Morning Coffee (154)

Greetings, Coffee Drinkers. It has been a long time since we've had a Brew. Much has happened in the world, and the Brewer has not been around to discuss it with you. For that, I apologize. Life, delightful as it is, gets in the way of things like this, sometimes. I have been working on other projects here and there, and have recently moved to a foreign country where the beer (and coffee) is plentiful and delicious. As Adam Duritz sings in the song "Long December," "Maybe this year will be better than the last." But for now, I've still got the ability to whip up some Bitter Brew…

 

TSA Wants to See Your Labia and/or Scrotum:

I would be insulting your intelligence where I to relay to you the events that took place a few days ago, on Christmas Day. You surely remember that a man attempted to detonate an explosive which was sewn into his cotton briefs. His goal was to blow a hole in the side of a plane as it prepared to land in Detroit, and thus kill a bunch of people. If you are unaware of this happening, then you must have been in a coma, and I ask that you simply type "Christmas Day Bomber" into Google so that you can track the subsequent conversation about privacy and security.

 

Much has been made about the failure of the security protocols which allowed for Abdul/Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board a plane with explosives placed precariously close to his family jewels. I would think that much should be made about this failure. Were it not for luck, or Abdulmutallab's incompetence, nearly 300 people would have died on Christmas day. It doesn't help matters that Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, said that the system worked, and then Robert Gibbs echoes the same sentiment. Much backtracking was made by Napolitano, and then by President Obama, who of course spoke in the passive voice about how "our government has not acted as it should." He is but a regular citizen expressing disappointment in "our" government. I digress…

 

The point is that the system did fail. Abdulmutallab's own father, a prominent Nigerian, reported him to embassy officials because he was concerned about Abdulmutallab's fundamentalist leanings. Abdulmutallab's US visa was not rescinded. He was not even flagged for further inspections by security were he to decide to ride in an airplane despite being on a list of 550,000 people who might pose a risk. Instead, he was flagged for a closer look when he renewed his visa. I should note that he was barred from entry into the United Kingdom. None of this proved very helpful.

 

The story gets worse than this. Abdulmutallab paid for the ticket with cash, and did not check any baggage despite claiming that he would be staying in the United States for two weeks. When I flew on a one-way ticket to Afghanistan, my bags and my person were utterly ransacked. I had popped up "randomly" for additional screening. Yet this guy, with known ties to al-Qaida, who was on a list of persons of risk, who was denied entry into the UK, who purchased his ticket with cash and possessed only a carry-on bag, and whose father had reported him to officials in Nigeria, did not apparently rate an additional pat down. Not that this would have been effective, since the screener would have had to vigorously search him, and search him in an area that is so utterly distasteful and demeaning and such. I have worked security for big events before, and have had to pat down thousands of people. It sucks. Believe me. No one wants to feel your testicles or your breasts. Well, perhaps some do, but it is just as uncomfortable for security personnel as it is for those being searched. All that being said, I doubt anyone would have found Abdulmutallab's explosive…uh…package.

 

But there is something that would have found it. It is called Millimeter Wave Passenger Imaging. The problem is that it also produces semi-detailed images of your junk. In other words, someone could see your penis/vagina/breasts/buttocks. Privacy advocates are quite obviously against this, because of the aforementioned reasons. Security hounds are rather for it. It does the work that actual humans find distasteful – it sees, rather than weakly gropes for, Abdulmutallab's explosive package. This system is not yet being used widely. And as I alluded to, it has met some fierce resistance. But I think the recent attempt to destroy a plane will dissolve some of that resistance.

 

Personally, I'm torn about the use of such a system, which does, to an extent, violate the privacy of passengers. The other day, I caught myself saying something completely ridiculous. I said, "Whatever makes flying safe, I'm for." How utterly absurd. I blame it on my fear of flying, which I developed after a lovely flight on the airline Afghan Ariana in 2003. This is a flimsy excuse. I have libertarian leanings, and such a statement is rather antithetically opposed to such leanings.

 

I offer you a great article about this topic, and I hope that you'll read it. In it, the author describes how the system would work, with the hope of assuaging the fears of those who do not want their naughty bits exposed to leering security personnel. For example, when you are scanned, your face is not visible to the person who sees the image of your sweet, nubile, naked body. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. No, your face is obscured. And the person seeing your face does not have access to the images of your sweet, nubile, naked body. Your privacy is relatively assured. And believe me, after a couple of hundred viewings of people of all shapes and sizes, the security folks aren't going to care about how hot or not you are. I've patted down many, many, many beautiful women, average women, ugly women, large people, small people, and dudes of all shapes, sizes, and ages. I couldn't pick a single one of them out of a lineup. I don't remember a single one. And with this system, the operator wouldn't even see a face. But read the article, as the author articulates how the system works far better than I.

 

I suppose with that said, I'm rather ambivalent to the presence of such a device. I'd rather that than some embarrassed kid frisking me gingerly so as to not offend me, while putting hundreds of people at potential risk. It is terrible that people who want to blow up planes exist, but they do. I am not all that thrilled about the prospects of a free fall from 36,000 feet, so I guess I'm fine with showing some faceless security official my manhood. Of course, maybe having to use shared showers has eroded my modesty. Will this system be foolproof? No. No system is. I offer you the case of the would-be assassin of the Saudi counter-terrorism chief. He may have hid his explosives in his rectal cavity and detonated said charge with explosive effect via a cell phone.

 

What do you Coffee Drinkers think?

 

My apologies for such a mundane, ill-written Brew. I am out of practice, and I will endeavor to do better for all (three) of you.

 

Word of the Day:

Vicissitude (noun): 1. Regular change or succession from one thing to another; alternation; mutual succession; interchange; 2. Irregular change; revolution; mutation; 3. A change in condition or fortune; an instance of mutability in life or nature (especially successive alternation from one condition to another).

 

On This Day in History: The Roman emperor Commodus is killed (192 CE). The Vandals, Alans, and Suebi cross the Rhine and begin their invasion of Gaul. They would eventually end up on North Africa (406). Shopkeepers in England brick up their windows to avoid paying the Window Tax (1695). Arthur Guinness signs a 9,000 year lease and begins brewing Guinness (1759). Abraham Lincoln signs an act which admits West Virginia into the Union (1862). Thomas Edison demonstrates incandescent light for the first time (1879). The Marshall Plan expires, after distributing $13.3 billion in aid to rebuild Europe (1951) (George Marshall was born on this date in 1880). The Soviet Union is officially dissolved, as all official Soviet institutions cease operations (1991). The Euro is created (1998). The US Government hands over control of the Panama Canal to Panama (1999).

 

Tomorrow is the ninth anniversary of my marriage to a remarkable, amazing woman. Words fail to adequately describe my feelings for her. Had I not met her, had I not called that night so long ago, I would not be where I am today; I would not feel as only she can make me feel. I ask that we all take a moment to hope and pray that a woman who is as amazing as she, and who exhibits such sublime traits and characteristics, gets exactly what she deserves in life.

Morning Coffee (153)

Greetings, Coffee Drinkers. It has been too long, by far. I have not been inspired to Brew in a long time, and I hope that my Drinker-ship will forgive my insolence. But I've been working on some other projects here and there. Needless to say, a lot has happened, and there's no way to cover it in one Brew. Hopefully you've checked out Publius's "Observation Post," as he's back up and running as well.

Supreme Court Nomination:
Certainly, you've heard about this SCOTUS nomination business. And I'm sure you've heard that Obama has nominated 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Prior to this nomination, you'll remember that much was made of Obama's alleged desire for a judge with "empathy." But this Brew isn't about whether or not she has "empathy," whatever that might mean for Justice.

Here's an introduction to the news on Judge Sotomayor:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." - Judge Sotomayor, 2001.

Sotomayor's quote is troubling. For one, it presents false logic. This being the case, it doesn't speak too highly of her intellect, which Robert Gibbs defended the other day by saying that her detractors, who argue that she hasn't the first class intellect necessary to be a Justice, didn't graduate summa cum laude from Princeton. I shouldn't have to point to the absurdity of Gibbs' argument as well, but I will. Very few people in history have graduated second at Princeton. This doesn't mean that they don't get to question the intellect or ability of someone serving for life as a Supreme Court Justice. Let me say that again: For Life. Back to the issue, however, Sotomayor's comment about the "richness of her [a Latina's] experience" is an intellectually insufficient explanation for someone's ability to come to any given, or in this case a better, conclusion.

