The median net worth of a member of the House in 2009 was more than 2 1 / 2 times greater than it was in 1984 — $725,00 vs. $280,000 — when adjusted for inflation, according to an analysis of financial disclosures.

Meanwhile, the median net worth of Americans, as a whole, actually declined slightly over the same period.

(Please note: This article is not a "breaking news" story, but is seeded as background information):

Clout in Washington isn't about winning legislative battles -- it's about making sure that they never happen at all. The oil and gas industry has that kind of clout.

But when President Obama called on Congress to eliminate about $4 billion a year in tax breaks for Big Oil earlier this year, the response on the Hill was little more than a knowing chuckle. Even Obama's closest congressional allies don't think the president’s proposal has a shot.

Congressmen Ted Deutsch (D-FLA) and Steve Israel (D-NY) have asked US Comptroller-General Gene Dodaro to investigate the Palestinian Authority’s use of American funding, three weeks after MK Moshe Matalon (Israel Beiteinu) sent a letter informing the budget committees of the US Senate and House of Representatives of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s policy to pay murderers released from Israeli prisons $5,000 and build them new homes.

“Many of the released prisoners were convicted of orchestrating and carrying out Hamas-sponsored terrorist attacks in Israel, including the bombing of a Tel Aviv nightclub that killed 21 people, the attack on a Netanya hotel that killed 29 people, and the bombing of a Sbarro Pizzeria that killed 15 people,”

Bob Schieffer comments on Congress' tumbling approval rating and how Paris Hilton is polling higher than they are

 

One man's (very intense!) description of what he feels OWS is really about.

In a speech yesterday on the House floor, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) expressed concern about Grover Norquist’s influence on the political process in Washington and his association with several individuals, groups and causes many would consider unsavory.

GIVEN how much sway the Tea Party has among Republicans in Congress and those seeking the Republican presidential nomination, one might think the Tea Party is redefining mainstream American politics.

Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.

Voters are more convinced than ever that most congressmen are crooks.

Copts are Egyptian Christians. They face discrimination in many areas.

"

The evidence is clear: Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Congress and don't believe their representatives share their priorities.

There's plenty of room for debate over whether Congress shares voters' priorities on political and policy issues. But when it comes to personal priorities, at least, voters have good reason to be skeptical of Congress. Most members of Congress simply don't share in the average American experience.

National unemployment has lingered above 8 percent for longer than 28 straight months. Congress, meanwhile, is a club that consists of 245 millionaires.

The prime minister's speech was briefly disrupted by a heckler, who was quickly escorted out by security. Netanyahu said about the heckler, "I appreciate that protesting is aloud" [sic] adding "this is the real democracy."

Speech of Congressman Patrick Kennedy in a conference at the British Parliament: For the sake of Humanity we have to answer to history,and to do that we have to account to what is happening in Ashraf.. Amazing speech!

"Police in Arlington, Mass., have seized a "large amount" of weapons and ammunition from a comics retailer who last week sparked controversy with his comments about the Tuscon shooting that left six people dead and 13 others, including a U.S. Congresswoman, wounded.

"As he nears 50, Stewart will eventually have to decide if he wants to continue being the funny guy on basic cable, make yet another failed attempt at taking over one of the broadcast networks' increasingly devalued late-night slots … or try for something grander. At a time when a George Lopez joke about running for governor is treated seriously, the timing couldn't be better.

"Even if you may not have heard of the Peak Oil theory, everyone knows that we'll continue to use more and more gasoline in years to come. Right?

Well, errrrr, no. Maybe not.

"Who was the big loser Tuesday? The easy answer is President Obama and his fellow Democrats on this day of epic GOP victories in the House, the Senate and U.S. statehouses.

But there is a bigger loser: Washington.

"Like converging thunderstorms, two distinct trends collided Tuesday night to power the Republican Party to the largest midterm gains for either party since 1938."

"The Hill has released its "50 Wealthiest List," which ranks the top fifty wealthiest members of Congress. I took some time to review the data, and you know what I realized? Twenty-three of the top fifty are Republicans (that's 46%) and twenty-seven are Democrats (that's 54%.)

"I expected to find oil on the sea floor," Samantha Joye, a University of Georgia marine sciences professor, said Monday morning in a ship-to-shore telephone interview. "I did not expect to find this much. I didn't expect to find layers two inches thick." …

"There's still pieces of warm bodies there."…

Last week I had the opportunity to accompany Coastal Geologist Rip Kirby from the University of Southern Florida on a search mission. The quarry was oil, and Rip was confident that we would find it. Spurred on by the latest report from the Coast Guard that there was very little oil off of the Gulf Coast, where they found only two of 5,000 samples to contain oil, Rip was determined to test a hypothesis.

Officials from the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (DMR) voluntarily "took oyster fishermen out on the reefs off the Pass Christian Harbor on Wednesday to give them a preview of what to expect from the upcoming oyster season," according to Biloxi's Sun Herald.

What did they find? "An abundance of empty oyster shells… DMR officials dredged for oysters and pulled up catches with about 80 to 90 percent of the oysters dead," the paper reported.

In today's article, Human Blood Tests Show Dangerous Levels of Toxic Exposure, filmmaker Jerry Cope revealed, "For the first time blood tests on sickened humans have shown signs of exposure to high levels of toxic chemicals related to crude oil and dispersants. Some of the individuals tested have not been on the beaches, were not involved in any cleanup operations or in the Gulf water — they simply live along the Gulf Coast."

Even as BP and US government officials continue to declare the oil spill over at Mississippi Canyon 252 and the cleanup operation an unqualified success, for the first time blood tests on sickened humans have shown signs of exposure to high levels of toxic chemicals related to crude oil and dispersants. Some of the individuals tested have not been on the beaches, were not involved in any cleanup operations or in the Gulf water -- they simply live along the Gulf Coast. Several of them are now leaving the area due to a combination of illness and economic hardship. As the media's attention has moved on and the public interest wanes, the suffering and hardship for people along the entire Gulf Coast of the United States from Louisiana to Florida continues to worsen. While BP and the government are scaling back cleanup operations and distancing themselves from legal liability for the environmental destruction, economic hardship, sickness and death resulting from the largest environmental disaster in our nation's history, the situation continues to deteriorate.

Morning Edition interviewed Ted Scarritt of Orange Beach, Ala. who owns a company that rents beach chairs and umbrellas.

"Scarritt and his workers noticed recently that when the wind was coming in strong from the south, over a foamy, churned-up Gulf, the wind was carrying something new onto the beach. Just like you might get a film of seaspray on your sunglasses, the beach workers felt a greasier material," according to the report.

"You could actually feel it in your hair and stuff," beach worker Matt Cole told Morning Edition.

Your prescription plan could be eliminated by Medicare, and your premiums and copayments could see changes.

"The United States has approved a long list of arms sales to friendly Arab countries in the Persian Gulf aimed at countering Iran's growing influence in the region.

The unprecedented sales could reach over $60 billion in pending deals with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

Satire from the Onion.

"Responding to the massive BP oil spill, Congress is getting ready to quadruple—to 32 cents a barrel—a tax on oil used to help finance cleanups. The increase would raise nearly $11 billion over the next decade.

The tax is levied on oil produced in the U.S. or imported from foreign countries. The revenue goes to a fund managed by the Coast Guard to help pay to clean up spills in waterways, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

“For amber waves of grain” - is an old familiar phrase to anyone who has ever sung, or heard Ray Charles sing this song. Amber waves of grain - embodies the very image of cereal grain fields like wheat, barley or corn. Wheat fields at harvest, in particular.

Wheat is the third largest U.S. cash field crop in planted acreage and gross receipts behind corn and soy beans. Though technically, soybeans are not considered a grain. Wheat is the worldwide number three field crop, with U.S. production the fourth largest behind The European Union, China, and India. As the single most monetized grain commodity behind rice, wheat is a dominant grain of world commerce.

