Author: Matthew G. Saroff

Tefillin of Mass Destruction

Click for full size



You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes

Deuteronomy 6:8

So a plane was diverted to Philadelphia on a New York to Kentucky flight because of concerns of the straps and boxes that a Jewish Teen was wearing as he prayed:

Jewish teen’s prayers spark airliner scare
Flight is diverted after religious item is mistaken for a bomb, police say

updated 9:18 a.m. ET, Fri., Jan. 22, 2010

PHILADELPHIA – A Jewish teenager trying to pray on a New York-to-Kentucky flight caused a scare Thursday when he pulled out a set of small boxes containing holy scrolls, leading the captain to divert the flight to Philadelphia, where the commuter plane was greeted by police, bomb-sniffing dogs and federal agents.

The 17-year-old on US Airways Express Flight 3079 was using tefillin, a set of small boxes containing biblical passages that are attached to leather straps, Philadelphia police Lt. Frank Vanore said.

You know, the guy wearing Tefillin is among the people least likely to be an Islamic bomber.

Now This is An Interesting Phenomenon

The Dallas, TX alternate weekly, the Dallas Observer, has the story of a guy with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt from the collapse of the real estate bubble (and short sighted greed, but I repeat myself) who is now earning money by suing debt collectors who contact him and forget to cross their “i”s and dot their “t”s:

………

He [Craig Cunningham of Northeast Dallas ] leans forward to lift some paperwork out of a plastic tub on the coffee table. The phone rings, and he answers with a soft voice. It’s just a friend, and soon he hangs up. He’s waiting for a particular type of phone call—one from a representative of a debt collection agency or a credit card company, whom he’ll try to ensnare like a Venus fly trap. It’s not unlikely that Cunningham’s next call will be from a bill collector, since he’s between jobs—except for being in the Army Reserve—and owes $100,000 in debts.

While most Americans with unpaid bills dread the collector’s call, Cunningham sees them as lucrative opportunities. Many collection and credit card companies, intentionally or not, violate little-known consumer rights laws, and Cunningham’s favorite pastime is catching them doing so and then suing them. In fact, it’s a profitable side job.

Call it ironic, but the only house on the block that appears to be the foreclosed end to some sad financial story is in fact the home of one of the debt collection industry’s emerging and persistent threats. Cunningham calls himself a private attorney general—someone who files private lawsuits in the public interest. Debt collectors call him a credit terrorist.

………

I do not think that he is a terrorist, but I do think that Mr. Cunningham is a slime, not because he’s using the small print to make money from, and avoid debt, that is, after all, the game, but because he went and used things like student loans in his attempts to juice his credit score [go to the full article] in an attempt to become wealthy without really working.

I know that some would argue that becoming wealthy without work or other productive activity is the American way, but it’s slimy, and if it is the American way, then the American way over the past 30 years has become slimy and parasitic.

The way that he gets money is that the the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which forbid debt collectors from violating federal or state laws, and provides for statutory damages for each instance, so if a collector threatens to garnish wages in Texas, where it is illegal, they are liable, even if the caller is in Butte Montana or Bangalore, India.

So, for example, when a collection agency started leaving pre-recorded messages on his mobile, a violation of the, and refused to stop when he asked, while refusing to show that the bill (a tiny Comcast bill), both violations of the TCPA and FDCPA, and the collection agency has

CMI has countersued Cunningham, and even asked the court for a protective order from Cunningham: “Plaintiff Craig Cunningham (herein “Plaintiff”) has filed suit against a business, Credit Management, LP (herein “CMI”), and twenty-seven (27) of its employees in their individual capacities,” reads the motion for a protective order filed in Northern District of Texas in December 2009. “Defendants move for a protective order to protect Defendants from the annoyance, oppression, undue burden and expense of objecting and responding to improper, repetitive and irrelevant discovery requests.”

In December, Cunningham was called in for a six-hour deposition, the longest he’s ever sat through, at which the lawyers printed out pages of his online comments to accuse him of acting like a lawyer. Plus, CMI insists that they didn’t violate any laws and that Cunningham is acting in bad faith. Although the company already offered Cunningham money to settle the case, Cunningham refused, asking for much more than the “industry standard,” as Cunningham calls it, of $3,500.

“If they don’t pay a bunch of money, if they don’t feel pain, they will not change,” he says.

A big win in his case against CMI could go a long way toward clearing Cunningham’s debts—if he ever chose to pay them, that is.

