A More Direct Challenge

You may recall, if you followed politics at all in the 1990s, there was a move afoot on the part of the Gingrich revolters to reform how government worked.

What happened up to that point was that the Federal government would distribute funds to states targetted for very specific goals. These were called "categorical grants". Gingrich and his orc minions proposed to change this to a "block grant" system, whereby a state would be given a chunk of money and directed to spend it as it saw fit. In a perfect world, there would have been substantially no difference between the two methods. Ideally, they would solve the same problems and be the same amount of money, with the state having a bit more discretion in how it could target money it received.

But, well...politicians, money...you can see where this headed.

There's an interesting dynamic afoot here, and I want to study it from the ground up with you for a moment.

Little noticed outside of New York City (and even then, amidst the Obamathon, only among wonks here) was the release of an emergency budget proposal by Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Much of the hoopla over this budget stemmed from the loss of an entire graduating class at the police academy, cutting back on night-time fire coverage, as well as the suspension of a property tax rebate, an increase in property tax rates, and a 5¢ surcharge on all plastic bags.

All to close a $4 billion budget gap to $1.3 billion. Presumably, smoke and mirrors would take care of the rest. Actually, I know what will take care of the rest, but that's a different post.

Little noticed in the budget proposal, which will have to go to the city council for approval, was an item that would eliminate a program that has been around for over 100 years: public child dentistry.

Remember when you had to present a note from your dentist, once a year, certifying that you had been seen and were under his care? Some kids couldn't afford private dentists, and since these notes were mandatory, the city stepped in and established dental clinics around town for indigent (and sometimes, just lazy) kids to be checked up.

Even in the depths of near-bankruptcy thirty years ago, this program was considered sacrosanct. We could close down firehouses, reduce police presence, cut back on garbage pickup (which used to be daily), find myriad ways of saving a buck or two, but childrens' teeth were deemed essential.

This is a good thing, by the way.

Now, not so much. I pondered this rather curious earmark in the budget proposal. One day it hit me: with a President Obama, children's health insurance would be mandatory, meaning that these dentists would essentially be working for the Federal government now. He was kicking the ball upstairs.

I filed this away: city councils are notoriously slow, partly around Christmas time and PARTICULARLY ahead of an election year, to start mucking around with unions.

Comes today, this item:

ALBANY - Faced with a worsening economy, Gov. Paterson wants to slash school aid, shrink health care funding and hike public college tuition, the Daily News has learned.

The governor, who will propose $2 billion in budget cuts Wednesday, also wants public employees to go without raises for at least a year, sources said.

About $1.4 billion of the cuts to this fiscal year's budget would come from education and health care.

"Aha," says I. That cut in children's health aid, roughly a half billion dollars, would mean severe cuts in the Federally mandated children's health care program, Child Health Plus.

CH+ is funded by Medicaid, as part of those block grants I told you about earlier. You might recall the ruckus in Congress last year over renewing S-CHIP. This is that program.

Essentially, Patterson is setting up to kick Bloomberg's ball one step further up the ladder, to the Federal Government, to the Obama administration.

See, neither of these draconian budget adjustments will take effect, should they even be passed, until next summer, 2009.

Plenty of time for Obama to write, introduce, and pass his version of national healthcare. Plenty of time for the Federal government to pick up the ball.

My suspicion is we'll be seeing this same scenario repeated across the nation, as mayors and governors collaborate to kick their mandated spending programs back up the ladder to the Federal government.

For policy wonks like me, these are salad days indeed!

Thank You

I pray that President Obama will learn the lessons of his predecessors and never EVER send our children into harm's way without a goddamned good reason, one that involves our national security and the preservation of America.

The Most Annoying Column This Week

Y'know, I get tired of idjits like this columnist. Talk more on the flip side:

For several years, I've been writing about Bushenfreude, the phenomenon of angry yuppies who've hugely benefited from President Bush's tax cuts funding angry, populist Democratic campaigns. I've theorized that people who work in financial services and related fields have become so outraged and alienated by the incompetence, crass social conservatism, and repeated insults to the nation's intelligence of the Bush-era Republican Party that they're voting with their hearts and heads instead of their wallets.

Last week's election was perhaps Bushenfreude's grandest day. As the campaign entered its final weeks, Barack Obama, who pledged to unite the country, singled out one group of people for ridicule: those making more than $250,000. At his rallies, he would ask for a show of hands of those making less than one-quarter of $1 million per year. Then he'd look around, laugh, and note that those in the virtuous majority would get their taxes cut, while the rich among them would be hit with a tax increase. And yet the exit polls show, the rich—and yes, if you make $250,000 or more you're rich—went for Obama by bigger margins than did the merely well-off. If the exit polls are to be believed, those making $200,000 or more (6 percent of the electorate) voted for Obama 52-46, while McCain won the merely well-off ($100,000 to $150,000 by a 51-48 margin and $150,000 to $200,000 by a 50-48 margin).

OK, so why is this annoying me?

Two reasons:

1) The title of the column is "Why the rich voted for Obama against their own economic interest," which the moron never gets into except to make vague references to taxes and ethnicities and trust fund babies...um, no. But I'll get back to this.

2) The deeper issue I have is, why is this such a big topic of discussion this year, but when Reagan Democrats en masse supported Bush (or Dole or Bush the Elder, or Reagan for that matter), no one bothered to ask the why the little people were voting for their bosses?

OK, let's tackle these one at a time. So why did the uberrich go for Obama in such large numbers?

First of all, it's not like people are a distinct bloc. Take Greenwich, CT, for example. In 2004, the town went for Bush 53-47. That still means close to half the people there voted for Kerry. In 2008, the numbers were pretty much reversed, 54-46 Obama. So that means seven people out of a hundred changed their party line in this vote. That's not like it's a major upheaval in a region that is seeing housing prices drop pretty significantly, has watched as the stock markets have tanked and gotten very very nervous, and is facing the looming crisis of companies that have been the backbone of this community, brokerage houses, banks and hedge funds, swing down the drain.

Those factors alone could easily swing seven votes, but I'm more interested in the underlying thesis that, somehow, the other forty five percent or so must be economic morons to vote against their self-interests.

I'm going to reframe the question: why is it so unusual to vote for issues apart from pocketbook? This sector of the rich didn't vote for Carter, for example, because they thought his economic stimulus package was better than Ford's (subsequent events put the lie to that, anyway).

No, they voted for Carter for more prosaic reasons, just as they voted for Clinton: they liked him, thought he'd do the best job of sheparding this nation, and they were tired of Republican rule and corruption.

Or is this jackass proposing that voters of a certain class (myself included, altho I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat) should ignore any other issue on the table, any incumbent's peccadilloes and peculiarities, and focus only on how much richer this man or woman can make them?

Which now leads me to the obverse of this idiotic column and why this disappointing piece of fluff really burns my belly.

Why do the POOR even bother voting for Republicans? As Harry Truman said, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic." So why cut your nose to spite your face?

Security reasons, we're usually told. More trustworthy. A guy we can have a beer with.

I don't know about you, but I would rather have a beer with John McCain, who strikes me as someone who can discuss the last football game better than Barack Obama (and it now appears Senator McCain will have a better opportunity to do just that).

But here's the thing: anybody with a lick of sense would walk up to the beer-chugging President and ask, "What are you doing here, wasting time, when there's a country to run?"

How condescending is it to claim that it's so wrong for the rich to vote against their interests, when the poor do it, and we don't bat an eye?

The answer to both questions is very simple: when the strengths of a party's message exceed the strengths of the other party's message, that's who usually wins. That encompasses not only the message itself, but how its delivered and more important, who is delivering it. Also, of course, how easily the other party can rebut or dismantle the argument.

