Speculators on Wall Street seem buoyed by the fact that U.S. Gross Domestic Product for the third quarter was revised down from 3.5 percent to 2.8 percent, and further buoyed, by recently released economic data in the fourth quarter indicating the Obama stimulus will have an ephemeral effect on the U.S. economy.
Just as the Bush economic stimulus package in 2008 failed to prevent an economic dislocation — it enabled an anemic one quarter rise in GDP prior to the greatest economic prostration since the Great Depression — likewise, the more pronounced Obama stimulus will lift the economy for a short time, but in the end it also will falter, not offering sufficient sustenance for a sustained recovery.
The contrary views of this columnist may be unpopular among those on Wall Street who long for the days of smashing stock markets, but they are much more realistic than predictions of sustained growth in 2010.
A close look at the recessions of the post-WWII era reveals that those periods of economic decline were short-lived, essentially time spans when inventories declined while credit markets continued to expand. The lack of credit expansion during this economic dislocation indicates that the current stabilization in the economy is temporary.
What silver bullets remain for Congress and the Federal Reserve: more stimulus funding resulting in increased deficits, or the printing of additional dollars?
Today’s unprecedented credit crunch has destabilized not only the U.S. economy, but world markets as well. The next stage of the crisis is beginning to raise its head — Dubai, Greece — how many other nations will be attempting to cross a snowy mountain pass in a wagon with too few supplies?
True — credit to big corporations in the U.S. has begun to flow in limited amounts, but those who rely on credit are yet to see any positives. In fact, the credit crunch is continuing as credit card companies continue to close personal accounts, lower credit limits and raise interest rates to unconscionable levels.
In addition, credit availability to small business has decreased on multiple fronts.
Consumer spending accounts for nearly two-thirds of the Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. economy. Without increased consumer expenditures it is highly unlikely that a sustained turnaround will emerge.
Relying on consumer expenditures to foist the economy out of the depths of a tartarean trajectory is naive.
With the high rate of U.S. unemployment, recent college graduates are finding themselves working jobs that are normally filled by less skilled. The less skilled are suffering from the highest unemployment levels seen since the Great Depression. It is now common for college-educated workers under 30 to move back home.
The U.S. economy, despite the uptick in the third quarter, is not out of the woods. Bank bailouts begun under the aegis of Bush and continued under the Obama Administration have been responsible for delaying the inevitable: a well-needed cleansing of a seedy unregulated banking system whose actions have resulted in a decline in the American standard of living.
The U.S. Commerce Department recently released American net worth statistics showing a 5 percent rebound from the bottom of the economic depression.
Are the recent stock market gains sustainable? Is there clear evidence of a return to economic vibrancy or is the recent rise in market values due to an irrepressible greed mentality that pervades the American mindset?
Many government economists are relying on the boomer generation to reignite a distressed economy.
Yes, during the severe recession of the Reagan years, boomers who were in the early years of their working lives spent the nation out of the most debilitating economic downturn since the Great Depression. Once again, after the tech bubble burst, boomers came to the rescue.
Today, boomers are older, and their spending habits are less likely to turn a sour economy into the third coming. Those born after 1964 don’t post numbers great enough to replace the boomers whose extraordinary buying power was a once-in-a-lifetime event.
A recent CNBC study entitled “Wealth in America,” provided some interesting fodder for those advocating a third way.
The approval rating for President Obama’s economic leadership was 46 percent, down from 56 percent in February.
The approval rating of the Democratic Party stood at 39 percent, the Republican Party at 26 percent, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at 22 percent and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at 18 percent.
The CNBC study revealed some additional facts of note:
Nearly one in four Americans disapprove of the way both political parties are handling the economy.
More than half of Americans are pessimistic about the current state of the economy and the outlook for the future.
The Great Economic Retrenchment that began under Bush will continue because Americans have limited trust in their government benefactors, despite the spending of $1.5 trillion dollars on stimulus and bailouts.
Thom Carnevale
This Gandering column was first published in the Friday, December 18,2009 edition of the Telluride Daily Planet.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
WAR AND BROKEN PROMISES
“War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the miltary.” — George Clemenceau, French Prime Minister, 1906-09, 1917-1920
Every time a Republican is elected president, they act like a Republican. Every time a Democrat is elected president, they act like a Republican.