Secondly, and I know that it's very difficult to even get around the inability to present a logical argument, were such a statement made by a pre-Chief Justice John Roberts, or any white male judge, their political careers would be effectively over. This would easily be a racist comment if made by the aforementioned demographic. But in this case, we're told (i.e. scolded) by Gibbs and others that everyone had better tread carefully. Gibbs says, "I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation." Of course, the unspoken second clause to that sentence is, "unless you want to lose any gains you made in securing the Latin American vote, and appear to be a racist." This is a prime example of how you're a racist if you criticize, rightly or wrongly, a minority, but you're lauded if you criticize the "wisdom" of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males. Interesting double standard, if I do say so.

This is the entire point. Sotomayor may or may not be a so-called "activist judge," but one thing is certain: she was picked partially because to fight her confirmation would be politically inadvisable, or at the very least, must be done so in a very delicate manner. She's a perfect candidate, but maybe not in the usual sense; she's a perfect political candidate. She's a woman, Hispanic, relatively young (remember: lifetime appointment), and if you believe the news reports, has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 70 years (or 100 depending on the source). There are probably a dozen or more candidates who are equally qualified, but very few with Sotomayor's "unique" qualifications such as ethnicity, sex, and Cinderella story. But it's the ethnicity that makes it so hard for Republicans to fight her confirmation, or to do so with any zeal. Too much criticism and they will be labeled racists, and will lose any Hispanic votes they have gained, and will be unable to gain any more. You're seeing this label already.

I don't have a say in whether or not Sotomayor is confirmed, so I have no impetus to research her and make a coherent argument against her, although were she to be proven to have a history of statements like the one above, I'd question her ability to be a Justice. Thankfully, I'm not a GOP Senator, but if I were, I'd be hesitant to dig too deeply, like I might with a white male nominee. No one wants to be labeled a racist. But I will say that to avoid a rigorous discussion, even a heated one, about the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice who will serve for life simply because our elected officials are afraid is absurd. It's another symptom of a broken, diseased system.

I've noticed a trend lately. A number of articles have stated that great discretion and deference is given to a President's choice for Judicial nominees. Charles Krauthammer, a conservative, has said as much, saying that Republicans should:

"Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds -- consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama -- that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences."

I agree that elections have consequences. And I respect Krauthammer's ability to write, and I respect some of his opinions (and frankly, he's a far better man to represent the GOP than is Rush Limbaugh). But the notion that the President should be given deference in his nominations is ludicrous. The Constitution says nothing about granting deference to a President in this regard. It doesn't even imply deference. This is what Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

This clause does not say, "The President shall nominate and the Senate should sorta mull the situation and then confirm the President's first choice." It's the Senate's duty to rigorously investigate any Supreme Court nominee by any President. This means to take the above illogical statement made by Sotomayor in 2001, and consider that in the context of her entire career. Anything less and they've failed us, their employers. Anything less and they're not fit for their jobs as Senators.

This article by David Paul Kuhn describes some of the issues at play with this nomination, but also with what some call "positive discrimination", which is basically white males not getting jobs they're otherwise qualified for were it not for being white and having a penis. One could argue that this happened in the Ricci v.DeStefano, a case upon which Judge Sotomayor ruled.

Speaking of ethnicity and sex, see this article about a group at the University of Chicago called Men in Power. It's somewhat interesting.

Power to the Powerful:
Would you like another sign that our system is showing advanced signs of decay? Read this article.

In it, you'll get to read about how the President (any) travels to political functions, and we taxpayers, or those of us forever in debt bondage, pay for it. This week President Obama attended two fundraising events, one for Harry Reid in Las Vegas and another for a donor dinner in Los Angeles. For those counting, that's two different cities in two different states. But this is all classified as official travel, because in between those events he attended some public event where he spoke about energy. Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union (can they organize a strike?) estimated that the "non-public" portion of the trip from Vegas to LA and back cost at least $265,000. This is because the President's travel package consists of Air Force One, the back up AF1, and a C-17.

The rules governing travel are sort of convoluted. The Air Force pays for the cost of operating the aircraft, but the government reimburses for airfare, etc. Strange. Equally strange is the fact that the reimbursements never equal the actual costs. For example, campaign stops by Bush and Cheney incurred $6.5 million in expenses, of which their campaigns reimbursed to the government $198,000. We taxpayers paid the rest, or roughly $6.3 million. We're paying for their reelection, and not through regular political donations. In other words, I am paying the President's bill to go stump for Harry Reid. I'm paying for Reid's campaign, to some degree. Just the same, I was paying for Bush and Cheney's reelection (and other Republicans), despite not giving their campaigns one red cent.

As the article states, "watchdog groups don't suggest that the President shouldn't travel, or even that he shouldn't travel to political events." Well, they might not say it, but I will. Taxpayer dollars should be spent solely for the business of the government. Reelection funds, campaign speeches, dinners, etc, are not government business. How is this so hard for watchdog groups to understand? I don't want the White House to be more forthcoming with travel expenses, as does Pete Sepp's group. I want the President to be legally barred from attending any such events on the taxpayers' dime. If he wants to attend, he can do so out of his own campaign funds or by using his own money, and he can charter a plane to do so. Air Force One should not be used for such things, even if the Air Force is completely reimbursed. I will grudgingly concede that safety is an issue, so if Air Force One is necessary, then the President must reimburse in total. Harry Reid's challengers haven't the ability to have their supporters flown in on taxpayer funded aircraft.

All told, the stops, one of which cost couples $30,400 to attend and was followed by a cheaper event so that the plebeians could also give money to their leaders, pulled in $5-6 million for Reid and the Democratic Party. Not a bad haul; all the President needed to do was make some minor remarks on energy policy and it was all official business.

So Convoluted, Even the President Can't Understand it:
Our government bureaucracy is so mind-numbingly complex that even the Commander in Chief doesn't know about all the agencies which make it up. Yesterday, the President took a trip to a burger joint and had a brief exchange with Walter (LNU) during which Obama asked Walter what he did for a living. Here's the exchange:

Obama: What do you do Walter?
Walter: I work at, uh, NGA, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Obama: Outstanding, how long you been doing that?
Walter: About six years
Obama: Yea?
Walter: Yes.
Obama: You like it?
Walter: I do, keeps me...
Obama: So explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial...uh...
Walter: Uh, we work with, uh, satellite imagery..
Obama: Right
Walter: [unintelligible] ...support systems, so...
Obama: Sounds like good work.
Walter: Enjoy the weekend.
Obama: Appreciate it.

Intelligence professionals will know what NGA is and what the agency does. I'm conflicted about whether or not a President should know. He is, on one hand, the boss of this agency (and many, many others). Is it important if he doesn't know? Probably not. I just found it humorous, is all.

Personal Reflections:
For those of you who read regularly, you'll know that the Brewer only rarely delves into his personal life. I find that it's generally not important to the task at hand, that is Brewing Coffee. I am also of the opinion that you don't come here to read about me. This is fair, and this is how I'd prefer it to be.

But today I am going to make a brief exception. I would like to talk about my uncle, with whom I have been fairly close most of my life. He and my father were together my heroes growing up. Holidays were complete only after hearing them regale me with stories of youthful bravado; their stories were the stories of my clan; their legacy to me. I would be enthralled, enchanted by hearing them speak of their youth. The three of us spent a lot of time together, around the table talking drinking coffee, mine with milk and sugar. But also outside, hunting and fishing. Virtually everything I know about the outdoors is because of my father and my uncle.

My uncle is also among the funniest men I've ever known. His repository of jokes, many of which are dirty, must number in the millions. I am a poor teller of jokes, for I can almost never remember them. But my uncle can tell them all day long. He captures you in the story, and hits you with the punchline. Rarely has he told the same joke twice, but when he did, it was like the first time you'd ever heard it.

He also loves kids. Far more than I do. And kids love him. Growing up, there were always plenty of kids around, and my uncle always made them laugh. I'll never forget the smile on his face when I showed him a picture of my newest son.

I'm writing though, because my uncle has terminal cancer. He is 59. There really isn't much else to say at the moment. I am not a religious man, and will never pretend to be. But I ask that you might keep him in your thoughts. Pray for him if you like. Sacrifice a pig or a bull if that's what you choose. More importantly, appreciate the time you have with those who you are close to. Build up those fond memories like an unbreachable fortress, for when you must see them off, your fond memories are what remain.

