Just to the Southeast of Downtown LA there's a fairly small city making a lot of headlines lately. The City of Bell, CA, with a working-class immigrant-heavy population of about 40,000 suddenly popped up on the radar last week when it surfaced that they happened to have the highest paid city officials in the country. Turns out that through a series of shady deals, the City ended up paying its City Manager nearly $800,000 annually in salary, his second in command about $375,000, and the Police Chief $450,000. Keep in mind that even in the largest cities in the country, the people with those jobs make at most half that amount. And then we need to consider the city council, all of whom were making $100K for their part time gigs sitting on irrelevant commissions. Yikes.
Like most people, my initial thought was, "how the hell do I get a job there?" Second,of course, was the question of how this possibly could have happened. We only have to look back a few years to see where the system went off the rails. In 2005, the State legislature passed a new law that limited the amount city officials could be paid. Of course this only came on the heels (and because of) a similar scandal in another city called South Gate, which happens to border Bell on the southwest side (of course it does...).
So if you're a scumbag city official and want to avoid all the hassle of state caps, what do you do? You bring a special election that no one knows anything about and turn Bell into a "Charter City." Basically, this is just a mechanism to allow cities to skirt some state control. It sounds good in theory, but then this shit happens and no one likes it anymore. The special election took place after the State passed the pay cap law, but no one made the connection. Only about 400 people of the 40,000 citizens voted (most by absentee), and no one really thought about it again.
Until now.
Problem at this point is that it's tough to undo all that's happened. The money's gone, first and foremost. The whole "drag them out in the street and shoot them" (aka "Option Eastwood") probably is off the list too. They may try to shake down the city council and officials and force retirements, but hell, even if they force them out they're still eligible for sweet pensions (LA Times reported that the manager would be on a $600K annual pension). It'll be hard to show pure fraud or other illegal conduct because most of what they were doing would have been technically legal, albeit offensive to any moral standard. There probably isn't any kind of smoking gun recording of kickbacks. So they're probably just stuck holding the bag, trying to learn for the next time.
I suppose the moral of the story is to make sure we all know who's writing the checks in these local governments, since this isn't just big city stuff. Hell, the town manager in my town growing up did some time for embezzling funds. And second, the song and dance about local control and getting rid of all those oppressive state rules isn't all its cracked up to be. One way or another, everybody's got a hustle. The trick is figuring it out before it's too late.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
99 Problems But The Debt Ain't One
This summer we're seeing the next political death match du jour (werewolves vs. vampires excluded), the question of whether the economy is best served by major increases in Federal spending or by cutting back on spending so as to allegedly enable more private sector growth. What's so problematic about this, of course, is that while the cable news networks are reaping the rewards of unqualified political hacks pontificating on the issues and fictional economic theories, actual humans are getting their asses handed to them by a Lohan-esque economic downturn.
The argument we're hearing from the conservative perspective essentially circles around 3 major concepts:
I understand that it seems, intuitively, that we shouldn't try to fix a debt/growth problem by spending more money--and in our own house, that's possibly true. But we don't have a national economy in our living room and our checkbook doesn't have anything to do with structuring the GDP. If we all had a canoe, we wouldn't try to solve problems on a cruise liner by telling people to paddle harder and throw off deck chairs. And yet that's exactly what this "austerity" solution is doing (Note:I love how they all use "austerity" instead of "not giving money to laid off workers to eat and keep the lights on" because it sounds smarter). Paul Krugman recently stated this well, noting [paraphrasing here] that it all makes visceral sense that we should have to tighten down on everything. But we need to make economic policy with out minds, not our viscera.
The fact remains today, as it did in 1937 and 1941, that the key to a solid recovery from a crisis of this magnitude is a major jump in Federal outlays, even if the debt goes up dramatically. I use 1937 as a reference point because that was the year in which FDR halted the economic recovery dead in its tracks by stopping many of the government spending programs that had been helping to drag the economy upwards. The same sense of back asswards economics that had been the cause and an escalator of the Depression suddenly came back into vogue, and brought the Country right back where it had been trying to escape. It was the start of WWII that ended the Depression, plain and simple. And obviously nobody wants a war. But the point is that going to a global war was an enormous outlay of Federal spending, and that's what put the gears of recovery into motion. Whether it's a tank or a solar power facility, somebody's going to work.
The economics of all of this makes sense, but it does require more thought than most red states want to offer (this is, by the way, the simplified Keynesian view). The national economy is essentially based on a certain level of overall economic activity that creates jobs, profits, and thus tax revenues. When times are good, the government can ease up on spending, and make more money available for private sector investment and purchasing. People have money, so they spend it, creating increases in demand and supply, as well as innovation. This pattern basically played out in the Clinton administration when he was running budget surpluses. When the economy goes into a downturn, private sector spending decreases along with investment and jobs. If a worker loses a job, he stops spending, and because he stops spending, the suppliers stop making as many products and cut jobs and input resources. Rinse and repeat after that, and we have 2008. The Fed will try to cut interest rates to make investing easier and cheaper, and while that can help to a smaller degree, alone it's not enough for major problems. By this point, borrowing funds from the Federal Reserve comes with about zero interest.
