What A Time It Was

2008 will long be remembered for the momentous election that brought America its first Black President. It will also be remembered for the disastrous economic collapse. The American people bought into Barack Obama's message of hope and possibility, while watching the economy collapse around them. It was a year in which America showed that it still had some idealism in it while bearing witness to the catastrophic results of unbridled greed and cynicism.

I'm not sure how you wrap up a year like this one. However, I prefer to focus on the positive aspects of 2008. I don't know if there's a lot left to say, so I'll just include a portion of an article that I wrote back in March.

Imagine what it would be like to wake up the day after the general election in November and realize that America had elected it's first non white-male President. It would say so much about how far the country has come. It would be a significant step to showing how far we have come toward fulfilling the ideal of America. We are supposed to be that "shining city on a hill", we are supposed to believe "that there is a placed called hope", we are supposed to think that we are guided by "the better angels of our nature". That is the dream that we have been asked to buy for so long.

I don't know the answer to the question of whether Obama or Clinton would be a better President than McCain, but no one does. If we allow fear and hatred to make that decision for us then we turn our back on everything that this country is supposed to stand for. I am not saying that people should vote for the Democratic candidate to prove a point. What I am saying is that each candidate must be judged on the merits and not pre-judged on their race, religion or gender. That really is all I ask. Is that so much? Judging by what I hear and read every day, apparently it is. I do hope that this election cycle will prove me wrong. I can hope that we have a fair and above board election. I can hope that the majority of Americans stand up and reject the politics of hate and fear. I can hope that this is the year, that we as a country, (as Dr. King so eloquently stated), "rise up and live out the true meaning of our creed". I can only hope.

I'll end this post with the lyrics to "Bookends" by Paul Simon:

"Time it was, and what a time it was, it was. A time of innocence, a time of confidences. Long ago, it must be, I have a photograph. Preserve your memories; They're all that's left you."

Beating a Dead Horse

The Rod Blagojevich scandal is continuing to drag on with no end in sight. He US Attorney Fitzpatrick is refusing to release the wiretapped conversations of Blagojevich, which are the backbone of the case against the Governor. Therefore any planned impeachment hearings against him are basically stalled because they don't have the primary evidence needed to remove him from office. The Obama camp has released their internal investigation which shows that at least two of members of the President-elect's staff had contact with Blagojevich. The nature of these contacts is basically what is being questioned by the more desperate elements of the Republican Party and the press. Fitzpatrick has already stated that nobody on the Obama team is under investigation and the facts that have been released to date seem to point to the fact that they never offered or seriously discussed any sort of payoff for the Governor for the Senate appointment. That doesn't seem to be enough for those who are hell bent on trying to stain the incoming President.

The internal Obama report said that his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel spoke with the Governor on two occasions. The Fitzpatrick report seems to suggest that they may have been a couple of more instances than that. That discrepancy should not scream COVER UP to any rational person, especially when the nature of the contact is not in dispute. However the Right Wing would have you believe that the discrepancy is evidence of a lack of transparency from the Obama team. The release date of the Obama team report was itself a cause of a great outcry because it was delayed at the request of the US Attorney's office. The press tried to make a story out of this along with the usual suspects on the Right.

All accounts of Blagojevich's contact with the Obama team confirm that no one was willing to offer him anything other than "appreciation" for the appointment. His recorded conversations include some profanity laced tirades in which he blows off Obama and his team because they are unwilling to offer him anything for the seat. This is clearly a national story because it involves corruption at a high level and it impacts the Senate seat from Illinois, however this story is not about Barack Obama. The press and the far right continue to try to play the guilt by association game (which worked so well for them during the campaign) but there is literally nothing there.

I have even heard the ridiculous claim that if somehow Obama had been more forthcoming initially, this would no longer be a story. First of all, Obama delayed the release of his report at the request of the US Attorney and secondly that is just a bunch of nonsense. The Obama name is like gold for a news starved press and there is no doubt that regardless of the speed of his response, there would continue to be "questions" raised in order to maintain the appearance of a scandal. If this is the level of nonsense that we can look forward to in the coverage of the President-elect, then we are in for a long four years indeed.

Money For Nothing

$1.6 billion. Let's just think about that number for a moment. $1.6 billion. That's one thousand and six hundred million dollars. According to the AP, that is the total of the salary and bonuses that were given out to the top executives at the banks and financial institutions that were involved in the government bailout. I know that some financial institutions were in better shape than others, but I don't remember hearing about any that had a great year. Certainly if there were banks that had not invested heavily in derivatives, then they would not have been in line to get a government handout. Every single institution who accepted a government handout played fast and lose with the money that was entrusted to them by the public. They were reckless and greedy at best and immoral and criminal at worst. Somehow, even while pushing the international economic system to the brink of collapse, it turns out that the executives of those institutions were doing a stellar job.