With only 10 percent of world production, and despite erosion of wheat exports, the U.S. continues to lead in wheat exports. It exports almost half of its production, as a producer of six classes of wheat, and is one of only a handful of nations to maintain a surplus of grain. Since its 1981 peak in U.S. production, wheat has experienced a decline by 30 million acres planted. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA), of the 58.6 million metric tons in U.S. production, exports are approximately 27 million metric tons at last count. Or, roughly, 41 % of U.S. wheat production.

Exactly how many loaves of bread, biscuits, pasta pieces or pounds of flour is it? The USDA uses a complicated formula to tabulate current supply and use - nonetheless, it's taken for granted that it is a lot of grain... er…wheat kernels, bread slices, breakfast cereals and macaroni. So considering the sheer volume produced, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that wheat is one of the world’s most significant food crops grown for direct human consumption.

It is easily stored, transported and used to produce a large variety of foods that include many kinds and types of breads, cakes, noodles, crackers, breakfast foods, biscuits, cookies, and confectionary items (as well as animal feedstocks). University of Saskatchewan

Yes, Canada is a major wheat producing nation too.

Wheat Cultivation

Wheat is self-pollinated. Triticum - wheat’s botanical name – evolved from a wild grass species, and is one of the earliest plants that was domesticated along the Fertile Crescent of Near Asia, through artificial selection approximately 10,000 years ago.

T. aetivum (or bread wheat) and T. turgidum L. are modern wheat cultivars. T. monocococum L. known as einkorn wheat is a relic found in Mediterranean mountainous regions. However, its exact geographical origins, and the indigenous peoples responsible for its domestication remain unknown. One theory that many scientists do agree upon is, is that its development was rapid and straight-forward.

Artificial selection, or domestication, of wheat was one of several accidental catalysts, along with global temperature increases after the Ice Age – and together these two factors contributed to the expansion of thermophilous plants. It resulted in a world, as our hunter-gatherer ancestors knew it, of one dramatically changed.
Daniel Hillel has outlined his theory in his book “Out of the Earth: Civilization and the Life of the Soil”:

The Natufian Culture 12,000 to 10,000 BP, whose artifacts found in the hills of modern-day Israel, were the first hunter gatherers to transition towards permanent settlement – the forerunners of the earliest farmers.”

Annual cereal grains, barley, wheat, lentils, peas, chickpeas and vetch were the earliest crops domesticated. Several fruit trees, such as figs, olives, dates, grapes, pomegranates and almonds, would eventually be domesticated.

Stands of these progenitors – wild emmer wild eikenkorn wheat and wild barley still remain in the hills of Lebanon, Western Syria, southern Turkey, northeastern Iraq, and Western Iran.

 

Essentially, newer, more complex foraging and plant cultivating societies evolved to replace the old ones, and with this a massive population explosion ensued. In other words, wheat domestication helped to transform human societies into centralized, sedentary peoples that sought the development of wheat cultivars for the primary purposes of increased crop yields, larger seed sizes that generated better flour qualities and adapted to a wider range of farming systems and climate regimes. (Carver, 2009)

Historical Relevance of U.S. Wheat Production

In their co-authored book, Twentieth Century Populism: Agricultural Discontent in the Middle West 1900 – 1939, Theodore Saloutous and John D. Hick state that for a time, wheat was farmed in many regions of the United States. New England was a substantive wheat producing region in John Adams’ day. However, the largest concentration of agriculture developed in two large areas of what is known as the Great Plains and another region in Washington, Oregon and Idaho - known as the Palouse. Mr. Hicks coined the Great Plains as “The Western Middle West: The Region of Discontent”.

The bulk of US wheat production is grown in an area colloquially known as “wheat country”. What is it about the "wheat belt" that makes growing wheat ideal in the U.S., you may ask? The answer: growing conditions that are perfect for dryland farming. Worldwide, the semi-arid regions between 30 and 55 North latitude, and between 30 and 40 South latitude provide the growing conditions for today’s wheat – with a mix of inadequate rainfall for most crops, and temperate climes.

The Midwest and The Palouse have dry air temperate climates of hard winter frosts and thaws, and some of the world’s most fertile soils –resulted from ice-age glacial headwaters silt deposits of the Northwest and Midwestern watersheds formed from the Columbia Basin, Arkansas White Red, the Upper Mississippi-Missouri River systems and a vast supply of other tributary systems. A land so fertile, it was just ripe for acres and acres of exploitation. Mr. Hicks writes:

“…acreage under cultivation or crops harvested, or the production of wheat, or corn or cattle or swine, or dairy products reveal clearly the dominant role which this region has played and continues to play, in the production of food. Here, too, lie the nation’s richest deposits of iron ore and some of its richest coal fields. And into this sheltered haven industry also has marched with ever increasing tempo. Probably no other like-sized area could be found in the entire world so capable of taking care of all its major needs”.

An area graced with rich treeless prairie soil, ideal for agricultural cultivation and agricultural politics. Populations in these regions grew as US railroad networks expanded after 1850; helped along by federal grants of public land. This region adapted to railroads, without which it is unclear whether settlements would ever have occurred at all. (Saloutous & Hicks, 1951)

A Promise Land

A “Promise Land”, of sorts. Indeed. At harvest-time, farmers and harvesting companies travel the “wheat trail” atop combines, grain carts and tractor trailer trucks on a journey to country grain elevators – like nomadic cowboys and high plains drifters. In North Dakota, residents are public owners of a mill that produces flour from spring hard wheat described in this video From Field to Flour.

Of the United States’ exported volume, more than one-third is the class hard red winter and one-quarter is hard red spring. Soft red winter, soft white, durum and mixed wheat make up the remainder.

Grains and the Invention of a Complex Commodities Trading Exchange System

Grains are rooted in the modern-day commodities markets. In the mid to late 19th Century farmers began trading their harvested crops to willing buyers in Chicago, Kansas City and Minneapolis - eventually selling crops before harvest; in what is now known as the Chicago Board of Trade (or CBOT) and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Kansas City Board of Trade and the Minneapolis Grain Exchange.

And, this is how the futures markets were born. Grain farmers would commit future exchanges of grain for future payments of cash. Both seller and buyer agreed to a contract at a price, and thus a guarantee upon physical delivery of product at an agreed future date. The invention of a futures contract came into being, and the basics of futures trading was born.

As a main staple food for billions of people, annual wheat consumption weighs in at roughly 550 million metric tons or 20 billion bushels of wheat (Carver, 2009).

Wheat makes up 29%–30% of the world’s total cereal production [as one of] humans’ most important sources of [plant] proteins and [complex carbohydrates] . As a crop for direct human consumption, only rice comes close to matching wheat production.

Wheat is a major dietary component throughout the world; in 1996 it served as the source of over 55% of the world’s carbohydrates.(http://www.fao.org). (Carver, 2009)

And we thought the world was addicted to fossil fuels. Think again. Two thirds of cultivated wheat is used for human dietary consumption.

As a consumable, perishable food staple, wheat is priced based on the fundamental economic principle of supply and demand. As mentioned earlier in this article, supply and demand of wheat is calculated through formulae tabulated and published through the USDA Economic Research Service,. US Wheat Associates (a wheat marketing cooperative) publishes crop reports

Not Since the Russian Wheat Deal

Price volatility in the wheat trade hasn't been this bad since 1973, a time when wheat commodities prices doubled or tripled over the short course of two growing seasons. However, the 1973 spike in prices was driven by the fundamentals of supply and demand. A complete wheat crop failure in the former Soviet Union caused a high demand for U.S. grain. This international agreement between the United States and the former Soviet Union - the Russian Wheat Deal - exhausted US wheat stores. Also approximately the same time, OPEC implemented an Oil Embargo further upsetting price stability in commodities markets.

Famine in the Soviet Union was a real threat, and had impact on wheat prices.

