I've tried to stay away from discussing Ayn Rand too much in this blog, but as the attack on the wealthy gains momentum in Washington, I thought I'd offer a timely quote from Atlas Shrugged: "If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose- because it contains all the others- the fact that they were the people who created the phrase to make money. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created."
Sadly, Americans seem to have forgotten that, harboring resentment against those who make more money than they do, believing that those who make more are not entitled to the money they earn. So the announced reinstatement of higher taxes against the top wage earners will likely receive little objection from the majority of Americans.
Under the budget President Obama proposed for 2010, it is those who have created wealth who will be hit the hardest, forced to bear the almost $1 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade. Obama’s 2010 budget proposal would increase the tax rate those in the top 2% pay from 35% to 39.6%. The budget also would raise taxes on capital gains and dividends from 15% to 20%.
But that's not all. The plan also includes limitations of itemized deductions available to families with more than $250,000 of income, which will make more of their income taxable. The proposal would cap the value of deductions for items such as charitable contributions, mortgage interest and investment expenses at just 28% for those in the top bracket, a whopping 30 percent less than they would otherwise receive. This part of the budget proposal is beyond counter-intuitive, it's crazy. It actually discourages the type of expenditure that directly helps charities, the economy and workers in general.
What is this money going to be used for? It will be used to pay for expanded health coverage and tax breaks for lower income earners. Representative Jeb Hensarling (Rep. - Tex), summed it up succinctly in an e-mail to Bloomberg.com, “You cannot help the job-seeker by punishing the job creator.”
But that is precisely what the administration plans to do. Obama's proposed tax hike will increase the taxes on those earning over $250K by an average of about $8,000 a year over what they've already been paying in taxes. Obama is punishing those who make money because it is easier to go after them, than to make hard decisions about fiscal responsibility and personal accountability.
We are at the very beginning of what could be a divisive and painful "us" versus "them" era in America. We used to be united in wanting the American dream for ourselves and our children. Now we are led by a president who believes in the redistribution of wealth as a core American value. As Obama famously told Joe the Plumber during the campaign, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Well, it's not good for the people who earned the money they are not allowed to keep and it isn't even good for the people who receive benefits they didn't earn. But we can't say that Obama didn't warn us.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Double Standard Continues
Last night as Governor Bobby Jindal was walking to the microphone to deliver the Republican response to the president's speech, Chris Mathews of MSNBC was heard to sigh, "Oh, God." After the speech, Matthews said of the Republican party's choice in Jindal, whose parents emigrated from India, to deliver the speech, "they had to outsource their response tonight. They had to outsource it to someone who had nothing to do with congress."
Let us imagine the uproar if any talking head on Fox News had said, Oh god!, before a Democrat delivered a speech. Then imagine the even greater reaction there would have been had some Democrat made a similar racist comment. Yes, racist.
Matthews twice used the word "outsource" to discuss the Republicans use of Jindal as their spokesman. Was Matthews deliberately trying to alienate the public against Jindal by using the term that refers to the hiring of workers in India, primarily, to do the jobs formerly done by Americans? Isn't that how this would have been seen had the positions been reversed and it was a conservative commenting on a Democrat?
I won't get into Jindal's poor performance, the blogophere is saturated with discussions of his disturbing discomfort behind a teleprompter, his Mr. Rogers delivery and his repetition of the rah-rah "we can do anything" mantra. I will say that the end of his speech was better than the beginning and that it's hard to look good in front of the camera after Obama. Still, the Republican better come up with more to offer than government is bad.
But what I'd like to see today is an apology from Chris Matthews and an acknowledgement of the lack of respect he showed to the governor who, from all accounts, has done a good job for his state.
Let us imagine the uproar if any talking head on Fox News had said, Oh god!, before a Democrat delivered a speech. Then imagine the even greater reaction there would have been had some Democrat made a similar racist comment. Yes, racist.
Matthews twice used the word "outsource" to discuss the Republicans use of Jindal as their spokesman. Was Matthews deliberately trying to alienate the public against Jindal by using the term that refers to the hiring of workers in India, primarily, to do the jobs formerly done by Americans? Isn't that how this would have been seen had the positions been reversed and it was a conservative commenting on a Democrat?
I won't get into Jindal's poor performance, the blogophere is saturated with discussions of his disturbing discomfort behind a teleprompter, his Mr. Rogers delivery and his repetition of the rah-rah "we can do anything" mantra. I will say that the end of his speech was better than the beginning and that it's hard to look good in front of the camera after Obama. Still, the Republican better come up with more to offer than government is bad.
But what I'd like to see today is an apology from Chris Matthews and an acknowledgement of the lack of respect he showed to the governor who, from all accounts, has done a good job for his state.
Class Warfare is Back
The most telling thing to come out of President Obama's first speech to a joint session of Congress was the undercurrent of class warfare. The new great divide in America is not between the rich and the poor. Instead, there is a battle in this country between those who hate the rich and those who don't.
The class warfare is not based, as in the past, on jealousy or envy. It is now predicated on raw disgust. The rich are evil. Implicit in this is they are undeserving of their wealth and immoral for keeping it.
This has been a major theme of Obama's campaign since his statement on the campaign trail equating making money with "selfishness." During the campaign, when the Republican ticket raised the specter that Obama's economic policies smacked of socialism, Obama responded, "John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
There was no question that Obama was referring to the Ayn Rand book, "The Virtue of Selfishness," which discussed the benefits of rational self interest -- the notion that the economy, the nation, would be better off if everyone worked hard in their own best interest. By contrast, according to Rand, those who opposed selfishness were espousing socialism or worse and would doom the country by creating a generation of takers instead of producers.
Obama's intention to pit the poor against the rich was done by framing the discussion as one of good versus evil. He used sarcasm and hyperbole in last night's speech -- saying "this time, CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks, or buy fancy drapes, or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over." It was subtle, but the phrase "buy fancy drapes" was to make him -- and by analogy all of us -- regular folks. Despite the fact that he made over $4 million in 2007, Obama is just one of us.
On the other side is "them" -- the rich. And under Obama, "they" will not be allowed to keep their exalted position. He identified the problem right at the outset of his speech: "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future." In other words, government should not have allowed the rich to become richer, the money that went to the wealthy should instead have been taken by the government and redistributed. That should scare any freedom-loving American.
Our President is at war with Wall Street -- and that is not a war that America can win. He derided the institution last night when he pitted them as unreasonable and at odds with the regular folk, saying, "I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions."
Not only did he ostracize and vilify Wall Street, but he displayed a glaring lack of understanding of how Wall Street operates and what it values. At a time of economic trouble, we have a president who not only doesn't grasp the stock market but is taking it on as if it were the enemy.
He made his antipathy towards Wall Street crystal clear. "I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive," he promised. That's not the way to bring Wall Street into a partnership for the good of the country. Not surprisingly, Wall Street responded to the outright attacks by opening down today.
Of course, the most direct attack on the "rich" came near the end of the speech. Obama repeated what he'd promised throughout the campaign, tax increases for the top earners, saying, "In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."
So the regular folk need not worry about the tax increases, because it will only hit them -- the rich. Ignoring the fact that depending on where you live, how many children you have, whether you're a small business owner, or a host of other factors, you're not "rich" on $250,000 a year -- it's a number that looks big and comrpises a small enough segment that the voting majority is excluded. So this tax increase only affects them, not us. They have it coming, those rich people. How dare they make that much money! Why should they be allowed to keep it and spend it as they wish? Who do they think they are?
It wasn't so long ago when everyone aspired to be rich and it was the American dream to work hard and achieve that goal. But now the goal is not to become rich, but to make those rich pay.
We have been warned. Obama spelled it out: "That day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here."
The class warfare is not based, as in the past, on jealousy or envy. It is now predicated on raw disgust. The rich are evil. Implicit in this is they are undeserving of their wealth and immoral for keeping it.
This has been a major theme of Obama's campaign since his statement on the campaign trail equating making money with "selfishness." During the campaign, when the Republican ticket raised the specter that Obama's economic policies smacked of socialism, Obama responded, "John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
There was no question that Obama was referring to the Ayn Rand book, "The Virtue of Selfishness," which discussed the benefits of rational self interest -- the notion that the economy, the nation, would be better off if everyone worked hard in their own best interest. By contrast, according to Rand, those who opposed selfishness were espousing socialism or worse and would doom the country by creating a generation of takers instead of producers.
Obama's intention to pit the poor against the rich was done by framing the discussion as one of good versus evil. He used sarcasm and hyperbole in last night's speech -- saying "this time, CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks, or buy fancy drapes, or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over." It was subtle, but the phrase "buy fancy drapes" was to make him -- and by analogy all of us -- regular folks. Despite the fact that he made over $4 million in 2007, Obama is just one of us.
On the other side is "them" -- the rich. And under Obama, "they" will not be allowed to keep their exalted position. He identified the problem right at the outset of his speech: "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future." In other words, government should not have allowed the rich to become richer, the money that went to the wealthy should instead have been taken by the government and redistributed. That should scare any freedom-loving American.
