Mark Stoiber R.I.P.

One week ago today, I was shocked and saddened to read the obituary of Mark Stoiber.  Mark Stoiber's cause of death was a Pulmonary Embolism. 

Mr. Stoiber was Co-Founder and President of The Sleep Wellness Institute, a successful Milwaukee-area operation that helps people with sleep apnea.  He was also a proud husband, father of three children and a man of quiet confidence, patience and intelligence.  Moreover, Mark Stoiber truly cared about others. 

It might be the most cruel paradox of this life, that a good man like Mark Stoiber is taken ten days before his 48th birthday, while countless bastards live peaceably into their nineties.  Why?  Maybe when we meet the Creator, we'll learn why.  

Class struggles, debt and happiness

Credit-related causes of the Great Recession included: lax underwriting standards (abetted by government programs and the GSEs), overuse of ARMs (because the borrower couldn't qualify for a fixed rate note), too much cash-out financing and artificially low interest rates.  Yet, the Wall Street factor (i.e. securitization of those obligations and excessive risk-taking) always seems to dominate the debate.  I disagree with that emphasis because:

1) the Wall Street factor already gets most of the attention in the press,
2) regulatory reform for banks is a foregone conclusion,
3) Wall Street's culpability came during and after credit issuance to subpar borrowers, not beforehand. 

It's the third point that is lost on some who look only at the Wall Street role in this unmitigated disaster.  The destruction could only have been possible with easy credit extended to in-over-their-heads borrowers, like our federal government -- that operates the same way -- in the red. 

Even today many journalists treat sympathetically, those homeowners who walk away from their mortgages when the principal amount owed, exceeds the current market value of a property.  That's disturbing.  (Experts say, that between 20 and 25 percent of all outstanding mortgages in this country are under water.)

Author User: Brendel at en.wikipedia.org

Excessive consumer debt and government debt affect the rest of us who keep our promises and pay our obligations.  Yet some debtors and their advocates continue to ply us with excuses.  I have given you examples, but here's another one, which I'll call the Jon Stewart excuse:  You can't fault them because they were just "optimistic" about the future.  (If you're an optimistic borrower with bad credit and thus in need of an empathetic co-signer; please seek out Mr. Stewart.)  I'm genuinely sympathetic to people who suffered tremendous misfortune that led their financial problems.  Examples may include catastrophic medical issues, sudden job loss or sudden death of a primary wage maker.  Their pain was not self-induced.  My belief, however, is that people in those unfortunate circumstances constitute a smaller percentage of the people defaulting on their obligations, than what's portrayed by Left-leaning observers. 

A new book by Arthur C. Brooks called, The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government will Shape America's Future may add some perspective.  The book is reviewed by Matthew Continetti in the June 21 issue of National Review.  Mr. Continetti, an associate editor at The Weekly Standard in his article titled, "The Happiness of Pursuit" notes that Dr. Brooks thinks 30% of the American public believes "...free enterprise is unfair and the government ought to do more to ensure equal outcomes" and that wealth redistribution is a justifiable anecdote.  

Continetti notes that conservatives believe "redistribution is inefficient, or unfair to those from whom the money is taken, or a recipe for unlimited government".  He notes that Arthur Brooks has additional reasoning why redistribution fails in practice.  Based upon what Continetti calls an "abundance of empirical data" Brooks believes feelings of low self-worth, not inequality, actually make people unhappy and giving a man a fish not only won't help him fish, it won't help him feel good about himself either.  Brooks believes that earned success which he defines as, "the ability to create value honestly" is a proven prescription for happiness.

According to Brooks, 30% of Americans believe that wealth redistribution is justified.  That figure stuns me.  Apparently 30% of us do not realize (or care) that continuing down this slope could have apocalyptic repercussions for our current way of life -- a way of life that enabled America to flourish in the first place.  Perhaps despair and envy are the birth parents of all Socialist states.

Blessed again!

Wikipedia image

Another Progressive I've known as long as Mortimer (since childhood) read my last post - I'll call him "Cameron" - and he takes issue with my claim, "Wealth re-distribution is the Excalibur sword of most Progressives."  Cameron feels it is only reconciliation for "30 to 40 years" of growing disparity between the wealthy and the less fortunate.  Cameron's beef is summed up thus: "So John, I have a question for everyone out there that talks about this so called wealth redistribution. Based upon the facts I have cited, why was it okay for that wealth redistribution to go on during the 80's, 90's and into the 2000's, but now it's not when it goes the other way around?"

