Skip to content

Misunderstood

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Those who read the New York Times electronically missed something in today’s print edition: A full page ad “signed” by Wells Fargo President John Stumpf (what a perfect name for the head of a failing bank) bemoaning the mean-spirited public outcry about the Las Vegas junket Wells Fargo was forced to cancel after the aforesaid outcry.

After all, Stumpf said, this junket was not for the executives, it was for the little people; the front line soldiers who did the day to day work that enabled people like him to drive the bank off a cliff. Without “recognition”, in the form of a 12 day Las Vegas bacchanal, how will these precious darlings find the courage to go on? Perhaps they should learn to get motivated by the thing that gets the rest of us out of bed and into our cars every morning: a paycheck.

But no Wall Streeter has completed his work without adding insult to injury. In this case, the insult is to our intelligence. This is an actual quote: “The funds to pay for recognition events such as these do not come from the government. They come from our profits”. To which, of course, the initial response that comes to mind is: What profits? If Wells Fargo is profitable, why did it need $25 billion of our money. Moreover, does he think we are so stupid as to not know that money is fungible, whether we know that specific word or not?

Which all leads up to a final question. Why is this Stumpf spending taxpayer money for full page ads in the New York Times?

UPDATE: Something is strange when this blog gets a slew of comments about anything. My observations stand. That’s our money they’re spending. Whatever Wells Fargo’s motivations, it is getting taxpayer money. I googled the issue raised by the commenters and found that the same sort of pack comments, often using the same or nearly the same language, appear wherever this story is reproduced. In fact, it was almost impossible to find an actual news story that dealt with this issue. Indeed, Wells Fargo is paying a dividend: to the government. It’s also likely to cut its dividends this year and will probably need to enter the capital market. In addition, its purchase of Wachovia was indirectly subsidized by us taxpayers. What I find interesting about this is that this concerted defense, which appears all over the internet, does not seem to be the line the company is officially taking. Who are all these rabid Wells Fargo fans?

UPDATE 2: Wells Fargo Reports $2.6 Billion Q4 Loss:

The company also reported that Wachovia, the struggling bank it bought Dec. 31 and didn’t include in its bottom line, lost $11 billion in the period


Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (6)

First as tragedy, then as farce

Saturday, February 7, 2009

In 1633 the Catholic Church put Galileo Galilei on trial for heresy, for the crime of believing that the earth moved around the sun. Somehow, it had become an article of faith to believe that the earth stood still in the heavens, while the sun and the stars swirled around it. Legend has it that after publicly abjuring his statements, which just happened to be true, Galileo muttered, under his breath, “Nonetheless, it moves“. Whether he said that or not, there’s not much doubt that he continued to believe that the earth did move. The Church had done no more than force him to lie to save his skin.

In what is probably the most farcical of many farcical echoes of that famous case, this week the Pope demanded that a recently un-excommunicated Bishop renounce his views on the Holocaust, those views being that the holocaust never happened:

In a move designed to head off condemnation, Pope Benedict XVI ordered Bishop Richard Williamson to unequivocally and publicly renounce his claims that there were no gas chambers and that fewer than 300,000 Jews died in the Nazi death camps instead of the accepted figure of six million.

…

The Vatican said: “Bishop Williamson, in order to be admitted to episcopal functions within the Church, will have to take his distance, in an absolutely unequivocal and public fashion, from his position on the Shoah, which the Holy Father was not aware of when the excommunication was lifted.”

That last statement is no doubt a lie. Williamson’s positions were well known. But that’s not where the farce comes in. Once again we have the Church demanding that someone believe something on command. This time, the Church is right, and the target is wrong, but there’s no difference in principle between the two situations. You can force a person to do something, or say something, but you can’t force them to believe something. Williamson may abjure his public position, or he may not (apparently, he has agreed to look into the question again), but the least likely outcome is that he will actually sincerely change his opinion. If he does as the Church requires, he will, in a weird sort of way, be violating the eighth commandment at the Pope’s insistence. He will be bearing truthful witness while believing he is bearing false witness, which is the moral equivalent of a lie. For like Galileo he will be muttering under his breath, “Nonetheless, there were no gas chambers”.

