Ban the Blowers

I pulled into the parking lot at work Monday morning about the same time as Wayne, another faculty member. As we got out of our cars (he a truck, to be precise) our ears were assaulted by the horrendous volume of one of the groundskeepers running one of those leaf blower machines. The air was filled with choking dust. We griped about it to each other, remarking that the San Jaoquin valley is already one of the asthma capitals of the nation. Wayne, an anatomy and biology professor, said he had a mind to talk to the college president about it.

Later on, as I neared my own building, another one of the infernal devices was being used on the pavement there. It created a similar atmosphere, pun intended, of ear-damaging noise and lung-contaminating particulates. Are these things really necessary? I think I'd support banning the wretched nuisances as health hazards.

They have been banned in 20 California cities so far. You can go to a site explaining their ill effects, listing the cities that have prohibited them, and containing a sample resolution your city council can pass here. The site is called "What You Should Know About Leaf Blowers." The pithiest sentence there is this: "Leaf blowers are more accurately dust blowers; they blow dust from one place to another, containing fertilizers, pesticides, dog and cat fecal matter, top soil, etc." They operate at 90 decibels when 85 causes hearing loss, and gas-powered machines emit "as much tailpipe emissions in an hour as an automobile does over 350 miles. The difference is that a car emits all that pollution over a big stretch of road while the leaf blower deposits it all in one back or front yard."

Neocons Back At It

Back in 1997 a group of prominent people interested in foreign policy formed an organization to advance their view of America's role in the world. You can still visit the website of the Project for a New American Century. There you can read the views of such people as William Kristol, Donald Kagan, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld on how the United States needed, in the new post-Soviet world, to increase its military might and use that might to cow the world into submission to American interests during a "New American Century." This new "neoconservative" world view led to the fiasco of the Iraq War, which has empowered Iran, isolated the United States in the region and all but shelved progress on the Israeli-Palestinian question for six years.

Undeterred by the ignominy of the horrendous results of all they advocated, the principals of this band of ideological bulls in the global china shop are at it again. Apparently at least aware that their previous vehicle has lost a bit of credibility thanks not only to its crackpot advocacy of American aggression but also to the pathetic incompetence of some of its central personages in carrying it out (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Senor, Libby, for instance) they have now set up a new think tank to advocate the same lunacy all over again. Like a bad 1950s Wolfman sequel, no matter how many times the monster is killed he always returns in the latest remake at the next full moon. It seems those who call for more defense spending and more war are never at a loss for funding.

The latest apparition is called The Foreign Policy Initiative, an innocuous-sounding name for the same old philosophy of trying to dominate the world through the threat and use of military force. Robert Kagan, William Kristol and Dan Senor are the leading lights, if such is a fair description of what it is they shed on the literate public. It is ironic commentary on society that there is seemingly still a market for ideas that have been so decisively refuted by their application while doing such grievous harm to their practitioners. If the American people ever again put anyone else in power who is in the least way associated with these gentlemen or their schemes they will unfortunately prove themselves richly deserving of all that will thenceforth ensue.

Obama Stays on Budget Message

President Obama held his second official press conference tonight. It was clearly part of his recent outreach efforts to build support for his budget. The nationally-televised prime time event followed a well-publicized trip to California in which he shared a stage with Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He was next interviewed on "60 Minutes." With new CBS and Gallup surveys showing Obama's approval/disapproval ratings increasing to 64-20 and 65-26, the president is clearly lasering in on his message. The message consistently is, "We can't wait," "My critics have no plan," "Things will get better," but "It is going to take time."

Nine of the thirteen questions Obama fielded in the one-hour question and answer session had to do with the economy or the budget. It was quite remarkable there were no questions about Iraq or Afghanistan. The only reference about Iran was when the president brought it up. In that sense, the press was focused where Obama wanted the spotlight fixed: on the budget and economic matters. You can see the conference here or read a transcript of it here.

The most provocative question came from where you would expect, Major Garrett of Fox News. Garrett's question, however, was more a rant attempting to link "Communist," "socialist," and "left-center," together in the same sentence with Obama's name and was virtually unintelligible. Chip Reid of CBS asked what was probably the sharpest question. Reid raised alarms about the large projected deficit, which ranged from Obama's estimate of $7 trillion over the next decade to the Congressional Budget Office's $9.3 trillion. He mentioned Obama's oft-repeated admonition against passing current problems along and asked whether this was not a case of his doing that himself. He quoted Republicans as saying this might be the most irresponsible budget ever.

