Fafblog on the Israeli/Gazan situation

As only Fafblog could do it. Click over to see the great photo caption:

"Israel has stood up for its right to stand up to other people's rights by forming its most hawkish possible government. A lesser nation might have wavered in the face of a merciless Palestinian onslaught of pleading and stump-waving, but Israel realizes this is a war between good and evil, right and wrong, civilization and those too poor to afford civilization. True, it's far from a fair fight - Israel has a mere three hundred nuclear warheads while the Palestinians have countless rocks to throw - but somehow the pluck and determination of this scrappy regional superpower has prevailed over the deadly horde of orphans, beggars and amputees who threaten to live next to it."

Wild West capitalism

Yeah, maybe that doesn't work.

To paraphrase Churchill, capitalist market economies open to trade and financial flows may be the worst economic regime--apart from the alternatives. However, while this crisis does not imply the end of market-economy capitalism, it has shown the failure of a particular model of capitalism. Namely, the laissez-faire, unregulated (or aggressively deregulated), Wild West model of free market capitalism with lack of prudential regulation, supervision of financial markets and proper provision of public goods by governments.

There is the failure of ideas--such as the "efficient market hypothesis," which deluded its believers about the absence of market failures such as asset bubbles; the "rational expectations" paradigm that clashes with the insights of behavioral economics and finance; and the "self-regulation of markets and institutions" that clashes with the classical agency problems in corporate governance--that are themselves exacerbated in financial companies by the greater degree of asymmetric information. For example, how can a chief executive or a board monitor the risk taking of thousands of separate profit and loss accounts? Then there are the distortions of compensation paid to bankers and traders.

This crisis also shows the failure of ideas such as the one that securitization will reduce systemic risk rather than actually increase it. That risk can be properly priced when the opacity and lack of transparency of financial firms and new instruments leads to unpriceable uncertainty rather than priceable risk.

It is clear that the Anglo-Saxon model of supervision and regulation of the financial system has failed. It relied on several factors: self-regulation that, in effect, meant no regulation; market discipline that does not exist when there is euphoria and irrational exuberance; and internal risk-management models that fail because, as a former chief executive of Citigroup put it, when the music is playing, you've got to stand up and dance.

Furthermore, the self-regulation approach created rating agencies that had massive conflicts of interest and a supervisory system dependent on principles rather than rules. In effect, this light-touch regulation became regulation of the softest touch.

Saturday musings

Today has been a slow and marginally productive day. We went to a couple of stores to look at stuff for the house and two were closed after noon on Saturdays. I guess that tells you how often we do that kind of shopping on the weekend.

*****

Facebook weirdness continues. I had lunch with a non-facebooking friend this week--one who knows some of my Facebook friends. He relayed that one of them had expressed surprise to him that my profile listed my religion as "Christian." She was sure I was an atheist. Where that came from, I have no idea.

****

In the news, some really half-funny and also sad items. Sad in the "I just can't quite believe this is where we are" sad. Item 1, as Tony reminded me, is a big "duh" moment when Bristol Palin agreed that abstinence only was not realistic. Well, she also says that kids should abstain. I really feel for this young woman. Through no fault of her own, she was thrust into the national spotlight by a celebrity seeking mother who was quite willing to use her kids as political fodder, even when she knew that Bristol was pregnant out of wedlock. None of this should really matter to the rest of us, but her mother's insistence on abstinence only public policy made it a national issue. And given Sarah Palin's popularity nationwide, her grasp on such public health issues continues to make me scratch my head and wonder where in the hell the Republican party is headed.

Speaking of that, this story made me scratch my head. One Republican Congressman promised that if the Republicans win the House back in 2010, they will cancel the stimulus bill.

Hmm. Let me get this straight. People actually like the stimulus bill. They may not love it, but they like it. And they don't like Republicans in Congress. Yes, even less than the Democrats in Congress, and way less than Obama. So the Republicans are promising that if you will give them back the majority, they will promise to gut everything you like.

That seems like a winning ticket. It is just a mystery why Republicans are in the minority right now.

Monday morning

And I am not quite with it yet. SOF is a little under the weather this morning with a persistent sinus thing, and I am trying to get going for the week. I think I am going to need more coffee today...

Facebook continues to puzzle me. And actually, it has very little to do with Facebook, but everything to do with the past, and how I see myself then and now. 90% of those I connect to from the past are completely innocuous. We exchange a few "what are you doing?" emails, comment on the other's pictures, and then it is done. A couple have just made me feel bad, because even when I look them up in my yearbook, I recognize their name and face, but cannot muster up any personal memories. Some of those were on sports teams with me. And a few of those connections have reconnected me with jerks from the past--but in one case, he was a jerk that I had forgotten was a jerk. :) In that sense, despite a quick flashback to high school angst, it has been largely a positive. Spared the attempt to reconnect in person, and survive that awkward dinner/coffee, I have been able to make sure this person is still doing ok, say hi, and move on.

