This is a very reassuring interview about the recent settlement between five large banks and the Attorneys General of many of the states.

In closing Eric Scheiderman in explaining why this aggressive stance on investigating the banks did not happen earlier in the Obama administration, said the following:

What we have seen is a swing toward progressive populism in this country.

You wouldn’t have imagined a year ago, but the demand for accountability that animated the occupy movement would have taken place.
.
.
.
A lot of progressives forget about this. It’s not who you elect. It’s providing the movement to empower them to do the right thing. The conservatives don’t forget that. They don’t go home after election day. They never go home. We’ve got to have a little bit of that same attitude.

This is something that I have been trying to emphasize on this blog.

To send a note of thanks to New York AG Eric Schneiderman use this link to the Bold Progressives web site.

In this episode of the Rachel Maddow show, she shows once again that she is the master of the disingenuous question.

It is good to have a copy of this clip for whenever Republicans you know tell you about the end of the world because of some policy that President Obama proposes.

What Ted Olson and Rachel Maddow say in this video will not come as a surprise to people who believe that all people should be treated equally. It is just that it is stated very well and very clearly.

This is not a utopian ruling by the court. It does admit that groups of people can be singled out if there is a compelling reason to do so. Of course this leaves open a very wide loophole for arguing that there is a very compelling reason. Not every court decision will agree with our personal idea of what is compelling. Still it would be foolish to prohibit the making of laws that have a compelling reason for being enacted. I guess that is the nature of trying to create rules that cover all people who are alive now or will be alive in the future.

During World War II the courts, the legislators, and the president thought that putting American citizens of Japanese descent in internment camps and confiscating everything they had was based on a compelling reason. Let us hope we never make that same mistake about another group of people from some other part of the world, although all the evidence points to the likelihood that we will.

Here is the commercial that has the politicians all stirred up. Can you detect the subliminal message here? Maybe if you play it backwards.

If you are mystified, I don’t want to leave you in the lurch. Take a look at this Los Angeles Times article Clint Eastwood’s Super Bowl ad riles Karl Rove or this one, Republicans hear a political note in Chrysler ad.

I just want to get the word out that the Sturbridge Democratic Town Committee now has a Facebook page.

Take a look at the page, decide if you like it or not. Comment on the page with suggestions of things you would like to see on the page.

Worcester Magazine has the story Vacant affair: How Worcester has learned to deal with the foreclosure crisis. This quote from the article mentions a few of the methods that Worcester employs.

Receivership and expanded enforcement power haven’t been the only changes. In 2009 with the help of anti-foreclosure activists, Worcester drafted and passed the Vacant and Foreclosed Properties ordinance, which forced lenders to register each foreclosure with the city and put down a $5,000 bond. When the house is sold, minus a 10 percent administrative fee and any compensation for work that the city had to do to upkeep the outside of the property, the lender receives the balance of the bond.

I have been waiting to hear of sensible and creative programs like this one.   The programs that Worcester put in place serve two important purposes. Of course one purpose is to find a way to fund the extra services the city ends up providing to neighborhoods with foreclosed (abandoned) homes.  The other equally important purpose is to impose upon the banks some costs for foreclosing on a home.

You would think that the idea of losing all income from even partial payments on the mortgage plus the complete decay and loss of value of the property that they foreclose might be enough incentive to make a bank look for other solutions to foreclosing.  Apparently not.  So rather than attempt to sue the banks for costs incurred by the city to police foreclosed properties, the city requires a bond up front to cover the costs of easily anticipated expenditures.  Using the Supreme Court’s logic that a bank corporation is a person, with all the rights and responsibilities of a natural person, this puts the burden on the people who deserve it.  If the mortgage agreement with the borrower says that if the borrower fails to pay, the lender takes ownership of the property, then the new owners of said property have all the responsibilities associated with property ownership.

David Stockman is interviewed in the story Halftime in America? Stockman Doesn’t Buy Auto Recovery Story from Yahoo! Finance.

It is not clear which part of the story he buys the least.  In the beginning of the interview he responds with this:

“If you look at the sweep of things, [the January auto sales data] this was kind of a blip in the sub-basement,” he tells me and Aaron Task in the accompanying video. Even if car sales run at an annual rate of 14 million, Stockman argues, that’s still at a much lower rate than several years ago. And the industry is still dependent on the free and easy extension of credit.

Many years ago when I was still working for Digital Equipment Corporation, we had a lecture from a former Ford executive.  He may have just been hired by Digital, but I am not sure of the circumstances anymore.  There is one thing I remember very clearly from his lecture.  It had to do with the break even point of a company.  At one point in its recent history at that time, Ford had to make 90% of its sales projections before it broke even – made a profit.  This was a very precarious position to be in.  If they fell 10% short in sales, then they would lose money.  What the lecturer explained, I think, was Ford’s efforts or maybe it was Digital’s efforts to make sure that the company’s break-even point was changed so that it would be far less than 90%.  I think the target was more like 50%. By the time I left Digital, they had probably forgotten the lesson.

What David Stockman’s comments fail to acknowledge is that though GM may be selling fewer cars, it probably has lowered its break-even point significantly since bankruptcy.  In other words, it does not need to sell as many vehicles as it used to in order to turn a profit.  This is just stating a fact.  It is not passing judgment on the methods GM used to lower its break even point.

Whether there is any wisdom in the rest of what he has to say, I will not pass judgment at this time.