Here's where the government spending comes into the picture. If the Federal government can spend enough to overcompensate for the decline in the private sector, this will buy time for the overall economy to normalize and re-energize the investment cycle. This comes through in multiple ways. You have the obvious manner of unemployment insurance, which keeps consumer spending up while the person finds new work or training. There is direct government lending to small businesses, who in turn make more capital investments and hire workers. Similarly, Federal dollars can go to the States to help them from making huge cuts in beneficial spending and education. My favorite is government development of national infrastructure projects that make the larger economy work. Power plants, communications, roads, mass transit, water projects--all of these create enormous advances in the ability of the economy to expand and streamline. Was it Socialism when Eisenhower pushed for the Interstate highways and when FDR brought power to rural areas in the 1930s? Of course not.
Obviously, spending like the country needs to will create an immediate Federal debt. No doubt about it. And while running a debt isn't a great situation, it's a means to a better end. By investing now, the economy stays afloat and then grows, paying off the debt accrued. You keep people at work and allow businesses to grow, which lays the groundwork for the next big jump. Conversely, cutting the spending does nothing to help the situation and is a killer for actually emerging from the problem. The biggest danger we face is seeing a contraction of the economy, cutting national output, consumer spending, and tax revenue. Businesses aren't worried about Federal regulation and taxes, they're worried about people (and other businesses) not walking in the door and buying. The solution to the debt is expanding the economy so that the government doesn't have to spend as much, and the private sector can stand on its own. When it does, the debt goes down and the federal spending goes back to normal.
As for the issue of other countries suddenly stopping all lending and suddenly demanding their money loan-shark style, it's just not realistic. If we were way worse off than all the other countries and were also seeing an increase in the treasury bond prices, maybe this would be a concern. But we aren't. The rate on the loans were taking through the securities is still only about 3%, and foreign countries are eating that up because they're more confident on our economy than their own. We're still the best bet in town, even if the corporate-funded hacks on talk radio are looking for the hordes to come riding in looking for their money. Screw it maybe we should just go buy gold from Glen Beck.
As I said earlier, the simple idea of cutting the federal spending and money magically showing up just doesn't make sense in economic terms. Cutting spending seems workable if the same amount of money is coming in the door, but for the country as a whole that's not happening and the necessary level of growth isn't going to just spontaneously pop up. It's an investment people, and we need it now. This Hoover plan of "austerity" was a trainwreck in 1930, just as much as it is now. Hoover could say that at that point they didn't know any better. What's our excuse?
The argument we're hearing from the conservative perspective essentially circles around 3 major concepts:
- The government is spending too much money and needs to stop borrowing to keep it up.
- Borrowing creates a larger total debt (aka Federal deficit).
- The deficit is bad because eventually the amount of interest gets too high, becomes too expensive for us to repay, and the lendors will stop lending money. There's an inflation argument in here as well, but I'll address that in a follow-up post (in short, this is a bogus argument and the problem we're facing is deflation from inaction, not inflation--this is just a garbage scare tactic ala Death Panels and Obama re-education camps).
I understand that it seems, intuitively, that we shouldn't try to fix a debt/growth problem by spending more money--and in our own house, that's possibly true. But we don't have a national economy in our living room and our checkbook doesn't have anything to do with structuring the GDP. If we all had a canoe, we wouldn't try to solve problems on a cruise liner by telling people to paddle harder and throw off deck chairs. And yet that's exactly what this "austerity" solution is doing (Note:I love how they all use "austerity" instead of "not giving money to laid off workers to eat and keep the lights on" because it sounds smarter). Paul Krugman recently stated this well, noting [paraphrasing here] that it all makes visceral sense that we should have to tighten down on everything. But we need to make economic policy with out minds, not our viscera.
The fact remains today, as it did in 1937 and 1941, that the key to a solid recovery from a crisis of this magnitude is a major jump in Federal outlays, even if the debt goes up dramatically. I use 1937 as a reference point because that was the year in which FDR halted the economic recovery dead in its tracks by stopping many of the government spending programs that had been helping to drag the economy upwards. The same sense of back asswards economics that had been the cause and an escalator of the Depression suddenly came back into vogue, and brought the Country right back where it had been trying to escape. It was the start of WWII that ended the Depression, plain and simple. And obviously nobody wants a war. But the point is that going to a global war was an enormous outlay of Federal spending, and that's what put the gears of recovery into motion. Whether it's a tank or a solar power facility, somebody's going to work.
The economics of all of this makes sense, but it does require more thought than most red states want to offer (this is, by the way, the simplified Keynesian view). The national economy is essentially based on a certain level of overall economic activity that creates jobs, profits, and thus tax revenues. When times are good, the government can ease up on spending, and make more money available for private sector investment and purchasing. People have money, so they spend it, creating increases in demand and supply, as well as innovation. This pattern basically played out in the Clinton administration when he was running budget surpluses. When the economy goes into a downturn, private sector spending decreases along with investment and jobs. If a worker loses a job, he stops spending, and because he stops spending, the suppliers stop making as many products and cut jobs and input resources. Rinse and repeat after that, and we have 2008. The Fed will try to cut interest rates to make investing easier and cheaper, and while that can help to a smaller degree, alone it's not enough for major problems. By this point, borrowing funds from the Federal Reserve comes with about zero interest.
Here's where the government spending comes into the picture. If the Federal government can spend enough to overcompensate for the decline in the private sector, this will buy time for the overall economy to normalize and re-energize the investment cycle. This comes through in multiple ways. You have the obvious manner of unemployment insurance, which keeps consumer spending up while the person finds new work or training. There is direct government lending to small businesses, who in turn make more capital investments and hire workers. Similarly, Federal dollars can go to the States to help them from making huge cuts in beneficial spending and education. My favorite is government development of national infrastructure projects that make the larger economy work. Power plants, communications, roads, mass transit, water projects--all of these create enormous advances in the ability of the economy to expand and streamline. Was it Socialism when Eisenhower pushed for the Interstate highways and when FDR brought power to rural areas in the 1930s? Of course not.
