LUNATIC FRINGE REPORT

Spanish Civil War Photos Found

2009-05-06T17:12:00.000-07:00

You might recall a feature story I wrote last year on Hayward resident Nate Thornton who is one of the last living American veterans of the Spanish Civil War.

Read the article here.

The New York Times last week ran a story and slideshow of rediscovered photographs from the three year war that captured the imagination of anti-fascists across the world and some historians labeled the dress rehearsal for World War II.

I interviewed Thornton and his wife last October just as the economy was beginning to suffer wholesale damage. His commitment to the socialist revolution is still strong after over 60 years and possibly quite prescient.

I know that socialism is going to be the '-ism' of the future, he says, I don't know when it will happen, not in my time, I'm sure of that. Once this thing is all done, the capitalists are going to have to go to work with a pick and shovel like the rest of us. That's what they don't like. That's what they don't want. The system is breaking down.

There's a cadre of former titans of industry like Dick Fuld, Angelo Mozilo, John Thain and maybe Kenneth Lewis looking for jobs at the quarry.

Sotomayor Is A Bitch; TNR's Rosen Is An A-Hole

2009-05-06T14:18:00.000-07:00

CAN ONE HIT JOB SINK SOTOMAYOR'S CHANCES?
If President Obama waits until the end of summer to nominate a Supreme Court justice for retiring David Souter then Sonia Sotomayor's candidacy will certainly wilt in the muggy D.C. heat. Especially, if journalists like The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen conjure up hack jobs with the specter of nepotism hover over his work.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald reported yesterday the controversial article published Monday may contain of wild web of deception. Let's break it down: Rosen's brother-in-law is the deputy solicitor general to the Supreme Court. The current and yet-to-be-tested solicitor general is Elena Kagan--another possible nominee on Obama's short list. What won't Rosen do to get sissy's husband a promotion?

The image of impropriety would not be so stark if the article did not tweak the nose of political insiders, journalists and feminists with quotes which appeared vengeful and childish name-calling. A high-powered judicial version of Sotomayor is "dumb", "a girl" and a "dumb, smelly girl" all at once.

Rebecca Traister, writing in Salon, illustrated some of Rosen's inherent sexual biases, namely as she points out, the same criticisms strong female figures like Martha Stewart and Hillary Clinton invariably receive. They are bossy, moody, profane and just plain bitches. You know, the same qualities male CEOs receive as a strange compliment.

As to what happens to Rosen? The New Republic advertised his articles on the possible Supreme Court nominees as being part of an on-going series. How about we stop at one. It would be one thing if Rosen disclosed his familial connections to the inner-workings of the court, but he didn't and proceeded to unleash a whisper campaign that may torpedo Sotomayor's chances of being the first Latino on the bench. As the Talking Points Memo mentions (along with a video clip from the Late Show), when an obscure appellate judge becomes part of Letterman's monologue, there is no way she can withstand what lies before her and the sheer months until, if you can imagine, the real spotlight shines upon her.

Will The Real James Jones Come Forward

2009-05-05T15:24:00.000-07:00

OBAMA'S NSA DESCRIBED AS MEEK IN MEETINGS

President Obama's "Team of Rivals" propaganda did more to fatten book sales of Dolores Goodwin Kearn's book of the same title than provide any real rivalry among cabinet members (the book can also put you to sleep.)

I mention this because two mainstream articles, one by Time's Joe Klein and a feature by Robert Dreyfuss in Rolling Stone show two different portrayals of one of Obama's notable "rivals", National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones.

The Rolling Stone piece reads like a rehashing of four month administration talking points set along the "rivals" theory of governance. The article says Obama does not have much of a relationship with the general but has spent the past two years gaining familiarity with him on the campaign trail. Jones, a supporter of Obama and frequent critic of the war, is described along the lines of how the Administration would have you believe him to be behind closed doors. According to a Time opinion piece last week, Jones is anything but a go-getter and Type-A personality in meetings.

There is some concern, however, about National Security Adviser James Jones, who is still adjusting to civilian life after a brilliant career in the military. "Obama has appointed all these high-powered envoys like [Richard] Holbrooke and [George] Mitchell, but we don't know who's going to really be in charge of setting the foreign policy priorities," says a prominent foreign policy realist who admires Jones. "That should be Jim's job. But he's throwing off a sense of uncertainty." Several sources say Jones seems to attend meetings rather than lead them. "He needs to drive the agenda," the foreign policy expert adds.

The appointment of old Democratic hands like Mitchell and Holbrooke to Middle East hot spots way back in February may signal Obama had already viewed Jones as overwhelmed by the position. Are there foreign policy problems bigger than Israel/Palestine and Iraq/Afghanistan?

Rolling Stone may primarily be a music and culture magazine but it does churn out insightful public affairs pieces from time to time. This is not one. It gives the appearance of sloppy journalism or worse by its shocking mimicking of the party line, the feel of propaganda.

Other than that, what can I say? There's a pretty good story about the porn industry's top actress in this week's issue.

Sotomayor Is The Perfect Choice

2009-05-01T00:03:00.000-07:00

HOPEFULLY SHE'S PAID HER TAXES (FINGERS CROSSED)
It just has to be 2nd Circuit Appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Not only would she be the second woman on the court, but the first Hispanic in U.S. history. If you believe the Latino vote swung the last election towards President Obama (I don't), then this milestone would be a significant thank you.

Sotomayor, who is known as the judge who ended the ruinous 1994 Major League Baseball strike, is quite attractive other than demography. If Obama is hoping for uncontentious confirmation hearings, the 54-year-old Puerto Rican might placate Republicans. She is fairly moderate and was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the U.S. District Court in New York.

Of course, these things look easy on paper. If chosen by Obama, Sotomayor's entire life will be examined. Every single piece of writing from college term papers to her decision on the second circuit will be examined for clues to her "real" judicial compass while hoping she does not share a peculiarly common trait amongst Obama nominees of not paying her taxes.

Salon lays down the skinny on other possible selections in an article posted shortly after election day that includes the other possible woman, Elena Kagan. The Daily Kos also has a quick thumbnail on Sotomayor.

Souter Leaves The Court

2009-04-30T23:23:00.000-07:00

JUSTICE IS RETURNING TO HIS NEW HAMPSHIRE FARM
Innocently enough, the Supreme Court press corps simply put two and two together. Justice David Souter was the only jurist not to have hired law clerks for the court's next session. The Associated Press story speculating on its meaning seemed harmless enough. Souter has been known to the last to select from the nation's top law grads and is notoriously an odd duck in D.C. circles. Harmless, right? Apparently not.

It is the culture of the Supreme Court to operate within riddles--a bit of intellectual playfulness, yet this one was too simple to crack. The 69-year-old thumb in the eye to conservatives across the country will be President Obama's first attempt at molding the court.

It is true the judge President George H.W. Bush appointed to the court only to later realize he was something of a closet lefty will not change the make up of the Supreme Court other than restart the clock on another liberal member. It will show just how much the president's popularity will translate in an always testy confirmation process.

In the last three days, conservatives have clearly witnessed the destruction due to eight years of George W. Bush. Long-time Republican Arlen Specter left the party citing the difficulty of moderates to win under the GOP brand and now the power of Obama's victory last November has grown lasting fruit--a fresh choice on the court.

Who will be the next Supreme Court justice. Let the rumor mill gain full speed....and.....it should begin with Sonia Sotomayor.

Swine Flu: The Media's Last Fearful Hurrah

2009-04-30T12:27:00.000-07:00

BLOGOSPHERE'S NEWS SENSE FAILS TO FALL FOR SENSATIONALISM
When it comes to the financial livelihood of Wall Street it's better to not stir the pot, they say; yet when the MSM needs to rile up a good old Andromeda Strain narrative, they sure can whip up fears. And we thought scaring the public was a dastardly thing only George W. Bush would do.

"Containment is no longer a feasible option," is how the New York Times ominously quoted the deputy director of the World Health Organization. It is similar to the maxim attached to Michael Jordan, "you cannot stop him, you can only hope to contain him," isn't it? The analogy at this point would be apt if the dreaded swine flu was indeed a pandemic colored with gruesome details and escalating fatalities, but it is not, as of yet. Then why the constant drumbeat of fear about a harsh strain of Influenza that lacks flesh-eating parasites or blackened corpses and has debilitated one foreign nation disproportionately to to the rest of the planet? Folks, this may be the media's last hurrah when it comes to controlling the populace through fear.

The swine flu is serious stuff. It is not the story of front page hysteria and the facts do not bear the fear running rampant in every ER and doctors office across the land. When the dead bodies of old media lay rotting in the hot sun, this sort of sensationalism designed to control Americans will cease to exist, at least, in its present form. Here are the reasons why the blogosphere would not pursue this story:

At this time, the vast majority of the cases have been in Mexico.
The death toll is insignificant.
There has been little indication that the government would not be able to protect the health of Americans.
While the strain can be deadly, the imminent risk of death has not been suffiencently communicated.

Under the rubric and collective thought of bloggers and journalists freed from the grasp of their corporate parents, this story would not register on the front page. In addition, you will begin to notice that most stories, like this one today, are actually articles covering the fear media corporations stoked so cleverly in communities across the country. The future of journalism is healthy, the future of billion dollar media titans is over along with the control they once represented. That's the distinction many fail to see.

Specter Leaves Party In Disarray

2009-04-28T16:47:00.000-07:00

HOW CAN A REPUBLICAN STAND SUCH TIMES AND LIVE?
Arlen Specter, you scoundrel! How could you?

That rumble in Washington today was the ground more than shifting under the GOP, but sidewalks buckling and children being swallowed by the Earth. Sen. Specter is leaving the Republican party for hopefully greener senatorial pastures on the left. To begin, nothing comes as a surprise in D.C. Speculation of Specter switching parties had been rumored more as a highly implausible last ditch effort to retain his precarious seat in the Senate, but never seriously contemplated one bit. Its execution was swift, calculated and so shocking that Republican ire has yet to materialize commensurate with the blow Specter dealt. The venerable National Review, as of 5:30 p.m. pacific time today, has very little analysis of the news except for a rambling, seemingly hurting post from David Freddoso.

It's true, Democrats inherit a moderate conservative who, if he wins the nomination and defeats his Republican challenger, will not reflect the views of a majority of blue state Pennsylvanians. His filibuster-proof 60th vote is compelling, though. (Salon's Glenn Greenwald has a good explaination of what Specter's move means) President Obama supports Specter's move and Senate Leader Harry Reid restored his 29-year seniority in the Senate. Ostensibly, Specter will caucus with Democrats when that 60th vote is needed at all times for such support. It will also allow Specter, who had Hodgkin's disease and has indicated he wants to remain in the Senate to push through health care legislation, to honestly vote with Democrats on any end-of-the-year legislation the Administration says it will offer.

Assuredly, Specter's move rattles what it means to be a Republican legislator post-George W. Bush. To his credit, Specter was unequivocal about his intention to switch party affiliation. The polls said he could not beat the anti-tax crusader Pat Toomey in the GOP primary so he went to the other side. What it means in the long run is either the party has a crude, long-term plan to rid itself of any ideology other than the far right or the party is in the process of true disintegration. Specter's move shows that a Republican of any other persuasion but Christian, far right and anti-abortion can retain or win a seat. How can a far right, anti-tax maven like Toomey possibly win a general election in Pennsylvania? He can't and the same dilemma will follow Republicans across the country until the party can figure out what it can in Obama's America, but that seems a bit away judging by some of their comments.

Rush Limbaugh waved off Specter's move by insisting he should take Sen. John McCain with him. You remember McCain, right? He was the party's choice for president just five months ago and the GOP mouthpiece wants him out. He also insinuated deposing Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback because he voted today for his own state's nominee for secretary of health and human services. If Republicans don't want a dyed-in-the-wool righty like Brownback who exactly do they want?

Perry, Texas Secessionists Follow Slippery Slope Of Treason

2009-04-23T17:02:00.000-07:00

ARE THEY DANGEROUS OR SORE LOSERS?
We can laugh at the apparent absurdity of those gosh darn Texas secessionists, but such talk certainly smack of treasonous behavior. Not now or for decades, but under history's long reach the actors of discontent in the future could latch upon this ridiculous talk to further boost their cause. The Serbs used a 700-year-old losing battle against Kosovo to justify war a decade ago and Christian-Muslim strife is de rigeuer for any cleric or politician in the Middle East.

A new poll of dubious value from the Daily Kos and Research 2000 shows many Texans--especially Republicans--are quite torn over the possibility of leaving the union if President Obama does not quit taxing them (or, should we accurately say, start actually taxing people more of their earnings.)

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (why does he look like Josh Brolin in W.?) and the party at large as gone too far in painting a very dangerous dichotomy between Obama's so-called "socialist" tendencies (the RNC wants Democrats to rename the party Socialist Democrat) and open rebellion. Under the great tradition of revolt under repressive taxation, you could applaud Republicans for fighting the same noble challenge the Founding Fathers waged against King George. One problem, the entire argument is Rovian; politically-bent and unnecessarily divisive. This isn't saying you're neighbor's wife is a bad person, this is saying she sleeps with the mailman and the pool boy without any evidence. This talk is Texas is the folly of home wreckers.

Did Perry know what sort of firestorm he would create? He may have not prepared such a remark in advance. What he did is whip up non-sensical colonial tendencies based upon nothing, whatsoever. Are liberals and elites merely brushing off their valid concerns? Not even. The basis for all this subterfuge is simply the party lost to an African American man who is now in charge of cleaning up a colossal mess created by a family of white elite Americans. Secession is not a concept to be thrown around lightly. The state should be embarrassed for uttering such language in public and its leaders censured. Secession is treason. The bloodiest war in American history was fought because of this procedure and the Confederate flag stands not for a glorified Southern culture, but for those who attempted to fracture this union.

John Stewart said it best last week to Fox's Sean Hannity:

I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing. And I feel for you because I've been there. A few times, in fact one of them was a bit of a nail biter. But see, when the guy that you disagree with gets elected, he's probably going to do things you disagree with. He could cut taxes on the wealthy, remove government's oversight capability, invade a country that you thought should not be invaded. That's not tyranny. That's democracy. See, now you're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like a shit taco.

Obama Angles For GOP's Small Town Folksy Imagery

2009-04-21T14:21:00.000-07:00

GOP ISN'T LOSING ITS CONSTITUENCY; DEMS ARE TAKING IT BACK
What happens when Kansas figures out "what's the matter" with itself? Conservative columnist David Brooks sees the end of the GOP's dominance on small town issues that use to be soaked in flimsy, folksy concepts of decades past.

Brooks' column today in the New York Times seems to be pushing conservatives to press the panic button; President Obama is becoming a cultural Republican!

America once had a responsible economic culture, Obama argued. People used to save their pennies to buy their dream houses. Banks used to lend by “traditional standards.” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used to stick to their “traditional mandate.” Companies like A.I.G. used to limit themselves to the “traditional insurance business.”

Brooks sees the gambit as possibly "the greatest train robbery in American politics." Maybe it would be. Something akin to President Clinton ending welfare "as we know it." The reality is, Obama's outreach to the fiscal "values" and hard-work ethos of traditional America is actually a case of Democrats appealing to an important base that should have been in their column since Ronald Reagan snatched it from liberals nearly 30 years ago.

One of the basic tenets of this blog to draw out the distinctions made in Thomas Frank's seminal book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" The book famously theorizes conservative working class Americans do not vote with their economic interests in mind when they vote for Republicans. Along the way, the Three G's--Gays, Guns and God--appeal to their morality and clouds their decision-making.

When Brooks says, "If Republicans aren’t nervous, they should be" he isn't kidding. The Republican is dangerously close to becoming merely a regional Southern entity characterized by extreme religious right wingers. The issues of small town values is just about the only notable issue they possess unless the U.S. decides to fight a war against China over the issue of abortion. And I doubt that will happen. Although China does have too many people.

It was already unclear how, in an era when Americans have kitchen table problems to worry about rather than the standard social red herrings typically used by conservatives, the GOP can be able to formulate a plan to revive its brand image. I don't normally give advice to conservatives, but heed Brooks' words. You cannot allow Democrats to be the party of financial order and small town fiscal responsibility. Don't ask me how to stop it, though. How do you stop a runaway avalanche? You don't.

Pulitzer's Honor Neglected Child; Small Town Writer

2009-04-20T21:55:00.000-07:00

If you have not read the Pulitzer Prize-winning feature article by Lane DeGregory of the St. Petersburg Times, grab a tissue and spare about 20 minutes to feel what good writing is all about.

Click here to read the series about a 7-year-old girl who was neglected to the point, the author calls her "a feral child"; a modern day Mowgli from the Jungle Book. It's a story about neglect in 21st century America, but surprisingly, not only of the child, but the entire family.

Also, in the name of the underdog's mystique. Congratulations to The Post-Star's Mark Maloney for winning the Pulitzer for editorial writing. The newspaper located in Glen Falls, NY has circulation of only 34,000. Maloney beat entries from the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune--the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox of journalism--to win the prize.

Pope Benedict Is Getting Horny Again!

2009-04-17T17:26:00.000-07:00

THE VATICAN IS IRRESPONSIBLE WITH ITS HEAD IN THE SAND
The Belgian Assembly apparently does more than toss down a few Stella Artois' between sessions. Today they chastised Pope Benedict XVI and his remarks that condoms do more spread infection of HIV/AIDS. The Vatican shot back in a terse "how dare thee!" criticize the Pope. Various medical groups such as The Lancet called the stance "dangerous and irresponsible" along with France and Germany.

Just a week after Easter, Pope Benedict XVI is trying to control the AIDS epidemic in Africa with the church's doctrine of abstinence. While the Pope's brand of Christianity is flourishing in third-world countries, the exclusion of condoms in this fight continues to erode the support of Catholics in the United States and Europe and is the most vexing doctrine that forces followers and non-followers, alike, to shake their heads in disbelief. It's easy to mock the hypocrisy of a man who took a sacred vow of celibacy and thinks he has the moral credibility to opine on sex.

If you are to sensibly blend Catholicism and the realities of 21st century life, you must see the use of condoms to stem the spread of not only AIDS but other debilitating sexual-transmitted diseases in a lesser of two evils approach. Most would not even call its use much of a sin, but a laudable practice. But this pope talks more about condoms than the exorbitant number of Trojan condom commercials aired after 10 p.m. on the Spike Network.

In 2005, Pope Benedict said, "It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality."

Last month, on a pilgrimage to Africa, he said the use of condoms accelerated the problem of HIV/AIDS on the continent. "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Here's the irony: the guy who doesn't even have sex thinks they are great, yet the rest of us who do think they are not? Answer that, padre.

Prophets Of Doom? Meet The Regents Of Reality

2009-04-16T21:09:00.001-07:00

WITHOUT THESE ECONOMISTS THE TOUGH DECISIONS WON'T BE MADE
Salon's Andrew Leonard lays out who he calls the "Cassandras" and Chicken Little's of economic punditry. Read it here. Whether the piece is meant as a jab at the perceived bottoming out of the economy or an homage; one thing is clear from Paul Krugman to Nouriel Roubini (and I might offer Robert Reich) these are the voices that have consistently shifted overexuberance to the side of caution and reason.

Start with Leonard's assessment of Krugman: "Without missing a beat, Paul Krugman went from being George Bush's most passionate and prominent critic to fulfilling the exact same role for Barack Obama."

This is either a criticism of Krugman's across-the-board disgust with any president or he posits the Nobel Prize laureate feels he can sell papers writing from the side of the minority. It's actually neither, but an inkling shared by this blog that the good ol' boys in Manhattan run the Treasury not matter what party is in power.

The consistent opinion of most of these men says the bailouts are not big enough, but the political solution must take into account the same Americans angry about taxpayer-funded bonuses and a poor economy. With both sides taken into account, all the Obama Administration can muster is what we have received. The hope and the prayer that it is just barely enough to get the country barely above water.

Pelosi Calls For Commission to Investigate Wall Street Tricks

2009-04-15T23:24:00.000-07:00

SPEAKER ADDS SUPPORTS TO PLAN RECENTLY GAINING MOMENTUM
With an eye towards quelling the populist anger roiling across the nation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today called for the creation of a commission to root out the causes of Wall Street's meltdown patterned after an obscure Depression-era committee.

In San Francisco to speak about her book encouraging the rise of women in society at a gathering for the Commonwealth Club of California, Pelosi said Americans are angry with the economy and bonuses given to AIG and said at least 75 percent want an investigation into the missteps that led to this recession.

"That's what we would do with this commission, is to make sure it does not happen again." she said.

Pelosi spoke with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner this morning about the plan to emulate the Pecora Commission created in 1932. That commission named after the Deputy District Attorney of New York County Ferdinand Pecora followed two failures and benefited by Franklin Roosevelt's election. The commission's findings led to the Securities Act of 1933 and the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission,itself, alleged to have been lax in regulating Wall Street with Bernard Madoff's infamous Ponzi scheme being the poster boy for this age of decadence.

“Some people can tell you one piece of it. Others can tell you another piece of it. It's really hard to know. Do you understand it?” Pelosi asked rhetorically, “We need a clearer understanding of how we got here.”

Pelosi is not the first politician to allude to the Pecora Commission in recent weeks. Sen. Byron Dorgan called for a new iteration of the committee along with reinstituting the Glass-Steagall Act whi9ch separated commercial and investment banking. Many believe its repeal in 1999 was the impetus for banks and investment firms like Citigroup and Travelers to merge and allow the subprime credit markets to run rampant. A New York Times editorial last month also called for a Pecora-like commission to be created.

Earlier in the day, appearing on the local Fox affiliate KTVU, Pelosi characterized an upswing of “Tea Party” tax protests as window dressing for elite conservative interests in lower taxes calling them “Astroturf”, as a manufactured antonym for “grassroots”.

The Speaker drew upon her personal biography to encourage woman to continue to rise to more positions of power. Her book, Know Your Power: A Message to American Daughters urges woman to get involved in all aspects of community service. Pelosi, herself, is the daughter of the Baltimore establishment and said she found politics both exciting and distasteful. “It taught me I didn't want to be a part of it,” she said.

While raising five children with husband Paul Pelosi, who incidentally spent the speech doting over their newest grandchildren, she slowly became immersed in Bay Area politics with her big break occurring in 1976 when she secured Maryland for a youthful Jerry Brown in the Democratic presidential primaries. Pelosi joked, though, the then-Governor of California had a problem with saying, “thank you.”

Despite no longer being in office and playing to the liberal San Francisco audience, Pelosi also had a few jabs for former President Bush. While saying she “absolutely loves” working with President Obama, she said “having a great intellect saves a lot of time.”

