Martin Luther King--I Have A Dream

In celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday, here is his famous "I Have A Dream" speech, delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963 during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Even now, Dr. King's address is still so powerful in expressing the problems of race and economic inequality that exists in this country, and the potential future where we all will be free at last. From YouTube:



And here is the transcript of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech.

Monday Schoolhouse Rocks--Victim of Gravity

Today we are all victims. Yes, we are all victims--of gravity! According to Sir Issac Newton's Law of Gravity, every object in the universe exerts force on every other object. The bigger the object, the stronger the pull. But the greater the distance between the objects, the weaker the pull becomes. Consider this Schoolhouse Rock video Victim of Gravity, as it shows how we end up falling down, rather than falling up. Music and lyrics are by Lynn Ahrens, while the song is performed by The Tokens. From YouTube:

Saturday Morning Cartoons--Deputy Droopy

For today's Saturday Morning Cartoons, I've got one of the early Droopy cartoons, Deputy Droopy. Droopy is a slow-talking, dead-panned personality dog who is guarding a safe full of gold, while the sheriff is next door sleeping--any noise the sheriff hears and he'll come into the room shooting. Well, two outlaws want to steal that gold from the safe quietly without waking the sheriff. As usual, Droopy is two steps ahead of the outlaws by creating situations where the outlaws would have to make noise. Droopy was created by the great Tex Avery. In addition to Droopy, Avery was responsible for creating one of the most famous Warner Brother's cartoon characters, Bugs Bunny in A Wild Hare. So let's make some noise with Deputy Droopy. From YouTube:

Huckabee: Fried squirrel in a popcorn popper

This is just frickin' creepy. GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was on MSNBC's Morning Joe, where he talked about how he would fry some squirrel in a popcorn popper while in college. From YouTube:



Now while the source of this story is through TPM, Huckabee has referred to his popcorn-popper-frying squirrel days before. According to this December 27, 2007 Los Angeles Times story:

OSCEOLA, IOWA -- Grasping a freshly killed pheasant and hoisting a shotgun over his shoulder, Mike Huckabee on Wednesday invited reporters to witness what has become one of the standard motifs of Republican presidential politics: the candidate out hunting, like a regular guy.

But the undertone was clear: Huckabee was casting himself as an authentic sportsman, unlike chief rival Mitt Romney, who last spring had claimed to be an avid hunter before admitting that he had preyed mostly on "small varmints" -- and infrequently at that.

In fact, Huckabee said, not only had he hunted varmints himself -- in addition to deer, ducks, antelopes and, now, pheasants -- but he also was an experienced varmint-eater, having downed his share of fried squirrel, biscuits and Coke as a college student.

"I figured out you could put grease in a popcorn popper and heat that thing up, and you could cook anything," he said in an interview. "So we fried squirrel."

And with that the contest for the world's most powerful job centered not on policy and substance in the run-up to next week's Iowa caucuses, but on the question of authenticity.

There is a message here, concerning Huckabee's college squirrel-frying days. Huckabee is using this squirrel-frying story to show Republican voters that he is one of them--an "Awe Shucks" kind of guy--while also hinting that Mitt Romney is another silver-spoon-in-his-mouth conservative elitist. Huckabee is really taking a page out of George W. Bush's 2004 playbook, where Americans would love to have a beer with George W. Bush and shoot-the-breeze, instead of the snobbish, white-wine-drinking Democratic candidate John Kerry. Huckabee is taking that page, and using it to sell himself as a good old evangelical Southern boy to the conservative voters. Huckabee is trying to tell the voters that he is the authentic presidential candidate, while Mitt Romney is the phony candidate who will say anything to get elected. It is a very clever media manipulation, by the Huckabee campaign, to really court both the southern and evangelical base--especially those voters in the upcoming South Carolina primary.

Tale of two headlines: Inflation rate spikes highest in 18 years, while recession worries grow

I found two sets of stories that I want to talk about. The first is this story off The Washington Post:

Inflation spiked in 2007, driven by escalating food and energy costs that more than cancelled the wage gains earned by workers over the year.

New federal government statistics show the consumer price index rose 4.1 percent over the 12 months ending in December, 2007, compared to a 2.5 percent increase in the 12 months before that. Energy prices, responding to a surge in the cost of oil, rose 17.4 percent over the period. The price of food increased 4.9 percent -- the largest rise in 18 years.

Excluding volatile food and energy costs, so-called core inflation was more moderate as consumers benefited from lower prices for housing, apparel and other goods. The core inflation rate, closely watched by economists, was 2.4 percent over the 12 month period, slightly below the 2.6 percent increase registered in 2006.

Still, the overall rate of inflation left consumers with less money in their pockets by the end of the year -- a fact reflected in the poor December retail sales results that helped push markets sharply lower yesterday. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today that, once discounted for rising prices, the wages of American workers fell 0.9 percent between December 2006 and December 2007.

And I want to look at all these interesting news headlines hyping a potential U.S. recession:

Odds are growing for economic recession

Recession hinges on coping with credit crisis

Recession fears stoke political debate

Economic Worries Put Americans In Sour Mood

Economic Worries Grow Among Voters: Poll

Market drops as Intel fuels recession worry

What is the connection? It is a potentially bigger story of where the U.S. could be heading into a bigger economic problem of stagflation. Stagflation is defined as "a period of out-of-control price inflation combined with slow-to-no output growth, rising unemployment, and eventually recession." It is really the worst of all worlds where you have both a period of economic recession and out-of-control inflation. I look back into history and I see some very disturbing parallels between the Lyndon Johnson administration and the George W. Bush administration. Both presidents sent the U.S. into an undeclared war--Johnson in Vietnam, Bush in Iraq. Both presidents embarked on a spending program of guns and butter--Johnson with Vietnam and his Great Society programs, Bush with the occupation of Iraq and his tax cuts to the rich. In 1973, the U.S. was dealt with a severe OPEC oil embargo, which caused U.S. oil prices to quadruple, from $3 per barrel in late 1973 to $12 per barrel in 1974. The 1973 Arab Oil Embargo was certainly a factor in causing the U.S. inflation woes of the 1970s. Today, we've seen how oils prices have shot up from around $25 per barrel in September 2003 (which is six months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq) to around $100 per barrel this month. And now we have the inflation rate spiking due to increased food and energy costs.