Obviously, spending like the country needs to will create an immediate Federal debt. No doubt about it. And while running a debt isn't a great situation, it's a means to a better end. By investing now, the economy stays afloat and then grows, paying off the debt accrued. You keep people at work and allow businesses to grow, which lays the groundwork for the next big jump. Conversely, cutting the spending does nothing to help the situation and is a killer for actually emerging from the problem. The biggest danger we face is seeing a contraction of the economy, cutting national output, consumer spending, and tax revenue. Businesses aren't worried about Federal regulation and taxes, they're worried about people (and other businesses) not walking in the door and buying. The solution to the debt is expanding the economy so that the government doesn't have to spend as much, and the private sector can stand on its own. When it does, the debt goes down and the federal spending goes back to normal.
As for the issue of other countries suddenly stopping all lending and suddenly demanding their money loan-shark style, it's just not realistic. If we were way worse off than all the other countries and were also seeing an increase in the treasury bond prices, maybe this would be a concern. But we aren't. The rate on the loans were taking through the securities is still only about 3%, and foreign countries are eating that up because they're more confident on our economy than their own. We're still the best bet in town, even if the corporate-funded hacks on talk radio are looking for the hordes to come riding in looking for their money. Screw it maybe we should just go buy gold from Glen Beck.
As I said earlier, the simple idea of cutting the federal spending and money magically showing up just doesn't make sense in economic terms. Cutting spending seems workable if the same amount of money is coming in the door, but for the country as a whole that's not happening and the necessary level of growth isn't going to just spontaneously pop up. It's an investment people, and we need it now. This Hoover plan of "austerity" was a trainwreck in 1930, just as much as it is now. Hoover could say that at that point they didn't know any better. What's our excuse?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Thoughts Before Celtics/Lakers Game 1
Here's a few things too keep an eye on both tonight and moving forward:
- As much as it drives me crazy, it's more than likely that Kendrick Perkins is going to miss a game in the series due to picking up a technical. I'd be stunned if he now goes more than 4 games without a tech after watching how fast the refs are with these inane Double Technical calls that aren't even for bad conduct.
- Even if Perkins misses a game, though, the Celtics have interior depth that LA doesn't. Now that Bynum's showing some serious knee problems, they're going to be even more shorthanded. If the Celtics have to play primarily with Wallace and Davis, they're not really screwed against the less physical Lakers (like they would have been vs. Cleveland or Orlando).
- Look for the Celtics to try hard to run a lot of pick and roll with Rondo when Kobe's guarding him. The Celts are going to try to hammer on Bryant when the get a chance and they should be able to exploit LA's shaky interior defense with this play.
- Allen should continue to have success running off picks and getting open looks, expecially with the shorter Fisher likely guarding him.
- I don't see Gasol or Garnett really being able to guard each other 1 on 1. But the Celtics can help more than the Lakers can.
- Lamar Odom is likely to give the Celtics a lot of trouble if he's able to get into the lane. Boston doesn't have a guy who matches up with him well. What's likely to happen is that for most of the minutes, Garnett will be on Odom and Perkins will play Gasol.
- I expect the Lakers may get into some foul trouble. Rondo and Pierece generate a ton of fouls on their own, and the Lakers will get into trouble with reaches and dumb stuff.
- Bryant will get his points. But he'll have to work, and that's fine for Boston. Basically, the Celts can handle stars, as they've already faced Wade and Lebron.
- Look for Glen Davis to have some success off the bench agaisnt LA's second team interior guys. They don't have a sub who can body with him.
- The improvement in the Celtics defense (especially on the interior) over Phoenix or Utah is going to give LA some major problems earlier. LA has been able to coast on offense against mediocre defenses for 2 rounds, and that's going to end abruptly.
Overall, I'll take the Celtics in 6 games. I'm thinking they'll take game 1, take 2 of 3 at home, and win in game 6. The defense for Boston should be good enough to keep LA in check and the improvement in Rondo is, hands down, the biggest change in these two teams since 2008. Pierce won't have the success he did two years ago, but the team overall has more weapons. The last 2 series for both teams are what seals it for me, with one team beating the top two in the regular season and the other a couple of injured stragglers.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Now Approaching Minute 15
It's looking more and more like we've come to the start of the long downward slide of the incomparable huckster of the North, Madam Sarah Palin. Recently we saw the smashing failure of her most recent choice for the Idaho House seat in the GOP Primary, as her pick Vaughn Ward lost by double digits to a local guy whom he outspent six times over. This follows on the heels of her jumping on board with the NY 23rd Candidate, Doug Hoffman, and leading that ship to defeat despite the district being consistently conservative. And hell, if you can't push a winner in the state where you went to at least 60% of the public universities, what does that say? The woman was classmates with half the state for chrissakes.
Moreover, recent polling from Alaska showed that even the people up there have had enough of her that 50% view her unfavorably, with more "very unfavorably" (37%) than "very favorably" (31%). What makes this especially remarkable is the fact that not long ago she was touting herself as the most popular Governor in the Universe, let alone the country. Hell, frostbite has a lower percentage of "very unfavorable" votes.
