Jeff Pelline is a veteran journalist and now a Sierra Foothills, Ca., resident. He is publisher of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine and its companion website SierraCulture.com. Jeff was a longtime writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, a founding editor and Editor of online business and tech news publisher CNET (sold to CBS for $2 billion); and Editor of The Union, a 143-year-old newspaper in Grass Valley. Jeff has a bachelor’s degree from UC Berkeley and a master’s in journalism from Northwestern University. His hobbies include sailing, swimming and stream fishing.
Food & Wine, Arts & Culture
Click on icon for winter issue of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine, offering culture and entertainment news.
Facebook site is here
Smartphone app is here.
Sierra Geotourism map & guide
Click on icon to see map.
sacramento connect- Freon Leak Causes Evacuation at Downtown Safeway
- The Little Angels – ABCs, 123s, and Animals DVD Reviews
- Business Improvement Districts
- NCAA approves new football special teams rules for 2012-13 season
- 2 million students in struggling CA school districts
- Cousins scores 18 with 11 rebounds in Team Chuck’s win
- Democrats: State-backed retirement plan for private sector urged
- NPR.org
- Gadhafi's Compound Slowly Being Erased From History February 24, 2012
- Monsanto Agrees To Pay Up $93 Million In Agent Orange Settlement February 24, 2012
- Menu Math: When Counting Fast Food Calories Requires A Calculator February 24, 2012
Jeff, it seems to me that the county should promote and support the growth of vineyards and produce farms. Technology and historical downtowns are important but vineyards and produce farms can be economic producers in terms of their product and if marketed properly as a destination points. Maybe a tour of the local produce farms and vineyards will give you an idea for a blog item.
Related to this suggestion is for an update on what is happening with the Indian Springs Vineyard in Penn Valley. The vineyard is in bankruptcy or foreclosure, I don’t know which, and is languishing with grapes on the vine. It’s also important because the vineyard and the proposed SDA South Hill Village have Catlin Properties in common even if there is supposed to be different financial partnerships set up for each one. That’s probably not a clean break. Thanks. Bob.
As a backyard farmer/gardener, I find the growing/harvest period very short. Greenhouse likely required. Would welcome suggestions.
Hey Jeff is January 19th your anniversary as a counter-culture, hyper local, blogging, curmudgeon?
I think we should do dome sort of freaky on-line celebration.
I thought you might like to know that AOL is currently promoting the following story:
“Nevada County Clears Way for First Male Prostitutes”
The story is actually about Nye County, Nevada, but who knows, it may prompt some careless readers to visit our area.
Hi Jeff – How do I contact you about a story I would like you to consider for your blog? I am (since July) a Grass Valley resident and I write the blog Dog Art Today. I just kicked off my second wine label contest and I would love to get the word out to all the artists in the area. Here is the link …
http://dreamdogsart.typepad.com/art/2010/03/mutt-lynch-winery-dog-art-today-2nd-annual-dog-art-label-contest.html
I also have a press release I would be happy to send you. I am a big fan of your blog. Receiving your updates in my inbox really makes me feel like a local. Keep up the great work.
Best regards,
Moira McLaughlin
Hi Jeff,
I’m curious if there’s any truth to the rumor that Jan Blake has been fired at the Nevada County Resource Conservation District and is retaining an attorney. This little haven for some has a revolving door when it comes to employees. If It’s true I have great sympathy for the next victim.
Love the site, Jeff. Is there a way to contact you directly? Thanks.
Hi Jeff,
I’m curious about your take on the Blue Lead Mine and the recent Planning Commission meeting. While reported on Yubanet and our local (news) paper, they seem to have a slightly different take on the meeting and what is going on with the issue. I truly enjoy your blog and look forward to it daily. The old part of me wishes it was in paper form but the new part is willing since there isn’t anything worthy on the paper front, presently. Thanks.
We are fortunate to have someone giving us the news coverage, perspective, and opinion. Bless you, man!
Hi Jeff,
Wondering if you can figure this out:
I just received a mailer called “Voter Information Guide for Independents” – with the subtitle “Use this Guide when you vote” – it lists who we should vote for in the upcoming June election, and how we should vote on the state propositions!
Did you receive this?
I can’t see anywhere on the card who sponsors this, but all of the suggestions are for the Democratic primary (I am DTS). I do not think it could be from the Democratic Party because this is a Primary – how could the Democratic committee be endorsing candidates in the Primary?
There is an asterisk next to several of the names, including Sue Horne and Darlene Woo – and the small print on the Notice to Voter on the front says ” Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure disgnated by an *.” – Hmmmmm.
Anyway, it seem extremely deceptive to me, and I’m wondering how such could even be legal? Obviously I’m not versed in election law, but wow…
Sharon McKibbin
Sharon, google “Slate Mailer” – typically these candidates *pay* to be included & so it’s just advertising, there’s no judgment (or objective approval) involved.
I don’t know for sure that that’s the case with this one, but it’s likely.
Clearly there’s no “objective approval”, since such does not exist anyway. And, yes, it seems to be advertisement – but very deceptively packaged – it seems to be reflecting an official Democratic Party endorsement slate, which I don’t believe it to be.
And thanks for the “Slate Mailer” tip, Anna – check out
http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/3402
Democratic Party does not appreciate this mailer.
…and according to the Gov. Codes posted at
http://www.votescount.com/nov2k/camp.htm
this mailer does comply with the the codes in the fine print.
Blaak – I despise deceptive political campaigning – definitely not voting for those marked with * on this mailer! ooooh Gavin Newsom, I’m disappointed.
Sharon,
If you want to scan it and email it to me, I’ll post it for all to see. Just let me know, and I’ll send you a private email. Cheers.
My scanner is on the blink, Jeff (not compatible with Vista, actually) – I’d be happy to hand it to you somewhere in NC tomorrow. Just let me know where and when, I’m free after 10:30am
Sure. Can you meet me at Cafe Mekka at noon? I’ve got some business in town. Maybe somebody will be there with a tape recorder or lurking in the background. I’ll have police protection from Lou Trovato, however.
Cheers.
Oh please – no tape recorders!
I’ll be the 50+ woman with a black backpack purse – I’ll hum “Brotherhood of Man” as I enter.
noon it is.
Jeff, you may and other readers of your blog may be interested in this Washington Post op-ed by Michael Smerconish. The story is about how the media plays a part in pushing political polarization. A number of the points expressed seem similar to what you’ve been writing and reporting about in your blog.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061004118.html?sid=ST2010061004788
What is even more scary is the people Obama is listening to on media policy:
The Neomarxist who is helping to influence Obama’s media policy
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/11/the-neomarxist-who-is-helping-to-influence-obamas-media-policy/#ixzz0qeXsDPys
Jeff, I’d be interested in your take on the Coffee Party. For an interesting article at Forbes.com, see
http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/02/tea-party-facebook-government-forbes-woman-power-coffee-party-movement.html
Sharon
Hi Sharon,
Here’s what I wrote previously on the Coffee Party. Check out reader comments too:
http://jeffpelline.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/new-coffee-party-stands-up-to-tea-party-patriots/
I’ll read the Forbes article and do some research for an update. Thanks to you, Bob and Chris for the links to other interesting stories for all readers to ponder.
Hope you’re all having a good weekend.
-Jeff
Jeff, you and others have been writing about the tea party. In the NY Times, J.M. Bernstein, writes about The Very Angry Tea Party. Bernstein, a professor and philosopher, gives an interesting twist to what’s being written about the tea party.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?ref=opinion
In Bernstein’s opinion piece, there is a link to Mark Lilla’s recent article on the tea party.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/tea-party-jacobins/
Nice new photo!! Who?
Elizabeth Carmel, Carmel Gallery of Truckee (credit by the blog header) http://www.thecarmelgallery.com/
Jeff:
I’m in the process of transforming one of the SBC blogs into a Sierra Nevada economic and community development blog. I’m planning on posting some rules. I am planning to moderate the blog and approve posts. I guess if people don’t want to read because their comments go through a filter they don’t have to. I’m thinking the content will keep people coming back.
I’m curious about your ‘rules’.
I read Russ’s rules,
(http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/statement-of-policy-revised-25-may-2009.html) and see some pretty good guidelines in there, even though he seems not to pay much attention to them.
Here is my preliminary list:
1) Participants must sign their name
2) Participants must provide the moderator with a valid e-mail address
3) Participants must address the key points made in the original post–or submit a new posting for consideration
4) No name calling (for example, I should not have called Todd a clown).
5) No addressing other aspects of a posters life, for example their family, their personal lives, their religion, etc
6) No profanity, as defined by George Carlins seven words, with the addition a of few that would have made George blush
7) No use of racist, sexist or violent language (for example, calling an arab a raghead, a hispanic baby an anchor, or a female blogger crazy when male bloggers exhibit exactly the same characteristics, a advocating for ‘second amendment remedies’ to public policy questions)
8) Check your facts or cite your sources, and give credit where credit is due.
9) Take part in the conversation by adding value to the conversation. Snarking is not value added.
Do you, or any of your readers, have suggestions for rules that will keep the posts on target?
Steve
I guess the first thing I need to learn is that wordpress translates 8 ) as 8)
Steve,
This is good. In the end, the quality of the blog is determined by the quality of the posts. Rules are made to be broken, but it’s always good to have them. In reality, the other posters are the best “referees” in this, effectively monitoring their peers. Glad you addressed “rag head” and “anchor baby” references. I don’t think you’ll run into much trouble with “economic development” as a topic compared to say “politics.” A key, as you point out, is that people “give credit where credit is due” and “link” to their sources.
I always wanted to launch a blog/publication dedicated to this topic. In fact, I’ve drafted a business plan for the “Sierra Business Journal.” We should talk about that someday — like in the dead of winter. We’re trying to wrap up some projects — Placer Welcome Guide and our magazine — this week to go sailing and enjoy the summer with our son! In the meantime, I look forward to promoting and participating with your economic development blog. Good going.
I am sure there are posters on this blog who will have read or heard about James Webb’s op-ed piece in the WSJ entitled Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege, link below:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html
I had to laugh at the following Reader Comment by a reader named Jack Carlson:
“I am a member of the most oppressed ethnic group in America: I am a white, Anglo-Saxon, middle-aged, Protestant heterosexual male. I have no rights and am deserving of no consideration when it comes to housing, jobs, benefits, educational scholarships, or the courts……..at least this is what the government says.”
I am fairly sure Mr. Carlson writes tongue-in-cheek but there is obviously belief in the statement too.
IMO, it’s good that we’re beginning to have a discussion about race, diversity, and fairness. Webb’s op-ed piece, the Sherrod affair, having our first black president, immigration, et al, seems to finally be forcing us to have our latest debate about these issues in America. The country is changing so it seems only a progression that this would come up. I had expected it later but it’s here so that’s good.