Word of the Day: Iniquitous (adj): Characterized by injustice or wickedness; wicked; sinful.

On This Day in History: Andrew Jackson kills Charles Dickinson in a duel (1806). The Lincoln Memorial is dedicated (1922). The remains of two unidentified American servicemembers are buried at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery (1958).

"Told me you loved me, that I'd never die alone. Hand over your heart, let's go home. Everyone knowed it, everyone has seen the signs. I've always been known to cross lines. I never ever cried when I was feeling down. I've always been scared of the sound. Jesus don't love me, no one ever carried my load. I'm too young to feel this old. Here's to you, here's to me, on to us, nobody knows. Nobody sees. Nobody but me." - "Cold Desert," Kings of Leon.

Morning Coffee (152)

All work and no play makes me a dull boy. And it makes me a terrible Brewer. It's been, oh...two weeks since I last had a cup of Morning Joe with you all. In that time, a lot has happened. The economy went further into the sheisse bucket. The candidate who ran on hope and change has become the President who peddles fear in order to pass his agenda, and does so better than his predecessor. Our extremely popular Congress semi-rushed to pass a, well, I don't know, $800 billion, $900 billion, or over $1 trillion (actual figure is just semantics) "stimulus" package full of the artist formerly known as Pork, which really stimulates nothing save deforestation in Brazil and the generation of global warmth-inducing Congressional/Presidential CO2 emissions. Oh, I say semi-rushed because, well, it "absolutely needed to be passed," but only after a three-day, holiday weekend. And there is talk about nationalizing some banks.

The sky really is falling.

Yes, I made that.

Let them eat Tax:
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood recently mentioned in an interview with AP that, "We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled." In layman's terms, this is a mileage tax. LaHood, who is one of two Republicans in President Obama's Cabinet and a former Congressman from Illinois, thinks that this would be a good way to "fund our infrastructure." It seems that the federal tax on gasoline is no longer providing enough revenue to maintain the highway system. But LaHood doesn't want to raise the federal gasoline tax in a recession. See, we don't to raise current taxes, because that looks bad. But making new ones is alright. Somehow. I don't really understand it.

Obama's press secretary Robin, er, Robert Gibbs says that the Obama Administration is not considering a mileage tax. Of course, they're not considering the "Fairness Doctrine" either...but if it walks like a duck...

Some states, however, are considering a mileage tax, which we've discussed in previous editions of the MC. In Rhode Island, the proposed tax would be one half a cent per mile driven. The tax would be calculated by using the mandatory GPS/clock/Big Brother apparatus that measures the miles you've driven, when you've driven them (peak vs. non-peak) and where you've driven them (highways/secondary roads). You'd then pay this at the gas pump. It'd be pretty transparent, I'm sure. A half a cent doesn't seem like a lot, but it's higher than the quarter of a cent tax proposed in North Carolina.

Using a baseline of 12,000 driven per year, you would pay roughly $60 in mileage taxes in Rhode Island. I'm still not clear on whether or not you'd pay Rhode Island tax for miles driven outside of the state, or if you'd pay taxes in neighboring states for miles driven there, or what. Compare this to the gas tax. If your vehicle were to get 24 miles per gallon, you would pay for approximately 500 gallons of gasoline. In Rhode Island, you pay the 18.6 cent federal gas tax, plus the 30 cent Rhode Island gas tax per gallon. That's 48.6 cents in tax, or roughly $243 per year. Would you rather pay the mileage tax or the gas tax? That's easy. The mileage tax. Unfortunately, you would probably pay both.

I've read a lot about mileage taxes, and I've never seen an instance where someone proposes a mileage tax and simultaneously proposes dropping the gasoline tax. Why would they, since the whole issue is lack of sufficient revenue (or inability to manage a budget, I'm not sure). So, contrary to LaHood's logic, this is technically a tax increase. It worse though. You would pay for the infrastructure to enact this plan, either in your role as a tax/fee-payer or as a consumer. It's also likely that you would pay both federal and state mileage taxes. And if I may indulge in conjecture, you might even have to pay a higher tax is your yearly mileage exceeds a certain threshold, just like you pay a higher tax if you make more money; I'm sure as is the case with most tax codes, this wouldn't be as simple as a flat tax. Your $243 yearly tax just got a little bigger. This, of course, ignores the ethical/philosophical issues of tracking citizens, which we discussed previously.

Census is Among-us:
Gerrymandering is the deliberate modification of electoral districts in order to influence future elections one way or the other by securing numerical advantage, generally for the incumbent. While named after Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, a notorious practitioner of redistricting, it didn't die with Gerry in 1814. As recently as 2006, the US Supreme Court upheld most of the Texas electoral map engineered by then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and went so far as to say state legislatures may gerrymander districts at any time, so long as they do not harm ethnic minorities. Take a look at this map of Congressional District 4 in Illinois, or Congressional District 28 in New York, designed, I say again, designed to connect to heavily Democratic cities. Coincidentally, or not, the district has been represented by Democrat Louise Slaughter since 1993. It's also interesting that the number of votes her Republican challengers have received has significantly declined in the past 13 years. Perhaps it's because she does a bang up job. Or perhaps it's because gerrymandering has diluted the Republican block in NY District 28 to the point of being irrelevant.

Sometimes though, the opposing factions agree to redistricting in order to preserve the status quo. In California in 2000, the two parties decided to redraw districts to prevent unpredictable voting by the electorate. The results will astound you. Not one single state or federal legislative office changed party in 2004, this despite the fact that 53 congressional, 20 state senate, and 80 assembly seats were at risk.

We've seen that gerrymandering can be effective, and that gerrymandering has been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. That's good, because I'd hate to see politicians violating the constitution. The Court says, basically, that politicians, who have to be voted into power, can rearrange districts whenever they want, rather than just after a census (when they're constitutionally required), in order to stay in power. Call me a cynic, but that sounds like a conflict of interest. Of course, this is the same group of people who arranged a yearly raise, based not on performance or job approval, but one which automatically occurs provided they don't vote against it. As you can see, conflict of interest isn't such a big deal when you make the rules.

And when you're the incumbent, you generally make the rules. This is an issue now because President Obama has recently stated that the White House will take a more active role in the 2010 census, which is the purview of the Commerce Department. As the census helps determine congressional districts, the census is always an issue of contention between the left and the right. Conservatives favor a "door-to-door" approach to the census, while Liberals tend to favor statistical sampling because minorities and homeless are less likely to be counted in the door-to-door approach. The Obama's Administration's desire to have officials in the Commerce Department report directly to the White House doesn't seem like it would result in less gerrymandering. Being the skeptic that I am, it sounds like the possibility for further consolidation of Democratic power in the two chambers of Congress would be increased were Obama or his loyalists take an active part in "guiding" the census process.

I don't want partisan politics to be a part of the census at all, quite frankly. I would prefer it be pure, cold science. But I can understand that that is impossible. However, we can avoid, to some degree, gerrymandering and its imbalancing influence on the electorate's voting power. In Iowa, a nonpartisan Legislative Services Bureau (LSB) determines electoral districts. Political factors cannot be considered in drawing district lines. Districts follow county lines. Why not take the power out of the hands of politicians, who are interested solely in reelection, and make them more accountable to the people? Of course, we can then talk about term limits and the such...

Fundraising, Recession-Style:
Certainly there are those among you who believe that politicians genuinely desire to serve. I would love to believe this, but I think that the prime desire of virtually all persons in power, save the rare George Washington or Cincinnatus, is to remain in power ad infinitum. This is why no serious discussion of mandatory term limits has taken place in Congress since the early days of the Republic. Then, the high Congressional turn-over of the period was not mandated, but was the result of inherent distrust of political power, even among officeholders themselves. Despite this prevailing sentiment, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason saw the potential danger of not mandating term limits in the Constitution. Mason said, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." Richard Henry Lee envisioned the lack of limits on tenure as leading to a "most highly and dangerously oligarchic" state. You don't say, George...

James Fennimore Cooper said that, "contact with the affairs of state is one of the most corrupting of the influence to which men are exposed." Eventually rotation of office simply became taking turns and sharing political wealth. Simply put, those in power simply agreed to continue sharing power amongst themselves. This practice was eventually phased out, not by a return to genuine idealistic sentiments of limiting one's own power, but by turning to a professional, ruling class. And in order to stay in power, one had to raise a lot of money. This aspect dominates a politician's life.

