1 Boring Old Man

Karzai bows to calls for Afghanistan poll runoff
^{President accepts need for second round after fraud inquiry}
guardian.co.uk
by Jon Boone in Kabul, Ewen MacAskill in Washington, and Patrick Wintour
19 October 2009

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, will bow to international pressure today and concede that he did not win a clear ­majority in Afghanistan’s bitterly contested election, and also accept there should be a second round of voting. Senior officials in Kabul said Karzai would resolve the political crisis that has developed over the widespread fraud in the August presidential election, after a frantic round of diplomatic manoeuvring led by John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate foreign affairs committee.

…

The documents published by the ECC showed many of the ballot boxes inspected by officials had voting papers all marked in a uniform way, or voting forms not folded in half, suggesting that they were never posted through the slot at the top of the ballot box. Among the evidence uncovered by the ECC were:

• More than 30 polling stations where 100% of the valid votes went to one candidate.
• A polling station where all the votes showed identical markings, none of the ballots was folded and all 600 votes went to one candidate, but they were recorded as votes for another candidate.
• In almost a third of the sample [92 polling stations], 100% of the papers had uniform markings. Another 69 polling stations recorded 75% of the ballots showing uniform markings.
• In 41 polling stations all of the ballot papers were not folded.

It was on the basis of those discoveries that the ECC ordered the IEC to invalidate percentages of each candidates’ vote, a complex method that has never before been used in an election where it might have a decisive impact. But one UN official said the amount of votes disqualified was only a "subset" of actual level of fraud which would have been discovered had the ECC widened its investigation. "We will never know the full extent of the fraud," the official said.

A senior diplomatic source said Karzai had been talked round by ultimatums from world leaders, including Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, Gordon Brown and Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general who made clear that if he did not back down he would "be working outside the constitution and would no longer be a partner of the west".

About the only thing that has worked is the Operation part. We still have an Operation, sure enough. But the Enduring Freedom piece looks shaky. The voter fraud seems massive – essentially stuffed Ballot Boxes. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the dapper President, Hamid Karzai, was somehow involved in this fraud – maybe behind it. It reminds me of the bizarre regimes we supported in South Viet Nam – Madame Nu comes to mind.

In the waning days of the Bush Administration, we thought of our war in Afghanistan as "the good war." I doubt that there is such a thing as a "good war," but what we were saying was that it was, at least, a "just war" as opposed to our War in Iraq. Certainly, going after al Qaeda was the right thing to do, and fighting the Taliban was likewise sensible for our own National Security. But we’ve been there for eight years, and the result is a "thrown" election. Our presence, money, loss of life, and vigilance hasn’t gone very far in establishing a functional democracy. The same thing is true in Iraq. And we’ve probably witnessed another version of a manipulated democracy nearby in Iran.

We’ve been operating for the last eight years under a philosophy concocted in the first Bush Administration. The premise was that after the fall of the Soviet Union, we were uniquely placed to become the world’s sole superpower. In that role, we would police the world and actively promote our form of government. The Afghanistan story is why that was as bad an idea as it was in South Viet Nam years before.

Churchill was right when he quipped, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." It’s the default choice when a country finally figures out that absolute power corrupts absolutely, no matter how lofty its beginnings. Democracy is simply the best way there is to keep that from happening. The neoconservative notion of Evangelic Democracy was misguided, and impossible to achieve – a utopian musing can be filed alongside the Edsel, flagpole sitting, and New Coke. Countries come to democracy on their own and then struggle with it until the end of time. That’s just how it is. That’s what we’re doing, and it’s hard work.

Calling our military operation in Afghanistan Operation Enduring Freedom struck me as odd from the start. It really should have been Operation go after al Qaeda because they attacked America. Maybe if we had kept our focus on that mission, we wouldn’t be stuck with the impossible situation we find ourselves in today. I’m impressed that our new leaders haven’t fallen for the holy war concept, and are reticent to pursue this war aggressively if there’s no legitimate government to support.

