Frum-dumb?

David Frum is a self-absorbed, frequently reality-denying former speechwriter for George Bush. But no matter what he says, he always seems to convey the idea that he honestly believes what he's saying.

As such, his analysis of the fatal strategic decision in McCain's campaign is worth reviewing. In simple form, it goes like this:

• This summer McCain realized he was in trouble, so he rolled the dice on Palin
• The idea was to woo female and independent voters
• However, Palin instead has largely alienated both of these groups, while simultaneously energizing the right wing base
• Thus, her selection has taken the GOP for the foreseeable future down the path of hardening its radical conservative edge...while alienating many more people positioned toward the center

I hope he's right.

Greenspan

There should be not the least bit of surprise in the half-hearted testimony of Alan Greenspan that, yeah, maybe he should have done better. There should be no bewilderment from even a branch bank manager, much less the 'oracle' of the Federal Reserve, that somehow that house of cards would stand forever...that somehow people left to their own devices would refrain from applying criminal levels of greed and malevolence.

Isn't that why we have police departments? Why did anyone think Wall Street would be different?

To that end, we are now faced with two fresh pieces of evidence. First, as is common, nearly half of a Wall Street executive's annual compensation comes in the form of year end bonuses, allegedly tied to his performance, and that of his employer. Obviously, things are not good, and to underscore that, those Wall Street firms have laid off thousands of employees. But despite the smaller number of people on the payroll, the cumulative size of the that huge pool of year end payout money is actually higher than last year. Whether it is fully paid out...and in what way...is yet to be determined. But you are certainly justified to believe these execs will find a way to fully feather their own nests, even if it takes your tax dollars to do it.

And secondly, what about those bailout funds? Remember how they were ostensibly taken out of our pockets so that they could help banks make the loans that would keep American businesses operating...help homeowners pay their mortgages? Well, according to the New York Times, during an internal conference call this week, an executive at JP Morgan Chase told his employees that the government bailout money would be fine source of capital for 'growth'...to buy other ailing banks. Not one word about 'unfreezing' the credit market.

So, the robbers are unchastened. Someone call the cops.

Larry David

The man behind Curb Your Enthusiasm is having a hard time curbing his own.

Dr. No

At her one and only debate, Sarah Palin announced that she might choose not to answer the questions that were put to her...instead, just say what she wanted to say.

Aside from the recurring issue of why Republicans seem to feel that rules are only for other people (see the current VP), the larger issue here is why she refuses to divulge any medical records.

What is she hiding?

Black Friday

This afternoon a Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota claimed that Barack Obama was 'un-American', and conflated the terms 'liberal', 'leftist' and 'un-American'. Yesterday at a Palin rally in North Carolina a reporter was kicked to the ground for distracting his attention from the stage to a place where Obama supporters were protesting. Today two offices of the national community organizing group ACORN were burglarized, and workers in other of the organization's locations received racist and physically threatening phone calls. Palin today said there are 'pro-American' parts of the country...clearly implying there are parts that are not.

For more than a decade, the hate wing of the Republican party has attempted to convince their supporters that 'liberal' and 'enemy' are synonymous. 'Liberal' is the new 'black'...the new' Commie'. This is only going to get worse.

These people were already a plague upon our country. Now they are afraid. They are rabid.

Presidents normally are accorded a honeymoon. Obama's is over even before his election.

Third Lunch

I once worked briefly with a guy who had risen to very lofty heights in both print and broadcast journalism. (This is no mean feat, as the two disciplines are mutually jealous, competitive and distrustful). I didn't work with him long enough to gauge whether his talents and performance actually were deserving of his positions, but I do know how he got them--he was the world's most entertaining lunch partner.

Weaving incredulous, inspirational, profane, gossipy and uniformly hilarious stories, you stood up after that first two hour meal feeling guilty for not paying extra for the entertainment. He was that good. So good that you looked for any chance to do lunch with him again. And when it came, it didn't really seem to matter that the second time around the stories weren't nearly so good. Maybe he was just having an off day.

But by the third lunch...along with someone meeting him the for the first time...it was clear that he had just two hours of A list material. That was his act. And hearing all that stuff again wasn't nearly as entertaining.

Which leads me to John McCain and Sarah Palin. All those years we met McCain for just a minute at a time, delivering a couple soundbites on the evening news, he sure sounded 'maverick-y', didn't he? And when Palin stepped on the convention stage and delivered her first speech, she really did seem like a breath of fresh air, right?

