Andrew's Tiki Lounge

The First Hundred Days: The Economic Crisis

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal's Gerald F. Seib, former White House Chief of Staff, Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State James Baker offered some interesting insights about the First Hundred Days of the Obama Administration. 

Of course, Baker (right) was one of the more pragmatic centrists in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He isn't much of an ideologue and it shows in the interview. He heaped praise on Obama on some foreign policy issues. But on the matter of Obama's domestic agenda, Baker voiced strong concerns. 

"I think the spending is just out of hand," Baker told the WSJ. A highlight of the interview:

 You can say that we ran up some deficits in the Reagan years, and that's true—we did. But we generated so much economic growth by cutting marginal tax rates that those deficits were ultimately wiped out. So I have a problem with all of the spending…a problem, frankly, with a lot of spending in the bailout [and stimulus] efforts…

Baker went on to express concerns about a "lack of transparency" in the spending process, as well as fears of runaway inflation. 

Despite his pragmatism, or maybe because of it, Baker is still a conservative at heart. And his criticisms of President Barack Obama's economic policies during the First Hundred Days are shared by many of his fellow Republicans. 

These are challenging times. The recent swine flu scare -- which triggered fears of a worldwide pandemic -- was undoubtedly exacerbated by the ailing global economy. Americans aren't the only ones suffering. All around the world, economic conditions are getting worse and worse with each passing day. 

During prosperous times -- in the Clinton Nineties, perhaps in the early years of this decade, too -- there was a pervasive belief across America that prosperity was permanent. Nobody -- except perhaps a handful of doomsayers and maverick economists -- anticipated a downturn of the magnitude that we have witnessed in recent months. During the good times, Keynesian economists who advocated government spending were almost as much pariahs as Marxists. 

The situation is a lot different now. Not surprisingly, the economy was President Obama's Number One priority during his First Hundred Days in the White House. Newspapers and news websites were filled with headlines about economic stimulus package. The words "billions" and "trillions" appeared frequently. 

A lot of people are in a state of denial about the economic meltdown. Yale economist Dr. Robert Shiller, author of Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, echoed the views of countless pundits when he said, "Why are we in this economic crisis? It is because we perceive we are in an economic crisis.... What's important is that the president avoid anything that causes long-term damage to our confidence." (Source)

In other words, the economic crisis is a state of mind. There is no need to worry. No need to panic. The key to recovery is a positive, can-do kind of attitude. 

How does one even begin to challenge such an absurd notion? 

The reality is that positive attitude or not, the economy is in the most serious trouble it has experienced since the Great Depression. And telling Americans to keep their sunny side up ain't gonna fix it. It is important to be optimists of the will and take action to challenge the crisis. But just improving our attitudes alone isn't going to repair the fractured economy. It will take a lot more than that.

What about the comparisons between Barack Obama's First Hundred Days and Franklin D. Roosevelt's First Hundred Days? Are they valid?

Well, you could say -- in fairness -- that both men acted boldly in perilous economic times. But beyond that, the comparisons are tenuous. Obama's massive economic stimulus packages -- including his massive $787 billion behemoth (when you're talking $787 billion, sorry, but the word "package" is too trivial) that he shepherded through Congress earlier this year -- are aimed largely at restoring the shattered big business and banking sectors, which is what Roosevelt intended to do with the New Deal.

Progressives and lefties are now celebrating the New Deal as lofty and worthy of emulation. Shortly after the 2008 election, The Nation magazine published a special issue titled "Imagining a New New Deal." Not surprisingly, it turned out, for the most part, to be a sentimental trip down memory lane, celebrting FDR's New Deal as a great watershed in American history. Most articles in the magazine clearly supported a restoration of Rooseveltian Liberalism. 