Now if all the parties can be honest which is a tall order, maybe something constructive can get done. There is also the possibility that the chasm will widen, the canyon will get deeper, and so on. But I have faith. This is a country of good people and we can and should start to get these issues resolved.
Oops, the last paragraph in my post is part of the Carlson quote. Jeff, can you move it for me.
Hi Bob,
I just removed the last paragraph to avoid confusion. I wasn’t able to check what Carlson wrote originally. Cheers.
Jeff, just a pointer to Ron Brownstein’s National Journal article on the changing demographics in the U.S. and the considerations and implications for the future.
As you’re aware, Brownstein is a serious and credible journalist whose reporting is even-handed and balanced.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20100724_3946.php
Superb tip/piece.
This is a real good summary of the demographic changes going on in California and across the country. Unstated message for us baby boomers: Take care of the immigrant children; they are going to pay our Social Security.
Jeff, I read in The Union at, e.g.
http://www.theunion.com/article/20100729/BREAKINGNEWS/100729733/1066/BREAKINGNEWS&parentprofile=1053
about a possible dam on the Bear River in S. Nevada County, by the South Sutter Water District. A quote from the article : “And if we’re going ahead, we want to engage with NID.” Huh? I would love to understand how Sutter County has any water rights to build dams in Nevada County whatsoever. This is never mentioned in The Union articles, other than public outrage at the proposed “water grab”. Do you know what the history is here?
I would ask in a comment to the Union article, but my comments there are in permanent moderation, since I had the temerity to recommend YubaNet for fire news last year…. another story.
I would like to know more, too, as our property fronts on Wolf Creek some 1000 feet from the confluence of the Bear River. My understanding now is that the proposed dam would actually be in Yuba County, but presumably the flooding would be into Nevada County.
Politico has a lengthy piece on financial woes plaguing the various Tea Party organizations. Seems our local TP Patriot’s problems are not unique.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40800.html
Jeff,
What is the deal with the Walgreens sign being covered up?
Figure you can please delete this post after posting about it and linking to it properly, if you choose to do so. Not sure quite yet where the line is….BUT THIS TO SOME IS SCARY STUFF…So consider this a tip…for proper handling.
OPINIONAUGUST 17, 2010
A Tea Party Manifesto
The movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party. It is aiming for a hostile takeover.
By DICK ARMEY AND MATT KIBBE
On Feb. 9, 2009, Mary Rakovich, a recently laid-off automotive engineer, set out for a convention center in Fort Myers, Fla. with protest signs, a cooler of water and the courage of her convictions. She felt compelled to act, having grown increasingly alarmed at the explosion of earmarks, bailouts and government spending in the waning years of the Bush administration. President Barack Obama, joined by then-Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, was in town promoting his plan to spend a trillion dollars in borrowed money to “stimulate” the economy.
Mary didn’t know it, but she was on the front lines of a grass-roots revolution that was brewing across the nation. More than 3,000 miles away, Keli Carender, a young Seattle school teacher and a member of a local comedy improv troupe, was feeling equally frustrated. She started to organize like-minded citizens. “Our nation’s fiscal path is just not sustainable,” she said. “You can’t continue to spend money you don’t have indefinitely.”
View Full Image
Associated Press
People hold signs and wave flags during the “Uni-Tea” Tea Party rally.
Today the ranks of this citizen rebellion can be counted in the millions. The rebellion’s name derives from the glorious rant of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who in February 2009 called for a new “tea party” from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. By doing so he reminded all of us that America was founded on the revolutionary principle of citizen participation, citizen activism and the primacy of the individual over the government. That’s the tea party ethos.
The tea party movement has blossomed into a powerful social phenomenon because it is leaderless—not directed by any one mind, political party or parochial agenda.
The criteria for membership are straightforward: Stay true to principle even when it proves inconvenient, be assertive but respectful, add value and don’t taking credit for other people’s work. Our community is built on the Trader Principle: We associate by mutual consent, to further shared goals of restoring fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government. These were the principles that enabled the Sept. 12, 2009 taxpayer march on Washington to be one of the largest political protests in the history of our nation’s capital.
More
Tea Party Candidate Worries Colorado GOP Establishment
Political Wisdom: Tea Party Money and Myths
The many branches of the tea party movement have created a virtual marketplace for new ideas, effective innovations and creative tactics. Best practices come from the ground up, around kitchen tables, from Facebook friends, at weekly book clubs, or on Twitter feeds. This is beautiful chaos—or, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek put it, “spontaneous order.”
Decentralization, not top-down hierarchy, is the best way to maximize the contributions of people and their personal knowledge. Let the leaders be the activists who have the best knowledge of local personalities and issues. In the real world, this is common sense. In Washington, D.C., this is considered radical.
The big-government crowd is drawn to the compulsory nature of centralized authority. They can’t imagine an undirected social order. Someone needs to be in charge—someone who knows better. Big government is audacious and conceited.
By definition, government is the means by which citizens are forced to do that which they would not do voluntarily. Like pay high taxes. Or redistribute tax dollars to bail out the broken, bloated pension systems of state government employees. Or purchase, by federal mandate, a government-defined health-insurance plan that is unaffordable, unnecessary or unwanted.
For the left, and for today’s Democratic Party, every solution to every perceived problem involves more government—top-down dictates from bureaucrats presumed to know better what you need. Tea partiers reject this nanny state philosophy of redistribution and control because it is bankrupting our country.
While the tea party is not a formal political party, local networks across the nation have moved beyond protests and turned to more practical matters of political accountability. Already, particularly in Republican primaries, fed-up Americans are turning out at the polls to vote out the big spenders. They are supporting candidates who have signed the Contract From America, a statement of policy principles generated online by hundreds of thousands of grass-roots activists.
Published in April, the Contract amounts to a tea party “seal of approval.” It demands fiscal policies that limit government, restrain spending, promote market reforms in health care—and oppose ObamaCare, tax hikes and cap-and-trade restrictions that will kill job creation and stunt economic growth. Candidates who have signed the Contract—including Marco Rubio in Florida, Mike Lee in Utah and Tim Scott in South Carolina—have defeated Republican big spenders in primary elections all across the nation.
These young legislative entrepreneurs will shift the balance in the next Congress, bringing with them a more serious, adult commitment to responsible, restrained government.
But let us be clear about one thing: The tea party movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party, but a hostile takeover of it.
The American values of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility and limited government bind the ranks of our movement. That makes the tea party better than a political party. It is a growing community that can sustain itself after November, ensuring a better means of holding a new generation of elected officials accountable.
Mr. Armey, a former House Republican majority leader, is chairman of Freedomworks. Mr. Kibbe is president and CEO of Freedomworks. They are the authors of “Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto,” out today from HarperCollins.
LINK: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425061553154540.html#printMode
Wonder if this will I just got in email will get folks dander up?
BUSINESS.GOV
Weekly Update | August 18, 2010
This Week’s Highlights
Minority-Owned Businesses
Business.gov provides access to programs and resources that serve minority-owned businesses. These include financing programs, mentoring, business opportunities, training and assistance. The Business.gov home page lists several resources that minority business owners can take advantage of today. Visit Business.gov’s Home Page…
I have the entire email it came in. Wonder if the Tea Party has a position on this?
Jeff: Please strongly consider watching and posting the availability of the following on your site. So timely, and yes, addresses the biggest of all of our problems.
Thanks, nothing is more important right now. And the awards are coming in for it already.
ON YOUTUBE
We’ve decided to take the risk of posting the film in its entirety on YouTube as the endgame approaches. Hopefully this will spread the message virally, especially to those outside the U.S.
We’ve embedded two 60-second commercials in the FREE version — one at 37:40 and the other at 73:55. Here’s the text.
We are taking a significant risk by releasing this FREE version of The Secret of Oz.
This film was very expensive to make and constantly update. However, it is critical to get maximum distribution for the film as the debt money system further impoverishes every nation.
Therefore, please support this project with a small donation or order the latest hi-resolution copy of this DVD from our website:
http://www.secretofOz.com
Again, please consider donating $1, $3, $5, or more. We know that if enough of you watch for FREE, some will buy an original DVD. So please, please tell your friends to watch this film for FREE!
The false solution — an international gold-backed money — will soon be offered as the only fix for the deepening global depression.
We will post versions with subtitles in many languages soon. If you can help translate, please let us know.
Again, please consider a small donation at: http://www.secretofOz.com.
Jeff,
Did I miss it or are we going to get into the insanity that takes place tomorrow in Washington, DC, and the tea baggers and Beck followers being stirred up for the next civil war?
So much is going on regarding this issue even HP has a full page.
Good Starting Points?
News Coverage From Fake News That Is THE most accurate reporting (video): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/27/stewart-beck-rally-civil-rights_n_696758.html
Jumping off point for all that is BECK and his followers??? WELL, a link to tons of perspectives:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/glenn-beck
No, we’ll visit virtually. The tease was the Tea Party guide to D.C. Stay tuned.
See Meckler quoted in this newly minted article…Not sure where a home for it might be so leave to you, Jeff. PS…Gotta love last sentence posted below.
Meet the Very Strange Group of Speakers at the Post-Beck Tea Party
This article first appeared on Mother Jones.
For tea partiers, one of the great disappointments of Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally on the National Mall Saturday was the ban on political signs. After all, sign-making seems to be half the fun of going to any good tea party. So the Tea Party Patriots, a national umbrella group for thousands of tea party activists, decided to give folks from out of town a chance to wave their “NOBama signs” in the shadow of the Capitol. On Sunday morning, they convened a tea party, complete with fiery speeches from minor celebs and organizers, plus the requisite open mic session for anyone who wanted a chance to publicly call Obama a liar or read some bad poetry they’d written about liberty…
Mark Meckler, one of the national coordinators of the Tea Party Patriots, the large national umbrella group that organized the event, said he was unaware of Istook’s history in the District. “DC residents should have a vote,” he said. Even so, Meckler said Istook was a good fit for the tea party because he has a stellar record on the group’s core issues of fiscal conservatism.
But there’s still one more reason why Istook and the tea partiers make rather strange bedfellows: He was implicated in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/08/30/meet-the-very-strange-group-of-speakers-at-the-post-beck-tea-party/
This has made me sick…Where is the mainstream Jeff? Somebody needs to blow the lid off of this and god knows who that might be.
