March 2009 Archives

I'm not doing an April Fools column this year--not because I've lost my sense of humor--but because most of us already feel like fools. We've been fooled, and not just in April but for years.

We were fooled into believing that real estate was, well, real and could only go up. We were fooled into thinking that our financial advisers knew anything or that our bankers were prudent. On the left we were fooled into thinking that government had a coherent plan and if only the conservatives would get out of the way, all would be well. Conservatives were fooled into believing that business had all the answers and all we needed for endless prosperity was the magic of the market.

Yes, we were complicit and at some level knew we were being had. We knew housing couldn't go up 20% a year forever. We wondered at just how many malls any city needed and if there might be some saturation point for department stores, fast-food restaurants, expensive coffee outlets and even box stores. We sensed the absurdity, but as in the musical Evita, "When the money keeps rolling in, you don't ask how,
Think of all the people guaranteed a good time now."

So now as 401Ks become 150Ks, as our homes sink beneath the level of our mortgages, as our major industries go under, as former giants go out of business and surviving enterprises lay off people, we are understandably upset--even angry. Some of the anger is at our own foolishness but lots of it is directed out towards the people who should have known better, who claimed to know better. At this crucial moment, it would be a terrible mistake to under-estimate the populist rage.

Right now calm voices are telling people not to get too excited about the AIG performance/retention bonuses; after all it's "only" $165 million. When you compare it with the $180 billion we're giving them, well, it's chump change. This analysis is just wrong. True, it is not about the $165 million alone; it is about the amazing stupidity of the people who thought that the bonuses were okay on any level--contract or not. The boneheaded bonuses make us question the judgment and competency of the people who gave them out and the ones who didn't stop them. In other words, both private enterprise was out of touch and so were our people in government who were supposed to be watching them. This is true of both parties. It isn't the money. It's the lack of judgment and common sense.

For people of ordinary intelligence, performance bonuses are understood as a reward for achieving something positive. In this case it is for failure. Retention bonuses are to, well, retain valuable employees because they are, well, valuable and have proven themselves by their achievement. Not in this case. And many who got retention bonuses left anyway. They took the money, our money, and ran. Though I'd like to think they are not so stupid as to have "Run Venezuela."

But all is not negative in our financial meltdown. AIG has renamed itself AIU. No, I'm not kidding. They think they can get rid of the stigma by changing the G to a U. Frankly, they deserve an F! They have done what was once thought to be impossible. They have brought us together in anger and disgust across our political spectrum. Left and right may differ over how to take the bonuses away but except for Rush, we agree that their greed went way too far.

Besides bringing us together, they also got rid of an old sexist cliché. We all know the saying that "When the going gets tough the tough go shopping." Many thought, in a sexist manner, that this applied only to women. Not true. As our great banking and financial institutions were in free-fall, their great leaders decided to get new jets and redecorate their corporate offices. Retail therapy on our billions. Lovely.

The old cliché cum metaphor for futility was "Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." Why, after all, move the chairs if the ship is sinking? It really won't help. But our corporate tycoons have replaced that image. By redecorating, they show that their motto is to "Reupholster the deck chairs on the Titanic." It's just as futile but far more expensive.

We know they have no shame. But it is truly disheartening to find out that they have no sense.

So in particularly cruel April, if we feel particularly foolish, take comfort from the immortal words of George W Bush, "Fool me once and shame on, shame on you...Fool me...You can't get fooled again." Wise words indeed. No foolin.'
©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.org

There is nothing like passing the buck or laying blame when things go wrong. Like one of my co-bloggers around here who believes that segregated schools automatically mean that certain groups will wind up doing more poorly than others. To this I say, "bull Twinkies and baloney."

Take Lucy Clarkson, the British model who recently tried to strangle her boyfriend in her sleep and then blamed it on a sleep disorder called Night Terror. Could it be that she just had had it with him and wanted to deck him at one point during the day? Maybe he refused to ask for directions again or was ogling girls while they were supposed to be conversing at Starbuck's.

I once went out with someone who one day smiled at a picture of an Avon lady on a bus as it drove past our car. Looking back, I wish that I had had an excuse like that had I pasted one on him.

Lucy Clarkson is one smart lucky lady.

First an outfit called Save the Children UK butted in and denounced Madonna for adopting Malawi orphan David Banda in 2006. Now another bunch has jumped into the adoption fray and branded her a"bully" for her plans to adopt another Malawi orphan. The Human Rights Consultative Committee pretty much rehashed the same tired complaint as Save the Children UK did three years back and that's that Madonna is using her wealth and star power to end around Malawi's adoption procedures.
Madonna ignored Save the Children UK in 2006 with their silly bellyache and she'll likely do the same with the Consultative Committee. The figures tell the grim tale of why she should. According to UN estimates half of the 1 million Malawian children with one or no parents are orphaned by AIDS. More than 13 percent of Malawi's 13 million are poor, dirt poor, and not surprisingly the majority of them are women.

Malawi is hardly an aberration. More than 12 million children have lost one parent or are orphans in African nations. And given the still rampant disease, warfare and poverty that plague many of these countries, the number of orphans or near-orphans will soar to nearly 20 million next year. Apart from a string of cramped, desperately under-funded and in many cases unsafe orphanages in sub-Saharan Africa, many of these children are doomed to live out their childhood years in a caretaker existence.

That's only the start of Africa's orphan misery. Africa's orphans are still mostly unwanted anywhere else in the world, and that includes the United States. In 2005, more than 20,000 immigrant visas were issued to orphan children whom Americans adopted from other nations. Ethiopia, with a paltry 441 orphans taken in by Americans, was the only African country that cracked the top-10 list. Liberia and Nigeria were the only other African nations among the top-20 nations, with 182 and 82 orphans taken in by Americans.

Madonna has raised millions through her Raise Malawi Organization to fight poverty and disease in the country. She's made plans to build a school for young women there, and done more than any other celebrity too raise attention to the plight of Malawian orphans and women. Madonna could easily have been like the legion of air head stars whose idea of helping the poor is an annual photo-op mug shoot at a high profile, star studded, red carpet gala. Instead she put her money and name behind tackling one of the world's toughest problems and that's providing a better life for Africa's dispossessed children. For that she's piteously ragged on, sniped at, and backbitten, by every media chasing hound, and a handful of sanctimonious orphan relief groups. Why?

One reason for that is loudly and publicly stated. The other is unstated, and more contemptible.

Human rights and child protection groups claim that Madonna tossed her money and celebrity weight around to bend Malawi's adoption laws and fast-track the adoption, and that the adoption is another celebrity publicity stunt. Both are falsehoods. She observed the rules in 2006 with the adoption of Banda, and Malawi's courts have granted her an interim adoption order. She also kicked in a lot of dollars to boost orphanage services in the country. As one of the world's best-known superstars, with legions of paparazzi jumping at the chance to record her every cough, Madonna hardly needs to snatch an African child to grab some camera action.

The unstated, and more contemptible, reason that certain groups and individuals are upset about the adoption is the archaic notion that a white person, especially a wealthy white celebrity, is culturally clueless when it comes to raising a black child. Or worse, that they'll whitewash the child's black identity and tout white values (whatever they are).

What makes this notion even more dumb is that the crisis is not just one in which African babies are shunned in America -- African-American orphans are too. There are more than a half-million children in foster care homes in America. Nearly 40 percent of them are African-Americans. They stay in foster care homes on average a year longer than white children.

There is absolutely no hard evidence that the race of the adopting parent has much to do with whether an adopted child matures into a healthy, emotionally secure adult. The key is that the home must be loving, nurturing and financially stable. There is also little evidence that black children raised by white parents suffer permanent racial or cultural identity amnesia. Race and racism are still alive enough and in enough places in American society to insure that black children can't and won't forget that they're black. We need look no further than the man who sits behind the desk in the Oval office for proof of that.

Madonna did a huge service by using her star power not to exploit but to cast light on Malawi and Africa's orphan misery. You go Madonna.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard in Los Angeles on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and streamed nationally on blogtalkradio.com

LAUSD Superintendent Ramon Cortines minced no words at the education forum sponsored by the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable on Saturday, March 28. He said that the cuts the LAUSD will make to patch up $718-million budget deficit will be big, painful and draconian. Parents, teachers and students will be the big losers. But the biggest losers of all will be the District's African-American students.

They make up about 11 percent of the students in the sprawling district. They are the most underserved and underperforming of all students.

Cortines came to the Roundtable armed with the alarming figures. In all grade levels black students have the widest achievement gap between white and Hispanic students in English Language Arts and Mathematics. They have the highest drop out rate of all ethnic groups. That's nearly double that of whites, triple that of Asian students, and significantly higher than Hispanic students. Black students had the lowest percentage of graduates that met UC and CSU entrance requirements than any other group.

Cortines noted that there has been some marginal improvement among blacks students in bumping up their math scores. It's hardly enough, though, to uncork the champagne and celebrate that the District has turned the corner in improving black student achievement.

Cortines may actually understate the plight of black students. The California Department of Education reports that based on results from the 2006 California Standards Test that measures academic progress of students at virtually all grade levels, blacks students are failing miserably. Less than 30 percent of black students can read, write and do math at their grade level, while more than 60 percent of white and Asian students meet California's proficiency standard. It gets even worse. Even when income and parental background are factored in, black students still score far worse on achievement tests in language and math than all other groups. The Department also found the same off the chart drop out rate for black students.

Cortines did not say it but a big reason for the stubborn persistence of the achievement gap is that black students are still more likely to be poorer, trapped in chronically segregated South L.A. schools, with the highest rate of inexperienced and un-credentialed teachers.

The annual report by the Harvard University's Civil Rights Project on the devastating effect of poverty and segregation on black student performance repeatedly confirms this. The nation's big city public schools are more racially segregated than they were two decades ago. The students in these schools are poorer than students in predominantly, or exclusively white schools and they do far worse in reading and math tests than non-black or black students at racially mixed schools.

The black and Latino students who attend racially isolated schools are not in the schools because of Jim Crow segregationist laws, or failed school bussing policies. Two decades of pro-integration court decisions, limited bussing programs, civil rights legislation, and the election and the appointment of
soaring numbers of blacks and Latinos to boards of education in major cities have racially remade the face of public education. Black and Latino public school superintendents and top administrators are now fixtures in most urban school districts. This should have long ago rendered public school segregation an historic oddity.

However, the bitter truth is that more than a half century after the Brown decision, segregated public schools while no longer the law of the land is the fact of the land. The rigid barriers of housing discrimination, underclass poverty, the near universal refusal of federal and state courts to get involved in any more school desegregation cases, and the continuing flight of white, as well as black and Latino middle-income persons to the suburbs insure that even more poor black and Latino students will be perpetually trapped in segregated schools. The hodge-podge of panaceas that politicians and educators ladle out to raise
minority achievement levels such as school vouchers, fracturing urban districts, a wholesale dump of incompetent teachers and bureaucrats, magnet schools, and the Feds badly under-funded and badly lacerated No Child Left Behind Act, have only marginally raised achievement scores.

Now Cortines and the LAUSD with their forced meat ax budget cuts will add even more pain to the painful black student achievement gap. The urgent need then is for maximum damage control to minimize the pending educational carnage. Parent groups, unions and other organizations in L.A. have mobilized their consituencies to save their pet programs. They've daily flooded Cortines with calls, letters and e-mails. African American community groups and leaders should do the same.

The Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable and other civil rights groups at the Saturday Roundtable emphatically told Cortines that black students will be even bigger losers in the District's budget meltdown. Cortines agreed, and said that it's up to us to hold his and the District's feet to the fire. We'd better, and do it fast.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on Fridays 9:30 to 10:00 AM in Los Angeles on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and nationally on blogtalkradio.com

No, Earl, let the big, fat pumpkin-head roar. I think that was Howard Stern's name for Limbaugh, as he mocked Rush for ripping a page out of Stern's own playbook of outrageousness-for-ratings.

