Revolving Corruption

One of the most respected polling organizations is Rasmussen, whose reports of their ongoing polling of various topics of public interest are found on http://www.rasmussenreports.com. A post dated December 21, 2009 from their website states:

“The latest Rasmussen Reports weekly tracking update shows that 41% of voters nationwide favor the [health care] bill and 55% are opposed. Those figures are essentially unchanged from a week ago. This the fifth straight week with support for the legislation between 38% and 41%. Among senior citizens, the group most likely to use the health care system, just 33% are in favor while 60% are opposed. Most adults under 30 favor the plan, but majorities of every other age group take the opposite view. The intensity remains with those who oppose the legislation. Just 19% Strongly Favor the plan while 45% are Strongly Opposed. Polling released last week showed that 57% of voters say passing nothing would be preferable to passing the current legislation. Most voters (54%) believe they personally will be worse off if the legislation passes.” Id.

To the extent, therefore, that this reputable polling organization can be trusted, as of December 21, 2009, at least 55% of voters nationwide do not want Congress to continue down its road of breathtaking irresponsibility; 55% of America's voters in fact want the Senate health care bill to fail.

Yet, according to CNN, on December 23, 2009, “[t]he Senate health care bill cleared a third and final procedural hurdle Wednesday as Democrats successfully limited remaining debate time on the $871 billion measure. The Senate voted 60-39 along party lines to set a timetable for likely passage of the bill early Thursday morning. Democrats also turned back last-ditch motions from Republicans claiming various provisions in the bill, including a mandate that individuals purchase coverage, are unconstitutional. ‘It’s long past time we declare health care a right and not a privilege,’ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said after the vote. ‘Today is a victory ... for American families,’ proclaimed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana. ‘Americans won.’” (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/23/health.care)

In a representational democracy, so the theory goes, elected representatives stand in the shoes of their constituents, debate, deliberate, decide and - tautologically - represent the will and desire of those who elected them, those, moreover, whose money has been involuntarily taken to pay their salaries. But since the election of Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress, there has not been simply a disjunct, but a willful, arrogant and indefensible disregard of the clear will of the electorate.

The mid-cycle 2010 elections are just months away. Yet, strangely, the 60 Democrat Senators who voted for cloture on the Senate's version of Obamacare seem blithely unconcerned about the displeasure of, say, 60% of the Senior Citizens - a key demographic critical to the continued control of Congress by Democrats.

Now many - all right, most - of the members of Congress are, I believe corrupt in the sense that they put personal interests far ahead of those of their constituents or of the nation as a whole. But I do not believe them to be stupid. Why then are they apparently unconcerned about being booted out of office in 2010 or 2012?

This may be part of the answer:

“Former congressman Jim Davis, D-Fla., who lost to Republican Charlie Crist in the race for Florida governor, joined Holland & Knight, a large law and lobbying firm. Davis said he will work mostly in Florida with occasional visits to Washington to advise clients. Managing partner Howell Melton Jr. said in a statement last month that the Democrat 'will be a valuable asset to our clients now that the new majority in Congress has convened.’

“Former congresswoman Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., joined law and lobbying firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, which touted her health care credentials — including her role in crafting the Medicare drug benefit. Democrat Christopher Murphy, who defeated Johnson, criticized the drug benefit and her ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Johnson did not return messages seeking comment.

“Former congressman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., on Tuesday joined Pac/West Communications, a lobbying and public relations firm. Pombo chaired the House Natural Resources Committee, and Pac/West's clients include timber and oil companies. Pombo said he will advise grass-roots groups on how to be politically effective.” (Matt Kelley, USA Today, 2/27/2007.)

