When did we become so militarily stupid? When did we forget that the object of fighting a war is to win, not to tie? Is it an outgrowth of the non-competitive, everyone-gets-a-trophy mentality we're trying to teach our children?

Earlier this week, President Obama announced an increase in the number of troops we'll be sending to Afghanistan, but he also announced that they'll be there for a limited time. To me, it sounds like we're throwing away lives because we have to be seen as trying to do something, but we're going to limit those losses calendrically. It's like saying to the enemy, "Okay, we're going to fight. But if you can hold us off for this long, you win."

He used the term "nation building", of which Washington seems to have grown fond. It makes for a nice analogy, when you consider home building. But it would work better if the political cognoscenti using it actually thought about building a house.

What happens when you decide to build a house? First, you plan, hire an architect, design what it will look like, make sure the infrastructure is there (roads, sewers, electricity, etc.), and that the new materials and labor are available. And once the planning is done, then what? Then you clear the land—cut down trees that are in the way, remove inconvenient boulders, and dig a hole for the foundation. And, if there's already a ramshackle house on the property—something with holes in the roof, that's falling down, and that you really didn't want to live in in the first place—you knock it down. You don't say "I like this bedroom, so I'll keep it, and this foyer is nice, and I like that six-foot section of the basement." You knock down the whole thing, clear the land (just like erasing a blackboard before starting a new lesson), and start fresh.

Analogizing back to military intervention, what we need to do is what we did when we fought wars to win them. We need to decide if we should be fighting, and if we can. Then we need to go in and win. Not tie. Not do some. Not hope. We're building a bridge to the future. And just like in bridge-building, you don't build half a bridge and hope someone on the other side will build a half that matches yours; you build a whole bridge. Then, after it's complete, if you want to give it away or sell it, you can do so.

In World War II, we didn't fight part of a war. We didn't go in telling Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan "we're going to fight you, but only until 1944." We fought to win, and only after our enemies surrendered unconditionally did we stop fighting. Then, after the peace treaties were signed, we didn't go into Germany and remove half the Luftwaffe; we didn't go into Japan and remove half of the Diet. We removed the entire governments and installed military governors (well, we shared responsibility for Germany with our allies). We ran the country until we were confident Japan could be a peaceful, self-ruling country, and only then did we allow them to form a new government. Ditto the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. Even the South after the Civil War; we didn't remove Jefferson Davis while leaving the Confederate Congress intact.

And I think that's the example of what we did wrong in Iraq. During the first Gulf War, we decided we didn't have the will or strength or resources to fight a proper war in Iraq, so we didn't even start. We sent in troops to free Kuwait, did so, and stopped at the border. This time, however, we sent troops into Iraq, we took out part of the government, but we held back. We knocked down the statue of Saddam Hussein, but didn't allow our troops to raise the Stars and Stripes over Baghdad. We stripped out Hussein's political party, but we didn't disband the Iraqi government. We tried to go only part of the way, and then hoped that the pieces we'd left would expand to fill the vacuums we'd caused. But of course there were other people with other ideas, who were eager for us to take out Hussein so that they could spread into those power vacuums. And now we're stuck, with half a bridge to Iraq's future, struggling against those who seek not to build the other half, but to knock our half down.

When we send troops into foreign countries to "help", they meet with resistance not only from "insurgents", or the bad guys, but from non-combatant citizens who bristle at the culture clash. And our troops wind up not only fighting the enemy, but struggling to not piss off the locals. It's an untenable situation.

When we send troops into battle, they should have only one, clear goal: to win. After they achieve total victory, then we can be magnanimous. Then we can go about setting up a local civilian-run government. But if all we want to do is send in policemen, we should be sending policemen, not trained, armed, fighting men.

It seems pretty clear to me that every time we try to fight half a war, we lose, but every time we go in fighting a total war, intent on victory and nothing less, we have a pretty good record of success. Maybe we need to choose our wars more carefully, rather than hoping our soldiers will move carefully once they're there.