The O’Garbage Factor
Fox News isn’t just bad. It’s un-American
Newsweek
by Jacob Weisberg
Oct 17, 2009

Last week, when White House Communications Director Anita Dunn charged the Fox News Channel with right-wing bias, Fox responded the way it always does. It denied the accusation with a straight face while proceeding to confirm it with its coverage.

… One glance at Fox’s Web site or five minutes’ random viewing of the channel at any hour of the day demonstrates its all-pervasive slant. The lefty documentary Outfoxed spent a lot of time mustering evidence that Fox managers order reporters to take the Republican side. But after 13 years under Roger Ailes, Fox employees skew news right as instinctively as fish swim.

Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent months become more boisterous and demagogic. Fox sponsored as much as it covered the anti-Obama "tea parties" this summer. Its "fact checking" about the president’s health-care proposal is provided by Karl Rove. And weepy Glenn Beck has begun to exhibit a Strangelovean concern about government invading our bloodstream by vaccinating people for swine flu. With this misinformation campaign, Fox stands to become the first network to actively try to kill its viewers.

That Rupert Murdoch may tilt the news rightward more for commercial than ideological reasons is beside the point. What matters is the way that Fox’s model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn’t just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable.

What’s most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he’s doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie…

Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question. Whether we journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations…

I suppose that one might make the case for Fox News based on our tradition of freedom of speech much as one might make a case for a blog. But Weisberg makes a strong point here, albeit sarcastic. He’s correct that the newspapers in Europe are very different than here. Living there, I was awed with how different they were, at least in the UK. There were some real newspapers like the Guardian or the London Times. Then there were the ‘rags.’ There was the BBC News, and then there were others, ‘moving rags’ at best, but I recall nothing like Fox in Europe either.

Weisberg’s point is that Fox News is not independent, it is the media arm of the Republican Party – and that is correct. He’s right that the station’s editorial policy colors how the news is presented. Actually, everything he says is correct, so what does he have in mind that we do about it?

I think it’s more pertinent to ask ourselves why so many Americans voluntarily turn their television sets to a station that is more like Pravda than a news outlet? And why do they turn their televisions to a station that is an editorialized news outlet for a particular political party that represents primarily the interests of the wealthy elite in our country [I doubt that they even watch Fox News]?

Culture Wars: In 1990, paleoconservative commentator Pat Buchanan mounted a campaign for the Republican nomination for President of the United States against incumbent George H. W. Bush in 1992. He received a prime time speech slot at the 1992 Republican National Convention, which is sometimes dubbed the "‘culture war’ speech".

During his speech, he said: "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself." In addition to criticizing "environmental extremists" and "radical feminism," he said public morality was a defining issue

The agenda [Bill] Clinton and [Hillary] Clinton would impose on America — abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat — that’s change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God’s country.

A month later, Buchanan elaborated that this conflict was about power over society’s definition of right and wrong. He named abortion, sexual orientation, and popular culture as major fronts – and mentioned other controversies, including clashes over the Confederate Flag, Christmas and taxpayer-funded art. He also said that the negative attention his talk of a culture war received was itself evidence of America’s polarizationhen Buchanan ran for President in 1996, he promised to fight for the conservative side of the culture war:

I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency of the United States, to the full extent of my power and ability, to defend American traditions and the values of faith, family, and country, from any and all directions. And, together, we will chase the purveyors of sex and violence back beneath the rocks whence they came.

Americans are afraid – scared to death. It’s as if there’s this dark underbelly of bad people lurking out there, and we "Liberals" are promoting it with our programs and permissiveness. That’s what the Republican/Fox set is branding us with. So we‘re going to take away their guns and leave them and their children defenseless against the evil forces [the current genre of Vampire Movies plays on this same theme – the evil ones]. Just watch O’Reilly or Beck tonight. What I’m talking about will be infinitely apparent within minutes.