McCain lost this election back in the conventions, I'm afraid. Goerge Bush had made the environment so toxic for any Republican that McCain was lucky to make as strong a showing as he did.

Even then, McCain and particularly Sarah Palin bungled some issues so severely that they should have been punished more forcefully at the polls.

The better question is not why the rich voted for Obama, but why people voted for McCain at all?

"Now We Are Engaged In A Great Civil War..."

Abraham Lincoln meant that about the United States, but if he lived today, he could just as easily be speaking about the Republican party, the party he helped create:

It could be a tough four or eight years for conservatives.

It will be tougher yet if they underestimate Obama. His selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff suggests that Obama’s not going to be mindlessly leftist, and that he’s going to shape a legislative strategy that is attentive to Congressional realities while not deferring to a Congressional leadership whose interests may not be his own. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both tripped up in their first two years by their Democratic Congresses. Obama intends for Emanuel to ensure that that doesn’t happen.

Curiously, while Kristol makes a good case (a rarity) for keeping some of the conservative planks of the Republican platform, he loses out to this kind of rhetoric:

But many on the losing end of last week's election want to hold on to their anger. And there are those in the media -- led by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity -- only too ready to feed that animus, along with their own ratings.

"The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. "Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression."

Apparently the tanking of the real estate market, record losses in the auto industry, and massive failures in the banking and investment industry have very little to do with our problems. The economic system is collapsing, Rush wants us to know, because it anticipates the tax increases Obama has pledged on capital gains and for the highest income earners.

There's a seething anger on the right wing, paralleling the seething anger on the left (and to be fair, the center) of four years ago when Bush somehow managed to struggle off the canvas of 40% approval ratings...can you imagine how nice those must seem to him now?...to eke out re-election.

This isn't, thank goodness, being reflected in "assassinate Obama" rhetoric, at least in the more polite circles, the ones who at least use forks to eat. There is a nascent movement to file immediate impeachment charges based upon...what, I'm not sure, since impeachment has to be for high crimes and misdemeanors and considering the guy isn't even president yet, it'd be a bit hard to accuse him of official misconduct.

There is a stiffenining of resolve amongst the crackpot wing of the Republican party to clear out anything that smells like a RINO, Bill Kristol included:

We intend to constantly remind the base about these people, monitor who they are working for, and, when 2012 rolls around, see which candidates hire them. Naturally then, you'll see us go to war against those candidates.

It is our expressed intention to make these few people political lepers.

You read that right, folks: the radical right has declared a pogrom.

There's an element of "cry-babyness" here. First off, the clear reason for this overreaction is the loss of the 2008 election. Something, power, was taken away from these folks.

Or rather, in keeping with the mindless American trope of so many of these numbbrained knuckleheads, the illusion of power, as if some mommy in Maryland with a computer, bile, and too much time on her hands is somehow responsible for the political transformation of an entire nation.

Sorry...I had to take a moment to stop laughing.

A few "inside scoops," a couple of cocktail party invitations, and the occasional television appearance or mention by some high "White Horse souse" (to use the turn of phrase), and someone like Mickey Mousekin thinks she's got stroke?

Um. No?

It doesn't work like that, and the one area in which I have to tip my hat to Karl Rove is his ability to con these folks, like Malkin and Morrisey and Nordlinger and Hannity and Limbaugh into some form of power broker, when all they performed was what Stalin would have called "useful idiocies".

Tools. Gotta love. Wish I had some.

The con works because the conner takes what the connees want, and neatly pastes it over what he, the conner, has.

Unwittingly, tho, Karl Rove may have destroyed the Republican party. Certainly, by enlisting these crackheads, he's likely disposed of the relevancy of the conservative argument for many many decades. After all, how many time could a Michelle Malkin go and inspect the countertops of a Graeme Frost, while throwing a hissyfit over the media treatment of Joe the Plumber, all while identifying herself as some media figure?

Damn, Karl Rove even had her believing her own press...that's impressive!

The tragedy for Malkin, et al's sake is that they dragged some pretty smart people down with them, people who could have had useful voices in the coming economic crisis. Like it or not, Obama is going to have a hard time selling his entire reform package of healthcare, peace AND a tax cut when people's jobs are being lost. He will need a formidable and loyal opposition, one that deals in facts and truths and not National Enquirer headlines, in order to fix the problems of this nation.

The trouble is, those folks, the ones who could help with the solutions, will be lumped in with these assholes and thus deemed irrelevant.

I for one do not want to see a "permanent Democratic majority." I want them to have to fight and occasionally fail for their ideas and ideals. One party rule, no matter how benign, is a form of fascism long term, if there is no accountability to the people, and no other legitimate option.

I would welcome a Republican party that moved back to this planet, and dealt with the reality-based reality, and not wandered off to the clouds of some pseudo-sociological experiment in strapping down the less fortunate and less privileged and hooking up electrodes to their genitalia.

I would welcome a Republican party that learned to respect its opposition, to invite their opinions, to include their concerns in forming a platform and legislative agenda.

I would not welcome a Republican party that is divisive and divided, torn asunder by four or five minority factions who lost the lessons of the Democratic diaspora of the past thirty years: we are all in this together.

I sincerely hope, as a progressive and a life-long Democrat, that one day I'll be offered a real choice of two candidates for President who both are neither tied to their extremist moneyed factions, but who actually fight for my vote.

I doubt I'll see it, but this defeat bears truth that hopes springs eternal.

(showing da love to Memeorandum)

Nobody Asked Me, But...

1) Short of having another Brooks Brothers' Riot, I'm not sure how we can help Al Franken win his seat, but he's closing in so I'm open to suggestions.

2) Franken had the NERVE to insist on the rule of law and an automatic recount, which has the right wing up in arms. Imagine!?

3) Remember: Joe Biden said that Obama would be tested. The line starts in Russia.

4) We give you Mount Obama.

5) Having suddenly realized that his eight years as the brains behind the throne, First Dog Barney takes it out on innocent reporter.


6) I didn't think gators ate baby food...

7) The market is tanking yet again, unemployment is up to 6.5%. Do you think Obama is demanding a recount?

8) OH CRAP! Maybe he really IS the AntiChrist!

9) This is much like a chain smoker telling me I need to lose weight.

10) Am I a bad person for enjoying the schadenfreude?

Middle Earth

I don't know if you noticed it, but towards the end of the Presidential campaign, a new talking point was trotted out by the punditocracy in the face of an overwhelming defeat: "America is a center-right nation."

 

It is so pervasive, and moved so quickly through the blogosphere, that even John Meacham of Newsweek, who generally maintains the least veneer of plausibility and objectivity, has trotted it out.

So are we a centrist country, or a right-of-center one? I think the latter, because the mean to which most Americans revert tends to be more conservative than liberal. According to the NEWSWEEK Poll, nearly twice as many people call themselves conservatives as liberals (40 percent to 20 percent), and Republicans have dominated presidential politics—in many ways the most personal, visceral vote we cast—for 40 years. Since 1968, Democrats have won only three of 10 general elections (1976, 1992 and 1996), and in those years they were led by Southern Baptist nominees who ran away from the liberal label. "Is this a center-right country? Yes, compared to Europe or Canada it's obviously much more conservative," says Adrian Wooldridge, coauthor of "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America" and Washington bureau chief of the London-based Economist. "There's a much higher tolerance for inequality, much greater cultural conservatism, a higher incarceration rate, legalized handguns and greater distrust of the state."

Bollocks, as the Brits would say. The election Tuesday certainly put paid to the authority of most of these folks to speak "for America", for one thing, but as David Sirota points out, poll after poll after poll suggests that Americans are moving away from centrist-right positions and towards center-left, and even leftist positions on social issue after social issue.

