Since the President Can Fire Private Sector CEOs...

Why not get rid of a few more?  So says the SEIU of Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis.

[Link]

If given the chance, I would probably can Lewis too - but that's only because I believe the monthly fees on my meager checking account are so ridiculous.  But the SEIU is even more capricious.  Their arguments for Lewis's ouster do not extend much beyond a general union scorn of financial institutions. 

Apparently, the head of one auto exec isn't enough to satiate the union bosses. 

Where is John Galt when you need him?

Obama's Plan for the Auto Industry

For those curious about our President's plan for the auto industry look no further than the 90s classic Jerry Maguire: "Help me, help you."

[Link]

Aside from being quasi-cool, the rest of the announcement was typical Obama. Heavy on words, light on substance. Ho, ho.

"They agreed. And they recognized it. Now, the proof of the pudding's in the eating. So I expect to see that restraint operate. Another way of putting it, as I said— to those folks— let me help you— help me help you. I— it's very difficult for me as President to call on the American people to make sacrifices to help shore up the financial system if there's no sense of mutual obligation and— and mutual help. Now, the flip side is I've gotta explain to the American people we're not gonna get this recovery if we don't see a recovery of the financial sector. And there's no separation between Main Street and Wall Street. We're all in this together. And it's my job to help keep that focus as we move forward.

Just to sum up: Restraint, blah, blah, blah... Pudding, blah, blah, blah... Sacrifices...American people...Main Street...we're all in this together.

Got all that?

Once again, no hints on what the sacrifices will be. No indication as to whether Obama will take on the union demands that are making the American automakers unprofitable. No hint as to exactly what the plan is.

President Obama's solution will probably take the form of another Jerry Maguire quote (which is basically the President's solution for the broader economic crisis): "show me the money."

Update: Apparently, 'help me, help you,' also includes the government's new found ability to fire the CEOs of private sector companies.

The Left Gets Honest

Conservatives can call former Labor Secretary Robert Reich many things, but they cannot call him dishonest. Disingenuous, perhaps, but not dishonest.

In a recent Wall Street Journal Op-ed, Secretary Reich assessed President Obama's governing philosophy, and summarized it as follows:

Under Reaganomics, government was the problem. It can still be a problem. But a central tenet of Obamanomics is that there are even bigger problems out there which cannot be solved without government. By building the economy from the bottom up, enhancing public investment, and instituting reasonable regulation, Obamanomics marks a reversal of the economic philosophy that has dominated America since 1981.

[Link]

Well and succinctly put. Under President Obama, government is the solution to our national (and international) woes. For those voters still confused as to whether our President is a closet moderate, and for those doe-eyed optimist who think that he will govern from the center, put all questions to rest: he most certainly is not a moderate, and he most certainly is not governing from the center.

Fortunately, cooler heads are prevailing on the international scene. Who would have ever thought that Germany would lead the charge for commonsense reform?

A Little Less Freedom, A Little More Tower

This is an absolutely terrible idea.

[Link]

Our Most Pressing National Issue

Our economic crisis has reached the point where even the EU would scorn our company. North Korea continues to rattle its saber. Heck, even our Post Office is approaching the abyss of bankruptcy.

So, what are our leaders in Washington concerned about?

College Football.

[Link]

Listen, I'm all for a playoff. Utah would have been soundly destroyed had they played either Oklahoma or Florida. Poor Orrin Hatch wouldn't recognize his beloved Utes by the time the game was over. Suffice it to say, the mighty Mountain West Athletic Conference never has been, and never will be a match for the Big 12 or the SEC.

But really? College Football? Shouldn't we be figuring out how to solve real problems? Or how about debating whether we really want to abort our children's future by rubber-stamping the President's $3.6 Trillion budget? Maybe we should debate in the judiciary committee whether a discriminatory tax against contractually mandated retention bonuses is a good idea?

The short answer from the Senate seems to be, probably no. When it comes to college Football, everyone is a Sam Bradford.

Well, Sen. Hatch, I know Sam Bradford. I've hosted him in my living room over Sam Adams and pizza many a Saturday. And you, sir, are no Sam Bradford!

