They just don't learn

From the NYT:

President Hamid Karzai seems poised to declare an overwhelming victory in Afghanistan’s hotly contested presidential election, even as allegations of fraud by his main opponent threaten to undermine the credibility of the vote.

The president’s finance minister, Hazrat Omar Zakhilwal, claimed Monday that Mr. Karzai had garnered 68 percent of ballots in Thursday’s election, quoting figures from election officials that he said had been provided to the cabinet.Such a showing would make a second round of voting unnecessary.

Apparently, they imported vote-counters from Iran.

How dumb do they think we are? How dumb do they think the Afghan people--that is, the ones who haven't written off the government entirely--are?

Just yesterday we heard reports that the western military commanders in Afghanistan are preparing to ask for more troops. As regular readers will recall, this page has long supported the Afghan war as necessary or at least justified. But in the end, as everyone recognizes, the Taliban and their terrorist allies (which allies are the reason we are in this, and the only justification for putting American and other NATO troops in among the warring parties) can only be defeated by the Afghans. If the Afghan people do not reject the Taliban, the country will only be a graveyard for foreign troops.

And it should go without saying that the only way that the people of Afghanistan will back the central government is if it presents something worth supporting. That means, as a first step. making serious inroads on corruption, cronyism and incompetence.

Apparently, there is no appetite for serious reform in the Afghan government. It's time for the US to tell Karzai (whom I welcomed early in his term) some home truths: that if he and those around him are not going to get on the stick and put the welfare of the nation above their own fortunes, the US will leave him and his cronies to their just desserts. As a first step in that lesson, no more troops until government improves.

Update: According to AP, fragmentary official returns give Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah (the former foreign minister) about 40% each. Returns are to be reported over the next few days.

Keeping our eyes on the ball

I heard someone (I think it was a Republican officeholder) say that we all agree that we want everyone to have health insurance.

Isn't what we REALLY want (or ought to want) if for everyone to have health care?

The surprise

It strikes me that the big surprise about the Republicans is how stubborn they are. They lost control of Congress in 2006. They lost the White House and got scalded in congressional races in 2008. Yet they maintain the same lock-step, hard-right, ideologically-driven attitude that got them where they are today. They are like Fouche's description of the Bourbon kings of France: "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. That can't be smart, or good politics.

Democrats, from the White House down, should remember that. Bipartisanship is fine, but it takes two to tango. If the GOPhers can't remember that they are very much in the minority, and negotiate in good faith from that position, forget them. Why hold progressive policies hostage to the troglodyte faction? Let the Grand Old Party slide further into irrelevance while the nation marches forward.

Barney Frank takes on the health care Nazis

Smackdown!

(It's been all over TV and the 'net, but I couldn't resist putting it here in case you haven't seen it.)

A disgrace

The news media report that oldsters are angry. Specifically, they are angry about healthcare reform.

Now you might think that people who have benefited from Medicare would be up in arms at the idea that people would try to deprive other Americans of the high-quality that older citizens enjoy. And I'm sure that many seniors are making that point. But, at least according to what we read, it seems that most of these angry oldsters are outraged at the idea that the benefits of government-administered health care may be extended to younger citizens.

I suppose that I should not be surprised that older Americans show the same narrowness, ignorance and selfishness that characterize much of the electorate, but it is disheartening to realize that so many of them seem to have successfully resisted learning the lessons of their experience.

The best argument

It strikes me that the best argument in favor of healthcare reform with a public option lies in the raucous town halls that we have been seeing spread across our television and computer screens. Yes, there is great ignorance and meretriciousness displayed, but think about this: if there's a problem with Medicare, you can write to your congressman/woman. If enough people feel the same way, or if the situation is egregious enough, changes will be made. That's politics: even the most entrenched representative ultimately has to listen to the voters.

Now, try writing to the president of your private health insurer and see where THAT gets you.

Ve vas only folloving orders

On the day that the Obama Administration released for memos from the Department of Justice that justified torture and read like something out of the Nazi archives, the President also announced that no CIA employee will be prosecuted for such crimes as waterboarding, repeatedly dousing prisoners with cold water, depriving detainees of sleep for up to eleven days, or other brutal and degrading acts.

Why no prosecutions? Because the interrogators were following interpretations of the law that were binding on them.

I thought we settled this issue at Nuremburg: it is no defense to say that you followed a lawful order.

And none of the Justice Department memos required the interrogators to torture; they merely offered a fig leaf for practices that the Agency voluntarily carried out.

The President was closer to the mark--although still wrong--when he said, “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.”

This was a political decision, taken to avoid prolonging the deep divide between those who believe that what the United States does is, per se, right and those who believe that if we aspire to lead the world, we Americans must show that we really are better than our adversaries.

The Bush Administration subverted the Constitution and traduced our legal traditions. Expiation for the nation's sins is not necessary just to cleanse our consciences, but to help us regain our moral ascendancy over those who have declared themselves our mortal enemies. This, in abjuring prosecution for crimes against humanity, Mr. Obama is not merely wrong morally, he is making a serious political mistake as well. The President should have listened to Dean Acheson.

Not one cent for tribute

Some thoughts on curbing piracy, principally in Somalia, but applicable, I hope, to wherever the scourge is endemic:

As in so many of our problems, the essential question is whether we have the will, not the means. We may not be able to eliminate piracy, but we can surely reduce it to a manageable annoyance if we exercise the will to do so. For instance, one idea that's been bruited about is to go in and clean out the pirate havens on the Somali coast. But whenever that is brought up, someone is sure to murmur, "Blackhawk Down." While the deaths of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu was an unspeakable tragedy for them and their families, in the scale of war that firefight was a minor engagement. It became a major embarrassment for the United States not because of any intrinsic factors--although it did reveal a want of planning and command response--but because we, principally President Clinton, permitted it to become so.

Fortunately, we can probably curb pirates around the Horn of Africa without having to go ashore. Here are a few approaches:

It's not just business: Stop permitting shipping companies and insurers (or anyone else) to pay ransom for ships and crews. The problem goes beyond the individuals and the ships involved. Misplaced feelings of sympathy, and the desire for corporate profit, only make things worse. If shipping companies, their agents or insurers pay ransom, provide that the ships in question will be forfeited and sold, with cargo, in a prize court. Shippers and insurers will try to find third-party fronts so that they can keep paying ransoms--it's cheaper and easier than resisting--so efforts will have to be made to keep them from getting away with that.

Convoys: Convoys worked in both World Wars and they would work off Somalia. True, they would be inconvenient, as ships would have to wait for the convoy to assemble and then travel at the speed of the slowest vessel. On the other hand, given the nature of the threat and today's military technology, escorts could offer almost complete protection. Fortunately, convoys through the seas off Somalia would not have to be as large as those in the Atlantic during WWII, because they get much more complex as the number of ships grows.

