McCain's Brother Calls 911 About Traffic

Have you heard the 911 call that John McCain's brother Joe made because he was stuck in traffic?

Operator: 911 state your emergency

Caller: It's not an emergency, but do you know why on one side at the damn drawbridge of 95 traffic is stopped for 15 minutes and yet traffic's coming the other way?

Operator: Sir, are you calling 911 to complain about traffic? (pause)

Caller: "(Expletive) you." (caller hangs up)

I asked my wife, what kind of idiot would call 911 about traffic? A prince, she said. Or a spoiled brat, I said, which would make Joe McCain just like his brother.

For what it's worth...

... the McCain-Palin campaign spent more than $30,000 these past two weeks on Sarah Palin's hair and makeup. This is in addition to the $150,000 they spent on outfitting the hockey Mom Alaska Governor in fashion from Neiman Marcus and the like.

I'd be willing to bet that both of these amounts exceed what Joe the "plumber" made last year in wages.

Who was the highest paid individual in Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign during the first half of October as it headed down the homestretch?

Not Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser; not Nicolle Wallace, his senior communications staffer. It was Amy Strozzi, Gov. Sarah Palin’s traveling makeup artist, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night.

Ms. Strozzi, who was nominated for an Emmy award for her makeup work on the television show “So You Think You Can Dance?”, was paid $22,800 for the first two weeks of October alone, according to the records. The campaign categorized Ms. Strozzi’s payment as “Personnel Svc/Equipment.”

In addition, Angela Lew, who is Ms. Palin’s traveling hair stylist, got $10,000 for “Communications Consulting” in the first half of October.

Ron Howard, Andy Griffith & Henry Walker Endorse Barack Obama

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

A Good Time for Deficit Spending

In the coming weeks and months you're going to hear free market ideologues tell us why, in the midst of our current free market-induced crisis, we can't afford to spend money on health care, alternative energy, education, etc. But as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman writes in today's New York Times ("Let's Get Fiscal"), we can't afford not to.

In other words, there’s not much Ben Bernanke can do for the economy. He can and should cut interest rates even more — but nobody expects this to do more than provide a slight economic boost.

On the other hand, there’s a lot the federal government can do for the economy. It can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages (but not at face value, as John McCain has proposed) and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.

And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling.

Will the next administration do what’s needed to deal with the economic slump? Not if Mr. McCain pulls off an upset. What we need right now is more government spending — but when Mr. McCain was asked in one of the debates how he would deal with the economic crisis, he answered: “Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control.”

If Barack Obama becomes president, he won’t have the same knee-jerk opposition to spending. But he will face a chorus of inside-the-Beltway types telling him that he has to be responsible, that the big deficits the government will run next year if it does the right thing are unacceptable.

He should ignore that chorus. The responsible thing, right now, is to give the economy the help it needs. Now is not the time to worry about the deficit.

I'll Take $288,938, Thank You Very Much

Tommy McCall writes for the New York Times ("Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants"):

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.

Troopergate Dumb Arguments

Below are some rebuttals to some common arguments that you can cut-and-paste when discussing Troopergate with your friends and family. Except for Rebuttals 0-a and 0-b, Rebuttals consist of text from the bipartisan report released Friday. I have included my own Editorial Comments to clarify the meaning of the rebuttals.


[Dumb Argument 0] "This has been political from the start."

[Rebuttal 0-a] Ten Republicans and four Democrats voted for an investigation. The same Council approved the findings. The same council approved disclosure of the findings. Though perhaps political (see Rebuttal 0-b), it was not partisan.

[Rebuttal 0-b] Sarah Palin is a politician. Just like the merits of a restauranteur comes from her ability to manage a restaurant, the merits of a politician comes from her ability to manage politics. If Sarah Palin can't manage politics, she will succumb easily to a slew of political problems including but not limited to ethics violations.


[Dumb Argument 1] "Obama is responsible for this."

[Rebuttal 1] On July 28, 2008, approximately one month before Sarah Palin was named John McCain's Vice Presidential candidate, "a contract for legal services was entered into between the [bipartisan Alaska Legislative Council] and [Stephen Branchflower] to provide legal services." To this end, Stephen Branchflower agreed to "provide legal services to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch."

[James's Editorial Comments 1] It is highly unlikely that Obama could have had the foresight to engineer this investigation months in advance of Sarah Palin's nomination. To provide evidence of such foresight would probably be grounds for a Pulitzer prize in investigative journalism. Speculation doesn't count as evidence.


[Dumb Argument 2] "The report said Palin engaged in 'official action' by her inaction." How could she be guilty of anything if she didn't do anything?

[Rebuttal 2] Sarah Palin "permitted [her husband] Todd Palin to use the resources of the Governor's office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."

"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired. She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act."

