Portly Kid and Three Credible Journalists on 'Unconventional Wisdom'

Here's the AETN Showcase of David Sanders' show, Unconventional Wisdom, where three credible journalists and one portly kid who may or may not have epilepsy go on air to discuss the political goings on around the Natural State. After about the 16 minute mark you can get to the blogger's discussions, but think of these questions:

Just how old is Zack Stovall?
a.) 37
b.) 22
c.) 31
d.) 29
e.) 14-hot dogs

What's that look in Kinkade's eye?
a.) Disdain for sharing the spotlight.
b.) Thinking of something really funny he thought of earlier.
c.) Pondering why measuring the length of Lance Turner's neck on air would be a bad thing.
d.) Asking Sanders for his comb back.
e.) What's that smell?

How did Lance do?
a.) Terrible
b.) Offensive
c.) Ungood
d.) Shameful
e.) Meh.

Who's David Sanders?
a.) Gyspy
b.) Broadway musical fanatic
c.) A new character for the Twilight movie series
d.) Your mom (ooooooo)
e.) My mom (HEY!)

Just watch it. And try to count how many times I in fact say "Um" or "Uh." Closest without going over wins my misshapen cuff links!

Obama the Transparent

President Obama has stepped into the batting cages of the political sphere with 100 m.p.h. fastballs being flung at his head. While being a rookie, only a month and a few days in office, he still sits in the catbird seat.

Obama has made it clear and acknowledged that he understands what everyone else understands: That this malignant economy and the stimulus he has prescribed will make or break him.

I don't think it will cost him the 2012 election; The circumstances are dire enough to merit a pass if the economy is still struggling.

But President Obama has done something very well throughout his 38 days thus far. He has been thoroughly sincere and thoroughly transparent throughout the process. They are related as his transparency begets his sincerity.

His sincerity cannot and should not be measured by his speeches. He's a politician, after all. His speeches had better be moving and compelling otherwise he'd be out of a job, not that that is all a politician does but it's mighty important. There's no real worry here — Obama has, in short order, moved toward the elite echelon of Presidential orators, like Lincoln, Roosevelt (both of em), and Reagan.

Rather his sincerity should be measured by his actions. He's certainly been talking the talk, as he does so well, but I've been impressed with the fact that he is indeed walking the walk. Being usually suspect of a government opaqued by politicians in the past, Obama has been up front. He has been transparent.

Obama has actively reached out in this regard, actively shown himself to be transparent, and he has done so at every level of population.

He flew across the country, speaking to the people in town hall meetings, similar to the ones his political opponent John McCain had challenged him to during the race. He yielded questions, concerns, complaints, and comments from the audience. In some moves of once-in-a-lifetime political spectacle, he made a home for a homeless family appear out of nowhere (or should I say a congressman's second home) and a dream job opportunity appear for an enthusiastic, if not slightly obnoxious, McDonald's employee.

Talk about walking the walk.

That was Obama reaching the people. Obama also spoke to businesses. In factories, he pushed his stimulus bill, but also has spoken adamantly about the sloth and shameful irresponsibility of Wall Street. It's one thing to tell everyone how everything is going to be all a-ok. It's another to call people out and make them accountable. He might've lost some friends in the bureaus for that — friends who may or may not have campaign funds in their pockets — but he held nothing back.

But what about the infrastructure and the legislators who will ultimately dole this money out? President Obama gathered mayors — yeah, mayors — from cities and towns as obscure as North Little Rock, Arkansas, for the sole purpose of making sure that everything was done by the book, and that all anxieties were alleviated.

Nothing against the NLR or its mayor, Patrick Hays, but they're no where near a blazing metropolis, like New York, LA, Atlanta, and so on. This shows Obama's broader strategy: He wants absolutely everyone on-board, even us backward, cousin-marryin', cave dwellers in Arkansas.

He convened with Governors as well. Gov. Mike Beebe had a reasonable question regarding just how much of this money was flexible, as he rightly assessed, the needs of some states are very different from others. He met with them to assure them and get them on the same page, as it will be them and their legislators who will ultimately carry out his ambitious plan.

In the halls of Congress is where he has met his most staunch opposition at the hands of the GOP. Obama only succeeded winning over three Republican Senators, but he lobbied hard for them and more. This is despite the fact that he didn't have to. Democrats have a kung fu grip on both chambers. House Speaker Pelosi wanted to move at an even faster speed, claiming there was a mandate that vindicated Democrats her thinking to go about their business and leave Republicans in their dust. Obama said otherwise, reaching across the aisle.

It's commendable to reach across the aisle. It's more commendable to do so when no one is reaching back. It's even more commendable to keep the hand out there.

He then met with the Joint Session of Congress, the brilliant coup de grâce that expertly balanced fair warning with optimism, with the whole world watching with bated breath. It was wonderfully done, even without the paltry excuse of a rebuttal that followed from Bobby Jindal. The rebuttal itself was followed by a thud as everyone in American, conservative and liberal, collectively slapped their foreheads and shook their noggins.

Obama's walking the walk, all right. For all of our sakes, let's hope he's not walking us into more troubled waters. But he has at least given us that hope, and we have no real reason, outside of reasonable reflection and deliberation, to think otherwise.

Blake Rutherford Consumed By Rabid Jealousy Over AETN Gig

Local blogger and hackysack enthusiast Blake Rutherford, from the website Blake's Artificially Intelligent Panzer, reports the abduction of another blogger, Lance Turner, by the "Conservative Media Mafia," consisting of David "Bugsy" Sanders, David "Baby Face" Kinkade, and Zack "Not David" Stovall.

That last person is me. While I'm fairly certain that I am pragmatically objective with regard to my writing, maybe I've just been bashing the Left more than the Right. I'll try to even that out; Being an equal-opportunity butthole, as I've heard is my moniker a la Sanders, that is my mandate.

In the spirit of Shameless Self-Promotion, yes, I will be on Sanders' Unconventional Wisdom where we discussed the major players in Arkansas politics, their actions, and how they interact with the Information Super-Highway.

We also giggled like schoolgirls at the expense of John Brummett, Jason Tolbert, Billy Mays, Timmy Geithner, Rush Limbaugh's jowels, a person who has bananas for hands, Shaquille O'Neal and Lance Turner, who was indeed locked in Sanders' trunk.

Anyway, when the video's available, we'll post it. But until then, enjoy this bit of political history.

GOP Executive Director: Nowhere To Go But Up

There has been an endless litany of names —some laughably and otherwise— being thrown around for the Arkansas Republican Party Executive Director since the departure of Karen "Who?" Ray.