But then there are those connections that mean more. I recently found someone who really was so very good to me in high school. She graduated well ahead of me, but always found time to take me out for coffee or lunch when she came back from college. She served as a mentor and an encourager, and I always regretted letting that relationship slip by the wayside. So, I was thrilled to see her on Facebook. Her response was the same, but I felt oddly uncomfortable. With the rest of these connections, I really don't care if they look at my profile and scoff at my music tastes, the state of Oklahoma, or my liberal politics. It matters not to me what they think. But this last connection--it matters. Why is something I have to figure out, but she is the first connection on Facebook where I have really felt a bit of insecurity, and hoped that she would still think well of me.

My sense is that these things are largely positive. Those past relationships that meant little then, are just casual, yet manageable niceties. Those past relationships that meant something have the opportunity to either still be meaningful, or transition gracefully out of nostalgic hope into the past. As SOF and I have discussed, many relationships have expiration dates. People change and the relationship sometimes ceases to make sense. Finding that out isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Anyway....

******

Just a couple of news items that caught my eye. First, is this interesting discussion on patriotism:

"But our precious opportunity to revitalize true patriotism was hijacked by a war-mongering administration and our own complacent fear. In the years that followed, hollow patriotism -- appeals to God and American values -- played on a loop that echoed with deadly hypocrisy. Over the last couple of years we began to collectively rise up in response to the Bush administration's infuriating policies and demand a more complex, more honest definition of patriotism from our nation's leaders. And finally, more than seven years after September 11, we got to experience rare unity in the form of Obama's landslide election, made possible by the efforts of average Americans.

Now here we are. After September 11 and its long fallout, after the most drawn-out campaign in history, after the inauguration of a new president, who are we? Improbably, we are less economically stable yet more hopeful than ever. We are the most racially diverse population in the history of the United States. We are wealthy and we are struggling, with not much in between. We are still shockingly segregated from one another -- socially, economically, interpersonally."

An interesting little article, and worth thinking about.

And related, especially given how congressional Republicans often defined criticism of Bush as some kind of lack of patriotism, is Andrew Sullivan's longer column of the Republican decision to declare war on Obama--not out of defined ideological principles, but out of simply not wanting Democrats to do well.

And this after eight years in which they managed to turn a surplus into a trillion-dollar deficit and added a cool $32 trillion to the debt the next generation will have to pay for. Every now and again their chutzpah and narcissism take one’s breath away. But it’s all they seem to know.

John McCain gives you the flavour. Fresh from a dinner in his honour hosted by Obama, he abruptly dismissed the stimulus package as the “same old” spending of the distant Democratic past. His closest Republican ally, Senator Lindsey Graham, declared: “This bill stinks.”

Pete Sessions, chairman of the Republican congressional committee, explained that the Republican strategy was going to be modelled on jihadist insurgency. “I’m not joking,” he added. “Insurgency we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban.”

I think it is hard to say that Obama has not tried to reach out to Republicans. And the polling data suggests that they are tone deaf on this one--the country is not interested in a repeat of their war on Clinton. (Those who saw SNL last week, there was a pretty funny sendup of the Republican leadership thinking it was time for impeachment and that the country was tired of the Obama daughters getting a free ride.)

And finally, a bit of humor courtesy of Shaun at Upper Left, this pretty funny reminder of what appears to be GOP economic thought.

Sigh, and they will know us by our hatred

Jessika noted that our Oklahoma legislature is now emboldened by Republican majorities to start pushing their religious agenda. We can expect to see a lot of batshit crazy from these people, to be quite honest. Guns for everyone, anti-gay legislation, and anti-evolution legislation (all from people who couldn't explain evolution at the point of one of their own beloved guns). Jessika's post was about wanting to post the Ten Commandments on the state capitol grounds. I suggested that this was one of those battles that I am tired of fighting. If Christian conservatives really think that posting their own idol will make us more moral or more Godly, then let them. This kind of magical thinking masquerading as "faith" drives me crazy, but if that is how they think, I can't stop them. And that Ten Commandments statue will not harm me. And if these people actually believed the Bible they use frequently as a weapon, it might make us a better people.