Guards on Shipboard: We should have squads of Marines and/or sailors on board vessels traveling through the threatened areas. Think of 12 to 15 men (and possibly women) armed with a couple of machine guns, some shoulder-fired missiles and assault rifles. Pirates have threatened merchant ships with automatic rifles and RPGs. I think it's safe to say that a TOW missile would do a lot more damage to a pirate skiff than an RPG can do to a 15,000 ton ship. A recent story said that 20,000 ships pass by the Horn of Africa each year. That is a large number, but it comes down to around 55 per day. A few battalions of Marines, stationed on Amphibious Assault Ships, could rotate squad-sized units on and off ships passing through the lower end of the Red Sea, off the Horn of Africa and the southern border of Somalia. Not all ships passing through would have to be given armed guards for them to be a powerful deterrent. This kind of duty, by the way, is exactly what marines have been doing for hundreds of years. It's a lot more in the Marine tradition than slogging through Fallujah or Tora Bora. Other nations that have naval vessels patrolling of Somalia should be asked to contribute to the guard force. (I am resolutely against private armed forces on ships. If there are any core government functions, law enforcement and national defense are among them. Privatization has an even worse record in those areas than in others.)

Broaden the Military Response: The Amphibious Support Ships mentioned above can dominate a large area. They carry helicopters, Harrier aircraft and small seacraft. Unfortunately, the latter have been landing craft, which are relatively slow. For anti-pirate patrols these need to be replaced with fast, maneuverable boats that can match, or even outrun and out maneuver pirate craft. Some of the larger commercially-available RIBs can probably be outfitted with machine guns and in any event can carry sailors or Marines armed with the kind of light weapons that the pirates have. Better would be the kind of high-speed patrol boats that the Coast Guard employs.

Prosecute the Pirates: Pirates captured by US forces should be prosecuted in US courts here in the United States. The prospect of long prison terms in the States would be another strong deterrent to turning pirate, even though the food in our penitentiaries is probably more plentiful and of better quality than what a lot of the pirates are now getting. The French are already prosecuting pirates that they have captured.

Many authorities have pointed out that the real solution to piracy off the Somali coast lies in creating a working state in Somalia. True. But that could take decades. The steps that I have outlined can be taken the next few months, some in just a few weeks. They would be relatively inexpensive (by the standards of military operations), require relatively few resources (though now than we have dedicated now), and would as a side benefit provide valuable experience for the kind of small-unit actions that our military is likely to see a lot more of in the next few years.

We always knew it

The NYT had an interesting story in its Science section yesterday, pointing out that socially-compelled sharing of resources (i.e. taxation) is not only nearly universal among humans, but also exists in many other social species. As the writer, Natalie Angier, put it, "It turns out that giving up a portion of one’s income for the sake of the tribe is such a ubiquitous feature of the human race that some researchers see it as crucial to our species’ success."

What does this mean? That Republicans are not only bad for the nation, they threaten human existence! Take that, Newt Gingrich.

Did you spot the howler?

Our unplanned hiatus (I've been too busy and/or lazy to post) meant that we did not answer the question in "Can you spot the howler?" Time to catch up.

The passage in question, from Scott Turow's Ordinary Heroes (a book I recommend highly, despite the howler) was:

"The C rations are terrible," she said. "They are the best thing the American Army brought with them." She actually hugged her green pack of Luckys to her breast. "In Vichy, the women were banned from buying cigarettes altogether. Martin says that is why I had no choice but to join the resistance." She laughed at herself.

The key to this is that the action takes place in October 1944. But Lucky Strikes had lost their green packaging in 1942. All Americans who had reached maturity by WWII knew that, because one of the most famous advertising campaigns of the time was, "Lucky Strike Green Has Gone to War!" By 1944, any cigarettes in a green Lucky Strike pack had long since gone stale.

One of the great questions

We celebrate our return with one of the great, unanswered, existential questions that comes up every year at this time:

Why did the Creator (God, or whatever) make it so that all the lovely flowering trees come into full bloom while it's still cold enough to freeze your butt off?

No good deed goes unpunished

Last week, on Israel's annual Good Deeds Day, a youth orchestra from Jenin, in the West Bank, played a concert for a group of Holocaust survivors in a suburb of Tel Aviv. The symbolism was powerful, although the actual message was much more muddied and complex: None of the children spoke Hebrew, the elderly survivors spoke no Arabic, and apparently the children knew almost nothing of the Holocaust. (I assume as well that the survivors know little or nothing of the Palestinian version of Israel's birth.) Still, it was a nice gesture, a ray of light.

A gesture that has now been condemned by political "leaders" in the refugee camp from where the children come.

Makes you think that if we could get the adults out of the way....

Bankruptcy for GM?

In today's NY Times Magazine, Matt Bai has the best argument I've seen for letting GM go into bankruptcy. The heart of his argument comes in response to the shibboleth that no one would buy a car (or an extended warranty) from a company in Chapter 11:

This argument underscores the deeper problem afflicting G.M. over a period of decades now — not simply soaring labor costs or global competition but also an inability to grasp underlying changes in American culture. There probably was a time when a well-publicized bankruptcy would, in fact, have destroyed the viability of a brand. But in the 20 years since Silicon Valley start-ups began transforming the workplace, younger Americans — in other words, those who now make up the heart of the consumer market — have largely dispensed with the mythology of the infallible institution. Transparency and reinvention, rather than stability and regality, are the more valued assets in an economy where entrepreneurs expect to stumble more often than they succeed and where employees expect to have to change jobs (if not careers) multiple times.

Which led me to think about United Airlines, which went into and came out of bankruptcy intact. Indeed, almost all major US airlines (including US Airlines) have done so. Now it's true that buying an airline ticket is not like buying a car: for one thing it's cheaper, and even if you--like the lovely Diane and me--are addicted to buying well in advance to save money--that ticket is not something you expect to keep and use for years. On the other hand, airlines take you really high in the sky and transport you really fast in a extremely inhospitable atmosphere, frequently over very remote places. (If you think the United States is thickly settled, take a plane from coast to coast and gaze down at the vast expanses of the nation that seem not only to be uninhabited, but uninhabitable.)

So maybe we have matured to the point where the public would view Chapter 11 as a sign of stability, not ultimate failure. Would bankruptcy be cheaper than a government bailout? That's for better minds than mine.

A few thoughts on the Middle East

This post is occasioned by my friend Leanderthal, the Lighthouse Keeper. You can find his blog here.

Lee first came to my attention with a comment he posted about some of my thoughts on Israel. He is very concerned about war and peace in the Middle East (as we all should be), and particularly by the influence he sees in what he and others call the Israel Lobby. More particularly, he is concerned that in his view the Israel Lobby has a lock on American policy toward the region, preventing the United States from staking out any new position. That's a valid point.

