Political Kuchen

What should Obama do with McCrystal?

2010-06-22T18:16:00.000-07:00

First of all he should regard this as a gift.

Second he should fire McCrystal.

And third he should comb the available replacements for someone who understands that politics always trumps military.

Helen Thomas

2010-06-09T09:32:00.000-07:00

What do I think about the Helen Thomas fiasco? Whatever may be anyone's opinion, the Jews living in Israel/Palestine (choose your political slant) are not going to leave voluntarily. Getting rid of Israel would require a massive blood bath of unparalleled proportions. If you want that, then I don't understand.

War

2010-05-13T19:24:00.000-07:00

A recent news item seems to think that the Afghan war is nothing more than an extension of the almost constant war between India and Pakistan. Geographically this makes sense. The Taliban are people sent in to infiltrate from Pakistan. This is all quite logical.

Of course that means we are fighting on the Indian side while heavily subsidizing the Pakistani military. I think it is best to stay out of things you really don't understand at all.

This also probably means Al-Qaeda is an arm of the Pakistani military as well. Remind me again what we are doing there.

Meddling

2009-11-05T06:48:00.000-08:00

I was entertained by the exchange between the Pakistani ambassador and Hilary Clinton. As everyone knows, we have been heavily subsidizing the Pakistani military for decades. The only reason we would do this is so that they could support our military objectives. Why else? We are giving them money because they are so much nicer than others? Give me a break. We are giving them money so they can invade India? I don't think so.

So the US has gotten a bit bold with them and pointed out that our enemies have been living and operating with impunity within the borders of Pakistan. We would like it if they would please use some of this money we have been giving them to hunt down Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

So the ambassador said we were "interfering in the internal affairs of Pakistan."

Cute. So Hilary says they may of course feel free to just refuse to take the money. You don't like the strings, don't take the money. Easy decision. Love it. That's my girl.

health care

2009-07-25T12:12:00.000-07:00

I admit that I am puzzled by the debate on health care in the US. I understand clearly why everybody needs health care. I don't understand at all why anyone needs health care insurance. Just make them all civil service employees, assign them pay rates and get on with it.

Iran

2009-06-28T20:31:00.000-07:00

I think they won't be able to blame this one on anyone.

It's a good thing I'm not president

2009-06-26T16:29:00.000-07:00

If Ahmadinejad had told me to stop meddling in their internal affairs, I would have replied, "Fuck you." This is only one of a long list of reasons.

Emigration Policy

2009-06-23T15:54:00.000-07:00

It should be possible to calculate America's labor needs and extrapolate immigration requirements based on this calculation. This sounds like a task for the labor department. It would be my guess that any legitimate such calculation would show that we have plenty of high end people. Plenty of people would love to run the Bank of America. It's the low end that needs people. Why have an emotional breakdown over the fact that immigrants legal or illegal fill a real requirement?

It's true that I have been completely unable to see this issue. I want to know what the problem is before I start proposing solutions.

Iran

2009-06-23T12:34:00.000-07:00

It's hard to know what to say about this. It strongly resembles the overthrow of the Shah, and is probably run by the same people.

It meets our ideals in a mysterious way. We once held that the power of a government derives from the consent of the governed. What happens if they rise up and say that they do not consent? Do I think this means we are required to go in and rescue them? We have no idea if either side represents anything we would be for.

I think it must mean that large portions of the country don't like what their country has become any more than they liked what the Shah made it. The impression is that extraordinary force is being used to stop entirely peaceful demonstrations. Such forceful suppression of dissent can only mean dictatorship. Why is an Islamic dictator superior to a civil dictatorship? For me it's a meaningless distinction, but it isn't my country.

It isn't my country. We did the same things here when demonstrations we didn't like filled our streets.

It reminds me of the time of the Iraq invasion when I thought seriously of emigrating to Canada. I'd like to live somewhere where the country I lived in didn't think it had to decide about every goddamn thing that went on in the world. It's just not my country.

Bowing

2009-04-16T14:43:00.000-07:00

It certainly does look like Obama is bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia. My question is, Has he been there before? If he met the king before he was president, he may just have been doing what it did before. The president does not bow to anyone.