Top aides to Obama upbraid Wall St.
Bonuses after the bailout ‘A year ago … these institutions were teetering’
Washington Post
By Michael A. Fletcher and Zachary A. Goldfarb
October 19, 2009

Top Obama administration officials sharply criticized Wall Street firms planning to pay big bonuses, pointedly contrasting the soaring profits some financial companies have recorded in recent days with continuing high jobless rates across the country. The firms are benefiting from government efforts, some initiated by the Obama administration, to stabilize and restore confidence to the capital markets after a global financial crisis that began last year. With their fortunes rebounding, the Wall Street firms plan to pay tens of billions of dollars to executives.

"The bonuses are offensive," Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on ABC’s "This Week," adding that banks must do more to support lending across the country and should stop their lobbying efforts aimed at blocking the passage of new financial regulations that are being prepared in Congress. "They ought to think through what they are doing, and they ought to understand that a year ago a lot of these institutions were teetering on the brink, and the United States government and taxpayers came to their defense," Axelrod said. "They have responsibilities, and they ought to meet those responsibilities"…

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel chided Wall Street firms for neglecting their responsibilities "in the short period of time where they have a level of normalcy because of what the government did to help them." "Not only do they come for a bailout . . . they’re now back trying to fight a consumer office and the type of protections that will prevent another type of situation where the economy is taken over the cliff by the actions taken on Wall Street and financial market," he said on CNN’s "State of the Union"…

But one of the most important ways to rebuild the system stronger than before is to rebuild trust stronger than before – and you do not have to wait for a new law to do that. You don’t have to wait to use plain language in your dealings with consumers. You don’t have to wait to put the 2009 bonuses of your senior executives up for a shareholder vote. You don’t have to wait for a law to overhaul your pay system so that folks are rewarded for long-term performance instead of short-term gains. The fact is, many of the firms that are now returning to prosperity owe a debt to the American people. Though they were not the cause of the crisis, American taxpayers through their government took extraordinary action to stabilize the financial industry. They shouldered the burden of the bailout and they are still bearing the burden of the fallout – in lost jobs, lost homes and lost opportunities. It is neither right nor responsible after you’ve recovered with the help of your government to shirk your obligation to the goal of wider recovery, a more stable system, and a more broadly shared prosperity…

I’ve been a bit awed by this business of bonuses. The numbers are staggering to me – millions, many millions. It feels like robbery to me. Become a C.E.O., leave with the worth of a small country. Have a successful business unit, get a seven figure bonus at the end of the year. How did such a system come into being in the first place? Where does the money come from? Why do they keep doing it knowing our reaction? It seems like a sense of entitlement, a greed, that might be appropriate to a Medieval novel or some dark computer game.

You know, I think it’s exactly what it looks like – a sense of entitlement, a greed, that might be appropriate to a Medieval novel or some dark computer game. What it tells us is that the thing I called a finance-ocracy recently really exists. They feel like they deserve this kinds of payment, and they’re not going to stop. It’s in their culture. "Why shouldn’t I get my bonus? The last guy got his." The point isn’t just to stop the bonuses, it’s to reform the culture that feels it can extract that much money from our economy.

Bolton suggests nuclear attack on Iran
Lobelog.com
By Daniel Luban
October 14, 2009

This Friday, the American Enterprise Institute will host an event addressing the question “Should Israel attack Iran?” The event includes, among others, Iran uberhawk Michael Rubin and infamous “torture lawyer” John Yoo, but the real star is likely to be John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador whose right-of-Attila views left him an outcast even within the second Bush administration. [Bolton was eventually forced out when it became clear that he would be unable to win Senate confirmation for the U.N. post.]

If Bolton’s recent rhetoric is any indication, his AEI appearance may accomplish the formidable feat of making Michael Rubin sound like a dove. Discussing Iran during a Tuesday speech at the University of Chicago, Bolton appeared to call for nothing less than an Israeli nuclear first strike against the Islamic Republic. [The speech, sponsored by the University Young Republicans and Chicago Friends of Israel, was titled, apparently without a trace of irony, “Ensuring Peace.”]