Obama's response laid his entire approach out for inspection. First to discredit the critics he said it seems some Republicans have very short memories about the budget deficit and overall mess they left him after their tenure in office. Next he explained the difference in the projections: he assumes a 2.6% growth rate, they a 2.2%. A small difference like that over can mean a lot of money over time. And finally, his cardinal assumption: "If we don't invest in energy, education and health then we don't grow."

Obama was utterly persuasive. "The critics propose no alternative," he said. If we save money now by doing nothing about energy, who thinks the problem will get better or go away? The longer we wait the more it eventually will cost. "We can't wait; we have been delaying for thirty years." On education he observed about China and India, "If they out teach us today they'll out compete us tomorrow." Who thinks neglecting to invest in education now will pay dividends for us down the road? The same with health care. "Health costs will swamp our economy, particularly as our population ages." We cannot compete or balance our budget until health costs are contained. Every day we pay 17% of our GDP on health while our competitors get the job done better for 11% is one more day we fall behind and one more day our costs make us uncompetitive. We can't wait.

Obama gets the big picture. We must act. We have taken the easy choices for too long and now that the day of reckoning is upon us we have to swallow the medicine and do what needs to be done. Obama was successful in balancing the urgency of the need to act with optimism that such action made sense and could work. It is a major achievement to have defused the aura of crisis that gripped the nation a few weeks ago. Perhaps the reason for that is most clearly illustrated by Obama's best line of the night. Ed Henry of CNN badgered the president a bit about why he waited three days after the AIG bailout story broke to register his "outrage" rather than weighing in immediately. In what seems a rarity among the Washington political class, Obama replied, "It took a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

Education Remains Critical Priority

There was a fair amount of Republican criticism about the stimulus bill regarding money going to keep state school systems from laying off teachers. Additional angst has accompanied initiatives in the budget proposal to invest strongly in education, energy and health care. We cannot afford, some critics say, to spend money on these things during a recession.

That is more of the same kind of short-term thinking that got us into our current massive problems in the first place, and the longer we delay the more they eventually will cost. Take education, for example. The following figures are drawn from Jack Z. Smith of the Dallas Star-Telegram.

The February figures put the national unemployment rate at 8.1%. It is undoubtedly higher, but that is the "official" figure the way it is calculated. A closer look into the numbers breakdown shows unemployment is 12.6% for those without a high school diploma, 8.3% for high school graduates and 4.1% for college graduates. In other words, a high school grad is twice as likely to be out of work as a college grad. A high school dropout is three times as likely.

The Census Bureau found these median 2007 incomes. Bear in mind a median is not an average. It means half the people in the group are above the figure and half below.

$19,405, people with less than a high school diploma.
$26,894, associates (community college) degree or some college
$46,805, bachelor's degree
$61,287, graduate or professional degree

Between the unemployment figure and the income figure the value of an education couldn't be clearer. Both in the short and the long term this is something we cannot as a nation afford to scrimp on. Indeed, with the emphasis on education now taking place in Asian countries, it is quite clear that much greater efforts will be required to even remain competitive with them in the world economy. Now is most definitely not the time to reduce the national commitment to education. In fact, the time to do that would be, in a word, never.

People Angry at Local Shenanigans Too

Here is a little local evidence that the same cluelessness that led to the AIG bonus issue is not an isolated case. Here in the Central Valley of California, our Tulare County Board of Supervisors put themselves into a lot of hot water by approving raises for themselves in a surreptitious fashion at a time when they were cutting budgets and laying off full-time county employees.

Last September 30 the Board unanimously approved the "Consent Calendar" on their agenda without discussion. According to the local Visalia Times-Delta newspaper, "The board spent less than 10 seconds on the consent agenda." Items are customarily placed on the Consent Calendar portion of an agenda when they are matters of such a routine and non-controversial nature that they are not thought worth the Board's or the public's time to discuss individually.

