To All the Conservatives Out There

Despite the glee expressed in my last post, I'd like to reach out to all my conservative friends (or now, former friends) out there.  Its been a tough election, and an even tougher election night for you.  As much as you think that you are alone, or that no one knows how you feel, trust me, I do.

You see, eight years ago George W. Bush, a President I despised and thought was a disaster for this country, was reelected over John Kerry.  And as I will detail below, the parallels between 2004 and 2012 are absolutely striking.

In 2004 and 2012, the incumbent President faced a politician from Massachusetts with a reputation of being an elitist and a flip-flopper.  The bases of the opposition were energized, and found new ways to spend soft money like never before (we had the 527's, you had the Super Pacs).  Both challengers did extremely well in the first Presidential debate (I, for one, haven't forgotten about Poland), with the President making a comeback in the next two debates.  And both times, the losing side was sure, absolutely sure, that they would carry Ohio (2004 - the exit polls, and 2012 the unskew guy).   And, of course, both times, despite extreme enthusiasm by the challenging side, the incumbent President won because he was able to get his supporters to come out to the polls in large numbers.  

When Kerry lost in 2004, I was devastated because I realized that there was nothing more I, or any other Democrat, could have done to stop Bush from winning.  Our leadership just wasn't smart enough to beat Karl Rove, and there was more Republicans in the country than Democrats.  Sound familiar?

Despite all the jokes about Karl Rove blowing $390 million (!!!), and whatever can be said about Mitt Romney, you, my conservative brethren  did everything you could to win this campaign.  You spent more money than the President.  You had election officials in key states who shamelessly did everything they could to prevent Obama supporters from voting.   There was no stone left unturned.  You left it all out on the field, and for that, I salute you.  

In the next few months and weeks, you are going to hear a lot of excuses by the Republican Party leadership about why Obama won and Romney lost.  I've heard Limbaugh say that Romney was running against Santa Claus, and O'Reilly saying much the same thing.  I've heard Rove say that Obama's negativity discouraged Romney supporters from voting, and there will be plenty of bullshit out there, peddled by the people who said that Romney was a shoe-in, and that the polls were biased.  Do not believe them.  No, you lost for the same reason that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards lost to Obama in the 2008 primaries - Obama went out and found more voters. 

And these voters did not vote for Obama because he promised them free stuff - but because he had a plan that is kinda, sorta, working.  Because he represents a turn away from policies of George W. Bush, who, as you might remember, had an approval rating in the twenties when he left office.  Romney never articulated how he was going to be different - instead he looked like a plutocrat.  Most importantly, though, these voters came to the polls because Obama reached out to them in ways that Romney could not and did not.

Okay, I'm sorry to sound like I'm piling on - I don't mean to.  You worked your ass off, and damn if you didn't come close.  But you need to accept reality.  If you ran a campaign against Obama the man, as opposed to the Kenyan anti-colonial communist you think Obama is, you might have won.  Trust me, I know.  We Democrats kept running against Bush the idiot, instead of Bush the actual guy.

So, you might ask, why the hell am I writing this?  Its because America needs conservatives and conservatism just as much as it needs liberals and liberalism.  Neither side has all the answers, and we both have our excesses.  We need each other for balance. 

Lastly, as someone who got over the pain of 2004, here's my advice to you - take a walk.  Get some air, play some music, catch up on some old hobbies and/or chores.  Put politics aside for awhile.  Turn off Fox News (who's more interested in selling stuff than Republican wins).  Trust me, 2016 is a lot closer than you think.

Back from Vacation Blogging. . .

Wow, its been almost a month since my last blog post.  I almost can't believe it.  On the other hand, that's the joy of vacation - you get out of your head for awhile.  For the record, I went to Miami and St. Petersburg, helped catch a 400+lb. Goliath Grouper (my contributions were minimal, but existent), and generally had a good time.  I even did stuff, which I had no intention of doing.  So, this has been the first chance, and inclination to blog at all. So without further ado. . .

Birthers, Birthers:  Hmm. . .do they really exist after Obama produced his long-form birth certificate?  Birtherism always struck me as being a proxy for the obvious - that Obama is a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name.  It is a direct attack on his legitimacy as President.  Obvious racism is generally despised, so to hide the racism, people would couch their language as doubting Obama's place of birth.  Still, it should be no surprise that the long form birth certificate confirmed what we knew.  I knew the whole thing was much ado about nothing when it was discovered that there were two birth announcements in Hawaiian papers published shortly after Obama's birth.  Of course, producing a long-form birth certificate won't make Obama any whiter, or give him a less Muslim-sounding name, but it does expose birthers as kooks and racists.

Popping a Cap in Osama bin Laden's Ass: Or rather, a double tap to the head.  In college, I had the privilege of meeting a SEAL Team 6 member (totally legit too - the guy's picture was in "Black Belt" Magazine).  We were in "The Matchmaker" together and while we rehearsed, the guy told all of us 18-22 year old kids how to take a human being apart like a cheap watch.  My best description in two words: AWWWWEEESOMMEE!!!!!* Anyway, offing Osama was a huge, huge coup for the President, and shows that there's some hope we can get out of Iraq and Afghanistan sometime soon.  Oh, and was the killing legal? Probably, and we'll never know for sure.

Weird Things in Iran: President Ahmadinejad's staff, including his Chief of Staff, have been charged with sorcery. . .yes, like Harry Potter.  Now, granted, sorcery would help explain how Ahmadinejad was elected by such a large margin in the last election (bud-dum), but the arrests also indicate a fracture between the President and Supreme Leader, and that's very interesting.  There's no question, Khamenei put his ass on the line for Ahmadinejad during the presidential election, and in face of obvious voter fraud.  And if the conservative elites fight amongst themselves. . .well, interesting things will happen. 