Less than a year into the presidency of the last three Democrats elected to the White House, progressives who had envisioned change have been indubitably disappointed.
Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama — all made the grave misplay — misunderstanding the needs and desires of the American people, misusing the power delegated by the American electorate at the previous election, and the lack of a clear progressive vision for the future.
In 1977, 1993, and once again in 2009, I was reminded of one of the world’s most prolific rock groups, The Who, and their most intuitive of songs — “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”
The change, it had to come, we knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that’s all
And the world looks just the same, and history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again.
In his first 11 months in office, moderate-conservative President Barack Obama, refused to release any torture photographs because they might enflame extremists, refused to restore habeas corpus, refused to end warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, retraced his stance on detentions, military commissions, signing statements, continues to station some 140,000 American troops in Iraq, increasingly relies on private contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and the latest — escalates the war in Afghanistan while committing to a secret war in Pakistan.
Is this George W. Bush’s third term? Certainly not, it is the first term of Barack Obama and he will have to live with his errant decisions.
Mr. President, the Hamid Karzi government in Afghanistan is corrupt and ineffectual. The country is immersed in tribal war, warlords rule many regions of the nation, Islamic extremists are in control of a sizable part of the country, and the nation’s economy is based on drug trafficking.
The people of Afghanistan have grown to dislike Americans, and this dislike will continue to fester as the escalation catapults America into an unenviable but familiar position. This nation is in the ninth year of the Afghan war and there is no specific outline of purpose. President Obama, your speech to the West Point cadets was masterful, but it failed to contain the rationale behind a further deployment of American forces.
After your announcement, in hearings held by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations committee, both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wavered on the proposed exit strategy.
Yes, Republicans jumped on your bandwagon, but Democrats in your own party have begun to balk at the war costs that will accompany the escalation, and the escalation’s effect on the soaring deficit, and the threats to the life and limbs of those young Americans committed to this unjustified action.
The yearly cost for each soldier deployed to Afghanistan — $1 million.
Already Republicans in Congress are saying that the additional costs of the effort must be paid for by cuts in domestic spending, such as health care, education, job creation and infrastructure repair. Since the announcement of the escalation, Republicans have begun to call the war in Afghanistan war the Obama War, and rightfully so. Fair or not, in time, this will become the judgment of the American people.
The biggest disappointment in your presidency — your so-called new generation of leadership is similar to the last — wars and broken promises.
President Obama, you pledged not to put a new face on the same policies, but rather to change the way we engage with the world. You have failed to live up to that promise.
To those Americans concerned about Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan I have four words: Don’t buy this war — contact your elected representatives and assertively suggest they support efforts to cut off spending for a war that will end in increased death and injury for the youth of America and Afghanistan.
Thom Carnevale
This Gandering column was first published in the Friday, December 11, 20009 edition of the Telluride Daily Planet.
Every time a Republican is elected president, they act like a Republican. Every time a Democrat is elected president, they act like a Republican.
Less than a year into the presidency of the last three Democrats elected to the White House, progressives who had envisioned change have been indubitably disappointed.
Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama — all made the grave misplay — misunderstanding the needs and desires of the American people, misusing the power delegated by the American electorate at the previous election, and the lack of a clear progressive vision for the future.
In 1977, 1993, and once again in 2009, I was reminded of one of the world’s most prolific rock groups, The Who, and their most intuitive of songs — “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”
The change, it had to come, we knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that’s all
And the world looks just the same, and history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again.
In his first 11 months in office, moderate-conservative President Barack Obama, refused to release any torture photographs because they might enflame extremists, refused to restore habeas corpus, refused to end warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, retraced his stance on detentions, military commissions, signing statements, continues to station some 140,000 American troops in Iraq, increasingly relies on private contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and the latest — escalates the war in Afghanistan while committing to a secret war in Pakistan.
Is this George W. Bush’s third term? Certainly not, it is the first term of Barack Obama and he will have to live with his errant decisions.
Mr. President, the Hamid Karzi government in Afghanistan is corrupt and ineffectual. The country is immersed in tribal war, warlords rule many regions of the nation, Islamic extremists are in control of a sizable part of the country, and the nation’s economy is based on drug trafficking.