"Cameron,

Thanks for taking the time to read my last post and share your views.  I appreciate it.

Regarding CEO pay at the S&P 500; I don't feel it's a useful benchmark for a public policy discussion, because by definition, you are citing 500 companies to represent a national employment landscape that comprises over six million private employer companies.  That's hardly a reasonable sample, but let's talk about it anyway. 

(On a side note, I hear large public company CEO criticism often and find it interesting that few care about celebrity compensation like that paid to Oprah Winfrey or Alex Rodriguez - even though their pay dwarfs the average CEO paycheck and they don't create many jobs). 

Vastly undeserved executive compensation occurs to be sure, but it's really a matter for shareholders to deal with, isn't it?  After all, they own the company.  They can sell their shares, vote out the board, start a proxy fight, file lawsuits and do any number of things - and many do. 

Similar to any employee that just can't stand his/her Boss; vote with your feet, sue the bastard, etc. but again, let's not make policy for 300 million people based upon a handful of public company executives, lax boards, or apathetic stockholders.

I want to comment on two other items related to prosperity: housing and taxes.

More of our discretionary dollar goes to housing than anywhere else.  We were hardly raised in wealthy homesteads, Cam.  Our parents worked hard, but lived modestly by today's standards.  Perhaps a 1500 square foot bungalow on a postage stamp-sized lot, with two bedrooms, maybe three.  Can we agree on this description?  How do we live today?  More importantly, what has happened to American home sizes over this period you are pointing to? 

Researcher Moya Mason notes in a recent paper that while family sizes have decreased almost 25% over the last 30 years, the size of new houses actually increased over 50%.  This is consistent with my view of Americans in general.  Few of us are able to consume too little and the living standard has improved among all groups, since our childhood.

America has grown primarily through free markets, hard work and innovation - not government intervention.  I recognize this is traditional conservative orthodoxy and some don't like it, but it goes to the core of our disagreement.  You sound as though lower and middle third America have actually been exploited by the "top third."  How so, Cameron?  Think about income taxes (we can talk about taxes on property and consumption another day).

A column in the Wall Street Journal (April 14, 2010, `Spreading The Wealth Isn't Fair') by Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute alerts readers that last year, 38% of all Americans were expected to have zero tax liability.  They paid nothing in federal income taxes.  Under Mr. Obama's budget and other expected tax changes, this group of Americans that pay zip to federal coffers, is expected to grow to 46% in 2011 while the federal government continues to expand. 

Dr. Brooks also notes that according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, a full 60% of all Americans "consume more in government services than they pay in taxes."  And what about that top 5% of Americans earning more than the other 95%? These are the folks everyone loves to hate.  Well, they pay over half of all federal income taxes paid.  Yes, 5% of the tax paying public, pays over 50% of all federal income tax collected.

I understand the worry over a concentration of assets, but whether we advocate for the top third, bottom third, or middle third of America - we cannot tax our way to prosperity, or make transfer payments to reverse perceived inequities, unless we want to unwind the very system that facilitated America's rise. 

I'm going to close with part of that Arthur Brooks column:

"...our system is the envy of the world and should be a source of pride.  Generation after generation, it has rewarded hard work and good values, education and street smarts.  It has offered the world's most disadvantaged not government redistribution but a chance to earn their success."   (Words in bold my emphasis, not Brooks'). 

I can't improve on that statement, so I'll leave it there. 

Cam, I know we haven't resolved our debate, but I am excited about your visit this summer after not having seen you for so many years.  Please let me know your expected day(s) in town, so we can block the time and I can make the sauce.

Best,

John"

Blessed with friends on the other side

Wikipedia image

This post contains excerpts from an April 10 e-mail response to a dear friend of mine (edited for emphasis and anonymity). 

“Dear Mortimer,

I’ll say hello to the guys for you and I’ll be thinking about you this evening.

