Pay No Attention

I guess it's one way to avoid college tuition bills . . .

You must have heard about this by now, but to heck with it, I'm blogging about it anyway. 

Nebraska is finally getting around to thinking that maybe, just maybe, its "safe haven" law is just a little bit too open.  In case you haven't heard, Nebraska's law allows parents to abandon their children at designated "safe havens" up until they are 18 years old.  Since the law was enacted in July, twenty-three children, some as old as 17, have been abandoned at the shelters. 

It just blows me away that so many parents are willing to get rid of their kids  (especially given the lengths some people go to have kids in the first place.)  I don't know what would be more traumatizing for a kid that's old enough to remember it -- being abandoned at one of these shelters, or remaining in a home in when the parents would much prefer to get rid of the child.  On the one hand, dead-beat parents shouldn't be bringing children into the world and then shirking their responsibilities.  On the other hand, children deserve better than to be left with dead-beat parents.

Either way, it's incredibly sad.

Rome is burning . . .

. . .  and the Democrats are freaking whining about Lieberman.   How nice that they've now decided to put off any official action until after the election.

It's time to ditch the two party system.  This is ridiculous.  People should support the candidate they think is best, and that includes Lieberman.    And I'm tired of watching all the back and forth bickering about crap.  And I'm tired of each party spending all their time trying to demonize the other.   I'm sick of attack ads.  I'm sick of it.  I'm sick of it.  I'm sick of it.

Yo.  Politicians.  Bicker as you will about which side is sinking faster; the fact remains that THE WHOLE DAMN SHIP IS SINKING.  ROME IS BURNING.  I know Nero fiddled, and I know the band kept playing as the Titanic went down, but if you don't freaking mind, could you freaking SHUT UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE FREAKING ECONOMY?  Could you SAVE MY FREAKING 401K, please?  When you're done with that and have a free minute, can you maybe spend a minute or two on GLOBAL WARMING AND THE FREAKING WAR? 

Thanks.  You freaking assholes.

We could really use a man like Roosevelt . . . er, I mean Herbert Hoover . . . again

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  I really did think that Biden was a tad better-versed in history than this. 

Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says today's leaders should take a lesson from the history books and follow fellow Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt's response to a financial crisis. "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened,'" Barack Obama's running mate recently told the "CBS Evening News."

Except, Republican Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed in October 1929. There also was no television at the time; TV wasn't introduced to the public until a decade later, at the 1939 World's Fair.

FDR was elected three years later when voters denied Hoover a second term. The Democratic challenger appealed to the "forgotten man" by promising a "new deal" to solve the Depression era.

Ouch!  Looks like Joe needs a little refresher course on 20th century American history. 

I'll be interested to hear how much the media and the McCain camp makes of this gaffe.  If Palin had made this particular error, everyone would be exclaiming over what an uneducated idiot she is.  If McCain did it, they'd be saying he's senile.  Wonder what will be said about Biden's blunder?  I'm guessing not all that much, but we'll see.

I repeat that I like Biden.  I think he's a very smart guy, and I think he's well-qualified for the vice-presidency.  But -- I gotta point out that this particular gaffe is actually way more stupid than Palin's asking for clarification on which aspect of the "Bush Doctrine" Gibson was asking about.   I'm a graduate of an Ivy League law school, and a voracious devourer of news and politics, and frankly, the two words "Bush Doctrine" didn't set off bells in my head, either --  although I'm unfortunately fully familiar with Bush's policy that we can attack countries that haven't attacked us (as was Palin, by the way).  

Yeah, I know what you're wailing out there in cyberspace  -- "But she's running for vice president!  She shouldn't need clarification when asked about the Bush Doctrine!"  Well, actually, yes, she should need clarification -- the "Bush Doctrine" in fact has more than one aspect -- it has had at least four distinct meanings, and the most current one is not the one Charlie Gibson was asking about .  Hi folks. She has said some dumb things (that thing about seeing Russia from Alaska, for example), but asking for clarification on the Bush Doctrine question wasn't one of them. 

Whatever.  We all trip up once in a while and say something stupid -- I do, you do, Biden does, McCain does, Obama does.  But let's all try not to let all of our own side's references to there being 57 states and Franklin Roosevelt being president during the '29 crash slide as mere trippings of the tongue because our candidate was "tired", while automatically lambasting the other side as "senile" and "moronic".  OK?

