Creeping Doubt

So lemme get this straight - Obama and his financial wizards give Wall Street how many hundreds of billions, with few real strings attached, and then go after Detroit and G.M. over a few billion in loans? They must still believe that Wall Street is the economy, they're too spineless to stand up to the money lenders and High Lords of Finance, so they're going to act tough by interfering with an industry that actually produces things! Mr. DeLorenzo, putting aside his ever-present hyperbole, sums it up well in his March 29th entry. Does Wagoner deserve some blame? Sure. And nobody's going to lose sleep because a multi-millionaire is out of a job. But the double standard is certainly troubling. It's yet another depressing example of insiders cashing in, while the political sleight-of-hand directs the public outrage over all of these bailouts towards an appropriately hapless target. The truth is that if GM was one of the favored Wall Street brokerages or investment banks, Wagoner probably would be working for Obama at Treasury instead of getting fired by him.

Coupled with the administration's adherence to some of the previous administration's bad habits regarding secrecy, detention, and the surveillance state, and my disillusion is beginning to spread.

Update: This blog post might convey my meaning better than I did (although my post was first!); not that Wagoner didn't deserve to go (I really can't say, since I've never run a car company), but that this administration is guilty of gross inconsistency/hyprocrisy in its dealings with Detroit and Wall Street. [Elected officials inconsistent and hyprocritical? In other news, the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow.]


Update II:A few more thoughts (from various perspectives) from the Electronosphere about Obama, Wagoner, U.S. industrial policy, et al:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/opinion/31holstein.html
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123846388674472223.html
• http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/03/31/rand_lenin_and_obama/index.html
  

Aptera Sighting in DC!

I almost missed it b/c I was looking the wrong way, but then noticed everyone else on 17th Street staring at the same thing...Aptera is in DC to chat with some politicians about (what else, these days?) loans, manufacturing loans to be specific.

I was just getting used to seeing Smart cars every once in a while, but this was much cooler to see in person; the first future-car technology that I've seen - live, in motion, on a city street - that actually looks like it belongs in the future.

B/c Mr. Grau requested, nay, demanded it, more info on Aptera:

Their web site. Not a lot of concrete stats or numbers yet, but they're supposedly forthcoming. They're also rumored to be delivering the first production model to a real-life customer by the end of this month! Sales to California residents only, though. They're also going t have two initial versions of their 2-seater, an all-electric and a hybrid. They've hinted at a regular ICE as well, possibly in two flavors (gasoline and vanilla, um, diesel).

Here's the test drive by Road & Track last month. They really liked it!

Dodged a Bullet

I called in yesterday to the U.S. District Court's automated juror line, to find out if I would need to report for jury selection today. Fortunately, I was excused from jury duty, perhaps because of my responses on the juror questionnaire concerning the death penalty, and that there were no circumstances under which I vote to impose the it, given a conviction.

Well, I turned on the TV this morning before leaving for work, and every single local news channel featured a story on this trial! Every station's story also mentioned that the judge had decided to keep jurors' identities secret, out of concerns for their safety. So my being "soft on crime" may have lead to an improvement in my personal safety!

Here's another article about the trial that has more on the decision to grant anonymity to the jurors.

He Means Well, But...

...Mr. Obama's stimulus plan strategy looks like it relied to much on the goodwill of Republicans - you know, the minority party that, politically speaking, has an interest in seeing his presidency go down in flames - and now the plan is that much poorer for all this "cooperation".

"The Dude" Gets Smacked Around at Sundance

To think that I always thought that The Dude was a lover, not a fighter ("Just take the four dollars, man!"). Well, maybe he's not really much of a fighter, since he apparently didn't get a punch in.

[for those of you non-Achievers, Jeff "The Dude" Dowd is the real-life person upon which the Cohen Brothers based Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski]

Sasha!

It's unsurprising, but still pretty remarkable, that the arrival of such a small creature can cause so much...commotion. So many regular activities, so much of life's daily rhythm, blown completely away with the birth of a child. It certainly made a difference that this particular child (my daughter! even a few weeks in, still somewhat strange to think of oneself as a father) added to said commotion by arriving well ahead of schedule, by a whole five weeks!

