Month: October 2009

Andy Pettitte has pitched some stinkers in the playoffs, but he’s generally at his best when the games are big. He has great concentration, which is probably his best asset. But he also never panics. No one is more unflappable with speedy runners on the bases. I always feel confident when Andy takes the mound. But he’s not a dominating pitcher who is going to strike out 10 batters. He’s unlikely to pitch more than seven innings. So, what he’s most likely to do is give the Yankees a chance to win, not win it himself like Cliff Lee and A.J. Burnett did in the first two games.

I haven’t watched Cole Hamels pitch much this year, but it appears he’s trying to be a top-notch big league pitcher using nothing more than a fastball and a change-up. I think that’s insane, and I’m amazed that Hamels has been so successful. The Yankees are definitely susceptible to a good change-up, as Cliff Lee and Pedro Martinez demonstrated in the first two games. But this is a club of very professional hitters. If you don’t give them more to think about than just the speed of the pitch, they’re liable to club you to death.

With the game delayed by rain, I give Pettitte the edge in maintaining his concentration. On the other hand, there is no designated hitter tonight because the game is being played in a National League park. That means Hideki Matsui is on the bench. That makes the middle of the Yankees order a bit anemic. Someone like Cano or Swisher is going to have to make up the difference in these games in Philly.

I expect this game to stay close for a while, but somewhere around the fourth or fifth inning one of the teams is going to put up a crooked number on the scoreboard.

It’s warm, foggy, and damp in Philly. A perfect night for baseball.

Boo!!

Abdullah Abdullah is dropping out of the second run of the Afghan elections, essentially because he has no faith that the count will be accurate. This means that Hamid Karzai will be elected to another five-year term, but it also means that any chance that Karzai’s victory would be seen as legitimate has gone out the window.

I really don’t know what Obama should do about this. But I think it should end any consideration of committing for the long haul to expanding the power of the central government. Karzai’s government is inept, corrupt, illegitimate, and incapable of establishing security throughout the country. The fact that Karzai’s brother is a CIA asset who is part of the opium trade is just a symptom of the larger problem.

Rather than making a commitment to the central government, the Obama administration should look at this problem differently. The rise of the Taliban and Taliban-like groups in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan is a national security and human rights issue for the people of those two countries, and potentially a national security problem for us, as well. A serious strategy would analyze the degree of the threat and the best ways to manage it. We should have learned in the early 1960’s that we couldn’t win the support of the conservative rice farmers of the Mekong Delta from the air. As long as the Viet Cong controlled the ground, those villagers were never going to support some far-off central government that could not protect them. Bombing their villages just made things worse.

So, containing these militants is important. But drying up their support has to be part of a much longer-term effort. In my opinion, we can’t really lead that effort. The Saudis and the Pakistanis could stop supporting and tolerating them, and that would be far more effective than drone attacks. I’d work on that strategy. But we should acknowledge that these remote mountainous regions have never really been effectively governed by anyone. We (along with the Pakistanis and Afghans) can work to prevent them from moving down out of the mountains to launch operations in Kabul and Islamabad, but we can’t do much about their effective control of these remote villages.

I think the real threat to our national security comes from Pakistan and their nuclear weapons. So, rather than get bogged down in who controls what valley, we should think primarily about the stability of Pakistan’s government and the status of their nuclear stockpile. And, we ought to work out a strategy for doing that that uses the least amount of troops and costs the least amount of money.

Since global warming denier Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma is the Ranking Member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, it doesn’t surprise me that Chairman Boxer is getting no Republican support for her Cap & Trade bill. But boycotting the markup? That’s extreme.

Lots of banks that aren’t related to Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs or Bank of America are biting the dust every day. Yesterday, nine more failed and were seized by government regulators:

U.S. authorities seized nine failed banks on Friday, the most in a single day since the financial crisis began and the latest stark sign that substantial parts of the nation’s banking industry are being crippled by bad loans.

The move brought the total number of failed banks in 2009 to 115 — their highest annual level since 1992 — with analysts expecting more to come. Among the lenders seized Friday was Los Angeles-based California National Bank, in what was the fourth-largest U.S. bank failure this year. […]

More lenders are expected to go under this year as the industry tries to get a handle on commercial real estate loans that will continue to worsen, as more strip malls go vacant and residential developments stall.

Banks held about $1.7 trillion in commercial real estate loans at the end of September, according to Federal Reserve data, or about 15 percent of their total assets. But to the extent these loans weaken, small banks are likely to be hit the hardest because larger banks were better diversified.

