AnotherVoice

Other people’s mistakes

2009-07-07T17:25:00.002-05:00

It has been said that fools never learn and wise men learn from their mistakes. But geniuses should learn from other people’s mistakes.

The great state of California seems on the verge of becoming the late great state of California as it struggles to survive the current recession. Because of a few quirks in their state laws, combined with the fact that the legislature is required to produce a balanced state budget, the financial condition of the state is dire.

Some folks living outside of California who find it amusing, even righteous, to look
down upon the state and all its components (especially Hollywood and its Democrats) may be tempted to express a certain amount of glee at how the mighty seems to have fallen, apparently forgetting that it was California and specifically Hollywood that gave us the late, great Ronald Reagan.

But “left-coast” critics around the country, as they decide how to address their own fiscal crises, would do well to try to understand how that state got into this particular fix, for there is much to be learned from it by others.

Back in the day, as we love to say, California was thriving. But in 1978, “thriving” wasn’t enough for some — nor, for that matter, was their system of representative government, apparently, for beginning with the now infamous Proposition 13, they began to opt for anarchy.

California is one of the states that allows for new laws and even constitutional amendments to be accomplished through referendum — that is, a popular vote that effectively bypasses the legislature. Inquiring minds might want to know why anyone should bother with electing a government at all.

So the citizens passed a constitutional amendment, wildly promoted by anti-tax folks, limiting property taxes to 1% of the assessed value of a home and limiting assessment increases to 2% per year until the property changes hands.

By contrast, here in Waxahachie the property tax (including all local taxes) is about 2.35%. Given that just about everything is more expensive in California, the difference is striking.

Of course, here in Texas we have the homestead exemption, which includes a 10% cap on the amount an appraisal can be increased from year to year, a bit more than 2%.

Not satisfied with reducing future property tax revenues, the greedy folks who brought this about made it retroactive, sending out millions of dollars in refund checks the first year; all the homeowner had to do was ask.

Howard Jarvis, half of the Jarvis-Gann team who led the effort to put Prop 13 on the ballot, is quoted as having characterized all taxes as “felony grand theft.” Texas TEA-party folks would be proud.

Added to the existing law requiring a two-thirds vote for any tax increase anywhere in the state, and another prohibiting local agencies from setting any new tax, the collateral damage was huge.

Very soon after the amendment went into effect, the quality of life in California began to change dramatically. Public libraries began closing down to half-days, “non-essential” school personnel (like counselors) were laid off, and according to Wikipedia, citing a report from the Public Policy Institute of California, “Fire departments were gutted because of a drastic loss of funds. … Cities also cut water, gas and electricity expenses.”

According to a 2003 report in the Rand Review, “Widely regarded as one of the best systems of education in the country as recently as 30 years ago, the California public school system has since become, according to most measures, one of the worst.”

Does this sound like something we want in Texas?

One more thought:

The current web site of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association boasts that Proposition 13 has "saved California taxpayers" over $528 billion. As of June 2009, Reuters reported, California’s present struggle is to overcome a $24 billion budget deficit.

You do the math.

The doctor will see you now

2009-06-25T10:14:00.006-05:00

The worst thing about undergoing a biopsy is the inevitable wait for the results to come in. And if you plan ahead poorly and have the procedure on a Thursday or Friday, I can just about guarantee your weekend will be ruined, because it’ll be Monday before you get the word.

Of course the really worst thing is to have what doctors ironically refer to as “positive” results when they really mean you are not going to be happy to hear them. Your red flags should go up when the doctor asks you to come see him as soon as possible, to talk about your situation.

Imagine this scenario: After sitting in the waiting room with half a dozen or so other patients, you find yourself confronting your future. Your doctor explains that you have a tumor, in fact of the kind that grows fairly rapidly, making surgery the only real option for treatment.

The doctor, whom you trust absolutely and have known for half your life, doesn’t mince words. If you don’t have the surgery, you will die, and soon.

This is not just one kick-in-the-gut time, but two. When you were laid off, fortunately you had enough savings to tide you over until you could find another job, and now that is going to run out while you recover from what will be major surgery. Not only that, but you lost your health insurance with the job, and no other insurance company was willing to cover you because you have had diabetes, even though it has been controlled with dietary changes.

You are looking at tens of thousands of dollars, all told, that you just don’t have. The choice is pretty simple: Find the money or die.

Family conference time: you have a decent amount of equity in your home and will be able to borrow against that. Then two of your kids, who are each doing pretty well, offer to pitch in. They have lots of equity in their homes and can easily raise the money. “We want to keep you around, Dad.”

This is not where you say, “No, I’d rather die than let my kids go into debt!”
At least, I certainly hope not!

How could I even suggest such a thing? Because if you cast the situation in terms of the current opposition to President Obama’s health care plan, you’d be running up a deficit and placing a financial burden on your children.

I don’t know about you, but if I were in your situation, I’d have no problem with that concept. And neither would my children, or so I’m told.

Opponents of health care reform that is likely to add “trillions” to the public debt constantly worry about “passing it on to our children and grandchildren,” as if that made any sense. At worst, it’s a cynical argument to make us feel guilty, at best it’s a pitiful lack of understanding of how the world works.

I’m someone’s child, and grandchild for that matter, and I’m probably still paying for World War II, the GI bill, the interstate highway system, and the NASA program, all things that have kept our country safe and prosperous over the years.

If debt is bad, then get rid of the house, the truck and your kids’ college educations, not to mention that 52” flat-screen TV in the rec room. And forget about the trip to Disney World that your credit card would have made possible.

The point of health care reform is to bring the system under control so that costs will be lower and everyone can afford some form of insurance which cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions. Like diabetes. Like you.

Once everyone is covered, emergency rooms will be freed up to deal with emergencies. Preventive care will kick in and that will lower costs all through the system. A 21st century method of keeping medical records will streamline doctors’ ability to provide informed care and will reduce the enormous amount of paperwork presently required of both doctors and patients, allowing doctors to focus on their patients.

This cannot happen in a month or two, or even in a year. But when we pay enormous amounts for our children to attend college we expect they’ll go through at least four years of study, perhaps more with graduate study. And we don’t expect they’ll be hired into a $100,000 a year job even before they graduate, do we?

In fact, you won’t see a return on your investment for years, but you don’t mind because you’ll know it was worth it as the kids begin to prosper. Same with health care reform; it’ll take a while, but it’ll be worth it.

You’ll get your investment back as costs go down and the system works better — and now your kids won’t have to help pay for your surgery.

Nightlife in Waxahachie

2009-06-20T17:35:00.003-05:00

A few nights ago, when it was time to turn in and I was preparing for bed with NPR chatting away on the radio, I thought I heard the telephone ring. Couldn’t be sure, so I stopped and listened carefully.

Burrrrrrrrrrrr! Burrrrrrrrrrrr! Not exactly a ring-a-ding type of ring, but that kind of soft burring sound you mostly hear in offices. Burrrrrrrrrrrr! Burrrrrrrrrrrr! Maybe my phone ringer was having a problem.

I heard it again, and then again. I turned the radio down to make sure I wasn’t imagining things, and then could hear it clearly. I tried to figure out where it was coming from. From outside, through the open window? Didn’t make sense.

I walked around to see if it was really coming from somewhere in the house. Nope. Could be from my neighbor’s house, if they had a very loud phone, I guess.

It was puzzling, and kind of amusing, but it was time to sleep, so I shut the window, the sound went away, and I slept.

Most of us have a hard time ignoring a mystery, of course, so the matter was still on my mind at daybreak.

After awhile I called a Texas-born friend, who suggested that it was most likely an early cicada, explaining there’s always a loner or two who turn up first; it made sense and I was satisfied.

Until that night, when I heard my mystery phone again. This time I was downstairs and could tell that the sound was definitely coming from outside the house.

I had the back door open, and this was definitely down low; sounded like it was coming from the pool, in fact. But isn’t a cicada supposed to be up in a tree?

So it must be a frog of some kind. Since I’d never seen a singing frog up close, I wanted to get a look at him. Got the flashlight and embarked.

The pool is like a pond, surrounded by grasses, plants and underbrush, perfect for a froggy type to hide in, but I was determined to see him. He kept singing and I kept closing in on the sound.

Now, a person of a certain age does not typically have the balance of a tightrope walker, you know, so it was a little bit of an adventure sneaking along the dark border of the pool without falling in – but finally I found him. Singing his little heart out.

When these guys sing, their throats puff out like a little golf ball. This is serious stuff. He sang, someone across the pool answered, he sang again. And so on for as long as I stood there.

Back at my computer, thanks to trusty Google, I learned he is an American Toad (who knew toads could sing?). I found a photo that looks just like him. If you want to hear him for yourself, go to www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIhx5pIcK0A.

Sometimes the most exhilarating nightlife is right in your own backyard!

Parsing Barton

2009-06-20T17:15:00.003-05:00

Our local Congressman, Joe Barton (R-Arlington), is opposed to cap-and-trade. Yawn. He is so opposed to it that he wrote a whole column about that the other day, with lots of scary assertions, without mentioning so much as a single authority to support any of them.

Though he did offer up Nancy Pelosi:

If you don’t believe me just read what Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week during a trip to China, "We have so much room for improvement. Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory."

Oh, Joe, there you go again!

See, there was a report filed by Associated Press about Pelosi’s recent trip to China, during which she and the Chinese leaders talked about what the two countries could do about global warming.

Now, if you’re Joe Barton trying to drum up a little opposition to anything Obama, and you see a commotion on the Internet involving something that surfaced in the Drudge report, well, it’s duck-on-a-junebug time. And if you can bring in (with appropriate derision) the name of Nancy Pelosi, then you’re definitely in hog heaven.

(Do you know why the Republicans season almost every criticism of the Obama administration with the Speaker’s name? Why they have attacked her for years? What they really have against her? It’s because she’s from — wait for it — SAN FRANCISCO! In CALIFORNIA! Where there are known to be LIBERALS! And GAY PEOPLE!)

Anyway, according to AP, “The trip comes as President Barack Obama's administration has emphasized climate change as a new area where the two governments can broaden already wide-ranging engagement.” The article continues:

The two countries are the biggest emitters of the carbon gases that are causing warming temperatures. … In a meeting Wednesday, the head of China's national legislature, Wu Bangguo, told Pelosi that climate change was a common challenge and that Beijing stood ready to work with Washington. …

In answering a question from a student about how Pelosi was going to get Americans to cut back on their carbon emissions, the leading Democratic lawmaker said it was important to educate children on how to conserve energy and for citizens to build more environmentally friendly homes.

“We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory … of how we are taking responsibility.”

Sounds a little different in context, doesn’t it?

Anyway, so it’s about climate change. Well, we lost Joe right there because, he says, “I still have some reservations about the science used to create the theory of man-made global warming.”

This is not new. Back in 2005, when Barton was chairman of the House energy and commerce committee, the New York Times, no less, took editorial note when he disputed the entire concept of global warming and wrote to the acknowledged scientific experts demanding they prove to HIM (an engineer, not a scientist) the worth of their research.

Wrote the Times,

It's going to be hard enough to find common political ground on global warming without the likes of Representative Joe Barton harassing reputable scientists who helped alert the world to the problem in the first place.

Maybe that explains why he didn’t mention that cap-and-trade is a pro-environment program until almost half-way through his column, after he had suggested that (1) CO2, the pollutant in question, is as harmless as the bubbles in your Dr Pepper, (2) controlling it with cap-and-trade would cost a family $3,000 to $4,000 per year (according to “expert analysis” he fails to identify) and (3) that would cause industry to send millions of jobs to other countries.

Just for ducks, I went to factcheck.org, and found this:

Leading Republicans are claiming that President Obama's proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions would cost households as much as $3,100 per year. The Republican National Committee calls it a "massive national energy tax." But the $3,100 figure is a misrepresentation of both Obama's proposal and the study from which the number is derived.

Republicans say they base their figure on a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But one of the authors [of that study] says that the GOP’s use of the study is "simplistic and misleading" and that it ignores key provisions designed to cushion the impact on consumers. The author puts the true added cost of a cap-and-trade system at closer to $800 a year.

That would be about $66 a month. For clean air. And how much do you pay now for your children’s trips to the doctor and asthma meds?

And what about those jobs that Joe claims are going to disappear? Just how does a company that provides energy to American households pull up stakes and move to India or China?

Apparently we’re supposed to just take Joe’s word for it — the word of the guy who tried a few years ago to get the most polluting corner of Ellis county exempted from EPA regulation.

Mr. Barton spends a few paragraphs on Republican efforts to change the legislation, which I suspect was mostly a set-up for calling Democrats “the party of No,” because you have to admit it’s a really catchy phrase and the Republicans need something new to call us now that Democrat Socialist hasn’t caught on.

Near the end of the article, Joe tells us that “Republicans have a plan” that can “lower energy costs and create jobs while protecting the environment,” that “includes conservation of natural resources and increased production of alternative and renewable fuels.”

Wow. Joe, you’ve been holding out on us!

Consider yourself warned!

2009-06-20T17:05:00.003-05:00

The sound of the telephone ringing startled me awake. It was still kind of dark so I peeked across the room to see the time. 6:30 a.m. The caller ID assured me that it wasn’t family, but I answered it anyway. Not cheerfully.

A recorded female voice said, approximately,

Hello. This call is about your Citi Credit Union account. Because we believe it was accessed by an unauthorized third party, we have suspended your account. If you wish to reinstate your account, please press 1.

There was something wrong with this picture -- not least that I never heard of a “Citi Credit Union”— but I was still a little concerned because I’d had someone hitchhike on my Citi credit card account a few months back. So I pressed 1, and then received instruction to begin reinstatement by entering my credit card number.

For an instant I imagined I was reading an email.

On the Internet it’s called “phishing,” and everyone who has an email address probably knows by now not to reply to an email from anywhere that asks you for account information. That’s why my red flags went up, and I hung up.

Boy, you have to admit the bad guys are ever more creative.

After I was wider awake I recalled what happened when someone actually did access my account: The bank had called me with a recorded message, to be sure, but when I pushed 1 it took me to a real, live person who did NOT ask for my account number, rather for confirmation of specific charges.

Even so, I had hung up that time, too, and called my customer service number directly to see what was going on.

This latest was the first time I’d received such a call, so I called good ol’ customer service and reported it. I learned that they have recently gotten a flurry of reports describing such calls and that there were definitely thieves at work.

Interestingly, they said the calls reported were almost all in the wee hours of the morning – when sleepy folks might be off guard, it seems. And that’s true: I was briefly inclined to fall for it at 6:30 in the morning, after all. But happily, when it was over, all I’d lost was a bit of sleep.

So here’s the warning: If you get one of these calls, or any call for that matter that asks you for your credit card number, no matter how convincing they are, do not give it, but immediately report it to your card company.

And if by chance when you read this you suspect you’ve been a victim or think you might have been, report the call to your credit card company as soon as possible because they can still protect your account.

I probably get all those “phishing” emails because my email address is out there in connection with my real estate business, and that certainly helped me spot the fraud in this case.

But folks who don’t use email, or use it only casually, may never have been the target of phishing expeditions and may not recognize the scam when it comes over the phone. That’s why I want to warn you.

Skepticism is a healthy thing, and we should never hesitate to question anything that seems just a little off.

Meanwhile, on the chance that even one of the people reading this is now forewarned against this latest round of thievery, it will have been worth the ink.

A Justice for all

2009-06-20T16:52:00.003-05:00

It will probably come as no surprise that I like poetry. I mean, really like it, often love it, especially poetry written back when it still rhymed, or had an irresistible rhythm, and definitely before the modern fad of breaking lines up into stairsteps on the page got to be all the rage.
I mean, who can follow

a thought when it

jumps around

like this?

But prose can also be poetic, so to speak, particularly when it is, as the dictionary suggests, “an imaginative or sensitively emotional style of expression.”

Just consider our Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Maybe the Founders just naturally wrote like that, or perhaps they deliberately waxed poetic out of emotion for the history they were making. Either way, it worked.

Soon after that, they produced our Constitution, another truly remarkable document, that has served its purpose well ever since.

There have been amendments from time to time, most notably the first ten, which comprised the Bill of Rights, but really not so many when you come to think of it. Fewer than 30, all told, suggesting that the Founders got it pretty much right in the first place.

Now, the tricky thing about our Constitution is figuring out how to comply with it more than two centuries later, and that is the debate at the heart of choosing a Supreme Court justice, as President Obama is about to do for the first time.

There are essentially two schools of thought here: whether every case before the Court must be decided strictly according to what is written in the Constitution, or whether that doesn’t make sense because so much has changed that circumstances impossible for the Founders to have foreseen demand interpretation for our times.

Barack Obama has told us he wants to appoint a justice who is not someone with “just ivory tower learning. I want somebody who has the intellectual firepower but also a little bit of a common touch and a practical sense of how the world works.”

And he added that one of the qualities he's looking for in a new Supreme Court justice is “empathy.”

Now, everyone take a deep breath here and understand that “empathy” is very different from “sympathy,” a distinction that seems to have eluded some of his determined opponents.

The way I understand it, “empathy” means you understand where someone is coming from; “sympathy” means you want to go where he’s going – you want what he wants. Big difference.

Obama explained why he believes empathy is a desirable quality in a justice:

You have to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes and get an idea of how the law might work or might not work for them.

He offered, as an example, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor:

You always had a sense that she was taking the law and seeing what are the practical applications of the law....She wasn't a grand theoretician but she ended up having enormous influence on the law as a whole.

Our Founders, wise as they were, would never have expected America, this amazing country, to forever remain an 18th century society. I believe they intended to give us a body of law that would serve to guide us for centuries ahead, through growth and changes they might have guessed at and those they could not.

Michele Norris, an NPR reporter, speaking in a Sunday round table on the matter, said it better than anyone. She suggested that whereas conservatives see the law as “set in stone” in demanding “strict construction” of the Constitution, Obama

. . . sees the law as something that is dynamic, that changes over time . . . almost as if [the law is] a river, something that flows through people’s lives, from the courtroom into the classroom, into the boardroom, through field and factory, past the kitchen table; and that the Constitution, this magnificent document, was written 200 years ago . . . and that you need to consider how the terrain of this country has changed. Because that will determine the ebb and the flow of this sort of dynamic force.

Sheer poetry.

He started it!

2009-06-20T16:36:00.002-05:00

Apparently Dick Cheney wants to talk about torture. Or, as he calls it, “enhanced interrogation techniques.” And that’s pretty much all he has been doing over the last few weeks. So that’s what I’ll talk about here.

To the definitions of torture let us add the well nigh inescapable appearance of the Grand Old Persecutor himself on TV what seems to be 24/7, though I suppose it’s actually less often than that. On the other hand, now that his daughter Liz has joined the fray . . .

I mean, it wouldn’t be such torture if the former Vice President had at least one or two new things to say on his second, third or even sixteenth appearance, on at least one or maybe two of the TV shows (he does save the talking heads the trouble of presenting new news in what is increasingly becoming infotainment), on even one of the networks.

As it is, viewers by now can almost finish his sentences for him. “We kept America safe for seven and a half years”; “I believe that Barack Obama has made us less safe …”; and, of course, “we did not torture.”

Conventional wisdom seems to have it that he really believes this stuff, so it wouldn’t be right to say that he is deliberately lying here, and George Orwell did address this possibility in Nineteen Eighty Four:

To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed. . .

Orwell wrote this in 1949, so he had some recent history to draw upon. He wasn’t making it up. For example, the United States Office of Strategic Services made an assessment during WWII of Hitler’s methods, including this:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

I apologize to anyone who is tempted to think I want for a minute to compare Dick Cheney to the man who invaded most of Europe in a quest to dominate the world. No, that’s not where I’m going. I believe Dick Cheney really and truly believes what he’s saying, and that he truly believes the choices made on his watch were in the best interests of America.

And if he doesn’t, then at least he wants us to believe him.

Cynics suggest that he is worried about his own accountability, but I’ll take him at his word, that he is only worried about America.

Call it torture, call it “enhanced interrogation techniques,” call it what you will, most of the respected voices in the intelligence community call it wrong, ineffective, and bad for America’s reputation.

Bob Baer, for example, a former CIA agent who knows a thing or two about it – he underwent torture himself (did you see “Syriana”?) and spoke recently of a close associate who was tortured to death – is absolutely opposed to it; in recent weeks a host of operatives, both intelligence and military, have also spoken out against it from personal knowledge.

I’m going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that most of the folks who support harsh interrogation techniques are people who have never served in the military. Dick Cheney himself managed to get five deferments during the war in Vietnam, and I think it’s safe to say that most of the pro-torture commentators are too young to have seen any action.

But they did watch “24” last night . . .

Speaking of ticking time bombs, I offer this: The President has declared that the United States will not torture. Torture is illegal, period.

So let me leave you with this thought: Imagine you are the President (remember, anyone can be President), and you have a person in custody who is believed to have information that could save the country but could only be gained through torture, which you have declared illegal. What would you do?

Seriously, do you think for a minute that you would hesitate to do whatever is needed? How about, “Damn the torpedos – full speed ahead!”

At a recent press conference President Obama was asked just that question. He reiterated what he had said during the campaign in 2007:

I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals and emergency situations, and I will make that judgment at that time.

So now, will Dick Cheney please finally retire to a ranch in Wyoming, and let the rest of us move on to current crises?

Now, stop and think a minute . . .

2009-05-17T17:43:00.003-05:00

A recent discussion with my son-the-reporter of course got around to the crisis that newspapers are going through these days, and how opinion writers and TV pundits just about everywhere are weighing in on what the outcome might or should be.

The noise seems to center on newspapers’ falling advertising revenues, on the one hand, and on the other the speculation that more and more folks are getting their news from the Internet, or from entertainment like the Jon Stewart show, Rush Limbaugh, or the talking heads at MSNBC and Fox News – none of which, by the way, are “hard news” reporters, but rather commentators on what may have begun as hard news — not exactly Huntley and Brinkley, Walter Cronkite or the PBS Newshour.

I admit to being addicted to some of the cable news shows, but that’s not where I get hard news. Before I tune in to MSNBC, I've listened to NPR, read the New York Times and other of the much-maligned “mainstream media” as well as assorted magazines for national and international news, and of course the Waxahachie Daily Light for local goings-on.

So what about the newspapers? How shall we be informed if they disappear? Can we agree that hard news is a good place to start, or will we be satisfied with the pre-selected information we get from favorite TV shows or Internet web sites?

Of course, no one really knows what will happen, any more than the effect of the Internet could have been predicted back when Gutenberg’s printing press got our attention in 1440, or when William Randolph Hearst (aka Citizen Kane) took over the San Francisco Examiner in 1887 and turned it into a mighty publishing empire.

And over the years just about anyone who gave it a try could publish and distribute news in printed form. Back in the mid 20th century a simple image transfer medium consisting of a sheet of gelatin in a box, called a hectograph, was ideal for young aspiring reporters to print neighborhood newsletters. So we did.

If we’d had some advertisers we might even have made money, but …

Thanks to the Internet, of course, YouTube has become a player in the dissemination of information, and so it was that Frank Rich, writing about the situation for the New York Times, was able to share this bit of history:

To time-travel back to the dawn of the technological strand of the disaster, search YouTube for "1981 primitive Internet report on KRON." What you’ll find is a 28-year-old local television news piece from San Francisco about a "far-fetched," pre-Web experiment by the city’s two papers, The Chronicle and The Examiner, to distribute their wares to readers with home computers via primitive phone modems. Though there were at most 3,000 people in the Bay Area with PCs then, some 500 mailed in coupons for the service to The Chronicle alone. But, as the anchorwoman assures us at the end, with a two-hour download time (at $5 an hour), "the new telepaper won’t be much competition for the 20-cent street edition."

There’s a crowd that believes, sincerely, that there’s no problem, we’ll just get our news from the Internet. But there’s a catch: Most of the serious reporting that makes it onto the Internet sites is done by print reporters, published in newspapers, and picked up by web sites. What happens to those stories when a newspaper folds?

Oh, say some, there are smart people everywhere who will find, investigate and report the news we need. You don’t have to be trained in journalism to do that.

Maybe so; I won’t argue that point here. But do you have any idea what it costs to send a reporter to, say, Iraq? Try $10,000 a month – and that’s not salary, folks. It covers travel, food and lodging, of course, but also local transportation, security, translators, “fixers” (the people who get you into places you need to be and out of places you need to leave and generally keep you out of trouble), satellite phones, and of course armored vests and a camera or two. Just for starters.

But what if you don’t care about war zones, or for that matter any foreign news? Then ask yourself who, exactly, will be interested enough to cover your local city council meetings? Who will go to Austin to discover legislation that might be making its way through to becoming law that will affect your life? Who will bug the Center for Disease Control to get the news we need about swine flu? Who will spend hours and hours covering often tedious Congressional hearings, to make sure we know what our legislators are up to?

“Citizen journalists”? Do you think? Let’s ask Thomas Jefferson:

The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

Originally published in the Waxahachie Daily Light, May 11, 2009.

Whither the Republicans?

2009-05-08T09:59:00.003-05:00

In the heat of last year’s primary elections I ventured my opinion that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was doomed to fail because it was operating on a false premise: They believed that winning what they called “the core constituency” of the Democratic party was enough to win the nomination.

The premise was false because they didn’t understand their definition of “core constituency” was obsolete.

I referred to Danny DeVito’s famous lines in the play “Other People’s Money” to describe the problem:

“It's too late for prayers. For even if the prayers were answered and a miracle occurred, … we would still be dead. You know why? …

Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market.

Down the tubes. Slow but sure.

I offered this opinion after the Pennsylvania primary, where the total vote for Clinton turned out to be less than half what they had counted on; either the “white, working class, non-college-educated” voter was not a certain voter for Hillary or the proportion of such voters had shrunk — perhaps both.

I called it “the toilet bowl effect”: When a toilet is flushed, a huge volume of water descends into the bowl and then whirls in an ever-shrinking vortex until it’s gone.
So why drag all this up again? Because those who fail to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them?

Recent events in and around the Republican party reached a crescendo with the decision by Senator Arlen Specter, of Pennsylvania (there’s an interesting coincidence!) to give up on the party and join the Democrats.

It had become clear, after a huge number of Pennsylvania Republicans moved to the Democratic party in 2008, that the folks who were left were not a constituency likely to re-elect him in the 2010 Republican primary; a moderate Republican by history, it appeared his chances were better running as a Democrat in the general election.

The reaction in the Republican leadership was mixed, ranging from "sorry to see him go" to “good riddance,” with a heavy tilt toward the latter. Michael Steele, the Republican party chairman, referenced Specter’s “left-wing voting record,” an interesting new definition for “moderate.”

There’s a patchwork of hue and cry from assorted people who profess to care about the future of the Republican party who yearn for the party to rise again, to offer leadership and become a force again. Sad to say, the major players, at least so far, seem determined to pursue an increasing share of a shrinking market.

A good first step would be to dump the word “conservative,” because no one seems to know exactly what it means anymore. Awhile back, it was “low taxes, efficient government, strong national security.” But what does it mean now?

As it is, the lack of any other coherent message on the part of the Republican leadership leaves them defaulting to simply opposing anything the Democratic administration wants to do. With nothing to offer but anger, the party is doomed to keep on shrinking.

There are folks for whom positions on abortion, or gay rights, or school prayer may be a critical part of being “conservative”; but what do they do – refuse to join with anyone who disagrees with them? What if, like Pat Buchanan, they disagree with the war in Iraq but agree on those “social” issues?

What if, like Ron Paul, they disagree on the social issues and on the war in Iraq but believe in low taxes, efficient government and a strong national security”?

What if, like Arlen Specter, they agree on some issues and disagree on others but want to identify with the basic tenets of the Republican party? Drum them out of the roll call?

“Conservative” just doesn’t seem to tell us anything anymore.

Maybe going back to just plain “Republican” will do nicely, but it needs a new sense of purpose. A fractured party is almost no party at all.

Whatever your political leaning, you should want a healthy Republican party. No matter how well our president is doing, no matter how noble the intentions of his administration, a robust and coherent Republican party will always keep them on their toes.

One lump, or two?

2009-04-25T14:31:00.004-05:00

There’s no accounting for people’s taste in matters of tea, or parties, or especially “tea parties.”

Last week saw the astounding uprising of dozens of people all across our country in a movement that could only be called, truthfully, “astroturf.” That is the term generally applied to activities pretending to be grass-roots movements that are not, really.

In this case, the leadership of passionate folks like Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich and the talking heads on Fox News was hard to ignore. Towards the end, Governor Perry and even ol’ Joe Barton inserted themselves into the act.

In search of a hook upon which to hang their objections to all things Obama, and apparently lacking the imagination to come up with something new, those good folks had decided on tea-and-taxes.

Back in 1773 tea-drinkers in the colonies, specifically in Boston, were really upset to learn that the British Parliament had decided to levy an import tax on tea shipped to the colonies. They were outraged, in fact, and told the captains of the three ships that were waiting in Boston Harbor to take their doggone cargo back to England. Wasn’t fair, they said, to have to pay taxes they had no hand in levying.

It was taxation without representation, they said. And that was wrong.

The ships didn’t budge, and things heated up to the point where angry colonists stormed the docks and dumped all that tea into the harbor.

Reports have it that Samuel Adams was a leader of the movement.

According to the account in Wikipedia,

The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, which, among other provisions, closed Boston's commerce until the British East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea. Colonists in turn responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. The crisis escalated, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775.

Inquiring minds want to know: What’s the connection?

Last week’s events had nothing to do with tea, Americans are no longer subject to taxes levied by King George, and Samuel Adams is now associated with a more interesting beverage; Congressional representatives were everywhere to be seen at the “tea parties,” so you could hardly claim lack of representation was the issue.

The organizers managed to turn out clumps of participants all around the country, some wearing teabags, some tossing them into waterways (littering!), many carrying or wearing signs objecting to high taxes, more taxes, and taxes in general.

Given that it was April 15th, the subject had to be pretty fresh on their minds, though it looked like they were having a pretty good time anyway.

Yet the reality is that most of the folks who were demonstrating, from the looks of it, are actually getting a tax cut because of Obama; of course, some of the loudest, like Armey, Perry, Barton, and the stars of Fox News, are probably in that select group of people with income over $250,000 who will see their taxes go up (would that be why they are so passionately involved?).

Lost in the noise, interestingly, is that in the latter case, the projected increase will still keep their rates below what they paid under Clinton. In some cases tax rates will be lower than they were under Reagan. Were they complaining then? Remind me.

A reporter went to one of the rallies and asked around to see how they felt about the fact that their taxes were going to be reduced. Some demonstrators said that didn’t count, because they were sure their taxes were going to go up later.