The New York Times has a nice editorial on the screwball way we decide who our neighbors are. Well, not so much that, as how we determine which people live in the same district for the purpose of electing our legislators. Read this editorial, and see if you don't agree. The only real problem I have with it is the focus on New York State only. The concept applies nearly nationwide (except for, as they mention toward the end, Iowa). The maps of a few chosen districts are fun, too.

Been meaning to post, but kinda too busy: it seems I was right in my predictions as to who would win the city-wide elections in New York City (not the men I wanted, but those I predicted). The big surprise was that Mayor Bloomberg got only 51% of the vote (compared to Bill Thompson's 46%). Pundits are saying Bloomberg spent about $175-$200 per vote he received with his massive, personally financed campaign. In other words, if he'd paid everyone who voted (whether they voted for him or against him) $100, he would have spent less money, and more directly affected the economy of New York City for the better. Oh well.

Polls had Bloomberg running 15-20% ahead in the weeks and days before the election. For him to win by such a slim margin (after outspending his less-qualified opponent by like 15-to-1) is a very loud signal from the voters. Originally, I'd planned to write this post saying "Now that he's won a third term by such a large margin, it's pretty clear that we the people are probably willing to overturn term limits, and we ought to put the question on the ballot." But now, seeing that he won by such a slim margin, it tells me my fellow citizens really do think term limits are a good idea (I so disagree with them on that point).

In the end, I'm glad Bloomberg won (I really didn't think I'd get enough votes to take it), because he was the best choice of those on the ballot. But now, I'm just a little worried: what's the next law he'll decide he can ignore?

Tomorrow is Election Day here in New York City (and many other places, as well, but I've been kind of focused on the local stuff). For my NYC readers, here's my attempt to influence your vote.

Earlier in the year, I talked a number of times about Mayor Bloomberg's despicable ignoring of New York City's term limits law (adopted by public referendum, twice). And even though I disagree with the concept of term limits, I'm even more worried by a politician who ignores laws adopted by public referendum. Michael Bloomberg has campaigned on a platform of "re-elect me, because I can help the economy get better." In that, he was mostly right: he's been spending on the order of a million dollars a day on his re-election campaign, and if he's been spending that money in New York City, his campaign really has been good for the economy (heck, I got two phone calls and one in-person visit from his campaign today). And of all the announced candidates, he really is the most qualified for the job, but I just can't trust that he'll decide to step down in four years if we elect to him a third term tomorrow. On the other hand, I don't think any of the other announced candidates would be good mayors (although I have to give comedy points to Party for Socialism and Liberation candidate Francisca Willar, who says the most important issue she'd address as mayor is "The billionaires must pay for the economic costs. A 5 percent tax on all wealth over $100 million would alone raise over $8 billion a year from the city's 55 billionaires alone; if they try to leave the city, their property and wealth should be confiscated."—I read that campaign statement and laughed at her apparently tenuous grasp on reality in favor of "the world is what I want it be"). So I'll be writing in my own name for mayor tomorrow. Feel free to join me: Ian Randal Strock for Mayor of New York City.

For Public Advocate, I'm going to vote for Jim Lesczynski, who says the most important issue he'd address as Public Advocate would be to "eliminate the position of Public Advocate".

For Comptroller, I'm voting for Joe Mendola.

The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell
Basic Books, $24.95, 184pp, hc, 9780465018802. Economics.

This is the type of book that is both exhilarating and frustrating to read. Exhilarating because it's wonderful to find other people who can think clearly and rationally, and cut through the political rhetoric and bullshit to get at the heart of the matter. It's frustrating because it points out just how screwed up we've allowed our economy to get by simply looking away and letting politicians do what they want (while they may say it's for the good of whatever problem they're trying to solve, they don't have a clue; but they do know how to operate the system to increase their own power and reach, and to maintain their offices).