As for politics, yes, we tend to gravitate toward sources that share our views.  However, I also read the New York Times Op-ed pages and watch MSNBC (as hard as those tasks are for me).  I suppose you watch Fox on occasion and I know you read the WSJ – so good for both of us.  We try.  The state-sponsored education you cite that we both benefited from, came largely from our parents' sweat equity – translated into tax dollars – that funded the University of Wisconsin system. True, my friend.  But, I'm not arguing for zero taxation, or zero government involvement in our lives. 

When Progressives argue in favor of entitlement programs, they'll sometimes cite Social Security (under-funded as it is) to bolster their case.  They'll ask, “Well do you think Social Security is a Socialist program too?”  They actually think it’s a great gotcha question for fiscal conservatives.

The bone of contention, gets down to whom you trust with your money.  Progressives wish to give more of it to government because they believe it helps society and folks like me say....

"I don’t trust you because of your history.  Not only do you choke economic growth with your tax and spending policies, but your programs fail and are fraught with waste, fraud and abuse."

Did the Community Reinvestment Act and scores of Democratic initiatives like it enable the American dream for millions of people who otherwise would have been shut out of home ownership regardless of their honest intentions, hard work, and best efforts?   

Of the millions of foreclosures we've seen during The Great Recession, I believe the majority were assumed by reckless borrowers or cheats who had no business assuming those loans.  They lost “their” homes, tanked the market and made the climate more difficult for honest Americans who now - despite their best intentions - remain shut out of the market, perhaps for years.

A primary cause of our trouble was state-sanctioned, predatory borrowing that the Left now calls predatory lending, because their munificent scheme blew up. They brought the system to its knees and they still want to try again and again.  Today it’s health care, tomorrow its education and so on.

Wealth redistribution is the Excalibur sword of most Progressives, Mortimer.  Howard Dean admitted as much recently.  Their vision is not what made this country great and what’s more, all the anger you see out there – overwhelmingly coming from good people  – will not fade away.

I deplore violence and lawlessness and I will not partake in it, but I fear that with the warmer weather and a relentless Pollyanna in the White House, you’ll see things boil over this summer.  I hope I am wrong, but things are going to get uglier because many see their way of life at stake - and a revolution of sorts, is already underway.  How many Americans can take another 2+ years of “hope and change?”   You might be surprised at how palpable the anger and frustration is among the Right and the Center.  That is what I mean about this time being a little different. 

It's not just the GOP or former John Kerry critics -- it's a cross section of Americana.  I believe that their feelings about this administration, stoked by the economy, dwarf the anti-Bush anger we remember.

One last item Morty…

I care about others, you know that and I believe most Progressives have a heart as warm as mine and I include you among them.  I simply view most Progressives as honestly misguided on these matters - and you see me the same way - I get it.  It's a draw.  OK.

We also agree there are Wing Nuts on both sides.  However, if life comes down to helping your fellow man, consider that Conservatives believe government is simply not the way to salvation and its very nature is to give what it does not have, in order to stay in power.  Fannie, Freddie, free Fed money, and the like, it was all government conceived, packaged and delivered.  They just needed a little help from a few reckless Wall Street titans to package and insure the mess, in order to bring the whole temple down. 

But back to helping the less fortunate.  Consider that as a percentage of income, many observers believe Republicans give a larger percentage of their incomes to charity than Democrats.  If you doubt the assertion, check out this link…   I have not made a rigorous study of the question, but I think at best it's another draw, Mort.

Either way, too many Dems pretend that they belong to the party of compassion and that the GOP doesn't care.  That stifles productive debate, so thanks for never playing that nauseating card.

Gotta run...

Your devoted friend,

John“

Mr. Mark Neumann's time for a new goal

Here's to Mark Neumann, a fiscal conservative and an effective legislator with the best interests of the people in mind.  He's the kind of candidate we need to help take back our state from what Ayn Rand called, "the looters." 

The problem is that the Governor's job won't be his.  Mr. Neumann's could instead challenge Russ Feingold for a Senate seat (that should have become his in 1998) and abandoning his Gubernatorial ambitions.  The reasons are...

• The Walker forces are too strong.  He's better funded, has majority support of the party leadership and the GOP rank and file.
• Mr. Walker has a very real chance of beating Mr. Barrett - you could cast more momentum his way, by throwing your support to the Walker campaign.
• Neumann is the only still credible candidate with Washington experience and a chance to beat Feingold.  
• He lost to Mr. Feingold by a slim margin last time around.  Feingold and other stalwarts in his party, are more vulnerable today.  