Sometimes, liberals need to do a reality check before they get in too celebratory of a mood. Let's not forget that New Deal agencies paid farmers to destroy crops and livestock while people were starving. The New Deal enacted "fair business" codes that favored large corporations at the expense of countless small business that went under in the Great Depression. The agencies often upheld policies that helped concentrate land, resources and wealth in the hands of fewer people. And New Deal "alphabet soup" organizations were not immune from the dominant ugly racism of the day. While some aspects of the New Deal are worth celebrating, it was also fraught with failures. 

But the New Deal did represent a dramatically different way of governing the nation than what existed under Roosevelt's predecessor, Herbert Hoover. And the same could be said of President Obama's agenda. The man isn't just governing like a Keynesian. He's governing like a Keynesian on steroids. 

That hasn't stopped the economy from hemorrhaging, though. Since the election of Obama on November 4, the economy has lost 650,000 jobs and that number is rising. Chrysler is about to go bankrupt. General Motors is teetering on the brink. But the picture is not entirely negative. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has shot back up to 8,000, the same level it was at the time of Obama's inauguration. 

The chief architects of Obama's economic policies -- powerful figures such as Timothy Geithner, Christina Romer and Lawrence Summers -- are hardly flaming liberals, although they are supportive of Obama's Keynesian policies. But Obama's economic team consists primarily of middle-of-the-road economists eager to see the restoration of Clinton-era prosperity, with minimal alterations of the very structures that led to the current economic crisis. 

Obama continues to enjoy high public approval ratings in most opinion polls. (Source) Most ordinary Americans do not share the fears of a shrinking number of isolated right-wing fanatics like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly that Obama is a "socialist." Canada's National Post featured a column today by Peter Foster that perpetuates the myth. Foster writes, "Mr. Obama has denied being a socialist, but given his reflexive belief in big government both to solve social problems and guide the economy, that is hardly an inappropriate term. Nor does the financial crisis make that orientation more 'pragmatic.'" 

There's more proof -- as if anyone needed it -- that conservative pundits have no idea what in the hell socialism is.

It is still too early to tell whether Obama's economic policies will be able to revive the ailing economy. But they have restored some confidence lost under the Bush presidency. For now, the federal government seems somewhat less dominated by huge corporations than it was before the Obama presidency. Ordinary Americans might not feel like the government is helping them directly in this time of crisis. But it is helping to salvage key financial institutions that employ large numbers of men and women across the country. 

Perhaps the most encouraging thing that can be said is that we might be seeing the end of the era of reckless deregulation that began during the Reagan presidency and accelerated under the Bushes and Clinton. People are beginning to wake up and realize that an economy cannot be deregulated and unfettered when times are sunny and then be the recipient of mammoth Keynesian bailouts when things go to pot. This is not a decent way to run an economy. And the nation cannot afford it much longer. 

At the risk of sounding repetitive, when it comes to the economy -- like foreign policy -- President Obama's First Hundred Days are going to be calm and smooth compared to the rocky shoals that likely await downriver. 

The First Hundred Days: Iraq & Afghanistan...

 

The Obama administration has represented a sharp departure from the Bush administration on the foreign policy front. This can only be a good thing."Bush’s approach was unilateral if we can, multilateral only if we must. With Obama, it’s multilateral if we can, unilateral only if we must," said Lawrence Korb, a former Defense Department official who is now based at the Center for American Progress in Washington.

During his first Hundred Days in office, Obama seemed to adopt a cautious position on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. True to his word during the campaign, he strengthened America's presence in Afghanistan by increasing troop levels there. Meantime, he says he is sticking firm with his 2011 end date for the Iraq War (although there have been whispers in the corridors of power that he is wavering on this position). He appointed seasoned diplomat Richard Holbrooke -- a brilliant man -- to serve as a Special Envoy to the region. It was a wise move, considering Holbrooke's outstanding reputation as a pragmatic thinker. 

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the violence continues. And an end date has not been set for the latter war. Peace organizations and leftist activists are still holding protests and marches demanding that Obama end both wars right away. But Obama, who didn't start these wars, realizes that ending them too abruptly could potentially be disastrous for the people living in both countries. He is quite right to set a 2011 deadline for Iraq. It would be encouraging if he would set a similar deadline for Afghanistan. 

