Wow. The political theatre that is Rod Blagojevich. The Illinois Governor just held his press conference to announce that he will appoint former State Attorney General Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.
Blagojevich has incredible chuztpah. He spoke at that podium as though he were a celebrity, not notoriously corrupt. The press went NUTS questioning poor Burris and the Governor.
Then, out of nowhere, Burris says he sees Rep. Bobby Rush in the crowd and Rush wades through the crowd to make an impromptu endorsement of Burris. I can only imagine that Blagojevich hopes that creating more circus will give him more breathing room. Its an amazing soap opera he's made of the office.
UPDATE: Wow. The evening news shows are ravenously chasing their tails on this spectacle. Host: "Can Rod Blagojevich DO this???" Pundit A: "Look, Burris is a DECENT GUY!!" Host: "Maybe so but, Pundit B, can Blagojevich DO this???" Pundit B: "They've injected race into the issue!!" Lots of exclamation. Lots.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Putting real faces on the Madoff scandal
A lot of the Wall Street meltdown seems miles away, especially if you have a 401k account that you don't intend to touch for 40 or so years. Or if you don't have a 401k at all.
But it is interesting to put some meaningful faces on the losses suffered by some of the Madoff investors. Per Smart Money, here are some of the standouts:
Entity: Support Organization for the Madison Cultural Arts District
Exposure: $18 million invested with Fairfield Greenwich until September
Date of disclosure: Dec. 19
Notes: A spokesman for the Overture Center in Madison, Wis., built with SOMCAD funds, said, "Speculation that SOMCAD could be on the hook is not outlandish."
Entity: JEHT Foundation
Exposure: n/a
Date of disclosure: Dec. 16
Notes: The foundation stopped all grant-making and plans to shut down at the end of January. Its major donors had essentially all their money invested with the Madoff firm. Grant recipients had included Human Rights First and the Michigan Department of Corrections, Make Voting Work and theInnocence Project.
Entity: Wunderkinder Foundation
Exposure: Steven Spielberg confirmed the foundation sustained losses.
Date of disclosure: Dec. 15
(more on this here)
And from People.com, it looks as though celebrity couple Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgewick have also lost substantial amounts of money. I wonder how much a couple of Golden Globe noms are worth.
But it is interesting to put some meaningful faces on the losses suffered by some of the Madoff investors. Per Smart Money, here are some of the standouts:
Entity: Support Organization for the Madison Cultural Arts District
Exposure: $18 million invested with Fairfield Greenwich until September
Date of disclosure: Dec. 19
Notes: A spokesman for the Overture Center in Madison, Wis., built with SOMCAD funds, said, "Speculation that SOMCAD could be on the hook is not outlandish."
Entity: JEHT Foundation
Exposure: n/a
Date of disclosure: Dec. 16
Notes: The foundation stopped all grant-making and plans to shut down at the end of January. Its major donors had essentially all their money invested with the Madoff firm. Grant recipients had included Human Rights First and the Michigan Department of Corrections, Make Voting Work and theInnocence Project.
Entity: Wunderkinder Foundation
Exposure: Steven Spielberg confirmed the foundation sustained losses.
Date of disclosure: Dec. 15
And from People.com, it looks as though celebrity couple Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgewick have also lost substantial amounts of money. I wonder how much a couple of Golden Globe noms are worth.
Monday, December 08, 2008
A peak at a career in politics
Been laid off? Lacking job security? It really seems like the best move for you is to get into politics.
There is apparently nothing you can do to ruin your reputation permanently. And the perks? Even if you're not the elected official, they're apparently FANTASTIC. Take a look at these perks received by former Republican aid and Abramoff payola recipient Trevor Blackann:
- a free trip to Game 1 of the 2003 World Series in New York.
- airline travel to and from New York City.
- a ticket to the game.
- admission to, and entertainment at, a "gentleman's club" for the married aide.
- one-night accommodations in an "upscale" hotel.
- transportation in a chauffeured SUV.
- a souvenir baseball jersey.
- free meals and drinks.
All that just for getting his boss, Missouri Rep. Kit Bond, to write a letter of support for a guy trying to get an appointment to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Beats the hell out of the company party you just went to, eh?
(Tip of the hat to Rob on this one.)