Well, yes, some people always complain about taxes. They just don’t like them. For that matter, neither do I, but I am very fond of having a government, a military, first responders, national parks and public schools. Just for starters.

Anyway, I don’t think it was really about taxes. I suspect it was more about the economy, and we Americans can be an impatient lot, as is often noted.

Even so, is it reasonable to expect that Obama, after three whole months in office, should have fixed it by now?

Originally published in the Waxahachie Daily Light, April 20, 2009.

A couple of bones to pick

2009-04-19T17:22:00.004-05:00

Most folks have heard, at least in passing, about the the Employee Free Choice Act, or “card check,” working its way through Congress this week. And most of what we seem to hear is basically negative. Lies, even.

If you tell the truth you may not get what you want, I guess.

So here we have this great hullabaloo of worry about secret ballots, something the worriers know the American public cherishes above practically everything else. But it’s all a fraud.

What are the worriers worried about? They say they are worried about the process by which employees of a business decide whether they want to bargain as a group for things like hours, wages and benefits.

Who’s doing the worrying? The employers. That should tell you something.

But the employers aren’t worried about the outcome, not at all. They say they are just trying to be sure that their poor dumb employees aren’t denied the right to a secret ballot.

That argument is what’s dumb. The legislation in Congress right now, the Employee Free Choice Act, or “card-check,” provides for each and every employee to receive a card with the following choices:

The employee can sign up in favor of joining a union, or not. Or he can choose to have a secret ballot on the matter. The employees get to choose.

Secret ballot. There it is, right there. If the majority of the cards come back with the secret ballot choice checked, there you are, it’ll be a secret ballot.

But if 50%-plus-one come back checked in favor of having a union, the employees get to have a union. That’s a majority, but it would appear the employers who are fighting this are afraid a majority of their workers might actually want to have a union. The dirty little secret is that employers don’t want it to be simple.

Gotta wonder why.

* * *

Good ol’ Newt Gingrich is back, maybe getting a good start on 2012, and has been on various TV shows holding forth on just about everything under the sun, or at least everything Barack Obama is doing. Which he opposes.

In the context of the leadership struggles within the Republican party, Newt comes across as the sane elder statesman, according to some.

So, last week he suggested that Obama should have taken out the North Korean rocket test with some kind of laser weapon, an idea perhaps intended to show how high-tech he thinks; “high” might be the operative word here because we don’t seem to have such in our arsenal.

On at least one Sunday show he shared his opinion on health care reform, or at least what he perceives as Obama’s plan taking us down the road to “putting everyone on Medicaid.”

Now, I can’t be sure he meant to say “Medicaid,” though he said it several times, because I know the comparison that’s been drawn to one of the options being proposed for a national health care solution is “Medicare,” a very different breed of cat.

Medicaid, a form of health care coverage for the working poor, might as well be unavailable so far as Ellis County residents are concerned. Most doctors can’t afford to offer it because it pays so poorly.

Medicare, on the other hand, which most senior citizens have, is agreed by all but the unfeeling to be good coverage, cost-effective and efficient. A government plan that lets you choose your own doctor and make your own decisions, by the way.

And no, Obama’s plan is not “socialized” medicine, nor is Medicare for that matter; however, that’s the favorite term of argument for those who prefer that private insurance companies continue to make your decisions, choose your doctor, deny coverage when you most need it, and make lots of money in the process.

Originally published in the Waxahachie Daily Light April 13, 2009.

Stirring the pot

2009-04-07T10:25:00.004-05:00

President Barack Obama did something new the other day, though it should have been expected given what we know about him and his administration; he conducted a virtual town hall meeting with Americans.

Using the Internet, in other words, he took questions from just about everywhere. According to the White House, 92,927 people had submitted over 104,000 questions; in order to reduce them to the workable number of a dozen or so that he’d actually have time to address, the online participants were told to vote for the questions they thought most important. In the end, over 3.6 million votes had been cast.

In an array that included questions about the auto industry, universal health care, mortgages and education, the top vote-getting category was “jobs.” And the top vote-getter within that category asked “whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation.”

The President looked at the question for a moment. “I don't know what this says about the online audience,” he remarked with that grin.

“But, seriously,” he added, “no, I don't think this is a good strategy to grow our economy.”

But the question and ensuing buzz about it did stir discussion in some quarters, and that’s a good thing.

I could go on at some length about the advantages that might result were we to make an honest woman out of Mary Jane; the salient argument might be the predictable reduction in our prison populations.

But I want to narrow the focus here to the matter of medical marijuana, for it has special significance to me.

Back in the late 1980s my Dad was diagnosed with leukemia, in a form that mainly attacks the elderly.

Aside from fatigue, the most devastating effect of the illness was a devastating loss of appetite, and it’s hard to do well if you don’t eat.

This is when I learned to shuck oysters; I don’t do oysters myself, and found that prying them open is a real challenge. But he really went for Blue Points, so shucking got easy. He loved lamb chops, too. But that was about all that appealed.

It wasn’t that he couldn’t eat, you see; it was just that the appetite was gone.

Now, we knew somehow that ingesting marijuana in any form generates a keen, almost relentless, appetite, and we were certain that if we could bake some loaded-up brownies for him, for example, he would then eat great plates of food and bowls of soup and it would help. He liked brownies, too.

We talked about it some. I remember so clearly wishing, wondering if, we could get our hands on some. Not that we were afraid of breaking the law; we just didn’t know how to get it. Didn’t have the right connections, you could say.

Dad died in 1990. If he'd had an appetite maybe he could have made it through just a couple of years more, long enough to receive the new treatment discovered in 1992 that might well have worked for him.

It should not be surprising that I absolutely support making marijuana legal for medical purposes. In California and other states where the law now permits it, the Obama justice department has indicated that state law in the matter should be respected.

Hysteria over marijuana needs to be tamped down across the board, and not just in the minds of those who talk about how bad it is over their cocktails.

Can’t let sleeping dogs lie

2009-04-01T13:00:00.004-05:00

Comments by readers of the online version of my column generally run the gamut from praise to potshots; if it were otherwise I’d wonder if anyone out there was paying attention.

For the record, I don’t usually comment on readers’ comments, but when serious misinformation is put forth, I can’t just leave it hanging out there. This is important stuff for voters to know, even if it seems like nitpicking. Especially if they are wondering about the current Republican effort to pass a law requiring further and redundant identification at the polling place.

Specifically, a couple of readers have insisted that our present law does not require a voter to present a voter registration certificate or in fact any ID at all, in order to vote, each separately recounting experiences where merely giving name and address was all they had needed to do when they voted.

If that were the case, which I respectfully doubt, then the Election Judge at their polling place would have erred, for our Election Code Section 63.001(b) states that:
“On offering to vote, a voter must present the voter's voter registration certificate to an election officer at the polling place.” And there’s a whole litany of procedures that the Election Judge must follow after that.

If, as can happen, you’ve forgotten or lost your registration certificate, you may still be able to vote under Section 63.008:

(a) A voter who does not present a voter registration certificate when offering to vote, but whose name is on the list of registered voters for the precinct in which the voter is offering to vote, shall be accepted for voting if the voter executes an affidavit stating that the voter does not have the voter's voter registration certificate in the voter's possession at the polling place at the time of offering to vote and the voter presents proof of identification in a form described by Section 63.0101.

How do you read that? Clearly, simply stating your name and address won’t cut it.

Section 63.0101 lists the acceptable forms of identification that will allow you to vote provided you complete the affidavit; the list includes driver’s license or other photo ID, birth certificate, or even a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, “or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.”

A third reader agreed with the others, saying, “I see absolutely no problem with requiring ID for voting.”

Well, fine. But here’s the truth: We already require an ID for voting. It’s called a voter registration certificate, and if you don’t have it with you, see above.

Now, stop a minute and think: In order to get a voter registration certificate, you have to . . . wait for it . . . produce your ID!

According to Elections Code, Section 13.002(c)(8)(A), in order to register to vote your application must include:

(A) the applicant's Texas driver's license number or the number of a personal identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety or a statement by the applicant that the applicant has not been issued a driver's license or personal identification card; or
(B) if the applicant has not been issued a number described by Paragraph (A), the last four digits of the applicant's social security number or a statement by the applicant that the applicant has not been issued a social security number.

Lots of hassle to go through if you want to cheat, and it doesn’t look like there would be many folks left to commit voting-without-ID.

Somewhere in all the comments one gentleman assured me that this was all moot because “Texas law requires people to carry identification on their person.” Well, that sent up shivers of déjà-vu for the libertarian in me, back to the whole national debate about the idea of a national identity card – you know, like all those bad communist governments out there.

So I did what any red-blooded American would do: I called the cops.

Speaking to one of Waxahachie’s finest, I put it to him directly: Does Texas law really require a person to carry identification? His answer:

“No, ma’am.”

He went on to explain that if you are driving a motor vehicle, you must have a driver’s license with you; if you are packing a pistol, you’d better be licensed for that. And the same goes for any other activity for which a license is required: If you need a license for what you’re doing, be prepared to show it.

But you won’t break the law just being out and about, walking the dog, or even walking to the polling place, because America is still the land of the free.

I know this has been an awful lot of detail without much comic relief, especially if the nuts and bolts of our democracy don’t fascinate you as they do me, but if you’ve gotten this far in reading perhaps that means you’ve found it useful.

Here’s to the nuts, and bolts!

Originally published in the Waxahachie Daily Light on March 30, 2009

Lone Star status

2009-03-23T14:26:00.004-05:00

If you’re registered to vote – and I hope you are – you know what a Voter Registration Certificate looks like; it’s a paper card, wallet-sized (after you cut along the dotted lines), that you carry around so you can show it each time you go to the polls.

At the polling place you must present the card before you get to vote, and before you are given a ballot the card is stamped or otherwise marked to show that you’ve voted. If you’ve lost your card there could be all kinds of bureaucratic shuffles to go
through before you will be allowed to vote.

Just to make sure you haven’t died between elections or moved away, a new card is mailed out every couple of years, and if you skip too many elections you’ll have toregister again.

A polite way of keeping the voting process neat and tidy.

And every couple of years, here lately, the Republicans in the Texas legislature decide that’s not enough. Claiming rampant voter fraud, they introduced legislation in 2005 and 2007 to create a law requiring every voter to produce photo ID in addition to a registration certificate.

The Democrats adamantly oppose such restrictions, arguing that folks who are too old or too poor to drive -- or don’t know how to drive -- are most likely to be without a driver’s license. Coincidentally, these are the kinds of people who tend to vote for Democrats. Interesting.

As is the fact that Republican efforts to pass a voter ID law seem to have picked up as their majority has dwindled.

Here’s what the current issue of Texas Monthly has to say about it all:

For three years during George W. Bush’s presidency (2002 to 2005), the U.S. Justice Department mounted a federal Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative, which found only 38 cases of voter fraud, resulting in only 13 convictions and 11 guilty pleas.

That’s nationwide, my friends. Across 50 states.

And, according to the magazine,

In Texas the pickings were equally slim. Attorney General Greg Abbott received a federal grant to investigate voter fraud and other crimes, resulting in just 30 indictments and 22 prosecutions so far: all reportedly against Democrats, most involving technical violations.

Improperly completed registration forms, transposed numbers, that kind of stuff.

Texas Monthly’s article concludes:

The reason that so little evidence of fraud can be found is simple: There’s no incentive for voter impersonation. The chance to influence the outcome of an election is too small; it would take an enormous number of people, all committing fraud at once, to make a difference.

Well, the legislation has passed through the Texas Senate, where the Republicans have a hefty majority, and is headed for the House, where they outnumber the Democrats by only 76 to 74. Reason may yet prevail.

Or who knows? Maybe they’ll decide to have us voters dip our fingers in purple ink.

Seriously, defeating this legislation is important, I believe, and not least because it brings out the Boston tea-party libertarian streak in me. As in: What!? Yet another layer of law to be imposed on the citizenry?

If you agree, this would be a good time to call Jim Pitts, or send him an email and urge him to vote against the voter ID legislation.

Originally published in Waxahachie Daily Light, March 23, 2009

Rebels with a cause

2009-03-21T16:57:00.003-05:00

Political excitement and change are not limited to national politics these days. In our own State of Texas, as the legislature gears up for its biennial assembly, I want to tell you about some very interesting developments over the past year.

In its last session, drama unfolded in the effort to unseat Speaker Craddick, whose tenure had revealed the iron hand of a dictator, not always to the benefit of the people of our State.

For those of us inclined to be riveted by political happenings, it was a feast.

Among the representatives who challenged the Speaker was our own Jim Pitts, who showed himself to be a thoughtful and honorable man, of whom folks in Waxahachie should be proud. Risking his career, perhaps, but definitely risking his appointment to the powerful position of head of the legislature’s Appropriations Committee. That’s because Craddick’s hold on power was in large part due to a penchant for punishing his opponents – by, for example, taking away their appointments.

As reported in the Austin American Statesman, Pitts had “accused Craddick of holding up the appropriations bill — the only piece of legislation that, by law, must pass each session — to cut deals with members and shore up support for his speakership.”

And, according to the Statesman, there were “rumors that a group of lawmakers, including GOP members of Craddick's leadership team, would attempt a coup with a motion to vacate the chair. Complaints have included that Craddick is too autocratic, is losing control of the House and is bending rules to aid allies and punish opponents.”

Indeed, there were attempts to make the motion, but Craddick danced around it; after he replaced the House parliamentarians with one of his cronies, the two of them worked in tandem, literally, to deny every effort to offer the motion.

It was political theater at its best.

There’s a rule, for example, that motions must be offered using the microphone at the back of the assembly room. So the Speaker had that microphone disabled. And then Pitts and some of the other challengers defied him and went to the front microphone.

As the Statesman reported, "My constituents back home want me to do the right thing for Texas," he said. "And that's replacing the speaker."

“For what purpose does the member rise?”

“To offer a motion that the chair be vacated.”

“The member is not recognized for that purpose.”

And so it went on. And on. Craddick’s personal parliamentarian did his job.

I don’t remember exactly how the challengers managed to finally get the motion to a vote, but they did. Yet, even though Jim Pitts was well positioned to become the new Speaker, at the last minute he withdrew from consideration.

Now why on earth would he have done that? Because he knew that anyone who voted for the motion – in other words, any supporter of his – would be punished by Craddick just for supporting the motion if it didn’t pass, and it was too close to call.

Now that’s an honorable man.

Jim was among those punished, of course, and lost his position as head of Appropriations.

Fast forward to this year.

A bipartisan collection of representatives got together, having decided unity was the best weapon, and announced they would all back Joe Straus, Republican from San Antonio, for speaker. His platform included a promise to end partisanship and special favors.

There were more than enough of them, and Tom Craddick withdrew.

Straus is now Speaker, the Texas legislature has returned to relative sanity -- and Jim Pitts has been returned to the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee.

We have a lot to be grateful for in Jim Pitts, a truly honorable man. And he showed it again last week when he joined a bipartisan group of legislators who are now challenging Governor Perry’s announcement that he will reject stimulus funds intended to allay the rising costs of unemployment in our State.

Perry claims that accepting the funds would commit Texas to greater costs in the future, but happily the legislature can override that silliness. True, they will have to pass conforming laws to do so, but as a sage has pointed out, what the legislature giveth the legislature can taketh away down the road, if it comes to that and we find ourselves in a crunch.

No one knows how the economy will look in two or three years, but there’s nothing to lose by trying, and lots to lose by doing nothing, and Jim Pitts knows that.

A legislator who really works for the people. Imagine that!

Thanks, Jim!

What's wrong with earmarks?

2009-03-10T12:27:00.003-05:00

According to the politicians, the American kitchen table is the center of all family decision making, the place where matters of the economy – mortgage payments, medical bills, college tuition, the price of gasoline, and of course grocery and utility bills – are laid out to be dealt with by families feeling the stress.

It’s always stress, of course; have you ever heard about a family sitting around the kitchen table discussing how to spend an inheritance or lotto winnings?

No, it’s always something worrisome. And right now just about everything is worrisome.

While Mom and Dad and the kids are gathered ‘round the kitchen table, lingering over a delicious beef stew to put off as long as possible the after-supper discussion about household bills and how to pay them, we have banks failing, homes going into foreclosure, small businesses closing, the auto industry in a shambles, and folks losing their jobs; there’s also the matter of a couple of unfinished wars, a militant Iran, a pugnacious Russia, and near anarchy south of our border.

So what are the Republicans worried about most? Earmarks. “Pork.”

Terrible, wicked, close to sinful and very, very wrong. At least that’s what they seem to have become over the years; they’ve become almost as bad as taxes, if you listen to Republican rhetoric.

It’s time the American people sit up and think about this.

Earmarks are said to amount to less than two percent of the present budget being considered in Washington, but some members of Congress want to do away with them altogether. Most of those worthies have earmarks of their own in the bill, but those should be kept, of course.

What, exactly, is an earmark? According to the OMB,

At the broadest level, [it] is any additional funding provided by the Congress … for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration.

In other words, it gives any member of Congress the opportunity to amend the Administration’s budget to add funding for a specific purpose in his own district; after all, we elect our representatives to work for our State or congressional district, and that’s what he’s doing. Bringing home the bacon. “Pork.”

It’s called democracy, if you ask me. Or do you prefer that the budget submitted by the Administration and all its departments be the be-all and end-all, stop right there?

Earmarks got a bad rap in the past because of outrageous stuff like the “bridge to nowhere,” and earmarks slipped in at the last minute to escape review. And there’s some silly stuff in the current budget. But those things are fixable; getting rid of all of them is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just doesn’t make sense.

If our government is going to assist with, say, the cost of rebuilding a falling-down school in South Carolina or repairing a bridge in Minnesota or rebuilding a portion of I-35, adding it to the current budget will make it happen a lot faster than the two years or so it could take for a bill to work its way through Congress all by itself.

Let’s go back to that kitchen table.

After the dishes are cleared the bills are laid out, and with the help of a small calculator it’s determined that they are going to have to prioritize. There’s not as much to work with since the economy started tanking. So they add up the necessities – mortgage, light bill, gasoline, health insurance, dog food, food.

They can save a little if Dad brown-bags his lunch most days, and new sneakers for the kids can wait another month (if they would just stop growing!). Mom will give up her gym membership for now.

But the car repair can’t wait, so it’s added in. (Earmark!) So are the textbook and school supply costs that are due. (Earmark!) It’s time for the dog’s trip to the vet for annual shots. (Earmark!)

The evening goes on, and money is earmarked for Buddy’s dental work, for Mom’s mammogram, for Sissy’s Girl Scout uniform. Non-essentials, you might think, but they are determined to find the money because these are important to the family. So they earmark part of the family budget for each of these expenses.

They will end up dipping into their savings to get by for now, but they are betting on the economy turning around eventually so they’ll be able to catch up. Meantime, they will get by, with the help of a little earmarking.

Enjoying the moments

2009-03-03T18:15:00.004-06:00

Now, things don’t always work out as we expect, let alone as we plan. As a high school senior dreaming of becoming a commercial artist via the opportunities offered in New York City I would never, ever have thought I’d end up selling real estate in Waxahachie, Texas.

You know, or should know, that folks in that bastion of Yankee-ness look askance at living any place west of the Hudson River, let alone south of it, let alone in the storied state of Texas, which they imagine to be all cactus and horses and cows and Stetsons.

Ironically, my first rodeo was at Madison Square Garden – it was, I might add, very well attended by cheering local sophisticates.

I was in my early twenties; I’d never even seen a real cowboy before. Perhaps it was that memory that nudged me toward Texas when the opportunity arose three decades later. Whatever. It turned out to be a great move.

On my way to Texas I lived in San Francisco, married, and raised two children. It was a great time to be there, before the tourists took over; we had easy access to theater and fairs and of course peace marches. And the Salinas Rodeo was only an hour away.

After the kids were grown and on their own, my job with the SSC brought me to Waxahachie and I’ve never left. After the project closed down I did think about going back to California, but decided it was too full and too expensive – and of course you can never find a parking space.

Nor was I willing to give up thunderstorms and lightning bugs, the thrill of seasonal change, or driving 70 miles an hour on the highway. I know you think I-35 has traffic, but believe me, it’s nothing compared to the stop-and-stop on Highway 101.

I settled into a wonderful old house and wished my family were here. I still do, but they were born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, and there they feel at home, so we’ve had to compromise.

Over the past two weeks they’ve both been here to visit – my son and his wife just before my birthday, my daughter and granddaughter just after, a kind of birthday sandwich.

The visits were short, in calendar terms, but intense and very satisfying, as a dark chocolate truffle compares with anything less.

We are a family of foodies, and the visits were all about sharing good food and drink, cooking and eating and retelling old stories, cooking some more, looking through old family photos and sharing new ones.

Which brings me to adventure.

Now, I was somewhat adventurous in my day, with a passion for hot rods in high school; as a young secretary I commuted back and forth to Manhattan on a Vespa, still later commuted to Texas on Amtrak.

You’ll note that my adventures were all earth-bound. Forget about flying. Please.
But somehow the serious adventure gene made it into my granddaughter Sarah’s DNA – aided and abetted by an 18th-birthday gift from her uncle – and so it was that I got to see the video of her sky-diving last summer.

Oh. My. God.

Right here is proof that it’s a good thing Grandma lives 1800 miles away.

She cheerfully boarded the plane, smiled and waved to the photographer, flew up into the sky and, in tandem with her guide, jumped out into space. Laughing delightedly all the way down. It was a soft landing, and she clearly had a great experience.

OK, so it’s in the genes, but it clearly passed me by.

After each of the family visits I was left with a kind of exhilaration, the same kind of euphoria I’d experienced after a trip to Paris a couple of years back. They were so perfect.

If we all lived in the same town, would the visits be so meaningful? Or would we take each other for granted and forget to focus on each other the way we did? When you have precious little time together, time together is precious.

Grandparents take note: Modern life means families are likely to be scattered, but I’ve learned that airplanes (yes!) , and telephones and the Internet and texting can keep them together at will.

And those visits . . . !

Republican governors on the stimulus

2009-02-28T09:14:00.005-06:00

Three of our nation’s most interesting governors happen to be Republican, and were among the most prominent of that party to speak out over the weekend on the controversy du jour – to wit, whether the president’s stimulus bill is likely to help rescue our economy.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, laden with the curse of the old Proposition 13 legislation that gutted the California economy so many years ago, had just won a significant victory in the matter of his own state’s budget. Gutsy California legislators had managed a compromise that included some tax increases and some spending cuts, driving away the prospect of California’s imminent demise.

The good governor said that he believes President Obama “needs team players,” and that any money the other governors wanted to turn down, well, he’d be happy to accept it for his state.

Schwarzenegger, unlike some, is not rumored to be thinking about running for President in 2012 because, simply stated, he can’t, because he's not a natural-born citizen. Much to the regret of Sen. Orrin Hatch and perhaps even Mr. Schwarzenegger himself. The Republicans' most obvious ticket out of oblivion is out of reach.

Rumored to be very much in reach, on the other hand, is Gov. Bobby Jindal, wunderkind of Louisiana, who has made very strong statements against the stimulus. I’d call them “trophy statements,” for, as New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin suggested, it seems likely that the governor is choosing his words very deliberately because he is an up-and-coming possibility for the Republican nomination in 2012 and wants to keep the base happy.

Jindal said he will not accept any funds designated to extend unemployment benefits; he explained that “I represent the taxpayers of Louisiana.” Of course, the Louisiana legislature can override his refusal, which he knows, so if and when the funds ultimately come to the aid of his unemployed citizens he won’t have too much to account for.

Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, on the other hand, actually met with President Obama when the president arrived to promote his stimulus plan. Not only did Crist make it clear that he expected the plan to help Florida, he made it clear why: Tens of thousands of jobs and funds for local and state transportation projects.

Crist had an outlook somewhat different from Jindal’s: “I represent the people of Florida,” he said, making it clear that this includes the poor.

On cable TV a stockmarket guru named Rick Santelli delivered a rant (why do so many of these money guys shout?) in which he proclaimed that the president’s plan for the mortgage crisis would only help people who had bought more house than they could afford.

“It’s not fair!” he shouted, that taxpayers should be asked to help a neighbor who had “an extra bathroom.” (I’m not kidding; you can google it.)

Well, this is a road we’ve been down before.

America has the commitment to fairness in its DNA. We care. The exception may prove the rule, as shown by Jack Kennedy's remark, in a context long forgotten by me, that “life’s not fair.”

But “fair” has nothing to do with how we handle a national crisis, because the other essential quality in our national DNA is “fix it!”

If your neighbor’s house is aflame and you are called upon to help, as I’ve said before, it’s obviously in your interest to bring your water hose to try to put out the fire. And now I add this: Do you really want to stand there calculating the cost of your water bill before you turn on your hose?

The repeated claims by opponents of the administration that it’s all about helping people who should “never have bought houses they couldn’t afford” are unsustainable.
People who are losing or about to lose their homes include hard-working folks who have lost their jobs; just a couple of months out of work can mean getting behind on the mortgage payment. There are people hit with huge medical bills that cause them to fall behind.

Many of the people who are losing their homes are veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, who came home to find there were no jobs available, or who came home disabled and unable to work. What about them?

And there are people who believed, when they bought a home when times were good, that they’d be able to refinance in a few years because the home’s value would increase, not to worry, no problem, and they believed the lender who sold them that bill of goods.

After all, you want to believe your lender, who is the only expert available. And who was there to tell you that everything was going to come crashing down?

There is another strand of American DNA: Charity. Taking care of one’s neighbor. We always stand together in a crisis.

We are proud of the way we stood together after 9/11. In every community in America people come together to help families who have experienced tragedy, to assist a dying child, to salute a fallen hero.

Let’s not be talked down by the cynics; let’s keep on doing the American thing.

Unleash the dogs!

2009-02-10T12:48:00.002-06:00

Back in the sixties, a political friend of mine – Irish-American Chicago politics background – told me that whenever you hear a politician worry in public about something happening, you can be certain that he is working his very heart out behind the scenes to make it happen.

Which brings me to Dick Cheney.

“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” The question asked by England’s Henry II about Thomas a Becket almost a millennium ago comes to mind unbidden but irresistibly.

In case you missed it, Cheney gave an interview to Politico in which he said, essentially, that if the Obama administration didn’t conduct matters of security exactly the same way as Bush had, we would be struck again on our homeland by terrorists. He offered chemical, biological and/or nuclear attacks as possibilities.

What on earth could be the purpose in trying to scare us to death again? It’s a rhetorical tactic left over from the campaign of 2004, but why? Dick Cheney and his ideas were disavowed by his own party way before the recent election made it clear that it’s time to move on.

Who knows? Maybe he just wants to be loved.

For the good of the country, it’s time for Cheney to follow the example of his old boss and go quietly into that good night. Head back to the ranch in Wyoming, or Texas. Wherever.

With friends like him, the American people don’t need enemies.
* * *
In other developments, I am so furious with Tom Daschle that I can hardly see straight. How dared he be so cavalier as to think the errors of his judgment would be overlooked? And what on earth are accountants for, anyway?

His failure to act honorably helped deliver a humiliating blow to the Obama administration.

He knew last June that the unpaid tax matter could be a problem, and yes, there might be perfectly acceptable explanations for his situation. But he KNEW it was there when he was vetted by the Obama people and he didn’t tell them until last month.

Tom Daschle has been around long enough to know that unpaid taxes can be a problem for any potential cabinet member – heaven knows, we’ve seen enough go down in flames in the past. What was he thinking?

Add to that the extraordinary amount of income – almost $5 million -- he had received as a consultant since he left the Senate. “Consulting” is a more discreet form of lobbying than Jack Abramoff and friends practiced. It’s legal, but it raises questions and, to make matters worse, he received some of those consulting fees from companies in the medical community.

The dogs of war were let loose: Not just the usual puppies, like John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Ensign (R-NV), but then the pitbull Grover Norquist, the anti-tax guy, emerged from whatever kennel he has been hiding in since he and Abramoff fell out of favor a couple of years back.

(Norquist was a big player in the White House during the Republican years; most famously, he has said he wants to reduce taxes in order to shrink government to a size small enough to flush down the bathtub drain. D’you think he’d get rid of the White House, too?)

So here they were, yapping and snarling again – just like the good old days. As if they never had a scandal in the world . . .

Not only did Daschle embarrass the administration and Obama personally, but in the matter of choosing a Secretary of Health and Human Services he consumed precious time and perhaps even damaged the chances of success for health care reform.

Thanks, Tom.
* * *
Finally, while we’re talking about such things, remember the old adage mentioned here before: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Along those lines, President Obama’s repeated efforts to work with the Republicans in Congress — traveling up to the Capitol to meet with the Republican caucus, meeting with individual Republican leaders, inviting them for cocktails at the White House, or to watch the Super Bowl game; yielding on one point after another in the stimulus package only to have them reject it again and again — all came to naught.

Toward the end of last week, though, he proved he hasn’t lost his mind. Describing the Republican opposition, he said, “Then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point. No, seriously. That’s the point!”

So here we are, after years of Republican tax cuts that helped get us into this mess, with the Republican leadership in both houses now insisting that only tax cuts will get us out of it. They have claimed they want bipartisanship in Washington, and yet to date only three Republicans — none in the House, all in the Senate — are willing to support the legislation that even most of them acknowledge will provide jobs and tax relief to the American people and small businesses.

Another bit of psychology comes to mind: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to really want to change.

Some things I just don’t get

2009-02-02T12:55:00.001-06:00

Reasonable people can disagree, that’s a popular given. The operative word, of course, is “reasonable.”

But some of the most passionate arguments in our world today have less to do with reason than with conflicting religious beliefs – that, I get. Others are territorial but also understandable; even when the observer thinks resolution is obvious it may not be so to those who are passionately engaged. Forest, trees, that sort of thing.

The more complicated quarrels involve both religion and territory, like the array of struggles throughout the Middle East, not to mention between India and Pakistan, China and Tibet, and in Ireland, just to name a few.

I get those.

And I get petty theft, tax cheating, failure to pay parking tickets, and all the other small-time stuff that is part of life.

But I don’t get Rod Blagojevich, now former governor of Illinois, who became so by impeachment. Here is a guy that everyone agrees is a pretty smart fellow, who became stupid after he was elected and turned corruption into a circus.

Why would he do that? Did his reason become disengaged along the way?

I just don’t get corruption; it doesn’t make sense.

And how about Bernie Madoff, who carried off what may have been the greatest swindle in financial history. Now he’s locked up in his penthouse without any apparent remorse about the havoc he has wreaked. I get wanting to be fabulously wealthy, but if you're that smart, why not get rich the old-fashioned way?

But I still don’t get rich folks so desperately wanting more.