Our President is at war with Wall Street -- and that is not a war that America can win. He derided the institution last night when he pitted them as unreasonable and at odds with the regular folk, saying, "I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions."
Not only did he ostracize and vilify Wall Street, but he displayed a glaring lack of understanding of how Wall Street operates and what it values. At a time of economic trouble, we have a president who not only doesn't grasp the stock market but is taking it on as if it were the enemy.
He made his antipathy towards Wall Street crystal clear. "I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive," he promised. That's not the way to bring Wall Street into a partnership for the good of the country. Not surprisingly, Wall Street responded to the outright attacks by opening down today.
Of course, the most direct attack on the "rich" came near the end of the speech. Obama repeated what he'd promised throughout the campaign, tax increases for the top earners, saying, "In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."
So the regular folk need not worry about the tax increases, because it will only hit them -- the rich. Ignoring the fact that depending on where you live, how many children you have, whether you're a small business owner, or a host of other factors, you're not "rich" on $250,000 a year -- it's a number that looks big and comrpises a small enough segment that the voting majority is excluded. So this tax increase only affects them, not us. They have it coming, those rich people. How dare they make that much money! Why should they be allowed to keep it and spend it as they wish? Who do they think they are?
It wasn't so long ago when everyone aspired to be rich and it was the American dream to work hard and achieve that goal. But now the goal is not to become rich, but to make those rich pay.
We have been warned. Obama spelled it out: "That day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here."
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Positive Words = Dow Upswing
Just last week the Obama administration was being chastised -- deservedly -- for talking down the economy with dire predictions that nothing short of the end of the US economy was coming. As expected, Wall Street reacted in the form of a freefall.
How desperate was Wall Street for any positive message from the administration? All Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had to say was that the recession might -- might -- end this year, and the market reacted positively. Add to that an assurance that regulators aren't planning to nationalize banks and you have the Dow Jones up over 230 points.
Let's hope that the President's advisers have convinced him to stop creating panic and instead try to instill the "hope" he ran on. When he addresses the nation tonight, let him find a more optimistic tone than the one he's been using since he was sworn in.
You can see the escalating language of fear that Obama utilized to get his spending package approved:
January 23: “We are experiencing an unprecedented, perhaps, economic crisis that has to be dealt with."
January 24: "A bad situation could become dramatically worse."
January 27: "The statistics every day underscore the urgency of the economic situation"
January 30: "This is a continuing disaster for America's working families"
February 2: "Rarely in history has our country faced economic problems as devastating as this crisis"
February 2: "We continue to struggle through unprecedented economic turmoil"
February 3: "The economy is in desperate straits"
February 4: "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe"
This is not the kind of language that would instill confidence in the future of the US economy and Wall Street responded accordingly.
Anyone with even the most basic understanding of the stock market would have realized the reaction to such devastating predictions and yet Obama continued to heap one on another till the market hit a twelve year low.
Maybe he's learned his lesson -- it's just unfortunate that so many people had to lose so much while the president was still in his learning curve.
How desperate was Wall Street for any positive message from the administration? All Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had to say was that the recession might -- might -- end this year, and the market reacted positively. Add to that an assurance that regulators aren't planning to nationalize banks and you have the Dow Jones up over 230 points.
Let's hope that the President's advisers have convinced him to stop creating panic and instead try to instill the "hope" he ran on. When he addresses the nation tonight, let him find a more optimistic tone than the one he's been using since he was sworn in.
You can see the escalating language of fear that Obama utilized to get his spending package approved:
January 23: “We are experiencing an unprecedented, perhaps, economic crisis that has to be dealt with."
January 24: "A bad situation could become dramatically worse."
January 27: "The statistics every day underscore the urgency of the economic situation"
January 30: "This is a continuing disaster for America's working families"
February 2: "Rarely in history has our country faced economic problems as devastating as this crisis"
February 2: "We continue to struggle through unprecedented economic turmoil"
February 3: "The economy is in desperate straits"
February 4: "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe"
This is not the kind of language that would instill confidence in the future of the US economy and Wall Street responded accordingly.
Anyone with even the most basic understanding of the stock market would have realized the reaction to such devastating predictions and yet Obama continued to heap one on another till the market hit a twelve year low.
Maybe he's learned his lesson -- it's just unfortunate that so many people had to lose so much while the president was still in his learning curve.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Outcast, Pariah, Republican
“You’re not a Republican, are you?”
That question has been asked of me quite a bit lately, and always with a mixture of shock, horror, and pity. I can’t possibly be a Republican! I’m walking upright, knuckles well above dragging-on-the-sidewalk length. I speak in complete sentences and otherwise appear to be in possession of my faculties. I’m well-educated, irreligious, and I live in Los Angeles. So how can I possibly be a Republican?
It's insulting, narrow-minded and condescending to believe that no intelligent, rational person can be a Republican in 2009. Yes, I'm a Republican, and even after eight years of George Bush, I'm still proud of my party.
It's so easy for people to forget the roots of the Republican Party. The Republicans were once the holders of the moral high ground, the carriers of the torch of freedom and equality.
It was the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, which, as former slave and the first African-American to serve in Congress from South Carolina, Robert Smalls, said, "unshackled the necks of four million human beings."
It was the Republican party that worked to pass the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery, the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the laws, and the 15th Amendment, secure voting rights for African-Americans.
It was the Republican party that took the lead in working for women's suffrage. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917. The Republican Party was first to put equal rights for women in their party's platform.
It was the Republican party that elected Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive, conservationist who called for protection of our natural resources. He fought against corrupt corporations and for a "square deal" for both the average citizen and business. He was the first American to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
That is a proud tradition.
Then came the Depression and FDR and suddenly the Republican party was the party of the mean, out-of-touch, anti-poor, fat cats who would kick widows and orphans out onto the street.
Why does no one mention George Wallace -- the pro-segregationist governor of Alabama -- was a Democrat?
Or the fact that Robert Byrd -- a former KKK member who filibustered to try and stop passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- is a Democrat?
The Republicans are the pro-war party, or so they say. Oh, really? Who was it who embroiled us in the Vietnam war, escalating our troops, and causing untold casualties of bodies and minds? Lyndon Johnson -- a Democrat. Who ended the war? That's right, a Republican. Who went to China and the former Soviet Union to build better relations and promote peace? Hint: not the Democrats.
What are the core Republican values? Smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal accountability, strong national defense, freedom and equality. When did these become anathema?
What has caused the Republican Party to suffer, I believe, is their movement away from these value. George Bush greatly expanded the size and involvement of the federal government, and did not promote fiscal responsibility. The Party's obsession with interfering with women's reproductive rights is unfortunate and antithetical to what the party stands for which is, or should be, freedom of choice and freedom from excessive governmental intrusion into our lives.
The Republican core values are ones I am proud to hold and hope can once again come to national power and prominence. I hope for a resurgence of the Reagan Revolution, when government wasn't the enemy but neither was it the wet nurse to keep the poor needy and the middle class from becoming too successful.
The Republican Party doesn't hate the poor, but it does not believe that the answer to poverty is handouts. Sorry for the digression, but I was watching a show where they were talking with teen mothers and this girl mentioned that with welfare and whatever other money she was getting, "they" (meaning the government) were making it too easy for her. She said because of that, there was no motivation for her to get a job. Bingo! Isn't that what the Republicans have been saying since FDR, that the welfare state is a prison, a form of slavery. My cynical side thinks the Democrats perpetuate the welfare state to keep their voting base.
The Democratic Party needs to be needed. It needs poor, desperate people that it can promise the moon to and ask for nothing in return. That is their core group of voters, the voting bloc who keeps them in office. Add to that those who think of themselves a caring and compassionate and vote not in their own best interest but to feel good about themselves, you have the current Democrat majority.
So, put away your shock, horror, and pity -- yes, I'm a Republican. And perhaps if you thought about it rationally, you might be one too.
That question has been asked of me quite a bit lately, and always with a mixture of shock, horror, and pity. I can’t possibly be a Republican! I’m walking upright, knuckles well above dragging-on-the-sidewalk length. I speak in complete sentences and otherwise appear to be in possession of my faculties. I’m well-educated, irreligious, and I live in Los Angeles. So how can I possibly be a Republican?
It's insulting, narrow-minded and condescending to believe that no intelligent, rational person can be a Republican in 2009. Yes, I'm a Republican, and even after eight years of George Bush, I'm still proud of my party.
It's so easy for people to forget the roots of the Republican Party. The Republicans were once the holders of the moral high ground, the carriers of the torch of freedom and equality.
It was the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, which, as former slave and the first African-American to serve in Congress from South Carolina, Robert Smalls, said, "unshackled the necks of four million human beings."
It was the Republican party that worked to pass the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery, the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the laws, and the 15th Amendment, secure voting rights for African-Americans.