“I took outsize risks, and I got burned,” he says. “When myself and some other fellow small investors were losing their assets, nobody cared.”

Up until now, everything was about making easy money for Cunningham. Now, it’s about justice—or at least what he sees as justice.

He’s right about that point: All those people who scream about how the small print, and the rule of law, matter for the small debtor, seem to think that it’s somehow evil to expect large debtor and their agents.

I see courts being more amenable to claims like Cunningham’s in the future, and that is not a bad thing.

H/t The Big Picture.

US Military 1 – Jesus 0

Click for full size



Picture h/t Dating Jesus

Remember Trijicon, the company that was busy painting targets on the back of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan included references to Christian bible verses on the optical sites (don’t call them sniper scopes) that are being used by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well, while the Army may have downplayed the importance, the Marine Corps, made it clear that these markings would materially effect their current and future contracts, and so the “Scopes for Jesus” company has agreed to stop engraving the bible references, as well as providing tools to remove the references on their existing sights:

Trijicon, the gunsight maker that has imprinted Bible verse numbers on its scopes, has announced that it will no longer imprint the verses on the sides of scopes intended for the U.S. military, and will also provide clients with the kits to remove the Bible verse numbers from existing scopes.

An ABC News report earlier this week revealed that the Michigan-based company, which has a contract to provide up to 800,000 scopes to the U.S. military, prints references to New Testament chapters and verses in code next to the model numbers of its scopes. The scopes are used by the U.S. Marine Corps and Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by U.S. allies in those countries, and for the training of Afghan and Iraqi troops.

There now, that wasn’t so hard, was it.

My original post on this.

Dances With TSA

I’m sitting in Philadelphia waiting for the flight to Boston, and I thought that I would relate my experience with airport security.

It was a surprisingly smooth experience, despite the fact that they pulled my bag for further inspection.

The 7 day yartzheit (memorial candle) is a 3″ x 14″cylinder, so I can see how the X-ray machine operator flagged it for further scrutiny.

Still, the whole process, show my ID (honest, officer, I look better in person) and bording pass, take off shoes, put shoes, keys, etc. in bin, put bin and bag through the X-ray machine, grab my stuff, put on my shoes, open my case, show the candle, let the TSA guy wipe my stuff with a “sniffer”, and repacking my case only took about 15 minutes.

I can’t complain.

Economics Update (For the Week)

Well, it’s “Jobless Thursday”, as Atrios is wont to say, and it ain’t a good Thursday, with initial claims up 36,000 to 482,000 and hitting a 2 month high, the 4-week moving average up 7,000 to 448,250, though continuing claims fell by 18K to 4,599,000.

Additionally, the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank’s business activity index fell from 22.5 to 15.2, which still indicates growth, positive numbers indicate growth, but might show that the stimulus package is running out of steam.

Also, it looks like finances may be catching up with the bank, with Citi reporting a loss for the year on a horrible 3rd quarter, and Bank of America posted a large loss, largely as a result of its eagerness to pay off the TARP so that it could go back to overpaying its incompetent executives, while Morgan Stanley misses its earning estimate, though it still turned a profit.

I had kind of figured that a lot of the obscene profits earlier in the year were the result of rearranging deck chairs, and I think that the 4th quarter results give credence to this view.

Note that these numbers were turning worse even as consumer defaults were falling.

BTW, in the UK, we are seeing journalists running around like chickens with their heads cut off over the recent spike in consumer prices, up to a 2.9% annual rate.

Kind of silly when you think about it.

US inflation seems well in check, with the
Producer Price Index for up 0.2% in December,

In real estate, home builder confidence fell in January, but the Architecture Billings Index was up slightly, though still below 50, indicating further contraction.

The jump in building applications, would seem to indicate improvements in the real estate market, but the FHA is increasing premiums and tightening loan standards, which may deflate the balloon.

The FHA really does not have a choice. Their balance sheet is a complete mess.

I Can’t Believe That I am Saying This

This is Cindy McCain In a Pro-Gay Marriage Ad

But, I offer my support and congratulations to Cindy McCain, yes, that Cindy McCain, John McCain’s wife:

Sen. John McCain’s wife Cindy McCain is the newest face of a pro-gay marriage campaign.

Posing with tape over her mouth and a “NOH8” logo on her face, Cindy McCain was photographed for the NOH8 Campaign, which protests Proposition 8, the California proposition passed in 2008 banning same-sex marriage. The proposition is currently being challenged in federal court.