Terms of Use

2009-04-12T08:21:00.001-07:00

Does anyone ever read the terms of use? I know I don't. I just assume that the terms of use of anything are whatever you say they are. I assume that if I am doing something I'm not supposed to be doing, someone who gives a shit will tell me, and I will say, "Oops. OK. I won't do that any more." I no longer have space in my brain for lawyer talk.

The terms of use for Netflix are
a. I pay you money at regular intervals.
b. You send me dvds one at a time
c. I send them back when I get around to it.
d. Whereon you send me another one.
e. I am authorized to look at them, not copy and sell them.

Why does it have to be more complicated than that?

Bonuses

2009-03-26T03:15:00.000-07:00

Bonuses are given in February so a company will know how much profit was made in the previous year. A bonus reflects a distribution of portions of these profits. Get it, dim bulbs? No profit--no bonus. This is a handy rule of thumb. Especially when the bonus comes out of public bail out money, which I am withholding judgment on. For the time being.

If you go hugely into debt over the course of a year, and I, Uncle Sam, give you money to tide you over, under absolutely no circumstances whatsoever may you regard this as a profit. You have to earn the profit yourself. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Understanding Capitalism

2009-03-09T12:08:00.001-07:00

It is the duty of capitalists to spend all their waking moments thinking about how to make as much money as possible. To work properly this must be a completely unfettered activity. Worrying about bad effects isn't really part of the process.

It is the duty of government regulators to examine the activities of capitalists and make judgments about which are in the public interest and which are not. Nothing should be omitted from this examination process. Some activities should be forbidden and others strictly controlled, depending on how they are seen to affect the overall economy through up and down cycles. Particular attention must be paid to down cycles.

As a young person I read Theory of Countervailing Power by Galbraith. If you haven't read it, you should. Thinking you don't need both pieces is just plain dumb.

Simple path to nuclear disarmament

2009-03-09T12:04:00.000-07:00

Step one. I don't really intend to go past step one, but why not take step one and get it over with.

Calculate exactly how many megatons are required to completely destroy all life on earth, and then reduce our own stockpile to that level. Doesn't require negotiating or farting around with other countries. Doesn't require acting all superior and self righteous.

Just do it and get it over with. I understand this would save a ton of money.

Why it has to be called marriage

2009-03-02T15:14:00.000-08:00

I was listening to the radio today and it was reported that a gay marriage advocate and a leader of the opposition were reported to have reached a compromise. Everyone would be happy with a form of civil unions which they then described. Christians would be protected from having to recognize these "unions" as marriage.

The fundamental and in my opinion primary reason for promoting gay marriage GAY MARRIAGE is respect. Repeat respect. Yes the legal benefits are nice, but what one wants is that ones relationships are treated with respect. This is only achieved by calling it marriage.

Why American Cars Don't Sell

2009-02-26T20:35:00.000-08:00

In my youth in the fifties American cars were the sexiest things on the planet, and each year the car companies fought to make them even sexier.

Nowadays the only sex appeal the car makers can think of is to make huge ugly trucks and SUVs. Macho is the only kind of sexy. If the car is intended to be small, efficient and economical, they hate this and go into a kind of furious suicide wish. They make them as boring and ugly as possible. Remember Emma Peel's cars? Small cars can still be sexy. All that's required is for you to believe.

Bipartisanship

2009-02-14T10:01:00.000-08:00

Bipartisanship isn't really to be expected. Politics is about getting elected, so the best thing to do when your side is out is to lay back and wait for the in party to fall on its ass. Inevitably. You snipe from the sidelines and try really hard to make it look like the other side is to blame for everything that goes on. This isn't rocket science.

Setting Goals

2009-02-10T13:06:00.000-08:00

Logically life should proceed by
a. setting goals
b. trying to achieve them.

Do I have to mention that this is not the normal course of events?

The problem with modern day economic policy lies in step a. What is the goal of economic policy? Is it
a. maximizing global product or
b. maximizing domestic income?

I am definitely on the side of b. I could give a shit that China and India are thriving under free trade policy. The only thing I care about is
a. the maximum number of Americans are employed and
b. they are receiving the maximum possible salaries.

That's it. When those two things are achieved, I'm done. In order to evaluate the effects of free trade, I need to see that my two goals are in any way served by it.

As far as I am concerned, other countries are entirely on their own.

