The Freak is predicting...

Here is the best case scenario:

<p><strong>><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/">Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>

Wassup.....

In Defense of Wonks!

David Brooks wrote a column in the October 28^th NY Times entitled The Behavioral Revolution that got under my skin. I never do this, but I couldn’t help myself. I wrote him an e-mail. Here it is:

David,

You had me hot as a pistol at the beginning of your October 28th column (Human Frailty). Your assessment of public policy analysis was particularly ill-informed. Have you ever read Eugene Bardach? It may not have been part of your History curriculum at Chicago, but I have read you long enough to know that you are fairly well read. I suggest his "A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis" (first class, first semester of any good Master of Public Policy program). In it he outlines the "the Eightfold Path." The first step on that path is to "define the problem." The failure you point out with the current fiscal breakdown was not a failure of policy analysis. I'd be surprised if there were very many public policy analysts involved in the effort to deregulate the financial sector. I think that tar baby belongs to our friends from the business school.

Despite your conservative leanings, I find myself agreeing with you more than my liberal conscience is fully comfortable with. I agree that the failure was in large part due to, as Nassim Taleb asserts, "the existence of inherent limitations and flaws in the way we think and act." But this problem was not totally unforeseen. Many economists, financial and policy analysts have spoken for some time of the overly complex nature of our financial system.

Do you concede that it is possible that the system was designed by many people "engaged in calculating their self-interest" and that the lack of regulation and oversight started a snowball rolling downhill that eventually morphed beyond the control and/or understanding of financial services "industry".

I am a pretty liberal guy, but even I don't think oppressive regulation is the answer (Jamie Galbraith, eat your heart out). But how about the government create some guidelines for financial analysts to operate within that seek to simplify the process and create transparency and then get out of the way and let them run wild like the pack of savages that they are. The trade off, of course there is always a trade off, would be that violating these parameters would be a criminal act punishable by some form of disbarment (similar to the legal world) for malpractice.

---

As a post-script I will add that the role of behavioral psychology is indeed lacking in public policy analysis. But that is a failure of implementation not the system for analysis of public policy. Unfortunately policy is usually analyzed in the context of partisanship. That assumes that a bias is guiding the analysis as opposed to the analysis guiding the ideology. I agree that the fallout from the financial collapse will be an emphasis on behavioral economics and that is a good thing.

Attacks ain't working

I have found it very interesting that the guy everyone labeled as media savvy and in touch has had such a tin ear in this election cycle. McCain was able to say the right things to the right crowds in the Republican primaries. I suspect that is mostly because the Obama-Clinton race sucked all the air out of the room and few Independents crossed into the GOP race in states where that was available to them. The McCain campaign seems to not have realized this and as a result really never tacked back to center after. They went to the base pick for VP and while Sarah Palin has energized Republicans it has hurt McCain among Independents and conservative (potential) crossover Democrats. It is odd and conspicuously amateur to concede the center in a national political campaign. Particular when two of the three legs of the Republican base were already lukewarm on the idea of a McCain presidency.

McCain desperately wanted to run on heroism, honor and steady experience but it was a flawed plan from the get-go. I disagree that this is a change election and that experience was never going to win out. You can't simultaneously want to be the experienced candidate and then bash the system within which you got your experience. It reminds me of a card that my mother go my father for his birthday one year. It had a picture of a birthday cake and a woman in a bikini. On the outside it said: "This is Edith and a cake." On the inside it said: " You can't have your cake and Edith too." By trying to have it both ways, McCain has invited the idea that he is erratic.

McCain's "maverick" persona didn't help either. The fact that he has been unpredictable his entire career looked fresh and independent until it became clear that with the exception of foreign policy he really isn't that well versed on the issues. I think the fact that he has been able to work at issues from different perspectives is because he lacks the wisdom and intelligence to ask penetrating questions and base decisions on logic or reason. Instead McCain shoots from the hip and it makes him dead wrong a lot. It also means that he is right some time. McCain is right, the surge has worked from a military perspective but his lack of nuance makes it abundantly clear that he just doesn't get it that the point was to succeed militarily so the Iraqi's could succeed politically. That just has not happened. Obama may be unable to acknowledge the the military tactic of the surge succeeded, but McCain is equally unable to acknowledge that the surge failed politically.

