Search: Site   Web

Ivory Tower


An editor's view from the Ivory Tower

Inside the mind of a narcissist

March 26th, 2009, 8:11 pm by eblog

YouTube Preview Image

I, Terrell Owens, dedicate this song to me: “The Real Me,” by The Who.

I swear I can’t get a break. Everybody’s got their shorts in a bundle just because I didn’t show up for the voluntary conditioning sessions for my new team, the Buffalo Bills, this week. They were voluntary, weren’t they? Am I the only one who wasn’t there?

Since when do I need special conditioning sessions? Everybody knows, or should know, that I’m the last person they have to worry about when it comes to conditioning. I always stay in shape and I have my own personal trainer. He does what’s best for me, and only me.

I’ve never gone to any voluntary workouts. Never had to. Why do I have to start now after all these years? Nobody knows what’s best for me better than me.

By now everybody knows that I always come to training camp in top condition and ready to play. When the mandatory camps start and I have to be there I’ll be there, and nobody will work harder than I will. I’ll learn the routes and I’ll still know how to get open. It’s always been that way.

Some people say I should have showed up just to meet my new teammates, to play nice with the Buffalo fans and show them that I’m with them; a team player. These folks still don’t get it.

It’s not about team. It’s about me.

I tried that team stuff with the Cowboys. I tried to say the right things for the first year and a half. I even cried for my quarterback. See where it got me — Siberia. I’ll be dodging caribou on my way to the goal line up here. I don’t even know what frozen popcorn tastes like.

I don’t know why people still don’t get it. It’s simple. I’m the best. I make the plays. When I touch the ball good things happen. I have the stats to prove it. So it only stands to reason that if we want more good things to happen, I have to touch the ball more often.

It really is that simple. People shouldn’t make things more complicated than they need to be.

Besides, everybody should know that once I’m here I’ll do all the right things and say the right things. I’ll be a model citizen.

When have I ever gotten in trouble with the law? When have I ever shot myself in the leg? Some people might say I’ve shot myself in the foot a few times, but they’re just haters. They choose not to mention all the good things I do. I’ll bet they didn’t even notice the Young Champions Award I just picked up for all the work I do to help Alzheimer’s patients. At the nation’s capital, no less. You think a voluntary practice session is more important than that? I didn’t think so.

And I’m a man of my word. Like I told the Alzheimer’s Association when I accepted the Young Champions Award, all you have to say is, “Hey T.O.,” and if it’s humanly possible I’ll be there. It’s the same with my team — as long as it counts. Voluntary workouts don’t count. But don’t worry, I’m getting my workouts in.

And I promise you one thing: once I’m here, I’m going to hit this town like a hurricane. I’m going to sell tickets, put people in the seats, give them a reason to freeze their buns off in the Buffalo winters.

Heck, the buzz has already started. The league scheduled us on Monday Night Football on the very first week, against New England. Me versus Randy Moss — that’s how they’re already promoting it.

You think the Bills would make prime time the very first week if it weren’t for me? You don’t even have to think about the answer. I think people around Buffalo are already starting to see why my middle name is Eldorado: I’m pure gold.

So get your popsicles ready. I will be there. And when I am, you’ll all be glad I’m there. Just make sure Trent Edwards and the coaches know that I can’t be effective if I’m not getting the ball. I can’t make good things happen when my hands are empty.

We can have a great year, if we’re all on the same page. At the very top of that page they should see a picture of me. Because if the end result they’re looking for is success, then it all has to start with me.

 

Carlos A. Rodriguez is opinion editor for The Brownsville Herald. Contact him at (956) 982-6681, or by e-mail at crodriguez@brownsvilleherald.com.

 

 

 

Different looks shouldn’t mean different treatment

February 11th, 2009, 1:18 pm by eblog

YouTube Preview Image

This song is dedicated to those who wonder if they have to treat officials any different if they’re minorities: “Tell Me What You See,” by The Beatles

***

A man came into the newsroom recently, livid over a cartoon we published of President Barack Obama. The cartoon was not derogatory; it showed him dressed as a mountain climber, at the base of a huge mountain labeled “expectations.” But it showed the president as he has described himself: a skinny kid with big ears. The visitor accused us of trying to ridicule Obama, and of being racist. The visitor was white.

We unsuccessfully tried to explain that cartoonists usually exaggerate features of their subjects; it helps them draw identifiable caricatures quickly and consistently. We invited the man to look at some of the cartoons we’ve published of George W. Bush and others.

To our visitor and we’re sure to other people, it’s quite OK to take such liberties with the traditional power, usually meaning Anglos. With minorities, however, things have to be different.