In this case, Dr. Sowell (a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution) looks at the recent housing crisis and boils down its causes, not to a simple "this action caused that", but to the less noticed, more important causes. Among them, land-use restrictions which caused housing prices to rise for no rational reason. He also points to the fact that the vast "crisis" of which the news media and government loved to speak was far more limited than any of them would have cared to tell us (how many times did you hear housing prices were skyrocketing in Idaho, or Oklahoma…). Even more riveting (though obvious after reading the book) is the recent religious drive for "affordable housing" and governmental pressure forcing banks to give mortgages to those who had no chance of repaying them. In short, Sowell says government inserting itself where it wasn't needed, putting pressure on banks, was a major cause of the housing/mortgage crisis (and the full economic mess that followed it), and once the crisis was recognized, governmental response was "we need to involve the government more in these decisions."

Sowell is pretty even-handed in spreading the blame around—neither the Republicans nor the Democrats come out looking all that good—though he has special recognition of the work of Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. He also reminds us that there's nothing better than a crisis for a ready government to insinuate itself even further into places where it isn't wanted or needed.

It's difficult to read a book like this, knowing that the author is just the type of person we'd love to have involved making the decisions of the government, and knowing that there's absolutely no way such a person could ever get elected. If you've heard anything about housing in the last few years, or been affected by what happened in the economy, pick up this book and give it a read. It won't fix what ails you, but it'll help you focus and direct your anger where it ought to be.

Just saw President Obama on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. He didn't say much of anything new, but then again, who really expected he would (he's said so much on his main topic—health insurance reform—that there isn't much else he could say about it). But what caught my ear this morning was George's question that "Isn't requiring people to purchase health insurance a tax increase?" And the President's reply that it's not a tax increase, because if an uninsured person needs health care, everyone has to pay. Then he went on to say "It's just like car insurance. Pretty much everyone has to have it, and we all know it's there in case we get in an accident." He said that, and I stumbled: you only need car insurance if you own a car. But there's no requirement to own a car, and without a car, you don't need to carry car insurance.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to not have health insurance, but saying "okay, everyone is required to purchase health insurance" isn't reform: it's just the government saying "you have to spend this money." It's not a tax increase, but it's surely an unfunded mandate (yeah, yeah, "unfunded mandate" means requiring a smaller level of government to spend money, not people, but it feels the same).

Later, in the discussion section, Peggy Noonan also made an interesting point: that the confusion over "health care reform" isn't racism or hatred, but confusion, because to most of the population, "health care reform" wasn't the key issue when Obama took office. We're worried about a bad economy, about job security or insecurity, about two wars, and several other major problems. Then, to quote Noonan, this new President comes along and says "No, the focus is health care reform. It's the most important thing we have to deal with right now," and to many people, it's a complete non sequitur.

President Obama just gave a very stirring speech; he's a wonderful speaker. But what's the topic? What's the point?

The topic, the plan under question, is called "health care reform". The President was quite clear in delineating the problems we all have in paying for good health care. And he was clear in the ideal world he described, when no one will fear financial ruin as a cost of seeking medical treatment; when everyone can find the health care that is necessary and appropriate; when the other aspects of our lives are not beholden to a fear of lost health insurance. Those are undeniably admirable goals that everyone can agree on.

But then he started describing his plan, and that description—and every other discussion of the topic—focused on entirely the wrong symptom. The symptom the President wants to treat, the sidebar every discussion of health care reform focuses on, (even the Republican response, given by Representative Charles Boustany, MD, looked only at this tail wagging the dog) is actually health insurance reform. And while that might solve some of the problems, it's like treating a blood clot with an analgesic.

( Cut for length. Click here to read the rest. )

My memory is failing me. Can anyone identify the two men sitting to Robert Byrd's left in this photo? I'm pretty sure they're senators, too, but I can't recall who. It's an AP news photo from today, in front of the Senate, when everyone was assembled for Ted Kennedy's final drive-by.



Thanks.

I'm trying to decide if it's hubris, irony, or just plain funny.

