Who’s Running the Show PLUS: Open a ROTH IRA Today; Lie or Cheat? April 16, 2007March 6, 2017 I guess we’ve learned that who runs the world matters, which is why politics – as imperfect as it is (you try winning the support of a wildly diverse group of people without stumble or compromise) – also matters. (The idea that some people don’t register to vote is depressing. The idea that I know some of them, and that their reason is that they don’t want to be called for jury duty, is deeply depressing. Not to mention that it probably won’t work.) So who runs the world? And how have they been trying to make that permanent? A trio of links today: 1. BILL MAHER – ELITES vs HAYSEEDS If you can get past the tone, which is in places discomfiting (well for example, when he calls the President ‘—- for brains’), this clip makes a devastating point. The third-ranking person in the Justice Department, in charge of overseeing the job performance of the 93 U.S. Attorneys was a 33-year-old graduate of Messiah College? And of a televangelist’s law school? Which brings us to Paul Krugman’s column from Friday . . . 2. PAUL KRUGMAN – 150 MESSIANICS In case you can’t access it, because you’ve not yet signed up for Times Select (oh, for heaven’s sake – $1 a week to support the nation’s invaluable newspaper? go for it!), here it is in part: April 13, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist For God’s Sake By PAUL KRUGMAN . . . Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide ‘Christian leadership to change the world,’ boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration. Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter. The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda – which is very different from simply being people of faith – is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists. But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to ‘dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.’ And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge. Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent’s government school, was the federal government’s chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham.) And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections. [. . . Krugman gives four examples . . .] . . . Regent isn’t a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It’s run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God’s punishment for America’s sins. . . . The Bush administration’s implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right’s strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions. Next week Rudy Giuliani will be speaking at Regent’s Executive Leadership Series. 3. SYDNEY BLUMENTHAL IN SALON This, too, is merely excerpted here and worth reading (free!) in its entirety. . . . Bush has not simply filled jobs with favorites, oblivious to their underhanded dealings, as though he were a blithering latter-day version of Warren Harding. Bush has been determined to turn the entire federal government, every department and agency, into an instrument of a one-party state. . . . Within the Bush administration, there are hundreds of Monica Goodlings, and she was their ideal. . . . She interprets criticism and debate as a mortal threat to all that is good and holy. She sees any institution of American life that is not devoted to the flag and cross to which she pledges and worships as twisted, biased and infernal. . . . She sees those who adhere to standards of professionalism as agents of deception, hiding their real agendas. She was enthusiastic in weeding out Justice Department employees and replacing them with true believers like herself. [. . .] Consider the reports surfacing only within the past month: that scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency have again been forbidden to discuss climate change; that nine newly appointed U.S. attorneys are political cadres; that the new U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Rachel Paulose, cites Bible verses in the office . . . and, according to one of four assistant U.S. attorneys in her office who voluntarily demoted themselves, treats disagreement as “disloyalty”; that the Election Assistance Commission last year, giving credence to Republican talking points of widespread voter fraud, ignored experts’ testimony to the contrary; that between 2001 and 2006, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department has purged 60 percent of its professional staff and not filed a single voting discrimination case on behalf of African-American or Native American voters; and that after the state Republican Party complained to Rove that the U.S. attorney in Wisconsin, Steven Biskupic, was not attacking voter fraud, Biskupic kept his job by filing corruption charges against an aide to the incumbent Democratic governor on the eve of the 2006 elections. (The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled the aide was “wrongly convicted” on evidence that was “beyond thin.”) . . . . . . “There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one [says a former Bush appointee]: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you’ve got is everything — and I mean everything — being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.” FUND THAT ROTH IRA TODAY! Whether or not you’ve finished your taxes, you can still set up a Roth IRA (or make a 2006 contribution to an existing one) by going on-line today at, for example, here (Less Antman suggests the T. Rowe Price Spectrum Growth Fund) or here (with Vanguard’s lower expense ratios but a $3,000 minimum to start . . . perhaps one of these). A Roth IRA won’t affect your 2006 tax filing, because the contribution is not deductible. But it will begin growing not just tax-deferred but tax-free, and with less paperwork and better alternatives when you reach retirement age. (That said, a traditional IRA is a very good thing, too – don’t feel bad building one of those, either.) If you’re rich-ish, make your 2006 contribution today – but also your 2007 contribution. The more the better. (If you’re just plain rich, not ‘-ish,’ then $4,000 Roth IRA contributions won’t make a whole lot of difference to you. Give me that money.) LIE OR CHEAT? So let’s say you got legally married in Massachusetts. Do you lie on your 1040 and say you are ‘single’? Or break federal law and file jointly? Which is the honest thing for a same-sex couple to do? (Honesty aside, the government requires that you check ‘single,’ even if you’ve been coupled for 40 years.)