Not surprisingly, some critics on the Left have emphasized the continuities between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. If the Right goes too far in the direction of insisting that Obama is a dangerous radical socialist, Obama's foes on the opposite side of the spectrum tend to go the other way, stressing the Tweedledum-Tweedledee approach (i.e., Democrats are just watered-down Republicans). This position was evident in the words of Andrew J. Bacevich of Boston University: 

But however much Obama may differ from Bush on particulars, he appears intent on sustaining the essentials on which the Bush policies were grounded. Put simply, Obama's pragmatism poses no threat to the reigning national security consensus. Consistent with the tradition of American liberalism, he appears intent on salvaging that consensus.

At an anti-Iraq War protest in Los Angeles earlier this year, which drew about 4,000 participants, Brian Becker of the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition sounded the alarm when he said, "This is the launch of the anti-war movement in the post-Bush era. Bush is gone, but the occupation of Iraq continues, the war in Afghanistan is escalating, and the people of Palestine are living under a state of siege." 

On the Right, it's a slightly different story. Right-wing Bloggers love to list the "100 Mistakes" of Obama's First Hundred Days (see Michelle Malkin's Blog for a typical example). The conservative Blog Neoavatara insisted that Obama's policies have led to an "increase in violence in both Iraq and Afghanistan, with worsening situation in Pakistan." No shock that they don't offer any evidence to substantiate this claim. Right-wing pundits have a lot of audacity to suddenly start worrying about violence in Iraq and Afghanistan -- an issue that never caused them to lose any sleep when George W. Bush was president. 

For the most part, Obama's conservative opponents are unhappy with what they perceive to be his "weakness" in foreign policy issues. Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton insists that Obama's approach to world crises has resulted in a "tangible projection of weakness." Obama's actions so far, in Bolton's view, have amounted to a "Jimmy Carter-style unwillingness to do what's necessary in a hard world to protect America's interest." (Source)

This view was echoed in an editorial by The New Republic's assistant editor James Kirchick, who -- like so many foes of Obama -- voiced outrage at Obama's conciliatory approach to foreign powers in The Los Angeles Times: "The ill effects of Obama's obsequious behavior will not be immediate. His friendly handshake with [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez will not suddenly lead to the closing of more opposition radio stations in Venezuela, nor will his bemoaning of American arrogance in Europe lead to more Russian aggression tomorrow. But Obama's fecklessness emboldens our adversaries and discourages advocates of liberty around the world. The consequences will be felt in damage to American prestige."

Kirchick's alarmist assessment is shared by others. But such views ignore complex realities of the post-Dubya world.  

In fact, a growing number of Iraqis want American troops out of their country. As the Associated Press reported yesterday, "Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mohammed al-Askari said that the ministry's position is still that U.S. troops must leave by the agreed deadline despite some calls for them to remain in northern city of Mosul and Diyala province."

The Rush Limbaughs and Michelle Malkins and John McCains of the world would probably love to see the United States become a permanent occupational force in Iraq for eternity. But they're isolated. They're out of touch with the severity of the global economic crisis. Not only must the Iraq War end for moral reasons, it must now also end for purely practical reasons. The United States is spiraling downward economically and cannot afford to continue fighting this war. 

The United States won't be able to afford to continue to occupy Afghanistan much longer, either. But Obama is committed to remaining in the country until the Taliban is either crushed or sufficiently weakened to withdraw troops. To that end, he has sent an additional 17,000 American troops to the war-torn nation.

History has shown -- over and over again -- that applying superior firepower to insurgencies only strengthens them. And this appears to be the case so far in Afghanistan. America's role in the country has been muddled and poorly defined. Are American forces there as combatants? Or to build fragile democracy in Afghanistan? Or to protect a government friendly to the United States but not always popular with the people? All of the above? 