Treasury Makes Shocking Admission: Program for Struggling Homeowners Just a Ploy to Enrich Big Banks
By Zach Carter, AlterNet
Posted on August 25, 2010, Printed on August 31, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/147955/
The Treasury Department’s plan to help struggling homeowners has been failing miserably for months. The program is poorly designed, has been poorly implemented and only a tiny percentage of borrowers eligible for help have actually received any meaningful assistance. The initiative lowers monthly payments for borrowers, but fails to reduce their overall debt burden, often increasing that burden, funneling money to banks that borrowers could have saved by simply renting a different home. But according to recent startling admissions from top Treasury officials, the mortgage plan was actually not really about helping borrowers at all. Instead, it was simply one element of a broader effort to pump money into big banks and shield them from losses on bad loans. That’s right: Treasury openly admitted that its only serious program purporting to help ordinary citizens was actually a cynical move to help Wall Street megabanks.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has long made it clear his financial repair plan was based on allowing large banks to “earn” their way back to health. By creating conditions where banks could make easy profits, Getithner and top officials at the Federal Reserve hoped to limit the amount of money taxpayers would have to directly inject into the banks. This was never the best strategy for fixing the financial sector, but it wasn’t outright predation, either. But now the Treasury Department is making explicit that it was—and remains—willing to let those so-called “earnings” come directly at the expense of people hit hardest by the recession: struggling borrowers trying to stay in their homes.
This account comes secondhand from a cadre of bloggers who were invited to speak on “deep background” with a handful of Treasury officials—meaning that bloggers would get to speak frankly with top-level folks, but not quote them directly, or attribute views to specific people. But the accounts are all generally distressing, particularly this one from economics whiz Steve Waldman:
The program was successful in the sense that it kept the patient alive until it had begun to heal. And the patient of this metaphor was not a struggling homeowner, but the financial system, a.k.a. the banks. Policymakers openly judged HAMP to be a qualified success because it helped banks muddle through what might have been a fatal shock. I believe these policymakers conflate, in full sincerity, incumbent financial institutions with “the system,” “the economy,” and “ordinary Americans.”
Mike Konczal confirms Waldman’s observation, and Felix Salmon also says the program has done little more than delay foreclosures, as does Shahien Nasiripour.
Here’s how Geithner’s Home Affordability Modification Program (HAMP) works, or rather, doesn’t work. Troubled borrowers can apply to their banks for relief on monthly mortgage payments. Banks who agree to participate in HAMP also agree to do a bunch of things to reduce the monthly payments for borrowers, from lowering interest rates to extending the term of the loan. This is good for the bank, because they get to keep accepting payments from borrowers without taking a big loss on the loan.
But the deal is not so good for homeowners. Banks don’t actually have to reduce how much borrowers actually owe them—only how much they have to pay out every month. For borrowers who owe tens of thousands of dollars more than their home is worth, the deal just means that they’ll be pissing away their money to the bank more slowly than they were before. If a homeowner spends $3,000 a month on her mortgage, HAMP might help her get that payment down to $2,500. But if she still owes $50,000 more than her house is worth, the plan hasn’t actually helped her. Even if the borrower gets through HAMP’s three-month trial period, the plan has done nothing but convince her to funnel another $7,500 to a bank that doesn’t deserve it.
Most borrowers go into the program expecting real relief. After the trial period, most realize that it doesn’t actually help them, and end up walking away from the mortgage anyway. These borrowers would have been much better off simply finding a new place to rent without going through the HAMP rigamarole. This example is a good case, one where the bank doesn’t jack up the borrower’s long-term debt burden in exchange for lowering monthly payments
But the benefit to banks goes much deeper. On any given mortgage, it’s almost always in a bank’s best interest to cut a deal with borrowers. Losses from foreclosure are very high, and if a bank agrees to reduce a borrower’s debt burden, it will take an upfront hit, but one much lower than what it would ultimately take from foreclosure.
That logic changes dramatically when millions of loans are defaulting at once. Under those circumstances, bank balance sheets are so fragile they literally cannot afford to absorb lots of losses all at once. But if those foreclosures unravel slowly, over time, the bank can still stay afloat, even if it has to bear greater costs further down the line. As former Deutsche Bank executive Raj Date told me all the way back in July 2009:
If management is only seeking to maximize value for their existing shareholders, it’s possible that maybe they’re doing the right thing. If you’re able to let things bleed out slowly over time but still generate some earnings, if it bleeds slow enough, it doesn’t matter how long it takes, because you never have to issue more stock and dilute your shareholders. You could make an argument from the point of view of any bank management team that not taking a day-one hit is actually a smart idea.
Date, it should be emphasized, does not condone this strategy. He now heads the Cambridge Winter Center for Financial Institutions Policy, and is a staunch advocate of financial reform.
If, say, Wells Fargo had taken a $20 billion hit on its mortgage book in February 2009, it very well could have failed. But losing a few billion dollars here and there over the course of three or four years means that Wells Fargo can stay in business and keep paying out bonuses, even if it ultimately sees losses of $25 or $30 billion on its bad loans.
So HAMP is doing a great job if all you care about is the solvency of Wall Street banks. But if borrowers know from the get-go they’re not going to get a decent deal, they have no incentive to keep paying their mortgage. Instead of tapping out their savings and hitting up relatives for help with monthly payments, borrowers could have saved their money, walked away from the mortgage and found more sensible rental housing. The administration’s plan has effectively helped funnel more money to Wall Street at the expense of homeowners. And now the Treasury Department is going around and telling bloggers this is actually a positive feature of the program, since it meant that big banks didn’t go out of business.
There were always other options for dealing with the banks and preventing foreclosures. Putting big, faltering banks into receivership—also known as “nationalization”—has been a powerful policy tool used by every administration from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan. When the government takes over a bank, it forces it to take those big losses upfront, wiping out shareholders in the process. Investors lose a lot of money (and they should, since they made a lousy investment), but the bank is cleaned up quickly and can start lending again. No silly games with borrowers, and no funky accounting gimmicks.
Most of the blame for the refusal to nationalize failing Wall Street titans lies with the Bush administration, although Obama had the opportunity to make a move early in his tenure, and Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Geithner, was a major bailout decision-maker on the Bush team as president of the New York Fed.
But Bush cannot be blamed for the HAMP nightmare, and plenty of other options were available for coping with foreclosure when Obama took office. One of the best solutions was just endorsed by the Cleveland Federal Reserve, in the face of prolonged and fervent opposition from the bank lobby. Unlike every other form of consumer debt, mortgages are immune from renegotiation in bankruptcy. If you file for bankruptcy, a judge literally cannot reduce how much you owe on your mortgage. The only way out of the debt is foreclosure, giving banks tremendous power in negotiations with borrowers.
This exemption is arbitrary and unfair, but the bank lobby contends it keeps mortgage rates lower. It’s just not true, as a new paper by Cleveland Fed economists Thomas J. Fitzpatrick IV and James B. Thomson makes clear. Family farms were exempted from bankruptcy until 1986, and bankers bloviated about the same imminent risk of unaffordable farm loans when Congress considered ending that status to prevent farm foreclosures.
When Congress did repeal the exemption, farm loans didn’t get any more expensive, and bankruptcy filings didn’t even increase very much. Instead, a flood of farmers entered into negotiations with banks to have their debt burden reduced. Banks took losses, but foreclosures were avoided. Society was better off, even if bank investors had to take a hit.
But instead, Treasury is actively encouraging troubled homeowners to subsidize giant banks. What’s worse, as Mike Konczal notes, they’re hoping to expand the program significantly.
There is a flip-side to the current HAMP nightmare, one that borrowers faced with mortgage problems should attend to closely and discuss with financial planners. In many cases, banks don’t actually want to foreclose quickly, because doing so entails taking losses right away, and most of them would rather drag those losses out over time. The accounting rules are so loose that banks can actually book phantom “income” on monthly payments that borrowers do not actually make. Some borrowers have been able to benefit from this situation by simply refusing to pay their mortgages. Since banks often want to delay repossessing the house in order to benefit from tricky accounting, borrowers can live rent-free in their homes for a year or more before the bank finally has to lower the hatchet. Of course, you won’t hear Treasury encouraging people to stop paying their mortgages. If too many people just stop paying, then banks are out a lot of money fast, sparking big, quick losses for banks — the exact situation HAMP is trying to avoid.
Borrowers who choose not to pay their mortgages don’t even have to feel guilty about it. Refusing to pay is actually modestly good for the economy, since instead of wasting their money on bank payments, borrowers have more cash to spend at other businesses, creating demand and encouraging job growth. By contrast, top-level Treasury officials who have enriched bankers on the backs of troubled borrowers should be looking for other lines of work.
Zach Carter is AlterNet’s economics editor. He is a fellow at Campaign for America’s Future, writes a weekly blog on the economy for the Media Consortium and is a frequent contributor to The Nation magazine.
© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/147955/
Jeff, with respect to the post regarding Laura Tyson’s op-ed on a Second Stimulus, I’d like to point you to Martin Wolf’s column “Obama was too cautious in fearful times” in the Financial Times. This is a European perspective on the U.S. economy from a prominent financial journalist.
The link is http://www.ft.com; I assume you’re registered but if not, registration is free and the column is accessible.
Thanks Bob. I will check it out.
Jeff,
Joel Kotkin just wrote an article in Forbes entitled “America’s 21st Business Model”. IMO, it’s an eye-opener on some of the social and economic forces already occurring in the US and how those changes and diversity may help America keep and grow it’s economic engine in the age of globalization.
IMO, it’s the economic forces influencing and mixing with the social change that will drive the country towards stronger growth and a de facto post racial society. That’s my hope for my grandchildren and their friends.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/31/business-immigration-entrepreneurs-opinions-columnists-joel-kotkin_3.html
Previous link to Joel Kotkin article in Forbes takes you to page 3 of 3. Here is the link to page 1 of 3. Apologies for the slip-up.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/31/business-immigration-entrepreneurs-opinions-columnists-joel-kotkin.html?boxes=opinionschannellatest
Great Beck Cartoon
http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/es.aspx?s=785&e=149837&elq=d2a93c84ef8f434cb55d76b82ae24584
Get ‘Em While They Be Hot!
August 31st Issue Of Nevada County Democratic Central Committee Newsletter is now available at the link below (scroll down a frame or two upon landing).
A challenge: NOT hidden within the newsletter is a fine “photo” of the “Put The Crunch In The Air You Breath” elected representatives. See anyone you want to be a former elected official? A Short Prayer….
Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the “photo” of our hopefully soon to be “FORMER Elected Officials? is plastered all over this fine county.
Can I get an AMEN?
Can you put up 25 copies?
Lots of other good stuff in the Newsletter sure to set off the “other side” of the political folks in these parts.
Share it Liberally!
The Link:
http://nevadacountydemocrats.com/news.php
Oh no! They cannot get away with this. Fight back locally, if need be.
http://www.truetolerance.org
Jeff….Here is a scoop I am passing on from a post at CALITICS today. This story is a nightmare for some and I have posted on it for almost a year. Now is Nevada Counties turn. Smartmeters have been a fiasco for PG&E and the rollout is happening here now.
An Update: PUC Smart Meter Report Raises More Questions than Answers
For the better part of this year I have reported on numerous meetings and hearings on the accuracy of Pacific Gas & Electric’s Statewide rollout of “Smartmeters” and, for some, the resulting bills that, in my opinion, simply defied logic.