DHS Says Rightwing Extremism On The Rise

2009-04-14T17:44:00.000-07:00

BLACK PRESIDENT, ECONOMY AND VETERANS STOKE FEARS
Popular culture often joked or feared for the safety of an American black president. With a weak economy and a capable Commander-in-Chief most of those urban myths have fallen to the wayside, yet quips from Chris Rock have given way to a rise in rightwing extremism attributed in part to white anger over various issues, including the race of the president according to an unclassified report issued by the Department of Homeland Defense.

Click here to read the .PDF from the DHS

The report released last Friday says the same factors that gave rise to extremism in the early 1990s and leading to the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building are present today.

Rightwing militia groups are stoking the furor of possible recruits by highlighting their perceive loss of white power personified in the election of Barack Obama along with standard recruiting points such as the rise in immigrants taking jobs, the poor economy and proposed gun control laws.

Most shocking is the likelihood that these groups will recruit veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for their valued military experience. The report alludes to the existence of "lone wolves" and small terrorist cells that could be fortified by this group who may be further marginalized by their difficulties returning to their civilian lives.

Many worry the next terrorist attack may not be foreign-based, but domestic and likely originating from the narc0-blood bath occurring on the U.S.-Mexico border. Instead, this report brings to mind the diversity of discontent in the United States contains a fringe element likely in Western states that is keen on "overthrow" and if the economy continues to sour, this group will become even more agitated. Angry enough to make Timothy McVeigh look like an amateur.

Wall Street Gets Richer; Americans Still Losing Jobs

2009-04-10T15:01:00.000-07:00

RECOVERY WON'T RESONATE UNTIL AMERICANS ARE WORKING AGAIN
Way too many journalists are jumping on the economic recovery bandwagon especially when the Dow's 25 percent rise the past month does little to make life easier for you and me.

While some point to Wells Fargo's surprisingly healthy first quarter (Noriel Roubini said Wells Fargo was one of the weaker banks last month in Time. What happened?) as proof the recession has bottomed out, unemployment is still 8.5 percent and likely rising at the same clip. A chipper AP story reports the first week of April had the lowest amount of new jobless claims in months. I'm not sure how much an indicator one good week in the middle of 40 does for the unemployed. This New York Times piece speculates how the strong Dow could be covering up significant problems in the overall economy.

The underlining message in nearly every story, except a very cautiously optimistic article in the Boston Globe today, is that the financial sector is doing well and depending on your politics, the benefits will never "trickle down" to the pocket books of struggling Americans. It's true that short and long-term interest rates are unbelievably low, but how will it translate into more construction of homes? The inventory of already built new homes is high and recently foreclosed homes are even higher. This may be where Wells Fargo's announced $190 billion in new loan applications are emanating. Once the glut of inventory begins to deplete in relation to low interest rates where will this segment of the economy look like?

The job of Wall Street is to keep things positive; to eradicated jitters and to keep the wheels of finance rolling. It really has nothing to do with the problems Americans are dealing with everyday, at least, in the short term. It's likely over a half million more workers will get a pink slip this month. Add to this the previous 5 million and you have quite a segment of the population scrimping and saving and not purchasing goods and services. Don't tell Americans the economy is picking up while they sit and wait for a new job.

Hey Larry, Wanna Get Away?

2009-04-09T18:49:00.000-07:00

Protesters unfurled a banner asking President Obama's top economic aide Lawrence Summers to "We want our $$$$ back". The gruff-speaking Summers looked uncomfortable as a woman called him "toxic waste" today at the Washington Economic Club Undoubtedly, the man lustily booing the protesters was a banker.

WATCH THE VIDEO HERE.

Feinstein: No Assault Weapons Ban Yet

2009-04-09T17:25:00.000-07:00

DEMS HAVE FLOURISHED IN THE WEST WITHOUT TALKING GUNS

Sen. Dianne Feinstein told "60 Minutes", "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress." And with that don't look for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban she authored in the early 1990s anytime soon.

In interview to be aired this Sunday, Feinstein believes there is no time for gun control legislation but would considered it later. Such comments come less than a month after four Oakland police officers were gunned down by a parolee with an AK-47. President Bush allowed the initial ban to expire in 2004 while Democrats made significant electoral inroads in the once-bleeding red Western states like Montana and South Dakota by not focusing on gun control.

While the congressional calendar may be chock full with health care reform, the economy and two overseas wars, Democrats don't want to mess with a once troublesome issue that has been significantly neutralized. It's no surprise President Obama breezed through the primaries and general election without dealing with either gun control or abortion rights--two issues Republicans once hammered more liberal-leaning candidates with.

Can Democrats live with legislators who seemingly ignore the continual rise in gun use in our society? It seems like anything else in these trying economic times, our priorities are more fixated on maintaining full employment and keeping the bill collector at bay rather than focusing on complex and controversial social issues better suited to be argued in better times (i.e. when we have nothing better to worry about).

Pelosi Says Health Care Is Top Priority

2009-04-09T17:15:00.000-07:00

COLUMNIST SENDS SPEAKER A NICE EASTER CARD
E.J. Dionne's column in today's Washington Post sheds a quite divergent view of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. It should be noted Dionne is somewhat liberal and the skewed perception of Pelosi as someone moving the country towards so-called "San Francisco liberalism" is purely a right-wing talking point. Nonetheless, the profile illuminates a possible Congressional road map for the rest of the year.

Pelosi told Dionne, "'The priority, of course, is to pass health care,' Pelosi said without blinking." The American Prospect's Ezra Klein notes in his blog this is the first indication Pelosi sees health care reform as a top priority over cap-and-trade.

To my knowledge, Pelosi hasn't said that before. More to the point, she's not signaled it. At a recent Maria Leavey breakfast, she implied just the opposite, and many folks I've spoken to on the Hill have suggested that her priority was energy rather than health care.

To reverse that specific perception, Pelosi seemed to be giving Dionne a lesson on Congressional parliamentary procedure by saying she could muster 51 votes on health care under the rules of "reconciliation" where committees receive technical instructions on where and how funding will be budgeted. In effect, it's a promise that health care will be legislated but without specifics. Under the procedure a bill only needs a simple majority, whereas, a bill without reconciliation needs a more problematic 60 votes in the Senate. Pelosi also referred to the diversity of the party that also has the support of some coal-producing states. She showed Dionne a statue of a coal miner in her office given to her by a West Virginia congressman.

Dionne also mentions the recent relaxing of Republican attacks against Pelosi. With President Obama's post-election popularity too strong to spar with, Republicans targeted Pelosi without abandon. An article in Politico from last November said the tactic has failed every time it has been utilized, "It didn’t work in 2006, and it’s not working this year, yet many Republicans continue to use Pelosi power as the ultimate threat to American governance."

Presumably, with a bit less than 100 days of the Obama presidency to work with, Republicans are turning their criticism towards the White House. Karl Rove ironically believes Obama is more divisive than President Bush in today's Wall Street Journal.

Despite the constant attacks on her leadership, Pelosi has proven to be a speaker unfazed thus far. Whether Pelosi can help the President push through Democratic-themed legislation like health care reform is unclear, but it shows that it takes more pieces of the puzzle to assemble than one might think.

Must See TV: Economist Explains The Criminality Of The Collapse

2009-04-08T17:59:00.000-07:00

THE COLLUSION BETWEEN THE BANKS AND TREASURY IS SYSTEMIC
If you weren't watching PBS this past week, then you wouldn't know a leading economist leveled some of the most provocative and insightful views yet about the coziness of the bankers with our government and how it continues even in the face of angry Americans losing jobs and money from coast-to-coast.

William K. Black, a professor of economics at the University of Missouri, was also a thorn in the side of the Keating Five in the early 90s. Black told Bill Moyers the credit rating services colluded with banks to unleash high yield, but potential toxic loans to flourish with relatively little government oversight by the Bush Administration. The evidence that rating services like the once-venerable Moody's slapped dubious AAA ratings on so-called pooled "liars loans" where the borrowers information was never verified has been well-known. Black said it was in both the borrowers and mortgage broker interest to inflate their earnings and credit history.

[CLICK HERE TO VIEW WILLIAM BLACK'S INTERVIEW ON BILL MOYERS]

Black's allegations point directly to the problem many people had with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's appointment last December. He is simply doing the bank's bidding within the Obama Administration. The Goldman Sachs cabal of Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers were involved with the company with as much a stake in the proliferation of subprime mortgages than any other institution, yet Federal bailout money was funneled back to Goldman Sachs and Geithner's plan to purchase toxic loans at a premium was cheered by Wall Street. I wonder why?

At one point during the interview Moyers asked if the Treasury was engaging in a cover-up to which Black said, "Absolutely."

They are scared to death. All right? They're scared to death of a collapse. They're afraid that if they admit the truth, that many of the large banks are insolvent. They think Americans are a bunch of cowards, and that we'll run screaming to the exits. And we won't rely on deposit insurance. And, by the way, you can rely on deposit insurance. And it's foolishness. All right? Now, it may be worse than that. You can impute more cynical motives. But I think they are sincerely just panicked about, 'We just can't let the big banks fail.' That's wrong.

Black also maintains if the banks are, indeed, not insolvent why do they need up to $2 trillion in bailout money?

To a banker the inclination to stem the amount of panic in the Market is clear. You don't make or maintain your wealth with a jittery Dow. To those who believe in transparency and justice for the bank's fraudulent behavior, the cover-up is beginning to be worse than the original crime since unemployment continues to rise at a clip of 650,000 jobs a month and the $700 billion allotted to jar open the credit markets have been essentially wasted.

In another interview this week Black sounded even more ominous about this crisis and the diagnosis made by the Treasury when he said it could paralyze the Obama presidency. "It will be the greatest looting of the American people in our history and it will destroy the Obama presidency if it continues." And we've seen the presidential hand-tying one bad policy can have on an Administration with Bush's war in Iraq.

The populist anger that continues to rise is partly a function of the inability to face the fact the same bankers who created this crisis in the name of sheer greed continue to flourish because they have gamed both sides for their financial benefit. At a time when the civic attitude of millions of Americans was at its highest in decades with the election of Barack Obama, no soon has the corruption of Washington totally squashed it.

Will Obama Attend Easter Mass? Bush, Saint Reagan Never Had Time

2009-04-08T17:23:00.000-07:00

INVOKING SECURITY CONCERNS IS A GOOD EXCUSE

The managing editor at Fox News makes a good observation about the lack of news regarding President Obama's Easter Sunday plans. Which church is he going to attend? I don't really care as much as attempt to point out our two seemingly most pious recent presidents--Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush rarely attended Sunday services.

The Fox News blog posting recounts Reagan's lame excuse his presence would put undue stress on the congregation. Good try. Presidents Carter and Clinton regularly attend. Bush, who attempted to make us believe his election was manna from Heaven and consulted on foreign policy with Jesus rather than his more experienced father, hardly ever set foot in church despite being a born again Christian. In fact, he believed himself so religious that he did not need to attend. I'll try using that line with my grandmother this weekend.

Social Media Is Taking The Power Of The Press From Grip Of The Elites

2009-04-03T17:45:00.001-07:00

THE FALL OF THE MEDIA IS THE RISE OF THE PEOPLE
Your innocuous tweet counts as "publishing." A simple text message reminding your wife to buy a gallon of milk also is publishing, as is the e-mail to your boss, according to social media expert John Blossom. In small portions, these forms of communication are quite tame, but when multiplied a billion times over a day, they will change the ways we live and think while threatening to upend how the news is delivered and consumed.

The most fascinating idea in Blossom's book Content Nation is the belief the the rise of social media and user-generated web sites are, in fact, not a new development, but actually a return to the genuine roots of human interaction.....Read the rest of this article at the Commonwealth Club blog at commonwealthclub.blogspot.com.

Netanyahu Talks Tough For The Israelis; Obama Will Proceed With Caution

2009-04-03T16:34:00.000-07:00

THE POSSIBILITY OF NUKES IN IRAN IS MORE IMPORTANT TO IRANIAN GOV'T.
You can only judge the return of Benjamin Netanyahu to the office of Israeli Prime Minister and tough-talk regarding Iranian nuclear production as nothing more than bluster. It's no surprise the right wing Netanyahu would slide Israel towards a more hawkish view of its Middle Eastern neighbors. It's quite predictable, inf fact, for the right to diminish any work towards amicable piece with the Palestinians just as it is nearing fruition. In some ways it's a game played by both side to perpetuate conflict. Almost as if their mutual business is conflict just as not finding a cure for Cancer fattens Big Pharma's bottom line.

If you believe Iran is really the psychotically deranged nuclear power-to-be, Netanyahu's statements saying he would attack Iran if the U.S. does not succeed in stripping its capabilities is stark. The assertion, though, flies in the face of standard diplomatic strategy. It is not Iran's desire to actually possess a legion of nuclear warheads as much as it is their view the capability to one day attain them will protect them from U.S. invasion and boost their place in the hierarchy of the Middle East. Israel must care for their own safety, but Netanyahu is being disingenuous by deploying the standard anti-Iranian spiel by recounting President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's various threats against the state of Israel.

If you need to see where the bluster ends and where realpolitiks begins, read closely at Netanyahu's candid belief that the Iranian economy is in such disrepair that sanctions would work nicely in persuading Iran to drop their nuclear ambitions. Netanyahu's rhetoric is dangerous if you believe Israeli jets bombing Iranian targets could ignite a massive Middle East war where nobody would likely arise victorious. Netanyahu only makes it harder for the new American president to engage Iran like never before. A modicum of peace in the Middle East will be difficult even without a right wing bully spouting off to his constituents in Tel Aviv.

Spanish Judge About To Gore Gonzalez, 5 other Bush Aides

2009-03-30T19:26:00.000-07:00

TIME TO CANCEL THOSE TRIPS TO THE RIVIERA
Say goodbye to freshly made paella, Alberto Gonzalez. Ah, those wonderful baquettes in Paris. Forget about whiffing their warm, yeasty delight, David Addington. John Yoo, you like torture; so say goodbye to the medieval spectacle of a Spanish bullfighting because the globally defender of human rights, Spanish magistrate Balthazar Garzon, is going to indict you soon.

In addition to the trio, San Francisco Curcuit of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee, the man Gen. Tommy Franks once derided as the "f--king stupidiest guy on the face of the earth", Douglas Feith and current Chevron lawyer William Haynes III were named in a complaint issued for review to the Spanish court. The Spanish believe they have jurisdiction because five Spaniards were allegedly tortured in Guantanamo. All five were thrown out of court because their torture led to inadmissible evidence.

It's been the LFR stance for two years, President Bush, Dick Cheney and/or their minions would one day face legal jeopardy for their deeds the best eight years with the likelihood, the infamous Spanish judge would be its starting point and one former U.S. official's plight could be instructive.

Former Secretary of State and Bush cohort Henry Kissinger has lived the past 30 years under the shadow of international indictments stemming from his actions with the CIA in South America known as Operation Condor. It is de rigueur for Kissinger to inquire about the possibility of incarceration before travelling abroad. This is likely to be the lasting effect of possible Spanish indictments against the six former Bush aides. Although liberals would salivate at the possibility, there is simply no situation where an American president would allow an international court to nab current or former government officials for merely the sake of precedent, but the implication of impropriety is better than nothing.

President Bush wouldn't care if he couldn't climb the Alps in Switzerland or ride his mountain bike under the Champs de Elysses. He was probably going to the let his passport expire anyway.

Turnabout: Now It's The Liberals Aiming To Conquer The Nation?

2009-03-30T18:37:00.000-07:00

BREITBART'S COMMENTS ARE SOOOO 2008
If you write and follow politics for awhile, you'll notice both sides utilize the same tricks no matter how ridiculous they might be. Take for example a opinion piece in the right-wing Washington Times.

Andrew Breitbart used the same criticism against liberals that the left levied against the conservatives for the last eight years regarding the veracity of their beliefs, specifically in this article, online comments crafted by lefties on conservative web sites.

Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy - us. They want to ensure that Barack Obama is not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency - and the humanity - of George W. Bush.

Political leftists play for keeps. They are willing to lie, perform deceptive acts in a coordinated fashion and do so in a wicked way - all in the pursuit of victory. Moral relativism is alive and well in the land of Hope and Change and its Web-savvy youth brigade expresses its "idealism" in a most cynical fashion.
The ends justify the means for them - now more than ever

It is a appalling and downright disingenuous to say President Bush was somehow torpedoed by left wing generated falsehoods when it was the dissemination of the truth which thwarted even more damage to the country than what eventually occurred. Liberals did not create the fact that WMD did not exist in Iraq, or that torture techniques were co-opted by the Administration or that the war in Iraq was about the military-industrial complex taking part in war profiteering.

On the contrary, "politics for keeps" mixed with deception and fear are all hallmarks of Karl Rove and have been reported on this web site for nearly five years. Pieces such as these give pause to the notion the Republican Party can rebound and for the good of the nation contribute new ideas to the conversation. We need a healthy opposition party in times like these, when many are feeling more desperation by the state of our economic affairs. For godsake, even listing the litany of Bush-era offenses makes me feel out of touch with our current situation. If only conservatives could realize they lost the election and now make a contribution instead of impeding progress with silly accusations.

U.S., Russia Push 'Reset'; Cold War Distrust Remains

2009-03-26T23:29:00.000-07:00

OBAMA USES COLD WAR TACTICS TO CORNER THE KREMLIN
While most of the industrialized world prepares to fix the world's economy next week in London, an important geopolitical sideshow will be taking place when the U.S. and Russia discuss an old Cold War sticking point.

With the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) due to expire this December, old diplomatic ploys and negotiations are returning to the table while both sides have retained suspicions of each other's intentions. Back in 1982, President Reagan presented the then-Soviet Union with an offer to reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons pointed at each other. The beginnings of the START suffered many starts and stops during the 1980s. The treaty was not signed until 1991.

The Bush Administration's announcement late last year to install weapons interceptors in Poland and radar capabilities in the Czech Republic -- two former members of the Iron Curtain -- is reminiscent of an earlier tactic engineered in 1983 when Reagan announced plans for a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), also known as "Star Wars". The Soviets perceived it as a threat, even though the plan's feasibility and cost was widely questioned. The presence of SDI and, in hindsight, last-ditch efforts by the dying Soviet empire to show strength were a few of the reasons the agreement took nine years to ratify...

Read the rest of this article at the Commonwealth Club blog. Click here.

Obama Angles To Allow Potheads To Chill

2009-03-25T23:15:00.000-07:00

FDR LEGALIZED ALCOHOL IN 1933 TO CALM AMERICANS
The parallels between the first 100 days of the Roosevelt presidency and that of Obama's have been much commented upon, with Roosevelt's first days being used as a yardstick for legislative achievement or at least activity. Now a new link between the two eras has begun to emerge: the decriminalization of marijuana.

In 1933, after Roosevelt enacted a steady stream of legislation to secure the nation's economy that would last generations, he repealed the 18th Amendment allowing for the sale of alcohol. While it was long a Democratic desire to do so, the practical reason was to generate tax receipts from the sale of liquor and expand various programs to put people back to work. It seems times have not changed much in 76 years.

Former San Francisco Supervisor and current State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano says the flailing California economy could receive a $1 billion boost by taxing the sale of marijuana. The legislation is currently in Sacramento. According to a Time article, the estimated $14 billion in sales of the drug would nearly double the state's next largest cash-crop -- milk and cream.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder also signaled that the government is beginning to soften its decades-old stance against marijuana when he said that federal raids against California cannabis clubs would cease (such dispensaries are legal in the state) and states would be allowed to make their own laws on the subject.

As populist anger continues to bubble over regarding the economy, a steady stream of huge unemployment figures and the current scandal of corporate bonuses paid with taxpayer money, The Nation's Alexander Cockburn thinks making pot legal might calm the citizenry the way making alcohol legal was intended to cool pre-Great Depression America.

Ending Prohibition was functional to social control. If people head for the bars, they'd be less likely to man the barricades, calling for real change. As FDR's popularity soared, so Obama's popularity has soared for dope smokers, among them those whom the herb is the best and cheapest line of defense against pain.

The Internet has cultivated a large following of cogent pleas for decriminalization easily outnumbered by thousands of hokey ideas and conspiracy theories. The functionality of hemp seems to be quite popular on many of these sites. One unlikely voice in the crowd is noted travel author Rick Steves, who recently visited the Commonwealth Club of California to discuss not marijuana, but his film on Iran.

In a interview this week with Salon, the author gave his views on the elitism of many of our laws regarding pot.

The fact is, the marijuana law in the U.S. is a big lie. It's racist and classist. White rich people can smoke marijuana with impunity and poor black people get a record, can't get education, can't get a loan, and all of sudden go into a life of desperation and become hardened criminals. Why? Because we've got a racist law based on lies about marijuana.

It is unlikely a full repeal of many of these marijuana laws would occur under Obama -- the nation and the relative strength of many moderate Democrats and the Republican party would make it difficult even under the guise of increased tax revenue. What the attorney general's announcement indicates is a willingness to look away similar to what law enforcement already does when there are bigger problems than a high schooler smoking pot during fifth period.

This article is featured at The Commonwealth Club of California blog. commonwealthclub.blogspot.com

S.F. Chronicle Again Lays Down Racial Overtones In Oakland Killings

2009-03-23T15:46:00.000-07:00

CHRON'S DEMIAN BULWA AGAIN LEADS PRO-POLICE SLANT B/W COPS AND BLACKS
Here's a cautionary tale of what could happen if metropolitan areas begin losing newspapers and the pulse of the community is lost from reporters:

Four Oakland police officers were killed this weekend by a parolee fearful of returning to prison. The story is tragic and points to real policies debates that need to be confronted, namely, overturning President Bush's repeal of the mid-90s assault rifle ban, but what happens when the Bay Area's pre-eminent daily shows a complete unawareness of the nuances of the story as it relates to the community?

All the Bay Area papers led with screaming front pages stories of the Friday slayings, but the cross-bay San Francisco Chronicle showed both an elitist and ignorantly slanted reporting of the story. Here's the lede Saturday from the triumvirate of Jaxon Van Derbeken, Demian Bulwa and Carolyn Jones:

Three Oakland police sergeants were shot and killed and a fourth officer was critically wounded Saturday in a pair of related incidents that together rank among the deadliest attacks on law enforcement in California history.

How did the inclusion of the imagery of an "attack" find its way into the lede without an editor asking for a rewrite? Is the new-look Chronicle attempting to color its coverage with more of a tabloid edge these days or are they oblivious to the racial overtones and inherent animosity between the law enforcement in Oakland and blacks and other minorities? The imagery of attacking the powers that be conjures up terrorist us-against-them propaganda. The terrorists "attacked" the World Trade Center. The "blacks" attacked the police department. The coverage of BART policeman Johannes Mehserle on a black man at the Oakland Fruitvale station was never describe as an attack by anyone. (Also, read the Chronicle's simplistic, downright dopey editorial from today.)