Obama will put a lot of minds at ease if he makes a greater effort than his predecessor to define America's role in Afghanistan. Failing this, he should give serious consideration to implementing a timetable for withdrawal similar to the one with Iraq. The war in Afghanistan, like the war in Iraq, has claimed untold thousands of lives. It cannot -- and must not -- go on forever. 

But at least this administration is open to new approaches. At least there is a movement in the White House toward negotiating with moderate elements within the Taliban. These are not rigid ideologues running foreign policy. They're pragmatists. They may not be Ramsey Clark Leftists -- those kinds of people never get very high in American Foreign Policy circles -- but they are a huge improvement over their neoconservative predecessors. 

As Jimmy Carter's foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski put it: "He’s done a hell of a lot in the first 100 days to redefine the flavor and premises of American foreign policy. But now that has to be translated into diplomacy, and the hard decisions have to be made in terms of what’s in America’s interest and what’s doable with how much effort." (Source)

Translation: The First Hundred Days may prove, in many ways, the easiest period on the foreign policy front. There is now more hope for an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than ever, but the difficult work of removing American troops from those countries -- of undoing wars that Barack Obama played no role in starting (a dilemma Richard Nixon faced in 1968) -- remains ahead of us. 

The First Hundred Days

I haven't been Blogging much over the past few weeks, due to the demands of work and my personal life. But with April coming to a close, and my stack of grading getting shorter and shorter, I am eager to resume my regular commentary. 

What better way to get back on track than commenting on President Barack Obama's First Hundred Days? 

We live in troubling times. But Obama has shown tremendous leadership over the past one hundred days. He has been a bold and decisive leader. I have not agreed with everything he has done. Readers of this Blog have noticed that I've stuck to my promises not to criticize him too strongly until his first hundred days in office have passed.

That date is coming up at the end of the month. 

My criticisms of Obama are not too numerous -- he has a few foreign policy problems, a few domestic shortcomings. I know he has disappointed some folks on the Left (a hard bunch to please). And there are plenty of folks on the Right who think he's the Second Coming of V.I. Lenin. 

It is difficult to sum up all of his achievements in one Blog. So I'm going to break down my commentary into several shorter Blog entries over the course of the next week or so. 

A question arises: Why 100 Days? Why not 75 Days? Or 90 Days? Or 110 days? Or six months? Or a year?

Well, once upon a time, long ago, White House Watchers designated a hundred days as the length of time necessary to determine what sort of president America has in the White House. It was believed that you could tell whether a president would be transformative or run-of-the-mill or even below par in the First Hundred Days.

Of course, Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) popularized the term "First Hundred Days" with his revolutionary commitment to New Deal social policies and the rapid flurry of legislation passed and agencies created during his First Hundred Days.

The temptation is great -- and many Bloggers (including yours truly) cannot resist it -- to compare Obama and Roosevelt. Both men inherited enormous crises when they entered the White House. Both men embraced sweeping economic policies in the Oval Office. But the differences between them are also striking and numerous. For one thing, FDR did not inherit two enormous wars. Obama did. There are other differences, too plentiful to count. 

I look forward to getting back into my regular Blogging routine over the course of the next few weeks. And what better way to kick it off than to assess the triumphs and failings of America's 44th President? 

Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down

Welcome to another installment of "Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down," where I weigh in on the good, the bad and the ugly in today's world. With no further delays...

Thumbs Up: At a meeting in St. Louis today, Vice President Joe Biden vowed that the Obama Administration will work to make higher education more affordable to millions of Americans. "We're going to make a series of investments, investments in our families and our students," Biden told an enthusiastic audience at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. This was music to the ears of countless Americans. For years, tuition prices have been skyrocketing out of control across the United States. And the Bush Administration responded to the problem by... you guessed it ... ignoring it. The Obama Administration, by sharp contrast, has already taken action. By increasing need-based grants for the middle class and poor and giving tax breaks to the people who need them most, the current occupants of the White House are embracing dramatically different priorities than their predecessors. By consolidating student loans and cutting out "middle man" private lenders, the Obama Administration plans to save $94 billion. Added Biden: "We can take the $94 billion and reinvest it in more loans, more grants and more access to college." Amen! (Source) 

