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.