Why we should concerned about government integrity - by guest blogger VM

This is more of a pause for the cause.  The cause is honesty. We are experiencing a time when no one can be taken at their word.  Words like transparency, honesty and ethics are used more as punchlines than as aspirational goals.

I'd like everyone to take a moment and survey the headlines from popular news sources (print and online) like CNN, the Washington Post, The New York Times, Huffington Post. Each has at least 2-3 articles about the failure of honesty, cover- ups and lack of honesty and transparency. I think as we move into the future, we should focus on what makes government work - its people and the laws that encourage openness and public oversight.

What can each of us do to encourage a move towards honesty and openness?

Alright, I know that Michael Steele is a seemingly nice enough guy. However, is he really the person to be in charge of the Republican Party? And, does he have any ideas of his own? It would seem that after his tumultuous election victory, he has been hemmed up at every turn by those who wield the REAL power in the party. It amazes that as the GOP cries that they desire diversity and change, they make Steele look like a ineffective, powerless dunce (well, that may not be entirely their fault), posture about how the President is going to fast to get healthcare to the masses (isn't he an evil b@stard trying to make sure people don't die because they can't afford to see a doctor in an overburdened and overpriced healthcare system...sheesh, what was he thinking...I digress) and then (because they do not have filibuster power) attempt to hold Judge Sotomayor's confirmation in committee so that they can leave for their August break without voting on her, thereby ensuring that the first 5-7 cases the SCOTUS hears will be heard without her vote (convenient how they are hot button issues for the Republicans). I do not know how many of you have healthcare, however, for those without, this IS A HOT BUTTON issue. It is the difference between life and death. I just wish the Republicans would consider that and at least try not to look like the party of No. If Mr. Steele really cares about changing his party and bringing some diversity, maybe he should talk to some people of color and see what matters to us and stop mouthing the words of the ventriloquist with his hand up his...

READ: Healthcare for Dummies by Washington Post opinion writer Dana Milbank
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072002484.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Senators really shouldn't joke during hearings...

Ok, so this is a rant. I was already getting sick of the hearings for the next Supreme Court because i started watching knowing that someone was going to say something provocative or just plain rude. Of course, it did not take long. I am going to give the gentleman from Oklahamo a little more leeway, or rope, if you. So, I will preface this with my opinion that perhaps he was trying to insert a bit of levity. But, it was not funny. During today's hearing Senator Colburn went all Ricky Ricardo and I was just a little offended.

Ricky Ricardo, as many of you know was Lucille Ball's spouse, in reality and on television's The I Love Lucy Show. When Lucy would invariably get into trouble, Ricky would crook his finger at her and then utter one of his most famous catch-phrases "Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do." Many thought it was cute and quirky at the time. So, the guy had a problem with the enunciating the word "explaining." For the Senator to use it during the Congressional hearing was just a little inappropriate. I am hoping that I caught this because I am just more sensitive to people poking fun at other's dialects because of some of the words butchered by my own family, but I have to wonder why he chose THAT phrase when speaking to the first Hispanic nominee to the United States Supreme Court? She is not Cuban, she is Puerto Rican, Boricua, if you please. And, the only accent you can hear from her is the one she sports indicating that she is from New York.

Perhaps, he was just being witty, but I wonder if he would have made a similar crack about Shylock to a Jewish nominee or used some line from The Sopranos if he was questioning a jurist of Italian lineage. Somehow I doubt it, but maybe, just maybe he would have gone there anyway. That being written, let me just say that people poke fun at others' manner of speaking or dialects or accents all the time. Heck, it is the bread and butter for many comedians and children do it all the time. However, some things need to be left to children and comedians and not Senators.

I'm in favor of Judge Sonia Sotomayor...and why Republicans should be, too

The Republicans say that they want a more diverse party, but they do nothing to further this lofty ambition. After a brutal day of voting, they finally elect an African-American to head up their party. However, since that time, Michael Steele has been stripped of his economic powers and transformed into little more than an ineffective talking head. Today, they have the opportunity to support a moderate jurist, they turn this into a potential attack on someone they are trying to restyle as an activist judge. This morning marks the first day in the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a distinguished jurist and a level-headed, fair and balanced attorney who, with her confirmation, will rise to the highest court in the country.

As the composition of the Senate is in favor of Democrats, 60-40 (just in case anyone is keeping count), it is thought that Judge Sotomayor will easily win confirmation, but somewhere floating in the ether, I will wonder if their attacks are borne out of any legitimate need they have to question her history of jurisprudence or because her complexion is different. At some level, I have little doubt that they will be purposely incendiary, and even brutal to satisfy their base. Heaven forbid they smell blood. Do I need to remind any of you how they turned Harriet Miers into chum for the sharks…and she was one of their own!