Not the death of Ted Kennedy: agree with him or disagree, his death is still a sad occasion.

But the scramble to fill his seat in the Senate, that's almost funny. What makes it funny is that Massachusetts has a law forbidding the governor to appoint a replacement: a vacancy in the state's Senatorial representation must be filled by special election, five to six months after the vacancy occurs. Okay, that's the law, fine and good.

But the law is a fairly new one. In fact, it was adopted in 2004, when Kennedy's fellow Senator, John Kerry, was running for President. At the time, the governor of Massachusetts was a (shock! gasp!) Republican (Mitt Romney), and the law said the governor could appoint to fill a vacancy. Well, the Democratic powers that were couldn't have the possibility of Kerry being replaced by a Republican, so they had the law changed to keep the governor from filling the vacancy. Now, of course, they've got a Democratic governor (Deval Patrick), so they'd be quite happy to have him fill the vacancy (and the Obama Administration wouldn't mind too much, since another Democrat would bring their count in the Senate back up to 60, allowing them to pass whatever legislation they want even if all the Republican Senators vote against it). I'm laughing because it's so blatantly partisan politics. No one can even jokingly claim the change they want (or the one they made five years ago) is for the good of the state or the country: it's entirely about which party has power over the other.

But the Democrats aren't the only ones to play this game. In 1986 or '87, it was the Republicans grousing about a political decision they'd recently made. Specifically, they'd pushed for, and gotten, the 22nd Amendment adopted in response to Franklin Roosevelt's third and fourth terms as President. Couldn't have any more Democrats serving more than two terms, they said. Well, then came Ronald Reagan, who not only seemed healthy, but really did look like he could easily coast into a third term, if only there wasn't that pesky 22nd Amendment forbidding it.

Ah, political come-uppance is fun. And in the present case, since it's only five years later, it's even more enjoyable.

Now if only we could do something about Mayor Bloomberg's circumvention of New York City's term limits…

Am I the only one who missed hearing about the death of Corazon Aquino on Saturday? I didn't know until just know, when I saw this New York Times obituary.

She was one of the first world leaders I knew something about (more than just a name and a country) when I was becoming politically active. She was the first democratically elected (to a degree) president in the Philippines, defeating Ferdinand Marcos (although the promulgated results showed he had been re-elected, popular acclaim demanded her installation, and he fled into US-granted exile) in 1986.

Cory, as she was known, was also one of the subset of political women who only get into politics following the deaths of their politician-husbands (in her case, her husband, Benigno, had been assassinated in 1983, while attempting to return home to take up the standard as Marcos' chief political rival). While some of them (for instance, Muriel Humphrey) merely serve out their deceased husbands' terms before retiring, others (like Cory) take their political baptism by fire and turn it into a career, earning for themselves a greater name than their husbands. While Cory wasn't an especially effective president, she was precisely what her country needed at the time, and served with dignity, even after leaving office.

How does that go, several things make a post?

Anyway, here are several minor things:

Yesterday, I had a nice subway ride with my father… and then we did it again. We went to the Mets game at the new Shea Stadium (or City Field, for you pedants). Dad checked online, found many tickets available, and decided we'd just get them at the field. We arrived (35 stations—a long ride) to discover the only tickets available were $140 each. For a midweek afternoon game at the end of June?! Anyway, we turned right around, and got back on the subway for another hour-and-a-half ride home. Fun-ish.

I finished a story. Actual fiction (a quiet little horror piece; the first I've ever written). Haven't done that in a while (though I'm actually working on several). So I feel good about that.

Today I'm just wrapping up the day's work, without actually completing any of the projects on my plate, but calling it a day, because…

I've had this little song in my head all day, which I really wish I'd put off until the party tomorrow, but I've been singing it here, so I'll share it with you:

Happy birthday to me,
Happy birthday to me,
Happy birthday, dear Ian
Happy birthday to me.

And no, it's not as sad as it sounds: I've had several other people sing it to me.

