The Usual Suspects: A Continuation

File this one under random thoughts in the shower, but how embarrassed must have U.S. Customs Agent Dave Kujan felt after the credits rolled in The Usual Suspects when he rolled back into the precinct, head hanging low, knowing that he had to tell everyone else that he just got played by mythical criminal Keyser Soze and then let him walk? I'm going to say pretty embarrassed. I mean, to start, he already broke a coffee glass, spilled coffee everywhere, and wasn't fast enough to a fake cripple (fakripple?). First of all, what the hell was a U.S. Customs Agent doing interviewing the sole witness capable of talking about this vast conspiracy, multiple murders, and shoot out at the docks. Does he even have the training for that? Who let him have at it like that? I'm guessing Sgt. Rabin got some shit for this debacle as well. Some other off the top of my head questions I'm sure he faced from Special Agent Baer and others post-credit rolling:

• Didn't someone tell you that a fax with Soze's likeness would be coming through? Why wasn't someone on that immediately?
• Oh, my bad, I forgot that you are an mother#(%^Q)@ U.S. Customs Agent so of course not.
• Sidenote, who the hell let you in there anyway?
• Oh, you let him go because you were satisfied that Keaton faked his death again? So that's what makes sense? Good police work, dickbag.
• Nobody looked into this Kobayashi character? Maybe checked out some known associates? Really, nobody? Wow.
• What kind of name is Verbal Kint anyway? Anyone look into that one? No? Fantastic. 
• Again, and I don't mean to make too fine of a point out of this, but he was the only go@%)&@#n survivor of a massacre and only witness the state has and no one thought to look after him? Maybe follow him a little bit or have a uniform take him home?
• Ugh, you are the worst. Get the hell outta here and go back to chasing down counterfeit CDs and Nikes or whatever the hell it is you actually do regularly. But, seriously, how the hell were you the one doing this interview? F&%* me in the goat ass....

Are the GOP Primaries Acting as an Early Policy Referendum by Accident?

No, Santorum does not count. As the State of the Union Address is tonight, I could venture a guess at each candidates odds agains President Obama or just pull some Nate Silver ish about who I think might win; but, as it is really Obama v. the Economy for who'll win this fall, it doesn't really matter.

The interesting part of the GOP nomination contests, for me at least, is that they are bringing to the fore issues that you wouldn't expect until the general election; namely, super PACs in the post-Citizen United world and, in a roundabout way focusing on Mitt Romney's reluctance to release his tax returns, the appropriateness of the 15% capital gains tax rate (especially as it is applied private equity shops). These are focal points you would expect to see from President Obama's team but not from internecine fighting between republican candidates. Romney and Gingrich have been going back and forth biatching about each other's super PACs. Super PACs that have already spent $30 million so far amongst the Republicans. Just today, Dr. Miriam Adelson, wife of casino magnate and super Israel supporter Sheldon Adelson, donated $5 million to Gingrich's super PAC. Between the husband and wife, team Gingrich has pulled in $10 million for negative adds in the past month. Despite the claim in Citizens United that the money is just speech and would have a negligible influence on politicians, quite the opposite seems to be true as I could've told you the second that opinion came out. As Barrett seems to point out, Gingrich's 90 degree rightward shift on Israeli/Palestinian issue could be from any number of reasons, including the general rightward shift in the GOP recently due to the Tea Party and the partisan shift that comes during a nominating process. However, it is hard to deny that it stinks to high heaven. As the NY Times points out,

The Adelsons’ contributions on Mr. Gingrich’s behalf illustrate how rapidly a new era of unlimited political money is reshaping the rules of presidential politics and empowering individual donors to a degree unseen since before the Watergate scandals.

The wealth of a single couple has now leveled the playing field in two critical primary states for Mr. Gingrich, a candidate who ended September more than $1 million in debt, finished out of the running in Iowa and New Hampshire and, unlike Mr. Romney, has yet to attract the broad network of hard-money donors and bundlers that traditionally propel presidential campaigns.

It boggles the mind.

Meanwhile, the very attacks on Romney that Gingrich's super PAC has financed have recently (in South Carolina at least) concentrated on his time at Bain Capital and how it affected the working man. The long and short of it being how the cold-hearted, Gordon Gekko-like, Romney acquired a vast fortune off the plight of the workers laid off by companies that had to fold after Bain Capital saddled them with too much debt in leveraged buyouts (LBOs). The companies suffered, but Bain prospered after using some of the debt to pay off their investment and management fees. This led to a further attack on how Romney refused to release his tax returns, an attack which he failed to respond to effectively, forcing him to release his returns for the past two years today. They show that he pays a rate of 13.9% as most of his income is seen as capital gains. Though most of the Republicans on the stage want either that rate or even lower, this talk is undoubtedly going to illuminate this country's income inequity and call into question whether a lower capital gains rate is good policy (especially for those in private equity). At the very least, this is certainly going to come up in tonight's State of the Union Address. Hopefully, as Andrew Sullivan has called for, it comes in a larger talk about the need to reform our tax code in general. Debt has been incentivized for too long in this country and it has caused a myriad problems. Talking about it tonight would be a good first step.

