Elsewhere Interweb

Me at Facebook:

(Name omitted), don't say "Jewed." For starters, name me one Jewish oil tycoon. Or one Jewish convenience store.

You got Cheneyed, friend, Cheneyed.

Krugman On Healthcare

It's not gonna get any straighter than this:

The key thing you need to know about health care is that it depends crucially on insurance. You don’t know when or whether you’ll need treatment — but if you do, treatment can be extremely expensive, well beyond what most people can pay out of pocket. Triple coronary bypasses, not routine doctor’s visits, are where the real money is, so insurance is essential.

Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also tryto avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patient’s acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend.

Still, most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention.

AP Fighting the Wrong Fight?

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air thinks so:

Besides, the AP doesn’t get to determine what “fair use” means; Congress does. It has been a long-accepted practice for commentators to use small excerpts from articles in order to both report the news and to comment on its delivery. This goes back decades, when reviewers excerpted novels and media critics excerpted each other to deliver critiques. Just because the AP doesn’t like copyright law doesn’t mean it doesn’t still applies to them. However, the threat of legal action and the cost to people working on small revenue streams will mean that their threats will mostly be effective.

For those that don't know, The Associated Press is planning to "package" their articles in web searches, both to limit a report's use without payment and to send back info on the usage of the report to the AP mothership. I'm not as peeved as Morrissey, but I read where he's coming from. Right now, so much online news is free and, from my vantage, news junkies have never spent so much time reading. It's not just the low cost, it's the paperless convenience and constant updates. Where are the readers going to go when the AP trotts out a fee? And what about bloggers, both well-known and obscure? We'll link elsewhere, promoting other ad space, dammit.

This developement reminds us yet again why not just news, but perhaps nearly all information (barring formal ed.) should be freely accessible to the public. Consider the alternative. The Internet is humankind's final, infinite frontier. So long as there is another server to store information, there's always a piece of cyber real estate to build on. This intangible universe can only be hoped to be controlled by an omniscient, invasive authority, one that would violate many of our civil liberties just to keep a story profitable. Let's go the other way on this.

Brute News: 10 Jul 09

Much has happened in my short reprieve from my digital watchtower. I won't bore you with what kept me away. Instead, let's get right back to the good stuff:

Bristol Palin takes up Playboy offer mother turned down

Confirmed: Mark Sanford brought 11 inches to Argentina

Michael Jackson's likeness discovered in cinnamon roll

Michelle Obama uses stimulus money on Ann Taylor shopping spree

James Brown Linked to 470 births

Every little bit helps.

From Michael A. Fletcher of the Washington Post:

Veterans Affairs has canceled or delayed 26 conferences, opting for less costly alternatives such as video conferencing, saving nearly $17.8 million. The Agriculture Department is working to combine 1,500 employees from seven office locations into one facility in 2011, which the agency said would save $62 million over a 15-year lease term. Also, Homeland Security projects that it can save up to $52 million over five years by buying office supplies in bulk, officials said.

In a time when deficit spending is at all-time high, it's good to know that other efforts are being made.

Worst May Be Behind Us

The econopocalypse may have hit the bottom (from the AP, via MSNBC). Experts are reporting that we're in an uneasy peace, though:

Bernanke, however, has been quick to caution that this will happen only if the government succeeds in stabilizing financial markets and getting banks to lend money more freely again to both consumers and businesses. To that end, the Fed recently plowed $1.2 trillion into the economy in an attempt to reduce interest rates for mortgages and other loans.

I had a feeling that all the rhetoric about this being the worst economy since the depression might be misleading. I don't dispute how bad things are, but I think comparing now to the Great Depression is a bit like comparing the Appalachians to the Rockies.

The Cost of Not Adapting

This is what happens when you ignore the EPA, efficiency standards and Paul Krugman (from Mark Gimein, of MSNBC):

Everyone now sees that what's in question now isn't the survival of Pontiac but the survival of GM — which at best will exist only in a substantially diminished form. There is no room anymore for three American automakers each building a full line of cars and trucks. And while the hopeful talk is about GM re-engineering for a new bright future of fuel-efficient and hybrid vehicles, the numbers tell a different story, with GM's total hybrid sales in one month running at a pathetic 1,087 cars and trucks, about one-seventh of Toyota's Prius sales. Sales for the new hybrid Sierra and Silverado hybrid models? Seven.