Apparently there is no executive in the financial industry who feels the slightest bit responsible for squandering billions of dollars and for creating a situation that will force millions of people to default on their home loans. Do these people have a conscience? How do you suppose they feel as they spend this holiday season at one of their seven homes, which they flew to via private jet provided by the same companies that are receiving billions of dollars in aid from a public that can't even afford to pay their mortgages? Actually, I'm sure they feel pretty good. Isn't a free market system based on the principle of survival of the fittest? Therefore they must be the fittest people in America.

Clearly, the people upon whose blood, sweat and tears, the fortunes of the privileged few have been made, don't deserve to be helped the way the fittest have been helped. Why should the government help the least among us, when it can secure the fortunes of the ones with the most among us? Why would this administration, in particular, come up with solutions that might actually help someone other than the people who contributed heavily to their election? Why? Why you ask? I'll give you 1.6 billion reasons why! The ridiculous compensation of top executives cannot continue without a reasonably healthy middle class. Even out of their own greed-driven self-interest, Wall St. and the White House should realize that if the middle class collapses, their seemingly endless gravy train comes to a complete stop. Our economy, as we know it, comes to a complete halt and crumbles under the weight of the artificially inflated wealth at the top of the scale.

It does seem extremely shortsighted, for the government to bailout banks in order for them to be able to extend more credit to people who can't pay their bills now. How does that fix the problem? The financial institutions think it's a great idea because they get to buy other banks. The executives think it's great because they get huge bonuses and they still afford to keep their wives and their girlfriends happy. The Bush administration thinks it's great because they look like they get to look like the heroes on the white horse coming to save the day. And that is all great for them, but what about the tens of millions of people who actually make this economy work? Where is their bailout? Where are their bonuses? Where are their stock options? The bottom line is that when more than 1 in 10 people can't find a job (if you include temp workers (who are not included in the unemployment statistics), and those that have run out unemployment insurance and those that have simply given up trying to find work) and perhaps double that are at jobs that don't pay them enough to afford a reasonable standard of living, then you can see that we are living on borrowed time. If something isn't done soon, we will look back on the financial crisis of 2008 as the good old days.

There will be many parents who don't have the money to give Christmas gifts this year. There will be many a young child who will not get that bike or big wheel or barbie doll or Hannah Montana CD or MP3 player or computer that they wanted. But the adults can always explain to those disappointed children that they took part in real spirit of the season by giving to those in greater need. And as those kids curl up in their beds with a tear of disappointment rolling down their cheeks, perhaps they will find some comfort in knowing that there are 1.6 billion reasons why they shouldn't feel so bad.

No Rest For the Wicked

Barack Obama's decision to invite Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration has created a firestorm of protest from the left and the right. The people on the right are upset with Warren for accepting the invitation and Obama's supporters are upset with Obama for inviting someone they see as an agent of intolerance to such a historic and symbolic event. Obama has explained his pick by saying that he has always believed in trying to find common ground with those who hold opposing views.

Rick Warren has stated that he sees no difference between Gay marriage and pedophilia, incest or polygamy. In his mind they are all equal. He not only doesn't think that gays should have the right to get married, he sees their unions as equal to the most despicable form of child abuse. He has equated abortion to genocide and said that the supporters of abortion are basically supporting murder. I would like to ask the President-elect to show me the middle ground in that argument. My co-contributor SJ made perhaps one the most astute observations I have ever heard when he said, "you can't argue with people who think they're going to heaven". Mr. Warren believes that he's going to heaven and unless you believe everything he does, you are not. There is no ground for compromise in his position.

Mr. Warren has put a kinder, gentler face on the same kind of intolerance that the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson made so popular. His great claim to fame for being a "new" school evangelist is that he is "environment friendly". He thinks that we should be doing more to reverse global warming. Well, that and the fact that he doesn't wear a jacket and tie every day. However intolerance dressed down and warmed over, is still intolerance. It is true however that his stance on gay marriage essentially mirrors the public stance of the President-elect. While Obama has never said that he equates gay unions with vile criminal activity, he has publicly stated his opposition to same sex marriage.