"As defined in AS 39.52.960(14), the term 'official action' means 'advice participation, or assistance, including, for example a recommendation, decision, approval, disapproval, vote, or other similar action, including inaction, by a public officer.'" (Emphasis added.)

[James's Editorial Comments 2] Palin's inaction is similar to allowing one's spouse access to an open cash register and not preventing theft of the cash. One is guilty by inaction. In other words, one would be an accessory to the crime by allowing it to happen.


[Dumb Argument 3] "Governor Palin was scared of Trooper Wooten. She did what she had to do to protect her family."

[Rebuttal 3] "Governor Palin has stated publicly that she and her family feared Trooper Wooten. Yet the evidence presented has been inconsistent with such claims of fear. The testimony from Trooper Wheeler, who was part of her security detail from the start [of her term as Governor], was that shortly after elected to office, she ordered a substantial reduction in manpower in her personal protection detail in both Anchorage and Juneau, an act that is inconsistent with a desire to avoid harm from Trooper Wooten or others. Moreover, assuming that Trooper Wooten was ever inclined to attack Governor Palin or a family member, logic dictates that getting him fired would accomplish nothing to eliminate the potential for harm to her or her family. On the contrary, it might just precipitate some retaliatory conduct on his part. Causing Wooten to loose his job would not have de-escalated the situation, or provided her or her family with greater security.

"Finally it is noteworthy that in almost every contact with subordinate employees, Mr. Palins's comments were couched in terms of his desire to see Trooper Wooten fired for reasons that had nothing to do with fear. His comments were always couched in terms that he was a bad Trooper, that he was not a good recruiting image for AST, that his discipline amounted to nothing more than a slap on the wrist, that nothing had happened to him following the administrative investigation, and so forth. Mr. Palin even sought to obtain information about Trooper Wooten that was confidential by law ["T. Palin asked for Wooten's file," "wanted Grimes report," "refused to give it to him"] The words selected by Mr. Palin, and his actions, give insight into his motivation and that of his wife, Governor Palin"

[James's Editorial Comments 3] If you are afraid of someone, you don't piss them off by trying to get them fired from their job. If you are afraid of someone, your words and actions will actually reflect that fear motivates you. If you are not afraid and are just being a maverick, don't lie and say you are afraid--that would be unethical.


[Dumb Argument 4] "Sarah Palin was never given a chance to defend herself."

[Rebuttal] "The Attorney General's office failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 written request to Governor Sarah Palin for information about the case in the form of emails." The report also states: "it does seem there has been an unusual delay in material that was requested by [Stephen Branchflower] in writing two months ago. No satisfactory reason or explanation has been given"

"While it is true that in the absence of an interview with either Governor Palin or Todd Palin, the specific answers to questions such as these are left unanswered, it is likewise true that their apparent motives can be inferred from the circumstances, their actions and their comments."

[James's Editorial Comments 4] Sarah Palin, or her immediate subordinate, the Attorney General, has never complied "substantially" with information requests. Not only has she been given every opportunity to defend herself in this matter, her participation has been specifically requested by the investigator. If she really wanted to defend herself and really had nothing to hide, she would have complied with the investigation. Her evasive behavior towards this investigation suggests otherwise.


[Dumb Argument 5] Palin didn't really do anything wrong. AS 39.52.110(a) from the Alaskan Ethics Act is simply a statute, its not a real law.

[Rebuttal 5] "Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional. It is an individual responsibility imposed by law, and any effort to benefit a personal interest through official action is a violation of that trust. As explained [elsewhere in the report], the term "benefit" is very broadly defined and includes anything that is to the person's advantage or personal self-interest. The term "personal interest" as used in the Ethics Act means any interest held by the public officer or the public officer's immediate family, including a sibling such as Governor Palin's sister Molly, Molly's children, her father Mr. Heath or any other family member. AS 39.52.960(11)."

[James's Editorial Comments 5] First, Alaskan Statutes are indeed real laws. They are actually statutory laws. Second, ethics exists as a formal framework for establishing how actions may be considered right and wrong. Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional. The Alaskan Legislature decided to enact this ethics code into law to provide a lawful means to enforce compliance with the ethics code. Palin is bound to comply with the code as Governor.

"The End Of American Capitalism?"

It's time we faced the truth. The American economy has not, nor should it ever be, a "free" market, at least not as the disciples of Milton Friedman have long advocated. Some goods and services are better provided by the private sector (capitalism) while others are better provided by the government, whether federal, state or local (socialism).

What we're living in now is the worst of both worlds, call it socialist capitalism. During the good times, the rich get richer and the free market is revered. During the bad times, the rich get bailed out by the middle class and the poor.

Anthony Faiola writes in today's Washington Post:

But the hands-off brand of capitalism in the United States is now being blamed for the easy credit that sickened the housing market and allowed a freewheeling Wall Street to create a pool of toxic investments that has infected the global financial system. Heavy intervention by the government, critics say, is further robbing Washington of the moral authority to spread the gospel of laissez-faire capitalism.