* * * * *

Sometimes I wonder why I'm bothering.  I know I'm freaking shouting in the wind here.   I can post links until the cows come home, but most people won't bother to read or watch them.  They've made up their minds to totally demonize the "other"side, and are equally determined not to accept that their own side ever screwed up or did something remotely devious.  It's more like a goddamn football game than an election.   I guess I'm doing it to blow off some steam so I don't freaking explode before November.

For what it's worth, I'm planning to vote Obama/Biden because I'm a pro-choice, agnostic, anti-death penalty, environmentalist,  pro-gun control etc. etc. etc. type, and therefore, of the two main parties, the Democratic ticket best squares with my elitist liberal world view.  However, it's not because I think McCain and Palin are psycho evil lying hosebeasts.   Actually, shoot me, but I don't think they're psycho evil lying hosebeasts -- or at least, they're no worse than their opponents in that regard.  Indeed, I like quite a few things about McCain.  I just agree with Obama/Biden on more issues.   

There's something in my character that makes me want to stick up for people when I feel they're being treated unfairly -- whether I'm voting for them or not -- and calling them out on their bullshit -- whether I'm voting for them or not.  So although I'm voting Obama/Biden, you're going to keep hearing me criticize them if I feel they deserve it, and you're going to hear me sticking up for McCain and Palin if I feel they deserve it.  Feel free to hate me for it. 

As usual, the Post is full of crap: Obama did NOT attempt to delay troop withdrawal in Iraq

Last week, the New York Post accused Obama of having urged Iraqi leaders in a private meeting in July, "to delay an agreement on a drawdown of the American military presence."  Right-wing blogs have seized on the story and are now claiming that Obama's alleged actions violate the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.

I've spoken with an adviser on the Obama campaign and have done a bit of research.  The Obama fans among you will be glad to hear that this one is a nasty smear.  Contrary to the Post's flaming headline, Obama did not urge Iraqi leaders to delay the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.  

Although the New York Post and right wing blogs don't mention it,  Obama's July meeting with the Iraqi government officials was not private.  Indeed, it was attended by Bush administration officials such as Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and Richard Haughton, the Baghdad embassy's legislative affairs advisor Rich Haughton, and also by a Republican senator, Chuck Hagel.  Attendees of the July meeting affirm Obama's account of the meeting and have stated that the Post story is not true.  Moreover, officials of the Bush administration who were briefed on the meeting by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad also support Obama's account and dispute the Post story.

Since my conversation with the adviser on the Obama campaign, an ABC news correspondent did some investigating and ran a story debunking the Post's story.  For the story, ABC News interviewed a couple of the meeting's attendees and officials of the Bush administration:

The Post story is "absolutely not true," Hagel spokesman Mike Buttry told ABC News.    . . . .

Buttry said that Hagel agrees with Obama's account of the meeting: Obama began the meeting with al-Maliki by asserting that the United States speaks with one foreign policy voice, and that voice belongs to the Bush administration.     . . . .

Two officials of the Bush administration say that if Obama had done what the Post story asserted –- which they believe to be untrue -– Crocker and embassy officials attending the meeting would have ensured that the Bush administration heard about it immediately. If such an incident occurred in front of officials of the Bush administration, it would have constituted a foreign policy breach and would have been front-page huge news; it would not have leaked out two months later in an op-ed column.

In addition to the July meeting, Obama had a June phone conversation with Iraqi minister Hoshyar Zebari.  In a second article,the New York Post claims that even if Obama did not interfere with Bush policy at the July meeting, he did interfere with it in the June telephone conversation. 

As proof, the Post quotes an MSNBC report of a June 16 press conferencein which Obama discussed his conversation with Zebari:

[Obama] said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

Does this amount to an interference with U.S. policy, as the Post suggests?  Well, the Bush administration doesn't seem to think so.  The report regarding the June 16 press conference has been available to the Bush administration -- and the entire world -- for the past three months.  If the Bush administration had considered Obama's words or actions in the June telephone conversation to be an interference with Bush policy or problematic in any way, it would have said so -- and should have said so.  Not only did the Bush administration not object to Obama's actions, but it also gave its blessing to Obama's meeting with Iraqi officials a month later.  And as I noted above, representatives of the Bush administration have disputed the Post's claim that Obama has interfered with U.S. foreign policy.

Certainly the Bush administration has motivation to complain if it had objected to Obama's words or actions.  Bush may not love McCain, but he wants McCain to win and Obama to lose this election, and what better way to attack Obama than to claim that he's attempted to interfere with U.S. foreign policy?   It would certainly be more effective than complaining that Obama called Palin a pig, don't you think?