“Negotiations have failed, and so too have sanctions,” Bolton said, echoing his previously-stated belief that sanctions will prove ineffectual in changing Tehran’s behavior. “So we’re at a very unhappy point — a very unhappy point — where unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s program, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future”…

American Enterprise Institute
EVENTS: Should Israel Attack Iran?
Law, Policy, and Foundations for the Debate

Date: Friday, October 23, 2009
Time:1:00 PM — 4:00 PM

About This Event:
^{Iran’s nuclear weapons development continues apace, threatening the security of its neighbors and the international community. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, more than 60 percent of the American public believes preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons warrants military action. Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Daniel Ayalon, emphasized on September 21 that Israel has “not taken any option off the table” when it comes to countering the Iranian threat. The same day, Israel’s top general, chief of staff Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, made it clear that he would not rule out a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, repeating that “Israel has the right to defend itself and all options are on the table.” As the debate intensifies over how to respond most effectively to Iran’s provocations, it is timely to explore the strategic and legal parameters of a potential Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic and provide some thorough analysis about implications for the United States.}

^{The speakers in Panel I will consider the international legal aspects of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations. What treaties are relevant? How might Iran retaliate against Israel, the United States, or other countries? Would an Israeli attack violate international law? Or would it be legitimate self-defense? …}

^{The speakers in Panel II will consider strategy and policy. What role will the United States play in supporting its ally Israel? Can military action taken by Israel effectively deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? …}

Agenda

12:45 p.m.	Registration
1:00 p.m.	Panel I: International Law
	Panelists:	Eric Posner, University of Chicago
		John Yoo, AEI
		Edwin D. Williamson, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
	Moderator:	John Yoo, AEI
2:30 p.m.	Panel II: Strategy and Policy
	Panelists:	John R. Bolton, AEI
		Martin Indyk, Brookings Institution
		Michael Rubin, AEI
	Moderator:	Danielle Pletka, AEI
4:00 p.m.	Adjournment

Some things never change.There was a thirties song, Johnny One Note. Well, there are two Johnny One Notes coming to a right-wing think tank near you, soon. I wonder what they’ll conclude with a title like Should Israel Attack Iran? Why would they have such a panel? It would be a lot cheaper to put a sign that says "Yes" on the door, and forget the EVENT altogether instead of saying: "As the debate intensifies over how to respond most effectively to Iran’s provocations, it is timely to explore the strategic and legal parameters of a potential Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic and provide some thorough analysis about implications for the United States." The idea that John Yoo might question the legality of such a bombing is ludicrous. The implication that John Bolton would seriously debate the question is equally spurious. It’s the only thing Bolton knows how to say, since long before Bush made it to the White House [My ongoing theory is that the gawky Mr. Bolton asked an Iranian girl for a date in high school and she said ‘no’]. Attacking Iran is always timely for John Bolton. The same is true for Michael Rubin. He’s just less well known.

This is what happened when George H.W. Bush was beaten by Bill Clinton. These people sat around at the American Enterprise Institute having timely events like this, living in the rarified atmosphere of AEI waiting to have a shot at neoconning the country. Actually, it wasn’t always that way. Back in the 1980’s longtime AEI Fellow Michael Ledeen brokered an Arms Swap with Iran [through Israel] called the Iran-Contra Affair. And before that, somebody brokered the release of the Iranian hostages on the very day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated – unless, of course, that was a colossal coincidence [I’d bet on Michael Ledeen].

Funding

In 2006 AEI reported that its income was $28.4 million. Of this it states on its website that "individual contributions of more than $10 million provided the largest share of the revenue base, followed by $6 million in corporate support, and $4.7 million from foundations."