What is the "Israel Lobby?" Not surprisingly, it is defined by its critics. It's centerpiece is AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC doesn't make any bones about its stance: go to its website and you'll see that it bills itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby." Another part of what is often considered the Israel Lobby, although perhaps not so strident as AIPAC is the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. (I can't help but wonder if anyone has been turned down for membership, because he or she is the president of a minor Jewish organization.) Then there is a less formal network of intellectuals and pundits (the terms may be partially interchangeable) and other machers. They are, of course, allied with many members of Congress, and have had the ear of vital members of all administrations as well.

One thing that ought to be noted is that most of those who raise alarums about the Israel Lobby oppose American policy in the Middle East more than they care about those who speak for Israel; I don't place Leanderthal in that group, but it would be fallacious to deny that they exist. The real objection of such people is not so much the Israel Lobby as its effectiveness. In the end, many of them are not friends of Israel.

Let me hasten to make clear that no one need be a friend of Israel to be a responsible participant in the debate over Middle East policy, although I have trouble taking seriously those who wish for the elimination of Israel from the list of the world's nations except, perhaps, as part of a very long-range hope that someday Israelis and Palestinians will freely and peacefully choose to be part of a single state. I don't happen to think that is likely to happen, ever (the dissolution of the Netherlands into what is now that country and Belgium, in 1830, was over issues not nearly as deep as those that divide Palestinians and Israelis, and I haven't heard calls for re-unification of the Low Countries), but one could make an intellectually respectable argument for it.

I should also note that debate over the role of the Israel Lobby, and the making of American policy, are perfectly legitimate topics. Indeed, American Jews debate them fiercely. Check out the Israel Policy Forum and the writings of blogger M.J. Rosenberg, who frequently differ with and often vociferously criticize the doings of the lobby. I have also disagreed frequently with the chauvinistic and unthinking attitude of some of Israel's more vociferous supporters.

But here's the thing: Right now, how much can US policy change? Don't the realities on the ground trump the desire for a bold new direction and push a debate about how Israel tries to affect American policy into the background?

For many years, I would daydream about what I would say to Israelis and Palestinians if I were the occupant of the Oval Office. As the first Jewish president, I would have some extra weight with the Israeli prime minister, and I would use it to tell him or her a few home truths. I would say that the time for settlements in the West Bank had passed, and that the time to remove them had arrived. I would tell the prime minister that the Palestinians have to get a state that pretty much runs along the borders of the West Bank in 1967, artificial as those were. For the settlers, I would suggest cash incentives and land--to the extent that a tiny state like Israel could find some--to induce them to move. For those who refused, I would advise telling them that, from a certain date a few years hence, they could live under Palestinian rule. I would make clear that Israel has to treat its Arab citizens the same way that it treats its Jewish ones. To the Palestinian prime minister--undoubtedly suspicious of this Jew in the White House--I would offer friendship and firm support for a Palestinian state. But I would tell him (it is hardly likely to be a woman at any time in the near future) that he had to suppress the violent elements in the Palestinian polity. No peace deal will work if people are firing rockets into Israel. And those who are still refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan more than sixty years after the division of the British mandate have to give up the hope of return. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. Half a loaf is better than none, and so is half a land.

Would this frank talk prove the key to peace? Questionable at any time. (You may note that my home truths did not include Jerusalem, about which I have some ideas, but which is the hardest nut of all to crack.) But now? For the present, at least, my ideas are those of a dreamer at best, or maybe a crackpot. Given what happened in Gaza when Israel abandoned it, who could expect the Israelis to give unfettered domain in the West Bank to the Palestinians. Given the actions of Israeli settlers and police in the West Bank, how long a road must be traveled be before Palestinians find enough hope, let alone trust, to live in peace with their neighbors? Yet how can we expect Israel to give up security in the hope of peace? And all that is without regard to the recent fighting in Gaza. Given the power of the rejectionists of Hamas, Hezbollah and the right wing in Israel, who can envision a stable peace?

In the Middle East today, the parties, with the U.S. as the essential intermediary, need to devise the first small steps toward an ultimate accord. That will entail a complex, difficult and probably slow process that needs ingenuity and much patience.

But beside that, debates over the Israel Lobby seem like a distraction.

If you're so smart, why aren't we rich?

I'm no economist, but the Treasury's new plan looks like a reasonable approach to repairing the financial system. Yes, it is in many respects a re-run of the Bush administration's original proposal. And, yes, taxpayers will be subsidizing the same financial institutions that got us into this fix. But what else are we going to do? I don't see anyone proposing that we create a whole new banking system. Would nationalization--which is probably the way I would go were I in the Oval Office--really create a new group of banks? Or would it reshuffle the old ones?

What does bother me is not so much the idea of public-private partnerships or low interest loans to investors, but the administration's unwillingness to tell Wall Street that this is a new day. The AIG bonuses, tiny as they were compared to the amount that the company has received from us taxpayers, showed that the old culture remains all too intact. If we are to make basic, long-term progress, that needs to change. The people in charge of banks, hedge funds, stock brokerages and insurance companies need to learn an old truth: No one is irreplaceable.

Bernie's not so different from the rest of us

Thanks to Talkingpointsmemo.com for this one.

In case you haven't been to TPM, it seems that before Bernie Madoff's plea, the US Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York sent the judge a collection of emails from his victims. (Given that the US Attorney's office knew that the sentencing would not be that day, it's not clear what the purpose of forwarding the emails was.) You can find the cover letter here, with the emails attached.

Now, here's the reason for posting this: go to Page 36 of the document and read the email there.

See, Bernie really isn't all that different from you and me. Well, not in one respect, anyway.

Can you spot the howler?

Today, we're starting an occasional challenge: to spot the howler in a passage from a book or article. The answer will be published in a few days or perhaps a week.

Our first howler comes from Scott Turow's Ordinary Heroes. The woman referred to is a young woman in the liberate part of northern France, in October 1944. See if you can spot the howler. (Hint: this is a double howler; something Turow intended to give his work verisimilitude that was actually wrong.)

"The C rations are terrible," she said. "They are the best thing the American Army brought with them." She actually hugged her green pack of Luckys to her breast. "In Vichy, the women were banned from buying cigarettes altogether. Martin says that is why I had no choice but to join the resistance." She laughed at herself.

Can you spot the howler? If you think you have, post a comment below to tell us what it is. If your idea agrees with a prior comment, feel free to say so. There's no point in being different and wrong! All correct answers will result in a glow of satisfaction.

The President's interview

I watched President Obama's interview on 60 Minutes tonight. Nothing especially new in it, but I for one was reassured by his calm, and I wonder if that was not the main purpose of the appearance.

Mr. Obama's repeated declarations that he is the one finally responsible are heartening, given his predecessor's refusal to accept responsibility for anything, but sadly they are also made necessary by the lack of confidence that so many are expressing. In the last few weeks, Congressional Republicans seem to have found new energy; clearly, they believe they are getting traction with their negative campaign. Too little attention has been paid, as yet, to how much of that campaign, in addition to its negativity without any plan for the future, relies on the American people having such a poor collective remedy that we do not remember how much of what they now inveigh against were articles of Republican faith just a few months ago.

