stercus accidit

Additions and edits on Sunday 16 March 2008

A son of Harlem takes over in New York
by Charlie Leck

I was pretty impressed with David Paterson’s remarks to the press yesterday. He’s got a remarkable wittiness about him and he uses it like a rapier. One reporter had the chutzpah to ask Paterson if he had ever patronized a prostitute. With a little, twisted grin on his face he answered: “Only the lobbyists!”

It appears to me that State of New York is in good hands with this son of Harlem. Now 53 years old, Paterson was born into a powerful and important political family in New York City. His father, Basil Paterson, was the first African American Deputy Mayor of New York City and also served as the Secretary of State in New York.

As the Lieutenant Governor, Paterson had a light schedule and, therefore, also taught at Columbia University’s School for International and Public Affairs. He lives in Harlem with his wife, Michelle Paige Paterson. If you want more background on Paterson, go to this Wikipedia site for a very complete biography.

For those who want a more in-depth look at David Paterson, go take a look at the John Nichols article in The Nation.

A long story in the Sunday NY Times of 16 March examines Patterson legislative record over his career and finds a few controversies.

You can also look at a series of NY Times video interviews with people who know the new Governor well.

My purpose here is not to provide a biography, but to write about the phenomenon of stercus accidit. A young blogger I am following these days, much in need of the aging and settling that happens in a fine wine by controlling that with which it comes into contact during that process, was pretty rough on Elliot Spitzer in an essay the other day. He called the Governor ‘despicable.’ No, there are a lot of better adjectives that have to do with those weaknesses of human beings that are so well documented in the scriptural depiction of the fall from grace. Yet, the scriptural promise is also one of repentance and new life. How often we are reminded of this as we inch closer to the extraordinary celebration of Easter.

“The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath.
It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."
The Merchant Of Venice Act 4, scene 1, 180–187

Spitzer did the right thing in stepping down. Now he will need to repair his life and try to restore his place in his family. That’s all personal stuff and one can only hope he succeeds, because he is a good man. The legal consequences of his activities will begin to unfold soon and he will have to face up to these consequences of his actions.

Out of it all, some extraordinarily good things may come. One of those will be the emergence of David Paterson. When he takes his oath of office on Monday, I expect he will become the first blind Governor in the history of the United States. It will not serve as a handicap. He long ago learned how to overcome this missing element in his chemistry. He has excelled in nearly everything he has done. Some may point to a New York bar examination that he has not been able to pass, but this is easily explained away by pointing to the exam’s bias against those who cannot see. This is something the new Governor will aim to correct. And, sightless folks in New York State may now correctly assume they will see movement in legislation they have been interested in for a long, long time. Paterson is a member of the American Foundation for the Blind.

I am going to personally keep my eyes on the State of New York for the next couple of years. I think we are going to see a man, who might never have gotten the opportunity, prove he is a strong, reasonable and capable leader.

Paterson will be a super-delegate at the Democratic National Convention and he has endorsed Senator Clinton. He now moves from a bit player to one of the leading actors in the great American political melodrama.

Oh yes, one more thing! In 1999, David Paterson ran in and completed the New York City marathon. Good practice for what he’s into now.

END

Please write to Congressman King

A congressman from Iowa shows his ugly side!
by Charlie Leck

I am in a state of shock after reading the comments that a U.S. Congressman made last week on the public air waves in Iowa.

Comments delivered by Congressman Steve King during a radio interview in Spencer, Iowa on March 7, 2008:

"I'm going to say something here that I haven't said in the public arena, that I think it's time to start thinking about. That is that, I don't want to disparage anyone because of their race or their ethnicity or their name or whatever the religion of their father might have been. I'll just say this, when you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected president of the United States, and I mean. What does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam? I will tell you that if he is elected president, the radical Islamists, the al-Qa'ida and the radical Islamists and their supporters will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11th. Because they will declare victory in this War on Terror. They will say the United States has capitulated because we will be pulling our troops out of any conflict that has to do with al-Qa'ida anywhere. And additionally, it does matter. His middle name does matter. It matters because they read a meaning into that, the rest of the world,---it has a special meaning to them.

"They'll be dancing in the streets because of his middle name. They'll be dancing in the streets because of who his father was and because of his posture that says, 'Pull out of the middle east. Pull out of this conflict.'

"So there are implications that have to do with who he is and the position that he's taken. If he were strong on national defense and said, 'I'm going to go over there and we're going to fight and we're going to win. We're going to come home with a victory,' that's different. But that's not what he said.

"They will be dancing in the streets if he's elected president. And that has a chilling aspect on how difficult it will be to ever win this global war on terror."

I don't think there is any truth to the rumor that Congressman King's middle name is Adolph. Be that as it may, this bush league congressman needs to hear from thousands and thousands of people who will raise a stink about what he has said.