One of the more interesting elements of this Idaho story is the fact that in general, the majority of the Tea Party crowd/local lunatic community sided with the other guy as opposed to the former flag bearer for the organization. I'm not sure what this means for her ongoing relationship with this crowd. Clearly, they're not all working with a full deck, as you can figure out from a recent situation in Maine where a group of them vandalized an 8th Grade classroom and stole items they deemed unpatriotic, including copies of--wait for it-- the Constitution--because they had been donated by the ACLU. And yet some of these nuts seem to at least be sniffing the never ending stream of bullshit she's tossing out as Americana. Granted, it's like wondering about a smoky smell when you're standing outside a coal plant, but it's a start. They sure can't smell anything when they still had their heads up their asses. Well, something, but it wasn't smoke.
I digress. In reality we really shouldn't be surprised that the start of the end has come right about now. It's been about 2 years since she became a recognizable persona (albeit mainly for hokey phrases and a patent disregard for reality), and that's the basic arc of these situations. It's the same as Ross Perot a few years ago (and he wasn't half as crazy as he's made out to be and knew the issues waaayy better than she does). He popped up on the radar about a year before the 1992 election as a 3rd Party candidate mainly in opposition of the Republicans of the time, and ended up rallying that crew to a 19% share of the election. By 1994 he had really drifted out of the limelight, and by 1996 he was only able to get about 7% of the vote, campaigning with his own funds. Keep in mind that if Britney Spears funded her own campaign she could get about 10%.
The point of it all is that there's a lifespan to all these types of firebrand "man of the people" candidates that don't appeal to a broad enough spectrum, and it's about 30 months. All this stuff about being an outsider sounds great in the campaign, but the functionality of these would-be world changers really goes to hell when they have to do things like "actually make decisions without easy answers" and "read stuff." It seemed like a good idea to elect Jesse Ventura as Governor because he wasn't part of the establishment, but the establishment looked a hell of a lot better once everyone realized that Minnesota's budget problems couldn't be solved with a steel chair and a hidden razor blade.
Palin's legacy looks likely to eventually go a different direction than the garden variety overwhelmed ideologue because of her apparent willingness to chase a buck at any point. You can look at Ron Paul's period as a national player (basically 2007-2008; please don't even make the argument that he's a legitimate candidate nationally. He's just not.) and recognize that even though his candidacies never really went anywhere, he was at least had a point to make with regard to being opposed to the central government. I think he's nuts, but at least you can respect the guy for taking his stance, making a cogent argument in support of it, and sticking to it.
With Palin, you can't even determine what she's supporting, other than a big budget of handlers. It's small government except for when she wants the government to get heavily involved. It's low taxes but no cuts in the big ticket government items. She's all for self-reliance yet supports the Washington State candidate who's taken $275K in government dollars in agriculture subsidies while running a farm made possible only with New Deal-funded dams and irrigation systems.
Moving forward, these are the paradoxes that will become both more apparent and less defensible. Whether the economy picks up and Obama's riding high or if it slows and the Tea Party types push harder, she seems destined for the ice floe treatment from both sides. There's an Eskimo saying that goes, "You never really know your friends from your enemies until the ice breaks." For Palin, I suspect the cracks are sneaking up all too quickly.
Moreover, recent polling from Alaska showed that even the people up there have had enough of her that 50% view her unfavorably, with more "very unfavorably" (37%) than "very favorably" (31%). What makes this especially remarkable is the fact that not long ago she was touting herself as the most popular Governor in the Universe, let alone the country. Hell, frostbite has a lower percentage of "very unfavorable" votes.
One of the more interesting elements of this Idaho story is the fact that in general, the majority of the Tea Party crowd/local lunatic community sided with the other guy as opposed to the former flag bearer for the organization. I'm not sure what this means for her ongoing relationship with this crowd. Clearly, they're not all working with a full deck, as you can figure out from a recent situation in Maine where a group of them vandalized an 8th Grade classroom and stole items they deemed unpatriotic, including copies of--wait for it-- the Constitution--because they had been donated by the ACLU. And yet some of these nuts seem to at least be sniffing the never ending stream of bullshit she's tossing out as Americana. Granted, it's like wondering about a smoky smell when you're standing outside a coal plant, but it's a start. They sure can't smell anything when they still had their heads up their asses. Well, something, but it wasn't smoke.
I digress. In reality we really shouldn't be surprised that the start of the end has come right about now. It's been about 2 years since she became a recognizable persona (albeit mainly for hokey phrases and a patent disregard for reality), and that's the basic arc of these situations. It's the same as Ross Perot a few years ago (and he wasn't half as crazy as he's made out to be and knew the issues waaayy better than she does). He popped up on the radar about a year before the 1992 election as a 3rd Party candidate mainly in opposition of the Republicans of the time, and ended up rallying that crew to a 19% share of the election. By 1994 he had really drifted out of the limelight, and by 1996 he was only able to get about 7% of the vote, campaigning with his own funds. Keep in mind that if Britney Spears funded her own campaign she could get about 10%.
The point of it all is that there's a lifespan to all these types of firebrand "man of the people" candidates that don't appeal to a broad enough spectrum, and it's about 30 months. All this stuff about being an outsider sounds great in the campaign, but the functionality of these would-be world changers really goes to hell when they have to do things like "actually make decisions without easy answers" and "read stuff." It seemed like a good idea to elect Jesse Ventura as Governor because he wasn't part of the establishment, but the establishment looked a hell of a lot better once everyone realized that Minnesota's budget problems couldn't be solved with a steel chair and a hidden razor blade.
