Rollin' Down Highway 41

Another day, another musing. Time for another column of shorter thoughts. As always, bonus points to whoever figures out why I used the title I did.

1. So Rod Blagojevich got nailed for corruption. Is anyone actually surprised by this? Just look at the guy. Doesn't he have that "I'd shake down your kids for their lunch money" look to him? People act as though they're shocked - SHOCKED - that he would try to ransom a Senate appointment. Haven't they been paying attention? He was already under investigation for about twelve other forms of corruption; the only shocking thing is that he was stupid enough to do this now. He must have known that Fitzgerald was still listening in on his conversations. And what kind of idiot speaks so candidly about making an under-the-table deal when he's already under investigation? Even Mafia guys know to speak in code unless they're in a safe house. Didn't he watch any of The Sopranos?

As for the Senate seat, the state pretty much has to have a special election. I can't foresee the people of Illinois being willing to let anyone in that administration appoint someone for the remainder of what used to be President-elect Obama's term. That said, I'm in favor of the lieutenant governor's suggestion of a temporary appointment until such a special election can be held. There's really no excuse for Illinois being underrepresented in the Senate for the minimum 4 months it would take until the election is held (as they'll almost certainly piggyback it onto the usual local election primaries in April; this would save up to $25 million) when there's an easy way to solve it. Of course, the Republican Party is painting with a broad tar brush yet again, claiming that anyone who stood in line with Blagojevich's aides for a cup of coffee at Starbucks is equally corrupt, and as such no one in the administration should be trusted with the power to make this decision. Naturally there's no evidence for this, but hey, evidence is the standard of proof of the last century, right? Honestly, what's the worst that could happen? Congress has an equally difficult time getting the necessary things accomplished because of pointless partisan filibustering? If there's going to be an election in April, what would they stand to lose? If the guy that gets appointed is corrupt, the voters will get rid of him. Simple enough.

2. Off and on, I read Ruben Navarette's column, either on CNN or when it's in the local paper. I don't always agree with his viewpoint (in fact, I'm usually about 80-20 against), but usually I can at least respect his opinion, as it comes from thought and reasoning (a rarity in conservative writing these days). In fact, in some regards I consider him one of the very few who is pretty much right on regarding immigration. That being said, his last column actually bothered me quite a bit, though not for the reasons you may think. As you can read, he argues that Bill Richardson would have been a superior choice for Secretary of State. In that regard, we're on the same page; I said for months after Biden was named VP that if Lugar didn't want the job, it should go to Richardson, as his years as UN ambassador and his numerous negotiations in the Middle East made him the most qualified candidate. Navarette, however, argues that Richardson - and the Hispanic community in general - deserve better than what they've been given because of their support of Obama in the general election. In essence, he claims that Obama "owes" the Hispanic population for their support, and failing to name Richardson Secretary of State (and, to this point, failing to name any other Hispanics to Cabinet posts) is an insult to the community. That is utter hogwash. This is the problem I've long had with the Cabinet: rather than appoint the people most qualified for the positions, politicians feel they need to hit every demographic group to show their "desire for equality." In some cases, the two coincide. I don't think anyone had a problem with Colin Powell as Secretary of State; Condoleezza Rice, on the other hand... No one group of people is owed anything by the President; their support was freely given in the hope that said President would best represent the wishes of the constituency. Instead of complaining about the people put into these jobs, perhaps Mr. Navarette should be more concerned about what these people are going to do. The best way to ensure that your community is best represented is to make your policy wishes known and to fight for them; that, rather than fighting the choices of who will enact said policy (especially given that most potential choices have relatively similar views), presents the greatest opportunity for effecting change.

3. The auto "bailout" is a touchy subject with me. First of all, I come from a family of unionized labor, so my opinions on the subject are naturally going to be colored by my experience. Second, it's not really a bailout at all. The companies aren't asking to just be given money with no expectation of return payment; they're asking for a bridge loan, something that the government has done for them before. Third, the fact that is even a discussion at all bugs the hell out of me. The federal government gives $700 billion to Henry Paulson to do with as he sees fit, and now we have no idea where huge chunks of that money went, and Congress is balking at $15-30 billion? I think Jon Stewart said it best: "When the auto industry f**** up, WE STILL GET CARS!" I'm not saying that there shouldn't be conditions attached; a good chunk of their problems were obviously self-inflicted, and there need to be drastic changes in their business model if they're going to succeed and pay back said money. However, when you're facing a 3 million job sinkhole (thank you Rachel Maddow, that's a good way to put it), you don't just let it swallow the city! If you think things are bad now, what do you think would happen if unemployment were to jump 1-2% literally overnight?