After the Russian wheat deal was over, Congress tried to figure out what had happened. The House Subcommittee on Livestock and Grain called in the secretary of agriculture for questions. Representative John R. Rarick of Louisiana observed, “As a farm boy, I can remember my dear old Hoosier grandmother telling me to watch out for some American businessmen, they will trade with the Devil if they can make a profit.” Earl Butz (Agriculture Secretary, Nixon Administration) responded, “If he has dollars.”

Many reacted to the sale as if America had in fact traded with the devil, and they blamed the Soviet wheat deal for such subsequent events as the sudden rise in retail food prices, famine in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and the Nixon Administration's cutbacks in the Peace for Food program and food stamps. (The Politics of Food: The Decline of Agriculture and the Rise of Agribusiness in America Joel Solkoff, 1985)  

In 1972, the Soviet empire experienced a massive crop failure. Instead of abandoning a five year plan to increase consumption of meat with the purchase of expensive high-quality US and Canadian breeding stock begun in late 1971, Soviet leaders were prompted to import massive quantities of grain after its disastrous grain crop failure. The rest of the world assumed Soviet leaders would abandon its initial five year plan. However, out of concern over food riots Soviet leaders were reluctant to renege on a plan to "beef-up" the bland diet for ordinary Soviet citizens of bread, potatoes, and other starches. So rather than choosing to slaughter its newly purchased breeding livestock, Soviet leadership saw opportunity to feed its citizenry with cheap grain. 10 million metric tons of wheat was purchased in the summer of 1972 from other nations, and 19 million metric tons of grain from the US - a sale estimated to be worth $700 million (12 million metric tons of wheat, 6 million of corn and other feed grains, and 1 million of soybeans). The low quality Soviet wheat was used to feed livestock, and high quality American wheat was used to make bread. (Solkoff, 1985). Obviously, this impacted wheat prices going into the 1973 growing season. The General Accounting Office estimated the Russian grain purchases cost Americans an extra $1 billion on their food bill, primarily because the Soviets received financing for the grain purchases through low-interest USDA loans as part of the trade agreement to purchase US livestock. (Solkoff, 1985)

Excessive Passive Index Speculation and the Commodities Bubble 2005 to 2008

When comparisons are made to the recent commodities bubble, which has also helped the bottom line of Wall Street trading companies, with the circumstances surrounding 1973 wheat prices, a distinction between supply and demand can be made. In 1972, real demand was the driver behind price discovery. However, in the recent commodities bubble, speculation on global supply and demand drove up prices and ultimately led to a subsequent collapse in prices. Without addressing the dilemma of poor or good weather, crop failure, circumstances of world hunger are further complicated, in terms of grains as tradable consumable commodities. Wheat is the most important grain, specifically cultivated for human consumption as the single most monetized grain, behind corn and rice.

A Bumper Crop

A bumper wheat crop in 2008 FAO's [last] forecast for world wheat output in 2008 stands at a record 658 million tonnes, representing a significant (8.7 percent) increase from 2007. (fao.org)

As of August 14, 2009, the USDA reports that production is up substantially from the July forecast.

All-Wheat Production Up Substantially From July Forecast

Forecast al- wheat production, at 2,184 million bushels, is up 71 million bushels from the July forecast, but down 316 million bushels from 2008. Harvested area is forecast at 50.4 million acres, unchanged from July, but down 5.2 million acres from 2008. Based on August 1 conditions, the U.S. yield is forecast at 43.3 bushels per acre, up 1.4 bushels from last month, but down 1.6 bushels from the record yield of 2008.

Many retail investors in commodities indices lost money (see the comment at the end of this piece of testimony). The fact remains that demand did not drive prices, as supply hit an all time high in 2008 production.

Trading grains, like wheat, in commodities markets provide the economic mechanisms used to determine a commodity price. Commodities exchanges, historically respond to changes in supply and demand in a process to find an equilibrium price and quantity.

Cash Markets, Futures Markets and Over-the Counter

There are several markets used in commodities trading. The basics are: the cash market, the futures market and an over-the-counter market, or OTC. The cash market provides potential buyers and sellers with the price for that commodity if it is delivered immediately; it is the primary market for the buying and selling of wheat. Virtually all transactions that result in a physical transfer of wheat take place between sellers and buyers exchanging cash for wheat. The futures market is rarely used for the actual buying and selling of wheat, or for the delivery of wheat from a seller to a buyer.

There is no centralized cash market for wheat or other types of grain. Rather, the cash market exists wherever a grain elevator or grain merchant posts a price or makes an offer to purchase grain, wherever a farmer or grain merchant makes an offer to sell, or wherever grain is bought, sold, or stored. These types of transactions take place all over the country, at all times of the day. Transactions in the cash market may or may not be accomplished through standardized contracts, although oftentimes they are.

The U.S. futures market came into existence after the Civil War in the form of a forward contract, used for a commodity to provide potential buyers and sellers of the commodity with prices for the delivery of that commodity at a specified time in the future; to hedge the price typically used by a commodity producer as a guide and to manage price risk over time. The futures markets generally follow a predictable pattern.

As the delivery date for a futures contract approaches, the price for a commodity in both markets generally “converges”. That is, the price in each trading market meets the other. A producer, for instance - a wheat farmer, grain elevator operator, flour mill or other commercial producer in production with physical product, uses both markets to hedge risk and obtains a fair market price for the product traded.

Commodities markets function this way for a reason: Commodities are consumables that require price discovery. From the producers' point of view, commodities are really not considered investment vehicles. For this very reason, many who trade in commodities or produce commodities believe speculative investors should not be the primary determinants of prices. In other words:

"Wall Street should be prevented from gambling on hunger." Michael Masters, Managing Member / Portfolio Manager, Masters Capital Management, LLC before the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, August 5, 2009

Congressional Investigations and Findings

In June of this year, after investigations into the commodities markets over the last six years, the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a staff report study on:

excessive index trading speculation in the wheat market. The findings identify excessive passive speculation in commodities contributed to higher futures prices compared to cash prices, and in the process hurt wheat farmers, grain merchants, food processors, and others using the futures market to manage their price risks.

Specifically investigators found that:

A commodity index, like an index for the stock market, such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the S&P 500, is calculated according to the prices of selected commodity futures contracts which make up the index. Commodity index traders sell financial instruments whose values rise and fall in tune with the value of the commodity index upon which they are based. Index traders sell these index instruments to hedge funds, pension funds, other large institutions, and wealthy individuals who want to invest or speculate in the commodity market without actually buying any commodities. To offset their financial exposure to changes in commodity prices that make up the index and the value of the index-related instruments they sell, index traders typically buy the futures contracts on which the index-related instruments are based. It is through the purchase of these futures contracts that commodity index traders directly affect the futures markets.

And, ultimately, the price of a whole host of vital commodities, including oil, and agricultural grains. Investigations conducted by the US Senate, over a course of several years, examined the role and impact of investor speculation in commodities markets that have been exposed to regulatory structural failures. The investigation results have determined that excessive speculation adversely affected unwarranted price swings in many commodities markets, and have placed undue cost burdens on interstate commerce. Wheat and oil among the most dramatic, but most commodities were adversely affected by institutional commodities index trading over the course of the last three years – as evidenced to consumers with price inflation on most consumables. (United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Excessive Speculation in the Wheat Market, June 24, 2009)

Speculation is indigenous to commodities trading, and necessary in determining price discovery; however as Senator Harkin recently said,

"...you need an aspirin a day but you don't need a whole bottle.

And as Senator Susan Collins recently stated:

"I understand that those investors' intention is to provide good returns as a hedge against inflation, asset diversification, but the effect of that activity cumulatively appears to drive up the price for some of the traditional users of the commodity markets."

The conflict stems from the Commodities Futures Trading Commission issuance of exemptions and letters of no action that has given opportunity for non-producers investment access to commodities trading by way commodities indices. Essentially, leaving the futures markets open to unregulated conditions.

