December 28, 2008

Those Who Refuse To Be Confused By the Facts

Gregg Jarrett and Monica Crowley clearly don’t let the facts influence their opinions. They not only make unsubstantiated claims and quote discredited books, but they ridicule those who try to point out the truth.

A case in point is a December 24 Fox News show on which Jarrett stated that “Historians pretty much agree” that FDR prolonged the Great Depression. He said this backing up Crowley’s assertion that “based on all kinds of studies and academic work done on the great depression" she knows that the New Deal's "massive government intervention prolonged the Great Depression."

Specific sources for these studies and academic works were interestingly absent from the show’s content. When David Sirota began to contradict their statements both Jarrett and Crowley laughed as though what he had to say was too ridiculous to even warrent the courtesy of a hearing. Sirota , whose credits far outshine those of Jarrett and Crowley , was first subjected to ridicule and then simply cut off.

Anyone really interested in the truth looks at all available information and does not simply cherry pick the parts that agree with what they want to believe. It is obvious that Jarrett and Crowley used only the information that backed up their already formed opinions, regardless of the veracity of that information. As John Kennedy once said, this is the “comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

As we attempt to deal with the results of removing the protections put in place after the Great Depression, it is incredible that anyone with half a brain could continue to promulgate the theories that got us here. But there are some who would rather risk our future than admit that perhaps their ideology was a mistake. And others who have personal agendas that do not permit such an admission. Those who have the power of the airwaves can do much harm when they choose such a path.

Jarrett and Crowley are not alone. Celebrities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly do great damage to democracy’s need for a free press. I call them “celebrities” because by no stretch of the imagination can they be considered journalists or news reporters.

The hypocrisy and hate mongering that stream from their mouths add nothing productive to our society. On the contrary, such rancorous rhetoric encourages negativity and divisiveness. It stirs up anger over past incidents and future possibilities by stretching and twisting them out of all proportion to reality.

Freedom of speech is necessary to democracy. But in order for that freedom to benefit democracy, listeners have a responsibility to consider what they hear and not just swallow it whole, without thought or skepticism. Common sense and experience tell us that ridicule and constant angry ranting tears down, it does not build up; it causes difficulties, it does not solve problems; it brings about divisions it does not promote cooperation.

So why do these celebrities go on the air day after day ranting and raving about evil liberals, about the dangers of an Obama presidency, about the “sins” of those who think differently than they do? Why do they spread half truths and stories that have already been discredited when our country is in such need of unity?

Could it be that they need to keep people angry because their livelihood depends on it? A career in rabble rousing can only be maintained if people stay upset. If the people calm down, think things through, and stop accepting the rabid, biased, bluster of these men and women, the world might be a better place. But if that happened, these celebrities would be out of a job. Their actions show they don’t put country first, they reserve that place for themselves.

If we, the listeners, want to put country first, we will have to be discriminating in what we accept and repeat from “news” broadcasts and political commentary. This is change we can all participate in and it is change that will make a difference.


Posted by Trish Purcell at 05:36 PM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

December 11, 2008

Dumb Things People Say

Changing your story and hoping nobody will notice:
On the subject of WMD in Iraq, Bush said (December 2005), "knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision." This effectively made the presence of WMD irrelevant. Now Rove is saying that had the President known Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, the United States would not have gone to war. I guess he doesn’t realize you can’t just do a 180 anymore what with videos of everything you say all over the Internet.

Changing your position while claiming not to have changed your position:
Diane Feinstein and Ron Wyden have repeatedly insisted that the revised Army Field Manual be set as the standard across the board for interrogation techniques. Now these same Senators are talking about the need for "flexibility" in "extreme cases" or using noncoercive measures only "to the greatest extent possible" or the need for "special measures" in times of heightened threat. Both Senators claim they have not changed position while continuing to talk about the need for flexibility. I guess they think you can have “some torture” and “no torture” mandates at the same time.

