Regarding unemployment-
CNN recently posted this article referencing a *cough* study by CareerBuilder.com.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/11/24/cb.best.cities.find.jobs/index.html
This is what happens when idiots get a hold of statistics.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Bailout my piggy bank, please
The bailout of Citibank worked! This is the first day in a long time that I haven't dreaded looking at the stock market. Maybe Congress knows what it is doing, giving money to the banks and not failing industries. Or maybe they got lucky, for a day.
National Security (Like Life) is a Highway . . .
Our congressional leaders want to ride it all night long. That didn't make sense, but I just got around to watching the episode of The Office in which that song was played at least 4-5 times and it's now stuck in my head.
Anywhoo . . . regarding the national security issue, I think the #1 most direct reason why having domestic car making capacity is such an issue is because, thinking back to WWII, it was the domestic car makers that turned their efforts quickly from producing cars to producing military vehicles like jeeps, tanks and bombers. If we lose that heavy industrial capacity, in a time of national crisis in which we suddenly needed to have thousands of more tanks and airplanes, we'd have to waste a lot more time building the factories to make them rather than just retrofitting the ones we currently have. Admittedly, this is a longshot national security issue as, in the age we're in, it doesn't seem too likely we'd get bogged down in a huge landwar, but then again, prior to our invasion of Iraq and after what we did in Bosnia, I didn't think we'd see the U.S. actually occupying another nation in our lifetimes. I suppose there are more indirect national security concerns like the economy in general, but I think that the one I mentioned is probably the most important one.
Regarding the commercials, I've often wondered how cost effective car commercials for established brands like the Big 3 are. Obviously, they are effective in some degree because I think a big reason why huge cars took off as a phenomenon is because of the slick advertising campaigns the car manufacturers used to make people want cars like that. I just wonder, more importantly, whether the car manufacturers have any idea how effective their commercials are (i.e. whether they are getting their money's worth). Based on their behavior, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they just put these commercials out there with no accountability.
I love, by the way, this fact that when the heads of the Big 3 were called to Congress for the purpose of begging for a bailout, they came in 3 seperate private jets. It's the perfect example of how completely tone deaf these people are to the mood of the country. Of course, substantively, they then got there and pretty much said "give us money pretty please" with no plan for how it was going to be used. Smart. These guys are like the underwear gnomes in that episode of South Park. Step 1, steal underwear, Step 3, profit, Step 2, ????.
I've heard rumblings that Obama sees this need for a Big 3 bailout as a chance to use the Big 3 towards the bigger goals of weaning us off foreign oil/helping the environment by conditioning any funds on a radical overhaul of the way the car companies make cars. Establishing high fuel efficiency minimums, etc. It's a well known fact at this point that the Chinese lettering for "Crisis" also means "Opportunity." This would seem to perfectly embody that concept.
Anywhoo . . . regarding the national security issue, I think the #1 most direct reason why having domestic car making capacity is such an issue is because, thinking back to WWII, it was the domestic car makers that turned their efforts quickly from producing cars to producing military vehicles like jeeps, tanks and bombers. If we lose that heavy industrial capacity, in a time of national crisis in which we suddenly needed to have thousands of more tanks and airplanes, we'd have to waste a lot more time building the factories to make them rather than just retrofitting the ones we currently have. Admittedly, this is a longshot national security issue as, in the age we're in, it doesn't seem too likely we'd get bogged down in a huge landwar, but then again, prior to our invasion of Iraq and after what we did in Bosnia, I didn't think we'd see the U.S. actually occupying another nation in our lifetimes. I suppose there are more indirect national security concerns like the economy in general, but I think that the one I mentioned is probably the most important one.
Regarding the commercials, I've often wondered how cost effective car commercials for established brands like the Big 3 are. Obviously, they are effective in some degree because I think a big reason why huge cars took off as a phenomenon is because of the slick advertising campaigns the car manufacturers used to make people want cars like that. I just wonder, more importantly, whether the car manufacturers have any idea how effective their commercials are (i.e. whether they are getting their money's worth). Based on their behavior, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they just put these commercials out there with no accountability.
I love, by the way, this fact that when the heads of the Big 3 were called to Congress for the purpose of begging for a bailout, they came in 3 seperate private jets. It's the perfect example of how completely tone deaf these people are to the mood of the country. Of course, substantively, they then got there and pretty much said "give us money pretty please" with no plan for how it was going to be used. Smart. These guys are like the underwear gnomes in that episode of South Park. Step 1, steal underwear, Step 3, profit, Step 2, ????.
I've heard rumblings that Obama sees this need for a Big 3 bailout as a chance to use the Big 3 towards the bigger goals of weaning us off foreign oil/helping the environment by conditioning any funds on a radical overhaul of the way the car companies make cars. Establishing high fuel efficiency minimums, etc. It's a well known fact at this point that the Chinese lettering for "Crisis" also means "Opportunity." This would seem to perfectly embody that concept.
Even More Tenuous-er
Go one step further...Americans need access to poor quality unreliable vehicles so that there remains a high need for mechanics and auto clubs like AAA. Turns out they're the secret linchpin to the economy and must be insulated from failure.
Here's another question:
How many commerical sets have you seen that do NOT include a car commerical?
I'd be willing to wager that at least 70% of commerical sets include an automobile ad. So it's reasonable to ask this-
If you auto makers are hemmorhaging money faster than David Wells eats doughnuts, how can you justify the exorbitant amount of advertising dollars you spend hawking you crappy wares?
Now I'll be fair. According to Nielsen, advertising numbers are actually down this year for the Big 3. Yet, the totals are still staggering:
GM...you spent $1.25 BILLION on advertising in the first half of 2008.
Ford, you topped out just under $1 BILLION.
Chysler, you were somewhat more responsible (used loosely) at half a BILLION.
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/tag/auto-ad-spend/
You guys are losing billions of dollars per year, and have been for a number of years, yet you feel it's wise to drop 10 figures bombarding America with commericals. Do you really believe that there's a single person in this country who doesn't know what you sell?
I guess it's an old ad-man technique. If you can't make better products, then at least be louder than the other guy. And do it more often.
Here's another question:
How many commerical sets have you seen that do NOT include a car commerical?
I'd be willing to wager that at least 70% of commerical sets include an automobile ad. So it's reasonable to ask this-
If you auto makers are hemmorhaging money faster than David Wells eats doughnuts, how can you justify the exorbitant amount of advertising dollars you spend hawking you crappy wares?
Now I'll be fair. According to Nielsen, advertising numbers are actually down this year for the Big 3. Yet, the totals are still staggering:
GM...you spent $1.25 BILLION on advertising in the first half of 2008.
Ford, you topped out just under $1 BILLION.
Chysler, you were somewhat more responsible (used loosely) at half a BILLION.
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/tag/auto-ad-spend/
You guys are losing billions of dollars per year, and have been for a number of years, yet you feel it's wise to drop 10 figures bombarding America with commericals. Do you really believe that there's a single person in this country who doesn't know what you sell?
I guess it's an old ad-man technique. If you can't make better products, then at least be louder than the other guy. And do it more often.
Friday, November 21, 2008
It's a matter of National Security
Please explain to me why the auto industry is so important to our national security that we cannot let it fail?
I understand that our military uses tanks, hummers, and all kinds of automobiles to fight wars. In that regard, I am sure the Government could find a way to pony up just enough money to insure a domestic supply of these vehicles from a smaller automobile industry. But, I am unclear as to why American-made automobiles must be available to the public at large, even if many people do not want to buy them. Is it because in the event of a terrorist attack, we are going to want to get the hell out of wherever is under attack quickly? That didn't work so well in "The Happening" (n.b. don't watch that movie). Or is a more tenuous argument like people need American cars to get to their jobs so they can make money and support our Government through taxes?
I understand that our military uses tanks, hummers, and all kinds of automobiles to fight wars. In that regard, I am sure the Government could find a way to pony up just enough money to insure a domestic supply of these vehicles from a smaller automobile industry. But, I am unclear as to why American-made automobiles must be available to the public at large, even if many people do not want to buy them. Is it because in the event of a terrorist attack, we are going to want to get the hell out of wherever is under attack quickly? That didn't work so well in "The Happening" (n.b. don't watch that movie). Or is a more tenuous argument like people need American cars to get to their jobs so they can make money and support our Government through taxes?
Cabinet Diversity - WoW
I just wanted to add that Obama has a Tauren Shaman working closing with him, as co-chair of his FCC transition team. This could help explain the diversity of his picks.
One Nation, Except When We Don't Wanna Be...
I agree. It is absolutely flabbersgasting to me that we don't have a nationwide voting process. Especially for nationwide elections! How is that justifiable?
And if any of you lawayers start spewing constitutional law at me, I'll vomit- that question was largely rhetorical.