Tolbert is all over it, putting flip cameras in the closets of anyone who he deems to have a half-shot at the position, which is subject to being nearly anyone. Blake Rutherford has pushed his ideological forbidden fruit — David Kinkade — as a viable candidate, while Kinkade rebuts that illicit drug use must have been involved with Rutherford's assessment, while also throwing out a few names of his own.

Max Brantley has ordered, received, and sharpened three dozen steak knives and currently has his finger hovering over the print button of a mug shot of each of the possible names, ready to violently maim and destroy whoever might take the position in effigy (at first).

But rather than look at the names and faces of these possible candidates, a look at what the position will demand of its owner might be better suited for analysis. It's easier to hit a still target, after all.

A national mandate has been issued from the top of the Republican party on down or vice-versa. Presidential nominee runner-up, Former Governor and Gomer Pyle lookalike Mike Huckabee says he's beginning to sow the seeds from the bottom up on a grassroots movement to replenish the Republican party.

GOP chairman Michael Steele has issued a mandate saying that the Republican party needs to begin to appeal to the "hip-hop" neighborhoods. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, has also talked about appealing to the cultures of those who are in minorities. I've gone on about that before.

And just last night, Bobby Jindal, the esteemed Governor of Louisiana, gave a faint-hearted and high-pitched rebuttal to President Obama's Congressional address (not a State of the Union, but pretty close), which turned out to be an attempt at solidifying the values of the Republican party and making them appealing.

We learned two things from this rebuttal: First is that Little Bobby had better stick to his Meet the Press neighborhood, because speaking in front of a camera — which is a little important — is brutal for everyone involved. And the other is that the Republican party is in a period of dramatic transition that will, or should, revamp the party as an entirely new deal, not to coin or invoke a phrase.

If the national GOP wants a ground-zero place to start setting up the revamping shop, I might suggest Arkansas, where the party is remarkably weak across the board.

If you're an Arkansas Republican legislator and reading this, I'm not talking about you; I'm talking about someone else.

The sort of revamping the national figureheads are clamoring for is much needed locally if the Republican party is hoping to maintain a shred of relevance, which seems odd for a state that many will automatically write off as a Red state.

Think Big: Bringing the national perspective of the Democratic party is a good way to start. Arkansas is home to some of the most conservative Democrats in the country, Blue Dogs, they're called. None of these legislators will push the agenda of the national party here and hope to keep their seats.

Pro-Gay Rights? Pro Choice? Pro Union? Do I need to keep going? I mean, none of these things are what you would call integral to a majority of Arkanans values. For those who don't give a hoot about values, Democrats are known to most — justly and otherwise — as government-expanders and taxers.

All of these things go against the natural inclinations of most — again, not all — Arkansans. It should not be hard to make this happen. Let's see how loyal to their party these legislators can be when their national agenda is brought under the microscope.

Think Small: The next executive director ought to think about these grassroots movements Huckabee was talking about (as much as I hate to give him any more credit than he'll take and put on that abhorrent show of his).

I did a research project two years or so ago about the odd appearance of Blue strongholds in a perceived Red state. District to district reflected a national trend: Metropolises (or as close to that moniker as Arkansas can claim), like Little Rock and Fayetteville, usually tend to be more liberal, and therefore more likely to claim Democrats. But the periphery counties, for example in Arkansas' 2nd district, Saline, Yell, Garland, White Counties and etc. etc. are rural counties surrounding Little Rock's Pulaski County.

Energizing the country folk ought to be no sweat for Republicans for the reasons just mentioned with regard to the national perspective. Remind them of their values, remind them of the GOP's, and then (and save this one for last, because it's always good to end with fire and brimstone) bemoan those liberal and tax-happy national Democrats — even if their representative happens to be a conservative local Democrat.

The GOP should know full well how damning it is to have a national figurehead who is an affront to their initial sensibilities (e.g. George W. "Big Government" Bush) but is a representative for the party at large, regardless of differences. Think of John McCain: Obama wisely shackled Bush to him like an iron noose. It's tough to defend your party when those at the top proffer such dramatic disparity to the constituents whose vote you wish to receive.

And what's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

There are also a couple of nagging stereotypes that are following the party, and need to be dealt with posthaste, if any progress is to be made in these dire times for the Republican Party — one much easier to deal with than the other, or at least relatively.

First, the easy one. The GOP has to find a way to get rid of this stigma that they hate poor people. And people don't just think that Republicans don't want to give the poor people of the world anything, but many actually envision a secret, underground liar where Republican spokesmen are wringing their hands and wracking their brains to figure out how to destroy poor people with as much malice as humanly possible.

I've always seen Democrats as the champions of the middle class. I never hear them talk about anybody but the middle class. I even rarely ever hear a peep about impoverished people, although their disdain for the upper-class is obvious, sometimes hypocritically so.

But Republicans can take charge of that tactic, I believe. Can't there be a party that cares about everybody, regardless of income? Treating everyone equally, and rewarding people for their industry; Those could easily be tossed as Republican pillars. Easing up on the tax cuts for solely the wealthy is probably a healthy start to translating such a message. Easing up taxes for everybody? Now there's a start.

Sadly, I fear the last stereotype is nearly impossible to shake, not while the constituency is unable to release its grip on the matter.

Yeah, I'm talking about race relations.

I've talked to several people, professionals and casual political observers, and their primary beef with the Grand Ole Party is that they believe the Party is made up of and has a sole end of representing white people, and discourages immigrants, foreigners, and people who are different.

I get frustrated with that, not because I'm a Democrat or a Republican, but because I didn't know that dreaded vice had political affiliations. I'm fairly certain there are plenty of racist Democrats. And I'm fairly certain there are a lot in Arkansas. Here's one. This whole gun issue became real important all of a sudden, didn't it?

It would be impossible to say to those racists who do indeed vote Republican "We don't want your vote." Their vote, unfortunately, counts as much as the next fellows, and frankly, no one rewards nobility. Democrats would relish such a noble move, because it would be strategic suicide for the GOP. Even if those people didn't vote Democrat, their non-votes would be dramatically damaging.

However, the GOP, in order to make something noteworthy in the future or be doomed, must actively distance itself from that terrible vice as quickly as possible.

Three points of optimism though:

1.) The Arkansas GOP maybe poised to mount an offensive. Speaking to a conservative columnist I know, he says that the party, despite relative obscurity currently, has added legislators to the fold in 2006 and 2008, and could be ready to add more to the ranks through strong party leadership, making this E.D. (not that E.D., I mean executive director) decision even more important.

