Jesse speaks for me.

Seriously, it's a great rant and you should check it out. Not that I wasn't already there for other reasons, but I'm very glad to see more and more people join us out here in the Wilderness. What happened in Maine could've been prevented, with just a modicum of effort on the part of national Dems. But they think gay people are icky, and couldn't be bothered to help us. Oh, and it's all John's fault for being mean to them, or something.

According to a post on Pennsylvania blog, House speaker Nancy Pelosi will allow a mere twenty minutes of debate on single-payer, albeit indirectly.

Via McClatchy, this story on surface coal mining. The Feds (more power to them) are considering rescinding the regulation that lets the companies bury streams and valleys under the dirt and rock produced by "mountaintop removal". If you've never seen the aftermath of one of these mining operations, you may have a hard time imagining the terrifying scale of the destruction.

You won't be surprised to learn of even more change you can't believe in.

Meet the newest addition to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. If you've been reading Mother Jones recently, then you already know quite a bit about Scott O'Malia. Like the fact that he once worked as a top in-house lobbyist for an energy company, Mirant, that manipulated California's market Enron-style. Or that, while on this company's payroll, he lobbied against a bill to expand the CFTC's authority to police derivatives. Or that the Senate Agriculture Committee, which reviewed his nomination, declined to ask him any specific questions about his pro-deregulation lobbying on not one but two occasions.

 Read more…

Tristero recently caused a bona fide flame war at the normally staid and Serious Hullaballoo comment community, in those two posts about food. I didn't really find too much of what he said outrageous or stupid, and I respect the fact that he came right out and admits that he eats what he likes because it tastes good. I confess I didn't think the Hullaballoo community had it in them, way to sling that pizza across the lunchroom, kids!

I just wanted to make a couple remarks and see what others think, because I believe that food is a critically important topic in many political debates, from those on the environment, health care, racism and more.

From my perspective, it's beyond obvious that far too many Americans aren't eating well. I was shocked, moving to this Heartland community where I now live, by the contrast of people's shapes here, vs places like DC and Chicago. That is, people in flyoverland really run to fat, in my eyes. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but the 'beautiful body' culture of my previous environment is almost nowhere to be found here, except among the Greek set of the local big state university. And I suspect those young women are not unfamiliar with some unhealthy food habits like binging and the dangerous, speedy drugs that make crash dieting an easy task.

Anyway, I bet I could get most of you to agree that the problem isn't just a regional one, and that there are many areas in which the quality of our food and the habits people have consuming it could be improved. But as the comments at those two posts remind me, a lot of people seem to have the attitude of "You can take my daily Twinkie when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands." What can be done to change that?

Further, I guess I don't understand the idea that people like me are overly righteous food snobs. Do people really want to have diabetes and be obese? I can't believe that. I understand that not all people have good food choices, but I would hope that if they did, they'd make them, at least most of the time. I'd also think people would enjoy the benefits that come with "progressively produced" food, organics and locally grown, food free of synthetics and chemicals and suchlike. That kind of food really does taste better. And if food is about satisfaction, well...I guess I just don't get the resistance to that.

A friend of mine recently introduced me to a terrific restaurant in this area, after long months of my despairing of ever finding a place that compares to the upscale, "progressive" dining option I had when I lived in big cities. It's in a town that defines "podunk backwater." It serves locally produced, organically grown, reasonably priced, fucking outstanding tasty food. And it's doing really well as a business, apparently, even in this Depression we're having in this state. So I know there's 'a market' for better food. My question is: why are so many people resistant to good food and healthy eating habits, in favor of unfood horror found at fast food restaurants or the junk food aisle? Marketing? Ignorance? Addiction to unhealthy but "good" tasting things like corn syrup and trans fats?

Also: consider this a Saturday Morning open recipe thread, if you've got any. I'm always looking for new cooking ideas, especially now that "chef" is practically my 4th job.

George Washington of Washington’s Blog, posted Black's recent proposal on Naked Capitalism. Black is Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri – Kansas City, and the former head S&L regulator, and author of the book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. Black' has been a lonely voice in the wilderness warning that the entire financial collapse, from sub-prime mortgages, to rating agencies, to the creation and handling of credit default swaps, is fraught with criminal fraud that both the Bush and now the Obama administrations have refused to deal with.

Susan Collins wants you to know that she does NOT support a public option trigger:

A key swing vote on healthcare reform said Sunday she would not support a public option "trigger" -- a series of benchmarks that, if not met by a certain time, would authorize the creation of a government insurance program.

"No -- the problem with triggers is that is just delays the public option," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told CNN's "State of the Union," adding that her major qualm with the public option was its scope and cost.

