This blog has asked the question for months. Why haven't we seen the primary birth document pertaining to Obama - the long form birth certificate? Larry Johnson asks the question here - and also links to a NRO piece that gets to the pertinent issue around the Obama birth:
Obama is pathologically dishonest. His life is a lie.
NRO uses a tale Obama told about his first job after college in Dreams of My Father and lets us know his version is a lie.
Obama did not work at "a consulting house to multinational corporations"; it was, a then-colleague of his has related, "a small company that published newsletters on international business." He wasn't the only black man in the company, and he didn't have an office, have a secretary, wear a suit and tie on the job, or conduct "interviews" with "Japanese financiers or German bond traders"-he was a junior copyeditor.
Please read the entire piece. Obama's catalogue of flips lies needs to be known and remembered. As does his actual history.
The horrifying fact is that most Americans simply do not know the most basic elements of Obama's life.
Why don't the media-the watchdog legions who trekked to Sarah Palin's Alaska hometown to scour for every kernel of gossip, and who were so desperate for Bush dirt that they ran with palpably forged military records-want to dig into Obama's background?
This question asked by Andrew C. McCarthy in the NRO piece is the rub. We should all ask this question and avoid the knee jerk answers: They love him, They are 'liberal' and he is 'liberal', they are afraid of being accused of racism...
None of these answers add up or stand up. Obama is the most protected public figure in my lifetime. His books and the media's narrative of his life have had almost no counter narrative. Can anyone think of another politician who has risen so quickly with almost no struggle? No blowback? Judges release confidential records that destroy opponents. State legislators hand off credit to him for work they did. The entire power apparatus of the Democratic Party bends over backward to ensure his nomination. The media covers up and ignores every unpleasant fact about the man. This same "liberal" media relentlessly attacked both Clintons and came unhinged with bile directed at Sarah Palin.
Why is this? I ask with absolute sincerity. Why is this? In my more snide moments I've taken the Brando line from Apocalypse Now as my short hand for Obama: He's an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks...
In the past week Obama has shifted his talking points on health care reform. Whereas, for much of the debate the line of attack has been on the inefficiencies and expense of the health care system as a whole, in the last week he's changed the tune:
As polls showed eroding support for his overhaul of the nation's healthcare system, President Obama spent Wednesday courting the majority of Americans who already have insurance and are most resistant to the proposed changes.
By doing this Obama has substantially improved his odds of getting something out of congress this year.
Obama highlighted a series of consumer protections he would like to see remain in the final bill-including requirements that insurers cover preexisting conditions and don't withhold coverage from the seriously ill.
With the Gates arrest taking center stage for a few days in the A.D.D. media, this shift has been somewhat overlooked. Obama will no doubt take to the bully pulpit throughout August with this new message directed at the insured middle class. It has resonance.
In resorting to its usual screams of "socialism" the GOP has missed a fundamental element in the current health care debate atmosphere: many, many insured people resent and fear their insurance companies. Regulating health insurers will be very popular.
I suspect the public option in any form will fade, then disappear, from the final bill. The House progressive caucus will have fits - but in the end they will cave. They always do. What we will end up with is a bill that forces people to buy insurance and forces insurers to accept everyone. Since most people are healthy this will be a boon for insurers.
Obama can claim victory and it will be a victory of sorts. But it's a far cry from what he promised and does nothing to address the essential problem: the massive insurance "middle man" bureaucracy that rations care for profit.
The post on Armed and Dangerous linked here was written in June of 2008 - someone emailed it to me recently. It really reminded me why I began to distrust Obama in the first place.
No, what really put me off Barack Obama was the increasingly creepy and pathological tenor of the relationship between him and his fans. I think it was in mid-February, a bit before the Jeremiah Wright story got really ugly, that I started to notice my "Never Again!" nerves tingling.
I resent Bill Maher calling the entire country stupid - mostly because he's never seemed that smart to me. He's harsh and smug - in our current culture this is often mistaken for smart.
But I must admit that the Obama's "beer summit" and the attendant coverage of it is causing me absolute embarrassment as an American. Obama's response to the entire Gatesgate episode is embarrassing and pathetic. During the "beer summit" the most powerful man on earth and his pal - who was arrested for being an overbearing gasbag - used a hard working police officer as a prop. Crowley was put in an untenable position so Barry can save his half white ass. Pew now reports that Obama's knee jerk response to the arrest is doing real damage.
It is gross - and like few other events of late - indicate a kind of cultural idiocy, not emanating from the grass roots - but from the top. This is Jerry Springer Show filler brought into the Rose Garden by a thoughtless President who refused to simply say "I was wrong to condemn the police. I am sorry. I'll be more careful with my remarks regarding local issues in the future." That's it. This entire dog and pony show has been because Obama had a knee jerk response to something he knew nothing about and isn't man enough to say "I am sorry."
Obama wants to "foster" a dialogue - ABOUT WHAT?!!! How cops should handle arrogant, entitled, ivy league professors when they insult your mother? What is the "dialogue" that is to emerge from this episode? ALL the facts that have emerged so far indicate that Obama, and earlier Gates, WERE IN THE WRONG. Now reality has to be adjusted so some grievance king from Harvard and his POTUS pal can save face? Screw that.
And for "f**k sake - where is the woman who made the 9-1-1 call? You know the person who actually DID HER DUTY AS A CITIZEN. What is the lesson here? Behave like an idiot and the President will defend you and invite you to the White House - leveling the playing field by also inviting the cop who was berated in front of the planet for doing his job well - meanwhile if you are a concerned citizen reporting what looks for all the world like a break in - you get called a racist by the teaming masses of mindless, perpetual victims- and ignored by the "post -racial" President.
Obama promised NOT to vote to end any filibuster against granting telecom immunity.
On the official Obama website, we found this statement:
"Senator Obama UNEQUIVOCALLY OPPOSES giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill (no, he didn't). Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote or not, Senator Obama will NOT be among those voting to END the filibuster." But Obama voted to END the attempted filibuster.
But the bill today does include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Nonetheless, Obama voted for cloture on the bill - the exact opposition of supporting a filibuster-and then voted for the bill itself. A more complete abandonment of an unambiguous campaign promise is difficult to imagine...
Take a poll on the 2012 GOP ticket- here. Will you vote GOP in 2012? Me - it's doubtful I'll ever vote GOP nationally..but hey, things change rapidly...