2.) Historically, the racial tempers have politically shifted before. Prior to the Civil Rights Act in Lydon B. Johnson's Great Society movement, you had a whole heapin' helpin' of southern Democrats who were dang near opposed to all of that desegregatin' hooey. They were called Dixiecrats, and quickly died off. Perhaps the GOP can somehow isolate and get rid of that same problem that plagued Democrats over thirty years ago.

3.) Think of how inept the national Democrats were in 2000. There is always an ebb and flow, a shift in popular appeal. Eight years is a long time. Perhaps by luck, the party has a virtually undefeatable opponent for 2012 against Obama. Name me someone who has a shot at him, and I'll show you a unicorn.

Jindal? Far too weak, albeit he is a principled fellow. Palin? God help us. Huckabee? I hate to say it, but he is probably the strongest at this point, which doesn't bode well for him, as most candidates who are front-runners with this much time to blow it usually do. Obama will have to start catching animals on fire in front of people and stop wearing pants before anybody will question his abilities. He has at least a four year pass on the economy.

Now, Mr. or Ms. Executive Director, you have the task of helping mold the Arkansas GOP from the top down and the bottom up for the party nationally. The Republican focus should be on these local and state parties, as the national front will likely be booked solid. There are plenty of seats in the Arkansas legislature to nab. That Blanche Lincoln is going to be in a pickle in her 2010 card-checked campaign.

Look on the bright side; there's nowhere to go but up.

Dr. Thompson and Mr. Surgeon General

One of the subplots so far of the 87th General Assembly in Arkansas could be "Safety First."

Two bills have been filed and processed with regard to personal safety, and I've noticed that one man has been very involved in both of them. Not a legislator, but a doctor. Dr. Joe Thompson, the Arkansas Surgeon General.

The name Joe Thompson is very recognizable to me and anyone else who attended college with me as the goofiest looking honky to step foot on a basketball court, so every time I see it, I take notice. He's been in the news a lot this session.

His latest dip into the high profile section has been this seat belt law that he's behind and lobbying for. Thompson urged lawmakers to prevent injury accidents by making the act of not wearing a seat belt an offense punishable by death. Not really, but it would be a primary offense, one for which you can be pulled over.

I've had my own cup of tea with this issue, but my initial, albeit slight, reservation certainly has nothing to do with the act of wearing a seat belt; Everyone should do it. Stay in drugs, say no to school, and buckle that seat belt. And Rep. Harrelson said it well: Reasonable minds can differ.

But Thompson's latest delve into the political realm was not his most memorable. With so much tension and noteworthy business going on within the chambers, many seem to have forgotten the momentous build-up, of which the surgeon general was key player.

It wouldn't haven taken a rocket scientist to figure out what the Arkansas Surgeon General's stance on raising the tax on a pack of smokes would be, especially when you consider the end — a brand-spanking new statewide trauma system.

I want to make it clear that this isn't about whether or not the tax was right or wrong, or the obvious value of such a trauma system, but rather a look at how involved Thompson was. And he wasn't just involved; He was in-your-face involved.

The Surgeon General was instrumental in assembling rallies to garner support for the bill, which were well-attended by regular ole citizens, but also delegates and even (gasp!) the Governor himself. They were at the Governor's Mansion, Children's Hospital, and ran without a hitch.

So, in a natural move of political boredom and obligatory rebuttal, opponents of the tobacco tax decided to hold a rally of their own, and bring in a big, headlining, marquee name to lobby their noble plight to the masses.

Instead, they got Dick Armey. (cue the Debbie Downer sound: wah waaahhh)

Okay, but this wasn't the first and won't be the last time the Arkansas GOP was described as futile or inept, and a rally was held for opponents to get their voices heard and backed by a national figure which, love him or hate him or question why he is such a figure, he is. It was just political mud-flinging, representing the other side.

Rep. Harrelson said it well, and some should say it more often: Reasonable minds can differ. Right?

Wrong! Thompson broke in the middle of the rally like Gangbusters, interrupting Armey, bringing the rally to a screeching and awkward halt, and challenging Armey to a verbal duel — a debate. Sources claim but can't confirm that Thompson slapped Armey in the face with his ceremonial latex surgeon glove.

Armey wisely declined being booby-trapped by a ready-to-pounce medical doctor who was ready to swing away. Of course, it made him look like a coward, running back to Washington or Texas with his tail between his legs, but that was probably better than looking like a verbally-decapitated idiot, which is surely what would've happened had he bitten Thompson's bait.

Proponents of HB1204 crowed. Robbie Wills heehawed like a blogger possessed. Max Brantley chortled like a man who had just run a criminal out of town on a rail.

But wait just a minute; Can't reasonable minds differ? What if some opponent more eloquent than Frank Glidewell and Bryan King (although with his performance in the chamber upon the vote of the bill set the bar pretty low) had barged into the middle of one of these support-driving rallies? Outrage would likely have been the appropriate word to describe the mood were such an event to occur.

And who was remarkably visible and audible throughout all this? Dr. Joe Thompson.

I'm not entirely clear of the Surgeon General's role. I know he is appointed by the the state to be the leading spokesperson on matters of public health in the state government. And I certainly understand the position, however juxtaposed the ends may be (stamp out smoking, but not so much that it can't fund some health programs, right?), and I'm all for him speaking adamantly for his position; He is as entitled as anyone to do so.

The man's a doctor and is concerned with health issues. Good for him and us, that we have such a knowledgeable public figure. But I'm curious to see if any legislation will be passed, not in this session but perhaps in future sessions, regarding obesity, which is regarded as an epidemic by the U.S. Surgeon General. They're talking about taxing mileage — maybe some taxing per pound will be in order?

But are his actions in the cigarette tax scrum above reproach? What's the precedent of a surgeon general to break up the partisan process that drives legislative debate? As an agent of the office that protects all Arkansans regardless of political affiliation, was Thompson out of line by using his clout to degrade and belittle a political view that was different than his own?

It's not hard to see through the medical doctors' thoughts on the dangers of smoking, but the political implications therein perhaps ought to be handled a little more delicately than being a mere button man for a certain political party.

And medical doctors with political appointments have been duly criticized before.

Leave the pushing and shoving to the politicians. That's what they're paid to do.

Stimulus: It's the Patriotic Thing To Do

"Seconds in this business," my venerable publisher told me, "can mean everything."

The salty veteran was teaching me the lesson that when you have an idea for a news story — or in the case of the this humble site, something I find remotely interesting — get it out before it's too late.