I have already stated my position on same sex marriage, however I think it's important to realize just how fundamentally wrong it is to arbitrarily decide that certain people don't have the same rights as everyone else. Suppose Rick Warren were opposed to left handed people marrying each other. That position would be viewed as ridiculous, but his argument would be that those people are choosing the left handed lifestyle and until the decide to do things the right way, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. The position of evangelicals is that homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle choice, therefore those who make that choice should not have the same rights as the rest of society. Throughout history, people have been persecuted for things are ridiculous as hair color, eye color, and believe it or not being left handed. They all seem unthinkable to us today, but at the time, people believed that had perfectly legitimate reasons to discriminate and shun those afflicted with the various "maladies".

There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of those "practicing" the homosexual lifestyle are not doing so by choice. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that there are currently more homosexuals "practicing" the heterosexual lifestyle than there have ever been of the reverse situation. Homosexuality is no more a choice than being a heterosexual is, or being white is, or being left handed is, or being blue eyed is. Why would someone chose to be part of one the last minority groups that it is still perfectly acceptable to discriminate against? The line to sign up for daily persecution would be very short indeed. And yet this is the premise that people like Rick Warren ask us to accept. And trust me, they know they're right because they are going to heaven and you're not.

Ultimately, I have to have to believe that Barack Obama's reasons for making this choice will bear fruit is some manner. Perhaps he's just using this selection to provide him some cover for some sweeping announcement that will benefit the gay community. I have to believe that because otherwise this choice makes absolutely no sense to me. Has he chosen to offend a significant portion of the people who supported him in order to make a point? And what point would that be? That hatred and intolerance are part of the fabric of American society? I think we all got that point a long time ago. The inauguration is the wrong place for that kind of civics lesson.

Look Back In Anger

President Bush is on his so called "Legacy Tour" in which he is attempting to make the case that his presidency has been an unequivocal success. Among his claims are that he kept America safe from terrorism, won the war in Iraq and stabilized the Middle East. He takes no blame for the current economic situation because he says, he inherited these problems from his successors (including his father). His Vice President is also in the process of reinterpreting the past. He feels so secure in himself that he is actually admitting in public that approved the torturing of prisoners and that we are safer because of it.

I'm sure that every President tries to make his case on the way out of office, but this administration has been particularly dismissive of the public’s perception of their actions. Vice President Cheney infamously answered “So”, when he was informed of the fact that the majority of Americans wanted the US to leave Iraq. A monarch never feels the need to explain to or seek the approval of the people and the Bush administration has certainly been run as if they had that power. They have ignored and trampled on the Constitution and blatantly ignored the rights of everyone and everything that came across their path. This Imperial presidency was planned for and carried out with ingenious precision by George Bush and his team. Just a year ago, the President seemed confident that history would show that he was not only correct, but that he was prescient in taking the steps that he did.

The failures of this administration are almost too many to list, but they never felt the need to explain themselves before. Did you know that everything is great in New Orleans? The President himself said so a mere matter of weeks after the Katrina disaster. Never mind the fact that to this day, there are still people who are living in trailers. Never mind the fact that the emergency trailers that were provided were later found out to have been built with toxic materials. Never mind that there are people who lost their lives needlessly. The President said everything was fine and so in his mind, it is so. The war in Iraq, which this President declared over five years ago, is now a success because of the last 12 months. Never mind the fact that over 4,000 Americans have lost their lives. Never mind the fact that up to a million Iraqi’s may have lost their lives. Never mind the fact that terrorists continue to kill innocent Iraqi’s to this day. Never mind that fact that Al Qaeda never existed in Iraq until we go there. The President says it’s a success and so it is.

This is an example of the revisionist history that the President and Vice President are now trying to sell to the American people. It seems they have forgotten the rule about monarchs and their lack of accountability. They now seem to be worried that their legacy is not going to be the stuff of Mount Rushmore. And they have every right to be concerned. If there were a monument for the worst Presidents of all time, George W. Bush would be sitting for a sculptor as we speak. I’m thoroughly convinced that Dick Cheney’s soul is a dark place that long ago had a place reserved on one of the lower levels of hell.

The Legacy tour should instead be a tour of apology. He should personally apologize to the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, children and friends of every single soldier who has died for his folly. He should have to apologize to every family who lost a loved one in New Orleans. He should have to apologize to every Iraqi family who has had their lives irreparably harmed by the baseless incursion of our armed forces into their country. He should apologize to every family who has lost a home in the mortgage crisis. He should apologize to every person who has lost a job during this economic disaster. He should apologize to every single inmate who was tortured or held indefinitely without the benefit of counsel. He should apologize to every American for stripping our rights away and making us fear our government. That is what he should be spending his time on. Not on making speeches in which he tries to take credit for successes that could only be seen that way by someone with blinders on. If he would like to take credit for keeping us safe from terrorism then he should have to talk to the families of every victim of the 9/11 attacks and ask them how safe their loved ones were from terrorism.

