I Know Obama's Not in a Band, But It's About Time for Him to Toot that Horn

I already apologize for the terrible pun above, but it is what it is. There has been a lot of discussion (primarily by Andrew Sullivan for me) about Barack Obama's perception problem. That is, not enough people seem to realize how much he has actually accomplished despite near historically bad circumstances. I am not going to rattle off them all but just a few of the greatest hits include Affordable Care Act (i.e., ObamaCare for those who've been donning your colonial Halloween concert since January), Dodd-Frank (financial reform), ending DADT, ending the war in Iraq, killing Osama Bin Laden and Anwar Al-Awlaki (constitutional questions aside... though I think it was JUST on the kosher side of the line), and the flowering of the Arab Spring and ending the Libyan regime (circumstances of Quaddafi's death aside). Ok, I rattled off a lot of them, but a pretty impressive laundry list of accomplishments if you ask me (which I assume you have since you are on my blog).

Despite all of the above, you still see quotes like this: 

But where Mr. Bush successfully cultivated an image as a decisive leader in a way that sharpened the comparison to Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dowd said, Mr. Obama could have trouble drawing as sharp a contrast.

“The value that the American public is looking for is a strong and decisive leader at a time of anxiety and challenge,” Mr. Dowd said. “In order to make the contrast, you have to have that value yourself, and Obama doesn’t have it.”

Really Matthew Dowd? Reeaaalllyyy?!? You have the POTUS whipping out some brass ones to take out OBL and Al-Awlaki but he won't be able to contrast against Mitt Romney, who might as well campaign with his finger always to the wind? (I only bring up Romney because if he can't beat Cain/Perry/Bachmann/Santorum/Paul then I do not know what to say). (I do not bring up Huntsman because he might as well be a democrat at this point. I like him too much for him to even sniff a Republican primary win). Undoubtedly, the poor economy will be thrown out as where he won't be able to contrast, but what is a man to do? He tries his best.

But I stray from my larger point. The reason why the President's accomplishments can be pooh pooh'd is because he seems almost embarrassed to stress how much good he's done in such a terrible environment. Fox News and far right bloggers/commentators have been able to hijack the conversation and mislead the public. I am far from the first to say this (again props to my boy Sully), but Obama and his people need to get a hold on their own narrative. It is starting to happen now, but it needs to happen quicker and more authoritatively. Come on Prez... I'll shit a brick worse than after a Godfather's pizza pie if Cain gets elected. Hook me up!

Just Because...

Patrick Swayze is awesome. PBR is awesome (don't you DARE call me a hipster. $10 for 24 bottles in college. I developed a taste way before it was co-opted). Put them together and you get this amazingness...

A Martial Attitude Against the Courts

An article in this part Sunday's NY Times highlighted the GOP Presidential hopefuls' view of the judiciary. In short:

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas favors term limits for Supreme Court justices. Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas say they would forbid the court from deciding cases concerning same-sex marriage. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania want to abolish the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, calling it a “rogue” court that is “consistently radical.”

Additionally, Gingrich went on to suggest that national security officials ignore Supreme Court cases and that federal judges could be subpoenaed to explain their decisions. As the article mentions, demonizing of the courts has been part and parcel of Presidential campaigns for a number or years. These recent suggestions, however, are, legally speaking, f'ing crazy pants (you'll just have to trust me. It's a term of art). Rick Perry's suggestion is clearly unconstitutional, as judges are supposed to "[...] hold their offices during good behavior," but the others are no less dangerous. As I assume (hold your tongue about assumptions... HOLD IT) that all of the candidates have a high school education, they should be familiar with the concept of checks and balances. With said familiarity, one would think that a candidate for chief executive would find such politicization of the judiciary to be frowned upon. Personally, I simply find it unbelievably scary when people use a nod to the Constitution as a method to do things that are absolutely against the letter and/or the spirit of the document (not to mention how infantile, idiotic, puerile, un-presidential I find it). Say what you want about Mitt Romenybot, but at least he has refused to jump in the deep end of the crazy pool where his fellow nominees are playing Marco Polo Marco Polo.