From Huffpo

2009-02-09T10:48:00.001-08:00

Here is the link. This is so much what I think that I have copied it to here. We have been systematically looting the ordinary citizens of American to support the global economy. It's time for serious rebellion:

Commentators like to beat up on ordinary Americans. They're accused of borrowing mindlessly, of greed and materialism. Yet high levels of debt and consumption were not the result of millions of individual decisions by consumers. They were the result of a deliberate economic 'regime change' in the 1970s -- that transformed the US economy, and cut American incomes as a share of GDP.

The Great Depression 2.0 is just beginning to unfold. Bankers are bailed out while making a grab for bonuses. Ordinary Americans by contrast, are already being bankrupted, made jobless, homeless and hungry -- in huge numbers. But until recently it was these Americans that were heroically driving the global economy forward.

They did this by borrowing and spending. But they were not 'naturally' inclined to borrow. They were driven to it. By stagnating incomes, and by the deliberate policies of government, regulators and bankers.

While wages and salaries shrank as a share of the economy -- to the lowest level since the government began recording data in 1947 -- banks showered Americans with credit cards. 'Easy money' was spread around like confetti. And government urged Americans to spend. George Bush famously said "Shopping is patriotic" in late September, 2001.

Then Bush-Cheney doubled the deficit, bankers gambled and Americans borrowed and shopped. Consumers maxed out on their credit cards and mortgages and worked harder and longer -- squeezed by the demand for higher productivity. By so doing, they played a gallant role in driving forward the engine of US economic growth.

They did more. They powered global economic growth. China owes a great deal to American consumers -- as does Europe.

Today these same consumers are punished mercilessly for their heroism.

Take the latest jobless numbers. A rise of nearly 600,000 in January. Electrifying. The highest in the US for 27 years -- and we're just at the beginning of Depression 2.0 -- courtesy of George Bush, the Federal Reserve and the reckless finance sector. There are now about 13 million Americans unemployed or under-employed. That's an awful lot of people. And a frightening level of individual and household stress, isolation and anger.

But it is worse than that. Not only have Americans lost jobs, income, health care and self-esteem -- they've lost their homes too. Last year there were 3,157,806 foreclosure filings -- an 81 percent increase from 2007 and a 225 percent increase from 2006. That's millions of Americans losing their family life, their comforts, their investments and their security. RealtyTrac projects another 2 million homes will be lost in this way over 2009.

And it gets even worse. By November, 2008, 31 million Americans needed government help for the most basic necessity of life -- food. This is an increase of 14% in just one year. And as the data is slow to catch up with layoffs, hundreds of thousands more will have joined the food stamps queue by now.

From 1945 to the 1970s Americans produced and manufactured food, goods and services -- in the post-war period called 'the golden age'.

They were dull but prosperous times. Sundays were Sundays. 24/7 was a distant reality. People had jobs. Companies made profits. Bank managers talked to their customers. And there were no financial crises -- at all -- between 1945 and the 1970s.

But this 'golden age' was to be overturned. The revolution was launched by a highly ideological group of economists -- mainly of the Chicago School.

Decision-makers in government and at the Fed, seduced by their economic theories -- decided that it would be better and more profitable if Americans stopped producing and making things. They argued that there was no harm in the United States relocating 4.5 million jobs abroad -- mainly to China -- between 2001 and 2009. US workers could switch to service jobs such as hairdressing, retail and real estate -- with long working hours.

The revolution was started by Chicago's first convert -- Richard Nixon in 1971. It was carried forward by the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Soon it became more profitable to grow money from money than to grow maize, textiles or steel.

Building up debts and deficits became acceptable. During the Bush-Cheney years the national debt doubled from $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion. 'Reagan proved ...deficits don't matter' said Dick Cheney in 2001.

Making money from money became the aim of economic policy. Chicago economists argued that private bankers could be trusted to create and distribute credit. That the US economy could safely be held aloft by a credit-fueled shopping spree. Shopping became the major economic activity.

Today the finance sector grabs more than 30% of domestic corporate profits -- double its share 25 years ago. And fully 75% of US GDP is down to personal consumption expenditures -- up from around 60% in the 1960s.

Today millions are jobless, homeless and hungry.

