The edge

"It’s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation’s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge."
-- Paul Krugman, February 5, 2009, "On the Edge"

Don't push me, cause I'm close to the edge
I'm trying not to lose my head, uh huh huh huh huh
Its like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder
How I keep from going under

From our Barack Fans in the Colbert Nation for Obama BFF, Grand Master Melly Mel C

On the Edge

Published February 5, print issue February 6, 2009

A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clichés about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.

Go to Columnist Page » Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal

It’s as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened — yet Democrats have, incredibly, been on the defensive. Even if a major stimulus bill does pass the Senate, there’s a real risk that important parts of the original plan, especially aid to state and local governments, will have been emasculated.

Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what’s at stake — of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.

It’s hard to exaggerate how much economic trouble we’re in. The crisis began with housing, but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble has set economic dominoes falling not just in the United States, but around the world.

Consumers, their wealth decimated and their optimism shattered by collapsing home prices and a sliding stock market, have cut back their spending and sharply increased their saving — a good thing in the long run, but a huge blow to the economy right now. Developers of commercial real estate, watching rents fall and financing costs soar, are slashing their investment plans. Businesses are canceling plans to expand capacity, since they aren’t selling enough to use the capacity they have. And exports, which were one of the U.S. economy’s few areas of strength over the past couple of years, are now plunging as the financial crisis hits our trading partners.

Meanwhile, our main line of defense against recessions — the Federal Reserve’s usual ability to support the economy by cutting interest rates — has already been overrun. The Fed has cut the rates it controls basically to zero, yet the economy is still in free fall.

It’s no wonder, then, that most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we’re headed for a deep, prolonged slump. Some private analysts predict double-digit unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office is slightly more sanguine, but its director, nonetheless, recently warned that “absent a change in fiscal policy ... the shortfall in the nation’s output relative to potential levels will be the largest — in duration and depth — since the Depression of the 1930s.”

Worst of all is the possibility that the economy will, as it did in the ’30s, end up stuck in a prolonged deflationary trap.

We’re already closer to outright deflation than at any point since the Great Depression. In particular, the private sector is experiencing widespread wage cuts for the first time since the 1930s, and there will be much more of that if the economy continues to weaken.

As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself. As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on.

And deflationary traps can go on for a long time. Japan experienced a “lost decade” of deflation and stagnation in the 1990s — and the only thing that let Japan escape from its trap was a global boom that boosted the nation’s exports. Who will rescue America from a similar trap now that the whole world is slumping at the same time?

Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won’t have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that’s why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective — to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts — are so destructive.

So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.

It’s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation’s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.
....

Okay, keep it up, Mr. President; you were getting much warmer with the tone you hit yesterday at the House Democrats' retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia. We'll play in the same sandbox and share our toys and make the rules of the game together, but here's one for starters: we're in the mess we're in because of you and your old ways of doing things, so that's one toy we don't want in the sandbox. We're playing a new game to get ourselves out of the fix into which you got us. Face it.

Rough 'em up a little. Knock some sense into 'em. What is their problem, exactly, anyway?

Oh right, they complain that this isn't a stimulus bill, it's a spending bill, but you told them! That's the point, guys. A stimulus bill is a spending bill, and Mr. Krugman thinks it should be a whole lot bigger. Who said to shoot for $1 trillion rather than a shy almost $1 trillion?

That's the stimulating ticket. This might make Jericho a little more right than Q, for right now, anyway, and than I.

Lots of people are pretty shaken. I learned a little myself yesterday.

Several days ago, I presented my Citibank Visa card number to the hotel where Sam and I will be staying to ski in a little more than a week. They contacted me to say that it had been refused. I was perplexed. That account was nowhere, and I mean nowhere near the credit limit on the account.

I let a couple of days go, sure they had made some kind of mistake, and then I happened to go online and check something on that card. My attention was caught by the fact that I only had $201 remaining credit on the account.

Hunh? How could that be? I went to the information on the account. The credit limit had been dropped from double-digits to just above my low remaining balance, and I called the toll free number faster than I dial my son's cell phone number in an emergency.

A very nice, polite, personable young man apologized for the situation, lowered my interest rate back to prime plus 5% (better than what it was... I'll take them on for more later), refunded what had been paid in interest since they raised it, and then explained that he couldn't do anything about the lowered credit limit, assuring me that I had to have done something very bad to have gotten that treatment.

But, I hadn't done anything very bad. I have next to no creditors, low or non-existent balances (owing to having moved to personal credit adverse Europe almost 7 years ago and having learned to change my financial attitude and behavior), and the only thing I had done wrong was pay my last Citibank Visa bill a day late because I lost track of the reminder email in a sea of incoming email while we were at the peak of our MYBO Grassroots Inaugural Ball 2009, the Social! in January. He suggested I call back when the people with the authorization to handle my problem would be in the office, or after 7 am CST.