Regular readers will know that this page has been critical of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and has questioned whether he can survive (or should). But I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a year from now, while we are certainly not going to be in a time of prosperity--or even, perhaps, on the clear road back to good times--the American people will have accepted Mr. Obama's policy prescriptions and the Republicans will be seen as nothing more than a doomsday chorus.

Good news

Most of the people who routinely complain that the media concentrate on bad news will probably consider this more of the same, but in a step forward the state of New Mexico has abolished capital punishment. Gov. Bill Richardson, who has supported the death penalty in the past, signed a bill establishing life-without-parole as the state's most severe punishment.

Civilization advances slowly and with halting steps.

Borrowed time?

The Times joins the list of those questioning whether Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner can long endure.

From the article: "Fair or not, questions about why Mr. Geithner did not know sooner about the A.I.G. bonuses and act to stop them threaten to overwhelm his achievements and undermine Mr. Obama’s overall economic agenda."

What are the Secretary's achievements? Either because they have been slim, or hard to describe, or have not yet come to fruition, or because neither Treasury or the White House have been effective in getting them out to the people, they are hard to discern. That needs to change.

The Treasury Secretary's political weight needs to be heavy if the administration is going to get us out of our plight on its terms. Remember a few months ago, when Hank Paulson (Hank Paulson!) seemed to be running the country? Yes, I know, in those days of yore the Oval Office was for all intents and purposes vacant, but even a strong President needs a strong lieutenant at the Treasury. President Obama can't afford to spend his political capital on building up Tim Geithner's credibility; the Secretary will have to do that for himself. We need leadership, and not just from the President. If Mr. Geithner is not going to be an asset, he needs to get out of the way.

(And this from someone who paled at the thought of Larry Summers as Treasury Secretary in the Obama administration.)

This is the Army

I don't know if President Obama reads the letters to the editor in The New York Times, but I hope that at least someone in the West Wing saw today's paper.

Wever Weed, of Long Lake, Minnesota: " Memo to A.I.G. bonus-seekers: Your prima donna days are over; you are on America’s team now, and you are expendable."

Paulette Altmeier, of Cupertino, California: "President Obama may not realize it yet, but his Katrina moment has arrived. "

The phrase "America's team," caught my eyes, and reminded me of what Irving Berlin wrote:

This is the Army Mr. Brown
You and your baby went to town.
She had you worried, but this is war,
And she won't worry you any more.

We haven't seen that spirit--the idea that this is a new day in which the old worries are recognized to be trivial, the old values will no longer serve, that we're all engaged in a national effort that will mean sacrifice from those of us who still have something left. The President has expressed something like that in his speeches, but he has not, at least so far, turned that into a philosophy that animates the response of the executive branch, much less the nation, to the economic crisis.

Perhaps we should not expect so much of a President who has been in office for only two months, but time is short. As that letter writer said, this is (at least potentially) Barack Obama's Katrina moment.

What we lose

Dan Barry, on the demise of the Seattle P0st-Intelligencer, showing us what we lose when a newspaper dies.

No Bozos

I first thought of writing this post when I saw a headline that the creator of Bozo had died. But Alan W. Livingston, who left this mortal coil on March 13th at age 91, was no Bozo.

A short sketch of his career: In 1956, he had the idea for a series of children's records that came accompanied by storybooks. One of them was Bozo at the Circus, which was the clown's start. It sold more than a million copies.

A few years later, as president of Capitol records, Livingston signed Frank Sinatra, whose career was in eclipse, and paired him with Nelson Riddle. Some of the great records of the '50's and '60's came out of that partnership. In the mid-50's he left Capitol to go to NBC, where he put together a western called Bonanza. (His brother, songwriter Jay Livingston, co-wrote the famous theme song).

Oh, and then he went back to Capitol where, in 1963, he reversed the decision of others in the company and decided to releas a record called "I Want to Hold Your Hand," by a little-known group called the Beatles.

Now that's a career!

The power to tax is the power to destroy

So wrote Justice Holmes.

Now some in Congress are talking about taxing the AIG bonuses at 100%. Unfortunately, that is almost surely unconstitutional. To begin with, it would amount to a bill of attainder--an ancient practice of punishing one or more individuals in a defined group without due process that is proscribed by the Constitution. Also the ex post facto clause, which forbids punishment for acts that were legal when committed. And there may be others as well.

Nice try. No cigar.

They pushed the company over a cliff, and now...

The often colorful Chuck Grassley (R.Ind.) suggests that AIG executives should either resign or commit seppuku (ritual suicide).

The public is justifiably angry, but isn't that just a bit over the top?

More AIG

Robert Reich on the argument that the AIG bonuses are necessary to retain talented executives: "And any mention of the word 'talent' in the same sentence as 'AIG' or 'credit default swaps' would be laughable if laughing weren't already so expensive."

Reich also points out that the argument that the company is contractually-obligated to pay the bonuses rings false because, had the company gone into bankruptcy, as it would have without the government handout, err, bailout, claims for bonuses would have come behind those of secured creditors--which is to say they would have been wiped out--and that the people now feeding at the trough would have been out on the street.

Reich concludes:

But if our very own Secretary of the Treasury doesn't even learn of the bonuses until months after AIG has decided to pay them, and cannot make stick his decision that they should not be paid, AIG is not even accountable to the government. That means AIG's executives -- using $170 billion of our money, so far -- are accountable to no one.

* * * *

On a related topic: Was Larry Summers' broadside at AIG on George Stephanopolous' show yesterday aimed at Tim Geithner as much as at the company? Is Summers setting himself up to be the next Treasury Secretary, when the President decides that Geithner is not ready for prime time? (He sure hasn't looked it so far.)

Actual good news

The voters of El Salvador have elected Mauricio Funes, candidate of the leftist FMLN, as their new president. Now, I don't know anything about President-Elect Funes or the details of his politics, but this is good news, because (a) the race was a close one; Funes had a big lead, but the party of the Right, ARENA, had the money and clout with the establishment, slammed Funes as a tool of Hugo Chavez and gained much ground; (b) FMLN was asserting that if the race was close, ARENA would engage in fraud and prevent Funes from winning; (c) the margin was, apparently, around 51-49 percent and (d) it sounds like no one is making noises about nullifying the election results.

In a nation like El Salvador, a peaceful change of government is an important and heartening step.

Just say no!

You have undoubtedly heard that AIG is taking millions of taxpayer dollars (it has none of its own) to pay millions in bonuses to executives in its Financial Products division. This relatively small part of the company is mainly responsible for the company getting into trouble (that and upper management's blindness or willingness to look the other way while the people in FP drove AIG under).

The early reports said that $100 to $170 million was to be paid, but the WSJ says a whopping $450 million.

Various sources reported that Secretary Geithner tried to stanch the bonuses with a phone call, but was unsuccessful. Worse, the CEO is the guy that Treasury put in when we (that is, the American people) took an 80% stake in the company. The excuse for this is that the bonuses are required by contract.