Do you see a pattern here?

Bush administration erases backup tapes with email containing CIA leak information

I think Barney ate the White House backup tapes. This is the full Yahoo News story:

White House recycles backup e-mail tapes
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The White House has acknowledged recycling its backup computer tapes of e-mail before October 2003, raising the possibility that many electronic messages — including those pertaining to the CIA leak case — have been taped over and are gone forever.

The disclosure came minutes before midnight Tuesday under a court-ordered deadline that forced the White House to reveal information it has previously refused to provide.

Among the e-mails that could be lost are messages swapped by any White House officials involved in discussions about leaking a CIA officer's identity to reporters.

Before October 2003, the White House recycled its backup tapes "consistent with industry best practices," according to a sworn statement by a White House aide.

Backup tapes are the last line of defense for saving electronic records.

Separately, the statement reveals the extent to which the White House is apparently unable to answer how many e-mails are missing from White House servers.

The White House "does not know if any e-mails were not properly preserved in the archiving process," said the statement by Theresa Payton, chief information officer for the White House Office of Administration. "We are continuing our efforts," said Payton, whose staff is responsible for the White House e-mail system.

If the e-mails were not saved, the White House might have violated two laws requiring preservation of documents that fall into the categories of federal records or presidential records.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that "there is no basis to say that the White House has destroyed any evidence or engaged in any misconduct."

Fratto said that despite the recycling, some tapes should contain e-mails from before October 2003.

"Of course the disaster recovery backup tapes were, at one time, recycled," said Fratto. "However, since October 2003, the Office of Administration has retained and preserved its disaster recovery tapes. The disaster recovery system is set up to regularly back up everything on the network for the Executive Office of the president at the time of each backup."

The seven-page document filed in U.S. District Court says the White House in October 2003 "began preserving and storing all backup tapes and continues to do so." Payton said this means that e-mails sent or received in the 2003-2005 time period should be contained on existing backup tapes.

The period of 2003 and 2005 is the time frame at issue in lawsuits seeking information about possibly millions of missing e-mails at the Bush White House.

Payton's sworn statement was filed in response to a federal court order last week in lawsuits by two private groups, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the National Security Archive.

The lawsuits allege that millions of e-mails are missing from White House servers. The recycling of backup tapes leaves doubt whether any missing e-mails will be recoverable.

"If the backup tapes have been erased or taped over or recycled, it's hard to imagine where we will find copies of many lost e-mails," said Meredith Fuchs, general counsel to the National Security Archive, said in an interview Wednesday.

"It appears that the White House has now destroyed the evidence of its misconduct," said Anne Weismann, the chief counsel for CREW, the other private group that sued.

"The White House declaration raises more questions than it answers, specifically the likelihood that for a very significant period of time — March 2003 to October 2003 — the White House recycled its backup tapes," said Weismann.

"As a result there may be no way to recover the missing e-mails from a period in which the U.S. decided to go to war with Iraq, White House officials leaked the identity of Valerie Plame and the Justice Department started a criminal investigation of the White House," the lawyer said.

The sworn statement by Payton did not say how early in the Bush administration the recycling of backup computer tapes began. The statement does not say why the White House stopped recycling backup tapes in October 2003.

In the period of July until October of 2003, the White House was dealing with the Valerie Plame leak controversy. In July, at least three presidential aides leaked Plame's CIA identity to the news media after her husband suggested the administration had manipulated intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq. The Justice Department began investigating the leak in September 2003.

In January 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said that not all White House e-mail had been saved through the normal archiving process.

Mitt Romney wins Michigan

And the circular firing squad continues on. From The Washington Post:

SOUTHFIELD, Mich., Jan. 15 -- Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney resoundingly won the Michigan presidential primary Tuesday, seizing his first big victory in the Republican competition and blunting the momentum of his chief rival, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

Romney's triumph in the state where he was born and where his father served as governor further scrambles a GOP field in which no candidate has been able to win more than one major contest. McCain captured first place in the New Hampshire primary Jan. 8 and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee topped the Iowa field five days earlier.

The race now shifts to South Carolina, where a tough three-way contest is expected in the first Southern state to vote this primary season. McCain and Huckabee flew to the Palmetto State before the voting in Michigan ended, and Romney will head there Wednesday for a bus tour through the state.

With 89 percent counted, Romney had won 39 percent of the vote to McCain's 30 percent. Huckabee trailed with 16 percent.

All I can say is that it is fun that the GOP candidates are shooting each other. Now maybe we need Fred Thompson to win South Carolina, and Rudy Giuliani to win Florida?

Huckabee wants to change the Constitution to be in "God's standards"

This is scary. From Raw Story:

The United States Constitution never uses the word "God" or makes mention of any religion, drawing its sole authority from "We the People." However, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee thinks it's time to put an end to that.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

When Willie Geist reported Huckabee's opinion on MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski was almost speechless, and even Joe Scarborough couldn't immediately find much to say beyond calling it "interesting,"

Here is the YouTube video of Huckabee's statement:



So what does this mean? Huckabee is more than willing to change the Constitution to be in line with his own religious ideology, and then shove that ideology down the rest of our throats. I would rather vote for Huckabee's opponents (Preferably Democrats, reluctantly Republicans), rather then have this extremist asshole be elected into office.