Thumbs Down: Governor Rick Perry of Texas started to sound just like hardcore nutter/action star Chuck Norris when he voiced words of sympathy for the Lone Star State seceding from the Union. "I understand how someone could feel that way," he said of the small band of fruit loops who want to see Texas cut and run from the United States. Yesterday, Governor Perry warned: "My hope is that America, and Washington in particular, pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what might come of that?" Sounds like it might not be too premature to start dressing in Rebel Gray and singing the praises of Old Jeff Davis! (Source) 

Thumbs Up: Not all conservatives have become rabid maniacs since Barack Obama was elected. Some have, in fact, urged moderation. Steve Schmidt, who was John McCain's top adviser during last year's presidential campaign, warned that if the Republican Party continues to oppose gay marriage, it runs the risk of becoming a "religious party." As Schmidt put it: "If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party. And in a free country a political party cannot be viable in the long-term if it is seen as a sectarian party." For strictly pragmatic reasons, the GOP's current position makes little sense when you consider the changing times in America. As Schmidt points out, "If the party is seen as anti-gay, then that is injurious to its candidates."(Source)

Thumbs Down: I'm not sure which I give thumbs down to more: The Department of Homeland Security's absurd report that right-wingers are an internal security threat (which was actually written in January 2007, while George W. Bush -- himself a right-wing extremist -- was still president); or all of these right-wing yahoos like Oliver North and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (and many, many others on the far right) who attack the report as unfair and unjust, yet overlook the more frequent, flagrant and unconstitutional attacks against the Left by the federal government. We know now that the DHS and the Justice Department during the Bush years routinely resorted to measures reminiscent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's harsh and undemocratic COINTELPRO (Counter-Intelligence Program) of the 1960s and 1970s. Peaceful dissenters have been unjustly surveilled, harassed, intimidated and just generally made to feel like traitors during the Bush years. Where were all these right-wing "civil libertarians" when this was happening? Why didn't these right-wingers complain about a similar DHS report, released earlier this year, targeting left-wing "extremists" as a threat to national security??? Why is it that leftist civil libertarians always come to the defense of right-wingers when their rights are being violated, but the opposite almost never happens? The answer is simple: As a general rule, those who bleat and parrot the loudest about freedom and limited government in America don't actually care much about freedom -- except their own (and maybe -- when they're being really charitable -- the freedom of those who think exactly the same way they do). (Source; Source; Source; Source) 

And the verdict is . . . Bo!

I blogged the other day about the Obama's Mystery Dog and the long and difficult wait for the pooch's unveiling. Well, the mystery is over. The new First Dog is Bo, a 6-month-old Portuguese Water Dog. He's adorable. Sasha and Malia love him. The press had a field day. This was the biggest issue since Obama's veep choice last year. And, folks, you heard it here first: Joe Biden ain't got nothin' on this cuddly canine. With the unveiling of Bo, one could not help but become reflective and think back to the First Pets of bygone years. Who can forget the Clinton's cat, Socks? Or Richard Nixon's odd little trio of dogs -- his Irish Setter King Timahoe, Yorkshire Terrier Pasha and French Poodle Vicky? The first First Pet that I can remember was Gerald Ford's Golden Retriever, Liberty. Liberty would run around on the White House lawn, barking and playing in the sun. The Reagans had their dog, Lucky. Bush Senior and Barbara had Millie. Old Dubya had his two little black dogs, Miss Beazley and Barney, and a pet cat named Ernie. First Pets come and go with the changing of the president. But one thing is always constant: Somebody is always there to give advice on raising pets. The dog handler who worked for President George H.W. Bush has already offered the Obamas a suggestion: Do not let aides feed the dog! Gary Walters told U.S. News and World Report: "Millie had the run of the place, including being able to know which staff members had treats." Too bad Millie passed away in 1997. It sounds like she could teach Bo a thing or two.

Putting a Cold War dinosaur out of its misery...