[Welcome Bread and Roses readers -- lambert]

Boris at the Canadian blog (Canada is up to its eyebrows in Afghanistan) The Galloping Beaver has an instructive take on why colonial wars like the ones in Afghanistan and/or northwestern Pakistan are so futile.

...Tahira Abdullah posits a hell of a problem for anyone involved who does not favour the Taleban: What is to be done?

 Read more…

In one of these freakonomical perverse results, apparently right-wing memes about socialism have been overused and are hence rebounding against them. Via Yglesias:

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better. Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided.

Brad DeLong has, this morning, put up a rather oblique post citing the lyrics of a classic song (Last.fm Chumbawumba song link) about Nedd Ludd. And immediately after, one about Swing. I can hardly imagine the motivation for it at this moment.

Wikipedia has this interesting comment about the Luddites that may put Brad's post into a certain perspective:

Thompson argues that it was the newly-introduced economic system that the Luddites were protesting. For example, the Luddite song, "General Ludd's Triumph":

 Read more…

At Pandagon, Jesse Taylor recently had an appendectomy and has been undergoing a Kafkaesque (I keep using this word, truly we are in the era of fatal paradoxes...) billing nightmare:

So, in the latest update in my appendectomy idiocy: I’m in collections for $16,040.

Every time I call my insurance company, they tell me they’ve contacted the hospital “for information”. Every time I contact the hospital, they say they’re “waiting for information” from the insurance company. When I ask for supervisors, they tell me they can’t do anything until they “get information”.

Unemployment, suspect subprime lending, business failures and medical disasters cause way too many families to lose their homes. Losing homes and failing to pay mortgage installments on time will push such families' credit rating over the edge into the abyss of of new world outcasts.

The credit rating companies are feelingness automatons who follow the rules/laws to the letter. They make no distinction between the hard working and the bums, between this depression's victims and run of the mill irresponsible individuals.

Brad DeLong has a condensed FAQ of the Geithnerist POV on the bailouts. Naturally, to read it as intended, you have to make the first assumption is that it (the bailout) is being done under good faith.

Q: What is the Geithner Plan?

A: The Geithner Plan is a trillion-dollar operation by which the U.S. acts as the world's largest hedge fund investor, committing its money to funds to buy up risky and distressed but probably fundamentally undervalued assets and, as patient capital, holding them either until maturity or until markets recover so that risk discounts are normal and it can sell them off--in either case at an immense profit.

 Read more…

I do recall, lo, that here among us there were people who hoped that Canada would arrest George Bush or something. Well, not only did they not do that, but they've just prohibited another George from speaking in Toronto: maverick British MP George Galloway.

More specifically, Alykhan Velshi, an aide to the execrable minister Jason Kenney, quoth trollishly:

The Canadian comedy troupe This Hour Has 22 Minutes has the following appeal to viewers everywhere:

So I just found out that a lot of Senate Dems liked this language:

None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for any casino or other
gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swim-
ming pool, stadium, community park, museum, theater,
art center, and highway beautification project.

Because, you know, "museum" is as pointless and unimportant to the health of our society as "casino." To riff off Atrios, this is clearly one of those "designed to piss off Liberals" types of legislative action. And it worked! I'm pissed! Not only is this a petty, stupid, blatantly polemical, destructive, childish piece of legislation, but wait till you see which of "our" fine Dems voted in favor of it:

So I know that most of you are like me, "cynics" or "PUMAs" or "bitter dead enders" or otherwise irredeemable and more importantly, ignored by People Who Matter. But just for the fun of it, I have to ask: what, if anything, could Obama do to win your love? And support? Perhaps even to the point of you picking up a phone, writing a letter, signing a check, or heaven forfend, getting in a car and standing up at a protest, or some similar 'extreme' action?

I wonder because although I think he won't go all the way, backchatter seems to be that Obama, male Leo that he is, is starting to understand that Republicans only want to use him as a punching bag, and all this "let's be bipartisan" shit isn't going to get him anywhere, nor the warm fuzzies his ego so desperately wants. Like HRC, Obama could come to understand that his power source is, in fact, with the progroot base, and that the bobbleheads in the Village will *never* do more than cut him out the rug from under him, no matter how much he placates them. Just like we've been telling him all along.

But. Would you be part of a fantasy "New Obama Who is Actually Progressive" party, and if so, what for?

I just love all the cute acronyms they use. Is there a MILF fund, perhaps?

Release Date: February 3, 2009

For release at 10:00 a.m. EST
The Federal Reserve on Tuesday announced the extension through October 30, 2009, of its existing liquidity programs that were scheduled to expire on April 30, 2009. The Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) took these actions in light of continuing substantial strains in many financial markets.