So now we are left with an attack on personality and it just isn't connecting. Once again, McCain doesn't get it. The American people don't believe him on Ayers and ACORN. They see Obama in debates, hear his steady voice on the economy and the fact that he is utterly unflappable and they are genuinely impressed. McCain is right; if Obama wins, sunlight will not suddenly shining out of his backside. But, as the Chicago Tribune said in their endorsement, Obama "has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions."

The NY Times poll on negative attacks showed that they are hurting McCain. Here is the chart:


That ain't nothing. Being bi-partisan is often confused with abandoning your ideological bearings. That is wrongheaded and ultimately very unappealing in a leader. I think Americans want a leader who holds his ideological beliefs as sacred but isn't stubborn and can work with people who think differently. McCain has shown that ability, but his lack of command of the fundamentals on major issues is a problem I believe he would listen to a bunch of experts that hold different positions on an issue, like economics, and he would be paralyzed by the lack of consensus. Obama has the ability to listen to a bunch of people who differ, ask hard questions on issues that he is not an expert in and build consensus. We need conservative and liberal voices. They all need to be heard. But we then need a President that focuses that energy. That is leadership. That is what America needs.

Da Bears!!!

The Chicago Tribune is on board the Barry Express as well! It isn’t everyday that a conservative paper (which I tend to enjoy picking up as I pass through O’Hare International Airport in Chicago) endorses a liberal Democrat. That is the nature of the world we live in. In their endorsement they said:

“We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

“We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.”

They don’t really need to say any more than that, do they?

But they do! They also say:

“Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.”

“We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.

“We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus.”

“When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.”

“It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.”

Very powerful indeed. This type of faith in the “better angels of our nature” is very Lincolnesque indeed!

LAT weighs in...

The Los Angeles Times has weighed in. They have endorsed Barack Obama for President, saying:

“The excitement of Obama's early campaign was amplified by that newness. But as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama's character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity.”

“…the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory.”

“Obama's selection also was telling. He might have scored a steeper bump in the polls by making a more dramatic choice than the capable and experienced Joe Biden. But for all the excitement of his own candidacy, Obama has offered more competence than drama.”

“We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.”

Nicely said from a newspaper that has gone from “world class” to “world class joke” in a decade. Maybe the LA Times is turning things around. One can always hope. It could not get much worse.

Up and running on the run!

A new wrinkle for the Freak is the ability to post to the blog on the fly. I have lots to say and no time to type it. I owe a piece on the two campaign economic plans that came out this week vs. what the Bush administration for been proposing. I will get to that over the weekend.

I am sorry to say, but the Freak has been on something of a macroeconomic jaunt of late. That will probably taint the blog to some extent.

Lastly, the debates are over and I have only one observation. Why can't McCain complete sentences before moving on to his next talking point. His lack of ease makes it clear that he has memorized talking points and has no command of economic principles. Very unimpressive. Obama didn't say much, but he didn't have to. Why paint yourself into a corner with one specific plan when your opponent is content to beat himself?

This is all for now!

Freak... ...out!

Obama's Economic Plan for the Mortgage/Credit Crisis

Here is an overview of the Obama Plan.  I will have comment in the coming days.  I addition, I will post John McCain's plan when they release it.

Job Creation: A New American Jobs Tax Credit. Obama is calling for a temporary tax credit for firms that create new jobs in the United States over the next two years. 

Relief to Families: Penalty-Free Withdrawals from IRAs and 401(k)s in 2008 and 2009. Obama is calling for new legislation to allow families to withdraw 15% of their retirement savings – up to a maximum of $10,000 – without facing a tax-penalty this year (including retroactively) and next year.  

Relief to Homeowners: 90 day foreclosure moratorium for homeowners that are acting in good faith. Financial institutions that participate in the Treasury’s financial rescue plan should be required to adhere to a homeowners code of conduct, including a 90-day foreclosure moratorium for any homeowners living in their homes that are making good faith efforts pay their mortgages.

