Brendan Skwire’s letter to the editor

He writes in favor of marijuana legalization in today’s Daily News. But I’m not sure it’s actually him. There’s not a single profanity in the entire piece. Suspicious.

About the federal government takeover of GM and Chrysler

I’m a day late in digesting this, but certainly there’s been plenty of hubub over President Obama’s ulitmatum to GM and Chrysler to get their respective acts together or face bankruptcy — an ultimatum that included, essentially, the firing of GM’s top exec, Rick Waggoner.

I’ll outsource the roundup of conservative alarm over to Dr. Zaius at Infinite Monkeys:

Sen. Bob Corker calls what he’s witnessing a “power grab.” Commentary’s Jen Rubin says we’re on the road to tyranny. John Hinderaker says the US “may have taken a major step toward corporatism today — an economic philosophy more reminiscent of Italy in the 1930s than of American free enterprise.” We’ll see in the course of time, I suppose, whether these kinds of statements are wildly paranoid, or prescient.

Count me as one who thinks those statements are, well, at least a bit paranoid. What you’re watching right now is not — as some conservatives would have you believe — the first step toward the undoing of our capitalist system by our secretly-Communist president. Instead, it’s two very important things:

• The end result of a process sought by the car companies and originated by the Bush Administration.

• A kind of highly managed pre-bankruptcy process that, yes, is only available to big giant companies and not to you or me — a corollary to the “Too Big Too Fail” phenomenon; call it “Too Big To Collapse Overnight.”

It is the auto companies that sought this bailout. To put it in plainer language: The car companies have invited, even begged, for government interference. Thus, I’m not sure I’d characterize it as a “power grab” on the part of the Obama Administration. Instead, it’s apparent the taxpayer has become the banker of last resort to the auto companies — and the taxpayer, like any banker watching a lendee slide into bankruptcy, has the right to insist on attaching certain conditions to continued financial support. (Here in Philadelphia, we’re watching a similar process unfold as Brian Tierney tries to hang on to his job while creditors demand big changes at Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.) To hand over that money strings-free would, I think, be malfeasance on the part of the government.

Perhaps we should’ve simply let the companies slide into bankruptcy, and I don’t think I’d argue very strenuously against that proposition. But a Democratic Congress and Republican Administration got the ball rolling with the initial bailout; I think what we saw yesterday was a logical outcome of that process. You didn’t see this kind of panicked reaction among conservatives back when President Bush was running things — which suggests to me the objection is A) maybe just a little bit politically motivated and B) less concerned with government capitalization of failing businesses and more concerned that the government might set conditions on that capitalization.

Portraying this as the beginning of an anti-capitalist revolution, I think, untrue, unfair and unwise. The Obama Administration is simply making the best of a very bad hand.

Philly’s newspaper unions are pissed. And rightly so.

The Guild isn’t so happy about forgoing a measley $25 raise when Brian Tierney and his buddies were getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses. Here’s the memo posted at Romenesko:

From: GuildBulletin
Sent: Mon 3/30/2009 08:56
To:
Subject: Phila Newspapers Execs turn your $25 raise into their Christmas bonuses

Dear Guild member,

Three months after Philadelphia Newspapers pressured the Guild and its other unions to postpone a $25 raise, its three most senior executives received a total of $650,000 in bonuses, Philadelphia magazine reported over the weekend. In December, Brian Tierney, Philadelphia Media Holdings CEO, received a holiday bonus of $350,000, while Daily News Publisher Mark Frisby and Richard Thayer, vice president of finance, both received payments of $150,000 the magazine reports. PMH Chairman Bruce Toll confirmed the bonuses for the magazine. The Guild has learned that other senior managers also received year-end bonuses and is working to uncover more information.

Surely by December PMH knew the company would soon declare bankruptcy, as it did last month, so the year-end cash rewards are shocking.

Last summer your Guild officers stood before the membership and encouraged members to vote to delay a $25 raise we had bargained in 2006. The company laid out a dire financial picture which painted any savings as vital to the future of the organization. We asked you to sacrifice what you had earned in the belief that it was for the good of the company. Clearly we were more concerned about the company than the senior management who rewarded themselves with increases totaling more than $400,000 (The three agreed last month in bankruptcy court to roll their salaries back) and as we have now learned, cash bonuses of at least $650,000.