It was the Republican party that took the lead in working for women's suffrage. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917. The Republican Party was first to put equal rights for women in their party's platform.
It was the Republican party that elected Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive, conservationist who called for protection of our natural resources. He fought against corrupt corporations and for a "square deal" for both the average citizen and business. He was the first American to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
That is a proud tradition.
Then came the Depression and FDR and suddenly the Republican party was the party of the mean, out-of-touch, anti-poor, fat cats who would kick widows and orphans out onto the street.
Why does no one mention George Wallace -- the pro-segregationist governor of Alabama -- was a Democrat?
Or the fact that Robert Byrd -- a former KKK member who filibustered to try and stop passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- is a Democrat?
The Republicans are the pro-war party, or so they say. Oh, really? Who was it who embroiled us in the Vietnam war, escalating our troops, and causing untold casualties of bodies and minds? Lyndon Johnson -- a Democrat. Who ended the war? That's right, a Republican. Who went to China and the former Soviet Union to build better relations and promote peace? Hint: not the Democrats.
What are the core Republican values? Smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal accountability, strong national defense, freedom and equality. When did these become anathema?
What has caused the Republican Party to suffer, I believe, is their movement away from these value. George Bush greatly expanded the size and involvement of the federal government, and did not promote fiscal responsibility. The Party's obsession with interfering with women's reproductive rights is unfortunate and antithetical to what the party stands for which is, or should be, freedom of choice and freedom from excessive governmental intrusion into our lives.
The Republican core values are ones I am proud to hold and hope can once again come to national power and prominence. I hope for a resurgence of the Reagan Revolution, when government wasn't the enemy but neither was it the wet nurse to keep the poor needy and the middle class from becoming too successful.
The Republican Party doesn't hate the poor, but it does not believe that the answer to poverty is handouts. Sorry for the digression, but I was watching a show where they were talking with teen mothers and this girl mentioned that with welfare and whatever other money she was getting, "they" (meaning the government) were making it too easy for her. She said because of that, there was no motivation for her to get a job. Bingo! Isn't that what the Republicans have been saying since FDR, that the welfare state is a prison, a form of slavery. My cynical side thinks the Democrats perpetuate the welfare state to keep their voting base.
The Democratic Party needs to be needed. It needs poor, desperate people that it can promise the moon to and ask for nothing in return. That is their core group of voters, the voting bloc who keeps them in office. Add to that those who think of themselves a caring and compassionate and vote not in their own best interest but to feel good about themselves, you have the current Democrat majority.
So, put away your shock, horror, and pity -- yes, I'm a Republican. And perhaps if you thought about it rationally, you might be one too.
The Oscars -- Oh, the Hugh and Cry
Reading some of the reviews of last night's Oscar telecast, I had to wonder if I was watching the same show as the naysayers. I thought Hugh Jackman had a nice, breezy style, not too casual, not too stuffy. His best picture nominees' medley was inspired and raised the value of Anne Hathaway back up to pre-Bride Wars levels. While the musical medley did not give us old timers enough classic tunes to swoon over, it was a nice mix of clips and live performance. And it was Jonas Brothers-free, always a plus.
I loved the new presentation of the acting awards, with former winners each spotlighting a nominee. This was a sweet, sentimental moment that had me tearing up a couple times. Still, I had to wonder of the inequity of having some people introduced by living legends such as Shirley McLaine and Eva Saint Marie and others lauded by the likes of Marion Cotillard. Really?
The new organization of the categories, the flow from the beginning of the process through the end, was inspired. Normally, the middle of the show drags -- sorry to all the hard working set designers and documentary short film makers, but this is usually bathroom break time. But I found that this telecast moved through the doldrums-phase at a pretty good pace.
There was little soap box lecturing, which was refreshing and, frankly, surprising. I would have stayed cold sober had I played an Obama drinking game (a shot for any reference to hope or change let alone any invocation of the new Prez's name) and even the mentions of Prop. 8 were relatively few. In fact, the one person you can usually count on to politicize the moment -- Sean Penn -- took the relatively high road by saying, "I want it to be very clear that I do know how hard I make it to appreciate me often."
It was nice to see a movie with heart win the best picture. Slumdog may be an unrealistic, romantic fantasy, but what's wrong with that? The idea of love conquering all and -- dare I say -- hope and determination helping to bring you out of the most dire circumstances, are these so corny and passe? I guess not, since the often cynical "Hollywood" embraced this movie's sweetness with both arms.
One quibble. I do question the inclusion of "Milk" in the category of original screenplay, since it is based on a real person and his true life story. How is that less adapted than taking a short story or play and turning it into a movie? The other four original screenplays all originated out of the minds of the writers, building something from where there was nothing before. Maybe I'm just bitter, because I thought the wit and depth and unexpected turns of "In Bruges" would have garnered an award for its brilliant writer.
Quick observations:
Freida Pinto is stunning
Ben Stiller does a mean Joaquin Phoenix
Jochen Alexander Freydank is a good sport (he was the producer of "Spielzeugland (Toyland)" who had to deal with the presenters chuckling over the name of his movie and having seats somewhere near Pomona)
Steve Martin is a comic genius -- and it all started with an arrow through the head
Kate Winslet's father is an expert whistler
Disney takes care of its own (how many sightings of the High School Musical kids??)
The late Paul Newman deserved more than just an extra couple of clips
I loved the new presentation of the acting awards, with former winners each spotlighting a nominee. This was a sweet, sentimental moment that had me tearing up a couple times. Still, I had to wonder of the inequity of having some people introduced by living legends such as Shirley McLaine and Eva Saint Marie and others lauded by the likes of Marion Cotillard. Really?
The new organization of the categories, the flow from the beginning of the process through the end, was inspired. Normally, the middle of the show drags -- sorry to all the hard working set designers and documentary short film makers, but this is usually bathroom break time. But I found that this telecast moved through the doldrums-phase at a pretty good pace.
There was little soap box lecturing, which was refreshing and, frankly, surprising. I would have stayed cold sober had I played an Obama drinking game (a shot for any reference to hope or change let alone any invocation of the new Prez's name) and even the mentions of Prop. 8 were relatively few. In fact, the one person you can usually count on to politicize the moment -- Sean Penn -- took the relatively high road by saying, "I want it to be very clear that I do know how hard I make it to appreciate me often."
It was nice to see a movie with heart win the best picture. Slumdog may be an unrealistic, romantic fantasy, but what's wrong with that? The idea of love conquering all and -- dare I say -- hope and determination helping to bring you out of the most dire circumstances, are these so corny and passe? I guess not, since the often cynical "Hollywood" embraced this movie's sweetness with both arms.
One quibble. I do question the inclusion of "Milk" in the category of original screenplay, since it is based on a real person and his true life story. How is that less adapted than taking a short story or play and turning it into a movie? The other four original screenplays all originated out of the minds of the writers, building something from where there was nothing before. Maybe I'm just bitter, because I thought the wit and depth and unexpected turns of "In Bruges" would have garnered an award for its brilliant writer.
Quick observations:
Freida Pinto is stunning
Ben Stiller does a mean Joaquin Phoenix
Jochen Alexander Freydank is a good sport (he was the producer of "Spielzeugland (Toyland)" who had to deal with the presenters chuckling over the name of his movie and having seats somewhere near Pomona)
Steve Martin is a comic genius -- and it all started with an arrow through the head
Kate Winslet's father is an expert whistler
Disney takes care of its own (how many sightings of the High School Musical kids??)
The late Paul Newman deserved more than just an extra couple of clips
Friday, February 20, 2009
DJIA -- Since the Inauguration
Perhaps it is time for the current president to heed the advice of a former president, Bill Clinton, who recently told ABC news that he would like to see Obama be more positive about America's economic future.
Responding to the observation that Obama has made some dour proclamations recently, and that the man who ran as the voice of hope has not sounded hopeful lately, Clinton said, "I'd like him to end by saying that he is hopeful and completely convinced that we're gonna come through this. It's worth reminding the American people that for more than 230 years everyone who bet against America lost money. It's a mistake to bet against this country in the long haul. I just want him to embody that and to share that."
Agreed.
Dow Jones Industrial Average -- Past Six Months
As you look at the chart, plug in some of the comments Obama made about the economy during the election, and try to answer the question which is the chicken and which is the egg.
"We are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression," said September 26th, during first presidential debate.
"The fundamentals of the economy were weak even before this latest crisis," said on October 15th, during the third presidential debate
There's a big difference between being realistic and being a panic-monger. Obama, and the rest of the Democrats, seem to think that they must completely tear down confidence in the economy to get their agenda through. And they don't seem to care at what cost.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
South Carolina Poker Case -- You Win Some, You Lose Some, Part Two
The "is poker a game of skill or chance?" debate scored another victory today, albeit of the somewhat Pyrrhic type. A judge in South Carolina ruled unequivocally that poker is a game of skill. Unfortunately for the five men who were before him on charges of illegal gambling, that determination was not enough to acquit them of the charges.