To put a little more meat on these bones, as of 2006, the following former members of Congress had made the seamless swap from public shills to private shills: Andrews, Michael A; Anthony, Beryl Franklin Jr.: Archer, Bill; Armey, Dick; Bacchus, James; Bafalis, Louis A. (Skip); Barnes, Michael D.; Barr, Bob; Bartlett, Steve; Bayh, Birch E.; Bentley, Helen Delich; Blanchard, James J.; Bliley, Thomas J. Jr.; Bonker, Don; Borski, Bob; Boulter, Beau; Breaux, John Jr.; Brewster, Bill K.; Brock, William E. III; Bryan, Richard H.; Buechner, Jack W.; Bumpers, Dale; Burns, Max; Callahan, Sonny; Carney, William; Chapman, Jim; Christensen, Jon L.; Coats, Daniel R.; Coleman, E. Thomas; Coleman, Ronald D.; Combest, Larry; Corcoran, Thomas J.; Coyne, James K.; Cramer, Bud; Culver, John C.; D'Amato, Alfonse; Darden, George W.; Daub, Hal; Dellums, Ronald V.; Derrick, Butler; Dickey, Jay; Dole, Bob; Downey, Thomas J.; Dunn, Jennifer B.; Edwards, Jack; English, Glenn Lee Jr.; Evans, Billy Lee; Ewing, Thomas W.; Faircloth, Lauch; Fazio, Vic; Fields, Jack; Flanagan, Michael P.; Flippo, Ronnie G.; Forbes, Michael P.; Ford, Harold; Ford, Wendell; Franks, Robert D.; Funderburk, David; Garcia, Robert; Glickman, Daniel R. Goodling, William; Gorton, Slade; Grams, Rodney R.; Gray, William H. III; Hance, Kent R.; Hayes, James A.; Hertel, Dennis M.; Hilleary, William V.; Hoagland, Peter; Hochbrueckner, George J.; Huddleston, Walter D.; Hutchinson, Tim; Jenkins, Edgar; Jones, James R.; Kemp, Jack; Kennelly, Barbara; Klink, Ron; Klug, Scott; Kogovsek, Ray; Kuykendall, Steven T.; LaFalce, John J.; Largent, Steve; LaRocco, Lawrence P.; Laughlin, Gregory H.; Laxalt, Paul; Lazio, Rick; Lent, Norman F.; Levine, Mel; Lightfoot, Jim; Livingston, Robert L.; Loeffler, Tom; Lowery, William D.; Lujan, Manuel Jr.; Mack, Connie; Martin, David O'Brien; Martin, James G.; McCollum, Bill; McCurdy, Dave; McDade, Joseph M.; McGrath, Raymond J.; McInnis, Scott; McIntosh, David M.; McMillan, Alex; Melcher, John; Mica, Daniel A.; Michel, Robert H.; Miller, Brad; Moffett, Anthony J.; Molinari, Susan; Moore, Gwen; Moore, W. Henson; Morrison, Bruce A.; Myers, John; Napier, John L.; Nethercutt, George; Nickles, Don; Packard, Ron; Packwood, Bob; Parker, Mike; Paxon, Bill; Payne, L.F. Jr.; Pease, Ed; Porter, John Edward; Pressler, Larry; Pryor, David Jr.; Quinn, Jack; Ratchford, William; Riegle, Don; Rogan, James; Roth, Toby; Russo, Martin A.; Sandlin, Max; Santini, James D.; Sarpalius, Bill; Schroeder, Patricia; Shuster, Bud; Sikorski, Gerry E.; Slattery, James; Stanton, James V.; Staton, David M.; Stokes, Louis B.; Sundquist, Don; Swift, Al; Symms, Steven D.; Tate, Randy; Thomas, Craig; Vander Jagt, Guy A.; Walker, Robert S.; Wallop, Malcom; Watts, J.C. Jr.; Weber, Vin; Wheat, Alan; Whitten, Jamie L.; Zeliff, William H. Jr.; and Zimmer, Dick. (Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures -Sources: United States Senate Office of Public Records; Center for Responsive Politics.)

Some of the names are famous; some are infamous; all are, I believe, tawdry. And while I haven’t done a head count, my guess is that both sides of the aisle are well represented.