That, to us, is racism, and of the worst kind. It’s one thing to lash out at minorities; such actions reflect a fear, which implies a certain power that threatens the hater. It’s another thing, however, for people to believe that they have to champion minorities, to protect them from any attacks, including valid criticism. That mothering attitude implies that people of certain ethnic groups are too weak to stand up for themselves, and that only the defenders know what’s best for them.

How dehumanizing. How insulting.

President Obama has shown that he is as strong, intelligent and resourceful as anybody, and he deserves the respect that comes with honest, frank evaluations of his ideas and initiatives. He deserves the same treatment that has been given to all presidents before him, including in editorial cartoons. He is their equal, and should receive equal treatment.

Our visitor isn’t the only person who believes we should treat our first African-American president with kid gloves. Editorial cartoonist Daryl Cagle addresses the issue below. All the words that follow are his:

 

How to Draw Obama

 

Obama seems like an easy guy to draw; he’s skinny, has a big chin, expressive eyebrows and lips. As it turns out, no matter how a cartoonist draws Obama, somebody gets mad.

When Obama burst into the presidential campaign cartoonists started drawing him as a caricature without much exaggeration. As time goes by, political figures morph in cartoons into caricatures of caricatures; George W. Bush shrank to knee height and grew huge bunny ears; Bill Clinton lost his pants and grew fatter (even as he got skinnier in real life). At the beginning of the Obama administration, everyone is watching to see how the cartoon Obama evolves.

I worked for 20 years as a cartoon illustrator, doing drawings for books, magazines and advertising. I was often given clear guidelines on how I was supposed to draw African Americans: with “small noses” and “thin lips.” I was instructed to make any crowds of cartoon characters racially diverse, but only diverse in color, not in facial features. Thick lips and wide noses on African-American faces would be returned to me for correction, with a polite reminder of the corporate policies on depictions of minority facial features.

Cartoonist Gary McCoy has been lambasted by readers, and by Salon.com, for drawing racially insensitive, big lips on Obama. Some cartoonists have drawn attention for giving Obama blue lips. Canadian cartoonist Patrick Corrigan of the Toronto Star had an Obama cartoon killed by his editor because of “racist” blue lips. Thomas “Tab” Boldt of the Calgary Sun and Cam Cardow of the Ottawa Citizen have also been rendering Obama with blue lips. Corrigan tells me that everyone in Canada, in the winter, has blue lips.

Readers of my blog explained to me that blue lips are racist and pointed out an old racist expression “blue gums,” which was a new one for me. Corrigan tells me he’ll be switching to purple lips, Cam will be giving up on the blue lips and Tab was laid off. That may mean the end of blue lips for Obama.

Syndicated caricaturist Taylor Jones also sees blue in Obama. He writes:

“One of the most interesting things about Obama’s eyes is the slight blue tinge to the flesh below his eyebrows. It’s also visible on his eyelids. It’s as though he’s wearing a bit of eye shadow. Don’t know if it’s actual blue pigmentation, or just the effect of light bouncing off the skin stretched against his eye sockets. But it adds a nifty touch whenever I’m drawing Obama’s caricature in color.”

I’m considering going all the way, making Obama completely blue (if that’s not racist).

Obama’s ears have grown huge for most cartoonists. George W. Bush’s ears also grew huge, but it took more than a year for Bush’s big ears to catch on — Obama’s ears started right away, and have been expanding faster than the national debt. It may be that after eight years of Bush, we now see huge ears as a standard, presidential attribute. I don’t see any particular reason for either Bush’s or Obama’s ears to grow in cartoons, but with cartoonist peer pressure it will soon be impossible to draw a likeness of Obama without colossal ears.

There seems to be an expectation that political cartoonists are mostly liberals who love Obama and will find it hard to make fun of him in cartoons. Some cartoonists have complained in the press that Obama is dull, and that there is little to criticize about him — we have a term of art for cartoonists like that, we call them “bad cartoonists.” It is the job of an editorial cartoonist to dislike everybody. Political cartoonists have nothing to gain by being in favor of anything. Cartoons that support anything are lousy cartoons. There is plenty for everyone not to like about Obama — and with the porky stimulus package and tax-evading cabinet appointments, there’s more every day!

The cartoon version of Obama will continue to evolve quickly. If we ever actually see him smoking a cigarette, he will always be smoking in cartoons. Obama may turn different colors, and he’ll grow or shrink with his performance. Obama’s ears will keep growing no matter what he does. As Obama’s honeymoon passes and the caricatures become more severe, I expect the complaints about racism in the cartoons will also grow more severe.

But I don’t care. I’m making Obama blue today.

