Why the Fed's rate cuts won't help you (common man)

(parenthesis mine) Been thinking about "bail outs, lending crisis, bottoming out of the housing market, the depreciating dollar. "Yesterday on the drive to the city, I listened to a conversation "Where Does the Money Go?, Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis" with authors Jean Johnson and Scott Bittle at KPFA's morning show. The authors spoke on the Federal Deficit, the Medicare crisis, the minute impact on the war in Iraq/Iran has on the whole picture of the USA economic decline, and the pentagon budget. What was salient for me is the point of Americans willingness (unwillingness) to pay additional taxes, cut spending, and resolve priorities by establishing them. Here included below is a more pointed perspective for the "middle class" to chew on, it seems many are deluded into believing "someday they will ascend to wealth" and benefit as the "truly rich" can only benefit.

http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25326

Why the Fed's rate cuts won't help you

In its efforts to keep irresponsible bankers on Wall Street afloat, the Federal Reserve is spurring inflation, crippling the dollar and cutting into retirees' incomes. And mortgages and car loans won't get any cheaper.

By Jon Markman

The Federal Reserve today continued its attempt to get out in front of the worst financial crisis to hit the world banking system in five decades by slashing short-term interest rates by three-quarters of a percentage point, to 2.25%, the lowest level since 2004.

But the Fed's effort will have little effect on the ability of the average American to get a cheap loan for a new home, car or college education even as it has a large effect on U.S. banks' ability to fix their balance sheets by racking up fat profits.

If that sounds unfair, welcome to the latest episode of a brutal new American business ethic, in which the government bails out bad bets by risk-taking banking executives in New York with money that it borrows from middle-class families and foreign investors. The effort is gilded with fancy financial language and cloaked in the guise of a rescue that helps all citizens, but the reality is that Washington is essentially robbing the poor to help the rich.

It seems odd, but these are extraordinary times. Normally, when the Federal Reserve cuts the rate at which it lends money to U.S. banks, those banks in turn cut the rates at which they lend money to citizens and companies for personal and commercial use. Simple enough. Yet in the past few months, banks have made three important changes in their usual practice:

• They have not been passing all of their interest-rate savings to customers.

• They have restricted lending only to most creditworthy, documented applicants.

• They have cut the total amount they're willing to lend.

Good for banks, bad for you

Banks are taking these seemingly perverse steps in an effort to reverse the effects of the massive losses they have withstood for lending too broadly to consumers and companies with lousy credit over the past five years.

They're pulling a big 180, which is as confusing as it is disheartening. Rather than providing funds to prospective home buyers and business people with legitimate needs for moving into larger homes or expanding factory lines, records show the banks are hoarding the low-cost money they're borrowing from the Fed and investing it in Treasury bonds paying higher interest yields. They're then pocketing the windfall profits to repair their own ravaged balance sheets.

As if that's not bad enough, the Fed's swiftly conceived, unprecedented course of action harms the public in three other ways:

• It boosts inflation by lifting the total number of dollars in circulation.

• It undercuts the attractiveness of the U.S. dollar, which leads to higher food, energy and gold prices.

• It cuts the yields of dividend-paying investments such as government bonds upon which retirees depend for steady income.

In other words, the Fed action helps imprudent bankers dig out of a hole by putting prudent citizens and foreigners in one. This gives big financial businesses a shot at staving off disaster at the risk of cutting the spending and earning power of everyone else.

Continued: Outwitted and outplayed

Fed outwitted and outplayed

To be fair, the Federal Reserve never wanted to be in this position, and it told Congress as recently as a few months ago that the U.S. economy was in such great shape that it had no intention of lowering interest rates in a material way anytime soon. But the Fed's leaders, a dangerous mix of university professors and career bureaucrats, were drawn into a trap at amazing speed by dark forces in the global financing system that they now admit they scarcely understood.

How could this happen? Albert Wojnilower, who was chief economist at Credit Suisse First Boston for a quarter of a century, observes that the history of finance is rife with examples of financiers who successfully outwit their referees -- the accountants, auditors, rating agencies, bank examiners and government agencies that are assigned to create and enforce rules.

Wojnilower, now an adviser to Craig Drill Capital in New York, points out that just as in sports, some of these officials may be corrupt, indifferent, incompetent, or even hostile to the rules themselves, but they always fall behind the financiers. He notes that as soon as lenders are freed of constraints -- as they were in this case by Bush administration officials eager to deregulate the industry -- they are spurred by huge short-term rewards "to compete addictively with one another in taking bigger and bigger risks.” Wojnilower says that eventually havoc breaks loose, forcing responsible government authorities to halt the chaos by providing bailouts to participants considered too big to fail.

It's a bit ironic, and not a little sad, that government has come to believe it has to fight fire with fire. The Fed, whose leaders are appointed by the president, is essentially trying to battle problems created in an era of overly cheap money and loose lending by making money even cheaper and lending even more aggressively.

In just the past few weeks, it has broken all of its own rules by providing hundreds of billions of taxpayer funds to brokerages at special auctions, opening a bigger "discount" window to permit a wider range of financial institutions to beg at the government till and accepting weaker-than-normal collateral such as iffy mortgage-backed securities. The Fed has put the government in the position of being the payday lender of last resort.

The Fed's hamster wheel

Just to top it all off, the Fed this week announced plans to allow the twin titans of government-supported mortgage finance, Fannie Mae (FNM, news, msgs) and Freddie Mac (FRE, news, msgs) -- which have proved themselves horrible at managing risk -- to make even bigger loans than they had previously. And it is telling banks to let individuals facing foreclosure to stretch out their payments a little longer.

It is all a bit crazy, which is why many veteran financial advisers recommend that investors remain skeptical of rallies.

The market rallied before today's Fed action, expecting a full percentage-point cut, and reacted well initially even to the less aggressive action. But what you want to watch is the reaction of debt markets, not the equity markets. Credit investors, who are the real masters of the global economic system, believe that the Fed is like a hamster in a cage that has to run faster just to stay in place as events spin faster and faster out of its control. To have had a chance at getting ahead, by making money so cheap that lenders would have abandoned their policy of distrust toward borrowers, the Fed should have cut rates by 1.25 percentage points today. As the Fed's effort fell short, the hamster will likely just go back on the wheel.

At the time of publication, Jon Markman did not own or control shares of companies mentioned in this column.

State Supreme Court takes up same-sex marriage

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, March 2, 2008

As gay-rights groups call for marital equality and opponents warn of a public backlash, societal decay and religious conflict, the California Supreme Court is prepared for an epic three-hour hearing Tuesday on the constitutionality of the state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

It shapes up as the most momentous case the court has heard in decades - comparable to the 1981 ruling that guaranteed Medi-Cal abortions for poor women, the 1972 ruling that briefly overturned the state's death penalty law, and the 1948 decision, cited repeatedly in the voluminous filings before the court, that struck down California's ban on interracial marriage.

The arguments on both sides are weighty.

Supporters of same-sex marriage invoke the state's commitment to equality regardless of gender or sexual orientation, the needs of the children of gay and lesbian couples, the persistence of societal discrimination, and legal rights such as freedom of expression, association and privacy.

In defense of its law, the state cites a cultural tradition far older than statehood, the will of the people as expressed in a 2000 initiative, the steps California has already taken toward equal rights for gays and lesbians, and the power of lawmakers and voters to determine state policy.

Beyond those arguments, groups opposing same-sex marriage want the court to justify the state law on moral or scientific grounds, as an affirmation that limiting matrimony to a man and a woman is best for children and society.

A ruling is due within 90 days.

