Tough Times and Strange Bedfellows: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his Colombian counterpart Alvaro Uribe “have made conciliatory noises.” Billions of dollars in trade coupled with a fiscal crisis warmed the enemies to the magnanimous overtures.

We’ll Have a Gay Old Time: Colombia is outpacing the US on gay rights, a huge step in socially-conservative Latin America.

Trickle Down Doesn’t: The Washington Post reports that outside investment in Colombia doesn’t make its way to the destitute members of society:

“What we are seeing is an economic growth that is not having an impact on poverty,” said Lluís Casanovas, a Spanish doctor who studies disease and infection in poor communities here. “What I’m saying is we have a model of development that is not inclusive of the whole Cartagena population.”

This isn’t an argument not to invest, or to oppose a free trade agreement a priori, but it is a compelling argument for new priorities when undergoing either.

Hypocrisy kept at bay: Greg Weeks over at Two Weeks Notice mulls over the announcement from Colombian president and staunch Bush-ally Alvaro Uribe; he will not run for a constitutionally-prohibited third term. The immensely populat president had previously floated the idea, despite condemning Hugo Chavez for the same.

Bolivian Reforms: Bolivians passed President Evo Morales’ constitutional reforms, allowing for a previously prohibited second term. The reforms also expand the rights representation of the indigenous majority.

Parched Pueblo: From Mexico City, a sprawling, ad-hoc development of 22 million people, an official has told the LA Times “we are running out of water.” Water rationing is in effect.

I came across this online petition on Twitter via Lee Stranahan:

To the U.S. Congress:  During an unprecedented economic downturn, some American companies are needlessly laying off workers. These layoffs are the decisions of CEOs and executives who earn many times what the average worker makes and often get multi-million dollar bonuses. Ironically, these executives - not the workers - are often the reason for a company’s difficulties.

We believe that unneeded layoffs are a tremendous threat to the U.S. economy. Simply put, workers without jobs can’t afford to buy goods or services. The massive layoffs are creating a spiraling, downward cycle in the economy that effects not just the families of these laid off workers but everyone.

We realize that sometimes a company must lay off workers. However, we agree with the sentiments of CEO Barry Diller, who recently said…

“The idea of a company that’s earning money…not losing money… to have cutbacks so they can earn another $12 million or $20 million or $40 million in a year where no one’s counting is really a horrible act when you think about it, on every level. First of all, it’s certainly not necessary. It’s doing it at the worst time. It’s throwing people out to a larger unemployment heap for frankly no good reason. It’s not that you don’t want to earn as much money as you can — it is your obligation, of course — but companies have obligations beyond that and they certainly have obligations beyond that at certain times, in the times in which they operate.”

We call on the members of Congress to hold immediate hearings and to call the CEOs of these companies to account for themselves and these harmful layoffs. Let the American people see the CEOs answer questions in a public forum, explain their decisions and discuss their executive pay packages.

The recent example of the hearings with the big three automakers have shown that CEOs can change their behavior under public scrutiny. We hope these hearings will bring about public awareness and get the executives of all American businesses to act in a manner befitting the times and more beneficial to all.

Like Jim, I have been thinking about the $18 billion paid out in Wall Street bonuses after a year when most people saw their retirement accounts go down by 40% or more. (and, by the way, I probably got the idea for this post from writing Jim has done in the past).

One thing I thought was–what else could have been paid for with this $18 billion?

• It could have been used to pay for the entire national school lunch program, which provides low cost or free lunches to more than 30 million children every day, for more than two years.
• It could have been used to pay $3,600 to each of the 5 million poorest families in the United States. (Or $1,800 to the 10 million poorest families, for that matter).
• Based on the costs as of 2006, it could have funded SCHIP for more than two years, with a couple of billion dollars left over to provide for cost increases over the last couple of years.  That’s both the federal and the state costs for providing health care services through SCHIP to about 6 million children in 2006.
• It could have been used to pay the entire food costs for more than 2 million families for a year, based on the USDA’s estimate of the costs of a low-cost food plan for a family of four.

As Jim says, something has to be done–a lot has to be done.  One thing I’d suggest is re-evaluating our basic assumptions.  Why do we accept a society that allows already affluent people to receive billions of dollars in bonuses, effectively subsidized by the government, while others are losing their houses, going without health care, going hungry?  This is not about class warfare, it is not about demonizing the wealthy.  It is about setting priorities.  Right now, we are collectively saying we are ok with this.  We are ok with a society where a few people do amazingly well and have more money than they could ever spend while others go without.

I like that Barack Obama is outraged about the bonuses.  That is one important step in doing something about the stark inequalities we currently accept as just the way things are.