 

It's sad, in a way, to watch the right wing meltdown that's happened in front of our eyes, but not unexpected. When you've been running the show and silencing dissent for thirty years, it's hard to focus on what happens when the rug is pulled out from under you. Ironically, the election of Clinton in 1992 should have sent the Republicans scurrying for a re-evaluation of their positions and platforms, and more important, their slavish devotion to the forces of intolerance and religion.

 

The chipping away of the clear majority that the Republicans had under Ronald Reagan, in terms of the electorate at any rate, should have been a sign to Karl Rove and Newt Gingrinch and their minions and successors that a permanent Republican majority was not only improbable, but impossible.

 

When your echo chamber shrinks, apparently, you merely think it's becoming more and more crowded.

 

The overwhelming truth is, when America is in trouble, voters run towards progressivism. Right now, America is a center-left nation.

 

Greed has its place in the nation, and the grand struggle for the soul of this nation is between our liberal charitable "better angels" of Abraham Lincoln and our "greed is good" conservative philosophies of the Gordon Gekkos of the world.

 

Ironically, as Harry Truman was wont to point out, "if you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat." It's true, as a cursory study of recent national economic history will show, the Carter years notwithstanding. Our brand of "socialism", the one the pundits were twisting their knickers about, is actually very good for all people, rich and poor. Greed, in small doses, is probably good for America.

 

America, in terms of current policy, is center-right. I make no mistake about that. The trouble with judging a nation by its policies is that, partilcarly in a two-party system, those policies are reflective of the people in power and the people in power are not necessarily the majority voice. Indeed, Barack Obama's greatest achievement may be that he has fused power and popularity. In this, his admiration of Ronald Reagan, anathemic as it may have been, holds true, since Reagan was the last President to have a clear and true mandate from the voters.

 

Thirty years ago, Mr. Meacham. A full generation ago. Now, the tide has turned.

Hump Day Comedy Blogging

The Police - Message In A Bottle

Who needs comedy to feel good today? This is going out to all my fellow progressives who've felt lost in the woods for all these years.

YASS I DED!

I DED ET!

Mah indorcement put Brack Obama ober da tawp! I es a kingmaikah! Hem owe me big tiem naow!

Who da qat?!? WHO DA QAT?!?

Update: Sorry, ThumbPer, but it appears Obama is a dog person.

NUDDER UPDAIT: WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT? I scartch hem's ize out! Doan hem no I putt hem whar hem iz???? I gon taik back mah indorcement an maik hem loose! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Dream Delayed, But Not Denied

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

Gooooooooooooooooooood MORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRNING, AMERICA!

Bet you thought I was going to go with Martin Luther King's dream, didn't you? ;-) But his dream was the American dream. If a funny looking scrawny guy with big ass ears, a permanent tan and an unsual name can be elected President, well...we can put a man on the moon, right?

Many random thoughts are flashing through my mind right now, and when I get like this, I like to remind myself: just breathe.

Take a breath with me now. Be in this moment. This is history, and history of a good kind, not the kind you stare at in horror as it unfolds on the TV. This is the kind of history that you savor, because it's about you.

Yes, you. Personally. Whatever part you played, even if you opposed it, this history was built stone by stone, pebble by pebble, person by person.

Forget the tasks ahead. Forget what has come before, except as how those moments built to this moment.

Thank yous abound. Thank you, Frederick Douglass. Thank you, Rosa Parks. Thank you, Dr. King. Thank you, Ralph Bunche.

Thank you, Reverend Jackson. Thank you, Representatives Henry Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, John Lewis, Harold Ford, Senator Hiram Ravel and the embarassingly small number of other black legislators who have paved the way for this moment.

Hillary Clinton had 18 million cracks in her glass ceiling. President-elect Obama needed just 340 or so to break through.

Obama was not my first choice for President, but he was my best choice, and I was proud to vote for him. In 1992, and 1996, I felt like progressivism had stolen a couple of victories from the forces of regression, and in 2000, when Al Gore was humbled by a slack-jawed faux-cowboy, I suddenly felt adrift in my own nation. Shortly after that election, I filed for dual citizenship (hey, it was available for the first time, to be fair!).

I've never run from a fight, but I was embarassed to be an American, for the first time since Nixon.

In the bluest city in one of the bluest states in the nation, despite having 8 million people around me who were more less near the same page as I was, I felt alone.

But...Walked out this morning
Dont believe what I saw
A hundred billion bottles
Washed up on the shore
Seems I'm not alone in being alone
A hundred billion castaways
Looking for a home

Turnout in the election nationwide was 61.9%, the highest since the 1920s (when Prohibition was repealed, which means Obama is as attractive as a pina colada).

As proud as I was to vote for Senator Obama, I think when I walk into the voting booth in 2012, and cast my vote for the re-election of President Obama, it will hit me, the magnitude of what has just happened. The job's not over, not by a long shot. Inequality in this country won't be history until we have two African-Americans running for the top job opposing each other.

One Democrat. One Republican.

Oh, I forgot a thank you:

Heavenly Father, thank you for this moment, and please give President Obama the strength, the wisdom, and the courage to guide the ship of state through the turbulent waters ahead.

Amen.

God, I wanna cry!

UPDATE: The first thing that popped into my head this morning when I woke up and saw how big a landslide Obama had was, "Bush claimed political capital for eking out a victory in 2004, yet I bet Obama will be humble in the face of the change he has wrought."

UPDATE, PART DEUX: The wonk in me would like to point out that, not only did more people vote for Barack Obama than have voted for any other President in history, but that a higher percentage of people voted for Obama than for any other first term President since FDR in 1932.

Like I said, "Amen!"

The Gathering Storm

As all the world's eyes are focused on America and its elections, a very frightening piece of news is developing in China:

In the initial weeks of the global financial crisis, Chinese officials resolutely declared that they were not significantly affected. But now, as factory closings, dire corporate earnings reports and stock market losses continue to mount, the Communist Party's confidence has changed to another feeling entirely: fear.

For the first time in the 30 years since China began its capitalist transformation, there is a perception that the economy is in real trouble.

And for the Communist Party, the crisis is not just an economic one, but a political one. The government's response offers a glimpse into its still ambiguous relationship with capitalism -- relatively hands-off in good times, but quick to intervene directly at the first signs of a downturn in order to prevent popular unrest.

Normally, you might think to take this in stride, but here's the problem: the American economic system, including our own governmental operations, are inexorably linked to the Chinese system, indeed, to the government itself.

Should the Chinese government fail to stem the economic tide within its own borders, should the absolute worst happen and the Chinese government itself go belly-up (like Iceland almost did) in financing a bailout of its banks, then the Chinese government will do one of two things:

The lesser of the two evils is to stop buying American bonds, you know, those things we've been financing the deficit with. This will create a hyperinflative environment with both skyrocketing prices AND skyrocketing itnerest rates, the economic perfect storm of stagflation I predicted three years ago.

The worse of the two evils is that China will liquidate its outstanding investments, meaning they will dump our T-bills and notes and bonds onto the open market. This will cause the value of the dollar to crash, and trigger a depression that will most definitely not be called "great". It will be nothing less than a catastrophe. War would be the most likely outcome of such a radical move, war on a global scale.

There's small comfort to be had here, and we should all be crossing our fingers or praying really hard right now. China is a relative rookie in free market capitalism, and the mistakes we made up to now have been pretty horrific.

And we continue to perfect our mistakes. China doesn't have the benefit of our past experience, even. It won't take much, just a minor panic attack and things could topple quickly.

Barack To The Future

(with apologies to Skippy for cribbing his phrase)

 

I went to vote today.

 

I got to my polling place at 7:15 AM. I like voting early, I like getting home at night and knowing I've fulfilled my obligations for the day.

