All Kennedys Are Criminals, But Not All Criminals Are Kennedys

The Caroline thing was pretty funny. And by funny, I mean a sad commentary on the state of American politics.

The assumption seems to be that if someone in your family was/is an effective politician (or reasonable facsimile thereof) then obviously you yourself can do just as well.

However, in defense of the Caroline-as-Senator idea, I'll say that she'd probably be a better choice, or at least no WORSE a choice, than Fran Drescher.

Seriously? Fran Fucking Drescher? Pardon my French, but whaaaa??


Similar to problem of nepotism is the problem of parlaying fame into political fortune. Jesse Ventura, The Governator, Heath Shuler...people are famous for a reason that has nothing whatsoever to do with governance or legislation, then BOOM. Like John Madden eating a turducken, they use that notoriety to quickly and easily consume a political office.

So as long as we're making ourselves aware of the problem of families in politics, can we spare a thought or two on why our love of a TV star should translate to that person having a campaign advantage?

Thanks.

Verbal Diarrhea: Great for Your Lawn, not so Great for Hiding Bribery

I am agnostic on the question of whether JJJ (Jesse Jackson Jr.) was himself or through his cronies involved in offering to pay for Obama's Senate Seat. I agree, however, that he comes off pretty badly in this clip. There are all the signs that he's lying, including the excessive blinking and the "protesting too much."

On a more general note, however, I'm kind of sick of this whole "family business" thing that we've got going on in politics. I understand that it's always been the case that sons of politicians have an easier path to becoming politicians, but it seems like that trend should be decreasing over time, not increasing. Most recently, it struck me the wrong way when Caroline Kennedy's name came up as a frontrunner to be appointed Senator from NY for no apparent reason other than that her last name is Kennedy. It may be that she'd be a good Senator, and she seems smart and capable from what little I know of her, but is that really the way that someone who has never held public office before should become a U.S. Senator, through appointment? At least in the case of the shenanigans in DE where a placeholder was appointed so that Biden's son (the current state AG who is serving in Iraq) can run in 2 years, Biden will still actually have to win the spot in a fairly contested election. He'll be at a big advantage there, but he's still got to win (this reminds me a little of the good ol' days when Kennedy got elected president and he and his father pressured the governor to appoint his college roomate so that Ted Kennedy could run when he turned 35 with no entrenched incumbent).

All these are far from the only examples. In fact, Andrew Cuomo seems to be another front runner for the NY Senate spot primarily because of his name, though he too at least has been serving in public office for a while. I'm not sure where this really leads except to the point that, it's easy enough already for relatives of politicians to win elections based on little more than their names, do we really need to be appointing them to the offices they might seek and make it even easier? I'm personally leaning towards a suggestion I've seen out there that there should be no such thing as governors appointing senators and that all vacant senate seats should be required to be filled within a fairly short amount of time by a special election, with another regular election scheduled (in the case of the Senate) for 2 years after the initial special election to allow the public to make a more considered choice. The current system is just begging to be abused, though usually not so blatantly as the way the Illiois governor did.

Am I Five, or Just Retarded?

I don't know if anyone caught Jesse Jackson Jr. speaking about his possible connection to the investigation of Governor Blagojevich. If you haven't seen it, check this video. Particularly, the segment beginning at 1:55 in.



Nevermind the fact that he speaks as though he's either reading from note cards or is a badly programmed robot. Nevermind the fact that he addresses the press like their a bunch of partially-deaf five year-olds with developmental delays.

As I was watching this on ABC News, my bullshit-meter went off like a smoke alarm.

To be fair, said meter was primed and ready given that I was watching the son of the King Bullshitter himself. So maybe there's a bit of guilt by association going on here. If so, my apologies to you, Congressman Jackson. On the other hand, were it NOT for that association I doubt you'd BE a Congressman. So maybe we're all even.

Anyhoo, when he got to the word 'impossibility', a huge red flag went up. A red flag labeled SKEPTICISM. My next reaction was to think that he's so full of crap, I could squeeze him to fertilize my lawn.