Jessika argued in the comments (along with several of her friends) that we need to oppose the Religious Right at every turn. Once they get their way with the monuments, then they will want more. This response to Scott Jones prayer makes me think that Jessika and her friends are right. Reverend Jones offered a prayer before the session, and 20 of these right wingers voted to not include the prayer in the House Record. Yeah, didn't want it in the record. The words "petty" and "stupid" come to mind. One of them, of course, said he did so based on his faith. He was joined, of course, by the great Sally Kern, who once famously said that gay people were a bigger threat to America than terrorism.

Ah, Oklahoma, and Ah, the RepublichristianNRA party. Doesn't it just fill you with the love of Christ?

Sigh.

BTW, Scott has a nice blog that I forget to read. He is a super nice guy, and usually responds to this kind of nonsense with a lot more grace and compassion than I do.

The Republican attack on Obama continued

Sully's take:

"The GOP has passed what amounts to a spending and tax-cutting and borrowing stimulus package every year since George W. Bush came to office. They have added tens of trillions to future liabilities and they turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit - all in a time of growth. They then pick the one moment when demand is collapsing in an alarming spiral to argue that fiscal conservatism is non-negotiable. I mean: seriously.

The bad faith and refusal to be accountable for their own conduct for the last eight years is simply inescapable. There is no reason for the GOP to have done what they have done for the last eight years and to say what they are saying now except pure, cynical partisanship, and a desire to wound and damage the new presidency."

Just a reminder that Sullivan is a conservative who voted for Bush in 2000, so it isn't as if he has no concerns about fiscal responsibility. But he is dead on here. Those who followed the Cheney model of "deficits don't matter" when times were good have very little if any credibility to speak to this issue. Judd Gregg could have been the guy to reform some of the problems with entitlements to really address our long term fiscal health. Republicans, as I continue to argue, and stress that these are the Republicans in charge, not the Republicans as a whole--are more ready to allow economic disaster than to give democrats any credit for finding any kind of a solution. All due respect to LB. I really respect that there are conservatives of conscience and principle. Those in Washington right now are not those.

And if these people weren't bad enough, the man who would have been President is chiding Obama for not being bipartisan enough. SOF heard a Republican on NPR say today that the problem was that Obama spoke to Democrats and "consulted with them" but did not compromise. At that point, I believe I let loose a string of expletives thinking of how even the Republicans admit that Bush didn't consult with anyone on his objectives and can't think of an example where he even considered compromising. After all, he was the decider, and Republicans loved that. Obama took out spending, dropped aid for contraceptives, added more tax cuts, and he doesn't compromise?

Republicans are not acting in good faith, and should not be considered as intellectually honest brokers in this fight. They are more interested in political games than addressing issues in our economy. That is clear. If I ever hear a Republican accuse Democrats of being unAmerican, I believe I will remind them of this moment. And then throw up on their shoes.

How we think and speak about politics

Anglican alerted me to Roger Ebert's blog, and specifically to this post about, well, a lot of things, including film, politics, and how we understand our culture. (This one includes spoilers about the film, "The Reader" btw. I haven't seen it, but just thought I would add to his warning.) But at the beginning, Ebert connects some disparate issues about how we learn about politics and religion, and how we talk about them. Two points that caught my attention. The first, about the "Rush Limbaugh effect:"

"These people, usually friends of mine, are gentle, sweet and very nice, except when they drift into a certain tone I interpret as 'listening to Rush Limbaugh too much.' Then their voices take on undercurrents of anger, resentment and frustration. It is the dittohead voice, and they've learned it off the radio. If you listen to Rush, you quickly realize that it isn't what he says but how he says it. He has an unending capacity for counterfeit astonishment. It has been very effective in long-distance behavioral modification.

This counterfeit astonishment is also effective at forcing a zero sum game in politics. It isn't just the right who practices this, of course, though they seem to have it perfected the tactic. And we see it now, from some, though certainly not all, of those Republicans opposing the stimulus.

The second point is about how we know what we know:

That wise man Mark Twain told us: 'In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from others.'"

As Ebert notes, that is true for him in some areas, and also for most of us (in some capacity). What bothers me to a great extent is the numbers of people in office who seem to have very little understanding or thought about their approach to government. That applies to the left as well, but I have to say that glaring contrast between conservatives who defended every tax cut, and every dollar spent in Iraq (without oversight, I might add) but who now claim fiscal responsibility as their governing principle--well that contrast is just too much to take right now.

The other part of Twain's quote is most annoying to me right now, and something I have written about before. I don't have a problem with people having half-assed opinions about stuff. We all do that. We all opine on how the government should work, or how the referee missed that call, or how the recent warm spell in February relates to climate change. None of that may be true, or factual, or knowledge based in any way, but we do that. What seems different to me, is that assertion of that same quality of knowledge as justification to govern, or as an assumption of proven fact.