As lucky as we are to have Sasha healthy, despite being pre-term, we're equally fortunate to have our families and friends so involved, and so very generous. It's far too easy to take those around you for granted, but ocassions like this really bring all the generosity, caring, and concern, into focus. Whether a beatiful baby shower - complete with a special guest, the actual baby! - or the food that nieghbors, family, and friends brought over, or a grandma who hopped on a plane not twelve hours after the birth to come help us out for a few weeks, or grandparents who cleaned our house, took care of our furry, non-human (sorry to break it to you Marty, but you're actually a dog) daughters, and outfitted their first grandkid with enough clothes to last until she's age five, it's all been quite cool to have all of you around and watching out for us. Thank you.

Will this blog turn into "All Things Sasha"? I don't think so; I've tended not to include too many personal/family posts in the past, and that trend will probably continue. But there will be updates here and there. And you never know - after all, one shouldn't underestimate the enthusiasm of a proud dad...

Panic In Detroit

(Apologies to Bowie for the title. It's a reach, but I like the song and wanted to use it.)

Why is there so much vitriol directed towards Detroit over their potential government bailout, so much scrutiny of their recovery plans, when Wall Street - whose bailout is at least thirty times more expensive, and still counting! - gets off without any demands for recovery plans or ridiculous harping about their CEOs' modes of transportation? After all, the automakers actually produce something, it's not just money and paper changing hands. Maybe (call me cynical) it can be traced back to campaign contributions; there was a lot more money on Wall Street, some of which naturally found its way down to D.C. Maybe it's simply a question of bad timing - "bailout fatigue" on Capitol Hill - the Big Three are last to the window, so they have to beg for the leftovers. Or maybe they're simply easy targets. These companies obviously don't have the best reputation over the last 30 years. So even though they have, by all acounts, cleaned up there act a lot in the past five years or so, they're still being punished, fairly or not, for past mistakes and shortsightedness. Not that fairness has anything do do with this economic mess at this point - after Bear Stearns, AIG, Citigroup, et cetera, "fairness" hasn't been spotted around here in quite awhile.

But how did Detroit really get into this situation? Well, I'm not the biggest Malcolm Gladwell fan, but this article by the pop-statistician from The New Yorker two years ago explains the long history of the troubles in Motown (and for American industry, in general) better than anything else I've read recently.

The Dude and The Gray Lady

The Dude moves up in the world! (but is this a positive development?): a mention in the New York Times, with a focus on the Caucasian.

More of the Same?

To anyone that expressed optimism (delusion?) that the forthcoming Obama administration would actually bring "change" to Washington, this is not a good sign. Yes, it looks like Joe keeps his committee chair despite his very active campaigning against his ostensible party's nominee. And like Obama himself said, there will be Republicans serving at high levels in his administration.

Did I miss something? Didn't the country, on the whole, vote for Democrats over Republicans at every federal level? Why do Dems seem to have this bi-partisanship fetish? They WON! That means they can select people from their party who should share a progressive viewpoint and support a progressive/liberal agenda, and then..they can go out and enact that agenda! Holy shit, it all seems so easy! But that's not what's happening. Greenwald, as usual, sums it all up nicely:

Our political system is afflicted by many, many problems. A lack of bipartisanship hasn't been one of them. At least during the Bush era, the Beltway political establishment has been fueled by trans-partisan cooperation and internal allegiance far more than by any ideological differences, policy debates, or partisan warfare. Do the last eight years -- defined by George Bush's virtually unimpeded political agenda -- leave any doubt about that?

That's why the outcome of this Joe Lieberman "controversy" is anything but surprising. Having Democrats overlook Lieberman's extremist views and reward him is anything but "change." That's perfectly consistent with -- not a departure from -- how Washington works: political disagreements can be expressed on the rhetorical level but they're virtually always subordinated to the far greater imperative of bipartisan harmony within the political class.

If this is how the next four (or eight) years is going to be: spineless Democrats enacting a half-baked, flaccid agenda with the help of all of their bi-partisan Republican friends, count me among the seriously underwhelmed.

Update: It's official! But I don't think Kos' comment about a tone-deaf Senate is entirely accurate; the Senate is quite aware of the political tone of this decision, it just realizes that ignoring the current tone will have absolutely no repercussions. Until Greens poll at more than one or two percent nationally, progressives are stuck - with Harry Reid and the Democrats.

