Bill Maher: No Crony Left Behind

Let me just say that Bill Maher has an interesting take on No Child Left Behind at the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/no-crony-left-behind_b_70758.html

I never thought about it but I should have.

Warren Buffett on SIV Super-fund

Are Citigroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, along with the US Treasury’s encouragement, trying to “turn a toad into a price by repackaging it”? An article in the Financial Times says Warren Buffett thinks so.

When Buffett speaks, people (should) listen.

Check Mate to the Court Jester

Today Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are our jesters, the only people seemingly capable to reveal the truth in the court of public opinion when our other watchdogs dare not. However, in last week’s Real Time with Bill Maher, (Episode 112, 19 Oct 2007), Gary Kasparov clearly and succinctly put Maher into “check and mate.”

Kasparov, who is running for the Russian presidency, spoke with a sophistication and clarity which is woefully absent from our own politicians. This was so evident that the conversation with Bill Maher evoked both an element of surprise and high praise from both Maher and his guest, political talk-show host, Chris Matthews.

Today our would-be leaders try to craft a story and crack a joke in an effort to win a popularity contest rather than truly engage in a dialogue around the issues. We have so paralyzed our political process that not only are our administrators afraid to speak truth to power but our hopeful leaders are afraid to speak truth to the people.

I encourage you to watch the episode on YouTube (though it may be best viewed via HBO On Demand) and see how a truly analytical mind can cut through the obfuscations and distractions to see the forces at play.

Is our administration a pawn to its own ideology?

Two looks behind Obama and Clinton

On Tuesday, Oct 16, Charlie Rose hosted two guests in a show I think anyone with an interest in the 2008 election should watch.

The first guest was Samantha Power who is a senior policy advisor to Barack Obama. As Ms. Power spoke, I found myself captivated by the freshness and insight she revealed with her perspective on the topic of American foreign policy. Time and time again during the conversation, I heard myself saying “this is what we are missing today.”

The second guest was Mark Penn who is the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton. This conversation was illuminating for different reasons. Mr. Penn has written a new book called Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes. I was unsure what to expect but Mr. Penn was disarming as he showed an almost Rovian understanding of, well, the “small forces” that are at play. Just as Carl Rove understood how to mobilize key factions to win an election in a closely-divided society, Mr. Penn demonstrates a similar mastery.

For me, this episode encapsulated the essence of these two candidates as I see them. Obama presents a fresh perspective that offers hope for a more successful approach to governing. Clinton represents an uncanny understanding of how the power is harnessed.

Crosby & Nash Play Hardball

“Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, communism is the equal distribution of poverty.“

I’m not sure to whom this quotation should be attributed but it came to mind as I watched Chris Matthew’s interview with David Crosy and Graham Nash on Hardball. However, in this case, I would reframe the quotation to be ”Modern American Democracy (MAD) is the unequal distribution of burden....“ At least that’s how I see it.

As Crosby, Nash and Matthews point out, the burden of this war is being born by a minority, a minority that is unlikely to rise up and demand change. We are not all at risk. We are all not suffering the consequences of this war. Only the small percentage of our population who are in the active military are shoulder this burden along with some unnamed future generation of debtor citizens.

It is as if our government has successfully divided and muted its citizens. A majority, when asked, is against the war but they are not acting on their convictions. We are passive because the threat is not knocking on our door, the cost is not in our blood or coming out of our pockets. Why speak out? Why demand action when somebody else is shouldering the burden.

I do not believe in this war. I do not believe in this administration. This is not the country I studied in my high school government class. Slowly, our population is being divided and either pitted against itself or just marginalized until it is just a whisper. The checks and balances that were put in place to ensure the government was ”of the people, by the people and for the people“ are being dismantled. Our judicial system is politically compromised and Congress is AWOL.

Do we not have an obligation as citizens to ensure we maintain the government our Founding Fathers established? I realize that life is busy, our lives are complicated and we have many demands on our time but can we afford to remain safe in our own cocoons while others die, possibly in vain, for us? Do I deserve their sacrifice if I’m unwilling to shoulder my own my own responsibility to this country; my own ”burden“, so to speak?