Heir to the Throne

Caroline Kennedy has risen to the top of the list of candidates for the New York Senate seat that will be vacated by Hillary Clinton when she is approved for Secretary of State. Caroline Kennedy has never served in public office or run a campaign or frankly taken a public position on any controversial issues. In fact, her sole foray into politics was campaigning for Barack Obama's election. It is crystal clear that this ascendancy is based solely on her last name.

Caroline Kennedy has degrees from Harvard and Columbia, so her intelligence is not in question. What is in question is how someone who has no political history can rise to the top of the list of candidates for appointment to a Senate seat. If Mrs. Schlossberg's last name happened to be Johnson, do you think that she would even be in the conversation? I have railed against the Bush administrations policy of appointing unqualified people to important positions (Alberto Gonzalez anyone?), but I also feel the need to point this out when the Democrats engage in the same underhanded activity. New York City has had to put up with a Mayor who refuses to leave office regardless of the law and now we are being asked to swallow an appointment based some sort of "Kennedy privilege doctrine". What about what's best for New York? Is Caroline Kennedy the most qualified person to advocate for this state during these difficult economic times? Will she be able to effectively lobby her fellow Senators for help on legislation that will benefit our citizens? Is having a "celebrity" with no legislative experience the best that we as New Yorkers can hope for?

There are direct parallels between Caroline Kennedy and Sarah Palin. Palin was chosen for a variety of reason, but none of them were about her qualifications for the position. Caroline Kennedy is undoubtedly more intelligent than the Governor of Alaska, but her qualifications for the position are as dubious as Palin's were. In fact they may actually be worse. While Governor Palin was in over her head as a Vice Presidential candidate, she had at least been elected to multiple positions and had to take a public stance on a multitude of issues. Caroline Kennedy has never had to face the public and answer for anything. She has never given a press conference on her political positions, she has never faced the voters in an election, she has never faced an opponent in an election, and yet she would like to be anointed (oh, sorry), appointed as our next Senator.

Some will point to other "celebrity" politicians who didn't have any experience when they entered politics. They will point to Hillary Clinton or Arnold or Jesse Ventura or Al Franken, but the difference with all of those individuals is that they had to face the voters and opponents in elections. In fact, I question whether Caroline Kennedy would even have gotten involved in this at all if this seat were up for a vote instead of an appointment. Caroline Kennedy has never shown any interest in running for public office and has fiercely protected her privacy. She has never really been a "public figure". She has always been in the public eye because of her name, but she has never sought the limelight. She is not like Hillary Clinton, who was willing to state her positions and face the public in order to get into office. Kennedy is basically using her name to try and avoid this step.

The Kennedy's are political royalty in this country, but none of them have ever been given their positions in Congress. Robert Kennedy was appointed as Attorney General by his brother, but even he had to face approval from the Congress. And when the Senate seat from New York opened up, he ran for and won that seat. Clearly a lot of his support came from the fact that his name was Kennedy and that his brother had been killed in office, but he had to run on his own. He had to face an opponent. He had to face the voters of New York and tell them what he was going to do for them.

I have to assume that Caroline Kennedy's views are basically in line with my own on most important topics, but that has nothing to do with whether she is qualified or whether she deserves this position. If Caroline Kennedy really wants to be the Senator from New York, then let her run for it in two years when the seat will come up for election. She can certainly spend the next two years explaining her positions to New Yorkers and building up her qualifications for the job. I have no doubt that she will be able to easily raise tens of millions of dollars for her Senate campaign. I have no doubt that if her name (or her last name to be exact) were to appear on a ballot that New Yorkers would be falling over themselves to vote for her. I have no problem with a candidate who faces the voters and is then approved by them. That's our process. That's the way things work.

The thing is that we have a person here in New York who I do think would make a perfect choice. I'm sure he was never considered because he isn't a Democrat, but the person who could make the best case for New York during these trying economic times is none other than our Mayor (or Emperor as he likes to be called) Mike Bloomberg. He understands the legislative process, his economic experience is unquestioned and he would be a great advocate for the people of this City and this state. Of course that would never happen because Mike Bloomberg initially ran for Mayor as a Republican, even though he is now listed as an Independent. His actual party affiliation is Pragmatist. He ran as a Republican because he saw that as his best opportunity to win in the primaries. He's now an independent because he doesn't need the party affiliation to win. Everything comes down to politics though, even at the expense of the well being of the people of this state. But as I've stated before, the welfare of the people is always the last factor in the equation. Clearly our job is to stand silently by as the aristocracy divvy up the spoils.