The case combines four lawsuits - three by nearly two dozen couples who want to marry and the fourth by the city of San Francisco, which entered the dispute after the court overturned Mayor Gavin Newsom's order that cleared the way for nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings in February and March 2004.

The suits rely on the California Constitution, which state courts have long interpreted as more protective of individual rights than the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs invoke a passage in the 1948 ruling on interracial marriage - the first of its kind by any state's high court - in which the justices recognized a "right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice."

Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco Superior Court echoed that language in March 2005, when he ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violated "the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice." He also said the marriage law constitutes sex discrimination - prohibited by another groundbreaking California Supreme Court ruling in 1971 - because it is based on the gender of one's partner.

But a state appeals court upheld the law in October 2006. In a 2-1 decision, the court rejected Kramer's findings of discrimination and said California was entitled to preserve the historic definition of marriage while taking steps to protect the rights of same-sex couples who register as domestic partners.

Advocates crowd in

As the case reached the state's high court, the participants and the arguments multiplied.

Conservative religious organizations, including sponsors of the 2000 ballot measure that reinforced the opposite-sex-only marriage law, accused the state of making a half-hearted defense of its law and sought to justify it as a pro-family measure. Marriage is for procreation, and children fare best with married fathers and mothers, they argued. They also said the definition of marriage is so deeply engrained in the law that judges have no power to change it.

The coalition of conservative religious groups warned that a ruling against the state law would "fracture the centuries-old consensus about the meaning of marriage."

An opposing assortment of liberal denominations counseled the court against a state endorsement of "the religious orthodoxy of some sects concerning who may marry."

The court also heard from hundreds of organizations representing psychologists, anthropologists and other professions, city and county governments, law professors, businesses, civil rights advocates and social institutions.

Judges and limits

Underlying all the arguments is a debate about the proper role of courts in a democracy, particularly on contentious social and political issues. It's the same question - how far, and how fast, judges should move to correct injustices they perceive in the actions of elected officials - that has confronted jurists pondering such issues as segregation, school prayer and abortion.

The subject was raised with unusual frankness in written arguments by Attorney General Jerry Brown's office, which is leading the defense of the marriage law that Brown signed as governor in 1977.

"One unintended and unfortunate consequence of too radical a change is the possibility of backlash," said Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger. Same-sex marriage may someday be legalized in California, he said, "but such a change should appropriately come from the people rather than the judiciary as long as constitutional rights are protected."

Brown said last week he wasn't asking the court to sacrifice principles to politics, only observing that rulings that "ride roughshod over the deeply held judgments of society" can have unintended consequences.

He noted that the court majority swung from liberal to conservative after three of his appointees, including Chief Justice Rose Bird, were unseated in a 1986 election that centered on their votes to overturn death sentences.

Legitimate concern?

Lawyers for San Francisco in the same-sex marriage case nonetheless accused Brown of using scare tactics and of encouraging the justices to abandon their duty to protect the constitutional rights of all Californians, regardless of public opinion.

"Far worse than any short-term controversy a principled but unpopular decision might engender, an unprincipled, politically based decision of the sort the attorney general seeks will invite and sanction the continued stigmatization and marginalization of lesbians, gay men and their families," said Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart.

But Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor who is not involved in the case, said concern about public reaction is a legitimate basis for judicial restraint.

Sunstein said he favors allowing gays and lesbians to marry, but fears that such a ruling in California "would have undue influence over the upcoming presidential election, would polarize the country in ways that are not desirable and would short-circuit a continuing process of democratic debate over this issue."

That debate has reached the state Capitol, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed two bills in the past two years that would have legalized same-sex marriage, and it may intensify statewide regardless of the court ruling. Two organizations are circulating initiatives that would write the current marriage law into the state Constitution; one of the measures would also repeal recently enacted laws protecting same-sex domestic partners.

Those laws, which grant domestic partners the same rights to property, finances, child custody and other benefits that spouses receive in California, are also at the heart of the state's case for upholding its marriage law. Brown's office argues that the partnership laws satisfy the state's obligation to treat same-sex couples equally and eliminate any need for judicial intervention.

"Maintaining the long-standing and traditional definition of marriage, while providing same-sex couples with legal recognition comparable to marriage, is a measured approach to a complex and divisive social issue," Krueger wrote in his argument to the court.

Benefits for married couples

Opponents of the marriage law counter that domestic partnership is a second-class status that leaves partners without the numerous federal benefits afforded to married couples, such as Social Security payments to survivors, joint tax filing, immigration assistance, the right to help a spouse immigrate, and recognition in other states. Within California, they argue, a household becomes a family in the eyes of the public only when its partners are legally married.

"The right to marry compels the state to sanction and support a unique expression of personal commitment, and that personal commitment is not the exclusive province of those who love someone of a different sex," said the National Center for Lesbian Rights, representing 15 same-sex couples who sued to overturn the state's law.

Other issues abound:

-- Whether the marriage law discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, and if so, whether bias against gays belongs in the same category as laws that discriminate on the basis of race or sex, which courts rarely uphold.

-- Whether the 2000 ballot measure, Proposition 22, prohibited state legislators from legalizing same-sex marriage without voter approval.

-- Whether Prop. 22's sponsors and other organizations opposing same-sex marriage have the right to participate in the case on an equal basis with the state, based on their claim that broadening the marriage law would harm husbands and wives.

Cautious court

This case may not resolve all those questions. Under Chief Justice Ronald George's leadership since 1996, the court - with a 6-1 majority of Republican appointees - has been generally sympathetic to gay rights and civil rights, but has seldom overturned laws or thwarted popular majorities.

Over the last five years, with little dissent, the justices have established parental rights for same-sex couples, upheld an adoption procedure widely used by gays and lesbians and outlawed business discrimination against domestic partners.

But in more incendiary cases, the court has upheld the Boy Scouts' right to exclude gays and has broadly interpreted a voter-approved ban on preferences for women or minorities in public contracting.

Few court-watchers expect California to follow the lead of Massachusetts, whose top court - relying on the state's constitution - became the first and only tribunal to legalize same-sex weddings in 2003.

"This is a close case," said Clark Kelso, a professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and a longtime observer of the California court. "I don't think they will say anything like, 'Heterosexual couples are better at raising children.' But it's likely that the court will not blaze a trail.

"In cases of doubt," Kelso said, "the court is likely to tilt toward the expressed will of the people."

The proceedings are titled In re Marriage Cases, S147999. Briefs can be viewed at www. courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile.

How to watch the hearing

In the courtroom: The hearing is scheduled from 9 a.m. to noon Tuesday at the courthouse at 350 McAllister St. in San Francisco. Limited courtroom seating is available.

Remote viewing: The hearing will be telecast live in the Milton Marks Conference Center in the basement of the court building, and also at Hastings College of the Law, 198 McAllister St., first-floor auditorium. Limited seating is also available in the Koret Auditorium of the San Francisco Public Library, 100 Larkin St.

On cable: The hearing can be seen on the California Channel, a cable channel whose number varies from city to city. The channel is also online at www.calchannel.com. In San Francisco, the hearing will also be shown on SFGTV, Channel 26.

The law in other states

How other states treat same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage legal: Massachusetts.

Civil unions, with most of the rights of spouses under state law: Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire.

Domestic partnerships recognized, with most of the rights of spouses under state law: California, Oregon.

Constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin.