Anyway, I'm off. Back with more important commentary next week (topics under consideration: does New York State really need a Senate?; if Rudy Giuliani gets his way with a state Constitutional convention, who would better represent those who aren't represented by the major political parties than me?; and more).

Oh, and check out the Graphicles on SFScope: they seem to be pretty popular, and I'm looking for more topics, or outright submissions.

Hope your weekend is as happy as mine!

Every time I see or hear one of the anti-smoking ads paid for by the tobacco companies, I think again of the absurdity of the tobacco industry and its relationship to the US government. And today, the big news is that the Senate passed a bill to further regulate tobacco (see this New York Times article, for example). Oh boy.

Disclaimer up front: I know full well the reason the tobacco industry hasn't been outlawed is the large amount of tax dollars it pumps into the government coffers, and the huge "campaign contributions" the industry makes to politicians.

But the rational part of my brain says: "What the hell does the government think it's doing?" Every study in the past 40 years has said "Smoking is bad. It's dangerous. It kills." Recent court rulings have forced tobacco companies to pay for advertising saying precisely that. And yet, tobacco products are available for sale just about everywhere.

The Times caught the irony of this lead story in its first paragraph: "The Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to impose federal regulation on cigarettes and other forms of tobacco, passing a landmark bill to empower the Food and Drug Administration to control products that eventually kill half their regular users." We know that tobacco use kills its users, yet we as a society are unwilling to outlaw it. Edward Kennedy is quoted as saying "This long-overdue grant of authority to F.D.A. to regulate tobacco products means that the agency can finally take the actions needed to protect our people from the most deadly of all consumer products." What is unsaid is that the way the government normally "protects our people from the most deadly of all consumer products" is to remove them from a position of being deadly. But because it's tobacco, one of the crops on which the country was founded, it's protected.

Bullshit.

If the government really wants to protect its citizens from tobacco, outlaw it. Anything less is stupid, meaningless posturing. Does this new bill make any sense? Of course not.

Of course, my argument is completely at odds with my own view of government's role: I don't think we need the government to "regulate" tobacco. I think we, as human beings, need to be smart enough to not start using products that will kill us. We don't need the government to be our nursemaid, to say "this is dangerous, you really shouldn't do it," while at the same time saying "it's okay, go ahead."

All the self-congratulatory bullshit is sticking in my craw. Congress is so happy with the bill because President Obama was a co-sponsor of it when he was in the Senate, and he's said he'll sign it, and they're happy that they're finally doing something to show it's dangerous. The final bill passed the Senate by a vote of 79-17. If they're so fucking scared of big tobacco money being used against them in their next campaigns, why not go all the way? Outlaw tobacco as a consumer product. That would certainly stem the flow of tobacco-funded campaign contributions as retribution.

Grrrr.

For the news behind the post, see this New York Times story. I first heard about it on WINS radio, but couldn't find it on the web site.

The news is: two members of the New York State Senate, who are Democrats, decided to declare their allegiance to the Republican Party, at least in terms of Senate leadership. This shifted the majority from the Democrats to the Republicans, and the Republicans immediately replaced the Senate President. Governor David Patterson called the move "an outrage" and said "I will not allow this." Earlier on the radio, I also heard him saying he would fight the shift in court, although he has apparently realized there's no legal recourse to the move. Personally, I think it's great. It is a small chink in the wall to remind us all that political parties are not either a necessary or constitutional part of our government (see part of George Washington's Farewell Address, for example). The Democrats and Republicans remain in power because they combine their efforts to do just that.

But when the grumbling turns to which party has power, rather than which people or which ideology, then there's something wrong with the government. Think about the last few elections in which you voted: how many times did you vote for a party, and how many for a person? Parties were a great idea when there was no real way to know what an individual stood for, but in this age of instant, almost overwhelming, information accessibility, we the citizens have less and less need for the political parties.