Corporate donations

While the AEI acknowledges that it received over $6 million in corporate contributions in 2006, the donors are not identified in either its annual report or on its website. However, it is known that during 1997, Philip Morris contributed $100,000 to the Institute During 2007, ExxonMobil contributed $240,000 [including an addition $30,000 for the joint AEI Brookings "Judicial Education Program".][It is worth noting that AEI notes in its 2006 annual report that Lee R. Raymond, the now retired Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation is a member of AEI.

On its website it states that "national and multinational corporations who support AEI maintain close relationships with the Institute’s scholars and regularly receive top-level research and analysis on specific policy interests and priorities. In addition, corporations provide important input to AEI on a wide variety of issues. Corporate involvement with AEI includes special invitations to public and private events; AEI’s full slate of research studies, articles, books and other publications; access to our scholars, fellows, and senior management; and more." It also states that "the Institute does not perform contract research and, with rare exceptions, does not accept government grants."

It also claims that "a diversity of interests can render any individual conflict of interest small or de minimis. AEI has many hundreds of corporate, foundation, and individual donors, none of them accounting for more than a small fraction of the Institute’s budget." It also states that "AEI scholars and fellows are required to disclose in their published work any affiliations they may have with organizations with a direct interest in the subject of that work. AEI discloses the source of project-specific donations to research on subjects in which the donors have a material interest."

Foundation Funding

Media Transparency estimates that between 1985 and 2006, AEI received $44,636,101 [unadjusted for inflation] from the following funding sources:

• Carthage Foundation
• Castle Rock Foundation
• Earhart Foundation
• John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
• Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
• Scaife Foundations [Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage]
• Smith Richardson Foundation

Amounts contributed by the Coors Foundation are not included. Funding has come from many other sources, such as Amoco, the Kraft Foundation, and the Procter & Gamble Fund. AEI, unlike some think tanks, has no endowment – something which has led the organization into financial embarrassment in 1985 when its operating budget outstripped its donations by 25 percent [Newsweek, 1984].

The Race Card, Football and Me
My critics would have you believe no conservative meets NFL ‘standards.’
Wall Street Journal
By RUSH LIMBAUGH
10/17/2009

David Checketts, an investor and owner of sports teams, approached me in late May about investing in the St. Louis Rams football franchise. As a football fan, I was intrigued. I invited him to my home where we discussed it further. Even after informing him that some people might try to make an issue of my participation, Mr. Checketts said he didn’t much care. I accepted his offer…

blah, blah, blah…

There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives that reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson. "Racism" is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don’t share the left’s agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us. It was on display many years ago in an effort to smear Clarence Thomas with racist stereotypes and keep him off the Supreme Court. More recently, it was employed against patriotic citizens who attended town-hall meetings and tea-party protests.

These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society.

The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?

As strange as it seems, I think the answer is "Yes." There are only a few possibilities. One is that he is as hateful as he sounds, but consciously twists what he says to stay out of trouble. In other words, he’s faking it. The second is that he’s only a showman, a flim-flam man that says whatever it takes to keep up his ratings. In that case, he’s only faking it. Finally, there’s the possibility that he is exactly as he appears and believes what he says, he has become what he sees in the mirror.

Rush Limbaugh has an incredible ability to generate reasons that he’s "right" on the fly. He never misses a beat, and he’s alway being persecuted by others. Busted for his Oxycontin Addiction, he was being singled out because he was a celebrity. The players that spoke out were influenced by DeMaurice Smith who is in cahoots with Obama. The NFL is controlled by Liberals. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are hateful racists [and bad apples otherwise]. Sportswriters hate conservatives and that "reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson." Like Clarence Thomas, he’s the victim of something [something unspecified]. This same something was turned on the tea-baggers and is spreading like cancer.