Citing testimony from poker pro Mike Sexton and University of Denver Professor of Statistics Robert Hannum, Judge Lawrence Duffy found the evidence overwhelming that poker was a game of skill. However, that was not dispositive in this case.
Referencing the public policy of the state of South Carolina to suppress gambling "in all forms" the judge noted that the statute under which they were charged prohibits the playing of "any game with cards or dice." There was nothing in the statute to counter the clear, all-encompassing language.
In other states, a "Dominant Factor" test is used under which the determination of whether an activity is considered illegal gambling is based on whether the dominant factor in the outcome is luck or skill. The judge in this case ruled that South Carolina does not use the "Dominant Factor" test and that he could not consider the skill factor of poker in his decision.
Accordingly, the judge found the five defendants guilty of violating South Carolina statue 16-19-40 and ordered them to pay the required fine.
According to a press release by the Poker Players Alliance, the defendants will appeal the case, hoping to get a ruling from a higher court that the "Dominant Factor" test (also referred to as the predominance test) should be used.
Citing testimony from poker pro Mike Sexton and University of Denver Professor of Statistics Robert Hannum, Judge Lawrence Duffy found the evidence overwhelming that poker was a game of skill. However, that was not dispositive in this case.
Referencing the public policy of the state of South Carolina to suppress gambling "in all forms" the judge noted that the statute under which they were charged prohibits the playing of "any game with cards or dice." There was nothing in the statute to counter the clear, all-encompassing language.
In other states, a "Dominant Factor" test is used under which the determination of whether an activity is considered illegal gambling is based on whether the dominant factor in the outcome is luck or skill. The judge in this case ruled that South Carolina does not use the "Dominant Factor" test and that he could not consider the skill factor of poker in his decision.
Accordingly, the judge found the five defendants guilty of violating South Carolina statue 16-19-40 and ordered them to pay the required fine.
According to a press release by the Poker Players Alliance, the defendants will appeal the case, hoping to get a ruling from a higher court that the "Dominant Factor" test (also referred to as the predominance test) should be used.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Things I like about Obama
Never let it be said that we here are not open-minded and even-handed. Yes, we believe that the new President is taking the country down a dangerous road towards some form of socialism that will ultimately spell the end of civilization as we know it. But, we are also willing to credit him when he does something right. So, kudos to him for voicing his opposition to the "fairness doctrine."
This misleadingly labeled concept would have required broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. What it means is that broadcasters would not be able to use their time in the most financially beneficial way -- that is, put on the air the shows the people want to hear or see. Instead, they would have to carve out a significant amount of time presenting viewpoints that no one may want to listen to in the interest of "fairness."
In effect, if put into place, the fairness doctrine would have decreased the amount of conservative voices on the airwaves, primarily in radio, and forced broadcasters to air liberal shows, even at the expense of ratings. For this reason, it is opposed by conservatives and supported by liberals.
According to FOXnews.com, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt reiterated the president's opposition to the doctrine, stating, "As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated."
So, while Obama leads us to hell in a hand basket of wasteful spending, wealth redistribution, and staggeringly increased governmental involvement in our lives, at least he's right on this one issue.
For the record, the title of this post says things, plural, because I was hoping by now that he would have acted on his campaign promise to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research. But I suppose pandering to the Arab world, ordering the closure of Gitmo, and trying to destroy capitalism were higher priorities for the new President.
This misleadingly labeled concept would have required broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. What it means is that broadcasters would not be able to use their time in the most financially beneficial way -- that is, put on the air the shows the people want to hear or see. Instead, they would have to carve out a significant amount of time presenting viewpoints that no one may want to listen to in the interest of "fairness."
In effect, if put into place, the fairness doctrine would have decreased the amount of conservative voices on the airwaves, primarily in radio, and forced broadcasters to air liberal shows, even at the expense of ratings. For this reason, it is opposed by conservatives and supported by liberals.
According to FOXnews.com, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt reiterated the president's opposition to the doctrine, stating, "As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated."
So, while Obama leads us to hell in a hand basket of wasteful spending, wealth redistribution, and staggeringly increased governmental involvement in our lives, at least he's right on this one issue.
For the record, the title of this post says things, plural, because I was hoping by now that he would have acted on his campaign promise to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research. But I suppose pandering to the Arab world, ordering the closure of Gitmo, and trying to destroy capitalism were higher priorities for the new President.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Roland Burris' Memory Improving Day by Day
Monday, in an interview with reporters in Peoria, Senator Roland Burris made significant new admissions concerning his interactions with former Governor Blagojevich's associates prior to his appointment as replacement senator. Specifically, Burris detailed two conversations with Blagojevich's brother Rob.
According to the Chicago Sun Times transcript of Burris' statement, he admitted that before the December election he raised the issue of the senate seat with Blagojevich's brother at the same time the brother asked Burris about fund-raising for the governor:
"The governor’s brother’s on a routine fund-raising call indicated, ‘I am now the new fund-raiser for the governor, and Roland you’ve been helpful for us in the past,’ and I said, ‘Yes, you know, I’ve certainly tried to work with the governor. I’ve tried to help you all. A lot of people didn’t.'"
“And he says, ‘We need to raise some funds. We hope that you could probably get some of your friends together.' I said, ‘What type of money we looking for?’ He says, ‘Can you raise us 10 or 15 thousand dollars?’
“I said, ‘I don’t know but I can’t do it now because we are in the midst of an election. Call me after the election.’ He said, ‘Fine.’"
“So some time shortly after Obama was elected, the brother called. And now in the meantime, I’d talked to some people about trying to see if we could put a fund-raiser on. Nobody was—they said we aren’t giving money to the governor. And I said, ‘OK, you know, I can’t tell them what to do with their money.’"
“So when the brother called me back, I said, ‘Well, look Rob...I can’t raise any money from my friends. I said, maybe my partner and I, you can talk this over and see, could we go to some other people that we might be able to talk to that would help us out if we give--because we give a fund-raiser in the law office, nobody going to show up. We’ll probably have a thousand dollars for you or something to that effect.'"
“Oh, by the way, in that first conversation with him (Rob in October), so that part is where I raise a question about the Senate seat with him. But no other time do we talk about the Senate seat. So then we came back, and when he called me back the third time, because I went to talk to my partner, and we then assessed the situation and said, ‘Look, you know, I’m interested in the Senate seat. I can’t raise any money for him.’ And so he called me back and I told him back and I told him that. I said, 'No. 1, I can’t raise any money for you and I can’t give you any money because I don’t want to have a conflict.' I mean, that should give some indication of my commitment right there to get out of pay to play and they're still trying to tie me in to pay to play.”
This is a startling -- though with what we've come to know about Chicago politics, not surprising -- admission. The fact that all of this was withheld from the Illinois House Impeachment committee during Burris' testimony has to raise questions about potential perjury charges. At the very least, it certainly is consistent with the initial reaction to his appointment -- that any selection by Blagojevich was tainted and should never have been approved.
According to the Chicago Sun Times transcript of Burris' statement, he admitted that before the December election he raised the issue of the senate seat with Blagojevich's brother at the same time the brother asked Burris about fund-raising for the governor:
"The governor’s brother’s on a routine fund-raising call indicated, ‘I am now the new fund-raiser for the governor, and Roland you’ve been helpful for us in the past,’ and I said, ‘Yes, you know, I’ve certainly tried to work with the governor. I’ve tried to help you all. A lot of people didn’t.'"
“And he says, ‘We need to raise some funds. We hope that you could probably get some of your friends together.' I said, ‘What type of money we looking for?’ He says, ‘Can you raise us 10 or 15 thousand dollars?’
“I said, ‘I don’t know but I can’t do it now because we are in the midst of an election. Call me after the election.’ He said, ‘Fine.’"
“So some time shortly after Obama was elected, the brother called. And now in the meantime, I’d talked to some people about trying to see if we could put a fund-raiser on. Nobody was—they said we aren’t giving money to the governor. And I said, ‘OK, you know, I can’t tell them what to do with their money.’"
“So when the brother called me back, I said, ‘Well, look Rob...I can’t raise any money from my friends. I said, maybe my partner and I, you can talk this over and see, could we go to some other people that we might be able to talk to that would help us out if we give--because we give a fund-raiser in the law office, nobody going to show up. We’ll probably have a thousand dollars for you or something to that effect.'"
“Oh, by the way, in that first conversation with him (Rob in October), so that part is where I raise a question about the Senate seat with him. But no other time do we talk about the Senate seat. So then we came back, and when he called me back the third time, because I went to talk to my partner, and we then assessed the situation and said, ‘Look, you know, I’m interested in the Senate seat. I can’t raise any money for him.’ And so he called me back and I told him back and I told him that. I said, 'No. 1, I can’t raise any money for you and I can’t give you any money because I don’t want to have a conflict.' I mean, that should give some indication of my commitment right there to get out of pay to play and they're still trying to tie me in to pay to play.”