The US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations examined in detail how commodity index traders affected the price of wheat contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Commodities Futures Trading Commission data shows that, over the past three years, between one-third and one-half of all of the outstanding wheat futures contracts purchased on the Chicago exchange are the result of purchases by index traders offsetting part of their exposure to commodity index instruments sold to third parties.

This Report also finds that there is significant and persuasive evidence to conclude that these commodity index traders, in the aggregate, were one of the major causes of here, increases – in the price of wheat futures contracts relative to the price of wheat in the cash market. The resulting unusual, persistent, and large disparities between wheat futures and cash prices impaired the ability of participants in the grain market to use the futures market to price their crops and hedge their price risks over time, and therefore constituted an undue burden on interstate commerce.

In 2006 under Republican leadership, The US Senate Permanent Subcommittee released another staff report on the role of market speculation in rising oil and gas prices and another in 2007 on speculation in natural gas prices. The Subcommittee found similar circumstances in the wheat commodities market, specifically its futures prices that have been abnormally high as compared with the cash prices for wheat. A volatile and unpredictable environment with the relationship between futures and cash prices for wheat cannot be explained based on the principles of supply and demand.

In essence, the price of wheat on the Chicago Board of Trade futures market has failed to converge with the cash price; as futures contracts neared expiration causing turmoil in the wheat markets. Just when farmers were beginning to experience the adverse affects of soaring energy and fertilizer costs, this latest anomaly in wheat commodities markets severely impaired the ability of farmers, and others in the grain business, to use futures markets as a reliable guide to wheat prices and manage price risks over time.

... the prices of many agricultural commodities – like the prices of commodities in general – experienced an unprecedented spike and subsequent collapse. For example, the cash price of wheat rose from just over $3 per bushel in mid-2006, to over $11 per bushel in early 2008, before collapsing to about $3.50 per bushel at the end of 2008.

CFTC Chairman, Gary Gensler, in his testimony before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry stated:

We must urgently enact broad reforms to regulate over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. Such reforms must comprehensively regulate both derivative dealers and the markets in which derivatives trade.

[snip]

A comprehensive regulatory framework governing OTC derivative dealers and OTC derivative markets should apply to all dealers and all derivatives, no matter what type of derivative is traded or marketed. It should include interest rate swaps, currency swaps, commodity swaps, credit default swaps, and equity swaps. Further, it should apply to the dealers and derivatives no matter what type of swaps or other derivatives may be invented in the future. This framework should apply regardless of whether the derivatives are standardized or customized. A new regulatory framework for OTC derivatives markets should be designed to achieve four key objectives:

• Lower systemic risks;

• Promote the transparency and efficiency of markets;

• Promote market integrity by preventing fraud, manipulation, and other market abuses,
and by setting position limits; and

• Protect the public from improper marketing practices.

I foresee working with Congress on two complimentary regimes: Through the dealers that hold themselves out to the public on these products, we should set capital standards to lower risk for those dealers; margin requirements as they conduct business directly with other commercial enterprises; business conduct standards; and record keeping and reporting. In addition I do believe we need to regulate the markets as well.

At the end of the day, the inability of farmers, grain elevators, grain merchants, grain processors, grain consumers, and other producers of physical products to use the futures market as a reliable guide to [prices] and to manage their price risks over time has significantly aggravated their economic difficulties and placed an undue burden on the grain industry as a whole.

The profit structure of a consumable commodity grown for human dietary needs is without adequate scrutinized trading regulations - and squeezes commercial producers such as the farmer, and other grain producers, by way of investment capital seeking a return on investment in this process, causing bubbles never before seen. It remains to be seen if Congress or the CFTC will take action in commodities markets oversight. We can only hope.

Meanwhile, it's just another day in paradise. Indeed Dorothy. It certainly does look like we are no longer in Kansas or Minneapolis or Chicago.

"The two senators have been trying for months to obtain documents and be provided access to witnesses that they say are critical to their investigation of the shooting spree at Fort Hood in November that ended with 13 soldiers killed and dozens wounded.

""It is impossible for us to avoid reaching the conclusion that the departments simply do not want to cooperate with our investigation."

"It is with great disappointment and reluctance that we have directed service of subpoenas to you which demand disclosure of the requested information by Monday, April 26, 2010," they added.

"Who doesn't support ending violence against women across the world?

"Today, the bipartisan International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) was reintroduced to both the House and the Senate. Last time around, Congress didn't get around to passing this vital piece of legislation before the end of the session. That can't happen this time.

"As long as I have served ... I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decisions has required 60 senators,"

Much ink has been spilled on the Vine over the "Israel Lobby". Many posters decry this loose collection of pro-Israel groups because they are perceived as too powerful and influencing U.S. foreign policy to the detriment of what the majority of Americans want. This belief is in synch with common statements made by that segment of the general population who hold both anti-Israel views and negative views of Jews in general, as shown in the graphs to the right (1) :

However, this belief seems to fly in the face of the sentiment of the general American public:

"The nationwide poll of 1,200 American adults was conducted December 1- 4, 2003, by The Marttila Communications Group.

Among the main survey findings were:

Americans sympathize more with Israel -- 40% --than with the Palestinians – 15%.

39% believe the Palestinians are more responsible for the current violence; 16% blame Israel.

70% of Americans believe Israel is more serious about reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians; 46% think the Palestinians are serious.

75% believe that the U.S.-Israel special relationship is based on shared values of freedom and democracy.

57% of the respondents said the U.S. has a moral obligation to combat anti-Semitism throughout the world through its foreign policy." (2)

To get a handle on what is causing the furor, it is important to examine how much power is wielded by this "lobby":

1) What is the relative funding of the "Israel Lobby" relative to others?

In 1999, AIPAC, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbyist organizations, had a budget of between $13 and $15 million dollars (3). Accounting for inflation, this would be approximately $20 to $25 million in today''s currency. By comparison, DLA Piper, one of Saudi Arabia's largest lobbying representatives, had a global revenue stream in 2007 of $2.1 billion, or approximately 100 times as much .(4) In 2007, Qatar spent over $400 million in lobbying (5).

Looks like the "Israel Lobby", outfunded 100-1, doesn't wield the funds toout-influence for the changes the anti-Israel folks fear.

2) What has the "Israel Lobby" been able to block in the way of adverse arms sales?

"From 1950 through 2006, Saudi Arabia bought or was granted from the United States weapons, military equipment and services worth $79.8 billion." (6) This is despite the fact that Saudi Arabia, over most of that period, had no real enemies in the region other than Saddam Hussein in the 90's, and the U.S. intervened in that instance. The weapons the Saudis were given were offensive, as well as defensive, as demonstrated by the sale of JDAM munitions to Saudi Arabia by the Bush administration in 2008 (7)

The "Israel Lobby" was unable to block that sale, despite opposition in Congress to that sale and the potential detriment to Israel.

3) What adverse U.N. Security Council Resolutions has the "Israel Lobby" been able to block via the U.S. veto power? Here are the main resolutions passed without U.S. exercise of veto:

1/8/09: Resolution 1860, which condemns Israel for violence against civilians in Gaza...U.S. abstains

5/19/04: Resolution 1544, which condemns Israel for demolishing houses in Rafah in southern Gaza...U.S.
abstains

4/10/02: Resolution 1405, which condemns Israel for its military action against terrorist combatants hiding in
Jenin...U.S abstains (8)

4) What has the "Isreal Lobby" been able to block in the way of public presidential rebukes or other detrimental administration attitudes and actions?

