November 21, 2011 --
Start me with ten who are stout hearted men
Who will fight for the rights they adore.
Start me with ten who are stout hearted men
And I’ll soon show you ten thousand more.
It’s a bit of a stretch to picture Nelson Eddy in his riding britches and military campaign hat, elbows churning, feet stamping, marching around Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan, tonsils hard at work evoking those words in a robust tenor vocal but if the image doesn’t jibe the concept does. Police cleared the park of protesting squatters but the movement remains alive, in New York and elsewhere, after two months and some confrontation with authorities here and there. The NYC group held a “Day of Action” to disrupt activity in the area, with modest results. It is still a loose movement and no one can say were it goes from here. I would suggest they move down to the lobbyist playground in Washington, K Street, and occupy K Street to make a statement.
Eugene Robinson weighed in on this subject in the Washington Post:
“Occupy Wall Street may not occupy Zuccotti Park anymore, but it refuses to surrender its place in the national discourse.”
“Our financial system has been warped to serve the interests of a privileged few at the expense of everyone else.” Issues of unfairness and inequality are being discussed.” Capitalism and fairness should not be fundamentally incompatible. The Wall Street movement is kind of like hitting the head of a stubborn mule with a 2 x 4 to get its attention. Now that it has our attention, what are we going to do about it? Anything? Or will we as voters be like Gulliver in Lilliputian Land standing tall above their government in action, observing their ritual futile dances.
Like some big ocean going ship that has been at sea for a long time our democracy has sprung some leaks and developed some rust spots and should go into dry dock for needed repairs. I would state that is by common agreement, but just what direction those repairs take, now there lies the rib.
“They live in different intellectual and moral universes.”
That’s Paul Krugman, economist/columnist taken a little out of context (he was writing about the supercommittee) but we should have bipartisan agreement on that statement. And I agree it is a case of two different concepts of morality. On the one hand is the belief in a system of economic justice: “social insurance programs, basic security to our fellow citizens and helping those in need” as a moral code. The other view is that such a welfare state is “immoral, a matter of forcing citizens at gunpoint to hand their money over to other people.” These two disparate views of morality have brought us to our knees, and not for prayer. “Oh Lord, help them see the light for they know not what they do.” A bipartisan prayer.
Some things that ought to be done are perfectly clear to all of both parties but though would obviously make for much better governing would work against the personal fortunes of those in Congress.
Members of Congress “spend 30 percent to 70 percent of their time raising money to stay in Congress, or to get their party back in power.”
Lawrence Lessig reports this in an OpEd piece in The New York Times. But nine senators offer a solution in a resolution introduced earlier this month. It would amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court in three separate decisions that allow huge donations to members of Congress and their PACs. Things being the way they are, the members really need the money (less than 1 percent of Americans give more than $200 in a political campaign) and essentially go into hock to the big special interests.
The Senators idea is to go to strict, exclusive public financing of campaigns based on giving a “democracy voucher,” a rebate of $50 for voters to give to the candidate of their choice. If it is not turned in the money stays where it came from. Would that be enough money? In 2010 campaigns spent $1.86 billion. This program could raise as much as $6 billion in an election cycle. This could make honest men out of members of both parties. Not quite so affluent, maybe, not quite so many lavish perks, but honest. After all, honesty is the best policy if you are not talking about paid up Life.
Taking money contributions out of the lobbying system would not be quite enough, as we were informed by the ongoing Jack Abramoff redemption effort. Members who have served in Congress and their staff members must be bared from joining big lobbying firms as they leave government service. As it is now it is a great career path to get elected to Congress just so you can go on to the big bucks in lobbying. Case in point this week.
“… a really irritating, self-involved, pompous jerk.”
I wouldn’t argue with NYT columnist Gail Collins about her description of Newt Gingrich, but this big, pompous jerk took in $1.6 million to $1.8 million from Freddie Mac after he left office to provide strategic advice, reported by Bloomberg News.
Gingrich said he didn’t lobby, but was acting as an “historian.” Former officials of Freddie who ask to be nameless disagree. “Freddie wasn’t spending $25,000 to $35,000 a month for years to have somebody give them history lessons on what would have happened in 1945 if Japan had won” a former official said.
Gingrich must have some body parts made out of brass. His advice to Freddie Mac came during those years the organization steadily went deeper and deeper in trouble, yet then he blamed it for the collapse of the housing market (while he was giving it strategic advice). In 2008, he called for President Obama to give back any money his campaign received from its executives. Then he says Barney Frank should be jailed for his association with “a lobbyist who was close to Freddie Mac.” Good thing Frank was not closely associated with you, Gingrich, or his time in jail could be twice as long.
“We have created instead an engine of influence that seeks simply to make those most connected rich.”
