“I’M CONFUSED”

Maybe you can help me?

I'm a little confused by some of the news reports. Let me see if I have this straight.....

• If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”
• Grow up in Alaska eating moose meat, you’re a quintessential American story.

• If your name is Barack, you must secretly be a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
• If you name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, aah, how cute.

• If you graduated from Harvard Law School, you are elitist.
• If you were third from the bottom in your class, you're well grounded.

• If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
• If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

• If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
• If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a paragon of virtue and honor.

• If you advocate womens’ choice, you are a murder.
• If you favor the death penalty, pre-emptive attacks, extensive bombings and shrug off hundreds of thousand of civilian casualties as inconsequential, you are a realist.

• If you insist all the Constitution be defended as required by oaths of office, you want to endanger the country.
• If you support spying without warrants, imprisonment without counsel or trial, and that torture is just a word easily redefined, you are a man of honor.

• If you dare to question a policy or ask for less secrecy or accountability, you have committed treason and probably support al Quida.
• If you oppose dissent and are afraid to talk to the press, you are tough.

• If you seek to find out what went wrong in order to correct the problem, you are stuck in the past.
• If you insist that despite what your opponent says about cutting taxes for all except the uber rich he must be lying because his party always raises taxes, then you merely drawing appropriate inferences from what has gone before.

• If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control and warnings about sexual predators, you are eroding the fiber of society.
• If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

• If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
• If your husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

• If you change your mind on how to fund your campaign, you are a foppish Flip-Flopper.
• If you abandon all your previous stated principles from the prior decade in order to solidify your base, you are a pragmatist.

• If you long ago was on a large committee with someone who once advocated bombing to protest war but never actually harmed anyone or did jail time, you nevertheless consort with terrorists who can never ever change.
• If you share the same stage in the last year with someone who advocated assassination or on a radio program with someone who illegally ran guns to terrorists and welcome their endorsement, well . . . people should be forgiven.

• If you make any observation you are black, you’re a militant, black power racist.
• If you remind everyone your opponent is black and allow buttons to be sold at your rallies saying that if a black man is elected we can no longer refer to it as the “White House,” you are merely being fair and pointing out the obvious.

• If you favor getting allies to support positions and seek international accord before invading, you are a wussy.
• If you have a nasty temper and threaten Russia despite having no military resources to back up the empty threat, you are macho.

• If you favor getting out of a war that has lasted longer than any other except the Vietnam one based on a timetable that your allies and the President agree on, you are a surrender monkey.
• If you chose to ignore all your allies including those you placed in power, you are an independent thinker.

• If you pack stadiums both home and abroad, you are a worthless celebrity.
• If you are a female Republican doing so, you are merely interesting.

OK, much clearer now.

(Note: Normally, everything in this blog is my own musing, but thanks are due and a tip of the hat for some of the above bullet points to an anonymous internet item in circulation.)

“PHONY FINANCIALS AND OTHER FOLLIES”

Or, Some Questions to Ask About the Bailout

NEWS FLASH: Republican leaders and their PR department announced the sun rose in the West yesterday. The Main Stream Media, in their daily effort to prove they are not now and never were the slightest bit scientific oriented (since that might be construed as liberal or elitist), promptly publicized the announcement about the sudden new direction the sun has supposedly taken. Republican voters and many independents who depend on letting others do their thinking for them immediately looked West waiting for the sunrise. Textbook publishers revise astronomical charts rather than risk loss of sales.

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and the Democrats are to blame for the economic meltdown we are facing, at least according to the latest Republican press conferences. Perhaps before accepting that at face value, blaming what will ultimately be a multi-trillion dollar debacle solely on the gullible Democrats in Congress, I would recommend voters review some pretty unquestionable history and ask themselves some simple, relatively common sense questions. That way we can find out who to debit and who to credit, or at least who has less credibility.

Start with asking what party was in control of both the House and the Senate over most of the last 30 or so years? What party had the strongest or actual control over most of the period? For instance, wasn’t the latest switch in supposed “control” of the Senate close to a single vote in favor of the Democrats (i.e. little real “control” at all) and wasn’t one of those supposed votes giving Democrats finally control someone who was also a keynote speaker at the Republican convention? In a criminal court case, that would be who had Opportunity?

Meanwhile, who controlled the White House over most of that same period and not only proposed new laws, but controlled submission of both the budgets of the regulatory agencies and appointment power dictating who is hired and fired at regulatory agencies and what their philosophy of enforcement or non-enforcement will be? Have voters read the report out in the past few days regarding the Justice Department in the Bush Administration and see what such appointment power can do? Those are only the first questions. In a criminal court case, that would be who had Means?

During that same period of the last three decades or so, which party had as its platform the free and unrestricted market place, especially in financial and trade matters? Which party had and still has as its platform a goal of small government and massive deregulation? Which party sought the most deregulation and proudly announced each success in doing so? What party appointed all the current federal regulatory commissions and agencies? In a criminal court case, that would be who had Motive?