Their discontent threatens social upheaval and radical change. Another economic transformation will no doubt take root. But will the architects of America's financial collapse be identified and held to account for the suffering inflicted on millions of heroic and innocent American consumers? Or will it be the victims, once again, that will be blamed?

Economics

2009-02-08T06:21:00.000-08:00

I think when I am reading about economics that I see a lack of focus, a lack of standing back and looking at the big picture.

Why did America become an economic powerhouse in the first place? This was the result of the American state of mind, a place where it is believed that anything is possible. The American economy has always been extremely volatile. Businesses come and go. A store front might say "Since 1965," for instance. That's because in American terms that's a long time for a business to stay in the same location. In Italy one could imagine a sign that said "Since 1465." That would be something to brag about in old world terms.

I am writing these things because I am not seeing any sense in the media treatment of this subject.

In the larger picture volatility is good. If a business isn't cutting it, it is best for everyone if it fails and makes room for someone else. This logically includes General Motors.

I confess I am not comfortable extending this volatility to banks. Is it good for everyone if Bank of America fails? I'm honestly not sure. But then I am also not sure the government should extend loans so they can buy Merrill Lynch.

The superiority of the American economy derives from the individual American. We invent freely. We embrace the new. We both make and consume innovation with great enthusiasm. This is what makes us strong.

It is now almost 30 years since Ronald Reagan began the by now conventional wisdom that all economic objectives can be obtained by cutting taxes. This has resulted in huge growth by large corporations whose taxes have been cut and very little growth in the welfare of ordinary Americans whose taxes have generally not been cut.

I judge economic success solely on the basis of how well off the individual American is. I see the ordinary American trying to retain the sense of prosperity through increasing emphasis on borrowing. We want the illusion of prosperity and achieve it on credit. In the past people borrowed to purchase houses and cars. Now they borrow to purchase everything.

I think current free trade low taxes economic theory ignores the importance of the individual. We the ordinary American consumers are what drives the global economy. If our needs are perpetually ignored in favor of the needs of large multi-national corporations, can the global prosperity survive?

Unrequited Love

2009-02-06T21:49:00.001-08:00

While I am thinking about it, one or two of my unrequited loves became something nice.

There is D whom I adore and go to visit as often as I can.
There is U who likes to sit in cafes and talk about the opera.

It adds a certain buzz to the relationship.

With me it was the requited ones that generally got me into trouble.

The current state of economics

2009-02-06T21:07:00.000-08:00

I was listening to the radio to commentators on economics, and one of them was claiming that government regulation was bad and offered as proof the fact that credit swaps were not traded on a stock exchange. Trading them outside the stock exchange was called regulation and placing them for trade on the stock exchange was called deregulation. Well, guess what? Stock exchanges are regulated. In fact it was their regulated qualities that were sited for why they were desirable. (I'm for outlawing credit swaps altogether.)

One despairs. Listening to people talk about economics could make you cry and pull out your hair. I'm convinced whether or not things go well is just a coincidence.

I would like to propose a criterion for judgment. How will the product or behavior act in a bear market?

How will we feel about all these dicey mortgages when the unemployment rate is rising?

How desirable will credit swaps be when they are called upon to actually do something when businesses start to fail?

Think worst case scenario. I think it would be best to consider these things in advance.

In the conversation of these radio economists regulation seems to be equated with all government action by the public sector. We aren't proposing that all people appointed to government office are wise, or that decisions by government employees are naturally superior to those made in the private sector. Think Alan Greenspan.

I'm sure the average person has in mind that logical rules for economic activity will be set up and enforced, such as one assumes occurs at the SEC, and that this is what one means by regulation.

One begins to wonder if it is possible to know anything at all about economics.

Zen

2009-02-05T21:27:00.001-08:00

Love

2009-02-04T15:01:00.000-08:00

OC has this quote:

Anonymous: "Love that we cannot have is the one that lasts the longest, hurts the deepest and feels the strongest..."

Does it count that you had it and then lost it? I have had the habit of unrequited loves all my life, but I feel and regret none of them today.

Denying the Holocaust

2009-02-04T08:49:00.001-08:00

Every now and then people come on the scene who want to believe the holocaust didn't happen.

All I know is what I have experienced personally.

