The Confidence Game

It would seem that a lot of the concerns about the financial markets has to do with confidence. See here, here, and here, for instance.

It would also seem that The Market, as in investors and bankers around the globe, have lost confidence in themselves. They are saying that without government assistance there will be a total credit freeze, as everyone is worried about how many of their bad investments will tank and make their balance sheets so unstable as to render them unable to let go of the reins of any cash they have, much less trust that any loans they make to other banks will be honored, since those banks might have a Titanic loss from those pesky derivatives and high-risk mortgages.

I get it. We get it. Something needs to be done. We need to have our government take some sort of action that will restore confidence in The Market and give banks adequate cash flow breathing room to keep things moving along.

But this is a complicated mess. We don't know how much money needs to be covered. (That $700 billion? It's a wild guess. Seriously. Ask Paulson.) We'd like to do our best to protect any taxpayer dollars that get used - not mention being able to repay the loan we'll have to take out in order to come up with this colossal cash cow. We don't want to reward those clever financiers and investors who got us into this mess. And we can't just fix the credit crunch, as it will be meaningless without addressing other economic problems such as job losses, the inordinate cost of health care, energy dependence, etc.

No small task, indeed. Is this the kind of thing that should be rushed? My version of wisdom say, "no." So, if there's a confidence issue and the underlying problem requires some time, I have a suggestion:

Why don't our leaders make a statement something like this, "We understand that the banking and finance industry has gotten itself into a pickle. A very complicated  pickle. We're going to help. We promise. To do so, we need to look at the problem closely and work on a solutiion that everyone can be comfortable with. That's consensus. That takes more than a week on something as big as this. So, give us 8 weeks. We promise that by then, we'll have and Ambulance bill for you life-threatening emergency. But you have to hang in there with us. It's not fair to ask us to rush this. How long did it take to get into this mess? Years. So, surely, you call all take a few deep breaths and give us a few weeks. Know that, in the end, we've got this covered. Until then, please stay calm. If we can come up with any universally agreed upon measures that we can implement immediately, we will. We'll be transparent about our analysis and any proposals we're considering and we'd love to hear from you, as long as you appreciate the need for calm and patience. Thank you for your cooperation and concern for your fellow citizen as we figure out what's best for everyone and a sustainably healthy economy".

Just Wonderin'

As the Behemoth Bailout was failing in the House of Representatives, I noticed something interesting about the Wall Stree activity. While the voting was happening and it became unclear whether there were going to be enough votes to pass the bill, the Dow Jones plummeted. At one point it was more than 700 points down. Then, as it became absolutely clear that the bill was going to fail, the Dow Jones actually recovered over 200 points.

It has slowly dropped down to a nearly 600 point loss for the day, but why did it rise on the realization that the bill failed?

I am glad that the bill has failed for the moment. I don't think something this profound should be forced through so quickly. If it's really a national emergency our congressional members can give up their recess. I'd like to see a more creative approach to re-igniting our economy and causing money to flow. Sheesh, split those billions of dollars amongst all the taxpayers and watch mortgages, credit cards and student loans get paid off. That would give the banks cash and it would get us out of a debt-laden economy. Also watch  how many people make luxury purchases (I think credit should be withheld until people have spent their cash and demonstrated a flow of income) and start their own or invest in other businesses. We could probably accomplish a lot at a much lower price tag.

Also, I would like to state my appreciation for the fiscal conservatives who are sticking to their ideology of letting the market fend for itself and the liberal populists who don't see why the Average Jane should foot the bill for the Fat Cats. It's always fun when different ideologies intersect in an unexpected way.

Update: While the DOW did finally end 777 points down yesterday, it's back up today by nearly 400 points as of 3pm. The S&P and the NASDAQ are also back up.

Politicking: Why Are Lies Acceptable?

Politics is a hardball game, we all know that. Half the battle in a political campaign is to paint your opponent in the worst possible light. At least, that's what we've come to support as an electorate. Quite often this means stoking fears and inciting hysteria.

What we define as a good politician is someone who knows how to cherry pick partial facts in such a way as to present a damaging image of his opponent. Those facts might be out of context and therefore misrepresentative, but as long as they are facts we say it's fair game. We aren't that interested, apparently, in whether the candidate has demonstrated personal integrity or can articulate a creative philosophy and peaceful vision.

Lately, we've even come to accept third party organizations, who have no accountability, to participate in distorting the policy positions and characters of candidates they don't like. These organizations give their candidate room for plausible deniability ("I had nothing to do with that!") Even when they know that a third party is slandering their opponent, they don't call them out for it. It serves them well to stay silent and let the public hold onto those misperceptions as they enter the voting booth.

What about outright lies? Do we care? If it's a slanderous lie about the candidate we oppose do we think that's acceptable? Are we able to actually take in the data that refutes the lie? Research suggests no. That when presented with solid evidence that our candidate is lying, we defend him even more. Why aren't we interested in integrity?

I ask because both campaigns have been guilty of this. Obama has been misleading about McCain's "...we might be there 100 years...." and McCain repeatedly deceived about Obama's tax plan. Both of these tactics are used to push a fear button in the voter so that she will vote for him in order not see her fears realized with the other guy.

We fall for it every time. Then we act disappointed" when our leaders turn out to lack integrity. So, Bush, who ran as "The CEO" president of America has managed our country into financial ruin. But he failed at every attempt at being a CEO prior to being elected, so what did we expect?

When do we stop being sycophants based on the simplest expressions of fears where we don't really examine this person who would represent us and start having deeper consideration for what we feel would best move us toward peace and a life with dignity?

For me, integrity is a starting point. I can barely consider the person's claimed policy agenda if that person has demonstrated a lack of integrity. Without integrity, you can't trust a person, so what does it matter what he says?

Bill Clinton lost me the moment it became clear that he had cheated on his wife and had treated the women he'd had extramarital affairs with so horribly. Beyond the concern for treatment of women, there is a simple integrity problem. He's not to be trusted. I have the same assessment of John McCain. He started his relationship with Cindy while he was still married to Carol. Carol had been severely injured in a car accident while he was in Vietnam. Apparently, the sense of honor he brought home with him from his POW experience didn't extend to honoring his wife. He and Cindy signed their marriage license before he was even divorced. Not to mention that upon meeting Cindy, he lied to her about his age. One presumes because he thought she wouldn't be interested in an older man. So, his personal style is to lie when he thinks he won't get his desired outcome. Great. Just what we need. If a person can't be truthful to those in his inner circle, those he proclaims to love, when would he consider it problematic to lie?

McCain has admitted to lying. He simply states that he lies for the sake of ambition. There he is on video admitting to lying and stating why. Once you know this about someone how do you trust him on anything? Why would you? Why would you not want to face the facts and re-evaluate your support? Why become more entrenched in your position?

This is something I simply don't understand. Yet, I watch us continually elect and promote known liars. It leaves me feeling hopeless, really.