Though the GOP candidates, and their talking head puppetmasters on Fox News, will undoubtedly end up labeling him a socialist tomorrow, it is important to remember the words of the proto-capitalist Adam Smith. And I quote:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

BONUS POINTS- State of the Union Prediction Edition: Obama uses today to launch some sort of tax reform initiative. In the midst of this, especially with the presence of Obama's secretary and with the release of Romney's tax returns, he takes the opportunity to throw out some derivation of the following line: "It is not right that people of means like Warren Buffett, with billions of dollars, are paying the same rate as his secretary, who is here today. I know that it is called the Buffett rule because of this but perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it the Romney rule, as he pays even less." Obama is probably too classy to go explicitly at Romney like that, but BELEE dat the above sentiment will be implied.

Time To Take Your Licks, POTUS

A lot of time is spent on this blog snarkily sniping at the GOP; rightfully in MHO, as they continue to come across as an entirely unserious political party ("It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man," says my progenitor). One should not take the disdain for one party as unabashed celebration of the other, however. President Obama, no matter where exactly you ascribe the blame, has failed to live up to the immense promise exhibited during his 2008 triumph. Perhaps part of that blame falls upon his supporters, myself included, who expected far too much of the man and thought far too little of the institutions in place. There is, however, one specific failure that is definitively attributable to the man and his administration and that is the failure to move ahead with pushing the proposals from the Simpson-Bowles Commission. This failure presaged numerous future problems that came up and, I believe, continues to hurt America today.

Although hardly news as it has been harped on brought up repeatedly by Andrew Sullivan and recently by the Republican National Committee in a helpful research briefing, it has yet to gain traction with the larger public. I know we are unofficially in election mode now, but it would be nice, as others have advocated, if the POTUS showed leadership by jumping back into the business of governing by reviving Simpson-Bowles. How effective would the picture he is painting of a do-nothing GOP Congress be if, a month and change after the RNC advocated the move, Simpson-Bowles proposals were shut down or hijacked with unnecessary additions. Or, even better, how excellent would it be if the proposals went through and Obama's spinmeisters got to work highlighting his leadership on the matter?

Regardless, promises were made about how this man was a post-partisan who was about what was good for the country rather than what was good for the campaign for re-election. Though there is no one on the other side who I would consider voting for (outside of Capt. Haughty-pants Huntsmann, who has no shot at being the nominee), it would be nice if President Obama was, well, presidential and completely solidified my faith in my vote. I don't want to be threatened into it again...

*** UPDATE ***
A persuasive, and conservative, argument of why it is imperative to trim our military spending. I could not agree more and can only hope that the cuts are very significant. Much like the belief that taxes should rise to around Clinton era levels, I think our military spending should fall, at the least, to pre-9/11 levels. In the balanced checkbook view of our economy, decreased spending AND increased revenue is the only way to bring down the US deficit.

Addington, Yoo Have To Be Sharting Me

Look upon the above visages if you dare, as they are they are the physical manifestation of pure evil (he said with only a bit of hyperbole...). Recently, President Obama used recess appointments to appoint a new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and two new members to the National Labor Relations Board. Appointments that were being blocked from a vote by Congressional machinations that would've shut down both agencies. Some Constitutional Law experts at Harvard, believe that the President acted well within the scope of his Constitutional powers in doing so. David Addington, he of the unitary executive theory, and John Yoo, the rationalizer of torture, however, are all up in arms about the appointments calling it "chilling" that the President is making such "sweeping claim[s]."

Keep in mind, these are two men who, during the presidency of George W. Bush, did everything they could to expand executive power. This includes institutionalizing torture during their administration and claiming that the President could do virtually whatever he wanted as long as it was during "times of war." But it is completely out of bounds that President Obama is using recess appointments? As recess appointments have along history dating back to the beginning of our country where a President would keep the work of government going by making appointments during a Congressional recess, a new method to prevent appointments has been utilize where only one Senator would show up for "pro forma" sessions of the Senate. The idea is that while there is an actual recess going on, recess appointments cannot be made because these pro forma appearances mean that the Senate is in session. It is a cheap way to make sure that there never has to be an up and down vote on Presidential appointments. Considering what those two ass clowns above instituted during the previous administration, they have some real brass balls to come forward with these asinine objections now. I almost respect it if I didn't think they are up there among the most evil, motherless rat bastards on this Earth...

That Power-Hungry Little Weasel Eric...

I am, of course, talking about Eric Cantor (though the Billy Madison allusion is particularly apt...). Cantor has always been a little weasel and he stepped it up another notch recently on an appearance on "60 Minutes". At one point during the interview, Lesley Stahl brought up Ronald Reagan, obviously a hero of the GOP generally and Cantor in particular, and how his ability to compromise, including on the raising of taxes. This is simply a matter of fact and is repeatedly pointed out by Bruce Bartlett, who helped work on tax and banking policies for both Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Cantor hems and haws for a moment before his press secretary swoops in off camera and calls Mr. Stahl a liar.

