Obama's "Frightening" Nominations

First, a recap of recent market gains in fear futures... 71

Reflecting, not on the passing government, but on ourselves and our own part in the dismal events of the Bush years, we arrive at some unavoidable conclusions. As citizens we had become so softened by years of prosperous security before his terms that we were vulnerable to manipulation by most of his shallow, fabricated new fears.

We were officially frightened by Osama bin Laden after 911, and his imaginary accomplice, Sadam Hussein shortly after that. We were not frightened by Indian and Pakistani H-bomb tests. Perhaps that fright was reserved for later, that is, for some inevitable future moment when it could be exploited with greater results.

We were frightened by North Korea’s H-bomb test. It enjoyed the serendipity of being at just the right moment, maybe a moment when our fear was subsiding to levels no longer blindly supporting some scheme made politically possible only by our manipulation.

We responded well to Iran’s understandable ambition to arm itself. At any time that fear faltered, we increased our not so subtle threats, making some fiery response a virtual certainty, a reaffirmed asset for domestic consumption here and, of course, a good investment of hate.

We weren’t particularly frightened by Katrina, a deadly but largely unusable source of fear due to its lack of a “bomb-able” adversary. The Russians presented a reliable threat, but they apparently frightened our government in return. They were somewhat less usable, perhaps because they could actually “bite back.”

The point? We, unaccustomed to being threatened after such a long hegemony -- real or imagined, were gradually groomed to be frightened on demand. The neo-cons accurately and successfully managed to convince us that leadership required a threat. In the more rational examination of such leadership, that is, when it was examined without the convenient hysteria of the latest calamity, its appearance might become dangerously lack luster.

The "new frighteners."

Now, these weary “old frighteners” are on their way out of town. Troubling "new frighteners” have arrived with the ambition of taking over the franchise. These "new frighteners” are not neo-cons at all. This new batch is from the other end of the spectrum. We seem to be entering into a period of being frightened by the left.

What are the threats being employed? After all, the left has demonstrated an irritable kind of allergic avoidance to the use of foreign machinations to frighten us. The newest, post election tool is, instead, an interesting innuendo indicting the “progressive purity” of Obama's nominations for places of power in the new government.

There was the momentary mention of the “testing” of the new President, but that was no more than a sickening remnant of the old scheme of threats, one based on the same tired ideology of being hopelessly terrified by foreign adversaries, that is, a tiresome repeat of the one used before. These more contemporary “frighteners” are intent on revealing threats to us about cabinet appointments and the possibilities that our accomplishments in the last election would be undercut with a result of reverting the government back to the numbing failure of its predecessor. They seem to have developed an appetite for questioning the new President’s character even after supporting him only a few weeks or months ago.

The threat they endeavor to manufacture now is one of deception and conspiracy. They imply that the changes we sought have not turned out to be changes at all. These folks would like to take up the mantle of being the "new threateners" with their endless assertion that we, as voters, have been deceived. Again.

Clearly, they consider any fear and fright of this sort that they can incite in us to be a valuable asset to prop up their languishing authority as critics and pundits. They believe that these unexamined doubts they might cause will become very useful foundations for later tirades and tantrums which might have, otherwise, been too obviously shallow to provide the impact they crave. Their future dream is to say, credibly, of course, “I told you so.” “I was the one who cried out the early warning, so believe me now!”

If you’re waiting for the next form of being scared, you may be disappointed. You may have to learn a new trick. The world as previously presented as one of endless, hopeless, despair is going to become one of challenges and opportunities. Instead of groveling and trying to simply survive, we will be required to stand up with our eyes forward. Rather than cowering in a sterile ideological wasteland, lamenting on how things should have been, we will now be required to begin all our thoughts with where things are and where we intend to go.

Domestically, Senatorial bigots and military throwbacks have invested heavily in sponsoring our hatred and fear of each other. Their practiced incompetence was the real conspiracy as they trotted out fabricated alternatives with every choice equally depressing and unpalatable. Their old paradigm of no choices other than dominating or surviving the world is becoming the new, brighter question of successfully living in it.

These aging knee jerkers are now exposed much like the new thought-limiting left. Neither group has earned the right to express their foolish purity. Neither group has ever been willing to pay the honest wage of embracing leadership. The wage? To follow, of course. To trust a little. To think of the country beyond one’s immediate personal ambitions.

These "new frighteners” from the left would like for us to faint before the “hodge podge” of conflicting influences in the new government. They would prefer that we were, well, more hopelessly stoic given the rather raw abilities of these nominations by Obama. These "new frighteners” would prefer that we be pessimists about whether or not he can lead with all these conflicting influences. “Who will be in charge?” they wonder.

I predict that none of us will wonder about this for long.

We have elected a leader with, I suspect, a lethal, pragmatic competence coupled with more idealism that most of us think we can afford right now. Of course we are a bit uncomfortable with what we’ve done, but we can certainly claim that we were at our bravest and our best when we did it, inebriated with new hope.

By the way, that hope isn’t all in him. The important part of that hope is in us.

Leadership, after the wasteland we’ve endured, may seem to be measured by astounding solutions to intractable problems. It isn’t. It’s much more like paint, permanently changing the hue of everything it touches.

Get used to it.

No more being directed by fear. The leader we’ve found won’t amount to much without Americans to follow him.

For a very unusual point of view, sample this link:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/lust-in-paradise/200811/obamas-ancient-leadership-style

Youth for McCain!