I apologize for allowing my personal opinions come through so strongly on this blog, it was not my intention but as I watch Hardball this evening, I was struck at how the current situation has been structured (either intentionally or unintentionally) to remove the motivations for galvanizing an anti-war movement. I watched Crosby and Nash speak and wondered how many of our young Americans can even relate to their message.

We have a mess in Iraq and I don’t think it is going to end well, no matter which way we go. I know I can no longer accept the reasons and explanations given by our current administration and I’m not sure I can really expect much different from the next... unless the people speak with a strong and clear voice.

Where is our national voice?

Counterinsurgency

I’m having trouble typing these days due to some inflammation in my wrist so my recommendations will be short. On Oct 5, 2007 Charlie Rose had David Kilcullen who is described as a Counterinsurgency expert. Kilcullen has apparently advised David Petraeus.

I found this episode interesting and I hope to watch it again to determine what I think about his assessments.

The comments on Charlie Rose’ site are also worth checking out.

Thomas Friedman on Tim Russert (CNBC)

Thomas Friedman was on CNBC’s “Tim Russert“ this weekend, Sept 22, 2007, and this is one of those shows that I’ll have to watch again, at least the second half. The clarity of what he has to say is very compelling and I think we should be listening. He has taken the gloves off his treatment of our president, he is calling for a revolution in our energy policy and he’s got an intriguing view on climate change and the green ”revolution.“

I don’t know if one can find a copy of this episode online or not, the CNBC site seems pretty sparse; however, I think this show may run on CNBC later this week. It’s worth watching.

Immunity for Warrant-less Wiretaps?

I've read three recent articles about the warrant-less wiretaps and this is another case where our system of checks and balances seems to be threatened:

Newsweek ran a story, by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, on MSNBC.com titled: Case Dismissed?
The secret lobbying campaign your phone company doesn't want you to know about 

Glenn Greenwald pretty much repeated the story titled, “Former Clinton officials lobby for amnesty for FISA lawbreaking” on Salon.com.

And the New York Times also ran a related story, by James Risen, titled Warrantless Wiretaps Not Used, Official Says.  Why can't the FISA court be adapted and why is there so much pressure to immunize everybody from any form of judicial oversight and responsibility for past actions?

Since when are we supposed to trust only one branch of our government to protect our interests?

As for the telecom companies, remember, Qwest Communications stood up to the Bush administration’s warrant-less wiretapping when the other communication companies rolled over.

If there is anything I believe in, it's accountability.

Edwards, Clinton and Fundraising

I think campaign finance reform is the bedrock of any fundamental change in the way our government operates. I don’t consider speech and money as equivalent entities but donating money is considered a form of protected speech. What happened to the ideal where the there is a competition of ideas and the best ideas win? Too idealistic?

The John Edwards campaign is taking aim at the Clinton campaign over a fundraiser. You can read about it on several sites but there are couple of blog entries at MSNBC and NYT. I’m not aligned with any candidate yet but this whole issue doesn’t pass the sniff test for me.

Here is a list of some organizations that might help add some perspective:

The Center for Responsive Politics
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Porkbusters
Common Cause

Checks and Imbalances

Here is another story, by the FInancial Times, where it appears politics is getting in the way of our government trying to police itself. I’m probably more sensitive to this because of my dismay over the K-Street Project, the US Attorney’s firings, Alberto Gonzales and the general lack of accountability in Congress and our government in general.

In this case it is “chief internal watchdog” of the state department that seems to be getting in the way.

I want to avoid adding too much commentary in this blog but I think this is another reason why Americans need to demand more clarity and accountability in our government. Our system of checks and balances seems to be crumbling, slowly before us.

The Moral Price of Leaving Iraq

The following was an notable excerpt from Anderson Cooper 360 on Sept 14, 2007. Michael Ware, CNN Correspondent, raised some great questions to consider about our responsibility with regard to Iraq:

GRAPHIC: U.S. opinion of war in Iraq, September 7-9. Favor, 34 percent; oppose, 63 percent.