Gone are the days of a quiet retirement from public service (whatever that may mean nowadays) to Mount Vernon or Monticello. Today, paid politicians don’t die; they don’t even retire. Like a piece of toilet paper sticking stubbornly to the bottom of a shoe, we can’t get rid of them: When kicked out of office by an electorate that finally has wised up, these professional parasites simply move on to higher paid positions and continue to sell everyone and everything to the highest bidder.

Another article from USA Today underscores this irresistible impulse by professional politicians (constitutionally incapable of making money the good, old-fashioned way) to play the revolving door:

“Briefly, the revolving door is this: Politicians or federal employees leave office for the insider game of lobbying and advising private interests on how to do business with the federal government. This door has spun faster and faster as the influence-peddling industry has grown into a multibillion-dollar annual enterprise. More and more, it is not uncommon to see someone in charge of regulating or overseeing an industry working for that industry after a relatively short interval. In a report this month, the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics estimated that 'special interests and the lobbyists they employ' spent more than $13 billion lobbying Congress from 1998 to 2003. The center released a list of 250 "top revolvers" that included 32 former U.S. senators. More than 250 ex-members of Congress now lobby Congress, according to the center's analysis. (USA Today, 4/14/2005.) (Emphasis added.)

Clearly, there are at least two concerns: The first is that former members of Congress with insider information and influence betray their public trust upon (finally) leaving office by selling that information and influence to a private bidder. The second - which is more the point of this blog - is that a member of Congress no longer has an incentive to remain faithful to his or her constituents for fear of losing a congressional seat, since most already have even more lucrative job offers awaiting their "retirement."

Unfortunately, delicate considerations of First Amendment guarantees (which I do, of course, support) hedge up the way against more aggressive restrictions by Congress to limit the ability of former members of that pit of vipers to thumb their arrogant noses at those who elected them by softly floating to earth with their own versions of golden parachutes (and yes, I recognize the irony of suggesting that Congress might ever, in any substantial way, police itself ethically). As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held way, way back in 1952:

“In support of the power of Congress it is argued that lobbying is within the regulatory power of Congress, that influence upon public opinion is indirect lobbying, since public opinion affects legislation; and that therefore attempts to influence public opinion are subject to regulation by the Congress. Lobbying, properly defined, is subject to control by Congress, . . . But the term cannot be expanded by mere definition so as to include forbidden subjects. Neither semantics nor syllogisms can break down the barrier which protects the freedom of people to attempt to influence other people by books and other public writings. . . . It is said that lobbying itself is an evil and a danger. We agree that lobbying by personal contact may be an evil and a potential danger to the best in legislative processes. It is said that indirect lobbying by the pressure of public opinion on the Congress is an evil and a danger. That is not an evil; it is a good, the healthy essence of the democratic process. . . .” Rumely v. United States, 197 F.2d 166, 173-174, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1952), aff'd, United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953).

So, we end where we begin: The only check on the truly rapacious cupidity of Congress is for its dishonest, disgraced and shameless members to police themselves, to practice a modicum of discipline and to behave as if public office were an honored responsibility, not a whoreish pastime.

I am not holding my breath.

Fugue

I think, therefore I am.
But am I who I think I am or just a figment
Of my mind?
Never mind.

Never mind who I think I am.
What matters is whether others think I am.
But how do I know that because they think I am
Is why I am?

They think, therefore I am.
I am nothing without their thoughts
And I exist only in their minds.
Never mind.

But they cannot exist to me without me
Thinking who they are and they therefore are only
Who I think them to be.
I think, therefore they are.

Then is it I who thinks they are
And they who think I am and therefore we are?
Or they who think I am
Who they think me to be? And thus we are?

We think, therefore we are.
And each exists only in the mind of the other.
Our existence proves our existence.
But only in our minds.

Never mind.

Ode to Foggy Bottom

Rooting snouts and fat lips suck
On the public's bone-dry teats.
Slopping up each treasured drop
Of their favorite fiscal treats.

Filthy cloven hooves relax,
Their sodden smiles expand.
Unsated, besotted, fat and dull,
Too stuffed with dough to stand.

We pay their way, they bleed us dry;
It's time to throw them out!
With pitchforks, torches, feathers, tar -
We'll put them in a rout!

