Tangled Webs

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Stupidflation

Who in their right mind could have predicted this?

For those who think a recession is the worst thing that could happen to the U.S. economy, the NYT and WSJ both front looks at increasing fears that the country could enter into a period of stagflation. The United States hasn't experienced this dreaded mixture of rising inflation and unemployment coupled with slumping growth since the 1970s, and the prospect raises big questions for the Federal Reserve because it can't deal with one problem without making the other one worse. "They are walking a very fine line right now," an expert tells the NYT.

Let's see. Protracted and very expensive war/occupation overseas .... check. No higher taxes to pay for said war .... check. Continued domestic spending like there's no tomorrow .... check. Oil prices going through the roof due to other than purely market forces .... check. Is it 1975 or 2008? Who could have ever predicted?

Cut Off At The Knees

I live in daily fear of this happening to me:

USA Today leads with a look at how several states are in the process of passing laws that would limit the ability of companies to cancel health insurance policies of consumers who buy their own coverage. Due to a recent increase in complaints about the practice, many state lawmakers are trying to figure out how they can make it harder for insurers to cancel policies.

Fortunately for me, California is one of those states. But what about other's in other states ...... ?

VickiGate

Rumor alert:

Lots of buzz about this woman, who is a Washington lobbyists, being very close to John McCain. Whether it's sexual of just bidness, it's not good if true.

Iseman, 40, who joined the Arlington-based firm of Alcalde & Fay as a secretary and rose to partner within a few years, often touted her access to the chairman of the Senate commerce committee as she worked on behalf of clients such as Cablevision, EchoStar and Tribune Broadcasting, according to several other lobbyists who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

McCain, after his unsuccessful 2000 campaign, has emerged as the front-runner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. His reputation as a crusader for Washington reform -- forged during almost 30 years in the Senate -- is based largely on his stinging critiques of the role played by lobbyists. He routinely decries earmarks, or pet projects, inserted into legislation. He has claimed repeatedly that he has "never, ever done a favor for any lobbyist or special interest group." It was this reputation that McCain's closest aides sought to protect.

"We were running a campaign about reforming Washington, and her showing up at events and saying she had close ties to McCain was harmful," said one aide.

She does look a bit like Ciiiindeeeeee.

Added: This in an interesting comment from Slate discussing the odd way the NY Times story is contructed:

The NYT then waits until near the end of the story to go back to the relationship with the lobbyist. Overall, the paper presents surprisingly little evidence that there actually was inappropriate behavior beyond the concerns of some staffers, which makes one wonder what was left out of a piece that was undoubtedly heavily vetted by lawyers. Of course, McCain and Iseman both deny there was any kind of romantic involvement, and yesterday his campaign issued a statement calling the story "a hit-and-run smear campaign."

Well, we have a possible career maker for a journalist with the stones to investigate.

As an aside, I don't agree that McCain's screwing around is really any more relevant than Clinton or any other politician. Frankly, I think it's no one's business but the candidates spouse. But those aren't the rules of the game as it's played today. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Make Me

Digby cites a point today that Tom Hartmann has been routinely making on his daily radio show:

There's a famous story about FDR meeting with a group of reformers trying to persuade him to support one of their goals. After they finished speaking, FDR said to them, "You've convinced me. I want to do it. Now make me do it."

We need to remember that -- that the next president will do the right thing only if there are incentives (in the form of massive political pressure) for him or her to do so.

This is important to remember no matter who the nominee's are, no matter who wins. The partisanship boiling in the Democratic party is largely wasted energy as I really think that most voters would be ok with either Obama or Clinton. The key isn't going to be which one. The real question is going to be how we're going to make them do what we want?

Quote Of The Day

I wonder if David Shuster, the guy suspended for claiming that Chelsea Clinton was being "pimped out", might have some thoughts on this quote from Bill O'Reilly:

I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.

I kid you not, he said that. Outrage. Anyone? Anyone?

Justice

The other day I was watch the Lehrer Newshour, a show that usually does a pretty good job. However, Lehrer had a wet-kiss piece on the Gitmo trials. They interviewed some Pentagon mouthpiece (without any opposition) who gave out the company lines that the Gitmo prisoners would get fair military trials, just like the boys in uniform do.