Meanwhile, back in Congress, we have the matter of the President’s proposed stimulus legislation being held up by a smattering of obdurate Republicans who survived the November 4th decision by a majority of Americans to turn the business of governing our country over to the Democrats.

Remarkably, Rep. Darrell Issa asserted, in a recent interview, that his constituents in Southern California wanted to “return to Republican values.” Maybe so, but there weren’t enough of them to make that happen. That’s democracy for you.

I don’t get the Republicans this time around, though I have in the past. I heard one Congressman say that the best plan for resolving the crisis we face is “the Bush system.” I would suggest that has been tried, but doesn’t seem to have worked.

What is that definition of insanity? To keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?

Do the Republicans, like Rush Limbaugh, want the President to fail? What does that say about what they want for our country?

Alternatively, do they really think they have a better plan? Tax cuts? Who has any income left to tax, anyway?

Seems to me the best plan for the Republicans would be to go along with the Administration’s plan, for if it fails, it fails, and they can blame it on Obama anyway. But if it succeeds they would get a huge part of the credit.

As it stands, they are taking a terrific chance, for if it succeeds without them, then Obama and his people will get all the credit and the Democrats will be stronger than ever.

By the way, I don’t get the Republican claim that putting money into the hands of the taxpayers would not stimulate the economy.

Granted, some folks are now living so close to the edge that it's likely the money would simply go for food, rent and utility bills. But others may spend the money to replace a broken washing machine (with a new one purchased from a dealer who will need to order another from the manufacturer, whose employees will be happy to keep doing their jobs) or for car repairs (making it possible to continue looking for work, not to mention providing work for a mechanic who use what he earns to buy new shoes for his kids) or for a babysitter (making it possible to take the job offer while providing the sitter with money to spend).

I’d call that a stimulus, wouldn’t you?

This is not a matter of reasonable people disagreeing. Republican steam about the proposed stimulus package simply is not reasonable. They have everything to gain by supporting the plan, from good will to future votes – not to mention a shot at fixing our broken economy. I don’t see what they have to lose.

I suspect, as they probably do, that the bill will be passed with or without them because of the urgency of the times.

So c’mon, guys. Enough with the posturing. Time’s a-wastin’!

When terror strikes at home

2009-01-31T12:45:00.004-06:00

It’s all over the news, of course. Every day more and more folks are affected by it, and when that happens even folks who may not be threatened by it begin to be fearful, wondering if it could happen to them and how they can fight back if it does.

I’m talking about the sorry state of the economy, and specifically about what is happening to home mortgages all around the country.

While the good news is that here in Texas things are a bit more stable, that doesn’t mean that foreclosures aren’t happening, and right in our own Ellis county communities.

It occurred to me that there may be people living in a high state of anxiety who can use some information that might turn out to be useful, and I want to share it.

Now, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV, and I’m not a mortgage lender, ditto, but as a real estate broker I can offer some anecdotal evidence, gained through fairly recent experience, that there are things a homeowner can do to make it a little easier to get through these hard times and maybe even protect from foreclosure if it comes to that.

Beginning with the best-case scenario, let’s talk about the fact that mortgage interest rates are really low right now.

If everything is just fine with your credit record and your income, there is this thing called re-financing. If you can lower your mortgage interest rate by 2% or so, it may be well worth your effort to re-finance to a lower fixed rate; this could save you a few hundred dollars a month right there. Depending, of course, on the amount you still owe on your home.

Re-financing has costs — these vary wildly with the lender, but generally include some fees to the lender, the cost of an appraisal, etc. But since most of those costs are just rolled into the new mortgage you won’t feel a thing — after all, if you add a couple thousand dollars to your 30-year loan, that’s really small change over 30 years.

And consider changing a 15-year note to 30 years – if you are just dying to pay off your loan sooner than that, well, you can always pay extra along the way, but your monthly obligation will be less when spread over 30 years. That’s a little more protection against what may be ahead during these hard times.

Talk to the lender of your choice and get a good faith estimate to learn exactly how much you can benefit, then decide your best course of action.

A scarier scenario: You’ve been working hard, playing by the rules, and suddenly hit a bump in the road — been laid off, suffered a costly medical or other family emergency, for example — and just can’t make the mortgage one month but see your way clear to recovery. If that happens to you, then don’t just panic, take action. Contact your lender and see if you can defer that month’s payment, for example. Most lenders will try to work something out, if not from kindness of heart but because they really, really don’t want to foreclose.

Foreclosure is very costly to lenders. They have to hire lawyers and appraisers and pay staff to do paperwork, then try to find a buyer for the property and maintain it in the meantime; they know that in the long run they will lose money, one way or the other. That’s why your lender is as anxious to keep you in your home as you are.

In the third-case scenario — when the job is gone forever and there’s no way of continuing your monthly mortgage payment but still have some income, you should explore with your lender the possibility of a work-out to lengthen the term of your loan and reduce your monthly payment. The Obama administration’s finance team is working on finding a way to require lenders to engage on this idea. But until that’s set up, you are well advised to try to make it happen on your own. You may have to hire a lawyer, but the cost of legal help may be worth it.

My point is, don’t give up until you’ve tried everything.

Finally, when it’s clear you will not be able to keep your home, there is one more thing you can do. It’s called a “short sale,” or selling the house for less than you need to pay off the mortgage.

Why should you care? After all, if you are going to lose your home, why not just let the bank have it?

The reason is that a foreclosure on your credit record is worse, believe it or not, than a bankruptcy.

Sure, declaring bankruptcy would stop the foreclosure, but unless you can make the payments when all is said and done, what have you gained?

A “short sale,” where the lender agrees to accept less than is owed and — this is important — then call it paid in full, is a last resort, but a resort worth trying.

If you’ve done all you can (see above) and it’s clear you are going to have to give up your home, for heaven’s sake start the process as soon as possible.

Hire yourself a real estate agent who knows about short sale marketing, who will aggressively market your home and will go all-out to get a contract in place within the limited time available. You should determine even before you get a foreclosure notice that this will be your course of action, to give yourself as much time as possible.

Three years ago I wouldn’t have known all this stuff, but the sorry news is that this is where we are at the moment and I've racked up personal experience. Too many of our friends are finding themselves overwhelmed by today’s economy.

People facing any of the circumstances I’ve described are likely to become depressed and angry, and justifiably so. But you need all the energy you can muster to be proactive, for you might just find a way forward.

If you or a friend is going through this terror, remember that you are not alone. And though it’s little consolation when you’re hurting, realize that lots of other folks are in the same boat. For what it’s worth, I believe that better days are ahead.

Years ago a friend told me, “The man who falls down gets up faster than the man who lies down.”

So, if any of this resonates with you, don’t take it lying down — DO something!

Cheerleader-in-Chief

2009-01-19T14:28:00.003-06:00

Over the weekend it was hard, if you watch television, to miss the commotion and excitement about the coming inauguration of Barack Obama as the new president of the United States. Seemed that people are just beside themselves in anticipation, and it occurred to me that the coming collective sigh of relief might just be enough to drive up global warming.

On a Sunday news show even Pat Buchanan — he of the impeccable conservative Republican credentials — seemed caught up in it, saying “It’s a great day, and I think the whole country, frankly, is feelin’ pretty good about it!”

My own emotions, as I checked in from time to time on the progress of the train trip bringing the Obamas and Bidens to Washington were open-the-faucet sentimental. The car in which they traveled was a 1930-vintage lovely dark blue observation car, veteran of many a presidential whistle-stop tour. It was the last car in an otherwise silvery length of modern Amtrak carriages, bearing lucky reporters and staff.

If you’re a railroad buff like me, and old enough to remember, you can picture the rich wood paneling and overstuffed chairs flanked by elegant ashtray stands and pleasant conversation, and wish that somehow you could be there, being served drinks and cigars — well, skip the cigars — and occasionally venturing out onto the platform to watch the tracks disappear into the distance as you roll through America.

Back in the day, the train attendants — waiters, porters, everyone except the conductor, as was the custom — were all black. The work was considered too menial for whites. There’s a lovely irony here.

* * *

The Onion, a satirical newspaper, in a story just after the election headlined “Black Man Given Nation’s Worst Job,” wrote:

WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind.

As I tried to decide what to make of George W. Bush’s farewell address to the nation, it suddenly occurred to me: If I worked for The Onion and was told to write George W. Bush’s parting message to the country as a satire, here's what I would have written:

“Tonight I am filled with gratitude — to Vice President Cheney and members of the Administration . . .”

“This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house — September 11, 2001.”

“As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before Nine-Eleven. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our Nation.”

“Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror . . .”

“Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship . . . to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States.”

“There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results.”

“America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil.”

“Every taxpayer pays lower income taxes.”

“America’s air, water, and lands are measurably cleaner.”

“When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them.”

“Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks. There are things I would do differently if given the chance. … You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.”

* * *

From the time he stood on the rubble at Ground Zero and shouted through a bullhorn, Bush, famously a cheerleader in college, has conducted his presidency as cheerleader-in-chief. Not to worry, big hoo-yah. He’s made some tough decisions.

Notwithstanding the revelations about Dick Cheney’s support of torture, not questioning why the president hadn’t addressed the nation before 9/11, ignoring the question as to why he hadn’t acted on the “bin Laden determined to strike” memo, not worrying about the fact that Afghanistan is in chaos, and discounting the reality that Iraq says it wants the U.S. out of their country ASAP, it is certainly true that there is legitimate debate about many of Bush’s decisions. And there is legitimate debate about the results. But not to worry. He's made decisions.

America has gone more than seven years without a terrorist attack on our soil. But what of the eight years before 9/11? In 1993 al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center, and the Clinton security apparatus warned Bush that al Qaeda was a real threat. But Bush didn’t want to be seen following any Clinton lead, so despite warnings from just about everyone who was in the know he ignored the August 2001 memo. Bottom line: Clinton kept us safe on our homeland for eight years. And then we got 2001.

Every taxpayer. Did you see your taxes go down?

The environment? Clean Air Act, Healthy Forests Initiative . . . and what happened in Tennessee?

As for challenges to our prosperity, we know how that turned out.

Bush said he "shared the optimism of President Thomas Jefferson, who once wrote, ‘I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.’”

Indeed.

Priorities

2009-01-19T13:59:00.003-06:00

President-elect Barack Obama spoke to the American people last week about the urgency of passing an economic recovery plan. He explained in some detail what can be done and should be done and what will likely be the outcome if it’s not done.

Not surprisingly, there were objections by one or another member of Congress to this or that particular of his plan – too much, too little, too late, too soon -- because that’s how politics works. Still, I have a hard time understanding why, when Barack Obama won the election so handily, when the populace clearly wants dramatic measures taken in order to right the ship of state, we have members of Congress fussing about this tax cut or that bailout instead of getting down to business.

The feeling I had after listening to Obama’s speech about his plan was that if ever there was a time for Americans to write their congressmen it is now. I sent off a letter to Barton, Cornyn and Hutchison as follows:

I urge you to pass President-Elect Barack Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan immediately. Do not allow the bill to be weakened by delaying tactics on either side of the aisle. We need a big and bold plan of strategic, substantial and sustained public investment to create jobs now, generate clean energy, modernize our infrastructure and expand access to health care and education. Our economy is hemorrhaging and urgent action is needed. Thank you.

And, you know what? It’s not just about our economy. It’s about world peace and about our national security.

The world outside our borders is blowing up, and we need to get this matter of our economy under control so that soon-to-be President Obama can re-direct his attention to places like Israel and Gaza, Pakistan, India, Iraq and Iran, because he is our best hope, if there is hope, and we need him now.

* * *

Over the course of the last several years, some 8,000 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza, destroying homes, injuring and killing innocent people and driving families to bomb-shelter living. The world has taken little notice. A “cease fire” between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic militants who took over Gaza by force in a bloody coup against the Palestinian Authority a while back, ended just before Christmas. Hamas fired some 80 rockets into Israel that day and continued the bombardment daily thereafter -- and Israeli parents and children returned to the bomb-shelters.

When Israel finally said “Enough!” and fought back, Hamas deliberately drew deadly fire on its fellow citizens, with predictable results. Now there was outrage in the international community.

There’s a problem here, I think. And someone needs to deal with it. The United States is the one force that has any hope of mediating a solution in this dreadfully complex situation, but we can’t do it while we’re fighting our own economic demons.

***

We are in a situation the likes of which none of us has ever experienced. We don’t have a model for resolving the mixture of economic and international crises in which we find ourselves in this year 2009, so the best option is to trust those whom, after all, we have elected.

And tell those members of Congress to get on board.

Resolutions all around

2009-01-05T15:43:00.002-06:00

I admit. I’m one of those hapless folk who make New Year’s resolutions in the best of good faith, only to have them crash and burn before the year is half-way gone. I even write them down, which is supposed to help, but forgetting to check the list makes it kind of useless.

Well intentioned as you may be if you follow your list, when even the most determined resolutions collide with even the flimsiest of excuses, they are doomed.

Don’t have time. Forgot. Something more important came up. Priorities changed. Circumstances changed. And that all-time favorite: No self-discipline.

Finish giving up smoking. Check. Remember to start . . . not quite finished with that.

Lose weight. Check. Maybe when spring comes and I can get rid of these heavy sweaters . . .

Set up and follow an exercise plan. Check. Got the bicycle, got a neat all-weather cover for it, now just waiting for warmer weather. But it’s there, parked just outside the door and ready to go.

Quit procrastinating (my editor will love this!). Check. The trick here, if you’re a person who works best under deadline, then obviously what you should do is set pre-deadline deadlines and respond to them. Of course, if you know they are artificial deadlines . . .

Quit obsessing about politics. No check. Ain’t gonna happen. As a consummate believer that every voice matters, and with that belief confirmed by recent events, I intend to keep on keeping on.

* * *

To my way of thinking, loving politics is all tied in with love of country, of mankind, of history. Truth to tell, like some drug dealer I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want to try it.

Paying close attention to politics, local or national or international, is all about caring. Caring about my town, my country, my world. And writing about politics doesn’t mean preaching a particular idea, though sometimes it may come across that way to folks who disagree with one point or another.

In fact, some of the most rewarding discussions are with those who differ, because the conversation that begins can be thought-provoking, eye-opening, and adrenalin-stirring – not unlike cranking up the truck radio out on a country road while Waylon Jennings belts out “Good-Hearted Woman.”

A reader recently challenged me on the idea of whether Barack Obama truly meant what he said about bringing “change” to Washington. That challenge forced me to define what I thought it meant, and we exchanged emails about it. One thing was clear from the discussion: We could find some areas of agreement and could agree that we disagreed about some others. I’m looking forward to more of our conversation.

I really love this stuff!

* * *

We’re beginning a new year together and I hope you’ve made some New Year’s resolutions too, even if you suspect they may be doomed. It feels good just to make them. A New Year’s resolution is all about hope, and hope is the main thing we have going for us right now.

Keep those cards and letters coming in, and let’s have a conversation as we work our way through the troubles and into a future that I believe is bright.

He never promised us a rose garden

2008-12-30T08:46:00.002-06:00

There are an awful lot of Obama supporters who apparently didn’t take him at his word on this issue or that and now say they are disappointed — or worse — that he’s actually keeping his promises.

Not surprisingly, this began with Obama’s choice of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State, though there were enough observers who saw this as brilliant, even logical, on Obama’s part, so that the fuss soon dwindled away.

Then there were complaints that Obama’s cabinet picks included too many old Clinton hands, in spite of the obvious logic of choosing people who would not need on-the-job training, whose qualifications had already been tested. Want to hit the ground running? Hard to do with neophytes, wouldn’t you say?

Clearly there will be time and space in the new administration to bring in new blood, so let’s get the darn engine running before we try to hot-rod it.

There have been complaints that more women should have been included; there were suggestions that he hadn’t chosen enough Latinos; and of course some people thought that progressives were underrepresented. The rationale was often that if a particular interest group voted for him then that group should be repaid.

As if he owed them something just for voting for him.

The way I’ve always understood these things is that a candidate offers himself (or herself, ladies) together with his (or her) vision, and if the voter likes what he (or she) sees, the vote will follow. The voter owes him the vote because it’s in the voter’s interest, not the other way around.

And y’know what? The guy worked really, really hard over almost two years to get elected so that he could deliver on his vision. Think of it this way: It’s a 24/7 job requiring enormous stamina and commitment. Anyone here think you could do that?

On the contrary, those who wanted what Obama offered and helped him win now owe him, as he gets up and running, their trust that he intends to do what he said.

From the time he came on the national scene, Barack Obama has talked about bringing people together, of the uselessness of polarity, of the value of listening to different voices, of the importance of compromise.

But when he started acting that way during the transition, some supporters went into shock.

I’ve said before: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Can't help thinking of the old Lynn Anderson recording,

I never promised you a rose garden. Along with the sunshine, There's gotta be a little rain sometimes. When you take, you gotta give, so live and let live, Or let go.

Most recently we have the kerfuffle about Pastor Rick Warren, of Saddleback Church in Southern California, being invited by the Obama folks to deliver the invocation at Obama’s inaugural ceremony.

Previously mostly famous for his book, The Purpose Driven Life, Warren has become newly well known for his opinions as to how gay folks should live their lives. This is not to say that those opinions are anything new; the uproar is about choosing him for the event.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen should have thought about it a little longer before he objected to the choice, saying,

There you have the thinking of the man Obama has chosen above all other religious figures to represent him in this most solemn moment.

He missed the point. Obama chose someone who represents a significant chunk of the American people. It's not all about him, remember?

Singer Melissa Ethridge, who is gay and open about it, had a different perspective, and wrote this on the Huffington Post:

Well, I have to tell you my friends, the universe has a sense of humor and indeed works in mysterious ways. … I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. … When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future. … I will be attending the inauguration with my family, and with hope in my heart.

Barack Obama, the Democrat who will soon be president, said he would be president of all the people, and all the people include Rick Warren and his followers; no matter whether you agree with all of his opinions, there are many areas for agreement with the Obama folks -- not least the genocide in Darfur and the need to help the poor -- where everyone is on the same side and we can do great things together.

Imagine an audience at La Scala, or the Grand Ol’ Opry, hissing and booing before the show begins. Shame on them.

Barack Obama meant what he said, and he said what he meant: I expect him to be faithful one hundred percent.

We’re already seeing it at work.

What kind of man would break his word?

2008-12-16T08:59:00.002-06:00

Just imagine yourself back a few years, back when a job wasn’t that hard to find and you could usually have a choice of job offers. Imagine that you chose to work for a local company that offered good benefits — health coverage, sick pay, paid holidaysand vacation time, plus a retirement plan.

Way back in the day, of course, most employers offered these things. But let’s say you chose a job that appealed to you because of the benefits.

So you started work, settled in, got married, bought a house, started raising kids, became a contributing member of your community.

In that way-back day, a job usually lasted until retirement age if you wanted it to, and so you worked hard, saved a little money, and when the time came you retired, ready to do a little traveling, visit the grandkids, all that good stuff.

But what if you then discovered that your old company now has financial troubles and needs a loan to make it through the next few months, but the bank won’t do it unless you give back a big chunk of your hard-earned benefits?

The way I see it, those benefits were promised as part of your compensation; you accepted that job based in part on those promises and your wages and benefits were earned over many years of hard work. To demand years later that you give any of them back makes a mockery of those promises.

There is a small group of Republican senators in Washington who would seem to have no respect for promises or the contracts that contain them. Despite pleas from their own President, despite widely acknowledged dire consequences if the American auto manufacturers fail for want of a $15 billion loan agreed to by the House of Representatives and the President of the United States, those senators have blocked passage of the enabling legislation in the Senate.

Why would they put their own party — and President — in position to be blamed for an economic catastrophe that would make previous bailouts look like small potatoes?

Here’s the deal they offer: If the auto companies will break their promises to their workers, who happen to be members of the United Auto Workers union, these honorable men will agree to allow the companies to borrow money to get through the next three or four months.

Generous to a fault, you say?

Notwithstanding that the union has, over the past four difficult years, made significant wage and benefit concessions to help the auto manufacturers stay profitable, the senators want more this time around.

They already got the unions to accept workers’ wages being reduced to that paid workers in foreign-owned non-union plants (located, interestingly, in the states represented by said senators); the unions already agreed to accept reductions in pension benefits. But the senators now want those reductions put in place this coming year (drill here! drill now!).

According to a report in The New York Times,

In a statement Thursday night, the union said it was "prepared to agree that any restructuring plan should ensure that the wages and benefits of workers at the domestic automakers should be competitive with those paid by the foreign transplants. But we also recognized that this would take time to work out and implement" using programs like buyouts and early retirement offers to bring in new workers at lower rates.

Of course the whole gambit is dishonest.

First of all, while the senators have every right to try to impose conditions on the auto manufacturers who need the loan, they have absolutely no business, so far as I can see, inserting themselves into a company-union relationship. Labor negotiations should involve management and labor, period.

Second, let’s face it: In the end, it’s all about breaking up the union. As even the famously understated pundit David Gergen said recently, there has always been “a tension” between unions and the Republican party, but this is going way too far.

Why, I wanted to know, do Republicans hate unions? I thought it was as simple as wanting cheaper labor. The anti-UAW folks are fond of insisting that auto workers are paid over $70 an hour. That would be, well, a lie.

Here’s how they figure it: Take all the wages paid and add the cost to the company of all the benefits, and then add the cost of all the pensions and benefits being paid to retirees and divide by the number of active workers. Presto.

So it can’t be about making current labor cheaper, though a case could certainly be made that they want to get rid of workers’ pensions and benefits.

U.S. Senators are paid a decent salary — over $188,000 plus benefits that include state of the art health care — and are entitled to full retirement at age 62 after five years of service. Nice.

Of course, they are much more important than factory workers.

No, I really do think it’s all about getting rid of those pesky unions.

Now, you could argue that union power has been on the wane for several years, but I’d point out that American wages have been on the wane for the same period; make of that what you like.

A very knowledgeable political historian friend insists it’s more complex, as follows: Unions are a significant force in the Democratic party, notably providing fundraising and manpower during elections, and thus help the Democrats win; ergo, if unions can be eliminated the Republicans have a better chance.

I wonder.

Whatever may be motivating those who would get rid of unions, we now know this: Promises don’t mean a thing to them.

What have you done for me lately?

2008-12-08T18:01:00.003-06:00

Now that the biggest suspense story in politics is settled and we’re getting used to the idea of a new administration in Washington, some political types in Texas are turning some of their left-over hyper-attention to matters closer to home and the rough-and-tumble of Austin politics.

For example, now we can concentrate on getting Tom Craddick out of the Speaker’s chair, maybe along with his personal Parliamentarian, Terry Keel.

And you thought I wasn’t paying attention!

For Governor Rick Perry, the front-page worthy item seems to be the fact that this month he will become the longest-serving governor of Texas. Ever. This past summer he celebrated becoming the second-longest serving Governor after 2,745 days; I guess length of service becomes noteworthy when that’s all there is.

Now as he approaches 2,919 days you’d think that might be enough, but you’d better think again: he wants more, and plans to run for a third term.

Might be a challenge, though. For openers, think Trans-Texas Corridor and toll roads. Think about good ol’ Tom Craddick who, according to the Houston Chronicle, has said “Governor Perry's public service has been exemplary and unique.”

Rumors were that he was angling for a VP slot, but that didn’t work out. And his chances of following the George W. Bush path from Governor to the White House went down the tubes with Rove. Since it’s unlikely he could find a job in Washington anytime soon, it looks like his best hope is to try to stay put.

Enter Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Now, I have had kind of a soft spot for Kay ever since she came out strongly for Amtrak several years ago; her support for SCHIP, the children’s insurance program, made me pretty happy, too — though, to be sure, that support has been somewhat softened by the politics of the Republican opposition, but I have a sneaky suspicion she’d strengthen her position given the opportunity.

Say, as Governor.

Here’s what I think: Two terms of Perry does not seem to have produced much to brag about. Don’t believe me? Ask the person to your right — or left — what he has done for us.

Well, he’s brought us toll roads around Dallas, for starters, roads that were supposed to be built and run by private companies and pay for themselves with toll charges, but now the problem seems to be that a significant number of drivers are using alternate routes to avoid the toll charges. Even though the “scenic” routes take longer — and use more gasoline.

Folks don’t like toll roads, I guess. And now, according to a Dallas Morning News report a couple of months back, we are looking at a gasoline tax increase. The Governor has this to say about that:

“I am not going to block the debate, or if it is the will of the people, and of the legislature, I suspect I would go along with it.”

So much for that accomplishment.

And what about the Trans-Texas Corridor? Well, despite the strong opposition of what seem to be most Texas citizens — at least we know how Ellis County feels about it — Rick Perry remains a believer.

The good arguments against the TTC would fill a column; that has happened before in this space and I suspect will happen again, but that’s not the point here.

The point is that, good hair notwithstanding, this Governor hasn’t done much for us, let alone lately.

Texans should welcome “Kay Baby” into the arena and support her bid for the office of Governor in 2010. It’s time.

And she’s prettier, too.

Team of giants

2008-12-02T15:16:00.003-06:00

In what may be one of the most brilliant political moves ever, President-elect Barack Obama has just nominated Hillary Rodham Clinton for Secretary of State in his administration.

It might not surprise those who've been here before that I’ve been a long time coming to this conclusion, given the givens, as we say. But bear with me, here.

In the beginning — that is to say, when the possibility first was raised — the idea seemed absolutely daft. After all, Hillary (her campaign name of choice) had fought fiercely (an understatement, actually) to capture the nomination for President, and once the others had dropped out she and her husband strove with every Clinton fiber to defeat Obama as a rival.

It wasn’t pretty.

Around the time of South Carolina I came to wish for the end of the Clintons, politically, with every fiber of my own being.

And when Obama won the nomination I still worried that the Clintons might have some ace-in-the-hole to play to wrest it away from him. When that didn’t happen, I joined the celebration — but still wondered what they might be up to. After all, when you’re talking about the Clintons, you just can’t help wondering.

There was a bit of cat-and-mouse with Bill during the general campaign but, by golly, in the end they said and did all the right things and Barack Obama was elected President of the United States.

So now we have Hillary Clinton with us again. Secretary of State? You’ve got to be kidding! In the immortal words of more than one pundit reacting to the news, “She just never goes away, does she?”

The arguments against such insanity are legion: She voted for the Iraq war resolution whereas Obama opposed it; she called him “naïve” for proposing to talk to our enemies; she is calculating; she hopes to see him fail so she can run for President; she would build up a parallel power structure that would undercut him; she brings Bill.

For all of these reasons, plus just plain fury, I have been opposed to the very idea of bringing Hillary into the administration, especially at such a high level.

But then, like a good citizen, I began listening to other voices, and here’s what I heard: Remaining in the Senate, Hillary would truly have a power base that could challenge Obama’s agenda, whereas as a member of the Cabinet she would be completely disarmed; the President sets the policy, and his appointees carry it out — and serve at his pleasure; you want to keep your friends close and your enemies closer; love ‘em or hate ‘em, the Clintons have great credibility and admiration around the rest of the world and that will be an asset. And here’s one I particularly like: No way Hillary will be anywhere near health care reform!

Beyond the obvious positives, Barack Obama has shown, with this bold appointment, that he is not daunted by his foes and that he intends to be in charge, a good beginning for a President. He has made a selection that will quell any remaining resistance by the Hillary holdouts while comforting some of the hawks about the Iraq war, though I think this latter issue will soon become moot.

Interestingly, the rollout of Obama’s first national security appointments made it clear that it’s a team of giants, with Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, General James L. Jones as National Security Adviser, Eric Holder as Attorney General, Susan Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations, and Janet Napolitano as head of Homeland Security. Hillary Clinton is just one of the team.

In the final analysis it comes down to this: Barack Obama will be the President of the United States, a fact that has already got the world abuzz. Around the globe, the chatter is in amaze mode: America has elected an African-American to be its President! They really mean what they say!

(The most visible spokesman for Al-Qaeda, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, didn’t know what to make of it, trying weakly to foment trouble by suggesting that Obama is only a “house negro,”which shows how clueless he is.)

A Saudi journalist, Samir Saadi, summed it up: “Given Obama’s name, his background, the doubts about his religion, Americans still voted for him and this proved that America is a democracy. . . . People here are starting to believe in the U.S. again.”

Saadi’s conclusion? “The U.S. has won the war on terror.”

Parting gifts

2008-11-24T17:24:00.005-06:00

Not too many years ago there lived in Washington, D. C. a rather intense fellow named I. F. Stone; the mere mention of his name evokes a special nostalgia in the hearts of news junkies and Congress-watchers throughout the land. He certainly is one of my heroes.

I. F. Stone’s Weekly, as he called the four-pager he published, became required reading for political types; he famously spent hours reading the Congressional Record in search of priceless nuggets of news he could publish, news that had been overlooked by major outlets but that people needed, in his opinion, to know. He was usually right.

Here’s how he describes his work:

I tried to give information which could be documented so the reader could check it for himself. I tried to dig the truth out of hearings, official transcripts and government documents, and to be as accurate as possible. I also sought to give the Weekly a personal flavor to add humor wit and good writing to the Weekly report. I felt that if one were able enough and had sufficient vision one could distill meaning, truth and even beauty from the swiftly flowing debris of the week's news. I sought in political reporting what Galsworthy in another context called "the significant trifle" — the bit of dialogue, the overlooked fact, the buried observation which illuminated the realities of the situation.

I thought of Stone when I began thinking about today’s column; I’ve no doubt if he were still with us, he’d have been all over the subject weeks ago.

President George W. Bush and his administration are working feverishly to remodel as they see fit what’s left of the country we live in — mostly by removing some regulations in critical areas, creating new rules in others, or easing restrictions found inconvenient by certain industries.

I think it’s fair to mention that these are matters which the administration was unable to get through Congress in the ordinary course of business, and this is their final chance to leave what they hope will be a lasting impression.

According to the Washington Post,

The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo.

Among the areas to be deregulated or eased are factory emissions, drinking water standards, and mountaintop coal mining. In fact, there are reportedly around 100 of these gems being put in place as you read this.

One rule, for example, would increase the level of carbon dioxide emissions allowed to a power plant; another would ease limits on coal-fired power plants near national parks as well as on oil refineries, chemical factories and other industrial plants.

And speaking of pollutants, the new rules will make it easier to dump mining slurry into the streams of Appalachia, while factory farms will be able to decide for themselves if they need a permit to dispose of animal waste into streams.

There’s something for just about everyone. There’s a rule to increase the number of uranium mining permits near the Grand Canyon, and another to allow public lands to be leased for oil shale development.

There’s a new rule extending the number of hours on the road for truck drivers, and another giving law enforcement greater surveillance authority.