McClatchy: Is the GOP house that Reagan built in danger of collapse?

I found this story through McClatchy News:

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. — The house that Ronald Reagan built is in danger of collapsing.

The coalition of fiscal conservatives, national security conservatives, anti-tax activists and social conservatives that rallied behind Reagan in 1980 and has defined the Republican Party ever since is coming apart at the seams heading into the 2008 election.

All the men running for the party's presidential nomination invoke Reagan's name repeatedly. But all of them offend at least one wing of the party enough that they'd find it difficult, and perhaps impossible, to pull the disparate elements of the old coalition together.

"It's gone," said Ed Rollins, who worked on Reagan's 1984 re-election campaign and now chairs the campaign of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

"The Reagan coalition is pretty much gone," added Karen Spencer, a Republican strategist in California who watched the Reagan phenomenon firsthand when her father served as Reagan's chief political strategist. "It's been 28 years. Maybe it is time for a change."

According to Wikipedia, the Reagan coalition was a political alignment of the Reagan Democrats into the GOP. The Reagan Democrats were "mostly white, socially conservative blue-collar workers, who lived in the Northeast, and were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his hawkish foreign policy." The Reagan Democrats saw Ronald Reagan as a champion of their own middle-class aspiration, and values, while viewing the Democratic Party as a party working for the benefit of the poor, African-Americans, the unemployed, and other political pressure groups. The McClatchy article notes:

It's important to remember that the rise of the Reagan coalition wasn't just an embrace of him, but a repudiation of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, as well as the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party.

There are probably three issues that defined the Democratic Party, and President Jimmy Carter, during the 1970s. The first issue was that the Democratic Party was weak on foreign policy and defense issues, stemming from the anti-war wing of the party and its opposition of the Vietnam War. Given the Reagan Democrats hawkishness on foreign policy, they probably would have been repulsed by the clashes between the anti-war protesters and police during the 1968 Democratic convention. This issue was further compounded by President Carter's inability to resolve the Iranian hostage crisis through both diplomatic and military means.

The second issue would be economics. During the 1970s, the United States would be gripped in a period of high inflation, stagnating wage growth, and a recession. This was a period of stagflation. While I would say that much of this stagnant economic grown could be blamed on the "guns and butter" approach of spending on both the Vietnam War and welfare programs during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, the blame of the deteriorating economic condition in the U.S. was placed squarely on Carter. The Reagan Democrats saw their middle-class lifestyle being eroded during the Carter administration, just as Carter was unable to resolve serious foreign policy issues as the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the energy crisis. The complex problems the Carter administration faced, provided Reagan with that famous question he asked to the nation, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" The Reagan Democrats responded by voting The Gipper into office.

The third issue that brought the Reagan Democrats into the GOP would be social issues. The Reagan Democrats were socially conservative, living during the Me Decade of the 1970s, This was a period of great social change in the United States, with the rise of the Sexual Revolution, the feminist movement and the Equal Rights Amendment, gay liberation and the Gay Rights Movement, and Roe v. Wade, It was a time when the Reagan Democrats probably believed that the established institutions of marriage, family, and even trust in one's government, was eroding before their eyes (even as this trust was broken during the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration). What is more, the Reagan Democrats perceived the Democratic Party as being favorable to the social changes taking place within the United States at the expense of the destruction of the established institutions. Ronald Reagan tapped into this Reagan Democrat anger with his own optimistic personality, giving a message to the Reagan Democrats that they could do better. Again, the Reagan Democrats approved of The Gipper's optimism, and voted him into office.

I don't think you will ever see another coalition in the GOP with the power that the Reagan coalition had over the past 28 years. The Reagan Democrats saw their own beliefs and political views being ignored by the Democratic Party. They saw the anti-war wing take over the Democratic Party, creating what they may have believed was a malaise within the U.S. military. They saw stagflation erode their own economic future, and blamed the Democrats for ignoring their economic plight for that of the poor, or minority class. They finally saw great social change take place in the U.S. during the 1970s, and grew angry that the Democratic Party would embrace such a change instead of clinging to the standard institutions that the Reagan Democrats believed in. In a sense, the Reagan Democrats felt they have been disenfranchised within the Democratic Party during the 1970s, and thus bolted to Ronald Reagan when they were given the chance.

The problem for today is that the issues of the Iraq war, the U.S. debt, the tax cuts and the supply-sided economics philosophy have come from the Republican Party and the legacy of Ronald Reagan. We have a Republican Party that is being fractured into different political groups--the Evangelical Religious Right who have staked their own anger on the social issues of abortion, gay rights, and school prayer. The corporatist and anti-tax groups demand even more tax cuts for the uber-rich. The southern states' Republicans support the GOP due to the anti-immigration and opposition to government programs supporting minorities. And the Reagan Democrats? How long are they going to support a GOP that has brought us into a disastrous war in Iraq, increased the federal debt, and have created economic policies that have widened the gap between the rich and poor, while their own middle-class lifestyle is being squeezed? The Reagan Democrats have only to blame themselves for continuing to vote for the Reagan legacy with their voting George W. Bush into office. At the same time, the Republican Party is to be blamed for instigating their own class war against the middle-class for the uber-rich. They are all reaping the bitter fruit they have sown when they elected Ronald Reagan for president in 1980.

Citigroup writes down $24 billion, lays off 24,000 workers

This is just wow! From CNBC:

Citigroup plans to announce a writedown of as much as $24 billion and layoffs that could total as much as 24,000 due to subprime and credit-related losses, CNBC has learned.

The plans will be unveiled Tuesday by Citigroup's new CEO, Vikram S. Pandit, after the banking giant reports fourth-quarter earnings. At the same time, Citigroup could also announce that it is cutting its dividend payment by as much as 50 percent.