To be clear, I'm not saying he did anything wrong, although if he is indeed Senate Candidate #5, there may be evidence to persuade me. I just can't understand why he was talking like that.

Other reactions?

Pharmacists, the ultimate moral authorities

I hadn't read that particular story prior to now, but I was aware of the SD law and the proposed Bush administration regulation. They're really two completely seperate means towards the same goal, encroachin on the constitionally protected right to an abortion (whether you agree that it should be a right or not, it is and, thanks to the latest election results, is likely to stay that way for the forseeable future).

The SD law is just a case of forcing doctors to lie to their patients. At the very least, nothing that the law requires the doctors to say is "true" in the sense that it has either been objectively proved or reflects an objective reality in any way. A fetus, at least prior to the third trimester, is not a seperate person, otherwise abortion wouldn't be legal. The purported facts regarding suicide, etc. in the aftermath of abortions also are not true. My understanding of what studies have shown is in accord with what the article says, that there's no difference in suicide rates among women who have had abortions versus those that haven't. The misuse of statistics is rampant here and akin to those who might cite a study showing that those who used computers as children are more likely to attend college as proof that computer use causes that increase in likelihood of attending college (obviously it's just socioeconomics, not the computer use).

As for the moral/ethical out from the need to do their jobs, I don't even think we need to go as far down the slippery slope as Matt to see the problems. It's just so amazingly ambiguous, it allows a pharmacist or a doctor to pass on serving a patient for almost any reason. The most common example, and the one that this regulation is designed to handle, is to allow pharmacists not to prescribe the morning after pill. It can also be used to refuse to prescribe The Pill or other birth control, or even to refuse to sell tylenol to someone with a hangover if I don't approve of drinking. If something like this happens in the middle of NYC or Boston or even around where I live in Maine, it's no big deal. I just go someplace else to get my meds where the pharmacist isn't such a self righteous douchebag. But if I'm a 16 year old girl looking for birth control in rural South Dakota for example, where I might have to travel hours by car to get to the nearest alternative pharmacist (or doctor), you complying with your own personal ethics has just de facto made your ethics my ethics, which I suppose is part of the whole point and hope of Bush in enacting this regulation.

The SD law is just insane and I'm not convinced it will stand up to court review in the long run. In the meantime, women will be misled unfortunately. As for the Bush regulation, I have a couple of comments. First, at least Obama will be able to undo it, though it will create a needless distraction for him from the vocal minority that would like to see such a regulation remain permanent. More to the point, though, if Bush felt so strongly about doing this, why the hell didn't he do it earlier, like from day 1? Could it be that he really doesn't care and that this is just a craven political move designed to create the aformentioned distraction for Obama? Either the regulation is a good idea or a bad idea. If it was a good idea, he should have done it earlier. If it's a bad idea, I guess why should some of the final things he does be anything less than bad ideas given all the other bad ideas that he has followed through on throughout his presidency.

The Clever Moralist

For anyone who hasn't seen it:

http://www.slate.com/id/2206042/

The article discusses efforts by opponents of abortion to strengthen their position through the proposal and passage of various laws and regulations designed to make it more difficult to obtain abortions.

I marvel at how said opponents attempt to disguise these efforts as helpful or appropriate measures when in fact they are nothing more than sneaky stabs at circumventing federal law.

I'm sure that you've seen discussions of South Dakota's law before- the one requiring medical personnel to read a script to any woman desiring to get an abortion. Nevermind that information contained in the script is at best debatable and at worst utterly fraudulent. Nevermind that it purposefully ignore exisitng language and definitions in favor of terms less clearly defined.

That was bad enough.

Now add to it a proposed law allowed medical professionals to refuse service on ground of moral objection. If provision of a service countermands one's own moral beliefs, one may refuse said service to a prospective patient...REALLY?? Is THAT what we've come to? Pro-lifers are content to undo the very principles of the Hippocratic Oath to impose their will on the masses- a will that has already been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Anti-abortionist, meet Slippery Slope. What happens with a child molester arrives at an ER for treatment? Or a death row inmate? Or a Neo-Nazi? Or a Satanist? You'll no doubt argue that it the procedure, not the patient, which the medical professional must find objectionable in order to refuse service. But surely you're not so naive that you can't see where this is going.

