Motley Blog

Ron Sims is no Jefferson Smith, the lead character from the 1939 Capra movie, 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington'. Sims may well be the administrative/stimulus official to make sure that Obama does not repeat the mistakes of boomer era executives, for example, Norm Rice.

Sims is a real human being, and a pragmatic one, making, what he believes, are honest decisions about weighing practicality with ideals. How he handles his new authority to further advance the idealistic in King County, at this moment in time, will show whether he has succumbed to the temptations and corruption of power or will rise to the constitutional responsibilities of his federal position.

You work for your corrupt lawyer, not he, or she, for you.

Sure, you benefit, but only by agreeing to be a party to the corruption.

And you'd better darn well believe that the Republican Tarp and the Obama Stimulus is only going to benefit the corrupt. Obama is only president because the Chicago Bar has certified that he is someone who can be manipulated through standard PC 'Best Management Practices'.

It's a tough question, are you going to own up to your failures or are you going to sell your soul to the devil in order to NOT be a responsible adult?

Are you a businessperdon who isn't fit to be an assistant manager at a fast food joint? Are you a public servant whose ideas are nothing but a white sheet for your acts of hate against the American public?

Consider the case of Enron. Did any of those lawyers get held accountable? Not a one, and it should've been a lifetime disbarrment for senior counsel as well as jail.

Did we fix the problem? Damn well we didn't, we only repeated the same type of complicated scam throughout corporate and financial America.

And we may well be going to hell for our sins, if we don't send those responsible there damn quick.

I won't come down either way with Kerlikowske, I was pretty much leaving the City as he was coming on board. However, the reasons I left are germane to a measurement of the man and I do have strong concerns, especially considering the history of abuse associated with our local DC 'lobbyists'.

Like Ron Sims, Kerlikowske has also successfully negotiated the minefield of Seattle gender politics. The question though is, at what cost?

Today is the day traditional broadcast TV was supposed to end. Commenting on what was the finest broadcast civic programs, Meet the Press, since the sudden death of long time host Tim Russert seems salient.

Sure, MSNBC still has some thought provoking coverage, but it's not part of the strictly 'public' sphere, it;s paid cable. David Gregroy is just not up to the job - more glib and self-satisfied than Mark Lauer on what was once the best, politically practical, critical program in this country.

Is this the corporate future that Welch, married to a mergers and aquisitions attorney for most of his tenure as president, has in mind for us?

He should be ashamed. MTP was a quality organization and you couldn't keep up a tradition of independent journalism? I guess you, and yours, know best. Or at least you think you do.

I for one disagree. The running of our nation is everybody's business and it is the responsibility of the Press to insure we are all involved, and educated. You and your fellow NYC primadonna punks and your DC lobbyists either need to pay off the deficit and then leave.

You may well think you are better than everyone else, but all you have done is make yourself into no account gutter trash.

BTW, first hit on Google about 'Meet the Press' whose URL doesn't start with msn also doesn't like Gregory, but for different reasons.

Your City's baby boomer power couple's marriage is based not on love, but power. This is power based on hate that advances itself by putting others down, it is a marriage made not in love and heaven but in hell for profit at the expense of others.

Local couples include Judy and Jon Runstad, Barbara Linde and Greg Canova, and perhaps Mayor Nickels and his wife, though I'm not sure about that one.

Wisely the Washington State Legislature refused to fund Seattle's Mercer street redesign through a neighborhood largely controlled by former Microsoft executive Paul Allen (and his professonial staff).

Why, why in the world should we be spending stimulus money 'bailing out' Paul Allen?

New York City vs. Washington D.C.

Ten business days from now, April 5, Microsoft will be holding a virtual 'special' olympics on the servers of the MS network. (The 'real' event was originally founded by Eunice Kennedy Shriver, Schwarnegger's Mother In Law, on the proposal of a Chicago Educator)

**Please note - ridicule of this particular brand of abusive degenerate is not only allowed, but encouraged. Boos will suffice, but if you have personally had your life endangered by these individuals all restraints are removed, per the US Constitution.

I take offense at the New York City financiers and Washington D.C. regulators who cooked up the ripoffs of millions of investors and employees being portrayed as the best and the brightest. The fact that they now seek to continue their illegal activities via a ponzi scheme against my generation on the US Treasury is more than outrageous.

These folks may well have graduated in the upper portions of their Ivy League classes, but they have chosen to apply their intelligence to enrich themselves not by improving the world buy by stealing from it.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, nominated to replace Allen Greenspan during the reign of Bush's Treasury chief, Hank Paulson, made historical precedent in a first ever broadcast interview on 60 Minutes Sunday night.

He hit his marks in his interview and did bring a calm reassuring message to the airwaves. I, for one though, am sceptical.

Perhaps his speechifying is nothing but a defensive move, a la Dick Cheney, someone definitely on the outs in D.C. and 'in' when it comes to media appearances.

To me the central point concerns accountability for bailing out certain firms - a point Bernanke did make - that folks should be held accountable, once the crisis is past.

We have yet to see that. Most tellingly Bernanke completely avoided the question of Hank Paulson and any mention of his firm Goldman Sachs, the Haliburton of the financial world.

Bernanke also restated the need to bail out firms that were 'too big to fail'. Quick action was needed, but breaking up mega firms is very often easy to do. Consider, for example, AIG. The arm that was involved in the sub-prime mortgage scams was completely different from the relatively healthy insurance operations - why not split those up?

It may well be the case that we are in for a short term recovery. I, for one, don't believe we've solved the problem, we've merely taking out yet another loan, this time on the US Treasury as opposed to our personal houses.