The Post report points that a number of the proposed new or changed regulations come at a significant cost to Americans, individually or as taxpayers, such as new limits on family- and medical-related leaves and new standards for preventing or containing oil spills.

Bill Clinton famously put new regulations in place on his way out the door — I seem to remember, for example, regulations concerning logging in national forests — but the Bush folks simply undid those as soon as they came to power. They were able to do so because such last-minute regulations don’t become final until Congress has had 60 days to look them over, and Clinton put them in place so close to the end of his term that they weren’t final when Bush took office.

In this case, the more Machiavellian Bush folks have carefully seen to it that their work is done well before the 60 days starts running, with the result that it may take, literally, an act of Congress to undo any of them.

It may be that the lame-duck session of Congress will be able to intercept this particular pass; I hear they are working just as hard to prevent the havoc as the administration is working to wreak it.

Stay tuned, but mark the words of Molly Ivins: I just think it helps, anything and everything, if the people know. Know what the hell is going on. What they do about it once they know is not my problem.

The Big Three Million

2008-11-19T18:06:00.004-06:00

The hot topic over the last week or two has been the proposal to offer some kind of bailout to the “Big Three” American auto manufacturers — Ford, General Motors and Chrysler — all of whom, most immediately General Motors, are struggling to survive the current economic crisis.

Now, I don’t know about you, but the American automobile, whatever its breed, has been near and dear to my heart since I ran with the ‘rodders back in high school — back in the day when I could tell you the make and model of everything coming down the pike.

There were certain rules that I still take as sacrosanct, too: You might drive a Ford family car, but your old pickup was always a Chevy and the van conversion had to be a Dodge.

Suffice to say those days are past; I began to lose track somewhere between the MG-TD and the Lamborghini, and finally gave up trying when the Japanese started building pickup trucks.

Thirty years ago it made good sense to want an American vehicle; no matter the buzz that Mercedes might be better engineered or that a Volkswagen or Renault got better mileage, it just seemed practical to avoid the possibility of being stranded for days in some remote village without ready access to foreign parts.

Then the economy got all global and now foreign cars are made right here in America, but old habits die hard and I confess to a visceral loyalty to the American originals. So it matters to me, for that reason if no other, what happens to our automobile industry.

The possibilities being debated among members of Congress and opined upon by an array of media pundits range from government loans to bankruptcy, with a few hard-hearted suggestions that nothing at all be done because “they brought it upon themselves.”

Maybe so. But who deserves punishment? Certainly not the almost three million Americans whose jobs will likely be lost if just General Motors is allowed to die!

It’s said that one in every five American jobs would be affected: after all, it’s not just the assembly-line workers in Detroit, but also the companies that make the components, the truck drivers who transport the new cars all around the country, and the salespeople and mechanics in the dealerships; consider, too, the graphic designers and video producers who create the new car advertisements, the Madison avenue types who sell them and the media that publish them . . . you get the picture. And it’s not pretty.

So it may be tempting to say “It’s their problem,” but it’s much bigger than that.

If your neighbor lights his roof on fire by burning leaves on a windy day, you could say it’s his problem, too. But that doesn’t mean you refuse to call the fire department just because it would cost taxpayer money to run that red truck over and put out the fire.

You call the fire department because, among other really good reasons, that fire just might spread to your house and then it is definitely your problem.

Interestingly, folks who favor bankruptcy as a solution almost always seem to get around to the appeal of “tearing up union contracts,” which makes me wonder whether they are more interested in helping to rescue the industry or in getting rid of unions. These same folks also complain about the pensions retired workers are receiving.

What is it with these people? Pension envy?

If someone is to be punished it could be management, it could be labor, it could even be the public that demanded what Detroit was selling. For years – well, just about forever, the big three resisted safety changes that cost money, increasing gas mileage – which would cost money, building smaller cars, and so on, and yes, they did bring it on themselves.

But that just makes a case for spreading the punishment around, to borrow a phrase, rather than socking it to workers and the economy that workers support.

We can provide bridge loans to the auto industry but with serious conditions: we can require that they retool ASAP to build fuel-efficient cars and hybrids; we can demand that the unions concede some of their hard-won benefits and that managers and stockholders take serious cuts in pay.

I heard one of the opponents of a bailout cry, “But it will cost money! Where are we supposed to get the money?” Maybe from the same place that’s providing the money for the war in Iraq? Where did we get the money for the AIG bailout?

In fact, the main bailout proposal being talked about would get the money from the $700 billion already on hand for economic relief, and would amount to only 4% of those funds.

But it won’t be enough just to help the industry get past the present crisis; we can do more to help rebuild and stabilize this hub of American manufacturing, at the same time working to reduce our dependence on oil. Robert Goodman, a professor of environmental design writing for the New York Times, suggests that

As part of its loan package, the government should insist on the development of "transportmaker business plans" from the car companies, with specific timelines for developing more fuel-efficient cars. The companies should also provide detailed plans to transform some of their factories into research and manufacturing centers for the development of light-rail cars and high-speed trains and buses. (In some cases, these could run on existing tracks and on the median strips of Interstate highways; in others, entirely new lanes and tracks would be built.) . . .

During World War II, the auto companies converted their factories to build not only military trucks and jeeps, but also airplanes, weapons, tanks and other vehicles. Ford’s Willow Run plant built thousands of B-24 bombers, becoming the world’s biggest bomber plant.

The research and production capacity that the car companies built during the 20th century could be adapted for the needs of the 21st.

Sounds like a plan to me!

Early Thanksgiving!

2008-11-05T10:55:00.003-06:00

Election night was unbelievable. Literally. Down at Democratic Headquarters several dozen folks had gathered to watch the returns, yet the room was strangely quiet over an almost unbearable two hours, as the patient assembly tried to make sense out of the myriad maps and graphs displayed on TV news reports. Then, suddenly, the screen filled with the announcement that Barack Obama would be the 44th President of the United States.

The room erupted into noise and motion as people shouted and danced and hugged and cheered, the emotion of the moment even driving some of us to tears. How to believe that this moment in American history had arrived – and that we had been a part of it?

And yes, everything did change. The rest of the world celebrated right along with us; news flashed from all around the world, like the rolling reports of new years' celebrations, except it was all at once.

It was thrilling, no doubt about it. Especially for those of us who supported Barack Obama for the better part of two years, way too long by some standards, but that’s a problem for another time.

For those who are less than thrilled, but would welcome some good news, let me offer at least one thought.

The election is over.

And another: The winner was Obama, not Clinton.

And this: Rahm Emanuel, known as “Rahmbo,” is to be Chief of Staff at the White House. This appointment likely signals that the Obama administration will be disciplined, and that it will not be pulled to the left by the left-most members of the party. (That could be a whole separate column, so trust me for now.)

There was some collateral damage, too, in that the hapless campaign run by McCain and the Rove acolytes he listened to may have been the death of the Republican Party. And no, I don’t find that cause for celebration, because I believe in the usefulness of a loyal opposition.

But that opposition should be honorable and I think that the Republican Party, after it was hijacked by radicals, lost its moorings. Without those moorings, it will likely be a very, very long time before American politics regains its balance.

How is the Republican Party to become viable again? Certainly not by returning to the slash-and-burn tactics of Rove and Gingrich, now thoroughly discredited as party visionaries. These guys, along with Grover Norquist, are where the blame really should go once the dust settles.

How about revisiting the ideas of William F. Buckley, one of this country’s truly thoughtful intellectuals, about whom George W. Bush said, “Bill Buckley was one of the great founders of the modern conservative movement. He brought conservative thought into the political mainstream, and helped lay the intellectual foundation for America's victory in the Cold War and for the conservative movement that continues to this day.”

Buckley often spoke out strongly against the “neoconservative” approach to government. In a conversation with George Will (no slouch in the matter of conservatism), speaking about the Bush doctrine of spreading democracy abroad as foreign policy, he said:

It's anything but conservative. It's not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn't invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is, and the notion that merely by affirming these high ideals we can affect highly entrenched systems.

The thoughtful conservatism of Buckley was overrun by radicals like Grover Norquist, head of the euphemistically named Americans for Tax Reform; Norquist once told NPR, “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” Starve the government of revenue and you can do away with foolish things like, oh, national defense, public education, Medicare, Social Security, and FEMA.

Norquist was co-author of Newt Gingrich’s 1994 “Contract with America,” and had a long association with Karl Rove. He was instrumental in securing early conservative support for George W. Bush in the lead-up to the 2000 race for the presidency.

In 2003 Paul Krugman, who this year won the Nobel Prize for Economics, wrote:

Here's how the argument runs: to starve the beast, you must not only deny funds to the government; you must make voters hate the government. There's a danger that working-class families might see government as their friend: because their incomes are low, they don't pay much in taxes, while they benefit from public spending. So in starving the beast, you must take care not to cut taxes on these "lucky duckies." (Yes, that's what The Wall Street Journal called them in a famous editorial.) In fact, if possible, you must raise taxes on working-class Americans in order, as The Journal said, to get their "blood boiling with tax rage."

If I were trying to rebuild the Republican Party I’d get out a new broom and run these guys out of town.

The loveliness of the Obama victory is that it did not involve viciousness (pleas by some worried supporters notwithstanding) and remained calm and thoughtful throughout. And it paid off: Obama won in almost every identifiable constituency, including college graduates making more than $100,000.

Question for Karl Rove: Does this mean that to build a permanent Democratic majority all we have to do is provide college education for everyone that wants it?

Think positive — but think!

2008-10-27T10:49:00.004-05:00

As tempting as it might be to engage in ad hominem attacks against the opposition in this Presidential election, I’m gambling on the notion that folks may be more likely to read what I have to say if I don’t, so I won’t.

There’s no doubt some satisfaction in going after the person rather than the idea, especially if we feel clever in doing so, seeking the cheap thrill of a zinger over the effort of a point finely made that might actually inform.

To this end, with the election just a week away, I’d like to offer information about developments in favor of electing Barack Obama.

Last Sunday, on Meet the Press, Gen. Colin Powell set forth his reasons for supporting Obama, ranging from his concerns about where the Republican Party is headed (he is a Republican) to the way the McCain campaign had been run in the preceding several weeks; from his concern about McCain’s lack of direction as the current economic crisis unfolded, and the selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate, to his trust in Obama’s “way of doing business” and judgment.

Gen. Powell said it came down to which of the two candidates would best serve the needs of the nation for the next period of time. He said,

I have come to the conclusion that, because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities – and you have to take that into account – as well as his substance, he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.

According to Editor & Publisher, a website that follows such things, editorial boards across the country have so far endorsed Obama by a margin of 3-to-1, contrasted with an almost even count in 2004. And before anyone hollers “liberal media,” let it be noted that, in addition to the usual suspects (the New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun), the Bryan-College Station Eagle made its first-ever presidential endorsement, for Obama. Furthermore, at least 38 papers that endorsed Bush in 2004 have switched this year to Obama, including our own Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The Chicago Tribune endorsed a Democrat for the first time ever, and while you may be tempted to think, “Well, of course a Chicago paper would endorse Barack Obama,” think about the fact that they probably know Obama better than most of the rest do.

And speaking of hometown perspectives, the Anchorage Daily News, in its endorsement of Obama — “Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand,” the paper had this to say about Sarah Palin:

Despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

Colin Powell may be the most recognized in what has begun to look like a Republican mass defection; other notables to endorse Obama recently include Scott McClellan, Ken Adelman, William Weld, Christopher Buckley, and Susan Eisenhower.

Ever since he was accused of being too famous, the attacks on Obama have been relentless and have ranged from truth through implication to out-and-out lie. No, he’s not a Muslim (and as Colin Powell said, What if he were? This is America!) and no, he’s not a terrorist, and no, he’s not in favor of turning murderers loose (the Republicans’ latest robocalls, recorded by Rudy Giuliani, are Willie Horton redux).

And no, Obama is not a socialist, unless you consider wanting to give a tax cut to folks in the middle class, tax credits to small businesses and tax incentives to companies who don’t send their jobs overseas to be socialism.

If you do, it’s well past time to get out the dictionary.

Throughout all the attacks a calm and imperturbable Barack Obama refused to reciprocate, despite urgings from some of his supporters and a slew of pundits to “get tougher.” According to conservative TV host Joe Scarborough, speaking to Newsweek recently, “He doesn't attack Republicans, he doesn't attack whites and he never seems to draw these dividing lines that Bill Clinton [does].”

Finally, and inexplicably, his opponents complain that Obama is an intellectual, an “elitist.” As if that were a defect.

Let me say this about that: When I fly, I want my pilot to be one of the elite that make up the best; I want my surgeon to be of the medical elite; I want my lawyer to be unbeatable; I want our troops and their generals to be the best of the best, and by golly, I want my President to be.

Short and sweet: Obama’s tax plan

2008-10-24T10:14:00.002-05:00

Some days I just don’t understand how, this late in the game, there can be anyone left who is undecided about the Presidential race. I mean, it’s been going on for close to two years!

Other days, I remember to give the benefit of the doubt to folks who are not political junkies like me and so haven’t been paying attention as closely as I have.

But by now there’s a lot of information out there — the TV ads that have begun to show up in the last month or so, the 24/7 cable news, and of course the candidates’ web sites (and the Obama campaign even has its own TV channel, 5890 on Dish Network) — so
they’d better hop to it, for early voting starts NOW.

This space was dedicated a week ago to comparing the two candidates’ health care plans, followed on Friday by a comparison of their proposals for dealing with the economic crisis.

You could say the best was saved for last. Taxes.

Let’s talk about “Joe the plumber” for a minute.

Samuel Joseph Wurtzelbacher, a registered Republican who rocketed to fame in the third Presidential debate, told Obama, in a rope line, that he was poised to purchase his bosses’ plumbing business but that doing so would bring him income “in the $260,000 to $280,000 range” which he figured would increase his taxes under the Obama plan.

Whether or not he was a “plant,” as some suspect, it made a great talking point for the debate, so I’m glad this conversation took place right there in front of everyone, and I don’t agree with the media frenzy about his license or anything else personal.

It turned into a great hook for the candidates, and gave Obama the chance to point out that (a) based on what he is making at this point Joe would benefit from Obama’s proposed tax cut, and (b) that his tax rate would increase only on the amount of income above $250,000.

In other words, the first $250,000 would be tax-increase free! Still, if I ever get lucky enough to earn that kind of money, I don’t think I’ll mind at all paying another 3% or so on the $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000 extra.

This being politics, of course, part of Obama’s answer on the rope line was morphed by the McCain folks into something vaguely sinister.

Obama said to Joe, “If the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.”

This naturally became “Redistribution of wealth! Horrors! Welfare! Yuck!”

Obama went on to explain to Joe that he would also eliminate the capital gains tax for a small business like Joe’s, to encourage growth.

What’s amazing to me is that voters who would never in their wildest dreams reach a net income of $250,000 for a family, or $200,000 for a single taxpayer, are convinced that an Obama administration would raise their taxes.

According to a chart published by the Washington Post, citing the Tax Policy Center, Obama’s plan would actually not raise taxes significantly for anyone earning up to $603,402; the tax increase that would kick in at that point would be 8.7% and that would hold up to $2.87 million. Anyone you know going to be worried about that?

Y’know, we’re getting into the stratosphere here, what the Tax Policy Center identifies as the top 1% of Americans. But apparently this is who McCain is really, really worried about when he says that Barack Obama is going to raise your taxes.

Warren Buffett, a man who knows a thing or two about making money, hasn’t got a problem with Obama’s tax plan, so I guess I don’t either.

Short and sweet: Health care

2008-10-14T18:16:00.002-05:00

What amazes me most about the ongoing health care debate is the finality with which some politicians and their pundit supporters dismiss the idea of universal health care, and especially single payer plans, with the nail-in-the-coffin reminder that “You don’t want the government running your health care, do you?”

And folks who don’t stop to think about it may agree, because they certainly don’t want the government running their health care, nosiree.

So I guess they’ll be turning down Medicare when they retire.

Unless they, like Joe Barton, are members of Congress, in which case they already have government-run health care. Doesn’t seem to bother him at all.

It’s been understood for years that the abysmal state of our health care system is a drain on our national economy, not to mention a drain on the health and pocketbooks of the millions of American citizens who have no health care coverage.

Who do you think pays for those emergency room visits by the uninsured?

America is the only major industrialized nation that does not provide some form of universal health care for its citizens. But this year, happily, we are offered some real ideas for fixing the health care system. And the reader is well advised to listen, learn and then choose.

The New England Journal of Medicine, a respected and non-partisan publication, has published its evaluation of the proposals by Barack Obama and John McCain, and I want to describe the main points here, in the order they are listed by the Journal.

John McCain’s plan:

Proposes to make employer-paid health insurance premiums taxable to the employee;

Provides for $2500 per worker or $5,000 per family refundable tax credit for those purchasing private insurance;

Creates a high-risk pool for persons who are unable to purchase that insurance; promotes less comprehensive insurance policies;

Proposes to deregulate insurance markets;

Proposes to reform Medicare to make bundled payments for episodes of care and pay on the basis of outcomes.

Barack Obama’s plan:

Proposes requiring employers (except very small businesses) to either offer insurance to employees or pay a tax;

For the uninsured and small businesses, would create a new national health plan similar to Medicare, and establishes a new national health insurance exchange that would offer choice of private insurance options;

Mandates that all children must have coverage (expanding the SCHIP program);

Would provide subsidies to lower-income Americans to help them afford coverage;

Would expand coverage, financed through the payroll tax, letting tax cuts for families making over $250,000 expire, and savings from electronic medical records, disease management, and other system reforms;

Would regulate private insurance plans to end risk rating based on health status;

Proposes to insure business against the costs of workers’ expensive medical episodes.

These, again, are the highlights. For each of the candidates there are other proposed measures to control costs and improve quality, but the ones I’ve reported are selected by the Journal as “key elements” of the respective plans.

However you get there, universal health care is not just a do-good, feel-good, help- the-afflicted issue. It’s a bread and butter issue for the country.

The past is prologue?

2008-10-14T17:14:00.002-05:00

If some of our more partisan conservative commentators are to be believed, Bill Clinton and his administration are to blame for anything and everything that’s gone wrong in this country since 1992, including bin Laden, Katrina, the subprime mess, and of course the present worldwide economic crisis.

In the latter cases, the line of thought seems to be that the present crisis can be traced back to the Community Reinvestment Act, originally passed in 1977 and furthered during the Clinton administration. Here’s how it’s described on the Federal Reserve’s own web site:

The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations. … The regulation was … most recently amended in August 2005.

The gist always seems to be that lending to minorities is what got us here, and that it is all the fault of the Clinton administration.

Just a couple of observations: First, you’ll note that the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to operate in a way “consistent with safe and sound operations.” And, second (and perhaps most significant), the Act was “most recently amended in August 2005.”

Daniel Gross, writing in the October 7, 2008 issue of Newsweek, summed it up best:

The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn't apply. … Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on subprime debt.

Though I believed from experience that there have been many, many foreclosures that weren’t necessarily related to subprime lending, the Gross article offered some detail, pointing out that, for example, a builder of high-end condominiums in Florida filed for bankruptcy just a couple of months ago:

Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime borrowers, or minorities—unless you count rich Venezuelans and Colombians as minorities.

And it’s a myth that lending to poor folks or minorities is in itself risky. Gross cites a recent New York Times report that

... a long-running initiative to build homes and sell them to the working poor in subprime areas of New York's outer boroughs, has a repayment rate that lenders in Greenwich, Conn., would envy. In 27 years, there have been fewer than 10 defaults on the project's 3,900 homes. That's a rate of 0.25 percent.

The villains in the subprime lending debacle were in it for the money. The loan fees for such loans are higher than those for conventional loans, and I’ve seen for myself cases where the buyer who would have qualified for a conventional or FHA loan was pushed into a subprime loan because the loan officer was greedy. And, of course, there were loans made that should never have passed underwriting because the loan officer was simply dishonest.

Even so, if you want to blame it all on Clinton, what do you do about the fact that, when the Act was amended in 2005, the Presidency and both houses of Congress were under the complete control of Mr. Bush and the Republicans?

Hm.

I leave the reader to think about it while I point the finger in another, more sinister, direction.

Back in 1996, in what may have been a prescient letter to the New York Times, I wrote:

I believe now that Newt Gingrich, with the perhaps unwitting support of the famous “freshmen” he so carefully recruited, programmed and brought to Washington, does have it in his mind to dismantle if not destroy our federal government. I think it’s time for someone to openly question whether his intentions are honorable.

His unrelenting “Newtspeak” attacks on existing government programs, his vilification of anyone opposing him, his brazen moves to destabilize Wall Street, his cultivation of discord and fostering of anarchy, and finally his dismissal of public disagreement with comments that amount to ‘progress is painful, but I know what’s good for America,’ suggest that Americans had better pay attention when he calls it ‘revolution.’ Those who call him brilliant would do well to recall Hitler, for one, among those revolutionaries of history who used similar tactics to take control of the existing government. It is increasingly apparent that Gingrich’s agenda includes a revised constitution that he intends to write and a ‘revolutionary’ government that he intends to control.

Judging by the ineffectiveness of our scattered protests, he seems to have convinced the American people that we cannot stop the inevitable.

Every politician in Washington claims to care most about “middle class Americans.” Well, the working people of America — the true middle class — had better stand up for themselves, or suffer the consequences.

During the recent turmoil in Washington while Congress tried to decide what to do, it was reported on good authority (Andrea Mitchell) that ol’ Newt had been working furiously behind the scenes in opposition to the “bailout” legislation – before he came out in support of it. There was also mention of the possibility that he is preparing a run for President in 2012.

Another something to think about.

But no guarantees, of course.

2008-10-14T17:03:00.002-05:00

Saturday morning on NPR a focus group of undecided voters, gathered by the network to watch the Presidential debates, now were asked to give their reactions. Most of them said the debate had helped them get closer to deciding which candidate they prefer. But one rather grumpy-sounding fellow disagreed, complaining that he didn’t hear either of the candidates put forth a proposal for resolving the finance-industry crisis now being debated in Washington.

Well, mister, if all the king’s horses and all the king’s men haven’t been able to figure out how to put the economy together again, let alone whether to take any action at all, how can you demand that any one person, even a candidate for President of the United States, know what to do?

Frankly, I’d rather have a President who doesn’t claim to know it all, who is willing to hold off making a decision until all the information is in — and who understands the potential harm that might result from acting recklessly or in haste — than one who doesn’t think he needs more information, nor to listen to more opinions, who trusts his “gut” feeling.

We’ve been there, had that, and it didn’t work out too well, did it?

Late Sunday the Congressional leaders of both parties, after working through the weekend, announced that they had agreed on a plan to “unclog the arteries” of lending and investment institutions so that money for home and business loans would begin to flow again.

And why the rush? Here’s where it gets dicey.

The reader may recall that the subprime crisis wreaked a bit of havoc recently, with one effect being that the most egregious lending practices were ended and lenders started insisting that their borrowers be qualified and capable of paying off the loan.

Over the last few weeks now, as banks and investment companies began to fail and others go all wobbly, stock market values began to bounce up and down, and loans became harder to get.

Then, abruptly, just over a week ago President Bush and his Secretary of the Treasury came out and proclaimed a dire situation, asking Congress to immediately authorize them to take $700 billion of taxpayer-backed money and use it to buy unknown quantities of unmarketable mortgage-backed securities of undefined value held by banks and investment companies; no less was at stake than our homes, jobs and pensions, not to mention our ability to buy a new car.

In this case, it seemed, the smoking gun would be the mushroom cloud kicked up by imminent economic collapse across the country and indeed around the world.

Just like the WMD’s of yore, no one can prove or disprove any of this. Although there is plenty of agreement among respected economists that something must be done quickly to add fresh money to the system and remove moribund securities from their inventories, there are almost as many equally respected economists who disagree; some disagree about the need for speed, others about the whole idea.

No one knows exactly what the problems are, or how to fix them. Most in Congress feel obliged to take the President and Paulson seriously, without evidence to the contrary.
A few in Congress and in the press have dared to ask how the situation got so dire without anyone noticing, given that this came up so suddenly. As economist Paul Krugman suggested, you have to wonder where the grownups have been all this time.

But now the President and Paulson definitely had everyone’s attention; howls of protest arose from Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and from citizens all over the country at the mere idea that taxpayers should bail out the fat cats of Wall Street.

The candidates for President reacted in respectively characteristic ways. Obama stayed in communication with Paulson and Congressional leaders by phone and offered his conditions for support; John McCain did a bungee jump from his campaign into Washington but we still don’t know exactly what he thinks of it.

Yesterday’s announcement laid out the changes to the Paulson plan that would be acceptable to both Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate, giving it a fair (though not certain) chance to pass.

The improved plan includes slowing the distribution of the funds by providing them incrementally; establishing a Congressional oversight board as well as a special inspector general to protect against fraud or abuse; protecting what will be considered an investment by taxpayers that must be paid back, and requiring that taxpayers benefit from any future growth in the assets that are purchased through this program; providing for renegotiation of mortgages wherever possible, to keep families in their homes; and banning golden parachutes and unearned bonuses for executives of the participating companies.

Since economists don’t all agree, and since the folks in Congress don’t all agree, and since everything the Administration is about to undertake (if the legislation passes both houses of Congress) is based on assumptions, estimates, best guesses, computer projections, and just plain opinion, I guess I’m equally entitled to offer my opinion. After all, with all the disagreement out there I’m sure someone higher up will share it.

My sense, from a local real estate broker’s experience and point of view, is that this is not so dire a situation as we are told. The real estate market is very slow, to be sure, but houses are still selling to qualified buyers.

Yes, it would be nice to have business pick up and yes, it’s harder to get loans if you are only marginally qualified, but isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be?

If I’m wrong and the legislation passes, after which miraculously everything gets (and stays) better, pass the Tabasco and I’ll eat my words.

With all of this, the point that advocates for the plan keep making is that this promise of a bailout is needed to reassure “the market,” to help the economy stabilize.

That begs the questions: What if the market, like some child who is terrified of the unknown, decides not to be reassured? Or what if we did nothing, but let nature take its course?

I’m going to slip into a somewhat partisan outlook, and wonder if the emergency is a product of the Administration’s desire to help out Wall Street. But of course that couldn’t be true, could it?

One thing I do know is that I don’t know the answers, and it looks like we won’t get to find out.

Originally published September 29, 2008

How did we get here and where do we go?

2008-10-14T16:49:00.003-05:00

During my real estate career I’ve come across more than a few predatory lenders — lenders who do not, as a rule, serve the buyer’s best interests. Unlike reputable mortgage brokers and banks, they are willing to subordinate the buyer’s interests to their own, and that almost inevitably causes trouble.

A subset of the predatory lender is the inexperienced loan officer who, due to lack of experience, education, or oversight, hasn’t a clue that what he’s doing is not quite right.

I’ve had cases where the loan officer continued to assure everyone involved — the buyer, the agent for the buyer, and the agent for the seller — that “this is definitely going to close,” even up to the morning of closing, only to have it turn out that his underwriting department didn’t share his opinion.

I don’t know if you ever saw “Glengarry Glen Ross,” but its grim lesson is the state of denial that a desperate salesman may get himself into, even without malicious motives. And the one who pays will be the buyer.

And eventually, as we learned over the past couple of weeks, the American taxpayer.

“I can get you into a house with absolutely no money down!” cannot ever be true, yet how many hopeful buyers have succumbed to the lure? The fact is that every buyer will need to have at least $500 – 1,000 cash on hand to cover the costs of earnest money to be deposited, a home inspection, and an appraisal — all of these amounts are generally “pay-as-you-go.”

The risk of purchasing with "no money down" is that you’ll end up owing more on the house at closing than you could sell it for. Particularly if all your closing costs are rolled into the mortgage, it would be virtually impossible to turn around the day after closing and recover your investment; the costs of sale will come back to bite you.

Then there are lenders who make it possible for you to afford the monthly payments on the dream house you didn’t think you could afford by offering you an adjustable rate mortgage. They don’t make a big deal out of the fact that “adjustable” almost always means “upwards,” of course, but if you do ask about that they are likely to reassure you that “the way houses are appreciating, you’ll be able to refinance before your interest rate goes up.”

And here lately we’ve learned what happened to THAT option.

There have even been loan officers who falsified income information (without the buyer’s knowledge) in order to get the loan approved by higher-ups. But it gets worse:

In one case, the lender manipulated the transaction to the point where the poor buyer ended up with a mortgage on the property that well exceeded its value. The usual checks and balances didn’t exist because the buyer’s agent, the lender and the appraiser all worked for the same company; in addition, that company styled itself a “charitable” organization that collected a “non-taxable donation” of several thousand dollars from the seller and transferred a portion of it as a “gift” from seller to buyer. And added it to the mortgage, of course, while giving the seller a charitable donation receipt for funds he never paid.

As it turned out, just over a year later that buyer lost the home to foreclosure.

But before that happened there’s no doubt that, quick as a wink, that lender sold the note. A mortgage note has value, after all, as an income producer. And whoever bought it — a bank or investment company — almost certainly sold it to someone else. By the time the buyer defaulted, who knows where it had landed? But one thing for sure, it could no longer be sold. And that made one less pool of money available for the investor to use to buy more mortgages.

As more and more “subprime” mortgages went into foreclosure, the inventories of more and more investors became unmarketable, and the investors had less and less money to invest. The amount of money available for loans of any kind dwindled and the economy slowed to a crawl.

At the same time, more and more foreclosures began to force down the market values of homes around them as well as increasing the time it took to sell any home.

So now we end up with Wall Street investment companies being sold, going bankrupt or having to be bailed out, and with our nation in a precarious situation not unlike that which brought on the Great Depression. Last week, the Bush Administration proposed to buy up those bad mortgage notes in order that the investors can get a fresh start and maybe perk up the economy as a result.

The Administration, fearing considerable worsening of the situation, has urged Congress to take immediate action and vote this week to provide the $700 billion that it believes will be needed just to begin the bailout. It is proposed that Henry Paulson, the Secretary of the Treasury, be given absolute discretion in using the funds — what to buy, how much to pay, and so forth. And doesn’t want legislation held up by too much debate.

Gives me a queasy, been-there, feeling.

I believe that there are just a few tweaks needed in the proposed legislation.
As it stands, the investors would get rid of their losers, while the American taxpayer would acquire them. I say there should be something there for the taxpayers, who being asked to take on the risk.

Some decent additions to the legislation that have been proposed include forbidding the beneficiaries of bailout to give multimillion-dollar “golden parachutes” to the CEO’s that are responsible, a restriction that was imposed in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

There is legislation that was proposed back in the spring, that would empower bankruptcy judges to rewrite the terms of a mortgage with the goal of keeping the homeowner in the home. This should be included because it makes sense and because foreclosures have a negative effect on the community. And to the extent that the lender took advantage of a buyer, or should have known better than to lend to someone who was obviously not qualified, it’s justice.