I called on the stroke of 2 pm here, and reached Lisa. I told her the truth. I acknowledged my passion for getting Obama elected, my getting carried away in planning a grassroots ball for the volunteers and the regular people at Universalist National Memorial Church in Washington on Martin Luther King Day, and she listened patiently.

"Thank you," she said, "for your honesty. Most people don't admit to having done anything wrong."

"I did," I said, figuring a little more mea culpa couldn't possibly be ill-advised right then. We exchanged a few more pleasantries, in which I made it very clear that I haven't spent anywhere near my credit limit in years and years, that I regard the previous credit limit as for emergencies -- while traveling, for example --, pay more than the minimum payment each month, and when I made my last payment, it was far in excess of the $64.03 that had been overdue a day.

"I see that," she said, "and I do see that you have been a customer for 23 years [don't remind me, please], so I am going to submit your file for review and suggest that your credit limit be returned to its previous level."

I thanked her, and I went out of my way to tell her how important my good credit rating is -- know that credit bureaus view any reduction in credit limit, whether through your own fault or the prevailing economic climate and bank fear, as a negative and adjust your credit rating accordingly --, especially since while I am certain my husband loves me and isn't about to walk out the door, one never knows, and I might just need that to set myself back on my feet one day.

"Oh, I hear you," she said, "I hear you."

Thank heavens for other women when you're in a bind, especially fellow Obama supporters.

Thank you so much, President W.

Beware, everyone.

Let's hear it from Paul Krugman...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Here, Joe gets credit for the single-stupidest statement:

"In the 1990's, I don't know that there was gridlock, there was a separation of powers, and, uh, uh a division of authority that I personally think worked well..."

Gingrich's whole program, his Contract With America, was refusal to cooperate with any Democratic initiative. Just ask Dole. You go, Joe!


Update: February 9, Citibank Visa credit limit reinstated.
....

Others crossed the Umbridge to Nowhere before I

I am a little embarrassed about this post (Dolores Palin, Sarah Umbridge) because somehow I had no idea others (including, it seems, although I can't find any video online to prove it, besides his mentioning the name of Dolores Umbridge yesterday, Keith Olbermann) had also thought of the Umbridge/Palin parallel way back in the first week of September. Just Google "sarah palin dolores umbridge" and start reading. It's okay, though, because I am merely chronicling now for myself. You are welcome to read along.

As (you pick the adjective) as Sarah Palin is, it shocked me more that a political party thought she is a politically viable choice to advance their ticket to govern The United States of America.

It said to me how very, very far things have gone, and how very, very closely reality can resemble the invented world of stories because -- well-written or not, sophisticated or simple, for children or adults, literature or pulp for the grand public -- they tell the story of the human heart, and it's not always a Hallmark Valentine.

I thought if Palin sounds so very much like Dolores Umbridge, then who is John McCain. Voldemort was the easy answer, but it didn't fit because he is not the source, he is not the one they serve. He is a servant in the system of emptiness and evil. He is not a mastermind. He is the interesting character, in a way. His was a special brand of snake oil. Someone recently said that maybe his truest desire is to destroy, the Republican party by failing, to smash it to bits. If that is true, why? Did he or did he not serve it? Did he or did he not act as they did? Almost everything you can think of to say about his claims can be turned upside down and inside out when you do a little digging, from earmarks, to lobbyists to service. How much of John McCain was a projection of what John McCain wished and not what John McCain would, much less did. No, he's not Voldemort.

I reserved that for Rove. Rove has been acting in the Republican political establishment since his college days. I don't know Rove as a child. I don't know the inside of his heart and mind, but I do know that he was born politically in the midst of Watergate, from the inside the Nixon machine. I cam across the footage from the CBS Evening News that is in the middle of the page. Be patient. You will see him, not yet bloated. He is a subject for the biographers.

While Keith Olbermann is comparing Palin to Addie Polk, the 90-year-old who shot herself in the chest when they tried to evict her from her Akron home after her mortgage was foreclosed after 38 years, saying that both are caught up in something bigger than they are, over their heads,

"In much the same way we, America, in the corporate persona of Fannie Mae, have forgiven poor Addie Polk of Akron, Ohio, we, America, also need to forgive poor Sarah Palin of Wasilla, Alaska. They are both in situations that are beyond their ability to cope, they are both stuck in a crucible caused by forces they cannot comprehend, they are both unable to understand what they are doing."