Friday the 13th — A Terrible Day To Do Your Taxes But This Column Doesn't Have Anything To Do With That April 13, 2007March 6, 2017 SUMMER TRAVEL Alan S. suggests: 1. go to google 2. click on “maps” 3. click on “get directions” 4. type “New York” in the first box and “London” in the second box 5. hit enter 6. scroll down to step #23 ATLAS SHRUGGED The extremely estimable Less Antman: ‘Ayn Rand was NOT a libertarian and hated the libertarian movement. If you want to read a book about libertarianism, read Dr. Mary Ruwart’s Healing Our World In An Age Of Aggression. Radical libertarians are not apologists for big business: we are antiwar, pro-immigration, socially tolerant, and support a true free market (not privileges to government-favored powerful businesses). Here is what Ayn Rand thought of libertarians (‘a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people‘).’ ☞ The Rutwart book gets a rave on Amazon from John S. Ryan, who writes (in part): Ruwart carefully and compassionately explains why the libertarian approach is a better way to bring about the (entirely legitimate) goals of the more modern sort of liberal: for example, improving the quality and availability of medical care (including alternative medicines), reducing pollution, saving the environment, and so forth. . . . Ruwart’s outlook should delight everybody from Calvinists to Hayekians to Taoists. And there has never been a time at which it’s been more important to get the word out on liberty. Get this book at once and pass out copies to your friends; Ruwart’s libertarianism has something to say to people of every political and/or religious persuasion or none.’ Less went on to say – with a friendly wink – ‘As for creating straw men that are easy to refute, I bow to your expertise on the subject.’ So let me unpack what I was trying to say. Atlas Shrugged appeared in 1957, not long after the McCarthy era. Ayn Rand left Russia for America in 1926, nine years after Lenin’s revolution. Her book is a polemic that devastates the underpinnings of Marxism and communism that were then intriguing (and enslaving) so much of the world. So to those of you who are Marxists or communists – or who doubt the very substantial virtues of capitalism, low taxation, and the free market – I say: Quick! Start reading. However, not knowing any Marxists or communists today, and not believing their influence was as pervasive or profound in America in 1957 as I suspect Ayn Rand thought it was, Atlas Shrugged reads to me like a comic book. The heroes are industrialist superheroes. The villains are caricatures, straw men – stupid, venal, pusillanimous, easy to loathe. Which makes it great fun. Rand’s economic philosophy seems largely to overlap that of libertarians (or vice versa – judging from that link, she was furious they stole her ideas without attribution). My own view is that Marxism and communism are disasters, but that raw, unfettered capitalism is pretty disastrous, too. A balance is needed, with a role – but not too big a role – for government programs, progressive taxation, and enlightened regulation. Which of course is largely what we have. I just liked the balance better under Clinton/Gore than I do now, several clicks to the right, under Bush/Cheney. Let alone what I take to be the balance point desired by many of the (charming, highly intelligent) libertarians I know. To me, FDR and other liberals are nowhere recognizable in the pages of Atlas Shrugged. Everyone but the superheroes are either morally bankrupt idiots (if they are in positions of power) or else decent working folks who understand on some gut level that things have gone terribly wrong. Two-thirds of the way through the book, I am having a dandy time; have walked 80 miles; and have not changed my political philosophy (or, on economic issues, become a libertarian). Have a nice weekend. Do your taxes.