 

Daryl Cagle is a political cartoonist and blogger for MSNBC.com; he is a past president of the National Cartoonists Society and his cartoons are syndicated to more than 850 newspapers, including the paper you are reading. Daryl’s books “The BIG Book of Campaign 2008 Political Cartoons” and “The Best Political Cartoons of the Year, 2009 Edition” are available in bookstores now.

 

 

Cat control catastrophe

January 14th, 2009, 11:26 pm by eblog

YouTube Preview Image

This honestly sincere dedication goes out to the Rancho Viejo cat eradication committee: “Bye Bye Birdie,” from the Broadway musical of the same name.

***

Residents of the little golfing town north of Brownsville created a Cat Control Committee to address a perceived overabundance of the little monsters. It appears they intend to address their furry feline foes with extreme prejudice, as they say in military parlance.

Committee members should be aware of a recent Associated Press article about a similar operation in Australia, which once again reminds us of unintended consequences of ill-thought-out plans.

The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service wanted to do something to benefit the birds of Macquarie Island, which sits between Australia and Antarctica. It’s a famous nesting site for several species of birds, some of them threatened or endangered. Those bedevilled Tasmanians decided to eradicate all the wild cats on the island, since they hunted and sometimes caught the beloved birds and ate their eggs and babies.

As a result of the cat removal efforts, Dana Bergstrom of the Australian Antarctic Division and others wrote in the British Ecological Society’s Journal of Applied Ecology, “there has been widespread ecosystem devastation and decades of conservation effort compromised.”

It seems that in killing off the cats, they removed the predators not only for the birds, but also for rabbits, mice and rats. Without natural population controls the other critters multiplied like — well, rabbits, and eventually ate up most of the foliage on the island that provided nesting material and habitat for grubs and other morsels that supported our feathered friends.

Bye-bye birdies.

“The lessons for conservation agencies globally is that interventions should be comprehensive, and include risk assessments to explicitly consider and plan for indirect effects, or face substantial subsequent costs,” Bergstrom said, The AP reported.

So did the cat killers learn their lesson? As they say in Spanish, “Hasta la pregunta es necia” — the very question is silly.

The traditional bureaucratic response is that if something doesn’t work, just do the same thing again but in a much bigger way. That’s just what’s planned for Macquarie.

“What was wrong was that the rabbits were not eradicated at the same time as the cats.” said Mick Clout, a University of Auckland professor and member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Birds Australia.

The Tasmanian parks service plans to return in 2010 with a massive new eradication program for the rabbits and rodents, the AP reports. They will start by dropping poisoned food pellets, then follow up by storming the island and shooting and trapping all the rabbits they can, and finally fumigating the entire island to complete the crittercide.

It’s likely, of course, that some of the poison will make its way into the surrounding water and possibly affect fish, crabs and other sea life.

At this point we should note that they birds they’re trying to help include all four classes of albatrosses, which have had a hard time surviving in recent years. We also offer a reminder of what killed off the Texas horned lizard. We started poisoning ants, the lizards ate the ants and were themselves poisoned, and now we have almost no horny toads and the ants continue to spread.

So it’s safe to assume that as poisoned animals start to decompose they’ll get eaten by various sub-critters and some birds will eat those sub-critters. Shorebirds will eat fish, squid and other stuff that’s similarly poisoned. Guess what will happen to the birds?

And that’s even before they breathe the fumigated air that’s planned for the final extermination.

This should give pause to Rancho Viejo’s committee members. While they look for ways to control the cats, they ought to remember that the cats control mice, rats, opossums and no telling what other pests are scurrying around the resacas and fertilizer sheds in their neighorhoods.

Addressing their little cat problem just might create even bigger, nastier problems instead. Are they ready for the consequences of their actions?

Highest value placed on freedom

January 6th, 2009, 12:41 pm by eblog
YouTube Preview Image

This dedication goes out to George W. Bush and the statists in his administration: “Got to Be Free,” by the Kinks.

For as long as I can remember, pundits have said that people vote their pocketbooks. That isn’t necessarily the case, as we saw in the 2008 elections. Some things are worth more than money.

People place the ultimate value on their basic humanity, and the basic rights and freedoms that we all intrinsically know we deserve.

A case in point is the actions of farmers in the Ukraine after the Bolshevik Revolution. Upon being told that they could no longer sell the fruits of their labor, but that their harvests would be taken up by the state to be distributed among all the people, the farmers didn’t just refuse. They went out and spent the extra time, work and money to plow their fields under so that the new government couldn’t get a thing. Freedom-loving people everywhere cheered them on.

It was the principle of the thing, and I’m sure many of us would have done the same thing.

Most of the people who swept Barack Obama into the White House certainly weren’t under any illusions that he would lessen the strain of taxes on their household budgets. Democrats have long been known as the party that takes from the general public in order to give money and fund projects for the few people they consider deserving.