So, Mr. Neumann, be a pragmatist and do what's best for us.  You will not win the September primary anyway.  There is still time to displace Mr. Feingold, but you must change horses....soon.

Kanjorski & Armey - a worthy dual.

This morning, while watching CNBC's Squawk Box (as I frequently do while dressing for work), I was struck by a welcome reminder that civility and reasoned political discourse still exist.

Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorski and former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey debated.  The issues and the exchanges mattered less to me than the tone and outcome of the segment. 

Neither man gave much ground, but neither fell prey to stupid sniping or demagogic interruptions while the other man spoke.  Honest officials can put forth opposing views without acting like vicious morons.

I don't know if it is because Mr. Armey and Mr. Kanjorski were reared in an earlier era, or if actual maturity comes to one later in life.  All I know is this: Joe Wilson rants and Keith Olbermann types do us no good.  

Torinus & Geanakoplos

Today, while viewing old e-mail on a frosty Sunday, I came upon a message I sent August 16, 2009 to Milwaukee columnist and entrepreneur, John Torinus.  Mr. Torinus has some terrific ideas about creating fiscal health and opportunity here in the Badger state.  However, I was piqued by something in his column last summer and I wrote to him:

"John,

While I agree with 95% of the column, the notion – apparently advanced by John Geanakoplos -- that the government ought to force “a write-down of principal on sub-prime home loans that are under water” is wrong. 

I recall hearing one of your presentations on healthcare and the insurance plans of yesteryear which offered no incentive to control costs (as opposed to high deductible plans many of us now have). You likened the situation to a 10 cent Martini night that you observed as a young Marine. Such arrangements, you reminded the audience, just might lead one to be “over-served.”

Well that’s precisely, the story of most sub-prime borrowers – they were over-served and just as no one forced you to drain too many martinis, no lender could force someone to buy more home than they could afford.

Of course, the rest of us who behave responsibly with our health and wealth, pay the price for those who don’t, but that’s fodder for another column.

To keep sub-prime borrowers in "their" homes - the ones with jobs anyway who may just need a little time - there are better options like converting them to renter status, interest only payment extensions, etc. But write down the principle? No. Doing so abets irresponsible behavior instead of suppressing it.

Tougher mortgage underwriting standards have already taken hold because far too many people, left to their own devices, will drink from the trough until they burst."

Noonan, Isaacson and Caro on Zakaria's program

It was quite a panel assembled today on Fareed Zakaria's Sunday cable program.  Mr. Zakaria typically focuses his program on foreign affairs, but today he turned his sights to the domestic political challenges of the Obama administration.

It was sort of a "Where did he go wrong and what should he do now?" theme addressed by three fine writers - Walter Isaacson, Peggy Noonan and Robert Caro. 

Mr. Caro asserted, "If Obama backs away from healthcare, he will have lost his ideals." 

On a personal note, I am a huge fan of Mr. Caro's work on LBJ.  (I wish he'd complete his book on the final years of Johnson's life soon.)  However, some might take exception with his reference today, to the "fifty million" Americans without health insurance, for two reasons. 

First, many tend to use interchangeably, the notion of "care and insurance" as Mr. Caro did, which obscures the debate. 

Second, the "fifty million" figure needs to be deconstructed and put it into perspective for a nation of 308 million people.  When one looks at "the number" which appears to be closer to 45 million than 50 million, and subtracts from it, the number of people falling under one of the following conditions:

• eligible for free or heavily subsidized health insurance, but won't take it
• takes free or heavily subsidized health insurance but reports to census takers they have no insurance
• can well afford traditional (non-subsidized) insurance, but chooses not to buy it
• are not American citizens

. . . one ought to reduce the 45 (or 50) million number, by at least 30 million people according to an analysis by former White House economic adviser, Keith Hennessey.  What remains, is the number of uninsured we have a duty to worry about and help, but that number approaches 15 million people, not 50 million people.

Perhaps we need not nationalize 1/6th of our economy against the wishes of most Americans to produce a policy that does nothing to lower costs.  Market reforms, tort reforms, increased patient responsibility and other measures could lower costs and improve the system.

