Monday, January 26, 2009

Blank Check Good? Investment Bad? What Do These Republicans Want?

I don't believe that Republicans should just file in lockstep behind Obama and the Congressional Democrats. I believe that all representatives should vote according to the convictions they stated to their constituents that got them elected. If they and those they represent fundamentally disagree with the stimulus package, they should not support it and state why. After 9/11 there was this attitude that everyone had to rally around President Bush and give him what he wanted (except it was couched in terms of need, not want) because that's what needed to happen. I don't advocate that—then or now—because we know what happened. We need to rely upon Congress to rally around what their constituencies want. And in districts and states that went Obama for President and Republican for Congress, Republicans in Congress particularly need to weigh how much their constituents want Obama's agenda vs. their own.

But I don't understand Republicans—such as McCain and Baehner—who voted for the previous bailouts (by far so much worse than anything being proposed in this stimulus) but then nitpick this one. What are they saying? Blank checks to banks good, investment in infrastructure bad? I simply don't get it. Well, actually I do. It was political expediency at a time of crisis and this is exactly why I don't trust McCain and the like. You cannot claim to be a small government supporter than write a blank check for Treasury to disperse willy nilly.

There are those conservatives who just want the government spending to stop, hang the consequences. There's a certain Darwinist aspect to that view that I can appreciate. I'm even reasonably sure that we share the same beliefs on the end state. I just disagree with how to get there. I'm a progressive liberal who believes that government can and should do what it can to level the playing field in this country so that we can reach that desired end state where everyone has the same opportunity and succeeds or fails on their own merits. That state simply doesn't exist yet.

I don't believe in the tyranny of the majority or the minority, but this isn't either. This election made it very clear which direction the majority of the country wants to go. As long as that stays within the confine of the Constitution, then that's the direction we're going per the will of the people. Obama has been consistent throughout his campaign and while willing to compromise here and there, is going to ensure that the spirit of what he promises is what's going to go out there. The tax cut only strategy failed. We need cuts, investments, and regulation.

If Republicans really want to rebuild their party they should take a cue from the Democrats' problems. The Democrats, starting in '94, were all over the map. Picking one day to strongly stand by their convictions and oppose the Republicans and taking another day to cave to political expediency. The American people don't reward that and didn't for many years. Republicans whose constituents voted for Obama need to take that into account. And Republicans whose constituents did not vote for Obama and who are opposed to bailouts and stimulus packages of any kind should feel free to take that position. They'll lose this battle, but they'll be the better politician for it.

Just spare me the Republicans who deregulated the financial sector, bailed it out, and are now whining about the stimulus package.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Conspiracy to Prosecute

Yet another one of my crackpot conspiracy theories has to do with President Obama's stated commitment to transparency.

The short version (via the New York Times) is this:

Mr. Obama directed federal agencies to err on the side of transparency, not the Bush-era default of secrecy and delay, in releasing records to the public. He also undid the executive order signed by President George Bush that lets past presidents and vice presidents sit indefinitely on potentially embarrassing records that belong in the public domain.

But since it's now so easy to get the exact version, I'll extract that here, from WhiteHouse.gov:

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.


All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.


The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.


My theory is simple: Obama will prosecute the Bush Administration (minus Bush himself*) if and only if the public forces him to. I read his message as: if you ask for it , you'll get more than you could have in 8 years, and if you can put it together into a case that forces him to act, he will. He won't waste time going after the past unless the public demands it and he's just given the public the means to do so.

Obama believes in an informed and active citizenry. Therefore informed citizenry will need to determine whether the criminality of the Bush Administration should be investigated. I love this theory. I want the Bush Administration held accountable for what it's done, but I don't want Obama and his staff and cabinet wasting his time looking backward with all that needs to be done so quickly. So if the evidence is there, it's up to the American people to find it, put it together, and make a case. After all, the majority of the American people kept those people in office four years ago, the American people should have to do a little work to prosecute them. Unfortunately, the people who will most likely be doing the investigating won't be the people who voted for them back then, but then that's life when you're a liberal. Always having to clean up the conservatives' messes ;-). We're used to it.

