Drill, Baby, Drill

One of the most passionate refrains during the 2008 Presidential Election was Sarah Palin's cry of 'Drill, Baby, Drill!' It was particularly pertinent given the fact that petrol prices were topping $5 a gallon at the time.

'Drill, Baby, Drill!' might not have been enough to win the Republicans the election, but it did generate enough popular sentiment to make moderates question why America wasn't exploiting its own natural resources, instead of continuing to churn money over to the Saudi Arabians for their overpriced oil.

Well, we can't claim that Obama doesn't read people's t-shirts any more. On Wednesday, Barack sided with populist opinion and authorized offshore drilling on the East Coast and other formerly protected areas in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

In one fell swoop, "Drill, Baby, Drill!" went from Republican battle cry to official White House strategy.

"And see this F-18 behind me? This motherf**ker runs off biofuel, bitches."
Obama's actual statement at Andrews Air Force Base, paraphrased for comedic value.

It's a stop-gap measure, Obama's the first to admit. There's not enough oil and natural gas to make the United States energy-independent; and even if there was, it undermines his determination to move to country towards adopting cleaner and more sustainable forms of energy.

However, it's a start.

Just as I suggested in my review of The Audacity of Hope, its a move that reveals Obama to be a pragmatic realist; willing to tackle the day-to-day issues facing average Americans (high gas prices, dependency on foreign oil), rather than cast their problems aside in favor of tackling esoteric, typically Democrat concerns like promoting overly conservative environmentalism and protecting polar bears (who have big teeth and claws, so should theoretically be able to look after themselves.)

Of course, not everybody's happy about it:

"Short of sending Sarah Palin back to Alaska to personally club polar bears to death," argued Brendan Cummings, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, "the Obama administration could not have come up with a more efficient extinction plan for the polar bear."

[Actually, in a Palin vs. Polar Bear smack down, my money's on the bear. Just sayin' - Editorial Bear]

It's also another maverick move that makes those who demonize President Obama deeply uncomfortable. How can he represent everything that conservative Americans stand against when he capitulates to one of their most vocal demands?

However, it just goes to show that this administration is dedicated to actually solving problems, instead of just cranking the meat-grinder of self-defeating political rhetoric and perpetuating the seemingly interminable stalemate that exists in Washington.

When Joe Wilson yelled 'You Lie,' was he telling the truth?

During President Obama's Wednesday-night speech on health care reform, the voice of South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson echoed across the chamber.

"You lie!"

Obama had just insisted that his proposals wouldn't provide government-funded health insurance to illegal aliens. Wilson's outburst received a chorus of boos from both sides of the house, but the question remained:

Was Obama lying?

No.

Obama's highly-touted Affordable Health Choices Act 2009 doesn't include any measure to provide illegal aliens with government-subsidized health insurance - but that doesn't mean illegal aliens won't continue to get free health care as a result of it.

In fact, illegal aliens have been receiving free medical treatment for decades now - and characters like Joe Wilson are complicit in it.

Contrary to popular belief, America actually has a form of universal health care - the elephant in the living room nobody talks about in the health care debate.

The law makes it mandatory for most hospitals to offer emergency treatment to those without medical insurance, or legal residency. As a result, whether it's being patched up for a broken arm, or giving birth to a new baby, illegal immigrants run up a daily hospital tab in the millions of dollars.

Thanks to these laws, everybody in America has at least some access to treatment when they need it - even if they never pay for it. But who does?

Mostly, it's the 80 million Americans who purchase health insurance, privately or through their employer. Hospitals mitigate their costs by increasing the price insured patients pay. When we go in for an MRI, our bill reflects not just the cost of treating us, but also the people who didn't pay.

More than the costs of malpractice insurance, or pharmaceutical price-fixing, it's this 'free' medical care that has caused the price of regular medical insurance to shoot up. Premiums have doubled in the past decade - and are forecast to do the same again by 2020.

When Congressman Joe Wilson gets his knickers in a twist about illegal immigrants receiving free medical care on his dime, he's presumably unaware they already are.

In fact, Obama's Affordable Health Choices Act 2009 will actually reduce the number of illegal immigrants receiving free care.

One of the measures Obama proposes is mandatory purchase of insurance - fining people who don't buy coverage. These fines will be issued via a resident's Tax I.D. number - which isn't linked to their immigration status.

Thousands of illegal immigrants may now find themselves forced to buy health insurance just like the rest of us. A negligible number - but still a number.

Which means, in the great scheme of things, that Congressman Joe Wilson advocates a system that institutionalizes free health care for illegal immigrants, whereas President Obama proposes a system which addresses that issue.

And in yelling out 'you lie' across the chamber, Wilson didn't just prove that he was classless and boorish - he also confirmed that he was ignorant, as well.

Are the Town Hall disruptions staged?

Intimidatingly intelligent commenter Tom took exception to my post comparing the Town Hall disruptors to Hitler's brownshirts - and posted a rather fascinating link when he did so.

While I still stand by my accusations about the loud, verbally disruptive Conservatives who attend these meetings - and the intimidating, gun-toting thugs who linger menacingly nearby - this revelation is simply too astonishing NOT to repost.

Was the most famous OBAMA=HITLER placard a Democratic plant?

Is this man a fraud? And I mean the one holding the poster.

It sounds almost too absurd to be true, but Conservatives insist that one of the disruptive events I was blogging about - a man turning up to a town hall rally with a poster of Obama with a Hitler mustache - might have actually been a fraud.

Democrat John Dingell held a Town Hall event last week, in which this angry protester was spotted with the enormous poster of Obama-as-Hitler. This was reported on MSM as proof that the Conservatives were engaging in dirty tactics to protest health care reform.

However, this same man was apparently spotted later in the day actually working with John Dingall's team - handing out fliers for the Democratic politician!

So was he a Democratic plant? Ordered to hoist a placard far more offensive than any the Conservatives themselves carried? There's anecdotal evidence to support that accusation here, on the link that Tom posted.

But what's perhaps more interesting than the accusation itself is the startling lack of proof.