Citigroup is likely to cut between 17,000 and 24,000 positions over the course of the year through a combination of layoffs, attrition and selling off businesses as part of Pandit's cost-cutting plan, sources said. Previously, it was estimated that the layoffs could reach 20,000.

The subprime mortgage losses are really hurting Citigroup here. Citigroup is chopping its dividend, laying off 24,000 workers, and engaged in some major cost-cutting and selling off businesses. There is even talk of selling a major stake of this Wall Street firm overseas:

Citigroup also intends to raise as much as $15 billion from various foreign and domestic entities including Government Investment Corp. of Singapore, the Kuwait Investment Authority and, Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Citigroup's largest individual shareholder.

Alwaleed has owned his Citi stake since the early 1990s and helped engineer a previous rescue plan for the bank more than a dozen years ago. According to a report on the Wall Street Journal's Web site, he is likely to keep his total stake in the bank below 5 percent to avoid regulatory scrutiny.

Citigroup was one of the big players in this subprime mortgage meltdown, and now the financial firm is feeling the affects of this mess. Now is appears that the way to Citigroup's survival is to sell more of its stake to foreign firms. I can't say yet if this a good idea, or a bad idea, to have foreigners control a greater stake in a major Wall Street investment corporation.

Democrats for Mitt!

This is a rather brilliant, and especially funny, campaign commercial encouraging Michigan Democrats to cross over their party lines and vote for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The reason for this is to give Romney the win in Michigan, and allow him to continue his campaign in attacking the other presidential candidates (That means you Johnny-boy!). Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas has been pushing this strategy of helping Romney win Michigan so that the GOP could continue their own circular firing squad. Well now we have this fun little political campaign commercial coming out from YouTube:



I should point out that the Democratic Party stripped Michigan of its delegates in punishment for moving its primary up to January 15th, violating Democratic Party rules in prohibiting "states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding nominating contests before Feb. 5." So in a sense, Michigan's delegates are "uncommitted." However, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel still remain on the Democratic ballot, with John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden withdrawing their names in order to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire's complaints about Michigan's moving its state primary to the earlier date. What does this mean? Michigan Democrats have a choice between choosing Clinton, or the uncommitted for Michigan's Democratic delegates. What Markos is trying to say is that while Michigan's delegates will not be represented in the Democratic convention, Michigan Democrats should have some fun in crossing over party lines and keep Romney in the GOP race. Markos wants to throw a monkey wrench into the Michigan GOP primary. According to a McClatchy News / MSNBC News poll, Romney has a slight lead over McCain, 30 percent to 22 percent, with Mike Huckabee trailing in third place at 17 percent. This is going to be another fun race to watch on the GOP side, considering that Huckabee won Iowa, McCain won New Hampshire, and Romney could win Michigan. Toss in Rudy Giuliani's last-ditch stand campaigning in Florida (Could Giuliani win Florida?), and you've got a huge, wide-open race going into Super Duper Tuesday, with none of the GOP candidates in a front-running position.

This is fun.

Monday Schoolhouse Rocks--$7.50 Once a Week

How about some allowance--$7.50 Once a Week! This is a fun Schoolhouse Rock video about budgeting your money. Music, lyrics, and performance is by Dave Frishberg. From YouTube:

Saturday Morning Cartoons--Satin's Waitin'

This is a fun, classic Tweety and Sylvester cartoon. The cartoon is Satan's Waitin' and it was one of the standard cartoons that was always shown on ABC's The Bugs Bunny Show, on Saturday morning. What is especially fun about this cartoon is that the devil is actually a bulldog, who keeps goading Sylvester into continually chasing Tweety so that Sylvester will quickly use up his nine lives. From YouTube:

Daily Economic Headliners

Well, today turns out to be a major news dump of some bad economic news.

Bank of America to acquire Countrywide: This MSNBC story is reporting that Bank of America is acquiring Countrywide Financial for $4.1 billion. The big question I would ask here is why is B of A buying up Countrywide? Now I know that B of A would love to expand their own home mortgage business in this collapsed housing market, but it will probably take several years for the market to recover from the subprime mortgage delinquencies and to reduce the supply of foreclosed homes already on the market. Then again, B of A may be hoping to ride out this housing market mess, and when the market does stabilize, then B of A may be in a good position to increase its share of the mortgage business. We'll just have to see.

Of course, the one person who will be laughing all the way to the bank will be Countrywide's CEO Angelo Mozilo. Mozilo will take home a severance package worth more than $110 million. And that is on top of the $140 million in stock options Mozilo raked in during 2006 and 2007, when the mortgage industry was crashing. Talk about CEO greed here.

Stocks Drop Sharply Amid Subprime Woes: You have got to love this New York Times story, reporting a big drop on the Dow--right as Bank of America bought up Countrywide. According to the NY Times:

The Dow Jones industrials fell 246.79 points, or 1.9 percent, to close at 12,606.30, capping a 5 percent swoon in the blue-chip index since the start of the year. The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index lost 1.4 percent, or 19.31 points, to finish at 1,401.02, and the Nasdaq composite index lost almost 2 percent.

The declines began at the opening bell after a report that Merrill Lynch, the nation’s biggest brokerage firm, is expected to announce a $15 billion write-down on soured mortgage-backed securities, far more than analysts expected. Meanwhile, American Express, the credit card company, said it would take a $275 million after-tax charge as it sets aside more money to cover bad loans.

Investors took the setbacks as a sign that the financial industry is still reeling from last year’s collapse in the subprime mortgage market.

[....]

The deepest declines came from the retail sector, where recession fears are sending investors scurrying from companies that could be the hardest hit by an economic slowdown over the next several months. In a speech on Thursday, Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, predicted a drop-off in spending amid a softening job market and record-high oil prices.