If these Chronicle staff writers knew the beat and actually covered the communities words like "attack" would not have been written. The prevailing attitude on the streets is obvious sorrow for the men in uniform who perished, yet underneath that feeling is the notion the police have taken out more of "them" than they have taken from the police. This mistrust is teeming through the city of Oakland and will likely get worse. The theory going around is that the rage on the police department's side will be taken out on the poor blacks in Oakland.

This is not the first time the Chronicle has shown a pro-law enforcement bent. An LFR posting from Jan. 5 of this year illustrated the differences between their coverage of the Oscar Grant BART shooting and the Oakland Tribune. The same reporter on this weekend's story, Demian Bulwa, showed either a lack of understanding regarding Oakland or simply was too lazy to get any other side of the story other than the Police department's

Similarly, the Oakland Tribune again published a solid, down-the-center story Saturday which did not evoke either side in a just-the-facts style. This, too, may not have been a function of knowing their backyard, but with such an explosive story playing it down the middle is the smartest journalistic course of action.

Many in the newspaper industry lament the day when a large American city will not have a daily newspaper on its streets, but what happens when reporters on any platform, whether on paper or on the Internet fail to actually report?

Feel The Noise: Washington Is Miscalculating Americans' Fury

2009-03-19T14:08:00.000-07:00

AIG SCANDAL IS GREATLY TARNISHING THE OBAMA IMAGE OF CHANGE
David Kurtz at talkingpointsmemo.com thinks the comments made by Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod are symptoms of tone deafness on the administration's part. Emanuel called the AIG scandal a "big distraction" and Axelrod added the American people "are thinking about their own jobs."

The entire Beltway has its ears clogged with ear wax on this one. The Treasury was well aware of the bonuses. They were then caught flat-footed when their existance became known and appeared impotent in their unwillingness to get the money back. If the anger was not palpable enough, they seemed to go along with AIG CEO Edward Liddy's offer of returning half of the bonuses while feigning a sob story to Congress that he feared for his employees safety. The president seems weak and Congress looks strident in passing a bill that will tax AIG bonuses at 90 percent. One congressman even flippantly added, "we figure state and local taxes would take the rest."

Axelrod is correct. Americans are worrying about their jobs, but their capacity to think is far larger than the White House believes. This scandal is unique in recent American political history. A story that sweeps across every possible demographic--an oddity--an issue every American is vociferously angered about and knowledgeable, too. But, here's the weirdest theory I've heard in a long time from the intern at Salon's War Room blog. The Obama people are setting us to wow us.

Those kinds of comments may, on their face, seem like a misstep politically. It’s worth noting, however, that nobody plays rope-a-dope as well as President Obama and his people. It would be just like them to let outrage build, allow themselves to be portrayed as feckless and ineffectual, and then roll out a plan that capitalizes on public outrage, gets their priorities through Congress and leaves the president stronger than he was at the start of this whole thing. That's no guarantee, but they've pulled it off before.

The author, Gabriel Winant, is apparently tone deaf, too. Likely swilling overpriced cocktails in a trendy South of Market San Francisco bar with pierced hipsters and wide-eyed, young cub reporters. This issue is not the appropriate time to be playing Machiavellian politics and I doubt Obama's inner circle has a plan at this late stage to miraculously fix the problem or change the subject.

Americans are really angry and part of the rage may not be the relatively paltry $165 million going to undeserving financial analysts but because these sort of shenanigans were promised by Presidnet Obama to be a thing of the past.

AIG CEO: Give Them Half

2009-03-18T16:20:00.000-07:00

AMERICANS DEMAND ALL OF THE BONUSES RETURNED
I use to know a little kid who realized bargaining from a position of power had its advantages. She would start by asking for four scoops of ice cream--a totally unacceptable proposition--while knowing she would settle for just two. It worked. Is that what the CEO of AIG is trying to pull with Congress?

Edward Liddy testified before Congress and said he has encouraged those who received over $100,000 bonuses to return half of the windfall to the company. Robert Scheer sheds more light on the executive who also led AIG on a $440,000 company excursion last year.

AIG believes American are up in arms because they believe the failed executives received too much money, but deserved a little something for running the company and the U.S. Treasury into the ground. Just when you thought the AIG debacle could get worse, the captains of American finance, with their heads in piles of $100 bills find a new low.

The New York Times article insinuates Liddy's offer is being looked at favorably by Congress, wait until tomorrow when their constituents flood their phone systems and email servers with a constant litany of anger for this new middle way.

Americans do not trust Congress as far as they can collectively throw them to handle each of these bailouts. Recouping half of something when none was deserved is not acceptable. Over 400 shameful employees of AIG split $165 million in bonuses after accepted nearly $150 billion in taxpayer supported bailout money. We see at it as it is: the rich getting richer by making us poorer. This time, though, we're wise to them.

Americans Are Getting Angrier; Will They Take It out On Obama?

2009-03-17T14:43:00.000-07:00

REPUBLICANS ARE POISED TO TAKE UP THE POPULIST MANTLE
Here's something a bit worrisome: It is now apparent President Obama failed the first test of his decision-making abilities when he appointed Timothy Geithner to the Treasury. Worse, it was the one cabinet position that needed to sufficiently filled for the times we live. Shockingly, the administration has backed dubious bank-friendly policies and incoherent explanations from Geithner about what he intends to do with the banks. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz has a fine article in The Nation this week that illustrates the Treasury Department's apprehension to make the tough decisions.

Robert Reich says get rid of him before more damage is done, although he recommends Paul Volcker, whose monetary policies were the reason for the 1981-82 recession--the original worst recession since the Great Depression?

It is possible that we will look back at the administration's feeble attempts to dissuade AIG not to pay up to $165 million in bonuses to the very people who torched the company and the economy as the beginning of populist anger that can be easily co-opted by the Republican party. Most likely, the immense pressure the White House and Congress can apply will force AIG to find some sort of escape clause allowing them to recoup the bonuses, but the damage has been done. While the former president signed off executive orders with impunity, even possibly trashing the Constitution in the process, this president cannot stop an insolvent insurance company masquerading as a hedge fund from doing the wrong thing. This is not the sort of change in Washington Obama vowed to bring.

Although Obama currently garners the support of about two-thirds of opinion polls, it's hard not to see the likelihood of Congressional losses in 2010 and here the seed may have been sown. History has shown the havoc that can be caused with a restless, underemployed electorate. Mix in, an incredibly weak minority party waiting for the perfect campaign theme and you have the recipe for a reawakened Republican party.

By the fall, the poor economy can fairly be viewed as "owned" by Obama's policies and populist anger is something that can easily be molded to your own means. All Republicans would have to do in mid-term elections is point to the perception no one in administration seems to know how to fix the problem, so they just throw "taxpayer" money at it. The Republicans don't even have to be particularly dirty to make the point, either.

Rep. Mitch McConnell makes a cogent point in the Times, "The government has been heavily involved in A.I.G. for some months now. It’s shocking that they would — the administration would come to us now and act surprised about these contracts. Why didn’t they ask the question two weeks ago, before they gave them $30 billion?” An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal also makes this point and rightly points the finger at politicians, too.

If the public continues to see the economy grow worse in tandem with these easily recognizable abuses by the financial sector, it is likely conservatives will make positive gains next year while the image of Obama as the "chosen one" is greatly diminished.

Populist Anger Threatens To Derail Obama

2009-03-16T14:38:00.000-07:00

Jon Stewart is a comedian, not a media critic, but he voiced America's frustration with the financial system last week when he sparred with CNBC's Jim Cramer. Robert Reich is an economist who better summed up the essence of Stewart's populist rant in a word: "helpless."

Read more of this article at The Commonwealth Club of California blog at commonwealthclub.blogspot.com

Newsom Is Nuts; You Can't Be Honest About Your Positions And Win

2009-03-13T14:41:00.000-07:00

SO FAR, A MAN OF HIS CONVICTIONS EXPLORES A RUN FOR GOVERNOR
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom might be too young, too inexperienced and too forthright to be the governor of California, but he was, at times, inspiring this week at the Commonwealth Club when speaking about the issue most closely linked to him nationally, same-sex marriage.

“The idea that someone wants to share that moment and that experience of something that has been denied them their entire life and they want you to share that, and for [me] to say no because I'm worried about my politics is everything I'm not about. If I was worried about politics I would have never done this, ever. Do you think it's helped in the context of everything else? These guys are running around -- these politicians -- on this.

"I know it's not good politics," he continued. "I understand it better than any human being alive. Every single day people are expressing their point of view about how outraged they are and every consultant saying, 'Well, just tone it down.' I can't tone [down] something as fundamental as someone else's rights. If a politician can put aside someone else's rights so they can get ahead politically ... you've got a million politicians who wish to do that. I'm never going to be that person. I never will.”

When listening to Newsom speak so candidly about controversial issues like same-sex marriage and the death penalty, you can't help but think either he is psychotic or possibly a political visionary who ultimately will benefit greatly in the future when some of the vehement opinions of the right water down towards acceptance. Nevertheless, I have never heard a politician for higher office ever speak like Newsom did last Wednesday.

To read my article on Mayor Gavin Newsom's appearance Wednesday night at the Commonwealth Club of California's blog. Click here.

Sonny Corinthos Runs For Governor

2009-03-10T17:26:00.000-07:00

SEPARATED A BIRTH? Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has an uncanny resemblance to General Hospital's resident gangster Sonny Corinthos. The mayor's gubernatorial aspirations took a setback last week when only 128,000 Angelenos out of 1.2 million registered voters sent him back to the mayor's office. Here's hoping Villaraigosa runs L.A. a little different than Port Charles.

Rush Falls All Over Himself; Waits For Gingrich To Kiss His Ring

2009-03-09T20:01:00.000-07:00

LIMBAUGH SEEMS INTENT ON BOOSTING RATINGS AT EXPENSE OF THE GOP
Rush Limbaugh has reached levels of delusion unknown to mankind. After Newt Gingrich took a shot at the GOPfather's legitimacy yesterday on Meet the Press, Limbaugh sounded off on the former Speaker of the House, saying:

Here's my attitude on this. I am at the top of the mountain of what I do. Everybody underneath it wants what I've got. That's great. That's human nature. As such, they'll do what they can to take me down or to criticize me or what have you. It is beneath my dignity to be critical of those beneath me. It's just a waste of time. All this is such human nature. I know that Newt would give his whatever to have what I've got. So would any of these other critics of mine.

Is Limbaugh beginning to live up to the observation made by David Letterman that he looked like an Eastern European thug? (See the photo above) Is Limbaugh on drugs again? If not, is he taking his meds and who told him to wear a black silk shirt unbuttoned wide? I haven't seen so much chest hair exposed since the Portuguese dance last Fall.

So, another Republican is challenging Limbaugh. Who cares? In attacking a venerable old lion of the party, Limbaugh can assured that The Newt will not return next week with an exhaustive mea culpa like other Republican weaklings have done recently. What the statements do reveal is that Limbaugh is honest about his motives. He is an entertainer with a huge daily radio audience. He is not the leader of the party, nor does he want it. What "Ditto heads" should realize, though, is that his relentless quest for ratings is hurting the party he professes to adore. Makes you wonder if a conservative can really trust him. Of course, you shouldn't trust a liberal like me with the intent to further divide the Republican party either.

It's Time To Impound GM

2009-03-09T18:46:00.000-07:00

OBAMA NEEDS TO BEGIN MAKING THE UNPOPULAR, TOUGH DECISIONS
If you view a laid-off employee as the top of their very own food chain, as the Los Angeles Times posits today, then their activities, or lack thereof, would ripple down to the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker.

In a story today, the Times used the example of a Southern California man whose software deal fell through, which then forced him to lay off his employees. In other sections of the article lay-offs meant consumers put off haircuts and skimped here and there to stretch their budgets.

Of course, there's an unquestioned rationale to this phenomenon, but isn't this the case General Motors and the United Auto Workers are trying to pass as reason for the government to keep it afloat? The GM question is indicative of many of the financial dilemmas facing the Obama administration. How can a company and, by extension, an industry so steeped in the American culture like the automotive business be allowed to flounder? Yet, when does continually propping up GM as a practical long-term policy become a lost cause?

CBS News today wondered what bankruptcy would likely mean to workers. The decision would likely trickle down to the closing of part makers and the shuddering of car dealerships around the country. That means, thousands of factory workers, mechanics and car salesmen added to the unemployment rolls. On the other hand is it wise to give another $15 billion or so to GM just to keep the lights on when it is likely another $20-$30 billion may be needed a few months from now.

President Obama ran on a platform preparing Americans to tighten their belts and begin making the tough decisions. He has yet to make those decisions. Although, maybe we should give him some time since according to a well-researched article in the New York Review of Books that chronicles his first month in office, Obama has spent an inordinate amount of time simply turning back many of President Bush's horrendous policies. Yet, on the economy, the Treasury Department has done little to force the banks and the entire financial system to concede one point similar to the circumstances around GM.

Instead of holding these auto-related industries in place while they lie precariously on the edge to oblivion, how about pulling the plug on them while there is time for the government to restructure the work force in an orderly manner. The New York Times ran a chilling front page article last Friday that reinforced this notion that the workforce is in many cases, obsolete. A chief economist at Wachovia Bank said, "These jobs aren’t coming back.” Isn't that what the foreman in the Bruce Springsteen song "My Hometown" said?

"Foreman says these jobs are going boys and they ain't coming back to your hometown," sang The Boss. Ironically, those lyrics were written during the equally disastrous 1981-82 recession.

There would be repercussion other than in employment. Sure, innovation would suffer. Plans for the vaunted Chevy Volt would gather dust, but who would be able to afford a $35,000 green car without a job or reliable financing available. We can take the hit now and hope for the recovery to not just get us back on our collective feet, but in far better position to dominate the marketplace for the next 30 years.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said last week, the voters showed that the last 30 years of conservatism was a failure, yet the decisions this president is making on behalf of liberalism will define the next 30 years either positively or negatively for another generation of American political thought. Now is not the time for short-term thinking.

Friedman Says The Unmentionable

2009-03-06T18:28:00.000-08:00

NYT COLUMNIST SEES A ROCKY FIRST-TERM FOR OBAMA
It seems like people don't want to face the truth. Some people have been calling this era of economic downturn as not a Great Depression in the making, but, instead the "Great Repression".

It has been said here many times the presence of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in tandem with the hovering spirit of Robert Rubin would portend for more of the same faulty economic decisions that got us into this fiscal turmoil. Nobody wants to say the banks are insolvent even as Citigroup flirted with sub-one dollar stock prices yesterday. And nobody would dare say the early-goings of the nascent Obama administration might flail in response to this crisis until Thomas Friedman wrote it yesterday in The New York Times and others quickly sought to skewer him. For instance, Vanity Fair's political blog.

"But do you know what I fear? I fear that his whole first term could be eaten by Citigroup, A.I.G., Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and the whole housing/subprime credit bubble we inflated these past 20 years," said Friedman before illustrating how big this banking beast really is and how nobody has a clue how to solve it.

I hope my fears are exaggerated. But ask yourself this: Why couldn’t former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson solve this problem? And why does it seem as though his successor, Tim Geithner, won’t even look us in the eye and spell out his strategy? Is it because they don’t get it? No. It is because they know — like Roy Scheider in the movie “Jaws,” when he first saw the great white shark — that “we’re gonna need a bigger boat,” and they’re too afraid to tell us just how big.

Instead, the administration seems to be relying on the American people to become inured to the price tags zooming by them. $700 billion there. $350 billion there. $14 billion there and $2 billion in aid to some far-flung despotic third-world country. After time, what's a few billion here or there. Most of us cannot grasp what a billion looks like anyway. Republicans like Sen. John McCain, on the other hand, are appalled at a mere $1.7 million earmarked to study the foul smell of pigs.

In the meantime, things are continuing to get worse. Jobless claims again rose to 651,000 spearing any hope that the we have hit the bottom. In reality, we may have reached that point, but the bottom is just becoming wider and will only persist until the administration confronts the banks in earnest.

I heard an interesting fact last week on Real Time with Bill Maher. The Chinese character for crisis is the same for the word opportunity. An interesting notion that Obama's pledge of change is not wholly grasping.

The Homeless Cellphone Kings?

2009-03-06T17:40:00.000-08:00

CONSERVATIVES WANT A FOIL? CHECK OUT S.F.'S LATTE-DRINKING HOMELESS

The dust-up over the photo of Michelle Obama being photographed by a "homeless" man's cellphone reminds me of President Reagan falsely highlighting the notion of the "welfare queen".

Conservative bloggers have been merciless in poking fun at the fact that a person at a soup kitchen has a cellphone. To that, I say, is it 1995? Who doesn't have a cellphone and do any of those critics know how much a phone costs these days. Back in the early 90s, George H.W. Bush famously did not know the price of a gallon of milk. Have conservatives gone to the T-Mobile kiosk at their local mall lately? For all we know, the phone in question may be linked a billing plan suited for low-income people or more likely a pay-as-you-go type deal.

What is funny are the cracks about a homeless shelter serving mushroom risotto (in the above photo you can see the day's menu posted). Salon's Alex Koppelman didn't grasp its humor, though, sounding much like one of those liberals oblivious to jokes centered to closely to politics he wrote, "(For the record, it was actually mushroom risotto. And her nasty 'weird crap' remark? It's rice cooked in chicken stock with some vegetables, something most cultures are quite familiar with, no matter what you choose to call it. Come on.)" I love risotto. Maybe being homeless wouldn't be so bad, after all.

All I have to add to this story is that I have encountered an instance of homelessness that Bill O'Reilly would love. In November of last year, I wrote an article about a homeless woman in San Francisco named Rhonda who sat on the same spot near Market Street seemingly without notice of passing businessmen and tourists. Read the article here.

It would seem to conservative eyes that Rhonda is the richest of the poorest. On many occasions, I've seen Rhonda sitting in the nearby Starbucks sipping a venti coffee. Ah, those latte liberals, O'Reilly might scream, but how much is a regular cup of coffee at Starbucks? Two bucks. Don't tell O'Reilly about this, but if you do, the offending Starbucks is near the corner of 4th and Market and the barista is the fastest I've ever seen.

GOP's 'Obama' Falls Flat

2009-02-28T12:47:00.000-08:00

MOST PANNED SPEECH IN 20 YEARS SETS JINDAL FOR CLINTON COMEBACK
It was ironic that during which a film set in India and partially created by Indians won the Academy Award for Best Picture while America's top Indian political figure fell flat on his face.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's response to the State of the Union is the most panned high-profile political speech in 20 years. Not since then-Governor Bill Clinton droned on and on at the 1988 Democratic National Convention has the political ground shaken harder and swallowed up a rising star of the party.

Everybody on both sides of the aisle had disparaging words for Jindal's sing-song performance. He reminded me of an Indian Woody from the children's film Toy Story.

I'm your favorite deputy, Mr Limbaugh!

The numbers genius from fivethirtyeight.com Nate Silver had the night's biggest zinger when he said, "If it sounds like Jindal is targeting his speech to a room full of fourth graders, that's because he is. They might be the next people to actually vote for Republicans again."

In retrospect, MSNBC's Chris Matthews was quite prescient in uttering his audible, "Oh God" just as Jindal appeared. He apologized the next day saying he was only referring to the "stagecraft" of the speech.

In the end, the Republican Party's "Obama" crashed and burned on the national stage, but the connection to Clinton's comparable fizzle in 1988 should be examined. Both are Southern governors and highly-skilled intellectual minds. Both were anointed up-and-coming stars in their parties and possibly presidential candidates. No matter what American mythology says, there are second acts in American political life. Clinton did the talk show circuit and allowed himself to be made fun of. Four years later, the guy known for talking too much became president.

The breadth of the criticism against Jindal has been shocking. So much so, that Rush Limbaugh felt compelled to evoke Reagan's 11th Commandment--though shall not talk ill of fellow Republicans. The incongruity of the response is so evident that it should allow Jindal the ability to brush himself off and continue to burnish his credentials for a run in 2012. He could one day be the guy who use to be the guy who looked childish and dorky on national television, only to rise again.

NYT Reporter Says U.S. Will Be In Afghanistan for 30-50 years

2009-02-27T13:28:00.000-08:00

The United States could be enmeshed in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas for the next 30-50 years, according to The New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent David Sanger.

Click here to read my entire article from the Commonwealth Club of California and other postings.

Bankers Break It, Taxpayers Buy It

2009-02-24T14:30:00.000-08:00

NATIONALIZATION NOT IMMINENT; YET GROUNDWORK IS BEING LAID
The Citibank web site has a curious marketing slogan atop its home page, "we never sleep." Presumably, the motto means customer's can do their banking anytime, but with nationalization of banks becoming more likely by the day, it could be an admission of many sleepless night to come.

The past week has seen more than a whisper campaign from some Democrats and few leading economists that the short-term remedy for the banking system is nationalization. Sen. Chris Dodd has said it may "unavoidable", which is nearly equivalent to saying, "Folks, get ready. It's happening." It's no wonder the stock market, although briefly rallied today, is beginning to see the reckoning a collapse of Citibank, Bank of America and Wells Fargo could mean to the economy and the administration is slowly setting the stage for nationalization. For the time being, though, President Obama and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke say nationalization is not on the radar. Bernanke's comments today stoked Wall Street and that was his intent.

The Washington Post reports today the Obama administration tweaked the terms of government assistance by demanding common stock in lieu of cash. "The change paves a road toward nationalization for the most troubled large banks," according to the Post. A piece on Bloomberg.com goes further in calling nationalization inevitable.

Nationalizing the nation's top banks has its drawbacks. With taxpayers already shouldering a large burden of risk that is likely to increase in the future, backing the financial sector may be too much. Some economists even believe another stimulus bill of nearly the same sticker price will be needed within two years. On the other hand, taxpayers saw little in return in the form of consumer lending after the initial $350 billion bailout money passed late last year and news reports of lavish executive spending and multi-million dollar bonuses left a lingering distrust of banks to apply the aid judiciously.

How poor is the health of the nation's biggest financial institutions? The grand sage of the credit mess, New York University Professor Nouriel Roubini laid it out in this week's issue of Time, saying Citibank is "on the way to ICU," Bank of America should "prepare the transfusion" and surprisingly, Wells Fargo needs a "Defibrillator. Stat!"

The poor health of these once mighty institution is a reminder of how their bottom line's were nothing more than a house of cards. Just 16 months ago, Bank of America and Citigroup were quarterly flipping top positions for the title of world's largest bank. Today, they may be on the verge of being owned by the biggest economy in the world.

Report: Iran Has Enough Uranium To Build At Least One Nuke

2009-02-21T18:36:00.000-08:00

IS IT TIME TO TALK TO IRAN OR STRIKE?
In David E. Sanger's new book, The Inheritance, the chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times writes, "the Iranians may be so close to a bomb -- a few screwdriver turns away -- that there is no hope of stopping the country from becoming nuclear capable."