The Supreme Court has a long and distinguished history of legal scholars, in fact, they have had 110 of them. 108 of those have been white, the exceptions being late marvelous Justice Thurgood Marshall and current Justice Clarence Thomas (dear readers, please do not begin to boo and hiss at me because I have included his name because while I may disagree with daggone near everything that man has written or added a ditto/Amen to, he should still be afforded the dignity offered to those that sit as members of the Supreme Court, plus regardless of what he does or what he says, he is still a person of color) and 108 of those have been men, those exceptions being Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg (she is simply wonderific…I had to make up a word for a diminutively sized woman who is still standing tall) and Sandra Day O’Connor. Those numbers do not speak to the call of diversity that is needed in a country as diverse as the United States. But, today, President Obama’s pick will go one step in changing both those numbers. And in the coming years, President Obama has a chance to make inroads unlike any we have seen since President Jimmy Carter.

I do not believe Judge Sotomayor is activist. Quite the contrary, she seems to be a well-thought and balance jurist. Her history of opinions leads one to acknowledge that she is a staunch advocate of the law and her duty to uphold it has never wavered based on her written opinions. There was some hubbub made of the firefighters, but if she was truly an activist who chose race, color or culture first, then she would have voted IN FAVOR of them, since one was Puerto Rican. What? You did not know that? Get out of here, but it would make sense as some in the media, in particular one outlet known as Faux acted like they were all poor disenfranchised white guys. Did they also mention that no blacks were hired as a result of those tests? They did not? Shocking. Anyway, I do not have to list the Judge’s stellar qualities, she has been fully vetted by the President and White House staff, praised by colleagues and received public support from her brother via a wonderfully touching interview.

I am in support of reasonable questioning, but attacks are out of the question. As the Republican party attempts to identify with minority voters, in particular those of the brown and black hue, they would be better served to not strike at this woman too hard. Our memories are long. Just ask anyone if they remember the name of Anita Hill. A decidedly brutal attack on Sotomayor would alienate anyone who has a browner hue because in the back of their mind, they will always wonder whether it was ideology that made them attack her or was it the hue of her skin…

That's all.

Y si El Juez Sotomayor lee este, estamos todos orgulloso de usted. Amplío felicitaciones de antemano para hacerme la tercera mujer y la tercera persona de color y la primera Latina en el Supreme Court of the United States of America!!! Si se puede!!!

Jeez Louise, please stop with the angry emails. I’m back

Ok, so many of my readers may have noticed that I took an extended hiatus from writing this blog (not to worry, my acerbic wit did not rust in the interim, I did some ghosting for my friends’ blogs). I have skipped commentary on our new President because there is simply nothing I could write that would less than a glowing praise of his accomplishments to date and what I believe he will do. I firmly believe that without the government’s intervention in the economy, we would have been well over 10% unemployment back in February. I am also inclined to believe that we are slowly digging our way OUT of the economic sinkhole that the previous administration helped foster and that within the year, we will be fully emerged into the bright light of economic healing. I even believe that if President Obama continues on at this current clicking rate, he is certain to gain re-election in 2012. Optimistic, yes. Psychic, no. However, even old blind Bartimaeus could tell you that he cannot see the Republicans putting a viable candidate up against President Obama in 2012. What platform are they going to run on? Family values are out, the man has a brilliant, compassionate helpmeet who has charmed the world, two of the most well-mannered and cutie-pie daughters and a matriarch IN THE WHITE HOUSE who acts as an anchor to the family. Umm, no. So, let’s see., what else do they have in their arsenal? Gun control? Recent school shooting and murder-suicides related to the economy make that a shaky platform. Abortion? Yes, always a hot button topic, but it is the law of the land, so that argument needs to be left at the judiciary level because politicians are just that - politicians. They can suggest laws, but once a law is on the books, it is up to the judiciary to reinterpret it. So, that is out. Death penalty. No. Gay rights? They better not because they will then alienate one of the few groups that are still with them (ironic, I know, right). That leaves them with the economy. And, unfortunately by the time the election cycle comes around again, the economy will have rebounded by its own natural course or by economic intervention.