The Congressman must not hold his constituents and the American people in very high esteem. Both know how tough it is to choose a President and how easily serious mistakes can be made – such as the one the majority made in 2000 and 2004. Barack Obama is a fine, decent and inspirational man. The world will know that and he will regain respect for the American presidency and bring honor back to our nation.

We need to demand a retraction from Congressman King. Please write to him and tell him how far off base his comments were and how hateful and biased they sound. Ask him to retract them immediately. Unfortunately, the Congressman only receives email from constituents, so you'll have to write a letter. Believe me, it will be worth the time. If you want me to email you a letter you can send, just let me know.

Congressman Steve King
U.S. House of Representatives
1609 Longworth Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

King is a hard-line right-winger. He represents a geographically huge district made up of virtually all of western Iowa – north to south! Worthington and Fairmont are two of the Minnesota border towns to Iowa's 5th Congressional District.

This brainless congressman has taken many other absurd positions. Take a look at this web site devoted to keeping an eye on him. You'll quickly find out how ugly and stupid the man's mind is. Make arrangements to contribute to his Democratic opponent this year, so he can be kicked out of the House. I'm going to give his opponent some support.

To get a sense for how absurd the man is, listen to this. He refuses to vote his support for a bill currently in the House that would make cock-fighting a serious crime. Why? He says he will not support any animal rights legislation until Roe v. Wade is overturned. How's that for a brainy guy? Iowa can do better than this!

He's not opposed to applying electrical shock motivation to human beings or using electrical shock as a deterrent or a means of torture. Why? He says, "We do this to livestock all the time."

He calls Joe McCarthy "a hero for America."

He compares illegal immigrants to "stray cats."

Here's a little clipping straight out of the Sioux City Journal…

"Mr. King said about the recently killed al-Zarqawi, "There probably are not 72 virgins in the hell he's at. And if there are, they probably all look like Helen Thomas." Helen Thomas was an 85-year-old award-winning journalist at the time. Most Iowans don't insult old ladies. (The quote is from a recording transcribed by Radio Iowa at the 2006 Iowa Republican convention.)"

I could go on and on about Congressman King. He is an awful representative of America and of the state of Iowa. His district should throw the dweeb out.

You could also go to the Iowa Democrats 5^th Congressional District web site for more incredible information about the congressman. I'll let you know when his opponent has been named.

Myth of the Surge

An article in Rolling Stone
by Nir Rosen

Here's an important article that appeared in Rolling Stone. It's written by Nir Rosen. This is a very long article, but it is well worth reading. It also includes a series of excellent, captivating photographs.

On AlterNet, Patrick Cockburn writes a similar article, pointing out how the surge could blow up in John McCain's face.

Soon all the rosy forecasts about the surge will go south. That's not good. It's not something we hope for, but it's just the way it is. Iraq's problems are far too complex to be solved with a simple military surge in troop numbers.

Jean, of Blessed Memory

Why is my sister a Catholic?
by Charlie Leck

My sister lies dying, within moments of the end of her life, as I write this. I have been suffering through this period and sharing with my closest friends some of my agony as I also keep them up to date on the last moments of her life. The kindnesses they have returned to me have been remarkable and I will always be grateful for that. One friend, a dear Jewish woman, wondered why my sister is so religiously different than I, a liberal protestant to the core. She asked: "Why is your sister a catholic?" I emailed her back the following answer. [My sister died at 6:30 a.m., while I was writing this about her.]

This blog was posted once, a week ago, for about an hour. A friend recommended I take it down and repost it after the funeral and burial. I took his advice.

My mother was raised as a catholic. My father was a protestant. (Forgive all the lower case errors; it’s partly philosophical with me.)

When my mother was 17 and my father 29, they decided they wanted to marry. My grandmother, Emma Svejda, was furious about the age difference and also the religious difference and forbade the marriage. Mother and father went off to Elkton, Maryland, a town that married couples without blood tests or a waiting period. They were married there by a justice of the peace. Of course, my grandmother was really infuriated and then more so when my mother started going to my father’s church on Sundays. In the eyes of the church, my mother was no longer a catholic because she had been married outside of it.

When my sister was born in 1929, my grandmother hovered over her like a bear over its cub. The crash had come and things got very tough. My Grandpa Svejda had a city job that was rather secure. My father’s job was not. My parents both tried to find whatever work they could to keep afloat. My grandmother took care of my sister, virtually, around the clock and going to mass regularly was a part of that care. My grandparents enrolled her in a catholic school and part of that included everyday mass.

So, dear Jean simply became a catholic as a matter of circumstance.