Word Games

It's one week before the election, but is it 2008 or 1950? The dreaded label of Socialist has been hurled at Barack Obama so often in the past month, it's difficult to tell what year it is. Is this Palin-McCarthy - um, sorry - McCain-McCarthy versus Obama-Marx? Maybe it's a good sign that the hugely succesful demonization of liberal has run out of gas, and the Right has to reach further back in time to when their candidate was still a teenager...and Obama's mom was 8 years old.

A new Red Scare is just what this country needs, isn't it? It's not like we have any other problems to worry about at the moment. Plus, Capitalism has kicked ass lately, hasn't it?

A Real Threat to the Nation

No, this isn't about last night's debate (Sarah Palin scores major points for remaining upright and conscious, right? Oh ya, you betcha!). Nor is it about the financial "crisis". It's about how we just might be a nation of jerks. Tools. Pricks. You get the picture. Why else would Bow-Flex feature Brian Alvarez in its TV ads, other than as an mass appeal to our inner douchebag? If you've seen the ad, you know what I'm talking about. If not, lucky you! I could go on at length, but it wasn't hard to find another blogger who shares a very healthy, heart-warming hatred for Mr. Alvarez.

Palin: Scarier Than Cheney?

I know, what a crazy thought, right? Still, her interview with Katie and some of her mayoral policies make me wonder; her cluelessness versus Cheney's diabolical evil? It's a closer call than I would have thought:

A few clips of her interview with Couric, surrounded by some discussion by Mr. Greenwald (second clip is worse).

Billing rape victims in Wasilla?!?

Brian Drain (aka Gordon Gekko Lives!)

This is the second time in the past few months I've seen this topic broached in our newspapers in the past year, but it seems more relevant now than it did back in February:

In his February 20 column, Steve Pearlstein of the Post railed against how the Finanical Industry operates at the top:

Wall Street's hypocrisy on this topic is nothing less than breathtaking. When times are good, its champions will claim that their brilliance and hard work account for the spectacular returns. But when markets turn and investors lose their shirts, these same brilliant managers are sent off with golden parachutes and invariably scooped up by rival firms that are only too willing to chalk up their mistakes to bad luck.

It would be bad enough if the consequences of this excessive pay were confined to Wall Street. Unfortunately, it has not worked out that way. For the prospect of earning untold wealth also has attracted an enormous amount of young talent that could have been more productively used in science, engineering, medicine, teaching, public service and businesses that generate genuine long-term value.

Is it not fair to ask whether the United States can remain the world's most prosperous and innovative economy when half of the seniors at the most prestigious colleges and universities now aspire to become "i-bankers" at Goldman Sachs?

Now Roger Cohen visits this same territory in his Wednesday column in the New York Times:

When I taught a journalism course at Princeton a couple of years ago, I was captivated by the bright, curious minds in my class. But when I asked students what they wanted to do, the overwhelming answer was: “Oh, I guess I’ll end up in i-banking.”

It was not that they loved investment banking, or thought their purring brains would be best deployed on Wall Street poring over a balance sheet, it was the money and the fact everyone else was doing it.

I called one of my former students, Bianca Bosker, who graduated this summer and has taken a job with The Monitor Group, a management consultancy firm (she’s also writing a book). I asked her about the mood among her peers.

“Well, I have several friends who took summer internships at Lehman that they expected to lead to full-time job, so this is a huge issue,” she said. “You can’t believe how intensely companies like Merrill would recruit at Ivy League schools. I mean, when I was a sophomore, if you could spell your name, you were guaranteed a job.”

But why do freshmen bursting to change the world morph into investment bankers?

“I guess the bottom line is the money. You could be going to grad school and paying for it, or earning six figures. And knowing nothing about money, you get to move hundreds of millions around! No wonder we’re in this mess: turns out the best and the brightest make the biggest and the worst.”

According to the Harvard Crimson, 39 percent of work-force-bound Harvard seniors this year are heading for consulting firms and financial sector companies (or were in June). That’s down from 47 percent — almost half the job-bound class — in 2007.