Pakistani and American Relations: Of anything out there that scares me, the deterioration of US-Pakistani relations does the most.  Its looking pretty clear that Pakistan, or some elements of its military and/or intelligence network were helping Al Qaeda.  There's no way, Osama bin Laden could've lived within the same town as Pakistan's chief military academy for six years without someone figuring it out.  And to now prevent access to bin Laden's wives. . .wow.  Of course, the problem with Pakistan is that it has nukes, and so pressing the issue is problematic, at best.  And by problematic, I mean, "potentially starting a war between the U.S., Pakistan, India and China, all of whom have nukes."  Let's tread very, very carefully, please.

On a personal note:

David L. Holmes, one of my religion professors at William & Mary is retiring.  While Prof. Holmes certainly would not appreciate some of the language used on this blog (for instance, I just wrote "blog" instead of "online journal"), I loved the classes I took with him. In part, Professor Holmes looked like a college professor should look - glasses, balding hair, jacket with suede patches, and sounded like Garrison Keeler, but more than his looks or how he sounded, Professor Holmes had the caring and the humanity that meant the world to me. 

I know that the human mind leads us to remember the good times, and forget the bad, but I remember thinking while in his classes that this is what a college class should be.  In the antique and wonderful halls of the Wren Building, smelling of old wood, the sun shining through the windows, hearing Professor Holmes lead a discussion on Ordinary People, or teaching us about the Reformation was a pure joy.  I worked hard in his classes, not just because the curriculum was difficult, but also because I wanted to impress him.  While I strongly disagree with his taste in whiskey - gleaned from my friend Ben, who was his boarder during my Senior year (rye, ick) - I will remember him, and the lessons he taught me, always.**

*Yes, I am aware that AWWWWEEESOMMEE is one, poorly spelled, word.

**Well, most of his lessons.  I have a feeling Professor Holmes would read this blog and gasp at the poor grammar.  I probably need to reread Shrunk & White, but slowly, as it is a rich as pecan pie.

Sad Truths (hopefully, vol. 1)

As Bogart has repeatedly pointed out, I'm a pretty big firebomber when it comes to politics. That said, I would really would like to have a legitimate conversation about politics and policy in this country, and try to come up with solutions to problems. With that in mind, the following includes sad truths that conservatives must accept. I invite my conservative readers (all three of you - which is about half of my regular readership) to pen a similar post, and I will post it on this blog. So here goes:

Sad Truths That Conservatives Must Accept

1. Obama was born in the United States

Sure, Obama has a funny name, a weird personal history, and all that. But let's be clear, his birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, the local papers announced his birth as being in Hawaii back in the 1960's, and the Governor of Hawaii (who was friends with Obama's parents) remembers visiting Obama's parents in a Honolulu hospital. The dude was born in the States. Get over it.

2. Obama is a Christian

Look, I'll concede that Obama's father and stepfather were, at least in theory, Muslims, but its also clear that Obama was raised by his Christian grandparents, and by the time he was starting out as an organizer in Chicago, he was pretty much agnostic. He then converted to Christianity, not for show, but for real. Remember the whole Jeremiah Wright thing? Obama credited the guy with converting him, which is why he didn't immediately throw Wright under the bus - and instead gave one of the most reasoned, impassioned speeches on race in America, ever. If you listen to his speeches, he refers to the Bible (the Christian Bible) over and over again.

3. Evolution is Real

For those of you out there that think that evolution is "just a theory" keep this in mind - evolution, the process by which organisms change to suit their surroundings has been observed thousands of times in thousands of conditions. In other words, species evolve. The only theoretical part about evolution is the how. Does it occur all at once or gradually? What are the mechanisms that cause it to happen? Why do some species evolve and others do not? But there is no question whatsoever that evolution is real, and that its occurring.

4. Global Climate Change is Real

First of all, as a San Diegan who went through an entire summer where the Sun did not come out at all, I can tell you that the weather is totally bizarre lately. We've seen bigger than ever storms, severe droughts, crazy shit all over. Now, what's causing the craziness? The overall temperature of the Earth is warming, which means there's more heat than before, and heat is energy, and energy makes shit go crazy. That's physics 101. So, what's causing increase in heat? Well, there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than before - something that has been measured by scientists over the past 50 years, and studied by measuring the carbon dioxide levels in air trapped in glaciers. So, what's causing the carbon dioxide? Well, let's see: carbon dioxide is created when carbon burns, and in the past 150 years, human beings have gotten really, really good at burning carbon, and the population of humans has quadrupled. All of this comes from science. Not science paid for by oil companies, but from independent scientists. And here's the thing, before a scientist can publish his results, he/she has to make sure everything is perfect so that other scientists can reproduce his or her results. In other words, a good scientific paper is like a cake recipe - its worth is in being able to show the same findings over and over again.

5. Fox News is Lying to You

Fox News likes to tell its viewers that its news is fair and balanced. Its not. On a regular basis, Fox tells its reporters and on-air personalities to shade the truth. Check this out. The whole, Obama is a socialist meme is fake. If anything, Obama is a cross between a New Deal Democrat and a Clintonian, pro-business Dem. Anyway, this makes sense because Fox News' business model is all about giving news a conservative spin. That is different from CNN because CNN's business model is all about being an objective purveyor of the news (which they suck at, and thus, CNN is unwatchable, but that's another story). So, Fox News doesn't get viewers by being accurate, it gets them by riling them up. The more of you who believe Obama is a socialist and the anti-Christ and a secret Muslim hell bent on destroying the country, the more of you watch Fox to gather updates on the impending doom, the more money Fox makes.

