lecture us, please

A response to this article, of today's edition of TheDailyBeast.com:

As I read this article today, I grew increasingly frustrated with the narrative that the Republicans are peddling these days. I have heard it all over, from the news channels to the radio, and then this article, that somehow this new administration is trying to implement "socialistic" agendas and is trying to punish the "payers of taxes and creators of wealth." It really doesn't make any sense to me and I think its a completely disingenuous representation of the responsible leadership that this country chose overwhelmingly in November.

It would seem that the web the Republicans are weaving these days relies heavily on the belief that the government is the least reliable means to solve any problem, and that the market and individuals will undoubtedly make the decisions that will bring about the correct, market driven solutions. While I think that is true most of the time, this crisis has highlighted that the market can't be relied on exclusively. "No, no no!" the Rushites protest, "the government caused all of these problems through regulation and forcing banks to give out bad loans to people who couldn't afford them!" Right. As the frosty credit markets can show us, not even the federal government can tell the banks who to lend to, even when the money they are supposed to be lending came from the government itself - for the express purpose of lending, no less!

Government isn't the problem, and it isn't the solution. Government is merely a means to an otherwise impossible to coordinate end. And thats where my criticism of this article comes into play. President Obama, as the leader of the executive branch of the government, is in a position to wake the nation up from the haze it has been under for quite some time now (I am not going to lay all of the blame on the Bush administration, we have been asleep at the wheel far longer than that) and he is rightfully doing so. The era of irresponisbility that has gotten us to this point must end and end quickly. We need someone like him to not tell us, in effect, that we are Americans and that nothing we do is bad or wrong (as his predecessor seemed all too happy to do ), but rather that we are Americans and that carries a special burden of sacrifice coupled with unbridled opportunity.

We did not abandon our belief that despite our imperfections, America is the solution—not the problem—to every challenge facing the people in this country and, in many cases, the world... And we believe that our president’s job is to cheer [America] on not talk her down.

It is precisely this type of thinking that has landed us here. We now have a president that lays bold challenges before us, not challenges to go out and spend, but rather go out and serve: to engage in our communities rather than sink away into our overpriced homes. "America" is not a solution or a problem. It is a nation... a nation capable of erring, yet also capable of unequaled opporunity and freedom. Its a great nation, but not an infallable one. I think those who would accuse President Obama of "remaking the nation in his own image" are forgetting this fact. Through more just tax policies, proper oversight and accountability for government, and needed investments in the future, President Obama is trying to seek out "a more perfect Union" so that future generations may reap the benefits of liberty and prosperity that recent ones have abused and taken for granted.

sunday (monday) mtp minute

Sometimes when you are moving a friend into their new apartment, you don't get a chance to watch mtp when it first airs and instead have to watch the online addition.

This was one of those times.

On this Sunday's edition of the show, Mr. Gregory hosted Secretary of Defense Gates and a political roundtable consisted of "Morning" Joe Scarborough, Harold Ford, Jr., Dee Dee Myers, and Mike "beardo" Murphy.

- Sec. Gates: I was impressed with the Secretary's ability to carefully articulate the president's vision for moving forward in Iraq and advancing the war in Afghanistan. The moves from the administration seem to indicate a real understanding of what scaling up the effort in Afghanistan means: Secretary Gates made no attempt to hide the fact that the fight there is going to be a long and arduous one. Its really good to hear realistic analysis and forthrightness coming from those making some of the most serious and consequential decisions at the highest levels. I am concerned, however, about developments occurring in Iraq that would make a responsible scale-down there less than feasible. If something were to occur there, it would set off a domino effect that would have ramifications on both foreign and domestic policy. As the domestic agenda, made clear through the president's release of his budget, relies heavily on economic savings derived from a scale down in the effort there, any change to the plan could necessitate some cuts in other avenues.

- Roundtable: Fairly standard, barely worth commenting on except for the fact that Mike Murphy was sporting a closely kempt beard.