Just heard on the nightly news that Jack Kemp died today. He was the first member of Congress I met; he was my representative when we lived in Buffalo. I remember meeting him in his Washington office absurdly early one morning when my family was visiting Washington. We went into the office to pick up tickets for the White House tour, and he was very friendly and chatty, to the point that one of his assistants had to say "Congressman, they have to leave in order to make the tour." We made it to the tour.

Later, when I was in college (well, home from college recovering from a car accident and surgery), there was an event at our temple with Kemp and Israeli Ambassador Benjamin Netanyahu (yep, the first head of state I ever met, though he hadn't gotten that job yet). Mom's got a photo of me (on crutches) with Kemp somewhere in the house; we'll have to dig it out. I'm not sure if there's a shot of me with Netanyahu.

I didn't always agree with Kemp's views or politics, but it's because of him that I understand the concept that all politics is both local and personal: I liked him as a person from the times we met and interacted (and there were several letters back and forth, in addition to the in-face meetings).

Jack Kemp was born in California, played in the NFL (1957-58), CFL (1959), and AFL (1960-70). He played for five different teams in his first five years, before finding a home with the Buffalo Bills. In 1970, while he had a four-year, no-cut contract with the Bills, he ran for and won his first Congressional seat. He represented Western New York in the House of Representatives from 1971 to 1989, when he was appointed the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (he served from 1989 to 1993, all of George H.W. Bush's term). In 1996, he was the Republican nominee for Vice President on Bob Dole's ticket. In January of this year, he announced that he was battling cancer.

Kemp is survived by his wife Joanne, his sons Jeff and Jimmy (Jeff was a quarterback in the NFL from 1981 to 1991; Jimmy was a quarterback in the CFL from 1994 to 2002), and his daughters Jennifer and Judith.

I'm somewhat surprised by the uproar I've heard today over Vice President Biden's remarks. It was the lead-in to the swine flu stories on WINS radio, NBC's evening news, and two or three other places I paid attention to today. While the rest of the administration, and Biden himself, fell all over themselves to say Biden misspoke, I'm thinking Biden was right on when first he spoke, and all the "clarifications" are thinking more about the economy than proper health.

Early today, on one of the morning talk shows (see this NBC article, for example), Biden said he'd discourage family members from flying or even taking the subway. This is perfectly logical when you're thinking about a virus for which we don't yet have a vaccine, and which is, according to the World Health Organization, a pandemic. And while it's affected remarkably few people in the US, it has killed more than 150 people in Mexico, and shows no sign of slowing down. The way to fight a virus is exactly what Biden said: don't go near sick people, don't put yourself in places where you're stuck breathing the same recycled air, and practice good hygiene.

But the White House leapt to the defense of the airlines and trains by insisting Biden meant to say he was discouraging just nonessential travel to Mexico, the hardest-hit area.

I don't know; it strikes me as wrong.

In a victory solely for procedure, but a case that is increasingly becoming a joke, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Communications Commission's "crackdown on profanity on television, a policy that subjects broadcasters to fines for airing a single expletive blurted out on a live show," (see this article).

The Court ruled that the FCC is consistent in its application of the policy, without actually commenting on the Constitutionality of the policy. The ruling was 5-4, but the prize has to go to Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote in the dissenting opinion that it is ironic that the FCC patrols the airwaves for words that have a tenuous link with sex and excrement while commercials during prime-time hours ask viewers if they "are battling erectile dysfunction or are having trouble going to the bathroom."

Yet again, a case in the news that seems ready-made for the thought that what we've read was just a cover for something much bigger. In this case, it's the voiding of Ted Stevens's conviction and the dismissal of the case against the former Senator from Alaska (see, for example, this article). In a trial that ended days before last year's election, Stevens was found guilty of lying on Senate financial forms about gifts he'd received. In the election which followed, Stevens was narrowly defeated in his bid for re-election (he had been the longest-serving Republican Senator in history). Now I'm wondering if he would have won the election had he been acquitted. And since the charges have now been dismissed, Stevens is not guilty of a crime, and the only thing that's happened is that he lost an election. Very neat, that.