Just as an aside, let me tell you, I am a little biased. I went to the White House’s Ode to Spoken Word back in May and it ROCKED! James Earl Jones was enough to make me gush (dude could read the alphabet to me and I would be in love), but add Lin Manuel Miranda (who did a hip hop soliloquy as Raymond Burr, the buster who killed Alexander Hamilton) and Alex Lacamoire (who is such a cutie that I officially have a crush on him) from In the Heights fame, Mayda del Valle and her abuela (who I spent 10 minutes talking to while we tried to untangle Mayda’s necklace -- and if you’re reading this I still want it!), Ayelet Waldman and her husband Michael Chabon…I could go on and on, but y’all get the point. It was awesome. So, in my humble opinion, the President and First Family can do no wrong. Sorry, not buying it and if it were free, I still would not take it.

Back on topic, I am back and this season, I will endeavor to bring the wit and the humor. Just as an aside, please google my friend’s blogsite, Polichicks. She is wonderfully witty and hosts the best talks in town.

Mercy's failed existence

I have decided to take today as a break from U.S. politics and policies. It is a vacation of sorts. I realize that the race to the Presidency is coming to a close, but it has been almost two years of politicking and I am just a little exhausted. Now, please do not believe that all of a sudden that I am going to stop blogging about politics, you have no such luck. But, today, I decided to start a series on atrocities committed against women and focus on being a humanist and a Christian, not necessarily in that order.

Recently, a woman accused of adultery was stoned to death in Kismayo, Somalia. However, this story is not about some married adult female who sneaked around with some man behind her husband’s back. This is the story of a child, a girl named Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow of Somalia. Initial news reports had her age as 23; however, her father states that she was 13 years old. On October 27, 2008, she was stoned to death in an arena in front of an audience. After being buried up to her neck, a black sack was placed over her head and she was murdered while some 1,000 onlookers viewed the spectacle. As I wrote earlier, she stood accused of adultery; however, it was a non-consensual type of adultery. This is some sort of new adultery that I have never heard of before since adultery is consensual. Without consent, anything that involves sexual contact, sexual conduct or sexual congress between two or more people is RAPE. Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was raped by three men and when she went to the authorities to report the crime that was committed against her, she was charged with having sex with someone who was not her husband.

Somalia’s government has been in turmoil since 1991 when the country’s dictator, Mohammed Siad Barre was removed from power. Recently, in Somalia and other Islamic countries, there has been resurgence in Shariah law, which from my understanding is based upon ancient Islamic principles. It would seem that any sexual congress outside the confines of marriage would implicate the crime of adultery, whether consensual or not. I am not a follower of Islam, so I cannot speak to the application of the law in this instance, however, I am a lawyer and a Christian who being possessed of some amount of common sense and reason, must beg the following question: where are the men who committed this crime against (or depending on who you ask - with) this woman? It is nigh impossible to commit adultery by oneself.

I have searched the wires, news reports and Arabic papers; however, I have failed to come up with any information about the persons with which she committed adultery. It would seem that reports of their deaths are missing. No articles about three men being stoned or hung or sentenced to death firing squad, poisoned or electrocuted I could write that this is sexism and it would be true, however, there is something more at work here. Somalia is a country that has been in a war for at least 17 years and while various organizations seek peace, it would seem that no one looked here, perhaps because this is Africa. (Ok, I was about to willing and happily JUMP into the rabbit hole by ranting about America’s failure to help certain countries in the midst of civil war. I always wonder why is it that America can rush to aid any of the former Russian states or any oil rich country, but never to Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia, Liberia, Ivory Coast or any of the other African nations. What is the difference between the people of these countries? What could it be? But, I digress.)

It always amazes me when something seems familiar, but this scene has been played out before and is well-documented. The woman I am about to write about received mercy instead of what could be termed, loosely, as justice. In the writings of St. John, Chapter 8, the scribes and Pharisees brought out a woman accused of adultery and took her to Jesus. They said that under the laws of Moses, she should be stoned and asked Him his take on this. Jesus knelt down and started writing in the dirt. The asked and asked and finally Jesus answered by saying he who is without, cast the first stone. The oldest people left first and when the woman opened her eyes, the people were gone. For 13 year old Aisha, her accusers remained and even though they were equally guilty, she received no mercy…

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/01/amnesty.rape.somalia.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=abC9J8.cM6mU&refer=africa

Our votes WILL count…and, this is how we will do it - PICTURE YOUR VOTE!

I have a plan and like most plans that are destined for success, it is very simple. On November 4th, election day, when you get into the voting booth, take out your camera phone, take out your driver’s license or government issued photo ID and once you have made your selection on the electronic voting screen, TAKE A PICTURE OF YOUR VOTE. That is it. Nothing similar to the theory of cold fusion or anything remotely related to rocket sciences or physics. Just a simple plan, PICTURE YOUR VOTE. (Please note that the picture at the left is for illustrative purposes only.)