Just a week ago I received my own notice from PG&E that I had long dreaded; I would be getting my “own” meter upgraded to a “Smartmeter” within a few weeks (I reside in the Sierra Foothills near Grass Valley, CA). Immediately I recalled my reporting and what a nightmare the “Smartmeters” had caused for many. I wondered what the status of the use and billing problems were. Had they been resolved?
Surely they have!
Well, …….
Full story and many preceeding at Calitics:
LINK: http://calitics.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=6B90470C3A7E5712C009262A8D38E2B7?diaryId=12436
Jeff..
Any word on any debates between the parties for Congress 04 District and Assembly 03? CA Senate….do you really even know who is running (perhaps I am too far off the grid to know)?
Tell you what, the community would NOT be served by THE UNION taking on the Debates, nor would any Tea Party either (specially since they ain’t no political party, as they have made clear!)
Heck…You and Yubanet?
Jeff,
I have this up on my blog this AM. Sure to be a hot discussion topic. FEEL FREE TO USE IT TOO.
Link: http://freeflightnewmedia.typepad.com/free_flight_new_media/2010/09/now-is-this-correct-here-are-13-signs-that-were-actually-in-a-depression-right-now.html
Rosenberg: Here Are 13 Signs That We’re Actually In A Depression Right Now by Gregory White
David Rosenberg has outlined, in his latest letter, the 13 reasons with this so-called recovery is actually a depression.
Rosenberg sums it up like this:
This is what a depression is all about — an economy that 33 months after a recession begins, with zero policy rates, a stuffed central bank sheet, and a 10% deficit-to-GDP ratio, is still in need of government help for its sustenance.
Each one of these 13 reasons is more damning and highlights the true state of the economy: caught in a liquidity trap with little way out.
Hello Jeff…have been enjoying your blog for some months now. I’ve looked for a direct way to email you so this comment will have to suffice. I wanted to tell you that the extreme rw of the GOP gives Nevada County short shrift but there is another county where they are most foaming and active: Plumas
County in the Sierras has been connected at the hip for some time to the extreme wing of the conservative party. McClintock and his cronies are having a rightwing “wingding” up here in Graeagle, Ca. On September 11, 2010. There has been a junta like grip on this community for at least a decade. Good citizens are trying to promote change within this dying county and I believe someone from your newspaper would benefit from looking into this rw power center. Regards, Katey
JEFF/ALL
FASTEN YOUR SEAT BELTS…
http://freeflightnewmedia.typepad.com/free_flight_new_media/2010/09/martin-olson-phil-davison-gop-candidate-freaks-out-trying-to-sell-candidacy-video.html
Martin Olson: Phil Davison, GOP Candidate, FREAKS OUT Trying To Sell Candidacy (VIDEO)
Produced by Eyes and Ears 2010, The Huffington Post’s Citizen Journalism Unit devoted to midterm election coverage. To join the team, click here:
Councilman Phil Davison of Minerva, Ohio made a fiery speech at Wednesday evening’s Stark County Republican Party’s executive committee meeting to select a nominee to run for Stark County treasurer.
Davison rocked the assembly at Malone University’s Johnson Center with his impassioned political presentation the likes of which few politically involved citizens have ever seen.
While Davison did not get the nomination (North Canton Finance Director Alex Zumbar did), he certainly made a lasting impression.
THINK HE WOULD FIT IN UP HERE WITH OUR REPUBLICAN NEIGHBORS???
Jeff, you posted a while ago about a trip to Southern California where you stopped at a number of restaurants along the way, mostly Mexican, I think. If you have that post, please email to me. My search garnered 0 results. We’re planning on driving down the coast to San Diego and your stops sounded like fun. Thanks. Bob.
Bob,
El Callejon restaurant in Encinitas is an authentic one, as is Fidel’s in Solana Beach. Both are in north San Diego county w/patio dining.
Los Arroyos in Santa Barbara also is a classic.
La Cabinita in Glendale (in L.A. area) also is excellent.
Hey Jeff/ALL
HOT Hot hot….
Look what I just found at PLACER COUNTY ONLINE! Tis did not see a copyright so…..Use as you see fit. I cannot believe the quotes of LOGUE!
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010
Assemblyman Logue debates Prop 23
Assemblyman Logue debates Prop 23
Republican Assemblyman Dan Logue, whose district includes Loomis and Lincoln, today debated one of the November ballot’s hottest issues: Global Warming.
Specifically, the legislator defended Proposition 23, a ballot measure for which he is authoring and that would suspend California’s Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 (also known as Assembly Bill 32, or AB 32, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger and requires the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020).
“This is about Wall Street versus Main Street,” Logue said before a packed room of journalists and other people who have an interest in energy issues.
Logue painted himself a small businessman compared to his opponent Tom Steyer, a senior managing member of a Bay Area hedge fund.
Logue said the implementation of AB 32 would kill jobs while Steyer said the green industry, much of which would be created by AB 32, will pull California out of the recession.
But the Assemblyman insisted the green job industry is “unsustainable,” and mostly funded by government dollars.
“Are we going to get behind the people who know how to make wealth or get behind those who take wealth?” Logue asked.
Logue cited a 2009 report by two Sacramento State professors (known as the Varshney report and touted by Republican legislators) that shows California families will face increased annual costs of $3,857 in extra energy expenses due to the implementation of AB 32.
Steyer dismissed the Varshney report saying the non-partisan Legislative Analysts’ Office debunked the study in its own report last year.
Steyer said one of the reasons he opposes Prop 23 is the health and environmental risks associated with suspending AB 32, including $4 billion in additional health care costs mostly due to increased asthma and other respiratory problems. He said that’s why one of Prop 23′s biggest opponents is the American Lung Association.
Logue retorted: “I’m not a scientist but I know 3 million people died (worldwide) from starvation and malaria last year. I don’t know one person who died from carbon emissions.”
He stated that California has the strictest air quality regulation in the nation, which has led to state’s ranking of the country’s third lowest when it comes to carbon monoxide emissions — yet asthma has doubled in the past years.
“If you want people to live longer, give them a job,” Logue said. “A job will give people the resources to gain health care insurance. AB 32 will kill one to two million jobs.”
Proposition 23 has been primarily funded by the oil industry, a fact that Steyer was happy to point out and something that Logue was unapologetic about.
“Why do we continue to demonize groups and people who contribute to the process?” Logue asked.
A member of the audience asked Syler about his supposed $100 million hedge fund holdings in oil to which he replied: “I am doing this as a private citizen.”
Posted by Linda Hunter at 8:32 PM
Labels: Government, Politics
Jeff, Please consider posting this from my blog where links work and it looks like it should on the blog rather than just here. This issue is to important to be just here in what has turned into our suggestions to you.
The Choice You Must Make Between Now and Election Day Will Change Your Life and Your Children’s Future
It is too easy to listen to all the negative garbage on the television and radio each day and do nothing, perhaps, other than change the channel.
The very scary thing is so much of the garbage recently about what Republicans would do if they are back in power in Washington…is TRUE.
There are consequences now and they are HUGE. Your VOTE is just as, if not more important, than that choice you made in 2008.
I would ask you, even if I don’t know you, to read this information and realize what is at stake in 45 very quick days.Democratic candidates across the country are running strong campaigns focused on their solid records making progress for the American people and drawing sharp distinctions between themselves and their opponents on the key issues at stake in this election.
With Election Day around the corner, we need you to reach out to your friends and family and make sure they know about the choice in this election between Democratic policies that will accelerate job growth and those that would kill the fragile recovery.
Check out a list of Democratic accomplishments for the American people >>
See the choice voters face in targeted races near you and share the facts >>
House Republican candidates, whose views are far out of the mainstream of swing districts, will have to answer for their plans to:
PRIVATIZE MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY
FACT: Boehner-Ryan Plan Would Privatize Social Security and Dismantle Medicare. Under the Republican “Roadmap for America’s Future” that Boehner praises, “Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and the voucher’s growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs. Medicaid is also privatized… And beyond health care, Social Security gets guaranteed, private accounts that CBO says will actually cost more than the present arrangement” [Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, 2/1/10]
FACT: Boehner-Ryan Plan Cuts Medicare by 76%, Forces Seniors to Buy Coverage From Private Insurance. Under the Republican plan for Medicare, “By 2080, Medicare would be cut 76 percent below its projected size under current policies, according to CBO. In other words, by 2080, the vouchers that would replace Medicare would receive one-quarter of the resources that Medicare would otherwise use.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/7/10]
FACT: Boehner Consistently Supports Social Security Privatization and Voted to Dismantle Medicare Into Vouchers. Boehner has been a longtime supporter of privatizing Social Security. He even said in 2006 about privatization, “If I’m around in a leadership role come January, we’re going to get serious about it.” [Washington Times, 7/31/06; US Federal News, Boehner Answers Community's Questions, 4/29/05; Letter to The Social Security Reform Commission, 5/24/01]
In 2009, Boehner led 137 House Republicans who voted for a plan “that would eventually end the Medicare program as it is presently known,” according to the Associated Press. The Republican plan would dismantle Medicare, turning it into a voucher program and forcing seniors to buy insurance on their own from private insurance companies. [Roll Call Vote #191, 4/2/09; Associated Press, 4/2/09]
EXTEND TAX BREAKS FOR COMPANIES THAT
SHIP AMERICAN JOBS OVERSEAS
FACT: Boehner Has Led The Fight to Protect Tax Breaks for Companies Who Ship American Jobs Overseas. Boehner led near unanimous Republican opposition to legislation that paid for protecting the jobs of police, firefighters, and teachers through closing tax loopholes that encourage companies to move American jobs overseas. [HR 1586, #518, 8/10/10]
FACT: Boehner and Republicans Opposed Legislation to End Tax Breaks for Companies Who Ship American Jobs Overseas. In May, Republicans opposed The American Jobs, Closing Tax Loopholes and Preventing Outsourcing Act, legislation that would prevent corporations from using current U.S. foreign tax credit rules to subsidize their foreign activities. [HR 4213, #324, 5/28/10].
FACT: Boehner and Republicans Opposed Small Business Relief Paid For By Closing Outsourcing Tax Breaks. In July, Republicans opposed legislation that would have reduced paperwork and reporting requirements for small businesses and been paid for by ending tax breaks that encourage companies to move American jobs overseas. [HR 5982, #514, 7/30/10; The Hill, 7/30/10]
REPEAL THE LAW TO REIN IN
RECKLESS SPECULATION ON WALL STREET
FACT: Boehner and Republicans Opposed Wall Street Reform. Boehner even said it was “killing an ant with a nuclear weapon.” In an interview published in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Republican Leader John Boehner criticized the financial regulatory overhaul compromise as an ‘overreaction’ to the financial crisis that triggered the recession. Boehner said of Wall Street reform, “This is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon.” [Pittsburgh Tribune Review; 06/29/10]
House Republicans met in December with 100 banking and special interest lobbyists in an effort to kill Wall Street reform legislation. [Roll Call, 12/8/09]
The Conference Report accompanying HR 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act provides a new regulatory structure for the financial markets with the goal of mitigating risky practices on Wall Street that put the entire U.S. economy at risk [HR 4173, #413, 6/30/10].