I could ramble ad nauseum about term limits, but I wanted to use it as a tie in to discuss the recent fundraising activities of our ruling class. While always present, these fundraising activities grate on me even more in these economic "times of trouble." One would think that there would be less money to be had by politicians looking for cash to run their next big campaign. This isn't the case. For 2008 campaigns, House and Senate candidates have raised $1.4 billion. This is $400 million more than they raised in 2000. A lot of the money raised is tied to fairly swanky activities like a ski resort get together for Democrat Congressman Ed Perlmutter or a "Weekend of Aloha" fundraiser held for Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. Republicans aren't innocent either, though I think the two aformentioned individuals do enough to illustrate my point.

Also, please remember that fundraising never stops for these people. The finance director for Perlmutter's campaign, Julie DeWoody says, "Almost every member of Congress is fundraising all the time. It's the reality of running for office and how expensive campaigns are." She also said that the ski resort getaway was a way to give "supporters a different way to interact with him and have fun." All you had to do to "interact with him" was donate $2,400. About 20 donors, each of whom raised or gave $5,000, attended Inouye's Hawaii...thing. His fundraising expert, Helen Milby said, "some were lobbyists; some were not." But, he would "never" allow lobbyist contributions to shape his decisions in his day job. Wait, his not so day job, since his day job is to raise money to support his off-duty job representing Hawaiians.

You cannot buy your Senator an expensive meal, but you can attend what is basically a party and donate a bunch of money that is ostensibly used for the sole purpose of keeping that individual in power. Interesting. Inouye "took home" about $100,000 from his weekend fundraiser, which will buy a decent amount of radio, print, or TV advertising. This is money that any challenger will not likely have at his disposal. By merit of being an officeholder, he holds an extreme advantage in terms of capital, and the ability to generate or regenerate said capital.

Remember, most aspects of my ideas of political reform tie together. That being said, the enactment of term limits would, to a large degree, nullify the need for campaign finance reform. Perhaps if we had term limits, politicians would not feel so tied to never-ending fundraising. Then they could work more. However, were we to implement some sort of comprehensive, crippling campaign finance reform, we could, at the very least, return to rotational offices by limiting the amount of money an incumbent can generate, perhaps over his lifetime. Certainly, I will concede that unlimited money does not guarantee reelection, but it does help. What's more, incumbents enjoy other advantages not available to challengers. Regardless, I would prefer that if we cannot have term limits, despite the overwhelming support for such limits by the general population, we at least have the possibility of perpetuity in office based largely on ability and results in executing the duties of of an office rather than the ability to raise cash and glad-hand with lobbyists.

Having said all that, I'm going to go attend a fundraiser for the cause "Getting Uncle Joe Koba's Student Loans Paid Off Before He Dies So He Can Save Money for His Retirement and Help Stimulate the Economy by Buying a New Computer Monitor and Drum Kit." It's a great cause, and you can donate by visiting THIS SITE.

Word of the Day: Nocuous (NOK-yoo-uhs): (adjective): Very hurtful; noxious.

On This Day in History: George Washington was born (1732). Jefferson Davis is inaugurated for a six-year term as President of the Confederate Statees of America (1862). The Confederate President was only allowed to serve one six-year term. Woolworth first opens in Utica, NY (1879). Calvin Coolidge becomes the first President to deliver a radio broadcast from the White House (1924). Germany starts unrestricted submarine warfare (1915). The US hockey team defeats the Soviet Union hockey team at Lake Placid, NY. Called the Miracle on Ice, it is considered to be one of the greatest upsets in sports history, and spawned the "USA!" chant (1980). Aldrich Ames and his wife are charged by the US Justice Department with spying for the Soviet Union (1994).

"Lying through your teeth again, [motherfucking] imbecile. Think about it. You're pounding on a fault line. What will it take to get through you precious? I'm over this, why do you want to throw it away like this? Such a mess. Why would I wanna watch you?" - A Perfect Circle, "The Outsider", Thirteenth Step. A fitting, if slightly modified, line.

Edit: Apparently, I had a fourth grader take diction. Apologies for the spelling/grammar errors.

Part I: Who's to Blame for the Crisis, or More Briefly, Everyone

I'm pleased to present the Logician once again. To refresh your memory, I had asked him to write to help us understand certain aspects of the financial crisis. He did so HERE. This is part one, so he/we will be writing more about this in the near future.

Edit: Blogger software is mucking up formatting and failing to paste things where they belong. Apologies.

*********************

A while ago, I promised our host the Brew Master I'd write at greater length on the economic meltdown. In short, the problem arose from decades of pride, greed, stupidity, shortsightedness, willful blindness, naivety, dishonor, selfishness, and pride. Remember the vulgarization and glorification of greed? Remember "greed is good" and "greed works"? Greed is the foundation of capitalism, they said. Of course, none of them ever bothered to read Adam Smith's classic, and they were too blinded by lust of money to acknowledge a difference between greed and self-interest. (Nice explanation, here.)

I digress. Let's go back to the beginning. Before we discuss the greedy, dishonest, stockjobbing, maneuvering, conniving, angling real estate & finance professionals, let's discuss the borrowers.

THE BORROWER

The naïve, the willfully ignorant, the dunces, the lazy, the gamblers

Sally and Bob want a house so they meet the realtor who helps them find their dream house in Los Angeles. At half a million bucks, it's a great deal, even has a porch! Bob does pretty well as a contractor, sometimes making more than six figures, and Sally pitches in. Between them they're pulling in $125,000+ a year. Sally figures she'll quit her job and become a full time mom after they qualify for the loan.

Sally and Bob have a mortgage professional working for them to get a loan, so it absolves them of all personal responsibility. Remember second grade math? Multiplication? The social program that prepares you for your responsibilities as a citizen? In today's world, remember that the borrower is always the victim. If I say I'm no good at math, it absolves me from the responsibility of doing second grade math to figure out if I can afford something.

For fun, let's do Sally and Bob's math for them. Hell, we don't even have to do the math, go here. Let's say I borrow the full amount (no shit, some of these loans were for 120% of the property value) of $500,000. In 30 years, Sally and Bob will pay $1.4M, or just under half of Bob's salary, if he can sustain his six figures. Of course he'll lose a $30K each year in taxes, if he even pays them. So taxes & payments together, Sally and Bob have $20K each year to live on in Los Angeles. It might be a tough decision, y'know? You have to hope you can maintain or increase your present salary for the next 30 years, especially if Sally plans to stop working after they qualify for the loan. It never occurs to Sally and Bob that the bank's requirement for demonstrable income is there because the bank knows that if the income isn't there, the house isn't getting paid off.

Fortunately, the housing market always goes up. Everyone knows this, it went up for over 20 years now, eh? Sally and Bob listen to a pep talk from their realtor, who tells them they can flip the house in five years to another buyer. Not only will they pay off the loan with the sale, they'll profit from the sale, maybe pull in a couple hundred thousand. You'd be a moron not to buy the house, they figure. It's not hard to find Bobs and Sallys. You can find a hundred financial exhibitionists on the internet bragging about these schemes (like here).

Alberto and Rosa wanted a house too. These poor migrant workers have a deeply moving story. Struggling as $15,000/year strawberry pickers, they pool with other migrants to qualify for a $720,000 house in San Francisco. Yes, that's right, really. Short story this time – they're victims to predatory lending. Yeah, it'd take over 48 years just to pay the principal, so long as they can pay their entire annual salary to the mortgage payments for 48 years. But this is division, it's neither fair to ask them to do their own division nor expect them to ask anyone else with a 2^nd grade education. Alberto and Rosa probably don't speak very good English, and they probably have limited education. Based on everything that happened at this time, I'd guess they were presented a SISA loan application (Stated Income/Stated Assets, or "what I write is what I make, no proof required" loan). The broker likely reported their income as $200K, told them everyone does it, it's cool, and they went ahead and signed.

Morning Coffee (151)

Where to begin? Certainly, there are dozens of places to begin, right? Dozens of places about which to lament and criticize; to wonder why. It's really amazing. If you watch or read the news, the world seems to be crumbling around our heads, doesn't it? So much so that even stories that would normally leave us aghast, seem but a blip on the radar screen. Perhaps they even seem like a welcome respite from the bludgeoning news of our shattered economy; the shattered American dream; the shattered facade of American global domination. I'll lead in with one such story (and it's not even political - well, maybe it is).

