Restitutor Orbis

It's been a frustrating day politically, listening to the propaganda machine of the Republican party. They dominated the news media yesterday. By far more Republicans were heard than Democrats, all shouting down the stimulus package. As Media Matters for America points out,

ABC's Charles Gibson portrayed

spending and stimulus as opposing concepts in a question to President Obama: "And as you know, there's a lot of people in the public, a lot of members of Congress who think this is pork-stuffed and that it really doesn't stimulate. A lot of people have said it's a spending bill and not a stimulus."

That formulation -- "it's a spending bill and not a stimulus" -- is complete nonsense; it's like saying, "This is a hot fudge sundae, not a dessert." But nonsensical as it is, it has also been quite common in recent news reports.

Obama made this point himself in his speech yesterday. SPENDING IS STIMULUS. But if the media won't tell the truth, or doesn't know the difference, or is afraid to call propagandists to task, then the truth will never get out. IF the stimulus is less popular, as CNN reports, it is because CNN and other news outlets have fed the Republican propaganda machine with their lopsided coverage. As Media Matters points out,

So far, the news media's coverage of the stimulus debate has consisted largely of repeating false Republican spin and pontificating about which side has been making their arguments more successfully (all the while ignoring the media's own role in aiding the GOP.)

From MSNBC:

While Senate Democrats reached an agreement with moderate Republicans on Friday, more conservative Republicans refused to fast-track the legislative process. Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, insisted that the deal required careful deliberation and said that he would spend the weekend reviewing it, even though it was clear that he was unlikely to support the measure.

As a result, the Senate met for a rare Saturday session, and Republicans delivered some of their harshest criticism of Mr. Obama since he took office, suggesting that he was pressuring Congress to act in an irresponsible fashion.

“In discussing with the American people his approach to the stimulus of our economy, he has first really used some dangerous words,” said Senator Jon Kyle of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican. Mr. Kyl added, “It seems to me that the president is rather casually throwing out some careless language.”

I guess they don't like Obama speaking to us behind their backs. They're not used to an American president actually treating the American people as part of the political process. But Obama has done the right thing. And we must do the right thing now as well, and pressure our representatives to do OUR will, as they are meant to do.

President Obama goes after the obstructionists. It is a must-watch:





I'll quote this report in full:

In a sharp departure from Bush Administration policy, the Obama Justice Department on Friday informed the Supreme Court it is dismissing a challenge on rules dealing with allowable mercury emissions from power plants.

The end result is that the Environmental Protection Agency "has decided consistent with the court of appeals' ruling to develop appropriate standards to regulate power plant emissions," the filing said.

The EPA had set up new rules under which it would drop some power plants as the sources of mercury emissions, loosening more rigorous controls set during the Clinton administration. The appeals court had essentially struck down that new regime, and the Bush administration had appealed.

The decision to withdraw the case leaves the older, more stringent rules in place.

So other than Obama's complete failure to rein in the bloated and unconstitutional Faith-Based Initiative, he's done very well by the country. Unfortunately for me, the support of Christianity by a secular government lowers my approval grade of Obama to a B from an A-.

Barack Obama wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post which appears in today's paper: The Action Americans Need. "What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis."

Agreed. And in this piece Obama answers his critics:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

He goes on to conclude, and again I agree:

So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.

I reported yesterday that Wall Street wasn't happy about Obama's new rules. I'm reading more about that this morning. This in particular is a hoot:

The salary limit is "still a hefty sum to be sure, and the spirit of the order certainly has popular appeal, but it's a slippery slope when the government puts restrictions on how much an individual can earn in the private sector," said Patrick O'Hare of the independent research firm Briefing.com.

It's a slippery slope, Mr. O'Hare, when Wall Street CEO's expect impoverished citizens to pay their bloated salaries so they can live like princes. Get a clue.

There is a lot of whining going on and you won't see the American people shed a tear:

Douglas McIntyre at the financial website 24/7 Wall Street said the limits could make it more difficult for troubled banks to retain their best executives.

"Wall Street may keep most of its bankers if they face pay cuts, but it is the top five or 10 percent who make these companies really profitable, and they will soon be on their way to greener pastures if this measure is enacted," McIntyre said.