As to Benedict, he either understands this or he does not. If he does, then he is giving a cynical and sinful (at least according to formal Catholic doctrine) pass to an avowed anti-Semite. If he does not, then he’s a fool . My money is on the first option.


Filed in Religion | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music-Buddy Holly

Friday, February 6, 2009

A few days ago, February 3rd, was the 50th anniversary of the day the music died, so it seems only fitting that we feature the folks who died that day.

Buddy Holly on, of all things, the Arthur Murray Dance Party.


The Big Bopper:


Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a single video of Richie Valens, (one with actual video footage, as opposed to stills with music in the background) so he’ll have to remain unrepresented.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

What’s an Economy For, Anyway?

Friday, February 6, 2009

Periodically my friend Bob Roth contributes a piece of writing. As they are normally much longer than a typical post, I have usually placed them on a separate page, to be forever enshrined as a link on the upper right hand side of the blog. Recently Bob sent me another, in which I think he makes some good points. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the folks in our current Congress to take many of the steps Bob’s advocating, or even think about some of the issues he’s raising, but the more they’re discussed the more chance there is that some of them will seep into the debate. You can read the full piece by clicking on the link at the right, or by reading below and following the link at the bottom.

So what follows is Bob’s latest effort.

A New Political Economy 101

What’s an Economy For, Anyway?

By ROBERT ROTH

It seems to me we need a whole new economy. And to get one we need, as always, understanding, organizing, action. This article gropes toward understanding what an economy is and could be in the context of our present, multi-faceted dilemma, in the hope of facilitating organizing and appropriate action.

The economy – by definition, right? – is that matrix or network of institutions and interactions that meet human needs. Or, is it only about how human needs are met by means of transactions that involve money? Is the economy only about what is bought and sold? If so, what about barter, the exchange of goods and services? What about caring and caring activities that are not valued in the present economy? Where do we draw the lines?

I have thought for years of the economy as the sum total of goods and services exchanged for money. That’s what the Gross National Product is all about, and that’s how it’s measured, right? And the Quest of the Day (and perhaps the Decade) is how we’re going to “jump start” the economy. At present “the economy” is winding down, contracting, with unemployment rising by the hour thereby further decreasing demand for goods and services thus leading to further contraction.

But the idea that we can jump start the economy implies that what we were doing before the crisis began is capable of being continued, of going on as before. The idea that we should jump start it – by any means necessary, it would seem — assumes its operation is critical to our health and welfare, essential to our wellbeing and even survival.

As things now stand, leaving increasing numbers of people without money certainly threatens those people’s health, wellbeing and ultimately, survival. Granted, the Obama administration seems to be making an effort to integrate into the “stimulus package” a great many worthwhile activities, that will produce immediate or even lasting value. But the bulk of it, including the tax cuts, is intended simply to get the economy “going again,” in the same direction it had before the crisis. This will use up increasingly scarce resources on what may well be a fool’s errand. So maybe now is a good time to ask whether the economy we had, which is now contracting, can or should be revived.

Read the full post here.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Lieberman again

Friday, February 6, 2009

Joe Lieberman is becoming a parody of himself.

The full story is here at the Washington Monthly. Here’s the synopsis.

Every time Congress passes a law providing funds for school construction (including universities and colleges) it includes language that is probably constitutionally required: that none of the funds go toward constructing anything that is primarily meant for religious purposes, such as a chapel. The language has never been controversial. Until now, when Republicans eager to torpedo the stimulus package seized on the language and portrayed it as an assault on the right of college students to practice their religion. Of course, it’s no such thing, and an amendment to strip the language went down to defeat. Alarmingly it got 43 votes. Or, as Steven Benen at the Washington Monthly put it: “There are 43 senators who tried to change the stimulus bill because a TV preacher’s lawyer got confused and lied about what’s in the bill.”