Czech This:
The Czech Republic surgically castrates convicted sex offenders, if these offenders request the procedure, according to a 1966 law. At first glance, this seems rather reasonable. But it always goes deeper. Investigators from the Council of Europe have found that many of those castrated were pressured into the procedure under fear of long-term incarceration. Offenders are being told that castration is the only option available, and that refusal could result in their detention for life. Even first-time, non-violent offenders are being castrated, and investigators found that those castrated in at least five instances were mentally handicapped. Investigators also state that offenders received information too technical for them to understand or no information at all about the procedure.

The Czech government insists that it is a voluntary procedure, with proven results in reducing repeat offenses, and performed on men who "cannot manage their sexual instincts and are sexually aggressive." The Council of Europe, however, debates castration's reduction in recidivism, pointing to three instances in which castrated offenders had committed serial rapes and other crimes.

The Czech government states that the Council of Europe failed to convince the country to cease castration.

In principle, I have no problem with convicted sex offenders opting to be castrated, so long as they're able to make an informed decision that they believe will help them live a more normal life (i.e. not rape or molest people). Clearly, there is no guarantee that the procedure works in the manner it is intended to, but the option should be there. However, a punishment should not be optional if authorities coerce criminals into it by threats of life in prison. Further, it isn't clear whether or not those who are mentally handicapped can make an informed decision. It isn't even clear if those who weren't mentally disabled were able to make informed decisions. For first-time offenders of a non-violent nature, such as exhibitionists, I do not think that castration is a viable punishment.

There are, I think, various degrees of sex offenses, and some are more vile than others. For example, in the US, an 18 year old male or female could be a convicted as sex offender for having consensual sex with a 16 year old female or male. Some will argue that the 16 year old cannot give consent legally, and this would be true. But is this 18 year old in the same class as a serial rapist or a pedophile? In many cases, legally he or she is. The law often has no categories, as it does with murder, and that 18 year old will forever have to register as a sex offender and be shamed forever.

But the issue here is castration. To make it clear, I am not against castration as a punishment, provided that it is viable for rehabilitating some offenders, but against the application of castration in the Czech Republic as described above. Some might wonder if I would be a proponent of forced castration. I would say no. Being as though there is no guarantee that castration would work as intended, I could not be for forced castration. We as a species generally hold reproductive rights in very high regard. To suggest that someone is so capable of heinous crime that he must be forcibly castrated is saying a great deal. And since castration, forced or otherwise, does not guarantee that the individual will not commit another crime, I posit that the individual must be incarcerated for life without the possibility of parole or release. Further, since we require sex offenders to register wherever they go, it seems that we view sexual crimes as more offensive than even murder, and reasonably so. With that being the case, I have no problem with the death penalty being applied to cases in which the offender shows a propensity for violent sexual crime and no potential for rehabilitation.

Cher = Absurd:
With a mom and a dad like mine, both audiophiles, I grew up listening to a lot of different music. My mom was always a big fan of the female singer Cher, who allegedly retired in 2005, but has since announced that she's working on her 26th studio album and is presently performing in Las Vegas. I usually liked the songs she sang, and was awestruck by her 1989 video for the song "Turn Back Time" in which she cavorted semi-nude around the battleship USS Missouri. While the whole album, Heart of Stone, was pretty good, I was a boy of 9 at that time, and was far more taken by the massive 16 inch guns of the Mighty-Mo than I was of Cher's fishnets. I suppose my point here is that even though Cher made some good music and forever imprinted in the mind of a young boy the image of one of the most impressive pieces of military gear in history set to music, it does not mean she's not an idiot. (Sorry Ma.)

Example: "Republicans almost killed me." She wasn't specific in how exactly Republicans killed her. As far as I can tell, she did pretty well for herself the past eight or so years. Having a deal to perform 200 shows over three years in Vegas doesn't usually mean that you're being slowly killed by the political party in power at the time. Perhaps she was being dramatic. Still, it makes her an sort of dumb. Especially when, after asked to explain her comment that Republicans almost killed her, she says,

"You know what? I have so - I try to be charitable and there are some really good Republicans, but I just don't understand how anyone would want to be a Republican. I just can't figure it. I don't understand. If you're poor, if you're any kind of minority - gay, black, latino, anything. If you're not a rich - I don't know. If you're not a rich born-again-Christian, I don't get it."

Look, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, but I'm not entirely sure Cher is a leading expert on what a Republican is. She probably doesn't even know what makes up Liberal ideology, presumably her political bent, let alone the ideology of the party she clearly despises. I wonder how many "Republicans" she knows...It's almost like a racist saying, "I'm not racist, there are good black people; I have black friends." Good try, Cher. Stick to singing and rolling around in your massive treasure trove of cash...provided to you by many a Republican, to be sure. Some not even born-again-Christians.

The Issue You've All Been Waiting For:
The Economic Stimulus. It appears that our elected officials in the Senate, in their supreme wisdom and 19% approval rating, have come to an agreement on the stimulus package and are set to vote on it early next week. For all the uproar from them that this is a national emergency, which is the crux of their argument that this bill needs to be passed RIGHT NOW without going through all the normal procedures, it seems odd to me that the vote on the bill would be put off until early next week, whenever that might be. Presumably Monday through Wednesday sometime. Regardless, Democratic leaders hope to push the bill to Obama by the end of next week. The fact that these officials have been telling us for weeks that this is an emergency, but are willing to wait to vote shows the hypocrisy and ineptitude of that elected body. How so many members of a political body sporting a collective approval rating of below 20% by some polls got reelected I do not know. Perhaps this best illustrates the ineptitude of the American voter.

Certainly, my fellow Americans and loyal Coffee drinkers, you realize that it's best to rush through the passing of a bill worth $780-819 billion. Do I need to tell you why? Easy, because then emotions take over, and the majority can batter down any opposition before that opposition might begin to make sense to some of the more easily swayed members of the body. Also, less oversight. When you want to push through a bunch of frivolous spending that has nothing to do with stimulus, the faster you do things, the better.

Much has been written about this stimulus bill, and by better qualified people than I, so I won't go into a whole lot of detail. But there are a few things that perplex a mind as simple as mine. Other than the comments made by many regarding the amount of money actually going to stimulus (12 cents for every dollar) and how wasteful the bill is, one thing that sticks out to me as evidence of a fraud being committed by our elected officials is the comments by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) regarding how much of this stimulus will be spent and when. In addition to saying that this stimulus bill is harmful over the long haul, CBO states that only 15% of the funding will be spent in 2009. Only 64% will be used during the next 19 months. This is contrary to Obama's proclamation that 75% will be doled out in the next 19 months. For something that allegedly needs to be done immediately, with limited discussion, it seems strange that much of the "stimulus" will not take place until at least 2010. And we're told daily that Americans are struggling and need relief now. And for all the good it will allegedly do, like create three to four million jobs at the cost of $275,000 per, the CBO projects that it will actually lower the national gross domestic product (GDP) over the next ten years.

But Obama says, "But broadly speaking, the package is the right size, it is the right scope, and it has the right priorities to create 3 to 4 million jobs, and do it in a way that lays the groundwork for long-term growth." I love how Obama uses a variation of hendiatris, a rule of three, to sell this to the public. "Right this, right that, and right the other thing." But that's not the point. The point is, this is somewhat contrary information than that presented by the CBO. A lower GDP does not indicate growth. Perhaps he's talking really long-term, as in 40 or 50 years. I don't know. He goes on to say, "These numbers demand action. It is inexcusable and irresponsible for any of us to get bogged down in distraction, delay or politics as usual while millions of Americans are being put out of work. Now is the time for Congress to act." Let me clarify for those who those who don't speak Politician: "Get bogged down" = closely scrutinize. "Distraction, delay" = have public discussions. "Politics as usual" = anything contrary to my own wishes.

I should point out that Obama ran a successful campaign largely on the premise of Hope, while denouncing the use of fear and "politics as usual." But fear is a useful tool, and I don't see how anyone can deny that he is using it in order to get this stimulus passed quickly. He said, "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." This isn't hope. This is fear. He is telling you that if this bill isn't passed right now, then your life is going to be worse in the future. This from a man who told us that "we have chosen hope over fear." Maybe hope only belongs on the campaign trail. If so, you've been bamboozled yet again by buying into his rhetoric. (For a fun side trip, check out the Truth-o-Meter from PolitiFact.com. You can see how much horse sheisse our politicians are selling you. Some of them actually tell the truth.)