4. On a related note, Senate Republicans killed the last attempt to lend money to the automakers following two things that seem astonishing to the outside viewer. First, they tried to directly force the UAW and its related unions to accept substantial wage cuts, using the threat of vetoing the loan as leverage...no, let's call it what it was: extortion. The claims that UAW workers make drastically more than Japanese workers are so far off base as to be laughable. In actual wages, all the major auto companies pay about the same; the numbers the Republicans used for their arguments included both pensions and health benefits. Anyone with even basic knowledge of how health care works globally knows that the average health care plan has a drastically higher per person cost here as opposed to most other countries. You can thank the insurance companies for that. Forcing people who are already making the industry standard to cut wages (because any person who would willingly sacrifice health benefits must need them to treat that massive head injury they must have sustained) by holding the prospect of losing their livelihoods over their heads isn't just low, it's criminal.

The second thing is that said Senate Republicans were warned by Dick Cheney (honestly, how many of you thought that I'd be siding with Dick Cheney, well, ever?) that if they failed to work to push the auto loans through, "it'll be Herbert Hoover time." You know what the sad thing is? THEY TOOK IT AS A COMPLIMENT! Think about that for a second. There is actually a segment of our Congress that thinks that Herbert Hoover made the right moves in the early 1930s. They honestly believe that taking no action is the best way to overcome certain economic collapse, that if we just get out of the way, things will fix themselves. You want an example of how ass-backwards this is? Bush and Cheney both think these guys are completely wrong, and they've been championing the free market for the last 8 years! Shouldn't someone be looking into recall votes for these guys? Heck, shouldn't there be protesters sitting outside their houses right now?

All right, that ended up being longer than I thought it would be. I've got a lot of other thoughts, but they'll have to wait for another night. Part 2 should be coming within the next couple nights.

P.S. If you've been reading these, please feel free to post a comment, either here or on my Facebook page. I'd like to know if people are actually reading these, and I'm always interesting in fomenting discussion.

Between Barack and a Hard Place

"Betrayal is the only truth that sticks." - Arthur Miller

I have known the name Joe Lieberman since I was seven years old. At the time, the only reason I knew his name was because of my status as an avid gamer. Repeatedly, his name came up in discussions about censorship of video games and TV, and as I was a fan of both, I resented his insinuation that I couldn't tell the difference between reality and fiction. Even at such a young age, my first thought about Joe Lieberman was "Doesn't this guy have anything better to do?" He was my first introduction to the concept of legislating to counteract an unwillingness to be a good parent and to the idea that someone who didn't know anything about me could somehow know what was best for me.

Needless to say, I haven't cared for Joe Lieberman for quite some time.

As the years passed, Lieberman for the most part harped on about the same things, pursuing a Democratic domestic agenda while simultaneously brandishing a Republican foreign policy (this is something he himself has said). For the most part, I was free to ignore him, as much of Congress ignored his moralizing in favor of doing their own moralizing. Then, in 2000, Al Gore chose him as his running mate. I was conflicted (which ultimately didn't mean a whole lot, since I couldn't legally vote yet). I liked Al Gore. Despite the fact that he was incredibly boring at times I knew that he was a fellow intellectual, and at the time he was essentially the only one speaking out on climate change. Unlike some people I know, I could divorce the individual from his family (specifically Tipper, whose pursuit of censorship in music I consider as abhorrent as Lieberman's positions). I couldn't, however, divorce him from Lieberman. This was his choice to serve in the second-highest office in the land: a man diametrically opposed to several of my own positions. For that reason, I couldn't put my support behind Gore. Of course, I couldn't support Bush either, so I was left without any option.

Following the election Lieberman disappeared from the public eye for a time, until the buildup for the war in Iraq began. Lieberman became the Administration's "go-to Dem." On the war, he sided, and continues to side, with the Administration on all matters; he was the one who sponsored the Senate resolution giving President Bush free reign to use the military as he sees fit in Iraq. He declared his support for Alberto Gonzalez's definition of the Geneva Conventions, effectively permitting the use of torture. Time and again he has voted to uphold the Patriot Act and reauthorize funding for the War without any conditions. My general distaste for Lieberman grew into a bitter loathing; to me, he represented the absolute worst the Senate could offer: a yes man with no interest in finding his own answers, only in trusting the words of a patently untrustworthy conservative hegemony. I began to find amusement in his failures. His inability to draw more supporters than Al Sharpton in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries amused me, as did his loss to Ned Lamont in the 2006 Democratic Senate primary. For a time, I thought that people had finally seen him for the wolf he is.