In Ulm in Germany where I lived in the middle seventies there was a sign on the side of one of the department stores telling that this is where the synagogue had stood and what year it had been burned down.

Now there is no synagogue because there is no one to go there. Why is there no Jewish subculture in modern Germany as there was in the past? If there was no holocaust, where did they all go?

Pakistan

2009-01-27T11:16:00.000-08:00

For years I have been saying the problem wasn't Iraq, it was Pakistan. It's an odd situation. They are our ally and have been for many years, but why is a little hard to figure out. We send them chunks of money to bolster their military so it can get into fights with India. I fail to see that American interests are in any way aided by fighting with India. I would just tell Pakistan to grow up and learn to get along. I would also precondition military aid with tests for what they were doing with the money. Each attack on India would mean x amount subtracted from aid.

What we need is for Pakistan to control activities within its own borders. This problem is undoubtedly political. Constituencies get all warm and fuzzy when politicians talk about attacking India, but no one gets that warm all over feeling when talking about identifying domestic terrorists. Apparently. People love their own private bigotries.

History

2009-01-20T09:31:00.000-08:00

Mohammed Ali is there on the podium for the inauguration. On MSNBC they showed a long shot of him and talked about him as a freedom fighter. I have lived to see this.

Evil

2009-01-16T13:38:00.000-08:00

I was watching Joyce Meyer this morning (yes, this is one of my many insanities) and she was talking about the book of Romans to people from India. This led me to want to say something.

The message of peace is ancient. Gandhi changed India with it. Martin Luther King changed America in a way that few Americans would have thought possible. But Paul said it first: overcome evil with good.

If there is anything I would say to militant Moslems, it is to look to the teachings of others if you cannot find it in your own religion. The most powerful force on earth is the force for good because it changes the world from the inside out.

Overcome those who do you wrong with love. Nothing can stop it.

Farewell

2009-01-15T21:46:00.000-08:00

I fantasized George Bush's farewell address something like this:

April Fool!

But then I heard he'd already given it.

Israel

2009-01-04T08:14:00.000-08:00

There's no point in writing about this without telling the truth.

I have a friend who was raised in Iran and sees Israel from that perspective. I was trying to explain our perspective. Elements of that perspective are:

*Large numbers of Jews were slaughtered in the holocaust during WWII, and the remaining ones no longer felt safe living in Europe, or perhaps in any country where the majority population was not Jewish. Israel was chosen for this safe place because of its ancient, ancestral status as the promised land of Abraham and Moses. To function as a haven for Jews the population must be majority Jewish.

*Large numbers of American Christians also believe that Israel is the Jewish promised land, that it was assigned to them by God as their homeland, and that their right to it comes from God. [Please note: I am just explaining, not defending.] This, and the large numbers of American Jews, is the explanation for the level of support the US gives to Israel.

*Israel is a country based on a religion, an idea that is generally considered outdated. However, countries that enforce Sharia may also be considered to be based on religion. This is the opposite of separation of church and state as we define it here. Many American religious people would like religion to control certain government decisions, such as abortion and gay marriage, too. We like to act superior, but don't quite come up to snuff.

I am not religious but was raised religious. I know what people think and why they think it while not thinking it myself.

On the subject of Israel's right to exist I find myself able to see both sides. Moslems argue that they want to create a secular state while often denying religious freedom, persecuting Curds, Christians, Jews and any other group they find in their own countries. This argument is therefore seen to be specious.

If I cede to Israel its right to exist and the process through which it came into existence, namely by displacing large numbers of Moslems into the west bank and Gaza, I am still left with a problem.

*Israel's majority Jewish country is achieved by denying normal political rights to the actual majority population. This problem might be solved by moving all the American Jews to Israel, but they don't seem to want to go, except maybe on vacation.

However one might view all the above information, one is still left with this basic fact. I don't use this fact to form the basis for thinking Israel should be overthrown. I view the situation differently.

I see Israel as responsible for every small detail of these people's lives. If you want me to sympathize with your desire to deny political freedom to large bodies of people, then I need to see you taking responsibility for them. Why are there no sewers in Gaza? And what are you doing about it? If they have any complaints about how you treat them, I expect you to fix them. You created this situation, actively desired it, so that makes you responsible. Stop bellyaching and get to work.