Even in the words of the blogger Tom linked to; "If the link is out there," proving the accusation, "I haven't found it yet." It all apparently hangs off the word of a nameless couple who apparently attended the event - not exactly firm evidence.

But the fact that suspicion remains should remind us that the ol' 'Hitler' comparisons are used by both sides to attack each other - and perhaps that's something we should both stop doing.

For eight years, as Tom pointed out, President Bush was compared by Liberals to Hitler (which was stunningly absurd, since Hitler's primary attribute was being a powerful orator - and George Bush's patently wasn't!)

So surely it's just par for the course for the Conservatives to level the same accusation at Obama? (Who arguably did conjure up almost hypnotic support during his campaign.)

Well, even if it's not fair, they've insisted on doing so since before the election!

But why do I bring it up?

Because if Tom's right in the stern conclusion to his intricately researched comment, in which he argues that comparing the opposition to Nazis "shows which side has abandoned debate in favor of name-calling," surely both Conservatives and Liberals are equally guilty.

Perhaps Tom's comments suggest that we should 'step away from the Swastika' and start debating each other on the basis of facts from now on.

Dumb Ideas: Taking an assault rifle to a presidential address...

Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest

By AMANDA LEE MYERS and TERRY TANG, Associated Press Writers

PHOENIX – About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday.

This is the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

Full story here.

It's considered incredibly politically incorrect to use the term 'retard' in describing stupid people, but I struggle to find a more appropriate word in this case.

Taking an assault rifle? To a presidential speech? Seriously - the sort of person who does that must be mentally retarded in some way. Anybody in full command of their faculties would realize that it's a dangerous, offensive, inflammatory and unbelievably stupid thing to do.

Oh, I can already hear the reasoning from the gun nuts: "I'm just exercising my 2nd Amendment rights." Well, maybe - but point that thing the wrong way and half a dozen Secret Service officers are going to exercise their gun-toting prerogative - straight into your chest.

The longer I live in America, to more sympathetic I get towards gun owners (until I read crazy stories like this.)

I mean, I get it. Owning a gun to defend your family is a right (despite the reams of statistical evidence suggesting that it might actually make your home more dangerous.) The other day, when we had strangers walking onto our driveway at 2am, even I figured the security of a little 'home protection' might be nice.

But there's a time and a place to carry your guns - and a presidential speech is not it.

These idiots who carry loaded handguns and rifles to presidential speeches are clearly just loudmouthed idiots, making a desperate cry for attention (and totally shooting to pro-gun movement in the foot as they do so.)

Private gun ownership is a constitutional right - but gun owners should remember that it's one which has been curtailed and limited across America. Most people's tolerance for maintaining 2nd Amendment rights is reliant on gun owners being safe, responsible and setting an example to others about how to properly keep guns.

These right-wing idiots, waving their rifles about, are just perpetuating the stereotype that gun owners are irresponsible, dumb and downright dangerous idiots - people who totally abuse their 'rights' and make the world more dangerous - and significantly more terrifying - in the process.

Personally, I think anybody who takes a loaded weapon to a presidential event should be arrested, have their guns confiscated and their weapon license revoked. They've clearly demonstrated that they lack the mental faculty to be safely trusted with a firearm.

Obama's Birth Certificate

It started 47 years ago, when Barack Mohammad Obama was born in the Aga Khan University Hospital of Nairobi.

As his Kenyan family assembled around Ann Dunham Obama's bed, to watch the beautiful infant curl his tiny fingers around his mother's thumb, a conspiracy was already under way - one which would set in motion a path of events taking nearly half a century to complete.

"This baby," said Barack Obama Sr, watching his son squirm, "will one day become President of the United States."

"But Barack," one of Obama's Luo friends warned him, "such a thing is impossible. For a man to become President of America, he must be what they call a 'natural born citizen.'"

"Well then," Obama sneered, "that is what we must make baby Barack..."

And so they did.

Teaming up with the Kenyan government, the staff of Aga Khan hospital and every employee and executive of Continental Airlines, Barack Obama Snr successfully covered up his wife's trip to Africa, instead fabricating a fool-proof fiction that suggested that she'd never left Hawaii and little Barack had been born there, instead. They smuggled baby Barack into America, successfully silencing the crew, stewards, pilots and passengers of the commandeered aircraft into maintaining this secret.

Next, teaming up with the staff at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children, in Honolulu Hawaii, Obama Snr successfully managed to forge documentation recording baby Barack's birth there. Through his connections with the Hawaii state government, he successfully obtained a fake birth certificate recording Obama's birthplace at the USA, rather than Nairobi. Realising that his Muslim heritage might be a disadvantage in fifty years time, Obama changed Barack's middle name from 'Mohammad' to 'Hussein' at the same time.

But the conspiracy was not done there...

Barack Obama's friends at the Honolulu Advertiser placed two birth announcements in the local papers, in order to fool the general public into believing that the child of Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Senior was actually born in America, rather than Africa.

And only after accomplishing this masterstroke of deception, which entailed the collaboration of hundreds of state and government officials in two different countries, could Barack Obama Snr cross his arms and smile in satisfaction.

"Now," he beamed, looking forward 47 years into the future, "now all is prepared for my son to become President."

If you're unaware, the above is a brief fiction I've written - based on what's commonly accepted amongst a subset of American conservatives calling themselves 'birthers.'

These idiots - and idiots is the only accurate description of 'birthers' - are still bleating the conspiracy that Barack Obama is not an American citizen, and was actually born in Kenya. This, according to them, makes him ineligible to occupy the White House.

"We're getting ready for the Communist takeover of America with a non-citizen at the helm."

Michael Savage

'Birthers' rank even higher than 'truthers' in their idiocy.

['Truthers,' for the uninitiated, are the conspiracy theorists who believe that Bush, Cheney and a Israeli illuminati conspired to bring down the twin towers on 9/11 - Editorial Bear]

You'd think that 'birthers' would have crawled back into the woodwork, over six months after Obama took office. However, they're still at work - gloriously undermining the Republican's attempt to reform into an electable party. Just last week, 'birthers' heckled moderate Republican Michael Castle, when he announced to the audience at a town hall event in Delaware that 'the president there, he is a citizen of the United States.'