1274 Pages, Unabridged April 12, 2007March 25, 2012 So one of the reasons I’m tight-lipped this week is that – well, you’d think it’s that I’m doing my taxes, but that’s a laugh; I’m doing my 4868, to postpone my taxes. No, it’s that I’m reading Atlas Shrugged. On my iPod as I walk – unabridged. Even with the iPod set to ‘fast,’ so it’s read 20% faster than it was recorded . . . and even with my brisk and purposeful stride and the ability to face down oncoming traffic rather than stop for red lights – call me a modern day Hank Rearden or Ellis Wyatt or Francisco d’Antonio . . . it will take me 120 miles to read the whole thing. A walk any one of those characters could make without food or water or sleep for the ideal of the free market and individual achievement. But I’m about 75 miles into it and can tell you it is truly awful – and truly wonderful – at the same time. Has it made me a libertarian? No. Is it a comic book filled with straw men for Ayn Rand’s superhero industrialists to mock and destroy? Totally. But it sure is fun. Not least because I can’t stop thinking that maybe the Borealis folks read it and decided to make it into – not a movie, as is done with most classic mega-novels (oh, look, 50 years later, someone’s doing that, too) – but into a company. You’ve got your massive mining operation (albeit copper, not iron ore) – think BOREF subsidiary Roche Bay . . . your miracle metal (Rearden metal, named after its inventor) – think BOREF subsidiary Avto Metals (named after its inventor) . . . and your miracle electric motor (Ayn Rand’s pulled static electricity from the air) – think BOREF subsidiaries Chorus Motors, WheelTug, and (because Rand’s motor would run without fossil fuel) Powerchips and Coolchips as well. I haven’t gotten to the part of the book where the nature of ‘Project X’ will be revealed. It’s some kind of world-changing technology. But neither am I clear on what BOREF subsidiary Photon Power does, so that could be it. Meanwhile, the author’s heroes know they are superior human beings surrounded by fools. For example: No one would be first to place an order for Rearden metal, even though it was demonstrably a third the weight of steel and twice the strength. No one, that is, except heroine Dagny Taggart. So I’m thinking . . . could Borealis all be some kind of conscious or unconscious homage to – or delusion based on – Atlas Shrugged? The world’s most elaborate practical joke based on the world’s longest novel? And then I’m reminded, as in this article from Flight International, Tuesday, that Delta Airlines really does seem to have made a deal to develop WheelTug – so who knows? It’s too early to know whether there will be a happy ending. I have about 45 miles more to read, and I do stop to sleep. (BOREF closed yesterday at $9 on volume of 500 shares, for a total market cap about half what a hedge fund manager recently paid for a Jasper Johns.)
Two Things April 11, 2007March 6, 2017 I could just be honest about it and say I’m taking a few days off. But maybe if I give you a couple of things to do, you won’t even notice. THING #1 – NOT QUITE SURE WHAT IT IS The estimable Alan Rogowsky: ‘This is incredibly addictive.’ ☞ And the joke seems to be that the ‘Directions’ link is inoperable. No matter. I quit at Level 11. I’ll play anything. (To which Alan responds: ‘You and me both. Pretty colors – flashing lights? I am so there!’) THING #2 – THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION Which always used to be in Baltimore. The main site, just up, is here; a brief history of the Party conventions, here.
My Turn April 10, 2007March 25, 2012 I don’t want to be childish about this, but I awoke yesterday to news reports of children rolling Easter eggs on the White House lawn. Yesterday was Monday. Doesn’t Easter usually fall on a Sunday? And isn’t Easter a very big deal? When do I get to play on the lawn (if not specifically the White House lawn)? As it happens: Today.
