The President and the Pope.

George and Dick star in a Wizard of Oz re-make.

Help!

A comment from God.

Connecticut apologizes.

‘Nuff said.
14 Wednesday Jan 2009
Posted in Politics, Uncategorized
12 Monday Jan 2009
Posted in Politics, Uncategorized
Tags
Gaza, Israeli, Joe, Pajamas TV, war correspondent, Wurzelbacher
For those who weren’t aware, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the lying, tax-evading, publicity seeking, camera hound, is now a war correspondent, covering the ongoing conflict in Gaza for that esteemed institution of journalism known as Pajamas TV.
Yesterday, in the Israeli town of Sderot, these pearls of wisdom were harvested from the oyster shell that is the mind of Mr. Wurzelbacher:
“I’ll be honest with you. I don’t think journalists should be anywhere allowed war. I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what’s happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I-I think it’s asinine. You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you’d go to the theater and you’d see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for’em.”
Speaking of World War II and journalists Joe, ever heard the name Ernie Pyle? And no, before you ask, he’s no relation to Gomer.
But Joe wasn’t finished yet:
“I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you’re gonna sit there and say, ‘Well look at this atrocity,’ well you don’t know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it.”
I know what you’re thinking, nobody can be this stupid, right? These words must be taken out of context. Nope, here it is:
I can see it now, Palin/Wurzelbacher, the Republican ticket in 2012.
05 Monday Jan 2009
Posted in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized
The details of President-elect Barack Obama’s proposed economic stimulus package are starting to emerge, and to be frank, I am less than impressed by what I have seen so far. From the New York Times:
“President-elect Barack Obama plans to include about $300 billion in tax cuts for workers and businesses in his economic recovery program, advisers said Sunday, as his team seeks to win over Congressional skeptics worried that he was too focused on government spending.
The legislation Mr. Obama is developing with Congressional Democrats will devote about 40 percent of the cost to tax cuts, including his centerpiece campaign promise to provide credits up to $500 for most workers, costing roughly $150 billion. The package will also include more than $100 billion in tax incentives for businesses to create jobs and invest in equipment or factories.”
I understand the need to fulfill the campaign promise of a middle-class tax cut, and giving businesses incentives for creating jobs, but it seems to me that devoting 40% of the stimulus package to tax cuts is too much.
Here’s a chart from Moody’s that shows “bang for the buck” when it comes to tax cuts vs. government spending. The figures are dollars added to the GDP in relation to dollars spent.

As you can see, the greater boost to the GDP comes from the last four spending increases rather than tax cuts or rebates.
But the thing that bothers me most about the proposed package is the reason for making tax cuts such a large part. From the Wall Street Journal:
“The size of the proposed tax cuts — which would account for about 40% of a stimulus package that could reach $775 billion over two years — is greater than many on both sides of the aisle in Congress had anticipated. It may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.”
I respect President-elect Obama’s desire for bi-partisanship, but isn’t it the suddenly fiscally conservative Republicans, whose policies of big tax cuts, un-regulated markets, and laissez-faire capitalism, have put us into the economic ditch in which we now find ourselves?
Also, the President-elect, and virtually every economist worthy of the title has said that our current economic predicament calls for unprecedented, bold actions. I don’t see kowtowing to Republicans as either unprecedented or bold. It reeks of same old, same old to me.
I realize that Democrats passing a stimulus package by a straight party line vote in the House, and by picking off one or two moderate Republicans in the Senate, is a big gamble. If it works, Democrats get all the credit, if it doesn’t they get all the blame.
But to bring it down to simple terms that I can understand, every gym that I have ever walked into in my 52 years has a sign with some variation of the theme, “No guts, no glory.” I think that’s what the majority of us voted for in November, and that’s what we expect, a different way of how business is done in D.C. Isn’t that what “change” is all about?
10 Wednesday Dec 2008
Posted in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags
Corrupt politicians are nothing new to Americans, and are as familiar as an old pair of shoes to the people of the state of Illinois when it comes to their governors. Consider Rod Blagojevich’s four immediate predecessors.
George Ryan (1999-2003) was convicted of 16 charges of conspiracy, fraud, and lying under oath, and now makes his home in federal prison. By the way, the prosecutor who put Ryan in the crossbar hotel was none other than Patrick Fitzgerald. Does that name ring a bell, Blago?