Palin's legacy looks likely to eventually go a different direction than the garden variety overwhelmed ideologue because of her apparent willingness to chase a buck at any point. You can look at Ron Paul's period as a national player (basically 2007-2008; please don't even make the argument that he's a legitimate candidate nationally. He's just not.) and recognize that even though his candidacies never really went anywhere, he was at least had a point to make with regard to being opposed to the central government. I think he's nuts, but at least you can respect the guy for taking his stance, making a cogent argument in support of it, and sticking to it.
With Palin, you can't even determine what she's supporting, other than a big budget of handlers. It's small government except for when she wants the government to get heavily involved. It's low taxes but no cuts in the big ticket government items. She's all for self-reliance yet supports the Washington State candidate who's taken $275K in government dollars in agriculture subsidies while running a farm made possible only with New Deal-funded dams and irrigation systems.
Moving forward, these are the paradoxes that will become both more apparent and less defensible. Whether the economy picks up and Obama's riding high or if it slows and the Tea Party types push harder, she seems destined for the ice floe treatment from both sides. There's an Eskimo saying that goes, "You never really know your friends from your enemies until the ice breaks." For Palin, I suspect the cracks are sneaking up all too quickly.
Monday, May 10, 2010
It's Time Again To Disgrace the American Legal System
This morning President Obama opened up America's newest seasonal pastime, the embarrassing farce that is the Supreme Court hearings. This year it's current US Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the eminent scholar and attorney who will of course be made out by the GOP to be some sort of illiterate Bolshevik. It seemed like only yesterday we were trying to figure out what the hell "Wise Latina" meant and why Jeff Sessions was such an insufferable prick (Is it hemorrhoids, Jeff? E.D.? Wife and the gardener? Actually, it's probably because the Senate denied his appointment as a Federal Judge for making racist statements to other government lawyers. ).
Even for the normal Republican, though, they've jumped on the woman early, probably hoping to poison the well just enough to win a little public sympathy. We've already seen Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) announce that he's absolutely not voting for her, even though the confirmation hearings are weeks away. John Kyl (R-AZ) has already voiced his concerns over her "thin" experience in the biz. No doubt she would have gained more experience as a lobbyist and lawyer for giant landowners, such as Mr. Kyl. Because nothing says complex legal analysis quite like getting payoffs from condo developers and shady land schemes.
And no less a legal mind than Michael Steele is stirring up the disgruntled fringe by ranting about Kagan's statements years ago about the Constitution being defective at its origins. Of course he and the cronies will probably overlook the fact that she was discussing the fact that under the original Constitution African-Americans only counted as 3/5 of a human and remained property under the Constitution for about the first 80 years, but that's understandable. It's Original Constructionism baby! (That being said, if we could fine a way to take away suffrage from a few people I don't think I'd mind. That means you, Susan Collins.)
Perhaps the greatest irony of the process this time around is the fact that she's already come out and dismissed what the process has become as a "vapid and hollow charade," an observation even more spot-on than when she said it 15 years ago. What could be an enlightening and useful discussion about the role of the court and legal theory has unfortunately become nothing more than a sad joke. We're hearing and seeing supposedly incriminating pictures of her--wait for it--wearing a judicial style robe in the 8th grade! And talking about wanting to be a Supreme Court Justice! Sweet Jesus NO! If there's anything we can't have floating around the youth of America, it's aspiration. We need to stomp that shit out ASAP and get those kids back into Mickey Dees.
When it comes down to it, there really aren't many people who should be remotely challenged. We have to keep in mind that the hearings process isn't an election-style process where you get to pick your favorite. It's just an process to decide whether or not the appointment is qualified, not whether you'll like the way they would rule on your legislation. Senators have a vote on whether the person is qualified, not whether they like the viewpoints. There is an enormous difference, yet we're going to hear endless jabbering about why Congressmen can't vote for her on account of their differing views.
On a nauseating but serious note, this actually has a chance to get really ugly in the streets amongst the lowest of the Right's hate machine. The woman's 50, still single, and--gasp!--has a short haircut. You can see where this is going. It's not going to take much to push a few of the Tea Party loons and Bible thumpers into the streets rallying behind the argument that she (a) is gay; (b) is going to throw her gayness all over my America; and (c) doesn't like Jesus. Of course, the GOP, Fox News and talk radio will do nothing but froth up the venom or justify it in some deranged way, all the while claiming to be nothing more than passive bystanders to public sentiment. Keep in mind that at no point has she ever indicated that she was gay, and even if she was, it has zero relevance to the abilities of a qualified jurist. But, of course, you're dealing with the proto-humans who still eat that vile garbage up. I'm not saying it absolutely will happen this way, but I'll put it at 75%. When it does, let's hope the backlash is fast and carries some serious weight.
Looking forward, there's the way this should play out and the way that it actually will. It should be a open and shut matter, and she should be stamped on through without a hassle. And yet it won't. It's going to be a drawn out harassment of an enormously qualified woman who happens to be on the wrong side of some political hacks drumming up campaign dollars. We're hearing some talk of a filibuster, and while I wouldn't expect it, it could happen if only to bog down the Obama administration's attempts to actually conduct government business. In the end, we have only the public to blame for allowing it to happen. We've allowed it to trend this way for years and it's going to keep happening as long as people keep voting in these clowns to pull this crap or letting them do it when they're in office. Even if it involves a complete restructuring of the way Justices are confirmed, there needs to be some form of change. If and when it does, the process can transcend the useless and cynical character assassination it has become and reaffirm itself as a unifying and critically important part of the American judicial system.