Which Would You Choose: Love or Country? April 9, 2007March 6, 2017 A friend wrote this for me to put a human face on the need for a bill you never heard of, introduced by Congressman Jerry Nadler, called the Uniting America’s Families Act: MY COUNTRY OR MY SPOUSE By Andrew Jason My name is (not) Andrew Jason, and my partner’s name is (not) Antonio. Such is the state of America, even in 2007, that if I used my own name, Antonio could lose his job and be deported. We are registered domestic partners in New York. I was born here, but Antonio is from South America. He’s an accomplished software developer recruited to come here years ago by an American consulting company. If we were straight, we would have married and, as my spouse, Antonio would have been more or less routinely granted permanent residency. Because we are gay, it’s not so simple. Even if we were married in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, the U.S. government would not allow me to sponsor Antonio’s immigration. Antonio’s application for an employment-based green card has been mired in our country’s notorious immigration bureaucracy ever since he got here. He’s just gotten the last available extension of his work visa. If there’s no green card by September, he’ll have to leave. I’ll have to abandon my home, friends, and relatives at the age of 63, or abandon the love of my life. Of course, I’ll go with him. I’ve had two previous relationships. First, I was married for 17 years to a wonderful woman, and we have a delightful 29-year-old daughter. Our marriage ended when I could no longer repress my gay identity. It was a tough time for us, but we got through it and remain very close. After the divorce, I came out, and five years later met a great guy. He and I were together for 12 years, but we grew apart. And then I found Antonio. For me, our relationship has been a dream come true. Unlike me, Antonio realized he was gay when he was in high school. He attended a technical college and began working as a software developer. He quickly became proficient and his earnings grew, but he was painfully aware that his career could only really blossom in a First World country like the U.S. So he studied English, to be ready if an opportunity ever presented itself. Opportunity knocked in 2001 when a small, well-regarded American consulting company made him an offer. He quickly received a work visa and moved to New York. He wasn’t sure how well the company would accept his being gay, so he kept that part of his life private. He’s now glad he did, because it’s become clear that there’s considerable homophobia within his company. If they discover he’s gay, it’s quite possible he will lose his job, and with it, his last chance for a green card. Antonio was ending a difficult relationship, and I had been alone for two years, when we met online and started chatting. After several months, we met in person. We dated for about a year, and sparks flew. We realized we were in love, and began living together in a committed relationship. Last year, unable to marry, we registered our domestic partnership. We’ve been building a happy, comfortable and permanent life together. Because I retired not too long ago (also from software development), I do all the cooking and most of the laundry and housecleaning. On the other hand, at 41, Antonio is still pursuing his career. We read a lot, go to the movies often, and try to take as much advantage as possible of living in New York. We occasionally visit my sister in L.A., and friends in Palm Springs and Florida. My daughter and her boyfriend live in Boston, and visit us every so often. We’d like to travel more than we do, but Antonio’s work schedule is demanding and somewhat unpredictable. And now we face deportation. I know some will say we should just leave – and good riddance to us. But we’re good members of the community. Antonio is a highly skilled professional. I believe I am as worthy a retiree as any other. I looked back over our recent taxes and proudly found that we have paid about $400,000 in the last five years. And even if we hadn’t – how would Thomas Jefferson have felt about allowing us life and liberty, but not the pursuit of our quiet, loving happiness? There are thousands of couples in our situation – or worse. For many, it would be much more difficult for the American partner to just pick up and leave the country. I’m ashamed and angry that my country lags behind at least 17 others on this issue. Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom all recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes. There is a possible remedy. The “Uniting American Families Act“ would enable American citizens in same-sex relationships to sponsor their foreign-born partners for immigration. It failed to pass in the last Congress, but we’re hoping for a better result now that the gavel has changed hands. If you believe all Americans deserve equal rights and a chance for happiness, I hope you’ll approve when your elected representatives support this bill. And I hope they’ll hurry. Antonio and I are running out of time. ☞ The bill currently has about 115 sponsors in the House. Under its provisions, same-sex couples would be subject to the same evaluations that straight couples go through to verify authenticity of a relationship. Which would you choose: love or country?
Mitt and Mawidge April 6, 2007March 6, 2017 MITT My guess – worth no more than yours – has long been that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. If so, we’ll all be learning a lot more about him. But I love this little tidbit: The former Massachusetts governor said he had been a hunter for just about all his life. Almost immediately, his staff reminded him he had only been hunting twice. Presumably Mr. Romney forgot about all the times he never hunted. . . . VOTER FRAUD The reason Republicans give for requiring three forms of voter ID if you’re black, and other quaint practices, is to prevent ineligible people from voting or eligible people from voting twice. Indeed, one of the reasons some of those 8 U.S. Attorneys were fired was that they were failing adequately to address the problem of voter fraud. Well, according to this over at WashingtonPost.com, there is very little problem to be addressed: . . . [T]he notion of widespread voter fraud, as these prosecutors found out, is itself a fraud. Firing a prosecutor for failing to find wide voter fraud is like firing a park ranger for failing to find Sasquatch. . . . ☞ Click the link for more. FIREFOX – NO SQUINT James Musters: ‘They made a firefox extension just to deal with the often tiny font size that you use.’ MAWIDGE* Stephen Gilbert: ‘Did you see the CSPAN debate on same sex marriage? It was a pleasure to hear Evan Wolfson; his simple decency and rationality were very impressive.’ *From the Princess Bride, one of the World’s Top Ten Movies of All Time. The others are: Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Dr. Strangelove, Dr. Zhivago, Gone with the Wind, It’s a Wonderful Life, Moonstruck, Inherit the Wind, The Ten Commandments, 2001, and Z.** **I know that’s 11, but good movies always deliver more than you expect.*** ***So let’s add The Godfather and the original King Kong, neither of which could rightly be omitted, and get ourselves Firefox Nosquint so we can read the footnotes’ footnotes’ footnotes.