There is apparently nothing you can do to ruin your reputation permanently. And the perks? Even if you're not the elected official, they're apparently FANTASTIC. Take a look at these perks received by former Republican aid and Abramoff payola recipient Trevor Blackann:
- a free trip to Game 1 of the 2003 World Series in New York.
- airline travel to and from New York City.
- a ticket to the game.
- admission to, and entertainment at, a "gentleman's club" for the married aide.
- one-night accommodations in an "upscale" hotel.
- transportation in a chauffeured SUV.
- a souvenir baseball jersey.
- free meals and drinks.
All that just for getting his boss, Missouri Rep. Kit Bond, to write a letter of support for a guy trying to get an appointment to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Beats the hell out of the company party you just went to, eh?
(Tip of the hat to Rob on this one.)
Krugman, the economic touchstone
If you're like me, you try to follow the news about the economy, digest it, wrap your head around it, all in real time. But its the economy and you ain't THAT bright so eventually you start lagging behind. Admit it.
When you find yourself swirling, lost in that economic punchbowl of confusion, I invite you to read Paul Krugman, if you don't already. His interview on Salon.com on Friday was one of those great opportunities to catch up. Some choice thoughts on the idea du jour that we should just let these failing businesses fail:
When you find yourself swirling, lost in that economic punchbowl of confusion, I invite you to read Paul Krugman, if you don't already. His interview on Salon.com on Friday was one of those great opportunities to catch up. Some choice thoughts on the idea du jour that we should just let these failing businesses fail:
There's kind of a weird double-think involved in arguments that the slump should be allowed to follow its natural course. It's true that classical economics says that we should let market forces do their work; but classical economics also says that severe recessions can't happen [my emphasis]. This idea that we must not intervene is based on a worldview that is refuted by the very fact that the economy is in the mess it's in.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Liberal hand-wringing over Obama appointments
I am a liberal progressive sushi-eating anti-war Democrat and I like Barack Obama's appointments to-date.
There. I needed it stated somewhere.
Am I the only self-described progressive who is OK with the Obama-admin-to-be? I keep hearing the commentariate talk about how all of us are just groaning with each new nomination. Are you groaning? Are you wailing about how Obama is abandoning the movement? Are you lamenting that Obama is ignoring the progressive MANDATE that his election proves?
If you are, I think A) you're a little bit full of crap, and B) you do not speak for me.
Yes, Barack Obama's election was a rejection of the Bush administration. It does not follow that his election is an embrace of progressive ideology. There are not two choices: Bush or Progressive. In this election, there was Bush and Other. The country chose Other.
Certainly the string of Democratic victories (can two cycles be called a "string of victories"?) can be seen as a continuing rejection of Bush. But what exactly about Bush are the voters rejecting? Fundamentalism in government? Neoconservativism? Free-market capitalism?
See, I've been hearing the punditocracy speaking for Progressives. They say that we say that Obama's election means that voters reject all of it. I think that's dumb.
Some voters are rejecting capitalism without regulation. Not capitalism in toto.
Some voters are rejecting evangelical ideology in place of policy. Not religion in government.
Some voters are rejecting cowboy interventionist policy. They've not become peaceniks.
Barack Obama and John McCain became the nominees of their respective parties because they promised to move away from partisan politics. They did not promise to reverse the polarity of the current brand of partisanship in Washington. Obama is making sense-based nominations. (Imagine: nominating an Ambassador to the UN who thinks it is a relevant body!) He is not balancing one Republican for every Democrat.
In general, I'm happy and comfortable and comforted by the decisions the President-Elect is making.
And while we're at it, let us remember that the man isn't actually President yet. Let's refrain from piling on what we think he is going to do. Please?
There. I needed it stated somewhere.
Am I the only self-described progressive who is OK with the Obama-admin-to-be? I keep hearing the commentariate talk about how all of us are just groaning with each new nomination. Are you groaning? Are you wailing about how Obama is abandoning the movement? Are you lamenting that Obama is ignoring the progressive MANDATE that his election proves?
If you are, I think A) you're a little bit full of crap, and B) you do not speak for me.
Yes, Barack Obama's election was a rejection of the Bush administration. It does not follow that his election is an embrace of progressive ideology. There are not two choices: Bush or Progressive. In this election, there was Bush and Other. The country chose Other.