Statutes outlawing same-sex marriage: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, West Virginia.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

A confession on privilege

On privilege (benefited)
a male
first born
college educated with an advance degree
home owner/debtor
possess a personal computer a cell phone, a land line, a DVD player
a '95 Miata M edition (purchased use)
have good credit rating and a choice of credit cards
line of credit for both business and real property
participate in retirement programs (ROTH, IRA, 403B, Simple)
work with a financial adviser and an accountant
traveled to at least 2o countries in Europe (Ireland, England, Belgium,Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Holland, Austria), Asia (Philippines, Thailand, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore), North America (Canada, Mexico), North Africa (Morocco), Near East (Turkey), Pacific (Palau, Guam)
level of achievement and recognition in field of work
network of friends spanning 3 continents, over one dozen states in the USA (MA, WA, HI, WDC, FL, NY, OR, CO, LA, MN, VA, GA)
traveled to NYC, Paris, Munich, Florence, Madrid/Barcelona for art and artist (painters: Van Gogh, Renoir, Picasso, The Blue Rider Group, Velasquez, Raphael, Goya, Gaudi, Matisse, Rembrandt, Botticelli, Michelangelo)
developed an educated palette (wine, fine food)
listened to Maestro Leonard Bernstein conduct the Vienna Opera Symphony listened to a talk given by Noam Chomsky at MIT
a Regents Scholar as an undergrad and had less than 10K in student loans attended catholic high school, working to pay for tuition passable language skills in Tagalog, Spanish
parents have a college education
maternal grandparents college educated in Seville


in a (personal) context
of being an immigrant to the USA, unequivocally brown
known homosexual
an avowed socialist
parents who worked and retired as clerk and janitor
living in places I esteem as socially integrated
abide to precepts of reduce, reuse, and recycle


occupy multiple social identities, undeniably perceived and categorized by assumptions held by those within the milieu (personal view: arm chair scholar, activist, loved with abandon and wisdom, perceptive)


modeled and continually exemplified/practice developing virtues of generosity (goodwill), faith in basic goodness of humankind, dignity, truthfulness, courtesy, duty, kindness, social responsibility, perseverance, openness, fairness, loyalty, thrift, nuturance, altruism

Experienced near death and lost a friend to poisoning during a vacation
Lost 2 dear friends during the 2nd wave of the epidemic
4 years since fathers death, have a deeper understanding of who I am, my place in American society and a deeper abiding love of my brother, mother, sole blood nephew

What should my penance be
Feel guilty and experience internal conflict
Momentary joy filled daily life
Free of desire and longing
Free of illusions from what is possible and see what is at hand

Embrace personal frailty: anger, disappointments, want, limitations in the intellectual and creative realm, listlessness. A buddhist precept on suffering, acknowledging these traits as among the challenges in personal evolution.

Self knowing is parcel to intelligence. There is also responsibility shouldered by being more than adequate.

(c) danielt, 2008

Race and Gender in American Presidential Politics

Readers, friends and colleagues. Shared in this article is the lack of discussion of privilege among the two leading Democratic candidates. Hazard to say, American dogma supports the silence on issues of inequity experience by women, or those who are not members of the dominant culture. It will be curious to see, whether the aspirations of these two candidates as potential "unifier's" or bridge makers across gender, class, religious, ideological rifts in national and global society will speak out on their role as a leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world.

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080310/ramdas

---

Leveraging the Power of Race and Gender

by KAVITA NANDINI RAMDAS

[posted online on February 21, 2008]

As the contest for a Democratic presidential nominee enters its final stages, the feminist dilemma has become palpable and painful. My inbox has been filled with passionate and provocative pieces from Katha Pollitt, Frances Kissling, Caroline Kennedy and Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama, all explaining why they are not supporting Hillary Clinton. Equally strong commentary in support of Clinton, and dismissing Obama, has arrived from Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, Ellie Smeal and Ellen Malcolm. All decry the misogyny evident in media coverage of the candidates and grapple--with varying degrees of success--with race and gender conflict. Clinton fans mention in passing that Hillary has been an international voice for women's rights.

As a feminist whose daily work focuses on the challenges facing women outside the United States--particularly those living in poverty, in war zones and under extreme patriarchal control--I think these conversations have a surreal quality. They are surreal because they are so perfectly American in their insularity. What is alarmingly absent from our conversations and arguments, even as they allude to race and gender, is any sense of how our decisions affect the well-being of people across the planet--not least the status of women, 51 percent of us, who are being treated with appalling brutality around the globe.

There is something profoundly wrong when a conversation about qualifications to be President of the most powerful nation in the world ignores the reality facing most of that world's inhabitants. While American pundits debate whether Clinton is being targeted unfairly, for example, thousands of women and children in Gaza are being collectively punished as Israel, a neighboring state and former occupying power, withholds food, fuel and electricity. Yet who is talking about that? In the face of such a travesty of human rights and international law, not one of the presidential candidates, regardless of race or gender, has the gumption to speak out and say this is wrong. Not one has said that he or she will not tolerate such behavior by any ally of the United States.

We live in a world where women are facing an epidemic of rape in conflicts from Nepal to Chiapas to the Democratic Republic of Congo, yet neither Clinton nor Obama has seen fit to mention it. Recent reports of the widespread murder of educated women in Iraq by religious extremists are adding new horror to an already horrifying situation but are going almost unreported. Women and children today form the bulk of the world's refugees and make up the majority of the world's poor. Despite doing more than two-thirds of the world's labor, women own only 1 percent of the world's assets. Yet not one presidential candidate has chosen to highlight the profound threat that gender inequality is posing to the development, economic stability and future peace of our world.

At times like these, the practical politics of US elections are staggeringly oppressive. We are told by the experts that Americans do not care about, or vote on the basis of, what happens in the rest of the world. We hear claims that presidential candidates cannot raise these issues during the race: we just have to trust that they will do better once they are in office.

That is not good enough. I want to hear from the woman running for President why being a woman and a mother matters to her and how it will inform her leadership. I want her to stand up for the millions of women who are not heard here or around the world. I want her to chart her course as the wisest, most humane President this country has ever seen, not to show us how much more macho she can be as our next Commander in Chief.

Women in the developing world are not reassured when they see Madeleine Albright standing next to Hillary Clinton. They have not forgotten that this former Secretary of State, when questioned about the death of more than 500,000 children as a result of sanctions against Iraq, responded that the price had been worth it. Most would prefer a President tough enough to say that Iraqi children matter to her as much as American children and that she would use the awesome power of the presidency to ensure the safety and well-being of all the world's children. Hillary Clinton would not be alone if she chose to own her power as a skilled and qualified politician and as a woman.

There is a rising number of fiercely feminine and feminist leaders around the globe--people like Michelle Bachelet of Chile, who is unafraid to be an agnostic single mother in a deeply Catholic country, and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, whose first act as president was passing legislation against sexual violence. Hillary has a unique chance to stand alongside them. For her to dance so gingerly around the question of gender in international affairs is to miss an extraordinary opportunity to use gender as a platform for healing the deep wounds left by the previous presidency.

But my high expectations are not limited to Hillary. I have equally high goals for the man who says he will unite us. Obama has his own powerful but underutilized tool: race. What prevents him, for example, from drawing analogies between the plight facing women--many of whom live in subjugation simply by virtue of their gender--and the experience of slavery? And why stop there? By owning the question of race on an international stage, Obama would have an amazing opportunity to reach out to people worldwide--who are in more need of hope than most Americans could imagine. Regardless of whether there are votes in it, this is of profound relevance to all of us in this country.

Yet Obama is also missing this chance. What is happening when a truly multiracial candidate, whose first name means "blessing" in Hebrew and Arabic and whose middle name is Hussein, feels he must spend his moral capital proving his Christian credentials? What I want is for Obama to stand with my husband, a man born and raised in Pakistan, who now is asked to step aside for a random search each time we board an airplane. He needs to tell us that he knows only too well that if he were not a US senator but an ordinary man with a foreign name going on vacation with his family, this could happen to him. I'd like to hear from him that when he looks at the United States or the world, what he sees are not Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews or atheists but simply human beings desperate to be treated with dignity and respect.

