Put Up Or Shut Up

A long long time ago it seems, I suspected my friend Barry of being the best poker player I'd ever seen. If tomorrow night's State of the Union isn't the ultimate call on legislative branch, then we may be witnessing the resurrection of Herbert Hoover. It is what the repubes have been calling for and surely now that they would be getting they will refuse to claim ownership just as they say Barry has refused to claim ownership of the mess he inherited and by their standards, has contributed to in grand fashion. On the other hand, this could also be a mighty dare to the Democrats who have failed utterly to congeal around their savior for the benefit of their president, their party, their jobs, and certainly their constituents. They have had all the power they've needed to enact the measures promised by candidate Barry but they squandered it utterly. They still have the power since as has been observed, the GOP never needed 60 senate votes to do anything.

I struggle with the historical reality that 1st year presidents don't generally do very well but the inability of Barry and his team to get the wheels of government moving in a generally forward direction is disheartening. It's not uncommon for initial cabinet members to be swept away. It may be a bit early for that by past standards but, starting with Geithner, it could be time for such a cleansing.

As a politics junkie I usually look forward to the State of the Union address. I suffer through the anchors and their crowing at the pomp and majesty because I truly don't give a rip about that crap. I want some content. Right now I'm more concerned than ever and I more or less will be happy if at the end of Barry's portion I'm just not disgusted. My confidence is waning. How long will it be in the speech lead-ups until a bunch of pundits declare in unison "he needs to hit a home run/score a touchdown (hail mary pass)"?

As someone who was pivotal in getting this blog off the ground often said to me, "UGH!"

Money Talks

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution boys and girls.

I'll need to keep this brief because it's late and I have other things to do.

Freedom of speech in this country has been defined to relate most significantly to political speech by persons. Since we are a representative republic, supporting a political candidate or officeholder is a substitute for one's own political speech. Therefore, donating money to a politician of one's choice has also been determined to be protected speech. In short, cash equals speech. At least one pundit criticized that conclusion by suggesting that by that logic, bribery should then be protected. But that is patently absurd because bribery is direct corruption which takes place out of sight behind closed doors. Like lobbying.

You got something to say, someone to support, someone you want to give money to? Fine thing Mr. America, declare it to the whole country out loud and in round figures.

Here's the thing though - long ago, for reasons that are not entirely consistent with the usual methods of interpreting law, corporations were defined as persons under the constitution. Ever since politicians have attempted to control or limit how and how much cash is used by corporations in the political process. Today the Supreme Court declared all such methods invalid. In other words, as the 1st amendment states, NO MEANS NO. Congress can't limit what a person (in this case, a corporate person) spends to support a candidate for political office.

This sounds horrible and commentators are already decrying the latest smash to the foundations of the country. They may be right about the end result, but in typical fashion, for the wrong reasons. This decision, under current constitutional interpretations, is completely correct. The problem isn't that corps are now allowed to throw millions (maybe for Exxon, billions) into a political campaign. The problem is that they can do so because they are considered persons under the law. Corporations are therefore entitled to all rights of persons. Isn't that absurd??

If you want the stranglehold of big business and the corrupting effects it has on governance to go away, don't whine about this particular decision - it is actually good that this situation is not parsed out as an exception which will only muddy the legal waters when some other little distinction needs to be made - focus on the cause of the problem. The cause here is that something not alive, yet which may theoretically never die, has all the rights and privileges of the living.

PERSONHOOD IS FOR PEOPLE!!!
END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD!!!

The Silver Lining

Since the 60 vote Democratic supermajority was tossed into the grave with Ted Kennedy last night, it has looked more than a little frustrating for us left of center folk. But now that the ire has ebbed a bit (or at least I have let mine so flow), I have had a few moments of mental time to consider how the new situation can still work to the benefit of the Left. And what it seems to me at the moment is that the loss in Massachusetts last night may actually work to the benefit of the left rather than hurt it.

Simply stated, the Dems can now act like a party of the left instead of kowtowing to faux dems like Lieberman and Ben Nelson (for the record, I understand why Nelson behaves as he does, coming from Nebraska, but Lieberman still has no excuse other than to eternally torment the party that nearly made him Vice President but for his ineffective campaigning).

The 7 or 8 moderates in the party can now be treated like any wavering mods that were in the GOP the past 15 years. Either they join in or get hammered in primaries next election cycle. And Lieberman can finally be shitcanned altogether as he ought to be.