James Edgar (1991-1999) was indicted, but not charged, with giving a sweetheart deal to a major campaign contributor.
James Thompson (1977-1991) appears to be the cleanest of the recent lot. He never had any legal problems, but his law firm did represent Ryan. By comparison to the other governors, that would make Thompson Snow White.
Daniel Walker (1973-1977) was sentenced to 7 years in a federal prison for participating in a savings and loan scandal after he left office.
So if Blagojevich goes to jail the state of Illinois will be 3 for 5 in governors spending time behind bars. And before anyone screams “liberal Democrats” just for the record the corruption is bi-partisan, Blagojevich and Walker are Democrats, Ryan and Edgar are Republicans.
But corrupt is one thing. Corrupt, arrogant, and stupid is the trifecta that will ensure some serious time in the federal pen, and on these counts Blagojevich is 3 for 3. Consider that he said this on Monday:
Blagojevich made these remarks knowing that; (a) he has long been in the cross-hairs of the US Attorney who put his predecessor behind bars, and ( b) that US Attorney has a well-established reputation for being a pit bull when it comes to prosecuting corruption involving public officials.
Corrupt, check. Arrogant, check. Stupid, check and checkmate. Congratulations Governor Blagojevich, the next position for you to sell to the highest bidder will be that of cell mate.
01 Monday Dec 2008
Posted in Election 2008, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized
With all due respect to Timothy Geithner, Lawrence Summers, and the rest of President-elect Obama’s economic team, there is one name I would like to have seen included on that list–that of Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman.
Here’s why. From a Krugman op-ed piece in the New York Times recently:
“A few months ago I found myself at a meeting of economists and finance officials, discussing — what else? — the crisis. There was a lot of soul-searching going on. One senior policy maker asked, “Why didn’t we see this coming?”
There was, of course, only one thing to say in reply, so I said it: “What do you mean ‘we,’ white man?”
Seriously, though, the official had a point. Some people say that the current crisis is unprecedented, but the truth is that there were plenty of precedents, some of them of very recent vintage. Yet these precedents were ignored. And the story of how “we” failed to see this coming has a clear policy implication — namely, that financial market reform should be pressed quickly, that it shouldn’t wait until the crisis is resolved.
About those precedents: Why did so many observers dismiss the obvious signs of a housing bubble, even though the 1990s dot-com bubble was fresh in our memories?
Why did so many people insist that our financial system was “resilient,” as Alan Greenspan put it, when in 1998 the collapse of a single hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management, temporarily paralyzed credit markets around the world?
Why did almost everyone believe in the omnipotence of the Federal Reserve when its counterpart, the Bank of Japan, spent a decade trying and failing to jump-start a stalled economy?
One answer to these questions is that nobody likes a party pooper. While the housing bubble was still inflating, lenders were making lots of money issuing mortgages to anyone who walked in the door; investment banks were making even more money repackaging those mortgages into shiny new securities; and money managers who booked big paper profits by buying those securities with borrowed funds looked like geniuses, and were paid accordingly. Who wanted to hear from dismal economists warning that the whole thing was, in effect, a giant Ponzi scheme?”
Put more succinctly by Upton Sinclair:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
Mr. Krugman’s conclusion, and one I hope is heeded by the Obama administration, is that now is the time not only to focus on the short-term crisis, but to make the long-term fixes that will prevent the next one from occurring.
16 Sunday Nov 2008
Posted in Election 2008, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags
Speaking of knee-jerk Republican reaction to the election of Barack Obama, there’s this from the desk of Michael Reagan (bold letters, caps and underlines are Reagan’s, not mine):
“Dear Conservative Friend,
It’s official: America has its first truly Socialist president…
As bad as the election results were, I believe there IS “light at the end of the tunnel” — I believe we now have the opportunity to finally turn out these fake “leaders” that have betrayed conservatism and given us Barack Obama. We have the opportunity to bring back the Reagan wing of the Republican Party, to slow down the socialist legislation from Pelosi and Reid, and to restore this great Republic to its original ideals of basic self-evident truths: our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This is our chance, friend. It may be our ONLY chance to save our Party — and it may be our LAST chance to save our country.