It is odd that whenever Bill Moyers interviews David Stockman, he never mentions that he is a Congressman from Michigan.  I guess he only wants Stockman to talk about the parts of his beliefs that fit Moyers’ agenda.  (Oops! did I hint at questioning Moyers’ journalistic ethics?  Naw, couldn’t be.)

I let the words of the author of the article Ahmadinejad, an anti-imperialist – really? explain where he is coming from. The author is an Iranian exile Soheil Asefi.

As a young writer and I’d like to think, a progressive, I have been giving this a lot of thought. Is Ahmadinejad really ‘anti-imperialist’?  This question has provoked extensive debate not only among the Iranian left and democratic forces, but between these forces and the extremist neo-liberal forces in Iran.

Perhaps my Google+ friend, Hassan Moradi, would like to step in and express an opinion.

Progressives in the west have two battles to fight with respect to Iran.  It is hard to know which one to concentrate on first.

The primary battle these days is to try to prevent the USA from starting a war in Iran to gain control of Iranian oil.  We also want to prevent Israel from dragging us into a war even faster than some in the USA oil industry want.

The second battle of course is for freedom in Iran.  How do we fight that battle without our injecting our prejudices into Iranian politics?  Perhaps the religious right in Iran wants to drag the country back 1400 years and many Iranians do not want to take that trip.  We are fighting the same battle in the USA with our purportedly religious right (and co-opted by the ultra wealthy).  With the USA split on this issue itself, I think it is not realistic for Iranians to think we can tell them how to solve their problems over this issue.

I really don’t think that Iranians on either side of their internal conflict really want the USA to come in and install another Shah. So hard hearted as it may seem, the Iranians are going to have to figure this one out on their own.  If there were a clear cut, democratic direction in Iran, we could encourage it, but I do not think anyone inside Iran who can think clearly about the consequences wants us to intervene militarily.

The Nation Of Change has the very interesting article, Warren Buffett Exposed: The Oracle of Omaha and the Tar Sands. The article explains Buffet’s investment interests in various outcomes of the tar sands development in Canada.  Here is my reaction that I posted  to the article:

This is all valuable information to have, but there is no conclusion to all this breathless prose. I kept waiting with a, “yes, yes, but so what?”

As an investment a few years ago, I looked at tar sands, myself. At the time the investment was too over-priced for the risk involved. If Buffet is smart enough and has the diligence to wait until the time is ripe, I can’t fault him for that.

As the article indicates, it is not always easy to determine what is the least polluting alternative. That is why I favored sufficient time to do the environmental review of Keystone before I made up my mind.

Maybe you didn’t intend it that way, and maybe it was my own bias that had me waiting for the punchline. I applaud any article that increases my knowledge without presuming to know how I need to react to that knowledge.

On second thought maybe it was the word “Exposed” in the headline that set my expectations. The mention of meetings with Obama were meant to make me infer something or other, but I have resisted making that inference.

As you know from my postings, I am no idolater of President Obama, and I recognize that the worshipping at the feet of Warren Buffet tends to go overboard.  Even though I don’t feel it is my duty to be fair and balanced in this blog, I still like to set the record straight every now and then, no matter which direction it goes off the rails (pun intended).

Spell checkers, particularly the one in Forefox, dislike my use of the spelling worshipping. The modern way seems to no longer double up the final consonant in a word that has a preceding vowel and you want to add the suffix ing.

Initially I caved to the wants of my spell checker, but it looks so wrong to me, that I prefer to go back to the old way which Google tells me is still acceptable.

The new way makes it look to me that I would pronounce the word as wor-shipe-ing because the single consonant between the two i’s makes the first one a long i. Perhaps it is that the two i’s are in different syllables that is the key to making the pronunciation agree with the spelling. Whatever the case, it still looks horribly wrong to me, and I will resist.

The Dailykos has the article, Senate votes today on anti-union FAA bill. Tell Democrats not to cave.

The Senate votes today on the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill—and as much as we need the FAA funded and open, we need 41 votes against this version of the bill. Since last summer, Democrats have stood strong against Republican attempts to make it all but impossible for airline workers to join unions through a provision that would have counted people who didn’t vote in union representation elections as having voted no. But now, Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller, the majority leader and the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, have signed off on a “compromise” proposed by Republicans. If you know one thing about today’s congressional Republicans, though, you can guess it’s no compromise. As Dave Johnson writes:

If you start with a bill that says, “kill all the unions, kill all the unions, kill all the unions, kill all the unions” and take out one “kill all the unions” is that a compromise? The unions are still killed three times over.

The Republicans would have you believe that the decline of unions comes from free market forces. They don’t want you to know about how hard they work in Congress to kill the unions. If you catch them red-handed they will still say, “Oh no, not me. I didn’t do it. The workers themselves chose to have the right to work without a union.”

Lest you think that I am blindly pro-union, let me remind you that this is just another case of avoiding true/false political decisions, but always asking how much of a certain policy you need. No doubt there have been times in the past where the unions have not exercised restraint and the laws were tipped in their favor. If we go back to that era again, I will be one of the first to say we have gone too far. However, in this era the scales have been tipped wildly out of balance in the other direction.

This is another case where certain policies stances have a time and a place. There may be a time to take a stance of reigning in union power, but this is not that time. Don’t make a mistake of sticking with an ingrained policy whose time has come and gone and has not yet returned.