A short and passionate tale of elderly street theater.

Senator McCain scheduled a nice, dull town hall meeting here in Albuquerque. Some of the younger ones wanted to travel down to the UNM (University of New Mexico) campus and stand around demonstrating.

All that seemed reasonable enough. After all, it was a magnificent New Mexico autumn day, sunny and mild, and who knows? A friendly crowd offered the portent of pleasant company and new acquaintances.

I got busy on my home-made sign right away. Spreading the cardboard out on the living room floor and unceremoniously dumping all three boxes of various, colored magic markers nearby on the carpet, I began. As a neighborhood organizer for the Obama Campaign, all manner of aggressive and outlandish ideas for my sign's message were rushing through my mind. Still, there was my anticipation of some design problems, not the least of them the fact that half of the markers were, well, frankly, dried up and useless. Naturally, those would be all the good sign colors.

Furtive memories of that now ancient rebellious glory in Chicago at the Convention in 1968 were, by now, coursing through these old bones like an IV of adrenalin. One lesson of those halcyon days was to always use at least a 1" x 2" for a holding board. Another lesson was to never underestimate the persuasive impact of, yes -- you've got it -- street theater!

The right wording and a few of my "most geezerly" old people clothes would be enough for me to launch my one man mission to sign up young people for my "Youth for McCain" movement! Taping an American flag from WalMart (spelled: China) on the handle of my cane, finished the picture!




Of course, it would take both sides of this masterpiece to fully communicate the compelling nature of this invitation to these, till now, misdirected young people. I added a great, paper sunflower from Dollar General to "draw in the young girls."

That Obama rally was clearly on its last legs. Moving bravely into the midst of the crowd, I began.

"Get a haircut!"
"Join the Army!"
"Buy some stock!"
"Get with the McCain ticket, you spoiled back sliders!"

For those intrepid enough to endure these "American Dream" introductions, I immediately followed up with:

"I'll bet you don't even have a mortgage."

It was a great success! The mortgage crack kept eliciting responses such as "I'm only eighteen," but nothing could deter me once I was obviously on a run. To top off any of these dramatic epithets which got this far, I went on:

"Damned spoiled punk kids! Ingrates! Can't you appreciate all the sacrifices and hard work us old geezers have done to make this world what it is?"

"Grampy McCain is better than you deserve! Now. just hold your nose and get out there and vote for him!"

"You'll look good with a uniform and a rifle!"

Naturally, I offered some well seasoned geriatric advice to the young ladies, too. The astounding and inspiring fecundity of the second candidate in the "Youth for McCain" movement could hardly be overlooked. They were all transfixed by me, my well aged wisdom, that is.

"Have some babies, dammit!"

"America's tax paying future is depending on you!"

Oh well, I assume you have a fairly good picture by this point. Everyone had a good time except the Republicans who found themselves trapped in the auditorium.

Obama for President!

Melt-Down?

The Non-Economic Analysis of What Just Happened.

The endless story of the primary and secondary models? 59

If you are George Bush, you have presented the primary model which argues that the national economy is going to meltdown any moment. You have also produced a secondary model which should propel the primary model to your desired results. The secondary model was the first dismal failure. Its increasing odor has now drawn the primary model into the swamp with it.

I have watched this unfold with the other politics wonks on my favorite web site. Comments and posts which had previously only infrequently amounted to more than a few paragraphs now present multipage quotations about who did what, when they did it and what the results were. The least interesting but probably the most educational are accounts of past legislation, particularly Senator McCain’s endless penchant for deregulation following his rehabilitation to the neo-cons after the Keating Five problem.

Rest easy, dear visitor. This post is all about models not history. Those energized web posters mentioned above can either establish a compelling argument for the culprit in this mess, or at least, wall paper the entire affair with their too-easily-copied-and-pasted quotations. (If you still have an appetite for more of that stuff, visit my favorite after you finish here.

http://www.thomhartmann.com

and on to the forums “Domestic Politics” and “Economics.” It’s all there waiting there for you.)

Now to the models. A quick description might be in order. The primary model of any communication defines the essence of it, the question, the answer etc. The secondary model defines the mechanism of its transmission. In a sense, the primary model is the message; the secondary model is the massage.

Primary models have the foundational quality of being about something. Secondary models, on the other hand, deal entirely with the business of communicating the primary model. Both are critically important aspects of communication’s effectivity as one of the pillars of human affairs.

Concerning the proposition of Mr. Bush’s inflammatory warning about the economy, no one I’ve encountered can confidently say whether or not the threat he describes is real. That state of affairs, for example, decries his track record of secondary models in rather harsh terms. Yes, we know what his initial proposition contains, however, the secondary model he employed to manipulate us into action is, frankly, insulting. As such, it is nothing new.

So, what exactly is this secondary model we are looking at here? That is, of course, the secondary model as we see it, not the “lipstick” version rolling around the House Committee Hearings.

It’s suspiciously intriguing that, like the last one, this one began on 9/11.

The Secondary Model:

The President approaches the nation breathlessly communicating an immense threat. No one has any particular way of knowing any more about the threat than they did the last time he did this Once more, we only seem to know what he and his cabinet appointees are telling us about it. Now come the questions.

Do we trust this man? Has he told us the truth before? Has he always acted sincerely in our interests? Does it turn out that our idea about his judgment could bear the facts that came out later? Like last time?