I wrote to Elizabeth Warren, a nationally recognized authority in bankruptcy at Harvard Law, because I wanted to be sure I have this right. Here’s what she replied:

Congress should amend the ill-advised bankruptcy statute enacted just a few years ago to permit neutral bankruptcy judges to adjust mortgages, principal and interest to keep people in their homes and to keep payments flowing on mortgages.

If a homeowner can afford a long-term, fixed rate mortgage that will pay off 100% of the current market value of the home, then everyone is better off … and the family stays in the home. If the family can't afford that, then it is time to give up the house and move on.

Either way, we can reach a bottom on the housing market, force the investors to take their losses, and move forward.

This plan won't cost the taxpayers a single dollar. And it will force the lenders to come to the table to negotiate over the value of these mortgages instead of waiting for another government bailout.

It has also been proposed that a new stimulus tax credit be given the vast majority of Americans, the poor and the middle-class, to help them get over the hump that has resulted from all this.

And finally, for now, it is imperative that regulations be put in place over the lending industry to make sure this never happens again.

Put all this together, which can be done immediately, and it just makes sense.

Originally published September 22, 2008

Giuliani: Divorced again!

2008-10-14T16:25:00.002-05:00

In his appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Truth he wanted out and took Honor along with him. Oh, and while he was at it, he completely abandoned Reality.

Why do I give a fig about this? I’ll tell you why.

Just as a person who has been attacked by a dog may thereafter fear all dogs, a person who has experienced McCarthyism may forever be vigilant lest we allow it into our society again.

I was in high school during the ascendancy of Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) and his counterparts in the House Unamerican Activities Committee, and because my father worked at the U.N. I got a pretty good inside look at the tyranny of those people.

Dad, with the rest of the American employees of the U.N. Secretariat, had to complete a 13-page loyalty/security questionnaire; the final page was blank, with the instructions, approximately, to “use the space below to provide information that will prove your loyalty to the United States.”

Any historian will confirm that Joe McCarthy never unearthed a single enemy of the people, and he eventually got into some hot water for trying to play the U.S. Army for fools. But the inquisitorial process was numbing (“Were you aware that your friend Mr. Soandso was a member of the Communist party 20 years before you met him?” “Have you ever entertained the Soandso family in your home?”) — and the collateral damage was fierce.

Mr. Soandso — whose politics were pretty ordinary, it turned out — lost his job, and — the times being what they were — his children were harangued in school as “commies.” His wife went to work to support the family. He never recovered his job, his good name, or his dignity.

Meanwhile, back at the State Department, where Dad had worked before the U.N., a dear friend of our family was subpoenaed to appear in person, no attorney allowed; she was questioned over a period of hours about her loyalty and friendships. It was rough and it was traumatic, and she resigned because she just couldn’t take any more.

No charges were ever filed against either of the people I’ve described.

But I was impressed, and I was terrified. Even half a dozen years later, waiting at a bus stop I spied a newsstand that displayed the Daily Worker; I was afraid to cast a further glance at it lest I be seen by someone who might do that to me.

I finally got over it as the country seemed to get saner (and Joe McCarthy, who was laughed out of power by Judge Joseph G. Welch during the Army hearings, finally succumbed to the ravages of alcohol and hatred), but I’ll admit to being a wee bit paranoid still.

So Mr. Giuliani got my attention when he said, essentially, that Barack Obama’s community organizing was run by "a Saul Alinsky [Red flag!] group," in league with the Chicago machine politicians, and that the real purpose of that group was to use taxes for the redistribution of wealth rather than for the benefit of the country.

“Redistribution of wealth” — you know, like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez; it’s quite a stretch to claim that trying to put people back to work after they've lost their jobs when the steel plants closed is trying to redistribute wealth.

Rudy said this was “socialist,” called Obama the most left-wing candidate ever, and the most liberal member of the Senate. He repeated the “redistribution of wealth” bit three times, pretty hefty for a few-minute comment.

Naturally, I can’t help but wonder how he would characterize Adlai Stevenson, famously called a “pinko” by Nixon back in the McCarthy era; for that matter how might Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern feel about giving up the “most left-wing” title? And as for the Senate liberals, did he just diss Ted Kennedy? And what about Bernie Sanders, for heaven’s sake, who calls himself a “socialist”?

And Saul Alinsky? Alinsky was in fact the father of “community organizing,” and he was very good at it. He fought AGAINST the Chicago machine because he saw that it wasn’t working for the working poor. Let alone the just plain poor. And he succeeded.
Here’s what the Washington Post said about him:

Alinsky was a bluff iconoclast who concluded that electoral politics offered few solutions to the have-nots marooned in working-class slums. … Power flowed up, he said, and neighborhood leaders who could generate outside pressure on the system were more likely to produce effective change than the lofty lever-pullers operating on the inside.

Alinsky took action with an organizing campaign in 1939 in Back of the Yards, the desperate Chicago meatpacking district depicted in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." Fashioning an unlikely alliance of unions, the Catholic church and others to win concessions from industry and government, he said organizers must listen to people's desires, then find leaders to carry the fight.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

So it’s not surprising that when Obama, trained (and by the way, Rudy, having been very successful) in community organizing, talks about the fixing the economy he calls for building from the bottom up, putting people put back to work, rewarding employers for keeping jobs from going overseas, and paying women the same as men for the same work, for example. That’s part of the beginning.

But Giuliani wants you to think, “Commie pinko!”

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy: We’ve been through all this before, haven’t we? And there are a bunch of us who don’t want to go there again. Better take care, lest you be laughed off the stage like Joe McCarthy!

Originally published September 14, 2008

John’s choice

2008-10-14T16:14:00.003-05:00

With the choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain did one thing for sure: he injected new life and perhaps a wee bit of hope into a Republican convention that was struggling to attract America’s attention.

To the wider audience not distracted by funny hats and backdrop films of cornfields and LA middle schools, the snarky comments about Barack Obama had become repetitious and there was even growing suspicion among some that McCain’s only real qualification to be President of the United States seemed to be his five-plus years of experience as a prisoner-of-war subjected to torture.

The “maverick” image of 2000 had pretty well faded as, one by one, McCain took on the attitudes of his former nemesis: tax cuts for billionaires, about which he said in 2003, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief," in 2006 became his new favorite proposal.

Speaking of torture, John McCain famously (and deservedly) supported legislation that would have banned waterboarding and some other forms of torture. But last February, when the bill came to a vote (with Mr. Bush promising to veto it), he voted against it.

The man who, more than many, symbolizes the wounded veteran, has consistently opposed increasing veterans’ benefits, including health care for wounded warriors and educational rewards for serving the country.

McCain’s proposals to address the health care crisis (yes, Virginia, there is one) include offering a $5,000 tax credit to help Americans buy insurance, which makes one wonder about folks who don’t make enough to pay enough taxes to cover that, and (incredibly) taxing as income the value of employer-provided insurance.

The man famous for opposing earmarks in legislation chose a running mate who, as mayor of her town, managed to obtain more earmark money for her constituents than any other town in the country. And the multimillion-dollar allocation earmarked for a “bridge to nowhere,” that Palin wants us to believe she rejected, were actually paid to Alaska — just not for that bridge.

Republicans at the convention seem to have bought into the assertion that a great many of Hillary Clinton’s supporters will abandon all their principles (sort of the way McCain did) and vote for him just to have Sarah Palin “a heartbeat from the presidency.”

The people who voted for Hillary Clinton because of what she said and stood for will choose to vote for Mrs. Palin just because she’s a woman?

It’s called cognitive dissonance, folks.

Does anyone actually stop to think what “one heartbeat away” means? And if and when they do, do they pause at least a moment to imagine the possibility that — like any of us — John McCain, being mortal, could expire on election day, for example, and then what?

We have an economy on the rocks, health care costs about to explode, schools failing, college costs headed for the stratosphere, jobs being lost (the latest unemployment number was 6.1%, the highest in five years); we have global warming (which Palin doesn’t believe in); we have war winding down in Iraq, another heating up in Afghanistan, a developing crisis in Pakistan, the threat of trouble with Iran, unknown challenges in the former Soviet bloc, and the ever-present Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

And John McCain offers us eye-candy with attitude?

We learned over the weekend that the McCain campaign has told the media that Palin will not be available for interviews (read: questions) anytime soon. In fact, according to campaign manager Rick Davis, Palin won't give any interviews “until we think it’s time and she feels comfortable doing it." And, according to a report on Talking Points Memo, he later added that she wouldn't give any interviews "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."

In the meantime, all you folks who are still deciding who to vote for this November can just accept the McCain campaign’s word for it: She is, like, TOTALLY ready to order our sons and daughters into battle.

Originally published September 7, 2008

Witnessing history

2008-10-14T15:58:00.005-05:00

Gaithersburg, with a population of 1,020, wasn’t much more than a crossroads in Maryland when we moved there in 1942. About 20 miles outside of D.C., it was a decent commute for someone working in Washington, like my dad.

A perfect family town. Looking back now, it was pretty rural; the “old folks’ home” at the end of our street had a field with cows and the occasional calf us kids loved to pet. Even into the third grade, some kids came to school barefoot. Our telephone number was 9W, though it had grown to 68R by the time we moved away five years later.
We all ran around loose, you might say; there weren’t privacy fences, and the street was for bike riding, softball, and hanging out after dark.

When the trash collectors came by they had to drive their truck all the way down our very long driveway to where the household garbage cans were kept. My little sister and I were just fascinated by that huge truck (though I can see now that it was quite ordinary). We pestered the trashmen for a ride and finally one day, with our mom’s consent, we got to ride in it, all the way back up the driveway!

In the somnolent days of small town life you can understand how little kids might consider this the high point of a week.

Not for long, as it turned out, because the guys who so cheerfully gave us little kids a few minutes of their time and a lot of fun were black.

The neighbors two houses over had 13 kids, and by the end of our ride it seems every doggone one of those kids was lined up along their wire fence to chant, “N----lover! N----lover!” Thus was I introduced to Jim Crow.

It didn’t help that our family were known to be damyankees, of course. We still played together, kids being kids and the town being small, but we were always considered outsiders.

I guess you could consider it an awakening, and as time went by I began to be aware of the signs in front of houses FOR SALE to WHITE ONLY. And at the Saturday movies, where we paid a quarter to sit in a smelly old theater I was told that the black kids sitting on the fire escape had paid their money (but only a dime) to watch the movie through the windows up there. Didn’t seem fair, but that was the way it was in Gaithersburg.

In 1947 we moved to damyankeeland, where discrimination seemed to be based on whether you liked the Yankees or the Dodgers, and life moved along fairly smoothly.

Television came along, though not so early to our house, but those without gathered in the homes of those with, so I got to see Milton Berle in black and white. Back then there was a show called “The $64 Question,” by the way.

In college in Ohio I found kindred souls in the jazz club, whose membership, not surprisingly, was biracial and about half the white members were Jewish, and it became the group I ran with. I learned about jazz, and I learned about race. And, as it turned out, I got another lesson.

I’d taken a job off campus, waiting tables in a local restaurant. The owner, a formidable woman anyway, one day called me to task for having been seen talking to a --- (black man) out in front of her restaurant. To be fair, she was an equal opportunity bigot: when I responded to her tirade by shrugging “What do you want me to do?” she finished with “Aha! A Jewish gesture!” And fired me on the spot.

After a year in Ohio I took a break from college and found a job as a “girl Friday,” eventually becoming quite accomplished on the manual Remington typewriter. (And later came the IBM electric, which evolved into the IBM executive with proportional spacing. Amazing! The Selectric was a wonder, but nowhere as miraculous as the self-correcting Selectric – you had to see it to believe it. Remember those round little erasers with brushy tails? Gone.)

Meantime, the computer came onto the scene. From punch cards to Macintosh: What an evolution! And, free at last, no more carbon paper!

In the late 1950’s I went back to college, supporting my education habit with a job serving cocktails at the Starlight Lounge (it was quite respectable, folks). A majority of the customers were young men from the nearby Air Force base, and by now the military was integrated. But it was still a while before there came an evening when a couple of black servicemen showed up and sat at a table, and my boss instructed me not to serve them.

Quitting a job with tray in hand can feel good; it gives you something to slam down on your way out the door.

But this was in California, and it was 1959, and we were supposed to have come further than this, weren’t we?

During the turbulent 1960’s we all watched and praised and were amazed by the Freedom Riders, young people who risked their very lives, as it turned out, because they believed that black folks were entitled to sit down at a lunch counter, to be treated as equals, and especially to vote. And they went down South to try to help make it happen.

James Cheney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman – all in their early twenties -- went to Mississippi to register black citizens to vote. Not long after their arrival they were arrested, jailed, released, followed and rearrested by the police and turned over to the Klan. They were shot to death. We learned all this only after a six-week search, when they were found buried in an earthen dam near Philadelphia, MS.

I was devastated, as were so many Americans. The front-page photograph of their bodies being returned to their grieving parents is seared in my memory and tugs at me still.

There have been so many trials for the country, so many injustices, and also some sweet but hard-won triumphs – but you know these things. I’m just offering some personal recollections that inform my own attitudes and state of mind on race in America.

So when I watched and listened to Barack Obama’s acceptance speech the other night, before that audience of 84,000, I was personally affected, and thrilled to be witnessing what may be the end of the beginning of America’s quest for a perfect union.

And I said to myself, “James, Andrew and Michael, this one’s for you!”

Originally published September 1, 2008

And furthermore …

2008-10-13T17:35:00.004-05:00

Even before finishing my last post I realized that there are quite a few more items that need to be said about the current campaign for the presidency. The idea that even one voter might make a choice based on bad information is anathema to everything our Founders intended for America.

Take (please!) this new ad from the McCain campaign:

"Life in the spotlight (the video shows crowds cheering Obama) must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough."

Us? This from the guy who campaigns wearing $520 leather Ferragamo loafers, enjoys the use of his billion-heiress wife’s private plane to travel to campaign events, and owns at least half a dozen homes in pleasant locations?

The ad goes on: “Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000,” while the text-over says Obama: RAISE TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS.

The narrator claims that Obama “promises to raise taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.” Talk about hot buttons! Then, next to a photo of a smiling Barack Obama, “Painful taxes! Hard choices for your budget!”

What a heartless cad!

The ad concludes, of course, with “I’m John McCain and I approve this message.”

Some in the TV commentariat speculated aloud last week that they don’t believe McCain is really this kind of guy, that he must not really know what his minions are putting out there because he surely would not be comfortable running such ads.

Next to the ad described above, I could almost forgive the simple slander of using a remark out of context, as I described last week. Here we have an out-and-out lie. No other way to characterize it.

Obama has said for months that his tax proposals include REDUCING taxes for every family with less than $250,000 income, and eliminating them altogether for low-income families and seniors under $50,000.

I used to fantasize that whenever an election was won with a proven lie the person who won that way should have to give up the office. Fat chance.

From lies to too-clever-by-half: In an exchange about McCain’s fixation with off-shore drilling, Obama observed that, hey, if every driver got the car tuned up and its tires inflated to specification the fuel savings would be immediate, contrasted with the years before new wells could influence gasoline prices — if indeed they did more than a penny or three a gallon.

McCain promptly began a campaign to mock this as “Obama’s energy plan,” and handed out cute little pressure gauges to reporters. (Ordinary folks could get one for only $25.00 on McCain’s web site.)

But here’s what BusinessWeek.com wrote on August 1, 2008:

According to www.fueleconomy.gov, the gas savings of having a properly tuned car is 16 cents a gallon, compared with a car that’s not properly tuned. The savings from properly inflated tires versus improperly inflated tires is up to 40-cents a gallon.

Statistics vary, but more than half of the vehicles on the road today are believed, from periodic spot checking, to be under-inflated.

AAA and NASCAR agree, by the way.

Further, according to BusinessWeek.com,

The U.S. government’s own Energy Information Administration says that removing restrictions on offshore drilling wouldn’t lead to any additional domestic oil production until 2017, and that even at its peak the extra production would have an ‘insignificant’ impact on oil prices.

So it was reassuring to hear McCain endorse the idea a week or so later.

And none of these sources mentioned the fact that the savings realized by reducing driving speed to 55 mph is said to add about five miles per gallon, not an amount to be sneezed at with current prices where they are.

One thing for sure: McCain’s argument that if we only “Drill here! Drill now!” it will bring down the price of gasoline is, to say the least, misleading.

Ok, but let’s say it’s a reasonable argument that, assuming more oil will eventually be needed, whether or not it drives down prices, we should probably be starting now. Here’s a problem:

People who seem to know what they are talking about point out (a) that we are already operating our refineries at capacity, so to accommodate more oil we will need to build more refineries; and (b) that there are millions of acres of existing oil leases that have not been drilled upon.

According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service,

Currently 79 percent of America’s technically recoverable offshore oil reserves are open for leasing, while just 21 percent are closed to drilling. [Minerals Management Service, 2006]

Currently 82 percent of America’s technically recoverable offshore natural gas reserves are open for leasing, while just 18 percent are closed to drilling. [Minerals Management Service, 2006]”

It does seem to me that it would make sense to start drilling on lands that are already available, start building more refineries, all while continuing the quest for alternative solutions (after all, we’ll have at least a decade on our hands).

I remember how the Bush tax cuts for the very, very wealthy got through a distraught Congress while we were still reeling from the attacks of 9/11 — the President took advantage of the willingness of the nation to follow him just about anywhere, and the tax cuts were passed within days.

Could it be that the oil companies (who love the idea of more leases in juicy offshore locations, who gave McCain over $1 million to show that love) are hoping our present panic will help get them those leases?

All I can offer is a cautionary to Americans to pay close attention, check out the facts. Else, once again, it’s “fool me twice” time.

Originally published August 10, 2008

Politics 2008

2008-10-13T17:29:00.003-05:00

If it weren’t so infuriating I’d just shrug it off and call it silliness. But believe you me, this is deadly serious stuff and can make or break the success of Barack Obama’s quest for the Presidency. It all depends, frankly, on how much attention American voters are willing to commit to the selection process, and their capacity for critical thinking.

Come to think of it, this kind of stuff probably goes back to, oh, 1789 or so (yes, there were candidates other than George Washington for the signal honor of being Father of our Country), but my own experience is necessarily limited to the last 50-plus years.

You could liken it to the snake oil salesmen of the old West, or the fellow who offers a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge or perhaps some oceanfront property in Arizona, to Professor Harold Hill and his promise to build a boys’ band in River City, or the recent scammers right here in Waxahachie: What all these have in common is the ability to slick-talk folks into believing in something that is a lie.

Every one of their victims chose to buy into something they would never have believed if they had just been a little more skeptical, asked a few more questions, done a little fact-checking for themselves.

I like to think that you can attribute the willingness of some voters to believe the unbelievable to what I think is an American tendency to see the good in people, to give the benefit of the doubt, sort of the way we pride ourselves on the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.” But some outcomes suggest that at least a touch of cynicism is in order, at least when it comes to our money and our country.

Back in 1952, Richard Nixon lobbed non-fact grenades against his opponents, as in accusing Adlai Stevenson of being a “Commie-sympathizer” for suggesting that we talk to Red China. That would be the same Richard Nixon who famously opened the gate to Red China after he got elected some years later.

Leaping forward to our current situation, George W. Bush promised us that he was a “compassionate conservative,” and turned out to be neither.

A very clever fellow named Frank Luntz thought of a way to help the Republicans get rid of nettlesome taxes like the estate tax, which taxes the transfer of great wealth — defined nowadays as exceeding $2 million and excluding family farms — to other than a surviving spouse or a charity. I don’t know if anyone you know will have that much to leave to the kids, but now that it’s called the “death tax,” you’d be dumfounded to learn how many ordinary folks are dead-set opposed to it. Even though experts calculate that doing away with the estate tax would deprive the country of “tens of millions” of dollars every year.

You see, Luntz wanted plain folks to believe that just dying would bring a tax upon you. As Molly used to tell Fibber, “Tain’t so, McGee!” Check it out.

Speaking of taxes, John McCain is quite emphatic when he claims that “Barack Obama wants to raise your taxes!” What he fails to mention is that “your” in this case refers to people with incomes greater than $250,000, twice that for a married couple.
And of course it wouldn’t be helpful to him to add that Obama also wants to lower taxes for everyone earning less than that, and eliminate them altogether for folks earning under $50,000.

Nope. “Barack Obama wants to raise your taxes” is out there, low-hanging fruit dangling from the tree for people too hungry to question it.

And then there’s the not-exactly-a-lie: Speaking to the Congressional Democratic Caucus last week, Obama said, according to people who were there, as reported in The Atlantic:

“It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”

So what does John McCain’s latest ad tell us about that? That Obama said, in a fit of vanity, that, “I have become a symbol of America returning to our best traditions.” Tain’t so, McCain.

Finally, the straight-out lie of the McCain campaign to bring down Barack Obama is manifested in his recent pop-culture ad costarring celebrity airheads Spears and Hilton, which claims that Obama is all speech and no substance, and in support of that claim McCain’s minions love to say that “we don’t know what he stands for.”

Well. Now, you can go to the library or to Google and find position speeches dating back through the entire campaign and read until your head spins, or you can go to his website and find them there, all neatly categorized.

When you think of it, it’s odd that McCain can attack Obama for what he stands for if we don’t know what that is, isn’t it?

My idealistic, optimistic hope is that THIS time, with what has been called the worst economy since the Great Depression, with America’s reputation in tatters around the world, with our troops committed to an occupation in Iraq while getting blown up in Afghanistan and Iran is making us nervous (but we don’t have any troops to spare right now), our infrastructure showing signs of distress, health care costs and the mortgage crisis driving more seniors into bankruptcy than ever before, that THIS time every single voter will pay attention like never before.

Else, it’s “fool me twice” for America.

Originally published August 3, 2008

On the Middle East

2008-10-13T10:47:00.003-05:00

At the Israel-Lebanon border last week, two Israeli soldiers were brought home for burial in exchange for Israel’s release of five Hezbollah prisoners, including the unspeakable terrorist Samir Kuntar who, in 1979, crushed the skull of a 4-year-old girl before whom he had just murdered her father.

The mourning of the hundreds of Israelis who were there to accept the coffins stood in sharp contrast to the celebration and dancing in the streets of Lebanon, where Kuntar and his fellow unspeakables were greeted with a red carpet and kisses and honored as heroes.

In a tiny country where almost every citizen is required to serve in the Defense Force, every soldier is a member of the family and every death is taken personally, and despite the indisputable strategic downside of handing terrorists back to their countries in exchange for the release of kidnapped Israelis — too many of whom are dead by the time the deal is struck — it’s never been possible to say no.

Still in captivity, though, is Gilad Shalit, the young soldier kidnapped by Hamas. Though he is believed to still be alive, there really doesn’t seem to be any release in the works for him, even though the Egyptians have been trying as mediators to bring it about; but when you are dealing with Hamas you might as well be dealing with quicksilver.

And of course there’s the larger problem of Hamas itself and the way it chooses to interact with Israel. Which is to say, not at all, really.

There are some signs of progress toward a peaceful resolution with the Palestinian Authority, headed by Abbas, but that cannot include all of the lands under the Palestinian Authority unless and until control of Gaza is no longer with Hamas.
And the problem with agreeing to talk to Hamas, right off the bat, is deciding which Hamas to talk to. The head honcho lives in Syria, but the street activists are in Gaza.

So, when you sit down for a cup of chai with some Hamas folks, for whom will they be authorized to speak? Who is in charge?

And would Abbas and the West Bank folks even want a separate negotiation with Hamas? After all, they were basically thrown from power in a Hamas coup in Gaza.

Anyway, let’s say you offer to explore ways of arriving at a peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Let’s say you will talk about all kinds of things if they will accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. You will not get an unequivocal answer, so right there you have an insurmountable problem.

But perhaps they can be persuaded to quit lobbing missiles into Israel in exchange for economic aid. Perhaps if we could stop the violence and begin a kind of Marshall Plan for the whole of Gaza and the West Bank, if we could help establish a thriving economy there, bring quality to life there, even Hamas might be persuaded to give peace a chance.

A seldom-mentioned part of the problem, too, is that you have to get past the reality that the Palestinian predicament is a useful foil for all kinds of other actors in the region, like Hezbollah, or Fatah in Pakistan, who will sabotage, or at least impede, any such effort.

Right now, the bad guys are in the driver’s seat. The Israelis would accept a peaceful resolution in a heartbeat, but it will take more than promises for them to open a road here, take down a barrier there, close a settlement over there, for their experience is that every time they let down their guard they get slaughtered in their own streets.

Can you imagine how Americans would behave if they experienced something like 9/11 several times a year?

Lucy got Charlie Brown to try for the kick every time, but the Israelis are done with the game.

Maybe the solution will ultimately come from the outside. Imagine, for example, that (now that we seem to be talking to them) our diplomacy gets us into a working relationship with Iran. Imagine that Iran is persuaded to call off the Syria/Hamas/Hezbollah dogs in exchange for, say, energy technology.

Ah, yes, a dream. Maybe just a dream, but maybe even possible.

An Israeli leader said, approximately, “When the Palestinians come to love life more than they hate us we will finally have a chance for peace.”

Originally published June 20, 2008

McCain II

2008-10-13T10:41:00.002-05:00

I thought I’d shared what I have to say on the subject of John McCain as potential President, but events this past week made it clear there’s more that needs to be said.

For a while it seemed that McCain’s occasional “misspeaks” and less than perfect recall might be written off as “senior moments,” as one of his aides said — and wished he hadn’t — a few weeks ago. Indeed, a case could be made, though it would take some creativity, that a President need not have a perfect memory; after all, he can surround himself with people who’ll fill in the blanks for him if necessary.

Some folks may brush off the fact that McCain has confused Sunni and Shii’a on multiple occasions, a not insignificant mix-up when you consider that the two factions basically hate each other, that the Sunni are the ones who have been involved in al-Qaeda while the Shii’a have not, and that the Shii’a are the predominant sect in Iran (and head the Iraqi government, for that matter).

If ordinary citizens like you and I can understand these differences, surely someone who wants to be President should be able to.

A couple of months ago at a press event while they were visiting Iraq, McCain had Joe Lieberman there to help him out.

McCain told the assembled reporters that “al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and … coming back into Iraq from Iran.” Ol’ Joe whispered into his ear, whereupon McCain immediately corrected himself to say, “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”

McCain’s style of campaigning is often nonchalant to the point of being blasé. When questioned about the fact that cigarettes are still a major U.S. export to Iran, he answered, “Maybe that’s a way of killing them. Heh-heh.” He quickly added that he was joking.

Y’know what, Senator? The job of President is no joke. Every utterance, every misspeak, every joke will, to paraphrase Mark Twain, be halfway ‘round the world before your correction can even get its boots on.

We have enough trouble getting our message into the Muslim world without giving Al-Jazeera & Co. extra stuff to spin against us.

Phil Gramm, a name you may remember, has been serving as co-chair of McCain’s campaign almost from the get-go, and has been, at least up to last week, McCain’s chief economic adviser.

Last week Gramm told the Washington Times, among others, that America is only in a “mental recession,” not a real one, and that we are “a nation of whiners.”

McCain was Johnny-on-the spot with his own brand of damage control. (Remember: this is his Chief Economic Adviser, rumored to be in line for Treasury Secretary.) Said McCain, when asked whether Gramm might become a member of his administration: "I think that Senator Gramm would be in serious consideration for Ambassador to Belarus, although I'm not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that."

Heh-heh. Takes care of that, doesn’t it?

He did go on to say that Senator Gramm “does not speak for me. I speak for me.”
These guys have been best buds for some 25 years; does anyone honestly believe that John McCain had no clue?

Perhaps the greatest “misspeak” of last week — unless, of course, it wasn’t — was when McCain referred to our Social Security program as “a disgrace.”

"Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace and it's got to be fixed."

Um, Senator, that’s the way Social Security is supposed to work. That’s the way it was designed. Back in 1935. Have you forgotten that? Or did you just not know it?

McCain has voted against himself on legislation regarding torture, veterans’ benefits, stem cell research, the environment, and even campaign finance reform. He has yet to offer coherent statements on the mortgage crisis, the economy, energy, or health care — or in fact anything other than his military exploits — because those things have never really mattered to him, and still don't, and he’s now too late to the game.

Is it heresy to call out McCain?

2008-09-15T17:53:00.003-05:00

Once, many years ago, I had the opportunity to compliment the wonderful Katharine Hepburn, in a backstage visit after “West Side Waltz,” on her portrayal of her character as a maverick. I said I really related to that.

“Oh, but you know,” she said, in that slightly quavering New England voice, “it’s not always easy being a maverick!” She would know.

In the past, I admired Sen. McCain, to the point of contributing to his campaign in 2000. It had nothing to do with his military service or POW experience. I just admired what I saw as honor and fierce independence, and totally related to him as the maverick he seemed to be.

Apparently John McCain has also discovered that it is not always easy being a maverick, for it seems his “maverickness” has pretty well evaporated over the course of this campaign season.

Why do I say this? Well, consider the definitions of “maverick”:

(1) an unorthodox or independent-minded person;
(2) a person who refuses to conform to a particular party or group.

Now consider John McCain:

When President George W. Bush rolled out his tax cuts for the very, very wealthy at the expense of the economy (if you want to challenge me on this, line up your sources), Sen. McCain stood up in the Senate and objected:

I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.

The maverick stood strong.

But in this year of the 2008 Presidential election, he wants to make those very tax cuts permanent.

John McCain, one who knows from personal experience, strongly opposed torture and led the battle for anti-torture legislation — until it came time to vote on it. Then he voted with the Bush administration against it.

McCain won enthusiastic praise from environmentalists, including me, when he came out for pro-environment legislation. He supported, for example, the long-established ban on off-shore drilling for oil; this year he is in favor of lifting the ban.

By the way, that won’t do anything to lower gasoline prices, my friends. The problem is not how much is still in the ground to be extracted (in 10 or more years from now when wells might be productive); the problem is that no matter how much is pumped out, China and India and other rapidly developing countries will continue to grow and consume enormous quantities of the supply, and the supply is finite.

Someday folks will get it: there are no more dinosaurs left to die off and create new pools of fossil fuels. Some of us learned that in the fourth grade.

McCain ran into huge problems with his party because of his support for comprehensive immigration reform. So how did he handle it? Without getting into the virtue of the legislation he had co-sponsored, it is enough to know that he has danced away from it in this election season.

Where’s the maverick?

McCain’s strength was that he appealed to voters as a “straight talker,” as someone who was willing to buck his party on any number of matters out of principle. He was no party-line guy, he was a truth-teller. But now we are left to wonder: Which truth?