At the Board Meeting on September 30 the Consent Calendar contained 20 items. On one of them, "The agenda listing said simply, 'Approve changes for employees in Units 9, 10, 11,19,20, and 21.'" These changes turned out to include 4.56% raises for the Supervisors themselves, plus $500 bonuses, plus an augmentation to the Supervisors' "flex credit," in other words, their health plan.

This did not come to light until January 12, when the Times-Delta learned the increase had gone into effect on January 4. The newspaper's and the public's responses were immediate and harsh. Meanwhile, all the supervisors claimed the process was open and transparent. Board President Phil Cox said, "If any member of the public was interested in that item, they should have asked the board to pull that item off so the board could discuss it separately." Supervisor Pete Vander Poel said, "...anyone could have gone back and into the agenda where it's covered in detail." It should be noted Vander Poel was not on the Board at the time. He has replaced Connie Conway, who was elected to the State Assembly in November. Supervisor and Vice Chairman Steve Worthley said of the process, "I think its been effective." Supervisors Allen Ishida and Mike Ennis refused to comment.

Matters finally came to a head at the meeting of February 10, when thanks to public outcry the Supervisors unanimously voted to rescind their raises. Their earlier statements defending their actions were quickly forgotten in the face of public anger. I have been to other bodies where the subject of raises for a governing Board was brought up and discussed in public by the Board itself, which invited public comment. The item was not hidden away in a subclause of an innocuously titled part of the agenda.

I for one do not begrudge public servants at least making a decent living. But this case was indefensible on two grounds. First, it had every appearance of the Board trying to pull a fast one and hiding a raise for themselves in an obscure place where no one was likely to find it. An honest and astute (in tune with the constituents) politician would know an issue like this needed full transparency and would provide it without needing to be asked. Second, the timing was all wrong for a raise. Leaders cannot be giving themselves a raise when times are bad for the rank and file and regular working people in the organization are being laid off. That is heartless and an absolute failure to lead by example.

There is now a movement afoot in the community to set up a recall of the County Supervisors. We will see if it makes headway and if the public's memory is long enough that any serious challenges are mounted against the incumbents the next time they run. In the meantime we can see the importance of local investigative newspaper work and the strength of an aroused citizenry. It isn't only in Washington and New York that people are sick and tired of business as usual and are demanding change.

Postscript: Reader Arielle's comment prompted me to do a little more research. The supervisors also get a yearly car allowance of $6615. That's enough for a $551 a month car payment. It basically means a free county-provided car on top of the salary, benefits and bonus. They also spent a combined $100,000 on travel last year. Source.

Enough of "Too Big to Fail"

One result of the financial industry crisis is a startling awareness of just how vulnerable the American economy and citizenry are to the policies and performances of megacorporations. Cases such as AIG and Citigroup make plain that the private decisions of such large and crucially positioned companies can have very public ramifications. They are are deemed "too big to fail." With this realization has come the dawning comprehension that their profits may be private but their liabilities, when they become serious enough, fall to the public charge. That is because of the fear that their failure would drag the rest of the national economy down into Depression with them, a fear that may well be true.

What do you do when the public of a democracy is at the mercy of people who are not accountable to the public? For starters, companies that have received federal "bailouts" should be under some rather strict federal requirements as a condition for getting the funds. It seems the Bush Administration utterly failed in this regard. Thus far as the case of AIG seems to indicate, the Obama Administration is not off to a very good start either. Perhaps the "stress tests" financial institutions are undergoing may yield some benefits, but up to now the government has acted as though it is afraid of the big banks.

That has to stop. Those who seek money are the ones with hat in hand. Contrast the harsh terms imposed on the automakers, with blue-collar workers having to grant concessions in exchange for their bosses getting money, with the lack of requirements made of banks as they continue with lavish bonuses and a reluctance to evidence transparency. Obama's rhetoric on this has been excellent. But up to now the oversight of his minions appears to be sorely disappointing.

A second point is that once the government (the taxpayers, the people) has contributed enough to have a majority stake in an entity, they should own it with all the rights that implies. AIG, for instance, has gotten enough help to be 80% government-owned. Companies like that should be in receivership like bankrupted citizens or failed banks taken over by the FDIC. There could be terms for them to repay the assistance or buy back their shares and return to private status, but only after they have met their obligations to the people who have acquired them first. And that is us.