The record breaking profits of oil companies are continuing in the worst of times. Having created a system that relies on their product partly by undermining competition from mass transportation projects like D.C.’s trolley system, the oil companies have a stranglehold on the U.S. The worst aspect of the situation was experienced all to recently as prices soared to $4 a gallon, and many workers had to go into debt to make the adjustment in their budgets.

While the real estate bubble that burst made a huge mess financially for many, a large proportion of the working population had already become strapped, and many indebted, by jacked-up oil prices that also bled into grocery prices and prices of everything that had to be transported. Trucking companies and truckers were particularly stressed by the huge hikes in the gas essential to their operation.

The maligned American consumer went into debt to keep from going hungry and giving up a job, for the most part. All the grief the consumer is getting now for feckless behavior was greatly forced on him/her by oil prices.

Now it’s hard to celebrate when one of the few industries that has kept profits in its operation has more profit to report.

Despite collapsing oil prices in recent months, Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, still managed to set a record for last year as the most profitable American corporation ever.

Exxon earned $45.2 billion in 2008, beating the record it set in 2007 for most profitable corporation, at $40.6 billion. That came despite a fourth quarter in which income fell 33 percent, owing to the steepest drop ever in oil prices, as the economy went into a tailspin.

After riding a tide of swelling earnings in recent years, the once high-flying oil sector is scrambling to adjust to a sharp downturn. Oil consumption is falling in all major developed nations as economies shrink and consumers cut back on spending.

As a result, oil prices have dropped more than 70 percent since peaking above $145 a barrel in July. On Friday, they traded at about $42 a barrel.

Because of its close attention to cost reduction and efficiency, Exxon is weathering the drop in oil prices better than most rivals. As most companies trim spending and scale back some operations, Exxon signaled it would stick with its strategy.

More than any other oil company, managers at Exxon emphasize a strict attention to containing costs, and are disciplined about their investments. As a result, the company manages to extract more dollars than its rivals out of each barrel that it pumps or refines.

The method has served the company well when times were good, and is likely to provide some shelter in a long downturn, analysts said.

The company has more than $30 billion in cash that could provide it with a strategic war chest to make acquisitions, according to analysts. Many have forecast a wave of buyouts in the sector as companies struggle to finance their projects or even to survive.
(snip)
On Friday, the company signaled that its share buyback program, which totaled $8 billion in the fourth quarter, would be trimmed slightly to $7 billion in the first quarter of 2009.

Exxon pumped about 2.47 million barrels of oil a day in the fourth quarter and produced 9.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day. Over all, oil and gas production decreased 3 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with the year-earlier period. (In some countries, Exxon is entitled to fewer barrels of oil when prices rise.)

The company started eight major projects last year, including Thunder Horse, a huge offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico.

Why would anyone expect that the huge tax breaks the oil companies have been handed by a congress dominated by right wingers go unmentioned in the company’s announcement? The use of public lands without paying taxpayers for leases also just didn’t make the cut.

It is past time for the U.S. to end the obscene profits of oil companies that give nothing back to the consumer. Solar and wind energy, clean in so many ways, will be part of a welcome solution to the problems the oil companies have created.

Pollution has damaged the world in several ways, air, land and water pollution are symbolic of the Eat the Poor practices that oil companies find desirable. Humankind will be much better off when the reign of Big Oil is over.

(This post also at http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/ )

Following up on Thurston’s answer to Brandon Friedman’s debunking of five myths that progressives ostensibly hold regarding the escalation in Afghanistan, I’d like to dilate one of Thurston’s principal observations: “he [Friedman] doesn’t quote a single anti-escalation voice.”

In fact, his post hinges upon “five myths” for which he provides no source.

This rhetorical technique - the use of unsourced material - is, of course, nothing new to politics; one of the masters of the style happened to be Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon. Author of Nixonland, Rick Perlstein, makes frequent reference to “that old Nixon trick, the unsourced question.”

One example comes from the ‘68 presidential campaign: after Nixon pledges to get troops out of Vietnam, he immediately uses an unsourced question to preclude any reporter from asking how he plans to do so, saying…

“People ask me, ‘what will you give North Vietnam?’ Let me tell you why I won’t tell you that. No one with this responsibility who is seeking office should give away his bargaining position in advance. That’s why I will not be tied to anything Johnson has said except the commitment.”

But unsourced (ie apocryphal) material not only guards against damaging follow-up questions, it also guards against damaging counter-arguments; just invent some arguments, attribute them to your opponents, and systematically knock them down. That, or cherry-pick the weakest arguments you can find and take those down. In either case, however, be prepared for responses like this:

Don’t talk about “myths” like this was the clap. Respond to real arguments made by real people. Quote one of us. Name one of us. And we’ll come back at you with point after point after point, and there are a lot of us, so if you want a debate then bring your A game. Because we are ready.