6. All Corporations are Amoral

This is one that I have to teach liberals as well. Corporations are not evil, but they're not good either. Rather, corporations exist for one purpose only - to make money. Not to save the environment, or to protect puppies, or to instill good, Christian values, but to make money. They may make money by helping people, or by screwing people, but they must make money. If they don't, their shareholders will get pissed and fire everyone. The only thing that distinguishes corporations is how they make money. Ford makes money by selling cars, Google makes money by selling internet advertising. But ultimately, they exist to make money.

I bring up this point because as a result of this single-mindedness, corporations will do both good and bad things. They will produce products we all want, but may use sloppy and dangerous methods to produce the products. They hire employees, but seek to pay them as little as possible. And corporations have shown no qualms about killing their customers with their products so long as it does not affect the bottom line. At the same time, corporations drive the economy, make cool shit, and put money in our pockets.

So, the way I think of corporations is like how I think of my dog - he provides great companionship, is friendly to humans and dogs, gets my ass off the couch, and is a good watchdog. But he has an intense desire to kill small furry animals - cats, squirrels, rabbits, etc. - and so when I walk him, I have to keep him on a short leash. Similarly, regulations have to exist to some degree to prevent corporations from leg-humping or worse. But liberals have to keep in mind is that we have to give corporations some ability to operate.

Random Thoughts Blogging. . .

Okay, random is never the right word - rather, these are thoughts that I had that I don't want to have their own post.

1) Failures of the Democratic Party

When I look at what has gone wrong over the past four years of Democratic control of Congress, and the past two years of controlling all of government, I am struck by how ill-prepared the Democratic Party was to rule. And here's what I mean - whereas the GOP has a governing philosophy, the Democrats define themselves by not being the GOP. Sure, there is a laundry list of things to do, but Democrats can't agree on their own political philosophy, while Republicans do their best to comport to "conservativism," consequences be damned.

So, when the Democrats took power, their only goal was to dismantle everything Bush did, and then they got caught up in the storm of economic crises, wars, etc. But there was and is no clear economic vision. To this day, I don't know what Obama's vision for America is, and that's largely because he's been trying to keep the economy afloat.

This failure of leadership and vision is probably what's killing us now. The economy is stable, businesses have the cash to invest and move forward, but no one knows what the future will hold, so these companies are holding back. Had Obama set forth his vision, a vision in line with a Democratic Party philosophy of economics, we would be in a different spot then we're in now.

2) Padres Trading Away Adrian Gonzalez

As a Padres fan, this trade was painful. I knew it was bound to happen, but this trade lays bare all the problems in baseball. Here, the Padres traded away their best player, a team leader, a local boy done good (he credits his power to carne asada burritos), and an all around good guy, for prospects because they couldn't afford to resign him in a year. This may be a broken record, but when a mid-market team like the Padres can't afford to pay its best player, then there are serious problems in baseball.

3) The Yankees are Douchebags

There are two reasons why the Yankees didn't sign Cliff Lee: 1) their fans spit on and heckled Cliff Lee's wife during the playoffs; and 2) the organization went out of its way to embarrass Derek Jeter. Now sure, Jeter is overrated as a baseball player, but Jeter is Mr. Yankee - a guy who willingly took up the Ruth/Gerhig/DiMaggio mantle and wore it proudly. There are maybe 5 guys in baseball who could do the same. . .no fuck that, there's only Derek Jeter. So, if I was not a Yankee, but offered money to be one, I would have to think long and hard. If the Yankees are willing to throw Jeter under the bus, they'd throw anyone under the bus. There was no way in hell Lee was joining the Yankees after that spectacle.

4) I'm having a hard time getting excited for football this season

Maybe its a reaction to how up and down the Chargers are this year, maybe its because my dog reacts whenever I yell at the TV (he thinks I'm barking at a squirrel or something and goes nuts), but I'm just not into football this season. Sure, I'm enjoying it, but I'm not as into football as I have been in the past.

On the tax cut deal. . .

So, with great sadness, all Democrats have finally realized that Obama isn't a progressive, but rather a pragmatist more interested in getting small things done than providing the reform the country needs. This tax cut deal is a disaster on so many fronts - it encourages the Republicans to become more intransigent on other issues, such as Social Security, it demoralizes the Democratic base, and most importantly, its just bad policy. Yes, it could be worse (and that was Obama's point), but not by much.

Q: So, what should good progressives do about this?

A: We need to ratfuck our President.

Simply put, the Democrats on Capitol Hill should completely reject the plan. When the President calls to get people on board, they should dodge his calls. This needs to be a complete and utter loss handed to him by his own party, similar to how the GOP killed Bush's immigration reform bill in 2006.

My reasoning here is simple - right now, the President is negotiating with an intransigent GOP, and a more or less flexible Democratic Party. Democrats, by and large, are less interested in means than they are in ends. So, where a Republican will insist on tax cuts no matter the situation, a Democrat will be willing to discuss a variety of policy decisions to meet the sought after ends. As a result, the President and the policies are pushed further to the right - further than the American people want, by measure of the polls.

However, if Democrats ratfuck this deal, then the President will start having to worry about how the Left will react to his negotiations, and will adjust his behavior accordingly. In so doing, we might see real bipartisan compromise, or we might see no action whatsoever. But we will better negotiations.