It didn’t help that the Bush administration wasn’t any more frugal just because the president belonged to the Republican Party. Still, Republican candidate John McCain promised change, and he’s pretty much been regarded as one of the straighter shooters in Congress. And Obama made no bones about his intentions to create even more expensive programs that will require even heavier taxation, such as universal health care.

What McCain couldn’t escape was the steady curtailment of individual rights under the Bush administration. We have to admit that our freedoms have been whittled away, by administrations of both parties, for more than a century and a half. But the acceleration of that curtailment the past eight years has been nothing short of revolutionary.

Who would have thought, as the millennium was beginning, that our own government would be fencing its residents in, at least along our southern border? Who would have expected the government would decide it could plant wiretaps and listen in on private conversations without having to justify itself in a court of law? Whoever thought that in the country that calls itself the bastion of freedom to the world, federal law would require banks to notify federal agents whenever any U.S. resident made a large deposit, regardless of personal history or lack of criminal record? Who expected that other laws would empower those federal agents to demand library records so they could examine individuals’ reading habits?

And it certainly didn’t help that Bush’s attorney general was a gutless lackey who’d rather defend this power grab than stand up for the basic human rights on which this country ostensibly was founded.

The worst part of it all is the attitude the outgoing administration displayed toward the public they promised to serve when they took office. At times the attitude was cavalier; sometimes it was outright contemptuous.

The president himself felt free to ignore any question he didn’t want to answer. The Homeland Security secretary brushed off questions about his border fence plans, saying people who didn’t agree with him should just grow up and shut up. Anyone who said something the vice president didn’t like faced the prospect of a curt, expletive-laden retort.

Heck, the veep even managed to shoot a guy in the face and pass it off as if it were a bogey at the 18th hole. Not only did he avoid any repercussions, the guy he shot actually apologized to him for the public uproar. Anybody else would have been brought up on charges of criminal negligence, no matter how much of an accident it was.

Unfortunately for McCain, the problem didn’t end with the Bush junta. The Republican Party has become known for supporting this kind of stuff, such as regulating who can and can’t marry; trying to dictate the teaching of science based on whether or not it can be reconciled to certain translations of the Bible; and defending executions to the point that when technological advances made it possible to offer more exculpatory evidence when people were wrongly convicted, they responded by accelerating the appeals process so people had less time to prove their innocence.

These aren’t pocketbook issues; they’re basic human rights issues. And that was the change a majority of voters deemed most necessary. Fighting higher taxes and even bigger government? We’ll deal with those on a case-by-case basis. But at least, many people many have decided, it will be better to address those issues with an administration that might be willing to listen.

 Carlos A. Rodriguez is opinion editor for The Brownsville Herald. His e-mail address is crodriguez@brownsvilleherald.com.

Obama tames his demon

December 3rd, 2008, 6:53 pm by eblog

YouTube Preview Image

Today we dedicate a song to Barack Obama: “My Little Demon,” by Fleetwood Mac.

***

Don’t mess with Barack Obama. In recent days has proven that he’s a shrewd man who knows how to maintain high percentages of success.

We assume that he wanted Hillary Clinton in his administration more than she wanted a high-level post, and she was the reason the “negotiations” we kept hearing about went on for so long. He finally won out, and on Dec. 1 named Clinton as his choice for secretary of state.

The pick in no way indicates that the two Democratic rivals are now buddy-buddy after a heated presidential race. They might have buried the hatchet, but there’s reason to assume they’ll both know exactly where it is in case they ever need to wield it again.

Remember the old saying: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

It was important to make Clinton part of his administration. That gives her a stake in its success. It offers the added benefit of mending rifts that formed within the party during the campaign and builds more support behind Obama’s presidency, but that’s a secondary concern.

More importantly, it gives the new president some protection in case things don’t go swimmingly. Clinton can’t very well rise up in two years at the “I told you so” candidate if she’s a major part of his administration. After all, nobody bought John McCain’s promises of change; with more than three decades in Congress, he couldn’t escape the perception that he was one of the members who had gotten this country into the mess it now finds itself.

With Clinton, his strongest opponent, on board, Obama essentially has increased his chances for a second term.

We don’t know how willingly the former first lady signed on to the Obama camp. This is where Obama’s genius comes to light. All the while he was “negotiating” with Clinton, according to the Washington media, the president-elect was also systematically picking up key Clinton aides and supporters for other parts of his administration. In doing so he essentially hired away much of the support on which Clinton would rely if she ever did mount a challenge.

By co-opting her posse, Obama left Clinton with two bitter choices: come on board, or try to launch a new campaign from scratch, and dig around for an entirely new set of aides and advisers to help her challenge the popular incumbent.

Simply put, he’s neutralized the one little demon who remained a threat.