(Ya know, I love the game of politics...the poll is really just an excuse to post my current hunches for the 2012 GOP ticket)
It is Thursday As we continue to discuss Obama's embarrassing "beer summit" with the good cop and the nutty professor - which is a his special little way of avoiding responsibility for f-ing up big time - How about some mid week sobriety? What the hell...we do, in fact, have major problems that continue their full court press on all of us. Foremost among them: oil.
A link to Forbes and a doco from the BBC about oil and food. Both need pondering.
A farm for the future: the most alarming element in the clips below is the simple examination of how much fossil fuel goes into making one ham sandwich. We tend to process energy through the lens of various transportation needs. Transportation is the secondary concern. How our food is grown and moved is the essential issue...
This is the last post on education in this series.
Part 6 Competing Demands for Funds
In all modern western societies there are competing demands for tax dollars. The elderly Vs children. Education Vs health care. Military Vs social issues. Cities Vs rural areas. Big business Vs small business. Higher education Vs elementary and secondary education. It is difficult even in good economic times to balance all of the competing demands, needs, and wants of constituents for tax dollars.
Demands For Health Care
There have always been restraints on local, state, and federal budgets. However, since the end of World War II expenditures for heath care have especially strained public budgets at all levels of government.
Since the 1950's Americans have spent huge sums on health care. Health insurance has long roots in America but really took off in the 1940's during WW II when there were labor shortages and the government imposed wage controls. To attract more workers many employers began to offer health insurance as a fringe benefit. Except for a few plans in the public sector, this was the start of employer based and paid for group health insurance plans. (Source: Associated Content, Inc.) In 1942 Congress gave employers tax deductions for heath insurance plans, and in 1943 made employer-provided health benefits tax exempt for employees. Due to these tax breaks enrollment in these plans soon jumped from 7 million to 26 million, or 20% of the population.
By 1950, now that 20% of the population had health insurance, the cost of insurance began to rise. As Gomer Pyle would say, "SURPRISE. SURPRISE. SURPRISE!!!!!" National health care expenditures that year were $12.7 billion, or 4.5% of the Gross National Product (GNP.) That very same year, and under pressure from the American Medical Association, most states agreed to bar prepaid monthly group fees and replace them with fee-for-service provider plans. The fee for service model has been with us ever since and is one of the big reasons medical costs are so high in America.
Ten years later, in 1960 health care spending had more than doubled and was $27 billion, 5.1% of GNP. By 1970 health care spending was $73 billion, 7.1% of GDP. By 1980 health care spending was now three times higher than in 1970, and at $257 billion, about 10% of GNP. Also in the eighties, Reagan under his new federalism program transferred a lot of the costs of insurance and public-aid programs to state and local governments.
Now how does all this relate to schools and education? If you remember from earlier posts (Parts 2 and 3) public schools receive the largest share of their funding from the local community and the individual states, not from the federal government. Now under Reagan a larger share of health care was shifted to local and state government. The feds were supposed to send federal dollars to help offset this additional burden on states and local governments. I am sure I don't need to tell you how that turned out. Since the 1980's while local and state taxes have increased, the costs of health care has increased even more. Therefore, the amount of tax revenues that is left and that can go to education has shrunk accordingly. Public expenditures on education have only managed modest increases since Reagan because they are competing for funds with the ever increasing health care monster.
Source for the figures in the previous two paragraphs are from here.
Military Spending
Another huge competing demand for tax monies these days is the military budget. More money for the military simply means less money for other important programs, including education. We saw this recently with Bush's War in Iraq. Specifically, due to the ever increasing money pit of Iraq, Bush never did fully fund No Child Left Behind. Therefore NCLB, while helping to raise reading scores in some districts, was not able to achieve as much as it could have and should have had it been fully funded. The military budget and increasing demands for homeland security competed for tax dollars and again schools and children lost out.
Reflecting this trend in many teachers' lounges across the nation these days you will see a poster that says, "It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need and the Navy has to hold a bake sale to buy a ship."
Personal Profiteering
There is more, even worse, regarding competing demands and NCLB. There is the Bush family's profiting from NCLB. An executive of one of the major elementary textbook and testing companies is a longstanding close friend of the Bush family and sits on the Board of the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy. Initially it looked as if the NCLB bill would make this company the only company that would be approved to sell reading textbooks and supplies to NCLB schools. The other major textbook companies cried fowl and lobbied and got that provision stricken from the bill. Nevertheless, there was much pressure in some districts to purchase reading materials from this one publisher.
Then there is the story of Neil Bush whose company sells educational computer software and testing materials. Bush's company has greatly benefited from the NCLB federal funds. Talk about your basic family profiteering! Again, politics and money was more important than teaching children to read. This is the ultimate and most cynical of competing demands for funding. Special Education
The last competing demand for funds I want to talk about is special education. In 1975 Congress passed the Individual With Disabilities Act (IDEA) a companion piece to the Education for All Handicapped Children's Act. IDEA requires that school districts must provide a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment to children with disabilities, no matter how high or low those costs are.
According to The New America Foundation, "The population of students identified as disabled has grown twice as quickly as the general education population. During the twenty year period between the 1984 and 2004, the special education population increased by 36 percent. In contrast and during that same period, the general education population increased by only 20 percent..."
"Primarily because of the quickly expanding population of children with disabilities, special education spending has increased at a much faster rate than general elementary and secondary education spending. "In 1987, state funding accounted for 56 percent of special education spending and local funding accounted for only 36 percent. In 1999-2000, the average state share of special education spending had dropped to 45 percent, and the average local contribution had risen to 46 percent, based on data from 39 states." (Source: The New American Foundation)
Bottom line, with the federal and state share of educating children with disabilities falling, the costs have more and more been shifted to local school districts. Some school districts have estimated that about 30% of all new money they receive from local tax dollars is now, by law, allocated for special education programs.
None of this in any way should be construed to mean that America should not educate children with disabilities. Special education and children with disabilities are a legitimate competing demand on our nation's limited resources. Living up to the lofty philosophy of the Declaration of Independence, "That all men are created equal," costs money in the real world of competing demands for resources.
In closing, if the economy worsens these competing demands on our limited tax dollars will only get tighter as regards funding schools and our children's education. We all have to learn to live with less. Many schools have already tightened their belts and have cut teachers and other staff, tutoring programs, extra curricular programs, after school programs, summer school, new textbooks, and more. The saddest part of all this is that the end result may be that the gains made in reading, math, and science recently may suffer setbacks.
As we balance these conflicting demands for tax dollars we as a nation would do well to remember what Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and will never be." Or as Robin Cook said, "Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility that society owes to itself."