Please remember that unlike many of the other unions under contract with PMH, the Guild did not forgo the $25 increase last August, rather voted to delay the increase until August 1, 2009. In light of those raises, and this weekend’s Philadelphia magazine report, we regret having encouraged members to postpone your increase.

As our contract is up on August 31, 2009, we expect to sit down with the company in bargaining toward the end of April. Just as the company is fighting for its survival in bankruptcy court, we need Guild members to stand up for our survival. We will work hard to preserve, protect and better our jobs, wages and our working conditions. But it can’t be done without the commitment and dedication of the entire membership. When better a time to unite then in the face of the company’s shameful behavior?

For those who have not yet read the story, here is a link.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact,

Bill Ross
Administrative Officer

Dan Gross
President

Meanwhile, Joey Sweeney reports that Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. owes $450,000 in back taxes to the city. Wonder why Mayor Nutter didn’t include the papers in his confrontation of tax deadbeats a few weeks back? Or would that’ve been awkward?

Gen. David Petraeus: Not a torture fan

Via ThinkProgress, Gen. David Petraeus disavows torture:

I think in fact that there is a good debate going on about the importance of values in all that we do. I think that if one violates the values that we hold so dear, that we jeopardize. … We think for the military, in particular that camp, that’s a line [torture] that can’t be crossed.

The way it’s phrased — “for the military, there’s a line that can’t be crossed” — you can argue that Petraeus is leaving the door open for CIA agents to do a little bit of waterboarding. Certainly, his references to the problems “we” had with torture seem limited to Abu Ghraib and a military context. Nonetheless, as one of the big brains behind the Army’s counterinsurgency field manual, Petraeus knows that, ultimately, torture makes it harder — not easier — to win the kinds of wars we find ourselves in.

Mark Bowden disses Star Trek fans

Philly’s Mark Bowden has written a devastating takedown of New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzburger Jr. in Vanity Fair, but I have to contest the following damning accusation:

While clearly smart, Arthur is not especially intellectual. For what it’s worth, he is a Star Trek fan.

Whaaa? So if you enjoy Star Trek, you’re not an intellectual? Does Bowden sit around reading only Proust in his free time? What a lazy juxtaposition — and I say that with full acknowledgement that Bowden is not a lazy writer or reporter.

If you don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, you’re a limp-wristed weenie undeserving of my manly respect

In yesterday’s L.A. Times, Andrew Klavan issued a challenge that — on its face — wasn’t all that unreasonable: If you want to criticize Rush Limbaugh, maybe you should listen to a few shows in their entirety. Klavan seems to think all of civilization would convert to conservatism if everybody took the challenge; more likely lots of folks would be somewhat annoyed and somewhat more entertained than they expected.

But honestly, the challenge came in the form of a column that seemed to parody conservatism’s worst excesses.

Why are you afraid to spend a couple of hours listening to Limbaugh’s show and seriously considering if and why you disagree with him?

Let me guess at your answer. You don’t need to listen to him. You’ve heard enough to know he’s a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.

Now let me tell you the real answer: You’re a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You’re terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

The mainstream media (a.k.a. the Matrix) don’t want you to listen to Limbaugh because they’re afraid he’ll wake you up and set you free of their worldview. You don’t want to listen to him because you’re afraid of the same thing.

See: This is coming from somebody trying to make the case that Rush Limbaugh isn’t as outrageous as you think, and maybe is even reasonable on issues. But if in making that case, Limbaugh’s defender comes across as a bullying, paranoid braggart, why on earth would you even bother with the real thing?

Liberal politicians communicate like communists; conservative politicians torture like communists. Which is worse?

Lots of talk in conservative circles about this Andrew Breitbart op-ed in today’s Washington Times, which suggests that dastardly liberals inundating conservative media with commentary and disinformation that crowds out the ability of conservatives to talk to each other or make their case more broadly.

You know: Just like the communists. Conservatives, meanwhile, are just too Christian to ever stoop to anything like that:

The right, for the most part, embraces basic Judeo-Christian ideals and would not promote nor defend the propaganda techniques that were perfected in godless communist and socialist regimes. The current political and media environment crafted by supposedly idealistic Mr. Obama resembles Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela more than John F. Kennedy’s America.