Obama had the most organized presidential campaign of all the candidates, by far. Given that fact, and the shrewdness he’s shown so far in building an administration and consolidating his power in the Democratic Party, we could be in for a tight-knit, professional White House machine. Quite a change from the marauding band of cowboys we’ve had to deal with for the past eight years.

That could be great news, if one agrees with the policies and actions the new administration will bring before the American people. Otherwise, prepare to be overrun by a juggernaut.

 

We can all be proud

November 19th, 2008, 7:18 pm by eblog

YouTube Preview Image

We dedicate this song to all those who voted for change on Nov. 4: “Yes We Can Can” by the Pointer Sisters

 

Michelle Obama has every reason to be proud.

Our next first lady took plenty of heat in February when she addressed a campaign rally for her husband about him being the first person of color who was accepted as a serious candidate for the presidency.

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country,” she said.

Pro-Republican pundits went to great lengths to ridicule Obama, suggesting that she was ashamed to be American. Unfortunately, neither she nor her husband Barack, already known for his eloquence, was able to find any clearer way to express her feelings.

Of course, she didn’t have to. Everybody knew exactly what she meant, and everybody knew the truth behind it.

The Limbaughs and O’Reillys can bray until they’re blue in the face, but all minorities knew the sad truth. All our lives we’d been told — by public figures, by teachers and counselors, even by our own parents — that we could grow up to be anything we wanted, even president of the United States. Those words sounded great in theory. But as long as every president, and every person nominated by a major party, was a white guy, those words rang hollow.

My college macroeconomics professor gave us a list of laws to clarify the difference between theory and fact, to separate belief from reality. At the time they seemed like such no-brainers that no one really thought much about them. “If you see something, then it exists,” one law stated. “If it happened, then it must be possible,” was another. “Until it happens, it hasn’t happened,” was another.

We were told we could be president, but nobody like us had ever made it. The promise hadn’t been proven, and even those who believed didn’t really know if it was possible.

It’s human nature to emulate those who are most like us. I’m old enough to remember the sensation Mexican race walker José Pedraza made at the 1968 Olympics when he won the silver medal in front of his home crowd; it was the host country’s only medal. Afterward people could be seen waddling all over Mexico, inspired by Pedraza’s feat.

That inspiration paid dividends — Mexico’s Daniel Bautista won the gold medal at the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, and Bernardo Segura finished first at the 2000 Games in Sidney, but was disqualified for not maintaining the strict form required in the event.

As a fat kid growing up in the 1960s, I made heroes of Washington quarterback Sonny Jurgensen, Detroit pitcher Mickey Lolich and other portly players. If they could do it, there was hope for me. Without their example I might never have been motivated to play those sports in school.

Many Americans could find no such heroes in the historically homogenous political world, however. To aspire to be president was to test an unproven theory.

It was time for a barrier to be broken, and many assumed that it would be the gender barrier. Hillary Clinton even declared that her ascension to the White House was “inevitable.”

Her declaration seemed logical just a few months ago. Clinton was taking the next step on a path that Frances Farenthold, Geraldine Ferraro and Elizabeth Dole had begun.

Farenthold, a Texas legislator known as Sissy in her home state, was the first woman formally considered for a major party ticket, when she placed second in the vote to be George McGovern’s running mate at the 1972 Democratic Convention. When the top pick, Thomas Eagleton, was removed due to publicity over his past psychiatric treatment, McGovern bypassed Farenthold and chose a member of the Kennedy clan, R. Sergeant Shriver.

Ferraro made the Democratic Party ticket as Michael Dukakis’ vice presidential nominee in 1988, and Dole, a Republican, was the first seriously considered female presidential candidate. Dole was second in national polls in 2000, behind eventual president George W. Bush, and third in the Iowa straw poll behind Bush and Libertarian candidate Steve Forbes when she ended her campaign just before the primaries.

No African American had made it even to the first step. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton had launched campaigns, but their activist backgrounds had made both polarizing figures and thus long shots for major party nomination. Black Americans had no leader with a viable chance for the White House until Obama exploded into America’s consciousness with his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

The rest, as they say, is history — history in a very real way. Now that it’s happened, we know it’s possible: for Americans of color, the promise that our children can grow up to be president is no longer a theory, but a fact. We need no longer believe; for now we know.

That’s something of which we can all be proud.

 

Carlos A. Rodriguez is opinion editor of The Brownsville Herald. Contact him at (956) 982-6681 or by e-mail at crodriguez@brownsvilleherald.com.

 

What was the issue again?

November 17th, 2008, 10:02 pm by eblog

YouTube Preview Image

Today’s dedication is for all those who spread or were taken in by all the outlandish allegations thrown out about all the candidates: “Give Me Some Truth,” by John Lennon.