The Real Joke of the Financial Crisis

The XKCD comic below accurately sums up America's fiscal plight, and explains why the numbers bandied about are so difficult to apprehend.

Though, in isolation, wine is always better than gin. Unless it's wine pitted against a gin & tonic. Nothing beats a g&t on a warm summer night.

Is America to Blame for Mexico's Drug War?

Secretary Clinton seems to think so.

[Link]

Naturally, I'm skeptical. But the Secretary's argument for more funding to Mexican law enforcement follows in relevant part:

"Clearly, what we have been doing has not worked and it is unfair for our incapacity ... to be creating a situation where people are holding the Mexican government and people responsible," Clinton said. "That's not right."

There is surely an American interest in quelling the drug war brewing to the south. Primarily, that interest is in containing the problem in Mexico so that Tucson doesn't become the next Juarez.

But for the Secretary to claim that America is responsible for Mexico's inability to deal with its drug lords is a stretch. Police corruption, rule of law issues, poverty, etc... are all more likely suspects for the deteriorating situation.

Secretary Clinton's genuflection about American demand for drugs is a spurious point. The matter could, rightly, be controlled on the supply side by Mexican enforcement as opposed to being controlled on the demand side through American drug laws, and tax dollars.

While the matter is really one of splitting hairs, the result is the same. Mexico needs to clean up its drug induced carnage, and America has an interest in helping. But the reason behind our generosity is really self-interest - not Secretary Clinton's mea culpa about American responsibility for Mexico's inability to govern itself.

Jindal v. Obama II

I only saw excerpts of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's response to President Obama. But in fairness, the Governor deserved every bit of the criticism he received.

His performance could not have been more underwhelming if he were the Buffalo Bills in the Super Bowl. The clip below from Jimmy Fallon's Late Night underscores the point all too well.

So, why, why, why for the love of everything holy have we opted to send Gov. Jindal out against President Obama a second time? Do we really need more Kenneth the Page comparisons overshadowing the GOP message?

[Link]

The Cash-for-Trash Dilemma

My travels to the Oklahoma hinterlands left me not without access to the internet, but without opportunity to write (and much news to report, by the by, but that will have to wait until later). By the time I had returned home early this morning, my intrepid Chevy Colorado had braved a western New Mexico dust storm that managed to slay and topple two semi-trucks along Interstate 40; a northern Arizona snow flurry; and a crystal clear night as I entered the Tucson city limits. Let it never be said that ours is not an amazing country.

With my hands aching, and slightly white-knuckled from fighting the wind gusts, an update was simply not on the agenda.

But my return this morning to the headlines of Google Reader left me with a smattering of post topics - only some of which are actually in the works. But the CNN blog post below on the brouhaha between the Obama Administration, and perennial New York Times liberal Paul Krugman was one of the things that made me go, hmm.

[Link]

Mr. Krugman criticized the Administration in his column today for assuming that bankers "know what they're doing," and for promoting a cash-for-trash policy that will allow the government to buy or subsidize toxic assets on the books of America's banks. Mr. Krugman advocates a government-heavy/take-over-lite approach that would partially nationalize American banks, and "clean up their books" as an alternative.

The White House feebly responded that the "cash-for-trash" program was never intended to solve the economic crisis in the first place.

Since it is March, the matter strikes me a bit like watching an opposing team argue amongst itself on the sidelines during a big game. If the team is busy taking aim at one another, then it is not paying attention to the game. Unfortunately for Republicans, we are too busy scrounging for players to meaningfully exploit the opportunity.

But the situation puts the left in an awkward position regardless.

If Mr. Krugman is right that the cash-for-trash program is a bad policy solution adopted by President Obama, then he can no longer write off the present fiscal mess on the Republicans as he has done in nearly every colum since Mr. Obama took office. Mr. Obama asked for the job. Policy decisions made forthwith are now his.

On the other hand, if the Obama Administration is correct that the cash-for-trash program was not intended to help solve the financial crisis, then why are we wasting time putting forward solutions that will not help us out of the fix we are in?

The proposition is a heads I lose, tales you win dilemma. Regardless of the position adopted, America stands to lose in the end.