Responding to the Financial Crisis: A Lending Facility to Address the Credit Crisis for States and Localities. Obama is calling on the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to work to establish a facility to lend to state and municipal governments, similar to the steps the Fed recently took to provide liquidity to the commercial paper market.

The sun!

Some cool pictures of the sun...

Oh Yes We Can!

Or...

John.he.is

Sarah Silverman... on the nose!

False hope?

"We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." - Senator Barack Obama

Yes We Can! - a reminder...

Sometimes it is important to remember what we are all talking about. It is important to remember what is at stake and that words do, in fact, matter very much! Hope and Changes may be jokes to the chorus of Republican screaming faces as they cower in a corner knowing that their days in power are numbered.

Barack Obama’s New Hampshire Primary Speech

The following is a transcript of Senator Barack Obama's speech to supporters after the New Hampshire primary, as provided by CQ Transcriptions via The Associated Press.

BARACK OBAMA: Thank you, New Hampshire. I love you back. Thank you. Thank you.

Well, thank you so much. I am still fired up and ready to go. (APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you.

Well, first of all, I want to congratulate Senator Clinton on a hard-fought victory here in New Hampshire. She did an outstanding job. Give her a big round of applause.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, a few weeks ago, no one imagined that we'd have accomplished what we did here tonight in New Hampshire. No one could have imagined it.

For most of this campaign, we were far behind. We always knew our climb would be steep. But in record numbers, you came out, and you spoke up for change.

And with your voices and your votes, you made it clear that at this moment, in this election, there is something happening in America.

(APPLAUSE)

There is something happening when men and women in Des Moines and Davenport, in Lebanon and Concord, come out in the snows of January to wait in lines that stretch block after block because they believe in what this country can be.

There is something happening. There's something happening when Americans who are young in age and in spirit, who've never participated in politics before, turn out in numbers we have never seen because they know in their hearts that this time must be different.

There's something happening when people vote not just for party that they belong to, but the hopes that they hold in common.

And whether we are rich or poor, black or white, Latino or Asian, whether we hail from Iowa or New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina, we are ready to take this country in a fundamentally new direction.

That's what's happening in America right now; change is what's happening in America.

You, all of you who are here tonight, all who put so much heart and soul and work into this campaign, you can be the new majority who can lead this nation out of a long political darkness.

Democrats, independents and Republicans who are tired of the division and distraction that has clouded Washington, who know that we can disagree without being disagreeable, who understand that, if we mobilize our voices to challenge the money and influence that stood in our way and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there is no problem we cannot solve, there is no destiny that we cannot fulfill. Our new American majority can end the outrage of unaffordable, unavailable health care in our time. We can bring doctors and patients, workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans together, and we can tell the drug and insurance industry that, while they get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair, not this time, not now.

(APPLAUSE)

Our new majority can end the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and put a middle-class tax cut in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it.

We can stop sending our children to schools with corridors of shame and start putting them on a pathway to success.

We can stop talking about how great teachers are and start rewarding them for their greatness by giving them more pay and more support. We can do this with our new majority.

We can harness the ingenuity of farmers and scientists, citizens and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil and save our planet from a point of no return.

And when I am president of the United States, we will end this war in Iraq and bring our troops home.

(APPLAUSE)

We will end this war in Iraq. We will bring our troops home. We will finish the job -- we will finish the job against Al Qaida in Afghanistan. We will care for our veterans. We will restore our moral standing in the world.

And we will never use 9/11 as a way to scare up votes, because it is not a tactic to win an election. It is a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear weapons, climate change and poverty, genocide and disease.

All of the candidates in this race share these goals. All of the candidates in this race have good ideas and all are patriots who serve this country honorably.

(APPLAUSE)

But the reason our campaign has always been different, the reason we began this improbable journey almost a year ago is because it's not just about what I will do as president. It is also about what you, the people who love this country, the citizens of the United States of America, can do to change it.

That's what this election is all about.

That's why tonight belongs to you. It belongs to the organizers, and the volunteers, and the staff who believed in this journey and rallied so many others to join the cause.