It is reported that during his college years at the Naval Academy “McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894/899) that he did not aim to improve. … McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he disliked, such as math.” (Wikipedia)

I respectfully remind the reader that we have just gone through almost eight years with a President who is disinclined to obey rules and does not aim to improve his ranking.

It has also been reported, with disquieting frequency, that McCain has a very short temper, once described by The Arizona Republic, his hometown newspaper, as “volcanic.” In the 2000 presidential primaries members of his own party who opposed his becoming their nominee seemed interested in linking his propensity for rage to his POW experience.

Now, the fact that he is known to swear like a sailor should worry no one in and of itself — note the analogy, after all! Even blasting away at colleagues in the Senate from time to time might not be cause for concern in a future President. But certainly we want to know what to expect in disagreements with heads of other states.

And we absolutely don’t want a President who hits the red button first and asks questions later.

So let me sum it up: John McCain was a fighter pilot during the Vietnam war; he flew many missions before he was shot down and captured and imprisoned, and he was kept in prison for five and a half years; during that time he endured torture.

His military career was distinguished as far as it went, including experiences that were heroic. But why must that now be the dominant narrative of his candidacy?

Perhaps because the John McCain we admired so much for refusing to conform to the party line is no more. He’s gone all orthodox on us. His turnabouts have not left him in fair play.

There is nothing left of the maverick — ironically, the one John McCain who might have had a chance of winning in November.

Originally published 7/4/08

Just words?

2008-09-15T17:30:00.005-05:00

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

— Patrick Henry, speaking before Congress in 1775

[W]e can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

—Abraham Lincoln, after the Battle of Gettysburg, 1863

This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

— FDR Inaugural, at the height of the Depression, 1933

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

— Winston Churchill, when the war was going poorly, 1940

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation.

— FDR Inaugural, 1941

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. …
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility — I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it — and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

— JFK Inaugural, 1961

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.…
I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the Sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the terms of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade.

— JFK, speaking at Rice University, 1962

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. …
I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. …
This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

— Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963

Just words. The stuff of true leaders.

Slide talk

2008-06-06T10:57:00.003-05:00

As she strove to justify her claim that she should continue to seek the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton got herself into a heap of trouble with almost everyone — Democrats, Republicans, undeclared delegates, print journalists, an array of columnists in print and on the internet, the expected TV talking heads, and of course bloggers — for what might be minimally characterized as an injudicious reference to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968.

At first reluctant to join the made-for-opinion pile-on because it would be too easy, I thought about it a little harder and soon realized how few of her critics seemed to have noticed that her argument was completely flawed.

Hillary had told the editorial board of the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where one of the last two Democratic primaries was to take place June 3rd, that it was completely reasonable for the contest to go into June because, “You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June,” she said.

But it’s apples and bananas. It’s a false analogy. Back in the day we would have called it “slide talk.” Different from spinning — offering the best possible interpretation of something — or lying, slide talk is telling the truth in such a way designed to manipulate or give a false impression.

In 1992, California didn’t hold its presidential primary until June. In 1992 Bill Clinton held the lead, though not the lock, on delegates until the California primary voters clinched the nomination for him in June. In short, in 1992 the process wasn’t quite done until then.

In a December 2007 conversation with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Mrs. Clinton agreed with him that the process has become much more compressed since 1992, as various states moved their primaries up in the hope of wielding more influence.

One of those states was California; from 1996 through 2004, Californians voted in March, but then moved up again to February for the 2008 election.

In other words, the process Hillary Clinton has been talking about was really pretty much all over on this year’s Super Tuesday, February 5th, when 24 states including California held their primaries.

And in that December 2007 conversation, she had said, “We are competing everywhere through February 5th. … I’m in it for the long run. It’s not a very long run — it’ll be over by February 5th!”

No, ma’am, there is no valid comparison between where we’ll be in June this year with where we were in June of 1992, and I’m disappointed that this point has not been made in the general commotion about her remarks.

As for the part of her statement that drew most of the attention, it was her intent, she explained, simply to offer examples of campaigns that ran into June: “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Do we? I remember that it was California, where I lived at the time, and I remember where I was when the news broke, and I remember the despair that swept the country. But that it was June?

And can it be that an intelligent, well-informed person with 35 years of political experience really couldn’t think of any other such contest between 1968 and 1992? Or didn’t have the sense to stop with the 1992 example?

Remember: California’s primary this year was in February.

No, this is a woman who does not make an unplanned remark, who calculates every statement down to the punctuation marks. She said what she meant to say, and in true Clintonian fashion apologized — sort of — later.

“The jury will disregard that remark” popped into my mind. That’s shorthand in some circles for a trial lawyer’s tactic of eliciting inadmissible testimony that is certain to cause his opponent to object, after which the judge sternly informs the jury that it must pretend the remark was never heard. Right.

But if in fact Mrs. Clinton truly misspoke so grave an allusion, then she is clearly unqualified to serve in the one office in the land where such an error may bring disastrous consequences for the country.

Peace for our time?

2008-06-06T10:44:00.003-05:00

A couple of weeks back, President Bush traveled to Israel to join that determined-to-survive and thriving little country in celebrating its 60th birthday. In a speech to the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, Mr. Bush somehow found it appropriate to lash out at “some” who suggest that talking to one’s enemies may be a good beginning idea.

Whoever he meant by “some,” the perfect irony is where he said it, because the concept of the importance of talking not just to our friends but also to our enemies is old hat to Israelis. It was none other than Yitzhak Rabin, speaking as Prime Minister of Israel back in 1993, who said, “One does not make peace with one's friends. One makes peace with one's enemy.”

However Mr. Bush might choose to characterize the notion of talking to people whose behavior we don’t like, there is no arguing with the truth stated by one of Israel’s greatest statesmen —someone who was in a position to know whereof he spoke.

And just in case the reference to “some” went right over people’s heads, the ever-helpful John McCain tag-teamed with Mr. Bush to make sure everyone understood what Mr. Bush had said and then linked it to the campaign by first expounding on the idea of “talking = appeasement” and then cleverly declining to say whether he thought Barack Obama’s suggestion that we should talk to Iran would make him an appeaser.

But history is on the side of Rabin and Obama. Israel’s peace-making efforts since 1967 have succeeded with Egypt, an enemy they chose to talk to, and with Jordan, another enemy turned friend by talking. Not to mention the Palestinian Liberation Organization, now the Palestinian Authority, and Rabin’s willingness to talk to Yassir Arafat, because of which the old enemies began the long hard road to a two-state solution.

Mr. Bush himself apparently thought it was okay to talk to Muammar Qadaaffi, of Libya, notwithstanding that dictator’s support of terrorism (Pan Am 103), and he proudly says it was his administration’s negotiations that brought about Libya’s agreement to abandon pursuit of nuclear arms.

And don’t forget North Korea, where Mr. Bush’s emissaries have been engaged with a clearly dangerous despot, Kim Jong Il, in an effort to end his nuclear weapons program, an effort that seems on its way to paying off.

So it was puzzling when Mr. Bush veered away from the celebration at hand to suggest that anyone who even suggested talking to the enemy was pretty much in the same league as Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister whose actions in the run-up to WWII have established him, in the eyes of some, as the model for appeasement.

In his speech in Israel, Mr. Bush said, “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. … We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Never mind that Mr. Chamberlain talked to the enemy and gave the enemy what it wanted, namely, a big bite out of Czechoslovakia, in exchange for nothing more than a worthless promise by Hitler to behave himself.

And never mind that the American Heritage dictionary definition of appeasement is “to pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.”

Well, never mind the facts. Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain clearly intended to label as an appeaser and bad-as-Chamberlain anyone who dares suggest even talking to an enemy. After all, this is modern American politics, and the faster you can paste a nasty label onto your opponent, the better.

Well, Mr. Obama jumped on it “like a duck on a June-bug,” as Ernie Ford used to say:

“George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists,” said Obama, “and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel. …

“Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy — to pressure countries like Iran and Syria.”

“I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy,” Obama said. “I believe that there is no separation between George Bush and John McCain when it comes to our Middle East policy, and I think their policy has failed.”

Somewhat inconveniently, it was only the day before all this that Defense Secretary Robert Gates had said, "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them." Oops! Another appeaser, right there in Mr. Bush’s cabinet.

And the day after was just as inconvenient. A new video hit YouTube and newscasts across the country: Here was John McCain, back in 2006, live and in color, interviewed by James Rubin for SkyNews:

RUBIN: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCAIN: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another… it's a new reality in the Middle East.”

Beautiful.

Feeling her pain

2008-05-18T18:26:00.002-05:00

There’s plenty of good reason to encourage a thoroughbred racehorse, winner or not, to “gallop out” after passing the finish wire. It helps the horse cool down and is said to aid in preventing post-race soreness. Some handicappers watch gallop-outs carefully, believing they’ll find clues as to health, strength, attitude and future performance of a given horse and jockey combination.

Some horses, it seems, "gallop out" past the wire for several furlongs on their own accord while others, sensing that the race is over, will slow themselves down and happily head for the paddock.

That's how we should think about the Democratic primary race these days.

Allowing a candidate who has run so hard for such a long race to have a decent amount of time to wind down with dignity would hurt no one and would likely help the Party.

Moreover, it is clearly silly, and disrespectful, for opinion purveyors in the media to continue to wonder aloud why Hillary Clinton is still running. They claim bewilderment that she has not done the math, seen the writing on the wall, and torn her campaign into little pieces. After all, in their opinion, Obama clearly can’t be beaten and there are only a handful of primaries left.

Even so, there are only a handful of primaries left, so why not indulge the voters in those states by allowing them to be part of the process? After all, Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy is obviously going to be in play this time around, and with this primary season drawing folks in every state out to vote, many for the first time, this fall’s election promises to be transformative.

Of course, it would be well if during this period there is an effort to cool down without destroying. In the home stretch of the campaign, it would hurt neither herself nor the Party should Sen. Clinton choose to turn her withering remarks to the Republican in the race.

Which brings me to today’s point: Though I have been highly critical of her for a good long while, I have considerable empathy for Mrs. Clinton; I do not have sympathy for her.

Like most of us, I have lost a battle or two in my life, some more important than others, and I can tell you that losing can be a little tough, or it can be really hard; it can be frustrating, and even infuriating; it can be excruciatingly painful.

Mrs. Clinton’s has not been a race that can be easy to concede. On the one hand I blame her advisers, who clearly encouraged her to believe in her inevitability from the very beginning, ignoring one of the simplest rules of politics, that nothing is certain and anything can happen.

On the other hand, she chose those advisers and chose to believe them — even, to the detriment of her campaign, exuding a sense of entitlement well beyond the point where she should have known better.

Her path, overall, is littered with mistakes, some of which have proved more damaging than others, but most of which might have been avoided had she simply opted from the beginning to run a plain-spoken and principled campaign — after all, see how Sen. McCain’s “straight-talk” reputation seems to have protected him from all manner of unpopular and even bizarre positions.

But it’s too late for Hillary Clinton.

Like the protagonist in a Shakespearean tragedy, she has been brought down by her own flaws.

As a flawed person, I can certainly empathize, but I don’t feel sorry for her at all.

Don't be fooled

2008-05-18T18:14:00.002-05:00

Depending on how things work out over the next couple of months, Americans could find themselves faced with a daunting choice: To vote for someone with a record of pandering and not always being honest but you hope she’s telling the truth this time, or to vote for someone with a record of pandering and a reputation for straight talk and telling the truth but you hope to goodness this time he isn’t.

The recent hullabaloo over gas prices has been enough to set a political junkie’s teeth on edge, not to mention make grown economists weep and newspaper editorial writers run out of words.

Consider this: You might have to choose between John McCain, a Republican, who says he’d like to give America a “gas tax holiday” and Hillary Clinton, a Democrat who wishes to run against him, says that’s a swell idea, and proposes that it can be paid for by sticking it to the oil companies with a “windfall profits” tax — a tricky prospect, considering it would require both houses of Congress acting to pass that legislation between now and when school lets out. Congress. The House and the Senate. One month.

If you don’t see a problem there, then ask yourself: Will George W. Bush ever sign a bill imposing a new tax on anyone, let alone the oil companies?

Barack Obama, who opposes the idea, is catching all kinds of flak from the Clintons, who claim that he is “out of touch” because he thinks saving a family $0.30 a day, or $25-30 for the whole summer, is not worth the 300,000 jobs it would cost, let alone removing $9 billion from the highway funds that are used to fix everything from potholes on I-35 to bridges over rivers and canyons.

Well, Hillary did respond to that last week. She decided to say, instead, that it would “save the American people $8 billion.” Sounds more impressive, that’s for sure. Who among us wouldn’t love to have a share of $8 billion dollars?

But, you know what? Your share of that, given the millions of Americans who pump gas and drive, would be — ta-da! About $0.30 a day.

Not so fast, some would argue: What about truck drivers, taxi drivers, long-distance commuters, and farmers? They need a lot more gasoline and thus are hurt more by skyrocketing prices. True, but the reasonable point has been made by reasonable experts that we should and could help those folks with tax credits, something that would come directly from federal funds without abandoning needed highway repairs. And wouldn’t have to be accomplished in just a month.

Those weeping economists, by the way, are almost unanimous in saying that it’s most likely any tax reduction would just be consumed by the oil companies anyway, keeping prices just where they are. Because they can.

So, under the McCain/Clinton plan, instead of taking from the oil companies to give a break to the consumer, we’d be taking from the consumer to give to the oil companies. Great plan.

I’ll tell you what’s going wrong in America. It is not that we have a “red state, blue state” divide. No, the division in this country, when it comes right down to it, is between those who are content to believe anything they are told, without regard to source, and those who just don’t understand how they can fall for it.

I’m going to join that happy crowd that blames “the media” for a lot of what’s going on in this election season. In this case, I blame the TV media for hyping, ad nauseam, whatever story gets the most viewers even when it offers no enlightenment; the blogging media that perpetuates outrageous rumors without one scintilla of documentation, whether out of carelessness or out of bigotry or just hate for the “other”; and those of the print media that don’t find important issues important enough to spend the space.

The Founders felt so strongly about having a free press that they amended the Constitution to provide protection for it. After all, without a free press (think Thomas Paine), America might never have come into being.

Americans have always understood the role of the free press to be to watch and report on what their government is doing, and that the free press is essential to the survival of our democracy. When that freedom is abused by the media, in whatever form, we are being disserved and we should object.

Service is honesty; disservice is perpetuation of rumor or retelling of unexamined events.

And yet too much of our information is just that.

If the reporting we read and hear includes all the information that is relevant, and not just sound bites and what the reporters think people may think about them, then we will be better able to decide on an issue, or a President.

The great journalist Ambrose Bierce once declared that the vote, our most sacred right, is “The instrument and symbol of a free man's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country."

Let us not be fools.

Toilet bowl effect

2008-05-04T13:43:00.003-05:00

In 1914, two years before he was appointed to the Supreme Court, a collection of articles by the esteemed Louis D. Brandeis was published under the title, Other People’s Money — And How the Bankers Use It. It was a sensation.

In 1991, after a successful run on Broadway, “Other People’s Money,” a play by Jerry Sterner, became a movie featuring Danny DeVito as a ruthless liquidator of moribund businesses.

In a monologue that has since acquired almost a cult following, DeVito’s character
explains to the stockholders why it would be foolhardy to try to keep their company in business when new technology was going to make it obsolete.

This company is dead. I didn't kill it. Don't blame me. It was dead when I got here.

It's too late for prayers. For even if the prayers were answered and a miracle occurred, and the yen did this and the dollar did that, and the infrastructure did the other thing, we would still be dead. You know why? Fiber optics. New technologies. Obsolescence. We're dead, all right. We're just not broke. And do you know the surest way to go broke?

Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market.

Down the tubes. Slow but sure.

You know, at one time there must have been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw.

Now, how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company?

You invested in a business, and this business is dead. Let's have the intelligence, let's have the decency to sign the death certificate, collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future.

Last week I was complaining to a friend about a comment I’d heard on NPR to the effect that, in the recent Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton had won “the core constituency of the Democratic Party” by taking more of the white, non-college-educated, working class vote than had Obama. I just didn’t see it.

Because I don’t think you can define the “core constituency” of the Democratic Party that way any longer, any more than you can claim the Republican Party base is still mostly made up of rich people.

Whoever Hillary Clinton won in Pennsylvania, the total vote for her was less than half what the most conservative estimates had projected, suggesting that the “white, working class, non-college-educated” voter either is not a certain voter for Hillary or that the proportion of such voters has shrunk — or perhaps both.

“It’s called the toilet bowl effect,” said my friend, going on to illustrate: When a toilet is flushed, a huge volume of water descends into the bowl and then whirls in an ever-shrinking vortex until it’s gone.

Hillary Clinton appears to be capturing an increasing share of a declining constituency, and Democrats would be foolish to take seriously her effort to persuade us that because she can win the “Archie Bunker” vote she must be given the nomination.

Pish and tosh, I say.

A similarly deluded member of the punditocracy reminded us over the weekend that ever since the 1960s (and its civil rights legislation) the only Democrats to win the presidency were from Southern states and he suggested that may still be true.

I’ve got news for him: The South has gone north, so to speak.

I was born and raised to the age of 12 in the South; I have lived in New York, Ohio, and California since then, and now that I am back, I am here to tell you: This is not your father’s Old South.

My experience qualifies me to speak with some authority about Yankee directness and California subtlety; about brazenly liberal folks in San Francisco but not so in some of its suburbs; about racism in New York, in Ohio and in California while better relations now exist between black and white folks in Texas.

And I can state unequivocally that one of the best things about the South, what I think of as the “dear hearts and gentle people factor” hasn’t gone north; it’s still very much here, thank you.

So, just as the Democratic Party can take heart that the “white, less-college-educated, working class” voter has, in the last 50 years, become less white and more educated; that the “working class” of decades ago have risen in skills and expectations; they will be well advised not to focus a disproportionate share of their money and energies trying to capture an increasing share of what has become a shrinking market.

Where to begin?

2008-04-18T09:37:00.004-05:00

There is a certain amount of excitement in being a news junkie. Not only do you get your daily adrenaline rush from fear, fury or frustration as events unfold, secrets are revealed, prevarications are spun into tangled webs and once again the Emperor is seen strutting about naked, but you learn about some really interesting things you might never know if you weren’t an addict.

Of course, that begs the question: Now that I know all this stuff, what do I do with it? Do I even need to do anything with it? After all, it’s a very exciting hobby in and of itself, just knowing what’s going on in the world. But for some of us the need to share is irresistible.

Sometimes, like a joke, it’s because the pleasure grows with sharing. And sometimes “misery loves company” would explain it. But at other times it feels urgent, like spreading the alarm about a tornado watch, even though warning your neighbor doesn’t guarantee that he’ll seek shelter.

Molly Ivins looked at it this way:

I just think it helps, anything and everything, if the people know. Know what the hell is going on. What they do about it once they know is not my problem.

Last week we learned that 4,032 American troops have been killed in Iraq. We don’t hear as much about the estimated 50,327 who have suffered severe injuries, including amputations and brain damage, and of course there’s no way of knowing the eventual toll in psychological injuries including post-traumatic stress disorder.

But President Bush was pleased to announce that the surge in Iraq has “revived the prospect of success.” He announced there will be a troop reduction between now and July (the troops originally slated to be brought home by July; this isn’t because of the surge, it is because they will have been there 15 months and must be brought home).

Speaking of which, it was also Mr. Bush’s pleasure to announce that the length of deployment will be reduced to 12 months (which is where we were before the deployment increase back in April of 2007, by the way). And how many folks do you suppose noticed that this kindness will apply only to those troops deployed to Iraq after August? Any respite for troops presently in harm’s way? Forget it.

And as for the prospect of success, Gen. Petraeus told Congress last week that the progress in Iraq is fragile and reversible and he really can’t say when – indeed, if – any further troops will be coming home during Bush’s term in office. Just can’t speculate, sorry.

He also declined, though pressed, to define success, or even to describe the conditions that might make it possible to send more troops home.

By the way, the Iraqi government is expecting a $25 billion budget surplus this year, up from its surplus last year in excess of $13 billion. While the price of our gasoline surged, so to speak.

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t blame the 6 o’clock newscasters for not talking about every item that I think we should know about. Truth to tell, there’s just too much out there for any one source to cover. You almost have to be a news junkie just to keep up with the important stuff.

It’s a function of the world we live in, a world much larger in many ways than the world of our youth. If you don’t believe me, take a look at today’s high school math textbook – why, kids are learning stuff you and I never dreamt of; what used to be taught in college is now a requirement to get into college.

Anyway, the least I can do is share.

As for spin: The proponents of the Bush/McCain plan to stay in Iraq for an indeterminate number of years insist upon contrasting their position with what they call the Democrats’ plan for “precipitous” withdrawal. So here’s my question, and I think it’s a fair one:

If wanting to begin drawing down the troop level in 2009 and be done with Iraq within 20 months or so after that is “precipitous,” what time frame would not be? Just curious.

Despite the fact that a new president will be sworn in on January 20, 2009, the Bush administration proposes to enter into an open-ended troop commitment with the Iraqi government, but claims it need not be approved by our Congress. The irony is that the government in Iraq insists that their congress should approve it and we have agreed to that condition.

Last but hardly least, it was revealed last week that, beginning back in 2002, the National Security Council's Principals Committee — a group including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet and Ashcroft, among others — met in the White House to discuss torture, and specifically which kind to apply to which terrorism suspect.

Torture planning. In the White House.

In the words of John Ashcroft himself:

History will not judge this kindly.

Upside-Downside

2008-04-16T15:42:00.005-05:00

If you think I’m spending too much time thinking about the upcoming presidential election, I might agree. Or I might say there’s no such thing as too much thinking when it comes to changing presidents, something our current Commander in Chief might choose to call “a defining moment.”

Defining decade might be more like it; that’s how long it seems to have taken to turn this battleship around. Perhaps defining generation, as in “We are so out of here!”

Amazingly, there are still three candidates in the race, with no end in sight, apparently -- though it is devoutly to be wished by most Democrats that we were already down to only two. A few brouhahas have erupted, some silly, some troubling, not least the penchant on the part of Hillary Clinton to gussy up her resume a bit.

As the candidates head for the finish line next fall it behooves the voter to do more than just listen to words or watch the ever-changing polls. It is time to think.

As recently as a couple of weeks ago I agreed with those Obama supporters and not a few pundits who thought Clinton should pull out of the race because it is statistically well nigh impossible for her to win the nomination without very sharp and unacceptable tactics. But then I changed my mind.

Why shouldn’t she continue? There is a rationale that can’t be disputed: Lightning might strike, Obama might stumble, votes in the remaining state primaries might break 90-10 in her favor. But it could happen.

The upside is that Obama gets a lot more experience surviving nastiness, while all the remaining states get to vote; the downside is that every one of her attacks on Obama is recorded by the Republicans for playback in the fall – and don’t think Obama is the only one who would be hurt.

Yes, she has every right to continue in the campaign, so long as she runs an honorable race. Dishonorable might make me think again.

As for McCain and his laser-like focus on all things military – there are a few problems he’ll have to deal with, not least his age, which may account for his Lieberman-guided understanding of who we’re fighting in Iraq; his desire to keep our over-extended soldiers in Iraq for years while keeping the Bush tax cuts (something we used to call having our cake and eating it too); and his dismissive approach to our current economic crisis.

The Chicken Littles in the punditocracy opine often and loudly that the continuing Democratic contest is giving McCain an advantage that might be insurmountable, but they totally forget two truths: First, the guy who is not getting attacked always rises, like cream in unstirred milk; doesn’t mean a thing. And, most important, McCain can’t win because he is a terrible campaigner, a weak candidate who doesn’t seem all that charged up by comparison, and whose entire basis for running is his military background.

Don’t get me wrong. I kinda like the guy; I sent him money once. But if you don’t buy my reasoning, then think about the fact that just recently the word “recession” finally passed the lips of significant folks – like Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve System where, you should excuse the expression, the buck stops in these matters.

John McCain? Bush policies to be continued? In the middle of a recession? I don’t think so.

Which brings me to Barack Obama.

I thought I would explode at one point early this month: it was after a couple of days of drumbeat around the Clinton campaign’s assertion -- but not in public and not in speeches -- that Barack Obama “can’t win.” I didn’t see it coming, I have to admit, though I should have. It just hit me all of a sudden: The Clintons have come to the point where they are running a purely racist campaign.

All of this talk, the Clintons' claims that states with more electoral votes, or states that voted solidly Democratic time after time in the past, or states that chose their delegates – or some of them, like Texas – by caucus, or states with more voters, period, being likely to refuse to vote for anyone but Hillary Clinton, is just so much malarkey. This gambit is all they have left.

Now, I don’t believe for a minute that either of them is a racist; I just think that they want the superdelegates to believe that the American voter is, and that they have nothing to lose by playing the only card they have left to play: “Obama can’t win. You know Obama can’t win.”

That’s code, folks. You’re supposed to understand from this that a black man cannot be elected president of the United States.

Well, let me tell you the upside in nominating Barack Obama.

All over America governors and members of Congress representing not-so-blue states are supporting Obama in droves, in many cases because they know that if Hillary Clinton is at the head of the ticket her negatives and the resulting higher Republican turnout will hurt them down-ballot, whereas an Obama-led ticket will bring so many new and enthusiastic voters and independents out to vote it is bound to help them.

The way I see it, this could mean so many Democratic victories that even if McCain ends up winning, the Democrats will have such majorities in Congress that he wouldn't be able to do a doggone thing they don't like.

The downside? The risk that the Clintons are proven right and in the midst of a recession, with homes foreclosing all around us, joblessness on the rise and a bloody war without end in sight; despite a Republican candidate who offers more of the same, racism will prevail.

If that happens, America will be the worse for it, and God help us.

I believe in America, though, and my faith is strong that we are all we say we are and all that we wish for the rest of the world.

So I’m rolling the dice. America, call it!

A Parable

2008-04-01T13:07:00.004-05:00

Before I came to Texas, I was terrified of flying. No joke. I am no longer so afraid, I'm happy to say, and maybe that has something to do with becoming a Texan, who knows? But that’s not where I’m going here.

In those days I did not fly, period. Thus it was that I arrived in Texas at the Amtrak station in Fort Worth on a hot day in May of 1989.

Now I had heard lots of stories about cowboys and cattle drives and the wild, wild west. My bosses at the Super Collider had heard the same stories, which was why they had sent me, a relatively low-level person, to help set up the laboratory in Waxahachie; the lives of physicists were not to be risked. But even so I was hardly prepared for what happened next.

The kindly conductor helped me down from the train and had just placed my bags on the platform, when I heard a distant thunder, a strange sound that had nothing to do with the clear blue day.

Before you could say “Omigosh, what’s that?” the thundering grew closer and there came into view a huge dust cloud, and it was moving toward us.

“Omigosh, what’s that?” I cried, as out of the dust there materialized a mighty herd of red-eyed cows, goaded on by cowboys on horseback, whooping and hollering and cracking whips and firing pistols. And the whole doggone tangle was headed right toward me!

“Quick!” yelped the conductor, grabbing my arm. “We’re gonna have to run for it!”

This wasn’t supposed to happen in a modern city like Fort Worth, right? Yet closer and closer they came, the sound of their hooves like steel on the pavement; their horns were black and shiny and for just an instant I thought I could feel their hot breath, so close they came. Then I ran. Seriously.

Without my luggage, and without much dignity, I let the conductor pull me across the track and into the station.

The ruckus went past us, and then out of view, and I could finally breathe again.

Now, you can say what you want, you can be skeptical. You can say cowboys don’t drive thundering herds of longhorns through downtown Fort Worth at midday anymore. You can even accuse me of making it up. But I remember it that way, and I’m sticking to it.

Unless, of course, that’s not what happened that day. In which case, all I can say is “So? So I made a mistake, which just shows I’m human.”

Truth to tell, lots of us have memories, or so we think, of events that may have happened differently. And sometimes some of us consciously elaborate, even make things up. But events that happened not at all? No.

So. I made it up. But you know what? It doesn’t matter, because I’m just having fun with you, and when a relatively insignificant person like me makes things up, it doesn’t matter. Unless it’s to make a point.

Consider Hillary Clinton’s description of arriving in Bosnia with her teenage daughter and the two of them having to duck sniper fire and run for cover the moment they disembarked from their plan. Consider how, after irrefutable evidence proved the account to be untrue, she said she "made a mistake." It is irresistible to wonder how that could be.

The problem for Hillary Clinton is that there are only two possible explanations.

She may have made it up out of whole cloth (see above), which is troubling in a potential leader of the free world; or she may have come to believe it herself, which is even more troubling.

That’s why it’s a story that matters, and one that won’t go away.

Thanks for the memories: To Greg Jones, for "Ghost Riders in the Sky," a real memory that needs no embellishing.

Recession? Surely not!

2008-03-25T10:46:00.002-05:00

We continue to be assured — by the President of the United States, no less, and on more than one occasion in recent weeks — that America is not in a recession. George W. Bush clearly stated, on February 26, 2008, that “We're not in a recession, I don't think we will go in a recession. We're in a slowdown, and there's a difference.”

I’d like to appeal that to the Supreme Court, if you don’t mind, and specifically to the late Justice Potter Stewart, whose most well-known observation I now paraphrase:

I shall not today attempt further to define what I understand it to be; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.

Justice Stewart was referring to pornography; I’m talking about what’s going on with our economy, something equally obscene.

For almost a year now, even the casual news consumer has been aware of a disturbing rise in the number of foreclosures, a trend that began well over two years ago, by my reckoning. By last summer it had blown up into what came to be called “the sub-prime mortgage crisis,” with the potential to take down our national economy, along with big chunks of the rest of the world.

If, in my anger, I were to digress here to place blame (hint: the bottom line is greed) I’d not get to the point of the piece, which is to offer a reality check as we move into the spring and summer and on to the election season that follows.

Fact: Gasoline prices are moving beyond affordability for ordinary folks, with no relief in sight. It was $1.59 a gallon in January 2001.

Fact: The price of gold, which always rises when an economy is sinking because investors consider it the safest place for their money, reached $1,000 an ounce last week. It was $268 in January 2001.

Fact: The value of the American dollar has dropped so low that it is no longer the universal currency it once was. That makes everything we import more expensive — the good news, perhaps, would be to put lead-painted toys out of our reach.

Fact: Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., a leading investment banker and brokerage firm, announced last week that it had insufficient funds to pay all its investors, thereby generating a minor run (shades of 1929) and a near 50% plunge in its stock value; it was finally bailed out by J. P. Morgan Chase, who purchased it for $2 a share, with the help of a short-term loan from the Federal Reserve. How did this happen? The hedge funds they had established on the basis of sub-prime mortgage holdings had tanked.