 

Normally, I vote somewhere around 7:45. Usually it's me, the poll workers and maybe one or two poll watchers, depending on how tight the local races are. My district is reliably Democratic, more so as it has become something of a haven for artists.

 

I get to talk to the poll workers, usually ladies of a certain age in my neighborhood who make a few bucks by jotting down numbers on a card and a sheet of paper and wishing you well. Sometimes, I'll bring coffee because I know they've been there since 5 or so, and have a long dead stretch of time until 9 or 10PM.

 

Usually, I'm voter number four in my ED. In NYC, we divide our precincts up into Assembly Districts and then Election Districts. That means my ED is basically the four square blocks around my house. My immediate neighborhood is a mix of deeply blue collar homeowners, one or two who are pretty Republican, and a large dollop of single men and women, with a sprinkling of young families. Usually, this means I'm one of the first people up in the morning, nevermind out and voting.

 

My polling place is the local elementary school. On a good day, say when Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, there might be twenty people voting at any one time that early.

 

Today, I had heard rumours that the turnout was already gearing up to be spectacular. That's why I decided to get there early. I wanted to witness it.

 

In one ED, just one, there were some seventy five people lined up when I got there. Think about it: usually, twenty people across something like 20 EDs. Today, 75 in just one. I was fortunate. It wasn't mine. I did have to stand in line.

 

I was voter number 25 in my ED. Remember, I'm usually a half hour later and number four or so. Six times as many voters in three-fourths the time in my ED alone.

 

I get the sense there's a welling up in this nation. A repudiation of the evil attempts to take this nation back to a time when things were better...for white men.

 

I'm not sure what finally woke America up. Katrina? Perhaps. Iraq? Possibly. September 11 and the watered down accusations of the 9/11 Commission's report? Likely.

 

Somewhere along the line, Americans looked at government-by-Republican and said "enough". In drips and drabs, to be sure. We'll put up with a lot, and will be very forgiving, very...Christian.

 

There is, however, an undeniable momentum to the future, towards progress. We are, to coin a phrase, heading Barack to the Bridge to the 21st Century.

 

I can write this on election morning, November 2, with the results unknown, much less unannounced, because frankly, it doesn't really matter. Obama can win, Obama can lose, but this boulder will not endure Sisyphian efforts to roll it up the hill of reactionary thinking any longer, it will flatten those who choose to get in its way. If Obama somehow manages to lose this election-- no matter, in 2012, Hillary will prevail. There is no stopping this motion. The inertia is too great.

 

If Obama loses, it just means the right wing has thrown John McCain in front of the rock to momentarily bounce it around a bit, but McCain with a fully Democratic congress, and a GOP torn asunder, will be less of an impediment than many on the right would wish.

 

In 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004, I had hoped that America would finally see the sham being foisted upon them by the Republican party, shackling us to our jobs and to an indentured servitude of lifelong indebtedness while the government does nothing for the "little guy", the "Joe The Plumbers" of America. It worried me that, as we rode deeper and deeper into the abyss, as Republican leaders became less and less coy about the rapine of America's bounty, that Americans might wait until it's too late.

 

And indeed, they may have. It might be impossible to pull our great and wondrous nation back from the brink. But we have a chance. We have hope.

 

We have change. And I have never been prouder to be an American than I was to be voter number 25 this morning.

En Indorcemunt

I, ThumbPer da Qat, herebye indorce Barack Obama foah Presnident.

I fink hem be da bessest presnidet foah qats ebber! Hem maik shoah da qats at Hemingway House hab a place to lib foaheber.

And hem tax kuts meen dat qats all ober da werld will git moah fud from dey ownahs, cuz dem kin affoahd moah fud. Dass whut manee ob mah frens says!

So you shud bote foah Barack Obama for mai saik! We need moah pitchers liek diss......so we kin taik ober da werld!

The Lion Sleeps Tonight

A large part of me is thinking that Barack Obama is going to walk away from the election tomorrow with the largest mandate a President has had since Ronald Reagan.

If not more.

And part of me, the part of me that roots for the Mets, the Rangers, and yes, the Democrats, is worried. This is no time for complacency and if we are to be accused of anything, better we should be accused of running up the score than in losing graciously.

Al Gore lost graciously, thanks in large part to the spiteful vendetta of Ralph Nader. Did anyone want a repeat of the past eight years?

Not that I believe, in his heart of hearts, that John McCain and George W Bush are soulmates, cloned from the same dreck and flotsam that would see this country drift rather than take the reins of its own destiny. I don't. I believe McCain sincerely wants to do right by doing good.

I just don't think he has either the energy or the capacity anymore after selling his soul, one slice at a time, for the past eight years.

This was why, despite a bruising and at time bitter primary campaign in which my candidate lost, I was able to instantly support Barack Obama. The John McCain of 2000, the one able to speak his mind and be funny from time to time, the one I was able to disagree with without being disagreeable, him I might have had a harder time turning down.

Not this guy:

Not ever. How could I even respect a man who was so thoroughly humiliated, even to the extent of having his adopted baby's parentage questioned, by the very man he now had to kowtow to in order to get the nomination?

It is an ignominious epitaph for "The Maverick" that his political career should end in such a shabby way.

I say "end" because I assume at his age that he might even resign the Senate given the amount of animosity he has had to raise on both sides of the aisle in this campaign. He doesn't have the luxury of two or more re-election bids to re-establish his respect.

His chance came eight years ago, and he blew it. I suspect one reason he was practically given the nomination is that he deserved his shot.

That and the fact that ultimately, he and his campaign were about the strongest contenders against an Obama or Clinton ticket. I don't claim to understand the Republican mindset, but my guess is the thinking went something along the lines of "Well, we're going to get creamed this year, the economy will be in the tank, we need to send out the person who has the best shot of keeping the moderates on the sidelines."

He ran, I think, perhaps the best campaign he could, given the circumstances. You know the old saw about being given lemons and making lemonade.

McCain was given rotting lemons and a moosehunter and managed to make something not quite as nasty as moose piss. If that is damning with faint praise, it is nonetheless praise.

It troubles me, this other side of me, the one that obsesses about the possibilities of losing. I realize an awful lot of is was created by the media, who don't want to pronounce the race over until it is over, even if it is over, even if McCain himself believes it is over.

After all, what's going to draw voters to watch on Tuesday night? Not the spectacle of the first minority candidate to win the Presidency, no, of course not. It's all about "Does the old white guy stand a chance still?"

It's a sad state of affairs for our nation when even our Presidential elections have to be sold like a season ending cliffhanger.

Complacency, then, is our worst enemy. If everyone who said they would vote for Obama would simply get out and vote, then my fears would be allayed.

So that's job one for tomorrow: get out the vote. Take the day off and take five people to the polls to vote.

Job number two: remind people why you support Obama. You don't need talking points to do this. You don't need to know that his healthcare plan is better than McCain's or his tax cuts will provide three times the relief for you that McCain's will.

All you need to do is make it personal. So ask yourself, why ARE you supporting Obama? If you can't answer that question easily, then you need to think it through a bit more.

This is your vote, dammit, your birthright, and at the risk of losing a vote or two to McCain or worse, Nader, you ought not to waste it. Be sure you understand why you are voting the way you are voting, even if it's for some silly emotional reason. It doesn't matter. In our emotions are often the most compelling arguments made.

Number three: after you've voted, make sure to tell your friends you have (hell, Starbucks is giving away coffee for free to people who voted!), because while the five you take to the polls might vote, there are going to be huge numbers of people out there who will forget. Every reminder helps.

That means emails, Twitters, blogposts, phone calls, and casual run-intos in the street. Talk it up. It's important. This election will be historic, people might actually brag about their vote. Get a jump on the bandwagon!