Yes, you already guessed it. Our sorry excuse for a Senator was among the 43.


Filed in Lieberman | | Comments (0)

Joe being Joe

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Remember how Joe Lieberman told us all that he wanted to help Barack Obama succeed? Take a look at how “our” Senator has been voting on the stimulus amendments. (from Nate Silver):

It’s probably best to click on the image and see it full size in another window.

A silver lining: Nate says that the Democrats are holding together better than the Republicans.


Filed in Lieberman | | Comments (0)

Random notes from Drinking Liberally

Thursday, February 5, 2009

It was cold out tonight, and it was cold at our Drinking Liberally haunt, but we few, we happy few, we band of brothers (and sisters) had a great time. We got a first hand account from one of our brothers about the inauguration. Here he is, a proud bearer of a purple ticket. He never made it to his assigned place, but looking at the bright side, he wasn’t trapped in the Purple Tunnel of Doom. Moreover, he helped stimulate the economy, for as he pointed out, he paid a couple of thousand dollars to spend 6 hours in the cold.

While we were there our very thoughtful waitress came in and let us know that the president was on the TV, giving a speech, so we all adjourned and watched Obama pummel the Republicans. A great speech. Per usual after our monthly meeting, I’m not really in great shape for deep thought, so I’ll close with the observation that Obama seems to be hitting his stride. Now, if only Harry Reid would learn how to control the Senate we’d be in decent shape.


Filed in Local issues, Obama | | Comments (0)

Obama comes out swinging

Thursday, February 5, 2009

This post is written 90% because I like what Obama did today, and 10% to get back into the good graces of my spouse, who doesn’t like it when I criticize Obama. (See yesterday) I only do it because I want him to succeed, unlike his predecessor, who I freely admit I wanted to fail. After all, he wanted to lead us to a constitutional dictatorship and a military Empire.

Anyway, back to the point, today Obama gave a speech and took the fight right to the Republicans

Some excerpts:

Now, I read the other day that critics of this plan ridiculed our notion that we should use part of the money to modernize the entire fleet of federal vehicles to take advantage of state of the art fuel efficiency. This is what they call pork. You know the truth. It will not only save the government significant money over time, it will not only create manufacturing jobs for folks who are making these cars, it will set a standard for private industry to match. And so when you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself — are these folks serious? Is it any wonder that we haven’t had a real energy policy in this country?
…
In the last few days, we’ve seen proposals arise from some in Congress that you may not have read but you’d be very familiar with because you’ve been hearing them for the last 10 years, maybe longer. They’re rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve all our problems; that government doesn’t have a role to play; that half-measures and tinkering are somehow enough; that we can afford to ignore our most fundamental economic challenges — the crushing cost of health care, the inadequate state of so many of our schools, our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

So let me be clear: Those ideas have been tested, and they have failed. They’ve taken us from surpluses to an annual deficit of over a trillion dollars, and they’ve brought our economy to a halt. And that’s precisely what the election we just had was all about. The American people have rendered their judgment. And now is the time to move forward, not back. Now is the time for action.

These guys have to be put on the defensive. If they filibuster, they have to really do it, so the whole country can see what’s going on and who is holding things up. This, I suppose, is where Obama’s highly visible effort to make nice with the Republicans comes into play. Except with their fringe base, they won’t be able to make the argument that he hasn’t listened to them.


Filed in Obama | | Comments (0)

Constitutional Law

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Grimm learns a lesson from our former president.


Filed in Humour | | Comments (0)

Tomorrow Night-First Post Obama Drinking Liberally

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Yet another reminder. Tomorrow at 6:30 PM, at the Bulkeley House on Bank Street in New London, we’ll have our first Post-Obama Drinking Liberally. We’re looking forward to a first hand report on the inauguration from one of our regulars, who was a holder of one of those infamous purple tickets.


Filed in Announcements | | Comments (0)