This is a startling -- though with what we've come to know about Chicago politics, not surprising -- admission. The fact that all of this was withheld from the Illinois House Impeachment committee during Burris' testimony has to raise questions about potential perjury charges. At the very least, it certainly is consistent with the initial reaction to his appointment -- that any selection by Blagojevich was tainted and should never have been approved.
Roland Burris -- What I meant to say was...
No, that wasn't a Saturday Night Live skit this weekend, that was a real U.S. Senator and his attorney at a press conference to explain some apparent omissions with the Senator's sworn testimony. I realized right away it wasn't SNL, it was too damn funny. If the purpose of the press conference was to clarify the matter and put it to rest, it was a total failure. If it was to further illustrate that Chicago politics is alive and well --- even in the post-Blago era -- and that you can trust politicians to be evasive, unreliable and self-interested, it was a rousing success.
Illinois's newest senator, Roland Burris, and his attorney, Timothy Wright, were in front of a gathering of media this weekend trying to explain newly released information that the Senator had been less than candid during his interview before the Illinois House Impeachment Committee last month. As explanations of the inexcusable tend to do, they only dug the hole Burris put himself in much deeper.
Here's the chronology. December 30th of last year, then-Governor Blagojevich named Burris to take over President Obama's former senate seat. On January 8th, he appeared before the Illinois House impeachment hearings on Blagojevich and gave testimony. Burris was questioned about his contacts with the governor's office prior to his appointment. As the issue facing Blagojevich's impeachment was the pay-for-play -- his attempt to sell the seat -- there was no question in anyone's mind that the legislators were interested specifically in any discussions between Burris and any representative of the governor surrounding the appointment.
During his questioning, Burris said his only contact was with Lon Monk chief of staff and campaign manager. Now, that disclosure could have been enough to disqualify Burris from his appointment as in an earlier affidavit he submitted to the committee he had claimed that:
Prior to the December 26, 2008 telephone call from Mr. Adams Jr., there was not any contact between myself or any of my representatives with Governor Blagojevich or any of his representatives regarding my appointment to the United States Senate.
But, based on his testimony that he did not have any inappropriate conversations, and that the conversation with Monk did not involve any promises or deals, objections to his selection were withdrawn and he was sworn in on January 15th. On January 23rd, Wright notified the Illinois House Majority Leader that Burris wanted to supplement his testimony.
On February 5th, Burris and his attorney filed a new, detailed, supplemental affidavit with the committee because Burris "was unable to fully respond to several matters that were included in questions during his testimony." This supplemental affidavit included details of numerous additional conversations he had with representatives of the governor concerning the senate seat. Significantly, in the affidavit Burris admitted that he had been party to three conversations with the Governor's brother Rob, discussing the senate seat as well as Burris' "assistance in fund-raising for Governor Blagojevich."
This affidavit was not released to the public for nine days. According to Illinois House Republican leader Tom Cross, House Democrats knew about Burris' affidavit and kept it to themselves. It wasn't until the Chicago Sun-Times broke the story that the affidavit came to light.
This latest chapter is corrupt Illinois politics brings up so many problems it's hard to know where to look first. Burris lied in his original affidavit when he claimed he had no conversations with anyone in the Governor's office, then he lied again during his House testimony, then House Democrats buried information about his lies, and then he refused to own up to his lies, claiming he was tried to lie even more during the press conference rather than fessing up.
Burris claimed at the press conference that he did not provide the names of four other people he had contact in over seven separate conversations, because the person questioning him got him off track.
Perhaps the Senate isn't the best place for Mr. Burris if he's so easily distracted?
Here is the transcript of Burris' questioning by House Impeachment Committee members, so you can decide for yourself:
Rep. Jim Durkin: "Did you talk to any members of the governor's staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including, let me throw out some names -- John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma? Did you talk to anybody . . . associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor's arrest?"
Burris lawyer Timothy Wright: "Give us a moment." (Wright and Burris confer.)
Burris: "I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes."
Durkin: "I guess the point is I was trying to ask: Did you speak to anybody who was on the governor's staff prior to the governor's arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who is closely related to the governor?"
Burris: "I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business, and I did bring it up -- it must have been in September or maybe it was in July of '08 that, you know, you're close to the governor, let him know that I am certainly interested in the seat."
Later, a Republican committee member raised the topic once more, giving Burris another change to come clean.
Tracy: "You said that you had visited friends perhaps in September of '08 or July of '08 concerning a desire to perhaps be appointed as a senator if our president-elect was elected. And could you give me the names of those friends?"
Burris: "I don't think I said in July. I said they were friends that I contacted after the election, but I was talking to people, I mean I don't know who you want as my friends that I consider as persons. For example, when I handled a press conference to express my interest in the seat, was the press conference -- I did hold a press conference, and some of my friends were there, for instance."
There was a brief digression, then Tracy continued:
Tracy: "But I think I earlier heard you today testify that in September '08 or perhaps as early as July '08, you had visited with some friends about your desire to seek the seat."
Burris: "No, I think I testified that that's when I began to express an interest in it. As I saw that --"
Tracy: "And I just was wondering who those friends were."
Burris: "One of them was my law partner."
Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, the committee chairman: "Is that when you talked about your interest with Lon Monk? I think that --"
Tracy: "Was it Lon Monk, was that the extent of it was Lon Monk?
Burris: "That came up in our conversation when we were talking about, you know, if he has some excess clients in the lobbying business, you know, as we try to see whether or not he had conflicts somewhere with some type of a client because of his previous relationship with government. That's what we were talking about then.
"And it just came up, and in fact I said, 'Now, Lon, I don't know what's going to happen, but I think I'm qualified to be appointed to the Senate seat.' And Lon said, 'Well, Roland, I think you are, too.' And that was the extent of it."
Tracy: "So you don't recall that there was anybody else besides Lon Monk that you expressed an interest to at that point?"
Burris: "No, I can't recall. Because people were coming to me saying, Roland, you should pursue that appointment, you're qualified, and this was --"
Tracy: "Is there anybody that comes to mind in that light that you can --"
Did Burris name Rob Blagojevich or Doug Scofield or John Wyma or John Harris -- all of whom he named in the supplemental affidavit? No, just a friend of his, Rich Barber.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Poker entering the mainstream
Little by little, the poker world is infiltrating the "real" world and the names and faces that are well known to those of us who follow poker are getting their 15 minutes outside the poker world.
There was Phil Hellmuth on the finale of Season One of Top Chef, Jean-Robert Bellande on Survivor-China, Daniel Negreanu on Rob and Amber-Against the Odds (okay, so only I saw that), Johnny Chan in "Rounders," and the poker pros hiding behind aliases in the recent movie "Lucky You."
Now, three more poker pros are stretching their notoriety beyond the felt -- but only two can be happy about it.
First up is the ever lovely Vanessa Rousso, she of the long blond locks and zip lining commercial for PokerStars. Now, Ms. Rousso is not just another pretty face. She was her high school valedictorian, graduated early from Duke and went on to law school. She's had seven money finishes in the WSOP and just missed a WPT final table.
But this month she is will be seen by millions in the pages of the 2009 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. That should dispel the myth that only middle aged, cigar chomping men and pimply faced computer nerds play poker.
Then there is Annie Duke. She, too, is no academic slouch, having graduated from Columbia undergrad and then going on to grad school at Penn. She is also a WSOP bracelet winner for Omaha 8/b (one of the most frustratingly confounding games out there) as well as the winner of the first WSOP Tournament of Champions.
Duke has had two prior small appearance on civilian -- i.e., non-poker -- TV game shows, once as a member of the "mob" on 1 v. 100 and the other time as a supporter on Deal or No Deal.
But she'll be getting a lot more face time in her next television venture. Duke is scheduled to be on this season's Celebrity Apprentice, fighting it out with the usual bizarre array of people from faux celebrities (Kim Kardashian's sister) to those with real accomplishments (Olympic skater Scott Hamilton). With her smarts and savvy, and her experience in a predominantly male environment, Duke is expected to do very well and gather some new fans along the way.
But the last poker pro to cross over to the mainstream would just as well remain anonymous. Lyle Berman, the 3-time bracelet winner, inductee in the Poker Hall of Fame, and former owner of the Vegas Stratosphere found himself on a list none of us would want to be on. The Bernie Madoff client list. He's in good company, sharing a spot with Sandy Koufax and Jeffrey Katzenberg.
According to reports, Berman invested in two Madoff-controlled funds, but the amount of his losses has not been reported. Berman was interviewed after his name was made public and told reporters for the StarTribune, "I heard about Madoff 25 years ago from some friends in California and decided to give him a try." Reflecting on the nature of the "investment," Berman added. "It worked out fine for quite a while."
Sadly, that is exactly how schemes such as Madoff's work out. Fine, until the fraud is discovered. And then it all comes crashing down. For someone who makes his living reading people, being caught up in such a large scale scam must have been a shock to Berman. But he certainly wasn't alone.