Quote from Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, who has served in Republican administrations and is the author of a new book “Republic Lost.” He writes not about one party or the other, but about the system which includes both. “The great threat to our republic today comes not from the hidden bribery of the Gilded Age,” but from “the economy of influence now transparent to all, which has normalized a process that draws our democracy away from the will of the people.” In the words of Ella Fitzgerald, “Tain't What You Do, It's the Way that Cha Do It.” It’s not that you are making laws Mr. Congressman but you are making them under the influence.
“All I can tell you is this. Rick Perry will never be paid by a tank to think.”
The conclusion of NYT columnist Gail Collins covering the adventures of Perry on the campaign trail this week. The politics of influence? As the Daily Beast points out Perry, who offered state jobs to personal business contacts is running an ad in Iowa this week that claims he will stop Washington politicians who use their jobs for personal gain. But as Collins points out, “Perry does not have a vast fortune, although he is blessed with friends who fly him around on private jets, take him on cool vacations and, occasionally, sell him real estate at bargain-basement prices.”
The Perryism that most makes Collins think tank point was a speech this week in which Perry “laced into Barack Obama as a man who could not possibly understand what ordinary Americans were going through because he ‘grew up in a privileged way.’ ” That would come as news to the President’s late grandmother.
While we have Perry in the crosshairs let’s not pass over his letter to Nancy Pelosi saying he was going to be in the Capital this week and invited her to a “public debate about my Overhaul Washington Plan versus the congressional status quo.” In a news conference Pelosi responded saying she'll be busy visiting Portland, California, and, “that's two ... I can't remember what the third thing is.” Perry will forever after be associated with the number “3.” He might as well have it embroidered on his shirts.
“We need a leader, not a reader!”
A quote from Herman Cain in defense of his widely covered brain freeze, which almost makes Perry look good. It was remarkable, as he fumbled and bungled that simple question on Libya which is universally seen as a campaign killer. His blank pause in dead silence was so long network television could have run three commercials in it. “Who knows every detail of every country on the planet? Nobody!” Another Cain comment on his meltdown. My theory is that the sexual accusations have so taken over his mind that he confused Libya with a female body part.
“There's a reason Iowa goes first and it's because of you.”
Spoken by national pollster Frank Luntz, moderator of the debate of Republican presidential hopefuls Saturday evening in Des Moines. The debate, hosted by the Family Leader, a Christian organization that encourages its members to consider their religious views in political decisions, was a religious exercise according to reports (it was not televised as I had expected). These are the folks who would turn the nation into a theocracy, based on their particular religious views, and the candidate all seemed happy with that. A telling moment on that point came when Perry bemoaned a law that limits political speech from the pulpit, saying pastors needed to be talking about conservative values in church. “And let me tell you: it needs to be OUR VALUES” (emphasis mine). He is talking about evangelical values in case there is any doubt. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, the two Mormons in the race, wisely did not attend.
Santorum showed his patriotism and love of the constitution by bragging about his efforts to have three Iowa Supreme Court Justices with whom he differs, removed. Way to go. Rick. Crowd favorite of the 2,500 upright, super religious church goers was clearly the thrice-married, multi-unfaithful Newt Gingrich. Go figure.
As you would expect there was much talk about getting the federal government out of education and allowing discussion of religion in schools. And constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages and abortions. Ron Paul did say marriage was the province of the church, and not the government.
There were tears. Genuine. Herman Cain when he talked about the help his wife gave him in his fight against cancer; Santorum when he talked about his daughter with a congenital condition. Genuine, human emotional moments, which marks me as too flip when I say, personal troubles aside, the positions taken on this occasions by these candidates is enough to bring tears to anyone’s eyes.
The Daily Beast called this the best Republican debate ever. I hope they were talking about format and not content. It did give you a clear picture of where the candidates stand on social issues. However, in terms of format I have a better idea. In these debates the candidates only have a minute or two at a time to speak on complicated subjects. Sound bites. One liners. And with eight debaters they have to vie for attention. So here’s my plan.
“You’re going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America and give people a chance to rise very rapidly.”
Hard to argue with the “extraordinarily radical proposals” part of that quote of candidate Gingrich in a controversial speech on education to the John F. Kennedy School of Government. He proposes students work 29 hours a week during the school year, full time between semesters and then graduate debt-free. Interesting idea. Personally I would like to see something akin to the Post WWII G.I. Bill combined with public service.
But here’s the rub. He went further. He advocates firing all school janitors from elementary school up and have students beginning at nine year old do those services, sweep the floors, clean the bathrooms, empty the trash. Nine year olds? Twitter caught on fire. “Dickensian!” “Exploitation of children!” This is kind of “Newtwickian Papers” without the humor.
Some of Dickens fits right into the Republican playbook. Take these words from a description of public attitudes from the Pickwick Papers: “mingling a zealous advocacy of Christian principles with a devoted attachment to commercial rights” and “against any interference with the factory system.” More quotable than Adam Smith or Milton Freidman.
“… in this case, failure is good.”