Obama Mocks the Special Olympics

President Obama dismissed a comment about the Special Olympics as being "careless and off-handed" when he likened his bowling skills to a competitive event that brings "dignity, respect, grace, and dedication" to individuals suffering from intellectual disabilities.

Unfortunately for the President, He made the crack on a taping of Jay Leno's Tonight Show, seen by millions.

Oops.

[Link]

Supporters of the Special Olympics have every right to be outraged. Special Olympians have a disability.  The President and his Administration is simply dysfunctional, and incompetent.

Bottom line: The joke was deliberate.  The only thing "careless and off-handed" about this matter is the President's agenda.

Trouble in Paradise?

Yep.

President Obama's apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda.

[Link]

When a Democrat President gets called out by the Washington Post, you know trouble is brewing...

The Cowboys' Wide Receiver Blues

I was intrigued to see that the St. Louis Rams cut seven-time pro-bowl wide receiver Torry Holt earlier today.

[Link]

As luck would have it, the Dallas Cowboys cut wide receiver Terrell Owens last week - even though the smart money would have been to can head coach Wade Phillips (other than being mildly slow, Phillips bolsters all the personality of hospital corridor).

But, since Dallas already fired the wrong personnel, here's hoping they can acquire talent like Holt's on the cheap.

Besides, with a name like 'Torry', that Holt guy is certainly headed for big things...

Take Me Back to Oklahoma

This Friday morning finds me preparing for my International Trade Law midterm.  There are few, more sadistic teaching techniques than scheduling a midterm on the Friday before Spring Break. 

That said, after I fail the test, the girlfriend arrives to make it all better.  And then we plan to embark upon a 14 hr drive for Oklahoma early Sunday morning. 

The break is, of course, welcomed.  But posts will be few and far between.  Rumor has it that the Texas Panhandle doesn't have running water, much less internet access. While we have all of these fine amenities in Walters, I expect to fill my days by doing a lot of nothing. 

For now, the video below featuring Bob Wills in the 1940 classic "Take Me Back to Oklahoma" aptly captures my thoughts about my up-coming trip.   

Oklahoma we love you you know...

The Republican Response to the Financial Crisis: See You in Harare

Nary a week ago, President Obama repeatedly used the word 'crisis' to describe America's economic state.  To consider the message, one would think these United States were on fiscal life support, ready to plunge into the abyss of the financially insolvent.

Today, President Obama has all but declared the economic crisis over.  Game called on account of rain.  As crises go, this probably rates among the shortest we have ever had.

[Link]

Though the President cannot seem to decide whether America's fiscal house is in order, one might think the opposition party would do well to rally behind a common message and, well, oppose the President in a substantive way.

Oddly, Republicans have opted not to do this.  In fact, the only Republican message on the dials came from South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford who compared the United States to Zimbabwe.

[Link]

I know little about Gov. Sanford.  But surely, surely Republicans can find a better economic spokesperson than the Governor of a state that boasts the 2nd highest unemployment rate in the nation; who has opted to turn down federal assistance that could help create jobs for his hurting state; whose lone economic insight this week is that the United States could become the next Zimbabwe.

Surely...

Apparently not.  Friends, I'll see you in Harare.

People and Monkeys

Perhaps it is the editing of my moot court brief that has caused a deviation from the logical norm around these parts. Then again, given a quick review of the comments on my stem cell research post, one could question whether logic was ever the norm around here at all.

Nevertheless, the science article from today's New York Times was pretty darn funny and worth the forwarding.

According to the piece, planning for future events is one of the few things that separate us from monkeys. But the distinction is blurred out in Sweden where a 30-year-old chimp named Santino plans for visitors to his exhibit by stockpiling rocks to hurl at on-lookers later in the day.

[Link]

I don't revel in a monkey's ability to potentially harm someone. But then again, we shot poor Travis the chimp. So, maybe hurling rocks is the way chimps across the globe are seeking revenge? Of course, the revenge could always be worse. Back in ye olden days, monkeys used to fling poo. And monkeys flinging poo rises to a level of objective reasonableness that is somehow funny by definition.