Like Clinton, Obama, too, can find inspiration and solidarity with a new generation of global leaders emerging from the shackles of their minority status. For the first time in Latin American history, for example, indigenous leaders are holding power as the heads of state in Venezuela and Bolivia. Obama has an unparalleled opportunity to speak to them from an empathetic perspective. And as September 11 showed us, our foreign policy is only a short step from our domestic concerns.

The next President needs the ability to demonstrate the inner courage and conviction that comes from owning his or her "otherness." As a woman and a mother, Hillary Clinton could bring insights and perspectives no other President in US history could have brought to the negotiating table of war and peace. As the stepson of an Indonesian Muslim and the son of a Kenyan and a white woman from Kansas, Barack Obama manifests what it means to be a global citizen. What is at stake in this election is not merely the historic first that would be accomplished if either a black man or a woman became the next US President. What is at stake is the fragile future of our shared world.

Vice President Rice

This article can be found on the web at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080225/howl2
by Nicholas von Hoffman

Vice President Rice?
[posted online on February 13, 2008]

Who's John McCain's scariest running mate? Take your pick on the Nation Poll.

Democrats who think it's going to be a cakewalk into the White House next November had best remember one name: Condoleezza Rice.

John McCain is a formidable candidate in his own right, but if he has the political imagination to do it, he can cause the party of Jefferson and Jackson indescribable angst with Rice as his vice-presidential pick.

Besides being the greatest two-for in GOP history, Rice brings other huge pluses to the decorated Vietnam hero. Indeed, she may be enough to elect the venerable hero/naval aviator.

McCain's troubles with the religious wing of his party could well evaporate with the churchgoing Rice at his side. She solidifies that part of his base overnight.

With Rice on the ticket, the GOP would have somebody to get enthusiastic about. The Secretary of State is immensely popular with Republicans. For a party that up to now has been clueless about how to run against either a woman or a person of color, Condoleezza Rice is pure political gold.

Woe to any Democrat who thinks taking her on in a debate is a sure thing. The woman is tough, fast on her feet and able to give better than she gets. Anyone who has seen her in action testifying in front of a hostile House or Senate committee knows that she will be able to wipe up the floor with a plodding, ordinary pol of a Democratic vice-presidential candidate. Take Rice lightly at your peril.

In the ordinary course of things the ideal vice-presidential candidate is relied upon to carry his or her home state and keep out of trouble. With Condi the GOP gets a lot more. It gets a superstar to match the Democrats' superstars. If it comes to name recognition, glamour and magnetism for conservatives, Condi is dandy. Also, it is a plus for the GOP team that she is a snappy dresser.

Rice's presence on the ticket deprives the Democrats of the we-are-more-diverse-than-thou argument. It makes McCain--whose ethnically diverse family includes an adopted daughter from Bangladesh--an even more attractive candidate for a certain kind of independent voter.

Rice can rightly be attacked for serving Bush and backing an unpopular and disastrous war. But McCain, who is extremely pro-war himself, is not going to select a running mate who is wishy-washy on Iraq. Rice is also said to have done a poor job running the State Department, where morale is supposed to have dropped faster than a subprime mortgage. However, you can put the number of voters who give a rodent's behind about the care and feeding of cookie-pushing diplomats in a phone booth, if phone booths still existed.

With Rice on the ticket the Republicans are freed up to run a much stronger negative campaign against either Clinton or Obama because the Secretary of State provides them with cover against charges of sexism or racism. They would be able to go after Obama's membership in Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., with whom Obama is close, has won himself the militant tag from conservatives because of his association with Nation of Islam leader the Rev. Louis Farrakhan.

They can attack Hillary's experience claims as consisting of her being Bill's wife. They can challenge her boast that she is a strong, independent woman and paint her as a weak, hopelessly-in-love woman under the spell of a man subject not only to "bimbo eruptions" but also eruptions of smarmy deals with shady business figures.

Lastly, Rice is a notorious sports fan with excruciatingly detailed knowledge of much of its arcana. She's often said that her dream job is commissioner of the National Football League; however, in a pinch she would probably settle for Vice President of the United States.

Ahh the day after

Whew!!! now the first of many political election rushes has passed, it is post Super Tuesday. Who came out ahead will be debatable till the next sets of primaries and caucuses. North Americans, the USA and voting varieties, can stand proud in their interest and in exercising a basic right. Arguably one can say, more young people came out to vote, more African Americans, more Latinos, more bible belt conservatives -- spin it anyway it seems factual for the area from whence you speak.

In discussions, let us remain open to an exchange, shy away from polemics, cliche's and poorly reasoned statements that can only be fodder for increasing the perceived attack.

It is quite clear, where I stand politically and ethically. Earlier posts have indicated my leanings. I understand SF County came out strong for Senator Obama. Not surprising, one can say. This in the midst of a minor slight from the Mayor of the City by the Bay. It was claimed, the Senator did not allow for photo opportunities with the Mayor of a town long identified as a beacon of progressives and radicals. In this case an allusion to the Valentine Mass Wedding, ha can you imagine associating a more positive act than the original Valentine Day Massacre. Are we becoming more humane as a society? Or are we pushing an agenda for cultural separatism.

Bet many secretly wanted a rendering of post-coital regret or bliss. Well dream on, its good for your libido.

Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Senator Obama

In the event you had not come across the NYTimes Op-ed, here it is for your reading. It is widely distributed that Senator Kennedy will be announcing his endorsement of fellow Senator Obama on Monday Jan 28. Remember Feb 5, is a big voting day for primaries across the nation.


January 27, 2008

Op-Ed Contributor
A President Like My Father
By CAROLINE KENNEDY

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

Caroline Kennedy is the author of “A Patriot’s Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love.”

Senator Obama speaks with SF Chronical Editorial Board

Many of us are in the throes of decision making regarding the upcoming CA and other state primaries. Attached is link to a 52 minute dialogue with Senator Obama.

What is clear to me, he is forging a process more in line to participatory democracy that realizes big money, multinationals and the wealthy have vested interest in maintaining the status quo. He offers understandable and un-spun views on how to proceed on key issues that can be local, national, and international in scope.

What is disarming about him, he comes across genuine, thoughtful, and someone who has a plan for reinvigorating American society.

Though you may have made a decision, I can only asks that you be open to hearing him out, and see how your views can expand or focus based on what he says.

Note it is 50 min long, make time to watch and hear.

http://www.brightcove.tv/title .jsp?title=1381682549

Confounding the Racial Calculus -- Maxim Thorne, Esq

Mr. Thorne, offers an astute observation on the shift in the political strategy of Hillary Clinton. One has to weigh his perspective and not to view it as another "conspiracy theorist" or hapless victim of identity politics.

Thorne is a Yale Law graduate and an advocate in the New York city area.

Confounding the Racial Calculus

Barack Obama has been confounding the racial calculus of millions of Americans for the last year- including (apparently) the Clintons . It’s difficult being black even in the liberal democratic world. What we have seen in the last couple of weeks is first the outward frustration of the Clinton campaign in trying to understand how they calculated so wrong- and more recently their heinous attempts to restore the racial status quo.

Barack Obama has not only proven that he is a singularly unique Black politician but that he has the awareness and vision and commitment to rise above the sometimes toxic muck of American race relations (particularly within the Democratic Party). The old calculus would have rendered Barack's presidential bid a folly. It has been near impossible for Black politicians to win statewide offices like Senator and Governor. Even today there are just one sitting Black senator (Obama) and one sitting Black governor (Deval Patrick of Massachusetts ).