Well, now it's old. It's so painfully obvious that they only have a few memorable things to say. And they've said them--over and over again. They really have no ability to adjust to new conditions or a changing environment--just like the current resident of the White House.

It is boring. It is sad. It is their third lunch.

???

Conservatives Become Republicans

William Buckley was perhaps the most famous conservative of his age--when that term meant something in a philosophical sense. But somewhere along the line, conservatives morphed into something far different--modern Republicans.

As Buckley's son, Christopher, has discovered...the old grey cons just ain't what they used to be (from the NYT):

Christopher Buckley, the author and son of the late conservative mainstay William F. Buckley, said in a telephone interview that he has resigned from the National Review, the political journal his father founded in 1955.

Mr. Buckley said he had “been effectively fatwahed by the conservative movement” after endorsing Barack Obama in a blog posting on TheDailyBeast.com; since then, he said he has been blanketed with hate mail at the blog and at the National Review, where he has written a column.

As a result, he wrote to Richard Lowry, the editor of the National Review, and its publisher, Jack Fowler, offering to resign, and “this offer was rather briskly accepted,” Mr. Buckley said.

Mr. Buckley said he did not understand the sense of betrayal that some of his conservative colleagues felt, but said that the fury and ugly comments his endorsement generated is “part of the calcification of modern discourse. It’s so angry.” Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan’s quote about the Democrats, Mr. Buckley added, “I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.”

Sign of the Times

Is it possible that this is both profane and vulgar...and yet entirely appropriate at the same time?

While those behind the microphones--Paulson, Bernanke, Bush, etc.--justifiably are the targets of much of the scorn for what's happened to our nation's economy, it's also important not to forget who the real villians are.

One Man's Terrorist...

Before John McCain runs off and pretends that he and his running mate never meant any harm in saying that Barack Obama 'palled around with terrorists'...(BTW: how come no one uses the very cool syntax symmetry of "pallin' with Palin"?) consider the source. Carl Bernstein has a wonderful depiction of the McCain relationship with American traitor Gordon Liddy. The key paragraph of his column:

During the same period that Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, Gordon Liddy was making plans to firebomb a Washington think tank, assassinate a prominent journalist, undertake the Watergate burglary, break into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and kidnap anti-war protesters at the 1972 Republican convention.

McCain as recently as last year said on Liddy's radio show, "I'm proud of you...and (your) adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Nobel Effort

Forgive my hopefulness. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this. But consider the winners and topics honored with this year's Nobel prizes:

• Literature: a French writer specializing in environmentalism
• Physics: three Japanese-born scientists exploring the smallest building blocks of the universe
• Economics: NYT columnist and relentless Bush critic Paul Krugman
• Peace: the former Finnish president who spent three decades looking for a way to use words rather than weapons to settle international grievances
• Chemistry: the American/Japanese scientific partnership seeking a connection between unique proteins and the onset of illness, including Alzheimer's disease
• Medicine: shared by several, including the director of the World Foundation for AIDS research

Cumulatively, do these awards make a stark political statement on behalf of the directors in Stockholm? Is that statement a defiance of how the American right wing has diminished both America and the globe over the last decade?

Are they not saying that it is right to promote science over religious dogma? Right to question the motives and actions of the obscenely rich and the relentlessly greedy? Right to promote causes like AIDS research and environmentalism? And only proper to choose intervention before invasion?

To me, this is the coda of the Bush years. This year's Nobel prizes imply the same indictment that echos across the blogosphere in baser form: 'Bush: wrong about everything'.

936

Do you feel richer today? At least a little better? The Dow Jones jumped 936 points...or 11%...or half of what he had forfeited during its recent plunge. In one day.

While traders on the floor of the NYSE celebrated with whoops and high fives, even a first year finance student knew that this had very little bearing on the surrounding economic climate. There was no change in the cost of health insurance or number of foreclosures, nor the debts piling up for General Motors and the U.S. Government.

One of the most intelligent and contemplative young men I know has had this conversation several times with his girlfriend: if we are forced to head for the hills (literally), to grow our own food, and create our own warmth and shelter, which of our friends do we want to come with us? And why?

This kind of thinking implies a meltdown not just of the markets, but of the entire economy. It conveys the concept of a society without jobs...or income...or protection. It would seem preposterous.

Just as preposterous as the Dow Jones jumping 936 points in a single day.