***

 

Yes, it’s true: Barack Obama’s middle name is the same as the first name of the Iraqi dictator we deposed in 2003. And, for that matter, it’s the same name as the internationally respected king of Jordan who devoted virtually his entire adult life toward establishing peace in the Middle East.

It’s also true that Obama’s Republican opponent has the same first name as the guy who shot Ronald Reagan — and Abraham Lincoln, for that matter.

Does that coincidence of names mean people shouldn’t vote for John McCain? Of course not, but it’s the same logic some people are using to suggest there’s something sinister about Obama.

That’s one of the problems we’ve gotten from the two major presidential candidates (Libertarian Bob Barr is also on the ballot, and seven others are seeking write-in votes in the Texas election): much of the information we’re getting about each candidate is coming from the opposition. McCain is telling us that Obama is a socialist, while Obama wants us to believe McCain is the second coming of George Bush.

Isn’t it better to just get each person’s plans from his own campaign?

Perhaps. Of course, with opinions of Bush running so low, every candidate is promising change, while trying to label the other guy as a mere puppet of his party.

As is the truth with most political stuff, the truth is somewhere in between. Every party is dominated by extremists. If you think about it, that’s to be expected, since those who devote their whole lives to the cause tend to be demagogues. So the party elite tend to be heavily right-wing on the Republican side and wildly liberal on the Democratic side. Opponents, then, can’t resist the urge to paint candidates in the extremist colors that fly early in the campaign season.

Fortunately, voters usually weed out the hard-core disciples during the primaries, leaving general moderates on the general election ballots. That’s why recent elections have been so close. It’s also why even though the parties seem to be so far apart ideologically, in practice they’re hardly indistinguishable.

The question, then, becomes just how independent each candidate really will be if elected, or how much he will feel bound to pursue the goals and ideals of the party he agreed to represent. After all, the party invests heavily in its candidate, and expects support in return.

The final candidates, then, are a compromise, as evidence by the grumblings we’ve heard from each party’s core about their respective nominee. Republican wonks wanted Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee; hard-core Democrats rallied behind Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Many Libertarians are concerned that their nominee, as a Republican congressman, didn’t share many of his new party’s views regarding social liberties.

Even compromise, however, is a matter of degree.

It’s a pushmi-pullyu kind of thing. Officials, once elected, are beholden to the party for its support, while the party must accede to the personal charisma and individual positions that got the person elected. A strong candidate, like Bill Clinton, can drive his party toward the kinds of policies the people support, while a weak person like either George Bush can become merely a front for the party machine. In that respect, the ultimate presidency will also be a constant exercise in compromise, placing charisma and diplomatic skill at a premium.

Which will we get from whomever wins today’s election — a strong, independent president who can push his own programs through Congress, or someone who is left to either take or leave what the lawmakers put before him?

It’s hard to know. Obama’s charisma can’t be denied, and he gained his chops getting social programs supported at the local level in Chicago. But the first-term Senator is still a relative newcomer who might not have had the time to build the kind of network that can install him squarely as the leader of his party. McCain has served more than a quarter century in Congress, and was a military liaison to the Senate before that; he certainly has the contacts, and the record. It’s certainly true that he’s stood up to his own party on many key issues. That’s both good and bad; it shows that he doesn’t march in lockstep with his party, but it also shows that on many issues he couldn’t bring the party to support his positions.

So we’ll get our maverick, all right, no matter who gets elected. What remains to be seen is whether or not that maverick will always stand apart from the herd, or get it to follow.

 

Carlos A. Rodriguez is opinion editor for Valley Freedom Newspapers. Contact him at (956) 982-6681 or by e-mail at crodriguez@brownsvilleherald.com.

 
 

 

 

Government bailout? Government created this problem in the first place

November 5th, 2008, 2:52 pm by eblog

This dedication is for American financiers and the complicit lawmakers who got our economy into the current mess: “How can a poor man stand such times and live,” by Blind Alfred Reed

 

OK, the financial markets got the $800 billion government bailout they wanted. Didn’t help, did it? Those same markets continue to gyrate wildly, up 500 points one day, down 700 the next. So what gives?

Analysts say it will take the economy some time to stabilize. That’s true. The economy always adjusts itself, to whatever stimulus made it shake in the first place. It normally takes about a year and a half to return to normal. But guess what — the market would probably return to normal after 18 months even without the bailout. We would just see different adjustments.

It’s obvious that investors don’t really trust the bailout. And why should they? It only keeps bad bankers in business, instead of letting the market purge the failures out of the system. Some of them might learn their lesson, more likely they’ll only keep making the same bad decisions that got them in trouble.