We know the battle ahead will be long. But always remember that, no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. And they will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks and months to come.

We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

(APPLAUSE)

For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can.

It was the call of workers who organized, women who reached for the ballot, a president who chose the moon as our new frontier, and a king who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land: Yes, we can, to justice and equality.

Yes, we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world. Yes, we can.

And so, tomorrow, as we take the campaign south and west, as we learn that the struggles of the textile workers in Spartanburg are not so different than the plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas, that the hopes of the little girl who goes to the crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of L.A., we will remember that there is something happening in America, that we are not as divided as our politics suggest, that we are one people, we are one nation.

And, together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story, with three words that will ring from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea: Yes, we can.

Thank you, New Hampshire. Thank you. Thank you.

It's the end of the World as we know it, and I feel fine!!!

It's been a long week!


Who wants a martini?

An old fashioned ass-whipping!

Sorry for being MIA on blogging lately. I have a lot of thoughts and not enough time... Here is Andrew Sullivan's live blog from the Atlantic Monthly. Quite astute observations. I agree, Obama kicked the snot out of McCain tonight.

------

10.33 pm. This was, I think, a mauling: a devastating and possibly electorally fatal debate for McCain. Even on Russia, he sounded a little out of it. I've watched a lot of debates and participated in many. I love debate and was trained as a boy in the British system to be a debater. I debated dozens of times at Oxofrd. All I can say is that, simply on terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this has not just been an Obama victory. It has been a wipe-out.It has been about as big a wipe-out as I can remember in a presidential debate. It reminds me of the 1992 Clinton-Perot-Bush debate. I don't really see how the McCain campaign survives this.

10.26 pm. Israel and Iran: I'm relieved that this question is raised. It's the hardest question the next president will have to face. I honestly feel very conflicted about this. I want to know how these candidates will react. McCain's invocation of a "league of democracies" as the answer is a little bizarre. Obama's answer was very political and very persuasive. I just don't believe we can stop Iran, although Obama's answer on gasoline imports was specific and smart. He won the exchange, but he didn't convince me. I wish he had.

10.15 pm. This is Obama's sucker-punch. "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Ouch. Pow. Oof. Nothing aloof about that right hook.

10.11 pm. "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda." This is a Democratic candidate. Can you remember the last one who used rhetoric like that on national security?

10.07 pm. McCain's response on the surge and genocide was a good one. I'm not sure that the surge has solved anything rather than simply freezing the civil war in place, but he has a decent moral point on this. But Obama's measured mix of moral concern with pragmatic alliance-building was very strong. It's really a return to Niebuhrian realism.

10.02 pm. It would have been a strong moment for McCain when he cited "no on the job training" in the White House. And then he picked Palin! She can't even hold a press conference and he thinks she can be trusted with national security at a moment's notice. It makes no sense.

9.59 pm. On CNN, Obama has reached the maximum with women voters a few times and literally couldn't go up any further. The gender gap is very powerful in these debate insta-reax polls at least. Even Palin ran well behind with women.

9.56 pm. Mandates? I thought I sat through countless debates with Hillary when Obama was opposed to mandates, while Hillary was in favor of them. His response about his mother was very powerful.

9.55 pm. Hair transplants? Where on earth did that come from?

9.54 pm. McCain: "Obama will find you." He's treating him like the Boogeyman. People know he isn't. So it just makes McCain look paranoid.

9.51 pm. Why is McCain wandering around the stage while Obama is talking? It's weird. He looks like an old man pacing aimlessly. And he doesn't look at Obama while Obama talks the way Obama looks at him when McCain talks. This is not that important but I don't think it helps McCain.

9.49 pm. Two flashes from McCain so far: "that one," referring to Obama, and citing Obama's "secret." Nasty, uncivil and not even effective.

9.48 pm. The format: I'm surprised because frankly, I think this format is helping Obama, especially since it emphasizes movement. And Obama is physically very fluent. McCain sadly is.

9.42 pm. I like McCain on social security. The old pre-Rove McCain was someone I loved. But I can't trust him on this any more after this campaign, I'm afraid. Alas: "have a commission" is a little lame as an answer.