Trying. Not. To. Curse. Yeah, this makes me angry.

I’m not going to get into all the many ways Breitbart’s “conservatives are just too good to ever break from the rules of civil discourse” act is ridiculous on its face. Politics ain’t beanbag, the saying goes, and the truth is that both sides take the gloves off, all the time proclaiming their virtue. Whenever you hear such proclamations, understand that they are — as in the case of Breitbart’s op-ed — complete and utter bullcrap. You can count on it.

But even assuming that Breitbart is correct about the “communist propaganda techniques” of liberals, he’s insanely stupid to step out on that limb. You know why? Because the Bush Administration promoted and defended torture techniques that were perfected in communist and socialist regimes.

I’m not kidding: The “enhanced interrogation procedures” ordered by the Bush Administration were adapted from Communist Chinese methods of extracting false confessions from prisoners of war. So let me ask you: What’s worse? To use the communication techniques of the communists, or to use their torture methods?

I know my answer. And I’m pretty sure I know Andrew Breitbart’s.

And as long as we’re on the topic, let’s note Sunday’s Washington Post story indicating that — oops! — one of the main “successes” of the torture regime actually sent American anti-terror officials on tons of wild goose chases. Why? Because when you torture a human being, they’ll tell you whatever you want to hear. Torture: Morally wrong and ineffective. Actually, given the resources wasted chasing ghost leads, I’ll take it a step further: Torture is anti-effective. We can talk about this more at a later date.

I’m sure we’ll have those later opportunities. Why? Because the same Spanish court that went after Augusto Pinochet is now looking at indicting Bush Administration officials for war crimes. I don’t imagine those officials will ever see a day of prison time, but I don’t mind that they’ll have to be very careful about leaving the country forever after this. No more Davos trips for you.

The Daily News now flies the Inky banner, but it’s still the best at taking down dirty cops and their corruption-soaked sandwiches

As promised, the Daily News appeared on newsstands today with a small change to the logo announcing that it is “an edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer.” It also arrived with a reminder of why, even in these diminished times, the Daily News is still a valuable resource to news-hungry Philadelphians.

The cover story was based on video that seems to confirm allegations that a drug unit in the police department was A) fabricating evidence for search warrants and B) destroying video surveillance systems at small shops in order to cover up their own alleged misdeeds such as looting those shops for money and, uh, sandwiches. (Yes, sandwiches. They brought Al Capone down on tax evasion charges, you know. Still, it’s funny to think about the corrupt drug unit in American Gangster and contemplate the idea of Josh Brolin being undone by … sandwiches.)

And you’ve got to love the hilarious blame-the-press histrionics from George Bochetto, an attorney representing one of the cops under investigation in this whole mess.

“Now that the Daily News has created a mass hysteria concerning the Philadelphia Narcotics Unit, it comes as no surprise that every defendant ever arrested will now proclaim their innocence and bark about being mistreated.

“Suffice it to say, there is a not a scintilla of truth to such convenient protestations.”

You know. Except for the video discovered by the Daily News.

There are problems with Philly existing as two-major-daily-newspaper town for lots of reasons, not least of which is that both of the major dailies are owned by the same company: The competitive juices maybe don’t flow quite as much when you’re effectively competing against yourself. (Or if you’re competing against yourself under the banner of your rival.)

But there’s no denying that this crooked cop story is the kind of thing the Daily News excels at. It’s not that the Inquirer couldn’t excel at it. It’s just that the Inquirer — which has its advantages, but is a bit more stuffy and establishmentarian — doesn’t. So maybe the Daily News is flying the Inky banner these days — and maybe someday soon will be folded entirely into the Inquirer, as everybody has long assumed — but for now, it’s still recognizably the Daily News. And for now, that’s a good thing for Philadelphia.