Today, I had the chance to sit down with Atul Gawande (former Clinton staffer, author of this great New Yorker piece on health care) and Ron Pollack (Executive Director, Families USA), and see Paul Begala speak. Here are some highlights.

Atul Gawande on how to build on the health care system we have and still achieve transformational change:

Change is transformational when it covers everyone and medical debt disappears. Some called “universal coverage” could have such weak benefits that it doesn’t achieve those two goals. Health care is the core root of our economic troubles, it’s the inability of employers to cope with costs, it prevents people from shifting out of their jobs, that risk taking is being sapped by our system, so we have to change that. We have to develop a system that holds us collectively responsible for making the care better, safer, and less costly.

Those components would make transformational change. You can build on what we have in so many ways I almost don’t care exactly what it looks like. If I were paid tomorrow thorough Medicare, by dealing with AETNA, or by dealing with the VA, I can see using them in ways that achieve those three things above to make transformational change.

In Massachusetts, we have coverage, but it’s reaching the point that it’s so expensive, that we’re now in the debate - we’re not debating rolling back the system, it’s so popular - but are we are debating cutting benefits, raising taxes, or cutting payments. That is exactly where we need to be. Right now at the federal level, when we get into economic trouble with health care, we cut people off.

On the role of single payer supporters in the political process:

Brandon Friedman of VoteVets “weighs in” on the Afghanistan debate with “five myths” that “many progressives” hold about the pro-escalation crowd.

Except he doesn’t quote a single anti-escalation voice.

But we ain’t hard to find. We’re right here. We put some of the best anti-escalation writing in one place for your ease and convenience.

So bring it, Brandon. Don’t talk about “myths” like this was the clap. Respond to real arguments made by real people.

Quote one of us. Name one of us. And we’ll come back at you with point after point after point, and there are a lot of us, so if you want a debate then bring your A game. Because we are ready.

Or if you can’t be bothered to argue with the silly lefty bloggers, then take on Andrew Bacevich. Take on Bob Herbert. Take on Rachel Maddow.

A lot of people complimented Brandon for his civil tone. I do too. But we’re talking about war here. We’re talking about the security of our country and the lives of our men and women in uniform. The seriousness of the situation deserves a real debate conducted on honest terms.

If Brandon wants that debate, he can start by answering real questions:

* What are the goals of US involvement?
* What is the main objective of the military strategy?
* What would “victory” look like, and what allows US troops to leave?
* How will we pay for an escalation in Afghanistan?
* What diplomatic and non-military aid initiatives will the US pursue in the immediate future?
* What role does Pakistan (and other surrounding nations) play in this conflict and its solution?
* What kind of permanent presence in Afghanistan does the Obama Administration envision, and how does that benefit America and the region?
* What is the plan for de-escalating the US military presence?

***********************************************************

You want a takedown of the “myths”? Let it not be said that I shy from debate.

Myth #1: Those who support additional troops believe military force is the primary solution to the conflict in Afghanistan.

Who accused you of this? Quote someone and then we can talk about it.

As for “if we pump in the troops, then pave the roads and hand out the cash, it’ll be all good,” we’ve been through this before. Development is deeply flawed.

Myth #2: This escalation in Afghanistan is just like the unquestioning drive toward war in Iraq.

Some might say this, some don’t. Quote someone if you want to debate them. But at the end of the day, that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about whether escalation is or is not a sane policy.

Myth #3: Those who support an escalation in Afghanistan aren’t concerned with civilian casualties.

My charge for you is not that you aren’t concerned with civilian casualties, but that you’re assuming more troops will reduce, rather than increase, civilian casualties. And that’s supposedly because we’ll use air power less, right? But if more troops equals less casualties, then why have casualties gone up since we started pumping in more troops in 2007?

Myth #4: The Afghan people don’t want us in their country.

This is the only “myth” of Friedman’s that I take seriously. But not that seriously. Here’s how he starts:

Trust me:

Bad sign.

You’ll know when they don’t want us in their country.

Then he cites some ABC polling data that doesn’t prove his point and makes a logical leap to say that more troops will make us more popular - after we train their security forces, which will take “years.” How many years, Brandon? And why is that necessary again? And if we have to spend “years” occupying every country that might potentially serve as a terrorist training ground, then shouldn’t we gear up to occupy Pakistan and Somalia too? And how long will the Europeans stick around to help us out? Canada’s already out in 2011. It might get pretty lonely, building up that popularity over so many years.

