Is This Really Change?

Do you recognize the picture above?

Be honest. Do you?

Don't be surprised if you don't. Most people won't. Only those who really follow politics will.

The man pictured above is the likely candidate to become the new director of the CIA--the Central Intelligence Agency. You know the group, the spies amongst us.

The man pictured above has no experience in the intelligence field. None. He's never been a spy. He's never worked for the CIA or even the FBI. Yet, he's bringing needed change to the agency.

He does have Washington, DC experience. He was the Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton. Yes, you read that correctly. The Chief of Staff for the former president.

He was also a congressman from California for many years.

Now, he will become the director of the CIA. The chief spy himself.

Do you know him now?

He's none other than Mr. Leon Panetta.

Now, politics aside. Seriously. Didn't Mr. Obama run under the theme of "Change"? Didn't he promise change in America and the American government?

I'm confused. Especially since so many in his cabinet and other governmental appointees have ties to the Clinton administration.

I guess change simply meant away from Republican leadership to Democrat leadership.

To me, that's not much change, just more of the same old same old.

Same song. Different verse.

A Troubled Economy

Our economy is in trouble. Is there anyone denying that?

If you are denying it now, just wait a few more months, and I can assume you’ll be recognizing the effects of the mortgage crisis, banking and auto bailout, and the increasing employment issues facing our country.

So, who’s fault is it?

I happen to be of the school that believes there is plenty of blame to go around! Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are responsible for where we are now. Then again, so are millions of Americans who bought into the “easy money” lies that have been “preached” for decades and decades.

However, to no one’s surprise, the name calling has begun!

Just last week, the White House began pushing back hard against a New York Times article that essentially blamed President Bush for the sub-prime mortgage mess and the Wall Street collapse.

In a 5,000-word article in the Times on Sunday, under the headline, “White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire,” said Bush was also encouraging a “hands-off approach” to regulation that encouraged “lax” standards on behalf of lenders. “He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent—and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors,” the article said.

“That’s about as myopic as you can get,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in response.White House counselor Ed Gillespie lashed out at the Times for its interpretation of Bush’s housing policies. “They’ve had to mortgage their building in Manhattan to help make ends meet, and they’ve been reduced to junk-bond status. I don’t know if the New York Times’ shoddy reporting is the result of being in junk-bond status, or if their junk-bond status is what’s resulting in their shoddy reporting,” Gillespie said.

In fact, the Times’ article ignored a wealth of its own reporting, dating back to the era of Bill Clinton, whom the article mentioned only once, in passing. For example, in September 1999, the Times noted that, “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.” The 1999 piece went even further: “In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.”

Likewise, the Times made no mention over the weekend of President Clinton’s aggressive deregulation of the financial services industry, which empowered banks, brokerage firms, and insurance companies to engage in some of the very practices—such as credit default swaps—that contributed most to the current fiscal crisis.

While the Times mentioned that mortgage bankers and brokers donated almost $850,000 to President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, the newspaper omitted the fact that the top three recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and its sister organization Freddie Mac over the last two decades were all Democrats. Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, head of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; President-elect Barack Obama; and Bush’s 2004 opponent John Kerry all benefited from Fannie and Freddie.

I hate shoddy reporting. I hate even worse when people with an agenda write about their opponents.

Let’s face it folks. The current economic situation didn’t happen during President Bush’s term in office. The problems leading to where we currently are began happening in the 1980s and 1990s.

So, writers, editors, and reporters can take the coward’s way out and blame President Bush (if they are more liberal) or President Clinton (if they are conservative). But for me and my house, we’ll go back to what I said at the beginning—there’s plenty of blame to go around!

Hello Mr. President!

A confounding Inauguration Day tradition is coming to an end: Handshake Man can’t make it to the celebration on January 20.

President-elect Barack Obama will miss that special greeting experienced by Bill Clinton at his second inauguration and George W. Bush at his first: An overcoated, entirely normal-looking man, whose only security clearance is his beatific smile, steps from the crowd after the swearing-in. He offers the new commander in chief a handshake, a medallion, and a message from God.

The Rev. Richard C. “Rich” Weaver—dubbed Handshake Man by followers of his exploits—has been Washington’s most famous uninvited guest.

Now in his early 60s, Weaver has reached out and touched six presidents. He represented the ultimate man-without-a-ticket, the scourge of the Secret Service and Capitol Police, a hero to gate crashers everywhere.

Now from Southern California, where he lives, he says, “I have decided to not do any more with presidents.”