McCain approached the campaign herself about her participation, the NOH8 Web site says. She has spoken out on behalf of gay rights before, though this is perhaps her most prominent show of support for the issue.

Now that she realizes that John McCain will never be President, she’s doing the right thing.

Better late than never.

(A big of meta: I am not using my “John Sidney McCain III” tag because Cindy is more than just an extension of her husband.)

House of Representatives to Senate: Drop Dead

House Liberals are manning up and have told Nancy Pelosi that they will not vote for the Senate bill. Period, full stop:

In a private meeting in the Capitol just now, a dozen or more House liberals bluntly told Nancy Pelosi that there was no chance that they would vote to pass the Senate bill in its current form — making it all but certain that House Dems won’t opt for this approach, a top House liberal tells me.

“We cannot support the Senate bill — period,” is the message that liberals delivered to the Speaker, Dem Rep Raul Grijalva told me in an interview just now.

Some had hoped Pelosi would push liberals to get in line behind this approach, in hopes of expediting reform, but that didn’t appear to happen in this meeting. Pelosi mostly listened, Grijalva said, adding: “We didn’t get any declarative statement from her.”

You know, coddling Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, etc. and sh%$ing on the liberals, in both the House and the Senate can only take you so far.

Notwithstanding the protestations of beltway boyz wannabees like Steve Benen, Matthew Yglesias, and Kevin Drum, it’s not the liberals who are at risk.

They have a coherent system of beliefs, and they can honestly sell their decisions, as opposed to the Blue Dog and New Dems, who keep saying how we have to protect the insurance companies, and the liberals generally come from safer districts anyway.

One of the things that people forget about 1994 is that it was the Conservadems who got voted out.

Damn

Air America has shut down.

At least Rachael Maddow and Ed Schultz still have day jobs.

It’s not the message, as much as it was that management sucked, at least that how it appeared to me, though I was never in a market for the network.

Full statement after the break:

It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business.

The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America’s business. This past year has seen a “perfect storm” in the media industry generally. National and local advertising revenues have fallen drastically, causing many media companies nationwide to fold or seek bankruptcy protection. From large to small, recent bankruptcies like Citadel Broadcasting and closures like that of the industry’s long-time trade publication Radio and Records have signaled that these are very difficult and rapidly changing times.

Those companies that remain are facing audience fragmentation as a result of new media technologies, are often saddled with crushing debt, and have generally found it difficult to obtain operating or investment capital from traditional sources of funding. In this climate, our painstaking search for new investors has come close several times right up into this week, but ultimately fell short of success.

With radio industry ad revenues down for 10 consecutive quarters, and reportedly off 21% in 2009, signs of improvement have consisted of hoping things will be less bad. And though Internet/new media revenues are projected to grow, our expanding online efforts face the same monetization and profitability challenges in the short term confronting the Web operations of most media companies

When Air America Radio launched in April, 2004 with already-known personalities like Al Franken and then-unknown future stars like Rachel Maddow, it was the only full-time progressive voice in the mainstream broadcast media world. At a critical time in our nation’s history — when dissent on issues such as the Iraq war were often denounced as “un-American” — Air America and its talented team helped millions of Americans remember the importance of compelling discussion about the most pivotal events and decisions of our generation.

Through some 100 radio outlets nationwide, Air America helped build a new sense of purpose and determination among American progressives. With this revival, the progressive movement made major gains in the 2006 mid-term elections and, more recently, in the election of President Barack Obama and a strongly Democratic Congress.

Laws have changed for the better thanks to this revival…..but all the same our company cannot escape the laws of economics. So we intend a rapid, orderly closure over the next few days. All current employees will be paid through today, January 21. A severance package will be offered tomorrow to full-time current employees with more than six months of tenure.

We will strive to assist affiliates and partners in achieving a smooth transition. Starting at 6 pm EST today, we will provide our affiliates, listeners and users a selection of encore programming until 9 pm EST on Monday, January 25, at which time Air America programming will end.

We are proud that Air America’s mission lives on through the words and actions of so many former radio hosts who are active today in progressive causes and media nationwide. In the years ahead, as we look back, we should all be proud of our passionate determination to assure that our nation’s progressive voice would be heard loud and clear. Through the hard work and dedication of current staff, and those who preceded you, a lasting legacy was forged which will now continue through other voices and venues.

Thank you.