Have you gotten your tax cut? And even if you rec'd a tax cut, how long do you think you'll get to keep it?
Seniors will be bearing the burden for these so-called 'tax cuts' for working Americans (many of whom currently pay NO taxes), since Social Security payments will NOT rise with the Cost of Living for this year or next year. In fact, Social Security payments will NOT increase at all for the next two years and will increase only one-and-one-half percent the third year out. Since monthly payments for Medicare prescription drug coverage will surely increase (as they have, every year), this will represent a REDUCTION in Social Security payments for seniors.
"For the first time in more than three decades, Social Security recipients will not get any increase in their benefits next year, federal forecasts show. The absence of a cost-of-living adjustment, calculated under a formula set by law, will be a shock to older Americans already hit by plummeting home values, investment losses and rising health costs. More than 50 million people receive Social Security. "Most seniors have never been through a year in which there was no Social Security COLA," said David M. Certner, legislative counsel at AARP, the lobby for older Americans. Beneficiaries have received automatic cost-of-living adjustments every year since 1975. The increase this year was 5.8 percent...The forecasts, by the Obama administration and the Congressional Budget Office, indicate that Social Security beneficiaries will not receive any cost-of-living increase in 2010 or in 2011..."If, as expected, there is no COLA in Social Security next year but premiums for drug coverage increase, as expected, millions of beneficiaries will see their Social Security checks reduced for the first time"
Stupid, in various forms, is the word of the week. The President glibly remarked that the Cambridge, Mass. cop who arrested Professor Gates "behaved stupidly. " On Monday Bill Maher said America is a stupid country. This bears some examination. Maher does not. He is not worth any thought - either deep or cursory. Maher is a tool. A fatuous cog in the distraction machine. We can also leave aside the examples Maher gives. Insulting Sarah Palin is currently compulsory among the elite brats of our public "discourse". Like eating and elimination - if they don't do it they die. His tepid claim that Obama is smart - is worth a moment - but only because it increasingly appears false.
There are a lot of people. 6 billion - give or take. Most people - at one point or another - are stupid. Some people are stupid all the time. It stands to reason that many Americans are stupid. Actually, it's an observable phenomenon pretty much every day. Without going on a patriotic bender I will also say it is self evident that the U.S. is a "smart" country. Make your own list. We've done pretty well.
What troubles people like Maher is - they won. They got what they wanted in Obama's election and now have much less to gripe about. One of their tribe is now President. Not the "Democratic" or "progressive" tribe. Obama really isn't either. Maher hails from the elite chattering class who contribute nothing of value tribe.He's a member of the hilariously misnamed "intelligentsia". Most of whom are not particularly intelligent at all in any actionable way . The coin of the realm with this tribe is condescension. The most important component of this condescension is hubris. Maher was apparently a quart low on arrogance so he called the entire country stupid. Why leave anyone out?
Letting us know that they know better than the rest of us is the blood this tribe of vampires feeds on. They must have it.
Obama springs from this tribe. It began in the dark recesses of his unknown past. Chicago's rich liberals? The William Ayers cabal? The Geffen/ Huffington wing of the Democratic Party? Take your pick. They all assume they know better. It is their animating principle.
The most dangerous element to the condescension tribe - the one that must always be kept in check and under control - are the people who actually do things of value -people who live lives that for most of human history were called normal and productive. The flyover people as those in NY and LA often call them. So when Obama is confronted by a question about one of these people who actually do a job, his knee jerk reaction is to call that person stupid. It is part of his DNA. Bitter. Stupid. Clinging to guns and religion.
Maher ups the ante. His world view is in jeopardy -so everyone must be stupid. We live in a stupid country.
Maher is just this side of worthless. He's not even funny which ought to be his saving grace. Even a stupid person can see that when he calls the country stupid he is talking about himself. But let's leave that revelation to his analyst or 12 step sponsor or life coach.
The advent of the Obama era is exposing all of us - but mostly it is exposing those who insisted that he was the saviour. The Obots not only ignored Obama's emptiness - they deified it.
Oops.
Expect the condescension class to use "stupid" with regularity in 2009 and 2010. "Racist" is so 2008.
It is no surprise to most of us that there is a graying of America taking place. More than 35% of Americans were under age 18 in 1965. Today that number is down to 25.5% of the population. (Source: U.S. Census) And the mass of the baby boom has not even begun to retire yet. The aging population of America and the increasing number of retired Americans will cause many stresses on society.
Number one, - fewer people in the work force will result in lower tax revenues overall at every level of government, exacerbating the recession. The increase in numbers of retirees will also stress the public educational system in many ways as well.
Seniors are a very potent voting bloc. Number one - they vote. And number two -historically, seniors tend not to support public schools, especially with their vote on local school levies. This is strange since most states offer property tax relief to seniors. These tax relief programs also mean less tax revenue at the local level. The great number of baby boomers will only exacerbate these trends. The current economic recession will make all of this even more acute.
I am a glass is half-full type personality rather than the half-empty personality type. I see these trends and instead of cursing the darkness I look for creative ways to solve them. Well, fortunately years ago many local school districts and even states began programs for senior citizens. Today these programs are poised to positively and creatively address the issue of an aging population. Hopefully as more Americans reach their golden years even more programs like these will be created.
Grandparents Day
Many schools across the nation have a Grandparents Day program where the grandparents of students are invited to spend a portion of or all day at their grandchild's school where they are one, honored and two are afforded the chance to see schools up close and personal. The best of these programs include the grandparents sharing stories with children about their life experiences and showing off their skills or talents. Some of these programs also give the grandparents gifts or coupons from local stores or local businesses or who donate freebies as part of their advertising budgets. This business involvement offsets the cost to the schools of Grandparents Day and also affords businesses the opportunity of being involved in the community. Many districts also have programs where grandparents and other seniors tutor students, or read to a child throughout the school year. These type programs go a long way towards building bridges between seniors, the community, schools, and children. In the coming years as America's senior population increases there needs to be more such programs in more school districts as well as an expansion of these type programs.
Senior Citizens Programs
One of the best and most comprehensive programs for seniors is in North Kansas City School District (NKCSD). NKCSD has expanded their program from just including grandparents and opened it to all senior citizens in the community. The really great thing about this program is the depth and breath of activities seniors can participate in. NKCSD offers seniors a free, life long Golden Pass, a ticket that allows seniors access to the district's athletic, musical and dramatic events at reduced or no cost. With the Golden Pass card and an early morning reservation a senior can visit school for breakfast (cost $1.60) and or lunch (cost $2.75.) Seniors also receive a twice yearly newsletter with information on the schools and a schedule of special events. NKCSD also provides free Senior Seminars. Upcoming seminar topics include: Historic Quilts, Europe...Off the Beaten Path, and Healthy Food Choices. There is also a program called Living History, which is a totally volunteer program. According to the district web site this program "provides volunteer speakers to share a bit of their personal history with students, making history "come alive". Topics range from growing up on a farm or during the depression to the Olympic Torch to recycling and saving the environment."