He's right. We do not need so much to be afraid of telegenic, winkin', Golly-gee-whillikers Sarah Palin; there are tens of thousands of her out there. We need to face who put her there, who picked her out of a crowd of Sarah Palins and made her the TV face for their social and economic political agenda. The difficulty, it seems to me, is that in reality, there is not one villain, there is not one Voldemort with his helpers that the hero and his helpers can confront and eliminate. In fact, literature even seems to recognize that one story told is prelude to others to come. That is the way it is.

My early education taught me, inadvertently, I imagine now, to believe that the US having defeated the uber-villain, who did monstrous things through his rise to power in Germany, was the great hero. That evil vanquished was vanquished. That humans everywhere had to understand this as an aberration of the human spirit that could not happen again. I now believe that it is as universal and present as any part of good in humans, and that the Republicans have long understood this. They used it, and in channeling the visceral power of fear and control, rather than courage and cooperative action, they have brought it to America.

I read the other day that the original definition of fascism is a relationship between corporations and government, and that this was fascism as Mussolini practiced it, but that in 1968, the definition changed in the dictionaries.

Not having a good English dictionary at my disposal here (gift idea), I resort to Dictionary.com. Here is the definition the American Heritage Dictionary gives:

fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) n.

1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]

Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group," but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.

The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, provides this discussion:

fascism [(fash-iz-uhm)]

A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.

Note: Today, the term fascist is used loosely to refer to military dictatorships, as well as governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner.

Note this last.

The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition makes reference to the historic associations of fascism with socioeconomic control -- the Dictionary.com Unabridged version 1.1 makes it clearer in their definition:

(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism -- suppression of opposition through censorship and controls, and a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism, but today, it is "loosely" understood as nothing more than "military dictatorships".

It strikes me that the neutering of the term fascism to make it a meme for something that appears impossible in US democracy has been a ruse of genius. Fascism has been unbundled for an American sensibility, the association with commerce, with social control -- that was what the Soviet Union did, not the United States government --, racism and nationalism stripped away from the bundle.

Our military, we say, fights wars for its people; it is great and good; its soldiers are just and honorable; our wars the more so. We made ourselves infallible in our eyes, and in those of an older generation of world citizens who still remember the USA for D-day and the liberation of Europe from fascism, but in the 60 years since, other eyes have opened on the fascism that has been nutured in the USA, as racists fumed against the advancement of colored people (I am thinking of the mission of the NAACP), as the controllers of the nation's great wealth on Wall Street and in the corporate boardrooms of the US sought political advantage to deregulate their businesses and allow them access to even more spectacular profits, handed in out in astronomical CEO salaries and year-end bonuses, safe from taxation in the off-shore accounts for which the US Tax Code provided with a nudge and a wink.

Power concentrated in the hands of ever fewer, ever more fearful of a population that would rage if it bothered to finally understand in what it had been complicit.

And not everyone agrees that the Jews did not "deserve" what "they got", nor that Muslims do not deserve the same. The right has been sure to keep those coals stirred. Sarah Palin's Christianity decries mine, and those of more ecumenical pastors and priests. Fundamentalist extremism carries many passports, including that of the United States of America.

It's possible to get too close to the evil, to spend too much time thinking about it. I had a nightmare. I dreamed that my hair salon was closed. In its place was an array of cubicles with low-walls, filled with banks of communications equipment, dials and screens. Everything was black and white. No one sat at those desks. The few people at the reception desk would say nothing. I felt panic. What had happened? Where had it gone? There were other women and men asking the same, but no one would answer. There was no face to tell us.

"But what a terrible thing, and Bonne Marché just across the street? What will happen?"

Don't ask it to make sense. It is a dream. It's our job to make sense of it. I am overdue for a hair cut and color, so of course I have that on the brain, but it is also expensive, a luxury. So is everything sold inside Bonne Marché. Creative people who drive Vespas covered with stickers from world cities and have fascinating tattoos, jewelry and points of view work inside, alongside people from just about every rung of society, from the shampoo boys and girls, to the receptionists, to the hipper stylists who work in that salon. It is a sort of luxury crossroads, and it was gone.

That's my fear talking in my dream. Luxury and individual expression -- the luxury of individual expression? -- gone, replaced by listening and recording equipment, while we are so powerless as to only discover that and feel shock.

Our world changed between appointments.

Look at the contortions through which our society has gone, from Civil Rights to Voting Rights and Women's Rights. Anger and fear were born of those movements on the part of those who felt threatened enough to kill its leaders. It is a cultural war. It isn't over. A half black, half white child of that time has come of age to ask to lead us as our president, and the majority of us desire this. We are ready. We asked for those changes in society, we supported them, some organized and fought for them. Others fought against them. While bills were signed into law by LBJ, the right prepared to fight the only way left to them, to confound and constrain those who would attempt to benefit by that rule of law.