Here’s how I know they don’t want us in their country. The Taliban is stronger than ever. Violence is worsening. Foreigners are assassinated on the streets of Kabul. Afghans are lining up to fight us because of Israel/Palestine. President Karzai says he doesn’t want escalation and has called for negotiations with the Taliban. Other Afghan leaders like RAWA and Malalai Joya say they want us out.

And now more troops, deployed with no real strategy, will make us more popular? That doesn’t make sense.

Myth #5: The Obama administration has set its Afghanistan policy in stone.

Come on, man. If we believed that, why would be doing this?

Let’s have an end to the “myths” and the talking points and the running to hide between Obama’s legs. Let’s have a real debate. We are right here ready and waiting.

An open letter to Michelle Rhee: (In response to article in December’s issue of TIME)

As a Teach for America alumnus who is still in the classroom, I am deeply concerned about your approach to educational policy. The words you’ve used to describe teachers are offensive. The arguments that support your actions are just as limited as those that you abhor, and it is clear that you are not concerned nor do you value teacher retention and its relationship to achievement.

First, your first solution to the education crisis is higher salaries in exchange for test scores. Kids need to read. If poor kids could read, everything would be fine. Teachers who taught children for 30 years will be the first to tell you, if you cared to listen to them, that money is not what kept them in the classroom; children did. Even the kids who failed the class kept them there because children have lives, and teachers affect these lives. High salaries are helpful and necessary, but they are not a sustainability plan. My fellow Teach For America alumni who currently work for double the public school salary in “successful” charter schools like Uncommon Schools (where 95% of students from the same poor and minority backgrounds as public school students score Proficient or Advanced on state tests) are exhausted, frustrated, and want to quit teaching altogether. Numbers do not sustain teachers; kids do.

“Numbers will solve the problem” is your second argument. If all kids could just read, then they would succeed. Those who believe in this theory fail to take into account what happens when poor kids who achieve academically try to pursue a college degree. According to the New York Times, only 25% of those low-income students who begin college finish with a degree, with black and Latino graduation rates closer to 20%. The biggest indicator of who finishes four years of college is parental income. Creative projects like the documentary First Person, which chronicles the lives of six Philadelphia seniors, help to reveal why academic achievement of poor kids sometimes ends in tragedy all the same. Kurtis, a key character in First Person, is in the Temple University Scholars program because his achievement is high. However, he hangs out with friends who get into fights involving guns. By the time he is 17, he gets caught up in a fight and he is now locked up; test score and all. What stops a child from shooting a gun? Standardized reading textbooks? Poverty is not an excuse for why achievement does not happen; it is a reality that affects children’s lives, and the consequences of it are conveniently ignored by policymakers who have stopped talking to children about what their lives are actually like.

As a minister, I am considered to be self-employed for tax purposes. This means that my taxes are not taken out of my paycheck. Instead, I am required to send in quarterly estimated payments. I realized today that my payment for the fourth quarter of 2008 was due back on January 15 and that I have completely forgotten to pay it.  It’s no big deal, though. I can just send the check in tomorrow and get charged a small interest fee.

But as I was trying to figure out how I could be so absent-minded, I saw the story about the $18 billion in bonuses that were given out to Wall Street bankers in 2008. All of a sudden, I began to suspect that there is more than forgetfulness to blame. Perhaps my subconcious mind has been so furious about the bailout fiasco that it won’t let my conscious mind send any money to the federal government.  

I’d be willing to bet that a lot of Americans are having this kind of internal struggle right now.  As the W-2’s and 1040’s are arriving in the mail, a lot of us for the first time are confronting the reality of where our tax payments are going. Of course, a lot of it is going for good things like schools, roads, and food for the poor - but a lot is getting sucked up by failing corporations and is being spent on things that are not helping the economy recover. 

As this tax-time realization sinks in, people should be getting furious.  Obama expressed a measured amount of anger about the matter today, but we’ll have to see if this translates into tangible legislation to crack down on these abuses.

In the meantime, I’m still not sure I want to send my estimated payment to the IRS.  I’m also not sure I want to pay my taxes at all.  I will, because I don’t want to go to jail, but the thought raises an interesting question:

What if millions of Americans refused to pay their taxes this year, or at least the portion that will go to the bailouts - unless Congress acts decisively to hold these corporations accountable? What if we demanded a full accounting for the trillions of dollars that have been handed out, with the consequence of real jail time for those who have misused the money? How many people would have to sign a petition threatening to reduce their tax payments before Congress would blink? 

Something has to be done.

With a vote of 66-32 in the Senate, SCHIP has passed, giving health care to millions of children!

We’re ecstatic that this important milestone has been reached, and we’re looking forward to working with Congress to take the next step and cover everyone later this year.