This is what candidate Obama told voters on his official web page:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden have established a strong record as true friends of Israel, stalwart defenders of
Israel's security, and effective advocates of strengthening the steadfast U.S.-Israel relationship" (9)

However, in other venues, he has knowingly made statements adverse to Israel's goals"

June 6, 2008: "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties"
as part of "an agreement that they both can live with." – an Obama adviser clarifying his remarks to the Jerusalem
Post. (10)

"we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," Obama
said in a speech today before the United Nations General Assembly. (11)

National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones has made it clear that the administration links its policy towards
Iran and its nuclear advances to developments towards a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.(12)

"The statement by the US that it expects Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea to join the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty: although similar statements have been sounded from various US officials in the past, now,
especially considering the dialogue the Obama administration hopes to conduct with Iran, this statement is
more worrisome. This position of the administration, if it is pursued more assertively, might legitimize to an
extent Iran's claim that the issue of Iran's nuclear activity must be discussed in tandem with the Israeli nuclear
option." (13)

With a careful inspection of the situation, although there is a pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. and it may influence polilcy at times, the pro-Israel bent of that policy is in keeping with the generally favorable view of Israel by the U.S. population. To the extent that this lobby tried to operate under challenge, it is hugely outspent by the pro-Arab lobbies and has been unable to block key weapons sales or U.N. Security Council Resolutions. Further, it has been unble to moderate the public statements of presidents and other politicians who are committed to an anti-Israel agenda.

So...how powerful is the" Israel Lobby"?

1) http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/poll_2007/

2) http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4429_62.htm

3) http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1297/9712042.html

4) http://www.dlapiper.com/georgia/news/detail.aspx?news=2639

5) http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=Government+of+Qatar&year;=2006

6) http://middleeast.about.com/od/saudiarabia/a/saudi-arabia-military-aid.htm

7) http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/15/220837/us-congress-notified-of-jdam-sale-to-saudis.html

8) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/sctoc.html#2009

9) http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/IsraelFactSheet.pdf

10)http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWNiZWZkOGZiYzg0NzVmNjc2M2NlY2ZlZjYyZWE2Y2Y=

11) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid;=anotAubNjcWE

12) http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/blog/obama-administration-vs-prime-minister-netanyahu-confrontation-making

13) ibid

Cartoon (Political Satire)

AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobby, has been hard at work generating "no pressure" sentiment on the Hill, which isn't very hard to do – as long as members don't have to actually go to battle with the President. But traditionally, AIPAC has been uncomfortable with the issue of settlements; this isn't a fight they particularly want. . . . .

. . . So for now: look to Congress for some noise on the subject, lots of partisan potshots and maneuvering and, from a few Jewish members, some righteous indignation.

But there's not a lot lawmakers can or want to do at this stage, and at least for most Democrats there's not a lot of appetite for a big fight with a popular president on behalf of a settlers movement seen by many as increasingly violent and extreme.

As White House staffer Jane Austen put it to Senator Darcy "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single terrorist in possession of a good bomb must be in want of patient understanding." Unfortunately for Washington wonks determined to deny that Islamist extremists are motivated by extremist Islam, the pride and prejudice of Allah's butchers were on public display (again) this week.

Framed in florid quotations from the Koran, the Gitmo Five - hard-core terrorists, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed - proclaimed in a filing released by a brave military judge that "We are terrorists to the bone" who regard the charges resulting from "the blessed 11 September operations" as "badges of honor."

Desperate to placate its blame-America supporters, the Obama administration has clamped down on news from Guantanamo. Why? After their lurid criticisms of Gitmo, the Dems now have the world's worst killers on their hands. And they don't know what to do. Responsibility sucks.

Just when I begin to lose all faith in the wisdom of the American population, I get a major surprise. Reputable pollster, Rasmussen, reported February 4, 2009, that President Obama's "Stimulus" plan, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, is losing support amongst the American population.

In fact, Rasmussen Reports latest national telephone survey found that only 37% now favor the administration, and the trend is heading downward. Just two weeks ago, support was at 45%. Last week, it was at 42%. This is significant as President Obama's popularity approval rating remains quite high, in spite of the unpopularity of the legislation. Americans are intellectually able to separate the President from the bill.

This trend of disapproval continues as the President continues to push for "swift action," and today predicting "catastrophe" if the bill isn't passed. Daily "pork" reports about the bill have come to light, acting as fuel for the debate. Among the most criticized items in the bill, include money for dog parks, doorbells, a frizbee course, police tasers, quit-smoking-programs, and prostitution reduction. How will such projects stimulate the economy?

Apparently, many Americans are figuring out that their is nothing stimulating about this pork-fat laden bill.

Rasmussen also reported that a stimulus plan that includes ONLY tax cuts is more popular than the currently proposed plan. Only 34% oppose at "Tax-Cuts Only Plan." On the other hand, 72% of voters are against a plan that doesn't include tax cuts as a provision in the bill. Americans do not want a bill that only includes more government spending.

Surprisingly, even with the daily pork revelations, 64% of Democrats, in partisan fashion, still support the Obama Stimulus Plan.

The news of these numbers have to be disappointing to the Obama administration, who promised to bring the country together, and also promised an end to "earmarks" in congressional legislation. It must also be disconcerting that 50% say that the stimulus plan is likely to make things worse.

Maybe this is why Ronald Reagan said that the most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." It looks like the American people are beginning to figure this out.

TheCapitalist

Precis: Barack Obama's inauguration engenders hope in many hearts, but is hardly the triumph it might seem at first glance. Beyond the earnest wishes and projected aspirations of his starry-eyed supporters, Obama remains an abiding mystery, an ambitious enigma who has carefully crafted a public persona of All Things to All People.

The Chief Executive must be made of sterner stuff and I am filled with foreboding. The last two presidents have proven unequal to the greatness of the tasks, yet both were elected to two terms. I have some confidence in Obama, far less in those who surround him and none whatsoever in the Congress or the Supreme Court. Hard times are ahead: the bets are on the table and we will either succeed greatly or fail greatly.

The text of today's sermon is taken from Tennyson's Idyll's of the King

So, when their feet were planted on the plain
That broadened toward the base of Camelot,
Far off they saw the silver-misty morn
Rolling her smoke about the Royal mount,
That rose between the forest and the field.
At times the summit of the high city flashed;
At times the spires and turrets half-way down
Pricked through the mist; at times the great gate shone
Only, that opened on the field below:
Anon, the whole fair city had disappeared.

Then those who went with Gareth were amazed,
One crying, 'Let us go no further, lord.
Here is a city of Enchanters, built
By fairy Kings.' The second echoed him,
'Lord, we have heard from our wise man at home
To Northward, that this King is not the King,
But only changeling out of Fairyland,
Who drave the heathen hence by sorcery
And Merlin's glamour.' Then the first again,
'Lord, there is no such city anywhere,
But all a vision.'

Part the First: The Royal Mount

The festivities of the moment are upon us. Our government has passed peacefully from one regime to another, all done with seeming comity and good order. The outgoing president has behaved himself with a measure of grace, and if he's recently indulged in a bit self-excusing, I'll forgive him that little. The country convulses with paroxysms of delight and hope. But delight is a child on Christmas morning before the toy breaks, and hope's what people have when nothing's happened yet.

Yet how should we react to the election of our new President, how should he be seen?

Every child in Civics class is taught of the tripartite divisions of power in our government. Over time, Congress has ceded many of its powers to an ever-more-powerful Executive. The courts are left to puzzle through the morass: the Fourth Amendment is as dead as the tyrannosaurs, and where Congress might have stood up to the Executive over warrantless wiretapping and the connivance of the telephone companies, now Congress abjectly capitulates to passing legislation absolving one and all. Pardon via ex-post-facto legislation is the order of the day, meaningless subpoenas issued to paper over the violations of our rights.

For all his good intentions, President Obama must pole his johnboat through the swamps at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. It is no accident Obama has befriended so many ardent Conservatives: he will need their maps and tide tables to navigate those shallow waters, divining the falsity and treachery within his own party. Nor is the choice of Joe Biden as Vice President an idle concession to vote-getting: from his perch atop the dais of the Senate, Biden will cast his jaundiced eye upon the doings of those self-important rascals and report it all to his novice commander. For this reason the Congressional Democrats have promised to push Biden away from their caucuses, they know what's up, none better. The last two years of Democratic majorities have produced no substantive reforms or investigations and I expect none in future. The Republican minority may prove Obama's secret weapon: the shillelagh with which he shall beat the do-nothing Democrats into line.