You can be sure that President Obama (oh, how that phrase terrifies me!) will get right to work on Day One, issuing Executive Orders that will make your skin crawl: repealing pro-life presidential directives, ordering agencies to fund far-left groups like ACORN and the ACLU, signing over American sovereignty to the United Nations and the European Union… he’s got a long list! But for every liberal (and usually unconstitutional) Executive Order that Barack Obama issues, we’ll alert our Activists to BARRAGE the White House with even MORE phone calls, faxes, emails and even hand-delivered letters and petitions, DEMANDING that he “reverse course” on those Orders or face a Republican Congress in 2010!
With the Democrats back in power in both Congress and the White House, you KNOW that they’ll be falling right back into their habits of taking lobbyists’ money under the table, trading votes for campaign contributions, spying on and sabotaging Republican legislative plans, covering up their leaders’ sexual “flings,” and spending taxpayer money on personal expenses like never before. But this time, YOU AND I will be there every step of the way, making sure that no stone is left unturned, every dark corner is filled with light, and every illegal act is paid for with censure, impeachment, recalls, investigations, and jail time for every criminal we expose in Washington, D.C.
My father wasn’t afraid to call evil what it was — and neither am I. He defeated the “Evil Empire” called the Soviet Union — but now we face a new “Evil Empire.” It’s called Socialism, and it’s taken over our once-free nation through the victories of Obama, Pelosi and Reid.”
Nice job Michael, now that your Party is in that hole, just keep digging.
16 Sunday Nov 2008
Posted in Election 2008, McCain, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized
Something that was kind of overlooked in the aftermath of the presidential election were remarks made by Senator John Kyl, Republican from Arizona and the second highest ranking Republican in the United States Senate. His words say a lot about the GOP strategy going forward, and here’s a clue: It ain’t bi-partisanship.
Kyl said this to the Federalist Society on November 8, four days after the election:
“Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal.
Kyl, Arizona’s junior senator, expects Obama to appoint judges in the mold of U.S Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. Those justices take a liberal view on cases related to social, law and order and business issues, Kyl said.
“He believes in justices that have empathy,” said Kyl, speaking at a Federalist Society meeting in Phoenix. The attorneys group promotes conservative legal principles.
Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster.”
First Senator Kyl, a little Constitutional lesson for you. The president does not appoint Supreme Court justices, he nominates them and the Senate confirms or rejects the nomination. Just a minor detail.
Secondly, David Souter? Excuse me Senator Kyl, are you aware of who nominated Justice Souter? It was that radical, left-wing, extremist, George H. W. Bush.
Third, and the thing that struck me, is the last sentence of Kyl’s remarks. Senator Kyl would filibuster any judges who base their decisions on the factors of the case?
What the…??
One more thing for Senator Kyl to consider is this:
According to CNN exit polls, those who claimed that the Supreme Court was a factor in their decision in the presidential election, broke for Obama 53-45% and voters who called future Supreme Court appointments the most important factor went for Obama even more strongly– 57 to 41%.
14 Friday Nov 2008
Posted in Election 2008, McCain, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags
Barack Obama, McCain, Palin, presidential campaign, Republican Party, talk radio, the real Obama
There was much written and said during the recent presidential campaign about the supposed “mystery” surrounding now President-elect Barack Obama. Senator McCain and Governor Palin, along with the Republican Party spokespersons and their allies on talk-radio, often raised the question, “Who is the real Barack Obama?”
Their contention was that his thin record as a United States Senator gave us no clue as to what kind of president he might be or how he might govern if elected. The right threw around buzz words like “the most liberal member of the Senate” and pointed to Obama’s “radical associations” in an attempt to portray him as a far-left ideologue who would carry that ideology into the Oval Office.
As is brought out in a post on today’s Moderate Voice, there is a much better guidepost to how President-elect Obama will govern than his time in the Senate, and that is his tenure as president/editor of the Harvard Law Review.
According to the post:
“The environment at Harvard during Obama’s matriculation was rife of protests and peaceful sit-ins of the Dean’s Office and other faculty. Divergent activist groups of blacks, Hispanics and others demanded more diversity among the composition of law professors.In this divisive setting, Obama was selected to join The Harvard Review, the most prestigious publication of any law school in America. His peers elected him president/editor of the group his third and final year at Harvard.
Juan Zuniga (a law student one year behind Obama) said Obama’s emergence in the selection process was “a neutral, middle-ground, non-threatening, non-ideological candidate.”