*It is my understanding that a President cannot be charged or prosecuted for acts while in office unless he is first impeached and tried by the Senate to remove him from office. With regards to the Vice President, I don't believe a clear cut protection exists, but I also believe that the current Supreme Court is so afraid of any type of constitutional crisis (this is based on the 2000 election decision and the court is more right-leaning since then) that they would not allow a prosecution of Dick Cheney to move forward. However, given that the Supreme Court cleared the way for civil cases to move forward against sitting presidents (the sexual harassment charge leveled against Bill Clinton), I do expect a flurry of annoying and potentially financially devastating cases to be brought against both Bush and Cheney.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Do the Numbers

"How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives; how does that stimulate the economy?" House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said after the Obama meeting.

The above is in reference to an item in the current iteration of the economic stimulus plan meant to slow the spread of STD's and provide contraceptives. That Boehner doesn't understand how that helps the economy is mind boggling. Actually, I'm sure he does understand it; he just doesn't want to acknowledge it because that means he'd have to acknowledge that people have sex just for fun and not for the duty of procreation.

Helping people have fewer children and helping them avoid unnecessary health problems definitely helps the economy. Right now, the fewer children people have the less money they need and the more they can invest in the children they do have thereby making the next generation a better one. But social conservatives seem to refuse to see the link between having or not having children and the future of the economy. The more children people have during troubled times, the less can be invested in them. The less we can spend on education, the worse off the next generation should be. Of course, given our society, no one can or should be forced to reduce the number of children they have. But by making family planning support available, individuals can make better, more informed, choices that will benefit the economy. Why is it so horrible to say that? Why is there any outrage at all over a very simple way to improve the future of the economy? I have to think that the only reason there is any controversy over contraceptives at all is because to use contraceptives means someone is have S-E-X which is apparently some huge scary thing to social conservatives (who I have to assume to perform the act but freak out if they have to know whether anyone else is).

In an attempt to balance out my love for Media Matters for America, I started reading News Busters as well. However, the two sites can barely be compared. The time and analysis simply isn't invested in News Busters, and a lot of their exposition of so-called bias is completely made up. For example, regarding the economic stimulus package (which isn't even finalized), they are outraged over the amount being spent on roads and bridges, claiming that the infrastructure spending was overpromised. That would be true, if infrastructure only meant roads and bridges. From this Jeff Poor guy:

In reality, little of the $850 billion American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 proposed by congressional Democrats will actually be spent on actual road and bridge projects - the sort of things most people think of when they hear infrastructure spending, according to the office of Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Both Poor and the office of Sen. Sessions are being deliberately disingenuous, and exposing it in their own statements. If "most people" think only of roads when they think of infrastructure that only means that "most people" are ignorant. What President Obama has been saying throughout his campaign is that the infrastructure initiatives that he's been proposing include roads, bridges, electrical grids, expanding Internet access and upgrading the network systems throughout the country as well as improving rural communities, etc. Now I'm admittedly too lazy to go through the very detailed spreadsheet that the nice folks at Read the Stimulus created to break down the current iteration of the package, but even a quick glance shows how the folks at News Busters are trying to bias their readers against it. What a crystal clear example of skewing the data to fit a conclusion you've already drawn despite the evidence to the contrary (kind of like the intel used to justify invading Iraq). ReadtheStimulus.com is created by Kithbridge, a media solutions company whose founder is an obviously biased conservative (got to Kithbridge.com, click About, and read about the Founder). But if the information in the spreadsheet is correct and kept up to date as the bill progresses, it's incredibly useful. From what I can see of the construction of the site, ReadtheStimulus.com isn't trying to push any agenda other than organizing information for the citizenry, which is wonderful. It's the folks like News Busters who take this information and—by counting on the short attention span of their audience—attempts to skew it in a way to advance their agenda.