“The financials have grabbed all the headlines, but retail stocks suffered in 2007 and so far this year pretty substantially,” said Bruce Bittles, chief investment strategist at R. W. Baird. “With housing prices going down and energy prices going up, the consumer is really in a bad fix.”

What is happening here is that investors are scared. The retail sector reported some of the worst holiday sales since 2002. Merrill Lynch is posting a $15 billion loss due to the souring mortgage investments. Capitol One is reducing its profit expectations by 21 percent, to a 2007 profit of $3.97 per share from its prior forecast of around $5.00 a share. We are seeing serious signs of this country heading into a deep recession, and investors are probably selling. I want to bring up this one month chart of the Dow:

One month chart on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. From Prophet.net.

What I find interesting here is the almost 900 point drop from 13,550, on December 26, 2007, to around 12,600 today. Investors are taking in all this bad economic news, the subprime mortgage mess, the financial institutions reporting big losses due to the mortgage investment losses, and even the Fed chatter on recession, and they are getting scared. One more chart that I want to include on the Dow is the one-year chart:

One year chart showing the Dow Jones Industrial Average. From Prophet.net.

What I find interesting about this chart is that the Dow is right where it was, one year ago--from 12,570 back in February 2007, to the current price of 12,540. Whatever gains that too place in 2007 have been erased. Now I'm not a technical analyst here, but just looking at these two charts, even I have to wonder if our economy is heading into a recession.

Gold hits record $900 an ounce: This MSNBC story makes me wonder if we're heading into an inflationary period:

NEW YORK - Gold futures rose above $900 an ounce for the first time Friday, as high oil prices, a weak dollar and fears of a U.S. recession led uneasy investors to keep buying the precious metal.

An ounce of gold for February delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange jumped $6.50 to $900.1 in morning trading, an all-time high and a psychologically important milestone. Gold later slipped to $898.70 an ounce but remained in record territory.

"It's a reflection of market sentiment: Gold is a hedge against uncertainty and right now it's the best bet," said Carlos Sanchez, a precious metals analyst at CPM Group in New York. "None of the other investment options look that great and gold does."

Still, when adjusted for inflation, gold remains well below its all-time high. An ounce of gold at $875 in 1980 would be worth $2,115 to $2,200 today.

Gold has seen a meteoric rise the past year — rising 32 percent in 2007 — boosted by rising prices for oil and other commodities and also by the falling U.S. dollar. Those trends have increased the metal's appeal as a haven; gold is also seen as a safe investment in times of political and economic uncertainty around the world.

I'll admit that between the high oil prices, the falling stock prices, the talk of recession, gold prices rising, and the Iraq war, I seriously wonder if we're heading into a period of stagflation. Looking at the last seven years of this Bush administration, I see disturbing similarities between Bush's presidency, and Lyndon Johnson's presidency. Both administrations brought us into a losing war--Bush in Iraq, Johnson in Vietnam. Both administrations funded their wars through deficit spending. Both administrations created major economic stimulus packages in spite of the wars--Bush with his tax cuts to the rich, and Johnson with his Great Society programs. Even when both the Vietnam War, or the Iraq war, neither president bothered to increase taxes to pay for their wars. And now we're seeing the potential rise of inflation, the possibility of a recession, and the complete end result of stagflation.

Friday Fun Stuff--Fair and balanced coverage on Faux News

BUSTED! From YouTube:

Giuliani campaign staffers relinquish paychecks

This is off MSNBC News:

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. - About a dozen senior campaign staffers for Rudy Giuliani are forgoing their January paychecks, aides said Friday, a sign of possible money trouble for the Republican presidential candidate.

"We have enough money, but we could always use more money," contended Mike DuHaime, Giuliani's campaign manager and one of those who now is working for free. "We want to make sure we have enough to win."

At the end of December, he said the campaign had $11.5 million cash on hand, $7 million of which can be used for the primary. He disputed the notion of a cash-strapped campaign, and said Giuliani continues to bring in cash; several fundraisers are scheduled this week in Florida.

DuHaime and other aides stressed that relinquishing pay was voluntary and was limited to senior staffers.

"I want to do everything I can to make sure Rudy's president, and I speak for a lot of the campaign when I say that," DuHaime said. "None of us joined this campaign for money."

Still, the move raises questions about whether Giuliani's bank account is as flush as he needs it to be to cobble together wins in enough states to secure the party nod.

Giuliani is running into some money trouble here. He has pretty much dropped out of campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, putting all of his eggs into Florida where he hopes to win with the New York ex patriots who are living there. The problem with this strategy is that media coverage of his campaign has also dropped. And since his name isn't brought up as much in the media, I'm wondering if Giuliani is having trouble raising money--especially if he's spending a lot of money on TV ads in Florida. So Giuliani needs to win big in Florida, otherwise his campaign could be finished.

National Anthem sung at the GOP debate in South Carolina

This is just way too frickin' creepy. The Republican Party held another debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, which was covered by Fox News. Just before the debate began, the GOP opened with a singing of the National Anthem that probably should have been presented at the beginning of a Miss America contest. Here's the YouTube video:



Then again, the playing of this Star Spangled Banner at the beginning of the GOP debate really does tell us something about the Republican Party. We know that the GOP places symbolism over substance--just look at all the Republican congressmen wearing their little flag pins on their lapels as a way of showing their patriotism. And at the same time, these same flag-pin-wearing congressmen are more than happy to continue sending this country down the destructive war path, killing even more young American lives in Iraq, for the profits of Exxon and Halliburton. The economic policies of the Republican Party are to deny that the U.S. is in a recession, and the way to combat the recession is for more tax cuts to the rich--we've had enough tax cuts already, considering that our national debt is over $9 trillion dollars, and we're wasting even more money in the disastrous war in Iraq. This is a Republican Party of failed ideas--No, it is even worst than that! This is a Republican Party with no ideas. And the GOP is now trying to hide the fact that they have no ideas over-symbolic version of a song that should be sung at the beginning of a baseball game. What is next--having the debates held in a baseball stadium?