In yesterday's Times, Sanger and William Broad reported the Iranians have created "more than a ton" of enriched uranium -- a third more than previously known, which the article cites as enough to build an atomic bomb. If the Iranians now have sufficient amount of enriched uranium, Sanger's assessment is proving quite prescient.

In the book, Sanger also writes Olli Heinonen, the International Atomic Energy Agency's chief inspector, saw 2008 as a "breakthrough year" for Iranian uranium enrichment capabilities.

The summer before, Heinonen had predicted that by the end of 2008 the Iranians would likely be running upward of 4,000 of the high-speed machines [centrifuges] -- enough to make a bomb's worth of uranium in a year's time if they choose to enrich to bomb-grade purity. His prediction proved just about right.

While the new Obama administration has indicated its willingness to talk to Iran, the increased likelihood of a nuclear Iran could change some opinions in Washington, possibly allowing some hawkish members of Congress to revert to the previous administration's stated intentions to disrupt at any costs -- through sanctions or military action -- Iranian designs on creating a nuclear bomb.

The Bush administration had contemplated military airstrikes against Iran publicly since 2006, but Sanger reports in his book that the consensus for success was lacking. "Military experts who have studied the options say an airstrike could be devastating," writes Sanger, but also that it would not be quick. He quotes a former head of intelligence for the Middle East and the Defense Intelligence Agency as saying, "You are talking about something in the neighborhood of a thousand strike sorties and it would take all kinds of stuff -- air, cruise missiles, multiple airstrikes -- to make sure you've got it all." Some estimates, according to Sanger, have such a campaign lasting a week or two and making U.S. interests in the region vulnerable to attack from Hamas and Hezbollah.

Iran may have the enough nuclear materials, but they do not yet have a bomb. It is quite possible that the mullahs and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not seek the actually warhead but merely seek what Sanger calls "a virtual bomb".

In the Second Nuclear Age, countries don't need to compile huge stockpiles of the sort that the Americans and Soviets amassed during the Cold War. All they need is a "virtual bomb," a credible capacity to build one in a few months and credible willingness to do so.

It appears the Iranians have achieved both points. How will President Obama react to this new nuclear paradigm?

Is GM About To Lead The Nationalization of Medicine?

2009-02-21T18:13:00.000-08:00

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TELLS GM TO RESTRUCTURE
American economic monoliths tend to steer the wheels of commerce by their sheer size and influence. A state like California can enact sweeping environmental laws that leads other states to do the same, and when a company like McDonald's acquiesces to posting nutritional information, others follow. As General Motors and the United Auto Workers iron out a deal involving its vaunted health care challenges, will its decision change how others do business and the debate due to commence in Washington?

As a part of GM's vast restructuring plan, the automaker is negotiating with the UAW to change the terms of the 2007 agreement that created a $35 billion trust fund for employee health care. To justify additional government bailout dollars, GM must show Washington details for future plans. The New York Times noted, GM "has to address how a company that lost more than $20 billion last year can afford $5 billion a year in medical bills."

Matt Miller, whose book The Tyranny of Dead Ideas identifies the role of companies paying for employee health care benefits as one of those mortally-wounded ideas. Instead, he believes the government should carry the burden like every other nation in the industrialized world. In his book, Miller writes:

The second force — The Rush for the Exits — is corporate America's desire to stop providing health care and pensions to its employees. To be sure, these costs are soaring in ways that seem unsustainable, especially when competing firms in other nations bear fewer of them. Still, American business leaders act today as if their search for an "exit strategy" on benefits is the end of the conversation. What happens to the millions of workers who are left unprotected if companies simply walk away?

Miller told NPR last month that the government would need to raise taxes to foot the bill, but with Baby Boomers retiring, taxes will increase anyway. "We need to tax ourselves more smartly ... [by] cutting taxes on things like payrolls, which hurt lower-income workers and kill jobs, and raising taxes on dirty energy, which we want to cut back on because of our environmental goals," said Miller.
The Obama administration may be signaling a willingness to allow GM to tinker with health care, according to statements made by his adviser David Axelrod and the naming of Ron Bloom as a key adviser to the Treasury Department. Bloom, according to the Wall Street Journal, is known for forcing parties to make significant concessions.

If GM is able to restructure its health-care responsibilities under the eyes of the White House, health-care reform critics and proponents alike will be wondering whether it could be the harbinger of the wholesale transfer of health care from private industry to the public sphere in the future.

Psst..The Banks Are Insolvent; Please Don't Tell Wall Street

2009-02-17T18:31:00.000-08:00

PROPPING UP THE BANKS WILL PROLONG THE RECESSION
Here's the dirty, dark secret nobody with a stake in the economy wants you to dwell upon: the biggest financial institutions in the U.S. are insolvent.

Economists like Paul Krugman and people like Robert Reich have been saying this for awhile, but, they too, seem to bury the sentences in their prose. Everybody seems frightened to deal with the 800-pound elephant sitting in the corner for fear of causing the stock market to dive into a free fall of epic proportions. The rationale from a banker's perspective is sound if you account for the fact that the health of the industry is predicated on consumer confidence in banks. From a political and policy making standpoint, feigning it's importance through the lack of public discourse is dangerous.

On the heels of Tim Geithner's universally-panned debut in unveiling the administration's newest plan to bailout the banks, it should not shock observers that the same group of officials who oversaw the crumbling of Wall Street would find loopholes to further cover the backs of their brethren once they came into power. Nicholas Von Hoffman at The Nation crafts a scenario where the slavish nature of Washington to the banks mirrors the dreaded comparison to Japan's economic "lost decade" of the 1990s.

Try as the nation would, it could not return to prosperity. According to most everybody who has studied it, the reason Japan was unable to cure itself was its policy of propping up the country's major banks, which were largely insolvent.

As mentioned, the banks--Citigroup and Bank of America, notably--are insolvent. While hackneyed Congressmen skewer the executives of these banks for dubious spending habit while receiving government aid, the money in the first round of $350 billion in TARP aid did nothing to release the credit crunch. This phrase has been overused lately, but, the government is really spending good money after bad and it likely will not cease as long as former bankers in the administration continue to enable the industry.

The problem is we live in an era of politicians institutionally frightened to make the tough decisions. The American economy needs to take its bitter medicine. Von Hoffman writes bluntly: "Doubtless they are scared out of their wits at what that might do to the stock market. The market will take a big hit, but in due course it will bobble up again. That's what markets do."

It seems prolonging our current situation by sidestepping the problem is what politicians do.

Obama Makes Friends; GOP Still The Meanie

2009-02-17T17:57:00.000-08:00

Now that President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus package into law with a smidgen of bipartisan support, what's next on the "working with the other guys" front?

The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg believes the President will not shelve his support of reaching out to Congressional Republicans. He even goes so far to compare his resolve to that of the Civil Rights leaders and even Ghandi.

Fifty years ago, the civil-rights movement understood that nonviolence can be an effective weapon even if—or especially if—the other side refuses to follow suit. Obama has a similarly tough-minded understanding of the political uses of bipartisanship, which, even if it fails as a tactic for compromise, can succeed as a tonal strategy: once the other side makes itself appear intransigently, destructively partisan, the game is half won. Obama is learning to throw the ball harder. But it’s not Rovian hardball he’s playing. More like Gandhian hardball.

If Obama continues this gambit in wooing Republicans without compromise he could seriously anger the left--a constituency that feels it was purposely denied access to government by the Bush administration for eight years. Will Obama spend energy on the GOP regarding health care or even the likely next confrontation over the Treasury's $2 billion overhaul of the banking industry? Unfortunately, if Obama sticks to his plan of attack, Washington may be on the verge of grinding to a halt in a wholly different way to when the Senate was virtually 50-50.

As noted last week and lampooned on Saturday Night Live, the GOP leadership has a plan for the next 18 months--obstructionism followed by the framing of the poor economy as solely Obama's baby.

Reverting back to ones childhood might be instructive. How many times do you attempt to play friendly with the kid who had all the cool toys, but did not allow you to partake in the fun? Once? Twice? By the third time you either found another friend or push the kid into the shrubs. If Republicans don't play nice, eventually Democrats are going to begin shoving conservatives into the icy Potomac.

GOP Plays CSI With Economy

2009-02-16T19:29:00.000-08:00

IF ECONOMY CONTINUE TO TANK IN '10; GOP IS 'INNOCENT'
The politics over the stimulus plan and its near-unanimous rejection by congressional Republicans is already taking center stage for the drama that will be the 2010 mid-term elections. Robert Reich wrote an interesting blog posting this week exploring the reasons why Republicans will not have a thing to do with the proposal.

Republicans don't want their fingerprints on the stimulus bill or the next bank bailout because they plan to make the midterm election of 2010 a national referendum on Barack Obama's handling of the economy. They know that by then the economy will still appear sufficiently weak that they can dub the entire Obama effort a failure -- even if the economy would have been far worse without it, even if the economy is beginning to turn around.

During two votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, no Republican backed either version of the stimulus. It took a few centrist-leaning Northeastern Republicans to win passage by a single vote in the Senate. A Reuters story yesterday implied that President Obama's rival Sen. John McCain was portraying the nascent administration as adverse to bipartisanship and characterized the plan by saying, "I think that the majority of people understand that this was generational theft." Democrats, conversely, begin to complain that the bill was too bipartisan -- even without GOP cooperation. In an interview with conservative newsweekly NewsMax, the leader of 1994's "Contract with America" Newt Gingrich said he "absolutely" sees a connection between when Republicans took over the House and 2010.

Irwin M. Stelzer imparts these talking points while writing in The Weekly Standard and illustrates this point by saying that Obama "now owns the recession." By pegging the troubled economy solely on Obama, these critics may believe that the president cannot possibly make in-roads in quite enough time for congressional elections next year.

He has asked to be judged by whether this bill and other measures he will propose create or "save" 3.5-to-4 million jobs, the number lost so far since unemployment turned up. Forget "save" -- if unemployment keeps rising, voters are not likely to rally around the slogan "It would be still worse if I hadn't spent your trillions." What the President has done is to promise what he certainly can't deliver in time for the congressional elections next year -- a reversal of job destruction, and millions of new jobs, said Stelzer.

When it's all said and done, it's still all about the economy, stupid, as Bill Clinton's campaign declared in 1992. How President Obama, congressional Democrats and the Republican opposition react to that in 2009 will be a tale we're likely to hear a lot about in 2010.

Stim Bill Isn't Sufficiently Super-Sized

2009-02-16T19:21:00.000-08:00

DEALING WITH THE GOP DEFLATED THE PLAN'S OOOMMPH
President Obama will likely sign a stimulus bill this week roughly the same size he initially offered, but wholly different in composition. Some like Robert Reich and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman never thought it was large enough in the first place, and the watered down bill is furthering their anxiety. Krugman wrote last week:

And I don’t know about you, but I’ve got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach — a feeling that America just isn’t rising to the greatest economic challenge in 70 years. The best may not lack all conviction, but they seem alarmingly willing to settle for half-measures. And the worst are, as ever, full of passionate intensity, oblivious to the grotesque failure of their doctrine in practice.

During a speech last month at The Commonwealth Club of California, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich reiterated his belief that the stimulus bill should be over $900 billion or more over the next two years. On his blog he wrote this week:

But what if the stimulus isn't big enough? (I fear it won't be, given the large and growing gap between what the economy can produce at near full-employment and the meager demand coming from consumers and businesses.) And what if the bailout doesn't quite work? (It may not, given that the banking system is collapsing and many banks are actually insolvent.) The economy in November of 2010 may be worse than it is now, with no turnaround in sight.

Reich also predicted during his Commonwealth Club address that President Obama might bargain with Republicans to win votes in a bipartisan fashion. This indeed occurred, and the nearly across-the-board rejection by Republicans of the plan has rankled many Democrats. Joan Walsh at Salon wrote today about President Obama, "He better have learned that Washington bipartisanship is dead." Even the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, admitted that working with congressional Republicans who were dead set against the bill was a mistake. Not surprisingly, the editors at the conservative National Review declared President Obama's economic plan already has a ring of "no-confidence" surrounding it.

This article and others can be read at the Commonwealth Club of California's blog, commonwealthclub.blogspot.com.

Another One Bites The Dust; Gregg Out

2009-02-12T16:46:00.000-08:00

NOMINATE SEBELIUS AND MOVE ON
The trouble with dealing with Republicans in your cabinet is you never can trust them. Apparent neither party has much faith in Sen. Judd Gregg, either. Why even continue this fascination with reaching out to the GOP? It's not like Congressional Republicans have been so congenial and bipartisan thus far.

The Obama administration, though, continues to have problems vetting possible nominees. On Gregg's behalf, the stripping of the Commerce Department's oversight of the 2010 Census cannot be read as anything but a shot to the ribs. If the administration was so concerned with a Republican gerrymandering the process why did they choose Gregg?

So, now we are left with Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius possibly being named. Why wasn't she the first choice instead of Bill Richardson and Gregg in the first place?

Matthew Cooper also reports Gregg was getting the bum-rush from New Hampshire Republicans who were upset over his abstention from voting on the stimulus bill. Other reports have the Northeastern Senator not even running for his seat in 2010.

Change may be in the air, but political poison still composes a majority of the breathable air in Washington. Quit with this "Team of Rivals" hokum and pick a Democrat for Commerce.

Was Geithner Bailout Conflict A Ruse?

2009-02-10T20:05:00.000-08:00

MATTHEW COOPER REPORTS FEW WERE IN FAVOR OF PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST BANKS
Presidential adviser David Axelrod is looking as weak as his pudgy chin after today's front page article the New York Times. "Geithner Said To Have Prevailed on the Bailout" says it all.

It's no surprise the banker who presided, maybe even coddled Wall Street as the President of the Federal Reserve of New York, would prescribe business as usual, but it is surprising he was able to convince the President during a time of populist revolt over the banking industry.

The Times piece said, "Mr. Geithner also expressed concern that too many government controls would discourage private investors from participating." It was unclear exactly what those restrictions would entail, though.

Former Time columnist Matthew Cooper reported on his blog for Talking Points Memo that few in the meetings with Geithner were in favor of the kind of punitive action many in the country would like to see.

My nugget to add to this is that no one on the economic team, so far as I can tell, was pushing for the kind of showy, punitive measures that might have made today's ugly roll out of the new bailout plan at least more appealing to those who want to see banks punished.

So which portrayal is accurate? Geithner continuing to enable Wall Street, Axelrod and other fighting with a populist sword or the cynical view: Axelrod's accounting of the dispute is a ruse.

He Bangs

2009-02-10T19:21:00.000-08:00

President Obama hit his head yesterday on Marine One. Big news apparently and an opportunity to conjure up the antics of the former president.

The political blog at the Los Angeles Times offers a brief history presidential pratfalls including the tallest president (Abraham Lincoln) and the shortest (James Madison).

Bronstein Gives Props On HuffPo

2009-02-07T18:34:00.000-08:00

Phil Bronstein, the editor-at-large at the San Francisco Chronicle better known for being married to Sharon Stone and less so for being bitten by a Komodo dragon, linked one of my stories for the Commonwealth Club for his posting on The Huffington Post. Check it out here. The link is located below the photo.

While on the subject of the Chronicle, congratulations on a superb redesign of the paper. The pages are geometrically interesting and contain a combinations of strong and unique fronts. If you're going to redesign a paper (or website) I say go large and the Chron certainly did with huge benefits. The Bay Area deserves a well-put together daily and we finally have one.

GOP Still Doesn't Get It Or Give It

2009-02-07T17:23:00.000-08:00

WHO NEEDS TAX CUTS FOR A CAR WHEN YOU'RE BROKE?
Patriotism and necessity aside, forging a bipartisan bill with Republicans this early in the Obama presidency was always going to be a tall order. It's a quite normal for the minority party in Washington to show its mettle, if puny in relation to Democrats, but the political gamesmanship on the part of the GOP only further displays their disconnect to the plight of Americans.

I have a friend who depends on a 40-hour work week and medical insurance to pay the rent and stay healthy. Last week, her employer slashed her hours and nixed her health coverage. Another was recently laid off to sit at home with her three children and wonder what the next few months has to offer. State workers in California received what amounts to a 10 percent pay cut to stay home from their jobs two days a month. That times are tough is no longer a throwaway catch phrase nowadays but reality. Things are getting worse. The numbers even show it and we feel it.

Democrats could have probably been pushed into a worse compromise than the one made yesterday with Senate Republicans, but the existence of more tax cuts is only a reminder that the GOP doesn't get it.

Why would Americans need $30 billion tax cuts to encourage the purchase of new homes and automobiles. Shockingly, new digs and a fully-loaded Buick is not high on the wish list when you are wondering about your next paycheck. Besides, would the tax credits offset the inability of regular Americans to receive a fair interest rate on a loan? It's not likely.

I think this point of c0ntinued economic inequity and political blindness on the part of the GOP is becoming more pervasive since the day President Obama announced an executive salary cap on firms who accept bailout funds. By shaming CEOs into accepting only $500k, he made the beleaguered Titans of finance look petty and greedy. How ridiculous did countless talking heads and lobbyists of executives seem when they pleaded across the board that such a low salary would make it difficult to attract "good talent". To which the country screamed, "Where was the good talent before we got into this mess?" I've never found the stuffed suits traipsing along every Financial District as nothing more than falsely stoked bubbles of testosterone and mythologized machismo. Really? Are these "banksters" nothing more than football coaches in fine tailored suits fitted with bluetooths instead of head phones?

At the very least, we must continue to veer away from principles and characters previously associated with this downturn in America's economy and morally specific predilection towards greed. This means straying away from Obama's main guys at the Treasury--Tim Geithner and Larry Summers--and economic recipes like tax cuts and laissez-faire government. Recovery is about stimulus. As the President said this week the stimulus is about spending and it needs to reach the state and local level for the mood of disheartened unemployed Americans rise hopeful again. In the meantime, the GOP continue to be nothing but an opposition party to Democrats and to the American people.

The Politics of Forgotten Politics Past

2009-01-29T14:58:00.000-08:00

THE GOP BRAND IS DOWN, BUT NOT OUT

Everything is coming up roses for Democrats these days. The President is loved. Americans are uplifted by his words and change is poised to spill across the land--nothing is going to stop us now! Except, such exuberance is part and parcel of any new administration and history always has something to say about such matters. These days feel similar to President Bush's election in 2000--sans the goodwill among Americans--but Republicans were similarly glib. Karl Rove was planning to make the GOP the dominant party in the U.S. for generations. He would even went as far as attempting to exterminate the Democratic party. The tide has turned, though.

Democrats are in a fog of triumphalism that cannot possibly continue. Political luck goes only so far. To latch on to the remote possibility of doing what the GOP attempted to foist upon the Democrats is a waste of energy in a time when grave circumstances hover over the Capitol.

Here's a bit of the liberal naivete going around: Two respected bloggers, Alex Koppelman at Salon's War Room blog and Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic envision a Republican Armageddon in today's Gallup story culled from 2008 election data which says only four states (all in the wild West) are overwhelmingly red. Koppelman adds, "This is most likely not the kind of thing that gets fixed easily." Really?

How quickly the past eight years are forgotten-specifically 2002-2005--when the tables were turned. After fearing a Democrat would never win another presidential election and flubbing two straight, we have left-leaning journalists falling over themselves in glee.

Both bloggers padded their arguments with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's comments to the RNC today where his fear of the party's collapse was not as fearful as other may view it--as John McCain might say, "the fundamentals" of the party are sound. The Gallup map shows only Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Alaska as solidly Republican. Shockingly, the data puts Texas in the competitive column.

Now, really! There are an infinite amount of occurrences that can change the map and attitudes in a hurry. The data based on party affiliation and skewing sharply towards Democrats is going to continue to grow as it has for the last 10-15 years, but to have a blanket of Bible Belt states in competition is highly improbably once you attach a conservative candidate to the polling. No matter who is in the White House regions like the inner West and the South where the post-industrial economy ha not penetrated the workforce, these areas will continue to vote for a Republican candidate.

The easiest way for Republicans to remake the map without changing the way they do business is simply to wait for President Obama to falter in alleviating the failing economy. If he does it poorly enough, House Republicans for one could easily siphon off large chunks of the Democratic majority Nancy Pelosi presides over by 2010 or 2012.

Indeed, the country is trending to the left and will continue with new young voters and immigrants, but touting these results so early in the new administration is kind of like saying the Yankees will, without a doubt, win the World Series after spending a third-world country's GNP on three superstars. There is much time to for everything to change and it is guaranteed to happen. Besides, the Three G's--gays, guns and God--have a way of stoking conservative fears around the country, too.

Liberal Media Welcomes Limbaugh Back

2009-01-29T13:53:00.000-08:00

WHERE HAVE YOU GONE, RUSH LIMBAUGH?

Rush Limbaugh seems to be popping in and out of the news cycle recently. A new Democratic president could be the culprit. A blowhard like Limbaugh is far more entertaining speaking for the minority party, but his re-emergence is being touted by more liberal-friendly media outlets.

Tolerating the voice of Limbaugh after eight years of quietly peddling the GOP muck and piling up a fortune is the trade-off for a Bush-less Washington. Limbaugh did rear his neck out from under his headset periodically, though. He parroted the Bush administration 9/11 bravado, helped convince the nation to invade Iraq and battered Sen. John Kerry. Otherwise, his star never burned brighter than when he had Bill Clinton to push around. Limbaugh still can throw his weight around, though, with conservatives as illustrated by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) metaphorically knelling down to kiss his ring earlier this week.

Now, with President Obama, Limbaugh is all over the news. Making racist and blatantly un-American comment on why he does not support the new prez. Is Limbaugh really making more outrageously tasteless remarks than normal or are producers at outlets like CNN, MSNBC attempting to create a villain for their programs and articles?

Watch a video from MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews below. The resulting story focused on Rep. Dick Armey's misogynistic comments to Salon chief Joan Walsh, but notice the segment is set up twice by referencing the rotund Republican, Limbaugh.

Cable news is hardly news anymore, but entertainment. Hardball is an informative and entertaining program (Matthews' repeated on-air HA-HA-HA's are fun enough), but keep in mind the foil of Limbaugh as merely an attempt to create an opposing voice when most of Washington and the nation is quite united with the President...for now.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Afghanistan: Are You Ready For Your Close-Up?