Barack immediately started confounding conventional wisdom through fundraising. The Clintons could not imagine that a Black politician completely outside of the party machinery they had lorded over for more than a decade was able to amass a war chest to rival Hillary's. Not only had Barack gotten the support and dollars of legion of white Americans but also many upwardly-mobile people of color. These folks really don't exist in the Clintonian vision of the poor and desperate Black and Brown masses waiting for a white knight to lead them to the promised land (re – It took LBJ…).

And then came Iowa . Like he did in Illinois, Barack won Iowa by having a wider focus and broader vision that the Black candidates who had come before him. Barack spoke to the concerns of urban folks struggling with failing schools and lack of health care. He also spoke to the concerns of rural Americans who face the erosion of communities by big agricultural conglomerates and dwindling populations. He spoke to Americans in general and people responded. He has inspired in Democrats an ability to dream and hope- to believe that while the progressive agenda has been derailed it can once again be put back on track. The Clintons had believed that most Americans had been so cowed by the disasters of the Bush years that they would pine for- hope for- nothing more ambitious than the Clinton years. What she was offering was not the America of their dreams but of their memories. Barack offered something intrinsically better.

But the Clintons don't seem to believe this. From their actions over the last couple of weeks it seems that their remedy to Barack's potential to win this nomination is not to counter him with an even better vision but to revert to race politics. They want to remind Americans that he's black. The Clintons seem incensed that Iowans- and the other Democrats who have allowed Barack to erase Hillary's once overwhelming lead in national polls- didn't just vote on race. "BUT HE'S BLACK- CAN'T YOU SEE !" is what Hillary and Bill have been telegraphing for weeks now.

To a Democratic electorate that seems to have finally begun to move beyond base race concerns the Clintons- the paragons of progress- are dedicated to dragging the party back to the depths of poisonous racial history. And not a moment too soon. Across the country the Clintons are on a remembrance tour- reminding Hispanics of the historic rivalry with Blacks; reminding Southerners of their latent fear of the Black man; reminding white suburbanites in the North and Midwest of the imagery of Black drug-dealers and gangsters that inspired the white flight to suburbs.

And it may be that the simple message of 'BUT REMEMBER HE'S STILL BLACK' will resonate far and wide within Democratic ranks: both black and white. Hillary and Bill are most convincing in their 'civil rights commitments' when it comes to vague imagery (Bill as the 'first Black president'; Hillary as the white partner in an 'interracial marriage') but they get in trouble when specifics come in. Hillary endured an onslaught of criticism when she claimed last year in Selma to have had a life-changing moment when she heard Dr. King speak in 1963. Yet in 1964 she was a Goldwater Girl. Goldwater was no ordinary presidential candidate. In addition to fathering the modern conservative movement that now strangles the Republican Party he was a pioneer of what would become known as the Southern Strategy. Goldwater was at the vanguard of GOP radicals in the early 1960s who saw opportunity in the Democratic Party's embrace of civil rights under JFK and LBJ. Goldwater was one of the few Republican senators to join Southern Democrats in very public opposition to civil rights and equality. Goldwater ran a campaign in 1964 that was in direct opposition to everything Dr. King hoped for. It is shocking that Hillary Clinton- a political astute college entrant who would head the Young Republicans at Wellesley- would not realize that Goldwater's narrow exploitation of white fears of Black equality didn't real gel with the civil rights agenda.

What Hillary and Bill do know, however, is that while the national Democratic Party quickly embraced a progressive agenda from the 1960s on it has been much slower going among the grassroots. Republican presidential candidates from Goldwater onward have gained the support of legions of Southern Democrats by appealing to latent racism over the years. Barack Obama's potency in national polls and his support among white voters across the country may well mark a period of transition as those voters come to terms with their fears of the past and move on. But not if the Clintons have anything to do with it. Perhaps Bob Johnson said it best for the Clintons when he warned South Carolinians that Barack Obama is no Sidney Poitier. In other words he may look and act like the 'Good Negro' but it's just an act; he's really an inner-city drug fiend.

And if Latinos- a critical voting block in Nevada but also in Feb. 5 primaries in states like California and New York- were thinking of moving beyond racial suspicions and voting for Barack on the issues the Clinton folks were nice enough to print a poster in Nevada reminding Hispanics of their history of not supporting Black candidates. Hillary Clinton said it’s not to revive racial memories; it's to make a historic statement.

But just to cover her bases the Clinton folks have gone to court in Nevada to prevent caucusing at the casinos where thousands of Democratic union workers- heavily Latino and Black- are working on Saturday while the caucuses are being held. The Clintons thought it was a good idea when the plan has made last year but changed their minds when an expected endorsement from the powerful Culinary Workers union went to Barack Obama instead. (A federal court judge rejected a temporary injunction and the caucuses will be held in the casinos).

Iowa made a lot of Americans feel good about the direction of race relations in this country but those good vibes may have been premature. That the Clintons of all people would think it pragmatic- and acceptable- to use race in this way is telling about how far we truly need to go. A truce on the race issue seems to be holding but unfortunately some damage has been done.

I believe Barack Obama has the ability to overcome this damage. His victory will be a testament to the progress we have made as a nation and an inspiration to our children who can still believe they can grow up to be President.

Best wishes,

Maxim

Maxim Thorne, Esq.
maxim@maximthorne.com
cell 202-460-4966

a you tube video is also online search Maxim Thorne

A long and full weekend

Living in the Bay Area of California has to be the second greatest gift life can offer, the first is life itself, day to day. Saturday (Jan 21) a day predicted to be cloudy with a chance of rain ended up being sunny in Napa Valley.

One of many life's indulgence is a trek one and a half hour north to taste vino. Today sparkling wines called to me. In part my friend who drove and I both enjoy champagne. Mustard flowers were beginning to blossom by the road side, surrounding hills sent grass shoots made them hills appear less blond, a hawk perched itself on a signposts looking for its prey in the field.

A picnic basket with salad, apples, flour less chocolate cake prepared by Tom were our accompaniment to the Chandon tasting as we sat on the patio, listening to the oak leaves rustling with the wind, looking at Magritte styled clouds, while the sun bathe warmth on a winter day.

Living life as it is: tasting at Mumm Napa and discovering the value of magnum bottled wines --softening the fruit, the acidity, and the carbon dioxide combo after nearly 7 years in the bottle fermenting. How delightful. Sometimes life can not be better met than to toast it with new discovery.

Monday MLK Day was a day for quite reflection and setting out a plan for work life in the coming year. I did not underestimate the privilege of living in one of the most beautiful and wealthiest areas in the world. Part of the blessings we enjoy in the region, better than average brain trust, a knack for risk taking and higher than average wages to go with our sky high living standards. As to the day itself, I stand proud to be an affirmative action baby and by product of good ole California public education (at a time when the state was known nationally as having the best post secondary public institutions).

To digress, California is now perhaps recognize as being in the penitentiary business, let us accept your poor, hungry, and marginally employable. Allow us to corral them into correctional facilities, where we call the question, is correction a benevolent term.

What can one do to mark the day of continued struggle for equality, just society, and democracy? Take a breath, be reminded of the accomplishments of immigrants of color like many peers and mentors, accept -- not complacently, struggle continues. For those of us in the educated middle class, or the white collar itinerant class -- less we be placated by our seeming material wealth, we seek each other and support one another bring others up as we climb.

A day in the country, breath taking topography in the winter light, shaded by the coming full moon, one can breath for a moment and move forward to take the next small step if awakened the next day.