Walter Isaacson (author of a critical but engrossing biography of Henry Kissinger) may have made the most practical prescription on today's program when he concluded, "The country is best governed and transformed from the center."

In time we'll know if Mr. Obama will heed this advice and succeed, or choose to double down on the current course.

Milwaukee's fiscal woes won't be solved by Dems' press releases

Published 1.15.2010 at Examiner.com

The primary reason I decided to support Scott Walker's bid for Governor last year is that he is one of the few state pols who "gets it." The "it" in this case -- is fiscal sanity.

I make no claim of neutrality, so when a Web article from the state Democratic machine came into view yesterday, I was naturally skeptical. The title alone was hair-raising, "Inmates Released, Public Safety Plans Cut: "Patchwork" Walker's Latest Hypocrisy Exposed by Political Ally"

The "Political Ally" referred to is Milwaukee County Sheriff, David A. Clarke Jr. -- another leader who also understands how to operate within his means.  My word, I wondered, what had County Executive Scott Walker done? The piece issued by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, references, "...a scathing letter to Walker" from Sheriff Clarke.

In the first place, the Sheriff's letter was addressed to several County supervisors and Mr. Walker, not solely to Mr. Walker, as the article implies.

Secondly, when the sum and substance of this piece didn't square with my own understanding of Mr. Walker's views, I looked to his Communications Director for Mr. Walker's official positions, which were described thus:

"The budget Scott presented for 2010 DID NOT include furlough days for Sheriff's deputies."

An amendment passed by the members of the County Board applied floating furlough days to everyone and it could not be line-item vetoed. The County Board are the ones that put this into Scott's budget.  

Now, the Sheriff has a series of actions he wants to take as an alternative to furlough days for deputies. Scott supports an alternative and has been working with his office for past few weeks.

Scott Walker WILL NOT and DOES NOT support the early release of inmates as part of an alternative plan. In fact, he would veto such a plan if approved by the County Board.

Instead, Scott will continue to work with the Sheriff's office to avoid the release of inmates - as well as furlough days"

Finally, I contacted Sheriff Clarke's office seeking comment on the "scathing" letter as described in the article in question, and the Sheriff responded through a representative that Sheriff Clarke,

“...is not going to politicize his budget and these conversations should definitely take place between himself, the County Board and the County Executive.”

Perhaps someone forgot to tell the Dems.

A Christmas greeting and a new domain...

I'd like to wish (all seven) readers of this blog, a safe and joyous Christmas season.  This site can now also be accessed at another domain: maddente.com 

God bless you and here's to a healthy and prosperous 2010!

Wikipedia image

Rick Santelli is right

Rick Santelli, CNBC

This morning I watched CNBC's Rick Santelli talking from the Chicago Board Of Trade.  His so-called, "Santelli Rant" has been watched on YouTube over a million times and his sentiments today, once again, represent the views of many Americans who believe in living within one's means -- it's how we were raised -- but we lack a microphone.

Rick Santelli was in fine form this morning while debating Steve Liesman.  The topic was banking reform and Mr. Santelli made a case for an elegantly simple cure -- raise the banks' capital requirements. 

Another CNBC commentator astutely chimed in that this is the same risk premium banks require when a homeowner has a marginal credit history -- the bank looks for more cash in the deal -- a bigger down payment to compensate for the risk of default.

Why can't we use the same mechanism to minimize chances of another banking meltdown?  Do we need new federal agencies, reams of new regulations, congressional hearings, class warfare speeches and on and on?  I realize that raising the amount of capital that banks must hold affects their profitability, but maybe it's a reasonable way to manage systemic risk.

Medellín, Columbia and Nixon

I've heard from friends with ties to Columbia, that conditions have dramatically improved across the country, although impressions of that nation's difficult past still linger around the world.  Tonight during Anthony Bourdain's show about Columbia, I watch as he visits Medellín and interviews locals - many of whom suffered enormously during the Pablo Escobar period of the 1980s.  The people appear proud, hopeful, even happy.  Mr. Bourdain says something to a local that reminds me of a rueful Richard Nixon speaking to White House staff in the final hours of his presidency:

"Only if you have been in the deepest valley, can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain." 

S/he who frames the healthcare debate...wins.