Or in between the Miss America contest?

Bill Richardson drops out of the race, Senator John Kerry endorses Obama

A couple of interesting political stories coming out on the Democratic race.

Richardson ends his presidential run: This MSNBC News story is reporting that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is ending his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Richardson praised his Democratic rivals, but refused to endorse anyone. Democratic senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, citing poor results. What is happening here is that the Democratic electorate are weeding out the little guys from the race. This is going to be a race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with John Edwards nipping at both of their heels. I don't think Edwards has the money, or the support, to actually win the nomination. But I do believe that Edwards has enough support to make it through Super Duper Tuesday, gathering up a nice chunk of delegates to his slate. At the convention, Edwards could use those delegates currying political favors from either Clinton, or Obama, for his support. Edwards could play king-maker.

Kerry endorses Obama for president: The title of this MSNBC story really says it all. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry announced his endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. It is ironic that Kerry announced this endorsement two days after Senator Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, while also making this announcement in South Carolina, which will hold its primary two weeks from now. Of course, this Kerry endorsement is also a slap in the face of John Edwards, who was his vice-presidential running mate during the 2004 presidential election. Does this endorsement by Kerry mean anything? Personally, I think that Kerry's endorsement to any presidential candidate is meaningless crap. John Kerry really screwed up in running his 2004 presidential campaign by both not attacking the Swift Boat veterans for questioning his service in Vietnam, and for falling into the disastrous flip-flopping trap Karl Rove set up against Kerry on his Iraq war votes. What is worst, is that Kerry ran against an incumbent president who was weakened by the Iraq war, with Americans who were worried about the direction that the Bush administration was taking with this Iraq war. I seriously wonder how many Democrats are going to listen to a former Democratic presidential candidate's endorsement after screwing up his campaign?

Thoughts Hillary Clinton's upset in New Hampshire

I've been going through the news reports, pundit analysis, and the blogs, trying to figure out what really happened to result in Hillary Clinton's upset win in New Hampshire? It is like one moment, everyone is writing off Hillary Clinton's campaign, and now the next moment, everyone is shaking their heads, asking what happened? I think there are a number of factors to consider, each factor interconnecting with each other.

I would like to start with the 2008 primary schedule. For this election, we have a truncated schedule, with the Iowa caucus held on January 3, 2008, and the New Hampshire primary held January 8, 2008. That is only five days between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. For the 2004 primary calendar, Iowa held its caucus on January 19, while New Hampshire held its primary on January 27th. While there was only eight days between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, the candidates had over two weeks, in 2004, to campaign between Iowa and New Hampshire before the caucus. That is a lot of time to allow both the Iowa and New Hampshire voters to get to know the candidates right after the holiday season. For the 2000 presidential elections, Iowa held its caucus on January 24th, while New Hampshire held its primary on February 1st. That is almost a month for the candidates to stomp in both states before the Iowa caucus. For this 2008 campaign season, Iowa started its caucus just three days into 2008. This schedule is very truncated, and it doesn't allow much time for either the citizens of Iowa or New Hampshire to really get to know the candidates, that is, if they were ignoring the election news throughout 2007. I will also say that the first 2-3 weeks in January would give plenty of time for the campaign staffs in both Iowa and New Hampshire to conduct their polls, and focus groups, to determine the strategies and to target the voting blocks necessary to win. This truncated campaign schedule is completely new for both the candidates, and possibly for the mainstream news media covering the campaigns.

The second factor I want to look here is the mainstream news media. It seemed that right after Clinton's third-placed finish in Iowa, the mainstream news media jumped into this huge speculation that Hillary Clinton's campaign was pretty much finished. On January 3, 2008, MSNBC's Chris Matthews claimed that the low 30-percent finish that Clinton received in Iowa represented a resounding rejection of Clinton by 2/3rds of the Iowan Democrats. The New York Times reported in a January 4, 2008 story that "conventional wisdom is accumulating that if Mrs. Clinton loses here, the subsequent dominos will fall against her." The Washington Post had this to say in a January 5th, 2008 story about the Clinton campaign and the truncated primary schedule:

The dynamics this year are different in the two parties. Among Democrats, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has the resources and the poll numbers to potentially capitalize on his Iowa victory and overtake Clinton in New Hampshire, where the senator from New York has long led in polls. A pair of back-to-back victories could be enough to propel Obama into South Carolina and the Feb. 5 states, and undermine Clinton's claim to be the most electable Democrat.

The Washington Post also reported this January 5th, 2008 story of Clinton supporters questioning whether Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy could win:

MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 4 -- After an unexpectedly thorough defeat in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton faced a barrage of second-guessing Friday from supporters worried that her campaign strategy could cost her the Democratic nomination.

In a flurry of conference calls throughout the day, described by several participants, anxious Clinton advisers agreed to stick to her original message -- that only the former first lady has the experience to bring about change. And while they decided to increase the pressure on Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) here, campaign officials were debating how hard to hit him on his experience level in the few short days until the New Hampshire primary.

So far, no senior Clinton advisers have been ousted for failing to produce a victory in Iowa, despite their spending many months and millions of dollars there only to see the candidate's status as the Democratic front-runner vanish. But supporters outside the campaign were quick to question Mark Penn, the chief strategist, whose polling data suggested she could win in Iowa; Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign manager, who moved to Iowa to try to eke out a win; and an inner circle of operatives whose "inevitability" strategy failed to blunt the message of "change" that swept Obama into first place Thursday night.