I. Am. So. Pissed. Off. Right. Now.

Okay, that's not quite true.  In the wake of the complete and utter disaster that was last night, I am more or less depressed.  But to make a few of you happy, here are my thoughts:

1) Anger With Obama and the Democratic Leadership: In the last two years, Democrats had proof, actual, real proof, that Republican economic policy was a complete and utter failure, and they did nothing with it.  No mortgage foreclosure reform.  No bankruptcy reform.  A stimulus that was completely limp and relied on tax cuts (which, by the way, don't do shit in a deflationary cycle).  All we could do was stop the economic bleeding.  Now, that would have been enough to explain to the voters, but oh, fucking, no, we can't do that.

Instead of actually governing, the Democratic "Leadership" fought amongst themselves - okay the Democrats in the Senate did the fighting - and we ended up with watered down everything.  Anyway, it wasn't the liberals who fucked everything up.  It was the moderates.  The half-measures didn't help enough people, pissing off the moderates, and deflated the Democratic base.  And guess what, when you lose even some of the base, you lose the election.  The GOP figured this out thirty years ago. 

So, I'm very, very angry with the Democratic Leadership right now.  Okay, not with Nancy Pelosi, who did everything she was supposed to do.

2) Depressed Over Good People Losing: There were lots of good, smart people who lost yesterday.  Russ Feingold worked his ass off for the people of Wisconsin, and lost because of the weak-kneed bullshit of his more conservative fellow Democrats. 

Worst of all, for me personally, Howard Wayne lost to Lorie Zapf in the race for San Diego City Council.  Howard Wayne was overqualified to be a City Councilman, and who cares about people.  He might have dressed like a schlub, and wasn't a good public speaker, but Wayne is a true public servant who, when he isn't a public official, he is a public servant (literally - he is an Assistant AG).  And he lost to Lorie Zapf, who hasn't done a goddamn thing in her life for the public good, and speaks in talking points.  Ugh.

And here's where I get upset really - it would be one thing if Democrats lost to good, hard-working, smart, and well-deserving conservatives.  But they didn't, for the most part.  With the exception of Brian Sandoval - the next Governor of Nevada (and potentially huge problem for the Democrats in the future) - the GOP candidates were the dregs of the conservative movement.  Let's face it, good conservatives don't run for office, they go out and make money.  So instead of intelligent discourse, we're going to have talking points and lunatic conspiracy theories.  Fucking great.

3) Fear for the Future: We have big, big problems in this country, and this next Congress isn't going to help fix any of them.  If there's a government shutdown, we're going to end up in a full-blown deflationary cycle, and the economy will get worse.  That's for certain.  At best, we're looking at two years of gridlock.  At worst, two years of Democratic capitulation.  Fuck.

4) Hope: At least in California, we got Jerry Brown, almost passed Prop. 19, and rejected Prop. 23.  There is some hope for the future.  Some.

Whining?

Rolling out its big political message for the month, President Obama and VP Biden have both, to varying degrees, expressed frustration at the base of the Democratic Party for "whining," and are telling Democrats everywhere to get out and vote.  As much as I like Obama and his Administration, I have to say this total argument is completely idiotic, and goes back to what I have said about the Democratic Leadership - they don't listen to their base at all.

First of all, and to be clear, I am a Democrat.  I have always been a Democrat, and I have voted in almost every election held since I turned 18 (the 1994 General, and the 1996 Primary are the exceptions because absentee ballots were hard to come by when I was in college).   I'm going to vote in November, and I will vote Democrat down the line.  Moreover, almost every whiner is going to vote Democrat in November as well.  That's because we're engaged in politics and we have always been.

But you know who isn't engaged? The Obama voters.  In 2008, Obama did the unthinkable - he drew millions of people, who would not have otherwise voted, to the polls.  Each and every one of those voters were not deeply engaged, and had been discouraged from politics before.  And rather than whining about the economy, or health care, or any number of the issues the Administration has floundered on, they will stay at home come election day.  That is, unless Obama reengages them, encourages them, inspires them, and draws them in the way that only Obama can.

That said, let me add a few additional points - the problem with the whining isn't that liberals are whining, its that the whiners have been right, and the Administration has been wrong.  Bloggers like me have been right about the size of the Stimulus, right about bipartisanship, right about health care, right about DADT, right about Blanche Lincoln, right about Joe Lieberman, and right about virtually everything else.  Okay, maybe "right" is too strong of a word.  Perhaps a better word is "more correct." Regardless, the point remains - virtually every liberal blogger can pull up an old post, show it to the Administration and say, "I told you so."

But more than being right, the Administration forgets that it needs people like me to do more than just vote - the whole operations of the Democratic Party depends on people like me volunteering time, donating money, and drumming up the support of my friends.  If we're not engaged, (and I have almost checked out of this race), then the whole Party operation collapses. 

Don't Get Fooled Again

During my freshman year at William & Mary, my freshman seminar class had a debate between a country lawyer Democrat and an Wall Street Republican.  In the debate, the Republican crushed the Democrat when he attacked Bill Clinton over the weakening dollar.  Now, the beating didn't occur because the Republican was right, but rather because the Democrat didn't have the foggiest understanding of economics.  And when the Republican came to our class the next day, I managed to get the Republican to admit he was bullshitting about the weakening dollar because he knew the Democrat had no knowledge of economics.

From that moment on, I realized that if Democrats were going to win debates about the economy, they have to know economic theory, or else they'll get rolled by Republicans.  And finally, we're in a situation where knowledge of economics is a good thing, and we end up getting cowed by the Republicans again.  This tweet by John Boehner is the single most ignorant thing about the economy ever.  He wants to create jobs by cutting government spending. . .Ugh.