My grandmother Svejda and father never became close. In the years I remember, there was always a strained relationship between them but my father was, at least, polite and civil. My grandfather and father had always been pals, even long before he took a fancy to my mother. In fact, when my mother was a wee one, my father, as a teenager, used to regularly baby sit her for evenings while grandma and grandpa went out on the town. My grandpa Svejda was a big baseball and boxing fan and so was my father. They went to ball games together and to fights when my dad was a boy. Their relationship remained close through all the problems my father had with my grandmother.

Fast forward about twenty years. My sister was working in NYC and commuting back and forth from our home in NJ by train. She had a very nice job with the Woolworth Company as the special assistant to a woman in charge of all product buying for the company stores. Jean was given enormous attention by all the salesman who came and went and our home was filled with special gifts for her at Christmas time, Easter, Valentine’s Day and on her birthday. Among the goodies she received from salesmen were very special tickets to events at Madison Square Garden, the Polo Ground, Ebbets Field and Yankee Stadium. I always had choice seats at the Greatest Show on Earth and the Rodeo, and box seats at ball games. Man, I wanted her to keep her job at Woolworth’s.

However, she met a fellow who was a fast-fry cook at a cafeteria in the building. He was a bullshitter and a con man and, damned to all tar nation, she fell in love with him. Of course, you can imagine how the story goes! She brought him home to introduce him and to announce that she was going to marry him. My mother was furious and refused to allow it. My father stood back and remembered his own private, marriage by flight. He knew my sister would do the same and she did.

But, here’s the twist that brings us back to catholicism. In her anger, my mother informed the local priest that the man was both not a catholic and divorced from an early marriage. My sister was excommunicated for not having been married within the rights of the church -- a sacrament.

Strange, my sister had become the most loyal and devoted catholic known to mankind. Here she was, in a moment, outside the church and not allowed its sacraments or services. She had children -- two boys. She lived in a house within two-hundred yards of our own. My mother hated my sister’s husband. I must admit, he was a rotten guy. He couldn’t hold a job. He couldn’t make a living. He lied like crazy and he was wiling to live off charity from anyone who would offer it. There was eventually an event disastrous enough that caused him to be sent to prison. My sister divorced him. It is difficult to please the catholic church. The divorce was a bad thing in the church’s eye even though they had also disapproved of the marriage. Talk about a catch-22.

My sister never regained official readmittance to the church. Nevertheless, she remarried, moved with her new husband and her young boys to Dallas and took up life. She, of course, went to her local parish and became an intensely important part of it. No one knew or asked about her former relationship with the church. She worked with the poor, homeless and misfortunate as only a saint might. She was unable to refuse the needy. She worked with the elderly in nursing homes and volunteered in hospitals. In her church she became a symbol of what it meant to be as Jesus would have us be. She became the cook and organizer for all the church dinners. The poor and hungry in the town knew they could stop by during a day when she was preparing a feast for the parishioners and be fed generously. The officials of the church always pretended not to know, but they did. My sister never took a penny for all her work within the church.

Eventually, the parish built a new church building and, with my sister’s help, they designed a very special, large commercial kitchen because the highlight of community and church life within that congregation revolved around food and dining together. I wonder why! Dinner was served every Sunday at noon. There was a weekly evening dinner. My sister organized them all.
When the New Orleans disaster happened, Dallas took huge numbers of those refugees and found them housing. Each night of the week, some church had a dinner for the refugees. My sister’s parish, at her urging, offered to be a dining site once each week. About two hundred refugees were bused to the church for dinner. My sister raised the funds to pay for the program, organized the dinners and found the necessary volunteers and cooked the meals. This went on for well over a year, though the numbers who came dwindled as people found jobs and set up their own homes.

Last year, the kitchen was completely remodeled under my sister’s direction. The parishioners insisted that it be named the "Jean Davidson Kitchen of Life." She had become too ill to cook regularly, but she found the volunteers to do it and she trained. them and she remained in charge of purchasing up until just a few weeks ago.

All of this she did as acts of contrition for her sins, for her inappropriate and failed marriage. Fortunately for her, she had a good, hard-working husband who was willing to pay for these acts of saintliness.

She never asked that her excommunication be over-turned or reversed or lifted. Her boys, strangely, became protestants -- one very devoted and the other in name only.

Now these people come to my sister’s bedside, as if needing to look upon her face one more time or to touch her kindly and in reverence, as if touching a contemporary saint. They leave on her bed rosaries, crucifixes and other religious pins and medals. They are so numerous that her sons need to clear them away from time to time because of the weight of them. The waiting line to visit her is long and worshipfully silent.

I have known many kind people who have devoted their lives to service in the name of their God. I have never known anyone like my sister. She is truly one of God’s very special servants and I am very proud of her. If there is a special place in heaven for the saints, she will certainly be allowed entry.

So, the question becomes not "why she is a catholic?" but really "is she a catholic?"