McLaughlin Group

2009-01-03T10:36:00.000-08:00

John McLaughlin was right on last night. While the group members gave trivial answers to his year end questions, he went for the heavy issues. The current economic meltdown may actually be caused by globalism itself. And 2008 definitely saw the end of capitalism.

Which all goes to prove my own theory of economics: trickle up. I arrived at this conclusion based on a reaction to the trickle down theory of Ronald Reagan, obvious bogus. It is the buying power of the American consumer that drives the global economy. No American consumer clout, no global economy. Moving all the jobs overseas means taking away our clout. We've been trying to maintain our superiority through credit buying, but obviously this can only go so far.

Thus trickle up. Wealth trickles up from the masses, and until we realize that we are doomed.

Marriage Wisdom

2009-01-02T12:21:00.000-08:00

At breakfast this morning a friend mentioned that she knew someone who once told her "My last three husbands have all been pedophiles."

This gives one pause. Friend went on to ask where she had met these gentlemen, and she said at church. Friend took this to be something against church in general, but I took it to mean that when she met these gentlemen she was accompanied by her children. We both recommended meeting men in bars. No one would go to a bar looking to meet women with children.

Friend of friend went on to meeting men at a choral society where her children would not be present. This worked much better.

Answer to all sex questions

2008-12-31T04:49:00.000-08:00

Sex is. Nothing you can think of will change this. Making people promise not to have sex is just one more thing that doesn't change the fact that sex is.

Cultures of the past, and in some parts of the present world, addressed this issue by enslaving the female part of the population. If females are kept separated from men, then they can't be having sex with them. This is the only approach that has proven to work.

Western cultures have chosen something called women's liberation, a situation where women are allowed to go around freely. This is going to result in sex. The alternative to a lot of sex is female enslavement. Take it or leave it.

I personally think male enslavement is a more logical option, but they're bigger and stronger.

Gay Marriage

2008-12-09T09:11:00.000-08:00

Alan and Denny got married last night on Boston Legal in the final episode of that series. They were married by Justice Scalia. Gays protested since they were obviously not gay. Why shouldn't anyone marry anyone else? I don't get the fuss.

Traditional marriage that conservatives want so enthusiastically to defend meant that the woman passed from being owned by her father to being owned by her husband. Why should anyone want to defend that?

Prop 8

2008-11-17T10:59:00.000-08:00

I will probably talk around the edges of this issue, but here goes.

On the one side is a bunch of people who want to get married and aren't allowed to. For these people this is extremely important, vital to the daily experience of their lives.

On the other side is a bunch of people for whom this whole issue is basically meaningless. They don't really know any gay people and would prefer that they never did. If somewhere there are gay people marrying, their lives will be completely unaffected. Unless they own a wedding store where their business will prosper. Their children might find out this is happening. Well, guess what? They will anyway. This group wants to cause suffering to other people just to feel that their fantasies are true.

Probably prop 8 isn't any more legal than the previous proposition that the supreme court overturned.

My recommendation is to get over it. Grow up and move on.

This is a lot more straight forward than I imagined it would be.

Starbucks

2008-11-17T09:38:00.000-08:00

Quote:

'According to friends, three weeks ago, Cendant Corp. founder Henry Silverman "abruptly" told his wife of almost 30 years, Nancy, that it was "over," and "moments later moved out of their apartment on East 72nd Street."

'In fact, insiders told Page Six that last spring, Henry, 68, met a hot, blond 28-year-old woman from the Midwest while in line at Starbucks at Columbus Circle. Henry chatted her up, gave her his number and told her, "Google me."'

I always go to that Starbucks when I am in New York. Once I met with my financial adviser there. A red Ferrari was sitting at the curb, and I asked him, "If I spent all the money I have, could I afford to buy that car?" Sadly, the answer was no.

Liberal Media

2008-11-17T09:10:00.000-08:00

My tirade about people shouting in Republican rallies came from watching Keith Olbermann. He's sort of a natural tirader, really too emotional and volatile for me. Rachel Maddow with her mild humor is more my speed.

After hearing all my life about the "liberal media," it's nice that finally there is one. I suppose if you are completely fascist it all seemed liberal to you. Now we have MSNBC and The Huffington Post to show us what a liberal media would actually be like.