Third, we need to consider not allowing anyone to get "too big to fail" any more. There was a time when antitrust was enforced, but that seemingly was a long time ago. America's Community Banks see the inequity and are complaining about it. C. R. Clouthier, President of Midsouth Bank in Louisiana, told the House antitrust subcommittee Tuesday, "Excessive concentration has led to systemic risk and the banking crisis we now face." Speaking for the Independent Community Bankers of America, Clouthier said his fellow small bankers felt it is patently unfair that big banks get bailed out while community banks are summarily shut down. "Community banks are angry," he said. See an article on this here.

The solution, he offered, was for Congress to "identify banks or other financial institutions that have become so large that their failure poses a systemic risk and put them under federal supervision." These might be placed under the Federal Reserve. The idea calls to mind the old Public Utilities Commission, which used to regulate "Ma Bell," the one national phone company, for decades.

The idea no doubt has merit if the alternative is to simply leave the economy once again at the mercy of the greedy and shortsighted grubbers on Wall Street. Of course, another approach might also be to prevent anyone from getting that big, as antitrust was wont to do in the days of someone like Teddy Roosevelt vis a vis Standard Oil. But perhaps that is hoping for too much of a good thing.

Aspirin Found to Reduce Heart Attack Risk

A new study touts the benefits of taking a small daily dose of aspirin to ward off heart attacks and strokes. ABC News reported tonight on the finding of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that will soon be published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. You can read a synopsis here.

According to the panel, men should begin at age 45 and women at 55. Both are recommended to take an 81-milligram "baby-aspirin" dose. There is no evidence that larger doses work better. The regimen appears to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes by over 20%, probably by reducing the incidence of artery-blocking blood clots.

Dr. Randal Thomas, director of cardiovascular health at the Mayo Clinic, agrees with the findings and adds, "more people take statin drugs, cholesterol-blocking drugs such as Lipitor, Crestor and Zocor, than take aspirin. Aspirin costs far less and may do as much or more to protect one's health." Despite two decades of publicity about aspirin's helpful effects, another study found only 16.6% of people in the effective age group were taking aspirin.

The Task Force recommended people of both age groups stop aspirin treatment by age 80 unless their doctor advises otherwise. That's because at that point the possible risks of bleeding in the stomach or brain become more pronounced. It is considered "a risk that is small, but can be fatal in some cases."

Dr. Thomas remarks, "People may ask themselves, 'Am I at risk for heart attack or a stroke.' If you're above age 45 and male, if you're above age 55 and female, the answer is most likely yes, and you will most likely benefit from taking a small dose of aspirin a day."

I Attend Shabbat

As my wife and I came in the door we were given a cheerful greeting, "Shabbat shalom!" "Shabbat shalom!" I replied. Lisa handed us a prayer/song book and invited me to put on a yarmulke. I picked out a gray one and stuck it on my head as best I could. Yesterday my wife and I went to a Jewish sabbath service for the first time. I found it moving in many ways.

First it might be helpful to tell why we were there. Several years ago when the local Jewish congregation was just getting started the Episcopal Church allowed them to hold their services at their church, St. Paul's. My wife Joan has been attending Episcopal services and participating in their music for nearly a year now. Due to a split in the local Episcopal diocese they are currently without the use of their church building, and the Jews are returning the favor. The Episcopals have been holding their services in the synagogue for several months now. And this week they invited the Episcopals to their sabbath service. I wanted to come along too, to see what it was like.

At this particular service there were probably about 40 Jews and 25 gentiles. A student rabbi, a woman in her mid thirties, had been assigned to conduct the service in this Reformed congregation as part of her training. She had a very nice voice, which helped, because practically the entire service is sung.

You start with the prayer book and you move through it a lot. We started on page 81 and finished past page 300. You don't cover every page, but you're moving quickly through it. "Now we're going to page 92." Then, "We're next moving to page 122." The book is interesting; you open it at the right and the pages proceed from right to left. The text is in Hebrew, but there is also an English translation. The prayers and songs are transliterated. By that I mean they also appear with the Hebrew words phonetically written out in our Roman letters. That makes it possible to sing along with the prayers. It's still not an easy assignment for those uninitiated in the pronunciations, but it was fun to participate and to see how familiar the regulars were with the material.