Debate #1 Observations

I watched last night's presidential debate with a friend. As it was late, my daughter came over in her pj's and we paused (don't you love TIVO!) in the middle to put the children to bed. During that pause she asked what I thought others were getting out of the debate. My response was that if you already like McCain you weren't going to see anything here to change that. If you already like Obama, nothing this evening was going to change that. I wasn't sure what "undecideds" were looking for, but I wondered how McCain's disdainfulness would come across. Also, whether people would feel more sure of Obama's grasp of foreign policy.

Yes, I'm biased at this point. I've picked my candidate, warts and all, and I'm sticking with him. I don't agree with him on everything, but I agree with a lot more than I do with McCain. What draws me to him even more than policies is his underlying philosophy about how to work with people, his ability to think in broader strokes where more things are considered than the one fact in front of your nose, and his willingness to explain what he's thinking. Also, his forthrightness.

McCain was condescending with all of his  "he's naive" and "he doesn't understand". Those rang very hollow as Obama's remarks made it clear he did understand. He simply had a different assessment. More than that, those comments made it sound like he was attacking Obama personally, rather than disagreeing with ideas. We can't have our leading statesman approaching our adversaries that way. The only chance of reaching through to someone and finding ways to seek common ground and peaceful resolution is to respect that their perspective is different even if you fervently disagree with their conclusions or actions. Even if you need to protect yourself from them.

This is what Obama demonstrated last night. Though McCain refused to look him in the eye and attempted to belittle him, Obama did not retaliate with like behavior. Nor did he cower. He was still able to look directly at McCain and say, "You were wrong," without any need to strip him of his dignity. He was able to express his differing philosophy or assessment without making personal characterizations of McCain for holding things differently.

What do I mean by this? Saying, "you were wrong" is an assessment of fact. Saying, "you're were stupid" is a personal characterization. McCain could have said, "I adamantly disagree. I think you have that all wrong," rather than "he is naive" or "he doesn't understand." Experienced and smart people can disagree. Why does McCain need to belittle the person to argue his point?

People underestimate Obama's experience. He was a foreign relations undergraduate major and he's been on the Senate Foreign Relations committee since he was elected. This has been a lifelong interest and he's well studied. So, I wasn't surprised at his command of the subject matter. I know that others were, though, so I'm very glad that they got to see him in action rather than listen to baseless rumors.

By the way, those sub-committee meetings on Afghanistan were folded into a larger committee on the war on terror. That's why there have been no meetings. Obama has attended two of those meetings. Though McCain sits on the Foreign Relations committee as well, he has attended none. This is something else that bothers me about McCain. He's very comfortable lying. He knows what the structure of those committees are and that, as a group, the Foreign Relations committee made the decision to hold all the sub-committees as one and, yet, for political gain he's comfortably willing to purposefully misrepresent. He even lied about the Eisenhower story. (There was no letter about resigning.) He uses references to the, unknown to outsiders, labyrinthine processes in the Senate to mislead people for political points rather than having an honest debate about opinions and philosophies where the listeners can make truly informed decisions. This stuff bothers me. A lot. I'm looking for integrity. But clearly, based on who we keep electing into high offices and promoting in work places and rewarding in our culture, I'm an outlier on this. So, I don't know if other people noticed how often Obama had to say, "That's not true." Or whether they would bother to fact check.

I was glad to see McCain control his temper and stay focused.* McCain has had 26 years of experience on the job and he knows a lot. I disagree with the conclusions he reaches, but I like that they could debate at that level most of the time. Obviously, there will be those that agree with one candidate and those that agree with another. At least we know where they stand. What many may have thought was boring, I found to be one of the more well-presented debates we've seen in a long time. That's a credit to Jim Lehrer and McCain and Obama. And it was refreshing. I hope the rest of the debates have the same or better tenor.

*(Like him or not, you must be aware that McCain is known for his explosiveness. He's pugilistic by nature. It's the main reason he isn't a congressional leader or have a coaliton of support within the congress. Not his differing policy stances. Which makes you wonder how he could govern as executive. Obama has co-authored bills with several Republican Senators and still manages to maintain great relations within his party. Republican Senators have stated that he's someone everybody can work with. Sounds like a good person to have in the executive office to me.)

Mixed Feelings

So, the negotiations on the Behemoth Bailout is stalled by partisan politics. Since I don't support the idea of forking over billions of dollars to people who gambled away our economy for their own gain, I'm not that bothered that it is delayed. This is something that should be given a lot more consideration than an up or down vote on a Wall Street proposal.

What bothers me, though, is that the alternative proposal that is being used to halt the process is preposterous. They want to go further in the direction that got us into this mess. Yep, they want more deregulation. Lower taxes for the wealthy. And, they want us to insure those nearly criminal derivatives of theirs. Well, no one's even going to swallow that elixir. Much less be magically enthralled by it.

So, it looks like they're going to go back to the original idea of forking over the cash. With no real assessment of whether this would really fix anything. It will fix a few rich people's bank accounts.

I understand that the concern is a total credit freeze. I think that's a form of extortion, but I get why it pushes everybody's panic buttons. I wish they would step back and realize that Wall Street is in the weak position here. We, the people they're asking for the handout from, should be in the position to make demands. Credit reform, bankruptcy reform, renegotiations for predatory loans, criminal investigations, the nullification of those derivatives. (Hey, do you understand those Credit Default Swaps, yet? I'm working on an explanation, but the bottom line is that the lenders were betting against their borrowers. They had a vested interest in making bad loans, because they would cash in if they failed. As long as there was enough cash in the system to pay off those bets.)

So, I'm glad that it wasn't easy and that Wall Street financiers who perpetrated this on us are having to sweat it out. But I'm disappointed at the lame alternative proposal and the overall capitulation to the Wall Street demands. With prices continuing to rise, job rates continuing to decline and wages declining, as well, the housing crisis is far from over and giving the very people who put us here more money than God isn't going to stop the economy from tanking. So, we all better brace ourselves. And see if we can doing anything to get our money back from Wall Street down the line. (I like the idea of taxing trade transactions as a repayment plan, by the way. More thoughts on that later.)

Define Suspension

So, does suspending a campaign in order to focus on a national crisis in a non-partisan way include:

Doing an interview on CBS where you attack your political opponent?

Sending your spokespeople to Fox News (Pfotenhauer and Bounds) and the Washington Times?

Running political ads across the U.S.?

Speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative?

It would seem that the only part of the campaign being suspended is the debate.

McCain didn't go to DC until today, where is only scheduled activity is a photo op at the White House. He won't be attending any of the working meetings.

So, tell me again, what exactly required you to "suspend" campaigning? And what exactly you mean when you say "suspend."

I repeat: stunt.

Stunt

There's really no other way to describe McCain's call to suspend his campaign and delay Friday's debate.

First, we've been in two wars for the entire campaign. If something was too important for politics, that would be it, wouldn't it?

Second, we've never called off Presidential Campaign Debates before even during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the NYC bombings in the 60s or any other crisis. It is actually an important moment for our candidates to speak to us and demonstrate their grasp of, and how they would handle, said crisis.