I'm all for states' rights, but there are a number of things that I believe should be nationalized. Voting and licensure (fishing, driving, etc.) chief among them.
And if any of you lawayers start spewing constitutional law at me, I'll vomit- that question was largely rhetorical.
I'm all for states' rights, but there are a number of things that I believe should be nationalized. Voting and licensure (fishing, driving, etc.) chief among them.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Fun with Idiots Disenfanchising Themselves
I thought this was interesting both in terms of showing the task that the people recounting the ballots are faced with and for showing how stupid some people can be in filling out their ballots (and how petty some of the campaign monitors for each campaign can be in trying to disallow votes). This all just reinforces in my mind that there should be a single, national format for ballots instead of a hodgepodge from state to state and even from polling place to polling place within states. It might not eliminate all the problems, but it would certainly help alleviate confusion if every single election wherever you went the same kinds of ballots were used.
I Bet Joe the Builder Could Build a Heck of a Cabinet
I think a characteristic of Obama's cabinet picks so far has been picking people who are inarguably qualified to do the jobs they are picked to do, as well as an ability to put together a diverse cabinet without leaving any scent of affirmative action (see first part of the sentence for why). Amongst the 4 picks that have been announced or rumored, 1 is a black man (AG), 2 are women (SoS and Homeland Security) and one is a whitey white old white guy (Daschle). Hell, if you want to include his close staff, he's even got a jewish guy thrown into the mix as his chief of staff (note to all the crazies out there who questioned Obama's commitment to Israel, check out Rahm Emmanuel's Wikipedia entry and then tell me Obama might be soft on the issue of the U.S.'s relationship with Israel). If Hillary falls through for SoS for whatever reason, he's likely to put Richardson, a hispanic, in there. It should be interesting when he gets to make Supreme Court picks one day. I find it unlikely that he'd get to make two picks and put 2 white guys on there as Bush did.
To return to an earlier point made about how Obama's cabinet picks hadn't really represented "change," I think that he's in a tough position on that issue. Democrats had a two term presidency only 8 years ago, so a lot of people who are qualified to take top positions now inevitably had some position in the Clinton administration (Emmanuel, Holder, Hillary Clinton) or, if they didn't, were Senators recently (Daschle, Clinton). Napolitano breaks that mold somewhat and I think we can expect to see more mold breaking picks going forward, but I think that what Obama's picks so far tell us, consistent with his behavior ever since he started his campaign for President and before that, is that he's not interested in being just a "movement" candidate or a "movement" President. He actually has things he wants to get done and these are the people who will know how to make sure that those things get done (universal health care, weening us off foreign oil while "going green" at the same time, etc.) I always took the "change" mantra to be more about changing the tone of politics and the vicious tit for tat and "perpetual campaign" types of things more than anything else. I think this is what frustrates many on the right. Obama's views are fairly conventionally Democratic, but he at the same time manages to be a non-conventional Democrat and politician in general because of his tone and because of what I believe to be his pragmatism. He may hold more liberal viewpoints than 60% of the country, but I think he wants to get things done and therefore is going to play more towards the middle than the left. That's in stark contrast to President Bush who, at least since 9/11, has almost uniformly played to the right instead of the center.
To return to an earlier point made about how Obama's cabinet picks hadn't really represented "change," I think that he's in a tough position on that issue. Democrats had a two term presidency only 8 years ago, so a lot of people who are qualified to take top positions now inevitably had some position in the Clinton administration (Emmanuel, Holder, Hillary Clinton) or, if they didn't, were Senators recently (Daschle, Clinton). Napolitano breaks that mold somewhat and I think we can expect to see more mold breaking picks going forward, but I think that what Obama's picks so far tell us, consistent with his behavior ever since he started his campaign for President and before that, is that he's not interested in being just a "movement" candidate or a "movement" President. He actually has things he wants to get done and these are the people who will know how to make sure that those things get done (universal health care, weening us off foreign oil while "going green" at the same time, etc.) I always took the "change" mantra to be more about changing the tone of politics and the vicious tit for tat and "perpetual campaign" types of things more than anything else. I think this is what frustrates many on the right. Obama's views are fairly conventionally Democratic, but he at the same time manages to be a non-conventional Democrat and politician in general because of his tone and because of what I believe to be his pragmatism. He may hold more liberal viewpoints than 60% of the country, but I think he wants to get things done and therefore is going to play more towards the middle than the left. That's in stark contrast to President Bush who, at least since 9/11, has almost uniformly played to the right instead of the center.
Napolitano Dynamite
The cabinet building continues. Arizona's Governor has reportedly been tapped to lead DHS.
Interesting choices, but I haven't had any real problems thus far...
Interesting choices, but I haven't had any real problems thus far...
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Daschle Away, Daschle Away, Daschle Away All!
Tom Daschle as head of DHHS?
What does everyone think?
I'm again a bit surprised because I'm not sure it fits with the whole "change" platform, but I don't particularly object to Daschle.
What does everyone think?
I'm again a bit surprised because I'm not sure it fits with the whole "change" platform, but I don't particularly object to Daschle.
I.O.U...no wait, I. O. Me.
Yeah, I wasn't very clear. I know the distinction betwene Clinton and her campaign, and I suppose you're correct about its similarity to the protection from liability an individual enjoys by creating a corp.
I guess I find it surprising given that she loaned her campaign money personally. And I'm probably not as adept as I should be in understanding the ins and outs of campaign financing.
Anyway, it was more of a visceral reaction...How could you run up debt in your campaign and still have the fortune you do? If I were a creditor, I would be a little irked that the lifestyle is maintained while I am owed money.
I guess I find it surprising given that she loaned her campaign money personally. And I'm probably not as adept as I should be in understanding the ins and outs of campaign financing.
Anyway, it was more of a visceral reaction...How could you run up debt in your campaign and still have the fortune you do? If I were a creditor, I would be a little irked that the lifestyle is maintained while I am owed money.
Georgia on my Mind
Regarding Clinton's debt, I'm not sure why that's allowed. The fact that she's a multimillionaire doesn't really play into it, I know, as the campaign is a seperate entity from the candidate personally. It's kind of like when you start a business alone but incorporate so that you're not personally liable.
As I understand it, there are a whole series of rules related to how a defunct campaign handles its debt. For instance, I don't think the candidate is allowed to raise money to pay debt owed to herself, which in Clinton's case is substantial. As for the other "joe and jane sixpacks" she owes money to, they may wind up getting stiffed per this article if Hillary becomes SoS.
I actually haven't seen the Daily Show bit yet and the website isn't working right now. It is a strange rule they have in Georgia, and a really stupid one given the current political reality that there are two major parties and that's that. I can see it making some sense in a situation where there are 3 or more major parties. I wonder why Georgia has this rule. My pure speculation would be that maybe they implemented at some during the Jim Crow days when there were portions of the Democratic party that split away and formed the "Dixicrat" party, most famously headed in a presidential election by Strom Thurmond.
Who knows, but the upshot is that Democrats have a far better chance at 60 senate seats than has been commonly recognized in the mainstream media since election day. They've already locked up the AK senate seat, which brings them to 58, and Nate Silver's analysis showed that there's probably better than a 50% chance that Al Franken is going to win in MN once all the "undervotes" are put in his column. That would bring it up to 59 and runoff elections are all about who can get their people out. Obama has demonstrated that his people are pretty good at this, and right now a lot of his people are in GA working on it. If you had to think about which party's partisans are more motivated at this point, I'd say its probably the Democrats. In any event, 60 is really more of a symbolic number than an important one at this point. 58 is probably more than enough to get almost anything the Democrats want to do past the filibuster stage given that you can usually pick off a handful of Republicans, particularly of the Olympia Snowe/Susan Collins variety, to at least be willing to end debate on most issues. Most importantly to me, as a lawyer, the Democrats should have no problems getting almost all of Obama's judicial appointments, most famously Supreme Court nominees, but almost as important, or perhaps moreso, all the lower court judges that actually decide 99% of legal issues, through the confirmation process with a minimum of stalling.
As I understand it, there are a whole series of rules related to how a defunct campaign handles its debt. For instance, I don't think the candidate is allowed to raise money to pay debt owed to herself, which in Clinton's case is substantial. As for the other "joe and jane sixpacks" she owes money to, they may wind up getting stiffed per this article if Hillary becomes SoS.
I actually haven't seen the Daily Show bit yet and the website isn't working right now. It is a strange rule they have in Georgia, and a really stupid one given the current political reality that there are two major parties and that's that. I can see it making some sense in a situation where there are 3 or more major parties. I wonder why Georgia has this rule. My pure speculation would be that maybe they implemented at some during the Jim Crow days when there were portions of the Democratic party that split away and formed the "Dixicrat" party, most famously headed in a presidential election by Strom Thurmond.