And by the way -- the New York Post conveniently did not quote a portion of the June 16 press conference in which -- contrary to the Post's allegation -- Obama discussed the need for speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops:

"I emphasized to him how encouraged I was by the reductions in violence in Iraq, but also insisted that it is important for us to begin the process of withdrawing U.S. troops, making clear that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq," the senator said. "I gave him an assurance that should we be elected, an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq, that we won't act precipitously, but that we will move to end U.S. combat forces in Iraq in a manner that's as careful as we were careless getting in."

The need to withdraw is twofold, Obama said. Reprising an argument he has been making for months, he cited the need to encourage the Iraqi government to make the political accommodations on matters like oil revenues and provincial elections, which the surge was supposed to help happen. He argued that the progress made in the South and in Sadr City showed the need not for a longer commitment but a shorter one, because they indicate a greater capacity on the part of Iraqis to deal effectively with their security. Obama said the second reason was the $10- to-12 billion being spent each month in the country, a statistic he often cites when discussing the need to withdraw.

So there you have it.  Obama did state his belief that negotiation of the strategic framework and status of forces agreements should be delayed, but  he did not urge that troop withdrawal should be delayed -- quite the contrary.   (Those agreements deal with many aspects of the U.S.'s continuing military presence in Iraq; they do not need to be negotiated in order for some U.S. troops to be withdrawn.)  And the Bush administration has, both tacitly and overtly, given its blessing to Obama's words and actions.  There's no Logan Act violation here, folks.

* * * * * *

There is, however, a contradiction that I'd like to see the Obama campaign address and correct.  In the aftermath of the first Post story alleging that Obama had attempted to stall troop withdrawal, Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi issued a blanket denial that goes a little too far:

Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.

"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades," Morigi said.

The problem is, Obama himself said in the June 16 press conference that in the June telephone conversation with Zebari he had opined that negotiation of both the Strategic Framework Agreement and the Status of Forces agreements should be delayed.  

This contradiction really troubled me at first (actually, it's what made me begin to look so closely into this issue).  However, while I think Obama should straighten out Morigi's statement, I also don't think it's a smoking gun pointing to wrongdoing. 

What matters here are two issues:  (1) Did Obama secretly try to delay withdrawal of troops from Iraq, while at the same time grandstanding politically about how troops should be withdrawn?  And the answer is no -- all evidence points to Obama having consistently advocated speedy troop withdrawal in his conversations with the Iraqi officials, just as he has argued in his campaign.  (2) Did Obama try to secretly negotiate behind Bush's back?  And the answer is no -- Bush administration officials were with Obama in July, and the content of Obama's June telephone conversation with the Iraqi minister has been openly available to Bush (and everyone else) for months, and there's been no objection from Bush. 

But do me a favor, Obama -- please correct Morigi's denial anyway, OK?

Adviser on the Obama campaign: New York Post story is false

A couple of hours ago, I spoke with an adviser on the Obama campaign regarding the New York Post's allegations that Obama privately urged Iraqi Foreign Minister  Zebari to delay negotiations of the Status of Forces agreement in Iraq. 

The adviser assured me that the Post's allegations are false, and that Barack Obama made no secret attempt to influence Iraqi policy.  He stated that the Bush administration is and always has been fully aware of everything that occurred during Obama's discussion with Zebari.  Moreover, everything that the New York Post is alleging was done "privately" was in fact openly revealed by Obama following the meeting with Zebari, and has been on the internet for months.  The Bush administration has never objected to any of it (and certainly it would have if it had found any of Obama's statements objectionable).

Obama's adviser is sending me further information.  When I have received it all and had a chance to review it, I will report back and tell you more.  I really wish I'd received this information a bit earlier, because I'm unfortunately going to be away from my desk for most of tomorrow and all of Friday.  However, I promise you I'll review the information and get out a further report as soon as I possibly can. 

I'm Too Scared to Blog About the Financial Market Meltdown

I feel like I should say something about the death of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch being bought by Bank of America, and AIG teetering on ruin.  Perhaps I should blog about the way the stock market has plummeting like a rock, catching itself on a ledge from time to time and climbing up a few tentative steps, and then plummeting again. 