Third, if you've picked a solid VP candidate whom you claim is "absolutely" ready to take on the role of President should she be needed, then why can't she campaign while you're in DC? She's not a US Senator. Move the VP debate to Friday and have your presidential debate next week.

Fourth, John McCain is not on *any* of the relevant committees that are working on the bailout bill. There isn't anything for him to do in DC. Can he even tell us what it is he will be doing and what he hopes to accomplish?

Fifth, he's not the President. He can't make anything happen. He's never built a coalition of support for himself in the Senate. He's too temperamental and unpredictable for anybody to rely upon him, so he really doesn't have a sphere of influence.

Sixth, he goes from "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" to "our economy is going to crater" in a matter of a week. He's against a bailout one day and for it the next. He's Mr. Deregulation and Free Market for 26 years and suddenly he's Mr. Populist railing against CEOs for taking advantage of all that deregulation and lack of oversight. He doesn't exactly have credibility on this issue.

Seventh, last spring he let us know that the economy is not his strong point. Let's face it, economics is a comples matrix of considerations and inter-dependence. It takes some good brain power to have strong grasp of how all the pieces affect one another. McCain, graduating near the bottom of his class, may be a smart operator, but he's not an intellectual firepower. It makes sense that this is not his strong point. You can't fight a war on the economy. 

Eighth, McCain claims to be well-versed in economics (yes, that's a contradiction to his claim in #7) because he chaired the Commerce Committee and as had his hand on the tiller of the economy for years. Hey, John, you steered us in the wrong direction. Heckuva job. Somehow, then, it doesn't instill confidence that you're able to come up with the right fix here.

I could go on, but one thing is clear: this is a stunt. There is no reason that Senator McCain can't have his say on the financial crisis and still get on a plane to Mississippi Friday evening. (Not to mention the $5.5 million dollar loss to Ole Miss.) This is posturing pure and simple.

And, gee, what could have led to a need for that? It wouldn't be those darn polls showing that a vast majority of people think Obama is better equipped to handle an economic crisis, would it? Or a need to get away from being called out on your campaign lies? Or to distract us from your "ready to be president" VP pick who apparently isn't ready to convince us that she's ready by answering questions from the press.

Stunt.

Wait A Minute!

According to a White House transcript of a press conference call today:

"With respect to executive pay, again, I'm not going to get into specific, point-by-point details on what our views are on that, other than the Secretary of Treasury said it would make more difficult to make this plan work and effective if you provide disincentives for companies and firms out there who are holding mortgage-backed securities and other securities from participating in the program. You have to remember, these are not all weak or troubled firms that own mortgage-backed securities. A lot of them are very successful banks and investment houses that have done very well, have been responsible, are holding performing assets that have value. They were not necessarily irresponsible players, and so you have to be careful about how you deal with them."

So, let me get this straight. These banks that are so desperate they are about to bring the entire economy down will opt out of participating in the government bailout plan if we try to put any conditions, terms or oversight into the program?

And "A lot of them are very successful?" A certain 3-word epithet beginning with "what the" comes to mind. If they're so successful and have done so very well, what's the problem? And if they're so desperate, why would they opt out of participating in what they claim is the only way to save them?

I think it's time that we all get very skeptical. (Hey, did you notice that the sky hasn't fallen yesterday or today? Wasn't that supposed to happen if the bailout wasn't signed by Monday?)

Something doesn't add up. And the way that this would completely hamper the next administration from enacting any infrastructure improvement or industrial investment smells a little fishy. Can't you just see the Republicans who have led us into the greatest deficit spending of all time, suddenly claiming the mantra of fiscal responsibility when they get a Democratic White House and Congress. I hear the battle cry of "balanced budget" looming from the right flank. Somehow making the $1.5billion deficit that the next President will inherit a problem of his own making. It's just too predictable.

I say, let them fail. Help homeowners. Let the banks cut their losses.

Economies, Eggs and Baskets

You remember that conventional wisdom about your eggs and how many baskets they should be in? Do you know why farmers don't mono-crop? Or companies make sure to have more than one customer? It's called spreading the risk. And we do it because we know that everything has a risk. To protect ourselves from utter calamity we spread out our resources so that when one thing falls apart the blow is cushioned. We can weather the small storm and move on.

So, we all know that "diversifying your portfolio" is the way to ensure stability. None of us would put all of our eggs into one basket. We might put some money into a checking account for daily cash needs, some in a regular savings account for small emergencies, some in a money market accout for slightly larger emergencies, and some in our 401K or IRA for long-term planning. We buy insurance for the really big emergencies. If we have more discretionary income we might have a go at some riskier investments that, should they pan out, would be a welcome boon to our financial coffers. But we do so, knowing that if the risk is realized and we lose the investment, it hasn't jeopardized the foundations of our life. We would never take all of our money and place it in this high risk pool. The anxiety we would live with wouldn't be worth it even if it actually paid off in the end. We might have a heart attack a day after the gains were realized.

It can be hard to have the discipline for this. That's why these accounts have different regulations attached to them. The 401K regulations make sure that we leave our money in that long-term investment portfolio and don't wipe out our retirement funds due to a current crisis or pressing desire. We've learned collectively that we need help keeping our inconstant human nature in check in order to serve ourselves well. We've agreed to take care of each other this way. Sometimes we might rant about the imposition of those rules, but we all know that it's good for us. It keeps our wiser self in charge of our impulsive self.

We understand this on a personal level. Yet, we don't seem to transfer that wisdom to a collective level. Repeatedly, we go through cycles of deregulating industries to the point that the impulsive, selfish aspect of human nature is allowed to overrun the wiser aspect. For some reason, we don't care that in the collective setting, it is the actions of a relatively few, who are well-connected and well-heeled, that get out of control, yet we all - including those who can least afford it - end up paying the price. Those who created the problem generally end up remaining well-heeled and well connected. They don't lose their homes or struggle to feed their families. They even seem to get rewarded with big payoff for their egregious behaviors.

If you'd like to read a very well-written and clear piece on how our current national financial situation happened, I highly recommend this. (It's long, but well worth it. Get yourself a cuppa and sit back and let it sink in.) The author goes through the history of legal and illegal maneuvering that resulted in our meltdown. In it, two things underline what we should be taking home as the conventional wisdom: 1) our national economy - particularly banking -  should be diversified and 2) we need to protect ourselves with regulations.

A series of deregulations led to enormous mega-financial institutions that issued each other these "insurance" bonds against high-risk mortgages called "default swaps." Then they sold those swaps in a side market that kept pushing up the "value" of them until the total value of "swaps" held by these institutions was greater than the total value of GDP of the entire world. In short, there wasn't any way that anyone could have paid for these. So, when any of the insurance policies that these "swaps" represented were called in, there wasn't enough money in the world to cover the ensuing debts.

Why would anyone let this happen? The answer is greed. We all know that. And we all know that we have to keep greed in check. So, why do we keep letting our legislators deregulate things after the Great Depression and the Saving and Loan Crisis? This I don't know.