My problem with the 'birthers' is that their doubts of Obama's citizenship are just deeply, deeply stupid. Even worse than that, they're persistant.

Even today, Hawaii State Officials were forced to reiterate that Obama's birth certificate is genuine and that he was born in the United States of America on August 4th, 1961.

Obama's birth certificate, in the hands of FackCheck writer Joe Miller

The fact that they had to do this - again - shows what a farce the situation is and how stubbornly, unbelieveably stupid 'birthers' are. Just like all the idiots in the far right of American politics, they still believe in the fallacy that if you want something to be true badly enough (Obama's fake certificate, creationism, the 'conspiracy' of Global Warming) than you can 'believe' it into becoming the truth.

A birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, August 8th 1961

Unfortunately for them, that's not true. 'Truth' isn't decided by committee, or popular opinion - only by cold, sterile, objective examination of the facts. And in this instance, the facts are unequivocal. Barack Obama was born in the United States of America and is a United States citizen - making him eminently qualified to hold the office of President.

Why our President is a mensch...

President Obama made the mistake of weighing in on the arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Gates last week - but came up with a surprisingly pragmatic solution to the two men's disagreement:

"This is nothing that couldn't be worked out over a beer at the White House," the President admitted, when pressed about his thoughts on the renowned scholar's arrest and the media firestorm it ignited. The promise of beer wasn't an idle one - the three men are set to enjoy Budweiser and Blue Moon together later this week.

Considering that beer and diplomacy go hand in hand together (America was founded on fine ales from Philadelphia's City Tavern) I think it's an inspired suggestion.

Obama's medical plan - not good enough for his own family?

Obama's controversial overhaul of the American health care system is infuriating both Republicans and health care industry moguls - leading one doctor to plant a poser on the president during an ABC News town hall event:

"Will you promise," the doctor demanded, "that your wife and daughters will only get the medical services covered by your new health insurance plan?"

"No," said Obama. "I'd always want them to get the very best care." Even if that meant buying a more expensive insurance program, or paying for non-covered services out of pocket.

Critics are highlighting this as an example of hypocrisy - a 'Dukakis moment' according to some. Obama's proposing a health care system that even he wouldn't entrust to cover all his family's medical needs.

But is that hypocritical? Or merely honest?

Obama's health care proposal offers some medical care for millions of uninsured people. It might not be comprehensive coverage - the 'best that money can buy' - but it is at least some coverage.

It hasn't been put in place to replace private medical insurance. It's been put there to supplement it - to offer the uninsured something, where they used to get nothing.

If Obama could find a way to offer medical coverage that was better than private health insurance, he wouldn't just be a miracle worker - he'd be the first man in history to make a nationalized health care system work!

[And yet, the Republicans would still attack him, for destroying the 'free market' private health care industry. You just can't win with them. - Editorial Bear.]

No, what he proposes isn't perfect. But perhaps it's the step in the right direction. And, more importantly, it's not like his Republican critics have managed to put forward anything better.

They criticize Obama for not entrusting his family's health to his new system. Perhaps the question should be reversed:

Would they show their 'faith' in the existing system by entrusting their family's health to the current options open for America's 46 million uninsured?

If the answer to that is 'no' (as it should be, for anybody who cares about their family's welfare) than they're the ones who the accusations of hypocrisy should be leveled at.

Why Militant Ginger should avoid politics...

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will restart military tribunals for a small number of Guantanamo detainees, with new legal protections for terror suspects, U.S. officials said. Full story here.

Oh, great. Thanks a lot, Obama...

Yesterday, I rail about how you've broke the promise to end the unethical detention of 'terror suspects' - and now you've delivered everything that I argued for! Yesterday's point was... erm... pointless?

Now, after careful review of the system implemented during the Bush administration, President Obama will continue to 'process' detainees. Major changes will be made to the system, however:

• (Some) suspects will get a trial, instead of being held indefinitely and without charge.
• Hearsay evidence ("I heard this guy said that this happened") won't be allowed.
• Nor will evidence obtained through 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (i.e. torture.)
• Detainees have the right to silence, instead of being sanctioned for refusing to testify.

Okay, so it's not like these detainees now have full constitutional rights, but that's okay with me. Yesterday's discussion with Tom convinced me that an accountable and transparent military tribunal is an appropriate court of justice for these detainees, who fall into the crack between 'prisoners of war' and 'criminal suspects.'

What I did object to was not giving them a trial, denying them basic human rights and obtaining 'evidence' through means which are commonly regarded as torture.

In so far as that, it seems like President Obama and I are on the same page.

It's still sketchy that dozens of detainees haven't been put on trial, charged or released years after their initial capture - but this is a step in the right direction and it's a marked improvement over what went before.

As for the liberals who are going to be enraged by Obama's decision - arguing that the detainees deserve full constitutional rights - I think people like Tom have convinced me that this isn't the case.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution very clearly state that rights are awarded differently in wartime. Some people might argue that America isn't at war - but if that's the case, what the hell are our troops doing dodging bullets in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Obama Breaks his First Promise

Since writing this, Obama's made some positive moves that completely undermine everything I complained about! Thanks for nuttin', Mr President! Read this post to learn more.

Obama mulls 'indefinite detention' of terror suspects
AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – As part of its plans to close Guantanamo Bay, the Obama administration is considering holding some of the detainees indefinitely and without trial on US soil, US media reported Thursday. Fulls story here.

You know, I've read a lot of posts from conservative bloggers about President Obama breaking promises, or failing to deliver the changes he said he would (see Coffee Bean's blog here, or Reverse_Vampyr's here.)

Until this point, I'd taken all that criticism with a pinch of salt - after all, many of Obama's detractors (especially on conservative talk radio) descended into childish petulance simply because he won the White House.

But now Obama's broken a promise I'd believed in, too - that America would cease the sketchy shenanigans occurring in Guantanemo Bay. While Obama has decided to close that detention facility, he's now pondering the continued indefinite imprisonment of 'terror suspects' without charge or trial.