They have worked around the law, in contempt of the law, and still, we haven't acted. We say, "Let us elect Senator Obama, and then there will be time to identify the criminals and punish them." What, put Bush and Cheney and Rove in jail? I doubt it.

They say, "Let us pass this emergency bail-out legislation to save our economy, and then there will be time for the hearings to identify the wrong-doers and punish them." What, put Wall Street, corporate America and Congress in jail? I don't see it.

What will get in the way of doing the right thing next? This economic crisis that was the child of the great Republican (mostly) power and money grab? You betcha'.

Our country is full Americans chanting "YOU ESS-AY!! YOU ESS-AY!!" -- at home and abroad -- and sporting their flag pins and bumper stickers.

The right is full of fascists yelling "Communists!" at the left during Palin rallies.

It never made sense, and it still doesn't now. Hitler first justified the murder of Jews for their communist, or leftist, anti-commerce ideas, or just another way of framing racist German social nationalism in her hour of post World War I humiliation to make it more palatable -- and yet the Jews were historically persecuted in Europe for their wealth and "sinfulness", stemming from their understanding and development of international finance, having been given that role by a Church that told its adherents that to profit from the exchange of money was sinful, and so, therefore, the Jews were sinners, whose wealth must be confiscated for the good of society. This is why it is frowned upon to focus on the making of money and talk about one's salary in certain upper circles, descended from the deposed aristocracy in Europe. They don't even realize why.

We're still fighting the same war.

But as these huge banks go down, their directors and CEOs asking for the salvation of the state to shore up the caving cliff of America's former economic might, undermined by their greed, their chosen political leaders' wars for a greater share of control of the world's oil, the whipping up of anti-Islamic sentiment to gain support from Christian fundamentalists so inclined to go their way, and American's passion for acquisition that has resulted in an unprecedented individual debt, what are the executives doing?

Why, they are whipping out their golden parachutes, and going to the spa.

You're asking the fox to watch over the hen house, my friends in Congress, unless you mean it when you promise hearings and punishments. They seek to make fools of those who still believe in Great Principles.

"What he lacked in experience, he's made up in fight."
from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Where, oh where, is Mr. Smith in America's hour of need? We stand for peace, we stand for social justice, we stand for the protection of sustainable capitalism and renewable energy, we stand with Obama, and they throw us Palin, the ruin of the global economy, and, if you listen to the whispers, perhaps the North American Union Army to quell post-election civil unrest in the event the Republicans declare victory and martial law.

And so it goes.

Ah, Kurt, ya died too soon.

I am going to rejoin my fellow supporters of democracy watching the Obama sign and out for freedom of expression for all of us.
....

Live Broadcast by Ustream.TV

Schoolhouse rock -- the bailout bill

Update: OK, so if the international financial markets are any indication of the success of the US Congress' bailout of the US financial king pins, maybe I wasn't so wrong to listen to the economists, good, bad and worse. My succinct opinion? Congress tried to save itself more than the international financial markets, but not for want of caring. That they did, but it's been too late for a $700 billion band-aid applied by Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and company for a long, long time. The horses have long been out of the barn, and the damage runs much deeper into the world's pockets, wallets and portfolios.

Here's a little video from the MSM's NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, and for congress's poll numbers, click here are scroll down to the last video. Good for Biden, good for Obama, terrible for Palin, terrible for McCain, and Nancy Pelosi might need to think about career counseling for herself.



Want to know what's wrong with the United States?

Just watch this (if you feel ill before the end, please stop play):

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.
Chairman Financial Services Committee

attacked by another American pitbull, Fox's Bill O'Reilly
(I can't bring myself to say "news" after Fox)

I was watching it as my husband came through the door. He leaned over my shoulder, so riveted that he forgot to kiss me hello (and I even took the time for a shower today before rushing to the CHAOS room and the House debate on CNN).

"Who is that guy?" he asked. Lucky him; he's French and doesn't know Bill O'Reilly. I explained.

"C'est le plus grand connard de tous les temps, Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, ou comme on aime bien le dire, Faux News. Tu vois bien qu'on sait parler trés bien en français aux States." [Does anyone needs a trans? Pdp (pas de problème): it's the biggest jerk ever, Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, or as we like to say, Faux News. You see? We speak excellent French in the States.]

"He doesn't let that other guy --"

"Le député Barney Frank, la tête du comité des Services Financiers du congrès, celui qui est résponsable du projet de loi du bailout."

"Ah bon, il ne le laisse pas parler." I love France.

"Il est toujours comme ça. De plus, Frank est gai et tout le monde le sait depuis des années, mais O'connard vient de l'accuser de ne pas être assez un homme pour admettre son échec." [trans: He's always like that. What's more, Frank is gay and everyone has known it for years, and O'jerk just accused him of not being "man enough" to admit he failed.]