Well, someone seems to disagree:

Top Gitmo lawyer: ‘We can’t have acquittals.’

Col. Morris Davis resigned his position as chief prosecutor for Guantánamo Bay’s military commissions after being placed under the command of torture advocate William J. Haynes. As a result of a conversation he had with Haynes in 2005, Davis tells The Nation that he doesn’t believe “the men at Guantánamo could receive a fair trial“:

“I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process,” Davis continued. “At which point, [Haynes’s] eyes got wide and he said, ‘Wait a minute, we can’t have acquittals. If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can’t have acquittals, we’ve got to have convictions.’”

Anyone who thinks these will be fair trials needs their heads examined. Let's put it another way, if these trials are so fair with the military bending over backwards to offer justice, why not have the defendents tried in American civil court with civilian rules of justice?

With Hardly A Peep

We have this lovely story:

Bush Approval Hits Record Low
A new American Research Group poll shows just 19% of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. These are the lowest ever approval marks in the survey's history.

Heating Up

No, not the primaries. But NPR is publishing this rumor:

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is expected to announce his decision in the next few days about whether to maintain the ceasefire he ordered six months ago. There has been pressure from rank-and-file members of his militia to end it.

Put that in the context of what William Arkin is reporting. Arkin suggests that the American military is setting in place a "pause" to the withdrawal of the escalated troop deployments and the implementation of permanent American bases in Iraq. The recent "pause" in the Iraqi war just may be about to end. Arkin also discusses how the Pentagon hawks are setting these changes in motion so that the next President will have "his/her hands tied".

Primary Analysis

This sums it up pretty nicely:

The most revealing aspect of the Wisconsin vote was how Obama continued to take away voters from Clinton's base, which could spell trouble for her in the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4. The candidates pretty much split the votes from women, while Obama had a significant advantage among men. Also, Obama defeated her by a wide margin among voters with incomes of less than $50,000 as well as those without college degrees, two groups that had been essential to Clinton's past victories. Slate's John Dickerson says that by winning "in every key geographical area and across racial and gender lines" Obama has proved that "he is not just the boutique fascination of young people and wealthy elites."

The NYT says Clinton will now need to pull off "double-digit victories to pick up enough delegates to close the gap." If Wisconsin is any guide, "the next two weeks could be the most negative of the Democratic race," says the Post. After losing yesterday's primary, Clinton didn't mince words and launched what the LAT calls "her most lancing election night critique of Obama yet." But the line of attack was hardly new, as she once again chose to call attention to Obama's inexperience, which, as the NYT points out, is an argument she has made many times before, but it doesn't appear to be resonating with voters.

There's a singing fat lady tuning up her vocal chords right now.

The New Pakistan

Preznit Bush may not be happy about this:

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the winners of Monday's election made it clear there are lots of changes in store, says the New York Times in its lead story. The leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party said his party would seek to hold talks with militants in the country's tribal areas and move away from a reliance on the military that is widely seen as following orders from the United States. He also said the new parliament would quickly restore independence to the judiciary and get rid of restrictions on the media.

Put another way, it sounds like they'll pursue a rational strategy to deal with insurgency in their own country, particularly by distancing themselves from you-know-who.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Surprise!

Now tell me. Just why in the world would the nation's highest court not want to hear a case regarding one of the nations hottests legal issues?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a legal challenge to the warrantless domestic spying program President George W. Bush created after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU and other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove they had been affected by the program.

The civil liberties group also asked the nation's highest court to make clear that Bush does not have the power under the U.S. Constitution to engage in intelligence surveillance within the United States that Congress has expressly prohibited.

"It's very disturbing that the president's actions will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "Allowing the executive branch to police itself flies in the face of the constitutional system of checks and balances."

A truly shocking development.

Pretty Good Summary

Here's is Juan Cole's bottom line take on the down-in-the-weeds results of the Pakistani elections:

Bottom line, the Pakistani public has demonstrated a dislike of extremism, including religious extremism, awarding a plurality of seats in the national legislature to secular parties and the rest to right-of-center parties, but roundly rejecting the fundamentalists.

Even though the PPP and PMLN likely won't have the votes to impeach Musharraf, he is in for a bumpy ride and it would be much better for everyone if he would recognize the writing on the wall and step down.