The people of Afghanistan have grown to dislike Americans, and this dislike will continue to fester as the escalation catapults America into an unenviable but familiar position. This nation is in the ninth year of the Afghan war and there is no specific outline of purpose. President Obama, your speech to the West Point cadets was masterful, but it failed to contain the rationale behind a further deployment of American forces.
After your announcement, in hearings held by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations committee, both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wavered on the proposed exit strategy.
Yes, Republicans jumped on your bandwagon, but Democrats in your own party have begun to balk at the war costs that will accompany the escalation, and the escalation’s effect on the soaring deficit, and the threats to the life and limbs of those young Americans committed to this unjustified action.
The yearly cost for each soldier deployed to Afghanistan — $1 million.
Already Republicans in Congress are saying that the additional costs of the effort must be paid for by cuts in domestic spending, such as health care, education, job creation and infrastructure repair. Since the announcement of the escalation, Republicans have begun to call the war in Afghanistan war the Obama War, and rightfully so. Fair or not, in time, this will become the judgment of the American people.
The biggest disappointment in your presidency — your so-called new generation of leadership is similar to the last — wars and broken promises.
President Obama, you pledged not to put a new face on the same policies, but rather to change the way we engage with the world. You have failed to live up to that promise.
To those Americans concerned about Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan I have four words: Don’t buy this war — contact your elected representatives and assertively suggest they support efforts to cut off spending for a war that will end in increased death and injury for the youth of America and Afghanistan.
Thom Carnevale
This Gandering column was first published in the Friday, December 11, 20009 edition of the Telluride Daily Planet.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Friday, December 04, 2009
REJECTING FLYPAPER DUPERIES
"A Democrat has to show toughness to govern. People don't doubt that Republicans will be tough."
-- Al From, political strategist
The Republican Party is too liberal for the members of the Republican National Committee.
Members of the southern based party are circulating a petition that would prohibit any Republican National Committee money from attending any Republican candidate for political office who does not first swear allegiance to the party's far-right ideological platform.
The movement for ideological purity is being led by Republican National Committeeman from Indiana, Jim Bopp, Jr.
Bopp in interviews with cable news channels duly stated his position: "Re-establish the party's conservative bona fides -- This would establish standards for candidates and hold them accountable to the RNC's conservative platform. We are open to diverse views, but you do have to agree with us."
Earlier this year, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution calling on Democrats to "stop pushing the country toward socialism."
Gradually -- nativists, reactionaries, nationalists and members of the religious right have established an inflexible beachhead in the Republican party, a party that early last century represented a more rational approach to governance.
In the 21st century, moderates in the party, such as former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, have been swept aside as the party has become a hotbed of extremist fervor.
In recent days, Republicans have tendered themselves as a counter to the current policies of the Democratic administration headed by moderate-conservative President Barack Obama, but the offering has been stale, and the discontented public is becoming disenchanted with both parties.
The lurch to the right by the Republicans, is accompanied by a rightward movement among a small minority of moderate-conservative Democrats.
The so-called moderate-conservative members of the Democratic Party, Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, among others, are forcing the progressive party to trash worthy health care legislation, resist withdrawal efforts from Iraq, and prevent the Obama administration from rushing head first into a Vietnam-like war in Afghanistan.
At this point in time, majority progressive members of the Democratic Party seem unable to counter the unyielding conservative members in the caucus.
It would befit the conservatives in the party to remember that the Democrats rose to power as an agent of progressivism --that progressivism is an ideology, a philosophical view, a political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.
Progressivism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment.
Progressivism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy supported by reasonable regulation, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.
In today's society, progressives favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.
Friends in the conservative Democratic caucus -- running on a progressive platform is a winning play. The American people support a Medicare-for-all health system, the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, a healthy financial sector, and job creation to lessen the impact of the current 17.5 percent unemployment brought on by the excesses of eight years of de-regulation and gilded age economics. The grand expostulation by Republicans is stultifying American ingenuity and prowess.
A warning to conservative Democrats: Running as Repub-Dems in 2010 re-election campaigns will result in extinction.
Let the Republicans brew a stew of status quo iterations. Let Republicans neglect the economic concerns of Americans during this economic crisis; and the people of this nation will reject their flypaper duperies.