Then something unexpected happened. Lieberman reneged on a promise not to run if he lost the primary, and under the mantle of "Connecticut for Lieberman" party candidate, he won reelection, largely in part to the support of conservatives. At this point, he became Public Enemy #1 in my eyes. Yet the Democratic Party continued to tolerate his shenanigans, agreeing to allow him to maintain his seniority and all his committee positions in exchange for his continued caucusing with the Democrats, thus granting them a slim majority. There's an old saying, that the enemy of an enemy is a friend. What then, is the friend of an enemy who gives you an advantage over said enemy?

For some reason Lieberman once again disappeared, for the most part, from public view, despite some pretty crazy goings-on. Then came the 2008 campaign and the candidacy of John McCain. It's not much of a surprise that Lieberman backed McCain, as the two are old friends and share similar views on the use of the military in foreign affairs. What did come as a surprise was his grandstanding for McCain. His repeated campaigning for McCain, his perpetuation of the myths about Obama, his stunning support of Sarah Palin...all of this, coupled with his speech at the Republican National Convention (a slap in the face to his party if there ever was one), convinced me that Lieberman no longer viewed himself as a Democrat. Apparently several Democrats thought the same thing, for following the election several members of the Party wanted him out of his position as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, a post which had allowed him over the past four years to prevent Congress from performing the oversight duties necessary to keep the Bush Administration in check. However, in part because of their desire to possibly hold a filibuster-proof majority, in part because of the mercy of President-elect Obama (God, I love typing that), they ultimately decided to do nothing.

By now, most people know that Lieberman didn't lose his chairmanship and chalk it up to Democratic mercy, as I've suggested above. What they don't know is the third part, that Lieberman told Harry Reid that if his chairmanship was stripped, he would leave the Democratic caucus for the Republicans. In essence, Lieberman held the Democrats hostage, playing political games with a position that holds far too much significance for that sort of nonsense. Maybe taking his position is vengeful. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the notion that he should keep the position simply because he has it now. He's done nothing with a position that presented the prime opportunity for Congress to check the absurd excesses in executive power the Bush Administration has built up over the last eight years. Why not give it to someone else who might, you know, hold some hearings once in a while?

I'm not going to knock Lieberman for his support of McCain. I will knock him for his choice to get in the mud with him, though. There's a big difference between supporting a candidate and actively trying to slander the opposing candidate. Sooner or later he should have to pay, not just for this, but for all of his other failings: his refusal to take on an Administration so off-course they couldn't find their way back to the road with three maps and a GPS, his concentration on legislating morality at a time where far more important matters deserved the scrutiny of a United States Senator, his shifty manner of ignoring his own proclamations. What does it take for people to notice that the snake in their midst is a snake? Moreover, what does it take for them to do something about it? The Democratic Party has been bitten by the snake and still refuses to cut off the head.

Hopefully, someday someone in Washington will grow a pair and put an end to this chicanery. Until then, here's hoping that Connecticut, and America, see him for what he is: pathetic.

Sing My Song

I've decided that, rather than blather on about the bailout, this post is going to be more in the form of "Ramblings;" those familiar with Bill Simmons will know what I'm talking about. I'm going to hit a lot more subjects with much shorter paragraphs. Grab something sturdy and hold on. Oh, and 20 points to the first person who gets why I went with that title.

1. I understand the necessity of the bailout as far as unfreezing credit markets goes. I understand the concept of directly purchasing stakes in the banks to restore confidence and enable flexibility. I even understand that the complexity of the problem (seeing as the problem lies in at least four separate areas of credit) requires an immediate response of massive proportions. What bothers me about this bailout, like most things this administration has done, is the precedent. Pumping substantial money into businesses that by all rights deserve to fail for their irresponsible speculation and mindless greed functions against the basic principles of capitalism. Those who know me should know by now that I'm not the world's biggest defender of capitalism because it leads to problems like this where a whole industry can go under thanks to rampant greed and unchecked idiocy. The issue is that the people in charge of this bailout ARE the world's biggest defenders of capitalism. Deregulation and government promotion of the laissez-fair attitude are part of what got us into this mess in the first place; for years now, President Bush has pushed his tax breaks with the tagline "Don't worry, the market will fix itself." Well, that's what the market's doing now; the ones who stupidly pursued securities in risky mortgage debt are failing, while those that kept their assets in more stable funds remain solvent. So what's our solution? Give money to the people who made bad choices! If these people can be paid off for their ignorance, what's the limit? Will we subsidize the oil companies when the first cars that run on compressed air and magnets are released? Will we have to pay when retailers underperform this Christmas? Will we be paying for farmers who can't grow crops? (OK, that last one was a bad example.)

Again, I understand the bailout's necessity. I just hate the precedent it sets.