Who knows, but the upshot is that Democrats have a far better chance at 60 senate seats than has been commonly recognized in the mainstream media since election day. They've already locked up the AK senate seat, which brings them to 58, and Nate Silver's analysis showed that there's probably better than a 50% chance that Al Franken is going to win in MN once all the "undervotes" are put in his column. That would bring it up to 59 and runoff elections are all about who can get their people out. Obama has demonstrated that his people are pretty good at this, and right now a lot of his people are in GA working on it. If you had to think about which party's partisans are more motivated at this point, I'd say its probably the Democrats. In any event, 60 is really more of a symbolic number than an important one at this point. 58 is probably more than enough to get almost anything the Democrats want to do past the filibuster stage given that you can usually pick off a handful of Republicans, particularly of the Olympia Snowe/Susan Collins variety, to at least be willing to end debate on most issues. Most importantly to me, as a lawyer, the Democrats should have no problems getting almost all of Obama's judicial appointments, most famously Supreme Court nominees, but almost as important, or perhaps moreso, all the lower court judges that actually decide 99% of legal issues, through the confirmation process with a minimum of stalling.
Miss Management
Good point. She's good at a number of things, but successful management is not among them. In fact, I was just reading about how far into debt she still is due to her presidential campaign.
Does anyone else find it odd that a multi-millionaire could be so much in debt, and be permitted to carry that type of debt for that long? It's not like a credit card bill. I'm surprised there aren't more rules about paying for your campaign.
_____________________________________
Speaking of rules and campaigns, I'm sure you saw The Daily Show's piece on the Georgia Senate Race. In addition to being hilarious and scoring major point for referencing Charlie Daniels, it highlighted Georgia's...let's say "unique" rules regarding elections. I'm not sure if I agree with the requirements.
Is a win not a win if you get only 49% rather than 51%? If I gave a crap about the GOP candidate winning, I'd be pretty peeved. Now a guy who finished 5% points back gets another crack at it, and heavyweights like Bill Clinton are lining up behind him because the major elections are over and frankly, they have nothing better to do.
Granted McCain is campaigning on the other side, but I find the whole thing to be in need of an overhaul.
Does anyone else find it odd that a multi-millionaire could be so much in debt, and be permitted to carry that type of debt for that long? It's not like a credit card bill. I'm surprised there aren't more rules about paying for your campaign.
_____________________________________
Speaking of rules and campaigns, I'm sure you saw The Daily Show's piece on the Georgia Senate Race. In addition to being hilarious and scoring major point for referencing Charlie Daniels, it highlighted Georgia's...let's say "unique" rules regarding elections. I'm not sure if I agree with the requirements.
Is a win not a win if you get only 49% rather than 51%? If I gave a crap about the GOP candidate winning, I'd be pretty peeved. Now a guy who finished 5% points back gets another crack at it, and heavyweights like Bill Clinton are lining up behind him because the major elections are over and frankly, they have nothing better to do.
Granted McCain is campaigning on the other side, but I find the whole thing to be in need of an overhaul.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
I Thought They Liked to be Called "Executive Assistants"
I don't see overcoming Bill's past as being a particularly big issue for a Secretary Clinton in that he seemed to hit it off pretty well with other foreign leaders in his day and was respected by them. I think the bigger problem is the present and future in that he is sort of a one man foreign policy machine, what with his globe trotting efforts for his foundation. I'm sure some sort of arrangement can be reached though between Obama's people and the Clintons.
I also am not too concerned with her diplomatic skills. I think she's got a long history of dealing with the kinds of people she's going to have to deal with. I think she would probably be a better AG or something than SoS, but AG may be too small fry for her tastes. As it is, I'm not 100% convinced that she's going to accept SoS, but it certainly looks like it's going that way.
My bigger question regarding Hillary is her demonstrated crappy executive management skills. As noted by a bunch of people, the two big projects she's handled has been the health care issue during her husband's presidency and her own campaign for president. Both were unmitigated disasters from a management perspective. Some of the stories about the infighting that went on in her campaign, due in large part to her unwillingness to put one side or the other or both in their places, are amazing. That said, I would think that a lot of the SoS office can manage itself given that there are career employees there. I just think it will be very important for Obama to make sure she hires the right person as a deputy SoS who can keep a strong hand on the logistical management of the SoS office.
I also am not too concerned with her diplomatic skills. I think she's got a long history of dealing with the kinds of people she's going to have to deal with. I think she would probably be a better AG or something than SoS, but AG may be too small fry for her tastes. As it is, I'm not 100% convinced that she's going to accept SoS, but it certainly looks like it's going that way.
My bigger question regarding Hillary is her demonstrated crappy executive management skills. As noted by a bunch of people, the two big projects she's handled has been the health care issue during her husband's presidency and her own campaign for president. Both were unmitigated disasters from a management perspective. Some of the stories about the infighting that went on in her campaign, due in large part to her unwillingness to put one side or the other or both in their places, are amazing. That said, I would think that a lot of the SoS office can manage itself given that there are career employees there. I just think it will be very important for Obama to make sure she hires the right person as a deputy SoS who can keep a strong hand on the logistical management of the SoS office.
A FEMALE Secretary? How sexist.
Even though I nearly crapped myself at the thought of her becoming POTUS, I'm actually not opposed to Hillary being SoS. I have 2 questions though:
1. Can she overcome Bill's past actions (good AND bad)?
2. Is she adept enough at diplomacy?
I never saw diplomacy/ foreign policy as her strong suit, and can't help but wonder if there are other cabinet positions that would be better fits for her.
I think it's smart for Obama to install her in some fashion; I just hope it's in the best role possible.
1. Can she overcome Bill's past actions (good AND bad)?
2. Is she adept enough at diplomacy?
I never saw diplomacy/ foreign policy as her strong suit, and can't help but wonder if there are other cabinet positions that would be better fits for her.
I think it's smart for Obama to install her in some fashion; I just hope it's in the best role possible.
Disenfranchised Hillary Supporter
As a disenfranchised Hillary supporter, I think she would make a great SoS. She is a smart, tough, problem-solver and lord knows that our foreign affairs have a lot of problems these days. While Obama may be tempted to put a care-bear into this office to repair America's image abroad, I think Hillary would be a better choice (I am not as versed in Richardson's resume, so reserve judgment as to whether he is also tough and capable.) If we can't put her in charge of health care, secretary of state seems the next best choice.
Bitch is the new Black
At some point during the primary campaign, Tina Fey returned to her news anchor desk to deliver a hilarious monlogue regarding Hillary Clinton with the subject being, "bitch is the new black." This was followed up a week or two later by a great Tracy Morgan return to the show in which he stated, and I'm paraphrasing, "bitch may be the new black, but black is the new president bitch." I don't really have much of a point to mentioning these skits, I just thought they were really funny and they are tangentially related to my current point, which is . . .
What do you all think of this Hillary Clinton potentially as SoS development. I thought this might be an area of disagreement amongst us as I supported Obama from day 1, but never had any hate for Hillary Clinton (her campaign tactics at times are a different story), Matt, on the other hand, does not care for Clinton shall we say, while Richard intended to vote for Hillary in the VA primary but disenfranchised himself (to my great pleasure) by going to the wrong polling place.
I actually think that on the substance of it, this makes a lot of sense. She's clearly a very smart person who works hard at whatever it is she does, and further, her alleged "experience" that prepared her to be President actually has some relevance to the job of SoS. She knows many and perhaps most of these world leaders that she'd be tasked with interacting with personally. Given that interacting with foreign leaders is pretty much the definition of the SoS's job, that's a useful thing. Further, from a cravenly political point of view, she'd have nothing to gain by doing anything but her best to carry out Obama's agenda as SoS (as opposed to in the Senate where she'd be tempted to carry out her own agenda) and it's also better to have people who might be antagonistic to you at times inside the camp pissing out rather than outside the camp pissing in so to speak. This might also fit in with obama's desire to have a "team of rivals" in his cabinet (a phrase, by the way, that I'm thinking about putting "on notice" except that our current setup only allows 1 thing at a time to be on notice. There's got to be a better way.) Anyway, what do you all think?
What do you all think of this Hillary Clinton potentially as SoS development. I thought this might be an area of disagreement amongst us as I supported Obama from day 1, but never had any hate for Hillary Clinton (her campaign tactics at times are a different story), Matt, on the other hand, does not care for Clinton shall we say, while Richard intended to vote for Hillary in the VA primary but disenfranchised himself (to my great pleasure) by going to the wrong polling place.