I remember the 1952 election campaign. I was in a new elementary school and we had mock elections – 5th grade. We’d just moved from a very small house to the suburbs, and my father had taken a "real" job. It was like the World War was finally over in a real way, and things were picking up at our house, actually in most Americans’ houses. General Eisenhower had put away his uniform and donned a suit to lead us into the new prosperous age – never mind the Cold War or the Korean War. We had our own car, went to movies, and there was a television we could watch on clear nights when the waves from Atlanta could reach the Tennessee line. Our parents had seen the world plunge into a Depression when they were the same age I was in 1952, and they moved from the Depression into the War years. It was the 1950’s, and things were finally looking up.

I don’t remember FDR. He died when I was three, and the history my mind was recording at the time was the smell of chloroform when I had my tonsils out. But I don’t think kids know that now is part of history. FDR was back there with Ulysses, Vercingetorix, and Andrew Jackson. I guess I knew about the New Deal, but I thought of it like it was a part of the Constitution – a reform of the greed and corruption that had lead us to brink of ruin. I didn’t think of it as something that could go away.

But it was only about thirty years later that we elected Ronald Reagan President, and he started making changes. That was a long time ago now, but even then, I had no real awareness that what Reagan was doing was systematically deconstructing the changes FDR had put in place after the Great Depression to keep it from happening again. He slashed the Income Taxes, mostly the taxes on the rich. He spent a fortune mobilizing our military, even though it was peacetime [or at least the kind of peacetime the Cold War allowed]. The part I was completely clueless about was his beginning the process of deregulation of our Banks and Markets. In the thirty years since he was elected, we got the Old Deal back – made worse by the fact that Reagan and the Bushes that followed him did something new. They ran the national debt into the stratosphere. President Clinton did try to check our overspending and the explosion of the military budget, but unfortunately, he had fallen in love with deregulation too, signing Bills that accounted for some of our worst woes [as in Phil Gramm’s Commodity Futures Modernization Act].

I suppose that if I were a Conservative Republican rich guy, I might have seen the thirty years after Eisenhower was elected as a war to get my place back – the one I thought FDR had taken away from people like me. I don’t really know about that because I’m none of those things – a Conservative, a Republican, or a rich guy. And I feel kind of guilty that in these thirty years since Reagan’s election, I haven’t been sufficiently aware that there was another war going on – one to destroy FDR’s changes in our economic policies – to "loosen things up." I did know that these same people have been at war with things that mattered to me – Civil Rights, the Mental Health Act, social progress – stuff like that. But I was mostly oblivious to the financial things other than the Income Tax cuts.

I sometimes think I’m unfair to Reagan. After all, some of what he was doing needed to be done – he just so way overdid it. Multiplying the damage, the Bushes kept pushing the Reagan "revolution" with none of Reagan’s panache. Bush I even cut Reagan’s cuts. And Clinton didn’t stop it; he just slowed it down. The deregulation seemed to happen quietly in the background, a lot of it shepherded by Phil and Wendy Gramm, sustained by Alan Greenspan – although I’m not sure he knew it. In response to all these changes, something happened we should have all seen – the growth of a finance-ocracy, a class of people connected to large Banks and Financial Institutions that made fortune after fortune "playing with" our economy – financial bubbles, Hedge Funds, CDO’s, Credit Default Swaps – things the rest of us neither understood [nor benefited from]. It has become a ruling class unlike anything that was around in the twenties. They developed a bonus system that incentivized exotic financial practices that hurt us all. They profiteered like the historic Robber Barons along the Danube, the Wreckers of the English Coast, or the Pirates in the Caribbean. Such analogies sound forced, but they are unfortunately all too real. Since 1980, we’ve seen the growth of two groups – the homeless and finance-ocrats…

Of all the obstacles we face, none is more intransigent than the finance-ocracy of Wall Street and their wealthy clientele. As that 5th grader, had I been told the story that our country would be held hostage by Executives being paid billions of dollars in bonuses yearly to sack our economy, I would have thought you were describing some new Errol Flynn Swashbuckler, or maybe a movie made by one of those lefty Hollywood types trying to foment a Communist uprising [General Eisenhower would take care of it.] But looking back as an old guy, we’ve been in an undeclared Class War for thirty years and the government has been involved in it in a big way. I lived the first half of my life under the protections of FDR’s recovery program, and then spent thirty years watching it disappear. Those of us in my class and below [which is almost everybody] are losing the war. Worse than losing as individuals, the country itself is losing because of it. It’s not conserving anything, it’s destroying us.