Dem pols would tell Earl, let Limbaugh grow more successful. Let him become even more of a figurehead for the GOP.

Fox News once claimed that its overtaking CNN in the ratings proved most Americans wanted their slant on news. They conveniently forgot that they still had only a tiny share of the larger viewing public. And now that MSNBC has moved to the left and gives Fox a run for the money in various time slots, the truth has been revealed that there's a strong constituency for any staunchly partisan mob, whlle the larger public is just, well, moderate.

The Dems want nothing more than to portray the entire GOP as being dominated by the Limbaugh mob. That's an effective ploy, and it's a solid move, given that the GOP leadership is emulating him in Washington by smacking down Obama's olive branches unless they can have the whole tree.

President Obama and the Democrats should wave the white flag in their strawman war on Rush Limbaugh. The Media Research Center delivered the grim casualty figures for the Democrats. Since January, the top talk show gabber's ratings have soared off the charts. Radio affiliates that carry Limbaugh's syndicated show call the ratings boost he's gotten from the Democrat's orchestrated attack on him a "dramatic surge." This writer predicted as much when President Obama cracked to Congressional Republicans in late January that they should knock off listening to Limbaugh if they expected to get anything done in Congress and with his administration.

The gabber instantly snatched at the quip and turned it into a multi show bonanza. No matter what topic Limbaugh gassed on, he managed to slide in a reference to Obama's prop up of him as the Democrat's prize punching bag. This did three things. It gave him an even bigger pile of fodder to puff himself up as the emperor of talk radio, claim to be the real kingmaker in the GOP, and in a perverse way paint himself as a credible and thoughtful political critic. It snapped many shell shocked Congressional Republicans out of their post election funk. Now suddenly feisty and combative, they draw a deep line in the sand against any and everything that Obama proposed. And it stiffened the spines of many timid Republicans and made them determined not to be bullied, or at least appear not to be bullied, by a mere talk show host into standing up to Obama.
This should have been the red flag warning to the Democrats to drop Limbaugh from their enemies rolodex. But no, they continued to blunder on. They took out ads, radio spots, and email blasts bashing and trashing bogeyman Limbaugh. The idea was to make sure that when the public thought GOP, they thought Limbaugh.

This was even more grist for Limbaugh. An he went on a tear. In quick succession he picked a fight with Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, a handful of GOP accomodationists, and the usual suspect to him liberal Democratic interest groups. But the real payoff was that it let him pad his bully pulpit to further whip up the pack to nit pick, poke fun at, and blow up any and every alleged slip or misstep by Obama. This in turn added even more steam to his inflammatory campaign of rumors, half truths, distortions, and flat out lies about Obama, liberals, and just about any other issue he rants on.

Any other time this might be fun and games stuff, a side show distraction that bored reporters and TV talking heads used to fill up column space or a talk cast on off a slow news day, but the Democrats just couldn't let it go. And that insured that the Limbaugh as Democrat's foil ploy would continue to have shelve life.

Limbaugh in a phony self-deprecating moment mockingly minimized his importance as a radio talk show host, feigning puzzlement at why the Democrats were so obsessed with him. He was right. They never should have been. Obama didn't need him to get Congressional Democrats and whipsaw a few Republicans into backing his program and to approve his cabinet appointees. He still doesn't. And that's all the more reason to wave the white flag in the Limbaugh war.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard weekly in Los Angeles on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and nationally on blogtalkradio.com

I'm a new blogger on this site. Please meet me there with your comments & condemnations!

Maybe Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle forgot this:
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 2.131,
"A peace officer may not engage in racial profiling. Law enforcement-initiated action based on an individual's race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than on the individual's behavior or on information identifying the individual as having engaged in criminal activity."

After the ordeal straight out of Hell that Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats went through the chief may have had a memory lapse. Moats who is African-American gets word that his wife's mother is near death at Baylor Regional Medical Center in Plano, Texas (a Dallas suburb). He and his wife rush to the hospital to be at her side in her final hours. But Dallas police officer Robert Powell (white) has other ideas. He corrals Moats, his wife and another female passenger in the medical center parking lot and in what can only be described as a surreal scene, pulls his gun on them, waves it around at Moats, his wife, and orders them to stand down. He then turns two tone deaf ears to Moats's frantic efforts to explain that his mother-in-law is inside dying. Instead he mouths off at him. Moats won't say it he's got too much class for that, but no matter how profusely the Dallas chief apologizes, which to his credit he did, Moats and his wife were racially profiled.

The bone head stop of Moat's did more than give Dallas police a black eye and cause city official to scramble for damage control. It also cast suspicion on just how serious police agencies are in wiping out racial profiling. They all swear to the heavens that their officers don't profile. They have to; they've taken to much heat for it. In fact, the Texas statute that forbids racial profiling mandates that all Texas police departments file annual stats on motorist stops--by race. Dallas patted itself on the back in a city report in 2008 for seriously addressing all areas of concern about racial profiling and evaluating department procedures to insure that it doesn't happen. But the Moats stop proves that what the department puts on paper and what happens in the streets means it still has a long way to go to achieve its stated goal of providing "public service that is effective and fair."

Powell in his weak kneed half hearted defense, wailed that he thought he was following procedure, and just doing his job. In a twisted way he's probably right, and that's even more reason to doubt that Dallas and indeed other departments are really doing all they say they are to root out racial profiling.

Even by the jaded and dumb action of far too many cops who still think good law enforcement is pulling every twenty something young black male that they eyeball on the streets over, Moats's ordeal was extreme.

Moats should slap the Dallas and its police department with Mt. Everest dollar size lawsuit. That won't bring back his mother-in-law or erase the pain of knowing that the moments he spent being hectored by Powell were moments that he should have been at his mother-in-law's bedside. But Dallas still must pay, and pay dearly for that. An apology for what he went through is simply not enough.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard weekly in Los Angeles on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and nationally on blogtalkradio.com

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest ways of saving the Los Angeles Unified School District money, which may also save some souls and landholdings along the way. The plan is actually quite simple and can be broken down into three easy steps.

First, they should get rid of all the consultants who are making more than ten thousand dollars a year, as in "adios," "hasta la bye-bye, baby" and "don't call us, we'll call you." After all, if it weren't for those meatballs, the district may not be in the mess that it's in. According to some estimates, it would save around 182 million dollars a year, but it would actually save more due to all the unused plastic coffee cups, stirrers, and fake cream and sugar. It would also save on the creases they wore in the rugs from getting all that coffee, sugar and creamers.

Total estimated savings: Consultants: 182 million dollars. Coffee and condiments: 3 million dollars. Rugs: 3 million dollars. Savings from the overpriced vendors who sold them the goods to begin with: Priceless.

Next, test to see who qualifies for early retirement back at headquarters with the following from the newly formed firm of Gitte Faigele Saunders, Esq.: Anyone who hasn't moved from his seat in about a year (one point). Anyone whose desk has collected dust (one point). Anyone whose inbox contains papers last dated at 1989 (one point) Anyone who isn't breathing and has no pulse (Two points). Two points or higher, you get the boot or 90% of the workforce.

Last is the teacher buyout or the early retirement program. Not only is the Los Angeles Unified School District top-heavy with administrative personnel, but with veteran teachers. Look for the hair gone white since the age of about forty-three and those who would jump, leap, forget about their arthritis and do a cartwheel at the mere thought of it. The whole thing would be a plum deal for the district that is probably tired of paying them anyway. Estimated savings: Priceless, especially if I get to be in that program.

With the extra loot, the district could add to rather than reduce its counseling staff. Let's define a counselor. A counselor (noun) is someone who counsels students and others with their problems and helps them weather the vicissitudes of life. It is not someone who breathes in and out and shuffles program cards.

Cost? Priceless. And it is cheaper than building more jails and detention centers.

There are a great variety of ideas and opinions on how (or if) to save newspapers. Some are probably good ideas--though I haven't seen one. Some are bad ideas. Seen lots of those. And some are just breathtakingly bad. I don't want to sound too much like a Conservative but by far the worst idea, the plan that bespeaks a nearly complete lack of understanding of the role of a free press, is coming out of Congress and is called The Newspaper Revitalization Act. It should be called the Newspaper Evisceration Act.

They have a plan that will do for saving newspapers what "destroying the village in order to save the village," did for the villages in Vietnam. They want to provide a way for our newspapers to become non-profit enterprises. Since they already mostly fail at making a profit, this shouldn't be too much of a stretch. It would simply be recognizing their current status. Except that as an official non-profit they could not do endorsements of political candidates.

So there's the first and most obvious limitation on the freedom of the press. But believe me, it will get worse. Non-profits are not allowed to endorse or, even by implication, prefer one candidate or advocate for or against any highly political issues.

Look at the limitations placed on other non-profits--religious institutions come to mind. From the late Rev Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority on the conservative end of the spectrum, which lost its tax-exempt status, to Pasadena's All Saints Episcopal on the liberal side, that had its status threatened because its former minister preached an anti-war sermon; it should be clear that this is a power we do not want the government to have.

The madness of using a non-profit model for the press was more than adequately demonstrated when the IRS pulled the exemption of the National Geographic Society. They also went after Rev. Schuler's Crystal Cathedral for charging too much for their Easter Pageant and asserted that they were not a non-profit because they were giving their contributors value! Both religions and the press apparently can be tax-exempt so long as they are giving no value or hold no values.

So the newspapers could be okay, I guess, as long as they don't go too commercial and make money selling advertising (This may not, unfortunately, be a problem) and if they refrain from any hint of opinion, analysis that isn't scrupulously apolitical, or offer any controversial opinions on anything of importance. Theatre and movie reviews might be ok. Although a review of a Michael Moore film or a Newt Gingrich book, pro or con, could cost them--depending on which party is in power.

Okay, I'll admit and disclose the obvious: I am a partisan. I have a dog in this fight. As a writer of opinion, I do not want to be constrained by the government or by the fear of an editor that one of my Op-Ed articles could bring the weight of the Federal Government down on the paper and drive them out of business. This would certainly have a chilling effect on a crusading press as well as the idea and ideal of a free press.

Now given the creative minds in Washington, they might be able to craft a cunning compromise that could allow for some opinion to be printed, but I promise you every church, synagogue and mosque will sue for equal protection and for the possibility of enhanced freedom of expression. So this is really perfect. We can design legislation to make religions more political and the press less opinionated. This is a deal that the press must reject. As Patrick Henry might have said "Is newsprint so dear as to be purchased at the cost of our integrity and freedom? Give us freedom or let us die." This is a bargain that even Dr. Faust would turn down and so should we all.
©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.org

After a tongue lashing for city council members this week, Department of Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks relented and reinstated the $70 coupon for low-income households to get their pet spayed or neutered. Boks had temporarily suspended the coupon program in order to save $150,000 - part of the citywide spending cuts needed to balance the budget. Now, Animal Services will again offer the $70 coupon, which means households that earn under $30,300 can have their cat or dog altered for free. The department did not revive the $30 coupon that was available to any Angeleno.

Pretty much everybody chastised Boks for suspending this program (including the DN editorial page), but maybe Boks was right. In tough budget times, should L.A. taxpayers really be picking up the tab for one of the essential duties of pet ownership? We don't subsidize dog kibble or kitty litter. If someone can't afford to spay or neuter their pet, will they be able to afford the cost of pet ownership -- estimated at $300 a year for a small dog and $500 a year for a cat (kitty litter is apparently quite expensive)?

Yes, the offspring of unaltered pets end up in city shelters and taxpayers end up paying for them there. But I suspect that people who are conscientious enough to call the city and get a coupon are also conscientious enough to have their pets spayed or neutered, with or without a coupon. Are those folks really the pet owners responsible for the puppies and kittens in animal shelters?