Thom Carnevale
This Gandering column was first published in the Friday, December 4, 2009 edition og the Telluride Daily Planet.
-- Al From, political strategist
The Republican Party is too liberal for the members of the Republican National Committee.
Members of the southern based party are circulating a petition that would prohibit any Republican National Committee money from attending any Republican candidate for political office who does not first swear allegiance to the party's far-right ideological platform.
The movement for ideological purity is being led by Republican National Committeeman from Indiana, Jim Bopp, Jr.
Bopp in interviews with cable news channels duly stated his position: "Re-establish the party's conservative bona fides -- This would establish standards for candidates and hold them accountable to the RNC's conservative platform. We are open to diverse views, but you do have to agree with us."
Earlier this year, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution calling on Democrats to "stop pushing the country toward socialism."
Gradually -- nativists, reactionaries, nationalists and members of the religious right have established an inflexible beachhead in the Republican party, a party that early last century represented a more rational approach to governance.
In the 21st century, moderates in the party, such as former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, have been swept aside as the party has become a hotbed of extremist fervor.
In recent days, Republicans have tendered themselves as a counter to the current policies of the Democratic administration headed by moderate-conservative President Barack Obama, but the offering has been stale, and the discontented public is becoming disenchanted with both parties.
The lurch to the right by the Republicans, is accompanied by a rightward movement among a small minority of moderate-conservative Democrats.
The so-called moderate-conservative members of the Democratic Party, Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, among others, are forcing the progressive party to trash worthy health care legislation, resist withdrawal efforts from Iraq, and prevent the Obama administration from rushing head first into a Vietnam-like war in Afghanistan.
At this point in time, majority progressive members of the Democratic Party seem unable to counter the unyielding conservative members in the caucus.
It would befit the conservatives in the party to remember that the Democrats rose to power as an agent of progressivism --that progressivism is an ideology, a philosophical view, a political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.
Progressivism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment.
Progressivism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy supported by reasonable regulation, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.
In today's society, progressives favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.
Friends in the conservative Democratic caucus -- running on a progressive platform is a winning play. The American people support a Medicare-for-all health system, the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, a healthy financial sector, and job creation to lessen the impact of the current 17.5 percent unemployment brought on by the excesses of eight years of de-regulation and gilded age economics. The grand expostulation by Republicans is stultifying American ingenuity and prowess.
A warning to conservative Democrats: Running as Repub-Dems in 2010 re-election campaigns will result in extinction.
Let the Republicans brew a stew of status quo iterations. Let Republicans neglect the economic concerns of Americans during this economic crisis; and the people of this nation will reject their flypaper duperies.
Thom Carnevale
This Gandering column was first published in the Friday, December 4, 2009 edition og the Telluride Daily Planet.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
DAILY TELLURIDE WEATHER -- DECEMBER
Dec 1 - 41/8/ 0
Dec 2 - 32/7/ 0
Dec 3 - 21/-4/ 0
Dec 4 - 32/-9/ 0
Dec 5 - 40/4/ 0
Dec 6 - 32/10/ T
Dec 7 - 31/13/ 3.75"(.20)
Dec 8 - 27/1/ 11"(.66)
Dec 9 - 22/-13/ 0
Dec 10 - 33/-11/ 0
Dec 11 - 40/-2/ 0
Dec 12 - 42/24/ 2"(.10)
Dec 13 - 36/22/ 6"(.32)
Dec 14 - 40/5/ 0
Dec 15 - 35/-2/ 0
Dec 16 - 45/9/ 0
Dec 17 - 39/9/ 0
Dec 18 - 41/5/ 0
Dec 19 - 32/-3/ 0
Dec 20 - 41/6/ 0
Dec 21 - 43/9/ 0
Dec 22 - 39/18/ T