"People around the world once admired us for our economy, and we told them if you wanted to be like us, here's what you have to do -- hand over power to the market," said Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University. "The point now is that no one has respect for that kind of model anymore given this crisis. And of course it raises questions about our credibility. Everyone feels they are suffering now because of us."

In Seoul, many see American excess as a warning. At the same time, anger is mounting over the global spillover effect of the U.S. crisis. The Korean currency, the won, has fallen sharply in recent days as corporations there struggle to find dollars in the heat of a global credit crunch.

"Derivatives and hedge funds are like casino gambling," said South Korean Finance Minister Kang Man-soo. "A lot of Koreans are asking, how can the United States be so weak?"

Other than a few fringe heads of state and quixotic headlines, no one is talking about the death of capitalism. The embrace of free-market theories, particularly in Asia, has helped lift hundreds of millions out of poverty in recent decades. But resentment is growing over America's brand of capitalism, which in contrast to, say, Germany's, spurns regulations and venerates risk.

"Obviously the crisis comes from an important regulatory and supervisory failure in advanced countries . . . and a failure in market discipline mechanisms," Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF's managing director, said yesterday before the fund's annual meeting in Washington.

In a slideshow presentation, Strauss-Kahn illustrated the global impact of the financial crisis. Countries in Africa, including many of those with some of the lowest levels of market and financial integration and openness, are now set to weather the crisis with the least amount of turbulence.

Shortly afterward, World Bank President Robert Zoellick was questioned by reporters about the "confusion" in the developing world over whether to continue embracing the free-market model. He replied, "I think people have been confused not only in developing countries, but in developed countries, by these shocking events."

In much of the developing world, financial systems still remain far more governed by the state, despite pressure from the United States for those countries to shift power to the private sector and create freer financial markets. They may stay that way for some time.

"Sleaziest Four Days in Modern American Political History"

So said Keith Olbermann, and who would disagree?

Taken together what could well be the sleaziest four days in modern American political history -- four days in which it is easy to see where Senator McCain or Governor Palin might have induced in an embittered or unintelligent individual, the premise that Senator Obama either associates with terrorists or might be even one himself.

Domestic terrorist? Was Bill Ayers, 40 years ago, a domestic terrorist or a radical activist? While the mainstream media has decided he was the former, he appears to be neither now.

Is it justified for the McCain campaign to link Obama to Ayers? Would it be any less justified for the Obama campaign to link McCain to Charles Keating or G. Gordon Liddy?

In unrelated news, McCain recently referred to his audience as "my fellow prisoners." Prisoners? Are we all experiencing Stockholm Syndrome now?

"The GOP Peddles Economic Snake Oil"

Thomas Frank's latest op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal ("The GOP Peddles Economic Snake Oil") reminds me of a quote that is often attributed to Bill Maher: "Republicans always run on the idea government is ineffective and then they get elected and prove it." And that's the gist of Frank's article.

OK, let me get this straight: The central axiom of conservative Republicanism is that government is inherently corrupt and can't do anything right.

Over many years of ascendancy, conservative Republicans have filled government agencies with conservative Republicans and proceeded to enact the conservative Republican policy wish list -- tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, outsourcing federal work, and so on.

And as a consequence of these policies our conservative Republican government has bungled most of the big tasks that have fallen to it. The rescue and recovery of the Gulf Coast was a disaster. The reconstruction of Iraq was a disaster. The regulatory agencies became so dumb they didn't even see the disasters they were set up to prevent. And each disaster was attributable to the conservative philosophy of government.

Yet now we are supposed to vote for more conservative Republicans because we learned from the last bunch of conservative Republicans that government just doesn't work.

That is the advice of Sarah Palin, Republican vice-presidential nominee, in last week's debate with her Democratic counterpart, discussing the dread prospect of universal health care: "Unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds."

Conservative misrule, prompted by conservative disdain for government, proves that government cannot be trusted -- and that the only answer is to elect another round of government-denouncing conservatives.

"Cynicism" seems too small a word for this circular kind of political fraud. One reaches instead for images of grosser malevolence. It's like suggesting that the best way to recover from pneumonia is to stand in the rain for three hours. It's like arguing that the way to solve nuclear proliferation is by handing out weapons-grade plutonium to everyone who asks for it.

Consider also the perverse incentives that such a logic would establish. If we validate Mrs. Palin's thoughts on federal bungling by electing her to the high office she seeks, we are encouraging her to bungle everything that comes her way. After all, by her thinking, such bungling will not discredit her doctrines but rather confirm them, demonstrate the need for more Sarah Palins down the road. We will be asking for it, and it's not much of a stretch to predict that we will get it...