Of course, we can’t blame just the bankers. The government changed lending rules and restricted interest rates in order to make low-interest loans available to low-income people, “because they should not be deprived of the American Dream of owning their own home.” Sound familiar? I’ll bet your own legislator had uttered those very words in recent years when announcing some new government-guaranteed loan program.

Banks charge higher interest to higher credit risks (when they can) because they know some people won’t be able to make the payments. The higher rate helps the banks absorb the losses when those defaults occur.

Back to the bailout. People tend to lose track of money once the numbers get really big, so let’s put this bill in context; $800 billion is more money than the entire economic output (gross domestic product) of Israel, Chile, Hong Kong and North Korea combined. Bill Gates would have to multiply his net worth 15 times over to have that much money — and we’re talking pre-crisis dollars.

That’s a lot of money, and the government doesn’t even have it. Remember that we’re financing the war in Iraq by borrowing from the Chinese, and paying out Social Security and Medicare by deferring the costs to our grandchildren; our own lawmakers are saying this. To bail the banks out, the government is doing exactly what the banks did to get themselves in trouble in the first place: lend money they don’t have, and pray that nobody falls behind in the loan payments.

To deal with this, the Treasury will also have to do just what the bankers would have — and should have — done on their own.

They would sell off some of the debt in order to bring in some cash and keep operating. And it wouldn’t be hard to do. There’s an entire industry of people out there that buys up loans and other financial notes. The process is called arbitrage. They buy notes at a discount, and the banks are willing to sell. It’s called selling short, and they do it because they often can make more money with the cash in hand if they can invest it into something that brings in more money than the original note. They’re utilizing the present value of the money, and regaining liquidity.

For example, let’s say a bank has a mortgage or student loan, which traditionally carry low interest rates. If the bank had the money back it might be able to invest it in something that brings more money. So it’s willing to sell a $10,000 note for, say, $9,000, if the expected yield will offset the lost principle on the loan. The arbitrager buys the note because he’ll get the full $10,000 plus the interest when it’s paid off. If he buys enough notes and most of them pay through maturity, the difference is worth waiting for.

And don’t believe that credit will suddenly dry up. Interest rates might rise and bad marks on a credit report might weigh more, but people can still get money. After all, regardless of what’s happening on Wall Street, real estate brokers still have properties to sell. Car dealers have vehicles on the lot. Furniture companies have sofas to move. If they can’t sell their inventory they go broke. So we can expect more companies to self-finance, offer rebates and discounts, or use other enticements to attract sellers.

Some people will be affected — those looking to sell a home or retire soon. The house will be harder to sell and the worker might want to stay on the job for another year to let the pension plan regain its value — and it will.

Otherwise, just think about how much this market crisis has directly affected you. More than a month has passed since the credit bubble burst. Has your life changed in that time?

The difference will be felt at tax time, when we all get a bigger bill to pay for the fix. And to think that it was government that broke it in the first place.

 

Carlos A. Rodriguez is opinion editor for Valley Freedom Newspapers. Contact him at (956) 982-6681 or by e-mail at crodriguez@brownsvilleherald.com.

 

McCain just running scared

September 25th, 2008, 6:59 pm by eblog

   Today’s musical dedication is to Republican presidential candidate and sometime senator John McCain: “Running Scared.” by Roy Orbison.

***

 

   There’s little doubt that McCain either decided or took somebody’s bad advice that he might be able to score political points and at the same time avoid a face-off with the notoriously eloquent Barack Obama by declaring that the Wall Street crisis needed his full attention and he needed to stop campaigning until it was resolved, which meant he couldn’t participate in today’s scheduled debate. He asked his opponent to do the same.

   Great idea — after all, the strategy of going into seclusion worked so well for Jimmy Carter in 1980, didn’t it?

   Unfortunately for McCain, things didn’t work out as planned.

   First, Obama took advantage of the gift and said he wasn’t suspending anything. A real president has to be able to do more than one thing at once, he announced, scoring the free goal.

   Then, David Letterman spent much of Wednesday’s program deriding McCain, whose campaign suspension included canceling a scheduled appearance on the talk show.

   And of course, President Bush then invited McCain and Obama together to visit him and discuss the issue, a subtle reminder that McCain can do whatever he wants, but Bush is still the decider.

   Poor John. Nobody bought his line. Least of all Congress, which was the real decider. McCain is just one of 535 members, give or take a few, who had to vote on the president’s bailout proposal, and the deliberations weren’t very likely to take too long. Congress adjourns today, and few of them would be willing to stick around to haggle over the details of a little old economic patch job. After all, most of them are itching to get home and campaign for re-election. All House seats and a third of Senate positions are on the November ballot.