There was Phil Hellmuth on the finale of Season One of Top Chef, Jean-Robert Bellande on Survivor-China, Daniel Negreanu on Rob and Amber-Against the Odds (okay, so only I saw that), Johnny Chan in "Rounders," and the poker pros hiding behind aliases in the recent movie "Lucky You."
Now, three more poker pros are stretching their notoriety beyond the felt -- but only two can be happy about it.
First up is the ever lovely Vanessa Rousso, she of the long blond locks and zip lining commercial for PokerStars. Now, Ms. Rousso is not just another pretty face. She was her high school valedictorian, graduated early from Duke and went on to law school. She's had seven money finishes in the WSOP and just missed a WPT final table.
But this month she is will be seen by millions in the pages of the 2009 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. That should dispel the myth that only middle aged, cigar chomping men and pimply faced computer nerds play poker.
Then there is Annie Duke. She, too, is no academic slouch, having graduated from Columbia undergrad and then going on to grad school at Penn. She is also a WSOP bracelet winner for Omaha 8/b (one of the most frustratingly confounding games out there) as well as the winner of the first WSOP Tournament of Champions.
Duke has had two prior small appearance on civilian -- i.e., non-poker -- TV game shows, once as a member of the "mob" on 1 v. 100 and the other time as a supporter on Deal or No Deal.
But she'll be getting a lot more face time in her next television venture. Duke is scheduled to be on this season's Celebrity Apprentice, fighting it out with the usual bizarre array of people from faux celebrities (Kim Kardashian's sister) to those with real accomplishments (Olympic skater Scott Hamilton). With her smarts and savvy, and her experience in a predominantly male environment, Duke is expected to do very well and gather some new fans along the way.
But the last poker pro to cross over to the mainstream would just as well remain anonymous. Lyle Berman, the 3-time bracelet winner, inductee in the Poker Hall of Fame, and former owner of the Vegas Stratosphere found himself on a list none of us would want to be on. The Bernie Madoff client list. He's in good company, sharing a spot with Sandy Koufax and Jeffrey Katzenberg.
According to reports, Berman invested in two Madoff-controlled funds, but the amount of his losses has not been reported. Berman was interviewed after his name was made public and told reporters for the StarTribune, "I heard about Madoff 25 years ago from some friends in California and decided to give him a try." Reflecting on the nature of the "investment," Berman added. "It worked out fine for quite a while."
Sadly, that is exactly how schemes such as Madoff's work out. Fine, until the fraud is discovered. And then it all comes crashing down. For someone who makes his living reading people, being caught up in such a large scale scam must have been a shock to Berman. But he certainly wasn't alone.
Commerce Department's Loss - Our Gain
It was announced today that Judd Gregg -- the Republican senator from New Hampshire -- has withdrawn his name for consideration as the next Commerce Secretary. Eschewing the usual vague explanation and failing to drag out the hoary "personal issues" excuse, Gregg was particularly blunt in his statement.
"It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the census there are irresolvable conflicts for me," Gregg said in a statement quoted by the Washington Post. "Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns."
When he was announced as the replacement noinee, President Obama claimed the choice was made as a show of bipartisanship, part of his goal of bringing people with opposing views into the Cabinet.
But apparently, the opposing views the Republican nominee brought to this position were just too opposite.
Perhaps there is no issue of concern to the Democrats as the upcoming census and its effect on the upcoming elections. The thought of putting that matter in the hands of a Republican, even one willing to sacrifice his Senate seat to help the new administration, was apparently too much for the Democrats to handle.
So when Gregg was announced, the Democrats advised of their plan to have the Census director no longer report to the Commerce Secretary but instead to White House officials, starting with the upcoming 2010 censs. The Census Bureau, which is under the Commerce Department, is responsible for collecting population data that helps in redrawing congressional seats, among other things.
Gregg had to realize that he was being used as a pawn -- he would be trotted out occassionally to show how bipartisan the Obama administration was, while having little real power over his department. By withdrawing, Gregg showed an unwillingness to take a cabinet position that was almost immediately planned to be stripped of its power.
With his withdrawal, there is still the issue of the White House influence over the upcoming census. The idea that this bureau would be politicized should be of concern to all. As House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said of the bureau, "It should not be directed by political operatives working out of the White House."
If a new Democrat Commerce Secretary (assuming there is a Democrat out there who has paid their taxes) hands oversight of the Census to the White House, it is not unfair for Republicans to be the ones wondering about the fairness and impartiality of the process? Unfortunately, if it results in great gains for Democrats in the House, it may not matter how much the Republicans complain.
Still, it's nice to have Gregg back and not have to worry about another Senate seat going to the Democrats.
"It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the census there are irresolvable conflicts for me," Gregg said in a statement quoted by the Washington Post. "Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns."
When he was announced as the replacement noinee, President Obama claimed the choice was made as a show of bipartisanship, part of his goal of bringing people with opposing views into the Cabinet.
But apparently, the opposing views the Republican nominee brought to this position were just too opposite.
Perhaps there is no issue of concern to the Democrats as the upcoming census and its effect on the upcoming elections. The thought of putting that matter in the hands of a Republican, even one willing to sacrifice his Senate seat to help the new administration, was apparently too much for the Democrats to handle.
So when Gregg was announced, the Democrats advised of their plan to have the Census director no longer report to the Commerce Secretary but instead to White House officials, starting with the upcoming 2010 censs. The Census Bureau, which is under the Commerce Department, is responsible for collecting population data that helps in redrawing congressional seats, among other things.
Gregg had to realize that he was being used as a pawn -- he would be trotted out occassionally to show how bipartisan the Obama administration was, while having little real power over his department. By withdrawing, Gregg showed an unwillingness to take a cabinet position that was almost immediately planned to be stripped of its power.
With his withdrawal, there is still the issue of the White House influence over the upcoming census. The idea that this bureau would be politicized should be of concern to all. As House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said of the bureau, "It should not be directed by political operatives working out of the White House."
If a new Democrat Commerce Secretary (assuming there is a Democrat out there who has paid their taxes) hands oversight of the Census to the White House, it is not unfair for Republicans to be the ones wondering about the fairness and impartiality of the process? Unfortunately, if it results in great gains for Democrats in the House, it may not matter how much the Republicans complain.
Still, it's nice to have Gregg back and not have to worry about another Senate seat going to the Democrats.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
That's All Folks
In an homage to the old saying "don't just sit there, do something," today the Senate passed their own version of the hopelessly mislabeled stimulus package. The homily they should have considered instead is "first, do no harm." In their haste -- and that of the President -- to do something, anything, and quickly, they have put together a plan which is unlikely to stimulate anything but partisan debate during the 2010 congressional election.
What is apparent is even those most vehement supporters of the bill realize it is flawed. Really, the only argument is how deep and wide that flaw runs.
President Obama justified the package in a speech at George Mason University last Thursday, "There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all."
Senator Charles Schumer dismissed the excessive earmarks and unnecessary spending in a widely circulated interview, where he was quoted as saying "and let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little, tiny, yes, porky amendments. The American people really don't care." He went on to say that the American people care about tax credits more than "some small provision in the bill that souldn't be there."
Well, with his express admission that there is pork in the bill that shouldn't be there shouldn't the answer be, say, to remove it? But Schumer, along with the rest of the Democrats are following their leader's mantra -- we won. So they will push through the most spending they can get away with, even as public opinion polls indicate that the pubilc is not in favor of massive spending and the more details they learn about the package, the less they support it.
President Obama frankly doesn't seem to care if this is the right move or not. He has painted a dire picture of an America on the brink and this legislation as the only salvation. And if he's wrong and the country does not recover or, worse, plunges deeper into economic despair? “I expect to be judged by results,” said the president at a town hall meeting in Ft. Meyers, Florida, on Tuesday. “I'm not going to make any excuses. If stuff hasn't worked and people don't feel like I've led the country in the right direction, then you'll have a new president.”
Forgive me for being glib, but, easy for him to say. The worse that will happen to Obama is he'll go on the media circuit and help Jimmy Carter build houses (bashing Israel optional). But if this untested, rash approach to fixing the economy fails, the price the country will pay will be much greater.
We are not suffering from a lack of government spending and the answer to our current problem is not just more spending. But the Democrats just can't help themselves -- they spend, it's what they do. Having given the Democrats the keys to the car, as it were, with their overwhelming victory in November, the American people better hope they don't crash.
What is apparent is even those most vehement supporters of the bill realize it is flawed. Really, the only argument is how deep and wide that flaw runs.
President Obama justified the package in a speech at George Mason University last Thursday, "There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all."
Senator Charles Schumer dismissed the excessive earmarks and unnecessary spending in a widely circulated interview, where he was quoted as saying "and let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little, tiny, yes, porky amendments. The American people really don't care." He went on to say that the American people care about tax credits more than "some small provision in the bill that souldn't be there."