Remember, Obama also recently said that his administration will "save or create" some-odd million jobs. Well, technically, as a candidate Obama was all about creating jobs, and now he's largely content with just saving them. Saving jobs. Ignoring the fact that the US will lose 500 million jobs a month, according to Nancy Pelosi, how can anyone say with any degree of seriousness in their voice that they've saved any number of jobs? One would think that, at the end of the day, everyone who has a job at that point - job saved! If you thought that the market created and/or saved jobs, you were wrong. It's Obama and his team of government that does that now. Obama is saving my job right now! Yours too, if you have one. If you don't, well, stand by for the creation of four or five or six million of the little buggers! They'll be yours for the taking. (Brewer Comment: In July 2008, the US population was estimated at 303.8 million people. Thus, every man, woman, and child in America has, if Pelosi's facts are straight, at LEAST four or five jobs at any given time.)

See Charles Krauthammer's article in the Washington Post for more on Obama's urgency. Also, see Read The Stimulus so you can, well, read the stimulus.

I Forgot to Pay my Taxes:
For those looking for me to comment on the inability of some of Obama's appointees to pay or remember to pay their taxes, I will point you to my friend and fellow blogger Publius' recent article about that very issue. We both agree on this one. I think that all members of Congress, the Cabinet, and Directors and senior staff of government agencies should be audited, just to make sure they're in compliance.

And thus ends another Cup of Joe. Tomorrow, the Logician will present to us part one of his "Barney-style" explanation of the current economic environment. Look forward to it and give him some feedback.

Word of the Day: Denigrate (verb): To attack the character or reputation of; defame. Our faithful public servants have denigrated Common Sense to the point of our abandoning it.

On This Day in History: The 11th Amendment of the US Constitution is ratified (1795). Charles Dickens was born (1812). Laura Ingalls Wilder was born (1867). The last heavyweight bare-knuckle fight takes place in Mississippi City (1882). The Mud March, the first large march organized by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) took place (1907). The US bans all Cuban imports and exports (1962). The Beatles arrive in the US for their first tour (1964). The Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party agrees to give up its monopoly on power (1990).

Morning Coffee (150)

Most of the time, I feel as though I'm a salmon, desperately swimming upstream against a raging current of stupidity in order to find some semblance of truth. Sure, I know that if I make the trip, I will die from exhaustion, but I am compelled nevertheless.

You may be wondering why I haven't Brewed any Coffee in a while. As you all probably know, President Obama was inaugurated just eleven days ago. First, I was incredibly busy preparing for my day job, which unlike the Morning Coffee, actually pays the bills. Second, I simply wanted to put it all into perspective; to take in the zeitgeist. And sometimes the best way to do that is through time. I could have written the day of, or the day after, but it might have read like sour grapes. And frankly, I am of the opinion that it was a historic day; it was a rare historical instance of peaceful, non-death related, democratic transfer of leadership from one individual to another. And while the throngs of Obama supporters that packed the National Mall (amazing picture) might have felt it necessary to boo outgoing President George Bush, I felt that it was best to sit back and take pride in the day, even if I did not agree with much of what Obama said in his very well delivered speech. It was a good day, not because that particular person was sworn in, which is what his supporters might believe, but because a person was SWORN in.

And during that swearing in, while the Chief Justice's nerves were rattled and Obama himself was a bit over-eager to take the oath, and all throughout the subsequent speech, I kept wondering if I had become too cynical to acknowledge anything good the man might do. I wondered if the cult of personality I had seen grow in the previous weeks would sour my perspective of the man, and I wondered this almost as much as I feared that that cult would never subside.

But when the dust settled and the environmentally-friendly people left, Obama went to work. Cult or no, it is our duty as Americans to question our government. But we should do so with a fair eye, doling out criticism and praise when each are deserved. That's what it means to be bi-partisan. Too bad Americans, like CNN, would rather play "fan-boys" to these megalomaniacs. Let's "hope" that in the spirit of change, people actually change.

"No You Can't"...Sell My Face on a Plate:
You may ask, can we at the Morning Coffee talk any more about the cult of personality that is Obama? Well, to paraphrase a guy you might have heard of, "Yes We Can!" The White House, if a house can actually do such things, is looking to limit the commercial use of Obama's image. I will be the first to shout from the mountain that the image of the President, the Presidential Seal, and the White House likeness shouldn't be used to endorse any product (although you have to wonder how much national debt we could eliminate by letting businesses put well placed advertisements on the facade of the White House or behind the President during nationally televised addresses...). But I will also say, Obama and his campaign did little to discourage this sort of behavior during their dogged pursuit of power, er, of winning the election. I suppose that they now realize that it might be a bad thing for Obama's face to be everywhere. Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal has already pointed this out, so maybe Obama's advisers read her article (her analysis of this particular situation is at the end of the article. The rest of it has other insightful analysis that we'll address in a moment). Run a search for "Obama Merchandise" in Google. Actually, I already did it for you. There are 14.6 million hits, including news articles and sites actually selling things. The Google ads yield significant results as well. Purple Slinky has a list of the "wackiest 35 Obama related items" that you can buy. Cracked.com also has a list. Wine, bottle openers, chap stick. All there for you, the Obama Lover. If you watch the news at all, you have seen the commemorative plates and coins. If you're a Chicago White Sox fan, you might get to buy Sox hats with the big "O" on them.

This new sentiment of restraining the use of Obama's image is confusing to me, especially when one considers that Obama himself has a site that offers all sorts of merchandise for sale, much of which features Obama's likeness, and mostly at highly inflated prices such as the Vera Wang shirt or Zack Posen's stupid looking design (prices vary from $45-70 for designer shirts). Of course, it might be that his handlers want to eliminate the competition; to drive consumers to the "official" Obama store. Not terribly free market, but what do you expect from a segment of society whose basic economic tenet is regulation?

"I won":
But let's move on, shall we? In the spirit of his being the change we seek (or something like that), Obama made a simple declaration when discussing his economic stimulus package with Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA): "I won." He followed up that declarative with a more conciliatory, bipartisan statement: "I will trump you on that." We sure did get change after all. I remember another politician making a similarly bipartisan statement, then about political capital, after a win in 2004. Yikes.

Too bad the proposal garnered not a single Republican vote. In fact, 11 Democrats voted against it, which is a fact you can access only by doing simple math, since most media outlets don't actually tell you that (277-188 - 177 Republicans...you get the idea). Toby Harnden of the Telegraph (UK) gives us a list of the 11 Democrats who didn't vote for the freak of nature stimulus package. Reading their comments about the package is perhaps more insightful than listening to a Republican make disparaging remarks about it, however true their remarks might be. See, they're almost obligated to put down a Democrat's plan, but Democrats who disagree with a fellow Democrat's plan, well, now that's where the burning truth most likely lies. Mankind is always most harsh to his Brothers (see one US Civil War).

Anyway, he's right. He won. He can trump anyone on that for sure. Wait...so that's what he and Pelosi mean when they say postpartisan...

Economic Stimulus for Dummies:
When it comes to economic issues, I, the Master Brewer, am a moron. But I know a thing or two. The most important thing I know is to ask people better than me to explain to me in idiot proof terms; break it down Barney style, as they say in the Marine Corps. Thus, in front of all the loyal MC readers, I plea to my good friend the Logician to Brew for us again. Now he cannot possibly refuse, since I called him out publicly. Or maybe that guy out Boston way...

The second thing I know, is that this stimulus is...what's a good word? Foolish? First we have the fact that Democrats offered no concessions to Republican lawmakers, alright they did remove the controversial funding for family planning services to low income families, but that was at the request of President Obama. Do they have to offer concessions? I suppose not. They are the majority after all. But don't come to me claiming you're postpartisan (whatever that means) if your modus operandi is to marginalize the other party.

Secondly, it appears to the feeble mind of this writer that the stimulus is merely packed full of pork. Peggy Noonan, in the article I previously mentioned, points out that analysis done by the Wall Street Journal suggests that "only 12 cents of every dollar is for something that could plausibly be called stimulus." Noonan goes on to say, "When you create a bill like that, it doesn't mean you're a pro, it doesn't mean you're a tough, no-nonsense pol[itician]. It means you're a slob."

Possibly the strangest tenet of the bill is the so-called "Buy American" provision. I won't deny that buying American is patriotic sounding. But patriotic or not, it's not very logical. The provision requires that projects that are funded with stimulus dollars must use American made goods and equipment. This reminds me of the provisions the Chinese include on loans to African nations: will give you money to build your infrastructure, but you must guarantee that we get a large percentage of infrastructure contracts. Anyway, it's not very free market, and will only serve to alienate us from other countries, which doesn't sound all that Obama-like at all. The provision, if enacted, would also violate an agreement the US made on 15 November 2008, which stated that the US would "refrain from raising new barriers to investment or trade in goods and services."