Washington, indeed the whole world is convulsed by the spectacle of a Black Man elected to the Presidency of the United States. The TV burbles in the corner, Larry King solicits the opinions of the scions and also-rans of the Black Civil Rights movement. My own heritage includes many unsung heroes of the Black Civil Rights era, and the blazing crosses of the Klan illuminated my @!$%#-lovin' grandfather's home. Lynching was a common enough thing in the shantytown just down East Cleveland Avenue in East Point Georgia. While the multitudes gather on the Mall, the grim realities of Washington D.C.'s less-fortunate permanent residents remain a lasting disgrace to our nation.

l am therefore horrified to see fawning encomiums heaped upon any man judged on the color of his skin. I am disgusted to hear the phrase Post-Racial bandied about, vaguely nauseated by the saccharine enthusiasms of persons of color who look upon Obama as their personal savior. Ecce Homo, Obama is only a man. A good man, certainly, but he is no more than a man.

Barack Obama sat in a church pew, soaking up the intemperate and racially-divisive works of Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose church unabashedly preaches a black separatist vision of Jesus Christ despite our Lord's explicit words to the contrary. We are the product of all who shaped us, and if the portly, goateed, allegedly homophobic Pastor Rick Warren gives the opening invocation of the Almighty at the end of this race, let no man forget it was Rev. Jeremiah Wright who gave the invocation on the steps of the old Illinois State Capital when Obama stepped up to the starting line of this race. I know enough of the American Black theologians to know they, too, have no more tolerance for homosexual persons than the genial Reverend Warren.

My own faith has changed over time: increasingly I find myself at odds with what passes for both organized religion and organized politics. It all seems a sham, a framework for the indulgence of comfortable and patently dangerous nonsense. Politicians cuddle up to religion with obscene frottage, making profane and false obeisance to the sacred abstractions. The political parties swear false oaths to the causes of justice, true faith and allegiance only to themselves and their causes. Watch and see, there will be no accounting for the evils done in our name over the past decades. There will instead be a massive glossing-over, a titanic national delusion, a gargantuan avoidance mechanism shall be erected where today stand the banners of battle and the trophies of victory.

Yes We Might.

Yes we can. We might. But we probably won't. That we ought to change will never again be given voice: the leathery prophets in the wilderness who preached of wickedness in high places and the coming of change shall be politely ignored.

Obama's cabinet is richly populated with the hacks of yore, chiefly of Clinton vintage. If in February of 2001, a Martian read the resumes of Bush the Dumber's Cabinet choices, he might also be convinced the nation was well-led by seasoned veterans if the Chief Executive was no such thing. Bush was led about by the nose, a man out of his league. Given the Abgrund between resumes and results, why should I believe Obama's well-seasoned hacks will serve his cause any better than Bush's hacks served his?

I reserve judgment on Barack Obama's chances against the fecklessness of Congress, especially against the wiles of that shameless, skeevy varlet Harry Reid and the equally execrable Nancy Pelosi. Already we have seen this pair of villains dole out our money, more precisely our children's money, into the rat holes of the still-unregulated financial system without even the fig leaf of accountability. All talk of the no-bid contracts in Iraq must now be put in abeyance: at least those contracts were on the record. The utter shamelessness of the whole wretched TARP mechanism shows Congress has placed itself as far beyond the reach of accountability as ever did the Executive over the last two terms.

Already we see the hushing up of the Progressives, the political dog returns to his vomit as the fool does to his folly. We will not be given substantive change if the Congress and the courtiers have anything to say about it. These skulking eunuchs may reduce Obama to Clinton the Second, that weathervane of gormlessness and doubletalk. Already we see a Clinton as Secretary of State and that woman is no Progressive politician. I remember how the Daily Kossacks drave the heathen Hillarites from thence by sorcery from their orange Elysium. But the marriage counselors and psychologists of the Democratic Party saw fit to welcome them back. It is with deepest contempt I must tell you all as I told them then it was the Kossacks who were fooled: Hillary's political judo trumped all their prattle and trumps it still. Eighteen million votes is a whole lotta ass meat. Hillary Clinton proved the master of the hane goshi throw and the Progressives were thrown in the air, landing in disarray on the political mat. Now the Progressives promise to hold Obama's feet to the fire, but he has no further use for their wise man at home to Northward. This King is not their King and his vision is not their vision. Ever is the vision of the politician that of power and power is votes, the only poll that ever mattered.

Lord, there is no such city anywhere, but all is a vision. America's spires and turrets are built on mountains of debt and a fairyland of trust in the faithless apostles of the unregulated Free Market. We have indulged ourselves in fantasies of national superiority and continue to do so, all the while condemning the Islamists who make no bones of their urge to subdue the world to their own vision of harsh justice and superiority. Think Obama won't perpetuate these fantasies? He's going to send even more troops into Afghanistan, recapitulating the failures of Bush in Iraq, in the one place in the world where every textbook of military history tells us empires go to die. Less Lincoln and more Plutarch for President Obama: let our Fearless Leader see how Alexander fared east of Persia, both in the nature of Alexander's successes and failures.

Anon, the whole fair city had disappeared, the reckoning has come due. Yet the illusion has not been dispelled.

Obama is a fine man, as good a man as the times have produced and the country is well-pleased with him, both Republicans and Democrats alike are charmed by his glamour. But of old, the word Glamour meant a spell of illusion,

For there is nothing in it as it seems
Saving the King; though some there be that hold
The King a shadow, and the city real:
Yet take thou heed of him, for, so thou pass
Beneath this archway, then wilt thou become
A thrall to his enchantments, for the King
Will bind thee by such vows, as is a shame
A man should not be bound by, yet the which
No man can keep; but, so thou dread to swear,
Pass not beneath this gateway, but abide
Without, among the cattle of the field.
For an ye heard a music, like enow
They are building still, seeing the city is built
To music, therefore never built at all,
And therefore built for ever.

The USA is a republic: we grant mandate to our leaders for a set period of time, but once granted, nothing short of impeachment or death can drive them out until the next election. We lack a No Confidence vote as does a parliamentary system. We're stuck with this guy, for better or worse, let us hope for better. He will be better, but of this we have no guarantee at all, despite his vastly enlarged powers, granted to him by Congress. Obama may replace a few Supreme Court justices, but even those appointments will only shore up the aging Liberal cause: unless a large meteorite strike kills them all en banc, Bush's true legacy is will be his SCOTUS appointments. Scalia and his Stepin Fetchit butler Clarence Thomas remain spry and healthy, perfectly capable of doing great damage to what remains of the Constitution. Do not look to the hidebound mummies of Strict Construction in this Supreme Court for any vindication or return of our rights in law, especially not from Chief Justice Roberts, who has shown his true colors of late. And I had such hopes for him.

Conclusion:

While the adoring eyes of the world turn to the young man behind the podium, my own eyes are turned to the horizon. The world will soon tire of its infatuation with our handsome and charismatic president, as they tired of John F. Kennedy, another handsome man whose shallow eloquence led us closer to the nuclear abyss than at any time in history. And it was Kennedy who played with fire in Vietnam, played fast and loose with the facts, whose idealism was ill-served by the Best and Brightest who surrounded him. Have a caution in this moment of national pride that your love is not misplaced, that you do not become a thrall to enchantments, for we are already bound to vows we cannot keep. That city is built to music, therefore never built at all and therefore built forever.

Congress should immediately move to suspend the pay raise and swear them off until the economy is in full recovery. Or until the unemployment rate is well below 5%. Or both.