However, NKCSD is far too modest. In actuality there are far, far more topics (over 50) than this blurb would suggest. A few select topics are: Black in Blue: Soldiers in the Civil War, Lewis and Clark, Growing Up in Japan, WW II Veterans, Women in the Navy, Jessie James, Being an Entrepreneur, The Art of Storytelling are just a few. What a wonderful way to make history and the classroom come alive and take learning beyond the textbook. You can see for yourself the range of topics offered by this program here. (PDF)
NKSCD also has a Senior Tax Exchange Program (STEP) that offers employment opportunities for senior citizens to work in the district and apply their earnings toward payment of school property taxes. Lest someone thinks this is slave labor, The STEP employee has the flexibility of choosing when and how many hours per week he or she works, as long as 78 hours are completed within one calendar year.
There is so much good in all of the NKCSD programs, especially if the recession is a long one, as I believe it will be or, worse if it becomes a full depression. There are opportunities in NKCSD for seniors to get meals and to work, key elements in FDR's Great Depression era programs.
Just FYI, NKSCD also offers regular Community Education Classes open to the public of any age as well. This type of program is an excellent use of our public school buildings and resources. I have always believed it is a waste to have school buildings closed most of the evening and during the summer. Programs like these make full use of our tax dollars and benefit everyone.
In Delaware the state created a Foster Grandparent Program that uses senior citizens to mentor and tutor special education and special needs children. While mostly a volunteer program, seniors who meet the low-income criteria set by the Corporation for National & Community Service can receive a stipend of $3.45 per hour for serving 15-40 hours a week. Other opportunities and ideas to bring seniors into schools would be to provide free heath screenings for seniors such as blood pressure and other medical tests in the school setting.
Also, opening the schools before and or after school for seniors to exercise or walk in the gymnasium would contribute to the health of a local community. The possibilities are endless and limited only by our own creativity. I have shared with you only a few examples of the many things schools and educators are currently providing that maintain enthusiasm for our public schools among older Americans. Programs like these create a strong sense of community among residents as well as provide needed services for seniors.
These programs are a win-win and should be encouraged.
Obama's hesitant statement at Rev. Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum in California, on Saturday, Aug. 16, 2008,. that defining the beginning of life is "above my pay grade" took even some supporters by surprise. From the Washington Post on Aug. 20, 2008::
At issue is a measure in both Illinois and Congress called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which defines as a protected human any life expelled from a mother. Abortion foes championed the cause when an Illinois nurse and antiabortion activist said some pre-viable fetuses were being aborted by inducing labor and then being allowed to die. Obama, then a state senator, opposed the anti-abortion measure in 2001, saying it crossed the line of constitutionality and "essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus."
As a committee chairman in the state Senate in 2003, Obama supported GOP efforts to add language to the act, copied from federal legislation, clarifying that it would have no legal impact on the availability of abortions. Obama then OPPOSED the bill's final passage. Since then, he has said he WOULD HAVE BACKED the bill as it was written and approved almost unanimously the year before.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, charged that Obama is trying to have it both ways because the Illinois bill he opposed was virtually identical to the federal law he said he would support.
Obama aides acknowledge that the wording of the state and federal bills was virtually IDENTICAL.
Alert the media! Call the Pope! Put on your best shoes! A sane article on Sarah Palin has been written - and posted! Right HERE! By a liberal! - littleisis at The Confluence!
It is a Christmas Miracle in July!
She has... taken on her own party Establishment and been elected as the youngest and first lady Governor of the largest and most beautiful state in the union, raised taxes on oil companies and created a state budget surplus, which she gave back to Alaskans. Her first veto in office was a bill that would deny gay couples health benefits (and you know how those lesbians love Alaskan Cruises. Good call, Sarah!). She appointed a pro choice member of Planned Parenthood to the Alaskan Supreme Court in favor of a bible humping Fundie Blowhard, and she supports funding Head Start. She is, contrary to popular belief, pro-contraception, and has said so many times. She is a Feminist. Her husband is an Eskimo Union man who owns a commercial fisherman business. She is personally socially Conservative, but based on her performance as Governor, does not use her office to inflict those beliefs on her constituents. She has stated that she believes in Science and Evolution. In fact, her father was a Science Teacher and track coach, and her mother was a school librarian, so she likes books too. Let's face it: Bible Spice isn't all that Conservative....
A poll out today in Massachusetts is disastrous for Governor Patrick. 56% percent disapproval of his job performance. A subset of that number: 56% of Blacks disapprove as well. I know little of why Patrick has sunk in his state. Still, the fact that both blacks and whites disapprove at the same rate I take as a good sign. It implies he is being rated on performance - as he should be. It also betrays the meme that black Americans are monolithicpolitically and universally defensive about other black Americans. Let's put that one to bed.
Rasmussen has Obama below 50% approval for the first time at 49%. His RCP average is 54.7%. Obama's downward trend has been on going for months now. I expect it to continue for a bit and land in the 40s by September and stay there for a while - baring a surprise outside event, of course.
When a President goes under 50% for a month or so the gloves tend to come off in the media. I find this to be true with either party. Questions about Bush were surfacing at this point in 2001. But after 9-11 the media gave him a pass for years and did not rescind the free pass until his Social Security and Shiavo debacles sank him numbers in 2005. Katrina did him in later that year.
Obama has embedded media outlets in MSNBC, NBC, and the New York Times, and to a lesser degree ABC. But they will not hesitate to go negative if Obama becomes unpopular. I have no doubt that much of the thus far Obama apologist media and blog-o-sphere will have a season of harsh questioning of Obama soon enough. It is way - WAY - past time for it.
Here's my concern. It must never take on the sick texture that the Obots threw at Clinton and Palin. Which is to say- it must not come from a place of bigotry. Some of it will - though none will own it. Conversely, false accusations of racism will certainly reemerge from some quarters. This must be fiercely slapped down. In the long run crying wolf promotes racism.