Here's the problem with Boehner's prescription - we're not in an inflationary cycle, we're in a deflationary cycle.  Yes, the Budget Deficit is huge, and normally that would mean that there would be large inflationary pressures, but there aren't.  Inflation is phenomenally low at 1% (ish), and the economy still sucks.  That's because we have a demand side recession - businesses and customers aren't spending - rather than a supply side shock - where there's no money to invest.  Or, think 1940's instead of 1970's.  So cutting government spending is like giving a laxative to someone who has diarrhea - its only going to make things worse because now no one will be spending.

Cutting taxes is a less stupid idea, but not exactly brilliant either.  Again, there is no problem with the money supply - if anything, there is too little money in the economy right now, so increasing the monetary supply through tax cuts won't help at all.  It might encourage some people to spend a little more, but not enough to help.

No, the only thing that will work here is a massive increase in domestic spending.  Maybe not New Deal big, but close.  That way, government spending will increase overall demand, and people will have jobs, etc.  Now, I understand the whole, if we spend it, we'll end up spending it for a lifetime theory, so write in Sunset clauses into the spending legislation.  But do something.

And ultimately that's the problem - right now there's no Democratic leader who's saying this.  They're all cowed by the GOP rhetoric on the economy, even the dumb rhetoric.  If I was Obama, I would make this case in a national address every single week until Congress passed the right legislation.  Of course, what I'm saying is exactly what Paul Krugman, a NOBEL PRIZE WINNER IN ECONOMICS has been saying for the PAST YEAR AND A HALF, but what the fuck to we know.  Ugh.

Holy Crap, Have I Really Not Posted Anything in a Month?

"[The law] is a jealous mistress, and requires a long and constant courtship. It is not to be won by trifling favors, but by lavish homage." Justice Joseph Story, 1829.

If Justice Story heard about my month, he'd say something to the effect of, "Damn, dude, slow down."  In the past month, I sent out an average of two substantive briefs (written reports to the Court where I actually had to think about the legal issues involved) ever week, for three weeks.  As a result, I have neglected friends, family, and most importantly, my blog. ;)

Anyway, I am still alive, and still thinking about all things politics, food and baseball.  So, rather than write a full-fledged post, here are a few quick thoughts:

1) GO PADRES - Homerism aside, my favorite baseball team is in first place at the All-Star Break, and is doing it all with epic pitching - giving up a mere 314 runs in 91 games (the fewest, by far, of any team in the majors).  Sure, the offense is nothing special, but it doesn't have to be.  Most baseball writers are expecting to Padres to fall apart in the second half, but if you look at the total run differential, the Padres are winning as many games as they should win.  In other words, they are as good as they're playing.  Hopefully, everyone will stay healthy.

2) OBAMA - Ugh.  When I was in college, I remember one of my professors stressing to us that most decisions of significance are made by people below the President.  And here, I think the biggest problem with Obama is that the people surrounding him are less aggressive than Obama.  There has to be a good cop/bad cop element to every negotiation, and Obama is a piss-poor bad cop.  I thought that Rahm Emmanuel would be the bad cop, but he's too moderate in his politics.  So as a result, Obama keeps caving to the Right.

3) THE ECONOMY - I am a Keyesian, so let me state the following to all potential federal decision makers - SPEND MORE FUCKING MONEY.  Oh, and spend it within the U.S., not abroad.  Yes, it'll hurt us in the long term, debt-wise, but not spending the cash and ending up in a long-term deflationary cycle is worse. 

4) RANDOM QUESTION - Why hasn't anyone on the Left thought about organizing the long-term unemployed to march on Washington for more benefits, etc.  Its not like they have anything to do right now.

How to deal with GOP Obstructionism - Open Letter to Harry Reid

Dear Senator Reid,

I realize that you and I aren't particularly close, but I am a long-time Democrat, and a watcher of all things political for a number of years.  I'm not a blogger by trade, actually, I'm an attorney and prior to that I worked in politics for a few San Diego candidates you've never heard of.  I also have lots of ideas that you probably disagree with - but that's a topic for another letter.

With that said, I am the kind of out-of-the-box thinker you need right now, because if the reports are right, if the current reports are correct, the Senate Republicans are about to filibuster the Senate jobs bill.  Not having this bill pass would be a disaster.  We all know people who are hurt by the "Great Recession" (or at this time, "The Less Than Ideal Recovery"), and they need help.  Moreover, the loss of income would probably plunge the economy back into a recession.  Given that the American people generally don't follow politics, and expect things to get done, the American people will blame the failure of doing something on the Democrats, and it is going to hurt the Democrats in November. 
 
But there's a way out.  Right now, not only does the Democratic Party have the Senate, but they hold the White House.  So, in concert with President Obama, do the following:

1) Force a real filibuster - that is, if the GOP wants to filibuster the jobs bill, make them stand on the floor and debate the bill.  Now, yes, this will stall the passage of the bill, but bear with me here, you actually want that.  Shutdown all business in the Senate if you have to, but keep the GOP filibustering the bill.

2) While the GOP is filibustering, get every Senate Democrat possible on every news show possible, slamming the GOP for shutting down business in the Senate to deny jobless Americans their benefits. 

3) Every week that the filibuster goes, have President Obama address the country from the Oval Office and criticize the GOP for the filibuster.

Now, the benefit of this approach is that the Republican Senators, most of whom have never actually filibustered anything, may end up folding.  But even if they don't, you will have spent months demonstrating to the America people that the Republican Party is causing the double dip recession.  Its a win-win communication strategy.

Thanks again,

Phat Jim

Profiles in Fucktatude: General Stanley McChrystal

Well, talk about a turn of events - suddenly, the General in charge of the Afghanistan campaign is quoted in Rolling Stone criticizing the President, and is being recalled to Washington.  And by recalled, I mean the General was told under no uncertain terms to get his ass on a plane to DC ASAP.  While I'm not sure what will happen to McChrystal when he gets here, I sure as hell don't want to him right now.