Tunisia Crashes the Islamist(-ic?) Party

Tunisia held it's first post-Ben Ali election yesterday and, in preliminary tallying of the vote, the islamist (-ic?; they can't seem to decide) party Ennahda won a plurality of the votes. This news will undoubtedly lead to many getting their Opus Dei issue self-flagellating panties in a twist as, naturally, any political party that identifies mainly with Islam will eventually suppress their people (because the Tunisians will probably stand for that...) and, probably, attack America's interests. Try to ignore that hysterical shrieking my faithful readers (I'm confident that there are at least 3...booo ya) because it seems that Ennahda, much like the Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkey, are fairly moderate. Considering that the influence of the moderate AKP is waxing, and that of more radical islamic parties/governments is waning with the developments of the Arab Spring, the outcome of the Tunisian elections does not appear to be worrisome. Putting on the optimists cap (which doesn't fit at all and is quite uncomfortable), there is the chance that Ennahda will continue to follow in the footsteps of the AKP and create a new paradigm for governance in the Middle East. The process seems to be underway as Ennahda immediately began working on creating a coalition government with two more liberal political parties. According to Ennahda's founder, it "is not a religious party and claims no special authority in interpreting Islam. Instead, he says the party's members merely draw their values from Islam." Despite all the above, I am sure the far right (read: all) of the GOP will be having a fit about this. I mean your religion informing your values and thus politics? Whoever heard of such a thing?

Are the J.-E.-T.-S. Grounded?

Even though the Jets finally got a big win over the Chargers, certain people still think so. Watching the game, however, I did not get a warm and fuzzy feeling about how the rest of the Jets' season will go. Shonn Greene finally got the run game going and the secondary, especially my future best friend Darrelle Revis, looked pretty good. That being said, the offensive line still looked way sketchy, despite the return of center Nick Mangold, and Sanchez was rushed a number of times, including on an interception returned for a touchdown on the first drive. The run defense continued to look shoddy giving me the feeling, in a, sadly all too normal for me, ridiculous bout of overconfidence, like I could rush for 5.0 yard per carry against them. Disconcertingly, there were a number of unnecessary penalties indicative of an undisciplined team. It was enough to make me feel like I was back in the bad old goddamn Jets days. A lot will be learned coming off the upcoming bye week. The Jets need to win at least one of the two games following the bye against the Bills and Patriots if they are going to shift from pretenders to actual, official (kinda, sorta, maybe, hopefully) contenders. And, if not, at least the Knicks will starting playing soon. What's that? There is a good chance the NBA season will be canceled? Ehhhhh... at least Brett Favre is gone.

Music Video Mondays

Because Monday's are bad enough without music videos. Enjoy...

Nein, nein, NEIN!

With a nod to Stephen Colbert, I have to object to the new GOP candidate fad of introducing a flat tax. Clearly this stems from the Hermanator's recent surge in the polls due, at least partially, to his 9-9-9 flat tax plan. Though these candidates try to paint these plans as a "fair" tax because everyone would be paying the same rate and loop holes would be removed, the truth of the matter is that just about any flat tax would lead to a massively regressive tax system that would negatively impact the lower and middle classes. On the flip side, as you go up the tax bracket, the benefits of the system get greater and greater. The United States could clearly benefit from a simplified system of taxation but, especially with a mind towards our current economic situation, there should still be an eye towards fairness. A system of taxation that leads to a precipitous drop in revenue while disproportionately effecting the middle and lower classes would seemingly have a devastating effect on an already strained economy. If House Republicans are so worried about class warfare, maybe they should consider buying dinner for the least fortunate in this country  before trying to screw them...

EDITORS NOTE (spoiler... Editor is just me): Rick Perry unveiled his "flat tax plan" which is a completely optional plan that has the added bonus of not simplifying the tax code at all since no one has to choose the flat tax. Basically, the lower classes can continue paying their current taxes, the upper classes get a tax cut by choosing a flat tax, and spending somehow goes down by 10%. Yaaaa, sounds like its going to work like gangbusters to me! Kudos Governor Perry.

UPDATE 2: Perry's all about the 1%, yo.

Steve Jobs (RIP), Real Life Seer

An enormous amount of attention has been, quite deservedly, directed at Steve Jobs' life and work since his (way too early) passing earlier this month. One interview that has been making the rounds is his 1985 interview with Playboy. The entire interview is incredibly interesting, inspiring, et al., but I was struck by one exchange in particular...