Supreme Court Eviscerates Campaign Finance Reform

Basically, the Supreme Court just said that corporations can run any sort of ad that they want:

A divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down decades-old restrictions on corporate campaign spending, reversing two of its precedents and freeing companies to conduct advertising campaigns that explicitly try to sway voters.

The 5-4 majority, invoking the Constitution’s free-speech clause, said the government lacks a legitimate basis to restrict independent campaign expenditures by companies. The ruling went well beyond the circumstances in the case before the justices, a dispute over a documentary film attacking then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

They have just deliberately created a “Wild West” for campaign finance, and they did it because they bought into the myth of Obama small donors (he out-raised from Wall Street fat cats against both Clinton and McCain).

About the only bright spot on this is that Sotomayor has given indications that she opposes she is dubious of the according of “person” status to corporations, which was done by a court clerk in the footnotes (no, I am not joking) in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. (see Sotomayor’s comments here)

There is a decent chance that Obama will get another opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court justice before 2012, and it’s very important to counterbalance the nut-jobs that Bush put in.

Deep Thought

Click for full size


Reminds Me of a Certain Super Bowl Ad

Hillary Clinton has just announced that it’s now official US policy for countries to allow their internet access to be free and uncensored:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled on Thursday a new U.S. policy that encourages the world’s governments to ensure their citizens have open access to the Internet.

The speech comes a little more than a week after Google’s blunt declaration about Chinese censorship and illegal electronic intrusions, and the company’s assertion that it will pull out of China if it can’t reach a reasonable understanding with the Beijing government.

9:54 a.m. EST Clinton took the stage here at the Newseum, a museum dedicated to the news industry, and appealed to the audience to think of the communications networks that have been destroyed in last week’s massive earthquake in Haiti. She also noted how a mother and daughter in Haiti enabled their rescue by sending a text message. Clinton called communication networks a “new nervous system” for the world.

“In many respects, information has never been so free,” Clinton said. She referred to the way that virtually anyone can broadcast information to the Internet at any time. But governments can also use Internet and communications technologies to repress their people, she said, “just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns.”

My first thought was, “Good for her,” and by extension, Barack Obama.

My one, and the the one that falls into the “Deep Thought” category, is that picture really looks like that “1984” ad that an Obamanite put out during the primaries.

Obama Proposes a Return to Glass Steagall

Click for full size



First Photo of Volker and Obama Together in Months

Or something very much like that.

The changes proposed are very significant, or at least they appear to be significant.

Among snap shot of the provisions are:

  • Commercial banks would be prohibited from trading on their own behalf, so called proprietary trading.
  • Commercial banks would, “would no longer be allowed to engage in trading unrelated to their customers’ interests.”
  • Commercial banks would be prohibited from investing in or advising hedge funds or private-equity firms.
  • Extending the current cap of 10% of US federally insured deposits to non-insured assets.

I think that the first thing to note here is that Barack Obama has had this in his back pocket for some time, not because he wanted to do this, but because there might come a time where he needed to, and following the Coakley debacle in Massachusetts, he felt that he had to do this

A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that, “Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street.” A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.

I don’t think that until Tuesday, Obama understood how tremendously pissed off the voters are about the bank bailout, and the bonuses, so chalk one up for my hope that if Coakley lost, Obama would get a clue.

Of course, it still has to go through the banking committees, where the Republicans will be unified against it, and where many of the Blue Dog and New Dem corporatist pukes sit, because it’s a good place to raise money from.

His proposals will only work if Obama kicks ass and takes name in Congress, otherwise, they will remain in committee for a long time, or be watered down to the point on meaninglessness.

*Alas, I cannot claim credit for this bon mot, it was coined by the great Matt Taibbi, in his article on the massive criminal conspiracy investment firm, The Great American Bubble Machine.
Or perhaps leaving a loophole for the Calamari bankers is considered to be a feature, rather than a bug. Summers and Geithner still work for him after all.

Full text of statement after break:

The Obama-Volcker remarks in full:

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL REFORMS TO THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM

THE DIPLOMATIC RECEPTION ROOM, THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
11:39 A.M. EST, THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning, everybody. I just had a very productive meeting with two members of my Economic Recovery Advisory Board: Paul Volcker, who is the former chair of the Federal Reserve Board, and Bill Donaldson, previously the head of the SEC. And I deeply appreciate the counsel of these two leaders and the board, that they’ve offered as we have dealt with a broad array of very difficult economic challenges.

Now over the past two years more than 7 million Americans have lost their jobs in the deepest recession our country has known in generations. Rarely does a day go by that I don’t hear from folks who are hurting. And every day we are working to put our economy back on track and put America back to work.