Wanting to “be a Senator” as opposed to wanting to serve your country:
Loudmouth blowhard, Chris Matthews said he wants to “fulfill his boyhood dream of becoming a senator.” He hasn’t declared any interest in serving the people, the country, or any cause – just in being a senator. .Matthews is a wealthy celebrity who sees absolutely no problem with establishing residency in a state (Pennsylvania) and using his wealth to achieve his boyhood dream of personal self-aggrandizement. As political journalist, David Sirota, says, “He's spent his entire life as a principle-free political gossip in Washington - a human embodiment of all that is sick and wrong with Beltway culture.” Amen to that.

Not adding to the dignity of our Surpreme Court:
Justice Samuel Alito, retaliated for Joe Biden’s questions and negative vote in his confirmation hearing three years ago. Exposing his petty vindictiveness in an after dinner speech, Alito took jabs at the Vice-President elect for something Biden did, not recently but 20 years ago. Way to go Alito. Your fellow justices must be so proud.

MSNBC political news reflecting opinions more than reporting actual news:
Despite complementary statements by media types about Chuck Todd being the best, very knowledgable, etc. there isn’t much evidence of this excellence in his results as director of political news. Among his numerous fumbles was his decision to uninvite Kucinich to the Las Vegas primary debate last January. When someone meets the criteria for inclusion in a debate, why does a political hack get to decide the American people don’t need to see and hear that person? This week, regarding Illinois Govenor Blagojevich’s arrest, Todd had a real “looking stupid” moment in an exchange with Norah O’Donnell attempting to make news where there was none. It went like this: NORAH O'DONNELL: Can Obama avoid being tainted by all of this? CHUCK TODD: It depends on your definition of taint. Oh wow! How profound.

Between media figures and politicians, the contest for “Dummy of the Year” is a close race.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 05:48 PM | | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

November 18, 2008

Is Henry Paulson Stupid or A Robber Baron Doppleganger?

That is a rhetorical question because the overall effect of what Henry Paulson has done so far benefits the financial market and makes it pretty clear that he is not stupid. What it makes just as clear is that Paulson is not concerned with the common good of the people of America. If he is concerned, as he claims, about the taxpayers:

Why is it that Britain’s Gordon Brown got voting rights at the banks that they bailed out, seats on the boards, and 12 percent dividends for UK taxpayers, but Hank Paulson got no voting rights, no seats on the board, and only 5 percent for US taxpayers?

Why is it that Gordon Brown got it in writing that the banks had to start lending the money they got, but Henry Paulson, didn’t get it in writing, and the banks are not lending?

Why is it that we know investment in high risk complex financial instruments created this economic meltdown but Henry Paulson is not telling banks that the bailout money is contingent on their agreement to desist from such risky investments?

Why is it that we had to bailout some banks because they were too big to be allowed to fail, and then Henry Paulson pushed through a tax windfall for banks that encourages them to buy other banks which creates even bigger banks?

Why is it that Treasury is supposed to be handling the bailout but is actually outsourcing the job to the Bank of New York Mellon, essentially privatizing our Treasury?

Why is it that the taxpayers were promised transparency in the bailout but rather than making information available, things like the amount paid to the Bank of New York Mellon for handling the mechanics of the bailout and the hourly billing rate of the law firm contracted for the equity deals, are blacked out in documents available to the public?

Why is it that the law firm hired to advise Treasury on the equity deals isn’t a public interest law firm but is instead a banker’s law firm that has represented seven of the nine banks that got equity deals in the first stage of Paulson’s plan, the same deals on which they were advising Treasury?

Why is it that this banker’s law firm, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, is allowed to continue its representation of the banks receiving equity deals, not in those deals, but in other areas of the bailout where they may apply, with the law firm policing its conflict of interests internally?

Why is it that the taxpayers were promised oversight but six weeks and $290 billion into the bailout process, the special inspector has just been named, still needs congressional approval plus a staff, and the first monitoring report is past due?

We need to stop Paulson and his cronies now – not in January but now. Some of what they have done is legally questionable and can be a starting point for forcing them to halt and possibly for undoing some of the deals they have made. The Democrats in Congress must stop worrying about what might happen if they make waves and take a hard look at what has already happened while they cowered in fear.