Ok, I will admit it. Some of the pundits have gotten to me. I am already a little left of center, however, my policies and beliefs are shaped by my steadfast belief that God gave us a free choice of will for a reason, but we will talk about that in a future post. I am usually able to see both sides clearly and can honestly say that both Democrats and Republicans have valid points. However, this week, I have done a little research and believe that writer Andrew Gumbel (“Steal this Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy”) and director David Earnhardt (“Uncounted - The New Math of American Elections”) have earned a prominent place in my blog because they have inspired - PICTURE YOUR VOTE. With private companies producing the technology that counts our votes, there is some concern that the voting machines can be manipulated to produce whatever results are desired. In the past, there have such allegations; however, there is a problem with proving this as almost all of these machines HAVE NO AUDIT TRAIL. After you make your selection, the screen says “SUBMITTED” or “COMPLETE,” however, several organizations call these black boxes, in that once your vote goes in, they could well be a black hole that swallows your vote.

Most states do not have auditable electronic voting systems, and because they do not, I believe that it is the citizen’s right to find a workable stop-gap. And just as an aside, my previous comment about “most states” is just an attempt to be generous as I have not come across a state that uses an electronic voting system that provides voters with a print out or paper ballot in order that voters can verify the accuracy of the electronic voting system. I am not suggesting that any impropriety may occur during the 2008 elections, however, I just caution every citizen and make them aware that there is a possibility that your vote may not count. And, this occurrence is not acceptable in a democracy such as ours.

I am a resident of Virginia and in my state we have electronic voting machines. I do not know the manufacturer of the machines used in my state and I will not go into a long narrative about how these machines can be manipulated, but let’s just go with the belief that not only can they be manipulated to produce results that the voters may not have intended (which is a reprehensible and nefarious possibility), but that the machines can break (not such a wicked proposition, but still in the realm of possibility). Really, readers, voting machines are simply computers run by code that are written by brilliant techs and programmers who can write, re-write and hide any type of code that they desire. Further, the voting systems are just machines that can and do malfunction... In 2004, there were between 4 and 6 million uncounted votes and the blame was squarely placed on broken voting machines. I am a little bewildered that the companies who manufacture voting machines are unable or unwilling to develop a voting system that prints out a paper receipt of your vote. But, what really boggles my mind is that these same companies are in the business of the development, construction and technological implementation of ATM machines, which are able to spit out receipts for each and every transaction so that the user can confirm what they deposited and receive a record of their use. This is in support of audit and has the added benefit of reducing ATM fraud or theft; however, the same technology that protects our deposits cannot or has not been implemented to protect our vote.

As citizens, we have a right to demand an audit trail. We have a right to demand that our vote is counted. If your vote is not counted, how can you have a voice? How can we ensure that for every citizen that exercises his or her right to vote, there is a verifiable vote attributable to that citizen. The electronic voting machines do not have this capability, therefore, I suggest that we do our part to reduce allegations of voter fraud and restore confidence in the belief that our vote will count. Let us not wait until the morning of November 5th and begin to vilify the state election officials and scream at various government officials for not doing their jobs when we have no proof outside of exit polls that we voted in any particular fashion. We need an audit trail and if we demand one, our voices will be heard.

So until our states respond to our demands for voter ballot verification, I think we should follow this simple plan on election day (and as an aside, why isn’t Election Day a federal holiday like it is in other nations…just asking):

1. On Election Day, make sure you have your state issued photo ID and if possible your Voter Registration Card (if you do not have one, request a copy because it will tell you where you are registered to vote and the location of your polling place) to speed verification of your voting status.

2. Stand in line, be patient and wait. (Do not be surprised if the voting machines breakdown or malfunction, they are just machines. Be kind and considerate to poll workers, most of them are volunteers trying to help your voice be heard.)

3. Go into your voting booth with your camera phone at the ready;

4. Make your selection (now here is where it can get tricky, depending on your state’s voting machines, your voting system may not have a confirmation screen that indicates who you voted for, so this step may need to occur before you hit submit/confirm or whatever button appears on the screen for you to make your final selection)

5. Take a picture of your selection with your state issued ID clearly, making sure that whoever sees the picture has a clear image of your selection and your ID (I used my sorority membership card for illustrative purposes, but please use your state issued identification).