David Gregory match rating: 7.5
Another solid interview with a big name, yet he let the panel descend into one too many shouting matches.

planetary political analysis

This article, from Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com, has a fascinating and well done analysis of the 2012 Republican race for the presidential nomination. Takes me back to my political science class last year. It's definitely worth checking out.

obama address liveblog

9:10 :: Obama sure does like the red tie... its pretty much the official color tie of the President.
9:13 :: Watching the NBC coverage, definitely missing the wise words of Tim Russert.
9:15 :: Pelosi's outfit definitely leaes a lot to be desired... is it some sort of sweater? Also a terrible color... Madame Speaker, puke green is never in.
9:16 :: What is it with Obama and jumping the gun for big speeches? At least he doesn't make idiotic faces like W.
9:18 :: I really need Obama to look into the camera for the money shot... his head is darting back and forth wayyy too much.
9:19 :: WOW, Pelosi and Biden looked as if Obama activated the nail cushion on their seats. Jesus, they jumped up fast.
9:21 :: Great line about the "surplus" we had back in the day... draws a stark contrast with the "refund" speech Bush gave in 2001.
9:24 :: Thank you for jumpng the clapping gun, Minnesota delegation. We are ALL glad Minneapolis has 57 more cops than it would have had without the ARRA.
9:25 :: NOBODY MESSES WITH JOE! AM I RIGHT?
9:33 :: The clapping at just the wrong time has GOT to stop.
9:39 :: When is the new stuff coming out? This is all pretty much all what we already know.
9:40 :: I hate the lone clapper.
9:43 :: Could Pelosi be more excited about SCHIP? She was clapping so hard I thought her hands were going to explode.
9:45 :: Lowering of deficit through health care reform... I am no economics-man, but I think I will need to see the numbers on that one.
9:46 :: Yessssss, going for the educational moneyshot. Access to everyone! I love it!
9:48 :: SPICY with the support for charter schools. Lukewarm clapping from Biden and NO show of support from Pelosi.
9:48 :: Obama calls for at least 1 year of postsecondary education!!! "Dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country!" Beautiful!
9:51 :: Pulling responsible parent line... somewhere Bill Cosby is smiling while shoving a spoonful of jell-o into his mouth.
9:57 :: And there we have the ZAP of Bush re: fishy budget practices.
10:03 :: Good story about the bank guy giving out his bonus money. I am sure the wingnuts will find some socialistic theme here and criticize to no end.
10:06 :: "We are not quitters," I very much enjoy this story as well.
10:08 :: Speech over. While I liked the speech generally, I am not sure if it lived up to the high expectations that some had for it. It sounded, as par for the course so far, almost like a campaign speech. Maybe thats an unfair criticism since he has been president for only 36 days so far, but I am still having a hard time his transition in speaking. I think it should be well received, except by those who you would expect to hate anything that Obama said. Obviously I was pleased with the strong education rhetoric towards the mid-end of the speech. I think that line about dropping out of high school was fabulous and should be remembered for some time. David Gregory is doing a capable job of analysis overall, I think. More reactions tomorrow, perhaps.

cl preview edition

Ah, the refreshing gusts of 37-degree air, the meteorological confusion of the wintry mix, and the thawing of topsoil across the land... it must be late February, and we all know what late February means. That's right, in a few days we will be blessed with the beginning of Champions League Round of 16 play!!!!111 (insert appropriate zomigods and anticipatory yelps here). Each game is super important now and with the away goals rule, the balance of each match up can change at the strike of a single golazo. Europe's - nay the world's - finest clubs (and the assorted Portuguese, Greek, and second rate Spanish dongles) will duke it out for the opportunity to advance to the Quarterfinals. Who's dreams of European glory will be fulfilled? Who will ignominiously crash out? I take this opportunity to pontificate and prognosticate.