I actually think that on the substance of it, this makes a lot of sense. She's clearly a very smart person who works hard at whatever it is she does, and further, her alleged "experience" that prepared her to be President actually has some relevance to the job of SoS. She knows many and perhaps most of these world leaders that she'd be tasked with interacting with personally. Given that interacting with foreign leaders is pretty much the definition of the SoS's job, that's a useful thing. Further, from a cravenly political point of view, she'd have nothing to gain by doing anything but her best to carry out Obama's agenda as SoS (as opposed to in the Senate where she'd be tempted to carry out her own agenda) and it's also better to have people who might be antagonistic to you at times inside the camp pissing out rather than outside the camp pissing in so to speak. This might also fit in with obama's desire to have a "team of rivals" in his cabinet (a phrase, by the way, that I'm thinking about putting "on notice" except that our current setup only allows 1 thing at a time to be on notice. There's got to be a better way.) Anyway, what do you all think?
Friday, November 14, 2008
Good Boy, Shep! Good Boy!
I can't find it now because I don't recall the guy's name, butlate in the campaign Smith was interviewing a GOP "political consultant" who attempted to expound on how there still existed a "fear of Obama" because he hadn't been vetted by America.
The guy uttered a sentence that was reminiscent of Miss South Carolina and Smith stopped him and actually said something to the effect of, "I'm sorry, what did you you even say just then?"
He's raised my opinion of him with his actions of late. Actually calling out Republicans...I fear Fox News will catch onto what he's doing and fire him. Or Rupert will eat his face. Or both.
The guy uttered a sentence that was reminiscent of Miss South Carolina and Smith stopped him and actually said something to the effect of, "I'm sorry, what did you you even say just then?"
He's raised my opinion of him with his actions of late. Actually calling out Republicans...I fear Fox News will catch onto what he's doing and fire him. Or Rupert will eat his face. Or both.
Shepard(ing some sanity into the conversation) Smith
Looks like Shephard Smith of Fox News is starting to get a little feisty. First, a few weeks back, he called shenanigans on "Joe the Plumber's" idiotic suggestion that electing Obama would be "the death of Israel," now this.
Joe the Dumber
First- the widget issue.
Add a "picture" widget. Get a picture of whomever you wish to put "on notice". Caption the picture "on notice". Problem solved.
We could also add a text widget and have our own version of "the word", but that's another story.
On to Joe.
As we all know I'm a litt more punitive than you. Not because I'm mean-spirited or vindictive (although those things may be true) but because I am a firm believer that actions should have consequences.
Like you, I didn't have a problem with Leibs endrosing McCain...in fact, I wish more politicians would endorse candidates they believe in rather than always rigidly adhering to party lines. But like you, I think he went too far. Far too far.
Political parties are like clubs, and there are certain requirements for membership. While those requirements are somewhat fungible, Leiberman's actions broke the club rules and should result in some changes.
1. I would indeed remove him from his chairmanships. You can't have someone in a leadership role who doesn't uphold the party's ideals. It sets a bad example. However the Dems need to frame this change the right way. Leiberman needs to understand that it's not pure retaliatory. He has to understand that while he's free as a man to do what he thinks is best, his attempt to undermine the goals of the party have shown that he's not fit to lead that party in any form.
2. I would not kick him out of the caucus. And I would not necessarily put any restrictions on his future voting habits, etc. But I would make it very clear that if no longer wishes to be a Democrat, he should take the opportunity to leave now. If he decides to stay, then said decision should require a certain...attitude adjustment.
3. I would do only the minimum to support any future re-election bid he might launch. Again, if I'm the party, I'm going to use my resources on people that share the party's ideals.
I wouldn't be taking these actions as a deterrent or punishment. I'd be taking them because in my opinion, it's the right thing to do for the party.
Add a "picture" widget. Get a picture of whomever you wish to put "on notice". Caption the picture "on notice". Problem solved.
We could also add a text widget and have our own version of "the word", but that's another story.
On to Joe.
As we all know I'm a litt more punitive than you. Not because I'm mean-spirited or vindictive (although those things may be true) but because I am a firm believer that actions should have consequences.
Like you, I didn't have a problem with Leibs endrosing McCain...in fact, I wish more politicians would endorse candidates they believe in rather than always rigidly adhering to party lines. But like you, I think he went too far. Far too far.
Political parties are like clubs, and there are certain requirements for membership. While those requirements are somewhat fungible, Leiberman's actions broke the club rules and should result in some changes.
1. I would indeed remove him from his chairmanships. You can't have someone in a leadership role who doesn't uphold the party's ideals. It sets a bad example. However the Dems need to frame this change the right way. Leiberman needs to understand that it's not pure retaliatory. He has to understand that while he's free as a man to do what he thinks is best, his attempt to undermine the goals of the party have shown that he's not fit to lead that party in any form.
2. I would not kick him out of the caucus. And I would not necessarily put any restrictions on his future voting habits, etc. But I would make it very clear that if no longer wishes to be a Democrat, he should take the opportunity to leave now. If he decides to stay, then said decision should require a certain...attitude adjustment.
3. I would do only the minimum to support any future re-election bid he might launch. Again, if I'm the party, I'm going to use my resources on people that share the party's ideals.
I wouldn't be taking these actions as a deterrent or punishment. I'd be taking them because in my opinion, it's the right thing to do for the party.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
How do you Solve a Problem Like Joe Lieberman?
Title to this post to be imagined to the tune from Sound of Music (or maybe I'm the only straight man who would make that connection).
Senate Democrats are reportedly going to take a vote next week over the fate of Joe Lieberman. Options on table include 1) no punitive action, 2) kicking him out of the caucus, 3) stripping him of his primo spot as chaiman of the homeland security committee, which reportedly would prompt him to leave the caucus and become a Republican, 4) some other form of punishment less than #3 but more than #1.
I'm very torn on the Lieberman issue. I honestly didn't have much of a problem with him endorsing McCain because A) it didn't hurt Obama any and B) they're good friends in the real sense and not in the Joe Biden "I love John McCain, I'd take a bullet for that man, we're friends, but at the same time he's dangerously unbalanced and shouldn't be let anywhere near our nuclear arsenal" way. That said, he went from doing something acceptable to me to being put "on notice" in Stephen Colbert terms, when he started actively badmouthing Obama instead of just supporting McCain. He then shifted categories to "Dead to Me" when he actually followed in the footsteps of stark raving hateful lunatic Zell Miller in speaking at the opposite party's convention. For a while, I was adamant in my feeling that Lieberman needed to be at leas stripped of his committee chairmanships as punishment, regardless of whether this led him to bolt. With an Obama victory, however, I'm starting to feel a little more charitable and, at least, a little more practical.
If he's willing to come back to the caucus and be a good boy (i.e. not fillibuster along with Republicans, though with acknowledgment that on the actual votes he can vote his conscience) then I think he should be accepted back and be allowed to keep his top chairmanship post. I do think, however, that what he did can't go unanswered. Caucusing with a party means something and if you're going to stab that party in the back in a presidential election, you have to pay some consequence. I'm not sure what consequences are available, but there's got to be some blowback. That said, if he ever goes along with Republican attempts to fillibuster any sort of legislation that Democrats consider important, I think he should be summarily kicked to the curb.
On the plus side, from my perspective as a Democrat, i find it highly unlikely that Lieberman will be able to remain the Senator from CT after his current term. He benefitted last time from an active Republican effort to have Republicans vote for him instead of the Republican candidate. That, obviously, can't be counted on next time. I also have to think that in a state that went overwhelmingly for Obama, Lieberman's support of McCain will not play well next election.
In any event, I wish there was a "on notice" and "dead to me" widget to add to the side of this blog. I'd like to keep track of such things. Maybe I'll just figure out a way to make it happen.
Senate Democrats are reportedly going to take a vote next week over the fate of Joe Lieberman. Options on table include 1) no punitive action, 2) kicking him out of the caucus, 3) stripping him of his primo spot as chaiman of the homeland security committee, which reportedly would prompt him to leave the caucus and become a Republican, 4) some other form of punishment less than #3 but more than #1.
I'm very torn on the Lieberman issue. I honestly didn't have much of a problem with him endorsing McCain because A) it didn't hurt Obama any and B) they're good friends in the real sense and not in the Joe Biden "I love John McCain, I'd take a bullet for that man, we're friends, but at the same time he's dangerously unbalanced and shouldn't be let anywhere near our nuclear arsenal" way. That said, he went from doing something acceptable to me to being put "on notice" in Stephen Colbert terms, when he started actively badmouthing Obama instead of just supporting McCain. He then shifted categories to "Dead to Me" when he actually followed in the footsteps of stark raving hateful lunatic Zell Miller in speaking at the opposite party's convention. For a while, I was adamant in my feeling that Lieberman needed to be at leas stripped of his committee chairmanships as punishment, regardless of whether this led him to bolt. With an Obama victory, however, I'm starting to feel a little more charitable and, at least, a little more practical.