Is this an argument FOR high pay? Please. These so-called talented people you're whining on behalf of ran their businesses, and our country, into the ground. If this is talent, we can do without it. Get some high school kids in there. They can't do worse.

Don Lindner, a compensation specialist with the human resources association WorldatWork, said the new restrictions could mean a "huge cut in pay" for many top executives.

"They might leave to find jobs where they are paid more, that's my concern, that the restrictions are so deep that the leadership won't stay," Lindner told AFP.

GOOD! That's the outcome we want! Too many still have their jobs. Any CEO who accepted TARP funds should have been fired, along with the entire Board of Directors. They already proved they were incompetent to lead.

Time Magazine has a piece on this. Their question is, Can Obama's Executive-Pay Limits Tame Wall Street?

The New York Times is reporting this morning that the Obama administration "is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan." This plan would also prohibit executives from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, "except for normal stock dividends."

And why is the Obama administration taking this step? Because it's listening to the American people, who are outraged by the huge bonuses these modern-day French aristocrats are paying themselves on top of their already obscene salaries.

Under the Treasury’s $700 billion rescue program, most companies that have received money so far have been considered “healthy” rather than on the brink of collapse.

But five of the biggest companies to get help — Citigroup, Bank of America and the American International Group, General Motors and Chrysler — were all facing acute problems. And top executives at those companies made far more than $500,000 in recent years.

Kenneth D. Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America, took home more than $20 million in 2007. Of that, $5.75 million was in salary and bonuses.

Vikram Pandit, who became chief executive of Citigroup in December of 2007 and previously held other senior positions at the bank, made $3.1 million.

Richard Wagoner, the chief executive of General Motors, made $14.4 million, much of it in stock, options and other non-cash benefits. He earned a $1.6 million salary.

Maureen Dowd lists a few other mind-blogglings acts by the completely immoral and clueless:

Until it came to light Tuesday, Wells Fargo, which received $25 billion in federal funds, was blithely planning a series of “employee recognition outings” to Las Vegas luxury hotels this month.

As ABC reported, Bank of America took its $45 billion in bailout funds and sponsored a five-day carnival outside the Super Bowl stadium, and Morgan Stanley took its $10 billion in bailout money and held a three-day conference at the Breakers in Palm Beach. (Morgan Stanley had also still planned to send top employees to Monte Carlo and the Bahamas, events just canceled.)

The New York Post revealed that Sandy Weill, former chief executive of Citigroup, took a company jet to fly his family for a Christmas holiday to a $12,000-a-night luxury resort in San José del Cabo, Mexico. No matter that the company just got a $50 billion federal bailout and laid off 53,000 worldwide.

The interior of the 18-seat jet, as described by The Post, is posh, with a full bar, fine-wine selection, $13,000 carpets, Baccarat crystal glasses, Cristofle sterling silver flatware and — my personal favorite — pillows made from Hermès scarves.

As of now, the plan has been put into place, as the AP reports:

Obama announced the dramatic new government intervention into corporate America at the White House, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side. The president said the executive-pay limits are a first step, to be followed by the unveiling next week of a sweeping new framework for spending what remains of the $700 billion financial industry bailout that Congress created last year.

Obama clearly understands how the American people perceive the actions of these CEOs, who enrich themselves while their companies fail and while the American people pay to keep them afloat:

"This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success," Obama said. "But what gets people upset - and rightfully so - are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."

On top of this, Obama said that massive severance packages for executives who leave failing firms are also going to be eliminated. "We're taking the air out of golden parachutes," he said.

Of course, the CEOs are not happy. They've lived high off the hog for a long time and have been a law unto themselves, far above such petty concerns as ethics and morality. Honestly, 500K is pretty generous. I'd like to see steeper cuts in their privileged lifestyle. But it's a start, and it was the right thing to do.

Finally, there is this tidbit of news: TARP recipients paid $114M to lobby lawmakers.

Bank of America, combined with Merrill Lynch, spent $14.5 million and got $45 billion from the bailout. General Motors spent $15 million and got $10.4 billion, and American International Group spent $10.6 million and was paid out $40 billion.