6. Save the picture.

That’s it. That is the brilliant plan to provide an audit trail of our vote. Please note that this is not a rant against electronic voting. I believe that the technology can and does work. The upside of electronic voting is that it is much easier for our state officials to declare a winner in a race, the downside is that the system is not infallible, they can breakdown, be hacked in to and the results can be manipulated. Without an audit trail to show how each citizen in an election voted, there will always be those that decry the technology and rail about fraud each time the election does not produce the results that they desire.

Remember, it is your vote and your right to have your voice heard. Please be aware and regardless of whether you are RED or BLUE, make certain that your vote counts. PICTURE YOUR VOTE!

Just a final note, please check with your state and/or local election officials to ensure that you may take pictures inside the polling locations. There are different rules for each municipality or state.

If you want to know more about these issues, please visit any of the following sites:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.truthout.org/

For questions about your voter registration status go to the following website and click the link for your state -
http://www.eac.gov/voter/how-to-contact-your-state-election-office

Can we all agree that sometimes, some statements are just “PEJORATIVE”?

I realize that sometimes I am a little sensitive to certain things. Maybe it is because of my upbringing or my cultural background. Maybe it is because of my gender or my race. Quite frankly, I do not know what makes me sensitive when men call me girl (or when I am further south and “girl” turns into “gal” or “guhl” or when someone referred to me today as a “cute chiquita”) or when someone refers to me as something other than my name. Such comments are meant to be pejorative as their sole purpose is to disparage the hearer or belittle the person to whom such commentary is directed. I have no problem with “miss” or “ma’am” or even a “hey you.” Presumably, the intent of the latter is to get my attention or refer to me in a non-combative manner, while the former are pejorative.

Last night, I was watching the second Presidential Debate and the attitude of Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama. During the course of this debate and the first one, I do not recall Senator McCain calling Senator Obama by his name. Rather I remember McCain indicating that he was referring to Obama by motioning with his hand or head or using “he” or “him” which was fine. Last night however, McCain when discussing energy resources did not motion with his hand or call Obama “him” or “he,” instead he said talked about a bill he voted for and said something to the effect of “you know who voted for it? You might never know, THAT ONE” and pointed to Obama (as if we did not know who he was referring to). In reality, this is just one of the issues I have with McCain based on his performance in the debate. The other is his response to an African American man who had a question about the economic crisis. McCain's response was "but you know, one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis." Why would a person who is concerned about the woeful state of the American economy NOT have heard of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae? However, I am not about to go there...

While I would expect McCain to be frustrated and disappointed with recent poll numbers, I would not expect him to act like…well, like THAT. What he did smacked of hostility and utter contempt towards someone who has served as his colleague in the Senate for the past two years. It is ironic that someone touts his ability to reach across the aisle could not even look across the foot and a half expanse that separated them and refer to him as anything else but “THAT ONE.” While the majority of the debate was forgettable, that one statement will be remembered and debated for some time.

Guess, what? It’s STILL the economy, stupid…

About 16 years ago, a brilliant man said “it’s the economy, stupid” and began a campaign to unravel the presidency of someone who I will refer to as B1. B1 paid attention to all sorts of foreign policy issues, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end the Cold War and created others, such as the Persian Gulf War. What he failed to do was address important domestic policies in a time when the country was struggling to get out of a recession. It feels almost like déjà vu, but today, we have another president, B2, who has created and helped further havoc and chaos on the world stage by starting wars, destabilizing regions, tumbling the economic markets and destroying what was left of domestic tranquility by turning our budget surplus into a deficit of over $50 TRILLION DOLLARS (a number so large that even the nimblest economist has trouble fathoming the length of time it will take us to get out of this muck).

B2, governmental appointees, elected officials and their collective knowledge bases when coupled with all of these modern day plagues, have helped create the environment for a perfect storm that could result in an economic meltdown of the world financial markets. Not to preach doom and gloom, but right now, America and the economy has been bushwhacked, bamboozled and led astray. Our politicians are struggling with ways to change what seems to be our ever expanding debt and economic trouble. Unemployment is up, the financial markets are down, foreclosures are up, savings are down…look, I could go on and on with my ups and downs (all of which are negative), but I presume my readers are getting the gist of what I am saying. We are going through some stuff and I believe that it will get worse before it can get better.