I do know that some of it is the faulty concept we embrace of an ever-growing economy. In and of itself, that is not sustainable. If every man, woman and child is working as much as they can and spending all of their earnings then that is the maximum size an economy can obtain. You can apply that to a household, a town, a state, a country or the globe, but there is simply a limit to how much enonomic activity can happen. There are only so many resources to go around. At a fundamental level, our economic activity is simply an measurement of moving around the Earth's resources from one person's stewardship to another. And there is quite literally a fixed amount of Earth. So, instead of always trying to get more for ourselves, we would be better off considering first whether everybody even has what is minimally enough. Because when they don't, people starve and die. Not that we seem to care about that. So, let's put it in other terms. Hostile takeovers happen. Behind the scenes legal manipulations happen. Wars happen. (In Jared Diamond's book Collapse, he demonstrates how most civilizations collapse due to poorly managed natural resources which lead to the need to go get resources from others, forcefully, or to a death of that society.)

Yet, in our belief that economies should always grow, we push for more and higher "returns" to the point that when played out to it's logical conclusion you get the type of outcome we are seeing now. You find out that the whole thing is an illusion. A destructive illusion. One where the net effect is that the people who have perpetrated the illusion have made sure that a larger proportion of the society's resources have been transferred to them and, still, the rest of us will tranfer yet even more of our resources over in order to cover their losses because we think that protects what little we have left.

I have my thoughts on what ought to be happening right now. But what I most hope that we learn - though I have no historical reason to believe that we will - is that we desperately need regulations to protect ourselves. And part of that regulatory system needs to be a more updated look at monopolization. Just as one town can't afford to have all their jobs held by one or two companies, a country can't afford to have all of it's banking managed by one or two firms. We need to ensure that we don't have all of our eggs in one basket, and clearly regulation is the only way to do that.

Beyond regulation, we ought to be reconsidering how we glorify the mega-corporation in our culture. Our most sustainable cities and towns are those with myriad small businesses. Huge corporations lead to many problems, not the least of which is the way we can be convinced to look the other way when they commit atrocities because of how many people's lives would be affected were they to be forced to pay the real costs of their practices. The bottom line is that it is high-risk, even in the best of circumstances to rely upon them. One thing is certain in life and that' change. So, you can be guaranteed that at some point change any company is going to negatively affected by change somewhere in it's market. You should plan on  the possibility that it won't be around forever. The only way to be ready for that is to be able to absorb the losses and re-employ the people by the presence of other business within your community.

It's not just "the economy, stupid" that we should be learning. It's "how many baskets our economy is in" that we should be learning. I certainly hope we have.

How Best To Invest $700billion

Why Are We Giving Them $700billion?

This is the part I don't understand. Apparently, our corporatists are all for a free market until they've gone overboard with their free-marketing ways and might hit the skids. They weren't too concerned about all those customers that they threw onto the skids, but now it's them and we should bail them out.

What we're told is that our entire financial system would collapse. That's a rather apocalyptic pronouncement. Whooo, I'm shaking now. I'm so scared I think we should do something. Anything. Somebody just do something!

Uh, but wait a minute. What the hell does it mean? I keep waiting for someone to lay out exactly what it looks like and who is effected if these investment banks sell.

From my vantage point, their assets would be sold off - and, gee, if nobody wanted those risky mortgages those homeowners would hit the lottery and we would all move on. Assets under management would be transferred to another entity that has proven itself trustworthy. Some wealthy people might lose a lot of money. But how much did they make in the past 8 years under deregulation? And what would it matter to the rest of us.

I really need someone to give me more information about why we should bail out these entitled gamblers, rather than, say, use our money to help the least among us.

Beyond that, I'm supposed to trust Mr. Deregulator Corporate Guy Bernanke to dole out that $700billion with no oversight, no review and no legal structure within which he has to operate. Sheesh, if I were him, I'd use the $700billion to take over the country and become a dictator.

But, really, why don't these guys just have to face the realities of their failures? How would the rest of us be affected if we let them hang by their own ropes?

(I should note that I leave this as an open ended question for a reason: to get us all to think past the crisis pronouncement and start to consider what is actually happening and what it is we're trying to prevent, so that we can consider whether this bailout idea is really appropriate or there is something else that might serve us better.)

A Deregulated Economy

Despite the words of John McCain, the fundamentals of our economy are not strong. Economics is not his strong point. He himself has told us that. Still, discussion of economic fundamentals is universally understood to be about some set of commonly looked at indicators, such as the unemployment rate, the cost of living, the average income levels, foreign debt, overall national debt, national budget deficits, etc. Some may argue which of these or others to include in the list, but no one has ever suggested that the average American worker's ability to work or that entrepreneurial ingenuity have anything do with assessing the fundamental state of an economy. So, I simply don't believe that's what he was referring to. (Well, unless he's that ignorant, in which case, he needs to disqualify himself from the applicant pool for President.)

What I can believe is that he was more likely referring to what Bush claimed: "But in the long run I am confident that our capital markets are flexible and resilient and can deal with these adjustments." They see this as proof that a market economy works because it eventually it corrects itself.

The problem is that the wealthy, such as John McCain and George W. Bush, can afford the ride, while the average income earner's life may be ruined. Joe CEO rides away with a huge severance package while Average Joe rides to the shelter and the mortgage company rides away with his house keys.

Is this what we want? Do we want to continue kneeling at the altar of the "free market?" Every time we have, we have ended up with our faces in the dirt. It was after the market crash of 1929 that we first came to terms as a nation that a completely free market doesn't serve us well. The 'us' being the entire population of the country, not just a certain sector of the population. And that gets at the heart of why it doesn't work.

When I was in business school I studied economics. There I learned that traditional economics is based on a premise that people behave rationally and will always do what's in their best interest. I was floored. I guess these economists have never seen an alcoholic get out of rehab and walk to a bar. Or someone on a diet sneak in a little dessert. Many of us can just look around and realize that this premise is faulty. (As it turns out about 30% of us have a genetic glitch that stops us from learning to end self-destructive behavior. So, there is a basic problem with expecting people to behave rationally in their own best interest.

On top of that, for a free market economy to serve the entire population well, every person has to care about the entire population rather than just themselves or their own social set. If someone can point me to one time in history where an entire population were naturally that self-less in the name of nationalism for more than a few years in the name of war, I'll knit you a sweater. (That's about a $500 dollar value by the way.)

So, yes, The Market (capital "T", capital "M") might correct itself, but not likely in time to serve anybody well. The kind of collapse we're seeing now is hitting everyone pretty hard. Still, those in the upper economic class may have to forego buying yet another house this year, or keep that yacht at the club until they can afford the crew again, but they won't worry about having a roof over their heads or feeding their families or getting care when they're sick. They can ride this wave on a surfboard while the rest of us are swept out in the rip tide.