It's all very ancient. There are echoes of Middle Eastern patterns in the music of the chant, but not to the extent that it sounds extremely alien. Much of the text is about praising God, thanking Him for his many blessings and asking for continued guidance.

At one point, the student rabbi asked if there were those who wanted to remember the deceased in the prayers. She made eye contact in turn with everyone in the congregation, and when she did you could call out any names you wished to be remembered. Several people did. Another time she asked if there were prayer requests for people who were currently ill. This time I mentioned the name of a man who was recently in the hospital for a prostate operation.

The student rabbi, about halfway through, gave her sermon. It was on the theme, "What would you ask or say to God if you were 'face to face' with Him? I think the phrase was "parim el parim." That topic is fertile with many things to consider. She introduced many possibilities. Would it be to ask a question about life? About theology? To seek guidance? To ask pardon for sins or the strength to overcome shortcomings? And what does your choice say about you and your relationship and concept of God? It was a lot to think about, and very much personalized questions of faith. She concluded by saying that the night's reading would show Moses used such face time with God to plead for his mercy for the Jewish people, who had recently dishonored their new covenant by idol worship.

A bit later came the high point of the service, the Torah reading. Two large wooden doors in the wall behind the altar were opened. A large scroll mounted on two rolling pins and covered in an embroidered wrap was taken out. Two people came up to assist the rabbi. She explained what would happen next. Then the Torah (still in its wrap) was paraded around through the congregation. Everyone showed it respect by touching it with their prayer book or kissing it. The student rabbi had said it was only appropriate for Jews to kiss it. I touched it with my prayer book when it came by me.

Then she took it to the altar and read the evening's section. It was all in Hebrew, without vowels, and so the reading was rather halting at times. We listened for and heard the key phrase, "parim el parim" in the reading. Afterward the Torah was returned to its place. Concluding prayers and chants were sung and the service concluded with thanks. The service lasted about an hour and fifteen minutes. Traditional foods of shabbat bread, fruit and cakes were served. Tiny cups of sweet wine were available. Everyone began conversing and socializing. I saw the value in the prayers for the sick when a woman came up to me and asked about the fellow I had mentioned. She also knew him and had not known he was ill.

It was moving to see the veneration shown the Torah. The liturgy was so varied and rather complex, and required such participation it was easy to make the connection between it and the Jewish concentration on education and literacy. There was a strong connection with an ancient past, but interestingly combined with elements of the present, such as a woman rabbi and the invitation of gentiles to share in the service. I am glad we went to this service. There is much beauty in the Jewish shabbat ritual and the joy of the people in observing it.

Education Reforms

President Obama showed a willingness to take on vested interests in education in his remarks to the U.S. Hispanic Chapmber of Commerce yesterday. He said, "education has been hurt by the stale political debates in Washington." Obama rightly tied education in with the nation's economic concerns, pointing out that for today's children, given increasingly competitive globalization, it is the only, "way to prepare them for a 21st century economy."

Obama offers a lot more federal spending on behalf of education, and that will please and gratify teachers, liberals and the education community in general. But in exchange he is calling for changes the teacher's unions have long resisted. The stimulus bill provides $5 billion in new funds for Early Head Start and $41 billion in grants to school districts. It sounds as though he wants a standardized nationwide set of criteria, or "benchmarks for academic success," to ensure that, "teachers and principals get the funding they need, but that the money is tied to results." It is hard to see how that could be much different from the concept animating "No Child Left Behind," or that anything other than standardized national testing would be needed to ascertain those results. It must be admitted that for each state to design its own test, one it feels it can reach, since that is how to get whatever scarce funding is available under NCLB, is a prescription for meaningless results. That is why a standardized national set of tests may be coming in the Obama Administration.

The President called for states to remove caps on the number of charter schools. Charter schools are popular with upwardly mobile parents and students. They often have a theme or concentration, such as Math and Science, Fine Arts, Liberal Arts or vocational. Resistance in the academic community comes from the philosphical position that public schools should be eclectic and general; that vocational, technological, artistic programs as well as the humanities should be offered at all high schools. From this perspective, the charter school concept is a way to shortchange investment in education by restricting high quality programs in a particular field to only a few schools in a large district, and to separate students into interest and ability levels.