The Conference Agreement:
Expands the government’s ability to deal with failing financial institutions;
Creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve;
Includes a provision, called the “Volcker Rule,” that limits proprietary trading by banks;
Provides federal regulation of the derivatives market for the first time;
Places limits on the interchange fees that banks charge merchants for debit-card transactions;
Provides shareholders with a non-binding vote on executive compensation; and
Sets new risk-based capital standards for banks.
House Republicans voted unanimously against the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act – legislation the House passed to reform Wall Street, reform executive pay, end bailouts and unwind so-called ‘too big to fail’ firms, and hold the big banks and financial firms accountable to American taxpayers…[HR 4173, #968, 12/11/09].
On March 19, 2009, 87 House Republicans Voted Against Taxing Bonuses Paid to AIG Executives and other Companies Receiving Federal Assistance (2009). [H R 1586, #143, 3/19/09].
GO BACK TO “EXACT SAME AGENDA” OF FAILED BUSH POLICIES
FACT: On Meet the Press, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions and National Republican Senatorial Committee John Cornyn consistently defended Bush policies and promised to return to them if Republicans won the House. When asked to name a difference between what Republicans would do in the future and what President George W. Bush did, Representative Pete Sessions said:
“We need to go back to the exact same agenda that is empowering the free enterprise system rather than diminishing it.” [Meet the Press, 7/18/10]
Under Bush policies, private sector jobs lost. Over his eight year presidency, the Bush Administration lost 663,000 private sector jobs. In the last year alone, the Bush Administration lost 4,516,000 private sector jobs. [BLS]
Under Bush policies, government spending and deficits skyrocketed. According to a report from the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.” [CBPP, 6/28/10]
Under Bush policies, families work harder and their wages continue to decline. Middle-class families are working harder and earning less at the end of the Bush Administration than they were at the start of the Bush Administration. Median household income, adjusted for inflation, has declined $333 from $50,566 in 2000 to $50,233 in 2007. [U.S. Census Bureau, Income 2000, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007 (August 2008), Figure 1 (in 2007 dollars)]
Under Bush policies, employment compensation has lagged behind productivity gains. While the productivity of the American worker (output per hour) rose by 20.7 percent between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the second quarter of 2008, average hourly compensation (wages plus benefits, adjusted for inflation) increased by only 7.7 percent during this period. [Peter Goodman, Workers Get Fewer Hours, Deepening the Downturn, New York Times (April 18, 2008).]
LINK: http://freeflightnewmedia.typepad.com/free_flight_new_media/2010/09/the-choice-you-must-make-between-now-and-election-day-will-change-your-life-and-your-childrens-future.html
I also have one on accomplishments that I hope to get done today but nap time has arrived. PS: My knee replacement was cancelled for now because of a head cold. Not sure when it will be rescheduled…the end of line is my guess.
Thanks,
Curtis
Jeff….For Main Post if you can….
September 21, 2010
No More Divided, Polarizing, Political Fighting – ONE NATION WORKING TOGETHER HOLDING MASSIVE DAY OF ACTION
Event to include voter outreach to over 200,000 Californians!
“BlogMobile” to gather American stories while traveling from LA to DC
CALIFORNIA (September 21, 2010) – Responding to a call to restore opportunity for Americans and pull America back together, One Nation Working Together – California will hold a massive day of action on October 2, 2010. The event, to be held at Los Angeles City College, will bring thousands of Los Angeles area residents together in an effort to re-energize voters for this November’s election, and call for an end to the polarizing tactics that are being used to divide our country.
One Nation Working Together – California will also be sending a group of ‘citizen journalists’ via RV who will be blogging about the concerns of those they meet as they travel from Los Angeles to Washington DC. The ‘BlogMobile’ will depart Los Angeles on September 24 and arrive in Washington, DC for the national rally also being held on October 2.
“One Nation Working Together – California is a grassroots movement that will fight for future opportunities for our students and the unemployed, regain the hope we held so proudly in 2008, redefine the future, and move our country forward,” said Laphonza Butler, President of SEIU ULTCW (United Long Term Care Workers’ Union).
The day-long Los Angeles event on October 2 will start at 9 am and feature live performances, a public interactive display symbolizing our unity, the personal stories of struggle shared by One Nation participants, and a massive voter outreach in which 200,000 voters will be encouraged to reengage in the political process. There will also be a live simulcast with the national march occurring in Washington, DC that day at which half a million people are expected to gather at the Lincoln Memorial. “There’s no question that at a time when we should be united as a nation to tackle the issues of unemployment, the economy, poverty, education, immigration and justice for all, many Americans feel disconnected,” said Angelica Salas, Executive Director of Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA). “It’s time for us to continue the movement of political engagement that we started in 2008. One Nation Working Together is the vehicle by which we can do that.” One Nation Working Together is a fast-growing grassroots movement of people from all backgrounds united by the goal of reordering our nation’s priorities to invest in our most valuable resource – our people.
The movement is comprised over 200 organizations and tens of thousands of individuals who believe that everyone deserves the opportunity to achieve the American Dream of having a secure job, a safe home and a quality education. The need for the One Nation Working Together movement and its objective to restore opportunity to all was reinforced as new increased unemployment figures and poverty statistics were recently released. “For me, the One Nation Working Together movement is about regaining our core values – values that are based on fact and realities. Not based on hate, fear and poll-inflamed rhetoric,” said Reverend K.W. Tulloss of National Action Now and Pastor of Weller Street Baptist Church.
Check back here at FreeFlightNewMedia.com as we, all of us Americans, come together across our country on October 2nd.
Asasaka Jeff,
That’s Mountain Maidu for “Hi Jeff”.
Indigenous People’sDays, celebrated throughout the country, are upcoming and the Nevada City Rancheria and Nisenan Tribe of the Foothills of Nevada City, in conjunction with C.H.I.R.P., have some exciting activities planned for this important occasion.
Please go to the Nevada City Rancheria website.
If you would like to meet with the Tribal Chairman, Richard Johnson and the Tribal officers, I would be happy to arrange a meeting.
You and I met once, and I consider you the go-to journalist in this region.
This would be an exclusive to you.
Jeff…
See This Union Piece:
Jobs program set to expire on Friday
http://www.theunion.com/article/20100923/NEWS/100929906/1066&ParentProfile=1053
By Michelle Rindels and Trina Kleist
Staff Writers
Share on Facebook Email Print Comment Recommend
ENLARGE
BUY
Frank Matthews secures the roof of a chicken coop at Grass Valley’s Creative Coops this week.
Photo for The Union by John Hart
Congressional contacts
Congressional contacts
• Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.: (916) 448-2787 or http://boxer.senate.gov/en/contact
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.: (415) 393-0707 or http://feinstein.senate.gov/public
• Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Elk Grove: (916) 786-5560 or http://mcclintock.house.gov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n84l1tiLQE4
Friday could be the last day of work for about 140 Nevada County residents — unless Congress extends a subsidized jobs program, to the tune of $1.5 billion.
The program, originally part of federal stimulus legislation, was a godsend for one single mother who landed a job at Grass Valley henhouse manufacturer Creative Coops.
“The first day was amazing,” said Nicole, who asked that her full name not be used. She had been unemployed for 4 1/2 months before getting the bookkeeping job.
“I sat here in the parking lot and cried,” Nicole said. “I was so excited that I was given … the opportunity to prove myself and take care of my family.”
Since its inception, 203 county residents have landed low-wage jobs at 65 businesses, nonprofits and government agencies through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
Nationwide, the program cost $5 billion for 2009 and 2010; it is credited with creating 240,000 jobs across the country, according to published reports. TANF dollars started operating in the county in November 2009 and are set to expire Sept. 30.
and my comment:
Curtis L. Walker
6:45 AM on September 23, 2010
Could You Make The Failure Of Funding A Little Clearer? Did Congressperson Tom McClintock vote against funding? Folks can look it up but along party lines does not tell the folks exactly if McClintock, in fact, voted to KiLL FUNDING and put these local folks out of work. How about an update on the front page of The Union online making very clear what local representatives vote was. The folks loosing their jobs deserve no less.
Folks REALLY need to know what TOM did for (or to) them.
Jeff, I thought your readers should read this NY Times Op-Ed written by Ron Chernow. Normally, I ‘d provide a link but this seemed to warrant a full cut and paste. I hope that’s okay.
September 23, 2010
The Founding Fathers Versus the Tea Party
By RON CHERNOW
LIKE many popular insurgencies in American history, the Tea Party movement has attempted to enlist the founding fathers as fervent adherents to its cause. The very name invokes those disguised patriots who clambered aboard ships in Boston Harbor in December 1773 and dumped chests of tea into the water rather than submit to the hated tea tax. At Tea Party rallies, marchers brandish flags emblazoned with the Revolutionary slogan “Don’t Tread on Me” while George Washington impersonators and other folks in colonial garb mingle with the crowds.
Many Tea Party candidates and activists have tried to seize the moral high ground by explicitly identifying with the founders. Sharron Angle, who is mounting a spirited run against Harry Reid for a Senate seat from Nevada with Tea Party support, bristled at Mr. Reid’s contention that she is overly conservative. “I’m sure that they probably said that about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and Benjamin Franklin,” she protested. “And, truly, when you look at the Constitution and our founding fathers and their writings … you might draw those conclusions: That they were conservative. They were fiscally conservative and socially conservative.”
The Tea Party movement has further sought to spruce up its historical bona fides by laying claim to the United States Constitution. Many Tea Party members subscribe to a literal reading of the national charter as a way of bolstering their opposition to deficit spending, bank bailouts and President Obama’s health care plan. A Tea Party manifesto, called the Contract From America, even contains a rigid provision stipulating that all legislation passed by Congress should specify the precise clause in the Constitution giving Congress the power to pass such a law — an idea touted Thursday by the House Republican leadership.
But any movement that regularly summons the ghosts of the founders as a like-minded group of theorists ends up promoting an uncomfortably one-sided reading of history.
The truth is that the disputatious founders — who were revolutionaries, not choir boys — seldom agreed about anything. Never has the country produced a more brilliantly argumentative, individualistic or opinionated group of politicians. Far from being a soft-spoken epoch of genteel sages, the founding period was noisy and clamorous, rife with vitriolic polemics and partisan backbiting. Instead of bequeathing to posterity a set of universally shared opinions, engraved in marble, the founders shaped a series of fiercely fought debates that reverberate down to the present day. Right along with the rest of America, the Tea Party has inherited these open-ended feuds, which are profoundly embedded in our political culture.
