It's All About the Benjamins...Bernanke, That Is!

If we’ve learned one thing, and only one thing, from the federal government’s bailout package it is this: you can’t solve problems by just throwing money at them. It really, really is true. I mean, have you ever tried to throw money? It’s understandable if you haven’t: you are poor. I, on the other hand, have “throwing” money due to my fabulous wealth (and I should also just mention here that I’m also extremely attractive and smell like gold). You can take my word for it, throwing money at things just makes the money scatter in the wind, and then you’re surrounded by all sorts of deviants trying to catch the money. It’s not that I need the money, because obviously I do not. I wasn’t going to pick the money back up, but the least people like you could do is wait for me to walk away before going after my financial leavings so I don’t have to be near you.

I digress; you can’t throw money at problems. What we need to do is fire a rocket full of money at the problem. This “Money Missile” if you will (copyright Chris Fredda 2008) could easily get the money to it’s target (the problems) without having it scatter and inviting vagrants and other lowlifes (millionaires) to swarm. Obviously, this would require precision missle system so that you money doesn’t end up going to some other problem, saying curing AIDS, when really what you’re trying to do is rescue lenders from poorly regulated mortgages. So first, money has to be spent developing a computer system that can accurately target the problem. Caution: do not throw the money...place it in a sack - preferably with a dollar sign on it for easy identification - and then HAND IT to the computer programmers.

Next, we’ll need to make sure that the money doesn’t incinerate on impact. That’s important because how can the money help people if it’s on fire? (that is, unless the people are cold, which is also possible...note: make two missiles, one for flaming money) The best way to make sure the money arrives INTACT is to insulate it with something, and I would suggest flame-retardant foam. I know what you’re thinking: “Why would we want to make the flames retarded? Wouldn’t that just make them more dangerous, unpredictable, and likely to win Oscars?” All of these things are true, but you have to spend money to make money, and that’s where part three of my plan comes in:

SURROUND THE FOAM WITH MORE MONEY! Yes, it sees so obvious now, doesn’t it? See, if there’s money on both sides of the foam, then on impact, the fire will go after the OUTSIDE money, thus leaving the INSIDE money safe and ready to solve the problems. Just in case, you should hire a few firemen to stand by in case the flames hunger is not satiated by the outer money-barrier and it attempts to feast on the essential interior money.

Finally, the missile itself. We want the best of the best. Cheaping out on a missile that won’t even make it to the problem will only mean having to launch a third missile (remember, the 2nd one is for the flaming money, and also remember you don’t need the outer money shell for that one since we want the money to burn, so that saves us a few bucks right there). Like I said, you have to spend money to make money (did I say that? I meant to) so I say we go for a gold missile since, as we all know, gold is the best. We should probably spend the extra 90 bucks to get the extended warranty too... just in case. It seems like a lot now, but it’ll be worth it if something DOES go wrong.

So that’s that. Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions (re: the missile, the money shell, the foam, the money payload, or use of my copyrighted name for the missile) and let me know how it goes. You’re welcome, America.

(Final) Draft Aaron Sorkin

Our nation is at a turning point; economically, socially, politically, environmentally, technologically. From here on out, things are going to be different, and it's up to us to decide whether it is for our betterment or detriment. We've already taken the first political step. Al Gore used to say about the climate change fight that the only resource we lacked was political will. Well, that fight as well as many others has been given the green light by the election of Barack Obama, often times erroneously called the most liberal Senator, as well as a vitally important symbolic figure of change, in addition to the election of an even greater majority of Democrats in the House and Senate. Millions of people have been awoken from complacency, many finding out that they now have a lot of free time because their company has gone under and will no longer be needing their services. This Democratic revolution has been mobilized and now awaits instructions.

Unfortunately, we have too many big problems and almost none of them can be put on the back burner. If we focus on the economy, the environment will suffer even more destruction and inalterable damage. If we focus on the global terrorist threat, millions of Americans will be jobless and American companies will vanish in the turmoil. If we focus on health care, social security will be irreperable.

So, it's a good first step that Barack Obama has created from the most well-oiled campaign in history the most well prepared, organized, and funded transition team in history and that he's assembled a virtual dream team of Democratic executives for his cabinet to each lead a massive charge in each of their respective areas of expertise. Hitting the ground running is an understatement. Like a jet refueling mid-flight, they will be matching speed and altitude long before inauguration day.

Already they've been closing ranks and preparing for an accelerated agenda, even letting Joe Lieberman stay in the clubhouse so he'll keep quiet and not muck things up too much. Bureacracy, willingness, and know-how won't stand in the way, so now really the only thing that could derail these necessary actions is a faltering of the American will and the distractions that play so well on television ("Monica, have you met Joe the Plumber?"). Barack Obama has a lot to accomplish, and though he's already proven his media savvy and political transparancy with his podcasts and new weekly radio/webcast address, he simply doesn't have time to stop what he's doing to convince busy Americans to get on board with every proposal he makes.