"Mais ça n'est pas néssesaire. C'est dégueulasse." Dégueulasse is slang for "disgusting". The rest, I think you can work out.

....

How a bill becomes a law

The bailout

So, yesterday I was against the bailout.

I determined to use my time with CHAOS to watch the House debate the bailout bill. I also watched Obama's speech in Abington, PA. He was on fire today. The debate last night did him a world of good (I'd love to see Palin have to debate him, ha!)

I was worried that they had not had the time to work out the things, chiefly that as was the case with the Bush proposition, the bill was basically giving the thief the keys to the safe deposit box.

If you read me yesterday, you know that I, like most people, tend to listen to the news after the vote and feel inadequate to judge whether harm or some good was done. So today, like some fellow sign watchers, including a Dutch guy who is more knowledgeable of US domestic and foreign politics and Capitol Hill than Sarah Palin -- no! wait, that is hardly paying the compliment he deserves. He really amazes me. He was the one who sent the link as he settled in to watch it himself. How could I not?

I wish the video was already up on YouTube. You'll have to rely on my descriptions and look for the video yourself later. You know me, I'll come back and post what I can find, and what I most want to find is Frank's comments after his bill passed the US House of Representatives, with half as many Republicans as Democrats supporting the bill.

I also apologize for not knowing who all the representatives were I watched speak.

So, here are the things I learned watching the House debate:

The first is the one that made me crow with delight. I just knew Jon back at X Capital Management would get his one day, and that day appears to be dawning. I can only hope his share values plummeted and left his off-shore accounts as empty as his party is of values and sense -- the bill now includes a provision to close a $25 billion loophole that permitted hedge-fund managers to shelter their income in places like the Caymans.

I am so very, very happy to hear that, Jon.

And, then, I learned that...

In September of 2008, 159,000 jobs were lost. Even if some were created, who cares? There was a huge net loss, the largest in 5 years. This brings us to a total of 760,000 jobs lost this year in comparison with a comparable period (whatever that means precisely) 8 years ago, when 8 million jobs were created.

This equals a net loss of 2.2 million jobs. I know, I should go look at that in other economic periods, whether the jobs created were sustainable, but y'know, it's still a lot of jobs lost without being able to talk about jobs created. They haven't been in more than 8 years. Downward employment cycle in this gardening, once-architect mother and wife's eyes. Unemployment is bad. Ask me about it, I've been through it as a single mother.

Another congressman told me that this bill reaches out to minorities and small businesses, thanks to Representatives Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL), who focused on this issue.

He told me that it is a plan to buy up bad loans and that taxpayers will be the first to profit if and when loan values rise again. He quoted uber-investor Warren Buffet, who said something like, "If they do it right, and I think they'll do it reasonably right, if we do that, we'll make a lot of money, we being the taxpayers of America." Being a skeptical sort of person, I wondered just how we would get the money we'll make on this gamble. He went on to ask for me.

"How?" He had my attention.

The financial community will be obligated to pay the taxpayers back. Good. An obligation. I like obligations when we are talking about my money going to someone for a risky business.

But, if that financial community doesn't get all better, then what? Will my money, and the money of all the rest of us it will take to get to $700 billion, be divided up between the sharks on Wall Street (I was specifically thinking of guys like my old friend Jon. I am reasonably certain that he is already ruined) to use to go off and sail around the Caymans, sipping Dom Perignon?

He had a reply to quell my concerns -- this bill will ensure restricted CEO compensation and eliminate golden parachutes; no huge salaries or free-rides payed for by the taxpayer. I am a friend to the rich, but not that good. This helps.

He also told me that home owners will receive renegotiated mortgages to prevent the potential flood of foreclosures. This is not only good for those homeowners who need the stability and peace of mind that comes from knowing they can remain in their homes, but for their communities, whose tax revenues have disappeared like wolves in Palin's Alaska.

The FDIC, he continued, was raised Monday to $250,000, which he admitted could be argued "on both sides of the question, but ought to stabilize local banks."

Like Silver State?

Then, he got to the addition of those "several tax cuts" -- sausage, with which he disagrees because "the senate chose to finance them with debt." I believe I am with him there, especially in light of Pelosi's promised mantra, "No deficit spending." He spoke of the "dangers of fiscal recklessness," saying "debt does indeed matter, a lesson the senate has chosen to ignore," adding that this situation requires compromise because "if we don't accept the things we do not like, we won't have the money for the things we do like."

With that said, he "[urged] all of us to pass and to vote for legislation," recognizing that not all of his colleagues in the House would feel that they could, saying "I respect their judgment. We have a difference of opinion."