Thoughts on American Mobility

Normally, errant statistics give me little reason for pause. But the Pew Research Center survey below is absolutely astonishing.

According to Pew, some 57% of all Americans have never lived outside of the state in which they were born.  Among young adults (ages 18 - 29), roughly 66% have not lived outside the state in which they were born.

But the most shocking statistic is that fully 37% of all Americans have never left their hometown. 

On the other extreme, only some 15% of Americans have lived in four or more states. 

[Link]

I'll be the first person to confess that I have been blessed.  My life has taken me from the fields of Cotton County, Oklahoma, to the mountains of New Hampshire, and ultimately to the corridors of power in Washington, DC.  None of this happened of my own. And none of my life's blessings would have come to pass had it not been for the small-town values drilled into me as a boy. 

That said, it is a shame that more Americans have not traveled to other parts of their own country. 

Ours is as diverse and varied a land as any on the globe.  The people living in Tucson, AZ could not be more different the the legions of Red Sox Nation up in Boston.  But according to the survey, many Americans are none the wiser to any of the differences.

Unlike some talking heads, I argue that the need to travel and experience new places cuts both ways.  Folks in New York City, and Washington need to travel to places like Oklahoma City, and Savannah.  It is easy to write off entire swathes of the country as 'fly-over states', but it is another matter entirely to sit down in our coffee shops, and pubs in effort to understand what makes Americans so different from one another.  Naturally, it is just as important that my friends back in Walters, and Lawton experience places like Chicago and New Orleans. 

Having made a fairly innocuous point, I can already forecast some of the comments: Not everyone can afford to travel. Why should I travel to somewhere else when I like my home just fine?  Or Why visit a place where the people will just look down on me? Or maybe the response is I really have no interest in traveling.  The beauty of our Nation is that we Americans are free to live in every single city that our life (and budget - though not always) will allow, or we can sit right on our derriere and never leave the comfort of our living room. 

But such a choice would be the epitome of a closed mind.  Life is complex, and lived in shades of gray.  Understanding the perspective of someone with a totally different set of values than your own has the odd effect of either breaking down your own beliefs, or reinforcing them and making the stronger.  Hegel called it a a dialectic.  (Of course, he then perverted the idea as an agent of communism).  But the basic idea is that when one pits their own perspective against the opposing perspective of another person, what emerges from the collision is a new perspective that is informed by the previous two.

This makes the original argument weaker, or stronger - but it cannot remain the same. It will be weaker if the opposing perspective is more convincing. Or it will be stronger if the original perspective withstands the assault of a different point of view and emerges unscathed. It cannot remain the same because it has undergone the trial. To put the matter in a more formulaic setting: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis).

My simple point in this now unwieldy post is that traveling to other parts of the country necessarily exposes people to perspectives that are in direct conflict with their own.  (Take a look at the latest break down of red/blue states for more evidence).  As a result, our views are either made stronger, or they fall away depending upon their original strength.  Bottom line: in a time such as this, Americans need more interaction.  Not less.

SNL on Geithner's Plan to Save the Banking Industry

SNL's latest (perhaps only) spoof of team Obama aims at underscoring the absurdity that currently besets our Treasury Department.

Sadly, the parody and its '1-800-Ideas' hotline is more creative than anything the real Secretary Geithner has put forward so far.

It was especially satisfying to hear SNL's normally raucous, liberal audience muted while the Obama Administration was excoriated for its ineptitude. Enjoy!

Video Recaps | Full Episodes | Webisodes

Song of the Week: Nearer Blessed Lord

The Pax Plena Song of the Week comes to you courtesy of my latest cinematic foray- the acclaimed 2007 movie Bella. Aside from being critically acclaimed, Bella also earned the endorsement of many pro-life groups for its pro-adoption message.

I'll take care not to give away the plot for those who care to see the movie.  But, in brief, Bella is the story of an odd pairing of two down-on-their-luck people, working dead end jobs at a Manhattan restaurant. The theme of the movie is one of redemption, and grace despite some of life's toughest obstacles. In a word, the movie is about overcoming.  Unsurprisingly, Nina Simone's Nearer Blessed Lord strikes the perfect chord.