If anything Obama and the Democrats were too timid in their use of government funds to stimulate the economy. Instead they and the Federal Reserve poured billions into bailing out Wall Street and the “Too Big To Fail” institutions which was fine and dandy for those companies executives, but did little to spark lending to ordinary Americans and small to medium sized businesses, the lifeblood of our economy. As Wall Street resumes its efforts to securitize your life insurance policies and allow investors to gamble on when you live or die, the economy is still burning down all around us. Isn’t it time we stopped the welfare program for the people who created this mess, and use our tax dollars to benefit the rest of America?

BENEATH THE SPIN * ERIC L. WATTREE

Joe Lieberman: To Hell with the American People

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has announced that if the senate includes a public option to healthcare reform he’s prepared to side with the Republicans in a filibuster to prevent the bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, he’s prepared to fight to block the will of the American people.

This is the same Joe Lieberman that Democrats sweat blood and treasure to support in his bid for vice president in the 2000 election; the same Joe Lieberman who signed a pledge with seven Republicans and six other Democrats not to filibuster any of Bush’s judicial nominations in 2005; and the very same Joe Lieberman whose own Connecticut constituents polled 21 to 68% (a 47% margin) in favor of a public option. But he doesn’t care about all of that. All he cares about is protecting his cash cow – the insurance industry.

It should disgust this man to even look at himself in the mirror. But obviously he has more greed than shame. Thus, while a Senator cannot be recalled, the people of Connecticut should add a scarlet letter to his name by passing a resolution renouncing him, apologizing to the American people, and demanding that he resign. And in the meantime, the Democrats should strip him of all seniority and banish him from their caucus, because this man lacks the honor of Benedict Arnold.

Let us take a moment to place Lieberman’s treachery in perspective. Think of healthcare like buying gas. Let’s say we have two gas stations right across the street from one another. At gas station one, RepubliGas, where the average citizen is forced to buy gas, the gas is six dollars a gallon. And not only is the gas high, but we’re forced to pay the cashier before we pump. Then after we pay, if we find that there is no gas in the pump, when we go back to the cashier to get our money back, he simply points to a sign that says, “ALL SALES ARE FINAL. PURCHASE AT YOUR OWN RISK. That would be fine if we had other options, but the problem with that is RepubliGas is the only gas station that we’re allow to buy gas.

Then right across the street is DemoGas. At DemoGas the gas is only two dollars a gallon. And not only that, you’re guaranteed that you get the gas you pay for. But there’s only one problem. DemoGas is only allowed to sell gas to the elderly, federal employees, and members of congress. So President Obama decides that’s not fair. He feels that all of the people should be treated equally, so he writes legislation to that effect. But then, Joe Lieberman and his cohorts in congress, who are being generously paid by RepubliGas, come together and indulge in all manner of political obstructionism to prevent the senate from being allowed to even vote on the matter.

Then even though the American people are shouting that it’s not fair, and complain that they can’t get to work, and their children can’t get to school, these so-called representatives of the people completely ignore them. After all, they’re comfortable in their lives, they’re getting cheap gas, and they’re being paid well by RepubliGas just to maintain the status quo. So in short, they say, “To hell with the American people. Let them eat cake.”

That’s exactly what’s happening with healthcare reform. So this is about more than just healthcare – it’s about a system that has completely broken down. This is about a congress that we’ve spoiled, and allowed to give themselves so many perks and raises that they can no longer identify with the very people they’re suppose to be representing. They’ve become a class within themselves, and have started thinking of themselves as royalty. They’ve become a group that Marie Antoinette would envy, and the very thing that our founding fathers fought hardest against.

Many of these people claim that they’re worried about the cost of healthcare, and they’re concerned about leaving a debt on our children. But they lie. They didn’t give a damn about our children when earlier this year they voted themselves a $93,000 increase in (get this) “petty cash” – each. Then a month later they gave themselves an additional $4,700 raise. And they did all this while their constituents were suffering, losing homes and jobs, and the country was in the midst of the deepest recession since the great depression. But now, they’re willing to move Heaven and Earth to avoid giving the people who elected them affordable healthcare.

So again, this is about much more than just healthcare. This is about maintaining the integrity of the United States as a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” If we let these people get away with thumbing their nose at us after the American people have made it clear that we want robust healthcare reform, we will render ourselves completely meaningless.

During the last century, big business and the American people were a partnership. The business community hired us to manufacture their goods, and paid us a living wage that was sufficient to purchase those things that we manufactured. It was a symbiotic relationship. They paid us well, and guaranteed us jobs for life, which gave us the confidence to borrow from the banks and purchased what they produced. It was perfect.