Of all companies that have been helped by TARP, 25 paid lobbyists $76.7 million to represent them on Capitol Hill last year. According to the Washington Business Journal:

Some good news has come in this morning (I'm getting spoiled): Eric Holder was sworn in Tuesday as U.S. attorney general, becoming the first African-American to lead the Department of Justice on a permanent basis. The Senate had voted 75-21 on Monday to confirm Obama's nomination of Holder, 58, who has previously served as a federal prosecutor, deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, and briefly, as acting attorney general in early 2001. The man is eminently qualified and he is foursquare against torture. MSNBC reports that "Holder's chief supporter, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the confirmation was a fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream that everyone would be judged by the content of their character."

There was some opposition, of course: Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, mentioned Holder's insufficient support for gun rights, for example, and all 21 of the "no" votes were, unsurprisingly, Republicans. They're afraid Holder will hold Bush and his cronies accountable to the law. We can't have that in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Even the Romans prosecuted corrupt consuls when their term of office ended but for Republicans, the violation of the law has become the rule of law. CNN reports

Bond, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, raised concerns that the administration would seek to prosecute U.S. officials involved in using what the Bush administration called "alternative" interrogation techniques, measures that critics said involved the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.

Holder unambiguously called the use of waterboarding against suspected terrorists a form of torture that violated the Geneva Conventions, but he has said that prosecuting intelligence officials who followed Justice Department guidance would be "difficult."

Bond said that while Holder's answer focused on U.S. officials who were following the administration's legal advice, "I told him, and I believe he understood, that trying to prosecute these lawyers or political leaders would generate a political firestorm."

Yes, we can't have a political firestorm can we? Better to just violate the Constitution and International Law and then pretend it never happened. What are these people thinking, seriously? If we do nothing now, another president will come along eventually who is even worse than Bush, and we'll end up with a dictatorship.

Holder promises to act in a nonpartisan manner, which will be refreshing after Alberto Gonzales' Reinhard Heydrich impersonation. According to AP,

"I am determined to ensure that this shall be a new day for the dedicated career professionals that I am so honored to call my colleagues," Holder told various employees and dignitaries gathered for the ceremony. He said he was committed to remaking the department "into what it once was and what is always should be."

On another front, beset by questions about "back taxes and potential conflicts of interest," Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination to be Obama's Health and Human Services secretary.

"Now we must move forward," Obama said in a written statement accepting Daschle's surprise request to be removed from consideration. A day earlier, Obama had said he "absolutely" stood by Daschle.

Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader and a strong backer of Obama's presidential bid, said he would have been unable to operate "with the full faith of Congress and the American people."

"I am not that leader, and will not be a distraction" to Obama's agenda, he said.

Also in the news today, Gallup reports that "Of seven actions Barack Obama has taken during the early days of his presidency, five are supported by large majorities of Americans."

MSNBC offers a good start to the day:

The relatively violence-free Iraqi elections mean “substantial” numbers of U.S. troops will be able to return home from Iraq within a year, President Barack Obama told NBC News on Sunday.

“We are in a position to start putting more responsibility on the Iraqis, and that’s good news for not only the troops in the field but also their families, who are carrying an enormous burden,” Obama said in an interview with Matt Lauer, anchor of NBC’s TODAY show.

The article goes on to say that "Obama gave no details, but he said his administration would make its intentions on troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan known in coming days."
This is good news to Americans. Obviously, some of these soldiers will be going to Afghanistan instead, but over all we will still see a significant reduction in the numbers of US soldiers deployed overseas. The Iraq war has been ghastly in terms of lives and dollars and we'll be well out of there. Then there is the loss of Iraq as a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda. Once we are no longer there to stir up tensions, they will find fewer people willing to sign on for their global war. Contrary to Bush rhetoric, we will be safer from terrorism when we're out of Iraq.

On another front, Obama is being accused (rather gently, I think) of having broke his first campaign promise.