The tenor of the song is a balanced mix - delivering high moments of optimism, combined with the mournful cries of realism.  In all, the music of the song itself is reminiscent of some of the best negro spirituals of the 1940s.

The piece opens with the airy medley of a blues piano, joined quickly by Simone's vocals.  The ultimate theme of the song is one of crying out to God, and the longing all humans feel to be close (viz., nearer) to a loved one when life becomes a bit too real. It is this feeling that Simone's vocals capture so well. She is at times mournful, and at other points ebullient. Only the blues piano remains constant. The syncopation of the piano adds an interesting, consistent foil to Simone's emotional, and ranging performance. 

But the real power of the song comes from Simone's ability to transcend the genre of gospel music, and re-making the song as a work of jazz.  Along the way, Simone manages to capture some of life's most intense emotions, and present a vocal lesson in contrast to even the most skilled singer.

The song can be accessed through the YouTube video below.  Lyrics follow after the jump.  For those interested in the movie or some of the other songs from the film, the website "You Crazy Dreamers" has an interesting write up of the soundtrack.  It also contains links so that you can hear a few of the tracks.  The site can be accessed here.  Enjoy!

Nearer Blessed Lord
by Nina Simone

I am Thine, O Lord, I have heard Thy voice,
And it told Thy love to me;
But I long to rise in the arms of faith,
And be closer drawn to Thee.
Draw me nearer, nearer, blessed Lord,
To the cross where Thou hast died;
Draw me nearer, nearer, blessed Lord,
To Thy precious, bleeding side.

Consecrate me now to Thy service,
By the power of grace divine;
Let my soul look up with a steadfast hope,
And my will be lost in Thine
Draw me nearer, nearer, blessed Lord,
To the cross where Thou hast died;
Draw me nearer, nearer, blessed Lord,
To Thy precious, bleeding side

My soul look up with a steadfast hope,
My will be lost in Thine
So draw me nearer, nearer, blessed Lord,
To the cross where Thou hast died;
Draw me nearer, nearer, blessed Lord,
To Thy precious, bleeding side.

Stem Cell Research: Obama's New Policy Makes Sense

President Obama is poised to rollback Bush-era limitations on stem cell research early next week.  Given the President's penchant for massive spending, this may be one of the few areas where I find myself in agreement with him. 

[Link]

Several months ago, you regulars may recall that I had a lengthy debate on stem cell research with a couple of folks at the blog Ex Deserto.  By the by, I was an original co-founder of the forum after the 2008 elections last November. 

In my remarks, I defended stem cell research, at length, arguing that funding restrictions made little sense on moral grounds in light of the embryos' eminent, and inevitable destruction.  The tried and true slogan in opposition was that being pro-stem cell research was not "pro-life."  Apparently, no explanation was necessary.  The persnickety notion that life encompasses a much broader spectrum of our existence than lab-generated embryos, and the birth canal had no place in our discussion.  Given such a myopic view, naturally, I heard no compelling arguments in opposition to my point. 

Although surprising, it was not unexpected that I was subsequently asked to reassess my involvement with Ex Deserto. I suppose my experience only adds a small bit of tangential support to just how controversial the issue really is. 

While the crux of the debate often falls along moral lines, oddly, I saw no Bibilical support for the opposing view during the course of our repartee.  The 'orthodox' argument for life beginning at conception typically comes from King David's 139th Psalm:

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb. (Psalm 139.13).

With respect to abortion, the citation has a lot of relevance.  If God 'knits' us together when we are first conceived, then destroying an embryo (or later a fetus) has no moral basis for a Believer.  But when the same passage is applied to stem cell research there are a number of differences that make the parallel imprecise. 

For starters, the embryos in question, generally, were never in a mother's womb.  In most cases, they have been artificially fertilized in labs outside the mother's body, so the verse simply doesn't apply.  It is difficult to argue logically that God is about the work of knitting together an embryo in a mother's womb, when in fact the embryo was never in a mother's womb (nor would ever be in a mother's womb).    