But even as we dig our way out of this deep hole, it’s important that we not lose sight of what led us into this mess in the first place. This economic crisis began as a financial crisis when banks and financial institutions took huge, reckless risks in pursuit of quick profits and massive bonuses. When the dust settled and this binge of irresponsibility was over, several of the world’s oldest and largest financial institutions had collapsed or were on the verge of doing so. Markets plummeted, credit dried up, and jobs were vanishing by hundreds of thousands each month. We were on the precipice — precipice of a second Great Depression.

And to avoid this calamity, the American people, who were already struggling in their own right, were forced to rescue financial firms facing crisis largely of their own creation. And that rescue, undertaken by the previous administration, was deeply offensive, but it was a necessary thing to do, and it succeeded in stabilizing financial systems and helping to avert that depression.

Since that time, over the past year, my administration has recovered most of what the federal government provided the banks. And last week I proposed a fee to be paid by the largest financial firms in order to recover every last dime.

But that’s not all we have to do. We have to enact common-sense reforms that will protect American taxpayers and the American economy from future crises as well.

For while the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it’s still operating under the same rules that led to its near collapse.

These are rules that allowed firms to act contrary to the interests of customers, to conceal their exposure to debt through complex financial dealings, to benefit from taxpayer-insured deposits while making speculative investments, and to take on risks so vast that they posed threats to the entire system. That’s why we are seeking reforms to protect consumers.

We intend to close loopholes that allowed big financial firms to trade risky financial products, like credit-default swaps and other derivatives, without oversight; to identify system-wide risks that could cause a meltdown; to strengthen capital and liquidity requirements, to make the system more stable, and to ensure that the failure of any large firm does not take the entire economy down with it.

Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail.

Now, limits on the risks major financial firms can take are central to the reforms that I have proposed. They are central to the legislation that has passed the House, under the leadership of Chairman Barney Frank, and that we’re working to pass in the Senate, under the leadership of Chairman Chris Dodd.

As part of these efforts, today, I’m proposing two additional reforms that I believe will strengthen the financial system while preventing future crises.

First, we should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers. In recent years, too many financial firms have put taxpayer money at risk by operating hedge funds and private equity funds and making riskier investments, to reap a quick reward.

And these firms have taken these risks while benefitting from special financial privileges that are reserved only for banks. Our government provides deposit insurance and other safeguards and guarantees to firms that operate banks.

We do so because a stable and reliable banking system promotes sustained growth and because we learned how dangerous the failure of that system can be during the Great Depression. But these privileges were not created to bestow banks operating hedge funds or private equity funds with an unfair advantage.

When banks benefit from the safety net that taxpayers provide, which includes lower-cost capital, it is not appropriate for them to turn around and use that cheap money to trade for profit. And that is especially true when this kind of trading often puts banks in direct conflict with their customers’ interests.

The fact is, these kinds of trading operations can create enormous and costly risks, endangering the entire bank if things go wrong.

We simply cannot accept a system in which hedge funds or private- equity firms inside banks can place huge, risky bets that are subsidized by taxpayers and that could pose a conflict of interest. And we cannot accept a system in which shareholders make money on these operations if a bank wins, but taxpayers foot the bill if a bank loses.

It’s for these reasons that I’m proposing a simple and common- sense reform, which we’re calling the Volcker rule, after this tall guy behind me. Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest or sponsor hedge funds, private-equity funds or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers. If financial firms want to trade for profit, that’s something they’re free to do. Indeed, doing so responsibly is a good thing for the markets and the economy. But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities — funds while running a bank backed by the American people.

In addition, as part of our efforts to protect against future crises, I’m also proposing that we prevent the further consolidation of our financial system. There has long been a deposit cap in place to guard against too much risk being concentrated in a single bank. The same principle should apply to wider forms of funding employed by large financial institutions in today’s economy. The American people will not be served by a financial system that comprises just a few massive firms. That’s not good for consumers; it’s not good for the economy. And through this policy, that is an outcome we will avoid.

And my message to members of Congress of both parties is that we have to get this done. And my message to leaders of the financial industry is to work with us, and not against us, on needed reforms. I welcome constructive input from folks in the financial sector. But what we’ve seen so far in recent weeks is an army of industry lobbyists from Wall Street descending on Capitol Hill to try and block basic and common-sense rules of the road that would protect our economy and the American people.