Dec 2 - 32/7/ 0
Dec 3 - 21/-4/ 0
Dec 4 - 32/-9/ 0
Dec 5 - 40/4/ 0
Dec 6 - 32/10/ T
Dec 7 - 31/13/ 3.75"(.20)
Dec 8 - 27/1/ 11"(.66)
Dec 9 - 22/-13/ 0
Dec 10 - 33/-11/ 0
Dec 11 - 40/-2/ 0
Dec 12 - 42/24/ 2"(.10)
Dec 13 - 36/22/ 6"(.32)
Dec 14 - 40/5/ 0
Dec 15 - 35/-2/ 0
Dec 16 - 45/9/ 0
Dec 17 - 39/9/ 0
Dec 18 - 41/5/ 0
Dec 19 - 32/-3/ 0
Dec 20 - 41/6/ 0
Dec 21 - 43/9/ 0
Dec 22 - 39/18/ T
TELLURIDE -- NOVEMBER WEATHER SUMMARY
Normal precip, November: 1.53"
November, 2009 precip: 1.67"
Normal precip through Nov. 30, 2009: 21.73"
Year precip through Nov. 30, 2009: 21.41"
Plus or minus through Nov. 30, 2009: -.32
Average snow, November: 21.5"
Maximum snow, November: 57" (1991)
Snow November 2009: 22"
Highest temperature November, 2009: 61 (11-4)
Record high, November: 73 (1941)
Lowest temperature November, 2009: 2 (11-24)
Record low, November: -22(1931)
November, 2009 precip: 1.67"
Normal precip through Nov. 30, 2009: 21.73"
Year precip through Nov. 30, 2009: 21.41"
Plus or minus through Nov. 30, 2009: -.32
Average snow, November: 21.5"
Maximum snow, November: 57" (1991)
Snow November 2009: 22"
Highest temperature November, 2009: 61 (11-4)
Record high, November: 73 (1941)
Lowest temperature November, 2009: 2 (11-24)
Record low, November: -22(1931)
Thursday, November 26, 2009
SARAH AND GEORGE
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”
— founding father Samuel Adams
What’s a girl to do? An astounding 78 percent of Americans think you are unqualified to be president. Of the 22 percent who trust your qualifications, less than half that number would vote for you.
Well, maybe you should just keep on truckin’, travel the byways selling a book written for the love-struck hearts of raveled middle-aged curiosities.
Everyone loves a trashin’ and bashin’ book about the sordid details of a presidential campaign. It doesn’t hurt to mention the bronzed bare chest of the man in your life, or your unwed daughter’s baby, or your mantra — “drill, baby drill.” Personal details about a dysfunctional family comfort normal families, enabling the average American to feel better about a less than stellar existence.
On the book trail, throw out a few non sequiturs: global warming is a myth; war is good; I have gay friends but; I prefer moose and caribou to beef; Levi is on the wrong road; all the while making veiled inferences about others religious faith, and you’ll become a love nest for the disgruntled right wing.
Title your book “Going Rogue,” and you’ll capture the hearts and minds of discontented iconoclastic rebels.
By the way, a curious title for a book by the conservatives’ conservative.
According to the Google dictionary, the word “rogue” has a variety of meanings. 1: A rogue is a person who behaves in a dishonest or criminal way. 2: A rogue element is someone that behaves differently from others of their kind, often causing damage.
Well — there have been other rogues. Sarah Palin is certainly not the first.
Every time I think of Sarah I can’t help but be reminded of George, George Wallace that is, the former segregationist governor of Alabama who became a cause celebre when he ran for president on the American Independent Party ticket in 1968, carrying five deep southern states for a total of 46 electoral votes. In that presidential election, Wallace garnered 13.5 percent of the national vote.
Wallace’s goal was to throw the election into the U.S. House of Representatives where he hoped to be a power broker, trading votes for political concessions, which would enhance Wallace’s personal power.
In the 1968 election campaign Wallace pledged to run over any anti-Vietnam War demonstrators with his limousine, an went down in history for his words about hippies: “The only words they don’t know are s-o-a-p and w-o-r-k.”
The pudgy southerner with gnarled lips hit the American scene touting his brand of populist racism on a book tour.
Wallace, a cacophonous busker stripped naked by the righteous words of white liberals who longed for a nation that honored its legions of diversity, remained a political force running for president once again in 1972. This time Wallace, running as a Democrat — in 1972 southerners still clung to the Democratic Party, rather than the Republican Party they associated with anti-slavery sentiments — carried all 42 counties in Florida’s presidential primary before his bid was ended by an assassination attempt while on the campaign trail in Laurel, Md.
