number of people must sign on for each deal before the offer becomes active. If not enough people are interested, the offer does not take. Good insurance is a variant on that, where prices should come down the broader the customer base.

Missourian anti-Obama activists won't recognize subtleties that involve existing cost shifting and burdens, or the mechanics of structuring insurance, happy to wallow in the mire they are most familiar with. They will be proud of themselves for defeating Obama care, content with having nothing, and paying out of many side pockets for it.

Comical Life, Inevitable Death

Harvey Pekar, who managed to weave a drudgery filled life and creative soul together, died a fews days back (July 12th) at the age of 70.

Here the Wall Street Journal talks of Pekar, and cartoonist Robert Crumb:

Against all odds, neither man watered down his art as he found wider success. Even stranger, both of these perennial misfits in middle age found wives who could tolerate them. Pekar was divorced twice but wooed Ms. Brabner to join him in Cleveland. Their improbable romance and adoption of a 9-year-old girl, Danielle Batone, provided the backbone to the plot of "American Splendor." Both women survive him.

(WSJ)

People who find a way to express their creative individuality in the middle of non-ideal conditions always inspire me. And people who find a version of happiness or love late in life inspire me more. He was not a great talent, and didn't have a huge vision, but he found a way to construct something of his own. Philosophically I think he has little to add to the world. It's more the idea that you can find something good, or, maybe, something good can find you. Maybe God, maybe art, maybe love, maybe some meaning.

Some related news:
Harvey and his identity at The Jewish Week
The New Republic sees Pekar as overrated.

Tea Party Not Fat, Just Big Boned

No really, it makes sense!

It's an awesome boxing match, and Republicans are leading with a strong right hand, with chin possibly exposed to someone's uppercut.

This week we watched the back and forth between the NAACP and various Tea Party spokespeople and elements. The NAACP made a rather reasonable, if targeted, request that Tea Party activists make a greater show of distancing themselves from outright racists. The purpose of this request was not so much to get racists expelled from the Tea Party movement, but to highlight the fact that there are a whole bunch of racists in the organization, and using vaguely articulated concerns about the economy to hide their general dislike for the black President.

An umbrella group called the National Tea Party Federation took to the Sunday political talk shows to announce that they had indeed expelled one particularly racial Tea Party group. The spokesman for the Federation was black, and on the same CBS show Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP suggested that they would like to see other spokespeople (meaning non-black ones) take to the pulpit to denounce racist elements.

Meanwhile a slew of articles have appeared in various publications documenting the back and forth, and asking whether there is some type of race card being played by the NAACP. The framing of some articles suggests that it is merely a battle of semantics, with two equally aggrieved parties making their cases. I read one article which spotlighted the billboard of Obama centered between Hitler and Stalin, and any number of commentors to the piece failed to see any racism in the depiction. To them the billboard and the likening of Obama to mass murdering socialist variants (on the left and right) was merely a policy critique.

"It's not racist that Tea Party members have problems with his economic polices or his stances on the issues," goes the general refrain. And further, it's playing the race card when you suggest that the motivation for the outrage has racial bias as its fuel and fire.

Actually from the very beginning Obama has been smart. He has avoided talking about racial issues, or defining issues or attacks as being based on racial notions. He touches the issue when he is forced to by others, but has generally not gone there. He has avoided, even, associating too closely with blacks who he feels might cause an increased focus on racial issues or even his blackness. He has made every effort to be as non-threatening as possible. And he has instructed his surrogates to stay in line as well, even when they are functionally lying... as we see with Joe Biden's quick assertion that the Tea Party is not racially motivated.

And why might we say that in general, the Tea Party movement is in fact racially motivated, though with some good underlying themes?

In policy and deed, Obama has passed any number of pieces of legislation that in fact annoyed his liberal base. Healthcare passed, but with modifications and suggestions from Republicans who failed to support it. Financial reform passed, but with modifications and adjustments from Republicans who failed to support it. Stimulus passed, and again, with modifications and adjustments from Republicans who failed to support it. His two Supreme Court nominees were not some ode to blackness. He picked two qualified women when he very well could have just opted for two qualified blacks. He didn't. A little something for everyone.

In fact if you look at the entire cannon of Obama action, it is remarkably mainstream and not too far from various positions and stances taken by previous presidents and other nations. There was stimulus under Bush, but the Tea Party didn't exist then. Apparently  nothing to be concerned about. There were deficits under Bush, but, apparently nothing to get concerned about. There were deficit increasing actions like tax cuts and two wars under Bush, but apparently nobody was too concerned. There were rising health care costs and stagnating incomes and low job creation. But nobody protesting now, and in so organized a fashion, was out protesting then.

But now, under Obama, all the drunkards have come to the cross, and found Jesus in the form of spirit-filled anger over our economic situation and other injustices. They have found fit to liken President Obama to Hitler, and pay for billboards to do so. They have found fit to suggest insurrection and overthrowing the government, and imagine themselves patriots in the process.

Look closely at their complaints and you see dichotomy rolled up in hypocrisy wrapped in nonsense. One good example of this is in the political contest going on in Nevada, where Democrat Harry Reid is getting tarred on the airwaves. Huffington Post points out some of the nonsense:

More important than the misleading message, however, is the audacity of the messengers. Americans Crossroads is a conservative outfit run by a host of fierce critics of the Democratic stimulus program. Gillespie, the former RNC Chair and Bush hand, has criticized the stimulus package as ineffectual and misguided. Karl Rove, another American Crossroads chief and Bush confidant, actually insisted that the stimulus bill hurt the economy. Now, it appears, they see virtue in the recovery package. Were it not for the ineptitude of Harry Reid, the group argues, Nevada would be reaping more of the benefits.

Of course, the more fundamental message being advanced by American Crossroads is that Reid is simply incompetent. How, after all, could a Majority Leader not bring home the bacon to his needy constituents? But that too is misleading. As The Atlantic's Derek Thompson explains: "Republicans have spent the last three months blocking a Sen. Reid-endorsed extension to unemployment insurance that would particularly help Nevada, since federal UI contributions are tied to state unemployment rate. They're blocking Democrats' jobless aid in Washington and blaming Sen. Reid for not spending more on joblessness in Reno."

(Huffington Post)

So if your complaints are off base, where you are blaming the government for a bad economy and not just "fixing it," while simultaneously blaming the President for bringing in socialism, and if you are pillorying the President for taking actions that others have done in the past dating back to people like Hamilton, and if you are comparing the President to a mass murderer and then implying that people who voted for him are thus bad Americans... then you probably don't realize that you are in fact a situational racist.

The whole process has been to try portray Obama as something outside of the norm. You could actually break down his policies and actions and see otherwise. We still bomb terrorists with drones. We upped our troops in Afghanistan (contrary to the desires of his most fervent supporters). We passed laws--labeled socialist--that are firmly in line with other government largess efforts, whether the mortgage deduction, social security, Medicare, public schools, and so on.

You often hear the Tea Partites saying "But I paid into Social Security" but the fact of the matter is that nobody paid in enough, it's insolvent, and if you really cared about the budget, you would be against that and tax cuts as well.

Nor has any president been subjected to document demands for birth certificates, and the Tea Party in polling has yet to abandon the belief that the President is somehow not an American. Bush didn't go through that, and you can take that all the way back to Washington.

When you hold to certain untruths when facts indicate otherwise, then you need to check your motivation. But, you know, racists never do, do they? I am not fat, I am just big boned. Ha ha.