It all needs to be paid back, and the price of failure is still failure.

No one is above that law - the only question is how many innocent folks will pay in order to avoid the pain?

And, Mr. Bernanke, are you going to hold Hank Paulson accountable, or not?

Since the 2000 election Ralph Nader's name has most often been discussed in the context of scapegoat for the defeat of Al Gore in 2000. Besides being factually wrong it also merits a historical updating in the context of the current financial crisis.

Perhaps Mr. Rader was right about Corporate America and the Dems being culpable in its crimes?

I, for one, think so. FWIW, I also voted for Al Gore in 2000.

I was also active in the first Nader campaign in 1996 - twas actually the person got to formally nominate him at the 'convention' in Gas Works park for Washington State.

My politics have become more independent since then - pretty much coincident with beling much less involved in the current electoral system in any fashion.

Though these days I might disagree with Nader his is a voice that deserves to be heard.

Now would be a good time.

If one reads between the lines on the barrage of media stories on a topic a very simple, evolving, story.

Perhaps the most important of these today is the foreclosure 'story' - many typical conservatives would have you believe that the whole financial crisis was the result of lower income households purchasing houses they couldn't afford via sub-prime programs that were completely legal and appropriate.

Obama's health care reform effort is laudable - as well as revealing of the structure of power in this Country. Unfortunately due the fiscal crisis and the recent bailouts of right and left, there is no money to do this - or, at least, financially prudent political will.

My long term brainstorm, now to repeat, is somewhat similar to the Wyden/Bennett proposal now being revitalized. I suggest requiring medical coverage for all drug useage, including alcohol.

Specifically, require that to purchase drugs an individual must be have medical insurance - include with this MD review of purchase history. This might seem burdensome but with today's technologies and barcodes on drivers licenses it is just a software fix - with a license that's already supposed to be out in front of the store scanner anyway, right?

This also opens up the possiblity of using marijuana revenues to fund health care, along with a re-structured alcohol taxing system.

And, yes, that does mean I'm saying the pot heads could do a better job with health care than either the Republicans or the Democrats - presumably with a healthy portion of former pot heads in the mix.

For what it is worth, I also support legalization of psychedelics, including Ecstasy, LSD, and Peyote - though use of these should be highly restricted - maybe only once a year, give or take.

By now the whole case of the arrest of Harvard African Studies Professor Henry Lois Gates should have blown over - if it even had ever risen at all to the level of national attention. But it has not, and this is telling. Most revealing was Harvard grad President Barack Obama initially calling arresting officer James Crowley "stupid".

As comedian and commentator Jon Stewart noted, perhaps it was Obama who was stupid - not to mention Prof. Gates himself.

If this were simply a matter of reverse racism without effect it would be easy to let this pass - that would be as appropriate as the dropping of charges against Mr. Gates by the Cambridge officials.

This case is not about race, but about class in America, it is about the elites of America calling anyone who dares to hold them to account "stupid" racists.

The sad fact is that the people who run this Country are smiley faced abusive alcoholics, the only difference between themselves and the stereotypical abusive trailer trash is the price of their booze, and the rest of their lifestyles - to you, me, and every honest, accountable American, born and unborn.

One thing for darn sure, the Cambridge PD understands this problem - and hopefully are setting an example for **every** officer in every department in this Country.

From January 11, 2009:

Harsh Reality in the Age of Obama, #1

Paul Krugman has a timely NYT column on deficit spending, and how it **might** be okay. (If it works!)

Krugman's right on the debt numbers, but besides the additional political hazards he mentions there may be others.

1. The U.S. Housing market has not yet, definitively, found its bottom. Foreclosures resulting from the meltdown of a year ago are just now hitting the pipeline. Home equity loans have been a source of money that has been used to 'stimulate' the economy for quite awhile now - in a period when America's relative economic competiveness is declining. This a borrowed money is not on the government books, but it definitely does effect the overall financial 'credit rating' of the United States.

2. Subsidizing housing (and commercial property!) values with the deficit is a downward feedback loop. Spending deficit money to prop up the equity of property owners will not work, long term.

3. Who are we bailing out? If we pour good money after bad supporting the very people and practices that created the problem in the first place at the expense of honest blue collar America we are subject to a spectrum of problems, of which the least may be political.

Senior United States Senators were admittedly being frightened by Junior Senator Barack Obama pretending to be United States President.

Leading the pack of screaming old white guys was Joe Lieberman, after this incitement by Rachel Maddow:

Meanwhile, in the real world:

(Seriously, perhaps it is time to get rid of Seniority rules in Congressional leadership - allowing us to, among other things, reward a moderate Republican who is willing to lead from the center instead of destroy from the status quo?)

Where's Lowell Weiker when you need him!

There has been much said about the recent five vote Supreme Court decision equating corporations with persons - including accusing the Five Supremes who voted in favor of this decision of treason.

The Constitution sets explicitly high and narrow standards for this crime, noticeably different from English statute and common law. However, for evidence, the Constitution only requires two witnesses.

George Will made an interesting observation on the ABC news program 'This Week' claiming "1/5th of Tea Party folks voted for Obama and 1/3 express support". I quoted this on Facebook and was promptly informed that Will is known to pull statistics out of his ass. As such, I decided to research further. That Facebook friend may well be right, and an analysis of the motivation for the apparent fiction is disturbing.

Here's the clip:

(commenters on the video repeat that question about Will's numbers, but Wikipedia does not.)

Even if this 'analysis' is completely false I do think it is safe to say that Independent Voters, who tilted strongly for Obama in the election, have largely lost favor with Obama. This would include myself, and I am certainly NOT a Palin/Tancredo tea bagger.