I'm just sayin...

If I have to hear one more report on what Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor yesterday, I'm going to throw a brick at the TV. It isn't important right now. And on that note, I'm taking my daughter to dance class.

NOTE: For the record, Pelosi's speech was stupid, useless, and was the beginning of the end of all the warm feelings I had about Congress' weekend of real, hard work.

Addressing the root cause

So here's what no one is reporting and DESPERATELY needs to be communicated to people: what is the root cause of the devaluation of mortgage-backed securities and why don't we address THAT problem?

Well, maybe not no one. NPR's Chris Arnold reports talks to several economists who think that we can be more productive in our bailout measures if we try to salvage securities by readjusting mortgages. Its not a new notion, but can someone explain to me why the GOP is opposed to restructuring mortgages for people who are able to pay them? FDIC chief Sheila Bair took that approach when her agency took over Indie Mac, and its been working.

Instead of bitching about how crap the Paulson bill was on arrival at Capitol Hill, perhaps we should all take the time to get educated on this issue and tell our elected officials how we want them to solve the problem.

And - seriously - please explain to me why we don't want to restructure these mortgages?

If it looks fishy even to the banking industry...

In our current crisis, here's a new rule of thumb: if even the financial services industry would suspect fraud and launch an investigation, its probably stinks.

According to The BRAD BLOG's reporting of the voter fraud case King Lincoln vs. OH Sec. of State and the testimony of GOP's cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonamore:

...control of Ohio's election system by [GOP IT Consultant Michael] Connell's firm, may have allowed for the compromise of election results as they were being reported. The structure of the system,as results were allowed to be first diverted to Connell's servers that night, would have been "cause to launch an immediate fraud investigation" in the banking industry.

Whether you think claims of voter fraud stem from sour grapes or valid concerns, as long as these cases have merit in our legal system, we need to keep them highly visible, get them resolved and have some strong vote security measures implemented on a national level if we want to restore our role in the world as a beacon of democracy.

Why the GOP rejected this bill

From Crooks and Liars » Barney Frank: Because Someone Hurt The Republicans Feelings They Decide To Punish The Country

(thanks, Rob)

Yeah, in an election where both Dems and Repubs couldn't get far enough away from Bush if they took a LEAR JET, it was Nancy Pelosi's insult of the Pres that kept the GOP from supporting this bill. Perhaps they have a bridge they'd like to sell us.

The problem: support for this bill was lacking on a bi-partisan level. You can blame one or the other party for not following through with whatever machinations could have gotten this thing passed, but the bottom line was that the electorate was not convinced that this bill was in THEIR best interests.

UPDATE: GIVE. ME. A. BREAK. This morning, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) is saying he is "incredibly dissapointed" that 2/3 of House Republicans voted against this bill when "60% of House Democrats" voted for this bill. Is there some psychology that says a number seems more positive as a percentage than as a fraction? Both parties balked. Suck on it, Moran.

In honor of the new christening

Have you heard about them but not sure what they are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exurbs

Paul Krugman's take on the bill - BEFORE and AFTER defeat

BEFORE:

Bailout questions answered

I'm being asked two big questions about this thing: (1) Was it really necessary? (2) Shouldn't Dems have tossed the whole Paulson approach out the window and done something completely different?

On (1), the answer is yes. It's true that some parts of the real economy are doing OK even in the face of financial disruption; big companies can still sell bonds (and have lots of cash on hand), qualifying home buyers can still get Fannie-Freddie mortgages, and so on. But commercial paper, which is important to a lot of businesses, is in trouble, and I'm hearing anecdotes about reduced credit lines causing smaller businesses to pull back. Plus there's a serious chance of a run on the hedge funds, which could make things a lot worse. With the economy already looking like it's headed into a serious recession by any definition, the risks of doing nothing look too high.