Cymbalta's 9th Circle of Hell - A Very Personal Account

I was diagnosed with Bipolar I, mixed moods and ultra-rapid cycling in 2000. Not a good combination. Consequently, I spent 3+ years trying a dizzying array of prescription cocktails, which resulted in an ultimate prescription for Cymbalta. Apart from a very short stint on Effexor, Cymbalta was the only SNRI I had tried. For more than 3 years, I was a relatively stable, albeit maxing out on a daily dose of 120 mg. of the anti-depressant.

As a result of a series of events irrelevant here, I decided to eliminate Cymbalta from my daily cocktail mix.

I did what I could to soften the blow by halving my dose for several days before I took the last capsule. I was not overly concerned about nixing the Cymbalta, as I had read the available literature on the withdrawal side effects and - as they were principally physical, - I concluded I could weather whatever I encountered.

That was fine as far as it went. You see, apart from an increase in depression, mania or anxiety (all of which I handled well enough with my other medication trials), Eli Lilly "forgot" to mention some of the more interesting side effects. (That said, I must admit that I may have exacerbated my situation by sleeping as little as possible in order to push me towards mania and away from depression.)

Days 1 - : Nothing remarkable.

Day 7: Abrupt increase in vivid, lucid dreams; but as I'd experienced that on other meds, I wasn't alarmed).

Days 8 and 9: More and more vivid with difficulty awakening and staying awake; more alarming, I began to confuse dream time with awake time.

Day 10: I entered the gate to the 9th Circle of Hell. I tried to stay awake all night, but eventually fell asleep; within a minute, serial ultra-vivid dreams until daybreak. When the sun appeared through my windows and I tried, vainly, to awaken. I opened my realize, vaguely sensing that I was awake, but immediately fell into a frenzy of exhausting dreams.

This continued from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m., when I finally was able to sit up and stay "awake."

Though perhaps awake, I was hopelessly disoriented - unable to see or feel any separation between what was inside and what was outside my mind.

I tried to telephone family and friends to objectify my experiences, but no one was available. This is where I started to lose it.

Familiar things around me - my room, its contents, my body, even my thoughts lost familiarity and substance; I was unable to perceive any distinction between "me" and "not me." As I became more and more unable to discern between objective reality and subjective dream time, (a functional definition of psychosis), my anxiety - already off the scale from the Cymbalta withdrawal - combined with my dissociation from reality and my vicious mood swings to produce the most hellish version of psychosis I might ever have imagined. I became unable to use my cell phone; so confused was I that it made no sense to me. I was too terrified to leave my room. I was utterly isolated from anyone or anything but "myself."

With only a few hours of sleep spanning more than a week, I physical and mental exhaustion overtook me; serial REM sleep left no room for deeper and dream-free restorative sleep. But the notion that if I fell asleep again, I would never "awaken" terrorized me. I was certain that should I lie down, I would never again awaken, or if I did, I would never again individuate, with any assurance, dreaming from from not dreaming.

There I was, sitting in a corner of Dante's 9th Circle of Hell.

As I felt myself slipping deeper into irreversible psychosis, I focused every ounce of my will to remember and to do any routine that might objectify my existence, convince me that I was awake, that I still possessed the ability to control my thoughts and govern my actions. This slowed my apparent inexorable slide into irretrievable psychosis; but I was miles and miles from sanity.

Serendipitously (perhaps), my daughter and a close friend (a brilliant psychologist with an encyclopedic knowledge of psychiatric meds) telephoned me. Not ten minutes later, my daughter arrived, while my friend - telephonically, yet effectively - illuminated the cause of and the cure for SNRI withdrawal - those troublesome details Eli Lilly kept to itself. Happily, I learned, all psychotic symptoms would resolve once Cymbalta again imbued my mind with its pharmaceutical patina. of sanity. Once again a Cymbaltite, at the time of this writing, my mind is still loopy and distressingly disoriented.

I am, it seems, doomed for life to Cymbalta's power of redemption.