McCain says that there needs to be "a 9/11 Commission for the economy - "to figure out what has happened." This is a standard political euphemism for "I have no idea what's going on" or "I have no idea what can be done" or "I don't want to really take action here" or all of the above. We all know what happened - deregulation, a war economy that is costing unprecedented amounts of money that we don't have and is being funded by foreign debt, unfair trade policies where our guys have to meet human rights standards and protect the environment while our competition can abuse their employees and kill the planet, all causing a devaluation of the U.S. dollar, thereby making fuels prices so high for us that we can't afford to run our machinery or drive to work.

Why do I say that this is about whether we have a completely unfettered free market? Because those fancy financeers that generated those sub-prime loans and devised those "derivatives" knew the risk they were taking. We saw the same thing happen in the 1920s. Back then it was about public utility stocks, as well as cheap credit (risky lending), but the investment professionals created the same kinds of dastardly derivatives that are bringing down the house today. Also, they knew they wouldn't pay the price. The little people might lose their homes and their credit standing, but the big shots would, at worst, walk away with a big umbrella package. When you have no risk yourself and you don't care about anybody else, you are willing to do anything. Let's face it, the losses the big investors are experiencing today are far offset by the outrageously huge gains they've had over the past 8 years.

When credit is cheap and easy, people take on too much of it and set up precarious financial situations where any fluctuation in income can mean defaulting. When that situation is widespread across a large economy, the effect is profound. As seen with our current housing crisis. But we also have the problem in our national financial situation. We have record high deficits with record levels of debt. At some point, we will not be able to borrow from anyone any more because they will see that we can't ever pay it back. That will hit home quickly if the federai government continues to bail out these huge companies with trillion dollar cash needs. It makes us vulnerable to a hostile financial takeover. Right now, China owns a big chunk of the United States.

So, how did we get here? Deregulation. After the Great Depression we put a lot of regulations in place to stabilize our economy. Well, too many. We had to find a balance. While some regulations were rolled back after a time, it was widely agreed that the Securities Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve should stay in place. (see the Banking section of the this article.)

But in 1999, a key banking regulatory system was repealed. The Glass-Steagall act had required that financial institutions be either commercial banks subject to federal oversight, or be private investment firms subject to the Securities Exchange Commission. They couldn't be both because this led to a conflict of interest: using the bank's imprimatur to suggest that a security you are trading must be safe, when it's actually a high-risk investment tool you've bundled into a "securitized" package. That is, hiding behind the security of the Federal Reserve to convince buyers your products are safe. All the while risking the stability of the overall bank and the unwitting depositors.

Ever since the repeal of the Glass-Steagall regulations, we've seen the building of the super-banks that are exactly like the banks of the 1920s. We can talk another time about the risk of letting any single entity get so large that it can have too much of an impact on a nation's economy, but we can see the effect of repealing those regulations: the investment bankers have gone hog wild. And, no, there isn't any lipstick that will make these hogs look good.

Combine this with a massive national debt, a weakening U.S. dollar and sky-rocketing fuel costs and you have a recipe for disaster. We can't spend our way out of this as President Bush has suggested. We don't, en masse, earn enough to even chip away at the iceberg our economic Titanic is heading into. We weren't making enough to weather the rising fuel costs (which are why our food costs and everything else have risen so much.) Our salaries, when adjusted for inflation, have gone down in the past 8 years. What are we supposed to do when our national burden is increased by bailouts for huge corporations? And our retirement funds are plummeting as the market values drop? And we look at the first wave of Baby Boomers starting to pull money out of the market?

We, the little guys, the Joes and the Janes, we can't do much. All the entrepeneurial ingenuity in the world can't get you cash to generate a business if the banks are failing and credit is unavailable. I'm giving you a simplified picture here. If you want to get into more details about the paralells of the 1920s and today, read here.

So, why does McCain think we need a commission? Because he's not well versed in economics. And because his chief economic advisor is Phil Gramm, a leader in the push to deregulate in the 1990s. Because many of the people who have benefitted from all the market manipulation that has gone on since then are big donors to his campaign.

Ironically, it's McCain who said, "There is a social contract between capitalism and the citizen. That has been broken by these Wall Street'' executives." I'm not sure I've ever seen a record of this contract, but what he is admitting here is that a free market, left to it's own devices will not serve our citizens. The only way I know of to have any "contract" is for the federal government to establish and enforce regulations that keep our self-serving tendencies in check. McCain is suggesting that he can somehow, as President, control the size of the severence packages for CEOs. I don't see how the government can do that. But what the government can do is control the securitization of risky loans and investments. The government can control the way information is disclosed and explained to unsophisticated borrowers. Obama talks about this and McCain doesn't. It's inexplicable. We simply can't afford to go any longer in this deregulated state. Regulation is the means by which we express our desire to have us all behave in a mutally beneficial manner when we know that are likely to be the flawed human beings that we really are and will head to that bar even though we don't want our life destroyed or will eat that dessert when we know our heart can't take any more. Regulations are similar to having a coach when you're an athlete or a supervisor when you're therapist. You want to do your best and serve the team or your clients well, but you're likely to stray without a guiding hand. Regulations are the way we look at each other and say, "I love you, now eat your vegetables." It's called caring.

Tomorrow I'll write about whether having such huge corporations is healthy for an economy and whether the federal government should be bailing them out.

Jury Nullification:

Today I read about something I've never really considered before. Jury nullification. According to Radley Balko over at Reason, McCain's pick for VP supports the use of jury nullification.

Palin was also one of just three governors in the country to issue a proclamation in support of "Jurors' Rights" day, an event sponsored by the Fully Informed Jury Association, which encourages the doctrine of jury nullification. Nullification is an idea abhorred by tough-on-crime conservatives.

I've thought casually about whether there were times when it would be wise and just for a jury to acquit someone who was technically guilty of the law as written. It's a concept on my list of things to consider for a novel I am very slowly writing. I didn't realize this concept had a name or proponents. I hadn't gotten far enough into the thought process and research to learn that it is a de facto power. So, what is jury nullification. According to Wikipedia:

Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision; in other words, "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."

Most jurors are not notified of their ability to nullify a law by rendering a defendant not guilty even they realize he has broken the law as written. This power is not explicity stated in our constitution. Rather, it is a de facto power obtained by the fact that jurors have a final word that cannot be questioned. Once they submit a verdict of acquittal, the case is closed permanently and the jury does not have to explain their motivation.

James Carroll writes about McCain's honor

I've been watching the grand display of McCain's painful POW experience used as a campaign tool. It has made me terribly uncomfortable. I watched his speech like a rubbernecker who can't take her eyes off that crushed wad of metal that isn't my car, wondering if I'll see a bloody body pulled from the wreckage.

This is in contrast to my feelings when watching Obama speak, where I felt elated and warily embraced the hope that we might be wise enough this time around to move in a more mature direction as a country.

I've had difficulty putting words to the feelings of how wrong the exploitation of McCain's trauma is. I've tried talking to friends and I kind of, sort of get to it. But along comes James Carroll and he's written it so well, I am relieved of the challenged of articulation.