Did he tell us the truth about the threat? Did he know about it earlier than when he told us about it? Is he telling us everything he knows now? Is he telling us enough so we can make a reasonably good decision about what to do? Or, is it like last time?

The “when” became a rather “pregnant” issue with the last threat he told us about. Did this new threat of his just “pop up out of the blue” without warning? Like last time?

The President has told us that we must act fast, and by “act” he means that we should do what he suggests we do, fast. Like the Patriot Act. Like the Military Force Authorization. Like the pharmaceutical bill. Right away, please! We have to do everything right away or face the dire consequences? Of course. It’s urgent. If we are foolish enough to wait, to think about it, all will be lost!

We can think about it later. This is a lot of our money. We’ll have time to think about it while we are paying it back.

Do we trust this man with even more of our money? Has he done a good job with the money we have given over to him in the past? Has he told us what he bought with it? Who got it? Where it is now?

Then, of course, there are the experts. They are the ones who know all abut this. Why it is urgent. Why it is worth so much. What happens if they don’t get it. Have we had good results with his experts in the past? With Donald Rumsfeld? With Carl Rove? With House Speaker DeLay? Does this President show us his good judgment in picking his experts? Do we think that, somehow, he has started to do better? Did we trust those people? Should we have trusted them? Like last time?

The expert here is Treasury Secretary Paulson. The company that is getting discussed as the next corporate fatality of this mess is called Goldman Sachs. Treasury Secretary Paulson used to be the CEO of Goldman Sachs. He apparently has $630 million dollars worth of Goldman Sachs stock in his personal fortune.

Should we trust him? Has he always done a “good job” in the past? Was he as surprised as the President when this just suddenly happened? Would he have come up with the same plan if Goldman Sachs weren’t tanking with the other investment banks?

All of this is the secondary model. These unfortunate men have started this sales effort with utterly derelict credibility. The taxpayers they are trying to convince are already exhausted, injured and, deservedly, suspicious. They are afraid. The first issue of this secondary model was to frighten them further. Like last time?

Does anybody else worry that this might not be what it is presented to be? I guess we are pretty much done with George Bush’s judgment. That leaves us stranded in an unpleasant place where we have been before, stranded with only our judgment -- our intuition. Since we have no facts, we can only try to do better than we did last time.

Why Not Revisit 9/11 Seven Years Later?

Messages and lessons we must not neglect.
The 9/11 Attack seen through the eyes in three faces. 56

On the seventh anniversary of the attack of 9/11, 2001, only the most callous can avoid the inevitable mix of both consolation and cause. There were causes which precipitated the attack. There were causes which precipitated the responses to it. Are we finally, after seven years, prepared to examine this again in the cold -- and far less emotional -- light of the present day?

Perhaps the clearest view can be expressed by attempting to place ourselves in the momentary place of players far closer to the event. Let us indulge ourselves with speculation as to the thoughts of three people. First, of course, ourselves; next, a nondescript, common citizen of Baghdad and, finally, Osama Bin Laden.

As we watched the catastrophe in New York and, minutes later, at the Pentagon, we took the moment to invest in an uneducated but comforting question. “Why is this happening? Why are ‘they’ doing this to us?”

We have a certain sickening feeling when we recall the answer to that question, an answer which seemed to fulfill all the requirements of common sense and non-nutritious nationalism. “They hate our freedom.” That “sickening feeling” can, more constructively, be called objective remorse. After all this time we have come to know much more about why that attack was possible, and probably, even inevitable.

There were reasons which explained it, but now we realize that those were reasons we had never considered. Our intellectual curiosity, prior to the attack, was never sufficient to explore just exactly what we had done to them, or, at least, what we had done to them as it appeared through their eyes.

The matter called me to revisit the chilling admonition of a certain Marine officer. He said, “If you find yourself in the midst of a shooting match, and, if you have no clear idea of why the other guy is shooting at you, that is, no idea of what he wants, leave. You have no business there.” My conclusion: “If those are the facts of the moment, the matter has no meaning and no possible constructive outcome.”

Next, a visit -- some months after 9/11 -- to Baghdad. “Shock and awe,” evaluated by the military command of Sadam Hussein’s army had one interpretation, possibly a tactical one, devoid of very much legitimate or popular social politics. “Shock and awe” interpreted by the man walking home in the streets of that distant city has another. Unavoidably, we must assume that he had certain questions in his mind as he ran for his life. “Why is this happening? Why are ‘they’ doing this to us?”

Finally, we stop over for a moment in some chilly cave, the uncomfortable refuge of the perpetrator and planner of the attacks in New York and Washington. Osama Bin Laden is not wondering “Why is this happening? Why are ‘they’ doing this to us?” at all. He has either had reasons or made reasons to answer those questions already. His reasons and his answers had already served to inspire all those young men who were willing to sacrifice everything to carry out his deathly mission in the United States.

Could there have been more to that remote conversation and planning than a “hatred of our freedom?” Did the “wrongs and injuries” that convinced those boys of the necessity of this, amount to something more substantial? Something we missed in the history of our own behavior? Or, at least, something we had assiduously avoided ever noticing?

Here in the United States, we were not allowed to even offer a conjecture that their suicidal passion had any meaning whatsoever. Far be it from us to even speculate, much less investigate, the possibility that we found ourselves involved in an exchange of consequences instead of a crazed act of psychopathic killing frenzy.