It was at Bush’s second inauguration in 2005 that the Capitol Police finally got their man. Officers had been ordered to memorize Weaver’s face from pictures, and he was busted at a checkpoint near the House-side entrance to the Capitol. Weaver pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unlawful entry and was sentenced to unsupervised probation. He was barred from trying to attend presidential events or entering the Capitol and White House grounds for five years. (I've included his picture above, just in case they don't remember what he looks like from last time around.)

At his sentencing in 2005, he said Secret Service agents told him: “You’re no problem to us, but you’re making us look bad.”

No comment from the Secret Service on whether it will retire Handshake Man's picture from its inaugural security briefings. “We don’t discuss cases of a protective intelligence nature,” spokesman Malcolm Wiley said.

I’ve known a couple of Secret Service agents who worked the White House detail. Trust me. They don’t tolerate being made to look foolish. Not by anyone.

I would recommend that the Handshake Man either keep his distance, or see if Mr. Obama will give him a special pass to be there. Otherwise, he’d best stay home.

Who's Responsible? Not Me!

One question I want to ask: Who’s responsible? That’s all I want to know. Can someone please step up and answer that question for me?

The United States Senate passed the governmental bailout yesterday and the House of Representatives will probably do the same today (Don’t they remember, off chance, that the US Constitution says that all such bills must originate in the House, not the other way around—but why let the Constitution get in the way of this garbage.).

I’m really torn on what the right decision is here, but the question I asked earlier is the burning question at this point. Who’s responsible? Should we seek to blame Wall Street for this? Should we seek to blame the CEOs who received golden parachutes? Should we blame congress for this mess? How about presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, or even Jefferson or Washington? Who’s responsible? No one so far.

Maybe an even better question would be: will no one take ownership of this mess and simply say, “We blew it!” Anybody? Anywhere? Not happening yet.

Now, with our government coming to the rescue to bail out all of those involved in this latest mess, we are just beginning to see people lining up to blame everyone else for the mess they are in.

A group named Which? is a London-based watchdog group. They have blamed Tony the Tiger, and Snap, Crackle, and Pop as “cartoon villains” for failing to promote healthy eating in children.

Other well-loved characters under fire include Coco the Coco Pops monkey and Quicky the Nesquik Bunny.

The characters were named in a Which? report for not helping with the fight against childhood obesity and poor diet. Out of 19 children’s food company cartoon favorites, not one was found to promote healthier products, researchers for the consumer campaign group found.

The Cartoon League Table was compiled by Which? after a survey found that two-thirds of people believe food companies should not be allowed to use popular characters to advertise unhealthy food.

Folks, let’s get real. Is there any one in our country that is being forced to eat these cereals? Are parents being forced to purchase these cereals as they walk down the WalMart aisle? I was in WalMart this morning and didn’t see that taking place. Maybe I missed it. Where is the responsibility of the parent? Shouldn’t it be parents who make decisions about what they feed their children, not some watchdog group.



Or, let’s look at this story. It comes from Milwaukee. Oprah Winfrey’s mother says she shouldn’t have to pay a nearly $156,000 debt to a high-end fashion store because store officials shouldn’t have extended credit to her.

Read that again. The store shouldn’t have extended her credit, so it is their fault for her running up at $156,000 debt! Yes, that’s what her countersuit says!

Here’s the story. Valentina Inc. alleges that Vernita Lee (Oprah’s mother) of Milwaukee racked up $155,547 in purchases and interest as of July 1. The company sued, saying Lee fell behind in minimum monthly payments of $2,000.

Lee filed a counterclaim Friday contending that Valentina took advantage of her “lack of knowledge, ability, and-or capacity” when creating her credit account.

I am just about sick after reading this story! Valentina is responsible for her debt because they allowed her to charge. Give me a break!

I see the lawyers lining up now. If I buy a car, drive it for 50,000 miles and really can’t afford to keep it up, I should be suing the car company that sold it to me. It’s their fault.

If I don’t get a raise at work, I should sue my college for not providing a proper education to me. It’s not my fault.

If I get a speeding ticket on the way to work, I should sue the car maker because they built that car to go that fast. If they had built it to go slower, I wouldn’t have gotten a ticket. It’s not my fault.

If I buy a house I can’t afford, furnish it with furniture that I can’t pay for, then obviously it is someone else’s fault. Not mine.

How have we gotten to this point? How have we sunk this low? I’m talking about all of us. Republicans. Democrats. Independents.

Who’s responsible? I am. You are.

What can we do about it?