Really, every complaint I've heard about Obama so far, since he has taken office, is either petty or an outright lie. And when you consider what Bush and his cronies did to this country, it's really outrageous that anyone is complaining at all. I'm not used to seeing so much information made public. It's night and day compared to the Bush Whitehouse, which hid every damn thing it could lay its hands on.

Apropos of lies, Harpers ran a piece today condemning some tomfoolery, as they call it, in the Sunday Los Angeles Times.

n a breathless piece of reporting in the Sunday Los Angeles Times, we are told that Barack Obama “left intact” a “controversial counter-terrorism tool” called renditions. Moreover, the Times states, quoting unnamed “current and former U.S. intelligence figures,” Obama may actually be planning to expand the program. The report notes the existence of a European Parliament report condemning the practice, but states “the Obama Administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.”

Rendition, also known as "extraordinary rendition" and "irregular rendition" (I do love euphemisms) are, according to the definition on Wikipedia, "terms used to describe the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another,[1] and the term "torture by proxy" is used by some critics to describe situations in which the US has transferred suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture."
In the words of Harpers, "The Los Angeles Times just got punked."

In the course of the last week we’ve seen a steady stream of efforts designed to show that Obama is continuing the counterterrorism programs that he previously labeled as abusive and promised to shut down. These stories are regularly sourced to unnamed current or former CIA officials and have largely run in right-wing media outlets. However, now we see that even the Los Angeles Times can be taken for a ride.

Of course, the Right Wingnuts are having a field day with all this. They're so eager to find anything wrong with Obama that they're clutching at straws, making up lies when one cannot be found. I've haven't seen such an outpouring of hatred and racism since the 60s when I was a little boy. It's frightening to see there is still so much of it.

Today is the day of the Super Bowl. I don't know if any bigger news will come out of Super Sunday than the name of the victor, which happens to be Pittsburg in a 27-23 game that came down to the last few seconds. President Obama will be happy; he was apparently rooting for the Steelers.

But that does not mean that events around it stand still, and indeed they have not. One bit of news, as reported by MSNBC, is that the catch-phrase "War on Terror" is fading.

The "War on Terror" is losing the war of words. The catchphrase burned into the American lexicon hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is fading away, slowly if not deliberately being replaced by a new administration bent on repairing the U.S. image among Muslim nations.

MSNBC goes on to say that "White House officials say there has been no deliberate ban on the war-on-terror phrase. And it hasn't completely disappeared."

We have lived with this myth of a "war on terror" for seven years now. And it never really was. The invasion of Iraq was not a war on terror but a war of naked aggression against a nation that had done us no harm. I've always equated it with Hitler's invasion of Poland, on equally flimsy justification. If the US fared better than the Third Reich as a result it is only because Bush's Reich lasted only eight years to Hitler's twelve. The US dodged a bullet.

Unlike Bush, Obama is not an ideologue. He understands that the world is far more complex than a black-white dichotomy can explain. The decision-making paradigm of the Bush administration was based on ideology and therefore was flawed. It could not be otherwise. Ideology imposes its will on the world whatever reality itself dictates. Obama is a practical man and I think we can safely say he won't make the same mistakes Bush has made. If war is the result of a failure to listen, we will at least know that Obama HAS listened.

Obama says that there is a sense that the U.S. should be talking more about specific extremist groups — ones that are recognized as militants in the Arab world and that are viewed as threats not just to America or the West, but also within the countries they operate.

The thinking has evolved, he said, to focus on avoiding the kind of rhetoric "which could imply that this was a struggle against a religion or a culture."

As the MSNBC piece observes,

According to the White House, Obama is intent on repairing America's image in the eyes of the Islamic world and addressing issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unrest in Pakistan and India, Arab-Israeli peace talks and tensions with Iran.

The New York Times reports that changes are taking place in Iraq as the US prepares to depart in 16 months, a timetable some still oppose.

Iraqis across the country voted Saturday in provincial elections that will help shape their future, but regardless of the outcome it is clear that the Americans are already drifting offstage — and that most Iraqis are ready to see them go.

As the New York Times article points out, "President Obama has made it plain that Iraq is not his war; he wants to focus on Afghanistan. In an economic crisis, there is simply not enough money for the country to keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars a day in Iraq."