History makes its future concrete not from sand and cement, but from details and subtleties. It also makes strange bed fellows. It pays wages to the unlikely in currencies which have value only as a result of their moment of existence. Through this dark chapter, the least deserving, that is, Bin Laden and his counterpart, George Bush, have reaped unanticipated, synergistic extra profits.

Osama Bin Laden had little interest in military success. His satisfaction came from the fear he created. Injuring the United States, for him, could be far more substantial if he could degrade our Constitution and our social fabric. He, undoubtedly, celebrated in whatever way was correct to his religion, when the Americans made “shock and awe” over Baghdad, a serendipitous and unplanned extra benefit to his initial ambitions with the jet liners.

George Bush, likewise, was handed a birthday cake without a birthday. Those falling buildings could be converted by his servant, Carl Rove, into political octane of a stratospheric quality he never imagined. Out came “cut and run” and “stay the course,” all hypnotic invitations to endorse his oil wars and his morbid, domestic machinations and propaganda. If his rich friends made their fortunes drilling out petroleum made by ancient swamps, Bush made his by ruthlessly harvesting the unexpected opportunities of this modern moment.

9/11 calls us to our own inner thoughts. What, exactly, have we as individuals concluded about the facts of this tragic matter? Are we able, or, are we willing, to attempt to examine the unmanipulated reality of this whole affair, now, with clearer heads seven years later?

Perhaps, we are simply too busy or too shallow or too comfortable in this current cess pool of nationalistic drivel and fear. Perhaps, we will need to repeat what we have done previously, experience more “baffling” consequences of it, before we are motivated to consider changing ourselves and our national behavior. This improved destiny will probably never be the result of our fear. It will much more likely be an honest return from our rediscovered honor.

Mean and Tasteless Poetry: Welcoming Sara

The milk man said good morning 52

Morning, ma'am,

Your two per cent is less today than gas is by the gallon.
And, your neighbors are excited about the big election.
That cagey fighter pilot's called out missus Palin,
sweet Alaskan butt, to remind him of his last erection.

Victory! Senator McCain's found special, secret polls,
big news showing Obama's crew sliding into disrepair -
under attack by strong, yet compassionate, Christian souls
and a vampy veep who cleans her rifle while she skins her bear.

Oh my! Who could compete? He's just certain her wave will last!
She's quick, delightful, the governor and, quite the mama!
Abortions, gays and those Russians! When the final vote is cast,
her interviews will have elected Barack Obama!

Will you be wanting cream tomorrow?

Inspector General? Here?

Dreaming of an even bigger government

or

spending our tax money for something we actually need? 54

This election has turned the phrase “Changing Washington” into little more than a mechanical chorus. What exactly are these people talking about when they promise something like that? The more scurrilous of the politicians pound the table, threateningly, warning the “big money boys” in D.C. that “change is coming.” Although a majority of Americans feel strongly that a good number of these leeches belong in a cell right next to Abramhoff or DeLay, we may have to accept the idea that “changes” for these lobbyists and influence peddlers will probably not amount to much more than adjusting a few numbers in their seven digit “take.”

As an ardent Obama supporter, I would love to look my readers in the eye and honestly claim the prospect of a perfect difference, a perfect “change.” That would be fool hardy. We have plenty of Democrats in the Congress who haven’t even so much as lied about wanting a Washington with less corruption since they left their high school civics class.

Shooting a rubber band at a single cock roach might be effective and gratifying, but it hardly represents a serious approach to permanently eliminating the pests from your home.

Among the citizens, cynicism runs rampant. Most of them believe that we can never regain control of our country -- spelled tax dollars -- from these pandering, criminal opportunists. “K Street” has managed to castrate “1600 Pennsylvania Avenue” more effectively than the British did in 1812. Its domination of the Congress, both the House and the Senate, has no particular historical precursor. That relatively recent strategic victory for the special interests is more akin to a gay child S and M porn film.

The cynics are definitely right on one count. These high class crooks have abundantly shown that they own any part of the government which can serve them.

Enough ranting. What about a bigger government? That hardly seems like a solution to much of what is vexing us! Egads, shades of Reagan!

Well, that gloomy appraisal might be true. It depends on two questions. First, how, exactly, do we see the correct management of our national descent from a rich superpower to whatever it is we seem destined to become? Second, will we, as citizens, even dare to have the optimism to think we can still create an effective part of our government that will actually function?

What are we talking about here? What new part of government do we need to consider?

Tempting the possibility of my being, righteously, called an elitist, I direct your thoughts to a play by the old French author, Mr. Moliere. The title of the play is “The Inspector General.” It is a period comedy with a fine plot not particularly relevant right here. However, it does have a very relevant context. The basic theme of the play is about an Inspector General, authorized by the King, with the responsibility of inspecting everything all across the country, that is, roads, schools, hospitals, tax collections and essentially anywhere else that the King’s money (The King thought, in those days, that all tax revenues were HIS money. How antiquated compared to our representative form of government!) had any part in financing.

The relevance is clear for the following reason. The horrible looting which is our curse at the present moment has, as its central mechanism, fundamental deceptions with regard to issues such as cost, waste, value and effectivity. We pay monumental amounts of our tax money for things with names which suggest one thing only to get the leftover scraps of something quite completely different, utterly useless to us, after these “K Street” lobbyists have gorged themselves and their host corporations on all the sweetest meat, the freshest fruit and the finest wine in our federal expenditures.