 Read more…

AP on Davos:

"Davos just sort of encapsulates the broader global debate," said Stephen Roach, chairman of investment bank Morgan Stanley in Asia and one of the few to warn last year of the global ramifications of the U.S. sub-prime mortgage problem. "We're now moving into the ugliest phase of every crisis, the blame game."

"Wall Street made mistakes. Regulators made mistakes. Rating agencies made mistakes. Central banks made mistakes. Politicians made mistakes _ we all did it," Roach told The Associated Press. "So let's be careful that we don't let this blame game get out of hand."

What do you mean by "we," Mr. Roach? what an appropriate name for a bankster! Obviously, you don't mean those of us who are actually paying for your mistakes. Trust me, I've got bank vaults full of blame that I have yet to spend.

And you have to save this graph, for the next time someone is telling you about "why they are worth bonuses" and how we need to keep handing them money to 'retain top talent:'

DAVOS, Switzerland -- Mired in indecision and uncertainty, the world's foremost gathering of the best and brightest in government and business failed to come up with any new plan to stem, much less reverse, the global financial meltdown.

In some places, people who can't come up with a plan to address serious problems, you know, get fired. We should try that.

So my job is the push the new administration "from the left," if my blogging can said to have a constructive purpose. It's always fun to read more popular bloggers when they get snarky and angry in the way I'm prone to be most of the time, as I review the proposals and behaviors of the new administration. No one here is shocked by the already numerous "disappointments" from the administration, but I do wonder how long the majority in this country is going to keep giving Obama high approval ratings. I also wonder if getting punked by Republicans is a successful strategy in the effort to keep them high.

To me, it's completely obvious: no Dem administration is ever going to get more than a handful of Republicans to go along with anything that Dems propose. Republicans oppose Democratic initiatives, always. And the rare times when they don't oppose something the Dems propose, it's because they better understand the deep strategies and gamesmanship, and how to play the 'fake' of temporary support followed by later opposition. But expecting widespread Republican support for any Democratic initiative is just plain stupid. And ignorant of recent history. And perhaps cowardly, and incompetent.

The only place that the new administration needs to focus its love of "bipartisanship" is in the Senate. And frankly, the whole "post-partisan/bi-partisan" strategy is a foolish one, even there. A smarter strategy would be to identify electorally weak Republican members of the Senate, and use executive authority to pressure them to go along with key Democratic initiatives when there is the need for the few extra votes. Really, it's quite simple.

If the new administration wants anyone intelligent to believe that they are truly members of the Democratic party, and not the "Unity" party, it's relatively straighforward, in terms of what they should do.

-ignore the media, (unless they want to bring back something like the Fairness Doctrine, which I'm all for) which at this point is a wholly-owned creature of entities completely hostile to Democratic Party platform goals and aims
-don't bother to grant all but a few of the least significant legislative compromises to Republicans in the House, perhaps a few more in the Senate
-rally and sustain liberal electoral support with progressive policies that aren't just politically smart, but good for the economy (which is true for most progressive policies)
-keep Republicans off-balance with much needed investigations and restructuring of Federal offices, which serves the health of the Constitution at the same time

I don't really expect any of this from new administration, and indeed I expect a lot of the opposite. But I just felt like expressing as simply as I can, that "it's not that hard" to be a real, liberal Democrat right now. The Administration is enjoying popularity at the polls, the party isn't doing to badly in terms of fundraising, and the nation as a whole is ready for real "change," in addition to the musical teevee kind.

One thing I'm very sure about: if the Obama administration continues to act like members of the Unity Party, it will be responsible for significant Dem losses in the House and Senate in 2010, and risk a very real chance of becoming a one-term failure by 2012. In the spirit of "it's the economy, stupid" the bi-partisan proposals that please Republicans (tax cuts, deregulation, endless military spending) are exactly what got us into the mess, and will only exacerbate our situation further if allowed to continue/be increased. Again, this isn't rocket science, it's a simple review of the recent history of economic policy and the results.

Here, let me piss off some fans of our Leader. From the now Kristol-free Grey Lady:

The bankruptcy solution would not cost taxpayers money, as would mortgage modification programs that could become part of the government's huge economic bailout package. But it certainly would harm the bottom line for lenders and investors holding mortgages.

Ya got that, chicklets? A no-cost solution that could help keep millions in their homes instead of tossing them on the streets. Sounds great, it even has support, and people willing to attach it to the stimulus bill. But...wait for it...guess who's too chickenshit to let such a win-win provision get added?

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the chief Senate sponsor of the bill, said Obama persuaded him in a White House meeting Friday to remove the bankruptcy proposal from an economic recovery package -- to ensure it doesn't jeopardize the stimulus bill. But Obama pledged his support for the bankruptcy solution, Durbin said.

Obama said he would work with Durbin to attach the proposal to other ''must pass'' legislation -- with the hope that supporters of the overall bill would not vote against it because of the bankruptcy provisions.