Record-High Deficit May Dash Big Plans
^{$1.4 Trillion in Red Ink Means Less to Spend On Obama’s Ambitious Jobs, Stimulus Policies}
By Lori Montgomery and Neil Irwin
Washington Post
October 17, 2009

The federal budget deficit soared to a record $1.4 trillion in the fiscal year that ended in September, a chasm of red ink unequaled in the postwar era that threatens to complicate the most ambitious goals of the Obama administration, including plans for fresh spending to create jobs and spur economic recovery.

Still, the figure represents a significant improvement over the darkest deficit projections, which had been as much as $400 billion higher earlier this year, when the economy was wallowing in recession. Since then, the outlook has brightened and a government bailout has successfully stabilized the nation’s troubled financial sector. In a report released Friday, Treasury officials said the government had spent $132 billion less than expected in August, due primarily to a drop in anticipated spending on the banking bailout.

At about 10 percent of the overall economy, the gap between federal spending and tax collections is the largest on record since the end of World War II, and bigger in nominal terms than the past four years of deficits combined. Next year is unlikely to be much better, budget analysts say. And Obama’s current policies would drive the budget gap into the trillion-dollar range for much of the next decade.

As they unveiled the final 2009 figure, administration officials argued that expensive emergency programs – such as the $700 billion bank bailout requested by the Bush administration and the $787 billion economic stimulus package Obama signed during his first days in office – were essential to halting a frightening economic slide earlier this year. The deficit ultimately was lower than expected because those programs worked, they said.

But they tacitly acknowledged that the administration has yet to chart a clear path through the fiscal thicket…

 

As I’ve mentioned before, There was ample reason for a revision of the post-World War II tax structure, but nothing that justified tax cuts of this magnitude putting us into debt at levels now approaching those after World War II. This was not only fiscally irresponsible, it was a betrayal of trust. Even in the face of our dire financial straits, George W. Bush was still trying to make his tax cuts permanent. As he once said…

It’s a gray, almost cold Fall day in the foothills to the Appalachians. It may spare us from yet another downpour, but the wet is in the air. The leaves are turning, but their beauty is masked by the weight of the wet, and the streams are still angry torrents from our nightly soakings. Not the kind that go pitter pat on the tin roof, the ones that sound like a roaring locomotive speeding to make up time. It’s a right day for a fire and a good British mystery novel. The fire’s ablaze, but unfortunately I’ve rsolved all the murders on the shelf. My newest Amazon delivery doesn’t feel right – David Cole’s The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable just seems a little too dark for today’s ambiance.

What’s an old man to do but surf around on the Internet. Rediscovering Andy McKee was fun, but that was yesterday afternoon. I ordered a small erector set for a kid I saw at the clinic where I volunteer. He needs something to help him feel less vulnerable – more permanent [He said "Leggos are fun, but you can knock them over"]. Erector sets have nuts and bolts. Then I wandered by Crooks and Liars and watched a video of Glenn Beck’s show yesterday [Another Glenn Beck weepfest, because Americans need to wake up to the evil Marxist radicals in the White House. Hooboy].

I haven’t actually seen much Glenn Beck. Our TV is on Fox News Restriction, so I never see them live. And I think I probably post every Glenn Beck video I’ve ever seen, because they are so amazing. This one’s based on White House Communication Director, Anita Dunn, speaking to a bunch of kids. She said that two of her favorite something or anothers were Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa [getting a laugh]. Beck takes that ball and runs with it. "How did we get here?" He shows the famous Joe Green "Thanks Kid" commercial. He works himself up into a frenzy with tears flowing down his face. Of course the point is that the White House is full of Communists, and we need to get back to Father Knows Best and Rawhide. I tuned out when he was exhorting parents to keep their kids away from pot and booze, even though it’s hard [if you watch it, let me know how it comes out].