This is partly due to dealing with people who have no understanding of science telling me that evolution is false, or those with no understanding of history telling me about God's unique relationship with our American founders. But it is partly related to LB's thoughtful comment in the last thread. I simply do not believe that most conservatives have really thought through their supply-side (not conservative=supply-side) economics through. Their adherence to the deregulation, lower taxes, smaller government mantra is repeated as a faith -based assumption, with no or little recognition of the historical reality. I am not saying there are not some arguments to be made on this economic philosophy--but I am saying that most people who repeat the "less government/lower taxes" mantra have not though through the salmonella in their peanut butter or their economic system failing through mismanagement.

Anyway.

More on Republicans and Obama

Apropos of Monk's most recent comment, this story about Judd Gregg suddenly withdrawing at Commerce supposedly over disagreements over the stimulus (which is essentially the same as when he offered himself for the job) and a difference of opinion on policy.

All due respect to Steve and LB (and any other conservatives reading this) but I don't buy it. I don't buy that Gregg didn't know what he was getting into when he signed up for this job. What I (and a lot of other people) think is that Gregg signed up for the job when bipartisanship was supposedly something that Republicans wanted to do. But since then, the Republicans seem to have decided they would rather let the economy tank than give credit to a Democrat. They have declared war on the new President, despite the fact that they lost the last election and Obama's poll numbers remain high. They have declared war on the President despite an economy on the brink of collapsing. They have put their own petty party loyalty ahead of the country.

Sorry, but this pisses me the hell off. And it pisses me off especially because I know a lot of Republicans who are more responsible and ethical than this, and I have no clue why they allow this kind of bullshit to represent their interests.

Personally, I hope the Republicans relegate themselves to a minority party for the rest of time. That would make me very happy right now. It wouldn't be best for the country, but then again, what do Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh care about that?

Feh

Shorter Republican message

"Perfectly glad to see the economy tank as long as we win seats."

Oh, and by the way, can someone tell me how the Republicans would have responded (and how the MSM would have echoed it) had a Democrat compared their resistance to Bush to that of the Taliban?

Ring of Fire

Last night, I was on the phone with my niece having a great conversation, and the door bell rang. I had been in the kitchen, and SOF was busy and focused on her computer. SOF got the door, and only then did we realize that the yard across the street was on fire. It was a very freaky sight, I can tell you. At the point we saw it the fire was a circle on the lawn and looked quite eerie, as if someone had purposefully set it in a circle. We suspect it was just an errant cigarette, but it looked eerie in the night. Even as this passerby alerted us to the fire, we heard sirens in the distance, and within a few minutes, the fire was out. It later rained, which made us all feel a little better.

You can see the burnt part in this photo.

Friday and stuff

Someone asked me what I had been up to this week, and I blanked. I have been busy, but when I think back, have a difficult time listing what I have done, or tried to do.

I guess that is how it goes. I realized I have also been rather bitchy with some of my conservative friends. Or rather, snippy and angry. I am not sure why, but think I am still trying to recover from the last 8 years of Bush and Republican rule. I am annoyed, to a point, that my conservative friends want to stop talking about Bush, as if his legacy ended on Inauguration day. So despite the fact that his assh*&e vice president is still out there scaring people and defending torture, that somehow I am supposed to act as if everything today is all the Democrats fault.

*****

Ok, enough of that. I have to get off to class here in a bit, but thought I would mention a few things that are fun and good.

First, our friend Zalm has a photo-blog, and it is one of my daily reads. Check out today's entry here. I urge you to subscribe, because it is always good. (No pressure, Zalm).

*****

If anyone out there is looking for new music, I can't recommend the new Andrew Bird enough. His last two albums are just spectacular. I am also enjoying the new Gaslight Anthem (thanks Ubub) and looking forward to the new Jason Isbell album coming out the 17th.

*****

I am not doing a very good job of updating twitter. Perhaps I just don't get it, but since I have been on Facebook, the status update takes about all the creativity I can muster for that kind of phrase.

****

One of my favorite blogs is Mark Bittman's food blog. I read it every day, and have found several recipes that look great. The other day, I found this variation on Ma-Po Tofu and made it for dinner last night. It was spectacularly good (even though I read in the comments that it is not authentic). Easy to make, and just very tasty.

*****

Hope you all have a good Friday and a good weekend.

Quote of the day

Because I am so tired of the tax cut mantra from the right, it is so nice to hear this from Barney Frank:

"But beyond that, the notion that everything is solved by a tax cut, of course there are sensible tax policies you could have. But there are public needs we have in this society...that cannot be accomplished by a tax cut. No tax cut builds a road. No tax cut puts a cop on the street."