What do you think? Our question of the week asks whether pet neutering is worth subsidizing. You can respond at opinionated@dailynews.com. We'll print as many responses as we can in Sunday's Opinionated section.

>Or you might be at the losing end of a fine or random fee application.

It almost happened to me. Yesterday, I arrived home after a long day at my W-2 job to find a letter from the city's Office of Finance, or OOF, saying that I hadn't paid my business tax in years and that I owe an estimated $4,363.81. OOF, indeed.

My first thought was identity theft because I don't have a business and I have certainly had never made the estimated $200,000 that the city was suggesting. Long story short, I found out this was a fishing expedition by the city, and anyone who received a 1099 last year, whether it be for few hundred bucks (such in my case) or several thousand, will be similarly targeted. But even if you know you are exempt, as I did. Don't ignore this note --or else.

And this is the reformed business tax system!

And on another City Hall front: Last fall found that the city arbitrarily decided to start charging me an extra capacity fee for trash collection, as if $36 a month for three regular sized bins for my small SF home wasn't enough. I don't have extra bins; this was a clerical mistake. But six months later I'm still trying to get them to stop charging this fee and credit me for back months. Wish me luck!

I'm on the weirdest mailing lists. This is not a complaint. It means that every day I get to enjoy a wide range of news and views from all across America -- lefties, conservatives, libertarians, environmentalists, anarchists, business people, law enforcement and druggies and people who not write so goodly.

Here's today's winner in the category of "E-mails That Have Caused Unintended LOLing." This dispatch comes from Richard A. Viguerie at ConservativeHQ.com who's not thrilled with University of Notre Dame's choice of the United States Commander in Chief as this years commencement speaker. (Emphasis is mine)

Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, pointed out that, "Barack Obama is a pro-abortion extremist. He supports elective abortion at any point during pregnancy, and even afterward."

Afterwards? What, like if they grow up to be AIG executives?

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Talk show loudmouth Tammie Bruce is a near textbook case of trash trashing class. The class in this case being the Obamas. In a well calculated outburst she branded them trash in the White House.

But I can't say I'm really surprised. Bruce made her rep as a professional O.J. Simpson trial baiter/hater. The times that I'd bump heads with her on various talk shows I could always count on one loose lipped, acid tongued long fast talking, shrill, manic harangue after another from her. Invariably, the harangue was about and against black men.
Bruce continued her rants on her late night local Los Angeles talk radio show. That didn't last. She got the ax and mercifully disappeared from the radio dial for a while. But in hate talk radio land, Bruce's shrill acid race and liberal baiting venom is at a premium. So it wasn't long before she submerged again. But even then she remained a mostly forgotten, local yokel hack, a sort of poor woman's Ann Coulter. But Bruce burned the midnight oil racking her brain(?) trying to figure out how to change that. She figured if Ann can hype and hustle and parlay her airwave poison into notoriety than why not me. And of course what better way to do that than by blurting out an outrageous, over the top, ear screeching whack at the Obama's; especially Michelle Obama.

She took her cue from Queen Ann on that. A couple of months back the Queen displayed her special genius again with a well-leaked drib from her liberal bash book Guilty about Michelle. Her knock was not about Michelle's education, politics, or her marriage to the president. No, she skewered Michelle's dress, jewelry, hair, and her alleged poor woman's imitation of Jackie O. Unlike her ritual liberal hit pieces, Coulter knew that a Michelle hector would get the tongues furiously wagging.

Queen Ann banked that there were just enough literary voyeurs, masochists, and attention deficit readers to get the book flying off the shelves. Thankfully, there weren't. The Queen's books have taken a much deserved dive since then. The lesson, though, wasn't lost on Bruce. But even by the low life standards of Queen Ann and her fellow right wing talk yakkers, Bruce was off the map with this loony blather about the Obamas. But that's what happens when trash trashes class. And like trash, let's hope it gets dumped in the airwaves garbage pile, this time for good.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard weekly in Los Angeles on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and nationally on blogtalkradio.com

Obama's administration may well be a concentrated version of the Jimmy Carter presidency. He may well be looked back upon as the worst leader in the history of the republic. He may well turn the United States into a blown-out shell of its former self. Citizens may well resort to anarchy, or worse yet, veganism. He may well fail so badly that future citizens will reinstitute slavery in a knee-jerk reaction against him. He may well turn us into the Soviet Union Part Deux.

Then again, he may succeed, and may turn the United States into the sort of nation it needs to become to succeed in a new day that is dramatically different from the one on which the sun has already set.

It will come down to whether Obama and his administration are mainly a learning organism or an ideological organism. Learning leaders survive and ultimately thrive; ideological ones flounder over the long haul. Bush and Carter attempted mainly ideology. Obama seems to be more of an ideologue than I'd have guessed three months ago, but he and his people still seem to be learners. Are they sufficiently interested in learning. I hope so.

Ideologues would have crowed that today's 500 point Dow jump vindicated their economic prescriptions. The embattled Geithner shows some maturity here in not needing to make that case. Obama's team may well be learners, playing for the long haul. Their ideological opponents, who need to imagine themselves as superior even if it requires them to light candles and pray that the economy fails over the next four years, will detest this and will look for the next opportunity to resuscitate their argument that short-term stock movements are exposing America's contempt for Obama's leadership. Fair enough. But Obama's administration appears to be playing for the long haul, and may be playing wisely. Let's hope they are indeed more interested in learning than in ideological battles.

A general consensus is that it was a deadly mix of panic, rage, and frustration that caused Lovelle Mixon to snap. His shocking murderous rampage left 4 Oakland police officers dead and a city and police agencies in deep soul search abut what went so terribly wrong. Though Mixon's killing spree is a horrible aberration, his plight as an unemployed, ex-felon isn't. There are tens of thousands like him on America's streets.

In 2007, the National Institute of Justice found that 60 percent of ex-felon offenders remain unemployed a year after their release. Other studies have shown that upwards of thirty percent of felon releases live in homeless shelters because of their inability to find housing; and those are the lucky ones. Many camp out on the streets.
A significant number of them suffer from drug, alcohol and mental health challenges, and lack education or any marketable skills. More than seventy percent of all U.S. prisoners are literate at only the two lowest grade levels. Nearly 60 % of violent felons are repeat offenders. They are menace to themselves and as the nation saw with Mixon, to others. In some cases, they can be set off by any real or perceived slight, insult, or simply lash out from bitter rage. Mixon was one and he made four Oakland police officers victims and left a terrible trail of grieving and distraught families and a shell-shocked city and police department.

The answer to the Mixons' isn't easy and simple. The need is strike a fine and delicate balance between public safety and ex-felon rehabilitation. A big obstacle to making ex-felons law abiding, productive citizens is still the inability of many ex-felons to find jobs. City officials in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Chicago, New York, and Atlanta have been repeatedly challenged to take action to end employer discrimination against ex-felons. The demand has been to restrict what employers can and can't ask on job applications.

In a revealing study in 2003 and duplicated again several years later Northwestern University professor Devah Pager hired groups of African American and white young men with identical resumes and experience to pose as job applicants. Some were told to say they had a drug felony. The study found that a check when they checked the felony conviction box on applications it reduced the white applicants' chance of an interview by 50 %. For black applicants' their chance of landing the job was reduced by two-thirds.

To counter employer discrimination against ex-felons, nearly a dozen states and counties and cities have enacted laws in recent years to sharply limit what employers can ask applicants about criminal records. But that reform effort has stirred fierce resistance from employer groups. Washington D.C. is a near textbook example of that. Nearly 3,000 former prisoners are released and return to the District each year. Most fit the standard ex-felon profile. They are poor, with limited or education, and job skills, and come from broken or dysfunctional homes. Researchers again found that the single biggest thing that pushed them back to the streets, crime, violence and inevitably repeat incarceration was their failure to find work.

In 2007, the D.C. city council passed a measure that would have banned discrimination in employment as well as housing and education against ex-felons. It was vetoed by then Mayor Anthony A. Williams. The heat on Williams came from business groups who claimed that they'd be sued by rejected applicants.

Similar legislation has been kicking around in Congress since 2005. It hasn't fared much better. The bill called the Second Chance Act is a relatively mild measure to pump about $100 million to local and state agencies for education, job and skills training, counseling, and family unification programs to stem the high rate of recidivism among ex-felons.
President Obama has often spoken of the need to unhinge the revolving door of felon release and reincarceration. He backs the Second Chance legislation. But with the economy and the financial crisis dominating the White House and Congressional agendas the likelihood that ex-felon aid will get immediate attention is slim.

In the meantime, the ranks of the felon underclass will continue to balloon. At last count, there were an estimated 12 million people in the U.S. with felony convictions. That's nearly 10 percent of working-age population. And with jails bulging and states desperately trying to figure out how to cut jail costs and increasingly resorting to early release, more ex-felons will be on the streets. The current estimate is that more than 600,000 offenders are now being released from prisons yearly.

Mixon unfortunately was one of them. And others like him are ticking time bombs that endanger themselves and others. Oakland tragically showed that.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard in Los Angeles on KTYM 1460 AM and nationally on blogtalkradio.com
.

People at RAND think that we'd make a safer world if we can find a way to promote the sufi approach among Muslims rather than grim, frowning fundamentalism.

Sufism is the fascinating, mystical tradition of Islam, which focuses on love and harmony and oneness. It has quite a following in Pakistan and the Indus Valley civilization; it infuses popular music and culture; and it chafes under the yoke of hardcore fundie types. By the same token, fundies always view mystical traditions as a bit heretical.

The question is whether one culture promoting anything within another culture will backfire. The key is encouraging indigenous people to help others let out their inner sufi a little more each day.

The boneheaded bonuses controversy is not about just the money. The people who say that this is a distraction and we shouldn't worry about 165 million dollars when we are giving them 165 billion dollars are only partially correct. The money is small potatoes--well, for the government anyway.

Here's the issue and the mantra to replace or refine "It's the economy stupid!" New mantra: "It's their judgment stupid!" It is also their stupid judgment. The so-called retention bonuses for people who have left anyway, the contractual bonuses not based on performance, the money for corporate jets, the money to redecorate corporate offices of otherwise bankrupt institutions, leads some reasonable observers to believe that the corporate leadership is rudderless, clueless and incompetent.

This is not even about criminality--other than near criminal stupidity. This is about being so disconnected from reality that the public can have no confidence that you will do anything even vaguely useful or in the public interest with the billions we're giving you.

Our populist rage is not based on our know nothing inability to understand the complexities of economics but our strong sense that you are equally unqualified to fix your mess. We are pouring out billions and you are not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, you are reupholstering them which is just as useless but far more expensive.
©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.org

Since so many Fox pundits have declared that Obama has destroyed the global economy in a mere two months, can we at least credit him for stabilizing Iraq? Oh, that's right. It doesn't cut both ways.

On March 19, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geither was bluntly asked by a CNN interviewer: "As far as you can remember, though, you did not know about this (the tainted AIG bonuses) before March 10th?"
Geithner answered: "On Tuesday, I was informed about the full scale and scope of these specific bonus problems. And again, as soon as I did -- but, you know, it's my responsibility, I was in a position where I didn't know about those sooner, I take full responsibility for that."

This is the official Geithner and Obama Administration line. But it's just that a line. It's not the truth. The truth is that Geithner knew everything he needed to know about the AIG bonuses long before March 10, did nothing about them, and then feigned outrage when the truth came out. Here's the smoking gun proof.

September 2008. AIG officials made no effort to mask their intent to pay the tainted bonuses. They clearly spelled out in their required SEC financial filing that they would pay $469 million in "retention payments" to keep valued employees.

November 2008. Treasury and Fed officials negotiated the specific terms under which the bonuses could be paid. This even included cuts in bonuses for most of the AIG's top executives.