Even for the normal Republican, though, they've jumped on the woman early, probably hoping to poison the well just enough to win a little public sympathy. We've already seen Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) announce that he's absolutely not voting for her, even though the confirmation hearings are weeks away. John Kyl (R-AZ) has already voiced his concerns over her "thin" experience in the biz. No doubt she would have gained more experience as a lobbyist and lawyer for giant landowners, such as Mr. Kyl. Because nothing says complex legal analysis quite like getting payoffs from condo developers and shady land schemes.
And no less a legal mind than Michael Steele is stirring up the disgruntled fringe by ranting about Kagan's statements years ago about the Constitution being defective at its origins. Of course he and the cronies will probably overlook the fact that she was discussing the fact that under the original Constitution African-Americans only counted as 3/5 of a human and remained property under the Constitution for about the first 80 years, but that's understandable. It's Original Constructionism baby! (That being said, if we could fine a way to take away suffrage from a few people I don't think I'd mind. That means you, Susan Collins.)
Perhaps the greatest irony of the process this time around is the fact that she's already come out and dismissed what the process has become as a "vapid and hollow charade," an observation even more spot-on than when she said it 15 years ago. What could be an enlightening and useful discussion about the role of the court and legal theory has unfortunately become nothing more than a sad joke. We're hearing and seeing supposedly incriminating pictures of her--wait for it--wearing a judicial style robe in the 8th grade! And talking about wanting to be a Supreme Court Justice! Sweet Jesus NO! If there's anything we can't have floating around the youth of America, it's aspiration. We need to stomp that shit out ASAP and get those kids back into Mickey Dees.
When it comes down to it, there really aren't many people who should be remotely challenged. We have to keep in mind that the hearings process isn't an election-style process where you get to pick your favorite. It's just an process to decide whether or not the appointment is qualified, not whether you'll like the way they would rule on your legislation. Senators have a vote on whether the person is qualified, not whether they like the viewpoints. There is an enormous difference, yet we're going to hear endless jabbering about why Congressmen can't vote for her on account of their differing views.
On a nauseating but serious note, this actually has a chance to get really ugly in the streets amongst the lowest of the Right's hate machine. The woman's 50, still single, and--gasp!--has a short haircut. You can see where this is going. It's not going to take much to push a few of the Tea Party loons and Bible thumpers into the streets rallying behind the argument that she (a) is gay; (b) is going to throw her gayness all over my America; and (c) doesn't like Jesus. Of course, the GOP, Fox News and talk radio will do nothing but froth up the venom or justify it in some deranged way, all the while claiming to be nothing more than passive bystanders to public sentiment. Keep in mind that at no point has she ever indicated that she was gay, and even if she was, it has zero relevance to the abilities of a qualified jurist. But, of course, you're dealing with the proto-humans who still eat that vile garbage up. I'm not saying it absolutely will happen this way, but I'll put it at 75%. When it does, let's hope the backlash is fast and carries some serious weight.
Looking forward, there's the way this should play out and the way that it actually will. It should be a open and shut matter, and she should be stamped on through without a hassle. And yet it won't. It's going to be a drawn out harassment of an enormously qualified woman who happens to be on the wrong side of some political hacks drumming up campaign dollars. We're hearing some talk of a filibuster, and while I wouldn't expect it, it could happen if only to bog down the Obama administration's attempts to actually conduct government business. In the end, we have only the public to blame for allowing it to happen. We've allowed it to trend this way for years and it's going to keep happening as long as people keep voting in these clowns to pull this crap or letting them do it when they're in office. Even if it involves a complete restructuring of the way Justices are confirmed, there needs to be some form of change. If and when it does, the process can transcend the useless and cynical character assassination it has become and reaffirm itself as a unifying and critically important part of the American judicial system.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
My Very Final 2010 Mock Draft
Finally, the day is here. With that, I'm submitting my final (trade-free) mock of the first round. I don't doubt there will be a few trades that will throw off the works on this, but so be it.