Finally, once you have voted, and are in for the night, find a comfortable place to sit, and be sure to have plenty of relaxing music on hand. It's going to be nerve-wracking by design. The networks won't have the guts to call it for Obama the way Fox called it for Bush in 2000. It will last into the early morning and it will be tense.

I think the Pennsylvania results will be the place where the networks milk it for all its worth. Just my opinion, but if I was going to try to steal an election, that's where I'd put my resources, and the "tell" has been in for weeks now that McCain's focused on that area: Ohio and Pennsylvania.

I don't think ultimately it will matter, but I'm not willing to bet the next eight years on it.

Get out and vote.

Nobody Asked Me, But...

Special Zombie Edition

1) Sarah Palin has had her fifteen minutes. She's done nothing for McCain but solidified his one base, which was precisely what he didn't need. I still think this was all performance art, that Palin will be groomed for 2012.

2) All you zombies show your faces.

3) How did I miss the release of Zombie Strippers? How scary is this? George Bush gets elected to his FOURTH term! AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

4) How to get laid by a zombie.

5) The metaphysical zombie.

6) Actual live zombies. No joke! (Well, sort of...)

7) Maybe zombies really DO have souls, after all...

8) Got an iPhone? Here's a scary zombie game. Politicians??? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

9) Some zombies aren't that scary at all, Senator McCain.

10)

Friday Music Blogging

Katrina & The Waves - Walking On Sunshine

This was not my favorite song by this band, but it's about the only one that you can actually hear on American radio.

McCain Wins One Constituency!

Unfortunately, it cannot vote....
Thank god for the Weekly World News, saved from the annals of history at the last minute, for providing one last laugh at no one's expense. I was starting to feel cheap about all the laughs I was having at McCain's expense...

The switch in endorsement is unusual, but there's some reason to suspect Alien succumbed to something other than reason: It would be wrong to speculate, but it would also be irresponsible not to!

---

Seriously, the McCain campaign is in dire straits, and appears to be destined to lay all their chips on one last "Hail Mary" pass: somehow wresting the state of Pennsylvania from a double digit Obama lead. The 21 electoral votes there would offset likely losses in other traditionally red states that McCain is struggling with (losing in most).

Even in a state noted for its Immaculate Receptions, it seems rather unlikely that McCain can make up a double digit deficit in five days, but we should prepare and call out our friends in western Pennsylvania in particular for a "get out the vote" effort.

Even tho some 40% of the Pennsylvania population lives within the Philadelphia television market and Obama is probably pulling most of his numbers from that section, estimates run as high as 60% in polls from there, he is still having trouble with blue collar voters in western PA.

This isn't about wanting to win and win big. This is about needing to win. We don't know what kind of tricks the GOP have up their sleeve, and frankly, I'd like to keep those up the sleeve if it's all the same to anyone. This point in history is too critical a moment to risk it all by resting on laurels.

We're better than they are. They voted for Bush twice. We did not, and we have to convince as many people as possible that Barack Obama has the solutions we need to get this country back on track.

I am aware that the taste of revenge is sweet, but it comes with a price and that price is a lack of belief by ourselves and others in the rightness of our victory.

Instead, let us frame Obama's win on Tuesday in terms of what is just and right, that life sometimes gives us an opportunity and we must seize it. This is our future, this is our goal, this is our country that we fight for.

Five days. Five short little days. Make the most of them, folks.

Hump Day Comedy Blogging

A Brief History Of John McCain's Presidential Aspirations.

Redistributor Cap

Much has been said in the past week or so regarding Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comments. Suddenly, he's been called a "redistributionist in chief".

Well, Senators, time to analyze just what "spread the wealth" is all about.

First, let's define some terms. Since the occasional right wing conservative scans this blog (I know, because I've read bits of my writing taken word for word in other places that I'd be ashamed to link to), I think its important they get some edumacation.

Capitalism, loosely defined, is the redistribution of wealth! Think about it: I have a little bit of wealth, and I have a need. You have a product or service that satisfies that need. I give you a little bit of my wealth in exchange for the satisfaction of my need.

What gets exchanged?" Wealth. Where does it go? From me, who had some you didn't have, to you, who now has accumulated more. It has been redistributed!

Nothing wrong with that. I don't know of many rational people who don't get that the free market in theory works pretty well.

In this example, wealth is nothing more than a pile of rocks accumulated from other people. Eventually, the rocks aggregate and make a pile so high, it's hard to toss more on top, and some end up trickling down.

What supply side economics does, in theory, is say, "Look, we'll pour more rocks on top of the highest piles, and some will tumble to the ground where the poor and middle class can scavenge for the pebbles and stone dust.

It's like the old joke about the priest who takes the money from the collection plate and tosses it in the air: whatever God can catch, he can keep.

What Obama proposes to do is simple: take the highest rocks off the highest piles, and give them to the people still with piles closer to the ground.

Not in the direct sense of actually giving money to the poor and middle class, but in allowing those classes (sadly, or maybe not so much, I'm not part of the classes who would benefit from Obama's tax cuts, but I'll get to that in a moment) to keep more of their stones.

So what happens then? Well, the core cost of living is the same no matter how much money you have: you need food, you need clothing (sadly), you need shelter. You need transportation. People with fewer rocks will spend a higher proportion of their rocks on these necessities. Whatever is left, one hopes, they will put in a bank but given our consumerist society, they will end up spending those rocks on comforts.

In other words, they'll get their rocks off.

But remember the first example I spoke about? I have a little bit of wealth and a need (or want) and I share my wealth with you in order to have you satisfy that hole in my life?

Look what happens now: those same rocks that the capitalists would have gotten directly from the government thru lower tax rates, rocks they likely would have off-shored in some Cayman Islands investment corporation, are now repurposed to have benefitted millions of Americans first, before getting back essentially to the same place they were going to end up in the first place! In the pockets of the rich!

In effect, the wealthy have lent out their wealth AND gotten a higher return from the American economy AND seen the American economy get stronger as a result, than they would have seen squirreling their rocks away on some island offshore.

Lest you think that this concept has been lost on Republicans, take a look at some of John McCain's proposals:

- Increased defense spending, including ramping up troop levels.

- a $5,000 tax credit for buying zero emission cars.

- $2 billion to "clean" coal technology.

- a $5,000 tax credit for health insurance to every American family.

None of these are anything except governmental solutions to free market problems. In other words, a redistribution of wealth.

To periphrase Animal Farm, "All rocks are equal, but some rocks are more equal than others".

(show Memeorandum the love, gang)

Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Third Party

The fear-mongering of this article aside, there's an important consideration for all progressives: to make sure that Barack Obama not only wins the Presidency, but that his coattails are long and enveloping:

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation's most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

Now, there's a movement afoot amongst progressives who have become frustrated with Obama's drift to the center to register their disapproval by voting for a third party candidate (likely, Ralph Nader) in "safe" states. The operating theory is, "to hold him accountable on issues of social, economic and environmental justice issues from the Left," as a friend has put it to me.

Bollocks.

First, it is a dangerous game to play, trying to determine which is a swing state and which is a "safe" state. While Obama *should* be safe in many states, remember that if Al Gore had won his home Congressional district, Ralph Nader wouldn't be the hated man he is right now. Safe is in retrospect. We can't afford to gamble with the long term future of this nation.

Second, let's assume that the "safe" scenario is, well, safe. Who is Obama going to listen to more: the people who stood by him loyally, or the folks who turned tail at the first opportunity to showboat and grandstand?

Loyalty begets loyalty in politics. If you truly want to sway opinion, the best place to do that is from within the party. Look at how the Christian Coalition has tied up the Republican party for nearly thirty years now. They didn't do it by walking, even after Ronald Reagan abandoned their cherished anti-abortion plank. Or Bush the elder. Or Bush the younger. Or the twelve year Republican-led Congress.