President-elect Obama needs to be sure that his new Secretary of the Treasury is not someone who will pick up where Paulson leaves off. We do not need a Larry Summers or Paul Volker who would be Wall Street’s new BFF.

Our new President needs to appoint someone who genuinely puts country first; Obama needs to be courageous enough to ride out the fit the Stock Market will throw at the appointment and then get on with the business of a real recovery.

There is worse to come if we do not use the same power we used to elect Obama to see that Paulson and his successor cannot sell us down the river. Because Paulson is already talking about the next phase of his plan that will address entitlement reform; Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which have long been targets of Paulson and his ilk. They will fix it so we cannot afford to continue these programs, which help our most vulnerable citizens, all in the name of saving the economy.

We have been ruled by fear long enough. We allowed ourselves to be rushed into a war in fear of weapons of mass destruction, we continue to fight two wars in fear of terrorists, we were rushed into this bailout and now we are allowing ourselves to be held hostage in fear of furthering the economic decline.

Come on people! We are brighter than that, stronger than that, capable of more than that. Now is the time to show what we are made of and take our country back from the money grabbers while we still have something to take back.

And for the cynics who would shrug this off as an impossible task; cynicism may provide a sense of smugness in being above it all but it never changed anything or helped anyone.


Information in this blog came from two articles by Naomi Klein:
In Praise of a Rocky Transition (The Nation, December 1, 2008)
The Bailout Profiteers (Rolling Stone, October 31, 2008)


Posted by Trish Purcell at 04:24 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

November 13, 2008

There’s Skullduggery Afoot

If you haven’t read Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine, you have missed a clear account of how the powerful operate behind the scenes. It should be required reading for all our elected officials. Perhaps then, they would not be so easily snookered.

The powerbrokers with a laundry list of goals, just keep pushing to achieve them. No matter how many times they fail, they just keep trying. Sometimes they manage to distract the populace and quietly slip something in under the radar. But their biggest moves take place whenever there is any kind of turmoil – be it a natural calamity or a man made crisis. During these times they take advantage of the confusion and shock caused by the upheaval to force something through and pressure Congress using fear. The fear of looking unpatriotic as with the Iraq war resolution, or in this case, the fear of making waves that might add to the financial crisis.

A November 10 Washington Post article, A Quiet Windfall for U.S. Banks, describes this latest move of Bush and company to make changes that serve business interests but not the interests of the people.

In September, at the height of the $700 billion bailout hullabaloo, the Treasury Department issued a notice that changed “two decades of tax policy.” This change, which has to do with the use of losses to offset gains in mergers, gave American banks a tax break worth an estimated $140 billion; reducing government revenues and essentially increasing the bailout by that amount. So now instead of a $700 billion bailout, we have a $840 billion bailout - without voting on it.

Is that legal? Maybe not. According to the Post article:

More than a dozen tax lawyers interviewed for this story -- including several representing banks that stand to reap billions from the change -- said the Treasury had no authority to issue the notice.
When asked if Treasury had the authority to do this, George K. Yin, former chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation said:
I think almost every tax expert would agree that the answer is no. They basically repealed a 22-year-old law that Congress passed, as a backdoor way of providing aid to banks.
What makes this move, at this time suspect? If claims by Treasury spokesman, DeSouza, that the legal authority came from Section 382 itself is true, why wait until now to do it?
The change to Section 382 of the tax code -- a provision that limited a kind of tax shelter arising in corporate mergers -- came after a two-decade effort by conservative economists and Republican administration officials to eliminate or overhaul the law… (emphasis added). Until the financial meltdown, its opponents thought it would be nearly impossible to revamp the section because this would look like a corporate giveaway, according to lobbyists.
So what are our elected representatives going to do about this?
Lawmakers are considering legislation to undo the change. According to tax attorneys, no one would have legal standing to file a lawsuit challenging the Treasury notice, so only Congress or Treasury could reverse it. Such action could undo the notice going forward or make it clear that it was never legal, a move that experts say would be unlikely.