He explains it as competing definitions of honor and dishonor.

In the Boston Globe on Monday, Carroll's piece is entitled "War, Honor and John McCain." He writes a beautiful opening explaining how McCain's experience as a POW came to define what honor means to him. How he became an icon of honor, though he had given a false confession under extreme duress, after which he felt completely dishonored and shameful.

It is a compelling story of rising out of unthinkable suffering and into redemption. McCain's campaign managers know that. You can't very well listen to this story and not be quieted in respectful admiration.

McCain and the folks on his campaign want us to stop there. Just bask in the angelic glow of this man's honor.

Life isn't like that, though. It doesn't stop. If it did, McCain would not have emerged from that cell with any dignity left. And, so, we don't stop there either. Our thoughts and emotions move on and try to place this admiration in a greater context. In the context of a presidential election while our country has our military stretched too thin because of an invasion that distracted us and our resources from the real security threats we face and the serious nature of our economic status, we need to consider whether the kind of honor John McCain represents is the kind of honor we need.

Carroll goes on to define McCain's honor:

He describes it as the honor of "militant victimhood" and says it's a "permanent reaction" which defines his political character. The result of which is:

War is honor. That's a frightening absolute. This is where we need to respectfully differ. We can admire the man for what he's been through and how it has shaped who he is. And, we can determine for ourselves whether that is the definition of honor that we need leading us right now.

I'm about 99% pacifist, with a little crack where I consider that I would, likely, use violence if my daughter were being physically harmed or threatened. I'm certainly no Bodhisattva. So, I can see how someone would apply that on a national scale. So, for now, we'll say that war can sometimes be honorable. The all important word being "sometimes". John McCain seems to lack that insight. This little word makes life harder to navigate, as you have to make complex assessments about a given situation rather than apply an absolute rule.

McCain would see any war as honorable, so he's more likely to choose that as a path to resolution than someone who considers that some wars are not honorable. That's what got us into the Iraq disgrace. We've had leadership that thinks war is the definition of honor. So they fight wars. Any wars.

Carroll sums up what makes McCain's definition of honor out of touch with today's needs this way:

I guess I'm a liberal. No surprise there. But is that the difference between a liberal and a conservative: being incapable of facing our nation's dishonor? Perhaps it is. Perhaps that's what I've missed before and why I don't understand how people can still be supporting the failed policies of the Bush administration. Isn't maturity about facing one's dishonor, learning lessons, working to right the wrongs you have committed and going forth with a new ethic? I guess that's just a liberal thing.

Finally, Carroll also pinpoints something else that made the rubbernecking so uncomfortable in the pit of my stomach:

In trying to use the one thing that defines McCain as honorable, they are actually devaluing it. The state of his campaign and the fact that they feel the need to go here so strongly may be the crushed wad of steel that captures the attention of the drivers by. We look as a cautionary, "there but for grace, go I" moment. As we are passing those remnants of tragedy, we don't really expect to see the bloody body. if we did, we might not be able to keep driving. We might have to pull over to the side and wretch.  The exploitation of McCain's POW experience, in which he turned shame into honor by defining honor a certain way, is erasing the honor of it and the ensuing loss of dignity is the bloody body that we didn't really want to see. That's the moment that it goes beyond "there but for the grace" and taps into a deeper feeling of "there stands a representation of everything that makes me feel shameful." Something none of us want to be reminded of and certainly not the image we want representing us.

Perhaps this is what Obama should speak to more clearly. He has the eloquence to address the nation on the question of how we define honor and how the current admninistration's definition has not served us, so we must consider reassessing our national definition. I'd love to see that speech. Right before a debate....

Truth to Power

I've been enthralled all weekend by the Tweeter-powered "revolution" happening in Iran. Until today, the mainstream media has been almost silent about what's been going on over there. Iranian authorities cut off phone, television and internet communications soon after the polls closed and then announced a very unlikely vote result: Ahmadinejad had won with a massive lead.

But, wait. If the incumbent has cleanly won an election, why are communications shut down? Why were journalists confined to their hotels? And why was their equipment being confiscated? And why are Arabic-speaking "police" brutally beating people with electric batons?

None of it made sense. Supposedly Ahmadinejad won 80% of those voters registered to his opposing party? Vast majorities in his opponents' home towns? It didn't add up, but none of our news outlets were saying anything.

Try as they might, though, the authorities couldn't stop the Tweeting. Hackers were getting around any blocks put in place and GPS phones just can't be shut down that easily. So, photos, videos and first hand reports were getting out to world. And it was damning. Andrew Sullivan, Nico Pitney and several members of the DailyKos community were collecting what information they could get and spreading the word. You can "follow" the "#iranelection" tag and several users whose names get shouted out. It's an amazing show of citizen journalism and new technology coming together to thwart oppressive power.

There are stunning videos of protesters peacefully marching down the street, when flanks of motorcyle cops simply plow through the crowds beating people as they go. One of the most exquisite moments is where protesters have knocked a policeman off his bike and some start to beat him, but others come to his aid and guide this stunned young man to safety.

Police invaded university dorms and ripped them apart. Holes in walls, bathroom fixtures ripped out and tons of photos of students with baton marks and burns (from the electric prodding) on their bodies. They were wise enough to keep their faces hidden and to advise people to keep their IP addresses hidden. All while having their lives threatened. Many were taken to jails and beaten. At least one member of a German journalism team was taken into custody and has gone missing. Innocent bystanders are ruthlessly beaten.

Even after all that, there is a massive nightime demonstration of people shouting "Allah o Akbar!" (God is Great!) from the rooftops.

Yesterday, the opposition leader applied for a permit to give a public speech. He was turned down and he told his people to march anyway, but march peacefully. This morning, he learned that the riot police had been authorized to carried loaded weapons and to use them. So, he advised against marching, as he was concerned for everyone's safety.

They came anyway. At first a few hundred. And the riot police were pushing against them with batons. But then there were more. And before you know it there hundreds of thousand of people (some reports say 2-3 million) peacefuly marching in Tehran. Similar activity is happening in other cities around the country. Via Twitter they have been able to communicate some basic tactics to avoid giving cause for the police to attack them. No political slogans are being shouted and they are chanting thanks to the police.

That bears repeating. They are chanting "thank you!" to the police.

Who knows where all of this will go. Whomever ends up winning the seat of President it may not appear to have changed much from our perspective. The spectrum of political viewpoints there is limited by the constraints of the religious leadership that is really the power structure there. Still, these people risk their very lives to speak out against that power structure. Make no mistake, it's a brutal, authoritarian system. Still, there they all are. Susan B. Anthony and Mohatma Gandhi would be proud.

For myself, I find it inspiring. It is the Iranian people's "Susan Boyle" moment. That same thrill of excitement at hearing Ms. Boyle belt out stunning beautiful notes after being mocked for her age and appearance course through my body as I watch videos of the protesters in Iran. They are beacons of light in a dark time, showing us all how to stand up to corruption and cynicism by speaking (or singing) our truth to power.

