Shoe, fly

Laura Bush seems to be the only one who is upset about her heel of a husband's close call with a loafer.

Latin American leaders in Brazil laughed.

"Please, nobody take off your shoes," Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva joked to reporters at the start of a news conference.

Australians laughed.

In Saudi Arabia, they did more than laugh. Someone offered $10 million for the shoe seen around the world. The shoes have become a symbol of protest across the Middle East.

Internet gamers laughed. Within hours internet games sprouted up that spoofed the incident.

And thanks to the late night comics, we all laughed.

Even George Bush tried to laugh it off....not realizing that he was the joke.

Laura Bush seemed to be the only one who took offense.

"As a wife, I saw this as an assault, and that's what it was," she told USA TODAY during an interview Thursday at the White House. "And so I didn't laugh it off like he did."

Put a sock in it. It was funny.

When you wish upon a czar...

...makes no difference who you are

anything your heart desires

will come to you
-Peter Pan

I'm not sure who wished for the car czar first, but I'm willing to bet they won't get their heart's desire. I'm not expert in these things, but it just strikes me as a bad idea.

I'm going to sound Republican here, but stick with me. One of the follies of government is that it thinks it can fix everything itself, and two of Washington's favorite fix-it remedies are the commission and the czar. One buys time, and the other shifts accountability. Both tend to waste time and money.

The latest fix for the car industry is that we hand them a $14 billion check (the term officially morphed from bailout to bridge loan) that will come with a nanny to help the car companies make better decisions. No one can argue that automakers have some serious decision-making challenges...after all, these are the guys who make cars so crappy that they didn't even want to drive them to Washington. Only when they thought $25 billion...oops, I meant $34 billion, was at stake did they buckle up for the road trip. I'm not mad at them. It'd take about that much to get me to drive one, too.

So these guys who stunk at making decisions and drove their companies into the ditch, now beg us for a bailout, I mean bridge loan. We can't just hand them the money. We need some checks and balances. We need.... A CZAR. Here are four problems with the czar idea:

1) No business in government: Government doesn't think or operate like the private sector. Like it or not, the engine of business is capitalism. Companies are driven by competition and profits. We measure success by money and stock value. That's it folks. There is no other real report card for business as a whole. Government doesn't think that way. They are egalitarian. They are looking out for the greater good. To make everything right for the taxpayer. To establish justice. To ensure domestic tranquility. To provide for the common defense. To raise their poll numbers. Chrysler has a different agenda; they want to kill GM. They don't want the same opportunity as their competitor. They want a better one. That's the nature of business, and government doesn't get that. That brings me to my second reason.

2) The friend of my enemy: This one czar will open up the books of both companies to decide who needs and gets help...or how they should negotiate deals..or restructure loans?? That ought to make them both shudder. Companies guard their inner workings like Fort Knox because a leak in their strategic direction or technologies can set them back years in market share and profitability. Now you'll have the same guy/office poring through your books as well as your competitors. Can you ever trust that process, no matter how much they say it's safe? Did the mob ever trust the witness protection program? I know the government is there to help but please... That brings me to the third reason.

3) Money where your mouth is: The czar has no real stake in the outcome. Other than being able to add "successful car czar" to his or her resume, there will be no lasting impact like his job lost or her stock value plummeting. If the whole experiment fails, the czar will write a book and go nurse his or her credibility back to health in a think tank. People who were at his mercy will languish with the results. If you want to call the shots, you need some skin in the game. That brings me to my last reason.

4) It's not who you know, it's what you know: Will this person be required to have auto industry experience? What metrics will we use to determine Mr. or Ms. Czar's success? Do you really want the same guy who picked Mike "Brownie" Brown to run FEMA choosing someone to navigate Detroit through its storm? Would you be more inclined to buy a car from a Detroit company because a Washington suit was calling the shots? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Now you're thinking...we just can't hand money to auto execs with no accountability, can we? No we shouldn't, but accountability doesn't require us to micromanage the process. When a bank loans you money for a car, they don't send someone to the car lot with you to make sure you don't by a Buick with high mileage, but when the transmission falls out, you're on your own.

A guy named Arnold Berk spent $15,000 of his own money to place an ad with his proposal for "A Contract between Main Street and Wall Street." He has a couple provisions that tie very real accountability and consequences to any government help. Here's my favorite:

The CEO and top 25 officers must pledge their personal real estate as collateral for this loan. This includes property held jointly with spouse. Their principal residence as well as any other real estate they may own as an individual or with spouse.

No need to hire a czar when a guy's house is at stake. Now that's not just accountability, that's motivation. Go ahead and fly to Washington while we measure for drapes. You think that would get their attention?

But... we wish for a czar to build our cars. As one analyst commented, "that only delays the funeral."

If your heart is in your dreams
No request is too extreme
When you wish upon a czar
As dreamers do
-Peter Pan

An intelligence failure...

This was truly too easy. They ought to at least make me work for my sarcastic opportunities, but, alas, they serve it up on a silver platter.

Last week George Bush, Karl Rove and Karen Hughes launched the Legacy Project -- a deliberate effort to spend the next six weeks trying to convince us we really didn't understand the last eight years.

The effort is being rolled out in a series of "exit interviews," where the trio try to replace the general consensus that George Bush was the worst president EVER with the proposition that George Bush was a resolute war president and reluctant warrior who was misled by bad intelligence.

First stop on the Bush Legacy Project was ABC's Charlie Gibson where Bush said "I don't know --- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq."

His biggest regret was the intelligence failure. That's right, the decider is basing his horrible decision making on a failure of intelligence. I couldn't agree more.