And finally, the Drudge Report posted this Jan 07 2008 story where Senator Clinton was "preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!" Drudge also reported that "Key players in Clinton's inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday," while "others close to the former first lady now see no possible road to victory...." Everyone in the media was practically speculating that Hillary Clinton's campaign was finished--even before the presidential race had started. What is even more amazing is that for the entire 2007 year, when Clinton first announced her candidacy, the media constantly presented her as the presumed front-runner, backing her status up with the myriad of national polls. None of the national polls really made much of a difference here in determining who would win the Democratic nomination--it was pretty much a popularity contest here. It is important to understand this because instead of reporting the facts, or the issues, or the information, we have a mainstream media that is more interested in taking drama and reporting it as news. That is what happened after Clinton ended up in third place in the Iowa caucus, and all the mainstream media speculation that the Clinton campaign would be finished after New Hampshire, that the Clinton campaign would implode, that Barack Obama would be coroneted as the Democratic nominee after his New Hampshire win. We've got a media here that is more interested in creating their own dramatic story using the news, rather than actually reporting the news. And it is all for big, corporate, profits. Also remember that all this happened on a truncated campaign schedule.

Hillary Clinton's big crying scene. I saw this news story being constantly reported in the mainstream news, and the blogs, and I wasn't sure whether the incident was a vulnerable side of Hillary Clinton, or whether this was a crass political ploy by Clinton to garner some sympathy vote just one day before the New Hampshire primary. Politicians have certainly turned on the waterworks for political gain—just look at Representative John Boehner’s big breakdown during his May 24, 2007 speech on the Iraq war funding bill. But with Hillary Clinton’s crying episode, I wasn’t sure what to make of it. Here is the video of Clinton’s crying scene:



Looking at the video, it would appear to me that the question caught Hillary Clinton in an emotional moment—the question was a real softball question here. And an exhausted Clinton caught herself in this emotional moment, well beyond the political spin, or the campaign advisers’ advice on how she should react, or behave, during these events. Is that a bad thing? Not really. I didn’t think of it as a major analytical story to comment on here, although it is an interesting general, political interest story. She didn’t turn on the waterworks during a floor speech, or a debate, which I would have considered a crass, political ploy.

But a funny thing happened with Hillary Clinton’s big crying scene. The mainstream media latched on to this story, and ran with it the entire day before the New Hampshire primary. And a number of the pundits speaking about Clinton’s crying scene were very negative—both before and after the New Hampshire election process. In a sense, the media didn’t just report the story of Clinton’s crying scene—they expanded upon it by endlessly reporting the story, speculating on the story, and questioning whether Clinton would survive the New Hampshire primary, or if her campaign would implode. What should have been a general interest political story here probably became a key factor into sending Clinton to victory in New Hampshire. New Hampshire voters may have looked at Hillary Clinton in her vulnerable moment, and then decided to keep her into the race with a win, rather than giving Obama, and the news media, a quick coronation.

Now let us go to Chris Matthews and his misogyny. I will admit that I usually don’t watch Chris Matthews on MSNBC—I consider him an over-hyped, bloated, political pundit that is so full of himself, that I don’t think he even realizes some of the ridiculous crap that comes out of his mouth. But in the last couple of days, even I am surprised at the incredible hatred Matthews has against Hillary Clinton. Just listen to Chris Matthews in his own words:

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton's Political Career;



Chris Matthews yells at Dee Dee Myers regarding Clinton press coverage;



Chris Matthews claims this is women’s protest vote;



And then there is this Fire Dog Lake transcript of a conversation Matthews had with Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:

Mika Brzezinski: Do you think...that there was a turn at the last minute for some voters, given the really sharp twist in the media in terms of how they went negative...

Chris Matthews: It's not in the polling. I'm just saying, it's not in the polling data.

Brzezinski: I know, that's my point. Because people went to the polls throughout the day, and maybe changed their minds, and maybe were turned off by by what they saw. By these nasty headlines.

Matthews: Well, I don't know if they all read the NYPost.

Brzezinski: In taking after her for crying.

Matthews: I think the Hillary appeal has always been about the mix of toughness and sympathy. Let's not forget, and I'll be brutal, the reason she's a US Senator, the reason she's a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around.

Brzezinski: Yeah, but...

Matthews: That's how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, "My God, this woman stood up under humiliation," right? That's what happened. That's how it happened. In 1998, she went to NY and campaigned for Chuck Schumer as almost like the grieving widow of absurdity, and she did it so well and courageously. But it was about the humiliation of Bill Clinton.

Brzezinski: Um...NO, okay? Well, you could take it a step back, and say that SHE put Bill Clinton where he is and then he messed around and she was humiliated and people felt sorry for her. And she does have more to her than being a victim. She does have more to her. [Mika smacks him on the arm.]

Matthews: Ow. I agree. You hit me? Hit him. [pointing to Scarborough, who cannot get to the commercial break fast enough...] (emphasis mine).