What a difference days can make

Many days since last post and as many significant events at work, personal, and political took place. At times, one has to take pause to appreciate the moment that has come and gone.

Jan 3, celebrated my birthday by going to work and then to yoga. At work, an atypical day it turned out to be, terminating a staff and a client moving into a higher level of care transported out of the facility handcuffed and escorted by 3 adults plus one sheriff.

A challenging combination to one's psyche and paused to grasp it all with equanimity. Found it hard not to be irritated by actions of others: namely transporting a client, though not clinically indicated, handcuffed, surrounded by 3 escorts, and passed through kitchen, client common room, through the hallway pass the medical exam rooms and staff office, was troublesome. I was thrown off by the seeming insensitivity and lack of respect by these personnel for the other clients, facility staff and the profession. A lengthy conversation with the Supervising nurse of the team who behaved in this way was necessary, framing an intervention to consider the milieu, potential client backlash in perceiving how mental health professionals treat young people needing medical/psychiatric support, and alternative exit paths to minimize the potential adverse impact of this “professional” behavior on people.

Yoga, with teacher Tony Eason http://www.ynottony.com/ was a salve for the day’s course of events. Tony announced at the end of class my birthday and to offer a greeting, someone commented to all, "that's hardcore." I took his comments to mean, yoga class as a way of celebrating. To those in hearing distance, they are aware of how much effort it took for me to incorporate additional days of yoga into weekly routine in the past five years. An act of affirmation and appreciation to be able to attend a class, to enjoy the benefits of yoga.

Meals with friends and family alike: performance of Delesi at Yoshi's, grazing at Mecca and Tangerine on a Friday evening. Sat evening dinner with mom and bro at our favorite place. Old style calamari with noodles, Chianti and sumptuous flat bread were on our minds. Sunday a return trip, after many years, to Tofu on Sanchez for the most fresh sashimi (mouth watering, deeply satisfying) I've had since the days when an old friend seasonally brought back tuna for home made maguro. WOW.

Tuesday's Iowa caucus brought to the fore the "electability" factor of Obama as a potential Democratic nominee. What was striking in so many levels where the increased interest of the populace in participating. Of note: the analysis of who broke for which candidate, namely the under 30 sect, independents and women--underpinned by the fact the state is over 90% Caucasian.

New Hampshire primaries as it portrayed is the rebalanced of primary contenders: Clinton and McCain where given the nod. After the parsing of who voted for whom, what is true for both elections were the high numbers of participants. Will this be sustainable post Super Tuesday?

The first day of '08 and the closing of '07

A day of editors.
Tom and I after brunch, nap and shower, attended a party in the mish at Peter's (photographer/editor for the Chron). The New Year's Day open house was peopled with SF Front Runners and at least 6 editors. Front Runners SF loaded on carbs and protein after completing their annual across the Golden Gate Bridge run.

Independent editors and a book publisher, behind the scenes and the true ghost writers of our times. Are they scribes, or transcribers? Current and past projects, intersections of friendships and work made for stimulating and intriguing conversations to have the pleasure of listening. What is it that editors share among themselves? The state of writing or public speaking in today’s media injected dioramas. It appears most of what passes for writing is generally poor.

A night of literati.
NYE 07 marked by the blogger with conversations in a Duboce Triangle Edwardian, peopled by: a Harvard librarian and editor, whose current project is a bibliography of Gore Vidal's work, a former non-profit Executive from LA, a copy writer/editor friends and partners. Topics ranged from Social Work practice in the UK, the Kennedy-Bouvier-Vidal connection, current lot of Democratic Presidential aspirants, and China -the not so new imperialists.

Conversation flowed easily, punctuated by Champagne, sparkling wine, cava, vegetarian bean soup with dumplings, a roasted beat salad over arugula and the fire works viewed from the flat's porch.

Sunday Nite at Jellies.
A cold and damp evening on the waterfront. Club filled with transplanted Caribbean and Central American people dancing to a live Salsa band and dj. Salsa dancing is maybe an alternative to the tropical heat and accompanying sweat that one can not experience readily in the cool and temperate days of Bay Area life. Discernible are the styles of Cubans, Mexicans (cumbia style), Puerto Ricans iterations of the salsa beat and dance.

A Bday gathering for Rona F. I longed for an evening in Havana, dancing with friends and new friends to sonorous beats.

Saturday evening in a SOMA warehouse.
A rainy evening centered on stone soup. The hosts live in a warehouse on a busy SOMA street, a space with production office for video, music, and film projects. The house filled with Art work, many noteworthy paintings, various club decor objects, and very lively plants. The back garden had tropical air leading me to believe, I had escaped the city, only hundred yards away. A Jacuzzi, patio deck, and a bar in a lush setting.

The evening’s entertainment included a reading from Ms. Cora Values, accompanied by Sister Dana Inequity and his banjo. Host and cook du jour provided home made pulled pork, 2 pots of stone soup one vegetarian and the other not. Life an imitation of art, or is living artfully a facsimile of life as a stage. Perhaps links and pix to be attached.

A shout out to my fellow CAPS

CAPRICORN (Dec. 22-Jan. 19): French author and statesman AndrÈ Malraux observed that Jesus Christ was the only anarchist who ever really succeeded. It's no coincidence that Christ was a Capricorn, I might add, since the evolved members of your tribe have many of the qualities necessary to thrive in situations where there are no formal rules or laws. If you would like to move more in the direction of being the highly evolved Capricorn you were born to be -- and I think 2008 will be a very favorable time to do just that -- you should cultivate the qualities of a successful anarchist. In other words, be self-motivated, disciplined, and respectful of the needs of other people. Do the right thing without having to be coerced to do the right thing. Foster in yourself a reverence for freedom and a knack for making constructive use of your freedom.


Caps in the house:
Inaki, Rona F, Steff S, Robynn B, your's truly, Angelamia B, Donal G.

Living Life As It Is

Is under construction. Content will be uploaded shortly. I appreciate your patience and support.

Hoping pictures, narratives and comments will make for more interesting and engaging read.

Cheers

KUDOS to SF MOMA

2 powerful shows in 2007.

Anselm Kiefer: Heaven and Earth
Olafur Eliasson: Take your time

Made me proud to be a member.

Both were engaging, added to the post modern expression/articulation of planetary life elements, and distinguishing the truly creative vs the commercially successful.

Man Crushes

IF you do not laugh and pause to think about this.... This is funnneeeee and there is an ounce if not a pound of cure in it.......
Go to the original article, to increase the hits number of this.

Cheers and happy friday. Geeezz, Im glad to live in the SF Bay Area.


Summer sizzles for Man Crushes -- and there's nothing wrong with that
Peter Hartlaub Pop Culture
Friday, June 8, 2007

Justin Timberlake and I should be together.

Certainly not in a physical sense, or any other way that would jeopardize my marriage. This isn't about switching sides, experimentation or a fetish for guys who used to be in boy bands.

I just really want to hang out with him. Like, forever.
We're talking, of course, about a Man Crush -- the completely non-sexual feelings that develop when one heterosexual male finds another dude to be so cool that Guy No. 1 wants to spend as much time as possible with Guy No. 2. Aristotle had a Man Crush on Plato. Richie Cunningham had a Man Crush on the Fonz. And for the entire month of April and part of May, everyone in the Bay Area with a Y chromosome had a Man Crush on Golden State Warriors star Baron Davis.

The Man Crush has always been a delicate subject among straight men, with a very complicated rule set. It's considered OK to spontaneously proclaim your love for an NFL quarterback when he just scored a touchdown. It's not cool to point out that Bob from human resources always looks nice in that blue sweater. It's socially acceptable to have a poster of a shirtless and sweaty James Hetfield from Metallica on your wall, but never a half-naked or even fully clothed picture of Orlando Bloom.