On Monday, he told us, Americans were deeply divided, and their representative body, not surprisingly, was as well, but since Monday, "Americans have reflected on the consequences of inaction, and while not of universal thought [I think he meant opinion] we must pass this bill, we must rely on the people's house to act in a way that will protect their interests and their dreams."

He sounded sincere to my ears. I listened to others use their time, including
Representative John Baynor (R-OH), who told us that the bill "had been done in bipartisan way, members of both sides came together to build a product that they thought would help" the American and global markets find their footing on these dangerous high seas. "The consequences of not acting," he warned, "are overwhelming."

He spoke of doing this bill on behalf of Americans, and to do this bill "in the middle of an election is complicated enough." Representatives, Republicans most certainly, approached him, he said, asking how this will affect their re-election, and he told us that he looked at them and said, "You have to go home and defend it, and that's a lot easier to do if you just do what you think is right."

He's right.

The time for debate over, the remarks closed, it was for House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to speak.

Speaker Pelosi told us, with a smile of satisfaction -- and probably relief (gas?) to have arrived at this point -- , that the bill was "much improved, with an eye to the future." She, too, sought to reassure the American people that the legislation will "lead to reforms", and that it will "ferret out abuses," once President Obama occupies the White House.

No, she didn't say that last part about President Obama. She just thought it really, really loudly. You heard it, too, if you were listening today.

She told those of us listening that the urgency is clear, and she "calls for legislation to avoid "economic catastrophe," repeating "catastrophe", in case anyone didn't get it. She told us that governors from across the country, including her own (that would be Arnold Schwarzenegger, and how pleased indeed I am to be able to mention him in the pages of my blog, for surely he would never have come up, not ever, had he not become the (fairly and surprisingly decent) governor of California), Democratic and Republican to urge the House to take action, "We are addressing real pain felt by Mr. and Mrs. Jones of Main Street," she told us.

She, like many before her, told us about ourselves, the seniors watching their savings dwindle, their pensions evaporate, entrepreneurs turned away form credit, people who can't get a car loan, those selling cars who can't get one to purchase inventory, people wondering if the money they have worked to put in savings for college for their kids will still be there.

She told us about the jobs lost, too.

And, she said that the original bill Bush submitted was unacceptable. It asked to commit $700 billion "with few strings and no safeguards," and it was rejected in a bipartisan way and changes were demanded in a bipartisan way, too, such as:

• protection for the taxpayer,
• over-site and accountability,
• make sure, as Treasury Secretary Paulsen talked about investment capital, that the bad paper bought will profit the American taxpayer. She mentioned Rep. Bachus' question why not just invest the capital directly in the companies -- here she made a mention of Tanner of Tennessee -- and if it doesn't pay for itself, if there is a shortfall, then the taxpayer will be paid back from fees imposed on the companies that benefit,
• reformed CEO compensation and the elimination of the "golden parachute", "the party's over. If you drive your business into the ground, then you won't pick up your golden parachute and save yourself paid for by the taxpayer",
• mortgage renegotiations, thanks to the efforts of Maxine Waters,
• a benefit to middle income families in the form of a $1000 state and local property tax deduction for those who do not itemize,
• the tax cut for clean and renewable energy to save jobs that "did not survive the senate, is now become part of the legislation -- it is paid for, it is paid for", and
  
• thanks to the efforts of David Wellstone, son of Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, after 12 years the Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act of 2008 became law in this bill.

Where's the mention of wooden arrows and development credits for American Samoa? I Guess there are some things even the House Speaker is too embarrassed to mention.

Bundling of bills. Not my cup of tea. As Speaker Pelosi put it, the bailout bill "turned out to be the vehicle" (piggyback) for these bills that should have passed on their own but "couldn't make it though the senate, but now [do]."

"We were dealt a mighty bad hand," said Speaker Pelosi, "but this is that start to solve it," to protect the future of the American people.

"We have seen," she said, "things we never before thought we would see," and "we have broken new ground on how we deal with this crisis, but we will not leave it broken," she vowed.

There will be hearings held by Barney Frank and the members of the Financial Services Committee to determine the origins of the crisis, and "we must look ahead, protect America from unsavory lending practices... we must keep in mind our commitment to fiscal discipline, not increasing the deficit... will it work? We'll see what it does do, and if it doesn't, fees will be there to cover [the $700 billion]. We can't put out all this money, heap a mountain of debt on our children, unless there are protections. No new deficit spending must be our mantra... the economic security of our people.... it is important to vote, a difficult vote, but we must win it for the American people, the Mr. and Mrs. Jones of Main Street."

The bill passed, 263 - 171.

President Bush appeared on television, thanking Speaker Pelosi and both parties in the House, and pledged to sign the bill as soon as it arrives on his desk.