These numbers mirror a skewed culture. The best and the brightest should think again. Barack Obama put the issue this way at Wesleyan University in May: beware of the “poverty of ambition” in a culture of “the big house and the nice suits.”

39% of Harvard seniors going into the financial sector, down from 47%? I don't know what's more depressing, that some of the very best and brightest only want to make money, or that they're doing such a poor job of it. Sure, there's no guarantee that, had any of these people gone into medicine or engineering, they would have found a cure for cancer or developed a car that could be powered by mayonnaise. Who knows, maybe they'd be making weapons for our massive war machine (there's plenty of money there, too) or inventing less-weighty items. But I'd sure like our odds for a better world if they had chosen those careers. Too bad that it's just about the (obscene amounts of) money.

Isn't Tech Awesome?

Here's the latest small step in the march towards....dystopia? the surveillance state? the end of speeding, illegal lefts, and mowing pedestrians down in crosswalks? Time will tell. Makes me wonder, though - did Orwell, Bradbury, Gibson, Gilliam, and all those fellows who write/wrote about a dystopic future anticipate the advance of technology, and that humans just wouldn't be able to resist using it for these purposes? Or did they think the worst of humankind, and assumed that given enough time it was inevitable that we would consciously work toward the development of these tools of the police state? In other words, which comes first, the camera or the man in the control booth studying you on the monitor? And does it even matter, now that it's here (and growing)?

Real-Life Wire

Straight from the TV screen to the actual streets of Baltimore! OK, maybe this guy and his East Side drug ring weren't as big-time as Proposition Joe or B & B, but it still sounds like David Simon could have written the script for this one.

Beaten to the Punch

I was all set to comment about the latest comments from Jacques Rogge (head of the IOC) about phenom sprinter Usain Bolt, which further cemented Mr. Rogge's reputation as a paragon of hypocrisy. This bourgeois Belgian's buffoonery cannot be bested!

But Sally Jenkins wrote it better than I could in her latest column (albeit absent the alarming attack of alliteration).

Cabin Noise

Considering (1) how inconsiderate some people can be when using their mobile phones in public and (2) that assaulting another airline passenger during these days of the Bush-Cheney regime could get you shipped to Guantanamo, this bill seems like a great idea to me. I even like the name! But it's probably only a matter of time before phones on U.S. flights are a reality; they're already allowed on planes in other parts of the world, after all.

Festival 2008 Recap

We hit the 2nd day of the '08 Virgin Mobile Festival on Sunday, and while not as good as last year (how can you top The Police, Beastie Boys, LCD Soundsystem, Cheap Trick, and even a vacant Amy Winehouse?), it was still a good time. There was a lot more separation between the two headliners, Nine Inch Nails and Kanye West, and the rest of the lineup - seemingly, all of the on-stage energy for the entire day was saved up for the last two acts. There were certainly other solid if unspectacular performances from Stone Temple Pilots, the Black Keys, Bob Dylan, and Moby, but nothing that could touch the aggressiveness of Mr. Reznor or the showmanship of Mr. West. There were a few acts that I had never heard of, or that had heard very little about, that I'll be checking out more, including Andrew Bird and Chromeo.

Legalizing the Surveillance State

It's done, the new FISA bill has passed in the Senate. No, this doesn't plunge us into 1984. But it does bring us a few steps closer.

I think Obama's stark reversal on this issue is oddly reassuring - having a principled, honest person running for president is way too suspicious, but now we know he's just another politician. Will I still vote for the guy? Sure! (as if I'd vote for McCain). But he's not the Second Coming, as his hard-core supporters like to imagine. He's just another poll-driven, broken-promises, triangulating candidate. Much more appropriate behavior for someone running for president.

Why The Left Runs To The "Center"?

Here's an insightful post that builds on Greenwald's latest and asks why Weakness is Strength for Dems. The answer is intriguing, although I'm not sure I buy the entire premise; I guess I have a hard time believing that today's media stars are that influential with voters, but then again for the premise to work, they only need to be influential to candidates and their advisers. The concept of "moving to the center" is summed up nicely with this line:

The entire construct is based upon Democrats distancing themselves from their most ardent supporters (which is quite convenient for Republicans.)