Because we have the history we have - the potential to lilt over into unacceptable ugliness will be present. I tried - and think I succeeded - in only discussing Obama's race on this blog within certain parameters: The media's and his use of it to shame or shun anyone who questioned him, to insist that many whites were voting for him because he was black and did not look past that one fact - his race was a bobble and this often unconscious attitude was condescending and gross - look we got ourselves a black president! - and less often to say that the advent of a non- white President does have symbolic and healing value. There was a time when I said honestly that the only thing I did like about Obama was his race.
I've thought for a while that Obama could land harder than most modern Presidents. All of whom went through nasty patches in the polls. This is mostly because he implied too much and was always going to be able to deliver too little. Hope's mean flip side is a sense of betrayal. Americans will suffer disappointment in their leaders, but not betrayal. Obama's brand of hope was over the top. It had no relationship to our real lives and a deep sense betrayal may well be "Obamahope's" natural evolution. It is already very evident on much of the Left and with many Independents.
I am still on conscientious white liberal at heart - that is to say that bringing the outsider to the table to give them a chance is still the goal.
(If the outsider is a female conservative - respect that - even when you disagree. It is no small feat to be a female Governor in this country.)
Something I learned last year that most women already know is this: White women have to give 200% without error to be given 70% credit. Black men in this country are too often either held to a lower standard or a higher standard than their analogous white counterparts. Neither is okay. Professor Gates was held to a lower standard the moment the charges were dismissed. Far to many poorer black men are held to a higher standard. As Obama gets into the meat of his presidency those of us critical of him must hold him to THE SAME standard as all we would any other President. Most people will. Some will not be able to get past an ugly cultural reflex that is still present.
When I taught the "bad" kids at a high school in the Valley I learned a lot about them and myself. I tripped over assumptions I did not know I had. Indeed, the institution itself carried these assumptions. "Bad" white kids were often seen as wayward and troubled. "Bad" black and brown kids were viewed as dangerous. This was not spoken, of course. But it was clear.
So as the worm turns on Obama I am going to take the good people of Massachusetts as my guide. Performance counts. Integrity counts. Character counts. Race does not.
With Obama I doubt I'll have a lack of things to criticize.
Obama's White House budget director Peter Orszag said taxing employer benefits was among several ideas that "most firmly should remain on the table," and some congressional Democrats told the Washington Post that White House officials said Obama would accept such a tax "as long as he didn't have to propose it himself."
Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast bulk-if not all-of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."
Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's allegations, McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator's plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.
In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in history
Among my friends who are more employed than moi- it is a big week. I do hereby set aside and dedicate this segment of the morning to these swell peeps. BUT I shall not drop names - merely point out their recent successes - which will preserve their privacy and at the same time make me look interesting and seem cool by association.
1. An actress friend does a turn on the The Closer tonight. Watch it!!!
2. An actor friend is in this film airing on Here this Friday. Watch it!!! (If you are one of the 6 people in the U.S. who gets Here.)
3. Another friend designed and built the Mad Men season three poster. How great is that poster? I mean come on....and they did not even use the better shots in which you can see Draper's legs thru the water as it rises.
There be my Monday celebration of the employed in which I drop names without dropping names!
Larry Johnson has a post up on the birth certificate controversy that I find satisfying. Read it here. He states that the long form BC proves he was born in Hawaii and most likely contains embarrassing, but explainable, information. Information Obama would have had no control over as a child - but would have damaged him last year regardless. Release of the long form BC now would still do political harm to Obama -as it would contradict certain elements of his life narrative during the campaign. Or at least raise a cornucopia of questions about honesty - but not legality.
What has always bothered me about this issue is the insistence that we stupidly accept the computer generated abstract as the actual birth certificate. The Daily Kos waved that document around like it was an original copy of the Magna Carta they'd found in the attic...refusing to answer the simple question: Where is the original? There is nothing odd about that question.
This was another example of the screaming ignorance so many of us were subjected to by the Obots. I hate being told to accept anything with out questioning. Questions about BHO's long form BC are reasonable -not "nutty". As are questions about his academic records. It is our DUTY to ask them. This is still America, for God's sake.
The other beneficial element the "birthers' have brought to the table is in forcing the legitimacy oversight question into the open. No one vets our Presidential candidates' constitutional qualifications. This is remarkable.
Johnson's explanation makes the most sense of any I've seen. From a campaign tactics point of view I can't honestly say I'd have handled this differently if I had been in Axelrod's shoes - in the heat of the battle.
Whatever truth there may be in Biden's ongoing blabbering - it begs the question - is the man out of control? Is there a method to his brand of madness or is he just mad?
Cheney was often dispatched to make the harsher points. But one knew he was playing bad cop to W's good cop - and that in the end the Bush Administration backed what Cheney said. It's a little hard to believe that Biden in speaking for Obama when he says Russian leaders are "clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable. " Nothing about Obama's performance in foreign affairs so far indicates he wants this type of remark made about Russia by the second in command.
In Biden's case Obama (on the economy) and now Clinton have had to walk back Biden's mouth recently. Biden is one inanity away from Quayle-hood. In politics the appearance of dysfunction is often as bad as dysfunction.
Tasking Biden with actual work as V.P. may have been a mistake. In the grand tradition of many V.P.s he needs to fade into the background.
2010 will be a Republican year - Advantage Fiorina.
Boxer is running for a 4th term and Boxer fatigue has already started. Advantage Firoina.
California is a blue state - but Boxer is on the outer edge ideologically. Advantage Firoina.
One should not discount the still solid Democratic majority in California. Fiorina is close in this poll because she is largely unknown and Boxer is known. The "blue" majority could be engaged if Boxer identifies Fiorina before she identifies herself.
Fiorina's known downsides that Boxer can exploit:
A. Her connection to John McCain. Expect Fiorina to be connected to Palin in ads. This will be affective in getting Democrats out for Boxer.
B. Hewlett-Packard. It is often glossed over that Fiorina was forced out and considered a failed C.E.O. by many at the time. Though 2010 will favor the GOP in places that Blue Dogs have to defend seats in districts McCain won, the conservative energy behind these races will not be evident in California -and therefore will not be an advantage for Fiorina. Further 2010 also has the potential to be a very "anti-big business" year. Fiorina can- and will - be tagged as "big business". Along the coast, where most Californians live, this is a potent campaign meme. Advantage: Boxer.