How many years have they been on the job? Wasn’t seven years long enough to spot something like that? If the party that did the present regulatory agency appointments and gave directional control to such agencies wins the election, isn’t it likely that will continue for additional years? Who will they likely appoint to the federal regulatory commissions and agencies if they are given the chance? In a criminal court case, that would be who had the Last Clear Chance?

Maybe the question should be, how many such debacles can we afford?

Certainly ask, what party do the CEOs and senior officers and directors of most of the financial institutions, public and private, especially those that have had either bailouts given them or sought bankruptcy law protection, belonged to? What party demanded that lobbying agencies hire Republicans as lobbyists? Who is it contemplated that will receive all or almost all the “bailout” funds? How long have they been in their positions? Were any indicted or jailed for fraud? What party did most of them belong to? Who did they give the most campaign contributions to? Democrats or Republicans?

Were they at least on the job while the supposed chicaneries of the bare majority Democrats was going on? Why didn’t they object over the years if that was true about the bare majority Democrats? Did they not see it (in which case they are effectively incompetent and should be replaced)? Or, were they gleefully in favor (in which case they are essentially co-conspirators and should be replaced)? Who pocketed the most profits that was obtained by the supposed chicaneries? If they were pocketing money knowing what was happening, what happened to the concept of Country First? Has that really been applied over the last several years if greed was an easy alternative? What party do you suppose most of the investors, speculators and shareholders of such companies belonged to when the money was flowing in during the go-go days? In a criminal court case, these would be cross examination Weight of Evidence and Credibility questions.

Didn’t they stop to wonder whether the Adam Smith’s Law of Supply and Demand had actually been magically repealed? Why didn’t they speak out or go to the press if debt was being given to homeowners with little means to repay the amounts? For that matter, why didn’t they notice or report debtor banks taking debt with little or doubtful security? Who devised the complicated financing schemes and the bundling that has lead to much of the unfettered disaster? Who was basing their action on an apparent assumption the bubble could not bust and housing prices would always go up? In a criminal court case, that would be more credibility or Veracity questions.

Yet, what party has always declared for public consumption at least it was the supposedly conservative party while simultaneously insisting it is always a good time to lower taxes, especially for the rich, no matter what the economy happens to be doing? In a criminal court case, that would be Admissions Against Interest.

Weren’t there any signs this could happen as a result of such policies? Were they truly that ignorant? Weren’t there some Democrats arguing for more and closer scrutiny? Who shouted them down as ignorant claiming nothing could go wrong? Where there any Republicans arguing for more and closer scrutiny?

What Administration was in power during the similar, albeit smaller scale, destruction of the Savings and Loan Administration? That only cost billions. Wasn’t the tactics back during that crisis, such as inflated appraisals, poorly secured debt, etc. much the same as has been going on now? Didn’t the bill for that implosion get stuck with the taxpayers too? Does the word “Enron” ring any bells?

Weren’t any lessons learned? Doesn’t anyone remember or at least read history and economic textbooks?

What Administration and party took away the power of the bankruptcy court to adjust mortgages of individuals to real market value and interest, but refused to restrict credit agencies in any way, shape or form? What Administration thought that it was a good idea to send manufacturing and jobs overseas?

What Administration proposed the initial “bailout” plan unveiled a few days ago? How long has that Administration been in office? Why didn’t they see this coming so such a bailout would not be needed? If it was not their job, then who?

Did the bailout first proposed by the Republican Administration have a single restriction on the Treasury Secretary’s powers or even freedom from prosecution? Why not? Did the bare majority Democrats draft that proposal?

What industry did the Treasury Secretary come from? Does he strike you as credible when you listen to him and watch his face? What college degrees does he hold? What degrees does the President hold? MBA and business degrees, right? But, somehow it was the bare majority Democrats cleverly conning them all? Do the bare majority Democrats strike you as genius that way?

Where did the $700,000,000,000.00 bailout figure come from? Wasn’t it admitted that was pulled out of the air? Are anyone convinced more won’t be needed? Do anyone have confidence in those in charge in the Administration who will administer whatever bailout plan is approved? Remember when we were told that the billions on the bailout of AIG and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac probably wouldn’t be needed just days before they were bailed out using all the money set aside? Who told us that? Who is now claiming we must act immediately and without question?

Feel free to question the bare majority Democrats. Use “enhanced interrogation techniques” so favored by the White House. Use them on all residing in Congress if you want so long as the same techniques are used on those in the Administration. But, for the moment voters should ask themselves who is trying to divert attention by claiming even asking any questions about the plan specifics will somehow destroy the nation? Who is trying to say we must not look at blame before acting even though finding out the cause might be important to deciding what to do for a cure? Why would they not want us to know such information? Who would benefit the most if there was no inquiry into blame?

Has this Administration proven itself credible on most other warnings and predictions it has made? Come to think of it, has this Administration proven itself credible on any major warning or prediction it has made on any subject?

Why wasn’t anything other than the “nuclear option” of the huge bailout even seriously discussed by the Administration? Has the Administration been persuasive in their evidence? Is it sufficient for such a price tag? Do you feel there has been adequate debate allowed? Even with the cosmetic changes the Democrats and some Republicans have added to the bailout of the subprime lenders, do you believe it affects any systemic changes so this won’t happen again?