Three is a Magic Number

The Republican Senators who killed the proposed bridge loan to the Big 3 automakers did the people of America a disservice last night. The southern Senators who have big foreign car plants in their states have a two-fold agenda. First they want to try and kill the domestic competition for their new best friends and secondly they want to break the UAW. Last night they succeeded in killing a bill that would have helped to keep Ford, GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy. By doing so, they have left a handout from the previously approved $700 billion bailout as the option left to help the companies.

There are multiple reasons why I believe the loans to the car companies was the right thing to do, but there is one that is paramount. The 3 major car companies are directly tied to millions of jobs in this country. If they are allowed to fail, literally entire towns and cities will be devastated. 1.5 million auto workers will have to find other jobs to help pay their mortgages and credit card bills. Retired or disabled auto workers who rely on their benefits to get by will either have to go back to work or receive government help. The state of Michigan would probably default on every loan it currently has outstanding and would certainly not be able to pay its healthcare bill. The ripple effect on the US economy would be catastrophic.

The reason that the bridge loan was my preferred way to go about a temporary solution was that it came with strings attached. The car companies would have to be accountable to Congress for their actions. Their was going to be oversight and they would have make positive steps to creating more fuel efficient cars and funding alternative fuel research. Bailout money for AIG didn't have any strings attached. They are currently funneling millions of dollars to their high ranking employees. They aren't calling them bonuses of course. They are called "retention payouts" or something equally ridiculous. So a company, whose business it is to assess risk is rewarding the very people who failed to see the risk involved in their business practices. That is appalling to me. The bank bailout, in which the bill to the American tax payer was $700 billion has had no effect on the credit markets that it was supposed to help free up. In fact, most of the banks that have received money from the bailout have spent it by buying other banks and laying off employees. That feels like money well spent, doesn't it?

The ridiculous statement about the employees of the American car manufacturers making $70 an hour has been used over and over to justify beating down the UAW and trying to get concessions from the workers. That dollar figure takes into account all the retirement/disability payments that are being paid to millions of people who no longer work for the companies. The actual hourly dollar figure is almost exactly what Honda and Toyota pay their employees. The Senators who continue to harp on the higher number know exactly what they are doing. Their goal isn't based some high minded ideal about being fiscally conservative. They want to help big business at the expense of the worker. Auto workers and the UAW have very willing over the years to help out when their was a crisis, after all, having a job is better than being unemployed (even if it is one that pays less than it used to). But asking workers to take less because the people who run the company have been incompetent is just wrong. Where is the accountability for the people in the board room? American auto workers want to make the best cars in the world. They want to make cars that make sense for the future, but they don't decide what they build. It wasn't their idea to keep on building more and more SUV's, but they are the ones who are being asked to pay for the mistakes made by people who don't have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck.

I understand the feeling that we should let the free market decide who makes it and who doesn't. However, the government has already decided that it can play God. Is now the time to say enough? Does that not seem arbitrary to you? It does to me. This is just another example of the class warfare that takes place in this country every day. The Government acted with all speed when the financial markets needed help. The Fed Chairman and the Secretary of the Treasury were on TV every day explaining why a bailout was needed. We couldn't allow these institutions to go under without facing an economic catastrophe. Well some of those institutions did go under and despite almost $350 billion in aid, there has been no tangible evidence of any change in the situation. Of course their answer to that is to ask for Congress to release the other $350 billion that it approved. I guess it doesn't hurt to have friends in high places. People on Wall St. ask DC to jump, the only question coming back is, "how high?". The bailout still hasn't addressed the millions of people who will be defaulting on their mortgages, but then again, those people don't have the Fed Chairman's cell phone number handy.

The Big 3 have agreed to repay the loan from the Government, they have agreed to federal oversight, they have agreed to design and build more fuel efficient cars, they have agreed to work on alternative fuel research, they have agreed to wage concessions, and yet, unlike the financial institutions (who didn't have to promise anything in return for their payday), they have yet to get any help from Congress. I personally don't care about the people who run these companies. Clearly they are all really bad at their jobs. What I do care about are the millions of regular Americans who will suffer if these companies fail. I don't know if America can sustain three car companies anymore. Perhaps there needs to be a merger (Ford and Chrysler merging would seem to make sense from a size perspective) of some sort. I do know that without some Government aid these companies will go bankrupt in the very near future. They can file for Chapter 11 reorganization but that would mean that some of those bailed out financial institutions would have to give them loans and they seem to be too busy giving out bonuses and buying each other to actually get around to lending any money these days.