COOPER: Those were some of poll numbers that greeted General Petraeus as he testified in Washington this week. Support for the war, now in its fifth year, has been declining. And as we learned this week, there are still going to be large numbers of U.S. forces here going into next year's elections.

You're going to hear politicians trying to come up with solutions, though there are no easy solutions at all for what's happening here. The end game, that's what we want to talk about with CNN's Michael Ware, who joins me now here in the Green Zone.

In the United States, some, mostly Democrats, want a date set for withdrawal. They say, those who support that, that it would pressure the al Maliki government, it would pressure the Iraqi military to stand up faster. Would it?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's a dream-like state. Anyone who's telling themselves that is absolutely deluding themselves. Maliki's under no pressure from the presence or not of American forces. I mean...

COOPER: Really? He's not under pressure from American forces?

WARE: No. Whilst America, on the one hand, is propping up his regime, on the other hand, they don't answer to the Americans. They don't feel beholden to the Americans. And they have a ready-made sponsor waiting in the wings to step into the American vacuum, as the Iranian president this week himself said.

So the presence of American troops is meant to serve U.S. interests, Western interests. They're not necessarily the interests of the government that America has created.

COOPER: But the U.S. can pressure them to some degree, no?

WARE: It can and it's trying that. It's failed abysmally until this point. Right now the greatest stick that America has, that it's jabbing this government with, the only thing that's forcing them to even pretend to meet any of the benchmarks on de-Ba'athification or reconciliation is that America is now supporting the Ba'ath insurgency. It's supporting the Sunni tribes, and this is terrifying this government.

This government's trying to block it at every turn. Iran has said that you're going to pay a severe price if you keep doing this, but it's the only thing.

COOPER: You know, there are a lot of folks in the United States who say, look, why should the U.S. troops be here? I mean, why should Americans be losing their lives here when Iraqi politicians are going on vacation and are not even passing, you know, reforms that would work towards reconciliation, which would seem -- I mean, everyone seems to admit that's essential for progress here.

WARE: And that's right. And that's not going to happen. You may get it on the surface. You may get some bells and whistles, but you're not going to get true reconciliation, no matter how much people are working to...

COOPER: Still too much hatred and too much desire for retribution?

WARE: And too much vested interest. I mean, it doesn't suit peoples' agendas to come together in the middle. And there's external players all around this country who don't want to see that happen, and they're having much greater affect here than America is.

COOPER: Those who support the U.S. effort here say that American troops should stay because they're a vital national security interest here. If American troops did pull out in great numbers, withdraw totally, even, say in the next year or so, do we know for sure what would happen? Or is it a roll of the dice?

WARE: No one knows for sure. But one thing that we can count on is the blood will flow. And American foreign policy interests will suffer such a withering blow I'm not sure that they would be able to recover from this region.

America can leave tomorrow, as long as it's ready to pay the price. And let's not forget: everyone wants the American sons and daughters to go home. But this is a dilemma facing liberal America. You can do that, but you're going to have such death and misery on your conscience.

There is a moral imperative here. America chose to invade. America created this environment that's not just hurting the Iraqis but it's hurting American interests. It's fuelling al Qaeda and fuelling Iran. You can walk away from that, but it's not without price.

Bush extends State of Emergency

Why do we need to go into our 7th year of a State of Emergency?

Something doesn’t sound right about this as it is reminiscent of what dictators have done to consolidate power. I always thought states of emergency were meant to give a president short term authority to address a crisis until Congress could convene. Has our government not adapted enough yet to address the threat?

What is the meaning of this and where is the analysis of its purpose and implications? What am I missing here?

Partisan Brain Study

Michael Krasny hosted a topic on his program, “Forum” (produced by KQED), Thursday, Sept 13, 2007 on a “new psychological study [which] appears to show that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives. The program examines the study, which gives new meaning to the terms ‘right brain’ and ‘left-brain.’"