Now here is where I get to ranting -- the $700 BILLION DOLLAR economic package recently passed by Congress is just a small percentage of the U.S. deficit, and some would ask, what’s the big deal? The big deal is that we, the American taxpayers cannot afford another penny, that’s what. We are footing the bill by spending more than $10 billion dollars a month (which in case you are wondering, this works out to approximately $2.4 billion dollars a week, more than $340 million dollars a day, $14 million dollars an hour and $238,425 a minute) in Iraq when that country has a budgetary surplus (guess they are smarter than us because we are footing the bill for their government and infrastructure when they have money and we do not…we can only hope that China will be as benevolent when it comes time for us to repay some of the money we owe them). We are losing our homes. Our 401k accounts are in the shrinking at an alarming rate and for those who have retired or hope to retire in the next 3-5 years, they do not have the time to wait for the economy bounce back. Our children are having a more difficult time getting student loans, so they are cannot afford an education in order to get a job, which is somewhat moot anyway since unemployment is up. Our savings are non-existent. We are losing our jobs. Our credit cards that we relied on to help bridge the gap between what we brought in and what we needed have dried up. The big deal is that the majority of Americans are catching hell. And, let me add a bit of a qualifier to my previous statement. I realize that many believe that there are some Americans who will not feel the effects of this economic down turn because they are have money to burn, however, it is one thing to burn your own money and quite another for some CEO to burn it for you.

It’s STILL the economy and our economy is teetering on the brink. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Recession is natural, depression is not. If we can just have our politicians and their appointees do sensible things and make the necessary changes in budgetary spending, we can emerge as a better, stronger America. However, we need a change and we cannot afford to wait because it would just be stupid to do so…

$700 Billion isn't enough...let's make it an even $1 Trillion

Gee whiz, the U.S. government has certainly been busy this weekend. Senators working close to the end of the fiscal year. Agencies scurrying trying to resolve issues. My goodness, it is looking like the federal government is working in overdrive and making overtime. However, the question of the day is -- will this economic package save the U.S. economy from the coming depression? No, it is not going to work. Recession is a part of the natural economic process. We have one every 7-10 years. However, this time around, it has been exacerbated by poor management and business practices by certain companies with mega-sized lobbying firms. So, why would you give your money to someone who has already mismanaged their own? These companies are in this mess because they screwed up their money, now the federal government wants to give them OUR money, just because. Why would someone think that they would be more careful with someone else's money to play with?

Some have lobbied for greater accountability which in theory is great, however, it will not come. Others have demanded new management for these entities, another theory which is wonderful, but will not work. In order for a corporation to function, those people at the top of the pyramid extend their reach all the way to the base of the aforementioned pyramid and create a certain type of culture. Sometimes this culture is successful and everyone is happy (i.e. Google and Microsoft) and other times it breaks down under its own excess, bloated ego and mismanagement (does anyone remember a company named Arthur Anderson). Regardless, when there is a change at the top, the underlying culture of the corporation does not change because such behavior is learned and then ingrained.

The CEOs can leave, but the reality is that even after they exit, their management will still be firmly in place. Their boards, their executives, their administrations will still be at these floundering companies. I think that people fail to realize that many of the executives and members of the various boards of directors are long time corporate and political cronies. The CEOs will receive their golden parachutes and the next person who takes the helm will be someone with a similar background, understanding and perhaps someone groomed by the person who JUST got a severance package. The policies will be the same because the structure that existed is the one that made them all that money in the first place. It is unfortunate, but CEOs and the BODs bounce around from company to company. Watch, the next thing you will hear is that the former CEO of Lehman or AIG is now the chief strategist/advisor for someone's political campaign, was elected to some company's BOD or is the NEW CEO of some other company that was doing just fine. It's trifling and pitiful, but the hallmark of our type of capitalism which is rife with favoritism and crony-ism.

Now, back to the money (as though I was ever really discussing anything else). $700 billion dollars seems like a lot of money to throw at these institutions, but it is not. Especially since the money may not be as valuable as the cotton blend paper it is printed on. So, I say let's make it $1 trillion. That number sounds much more impressive and probably closer to what it would take to fix some of the problems that cronyism has bought us...

Banking has the largest lobbying force in DC, so why are you surprised?

So this morning is more of a rant and less of a blog. So, forgive me in advance. However, in a previous life I was a regulatory advisor for one of those behemoth national banks and they work hard to keep make money and more money. Yes, they hire lobbyists help the politicians look the other way. And, yes, they hire law firms to block for them when the politicians choose to examine what is going on. My question is this -- why are people acting as though they are SHOCKED SENSELESS by the further consolidation of the financial sector?

I do not get it. I am genuinely perplexed why anyone would think there is anything amiss in last night's purchase of Wachovia by Citi. The writing has been on the wall since the late 80s after several financial institutions failed and then the subsequent scandal ensued. For those who do not know...there WILL be only a small handful of national banks by 2020 (perhaps 3) and there is not enough anti-trust legislation in the world to stop it.