He also points out the obvious elephant in the room--the nearly trillion dollars spent invading Iraq and undermining our military. Republicans, or at least these in power, love to spend money on the military and had no interest in checking Bush's power or ambition, but now are complaining about trying to jump start a nearly moribund economy.

****

Btw, I have noticed that Amity Shlaes is everywhere promoting her revision of the New Deal, and using that to argue for more supply-side economic response to the current crisis. I am fine with her making her argument, don't get me wrong, but it strikes me that no matter how far out of the mainstream a conservative idea is right now, it will get equal billing with the more accepted knowledge. Not as big of a problem with Shlaes, because there have always been critics of the New Deal, but I was just at the bookstore and noticed the prominence that absolute wingnuts like Coulter and Hannity get, as if their ideas have any legitimacy at all.

Anyway.

****

So, I am going to make some turkey chili and watch the Super Bowl. It is often enjoyable to watch a game where I have no real preference for who I want to win. Not a huge fan of Roethlisberger, but then again, Kurt Warner bugs me for a lot of the same reasons. But I do admire the skills of people like Fitzgerald and Ward. So, I am cheering for a good game.

Perhaps the coolest Aquarium ever

The Aquarium Phone Booth | thepirata.com

Facebook Follies

Yeah, I am on the Facebook. Have been, oddly enough, since Carlos (from Jesus Politics) asked me to join an Obama group in February of 2007. For the longest time, I had a few work friends on, and used it so rarely that I always forgot my login. Then my nieces and nephews "friended" me and it became more useful. Over the last year, my friends list has grown to over a hundred people. Some are former students. Others are grad school friends, or just people I have met over the last 15 or so years. Some of my blog friends are on there (though you could blow dust off Leighton's profile--:) ). All of those friendships are fine. Some don't post much, some don't comment on mine. Some are rather vague connections and just acquaintances, really. And yet others are people with whom I communicate regularly through email, chat or in person.

But then I started friending people from the past. I graduated from high school 26 years ago this coming May, and it is connecting to people from that time that makes Facebook just a bit of weirdness. I always think of George Costanza's "worlds colliding" idea when I look at some of these people. I don't know the math, but it seems that for everyone I connect to from the 25 years ago period, there are three or four that are simply "there" and neither evoke good thoughts or memories any more than they do bad. And for every one person that makes me happy to have friended from that time, there are 2 or 3 that just bug the shit out of me.

Here is an example. I was in choir in high school, as I do have some musical and singing ability. As I have told several people recently, I was on the fringes of all the major groups in high school. I was an athlete, but not a jock--a good student, but not an AP nerd--and in band and choir, but not a band nerd. (Apologies to all the nerds reading this. Remember, I spent my adult life reading and teaching history. Nerd-dom is mine.)

Anyway, at the end of my junior year, I decided I was going to quit choir. The director had added some mega-choir combined from all the others, and that mega choir rehearsed over lunch for a half hour every day. As I looked to my relatively easy senior year, I did not want to spend valuable lunch time in that room. I could drive to lunch, and fully intended to do so. So I told my choir director that I was out. He responded in a way that surprised me greatly. He offered me a deal I could not turn down by letting me out of the mega-choir practice and letting me into the elite choir without an audition. I took the deal, and enjoyed that choir experience--and of course, the free lunches while my friends had to attend rehearsal.

Why does this matter? It really doesn't, except one of the high school "friends" that found me through Facebook was in that choir. He was (and is) a serious musician and, and was in band, symphony, and several choirs. As far as I know, he majored in music and tried to do it professionally before becoming a music teacher.

So, I saw his invite, and wrote him a note saying how nice it was to hear from him, and how fun it was in "Singers" that senior year.

He wrote back to say that it must have been a different year, because I wasn't in his annual for that choir.

Sigh.

Facebook weirdness.

Snow day frustrations

Yeah, I have a snow day. Technically, yesterday was a snow day too, but I didn't have any classes scheduled yesterday, so that doesn't count. And I know, those of you in northern climes are wondering why Oklahoma shuts down with a hint of slick roads. Remember, we have like 2 snow plows, and one of them is a converted pickup truck (not true, but you get my point) and it doesn't take much to shut down traffic around here. The University has a pretty high number of commuter students, so I am sure that is driving this decision.

Anyway, that gives me time to get some stuff done on the class and maybe do some reading. And blogging.

****

During the campaign, I noted several times my frustration about how conservatives approached Obama, and when Obama failed to fulfill their stereotype, Michelle Obama. She became the "angry black woman" that we were all to fear. Her one statement about being proud of America became more justification to question her patriotism. Sarah Palin's husband joined a separatist movement, but no one questioned her patriotism. Cindy McCain's wealth came purely from the cozy relationship with government regulations, yet her contradictory political stances didn't cause anyone to question her patriotism. We don't question the patriotism of conservatives (I know this is a broken record here) even when they out our CIA agents and endanger our country.