December 2008. Congressional Democrats attempted to hold hearings on the bonuses. Several House Democratic Reps went further. South Carolina House Rep Elijah Cummings specifically demanded that newly appointed AIG CEO Edward Liddy scale back the bonuses. Another House rep. publicly called for the resignation of Liddy.
February 2009. Geithner and top Obama team economic advisor Larry Summers pressure Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd and other Senate lawmakers to excise a provision from the banking bailout legislation that bans excessive executive bonuses to executives at TARP funded companies before February 11.

February 2009. Treasury staffers publicly disclose that the Treasury, the Federal Reserve in Washington, and the New York Federal Reserve held continuous interagency discussions on all operations of AIG since September. Geithner headed the New York Fed during those months.

February 2009. New York Fed officials reiterated that they carried out direct oversight of AIG and that they knew all about the bonus payments.

March 3, 2009. In an open hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, Geithner complains to New York Rep Joseph Crowley that executive bonuses have gotten out of "whack." He was referring specifically to the tainted AIG bonuses.
March 18, 2009. A Treasury spokesperson insists that Geithner did not know about the timing of the AIG bonuses. That's far different than saying that he did not know about them at all as Geithner insisted, and apparently continues to insist despite the smoking gun proof to the contrary.

Unfortunately, this also appears to be President Obama's position as well. He has stoutly defended Geithner. The question is how long will and should he continue to defend him in the face of the smoking gun proof of what Geithner knew about AIG and when he knew it.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009).

I tend to defend the mainstream media (the dreaded "MSM") from charges of having a liberal agenda, even though I'll concede they have a liberal tilt. I just feel that the tilt toward liberalism is laughably minor compared to their tilt toward sensationalism, controversy, titillation and anything that gets attention.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the fussing about Obama's "special Olympics" quip to Jay Leno is a reflection of the political correctness that's part of their liberal tilt. CNN et all are making way too much out of that self-deprecating crack, and overestimating how much stock ordinary Americans put into PC speech (answer: not much, even when crises aren't brewing on the economic and international fronts).

As a human being I realize that I'm filled with contradictions. I can feel two, maybe even three, different ways at the same time. But usually when my contradictions are placed before me, I see their absurdity and make a choice. Therefore help me understand:

Many people are afraid of shipping prisoners at Guantanamo to their local states. It is just too dangerous to have them here, even in penitentiaries. But our own local police want Sara Jane Olson (Katheen Solia) not sent to Minnesota to serve out her parole but kept here where she tried to blow up L A Police. Huh?

I don't understand why it is okay to bail out bankers and insurance companies but it would be socialism to do it for the automobile industry. Why is government paid healthcare not socialism when it's for members of our congress but is a socialist threat to the soul of the nation when offered to private citizens?

Why did Saddam, yes a cruel dictator, have to be killed and his country bombed when Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who is at least as nasty, and Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, arguably worse, get to live undisturbed except by empty rhetoric? Why does Obama believe we will be more successful in Afghanistan than the Soviets or the British? Do we do better in rugged mountains than in urban areas and open deserts?

Why do Republicans oppose filibusters and ask for a "fair up or down vote" when they are in power and then use filibusters when in the minority? Why do Democrats want to protect the filibuster when they are in the minority but eliminate it when... Oh never mind. Pretty self-evident: opportunism meeting hypocrisy.

Why do conservatives usually believe in the general depravity of man yet don't believe in regulations, while liberals believe in the basic goodness of people but want us closely watched and regulated? Wouldn't it make more sense the other way around?

Sticking with such cognitive dissonance for the sake of being consistent is foolish, and, as Emerson asserted, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." We are indeed a nation of large (and possibly empty) minds.
©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.org

Erick Erickson of the Political Hot Seat asked: "Should Americans be required to undergo a mental health exam before buying a gun?"

Only 10,359 people, or the size of a small town, answered as of six o'clock p.m. Pacific Time, but the results are surprising.

51%... no
45%... yes
4%.... not sure

The late, great Chicago columnist, Mike Royko, once said that "Someone should put a fence around California and wait for it to fall into the ocean." Make that the whole country.

To those that voted "no," people what is wrong with you? Would you want a gun in the hands of someone who is mentally unstable? Aren't we having enough problems already? It is this kind of thing that may help explain the dilemma we are in now.

Thank you, amen, over and out.

Florida Republican House Rep Connie Mack was the first in the door to demand that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner resign or get the boot. Mack bluntly said what more than a few Democrats and a lot of Republicans have grumbled privately in recent days. President Obama says that Geithner will stay. But things in Beltway politics change, and change fast. There's already the fresh revelation that Geithner and Obama economic advisor Lawrence Summers pressured Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd and Senate lawmakers to scrap the provision that banned fat cat bonuses to failed bank incompetents before February 11 from the bank bailout legislation. And then they clumsily tried to blame Dodd for scratching out the provision. Shelving the ban gave AIG the crack it needed to ladle out the scam executive bonuses. There may be more of what did Geithner and company know and when did they know it embarrassing revelations still to come.

That's not the only reason President Obama may have to rethink how Geithner and Summers with their free market, minimal regulations philosophy, and too cozy ties with Wall Street fueled the crisis. Flags flew high on both long before the AIG bonus hustle. There were the questions about whether Geithner helped or hurt the Asian markets and their economies with his IMF authored rescue plan in 1997-1998. That, however, didn't stop some analysts from proclaiming Geithner a financial miracle worker.

Then there is Geithner's deep tie to Wall Street. His circle of advisors reads like a who's who of Wall Street's power brokers.--Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan Chase, and a bevy of corporate executives, and banking and commerce officials. The $29 billion loan that Geithner brokered to help grease the wheels for Chase's takeover of Bears Stearns raised an eyebrow or two. It was revealed that a close associate of Geithner who also sat on the New York Fed that Geithner headed ran J.P. Morgan Chase. It got the Bears Stearns liquidation loan.

Volumes have been written about how Bush and the Republicans eagerly cut sweetheart deals with financial industry lobbyists to gut lending and stock trading regulations, winked and nodded at the banks and brokerage houses as they engaged in an orgy of dubious stock swapping, buys, and trading, conned millions of homeowners into taking out catastrophic sub prime loans and watered down the oversight powers of government regulatory agencies.

Their financial free bootery couldn't have happened without a huge policy change that Summers and another Obama advisor Robert Rubin engineered during the Clinton years. As Clinton's Treasury secretaries Summers and Rubin lobbied Clinton and Congress in the late 1990s to scrap most of the provisions of the decades old Glass-Steagall Act. The Act was the 1930s Great Depression era measure that kept federally insured banks out of the go-go world of stock trading, exotic lending and financial speculation. It also set rigid standards for mortgage lending and strict oversight over banking practices.
This was only part of the financial deal cutting between the banks and Clinton and Congress. A year later Summers in tandem with then Texas GOP senator and Chair of the Senate Banking Committee Phil Gramm rammed through another "financial modernization" measure. This one took the wraps off government regulations that checked banks, insurance companies and brokerage houses from dumping billions into financial swaps (speculation) on commodities such as oil and food staples. The rationale was the same as that given for getting rid of Glass-Steagall and that was to keep the financial institutions as full profit centers with minimal to no government oversight accountability or investor, depositor and shareholder accountability.

The predictable quickly happened with the regulatory gloves off commercial banks, brokerage firms, hedge funds, institutional investors, pension funds and insurance companies could do whatever they wanted when it came to investing in each others businesses and marching in lock step with each other's financial operations.
The implosion of Wall Street directly resulted from the questionable policies that Summers and Rubin rammed through, and Geithner backed. Even in the face of the financial crisis, the troika gives no sign of backing away from their belief that failing financial institutions must be propped up with massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, that the industry can police itself, and that Wall Street still hold the key to economic recovery.
The mounting doubts about Geithner and company's prescription for recovery haven't shaken President Obama's resolve to stay their course. Before departing on his California jaunt he again struck his mantra themes of Wall Street greed and mismanagement. It ended with his mea culpa that the buck stops with him. It may not be that simple as long as red flags fly high about Geithner and company.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press January 2009)

I am second to no one in my slavish devotion to NPR. However, when they goof, they goof big time.

Where were the adults at our local station, KPCC, when they decided to cut away from the President of the United States speaking LOCALLY? Yes, pledge drives are important but good journalists have to make good news decisions when there is live local news. This was live, local and important but they cut to the commercial and undercut their reputation for good news judgment.

That national feeds remained with network programming on TV, I can understand--even if I don't like it. But when our own local and usually well-regarded NPR station thinks that it's ok to cut away but KTLA TV stays with the President, you really have to wonder. I am surprised by 5's good choice and disappointed by 89.3's shortsightedness.

Free-market champions of the Reagan stripe are hyper-aware of the ability of government to be bureaucratic, stifling and unimaginative. State-control types are hyper-aware of the ability of private enterprise to place short-term gain above the public interest.

While the free-marketeers have won the societal and economic debates since Reagan, they're on a losing streak that threatens to tilt the game excessively to populists who would crush America's entrepreneurial spirit in order to save it. AIG is tipping many people away from a trust in the invisible hand of the market -- and the danger is that we will overreact.

Historians will look back on this era as a time that reshaped American views of economics. My hope though is that we can reshape our own economics in a way that finds the right balance between private enterprise's can-do spirit and government's prudence.

Life in the bailout era is like two forks in the road. One leads to a dung heap and the other to the city dump. It's the lesser of two evils, the old pick your poison syndrome.

And so it is with AIG whose executives behaved like the drunken relative who loses his job again then shows up at your place in search of food and a place to lodge. You can't turn him out because he might end up in a worse predicament, and you once attended Sunday school, so you decide to help out.

Had Congress not bailed out that drunkard of a relative, AIG, then the stock market would have taken an even bigger plunge and pandemonium would have set in, but now that the deed is done and they are in our houses and pocket books, the question is where do we go from here?

The answer is more governmental control and laws that make sense because even a fifth grader would know the answer to the following question: "If a gardener earning twenty-thousand dollars a year has a mortgage of five thousand dollars a month, how long will it be before he winds up in the street?" But no one bothered asking, and here we are now.

Unlike the relative fighting in an expensive war with a beginning, middle and end, this old boy culture has been going on since Dickens' time, if not before, so the only remedy is to hold some kind of government version of rehab with rules and regulations, and that doesn't mean giving any extra spending money to anyone who can't straighten up and fly right.

The receiving of bonuses for failure at AIG sets the standard for political tone-deafness. The executives there, as well as in the Whitehouse, missed the meme. The people are mad as hell--on both sides of the aisle. Sure the politicians across the spectrum are posturing hypocrites, many of whom took money from AIG, but the public rage is real.

Conservatives are furious that they were rushed into these bailouts. "Pass this now" said Poulson "or the Market will tank by 30%." They did and it tanked 50%. "Pass this stimulus now or unemployment will go to 8%," urged Geithner. They did, and it went to 10%. We rightly question if anyone knows what we're doing. Meanwhile liberals wonder why it is impossible to force financial executives to renegotiate contracts but quickly demand give-backs of auto workers and other union people? Employees who shower before work are treated as a protected class, as against those who shower after their shift. They get the shaft.

But there is good news here. AIG for all its sins and stupidity, its tone-deafness and incompetence, has done something that Obama only promised, but they delivered. AIG has brought us together in anger and disappointment. It's almost worth the price we're paying. Almost.

Congressional leaders look ready to light the torches, hoist pitchforks and descend on AIG headquarters in a populist mob. Sure, the $165 million being doled out to AIG executives is appalling, considering the billions of dollars taxpayers are spending to bailout the insurance giant and these same executives for making and selling a flawed product.

But the fury, the teeth gnashing and hyperbolic outrage from Congressional leaders is a little hard to take. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley went so far as to recommend AIG leaders commit hari-kari. (Grassley later recanted and said that suicide might be too severe and he'll take an apology or resignation.)