Let me tell you that if I had an 80% stake in a company and the guy running the place told me that he couldn't stop paying those bonuses, he'd be on the street so fast that his head would be spinning. And as for the excuse that there's no alternative, I would ask, "Can you say, 'Sue me?'"

I have a lot of clients who have very good claims of employment discrimination. Companies have no trouble in forcing us to sue to enforce those claims. Let the AIG employees sue. They won't collect more than they will be paid as the company and the government turn tail. Many of them will settle for less. Given that the reasoning behind paying these bonuses is that AIG is "contractually obligated," many of those who sue will lose: surely they cannot maintain with a straigh face that they fulfilled their contracts by being so negligent, incompetent or worse that they put the company it the state it was in last last October.

AIG's excuse is that they need to retain talent. Huh? Retain them? Why weren't they fired months ago?

(The one bright spot is that Edward Liddy, AIG's CEO, was a Bush Administration appointee. A good time to fire him.)

Reckoning

"Some will rob you with a six-gun and some with a fountain pen"

Pretty Boy Floyd, Woody Guthrie

Bernie Madoff is to plead guilty this morning. A few of his victims will be in the courtroom to face him. The New York Times reported suggestions that the proceeding be held at the new Citi Field (successor to Shea Stadium), to give a reasonable fraction of those duped a chance to attend. (The Times also reported suggestions that the new stadium should be re-named Debits Field.)

I don't know if Madoff will be sentenced today; there's no plea deal, and normally the court orders a pre-sentence evaluation and report. So it could be months before we know what is going to happen.

But look at it this way: If Madoff gets just one year for every billion that he claims to have stolen, he'll be sentenced to fifty years in prison. What would you or I get if we stole a hundred dollars from a guy on the street?

Very good news

The BBC reports that researchers have discovered an enzyme that they say is crucial in allowing cancer to metastasize. Metastasization is responsible for 90 percent of cancer deaths, so stopping the spread of the disease would be by far the largest step to improving treatment. (The story does not state what the prognosis is for a drug that would block the enzyme in humans, although it references studies in mice, without saying whether the enzyme was effectively blocked.)

One downside: the enzyme in question is LOX. Does that mean no more bagels....?

STOP THE INSANITY

Most of the guns used by the Mexican drug cartels are sold to traffickers by American gun dealers. A man walks into a church, goes to the pulpit and guns down the pastor, in front of his horrified congregation. It actually made the news when a committee of the Arkansas state senate killed (no pun intended) a bill that would have allowed concealed weapons in churches. (I can hear it now: if some people in that Illinois church had had guns, the pastor might be alive today. Sure. Or maybe half a dozen more would be dead.)

And how do we respond? The United States Senate attaches a rider to a bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress that would repeal the District's requirement for trigger locks and repeal a ban on assault weapons.

Think of it: you could legally carry a .50 cal. sniper rifle in Washington, D.C. That's right, a weapon that can deliver aimed, rapid fire against targets a mile away, within easy range of the nation's leaders. (Remember the D.C. sniper of a few years ago? He and his sidekick terrorized the whole D.C. metropolitan area with an ordinary rifle.)

Oh, and there's a later development: Yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case in which New York was trying to continue its campaign against gun manufacturers who flood the state with illegal weapons.

Will we ever wake up? Will we continue to let a minority of crazies hold the nation hostage? Will someone have the courage--or clarity--to stand up and say that the leadership of the NRA and its allied organizations are the witting or unwitting allies of drug dealers, mobsters and terrorists?

The more things change...

A couple of years ago, I noted that the Republicans, like the Bourbons of France, had learned nothing and forgotten nothing. (The phrase is from Talleyrand.)

That's even more true today, when the the once Grand Old Party has nothing to offer but the hope that Democrats will fail. They have not only ceded the initiative to President Obama (I like writing those words together!) and his allies on Capitol Hill, they have no ideas worth the name to offer as an alternative. That is sad, because for all of his energy, initiative and ability, Obama has not been perfect so far, and intellectual competition could improve the way we are governed. But the Republicans offer no creative ideas about the direction in which the nation should move, or even on the issues of the day.

Almost certainly, there will come a time when this will change, when Republicans will offer some real, if misguided, theories on what the United States should be like and how we should govern ourselves. And when that happens, we Democrats will deride the Republicans and wail if the voters seem to accept what they have to say. But in the long run, the nation will be better for it. Well, maybe. Are we really better off for having had Reagan?

John Stewart gets the meltdown

I'm not a fan of The Daily Show, because there are more hits and misses. But here is a real hit, via TPM.

Two nations, separated by a common language

Sarah Lyall, NYT correspondent in Blighty, has one of the wittiest articles I've seen in years. (Warning: your editor has not grown entirely out of his sophomoric streak.)

(Have you noticed that even as newspapers struggle, the quality of writing and photography, at least in The New York Times, has grown markedly?)

And so the countdown begins

If you don't already feel a sense of urgency, think of this: The countdown on Barack Obama's time as President has already begun: Thanks to the 22nd (or XXIInd, if you prefer) Amendment, he is limited to no more than two terms. There's no time to lose!

Fortunately, there are a couple of signs of starting fast, even if they are steps that only start undoing the evils of the Bush administration. (Undoing the evils of the Bush years is a major task, on top of all the crises that face the new President.) Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel took time off from inaugural festivities to order that all pending regulations be stopped pending review, and the President found time to order that military prosecutors to seek 120-day continuances in all war-crimes cases at Guantanamo Bay.

And so the new age begins.

A New Day Dawned at Noon

Something extraordinary happened today: a new day dawned at noon, when Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States. The weather was cold, but clear and marvelously sunny; let us hope that that is an augury for the coming days. To call the sea of citizens in front of the Capitol huge would be a vast understatement; may that be a symbol of a basic unity among us--even as we furiously debate--in the challenging days ahead.

And may the new President's words inspire us, and the world:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.
...

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

...

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

...

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

...
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
...

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].“

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Now, the work begins.

Transition trivia

It is the clock, not the oath, that will make Barack Obama President tomorrow. Under the Twentieth Amendment (or the XXth, if you prefer), the term of the outgoing president ends at noon on January 20th. As there can be no vacancy in the office, Barack Obama will then succeed to the office whether or not he has been sworn in.

One day!

As I write this, there are fewer than 24 hours until Barack Obama becomes the 44th President of the United States. And less than 24 hours until George W. Bush leaves office!

The horizon is stormy and fog surrounds us, but truly a new day is dawning!

This Land is Your Land

If I were the producer, yesterday's concert would have closed with This Land is Your Land. Yet I never expected that; I know how out of touch I am with popular taste. How perfect for me, then, that Obama's remarks should be followed with that anthem to the American people; even better that it brought us Pete Seeger--even if he was only speaking the verses--and Bruce Springstein. And how suprising--perhaps shocking--to hear them sing the verse that goes:

As I was walkin'  -  I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side  .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

I confess that there were tears in my eyes, and some of them
escaped down my cheeks.  This Land is not merely Woody
Guthrie's great anthem,  a remembrance of the folk music revival
of the 1960's, it was also the theme song of Fred Harri's New
Populist campaign in 1976--a time when we true believers
thought we would change the world.  The song represents the
best of my past, and a hope for the future.

