Red Wine with Fish

From John Cole’s Balloon Juice (via Delong):

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.

American Society of Civil Engineers did a report card on our infrastructure. We suck. So, whether or not the stimulus package works to stimulate the economy over the short term, our infrastructure is completely falling apart and we need about $2.2 trillion dollars of spending to fix it.

2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure

People who know me would say I am a cynic. In fact, the only thing that prevents me from being a conspiracy theorist is my lack of faith in humans ability to organize themselves in concert and keep their mouths shut.

I certainly don’t know what is going to happen. It is hard to imagine that in many critical ways Obama will disappoint. Despite the Democratic majority, and in spite of promises to the contrary, politics will still exist in Washington. Times are hard and I deeply believe that no-one really knows what we need to do to fix the failing economy.

That said, I have more hope for change than I have had in a long time. The people are calling for a real healthcare system and now, finally, we have someone who wants to give him one. Obama’s proposed tax package is very progressive and he has as mandate to pass it: I just heard on NPR that Obama actually managed to get a majority of the votes from people with incomes exceeding $250,000, the very same group he is planning to tax so the rest of us can get social services and tax relief. Pretty amazing.

And, of course, something has changed in the US when an African-American can get elected President. Yes, he is a man of priviledge and education, but the fact remains that a black man with the name Barack Hussein Obama is going to be President. I didn’t think I would see it in my lifetime.

I don’t know where I am heading with these thoughts, but that there is room for optimism for the first time in a long time, despite the dark clouds that still hang above us.

It’s starting to look like it. Check out this Times article.

Do you think without being force to that banks like JP Morgan will loan out the money we gave them? Not if they have a better options, economy be damned. From a JP Morgan exec:

“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling.”

So, rather than inject this money into the sagging economy, these predators would prefer to scoop up struggling banks, regardless of the consequence.

People, we have been duped. I hope this article is embarrassing enough to them to do the right thing and embarrassing enough to the government to force them to do the right thing. I am not optimistic.

We gave these banks a big fat carrot. Now it’s time to use the stick.

In response to PBS’ anemic response to the now infamous Sarah Palin poll, I have posted a poll of my own. Please feel free to submit your opinion:

Do you think that PBS was irresponsible for posting a poll that they admit is “unscientific”, that it should be taken down immediately, and they should discontinue posting any more such polls?

So, I have another question about these bailout negotations. The latest news is that negotiations have hit some snags firstly because the Conservative wing of the traditionally Republican Party (didn’t know there was one left) is objecting to giving away $700,000,000,000 since it will result, of course, in higher taxes and probably more government regulation. Additionally, some Democrats aren’t crazy about handing over $700,000,000,000 (gotta love all those zeros), without any additional regulatory measures to prevent it from happening again and help for people who might lose their homes. Finally, it has gotten somewhat mired in the race since both McCain and Obama have gotten involved in the negotiations by actually sitting down with the President and party leaders to put in their $.02.

My question is this: is there any precedent to have candidates so intimately involved in policy at this point. I realize they are both Senators, but neither is, I don’t think, ranking member of the finance committee or anything like that. I also know that one of them will inherit this mess, but neither has yet.

I wonder if it is appropriate to have them in the room at all, other than in whatever capacity they might already serve as Senators. It politicizes the entire issue and has caused it seems, serious grandstanding, particularly by the economic conservative wing of the Republican Party who feel like they are about to get shafted and with good reason.

That said, perhaps the slowdown is a good thing. The American economy is very, very big and even if it gets a little pummeled over the next few days or weeks, that isn’t as bad a scenario as committing to a $700,000,000,000 fiasco that hasn’t been completely thought through.

Still I have to wonder if there are balance of power issues here. For example: how would this scenario have changed if both candidates were not Senators and one was, say, a governor or a hot dog salesman, whatever.

As in my last post, I am posing real questions, not rhetorical ones. Is the way this situation is being handled appropriate? I don’t really know, but it does leave me feeling a little bit uncomfortable.