I learned that lesson as I looked on the front page of the good ole Demozette this Sunday morning: On the front page, Alex Daniels hosed me.

Well, not completely. I still think I have a mayoral unique angle. And this could be a valuable lesson of two things: how to salvage a story when someone rightly beats you to it instead of watching cartoons over the weekend, and that maybe these old timey newspapers can still break a news story. Hey, it happened here, after all, just the other day (speaking of Old Timey).

But anyway, to the story.

Daniels rightly compares the sprint-to-the-finish tactics between recently pressing yet controversial federal legislation in the wake of dire circumstances; the 2001 USAPATRIOT Act and most recently the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Obama signed into law Tuesday.

Both are timely: The USAPATRIOT Act was a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th. In just under three weeks, the Bill was rushed through committee and chamber to the President, then Dubya, and signed into law. The Stimulus is a response to the stagnant and somehow still slowing economy that is putting millions in the bread line, the worst economic crisis since that Great Depression thing, as most would surmise.

Both faced strict opposition from the out-party: The USAPATRIOT Act was lamented by liberal Democrats as a foul piece of legislation that put American civil liberties in a headlock. The Stimulus is seen by every Republican congressional delegate — save for three Senators — as further expansion and dependence on an already swollen federal government, sending the country into a greater number of trillions in deficit than one.

Both encourage a lack of transparency and general oversight: The USAPATRIOT Act, apparently written in capital letters so that everyone who invoked its name would be required to scream it at the top of their lungs, seemed to be, at its essence, a legal loophole.

The debate over whether the means justify the ends can certainly be debated. Republicans will claim that the proof is in the puddin': No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since. Democrats contend that in spite of the safety it provides, there was and is a lack of respect for inalienable civil liberties, like that whole right to privacy thing that people seem to like. Slack-jawed delegates will bellow from their chaw-stained mouths that "Freedom ain't free." Toby Keith will say that it should be. So on and so forth.

But the point is that whether or not it was the right thing to do, it certainly opened up avenues for the government that had hitherto been blocked off by the writ of law. It expedited the process to get the goal of the bill realized in a quicker-acting fashion.

Well, guess what I heard this Friday from someone speaking with the President.

A caucus of mayors was gathered in Washington, an earnest attempt by the new Executive to reach out to local officials and make sure that this important legislation was implemented as soundly as possible.
The mayors assembled to meet with key figures of the Obama cabinet that were crucial to the success of the stimulus, and even had a good sit down with the President himself.

Now, you may have read the story I wrote for the Bureau last week. The important part for most Arkansans and central Arkansans specifically of my conversation with North Little Rock Mayor Patrick Hays was that there will be money on the streets as soon as this very week, "next week" at the time of publishing.

But my conversation with Hays also yielded something else I found remarkable, so remarkable in fact I had to ask him to repeat it.

Hays said that in the 45 minutes the President spoke to the mayors, Obama told them that there would be a lot of room to "cut corners" and that a lot of this stimulus spending would be unregulated, although there would be an office established by the President for the sole purpose of monitoring the stimulus funds to make sure everything was transparent.

In Hays' defense, Obama was speaking about this in a challenging light. Obama was using this as a charge to the mayors that they had better make sure that they were handling this money in the right way, otherwise the whole system will be doomed to ruin. It was supposed to be encouragement that the Federal government was entrusting and enabling local officials; what I heard was that the keys are being given to governors, mayors and local officials with little oversight and a message: Do good, or it'll be bad.

Well, duh. But what about corruption? What about protecting this investment? One office to monitor the $787,200,000,000 or so dollars and make sure its not getting spent on a fur coat for the First Lady of Dallas? I thought the name of this game was de-deregulation; It was the deregulation that got us into this mess, so get those shackles back on, right?

"We're not promising some silver bullet for the economy," chief economic adviser to Obama Lawrence Summers said in an interview Friday on NBC. "Indeed, what really is very important about President Obama's approach is his commitment to working this through step by step in its many aspects."

It seems like we're putting an awful lot of trust in the some very important steps on shoulders untested.

Obama in his inaugural address said that it's time of the country to get up, dust itself off, and get to the business of fixing itself, paraphrasing. Then, its taking control of the deregulation that drove it into the gutter. Now its re-releasing it into the wild, at the whim of God-Knows-Who-Has-Been-Elected?

The Stimulus seems to be being formed as it goes and on the fly, possibly because of the unprecedented nature of the situation in which we find ourselves, but also perhaps of the rush to get these 1,071 pages of legislature on the books ASAP.

We can see the ending of the USAPATRTIOT Act in the public's eye. It was the beginning and the cornerstone of a country that no longer trusted its government nor its hero in the strife, George W. Bush (look at the approval ratings then; everyone loved him, despite what current sentiments are).

With all of the similarities between that bill and this new one, will we be reviling Obama's Administration for creating a rushed and unstable expansion of the federal government forged on the backs of the American taxpayers?

I sincerely hope not. We need this thing to work. We need these leaders that Obama has dutifully charged to pay heed. We need transparency.

I sincerely hope this falls the other way. I hope the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act does everything is says it will.

But it sure feels like I'm hoping for a lot.

UPDATE: My boy, Mike Allen at Politico, has more on the Stimulus Funny Money Watchdog. The field mouse is fast, but the owl sees at night, as per the old man from Talladega Nights

Oh Yeah, a Sternly Worded Letter Should Do the Trick

I've discovered that an axiom of the legislative session is that business gets filed and dealt with on a daily basis that is most accurately described as futile, pointless, and a misappropriation of valuable time that could be spent elsewhere.

I mean, I get it. Legislators have an agenda suggested by the Governor or by hot-button issues, and sometimes they don't get caught up in the discussion and don't get any facetime. Facetime for a politician is a substance akin water, blood, and oxygen combined. So in order to grab a headline or get their name heard by their peers, and more importantly their constituents, they file concurrent resolutions.

The people need to know their elected officials are at least trying to bring home that bacon.

These resolutions are called to honor people that have made an impact in the state, like honoring the only Cy Young winner to come out of Arkansas, Cliff Lee. That's all fine and well but let's call a spade a spade. This is nothing more than a collective statement made by the legislative body at large. The bill demanding a Thomas Paine Day? Concurrent Resolution. The bill to honor Ronald Reagan? You guessed it. The bill to let people carry weaponry into church legally? Wrong! That's just a regular old bill, no matter how silly it sounds.

I'm not saying they're unimportant, because I think all of that business has its place, but this stuff is just unimportant, don't you think? Wait...did I just contradict myself in the same sentence?