While the SUV was experiencing a boom/bust revival earlier this decade, Toyota had the foresight to build a new plant locally, while promoting the Prius nationally. Now, they are one of many Japanese automakers that will be supplying the U.S. with vehicles that meet both their economic and environmental needs. That is, unless you're one of the autoworkers lost in the all of this "restructuring":

What does the Obama plan hold for them? Only the most amorphous of promises. In his speech today, Obama announced the appointment of a new "director of recovery for auto community and workers" — a title as long as the demands of its holder are vague. His job will be to direct a "comprehensive effort that will help lift up the hardest hit areas by using the unprecedented levels of funding available ... to create new manufacturing jobs and new businesses where they are needed most." Comprehensive, unprecedented, jobs: the words are there, but the plan is not.

My hope is that the President is going to come through and help these people, but how much can we blame him if he can't? The Titanic comparisons fit in multiple ways: one being that the automakers have tasked the President with saving the sinking ship, not with steering clear of the iceberg.

Great Shots of Tough Times

From Slate.

15 of 20 Return AIG Bonuses

Marcus Baram, of Huffingtonpost, says most of the money is going back.

Leave it to shame to do the work that a non-existent law probably wouldn't accomplish anyway. I'm relieved because I don't think I could back these recent threats of renegade taxation Congress has been throwing around. That government would, indeed, be too big.

This Time, With Common Sense!

Arthur Delaney, of Huffingtonpost, reports that future bonuses are banned. Great, now if we could just stop these sorts of things before they happen.

The reluctant conspiracy theorist in my brain has been turning this issue over since the Wall-Street bonus fiasco and it tells me that we're dealing with a bi-partisan public relations job. Our legislators (both red and blue) conveniently leave out a provision about how bailout funds are used and then chastise firms for misusing them. Reminds me of when police have a bad quarter so they raid a non-violent rave to get some dope on the table and the people believing again. But that's just me thinking out loud on this here electronic interweb communication thingy.

Wii Price Increase?!?!?!!?

Dustin Quillen, of 1up.com, fills us in on how the Wii got more expensive in the U.K.

But it's the lead that's most striking to me:

As hard as it may be to believe, it's been over two years since the world first got its collective hands on Nintendo's sales-chart-dominating Wii, and we've yet to so much as catch wind of the console's first price drop.

He's right. Every 12-18 months, first-party developers are expected to drop the price of their console, but Nintendo's done no such thing and no one is asking. While some gamers sneered at the Wii's last generation graphics, Miyamoto and Co. revamped the Gamecube with online functionality, innovative controls, and mass appeal. Then they called it the Wii and laughed all the way to the post-recession bank. Admittedly, I'm not a Wii player (PS3 just has the titles I want), but Nintendo is responsible for finishing what Sony started with the Playstation in the late 90's: making video games a permanent fixture in post-industrial cultures.

Jon Stewart Slams CNBC

Yeah, I know it's everywhere. Some days I'm a trailblazer. Today, I follow.

Some Home Owners Still Not Helped

John Leland, of New York Times, discusses citizens falling through the cracks of the Housing Rescue Plan:

About 20 percent of the country’s 50 million mortgage holders owe more than 105 percent of their house’s value, and so do not qualify for refinancing under the plan, according to J.P. Morgan.

“The refinance portion of the plan is set up so it provides the least help for the people who need it most,” said Christopher J. Mayer, a professor of real estate at the Columbia Business School. “We’re missing an opportunity to help many more Americans.”

Strangely enough, this quote is in direct contradiction to the plan as discussed here.

On Dropping Dollars to Raise The Same

A prevailing conservative idea in our time of economic turmoil is that government spending (as in the stimulus) does not make sense. It's irresponsible and risky to burden ourselves with more debt to grow the economy. I agree, somewhat.