Not something you often hear, but this observation by columnist/economist Paul Krugman on what appears to be the end of the work of the congressional “supercommittee” is shared by some others in the progressive community. All indications are that faced with Wednesday’s November 23rd deadline to find $1.2 trillion in discretionary savings over ten years has come to a screeching halt. As one headline put it “Deficit Panel Faces a Rift Over Who Ought to Pay.” Republican members will not accept any significant tax increase.
On Saturday, the second-ranking Senate Republican declared that the work of a special Congressional committee on deficit reduction was all but over. Renting of clothes. Wailing to heaven. But wait.
As E.J. Dionne Jr. writes in the Washington Post: “If Congress simply fails to act between now and Jan. 1, 2013, the excessive tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush expire, $1.2 trillion in additional budget cuts go through under the terms of last summer’s debt-ceiling deal, and a variety of other tax cuts also go away.” That’s why a “failure” by the Supercommittee to “endorse a deeply flawed deal is actually a victory for sensible deficit reduction.” Which Dionne says should “hearten every deficit foe now prepared to mourn a failure by the Supercommittee.”
Krugman wrote a similar column. He agrees, doing nothing is a good thing. As the lyrics of a song in the dance band era went “Do nothing till you hear from me … pay no attention to what’s said.” Ah, they don’t make them like they used to.
“Janis Joplin used to sing, freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”
That song came to Gail Collin’s mind when writing about a bill Congress passed before going home for the holiday. It requires “states with strict gun regulations to honor concealed-weapon carry permits issued in states where the gun rules are slightly more lax than the restrictions on who can dispense ice cream cones from a truck.”
So you live in California where gun laws are strict and you can’t carry a concealed weapon, but any resident from another state with, say a license from Utah can swagger into any bar in California with a piece hidden on their person. It’s a “freedom” thing say legislators beholden to the gun lobby (and that’s nearly all of them).
Why Utah, for example? Because Utah hands permits out like peanuts at happy hour, to anyone, whether they live in Utah or not. In fact, Collins says, “215,000 non-Utah folks who’ve gotten one.” Of course many of the conservative legislators who enthusiastically support the bill are big on “state’s rights.” When it suits them.
“If more Democrats were able to make the case for the underlying social contract as effectively, our discourse would be vastly less mind-numbing.”
A quote from Steve Benen in a Washington Monthly article that appears in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine article on Elizabeth Warren. You may have noticed that tell-it-like-it-is Warren, now running for Ted Kennedy’s old seat in Massachusetts has caught the attention and enthusiastic support of a vast number of non-conservatives who see her as a Joan of Arc coming to their rescue. She is a popular guest on programs like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, and she stood up to abusive Republican questioning before Congressional committees (enough right there to warm my heart). The article is long, but it is possible that this 62-year-old grandmother, bankruptcy lawyer Harvard professor will play an important role in our future and, if you would like to read it, here is a link:
lingua franca
As candidate Newt Gingrich surges in popularity he will have to answer to the news media for controversial things he has done, things he has said, multiple affairs, multiple marriages, questionable financial deals, everything. Take his stand on English only, not a good way to win the hearts of Hispanic voters, with some of his previous statements being revisited by the media.
Spanish is “the language of living in a ghetto” he is quoted as saying in a speech that he gave in 2007 to the National Federation of Republican Women. That would come as something of a surprise to Cervantes.
“The government should quit mandating that various documents be printed in any one of 700 languages depending on who randomly shows up” to vote is another Gingrich quote. “We should replace bilingual education. The American people believe English should be the official language of the government.” Gingrich often finds it easy to speak for the American people, unless they are Hispanic it seems.
If we follow Gingrich and replace all things Spanish with English we have quite a chore ahead of us. Let’s see. We could replace Taco Bell with something like Liberty Bell I suppose. A tortilla could become a corn crepe. Tamale? How about corn shuck paté.
Cities. Los Angeles is easy, as City of Angels, misnomer though that may be. El Paso, literally The Pass, is kind of dull, and so is Las Vegas as The Plains. Conduitville, Texas? Vegas is easy as it is already known as Sin City. And then there is what to do about Tequila. The fruit or herb drink “Squash,” though popular abroad, is not often herd in the U.S. and when you come down to it Tequila is sort of a fermented Squash. So we will convert that to Cactus Squash. So make me a Maggie, please, on the rocks with Jose Cuervo Cactus Squash.
It’s popular to spoof that “most interesting man in the world” commercial, so picture Gingrich saying, “I don’t often drink beer, but when I do I make it Two Ex-es. Stay befuddled, my friends.”
If we are going to do this we better get busy. Think of all of the words and expressions from other languages … Italian, French, German, Polish, and on and on … we would have to expunge. So for now, I say Adios (oops), Ciao, Adieu, Auf Wiedersehen, au revoir, aloha, Arrivedece,Vale, oh, the hell with it.
¿Donde esta trivia mucho anos? (sic)
Comments