Not necessarily; couldn't a majority signed memo do the same trick of honoring people? Why do we waste such valuable legislative time debating in committee, then chamber, then another committee, then another chamber to sign off on something that has little more effect than a clearing of the throat.

This lesson became even more clear while I was going over the latest concurrent resolution, HCR 1011.

This is a statement of defiance against the Federal government and its white-knuckle grip over the states. “I have … the impression that individuals in Washington feel the state is an agent to them, when in fact the federal government is an agent to Arkansas,” cosponsor Rep. John Woods, R-Springdale, said.

The other cosponsors of the bill, Republicans Reps Karen Debra Hobb of Rogers and Roy Ragland of Marshall say they feel the same way; like the state is the lapdog of the Federal government, having no sovereignty of its own, and on the beckon call of the Washingtonites.

Reading this bill sent me on a bit of a rolercoaster of feelings and thoughts regarding the matter. A quick review of the path:

First Reaction

Really? There's nothing else you could be doing with your time? There's, what, two weeks left to file bills in this legislative session and this is how you're spending those valuable hours? By pushing statement bills? Way to really take up for your constituents.

The agenda mainly consisted of animal cruelty, the cigarette tax, the lottery and the grocery tax; There's nothing else you could be doing in the meantime? There isn't one bill for your district that you could propose to aid them directly? Nothing?

Maybe this is speaking against the futility of resolutions in the first place. And I hate to sound like I'm bashing the legislative process, and I certainly think the legislative body should be able to speak collectively on important issues. Sending the Federal government a Post-It reminding them of the tenth amendment is not one of these issues that needs to be taking up the valuable time of the legislators.

I'm sure the Feds understand the checks and balances against their indomitable take over. It's the Tenth Amendment, for Pete's sake. Where's Mark Martin when you need him to bellow out "IT'S THE LAW!" with that trademark primal shout of his?

Second Reaction

But wait a minute; these guys have a point, and it seems to be a pretty popular one at that.

Fellow blogger and local heartthrob Jason Tolbert went into greater detail about the resolution and linked to other sources who are all jacked up about the issue. Tolbert says that according to Woods, the last straw to give the go ahead to file the resolution was this whole nationalizing of the banks, an idea that offends ardent conservatives and even gives many moderates the willies. Many economists — including Mr. Free Market Alan Greenspan — are saying that it's the only solution to get us out of this economic pickle.

And I admit, reading this resolution, I find myself getting equally enthralled with the language of the bill. It's really got everything a freedom-loving individual loves:

"...Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory process of the states..."

"Whereas, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment..."

and last but certainly not least, "Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more..."

The resolution puts the ever-spreading government in its rightful place to stick up for themselves.

The Feds have been on a spreading spree like it's Manifest Destiny since the Bush Era, and Obama hasn't shown any sign of pushing the breaks anytime soon.

I spoke to Marion Berry, a Blue Dog conservative Democrat, about the amount of emergency spending and spreading the government was undertaking by adopting this stimulus bill. Berry admitted that the new administration was putting into place some actions that offended some of his more conservative sensibilities, but "if there's ever been a time to do such a thing, now is the time."

That may be, but the time ought not be to tread on the states like a Federal Big Brother. Obama recently met with several mayors to make sure everyone was on the same page with regard to a grassroots approach to applying the stimulus dollars. There's even an office set up to monitor the transparency of the spending of the moolah.

Vero quis custodiet ipsos custodies? No?

So while the new boss is admitting and attempting to regulate the regulation, the Tenth Amendment was set in place to regulate the regulators, to watch the watchmen. Hear, hear to these band of legislators sticking up for Arkansans with the resolution.

Third (Final) Response

Really? There's nothing else you could be doing with your time? There's, what, two weeks left to file bills in this legislative session and this is how you're spending those valuable hours? By pushing statement bills?

Doesn't that look a lot like my initial response? Me too. That's because it was.

My main problem is the ineffectiveness of it all. "Hey! We're mad! What are we gonna do about it? Write a sternly-worded letter. That'll show em!"

Since when have we been pro-state? It was the late 1800s , best I can recollect. That whole Civil War thing? A large facet was over the rights of state having precedent over the rights of the federal government. It was the one of the first of many victories for the Feds.

So these legislators are doing a lot of saber rattling over the rapid spread of the government and are taking steps to make sure that the Feds know they're none too keen on the idea.

But who cares? What does it amount to other than blowing around hot, albeit principled, air. It just seems like a lot of frivolity.

But there's a lot to be said for the frivolous.

"Education" Lottery Indeed

The big news around the Capitol is this business concerning the new-fangled lottery, and who ought to be disbursing the fund therein. Is it a state agency? The legislature? An oracle who is only used every once in awhile, and while omniscient, also wields disastrous fates for those who dare call on her wisdom?

The answer is that nobody really cares, so long as the proper amounts are sent through the proper channels and the money ends up where they say it's going to end up: In the pockets of worthy students seeking to further their education.

But that's the most important facet and of the literally dozens of articles published from various news outlets and of the mouths of legislators and political leaders rarely mentioned: The education.

This lottery was set up for the sole purpose allowing Arkansas students the financial wherewithal to attend a college or university (preferably in-state, nudge nudge), regardless of their income. If a student has a 2.5GPA, they should have the ability to go to college, I heard legislators say. I couldn't agree more.

There's a reason for lack of a discussion of education in a lottery dedicated to it: Education in Arkansas is sitting relatively pretty.

No, really. It is. I know this may come as a shock to my interstate readers, those in the Leno crowd and all. And sure, there are some questionable, backwooded areas of the Natural State with a high proclivity toward an excessive amount of toes, unbeknownst to the keepers of these phalanges, as they have difficulty counting numbers higher than twelve.

But I digress.

In fact there are several reasons for this, but the critical point is that legislators should thank their lucky stars that they don't have such an encumbrance in the first place. Like Arkansas' good standing with regard to its economy (tremendous tax hike or not), it's something that many people — 40 other states, fact — wish they, too, could claim. A couple of reasons why:

First, public schools. Arkansas has made strides, rising to tenth in the nation in public education. Take that, 80 percent of the country. You've just been beaten by Arkansas in the spelling bee, per se.

You hear about the public schools in counties neighboring Pulaski county as being top notch, the source of great pride for the respective cities. The only town in Arkansas to don the moniker "boomtown" according to a nationwide survey was Cabot, AR. I spoke personally with the current mayor and the former mayor during the middle four years of the survey, and both were quick to credit, you guessed it, the schools as the primary draw to their community.