So what we need, more than ever, is someone to present the issues to us in context, in easy-to-understand language that also doesn't cut out any of the complexity, and does so in an entertaining way so that we will actually pay attention. We need someone who can present both sides of the issue, much like the news, without feeling a false need to present all arguments as equal for fear of being labeled "biased." What we need, is The West Wing: The Next Generation.

Aaron Sorkin has had his troubles lately. Charlie Wilson's War wasn't as big a hit as he'd probably hoped, and Studio 60 couldn't help but collapse under the post-West Wing expectations and the competition of 30 Rock, not to mention his repeated plagarizing of his own material, a problem that also plagued his stage production of The Farnsworth Invention. Now is just the time to revisit one of his greatest successes and bring us a new West Wing. I think Jimmy Smits would be available to return as President Santos, and Bradley Whitford could probably clear his schedule.

The great thing about The West Wing was that every week it presented issues without making the show ABOUT those issues. In the normal course of their jobs, the characters would discuss and debate issues, taking every side, playing devil's advocate, and generally giving an excellent primer to the underinformed viewer. Now, more than ever, that's what we need on television. We need someone as poetic and persuasive as Aaron Sorkin articulating the debate on both ends of the spectrum with humor and drama and all in an easy-to-swallow capsule. Tell me NBC and Warner Bros. wouldn't be thrilled to have The West Wing back with it's original creator, especially during a time when Democratic values on experiencing a new vogue.

So, fade in, President Santos sits behind the Resolute Desk, awaiting his Chief-of-staff Josh Lyman who at that very moment is in his office talking to his serious, live-in girlfriend Donna Moss, who has just made a passing comment about marriage that has left the two of them in awkward silence. Just then, Sam Seaborn, Deputy Chief-of-staff walks in with Communications Director Louise Thorton in tow. They are in a heated argument...maybe about federal regulation of banking institutions or windfall profits taxes or possible even incentives for green technology producers. Just then, Congressman Will Bailey calls!

See, it practically writes itself, Aaron.

Boy, a Senate Seat Sure Would Come in Handy

I understand why Barack Obama has resigned his seat in the Senate, effective this Sunday. He is our President Elect, and while Congress is technically out of session, the crisis we face at the moment ensure a lame-duck session, and it falls into some dangerous areas if he is legislating his upcoming Presidency, thus bridging two branches in ways they were never meant. It’s rare that this would even come up, since while nearly all Senators hope to be President, only a few have ever gone directly from the Senate to the White House.

Except now Barack Obama is just two short months from having to take the helm, and there are some problems that won’t wait that long. For one, the $700 billion bailout is still being allocated, and some companies are already coming back to the trough for seconds. This week also brought forth more evidence that companies receiving bailout funds were often using that money irresponsibly, such as on executive bonuses, retreats, and over-expensive corporate events. You’d think that when giving out $700 billion dollars, money that you yourself are having to borrow, you might try to look after where that money is going. It’s a big economy, and a lot of people need help, and what sort of justice would it be to reward people who’ve squandered their earnings by giving them more to squander. That, however, is what we are doing, and there has yet to be an oversight committee or czar put in place to make sure that this money is being used wisely.

Also this week, Barack Obama has been pushing for Congress and President Bush to bailout American auto manufacturers, especially GM, who find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy. American auto manufacturers, for all of their problems in the marketplace, still sell half of the cars in the nation, and their collapse could lead to 2 million more Americans joining the unemployment rolls, at a time when unemployment is at a 14 year high. This would, according to Barack Obama, require a $50 billion bailout now to avoid their bankruptcy before he even takes office. Whether this came from the initial bailout package, or was a new package of it’s own, that’s also going to require some oversight, which Barack Obama also recommends.

The problems with the first bailout was that it was 1.) given to some companies who’d caused their own financial trouble and had a proven record of risky financial practices, 2.) their was little to no oversight to protect the taxpayers’ investment, and 3.) in order to get the thing passed, they had to tack on even more unneccessary spending that we can’t afford. This new bailout, however, if done properly, could be valuable in many ways.

With proper oversight, this money can be directed to these companies to not just keep them in operation, but to help them adapt their business to new, more fuel-efficient and green technologies that can compete better both here in the States and globally. In this way, we could help the cause of combatting climate change, get these companies back into the green thus creating more jobs and helping our economy, and we could become a global leader in new technology and alternative energy.

So yes, I’m on board with this bailout, and I think they would probably be able to get Republicans and President Bush on board. I mean, who wouldn’t give money to save the companies that basically invented the car and the American way of life? Still, it would be nice to have that Senate seat to keep an eye on proceedings and make sure this is done right this time. Yup, sure would be nice.