If he's willing to come back to the caucus and be a good boy (i.e. not fillibuster along with Republicans, though with acknowledgment that on the actual votes he can vote his conscience) then I think he should be accepted back and be allowed to keep his top chairmanship post. I do think, however, that what he did can't go unanswered. Caucusing with a party means something and if you're going to stab that party in the back in a presidential election, you have to pay some consequence. I'm not sure what consequences are available, but there's got to be some blowback. That said, if he ever goes along with Republican attempts to fillibuster any sort of legislation that Democrats consider important, I think he should be summarily kicked to the curb.
On the plus side, from my perspective as a Democrat, i find it highly unlikely that Lieberman will be able to remain the Senator from CT after his current term. He benefitted last time from an active Republican effort to have Republicans vote for him instead of the Republican candidate. That, obviously, can't be counted on next time. I also have to think that in a state that went overwhelmingly for Obama, Lieberman's support of McCain will not play well next election.
In any event, I wish there was a "on notice" and "dead to me" widget to add to the side of this blog. I'd like to keep track of such things. Maybe I'll just figure out a way to make it happen.
The Definition of "Is"
My point was not to start a rash of Palin-bashing, but to merely point out yet another...inconsistency, shall we say? Seemingly every time she pops up in the news, she's saying something contrary to reality.
Now I understand that there's my POV and your POV and the truth probably lies somewhere in between. But as you say, negative campaigning can be objectively defined. And in this campaign, it did occur on her part. Violating ethical considerations can be defined. And in a recent investigation, it was found to have occured on her part (although the subsequent report cleared her of violation of ethics law).
Her reactions don't strike me as spin. They don't strike me as attempts to redefine anything. They strike me as refusals to acknowledge reality. You can't say "I've been cleared" while holding a report that says in writing that you are not cleared. You can't say your own actions are not negative campaigning when they serve as the very definition of that act.
Personally, I don't know that she is all that much like Bush. I'm not sure that she really has any ideas or ideals at all. I get the distinct feeling that she strings together a series of moves that are purely reactionary. If I'm wrong, then I just don't understand her nonsense.
Now I understand that there's my POV and your POV and the truth probably lies somewhere in between. But as you say, negative campaigning can be objectively defined. And in this campaign, it did occur on her part. Violating ethical considerations can be defined. And in a recent investigation, it was found to have occured on her part (although the subsequent report cleared her of violation of ethics law).
Her reactions don't strike me as spin. They don't strike me as attempts to redefine anything. They strike me as refusals to acknowledge reality. You can't say "I've been cleared" while holding a report that says in writing that you are not cleared. You can't say your own actions are not negative campaigning when they serve as the very definition of that act.
Personally, I don't know that she is all that much like Bush. I'm not sure that she really has any ideas or ideals at all. I get the distinct feeling that she strings together a series of moves that are purely reactionary. If I'm wrong, then I just don't understand her nonsense.
Insert Turd Face Here
Ok, so you had to bring up Palin. My feeling is that Palin is a lot like Bush in a lot of ways. I don't believe that either of them is stupid. What I do believe is the following.
1) Both have uncurious minds. Palin clearly had not given any thought to most of the major issues facing our country prior to running for VP. This is bad on two levels. One, from a political standpoint, there's no way you can cram in a few weeks to gain a level of knowledge sufficient to come off as reasonably informed when you've got no base on which to build. The McCain people were starting pretty close to from scratch with her on anything that didn't relate to drilling for oil or getting all mavericky. It's also bad because, even if at some point you can cram enough info in there for such a person to be a credible candidate (as Bush evidently did, for Palin in remains to be seen) it's not a good trait for a President in particular to have. It's pretty clear that Bush simply made up his mind about a lot of things and didn't have any curiosity to investigate either his reasons for that decision in the first place or the information that came after that decision for purposes of possibly rethinking his plan. Most infamously, I think this fits with the run up and aftermath of the decision to go to war in Iraq.
2) Both Palin and Bush have an unfailing and unwavering confidence in themselves that goes beyond reason. Bush is, famously, "the decider." He's never expressed any sentiment that he finds any decision hard to make, nor was he, again famously, able to pick out a single mistake he'd ever made as President as of the 2004 election campaign. Subsequently, he's said that certain rhetoric of his was a mistake, or at least that he regrets the rhetoric, but still, he has yet to my knowledge to admit a substantive mistake he's made as President. As for Palin, she loved to talk about how she "didn't blink" when asked to be VP and has more recently said that she always prays for god to show her an open door that she can then "plow through." I think this is a completely accurate self analysis of hers. She sees an opening and she goes for it without worrying about whether it's the right thing to do. I think her decision to plow through the door of running for VP has probably made it difficult for her to ever successfully run for President at this point (if that was ever going to be a possiblity anyway) as she's left the impression with most of the American public (the Republican base obviously being the exception) that she's a lightweight at best. It's hard to overcome first impressions.
As for Palin's ridiculous assertion that it's not "negative campaigning" to point our Obama's allegedly radical associations . . . I'm pretty sure it's not a "positive" message to say that your opponent "pals around with terrorists." If you're not pointing out your own strengths, but instead pointing out your opponent's negative aspects, that's negative campaigning by definition. Bush may think he can redefine what "torture" means to make certain aspects of what we do not torture, and Clinton may think he can redefine the meaning of "is," but we shouldn't let Palin redefine "negative."
1) Both have uncurious minds. Palin clearly had not given any thought to most of the major issues facing our country prior to running for VP. This is bad on two levels. One, from a political standpoint, there's no way you can cram in a few weeks to gain a level of knowledge sufficient to come off as reasonably informed when you've got no base on which to build. The McCain people were starting pretty close to from scratch with her on anything that didn't relate to drilling for oil or getting all mavericky. It's also bad because, even if at some point you can cram enough info in there for such a person to be a credible candidate (as Bush evidently did, for Palin in remains to be seen) it's not a good trait for a President in particular to have. It's pretty clear that Bush simply made up his mind about a lot of things and didn't have any curiosity to investigate either his reasons for that decision in the first place or the information that came after that decision for purposes of possibly rethinking his plan. Most infamously, I think this fits with the run up and aftermath of the decision to go to war in Iraq.
2) Both Palin and Bush have an unfailing and unwavering confidence in themselves that goes beyond reason. Bush is, famously, "the decider." He's never expressed any sentiment that he finds any decision hard to make, nor was he, again famously, able to pick out a single mistake he'd ever made as President as of the 2004 election campaign. Subsequently, he's said that certain rhetoric of his was a mistake, or at least that he regrets the rhetoric, but still, he has yet to my knowledge to admit a substantive mistake he's made as President. As for Palin, she loved to talk about how she "didn't blink" when asked to be VP and has more recently said that she always prays for god to show her an open door that she can then "plow through." I think this is a completely accurate self analysis of hers. She sees an opening and she goes for it without worrying about whether it's the right thing to do. I think her decision to plow through the door of running for VP has probably made it difficult for her to ever successfully run for President at this point (if that was ever going to be a possiblity anyway) as she's left the impression with most of the American public (the Republican base obviously being the exception) that she's a lightweight at best. It's hard to overcome first impressions.
As for Palin's ridiculous assertion that it's not "negative campaigning" to point our Obama's allegedly radical associations . . . I'm pretty sure it's not a "positive" message to say that your opponent "pals around with terrorists." If you're not pointing out your own strengths, but instead pointing out your opponent's negative aspects, that's negative campaigning by definition. Bush may think he can redefine what "torture" means to make certain aspects of what we do not torture, and Clinton may think he can redefine the meaning of "is," but we shouldn't let Palin redefine "negative."
Nate Silver, Superstar
I just wanted to give a shout out to 538's dead on analysis as of shortly after last Tuesday that it looked like, despite trailing by over 3,000 votes out of only about 200,000+ cast, that when all the as yet uncounted votes were tabulated, Mark Begich would beat Ted "Convicted Felons Can't Vote, but They Can Run for the Senate" Stevens in Alaska. In fact, Begich just took the lead and all indications are that his lead will only grow.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/begich-leads-by-814-going-into-thursday.html
So, the Democrats are up to 58 seats in the Senate now, and 538 has similarly predicated that a recount in MN is likely to give Al "I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough and Goshdarnnit, People Like ME" Franken the victory in MN, which would bring the Dems up to 59 and set up a steel cage deathmatch for 60 in the GA runoff election. Should be interesting, but 59 is probably more than enough anyway for Democrats to avoid almost any filibuster because there are Republicans like Snowe and Collins from ME and Spector from PA that are likely to at least not fillibuster most things Democrats want to do.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/begich-leads-by-814-going-into-thursday.html
So, the Democrats are up to 58 seats in the Senate now, and 538 has similarly predicated that a recount in MN is likely to give Al "I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough and Goshdarnnit, People Like ME" Franken the victory in MN, which would bring the Dems up to 59 and set up a steel cage deathmatch for 60 in the GA runoff election. Should be interesting, but 59 is probably more than enough anyway for Democrats to avoid almost any filibuster because there are Republicans like Snowe and Collins from ME and Spector from PA that are likely to at least not fillibuster most things Democrats want to do.