The ticket: So far S.F. mayor Gavin Newsome is running a very good, very "California" campaign for Governor. He's appealing, has star quality, and is good looking. He is the kind of person Californians love to elect. If he gets past Jerry Brown and becomes the nominee this could favor Boxer - if his campaign does not stumble. Brown, though still well liked by Democrats here, is less likely to ignite passions. Younger Democrats will be less engaged. I would bet now that either Brown or Newsome will be elected in 2010. Though Newsome is appealing, Brown remains far ahead in polls. Brown on the top of ticket helps neither candidate. But...
Fiorina's problem here is the lack of Republican powerhouses running for Governor. Baring a conservative star - say Jon Voight - getting into the race the top of the GOP ticket is likely to be dull. Though, I suspect Voight is too far Right to appeal in California statewide. Arnold S. is probably the only Republican that could have been elected Governor in recent history.
Advantage: Boxer.
Though frustration with Democrats is building in Virgina and Ohio - Obama and the Democrats are likely to remain somewhat popular in places like California and New York.
Advantage Boxer.
(Odd scenario: If Obama turns out to be very unpopular and 2010 is a rerun of 1994 or 1966 -he will be a drag on Boxer even in California. Obviously Obama won big here in the general. But his connections are shallower than the returns indicated. Independents broke for Obama. He is losing them now. How would Boxer counter this? Easily the most popular politician in a generation here is Bill Clinton. Either Clinton could be elected to any state wide office in California. Bill Clinton won going away in the 1992 and 1996 general elections. Hillary Clinton defeated Obama by 10% in the primary, though in many ways Obama was the ideal "California" candidate. Boxer and the Clintons may see an advantage in bringing Bill Clinton out to campaign. California Independents are still very open to Bill Clinton. This is, of course, an unlikely scenario. If Boxer needs Clinton by next Fall, Clinton is unlikely to want to be anywhere near her. )
Money: Fiorina has her own. Boxer can raise plenty.
This is a wash.
Of course, as with all races in 2010 - It's the economy, Stupid. The two Californias (East and West) could split in different directions if the economy is still in the doldrums. "East" California is closer in spirit to the American West. It's instincts are conservative and libertarian. "West" or Coastal California is decidedly more liberal and Boxer will be able to work this part of the state - and it could go further Left. The coast has more voters - but inland regions will be more engaged in 2010. Republicans will NOT stay home if Boxer is seen to be in danger.
This could end up being a wash.
Finally, Fiorina on the campaign trail is an unknown quantity. Will she run a solid campaign? Can she? Other than Arnold, the GOP is borderline pathetic in statewide races here of late. Even Arnold has no pull past his persona. Fiorina causes some excitement because she is somebody. A national figure of sorts. No one else on the GOP side seems able to mount a statewide campaign. She'll have to answer questions - and, I'd guess, will be to the left of the GOP base on social issues. This is necessary if she expects Independents. But might dampen enthusiasm on the Right.
Boxer is a known quantity as a campaigner - and she's tougher than her press would lead one to believe. She holds the record for statewide votes in a contested election getting 6,955,728 in 2004. That's 210,000 more than Kerry got.
So from a year and a half out here is my prediction if Fiorina runs:
Fiorina - 52% Boxer 48%
Obviously, there are too many variables to know with any certainty. I assume Obama will be less popular. I assume this off year election, like most, will favor the party out of power. I assume Fiorina will run a solid campaign as a moderate (This is the least predictable factor.) Finally, I assume that Boxer will have worn out her welcome just enough to keep a chunk of coastal liberals at home.
I rarely write about my "day job" but something unnerving is happening in Hollywood, which I feel safe writing about anecdotally.
Next to no movies are being made. There are 5 major studios: Paramount, Warner Bros., Sony, Disney, and 20th Century Fox and a minor major- MGM. Then there are hundreds of smaller production companies that shepherd projects and are co-funded by big studios on individual films. I have it on good authority that one of the majors has exactly one film shooting, another has none, and by the looks of IMDB production charts the others have almost no films actually in production.
My experience tells me that most majors have 4-5 films going at once - most of the time. With smaller companies making films at all time. Certain time lines are always ball parked for a year: Summer tent pole movies (Transformers, Star Trek etc) an "Oscar contender" is in the works to be released in the Fall, a certain number of horror/romantic comedies/farces/family movies to spread throughout the year, and a holiday "feel good" movie. I have to alight on one studio lot every so often for work and the last time I was there it was a ghost town. Which is not normal. "Down time" for film production is traditionally December and January.
Though, it has not gotten national press, large layoffs have occurred at the major studios,in some cases entire departments have been eliminated. Box office has been good this summer- and yet layoffs continue and films are not being "green lit" - green lit means cash flows to start production.
(I also have it from a good, direct source that DVD sales have collapsed. )
As a "worker" in this town, I am directly or indirectly connected to many other "workers" (We - the unglamourous...often anti-glamorous...) and I keep hearing the same thing - no one is working.
This is odd. The myth in Hollywood is that it is not affected by recessions. This may have been true at one point. This downturn is different. I can give no surefire reason. But I do have a hunch. Movies are made on credit and credit is still tight or nonexistent. The banks, that we, the people, recapitalized, are still not lending. Certainly not to high risk ventures like a major film.
Unless things pick up soon - next summer could be "the summer without movies".
(FYI- The usual snark that "Hollywood should make better movies" doesn't hold water with me. Hollywood is capitalism in pure form. "Good" movies rarely make money. People pay for crap. Hollywood responds to this market. Transformers, possibly the worst piece of cinema since Ed Wood was a director, has grossed 700 million dollars. On the other hand, Imagine That an Eddie Murphy vehicle that I KNOW was sweet, charming, family fare full of "values" - bombed. It was not great - but it was exactly the kind of film the Hollywood detractors moan doesn't get made. They do get made - and they often fail. )
This may not seem all that important to many. Yet, the film business employs thousands - most free lance - and none of these people show up in unemployment statistics. I wonder - how many millions of others in other industries. are unemployed - and yet not counted as "unemployed"? I suspect the unemployment and underemployment rate is much higher than 9.6%.
Addendum:
The television business is fine. TV production is in full swing ensuring that we will be distracted this fall and well into the future....snark....
Actually, my real opinion is that we are in a golden age of television. Eliminate "reality tv" and much TV is astoundingly good. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Closer, In Plain Sight, and some others tell compelling stories, are tightly written, well acted, humane and honest. The Closer and In Plain Sight have 2 of the strongest female lead characters in memory. Mary McDonnell is on The Closer this season acting as a nemesis to Kyra Sedgewick - and...well...these are two women know their craft. There is some goooooooood acting going on....
Mad Men's rendering of sexism in American culture circa the early 60s occasionally takes my breath away. As does the remarkable precision of the entire show.