When the topic of healthcare reform took center stage this summer, I felt that "healthcare reform" had suddenly become code for "let's change health insurance." 

I was certain that I was missing something like the "3.5M jobs saved or created" metric I wrote about last March.  I thought I was the only one disturbed by how stimulus programs would be "measured" and conveyed by this administration because I wasn't witnessing views similar to my own. 

Surgeons, Wikipedia

In my opinion, the healthcare reform yardstick that counts, is the one that actually lowers healthcare costs for the greatest number of patients.  But that isn't how we frame the national debate and measure success or failure.  Is an expanded insurance pool run by the government going to achieve this goal?  I don't know, but uniformly lowering the cost of that pill, that surgery, that MRI, whatever it is -- would benefit us all.  I do not see how the House bill will lower health care costs.  

President Obama, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, etc. have successfully shifted the narrative from lowering healthcare costs, to demonizing the health insurance industry and expanding government control.  All this of course, delights their base.  If their bill passes, everyone will be 'covered' by virtue of a new mechanism.  That new mechanism is government-mandated, taxpayer funded, healthcare which is not reform at all -- unless one successfully frames the debate that way.

When will we reward the savers?

This week, the author of a Barron's cover story posits that it's time for the Fed to raise interest rates.  The macro debate for and against doing so, I'll leave for economists.  The argument in favor of raising rates, however has advocates at Barron's.  The Barron's article titled, "C'mon Ben!" is accompanied by a reminder that keeping rates so low "hurts savers." 

The policy notion of incenting savers to save more, seems to fall on deaf ears.  The Fed keeps the cheap money flowing, but they also hamper returns from savings accounts, money markets, CDs, etc. to remain at paltry levels.  When will we reward citizens who save and invest conservatively, instead of the masses who borrow only to consume?

freepik image

Of nuts and acorns

Contrast two recent cases that received national media focus: the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and video tape of ACORN employees giving advice to individuals posing as operators of an under-aged prostitution business.

In the first case, the President declares that law enforcement officers in the Gates case, "acted stupidly" then he hosts an awkward reconciliation meeting over beers on the White House lawn. 

In the second case, the President demurs when asked to share his opinion about the ACORN workers and Congressional action to stop federal funding for their organization. President Obama did say that actions he viewed on the ACORN videotape were "inappropriate" and deserved to be investigated, but then he added...

"This is not the biggest issue facing the country. It is not something I'm paying a lot of attention to."

Nor should he have paid much attention to a civil disturbance involving one man in Cambridge, Massachusetts...but he did.  Mr. Gates, for his part, could have had the last laugh and made buffoons of the Cambridge police, by maintaining his cool. Instead while being questioned, he ranted as though he had been robbed of his human dignity and got himself arrested.  That was the whole "news" story.

Back to the President.  At the time he uttered the "acted stupidly" remark, I had the feeling he was reacting as a man who had felt the sting of racism himself, possibly conjured by painful episodes from his past.

Let's say hypothetically that 25 years ago, citizen Barack Obama attracted the suspicions of some dim-witted person for no other reason than he was black and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Arousing suspicion for these reasons alone is completely unfair, but it happens and I bet it hurts like hell and leaves one justifiably angry.  

I get it, but candidate Obama ran his campaign as the "post-racial" choice.  Some people who've grown weary of bitter and endless racial debates are also attracted to a person of color that espouses a color-blind agenda. However, acting with complete indifference to race is much easier said than done.  

The President would have been well-advised to say as little about the Gates matter as he said about ACORN.  To be fair, Mr. Obama wisely distanced himself from the race mongering recently exhibited by former President Jimmy Carter.  Sometimes, even racism -- or reverse racism -- is colorblind.

Tea party rocks Milwaukee's lake front



John Maddente photo

Ever attend a tea party?

They don't serve tea at this kind, but visitors do receive a generous helping of speeches and opportunities to express themselves.

Yesterday on a sunny afternoon at Milwaukee's Veterans Park, thousands of attendees were treated to a litany of views on issues including our federal and state tax climate and sweeping health care and environmental proposals.

This was an audience that is passionate about their country and freedoms, but also well behaved and well informed. Nationally-acclaimed author Michelle Malkin roused the crowd with criticisms of left-leaning figures including Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy whom Malkin referred to as a "Beltway Swamp Creature" (ouch), Attorney General Eric Holder "Chief Endangerment Officer" and "union thugs" (in particular she cited Andy Stern and the S.E.I.U.).