But we're at a crucial point in Man Crush history, where a perfect storm of events could make it possible for even the most insecure guy to proclaim his undying like for his fellow man.

A new "Ocean's Eleven" sequel arrives in theaters this week, co-starring the holy MC trinity of George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon. Those three actors working together -- and that Don Cheadle ain't bad looking either -- have inspired more guy-on-guy crushes since members of the band Led Zeppelin were in their Misty Mountain Hopping prime.

"Ocean's Thirteen," the cinematic Man Crush event of the summer, will be followed by king metrosexual David Beckham's U.S. soccer debut in August, Timberlake's "FutureSex/LoveShow" HP Pavilion tour stop in September and then a potential San Francisco mayoral race repeat of Gavin Newsom versus Matt Gonzalez. It may be 72 degrees in the Sunset District without a cloud in the sky as you read this, but make no mistake: It's definitely raining men.
So why do so many guys fight it?

Every human being on the planet is born with the ability to figure out who he or she would find attractive if his or her sexual preference suddenly reversed polarity. Ask any straight woman what female celebrity she would want to date if she were a man: Chances are good she already has a list in her head, if not written down on a Post-it in her wallet. (Chances are even better that Eva Longoria is in the top three. Chicks dig Longoria.)

But ask a man to name a few guys whom he'd like to spend more time with, and depending on how close you are to a Red State, you might get a rude response. Unfortunately, we live in a time when a healthy Man Crush is still taboo, forcing millions of guys to insist that they're watching professional wrestling for the interesting storylines.

There's no Man Crush Hall of Fame or Man Crush Historical Museum, but there probably should be.

In fact, the Man Crush dates back to the Paleolithic era, where cave drawings show a prehistoric guy felling a wooly mammoth with a single spear, and then another caveman following him around for the next two weeks, offering to pull fleas out of his beard and help haul stuff down to the tar pit. Mark Antony became the second-most-powerful man in Rome based on his ability to elicit crushes from his troops (at least that's how it went in the HBO series), and U.S. President Thomas Jefferson (hot!) was elected mostly on the wealthy landowner Man Crush vote.

In recent years, Hollywood has created an entire genre of Man Crush cinema, even though no studio executive has the guts to call it by its name. From "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and "Cool Hand Luke" to "Road House" and "Swingers," men have spent hundreds of millions of box-office dollars to spend two hours hanging out with Paul Newman, Patrick Swayze and Vince Vaughn. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has made a living profiting off the crushes he attracted in three different entertainment media: football, wrestling and action movies.

Even if you've been in denial for a decade or three, it's easy to determine your Man Crush. Here are five common categories to get you started:
Fictional Characters: Almost every guy you'll meet between the ages of 25 and 40 has experienced a Man Crush on a character played by Harrison Ford. Ninety-eight percent of the time it's Han Solo or Indiana Jones, although there's a smaller group -- kind of like the Green Party -- that will insist they have a Man Crush on his Richard Kimble character from "The Fugitive."
Sports Figures: After 49ers quarterback Steve Young made that 1988 touchdown against the Minnesota Vikings, where he broke something like 137 tackles before stumbling into the end zone, who among us didn't want to spend an entire weekend watching "Die Hard" movies and eating nachos with the guy?

Local Specimens: San Francisco's notoriously skewed eligible man-to-woman ratio may be a bummer if you're single and female, but it's great news for the regional Man Crush statistics. From San Francisco Symphony Music Director Michael Tilson Thomas to Giants pitcher Barry Zito, almost every public figure is dreamy. Bay Area politicians are also hotter than average, with Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums -- an elder Man Crush -- recently joining the ranks.
George Clooney: There's a reason why this one-time "The Facts of Life" co-star continues to make more than $10 million per picture, even though half of his movies are almost unwatchably bad: He's equally appealing to men and women -- and may be the only guy making more than $100,000 per year who still drinks Budweiser.

That Guy at Work Who Always Wears Nice Shirts: There's a guy in every workplace who is kind of intimidating because his shirts always fit really well, and he can pull off things like a yellow cashmere sweater with a dark blue blazer, jeans and light brown soft leather loafers. Get over yourself. You should definitely ask this guy to take you shopping.

Guys With Falsetto Voices Who Used to Date Britney Spears When She Was Still Hot: If you had told me five years ago that I would develop a Man Crush on Justin Timberlake, I would have spit out my Zima. But you have to admit, from the "Dick in a Box" video short on "Saturday Night Live" to the singer's unfailing ability to shack up with really attractive women, he's become pretty awesome. Maybe not Daniel Craig-in-"Casino Royale" hot, but appealing nonetheless. I buy all of his albums, give them to my wife as gifts, and then listen to them myself in private. And some day, I hope that JT and I can spend a weekend bass fishing and rebuilding a carburetor together, without the rest of the world feeling the need to judge.

Should you meet your crush, there's no need to do anything special, other than the normal stammering and awkward pauses that result when conversing with someone you really admire. (The "Saturday Night Live" Chris Farley interview of Paul McCartney is a good example.) If you're doing the job right, the recipient of your crush might be a little creeped out.

But rest assured that you're doing nothing wrong. If God didn't want us to have crushes on other men, why did he make Derek Jeter so freaking cool?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/08/POP.TMP

This article appeared on page E - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Lee, Woolsey and Waters Introduce Bill to Bring Troops Home from Iraq

==========================================================
Lee, Woolsey and Waters Introduce Bill to Bring Troops Home from Iraq
==========================================================
from the Oakland Tribune, January 18, 2007,
Area Dems Move to Cut Troop Surge Plan
By Josh Richman

The war in Iraq became a war of dueling legislation Wednesday on Capitol Hill, as two Bay Area lawmakers introduced a bill to choke off the war's funding even while Republicans introduced one to ensure that can't happen.

Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, were joined by Out Of Iraq Caucus chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, to unveil their Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act, meant as an alternative to President Bush's plan to send 21,000 more troops.

Their bill — which has 13 other original co-sponsors — would repeal the president's authorization to use force in Iraq and fully fund a six-month withdrawal of troops and military contractors, cutting off money after that.

It also would prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, provide economic and political aid to the Iraqi government, fully fund the VA health care system, bar U.S. access to Iraqi oil production at least until the Iraqi government sets clear rules for foreign ownership and participation, and create a bipartisan joint committee to probe whether the United States was led into this war under false pretenses.

"The president said that critics of escalation have a responsibility to offer an alternative, and that is what we are here to do today," Lee said at a news conference. "We come here not out of a sense of obligation to the president, but out of a sense of obligation to the millions of Americans who went to the polls in November to register their rejection of the failed policy in Iraq, and to call for an end the occupation of that country and to bring our brave men and women home." The 33-page bill "does what the administration has refused to do — namely, recognize the situation on the ground for what it is, an occupation and a civil war," Lee added.

"The president insists on appealing to patriotic sentiments and fear with talk about victory and defeat in Iraq, but the truth is that you cannot win an occupation, no more than the U.S. can win an Iraqi civil war. The longer we stay there, the worse it gets."

Meanwhile, Republicans rallied around a three-page bill introduced Wednesday by Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, to ensure Congress doesn't restrict or cut off funding for U.S. troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, issued a news release saying Johnson's bill "deserves the support of all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike. I would urge all members to support our troops and oppose any effort to cut off or restrict funding for American troops in harm's way, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere in the global war on terror.