But Michelle is supposed to be scary. Even Juan Williams, who choked up at the sight of Michelle and Barack and their family at the DNC Convention, echoes that stereotype, calling Michelle a "Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress." As Ta-Nehisi says, "are you serious?" You want to invoke the most basic stereotype of black men and women with our new First Lady?

Every time they open their mouths, I lose more respect for our conservative class.

****

Speaking of conservatives, everyone here knows that "abstinence only" sex-ed programs make me furious. Every reputable study shows that they don't work nearly as well as comprehensive sex-ed courses. No problem including abstinence in those other programs, but making it THE program is irresponsible, and dangerous to kids. Hell, as the NYT is reporting, teenagers are not having more sex after all, but those who do are less likely to use contraceptives. So, we are seeing a rise in teen pregnancy. No word on STDS, but that is certainly a logical thing to be worried about as well.

Here is my real frustration. I suspect, and with good reason, that those advocating abstinence-only programs will just ignore this report, as they have any that questioned the actual effectiveness of their programs. Facts just don't matter when you can substitute "belief" or "faith" in their place.

Fine, if you want to believe that way, but please keep your "beliefs" out of my public policy.

****

Sully notes this quote from Kathryn-Jean Lopez, of the NRO:

"We’re a nation not just where you are free to believe or not to believe; we’re a nation founded for Him — so we could praise Him, so we could do His will," - Kathryn-Jean Lopez.

Sigh.

*****

The right wing is in full throat calling any talk about war crimes or investigations partisan hackery. I have been accused of that myself, and told that any desire to hold Bush and Cheney accountable was just political retribution. Sullivan had this to say about Israel's possible war crimes in Gaza

War crimes happen, even when political leaders send the right signals. What distinguishes civilization is a capacity to investigate them and hold the war criminals accountable. Israel, unlike Hamas, is part of that civilization.

We are supposed to be part of that civilization too.

*****

Speaking of crimes. As Bush and Cheney's are dismissed as "policy differences," and Bernie Madoff is living high on house arrest after defrauding millions and ruining countless lives, this story of a homeless man who has been sentenced to 15 years for robbing a bank. At first blush, that sounds ok, but then you read that the guy went in to the bank, told the teller it was a robbery, and then only took one $100 bill off the top. He then surrendered to the police the next day, and pleaded guilty to the crime before being sentenced. No doubt he committed a serious crime, but look at our differing responses. Madoff is negotiated with, and he has done more damage than we can possible imagine for one person. I will be very interested to see if he does as much time as this homeless man. Bush has overseen the deaths of countless people around the world, and his irresponsible policies have endangered Americans here and abroad. He has admitted to authorizing torture and has defended that decision.

He will never be punished for those crimes.

****

More on Torture and Bush and Gitmo. Also from Sully, word that Obama's team met with the security experts in the CIA who were adamant and unanimous that not torturing would not change their ability to gather intelligence. What is more, we learn from the WaPo that the original commander of Gitmo ran it with dignity and under the Army regs. That is, until he was over-ruled by Rumsfeld.

Ice storm, 2009--and a reflection on faith and government

And thankfully, at least for those of us in this area, it has been a much less destructive and painful storm. We have electricity and heat--which is pretty damn valuable right now as the temp is right around 22 degrees. The ice turned to sleet (perhaps because it is so much colder) and that has been a welcome change.

****

To clarify my previous rant on Republicans and the economy, let me suggest that my true anger is at policies intended to gut regulation and the inclination to privatize everything. As I have argued here, government can do some good things to make our lives a little better. For me, the true cause of this recent economic collapse is the very destructive ideology of the far right that encourages hatred of government. Governments and government policies should always be questioned, and always watched, but they are not always bad, and Republicans (and many Democrats) would be wise to learn that.

***

Reading through the blogs this morning, I found this nice round-table discussion on faith and politics. Fans of former President Bush may find some thoughts here they agree with, but there are also some very thoughtful critiques. First and foremost is Bush's insistence that "certainty" is somehow a virtue. Perhaps it is, but that certainty has to be combined with serious introspection and thoughtfulness, and our former President lacked those skills.

But here are a few quotes that I liked

"but this demonstrates a failure of Bush's purported faith. The Bush administration's version of truth did not have the gumption to stand on its own merits, but required the endless proliferation of violence to make its cause known. Hence its sad legacy will not be a certitude of truth but in the insecurity of violence."

and

"President Obama is not afraid of doubt. Doubt deepens his faith, echoing poet Robert Browning's sentiment: "I show you doubt, to prove that faith exists." Doubt is the darkness that allows light to be.