Let's face it, Obama has easily moved into the most-shit-on President sweepstakes. I'm not saying he's the most shit upon, but he's definitely in the top five or six (FDR, Hoover, Lincoln, Bush, and maybe Madison).  He starts off having to rescue the economy, fix health care, deal with the BP oil disaster, fight two wars, and deal with the morons in Congress.  All the while, he also has to fend off accusations that he is a foreign Manchurian candidate who's going to turn over the country to the Islamists Socialists. Ugh.  Hell, even I've criticized his actions.

In other words, this guy probably has A LOT of reserved anger (which, by the way, I'm okay with him playing golf and basketball - he needs to get the anger out so he doesn't bomb some poor country into the stone age).  And here comes McChrystal criticizing him, not for substantive issues, but because Obama took time to listen to other opinions BEFORE GIVING MCCRYSTAL EVERYTHING HE WANTED.

So, as McChrystal makes the slow flight back to DC, Obama is going to seriously think about what he's going to do with the General.  His options are: 1) fire the guy immediately; 2) hear McCrystal out, and after getting the General to grovel, keep him on; or, 3) Be a total dick.

Given that McChrystal is coming back to DC, option 1 is out of the question.  Option 2 is still possible, but if I were McCrystal, I wouldn't bet on it.  If I had to bet, I'd bet that Obama will go with Option 3 - be a total dick.  He's going to make McCrystal grovel for his job, let him twist in the wind for a week, and then reassign him to the most humiliating job Obama can find.  And if McChrystal tries to resign, Obama will refuse the resignation (he can do that).

Now, in reality, Obama will probably not go as far as I just did, but he can.  And the problem with being a maverick like McChrystal is that there isn't anyone to back him up.  Thus, I'm fairly certain that McChrystal is going to get a taste of the shit Obama has been eating.  Good luck, General, you're going to need it.

Moral of the story - Never purposely shit on your boss when your boss is getting shit-on by the world.

UPDATE - McChyrstal has offered his resignation, and Obama has refused to consider it until after he speaks with the General directly.  My new bold prediction is that Obama gets his pound of flesh tomorrow, and then accepts the resignation.

A Wild and Crazy Way to Stimulate the Economy

Okay, so with everyone freaking out about spending (including Germany's totally insane request for all governments to cut spending), and with the World (save South America) still in economic doldrums, and with long-term unemployment booming, let me add my two cents.

First, cutting government spending right now is madness.  There are three reasons to cut government spending: 1) Inflationary pressures, as in there's too much money in the economy and prices are going up; 2) High interest rates - Government is crowding out private investment by increased spending; or 3) No one will lend the country any money (See Greece).  Right now, NONE of these reasons exist.  Inflation is nonexistent (and deflation is still a threat), interest rates are low, and we still have countries willing to give the US money (and given the fact that we have the world's most powerful military, no one is really going to cut us off). 

Given that a national economy is a mix of consumer spending, business investment and government spending, cutting government spending when consumers and businesses aren't spending is a recipe for economic doom.  In fact, the Great Depression was extended by several years when FDR decided to cut government spending.

That said, I don't necessarily like the idea of having people on unemployment for as long as they are.  Unemployment payments are, by their very nature, temporary solutions.  Right now, unemployment benefits are stretching 99 weeks - almost two years.  And so, I don't think we can continue to go down this path.  Moreover, many of these long-term unemployed are long-term unemployed for a reason - the jobs they lost are, most likely, gone forever.

But that doesn't mean that we should lose hope.  I have one of those wacky, no-one-will-ever-consider-it ideas.  Let's give these long-term unemployed individuals small business loans of $10-$20 thousand dollars (or more, depending).  Give these people the capital to start their own business.  Now, most of the money, without question, will go down the drain.  But even if one-tenth of one percent of the loans actually works out, it'll be worth it because for that short period of time, we will have hope.

In the meantime, the U.S. should invest heavily in infrastructure improvements, and encourage local governments to streamline their regulatory processes.  Anyway, that's my idea.  Your thoughts?

So, how do we stimulate the economy? 

A Rant on BP. . .

So last week, I finally broke down and ordered HBO from my local cable outlet.  In the orgy of television watching the followed, I saw "Treme," David Simon's show about New Orleans post-Katrina (great show by the way).  Just as Simon's beloved Baltimore, New Orleans is basically a fucked up place, but beloved nonetheless. 

One thing that got me is how New Orleans has now gone from mostly fucked - as in, sure the town is destroyed, but there needs to be a city around the largest American port - to totally fucked.  The BP oil rig disaster is currently devastating a way of life - fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida - in ways beyond our comprehension.  Worst of all, it becomes clearer and clearer every day that BP, with the okay of the Feds, ignored all possible safety precautions that could have prevented the disaster. 

So, another day, another mess for the Obama Administration.  Never have I ever seen an Administration have to deal with so many crises at once.  And thanks to decades of deregulation, we're going to see one crisis after another pop up seemingly from nowhere.   Worst of all, our leaders are stuck in the Clintonian era of paying down deficits and deregulation.  Morons.

In this instance, and rather than consensus building, Obama needs to bring down the hammer.  Order the government to seize all of BP's assets to insure that BP has the money to pay for the cleanup.  Fire every Federal employee that he can, and who is responsible for this mess.  Push the DOJ to file criminal charges against all parties involved, and hire the local fishing fleet to clean up the mess.  Hire Samuel L. Jackson* to act as his spokesman for anything BP related.  "Yes, the President stripped BP of all of its drilling contracts, and I HOPE BP BURNS IN HELL!!!"