In Sacramento we have the remnants of the Sacramento Union to show us what unfettered right wing media would be like. Sarah Palin was their candidate. In the old days we saw nothing but a pale abstraction of reality.

Agenda

2008-11-15T08:30:00.002-08:00

What are the big issues?

Financial meltdown.
2 wars.
Health care crisis.

Naturally I have opinions on all these subjects. Who doesn't?

I could rant endlessly about the financial meltdown alone. And probably will.

Why isn't it enough that the Iraqi government wants us out? The clearest thing I can say on this subject is that our military presence in the middle east is part of the problem. Would we like it if there were a lot of Arabs with guns patrolling our streets? Democracy is a flower that grows only in its native soil. It can't be artificially grown in an American military hothouse. The idea that all violence must cease before we can withdraw is a self-canceling phrase. These remarks are not intended to criticize the American military. It would be helpful, however, if they and their political leaders would learn to recognize what are military problems and therefore solvable by armies and what are not. Kuwait was a military problem fully solved by a military response. The present activities in Iraq are best described as nation building.

Off the subject question: Would someone please explain to me why placing missiles in Poland is not a provocation to Russia? "Because we say it isn't" will not be regarded as responsive. Suppose Khrushchev had said the missiles in Cuba were for shooting at Mexico and therefore not a provocation to the US? Would we have bought that?

After spending all this money on the bailout, health care starts to sound cheap. Just do it and get it over with. This is a problem we can fully expect to simply go away.

The case for long elections

2008-11-08T08:21:00.000-08:00

Spending money is good. Stop moralizing about how much money is spent on presidential elections. Just get over. If you have money, you should spend it. Preferably you should spend it this month. It would help if the 100 richest Americans would each buy 100 cars a piece. Don't put it off. Buy them now.

To get to know someone really well requires a lot of exposure. Not every political candidate becomes the kind of comedic icon of a Sarah Palin. Most have to work very hard getting their names, faces and ideas into the media.

When Obama and Clinton were battling their way through the primaries, I was practically alone in thinking this was good for the process. By staying in the contest Clinton kept Obama in the press. We got to know him better. She is probably responsible for the fact that he is now the president elect. She was much better known and did not need this extra boost.

Running for president also changes a person. It changed McCain into an angry, bitter person we didn't turn out to like very much.

It changed Hillary Clinton into someone we liked for the first time. We admired and respected her before, though we didn't exactly understand her, but by the end she had changed into someone rather likable. This was the biggest surprise of the election for me.

I didn't know Obama before, but he seemed to loosen up toward the end. Maybe he will enjoy being president enough to let us enjoy it, too. I haven't enjoyed anyone since Jack Kennedy, whom I was too young to vote for. Besides, I probably would have voted for Nixon, the only politician I ever shook hands with.

Obama seems rather formal, even stiff sometimes, so it would not be good if that was all we got to see of him. We can hope he has changed into someone who is comfortable with being watched all the time. He seems remarkably unparanoid. I wish him and us well.

I feel proud

2008-11-04T08:13:00.000-08:00

In this moment I feel proud of us. While across the globe there are countries fighting against the ethnicity next door, America has just elected an African-American president. All the analyses say that race played no role. It's hard to imagine that that is even possible. We are still a beacon to the world. We overcame our deepest bigotry, and you can too.

John McCain gave the best speech of his run this evening.

P.S. The worst thing about Republicans is when they stand in front of a crowd of red necked white people and call them the "real Americans." We are all the real Americans. I want to say this as unambiguously as possible--this is the reason I have never voted for a Republican. I never want my vote to be an insult to another American.

If they wished to refer to themselves as stereotypical Americans, I would have no objection.

Excitement

2008-11-02T08:20:00.000-08:00

This is the most exciting American election I have ever experienced. Something wonderful appears to be happening. My friends are afraid to say it out loud. We are hoping as hard as we can hope that intelligence will win over fear and hate. Even I went in and phoned people for an hour. We are hoping that so many people will vote that all the cheating in the world will mean nothing. We are hoping most of all that hope will win.

Plagiarism

2008-10-21T08:19:00.000-07:00

If you read this blog, you will know he stole this from me. Even the wording is practically the same. Plagiarism.