Say what you will about how fools suffer for their foolishness, the simple fact is, any candidate who runs as a Republican has to take into consideration the concerns and programs of that wing of the party. Period.

It's no different for Democrats. Just ask MoveOn.org.

What progressives really need to do is to fire up the same money machine that the Religious Right has. In politics more than in nearly any other field, money talks, and bullshit walks, and to abandon your vote to make a point is bullshit.

You want a progressive court? You want an end to this invasion? You want national health care? You want an alternative energy program?

Five words: put up or shut up.

When I first had to choose between Obama and Clinton, I had a difficult choice to make: as an old-style Liberal, I knew both candidates had solid progressive...dare I say it? Liberal?...credentials. In my mind, I questioned Obama's commitment to his principles. I didn't have that question with Clinton.

I have no doubt that Obama is sincere when he says he will commit ten billion dollars to developing alternative energy, that he wants the troops home from Iraq within 16 months, that a redeployment in Afghanistan is the only way to find and bring Osama bin Laden to justice. I support him on all of these. I don't think his nuancing the middle is out of character with what he's committed to.

You see, over the past few months, I've listened to what he has said, and came away convinced that he'll make a great President. Not a good one. Not an adequate one. A great one.

And given the uproar from the right wing of this nation, I suspect they know it too.

We cannot do anything less than make sure of a victory for Barack Obama next Tuesday. We cannot afford to make a mockery of this nation like we did eight years ago in allowing George W Bush to slip into the White House.

We cannot afford to let friends vote third party.

Turn The Page

Closing arguments in the 2008 Presidential election are being made this week. Most notable is Barack Obama's call for an end to the failed Republican policies of the past eight years (I'd say the past fourteen).

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama on Monday called on voters to "turn the page" on the policies of the Bush administration as he emphasized his message of change in a closing argument for the presidential campaign.

With eight days left before Election Day, the Illinois senator laid blame for the deepening financial crisis on U.S. President George W. Bush and said Republican presidential candidate John McCain's approach on the economy would mirror Bush's.

"Sen. McCain has served this country honorably. And he can point to a few moments over the past eight years where he has broken from George Bush -- on torture, for example," Obama said in excerpts from a speech he is to deliver later in Canton, Ohio.

"He deserves credit for that. But when it comes to the economy -- when it comes to the central issue of this election -- the plain truth is that John McCain has stood with this president every step of the way," Obama said.

McCain does brag about voting with Bush 90% of the time and has flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts, initially opposing them but now embracing them.

 

As this blog has taken great pains to point out in the past, "tax cuts" is the only tool left in the Republican toolbox and as the old saw (sorry) goes, "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". I've made the argument that, indeed, taxes are too low right now.

 

There's a subtext to this speech that should not be lost on you, however. This is my closing argument.

Obama held steady with a 5-point lead over McCain among likely U.S. voters nationally in a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby national tracking poll released on Monday.

Exit polls on election day 2004 showed Senator John Kerry with a three point lead nationally over President George W. Bush. When the dust settled, those results were exactly flipped in the actual vote.

 

Since 1996, the incidents of vote discrepancies between actual vote tabulations and exit polls, and even predicting polls taken in the days immediately preceding an election, have exploded exponentially. In 2006, for example, exit polling suggested that Democrats should pick up 40-50 seats in the House of Representatives, while they were able to capture only 28 seats.

 

Polling data are accurate, they have been for decades now. Even the US Census in 2004 suggested that 125 million votes would be cast in the 2004 elections, and lo and behold, when the final tally was added up, 122 million votes were counted...with an additional 3 million votes either uncounted or challenged!

 

Polling data is supremely accurate in statistical analysis like this.

 

That's a warning shot, folks. Errors that favor one party over the other should be an alarm to anyone, regardless of whether you believe there has been deliberate vote fraud or not, and the discrepancies that have arisen over the past twelve years have skewed Republican by a 12 to 1 margin. That made even partisan Republicans sit up and take notice, including former Reagan Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts.

 

If, indeed, there has been a deliberate attempt to steal elections, something that can be inferred but not proven, based on the fact there is no way to audit the votes in many districts, then there is also no reason to believe that any vote, any district, any state, is safe.

 

"Turn the page," indeed. It would not be impossible for the vote-thieves to go to the well one more time in a grand way. After all, until someone is caught and the crime exposed, criminals continue to commit crimes and the more desperate and confident a criminal becomes, the grander his crimes become.

 

And if it is merely a systemic error, then it is a systemic error that has grown over time, not contracted, and we must be ever vigilant against its unchecked growth.

 

In other words, it's time to get behind Barack Obama and make sure that not only you vote, but that you get your friends and family to vote as well. We can't afford a close election, not this time, not with the forces of nature and man working against us.

You're Probably An Elitist If...

Virgin Ben Shapiro, the godawful scion of two Ivy League educated Reaganauts and himself an Ivy League graduate, has pontificated on how Barack Obama and his liberal minions are elitists.

Indeed, he's even written a list of qualities to assist in identifying elitists!

In true FReeper fashion, he's ignored a few. I'd like to flesh out his list for him:

If you know a polo player, you're probably an elitist.

If you went to an Ivy League school without an affirmative action scholarship, you're probably an elitist.

If you drink martinis wearing a suit and a tie, you're probably an elitist.

If you've ever smoked a Cuban cigar, you're probably an elitist.

If you know anyone who has a chauffeur, you're probably an elitist.

If you went to a prep school, you're probably an elitist.

If you live in a gated community, or were raised in one, you're probably an elitist.

If your dad (or mom, to be politically correct) made most of her income last year from stock options that the board of directors voted him, you're probably an elitist.

If you ride in the corporate jet, you're probably an elitist.

If you have a golden parachute, you're probably an elitist.

If you have a portfolio that includes more than a Charles Schwab account and a few CDs, you're probably an elitist.

If you own an original Rembrandt, you're probably an elitist.

If your idea of a "drink after work with the guys" includes a stop at Harry's Bar on Hanover Square, or any Morton's restaurant, you're probably an elitist.

If you've ever played croquet or lawn bowling and HAD TO WEAR WHITE, you're probably an elitist.

If you've ever been to a cotillion, a debutante ball, or a "coming out party" for a girl of teenage years (not the "out of the closet" kind), you're probably an elitist.

If you have ANY friend who is proudly called Muffy, Biff, or Dexter, you're probably an elitist.

If your friends include more than one person who uses two initials in addition to a first and last name ("C. Russell M. Taibi"), you're probably an elitist.

If your household help...well, you're probably an elitist right there, but...if your household help addresses you by your professional title, you're probably an elitist.

If you've voted Republican for the last four Presidential cycles because, goshdarn, Barry Goldwater said you should always vote Republican, you're probably an elitist.

If you've never set foot in a store in Harlem, despite the fact that your commuter train stops there daily, you're probably an elitist.

If you can discuss the finer distinctions between Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc, you're probably an elitist.

If your make of car has two names (e.g. Rolls Royce), you're probably an elitist.

If your house has more bathrooms than there are residents, you're probably an elitist.

If you can name the last three squash world champions or have attended the world championship at least once, you're probably an elitist.

If you can tie your own bowtie, you're probably an elitist.

Finally, if you're in your twenties, are male, attended an Ivy League college and proudly claim you never got laid, even by a townie, YOU'RE AN ELITIST!

Friday Music Blogging

NIN - Closer

Everyone thinks this song's title is "Fuck You Like An Animal," but it's not! This video always creeps me out and in keeping with the kind of Halloween scary spirit of the blog today...

Nobody Asked Me, But...