A thought

Barack Obama's brief remarks at yesterday's concert at the Lincoln Memorial were better than anything George W. Bush said in eight years in office.

National day of service

As you probably know, President-Elect Obama has designated today as a National Day of Service, and asked Americans to volunteer at a local community-service agency for the day. This is a good and noble idea, more for the intent it shows and the possibility that some of us will find today a springboard into serving our fellows than for useful work that will be done.

Having said that, I am at my office today. Why? For one thing, I am working on Martin Luther King Day so that I may take tomorrow off to celebrate the fruition of his dream. Also, most of my law practice is devoted to furthering the civil rights of employees, so I think it is fair to say that in some sense most of my work is devoted to serving the community. I am reminded of the story of the French knight who implored a Spaniard to go on crusade to the Holy Land. Thinking of the constant struggle against the Moors, the Spaniard replied, "We are always on crusade; we do our part."

(For those who take issue with the idea of equating a crusade for a particular religion with equal rights for all, as Lincoln said, we know what is right only "as God gives us to see the right.")

Andrew Wyeth

Dean of American painters, dies at 91.

A righteous war

“It is a very righteous war and has the full support of public opinion," said the chief rabbi if Israel's military, quoted in today's New York Times.

No, rabbi, it isn't. Not even for those of us who support the necessity of the Israeli offensive. There are no righteous wars. There are necessary wars, even just wars and, as Americans well know, there are unnecessary wars. But let us never confuse the killing of human beings in armed conflicts with righteousness.

(For an incisive analysis of Israeli policy and goals, see Tom Friedman's piece in the Times from a few days ago.)

From a friend

Profiles in courage

From today's NYT:

One morning two months ago, Shamsia Husseini and her sister were walking through the muddy streets to the local girls school when a man pulled alongside them on a motorcycle and posed what seemed like an ordinary question.

“Are you going to school?”

Then the man pulled Shamsia’s burqa from her head and sprayed her face with burning acid. Scars, jagged and discolored, now spread across Shamsia’s eyelids and most of her left cheek. These days, her vision goes blurry, making it hard for her to read.

But if the acid attack against Shamsia and 14 others — students and teachers — was meant to terrorize the girls into staying home, it appears to have completely failed.

Today, nearly all of the wounded girls are back at the Mirwais School for Girls, including even Shamsia, whose face was so badly burned that she had to be sent abroad for treatment. Perhaps even more remarkable, nearly every other female student in this deeply conservative community has returned as well — about 1,300 in all.

Read the rest of the story, which includes a photograph of Shamsia.

Some people have said that I showed courage years ago when I started my own law practice, and for taking on large companies in court and the US government in representing a couple of Guantanamo detainees. Nothing I have done is worth a fig compared to the daily bravery of those school girls and their families in a remote Afghan village--and of thousands of others prepared to resist the forces of ignorance and hate.

This page has criticized President-elect Obama's announced policy on Afghanistan, but let's all be clear that the goal of helping Afghans to move their nation out of the twelfth century--not to our vision of the twenty-first, but to theirs--remains worthwhile, even necessary. The debate ought to be about how we can do it.

Justice takes another hit

The judge has declined to revoke Bernie Madoff's bail.

One law for the rich (or the formerly rich) and socially prominent, one law for the poor and obscure.

Just a thought

If someone offers a bribe to the President for a pardon, and the President issues the pardon, is the briber home free?

(Now, why would this thought come to me now? I wonder.)

Is this really necessary?

AP is reporting that the Army's general in charge of the Army Recruiting Command wants to set up a fat farm for overweight recruits to slim down to Army standards.

Excuse me, but Huh?!? Isn't the function of basic training to get recruits into shape? If they arrive overweight, assign them to more marches. If a recruit comes in overweight, maybe add and extra week to basic so he (or she) can do some more hoofing across open ground. Adding a few more pounds to the pack will also help.

Another take

Over the weekend, I suggested that the Senate should seat Roland Burris as the junior senator from Illinois. Yesterday, a friend pointed me to an article in Slate by Akhil Reed Amar and Josh Chafetz, from Yale and Cornell Law Schools respectively, making the case for the Senate's right to keep Burris out.

I'm not sure that I'm convinced that the Senate should keep Burris out, but I find the following reasoning in the article to be persuasive (although perhaps not completely) of the power to do so:

But imagine if Burris had won election only because other candidates were wrongly and corruptly kept off the ballot. Surely the Senate could properly deem this an invalid election. Similarly, it now seems apparent that there were candidates that Blagojevich refused to consider for improper reasons—because one refused to "pay to play" early on, or because another is at the center of the impending criminal case against the governor. With the appointments process so inherently and irremediably tainted, the Senate may properly decide that nothing good can come from a Blagojevich appointment.

(Etymological question: Should we say that an article appears in and online publication like Slate, or on it?)

And now for something completely different.

The most beautiful automobile ever built: the Bugatti Type 57sc Atlantique coupe:


For more, check out Jay Leno's fascinating description of his Type 57sc.

Ave atque vale

Obituaries of people you might not know, who made a difference and lived lives that provide lessons for the rest of us:

Victor Krulak, Marine's marine (all 5'4" of him), whose intelligence and persistence led to the landing craft that made victory in WWII possible. He also had a formula that might actually have defeated the Communists in Vietnam.

Nick Scandone, winner of a gold medal in sailing at the Beijing paralympics just a few months ago, even as he was in the last stages of ALS. All I know about him is in his obituary, but from that I would say that he deserves to rank with the great deep-water sailors (Joshua Slocum, Dennis Connor) that we celebrate.

The limits of bipartisanship

All very well to speak about moving beyond partisanship, but there are costs to doing so, and they are becoming apparent in the debate over an economic stimulus package, oops, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Plan.

Republicans are applauding the President-Elect's tax-cutting proposals (which fit in with the anti-government mantra that still paralyzes the GOP), but in a posture that gives new meaning to the term chutzpah, are already carping at the size of the overall package. This from the people who kept all that spending on the Iraq rat-hole "off-budget," so they could pretend it didn't exist.

If, for the sake of bipartisanship, the new administration trims the size of the stimulus, uh ARRP, package, that will be a serious mistake. (Paul Krugman had a very good take on this yesterday.) And to what purpose would Obama do this? If the economy continues to go downhill--which too small a stimulus will make much more likely--will Republicans take any part of the blame? Do I have to answer that one for you?

If the minority party is not willing to stand up and support steps necessary to save the nation from economic calamity, then it should be left in the dust.