If They're Too Big To Fail, They're Too Big Period
via Robert Reich's Blog by Robert Reich on 10/21/08
According to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the biggest Wall Street banks now getting money from the government are just "too big to fail.” Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke uses a different euphemism – he calls them “systemically critical.” The point is that if any of them goes down, it could take the whole financial system with it. So we taxpayers have to keep them up.

We’re hearing the same argument elsewhere in Washington for saving General Motors. It’s just “too big to fail.” So Congress is considering a bailout that would keep GM afloat and sweeten a merger between GM and Chrysler.

Pardon me for asking, but if a company is too big to fail, maybe – just maybe – it’s too big, period.

We used to have public policies to prevent companies from getting too big. Does anyone remember antitrust laws? Somewhere along the line policymakers decided that antitrust would only be used where there was evidence a company had so much market power it could keep prices higher than otherwise.

We seem to have forgotten that the original purpose of antitrust law was also to prevent companies from becoming too powerful. Too powerful in that so many other companies depended on them, so many jobs turned on them, and so many consumers or investors or depositors needed them – that the economy as a whole would be endangered if they failed. Too powerful in that they could wield inordinate political influence – of a sort that might gain them extra favors from Washington.

Maybe the biggest irony today is that Washington policymakers who are funneling taxpayer dollars to these too-big-to-fail companies are simultaneously pushing them to consolidate into even bigger companies. They’ve prodded Bank of America to take over Merrill-Lynch and Countrywide. JP Morgan to acquire Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns. And now they’re urging General Motors to absorb Chrysler.

So we’re ending up with even bigger giants, with even more power over the economy and politics, subsidized by taxpayers, and guaranteed never to fail because they’re just ... too big.

Proposal

2008-10-20T08:17:00.000-07:00

Here's my idea. It appears to be becoming a habit that we rescue companies with big chunks of government money because they are "too big to fail."

What if we decided that if they are too big to fail, they are also too big? Period. What if we decided that this was the perfect definition for the violation of anti-trust? What if the condition for accepting government bailouts was that you had to break your company up into a lot of small ones?

I thought of this the other day and have become quite fond of it. Then these nice small companies could die to their heart's content. There would be a transition, just as there is with any anti-trust break-up.

It would be the company's choice: work out your own solution to your financial problems or accept government money and break up into smaller companies. For me this is a traditional capitalist solution, contrasting sharply with the socialist solution where the government buys into the corporations.

Republicans

2008-10-16T08:07:00.000-07:00

The Republicans did well when they nominated John McCain. They did well because he was the only well known Republican that was perceived as at least a little bit independent of George Bush.

Then they messed it up by failing to establish a campaign that clearly distinguished John McCain from W. There is nothing about the administration of George W Bush that we want to continue. If we can't tell the difference between Bush and McCain, Obama wins.

Greenspan

2008-10-09T08:15:00.000-07:00

All this hind site is starting to get on my nerves. The NY Times is now ragging on Alan Greenspan, blaming him for everything. I can remember when he was practically sainted.

I would like to remind everyone that I sold my house two years ago and now live in a ratty apartment because I completely saw this coming. It's almost time to buy. Not quite. Now that everyone has seen the light, things may start to improve.

McCain

2008-09-16T08:12:00.000-07:00

For 5 minutes I thought I might vote for John McCain. He seems less slimy than Republicans usually do, more real, less knee jerk laissez-faire capitalist kiss-ass oil business flunky. (Yes, this is a precisely accurate representation of my opinion of the other party.)

Or did. In the last month this has all changed. If he wins based on his current tactics, I will be back to wanting to emigrate. His campaign is based on the idea that their is no bottom--one might continue to descend in the area of campaign tactics indefinitely. Intelligence, truth, honor are now all irrelevant.

I would like to remind everyone that he is already old and starting to show normal amounts of memory failure and dementia. Do you really want the endless comedy that a Palin presidency would involve? Maybe there is such a thing as too much laughter.

Looks Like...

2008-09-15T08:09:00.000-07:00

In an informal office poll 41% of Entertainment Weekly staff think

Sarah Palin looks like

Tina Fey. Let's hope it's all a comedy routine.

Follow up: Tina Fey to play Palin on SNL.