Wheel chair bound, Wallace whose health was frail, announced his candidacy anew, this time for the 1976 presidential nomination. His star fading, Wallace ended his campaign after winning the primaries in only three southern states. Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter went on to win the nomination and the presidency.
Sarah Palin and George Wallace are two peas in a pod, although separated by a generation of languid political values and a lack of intellectual curiosity.
“I’ve read about foreign policy and studied — I know the number of continents.” — quote by Gov. Wallace during his 1968 presidential campaign.
For a rogue, Gov. George Wallace had the right idea, but he didn’t have the charisma to win the game. Sarah, you have the right-wing values and the beauty queen looks. Adopt the George Wallace campaign phrase, “Stand Up For America,” and the legions of liberals will melt in the fiery furnace.
Sarah, my advice to you: Don’t seek the Republican Party nomination in 2012. Southern Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee and Morman Elder Mitt Romney have enough support to cover the bases, rather run as an American Independent. Chances are you might just find yourself in the White House, or in a worst-case scenario, a power broker in the presidential sweepstakes.
Thom Carnevale
This Gandering column was first published in the Thursday, November 26, 2009 edition of the Telluride Daily Planet.
— founding father Samuel Adams
What’s a girl to do? An astounding 78 percent of Americans think you are unqualified to be president. Of the 22 percent who trust your qualifications, less than half that number would vote for you.
Well, maybe you should just keep on truckin’, travel the byways selling a book written for the love-struck hearts of raveled middle-aged curiosities.
Everyone loves a trashin’ and bashin’ book about the sordid details of a presidential campaign. It doesn’t hurt to mention the bronzed bare chest of the man in your life, or your unwed daughter’s baby, or your mantra — “drill, baby drill.” Personal details about a dysfunctional family comfort normal families, enabling the average American to feel better about a less than stellar existence.
On the book trail, throw out a few non sequiturs: global warming is a myth; war is good; I have gay friends but; I prefer moose and caribou to beef; Levi is on the wrong road; all the while making veiled inferences about others religious faith, and you’ll become a love nest for the disgruntled right wing.
Title your book “Going Rogue,” and you’ll capture the hearts and minds of discontented iconoclastic rebels.
By the way, a curious title for a book by the conservatives’ conservative.
According to the Google dictionary, the word “rogue” has a variety of meanings. 1: A rogue is a person who behaves in a dishonest or criminal way. 2: A rogue element is someone that behaves differently from others of their kind, often causing damage.
Well — there have been other rogues. Sarah Palin is certainly not the first.
Every time I think of Sarah I can’t help but be reminded of George, George Wallace that is, the former segregationist governor of Alabama who became a cause celebre when he ran for president on the American Independent Party ticket in 1968, carrying five deep southern states for a total of 46 electoral votes. In that presidential election, Wallace garnered 13.5 percent of the national vote.
Wallace’s goal was to throw the election into the U.S. House of Representatives where he hoped to be a power broker, trading votes for political concessions, which would enhance Wallace’s personal power.
In the 1968 election campaign Wallace pledged to run over any anti-Vietnam War demonstrators with his limousine, an went down in history for his words about hippies: “The only words they don’t know are s-o-a-p and w-o-r-k.”
The pudgy southerner with gnarled lips hit the American scene touting his brand of populist racism on a book tour.
Wallace, a cacophonous busker stripped naked by the righteous words of white liberals who longed for a nation that honored its legions of diversity, remained a political force running for president once again in 1972. This time Wallace, running as a Democrat — in 1972 southerners still clung to the Democratic Party, rather than the Republican Party they associated with anti-slavery sentiments — carried all 42 counties in Florida’s presidential primary before his bid was ended by an assassination attempt while on the campaign trail in Laurel, Md.
Wheel chair bound, Wallace whose health was frail, announced his candidacy anew, this time for the 1976 presidential nomination. His star fading, Wallace ended his campaign after winning the primaries in only three southern states. Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter went on to win the nomination and the presidency.
Sarah Palin and George Wallace are two peas in a pod, although separated by a generation of languid political values and a lack of intellectual curiosity.
“I’ve read about foreign policy and studied — I know the number of continents.” — quote by Gov. Wallace during his 1968 presidential campaign.