She Can't Say

UPDATE: I stand corrected. Today, Palin told CNBC that Stevens should step down. I must admit to being suprised. Pleasantly, so. And still wondering why people don't apply the same standard to her.

Senator Stevens was found guilty on 7 charges of fraud today. Those are 7 criminal offenses that could each carry a prison term of 5 years. (Though, it's unlikely as a first offender at 84 years of age that he'll serve any time.) It seemed very likely as the trial was progressing that he would be found guilty. So, this is not surprise.

I'm also not surprised that Governor Palin can't say whether she'll vote for him. (Apparently, he can't vote as a convict, but he can still run for and serve in the Senate.) She also can't call for him to bow out and resign. She simply assures us that he will do the right thing for Alaska.

Now, there's been a bit of chatter about why the Reform Maverick isn't railing against this corruption and adamantly calling for his resignation. Is it that hard to put together why she can't do this? If she screams for his resignation because he has been found guilty of a crime, she could only do so with integrity if she resigned herself. Seriously, she's not responding to questions about what action should be taken, because she really can't say. It would be her political demise.

With a Republican Senator convicted of fraud and a Republican Governor guilty of an abuse of power, is Palin's home state less of a sure Republican thing now? McCain isn't polling over 50% in Arizona. It's a two-point race. Is it possible that either or both Alaska and Arizona might end up in the Blue Column this election? Don't ask Palin. She can't say. (Well, none of us can.)

When Silence Is Golden

Being a newshound, I heard the story of the woman who said she was attacked and mutilated by an Obama supporter. The thought that anyone would do such a thing for any reason is horrifying. To claim it as a political act of support for Barack Obama or John McCain is simply insane. Neither of these candidates would approve of expressing your political viewpoint with violence. That anyone in the news, punditry or blogosphere would try to hold up this individual's reprehensible act as some sort of proof about anything regarding either candidate is patently absurd. Those people have given up all credibility as a voice of wisdom or reason.

This morning's news that the young woman has admitted to this being a hoax only furthers the point. I've been watching news reports and blog commentary over the last 24 hours and there has been a lot of frenzy. I've been disturbed by most of what I've read. Any wise person would at most say, "This is a personal tragedy for this woman. I hope she gets the attention she needs and that justice is served." Why? Because we, quite wisely, have a system that says a person is innocent unti proven guilty. If you believed any part of her story, you still have to wait until a person is proven guilty before jumping to conclusions about him, his motives and surely any connection to a political campaign. If you didn't believe her story, you still needed to wait until she was proven guilty of fraud and to discover her motivations and certainly not to assume it is connected with any political campaign. In either scenario there is a sad story. But neither scenario reflects upon a candidate unless it is shown that the perpetrator was officially directed by a campaign to commit this act or came away from a campaign interaction having felt spurred towards violence and it can be shown that this might be a reasonable response to the campaign activity experienced.

So, what did it serve people to froth about this? To launch accusations or intimate things about the candidates based on this? Are we so unable to think beyond the adrenaline of a moment, that we can't really consider what is truly in our best public interest? I'd like to think this only because we're anxious these days. However, this kind of destructive catterwolling goes on all the time. When do we learn? When do we stop? Can't we be silent for even a short time and let things become more clear? Yes, too much silence can be deadly. But a short space of silence can be golden.

Is Obama An Empty Suit?

I was going to follow up yesterday's article and write about whether it is wise to have such huge entities as AIG, and whether it makes sense for the Feds to bail them out. I'm postponing that as I digest the events of the past 24 hours.

Instead, I'd like to write about something that bothers me in the current political campaign. It bothered me during the primaries and now again in the general election. It's about the portrayal of Barack Obama as some kind of empty suit.

First, I should note that I am not a Democrat. I am registered as "unenrolled." More on that at the bottom if you're interested. So, I always look at all the candidates. I like to hear what others have said about them over time.

Early in this presidential election I looked at the field of candidates from all of the parties. Last fall, after doing some research I decded to support Barack Obama. Ok, did you read that? I. Did. Research. (There's a lot here. If you just want a snapshot of some of his legislative work go here. And if you'd like to read someone else's piece doing more of a partisan comparison to McCain go here. It's very thorough.)

I wanted to know who this guy was. Where did he come from? What had he accomplished? What did people around him say about him?

One of the first articles I read was written in 2005 in Columbia College Today. It's very lengthy piece rich with information. Quotes that caught my eye:

Politicians from both sides of the aisle acknowledge that he has a natural ability — partly stemming from his biracial and itinerant background — to connect with a range of people, to bring opposing sides together and to move policy forward.

The ability to "move policy forward" is a recurring theme in just about everything I read about him.

Other politicians might be envious of the attention Obama is receiving, but those who have worked with him say his newfound popularity is deserved. “This is a guy who’s not just the product of a PR campaign,” says Dick Devine, state’s attorney for Cook County, which includes Chicago. “He has real intelligence and real substance.”

We hear politicians say they can work across the aisle, but we rarely hear other politicians confirm that. (I found similar quotes from Republican Senators in other articles, too.)

Then this about his time in Jakarta:

After spending two years in a Muslim school and two years in a Catholic one, Obama was sent back to Hawaii to be raised by his Kansan grandparents, a furniture salesman and a bank employee who lived in a small apartment.

Wow. Now that gives a person a broad perspective on life. Kenyan father, white mother, Indonesian step-father. From Hawaii to Jakarta back to Hawaii to live with grandparents. Working class grandparents. A muslim school and a catholic school. He's made friends with people from very diverse ethnic and religious groups. He's had to learn how to find that to which you can connect.

It goes on to describe how he was a self-destructive teen who wasn't sure what to do with himself until he transferred to Columbia University in his junior year. There he studied international relations. He put his nose to the grindstone and spent all of his time in the library. He was committed to learning. In the process he decided that he didn't like what he was seeing in our government and culture, so he had an idea.

Upon graduating from Columbia, Obama attempted a career as a community organizer. He wrote that when classmates weren’t sure what that was, he didn’t have a sufficient answer for them. “Instead, I’d pronounce the need for change,” he wrote. “Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed. Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.

“That’s what I’ll do, I’ll organize black folks. At the grass roots. For change.”

He wasn't able to find a community organizing job right away and ended up taking a job at a consulting firm in New York. But he kept looking until he landed one in Chicago. He walked away from a prestigious firm and what would have been a lucrative career. He had a mission and he was committed to it. I admire that.

The article goes on to describe how he received national acclaim as the first African American Editor of the Harvard Law Review. You have to be at the top of your class and be chosen by a panel of editors. It was then that publishers pursued him to write his life story. A book that wouldn't get noticed then, but would get reprinted after his convention speech and become a best-seller. This is significant to me. He wrote that memoir because publishers requested it as an inspirational story. Before he was involved in politics. He didn't write it as a self-promoting campaign tool.