His (Zuniga’s) impressions of Obama from friends on the Harvard Law Review and faculty were “that he was not perceived as an ideologue by those who knew him. Rather, he has an incredible facility to listen to other people, consider their positions, respect their positions when making a decision and then use his own intellect to reach his own conclusion. He draws talented and respectful people to himself. He makes responsible decisions based on merit and not ideological principles. It is very much worth noting that in many ways he keeps himself above the fray.
“While a bunch of us were out there trying to take over the Dean’s office, Barack was never a meaningful presence at any rallies. I have no doubt he believed we needed a more diverse faculty, but he also knew that the role he had as Editor in Chief of the Law Review meant he could accomplish so much by approaching his task with professionalism without raising an ideological torch and being a rabble rouser.”
I had my own skepticism about then Senator Obama at first. That was due mostly to listening to the characterizations of him in some of the media. But as I listened to him, I didn’t hear a strident, far-left ideologue, I saw what his fellow students at Harvard saw, a pragmatist, with reasonable solutions to the problems facing our country. And that is how I expect President Obama to govern beginning on January 20, 2009.
31 Friday Oct 2008
Posted in Election 2008, McCain, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized
Four more days, my fellow Americans, four more days. In four days we have a decision to make about the future of our country, and the choices are crystal clear. We can choose to continue the politics and policies of the past, or we can turn the page and begin a new chapter in American history. A chapter that is about unity instead of division, cooperation instead of partisanship, and about appealing to our better nature rather than our baser instincts.
We can put behind us forever the kind of political campaign that would send out mailers like this:
Or ads that seek to pit one race against the other, like this:
We have a chance to put this type of campaign on the ash heap of history and send the message to all who would use such tactics in the future that it will no longer be successful. We can let our future candidates for president know that it is no longer acceptable to label their opponent as “anti-American” or “socialist” or “communist” or say that they “pal around with terrorists.”
We can choose a president who sees the politics of divide and conquer as the failed strategy of the past. A president who can reach across all boundaries and begin to heal the divisions that have resulted from decades of that strategy. A president who wants America to be the land of opportunity for all Americans, not just for the rich and powerful few.
This president:
To quote a famous line, “If not us, who? If not now, when? We are the who, the when is now. We cannot afford to let this opportunity pass.
28 Tuesday Oct 2008
Posted in Election 2008, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized
As this long and grueling presidential campaign nears it’s final week, it is time to reflect back on where we have come, what we have seen happen, and why. How did Barack Obama, a first term Senator from Illinois, a virtual unknown when this process began nearly 2 years ago, manage to defeat the powerful Clinton machine and now stand on the brink of being elected President of the United States.
To put it in a few words, he is the right man, with the right message, in the right place, at the right time in our country’s history.
While I agree with Obama’s economic policy of lessening the income disparity and putting purchasing power back in the hands of the middle-class, and I agree with his stance on getting our troops out of Iraq and drawing that war to a close, neither of those are the transcendent issues that are facing our country, in my opinion.
The most important problem we face is spanning this chasm of partisan political division and public discourse that is eating away at our society like an aggressive form of cancer. In this election, our only hope of building a bridge across this divide and restoring some sense of common purpose among all our people is to elect Barack Obama.
I believe Colin Powell had it exactly right, Obama is a “transformational figure” at a time when our political system is in need of transformation perhaps like no other time in our nation’s history.
And in this election our choice is crystal clear. Do we allow the politics of division and personal destruction to win and in so doing insure another 4 years of partisanship and bickering while the problems facing us go from bad to worse? Or do we at least start down the road of putting this country back together with the only candidate capable of doing that.
Here are the closing paragraphs from an article Andrew Sullivan wrote in December of last year that sums it all up for me:
“If you believe that America’s current crisis is not a deep one … if you believe that today’s ideological polarization is not dangerous, and that what appears dark today is an illusion fostered by the lingering trauma of the Bush presidency, then the argument for Obama is not that strong.
But if you sense, as I do, that greater danger lies ahead, and that our divisions and recent history have combined to make the American polity and constitutional order increasingly vulnerable, then the calculus of risk changes. Sometimes, when the world is changing rapidly, the greater risk is caution. Close-up in this election campaign, Obama is unlikely. From a distance, he is necessary. At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.
We cannot let this moment pass.”