Mr. Krasny’s guests were:
• David M. Amodio, professor of psychology at New York University and author of the study
• Jack Glaser, professor of public policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley
• Jonah Goldberg, editor at large of the National Review Online, columnist at the L.A Times and author of article, "Hard Wired Right"

Interested readers can download an MP3 of this show from the KQED website.

I am a big fan of Krasny’s show and find him to be an exceptionally prepared host who probes issues with a depth that is both refreshing and informative.

Fallon on Petraeus

I was very surprised to hear that there was another “Iraq report” in the works and it was being developed by Petreaus’ superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (Centcom). Why haven’t we heard of that report?

I suppose it might be because Fallon called Petreaus "an ass-kissing little chickenshit". There are multiple reports on this story but I liked the one from the Asia Times though the Washington Post broke it.

What happened to the chain of command?

FT: US suffers decline in prestige

There are those among my circles who have been lamenting the decline of America’s “moral authority and power” but until now I have only had anecdotal evidence to validate this claim. This morning the Financial Times published an article titled “US suffers decline in prestige”. The article is reporting on the 2007 Strategic Survey by the non-partisan International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The article leads off “The US has suffered a significant loss of power and prestige around the world....” It’s a short article and one I think we should all read as we prepare for the 2008 election.

The survey is available only to members or for those who purchase individual copies but the reader can download an executive summary.

NYT: Former Law Advisor Speaks Out on Bush

Time to add another “legal scholar with sterling conservative credentials” to the ranks of Bruce Fein who are expressing their concerns over the expansion of presidential powers during the Bush administration. Jack Goldsmith was a previous head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004. He has published a new book called “Terror Presidency: Law and Judgement Inside the Bush Administration”

The New York Times published a review titled “Former Law Adviser Speaks Out on Bush” in its Arts section on Tuesday, September 11, 2007.

You can find the book at Amazon.com.

Colin Powell on Terrorism

On the Monday, Sept 10, edition of Countdown while talking with “New York Times” columnist Frank Rich, Keith Obermann recited the following quotation of Secretary/General Colin Powell from a recent “GQ” article:
“What is the greatest threat facing us now?  People will say it‘s terrorism.  But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system?  No.  Can they knock down a building?  Yes.  Can they kill somebody?  Yes.  But can they change us?  No.  Only we can change ourselves.  So what is the great threat we are facing?”
What was that other quotation? “All we have to fear is fear itself!”

Unity08

A few weeks back I became aware of a group called Unity08. The agenda of this group is, as I understand it, to elect a hybrid Democratic/Republican ticket to appeal the vast majority of America which is basically centrist or independent.

I really haven’t given this group a lot scrutiny but I think it is worth a look. Is this a viable strategy to end the polarization of our political process? I don’t know but at least someone is taking a new tact. For an interesting view on American’s involved in Unity08, look at the results from their first position poll. I found a few surprises.

Iraq's crisis comparable to Darfur

This morning, in my World News Briefing from the Financial Times, I found the following summary of a news report:

Four years after a US-led invasion that was sold to the public partly on humanitarian grounds, Iraqis are suffering from a man-made catastrophe comparable in scope to the tragedy in Darfur.

I’m not sure what this says about our future strategy in Iraq but it does not reflect well on our handling of the occupation. Hopefully, I’m not getting too political here but three questions came to my mind when I read this:

1. If the people of Iraq have their basic needs provided won’t that help fulfill our mission?
2. What is in the best interest of the Iraq people?
3. What is our moral obligation?

You can read the full article on the Financial Times website.

Presidential Advance Manual

This is a story that shouldn’t be overlooked. When I first heard of it on Keith Obermann’s Countdown, I was surprised and disappointed.

White House Manual Details How to Deal With Protesters

Several news organizations, including the AP, ran a follow-up story titled “Feds Pay $80,000 Over Anti-Bush T-Shirts.” I guess we should ask: What are reasonable restrictions on free speech or is this another case of eroding rights? Read and decide for yourself.