After graduating from Harvard, he again had the chance to work at a prestigious firm and have a safe, opulent life. instead, he chose to work as a public interest lawyer focusing on voting rights, emplyment discrimination and housing issues. He also taught constitutional law and a seminar on civil rights. Apparently, his student reviews are always glowing and the University of Chicago has long wanted to offer him tenure. Still, he continued to opt for public service.

Many of us know by now that he went on to become State Senator and U.S. Senator. But how many of us know what he accomplished in those roles?

He sponsored 823 bills and cast over 4,000 votes as a state senator. (Illinois has an unusual system of allowing protest votes of "not present" which is widely used. I might explain the tactical point to it later, but for now, suffice it to say that the criticism of Obama for this is absurd. He was a very productive and proactive member of the senate in Illinois.)

In Illinois he displayed what he has become known for: accomplishing the seemingly impossible. Here's an article that delves into one example. He wrote a bill that had zero supporters originally and eventually got it passed with 100% support. He did this by meeting with every constituent group and pulling them all together around their commonalities and showing them how this bill would serve them well.

The ability to resolve what others deemed impossible is his trademark. Everyone who works with him comments on it. In 2006, before he's running for president mind you, this article explores why so many people are talking about Barack Obama. The author can't figure out why everybody is talking about him. Especially why they are critical that first term senator who arrives with such flash hasn't produced any "wondrous" legislation. Why would they expect that? But upon looking at his record the author is impressed by something else:

I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way.

...

Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle.

The author proceeds to educate us about legislation that Obama sponsored and passed that isn't sexy, but is important. Stuff that we should care about:

Non-Proliferation: co-sponsored bills with Lugar (R) on Obama's initiation. He had serious, considered opinions on the subject. They sponsored bills addressing both loose nukes and "Dealing with unsecured stocks of shoulder-fired missiles and other kinds of conventional weapons, stocks that might fall into anyone's hands, be sold on the black market, and end up being used against our troops or our citizens, or fueling civil wars that tear countries apart "

Avian flu: "Obama was one of the first Senators to speak out on avian flu, back in the spring of 2005, when it was a quintessentially wonky issue, not the subject of breathless news reports. There's a list of Democratic efforts on avian flu here; Obama shows up early and often. He has sponsored legislation, including what I think is the first bill dedicated to pandemic flu preparedness."

Regulating Genetic Testing:" It was while I was reading about this issue that I first thought: gosh, Barack Obama seems to turn up whenever I am reading about some insanely wonky yet important issue. And this one is not just off the radar; it and the radar are in different universes. Anyways:

You might be surprised to learn that there is very little quality control over genetic testing. I was."

Other bills: ethics reform, (hailed as the most sweeping in U.S. history), government spending transparency, energy security, veterans health care, raising CAFE standards, lobbying reform, and so much more. Go here to see all the legislation he has sponsored.

I'll just include on more link where you can read about a Republicans singing Obama's praises.

So, after weeks of research (I've only pointed you to a few articles I read) I learned that Obama has a broad perspective on the world and has faced the challenge of growing up black in America. Rather than be bitter, he worked his way through an international relations degree and a law degree and earned the most prestigious title in the legal world. He pursued mission oriented work as a community organizer and a public interest lawyer and taught constitutional law. As a state senator he demonstrated an uncanny ability to work with all constituent groups to get important, yet seemingly impossible legislation passed, while making no political enemies in the process. As a freshman U.S. Senator he sponsors more substantive legislation than some senators do in a lifetime and he is again lauded for his ability to work across the aisle.

He covers subjects in his legislation from energy to nuclear non-proliferation and health care to ethics reform. Everyone. Everyone who works with him praises his intelligence, his ability to work with everybody and his gift for getting things done. I couldn't find one story of a politician who spoke out against him. Not one.

This man understand how things get done at the community level, the state level and the federal level. He has impeccably managed a campaign that now has more staff than the White House. He clearly is a good manager. He's not as left as me on some things and he's not as idealist as me on some. (I'm angry about the FISA wire-tapping stuff.) But everything I read compels me to have utter respect for and trust in him. He's reasonable and pragmatic and leaves people with their dignity. And foreign leaders see him as someone they might be willing to work with. He's no pushover. He's able to move people where he wants them to go without them feeling they been trampled upon. Even Bill O'Reilly says Obama is "strong" and "sincere" and "is not a wimp."

So, after all this research (Of course, the O'Reilly quote is actually more recent than my original research. I simply couldn't resist it since O'Reilly is the most unlikely person to vouch for Obama's character) I decided to support Obama.

I understand that others might not. They might not agree with Obama's policy positions. Or his style. But i don't see how anyone can claim that he's light on details or knowledge. It's lazy repartee and doesn't serve anybody well to dismiss the depth of the person this way. So, go ahead, vote for someone else. Scream about why you think Obama's policy ideas suck. But for goodness sake, stop trying to claim that he's an empty suit. Can we at least start there?

*Often, I don't vote Democrat. I'm not sure how you would describe my politics. One topic alone can depict the conundrum that is my political state of mind: guns. My father taught me how to shoot a gun when I was a girl. I'm glad I know how to shoot one. If I had to hunt for my food, I wouldn't hesitate. I would have a lot of reverence and thankfulness for the life I took, but I understand this planet to be a massive collection of organisms that are part of a perpetual cycle of consumption. If I were caught in a gun battle, or any battle, I would fight. I have a fierce sense of competition and survival. I'm pretty sure I'd have as good a chance as the next person at prevailing. (I get really pissed off when female characters in film stand around cringing, crying or just screaming while their male counterpart is fighting a foe. Pick up the damn gun or anything and go help the guy, for pete's sake!)

That said, I live as a pacifist. I see no need for a gun in my life. People who need to have guns around make me nervous. I worry about what that attracts to their lives and I'm not sure I want to be in the trajectory. I prefer to be part of a movement that seeks non-violent ways to express ourselves and resolve our conflicts. Humans are capable of violence, to be sure, but they are also traumatized by it and live far more joyful lives without it. I choose to aim for that unfettered joy. I'm not sure what that means about my political leanings.

I can say that I don't understand why we don't elect people that we think are really intelligent. The complexity of considerations that a president is faced with suggest to me that the job is best done by someone with a highly functional brain which is able to process multiple inputs and synthsize all that incoming date into a meaningful relational database that gives them an internal cross-referencing system for decision-making.This requires some real smarts. Like genius type smarts. Now, there are different types of genius. But if you don't think the person can be characterized as some kind of genius, why would you want them running the country. Of course, it also takes a certain integrity of character. And reasonable people can disagree on some things, so two geniuses might have different suggested solutions for the same problems. Still, a person applying for the job of president should be pretty damn smart. I don't care if that person seems like someone I'd enjoy an evening with. Ok, that's my rant about that. (As you can guess, I wasn't too impressed with George Bush. When he ran the first time I couldn't believe anybody would take him seriously. Doesn't even read policy memos. Barely got through school. Failed every time he was a CEO and yet we hired him. I'm still baffled. His father was a different story.)