Rolling through Baylor with the East German Secret Police April 5, 2007January 8, 2017 ROLLING STONE An article in Rolling Stone says it’s not Republicans who do Democrats in – it’s Democratic consultants. The piece raises important questions. I hope all our candidates – especially whichever one gets the nomination – read it. One of the charges is that 10% of donor money goes to consultant commissions. So as you can imagine, I have heard from more than one DNC donor since the article appeared. But actually, at the DNC, the concern was raised in time for 2004 and your money was not wasted – and won’t be this cycle, either. THE COMMISSION ON DNC MEDIA BUYS WAS ONE PERCENT, NOT TEN PERCENT. This, from page 340 of Terry McAuliffe’s What a Party: I knew we were going to spend $135 million on media in the next six months and there was no way in hell I was going to let a media consultant skim off 10 percent of that and pocket $13.5 million to go buy a villa in Italy. . . . As we prepared for the 2004 election, I hired Leslie Kerman, a Virginia attorney who had been representing campaigns on finance matters. Leslie . . . promised me she could hold the fee to 1 percent, which would clearly be historic. Leslie, who was working for free, thus became our biggest fund-raiser. . . . [S]ure enough, seven top firms ended up competing for our business and agreed to the 1 percent contract. The gravy train was over for the Democratic political consultants. Howard Dean is even tighter with a buck than Terry McAuliffe. Flies cheapest coach, walked two miles from the Sayville train station to the ferry to save cab fare – carrying his overnight bag. (Well, he said later, he was early, and it was a nice day – and it was a little further than he thought.) So please forward the Rolling Stone piece to the candidate of your choice. But please do not think any appreciable portion of your support of the DNC is going to consultant commissions. BAYLOR Alexandra Neville: ‘I am glad you posted on the Equality Ride! I am a student and University Democrats president at Baylor University, and we have experienced firsthand the bigotry and also progress that comes from having an organization like Soulforce visit the campus. If you’d like, here is a blog that my vice president, Justin Mueller, and I wrote about the experience: On Tuesday, six gay-rights advocates were arrested on the campus of Baylor University. Five of those individuals were members of Soulforce, a group of Christian homosexuals and heterosexual allies traveling on their Equality Ride tour to conservative religious universities across the United States. Soulforce had initially requested an open dialogue on the Baylor campus about human sexuality, and the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality. This request was denied, and the Soulforce members were informed that they were not welcome to speak at our private university campus and could not hand out literature or buttons. Addressing the student body, Dr. Dub Oliver, Vice President for Student Life, informed us that, as per the will of God, we were not to participate with advocacy groups ‘which promote understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching.’ Specifically mentioned was premarital sex of any orientation, and homosexuality. Many students who advocate gay rights had heard about Soulforce’s upcoming visit through resources such as Facebook, but their presence was made known campus-wide via the forewarning email. So, Baylor informed Soulforce that they could not come to campus unless invited by students. The administration then proceeded to inform students that they are not allowed to associate with such people. As Soulforce spent time on campus, conversing with students and handing out buttons and literature on what the Bible does and does not say about homosexuality, they were being unknowingly followed and videotaped by plainclothes policemen. The group met with students on and around campus during the day to talk about students’ experiences on being LGBT at Baylor and the bigotry they may have faced as a consequence. At a rally off campus, students expressed their desire to unite and reminisced about Baylor Freedom, a group of students that used to chalk gay-pride messages on campus. Soulforce decided that in honor of Baylor Freedom, they would march to the front of our chapel and chalk Bible verses and other messages. When they began to chalk Baylor sidewalks with messages like ‘God loves you,’ ‘Our God is a God of peace, love, and understanding,’ and other statements of love and hope, the students were confronted by the plainclothes police officers. After refusing to stop chalking, which is the most common medium of event and group communication at Baylor, the five Soulforce members, as well as one Baylor student, were arrested for criminal trespassing. They were carried off singing ‘We Shall Overcome.’ According to Baylor Police Chief Jim Doak, they asked for this by their actions. Apparently arrest, a night in county jail, and $2,000 in bail per Soulforce member (only $1,000 for the one Baylor student who somehow managed to defy definition and trespass at the university he attends) is now the punishment for nonviolent well-wishing and declarations of equality. Soulforce offered to pay the bail of our Baylor student, who returned to campus after being released. The climate here has been both positive and negative, with many students praising the group’s efforts and coming forward with interest to form a campus-wide gay-straight alliance. On the other hand, many have praised the actions of the police and applaud Baylor for upholding their Christian conservative standards. ‘I am glad they were arrested. I am so proud to be a Baylor Bear right now,’ I overheard one student say while talking about what had happened. I was disgusted to know that there are people who are proud of the campus’s actions. We are working hard to spur progress on LBGT rights on campus and looking to get changes made to Baylor policies. We’ll start asking the question, what is Baylor University doing to support its LGBT students? And hopefully we will get an answer soon. With so much fear being instilled and the constant threat of being silenced, it is easy to feel intimidated. Hopefully someday the Baylor administration will find in their hearts the capacity to love and welcome everyone. ☞ It’s only a matter of time. FOR YOUR POPCORN PLEASURE So if there were ever an easy way to define the difference between a movie and a film, it is in the contrast between the idiotic (but fun) ‘Blades of Glory,’ which Charles and I saw last Saturday in Jersey City (‘Don’t tell them I was in Jersey City!’ Charles moaned when I mentioned I might write about this) (it’s a long story, but for the record, Charles was with me in Jersey City only under protest) and the subtitled (but wonderful) ‘The Lives of Others,’ about the East German secret police, which we saw Sunday (safely back in Manhattan). For the record, Jersey City has lots to recommend it. Don’t miss the pepper chicken at the Panda Express in the food court of the Newport mall. And for the record, even someone as middle-brow as your faithful correspondent loved ‘The Lives of Others’ – one of the best films he’s seen in a long time.
The Difference Is Day and Night April 4, 2007March 6, 2017 FMD – COUNTERPOINT For those concerned by the Barron’s piece I linked to Monday, this rebuttal makes a much brighter case. The stock is up about 70% from where we bought it a year ago, but – with all the usual caveats – I’m hoping for a lot more over the next few years. Oink, oink. COULD THIS EXPLAIN SOME OF THE IRANIAN HOSTAGE MESS? And if so, how did I miss it in the U.S. press? A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines. . . . CORRECTION Peter Thibeau: ‘You write: ‘Reagan subverted the will of Congress with Iran/Contra and had to pardon his Defense Secretary.’ Wasn’t it George H.W. Bush who pardoned Caspar Weinberger?’ ☞ Oops. Reagan subverted; Bush pardoned. A joint effort. POLITICS Lisa S.: ‘I’d like to thank you for a valuable education. I made it a point to educate myself about personal finance when I finished college. The single best book was your 1987 edition of The Only Other Investment Guide You’ll Ever Need. I’ve given many copies away when friends have approached me with questions. I parted with my original copy just last month. However, your political views are blinded by the Democratic party’s support of a single issue – gay rights. How about directly promoting your issues rather than selling out to a corrupt political machine? It appears that the quickest way to political power is to promise anything to special interest groups. And apparently there are more than enough politicians willing to do it. It’s not Democrats versus Republicans. It’s corrupt politicians versus America. Feeding like pigs at the trough as they destroy the greatest nation in history. It’s obvious that the most powerful politicians in both parties are dirty. Clearly these people are willing to sacrifice my country a slice at a time for their own personal gain. This can’t possible have escaped you. You rant against Republican corruption, but turn a blind eye to the equally corrupt Democratic Party while you personally endorse it. Looks like the special interest group technique worked on you. You do a great disservice to your country when you misrepresent the political environment for the promotion of a few personal causes that surely are of lesser value than the well being of your country as a whole. Please, use your influence to trim corruption in both parties. Rather than making strategic alliances with either corrupt party, consider promoting your interests on their own merits – independently of either political party.’ ☞ I’m really glad you liked the book. But as to politics, I disagree with you. Yes, of course, public financing of campaigns would be great, and I support it. (Also, instant run-off voting.) And yes, of course, there are some bad apples (and, in varying degrees of malleability, mealy apples). But in the main, the Democratic politicians I’ve gotten to know (and I’m sure lots of Republicans I don’t know) are truly fine people, as deeply committed as you to making our country better. Perhaps even more so, because they are doing the really difficult, often distasteful job of running for office, and then serving. And in the main, the two parties really do have very different policy views. And – in the main, though not exclusively – the Democratic positions match my own. On tax fairness, on stem cell research, on global climate change, on separation of church and state, on environmental regulation, on choice, on health care, on torture, on bankruptcy law, on minimum wage, on how we conduct ourselves in the world, on how we run FEMA and Justice, on health care, on allowing Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies (did you see 60 Minutes, Sunday? unbelievable!) – and on and on and on. With all due respect, I think your position is a cop out. Yes, it’s great to work for systemic change. I join you in that. But in the meantime, or at the same time, should we not try to make the current system work as well as possible? Is there really no difference between the America of Clinton-Gore-Daschle-Gephardt and the America of Bush-Cheney-Lott-Delay? To me, it’s the difference between day and night. I wish you’d join me in working for day, even if it’s partly cloudy. # PS – You say that the parties are ‘equally corrupt.’ Sounds fair and evenhanded. But is it actually true? I doubt it. Even with this demonstrably partisan Justice Department, the indictments seem to be largely one-sided. (If you mean soft corruption, as in selling out to special interests, I’d rather be with the party that ‘sells out’ to the environmentalists rather than the polluters; to the health advocates rather than tobacco companies. And, yes, I even think there’s a place in America for enlightened unions and collective bargaining.) PPS – ‘Gay rights,’ though of obvious importance to me, are not everything. If by some miracle the two parties’ positions were reversed – except on gay rights – I would be a Log Cabin Republican, fighting to change their inexplicably backward, unChristian resistance to my equal rights.
Citizenship April 3, 2007March 6, 2017 RANK YOUR REP This is fun. First come the 100 senators, ranked by influence, then the 435 representatives. (Well, 439 when you count the District of Columbia, which enjoys taxation without representation; Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Guam. They have non-voting representatives.) All kinds of interesting things happen when you click on a name and then the links below. WRITE YOUR REP Sure you can name your state’s two senators, and your own representative (can’t you?). (Ahem.) But can you name your state senator and representative? Well, this same site lets you enter your zip code (in the upper left corner) and all is revealed. Click on any name to see their voting record. Or send a free email This site is really a terrific resource, once you start exploring. There’s the Supreme Court. Oh, look – the Cabinet and Federal Agencies (including ‘foreign embassies’ which then links to all the embassies and ambassadors in Washington). Its media guide lets you click on a state and send a personally-crafted message to up to 5 newspapers, TV and radio stations of your choice. You can see which pieces of legislation in the House and Senate have recently passed or failed. You can sign up to get your representatives’ votes emailed to you each week. (For that, on the home page, scroll most of the way down to . . . ‘Congress.org To Go.’) They even have a service where you can have a letter hand-delivered to your Congressperson’s office. Democracy in action. And now for something completely different . . . JUSTICE Joseph Rich headed the voting section of the Justice Department’s civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He writes in last Thursday’s Los Angeles Times: . . . I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws – particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies – from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants. Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections. . . . I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the administration and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favored. ☞ If you have time, it’s well worth the whole read. And really, there is so much of this. There were the 8 U.S. Attorneys fired for not using their offices for sufficiently partisan reasons – but then there were all the U.S. Attorneys not fired, leading one to wonder just how much they did put their thumbs on the scales of Justice. (Here‘s Paul Krugman last month making that point . . . compellingly, as usual.) (And did you see Jane Mayer’s New Yorker piece about the Karl Rove hatchet man appointed U.S. attorney – in Arkansas, home state of a prominent Democratic presidential contender?) Nixon bugged the Watergate to subvert elections; Reagan subverted the will of Congress with Iran/Contra and had to pardon his Defense Secretary; the Bush team’s transgressions will fill several library shelves. One can almost see a pattern.