Supermajorities have been rather uncommon in American political history and the system was designed for it to be difficult. Nevertheless, things get done. While the dems had 60, nothing got done. Maybe this loss is a blessing in disguise. Let's hope so.

Did Obama Really Win the Presidency?

Seriously folks, if the dems in Massachusetts couldn't hold Ted Kennedy's seat, how did they manage to win the White House or their still significant majorities in both houses of Congress. It seems we're back to the way things were before Barry won in '08.

The question now is whether the dems in Congress have the balls to get healthcare passed in any of the remaining methods available to them without 60 votes once Sen. Brown (R-Mass) is sworn in. Personally I like the one that has them get the compromise done and voted on before he has to be sworn in according to Massachusetts law. I believe that brings it to about Jan. 29.

You got 10 days folks. Can you do it?

Jon Stewart observed that the Repubelicans never had 60 in the Senate yet they did absolutely anything they wanted. Why??

Joe Lieberman Is a Douchebag

I want someone from Connecticut to explain to me why they have allowed this preening, sanctimonious schmendreck to continue to represent them in the US Senate. He stands for nothing except promoting the Jo'mentum, whatever the hell that is supposed to be. He has switched positions on everything he's ever claimed to stand for in the past. He makes Arlen Specter come off like a paragon of consistency. He is single-handedly on the verge of putting the kibosh on the most important domestic policy development since Reagan and Tip O'Neil compromised to save Social Security over 25 years ago.

The Republican party has spent a generation systematically destroying the economy, our international reputation, our standard of living, our education system, our infrastructure, our native sense of political moderation, our actual aspirations to the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, our legal system, our environment, and on and on (I invite readers to add to the list in their comments). And though the Democrats aren't all that much better -- mostly because this silly herd of felines have all clearly been neutered during this generational implosion of what had been a continuing process to become a more perfect union -- at least they are making an effort and making some, if not much, progress towards righting what has gone so terribly wrong for too terribly long in this nation.

I haven't liked Lieberman since the first time I noticed him on the national scene, as the only Democrat who stood up and made personal hay by shaking his finger back at Bill Clinton over his distasteful shenanigans with Monica Lewinsky. He struck me then as a strange genetic cross between Elmer Fudd and Droopy Dog but other than that of no great import. Somehow though, he managed to turn that self-righteousness into a run at the Vice Presidency. For me as a resident of Florida, I've always considered Joe a big reason why Gore failed in Florida. As the first Jewish national candidate, I couldn't understand why he wasn't in my area, which is among the most heavily Jewish and Democratic in the country, personally busing the otherwise immobilized alter-cacas to the polls to vote in enormous droves for the ticket. He couldn't find 200 more Jews who could punch the ballot correctly that day? I wasn't in south Florida at the time, but I could have accomplished that myself in about 20 minutes by walking around my mother's neighborhood. Not the Supreme Court, not the lizards representing George W. Bush, not that sneaky, unnaturally wide-hipped little brother of GWB who was our governor at the time, not the morons who advised Gore on his legal strategy on the recount fight,,, but JOE "I am a schmuck and I don't care who knows it" LIEBERMAN lost the 2000 election.

He's done an amazing number of things to stick his thumbs in the eyes of the party he nominally works with since then. It seemed clear after the '08 election that his comeuppance was finally due. Oh but then we had to wait to see what happened with Al Franken. And then Specter crossed the aisle. Oh crap and then Joe became #60 for the dems in the Senate. So now Joe's butt must be licked whenever he feels it needs a shine.

Well how about this: promise Joe anything he asks for outside of healthcare, make some sort of minor change in the Medicare buy-in to give him cover. Pass the stinking thing already. And then, when the dust settles and he comes knocking for his porridge, stab him in the back and strip him naked in front of everyone. Remove every vestige of authority he has in the Democratic caucus, loudly and with great pomp, then toss his droopy ass out for the GOP vultures to ignore. Joe Lieberman has altered history once to the great detriment of the United States and the world. Don't let this douchebag do it again.

Payment Holiday: How To Make the Banks Fix the Mess They Created

Banks are happy to take their profits when the economy is going well, but they don't seem to want to take their lumps when it isn't. The only real solution I see to the home value crisis is the banks rewriting the mortgages to some version of fair market value. But they won't do it. No incentive.