But frankly, it scares me too much.   And I don't have much to say.  I had my doubts about the wild inflation in the housing market (that's why I still don't own an apartment), and too many people seemed to have mortgage arrangements that made no sense to me and apartments they couldn't afford without those mortgages.  I thought that mess would come crashing down sometime.  But I never thought it would bring down everything with it.  Yes, I'm scared.  I think I've been even more obsessed with the election than usual to keep myself from panicking about my investments.

I wish I could think that either Obama or McCain could fix this mess.  But I don't think they can.  I think the whole damn house of card has to crash and then gradually rebuild, hopefully on a more stable foundation.  I just wish it wasn't going to take so much of my money and your money with it.

You must check out this hilarious Slate article

Someone included this Slate article in a comment, but it's so funny it deserves its own post.  Thanks, Charles -- this article gave me the best laugh I've had all week. 

The Barack Obama presidential campaign introduced a new site last week, FightTheSmears.com, that it hopes will debunk persistent myths about the senator: that he's a Muslim, that he won't say the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. As we have argued before, restating the myths often reinforces them, no matter how persuasively they've been refuted.

Rather than restate untruths about Obama, the campaign would do better to start some rumors of its own. Here's a template e-mail the Obama campaign might consider disseminating.

From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
Subject: WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American's duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones.

Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the shower.

Barack Obama says the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE every time he sees an American flag. He also ends every sentence by saying, "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL." Click here for video of Obama quietly mouthing the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE in his sleep.

A tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.

Every weekend, Barack and Michelle take their daughters HUNTING.

Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.

Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It's upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.

There's only one artist on Barack Obama's iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY.

Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American.

Barack Obama goes to church every morning. He goes to church every afternoon. He goes to church every evening. He is IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW.

Barack Obama's new airplane includes a conference room, a kitchen, and a MEGACHURCH.

Barack Obama's skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.

Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.

Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME.

Just freaking brilliant.  I started laughing hysterically at " . . . which is almost never because he is STRONG", and was in tears by "[h]e is PROUD that Jesus was an American."  Brilliant.

---

Sending Terrorists to Fight Terrorists?

The Army and Marine Corps are significantly increasing the number of recruits with felony convictions, including convictions for manslaughter, sex crimes and -- I really found this ironic -- terrorist threats, including bomb threats.  That's right -- we're so desperate for new military recruits, we're sending terrorists out to Iraq fight terrorists.

I don't have a problem allowing former felons who were convicted for non-violent crimes -- drugs, theft, sex "crimes" that involved an underage teenage boy having consensual sex with his willing underage teenage girlfriend -- to join the military.  But it concerns me that we'd allow convicted rapists and murderers and terrorists to join. 

I already know what a lot of you are going to say.  You're going to say "Good! Let the murderers and rapists get killed in Iraq instead of 18-year-olds fresh out of high school!"  I can't deny that there's a certain appeal to that argument.

Unfortunately, though, the murderers and rapists will also be out there living with the 18-year-olds fresh out of high school, who have enough problems, what with enemy combatants trying to kill them all the time.  And they'll be out there with innocent and terrified Iraqi civilians, who have enough to worry about, what with their homes and businesses and relatives and limbs being blown to bits all the time.  We've already had servicewomen (and I'm sure men too) raped and sexually abused by fellow soldiers, not to mention Iraqi civilians raped, sexually abused, murdered and tortured.  It seems inevitable that allowing convicted violent criminals into the military will increase all of those problems.

Yes, these felons have served their time in prison and are entitled to be released and rejoin society.  Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure there's a fair bit of evidence that violent criminals (especially those convicted of sex crimes) tend to be repeat violent criminals.  I don't think putting guns in their hands and bunking them with a bunch of 18 and 19-year-olds is the best idea.  Seems like we'd want to keep them away from guns and give them brooms or mops or something.

I know we're short on troops to fight the war, but I've got a better idea.  Let's end the war and bring the troops home where they belong. 

What do you think?  I freely admit I'm no expert on either violent criminals or the military.  Any experts out there want to weigh in?

Why, unfortunately, I won't be going to Western Europe any time soon

We all know the American dollar is weak.  Blah blah blah.  I'm not sure how much that means to those of you who don't travel much, so allow me to provide a rather depressing illustration. 

I took a 3-week-long trip to France in 2001.  In July 2001, if you booked a hotel room in Paris that cost 100 Euros per night, that hotel room would have cost you about $82 per night in American dollars at the then-current exchange rate. 