A $245 Billion Doctor's Bill

AP, July 21, 2009: "WASHINGTON -- House Democrats want to give doctors a $245 billion sweetener that helps ensure their critical support for a health care overhaul bill. Next up: Trying to explain how they could do it without breaking President Barack Obama's promise that health legislation won't increase the federal deficit."

While there is little empirical data from which to infer a professional ideological bias on the part of physicians as a whole – or even the more distilled versions found among the AMA leadership (see, e.g. Goldman, “Factors Related to Physicians' Medical and Political Attitudes: A Documentation of Intraprofessional Variations,” Lee Goldman, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Sep., 1974), pp. 177-187), $245 billion dollars apparently can buy (or lease) their support of one of the most ambitious and radical pieces of legislation ever to be feverishly cobbled together by a Democratic Congress, itself glued together by unequal measures of cupidity and ideology. Still, we could hope that one of the brightest and best educated segments of the population might have perused the 1,000+ pages of the metamorphosing bill in order to apprehend its draconian ramifications. Once again, money is the great equalizer.

Banned for Life

You be the judge.

My last blog noted my infiltration of a progressive organ. No, it wasn't the brain, as the bunch I refer to appears to have none; it was rather The Huffington Post, which, I have concluded, is the progressivists' gallbladder: nothing more than a repository of undifferentiated bile. After an illustrious career as a libertarian gadfly lasting, oh a week maybe, I have been banned for life from posting comments on the eggshell pysche's site. Here is the comment that apparently broke the jackass's back:

"Looking for factual errors and logical fallacies in Whatley's article is like looking for straw in a haystack: close your eyes, pick a sentence, and you're there. E.g., his ipse dixit definition of 'anti-intellectualism' conflates intellectualism with education and gratuitously adds, 'paranoid.' (Cf. www.merriam-webster.com: 'opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach.') Another: '[F]ew would deny that the driving force for America's economic growth now is educated innovators.' The 'few' disagreeing would be those faithful to the facts. 'Small businesses provide half of the nation’s nonfarm, private real gross domestic product (GDP), and half of all Americans work for a small firm.' (U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy’s 2008 edition of The Small Business Economy: A Report to the President, p. 7.) Exactly what % of these SB owners is 'educated' is unaddressed by Whatley. So is 'educated' (H.S. diploma? Some college? Ph.D.? Professional Degree? Online degree?), rendering his entire article meaningless. Btw, Egghead, your opening sentence contains this solecism: 'The burgeoning conservative 'teabagger' movement, and the 'tea party' demonstrations set for Wednesday, has [sic] created. . . .'"

Perhaps my immoderate use of the grammar-school epithet "Egghead" was more than their sensitive souls could suffer.

Fun with Progressives

In an effort to foster informed dialogue with the left - who now call themselves in true propagandist style, "Progressives" (in homage to Woodrow Wilson, the Jimmy Carter of his day), under my nom de plume "GregorSamsa, I joined the reader ranks of huffingtonpost.com. I reproduce below a recent string, to give you a taste of my "success." I admit the string is acontextual, but you'll get the drift. . . .

GregorSamsa
"I guess facts have never been all that important to right wingers like the folks who put out this story. . . ." I agree with Mr. Lux that right-wing misinformation is both predictable and frustrating. Take this outright lie, for example: "[A] young cohort of activists, backed by an illustrious group of online organizing veterans like Zephyr Teachout, Joe Trippi and Mike Lux, recently launched A New Way Forward to raise awareness and support for alternative bailout plans and to protest the current [bailout] plan." This tired old canard was spewed electronically Tuesday last by that ignorant enclave of conservative backwardthought, "The Nation." (See http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow/425015?rel=hp_picks.) Yes, so predictable, so reactionary, so pathetic.
Posted 02:29 AM on 04/10/2009

tekerati
I guess comprehending what you read is not your strong suit. The Cafepress story Mr. Lux is referring to quite explicity states that A New Way Forward was formed by Mr. Lux as an Obama front group. Your quote taken from an article in The Nation makes it clear that A New Way Forward was conceived and launched by a group of activists not Mr. Lux. He backs this group, he didn't create this group. If you go to A New Way Forward's website, you will not see Mr. Lux's name listed anywhere. So yes, the Cafepress article is fact-free, predictable, reactionary and pathetic.
Posted 08:37 AM on 04/10/2009