How about this crazy idea: what if all you mortgage payers out there take just one month off from your loan payments all at the same time? And hey, do it on your credit cards too. They're killing you with the raised rates anyway.

If everyone took a one month payment holiday at the same time, I suspect it would bring the financial system to its knees pretty quickly. How's that for incentive?

I'm thinking January 2010 just when the bills come in for the Christmas shopping.

Everyday Health Care in America

Here's something that happened to me yesterday. I've had mild high blood pressure since my late teens. At various points since then my doctors have prescribed a low dose, common water pill. Brand name is Diovan and the generic is HCTZ, which is what I've always gotten. Yesterday I went to go get my refill at a local Walgreen's (which have sprouted like mushrooms in my area, it being populated by so many retirees waiting their turn at the Pearly Gates). Under my insurance plan I can only get a one month supply or 30 pills. But the doc prescribes it at 100 count per scrip. I would rather not have to make the extra trips if it's not necessary so I go off the insurance. It's a really cheap med anyway so I figure it's worth a little extra. So I go to pick up the refill at the drive thru. The girl sends it through and it's just the one month supply at a cost of $11.99. I send it back and explain that I'll go off-insurance and get the whole 100. She says she'll check the pricing. Comes back with... $11.99.

Yes I made sure she rechecked it several times and asked her if that seemed a little odd.

America, you're worried that the government's gonna rip you off? Your pockets are already empty and you just haven't pulled up the lint yet.

Afghanistan: Failure of Intent

When we went into Afghanistan, it was not yet a month past 9/11, the world effectively supported any reasonable appearing action the US might take, and the American people certainly agreed that since this was the geographical source of the crime, this is where we needed to show that we can’t be so easily knocked down.

NATO joined in and the task at hand seemed fairly straightforward: get in there and roust the intransigent and vile Taliban that took over the country after the withdrawal of the Soviets over a decade earlier; and who made the poor choice of allowing an Arab-based terrorist organization run by an old-style Muslim whackjob with a lot of daddy’s construction cash left under his keffiyeh have undue influence in the country, and the ability to inspire immense acts of murder out of the country. All that, rather than accept billions of US dollars to switch from poppies to potatoes and let girls learn how to read. Once the Taliban was knocked over, blow out the caves and get the sand worm bin Laden and call it a day.

I remember well the day the invasion started. I was out on a country drive with my then-girlfriend and I said to her when the news came on the radio, “I hope this guy knows what he’s doing.” Other than the speech to congress following 9/11 and the megaphone stunt at ground zero, I hadn’t seen anything out of this man-child Bush that gave me any confidence in him at all. He always seemed to me to be the goofy kid of the “guy who was involved in getting things done” which like them or not, was what his daddy, grand daddy, and great grand daddy were. So now he had his chance. Well at least he had the old wise man Cheney at his side, right? And Powell too.

Like each and every other matter these discredited miscreants laid their hands on, they blew it. After quickly bombing the Taliban out of power and taking Kabul, all enemies, Taliban and al-Qaeda were on the run and nearly bottled up at Tora Bora, the jagged, ancient mountains near the Pakistan border. Because another genius, Donald Rumsfeld refused to provide the few thousand additional troops requested for that battle, US forces worked with local anti-Taliban groups who, though good fighters, mostly veterans of the Soviet insurgency, had no great taste after a point to fight fellow Muslims while supporting non-Muslims. The result was that the locals brokered a separate cease-fire which gave bin Laden and his minions the chance to scurry across to the Pakistani tribal areas where, if he lives today, bin Laden remains.

Like the distraction-disaster that followed, GW Bush and his half-a-brain trust either failed or refused to give our military the resources needed to achieve the tasks at hand. And they damn near pulled it off both times anyway.

Now the man who chose to take the cesspit of American politics and policy onto his lanky lap, my friend Barry, is about to make his Big Announcement which, as that earlier expert military tactician Cheney says, he has been dithering over for approximately 90 days. How long does it take to decide on the least screwed up way to deal with what is now a completely screwed up situation? A “war” which should have ended after about 60 days has lasted 8 years and cost about 1500 American lives. Maybe not making a rash decision is called for here, hmmm?

So the early word says Barry is gonna give the general about 2/3 of what he asked for, which to a military man is probably everything he expected. I learned a long time ago to start a negotiation high and settle low. For our friends on the right, who shop retail and buy the sticker price, this makes no sense and they will say so and loudly. But they will never have Barry’s back, unless it’s in crosshairs so why he continues to bother is a question that my political mind cannot reach. I am not myself a political animal so I have no desire to be appreciated by everyone who doesn’t like me for any reason or no reason so I don’t waste effort trying.