Established universities like the U of A establish new ways to learn for those with deficiencies or debilities, as the Bureau's sports columnist, Harry "Father Time" King reported last month.

Speaking of debilitated, school districts that had been declared fiscal disaster areas, like Clinton and Bismark, were able to pick themselves up and get about the business of straightening themselves out, benefiting their students most importantly.

My primary concern throughout the lottery and scholarship discussions regards the retention of students who would receive these scholarship funds, basically a concern of whether or not this lottery is indeed helping students achieve their desired degree. That's the point of this, after all, isn't it?

The retention numbers of the state are grim, at a substandard 18.2 percent. But the Southern average is only 27 percent, a number for which there is an entirely separate task force strategizing to achieve. Even amidst a dark cloud, there seems to be a silver lining. As a friend of mine from Texas claimed, "If college retention is your biggest problem, you're headed in the right direction."

I saw a comment on another blog where someone was still lamenting that there was a lottery, in fact saying that as long as the church had a say, there'd be no lottery. That ship has come and gone. The lottery is here. It's something that needs to be vetted, mulled over, discussed, debated, all of that fine politickin'. But it should be mentioned that this process is made that much better and easier by having a quality education system in place.

Now I don't want to boost anyone's ego too terribly much. That'd just be foolhardy. The education in Arkansas isn't where it should be, where it could be. We've still got a long way to go before the stereotypes against an intellectual Arkansas are no longer fulfilled on a daily basis to be paraded in the national spotlight.

But at least we're not as far off as we could be. This lottery deal is a reflection of that; It is a profitable means to a worthy end.

That's it. No catch. Just a compliment or two. Arkansas deserves some credit here and there.

Romney on MLK Day: Epic Fail

Usually, I try to craft my writing so that the main point is seen at the conclusion of the piece following logical progression and discourse, but a video like this is enough to warrant a front-loading of the overarching point:

The likelihood of the Old Republican Guard ushering in a supposed "New Age" for the GOP is slim to none, and leaning heavily toward the latter.

Here we have Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, is seen here chumming with a bunch of African-American people celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Now, there is nothing wrong with celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, even if you're white. But I think it should reserved more solemnly than Romney delivers here.

Who let the dogs out? What's happenin'? Bling? Bling?

I'm sorry, Romnians, but this is political bull. There has been a strong call from the top down to integrate more of the minority culture into the GOP, specifically by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, as I said here. People will say that the Republican party doesn't have anything to offer minorities, but I don't think that the party discriminates as a matter of principle or ideal, rather its constituency often discriminates, infamously the ones down here in the good ole South, but definitely elsewhere as well. Ideological stances aside, the GOP is seen as the Old-Fashioned Honky Country Club that stood defiant against the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's.

That's the image, anyway. It's a fine suggestion to make the public step of embracing progress, especially toward minorities. Getting an African-American to be the RNC Chairman? Good. Getting the Whitest White Guy you can to start throwing around kitschy phrases that are supposed to sound like you're "down with it?" Bad.

A nice start would be to stop treating those in the minority like a prize to be won in a sweepstakes, and start treating them like people. A minority is not a person; It's a demographic.

Frankly, I don't see this fraternity of old white men being able to usher in this new era of which McConnell so earnestly waxed regarding a strategic and ideological shift in the GOP. It's going to take some new blood, fresh faces, fresher ideas, and time.

Time to forget the old way. Time to embrace — or come up with — a new way. Mitt Romney is the old way. Who the new way is represented by is yet to be seen, but if the Republican party hopes to remain relevant, it had better come sooner than later.

UPDATE: RNC Chairman Steele is all about how Republicans look in "hip-hop settings." It's a good start— he'll be able to use this Romney video as a "What Not To Do" example.

UPDATE II: The Daily Show's Samantha Bee chimes in.

Obama to Cross Border for Bacon and Flapjacks

The Washington Post says President Obama is headed north to meet with the Kanucki ringleader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

This is the first trip to a foreign land for our new executive. The roads will be scary, the dialect will be nearly unintelligible, and the climate will be frightful. Thankfully, Obama will have translators and Canadian Sherpas there to guide his every step.

But with the eyes of the world watching our historic president diplomating on foreign soil, it will be important to put a powerful foot forward. Many aides are suggesting that Obama walk right past Harper and punch the biggest bodyguard he can find right in the neck.

Actually, Obama aides say that the majority of the discussion will be about assuring trades and general good relations with the Maple Nation. Within the encyclopedia of pages within the stimulus bill, provisions and possible tax exemptions will be made to companies that "Buy American," helping to boost revenue and the economy. Apparently, Canada didn't appreciate such a clause, saying that it would hurt the trade relations between the U.S. and them.

What we actually trade with them that isn't already ours, they didn't say, but the price of Labatt Blue and Canadian Bacon pizzas, even the ones with pineapple, have skyrocketed in the past few days following the passing of the stimulus by Congress.

Anyway, that's where Obama is today, and let's hope Obama can do some good work, because let's face it: We need Canada as much as they need u-...sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.

GOP Governors: Thanks, but Meh...No Thanks

Strolling across the AP wire, I ran across this little tidbit that I found exceptionally remarkable, yet ultimately futile and meaningless at the same time, and since paradoxes amuse me, I thought I'd share it.

It seems that several GOP Governors are considering saying 'no' to the literally billions in federal funding that the stimulus will provide for their respective states.

So is this looking a federal gift horse in the mouth or mere political posturing? Wait, those are both negative things. Wait...huh?

I'm still trying to figure this little bit out. So some governors are tossing this around, as if they will be the one's to turn down literally billions of dollars that would be directly inserted into their states. They talk a big game, but I'd be shocked to see any of these Republican governors balk at the federal stimulus.

Apparently one of these governors — South Carolina's Mark Sanford — rubbed their Democratic congressmen — James Clyburn , the No. 3 man in the U.S. House — the wrong way, causing him to put some clauses into the make up of the stimulus bill that will make legislators able to override any pesky gubernatorial hurdles in getting the respective state stimulus money.

So these conservatives can elbow with their conservative buddies in their conservative primaries, claiming that they were against it to the point of turning it down, knowing all the while that they'll get that money anyway.

Apparently a big concern is attachments, or set up programs that will use the stimulus money budgets in the long-term, eventually running state economies into the ground one the federal funds expire.

Maybe these people ought to be more worried about their competency being questioned with regard to budgeting. If you can't figure out some short-term uses for a (hopefully) once-in-a-lifetime federal gift in a way that won't hinder long-term sustenance, I'd have a bigger problem with that than with putting up a fight about the stimulus.