Obama again called for higher salaries and stepped-up recruiting, tied to the ability to get rid of underperforming teachers and merit pay for better teachers. As someone with 17 years of full-time experience in the public schools and ten at the community college level, I can say that my experience has been that the overwhelming majority of teachers are competent, dedicated and highly professional. Most have little patience for the few of their colleagues who are not.

Sincere objections to termination procedures and merit pay plans come from real concerns about making them fair. In the case of termination, the fact is that despite tenure, it is possible to dismiss incompetent teachers right now. It does require a solid record of documentation on the part of the responsible administrator or administrators, a remediation plan and the granting of sufficent time for the teacher to effect improvement. From what I have seen, the usual holdup is the reluctance of the administrator to put forth the effort to see the process through.

As for merit pay, there are many variables needed to make it accurate and fair. There is already a good deal of competition among teachers to be assigned the better students. This will become rampant in a merit pay system if safeguards are not put into place to prevent it. Senior teachers or a principal's favorites could well game the system to their advantage. In similar fashion, it would be important to develop "benchmarks" that take into account the socioeconomic profile of a school when determining the teachers' effectiveness. A teacher in an impoverished migrant rural or inner city school might be doing a tremendous job to have half her students at grade level in reading. Another teacher in an affluent upper middle class school might be doing a poor job if fewer than half her students were two grade levels ahead. These are the kinds of considerations that would need to be taken into account for a merit pay plan to mean anything real.

Obama's plans to increase assistance to students in higher education are most welcome in all respects. We are wasting enormous human capital by making it impossible for many to attend college due to financial constraints. More grants, loans and the "tuition for service" initiatives are good ideas that will extend the ladder of opportunity and make the nation more productive and competitive.

The bottom line is that much improvement and experimentation is needed, and the new administration seems more than willing to think out of the box and get the ball rolling. It would be good if effective reform can survive the political process without either being watered down to ineffectuality or falling prey to interest or ideology. Because of his popularity in the educational community in general, Obama probably has a better chance to shepherd positive education reform than any president in a good long while. It would be exceptionally good for the nation if that opportunity is not wasted.

Obama Asks for Volunteers

Barack Obama's presidency completes six weeks today. He has secured passage of a $787 billion economic stimulus package and has a $410 billion continuation budget before congress. He has succeeded in getting approval for a measure to better support equal pay for women and another to expand the SCHIP children's health program. He engaged in strenuous efforts to foster bipartisanship with Republicans. These were not very successful but the public gave him high marks for the effort. He has issued executive orders to close Guantanamo, end torture and unwarranted spying, tighten lobbying rules, begin ramping down in Iraq and adding forces to Afghanistan, to submit natural habitat questions to actual scientific review, and today to expand federal support for new lines of stem cell research. This was the easy part. Now comes the hard part.

The hard part is that Obama is determined to make headway on the other important issues the country faces as well. While some, especially Republicans who oppose practically all his initiatives anyway, caution him about taking on too much, he answers that he "does not have the luxury of ignoring vital issues," particularly issues he ran on and the people elected him to work on. These include energy, health care and education. Obama knows there is a sense of urgency about the economy, but there are powerful interests opposed to changing the status quo on the big trio of energy, health care and education. For this he will attempt to reactivate and remobilize his campaign supporters and organization to bring the needed pressure on Washington politicians.

You have seen this mentioned on this blog before. The Administration has determined that the time has now come to begin bringing this strategy into play. Can a "movement" linked to a campaign continue to have an effective life after it has achieved electoral success? We will soon find out. Today Mitch Stewart of the Obama organization sent out an appeal to former Obama campaign supporters. "Obama for America" is now "Organizing for America." He spoke of mounting a continuing campaign to support the president's policy priorities, and asked for volunteers. Obama is counting on "people power" to counteract institutional power and achieve real reform in these areas.

They are all part of an interconnected whole. An energy policy that begins to break our dependence on foreign sources is essential to staving off climate change, developing domestic jobs and restoring a favorable balance of trade. Out of control health costs are destroying American competitiveness at the same time public health deteriorates due to more and more people being left uncovered. Finally, without the proper resources, emphases and effectiveness to our educational efforts the American workforce cannot compete in a globalized world. They are all essential. If you had to choose, which would you neglect? Ideally none, right?