Sen. Grassley and others, let you who has not screwed up the nation's finances throw the first stone. Where were Congressional leaders during the crazy mortgage and subprime boom, when the lending standards went out the window? Where was their oversight of the banking industry? Where were regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, during the last several years? Are those authorities giving back their bonuses or salaries?

And what about Congressional leaders who voted for the war in Iraq that has cost $600 billion so far and resulted in more than 4,200 troops killed? In hindsight, that looks like a mistake - if not in intent, than in execution - that has had a far more profound effect on the nation than AIG. Where's the teeth gnashing there? Are Congressional leaders under pressure to give back a portion of their salary for that mismanagement?

AIG ignited the national firestorm of rage with its shell out of $160 to $600 million in tainted bonuses to its tainted executives. But what has gotten almost no attention is a big reason that AIG had to stiff the government and everyone else. That's the role that the company played in the subprime loan racket; a racket that hurt and still hurts tens of thousands of would be black and Latino homeowners.
The lender's bait and switch tactics, the deliberately garbled contracts, deceptive and faulty lending, questionable accounting practices, and charged hidden fees, all with the connivance of sleepy-eyed see-no-evil oversight of federal regulators, are well known and documented. Their snake oil loan peddling wreaked havoc with thousands of mostly poor, strapped homeowners. A disproportionate number of them were Latinos and African-Americans.

Enter AIG. It saw a, treasure trove of fast buck riches in the subprime business. AIG dumped $33 billion into bonds and securities that were tied directly to subprime loans. This was nearly four times more than the next insurer, the German-based Allianz SE, had invested in the subprime loans. In fact, AIG was the only US based life insurer that had more than 3 percent of their general account assets in debts tied to subprime loans.
In early 2007 things started to unravel. AIG reported a first quarter loss of more than $2 billion in its subprime mortgage bonds. This set off the first warning bell that AIG could implode. Bond traders openly worried that AIG's subprime securities losses could drag the market down. They had good reason to worry.

AIG is first and foremost an insurer. And in addition to its plunging bond and security holdings, the company also insured restructured subprime home bonds. The assumption by the subrprime bond holders was that the bonds would lose only a fraction of their value. But by then subprime defaults had piled up to a ten year high and the subprime lending market, that was all of it stocks, bonds and insurance, had badly frayed.

AIG's stock had plunged 60 percent within the year. The top rating agencies, Moody's and Standard and Poor's, concerned over AIG's continuing losses on subprime and other mortgage-backed securities, downgraded their credit rating. They demanded that company pay billions to creditors in order to bump back up their ratings. That was billions that AIG by then didn't have.

AIG was clearly on a non stop down hill roller coaster ride, and many banks and lenders, were heading to perdition with them. AIG briefly flirted with the notion of filing for subprime mortgage lenders bankruptcy.

But there was a better deal to be had courtesy of a panicked then President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. They shoved out tens of billions in cash in what turned out to be only the first installment of cash to save AIG's hide.

We may never know the full extent of the financial damage that AIG caused in the subprime market. Nor how manyprospective minority homeowners suffered losses both financial and personal from the company's greed. United for a Fair Economy, a public advocacy research group, in an in-depth study on sub prime lending estimates that the tab for minorities for the dubious blending practices runs to more than $200 billion in lost equity and income during the years AIG and the subprime bank lenders ran amok. The group called the home losses the most massive loss of wealth for African Americans in U.S. history.

The ultimate tragedy is that many blacks who were enticed by the lenders through their web of lies and deceit into taking the risky sub prime loans didn't really need them. Data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act found that about 40 percent of the black subprime borrowers could have qualified for cheaper mainstream mortgages.
But that was the last thing that the subprime lenders, let alone AIG wanted. This would have taken a big bite out of their fantasy level profits. In the end those profits turned out to be a smoke and mirrors illusion just as the subprime illusion was.

AIG happily aided and abetted the banks and lenders in their decade long fast and loose play with the lending rules. Taxpayers are, of course, paying and paying dearly for AIG's greed and malfeasance. But thousands of black and Latino hoped to be homeowners are also paying for that greed. AIG's minority racket is yet another sorry chapter in the AIG saga.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009).

Check out this Daily News story. In what some have called "a great mystery of capitalism," bottled water continues to be big business, even when we're supposed to be cutting back, and even though the bottles cause great waste, and even though our tap water is the envy of most nations.

I've always tried to live by the motto "if you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all." In an attempt to say something nice about Al Sharpton, I'd like to commend him on his short memory. This is the same Al Sharpton who is miffed because Jackie Mason called Barack Obama a schwartza, which loosely translated means "black" in Yiddish. Once the word slipped during one of Mason's routines, Sharpton berated the comic for foray into free speech.

Where is the civil rights leader when you need him in the recording studio when those rap artists are calling women words that are not even fit to be written in this paper's blog? Where was he in 1991 when a Jewish man accidentally hit and killed Gavin Cato, a black child in Crown Heights, with his car? An angry black mob murdered a young rabbinical student in retaliation, but not surprisingly, Sharpton was nowhere to be found. And where was he when Jessie Jackson called New York City "Hymietown" or when Louis Farrakhan was spouting off?

Maybe Al Sharpton should learn two things: The meaning of the word "hypocrite" and that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. Mason may have pushed the boundaries of polite society, but he is a comic and not a scoutmaster.

So. Carolina governor Mark Sanford's office asks Obama and the Democrats to not play so rough.

That may be appropriate, given Obama's many highfalutin' pledges to seek a different tone in Washington. Is Obama a world-class hypocrite, a fighter disguised as a lover?

I do think of Cesar Millan, the famous Dog Whisperer. He is legendary -- and controversial -- for his ability to reform out-of-control pit bulls and fighter dogs that would otherwise be destroyed by authorities.

But Cesar uses firmness, not gentleness, to create cooperation. He occasionally uses a controversial tactic in rolling a "red zone" type of dog onto its side -- to trigger its primitive impulses that inform it that it is no longer the boss. From then on out, it can become a cooperative partner.

The GOP since the election hasn't been acting as though it wants a partial ownership share of a government of which Democrats legitimately won the majority share. They instead jockey aggressively for the dominant ownership share in 2010 and 2012.

So yeah, I can see how Obama feels that he's been getting his hand bit, and now needs to roll them onto their side in order to get them to play a role that is more than they deserve but less than what they want.

Well Rob, his is one point of view but not mine. I am far more in league with Dr. Judea Pearl. Since the cruel decapitation of his son, Daniel Pearl, of the Wall Street Journal, Dr Pearl has worked ceaselessly to create beauty and build bridges of understanding to the Arab and Muslim world.

Given the scope of his tragedy and his positive and constructive response of outreach instead of hate, his view on Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism needs equal time. His op-ed piece was on the same page as the one you cite.

The rival paper has a fascinating piece here by a Jewish writer on a topic we've addressed here, and I'd love to get reactions from my colleagues Gail-Tz and Jonathan.

Earl is right to criticize Jackie Mason's use of the word Schwartza. I actually think Earl is not tough enough on this point. I believe the use is disgusting and demeaning--in fact as offensive as the N word applied to blacks or the K word applied to Jews.

Earl rightly points out that it is simply the Yiddish word for the color black. This is true, but words pick up baggage beyond their etymology. The origin of the N word is Latin for black. Even the K word has benign origins. We all remember Jesse Jackson calling New York Hymietown. Well, Hymie is not a bad word. It is a Jewish name. Its Hebrew root is "life." But the context conveyed its demeaning meaning and the insult. Over the years words evolve in living language, and words once innocent can become insults and epithets and should be avoided.

There are only two times when the word Schwartza is appropriate. One is when it is an adjective and refers to the color of an object, but never a person. The other is in a fully Yiddish conversation. As soon as it is mixed with English the context creates the insult.

I cringe when I hear the word used in the Jackie Mason context and I correct any acquaintances who use it. When they defend themselves as having no malign intent, I ask them how they enjoy hearing Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles? They usually respond by admitting that it gives them chills and creates pictures of Nazi storm troopers and death camps. I point out that the composer "Hayden did not mean it as an anthem of hate. It is part of a beautiful piece of music. Its context creates the pain. So please understand that Schwartza is not a color and just stop using it!"
©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.org

The Yiddish/German term schwartza or schwarze is not in itself a racially demeaning and insulting term. It just simply translates to black or as used colloquially a "black person." But it's a totally different thing when the word drips out of the mouth of shop worm comic Jackie Mason. Then we have to look at intent, and in Mason's case the intent is to racially slander. This is the same Mason that called former Mayor New York Dave Dinkins the term and probably anyone else he can use it to insult or ring a laugh out of. So Mason knew exactly what he was saying and the effect it would have. And he thrilled at that. That's why he the pig headedly refused to apologize, and even stirred the pot a little more by taking the by now taking the ritual shot at Reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, calling them "professional racists." Mason was on a roll and soared well past left field with a dig at Oprah Winfrey. Mason's method to madness

But even if Mason makes a bare-the-chest heartfelt apology it won't amount to much. That's the standard ploy that comedians, shock jocks, and assorted public personalities employ when they get caught with their racial pants down. On a few occasions the offenders have been reprimanded, suspended, and even dumped. However that's rare. There are a couple of reasons why. And they tell much about why loudmouths such as Mason can prattle off foul remarks about gays, blacks, Latinos Asians, Muslims, and women, and now even a president and skip away with a caressing hand slap. One, is that these guys ramp up ratings and a nightclub's gate. That always makes the cash registers jingle.

The other is the sphinx like silence of in Mason's case the comic industry and fans. The only reason the Mason crack made news is because a handful of fans objected. Not a mumbling word--yet--from the club owners.

There's another reason for the silence. The last two decades many Americans have become much too comfortable using code language to bash and denigrate blacks. In the 1970s, the vocabulary of covert racially loaded terms included terms such as "law and order," "crime in the streets," "permissive society," "welfare cheats," "subculture of violence," "subculture of poverty," "culturally deprived" and "lack of family values" seeped into the American lexicon about blacks. Some politicians seeking to exploit white racial fears routinely tossed about these terms.

In the 1980s new terms such as "crime prone," "war zone," "gang infested," "crack plagued," "drug turfs," "drug zombies," "violence scarred," "ghetto outcasts" and "ghetto poverty syndrome" were shoved into public discourse. These were covert racial code terms for blacks and they further reinforced the negative image of young black males as dope dealers, drive by shooters, and educational cripples. And the image of young black women as a dysfunctional collection of B's and "hos," welfare queens, and baby makers.
Mason knows all that and indeed he and the legion of comics, entertainers, personalities, politicians, shock jocks, and staid broadcasters and writers have turned baiting into a lucrative industry. But in the end you can't call names if you're not that name yourself. Mason is an honorary schwartza.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009).

Good words from Larry Summers to the Brookings crowd today:

An abundance of greed and an absence of fear led some to make investments not based on the real value of assets but on the faith that there would be another who would pay more for those assets. Bubbles were born. And in these moments, greed begets greed, and the bubble grows. [Later] greed gives way to fear, and this fear begets fear.

This is the paradox at the heart of financial crisis. If, in the last few years, we've seen too much greed and too little fear, too much spending and not enough saving, too much borrowing and not enough worrying, today our problem is very different. It is this transition from an excess of greed to an excess of fear that President Roosevelt had in mind. . . . It is this transition that has happened in the United States today.

I wholeheartedly agree. Greedy people are by nature fearful. And greedy people addicted to rapid gains fear having to wait out slumps. They recede rather than invest. That then hurts everyone else. We've seen that on Wall Street. And whichever party is out of party blames the party in power for Wall Street's fear. But Wall Street needs to grow up.

Summers says Washington now must "create confidence without its leading to unstable complacency." It's a challenge, but it's doable.