(1) St. Louis Rams - Sam Bradford (QB)
(2) Detroit Lions - Ndamukung Suh (DT)
(3) Tampa Bay Bucs - Gerald McCoy (DT)
(4) Washington Redskins - Russell Okung (OT)
(5) KC Chiefs - Trent Williams (OT)
(6) Seattle Seahawks - Eric Berry (S)
(7) Cleveland Browns - Derek Morgan (DE) *Expect Trade action on this Pick
(8) Oakland Raiders - Anthony Davis (OT)
(9) Buffalo Bills - Dan Williams (NT)
(10) Jacksonville - Rolando McClain (LB) *Expect Trade action on this Pick
(11) Denver Broncos - Dez Bryant (WR)
(12) Miami Dolphins - Earl Thomas (S)
(13) San Francisco - CJ Spiller (RB)
(14) Seattle Seahawks - Brian Bulaga (OT)
(15) NY Giants - Mike Iupati (G)
(16) Tennessee Titans - Jason Pierre-Paul (DE)
(17) San Francisco - Jimmy Clausen (QB)
(18) Pittsburgh Steelers - Maurkice Pouncey (C)
(19) Atlanta Falcons - Brandon Graham (DE)
(20) Houston Texans - Joe Haden (CB) *Possible Trade Spot
(21) Cincinnati Bengals - Jermaine Gresham (TE)
(22) New England Patriots - Sergio Kindle (LB)
(23) Green Bay Packers - Kyle Wilson (CB)
(24) Philadelphia Eagles - Charles Brown (OT) *Possible Trade Spot
(25) Baltimore Ravens - Demaryius Thomas (WR)
(26) Arizona Cardinals - Jerry Hughes (LB)
(27) Dallas Cowboys - Nate Allen (S)
(28) San Diego Chargers - Ryan Matthews (RB)
(29) NY Jets - Linval Joseph (DE) *Possible Trade Spot
(30) Minnesota Vikings - Kareem Jackson (CB)
(31) Indianapolis Colts - Brian Price (DT)
(32) New Orleans Saints - Sean Weatherspoon (LB)
Trends I'm thinking we'll see:
(1) St. Louis Rams - Sam Bradford (QB)
(2) Detroit Lions - Ndamukung Suh (DT)
(3) Tampa Bay Bucs - Gerald McCoy (DT)
(4) Washington Redskins - Russell Okung (OT)
(5) KC Chiefs - Trent Williams (OT)
(6) Seattle Seahawks - Eric Berry (S)
(7) Cleveland Browns - Derek Morgan (DE) *Expect Trade action on this Pick
(8) Oakland Raiders - Anthony Davis (OT)
(9) Buffalo Bills - Dan Williams (NT)
(10) Jacksonville - Rolando McClain (LB) *Expect Trade action on this Pick
(11) Denver Broncos - Dez Bryant (WR)
(12) Miami Dolphins - Earl Thomas (S)
(13) San Francisco - CJ Spiller (RB)
(14) Seattle Seahawks - Brian Bulaga (OT)
(15) NY Giants - Mike Iupati (G)
(16) Tennessee Titans - Jason Pierre-Paul (DE)
(17) San Francisco - Jimmy Clausen (QB)
(18) Pittsburgh Steelers - Maurkice Pouncey (C)
(19) Atlanta Falcons - Brandon Graham (DE)
(20) Houston Texans - Joe Haden (CB) *Possible Trade Spot
(21) Cincinnati Bengals - Jermaine Gresham (TE)
(22) New England Patriots - Sergio Kindle (LB)
(23) Green Bay Packers - Kyle Wilson (CB)
(24) Philadelphia Eagles - Charles Brown (OT) *Possible Trade Spot
(25) Baltimore Ravens - Demaryius Thomas (WR)
(26) Arizona Cardinals - Jerry Hughes (LB)
(27) Dallas Cowboys - Nate Allen (S)
(28) San Diego Chargers - Ryan Matthews (RB)
(29) NY Jets - Linval Joseph (DE) *Possible Trade Spot
(30) Minnesota Vikings - Kareem Jackson (CB)
(31) Indianapolis Colts - Brian Price (DT)
(32) New Orleans Saints - Sean Weatherspoon (LB)
Trends I'm thinking we'll see:
- Corners going unusually late in the first round.
- Some of the "safer" picks dropping a little (Morgan, Bulaga, Haden)
- Look for teams to try to trade up to the mid teens to get a shot at Spiller, Haden, Clausen, or Pierre-Paul. Maybe something like Minnesota trading it's first rounder and a 2nd to get Clausen at 15.
- I don't believe the hype of Colt McCoy or Tebow in the first round. I just can't see why a team would do that when they can get a starter late in the first. This is a great draft, overall.
- The best spots to be are in the range of 10-16. There could be guys like Bryant, Spiller, Morgan, Haden, JPP and one of the top OTs left who would normally be top 8 picks. And there should be some serious pushes for teams to get up into that range.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Some Easy Trades That Sadly, Won't Happen
Here's a list of some snappy trades I'd love to see happen in the next day or so. Most of these are tied to draft picks, so it's easiest this time of year. Unfortunately, most teams don't trade as much as they should, since that involves at least 1 iote of risk, and they're more comfortable being mediocre and avoiding any potential blame. Think of these as the trades that all end up with both teams better in the long and short terms, and that seem pretty equitable.
Jacksonville Trades First Round Pick #10 for Philadelphia's First Round Pick (#24) and Second Rounder (from Washington, #37).
Why?
Philadelphia either can take Safety Earl Thomas or even trade up more to get Eric Berry. Safety is their biggest need by far and they can get one of the top 2 guys to start this year. Jacksonville is on the fast track to irrelevant, and they can turn one pick into two. They have multiple needs and can now get a solid linebacker (say, Weatherspoon) and a safety like Mays in Round 2.
Buffalo Trades Second Round Pick (#41) to Baltimore for Jared Gaither (OT).
Why?
This allows Baltimore to get good value for a player they don't really need right now with the development of Michael Oher. They can get one of the better wideouts if they don't get one in round one, or a tight end to replace Heap. Buffalo has a huge need for OL help and in Gaither, they fill the toughest position to find in one swoop. This also allows them to go any number of directions with their first rounder (Dan Williams would be especially helpful). I'd be a strong advocate of Kansas City making this trade with Baltimore, for basically a similar package, probably pick #36. Baltimore might have to toss in an extra 5th Rounder to make the #36 happen, or KC a 5th round extra (they have 3) if it was the 50th pick.
Carolina Trades DeAngelo Williams (RB) to New England for 2nd Round Pick (#53 overall).
Why?
Williams still has some mileage left on the tires, and the Pats can plug him right into the offense to give them a 3-down back with game-changing talent. Conversely, Carolina's basically in rebuilding mode and already has an excellent back in Jonathan Stewart. They need talent all over the roster, and they can turn Williams into an immediate starter elsewhere.
NY Giants Trade Osi Umenyiora to Cincinnati for 3rd Round Pick (#84):
Why?