I don't normally watch Jay Leno (when I'm watching late night talk, it's usually Letterman), but since he's got the President, he's got my eyeballs tonight (well, at least my ears). Of course, I wasn't expecting hard-hitting investigative reporting, or really deep pointed questions (Leno's an entertainer, not a reporter), but he asked a really good question that impressed me mightily. Talking about the bill the House passed today, to tax those bonuses at 90% (see previous post), Leno said "Now what's to prevent Congress from saying 'We don't like him, so we're going to tax him at 90%.'?" A very insightful question, and a very important one, too.

Naturally, and completely expectedly, Obama didn't answer the question. Guess he is a politician. (On the other hand, that bill hasn't yet been passed by the Senate, and he hasn't signed it [or anything like it] into law, so he may be avoiding a hypothetical [in his mind].)

Following up yesterday's post, today we learn that the House of Representatives has passed a resolution taxing those bonuses at 90% (see this article at 1010WINS.com, for example). Now the House has told us: it isn't that they disagree with the concept of the bonuses, they just don't like the amount. So: Yay Congress! Look at you! You stood up to big old bad business and told them they have to give back most of the "bonus" money they got (well, you stood up to the employees who got the money, anyway). Oh, but of course, the bill will "tax individuals on any bonuses received in 2009 from companies getting $5 billion or more in money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Bonuses for people with incomes over $250,000 would be taxed at a 90 percent rate." So it isn't that 90% of that $165 million is coming back, because a lot of bonus money is paid to people with incomes of less than $250,000 (yes, believe it or not), and there's going to be some added expense to the IRS adding in a calculation to get that money back, and of course those taxes won't actually be due until April 2010… But the House showed them! (Of course, it also needs to be passed by the Senate.)

And I have to give props to Representative Charlie Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who said "We can't have any concept of we're getting even, but we must have a concept that we're trying to show that Congress… cannot tolerate that." No, they're not getting even. They're just showing that if you whip up enough public outrage, the House will do something to show that they, too, feel outraged.

Couldn't possibly have put it in the contract when they handed the money to AIG that it wasn't to go to bonuses (because then the contract would have been thousands of pages: remember, this bonus money is less than 0.1% of the money pumped into the firm). Couldn't possibly say "Okay, yeah, contracts that were in place have to be honored. But from now on, no bonuses."

Nope. The House just came out and said "Bonuses are fine, but they have to be smaller, so people are less outraged." And I'm still wondering if all the time and effort spent on this teeny-tiny piece of the bail-out pie was done to hide something much larger and more nefarious.

Word came down today (Reuters has it here) that the US Department of Justice has ruled Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to circumvent the term limits law̵s;by changing the number of terms allowed from two to three—is permissible because it is "not intended to and would not discriminate against racial and language minority groups."

Attorney Norman Siegel, who brought the suit to the DoJ because he couldn't come up with a better way to say "Hey! No! You can't change the will of the people just because you want to," was disappointed, and talking about appealing. He has to: it's the suit he filed, but even he has to know that racial or language discrimination is not the crime here. The crime is an elected mayor saying "I know better than the people, who clearly and vehemently expressed their will in referenda not once, but twice." It's looking more and more like he gets to run for a third term just because he wants to, and managed to convince or browbeat a majority of the City Council into agreeing with him. "If you disagree, vote against me," is disingenuous at best, and downright insulting in fact.

And in all this, he still hasn't explained what it is he can do to rescue New York City from its current financial crisis by sitting in the mayor's office from 2010 to 2014 that he couldn't do as a billionaire sitting in his office at Bloomberg. The hell of it is, I disagree with the concept of term limits, and don't really have any problem with Michael Bloomberg as mayor. But he got himself elected mayor, and he really ought to do the mayor's job, upholding the law as adopted by the City Council or expressed by the people through referenda. Grrrr.

[I'm moving this discussion from uspresidents, because it really doesn't belong there. For previous commentary, see this entry.]