*Editor's Note: My suggestion of Samuel L. Jackson has nothing to do with anyone's race, but rather has everything to do with Mr. Jackson's ability to express righteous indignation better than anyone else alive.

Anyway, I think you get the idea. The thing is, the people are pissed, and someone needs to be made an example of.  And given that BP is an oil company, and a foreign company, and they've totally ruined the fishing industry in the Gulf for at least a generation, why not completely fuck them up? 

Enforcement Only Immigration Reform is Idiotic

So, Obama is sending 1200 troops to the border in an effort to stem illegal immigration.  Additionally, no one, and I mean no one, has deported more people than the Obama Administration.   Go ahead, look it up on Google, I'll wait.  You done yet?  Okay, good, because the point of this article isn't to praise Obama's immigration enforcement efforts, its to pan them completely (though, the deportation increase is probably the result of the enforcement efforts at the end of the Bush Administration which are now finally being litigated).

So, let's ask the key question - why do people hire illegal/undocumented immigrants?  Simple, they hire undocumented immigrants because the immigrants will be willing to be paid less than other workers and because they won't complain about abuse (out of fear of deportation).  But these factors don't change when you change the supply of illegal immigrants by enforcement - they exacerbate them.  Immigrants become less and less willing to speak up for themselves if deportation becomes a very real threat. For instance, when I worked for the Fair Housing Council, a landlord had two fake immigration officials threaten her tenants, and these tenants almost dropped their complaint (and they would have, but for the fact that the immigration officials were so obviously fake).

Now, if the enforcement was equally applied to both employers and immigrants, this would be different.  The monetary value of hiring an undocumented person would drop, and employers would think that hiring an undocumented person wasn't worth the risk.  But that's never going to happen.  For one, its easier to find undocumented immigrants than employers, and its easier to prosecute them.  Employers have "rights" and "lawyers" which make prosecutions expensive and risky.  So, the Feds go for the easy target.

And that's been the state of immigration in the country for the past twenty years.  Every Administration since Reagan has beefed up immigration enforcement, and the situation has only gotten worse.  So, instead of trying to prevent immigrants from coming, let's reduce the economic benefit of hiring undocumented immigrants - give them documentation, full rights under the law, and let them compete with Americans on an even playing field.

Hippie Punching, ctd,

Not too long ago, I wrote that while the Democratic Party establishment has no problem attacking the grassroots, the Republican Party Establishment is beholden to their base.  The recent immigration debate, brought on by the Arizona Legislature, and drafted by a hate group, brings this issue to the fore.  I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of Republican leaders willing to speak out against this law, despite its popularity. 

Of all the slings and arrows I could throw at the Bush Administration, racism is not one of them.  Bush didn't care about the color of your skin, he cared about how much money you had in your bank account.  His immigration bill was less than perfect, but its a lot better than nothing.  Not surprisingly, its the Bushies that are attacking the law.  Oh, and John McCain (who says he never claimed to be a maverick) looks worse and worse by comparison every single day.


But all this leads me to the oddities of the American political system, as noticed by Bush and Rove - African Americans and Latinos tend to vote for candidates who don't share their political views on social issues.  Significant portions of African American voters are anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, and as anti-tax as anyone.  Similar portions of Latino voters are equally anti-choice, anti-gay and anti-tax.  And yet, these voters either stay at home or vote Democratic in every election.  I think the reason for this discrepancy is that minority voters view Republicans as racists - a view that is exacerbated by issuing proclamations in support of the Confederacy (without mentioning slavery), opposing civil rights legislation, supporting oppressive anti-immigration legislation, etc.  Until that changes, the GOP will never make significant inroads with these key constituencies.

Other notes: its pretty clear now that the economy of much of the Bush Administration was based upon the housing market, which everyone knew was precarious.  This article makes clear that while the Fed had some reservations, and knew how to slow down the bubble (by rising interest rates), it chose not to. . .I'm not sure I like the Chargers' draft this year. . .I like the Padres' start. . .

And lastly, the Obama Administration, or more specifically, Obama, needs to make clear that he won't allow the U.S. to devolve into cowardice and fear because some loser tried to set off a bomb.  That's what the terrorists want - they want us to strip away the rights of American citizens, they want cower in fear.  We win when we refuse to do so.  With that said, big props to the street vendors who helped the police nail that loser in New York.

Intrepreting the Constitution

Of all the classes I took in law school, there was only one that I truly despised: Constitutional Law.  That's not to say that I loved all of my classes - Civ. Pro., thanks to the professor, was too esoteric, and Tax Law was horrifically boring (go figure) - but for the most part, I didn't despise these classes like I did Con Law.  And I bet if you asked 1000 former lawyers and law students, you'd hear the same level of disgust when it comes to Con Law.

Now, this has to be a surprise for most non-law students because, of all the classes going into law school, Con Law is the one people think about when they think about law school.  And everyone has an opinion on the Constitution - from abortion to gay rights to the role of religion in government, and so on, Constitutional Law is the law we discuss when we talk about the law.

So how could a topic like Con Law be so despised?  Well, unlike any other area of law, Con Law is not shaped by 1000 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, and reformed by legislative action.  Con Law is, at its very heart, whatever 9 people say it is.  And since those 9 people change over time, the law continually changes.  So, trying to make heads and tails of the law is completely unintelligible.  My Con Law professor turned the whole affair into a philosophy course.  Ugh.

By the way, the conservative critique of liberal justices being "activist" is complete and utter nonsense.  There may have been a time where the liberal wing pushed the boundaries, but the conservatives have been just as willing to overthrow the established law.