If American companies want Americans to buy American, then those companies need to make a better, more affordable product. Forcing consumers to buy from one supplier is not, as they say, American at all, and will surely be detrimental to those consumers and world economic stability writ large.

That's all the economic talk this neophyte can muster.

Foreign Policy Expertise:
Speaking of neophytes, let's take a look at Obama's mastery of foreign policy. First we have his interview with al-Arabiya, a TV channel owned by Saudi Arabia but based in Dubai. This wasn't just his first interview with a foreign entity, but the first formal television interview of his Presidency (transcript HERE). It's nice that my President (which he is, despite disagreeing with him on many things) choose to give his first interview with an Arabic television station. I kid, actually it offends me. But the fact that he gave the interview itself doesn't offend me as much as does the content of that interview. I'll let Victor Davis Hanson's stellar insight illustrate to you how badly this should offend. In his article for Real Clear Politics, "Dancing Among Landmines - The Obama al-Arabiya Interview", Hanson says:

"When abroad it is not wise to criticize your own country and praise the antithetical world view of another - especially if yours is a democratic republic and the alternative is a theocratic monarchy that has a less than liberal record on human rights, treatment of women and homosexuals, and tolerance for religious plurality."

Hanson also points out, and you should really read the article, that while Obama says that there's no reason to not restore the "respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago," Obama made no mention of America's track record in helping Muslim nations or populations. Instead, Obama suggest that America has done little in the last 30 years, and prior to that, American-Muslim relations were stellar. Never mind the fact that thirty years ago, Iranian students seized a US embassy and held Americans hostage for 14 months, and in 1983 Muslim terrorists drove a suicide truck into the Marine Barracks in Beirut. How's that for good relations? But despite all that and the animosity Muslims all over the world have for America, Hanson states that the US has been involved in removing Saddam Hussein's military from Kuwait, attacking Christian Serbs to help Bosnian Muslims, helping Afghans fight the Soviets, investing $1 trillion to replace autocratic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq with democracy, and giving billions of dollars to fight disease in Africa. How friendly have the Chinese or Russians been? Hanson isn't the only author to point out this discrepancy in Obaman logic. Charles Krauthammer does this to great effect. Krauthammer's article is slightly more specific with its use of examples than Hanson's general condemnation of Obama's rhetoric at home and abroad.

Another interesting Hanson point:

"Beware of the dangerous two-step. For nearly two years the unspoken rule of the campaign (ask former Senator Bob Kerry or Hillary Clinton herself or talk-show host Bill Cunningham) was that mentioning Obama's Muslim ancestry was taboo. It was illiberal to evoke his Muslim-sounding name or his Indonesian ancestry, as if one were deliberately trying to suggest his multicultural fides made him less appealing to the square majority in America. But Obama apparently himself is immune to such prohibitions--at least abroad. If he appreciates the off-limits landscape at home, overseas it is suddenly to be showcased to reemphasize his global, multicultural and less parochial credentials. E.g., it comes off as something like: 'between you and me--typical Americans could not relate to you the way I can--even though back in America to even suggest that I am not typical is sometimes the greatest of sins--albeit in the manner I adjudicate.'"

What more can I add? A synthesis: Obama's heritage is off-limits to the people he leads because it might somehow suggest that he's different from us, but his heritage is good when dealing with others; it gives him insight into how they feel; it makes it easier for them to identify with him. This is a lot of tripe. I'd hate to suggest it, but maybe his multiculturalism makes it impossible for him to relate to us? Not that I actually believe that, but I think Obama's gesture to the Muslim world is disingenuous and is insulting to the United States.

Here's a quote from the Krauthammer article:

"Look. If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country -- implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations -- that's fine. But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized."

In another interesting foreign policy issue, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said of Obama's offer to talk to the Iranian government, "This means that Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed. Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change." He went on to demand an apology for American crimes against Iran. In fairness to Obama, it should be noted that he has not ruled out any options in dealing with Iran, which, to the dismay of supporters everywhere, means that military strikes against Iranian nuclear-related facilities is still a possibility. How'd that be for passive, Ahmadinejad?

Power Corrupts, and Apparently Makes you a Hypocrite:
In the Vice-Presidential Debates in 2008, then Senator Joe Biden lamented on the power accrued by Vice-President Dick Cheney. I largely agreed with his premise that Cheney had worked diligently to acquire additional power for the executive, and I thought that increase in power is a bad thing. And while Biden seemed to be most concerned with Cheney's encroachment into legislative (i.e. his) territory, he also seemed to imply disgust with Cheney's widely ranging role in the Bush administration.

Oh what difference does moving from the legislative to the executive branch make. Vice-President Biden seems interested in carrying on Cheney's tradition of being involved in everything. A "senior administration official" says, "Biden will be more transparent, accessible, bipartisan and focused on middle-class values than Dick Cheney. That doesn't mean he'll be less powerful." Great, more transparent, but still powerful. My question to Biden, was Cheney the "most dangerous Vice-President in history" because he was less transparent or because he had his fingers in every pie? Puzzling.

Word of the Day: Bemoan (verb): To moan about or weep for; mourn.

On This Day in History: Guy Fawkes is executed for his plot against Parliament and James I of England in the Gunpowder Plot (1606). The first venereal disease clinic opens at London Lock Hospital (1747). The United States orders all Native Americans into reservations (1876). Germany uses poison gas against Russia in World War I (1915). The Soviet Union (i.e. Stalin) exiles Leon Trotsky (1929). Eddie Slovik is executed for desertion, the first such execution since the Civil War (1945). President Truman announces a program to develop the hydrogen bomb (1950). President Clinton authorizes a $20 billion loan to Mexico to stabilize its economy.

"Obama raises hand, lifts a nation."

"Man raises hand, lifts a finger."

[Morning Coffee Ends Transmission]

Morning Coffee (149)

Good day to you friends. How about we meet for some Coffee...? Little different format today, with plenty o'links and a more bitter Brew.

"There is a pleasure, sure in being mad, which none but madmen know."
I made a picture which should illustrate the above quote beautifully. It is a screen shot from Drudge, taken at 1210 on 19 January 2009. I did not edit it, but added the boxes to point your eyes to the pertinent. (Above quote by John Dryden.)

More evidence of madness? (This is MADNESS!! Madness? THIS IS SPARTA!!) (Amatuer, Amatuer Historian Note: 300 really annoys me.) Take a gander at this bit of...well, I don't know. I can't come up with an appropriate adjective. Just take a look. It's a video, made by Ashton Kutcher and it features all sorts of famous people, most of whom I no longer respect due to the obscene levels of sheepishness in their being. I challenge you to watch the entire thing. Watching the whole thing without turning a gun on myself was my pledge. What's YOUR pledge, fellow Kool-aid drinkers? (I find it funny that comments have been disabled for that vid. Dissent will not be tolerated.)

Global Warming: Myth or Fact:
Speaking of Kool-aid (Oh YEAH!), I just read an article by John Tomlinson that I find to be the perfect cap to my theory that Global Warming is a religious cult. Tomlinson says that we'd better pray for warming, because we just might be heading into another ice age. And speaking of perfect caps, Arctic ice seems to be back to 1979 levels, and Antarctic ice has increased by 5% since 1980. Oh, and global temperatures have dropped from a high in 1998 back to 1980 levels. Warming? I don't know. But atmospheric CO2 levels are rising, so warming it must be, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Insha'Allah? I guess...?:
It appears that the Algerian franchise of al-Qaida, al-Qaida in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb have been plagued by a particular problem that can only be described as divinely inspired. (GWOT Note: "The Base" does business like a McDonald's - you apply for a franchise and you can then use the name so long as you qualify it with "in the Land of" or something similar.) Yes, THE Plague, as in the Black Death. The Sun (yes, not most reputable of sources) reports that 40 al-Qaida fighters, who lack proper medical facilities and cleanliness in their training camps (i.e. caves), have died from the plague, which can be cured by the horrifically painful and exceedingly rare, nay, MYTHICAL, antibiotic. Despite praying five times a day, fasting during Ramadan, and pledging to kill infidels by the bunches, Allah appears to be generally unimpressed with AQLIM members.