Cincy needs to add more talent to their defensive front 7, and Osi can be a top notch pass rusher. He played every game last year, so he looks to be healthy, and they still have a 3rd Round pick left. The strength of the AFC is now in the passing units (Indy, NE, Miami, Pitt, poss. Baltimore, San Diego, potentially the Jets if Sanchez improves), so they can't get stuck with a crappy pass rush. NY is actively shopping Osi since he's apparently unhappy about the situation, and here they can get a solid pick to help replace or fill a different spot. Some people are talking about NY getting a second round pick for him, but I have a hard time seeing it since he's already 28 and has a little bit of an injury history.
Washington Trades Albert Haynesworth to New Orleans for a 2nd Round Pick (#64) and either 2010 3rd Round Pick (#95) or 2011 2nd Round Pick (Prob. about #60. )
Why?
OK, I admit that this one's pretty far-fetched. But doesn't it makes sense? Haynesworth doesn't really fit with the Redskins 3-4 front and has been publicly unhappy. Send him to New Orleans and the Saints fill their biggest need, a defensive tackle to stop the run, and Washington can recoup much of what they've lost. New Orleans can make the numbers work if they cut Charles Grant (which they've discussed anyways a lot) and either let Bush's monster salary leave or redo it. Redskins can take an actual 3-4 DE and then get more help in this draft, plus dump some salary on a guy they don't want. I love this trade, even though it won't happen. Haynesworth's value isn't nearly what it was a year ago, since it's clear he needs to be a 4-3 DT and makes a ton of money. And remember, Brandon Marshall was only swapped for a pair of 2nd Rounders, so it's not far from what they got.
Seattle Trades 4th Rounder (#127) to Washington for Andre Carter.
Why?
Seattle can get a productive 4-3 DE who can fill a starting position for about 3 years, and mentor their young defenders. The Redskins can get a developmental player for the price of an aging DE who didn't really fit in their 3-4 look.
Jacksonville Trades First Round Pick #10 for Philadelphia's First Round Pick (#24) and Second Rounder (from Washington, #37).
Why?
Philadelphia either can take Safety Earl Thomas or even trade up more to get Eric Berry. Safety is their biggest need by far and they can get one of the top 2 guys to start this year. Jacksonville is on the fast track to irrelevant, and they can turn one pick into two. They have multiple needs and can now get a solid linebacker (say, Weatherspoon) and a safety like Mays in Round 2.
Buffalo Trades Second Round Pick (#41) to Baltimore for Jared Gaither (OT).
Why?
This allows Baltimore to get good value for a player they don't really need right now with the development of Michael Oher. They can get one of the better wideouts if they don't get one in round one, or a tight end to replace Heap. Buffalo has a huge need for OL help and in Gaither, they fill the toughest position to find in one swoop. This also allows them to go any number of directions with their first rounder (Dan Williams would be especially helpful). I'd be a strong advocate of Kansas City making this trade with Baltimore, for basically a similar package, probably pick #36. Baltimore might have to toss in an extra 5th Rounder to make the #36 happen, or KC a 5th round extra (they have 3) if it was the 50th pick.
Carolina Trades DeAngelo Williams (RB) to New England for 2nd Round Pick (#53 overall).
Why?
Williams still has some mileage left on the tires, and the Pats can plug him right into the offense to give them a 3-down back with game-changing talent. Conversely, Carolina's basically in rebuilding mode and already has an excellent back in Jonathan Stewart. They need talent all over the roster, and they can turn Williams into an immediate starter elsewhere.
NY Giants Trade Osi Umenyiora to Cincinnati for 3rd Round Pick (#84):
Why?
Cincy needs to add more talent to their defensive front 7, and Osi can be a top notch pass rusher. He played every game last year, so he looks to be healthy, and they still have a 3rd Round pick left. The strength of the AFC is now in the passing units (Indy, NE, Miami, Pitt, poss. Baltimore, San Diego, potentially the Jets if Sanchez improves), so they can't get stuck with a crappy pass rush. NY is actively shopping Osi since he's apparently unhappy about the situation, and here they can get a solid pick to help replace or fill a different spot. Some people are talking about NY getting a second round pick for him, but I have a hard time seeing it since he's already 28 and has a little bit of an injury history.
Washington Trades Albert Haynesworth to New Orleans for a 2nd Round Pick (#64) and either 2010 3rd Round Pick (#95) or 2011 2nd Round Pick (Prob. about #60. )
Why?
OK, I admit that this one's pretty far-fetched. But doesn't it makes sense? Haynesworth doesn't really fit with the Redskins 3-4 front and has been publicly unhappy. Send him to New Orleans and the Saints fill their biggest need, a defensive tackle to stop the run, and Washington can recoup much of what they've lost. New Orleans can make the numbers work if they cut Charles Grant (which they've discussed anyways a lot) and either let Bush's monster salary leave or redo it. Redskins can take an actual 3-4 DE and then get more help in this draft, plus dump some salary on a guy they don't want. I love this trade, even though it won't happen. Haynesworth's value isn't nearly what it was a year ago, since it's clear he needs to be a 4-3 DT and makes a ton of money. And remember, Brandon Marshall was only swapped for a pair of 2nd Rounders, so it's not far from what they got.
Seattle Trades 4th Rounder (#127) to Washington for Andre Carter.
Why?
Seattle can get a productive 4-3 DE who can fill a starting position for about 3 years, and mentor their young defenders. The Redskins can get a developmental player for the price of an aging DE who didn't really fit in their 3-4 look.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)