This is a total volte-face on his campaign promise, when he pledged to end the Bush administration's policy of locking people up without any accountability. That behavior is just wrong - especially when it's done by a country that prides itself on representing freedom, liberty and justice throughout the world.

Now since I first started opinionating on the subject, I have received quite an education (largely from regular contributor Tom) that has clarified why the Bush administration felt empowered to imprison people without any regard to habeus corpus: We're at war.

In World War II, for example, nobody expected to offer German prisoners of war trials or tribunals - and they certainly didn't get released or sent home until after the war was over.

But the 'War on Terror' has always been a fuzzy, poorly defined conflict and in recent months, that 'war' has dropped off the radar completely (Obama's given it the less emotive title of 'Overseas Contingency Operation')

The detainees in Guantanemo aren't 'enemy combatants.' They're not criminal detainees, either. They're not 'anything,' really. It's this lack of designation which gave the Bush administration the loophole to lock them up indefinitely (the Bush administration even tried to deny them the basic human rights granted under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.)

Now, I'm not arguing that the detainees aren't potentially dangerous people - terrorists committed to causing terror and destruction across the free world. I'm just arguing that America - the 'land of the free' - has a responsibility to set an example to the rest of the world in how we deal with people in our power.

If the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are dangerous terrorists - people who have committed atrocities already and threaten to commit more if they're released - then we should continue to lock them up to protect America and the rest of the world.

However, we first need to establish by fact of law that these prisoners committed the crimes for which they were detained. Secondly, and more importantly, we need to establish that they pose a continued threat to world peace.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if these facts are established in a court of law or a military tribunal - but they do need to be established and it does need to done in a transparent, accountable environment.

It's not even that difficult. A detainee stands trial for throwing a hand grenade at an American soldier in Afghanistan? That soldier's testimony is enough to convice me he's guilty - and would be lobbing more grenades if given the opportunity again. Sentence him and lock him up.

I'm a reasonable, rational guy. It wouldn't take much to convince me that a detainee is a dangerous terrorist and should remained locked up. However, I still deserve to hear that case made. I don't trust the government enough to blindly hand them authority over other people's lives.

I'm not suggesting that the detainees deserve (or even appreciate) the concept of a 'fair trial' or basic legal rights or protections - but this is America, a country which was established on the ideal of justice for all. We can't claim to be principled people if we turn our back on those principles as soon as it's politically convenient.

The Founding Fathers rebelled against Britain for many reasons, including because King George III suspended their habeus corpus rights during colonial squabbles and denied those accused of smuggling, piracy, treason or sedition fair trials in their homeland (shipping some off to England for trial, or sentencing others without letting them plead their case in front of a jury.)

These rights are an essential, foundational part of what America stands for - and even in the midst of a 'War on Terror,' we need to stick to them.

Is Arlen Specter playing Benedict Arnold?

"There's little honor in betrayal."

Republicans have warned Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter, who defected today to the Democratic party, that he'll discover the truth of that saying soon enough.

But is Specter, a five-term Republican senator, really to blame for his defection? Or was he drummed out of a party that's crawling increasingly towards extremism?

Specter has long been derided by the GOP as a 'RINO' - 'Republican In Name Only.' He's voted with the Democratic party on several key issues - most recently Obama's controversial economic stimulus package. However, his moderate views made him a popular representative who's well liked in his Pennsylvania constituency.

What inspired his decision to defect wasn't an important national issue or political expediency - it was pressure from the GOP. Despite winning five terms in the senate - and being hugely popular amongst voters - Arlen Specter's moderate politics marked him as a maverick within the Republican party itself.

At the end of his current term, they planned to oust Specter from the Republican ticket - running another candidate in the 2010 election.

Most people agree that such a move would be political suicide for Pennsylvania Republicans - but the conservative element within that local party clearly cares more for their own political proclivities than sticking by a successful senator - one who guided them to victory five times over.

In short: The Pa. GOP would rather back a loser that towed the party line, than support a winner they weren't sure they could control.

Arlen's Future

Whatever his motivation for making this decision, Arlen Specter's defection was a very clever chess-move.

In sacrificing his uncertain future with the Republicans, Specter stepped into the welcoming arms of the Obama administration; who've promised him their full support when he runs for the senate in 2010 - as a Democrat.

For Obama, it's a boon. In addition to winning the champion of moderate Pennsylvanian voters, he's also managed to get one step closer to that all important filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the senate - effectively making his presidency politically unstoppable.

And as for Arlen - he's regained the backing of a major political party and gets to be on the side of the 'good guys' (as, thanks to Obama's continued popularity, the Democrats are viewed as.)

Of course, in an ideal world, Arlen would have stayed exactly where he was. The Republican party desperately needs men (and women) like him - people who understand that the future of the party doesn't rest with conservative Christians and blowhards like Gingrich and Limbaugh.

But it was the Republican party who manufactured this debacle - and, as the party continues to tailspin into oblivion, it's the GOP who'll ultimately pay the price for their short sightedness.

Good luck, Specter - the GOP will miss you (even if they don't realize it yet.)

Toxic Assets: Giving Worth to the Worthless

An old maxim: Something's only worth what others are willing to pay for it.

In many respects, that's the simple problem behind our complex economic crisis. Banks have been lending out billions of dollars to American consumers and then 'selling' these loans amongst themselves.

These loans were theoretically valuable - ultimately returning the value of the initial loan and the interest.

Unfortunately, as millions of customers defaulted on their repayments, these 'valuable' resold loans suddenly become effectively worthless.

What we're left with are banks with billions of dollars of 'toxic assets' that aren't actually assets at all. In previous years, they would have been able to loan out additional money using those securities as capital. Unfortunately, that capital doesn't now (if it ever did) exist, so the banks simply don't have the 'real' money to keep on lending. Hence our credit 'crunch.'

Tim Geithner, the head of Obama's treasury, believes that he can fix this credit crisis by getting the 'bad loans' off the bank's balance books. What he proposes is essentially having the taxpayer buy the dodgy securities.

The problem with that plan?

Why should we, the American taxpayer, be left paying top dollar for something that's essentially worthless? Currently, none of the banks are willing to 'man up' and write down these assets at their true value. If they did, those banks might be wiped out - much of their perceived 'capital' comes from ownership of now valueless securities.