2009-01-27T18:43:00.000-08:00

GATES: 17K TROOPS NEEDED IN AFGHANISTAN

The drumbeat of war emanating from Washington is not the deafening booms of a thousand timpani which led President Bush to invade Iraq, but the likelihood of expanding the war in Afghanistan sounds a bit like a smooth jazz rhythm--cool and barely nuanced--a bit like the new president.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates testified to the Senate Armed Service Committee today the need for 17,000 more troops in Afghanistan within the next few months. On Friday, reports surfaced that President Obama ordered military drones to bomb Taliban extremists in the Northwestern Pakistan which killed 22. Also, Gates reiterated the Status of Force Agreement signed by the U.S. and Iraq in June, will leave Iraq bare of American troops by 2011.

The Obama administration's call for an expansion of involvement in Afghanistan comes as no surprise, despite calling the war in Iraq the wrong war. Throughout Obama's presidential campaign he was the only candidate who focused on Pakistan--Afghanistan's neighbor to the South and enabler of the Taliban in the Waziristan region. Americans may have inadvertently bundled both conflicts into one and find the decision to send more troops to the regions a bit contradictory. But, isn't this what liberals have always said about Bush's follies in the Middle East: the war in Afghanistan was justified, the war in Iraq was not. But, the situation today is vastly different than 2002.

Noted Middle East expert Juan Cole says a returning focus to Afghanistan could make it "Obama's Vietnam," meaning "Obama may be falling into the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam trap, of escalating a predecessor's halfhearted war into a major quagmire." Cole sees the recent attack on Pakistan without prior interaction with the government as a "bad sign."

It is not clear if Obama really believes that the fractious tribes of the Pakistani northwest can be subdued with some airstrikes and if he really believes that U.S. security depends on what happens in Waziristan. If he thinks the drone attacks on FATA are a painless way to signal to the world that he is no wimp, he may find, as Lyndon Johnson did, that such military operations take on a momentum of their own, and produce popular discontents that can prove deadly to the military mission.

Matthew Yglesias writing in The American Prospect agrees with this assumption and says we also need to retire the term "war on terror" lest it continues to hamper the fight in Afghanistan and the entire region. Much of the conflict in Afghanistan is intertwined with Pakistan. As William Dalrymple writes in a New York Review of Books article on author Ahmed Rashid's new book, Descent into Chaos, the Pakistani intelligence apparatus has a history of encouraging the Taliban in Afghanistan as a friendly bulwark against India and no longer encourages its own self-interests.

It is for this reason that many in the army still believe that the jihadis make up a more practical defense against Indian dominance than even nuclear weapons. For them, supporting a range of jihadi groups in Afghanistan and Kashmir is not an ideological or religious whim so much as a practical and patriotic imperative—a vital survival strategy for a Pakistani state that they perceive to be threatened by India's ever-growing power and its alliance with the hostile Karzai regime in Kabul.

The Obama administration seems bent on resolving Afghanistan through Pakistan. This could take years, though. With the swift change in course comes apprehension for Americans weary of seven years of conflict comes questions. Will Afghanistan threaten to gobble up the next four years like Iraq destroyed the Bush presidency? Iran also cannot be forgotten in this equation. With Afghani elections later this summer, Iran may be need to barter a positive post-Karzai era.

After Obama, The Stock of Black Leaders Is Great

2009-01-27T17:26:00.000-08:00

WHY ARE WOMEN LEADERS STRUGGLING TO RISE EN MASSE?

Before the vice presidential debate last October, conservative pundits learned that the moderator, the well-known journalist Gwen Ifill, also had a book on Sen. Barack Obama conveniently due Inauguration Day. A few such as Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin howled. The question of Ifill's objectivity soon dissipated as Sarah Palin stole the show and the election continued.

Ifill, in her new book The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, does not deal directly with the rise of President Obama, but the rising crop of young, black politicians ready to change the landscape of American politics.

Similar to early worries about Obama's candidacy -- he was not "black enough," he was "too black" or he was too green -- the politicians featured by Ifill share a few commonalities. All are young, highly-educated and grew up in middle-to-upper class surroundings, yet they are able to cross socioeconomic and cultural-mixed racial environments.

In an election as historically unique as 2008, where an African-American and female senator fought as front-runners throughout the campaign, it is interesting to learn Ifill's thesis that the civil rights movement has produced a deep reserve of talented black politicians.

Among them is Congressmen Artur Davis of Alabama, who will likely attempt to make Obama-like history by becoming thar state's first black governor. Davis, incidentally, graduated in Obama's class at Harvard.

Ifill also profiles the first black governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick, Stanford alum and mayor of Newark Cory Booker, and the scion of the civil rights movement Jesse Jackson, Jr. The inclusion of Jackson may be the least likely of the group, since it was revealed during the sting that rounded up Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich that he had been a government informant for years.

While the stock of rising black leaders is strong, the names of up-in-coming women in government is perhaps less-so. Aside from new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Palin, I find it difficult to conjure up many women other than Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who was a contender for Obama's VP slot. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is a strong female voice , but her ambitions won't include the White House, because she was born in Canada. So, why are blacks hitting the highest levels and stealing the spotlight from the women?

Ifill does not explicitly say this, but one reason gleaned from the book is the fact that this new crop of black politicians was forged from of a distinct political movement that was highly organized and direct. By contrast, the women's movement does not have a center, does not have a rallying point such as Selma, Alabama, had for the civil rights movement. Coincidentally, the strong campaign of Hillary Clinton aimed at progressive women and the unique political talents of Palin to conservatices could be the impetus for the rise of significant female candidates in the next 10-15 years.

Undoubtedly the election of Barack Obama is a turning point in this country's history. If you were able to fast-forward a few decades into the future, it is quite conceivable three of the next four leaders of our country could be a mixture of women and minorities.

Obama And The One-Day Rise of Newspapers

2009-01-27T17:12:00.000-08:00

HOW WILL THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF THE NEWS COMMEMORATE EVENTS LIKE THESE?

A man by a kiosk outside The Commonwealth Club offices on Market Street held up the San Francisco Chronicle and cried repeatedly, "EXTRA!, EXTRA!, EXTRA!"

Who says the newspaper industry is faltering?

At least, it's not hurting today, with another round of colorful, graphically pleasing editions featured on newsstands across the country. The Newseum web site has an extensive gallery of today's historic page-ones featuring a very elegant and simple cover from The Fresno Bee.

According the Associated Press, many of the nation's largest newspapers, including The New York Times, USA Today and the Washington Post, printed extra papers in advance of high demand. Many learned a lessons from the day after the November election when demand for papers to commemorate Barack Obama's victory left publishers flat-footed. Not only are newspapers increasing production of their daily editions, but also publishing special editions and books ranging in price from $4.95 to $14.95.

The rush to grab a piece of history through buying and preserving newspapers has been an American tradition since the colonists' veracious habit of reading the news made the nascent country one of the most learned places in the world. With the end of newspapers as we know them possibly around the corner -- at least, Michael Hirschorn at The Atlantic says The Times could be kaput as early as this May -- how will people retain the memories of historic times such as President Obama's inauguration?

Without a paper and ink version of the news, will people download a screen shot of yesterday's home page of the Washington Post? Send the file to their printer and unassumingly tuck it between last month's overdue phone bill and their child's sterling report card? The Internet as a record of history has proven to be insufficient with its power based on constant change at the whim of breaking news. Lasting snapshots of a single day or event invariably fall through the cracks. Organizations like The Internet Archive strive to preserve the web's news history but fall short in their brevity.

What is the future? There seems to be a missing link between how a new generation of people consume the news through the net on a personal computer, laptop or even their smart phones. Portability and complete access to the web at any moment is also problematic. TechCrunch.com reported in December on rumors of a larger seven-by-nine inch iPod which would be capable of accessing the news and making it easier to navigate and read. Down the road, the news may be downloaded onto bendable computers, which conceivably could be rolled up and folded without harm.

Of course, none of these devices will solve the problem of capturing history in a tangible form. It may be the one aspect of communication we will have to adapt at a time when more information is flowing than at any time in human consciousness. The casualty ironically may be history.

Read other articles like this one at The Commonwealth Club of California blog at commonwealthclub.blogspot.com

Leming Learns A New Lesson

2009-01-24T20:48:00.000-08:00

Chuck Leming was a 'C' student who became Alameda County's Teacher of the Year, but during his crowning year he lost a child and vowed to not lose one of his students. This is a story of a educator teaching and learning the lessons of life

On any given day, a student in one of Chuck Leming's classes can be subjected to a barrage of office products. They fly through the air with a litany of biting one-liners tagging along for the ride.

They can come at any moment's notice. It's a war zone, but the students don't see it as such. It's far better than sitting to a constant droning about mathematical principles. Leming, in fact, thinks math is boring

A student in the back row wants Leming to go over a question she saw the night before on television's "Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" After discussing the problem, as is the custom on the TV show where the contestant wagers money against his answer, another student wearing entirely black yells, "Would you bet your paycheck?"

"Since you don't have as much as me, I won't take that bet," said Leming.

"How much do you have?" said another boy with a black hooded sweatshirt.

Sidestepping the question for moment, Leming says to the boy, "How much do you have in your savings account?"

"Between three and four grand."

Leming quickly shoots back to the delight of some of the boy's buddies sitting around him, "Then you don't have enough to match my paycheck."

Leming's been around, so he knows the difference between educational babble and what it takes in the real world. It's quite ironic, but common, that your teacher--the supposed smartest person in a student's life, wasn't such a good student himself.

"In school I cheated, lied and only went there for the social aspect and girls,” says Leming. In high school, Leming was a sweet-swinging outfielder for his baseball team. Although he couldn't field a lick. A few pro scouts visited his games in Grass Valley to watch Leming and some other players, but his nascent career on the diamond was cut short at 16 when the coach caught him smoking.

“The coach said he was going to punch my lights out. I was cocky back then.”

Like some of the student's he sees today, school just wasn't for Leming during his teenage years.

“There’s a purpose in life and education was not part of it for me then,” he said.

His brother was different. He breezed through school as the quintessentially perfect older brother, but Leming wasn't hearing the message. His father told him: “My boys are going to college. He saw my report card and said, ‘That’s a C, that means average. I don’t have sons that are average.’ I said, 'You do now.’”

THE BLUE COLLAR YEARS
In fact, he fit the definition of the word exactly when he graduated from high school in Los Angeles, he was 175th out of 350 students; dead smack in the middle, the model of mediocrity. While some college student's of the tumultuous late 1960's received deferments from the fighting in Vietnam, it was the average middle-class and poor Americans who did the conflicts bidding. Leming wasn't drafted; he drove down to the Army recruiting station and joined. "We were supposed to be fighting communism," he said, although his foreign adventure to the Far East went only as far as the concrete jungles of Staten Island, NY. He jokes that he knew a lot about New York City's more risqué and ribald location while serving his country.

Upon returning to Northern California, Leming would spend the next 15 years doing everything from installing windshields, delivering auto parts, selling photo copiers and driving trucks. Through three economic downturns in the early and late 1970's and a recession in 1981, Leming began to think about the future of himself and his family. What once was anathema to his being as a teenager, became the path to a good life. In fact, both Leming and his wife became teachers later in life. Leming's wife teaches seventh-graders in the Dublin school system.

“When I went to college I didn’t know anything. I didn’t know what a B.A. or a B.S. was. I choose a B.S. because I knew I was half-way there. I was a country boy.”

Leming would graduate from then Cal State Hayward in 1985 and begin his teaching career at San Leandro High School shortly after, but while studying for his teaching credential he received advice from an instructor that struck a chord with him, meshed with his personality and would come to define his teaching style for the next two decades.

“If you’re able to bring your family life into the classroom, they will think about you as a person, instead of a teacher and you’ll have less behavioral problems,” recalls Leming. He would later find that assumption works both ways.

When you first see Leming, you don’t see a middle school teacher. You might see a fire inspector or a grizzled foreman on a construction site walking about the skeletal frame of a building with a metal clipboard and ill-fitting white helmet sitting high upon his head. He might be saying, “Fix that sheet rock over there and these beams are at the wrong angle.” Whether he’s a teacher or the foreman for a building’s construction, the core of Leming is to get things right and build a strong foundation, to watch something lasting and beautiful be erected.

A GUN-TOTING CONSERVATIVE EDUCATOR
In real life, Leming is in his early 60’s. His foundation laid long ago has worn on the outside. His head is ringed by short white hair that reveals a bald, but tanned pate. He wears oversized bifocals rimmed by thin gold metal. When he speaks the first thing you notice is that his mouth shifts slightly to the left as if the words are tumbling over his molars instead of his front teeth. With the baldness and the glasses, you might not make the connection, but when the gruff manner of his speech is uttered off the side of his face, it occurs to you that Leming being Leming is a lot like Leming doing a passable impression of Dick Cheney or Dick Cheney is doing a great impression of Chuck Leming.

The thing is Leming probably doesn’t mind the connection to the dark lord of the right, because like Cheney, Leming is a Republican. This is probably one of the few in existence amongst the rigidly liberal teacher’s union. It’s no problem for Leming because much of what his teaching style is about is born the anachronistic Republican mantra of one “picking oneself up by the bootstraps”.

“I believe this is the land of milk and honey. All the options are available if you want them bad enough,” he says.

Maybe Leming's students are more behaved than others because they know about his gun collection. He's a registered member of the National Rifle Association and own 20 guns, including a gun safe. He doesn't hunt animals anymore, he says, but enjoys honing his accuracy shooting clay pigeons, although he hasn't been to the range much lately.

While Leming gives the impression of Dick Cheney, his politics when it comes to education are staunchly moderate. Being neither a great student, nor a poor student, the accolades for those in the middle are non-existent.

'I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THIS PROGRAM'
Three years ago, Leming became the coordinator for a program that tries to remedy "the middle" and find those underperforming students and make the middle less middling and more a model for a well-rounded student population.

Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) sounds like a newfangled right wing program that isolates a group to battle the fight of survival of fitness while the game is tilted to favor another desirable group. But this program is different. It doesn’t take disadvantaged children or high-achievers, its core value is that it focuses on the “middle”. Its success depends on faculty searching deeply for students who might become diamonds in the rough and gives them the opportunities and skills not afforded to children who may have been raised in a household where college was not a matter whether my grades were good enough or if the college fund could afford four years of higher education. It’s a remedy for a country where the economical divide is widening at the edges with the rich getting richer and the poor getting devastatingly poor.

The AVID classes are small. A student must maintain a 3.0 grade-point average or leave the program after two semesters. AVID isn't a class like math, English or social studies, it's all those classes; a sort of Grand Central Station for all those courses that lead to Leming's wrath.
A tiny eighth grade girl named Fatima Costa is in Leming's intervention math class, that like AVID, focuses on a small group of students who are struggling. According to Leming, classes like these will be among the first to be cut if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget cuts come to fruition.

Less than a minute before the bell is about to ring, a few students milling around the classroom chatting with their friends hear Leming announce, "Anyone who isn't sitting in their seats when the bells rings will be tardy!"

The smallish girl turns, covers the side of her mouth to cover it from Leming's view and mutters, in a hushed tone, "He's so mean."

Maybe Leming heard her and maybe he didn't, but later in the period when she's not listening to him, he admonishes her by saying, "You haven't been doing that good, Fatima. If you don't do better you're going to have to go to Home Depot and get a big box from a refrigerator to live in."
As he walks away, she glances my way and contorts her face as to say, "See, I told you he was mean."

Leming has a certain fondness for these type of students, because he sees himself in them and does not believe 40 years has changed them much.

“I don’t think they’re worse. That’s what a lot of teachers will say, but I think they’re a whole lot smarter. They have so much access to information on television or the internet. The only thing is they’re not as motivated because of it--I wasn’t either,” he says

As students begin encountering problems with their math homework, one boy, slightly overweight for his age and befitting the stereotype that large people tend to be jollier than others asks Leming for some help.

"Don't start teasing me," the boy quickly says before Leming can lay a zinger on him. Leming grabs the long lanyard around the boy’s neck, pulls him close and feigns slapping his face. The boy laughs. After Leming's instructions, the boy utters in exasperation, "Ohh. H=3"
"See," says Leming, "You're not as dumb as I think you are."

After noticing too many students were having problems with the same question, Leming switches on the overhead and goes over the problem. A boy in the front row still doesn't understand. "I don't understand what you're doing?" he says.

“What are you talking about? Close your eyes and hit yourself in the back of the head because I’m too lazy to go over there and do it myself,” Leming says.

"If I was a student these days, I would be in this class," says Leming shortly before heaving a crumpled paper at the attendance girl. The girl runs out the door shrieking as the wad grazes her back.

"I had a poor family and my GPA was between 2.0 and 3.5, but I tested well. I would be in this program," he says.

He says a whopping 96 percent of all students in the program enroll in secondary education. AVID is not about churning out high school diplomas, but college graduates. To illustrate the point, when this year's crop of AVID students graduate from middle school, they will receive a medal with an inscription that reads not the class of 2012, but of 2016, four years after high school.

THE FORMER 'C' STUDENT DOES GOOD
"A high school diploma doesn't mean anything in California, anymore. I mean, you should see the kids they're giving diplomas to nowadays," says Leming.

What Leming believes about a typical student's life after high school is the 800-pound gorilla sitting in, not only the science room, but in every room, not everyone is cut out for college, so why jam a round peg into a square hole?

"No Child Left Behind wants every student to be proficient to the same point and have everybody go to college. It's not realistic," he says, "We need secretaries. We need people in the service industry."

His version of education utopia is rooted deeply in his own life and about face he encountered in his own life. "Not everybody is into numbers and letters. There should be a vocational option with a bridge back to academics, if they decide. The way it is, now, you're left to sink or swim," he says.

The former "C" student who toiled in car parts and haulers before taking advantage of his own self-made bridge to teaching did pretty well for himself when the San Leandro Unified School District made him their teacher of the year for the 2007-08 school year.

The school's librarian, Russ Tomlin, after failing to get Leming the award the year before, surreptitiously nominated him again. Leming believed the first time he wouldn't receive the award because of a veneer of ageism in the process. The school district doesn't want an old guy as its top instructor, they want a young teacher, he believed. This time he got it, but seriously doubted he could win the state's prize. You're not going to get Leming to fawn over something just to get his name on a plaque.

Leming answered a questionnaire of 14 questions by slamming the state's credential program, No Child Left Behind and teacher training. It may or may not have ended his chance of winning the statewide prize, but he believed the Department of Education wouldn't want a winner who disagreed with them so passionately.

"Take me the way I am, or don't ask the question," he says.

Of course, he said he was "humbled and honored" and realizes there's many teachers in the district who are "equal or better than him." He says this because he thinks he got the award out of sympathy.

Not every student is destined to thrive, while not every child is destined to struggle. In September of 2006, shortly before what should have been the crowning year of Leming’s teaching career, he received word that his 30-year-old son was dead.

RECEIVING GOD'S GRACE
His son, Christopher, left behind a wife, an 8-year-old girl and an 18-month old boy. He had suffered through heroin addiction for awhile. Leming knew about it. The irony is that it wasn't heroin that killed him in the downstairs of a Philadelphia train station, but the purveyors of the drug that stalk the abuser in murky corners and creepy shadows. The police don't know exactly what happened to Christopher Leming that day. The police report says he was stabbed with a syringe filled with a powerful painkiller often used to cut heroin. The police think the attack may have been part of a gang initiation stunt. Leming thinks this story is probably true because his son tended to be a very private drug user and shooting up in the middle of Philly doesn't sound like him.

Leming last saw his son two months before his untimely death and believed he had been recently clean for the drugs. He spoke with him the day before he died and on his last day told his wife and daughter he loved them.

Leming still refers to his son in the present tense because he believes his son still with him. He's been visited by his son three times.

While sleeping in a lonely hotel room and resting his head on a foreign pillow and unfamiliar blankets to warm his body, he was awakened by a bright light. At first, he thought he dozed off with the lights on, but when he opened his eyes, the room was pitch black. It happened again. This time he thought the light was emanating from outside. Some jerk must be shining his high beams through the window. "I was ready to yell at them, but everything was dark," he says.
"It said to me that he's in Heaven and he's waiting for me and I'm going to go to Heaven because he waiting for me," he says.

Leming didn't need such a spiritual episode to awaken his religious beliefs. He attends Catholic mass with his wife regularly, but this episode made the afterlife and the prospects of seeing his son again even more real. Christopher came to religion late in his life, says Leming.

Christopher's mom kept her son's Bible and copies scribbling from the margins to her Bible. On one page she found, "To be a good man, you must know God." Leming and his wife searched the Bible inside and out to find that equation, but couldn't find it. A Google search of the phrase doesn't yield one hit. A local Catholic priest said he doesn't recall such a passage with that exact phrasing.

As Leming's eyelids begin to redden and tears start welling up he says, "He was telling me he was a good man"

"I've never been angry about his death. My wife says, 'It's because you've received God's grace," he says.

THE OAK TREES
To say Leming has coped with his son's death wouldn't be honest. When a child dies under circumstances that might breed snickering, but compassion, nonetheless, a lot of doubt sneaks into the minds of mourners when the hugs and support leave to deal with their own lives.
"I think it's natural to say, 'What could I have done differently to change the outcome'," he says,

"We did the best we could, but addiction was something genetic, a defect in his genes."

One day, while driving to his gun club in Livermore, Leming passed by a line of large oak trees on the side of the road. He was just thinking, but still, he wondered what would happen if he steered his car into those trees as a way of hastening a chance to see his son again in Heaven. Just thinking-thinking, as the math teacher that he is, he calculated the speed of the car to be too slow to do anything but total it. So he increased the pressure on the pedal just slightly to accelerate the car. At that moment, the thinking-thinking ceased and a flood of rationality cascaded over his troubled mind.

"I began to think this wouldn't be fair to my wife, or my daughter, or my grandchildren," he said, "I felt it would have been selfish, but I wanted to see my son again."

"I laugh every time I see those oak trees," says Leming.

People react vastly different to death. Leming's wife doesn't like to talk about her son's death, while her husband finds it "therapeutic."

Because Leming believes students identify and respond better when a teacher opens his private life to the classroom, like a family that revels in good times, it conversely rallies around itself in the bad.

I'VE LOST MY SON, I WON'T LOSE MY STUDENTS
When he returned from bereavement leave, he spoke to students about his son. He left nothing out. This would be no different than a lecture on the Pythagorean Theorem. His son’s demise would be a life lesson for these kids. Some girls cried with Leming as he delivered the news. The obvious human response is usually, “How?” He could have told them anything to cover the hurt and embarrassment of a teacher’s son dying. But he didn’t, he told them straight up: my son abused drugs and because of that, he died.

Students that would be touched with tragedy easily gravitated to Leming. He held one student whose uncle was killed in long, heartfelt embrace one day in the hallway outside his classroom because that's how the grieving help others--by diffusing some of the pain from those recently struck by life's wrong turns.