These parasites have mastered every odious technique required to keep us confused about the actual facts concerning these undertakings of theirs. The consequences of this redistribution (a favorite word of their corporate benefactors condemning our resistance to their grotesque and growing wealth...) have grown so large as to represent a threat to national security, that is, a clear and present danger. We have become unable to squeeze enough of our tax resources through the prevailing process in Washington to accomplish things we urgently need (and should, in a more perfect world, be easily able to afford), such as school building repairs, bridges, roads, dams, hospitals and the like.

Interestingly enough, pretty much the exact things that the old French King’s Inspector General was inspecting in his ancient mission!

If our proposed addition to the size of government is to be able to confront and correct this criminal looting, it will first have to elude the inevitable sabotage which routinely perverts any actual democratic proposals from emerging from Congress alive and breathing, that is, functional in a way still consistent with some small remnant of the high ambitions of their origins.

It is no secret that the Republican strangle hold on Congress has, as its greatest ambition, the goal of proving that government will not work. Assisting these knuckle-dragging neo-cons is a convincing crowd of other half-witted reactionaries including, to our great embarrassment, more than a few fully tenured Democratic fixtures in the House and Senate. These “patriots” with such a vicious penchant to redirect honest tax money to their very close friends will clearly do anything (yes, anything...) to get the funds they need to be reelected. Their Congressional jobs are simply too profitable, we are told, to ever expect anything else from them! We regretfully embrace this dismal expectation. These “public servants” have obviously woven positions for themselves with wages so great as to unavoidably create a depressing, self-fulfilling prophecy of outrage and pilfering.

Oh yes, these bottom feeders may drink sparingly of the vast cash river rolling through Washington, just an imperceivable nip here and there when we aren’t watching, but they take enough to undercut our every ambition as taxpayers and citizens.

Can we envision a solution? Yes, we can. (!?!)

Consider the following proposal for a modern day equivalent to that old Inspector General in Moliere’s comedy. No, quite aside from mass lynchings, resurrected guillotines or straightforward wild west style American mob justice, we find these adversaries far too powerful and well entrenched for a head-on approach. Believe me, they enjoy a carefully constructed protective blanket constantly refreshed by their associates in places of great power.

First, the necessity of doing something. As Americans we face a very difficult decade of slowly recovering from the great looting ($10,000,000,000,000) successfully extracted from us by the Bush Government. We can fall blindly into our inevitable role as the weak, bad creditor, pathetically begging our lenders for just a little compassion over and over as we are repeatedly unable to repay, or we can dust off our famous national ability to successfully respond to our precarious position. That latter course will require that we seriously stop wasting money and begin to retire our debt. That is the “happy” story through which we will be able to stand on our own two feet within a mere decade. The “unhappy” version includes stories which either assume a much longer period or plots where we never again stand on those feet of ours.

Naturally, we will have to “make do” with a much cheaper military. Our lenders will, sooner or later, require that of us to free up the money we owe them. Perhaps spending only half of the combined allocation of the rest of the world will be sufficient. We will have to take steps to greatly improve the efficiency of our foreign policy expenditures, eliminating the looters who cling like vampire bats to every act of national altruism. On the other hand, acting reasonably internationally is far more cost effective as an avenue to national security than all those ridiculous and expensive Cold War weapons systems (the X44 Galactic Death Ray? just what we need in Baghdad or Basra...).

The reconstruction of our infrastructure, long a well worn threat to incite our fear during campaigns, will arrive at our door in a far more concrete style, you know, the sort of thing that comes with monthly bills. Big ones. Our government programs will be stripped of our present indulgent excesses either by our new high born ideals or the rather less glorious insistence of those who hold our loans. After all, we can hardly deny that we did, in fact, sign those notes George Bush kept rushing out to the Chinese or the Saudis for more borrowed money.

In the words of that great military genius, Donald Rumsfeld, “Sometimes Democracy can get petty messy.” We have definitely been pretty messy.

Did anyone think we were going to somehow wallow through this debt of ours without some serious belt tightening? It is so immense that we can’t even convince our lenders that we can quietly dump it on our unsuspecting children. Those who have financed this incredible, reckless debt of ours have in mind to start getting their cash back way before that.

What can we add to our government?

An office of schedule and budget. Oh, you say, we already have all sorts of bureaucracies that take care of that job. Really? Have they taken care of it? Does anyone think they can be “fixed” in a way that will cause them to take care of it in the future? Won’t it simply become another expensive layer of the failed system we have now?

Not if we do it right. And, it’s clearly time that we did it right. We elect managers in federal elections, enough of them to represent each district corresponding to the present rate of its consumption of federal money. These people become the staff of the Office of Budget and Schedule. Each successful candidate would win an election in his own region, the place where the most possible voters would be aware of his character. The day after the election, the names of all these winners would be placed in a giant pot. A random drawing would then assign every one of them to someplace else, that is, someplace other than the place where they won their election. Although hardly perfect, such an arrangement would make pre-established cronyism significantly more difficult.

The directors of this new government branch would be recruited from the Justice Department’s career lawyers, the professional, bipartisan staff of the Congressional Committees responsible for “getting our money’s worth,” career procurement staff from the Defense Department, seasoned engineers from the Transportation Department, etc. Every one of these appointees would receive a lifetime wage and benefits package (similar to Supreme Court Justices?) in the hope that many of them would not fall to corrupt motives. Whatever the cost might be, I suspect it would ultimately be an incredibly good investment.