First Leg:
24 February
1) Inter - Man U
The Special One butts heads once again with his former Premier League rival Sir Alex when domestic league leaders Inter and Man U face off in this delightful tie. Inter has not had a flair for CL play as of late (epic brawl with Valencia '07, pwnage by Gerrard '08 come to mind) and the Special One's reputation for falling short in the competition precedes him. Those factors, combined with Man U's dominance of form and more favorable recent history makes me favor the Red Devils overall in this matchup. I tend to favor home teams, though, so I will throw Inter a bone on this one:
Inter 2 - 2 Man U

2) Arsenal - Roma
This clash of almost top 4 teams lacks some of the luster that the matchup may have presented in previous years. Everyone is glad to see Eduardo back from his near-amputation causing leg injury, but will he strike fear in any of Roma's defenders? The Professor is known for preparing his sides well, so I would be remiss to shortchange his side in this encounter. I think Arsenal takes the home leg handily, but may not find the confines of the Olimpico in Rome as inviting:
Arsenal 2 - 0 Roma

3) Lyon - Barcelona
In yet another matchup of league-leaders, top of the world Barcelona head north to face off against Ligue 1 Oranjello superchamps Lyon. Who are we kidding here? Barca has to be the runaway favorite in this one. With their lead in La Liga all but insurmountable (despite the best efforts of my beloved Real Madrid) and a laundry list of characters who can bulge the auld onion bag, how can you not favor them against Olympique "leading the league by the skin of our teeth" Lyonnais? I would rather not, but I have to give a ringing endorsement for Barca:
Lyon 1 - 3 Barca

4) Atletico Madrid - Porto
This runt in an otherwise impressive litter of games. One on side we have 6th place Atletico, a side that is not convincing many of its ability to qualify for the UEFA Cup next year, let alone the Champions League. They have proven inconsistent this year, and who knows which side will show up for this tie. Then we have Porto, sitting atop the Portuguese Liga by a slim 1 point, as if being a Portuguese team weren't marginal enough. Bolstered by the unwashed masses at the Calderon, I see Atletico making this one a pretty even contest:
Atletico 1 - 1 Porto

25 February
1) Chelsea - Juventus
Chelsea - the club of 4 coaches in the past 2 seasons - are a bit of an unknown heading into this tie. Reports of a locker room split, a lack of fitness among the starters, and a general sense of malaise surrounding the squad since the ouster of Scolari make me want to discount them off the bat against Juve. Juve, however, have not played in the Champions League Round of 16 in some time, and could display a bit of rust in such a pressure-packed situation. I see Chelsea overcoming an early away goal from Juve to eek out the win at Stamford Bridge:
Chelsea 2 - Juventus 1

2) Villarreal - Panathinaikos
While this pairing would certainly be a dream matchup in the UEFA Cup, its hardly impressive in the context of the CL Round of 16. While Villarreal have managed to place 5th so far in La Liga they, like their Spanish also-ran brethren Atletico, have had an inconsistent season. Panathinaikos, ugh, well they are a distant second in the Greek Super League. When you are not in the running for your domestic title in GREECE, you are a trifling club, I'm sorry to say. I see the Greeks putting up a staunch defense that will be torpedoed by an opportunistic Yellow Submarine:
Villarreal 1 - 0 Panathinaikos

3) Real Madrid - Liverpool
Ah yes, the famed Brendan Sepulveda derby. When I first found out about the draw I was made extremely nervous by the power of then 1st-placed Liverpool, but I am now feeling more confident in Los Blancos. Under Ramos' stewardship, they have managed to pull themselves out of a state of complete disaster and seem poised to lock in on the second place spot in La Liga. Raul is in a bit of a renaissaince, as he is bound to do for a stretch each season, and that will help Real tremendously in the tie. Liverpool are formidible, however, and I think they will have an incredibly strong showing at the Bernabeu. Real have made a habit of crashing out in the Round of 16 as of late, and I am not entirely sure they have kicked it just yet. For now, though, they will probably get their home win (to set me up for heartbreak on the away leg):
Real Madrid 2 -1 Liverpool