(In practical terms the Democratic majority is large enough so that Obama and the House and Senate leadership need not pay much mind to the Republican leadership. I do not suggest openly dissing McConnell, Boehner and the others--although the impulse to do so on general principles is almost overwhelming--but they well know that some of the rank-and-file will support almost any plan that the new President puts forward. In the Senate, in particular, it is hard to see every "moderate" Republican supporting a filibuster over the stimulus package, which is what would be needed to block it.)

Spooky stuff

The about-to-be-official appointment of Leon Panetta as CIA Director has surprised almost everyone in Washington. Josh Marshall has an excellent post on the appointment, with contributions from a couple of his readers, one a retired intelligence professional with a (to me, at least) surprising take.

One concern about Panetta: According to the Times, he's 70 years old.

Clear thinking, military style

One way to deal with shrinking in recruits: Accept heavier enlistees.

Stimulating

The latest figures of the Obama stimulus plan (we're not supposed to call it that, it's now the American Reinvestment and Recovery Plan--ARRP; don't confuse it with AARP) suggest that it will be less than $750 billion. A lot of money--inconceivable before the recent giveaway of a cool trillion to the bankers and brokers. I'm not economist, but from what I've heard, the great danger is not that we shall spend too much on priming the pump, but not enough. This is a time to think big, and I hope that the size of the program will grow, not shrink. This will be the first test of Obama's presidential (not political) acumen.

Last week I heard a debate over the stimulus on NPR. One economist took the Keynesian position that we need government to step in, because no one else is spending or investing. The other espoused the view that private decisions about spending are better than choices made by government.

Generally, the second view is correct, but that is like saying that generally people like sunny weather more than rainy days; we all know that we need the rain. Surely the present crisis was caused by private decisions. And we know something about how to use government dollars to promote economic growth.

But the real fallacy in the free-market approach lies in the question of timing. If they are honest, enthusiasts of laissez-faire economics tell us that the market will right thing over time. True, but time is the problem. People are suffering now. As John Maynard Keynes noted, in perhaps his most brilliant pronouncement, "In the long run, we are all dead."

The toll rises

The Times contains a news analysis suggesting that the Israeli attack on Gaza was timed because of the imminent (not imminent enough) departure of President Bush, a very, very staunch ally. While President-elect Obama has said good things about Israel and many of his advisers have solid records on Middle East issues, the Israelis were, according to Scott Shane, not willing to wait for the reaction of the new administration.

I can well understand such reasoning. What I fear is that political considerations arising from next month's Israeli elections may also be at work. More specifically, I worry that the need to be tough (Polls have had the Likud party of Benyamin Natanyahu--Israel's answer to George W. Bush--leading) will lead the current government to prolong military action beyond the point where it is worthwhile. If a political leader has any sensitivity, the calculation of when the benefits of war justify the human cost is always hellish, but when politics puts the thumb of self-interest on the scale, the computation becomes even more grotesque and, in most cases, less humane.

A final thought, generated by the protests against Israel's actions: "War is war and not popularity seeking." Thus William Tecumseh Sherman, who had reason to know. Sherman, widely accounted the greatest general of a war known for superb commanders, was right. Hamas and other intransigent enemies of Israel wanted war. Now they have it. As the Bible tells us, "For they sow the wind And they reap the whirlwind."

What is the answer? Peace. Not an armed truce, except as a bridge to a permanent arrangement. And until Hamas and its allies accept that they need to work toward a true peace, they will bring forth upon themselves and those whom they control all the evils of which Sherman spoke when he said, "War is all hell."

Senatorial musings

Some thoughts on the three as-yet undecided Senate seats:

Democrats should reverse course and seat Roland Burris as the senator from Illinois; Burris should announce that he will not run for reelection in 2010. For all the apparent strength of the case against Illinois governor Ron Balagojevich (D), he has not been convicted of anything (indeed, there is some chance that he will not be, given the difficulty of proving cases involving political favor-trading). There is, as far as I know, no suspicion of anything untoward in Burris' background, his relationship with the governor or his appointment. Despite the unsavory atmosphere surrounding the appointment, if he is willing to serve under a cloud (and he certainly appears to be), he should be seated.

Democrats should not attempt to seat Al Franken until the process of law has worked its way out in Minnesota. Although Franken has "surged" to a lead of more than 200 votes, that is still and infinitesimal margin. Norm Coleman (R.MN--although his term expires tomorrow) has said he will go to court, as is his right. The Senate--that is, the Democratic caucus--should stand aside and let Minnesota decide the race, as it is entitled to do under the Constitution.

In New York, the candidacy of Caroline Kennedy has been talked up and talked down and, as of the past twenty-four hours, talked up again. Attractive as she is, picking her could engender not only talk of elitism among Democrats (the GOP is desperate for ANY point of leverage), but conflict between Gov. David Paterson (D) and many powerful political figures in New York, in all likelihood without gaining him a reputation for independence that he could use when he has to run in 2010. New York has many qualified candidates. One of them is Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D.NY). A lifelong Republican until her husband was killed in a massacre on the Long Island Railroad, she became a Democrat when Republicans would not support gun control. She has been an effective legislator, she knows her way around Washington, she is not one of the state's powerful political families, she's a woman, and she's not from New York City--all points in her favor. Paterson could do a lot worse--for the nation, the state, the Democratic Party and himself--than to pick her.

Happy new year

With so much bad news, it may be hard to view the coming year with optimism, but at least we have something from last year to cheer you up:

Presidential precedent

Not since James Buchanan, in 1861, has a president slunk into a well-deserved ignominy with the passivity (not to mention incompetence) of George W. Bush.

Great expectations

In the 210 years of the American presidency, only two new presidents have arguably faced challenges of the magnitude that confronts Barack Obama: Lincoln and FDR. Yet Obama may be subject to higher expectations than either of those legendary predecessors. When Lincoln acceded to the presidency as the union threatened to dissolve, he did so largely thanks to a schism among the Democrats. The Great Emancipator was thought by many to be a lucky beneficiary of the crisis that did in his opponents; few gave him credit for a masterful campaign. For many months after he entered the White House, the weight of "informed" opinion continued to underestimate him.

FDR was the subject of great hopes, but no one could have expected him to perform as he did, not least because no government in the history of the world had ever acted on such a scale or with so much sustained energy as America (and the world) saw during Roosevelt's four terms. Notably, Roosevelt in office was far more innovative and energetic than FDR the candidate had suggested he would be.

Obama suffers--yes, suffers--because he has predecessors such as Roosevelt and Lincoln. I have suggested, only half in jest, that every 150 years or so the nation needs a tall, skinny guy from Illinois. The challenges that we must meet now are easily analogized to those of 1933. But unlike FDR and Lincoln, we have the example of those great forebears with which to compare Barack Obama. (I am not aware that FDR was widely compared with Lincoln in 1932 or 1933; the crises that contronted the two men were almost entirely different.)

The presidency is a crushing burden. The expectations that confront Obama can only make it more so. Let's hope and even pray (even if you are not religious, dear reader, what could it hurt?) that our forty-fourth President can stand up and ever excel, under the pressure.