Regional banks have long consolidated their positions in order to leave a larger footprint on their respective markets. Bank of America started doing this on the west coast more than 60 years ago and it really got into its stride under Hugh "Huge" McColl and now Ken Lewis is really hitting his stride with his growing leviathan. But, not to make BofA the bad guy, because they are not. Their acquisitions have helped their stock holders and their bottom line. Yes, it has had its snaffus, like several pesky investigations into its audit procedures or their handling of credit disputes or their questionable underwriting, however, that is to be expected. however, that will happen anytime a company consolidates its position. BofA stretched its tenacles to the east coast with their acquisition of NationsBank, their reach into the north with Fleet and into the midwest with MBNA and not to mention the other significant acquisitions of Countrywide or LaSalle or US Trust or of any number of brokerage houses. No one said a WORD.

Citi has been doing the same thing for a similar timeframe. They have eaten at the table of excess and are still sitting there grubbing. Why? Because Citi can and for that matter, so can BofA. The federal government cannot stop them because their bottom lines are healthier than that of the fed and they probably have better credit ratings. Now, Citi has acquired Wachovia and instead of saving a financial institution teetering on the edge because of the heaviness of its mortgage/real estate portfolio, people are getting a little worried. Why? Are people NOW concerned that credit will be more difficult to acquire by those without existing relationships? Is the American public concerned because they see that in the words of the Highlander, there can be only one (and by that I mean bank)?

I think that in the end, BofA and Citi will co-exist in a type of Nirvana of their own making. BofA will control individual banking and trusts and have a significant chunk of the credit world (and by that I mean a 20-25% share). Citi will own consumer credit (more than 50%) and further extend its reach into the international market where other nation states have even freer financial legislation. I say, go for it. Why not? They already have the lobbyists, the attorneys and the federal government on their side. They cannot possibly do anything worse than what has already been done. The federal government will not allow them to fail, so they are as safe a bet as any. The only thing is BofA, Citi, others of their ilk and their respective executives have a huge appetite, let us just hope it is not an appetite for destruction.

Lobbyists are just as real Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy

I remember there was a time when certain elected officials called for transparency at all levels of government, however, that time has now passed. It is with a sad heart that I write this entry because the news report I am citing proves that the lobbyists that he previously swore were no part of his campaign do indeed exist. Maverick, no more. Republican with an independent streak, no more. Honest politician, no more. While he was never my candidate of choice, there was a time when I respected him and believed him to be something that Washington needed more of, honest and upright politicians. However, let me state that this has been an erosion of my belief in him as opposed to an immediate epiphany.

So, I sat down to read one of the five papers that I try to read daily and staring up at me from the New York Times was a piece by esteemed writers Jackie Calmes and David D. Kirkpatrick titled (hold on to your seats) "McCain Aide's Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac." But, it's not just SOME aid, the person in question was Mr. Rick Davis, the presidential hopeful's campaign manager. The Calmes/Kirkpatrick piece goes on to state that McCain's campaign manager's firm received $15,000 a month from one of the companies helped by the federal government in the past weeks, that the campaign manager's firm had been kept on the failing company's payroll "because of his close ties to Mr. McCain" and that "no one at Davis Manaform other than Mr. Davis was involved in efforts on Freddie Mac's behalf." While this $15,000 a month or $180,000 a year is a drop in the bucket when compared to the multi-million dollar salaries of some CEOs, one must realize that this is only ONE of the firms clients. How many other companies' interests are represented? How much does this firm take in from companies whose only interest is the owner's access to someone running for president?

Now, I may not know a lot, but I do know the rudiments of currying favor and it would seem that the behemoth formerly known as Freddie Mac, currently known as part and parcel of the U.S. Government, was doing just that. I expect that the tenacles of huge corporations spread throughout politicians on both sides of the aisle. What saddens me is that the once Maverick stumped on the other's ties to mortage/finance companies and now McCain is just like them. But, perhaps, he always was.

So, in the end, while there are those that say there are no lobbyists involved in electioneering, I invite you to the world in which we currently live -- where they run government, industry and perhaps even what we think and believe. Yes, readers, lobbyists are real.

References:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/24davis.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222267016-nxXDxNJQI4hubQ4WJafcuw

What do you mean? There are Christian Democrats...

In case I failed to tell all of you, I went to a conservative law school. Correction, not just conservative, but a Christian conservative law school awarded me my law degree. My time there was valuable, not just for the legal knowledge, but for the sharing of ideas and ideals. While I am what most would consider a liberal (women's rights advocate, environmentalist, conservationist), I am still a Christian. I place Christ above all and firmly believe that man has immutable rights that cannot be taken away.