4) Sporting Lisbon - Bayern Munich
I am actually looking forward to this undercard match, as I want to see if Bayern can live up to the Champions League expectations that many had for them going into the campaign. After ignominiously missing out on the competition last year, they are back and supposedly primed to go far. Their domestic record, where they are currently sitting at 4th (2 pts out of first), would seem to indicate that they are slighly out of peak form, but I have faith that they will impress away at Sporting. I think Sporting will make a decent showing of it at home, but I don't expect them to make it out of this round:
Sporting 1 - 2 Bayern


The games are a couple of days away, and I couldn't be more excited. Bring on the Heineken/Sony Bravia commercials, the commentary of enthusiastic ESPN Deportes announcers, and the majesty of the Champions League anthem!

sunday mtp minute

Internet has arrived at my domicile! I have joined the 21st century!

And on that note, I am trying to set up a more stable routine of posting since I will have access to the interwebs at all times of day. In that vein, I introduce:

The Sunday MTP Minute: a quick summary of my thoughts stemming from the day's episode.

Without further ado, the 23 February edition:

- Gov. Bobby "targeted, temporary" Jindal made the Party of No's case for, well, their no-ness and his decision to turn down some of the billions of dollars headed his state's way from the stimulus bill. He must have uttered the phrase "targeted, temporary" at least 10 times, making it seem like the stimulus is a willy-nilly, long-lasting spending bill. While there are some questionable provisions in the bill, it is certainly targeted in many respects and the money is not going to flow forever, so it is definitely temporary. I am sure Gov. Jindal isn't too worried about explaining to the thousands of unemployed in his state why he is rejecting $100 million in unemployment assistance - they most likely don't lie in his voter base anyway.

- Gov. Charlie Crist made the case FOR the stimulus bill, coming from a state where the monies are desperately needed. I appreciated his bipartisan tone, but I certainly saw his political future in the Republican Party flashing before his eyes as he expressed strong support for the stimulus. Best of luck to you sir, as you fend off the rabid anti-stimulus dogs of your party.

David Gregory match rating: 8.0
Mr. Gregory asked some tough questions, essentially forming the debate between Govs. Jindal and Crist without actually having the two duke it out. A solid outing.

mileage tax

Excuse my tax-loathing Republicanism here, but somehow this tax strikes me as a bit of a misstep. Proposing to tax mileage instead of (or god help us - in addition to) gasoline is terrible. Its simply a horrible idea and really doesn't strike me as The Change We Need. Something about a Republican proposing a tax increase of any kind strikes me as more than a tad unseemly as well. There must be some sort of horrible side effect to it, like screwing over the working poor or making large corporations rich. Hmm, let me think of what it must be...

... oh of course. It helps kill the environment faster! What, you say? Discouraging the use of cars somehow hurts the environment? That's un-possible! Well, this measure really does hurt dear old mother nature, and in a pretty underhanded and not-so-obvious way. You see, dear reader, by taxing miles instead of gas consumption, the regulation would encourage people to drive whatever car they please. There would be much less incentive to drive a light-on-the-gas Prius or Civic and relatively little penalty for driving a gas-guzzling Dodge Ram or some other musclebound nonsense car. As a result, the emerging push towards green cars would stall in a big way. Why invest in making cars more green when people will no longer demand that their cars be gas-efficient? Its a terrible notion; not only does it hurt the environment on the front-end, it also has detrimental effects on our push to rid ourselves of foreign oil as a matter of policy.

So what to do about the budget gap for infrastructure? Well, making the stimulus bill less laden with some of the more useless crap would have been a good start. Since that one is already in the books, I would say that a reasonable solution is to make a special provision in some upcoming massive spending bill (there will certainly be one) with a significant amount of it dedicated to much needed infrastructure improvement. That way the only people who will pay will be future generations of Americans yet to be born, who will hopefully have some sort of environment left to enjoy.