That would not be the end of the conversation, despite the pain and heartache of losing a child. Leming wasn’t going to lose any of these children, either. As part of a writing exercise about a loved one, Leming decided to write his own about his son and read it aloud to the class. This time his voice cracked and tears slowly inched over the bottom lids of his eyes. A solemn sense drifted over the students; those same girls began to cry again and the boys shifted uncomfortably in their chairs and bowed their heads in respect as he read these nine lines:

I am a husband.
I am a father.
I am a grieving father who lost a son.
I am working on getting better.
I am sad that I will never see my son again.
I am happy for my son has shown me he’s in Heaven and the he is waiting for me.
I am always crying with my wife
I am emotionally distraught many nights as I talk to my son.
I am thankful for my wife and students that have held me and cried with me.

The message was clear. Chuck Leming lost one of his children; his own son. But his life work has been about saving the hundreds of children who watched his peculiar classroom antics and learned about themselves and how to succeed in society. Life isn’t perfect and families are far from it, but nonetheless, every so often, a child does something to say “I love you.” When Chuck Leming stood before a banquet room atop the hill at Cal State-East Bay and accepted his teacher of the year award a few generations of San Leandro students said thank you for making them a better person and a son rejoiced in the celebration of his dad.

This story is dedicated to Marsha Ginsburg. The teacher who reminded me to write with "soul".

Obama Gets To Work; Rolls Back Bush Policies

2009-01-24T17:37:00.001-08:00

CHECK, CHECK, CHECK THAT: TO-DO LIST NEARLY COMPLETE

Just when full-throated progressives thought Barack Obama's centrist cabinet nominations may portend for a president deserting his base and veering too far center of the left, he pulled off a stunning half week of work giving those hope for a return to a more palatable Washington.

The list of accomplishments reads like a liberal wet dream on the streets of Berkeley. Obama orders Guantanamo closed within the year, takes torture off the list of interrogating tactics, reverses President Bush's gag-rule on U.S. funding of abortions overseas and significantly curb the power lobbyist on K Street. Obama even showed military muscle in Pakistan yesterday named two Democrats steeped in successful diplomatic efforts in Northern Ireland and the Balkans to sort out ongoing trouble in Gaza and Pakistan. What a week!

About one point, the litany of executive orders ostensibly rolling back some of President Bush's most controversial policies ran the risk of stuffing too much, too quick into the faces of the downtrodden GOP. By Friday, when Obama reportedly "reminded" Senate Minority Whip John Kyl of Arizona that "I won" and the rationale became clear: there may not be a significant opposition from the GOP on Capitol Hill to stifle Obama's plans since these actions are part of the "change" 60 million American voters called for last November so ram it through.

Thus far, Obama has been deliberate and in hindsight quite open about his desire to move quickly, some of us though were still jaded on that possibility. Moving fast on reversing the old administration's questionable governing is bold and wise during a period when so much is needed on the economic front. There was one thing Obama forgot, though. Psst...bring the troops home.

Arizona's Other Senator Caught In News Blackout

2009-01-24T16:12:00.000-08:00

IS CLEAN AIR GETTING STALE IN D.C.? KYL BECOMING OBAMA'S ANTAGONIST

Somebody get Arizona's junior Senator Jon Kyl a newspaper subscription.

During a brief debate with the new president over the inclusion of tax cuts for people who may have earned enough to pay income tax, Obama reportedly told the square-headed senator, "I won."

Sure, sounds a bit Bushian, doesn't it? Sort of like after 2004 election, when President Bush announced he had attained "political capital" and intended to "spend it." Except, the difference from this perceive cocky utterance come this fact: Obama did convincingly win the election.

Kyl, who Sen. John McCain accidentally named-dropped this week for a presidential run in 2012, and other Republicans think such cuts amount to government-backed welfare. Undoubtedly, most of those who fail to earn high enough wages to pay income tax are also the poorest among us. It is generally accepted that the quickest way to put money in the economy is to give it to lower income families who will likely spend it on food, clothing, rent and health care. Of course, most of those people did not vote for the other senator from Arizona--McCain.

The exchange between Kyl and Obama was confirmed by both sides. There was no tone or context included in any story, although Kyl did criticize Obama's inauguration speech, so there may be some brewing animosity. What is implicit, despite the atmosphere of congeniality Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill are espousing during week one of the new administration, Republicans need to realize most of the policies laid out by president during the campaign have the backing of a majority of voters. Instead, of fighting, the GOP needs to quickly figure how to slightly navigate to closer to left to survive these days.

Taxing: Kennedy Out, Geithner In?

2009-01-22T16:56:00.000-08:00

GENDER INEQUALITY REARS ITS HEAD UNNOTICED

At the moment it is hard to establish exactly what is going down regarding Caroline Kennedy's on/off/on/off Senate bid. Did she take herself out the running to save face on the knowledge New York Governor David Paterson has chosen some one else, presumably first-term Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand?

The initial response that Kennedy was so distraught by Uncle Teddy Kennedy's seizure on inauguration day was a ridiculous red herring apparently drawing the ire of some in the Kennedy clan. The latest rumor that tax problems regarding a housekeeper is the real reason Paterson shied away from Kennedy is plausible. Then, again, it could also be a convenient excuse. Yet, on the basis of fairness, if tax problem did derail Kennedy's bid for the Senate, it raises concerns from a gender point-of-view.

How was Tim Geithner approved by the Senate Finance Committee today with apparent egregious tax bills outstanding and Kennedy was excluded from Congress because of hers?

Detractors will say Kennedy just was not qualified to a senator. Is someone like Gillibrand experienced enough? Did we not recently elect a perceived novice to the Oval Office.

On the practical side, it was not the Kennedy name that appealed to some, but the money behind the brand. The next senator from New York will need huge resources in one of the most expensive media centers in the world and campaign twice in the next years--due to the remainder of Hillary Clinton's term in 2010.

One media outlet in sexist fashion, counted the number of "you knows" Kennedy uttered in an interview with The New York Times at 138. Would an editor bring a "you know" clicker to count a mans quirky use of language?

You know, once again, the election of Barack Obama did not radically change the attitudes of Americans with regard to race and gender equity. They still exist in full-force when the man now in charge of the nation's money supply gains his position--at a time when the job is far more crucial than that of one senator out of one hundred--with serious questions regarding his payment of taxes, while a woman with reportedly the same problem is shut out of hers.

This connection is not being made today and that, in itself, is the real problem.

Obama Tweaks Bush, Calls Out Tyranny; Brings Hope

2009-01-20T15:25:00.000-08:00

Today, we live in the age of President Obama. Our 44th President offered some of these lines during his inaugural address. Along with the highlights of the speech are a few reflections on their meaning and insight into the next four years. Read the entire text of the address here:

At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents. So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
These lines sound similar to tenor of Obama's campaign speeches, yet with the Capitol as a backdrop they now seem Presidential--conveying hope in not only ourselves but tapping into the hope and successes of all Americans throughout our history.

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.
Like it or not, President Obama is giving the nation its nasty dose of reality. Undoubtedly, like the Roaring 20s, where greed and the broadening of rich and poor led to economic calamity, so have the avarice of 21st Century Wall Street. It is also a gesture to all, specifically on those who signed those conspicuous loan documents, that you too are also partly to blame. As a nation, we have rested on our laurels and unrivaled power to sit idle as we doddled with a poor energy policy that allows outside nations to control our wealth by way of the supply and demand of fossil fuels. The future wars of the world will be solely about energy, if they are not already today.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
These lines are a few of the most important in Obama's address. He has within his grasp a power of which few presidents have possessed in the past 40 years--unity within the government and the populace. Who knows how long it last? It has always been my belief the only way Americans would welcome needed change would be through calamity such as these times where the pocketbooks of all are affected. What are the "petty grievances" and "worm out dogmas"? I would like to think a few are the right to bear arms, gay marriage, and the perennial harbinger of gridlock and division rolled out every four years, but not this election--abortion. The point is not to deny those who believe strongly for or against, but these battles have little bearing on how we fix what ails the country.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
Sounds a bit like the Republican ideology of picking yourself up by the bootstraps. Obama must be commended for taking a swing at the Bush White House here. It is so apparent in the minds of all Americans that the former president did serious damage to the nation. Numerous reports described the massive throng of people at the Capitol booing images of the former prez on the many jumbotrons.

We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.
Some talking heads on television noted Obama's address was devoid of details on policy, yet this portion of the speech lays out exactly what he intends to accomplish. Again, he snubs his nose at many of Bush's failed policies.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Here lies the reason many like me supported candidates like Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They all believed in America as a benevolent leader in the world, where inhabitants of foreign countries dreamed about this land. I still believe there are young boys and girls who toil in impoverished lands and dream about coming to this country. People like my father who sent letters to his uncle in California from a tiny house filled with eight brothers and sisters in the Azores Islands. Torture and the brute force of our nation against others is not what those people believe in when they think of our country. My father did not, I do not and hopefully no one will ever think of us in that way again.

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
Obama used this tough language during his election night victory speech in Grant Park. It sounded un-Obama-like then as it did today. It would be naive to believe our nation is no longer in danger from extremist elements because of Obama's election. He delivered these lines with such quiet intensity that it reminds us that campaign rhetoric sometimes becomes just that when a man is elevated to the presidency. These words are not the change we have been waiting for, but again, the next four years will force Obama to make decisions he thought he would never have to make. Bush never thought he would be nation-building in 2000. It turned out that is all his presidency dealt with.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers.
The inclusion of "non-believers" is something most religious righties cringed when hearing.

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
Did you hear that, Iran, North Korea and Cuba? Obama will talk to you. The notion Obama would talk to our enemies was controversial during the campaign. Apparently, this is one promise he is sticking with. Will anything get done? Probably not.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
Much like his campaign for the office where Obama rarely made light of race. This address utilizes the same tone. The momentousness of this day in American history hangs over every word but until this paragraph is it mentioned. Framed in this way, it is truly remarkable, not that our culture has come far in race relations--we really have not--but in such a short period of decades this man ascended to the presidency. It is more a testament solely to Obama rather than our nation's attitudes.

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Remember, Obama is a writer. This final paragraph is lovingly conceived with rich imagery and hope for the future. If our ship of state does reach calm waters under Obama's watch this paragraph is destined to be etched on the walls of the future Obama Presidential library.

Roberts Flubs Oath, Not Obama

2009-01-20T14:58:00.000-08:00

At first it seemed like President Obama screwed up the beginning of the Oath of Office. In actuality, it was the other rookie standing at the podium, Chief Justice John Roberts.

Obama apparently had the correct order of words zooming through his mind. You didn't think he would be prepared for it? Many watching the oath for the first time most likely did not catch Roberts inadvertently delete the word, "faithfully" upon which Obama paused, nodded at Roberts and smiled before the chief justice could recite the correct line.

Nevertheless, the seemingly uber-confident Obama showed an immense snapshot of humanity. The pause and the stumble illustrated that the man was nervous. Who wouldn't be? At that moment, it is worth remembering that he is not the ultimately savior to all that ills our country, merely a man with the conviction to change America at a unique time in our history.

I have heard some people wonder aloud why anyone would want to be president now. Actually, all of them would kill to be in Obama's position. For men who desire the office of presidency a certain amount of legacy inhabits all of them. President Clinton surely looked at President George W. Bush as lucky to have a formative moment like 9/11 to cement his legacy instead of a stained blue dress. You could see it in the faces of all the living president's as Obama walked to his sit on the inaugural platform. I wish I was in his position they seemed to say.

Yet, when you're the man entrusted with the country and the world's problems the job is daunting and Obama showed he is only human. That is probably why over 60 million Americans voted for him in the first place.

Good Riddance

2009-01-20T12:06:00.000-08:00

DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE A@#$: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and their spouses wave farewell to FORMER President George W. Bush

Change Has Occurred

2009-01-20T09:05:00.000-08:00

President Barack Obama.

Bush: Arrogant To The End

2009-01-15T18:57:00.000-08:00

Our enemies are patient and determined to strike again. America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict. But we have been given solemn responsibilities, and we must meet them. We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.

--President Bush speaking at his farewell speech to the nation.

President Bush looked tired. His hair gray. His neck visibly thin, barely filling his starched white collar. His farewell address tonight revealed that certain grace that initially created a brief bond with a certain swath of America. He thanked Uncle Dick, had loving words for his wife, daughters and even mom and dad. You almost felt sorry for him. Some tender part of you said you might miss him--not his disastrous policies--but, his goofiness, his sneer and even the universally accepted notion of him the Dolt-in-Chief.

Empathy with President Bush only goes so far. He can't hide from his cocky hubris. It is omnipresent and so much a part of his soul that he cannot stifle it. Many early news reports of tonight's address focused on one pull-quote, "we must never let down our guard." As if we were transported just for old time's sake back to 2003 when the mainstream media walked in line with everything we know was false about the invasion of Iraq. Bush is still fighting the terrorists while the rest of us of are fighting the debt collectors.

Bush's retro bravado is not the most intriguing part of the above mentioned paragraph, instead three sentence beforehand he says, "America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict." How could such an inflammatory and purely arrogant line be glossed over? The United States did nothing to provoke the ire of the perpetrators of 9/11 and the entire Middle East?

If this was the oblivious and ignorant rationale for the crumbling of the next six years, was it all worth it?

There was not a singular event that caused al-Qaeda to attack seven years ago, but over 50 years of American intervention in the region. Arrogance which continually slapped the downtrodden adherents of Islam in the fact although in a usually covert, but rarely as upfront as the style Bush preferred. The U.S. has toppled (or attempted to) governments throughout the region with Iran, Syria, Egypt just to name a few. The U.S. played both side of the Iran-Iraq War, supported Saddam Hussein before turning on him and generally played the Middle East with hegemony deserving of a King. We were happy to spill their blood for their oil.

The U.S. did plenty to deserve 9/11. It did not deserve the loss of 3,000 innocent people, but then again, our government has not been very careful in differentiating insurgents from innocents, either.

Obama's Official Portrait Released

2009-01-15T17:13:00.000-08:00

DID PRESIDENT-ELECT BUY HIS TIE AT DISCOUNT STORE?

The official portrait of President-elect Barack Obama--the one which will hang on every post office wall across the land was released yesterday.

Talk about ubiquitous. This image of Obama will likely burn an imprint on the collective brain of the world.

Take, for instance, the youthful, cocky smirk of George W. Bush's official portrait. It has been copied, mocked and repeatedly photoshopped with horns the past eight years. Click here to see it one last time.

How young President Bush looked back then as opposed to now.

By the way, I'm not liking Obama's tie and does he really need a lapel pin of the flag with one directly behind him?

Geithner Doesn't Pay Taxes; Congress Doesn't Pay Attention

2009-01-15T16:01:00.000-08:00

LINKS TO THE PLAYERS BLAMED FOR POOR ECONOMY NOT ADDRESSED

Treasury nominee Tim Geithner doesn't pay his taxes. This piece of information did not preclude Barack Obama from choosing him anyway. The man who would be in charge of the Internal Revenue Service has an aversion to paying taxes. I have an aversion to it, too.

Comedian Steven Colbert said, "I don't pay my taxes, either. Why can't I be Treasury secretary?"

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions is right, "the man who wants to be the top tax collector in America hasn’t paid his taxes.”

Despite the inconvenient truth about Geithner and another example of the new administration lax vetting process, the nomination took a hit, but still rolls, at least, for now.

The Associated Press speculated today that the postponement of Geithner's confirmation until the day after the inauguration next Tuesday may allow the chorus of disenchantment to rise. Most likely, the postponement is designed to push the story deep into the news sections of papers across the country planning splashy commemorative editions of Obama's first day in office.

Yet, the New York Times and other publications gloss over all of this and report Geithner will likely be confirmed nonetheless.

In spite of Geithner's problems, his nomination should be shrouded in more doubt than Capitol Hill is willing to delve. Many say he is capable, but as opposed to whom? George W. Bush and the presidency? Geithner presided over Wall Street--the epicenter of much of the greed and deregulation that has ground the economy nearly to a halt. He comes from the Robert Rubin school of economics that easily extends blame for our current situation past the era of President Bush and into the late stages of the Clinton presidency.

Geithner is cozy with the bank. Familiar with the players who built the house of cards which ultimately fell with the housing bubble and it was not until word leaked that he paid his four-year-old tax bill last week that Congress began to question his nomination.

Again, nobody is looking out for the American people.

Joe The Common Man Takes A Hit

2009-01-13T14:03:00.000-08:00

JOE THE PLUMBER'S IGNORANT STATEMENTS ARE NOT HARD TO FIND--GO TO A BAR

I would like to hit Joe the Plumber--like really hard.

Not only was the first iteration of Joe Wurzelbacher annoying and bereft of integrity and overflowing with basic conservative obliviousness to his own situation, he also was boring.

Joe the Foreign Correspondent is even worse because he's Joe the Guy Drinking Budweiser at the Moose Lodge, Joe the Politically Incorrect New Boyfriend at the Family BBQ and Joe the Guy Who Finds Larry the Cable Guy Too Hilarious.

The point is Joe Wurzelbachers are a dime a dozen. Pajamas Media, of course, is merely using the "Joe the Plumber" brand name for attention; and that's perfectly fair, but when Wurzelbacher begins opining ignorantly on the wonders of war propaganda and comes close to stoking Palestinian anger he is more dangerous than entertaining.

I liked back in World War I and World War II, when you'd go to the theater and you'd see your troops on the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for them. Now everyone's got an opinion and wants to down soldiers—our American soldiers, our Israeli soldiers. I think media should be abolished from reporting.

This statement is really a variation of Wurzelbacher's faulty personal premise and questions to Barack Obama regarding his tax plan. He did not have a personal stake in the question and did not have the wealth to actually be taxed under the plan, yet played the typical conservative fantasy they are created equally to the super rich that greatly prosper from their support despite their own interest not being met.

Wurzelbacher wants to abolish the media in war zones while fellow Americans of similar values and wealth fund these wars with their blood. In a time, when the media often times does not do its job of reporting the foreign news, people like Wurzelbacher continue to have an unwise and unhealthy view of the government and the military. As The Boss once said, "blind faith in your leader or in anything will get you killed." So can people like Joe the Plumber.

Stimulus Bill Must Think Outside The Nation's Borders

2009-01-13T13:52:00.000-08:00

'GLOBAL NEW DEAL' REQUIRED IN AGE OF ECONOMIC INTERCONNECTIVITY

Americans are feeling the economic pinch, but, in many cases, the decisions made in Washington may effect the rest of the world more deeply. In the current edition of The American Prospect, Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson calls for a "Global New Deal".

Using the example of the American Insurance Group (AIG) and the ability to use its global tentacles to effectively be a company without a country to regulate its business, Meyerson constructs an argument that has received little attention nationwide.

Barack Obama may well seek a new New Deal to right a profoundly dysfunctional American economy. But he faces one constraint that Franklin Roosevelt didn't have to confront in the 1930s: The economy that Roosevelt saved was fundamentally a national economy that could be altered by national policies. The economy that Obama must fix, by contrast, has national dimensions that can be altered by national policies, but in matters ranging from corporate conduct to consumer safety to Americans' incomes, not to mention global warming, purely national solutions no longer suffice. To fix America today requires fixing global systems. The next New Deal won't work if it's only American.

Under the concepts of globalization, a multinational corporation is able to evade basic regulatory oversight that a nationally-based business would have to cooperate.

A report from the Center for American Progress deals more closely with the topic from the standpoint of foreign economies, saying Franklin D. Roosevelt's response to the Great Depression needs to be applied globally.

This common political imperative has created the conditions for an unprecedented exercise in international economic cooperation aimed at stabilizing the world economy and placing it on a stronger and more sustainable footing through a series of structural reforms. This is precisely the approach the creators of the New Deal took to our national economic crisis in the 1930s.

Americans may have a narrow view of the global ramifications of its own financial demise, but this fact need not preclude the newly elected president from scratching it from the national dialogue.

The European economies of Germany, France and England are searching for ways to stimulate their economies, while reports this past weekend say that Greece, Ireland and Spain may have their AAA-credit ratings downgraded because of worsening recessions. Of course, these are relatively rich nations as compared to say, Latin American countries, which are relatively stable, but are all encountering lowered gross domestic product figures in the new year.

Some economic isolationists may deny the inevitability of globalization, yet it exists. The effort to fix the U.S. economy needs to add the discussion of world markets in our national dialogu, because people around the world are beginning to argue that what is good for the United States is not necessarily good for the rest of the world

This article and others can be found at The Commonwealth Club of California's blog commonwealthclub.blogspot.com

Obama's Recovery Plan Moves To The Center

2009-01-13T13:27:00.000-08:00

WITH TIME RUNNING OUT, CONGRESSIONAL DISUNITY STYMIES OBAMA

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says he has no qualms with President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus plan – and that could be a problem in itself.

After eight years of tax cuts under President Bush, some Democrats – especially Northeastern liberals like Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Barney Frank – think that giving tax breaks to businesses and middle-class families will not create long-term job growth. Scott Lehigh, writing in the Boston Globe's op-ed page, thinks tax cuts make little sense and wonders whether they exist in Obama's plan as a carrot to Republicans.

Democrats are also leery about heaping more debt on the books. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the deficit will reach $1.2 trillion in 2009, not including Obama's stimulus plan. Some in Washington also believe the total stimulus price tag will ultimately reach closer to $1 trillion. Obama's preliminary estimate is around $775 billion.

With 11 days until inauguration day, Obama, like President Franklin D. Roosevelt 76 years ago, will be afforded a brief honeymoon period in Washington and this is the impetus for the presidential feel of yesterday's speech at George Mason University.

Former labor secretary under President Clinton, Robert Reich, believes the government stimulus should reach upwards of $900 billion spread over two years and urges for it to be done quickly. "Without federal action, next year could be even worse," Reich told congressmen at a forum discussing the stimulus bill in Washington.

On his blog, Reich urges Congress to spend without caution of overextending itself.

As the buyer of last resort, the federal government must respond if that cycle is to be reversed. In my judgment, this will require a stimulus of about 6 and a half percent of gross domestic product, or a total of some $900 billion, spread over two years. That’s my estimate for the shortfall in private demand. But the federal government should stand ready to spend larger sums if necessary to get the economy back on track toward full capacity. The danger is not that the government will do too much; the danger is that it will do too little, too late.

Reich agrees with Obama's plan to upgrade the nation's infrastructure as does Paul Krugman, but some disagree with the basic Keynesian approach. Larry Kudlow at the National Review mocks Obama's progressive pedigree by saying his stimulus plan is somewhat Reaganesque. "Nobody really believes infrastructure spending will end the recession or create permanent new jobs. However, it’s interesting just how much the Obama plan has changed since the election," he wrote.