Now, I know some of you may say, what do you mean "women's rights?" Well, let me just be clear for you, I believe that women are man's equal. That is why God took woman from man's side, so that she could walk beside him, not behind him, below him, in front of him or above him. And, I believe that there are some decisions that belong to women, and women alone. But, I digress on that point.

I am more than a little saddened and appalled that there are some who believe that if you are a Christian, you can only be a Republican. I don't understand this and I never will. I believe that as long as we have a two party system, we must all work together to try to get this thing we call democracy right, regardless of our personal political leanings. Perhaps that is what has gotten us to this morass we are in right now, partisanship. Maybe we should no longer care whether we are from a Red or Blue state or if we are conservative or liberal and focus on doing the right thing for our country and for our future. Hmm, that doing what's right sounds really Christian...

Perhaps we should teach something other than abstinence only...

Perhaps abstinence only does not work. Perhaps we need to teach children that they have alternatives. It is unfortunate, however, it is a reality of the hyper-sexualized times that we live in. Children need to learn that waiting is the right thing to do because the result can be unwanted pregnancy. Or it could be something much more devastating, like HIV.

I am a Christian and as a Christian, I think that God not only promotes abstinence, but also is an advocate of virginity. By that I mean maybe He wants us to be virgins when we enter our marriage bed. But, Christians sometimes fail. Sometimes we fail horribly. It a result of that pesky free choice of will thing that God decided to give the frail humans that He created. So because we have that free choice of will, we need to be responsible and part of responsibility means protecting ourselves and our families.

Abstinence is supposed to be “the voluntary self-denial of food, drink, or sex…abstinence is commonly taken to mean no sexual activity” (www.medicinenet.com). So, I swear I do not understand how someone who has preached abstinence and refused to pay for sexual education in the public schools now has a daughter who is knocked up. And, then to add to this morass, they issue a PRESS RELEASE that her CHILD who has not begun her senior year in high school is going to marry her boyfriend and I stress BOY. Perhaps I should use another colloquialism -- her “baby’s daddy.”

I advocate and appreciate that the children of politicians and their lives should be off limits. I think it is something we should all strive to because while the politician has chosen to have their lives on blast, their children have not made that decision. My only issue with that when you have a politician that advocates making decisions for other people’s children, somethings need to be examined and checked. Or perhaps someone should have not worried about putting press releases out about their children's mis-steps and focused more on the turmoil that comes with having a parent through not only themselves onto the national stage, but their entire family under the media's microscope.

Perhaps some parents have already gotten down on their knees and thanked God that the only thing that their children are not battling an incurable disease and that sometimes the only thing that comes out of unprotected sex and subsequent pregnancy is a press release. Hoever, now that it is done, perhaps some people will come to the realization that abstinence only does not work. Perhaps children need to be taught that if they are going to act like adults, they need to know the adult alternatives in order to protect themselves and their health. Perhaps we should get back to the fundamentals and teach our children that with free choice of will comes a responsibility to protect oneself. And, protection is what I am an advocate of...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.evangelicals/index.html

Have we forgotten what satire is?

I grew up with a grandfather who was a religious reader of the newspaper and magazines and my grandmother (who was her high school's valedictorian) and my mother were voracious readers of everything else. One of their precious books was Orwell's Animal Farm and by the time I was 6, I had read it TWICE (not to be the subject of satire, i.e. a braggart, but in all honesty, I did not fully understand the book until my mother explained it to me). That being stated, I believe that I have a sound foundation in the understanding of what satire is SUPPOSED to be.

Satire is supposed to be a literary term that is used to explain writings or illustrations that ridicule an event or person, usually taking aim at some human vice (think 1800's illustrations of Boss Tweed as a pig and Tamany Hall in the backdrop). But, there is a problem with the illustration that recently found its way onto the front cover of the New Yorker. For those that do not know what I refer to, please follow this link:

Those that are unable to see the illustration, let me describe it for you. It is a depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama. She is sporting an afro and paramilitary garb, gun included and he is rocking a dishdasha, sandals and a turban. Oh, and let me mention that they are engaging in what has become known as the terrorist fist jab (which used to be known as a simple pound). It was supposed to be humorous and point out the sheer idiocy of those who sent out emails stressing his middle name or that he was some sort of militant and that he and his wife were engaging in a sort of terrorist gang sign recognition when they met onstage. So, here is the Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America and his spouse looking like terrorist paramilitary jihadists and the New Yorker is wondering why people are offended. Well, that's easy, people no longer know the definition of satire...