Alder at Vinography has a post today applauding the people whose long days of physical labor make wine possible for those of us who appreciate it and can afford it. He says

In the absence of a holiday celebrating wine itself, I cannot think of a better holiday for wine lovers to observe, given the pleasures we reap from countless hours of back-breaking work by mostly nameless, faceless workers.

I commend Alder for again bringing attention to a facet of the industry that goes largely undiscussed. So too, I appreciate his mention of Sonoma Vineyard Worker Services an organization which much like our own Salud! in the Willamette Valley, provides much needed services to vineyard workers.

However, I think, too, we should think about the bigger picture of what these workers represent from a social, political and (gasp!) class perspective. The people who do the most exhausting and risky physical labor in the US wine industry and for that matter the entire agricultural sector are migrant Mexicans and South Americans, often illegals, who without organizations above would not have access to basic health care or social services.

To my mind, when those who are largely responsible for bringing food and wine to our table have so much less than those for whom they bring the food and wine, a crisis is at hand. Those of us who consume these goods (nearly all of us), rely on the services that migrant agricultural laborers provide.

From the point of view of the consumer, and to a large part, even to those of us in the industry, the people who work the vineyards are “nameless and faceless”, as Alder says. I think we need to do more than just remember them. And I think we need to do more than contribute to the organizations that make up for all they lack. I believe we need to advocate for these people who, for the most part, cannot advocate for themselves.

Political visibility for migrant laborer was on the increase until political support fizzled earlier this year as we rolled into election season. I encourage each person to study this issue and think about it. To be sure, you should come to your own conclusions about what needs to be done, but don’t underestimate the importance of migrant labor to our economy or forget that the people have lives and families of their own and are as entitled to a life of dignity and security as much as those of us who were lucky to be born with both.

I haven’t done a Bloody Idiot column in a while, but John Boehner’s (R-Stupid) latest quote is more than I could resist.

To always have reasons why you just can’t vote ‘yes,’ I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them.

I agree with him. Totally. It does speak volumes. For those of you who don’t get my point, allow me to interpret Mr. Boehner for you: he is asking why can’t the damn Democrats stop making them work to take away our scant remaining civil liberties and roll over like good little lapdogs.

I can only say that if the current crop of Dems aren’t spineless enough for him, he is setting his sights a hair too high… low… whatever.

But, my friends, this is today’s Republican party: say whatever dumbass, offensive, thoughtless thing that you want, but say it with conviction.

Congrats, Mr. Boehner. By accidentally speaking the truth, you are awarded the latest Red Wine with Fish Bloody Idiot award.

Lest you think I exaggerate or are taking Mr Boehner’s boner out of context, see the quote for yourself.

Washington state, which I formerly inhabited, opted to join the ranks of the backwards today with a state supreme court decision upholding the states anti-gay-marriage law. This leaves Massachusetts as the only state that recognizes gay marriage. Many of the other 49, including, I am ashamed to say, my own state of Oregon, have recently passed laws that specifically define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. A number of states, such as Vermont and, I think, Hawaii, have gay union laws (separate but equal, anyone?).

Whether or not you believe the courts argument had legal merit, you have to like a transparently offensive quote like this one, taken from the Seattle PI:

In a splintered decision, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that the state’s marriage law was enacted to “promote procreation and to encourage stable families.”

Now, I will freely admit that encouraging gay marriage does not generally “promote procreation”, however, I would ask the following questions of the Justice Madsen:

• Would it be legal to prevent sterile couples to marry?
• Would it be legal to prevent couples with a history of unstable family life to marry?
• What the hell is the state doing encouraging procreation in these times of rapid population growth?
• What exactly are you saying about the stability of gay families vs. straight families? Have divorce rate statics not reached the rock under which you are living?

As far as I can tell, the only bright parts of the decision were the dissents. Again from the PI:

Justice Fairhust said the plurality and concurring options “… condone blatant discrimination against Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests.”

Well, that about sums it up. Enough said.

From onegoodmove, via, Discourse.net:

All haters (and, I suppose, fans) of Billy-O should see this. Nice work.