PLAYBOY: You mentioned investing in education, but isn't the problem finding the funds in a time of soaring deficits?
JOBS: We're making the largest investment of capital that humankind has ever made in weapons over the next five years. We have decided, as a society, that that's where we should put our money, and that raises the deficits and, thus, the cost of our capital. Meanwhile, Japan, our nearest competitor on the next technological frontier—the semiconductor industry—has shaped its tax structure, its entire society, toward raising the capital to invest in that area. You get the feeling that connections aren't made in America between things like building weapons and the fact that we might lose our semiconductor industry. We have to educate ourselves to that danger.

This interview took place in 198-motherfracking-5 mind you. You can replace semiconductors with any number of industries over the past 20 years and see a recurring problem. Presently, if you replace Japan with China and semiconductor with Green Tech, you see an ineffectual US government that never learns anything and thus constantly repeats history. I can already foresee complaints about huge Chinese subsidies and feel the ruptured eardrums from people screaming SOLYNDRAAAA!!! at me, and they certainly have a point. On the flip side, however, those same people are not agitating to try and change the situations. Sure, the Chinese subsidies are overly generous, but the US' are not nearly generous enough. This is an area where we need to compete or we will just continue to cede our hegemonic position (if we already haven't). The US has an issue with debt because of a decade of huge defense spending, driven by two wars, and large tax cuts based upon a failed (repeatedly) economic theory. A problem that has existed (with some relief in between) since  198-stringofcursewordstoovulgartoprintsufficetosayonestartswithaC-5. How about we start looking at a way to change the situation and invest in things like education and green tech? Hmm kay? I mean, c'mon, WWSJD?

On Occupy Wall Street and "Inside Job"; Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Financial WMDs

There is a lot of discussion on all sides of the political debate about what is exactly going on in Zucotti Park with all the tree hugging hippy crap. They are either a potentially unruly, anti-Semitic mob fomenting class warfare or a group of unfocused kids with legitimate issues who need to publicize their demands and specific legislative goals. These guys and gals really cannot catch a break.

Though this is hardly groundbreaking and has been stated by others before, I think what they are protesting is quite clear and I think a main issue was presented quite clearly in the 2010 documentary "Inside Job". The film examined the causes and aftermath (or, rather, the continued consequences) of the Great Recession. Personally, I found it very interesting but thought that it went a little heavy in the demonization of Wall Street. Specifically, the attempts to link risky investing behavior with wide spread cocaine use and fun with high priced hookers after hours, on the banks' dime, were patently ridiculous IMHO (I know many i-bankers and cannot say I've see that once). What "Inside Job" nailed though, and what I think is the main issue for many, many OWS protesters, is the incestuous nature of Wall Street, the government and academia. In theory, Wall Street is supposed to be both a self-regulating body as well as regulated by government agencies with those in academia providing an additional, unbiased, check. In reality, all of these are interrelated with government officials moving back and forth between government and banking and professors at eminent educational institutions such as Harvard and Columbia making large sums of money writing papers financed by interested parties and serving on the boards of many banks and Fortune 500 companies. Everyone has a personal interest in the status quo leading to numerous conflicts of interest that are rarely addressed (don't even get me started on rating agencies... this post is running long enough).

Considering that the Great Recession is a product of a system rife with conflicts of interest that led to failures in both outside and self regulation, it is not surprising that a mass of people (those 99 percenters) would be generally angry that any and all attempts of renewed regulation are being shot down. Dodd-Frank is rife with holes and the GOP is constantly trying to defund agencies integral to reform. The banks scream about how regulation will cut into (record) profits and a return to Glass-Steagall is seen as beyond the pale despite the fact that it prevented such recessions for the better part of 60 years (more on this in the future most likely). It's enough to make anyones blood boil.

Long story short (well, not really), 1. watch "Inside Job" (as long as you take some of the rhetoric with a grain of salt) and 2. everyone should give the OWS protesters a break. They have some legitimate beefs and they are expressing their constitutionally protected right of (peaceful) free speech. Only hostage takers make demands ('Sup Mitch McConnell?).

New Venture

Blogging is something I've considered for a bit but, for a variety of reasons, I have never actually allowed myself to take the plunge. Recently, however, upon consecutive suggestions that I try my hand in it from people who's opinion I value, I decided to give it a go. Consider this my dipping my toe in. Testing the waters. Whatever other analogy you may like. I shall do my best to keep it interesting and engaging but any constructive criticism is more than welcome. With that being said, I hope you enjoy.