Like it or not, the stimulus train is moving now, whether those in the GOP are on the platform or on the tracks. While I don't think that these leaders would genuinely put their politics and political ambitions in front of the livelihoods of their constituents, like the Democratic leader of South Carolina Carol Fowler claims, I certainly think that these people aren't thinking of the immediate future as much as their ideal and long-term futures.

Political ideals can shift or adapt momentarily, without permanent transfiguration, as conservatives have to deal with a questionable inheritance from the Democratic House, Senate and Executive. There might be good reason, as a conservative, to feel uneasy about such a proposal. But the check is in the mail, and no amount of political posturing is going to unwrite it.

Plus, who wants to be known as the guy who turned down a kajillionbajillion dollars?

UPDATE: Apparently Sanford isn't one of those guys. He says he's taking the dough. “Being against it doesn’t preclude taking the money,” Sanford said, which is like saying "I hate chocolate but I love Hershey bars."

So the Pope and Nancy Pelosi Walk Into a Bar...

But really, that happened today.

His Holiness (that's his moniker, not mine particularly), Pope Benedict XVI met with House Speaker Fancy Nancy Pelosi today in Rome.

I'm sure the conversation between the pontiff and Pelosi was more than a little awkward.

Pope: So. You still all for abortion?

Nancy: Uh. Yes sir.

Pope: You know I'm infallible right?

Nancy: Uh. Yes sir.

Pope: Okay! Just making sure we were on the same page on that one...(tapping fingers awkwardly)...So, looks like that Internet thing is here to stay, huh?

Nancy: YES! Do you ever go on Amazon? How about Twitter?

Pope: Like everyday! Every. Single. Day!

It probably didn't really go like that, but according to Glenn Thrush at Politico, the Pope and Pelosi did exchange some words on the subject, while also remaining chipper and discussing other things. Benny, as he was affectionately called, even blessed some rosaries.

Awkward exchanges aside, the whole thing got me thinking about the odd relationship between religion and politics.

I know I'm chartering into dangerous territories by even bringing it up; just look at the comments section on Thrush's blog post to see how fired up, even violent, people get about it. Don't worry, I don't plan on saying anything definitive and therefore I hope nothing offensive. It's all gravy, baby.

But there is one undeniable fact concerning this: There is religion and there is politics, and some want the two as oppositely positioned as physically possible while others can't help but blend them together. That's not subject to debate.

Now some interesting facets of the conversation, be them right or wrong, or somewhere in the middle, but are certainly debatable:

Separation of Church and State is an immovable object at the foundation of our government and the political mindset therein. The law which is prescribed by the legislature should be one that applies in a vacuum. It should apply to everyone without regard to religion, or race, or status, or sexual orientation for that matter. The law applies to one and all and religion shouldn't have anything to do with the molding of that law.

Now sponsorship, to me, is an entirely different matter.


One of the biggest arguments I hear concerning church and state comes during the Holidays. The Creche. Where DO we put it?! First of all, I couldn't care less. Often times, the aesthetic value of these rickety displays is an affront to both the religious and the secular.

But I'm not so sure that the government ought not be a representation of the constituency therein. If you have a primarily Christian legislature and population, such decorations make sense. If the state of New York wanted to put up several menorahs around their Jewish populations, or Islamic symbols around their Muslim neighborhoods, I've got no beef with that. I'm not sure you could find anybody, save the bigot, of course, who would have strong objections.

Decorations don't affect the rule of the law. Legislators do. Which makes a nice little segway (no, not that segway) to my next point.

Religion is the choice of people, and legislators are people, too.

This one has perplexed me for awhile, probably due to my proximity to the much-ballyhooed Bible Belt. How do legislators who claim religious affiliation separate themselves from it?

The answer isn't one at all, but rather a choice. Some legislators and political figures embrace it. Mike Huckabee for example often embraced his roots as a Baptist preacher, but also has come to distance himself from it as he as been propelled into a more diverse, national spotlight. Nancy Pelosi, obviously, puts her religious views on the back-burner when legislating. Were she to perhaps make heavy weather out of them, her constituency for which she is obliged to represent would have a cow, likely impaling her at first sight, or more likely just not re-electing her.

Try as they might, some can't escape their religious affiliations. Mitt Romney is Mormon. Don't think the very mention of that fact didn't rub a lot of people down South the wrong way.

We pick and choose our legislators to represent their constituency and vote for or against them accordingly. Their religion either does or doesn't affect their decision to use it or not as a legislative tool. The difference is as clear as Arkansas and California.

In Arkansas, Thomas "T-Paine" Paine Day has failed repeatedly to get off the ground amid concerns that Paine was anti-religious, scaring off legislators and killing all measures of the bill. A bill to ban late-term abortions doesn't even get a rebuttal during the conversation today because the leader of the ACLU (rightly) contends that "it wouldn't matter anyway." There's a bit in the state Constitution that prohibits atheists from participating in government, for Pete's sake, although it is not enforced.

In California, gay rights, abortion, and a number of other more-secular bills are passed daily.

But some are not. This past November, Californians failed to stop an initiative, Proposition 8, to amend the constitution to make gay marriage illegal. That was in California. Literally the Gayest State per capita in the union couldn't keep such a measure from passing.

What does this say? That California is a religious and conservative haven? Of course not. It means that there's a choice when it comes to religion or, in the case of Prop. 8, religiously sensitive issues. Bill Maher famously says that if they're really going to consider regulating anything, it should start with religion, as more people have offended, died or killed others in its name than any other cause. But that's ridiculous. It'd be denying a choice.

Pelosi is choosing to offend her own admitted religious sensibilities in order to do what she believes is the most accurate representation of her congressional district, as is her mandate. The Pope is doing his job, too, by trying to convince her otherwise.

Both are choices. The amount of religion a legislator wishes to add to his legislation is done so at his own peril or his own security in the voting booth. All —religious or otherwise— have to live with the consequences.

You gotta think that the exchange between Pelosi and the Pope had to be hilarious, anyway.

Blago Strikes Again in the Form of Burris!

"Seat this man from Illinois!" they clamored.

"It's in the Constitution!" they roared.

"Illinois is being denied its proper representation in the United States Senate!" they bemoaned, slightly out of breath, because that's a mouthful to bemoan.

...a little premature now perhaps?

U.S. Senator Roland Burris was appointed to the Senate by ex-Gov. Rod "Cabbage Patch Genius" Blagojevich in the absence of some other guy whose name escapes me at the moment. Oh yeah. Barack Obama? Yeah, I think he got appointed to do something else.