I'm Sorry...What?!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/lkl.sarah.palin/index.html
"There was nothing mean-spirited -- there was no negative campaigning when I called Barack Obama out on his associations."
Now during the campaign, I had serious misgivings about you Mrs. Palin. When you couldn't name a single publication from which you receive your news updates, I was surprised. When you were unable to articulate your understanding of key political issues, I was concerned. When you responded to a written report by claiming it said the near opposite of what it actually said, I was a little bit sick. In my mouth. And when you became a hyper-partisan attack dog whose apparent sole purpose was to carry out smear efforts, I reached my limit and changed the channel.
So forgive me, but I have to question your soundness of mind. Do you know who you are? Do you remember what you've been saying for the past 4 months or so?
Are you admitting, albeit in a backhanded and secretive way, that you realize your efforts on the McCain campaign and the "information" you attempted to disseminate were fraudulent? Are you merely the world's worst bandwagon jumper? Or are are you having some sort of psychotic break?
"There was nothing mean-spirited -- there was no negative campaigning when I called Barack Obama out on his associations."
Now during the campaign, I had serious misgivings about you Mrs. Palin. When you couldn't name a single publication from which you receive your news updates, I was surprised. When you were unable to articulate your understanding of key political issues, I was concerned. When you responded to a written report by claiming it said the near opposite of what it actually said, I was a little bit sick. In my mouth. And when you became a hyper-partisan attack dog whose apparent sole purpose was to carry out smear efforts, I reached my limit and changed the channel.
So forgive me, but I have to question your soundness of mind. Do you know who you are? Do you remember what you've been saying for the past 4 months or so?
Are you admitting, albeit in a backhanded and secretive way, that you realize your efforts on the McCain campaign and the "information" you attempted to disseminate were fraudulent? Are you merely the world's worst bandwagon jumper? Or are are you having some sort of psychotic break?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Killing Her Softly With Your Song, Killing Her Softly.
Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't name the baby Phrank.
I'm equally surprised that the names Eli and Tate weren't immediately and permanently off the table, given your BL experience.
I'm equally surprised that the names Eli and Tate weren't immediately and permanently off the table, given your BL experience.
Self Preservation
When we were thinking about what to name the new baby, we seriously considered Eli. I told Beth, however, that if that was going to be his name then she'd have to put up with me constantly singing "Eli's Coming" during labor. Clearly, doing so would have led to her killing me so, in the interests of this baby having a father, we decided to go with Sam instead.
Related to our conversation regarding the Big 3, I thought this article has a pretty good take on both the past and some ideas for conditions of a bailout for them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12friedman.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Related to our conversation regarding the Big 3, I thought this article has a pretty good take on both the past and some ideas for conditions of a bailout for them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12friedman.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Speaking of which...
If my name was Elijah Cummings (see below) I would definitely make my daily entrance into Congress to my personalized theme song by 3 Dog Night.
Eli Cummings, hide your heart girl.
Eli Cummings, hide your heart girl.
GIRL! Eli Cummings, you better hide
GIRL! Eli Cummings, you better hide
GIRL! Eli Cummings, you better hide
GIRL! Eli Cummings hide your heart, girl.
(Hide it) You better better hide your heart
Eli Cummings better walk walk...
Eli Cummings, hide your heart girl.
Eli Cummings, hide your heart girl.
GIRL! Eli Cummings, you better hide
GIRL! Eli Cummings, you better hide
GIRL! Eli Cummings, you better hide
GIRL! Eli Cummings hide your heart, girl.
(Hide it) You better better hide your heart
Eli Cummings better walk walk...
BJR: For the Record...
I see what you're saying, Rich. I guess for one thing, I would only apply this to extreme instances, such as those in which public funds were used to rescue private companies from failure. It certainly should NOT extend into the business world at large.
But there are instances in which consequences should be more extreme. At the very least, executives of such companies should resign without compensation. Elijah Cummings is right.
But there are instances in which consequences should be more extreme. At the very least, executives of such companies should resign without compensation. Elijah Cummings is right.
Auto-matic for the People
The Big 3 present a unique problem. Because so many jobs are at stake and because they encompass such a significant portion of the domestic economy, I agree that we can't just wash our hands of it and let them fail.
But the auto industry- perhaps more than any other sector- has sabotaged itself utterly. As Dave said, product quality has been lagging behind that of foreign manufacturers for years. What truly staggers me though is the blatant disregard these companies have for..well...the planet I suppose.
Do you realize that the average MPG of today's vehicles is worse than it was 20 years ago? You're telling me that in the past two decades we've been able to perfect the Internet, put a silicon chip on the head of a pin, build a space station, and institute nanotechnology...but somehow we can't make cars more fuel efficient?
Despite weighing less? Despite significant advances in materials and design (especially with regard to wind resistance)? Come on, dudes.
True, this is applicable to vehicles beyond those made by the Big 3, but those particular companies put themselves at the forefront of firing line by consistently making less reliable, poorer quality vehicles. So not only do we actively avoid technological advancement that could help save the environment, we also deliver an inferior product! Yay! This method of operation has had its consequences, like massive financial losses year after year. In the face of which, the Big 3 did...um...nothing.
In a way, it reminds me of a blue-collar family that spends everything they make even as inflation eats into their earning power. Then, suddenly, they're laid off, have no reserves because they lived outside their means, and cry for help. Only this is worse, because they were knowingly peddling their craptastic wares.
It's been said: “He who fails to plan, plans to fail”
But the auto industry- perhaps more than any other sector- has sabotaged itself utterly. As Dave said, product quality has been lagging behind that of foreign manufacturers for years. What truly staggers me though is the blatant disregard these companies have for..well...the planet I suppose.
Do you realize that the average MPG of today's vehicles is worse than it was 20 years ago? You're telling me that in the past two decades we've been able to perfect the Internet, put a silicon chip on the head of a pin, build a space station, and institute nanotechnology...but somehow we can't make cars more fuel efficient?
Despite weighing less? Despite significant advances in materials and design (especially with regard to wind resistance)? Come on, dudes.
True, this is applicable to vehicles beyond those made by the Big 3, but those particular companies put themselves at the forefront of firing line by consistently making less reliable, poorer quality vehicles. So not only do we actively avoid technological advancement that could help save the environment, we also deliver an inferior product! Yay! This method of operation has had its consequences, like massive financial losses year after year. In the face of which, the Big 3 did...um...nothing.
In a way, it reminds me of a blue-collar family that spends everything they make even as inflation eats into their earning power. Then, suddenly, they're laid off, have no reserves because they lived outside their means, and cry for help. Only this is worse, because they were knowingly peddling their craptastic wares.
It's been said: “He who fails to plan, plans to fail”
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Bailout Fun Continued
So, it's being widely reported now that Obama and the Democrats are getting strongly behind "bailing out" the Big 3 U.S. automakers. I actually find this idea even harder to swallow, in many ways, than bailing out the banks as it's been obvious for well over a decade that the U.S. automakers were falling behind the Japanese carmakers in the quality of their vehicles, both in terms of their reliability and the offering of features that mattered to people, like good fuel efficiency. It doesn't seem right that, now that things have reached a crisis point for them, partly because of the terrible economy, but mostly because of their own incompetence, that they should just be able to call daddy for some money and hit the reset button so to speak.
That said, obviously when 1/10th of the U.S. workforce or so is in some way connected with these big 3 automakers, we can't just sit by and watch them go under. I just would like to bring this back to the ridiculousness of referring to Obama as a "socialist" during the last days of the campaign because he favors a progressive tax system, which, by the way, we already have. Our government does lots of socialist things. Those don't make us "socialists." Similarly, there are innumerable aspects of our government that are anti-democratic, but that doesn't mean we're not a democracy.
That said, obviously when 1/10th of the U.S. workforce or so is in some way connected with these big 3 automakers, we can't just sit by and watch them go under. I just would like to bring this back to the ridiculousness of referring to Obama as a "socialist" during the last days of the campaign because he favors a progressive tax system, which, by the way, we already have. Our government does lots of socialist things. Those don't make us "socialists." Similarly, there are innumerable aspects of our government that are anti-democratic, but that doesn't mean we're not a democracy.
Middle Ground
I kind of feel like Richard is arguing against one extreme, that all crappy business decisions might be regulated by the government and that's bad, while Matt's solution sweeps too broadly in its retroactive application. I think as a practical matter, that's not going to happen. I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea to condition government help on future reigning in of golden parachutes and the like.
Bye Bye BJR
"If you've instituted or supported unethical or marginally ethical business practices, made decisions that directly contributed to avoidable investor loss, or committed some other type of gross negligence, then I think we need to consider how to deal with the gains you received while doing so."