Well, with his express admission that there is pork in the bill that shouldn't be there shouldn't the answer be, say, to remove it? But Schumer, along with the rest of the Democrats are following their leader's mantra -- we won. So they will push through the most spending they can get away with, even as public opinion polls indicate that the pubilc is not in favor of massive spending and the more details they learn about the package, the less they support it.
President Obama frankly doesn't seem to care if this is the right move or not. He has painted a dire picture of an America on the brink and this legislation as the only salvation. And if he's wrong and the country does not recover or, worse, plunges deeper into economic despair? “I expect to be judged by results,” said the president at a town hall meeting in Ft. Meyers, Florida, on Tuesday. “I'm not going to make any excuses. If stuff hasn't worked and people don't feel like I've led the country in the right direction, then you'll have a new president.”
Forgive me for being glib, but, easy for him to say. The worse that will happen to Obama is he'll go on the media circuit and help Jimmy Carter build houses (bashing Israel optional). But if this untested, rash approach to fixing the economy fails, the price the country will pay will be much greater.
We are not suffering from a lack of government spending and the answer to our current problem is not just more spending. But the Democrats just can't help themselves -- they spend, it's what they do. Having given the Democrats the keys to the car, as it were, with their overwhelming victory in November, the American people better hope they don't crash.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Obama's Partisan Politics
Last night in a speech to House Democrats, President Obama made light of the Republican's objections to parts of the stimulus package. In a fairly mocking tone, Obama said of the Republicans, "So then you get the argument, 'well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.' What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point." His receptive audience laughed along with him.
If Obama wanted to bring change to Washington, launching a partisan attack less than a month into his presidency isn't the way. The Republicans are not the enemy. As the minority party, they have a role as old as our country -- to provide a check on the unfettered power of the majority. The 58 million plus voters who voted for the Republican candidate should not be shut out of the discussion over the country's future. The 22 states whose voters preferred the Republican candidate -- the no longer have a voice?
This may have been a "decisive" Democrat victory, but it does not result in a dictatorship. Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il and Fidel Castro don't have to listen to the opposition, but Obama does. The "we won" attitude is hubristic and short sighted. Four or eight years from now when the Republican revolution comes back around, as these cycles tend to do, will the Republicans similarly be allowed to simply shove their agenda down the Democrats' throats without discussion?
We are in a dire economic situation, but that does not mean we have to act hastily or rashly. If it takes another day, week or even a month to come up with a viable solution that does not put us even further in the hole, then we should take that time. Obama is letting his ego get in the way of good judgment. This isn't about his winning his first Congressional battle -- it should be about what's best for the US economy and the US taxpayer.
There is no disputing that the stimulus package has pork in it -- an amount conservatively estimated to be $100 billion, more than one-tenth of the entire package. That is not an insignificant amount and Obama seems to conflate spending with stimulus. Simply put, not all spending will stimulate the economy. And at a time of such great economic crisis, now is not the time to load up a bill with unnecessary spending. This should be a streamlined bill aimed precisely at the ways to get the economy moving. It shouldn't be the Democrats' opportunity to push spending programs they've had their hearts set on for the past eight years.
If Obama wanted to bring change to Washington, launching a partisan attack less than a month into his presidency isn't the way. The Republicans are not the enemy. As the minority party, they have a role as old as our country -- to provide a check on the unfettered power of the majority. The 58 million plus voters who voted for the Republican candidate should not be shut out of the discussion over the country's future. The 22 states whose voters preferred the Republican candidate -- the no longer have a voice?
This may have been a "decisive" Democrat victory, but it does not result in a dictatorship. Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il and Fidel Castro don't have to listen to the opposition, but Obama does. The "we won" attitude is hubristic and short sighted. Four or eight years from now when the Republican revolution comes back around, as these cycles tend to do, will the Republicans similarly be allowed to simply shove their agenda down the Democrats' throats without discussion?
We are in a dire economic situation, but that does not mean we have to act hastily or rashly. If it takes another day, week or even a month to come up with a viable solution that does not put us even further in the hole, then we should take that time. Obama is letting his ego get in the way of good judgment. This isn't about his winning his first Congressional battle -- it should be about what's best for the US economy and the US taxpayer.
There is no disputing that the stimulus package has pork in it -- an amount conservatively estimated to be $100 billion, more than one-tenth of the entire package. That is not an insignificant amount and Obama seems to conflate spending with stimulus. Simply put, not all spending will stimulate the economy. And at a time of such great economic crisis, now is not the time to load up a bill with unnecessary spending. This should be a streamlined bill aimed precisely at the ways to get the economy moving. It shouldn't be the Democrats' opportunity to push spending programs they've had their hearts set on for the past eight years.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
On a lighter note
The World Series of Poker announced its lineup for 2009 and there is something for everyone. This year there are 57 events, starting with the lowest buy-in event, the $500 casino employees Hold'em tourney starting on May 27th, and continuing until the Main Event which will start on July 3rd.
Commemorating 2009 being the 40th year of the WSOP, the first event open to the public will be a $40,000 buy-in event, starting on May 28th. They have added two more "World Championship" $10,000 events, for a total of ten in all, and there is the third annual $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. event. If you're feeling flush (call me), that would be $190,000 to buy in to those twelve events.
For the rest of us -- those of us affected by the economy and who do not have sponsor's patches on our shirts -- there is a $1,000 buy-in "stimulus" Hold'em event on May 30th. There are also two other $1,000 events, one for Seniors and one for the Ladies (or any guy who wants to follow in Alan Jaffray's highheeled footsteps), eighteen $1,500 events, and a whole host of satellites with buy-ins starting at $330.
The biggest news out of this year's announcement may be the end of the rebuy tournaments. There have been mixed feelings in the poker community about rebuy events, some decrying the ability of those with deep pockets and no shame to basically buy themselves a bracelet (I'm talking to you Layne Flack), and others who are not necessarily opposed to them, noting that Michael Chu won a rebuy event in 2007 without ever making a rebuy or add on.
But even Daniel Negreanu, a notorious re-buyer, has indicated that he is happy with the decision to do away with the rebuy events. In an interview with PokerListings.com, Negreanu is quoted as saying, "When you are giving away a World Series of Poker bracelet I think everyone should have an equal chance to win it, not just a chance based on how fat their wallets are."
Like last year, the Main Event will be a seven day event (with multiple Day ones and twos) that will halt after the final table of nine is set and then recommenced in November for a four day, final table extravaganza. The November Nine experiment last year was a mixed bag -- while the nine did not receive the media attention the WSOP had hoped, ratings for the final table were way up. According to Jeffrey Pollack, there will be more of a push this year to get the enthusiasm revved up and you should expect to see the November Nine on more than just poker magazine covers next year.
Let's hope the powers that be decide to bring back the live, pay-per-view of the final table. No matter how good a job the folks at ESPN do in editing and presenting the final table, it is by its nature misleading to have a twelve, fifteen, maybe twenty hour final table compressed neatly into two 45 minute segments. Let the true poker fanatics follow the action -- all of it -- in real time. They'll still tune in two nights later to see the hole cards and find out if their reads were right and what was really going on.
Commemorating 2009 being the 40th year of the WSOP, the first event open to the public will be a $40,000 buy-in event, starting on May 28th. They have added two more "World Championship" $10,000 events, for a total of ten in all, and there is the third annual $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. event. If you're feeling flush (call me), that would be $190,000 to buy in to those twelve events.
For the rest of us -- those of us affected by the economy and who do not have sponsor's patches on our shirts -- there is a $1,000 buy-in "stimulus" Hold'em event on May 30th. There are also two other $1,000 events, one for Seniors and one for the Ladies (or any guy who wants to follow in Alan Jaffray's highheeled footsteps), eighteen $1,500 events, and a whole host of satellites with buy-ins starting at $330.
The biggest news out of this year's announcement may be the end of the rebuy tournaments. There have been mixed feelings in the poker community about rebuy events, some decrying the ability of those with deep pockets and no shame to basically buy themselves a bracelet (I'm talking to you Layne Flack), and others who are not necessarily opposed to them, noting that Michael Chu won a rebuy event in 2007 without ever making a rebuy or add on.
But even Daniel Negreanu, a notorious re-buyer, has indicated that he is happy with the decision to do away with the rebuy events. In an interview with PokerListings.com, Negreanu is quoted as saying, "When you are giving away a World Series of Poker bracelet I think everyone should have an equal chance to win it, not just a chance based on how fat their wallets are."
Like last year, the Main Event will be a seven day event (with multiple Day ones and twos) that will halt after the final table of nine is set and then recommenced in November for a four day, final table extravaganza. The November Nine experiment last year was a mixed bag -- while the nine did not receive the media attention the WSOP had hoped, ratings for the final table were way up. According to Jeffrey Pollack, there will be more of a push this year to get the enthusiasm revved up and you should expect to see the November Nine on more than just poker magazine covers next year.