No one could disagree that such a system would not be, theoretically, entirely redundant. Likewise, no one could disagree that such a system would actually be exactly the way to make drastic accountability changes in Washington. Everyone currently in a position to spend our money has trusted advisors. The problem seems to be that, although these money folks trust them, we, as citizens, can’t. We need our own advisors, and we need to place then in positions where no one can get to them for any more of those “special favors.” Let these new federal employees seek after our credibility as taxpayers instead of professing mastery of techniques certain to either confuse us or simply “keep us quietly in the dark.”

Oh my! The government would be paralyzed by the delay of channeling everything through yet another layer of regulation. Well, they, and we, have brought this on ourselves.

Give this new bunch the task of evaluating everything we intend to spend money on. Are the plans complete? Are they simply a place to start, to open the coffers, so subsequent cost overruns, suspicious changes and huge, out-of-scope additive alternatives can “slide through” a little more gracefully later? Does the program accompanying the expenditure actually have a reasonable chance of doing what is intended? Can we reveal exactly who wants it without a Congressional subpoena?

The Office of Budget and Schedule will have no voice whatever with respect to the programs proposed. That is a Congressional task. It will, however, have everything to say about whether or not a program has been accurately represented to the public, whether or not it has been prepared adequately to justify starting the flow of our federal tax dollars into it, whether or not it has been contracted and bid legally, whether or not it has a reasonable chance to succeed and whether or not any alternatives have been explored.

The “Schedule” part of this idea has to do with programs which should, at some point, end, but don’t. Aside from the inevitable excuses for this endless drain on our money, the graft seems to build in intensity the longer these jobs continue. As they extend further and further beyond their original (approved) scope, everything possible is added to them, unexamined, unauthorized and unassociated expenses approved piecemeal, usually offered up as desperate, last gasp chances to somehow salvage a poorly planned program -- or at least create additional excuses or camouflage for its failure.

Usually with only a few hundred million more dollars the sow’s ear at least begins to look like a silk purse. That is, if it doesn’t become top secret. From us.

Enforcing this new inspection regime is simple. Add another required signature to every government payment. It enjoys the full “brutality” of a one size fits all solution. Let these people evaluate everything -- military procurement, transportation expenditures, foreign aid effectiveness, emergency relief programs, every kind of civil works. Allow the evaluations to extend to nonmaterial areas -- educational improvements, crime abatement, climate and energy subsidies, corporate encouragement and assistance, borrowing money, social programs and the rest.

As taxpayers and citizens, these new “eyes” of ours must be empowered to see absolutely everything we are asked to spend our tax money creating. If there were areas where the past record of federal spending justified more of our trust, perhaps they could be excluded. But are there any areas such as those? The parasites have slowly embedded themselves and their interests into every penny we send to the Treasury and every penny which flows out of it.

It is highly unlikely that we would “throw the baby out with the bath water” by simply taking a look at some imaginary expenditure which finds itself somehow exempt from the looters. They are everywhere and in everything. The only arguments we hear are between them as they discuss who will savage our money first!

We really can do this. Register. Vote. Elect Barack Obama. Then,

keep raising hell!

Obama Can "Bore Through" "Drill Now"

The Strategy of Chaotic Misinformation:
Manipulating Energy Problem Definitions with Contradictory Reporting

Summary:
This article describes a new policy proposal made within the Obama Campaign in response to the McCain “Drill Now” attack strategy. This proposal calls for the creation of a new, Congressionally sponsored bureaucracy to independently provide and communicate reliable information to voters on current energy, environmental and economic issues. The purpose of this new entity, proposed here as a GSE, is to eliminate contradictory or motivated assessments of problem definition; to introduce a reliable source of information and research to factually define problems; and, to make policy debates center on problem solution rather than contentious views of problem definition.

(A more complete presentation of this proposal can be seen in a larger discussion titled “Managing Global Warming Solutions.” June, 2008. This blog. )

I. Capitalizing on McCain’s “Drill Now” Attack
Converting Its Negatives to an Obama Opportunity

The McCain campaign has fabricated a dominant position by extracting all details from Obama’s willingness to compromise. Absent the conditional arguments of the bipartisan energy bill, that is, when events are expressed exclusively as a change in policy on the part of Obama, McCain has insinuated a superior “trustability,” “common sense” and “experience” position with this presentation. McCain’s advantage relies on his simplistic version. His representation of only highly edited parts of the larger matter has been accepted as highly credible.

McCain Strategy:
Separate the drilling issue from the energy legislation issue.
Characterize Obama willingness to go bipartisan as flip flop.
Suppress logical details which differentiate McCain’s position from Obama’s.

It is further energized by the complicated nature of the counter argument. Obama cannot introduce a compelling explanation to limit the McCain attack without introducing complex political and “oil” technical specifics beyond the interest/reception level of the voters influenced by the McCain strategy.

The material liability to the Obama position is a reinforcement of latent mistrust. He is trapped in a manipulated policy response cycle exaggerated by the negative connotation of “flip-flop.” There is no tactical advantage possible for Obama from this position in the response cycle.

II. McCain Exploits Existing Voter Uncertainty
He Drives Home His Advantage with an Overly Simple Proposition

The public fears being exploited, misled or humiliated by some aspect of the energy crisis. Consequently, contradictory inflammatory argument structures can mobilize opinion while constantly keeping the same opinion off balance and fearful (never confidently materialized). The result is more akin to a ping pong game than an educational effort. This is the optimum environment for those seeking to advance unexamined solutions which will sustain or improve their advantage for profits and low regulation of their activities -- or establishing negatives for Obama.