It's true that we might be able to stagger through with more case-by-case rescues ― I think of this as the "two, three, many AIGs" strategy; in fact, we might not be at this point if Paulson hadn't decided to make an example of Lehman. But right now it's not even clear who to rescue, and the credit markets are freezing up as you read this (1-month t-bill at 0.04 %, TED spread at 3.5)

On (2), the call is tougher. But putting myself in Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi's shoes, I'd look at it this way: the Democrats could start over, with a bailout plan that is, say, centered on purchases of preferred stock and takeovers of failing firms ― basically, a plan clearly focused on recapitalizing the financial sector, with nationalization where necessary. That's what the plan should have looked like.

Maybe such a plan would have passed Congress; and maybe, just maybe Bush would have signed on; Paulson is certainly desperate for a deal.

But such a plan would have had next to no Republican votes ― and the Republicans would have demagogued against it full tilt. And the Democratic leadership cannot, cannot, be seen to have sole ownership of this stuff.

So that, I think, is why it had to be done this way. I don't like it, and I don't like the plan, but I see the constraints under which Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, and Reid were operating.

AND AFTER:

OK, we are a banana republic

House votes no. Rex Nutting has the best line: House to Wall Street: Drop Dead. He also correctly places the blame and/or credit with House Republicans. For reasons I've already explained, I don't think the Dem leadership was in a position to craft a bill that would have achieved overwhelming Democratic support, so make or break was whether enough GOPers would sign on. They didn't.

I assume Pelosi calls a new vote; but if it fails, then what? I guess write a bill that is actually, you know, a good plan, and try to pass it ― though politically it might not make sense to try until after the election.

For now, I'm just going to quote myself:

So what we now have is non-functional government in the face of a major crisis, because Congress includes a quorum of crazies and nobody trusts the White House an inch.
As a friend said last night, we've become a banana republic with nukes.

Carbon Offsets: a green red herring

Do you know what a carbon offset ACTUALLY is? Check out this great interview with Peter Schweizer arguing that carbon offsets are simply a way for people with money to outsource their moral obligation to be more green.

See, here's the thing: global warming is a symptom of more than carbon overuse. Its part of a larger habit of consumption that is killing us. When will we get it? All the carbon offsets in the world won't help us if we continue to need more house, more car, new clothes, new furniture, better bargains, more stuff. Newer. More. Both antithesis to reduce, reuse, recycle, conserve.

Do You Need Another Reason to Buy American?

Toxic toys. Disintegrating tires. Poisoned toothpaste, pet food, and human food. Deadly baby formula. These are just the newest reasons not to buy MADE IN CHINA. But what about the other reasons? They've been there all along.

Outsourcing of American jobs. Loss of livable wages. Profit-at-any-cost corporations. Walmartification and the death of local business. Lack of quality control (um, YEAH). If you think all of those things aren't inextricably tied to MADE IN CHINA then, baby, you're just kidding yourself.

Did you need the FDA to tell you that buying from China was putting savings above safety, quality and even your health? Your family's health? You didn't, really. You knew it. Cheap food, cheap toys, cheap tablecloths are all products of corner-cutting, and China is at the top of that heap. Add to that the environmental impact of all those American dollars being sent to companies who demonstrate their value in their willingness to pollute with impunity.

Look through your house at everything that is Made in China and think about all the ways you're putting your health and the health of your family in China's hands. And ask yourself, "Did I sell my soul for WalMart's low prices?" Always.

Quotable Marquez:

“She discovered with great delight that one does not love one's children just because they are one's children but because of the friendship formed while raising them.”

SUV Conquers Moms

These are the moms I know: educated and/or intelligent, studious with regard to parenting issues, eager consumers of organic foods & products, concerned with our environmental legacy, and fastidious with regard to child safety issues. Well, fastidious to a point.

You see, the mom's I know, by and large, show their Achilles heel when it comes to Car Cool. These moms cannot bear the thought of driving or being seen in a minivan. And, when it came time for many of us to consider having a second child, the truth was revealed: these otherwise smart, eco-conscious moms would be upgrading to an SUV.