To see Stewart's message and find out how to get involved in "Organizing for America" follow the link here.

CNBC Follies

Some on Wall Street don't seem too supportive of President Obama's recovery plan. The market is continuing to trend lower, and some are attributing it to their reaction to moves from D.C. They especially don't like the idea of bailing out some people in troubled mortgages. Bailouts for themselves, of course, are just fine.

"The Daily Show" with John Stewart ran a terrific opening segment on Wednesday night. Stewart invited CNBC commentator Rick Santelli onto his program. Santelli accepted. Santelli is the former derivatives trader who went on a tirade against Obama's homeowner bailout idea on CNBC recently. Then Santelli backed out on Stewart.

Stewart let him have it with both barrels. Or rather, he let CNBC have it. In a brilliant eight minutes "The Daily Show" absolutely skewered the business "experts" at CNBC and their pathetically inaccurate prognostications over the past year. Among some of the gems:

"Bear Stearns is fine. Bear Stearns is not in trouble."
"Lehman Brothers is not Bear Stearns."
"The Bank of America is going to $60 in a heartbeat." (It now sells for under $3.)
"AIG's obviously not going bankrupt."
"The worst of this subprime business is over."
"You should be buying things and accept that they're overvalued."
"The upside potential (of GM) is good."
"Will Merrill (Lynch) need to raise capital? No."

You can watch "The Daily Show" fun for yourself by clicking here. When bozos like these express lack of confidence in Obama's plans it makes it ever more likely they will be a smashing success.

Baseball

Baseball was always my favorite sport. That was partly because I could play it. I was too short for basketball. I was fast, but too small for football. Soccer just wasn't popular enough in this country when I was growing up. I did play varsity soccer, but my senior year was the first year our school even had a soccer team. But I also like baseball because I associated it with summer and the wonderful and richly peopled stories I heard out on the radio from the marvelously friendly tenor voice of Vin Scully.

I used to live and die with the Los Angeles Dodgers. Like Tommy Lasorda, I bled Dodger Blue and paid at least ritual obeisance to the Big Dodger in the Sky. My dad would take me or my three sisters and me to the ballpark three or four times a year. This was in the sixties, the heyday of the pitching and speed teams that won four national League pennants and three World Series during that stretch. I took my own kids in the nineties.

In my boyhood I watched Don Drysdale storm around the mound after giving up a hit. The stadium was electric at the prospect of what was going to happen next. Everybody knew the next hitter would be on his back in the dirt to avoid a 98 mile per hour fastball aimed at his ribs. I chanted "Go! Go! Go!" along with 54,000 others when Maury Wills got on first base and the opposing pitcher began the futile ritual of throwing over five or six times before Wills went ahead and picked his pocket anyway. I stood before the first pitch in the first inning for the first ovation as Sandy Koufax walked in from the bullpen and climbed the mound. These weren't wild ovations. The applause was just like at a symphony when the conductor steps to his music stand and bows to the crowd before turning to the orchestra and tapping his baton in readiness for the first note. Seeing Koufax take the mound was like seeing the Grand Canyon or a redwood grove for the first time. You felt the presence of the awesome.

I was spoiled in those days. I didn't appreciate how rare it was to live in Southern California when it was still full of orange groves, to have a father who had made it out of the coal mines thanks to a lot of hard work but also some luck in the face of German artillery and to root for a colorful team that was in contention every year and hear it described by one of the greatest and most engaging of all announcers.

The feeling isn't the same any more. I am still a fan and probably always will be. But I don't live and die with the Blue any more. I'm sure some of is the fallout from the changing game is part of it. Due to free agency a team doesn't keep many of its players around as long. Loyalties don't get built up. The O'Malley family doesn't own the team and it isn't run like a family business any more. Vinny is still around but I only get him for about two innings up here. He's lost a step or two. The other announcers are decent, but how does "decent" sound when you've heard the master? The steroid garbage hasn't helped either.

In spite of all that the game itself remains basically the same and as fascinating as always. It's just that I'm not as emotionally involved. I'm sure part of that is just age. I'm in my fifties, a long time removed from fantasies of playing on the field of dreams. There are grown children to think of and retirement to plan for a during a period when the investments set up for that purpose are taking a beating.