Spending money we don't have is risky, yes, and has the potential to go awry (be irresponsible) also, but what other time in this country's history have we lived otherwise? When have we not taken out loans to start businesses, go to college or invest in properties? When have we not bought cars, boats or houses with borrowed money? When we pay cash out to insurance companies, it's to be allowed to borrow from a pool that others paid into as well. That vast majority of us, regardless of political ideology, are happy put an entire Christmas on credit, so why are roughly half of us speaking out against using the Federal Mastercard to solve the economic crisis?

Now I'll be the first to admit that this phenomenon has something to do with saying one thing and doing another. Some citizens condemn credit and then thrive on it, much to the detriment of their families and futures. But if we've learned anything from U.S. History, it's a matter of what you do with your borrowed money when you get it. It's also a matter of having the money to do anything at all. Ask.com reports that it costs anywhere from $461,000-788,500 to open one McDonald's franchise. Most entrepreneurs don't have this kind of cash under the mattress, so they borrow it and hope to turn a profit. This is how most business is conducted in this country. Whether buyer or seller, you operate on credit until you make money or you go out of business/broke.

So all of this raises the question: if negative spending will turn a profit, then what's the problem? The most recent package returned more capital to the middle class in the form of tax breaks than any bill in U.S. history. If this produces positive Gross Domestic Product, then what's wrong with it? The same goes for alternative energy projects, such as overhauling the federal fleet. These types of programs are about saving lots of money over time (and taking care of the environment).

The problem is ideology. Republican obstructionists are fighting the president (and the citizenry) by standing dogmatically by pet causes, some of which are good and some of which put us in this mess. In order to solve the economic riddle, these causes must be evaluated with a lens that prioritizes the citizenry first. That means, yes, tax breaks, no, deregulation of large businesses, etc.

Thankfully, the country is mostly behind the president, along with the democrats in Congress, a few choice Republicans and the general population. This year, Change will move quickly to your door.

Governor Perry will turn away stimulus money

Did I not predict this?

“I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up,” Mr. Perry wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama last week.

Translation: "I don't want to take this money because then we'll have to change the way we do things around here. I don't care if the current system is ruining lives. I don't want to help people."

My open letter to Governor Perry: "You're a jerkoff."

Translation: "You're a jerkoff."

So, wait, what was the hold up?

Jackie Calmes and Robert Pear, of the New York Times, discuss the G.O.P.'s panty-bunching over the stimulus. But you knew about that already. Here's what really matters:

After initially saying they might reject any federal aid, several conservative governors said in interviews over the weekend that they were likely to reject only the money for expanded unemployment compensation because of federal strings that could require them to provide relief to part-time workers who lose jobs as well as to full-time workers. Many other states already provide such aid.

So despite all the bill waving, bill slamming and ranting that "America's best days are behind her", opponents of the stimulus and can accept and decline what's in the bill as they see fit? Well f*ck me, then what exactly was all the deliberation about just a few weeks ago? *cough* Ideological warfare on the taxpayer dime.*cough* Furthermore, because of outlandish Oscar coverage or some other nonsense in the news, you can bet we're only going to get generalizations about where the money's going.

God, are you're there? It's me, The Brute. Please thump the heads of the G.O.P. with your righteous middle finger and save this economy.

And, yes, I am aware of the irony of this post.

Don't Like Socialism? Withdraw.

Bob Cesca, of the Huffington Post, on socialism:

The message is clear. The voices on the far-right are unanimous.

Therefore, I'm calling upon Sean Hannity to use his prime time television program as a platform to rally Republican politicians, cable news hacks and citizens alike to refuse delivery of not just recovery bill spending, but all so-called "socialist" government programs. Send it all back. End American socialism now! All of it.

Refuse to send your kids to socialized public schools and universities; refuse to use socialized roads and highways; refuse to call upon socialized police and fire departments; shut down the socialized air traffic control; refuse to visit socialized national parks; tell grandma that her Social Security and Medicare will have to be sent back to the government; demand the immediate dismantling of our socialized American military. Sarah Palin and her supporters in Alaska should refuse all forms of "redistributed wealth" by sending back their checks from the socialized oil program there.

Well, there you have it. But, hell, it's gets better.