Absurd.

All of this comes on the heels of a controversy over gift certificates issued by Planned Parenthood. Gift certificates that may be used for any of the health services the organization provides.

Opponents immediately identified the certificates as "lethal", calling them "gift certificates for abortion". Nice.

How are these any different than a gift certificate to a grocery store? I could use THAT to buy cigarettes or alcohol and damage my body!

What's that? Cigarettes and alcohol aren't morally objectionable or illegal?

Abortion isn't illegal either my friends. Despite your efforts to the contrary. Accept it. As for the moral objection, that is subjective- I could no doubt find plenty of folks who find the purchase of tobacco or booze equally impermissable.

The world is full of people who disagree with you. Your outrage is neither justifiable nor acceptable. And attempts to undo existing law go against the very basics of what the country stands for.

SAAAAAAVED BYYYYYYY ZEEEEEE ROOOOO!

The only "zero" I've seen is the collective idiocy of the Big 3. In the past, I've thought that no one could rival pharma and /or insurance execs for pure arrogrance...well, maybe bankers...but these automakers are working hard to prove me wrong.

Sadly, they're not working nearly as hard to make products that a human would want.

The bailout is already opposed by a majority of people. And revelations like the one you discussed merely weaken their already tenuous position. My hope is that Obama will either:

1) Refuse a bailout, or
2) Offer a bailout with many requirements and restrictions

I suspect it will be latter, but given his stand on environmentalism and alternative energies, I can't seem him permitting the companies to return to business as usual.

It's a repulsive situation. On the one side you have greedy, irresponsible companies. On the other you have grossly overpaid union workers. Neither is willing to make substantive changes that would improve the industry.

You suits oversee the making of poor quality, overpriced products, and have done virtually nothing to minimize the impact of you vehicles on the earth.

You union workers assemble poor quality, overpriced products while earning, on average, far too much money. $73/ hr loaded? Seriously? Not to mention the employee grant fund and other ridiculous perks.

$1,500 more PER CAR than the Japanese companies. And by the way, their cars don't suck.

How can you possibly justify that? No, wait- it's worse. Not only do you justify it, you want taxpayers to pay YOU to continue doing it.

If I had any say in the matter, I'd be telling you to watch you ass on the way out. You're own behavior and attitude has totally queered the deal in my book.

Does GM stand for "Gigantic Morons?"

So, I was flipping through the radio on the way home last night and happened upon Sean Hannity interviewing some big exec from GM about his upcoming congressional testimony. Hannity goes on talking about how the real problem that has driven the U.S. automakers into the ground is too much government regulation. The GM guy then goes on about how he doesn't think that the bailout money should come with strings attached forcing GM to make more fuel efficient cars because, to paraphrase him, people started buying fuel efficient cars in droves when the price of gas went up to over $4.00 a gallon, but now that it's back down to under $2.00 a gallon people are abandoning that practice and going back to buying large SUVs and trucks. He then says that the American people are smart consumers and shouldn't be forced to buy fuel efficient cars if they don't want to.

All I've got to say to that is, WTF is this guy smoking? Doesn't he realize that lower gas prices are just temporary and a result of the anemic world economy right now and that there's no reason why the gas prices will not go right back up to well over $3.00 a gallon soon enough? And doesn't he realize that his very argument for why they should not be forced to make fuel efficient cars (because consumers are buying fuel hogs again now that gas prices are low) is in fact a great reason for why they SHOULD be forced to do so (because they won't do so unless forced to because they'll just ignorantly hope that people will continue buying these idiotic huge cars)? And don't they realize that such idiocy is exactly how they got into this mess in the first place?

It was really startling to me to hear this guy use the temporary bump back up in big car sales as a result of a temporary downturn in gas prices as a sign that the auto industry will handle itself well in the future if we just throw 10 billion dollars at each company and leave them be. It further reinforced the idea in my mind that the only way these guys will change is when forced to at the end of a gun (or when the alternative is simply going bankrupt).

Idiots.

The Media: Liberal, yet Stupid.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.