Of course, the President's rationale in lifting the partial ban on stem cell research will probably have little in the way of moral underpinnings.  I would be surprised to hear the President mention morality or faith at all in his decision.  But as a policy he really does not need to. 

America's stem cell research policy is at best schizophrenic.  As it stands, we are, somehow, ok with limited stem cell research, but we are not ok with stem cell research that might actually work.  Accordingly, we provide funds for stem cell research, but then opt to limit researchers' ability to use the money.  It makes little sense to approve stem cell research for 60 lines, but not for new lines that could lead to new discoveries.  The glaring problem of the policy, then, is really its hypocrisy.  It is a policy that allows us to offer pro-science paeans, without actually giving consideration to scientific progress. 

The President's new Executive Order corrects this duplicity.  It simply makes America's stem cell research policy consistent with itself.

Jesus, Bourgeois Bohemians, and the Upper West Side

I cannot say for sure that anyone in the New York Times Style article below is a Christian. In fact, the nature of New York's bourgeois is to scorn the term as a social anachronism.

But based on the article below, I cannot help thinking that somehow these people get it. In fact, the excerpt from the article could well be a modern passage from the New Testament. For believers, I think the story is especially encouraging because it shows people living in a manner that is consistent with the Gospel's universal message of love, and grace - whether intentional or not (Luke 9.50):

“They take in strays,” Ms. Whitman said. “When I say that, I mean that — dogs, cats, people. It’s just they’re totally open.”

Georgia O’Neal, now an organic farmer in Loudoun County, Va., recalled coming home after college to find a handsome, guitar-playing friend of Coke’s camped out on the living room floor. She wound up dating him for two years. “People would ask me, ‘Where did you meet your boyfriend?’ ” she said. “And I was like, ‘I met him sleeping on the floor of my parents’ living room.’ ”

There were also, at one time or another, a rabbi’s daughter who hoped to meet a husband on the Upper West Side; a poet recently out of New York University (“I had no idea he was a drunk,” Christine O’Neal said); a public school teacher who went on to work at Lehman Brothers; a fashion designer with her husband and infant daughter; a pop music promoter from Ohio (referred by the baby-sitter); and a 16-year-old girl from New Orleans who supported her mother by working as a model, and whom Coke met at a nightclub when he was 17.

“It was great,” said the model, Sunrise Ruffalo, now a mother of three and the wife of the actor Mark Ruffalo. “They paid little rent, so they could have us living there for no money and be pursuing whatever our dreams happened to be.”

[Link]

Certainly, moderately affluent restaurateurs in New York City are a far cry from the peacekeepers, and relief workers in the far-flung corners of the world. But there is something to be said about being generous with one's possessions, and opening one's home to those in need.

If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. (Luke 9.23-24).

Everything in Moderation

Today is a frightening day of sorts. I find myself increasingly in agreement with New York Times columnist David Brooks.

The excerpt below is taken from Mr. Brooks latest column, titled "A Moderate Manifesto". Of course, the piece is a tremendous read - though I cannot help thinking that I bested him in the title of this post:

Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.

Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.

The first task will be to block the excesses of unchecked liberalism. In the past weeks, Democrats have legislated provisions to dilute welfare reform, restrict the inflow of skilled immigrants and gut a voucher program designed for poor students. It will be up to moderates to raise the alarms against these ideological outrages.

But beyond that, moderates will have to sketch out an alternative vision. This is a vision of a nation in which we’re all in it together — in which burdens are shared broadly, rather than simply inflicted upon a small minority. This is a vision of a nation that does not try to build prosperity on a foundation of debt. This is a vision that puts competitiveness and growth first, not redistribution first.

[Link]

While it is true that I have never considered myself a moderate, I find Mr. Brooks's column awfully endearing. The basic argument follows in three points: 1) Liberals are scary. 2) Some factions of conservatism are scary - but not quite as scary. 3) America needs a commonsense solution somewhere in the middle.

Oddly enough, I do not disagree. When Brooks speaks of ending the 'war of extremes,' I am nigh ready to enlist.

Were America's new motto going forward, "everything in moderation" that would surely be change I could believe in.