What I Learned Today About McCain & Palin

1. Gov. Palin and her husband owe tens of thousands of dollars in taxes

2. Gov. Palin isn't backing down from her comment that Sen. Obama "pals around with terrorists," even though the mainstream media knows she's lying.

But while Ayers and Obama are acquainted, the charge that they "pal around" is a stretch of any reading of the public record. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts. Obama was 8 years old at the time the Weather Underground claimed credit for numerous bombings and was blamed for a pipe bomb that killed a San Francisco policeman.

3. I'm not the only one who thinks that Sarah Palin is a stupid, conniving bitch

4. John McCain's career has been distinguished by its recklessness and dishonesty. Sounds oddly familiar to the career of the current occupant of the White House, doesn't it?

John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.

Charlie Rose: An exclusive conversation with Warren Buffett

Stockholm Syndrome & Wall Street Bailout

There has been a lot of discussion and gnashing of teeth here at testpattern about the Wall Street bailout, and in case you hadn't already heard, it just passed the House of Representatives.

James writes:

Its a dark day.

We just allowed Congress to pass a bill that yet again gives unprecedented authority to the Executive branch. We just increased our national debt by 10%. We have no plan but to borrow money on the government's good credit just to give it to banks that make bad investments. Start working extra hard because we are going to have to pay for this at some point.

A few days ago I heard economist Paul Krugman say that he was beginning to experience Stockholm Syndrome around this issue. I guess the same could be said about our elected officials in Washington.

If it's any consolation, here is what Krugman wrote about the bailout in yesterday's Times:

... the Paulson plan, then the Paulson-Dodd-Frank plan, and now, I guess, the Paulson-Dodd-Frank-Pork plan (it’s been larded up since the House rejected it on Monday). I hope that it passes, simply because we’re in the middle of a financial panic, and another no vote would make the panic even worse. But that’s just another way of saying that the economy is now hostage to the Treasury Department’s blunders.

For the fact is that the plan on offer is a stinker — and inexcusably so. The financial system has been under severe stress for more than a year, and there should have been carefully thought-out contingency plans ready to roll out in case the markets melted down. Obviously, there weren’t: the Paulson plan was clearly drawn up in haste and confusion. And Treasury officials have yet to offer any clear explanation of how the plan is supposed to work, probably because they themselves have no idea what they’re doing.

Despite this, as I said, I hope the plan passes, because otherwise we’ll probably see even worse panic in the markets. But at best, the plan will buy some time to seek a real solution to the crisis.

One thing’s for sure: The next administration’s economic team had better be ready to hit the ground running, because from day one it will find itself dealing with the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression.

"Don’t Make Working People Bail Out Wall Street"

Last night I caught a glimpse of Barack Obama speaking on the Senate floor in support of the 700-billion-dollar Wall Street bailout and could see Sen. Bernie Sanders sitting behind him. He didn't look happy.

The fact that both Obama and McCain support the bailout should give every American pause. Maybe Ralph Nader and Jim Hightower are right? We think we have a two-party democracy, but in fact "both national parties now exist as wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America, selling two brands of the same corporate agenda."

Although he is an Independent and self-described democratic socialist, Sanders usually votes with the Democrats. Yesterday's vote was not one of those occasions. Here is why:

This country faces many serious problems in the financial market, in the stock market, in our economy. We must act, but we must act in a way that improves the situation. We can do better than the legislation now before Congress.

This bill does not effectively address the issue of what the taxpayers of our country will actually own after they invest hundreds of billions of dollars in toxic assets. This bill does not effectively address the issue of oversight because the oversight board members have all been hand picked by the Bush administration. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of foreclosures and addressing that very serious issue, which is impacting millions of low- and moderate-income Americans in the aggressive, effective way that we should be. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of executive compensation and golden parachutes. Under this bill, the CEOs and the Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, continue to make out like bandits.

This bill does not deal at all with how we got into this crisis in the first place and the need to undo the deregulatory fervor which created trillions of dollars in complicated and unregulated financial instruments such as credit default swaps and hedge funds. This bill does not address the issue that has taken us to where we are today, the concept of too big to fail. In fact, within the last several weeks we have sat idly by and watched gigantic financial institutions like the Bank of America swallow up other gigantic financial institutions like Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. Well, who is going to bail out the Bank of America if it begins to fail? There is not one word about the issue of too big to fail in this legislation at a time when that problem is in fact becoming even more serious.

This bill does not deal with the absurdity of having the fox guarding the hen house. Maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks so, but I have a hard time understanding why we are giving $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who along with other financial institutions, actually got us into this problem. Now, maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks that's a little bit weird, but that is what I think.

This bill does not address the major economic crisis we face: growing unemployment, low wages, the need to create decent-paying jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure and moving us to energy efficiency and sustainable energy...