South Park, though not for everyone, is the best comedy about American culture since Norman Lear was working.
So the good news is that as the Depression goes on - we'll always have television....at least cable television...if we can afford it...
Just how much crow can one President eat? Add the Cambridge Police to an already distinguished list that includes Special Olympics kids, Rush Limbaugh, The CIA, AIG, and Dick Cheney
After speaking with Crowley on the phone the President said " I want to make clear that in my choice of words I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could have calibrated those words differently."
Earlier the Cambridge police union demanded an apology from Obama:
"I think the president should make an apology to all law enforcement personnel throughout the entire country who took offense to this," Stephen Killion, the president of the Cambridge Police Patrol Officer's Assn, said at a news conference in Cambridge. He was joined by Crowley and local and state union officials.
Not sure why adding "I am sorry" is so difficult for some people - Obama should have said those 3 words. But I commend him for calling Crowley and acknowledging his screw up.
As an Illinois state senator, Obama sponsored and lobbied for legislation that would give all inmates a post-conviction right to DNA evidence that he is President....
The Office of the (Obama) Solicitor General has adhered to Bush's position that the inmate does not have a constitutional right to re-test the DNA evidence, even though doing so could establish his innocence and despite the fact that his attorney will pay for the new scientific analysis of the evidence...The Obama DOJ aggressively argued before the (U.S. Supreme) Court that convicted criminals have no constitutional right to access evidence for DNA analysis. Indeed, its decision to embrace this extreme Bush position caused much controversy and anger back in February....
Interesting piece on Harvard's financial troubles here....with a cameo appearance by none other than the always gassy Larry Summers....where ever Larry goes financial collapse is sure to follow....
After it took 3 days for Obama to respond to the uproar over the AIG bonus he snapped "It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."
However, last night, without all the facts, Obama claimed that Cambridge police officers "behaved stupidly" in arresting Professor Gates for disorderly conduct.
Hmmm.
This alone should give one pause. It is a little insight into this POTUS's priorities. Rich executives looting the Treasury get a pause for deliberation and fact finding. Cops do not.
From a political standpoint it could not have been a worse word choice from a President. Especially this one. Not because he is biracial though. Because he presents to often as the effete professor to begin with. Calling working men and women - in any profession - "stupid" ranks with "bitter, gun clingers" as a remark soaked in class bias. That fact that this President's non - government job resume includes law offices, doling out cash for William Ayres, and "community organizing" doesn't help.
A friend called this morning and asked what I thought of Obama last night. I said I felt that the only news in that news conference was Obama's remark about Gates' arrest.
The code seems to be jumbled in blogger. I have no idea what happened here. It looked fine when I posted it last night. The more I try to fix it. The worse it gets. I have taken it down but will repost and feature it as soon as it is fixed.
Obama strikes me as being a bit annoyed with things like press conferences. Bush did too. Bush, however, solved the problem by not having them. A presidential speech from the oval office would help Obama's sale of health care more than a presser. Speeches from the oval office carry more weight and health care is certainly a big enough issue to rate one. Still, Obama's desire to be present on TV all the time has now limited this option. Every time he speaks he lessens his impact.
Powerful Presidents dictate terms behind the scenes and judiciously pressure in public. One can easily imagine LBJ twisting arms in the White House to pass Medicare. Though, Congress wrote the bill there is no doubt that it was LBJ's Great Society being born. Obama has not dictated the terms of this debate. Believe it or not, Pelosi has had more influence on the terms so far.
Obama presents like the nation's life coach, encouraging us - en mass - to make decisions that may cause discomfort but will be "good for us." Like gulping cod liver oil. But he is NOT a man on a mission. FDR's New Deal was a mission. Kennedy willed us into space. LBJ's Great Society was framed as a national cause. There is something pathetic about seeing him bend press questions into cheap talking points for a plan that is still being written.
Can anyone say in one sentence what Obama's health plan is? To insure everyone? No. To cut costs? Maybe, but how? To reign in rapacious insurance companies? Uh...depends on the day and who's talking.
I can explain several pieces of major progressive legislation in one sentence:
Social Security: To ensure that people have a safety net after their working years.
Medicare: To ensure health care for people after their working years.
Headstart: The answer is in the name. To give poorer children a leg up.
Tennessee Valley Authority: Electrify rural Tennessee.
Family Leave: Job security for families in transition or crisis.
All of FDR's alphabet soup programs were targeted and easy to grasp.
In each case conservatives insisted "liberty" was on death door. Nonsense.
What is circa 2009 health care reform about? Considering how well Obama branded himself in 2008 one would think he could sell us on health care reform...or at least brand it.
This fight is far from over. The personal stakes for Obama are extraordinarily high. He may yet win. Still, he's now caught in the same quicksand Mrs. Clinton was in 1993.
August is the cruelest month in American politics. Policies and politicians are destroyed in August. Ask Michael Dukakis. In 1988 he roamed around in his station wagon while Lee Atwater buried his chances of winning with TV ads about furloughed rapists. If health care reform is to be killed yet again it will be murdered in August.
Many months ago I stated that Obama's fault was in inspiring hope but no faith. Hope is a fine campaign tactic but potentially disastrous afterward. Real leaders do not inspire hope. They inspire faith. Americans had faith in FDR. Hope was the result - not the starting point. Hope is about the future and is therefore suited for first term campaigns. Faith is about the present - which is, of course, where we live. Obama does not inspire faith. As the health care debate unfolds this becomes more and more evident.
Generally I am not a fan of David Brooks. But his recent column is the latest I've seen that backs up my assertion that Obama is poisoning the Left - and will kill it.
The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes.
My thought on this is simple enough: Obama is not a liberal. At least in the FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, LBJ, Bobby Kennedy sense. Or a progressive like Teddy Roosevelt. Those leaders used their bully pulpits to put forth an agenda - a government agenda - that was geared toward helping people. Obama's agenda is geared toward paying off constituencies and is sheep dipped in the disastrous identity politics of the last 40 years. Corruption on the Right eventually morphs into corporatism - which we saw under Cheney. Corruption on the Left drifts into more obvious and cynical payoffs to specific groups. The "stimulus" bill being the latest grand example.
Obama compounds the problem by being a surprisingly weak executive - proving Hillary right again. He's allowed congress to mold his major agenda items - keeping a distance that looks not like wisdom, but sloth. I'm more convinced than ever that unless Obama will be adored in the process he doesn't invest much effort. One simply cannot imagine LBJ disengaging from Congress on any of his Great Society legislation. Then again Obama's never done any heavy lifting - always merely showing up at the last moment for the credit. Presidents can't play that game and and expect any respect from the hundreds of over sized egos on Capitol Hill. I am even a bit shocked at Obama's foolish decision to be so hands off. It is more akin to Coolidge than either Roosevelt.