This kind of standard would litigate our whole society. As a side note, courts have adopted the business judgment rule ("BJR") to avoid that kind of consequence, thereby letting most business decisions avoid legal scrutiny. Don't people hate lawyers enough as it is?
This kind of standard would litigate our whole society. As a side note, courts have adopted the business judgment rule ("BJR") to avoid that kind of consequence, thereby letting most business decisions avoid legal scrutiny. Don't people hate lawyers enough as it is?
Response
"Would you want someone taking the salary you earned back from you just because the market tanked somewhere down the road?"
It's not an apt comparison. At the executive level, these people are driving the decision making processes. The market tanking is a contributing factor, but its not the sole or even primary reason that some of these companies are failing.
If you've instituted or supported unethical or marginally ethical business practices, made decisions that directly contributed to avoidable investor loss, or committed some other type of gross negligence, then I think we need to consider how to deal with the gains you received while doing so.
Being a CEO or other high level executive is not the same as being an employee, and carries with it unique risks and benefits. Right now, I see these guys enjoying the benefits while avoiding any type of blowback from the risks.
I'm not suggesting that this be a blanket solution, or that it's even appropriate in AIG's case. But these steps, or something like them, should be put on the table. Right now, too many people are walking away scott free from a shitstorm they helped create.
It's not an apt comparison. At the executive level, these people are driving the decision making processes. The market tanking is a contributing factor, but its not the sole or even primary reason that some of these companies are failing.
If you've instituted or supported unethical or marginally ethical business practices, made decisions that directly contributed to avoidable investor loss, or committed some other type of gross negligence, then I think we need to consider how to deal with the gains you received while doing so.
Being a CEO or other high level executive is not the same as being an employee, and carries with it unique risks and benefits. Right now, I see these guys enjoying the benefits while avoiding any type of blowback from the risks.
I'm not suggesting that this be a blanket solution, or that it's even appropriate in AIG's case. But these steps, or something like them, should be put on the table. Right now, too many people are walking away scott free from a shitstorm they helped create.
Renumeration
Despite its retributive appeal, ex post facto civil punishments like making executives pay back bonuses do not conform with fair play. Would you want someone taking the salary you earned back from you just because the market tanked somewhere down the road? Perhaps, the government can require in future contracts certain clauses that indicate that bonuses are conditioned on long-term success of the company, not year-to-year performance fluctuations. That might also solve the incentive problem (maximizing share price as opposed to corporate strength) with granting officers options.
Accountability
I agree that given the current state of affairs, the government does not have the luxury of allowing these idiots to reap what they've sown. As Rich said, it would be nice, albeit a bit idealistic, to allow these chumps to fail, fold, and fade away, but the impact would likely be devastating.
However, there should be some accountability.
A stipulation of any bailout should be a thorough and independent investigation into the management of the given organization with the goal of getting rid of the chaff. Any executives that materially contributed to the company's failure should be fired- and NOT "fired with benefits". Just plain old fired. If you've made a series of decsions that resulted in the loss of billions upon billions of dollars, you should not walk away with millions in bonuses, severance, or retainers.
And while I don't think you can criminalize stupidity, I would argue that further steps should be taken. Some sort of remuneration perhaps, where previous bonuses are reinvested in the company. No human being needs a $20 million bank account, least of all a bloated CEO who did nothing to earn it while losing the infinitely smaller fortunes with which he was entrusted.
I can't help but look back to the government's bailout of Pan-Am back in the day, and its result on the airline industry. Little regulation, no price consistency, a STILL a lack of stability. I fear we didn't learn anything from that gross mistake.
At some point, we have to let the failures fail, bear the unpleasant consequences, and let the market self-correct. Until that opportunity presents itself, we should at the very least be holding those responsible as accountable as humanly possible.
However, there should be some accountability.
A stipulation of any bailout should be a thorough and independent investigation into the management of the given organization with the goal of getting rid of the chaff. Any executives that materially contributed to the company's failure should be fired- and NOT "fired with benefits". Just plain old fired. If you've made a series of decsions that resulted in the loss of billions upon billions of dollars, you should not walk away with millions in bonuses, severance, or retainers.
And while I don't think you can criminalize stupidity, I would argue that further steps should be taken. Some sort of remuneration perhaps, where previous bonuses are reinvested in the company. No human being needs a $20 million bank account, least of all a bloated CEO who did nothing to earn it while losing the infinitely smaller fortunes with which he was entrusted.
I can't help but look back to the government's bailout of Pan-Am back in the day, and its result on the airline industry. Little regulation, no price consistency, a STILL a lack of stability. I fear we didn't learn anything from that gross mistake.
At some point, we have to let the failures fail, bear the unpleasant consequences, and let the market self-correct. Until that opportunity presents itself, we should at the very least be holding those responsible as accountable as humanly possible.
Inefficient Market
We wouldn't have to worry about this kind of corporate waste if the free market worked as advertised. The "inefficiences" that are mentioned below are of the type that the free market is supposed to weed out by driving those companies out of business. The problem is that when everyone is doing well, even these poorly run businesses manage to survive (and profit handsomely.) However, now that everyone is doing poorly, we can't afford to let these businesses fail. This would be the perfect time to weed out underperformers . . . but, there is too much at stake. Our only option is to have the government act as the adult and teach them a lesson through regulation that hopefully they will take to heart in good times. Is government up to the task?
I Bet They're All Wearing Gold Plated Diapers
I'm going to kick off the trend of responding to posts in new posts as opposed to the comments because I think it easier to keep track of what's been said. It's annoying to have to click into another window to see the state of the conversation.
I think there's little doubt that AIG's repeated corporate bigwig getaways are at the very least tacky given that they are the single biggest welfare recipients in the country. To met, it's irrelevant whether the money to pay for the retreats comes directly from the taxpayers or whether it comes from other benefactors. If they can dig up the extra money somehow to pay for these retreats, they should be digging up that money to do other things . . . like stay in business.
That said, the government has obviously been put in a no win situation in bailing out AIG and other companies. I think that there is absolutely no doubt that if we were in the environment where the national government only had the powers and/or the willingness to use its powers that it had in the 1920s that we'd be in a new Great Depression right now. Just imagine all these banks that have failed failing without FDIC protection, and imagine all these huge companies going under and resulting in massive additions to the rolls of the unemployed (which if you could those who have given up looking for work as they used to back in the old days of the 1970s and earlier is really more like 11% or 12% rather than the reported 6%) and other complications. It would be pretty bad. So, I think the government really has had no choice but to bail out these incompetent morons. It seems like they really need some more "aggressive" oversight, however. In the same way that the government excercises power over all kinds of things it has no direct right to control by conditioning highway funds and other such funds on the acceptance of certain rules, the government needs to be imposing rules that condition the use of the money it hands out on achieving certain goals. It's kind of shameful, for instance, that we bail out these banks so that they'll lend money and then instead they just pocket the money, which is more or less what they've done because they're still afraid of what might happen next and want to have money tucked away. That's great, but it's a neverending cycle that the bailout was designed to break.
Anyway, I think we've seen the ugly side of what capitalism can bring when there is insufficient regulation. Obviously we can't have too much regulation or we'll stifle the ability of companies to make money, which is what ultimately makes the economy roll for everyone, but I'm hopeful that the new administration in particular will take a less ideological approach to regulation than Bush did (essentially he felt that all regulation was inherently bad) and, with a reasoned approach, bring some sanity back to the way the government approaches regulation of the economy.
I think there's little doubt that AIG's repeated corporate bigwig getaways are at the very least tacky given that they are the single biggest welfare recipients in the country. To met, it's irrelevant whether the money to pay for the retreats comes directly from the taxpayers or whether it comes from other benefactors. If they can dig up the extra money somehow to pay for these retreats, they should be digging up that money to do other things . . . like stay in business.
That said, the government has obviously been put in a no win situation in bailing out AIG and other companies. I think that there is absolutely no doubt that if we were in the environment where the national government only had the powers and/or the willingness to use its powers that it had in the 1920s that we'd be in a new Great Depression right now. Just imagine all these banks that have failed failing without FDIC protection, and imagine all these huge companies going under and resulting in massive additions to the rolls of the unemployed (which if you could those who have given up looking for work as they used to back in the old days of the 1970s and earlier is really more like 11% or 12% rather than the reported 6%) and other complications. It would be pretty bad. So, I think the government really has had no choice but to bail out these incompetent morons. It seems like they really need some more "aggressive" oversight, however. In the same way that the government excercises power over all kinds of things it has no direct right to control by conditioning highway funds and other such funds on the acceptance of certain rules, the government needs to be imposing rules that condition the use of the money it hands out on achieving certain goals. It's kind of shameful, for instance, that we bail out these banks so that they'll lend money and then instead they just pocket the money, which is more or less what they've done because they're still afraid of what might happen next and want to have money tucked away. That's great, but it's a neverending cycle that the bailout was designed to break.