Whatever that is about, it didn’t do much for the gray almost cold Fall day. Beck’s tearful anticommunist rant followed all the Limbaugh stuff. What the heck, I went to Limbaugh’s web site for today’s offering:

There it was – Anita Dunn’s praising Mao. [She gave her talk in May, so it took them a while to find it]. But there’s more, "Documented" – Obama was involved in smearing Rush. You see, "NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith served as counsel to Attorney General Eric Holder and was a member of Barack Obama’s transition team." Ergo "we know that a former Obama official and political ally – who was chosen by the NFLPA specifically for his political clout and connections to the highest rungs of power in government–directly attacked Limbaugh for the radio-talker’s political commentary. Historically politicians have been prone to vindictive and petty behavior, but never in American history has someone had so much power to pummel his political opponents as President Obama. With control over banks, insurance companies, car companies, media [sports media included] and unions [like the NFL players union], Obama tentacles seem to penetrate into nearly every corner of the nation." And further "The subject of race is being used as a sledgehammer to silence opposition to liberalism. It’s a cancer in our country, and it’s growing."

^{Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.}

Fifteen Minutes of Truth Telling is Winning the Day…

1. Big Hollywood: NFL Owners Who Use the N-Word and Wet Their Pants on Stage
2. Jack Cahill, American Thinker: The NFL’s Diversity Problem
3. Ralph Alter, American Thinker: The Search for the Wikipedia Libelist (Updated)
4. NY Post, Hondo: Struggling Hondo Keeps His Eyes on the Prize
5. David Limbaugh: This Isn’t About Rush
6. NPR (Yes, NPR!): NFL Fumbles Limbaugh Bid
7. National Review, Spruiell: On Race, Rush Called It Right
8. Powerline: What’s Divisive?
9. NY Post, Mushnick: Revs. Don’t Always Rush to Judge
10. WSJ, Taranto: Fools Rush In. Can’t They Demonize Limbaugh without Making Stuff Up?
11. NY Times: Limbaugh Discusses Ouster, Saying He Had Been "Cleared"
12. Ethel Fenig, American Thinker: What You Can Do to Protest
13. Joseph Ashby, American Thinker: Limbaugh Targeted by Obama
14. Hugh Hewitt: Roger Goodell and the New McCarthyism
15. Flashback: Soros Wasn’t Cut from MLB/Nats Bidding in 2005
16. Investor’s Business Daily Editorial: Stopping the Rush
17. MoltenThought: Punt the NFL
18. David Horowitz: Why Does the Left Have to Politicize Football?
19. National Review Editorial: Rush Rammed
20. PajamasMedia: Rush Denied NFL Ownership, Five Takeaway Lessons
21. Art Thiel, Seattle PI: NFL’s Booting of Limbaugh a Bad Precedent
22. NFL Fanhouse: Limbaugh Couldn’t Get Over the Humps
23. Tom Knott, Washington Times: Limbaugh Rejection is Simply Hypocrisy
24. Jeremy Trantham: NFL Gives Second Chances, Just Not to Limbaugh
25. Palm Beach Daily News: Rush Limbaugh Discovers All Clubs Not Equal
26. Wall Street Journal Editorial: The NFL Punts to Left-Wing Political Intimidation
27. AP/SI Runs Accurate Story! Limbaugh: Checketts Approached Me About Bid to Purchase Rams
28. Huffington Post Removes Some False Quotes from Jack Huberman Blog
29. CNN’s Rick Sanchez Twitters Retraction (Man Up, Rick. Twitter Doesn’t Count!)