McCain Strategy:
Voters have no access to reliable information countering McCain’s “drill now.”
Voters are not prepared to take chances based on their own technical information.
Intentional effort to make new technical information consistently risky, contradictory.

One important foundation of the McCain position is to deny the public access to any credible information. Every proposition regarding the “drill now” position’s validity is presented by less than credible sources in contradiction to other less than credible sources. Media presentation of factual data is sabotaged by a preconceived (implied) suggestion that it is too complicated to understand. McCain considers this a stable (logical) asset given that voter interest or confidence in opposing views is low.

McCain’s position has been simplified to present a compelling emotional confidence. To the electorate it is understandable, even if the details remain undefined. When no one can be trusted, the simplest argument may as well be adopted. McCain correctly targeted this. The voter has no immediate incentive to attempt a more complex (accurate) understanding if none of the foundational arguments introduced to support it evoke any more confidence than the one it replaces.

McCain Strategy:
Invite voters to accept oversimplified “drill now” proposal.
Expect voters to resist the effort to investigate factual strength of “drill now” proposal.

Conflicted assertions have been groomed and perfected by the administration to create this tactical opportunity. This has succeeded. McCain anticipates no possible penetration of any factual argument into the working model hosted by a majority of voters. The inertial stability of the McCain argument is, clearly, well entrenched. It was not expected to diminish on its own. It hasn’t.

III. A Shocking Proposal to Defeat the McCain Advantage
The Obama Response Strategy:

The new fact: Public information about energy topics has been so intentionally confusing and misdirected that it is difficult to see the weakness of McCain’s “drill now” argument. The new fact is not about drilling, it is about having reliable information available for voter decisions.

The first issue is to neutralize the McCain advantage gained by simplistic presentation. The strategy to accomplish this is to embrace the argument (artificial phenomenon) put forth by the McCain Campaign. Directly address the complexity and the resulting misdirection of the McCain argument’s structure. Move away from the immediate necessity of oil drilling to the conditions which made McCain’s tactic temporarily successful. The new topic will no longer be oil drilling, it will be the lack of good information about matters such as oil drilling.

Obama Strategy:
Acknowledge that the McCain argument seems reasonable.
Embrace voter uncertainty about whether or not “drill now” is a right answer.
Explain that such decisions are too important to be made without good information.
Portray McCain’s position as exploiting the information vacuum.
Propose a new system which will provide reliable information to voters.
Walk away from “drill now” toward “Let’s learn the facts.”

The drilling issue will be overwhelmed by the new issue. Obama drives it home. “We are flying blind.” There is no credible source of information concerning such topics because all present sources are willing to manipulate factual or scientific data to their own interests. For the voter it is reasonable to doubt almost any proposition concerning this issue. The possible financial benefits to those who have schemed to place themselves in positions to speak to this matter have entirely overshadowed any interest in presenting facts useful for accurate public opinions (Profit, not education, reliability or honesty.).

Obama Strategy:
The profits made possible by this deception are immense.
The deception is made possible by a constant, intentional flood of misinformation.
The U.S. consumers are being exploited by suspect information management.
Voters are not informed enough to make a choice in their own interests.

Obama’s new idea: Establish a GSE organization, removed from government or corporate influence, which is responsible to provide voters with credible research on all energy and environmental matters.

We are getting ready to spend a huge amount of American consumer money and American taxpayer money to confront this challenge. We still have no reliable source for information. In fact, the most reliable information we presently have is that the available information is not reliable. This is the situation which made McCain’s strategy success possible. McCain’s move is directly opposed to Obama’s Respect, Empower, Include principle. Obama’s idea relies on open, reliable and credible information empowering voters able to express their informed self-interest.

Obama’s Strategy:
This proposal will provide a coherent information platform for policy.
Voters agree on the facts of the challenge.
No one gets to inject spurious facts to gain an advantage.

Obama’s proposal will allow policy debates (like “drill now”) to center on active response solutions rather than on contradictory problem definitions.

Obama’s Proposal for a New GSE:
10 preliminary concepts

1. Call the GSE the Environment Institute (or something more appealing).
2. Problem definitions will be presented to the public based on scientific and economic facts.
3. Proposed solutions can be scientifically evaluated.
4. Evaluations can be communicated to the public to increase public confidence.
5. Scientific findings from energy, environmental and economic sources can be centralized.
6. Research can become coordinated and coherent, no longer motivated by:

• desire to manipulate public opinion;
• efforts to impose incorrect solutions;
• opportunism, players seeking public authority or notoriety;
• ambitions to inject unreasonable solutions based on possible profit;
• legislation passed with dishonest motives or lack of transparency.

7. Inflammatory political tactics (like “drill now”) will become much less effective or attractive.
8. Voters will become more confident:

• that the nature of a problem is really known; or,
• that the problem is being scientifically studied, credibly researched.

9. The Institute may gain authority about international energy, environment and economy issues.
10. The Institute’s first responsibility will be to provide factual information to U.S. voters.

Everything about this proposal is well suited for the Obama Campaign. It provides an opportunity to expose the information manipulation the other side obviously considers valuable. It offers a material example of Obama’s alternative to the Republican strategy of extracting simplistic information to drive attack missions. It denies the Republicans the benefit of making inflammatory or fearful conclusions based on misinformation.