Necessities of the Unwinnable Fight

As the Bush Administration wraps up, and the Obama Administration considers how to best use their political capital, the question remains...what's to be done about George W. Bush and his cronies? Torture, wiretapping, abuse of power... these are just a few of the allegations laid at the feet of this President, and considering the shape he's left our nation in, many are calling for charges to be brought against him, Dick Cheney, and many of the senior members of his White House.

I'm of two minds on the subject. For one, I think he has commited crimes against the United States, it's reputation, and possibly even humanity in general. Like any American, when I see injustice, I want to see punishment. As an avid student of politics, and supporter of Barack Obama, I want him to tackle a broad and comprehensive agenda without being bogged down in partisan politics and the past. In a perfect world, he could both solve our economic problems and investigate the actions of the Bush Administration without having his public support diminished. Though most of the nation likes Barack Obama at the moment and a vast majority disapproves of President Bush, that could change if it looks like a partisan attack. Just ask Ken Starr.

The other problem being that as this term comes to a close, and President Bush clearly sees the writing on the walls, his crafty minions are already finding ways to push through last minute orders, and those could include blanket pardons for the people who perpetrated many of these criminal actions that would come under investigation once GW leaves office. So now the problem becomes that President Obama could be spending valuable time, resources, and political capital investigating crimes that no one would be held legally accountable for. You wouldn't write a traffic ticket for a man who died in a car crash, would you?

The fact is, though, that no matter what the cost in political capital, this is important. Maybe there will be no convictions, and maybe fear of political repercusions will have to mean a less aggressive legal process. Still, while there are many important issues to face in the coming years, it is first important to reaffirm what this country stands for, what is legal, and who is above the law (namely, no one). Even if President Bush is never convicted of a single crime, nor anyone who worked with him, it's important that they be held to a standard in the court of public opinion and in the annals of history. Otherwise, future Presidents will attempt the same abuses of power, secure in the knowledge that their is precedence for those acts and the subsequent evasion of responsiblity.

We the people need to know. We need to know just what the United States has been up to, and what the rest of the world has seen us do. We need to know just what damage was done so that we can repair it and prevent it. We need to know who's to blame of course, and they should be held accountable if only in our own opinions of them. More importantly, though, we need the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. As we've learend time and again, we can't just ignore the past and hope for a brighter future. Our first step towards the change we need is an understanding of the way that was.

The Myth of a Liberal Media

It is one often mentioned by so-called conservatives, and anyone who disagrees with what is presented on the news. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every television network is owned by a large coporation, some of them being giant multi-national corporations with interests in many different industries and markets. Their number one goal is to make profit, and the best way to do that is to not alienate any of their customers. They usually don’t buy television station’s in order to espouse a particular ideology, but to make a lot of money from it.

Where the tag “liberal media” comes from, oddly enough, is the right-wing media. It’s a term often used by Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, people who are incredibly popular media personalities with huge audiences. If the media were liberal, how would they find work? Another group who loves to use it is fear-monger Republican politicians. Why do they tell you that the media is liberal? Well, simply because the media reports the facts, and these politicians don’t agree with facts, or the facts prove just how wrong these politicians. So, rather than rethink their ways, they just tell you that the media reports these things not because they are true, but because the media is biased, so they can’t be trusted.

The evidence to the contrary is everywhere. Fox News, the misnamed “Fair and Balanced” network, offers most of it’s airtime to confirmed Conservatives, only offering space for liberals to come on and be berated or pummeled. Most of it’s coverage tends to emphasize the success of conservatives, and the failings of liberals. The man who owns and created Fox News is himself very conservative and owns networks all over the world, as well as 20th Century Fox, Fox Television, radio stations, and the Wall Street Journal. These are often #1 in their respective categories and represent huge market share. How are they not considered “the media.”

Then, look at the other big players. CNN gives airtime to Anderson Cooper and Campbell Brown, liberal leaning if you have to apply labels, but also Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck. MSNBC has both Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough. The majority of talk radio networks are devoted to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, while many newspapers have been complicit in support of George W. Bush’s policies. To me, this does not seem like a landscape overwhelming with liberals while conservatives are hidden away. Both viewpoints are represented, often disproportionate to their actual substance.

See, these corporations that own these entities don’t want to alienate their customers, so they often compell these networks/newspapers/stations/etc. to give equal time and equal weight to differing opinions. In this sense, it becomes and ideological affirmative action, causing them to give time and space to people based not on their abilities as journalists or commentators but based entirely on their politics. It also means that otherwise moderate voices then become drowned out by extremist pundits placed among their ranks, and that anytime a story is reported, the opposing party is given a chance to respond with little to no commentary, even when they are lying.