Anyway, I think we've seen the ugly side of what capitalism can bring when there is insufficient regulation. Obviously we can't have too much regulation or we'll stifle the ability of companies to make money, which is what ultimately makes the economy roll for everyone, but I'm hopeful that the new administration in particular will take a less ideological approach to regulation than Bush did (essentially he felt that all regulation was inherently bad) and, with a reasoned approach, bring some sanity back to the way the government approaches regulation of the economy.
Why Lose Millions When You Can Lose BILLIONS?
Bailout.
It's never been a desirable term, but lately it's taken on a whole new meaning. The federal government has charged in valiantly to rescue Wall Street, saving countless multi-millionaires from having to cut back to 6 mansions apiece. Thank heavens.
But we'll leave the pros and cons of that particular deal aside for the moment.
What I want to discuss is another bailout. The bailout of insurance giant AIG. I'll admit up front that in my opinion, the insurance industry (along with pharmaceuticals) is one of the most greedy, self-centered, socially irresponsible industries in the U.S. As a whole, the insurance world overcharges, under-delivers, and is in general morally reprehensible.
In other words, I may be a tad biased.
But it sickened me to watch ABC Nightly News last night and discover that AIG, whose initial bailout has been restructured and increased to more than $150 BILLION, has yet again hosted an indulgent, overpriced "executive retreat"- this time in Phoenix Arizona.
Let me summarize.
1. AIG is the 18th largest company in the world, accoridng to Forbes Magazine. In 2008, it has more than $1 trillion in total assets.
2. AIG figures out a way to mismanage and/or piss away a nearly unimaginable amount of money while watching its credit rating do an imitation of Ryan Leaf's career.
3. The government agrees to bail them out, using $85 billion in public money to save a private company. AIG repays that show of faith by pampering its executives at a lavish resort to the tune of nearly half a million dollars.
4. As the economy worsens, AIG feels the effects even more strongly than anticipated, and asks COngress for additional funds. The bailout becomes $150 billion.
5. After securing the new deal, AIG holds a clandestine "retreat" in Phoenix. Highlights include the absence of corporate logos, a gag order on hotel employees, limos, champagne, cocktail parties, and..um... "continuing education seminars". Unfortunately, top executives seemingly didn't get the memo about that last bit, as these business meetings were eschewed in favor of days at the gym, spa, and pool.
Now clearly, a $440,000 dollar tab for the first retreat plus whatever they spend on Phoenix debacle doesn't amount to jack in the grand scheme of things. And AIG will tell you that the latter was almost entirely paid for by other corporate sponsors. But given the current state of affairs, isn't it more than a little unwise to treat your top executives in this manner?
Aren't they the ones who bear the most responsibility for the firm's near-collapse? While taxpayers are paying to keep them in business, CEO Martin Sullivan is receiving roughly $20 million in compensation this year alone. So...your company is hemmorhaging money. You're taking huge losses left and right. And yet you reward your top decision maker to the tune of $20 mill?
Joseph Cassano, who runs the financial products division, has earned more than $280 million since 2000. The kicker? He was FIRED in February. But wait- he still gets to keep $34 million in bonuses and gets a $1 million-a-month retainer. Yes, I said ONE MILLION PER MONTH.
All that said, AIG employs more than 100,000 people. The majority of whom would be without jobs if the company were to fail. I get that.
But even so, my question to you fine folks is this: Is there any justification for continuing to help this company the way we are?
It's never been a desirable term, but lately it's taken on a whole new meaning. The federal government has charged in valiantly to rescue Wall Street, saving countless multi-millionaires from having to cut back to 6 mansions apiece. Thank heavens.
But we'll leave the pros and cons of that particular deal aside for the moment.
What I want to discuss is another bailout. The bailout of insurance giant AIG. I'll admit up front that in my opinion, the insurance industry (along with pharmaceuticals) is one of the most greedy, self-centered, socially irresponsible industries in the U.S. As a whole, the insurance world overcharges, under-delivers, and is in general morally reprehensible.
In other words, I may be a tad biased.
But it sickened me to watch ABC Nightly News last night and discover that AIG, whose initial bailout has been restructured and increased to more than $150 BILLION, has yet again hosted an indulgent, overpriced "executive retreat"- this time in Phoenix Arizona.
Let me summarize.
1. AIG is the 18th largest company in the world, accoridng to Forbes Magazine. In 2008, it has more than $1 trillion in total assets.
2. AIG figures out a way to mismanage and/or piss away a nearly unimaginable amount of money while watching its credit rating do an imitation of Ryan Leaf's career.
3. The government agrees to bail them out, using $85 billion in public money to save a private company. AIG repays that show of faith by pampering its executives at a lavish resort to the tune of nearly half a million dollars.
4. As the economy worsens, AIG feels the effects even more strongly than anticipated, and asks COngress for additional funds. The bailout becomes $150 billion.
5. After securing the new deal, AIG holds a clandestine "retreat" in Phoenix. Highlights include the absence of corporate logos, a gag order on hotel employees, limos, champagne, cocktail parties, and..um... "continuing education seminars". Unfortunately, top executives seemingly didn't get the memo about that last bit, as these business meetings were eschewed in favor of days at the gym, spa, and pool.
Now clearly, a $440,000 dollar tab for the first retreat plus whatever they spend on Phoenix debacle doesn't amount to jack in the grand scheme of things. And AIG will tell you that the latter was almost entirely paid for by other corporate sponsors. But given the current state of affairs, isn't it more than a little unwise to treat your top executives in this manner?
Aren't they the ones who bear the most responsibility for the firm's near-collapse? While taxpayers are paying to keep them in business, CEO Martin Sullivan is receiving roughly $20 million in compensation this year alone. So...your company is hemmorhaging money. You're taking huge losses left and right. And yet you reward your top decision maker to the tune of $20 mill?
Joseph Cassano, who runs the financial products division, has earned more than $280 million since 2000. The kicker? He was FIRED in February. But wait- he still gets to keep $34 million in bonuses and gets a $1 million-a-month retainer. Yes, I said ONE MILLION PER MONTH.
All that said, AIG employs more than 100,000 people. The majority of whom would be without jobs if the company were to fail. I get that.
But even so, my question to you fine folks is this: Is there any justification for continuing to help this company the way we are?
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Bradley Effect, Shmadley Effect
I'll just make the first substantive post here and say that I hope that this election once and for all put to rest the nonsense the media has been spouting about the "Bradley/Wilder Effect." There was no evidence that such an effect has existed within the past decade certainly and the polls in this election closely mirrored the end result. I think one of these two things are probably true.
1) All the people who would have lied to pollsters and either said they were undecided or said they were for the AA candidate in previous generations when they really were never going to vote for the AA candidate are today are able to find more socially acceptable reasons to reject the AA candidate (at least when he's a Democrat). For example, they can say "he doesn't share my values" or something like that. (This isn't to imply that all people or even most who list that as a reason for not voting for Obama in particular and AA candidates in general are closet racists, just that this is one socially acceptable way to reject a candidate that's generic enough to hide the racism of some voters).
2) America has simply moved past the issue of voters voting on the basis of race in significant numbers.
I'd like to think the answer is 2 and I truly believe we are moving more towards 2 being the answer, but anyone who watched some of the clips of interviews with West Virginia voters during the primaries in particular knows that this isn't the 100% answers. I think it's a lot of #2 and a little of #1.
1) All the people who would have lied to pollsters and either said they were undecided or said they were for the AA candidate in previous generations when they really were never going to vote for the AA candidate are today are able to find more socially acceptable reasons to reject the AA candidate (at least when he's a Democrat). For example, they can say "he doesn't share my values" or something like that. (This isn't to imply that all people or even most who list that as a reason for not voting for Obama in particular and AA candidates in general are closet racists, just that this is one socially acceptable way to reject a candidate that's generic enough to hide the racism of some voters).
2) America has simply moved past the issue of voters voting on the basis of race in significant numbers.
I'd like to think the answer is 2 and I truly believe we are moving more towards 2 being the answer, but anyone who watched some of the clips of interviews with West Virginia voters during the primaries in particular knows that this isn't the 100% answers. I think it's a lot of #2 and a little of #1.
Mission Statement
Matt, Emil and I have been having politically related conversations via e-mail ever since early 2007, specifically related to the presidential campaign. WIth that process at an end, I figured we'd move it over here. I think it would be easier for reading purposes to always post in a new post as opposed to having one primary post and then a long thread of commentary below it. I don't have anything in particular to say right now except that Obama is clearly going to be the greatest president in the history of the United States and probably the greatest leader in the history of this galaxy (yes I'm including unknown alien civilizations in the Milky Way, but not necessarily those in other galaxies, I wouldn't want to go overboard).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