DKos user Plutonium Page has an excellent diary up detailing even more sexist, and hatred remarks Matthews made against both Hillary Clinton, and other women, on MSNBC. Even Talking Points Memo brings up Matthew’s misogyny, where Matthews questions on his June 24, 2007 Chris Matthews Show, as to whether Hillary Clinton would make a good commander-in-chief:

On the June 24 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, during a discussion about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), host Chris Matthews asked Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, if "being surrounded by women" makes "a case for commander in chief -- or does it make a case against it?" Parker answered by referring to a June 21 front-page Washington Post article about the women working as senior advisers to Clinton's campaign: "It makes a case with a certain demographic, and I noticed the picture on the front of The Washington Post the other day showed her with all these women and her crew, and did you notice, there was only one blonde out of about 15 women, so it sort of -- I thought that was very telling." Parker never explained what was "telling" about the hair color of Clinton's top aides.
Asked by Time managing editor Richard Stengel, "What are you suggesting by asking does this diminish her as a commander in chief by being surrounded by women?," Matthews replied: "No, the idea that it -- well, let me just get historic. We've never had a woman commander in chief."
As a follow-up to his question, Matthews said: "But isn't that a challenge, because when it comes down to that final decision to vote for president, a woman president, a woman commander in chief, will be an historic decision for people. Not just men, but women as well." Turning to New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, Matthews added: "Elisabeth, you're always thinking about these things." Bumiller referred to Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher -- women who were elected to lead Israel and the United Kingdom -- and said: "[W]e all remember these women. ... I think we can get there." Matthews responded, "But we've got Patton and John Wayne on our side."

Finally, Media Matters has a number of reports showing Matthews’ misogyny. What I find interesting here is the extensive hatred that Matthews has against Clinton, and I wonder how much of that hatred Matthews expressed on his show, and in the MSNBC campaign coverage, that led up to the New Hampshire primaries. How many women voters watched the MSNBC coverage, listened to Matthews’s hatred, and then voted for Clinton just to spite Matthews for his misogyny? Could it have been enough to bring Clinton her victory in New Hampshire?

Now I want to go with the poll results. The media has been going crazy, wondering how they got the polls all wrong. They have been analyzing the poll numbers, and have revealed some interesting details. McClatchy reports:

Women represented a lopsided 57 percent of the vote, exit polls showed; they went for Clinton by a margin of 47-34 percent, while men went for Obama by 42-30 percent.

In the Iowa caucuses, Obama had taken the female vote from Clinton, 35 to 30 percent. So something happened within the five days of Iowa, where New Hampshire women, perhaps, went from supporting Obama to supporting Clinton. I can’t find any polling information on how New Hampshire women were inclined to vote on the Democratic nominees just before the primary (or the information is hidden behind subscription walls). I’m guessing that Obama may have had a post-caucus bounce coming out of Iowa, and generating a greater number of support from women in New Hampshire. But then in the last couple of days before the New Hampshire vote, women may have shifted their choice from Obama to Clinton due to the combination of Clinton’s crying episode, the mainstream media’s negative writing off of the Clinton campaign, and perhaps even Chris Matthews’ misogyny. It could be that this combination of Hillary Clinton showing her humanity, and the negativity of the media against the Clinton campaign that brought an overwhelming female vote to Clinton, whereas in Iowa, the vote was somewhat more split evenly.

The second issue I see with the poll results are with the undecided vote. According to this January 10, 2008 New York Times analysis of the New Hampshire vote:

As late as the week before the primary, many New Hampshire voters were not fully committed to a candidate and said they might change their minds. In last-minute polling by CBS, which ended Sunday, the network’s pollsters found an unusually high number of voters who said they could still change their minds, 28 percent, and another 9 percent who said they were still undecided. Those who said they were going to vote for Mrs. Clinton were more strongly committed to her than those who said they would vote for Mr. Obama. (The New York Times conducts polls with CBS News but did not participate in the polling before the New Hampshire primary.)

Graph showing Clinton and Obama strengths in both Iowa and New Hampshire polls. From New York Times.

This is a very important detail that I never saw expressed in the mainstream media during the primary day coverage. A nine percent undecided vote, on the day of a close election, can easily swing the vote from one candidate to another. What was the big news coverage taking place just one day before the primary election? The over-analysis of Hillary Clinton’s crying. And again, in the five days running between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, we had the mainstream media endlessly reporting the demise of the Clinton campaign. Hillary Clinton became the underdog here, and the New Hampshire voters decided to go with the underdog, and keep Clinton’s campaign alive. And it was not just the undecided voters here—28 percent of the voters were uncommitted to the choices they gave. According to this CNN exit poll, of the voters who decided on their candidate on the day of the election, Hillary Clinton received 39 percent of the vote, to Barack Obama’s 36 percent. So New Hampshire voters went into the polls, and chose Clinton at the last minute. And the last thing that these New Hampshire voters saw on the mainstream news was Clinton’s crying episode, the endless pundit commentary on the Clinton campaign’s demise, and the coronation of Obama as the Democratic nominee.

There was no one clear factor that caused Hillary Clinton to win the New Hampshire primary over Barack Obama. Instead, each of these factors played a contributing role in this upset—the truncated election schedule made it difficult for the campaigns to set up their strategies. The mainstream media went into this endless speculation of Hillary Clinton’s demise in the five days between Obama’s win in Iowa, and the New Hampshire primary. Hillary Clinton’s crying on the day before the primary election may have generated enough sympathy among New Hampshire voters—and perhaps women voters—to select Clinton on Election Day. There is the role of the pre-election polls, and the exit polls, with how they never bothered to look at the undecided voters, or even the non-committed voters. And finally, we have Chris Matthew’s misogyny. The mainstream media likes to boast that they never had the problem in predicting the Republican election with their pre and exit polling, but the mainstream media never had to deal with these factors on the Republican ticket. In addition, let us also make an important distinction in that, in the Democratic Party, we have both a woman candidate, and an African-American candidate, who are running for the Democratic nomination. They both have a very strong chance for making history in winning the White House. This is no ordinary election here. This is history.

Dem. Candidates speak after New Hampshire primary

Here are the top three Democratic candidates' speeches after the New Hampshire primary.

Hillary Clinton's victory speech:




Barack Obama's "inspirational" concession speech:



John Edwards rallies the troops with his speech:



I will have to admit that all three Democratic candidates gave very strong speeches at the end of the New Hampshire primary. This is going to be a fun race.