A number of speeches sounded out a call to action. "Joe the Plumber" reminded the crowd of a Ben Franklin maxim -- well done is better than well said.

Midwestern watchdog reporting still works

Here are two current examples of how the Fourth Estate still serves the public interest.

1.  Locally, in my home town of Milwaukee, readers were shocked and angry to learn how their tax dollars are squandered (again) by a $350 million state child care program that is routinely plundered by a number of providers, including one -- who as a result of Journal Sentinel investigations -- turned herself in to state authorities.  Fine reporting indeed, by Ms. Raquel Rutledge and others at the Journal Sentinel. Read more about the scams they uncovered at www.jsonline.com/cashinginonkids

2.  Ninety miles south of me, another series by the Chicago Tribune exposes corrupt admission practices at the University of Illinois, as well as other cheats and cronyism throughout the Land of Lincoln. Here's the spot to read, "State of Corruption".

I'm not sure how we'd learn about these issues if old fashioned, gumshoe reporting didn't occur.

Julie & Julia reviewed

Julie & Julia is a new film starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. I watched the film yesterday alongside sixty or so other theater goers.

For anyone who loves Julia Child (as I do) the film is worth watching. Meryl Streep's depiction of the late great gourmand, is stunningly good. It's easy to replicate the oft parodied high-pitch voice, but Ms. Streep's cadence and accent on choice syllables is so faithful to the real deal, it's almost unsettling. It was a great performance.

The screen writer of this movie is Nora Ephron whose style I didn't care for before the film.  Before seeing the film, I listened to two separate Nora Ephron interviews. Her tone and lack of enthusiasm during both interviews left me with the distinct impression she felt she was doing us a favor by sitting for them. At least, that's how she sounded. However, while viewing the film yesterday I realized something else -- she takes cheap shots.

Example: In this movie, Amy Adams plays a character that works in a call center to help 911 survivors and takes a "sick" day to cook a Julia Child dish.  She then blogs about the experience to the dismay of her boss who calls her into his office to beseech her for writing the post. He ends his rant by saying, "a Republican would have fired you."

In my case, the theater audience was silent after hearing that little gem.  (Perhaps they cheered on the coast). Could Ms. Ephron have had any purpose other than to slam Republicans or Conservatives? Doing so is hardly unusual for Hollywood and inconsistent with the memory of Julia Child who was publicly apolitical. 

Finally, there is the weak ending to the film (which I won't disclose here) that leaves one wondering if Ms. Ephron was tired and decided to finish the script too quickly, or whether something else crippled her imagination before limping over the writer's finish line.

All this notwithstanding, the film succeeds on the strength of Meryl Streep's affectionate performance and the unique legacy of the woman she portrayed. On a five star scale, this blogger gives Julie & Julia three stars and a pinch of salt for the screen writer.

The Atlantic meets The Economist

Check out this article by Michael Hirschorn in The Atlantic (July/August 2009) in which Mr. Hirschorn examines how a printed magazine like The Economist can thrive, while other printed weeklies it competes with -- notably Newsweek and Time -- are languishing.

Print publishing success in the digital age may lay in what Mr. Hirschorn describes as "razor-sharp clarity and definition" and owning and knowing a particular niche instead of trying to replicate one owned elsewhere.

In the case of The Economist, Mr. Hirschorn asserts that the magazine "...canvasses the globe with an assurance that no one else can match" and "...prides itself on cleverly distilling the world into a reasonably compact survey.''

Mr. Hirschorn, a contributing editor at The Atlantic, made a frank admission that his own magazine, "...has never delivered impressive profit margins."  Impressively profitable or not, his piece is worthwhile for anyone interested in the devolution of paper-based, weekly news products.

Rather than add a new Palin post...

I'll simply provide a link to a CBS poll, taken this month, that reports an astonishing share -- 51% -- of the GOP views Ms. Palin as unqualified to be an effective President.  I guess I posted too early.  Here's the link, if you care to review the poll description.

I'm seeing more evidence to support my suspicions and I'll probably post no more about Ms. Palin as a VP choice because -- as the data increasingly shows -- I don't need to.