Blindingly Obvious

The New York Times has never claimed to be the equal of the Wall Street Journal in the depth of its business coverage. But the advantage of being a few steps removed implies a better ability to see the forest for the trees.

Thus, it was truly stunning today to see a front page article in which the author announced the following:
"Anybody searching for cause-and-effect logic in the daily gyrations of the market will be disappointed...instead, the market has become a case study in the psychology of crowds..."

In the words of that noted day trader, Shakespeare, 'twas ever thus'. If ever there were a time when TV news anchors could divine the ups and downs of investors from overarching news events, that time is long gone. But of course, the logical sides of our brains keeps seeking the connection.

The truth of the matter is that even the idea of 'crowds' determining market movement is in and of itself ridiculous, in the sense that the 'crowd' in question includes all of us little guys trying to figure out how to make the next mortgage or tuition payment. Statistically, the only 'crowd' that matters is the exclusive fraternity of institutional investors whose mutual fund or pension decisions truly can move a stock, if not a market.

So when you hear someone on TV--or even the New York Times--convey a connection between external circumstances and market movements, feel free to tune out. They don't know any better than you do. Of course, that reporter can claim they got their insight from someone on Wall Street...thus, it must have at least a grain of truth. But if their source really did have secret knowledge...if they truly could intuit how things would trend...do you honestly believe they would share that insight with a reporter?

This is akin to the chief chemist from Pepsi walking up to the chief chemist from Coke and saying, "hey, your product tastes pretty good! What exactly is in it?"

Trains

Lipstick

Remember when Sarah Palin told that story about the difference between a hockey Mom and a pit bull being lipstick?

Well, my bad. See, in that context I thought she was referring to herself as the hockey Mom side of the comparison.

Character Parity?

On the airwaves tonight, the pundits are somehow trying to equate the emerging nastiness of the campaign equally between the two Presidential candidates. One GOP operative warned that the nation needed to guard against a rival 'who used to hang out with terrorists back in the old days'. The reference was to Bill Ayers, who rose to prominence in the radical Weathermen organization in 1968.

At that time, Obama was seven years old. Can't imagine they hung out much.

Meanwhile, some are also trying to claim the Keating 5 reference to McCain is 'old news'. Unfortunately for all Americans, it is the freshest news possible--tying directly to the current meltdown of the economy. And the Obama campaign's 13 minute video should give every American pause--particularly those planning on casting a ballot for McCain.

The New Cheney

There have been numerous comparisons between the current GOP President and the GOP vice presidential candidate, e.g., "Palin is Bush with lipstick".

But I think the debate tonight proved a far more apt link between the woman who wants to be Veep and the guy who holds the job now.

Palin suggested that there is 'flexibility' in the Constitution to allow the vice president to hold more legislative power. She clearly confirmed that you won't be seeing her between now and election day interviewed anywhere she feels a 'mainstream media filter' threatens her well being. And she announced right at the outset that she may "not answer questions the way you or the moderator want".

You put this together and there is no mistaking the intent: she does not consider herself answerable to the American people.

We have an administration like that already. God save us if we get another one.

Economic Fundamentals

One of the subtle but pernicious memes with which the right wing has infected media discourse is the idea that 'economic fundamentals' are essentially synonymous with the stock markets . If the market goes up, times are good. If not...well, the free market is still our savior.

Politicians aren't immune from this faulty logic. When McCain was lambasted recently for saying that those fundamentals were still strong, he was probably right--in his limited definition. If you look at corporate profits, the amount of cash they're hoarding, and returns from private hedge funds--well, they were all at almost preposterous levels (although even the hedgers suffered once the meltdown began).

At the same time, the entire landscape looks different down here on the ground. Workers who have seen their real wages decline over the years...their benefits wither or die...while the price of necessities soars through the roof--well, somehow they aren't quite so satisfied.

As a whole, the media have not yet figured out how to tell the story of home foreclosures from the standpoint of those on whom the foreclosures are enforced. Instead, it's remained largely a Wall Street perspective of how those loans are threatening six and seven figure jobs...and not those of the people bound to make monthly mortgage payments. (For immediate evidence, please tune in the idiot known as Jim Cramer on MSNBC).

But there is one 'fundamental' that requires special attention. It is the much-loved 'worker productivity'. The ownership class likes to use this as a badge of good corporate oversight. In fact, it is instead a prime indication of the consistent corporate policy of putting shareholder concerns above employee welfare.