GregorSamsa
I guess understanding irony and getting facts straight is not your cup of tea. I did not and do not endorse the blatant errors in the post Lux quotes. My point is that perpetuating factual errors is hardly a right-wing phenomenon. By the way, the source of Lux's diatribe against the right is Canada Free Press (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10073), not as you assert as a "fact," The Cafepress. Thank you for making my point.
Posted 10:52 AM on 04/10/2009

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "There are lies, damn lies, and the world according to Progressives."

Is Barak Obama Megalomaniacal? (Part 2)

In my last blog, I considered whether Barak Obama is megalomaniacal, focusing on a now enacted Congressional bill purporting to grant Obama's manikin Treasury Secretary, Timothy "If-You-Understand-Me-I-Must-Not-Be-Obfuscating-Enough" Geithner near plenary power to establish salaries for the employees of any company receiving federal TARP money. Part 2 addresses the related question whether His Lowness may fire at will corporate directors and executives whenever he gets in the mood. For this issue I enlist the help of Robert Reich, the twenty-second United States Secretary of Labor serving under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997, a graduate of Dartmouth College, a former Harvard University professor and former Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University and current professor at the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy. In other words, a typical right-wing partisan hack. Robert's assessment, in his own words:

"Tim Geithner said on Sunday's Face the Nation that the Treasury might fire the heads of big banks that depend on financing from the federal government, just as it summarily deposed Rick Wagoner, the former CEO of General Motors -- and before Wagoner, the heads of AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. "Where that requires a change in management and the board, then we will do that," said Geithner.

"I suppose it's comforting to know our government stands ready to fire corporate executives and directors whenever taxpayer money is on the line. But I suspect Geithner's new tough line is mostly designed to reassure a public that's lost all faith in the wisdom of bailing out Wall Street.

"For the sake of the argument, assume he's sincere. What criterion will an axe-wielding Geithner be using? If precipitous loss of shareholder value is enough to "require a change in management and the board," presumably every CEO and director of every big bank now being bailed out should be fired, starting with Ken Lewis of Bank of America.

"If the criterion is diversion of taxpayer money to uses other than Congress intended when it first authorized the $700 billion bailout, the list of soon-to-be-fired CEOs is a bit shorter but still large. Surely it includes all the bailed-out banks that continue to fly their executives around the world in company jets, award them extraordinary pay packages, and run junkets at fancy resorts. Citigroup's Vikram Pandit (who collected $38.2 million for his taxpayer-subsidized services in 2008) comes immediately to mind.

"Why stop there? Perhaps Geithner intends to fire executives and directors of any company that's dependent on taxpayers and is now losing money. Just think of the corporate house-cleaning this will mean. Hundreds of agribusiness executives are now at risk as are scores of military contractors. Hell, the whole pharmaceutical industry depends on taxpayer support (research subsidized by National Institutes of Health, sales subsidized through Medicare and Medicaid), and it's doing badly, so their executives and directors will be gone soon, too.

"All told, about one out of every five large American companies depends on government contracts, and a majority of these firms are losing money right now. So ... off with their heads." (Courtesy of http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ - yes I find Ms. Huffington attractive in a Zsa Zsa "Dawn-of the-Dead" Gabor kind of way. . . .)

Off with their heads indeed. Having demonstrated - again - both its lunacy and its current lock-step with Field Marshallette Pelosi and her red-line to the White House, it's only a matter of time before Congress resorts to the invincible Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 8, for those of you who think I'm making this up) to find a financial link to the federal government for virtually every business entity in the country - including yours. Off with your head, anyone?

Is Barak Obama Megalomaniacal?

