Love It or Leave It!

Love it or leave it!
Right? Isn't this what ardent Bush supporters told those of us who dared dissent from the Republican party line during the last 8 years? Well, it would be nice if those same people would follow their own advice. Not because I think they were right that the party or group out of power should blindly follow the President's lead, never once complaining. But, because I hate hypocrites, and these people are hypocrites of the worst kind. So, admit you are full of shit, or please, love it or leave it.

Prop 8: The Musical

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

They Report, You Decide.

Is this a Vote for Franken or Lizard People?

Ever wondered what the thrill of checking ballots in a recount is like? Always dreamed of deciding what constitutes a voter's intent? You are in luck.

Minnessota Public Radio is posting pictures of challenged ballots in the MN Senatorial recount between Al Franken (D) and Norm Coleman (Inc-R), and allowing viewers to vote on whether or not the ballot should have been counted and, if so, for whom. Its actually really fun.

I hope Al Franken wins. From the looks of things so far, he's got a pretty good chance.

Justice, finally.

Judge Richard Leon of the D.D.C just ordered the United States government to free five Algerian men that have been held at Guantanamo Bay for almost seven years. This is welcome and long overdue news.

Obviously, I am not familiar with the facts in these cases, but they must be fairly weak to have caused federal judge to order the outright release of five 'terrorists'. Gtmo is a catastrophe on many levels - - degradation of rule of law values, blatant ignorance of humanitarian law, loss of American exceptionalism - - but, on a purely visceral level, the most troubling aspect of this enterprise is that the vast majority of detainees were not as Donald Rumsfeld claimed, the "worst of the worst." In fact, most of the persons detained at Guantanamo were hapless bystanders that had the misfortune to be at the wrong place at the wrong time - 90 percent by one count. For example, shortly after the war in Afghanistan began, the US dropped leaflets offering substantial financial rewards for the capture of Taliban and Al Qadea operatives. Not surprisingly in a society consisting of rival tribal groups, members of one group turned in their enemies to the Americans when the opportunity presented itself. I know this, among other reasons, because I helped represent a man to whom this happened, a man who spent almost five years in Gtmo for no discernible reasons, a man who is now free and living with his family.

Anyway, I'm glad to see the system - the real system and not the one G.W. and his cronies invented - working. This is a good day for America.

The Newest Little Piggies at the Bailout Trough

Another contribution from Jeff Versteeg

Should the Big Three automakers get a piece of the bailout action? Absolutely not. Here's why:

They are not the sort of companies that should get a bailout.
There are two kinds of bailouts that make sense for a government to engage in. The first kind is a loan to a company that is fundamentally sound, but due to circumstances beyond its control, cannot borrow any money to meet its daily operating expenses. The second kind (much more common) is a loan to a company that is such an important part of the financial system that if it were not able to meet its obligations, the financial system might literally grind to a halt as investors lost all confidence.

The automakers are not in either one of these situations. They'd like you to believe that they fit both of these descriptions, though. They claim that they are cutting costs, reorganizing, asking labor for more concessions, and that they are basically well-run and would be able to make it through this rough patch if it wasn't for the current credit crunch. They claim that even though they are fundamentally sound, they are running out of money because no one will lend to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. These companies have been badly mismanaged for decades, and on top of that, are still saddled with massive obligations to retirees and current employees. The automakers have been hemorrhaging money for years now, even in good economic times. All three of these companies are in very bad shape, credit crunch notwithstanding.

Failing this test, the automakers would like to hold us all hostage. They say that if they were to file for bankruptcy, we would lose 3 million jobs, both from the auto industry and from industries that rely on the automakers, and that our current recession would deepen. Oh really? Would Americans simply stop buying cars because the Big Three stopped making them? Of course not. Honda, Toyota, and other foreign car makers would step in to fill the void. They would increase production in America, where they already produce many of the cars that are sold here. They might even buy pieces of the Big Three during their bankruptcy proceedings, and might even use their old factories, in the same towns where they already exist, to build Hondas and Toyotas. And they would hire many of the same workers that the Big Three employed, and use many of the same suppliers. So we wouldn't lose many jobs at all, because Americans' demand for cars would not decrease at all. Many Big Three employees would simply go to work in this country for foreign automakers who know how to run a business. And maybe new, American car companies would sprout up that were profitable and forward-looking. Wouldn't that be something?