During this election, it was often claimed that the media was “in the tank” for Obama. If that’s true, how come McCain’s coverage was so favorable for much of his campaign, and he often jokingly refered to the press as his “base?” How come most networks official poll estimates placed McCain neck-and-neck with Obama even when the final election results should a tremendous lead for Obama? How come networks regularly ran stories, later proven false, saying that Obama had gone to a Muslim school, didn’t have a birth certificate, or was close friends with Bill Ayers?

What people meant to say when they said the media was “in the tank” for Obama was that the public was in favor of Obama, and the media was reporting it. They meant that Obama was running a mostly positive campaign while the McCain camp was running a mostly negative one, and the media was reporting it. They meant that Barack Obama has agreed to be interviewed while Sarah Palin and John McCain had refused interviews, yet the media still used the Obama interviews.

See, there is no “liberal media.” There is a media, made up of varying people with varying levels of skill, qualification, and objectivity. There are also facts and events and things that are newsworthy to be reported. And on top of all of that, there is a liberal majority of the populace, especially among the under-30 crowd suggest a growing trend. So what people like Rush mean to say is that they’re in the minority, most people don’t agree with them, and the facts don’t support them.

Participation to Anticipation

Every child remembers that interminable period between handing in your Christmas list and the day you actually receive your gifts. It’s a similar, though markedly different experience from when you get in trouble at school at you wait for your parents to arrive home to punish you. There are moments when the decisions have already been made, but when you have to wait before anything can be done. Right now, like that child before Christmas, in theory I have this great present I’ll be getting on January 20th, but I can’t enjoy it until then. After coming down from the high of Tuesday night, it’s difficult for it to feel real because while we’ve elected Barack Obama, he’s still not our President for two more months.

At least during the campaign, their was an energy of optimism propelling us forward, and at all times there were actions we could take to achieve our desired outcome. Now, we have that outcome, and while there’s plenty to be done in the meantime, those of us who elected Obama don’t have much to do except wait until that day when we can see the fruits of our labor in action.

It’s important to remember that there is an army of volunteers out here, people who spent weekends phone-banking, or canvassing their neighbors, or donating their money, all to achieve the historic victory we saw on Tuesday night. We’re all still out here, and ready to be mobilized. The DNC and Obama campaign shouldn’t forget that in all of the planning they have to do before January. In the meantime, we should do what we can to stay engaged and keep things moving in the right direction. Volunteer in your community, write letters to your representatives telling them specifically which issues are most important to you, keep canvassing your friends and acquaintances to get them on board with the new President. Sure, the election is over, but we can still win hearts and minds, and make it that much easier for the new administration.

Oppressed and Oppressor

Here's an upsetting fact: on the same day that one minority group takes a big step forward, another minority group gets knocked back. More upsetting is the fact that the two may even be related.

Due to the historic nature of this election, as well as the effective Get Out the Vote efforts of the Obama campaign, a record number of black people voted nationwide, oftentimes making up a larger percentage of the electorate than they represent in the general population. That wouldn't be a bad thing, except in California. California was one state that had a ballot initiative to define marriage as between between a man and a woman, effectively making gay marriage illegal in the state where it's been legal for the last 4 months. The irony that a lot of the money used to promote this bigoted agenda came from Mormon groups, who themselves are persecuted for their marriage practices, is not lost on me.

So what does this have to do with black voter turnout? In the state of California, white voters opposed this amendment 55% to 44%, while black voters supported it by a margin of 69% to 31%. This measure barely passed with about 52%. Now it's not as simple as saying that one caused the other, because of course that would avoid the other effect of this election. In addition to record black turnout, there was also record youth and first-time voter turnout, and those two groups voted overwhelmingly against Prop 8, including those first-time black voters. Really, black or white, the two groups that are to blame for Prop 8 being passed are older voters (the only age group that also went overwhelmingly for McCain) and religious bigots, which exist in all races. It's not as simple as a cause-and-effect, but it should give us pause that while people were able to overcome one set of prejudices, they were unable to overcome another. While I'm outraged that so many white people supported Prop 8, it's also upsetting that an even greater percentage of an oft-discriminated against group did as well.

So the empowerment of one group results in the disenfranchisement of another. Sadly, there was a time when there were laws on the books preventing people of different races from marrying, but so often we no longer have a sense of history. What is the cause of this? Is it religious? Is it cultural? Or is it simply that strange phenomenon that is fundamentally American? The Pilgrims left Britain to get away from religious persecution, and when they arrived here, they persecuted those who didn't agree with them. When newer immigrants began to arrive in our nation of immigrants, they were persecuted by the immigrants who arrived before them. African-Americans have suffered a long time in this nation, but this learning curve must be improved. If people who've been discriminated against can't see how wrong it is to discriminate against others, what hope do we have?