There is finally some hope that the United States government is finally going to stop being hostage to a small group of fanatical, anticommunist Cuban-Americans in Florida. 

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll (taken between April 3 and 5) of 1,023 Americans found that 64 percent of them believe U.S. citizens ought to be allowed to travel freely to Cuba. An even higher number -- 71 percent -- want to see diplomatic ties between the United States and Cuba restored. 

In late March, a group of United States Senators introduced a bill designed to lift the travel ban to Cuba. One of the sponsors of the bill is Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. 

As CNN pollster Keating Holland noted: "Republicans as well as Democrats favor reestablishing ties with Cuba. On the issue of lifting travel restrictions, Republicans are even divided, while Independents and Democrats support the change." 

This is an encouraging sign.

The Obama administration is moving forward on this issue at a snail's pace. True to my word that I wouldn't be too critical of the administration in its early months, I acknowledge that there are a lot worse crises in the world than the state of U.S.-Cuban relations. 

But one hopes that Obama will move boldly to reverse almost a half century of flawed Cold War reasoning. You know that when most Democrats and most Independents are united behind an issue, and an increasing number of open-minded Republicans are reevaluating their own assumptions and supporting an end to the travel ban and an opening of diplomatic relations, the time to act has finally arrived. 

Nobody has summed up the issue more insightfully than Foreign Policy blogger David Rothkopf:

The reality is that Cuba may be special, but you have to ask yourself why it's therefore easier to travel to or do business with the Stalinist, nuclear weapon-toting North Koreans, or whether it's more comfortable for us to be totally economically integrated with the Saudi royal family and their depredations, or if we are concerned about human rights, why are we so integrated with and why are we the sole supporter of a government in Afghanistan that has just made rape in marriage legal and denies women the right to go outside without the approval of their husbands? So this notion that some how democracy alone is the only criteria that we should use in defining the nature of relationship doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever, and the reality is that only one country that has successfully been isolated by this fifty year embargo, and that is the United States of America.

Amen!

It is time, at long last, to put this Cold War dinosaur out of its misery. If Obama fails to seize on this moment to change this terrible policy, then Rothkopf is right: The United States will remain needlessly mired down in an ideological struggle that -- thank God -- ended almost two decades ago. 

When the hell is the White House Dog gonna make his or her debut???

Surely I can't be the only one wondering when the Obama Family will unveil the new White House Dog!

Rumors are swirling. Will he/she be a Portuguese water dog? A labradoodle? A poodle? 

Veteran White House correspondent Chip Reid voiced his frustrations about his efforts to find out what breed the White House Dog will be and when the pooch will be joining the Obamas. He said, simply, "I'm constantly working this dog story. And you know how much I've gotten? Zilch!" 

"Nobody knows anything. It's like the best kept secret in Washington!" said Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn. (Source) 

Over at the Houston Chronicle, Lana Berkowitz has been raising a lot of questions about the First Dog. The questions are as provocative as they are unanswerable. And they are worth including here in their entirety: 

• Will the pup be an Easter present?

• Where did they find a rescue pup? Porties are in high demand and cost around $2,000.

• Does the pup have a curly or wavy coat? Curly coats resist shedding and would probably be better for Malia, who has allergies.

• What to name it? Past presidents have opted for Buddy, Fala, Laddie Boy, Checkers, Liberty, Millie and Barney. Could “Jonas” be at the top of the list for the Obama girls? Or they could use a name generator online. At www.wrestlingname.com, “Rowdy Satan” was the suggested name when “water dog” was input. How would that look in the history books?

• Where will the dog make its TV debut? The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, The Oprah Winfrey Show or Dog the Bounty Hunter?

• Will it have a security escort? The Secret Service dogs, Belgian Malanois from Holland, are reportedly quite sociable.

• Where will it swim? In bygone days, Portuguese fishermen prized the water dogs. The animals lived on their boats and were taught to herd fish into nets, to retrieve lost tackle or broken nets, and to act as a courier from ship to ship or ship to shore.