   Unfortunately for McCain, his campaign suspension came off as nothing more than an attempt to get out of the debate with Obama, giving the impression that he’s just running scared.

   It was a bad idea. After all, McCain became popular precisely for offering comments that weren’t always expected or wanted by the establishment. He would do better to get up on the stage with his opponent and just shoot from the hip. Obama can give solid, articulate responses; McCain can set himself apart by offering the kind of frank, impassioned talk that resonated so well with the public — that is, until somebody convinced him that he had to run the same kind of campaign that everybody else has used the past few decades: throw mud and avoid the issues.

   That’s the kind of advice McCain should be running from. He needs to take charge and not go into hiding. In other words, show the kind of confidence that shows as president he would know what to do, no matter what happens.

   You can’t run for president by running scared.

Mayor picks wrong fight

July 26th, 2008, 6:01 pm by eblog

     Today’s post-Dolly dedication goes to Brownsville Mayor Pat M Ahumada Jr.: “Before You Accuse Me (Take a Look at Yourself,) by Bo Diddley.

***

     Ahumada has always been quick to speak his mind, and many people appreciate him for that, even if they might not always agree with him.

     Last week, however, he might have been a little too quick.

     With Hurricane Dolly bearing down on the Rio Grande Valley and officials everywhere advising residents to take whatever precautions they could, Ahumada on Wednesday made politics an issue when he questioned the motives of county officials who suggested the day before that people living near river levees consider going elsewhere.

     “We believe those will be breached if the path continues,” county emergency management coordinator Johnny Cavazos said. At the time the storm was headed straight toward Brownsville, and could well have traveled right over the levees, actually gaining strength as it fed off the waters of the Rio Grande. That prognosis put people living near the levees directly in the storm’s path, and put the barriers at risk not just from rising water levels, but also from damage by wind erosion and debris. Also, Mexican officials made known the possibility that they might have to open the gates at Cuchillas and other reservoirs if the storm turned south and flooded areas in northern Mexico.

     Fortunately the storm veered northward, but it still dumped plenty of water and left people stranded in flooded homes.

     Cameron County Judge Carlos Cascos wants a compromise with the Department of Homeland Security, which wants to build a fence along the Valley to protect the world’s most powerful nation from the threat of destruction by a bunch of homeless Mexicans. Cascos suggests rather than taking private property away from border residents and destroying natural habitat to build the fence, they simply shore up the levees, which need repair anyway, and make them higher and harder to cross.

     Ahumada is promoting the construction of a dam east of Brownsville that would back the river water up for 42 miles, making it 100 yards wide and some 27 feet deep. He said that alone would deter anyone who might want to cross without going through established ports of entry.

     It’s worth noting that PUB already has federal approval for a weir dam, which slows the flow but doesn’t completely block the river, and a rock weir already has been built where Ahumada wants a full channel dam, which could totally stop the river flow. The major is trying to win support for the dam among officials in Mexico, which would have to fund half the project and would lose just as much riverbank land as would Cameron County.

     Ahumada appears to feel the need to compete against Cascos, as if it were an either-or proposition. It doesn’t need to be.

     Certainly, funding is limited and the approval of one project probably would retard the progress of the other. But they needn’t be mutually exclusive. If anything, Ahumada’s proposal to raise the river level by more than 20 feet would also raise the risk of flooding without strong levees. Building a dam likely would make levee improvements even more necessary.

     It’s no secret that the International Boundary and Water Commission has found several weak points along the Rio Grande levees, such as around the Amigoland area. Some parts are in such bad shape that the Federal Emergency Management Agency threatened last year to decertify the levee system and declare the area a floodplain. Agencies have since worked on some areas, but officials noted in June that some of the newest work had eroded after moderate rains. Cameron County has about 60 miles of levees, and just over half of them needed repair before the storm hit.

     And it doesn’t help Ahumada’s cause that U.S. Sen. John Cornyn already has used Dolly to blast Congress for not providing enough funding to complete work on the levees.

     “You don’t have to think back but to Katrina. The federal government has not lived up to its obligation to fund and repair,” Cornyn said Thursday. “We may not be so lucky next time.”

     Strong levees are a safety issue. County officials probably weren’t thinking about politics when they issued the warnings that drew Ahumada’s ire; their motivation likely was the same concern for safety that has driven their efforts to get the levees reinforced since day one.

     Indeed, talk of levees quickly brings thoughts of the utter destruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, and even this year in the Midwest when levee breaches left thousands of acres underwater.

     Most people would agree that it’s better to be safe than sorry. With recent disasters engraved in many residents’ memory, questioning county official’s warnings only raised doubts about Ahumada’s own motives.

ADVERTISEMENT 
ADVERTISEMENT 
powered by
google
Search
        Search: Web    Site