I believe ALL automatic adjustments should be voted on at least every 10 years. Is that too much to ask for?

President-elect Barack Obama was set to warn that the nation's recession could "linger for years" unless Congress acts to pump unprecedented sums from Washington into the U.S. economy.

The prospect of Caroline Kennedy's appointment to the Senate to replace Secretary of State Designate Hillary Clinton has created some weak (VERY weak) support and some lame (VERY lame) opposition. There are, in fact, good reasons to support the appointment and good reasons to oppose it, it's just that almost none of the punditry and other public comment has expressed it.

That is because almost none of the responses understand what the Senate was designed to accomplish.

Some of the opposition on the liberal/left, led by Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake and picked up by a few others, is at least ideologically consistent with the left-populist or Progressive (note the uppercase "P") view. I think it's wrong, but at any rate it's consistent. But the general mockery of many conservatives, is both wrong and inconsistent with an authentically conservative--I daresay Originalist--understanding of the American System.

In Politico, Republican stenographer, er, "reporter," Charles Mahtesian complains that:

The U.S. Senate could end up looking like an American version of the House of Lords . . . .

Well. DOH. That's the point of an Upper House in a legislature. While it is true that the Founders of our Republic and the Framers of our Constitution did not want to exactly replicate the British House of Lords, they certainly saw it as the model for the United States Senate with a few local adaptations. And I think it's fair to say that Alexander Hamilton pretty much DID want to replicate the Lords:

Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both therefore ought to have power, that each may defend itself agst. the other. To the want of this check we owe our paper money, installment laws &c.; To the proper adjustment of it the British owe the excellence of their Constitution. Their house of Lords is a most noble institution. Having nothing to hope for by a change, and a sufficient interest by means of their property, in being faithful to the national interest, they form a permanent barrier agst. every pernicious innovation, whether attempted on the part of the Crown or of the Commons.

James Madison was equally strong in his opinions of an Upper House and the style of person who should serve in such a body:

A people deliberating in a temperate moment, and with the experience of other nations before them, on the plan of Govt. most likely to secure their happiness, would first be aware, that those chargd. with the public happiness, might betray their trust. An obvious precaution agst. this danger wd. be to divide the trust between different bodies of men, who might watch & check each other. In this they wd. be governed by the same prudence which has prevailed in organizing the subordinate departments of Govt., where all business liable to abuses is made to pass thro' separate hands, the one being a check on the other. It wd. next occur to such a people, that they themselves were liable to temporary errors, thro' want of information as to their true interest, and that men chosen for a short term, & employed but a small portion of that in public affairs, might err from the same cause. This reflection wd. naturally suggest that the Govt. be so constituted, as that one of its branches might have an oppy. of acquiring a competent knowledge of the public interests Another reflection equally becoming a people on such an occasion, wd. be that they themselves, as well as a numerous body of Representatives, were liable to err also, from fickleness and passion. A necessary fence agst. this danger would be to select a portion of enlightened citizens, whose limited number, and firmness might seasonably interpose agst. impetuous councils..

The argument, then, that Caroline should run for election, or that having run for previous elective office is a qualification, is fundamentally nongermane. Officials trained and experienced in the House of Representatives learn both the necessity of immediate response to issues as they arise and then tend to to respond to the raw majoritarianism that rules that House of Congress (appropriately, I should add). But neither of those approaches is supposed to apply to the Senate. Having been a Member of the Lower House is actually closer to a disqualification than a qualification. The Senate is not supposed to be simply a glorified House of Representatives; that's especially true for this particular Senate seat, where neither of the two immediate predecessors, Pat Moynihan and Hillary Clinton, had ever held elective office before taking that New York Senate seat.

It's as if the quiet life Caroline has lived for the most part since her childhood is a bad thing. Nah uh. It's a good thing. Those are precisely the kinds of lives the Founders and Framers expected and desired prospective Senators to have lived. Does Caroline appear to possess a steady and settled personality? Of course. Does Caroline have a wide view of public issues? Of course. Examine the wide variety of issues involved in the winners of the JFK Library’s "Profiles in Courage" Awards, which she has administered since their inception (trivia: What Obama cabinet pick is on that list?). Is Caroline comfortable in the corridors of power? Of course. She's spent her entire life in and out of those corridors--and up and down those steps, as the photo above of her father's funeral demonstrates. Stop right here for a moment while I demolish this "dynasty" silliness.

There are, in fact, areas of public office where family-dynastic politics should be avoided. Municipal politics, for example, where family-dominated machines may grow increasingly corrupt or inefficient as bureaucratic custom becomes entrenched and decrepit. Quincy, Massachusetts, for example. Or take trade union politics. The recently deceased Ron Carey did a thousand times more for the Teamsters than the guy from a famous family who replaced him ever did. But the United States Senate is NOT one of those areas.

Family dynasties are an asset to the Senate. Senators are supposed to take the long view. They are supposed to think from fifty years in the past to fifty years in the future, and there's no better way to know that a Senator is taking the requisite long view than to know that that view in as imbued with family history as it is with public history. The Udall cousins, for instance, now hold two Senate seats, Colorado and New Mexico. But if there is an issue that almost by definition requires a long view, oh, say ..... the Environment .... is it not a very fine thing to know that two United States Senators were born of families that have been public officials of leading concern on the environment for two generations?

Ultimately, all this folderol over the possession of a particular United States Senate seat from New York is laughably ironic considering the history of New York's seats going back over two hundred years. First you got Rufus King. Good buddy of Alexander Hamilton and representative to both the Continental Congress and Federal Constitutional Convention from the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But, unfortunately for King and his ally, after ratifying the Constitution, the state legislature in Massachusetts (The General Court, we quaintly call it) decided they'd had enough of King and refused to elect him to the United States Senate. So Hamilton had him take a stagecoach down Interstate 95 and had him elected from New York. Which reminds me of James Buckley, who, because of disunity among liberals and Democrats, split the defense and won the seat in the election in 1972 even though everyone knew he lived in Connecticut.

But my favorite is Roscoe Conkling. By a combination of circumstances both political and tragic, his protégé in the corrupt Albany Machine (Republican, the corrupt Democratic machine was Tammany Hall) Chester A. Arthur became, er, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!! Then, in what might be termed a "Blagovichian" maneuver, he appealed to his former creature for all kinds of patronage and other such goodies then in the gift of the President. However, in a maneuver that might be termed "Obamian," Arthur merely offered his appreciation for the mentoring and refused Conkling's demand to replace the Port Collector of New York with Conkling's preferred designee. But then, in a maneuver that we might term "Liebermanian" since the Senate at the times was evenly divided, Conkling decided to resign from the Senate, thereby throwing control to the Democrats, then return to Albany and have the legislature there re-elect him on his own sweet time while Arthur stewed over blocked legislation.

Ooops. The New York state legislature was evidently more scared of the President of the United States than a resigned United States Senator because they rejected Conkling and soon elected a loyal Republican to replace Conkling, ending his career as a corrupt politician--of course, that opened the door to his career as a corrupt corporate counsel for the Railroads, but that's another story.

Sheesh. To hear the whining, you'd think some "tradition" of ordinary succession to that seat had been violated. Huh? While the Class 3 New York seat (King and Conkling's) held by Charles Schumer has a relatively pedestrian recent history, the last time the Class 1 seat had an ordinary turnover was exactly fifty years ago when Kenneth Keating won it in 1958. After that, Robert F. Kennedy, from Massachusetts, first elected office; Charles Goodell, appointed to replace the assassinated RFK; James Buckley, from Connecticut, first elected office; D. Patrick Moynihan, first elected office; Hillary Clinton, from Illinois, Arkansas and Washington, D,C., first elected office. And folks are tut-tutting because Caroline Kennedy is under consideration for that seat?!?! Are you kidding me? Caroline would be continuing the tradition for that seat, not violating it.