Adios to Charles Freeman.

His sound bites and resume indicate that he just isn't up for the job. Among the pearls of wisdom that have dropped from his mouth are: that the Israeli-Arab conflict is caused by Israeli violence against the Palestinians, that 911 was partially caused by our support of Israel and that the Israeli lobby has plumed "the depths of dishonor and indecency." Right.

In terms of any president having to "kiss the ring of the Israeli lobby if he wants to have any peace in office" as Earl wrote, history has unfortunately taught the Jews that we tend to wind up dead when we don't stand up for ourselves.

Besides, would it make more sense to be allied with nations who send people to jail for holding hands in public or who incarcerate women for talking to men who aren't their husbands or close male relatives or who applaud those who strap bombs to themselves and call it a "holy war?" Heaven help us should that day ever come.

Chuck Norris claims that thousands of right wing cell groups exist and will rebel against the U.S. government. It's tempting to laugh away his vow to wage war against President Obama as either the crackpot ravings of a washed up Z grade martial arts actor. Or as a cheap promotional stunt to get his mug back in front of the cameras. Norris's bellicose rants against Obama are nothing new and they have gotten wide play in a shrill horde of on line blogs and websites, including the popular right wing sounding board WorldNet Daily.com. Norris will culminate his holy war against Obama with a big recruiting pitch in a live telecast scheduled appropriately for Friday the 13th (March). He'll call on thousands to "surround" Obama and the dark forces that seek to subvert God, country, and liberty.
Unfortunately, Norris will have plenty of recruits. Two weeks before he bellowed his anti-Obama tripe, the Southern Poverty Law Center once more sounded its own warning that hate groups are on the rise. There are now nearly a thousand of them, and they're in just about every state. They aren't just the catalogue of usual suspects--- neo-Confederates, neo-Nazis, skinheads, Klansman, Aryan nation and Skinheads that exclusively roam around the Deep South. They're all over. California leads the pack with nearly 100 identifiable groups. The Center fingered several dozen websites from the explicit Ihateobama.com site to groups with flag draped names like the sovereign citizen's movement.

Then there's the legion of sites that busily spewed anti-Obama venom before the election and haven't missed a beat since.

AntiObama.net A Clockwork Obama AgainstObama.com AudacityOfHypocrisy.com BlockBarack.com ChicagoAgainstObama.com DiscoverObama.com DontVoteObama.net DrNObama.com ExposeObama.com InvestigateBarackObama.blogspot.com JewsAgainstObama.com JustSayNoDeal.com MeetBarackObama.com No-bama.blogspot.com NobamaNetwork.com NobamaZone.com NoExperienceNoChange.org NoQuarterUSA.net ObamaExposed.blogspot.com ObamaBlog08.com Obama-Wire.com Obamaism.Blogspot.com ObamaNation.com ObamaTruth.org ObamaWho.wordpress.com ObamaWTF.blogspot.com Obamology.blogspot.com SavagePolitics.com SlickBarry.com Stop-Obama.org TheRealBarackObama.wordpress.com TopShelf51.wordpress.com

The majority of the hate groups and the wacky anti-Obama websites are like Norris just hot air talk and delusional conspiracy stuff. They all hotly deny that they advocate violence. Yet, the number of hate crimes according to FBI statistics, and that's real violent crimes, edged up to over 7000 in 2007. The number of these crimes has been fairly consistent since the FBI began compiling hate crime statistics more than a decade ago. They're just the tip of the hate iceberg. Experts say the number of hate crimes could be ten times higher since most hate crimes go unreported.

But even that in itself might not be cause for alarm since most of the hate groups are well known, tracked, and when their members commit crimes are hit hard with federal prosecutions. It certainly would not be enough to give much credence to Norris's crackpot call. That is if times were better. But when jobs and homes are lost, and there's fear and uncertainty that things could get worse, the ruthless search for scapegoats--illegal immigrants, gays, Jews, blacks, and a history making president--are on with a vengeance. It takes little imagination to see that this could set off one emotionally unscrewed, gun culture obsessed looney. The murderous rampage by Alabama shooter Michael McLendon who was hell bent on wiping out a whole town was ample proof of that.

Norris, and the legion of other right side gassers and bloggers, mask their bigot tinged appeals to the mob with the usual wink and nod patriotic sounding code words, slogans, and phrases. In his WorldNetDaily columns, Norris tosses out gems such as the "second American revolution," "new government," the authority of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence," "threat to religious freedom," and "protect and save free enterprise" in his call for a citizen rising against President Obama.

The acidic dripping slogans just happen to be the same ones that stir the deep fury, hatred and resentment among a handful of the loose hinged malcontents and hate mongers. As has been amply documented, the thick list of fringe and hate groups as well as the hordes of unbalanced violence prone individuals running free in America can fill a telephone book. The long history of hate violence in America further is more than enough to raise the antenna on the danger of violence against prominent political figures.
Obama well knows the horrid violent history of America and the very real danger that violence poses to many Americans and especially a charismatic president who still energizes and excites millions and is determined to deliver on his promise of political change and implicitly racial change. The exact things that drives Norris nuts and many others that are nuts to cheer him.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009).

This one's for one of this blog's regular commenters. Stephen Colbert's tribute is here!

Diane makes some tough points here about how science can be used for political purposes. I agree. And it should make everyone humble as they go about quoting science -- everyone, on both sides of any policy debate that may involve empirical analysis. It was Einstein, after all, who admitted, "A thousand experiments can't prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong."

When any community with a central theory or doctrine turns out to be wrong, it needs to adjust. Scientific communities aren't perfect at it, but they seem to be better at it than those people who continue to find ways to demonstrate that the earth is 6,000 years old and that carbon-dating is a silly fantasy. That's because scientists have to live by the "falsifiability" test that Einstein mentions. And that's why science is so effective in shaping our world.

Regarding political controversies such as global warming, there are usually ideological reasons why we in the laity would choose to side with a minority scientific view. I think of this high-school kid who wrote in the other paper about his being bothered by how a textbook authored by conservatives derided the prevailing global warming theory:

Pointing out dissent within the scientific community is appropriate. Suggesting that the majority, but not the minority, is politically motivated is not appropriate.

Let's cut the bull. President Obama gave the swift boot to National Intelligence Council chair appointee Charles Freeman. And it had nothing to do with his alleged financial hanky panky with the Chinese or Saudis. Or even his bizarre labeling of the Tibetan uprising as a "race riot." It was Freeman's mildly outspoken willingness to criticize Israeli policy; and that always means any talk of an even handed U.S. policy approach toward the Palestinians.

This is not to knock President Obama for yanking Freeman's chain. Every president has had to kiss the Israeli Lobby's ring. That is if they want to have any peace in office. There is simply no deviation allowed from the iron-fisted U.S. backing of Israeli policies. Obama would have had to risk a nasty, bruising, and potentially black eye receiving fight over Freeman's nomination in Congress and the press. And Democratic Senators made that crystal clear to him.

The Freeman wash out, though, won't make the problem of how to attain a lasting Middle East peace go away. It's a problem that President Obama can't duck forever, Freeman or no Freeman.

I'd been having a bad day until I learned that Charles Freeman withdrew his nomination for Chairman of the National Intelligence Commission. Then, the clouds parted, and it became a wonderful, glorious one.

I hate political correctness because it makes people lie, and I hate lies. I'd be lying if I said that I questioned his beliefs and politics for one influential positions in our country, and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have the safety of Jews the world over in mind.

As the daughter of a man who survived the Holocaust and the granddaughter and great-granddaughter of those who survived the Russian pogroms, their history is encoded in my DNA and I can escape it no more than I can escape the shape of my hands, my height or my eye-color. Most ethnics work this way, and they'd be lying if they said they didn't.

So to Charles Freeman, I say this: It's been real and shalom, hasta la vista, see you around and l'hit ra'ot.

Levi Johnston, the guy who publicly thundered that he doesn't want kids, may be off the hook after all, now that the public posturing of a social-conservative political campaign is over.

From the Chicago Tribune:

"Despite high expectations, less than 8 percent of teen mothers marry the baby's father within one year of the birth," said Bill Albert, chief program officer for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "That is magical thinking. It almost never happens."

And yet following the announcement during the presidential race that Palin had a pregnant teen-aged daughter, the McCain-Palin campaign was quick to assure everyone that the two would be married and the Palins released a statement saying the couple "will have the love and support of our entire family."

And people are bringing up Tina Fey's famous debate crack: "I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers."

Well, the 2008 campaign was a nice crack at proclaiming that prayer and the support of a good community -- as well as a continued policy tilt toward abstinence education only -- would prevent the scenario that Bill Albert spoke of. But what now...? Will Dan Quayle be denouncing her...?

Well Rob raises the very real question if it is okay to criticize Israel? The answer is yes. No people are more critical of Israel than Israelis. And criticism of Israeli policy is not anti-Semitic.

In the rough and tumble world of sound bytes and talking points the word "hate" and "self-hate" get tossed about pretty carelessly. I hold that I can be an American patriot and be opposed to individual policies that I believe do not serve our interests. Similarly, I can hold that Israel is making a mistake or doing something not in its interests. The most sensitive may use or misuse the hate word, but we are not captives of the most sensitive or the most rhetorically brutal.

Where criticism crosses the line is when the discussion goes to the basic existential issue. Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state? Those who say Israel can exist within secure borders often are purposely leaving out the Jewish part. The UN called Zionism racism. A single Jewish state amongst a dozen Arab states and two dozen Muslim states is an insult, a foreign body in the great Arabian corpus, and it must be expelled either by war or by the exploding population bomb.

Israel may make mistakes of policy, of elections and even misperceive its interest--as any other nation. Call them on it. But also accord Israel the same right to exist as a Jewish state that the Arab and Muslims states have. Accord to them the right to defend themselves when attacked and threatened.

Does Israel and do we Jews sometimes seem to over-react? Sure, it seems that way. Hamas may be bluffing when they talk about Israel's existence being unacceptable. Iran may be doing trash-talk when they threaten to annihilate Israel, but the lesson of the 20th Century has been that Jews cannot assume that it is only empty rhetoric.
©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.org

While discussing with John Galt and Diane S here the shifts in our economic approach under Obama, I'll admit that he's been too free-spending for my tastes, and too ideological. I'm going to hope that he is a learner, just as Clinton was a learner who only balanced budgets after a little pushback from experience and from the opposition. If he doesn't learn, he may fail.

Meanwhile, though, the Financial Times, that great champion of global capitalism, is wrestling with what capitalism means in a world that is losing faith in free and unfettered free markets. Here is a great column by Amartya Sen, with some salient passages below about capitalist pioneer Adam Smith:

It is often overlooked that Smith did not take the pure market mechanism to be a free-standing performer of excellence, nor did he take the profit motive to be all that is needed...

People seek trade because of self-interest - nothing more is needed, as Smith discussed in a statement that has been quoted again and again explaining why bakers, brewers, butchers and consumers seek trade. However an economy needs other values and commitments such as mutual trust and confidence to work efficiently....

Despite all Smith did to explain and defend the constructive role of the market, he was deeply concerned about the incidence of poverty, illiteracy and relative deprivation that might remain despite a well-functioning market economy. He wanted institutional diversity and motivational variety, not monolithic markets and singular dominance of the profit motive. Smith was not only a defender of the role of the state in doing things that the market might fail to do, such as universal education and poverty relief (he also wanted greater freedom for the state-supported indigent than the Poor Laws of his day provided); he argued, in general, for institutional choices to fit the problems that arise rather than anchoring institutions to some fixed formula, such as leaving things to the market.

And as I've noted before, Smith believed in a progressive tax, the very thing that is seen by many conservatives today as a violation of fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.

But I think that doesn't tell the whole story. Conservatives and even most libertarians aren't purists in a free-market ideology. I'd like to know where the conservatives on this board would draw the line in terms of some issues I'll post tomorrow.