There is some indication that the Clinton administration wasn’t entirely clean in this regard but, from what I’ve been able to discern, it never rose to this level. Last week’s episode of “On the Media” also had a segment on this issue.

It all makes me think of the Clash’s song from Combat Rock titled “Know Your Rights:”

"You have the right to free speech
As long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."

Why everyone should watch the CA housing market

California is a state that draws a lot of attention, both good and bad. It’s massive economy and expensive real estate make it both a notable, though sometimes, outlying factor in national issues. On Saturday, Herb Greenberg wrote his own notable piece in the MarketWatch Weekend Investor section of the Wall Street Journal. The title of this column is Don’t Own a Pricey California Home? You Had Best Still Watch That Market.

The article focuses on the comments of Stephen Levy, Senior Economist at the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy. Levy asserts something that has been worrying me for some time: “There’s a limit to what people can afford.” On the surface, that seems so obvious that it’s not worth stating but for some reason the housing market, the California one in particular, seems to have ignored that fact. However, Levy (and Greenberg) expand on how this translates to the economy as a whole and I think this is well worth reading.

Unless you have a paid membership to WSJ.com, you won’t be able to read the column but I found a reposting of it at the blog “The Future of Real Estate”.

Before this goes sounding like doom and gloom, I spoke with a money manager recently who laid out several important positive factors in our economy:

• Inflation is still low
• Corporate profits are still strong
• Corporations have a lot of cash and clean balance sheets
• Corporations and executive insiders have seen the current situation as an opportunity to purchase their own stock.

It seems obvious that we have shifting and competing forces in our economy and it’s not clear to me which force or forces will become dominant. It’s worth watching, both for our own financial health and also as the 2008 election moves closer.

Who wins/losses over "a la carte" cable?

Over the last several years, we have experienced many changes in our media, from the consolidation of ownership to the rise of YouTube. There is a new proposal under consideration in the FCC regarding unbundling of cable channels that has implications in channel ownership and minority representation. In what seems par for public issues these days, there are accusations that "grass roots" opposition is actually funded by industry interests.

This article in the Financial Times doesn't get to the bottom of the situation but it does add some clarity to the issues and it reveals some of the players.

A la carte has promise but only if the menu offers enough choice.

A Subprime Mess

Well it's hard to miss the news coverage about the subprime problem. I'm not sure if it's a "crisis" yet or not but there have been a couple of good articles lately. The first is an article in the New York Times that looks at Countrywide Financial Corporation and how it was a major player in the run up to where we are today.

The second is a commentary by Lawrence Summers in the Financial Times that presents some "vital questions" we should be asking regarding how we respond to this issue. The title, "This is where Fannie and Freddie step in", gives a hint at where Mr. Summers leans but the questions are educational in themselves.

I posed a question about to my money manager and got the following bit of information:

Pimco bond managers were in here today and noted
$1 trillion in mortgages will be reset in next 24 months,
or 20% of mortgage market, with increases in [the]
200 bp to 300 bp range.

All combined, these give me a healthy respect for the problem.

The Diplomatic Surge

Below is a link to an op-ed contribution to the Sunday, August 19, 2007 edition of the New York Times titled "The War as We Saw It" by BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY.

What is significant about this piece is that these men are still actively serving in the US military and were still deployed in Iraq when they wrote it. This raises some obvious issues about active members of the military making political comments and I think that is an important dialog to have. Irrespective of that point, I believe these men -- with their boots on the ground -- provide important insight and perspective on the situation in Iraq.

Whether you want us to surge on or wind down in Iraq, I think we should consider what these men have to say based on their personal experiences.

Investigating the I-Word

"You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don't mistake the medicine for the disease." -- John Nichols

I recently watched John Nichols (liberal) and Bruce Fein (conservative) present a case on Bill Moyer's Journal why America should impeach both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney to protect our form of governance. Note that this argument has very little to do with the Iraq war and everything to do with the balance of power.

I had shied away from considering impeachment as I thought it was a distraction and unnecessary with an election so close. However, Fein and Nichols present a very compelling argument and I am now reconsidering my position.