It is, I think, the ultimate triumph of the Detroit automakers. These women are convinced that a minivan just plain sucks. Yeah, that's right. THIS minivan. This marvel of parent/child-oriented design. About the only thing that could make this car more perfect for families would be if you made it a hybrid. Oh - wait. There you go.

Not to mention that these loving mommies are more likely to hurt themselves, their children or other people's children in their SUVs.

Way to go, Detroit. You won. And it makes me scared behind the wheel of my Subaru.

The Best Women

Zadie Smith
Angelina Jolie
Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori
Eleanor Roosevelt

Purpose: To list the women worth listing, in no particular order, updated randomly.
Qualities: Looking for, among other things, grace, intelligence, authenticity, passion, thoughtful expression, concern for something outside the self.
Nominations: Please.

Open Letter to the Gabfest on Why Accountability Matters

You know, I’m normally the first person in my social circle to stand up for the print press and say that they still serve the public, but today’s Gabfest really undermined that belief. It was so simple: John asked David and Emily whether the Libby trial mattered.

Clearly it doesn’t matter to you all. Your interest is in whether this trial would publicly hurt the credibility of this administration (which you assert is already hurt) or whether the trial would cause this administration to get its comeuppance (which, you assert, they actually got in the last election). It seems to me your concerns are completely cynical and extraordinarily out of touch with the concerns of the people you are supposed to serve as journalists.

As one of the ordinary people, let me tell you why this trial matters. It isn’t about credibility and it isn’t about beltway comeuppance. It is about accountability. If Scooter Libby or anyone else in this administration broke the law, they need to be accountable not to the press but to the law and, hence, the people. It is infuriating enough for ordinary people to see how cynically our leaders manipulated the press in order to further their own agenda. But then to hear you all say that, because we all now know about it, it no longer matters is incredibly disappointing.

Get your heads around this: simply saying “yes, I broke the law” or “yes, I betrayed my oath” doesn’t absolve a person of wrongdoing. Saying “I’m responsible” doesn’t mean you’re taking responsibility. There must be action. There must be restitution. And in some cases there must be trials and there must be sentences. There must be consequences when our leaders commit wrongs. Forgetting that is the ultimate cynical act.

Here's to the Ladies from Texas

A quick word about the passing of spitfire Molly Ivins and, for that matter, that wonderful Ann Richards.

When do the passing of a politician and a journalist make your heart ache? When they are two of the most deliciously outspoken women you've ever known or heard of. At 31, I've grown up in what we call the "post-feminist" generation where excellence and success are assumed to be within our reach. We're aware of the wide trail we're blazing, and with that awareness sometimes comes this need to be the best, the most accomplished, the most correct. And in that process perhaps we lose a little of our rage, our fire, our Voice.

Not so Ms. Ivins or Ms. Richards. Its gotta be the Texan within them. I know some other outspoken Texas women who are delightfully opinionated. They say what's on their minds like no others, and in that way they were the most refreshing kind of Liberals: the unapologetic and uncompromising kind.

Witty, clever, honest, and sharp as nails, a bit of Molly and of Ann will live on in my heart and in my mind and, god willing, in my pen. Forget the toast. Tonight, a good stiff shot of bourbon will be had in their honors. Well done, Ladies. Well done.

the facade of the single woman

With the news that there are now more single women than married in the US, there comes the obligatory media celebration and examination of this newly discovered creature, the majority single woman. And there’s the inevitable framing of “singledom” - "since it is now the status quo, it must be great". But the ensuing conversation, as always, is hollow and pointless: a rapid fire discussion about why its better to not be married at all than to enter into a bad relationship.

Now I’m not anti-single girls. I think the new numbers suggest a brilliant and empowering new place for modern women. They suggest that marriage is not “it” – its not the goal or the end-all-be-all. Marriage is simply one of many options that can make up a fascinating and fulfilling life for modern women. But when the Today Show invites the Bachelorette on to talk about how being single until she finds the right man, no matter how long it takes, is OK, I take issue.