But now, in this new world economy where big business is selling their goods all over the world, and competing with countries who are paying their workers pennies a day, the American worker is no longer looked upon an asset, but more of a liability. Those same American businesses who once relied on the American worker are now international in scope. So they now look upon the American worker, with our relatively high wages, as an extravagance that they can do without. While they still want to sell us their goods, they no longer want to pay us to produce those goods.

That left small businesses to step in and fill the vacuum left by the large corporations. But the insurance industry, who became comfortable with the deep pockets of the large corporations, refuse to adjust to the new reality. That’s why it’s essential that we have a public option to bring stability to skyrocketing heathcare costs under control. It’s the only way that small businesses, and thus, our economy, can survive.

One of the things that prevent small and medium size businesses from hiring more workers is not the wages, but their inability to satisfy the insatiable greed of the healthcare industry. Walmart, one of the largest corporations in the world, has been struggling with the healthcare issue for years, and has been highly criticized for their refusal to provide affordable healthcare for their employees.

Ceci Connolly pointed out in the Washington Post that “Though proud of what it sees as dramatic progress, Wal-Mart itself warns that in a global market with a weakened economy, it cannot — or will not be able to — accept annual health-care increases of about 8 percent indefinitely.” Thus, if Walmart is having a problem with the cost of healthcare, just imagine what it’s doing to the bottom line of small businesses.

Yet, these fat cat politicians are content to sit back and watch America suffer in order to feather their own nests – and very well. Because the insurance industry is willing to pay these Republicans and Liebercrats huge sums of money to prevent the government from reining in the industry’s greed. And even though these politicians know full well that the greed of the insurance industry is a drag on our economy and costing the American people jobs, lives, and personal hardships, this group of prima donnas have decided to place their own interests before the welfare of the American people.

But a new twist has been added this time. This is the first time that a politician has been as blatant in his treachery as Joe Lieberman. In a very real sense, he has all but literally told 47% of his own constituents to go straight to Hell. And the reason he thinks that he can get away with it is because Bush and Cheney proved for eight solid years that the American people are so disengaged that politicians can get away with anything.

So if the American people ever expect to return to the standard of living that we’ve come to expect, we’re going to have to undo that precedent here and now. It is incumbent upon us to network, and begin to replace every politician that gives any indication that he or she is trying to ignore the will of the people – and we should start that process with the high profile and extremely deserving Joe Lieberman in order to magnify our intent. that will send a strong message to all future politicians, no matter who they are or how charming they seem to be, that in this country, it’s the people who are running things.

On the other hand, the consequences of our failure to act on this matter will be both chilling and unavoidable. The fact is, if we fail to mount a forceful response to the treachery of Joe Lieberman and his cohorts, we will establish a precedent that will ultimately lead to Americans becoming the first new peasants of the new world order.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Religious bigotry: It’s not that I hate everyone who doesn’t look, think, and act like me – it’s just that God does.

Hello again painting fans.

This week we’ll be continuing with the painting of the Sedona butte.

The photo that I will be using is seen directly below.

I’ll be using my usual acrylics on an 8×10 canvas.

When last seen, the painting appeared as it does in the photo directly below.

Since last time I’ve continued to work on the painting.

There are lots of changes this week.  Despite my statement last week, I have once again muted the colors of the butte by applying a very layer of thin white paint.  It now has the hazy washed out look that I had been seeking.  Before that paint was totally dry I actually used my finger to blot and move it around.

I’ve now completed the foreground.  The plants to both the left and right of the path  have been heavily revised.  On the left, things are now a bit more natural.  On the right, I’ve defined the brushy plants closest to the viewer.  A short distance behind them, 4 newly-grown bushes lead the eye toward the center of the painting.  The path itself has been given some character with a bit of white paint.

The posts and rock have been also been revised.  They now have more of a three dimensional appearance.  Finally, the sky to the right rear has been given just a touch of blue paint.  The painting is now finished.

The current and final state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

That’s about it for now. Next week I’ll have a new piece to show you. See you then. As always, feel free to add photos of your own work in the comments section below.

Earlier paintings in this series can be seen here.

Various attempts to reform the financial system are bouncing around the capitol these days.  The reaction of one of Wall Street’s biggest players to them may be as good an indicator as any of how serious they are.

For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

Issues of financial reform and regulation can be intimidating to laymen (this layman anyway) because of its insanely complex nature.  It is easy to imagine the system as a big Jenga tower, and moving one piece might cause the whole thing to come crashing down.  No one wants to be seen as inadvertently – but earnestly! – advocating for a ruinous policy.  Of course, that means the opposite extreme is then in play:  Turning into Hamlet and endlessly agonizing over what to do at the expense of actually doing something.  Not to mention the fact that, not to put too fine a point on it, wide swaths of our leadership has for years now been deliberately advocating ruinous policies both at home and abroad.  That should certainly make those of us in the unwashed masses comfortable with forcefully advocating what seems reasonable based on available data.  It’s not as though we could screw it up any worse.