Let's hope the powers that be decide to bring back the live, pay-per-view of the final table. No matter how good a job the folks at ESPN do in editing and presenting the final table, it is by its nature misleading to have a twelve, fifteen, maybe twenty hour final table compressed neatly into two 45 minute segments. Let the true poker fanatics follow the action -- all of it -- in real time. They'll still tune in two nights later to see the hole cards and find out if their reads were right and what was really going on.
Do you feel safer yet?
So Leon Panetta is facing questioning from the Senate on his nomination to be the next head of the CIA. According to reports from the AP, he said "he would come to the job with a list a questions he wants the agency to answer.
Where is Osama bin Laden?
When will al-Qaida next try to attack the United States, and where?
When will Iran have a nuclear weapon? How can it be deterred from getting one?
What will it take to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapon?"
Those don't exactly seem like shockingly unexpected questions -- nor, in fact, questions that probably haven't been asked during the past administration. It doesn't show any great insight to pose the most obvious questions about our national security. What concern me is that Panetta would be going into this job with no more knowledge of how to get those answers than anyone else.
Panetta has not worked in or around the area of national security before and would be in effect learning on the job (not unlike our even less-experienced President). He is neither an intelligence nor national security expert. He brings no significant, relevant experience in any of the issues that would be facing him in his new position.
What Panetta is is what the naive masses had expected not to see in an Obama administration and what it is teeming with -- another Washington insider who is expected to call in political chits to get Obama's policies pushed through.
As my alter ego said today, "The inexperience in Washington is matched only by the moronic masses who did not realize that change meant throwing out the baby with the bathwater."
Where is Osama bin Laden?
When will al-Qaida next try to attack the United States, and where?
When will Iran have a nuclear weapon? How can it be deterred from getting one?
What will it take to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapon?"
Those don't exactly seem like shockingly unexpected questions -- nor, in fact, questions that probably haven't been asked during the past administration. It doesn't show any great insight to pose the most obvious questions about our national security. What concern me is that Panetta would be going into this job with no more knowledge of how to get those answers than anyone else.
Panetta has not worked in or around the area of national security before and would be in effect learning on the job (not unlike our even less-experienced President). He is neither an intelligence nor national security expert. He brings no significant, relevant experience in any of the issues that would be facing him in his new position.
What Panetta is is what the naive masses had expected not to see in an Obama administration and what it is teeming with -- another Washington insider who is expected to call in political chits to get Obama's policies pushed through.
As my alter ego said today, "The inexperience in Washington is matched only by the moronic masses who did not realize that change meant throwing out the baby with the bathwater."
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Conflicting Rulings on Poker as a Skill: You win some, you lose some
Not more than two weeks after a Pennsylvania judge dismissed gambling charges against the organizer and dealer of a Texas Hold'em home game, finding that poker was not gambling under Pennsylvania law as it was a game of skill, a different Pennsylvania judge has reached a different conclusion.
Westmoreland County Judge Richard McCormick Jr., refused to dismiss charges against three men who ran a Texas Hold'em poker tournament at a local volunteer fire departments.
The defendants' attorney, David Millstein, had argued that the case against his clients should be dismissed on two grounds, that the state law prohibiting illegal gambling is vague and that poker is not gambling because it involves skill, not mere chance.
Judge McCormick, however, ruled against the defendants on both grounds.
Earlier last month, Columbia County Judge Thomas A. James saw things quite differently, writing a lengthy opinion discussing the nature of the game of poker and all the research and books which establish it as a game of skill.
Should the defendants in the Westmoreland County case appeal Judge McCormick's decision, this could pave the way for a final showdown on the issue in the state's highest court -- a chance to get a state supreme court to weigh in on this important topic. So far, the argument that poker should not be considered "gambling" as it is a skill-based game has not had a major platform. And a number of different decisions have recently come out with different results.
It is just this type of inconsistent rulings and lack of uniformity which makes it the right time to get poker once and for all ruled to be exempt from anti-gambling restrictions.
Westmoreland County Judge Richard McCormick Jr., refused to dismiss charges against three men who ran a Texas Hold'em poker tournament at a local volunteer fire departments.
The defendants' attorney, David Millstein, had argued that the case against his clients should be dismissed on two grounds, that the state law prohibiting illegal gambling is vague and that poker is not gambling because it involves skill, not mere chance.
Judge McCormick, however, ruled against the defendants on both grounds.
Earlier last month, Columbia County Judge Thomas A. James saw things quite differently, writing a lengthy opinion discussing the nature of the game of poker and all the research and books which establish it as a game of skill.
Should the defendants in the Westmoreland County case appeal Judge McCormick's decision, this could pave the way for a final showdown on the issue in the state's highest court -- a chance to get a state supreme court to weigh in on this important topic. So far, the argument that poker should not be considered "gambling" as it is a skill-based game has not had a major platform. And a number of different decisions have recently come out with different results.
It is just this type of inconsistent rulings and lack of uniformity which makes it the right time to get poker once and for all ruled to be exempt from anti-gambling restrictions.
Obama's Mea Culpa
From Yahoo News:
"President Barack Obama is taking responsibility for mistakes in the handling of the tax controversy that led to Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's nominee to be health and human services secretary, saying: "I screwed up."
The president did a series of back-to-back television interviews in which the subject of failed nominees was a top subject.
Obama told NBC "I'm frustrated with myself" for unintentionally sending a message that there are "two sets of rules" for paying taxes, "one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks."
"I take responsibility for this mistake," he told Fox News."
Now if he can explain why a woman with less than $1,000 in unpaid taxes had her White House appointment "withdrawn" almost instantly, but Geithner was approved and Daschle had the administration's full support. Perhaps there may still be two sets of rules -- one for men and one for women?
"President Barack Obama is taking responsibility for mistakes in the handling of the tax controversy that led to Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's nominee to be health and human services secretary, saying: "I screwed up."
The president did a series of back-to-back television interviews in which the subject of failed nominees was a top subject.
Obama told NBC "I'm frustrated with myself" for unintentionally sending a message that there are "two sets of rules" for paying taxes, "one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks."
"I take responsibility for this mistake," he told Fox News."
Now if he can explain why a woman with less than $1,000 in unpaid taxes had her White House appointment "withdrawn" almost instantly, but Geithner was approved and Daschle had the administration's full support. Perhaps there may still be two sets of rules -- one for men and one for women?
Tax Trouble Double Standard
Well, I was all prepared to write about the Democrat Tax Dodge Tango, how the rules that apply to the rest of us conveniently don't apply to them. Then I receive a New York Times Breaking News Alert -- Daschle withdraws. Now, if he were facing a criminal trial as well, that would be even better.
You had know that things weren't looking good for Daschle when even the NY Times called for his withdrawal. Yet, the President continued to stand by him, giving Daschle the ol' thumbs up just yesterday when questioned by the media. The President should have demanded the withdrawal as soon as the tax evasion was revealed, but had perhaps backed himself into a murky ethical corner with his support of another tax dodger -- Timothy Geithner.
It should go without saying that any Republican with the same baggage would have been pilloried and run out of town. But Democrats just have to duck their heads, say I'm sorry, and all is forgiven. How refreshing to see that this time, the "aw shucks, my bad" defense didn't work and one of them was held accountable. Bye bye Tom.
For those keeping score, that is one proposed Commerce Secretary, one Secretary of Health and Human Services, and one Chief Performance Officer who have had to withdraw their nominations for various ethical issues and one Treasury Secretary given a pass for his tax troubles.
In addition, there have been at least seventeen waivers to the no lobbyist in the White House rules in the first two weeks of the Obama administration, the latest being proposed Deputy Defense Secretary -- and former Raytheon lobbyist -- William Lynn. Correction, the latest being former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson as Treasury Secretary Geithner's chief of staff.
Better post this before I have another former lobbyist/now White House insider to name.
This is the change we were promised?
You had know that things weren't looking good for Daschle when even the NY Times called for his withdrawal. Yet, the President continued to stand by him, giving Daschle the ol' thumbs up just yesterday when questioned by the media. The President should have demanded the withdrawal as soon as the tax evasion was revealed, but had perhaps backed himself into a murky ethical corner with his support of another tax dodger -- Timothy Geithner.
It should go without saying that any Republican with the same baggage would have been pilloried and run out of town. But Democrats just have to duck their heads, say I'm sorry, and all is forgiven. How refreshing to see that this time, the "aw shucks, my bad" defense didn't work and one of them was held accountable. Bye bye Tom.
For those keeping score, that is one proposed Commerce Secretary, one Secretary of Health and Human Services, and one Chief Performance Officer who have had to withdraw their nominations for various ethical issues and one Treasury Secretary given a pass for his tax troubles.
In addition, there have been at least seventeen waivers to the no lobbyist in the White House rules in the first two weeks of the Obama administration, the latest being proposed Deputy Defense Secretary -- and former Raytheon lobbyist -- William Lynn. Correction, the latest being former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson as Treasury Secretary Geithner's chief of staff.
Better post this before I have another former lobbyist/now White House insider to name.
This is the change we were promised?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)