As a general rule, the founders favored limited government, reserving a special wariness for executive power, but they clashed sharply over those limits.
The Constitution’s framers dedicated Article I to the legislature in the hope that, as the branch nearest the people, it would prove pre-eminent. But Washington, as our first president, quickly despaired of a large, diffuse Congress ever exercising coherent leadership. The first time he visited the Senate to heed its “advice and consent,” about a treaty with the Creek Indians, he was appalled by the disorder. “This defeats every purpose of my coming here,” he grumbled, then departed with what one senator branded an air of “sullen dignity.” Washington went back one more time before dispensing with the Senate’s advice altogether, henceforth seeking only its consent.
President Washington’s Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, wasted no time in testing constitutional limits as he launched a burst of government activism. In December 1790, he issued a state paper calling for the first central bank in the country’s history, the forerunner of the Federal Reserve System.
Because the Constitution didn’t include a syllable about such an institution, Hamilton, with his agile legal mind, pounced on Article I, Section 8, which endowed Congress with all powers “necessary and proper” to perform tasks assigned to it in the national charter. Because the Constitution empowered the government to collect taxes and borrow money, Hamilton argued, a central bank might usefully discharge such functions. In this way, he devised a legal doctrine of powers “implied” as well as enumerated in the Constitution.
Aghast at the bank bill, James Madison, then a congressman from Virginia, pored over the Constitution and could not “discover in it the power to incorporate a bank.” Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson was no less horrified by Hamilton’s legal legerdemain. He thought that only measures indispensable to the discharge of enumerated powers should be allowed, not merely those that might prove convenient. He spied how many programs the assertive Hamilton was prepared to drive through the glaring loophole of the “necessary and proper” clause. And he prophesied that for the federal government “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power.”
After reviewing cogent legal arguments presented by Hamilton and Jefferson, President Washington came down squarely on Hamilton’s side, approving the first central bank.
John Marshall, the famed chief justice, traced the rise of the two-party system to that blistering episode, and American politics soon took on a nastily partisan tone. That the outstanding figures of the two main factions, Hamilton and Jefferson, both belonged to Washington’s cabinet attests to the fundamental disagreements within the country. Hamilton and his Federalist Party espoused a strong federal government, led by a powerful executive branch, and endorsed a liberal reading of the Constitution; although he resisted the label at first, Washington clearly belonged to this camp.
Jefferson and his Republicans (not related to today’s Republicans) advocated states’ rights, a weak federal government and strict construction of the Constitution. The Tea Party can claim legitimate descent from Jefferson and Madison, even though they founded what became the Democratic Party. On the other hand, Washington and Hamilton — founders of no mean stature — embraced an expansive view of the Constitution. That would scarcely sit well with Tea Party advocates, many of whom adhere to the judicial doctrine of originalism — i.e., that any interpretation of the Constitution must abide by the intent of those founders who crafted it.
Of course, had it really been the case that those who wrote the charter could best fathom its true meaning, one would have expected considerable agreement about constitutional matters among those former delegates in Philadelphia who participated in the first federal government. But Hamilton and Madison, the principal co-authors of “The Federalist,” sparred savagely over the Constitution’s provisions for years. Much in the manner of Republicans and Democrats today, Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians battled over exorbitant government debt, customs duties and excise taxes, and the federal aid to business recommended by Hamilton.
No single group should ever presume to claim special ownership of the founding fathers or the Constitution they wrought with such skill and ingenuity. Those lofty figures, along with the seminal document they brought forth, form a sacred part of our common heritage as Americans. They should be used for the richness and diversity of their arguments, not tampered with for partisan purposes. The Dutch historian Pieter Geyl once famously asserted that history was an argument without an end. Our contentious founders, who could agree on little else, would certainly have agreed on that.
Ron Chernow is the author of “Alexander Hamilton” and the forthcoming “Washington: A Life.”
This is a great article, which brings out the glaring truth that both parties ignore. Sometimes when I watch Glenn Beck blather on about his admiration for this founding father or that founding father, I just have to shake my head or laugh out loud. If Beck had been around in those early years of the Republic, he would have been shouting just as loudly, only instead of pointing his finger and crying “Nazi!” the word would have been “Jacobin!”
For a clearer account of history, I’d suggest a book I found years ago entitled “American Aurora” by Richard Rosenfeld (St. Martin’s Press). Maybe you can Google it and find a used copy somewhere.
“Aurora” is the story of Ben Franklin’s grandson, Benny Bache, who inherited his grandfather’s press and started a newspaper in Philadelphia during the 1790′s. Bache was a staunch supporter of Jefferson, and the sworn enemy of Adams and Hamilton. It’s a difficult book to read, as it is not a running narrative, but rather snippets of articles and letters from newspapers and politicians of the day.
The story is quite revealing, almost as if the reader is looking at the bloggers of yesteryear. The name-calling, the hatred, and the manipulative nature of American politics are all on display. I use this book as a reference all the time.
There is also a more watered down version of early American politics called “Infamous Scribblers” by Eric Burns, who used to be the host of Fox News Watch, but “Aurora” is a much better book.
Thanks to both of you.
For the record, the NYT link on Ron Chernow’s Op-Ed is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24chernow.html
I am a huge fan of the book American Aurora. I use it as an example of how fractured we really were at our founding.
Hmmmm, what happened to Mr. Stoos????
dunno. bruce levy asked the same question. i hope he doesn’t stiff me for losing his bet on prop. 23 and o’donnell. i much prefer his commentary to the “verbal cowpies” of barry (my wife is the congressman’s field representative, don’t you know) pruett. LOL.
Yeah, he’s gonna owe you a dinner if things keep keepin’ on.
Jeff and Yolanda -
I’m free at the appointed time on the 22nd. See you at the South Pine Cafe in Nevada City.
Sharon
Two words:
1. Buster
2. Posey
I won’t even start with the rest of tonight’s effort. What a game!
Oh well, back to Philadelphia. It’s the errors that get you every time.
Interesting short article on misuse of statistical analysis in current Princeton Alumni Weekly – can be read at
http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2010/10/13/pages/1127/index.xml
One quote from article: “Seife, who examines the imprecision of counting people for the census, the errors involved in counting votes, and prosecutors’ misuse of numerical data to convict suspects in court, argues that such miscounting and misleading threaten our democracy. When an election is as close as it was in 2000 between GW Bush and Gore, he says, there is no way to determine who really won – because the inherent errors involved in counting votes were so great that it was impossible statistically to tell who garnered the most. “We citizens have a hard time saying, ‘Given the instruments that we have, we can’t tell the difference between candidate A and candidate B. For all intents and purposes it’s a tie,’” he says. The solution, he says would be to go to an agreed-upon “plan B” – whether a runoff election or the flip of a coin.”
He also talks about scientific misuse of statistics.
Jeff, I hope you guys enjoyed your SoCal visit this weekend. You were most likely unable to review the Sunday morning talk shows today. I found them to be unusually poignant, and the Meet the Press round table was particularly interesting. Mike Murphy, campaign manager for Meg Whitman, had this to say: “California is blue and getting bluer.” LOL
Jeff, Michael Medved makes an interesting point in this article about the lack of Democratic youth: http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2010/11/10/a_new_generation_gop_is_good_news_for_conservative_future
Besides Obama, where are the young Democrats? All the left-leaning Gen X and Y people I know are Independent, DTS, or Green. I guess they vote Dem when push comes to shove, but a lot of them just don’t vote at all. They hate the system so much, they’ve simply washed their hands of it.
Don’t where best to post this, but found it apropos to *something!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=do-80-percent-of-scientific-america-2010-11-17
Mama Su Morgan DeCorte passed away at 3:30 pm at Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital in Grass Valley. She had recently been transferred there from UC Davis, after a series of operations to remove cancerous tumors.
Locals will remember Su’ s restaurant, the Squeeze Inn on South Pine St., where she served up some of the best Mexican food on the planet. After the Squeeze closed, Su moved to Utah to care for her mother. After her mother’s passing, she returned to her Yuba River cabin and gold mining claim near Washington, and a few years later, she married Hank DeCorte and together they restored the historical Washington Hotel.
Not many people knew this, but Su was also the voice of Suzy Creamcheese on The Mother’s of Invention album, Absoluely Free. She was a dear friend, and her passing will leave a huge gaping hole in the little town of Washington, and Nevada County.
Anyone part of Mothers of Invention gets a patent on the back from me. Sorry I missed out on her, other than the soundtrack.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/keachie/394220252/
Timely article in the NY Times re trolls – titled “Online Anonymity Breeds Contempt”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30zhuo.html?_r=1&hp
Hi Jeff
The Bee has a fun little story today about guerrilla yarn-bombers. Might provide a welcome respite from the on-going theology dust-up elsewhere on your site!
Enjoy:
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/19/3268276/hit-run-knitters-darn-cute-crocker.html
Thanks. It helps put the other, ongoing debate in context. Happy holidays!
Jeff:
Mike and I ran across your blog recently and have been trying to reach you. Would love to catch up about our SF and St. Thomas days. You can contact us at my email address if interested.
Hi Phyllis,
I will email you in the New Year. Look forward to catching up. It’s no St. Thomas here! Six feet of snow out front at Tahoe. Happy New Year!
Dear Jeff-
I’ve been following your blog off and on for awhile now. Wondering if you might give local youth mentoring a plug. January is National Mentoring Month and I’ve prepared a press release. Please contact me if you’d like me to send it to you directly. Look forward to hearing from you!
Best,
Cristine Kelly
Executive Director
Sierra Mentoring Partnership
Breaking News Alert: Reports: Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords killed at public event
January 8, 2011 2:25:07 PM EST
Jeff,
On Tuesday, January 25, President Obama will deliver his State of the Union address. On Wednesday morning, the very next day, begins the 2012 presidential race. In many modern democracies such ridiculously long leadership races have been successfully truncated to good effect. Alas, in America, we are still stuck with a severely-outdated Electoral College and presidential campaign cycle.
That being said, I have been finding Gail Collins with the NY Times to be a great political “eye of providence” in recent months. Her latest column kicks off the 2012 campaign season very nicely I think: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/opinion/15collins.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Michael A.
Jeff, link to a NY Times article on the new sense of identity in mixed race/ethnicity in the United States. Something to give the good old boys a turn or two.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/us/30mixed.html?hp
Jeff,
How can I get a hold of you? like via email??
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17414562
Just made a traverse around the right-wing blogs and was pretty disgusted – just pathetic ideologue spin accompanied by just plain rude behavior . . ..
. . . which leads me to just want to express my gratitude for your venue, Jeff.
Thanks. The community deserves more in terms of media voices than what it’s getting. That’s largely why we have created a forum here.
Here’s a Todd Juvinall quote found at Yubanet article on benefits of the Clean Air Act:
“The EPA is now a rogue agency and not believable. Many of us are pursuing defunding the Agency. I hope we do.”