For a rogue, Gov. George Wallace had the right idea, but he didn’t have the charisma to win the game. Sarah, you have the right-wing values and the beauty queen looks. Adopt the George Wallace campaign phrase, “Stand Up For America,” and the legions of liberals will melt in the fiery furnace.
Sarah, my advice to you: Don’t seek the Republican Party nomination in 2012. Southern Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee and Morman Elder Mitt Romney have enough support to cover the bases, rather run as an American Independent. Chances are you might just find yourself in the White House, or in a worst-case scenario, a power broker in the presidential sweepstakes.
Thom Carnevale
This Gandering column was first published in the Thursday, November 26, 2009 edition of the Telluride Daily Planet.
Friday, November 20, 2009
DUMP THE CHAFF
"Many men of course become extremely rich, but this is perfectly natural and nothing to be ashamed of because no one is really poor, at least no one worth speaking of."
-- Douglas Adams, deceased British comedy writer
According to a study conducted in 2008 and recently released by the Center for Responsive Politics, 237 of the 435 members of Congress were millionaires.
The statistic becomes more striking when the numbers are broken into percentages. A total of 44 percent of members of Congress cross the millionaire threshold. A paltry 1-2 percent of Americans are millionaires -- the percentage total depends upon whether primary residences are included in the calculation.
In Congress, wealth is bi-partisan.
Both Republican and Democratic Congressional members emanate a wealth standard not unlike the world's Corinthians.
In the United States the wealthiest member of Congress is California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa whose net worth exceeds $254 million.
Four Democrats follow Republican Issa: Rep. Jane Harman of California -- $245 million, Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin -- $215 million, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia -- $210 million and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts weighs in at $209 million.
No billionaires in Congress?
Health care impresario Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) rounds out the top 25 with $28 million.
The top 25 most flush members of the august body breaks down -- 14 Democrats and 11 Republicans.
Due to a quirk in public disclosure requirements, it should be noted that a congress member's primary residence and government salary is not included in his/her net worth equation. Cadillac health care benefits provided by the government are also excluded.
Yes, some of the wealthiest elected officials, Sen. John Kerry among them, have suffered economic turn downs. From 2007 to 2008 Kerry lost approximately $128 million.
Yes, there are a few poor members of Congress. The poorest member of Congress is Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FLA). Hastings has a negative net worth of $4.75 million. Several others ring in at the bottom. Along with Hastings are Colorado Democrat Rep. John Salazar and New Mexico Democratic Rep. Harry Teague, who also report a negative net worth.
The median reportable net worth of senators declined from $2.27 million to a still-stout $1.79 million between 2007 and 2008. The median reportable net worth for members of the House of Representative in 2008 was $622,254, down approximately 20 percent from the previous year.
The Center for Responsive Politics' report indicates that in innumerable cases members of Congress are deriving wealth from some of the companies that have benefited from taxpayer bailouts -- Citibank, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs to name a few.
The report also rates the wealth of members of the executive branch of government. Vice president Joe Biden is the poorest member with a net worth of $27,012. At the top, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ranks second with $21 million. President Obama ranks well down the list with $3.7 million.
As wealth goes so goes the nation.
Today's members of Congress are as far removed from the people as the Roman Senators during the declining days of the Empire. Those who write laws for a living have little appreciation for the plight of the middle class, working people or the indigent.
For instance, if members of Congress had no health insurance, a catastrophic illness would make little dent in their lives.
Even those who haven't managed, as yet, to break into the millionaire club manage to share in the the perks. Lobbyists are sitting in the wings waiting to make life a bit easier for the less financially stout.
Several questions arise. Can the top 1-2 percent of wealthy Americans empathize with those who don't share the wealth? Should we relegate lack of wealth to Max Weber's theory expostulated in his classic, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism? Should inherited wealth be subtracted from the equation? After all, the inherently wealthy live on the laurels of past generations.
The question of wealth is a question of balance, of fairness. Today working people who are the backbone of the nation are suffering from high rates of unemployment; middle class and small businesses are feeling the effects of high taxes and reduced compensation.
It doesn't take years of experience, rather sound judgment and pure common sense to recognize that this nation will not prosper if the mainstay of it's productive engine continues to endure a skewed distribution of wealth.