What the Bachelorette and the Today Show are saying, in essence, is that its OK to wait until you’re older to find Mr. Right. And that is wrong. It still places marriage at the center of a woman’s life and avoids talking about WHY we should get married in the first place. Here’s a better question: “What makes Mr. Right right?”

First, lets agree that marriage is not necessary. It is ceremony and a shorthand description. Without it, many couples have gone on to lead committed lives and/or build successful families. Marriage begins with a symbolic ceremony that some see as a defining symbol – a statement – and that’s great, too.

But what makes a marriage work is something we do not seem to be ready to discuss. We’ll talk about how to keep “date night” going and improve sex within the marriage, but when we talk about why the single girl should stop being single, we drape the conversation in “checklists” and ephemera, and are afraid to say what needs to be said: lasting, successful marriage is series of compromises made by two imperfect people who choose to build a life together.

Building a life together is about growing together, changing together. Mr. Right today may not be exactly Mr. Right in the next decade. So what do you do then? What happens when he’s no longer the perfect match? So the marriage is now Less-Than-Ideal. What next?

Obviously the answer to that question is a personal one, but at least it’s a question that makes you stop and think.

Open Letter to Katie Holmes

The scuttlebutt is that you may not return to films for some time, what with your new baby and all. Despite being offered a 3-film deal for the new Batman features (excellent), the word is that you may give up acting, for a while anyway, in order to be a mom.

Now, before I begin, let me go on the record: Let there be no "mommy wars" here! That tired concept is media-hyped bullshit of the reality television variety. All we moms really want is for the Other Moms to listen.

And I won't pretend that I hear you. Its ridiculous to think your voice would be audible through the "TomKat" furor. Should I pretend to know the first thing about you when all I REALLY know is tabloid pap? Your personal logic is out of my reach.

But let me say this - let me say one thing I believe from the depth of my experience as a mom, whether I know you or not: don't give it up.

Don't do it. Just don't. Don't get me wrong, now. Every mom knows the temptation. Its our mantra: how can this creature NOT be the center of my universe? Or, hey, you're married to Tom Cruise! Maybe you're looking at your checkbook thinking, "Well, but I don't have to work..." Oh to have that problem.

Here's the thing: there are a million invisible fibers that attach us to the being that grew inside of us, from zero to 8 lbs. in 40 weeks. Each step we take to introduce our children to the world beyond Mom cuts at those fibers. And it hurts. It doesn't indulge that feeling of realization - or completion or bliss or whatever - that we get from being mothers. But the sooner your child is able to reach beyond the warmth of mom, to find out that there are other warm, caring people out there to love and protect you, well, isn't that the gift we really want to give our children? The ability to trust and open up to the world?

So the long and the short, Katie Holmes, is that you have, from all early indications, what it takes to be a luminous film star. I've never seen Dawson's Creek so, admittedly, I don't know from whence you came. I have seen Pieces of April and Batman Begins and, while I admit that I too have my opinions about your personal life, I think your film career has more potential than any I've seen in long while.

You have the resources to take your child to work with you. Most moms do not. You have the opportunity to shine as an actress, make wonderful cinematic art, and be with your child at the same time. What could be more illuminating for a child than to watch her mother engage with the world and shine?

For starters...

An exercise: sit down and think about your life - your career, your marriage, your relationships, your finances - and think about your troubles... Thought of something? What is your top three? What's really making you worry or stressed?

Was one of them the notion that some gay people want to get married? That one causing you and your husband to fight? Probably not. How about whether or not we burn flags? Or is it all the abortions happening everywhere that is keeping you from spending more time with your kids? And lets be real: is the repeal of the estate tax going to make it easier to pay off your credit card debt?

My point is that the things that are really important in our lives are not the things that our government cares about. They aren't the things that the media investigates. Non-issues clutter our political landscape and the result is that government does nothing - no, NOTHING - to make most American lives better.

Our issues? Debt. Family time. Education. The legacies we leave the next generation: a home, a meager inheritance, a budget surplus, an art scene, a planet. Time for us to refocus. And to take our culture with us.