Delaying the inevitable does not help anyone.
The Big Three are going bankrupt. They are some of the worst-run companies in America, and they have been for a while. They have been very slow to adapt to changes in the marketplace and in the way corporations do business today. I mean, ask yourself - if you were in the market for a car today, would you be considering an American car? The answer is 'no' for many Americans, and that's why the automakers have lost so much market share in the past 25 years. Giving these failing corporations a $25 billion gift from taxpayers only delays their inevitable bankruptcy filings. This is not a bridge loan for unfortunate corporations - bailing out the automakers would amount to the government propping up companies that are producing inefficiently and being dominated by their competitors. These companies have been run into the ground, and the writing has been on the wall for a long time. This is the reality of capitalism - even very large, old, famous, bellwether corporations fail if they make inferior products and are not profitable. The beauty of capitalism is that someone will always be there to step in and take their place - someone who will do the job more efficiently and more cheaply, which will raise everyone's standard of living. We need to let these companies fail as soon as possible so we can make the transition as quickly and painlessly as possible, or else...

If we bail them out this time, they will keep coming back for more.
The Big Three say they can't get loans because no one wants to lend to them, and that if they don't get money from the government, millions will be out of work. If we give them these loans, and their financial positions worsen over the next few years, as they are likely to in a bad economy, what's to stop them from sidling up to the trough again? They would be able to make the same arguments a year or two from now, and a precedent would be set. If we loan them the money this time, there will be no principled case for not propping them up in the future, and when we do finally decide to cut them off, the move will seem capricious and unjustified. Not to mention the fact that no one will want these guys to file for bankruptcy in an election year. Best to let them fail as soon as possible so that we can start picking up the pieces before the 2010 election cycle.

If I give you a bailout, I'll have to give one to everybody
Already, some suppliers of the automakers have begun asking for bailouts as well. If we bail out the Big Three, how do we justify denying a bailout to other struggling industries, of which there are many right now? Where does it end? Does the federal government exist to keep as many businesses from failing as it possibly can during hard economic times?

What will happen to current retirees that depend on the Big Three for pension and health benefits?
Ideally, universal health care will pass next year before any of the Big Three go under, so that would take care of the health benefits to those retirees who would not qualify for Medicare. As for pension benefits, the government has a body called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation which will pay pensions in the event that the Big Three can't. I would argue, though, that pensions should be paid first out of whatever money is made by selling off the assets of the Big Three - before investors and shareholders get paid, and before executives get their golden parachutes. Either way, retirees are taken care of. These people all vote, remember?

For a good counterpoint, check out The New Republic.

Very quickly, my responses to this excellent article are:
- We might lose millions of jobs, but many if not most of these people would be rehired by other automakers within a year, and this massive dislocation will happen eventually because the automakers are destined to fail. Let's not forget that they were unprofitable long before the current crisis.
- I agree that the automakers were facing some very difficult conditions over the summer, but gas prices are back under two dollars now, so they are simply dealing with the same slack demand and tight credit that all other American corporations are dealing with. Why give them special treatment?
- The automakers may have made some strides in recent years in terms of lowering their obligations to past and present workers and adopting new manufacturing techniques, but their cars are still not as good as the Japanese, and they were waaay behind the Japanese on conventional hybrids, opting instead to build full size SUVs and Hummers, which was a massive mistake.
- I love the Volt, and I think that even if GM goes out of business, they can sell the Volt, its technology, and its engineering team as a stand-alone business. Volt could become a new American car company. There's no reason that we need GM to get the Volt, and I'd rather get it a couple years later without bailing out GM than get it in 2010 while having to cart GM's pathetic corpse around like it was Weekend at Bernie's.

Hillary for State?

From Guest Rager / Reflecter Jeff Versteeg

The possible appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State creates a whole host of issues. Here are my thoughts on some of them:

Will she be a team player in the Obama administration?
Many people have questioned whether there might be some in-fighting between her and Biden or Obama on foreign policy, but I don't think there's much reason for concern here. She and Obama agree for the most part on foreign policy, and the differences they had during the primary (meeting with unfriendly foreign leaders, attacking terrorists in Pakistan) were mostly posturing and not substantive differences. I believe Hillary will sit down with the Ahmadinejads of the world, even if all "preconditions" have not been met. She will want to succeed where Bush and Rice failed so miserably. Further, once Hillary is Secretary of State, she will need to be a team player and stay on message for the most part, because she will need Obama much more than Obama needs her. If she were to be cut loose by Obama after a year or two on the job, she would have no Senate seat to go back to (or run for, assuming that Chuck Schumer doesn't retire or she doesn't try to run in Arkansas), and would have no national platform. IF she takes this job, she very much needs to succeed in the post, and that means staying in line with the goals of the Obama administration.