In a chapter in Stephen Colbert's brilliant and "truthy" book, I Am America, and So Can You, he lampoons and mocks various religions for their quirks. When he gets to Islam, he nervously pronounces it a true and fine religion, praising the Prophet profusely, before getting back to his next victim.

That revealed in the most telling way possible what a supercharged matter it is to make light of Muslim beliefs. It is equally hard to candidly critique the democracy of Israel. So, regarding the Freeman incident, let me just say that I am delighted to see things happen here that are pleasing to Israel's staunchest supporters. Peace out, in more ways than one.

Charles Freeman bitterly withdrew his name for consideration for the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Commission on Wednesday March 11. Both his withdrawal and his bitterness were attributed to the lobbying efforts of pro-Israel groups who strongly opposed his appointment. In this case the critics are right to lay the responsibility on pro-Israel people--including me. Note, I say "responsibility" and not "blame."

The public argument that claims a Jewish veto on American governmental appointments is misleading. The defenders of the Freeman appointment claim that he was knocked out because as a former ambassador to our good friends the Saudis, he was too pro-Arab. They also claim that he was demonized for having spoken of the pain of the Palestinian people with some understanding and compassion. While these were talking points--easy to understand and not very nuanced--the real reason to oppose this appointment is different.

It is not that Freeman is a bad man or hates Israel. He has a place in government and diplomacy but not as head of a major intelligence agency. Think about it. Who is our best source of intelligence in the Middle East? What country has Arabic speakers on the ground in every frontline state? What country has enough Arabic speaking, reading and translating talent to keep up with the chatter? The self-evident answer is: Israel.

If we want Israel to share the fruits of its intelligence efforts, we must have someone who is trusted on every level. Someone who will not leak, betray or mishandle the very delicate observations and interpretations that are shared. Charles Freeman is in a nearly unique position not to be that person. His withdrawal serves Israeli interests and American interests. We need to know all that Israel trusts us enough to share.
©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.org

Despised financial fraud Bernie Madoff may have one last scam in him. And this one may be the biggest and most infuriating of all. He may sleaze his way out of rotting away his last days in prison. Loud bells and whistles went off that that could happen when Madoff suddenly dropped any pretense of a court fight and said he'd plead guilty to every fraud, perjury, and embezzlement charge that the Feds could slap on him.
For the official record Madoff will be hit with an 11 count indictment. The maximum penalty is 150 years in prison. But that's just on paper. Bells sounded louder that Madoff could evade his full prison due when U.S. District Judge Denny Chin who presumably will sentence Madoff said that he'd sharply limit the number of Madoff victims who get to shake their fist in the swindler's face and tell him what a rat he is during an upcoming court hearing. Bells sounded even louder when Chin said that he would take weeks maybe even months to sentence Madoff. Meanwhile Madoff will continue to piddle about in his $7 million dollar Manhattan penthouse.

But the Madoff bells really went off the decibel chart when prosecutors said that they'd tap Madoff for $170 billion in criminal forfeitures. That sounds impressive but it may not be anywhere near the amount of money that Madoff stole, squandered, or stashed away in vaults and mattresses, in dummy accounts, and with friends, associates, wives and mistresses. If Madoff does indeed dupe the government hangman, it won't be much of a surprise.

Prosecutors in recent years have arguably gotten much tougher on corporate chiselers than in years past. Federal sentencing commission stats show that white collar crooks are likely to do more time for fraud, embezzlement, forgery and counterfeiting than street crooks serve for possession of drugs or firearms. But that tells only part of the story.
The sentencing commission study did not break down the numbers of those sentenced by the size or scope of the crime or the wealth of the individual offender. Most of those that do time for white collar crimes are not the rich and famous, corporate big shots, but relative small fry cheats. The rub is that the judge ultimately decides what the sentence will be. The sentences they mete out in most cases are lighter than the maximum sentences allowed, sometimes much lighter.

The Madoff case is a near textbook example of the deferential treatment that judges and government prosecutors give to fat cat white collar crooks versus that given to the small fry white collar criminals and street criminals. Madoff was granted and easily made bail, is confined to house arrest, kept his penthouse's luxury furnishings, and had the court give a nod to his age and health considerations. Madoff's attorney have sought and got delays, and thwarted prosecutor's requests to have his bail revoked when they found he was sneaking jewelry to his relatives. All the while, the court and prosecutors have kept his legion of accusers and victims at arms length. And now Judge Chin has set no date for sentencing.
Madoff almost certainly will do some jail time. How much is anybody's guess. It's that guess that gives hint that Madoff may have one more scam up his sleeve, and that's scamming his sentence.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009).

...it might cause more headaches, literally.

On another progressive note, I agree with Obama's stance on stem-cells, and I think that he attempted to be respectful of opponents in saying, "Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view." But he also did slam their placing "ideology" over science, which is a pot-and-kettle unkindness; and some scientists were far more aggressive in mocking people who placed "politics over science." Opponents will complain that he didn't give enough credit to their attempts to wrestle with ethical issues and that he's not being bipartisan.

Still, if stem cells lead to cures and discoveries (although you can bet that some religious conservatives are praying that they won't), this particular front of the culture wars will fade away, and I don't think the opponents will eschew these new cures in favor of prayer or aspirin.

Okay, so here's the deal for dealing with the Taliban:

1.) Find out what's ailing them via a group therapy session to see what makes them tick.

2.) See if their needs can be met in less invasive ways.

3.) Deprogram them.

4.) Reprogram them.

5.) Hold anger management classes.

6.) Have them recite "Everything I Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" as part of their daily pledge.

Rinse and repeat as needed. Fin.

Before I get into anything here, let me go on record as saying that I like Barack Obama. He seems like a polite and affable enough fellow, and I would even invite him over for dinner, should the opportunity ever arise even if one of the areas we part ways is in his foreign policy.

Remember, this is the same Barack Obama who said that the Taliban was not in Iraq when he debated John McCain and this is the same Barack Obama who then got a crash course in modern history when Senator McCain told him that they are already there. So it should come as no surprise that this is the same Barack Obama who thinks that we should negotiate with the more moderate members of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

One of the rules of membership in any organization is that people will join only when they are simpatico with its philosophies. And this is why flower lovers will join a flower club, bird lovers will join the Audubon Society and those who are drawn to violence and explosives and live between certain longitudes and latitudes will probably sign up for the Taliban.

But Obama's plan should extend to those with other credos, too, so the day that he is willing to negotiate with the more moderate members of the KKK or the Hell's Angels, is the day he should hold a meet and greet with the more moderate memebrs of the Taliban as well.

I have some thoughts about Diane's comments tying the housing crisis to Clinton "forcing" banks to make bad loans. During my years in subprime, I don't recall Bank of America being forced to do anything. I recall companies like my own rising up to do what Bank of America didn't want to do. Our subprime loan officers made a lot more money than what the prime loan officers made (try comparing $1m a year to $80,000 a year), because Wall Street made a beeline to buy our loans.

Diane, I'd ask you help spell out for me how Clinton "forced" private industry to do anything it didn't already want to do.

And even beyond that, can you spell out for me how the GOP and the conservative based used their many opportunities (State of the Union addresses, Limbaugh shows, etc.) to warn the nation of what would transpire, during the GOP heyday of 2001-2005? Or even afterward?

I know that a small bunch of them claim they tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie; I don't believe this minority's half-hearted efforts to regulate can constitute an "I told you so" to the rest of the nation, given how they claim that regulation is anethema.

And though McCain tried to use a similar argument, do you recall his profuse praise of the men and women of ACORN at an appearance there in 2006? Yes, Diane, political correctness really "can be a b***," as you say. Of course, the video appears to have been pulled from the Internet, and it never got the play in 2008 that one would think that a media with a "liberal agenda" would give it.

So I'd need more help to understand the idea that this is Clinton's fault and that the GOP is without blame.

The GOP civil war continues. From the AP:

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll this past week put Republican popularity at near historic lows. Just 26 percent in the survey viewed the party positively, compared with 68 percent for President Barack Obama, despite the economic crisis and sharp GOP criticism of his $3.8 trillion budget plan.

Republicans trailed by more than a 30-point margin on the question of which party is best positioned to end the recession.

Congressional Republicans did show remarkable near-unanimity in opposing Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan. Yet party leaders have proved less successful in articulating a competing message on the economy. Their call for smaller government and further tax cuts has rung hollow with the public, a majority of whom believe sizable federal intervention is necessary to improve the country's bleak financial condition.

What we need, in effect, is a stronger and smarter conservative base, on that is based on principle, not on pure partisanship, one which doesn't just blame others for its failures. That's the American conservatism that we need, to create a dynamic tension with Obama and Democrats, so that both sides stay alive and alert and healthy. Instead, conservatives are extra-sensitive about how they've been mistreated and about how the Dems have it coming to them.

Sure, Obama could implode spectacularly. It won't change, though, what the GOP needs to do to get its own house in order. The same article quoted Newt Gingrich as saying, ""As long as Rahm Emanuel is in the White House, it's a Nixon White House."

Funny. I thought a Gingrich would like that.

I'd like to know what's up with Alice Walker? Do my eyes deceive me, or is what I read on page A7 of Sunday's Daily News correct? The Pulitzer Prize winning author of the "Color Purple" is planning on visiting Gaza to "highlight Israel's devastation" in that region?

Although Walker said that she feels that the "Palestinian child is just as precious as the African-American child, as the Jewish child," why she chooses to focus on the suffering of the Palestinians who have lobbed rockets into Israel on a daily basis is a mystery. In the name of fairness she should stroll into Israel to see what the result of daily rocket attacks bring.

She is part of a mission of 60 women from an organization called Code Pink that wants to open the borders between Israel, Gaza and Egypt, which would be another marvelous idea given how things have been going.

Philip Stevens of the Financial Times is one of my favorite columnists anywhere -- so much so that I forgive him for snubbing my email offer to buy him a pint the last time I was heading out to London. Stevens offers here a candid perspective on Obama and the free market:

In one important respect circumstance is actually on his side. The boundaries - between government and market, state and individual - are as fluid now as they have been since the beginning of the 1980s. So Mr Obama has a better chance than any president since Ronald Reagan to remake American capitalism.

It is already obvious that the settlement that emerges from the crisis will embrace a more sober financial system, a bigger role for government and less tolerance of the hyper-inequalities of the past decade or so. Pace Mr Obama's critics, we are not about to see American capitalism replaced by European socialism, whatever that is. But the Reagan ideology of unfettered markets has been tested to destruction.

The president may yet overreach himself. But, as one looks at the leaders in the other rich democracies scrambling to find a compass, it is reassuring to know that someone at least knows where he wants to go.

I do feel that the assessments you see from free-market forces in England aren't enriched with the same partisanship and unwillingness to admit problems that you see on these shores, as can be seen in the sentence I underscored. As I mentioned to Diane earlier, I find it problematic that conservatives don't feel any culpability that many years of tax cuts for the wealthy and a promotion of an ownership society and major war expenses and various other factors ended up only shoving the economy into a ditch. Obama says that conservative solutions -- ie, tax cuts, during deficit seasons, for people who already are pretty well off but who will allegedly suddenly hire so many new people through tax incentives that the deficit will shrink, even at a time of wars that add further pressure to the deficit -- have been tried and found wanting. Conservatives in England seem to concede that, but their counterparts in America are resistant to that. And that's too bad, really.

Diane raises a good point here about how there's a difference between a conservative wanting Obama to fail to institute his agenda and a conservative wanting America as a whole to fail. I buy that.

But what I struggle with is that Diane implies she's not sure that there was anything wrong with the Bush administration, speaking vaguely of "its mistakes, whatever those may have been." Diane then says that, by comparison, "our new President, he does not look so great."