Certainly the string of Democratic victories (can two cycles be called a "string of victories"?) can be seen as a continuing rejection of Bush. But what exactly about Bush are the voters rejecting? Fundamentalism in government? Neoconservativism? Free-market capitalism?
See, I've been hearing the punditocracy speaking for Progressives. They say that we say that Obama's election means that voters reject all of it. I think that's dumb.
Some voters are rejecting capitalism without regulation. Not capitalism in toto.
Some voters are rejecting evangelical ideology in place of policy. Not religion in government.
Some voters are rejecting cowboy interventionist policy. They've not become peaceniks.
Barack Obama and John McCain became the nominees of their respective parties because they promised to move away from partisan politics. They did not promise to reverse the polarity of the current brand of partisanship in Washington. Obama is making sense-based nominations. (Imagine: nominating an Ambassador to the UN who thinks it is a relevant body!) He is not balancing one Republican for every Democrat.
In general, I'm happy and comfortable and comforted by the decisions the President-Elect is making.
And while we're at it, let us remember that the man isn't actually President yet. Let's refrain from piling on what we think he is going to do. Please?
New host chosen for Meet the Press
The Huffington Post is reporting that NBC has chosen David Gregory to be the new host of Meet the Press. Incredibly disappointing decision.
I first observed David Gregory in his role as a bland substitute for Matt Lauer on the Today show and have watched him over the course of this election season. His show Race to the White House (now dubbed 1600) was only a temporary relief from Tucker Carlson's hour-long indulgence in self-promotion. In it, Gregory continued to demonstrate his bland demeanor. His occasional flashes of aggression seemed forced, arbitrary, and intended to add sizzle, not value.
Now, despite the (deserved) criticism that Tim Russert engendered from progressives for dropping the ball in the run up to the war, I loved to watch the man . It wasn't that Russert was especially penetrating in his interviews. While obviously well-studied, Russert would never engage in the sort of penetrating journalism that could change the narrative his guests were promoting. Rather, the joy in watching Tim Russert's Meet the Press was in watching a man who clearly LOVED history and politics and America draw out the story of the day and put it into some context. You knew that Russert had that Capraesque sense of patriotism that was informed by education, worldliness and a passionate love of the process. This new appointment suggests that David Gregory is remotely capable of filling those shoes. He is not.
It will be interesting to see if MSNBC replaces Gregory as host of 1600. Mika Brzezninski, the oft-bulldozed sidekick of Morning Joe, has stepped in frequently as a fill in host for Gregory. I like her, though she clearly needs to overcome an aw-sucks persona whose primary goal is apparently to keep her guests from fighting or saying anything too extreme. It comes off as unintelligent and a matronly cliche. She can do better in the host role. Lets hope she delivers, and takes some notes from Rachel Maddow.
I first observed David Gregory in his role as a bland substitute for Matt Lauer on the Today show and have watched him over the course of this election season. His show Race to the White House (now dubbed 1600) was only a temporary relief from Tucker Carlson's hour-long indulgence in self-promotion. In it, Gregory continued to demonstrate his bland demeanor. His occasional flashes of aggression seemed forced, arbitrary, and intended to add sizzle, not value.
Now, despite the (deserved) criticism that Tim Russert engendered from progressives for dropping the ball in the run up to the war, I loved to watch the man . It wasn't that Russert was especially penetrating in his interviews. While obviously well-studied, Russert would never engage in the sort of penetrating journalism that could change the narrative his guests were promoting. Rather, the joy in watching Tim Russert's Meet the Press was in watching a man who clearly LOVED history and politics and America draw out the story of the day and put it into some context. You knew that Russert had that Capraesque sense of patriotism that was informed by education, worldliness and a passionate love of the process. This new appointment suggests that David Gregory is remotely capable of filling those shoes. He is not.
It will be interesting to see if MSNBC replaces Gregory as host of 1600. Mika Brzezninski, the oft-bulldozed sidekick of Morning Joe, has stepped in frequently as a fill in host for Gregory. I like her, though she clearly needs to overcome an aw-sucks persona whose primary goal is apparently to keep her guests from fighting or saying anything too extreme. It comes off as unintelligent and a matronly cliche. She can do better in the host role. Lets hope she delivers, and takes some notes from Rachel Maddow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