Tonight, I go to bed and think on it in my sleep.

Tomorrow, I do some more reading (link to H.R. 1424 eas at bottom), and I decide further whether I am right to be assuaged by the bill and all the sausage.

Yesterday, I said this was no reason to call out the NYFD. Today, a black woman representative, from California argued in impassioned and stern terms that she agreed with Senator Barack Obama; we must act. The house is on fire. You don't say, well, they were irresponsible, you help them put out the fire, and then you determine fault. This fire, she said, must be put out to calm the fears of Americans and the global financial markets, show them that the United States of America will tend to its problems, and then we'll hold the hearings and people accountable.

Enshallah.

From a friend... " So if you want to read about the "extension of economic development credits for American Samoa," the "exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children," the "provisions related to film and television productions," etc., etc., you'll have to go to the GPO website GPO - Congressional Bills Main Page, search for "H. R. 1424" and download the eas version."

Enjoy!

"But today I am still just a bill."
....

Free TV : Ustream

A garden moment, pour changer

Plante mystère

et oui, il reste encore des plantes dont j'ignore le nom.

L'honte.

This one is very difficult to photograph, for me. It's the reds. They are really tough. It's true of the Eric Tabarly roses, the deep red peonies, and these are some of my most absolutely beautiful, exquisite flowers.

In my opinion.

The specks of dust on the petals (la poussière sur ses pétales) are from the plaster (le plâtre) and stucco (le crépi) they removed. (Can we just all parler une langue, s'il vous please?)

I love the nearly black cast to the red, the velvet quality of the petals when this color occurs.

There were three of these at Florosny the day I saw them with Audouin and broke down and bought one. He liked them, too, which emboldened me, otherwise I am very shy about buying plants in front of the other holder of the joint checking account, now, however, I am furious with myself for not buying all of them and asking the name. Unmarked pots. Some sort of asteraceae?

They are gorgeous with the red Leptospermum scoparium, or tea tree plant, a Myrtaceae, originaire de l'Australie, just behind. I love how the flowers are picked up in the red tinge of the L. scoparium leaves, especially the new growth. I was thinking of using them together in front of the house with the Eric Tabarly roses, but we shall see. The one downside is that the leaves of the mystery plant get a little ratty, but, that's nature and life; they could say the same of me.

The mystery plant blooms later than the L. scoparium, which is a good thing, since that might be a little much all at once, and the combination offers blooms over several months. Anyway, I'll go see if they still have some at Florosny; if not, they will eventually.

We shall see.

I am having concentration problems. Between la politique, l'architecture et le jardin, je suis fichue -- just spread hopelessly thin. It is not possible! And, I have to relearn to go to bed at a reasonable hour. I stay up reading emails, political articles and blogs, imagining a future without Bush, a USA united under Obama, together with the world, and... I can hardly contain myself.

I get carried away.

Off to the stocks: mon ordi, les documents pour la rénovation de la maison.

A plus.
....

Goodnight Bush, ready for the holidays!

"In the situation room

There was a toy world

And a flight costume

And a picture of -- "

For the rest, we are all going to have to go to your local independent bookseller (if you still have one, otherwise, I am sure you know where to go) or Amazon.com to get your copy of Goodnight Bush: A Parody, by Gan Golan and Erich Origen now!

....

19%

So, have you seen it?

That's Bush's approval ratings, according to the Political Wire, a nice lump of coal in his stocking this year. For the economy, it's just what you would figure, worse.

How low can he go? He still has 4 months, almost to the day, to hit single digits.

I'm betting he can do it. He has already dropped 11% in the past 3 weeks, by the American Research Group, Inc. figures. Rasmussen had him at 34% approval rating in August, at 4% higher than the American Research Group. I'd say they are in close enough agreement, with a 4 point difference for August.

....

As John says,
"Virginia, there is a Santa Claus"

Check out SurveyUSA's poll results for Virginia, September 22: Obama 51% - McCain 45%.

From their site:

Women, Suburban DC Voters Help Obama Find Breathing Room on Virginia Battlefield: In an election for President of the United States in Virginia today, 09/22/08, 6 weeks from Election Day, Democrat Barack Obama edges Republican John McCain, 51% to 45%, according to this latest SurveyUSA poll conducted for WDBJ-TV in Roanoke, WJLA-TV in Washington DC, WTVR-TV in Richmond, and WJHL-TV in the Tri-Cities. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released one week ago, Obama is up 1 point; McCain is down 1 point; compared to a SurveyUSA poll two weeks ago, Obama is up 4, McCain is down 4.