• Who will brush the dog’s coat regularly? 10-year-old Malia or little sister Sasha, 7?

• Portuguese water dogs need clipping. But what style to choose? The American Kennel Club approves the lion cut or retriever cut.

• Will the dog be on the White House Christmas card?

• And most important, what is the most famous dog in the world’s stance on economic bailouts, health care and the “vicious dog” bill proposed in Texas?

Important questions, all. I have a few questions of my own:

Will the First Dog get a White House-shaped Dog House?

If he wets the carpet in the Oval Office, will he end up in the Dog House?

What is Michelle's position on the matter? 

What if the dog meets the same fate as Old Yeller? Who's gonna shoot -- oh, damn, never mind. Next question...

Will the press corps follow the Obama girls when they take the dog out on a walk? 

Are we going to get another Checkers Speech, this one from Barack Obama instead of Richard Nixon? Or maybe Obama will use a medium to channel the spirit of Nixon... Oooooh...

If there's a world crisis, will the Obama Dog be able to run into the Oval Office and bark the news to President Obama, the way Lassie did on TV??? (Remember: Lassie would say: "Arf! Arf! Arf!" And Timmy would say, "What's that, Lassie? There's a fire at the Old Sutton Place?")

So many questions. So few answers. 

(Left: Archie the Wonder Dog sez: "Dis is duh biggest ting since Watergate!")

A Great Triumph for Academic Freedom

The jury that ruled today that the University of Colorado wrongly fired Professor Ward Churchill deserves the highest praise possible.

To refresh your memory, Churchill wrote an essay referring to the people who perished in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001, as "little Eichmanns" -- a reference to Nazi leader and Final Solution architect Adolf Eichmann. The people who perished in the WTC, Churchill insisted, "formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire." 

The University of Colorado fired Churchill In July 2007 for the "little Eichmanns" essay caused a national uproar. Churchill actually wrote the piece right after the 9/11 Terror Attacks, but the delayed controversy came when he was invited to speak to Hamilton College in New York in 2005. 

The jury today ordered that Churchill be given $1 in damages. It's a paltry sum of money, to be certain (you can't even get a Coca-Cola in a vending machine for a buck these days). But it was not the amount that is significant -- it is the ruling itself. 

As Churchill put it: "I didn't ask for money. I asked for justice. Reinstatement follows rather naturally, wouldn't you say?" (Source)

Churchill is now waiting on Judge Larry J. Naves to determine whether he will be reinstated.

The firing of Ward Churchill was a chilling moment for academic freedom in the United States. 

Officials at the University of Colorado insist Churchill was not simply fired for his "little Eichmanns" piece. They say he also committed extensive plagiarism, spread false information in his writings and engaged in other types of misconduct. 

But the reality is that the University of Colorado fired Churchill in response to a anti-First Amendment Jihad carried out against him by venom-spitting FoxNews talking heads. 

After he was fired, Churchill immediately hired attorneys and fought the University of Colorado's action in court. The jury's decision today was a milestone in a long, drawn-out legal battle.

As a libertarian, I applaud the jury's decision. One need not agree with Churchill's "little Eichmanns" essay to appreciate the significance of today's ruling. For the record: I've read it in its entirety and vehemently disagree with it. Comparing 9/11 victims to Eichmann is beyond appalling -- it's downright psychotic.

Nevertheless (or maybe because of that), today's ruling was a great moment for academic freedom. It was also a fitting tribute to the poor souls who perished in the World Trade Center. Their deaths were used by FoxNews and various right-wing zealots to perpetuate a nefarious, anti-free speech agenda. Churchill was not the only one in this whole unfortunate saga who used and abused the memory of those people for questionable purposes. 

Were the allegations of plagiarism and other wrongdoing legitimate? Possibly. But given the timing of the investigation -- right in the middle of the nationwide uproar over the "little Eichmanns" piece -- Churchill's firing was still a blatantly political act. He should immediately be reinstated.