The podcast: Meagan McCain, Afghanistan and Battlestar Galactica

Ben and Joel are joined in this week’s podcast by Macworld Editor Jason Snell for a lively discussion of:

• Meghan McCain and the pros and cons of “sickening bipartisanship”;
• How Dungeons & Dragons may be an apt metaphor for political polarization in these crazy times;
• Whether President Obama’s new Afghanistan policy really advances America’s strategic interests;
• Why the Battlestar Galactica series finale still disappoints Joel a week later and why Jason thinks Joel is all wet;
• And what’s in everybody’s Netflix queues.

Music heard in this podcast:

• “Taxi Driver: A Night Piece for Orchestra-Prelude,” by the Los Angeles Philharmonic (from Bernard Herrmann: The Film Scores)
• “H.T.,” by Tsuneo Imahori (from the Trigun: The First Donuts OST)
• “Starman,” by John C. Reilly (from the Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story OST)
• “Meet The Flintstones,” by the Monty Alexander Trio (from Triple Treat, Vol. 1)

Listen to the podcast here.

Rihanna, feminism and sex: The last go-round

I’ve had my dander up about this particular topic lately, so Ben Boychuk and I decided to tackle the issue in our column for Scripps Howard this week. You’ve already heard my take on this, so I’ll give you a taste of what Ben has to say.

Ben, to his credit, suggests that trying to link feminism to the Rihanna beating is “missing the point.” But then he goes on to blame feminism … for everything else:

There can be no doubt, however, that feminism’s futile effort to deny the differences between the sexes has had consequences.

Among those consequences is the widely accepted belief that girls can and should be a sexually aggressive (i.e. promiscuous) as boys. Another is the popular idea, born out by a national illegitimacy rate approaching 40 percent, that fathers aren’t necessary. Yet another is the trend among a subset of women to leave their husbands for other women.

I didn’t wrestle directly with these lines in my half of the column, because, well, we have both word limits and deadlines — and I had points of my own to make. But I do want to address these “consequences” just a little bit.

• THAT GIRLS CAN BE AS SEXUALLY AGGRESSIVE AS BOYS: Um, where to start? I’m no fan of hookup culture, but people have been trying to have sex with each other since, well, there were people. What’s changed is that 50 years ago, men (generally speaking) had sexual freedom and women had sexual responsibility — stuck with the responsibility to say “no” and the responsibility to live with the consequences if they didn’t. Even today, men who are “womanizers” don’t pay nearly the cultural penalty that “sluts” do.

Ideally, men and women should bear the same levels of freedom and responsibility for their sexual conduct. And while you’ll get no argument from me that the oversexualization of culture — brought to you in large part by capitalism’s marketeers — could use a bit of reining in, it’s not right to expect that women should bear the burden of that task.

• HIGH ILLEGITIMACY RATES THAT SUGGEST FATHERS AREN’T NECESSARY: Ben’s right that births to unwed mothers are about 40 percent. Unlike him, I’m not sure we know why that’s the case, and I suspect that “feminism” makes a convenient bugaboo here. But certainly it’s the case that it takes two to tango, and we have ample evidence that there are plenty of men who shirk their responsibilities in this regard — why else would we have an ever-growing set of rules and bureaucracy designed to get men to pay their child support, already? Is that feminism’s fault?

It’s true that feminism has encouraged women to get out of bad relationships rather than stay together for the sake of the children; but it’s also true that feminists have urged men to take on a greater portion of child-rearing duties than was the norm a couple of generations ago.

• A TREND AMONG A SUBSET OF WOMEN TO LEAVE THEIR HUSBANDS FOR OTHER WOMEN: Golly, I’d like to see some data on this trend. But I don’t think it exists; instead, I suspect Ben is referring — indirectly — to an article in Oprah Magazine which is frank in acknowledging that it can’t document any such trend, but goes on about it for a few thousand words nonetheless. (Ben, to be fair, hedges his bets by calling it a trend among a “subset” of women. Which subset would that be? Lesbians?)

Even if there is such a trend, though, so what? Is America really in danger of being swamped by a tide of lesbianism that threatens our ability to make another generation of Americans? If we’re not — if a sexual minority is simply getting slightly larger — what’s the big deal?

Unless you think homosexuality is ipso facto bad — and I won’t suggest that Ben believes such a thing — the only real consequence of this particular “consequence” is that things are different than they used to be. Conservatives tend to hate that kind of thing. But that doesn’t mean they’re right.