Here lies the problem facing Washington: in the shadow of a clumsily rolled out $700 billion bailout for the financial sector where many do not know where the money went and fewer gained any stimulus from the investment, how will what many people see as a chronically ineffective legislative branch deal decisively with the economy? Obama wants a bill ready to sign from Congress by Feb. 13. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is already pushing to extend the deadline. Meanwhile, unemployment reaches 7.2 percent and the prospect of this year being somewhat better than the last decreases

This article and others can be found at The Commonwealth Club of California's blog commonwealthclub.blogspot.com. Also, read about the unspoken demise of employed Americans who are not only making less money per hour, but working less of them.

Oscar Grant Was Executed By BART Police

2009-01-05T15:41:00.000-08:00

S.F. CHRONICLE, THOUGH, SAYS GIVE BART POLICE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT

Oscar Grant III was executed New Year's morning. There is no way around it, no matter what the BART Police say.

Watch video of Grant being shot in the back by an unidentified BART policeman at Oakland's Fruitvale station.

Grant was face down and nearly subdued when the officer inexplicably discharged his weapon into his back. Without evidence of a weapon on Grant's person, the act was murder--execution style.

The local television newsrooms have been far more vigilant than the local newspapers in reporting the callousness of this act and the lame excuses and lies spokesman for BART have peddled since Thursday morning's killing.

The San Francisco Chronicle's article this morning shows a pro-law enforcement lede that reads:

BART's police chief asked for patience from the public on Sunday after video footage surfaced showing one of his officers fatally shooting an unarmed man who was on the ground on a station platform on New Year's Day, and after an attorney for the dead man's family said he planned to sue the transit agency for $25 million.

The lede in the Oakland Tribune and its East Bay sister papers is decidedly different:

A BART police officer struggling to handcuff a 22-year-old man stood up over the facedown Hayward resident and fired a single shot into his back while a handful of officers watched, a video taken by a train passenger apparently shows.

To some the difference may be subtle, but opening the article by allowing the perpetrator to urge some sort of caution provides the point of view of law enforcement when it is not deserved. Besides, reports of widespread unrest--although deserved--has not occurred in the Bay Area.

Even more egregious is that the Chronicle reporter allowed the BART police chief to rebut the images on the video by calling them "inconclusive."

This isn't surprising coming from the Chronicle. During the December 2007 tiger mauling at the San Francisco Zoo, reporters attempted to portray the victims as troublemakers seemingly getting what they deserved by taunting the animal.

The Chronicle's Demian Bulwa continues to peddle the company line offering possible excuses such as a high state of alert permeated the force that night and the officer may have intended to fire his taser gun instead.

The shooting of Oscar Grant III is a story that needs to be told nationally. It is every bit as appalling as the assault on Abner Louima in New York, the beating of Rodney King and the infamous 41 shots fired by the NYPD at Mamadou Diallo for merely reaching for his wallet.

Once again the leading economists and purveyors of Wall Street bull are telling us the nation's financial crisis is about to get better. Think again. Read my post at The Commonwealth Club of California's blog.

Developing Storyline: Can't Trust Those Democrats

2009-01-04T21:47:00.000-08:00

THREE WEEKS BEFORE INAUGURATION, GOP HAS SOMETHING ON NEW ADMIN.

So much for the big, scary liberal media operating in tandem with the incoming Obama administration and Democratic Congress to turn America into a socialist panacea.

If the audacity of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich allegedly selling the state's vacant U.S. Senate seat Chicago-style wasn't enough political crookedness, now comes these headlines from The New York Times:

"A Donor’s Gift Soon Followed Clinton’s Help" and today, "Richardson Won’t Pursue Cabinet Post". The latter referring to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson take his name out of consideration as Obama's Commerce Secretary because of an alleged pay-to-play scheme in his state.

Blagojevich, Clinton, and now Richardson...so much for change in Washington.

There seems to be a trend developing that surely has Republicans salivating. With still three weeks before the incoming administration takes power, Senate Minority Whip, Mitch McConnell already has three examples of Democrats acting in a supremely egregious manner. How soon until every wide-ranging progressive idea from expanding health care to stoking the stagnant economy is torpedoed by Republican rhetoric about the unapologetic graft of Democrats? How can we trust these guys with our tax dollars, the GOP will likely cry ad nauseam.

When Obama and others say something akin to "good ideas come to Washington to die" we really had a different view of how it would go down--with political posturing, not the plausible argument of trust in the party in power.

Cheney Again Hides Behind Presidential Power

2009-01-04T21:17:00.000-08:00

CHENEY LOOKS SICKLY ON MORNING TALK SHOW

Dick Cheney sounded a bit too much like President Nixon this morning with Bob Schieffer. If you have been watching television lately you might have noticed ads for the movie "Frost/Nixon" featuring actor Frank Langhella impersonating Nixon saying, "It's legal if the president does it."

On Face the Nation, a gaunt and raspy-voiced Cheney said something similar in an exchange where the veep referenced Abraham Lincoln's controversial suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War. (Click here to watch the clip from rawstory.com.)

"It certainly was in the sense he wasn't impeached," said Cheney, "And it was a wartime measure that he took that I think history says today, yeah, that was probably a good thing to do."

Cheney's response is an awkward version of "it's only illegal, if you get caught," and further illustrates the Bush-Cheney chutzpah of the last eight years will continue. Shortly after the Abu Ghraib disaster and massive flubbing of Katrina, the administration has, in a sense, thrown in the towel in regards to convincing the public their policies are beneficial in the short term. Instead, both the president and Cheney resort to using rhetoric from the future--history will vindicate us!--it possibly could, but likely will not, but it's all they have.

At a few points in this interview, Cheney is downright unapologetic about some of the policies he and the president have supported. One could almost see such sanguine answers as evidence used in the court of law. Hopefully lunatics on the left save their energy and focus it on taking advantage of the monumental opportunity afforded by the last eight years and remake the nation in a progressive image of equality and domestic tranquility.

Obama's Rise Starts With The People Of Iowa

2008-12-30T23:13:00.000-08:00

LFR'S PERSONS OF THE YEAR: THE VOTERS OF IOWA

Two thousand-eight will be go down as the year of Barack Obama. No publication in their right mind would argue with this assessment, but the end of eight years of partisan bickering under President Bush began in earnest during a snowy January night when the caucus-goers of Iowa proved that a black man could indeed become President of the United States. For this act of political bravery and vision the voters of Iowa are the LFR Persons of the Year.

Back in October of last year, the inevitability of Sen. Hillary Clinton's run to the White House began to decrease with reports of disarray in her Iowa campaign staff. The LFR wondered at this time whether Clinton might finish third in the Jan. 3 caucus--she did--but, it was not John Edwards who reaped the rewards, instead Obama easily won the nation's first contest and set the tone for the rest of the campaign season in the name of slogans such as "change we can believe in" and "Yes we can".

It wasn't just that Obama outsmarted Clinton on the ground in Iowa; this was expected. The Clintons going back to 1992 never engaged the voters of Iowa like they did in New Hampshire. President Clinton deferred to native son Sen. Tom Harkin in 1992 and ran unopposed in 1996. The sound of change, though, rang like a clarion call to voters unwilling to believe Obama could actually win the presidency when a Midwestern state featuring demographics of 92 percent whites threw up their arms in despair over the damage wrought by Republican rule and unequivocally set forth the rise of Obama on America. He would be upset in New Hampshire by a Clinton comeback but 13 straight victories along with the momentum it achieved became an unstoppable force for Clinton and ultimately the Republican challenger--Sen. John McCain.

Here's a sampling of the commentary from early January:

Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post said, "Because tonight voters decided that they didn't want to look back. They wanted to look into the future -- as if a country exhausted by the last seven years wanted to recapture its youth."

Ed Morrisey at the Captain's Quarters wrote, "Obama beat Hillary in a state that has a very small African-American demographic; he won not by playing the race card, but by simply offering a departure from Clintonian politics."

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Dick Polman seemed to be reading into the future saying, "He’s the 'change' candidate unless and until somebody else swipes the label. That won’t be easy, because now he looks like the leader of a burgeoning movement, and that’s catnip for independents and non-establishment Democrats who have long yearned to shake things up."

A diarist at Daily Kos makes the most illuminating point of all, "Tonight we saw the the core of a future progressive majority make its presence known in Democratic politics. Young Voters are not a hidden vote or icing on the cake, and after tonight, everyone knows it. "

It is easy to forget where this all started before voters in Iowa met in cramped high school gyms and clammy Elk's Lodges to thrust the candidacy of Obama towards its destiny almost exactly 11 months later. Obama was a likable, handsome candidate who could spin one hell of a speech, but until Iowa these attributes did not make a serious candidate.

The roots of Obama's successful campaign first spread in Iowa. His attention to unifying the country. The decision to never make race an issue. His ability to rally the youth and his use of sophisticated web tools such as emailing, text-messaging and grassroots organizing captured the mood of Iowans and later the entire country.

It is likely that historians will look kindly on Jan. 3, 2008 as the day America began to heal and the nation is indebted to the people of Iowa.

Geithner & Summers: Financial Enablers Return

2008-11-30T22:02:00.000-08:00

Admittedly, the economy will be first and foremost on Barack Obama's presidential agenda. The president-elect has liberally sprinkled ex-Clintonites throughout his early cabinet and administration posts, but filling the Treasury with acolytes of former Fed boss Robert Rubin is worrisome.

Amidst, calls to bailout ex-Enron enabler Citibank, the fingerprints of Rubin lie within that companies financial blunders and the economy as a whole.

The Sunday New York Times ran a lengthy article on Citibank's foolish investment practices which enhanced the short term while nearly ruining the country's one-time largest bank.

Citigroup insiders and analysts say that Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin played pivotal roles in the bank’s current woes, by drafting and blessing a strategy that involved taking greater trading risks to expand its business and reap higher profits.

It was under President Clinton that Rubin, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Act repealed much of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act allowing banks to consolidate seemingly every financial service under one house. Citibank was one of the main beneficiaries of the act allowing it to absorb Travelers Insurance.

With the picks of New York Federal Reserve boss, Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary and former Clinton treasury chief Lawrence Summers, the point that the same guys at the helm during the nascent stages of the financial debacle have resurfaced under a Democrat in Washington.

It's inevitably that Geithner, while lauded as intelligent and capable, will have to answer questions why Wall Street, located in his jurisdiction, did not prepare for its precipitious fall.

The mentor/pupil scenario that Time magazine puts forth in the Dec. 8 issue is a bit disconcerting also. According to the articles, Geithner (the pupil) was given the secretary's job on the basis that he could "handle" Summers (the mentor). Presumably, Summers would have been reunited with the Treasury office is not for his sexist remarks about women while at the helm at Harvard.

We are to be believed that Summers will not wield power from the National Economic Council and the same people who felt deregulation was a viable option 10 years ago will see the nation's economy differently today?

It was a bit disingenious and politically expedient for Obama to vow to bring change to Washington without a few old hands, yet choosing the very men responsible for the crisis that may swallow his presidency is extremely foolhardy.

Rhonda Becomes Invisible

2008-11-27T16:36:00.000-08:00

AS THANKSGIVING APPROACHES, DON'T FORGET THOSE IN NEED. THEY MIGHT BE OUTSIDE OF YOUR VIEW

Try sitting on the sidewalk. The rhythm of the noontime San Francisco foot traffic is steady on the corner of 2nd and Market, and the skies have been graying on the verge of rainfall. Businessmen and tourists stroll by and hover over you. This is the epitome of power, like Cassius Clay looking down at a destroyed Sonny Liston.

From this vantage point you become invisible. You don't really see more than shiny loafers and stylish pumps skitter across the cold concrete. This angle doesn't allow for much eye contact, either way. For a homeless woman named Rhonda this arrangement makes her disappear. Her obscurity lets passersby off the hook. I don't see you and you don't see me. People like Rhonda are easily forgotten.

Rhonda has made her home on 2nd Street for 10 years or as far as anyone around here remembers. John, the shoeshine man on Market, remembers her that far back, and the manager at the Men's Wearhouse, whose wall Rhonda uses as a backrest, agrees. "She thinks that's her home," says John, who is has been a fixture on that corner for 20 years. Members of The Commonwealth Club may have passed her by on their way to a fanciful speech on the downfall of our society, or something like it.

Rhonda's spot is quite large. She lies sideways on the sidewalk. Her elbow propping her body up against a few worn blankets -- a homeless Cleopatra without consorts. To her left is a large cart filled with a sleeping bag, cardboard boxes, half of a broom, a sheet of plastic to shield the rain and various sundry items. "Nothing I have is worth anything," she says.

Rhonda herself is a large African-American woman, though the the multi-layers of shirts, coats and sweaters makes her look rounder than she really is. She says she is 72, but like a lot of what she will tell you, this is subject to debate. The upper bridge of her teeth is gone, along with a few on the bottom, and she tugs a dark blue knit cap to her eyebrows and covers her ears. She's listening to her radio with her earphones. She likes R&B music with a little jazz. She listens to KBLX and sometimes the news to pass time.

There is no denying that Rhonda is one of many homeless people suffering from mental illness. Our conversation devolves into a jumble of non sequiturs and delusions of grandeur, but in between she realizes her life is not what she once imagined.

"I don't want to live like this -- like some wino -- or some dope addict," Rhonda says, "I don't want to be one to beg the streets. I don't want to be a panhandler." By all accounts, she does not ask for money, though she wears a small button on her coat saying donations are welcomed. She says she typically receives $5-$10 per day. She does, though, beg for food, saying "I love to eat."

On this day, she was nibbling on graying pieces of chicken presumably from the Subway two doors down. She would not say whether the sandwich shop gave the food or she found it in a garbage can. With Thanksgiving around the corner, Rhonda says she might visit a local soup kitchen or get in line at Glide Memorial nearby.

"Everybody who loves me helps me," she says, "There's a lot of people who hate me and do nothing."

John says there's a woman who visits Rhonda every day and gives her food and other necessities, but Rhonda doesn't want to talk about it. She calls her "just a friend."

Having survived on the streets for over 10 years, Rhonda has seen awful things. She says she was stabbed early on when another homeless person attempted to steal her purse, and she says she has been in the crossfire of numerous gunfights. Her meager possessions are also always in danger. "You can't leave nothing. You can't even close your eyes with all these vagrants and dope addicts around," she says.

Like many of the downtrodden among us, Rhonda is prone to alcoholism. "I love to drink liquor, especially gallons of liquor," she says, "I hate to even drink if it isn't a gallon."

John has seen her go on binges and notes "when she drinks, she gets the good stuff," but also says she doesn't bother anybody. The manager at the Men's Wearhouse agrees and says it is that fact that justifies not bothering her in return.

"She cleans up after herself. She sweeps her spot. If she would be throwing chicken bones all over or using it as a bathroom it would be different," he said.

Before I leave, Rhonda shakes my hand and blurts out, "I'll probably be locked outdoors for Thanksgiving." As I rise from a kneeling position next to her, my face floats out of her view and our line of eye contact is broken. All I become is just another pair of black shoes walking away from her and Rhonda becomes invisible again.

This article and other by me can be found The Commonwealth Club blog at commonwealthclub.blogspot.com.

Turner Tells Old War Stories; Reveal Little About Ted

2008-11-20T16:35:00.000-08:00

TURNER: 'I LIKE MY WOMEN BROKEN IN'

This article and others by me can be found at the blog of the Commonwealth Club of California. Click here to read more.

When Dr. Gloria Duffy, the Commonwealth Club's president and CEO, began a question to Ted Turner with "Mr. Turner," the cable news revolutionary deadpanned, "Call me Ted."

That, of course, is the title of Turner's autobiography slated to debut at number eight on the New York Times bestseller's list.

The humorous retort was emblematic of an evening featuring Turner's thoughts on the economy, foreign affairs, his children, ex-wife Jane Fonda and pet projects such as nuclear disarmament and global warming.

When asked why he had little involvement in the dot-com boom of the late 90's, Turner said facetiously, “Has there ever been anybody who ever led more than one revolution in one lifetime? Martin Luther King had civil rights, but that’s all he did. Alexander the Great conquered the world, but that’s all he did.”

Turner, who turned 70 Wednesday, sounded at times like an elder who claimed to have forecast every important event with the aid of hindsight.

On the demise of newspapers: "It's obsolete technologically. I saw that 40 years ago."

On the automobile industry: Turner said he "studied the situation" during the 1974 energy crisis and begrudgingly purchased a compact Japanese car.

On the rise of digital photography: Turner said he realized film was in trouble when he tested digital cameras 15 years ago.

It is undeniable, though, that Turner's wild-eyed vision of a 24-hour cable news network changed the media landscape forever. In some of the most interesting moments of the hour-long conversation, Turner described with wonderment how the Big Three networks failed to see the potential of cable news.

He described the network's vast infrastructure as being "1,000 times bigger than mine" and furiously worked to build the network from scratch without arousing the attention of the networks.

“I figured they were like a pack of hounds and I was going to be like a rabbit. I had to stay out in front of them because if they ever caught me they would tear me apart like a pack of hounds do a rabbit,” Turner said.

Calling himself a "global worrier," Turner mixed humor with real concern for the economic well-being of the country. At one point, he said people should welcome children back to the nest if the economy continues to spin downward.

“I’m really worried that we’re going to have a meltdown," Turner said, "But, I’m already thinking in terms of offering my children to move back into my house with me. If you remember "Sanford & Son," you know Lamont and Fred seemed happy.”

When asked if he believed the automobile industry should be bailed out, he said, "I don't think so" and instead offered his own idea for a bailout of the restaurant industry. "You can’t go more than three days without eating.” said Turner who owns Ted's Montana Grill with 50 restaurants in 18 states.

Turner believes the economy will distract president-elect Barack Obama's attention from other pressing issues like global warming, poverty and nuclear weapons.

He also agreed with Obama's desire to talk with our enemies, in particular, Iran. “I would meet with them and see if I could make them laugh," Turner said, "How can you sit there with a straight face? We’ve got 12,000 nuclear weapons and we tell Iran they can’t have any, but it’s okay for Israel to have them. They look at Israel as a danger. I think we all got to get rid of them or we’re all going to have them.”

Similar to numerous reviews of his book, Turner focused very little on his early years. The suicide of his father and abuse and the death of his sister to Lupus were touched upon but Turner offered little or no real insight, despite Turner's belief that you cannot know someone without understanding where they came from.

Turner did speak about his famous ex-wife Jane Fonda who wrote a section of the autobiography, revealing warts and all. “I’m good with that," said Turner. "I mean, after all, what’s she suppose to say? We got divorced. There must have been some problems.”

Despite the breakup, Turner indicated the two still share a good relationship. Fonda attended his birthday bash last Saturday featuring Burt Bacharach.

“She came to my birthday party. I talk to her just about every week to get my dose of humility," Turner said, "My father use to say that a few fleas were good for a dog, they reminded him that’s what he was.”

Did Latino Voters Really Turn Red States Blue?

2008-11-15T16:31:00.000-08:00

CNN REPORTS LATINOS DID NOT CHANGE OUTCOME OF ANY STATES

This article and others by me can be found at the blog of the Commonwealth Club of California. Click here to read more.

Conventional wisdom says Latino voters greatly helped Barack Obama become president-elect, but do the numbers back up such an assertion?

Frederico Pena, the former secretary of energy under President Clinton and mayor of Denver, told the Associated Press earlier this week that battleground states such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Florida would not have been won by Obama if not for the Latino voting bloc.

Poll numbers show voters backed Obama over Sen. John McCain by a 2-to-1 margin. McCain's 31 percent was significantly lower than the 44 percent President Bush garnered in 2004.

But, Mark Krikorian, writing "The Corner" blog at National Review, has an alternative view of the Latino vote's tangible power in this year's election.

According to the usual suspects, the benchmark in garnering Hispanic votes for Republicans is Bush's 40 percent showing in 2004. So what would have happened if McCain had matched Bush's performance, instead of the 31 percent he actually got? Based on CNN's exit polls, McCain still would have lost Nevada, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, not to mention, say, California and New Jersey. Conversely, even if Obama had won 90 percent of the Hispanic vote in Texas, instead of 63 percent, he still would have lost the state. With the possible exception of North Carolina, where the results were close but the number of Hispanic voters is too small to register in the exit poll, there doesn't seem to be a single state where the Hispanic vote was critical to the outcome.

If the Latino vote didn't sway a single state one way or the other, what gives? Why are Latino leaders patting themselves on the backs and Republicans stressing over the loss of a group perceived to be "conservative-ready"?

The importance of Latinos voting in greater numbers for Democrats, along with their demographic growing larger and tending to be younger, in general, could portend great discomfort for future conservatives trying to win not only presidential electoral politics, but governorships in the West and seats in Congress.

An article at U.S. News indicates Latinos' switch toward Obama may have been part of an overall disillusionment by all demographics from eight years of President Bush.

Economic factors are on the minds of most Americans but may have hit Latinos harder. According to the article, Latinos are twice as likely to receive high-interest loans than whites, putting them at risk for financial upheaval in this tumultuous financial climate.

Disproportionately higher unemployment for Latinos may have also changed perceptions, as did the relative absence of gay marriage (excluding California and two other states) and abortion as issues to stoke latent conservative values Latinos tend to possess.

Obama's Gonna Take Our Guns, Ma; Let's Go To Walmart

2008-11-12T16:02:00.000-08:00

VIEW OF BLACKS RISE WITH SALES OF GUNS

The Los Angeles Times asks today is Obama's election "a turning point in the perception of blacks?"

The view does not sound optimistic according to the feature story. The Dean of Public Affairs at UCLA still gets pegged as a music producer and the observance of "DWB" driving while black still exists.

Ominously, "The image of the black man is fear," said Damian Thompson, 35, to the L.A. Times.

Which leads us to this story in today's Chicago Tribune:

Some say they are worried that the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama will attempt to re- impose the ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004. Others fear the loss of their right to own handguns. A few say they are preparing to protect themselves in the event of a race war.

The worry of gun enthusiasts that an Obama administration would curtail their right to bear arms is unfounded.

Realistically, the smoothing of rhetoric from Democrats for the last four years regarding guns has brought significant electoral cache to the party along with governorships in the now purple-turning Rocky Mountain West.

Of course, as a liberal Obama would love to limit gun rights. This is obvious, yet the fervor to achieve that goal is nowhere near important as making the West blue in states like Montana and the Dakotas.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer showed the party how to win in the red West playing moderate politics while toting a rifle and camo gear.

What is worrisome and a bit outrageous about the Tribune story is people would actually tell a reporter they see a possible race war occurring.

So, how would this race war start? Obama signs an executive order allowing all blacks to quit paying taxes? Obama enters a room to "Hail to the Chief" with a hip-hop beat?

Click here to read my posting on the one-year anniversary of the Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay at commonwealthclub.blogspot.com

Obama Needs To Go Large With Goals

2008-11-11T17:36:00.000-08:00

PRESIDENT-ELECT CAN BE BOLD LIKE BUSH, BUT EFFECTIVE

Here's a truly outside-the-box idea for the next president from Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic.