I think he’s been hittin’ whatever Charlie Sheen has been on – what a freak.
Oh Jeff, I’m so sorry about this poor woman–God Bless Her. I was actually checking in to tell you about a recall in Wisconsin…its breaking news. Again, how horrible for the GV family and community. May God be with you all.
Judith Lowry’s license plate: I hope she shares it with all of us. LOL.
NDNCHK = Indian Chick
Jeff,
Any word on the Money Matters interview with Stan Meckler today? I was taking advantage of the rainless weather and lost track of the time composting and missed it.
I think it was last week. I blogged that it was boring and others concurred.
Oh, I heard on KVMR Marc Cuniberti commentary last night that Stan Meckler was on today. I thought it already happened but maybe a rescheduling had happened.
Thanks
Maybe he was on twice. Once was enough for me. I didn’t get much out of the previous one.
Jeff, I read Barry Ritholz’s The Big Picture, http://www.ritholz.com, because the content includes smart financial commentary and great graphics (visualization).
Barry recently wrote a Washington Post column entitled Putting to End to Wall Street’s “I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone” bonuses”. I think you and others might enjoy reading Barry’s suggestions for ending IBGYBG.
Washington Post link is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/12/AR2011031204299.html
Barry Ritholz’s The Big Picture link is here:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/
Jeff, take a look at beta site http://www.weatherspark.com.
Jeff,
I like the new user interface for tha IPad!
Ever the contrarian, I disagree, respectfully.
How would I know? My iPad is snowed in at Tahoe City while I’m working on an iBook G4 from nearly a decade ago. BTW, the West Shore people, many of them 15 year veterans, are starting to worry about the snowpack. Some of them I’ve talked to can walk onto their roof. Imagine the spring runoff.
Hi Jeff…it seems Mr. Juvenil has invoked my name on Mr. Rebanes? blog in regard to a rather odd and/or concerning post on his website. I do not post on fringe websites. Not right OR left. I believe I’ve mentioned my unease with not taking ownership and/or accountability for ones writing…which is why I appreciate and seek attribution on your blog. I have a humorous Twitter name and avatar that is in fact linked to my email. I don’t typically dignify haters and bullies nor bring undue promotion to them in writing anywhere…unless they are important to challenge. In Mr. Rebanes case this was and is not the case. I’d be happy to talk to them here though! …Kate
No worries, Kate. They are chain smoking dinosaurs.
Yeah, sounds like ole soggy Toddy might be feelin a lil lonely over at Rebanes place. He prolly needs a hug and a teddy bear after this budget deal. Funny though, the moniker given over there at “rebanes broken lonely hearts reunion” was Hatsinthecloset. That would never be a self-reference–cause mine? Its awwwll out there…and then some. From “boots” to “nuts” ya might say. And like Pink sings, “don’t ever let em tell ya its not, “fu@&in perfect” neither;) Kate
Jeff,
On “Congressional leaders reach budget deal” I mentioned an article with a number of links and ideas. Here is the link with the sources. On facebook it is “Why I am not a Republican. Coming soon, Why I am not a Democrat.”
http://www.benemery.org/1/post/2011/04/playing-their-hand.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BenEmeryBlog+%28BenEmery%29
Playing their hand 04/07/2011
2010 was a big year for the Republican Party. First, the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Citizen United vs. FEC gave domestic and foreign corporations the ability to secretly spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising under the banner “money is equal to free speech.” In the 2010 election cycle a new form of non-profit 501c 4/5/6 were created and raised over $400 million to spend in political ads, either in support of or against opponents of the Republican candidates, and in my opinion, democracy. In November, 42 percent of registered voters in America voted for local, state, and federal offices. For all intents and purposes, 21 percent plus one decided for the rest of us what type of representative government we shall receive. This is not a mandate or democracy, and it’s a perfect example of why major campaign/electoral reform is needed. After gaining control of many state governments and picking up 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican Party has gone on the attack.
Republican governors and state legislators are using the financial crisis to attack and pit the private sector against public sector workers in hope of keeping the electorate divided. We are seeing collective bargaining rights assaulted, state houses locking out citizens while letting in lobbyists, large corporate tax cuts, and taxes for working and poor Americans raised while vital social programs are cut. The most egregious bill, in Michigan, is the ability to dissolve and then privatize entire city governments.
Lets make this perfectly clear: it was the financial sector’s greed and reckless behavior that caused the financial crisis, not the American worker. In fact, the American worker has been taking it in the teeth for the past three decades. According to a Policy of Economic Institute income analysis of 1979-2005 Congressional Budget Office data, the top 1 percent received 80 percent of the economic gains in this period.
We need to understand this isn’t an accident. It has been an evolving plan since the Lewis Powell Manifesto of 1971 for corporate America to gain control of the federal government and its policies. The ideas from the manifesto started the conservative think tanks that came up with two practicing strategies: “Two Santa Claus” and “Starve the Beast,” which both came to fruition in 2007. This is also the reason that Eisenhower (principled) Republicans cannot recognize their party any longer.
The “Two Santa Claus” strategy is to reduce taxes and create hundreds of tax loopholes/ shelters for the wealthiest 1 percent, decreasing the long-term revenue of the federal government while increasing spending (especially defense spending), creating an illusion of prosperity. It requires Republicans to be very outspoken of deficit spending only during Democratic administrations, forcing Democrats to abandon being the party of the people (Santa Claus) but being the responsible adult in our government instead. These strategies have been essential for drastically increasing the national debt. It took nearly two hundred years from the George Washington administration to the Jimmy Carter administrations to accumulate a $900 billion national debt. Once Ronald Reagan embraced the two strategies, his administrations added over $3 trillion to the national debt, and George W. Bush tacked on $6 trillion with more tax cuts and unfunded war spending, for a grand total of $12 trillion of U.S. debt by the end of 2008. Calculations show that Republican administrations have created $10.5 trillion of that national debt. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis Americans haven’t seen such a low tax burden since 1950. Decreasing taxes while increasing spending and military action around the world does not balance a budget, let alone start bringing down the national debt, plus interest.
Free trade agreements that President Clinton and the Republican Party eagerly promoted are another major factor that has contributed to the “Starve the Beast” (that is, eliminate government) policies that have brought the deficit to crisis levels, forcing social programs to be cut or eliminated. Unfortunately we did not heed Ross Perot’s warning of the “Giant Sucking Sound” in the 1992 presidential election. These free trade agreements control the United States’ ability to promote and keep living wage manufacturing jobs in America, another tax revenue-reducing policy. Instead, an economy based on credit, not wages, was created. The credit has run out, and we see “Starve the Beast” policies falling into place.
The results of these strategies and policies are self-evident and should no longer be taken serious.
As an interested and (up to now) silent bystander of the discussions on Jeff Pelline’s blog, I would like to provide an outsider opinion on the rhetoric flying around.
First, let me state that, politically, more often than not, I agree with the majority views expressed in the blog (i.e., the “those of us in the middle” folks. lets call it TOUITM, for short) and that I despise the TP “far-west”, “law of the jungle”", “everybody out for themselves”, “no social conscience” ideology (there, I got it off my chest, I feel better now).
However, I can often read as much stridency used by the TOUITM folks as the name-calling coming from the so-called “wingnut jobs” (in itself a name-calling no different than what it is responding to), with the usual “holier-than-thou-we-are-so-much-smarter-than-all-of-you” cheer leading suspects beating the drums.
What I also see is the so-called “far right” adopting their in-your-face approach, just to provoke & taunt the TOUITM folks and, you know what, it works every single time (and I can hear the so-called “wingnuts” laughing in the background). Out comes the righteous indignation sniping and equally vitriolic terminology from the TOUITM crowd. and the more this happens, the more polarized the discourse gets, with people gradually over-stating their positions to counter-act the over-stated opinions of the other side, in a never-ending display of one-upmanship, and meanwhile the real issues get lost in the middle of the mud slinging.
First the “right” and “left” designations were used, then the “far right” and the “far left”, then the “extreme right” and the “extreme left”, so what’s next, the “hyper right” and the “hyper left” ?
Oddly enough (but may be not), the most civil contributions I see are from John Stoos, who despite my not agreeing with much of what he says (I just can’t reconcile the concept of Christian charity with the challenged social conscience an opposition to universal health care implies, while supporting billions of dollars for unjustified wars – I am continuously baffled by this apparent duality !), is always adopting a well-articulated, polite, no name calling and civil discourse, no matter how much invectives are thrown at him.
So, this is a call for a bringing the temperature of the conversation down a notch and for a return to the civil discourse the TOUITM philosophy should be about.
Let the so-called “far right” throw their invectives all they want, but lets adopt John Stoos’ approach of a civil discourse and agree to disagree rather than fight insults with insults.
This does not mean removing passion from the discourse, but just doing it in a civilized & respectful way, like it would have been done in the “old days”, whenever that was.
Brian,
Interesting last name. I used to have a roommate with the name Brian Ahearns in Colorado. Are you that Brian?
In general I don’t throw out the name calling except when frustrations run high with discussing completely selfish policies. Then a description of being delusional or ludicrous might pop out.
Ben,
Not me. Actually never been to Co. Born & bred Californian, lived in GV for awhile, now in Southern Cal, but still following GV/NC news (might come back one day).
Jeff–
What’s the story behind the new banner picture (the Rainbow III)? It is an intriguing picture.
Tony
http://www.times-standard.com
Naturalist’s legacy lives on in campaign to stop state parks closure; park supporters hope to raise money, volunteer to keep parks open
Donna Tam/The Times-Standard
Posted: 06/01/2011 02:20:14 AM PDT
Click photo to enlarge
Even in death, naturalist John Olmsted is trying to save the parks.
Inspired by his father’s passion, filmmaker Alden Olmsted is traveling throughout California, rallying a campaign to stop the closure of the 70 California state parks scheduled to be closed next year.
Armed with his father’s image stuck to donation jugs and a message, Alden Olmsted stopped in Humboldt County to meet with volunteers Tuesday before making his way south to other counties.
”If every California resident donated just $1, the parks would have more than the $33 million they need to stay open,” has become the Grass Valley resident’s motto.
The governor announced the park closures on May 14. The move came on the heels of an additional $4 million in cuts in the park’s budget, bringing the total to $22 million for some 278 parks over the next two years. On the North Coast, the cuts mean Grizzly Creek Redwoods State Park, Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park, Fort Humboldt State Historical Park, Benbow Lake State Recreation Area and Standish-Hickey State Recreation Area will be closed indefinitely.
So far, Alden Olmsted has been able to leave a donation bucket with volunteers near Benbow and Standish-Hickey, but is still looking for Fort Humboldt and Grizzly Creek Redwoods volunteers.
John Olmsted is credited with establishing three state parks in California, including the Jug Handle State Natural Reserve in Mendocino. He died of cancer in March.