So if the taxpayer is forced to buy these 'toxic assets,' we'll find them resembling stereos bought from the Blackbush market. After we've paid your money and got them home, we'll find those fancy, brand-name boxes actually contain nothing but bricks and old newspaper.

Who's to blame and who's going to fix it?

The banks got themselves into this mess, by lending out money to people they should have known would never be able to repay it.

The securities companies were equally guilty by buying these 'assets' - simply assuming that they'd be worth what they were sold at.

The collapse of the economy just exacerbated the situation, as millions of formerly solid mortgage 'assets' have now joined the 'toxic assets', sent 'underwater' as mortgage payers are left owing tens of thousands more than their houses are actually worth.

If Geithner goes through with his scheme and pours real capital into the system, the banks will quite literally be 'bailed out'. They'll receive something for nothing - getting 'real' money for worthless assets. Considering it was their greed and mismanagement that got them into this fix in the first place, is that right? Is that fair? (Do we have any choice in the matter?)

Money for Nothing

As for those 'toxic assets' themselves - if Geithner has his way, they'll belong to the American government - or, more accurately, the taxpayer (i.e. us.)

Some of these loans might still be repaid, meaning the taxpayer will ultimately benefit from their 'investment.' Many, however (something the banks are aware of, which is why none of them are lending any money off the back of them) will inevitably be written off - the taxpayer's billions will have bought nothing when (not if) that happens.

Wherefore art thou, millions?

At first appearance, it might look like billions upon billions of dollars have simply vanished from the system. The truth is that none of them existed in the first place. As the housing bubble grew, inflated by the Democratic mismanagement of Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae, people bought, sold and wagered billions of dollars not on cold, hard cash itself, but on the 'potential' value of risky loans.

Much like a stock is worthless until the moment it's sold, none of these assets were ever actually worth anything until they got repaid - which they didn't.

Therefore, the economic crisis isn't about billions of dollars disappearing - it's more like the story of 'The Emperor's New Clothes.' The crisis came about when somebody whisked away the 'magic screen' and revealed that we'd been growing rich on monopoly money for the past decade.

Which is where what I said earlier becomes so ominous: Something's only worth what others are willing to pay for it.

Nothing for Money

If Tim Geithner spends the taxpayer's billions buying these worthless 'toxic assets' at their 'perceived' value, he gives them value - making real a financial fantasy that never existed in the first place.

He'll be pouring billions into the financial system that simply don't belong there. That 'value' we claim to have lost never existed in the first place. We were only ever playing with monopoly money - fortunes were being made and lost off the back of 'Disney dollars,' not real cash.

Obama's got plenty of sound financial strategy in his 'fix' for the economy, but buying these toxic assets is the worst (even if it is the only) strategy available. It's smoke and mirrors, that will simply save the same financial institutions that got us into this mess in the first place (and doubtless will again.)

What America REALLY needs to do is buckle down and bide by the words of Shakespeare. In Hamlet, Polonius warns: "Neither a borrower, nor a lender be."

From President Bush to President Obama, from the biggest corporations to each of us humble citizens, it's that advice we should listen to. When things are bought on the promise of decades of debt, we don't own them. They own us.

Obama Press Conference

Last night President Obama gave a press conference - which I watched because I'll do anything to get 'American Idol' off the air!

Overall, it was as slick as everything we've come to expect from the Obama administration - although it was fairly obvious when he was improvising answers and when he was just reading off his teleprompter.

Some of the most telling moments - when you can see how confident Obama really is - came between the questions and answers, when he bantered blithely with the journalists. He's a smooth guy, that Barack!

I gathered two things from Obama's conference:

First off, I can see both the cynical and practical aspects of his upcoming budget and its trillion dollar spending plan.

Obama justified this spending by highlighting how fragile America's infrastructure is - and he's absolutely right. I've mentioned in this blog before how America seems completely jerry-rigged to me.

The problem with a traditionally capitalist society like ours is that private industry doesn't want to spend their profits developing infrastructure. This means things like the electricity grid are hopelessly primitive (explaining why a fallen branch knocked out the electricity of the entire Eastern Seaboard in 2003.)

I'm no fan of socialism, but I do identify that this lack of infrastructure development is always going to be the Achilles heel of privatized industry.

Just compare the railway networks of France and Britain. The French one is subsidized to the tune of millions of Euros - but is the envy of the world. The British rail network, on the other hand, is a crumbling joke.

Likewise, America's roads, bridges, public buildings and networks have been left to crumble for decades. 'They'll do,' is the motto - and they will, until events like the bridge collapse in Minneapolis highlight the fact that they should have been fixed years ago.

So Obama's trillion dollar spending package will benefit all of America, no matter how unpopular it is. Obama was absolutely correct when he said that America needed to invest in industry, education, science and technology - otherwise India and China would eclipse us in a few years.

What was slightly less salubrious was the timeline of Obama's deficit slashing. He has boasted that he'll halve America's deficit in the next four years. His current budget suggests he'll do just that (in time for election season.)

However, five, six and seven years from now, the deficit is forecast to grow again (as Obama doesn't have a reelection to worry about.)

It was a cynical little ploy by the administration and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in 2012. However, that's still mitigated by the fact (which Obama incessantly reminded us of) that his administration inherited America's current deficit disaster. Whatever progress he makes reducing that nightmare would presumably be more effective than the Republican's spendhappy-silliness that created it.

The only big question mark over the whole thing were these carbon offset trade caps.

These seem a bit woolly to me. It's difficult to remain competitive in the world economy when you're tying your hands behind your back with trade caps. Added to that, I'm not sure the science (or politics) of this tactic really make sense to me. I think these trade caps are difficult to justify given the fact that India and China are both churning out pollution at a prodigious rate (which is propelling their unprecedented profitability.)

I will have to do more research.

All in all, however, Obama gave a convincing conference that still leaves me confident about his ability to govern the country during this difficult time. As he told the journalists, his focus is 'fixing the economy.' That's something we should all hope he's successful at.

How much is a trillion dollars?