This is not completely surprising considering the baseness of the current GOP. As demonstrated in the debt ceiling debate, neither the truth nor what is good for the country is important if it does not fit in with the GOP and increasingly the nutso Tea Party agenda. The American people instinctively felt the dangers of the debt ceiling intransigence, but now the negative effects are being shown as the economy starts to bounce back to around where it was before that "hostage taking" (as demonstrated on this chart). I hope people actually start taking these more extreme politicians, on both sides, to task for the dangerous and increasingly prevalent move towards increased partisanship in the next Congressional election cycle. If not, I do not know when our broken government will actually get back to business of governing.

J E T S Crash and Burn

No Santonio, it is not okay. There have been numerous post-mortems (here's one from Grantland and Football Outsider's terrific Bill Barnwell citing leadership problems) but, honestly, there were probably too many problems with the team too pinpoint just a couple in an article. Clearly leadership is a problem on that that team is an issue, but this starts at the top with Rex Ryan and Brian Schottenheimer rather than with veterans like Santonio Holmes (don't get me wrong... Holmes is a schoolboy biatch). Rex Ryan has already taken the blame, as he should, but Schottenheimer has somehow remained above the fray. As a Jets fan (I know, right? Pray for me...), I hope that Schotty gets hired for a head coaching gig in Jacksonville or somewhere anywhere else. As long as he is their problem and no longer making inexplicable play calls from the Jets sideline. I know the United States in general has had a long history of children trading on their father's name, but how long can Schotty keep this con up? In my mind, he has to go. Preferably like 2 years ago. So if you have a timeline Rexy, that would be handy right about now.

The rest of the Jets' offensive problems are a bit harder to tackle. Holmes' recent contract extension (good call on that one guys... not at all premature) makes it very difficult to get rid of the erstwhile "Captain." The running game has been borderline non-existent and is not looking to get much better with the possible probable loss of LaDainian Tomlinson, and his pass catching ability, to free agency or retirement this upcoming off season. The offensive line, another leading cause of the inability to run, is another hard fix. Although some of it had to do with injuries, they just looked bad as a unit throughout the season (wasn't D'Brickashaw Ferguson supposed to be good?). After a season that started full of promise, the future looks somewhat bleak right now. This season's post-mortem, as most post-mortems are I guess, is terribly depressing (and I didn't even talk about Cromartie. PLEASE do not get me started on Cromartie...).

SOPA-cking Stupid (Not to Mention Unconstitutional...)

There has been much ado about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) that was proposed in the House; mainly because it is a monumentally stupid piece of legislation. Although it's purpose is described in the bills subtitle as such:

"To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes." 

 it would actually act as a huge infringement on First Amendment rights as it is applied to the world wide web (a kind of wonky explanation, as well as links to memoranda from two leading legal scholars on the First Amendment, can be found here). The simplest argument against the legislation is that is unconstitutional because it is both overbroad and too vague; annddd you can get a taste of it on the above tagline with the uber-ominous and open-ended "[...] and for other purposes." Laws must be of a certain specificity and limited in scope so people on both sides of the law, those who are to comply with it and those that are too enforce it, know what exactly they are supposed to do and without empowering the government to enact a sweeping agenda. It is why we don't have laws saying simply "Don't do bad things," and almost every law is replete with definitions of terms in the beginning. Secondly, the bill cedes some enforcement capability to actual copy-right holders (let that sink it. Crazy right?). From the above linked article:

Coupled with this overbroad scope, the bills authorize remedies that lack the usual procedural safeguards, ensuring that even more protected, non-infringing speech will be restricted. Even though a judicial determination is generally required to remove speech from circulation, the House version empowers copyright-holders to send notices to payment processors and advertisers to shut off funding for non-infringing sites that meet the bill's broad definitions. The bills also encourage over-enforcement by making companies immune from suit for mistakenly punishing sites outside even the bills' over-expansive scope.

This is unequivocal nutbaggery. The bill essential says that a copyright-holder can have funding shut off. This cannot be used for nefarious purposes? An uninterested party should not hold this role whether it be a judge or an independent body?

The technocracy of the U.S. immediately responded by speaking out against the bill. We are talking Facebook, Google, Tumblr, Zynga, Mozilla... essentially everyone except GoDaddy and their eccentric (putting it kindly) CEO. After coming under attack from the social news website Reddit, where a broad GoDaddy protest thread led to a proposed boycott of GoDaddy. The site eventually folded to the increasing pressure and announced that it no longer supported SOPA, as well as the Senatorial version in the Protect IP act.

Inside of Congress, however, support still seems strong and there is a decent chance that a version of this disastrous act gets passed. If any of you (6 friends of mine) feel strongly against this as well, please contact your local representative in Congress and your state Senators and tell them to vote no to both SOPA and Protect IP or they lose your vote. The only thing they will strongly react to, aside from the threat of losing money from big business, is losing their position as an elected official.