The precursor rationale was 'household income', which substantially leaped during the Reagan years. This was quickly submitted as proof of the wisdom of the first 'trickle down' economic policy (the same one properly labeled 'voodoo economics' by the elder Bush when he ran for President). And also, the same policy which its visionary, David Stockman, later renounced. But the real story behind this rise in household income was the average number of people gainfully employed in U.S. households. For that was the time when spouses were not only more readily allowed into the workforce...but declining economic circumstances forced most of them to get a job. The 'family values' crowd, that celebrates the secondary role of females and the primacy of 'child rearing', chooses to ignore the fact that St. Ronnie effectively killed the 'stay-at-home-Mom' option.

'Worker productivity' is the current offshoot. Corporate overlords would like to view increases here as signs that individual workers are simply being persuaded by gifted management techniques to work harder. In fact, it's a simple matter of average hours on the job increasing (most often with little or no increase in compensation). And this happens for a consistent reason--remaining workers are required to take on the tasks of former colleagues who have been 'downsized'. It's a simple mathematical equation--the same amount of work divided by fewer workers equals more productivity.

To finish the loop, those companies who best increase 'productivity' are rewarded with higher share prices...and higher compensation for executives. And until the next economic crisis, these companies collectively cause the stock markets to rise.

To some, this may sound like class warfare--the middle class challenging the monied class.

To that, I quote that noted war time hero, George W. Bush: "Bring 'em on".

Race Tracks

Opposition to the bailout plan among members of Congress was based on the assertion that the government shouldn't waste taxpayers' money.

In order to win sufficient passage in the House, members of the Senate added $126 million for construction for auto racing tracks. Certainly a logical step in a time when all agree we should be looking for ways to reduce fuel costs.

Speaks for itself.

Liberals

Writing in the New York Times today, Maureen Dowd recalled an interview with Paul Newman in which he proudly referred to himself as a 'liberal'.

How few of us there are left.

Many have hidden behind the new moniker, 'progressive', which has yet to be successfully eviscerated by the right.

Now, before moving on with 'liberal', it's necessary to talk for a minute about 'conservative'. At one time, there was a viable academic following for certain tenets that formed a 'conservative' school of thought and political movement in America. But history indicates that almost without exception, such belief systems are subsumed by a larger movement ironically fueled by both fear and hate. In modern American politics, it is the 'conservative' mindset exemplified by the Karl Roves, Tom DeLays and Sarah Palins. Meanwhile, people who think themselves 'original' conservatives--like John McCain--are delusional about what their cohorts really believe and want.

And the sharpest scalpel in their operating room is 'otherness'. If you can create a compelling devil, bias can prosper and power is yours. That's why a litany of lessers promoted by the right is so consistent. In America, we've been told we have to protect ourselves against 'women voters... blacks... unions... Commies... terrorists', and now, of course, liberals.

This is topical because declining McCain polls are making the right nuts, and they are reflexively resorting to liberal-hate at a new level. A columnist today at the right-wing National Review Online made a reasoned argument that the bailout is both ineffectual and un-American--a position I don't necessarily disagree with. But facing the problem of assessing its cause, he immediately went to a familiar source:

The liberal uses crises, real or manufactured, to expand the power of government at the expense of the individual and private property. He has spent, in earnest, 70 years evading the Constitution's limits on governmental power. If conservatives don't stand up to this, who will?

Where to start? Maybe with a few questions. Was it the liberals who ran the mortgage companies who made the bad loans? Liberals who made the decisions at the Wall Street investment banks to package them into phony derivatives? Liberals in the Bush Administration who failed to regulate them? Liberals at Treasury and the Fed who came up with the plan?

And in a larger context, did liberals steal Bush's soul and force him to invent the 'signing statement' that obscured or even reversed the intent of bills that Congress sent him? Did liberals start the tortures at Guantanamo...the illegal spying on U.S. citizens...the killing of 100,000 citizens in Iraq for no reason? Those damn liberals who 'expanded the power of government' to lead us to this dilemma? Right.

Republicans have controlled the House for 148 of the last 168 months. They have packed the Supreme Court with exactly the kind of ideologues they claim to despise. They have run the White House like a whore house for the last eight years.

So, let's get this straight. Liberals are the good guys. They always have been. Jesus was a liberal. The Founding Fathers were probably beyond liberal...in the eyes of King George, no doubt terrorists.

Paul Newman was right.

Websites

Once upon a time, about ten years ago, it was decided that every company on Earth needed its own website. They all look pretty much the same.

Then one company invented the best one ever.