Let me also say that originalism - wherein the Supreme Court is supposed to determine the original intent of the Framers when interpreting the Constitution - is also nonsense.  First, the Constitution was written by James Madison, edited by a large group of people, and then passed and ratified by still larger groups of people.  Even if you had a letter describing why there's a comma here, or a word there, it would be signed by only one person, and his opinion could very well be different from everyone else's.  In reality, Scalia's originalism is merely a pretext to do whatever he wants. 

Instead, I'm much more of a textualist.  That is, I believe that, as much as possible, the Constitution means what it says.  Moreover, you have to read the policies inherent in the Constitution.  For instance, the right of privacy - which is really the right to self-sovereignty - isn't an explicit right in the Constitution, but the police can't arrest you without a warrant, can't search or take your stuff without a warrant, and you have the right to say what you want, believe what you want, and go wherever you want.  So, in reading the Bill of Rights, its pretty clear that the sovereignty rights of people was a pretty big thing.  Then there's the 10 Amendment which says, essentially, that if there's anything we forgot to mention in protecting an individual's rights, its in there too.

So, for me, I'd like to see a Supreme Court Justice take the following position - I'm going to take the Constitution on its word, unless doing so will result in an absurd result.  That's it.

Not Pearl Harbor: Even More Thoughts on HCR

The Health Care Reform (HCR) debate has been rattling around in my head all day today, as you can tell by this record output. Anyway, I have a couple of thoughts on HCR that deserve attention.

1) The Pearl Harbor Analogy is off Lindsey Graham, Senator from South Carolina, referred to the HCR vote as Democrats drinking sake in preparations for Pearl Harbor. . .and obviously I think this is a bad analogy. The Health Care Reform bill(s) weren't designed as gambits to destroy a potential threat, but rather, they are the first step in reforming health care services in this country. Accordingly, the GOP and their allies weren't protesting the parts of the bill (which were vague), but rather, they were protesting the idea of health care reform in any way, shape or form.

In other words, they were trying to prevent the Democrats from establishing a beachhead. Thus, its completely possible that Congress could take up the public option (or, as I like to refer to it, the Medicare buy-in) in the future. After all, with a bill this big, you're going to tweak it over the years. So, really, the better analogy is establishing a beachhead on Normandy.

2) Nancy Pelosi deserves a lot of credit Someone, somehow, found some spine on the Democratic side, and from most accounts, it was Nancy Pelosi. After Scott Brown won in the Massachusetts Senate race, everyone thought HCR was dead, and the Democratic centrists were pushing an incremental approach. At that moment, essentially said, "Fuck that," pushed for reconciliation, and put most of the deal together, and delivered the votes.

3) Obama became a leader of the Democratic Party While Pelosi worked her ass off to get the votes, Obama crystallized the cause to a lot of House members. At one point, he told Democratic lawmakers to look back and ask themselves why they became Democrats to begin with. In that way, the Democratic Party is going to be defined for the next 20 years by this legislation, and by Barack Obama as President.

For me, this goes beyond the terms of the typical debate. For the first time in a long time, the Democratic Party, as a whole, stood up for something, and spoke with one voice. They didn't just sign onto the bill, but they signed onto the very reason for the bill's existence, even if doing so meant electoral defeat. Not only did they pass the bill, they were proud to do it. Bill Clinton, for all of his skills, could never do that.

That's what makes Barack Obama so different from any Democratic President we've had in a long, long time. He doesn't want to follow public opinion, he wants to shape it, and it was through HCR that Obama learned how to be a President.

They Finally Did It. . .

I actually had no real plans to write anything tonight, but one of my neighbors held control over the laundry room until late, and I am drying my sheets now. But since I am up, I figured I should comment on the passage of health care reform. So without further ado, here are my thoughts:

1) I actually have little idea what's in the bill. I do know that insurers can't fuck people over preexisting conditions, can't pull the recission bullshit, and nonprofit co-ops can be set up in all fifty states. Outside of that, I am not sure of everything in the bill. Oh, wait, no aid for immigrants, and no publicly funded abortions.

2) The Democrats finally showed some spine. What's amazing here is that this is probably the first bill that was passed without a single Republican vote. In the face of truly ridiculous Republican opposition (to the point the Republicans were just making shit up, i.e. "Death Panels"), and so-so polling, and the fact that every Democratic Administration since Truman tried to pass some kind of health care reform, the Democrats sacked up. To be honest, I didn't think they had it in them.

3) The Republicans overplayed their hand. On a purely political note, the GOP strategy for defeating health care was brilliant, and they masterfully played the Democrats against each other. HCR was even polling badly (of course, if you told people what's actually in the bill, it polls a lot better). They, by all rights, should have won this one, but suddenly, the Democrats showed spine they didn't know they had. That said, the Republicans overplayed their hand yesterday. Calling John Lewis, a civil rights activist from the 50's, the "n-word," and calling Bart Stupak a "babykiller" only got the Democrats mad. The townhall storm of the summer was also ridiculous.

4) The Public Option is dead-ish. Its too bad that the public option didn't make it. That said, not having the public option in the final bill means it can come back later, and much cleaner.

5) I have no idea what the political ramifications of this bill will be, and neither does anyone else. For the first time, the Democrats can point to doing something unpopular for the good of the country - this couldn't be further from the Clinton days. Plus, the measures within the health care reform bill will be popular. At the same time, the opposition is totally and completely nuts. Anything is on the table here.

So what are the lessons to be learned? Having a spine is a good thing, and let's hope for the good of the country, these reforms will work.