Anywho, were Blago anybody but Blago — a name which has become synonymous with "liar," "cheat," "fink," "sleaze," "carnival worker," "pedophile," and "hack" —this appointment would have gone on with out suspicion or reservation. But under the remarkable circumstances surrounding our favorite Illinoisan, some people rightly balked at the idea.

Understand this wasn't at all because of Burris himself, but because of the man to whom he would owe his appointment. After saying the Senate would initially bar him from entry, after sitting down with the guy, they thought he'd be alright and backed off, allowing him in as one of their own.

But apparently, a little more digging needed to be done.

Burris is now under investigation by the ethics committee under suspicion of perjury. He remarked under oath that he had never campaigned or raised money for Blago in the past and had some questionable dealings with Rod's brother, Rob (real original names by the way, Mom and Pop Blagojevich), a rather high bar when determining whether or not this appointee has a history of any affections toward the then-soon-to-be-now-ex-governor.

This just bugs me, because the entire time the Burris deal was in the news, the pace felt a little too fast for me. I mean, governors have been ousted before (Jim Guy Tucker ring any bells for you native Arkansans?), but this was a pretty serious offense on the part of Blagojevich. One that likely dealt with other people, mind you; this couldn't have been a one man show.

There had to be people on the other end. And if the Chicago Sun-Times' Mark Brown is at least partly right, and Burris was literally begging anyone who had ears for an appointment, doesn't it rub someone the wrong way that maybe —and this is pure speculation— Burris could be one of those purchasers?

That's the whole point. But expedience took precedent over thoroughness, even if Burris is acquitted of all suspicions or charges. If they had done their jobs in the first place, perhaps this mess could've been sorted out earlier.

'Innocent until proven guilty' never applied to public appeal, and suspicion is wholly independent from guilt or innocence, merely a means to one of those ends. And suspicion carries its own weight.

I said in an earlier piece regarding the economic stimulus that I look forward to seeing if it will be labeled as noble expedience or stubborn hastiness on the part of Obama and Congress to get that bill passed. I think the latter, now using our premiere-view 20/20 hindsighting lenses, now applies .

We're Not Socialists, Comrade

You hear the hubbub. You hear the grumblings.

People look this $787 billion dollar stimulus incredulously. Arkansans raise eyebrows at the $2.1 billion they will receive for education, health care, and whatever else you can spend $2.1 billion on.

The word hangs in the air like the shimmering blade of a guillotine: Socialist.

Opponents decry, "This is socialism! Big government is aspreadin' like wild fire!" They bemoan the tax-payer money being thrown in every which way to recoup what the unregulated and unsuccessful businesses the American people invested in have lost. They see it as an unprecedented and vast expansion of the government.

And they have good reason: They're right. They're right about everything except the title. This isn't socialism. It may not be strict, free market capitalism, and the price tag might be too steep, but this isn't the despotism that we have defeated in the past.

Some aren't quick to shed the moniker. My colleague John "Twitterbug" Brummett has said before that what we have here in the U.S. is a capitalist society with a socialist safety net. We let that free market run like a gravy train with biscuit-capped wheels — until it derails. Then we depend on our Mothergovernment to take care of us until we can get our feet back under us.

It's hard to disagree with him. By all accounts of the Great Depression and this Not-So-Great Recession, that seems to be the trend. Yet I'm not so quick to concede this as socialism; What's the point of a government — any government — if not to protect its citizens?

And rest assured that this bill is protecting us, although the staunch GOP opponents would say at too steep of price, or as one delegate said, "All we need is a life-preserver, and they're throwing us a yacht." That too may also be accurate. But even they will agree, this is still sound governance and not necessarily socialist.

I have to hearken back to Thomas "Tawmmy" Hobbes and his Leviathan to quell my own reservations about such a proposal.

Hobbes describes the world without government as the state of nature. Now this state of nature isn't like a still frame from Bambi or Snow White; more like a frame out of Saving Private Ryan. It's war — bloody, gritty, violent, and relentless war against your fellow man to simply survive to the next day. Those who do not fight perish. In De Cive, he describes it as bellum omnium contra omnes, or "The War of All Against All."

A bright and chipper fellow, this Tawmmy Hobbes was, huh?

Now hold that Hobbsian thought; let's talk about Milton Friedman, the Godfather of Capitalism. Regarding the Great Depression, Milty found the sole blame to be found at the desk of those who directed and managed the Federal Reserve. In his memoirs that he let his wife co-write (apparently she cooked quite the babka), Friedman claims that the Fed was "largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession, although perhaps a fairly severe one, into a major catastrophe...Far from the depression being a failure of the free-enterprise system, it was a tragic failure of government."

Now, of course, Milty is likely rolling over in his grave about all of the de-deregulation that has been reshaping the avenues from Washington to Wall Street. But is this a failure of the free-market or of the Marketeers who have driven their own companies into the ground?

But Friedman dealt with the businesses, which in the case of the auto industry I said specifically yesterday, but I think the point applies generally as well, the government isn't bailing out the industries; they're bailing out those who are tethered to those businesses. The free-market system works — if these businesses continue about their idea-void and inept ways, they're certainly doomed. But the government should and is protecting its people in this case.

Now back to Hobbes: This stimulus is aiming at keeping people out of the state of nature by trying earnestly to garner gainful employment and protection. Think that such an endeavor isn't keeping people out of the state of nature? Ask the 500,000 plus who have recently lost their jobs and find their livelihood becoming more of a scarce commodity. Ask those unemployed people who are now scrambling, hoping, and praying that something comes along to take care of them.

There's the state of nature for you.

With the interests of so many relying on the competency of so few, a bailout is appropriate. The magnitude of the bailout is debatable, as we can clearly see on Capitol Hill.

Sure, this might be a slippery slope. But there have been plenty of slippery slopes that good men have overcome. George Washington had the slickest slope of them all, and could've made he and his family set for the rest of their lineage, but didn't cave. Not to toss around platitudes about the precedents of Presidents, and certainly not to compare Obama to Washington, but we ought to have enough faith in our political system that despotism won't be able to get too far without be dealt with swiftly and with much prejudice.

Besides, it's all about the ebb and flow anyway. One minute you're up, the next you're down, and back again. Cross em if you got em, but we should be alright. Someday.

UPDATE: If Milty Friedman is the Godfather of the Free Market, Alan Greenspan is his consigliere. One of the most vocal proponents of laissez-faire capitalism says he's now in favor of temporarily nationalizing banks. Maybe Friedman isn't rolling over in his grave after all?