But then that is part of the charm, isn't it? The leisurely pace of baseball makes its characterization as a "pastime" on the mark. It's a time of reconnecting with friends or family, bringing back good memories of Dodger Dogs and frozen malts and a six year old with wide eyes, a blue hat and priceless autographs of Willie D. and Junior Gilliam. Or of sitting down and seeing those same looks on the face of my own six year old thirty years later and now a long time ago.

It's not life and death now, it's more like dusk on a summer day when the light is golden and the heat breaks and all the world is like an impressionist painting. It will do. And I appreciate the winning now. It seemed a matter of course to a kid back then. Now I know if I see one more championship in my life I will be fortunate. It's the journey, seeing the game being played the way it's supposed to be played that is important now, knowing that its traditions will be carried on into the next generations in a seamless thread.

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Denver, Seattle, Baltimore or L. A. They're anticipating the baseball season in all those places. And even in smaller places like Asheville, Davenport, Pawtucket and right here in Visalia. And as long as they're playing baseball there will be something fundamentally right in America, no matter what else is going on. You don't really get this country if you don't understand baseball. It's like the sun coming up on a late spring day with the smell of roasted peanuts and cotton candy in the air. You gotta love it.

Debunking Revisionist History

"We know for sure that the big spending programs of the New Deal did not work." So said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-TN) in a recent press conference. McConnell's remark is part of a rather concerted effort of late to discredit President Obama's stimulus approach by discrediting the similar ideas Franklin D. Roosevelt put into effect over 70 years ago to combat the Great Depression. The most recent intellectual justification for the idea that the New Deal made the Depression worse comes from a 2004 book, FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression, by Jim Powell of a libertarian-oriented think tank, the Cato Institute.

McConnell and his friends are really grasping at straws on this one, because the New Deal was spectacularly successful. In the four years before Roosevelt took office the national GDP had been nearly cut in half, falling from $103.6 billion in 1929 to $56.4 billion when he took office in 1933. Unemployment went from 3.1% in 1929 to 24.8% in that dismal year of 1933, and that was not the full picture. Many more had part time work but needed a full time income. The Dow had lost over 75% of its value and the stock index stood at 60.29 in late 1932.

Roosevelt's New Deal attempted to restore demand in the economy by initiating infrastructure programs to get money into the hands of the unemployed while building national assets. Sound familiar? There were a number of New Deal reforms to restore the financial system to health too, but there isn't time to discuss them here. FDR boosted government spending by 40% in 1934 and another 28% in 1935. By 1935 the federal government spent $8.2 billion, a 78% increase over Hoover 's last budget.

The effects of this infusion were remarkable. GDP grew 10.8% in 1934, 8.9% in 1935, 13% in 1936, and 5.1% in 1937. The cumulative effect: national output rose an astonishing 63% in four years. The Dow Jones Index doubled to 120.85. Unemployment was still high, but it had been cut by 10.6%, another excellent performance. The contention that, "the New Deal did not work" is glaringly false.

Critics point to a downturn in late 1937-early 1938. GDP fell 3.4% in 1938 and unemployment shot back up from 14.2% to 18.9%. But this "Roosevelt Recession" actually proves the efficacy of the New Deal stimulus approach. In 1937, on the advice of fiscal conservatives concerned about deficits, FDR had reduced spending by 8% and was in the process of cutting another 10.5% in 1938. But when the bad numbers started to come in he changed course in 1938, rushing another $2.3 billion infusion into his outlays for 1939. The slide abruptly ended and 1939 saw a return to a phenomenal growth rate of 8.1%. This episode demonstrated not only that the economy remained shaky and needed continued stimulus, but that the New Deal approach was quite effective in providing it.

George Orwell once wrote, "He who controls the past controls the future." By attempting to distort the record of the past, neo-Hooverites like Sen. McConnell and his echo-chamber colleagues in congress and out are attempting to close off options in the present. Because they have an ideological approach to policy rather than a pragmatic one they cannot accept data that do not conform to their preconceived biases. That is why they continually fail in policy roles, and why it has been eighty years since their prescriptions last brought prosperity. In these most perilous times, brought on by their latest tenure of ineptitude, it is all the more important to combat their misrepresentations of the historical record.