Fact: 80, 000 American jobs were lost in just January and February of this year. But last week Mr. Bush assured us that unemployment rates remain low. Anyone care to square those numbers for me?

I know one thing: A person who has exhausted unemployment benefits no longer counts as unemployed; nor does a computer programmer or engineer who has taken a job tending bar or pushing carts at Wal-Mart or flipping burgers; nor, by the way, do all those real estate agents who gave up because homes aren’t selling — along with other small business owners who have seen their incomes wither away, they are independent contractors and not even eligible for unemployment benefits.

But look! See all those ads than in high-gloss magazines and on television for luxury items — homes, vacations, cars, jewelry! See all those store shelves groaning under the weight of more stuff than we could ever consume, more choices than a sane person would welcome.

Surrounded by such affluence, you’d be tempted to think Mr. Bush is right, that things are hunky-dory, just a little slow. And that the tax cuts worked, by the way.
Except he’s wrong, and we fail to recognize that at our peril.

I’ll come back to my point: It’s time for a reality check as we move through spring and summer into the election season. We need a new direction in this country.

Like most of America I have been stunned by the incredible turnout to vote in primaries all across the country. However large or small the state, the number of voters has in some cases more than doubled from years past. Photographs of long lines at polling places, huge rallies for candidates, stories of frantic election judges running out of ballots, all told the tale:

We are really anxious to move on.

In a beloved Disney cartoon, Donald Duck and Goofy undertook to paint a fence: Goofy got to painting faster and faster and Donald Duck asked him why. “I’m trying to get the fence finished before I run out of paint,” explained Goofy.

All those folks lined up, all the enthusiasm, all the rallies, all the participation, all the attention to every bit of campaign news? We are just trying to get the thing over with before any more damage is done.

Alice in Wonderland

2008-03-21T14:24:00.003-05:00

I have the urge to scream when I hear commentators and political experts, who should know better, assert that Clinton and Obama “need to stop bickering,” that “they” are hurting the party. Comments like these don’t square with the reality as I’ve come to know it.

The Clintons are the ones doing the damage here. They have been very successful at framing the race, which isn’t hard to do if you just keep on the attack. Last week they absurdly accused Obama of “playing the race card” after Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro’s remarks about his race.

It’s Alice in Wonderland time.

The only thing Obama has done to Clinton is to aggravate the heck out of her by (a) not engaging at her street-fight level, and (b) winning more states, more delegates, and more votes.

But Hillary Clinton claims that she has proven she is the most likely winner against John McCain because she won “all the big states” in the Democratic primaries.

It’s faulty reasoning; to accept this you have to believe that California, New York, Ohio and the rest of the big blue states (Obama won Illinois) would automatically fall to the Republicans in an Obama-McCain match-up. Hard argument to make.

If Obama would only cede to Clinton the race he is winning — one in which she cannot now legitimately overtake him — all would be peaceful. Like a spoiled child, she seems determined to nag, browbeat, whine and stubbornly hold on until everyone else is exhausted and just gives in.

Some of those same misguided pundits and politicians suggest that the perfect solution is to put these two on the same ticket. I don’t think so.

Clinton has run a mean, dishonest, cynical campaign. The idea of both running together is idealistic to a fault, in my opinion. And not a good idea politically.

Nonetheless, the Clintons would have you believe they would offer Obama the vice-presidential spot, but if you trust a word they are saying you aren’t learning from history. The lying and cheating they’ve engaged in has completely alienated me, of all people.

But just for the sake of argument, imagine a Clinton/Obama ticket: That would present a near certainty that Mrs. Clinton’s high negatives throughout the country would (a) draw out more Republican voters and (b) cause not just a few Obama folks to just stay home — precisely because of the negative campaign she has run against him.

For that matter, can you imagine her choosing as VP someone who would outshine her? Or, for that matter, someone to whom she owes no favor?

Now imagine Obama/Clinton: If Hillary were the VP candidate, because of those high negatives, she would drag down the vote in the states Obama could win without her. The result would be losing many down-ballot races, so that even were Obama/Clinton to win it might well cost the Democrats important congressional seats.

Anyway, why would the guy who is in first place accept second place? Especially knowing that he would end up being part of a threesome, outnumbered by Clintons?

Finally, have you thought through what another four or eight years of Clintons in the White House would be like for the country?

I think she figures that she will by God be the nominee and devil take the hindmost; if that gives the election to McCain — who is better qualified anyway, according to her — then, so what? He likely would serve only one term and then she’ll be baa-ack!

People in the know have almost to a person acknowledged that in fact the candidates’ positions are so close on matters of substance, with differences primarily in how they would implement this or that idea, that it really has come down to which style of leader we want.

My own personal take on the choice is this:

Do we want someone who will tell us what to do, or someone who will persuade us to do it? Do we want secrecy, or transparency? Do we want calculation and triangulation, or is it time to play it straight?

And, finally, do we want another four or more years of drama with all the same old players, or do we want a fresh start?

What were they thinking?

2008-03-14T14:04:00.004-05:00

Truth to tell, it appears they weren’t thinking at all, these powerful guys who got caught up in career-destroying sex scandals. And we are left to wonder just what it would have taken to, say, pause for a moment and give a thought to consequences.
You have to wonder.

And it’s not just sex scandals; sometimes it’s money, as in the downfall of Duke Cunningham, whose lust for the high life was so great that he allowed a lobbyist to buy his favors in Congress with a mansion and a yacht.

Now, I honestly don’t believe anyone runs for public office thinking, “All I need is to get elected and then I can dip into the public coffer, or maybe sell my votes to a lobbyist, and I’ll be set for life!”

No, but it kind of confirms the old saw that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

A better saw to remember might be “honesty is the fear of getting caught.” If all else fails.

Power is seductive, and it messes with your mind.

Back in the day, a young assemblyman we helped win his first term in the California State Legislature came to a party we threw for him back home, shortly after he was sworn in. He was fairly glowing, and quite exhilarated as he described his first week in Sacramento.

“You wouldn’t believe the perks!” he exclaimed. “It’s just unbelievable, what they give you to work with.” He exuded confidence and energy as he talked about the unexpectedly comfortable new life ahead of him. It had never occurred to him as he sought to accomplish great things for his constituency that there would be fringe benefits to go along with it all.

As it turns out, this particular young man went on to a lifetime of political successes over the years without ever succumbing to the lure of money or becoming corrupt. But I offer this anecdote to show how I suspect it does happen to some.

So when it’s about money — wealth — I kind of get it. Given a taste of what it means to have money, it must be natural to want more of it, or at least to try to make sure that when your current source dries up you are going to be able to maintain the lifestyle to which you’ve become accustomed.

Some people invest wisely and plan well. Here and there, however, there are some who succumb to the temptation of kickbacks, bribery, payoffs and even building campaign war chests far in excess of future need that they get to take home when they retire. (Along with lifetime medical coverage, of course.)

So, I get money.

And these folks go to great lengths to hide what they’re doing, to bury the facts as deep as they can, often successfully for a good long while, until we are shocked, SHOCKED, when they are finally undone.

But now we have the misfortunes of Eliot Spitzer, outbound Governor of the great state of New York, to make us consider, once again, the matter of sex.

What is it with these guys?

Public servants who pilfer at least make an effort to conceal what they are doing; public servants who get caught in sex scandals seem oblivious to the danger of discovery. And of course they get found out.

I don’t agree with the pop-psychology suggestion that underneath it all they really wanted to be found out. A case could be made that anyone who runs for high public office is ipso facto a risk-taker, but taking risk does not preclude thinking about it first.

Do they really think they won’t be found out? Is it that they think they are invincible, powerful enough to withstand any consequences?

Maybe there is something about power that breeds hubris — “excessive pride or defiance of the gods, leading to downfall.”

I’m inclined to think there’s an element of mid-life crisis — after all, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, David Vitter, Mark Foley, JFK and FDR were every one of them of that certain age when they turned foolish.

At which point it’s just, as Bill Clinton explained, because they could.

Better think again!

2008-03-03T15:41:00.002-06:00

Tomorrow is the big day. Some might say it’s the biggest day for presidential politics in Texas that any voter can remember. For the first time, it seems that Texas voters may actually choose the next president of the whole United States.

You may think it was Texas who gave us our current President, but I have news for you: It was Iowa and South Carolina, my friends. Thank them or not, it was all over before we even got to vote.

Since it wasn’t until the late 1970s that primaries replaced the parties’ conventions as the controlling means of selecting candidates, and since until very recently Texas didn’t get to vote until May, the fact is that Texas primaries have never mattered.

Yup, but this time we’re important.

Not that we’d want to enter an era of the perpetual campaign, but the truth is that the extremely long races -- races so long that we think we’ve heard all the speeches before and are convinced we know more than we could possibly need to know about the candidates -- have been enormously informative in terms of what they unintentionally reveal.

John McCain is about to become the Republican nominee, it appears. It also appears that he has remarkable stamina for a man of 72, a slightly edgy persona, and an almost consistently conservative record.

Almost?

Well, he did say last week, at a town hall meeting, that “I am a proud conservative, liberal Republica- -- conservative Republican." He caught himself, demonstrating a healthy sense of humor: "Hello?" he said, drawing laughter, mockingly reassuring his audience, "Easy there."

Barack Obama has demonstrated an unflappability that must be maddening to his opponent. He gracefully accepts Hillary Clinton’s assertion that she really, really honors his presence after calmly batting back the slings and arrows of her attacks on his truthfulness, readiness and campaign tactics, and pulls out her chair for her when she stands.

Those attacks have begun to reveal much about Senator Clinton, just as his responses have revealed much about him.

Last week a new TV ad for Clinton was seen throughout Texas. Called, appropriately, “red phone moment,” the ad opens to a home straight out of Norman Rockwell; it is dark and quiet; inside the home, we are shown 3 or 4 (or 5? hard to tell in the dark) cherubic children in their beds, sleeping.

A spooky-sounding narrator begins: “It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep.” Suspenseful music. A telephone begins to ring, softly.

The narrator: “There’s a world crisis and the White House phone is ringing.” And it keeps on ringing throughout the ad, a longish photo montage of sleeping children, a mother looking in on them near the end.

By now the viewer desperately wishes that SOMEONE would answer the phone. The narrator intones: “Your vote will decide who answers that call.” The ringing finally stops. Cut to a still photo of Hillary, wearing glasses (in an ultra-modern style we've never seen her wear, no doubt intended to convey youth and strength), holding a phone receiver to her ear.

Well, let me first say this about that: If it takes that long to answer the White House red phone, we are all doomed.

But where I am going here is to ask the reader to think:

Do you really want that phone answered by someone whose campaign has been bouncing from tactic to tactic, desperately in search of a winning message? Think about it: The Clintons have gone from inevitability to attack to charm to doggedness; from “strength and experience” to “change agent” to “vulnerable” to her “own voice” to “solutions” to “realist” to “underdog” to “victim” – making it clear not only that she was unprepared for the possibility that she might not win by Super Tuesday, but, most important, that she was miserably unprepared for an unexpectedly strong and talented opponent.

Sort of tells you something, doesn’t it?

Barack Obama, speaking at a town hall meeting, responded within minutes of the ad's release, saying that Hillary already had “her red phone moment” when she voted to go to war in Iraq; then his campaign had a counter-ad up and running on TV within just a few hours. In all, we were shown not only an ability to react rapidly and creatively, but with a useful sense of humor, perhaps.

The Obama “red phone moment” ad used the same narrative, the same imagery and sound (though his phone had a sharper ring and went blessedly silent after just a few moments). There was a warm classic view of the White House at night, followed by several shots of Obama on the job – not on the phone, but in various leadership moments -- while the narrator reminded us that “in a dangerous world, it’s judgment that matters.”

Maybe you’ll want to think again. Then go vote!

The perfect ticket: Obama/Webb

2008-03-02T12:41:00.003-06:00

From American Prospect's editorial, "The 2008 Veepstakes," dateline February 26, 2008:

Webb's high standing may say more about the party and its search for an identity than it does about Webb himself. There is a rugged quality to Webb, and some Democrats see in him attributes they long for in their party -- conviction, strength, and a willingness to fight. The brawler in him is barely concealed, and unstated in every one of his arguments is an undercurrent of, "you wanna take it outside, asshole?" Days after he narrowly defeated Allen, Webb endeared himself to the party faithful by telling the president off at the White House.

Read the whole piece and see if you agree with me.

sex, lies and the internet

2008-02-28T18:17:00.005-06:00

Lies and sex, not to mention lies about sex, are nothing new to the world of politics. Back in 1884, Grover Cleveland’s opponents famously chanted, “Ma, Ma! Where’s my pa?” in hopes that drawing attention to Cleveland’s reported illegitimate child would defeat his run for President.

Sort of what Karl Rove’s minions did to John McCain in 2000; except in the Cleveland case, where the charge was probably true, it didn’t work and in the McCain case, where it most assuredly was a lie, it cost him the primary and probably the election.

Last week the New York Times, a paper I love and rely upon and one that is held in great esteem by professional journalists around the world, ran a story about McCain’s relationship with a lobbyist a few years back.

A female lobbyist, the item noted, going on to say that “convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him.”

What bothered me, and many others, about the story was the way it was received, which of course resulted from the way it was presented.

The substance of the Times story was to call into question McCain’s sincerity in opposing lobbyists’ influence while under the influence of at least one lobbyist himself. But you can guess what the TV news shows, pundits and wall-to-wall talk shows picked up, and you’re right: The sex angle, complete with a photo of the very attractive lady lobbyist, stunningly decked out in evening attire.

I believe it was a newsworthy story, with or without with an extra dollop of drama; I just think the romantic angle itself warranted waiting until the reporters had indisputable evidence because they could have anticipated that sex rather than lobbying might become the story.

As it turned out, the New York Times became the story because they published it, and on page one, and now everyone’s attention is somewhat diverted from the seriousness of the matter alleged.

In the last dozen years, sex and lies have been joined by the Internet as weapons of choice in political struggles.

To be sure, there are great enhancements to public discourse in the incredible amount of information that’s available to anyone with access to the Internet, and the value to candidates who want to get their messages out and bring in contributions is, well, immeasurable.

But the use of the Internet for mischief has, sadly, become almost an institution in our politics. For those who would destroy a candidate for public office by publishing lies, it’s a piece of cake now: easy anonymity, free distribution to the entire world if one so chooses, and of course the liberty we enjoy to speak freely and say just about anything.

A couple of months ago I wrote about an Internet rumor that had been circulating for well over a year; I pointed out that it may have originated with Insight Magazine, a Washington Times (that would be Rev. Moon, of course) publication, but if not then certainly it was given a significant boost from there through the Fox news network and onto the Internet.

The rumor, about Barack Obama, was reported on and thoroughly debunked repeatedly in the mainstream media, then and since, but like those trick candles we all hate it just keeps on keepin’ on.

Last week, the Fort Worth Star Telegram reported that Barack Obama, again, “is the subject of a shadowy smear campaign based on the Internet that falsely suggests he's a Muslim intent on destroying the United States. Obama is a Christian and has been fighting the e-mail hoax, which also claims he doesn't put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and he's been trying to correct the misinformation.” Link.

Those emails also claim that Obama took the oath of office with one hand on the Koran, obviously confusing him with Congressman Keith Ellison, of Minnesota, an African-American who actually is a Muslim and who did take his oath of office upon a copy of the Koran. (A copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson, by the way.)

The Star-Telegram also reported that Obama, at last week’s rally in Austin, addressed the issue head-on:

“Well, I've been going to the same Christian church, praying to Jesus for the last 20 years. So don't insult me, and don't insult the Muslims.”

I find even more distressing than the non-ending clearly questionable rumors and lies the fact that some people are apparently willing to believe them. Anyone accessing the World Wide Web knows – or should know – about web sites like snopes.com, which check the truthfulness of Internet rumors.

Is a sore loser inevitable?

2008-02-22T16:41:00.002-06:00

It was only a couple of months ago that I suggested in this space that the primary season would soon be upon us, but I never imagined that it might be Texas that would determine the winners!

On the Democratic side, the race is so far too close to call and our primary on March 4th will be significant — when’s the last time you had a chance to vote in a Presidential primary knowing that your vote would actually matter?

I wrote then:

We haven’t seen a lot of the candidates here in Texas, of course, because Texas doesn’t get to vote in a primary until next March, by which time it may be all over.

Wrong!

And then:

What I’d give for the old days of “brokered” conventions!

Maybe wrong again: I should have remembered that old admonition, to be careful what you wish for! It certainly looks like that’s where we are headed, and it’s not pretty.

On the one hand, events have — I believe happily — proven the pundits’ assessment of Clinton “inevitability” to be dead wrong!

On the other, there could be a destructive battle to decide who will seek the presidency on behalf of the Democratic party.

There is already anger and bitterness in the air, mostly, it seems to me, flowing from the Clinton campaign and certain of its supporters demanding, each time they perceive a setback, that some rule or other be changed to their benefit.

The anger is on display when Bill shakes his finger at his audience, when his wife attacks the press for treating her unfairly, and most recently in the form of a screed written by Robin Morgan, a prominent feminist, blaming “sociopathic woman-hating” for what’s going on.

These activities are disturbing because of what they tell us about the candidate. And whether you believe it or not, as tempting as it is to have a candidate who will do anything, change every rule, to defeat the Republican candidate in the fall, it is already settled in the minds of many Democrats that they really, truly, want an end to this kind of politicking.

Clinton’s decision to portray herself as inevitable from the get-go did not work, though it seemed at first it might. It didn’t work for two reasons: The voters turned out not to appreciate the arrogance and sense of entitlement that seemed to underlie it; and Barack Obama turned out to be, as even Bill Clinton acknowledged the other day, the more exciting candidate.

But, she argues, Obama hasn’t been truly “vetted” so no one knows what his opponents might dredge up to throw at him, whereas everyone already knows everything there is to know about her.

Well not quite: There is still the unresolved request for her White House records and tax returns to be disclosed, and the influence of Bill’s rather eclectic business dealings.

In any event, as Barack Obama himself somewhat amusedly pointed out, there is no doubt that whatever can be dug up against him would most likely have been uncovered by the Clintons by now.

Mrs. Clinton’s claim that she will be “ready from Day One in the Oval Office” has always struck me as somewhat peculiar, given that the first day in the Oval Office doesn’t arrive until almost three months after the election — a space in time designed by our better-angel forbears to allow for the smooth transfer of power and plenty of preparation, Cabinet building and the like.

And then there’s Bill. What can I say?

Now, there were some fine accomplishments during the Bill Clinton presidency, most notably a healthy economy, but there were also more some not-so-wonderful events — most notably the failed health care plan and the passage of NAFTA — and more problems than you could shake a stick at, problems no one wants to take on again, not to mention a level of inter-party rancor that does not appear to have faded.

That in mind, Hillary Clinton argues that she is the best qualified to withstand attacks from Republicans because of all that she has endured; what folks need to consider is that those attacks were leveled at the Clintons!

Which means one thing does seem inevitable: If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, and if she were to win the White House — certainly not a certainty — we’d be right back where we left off in 2000, rancor and all.

I don’t see what I believe America needs, and I do see what I believe America most assuredly does not need.

Beginning with early voting on February 19th, Texas now has the rare and remarkable opportunity to change the course of American politics for a good long while. The calculation even by folks in her own campaign is that if Hillary Clinton does not win Texas — and win it big — the race will be over and Barack Obama will secure the nomination.

You can talk all day long about “superdelegates” but the consensus continues to be that Texas can decide the outcome and maybe even help to save the world!

The Clintons constantly deride Barack Obama’s rhetoric as “poetry” contrasted with the “prose” she offers. So a little spin here is irresistible:

“Prose” is the root of “prosaic,” and if Obama is the opposite of prosaic, then, according to the thesaurus, he is extraordinary, imaginative, inspired and inspiring — just what we need in a leader!

Farewell to the Pharisees

2008-02-12T10:55:00.000-06:00

It seems to have been proven once again: Money can’t buy you the presidency of the United States of America.

Mitt Romney should’ve learned from Steve Forbes, who spent some $38 million of his own money in each of his two attempts to become president back in 1996 and 2000.

By the time Romney suspended his campaign last week he had spent, according to the folks who do the numbers, approximately $1.16 million — including $35 million or so of his own money — for each of the 286 delegates he won.

Our boy Huckabee, on the other hand, ambling somewhat jovially and much less frenetically along the same campaign trail, has collected some 20 delegates for each $1 million spent so far and 180 or so delegates on board. Imagine if he had even a fraction of Romney’s money!

I find no report of Huckabee putting any of his own money into the mix, and in fact, according to the Washington Post, he continues his pre-campaign career of paid speaking engagements, explaining that “If I don’t work, I don’t eat.”

If I thought there was any likelihood at all that Mr. Huckabee could win the White House, I might be writing to sound the alarm instead of just enjoying the show, if for no other reason than his stated wish to abolish the IRS and add a hefty sales tax to what we buy.

(You think 8.25% is a tough tax to pay? Try thinking about 30%! On every dollar you spend!)

But it’s refreshing to watch Huckabee’s campaign just for the sheer decency and authenticity of it. And his sense of humor really lights up an interview.

Of course, despite his credentials as a Baptist minister and his position on matters they claim to hold dear, the folks I call the Radical Right aren’t having any of it. I have no idea why, other than Huckabee’s unarguably Christian desire to help the poor and worry about middle class jobs.

Even more so, the RR doesn’t care for John McCain. The very conservative senator from Arizona apparently isn’t conservative enough for the likes of Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, despite a long conservative record.

These worthies are so opposed to McCain they have vowed to support Hillary Clinton should he become the Republican nominee.

But this brings to mind the old saw about the dog chasing a car: What would he do if he ever caught it?

What do you suppose would happen if they actually “won” the election? Would they be able to influence events at the White House? Or would they just be out of work?

Imagine, if you will, American society without the Limbaughs and Ingrahams and Coulters, whose stock in trade is hateful speech! Ahhh!

Seriously, it seems obvious to me that the Radical Right has hijacked the concern about social issues that for a long time defined the mostly evangelical portion of the Republican base, in order to promote their own decidedly uncharitable agenda.

They want to cut taxes for the rich. They don’t want campaign finance reform, preferring that rich folks and corporations be allowed to donate unlimited money to campaigns. (They might want to rethink this; see above).

They don’t want any path to citizenship to solve the problem of what to do with 12 million people who came here illegally, no matter how many years ago or how heavy the penalty proposed. They don’t want universal health care. They don’t want to clean up the environment.

Their list is long, but you’ll notice one common denominator: Money.

This election offers the Republican Party an opportunity, whether John McCain or Mike Huckabee is the nominee, to purge itself of the radical element. By winning the nomination in spite of everything those folks have thrown at him, McCain may succeed in marginalizing them; if Huckabee were to amaze everyone and win the nomination, I think the radicals would go the way of the Pharisees:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you devour widows' houses, and pray at length as a pretense.

Bring it on!

2008-01-28T16:31:00.000-06:00

Sometime during the snows of Iowa, the Clintons realized that the upstart fellow who was challenging Hillary’s entitlement to the presidency was making great gains and might actually win the nomination.

While Barack Obama was drawing larger and more dynamic crowds, electrifying them with his optimism and his conviction that America can actually find a different and better way in the world, the Clintons were drawing large crowds too, but there was something missing.

It would be cheap to simply call it hope.

Never daunted by the worst of times, the Clintons set about to improve Hillary’s chances, taking on the very delicate task of making sure the contest became about race.

Bill Clinton charged into the spotlight to characterize Obama’s record of opposition to our invasion of Iraq as “a fairy tale.”

He insisted that a vote for this graduate of Harvard Law School and constitutional law professor, veteran of effective community organizing on the mean streets of Chicago, eight years in the Illinois state senate and now two in the US Senate, would just be “rolling the dice.”

The way voting for Abraham Lincoln was, I guess.

Clinton surrogates spread out to remind us that their opponent, as a teenager, had experimented with drugs. Not only that, he has a middle name that is very popular within the Muslim communities around the world and identifies the ruling family of the Kingdom of Jordan!

Truth became innuendo: according to Robert Johnson (known for heading up BET, a purveyor of “gangsta rap”), Obama was “doing something – I won’t say what, but he wrote about it in his book” back in the neighborhoods of Chicago. He went on to liken Obama to Sidney Poitier playing the movie role of a very educated and “mannered” black man who was finally found acceptable by his white in-laws to be, in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.”

Andrew Young, veteran of the 1960s civil rights movement, declared that Obama is “too young” -- notwithstanding that he is 11 years older than the age of qualification set forth in the Constitution, three years older than JFK was when he became president, and a whole year older than Bill Clinton was at the time of his inauguration!

Young said Obama should “wait,” that “his time will come and the world will be ready for visionary leadership.”

Isn’t the world ready now?

All the while this was going on, the Clintons chided and tsk-tsked; this remark or that email may have been regrettable, or even “out of bounds,” but they would NEVER, EVER engage in race-baiting, and if there had been any injection of race into the campaign, well, then, “He started it!

True, the Clintons were not technically race-baiting; they were merely making sure that every single voter in South Carolina (a) remembered that Barack Obama is African-American and (b) had a chance to wonder whether he can win. Their intention is to do the one thing that Barack Obama had just about overcome: They want voters to see him as “the black candidate,” with the almost inescapable corollary that he would concern himself most with “black” issues.

I heard a commentator remark that the Clintons have a history of leaving a trail of damage believing they can always fix it later. Will it work this time? And is the country really not ready?

Maybe elders in the black leadership like John Lewis, Andrew Young and Charlie Rangel, bearing the scars of literal and figurative batons and dogs in the long and dreadful struggle for equality, are accustomed to think like this; they believe that a Democratic victory will almost certainly move the country forward again, yet are still, 50 years on, afraid to believe in their own successes.

But all around America, the younger generation, black and white, north and south, are turning out in droves to hear and see Obama, to register to vote, and to participate – many for the first time -- in the greatest democracy in the world.

The topic of race in America has become an undercurrent of the campaign, to the apparent satisfaction of some Clinton supporters and to the dismay of others. The former believe that it will drive not only more white voters to Clinton but also blacks who are fearful that Obama must lose because they dare not believe anything has changed in all these years.

Some of those whose reaction is dismay are tempted to want to make it go away by not discussing it at all: “Let’s get back to the issues, to the candidates’ differences, their likely style of governing; we don’t want this to be about race!”

There are pundits and politicians who like to describe what’s going on as “bickering” between the candidates.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you a truth: It’s not bickering, it’s deadly serious, and it’s not going to go away. Unless we haul it out into the sunlight and challenge it, we will be gone another generation before anyone tries again.

To those who say “Americans will not elect a black man, so there’s no point in trying, it isn’t time yet,” I say: How do you know that? Just when will the right time be? Why can’t we find out?

I’m not sure we’ll ever have this opportunity again.

I challenge the black and white and brown Americans who want to make the leap into a new place, to once again pass the torch to a new generation, to tell the doubters and the timid and the cynics:

“Bring it on!” Let’s get this over with and go forward.

I believe that this movement of hope has caught hold, that hundreds of thousands will emulate the past by marching, this time to the polls.

Now that Barack Obama has won the South Carolina primary by two to one over Clinton, agreed by all pundits to far exceed even the most generous predictions, I dare to believe that, just maybe, America has overcome, after all.

All over America voters have come to believe, because of the Obama campaign, that we may finally realize the American dream together.

For if not now, when?

Political Spin

2008-01-23T17:30:00.000-06:00

Let’s just talk about political spin for a moment. And why I hate it.

To “spin” a comment or event is to, literally, twirl it about to make it sound the way you want, so you can use it to win the argument, the day, the election. In some cases, it is a way to turn truth into a convenient lie.

Barack Obama said, last week, in an in-depth interview with the Reno Journal-Gazette editorial board, that the coming election was similar to 1980, when President Ronald Reagan “changed the trajectory” of the country. He explained that in 1980 the voters:

. . . felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think [Reagan] tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

I think most folks would agree with that simple observation.

Obama went on to say that he thought that, for “large chunks of time” over the last 10-15 years, the Republican Party had actually been more a party of ideas than the Democrats, “in that they were challenging conventional wisdom.” He included in this observation that he did not necessarily agree with those ideas.

SPIN TIME: The Clinton campaign immediately trotted out the notion that Barack Obama had spoken “very favorably” of Ronald Reagan, and that Obama had said the Republicans had better ideas. Hillary went on to suggest that Obama must therefore be in favor of privatizing social security, eliminating the minimum wage, cutting healthcare benefits and giving goodies to the pharmaceutical companies. Bill Clinton made it clear he was not happy.

Anyone see a problem with this?

If you agree with the Clinton spin, then I had better not tell you that Mussolini made the trains run on time, or you would think I was a fan of his. And, of course, it I told you that Hugo Chavez has brought radical changes to Venezuela it has to mean I just LOVE what he’s doing to his people.

One of the difficulties in running for office is divining just how your most thoughtful remark might be understood — or misunderstood.

Now, sometimes a little spin is warranted, can be done without lying, and doesn’t really offend anyone.

Take the results of the Nevada caucuses this past weekend.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney did such a walkaway there was nothing left to spin, unless you cared to say it was just because of a huge Mormon turnout, which would not necessarily be the case as he moves along.

And on the Democratic side:

It was a great victory for the Clintons, for whom 51% of the voters declared.

It was a great victory for Barack Obama, who came from behind to win 13 delegates to Hillary’s 12!

All true. Quite spinnable. No harm, no foul. No lies.

And no clear winner, apparently, since the State party chairman has pointed out that everything could change at their county and state conventions!

Golly, those people get to have all the fun!

The Clintons don't make mistakes, do they?

2008-01-17T09:26:00.001-06:00

Thinking about the Obama-Clinton race, it occurs to me that the more folks become familiar with Clinton, the less they think of her as a woman, and the more they get to know Obama, the less they think of him as black. Voters are getting past the novelty and into the serious business of character and issues.

And with this development has come, just in the last few weeks, a drip, drip, drip of remarks by one or the other Clinton or Clinton aide that cannot fail to remind us that Obama is black, even as other seemingly random events and behavior cannot fail to remind us that Hillary Clinton is a woman.

Now, far be it for me to suggest that the Clintons (yes, there are two of them running) would be so calculating as to make this happen, but it’s hard to dismiss, given what we know of them. Consider this:

If I’m right and the voters are beginning to look past race and gender, and the Clintons worry about that because they want to be sure (a) women vote for a woman and (b) primary voters go back to worrying about whether a black man can win in the general election, they sure don’t want them to forget her gender and his race, right?