2. I might hate nearly every appointment President Bush has made, as most smack of cronyism (Alberto Gonzalez and Harriet Miers, anyone?) or just flat-out arrogance (John Bolton, Samuel Alito). The one appointment I can't disagree with, however, is Robert Gates, who has done a nice job as Secretary of Defense. Intelligent, measured, willing to disagree with or even ignore the claims of the power-hungry executive branch, he is a marked improvement over his predecessor. Then again, a severely impaired box turtle with a very busy schedule could do a better job than Rumsfeld did. I hope the next administration keeps him on in some form, preferably as a foreign policy advisor. I don't expect him to stay Secretary of Defense, but there's no reason to just kick him to the curb.

3. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again, but undecided voters have to be the dumbest people on Earth. I can offer some level of grudging respect to McCain supporters; at least they know what they want, even if it is the most blindingly incompetent campaign of all time. How in the name of Vishnu can people not know what they want from their candidate at this point? Even worse, how can they watch the staggering ignorance coming out of the McCain campaign (more on this to come) and put any trust in his side to do anything they claim? I think Stephen Colbert said it best tonight when he discussed Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama (more to come on this, too): "You want a transformative figure? Vote for McCain! This campaign has transformed him into everything he used to hate!" You've had nearly two years to hear anything and everything about these candidates, and if that wasn't enough, you've had three debates to figure out where they differ on the issues (when they aren't talking about Bill Ayers). If you haven't picked by now, you should be required to forfeit your right to vote. You obviously can't make up your mind based on the facts, so disenfranchisement will save you from making a decision that's obviously beyond your thinking capacity.

4. As any of you who read the news know, former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama this weekend. Naturally, the first question Pat Buchanan had to ask was "Would he have endorsed Barack Obama if he was a white liberal Democrat?" You know, I've come to accept the fact that race is going to play a part in this election because this country is full of idiots who put race and\or religion at the top of their decision-making process. Voting for or against someone solely because they're black or Muslim (he's not, but why should it matter?) is the single most pathetic reason I can think of to justify casting a ballot, but I understand that it's going to happen, and despite my disgust that it's going to affect this race, I've made peace with it. To suggest that Colin Powell, a known conservative, former general, and a rather intelligent man, would be the type to make his decision based solely on race smacks of racism.

5. If you haven't seen Bill Maher's new movie "Religulous," do it, while you still can. Those who know me know that I don't ridicule faith in and of itself, but I do ridicule those who blindly accept it without asking tough questions about why they believe what they do. Maher asks those questions without reservation in this movie, which earns him my eternal respect. If you come out of this movie still believing whatever you believe, good for you; you've challenged your convictions and they've come out all the stronger for the challenge. If you don't believe following this, then you believed for all the wrong reasons, and you should be glad that the flimsiness of your faith was exposed now, when you can still find something that resonates more strongly with you. If you refuse to see the movie solely on account of "blasphemy," then you're a waste of brain matter; the inability to question your convictions indicates that you lack the mental fortitude to handle any sort of challenge to your established worldview.

6. Speaking of people who are a waste of brain matter, several people have asked my opinion on Sarah Palin. To fully divulge my opinion would require several hours of writing and more expletives than I care to put in one post. Suffice it to say, I think she is the most woefully unqualified, undeniably ignorant, unquestionably dangerous person ever to be put in this sort of position. She visits a faith-healer to cleanse her of witches, for Marduk's sake! Her pastor (who for some reason hasn't been scrutinized nearly as much as Rev. Wright, go figure) believes that Alaska is the last refuge for the true believers during the Rapture, and that people who voted for Kerry won't be saved! She wants to hunt elk from helicopters! The things that she claims to be against (say, for example, the Bridge to Nowhere) only meet her opposition when it becomes politically necessary; until they do, she's all for them! She doesn't answer the questions posed to her, but instead performs the Nixonian art of talking around the question until the interviewer becomes frustrated and gives up! Why are people letting her get away with this? This woman makes Dan Quayle look like the head of frickin' Mensa. I know what people are going to say: "But she's just like me! I've never gotten to vote for someone like me before." Guess what? There's a reason for that: YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED TO BE VICE-PRESIDENT! Do people understand that we could be one John McCain heart attack away from President Palin? Does that register with people? How can you not be terrified by that possibility?

7. Every day I read something about a soldier or an aid worker dying in Afghanistan. One more life lost because of this administration's arrogance and refusal to prioritize its own War on Terror ahead of conquering an oil state. May the fallen rest in peace, and may the idiots who put them in this position never rest until we fix this problem, get our men and women over there some help, and get them out.

All right, I'm starting to feel like Keith Olbermann, so I guess that's all for now. As long as I'm channeling him, might as well end the same way. Good night, and good luck.