Clean coal

The New York Times reports that the power plant that used the coal-ash reservoir that collapsed in Tennessee last week deposited more than 2.2 million pounds of toxic material in a single year, including "45,000 pounds of arsenic, 49,000 pounds of lead, 1.4 million pounds of barium, 91,000 pounds of chromium and 140,000 pounds of manganese." The Times notes that, "Those metals can cause cancer, liver damage and neurological complications, among other health problems."

The story also points out that the reservoir contained many decades' worth of such poisons.

Now, what was that about coal being clean energy?

Three weeks

Three weeks from now, at noon on January 20th, Barack Obama will become President. (Under the Twentieth Amendment, it is the clock, not the oath of office, and makes a President.)

Is it just me, or do the days seem to be crawling by?

In proportion

In The American President, Michael Douglas' character is advised that a military response to a Libyan attack on an American military mission to Israel is "proportional." He replies something along the lines of, "Someday, someone is going to have to tell me the value of a proportional response."

Israel's response to rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip has been notably disproportionate. I suggest that that is the right course for Israel to take.

Palestinian rocket attacks were renewed after a 6-month cease-fire between Israel and Hamas expired last week. While a number of authorities have suggested that both sides need a renewed cessation of hostilities, Palestinian forces opened a renewed fusillade within days.

This writer favored the unconditional Israeli evacuation of Gaza. I did not foresee--as the Israelis did not--that Hamas would monopolize Gaza, and that it would continue its unconditional refusal to recognize Israeli existence.

Many would suggest that Israel react to the renewal of Palestinian rocket fire--notably ineffective, given its volume--through limited responses aimed mainly at those who set off the missiles, with occasional strikes at specific leaders among Hamas and its allies. The trouble with that approach is that it does not work and, worse, that the "collateral damage" from such attacks arouses hostility among Palestinians and across the Arab world.

What to do? Should Israel ignore the attacks from Gaza? It is tempting to say yes, that the cost--a life here, damaged businesses there, some thousands of civilians suffering from PTSD or something like it--is not so great as to require response. Such thinking lacks intellectual discipline.

Hamas and its ilk do not simply oppose Israeli policy--they seek the destruction of the State of Israel. Perhaps they do not desire the extinction of Israelis (at least Jewish Israelis), but perhaps they do. In any event, it is clear that if Israel were to collapse many thousands--and perhaps many tens of thousands--of its citizens would die, and that the rest would be rendered destitute refugees in a diaspora that would dwarf the one in the Bible.

A "proportionate" response would do nothing to discourage further attacks on Israel. It would do nothing to keep Hamas and its allies from developing more deadly weapons, as they have already begun to do.

There is no guaranty that Israel's massive attack (which has continued today) will change Hamas' mind about its ultimate aims, or even its tactics. But nothing else has worked, and by bringing disproportionate damage to its enemies, Israel might--just might--begin to convince ordinary Gazans that Hamas' methods, if not its ultimate ambitions, are not worth the cost. Hamas is anything but democratic, but eventually even it must listen to those it seeks to govern.

Is it tragic that innocent people will die? Yes. But it is no more tragic if they are Palestinians than Israelis and, given that, tactics most likely (even if "most likely" is still considerably less than probably) to change Hamas' behavior are the right ones to use.

Obama's first mistake?

In choosing evangelical pastor Rick Warren to provide the invocation at his Inauguration, President-Elect Obama (we need to keep saying "President-Elect Obama" to make it easier to get used to saying "President Obama") made a real mistake. Is it his first? Given the way the team he has assembled so far looks, it might well be, although the proof of that pudding will be in the eating.

The mistake in picking Warren is not in angering part of the President-Elect's base. That may even be politically wise. The error lies in giving a place of honor at a major public event to a man who espouses bigotry against a substantial group of Americans, and a group that has suffered and still suffers from prejudice. As more than one observer has noted, if Warren preached anti-Semitism or anti-Catholicism with the virulence that he shows toward gays and non-believers, having him appear at the Inauguration would not even been considered. Indeed, he wouldn't even be invited.

Franken on the verge of victory?

As the Minnesota Canvassing Board reviews challenged ballots, Norm Coleman's (R.MN) lead has dropped in 24 hours from 358 votes to a mere 5.

Is this the end of the road for Democratic turncoat Coleman? Probably not, although things look a lot better for Franken than they did last week. To be frank, the whole process is mystifying to TONE (who hasn't followed it the way he did the hanging chads of Florida), but we understand that the race is probably going to be decided in court.

I said from the beginning that Franken's slogan should have been, "Send a real comedian to the Senate."

The schnorrer

The present economic malaise has led me to remember an old story about a schnorrer. A schnorrer (the word, being transliterated from Yiddish, is usually spelled "sch," but pronounced with a soft "sh" sound, like "shoe") was a beggar in the world of Eastern European Jews. Unlike mendicants of other cultures, however, the schnorrer was not an abject figure. No, he had pride, even chutzpah.

In Judaism, tzedakah, charity, is one of the greatest mitzvot (blessings) that Jew can perform.
Because of this, the schnorrer and his more prosperous co-religionists in the ghettos and the shtetl (the villages of the Pale, the part of the Russian Empire where Jews were allowed to live legally) developed a symbiotic relationship. The schnorrer depended on the generosity of those who could afford to give, while he made it convenient for them to perform tzedakah, often by making regular calls.

The story is told of the schnorrer who makes his weekly visit to the home of a merchant. Knocking at the back door, he is handed a coin. "Five kopecks? Last week you gave me ten kopecks."

"I'm sorry," says the merchant. "I had a bad week"

"Nu? You had a bad week, I should suffer?"

The financial crisis in a nutshell

So I got some checks mixed up, and put one intended for a bank account in the envelope to my health insurer. And the health-insurance payment? You guessed it, it went into the bank

So, what happened? Neither my bank or the insurer (or its bank) caught the errors. The checks were processed and paid even though the money went into accounts unrelated to the payees on them.

And you wonder why banks are in trouble?

Back

The demands of work and a lack of energy has led to an unanticipated vacation, but TONE is back, although we can't promise to post as frequently as in the past.

"Seven nays, one aye....

...the ayes have it." So Abraham Lincoln is reported to have counted the votes at a cabinet meeting. His, of course, was the only "aye."

This story came to mind as I heard about the Obama supporters who complain that he has been appointing old Clinton hands to his economic team. Now he has announced a Clinton and a couple of Republicans among his national-security appointments.

President-Elect Obama knows his history. He knows that the cabinet and White House staff carry out the President's directive. And he is strong enough to know that he can dismiss those who go off on their own. Is there risk that President Obama's policy will be undermined? Yes. But given the challenges that we face as the new administration takes office, experience seems like a better bet than ideological purity.

Most interesting (or something) news headline of the week

From the Yahoo home page this morning:

Calif. woman claims to see the Virgin Mary in salsa splatter