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Conservatives have been saying that we can't judge Bush's legacy fairly for another generation, after we view its full impact. Yet they say Obama has been a colossal failure in, oh, about six weeks. Hmm. Aren't you willing to give Obama a whole generation before you judge him?

If he ends up getting the government to run health care the way it runs the post office, I'll happily hand him my support. Who do we want running health care -- AIG? General Motors?

Every group, organization, genus species has its illegitimate child, the one who shows up at a family function, points to man he has never formally met and says, "Hi, Dad!"

That's Rush Limbaugh and the Republican party. He is the illegitimate child sired after a night of debauchery and carousing who comes trotting out at the most inopportune time.

There is a theory about his role in all this and a reason behind his comment that he hopes Barack Obama fails. That is that Rush Limbaugh is a mole, a covert operative for the Democratic party.

No matter. 2012 will be here soon enough, so we'd better start hunting and pecking for another candidate. Otherwise, we might as well roll a loose cannon out on the campaign trail along with some gunpowder and matches because it would be about the same thing anyway.

The Democrats seem bolder and nimbler than a few decades back. Here you can see the DCCC (a place I interned at 21 years ago) having a little fun with Rush. Rush does make a great strawman for them, because the need for GOP officials to apologize for the slightest criticism of him is very telling. I'd be curious to get some social conservatives on the record about how they feel about Rush's personal foibles.

Why is This Man Smiling?

All wins are not created equal, and while the expectations game is sometimes unfair, sometimes it is illustrative of something important. Our mayor almost lost without any real opposition. Almost every vote was some kind of protest vote. Yes, some small percentage was racist and anti-Hispanic, but most was simply a rejection of Villaragosa's style. Now, this might seem trivial, that is to judge him on style. However in the absence of accomplishments and substance, what's left?

I heard no passion for him from any segment of my friends and acquaintances. My Hispanic friends--both American born and immigrants--expressed a nearly uniform lack of enthusiasm for him. Many expressed disdain for his ethics, antics and, what Earl correctly characterized as "mugging." He is the energizer bunny of politics, finding every photo-shoot, but where are the accomplishments? He has a big war chest and even bigger ambition. Like almost every mayor of Los Angeles he wants to become our governor. He should ask Governors Hahn, Riordan, Bradley and Yorty how well that works. These results should get his attention and maybe focus him on accomplishing something here before setting his ambitious eyes elsewhere.

©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.org

I worry about Rush. No, truly. Like Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes, the anti-hero of the classic film, A Face in the Crowd, Rush is an everyman symbol who has begun to take himself seriously. In the case of Lonesome Rhodes, it leads to personal tragedy, as he is heard expressing his contempt for his idiotic and adoring radio audience. They sensibly desert him, and he is left lost, alone, and ranting.

Whether Rush truly loves or hates his Ditto-heads, he has begun to take himself terribly seriously. This may lead to personal tragedy--maybe even drug or food abuse issues. It will certainly lead his intimidated party further into the margins. Three Republican leaders have criticized him and were each sent for a quick session at re-education camp. They then threw themselves on their swords in abject humility for daring to find even the smallest flaw in the icon of the ideological right the All-Mighty El Rushbaugh.

Watching him at the Conservative Political Action Conference was a treat. He clearly loves what he does. He thrives on the adoration. He gleefully slaughters, carves up and serves his starving minions a diet of red meat. He never retreats or apologizes but advances fearlessly into the deepest mud on the sodden plain. Comedian or demagogue? Ideologue or idiot? He enjoys his time strutting and fretting upon the right side of the stage of American politics. Enjoy Rush. But take care. Those whom the gods would destroy they first raise up--and you are high enough and big enough to make a terrible splat.
©2009 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.org

Mayor Tony's smile on Election Night looked more a forced grin. And there's a good reason why. He barely avoided the ultimate embarrassment of being forced into a run-off with a challenger who in this order had a wisp of campaign stash compared to Mayor Tony's millions, is relatively young, never held an office, is white, an apparent conservative leaning Republican, has no labor ties, had a wisp of a campaign stash, and who authored a city initiative, Jamiel's Law which is widely perceived as anti-Latino. All these things are anathema in Los Angeles, a pro labor, top heavy Latino and Democratic voter city.

Then there is the voter turnout that would have been low even for a one horse country town. This meant that tens of thousands of voters didn't think the mayor's race, or in this case the mayor, was worth driving a couple of blocks and spending a few minutes to punch the ticket for.

So Mayor Tony how do you explain, or rather live down the squeaker election embarrassment? The explanation is of course simple? Tony confuses media mugging, ceremonial photo-ops, and devoting mountains of time to personal and political image burnishing, and making big, bloviating TV camera hogging statements about remaking the city, with actual city governance. That is to devise and enact a comprehensive transportation, affordable housing, and homeless plans, implement solid anti-gang violence programs, put real teeth in neighborhood councils, jumpstart South L.A. economic development, and make transparency and accountability the watchwords in city department operations, starting with his office In other words Mayor Tony with four more years it's time to start being the kind of nuts and bolts, roll up your sleeve, full time problem solving away from the TV cameras mayor that L.A. desperately needs. The election embarrassment was richly deserved.

So are the oft-derided "socialist European" nations that miserable? Maybe not, according to this. I personally prefer freer markets, but I do think the rhetoric gets a bit out of control on talk radio.

In re Ear's views of Limbaugh, I'd just say that it's politically smart for the Dems to portray Rush as their rival. It's a great strawman to use. It incites and mobilizes the very Limbaugh dittoheads that the Dems want to hold up to public ridicule. If the American people have to choose, the Dems want them to choose between cool Obama and angry, rightwing Limbaugh. It's not a bad move -- it's just like the way the GOP tried to make Michael Moore the poster-child of the Dems. It was effective while it lasted. And if Moore had the sustained influence of a Limbaugh among Dems, it would really hurt them today.

As for the notion that Palin shouldn't have been attacked, I'd disagree there. Obama personally didn't need to call her out, but the attention on her unsuitedness seems to have been what forced many fence-sitters (including longtime Republicans) to vote for Obama.

First President Barack Obama stroked talk show kingpin Rush Limbaugh's ego by proclaiming him the pied piper of the GOP. Next Republican National Chair Michael Steele showed some moxie and publicly told Limbaugh that he was the shot caller in the GOP. That didn't last. In the next breath, he publicly pleaded for forgiveness from Limbaugh for his momentary pique. Then top Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel jumped in and lathered Limbaugh with praise and scorn as the boss of the GOP. Obama and Emanuel had an ulterior motive. They propped up Limbaugh as their straw man to tar the GOP as an antique, discredited, and obstructionist bunch of sore losers who will stop at nothing to derail Obama's policies. Steele is just simply running scared of Limbaugh.
But in either case, they have done what Limbaugh couldn't do for himself and that's to wildly inflate his importance as the GOP kingmaker. Limbaugh got the kind of promotion that ad companies spend millions on for nothing. But it's still nothing but hot air. Limbaugh hasn't stopped one Obama staff or cabinet appointment, prevented one policy directive, executive order, or a single piece of legislation. That includes Limbaugh's favorite target Obama's economic stimulus bill. Heck, Limbaugh couldn't even stop his arch nemesis, Al Franken, from bagging the Minnesota senate seat. Franken's the guy who outrageously wolf ticketed Limbaugh as the big fat idiot, and then turned the wolfing into a best selling book.

Limbaugh's rambling, long winded, rant at the Conservative Political Action Conference, complete with his confusion over what the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence say, was the topper. The crowd which was heavily white and male, lapped up every Limbaugh inanity. A stroll through the convention hall showed that the crowd's Cloud Nine divorce from political reality was almost laughable. Every anti in America--taxes, gay rights, gun control, and government, as well as touting their darling Sarah Palin--was on display there. This does a lot to further seal the GOP's lot as a party that is stepping fast toward becoming a self-marginalized, mean spirited, faded political entity.

This isn't the first time that the Obama team created and then punched away at a GOP strawman target. When Republican rival John McCain plopped Sarah Palin on his ticket, a top Team Obama member reflexively hammered Palin. Obama quickly realized that it was a colossal mistake. He did the smart thing and simply congratulated her on being picked as McCain's VP candidate and then went back to talking about the issues. He knew not to make her the issue. But the lesson hasn't stuck in the case of Limbaugh.

By making Limbaugh bigger than life in American politics, it gives steam to his inflammatory campaign of rumors, half truths, distortions, and flat out lies about Obama, liberals, and now Steele. Limbaugh's aim with Steele is to further cow the GOP into line; the line that forms behind him.

At the start of his tenure as RNC chair, Steele had the good sense to know that kowtowing to Limbaugh was a prescription for even bigger disaster for the GOP. He resuscitated the old Bush line circa 2000, and talked about making the GOP a party of big tent diversity. Then like Bush he promptly forgot it.

That's exactly what Limbaugh with his conservative white man's litmus test for the GOP wants. But that flies in the face of what Obama's election triumph showed. That is that the country's fast changing ethnic vote demographics looks nothing like it did a decade ago. Black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American voters now make up nearly a quarter of the nation's electorate. College educated whites make up more than one-third of the vote. Limbaugh's comfort zone voter demographic; white blue collar, heartland and deep South voters have shrunk to less than forty percent of the nation's voters. Immigration, higher birth rates, and the youth trends will continue to swell the numbers of minority and youth voters. The white electorate overall will continue to decline.

It's not only the numbers that work against the GOP. It's also ideology. The Democrat's expanding core base of voters is more moderate, socially active, and pro government; the exact opposite of what Limbaugh rants for.

Obama, Emanuel, and Steele know this. The Democrats would not have won the White House and Steele would not have beat out a pack of mostly Limbaugh fawning contenders for the RNC top spot if that hadn't been true.

Still, Limbaugh has one powerful tool to bully, badger and cajole the GOP and saber rattle Obama. That's the airwaves. He'll exploit it to the hilt. But that won't make him the boss of the GOP let alone any real threat to Obama. It'll just make him an inviting and convenient strawman.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009).

I'm pondering the comment from David L. about my post about Focus on the Family.

Dobson passing the torch of ignorant delusionalism on to a new generation of superstitious Christo-Nazis, how can this be a good thing?

Certainly there's a lot of anger there, as Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw discusses in this piece.

Can we talk? I ask this as someone who has been one of the angry ones--angry about things that have been said about people like me. I've been on talk shows where people phone in to call me a fascist or equate me with those who burned accused witches at the stake. One remark that hit especially close to home was made by the editor of this magazine. He wrote that anyone--anyone!--who tries to make a scriptural case against same-sex marriage is guilty of "the worst kind of fundamentalism."

That hurt. I have spent several decades of my life trying to spell out an evangelical alternative to "the worst kind of fundamentalism." My friends and I have argued that the Bible supports racial justice, gender equality, peacemaking and care for the environment--views that often draw the ire of the worst kind of fundamentalists. But none of that seems to matter to folks who don't like our views about same-sex relations. Because we also believe that the Bible frowns on sexual intimacy outside of marriage between a man and a woman, we are being relegated to the margins of the civil dialogue....

I also want to hear from folks who worry about my views. What is it about people like me that frightens you so much? What would you need to hear from us that would reduce your anxiety? What is your vision of a flourishing pluralistic society? Where do people like me fit into that kind of society?

And David, I supsect there are fewer of you out there than there are of Mouw, and far fewer of you than of Mouw's angrier and less tolerant kin. In a confrontational democracy, you would lose. So I would suggest some enlightened engagement, rather than denouncing them as "christo-nazis."

Those of us who are more liberal derided Bush for refusing to engage or negotiate with "enemies and evil men" in Tehran, Baghdad and elsewhere. But that's been the reaction of most liberals to Obama engaging Rick Warren. Isn't that a bit inconsistent? Aren't liberals supposed to be at the vanguard of engaging other viewpoints?