9.41 pm. Obama got a little muddled on taxes there.

9.38 pm. Memo to McCain: don't talk about Herbert Hoover. The Abraham Simpson problem.

9.33 pm. Obama's response on the question of sacrifice of citizens was out of the park. He was able to ask for sacrifice without seeming like a scold or a doom-monger. That's tough. And his insistence that he too favors off-shore drilling and reveres military service and wants others to shoulder the burden now uniquely born by the military was exactly right. This is overwhelmingly now in Obama's favor.

9.29 pm. Good for McCain on tackling earmarks. But he knows this is trivial in the context of the entire federal budget. I have to say that Obama is winning this so far on substance, crispness and authority.

9.25 pm. Kudos to McCain on entitlement reform. But his refusal to prioritize among healthcare, energy and entitlement reform and insist we can do everything at once did not sound like a decisive and clear leader.

9.21 pm. Obama's riff on the Republican fiscal profligacy was important. It's vital not to forget the Republican responsibility for our fiscal mess.

9.17 pm. McCain is at least looking at Obama. Alas, when he walks around, he seems a little older than he does at a podium. This isn't his fault. But the age and generational factor seems more pronounced tonight.I thnk it's a mistake to attack "Obama's cronies". It seemed partisan and negative when people want constructive solutions.

9.14 pm. So far, Obama is walking away with this. I'm a little stunned that McCain's first response to the financial crisis was to cite energy independence, a policy where both candidates are closely aligned. But Obama has also put in a couple of jabs that seemed off to me. The winner will be the man who addresses the concrete issues in a way that most people can understand. So far, Obama is winning that. But he's been a little off in challenging McCain.

Turns out that Gordon was full of it...

What we need now are more secret rooms...

The political and economic worlds are fascinating of late.  I must admit, though, that I am watching this all unfold rather dispassionately, knowing that my investments are mostly in S&P and International Stock funds and that they are not going anywhere for 35 years.  

 

I enjoyed being able to take a week off focusing on the election to focus on the economy, which is far and away more interesting.  I was quietly supportive of the approach being pursued, until I read the plan.  Hank Paulson is a bright guy, but he is still a robber baron of the banking industry and I must admit the plan reads like using Republican ideas (bailout blind behind closed doors) to fix a Republican economic strategy failure (de-regulation and evisceration of what regulatory agencies are left standing).  Paul Krugman in today's NY Times gets it quite right.  They are proposing to attack the wrong component of the problem and they are doing it in an un-transparent (is that a word?  How about opaque) manner that runs contrary to what investors need right now.  The market thrives on security.  It is why we got into this mess in the first place.  Bankers were trying to artificially minimize risk.  It turns out that this mitigation was really only superficial and not tactile.  The big problem is that no one knew how the whole house of cards system worked.  Certain people knew how certain facets worked, but no one had command of the entire problem.  We don’t necessarily need more regulation but we do need laws that prohibit the market from tying itself in such an idiotic and inept snare again.  The last thing we should do is empower the Treasury Secretary to go off and spend upwards of $700 billion without any agency or Congress being able to ask any questions en route.  Bad news!  

 

We'll see if Congress can fix the bill or if they will just gum it up even worse.  I have heard some good proposals (executive compensation concessions) and some really idiotic ones (tax increases to offset this expenditure).  I am totally opposed to passing the proposed legislation as drafted by the Bush administration.  They talk about urgency, like they talked about the urgency of passing the PATRIOT Act and the Authorization for the use of force in Iraq.  I say slow down, and if desperate Congressmen and women are a week late getting home to campaign; tough beans!

Words to live by...

...from a great man of Massachusetts!

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Macro-hoo ha!

My Republican friend sent me an e-mail with his "tax plan."

Tax:
-Eliminate all corporate subsidies for profitable companies
-Do not raise cap gain taxes
-Lower taxes across the board for Upper and Middle Classes(in lieu of the Bush tax cuts being eliminated.)
-Lower corporate taxes, only Japan has a higher tax rate......