How does Obama benefit from this appointment?
I really don't think that he needs to reach out to the Dems who voted for her in the primary, since most of them voted for him in the general election. He will win those people over more by advocating for policies that help them financially rather than simply appointing Hillary. I think the best thing about appointing Hillary to State, from Obama's perspective, is that he is able to co-opt her by giving her an important cabinet post, thereby silencing his main rival for hegemony of the party and completely removing her from all debates about domestic policy. They had some important differences on domestic policy during the campaign (mandatory health insurance, gas tax holiday), and if she were still in the Senate, she would be looking to distinguish herself, and to not just be a rubber stamp for his policies. In particular, she would certainly try to take the lead on universal health care, which would not only steal Obama's thunder, but might doom that legislation again as it did in 1993. Her mishandling of the Clinton administration's attempt at universal care was an absolute fiasco, and her name should be kept as far as possible from any new attempt to pass universal care. Installing her at State accomplishes exactly that. Co-option is always preferable to coercion, and Obama is showing himself to be a shrewd politician by using this time-honored strategy to effectively neutralize his main rival. This appointment, along with the recent meeting with McCain and the advocation of reconciling with Lieberman, also makes Obama look magnanimous and "above politics."

Is there someone more qualified who wants the job?
Not really. Kerry probably has more foreign policy experience, but he doesn't nearly have the stature that she does at this point. I think Hillary would have significantly more pull with world leaders than Kerry, both because she met with them while Bill was president, and because her profile was very high during the campaign. Richardson was just being considered out of courtesy, since he made a key endorsement during the primary. He'll probably get some lower post, but he's not really qualified for state. Giving this position to some former deputy secretary just wouldn't make sense, when Obama can appoint someone who is very high-profile and clearly qualified.

How will Bill factor into this situation?
This seems to be the major sticking point at the moment. Certainly, Bill would have to stop acting as an influence broker on the part of wealthy donors, to the extent that he has done that over the past eight years. He may also have to eliminate most of his overseas investment portfolio to avoid any conflicts of interest for Hillary. I think he would be willing to do both of these things. Everyone wants him to continue his work with the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), and to continue giving speeches and making appearances in support of the causes he supports. He will have to stop collecting appearance fees and donations from wealthy businesspeople and officials of foreign governments, though, and he will probably be reluctant to cut off such a large part of his revenue stream. Bill doesn't need the money personally, though, as he is already very rich and could have anything he wanted, even if he were broke. As for the loss of donations to CGI, Bill will find another way to funnel that money to his pet projects, or to other favored charities. The upshot with the conflict-of-interest issues is that everyone seems to want this to work, so they'll make it work. The rules will almost certainly be bent, but I doubt Obama will care, and anyone who would be in a position to conduct meaningful oversight (Senate Foreign Relations Committee, DoJ, US Attorneys) will either be in thrall to Obama (and the Clintons), or will be an Obama appointee. As far as Bill's effect on policy, Hillary and Bill are probably very similar on foreign policy, and again, both seem fairly similar to Obama. They all want to get out of Iraq, they all want a meaningful peace process in Palestine, they're all very pro-trade and anti-nuclear proliferation. Dealing with Bill is more of a technical issue than anything else.

* * *

The bottom line is that this is a great move by Obama. He effectively neutralizes his most visible rival within the Democratic Party, brings her directly under his control, and keeps her as far as possible from the important domestic policy debates that will be going on in the Senate, where she could cause the most trouble for him. At the same time, this power play makes him look magnanimous and competent, since she is clearly qualified, and gives his cabinet more star power. This is a savvy move by a president-elect who is earning his reputation as a master political tactician.

Uncle Joe; Bring'em Home

Now that Obama has won the election and the Democratic wetdream of a filibuster proof 60 Senator majority is over, attention has turned to the subject of Democrat-turned-Independent-turned-traitor Joe Lieberman. Most on the left are clamoring for the Democrats to exile Lieberman to to Elba. This feeling is perfectly understandable. Lieberman is crazy neo-con hawk that turned refused to accept his defeat in the Connecticut Democratic primary, instead running as an independent, winning on the strength of moderate Republicans. And, most recently, he committed the ultiamte political sin; campaigning for McCain. Even worse, not only did he stump for McCain, in so doing he came out against Obama, offering harsh criticism based on nasty republican talking points.

So, kick the bum out, right? Wrong. Today the media reported that Obama will urge Senator Reid and the other members of the Senate leadership to keep Lieberman in the caucus. I for one was glad to hear it.

Obama ran as a change candidate. Among other things he hoped to change; our politics. Well the current politics - that of Rove and company - is predicated on holding grudges and unceremoniously crushing one's enemies. Frankly, I see the appeal - the thought of Lieberman being publicly shamed brings a smile to my face. But making this fantasy reality would be more of the same. On the contrary, keeping Lieberman around (with an appropriate punishment) makes Obama look magnanimous and adds substance to his claims of change and a new politics. Plus, retaining Lieberman makes sense on a strategic level. In a 100 person body, one vote counts a lot. If moderate Republicans, even just a few, elect to work with Democrats on legislation, Lieberman's vote could be very important - it could be number 60. So, why throw that away all over a grudge. This eventuality reminds me of the old adage 'keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Wise advice. I think Obama recognizes that he may need this guy.

Keeping the personal and political seperate would be a refreshing change of approach as well as a smart one - now that will be change we can believe in.