The time has arrived for Americans to dump the chaff.
A fairer distribution of wealth in this nation will encourage greater productivity, and the greatest disparity of wealth concentration since the Great Depression will ease, increasing the economic opportunity for all Americans.
Statesman, political philosopher and one of the nation's founding fathers, Samuel Adams once said: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
Thom Carnevale
This Gandering column was first published in the Friday, November 20 ,2009 edition of the Telluride Daily Planet.
-- Douglas Adams, deceased British comedy writer
According to a study conducted in 2008 and recently released by the Center for Responsive Politics, 237 of the 435 members of Congress were millionaires.
The statistic becomes more striking when the numbers are broken into percentages. A total of 44 percent of members of Congress cross the millionaire threshold. A paltry 1-2 percent of Americans are millionaires -- the percentage total depends upon whether primary residences are included in the calculation.
In Congress, wealth is bi-partisan.
Both Republican and Democratic Congressional members emanate a wealth standard not unlike the world's Corinthians.
In the United States the wealthiest member of Congress is California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa whose net worth exceeds $254 million.
Four Democrats follow Republican Issa: Rep. Jane Harman of California -- $245 million, Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin -- $215 million, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia -- $210 million and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts weighs in at $209 million.
No billionaires in Congress?
Health care impresario Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) rounds out the top 25 with $28 million.
The top 25 most flush members of the august body breaks down -- 14 Democrats and 11 Republicans.
Due to a quirk in public disclosure requirements, it should be noted that a congress member's primary residence and government salary is not included in his/her net worth equation. Cadillac health care benefits provided by the government are also excluded.
Yes, some of the wealthiest elected officials, Sen. John Kerry among them, have suffered economic turn downs. From 2007 to 2008 Kerry lost approximately $128 million.
Yes, there are a few poor members of Congress. The poorest member of Congress is Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FLA). Hastings has a negative net worth of $4.75 million. Several others ring in at the bottom. Along with Hastings are Colorado Democrat Rep. John Salazar and New Mexico Democratic Rep. Harry Teague, who also report a negative net worth.
The median reportable net worth of senators declined from $2.27 million to a still-stout $1.79 million between 2007 and 2008. The median reportable net worth for members of the House of Representative in 2008 was $622,254, down approximately 20 percent from the previous year.
The Center for Responsive Politics' report indicates that in innumerable cases members of Congress are deriving wealth from some of the companies that have benefited from taxpayer bailouts -- Citibank, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs to name a few.
The report also rates the wealth of members of the executive branch of government. Vice president Joe Biden is the poorest member with a net worth of $27,012. At the top, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ranks second with $21 million. President Obama ranks well down the list with $3.7 million.
As wealth goes so goes the nation.
Today's members of Congress are as far removed from the people as the Roman Senators during the declining days of the Empire. Those who write laws for a living have little appreciation for the plight of the middle class, working people or the indigent.
For instance, if members of Congress had no health insurance, a catastrophic illness would make little dent in their lives.
Even those who haven't managed, as yet, to break into the millionaire club manage to share in the the perks. Lobbyists are sitting in the wings waiting to make life a bit easier for the less financially stout.
Several questions arise. Can the top 1-2 percent of wealthy Americans empathize with those who don't share the wealth? Should we relegate lack of wealth to Max Weber's theory expostulated in his classic, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism? Should inherited wealth be subtracted from the equation? After all, the inherently wealthy live on the laurels of past generations.
The question of wealth is a question of balance, of fairness. Today working people who are the backbone of the nation are suffering from high rates of unemployment; middle class and small businesses are feeling the effects of high taxes and reduced compensation.
It doesn't take years of experience, rather sound judgment and pure common sense to recognize that this nation will not prosper if the mainstay of it's productive engine continues to endure a skewed distribution of wealth.
The time has arrived for Americans to dump the chaff.
A fairer distribution of wealth in this nation will encourage greater productivity, and the greatest disparity of wealth concentration since the Great Depression will ease, increasing the economic opportunity for all Americans.
Statesman, political philosopher and one of the nation's founding fathers, Samuel Adams once said: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
Thom Carnevale
This Gandering column was first published in the Friday, November 20 ,2009 edition of the Telluride Daily Planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)