I respond with a Teddy Roosevelt quote:

"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective - a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
- Theodore Roosevelt Osawatomie, Kansas on August 31, 1910

He then responded by saying:

“income reallocation = Marxism...”

Now, I love when people use words they don't understand... I responded with:

Holy oversimplification Batman! That is like a CNN assessment. Thank you, Brett, for breaking the tenets of Marxism into a soundbyte, which, while entirely worthless and factually inaccurate, is tasty and easy to digest.

If I was going to break Marxism into a one sentence soundbyte, I might prefer to say that it is:

Marxism = A belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production and that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support.

There is no macroeconomic theory there. You are likely referring to Socialism. Marxism is sociological, anthropological, and philosophical theory.

You call Socialism wealth redistribution. A Marxist would say that it is workers simply laying claim to just compensation for the one part of the capitalist process that they own. That is the Labor Theory of Value, in case you were curious.

Marxism is generally wishful thinking, pie in the sky, rubbish, but the Labor Theory of Value is spot on and quite compatible with the Capitalist system.

Henry Ford (and no one would dare call him anything but a Capitalist) understood this when he voluntarily paid his employees a living wage and reduced the length of their work week. The Wall Street Journal called him a Communist. The joke was on them. He bred loyalty in his workforce and by paying them well he expanded the market for automobile ownership.
I do not believe that humans are capable of a Marxist system. It neglects the flaw of humanity, which is inherent greed. Social democracy on the other hand is a system of fairly compensating workers (without whom the Capitalist system would fail) for their role in society. Social democracy calls for living wages, adequate work-life balance, universal health care…

But I am wasting my breath on you. You are a social Darwinist and believe that everyone should be able to succeed like you succeeded. You ignore, like Ford's critics, that the tenets of social-Capitalism or social democracy are in the interests of all and that when done in unison a rising tide really could lift all boats. It means that the rich have to pay a higher percentage. The rich get richer and the poor move out of poverty creating a whole new class of consumers for the shit the rich people make and sell.

…

Your thoughts?

A thought that will fester for a while

That I am an unabashed fan of the Kennedy family is no secret. They are the definition of public service. Born with all the privileges in the world, they fought not for more wealth or the interests of the rich but rather for the silent majority. That Ted Kennedy has endorsed Senator Obama and says he sees the spirit of his brothers in him is a huge endorsement in my opinion. I am a huge fan of Robert Kennedy, Jr. and his work with the River Keepers, the Natural Resources Defense Council and his writings. That he found his passion for environmental policy while doing Court mandated community service to make amends for youthful failings and has turned it into his life's crusade is noble and honorable! Here are his thoughts of the Rube quoting Westbrook Pegler in her convention and stump speech:

Governor Palin’s Reading List

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that ‘some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies.’

“It might be worth asking Governor Palin for a tally of the other favorites from her reading list.”

What an admirable person to want to quote in her speech. In the Rube’s defense; she has no idea who Westbrook Pegler is, she has never read any of his writings, she probably doesn’t read anything at all. For those that missed it, I recommend reading the cover article on the Rube in last Sunday’s New York Times. A particularly important snippet dealing with the Rube’s efforts to ban books from the Wasilla is particularly poignant here:

“The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

“’People would bring books back censored,’ recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. ‘Pages would get marked up or torn out.’

“Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

“But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book ‘Daddy’s Roommate’ on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“’Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,’ Ms. Chase said. ‘It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.’

“’I’m still proud of Sarah,’ she added, ‘but she scares the bejeebers out of me.’”

I think the thing that I take away from this new information is two fold. First, I could never, ever, ever support a candidate who wants to ban books for being immoral. Second, if you want to ban a book you should probably have read it, know what it is about AND (not or) be able to explain your moral objections.

Don’t be a wuss, Rube! You hate gay people. But honestly, if those are your beliefs, stand by them! Do you truly lack the intestinal fortitude to stand by your beliefs? Can you really be trusted to stand firm in the face of Putin if you shrink away from your homophobia? Stand up, Rube! Stand firm! Anything less would be to fail to live up to the standard of Westbrook Pegler, your inspirational standard bearer and moral compass!