Then what is the problem? F E A R !
… several aides said they were still torn between their belief that the change is illegal and fear of further destabilizing the economy.

Some legal experts said these under-the-radar objections mirror the objections to the congressional resolution authorizing the war in Iraq.

"It's just like after September 11. Back then no one wanted to be seen as not patriotic, and now no one wants to be seen as not doing all they can to save the financial system," said Lee A. Sheppard, a tax attorney who is a contributing editor at the trade publication Tax Analysts. "We're left now with congressional Democrats that have spines like overcooked spaghetti. So who is going to stop the Treasury secretary from doing whatever he wants?"

Sounds like it’s up to we the people. If we don’t voice our objections, if we don’t let Congress know we are paying attention to how well they protect our interests as they promised to do when they passed the bailout bill, then we cannot just blame them.

Obama made it clear that if we want change, we have to work for it. Are we up to it?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 06:54 PM | | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

November 11, 2008

Is Congress Still Asleep At The Switch?

Question 1: Who does Neel Kashkari think he is?

Mr. Neel Kashkari, who is managing the $700 billion dollar bailout seems confused about who he is working for. Just to be clear; Mr. Kashkari, is working for the American taxpayers. And that means he is accountable to them for how he manages their money. So, enough with the impatience and resistance to answering questions that was reported in the November 11 New York Post..

When Kashkari was at Goldman Sachs, he worked with little or no government regulation, a situation that brought the American economy to its knees. Now, for reasons I cannot fathom, he is among those in charge of using taxpayers’ money to breathe life back into that same economy. Such a blatant conflict of interest would only be acceptable in the wonderland that currently passes for our government.

That notwithstanding, we not only have the right to question the what and why of Kashkari’s actions, we have an obligation to do so. Our congressional representatives had that same right and obligation during the past eight years and their failure to do so, helped create the mess we are in.

It is time for Congress to say: Listen up, Mr. Kashkari. You don’t get to spend taxpayer money without immediate and transparent accountability.

Question 2: Who is Hank Paulson working for?

The American people were told that the purpose of giving the banks our money (the bailout) was to start the flow of credit again. We were assured by our congressional representatives that the second version of the bailout plan, which passed over much taxpayer opposition, would protect our interests.

Our main interest is of course is to get the economy moving so jobs will not be lost, homes will not be foreclosed, and car and other loans will once more be available. One would think that Treasury would therefore distribute the bailout funds with conditions attached that assured the funds would be used for the intended purpose. However, Hank Paulson, also a former Goldman Sachs man in yet another obvious conflict of interest position, refused to put conditions on the banks’ use of the bailout funds.

October 29’s International Herald Tribune reported

…with $250 billion in bailout funds committed to dozens of large and regional banks, it turns out that many of the recipients of this investment from taxpayers are not all that interested in making loans. And it appears that Paulson is not so bothered by their reluctance.
So what are the banks doing with our money? They are buying other banks. And not necessarily banks that are in trouble. The banks' interest is in maximizing their profit, the benefit of the public, even though it is our money they are using, is not a priority.

It is time for Congress to halt distribution of the bailout funds until there are guarantees that the banks will spend our money to benefit us first. If that also helps their bottom line all to the good, but public money puts public interests first.

We cannot afford to wait until Obama takes office in January to deal with this. It must be dealt with now, before anymore of our money is given to financial special interests for their benefit not ours. If Congress really cares about the interests of the people, now is the time to prove it.

And by the way, why isn’t the media all over this?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 02:19 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Is Congress Still Asleep At The Switch?

Question 1: Who does Neel Kashkari think he is?

Mr. Neel Kashkari, who is managing the $700 billion dollar bailout seems confused about who he is working for. Just to be clear; Mr. Kashkari, is working for the American taxpayers. And that means he is accountable to them for how he manages their money. So, enough with the impatience and resistance to answering questions that was reported in the November 11 New York Post..