The result: The stimulus is a galling display of wasted money. Cap and trade is a convoluted mess. The House health care bill contains some provisions that seem to actively seek to destroy the Democratic party. Please read A Toxic Health Care Proposal for more information.
The nation DID NOT GO LEFT last November. It didn't go Right either. The direction was simply - away from Bush. Pelosi, Reid, Obama and their handlers gravely mistook the election results. Or, they are too arrogant to care.
Now that the House and Senate bills are nearly complete Obama has decided to campaign. This is...well, how shall I put it? ...inexperience with a big dollop of arrogance on top. In fact, he may have made the exact same mistake as Clinton. Mrs. Clinton shut herself off - removing us and her husband's bully pulpit from the process until it was too late. Obama let congress do the work, removing himself from the process until now - and it may be too late. The latest polls are not good.
On the other hand - he may pull it off. If he fails to get something that looks vaguely like reform - for him at least - the ride down hill will be bumpy, steep and fast.
Regardless, if the health care is as big a jumbled mess as the other two major Obama bills so far - the Left is dead...dead...dead...and it should have seen the grim reaper coming....all the way from Chicago.
Sarah Palin's recent WaPo op-ed was a no-nonsense, concise outline of the contrasts between her positions on energy and Obama's Cap & Trade policy. Crisp and readable, Palin's piece underscored Obama's feeble, mealy-mouthed approach, and defined her own views in no uncertain terms.
Trouble is, whatever the faults of the present incarnation of the Cap & Trade plan, Palin's alternative is merely the warmed-over leftovers of the Oil Lobby. Her approach to energy is decidedly small-town, and she doggedly refuses to think outside of the box.
Palin observes that "American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy." Time to change the basis of our prosperity, then. The days of cheap energy are over for good. Instead of scrambling to stave off that inevitability for a few more years, as Palin intends, we need to boldly move in a new direction.
Palin correctly notes that "we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive!" No, the answer lies in: 1) conserving; 2) switching to renewable sources of energy. Palin says nothing about conserving. She can only think of oil and gas, oil and gas.
What sources for energy independence does Palin suggest? - the "mountains of gas and oil", to be developed by the benevolent private sector, to feed the habit of "hungry markets across America";
-The "abundant coal" that "technology is continuously making...into a cleaner energy source." Note the choice of words: "cleaner" not "clean"-coal is very, very dirty. Digging it up devastates entire landscapes. Burning it pollutes excessively;
-"The possibility of nuclear energy." Sarah is just paying lip service to nuclear, knowing that, given their lengthy construction times, nuclear plants will not address our immediate energy addiction.
Palin laments that "job losses are so certain under this new...plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector...So much for creating jobs." So much for "moving in a new direction," Sarah! Build large-scale solar plants, pay farmers to create ethanol, submit govt. contracts for wind turbines-that will create a lot more jobs than the moribund traditional energy sector. (Though the guys who came up with those talking Chevron cars will need to find new employment.)
Palin exhorts us to tap into "the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil." How about the energy resource created right over our heads? Solar power, either through small-scale photovoltaic, or large-scale solar steam turbines, or the secondary power in grains and grasses, is virtually unlimited. The technologies are ready to go, today.
We dink around with balky hydrogen cells to run cars, when with a trickle of solar-generated electricity we can separate hydrogen from water, put it in a cylinder and run our existing car engines on it. Ethanol is exceedingly easy to make, does not-despite FUD-have to use more energy to produce than it yields (and it tastes good when mixed with Tang.) A govt. program that sponsored local workshops, farms and small business to built & operate small hydrogen, methane or ethanol producing machines, wind & water turbines would boost the economy at the grass roots level, and greatly reduce our destruction of the environment. The draw-back, apparently a deal-breaker for Palin, is that home energy production, be it solar panels, hydrogen or ethanol stills, not only gives Americans energy independence from foreign nations, but from the big energy corporations as well.
Palin assures us that her plan is the best for the environment. "We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia?" But Palin presents a false dichotomy: either produce our own fossil fuels, or let foreigners provide it. A third option is a combination of conservation and renewable energy. Why Sarah ignores this very real option one can only guess at.
Palin purports to deeply care about the environment, and implies that fellow Americans, like the executives at Exxon, care a lot, too. Choose Exxon or the Chinese, she demands! As much as Palin loves the great outdoors, I have trouble accepting her sincerity. Why? She has no problem raiding ANWR, is why. That "tiny, 2,000 acre" refuge -so tiny that no one will miss it, Sarah?-is a unique and pristine habitat. Sane, pragmatic environmentalists all agree that drilling in ANWR would permanently degrade it. It also has about 6 weeks' worth of oil. Where do we drill six weeks later, Sarah? My best friend used to sell family heirlooms to buy coke, but then again he had an addiction just like we do with oil.
According to Palin, the cap & trade plan would "clobber every American consumer with higher prices. The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet." While no govt. initiative should unfairly burden those already struggling, this argument against cap & trade is sleight-of-hand. If done properly, a cap & trade plan only changes the relative costs of different energy sources. The environmental cost of fuels are factored into their price. Fossil fuels, which have disastrous impacts, get more expensive. Under a good cap & trade plan, renewable energy ought to get cheaper. This benefits all of us in the long-run. Some increase in energy prices is inevitable. That's because we've been along avoiding the true environmental cost of fossil fuels and an unchecked appitite for energy. We need to address that or perish.
The most severe economic impact never gets mentioned-when we run out of oil, which we will do before long, be it domestic or foreign, we'll abruptly find ourselves in a World of Shit. And when coastal cities start flooding due to global warming, Wall Street brokers will have to wear scuba gear on the trading floor.
Palin is a straight talker, refreshingly unafraid to take a strong position. But on energy, her position is dead wrong. It's uninspired, panders to the energy cartels, and would lead us to certain ruin, both economically and environmentally. Obama offers little in the way of real 'change', but Palin's proposal to extricate us from our present predicament is simply 'more of the same.' She needs to expand her horizons a bit.
Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:
Eric Holder, attorney general nominee was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.
Tom Vilsack secretary of agriculture was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association
William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractorRaytheon, where he was a top executive.
William Corr, the health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
Ron Klain , chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president's assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