Big shout out to CK for this one, as I gratuitously stole it from his blog. But I found it fascinating.

I, like many other people in America, am in a kind of daze about all this money being redirected towards 'bailing out' America.

To me, $1,000 is a lot of money. However, when they start talking about hundreds of billions, we leave the territory of the tangible and enter the realm of the ridiculous. What is a billion dollars to the likes of me? Monopoly money (unfortunately, that's closer to the truth than I'd like.)

CK linked to a graphic illustration of how much a trillion dollars ACTUALLY is. It's very thought provoking. It makes me slightly more alarmed about the fact that America's soon going to be $11 trillion dollars in debt. That's just...

It's just silly money. No wonder nobody can take it seriously. The whole country's shell-shocked and when people are thinking in billions, what's one or two more either way? It's not our money (although it actually is.)

We start off with a single $100 bill - a 'Benjamin' as they're commonly known.


One hundred, hundred-dollar bills makes a stack about half an inch thick and is worth about $10,000. That's serious walkin' around money as far as I'm concerned.



One hundred stacks of $10,000 would equal a million dollars - which would (as you'll know from Hollywood) fit neatly into a briefcase. Consider; that small pile of cash is enough to buy a luxury house, or live off comfortably for a decade.


$100 million dollars is a serious chunk o' change. You'd need a fork-lift to cart this about.


...and a billion dollars looks like something like this. Remember, Obama's bailout bill was in excess of 700 billion dollars. That's nearly a trillion dollars.


...which looks something like this, if you're wondering.

That's how much (at a minimum) we're currently spending to bail America out of it's self-inflicted bankruptcy. That's a thousand, thousand million dollars.


If we had to pay America's bills in cash, perhaps it would make us all think a little more about what we're doing (or, at least, give union fork-lift drivers a serious boost!)

Dreams from my Father by Barack Obama

In the lead-up to the election, the conservative opponents of Barack Obama threw countless questions at him - questions regarding his birth, his upbringing, his religion and his relationships.

They demanded answers to these questions, seemingly unaware that these answers were already sitting on a shelf in their local Barnes and Noble - in the form of Barack Obama's first book, Dreams from my Father.

Written in 1995, when Obama had just been elected president of the Harvard Law Review (and his political career wasn't even conceived of) Dreams from my Father is a spectacularly candid biography that earnestly and honestly examines many of the perceived 'issues' people had with the idea of electing Obama.

The book is an education - an education all those political pundits should have availed themselves of.

Dreams from my Father is practically unique in the history of American politics. Sure, plenty of presidential candidates had written books. No less than 16 of the candidates in the 2008 Republican and Democratic primaries had political manifestos on the bookshelves of Borders and Amazon.

However, Dreams from my Father was written before Obama considered running for senator or president. That makes it uniquely free of snake-oil and slickness.

The Obama we read about in Dreams from my Father is a sharply introspective man, desperate to make sense of the confusing place he finds himself growing up in cross-cultural America.

Born of a black African and a white American, Obama describes being balanced on the knife-edge between black and white American culture.

As Obama grows up, as described in the first part of Dreams from my Father, he gravitates towards the African American community, but feels unable to integrate with them fully because he lacked the experience of growing up as a black American (he was raised by his white mother in Hawaii and Indonesia.)

He's also apprehensive of the more militant blacks he meets, who condemn white culture as the reason for their plight. This is jarring for him, as Obama's white grandparents set a great example of how tolerant and liberal white, mid-Western Americans can be.

The second part of the book explores his move to Chicago. In attempting to make a positive difference to the lives of impoverished blacks, Obama finds it difficult to swallow the liberal assumption that black poverty is reinforced by institutionalized racism.

The reality of the situation - that poverty in the inner city is at least partially perpetuated by the very people it affects - is a realization that Obama certainly didn't feel comfortable discussing with the community he was helping to 'organize.'

As the second section of the book ends, with Obama winning a place at Harvard and giving up his position as community organizer, it's clear he's become frustrated by the fact that the answers he seeks aren't black and white. Much like himself, they're a mixture of the two.

The final section of Dream from my Father is more personal, as Obama travels to his father's birthplace, Kenya, to meet his African family.

Travelling to the 'old country,' he admits that he hoped to find the answers he was seeking by embracing his African heritage. However, like everything else he describes in his book, it's not quite as simple as that.

Despite being welcomed and embraced by his enormous family, Obama's still left as the outsider. While he doesn't feel the alienation of being black in Africa, he's still on the outside, looking in, because in Kenya he's an 'American' rather than a native.

If the message of Dreams from my Father is anything, it's that there are no clear, easy and straightforward answers to anything.

During the years he described in his biography, Obama tried to embrace many different lives in order to find his 'place' in America. Ultimately, all of them came up short. Obama's American experience was not one of being 'black' or 'white' or even 'brown'. He was all of those things, yet simultaneously not 'enough' of any of them.

Even fourteen years ago, when he hadn't had the experience earned in the State or Federal Senate, it was apparent that Barack Obama was a wise, rational man who rejected polarizing ideology or blithe answers that inadequately answered life's more difficult questions.

It's that mentality, so beautifully outlined in Dreams from my Father, that make me even more confident that America's made the right choice in electing him president.

Obama has a beer. America panics.

"The president is the president 24 hours a day. I don't think he should drink on the job."

That's the opinion of Louisiana woman, after seeing pictures of President Obama enjoying a cold one while court side at a basketball game.

"People are losing 5, 10, 20 thousand dollars a day in the stock market," another woman complained, "and he's sitting there drinking a beer!"

Thanks to WWL down in New Orleans for these zingers.

As for Obama and his beer? Good for him, I say. For the last eight years, we've had a teetotal moralist in the White House and look how that turned out.

It just goes to show, however, that people's morality is deeply screwed up. We're in the midst of a global recession, American troops are dying in foriegn deserts and we're chocking the world with greenhouse gases... Yet it's Obama's beer that sparks distress and condemnation.

Just trying to get my head around that makes me want a beer myself.

Is Dissent still Patriotic?