On the left there will be howls because this guy was supposed to get us out of these stupid wars. Well yes, but even this guy said he thought this was a correct war so expecting him to ditch it is wrong-headed. Expecting him to do nothing clearly isn’t going to work since, well, it’s not working. So doing what appears to be a half-measure is what should be expected. No one will be happy, which may mean he’s found a good middle ground, like he does in every issue.

My feeling is that numerically, it’s probably necessary to increase troops since there were never enough to cover the country in the first place (it’s bigger and more spread out than Iraq by a substantial margin). It has much less infrastructure and a much less educated population who are nevertheless battle weary and tested following what is now nearly 30 years of near constant war and insurrection involving the world’s major powers: NONE OF WHOM HAVE EVER MANAGED TO SUBDUE THE PLACE.

Very simply, we should stay there long enough in this form to allow Karzai to clean up his act or not, to rebuild some of what we broke, to try to rout the Taliban out of the two southern provinces that actually have lots of Taliban (Helmand and Kandahar), and do so using anti-insurgency tactics rather than old-style big battle plans. We need to get into the villages and interact with the people, gain their confidence and give them the strength to fight off the guys we don’t like and then make sure we continue to supply them appropriately when we want to leave. That’s what finally succeeded in Iraq and that’s what will succeed in Afghanistan. We won’t leave behind a modern democracy. The culture there in 10,000 years old, possibly older than the one we tried to change in Iraq. Dropping bombs around them for a few years isn’t going to bring a light to their world that will obscure the one they have known since before cattle were domesticated.

The Greatest Threat To Liberty?

The founders of the United States were liberals. They believed that men (yes, white property owning men) had a God-given right to determine the direction their lives could take free from outside interference. In their day, the most likely source of interference and the one they revolted against, was an unresponsive and corrupt central government headed by a hereditary monarch. For the first hundred years of the nation's existence, that perspective was maintained effectively as the sole means by which to measure individual liberty and government authority. By the 1880s though, another threat to personal liberty arose in a way not fully contemplated by the founders: the perpetual corporation.

In the founders' day corporations were rarely used and novel methods of agglomerating capital to take on tasks and disburse the risk of loss in a venture which could not normally be carried by a single owner/operator. They were single-purposed and short-lived. Governments also had great authority to exercise control over the effects a corporation had within its community. Some of the founders recognized the possibility of such entities growing beyond the ability of small governments to control them but that foresight could only go so far.

By the last quarter of the 19th century though, laws had changed to allow the growth of corporate behemoths of size, scope, and influence beyond any of the founders' worst nightmares. Accordingly, a new major threat to the liberty of the individual became a force in American life. The question of whether or how to contend with that threat effectively defines much about modern American politics. Simply stated, the only entity capable of bringing to bear enough resources to assure that the people are not abused by the whims, desires, greed, need, what-have-you of the modern corporation was a larger, more commercially active government at all levels. It required the proper functioning of the former great threat to manage the dangers posed by the abuse of the latter great threat.

The goal is still to protect individual liberty; the Liberal Ideal. The means to do so, requires one to trust in the good graces of two recognized devils. Somewhere along the line, because corporations are private property, the label conservative has stuck to those who still see government as the greater threat to liberty while liberals, who long ago fought a revolution to limit government interference in the liberty of the people, now look to it as the main protector of that same liberty.

Perhaps the greatest threat to liberty is the failure of adequate labels to show we all take different roads to get to the same place.

The Inevitable Assessment of a Modern Major Genral

The report leaked today from Gen. William McChrystal, the commander of all forces in Afghanistan said that unless forces are dramatically increased, the American effort there is likely to fail. He may be right, after all he has his McChrystal balls to rely on. But on the other hand, what are the chances that any general is going to recommend retreat, which will always look to some as a failure, as opposed to going all in which at least has a chance of "winning" whatever that may be in a place as poor, corrupt, remote, ungoverned, and unconquered as Afghanistan? Pulling out is no choice any military man would ever take. Leave that to the Commander-in-Chief, a civilian whose calculations on such matters have to take into account many more factors than anything a general has to worry about. This does not demean the general's advice in any way, but rather places it in context along with any other sources of advice the president must take into consideration.