As Ben Cohen of The Daily Banter put it:

[Bush] has presided over two disastrous wars, an increase in poverty at home, an increase in wealth inequality, an increase in the number of people without health care, a crisis in public education, the break down of national infrastructure, the literal drowning of a city, the use of torture as official policy, the biggest financial crisis in 80 years, and the irreversible decline of America's prestige abroad.

With all of that on his watch, this dim bulb launches a PR campaign to convince us that he was not the worst president because of an "intelligence failure."

But the interview got better:

GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war? BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.

Huh?

GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.
BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.

That's an interesting question? Really? It's as if this is the first time he is reflecting on a decision that has been debated for the last five years. And...he doesn't want to speculate. How convenient. Here's a thought... if you want to convince us to reconsider your legacy, you ought to be ready to answer basic questions. You ought to go out on a limb and speculate. You truly have nothing to lose.

The legacy project rolls on, so let's keep repeating the talking points until we believe them. Bush was really a good president. If those pesky intelligence folks had gotten it right, we would have had a good reason to invade Iraq. If only they had done their jobs. Oops. We're speculating again.

You're right W. Your biggest regret should be a failure of intelligence. Yours.

That was truly too easy.

Your seat at the table

President-elect Barack Obama is making good on a significant campaign promise even before he is sworn in. You'll recall he often promised that he would make government transparent. That would mean everything from showing meetings on C-Span to making pending policy available online for review and comment.

That's a pretty stark contrast from the current administration, which would make decisions and not only keep silent about what was discussed but who was there doing the discussing. After eight years of darkness, sunshine is a welcome contrast.

In a message and video distributed today, Obama is launching what he calls Your Seat at the Table. It's a message not just to us but to his transition team. If you need another reason to be impressed with this man, take a look at what he is doing to government. He promised change; it looks like change is on the way.

Read the full memo to his transition team and more on the Your Seat at the Table initiative on Obama's change.gov site.

Read to his transition team and more at Obama's change.gov site.

Obama Campaign Mulls What To Do With $30M Surplus

Here are excerpts from a Huffington Post article.

WASHINGTON — Democrats carrying significant campaign debt after winning a string of House and Senate races are grumbling about President-elect Barack Obama's financial reserves, saying the party's leader is sitting on a pile of cash while Democratic leaders are broke....

Obama's organization retains some $30 million after his successful presidential bid, but it's unclear how the Democratic president-in-waiting might use the money. Members of his party are doing their best to appeal for the funds without appearing greedy, ungrateful or hostile to their new leader....

The Democratic National Committee is carrying about $5 million in debt, with almost $12 million cash on hand. DNC officials say they expect to have the debt paid by the end of the year. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee carries some $19 million in debt and less than $3 million on hand. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is nearly $13 million in debt...

Obama raised more than $745 million during his marathon campaign, more than twice the amount obtained by his rival, Republican John McCain. In his latest finance report, Obama reported raising $104 million in more than five weeks immediately before and after Election Day...

Obama opted not to participate in public funding system. In exchange, he was able to continue raising money, while McCain accepted $84 million in taxpayer money, and the spending restrictions that went with it, through the public financing system...

Obama aides are aware of the stigma and don't want to appear inelegant or selfish. They are weighing whether to keep the money to build a massive grass roots program to support his agenda, or to cycle that money to the party apparatus. Both ideas have strong advocates, but it's unclear to those involved which way Obama will go...

Party officials around the country say the campaign leaders have signaled they shouldn't expect the money to come to them directly, if at all. Instead, many party officials expect Obama to use his funds to advance his own priorities, to support his massive Internet-based organization and to have cache for special causes. With almost 4 million donors, Obama's fundraising list could prove golden for future Obama-backed drives...

Don't worry, be happy

If I'm happy, you ought to be happy, too. That's assuming we are friends.

So says the result of a study in the British Medical Journal. The study of 4,700 people who were followed more than 20 years found that people who are happy or become happy boost the chances that someone they know will be happy. It doesn't stop with the people you know however, the happiness can persist through another degree of separation. When one person in a network becomes happy, the chances that a friend, sibling, spouse or next-door neighbor would also become happy increased between 8 percent and 34 percent.

Are you smiling yet? What about the person next to you.

The study confirmed what I've always sensed, that it is harder to be miserable around people who are joyful than people who are miserable. If you want to stay happy, it's best to avoid those who seem to wallow in unhappiness.

Could that phenomenon have been at work in the last election? I think we'd all agree that Barack Obama was the one candidate who always seemed to have a sunny disposition. No matter what was thrown his way, he seemed to always be able to summon a smile.

If you looked at his staff and supporters, they always seemed to be upbeat. By contrast, some of his opponents (who will remain nameless) seemed to be perpetually peeved and were always surrounded by a sour-faced lot.

Barack's attitude is in keeping with dreams of our founding fathers. Less than 100 words into the Declaration of Independence they not only proffered that our unalienable rights are life and liberty, but also the pursuit of happiness. Barack Obama might just remind us that happiness is not only good for campaigning but essential for governing.

The study also resonated with me because it reminded me of my Dad. He has got to be the most optimistic person I know. No matter what I've seen him go through, I've never seen him without his smile or without a word of positive encouragement. His optimism is so bad that sometimes we would get upset at him for being happy...when the situation called for some righteous indignation.

I'd like to think that I inherited some portion of his positive attitude...like his brown eyes and chubby cheeks. I'm still working on continuing his legacy of happiness, but I do know that whenever I go to my parents house, there is a joy that is unmistakable. There is no doubt that their joy transfers to anyone who enters their home.

The good news is that their joy and happiness is viral. They'll pass it to me, and I'll pass it to two friends. And so on. And so on. Pretty soon we will have infected everyone in our network. That's got to be a beautiful thing.

Ask Barack Obama. Ask my dad.