Over on CK's blog, he raised a very interesting question, to which I delivered a needlessly flippant answer. He posted an article entitled Is Dissent Still Patriotic? His question was:

For 8 years many on the left stood by their hate for Bush and his policies because dissent was patriotic. So now when I stand against Obama, I’m still patriotic… right?

Although the quote 'Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism' is often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson, it was actually a phrase coined by left-leaning historian Howard Zinn, during an interview in which he explained his opposition to George W. Bush's 'War on Terror.'

CK's question is a legitimate one. Considering that the concept of 'dissent is patriotic' was coined by liberals, now that President Obama has been elected, does that render 'patriotic dissent' inapplicable? We liberals thought standing up to Bush and his regime was patriotic, but will we now cry 'foul' when the conservatives stand against Obama?

It's a good question - and the answer is 'no.' As long as the opposition is done for the right reasons.

What made our objections to Bush's policies 'patriotic' was that they were protests against unAmerican things Bush did while in office. His actions contradicted the fundamental foundations of American society - meaning that people weren't standing up against Bush, they were standing up against his assault on American values.

If conservatives want to take a stand against Obama, it's their right to do so. If they're protesting actions that conflict with American principles, it's entirely appropriate for them to label that dissent 'patriotic.'

There are already some issues it might be worth discussing further:

• Will the trillion dollar stimulus package help America's economy, or just succeed in shackling us to decades of GDP-shrinking interest payments?
• Now that America has finally elected it's first African-American president, how appropriate is it to use race and affirmative action in a land in which 'all men are created equal.'?
• Proposition 8 and other anti-gay legislation is clearly disgusting, unAmerican trash that violates everything this country is founded on - but how appropriate is it to fight these laws via state and federal courts - essentially 'legislating from the bench?'

At the moment, though, it does seem somewhat unpatriotic to attack Obama's presidency. He hasn't done anything yet to deserve it!

When he launches a costly foreign war, or starts locking up people in a shadowy limbo prison, or taps our phones in violation of the constitution, then we'll talk about 'patriotic dissent.'

But for the moment? President Obama's election is something of an American fairytale.

His story is the quintessential American one - a black kid from a modest background, raised by a single mother, works hard to succeed in life and eventually achieves the highest office in the land through nothing more than hard work, ability and grit.

Obama's election proves that in this wonderful country, anybody can achieve anything they put their mind to. Isn't supporting that ideal what American patriotism is all about?

Geeze - compare his story to that of President Bush Jnr - the spoilt son of an obscenely wealthy family, with a former-president for a Dad. He perpetuated the myth that, in America, the only way to reach the top was to be a rich, white boy from a well-connected family.

Right now, the right wing's just going to have to accept that Obama's in a special position. 'Standing up to him' comes across as petty, childish and just a tiny bit pissy- certainly not 'patriotic.'

The time for 'patriotic dissent' isn't here yet. But it'll come. Already Obama's revealed that he's not as bipartisan as he claimed and many of the Democratic agendas that moderates and Republicans dislike will start to gain ground. Then there'll be real reason for people to 'stand up against' President Obama in the interests of 'patriotic dissent.'

But not yet. Right now, opposing Obama on the grounds of 'patriotism' just undermines the very concept of what 'patriotic dissent' is all about.

Should Obama 'buy American?'

There are many critics of the 'bailout bill' President Obama is promoting, but one aspect in particular is proving to be very controversial.

Obama's 'bailout' consists of tax cuts and public spending. Much of this spending will be in the form of development projects, intended to bulk up America's infrastructure and create jobs by building roads, bridges and other 'public works.'

In an effort to promote American industry, this initiative is tempered by a commandment to 'buy American.' If bridges, roadworks or buildings require steel or other resources, the bill demands that these materials are sourced from the United States itself - inspiring the rest of the world to cry 'protectionism' in protest.

It's an interesting situation. With the federal government pledging to buy American steel, it could give the American steel industry a huge boost - helping secure jobs and profit in an industry that's particularly beleaguered by undercuts from foreign imports.

However, the pledge to 'buy American' means the federal government will be deliberately purchasing more expensive materials, offering less value for taxpayers and shamelessly flouting the 'free market' system that's meant to be at the heart of American society.

The international community is understandably upset. The United States has free trade agreements with dozens of countries, agreeing not to put up tariffs on imported goods even if it puts more pressure on their own domestic industries to remain competitive.

With the American economy often driving the world economy, it's understandable that steel-producing countries hungrily eyed up the boost Obama's spending plans would have made to their own besieged economies and are now disappointed by the news.

That being said, Obama indicated that the purpose of his spending plan was to boost employment and secure jobs in America. Is it so wrong to give an important domestic industry (important enough that the Pittsburgh Steelers were named after that city's steelworkers) a much needed boost during this economic downturn?

Subjectively, I support Obama's decision to promote American industry and encourage the government to spend on American products. I'm reassured that there's a 'safety clause' which liberates any project from using domestic materials if the price of those goods would increase the overall project cost by 25% or more.

Objectively, however, I know that this form of patriotic protectionism never works. Successful business evolves through a form of economic Darwinism. Companies that remain competitive remain in business. If Obama gives a temporary boost to a beleaguered American industry, it will merely postpone their inevitable decline.

I'm just about old enough to remember the end of the coal industry in Great Britain during the 1980s - a tragic period in which a subsidised industry finally accepted that it could no longer afford to support the thousands of employees who relied on it. Do we want to see a repeat of that?

A look at America's experiments with protectionism in the past reveal that government mandated 'buying American' is a self-defeating solution. Despite the apparent logic of boosting the economy by encouraging domestic industry, protectionism almost always winds up hurting the economy, not helping it.

It's also ripe for graft and corruption. If the American steel industry knows it has a captive market, there's nothing to stop the price of American steel elevating overnight. Without foreign competition to drive the prices down, it's a seller's market.

It all ends up with the taxpayer paying more. Considering the ambitious nature of the bailout bill -and how much it will cost us, our children and our children's children to repay - that's not something any politician should allow to happen.