The title says it all, "Why Obama Should Copy Bush (Really!)"

Of course, Cohn does not recommend emulating Bush by ignoring the Constitution, torture and general spying on the citizenry, but he does urge W.'s one-track mind towards big goals.

One of Bush’s most remarkable qualities--and one, I admit, that I frequently admired--was his stubborn focus on goals and willingness to push political boundaries aggressively. It took a president of uncommon gumption and boldness to push such a radical agenda; America, after all, is not a radical country by nature. But Bush understood political opportunity when it presented itself and he seized it. And while I’d hate to see Obama systematically ignoring policy experts and manipulating intelligence--or deliberately stoking partisan division for the sake of winning elections--I wouldn’t mind if, like Bush, Obama showed the same sort of singular focus.

A good argument can be made the Bush presidency has been highly successful for a select few, but, nonetheless; big promises were made and delivered.

Cohn lists them:

Consider what Bush has accomplished. He has overhauled the tax code, tilting it towards the wealthy and significantly reducing federal revenues. He signed a landmark education reform that changed the curriculum in virtually ever public school. He gutted the regulatory state and hollowed out the bureaucracy. He added a drug benefit to Medicare, thereby enacting the largest single entitlement expansion since the 1960s. He tipped the Supreme Court’s ideological balance with two strongly conservative appointees.

Although gas prices hover just under $2.40 per gallon in the Bay Area, Bush did deliver his oilmen buddies prices 100 percent higher during his two terms.

A week after President-elect Barack Obama's election, there is no real gauge as to how bold his foreign and domestic agenda will be. The naming of Rahm Emanuel as presidential bulldog is a signal that he will be bold domestically with a known quantity both feared and admired for getting things done in Congress.

If Obama decides to shift the country leftward or institiute bold objectives like Bush he will have two things the 43rd president did not have: a clear mandate and confidence in his intellectual heft.

Obama And The Faux Fros

2008-11-11T15:58:00.000-08:00

If you write at a black web site like The Root, you can photoshop photos of the next president in various hairdos and get away with it.

You can also find a rundown of hairstyles worn by female politicians here, but not one of Sen. John McCain with a mohawk or Sen. John Kerry with a mullet.

Puppy Dog The Republican Hunter

2008-11-10T16:45:00.000-08:00

NYT'S KRISTOL TALKS TOUGH; RUNS FROM OBAMA'S PUPPY

It's a dog eat dog world out there for Republicans.

William Kristol of the Weekly Standard, writes in the New York Times op/ed page his whole perception of the next four (or eight) years was transformed by the mere mention of a puppy.

President-elect Barack Obama's intention to buy his daughters a puppy during his speech last Tuesday night apparently stopped in its tracks Kristol's belief that the U.S. is still a center-right country and the loss was attributed to a huge anti-Bush vote.

"I gulped," he writes.

And so did I. According to Kristol, the canine portion of Obama's speech could be the most famous since Richard Nixon vouched for Checkers the dog. (Click here to watch Nixon's "Checkers” speech.)

Here, in a few sentences, Obama did the following: He deepened his bond with every dog lover in America. He identified with every household that’s tried to figure out what kind of dog to get. He touched every parent with a kid allergic to pets. He showed compassion by preferring a dog from a shelter. And he demonstrated a dry and slightly politically incorrect wit by commenting that “a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me.

What Kristol is actually afraid of is President Bush with a brain; not just the guy you would have a beer with, but the neighbor you would rather invite over for a beer and a barbecue with the family.

For Republicans, it has come to this: posture that the country has not really changed and foster the belief the election of Obama was one entirely fictional protest vote against eight years of Bush.

A staunch conservative like Kristol finds himself confident in the face of the further loss of the new Latino voting bloc, the beginning of a Democratic Southern realignment, the loss of white men, the rise of new first-time voters but it's the sad puppy eyes of the Obama's future pet that has him in shaking in his boots.

Q&A: Two Minutes (Literally) With Rep. Pete Stark

2008-11-05T17:27:00.000-08:00

EAST BAY CONGRESSMEN WINS HIS 17TH TERM IN OFFICE

After defeating his Republican opponent with 74 percent of the vote, Rep. Pete Stark thanked his constituency Tuesday night at the Hayward Democratic headquarter wearing a fuschia tie dotted with peace signs. He spoke with the Lunatic Fringe Report:

LFR: Congratulations on returning to another term in office. What are some of the things you will be working on in the next two years?

Rep. Pete Stark: Health care. We're just going to be trying to get health care for everybody. Universal health care is my goal.

LFR:I'm not sure the Senate will get a filibuster-proof 60, but you'll have more in the House and now you have the president. What are the chances of something happening with health care?

Stark: They're good. I think they're great. I think it's one of the most important things right now with the economy turned down more people are losing their health care. It's very irritating. Probably one of the most urgent domestic issues.

LFR: Last question, Barack Obama is now the president-elect. What are you thoughts about the night?

Stark: It's a new beginning and a change in the direction of this country. I'm excited to go back to work with him.

It's Gonna Be A Long Walk Home

2008-11-05T14:55:00.000-08:00

THE LONG ROAD TO REDEMPTION STARTS TODAY.

Times have been difficult for Americans. The times we feel today are much different than the angst felt in the first years of the Bush presidentcy.

The pillars of our country--freedom, openness and democracy were smashed with a neo-conservative hammer laying the foundation for the fall of banks and the credit markets.

The excitement of yesterday, though, is tempered by uncertainty. Millions of Americans still wonder with the Christmas season coming how to placate their children while crossing their fingers there's enough money to pay the bills or the mortgage, for that matter.

As Bruce Springsteen wrote, "It's gonna be a long walk home" to our ideals as a people.

I've been thinking of this song, "Long Walk Home" for a few months in anticipation of the election of Barack Obama. (Listen to a snippet, here.)

What is home for us? I think The Boss puts it eloquently when he sings:

My father said "Son, we're lucky in this town
It's a beautiful place to be born
It just wraps its arms around you
Nobody crowds you, nobody goes it alone.
That you know flag flying over the courthouse
Means certain things are set in stone
Who we are, what we'll do and what we won't."

It's gonna be a long walk home, pretty darling.

American History Is Made; Personal Histories Remembered

2008-11-05T14:19:00.000-08:00

ELECTION OF OBAMA LIFTS THE DISHEVELED AMERICAN SPIRIT

The New American President:

the land of hope and dreams

HAYWARD, Calif. - At around 5 p.m. Tuesday night NBC called Pennsylvania for Sen. Barack Obama.

Democratic diehards watching the returns at the downtown headquarters in Hayward burst into cheers after the first of the battleground states went blue.

Rhea Palmer stood in the back with tears rolling down her cheeks.

“I’m thinking about my mom right now,” said Palmer, a resident of Hayward.

Seeing an African-American elected president of the United States is something she says she thought she would never see.

Palmer’s grandmother use to bring her along to work polling places in San Francisco when she was a little girl forging a strong belief in the power of voting.

“My mom would make us vote when we were old enough,” said Palmer “She always told us to get involved and get active in our community.”

While she realizes America still has racial problems, she also sees Obama’s future presidency as an example for other African-American men to follow.

“Seeing him up there gives me so much hope that he can show other young black men what they can do,” said Palmer.

DeWayne Ramsey of Hayward finds the prospect of living under an Obama presidency as a call to the rest of the African-American community to step up.

“This is history in the making,” he said, “You know, not all black men leave their kids. Barack Obama is a family man and this is a slap in the face to that idea.”

Ramsey also views a dearth of well-known black leaders until the arrival of Obama.

“We haven’t had a role model since Martin Luther King,” he said, “Barack Obama is now our role model.”

Democrats hoping to witness history sat in front of the big screen television in rows of chairs while other mobilized for last-minute forays onto the streets hoping to reject proposition 8 from passing.

In adjoining offices, volunteers continued to call voters who had yet to vote as of six in the evening, while lawyers sat awaiting any possible problems at the polls.

According to Edith Looney, director of the Eden Area United Democratic Party, nothing but minor problems were reported around the Hayward area.

As Obama began to tick off key states like Ohio and Florida, the excitiement began to grow. They hooted when Sen. Elizabeth Dole lost her senate seat in North Carolina and clapped their hands when former education secretarty William Bennett announced on CNN, “There’s no Bradley-effect. The country has grown up.”

Steve Bacon, a former member of the Air Force, turned to crowd from his front row seat and read a text message from his phone, “President Bush needs volunteers to get his [stuff] out of the White House. Put me down for the three to eight shift!”

By 7 p.m., anticipation rose as many realized the 205 electoral votes Obama had already received coupled with the likely inclusion of California’s 55 votes, put their candidate within 10 of the presidency.

“This is going to be over by eight,” said Oakland resident Michael Vaughn.

Local politicians such as State Senator Ellen Corbett, Hayward Mayor Michael Sweeney, San Leandro Mayor Tony Santos and former assemblyman Johan Klehs begin to trickle into the offices.

Congressman Pete Stark would later arrive to thank his constituents for returning him to Washington for a 17th time.

Just as Klehs walked in, the crowd began whooping and hollering. The stunned Klehs would later learn the image of Oprah Winfrey on the television illicited the cheers and not his presence.

Just a minute after 8 p.m, the networks called the election for Obama.

Those seated exploded from the seats. Complete strangers embraced, while in a sign of the times, teenagers attached cell phones to their ears to share the news.

A 10-minute standing ovation ensued with a mixture of applause and chants of “O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma!” and “No more Bush!” thrown in for good measure.

Even as the graphic on the screen read “Barack Obama: president-elect of the United States” Michael Vaughn still had not registered what had just occured in his mind.

“I’m looking at the screen. I can read what it says, but I still don’t believe it,” an incredulous Vaughn said.

A young African-American woman stood near the doorway with a blue scarf fitted loosely around her neck. Her hands were clasped near her mouth. Tears were welling up in her eyes mixed with a smile filled with awstruck and content.

A few young girls decked out in their Catholic school dresses sat on the floor. A parent pulled

one close to explain the historical significance of the moment in their young lives.

As Sen. John McCain gave his concession speech, a red-headed high school girl mocked the Republican and yelled, “Who the maverick, now!”

The mood in the hot and humid offices turned somber as the newly elected president spoke to the throng of supporters in Chicago.

It was as if the weight of the moment hit everyone at once.

Between the idiosyncratic pauses in Obama’s speech you could faintly hear sniffles and quiet weeping.

An older white man stood in the back. His face reddened with tears ready to fall down his cheeks. His lips were pursed as he listened to Obama as if he was holding in the tears from falling.

The mood of Obama’s acceptance speech was a stark difference from the carnival atmosphere which occured when Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992.

There was no dancing, no fist-pumping and vaguely a smile from the new president.
Democrats watching in Hayward seemed to mimic Obama’s tone.

Seated in the middle of the group was a woman, palms laying flat on her lap. Her eyes shut tightly. She was rocking slowly back and forth with each sentence Obama would utter as if in a metatative trance. She seemed in the midst of an act of spiritual cleansing with the pain floating away into the ether.

As Obama ended his speech punctuated by the campaign slogan, “Yes We Can,” she whispered the phrase a full second before Obama and slowly opened her weary eyes.

Convoy Of Wheelchairs Tries To Hijack Votes

2008-11-04T12:57:00.000-08:00

election day'08: the race to clean the place

I voted this morning. My polling is situated in a mobile home park for seniors where voter disenfranchisement could entail accidentally feeding your dentures into the voting machine.

Seniors limped in and a convoy of electric wheelchairs hummed. I'm a voter ready to make my choices and leave. I was only at the polling place for 10 minutes. In that short time, four voters had their ballots rejected by the machine for having too many votes chosen.

The attendant told them they could fill out a new ballot or resend the current one without the offending office or initiative counted. They all choose to resend. The Price is Right is on in five minutes, honey!

While waiting in line to have my ballot authenticated, a disable man in his 50's put his motorized wheelchair in gear, except it went in reverse sideswiping the machine that counts the ballots. He jabbed at the joystick. The wheelchair shimmied forcefully left and right until he was sufficiently attached to the machine.

He grimaced while an older woman walked over to free him. He did not seem to want help though, mumbling something like the "my wheelchair is stuck! Must....get....loose!"

In the meantime, the machine, lightweight with smooth moving wheels rolled around like R2-D2 hitched to the back of landspeeder.

Somehow the man was loosened from the machine and sped out the door saying "I'm crazy", his voicing trailing as he rolled away.

I think he voted for John McCain.

Don't Trust The Media; I Did Vote!

2008-11-04T12:47:00.000-08:00

An Election Day For The History Book

2008-11-03T23:06:00.000-08:00

2008 ELECTION DAY PREVIEW

election'08: the race to clean the place - 1 day to go

[This election] will be remembered as the year when the not only younger people revived their interests in the issues but also first time voters. A mandate will be reached...because of this group.

These two lines appeared in LFR on November 1, 2004, on the eve of President Bush's re-election victory over Sen. John Kerry, yet they could be written in the same tone on the eve of the 2008 presidential election.

Ultimately, young voters did not respond any more disproportionately than any other election and the nation endured four more years of President Bush.

It is likely to occur again, yet because of sizable gains among white males, young voters showing up at the polls at roughly the same rate could give Sen. Barack Obama the White House.

Here's what to look for Tuesday:

McCAIN NEEDS TO WIN 5 OF 6 BATTLEGROUND STATES
Like Kerry four years ago, McCain has only a few quite iffy scenarios to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat as he said this weekend.

McCain unrealistically must win a combination of five of six battleground states that include Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Virginia and Colorado.

Kerry needed to win Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida to beat George W. Bush. He only won the Quaker State.

OBAMA HOVERS OVER 50 PERCENT IN THE POLLS
According to data compiled by realclearpolitics.com, Obama leads in all 15 major national polls. More importantly, Obama holds a slight majority of the vote in 14 of the 15 polls, with the International Business Daily poll having him leading 48-43.

Fifty percent is the key for Obama, making any number of undecideds moving to McCain relatively moot.

PRESIDENTIAL LANDSLIDES
When it comes to election landslides it is hard to beat Reagan trouncing Walter Mondale by 18 points in 1984 and Richard Nixon laying the wood on George McGovern in 1972.

Presidential "landslide" is a relative term within politics. Where a seven point win other races might be a squeeker, the 6-7 point average margin of victory most polls show for Obama constitute a landslide.

Merely reaching 50 percent would be historical for Democrats. Obama would be the first to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. President Clinton was stymied by third party candidate Ross Perot in 1992 and scored 49.2 of the vote against Bob Dole four years later.

OBAMA BEGINS TO NAME CABINET
Invariably as it becomes apparent Obama will be elected president, campaign staffers will begin peddling the names of possible cabinet members.

Thus far, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, a former Clinton staffer has been mentioned as a possible Chief of Staff, while a New York magazine story quotes sources saying Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will not be retained by Obama. In his place another former Clintonite and Harvard president Larry Summers may be summoned.

Obama may go Republican with Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana at the state department and Colin Powell may play some role in bringing the nation's military thought process back to circa 1998.

REPUBLICANS BEGIN THE BLOODLETTING
The losing party usually brings out the knives for their guy's failed attempt at the White House. This year it could get more ugly than usual.

McCain may have religious conservatives angry he did turn towards Jesus before selecting their darling, the lovely Sarah Palin. Old time conservatives are already seething over the loss of the "real McCain", "The Maverick". Of course, this is the McCain persona those same people found incorrigible on Capitol Hill

What is likely to happen in the next few weeks is cover stories and columns showing infighting, constant bickering and a case of too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

SENATE NEARS FILIBUSTER-PROOF
Democrats in the Senate need 60 members including Connecticut's Joe Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders in their caucus.

They appear to be falling just short of sixty with 58 looking likely. Saxby Chambliss in Georgia and Al Franken in Minnesotacould be the key for Democrats to crack a filibuster-proof 60, something a presidential has not had since President Carter in 1976.

THE RISE OF THE LATINO VOTING BLOC IN THE WEST
In 2000, Al Gore barely won New Mexico. Four years later, President Bush won it by less than one percent. In 2008, New Mexico, with a large influx on Latino voters and a Republican bent on alienating this burgeoning majority, the state is firmly blue for Obama.

The fever may be spreading. Colorado is leaning blue. So is Nevada. Most surprisingly in recent weeks, has been the movement in the electorate towards Obama in Big Sky states like Montana and North Dakota. Neither of these states are likely to turn blue in 2008, but may go the way of New Mexico in 2012.

The World Is Watching; Hoping For Change

2008-11-03T22:36:00.000-08:00

POSTCARD FROM THE DESERT KINGDOM OF DUBAI

election'08: the race to clean the place

By Gabriel de Andrade
Special to the LFR

Watching the run up to this election from Dubai has been both fascinating and entertaining. What I cant get over is how scared Americans seem to be of change. The fact that words such as socialism, which are perfectly normal to use in most of the free world, has some Americans scrambling for cover is quite amusing.

I can't understand is the most powerful country in the world has no problem spending billions of taxpayers money fighting useless wars in distant shores but has a problem with providing its taxpayers with health care. Watching too much Fox News has not helped. I have not come across such a bunch of righteous and ignorant commentators in my life before. I hope that this is only the view of a few and that Americans know better.

A readers poll in today's Gulf News that asks "who would you vote for to be the new US president?" has Barack Obama leading John McCain, 63 to 11. Intrestingly enough, 17 percent of those polled stated none of the above .This is interesting as it indicates to me a general mistrust of any U.S. leadership, however, the general consensus on the Middle Eastern street is anybody but George W. Bush.

Don't get me wrong. I for one and most people out here love the U.S. and its people. But Bush's actions over the last eight years has left a perception his administration had a personal and imperialist agenda. We hope that after today's vote all that will change.

That Obama is the clear favorite out here is no surprise. A vote for McCain is perceived as a vote for the status quo. Obama is seen as a young, dynamic advocate for change who will deal with the rest of the world in an unbiased and evenhanded manner.

Believe me, if he gets that right in the Middle East the US will have millions of new friends and will do a lot better in winning hearts and minds than sending troops into villages with candy. I have no doubt that if he wins today he will have is work cut out for him. To rectify the political and financial mess is going to require a massive effort and the support of all who live in the USA.

Although the polls say otherwise there is still doubt out here as to whether the people of the USA will have the courage to elect a leader of color. I sincerely hope that they will show intent and show the rest of the rest of the world how free thinking America really is. I have faith in the American people to do the right thing and hope that America has the courage to do the right thing and put Obama in office.

Gabriel de Andrade is a South African national living in Dubai. Unfortunately, he is also a fan of the Liverpool football club in the English Premier League.

Berman Fumbles Candidate's Final Stand

2008-11-03T21:10:00.000-08:00

ESPN VET RUMBLES, FUMBLES MNF INTERVIEWS

election'08: the race to clean the place

Call him Chris "my questions were written by elementary school children" Berman.

Sen. Barack Obama (Click here for video) and Sen. John McCain (Click here for video) appeared during halftime of the Pittsburgh Steelers-Washington Redskins game.

The much-anticipated final conversation with voters before America votes tomorrow turned into ESPN's venerable anchor tossing the world's largest softball questions.

In addition, Berman and ESPN apparently believe in equal time while the rest of the broadcast world dropped that "archaic" rule years ago. Berman went on to ask both candidates the exact same question.

Berman started off by asking the 72-year-old McCain, "What did you learn about yourself?" Apparently, realizing you can't teach an old dog new tricks, McCain answered "not a whole lot."

Softball number two: "If you could change one thing in sports, what would it be?" This derivative of "If stranded on a deserted island, what blank would you bring?"

Obama, knowing the college vote could make him president, told Berman he ws tired of computers deciding college football's national championship. Later in the short interview, Obama also said college basketball's Final Four would be the sporting event he would like to attend as president.

The quite lame interviews conducted by Berman were highlighted, though, when Berman asked McCain about the best piece of advice he has received from sports.

Playing off the announcer's famous football call McCain said, "He-could-go-all-the-way!"

On the playing field, the Steelers defeated the Redskins, 23-6, meaning Obama will win the election.

Every election, of course, except for 2004, the winner of the Washington's final game before an election has correctly predicted the winner. Since the Skins lost Monday night, the incumbent president's party will be defeated.

Candidates spent $5 billion dollars campaigning for two years and one simple NFL game is all that is needed?

Hour-By-Hour; How The Election Will Go Down

2008-11-03T16:43:00.000-08:00

AMERICA MAY KNOW ITS NEW LEADER BY 6 P.M. PACIFIC

election'08: the race to clean the place

If you can't be home watching Wolf Blitzer in front of the CNN's large Situation Room screen, here's how the election may go down when the polls begin to close starting with Indiana and parts of Eastern Kentucky at 3 p.m. pacific.

3 p.m. Sen. John McCain should jump out to a quick 19 electoral vote lead with a hard-fought victory in Indiana and an easy win in Kentucky. If, for some reason, Indiana switches to Sen. Barack Obama, the election is over. The networks would also delay calling the Hoosier State until later in the hour or more. McCain leads 19-0.

4 p.m. With wins in Georgia, South Carolina McCain will extend his lead, but ominous sign of his eventually demise will creep with a bitter loss in Virginia and an easy win for Obama in Vermont. McCain leads 42-16.

4:30 p.m. North Carolina and West Virginia go to McCain. Polls also close in the battleground state of Ohio, but, again the networks will hold off calling a likely win for Obama until after five just in case. McCain leads 62-36.

5 p.m. Twenty states begin counting votes as primetime hits the East Coast. The election may well be decided during this hour or, at least, Obama could clinch the presidency with sure-fire large blue states remaining to be won. Florida, Pennsylvania and Missouri could be called within this hour. The combination of Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio earlier will likely knock all the air out of any possibility of a McCain presidency. The bellweather Show Me State of Missouri may go to McCain without consequence. Obama leads 177-152.

5:30 p.m. Bill Clinton casts his vote reluctantly for Obama as Arkansas goes to McCain (I know he votes in New York). Obama leads 177-158.

6 p.m. While Obama has not reached the requisite 270 to become president-elect, the writing is definitely on the wall. With McCain roughly 118 electoral votes shy of 270 and large can't-miss states remaining such as New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the big mama--California--McCain is seeking far more than a miracle. Obama leads 246-185.

7 p.m. The state where it all began, Iowa, closes polls for Obama. Utah and Idaho easily go for McCain, while Montana shows signs of turning blue for Democrats in the future, but, today goes McCain's way. Nevada by way of an influx of Latinos and Californians goes blue. Obama leads 258-197.

8 p.m. Officially, the presidency will be won in the West as California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii go to Obama. Obama becomes president-elect of the United States, 335-197.

9 p.m. Unofficially, the state where McCain's campaign ultimately derailed with the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska sends its three electoral votes to McCain. Obama wins 335-20o.