Since 1952, Virginia has voted Republican 13 times and Democrat only once, in 1964. Today: In the Washington DC suburbs, Obama now polls at 59% and leads McCain by 21 points. Obama leads by 10 in Southeast VA and by 4 in Central VA. McCain's regional advantage is confined to the Shenandoah, where he is 14 points atop Obama. Among women, Obama led by 6 points before Sarah Palin was named to the GOP ticket, now leads by 16. McCain continues to lead among voters older than McCain. Obama continues to lead among voters younger than Obama. But among voters in between, McCain's once 10-point advantage is now a 3-point deficit. Among college educated voters, Obama has gained 6 points and McCain has lost 5 points in the past 2 weeks. Among lower-income voters, Obama's advantage has increased by 17 points in the past 6 weeks.

McCain holds 87% of the GOP base. Obama holds 91% of the Democrat base. Independents split. McCain holds 83% of Conservatives. Obama holds 86% of Liberals. But: Obama leads by 28 points among Moderates, and on that Virginia battlefield, the contest may be decided.

....

FiveThirtyEight.com

It's just looking better and better over at Nick Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com, where they have Obama winning by a landslide (+350 EV) at better than 17%, at 17.78%, while McCain's chances of doing so are under 2%, at 1.76%.

Obama at 311.5 EV to McCain's 226.5 EV and winning over 70% of the time, nearly 75%, with him at 50.3% of the popular vote and McCain at 47.9.

....

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas for Obama over at Bloomberg, too.

"Obama, Not McCain, Shows Steady Hand in Crisis", by Albert R. Hunt, who starts out:

For the first time since 1932 a presidential election is taking place in the midst of a genuine financial crisis. The reaction of the candidates was revealing.

and finishes with:

On the financial crisis, last week belonged to Obama.

Let us hope that people are paying less attention to the color of his skin, which AP's Ron Fournier is back to spinning for whomever his wizard is in AP for no good purposes -- but, lo!, Mr. Fournier, the scales have been falling from white America's eyes faster than bigoted Republican conservatives have been able to notice from behind their biased vision --, and more to the color of the money that is fast disappearing from their wallets.

Let Obama be as green, and I would be just as satisfied with him.

....

AP's Ron Fournier does it again:
passing off political anaylsis for AP wire reporting

"Bigoted white Dems could doom Obama's effort"

Oh? Is that so? Let's see...

September 21, 2008

BY RON FOURNIER AND TREVOR TOMPSON

WASHINGTON -- Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks -- many calling them ''lazy,'' ''violent'' or responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 -- about 2.5 percentage points.

Remember that Sesame Street song, the one that went, "It's where you put your eyes, that's about the size of it"?

Well, Ron Fournier's eyes are busy subtley deconstructing the results of the The Associated Press-Yahoo survey, done in partnership with Stanford University, to reconstruct them to suggest that Senator Obama will go down to defeat due to bigotry in his own party.

Well, it all depends on where you put your eyes, and what you report.

Mr. Fournier is guilty of slipping an idea into the newspaper-reading electorate's head, while pretending to "tutt-tutt" along with the more enlightened among us, the majority that has learned that while we all have attitudes about one another, have heard and fallen into generalities about groups of people, what matters it to recognize that these stereotypes exist in our animal brains and to remember to always face the person in front of onself and allow them their personhood, to know them before you judge them according to one's instinctive reactions, which is what photographs shown quickly to people measures.

You can see a copy of the survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks, by clicking here and make your own conclusions about what the survey is indicating. It actually looks pretty good for Senator Obama nad the Democrats.

As someone over on the Obama boards pointed out, "the article counted up all the negative adjectives that white survey respondents sometimes connect to blacks -- without looking at the overwhelming positive adjectives that they selected or the fact that the poll overall showed more voters favoring Obama over McCain," and she echoed the question that came to my mind as I read his article:

Did they ask -- in whatever carefully constructed test language they use -- whether believing even one negative thing about blacks would prevent you from voting for a black person about whom you do not believe the chaacterization to be true?" In other words, did the survey allow for the use of intellect over instinct?

As others have noted, the poll actually shows that most Americans favor Obama for president over McCain and hold a more favorable view of Barack & Michele Obama than of John & Cindy McCain.

The commentor concludes, "You can probably extrapolate from poll results a hard core of about 10% of voters who hold strong beliefs that would prevent them from voting for any black person for President -- but there is no evidence that those voters would be likely to vote Democrat in any case-- since it is easy from the poll to see that at least 35% are Republican or McCain voters."

Fournier is apparently biased, and this isn't the first article to reveal that bias. He uses the information in the survey results to construct a support for his opinion, conveniently leaving a lot of the information contained in the survey out. Smarter people know to go digging around for the picture that isn't being shown, especially when Fournier's name is associated with the press piece.

....