Republicans often tout America's 'free market' system of Capitalism, but the sad truth is that the system already fails to stand up to scrutiny. With powerful unions in many of America's industries, plus subsidies for farmers and tariffs on many imports, the American economic system is already twisted and manipulated by politicians to profit a canny few.

While things like petrol are dirt cheap compared to Europe, other commodities (most obviously milk and cheese) are vastly inflated compared to prices abroad. If Obama pledges to 'buy American,' surely this situation is just going to get worse.

Happy Inaugeration Day!

What could I possibly say that isn't being plastered, far more eloquently, across blogs, newspapers, magazines and television screens across the country?

Today sees George Bush leave the White House for the last time. In his stead comes a man who's already earned his place in American history.


With approval ratings of 79% (even Republicans and conservatives can't help rooting for him) Obama's got a tough gig ahead of him. The promise of change is always easier to deliver than change itself. Expectations for Obama's presidency are huge. Can he possibly live up to what we've all imagined him to be capable of?

It's also time to say goodbye to George Bush. Will he be missed? Not by me. I've never been an 'anti Bush' nut, but you'd have to be an idiot not to recognize his shortcomings.

His legacy will be a bloody war overseas, an economic crisis and a political climate in which conservatives encroached alarmingly on territory normally reserved for rational, sane politicians.

But I've sometimes stood for Bush - most noticeably in the 2004 election. My best friend and Wife disagreed with me fiercely, but I somehow think that today's inauguration of Barack Obama proves that Bush winning the 2004 election was the best thing that could have happened.

Imagine if John Kerry had become president? On a campaign based on nothing more than 'Vote for me, because I'm not Bush.' Mediocrity was not the answer: In some ways, things had to get worse before they could get better.

It took four more years of 'Dubya' to change the political climate sufficiently for last year's elections to take place. What historic elections they were!

For the first time in American history, politics was no longer the playground of rich, white men. We nearly had a female president. We nearly had a female vice president. What we ended up with was even more historic - the first African American president in American history.

If we'd had four years of Kerry, could this have happened?

I don't think so. In many ways, it took four years of Bush to make this possible.

But that's not the only reason to recognize George Bush's presidency. Like it or not, he exhibited some admirable traits. He might have been wrong about many things - abstinence-only sex education and the war in Iraq, for example - but he wasn't afraid to stick to his guns. He believed in things and he'd doggedly defend those beliefs even in the face of overwhelming public opinion.

It was that dogged determination to maintain untenable positions which earned him his dismal approval ratings - but in many ways, I think that characteristic will earn him a more favorable consideration by future generations.

He came across as an arrogant, swaggering idiot at times - but was also a very 'real' President, who wasn't afraid to address his own shortcomings. Despite being born with a silver spoon in his mouth - far more elitist than Obama could ever be considered - Bush somehow represented the working and middle-class of 'middle America.'

He didn't 'talk pretty.' He readily admitted he was a 'c' student at college. He used more malapropisms than Larry the Cable Guy. He was a former drunk, once a cocaine abuser and a convicted drunk-driver - yet he became a 'born again' Christian (which somehow gave him the moral authority to attack the rest of America's shortcomings.)

He came across as a likable guy - the sort of bloke you could go for a pint with. For the leader of the free world - and the rich son of a former president - he sure did seem like 'one of us.'

Tax Hikes you can't blame on Obama

The economy is in deep decline and more and more Americans are scrimping and saving in an attempt to make ends meet. Foreclosures are running high, unemployment is at record levels and there simply isn't enough money to go around.

So what's the government doing about it?

Well, the federal government's already discussing doubling tax on fuel.

Last year, gas prices more than doubled, crippling most lower-income families budgets and contributing to the sudden spike in home foreclosures. As a result of the whopping gas prices, Americans simply stopped driving as much. Americans drove billions of fewer miles and demand for overpriced gas sunk as people simply stopped using their cars.

Which led to a problem. Congress, who stick almost 20c on the price of a gallon of gas, suddenly saw a decline in their tax revenue, brought about by the decline in gas sales. So what do they suggest? Doubling the tax rate (and raising the price of gas across the country.)

Likewise, many local governments are seeing similar declines in their tax revenue due to the recession, so across the board, many of them are thinking of making steep increases to their (already astronomical) property taxes.

It makes no sense at all.

Americans have less money to spend, so the government taxes them more?

The lack of consumer spending is plunging the economy into decline, so the government pinches the pockets of taxpayers even more?

Barack Obama has identified that the only way to get America out of it's current economic crisis is by issuing tax-cuts to get more spending going. However, the $500 a year he is trying to give back to the average working American (through cutting payroll takes by about $80 a month) is instantly cancelled out by different branches of federal and local government increasing the tax burden on these same Americans.

I find it ironic that Americans are being forced to dig deep and make radical changes to their spending habits and lifestyles, just to make ends meet. Instead of doing the same, the sneaky fringes of federal and local government somehow sees the answer to be increasing the pressure on working Americans.

Republicans claimed that Barack Obama was going to raise taxes. This just proves them wrong. The issue isn't with the president (who is advocating major tax cuts) but with the engine of government itself. Whether it's congress or the local township, their governments are bloated, self-serving and corrupt. Both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of frittering away taxpayer's money.

Our president might represent 'Change You Can Believe In,' but it appears the American Government, in all its forms, still doesn't.

On behalf of New Jersey...

...I'd like to apologise for this moron:

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth. Read the full story here.

Apparently this 'defender of the Constitution' is from nearby East Brunswick and also launched appeals against John McCain and Roger Calero being made president. McCain I can understand - he was born in Panama, albeit in US Army base.

Appealing against Roger Calero's right to occupy the White House - which was about as likely as me becoming president - just seems like a waste of time. But as Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J. proved, when you're a complete idiot, you have all the time in the world to waste in frivolous court cases.

As for the 'issue' over Obama's birth certificate... Can disgruntled Conservatives quit flogging that deceased nag now? Honestly... I thought the Democrats whining over the 2000 Florida election results was bad enough. Trying to dislodge Obama from the White House via a very tenuous conspiracy theory about his 'secret birth' in Kenya is, frankly, just pathetic.

In fact, his parents even announced Barack's arrival in the Honolulu Advertiser.