Doubt is good. When someone is certain of something, they no longer listen. Without doubt, knowledge slides into inflexible dogma, static and set in time, with no potential of conceptual evolution or growth, even though the world is one of constant change. Mr. Bush sadly exemplified that flaw."

Stay warm and dry. Peace

Sunday night--and feeling a little feisty

Perhaps it is the intense congestion from today, congestion that has me hearing through only one ear for most of the day.

Or perhaps it is SOF and I watching West Wing on DVD, and reminding ourselves of the last 8 years of insanity. I think of that when I opened my blog roll this morning to read that John McCain will oppose the stimulus bill as it is written. That is all fine and good. Hell, most of us are unsure how this is supposed to work. The monumental f*$king up of the economy will not be fixed overnight, especially as the Republicans who did the damage continue to offer their suggestions. McCain is doing just that demanding more tax cuts and that Bush's irresponsible tax cuts be made permanent.

Seriously, what in the hell is up with Republicans? Do they all have a carbon monoxide leak? One that tells them that no matter the situation, you must cut taxes? Especially for the wealthiest of Americans?

Perhaps I have a carbon monoxide leak, because just looking at some of these asshats who orchestrated our economic downfall makes me nauseous. I still heard from a conservative friend this week who swore that "supply side" economics was true conservatism, and Bush hadn't done that enough.

The wealthiest among us got richer, and the poorest got poorer, and these people want more of the same. All the while telling us that their moral values are the strongest.

Sigh.

****

Speaking of moral values, one of the more odious parts of the last 8 years was that constant refrain that conservative Republicans were more moral. Their arrogance was understandable in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky story, but the lack of interest in anything beyond the vapid, and supposed faith and family of the Bush's pretty much undermined that belief. Well, not that you could tell from conservatives these days. Over the last few months, we were told that Michelle was not "American" enough and not "Patriotic" enough. They demanded that she prove her loyalty. And our now President was also questionable. His middle name was the same as the former King of Jordan (oh wait, we loved that Hussein), and was suspicious for those who didn't want to admit the racism in their hearts. They persisted even after the election, sending to SOF and myself emails about Obama's supposed invalid citizenship.

Not American enough. Not loyal enough. Not Godly enough. God, I am tired of that nonsense.

I was struck by how many Republicans (and certainly many Democrats) are so quick to speak of their family values. Governor Palin could hardly speak (at one of her canned events) without talking about her great family values. In between stoking the crowds into racist anger, she would remind us all that she had 5 kids and was all about family.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

But one thing that more than a few commenters noticed, was that the more we saw of the Obama family, the more we saw of a normal little family unit. The supposed defenders of family values seem to miss that. Anyone who watched the first couple dance at one of the 10,000 inaugural balls the other night, could not quite miss that these two people genuinely (as far as anyone of us could ever tell from a distance) care about each other. This photo (h/t to SOF) is yet another, that seems incredibly hard to fake.



Make no mistake about it. Even if Michelle and the President loathed each other, I voted for him to actually govern. Their personal life is their personal life, and since they now live in this little fishbowl, we will all observe and take notes. I didn't give a rat's ass that Bill and Hillary had a marriage different from mine, and I also could not care less if George and Laura genuinely care for each other. What mattered was their ability to get things done. But I just want the religious right, who loves to brag about their superior approach to family--I would just love for them to watch this couple and tell me that liberals and Democrats don't care about family.

**

Now, I will go take some decongestants and see if I can get some sleep.

Peace

Not even a week

And the Rush Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity's and some wingnut Christian right person from the World Nut Daily are all openly hoping that Obama will fail.

Funny thing really. When people on the left criticized Bush's policies, they were accused of wanting the country to fail and being un-American.

But people on the right can jump straight to hoping Obama will fail, and no one questions their patriotism.

Elections matter

And we are seeing that with every executive order from this administration. As I have noted, each smart utterance and each smart appointment makes me that angrier at the stupidity we tolerated for the last 8 years.

Take our approach to terror. As hilzoy notes:

"it's also worth noting Obama's claim that he wants to win the war on terror "on our terms". One of the maddening aspects of the Bush administration's policies in this area was that they so consistently accepted al Qaeda's terms instead of creating their own. This was not just morally repellent, but stupid: in addition to sacrificing a whole lot of good will throughout the world, it made our actions a lot more predictable, and a lot easier to take advantage of.