Local
Advertisement
fisheries biologist Bill Kier said he was a supporter of John Olmsted’s land conservation work for more than 30 years.
He cited recollections that he shared with Alden Olmsted regarding John Olmsted and their first encounter. Kier was working for Fort Bragg Sen. Bill Grader at the time. It was 1972.
”(John Olmsted) was tall, lanky, bearded — and what I remember most clearly was that his trousers were held up with clothesline rope, and one of his shoes was laced up with what looked like twine,” Kier wrote.
Kier said he drew up a resolution to direct State Parks to have a rough acquisition plan and project budget ready despite plans from businessmen who wanted the land for a convention hotel. Ultimately, John Olmsted was able to stop the project and conserve the land.
”What seemed like a totally goofy notion from a clearly goofy guy has become mainstream good sense, as though everyone somehow ‘got it’ on the first bounce,” Kier said.
Alden Olmsted’s own crusade has drawn the attention of North Coast park supporters, including Riverwood Inn owner and Phillipsville resident Loreen Eliason.
Eliason said she would be happy to host one of the donation buckets and would like to gather some volunteers who would be willing to help maintain parks in order to save operations costs.
Alden Olmsted said he wants this grassroots effort to be more about the number of people involved rather than how much can be raised and about volunteers taking ownership of their local parks.
”I don’t want a little bit of people to give a lot, I want a lot of people to give a little,” he said.
How to help
Visit:
http://www.johnolmsted.net
http://www.calparks.org
To volunteer, email:
Alden Olmsted: realcaliforniapics@hotmail.com
Loreen Eliason: loreen@riverwoodinn.info
Donna Tam can be reached at 441-0532 or dtam@times-standard.com.
Haven’t seen Mr Stoos around lately, I hope he is OK and is just taking a break. Does anybody know anything?
Did ya see the World Cup Semis? Yahoo! Here’s to Solo and the TwoLous!! Fierce women…and damn good! U.S.A…Kate
Hey Jeff, there is a shooting that occurred around these parts that they’ve been covering on the plumasnews.com website. Just thought you might want to take a look…Kate
Just a heads up on a website that is far ahead of the mainstream media regarding Norway and its tragedy. This domestic terrorist “person” has some exceedingly unsavory links to the extreme rw in our own country. The site is littlegreenfootballs.com…just an fyi for youall…and tears and prayers for Norway…Kate
Wow.
Thanks for the heads up Kate – not even six degrees were needed to get ‘Fjordman’ back to Nevada County (jihad watcher—>freeper—>cabpro & Redstate—>NCTPP, among others).
The mainstream has caught up, and it’ll be interesting to hear the backpedal (ala McVeigh): http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107230001
You Are Brilliant, and the Earth is Hiring!
http://www.yesmagazine.org/yes/yes/issues/columns/you-are-brilliant-and-the-earth-is-hiring
Hey You Are Brilliant and SBC is hiring!
http://www.sbcouncil.org/About/Community-Network-Director
Spread the Word!
Please add me to your messages…very intering & entertaining!
Hi Jeff
Talking Points Memo today has an interesting discussion of commenting – including the pros and cons of anonymity.
http://labs.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/post-1.php?ref=fpblg
Hope you’re enjoying Sierra Co. When you come back, you might want to pass through Sierra Valley. Imagine what it was like when it was a lake millions of years ago.
SR
SR,
Thanks. In fact, this time we went to/from Sierra Co. via the Sierra Valley. It is spectacular.
Under the heading of Taking Our Country Back, Progressive Version, I give you Sen. Doug LaMalfa’s response to Governor Jerry Brown’s decision to sign AB 459, the National Popular Vote Compact. The Electoral College is an antiquated process that was constitutionally designed as a compromise between electing the President of the United States by Congress or the popular vote of the people. Since “the people” have come a long way intellectually since the 1780s, perhaps giving them the reigns in this important matter is a bit past due?
Let’s hear what Sen. LaMalfa has to say about the matter: “I am disappointed that Gov. Brown would eliminate Californians’ choice in selecting the president of the United States,” said LaMalfa. “With this bill, Californians lose their absolute right to have their votes count in presidential elections, by circumventing the Electoral College and awarding California’s electors to the winner of the national popular vote.”
Nice spin, but inaccurate. While the California popular vote for president has been fairly well represented by the electoral votes, that might not always be the case. And across the country, urban centers are poorly represented by the Electoral College, particularly in the southern states. AB 459 moves us forward in solving the national problem of voters losing “their absolute right to have their votes count in presidential elections.”
“Now, regardless of whom Californians support for president, our state’s electors will go to whomever this new ‘club’ selects.
Ah yes, now we see what this is about. The ‘club.’ That’s code for liberals, freaks, queers, progressives, and other people who really are not qualified to have their votes count. The club he is talking about is the popular vote of the American people, who are largely urban, sophisticated, young, liberal, and pissed off at old white guys who have dominated elections in America since 1789. Sorry guys, the gig is up.
“This law eliminates 220 years of American tradition that protects the fabric of our country from fractionalization and mob rule,” LaMalfa said. “Under this plan, large urban population centers will dominate the elections for president. Rural America and rural California will no longer be spoken to in campaigns and will be a reduced factor in national politics.
Copy that and hooray! I pine for the day when the election returns are no longer focused on “blue and red” states and my vote in California is not made moot by the three-hour time difference between the east and west coasts.
“Our founding fathers created the Electoral College to balance rural and urban interests,” LaMalfa added. “Yet now, short-minded politicians seek major structural changes to our system of government for temporary political gains.”
Wrong again, Sen. LaMalfa. We seek major structural changes to enhance democracy and reflect the will of the majority of the American people. These so-called different “rural and urban interests” is a red herring, they no longer exist in the 21st century. Perhaps Sen. LaMalfa did not get the memo that we are all in this together, and that retreating to the hills doesn’t obviate the citizen from responsibility for our entire nation of like-minded peoples.
Next antiquated political system in deep need of reform: the US Senate.
No MoMo! Go MoMo!
Kate
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/27/business/energy-environment/us-state-department-to-allow-canadian-pipeline.html
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration gave a crucial green light on Friday to a proposed 1,711-mile pipeline that would carry heavy oil from Canada across the Great Plains to terminals in Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast, saying the project would provide a secure source of energy without significant damage to the environment.
In reaching its conclusion that the Keystone XL pipeline from the oil sands deposits in Alberta would have minimal environmental impact, the administration dismissed criticism from environmental advocates, who said that extracting the oil would have a devastating impact on the climate and that a leak or rupture in the 36-inch-diameter pipeline could wreak ecological disaster. Opponents also said the project would prolong the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels, threaten sensitive lands and wildlife and further delay development of clean energy sources.
The State Department said in an environmental impact statement that the pipeline’s owner, TransCanada, had reduced the risks of an accident to an acceptable level and that the benefits of importing oil from a friendly neighbor outweighed the potential costs.
Signing off for a few months. Good Luck and hopefully we will run into each other more often.
Ben
Thanks Ben! See you around!
Hi Jeff! Just wanted to let your east county readers know that the Local Agency Formation Commissions of Nevada and Placer County are holding a workshop on LAFCO law and procedures in Truckee on December 12 from 5 to 7pm in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. If you’d like, I’ll forward an announcement to you with the details.
Thanks. info@sierrafoodwineart.com will do. Cheers.
Santorum knocked it out of the park tonight with his “statistical tie” (not victory) speech. Romney, on the other hand, came across like the Fuller Brush Man.
Perry’s out, Bachmann stays in so she can get in one more debate, and Newt is pissed at Romney and will be carrying Santorum’s water going into New Hampshire and South Carolina.
And the media, and Romney’s opposition research team, smell blood: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/santorum-iowa-media-scrutiny/2012/01/01/id/422729
I still don’t think Santorum can get the nomination, but he sure looked good tonight.
Tomorrow is Burning Man Day: http://tickets.burningman.com/
If you are planning to attend, tomorrow noon PST is when the registration for the lottery begins. Registration closes on January 22nd, 2012.
Here’s a great video that describes the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahv_1IS7SiE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
(You’ll need to log in to YouTube since the video is at least PG-13.)
Todd dropped the welcome mat on his front porch this morning.
Have at it, fellow citizens!
(This could almost be as fun as Jon Steward taking over Colbert’s SuperPAC so Steven can run in S. Carolina…my but don’t we live in interesting times.)
http://cabproreport.typepad.com/
Yikes. Let’s hope CABPRO’s directors — from Kim Janousek to Kirk Pharis to John Spencer — have good liability insurance policies!
Steven Colbert walks in the footsteps of a long line of political satirists who have actually had a great effect on the American body politic.
Here’s one of my favorites:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/405889/january-12-2012/indecision-2012—colbert-super-pac—coordination-resolution-with-jon-stewart
And now for something completely different…
Tomorrow’s Krugman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/opinion/krugman-how-fares-the-dream.html?_r=1
GVSD just posted The Three Alternatives: http://www.gvsd.k12.ca.us/
Just discovered this forum in the last few days and have enjoyed reading the literate comments and alternative points of view other than those repeatedly expressed in the Union. Some of the comments I read suggested it isn’t even worth the effort to write an Other Voices piece rebutting the seemingly endless opinions of the Conservatives. The last rebuttal to a poorly written Other Voices I submitted wasn’t published, despite the fact that I corrected the many incorrect ‘opinions-presented-as-fact’ that the author used to buttress his wandering points. The two most glaring contentions of his were: The Nazis were a socialist government and there has been no extremist right wing governments ever, anywhere and that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. The author was the president of a Christian school.
After reading Rebanes’ column this last Saturday–for the first time–I want to rebut him, too, as his errors are also glaring. In fact, he is guilty of what I used to tell some of my writing students: Simply asserting something doesn’t make it true. Cite your sources in order to gain credibility, at least once in a while, I’d insist. But I hardly want to put in the time if they will just throw my writing away. In the past, the Union has published an Other Voices piece of mine, but it was about a local issue concerning the Veterans Office.
I’m retired now, but also a disabled Marine Viet Vet and recently had major surgery on my left arm, restoring, slowly, my ability to use it, which includes being able to type again. Thus my reluctance to shred Rebanes’ piece and pontifications if there’s no real chance of publication.
What say ye all?
Cheers, thanks and glad I found this forum.
Ed Peritz
Seems like in our open primary and now open congressional seat there are some other republicans stepping up to the plate. Hopefully an OWS candidates steps up.
An interesting point against La Malfa and his farm subsides.
http://www.colonelpete.com/doug-lamalfa-loves-taxpayer-funded-corporate-welfare/#.TxqPGyPRg7A
http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/californias-new-triple-bottom-line?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=socmed&utm_content=EberleinS_CAsNewTripleBottomLine&utm_campaign=120210_NewEconomy
A new type of corporation in CA – those whose bottom line is for the Common Good. Not Non-Profit.