I'm prepared for the fact that some people are just going to balk at whatever the President and the Democratically controlled Congress does, no matter what. Issues like rolling back the international gag rule on abortion are going to blind them to anything else. I can even sympathize. I used to be that way on certain issues before I realized that bad decisions will have bad results and good decisions will have good results and to be blinded by ideology or party affiliation will not make a bad decision have a good outcome. Don't believe I can be that pragmatic? See my take on overturning abortion. Everything, big or small, icky or glorious, has an economic impact.

And that includes headlines. News outlets of all kinds have a pretty good sense of what headlines will get their readers/listeners/watchers to sit, read, click, buy. There's this outrage from the ultra-conservatives that certain "news" doesn't get covered. For example, the IMF reimbursements to Geithner. Of course it was covered. I read about it in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC. What it wasn't was front page screaming headlines. That he had tax problems, yes, but not the details. Why? Because it's not interesting to the average person. Which means it won't generate a click, garner $.50, or get you glued to your television screens while you wait through the advertisements to get the story. It's economics, not bias. The news is there for those who are interested, but the headlines and top news is there to get you hooked. Why conservatives, who are all about the free market, expect the media to go bankrupt screaming headlines about something the majority of their customers aren't interested in is beyond me.

On a sad and scary note, apparently the fast food chains are in their equivalent of an airfare war. Supposedly Subway dropped their prices and so did Burger King, McDonald's, and other major fast food chains. This is bad bad bad. With the price of decent food rising and organic skyrocketing, actual food will be priced out of the lower socioeconomic classes forcing them into horrible fast food on a regular basis. This is not good for the future of the organics industry and nor is it good for the next generation. Yet another reason not to have more children than you can invest in. Note I said that you can invest in, not just whether you can afford them. Food, clothing, shelter, and medicine can be paid for and you're still not investing in your kid(s). Education, time spent parenting, offering enriching experiences, and the right kind of food, these are investing. If you can't afford on a regular basis to provide all of this to your kids, then sign up now for the contraceptive economic stimulus package. Please.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Zeitgeist

I spent a few days at my friend's cabin on an island just northwest of the city. I always love going up there, even in the middle of winter. Completely wired for internet, but my cell phone won't work. Rustic and functional. She just got a compost toilet which is a veritable luxury when compared to the pit toilet that used to be the only option. And wasn't something I was particularly looking forward to having to use in 36 degree weather.

We talked a lot about the economy. But in a way that I'm not particularly worried about. Yes, it is going to be tough and really tough for those who already had it rough before layoffs, cutbacks, and credit crises. But overall, I have believed since the crisis crested in September '08 that this recession is going to be good for the country. My friend lives very frugally, but well and in some cases—depending how you look at it—luxuriously (on a beautiful island overlooking your own beach? Who cares about hot water!) I've said this before I'm sure, I'm not a minimalist. No one who has ever seen my shoe collection could believe that. But that's when things are good. Not working and paring down what I want versus what I need (and good body wash falls into the what-I-need category still). Being cost conscious is a new interesting trend. What I sincerely hope is that people will not just go for the cheapest, but start prioritizing quality and worthiness. I'm looking to go back into travel tech, which is something I think is invaluable to life. Travel brings experiences, exposure, interests. I hope that even though it's terribly tough to make ends meet for the next 18 or so months, folks won't forsake experiences entirely.

While I was there I finally saw the Zeitgeist movie. Like most conspiracy theory/docudramas, it raises some interesting thoughts, but completely blows it in others; jumping to conclusions without adequate backing, not sourcing information correctly, etc. It's very easy to spot no matter what the goal is (actually reminds me of the amount of time/thought--NOT--that's put into the News Busters blog). Still, the first section on religion was fairly spot on. And Building 7 is very weird. As for FDR provoking Japan into Pearl Harbor to launch us into WWII … duh. Pretty much nothing I haven't heard from my fiancĂ©'s conspiracy theorist father, particularly about the international banking cabal.