Still, it would be nice to have a rule of thumb, compass point or guiding principle to go by.  Having been a reasonably close observer of the meltdown and its aftermath, here is one I have come up with:  It is necessary (but not sufficient) that any proposal be strenuously opposed by Goldman Sachs (GS).  In a largely protected industry Goldman appears to be the closest thing to untouchable as we have.  It is in Matt Taibbi’s already-legendary description “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”  It has installed a revolving door between the highest levels of the government and its board room, enjoys privileged lines of communication with the Treasury secretary exceeding even that of our closest allies, was happily positioned as a key competitor died, then days later benefited as a key debtor was drenched in cash (Yves Smith called it a “massive backdoor subsidy to the likes of Goldman”), and as it happens was the second largest contributor to the president in the 2008 election cycle.  More so than any other player in financial services, GS always seems to be nearby when bad things happen.

With that in mind, we can use Goldman’s position as a handy template for evaluating any reforms.  The much heralded limits on executive compensation?  They do not include Goldman.  Therefore they are not real reforms.  It is just so much transparently phony political grandstanding.  The “Too Big Too Fail” bill making its way through the House looks like it will miss GS through a combination of loopholes and inadequacy (and may in fact be an enormous giveaway to the industry).  The Consumer Financial Protection Agency seems to be a mixed bag, but note that the “financial autopsy” amendment was defeated.  What might GS have thought of that?  To get an idea here is the take of George Washington from Washington’s Blog (emphasis in original):

Instead of trying to pass a one-size-fits-all bill prohibiting certain specified conduct, it will force an annual analysis of what financial products are sticking it to the consumer.  Remember, credit default swaps didn’t bring down the economy because they are toxic while all other financial vehicles are pure as the driven snow. CDS brought down the economy because they were the choice du jour of the looters. If we outlaw CDS (which I have argued for in the past), then the looters would create some other instrument for looting.

Considering GS’s plunge into the CDS pool I think it is safe to say a financial autopsy would not be great PR, nor would autopsies for whatever havoc Wall Street’s next adventure in casino capitalism produces.  In other words, it would have been real reform.  The same appears to be the case for Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve.  We know that Stephen Friedman, then-chairman of the New York Federal Reserve’s board of directors and GS board member, was engaged in substantial stock trading right around the time Goldman was converting to a bank holding company regulated by the Fed.  Since it led to his resignation GS probably has skeletons in that closet as well.  Fed chairman Ben Bernanke opposes it too, which may be suggestive.  GS does not appear to have come down firmly against it, but as Paul’s bill goes down to the wire it looks like GS will lobby hard against it.  Which means, real reform.

Despite the somewhat flippant tone, my main point is completely sincere: As Congress looks at various proposals, the opposition of GS may be as accurate a barometer as the average citizen will have for deciding just how substantive the various proposals, bills and amendments really are.  Goldman Sachs is a nearly perfect example of the modern Wall Street ethos, and it has become the inverse of Charles Erwin Wilson’s vision of GM: What’s good for it is bad for America.

Mark Ambinder tries to tell us what the result of the special election in NY-23 will mean before we even know the result. Well, two can play that game. As far as I am concerned, the Democrats have already won. Either their candidate will win a seat that has been held by Republicans for something like a century or they will lose it to a teabagger. That’s a no-lose situation if I’ve ever seen one. The GOP’s candidate will almost definitely come in third. They’ll still try to spin it as a win if the third-party conservative wins the race. RNC Chairman Michael Steele is already singing that song. But electing teabaggers isn’t a good sign for the health of the Republican Party in the northeast or any place else. Being crazy and out of touch is what got the party in all the trouble they’re in. Seeing all the heavyweights of the national party swoop in and gang up on a reasonably moderate candidate for the House is going to scare off a bunch of prospective Yankee Republicans who might have thought of running for office. All the Republicans I knew growing up in New Jersey are just going to shake their heads as they read about that one in the Wall Street Journal on their train ride into the City.

If the Democrat wins, he’ll probably compile one of the most conservative voting records of any northerner in Congress. But he won’t be crazy. And he’ll vote for Speaker Pelosi and make it one seat harder for the GOP to retake the House. So, I don’t really care who wins because, as far as my interests are concerned, I can’t lose.

How’s that for advance spin?

Update [2009-10-31 11:24:57 by BooMan]: Holy shit! They dogged her out of the race.