Meanwhile, on her MSNBC show Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow asked Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota if he would refuse his state's share of the recovery plan. Pawlenty hemmed and hawed and finally relented that he wasn't totally opposed to the recovery bill -- just the yucky parts. I assume Pawlenty meant the totally nonexistent parts like the fake ACORN thing and the fake mouse thing, both of which were entirely conjured from thin air by the Republicans. Or did he mean the part of the bill that's otherwise known as, you know, the largest middle class tax cut in American history? Was he opposed to that part?

Get the full read here.

Cali in Trouble

Holy moly. I heard things, but I didn't know it was this bad.

Elsewhere InterWeb

Plato asserts: Rhetoric is not neutral.

I agree. Objectivity in the art of persuasion is a complete
contradiction. Even so, when we make objectivity a virtue in searching for truth, habit always gives way to preconceptions that develop along the way. This isn't such a bad thing; it's just the way things are.

Consider the current political climate. President Obama recently put a spending freeze on big Federal salaries and helped author an ambitious bi-partisan stimulus package. One might presume that bi-partisanship indicates an ignoring of party rhetoric, but I say no.

It's just a shift to the needs of the citizenry, which may happen to coincide with the wants either political party. I know some of you might disagree and my advice to you is to read up on previous presidencies.

For example, W. Bush thought only tax cuts would revive an ailing economy in the wake of September 2001 [as opposed to the massive over haul we're undergoing now] and, eventually, the bottom dropped out. First the housing crisis, then the credit crunch, the banks failing, energy costs increasing and massive lay offs. Was Bush to blame for these problems exclusively? Absolutely not. But Bush was in office when the focus shifted to the economy in 2001 and his answer was tax-cuts only, most of which gave the biggest breaks to the wealthiest citizens (i.e. those who
suffered the least).

"But Brute, stop bashing Bush! He's not even in office anymore!" Point taken, but this is about something greater. Besides Clinton (the former president, not the senator), also looked the other way when faced with signs of the same economic problems. As a conservative lapdog, he did away with the Federal Welfare Program and deregulated the telecommunications industry, which is why cable and cell phone services are either oligopolies or monopolies.

Anyway, the actions of both presidents indicate an allegiance to one thing: ideology. Bush was reluctant to anger his constituents (and wanted to get re-elected), so he put the tax-cut band-aid on the economy. Clinton acted similarly in that he conceded to a Republican congress when he should have been thinking about the average citizen.

The decisions by both men were primarily forced by the political establishment (the rhetoric of the party). If they wanted careers in politics, they had to lose some scruples and maybe not think about the people.

Today, it would seem that President Obama is in tune to rhetoric of the people. He remains objective to the ideas of both parties, but, as one of his most ardent supporters, I predict that he too will make concessions to the establishment. Regardless, rhetoric, the art of persuasion, can not be seen as nuetral.

Straight Talk Express

President Obama in Williamsburg last Thursday:

Then there's the argument that this is full of pet projects, but when was the last time that a bill of this magnitude moved with no ear marks in it? Not one....And [when you start asking], 'Where's all this waste in spending?' 'Well, you want to replace the federal fleet with hybrid cars.' Well, why wouldn't we want to to do that? That creates jobs for people who make those cars, it saves the federal government energy, it saves the tax payers energy. Well then you get the argument, 'This is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.' What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point. No, seriously, that's the whole point.

How quickly has Barack Obama's tone changed after his inaguration. Some would attribute this to arrogance, and while I concede that the President's self-awareness sometimes translates so, this excerpt tells us much more.

The President takes his job personally, viewing himself as the nation's top civil-servant more than anything else. Some of you are probably saying, "Yeah, no sh*t, Brute.", but the truth is our last president viewed the seat as an opportunity to become a war hero, not to improve on a country that wasn't doing half-bad at the turn of the century. Today, the state of things matches the state of the man. He will be frequently angry, and even mocking, but only at those that are keeping him from doing his job.

Furthermore, the particular proposal above is, like it or not, a perfect blend of both parties' ideals. President Obama views the overhauling of the federal fleet as an investment. It's conservative in that it saves money over time. It's liberal in that addresses alternative energy and carbon emissions. Most of his legislation will answer to this dynamic.

Lastly, note how elsewhere President Barack Obama actually utters something we'll call an "apology" for when the administration makes missteps.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Make no mistake; this is the real Straight Talk Express.