So if these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have. And my resolve is only strengthened when I see a return to old practices in some of the very firms fighting reform; when I see soaring profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms claiming that they can’t lend more to small businesses, they can’t keep credit- card rates low, they can’t pay a fee to refund taxpayers for the bailout without passing on the cost to shareholders or customers. That’s the claims they’re making.

It’s exactly this kind of irresponsibility that makes clear reform is necessary.

Now, we’ve come through a terrible crisis. The American people have paid a very high price. We simply cannot return to business as usual. That’s why we’re going to ensure that Wall Street pays back the American people for the bailout. That’s why we’re going to rein in the excess and abuse that nearly brought down our financial system. That’s why we’re going to pass these reforms into law.

This Should Scare the Crap Out of You

Josh Marshall got a letter from an anonymous staffer, and while the whole letter is profoundly disturbing, the excerpt that Mr. Marshall put before the break is f%$#ing terrifying:

The worst is that I can’t help but feel like the main emotion people in the caucus are feeling is relief at this turn of events. Now they have a ready excuse for not getting anything done. While I always thought we had the better ideas but the weaker messaging, it feels like somewhere along the line Members internalized a belief that we actually have weaker ideas. They’re afraid to actually implement them and face the judgement of the voters. That’s the scariest dynamic and what makes me think this will all come crashing down around us in November.

This is a recipe for disaster for the Democratic party, and by extension, for the country, because people want politicians to stand for something, even if it’s wrong, and the Republicans waiting in the wings are far less moderate than Bush/Cheney/Rove.

Think about that: Republicans in power who would make us fondly remember the moderation of George W. Bush.

You may change your underwear now.

Best, Satan

A letter to the editor from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

Dear Pat Robertson,

I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I’m all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I’m no welcher.

The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth — glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle.

Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven’t you seen “Crossroads”? Or “Damn Yankees”?

If I had a thing going with Haiti, there’d be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox — that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style.

Nothing against it — I’m just saying: Not how I roll.

You’re doing great work, Pat, and I don’t want to clip your wings — just, come on, you’re making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad.

Keep blaming God. That’s working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.

Best, Satan

(line breaks are mine, the LTE had none)

Josh Marshall is Right, and Was Right in 2004

In the aftermath of the Massachusetts debacle, a lot of people are wondering what the hell happened.

The talking heads inside the Beltway are sure that it’s because Obama is too Librul, of course, but I think that Josh Marshall talked about the core problem in August of 2004.

He was talking about the Bush-Kerry campaign, and he characterized it as follows:

Let’s call it the Republicans’ Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics.

It goes something like this.

………

Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really — a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they’re tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job.

………

One way — perhaps the best way — to demonstrate someone’s lack of toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves — thus the rough slang I used above. And that I think is a big part of what is happening here. Someone who can’t or won’t defend themselves certainly isn’t someone you can depend upon to defend you.

………

Hitting someone and not having them hit back hurts the morale of that person’s supporters, buoys the confidence of your own backers (particularly if many tend toward an authoritarian mindset) and tends to make the person who’s receiving the hits into an object of contempt (even if also possibly also one of sympathy) in the eyes of the uncommitted.

………

Only now, it isn’t the Republicans bitch slapping anyone. It’s the Democrats who bitch slap themselves.

Or as Zaid Jilani’s southern ConservaDem friend says:

And can I say this? F*ck the Democrats. They couldn’t get s%$# done with 60 seats, why the hell would I care if they have 59? F%$# them seriously we deserve to lose Congress this year. And don’t bitch and whine about it either how much has changed since we took over in 2006? Ain’t s%$# as far as I can tell. We capitulated to Bush, then capitulated to Republicans and now are just capitulating to ourselves.

F%$# it dude, I mean Republicans get whatever the f%$# they want with 50 seats and we can’t do f%$# all we deserve to lose

(“%$#” mine, “*” original)

Fundamentally, when we look at what is going on in DC, it looks like no one in the Senate or the White House is even trying to make substantive change. (Pelosi, at least, creates the appearance that she is trying to do something)

What’s more, among the DC Dems, there has been near constant bitch slapping of the Party Base, whether it’s the capitulation on the public option, the labor union insurance surtax, or the constant drum beat of how “the left” hates the Democratic Party because they want to primary DINOs (Democrat In Name Only) who have safe seats.

The central campaign platform of the Republican Party is that government can’t do anything. The Democratic Party seems to try very hard to prove them right.