However, if you were to go to Paris today and book a hotel room at 100 Euros per night (and good luck with that, by the way), that hotel will cost you $158.73 per night at today's exchange rate.  That's right -- your 100 Euro hotel room would cost you $76.73 more per night than it did in July 2001 -- almost twice as many American dollars.  (Of course, hotel prices have gone up too, but we're not talking about that.  We're in an imaginary inflation-free world where 100 Euros gets you the same hotel room it got you in 2001.  Work with me here.)

The bottom line is that the dollar is worth about half as much against the Euro as it was in July 2001. 

Granted, 2001 was the high point for the dollar versus the Euro, so maybe that particular example isn't quite fair -- it resonates with me because I happened to be traveling in Europe at that time, and can't quite get over the difference.  But let's take the average exchange rate for each year between 2001 and 2007 (sticking with the 100 Euro hotel room example) so we can track the sorry trend.  In 2002, the 100 Euro hotel room would have cost you about $95.  It would have cost you about $113 in 2003, $125 in 2004 and 2005, $126 in 2006, and almost $139 in 2007.  So -- even if you compare the current exchange rate with the average rate just last year, you are still paying $20 more for a 100 Euro hotel room today than you were last year.  Gulp.

It's just as depressing to compare the British pound.  Let's say you managed to find a room for 100 pounds in London in each of the years from 2001 to 2007.  It would have cost you about $145 in 2001, $151 in 2002, $164 in 2003, $185 in 2004 through 2006, and $204 in 2007.  On the bright side, it only would have cost you $200 as of yesterday, but that's still $55 per night more than you would have paid for that hotel room in 2001, even though (at least in my imaginary inflation-free world) it is still the same amount in pounds. 

Alas.  Australia, my destination in May, isn't any better.  A hotel room that cost 100 Australian dollars would have cost me only $52 American in 2001, but will cost me $93.45 today.  Just so you know, that is the worst exchange rate since 1983 for the Australian dollar.  (As you may know, the exchange rate with regard to the Euro is by far the worst it has ever been since the introduction of the Euro in 1999.  The average exchange rate with regard to the British pound hasn't been as bad as it has been in 2007 and 2008 since 1981. )

But on the bright side, Australia looks like it is a hell of a lot cheaper than Paris or London.  OK, it's not exactly cheap, but it appears that I can still actually get a decent hotel room for 100 Australian dollars (although let it be said that I haven't seen the rooms yet  . . .), which from what I hear, I don't think is possible anymore in Paris or London.

And that, my friends, is why foreigners are buying up apartments in Manhattan in droves.  After all, a one million dollar apartment will only cost Pierre 630,000 Euros today.  A million dollar apartment would have cost him 1,220,000 Euros in July of 2001. 

God, I'm depressed.

The airline debacle

I'm really glad I'm flying to Australia on an Australian airline and not on an American airline.  Otherwise, I'd be pretty damn worried that my flight wouldn't take off.

That's not because I don't trust American airline companies.  Yes, of course I'm disturbed that there has been some corruption and some laxity with regard to FAA inspections - but I'm totally not surprised.  And I'm also not all that worried -- at least about my safety.  I am pretty damn worried about the financial health of the airlines and all of the businesses and people that depend on them. 

The fact is, there are not a whole hell of a lot of airplane accidents, compared to the number of planes that are flying.  And there are very few deaths and serious injuries.  Airlines have an incentive, outside of the inspections, to keep their planes in acceptable shape -- if the planes crash, their own personnel die, too, and they lose money.  I'm not implying that we shouldn't have inspections, but this current mess doesn't seem to be about safety, frankly, or at least not much.

It seems to me that the FAA's recent crackdown and the subsequent grounding of so many flights is, as the article I've linked above notes, "a classic bureaucratic overreaction after the agency was embarrassed by the disclosure last month that FAA inspectors were letting Southwest ignore airworthiness directives."  In other words, as Gregory Polek, a senior editor at Aviation International News, noted, airlines and consumers are "paying for the transgressions of the (FAA) office because Congress made a public spectacle about the internal conflicts that led to the Southwest Airlines fiasco."

There couldn't be a worse time for the FAA to do what it is doing.  Most of the airlines are hovering near the brink of bankruptcy as it is -- three have gone out of business in the last couple of weeks.  Between fuel prices, which have sent costs soaring, and the weak dollar and economy, which have discouraged travel, I expect to see other airlines going out of business in the approaching months -- just in time for summer travel season.

By all means, the FAA should get its act together and overhaul its inspections and its inspectors.  However, it would be nice if it didn't put all of the airlines into bankruptcy in the process.