It is “high road” but, at the same time, it is more aggressive. Resistance or criticism to it can be immediately countered with “Do you fear public access to factual information?”

The criticism that it represents another “big government” or “Democratic party spending” proposal can be countered with a comparison of relative expense:

• the expense of making huge policy errors concerning energy or environment issues ($)
• vs.
• the expense required to perform reliable research and investigation to make good decisions ($)

This policy proposal need not materialize prior to the November election. If it is proposed as an Obama Campaign “talking point,” its appeal to the voters may well prove quite advantageous and spontaneous. The voters are already suspicious that they are being manipulated by intentional management of confusing or contradictory information reaching them through the media.

It enjoys the additional value of not being in the campaign “response cycle.” It is innovative, courageous and consistent with the “change” concept.

The energy situation has been carefully steered away from issues of environmental concern. McCain’s “drill now” strategy has overshadowed the memory of the Santa Barbara spill to place policy priorities on oil production, no matter the risk. Consumer fear about gasoline has become entirely focused on supply issues. This proposal will reenergize the environmental component of Obama supporters after their issue has been by “side lined” by McCain’s inflammatory oil positions.

In Praise of FOX News: America’s Entertainment

What could be more satisfying than searching for the good in everything?
It not only cleanses the soul, it is also a great boon to good health. 43


So, here goes.

FOX News has very nice and well maintained cameras and other equipment.

That wasn’t so bad now, was it?

All Rightee! President Time!

Making Tough Decisions: Electing a President in a Media Blackout
or is it, Electing a President in an Electorate Blackout?

Here it is again. November. The wife is poundin’ on me -- “You get out there and vote! If you don’t have one of them ‘I Voted’ stickers, you better not plan on gettin’ your favorite meatloaf for the rest of the year!” She don’t care if it’s colder than a brass bra out here. Oh no. “You get out there and vote!” Women are like that. My mom always told me to vote, too.

So, here we are at Cataclysm Junior High. There’s the ‘Vote Here’ sign. All these people, jeez, there’s no parking. I guess there’s nothin’ to do but go on in there and get it over with.

This is just like last time. Every four years it’s the same. I’m walkin' in to vote and I have no idea who I’m supposed to vote for. At least all the names are listed on the ballots. That makes it easier to remember who is running.

At least, this year, I did my homework. I watched the news a couple of times so I’d, like, know, the questions. The wife says you have to do that to be an educated voter. One thing I do know for sure, and that is whoever gets picked is gonna’ be the guy who runs the country until the next time, you know, the next election. I say guy, but, darn, that woman is running this time. If I vote for the woman, the wife will probably like it.

Still, I promised her that I’d vote my own mind. So, I guess it’s time to boil all these facts down so I know what I’m doin’. Mom always said to pay attention to the church goin’ while you size up each pick. McCain’s preacher thinks that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon. That don’t mean much to me, ‘cause I ain’t Catholic. O’Bama’s preacher is a black man who doesn’t act like he’s white, but O’Bama dumped him anyway, whatever that means. Hillary’s little prayer bunch is full of fire-breathin’ neo-cons. She says she ain’t no neo-con, but she never said that the rest of ‘em weren’t.

So, that helps.

And, there’s the screw-ups. McCain said he didn’t know much about the economy but he wanted the war to go on for a hundred years. That’s weird all right, but I don’t rally know anything about the economy, either. O’Bama said that bitter people cling to religion and guns, but I ain’t bitter and I don’t even own a gun. The wife hates guns, but she don’t think he’s no Moslem. Hillary said she got shot at somewhere, but the movie didn’t show it. Sometimes I think I got shot at, but I don’t remember any of the details very well, either.

Stuff like that really does help narrow down the decision.

Yup, I’m registered, thanks to the wife, and now I’m walking up to the little curtain thing. Mom told me to never tell a pollster that I was undecided ‘cause they’d call me on the phone everyday after that. I tried to watch all them numbers the news kept comin’ up with. I’m under fifty, but I’m over twenty-five. I’m pretty sure I’m mostly white, whatever that means. The wife and I go to church every Easter, Christmas, Thanksgiving and them other two days. I earn less than $250,000 and more than $45,000, right? And, I am the proud father of two kids of “mixed sex” like 39% of the rest of the country.

All that stuff says I’m supposed to vote for somebody, but I can’t remember which one. Still, it’s a clue.

I guess I’m just going to do it like last time. So long as everyone thinks I thought about it, I’ll be all right. Plus, I learned something from last time. I ain’t tellin’ nobody who I voted for until I can figure out if it makes me look stupid. If it does make me look stupid, I’ll just lie and say I voted for someone else.

All right, last time I used the alphabet idea. Since “B” came before “K,” I voted for the guy who’s in there now. To keep things democratic, this time I’m going to pick the last guy. Than means that “O” comes after “M,” even though it’s just barely. Huh. I wonder if I should count the “O” part or the “B” part. That would change everything.

Here goes. It’s gonna be “O.” That leaves all these other people to vote for. At least no one’s has ever heard of any of ‘em. For them, I can just use the old “flip the coin” approach. Anyway, no one ever asks whether or not you voted for them, or, you know, which one.

Now, I take this paper back over to the old lady and she gives me my “I Voted” sticker, then it’s home for meatloaf and sex. What a country!