Al Qaeda could never have destroyed our commitment to liberty, human rights, and the rule of law by itself. It could only hope that we would respond unthinkingly and do the dirty work ourselves. We obliged them, and in so doing did a lot more damage to ourselves than al Qaeda could ever have dreamed of doing. "

We have talked about this before. Under Bush, it is as if we were doing al Qaeda's bidding rather than fighting them. Taking out their hated enemy in Saddam; torturing detainees at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib; ratcheting up fear among the populace; and of course, encouraging that same populace to dispense with historic values because of that fear.

Time we chose differently.

That stupidity isn't going away, of course. I also saw yesterday that Republicans are questioning CIA chief nominee Leon Panetta for his role in extraordinary rendition under the Clinton administration. I have no problem with the questions even if they embarrass the Clintons. We should talk about this. But what is amazingly hypocritical, even for Republicans is that the practice of extraordinary rendition not only went from a smaller program (still wrong) where we sought some assurances that the suspects would not be tortured (certainly a "wink wink" from countries like Egypt) to Bush doing this on a massive scale and including sending suspects (including the innocent Maher Arar to Syria, even though the Bushies considered that country part of the "axis of Evil." Oh, and of course, those same Republicans didn't raise a stink when Bush defended rendition.

By all means, lets talk about it. But the Republicans who tolerated and enabled torture under Bush have no credibility. None.

Elections matter. Voting for stupid people leads to stupid policies. Never forget that.

Few things this morning

Pardon my bit of self-pity yesterday about blog awards. Good Grief. As I noted in the comments, I never wrote this thing to make money or earn praise from people I don't even know. I wrote it for my own sanity, and then was gratified that it grew into a little community of people talking about ideas and making connections. I will take that any day.

****

I was stunned that Fox News' Chris Wallace was out there suggesting that Obama's flubbed oath meant that he wasn't actually President. I can't stand Fox, but am not completely dismissive of all the individual people on there. Cavuto is an idiot, as far as I can tell, and so are all of their morning crew (as are all the morning crews). But Shep Smith (who I don't like particularly) has shown himself to be a rather credible voice. He was very much so during Katrina and also expressed the appropriate amount of exasperation with Joe the Plumber. Wallace, on the other hand, I couldn't quite figure out. On one hand, he would do a good interview, and then act like a right wing shill. This last bit puts him more in the right wing shill, I am afraid.

****

On another note, read a blog this morning that suggested that our old way of seeing the economy didn't fit Obama. Historically, liberals trumpeted regulation and conservatives trumpeted markets. But Obama praises both, and suggests that the market has to be respected as the most powerful force in creating economic wealth and opportunity, but then noting that we have to have a watchful eye on that market. This economic collapse sure suggests that we need to be watchful. Good god, on NPR this morning, economists were suggesting that we were going to have to spend several trillion dollars to keep our banks solvent. As bad as that sounds, the alternative is far worse, and conservatives suggesting that deregulation had nothing to do with the collapse are, I think, losing credibility with each bad economic news item. The market cannot be trusted to just magically do the right thing, as former Fed Chair Greenspan admitted. Government can, and should be the watchdog. Not decide market decisions, but certainly to keep an eye on institutions and corporations who often prioritize their own profits over either economic prudence or the good of the country.

****

Colbert had the Inaugural poet on last night. Her poem has been the least discussed (it seems to me) portion of the inauguration, and when mentioned, mentioned in a negative light. Jon Stewart made fun of it as a way to clear out the millions on the mall, and others have criticized it on content. Sullivan called the poem "pedestrian." I generally like Sullivan, but think he completely missed the boat on Elizabeth Alexander's contribution. In fact, it was "pedestrian" but was intended to be so. I think people like Sullivan wanted her poem to be some kind of classic and soaring ode to the new President. But it was a praise for the ordinary and "pedestrian" things that we all do, and we all participate in. And if you listen to Obama's speech, that is what he emphasized too. For all the talk about him as "pop icon" and "celebrity," (as my friend Ubub pointed out, btw) Obama has emphasized the role of the grassroots and the everyday people in both his campaign, and his answer to the economic and environmental problems. Her poem was great and right on point.

****

And finally, a story from the LA times discussing how Patriot Act laws intended to fight terrorism have been used to prosecute airline travelers who clearly were not terrorists. Perhaps they should have been punished in some way, but one woman was actually jailed after a confrontation with a flight attendant over spanking her own kids. Doesn't sound like she abused the kids, though it does suggest that she lost her cool and was at least partially in the wrong. But the response is scary. It is this kind of stuff that critics warned about, only to be told to stop coddling terrorists and hating America.

Sigh.

In better news, the President's first full day included him encouraging FOIA requests and emphasizing transparency. What a difference an election makes.