So.......voters should ask themselves those questions. Most of them truly are just common sense, gut credibility, elementary math, and basic history questions. They should be asked no matter what their party affiliation is. Voters should think of themselves as a jury. Was it crimes of passion or just greed? In any event, did those in charge honor their oath of office?

Then, voters should ask themselves if it really was just the bare majority Democrats as alluded to by those who want the Republicans to continue as the sole appointers and suppliers of the regulators. If it was not just the bare majority Democrats as the excusers would like us to believe, then in light of all the circumstances does the Republican Party genuinely deserve a kiss and four more years? Like the captain of a ship, shouldn’t there be some consequence to being in charge when the ship runs aground? Unlike the criminal law system, those questioning do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The test is mere preponderance of the evidence.

Criminently (yeah a silly pun)!

Still no doubts? None at all gnawing?

If not, then I guess I am really lucky on the Oregon shore where I will be able now to watch the sun come up over the Ocean.

THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE VIETNAM WAR

TO: Editor of Commentary Section
Oped Page
Oregonian Newspaper
1320 S.W. Broadway
Portland Oregon 97201

Dear Editor:

Your paper printed a lengthy diatribe by ____________ on January 13 that “the liberal media” (not defined, but apparently any journalist who dares disagree with him) was responsible for “losing” the Vietnam War. In selecting that piece for prominent display, did you happen to notice there was not a word either by him or you on whether we should have been there in the first place? That’s surprising given the recent admission the Gulf of Tonkin “Incident” used to justify the massive escalation was entirely fabricated by our leaders at the time.

Even if the Vietnam ruse de guerre had not been a bold faced lie, did you happen to notice there was not a word about whether the government there actually deserved to be propped up? And if it did, did it deserve the profligate expenditure of young American lives, not to mention our treasury and out hard earned credibility at all levels? Even ignoring genuinely debatable issues about South Vietnamese dictatorship and official corruption, didn’t you at least find it interesting that the same Communist government of the North we fought so hard against back then was last year loudly trumpeted by avowed Conservative Bush to award them “favored nation” trading status (the same Bush, by the way, who somehow found a way to avoid going there when he was in uniform)? So much for preserving the “national honor” which Conservatives profess they love when the prospect of new sources for lining their pockets apparently so easily trumps it.

There seemed to be a lot of pride in Mr. ___’s description of how good we were at piling up bodies back then. It’s true. The average grunt, particularly of the field ranks usually did his best which was pretty good despite the risible brass foolishly dictating frontal assault tactics like at Hamburger Hill (my old unit). On the other hand, shouldn’t there have been at least some reflection by Mr. ___ or your paper that a B-52 bomb run from 20,000 feet is not very good at discriminating between armed combatants and unarmed two year olds (not that we were ever very good at telling friend from foe even from across a table). There was not a word, not even an obtuse expression of regret, about the perhaps millions of admittedly dead and maimed, many of which were uninvolved, the “collateral damage” so blithesomely still being dismissed today as irrelevant?

It is conceded that Mr. ___ is probably correct when he claims reporting the actual news, rather than merely parroting whatever the military press releases said, hastened our exit. He is also spot on that the Viet Cong apparatus was essentially eliminated during the Tet defense. Nevertheless, he seems to have forgotten, as you apparently have, that the devastating Tet “surprise” which finally converted the journalists from being Army PR flacks back into genuine reporters was how stunningly massive the Tet attacks were in contrast to what our military had been alleging the Cong was still capable of doing. That was the big “surprise,” not the mere date of the attacks. The reporters might never have stopped trusting the military so completely but for the deceptions and duplicities the military had been playing up to that point. Unfortunately, once credibility has been lost due to exaggeration, it takes a generation to rebuild.

Mr. ___ is entitled to his forgetfulness, even his animosity toward the press in general. My problem is not with him although I disagree with his conclusions. I too share a modicum of that antipathy toward the Oregonian editorial staff or possibly the ownership if it is steering the direction.

I do understand why the Oregonian would want to print traditional right wing opinions like those of Mr. ___, no matter how much they ignore now confirmed history. After all, the word “Liberal” has been so smeared by people like Mr. ___ that your paper has become terrified of a mere label. But, isn’t your job description as journalists to resist such debasing of the English language? More over, isn’t it your ethical responsibility to courageously and, more importantly, accurately report the facts rather allow your readership to be mislead out of fear?

Your printing without comment correcting Mr. ___ rewriting and obfuscation of history sadly perpetuates a number of myths that became popular after that misadventure in Southeast Asia. The dangerous aspect is that because of that institutional memory loss we ended up repeating in Iraq many of the same arrogant ill considered mistakes.

So, stop being so gutless. When you print something, add the corrections. Certainly do so when the preponderance of the evidence is in. Perhaps the Democrats will never grow a backbone to stand up to such misinformation being disseminated by individuals like Mr. ___, but our democracy might not survive unless at least the press does.