Not that it surprises anyone here, but health care is off the table for 2009. Sayeth the Democratic Whip:

A prominent House Democrat said he doesn't expect a comprehensive
healthcare reform bill to pass Congress in 2009, saying an incremental
approach to covering the uninsured would be better "than to go out and
just bite something you can't chew."

House Majority Whip James Clyburn's (D-S.C.) timeline on tackling
healthcare is at odds with the timetable proposed by Senate Democrats
and could represent a major shift in the House Democrats' strategy of
dealing with the uninsured.

During an interview on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program that aired on
Sunday, Clyburn said he doesn't anticipate that comprehensive
healthcare legislation will be approved in 2009.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Here's the part that annoys me most:

I'm really tempted to make a Chinatown joke here ("My mother! My sister!") but the situation is funny enough as it is. Will he or won't he? I guess no one is sure. Now that's Leadership! Reid denies, says the AP lies!

I almost feel sorry for Burris. AFAIC, he's not really that bad, and Blogo hasn't been convicted of anything yet. Seems to me the rather lazy IL lege needs to come back from vacation and do their jobs. Clearly, making this a national issue has only made the Dem party as a whole look even more stupid and clueless.

OK, I'm no economist. And hey! I'm really fucking glad! Next to "child rapist" and "warmonger," I can hardly think of a more despicable title to hold right now. What I'm going to write here is likely flawed, unrealistic, naive, and all that other stuff Serious People tell me at the cocktail parties when I've had a few too many and start talking like this. But I'd like to stimulate some conversation about what Our Leaderz can do right now, to help our economy, and not just that of their richee buddies and buttboi friends. Because believe it or not (heh), I'm told that part of the problem with the incoming bunch is that they, um, well...don't really know what to do, when it comes to fixing the actual majority economy. You're shocked to hear that, I'm sure.

There are days when I really pity my friend Matt, who has done so much unheralded work behind the scenes as well as out in front, and who sometimes gets sucked into to soon-forgotten but potentially damaging controversies when what he really deserves is a leadership role in the party hierarchy. Full Disclosure: I'm personal friends with some of the people I'm going to talk about here, and not really "unbiased." Which is sort of the point of what most everyone involved is trying to say, I hope.

Backing up, I think we can all agree it's been a long time (if ever) since journalists could accurately claim to maintain "academic" standards in reporting. I'll define "academic" as "ethical, peer-reviewed, critical, and concerned with demonstrable, repeatable truth and full discovery/disclosure," as it pertains to the art and science of reporting. Anyone who disagrees with my premise about the state of modern 'reporting,' just go over to Media Matters and type in the searchbox the name of your (least) favorite media celebrity; the last 8 years have been a treasure trove for regulators (who've gone unused, sadly), comedians, and ethics panel schedulers. Truth has been the most frequent victim, followed to the sacrificial altar of profit and propaganda by ethics, balance, and fairness. Let's don't get started on issues like racism, warmongering, sexism and pro-corporate bias...

Anyway, the whole Lind/Newberry/anyone-else involved-in-this-spat mess raises some interesting questions, separate from those of "who first said what and how" in Matt's post. I'm minded, reading the post and lots and lots of behind the scene emails, communications and previous posts on the topic, to ask: who is a "journalist" these days? How are those people "different" from "bloggers?" What are "credentials?" What is "expertise" and when, if at all, should it be employed, or mandated? I'd like to tackle a few of these because we're at a critical time in the history of the production of information, as the administration changes and revenue streams grow and shrink in various quarters.

In an idea world, there would be consequences for lying, stealing, and being willfully ignorant in the production and dissemination of information presented as "factual news." Opinion would be free, and an option open to all, but also always identified as such. "Public" resources like the airwaves (and as I think should be included, broadband) would be carefully regulated, and public resources would be applied in the production of dead-tree product, such as the nation-wide dissemination of something like The Federal Register, the better for citizens to keep track of the daily business of government. Of course we're a long way from any of that.

But the Founders believed in, and in principle I agree with, the notion of a Free Press. Today, our problem, and at the same time our greatest hope, is what exactly is "The Free Press? This isn't a new topic in the blogosphere, but in the Lind/Newberry/etc case, we've a fine opportunity to look at how that construct is defined, maintained, and understood.

In a nutshell: whom do you trust more, and why?
Unpaid Bloggers? "Online magazine" writers who get a corporate paycheck? Your Aunt Mabel after she's been into the blackberry brandy? Volarus of the Centauri system via the metal in your fillings?

One part of the ongoing Village vs the Blogosphere War that really gets me: it's the easiest thing in the world for a blogger to become "discredited, "but for a Villager, the opposite is mostly true.