Maybe it'll spread to Afghanistan.

Never fear, this will not become the Morning Coffee's style. I just wanted a break from the work-intensive nature of most MCs while still being able to throw out some information that you all might find interesting and/or humorous. Believe me, I'd miss the more cerebral style; it's far more scholarly than this.

Word of the Day: Narcolepsy (noun): A disorder characterized by uncontrollable bouts of sleepiness during the daytime, occasional loss of muscle power and paralysis, and hallucinations during sleep. (I thought they were called dreams.)

On This Day in History: The first electric lighting system using overhead wires begins service in Roselle, NJ. It is built by Thomas Edison (1883). Georges Claude patents the neon discharge tube (1915). German zeppelins bomb Great Yarmouth and King's Lyn in the UK, making it the first major aerial bombardment of a civilian target in history (1915). German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann sends his telegram to Mexico, proposing an alliance against the US (1917). The US votes against joining the League of Nations (1920). Sixy-eight percent of all TVs in the US tune in to watch Lucy give birth on I Love Lucy (1953). Gerald Ford pardons Tokyo Rose (1977). The Apple Lisa, the first personal computer from Apple to have a graphical user interface and a mouse, is announced (1983).

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus Aurelius.

Morning Coffee (148)

Greetings, Coffee Quaffers. I shouldn't even be here this fine, crisp beach morning. No, I had intended on going to the Sandbridge Civic League meeting, but it appears that the current president of said league is not terribly civic minded, as he didn't return my email soliciting information as to the location of the meeting. Secretive organization, that Sandbridge Civic League. I suppose they don't want strange, bearded newcomers interfering with their affairs.

Calling on all Spirits:
In 2003, I walked the same ground as Alexander the Great while in Afghanistan. I did it again in 2008. In 2006 and 2007, I walked the same ground as Augustus, Constantine, and a slew of of other Romans. I own Roman coins with the faces of Emperors Constans and Constantius I. Today, I am a master tactician, able to lead a small army of Macedonians to victory over numerically superior enemies. I'm also a political genius with the ability to navigate through a civil war and establish a dynasty. What's more, I'm able to force a fractured religious movement into accepting a unified doctrine. All this because I leaned on and took support from these great historical men. The problem is, it's all complete and total nonsense.

But this sort of nonsense is exactly what Barack Obama is doing as I type. Today, he boards a train in Philadelphia to retrace Abraham Lincoln's last segment of his trip to Washington, DC. Except, as Harold Holzer notes, this trip rings of gaudy showmanship. Obama has already been to the Capitol, and "backtracking north to come south may be a bit of an artifice." Nevertheless, Obama will stop in Baltimore, which Lincoln passed through in disguise due to an assassination threat, and attend some sort of event. He'll be sworn in on the Bible that Lincoln used in 1861. After that, he'll link(-oln) up with Congress for a lunch served on replica dishware to that picked out by Mary Todd Lincoln. And while it's true that Obama was born poor (albeit not in a log cabin), and served in the Illinois state legislature, let's not forget that the former was simply luck of the draw, while the latter was a conscious choice. As was announcing his candidacy on the steps of the old state capitol building in Springfield. It's hard to tell what of this has been carefully cultivated by Obama and what hasn't.

While Obama might be overdoing the link with Lincoln, his supporters most certainly are. The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies selected as the official theme of the inauguration, "A New Birth of Freedom." This is a phrase taken directly from the famed Gettysburg Address. The committee also elected to serve dishes that Lincoln enjoyed, seafood stew, duck, and pheasant, for the post-inauguration lunch.

Many commentators seem to agree with Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz when he says, "Basically, a lot of it is twaddle, but it's harmless twaddle." While this may be true, or not, it seems that it has the potential to raise expectations unduly. And twaddle as it may be, none of it is warranted. Obama may have been born poor, he may have gotten to where he is because he's eloquent, and he may be black, but to compare him in any manner to a man who many, through the lens of nearly 150 years, consider to be the greatest President in history is grossly premature. And frankly, to encourage such comparisons smacks of supreme arrogance. That's not to say he won't be a good or even great President. But, despite whatever similarities there are, manufactured or real, he's got an awful lot to prove before he is in the same class as Lincoln.

A quote from Sean Wilentz for my good friend Luke: "To the extent that he's emulating any president, Lincoln is about as good as it's going to get. If he was trying to emulate Calvin Coolidge, that would be a problem." Wow. Really, Sean? I know you're a historian, but do you know anything about Coolidge? Nah, I guess you're in favor of the Imperial Presidency, too.

If you're like me and Presidential Pageantry makes you ill, you should read the article "Networks Prepare for Inauguration" on Variety.com. Of course, if you love that sort of thing, go there too, because you'll be all excited about all the neat Obama-related celebrations that are happening. If that's the case, Don Rieck's statement, "There is something of a Camelot-y feel about the Obamas" will give you a warm and fuzzy feeling in the pit of your stomach instead of the nausea it induces in me. Anyway, do you want me to explain all the reasons I find this to be just wrong? I will, but I don't want to beat a dead horse. Can someone say, "Cult of Personality?" I remember that there used to be a day when we ridiculed nations that fostered such feelings in their leaders.

A New Declaration of Independence:
But through all the Lincoln-isms and pageantry Obama, before boarding his train this morning in Philadelphia, decided that it wasn't enough. He said,

"While our problems may be new, what is required to overcome them is not. What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that our founding fathers displayed. What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives - from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry - an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels."

Can someone explain to me what this means in plain English? Is he saying that we're presently ideologically driven, small-minded bigots? He, a black man, was elected President. Doesn't sound like we're still a bunch of bigots. So we have new problems, but ones that require "not new" solutions? Then why a "new declaration?" That sounds like a new solution. Also, we must have perseverance and idealism, but not ideology. Even though ideology and idealism are quite related according to the dictionary, I know that modern parlance gives ideology a negative connotation. Interestingly, the modern use suggests that ideology is merely idealism combined with perseverance. Worse than the nonsensical nature of this rhetorical flourish, I wonder if the man has a single original thought in his head. Lincoln stopped at in Philadelphia on his trip in 1861 and made a much better speech that mentioned the Declaration and better angels too.

Eye O You:
If you need another example of how government mismanages money, yesterday California Controller John Chiang said that the state will be delaying $3.7 billion in tax refunds because the state has no money. The state may even have to issue IOUs to residents; it is unable to rely on borrowing from special funds and investors. What's worse, CNN news reported yesterday that it is unknown if banks will even honor any state-issued IOUs sent to residents. It's possible that Californians could go without a refund at all, despite rating one. Amazing.

I suggest that next year, Californians not pay taxes during the year and instead wait until they get the bill from the government of California. That way, the people can see if they themselves properly budgeted their money. If not, and they have no money, they can issue IOUs to the government. I mean, why not? Sure, it's a duty to pay taxes to some degree, but don't you think that the government has a duty to taxpayers, that being responsible management of the taxes paid?

Maybe we do need a new Declaration of Independence, but one of a different type than envisioned by Obama. One that says that government will have limited interference with our lives, manage the budget frugally, and be tempered by the law and adequate checks and balances. Free us from government stupidity...

Word of the Day: Magnanimous (adjective): 1. Noble in mind or soul; free from mean or petty feelings or acts. 2. Showing a generous spirit; generous in forgiving.

On This Day in History: Octavian (Augustus) marries Livia Drusilla (38 BCE). Pope Gregory XI moves the Papacy back to Rome from Avignon (1377). Captain James Cook and his crew become the first Europeans to sail below the Antarctic Circle (1773). The US takes possession of Wake Island (1899). The US pays Denmark $25 million for the Virgin Islands (1917). Popeye the Sailor Man first appears in a comic strip (1929). President Dwight D Eisenhower delivers a televised farewell address three days before leaving office. In it, he warns against the power of a growing "military industrial complex (1961). See, contrary to liberals' beliefs, as evident from their outrage, Bush was not the first US President to conduct a televised farewell address. A B-52 collides with a KC-135 tanker over Spain and drops three 70-kiloton nuclear bombs (1966). Operation Desert Storm begins (1991). President Bill Clinton posthumously raises Meriwether Lewis' rank from Lieutenant to Captain (2001).

"Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business." - Calvin Coolidge.
"You can't know too much, but you can say too much." - Calvin Coolidge.
"I have never been hurt by what I have not said." - Calvin Coolidge.