When Kashkari was at Goldman Sachs, he worked with little or no government regulation, a situation that brought the American economy to its knees. Now, for reasons I cannot fathom, he is among those in charge of using taxpayers’ money to breathe life back into that same economy. Such a blatant conflict of interest would only be acceptable in the wonderland that currently passes for our government.

That notwithstanding, we not only have the right to question the what and why of Kashkari’s actions, we have an obligation to do so. Our congressional representatives had that same right and obligation during the past eight years and their failure to do so, helped create the mess we are in.

It is time for Congress to say: Listen up, Mr. Kashkari. You don’t get to spend taxpayer money without immediate and transparent accountability.

Question 2: Who is Hank Paulson working for?

The American people were told that the purpose of giving the banks our money (the bailout) was to start the flow of credit again. We were assured by our congressional representatives that the second version of the bailout plan, which passed over much taxpayer opposition, would protect our interests.

Our main interest is of course is to get the economy moving so jobs will not be lost, homes will not be foreclosed, and car and other loans will once more be available. One would think that Treasury would therefore distribute the bailout funds with conditions attached that assured the funds would be used for the intended purpose. However, Hank Paulson, also a former Goldman Sachs man in yet another obvious conflict of interest position, refused to put conditions on the banks’ use of the bailout funds.

October 29’s International Herald Tribune reported

…with $250 billion in bailout funds committed to dozens of large and regional banks, it turns out that many of the recipients of this investment from taxpayers are not all that interested in making loans. And it appears that Paulson is not so bothered by their reluctance.
So what are the banks doing with our money? They are buying other banks. And not necessarily banks that are in trouble. The banks' interest is in maximizing their profit, the benefit of the public, even though it is our money they are using, is not a priority.

It is time for Congress to halt distribution of the bailout funds until there are guarantees that the banks will spend our money to benefit us first. If that also helps their bottom line all to the good, but public money puts public interests first.

We cannot afford to wait until Obama takes office in January to deal with this. It must be dealt with now, before anymore of our money is given to financial special interests for their benefit not ours. If Congress really cares about the interests of the people, now is the time to prove it.

And by the way, why isn't the media all over this?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 02:19 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

November 07, 2008

Now Is The Time

“The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America -- I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you -- we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.

But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years -- block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.”


The essence of how Obama will govern is expressed in these words from his victory speech. He is not promising us an easy or immediate fix . He is not claiming to have all the answers or a magic wand to wave over our troubled country. His use of “we,” “our,” and “as a people” make it clear that just as we worked together to get him elected, we must continue to work together to rebuild what has been broken.

Michelle Obama, who probably knows Barack better than anyone, gave us a heads-up about what an Obama presidency would be like, when she said, on the eve of Super Tuesday;

"Barack Obama will require that you work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism; that you put down your divisions; that you come out of your isolation; that you move out of your comfort zones; that you push yourself to be better; and that you engage."

If an Obama administration is to succeed, it will require a willingness to sacrifice and to put country first from each of us. Now is a time that calls each of us to self-examination - of our motives, our predjudices, our anger, and our actions. If we are to make and keep such a commitment, it is imperative that we are honest with ourselves even if we are not able to be honest with anyone else.

My personal method for this not-as-easy-as-it-sounds task is to stand in front of a mirror, look myself in the eye and state my motive for doing something. I have found it surprisingly difficult to lie to myself while looking myself in the eye. Rationalizations and self-delusions seem to be revealed for what they are in this process. Even if I choose to continue doing what I have been doing, this forces it to be a conscious decision. And, this self honesty does away with my ability to ascribe noble motives to not so noble actions which leads at some point to a different choice.

Different methods may work for different people. The important thing is that we each seek this honesty in ourselves. It is a first and immediate step to the change we want, the change we voted for when we elected Barack Obama to lead us. And he made it clear that he can only lead us, he cannot do it for us when he said,

It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.

We need much from Barack Obama. This is what he needs from us us.


Posted by Trish Purcell at 12:30 PM | | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)