I simply love conspiracy theories. I really do. I have one that the reason for the piss poor response to Hurricane Katrina was that the government was trying to see if they could impose martial law, as a test to determine how easy or difficult it would be after a disaster. Given how 9/11 was handled, I was shocked that they didn't try to declare it in New York. Maybe they just didn't think of it in time. But my whack job theory is that they intended to try in New Orleans but failed because of the sheer amount of press coverage and national attention. As for international banking/financier cabals, I totally believe in that. I just don't always believe they're in the wrong. As long as there are people who want to be sheep, there will be people who feel the need to herd them. I'm a big Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist and am starting to have questions about some aspects of 9/11.

But the people who produce the conspiracy theories always screw it up by including something so easily caught out that the entire point of what they're trying to do falls apart. One false fact can unravel the best of arguments. Just ask Dan Rather.

Happy anniversary! Obama reverses the international gag rule regarding abortions. Not surprising of course, but nice to see happen so quickly. You know, I could have much more productive fiscal conversations with conservatives if they would drop all the dictatorial social issues. I'm sure they would say the same thing about me, but what I've always said about the left vs. right social issues: my side takes nothing away from them; theirs takes something away from me. Therefore, my side should win. And with this economic crisis, I'm hoping people consider restricting individual rights is lower on the priority than preventing their own foreclosure. But to be honest, what Obama said back during the primaries is true. When times are tough, people do get insular and cling to what is familiar.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Random Inaugural Thoughts

It sure was nice to get a shout out in the inauguration speech:

“We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.”


It’s the first time that we non-believers (atheists, agnostics, or whatever it is we’re called) have been so publicly called out as being a part of the country. And after the rabid Christianity of the last eight years (which I don’t expect to end, but at least it’s out of the White House) it was a pleasure to be included.

I loved that Michelle Obama stayed away from the traditional red or blue outfit. Rather than being symbolic of the flag, those colors have become more representative of the divisiveness of the two parties. The Obamas could not have won without the red states and cross-over voters. Avoiding the standard colors was a nod toward that, I think. A small one, but her fashion choices are scrutinized. And a white dress for the balls uses up the often neglected remaining flag color.

It was an excellent speech. It doesn’t soar, but then given the current situations, it would be hubris to be so lofty. And the truth is, without citizen involvement, things aren’t going to get better. This says it best for me:

There are those who wanted more poetry, more loft in the speech. They wanted to hear the eloquence of the race speech Obama gave during the campaign. Or the call to tomorrow given from the mile-high perch of the nominating convention in the Rockies.

But this was a day, in a year, when all poetry will have a more urgent edge. Loft will not suffice.

But it’s really today and tomorrow that matter, not the actual inauguration day. Today he starts work. Oh wait, no, he actually did start yesterday with this memo from my uber-crush Rahm Emanuel:

"...no proposed or final regulation should be sent to the Office of Federal Register for publication unless and until it has been reviewed and approved by a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2009, or in the case of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense."


I’m not sure which of Bush’s last minute gutting of the environment or my uterus haven’t made it into the Federal Register yet, but it’s a start.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Slow Starts

I’m not much for New Year’s resolutions. If I ever do any at all, I usually wait until my birthday in February. That’s more of a “new year” for me than the Gregorian calendar. But I did take the new year to review what I’ve done and not done since I quit working, and get cracking on a few projects (yay for new kitchen floor!). And amongst those is actually keeping up the writing.

Which doesn’t mean I have much to ramble about every day, or rather that I have the time and inclination to formalize what’s rattling around in my head into what I consider worth publishing. But practice makes perfect so I’m going to start—again—posting something every week day at least just so as to get in practice.

That said, Battlestar Galactica this Friday! Heath Ledger won a posthumous Golden Globe for Dark Knight! I have a new kitchen floor! 2008 is fucking over! Obama gets sworn in next week!

Lots to start on.