For only the third time in this column's two-and-a-half year history (see note below), I am turning over my soapbox to a guest columnist. As with both previous times, the author is a commenter here at Huffington Post.

Known as "LewDan," he took exception to a column I wrote, and let me know how he felt in the comments, and later through a private email exchange. While he wasn't exactly agreeing with what I had written, I found him to have a unique perspective on the issue of race in Obama's election and also found him to be an original and well-reasoned thinker. While we disagreed on some things, we did so respectfully and with the intent of making our positions clear to each other.

Because I was so impressed by his writing, I offered him the chance to write a column for the public to read. At first he deferred, but in the end I convinced him that others would enjoy reading what he had to say. The following began as part of our email exchange, and was rewritten as a column by Llewellyn Daniel, who describes himself as:

Continue Reading »

Deep into the interregnum (interpresidentum?... interpresidium?) between the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration seems to be a good time to ask: Does this make sense anymore? Why does America wait two-and-a-half months between when we elect our leaders and when we actually let them enter office? And does it make sense to change it?

Continue Reading »

In the past few weeks, we've heard story after story of corporate excess, often in admonishments toward corporate executives from various congressional committees. CEOs on private planes! Gasp! Outrageous compensation packages and bonuses for executives! Who knew? Posh conferences in luxury resorts! Golly! Taxpayer dollars may pay hundreds of millions in stadium naming rights! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Then, as I was preparing to write this, I read Representative Elijah Cummings' column at the Huffington Post today in which he expressed his outrage over the latest example of corporate excess to be uncovered -- Citigroup and the Mets' stadium-naming contract.

But you know what? I am not impressed by Cummings encouraging corporations to "stop the reckless spending." Because he and his fellow congressfolk can put on their faux looks of outrage and astonishment all they want, and "encourage" until they're blue in the face, but none of it adds up to more than hypocritical tut-tuttery in my book.

Continue Reading »

While today is not officially Turkey Day, I will warn you in advance that it's going to be a theme running through today's column, like gravy through a poorly-constructed dam of mashed potatoes. So to speak. And yes, this will include discussion of the recent Sarah Palin video, but before we get to that, we've got other turkeys to deal with first.

Ben Franklin notwithstanding (who wrote his daughter a letter suggesting among other things that the wild turkey was a more appropriate symbol for America than the bald eagle), the word "turkey" has come to denote, in a slang sense (from dictionary.com): (a) a person or thing of little appeal; dud; loser, (b) a naive, stupid, or inept person, or (c) a poor and unsuccessful theatrical production; flop.

Continue Reading »

Is Hillary Clinton eligible to become Secretary of State? Putting aside the question of what her chances of being appointed actually are (which I wrote about yesterday), is she even legally able to take the job if offered? The answer appears to be a strong "probably."

The question sounds like a technicality, but it is a technicality which comes straight out of the original text of the Constitution, which raises its profile a bit. From Article I, Section 6:

Continue Reading »

The term "red herring" has been around for hundreds of years. It specifically refers to taking a smoked (and therefore pungent) herring and dragging it across the trail of a fugitive, in order to throw off the scent of any tracking dogs in pursuit. The term's use has evolved (with the help of mystery writers everywhere) to now mean any intentional misdirection used to draw attention from other events or motives. And while I could be proven wildly mistaken, I think the whole "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton" circus will prove to be nothing more than a gigantic red herring. Something smells fishy about it, to stretch the metaphor a bit.

Basing my reasoning on absolutely no hard facts (which I fully admit up front), here's the scenario that keeps suggesting itself to my addled brain (and which, to my surprise, doesn't seem to have suggested itself to anyone else): during the discussions between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (which took place between the end of the primary season and when she began campaigning for him), Hillary gets Barack to agree to this sideshow if he gets elected. She will be "offered" Secretary of State, which she will then decline "because there's so much to do in the Senate." But -- and here's the crux of my thinking -- she will gain by this situation by improving her prestige in the Senate and attaining more power than she normally would have (due to her low seniority status).

Continue Reading »

At 12:39 PM (Alaska time) Democratic challenger Mark Begich led the incumbent (and convicted felon) Senator Ted Stevens by 2,374 votes -- an improvement of over 1,300 votes in today's tally. By my thumbnail estimates, there appear to be just over 10,000 ballots left to count, meaning that Stevens' defeat seems likely at this point.

Today was the day when the final 25,000 votes were supposed to be counted by the state of Alaska. Again, just from my off-the-cuff figuring, it appears that around 14,000 of these ballots have now been entered into the totals for both Begich and Stevens. Meaning Begich increased his lead by a net 1,300, out of just 14,000 votes cast. And from what I hear, the remaining votes to be tallied today come from two districts where Begich either ran even on election day, or had a strong lead over Stevens. Meaning it would be something of a shock now if Stevens reverses the trend to hang onto his seat.

Continue Reading »

Immediately after the news broke that George Bush's administration has now agreed to a hard-and-fast timetable for withdrawal of all American troops in Iraq (all troops will be gone -- no matter what the situation on the ground is -- by the end of 2011), I got the following press release. Now, I'm on a lot of strange press lists, so I get a lot of strange press releases, but this is the first time I've ever gotten one from another dimension, I have to admit.

Here is the full text of the press release:

Continue Reading »

I have to begin here today by stomping all over a cutesy term the media has come up with for the upcoming economic "summit" George W. Bush is holding this weekend. The newsies, in their exuberance, have taken to calling this meeting "Bretton Woods II."

To which I say: "No, it isn't. Please stop using this term. Thank you."

Because Bretton Woods "I" was the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, which was held at the Mount Washington Hotel near Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, at the end of World War II. This meeting of 44 allied nations set up the International Monetary Fund, and what was to become the World Bank. It also tried to set up an International Trade Organization, a half-century before the World Trade Organization was born (the U.S. Senate turned down the I.T.O. proposal back then, effectively killing it). This historic meeting lasted more than three weeks in July of 1944.

Bush's meeting is going to last six hours. And nobody expects it to come up with anything even close to the same magnitude of what happened in Bretton Woods. Nobody sane, that is. So please, media types, don't call it what it's not. Let's have some truth in advertising here. Call it "Desperate Bush Lame-Duck Photo-Op With World Leaders Who Would Really Rather Be Talking To Obama," if you have to slap a label on it. Because that's a lot closer to what it's going to be.

Continue Reading »

The column I wrote yesterday has provoked a number of interesting comments, both here and at the Huffington Post. So today I would like to continue the conversation and attempt to explain myself further. [My policy is not to use anyone's login name without permission, but you can read the comments where they originally appeared if you'd like.]

First, let me begin by stating my biases in the matter: I don't like spam. I do like the First Amendment. I just wanted to get that out of the way, so you can spot any bias which might creep in to what I write here.

As I see it, the issue breaks down in a number of ways. The first question is anonymity -- do Americans have an absolute right to anonymity in political messages? The second question is technological -- is anonymity a right, no matter what the medium? And the third question seems to be political, and deal with campaign and election law -- what kinds of rules on speech are constitutionally allowable in politics?

Continue Reading »