1) BREAKING: Election prediction: McCain wins by one vote; porn star Peak Anger blamed! (h/t Miss Cellania)

2) Election Prediction #1: Actor212 will easily win his bid to be elected NotPresident. In a strong show of cross-party voting, Democrats, Republicans and Independents gave him such an huge mandate, he even won some votes in the general Presidential election!

3) Election Prediction #2: Despite Actor212's strong showing, Barack Obama won the election for US President with over 300 electoral votes.

4) You guys outside of New York (and Pittsburgh and a pale imitation in Green Bay...New York's was the original) never got Chiller Theatre, but it's BACK! For one night only, CW11 (formerly independent station WPIX, channel 11) will broadcast the groundbreaking horror film series "Chiller Theatre" with original host, Zacherle! Once you've seen this intro...

...you'll understand why kids all around the tri-state area were glued to their sets.

5) In other scary news...total consumer credit card debt in the third quarter of 2008 stood at $2.6 trillion dollars. Now that the mortgage industry is going thru it's workout phase, there's another monster in the grass: there's still ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in available, high risk unsecured credit card debt out there, just waiting to be used. This ain't over by a long shot.

6) Welcome to the party, Al!

7) This story smells funny. When even Michelle Malkin won't touch it with a ten foot pole, you know there's something weird going on. Personally, I believe she had a confrontation and probably, um, embellished the story a little, but I'll wait for the ATM camera evidence.

UPDATE: Like I said...I hate being right all the time...

8) Unusually cautiously, the Times has jumped on the Obama bandwagon.

9) Yet another smear by the right wing. This time, Gateway Pundit, who really ought to try the decaf brands, tries to paint Obama as a "whitey hater" by lifting a quote entirely (and clearly) out of context.

10) McCain family values, indeed!

11) When you lose the Goldwater family, the conservative icons from your own home state, you've fucked up royally!

12) If you had any money left in the stock markets this morning, kiss it bye bye!

13) They don't have the evidence, yet(i)!

(showing Memeorandum the luvvvvvvvvvvvv)

A New Beginning

Barack Obama has taken a couple of days from campaigning to attend to family matters. We here at Simply Left Behind, including ThumbPer, offer our prayers and hopes for Granny Obama's swift recovery.

As I stood in the shower with little to do except rinse, I pondered American history, and it occured to me that we have reached yet another crossroads for our nation.

It seems to happen every three generations or so, roughly every hundred years, and I'm not sure that it's a coincidence that it happens near the turn of a century.

Events in this decade will echo until the next century, in other words. The pattern is pretty immistakable: an attack on the American economy, followed by a blunderous decision to go to war, followed by a mad scramble to rectify the troubles we've created, followed by a mid-century conflagration the likes of which we hope never to see again.

A brief look back: In 1807, the American frigate Chesapeake was boarded with nary a fight by sailors from the British warship Leopard, on the pretext of searching for deserters. Four were found, only one of which was actually British: three Americans, two black and one white, were also seized.

Ironically, the event itself turned out fairly well for the Americans: only the British sailor was actually tried and hung, while the Americans were eventually returned to America, and Britain offered to pay reparations for damages to Chesapeake

However, this incident did force the passage of the Embargo Actof 1807, which led directly to the War of 1812. The Embargo Act was a pretty dumb idea (conceived by arguably one of the smartest men in history, Thomas Jefferson). America had tried to remain neutral in the French-English conflicts then brewing, and had this act not been passed, likely could have avoided the War of 1812 altogether.

That war saw Americans attacked directly in their own homeland, something that would not happen again until September 11, 2001.

The war begat the era of expansionism, the Monroe Doctrine (buhbye Native Americans), manifest destiny, and an overall sense of hubris and domination on the part of all American citizens, which culminated of course in the Civil War, one of the most humbling experiences any nation can confront.

Skip ahead a few decades to the 1900s, and the Great Panic of 1907. This is an interesting crossroads in history, because some much of what we know today of the Federal Government-- The Federal Reserve, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal income tax-- finds its roots in this crisis.

In a nutshell, the United States nearly went bankrupt because of the greed of two men: Otto Heinze and Charles Morse, who cornered the market first in ice, and then attempted to corner the market in copper by forcing his brother Augustus to abandon his company.

The mechanics of the scheme are complex (altho it does involve short selling, which is an underpinning of the current crisis), and suffice it to say, Otto failed. Miserably. Instead of driving the price of Auggie's company up, it dropped precipitously.

Otto Heinze's brokerage collapsed under the weight of its debts, money borrowed to finance this sceheme using shares of the copper company as collateral.

Worse, many banks that owned stock in the copper company as collateral also collapsed, the flip side of these transactions, as the price dropped.

Banks affiliated with those banks, so-called correspondent banks, like Mercantile Bank of New York, began to suffer under the weight of the outstanding loans they had made to the banks that held these worthless shares as collateral.

Sounding familiar? Like banks that owned the derivatives of worthless mortgages that weighed on the books of the banks that lent the money to shareholders today?

There was a run on Mercantile, which led to a run on all the money center banks, and banks were running out of money. Banks were reluctant to lend to other banks so that those banks could lend to customers, and as a result, the stock markets collapsed.

Boy, this really DOES sound familiar!

And so on. In 1912, as a result of this crisis, President Woodrow Wilson established the Federal Reserve, thus ceding the printing and issuance of American currency to a quasi-private enterprise composed of many of the large money center bankers (the precise list of board members is unknown).

Wilson's trade policies were at the center of America's entry into World War I. He was a free trader, lowering tariffs wherever possible and trying to remain strictly neutral in the European conflict, using the central bank to keep money flowing freely.

Both Germany, by attacking American shipping including the Lusitania, and England, by embargoing Germany, tested American neutrality. Wilson managed to avoid going to war on either side, of course, until his second term when Germany tried to recruit Mexico as an ally.

And World War I begat American global influence with the Fourteen Points, the League Of Nations and our participation in the Treaty of Versailles, which begat World War II and so on...

And then there was September 11. Which begat the Bush attacks on American governance and oversight, filling the Federal government with the hubris that the markets could police themselves while we attempted to engage in a dual homeland security/ego-driven war policy overseas.

Which begat our current financial pickle.

History comforts us with the knowledge that somehow, things work out for the short term better, and that it doesn't particularly matter whether the President in office is particularly intelligent, like Jefferson, or particularly principled, like Wilson. Somehow, things work out.

That's not the most comforting thought imaginable, but what's past is prologue and it is a new hope for us all.

I Am A Real American

I was born in this great nation. I was born to two people, one of whom was born here, and moved abroad as a young girl, the other born abroad and moved here after the war to find his opportunity, to two people who loved this nation.

My father was awarded one of the most prestigious civilian awards for his service to both this nation and his homeland, a value he made certain to instill in all of us from a young age.

I won't get into the myriad of accolades I've received as a citizen of the United States, but they started as a young child, and have continued into adulthood. I shouldn't have to wear my various medals and post my various certificates on the wall of my house.

But according to some in this nation, I am not a real American. Indeed, according to some, I am anti-American.

Sarah Palin:

Speaking at a fund-raiser in North Carolina, the Alaska governor said: "We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."

Michelle Bachmann:

“Absolutely. I’m very concerned that he [Obama] may have anti-American views,” she said.

It seems to me that some small-time hoodlum Congresscritter from a flyover state once ran this scam on America. Lemme think...Joe...McDonald? McCasey? McCain?

I can't recall.

In Palin's defense, she offers up an apology:

Democrats and others immediately criticized Palin, alleging she was saying that some part of the country are more patriotic than others.

Palin denied that was her intention in an interview with CNN on Tuesday.

"I don't want that misunderstood," Palin said. "If that's the way it came across, I apologize."