Tell you the truth, from the ambiguity of Bill’s calling some of Obama’s campaign statements a “fairy tale,” and Hillary’s assertion that President Johnson was the only reason Martin Luther King, Jr. accomplished anything, to the scurrilous remarks by Robert Johnson, whose gifts to the black community have included bringing "gangsta rap" to his BET audiences, the inevitable criticism and reaction from the African-American community further serves to remind voters that Barack Obama is, indeed, black. Unintended consequences? I think not.

Now, I don’t think for a minute that either of the Clintons is a racist, and I’ll defend them on that point forever.

But I am easily persuadable that a scheme to remind voters to worry about Obama’s race is, well — Clintonian.

Nothing wrong with the polls!

2008-01-12T11:00:00.000-06:00

I am perfectly satisfied with the analysis offered on Keith Olbermann's Countdown a couple of days after the election. He and Craig Crawford, of Congressional Quarterly, went through the numbers, and if I recall them more or less correctly, it came out that the percentage of the vote predicted for Obama (between 34 and 38) was just about right — he landed at 36%.

The number that was wrong, that had been forecast for Clinton, was 28%, obviously low. But then the number of UNDECIDED or MIGHT CHANGE votes was over 40% or so.

Looks like the majority of those broke for Clinton, maybe because of tears, maybe because of sympathy, etc., or maybe just because a lot of Clinton voters held back until the last minute. And it's reported that lots of those were women over 45 who (anecdotally) felt HRC had been mistreated.

Some independents who voted for McCain did so, they said, to stop Romney, but only after they were assured by the polls that Obama had it nailed. That would explain McCain's unexpectedly high numbers.

In the end, the POLLS weren’t to blame — the interpreters were.

On the Clinton candidacy

2008-01-10T11:52:00.000-06:00

There is some buzz among the blogs that negative comments about her campaign by talking heads in print and on TV may have driven voters to Clinton, because she may have been perceived as badly treated.

Speaking as a devoted activist and admittedly an Obama supporter (full disclosure), I do think that folks who feel driven to vote in a particular way by the comments of others do the country a disservice. Yes, we wish that this commentator or that op-ed writer spoke with more restraint, said different things, but we all know -- or should know -- that they are in the opinion business.

We are responsible for how we vote, and it is our responsibility to assess events for ourselves.

I am a woman, and I was a strong supporter of the Clintons (both of them) during his presidency. But not this time.

I would love to see a woman president. But the Clintons don't really comprise a woman candidate; they are a team and that's what is running, and that's what we'll get if they win.

It's time to move on.

Authenticity 2, Money 0

2008-01-09T12:57:00.000-06:00

Indeed, the events in Iowa last week must bring joy to the heart of every American who has despaired at the increasing influence of money and power in our politics, lamented the prevalence of sound-bite speechifying, all but succumbed to the feeling that too many seeking office see us, the voters, as dopes.

Whatever else the pundits may make of the outcome of the Iowa caucuses, it is abundantly clear that Americans really want change, but even more, we want authenticity.

Barack Obama, the only Democratic candidate who is not old news, has captivated his audiences (which have been huge and continue to grow) with his Kennedyesque ideas, coolly intelligent speaking style and wit, talking to his listeners as “you” instead of talking about “I.” He handily won the Iowa caucuses, thrilling supporters and cynics alike.

Obama, a youngish “skinny man with a funny name” with roots in Africa, won the first vote of the 2008 election for president of the United States! Can you imagine how that will play around the world?

Hillary Clinton, much to everyone’s surprise (most notably hers and her advisers’) came in third, 9 points behind Obama. Writing in this space a few weeks ago, I suggested that her claim to “strength and experience” was mostly myth and manufacture, and I do think that is part of what hurt her in Iowa; also hurting her was the omnipresence of her husband, which had the effect of reminding people that he was her only real qualification for the job.

For reasons probably having to do with what I call the “re-run factor,” John Edwards, notwithstanding a popular populist message, managed to eke out only slightly more support than Clinton. But that’s not the story here.

Now, some folks claim there is very little difference in what the two leading Democratic candidates offer; I disagree with that, but that’s another discussion. The difference is in how they offer it: One candidate appears completely comfortable speaking without a script, the other seems to need one; the former seems to speak from the heart, the other from calculation.

Over on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, despite a slightly oddball outlook on some matters and absolutely no national or international experience, routed Mitt Romney, described by many in the media as the “perfect” presidential candidate.
Interestingly, the difference was almost exactly the same 9% as Obama’s lead over Clinton.

Huckabee exudes a genuine, unpretentious affability with a down-home flavor; you could call him the real McCoy. He, too, despite a wariness of his strong evangelical support, has charmed the media — though not, apparently, much of the Republican establishment.

Republican stalwarts from the Club for Growth and the Weekly Standard to Rush Limbaugh have attacked him on issues from taxes to immigration (“We shouldn’t punish the children of illegal immigrants for their parents’ acts,” he once said.) It’s panic in the streets as the Republican Party tears itself apart to keep a true compassionate conservative from winning.

Huckabee is unfailingly described as sincere and “authentic,” whereas Romney, described by wags as the “Stepford” candidate, has won rare-if-ever anti-endorsements from two conservative New Hampshire newspapers.

According to the Concord Monitor, “If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it. Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.

And the Union Leader, which had endorsed McCain, chimed in: “Romney has all the advantages: money, organization, geographic proximity, statesman-like hair, etc. But he lacks something John McCain has in spades: conviction….He has spoken his lines well, but the people can sense that the words are memorized, not heartfelt.”

According to the folks who like arithmetic, the legendary amounts of his own money that Romney, a multimillionaire, invested in the Iowa campaign amounted to more than half his total; his overall expenditure in Iowa worked out to about $250 per vote when the final count was in, contrasted with Huckabee’s $35 or so.

Does this mean you can’t buy an election? Time will tell, but for now we know with certainty that you can’t buy Iowa.

Now, unless the New Hampshire primaries blow away my theory, we’re on a roll. It looks like America may finally be on the verge of something big, something positive, something authentic, and above all, something new.

Bali Chai

2007-12-19T16:57:00.000-06:00

“Chai” is the Hebrew word for “living,” and what word could be more fitting to describe this past weekend’s events in Bali, events that brought new life to the world-wide effort to reduce global warming.

It took two weeks of negotiations to produce an agreement — and if you think herding cats would be a challenge, consider trying to bring 187 nations to a consensus — but in the wee hours of our Saturday morning, a great miracle happened there.

Now we all know it has taken a good long while for President Bush to overcome his disdain for the idea that some kind of action might be warranted to curb our own contributions to climate change; only this year did the matter make it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is required, believe it or not, to protect the environment.

In the meantime, there have been extraordinary efforts by some of the President’s close friends in Congress to derail any prospect of understanding, let along reducing, the threat, such as Joe Barton’s demand of the nation’s leading climate scientists, in 2005, that the Congressman be given all their documentation, to prove to him (an engineer, not a scientist), that their research was sound.

Not a shining day for Texas. As the New York Times wrote then, “It's going to be hard enough to find common political ground on global warming without the likes of Representative Joe Barton harassing reputable scientists who helped alert the world to the problem in the first place.”

But that was then and this is now. Last week, for example, during the Republican debate in Iowa, presidential candidate John McCain spoke the should-be-obvious truth as only McCain can do:

I think that climate change is real.... Put it to you this way: Suppose that climate change is not real and all we do is adopt green technologies, which our economy and our technology is perfectly capable of. Then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world.

This month, even though the Bush administration declined several years ago to sign on to the Kyoto Treaty (the previous international effort to address global warming), it was now a new day, and hopes were high that America — by now the only non-signatory to the Kyoto Treaty —would finally come around.

So, over in Bali, which is more or less half a world and thirteen hours away — a country so small you have to wonder how they could even accommodate thousands of delegates from 187 countries — after two weeks of meetings and sometimes difficult negotiations, events suddenly began to unfold in dramatic fashion.

Just when things were about to wrap up near the end of the conference, India proposed an amendment that had to do with the role of developing countries in combating climate change (a role urged by the United States), concerning the matter of rich countries’ assistance to poor countries by providing the technological and financial assistance they would need to reduce greenhouse gases.

The United States delegation said the amendment’s wording was not acceptable. Loud booing and hissing ensued, and things got pretty heated. At one point a conference organizer abruptly left the podium in tears of fatigue and frustration; at another, European delegates threatened to boycott Bush-sponsored meetings down the road. The Harvard-educated delegate from Papua, New Guinea stood:

“We seek your leadership,” he said, addressing the United States. “But if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please, get out of the way.”

No American ally came to its defense and many spoke in favor of the amendment. America was reported to be completely isolated. It seemed to those of us hearing the news reports that all was lost.

Then, the United States relented:

“We came here to Bali because we want to go forward as part of a new framework, we believe we have a shared vision and we want to move that forward, we want a success here in Bali,” said Paula Dobriansky, speaking for the United States. “We will go forward and join consensus.”

There was applause and celebration as the delegates realized what had happened.

For us tree-hugging news junkies, this was akin to watching the home team make one of those 40-yard runs to the end zone and touchdown in the last 15 seconds of the game.

Pretty intense.

I Heart Huckabee?

2007-12-13T10:53:00.000-06:00

Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas now running for the GOP presidential nomination, in some ways could be a man after my own heart, and not just because he plays a mean bass guitar in a rock ‘n roll band.

The other day, during a campaign stop in Iowa, he agreed with a questioner that America’s education system must be improved, and that more math and science majors are needed. But then he added that he thinks the arts are just as important.
Here’s what his web site says about that:

Music and the arts are not extraneous, extra-curricular, or expendable — I believe they are essential. I want to provide every child these "Weapons of Mass Instruction."

As a pretty close follower of the primary campaign I believe I’ve heard just about every candidate, in both parties, champion a need for more math and science graduates, but I do believe Governor Huckabee is the only one I’ve heard remark on the importance of the arts.

A cursory check of web sites for the front-running candidates finds that what we offer our children by way of education merits scarcely more than a mention by Clinton, Giuliani or McCain; Romney gives a slight nod to math and science; Edwards and Obama both offer a variety of good ideas, Edwards in the most detail. But so far only Huckabee has talked about the arts. He elaborated at a Republican debate, saying that (I paraphrase) if we don't educate the right AND left brain of a child, the result will be a person out of balance, a balance needed to be a good citizen.

Every child, from kindergarten on, should be instructed in the arts. From the primary grades, children should be taught the rudiments of the graphic arts, both appreciation and hands-on. Dance can be incorporated into physical education classes (which should be required through all twelve grades). Children who wish to learn to play an instrument should be given the opportunity; choral music should be taught right along with appreciation of the classics, and interested students encouraged to join a drama club, school chorale or musical production group.

Begun in school, a lifetime connection with the arts will be a comfort and a pleasure throughout life. So much of the world around us is better understood — and enjoyed — when we have a broad foundation in the arts from the early years. In fact, I dare to date the decline in our educational "product" from the decision, in the late 'fifties or early 'sixties (after Sputnik beat us into space), to focus our public education on science and math.

Of course, to provide quality public education in America we simply must increase what we are willing to pay for it. We all know that “you get what you pay for,” and that a society is better off when its population is truly well educated, yet for some reason this is a hard concept to sell.

Every child in America needs to know how to read, how to speak and write proper English, how our government works, and some rudimentary science, as well as how to perform calculations using at least basic arithmetic. Geography and history — state, national and world — should also be required, although the depth of study may vary with the student's goals in life. Now that we see how the international world of the 21st century is evolving, a case can be made for requiring computer skills and at least some foreign language. Right there you've got enough to fill most of a present school day, but we can do more.

English literature classes should teach the classics, including the great essayists and poets, and plays from Shakespeare to modern American classics. History classes should include biographies of ancient and contemporary notables.

Ranchers and policemen, doctors, lawyers and merchants, cooks and crossing guards and truck drivers all benefit from exposure to these arts. Steeped in the past and great works that were produced over the centuries, our children will develop a sense of our evolution and place in time; they will find models and inspiration and understanding of the present.

Foreign language should be taught as early as possible, preferably beginning in elementary school, and for at least two or three years at a stretch. Early study of another language leads to a better understanding of English, teaches the concept that there is a world beyond us, and builds the foundation for future proficiency in whatever language (including computer) the student may elect to study.

Every eighth-grader should understand our political system, be required to read the national and international news section of a major newspaper or news magazine at least weekly, and to participate in classroom evaluations of the election process at election time. Too many Americans base their opinions on hearsay, talk shows, trash writings, and TV sound bites; worse yet, they impart their misinformation to their children who, without a decent civics education, perpetuate the problem.

It may be argued that there just isn't time in the school day to teach all the new material there is, let alone art "extras," that there is no time or staff for extracurricular activities. And of course that we don't have the money . . .

I say we go for broke and spend like crazy to get the best education for our children, the future of our country: Longer school days, offering the fringe benefit of reducing the cost of child care for working parents, as well as reducing or eliminating the latchkey population and related opportunities for trouble; longer school years, which would also give teachers year-round employment. Let’s create an educational system that will attract the "best and brightest" teachers because they will be well paid and know they will be able to count on the respect and commitment of parents and students.

Then, regardless of the number of youngsters who go on to college or university, we will have produced a new generation of educated, informed, acculturated citizens who are qualified to take on the responsibility for America.

Every one of us has an interest in spending what it takes to achieve greatness.

Freedom From Misinformation

2007-12-09T11:00:00.000-06:00

The proliferation of blogs — do-it-yourself “journalism” on the internet, by anyone with the wit to use a computer (and some with only that) — and the ability to generate a flood of emails at the drop of a “SEND” button have brought the art of whisper campaign to a new level. Everyone gets to play, but the game afoot is not fun or funny and can be devastating.

When John Kennedy ran for President in 1960 an anonymous telephone call was making the rounds: “Here’s to the three K’s — Kennedy, Catholicism and Communism!” Lovely KKK subtext, right? Or perhaps the caller’s spelling skills were to blame, but the message was clear.

In the early spring of 2000, John McCain, an altogether honorable person considered by some to be a hero, was doing very well in the Republican primaries. Most respectable journalists and political operatives agree that it was Karl Rove who arranged for a telephone campaign of gossip against McCain that most of said journalists and politically savvy folks blame for his loss to George Bush in South Carolina, an event that may well have affected the history of America.

Now it is much easier, takes very little time, and costs nothing to whisper dirt to prospective voters, and someone opposed to Barack Obama’s run for the presidency began a while back to do just that. It’s not clear which came first, the emails or the article in Insight Magazine, a Washington Times (think Reverend Moon) publication, but that’s all it took to permeate the internet and leap onto Fox News.

Last week, the Washington Post published a story about it all.

Now, even though the rumors the Post chose to publish may not have warranted publication as news, it can be argued that sometimes the truth isn’t as evident as we would like, and if a reporter feels obliged to dig deep into a rumor in search of truth he may well find something interesting. (On the other hand, if we examine our tap water with a microscope we might forswear the drink forever rather than ingest the wildlife therein.) In any case, the reporter must likewise feel obliged to use judgment, or at least some common sense, in deciding whether it has value.

Given the easy fact-checking available to just about anyone, especially a reporter for a major newspaper with access to Lexis-Nexis, it is hard to justify the perpetuation of any rumor. Heck, even snopes.com had the Obama lies nailed a year ago.

I won’t deny it might be newsworthy to say “there’s this falsehood being spread by so-and-so, and we have checked and determined its origin and the apparent reason behind it,” but the Washington Post made it a front-page story, spending some 1500 words to tell us it about a rumor promulgated by Obama’s enemies.

(In fact, it turned into a two-fer for the political right, which claimed that Hillary Clinton was behind it!)

Rumor and innuendo have become too influential in our lives, notwithstanding the amusement provided by misbehaving glamour-girls whose function in society seems to be just that. The line between news we need and innuendo is hard to fathom, just when it is so important that we get it right — as in a presidential campaign — and I believe it is the responsibility of every reporter to unblur that line.

That includes getting rid of “gotcha” journalism on televised interviews, usually starring the famous-journalist-as-Perry Mason, more interested in demonstrating how cleverly and in how many ways he can posit a question that still won’t be answered if the subject chooses not to. There is no discovery here, no illumination for the viewer, just the impression that information has been gleaned when in fact only inferences may be drawn from nothing more than implications. It has been reported that if we ask you whether you’ve stopped beating your wife, sir, you’ll deny that you ever did. Do you care to comment?

The question of how to approach and report news is as old as the business itself. A cigar-chomping old-school city editor, under whose tutelage I suffered awhile, insisted on the importance of the right “lede” — the opening sentence of a story — to insure that the reader will be interested enough to read the whole story. He was right. But a lede, or a headline for that matter, can also set the stage, or mood, or predisposition of the reader/viewer to interpret the whole story in a certain way.

In the Washington Post report, the headline was: Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him. Later in the piece, the reporter wrote: “Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a ‘Muslim plant’ in a conspiracy against America,” and then, still later, “The rumors about Obama have been echoed on Internet message boards and chain e-mails.”

Conspicuously missing: Even one sentence stating that the reporter had checked the story and determined it to be completely unfounded. It wasn’t until a post-publication exchange with critics that he used the word “falsehood.” Rumor 1, Truth 0.

Another tough question: When shall we report the news in an historical context that may well leave the reader/viewer with a different impression than if we had reported just the facts of a given event?

If, for example, when reporting that in 2003 Rudy Giuliani married his longtime girlfriend, it would not be appropriate to dig up and publish information about his previous marriage or even marriages, unless it is information clearly related to his qualifications to be president. Knowing that Judi Nathan was his girlfriend a long time before Rudy told his wife, indirectly by way of press conference, that he wanted a divorce, might provide relevant information about his character.

Finally, an issue that still drives me wild: Shall the interviewer let stand a comment by his subject that he knows or suspects to be untrue?

Leaving unchallenged some assertion that the reporter knows to be based on misinformation or, in some cases, an outright lie, allows the statement to live on in the final publication or broadcast, there to become part of the information passed on to the public. It seems to me that in these cases the reporter has at least a responsibility to ask, “Can you prove that? Please tell me where our viewers/readers can confirm that.”

If all else fails, then the reporter, interviewer or editor may still employ the time-honored tradition of the editorial comment, to foil mendacious mischief-makers. Wild accusations should never be allowed to stand.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed by our Constitution, and is critical to the preservation of our democracy. It seems self-evident to me that journalists or editors who recognize an item incorrectly offered as “fact” — whether simply mistaken or mean-spirited in origin — have an obligation to prevent its dissemination or perpetuation and to intercept and reveal untruths.

It takes two to speak the truth — one to speak, and another to hear. - Thoreau

California Dreaming?

2007-12-04T13:15:00.000-06:00

Last week I headed to California, amusingly dubbed the “Left Coast” by some, mostly Right-thinking folks. Thanksgiving with the kids and grandkids, and a chance to take another look at the place I chose to leave behind so many years ago.

The flight was smooth, sunny and uncomplicated, and only a few clouds hovered high over San Francisco Bay so the landing was easy. As a recovering white-knuckle flyer, I am now free to complain about other things, and let me just say this about the traffic here.

Bleagh.

Not really “stop and go,” more like “stop and stop.”

When people ask me how I could have brought myself to move to Waxahachie, leaving behind all the wonders of the City by the Bay, I first point out that I really do like being able to drive 60 miles an hour—not to mention being able to drive 60 miles IN an hour, as a friend pointed out recently. And have a place to park when I get there.

We eventually arrived in Oakland, the city that’s still learning how, a mish-mash of cultures and incomes and great views and perfect weather and serious hills with charming cottages packed onto them in every available space.

The sunlight is different here; beaming in sharply from what seems to be a lower place in the sky onto the light-colored stucco walls that are everywhere (no bricks here, Mabel; remember the earthquake thing), so that the whole place seems lighter. But amongst the ubiquitous stucco and Mediterranean styles, cottages like the 1913 “Craftsman chalet,” the pride and joy of my son and his wife, are everywhere, and could just as easily be in Waxahachie and perfect for the Candlelight Tour.

Cute, two bedrooms, wood floors, just 1300 square feet, only $340,000!

On the other side of the Bay, my daughter and her family live in Foster City, a very family-friendly carefully laid-out subdivision built, some 40 years ago, right on the water just a few miles south of San Francisco, so that it is laced with curving streets, canals and delightful walking trails.

Quiet and, of course, sunny. They are renting for now, until they find one they want – and can afford to – buy.

Three bedrooms, 1500 square feet and really quite lovely, just $2500 a month!

Waxahachians, count your blessings!

The sunshine is everywhere I go, since neither of these communities enjoys/suffers the perpetual fog of San Francisco itself, but here’s another reason I left: Too much sunshine and perfect weather gets boring after awhile . . . believe it or not. (Though I do dearly miss the fresh and fragrant lemons available year-round; I brought home some from my daughter's back yard tree!)

California has been a leader in some useful trends, such as control of automobile emissions and household recycling. The City of Oakland, for example, has taken recycling several degrees farther: each household is provided with a 40-gallon recycling bin and a 40-gallon compost bin (plus a little one for indoors), and a smaller bin for everything else. If they choose to participate in the compost program (basically, everything that was ever food, from coffee grounds to steak bones plus any yard waste, goes into the compost bin), then they are entitled to withdraw nicely-processed compost from the community “heap” for their family gardens.

Anyway, by the time all the recycling and compost are removed from your household waste, there is precious little left to use up space in the landfill. Think about it!

Here lately, San Francisco has outlawed plastic grocery bags, the kind made from petroleum, and as of this writing major grocery stores are required to offer paper or biodegradable “plastic” bags, as well as to sell reusable (like canvas) bags. (I've been the proud owner for years of what has become a dozen or so canvas tote bags, and I am here to tell you they make lugging groceries SO much easier! And they are so big and easy to use, the check-out clerks love them!)

This is a worthwhile effort, since recent studies have drawn attention to the vast numbers of discarded plastic bags wreaking havoc on landfill and in the sea.

Maybe a couple of good trends, d’you think?

One last thought: I don’t know if California invented the shopping mall, but last week it seemed to have reached a level I’d just as soon not import, so to speak. The lead story – I mean the LEAD – in Saturday’s San Francisco Chronicle was:

BLACK FRIDAY PACKS ‘EM IN.

Four-column spread on the front page, two big color photos, jump to almost a full page inside. Government wiretapping, Baghdad bombing, Mideast peace? Pshaw! It’s about the SHOPPING -- folks just doing their bit for the war effort.

Makes you wonder.

Sauce for the Gander

2007-11-12T12:20:00.000-06:00

Last week in this space I wrote about the importance of paying close attention to each candidate as the primary season moves along, because what you see can be a really good indicator of what you would get.

On the other hand, especially in politics it seems, what you see or hear may cleverly mask reality, usually because the reality might also be called the unpleasant truth.
The “Healthy Forests Initiative” comes to mind, designed as it was to expand private logging access to old-growth trees in federal forests.

Since my comments last week on the upcoming primary election focused on the putative front-runner in the Democratic race, it seems only fair to now talk about the man the pundits tell us is the Republican front-runner.

And in this case what you see is most definitely not what you get.

I have to admire, in a way, a person whose aura is so strong as to overcome everything and everyone in the room, including an elephant or two (no pun intended).

Imagine yourself at an elegant dinner in a five-star restaurant; the entree has just been set before you, the hundred-dollar bottle of cabernet has proven to be worth every penny, and a guy at the next table lights up a cheap cigar.

When word began to buzz that Rudy Giuliani was thinking about running for President, the pundits all predicted that he would never be accepted in polite society, so to speak, because of his quite liberal views, and that there was no way he could win the nomination of the Republican party.

So here we are, surrounded by the aura of strength, with a candidate who is not what he seems, and not what the country needs.

On the assumption that most non-New Yorkers don’t really know Rudy (funny, isn’t it, how both front-runners have first-name identity), I’d like to offer a short profile here. (This is where I ‘fess up to part of my roots, the formative years spent in New York, whose vestiges have remained; even though I have now lived in Waxahachie twice as long as anywhere else, formative is formative and I have never stopped paying attention to events in the Big Apple.)

Rudy Giuliani’s tenure as mayor of New York was fraught with controversy and cronyism.

There have been terrible decisions, reckless behavior, outright lies, and disastrous judgment in public appointments. Just this week one of his good-buddy appointments, Bernie Kerik, was indicted for tax fraud, corruption, and lying to the White House. (That old saw about judging a man by the company he keeps persists for a reason.)

Terrible decisions: Giuliani was elected mayor soon after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center by Islamic terrorists. Nonetheless, in 1997, despite opposition by wiser folks, he insisted that the city’s emergency command center be located in the World Trade Center. A terrible decision that cost many lives.

Reckless behavior: In May of 2000, then-mayor Giuliani revealed at a press conference that he and Donna Hanover, his wife of 17 years, would be separating. It was a surprise announcement, not least to his wife, to whom he had not yet delivered the news.

At that same time he identified Judith Nathan, with whom he had been frequently seen around town, as “a very good friend.” She later became the current Mrs. Giuliani.

Disastrous judgment: And then, of course, Bernie Kerik, the ol’ buddy pal with past mob connections (that Rudy claims he didn’t know about) and a long trail of scandal before, during and after his appointments by Rudy to important positions such as NYC Police Commissioner. He even got the President to nominate Bernie to head Homeland Security, a nomination soon abruptly withdrawn.

Rudy stayed by his friend through it all, until about six months ago when he began to put some distance between himself and Kerik. About the time he declared for President, actually.

Lies: Giuliani told reporters he spent more time than many first responders in the toxic dusts of Ground Zero after 9/11, enraging the New York City firefighters because it was flagrantly untrue.

And of course Giuliani likes to take full credit for bringing down crime rates in New York while he was mayor, when in fact credit should go to William Bratton who, while he was still head of the New York Transit Police and even before Giuliani appointed him Police Commissioner in 1994 initiated the “quality of life” approach that so dramatically cut crime in the City. (After too many people became aware of his role, Bratton was moved on and out.)

Allow me to pause here to say that as I write all this I feel a little seedy, as if this were some gossip column or worse, even though these facts are out there already. I just think they are relevant in assessing the character and qualifications of a man who would be President of the United States and leader of the free world.

But still, enough. There’s just too much.

In short, the candor and authenticity that voters seem to crave this season are not Rudy’s to offer. Nor is there any evidence that he actually has the “strength” that he claims should qualify him for the presidency.

What he has, as any New Yorker can tell you, is Attitude. Now, I don’t think that Attitude gets you very far with the rest of the world, but hey! You want Attitude? Choose Rudy.

There are several quite honorable, worthy and even honest men running for the Republican nomination, but Rudy Giuliani is not one of them.

I will agree, though, that he seems to be really effective at reassuring folks AFTER a disaster, so perhaps the next president will consider him to head up FEMA.

What You See . . .

2007-11-07T12:42:00.000-06:00

This may come as a shock to a reader or two, but the season is upon us and beginning in just two months voters will participate in what may be the most important decision Americans have had to make in a lifetime: Who can best lead our country out of this mess?

The next President of the United States will be presented with what I liken to a pile of pick-up-sticks, each with its own label:

Iraq. Iran. Israel. Pakistan. The economy. Mortgage crisis. Health care. Medicare. SCHIP. Foreign policy. Education. Taxes. Drugs. Crime. Trade. Energy. Immigration. Environment. Social Security.

And those are just the ones we can see from here.

Where to begin? Which one to try to extract first from the stack — ever so carefully, so as not to collapse the whole?

Democratic and Republican candidates for President have been on the road for what seems years (well, in one or two cases I guess that is true) in search of support among various constituencies north, south, east and west, and interest groups however miniscule, and the question “Did you watch the debate?” is most often answered, “Which one?”

We haven’t seen a lot of the candidates here in Texas, of course, because Texas doesn’t get to vote in a primary until next March, by which time it may be all over. Or so the pundits tell us. Personally, I dearly hope not.

What I’d give for the old days of “brokered” conventions! Where the party faithful noisily got together in some welcoming city and listened for several days as an array of Presidential hopefuls and their supporters sought their votes; back when they engaged in debate, argument, negotiations and sometimes even arm-twisting to arrive at a chosen candidate for President!

Well, we have what we have, and we have to deal with it.

And first of all we have to ignore the pundits, who do a public disservice in declaring the “inevitability” of one candidate or another. I can’t quarrel with publishing the results of legitimate polling — that’s just news (and may in fact serve as a call to work harder for some candidates!). But the folks who tell us the numbers need to stop there and let us decide what to make of them.

We have a responsibility, with so little time left (at least a good chunk of which will be pretty much consumed by the holidays), to pay as close attention from now on to what the candidates are saying and doing as if our lives depended on the outcome, which may be the case.

For starters, take the Democratic “front-runner” — please!

Now I suppose if I weren’t worried about this I’d love the idea of inevitability, but I do have some concerns and I am worried (though this may be surprising to some): I don’t see what I believe America needs, and I do see what I believe America most assuredly does not need.

America needs a leader who is strong, yes, but you could say that anyone who can endure the slings and arrows and the grueling trek of an almost two-year presidential campaign just about qualifies.

And a lot of candidates talk about the importance of having one kind of “experience” or another, but the truth is there is no experience that in itself can prepare you for the singular position of world leader. It’s the people around the President to whom we should pay attention, for there you see what you are likely to get. As we ought to know by now.

Anyway, Hillary Clinton’s so-called “strength and experience” is mostly a myth. The former consists of committee appointments she sought out when she came to the Senate, some legislative moves cynically calculated to make her look tough and war-like, and an occasional war-like statement on the stump.

Her “experience” includes voting in the Senate (following President Bush) to ban flag burning and in favor of bankruptcy legislation the credit companies loved, not to mention in favor of allowing Bush to take us to war in Iraq and for legislation that might allow him to take us to war in Iran, and oh yes, before that living in the White House when her husband was President.

And of course there was the disastrous health care plan, put together in secret meetings with unidentified advisers (remind you of anyone?), that she couldn’t get through Congress despite having the full force of the White House at her disposal. So we take all we learn from listening and watching and then try to envision the kind of presidency we’d have. And here’s my problem:

I don't see a single decision being made without calculation as to reelection, and I don't see the political climate getting any better. Most troubling, I see a continuation of the kind of outright secrecy and dissembling that we've lived with throughout the current administration's tenure.

Now I don’t offer this as a comprehensive evaluation of this candidate; I just wanted to show the reader why it may be useful to pay really, really close attention to what is being said and done by those who want us to trust them with our country and our world.

I know that a lot of women, regardless of party, are supporting Hillary because they understandably are thrilled at the prospect of a woman president (as I would be, were it the right one). The perfect irony is that if she weren’t the wife of Bill Clinton she would be practically unknown.