Based on the President's recent, presumptuous, sacking of 30-year veteran GM'er Rick Wagoner, his instantaneous accession to the position of Wagoner's de facto replacement and his grand and gracious promise that the government (that would be you, gentlereader) will back all GM warranties, I began to wonder whether he is, in a word, megalomaniacal. Since I had a headache and didn't want to think that one through, I let it drop.

Enter Messrs. Grayson and Himes, whose backsides occupy seats in the House of Representatives. While I was tossing down ibuprofen and cradling my broken brain, they were busy, and I mean lucubrating. The spawn of their perfervid efforts is H.R. 1664, a remarkable and adventurous attempt to anoint President Obama's homunculus sock-puppet, Timothy "Tax-Cheat" Geithner, as de facto and de jure CFO of every American financial institution that has dined - or even supped - at the public bailout trough. But I ought not to steal the thunder rightfully and lawfully belonging to Grayson and Himes:

"No financial institution that has received or receives a capital investment under this title, or with respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Montage Corporation, or a Federal home loan bank, under the amendments made by section 1117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, may, while that capital investment remains outstanding, make a compensation payment to any executive or employee under any pre-existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement, if such compensation payment or compensation payment arrangement--
‘(A) provides for compensation that is unreasonable or excessive, as defined in standards established by the Secretary [of Treasury] in accordance with paragraph 2[.]"

Now here's where the fun begins. Paragraph 2 states, "STANDARDS- Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall establish the following:
‘(A) UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION STANDARDS- Standards that define ‘unreasonable or excessive’ for purposes of subparagraph (1)(A)." (Italics added.)

Putting aside the problematic task of asking someone unable to spell "F-o-r-m-1-0-4-0" to define with sufficient precision and clarity such loose concepts as "unreasonable" and "excessive," the sweeping majesty of H.R. 1664's displacement of private compensation decisions from pertinent individual CEO's, managers and supervisors to Obama's hand-picked (albeit unvetted), impertinent government marionette is breathtaking.

And horrific.

This scenario is the kind God intended when he gave us the term, "slippery slope," though, candidly, the intrinsic lubrication represented in the "slippery" half is hardly necessary when Congressional blowhards ply their trade in the direction of a dainty and diminutive coxcomb of a Treasury Secretary who's been running in that direction since his confirmation. This is the kind of perpendicular power-grabbing plummet from which there is no safe escape.

So, despite the federal government's over-hyped Paperwork Reduction Act, be prepared to fill out, in triplicate, federal form 77329-x-44937(b)(1)(A), asking Tiny Tim's exalted permission next time your 12 year-old asks for a raise in his allowance.

And now, with my headache much worse, I return to my original question, "Is Obama megalomaniacal?" Megalomania, I am told, is "a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur." Relying solely on the evidence presented above, I believe a reasonable judge or juror could easily conclude that Obama demonstrates "feelings of omnipotence and grandeur." Whether or not it is in the present case a "delusional mental disorder" is a question for another day, another blog and another bottle of ibuprofen.

BTC

If anything, I am BTC - behind the curve. Here were are, March 29, 2009 and I, in my 793rd year, am only now blogging (gerund of the noun "blog," i.e. "Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer ; also : the contents of such a site.") I am listening to "Pine Country" by bluegrass musicians Robin and Linda Williams, a line of which goes, "I've got an itch that I've gotta scratch." I suppose that is as good an explanation as any why I have chosen this moment virtually to venture into the vast blogosphere.

Three cheers then to blogging in general, which today is the ultimate democracy: anyone with access to the Internet thereby has plenary sovereignty whereby he may write whatever he fancies and publish it without being pestered by pesky niceties like literacy, intelligence, wisdom or even (as in the instant case) something interesting to say. The cyberportal is universal and one size fits all, even those unfit to enter.

But I ought not to bite the hand that is reaching out to my illusions of relevance while gently massaging my mediocrity. So I won't. Anymore that is. At least not for the present.

To quote the fictitious Tiny Tim (no, not the one who was (mis)married on the Tonight Show): "God bless us, every one!"