"Our challenge in Iraq is a difficult one, but Republicans and Democrats must work together to help stabilize the country's democracy and bring our troops home," Boehner added. "Congress should take an open, honest and deliberative look at the president's plan. If Democrat leaders disagree with the president's proposal, it is their responsibility to put forward a plan of their own for ensuring regional stability and denying terrorists a safe haven in Iraq." Boehner is among 15 original co-sponsors of Johnson's bill.

- "The American people went to the polls in November and called on our government to end the occupation and bring our troops home, not to escalate a losing strategy." - Congresswoman Barbara Lee -


Continue to support Barbara Lee's Work in Congress with Your Contribution Today! - http://www.leeforcongress.org

Presidential Aspirants --- From The Other Side of the Pond: (The Guardian Unlimited Coverage)

Obama takes first step in White House bid
Staff and agencies
Tuesday January 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The Democratic senator Barack Obama today confirmed he was taking the first formal step towards a presidential campaign that could make him the first black American to occupy the White House.

Mr Obama, an Illinois senator, announced plans to file a presidential exploratory committee on his website. He said he would announce more about his intentions in his hometown, Chicago, next month.

"I didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago," he said in a webcast. "I've been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics. So I spent some time thinking about how I could best advance the cause of change and progress we so desperately need."

Mr Obama said the decisions made by the Bush administration over the past six years, and the problems that had been ignored, had put the US "in a precarious place".

"Many of you have shared with me your stories about skyrocketing healthcare bills, the pensions you've lost and your struggles to pay for college for your kids," he said.

"Our continued dependence on oil has put our security and our very planet at risk. And we're still mired in a tragic and costly war that should have never been waged."

Despite the "magnitude of our problems", what concerned Mr Obama most was the "smallness of our politics", he added. "America's faced big problems before," he said. "But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way.

"Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first."

Mr Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 to the son of a Kenyan who had herded goats with his father, a domestic servant to Kenya's colonial rulers, as a child.

Barack Obama Snr left Kenya on an academic scholarship and met and married Ann Dunham, born in the mid-western state of Kansas, while they were students at the university of Hawaii.

At public engagements in recent months, Mr Obama has been met by often ecstatic crowds who have urged him to announce an exploratory committee - an organisation established to help determine whether a potential candidate should run for an elected office.

Last month, John DiStaso - a political columnist on the Union Leader, New Hampshire's largest newspaper - who has been covering the primaries since 1980, said he was astonished by such excitement so early in the electoral cycle.

Mr Obama's new book, the Audacity of Hope, has been number two in the bestseller lists of both the New York Times and Amazon.

His announcement increases the likelihood of him competing against Hillary Clinton to become the Democractic candidate in next year's presidential election, with the New York senator expected to reveal her intentions in the near future.





Rivals start to drop out as rising star Obama takes first steps in race for presidency

· Frontrunner Clinton faces strong challenge
· Candidate says he is surprised by rapid rise
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday January 17, 2007
The Guardian

Senator Barack Obama, the rising young star of the Democratic party, took his first step into the 2008 presidential contest yesterday, raising the temperature in an already heated race.

Mr Obama's video address on his campaign website was merely a dress rehearsal: the announcement of an exploratory committee to raise funds and build a campaign team. He is to make an official announcement of his candidacy in his home town of Chicago on February 10.

But the sheer possibility of an African-American president, and Mr Obama's electrifying effect on Democratic voters, assured yesterday's announcement widespread attention.

Mr Obama, 45, and a senator for only two years, was candid about his rapid rise. Vaulted to the national stage by his keynote address to the Democratic party convention in 2004, in recent weeks Mr Obama has been elevated to the ranks of superstardom, thrilling audiences in New Hampshire and on a visit to Kenya in a celebrity that seems to have taken even him by surprise. "I certainly didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago," he admitted yesterday.

In his video address, Mr Obama casts himself as someone untainted by the rough and tumble of politics in Washington, or by the culture wars that have obsessed the baby boomer generation. "It's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics."

Instead, he says he offers an escape from the dirty world of politics, and the prospect of reform.

"Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions," he says. "And that's what we have to change first. We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans."

The sunny optimism that overlay the video was not tempered by policy specifics.

As the 2008 race gets off to an unusually early start, Mr Obama's move presents the greatest threat to Hillary Clinton, who was crowned an early frontrunner by virtue of her fundraising prowess and the reflected glory of Bill Clinton.

However, Ms Clinton is seen as a polarising figure and her ambiguity on Iraq - she voted for the use of force in 2002 - could come back to haunt her now that the country has turned against the war.

As George Bush's popularity plummeted, Ms Clinton has since said she would not have voted for the war if she had known how it would turn out.


Mr Obama, in contrast, did not operate under the burdens of being an elected senator in 2002. He opposed the invasion, and spoke at anti-war demonstrations in the run-up to the invasion. In recent days, however, he has refused to say whether he would try to block funds for a troop increase as some fellow senators now demand. Yesterday he touched only briefly on the war saying: "We're still mired in a tragic and costly war that should have never been waged."

The other strong contender in the Democratic field is a former senator from North Carolina, John Edwards, battle-tested after the 2004 elections when he served as a running mate to John Kerry, and newly minted as a strong opponent of the war.

Other Democratic contenders are at risk of being outshone by the sheer force of Mr Obama's charisma, or the name recognition of Mr Edwards and Ms Clinton. The eclipsed contenders include Tom Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa from a hardscrabble background, Chris Dodd, a Senator from Connecticut, and Dennis Kucinich, a leftwing congressman from Ohio.

Even in this crowded field, other veteran Democrats are considering their options for 2008, including Senator John Kerry, the contender in 2004, and Senator Joe Biden, the powerful chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee.

However, other potential contenders were discouraged by Mr Obama's celebrity. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana withdrew from the race, citing the difficulties of putting his message across in a field dominated by celebrities. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin also took himself out of the running.

For Democrats, Mr Obama represents the possibility of change, a hope he has nurtured since the Democratic convention. It is also embodied in Mr Obama's personal story. The son of a Kenyan father and a white woman from Kansas, Obama was the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review. After a few years as a community organiser in the South Side of Chicago, he was elected to the Illinois state senate in 1996.

Mr Obama might still be there but for a lucky break in the 2004 Senate race when the original Republican opponent was forced to drop out because of a divorce scandal. Along the way, Mr Obama wrote two bestselling autobiographical books, winning a Grammy award for the audio version of one of them.

Presidential hopefuls
Democrats

Hillary Clinton: Seen as a potential candidate since first elected senator for New York in 2000. A fundraising powerhouse, but ambiguous about the Iraq war, which could hurt her. May make a declaration this week.

Barack Obama: Junior senator from Illinois and a rising star since his electrifying speech to the 2004 party convention. His lack of experience is made up for by his appeal to audiences from New Hampshire to Kenya, where his father hails from. Opposed Iraq war.

John Edwards: Veteran of the campaign trail as John Kerry's 2004 running mate. He has staked out ground on the left, with an anti-poverty platform. Opposed Iraq war.

Republicans

John McCain: Former navy pilot and senator from Arizona owes his military credentials to the years spent in the "Hanoi Hilton" after being shot down in Vietnam. Backs George Bush on the troop surge.

Mitt Romney: A Mormon and son of a former Michigan governor, Romney rose to prominence for organising the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. As a Republican governor of liberal Massachusetts, he approved a ban on assault weapons and made no move to restrict abortion rights.

Sam Brownback: Kansas senator expected to make a formal announcement on Saturday, and will run on the issues that move the Republican base. Opposes abortion and stem cell research, and what he calls the "homosexual agenda", and supports creationism in state schools

Rudy Giuliani: Former New York city mayor's interest became clear this month after a strategy document was leaked. Moderate image may hurt him among primary voters.