Caroline Kennedy is classy, she has wide acquaintance with issues of public moment, she has as long a view of American politics as is possible for a 52-year-old to have, and she has the United States Senate in her bones. If anything, she's OVER-qualified for the Senate in the terms the Founders and Framers expected, not under-qualified as Joe Klein superficially argues.

Finally, although I'm something of lib/lefty/progressive type on most current political issues, I'm also something of an Originalist and "conservative" on issues of Constitutional structure. One of the worst blots on the Constitution is the XVIIth Amendment, a supposedly "progressive" measure that removed the election of Senators from state legislatures and made it a matter of popular will. It's been all downhill ever since.

But the current spate of Senate vacancies due to movement into the Cabinet of the incoming Administration offers up an opportunity to do an end-around on the XVIIth Amendment, especially with the Illinois vacancy which could conceivably not be filled until 2010 at the current rate. The Governors of each of the states with vacancies should request that their state legislatures recommend a single candidate to fill the vacancy, and agree that if the legislatures do so in a timely manner, to appoint that candidate. That's certainly a way out of the Illinois gridlock, and there's no reason why it wouldn't work in Colorado, Delaware and New York. Since the Democrats control at least one house in each those legislatures and all four governor's mansions, Democrats in the Senate shouldn't have to worry about their Senate majority being weakened.

At the very least, the Illinois Governor and state legislature should consider this idea since at the moment it appears to be the only way that seat will get filled at all. The Governor and legislative leaders agree to the deal publicly. Candidates announce, everyone takes a few days in Springfield for meetings and lobbying, maybe hearings. Then they pass a "Sense of the House" Resolution--legislative boilerplate with the whereases and therefores and "Be it hereby resolved that it is the sense of this house that [insert name here] be appopinted to fill the vacancy in the United States Senate for Illinois." Then the Governor makes the appointment and the new Senator takes office without the taint of Blagoyavich's criminal investigation.

If it works, maybe we could start a movement to get that monstrosity of an Amendment repealed. Join me, everyone, in this movement that has absolutely no chance of ever succeeding!

"There's an old saying that politics in America is played between the 40 yard lines. What this means, for those unfamiliar with football, is that we're a centrist country, never straying very far to the left or the right in elections or national policies. This has been true for decades. It probably won't be after today's election.

"A sharp lurch to the left and enactment of a liberal agenda, or major parts of it, are all but inevitable. The centrist limits in earlier eras of Democratic control are gone.

"Even as global forces drive oil prices lower, all it takes is one nasty storm to reverse that. With a continent full of energy resources, why is U.S. oil production still concentrated in one Hurricane Alley?

"As another hurricane blasts through the 717 platforms and 121 offshore drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, oil prices are rising. It's not only an annual event now. Hurricane Ike drove prices $2 higher to $102 in a way a threatened supply cutoff from Venezuela and an OPEC production cut didn't.

It wasn't always like this. Before 1990, hurricanes used to cause temporary local output shutdowns that could quickly be replaced by resources from other areas. Prices barely moved.

"- A potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just 3 percentage points, 48% to 45%, in voters' "generic ballot" preferences for Congress. This is down from consistent double-digit Democratic leads seen on this measure over the past year.

Ibrahim wrote an August 2007 opinion column for The Washington Post faulting the United States for continuing $1.3 billion in annual military aid to Egypt despite the country's growing record of torturing and imprisoning democracy advocates.

FP: What has made you make an anti-Sharia platform the central tenet of your campaign?

Kumar: The main focus of my campaign is the War on Terror. What so many politicians do not seem to realize is that our struggle is against more than just "terror." Terrorism is simply a method, not an end itself. Terrorism is just one tactic being used by Islamic extremists in their effort to force their way of life on the rest of the world. Ultimately, then, this is a struggle over whether the nations of this world will be ruled under Sharia law or not. As Omar Ahmad, founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant."

FP: What are your thoughts about CAIR?

Kumar: CAIR is a direct manifestation of Mohammed's Sunna and jihad. CAIR is actually just one part of Islam's strategy to annihilate the Western culture. It is far more dangerous than any Mohammed Atta or any other jihadists.

Lies and deceit are CAIR's stock-in-trade. They claim to be akin to a "Muslim NAACP," but everyone from the Department of Homeland Security, to FBI counterterrorism chiefs, to moderate American Muslims recognizes the extreme rhetoric that CAIR endorses. At least five of CAIR's board members and employees have been linked to terrorism-related activities. They are fifth columnists, preying upon our values of tolerance and multiculturalism.

It seems that while Tehran is confusing the world once again over its strive for nuclear weaponry and meddling in the Middle East and Iraq, the main opposition is not just standing by. After they have been successfully delisted by the UK authorities, they have organized a huge meeting. Last year at least 60 000 gathered in a place near Paris. In that meeting their leader criticized appeasement and demanded a realistic view over Tehran's weakening position and a decisive policy against it. This year Practically all Iranian have been confronted with a huge mobilization by this opposition (including myself! ) . We shall look to see the meetings impact...

Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.

''Chief Deputy Republican Whip Eric Cantor congratulated Democrats today for their record-setting year in the majority:

One year ago, when they took control of Congress, House Democrats made many promises...''

Article has links plus funny political satire video.

=================================
Related non-political video- ''That's Life'' http://tinyurl.com/3y6eys
=========================

[Political analysis/opinion]

''Are congressional Democrats starting to wise up? After the Democrats' 41 useless Iraq bills...Democratic leaders are loath to acknowledge they've backed off . . .

''I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democrats are starting to realize that Iraq is a losing situation...for them. They can't ignore the undeniable progress, but they don't want to ignore their left-wing supporters who are calling for immediate withdrawal.

Summary

''War 40, Congress 20-- The War is twice as popular as Congress.

41% now say going into Iraq was not a mistake . . . but only 20% apparently believe this Congress was not a mistake.

Excerpt-

''Rarely has a document from the supposedly hidden world of intelligence had such an impact as the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. Rarely has an administration been so unprepared for such an event. And rarely have vehement critics of the "intelligence community" on issues such as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction reversed themselves so quickly.

All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it.''

Bush, Pelosi, Congress. Video humor. Weird!!!

TWO days ago, al Qaeda det onated four massive truck bombs in three Iraqi vil lages, killing at least 250 civilians (perhaps as many as 500) and wounding many more. The bombings were a sign of al Qaeda's frustration, desperation and fear.

The victims were ethnic Kurd Yazidis, members of a minor sect with pre-Islamic roots. Muslim extremists condemn them (wrongly) as devil worshippers. The Yazidis live on the fringes of society.

That's one of the two reasons al Qaeda targeted those settlements: The terrorist leaders realize now that the carnage they wrought on fellow Muslims backfired, turning once-sympathetic Sunni Arabs against them. The fanatics calculated that Iraqis wouldn't care much about the Yazidis.

. . .but the second reason for those dramatic bombings was that al Qaeda needs to portray Iraq as a continuing failure of U.S. policy. Those dead and maimed Yazidis were just props: The intended audience was Congress.

Here's an interesting opinion:

The Surge is working. The initial success on the field by the American army is splitting the Democratic caucus in the House between those who want to Lose At Any Cost and the Weathervanes Who Follow The Polls.

Those polls are bad. Only 3% of Americans approve of the Democratic Congress's handling of the war. Bush is at 24% in this category. Overall, Bush has better poll numbers than the Democratic Congress.

Rank-and-file Democrats already are worrying about the fate of all incumbents in 2008. They see the shift in public support. 42% now think the war was a good idea, up from 35% in May. These Democrats are tacking back.

Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan said as much to the Detroit Free Press:

For Levin, the Detroit Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would be too little, too late, even if the Iraqis returned from their August recess with "a different attitude" and began working toward benchmarks including regional elections, disbanding militias and other actions.

"That's not enough for me," he said.

Levin wants us to lose because that helps further his political ambitions. He supports the troops' surrender.