An anti-extremist vote, in this case, also refers to a repudiation of the U.S. and it's position in the region.

Irony

If you pay close attention to today's headlines, you'll get a very intense history lesson filled with irony.

The two big stories I'm reading are the drubbing of Pakistan's strongman Perez Musharraf in the general election, and the retirement of Fidel Castro. Musharraf is going down because, like anyone else close to the radioactive U.S., he's unpopular and ineffective. Castro is merely retiring at 81 after a long tenure on the world stage. Both are strongmen.

The cold war tactics of the "end justifies the means" and the use of military muscle as the way to affect the world have been consistently proven ineffective. Castro proved that savy politics, good P.R., and popular support are able to overcome the largest Pentagon budgets in the history of the world. Musharraf has proven that even with the support of the largest military machine in the history of mankind, you're a paper tiger and destined to fail.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to show it's incredible lack of any kind of savy by sending predator drones to kill the latest, greatest, al Qaeda high value target.

You'd think we'd learn. Maybe we will. But it seems that, at least during the last 100 years or so, it's been two steps forward (the Roosevelt administration), two steps back (the cold war), two steps forward (post-cold war) and two steps back (post 911).

I'm Back

Sort of.

In addition to my multiple new allergies, entirely new diet, and cold that turned into some pretty nasty bronchitis, things are swell in greyhairville. At least I can climb the stairs to the computer without a couple of rest stops along the way ...

Anyway, I ran across this nifty little chart. As you likely know, it's pretty much accepted that the government lies about inflation. Back in the 90's, we changed the way inflation is measured. Why? Call it head in the sand syndrome. Anyway, here's a chart showing what inflation would be like under the "old" measurements:

Doesn't a real current inflation rate of around 12% sound about right?

Friday, February 15, 2008

I'll Be Back

Between traveling and illness, I obviously haven't been blogging much. For the two or three regular readers: rest assured, I'll be back.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Right To Life

And Republicans want to leave health care to the private sector:

The Los Angeles Times leads locally with word that the state's largest for-profit health insurer, Blue Cross of California, is sending copies of health insurance applications to doctors and asking them to tell the company if they come across any pre-existing medical information that it can use to cancel a patient's coverage. Physicians say they've never seen anything like it before, while the company insists it's standard practice and emphasizes that it's a voluntary program.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Kingmaker

You just never know who will turn out to be decisive. Reprinted here in full, a salient post from Rising Hegemon:

It is not just going 4 for 4 plus the Virgin Islands, it's getting the "anti-Bush" endorsement.

If everything King Merde touches turns to shit, than the anti-touch has to be good news:

Talking to folks who know Bush well say he just doesn't believe Obama's earned it; that he's worthy. He has a lot more respect for Clinton and apparently would be more comfortable seeing her or McCain as his heir than Obama.

It's like Obama won a goddamned lottery. If I were them I'd be cranking out a commercial about this right frigging now.

Perfect Metaphor

If the Government is a car setting out to give every one a ride to work, then for 40 years the Republicans have been puncturing the tires, pouring sand in the gas tank, stealing the distributor cap, and, whenever they can get their hands on the wheel, driving it straight into the nearest ditch and then, pointing to the wreckage as the tow truck backs up to it, saying, See, this proves that people were meant to walk. And they do this so that they don't have to chip in on gas.

Disgusting News Of The Day

It's absolutely no surprise that now Gates is calling for a "slowdown" of the reduction in troops promised after the "surge".

I say no surprise because anyone who has watched this administration knows that it was inevitable. But in addition, it's not difficult to see that when you expand your occupation footprint, it's gets increasingly more difficult to back away. That will be the problem that the next President has to overcome .... a ego momentum of enormous proportions.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

McCained

Kevin Drum summarizes it well so I don't have to discussing the latest GOP caucus results:

Bottom line: this has been a disastrous night for McCain. Sure, he'll win the nomination eventually, but he looks like a goner in the general election. He's either going to be forced to spend so much time pandering to pissed-off conservatives that he loses the independent vote, or else he's going to beg for independents and wake up on November 5th to find out that half his base decided to stay home rather than vote for him. He's screwed either way. This is a mighty narrow tightrope he's walking, and it looks like he's going to be fighting gale-force crosswinds the whole way.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)