To put this weak-kneed response in perspective, say Sarah Palin ran over your dog:

If indeed it was my car, it was not my intent to run over your dog and if I did happen to squash Fluffy under the wheels of my Hummer, and there's no proof of that despite the word "Hummer" tattooed on his ass, if that's the case, I apologize for your misperception

What is it with Republicans and responsibility that they simply can't take any?

If this meme was limited to these two rather desperately moronic Republicans, then I'd be tempted to say "justice will be served on November 4," and ignore it.

But it's pretty clear that the Republicans have decided to declare class warfare on America:

On MSNBC this morning, McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer asserted that “real Virginia” does not include Northern Virginia:

I certainly agree that Northern Virginia has gone more Democratic. … But the rest of the state — real Virginia if you will — I think will be very responsive to Senator McCain’s message.

MSNBC host Kevin Corke gave Pfotenhauer a chance to revise her answer, telling her: “Nancy, I’m going to give you a chance to climb back off that ledge — Did you say ‘real Virginia’?”

But Pfotenhauer didn’t budge, and instead dug a deeper hole.

Real Virginia, I take to be, this part of the state that’s more Southern in nature, if you will.

Corke ended the segment noting that Pfotenhauer was appearing via satellite from Northern Virginia. “Nancy Pfotenhauer, senior policy adviser for the McCain campaign, joining us from Arlington, not really Virginia.” “Alright, I’m just gonna let ya– you’ll wear that one,” Corke responded. Watch it:

So this was not a slip of the tongue. This was not a tossed off insult in the heat of the moment, when one might get worked up and exaggerate one's point.

No, all three of these have been a coordinated attack on anyone who is Democratic or lives in a blue state, which means this is a campaign tactic. I'd say "strategy" but it's clear McCain has none.

You know what? After six years of "real Americans" running the Congress, the Presidency and the courts, and after eight years of "real Americans" running two thirds of this government, maybe "real America" just ought to take a hint from Jon Stewart's reaction and shut the fuck up already.

Real Americans, you know, the ones who built and shaped this nation into the greatest economic power that the world has ever known, into the most innovative and progressive knowledge base in the history of the frikkin' universe, who created and destroyed and rebuilt this nation over and over again, are getting a little tired of listening to people decide who is American and who is not.

Real Americans, who own your gas stations, and teach your kids, yes, right through college, who fight your wars, who do your plumbing, who hope for that one shot at the brass ring that is the American Dream, are tired of being pitted one against the other to determine who is a patriot and who is not, as if America was some horribly tragic reality show, "Survivor America".

Real Americans live in cities and suburbs and small towns, and on farms and in mansions.

Real Americans drive jalopies and bicycles and ride in limos.

Real Americans don't criticize their fellow Americans because real Americans understand that as great as this nation is, we each of us still have to survive day to day, all the time watching our money get stolen and off-shored by the cronies of the Palins and Pfotenhauers and Bachmanns, who let it go without protest, because their money is safely invested with those folks who take our money and deposit it on Bermuda or the Cayman Islands.

Real Americans are us. Not you, Sarah Palin, not you, Michelle Bachmann, and not you, Nancy Pfotenhauer.

And me. I am a real American.

UPDATE: Seriously, Republicans, shut the fuck up!

Can I Get An "AMEN", Brothers and Sisters????

One could only hope for this:

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."

It's funny. I never really noticed how much I missed the disclaimer that my local television stations had to broadcast.

See, when some moron, say, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, would wrangle a moment of air time from the local television outlet, a) he was forced to keep his comments factual and polite, and b) the station was forced to "provide free air time for responsible spokespeople of opposing views."

In 1980, sensing an opening, the broadcast media, owned and operated in many instances by stridently right wing corporatists with an agenda (think Richard Mellon Scaife) prevailed upon Ronald Reagan's FCC to do away with the Fairness Doctrine, thus eliminating reasoned discourse presented for the public enlightenment.

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 by the FCC, but until 1969 was usually applied on a case-by-case basis.

In 1969, journalist Fred Cook was torn to shreds on the radio program of the Rev. Billy James Hargis. Attacked personally for writing a book about Barry Goldwater, Cook argued before the Supreme Court that the FCC doctrine implied the right to free and equal time to respond to the scandalous (and nearly slanderous) charges levelled.

At first blush, it may seem that this was not a matter for the Courts to decide, free enterprise, First Amendment and all, but the SCOTUS took note of the fact that the airwaves were a public trust overseen by the Congress and therefore were actually public domain. As a public trust, there was no reason the government couldn't require such a doctrine and upheld Cook's complaint.

(The other thing the Fairness Doctrine required was programming "in the public interest" which is why your rock or hip-hop station broadcasts those bizarre programs really early on Sunday morning, like herbal medicine shows or community affairs programming.)

When the Reagan administration effectively eviscerated the Fairness Doctrine, it created Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Monica Crowley, Michael Savage and any number of right wing knuckleheads whose only claim to fame is being potty-mouthed and willing to be paid for it.

It also created Stephanie Miller, Air America Radio, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann.

I apply the Fairness Doctrine to my columns, you see... ;-)

This deregulation of the broadcast market, along with the consolidation of power amongst five mammoth content distributors, created the hugely right wing media goliath that we have today.

It is no secret the agenda that General Electric, Disney, and the others have established: entertain at the expense of informing. Don't tell the truth, tell a masking of truth. Put lipstick on a pig and trot it out as a beauty queen. Tout "American Idol" rather than America's failures in Iraq.

In short, cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war on the people of the United States. Beat us into submission until we no longer care, and never EVER let a responsible spokesperson with an opposing point of view have any air time whatsoever, except in a context where he can be edited and mocked into submission.

Mr. Anderson's article, as panicked as it is (after all, he works for Rupert Murdoch, who made his life's fortune on being a strident partisan and suppressing rational discussion), points out the enormous success lying on the radio has had.

It's about time it stopped. He cites the First Amendment, but as anyone with a speck of understanding can see, the First Amendment is under more savage attacks without the Fairness Doctrine than with.

What Anderson is more concerned with (and his article amply demonstrates) is comfort. The comfort of not having one's views challenged substantively. The comfort of being truly elitist because one is truly ignorant. The comfort of being, in short, an idiot.

So "amen" to the Fairness Doctrine, and long may she oversee the dialogue of this great nation.

What Part Of "Comedy" Do You NOT Understand?

Here is the Jon Stewart piece from Boston.

Here is the reaction of Mary Katharine Ham at The Weekly Standard (click at your own risk)

The media has devoted hundreds of stories of late to the tenor of audience comments at McCain-Palin rallies, fretting about "rage" and "incitement" by the campaign, but the only account of Stewart's appearance is a one-sentence mention in the Boston Globe, and his abusive Palin comments are not included.

Now, admittedly, this is not Stewart's funniest bit. I think the network censors force his comedic stylings to focus on delivery, more than content.

But to equate a stand-up comedian to these folks:

Or these folks:

Hammie, that kinda smacks of desperation, dontcha think? I would like to believe that the "wing" that has both Rush Limbaugh AND Glenn Beck, two avowed "comedians", would understand that sometimes humour gets angry, humour gets ugly, and humour makes a point.

Sorry your skirts are ruffled, Hammie, but Stewart's points are spot on: the cities and suburbs ARE where most of the people in America live and you know what? Maybe those folks in small town America have some wisdom that we SOphisticated city folk don't, but I'd like to see one walk from Wall Street to Harlem, just once, without a frikkin' map and GPS system.

And understand that running a country is a LOT HARDER than negotiating a simple grid formation (north is higher street numbers, east is lower avenue numbers, etc.)

Perhaps your fainting couch is in dire need of a visit, Hammie?

(show Memeorandum the love, gang!)