Anyone who looks at this as a liberal vs. conservative or Republican vs. Democrat issue is, in my mind, missing the point. The issue is the power that is being vested into the executive and that power is as likely, if not more, to be wielded next term by a Democrat as a Republican. The argument, as I understand it, is that unless Congress acts now to check this power-shift, the precedent will be set. We should not expect the next President to give them back saying "I don't need these powers to do my job."

You can watch the August 10, 2007 episode of Bill Moyer's Journal online on PBS' website and it is also available as a podcast on iTunes. Here's a quick excerpt via youTube.

Fein is part of a conservative group (including Reaganites and NRA board members) fighting the usurpation of power by the executive branch called the American Freedom Agenda. I recommend that readers of this blog take a few minutes to familiarize themselves with their 10-Point American Freedom Agenda.

My hat is off to Bill Moyer's who still shows us how journalism can still investigate and inform.

Thomas Friedman on Charlie Rose

On August 16, 2007 Thomas Friedman, author of The World is Flat, was on Charlie Rose (PBS) and I thought it was an interview worth watching. During the hour-long interview, Rose asks Friedman to comment on three main topics:

1) The paperback edition of The World is Flat and is the outlook optimistic or pessimistic?
2) The Iraq war and whether Friedman wants to apologize for supporting it.
3) Global Warming.

Whatever one thinks of Friedman, I respect his opinion. His outlook about free trade is tempered an understanding to create social structures that facilitate our workforce (e.g. portable pensions). While I don't necessary agree with his position on the Iraq war, he probably has the pro-position most reserving of respect. (NB: I respect his position, I don't support it.) Finally, he understands that for there to be real progress on reducing carbon emissions, the government needs to play a role.

Like him or not, he is one writer/reporter who seems to take the time to scratch beneath the surface.

You can watch and buy the episode on Charlie Rose's website. I certainly think it's worth an hour of my time.

Foreclosure Statistics

There are two issues about the current "sub-prime" mortgage market "crisis", for lack of a better word, that I think are worth investigating separately.

The first is the underlying statistical data. I have heard many numbers passed around and newscasters, reporters and pundits are referring to various data points in what appears to me to be imprecise terms. In my mind, there is one important question about this data: How many of these foreclosures are single-home owners and how many are not and thus likely to be investors (aka speculators)? It seems to me this should be an important distinction to make in terms of policy decisions.

The second issue is how these numbers are affecting the credit markets and how are our financial experts dissecting the data? Are they questioning and vetting the data or is fear ruling the day?

In this light, I think Elizabeth Rhodes of The Seattle Times raises a some important points in her article "Numbers from foreclosure statistics company questioned". I encourage you to read it and share any other articles that might take a more critical look as these numbers people are so easily reciting.

I would like to see more of our news media looking at the underlying numbers before they start citing some of these numbers as fact.

Who's doing the hard work?

A trail of crumbs

This blog is mostly for my friends and associates so I can facilitate awareness of bits of news that we think are noteworthy. I might post links to news reports, interviews or commentary that I have (or someone I know and trust has) found to be worth reading or watching.

The motivation for this is my belief that, generally speaking, the mass media, in their efforts to attract and maintain ratings, have compromised their mission to inform their audiences in other than superficial ways. In various outlets, one can still find pockets of diligent, probing journalism that investigates the deeper layers of a story but these seem to be the exceptional cases. As someone who invests 2-5 hours per day, 4-6 days a week digesting news, I hope that I can help shine a light on items (via this blog) that seem to deserve our attention.

Finally, why did I call this "News Crumbs"? In my mind I had the mental picture of a news story expressed as a forest of information and disinformation. Our news reports and analyses are often colored with spin and imprecise reporting. However, if one listens to enough voices, it is sometimes possible to discern an underlying and valuable thread that may not be immediately obvious. Metaphorically, I thought of a thread like this as a trail of bread crumbs through this forest and thus the name "News Crumbs" was born.

As of this writing, I also intend to make this blog available via FeedBlitz.

C. Scott