I have always harbored a special ill will for the catholic church and, for that reason, do not capitalize it when I spell it out. I simply don’t understand how an institution of the Jesus I know could cast off someone who was (is) so faithful and so Christ-like in character. It will always be one of life’s great mysteries for me.

You asked what time it is. I built a watch for you! However, this will now become a part of the stories I am preserving and setting aside for my grandchildren.

Evidence: An indicator or an outward sign!

Be reasonable, even intelligent about this global warming debate!
by Charlie Leck

I heard a father (happened to be a Texas conservative) tell his son last night that there was no evidence of global warming. They were having a private, somewhat personal conversation. Yet, they were within immediate earshot. Think I could keep my mouth shut? Silly question!

“Son,” the father said, “there is no solid evidence in support of global warming.”

“Young man,” I piped up, “of course there is. There is a mountain of supporting evidence indicating there is global warming.”

“No there isn’t,” the father insisted, speaking more loudly.

Now, had the father been talking about proof – as in proof about global warming, or as in proof that there is a god – I would have butted out; however, he was talking about evidence, which is defined as an indicator or an outward sign. To say that there is no evidence, when, in fact, there are mountains of indicators and outward signs that point toward global warming, is indeed verging on stupidity.

Indeed, there is no proof that God exists. Yet, there is reasonable evidence – though not convincing evidence. There certainly is more solid, hard-core evidence that there is global warming than the young man’s father is willing to look at. He’s another prime example of the blind, conservative right that is willing to jeopardize the planet.

Want to see the evidence, stacked in neat piles for your examination? Just take a look at the documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. The documentary lays out the evidence, as of last year. America is the only nation among the thinking, reasonable nations of the earth that is still having this debate. Most other nations are trying to put plans in place that will stem the tide.

Pay Attention

While I travel, you take a look at these items
by Charlie Leck

Governor Charlie Crist
Watch what the Republican Governor of Florida is trying to do to the Democratic Party. This is so transparent it’s comical. The Governor is trying to interfere with Democratic Party Politics by pressing The Dems to seat the delegates that were elected in a primary that was not authorized by the Party.

All of this is giving the Florida Governor an opportunity to get before the cameras and bad mouth the Democrats. I was actually giggling at the TV screen this morning as this fellow acted so righteous. What is he asking? That the Democrats break their own rules and that the Democrats ignore the fact that they promised the candidates those votes wouldn’t count.

Keep your eyes on the Florida Governor and watch how he uses this opportunity for a blatant political attack on the Democratic Party. It’s pretty disgusting.

If he’s so concerned about democracy here, have him pay for a new set of primaries to be held next month. There’s still time.

A Unique look at William F. Buckley
For a look at a far different opinion of William Buckley, from the one that I wrote in this blog last week, which brings you a picture of the man as he TRULY was, I suggest you read this powerful article on AlterNet.org. It’s good stuff and the different angle on Buckley’s life is worth reading. [Let’s Pay Tribute to the Spectacular Wrongness of William F. Buckley by David Michael Green]

Let me just say again, I really like AlterNet.Org. The purpose of this web site is to give you an alternative news source that approaches the news in a completely different and non commercial way. They succeed in what they’re trying to do. Give them a try for a while.

END

Democracy is More than Periodic Elections

Democracy involves having informed citizens!
by Charlie Leck

At the end of last week, economists Joe Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes appeared on a video production for Democracy Now and answered questions posed by Joseph Gonzalez and Amy Goodman. I've had a little fun with the interview in an attempt to make the point even more dramatic and alarming than Stiglitz and Bilmes were able to do in that bland interview. Have some fun with this and enjoy it!

Last week, the Joint Economic Committee in Congress began public hearings on the cost of the war in Iraq. Senator Schumer chaired the Committee and some distinguished witnesses appeared on Thursday. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, feels strongly that the war cost will reach 3 trillion dollars. Mr. Stiglitz lamented the great opportunities that our government has missed. With Harvard University economist, Linda Bilmes, Stiglitz has written a book called The Three Trillion Dollar War. Go ahead, click and find out more about this book on one of my favorite web sites. In it, they claim that the Bush administration has kept a set of secret records that indicate the real cost of the war. Publically, the White House low-balls these costs.

Stiglitz is a former chief economist for the World Bank and currently an economics professor at Columbia University.

"For a fraction of the cost of this war, we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half-century or more."

Another distinguished witness, Robert Hormats, Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, agreed. He testified that both Social Security and Medicare could have been given a solid foundation. He also pointed out that the amount spent on the war EACH DAY could enroll 58,000 children in a Head Start program for a YEAR. That daily expense could also pay the annual salaries of 11,000 new border patrol guards.

Stiglitz pointed out other hidden costs of the war; like covering the costs of health care and disability benefits for returning veterans. That's only the beginning and it will go on for decades.

Of course, the straight-talking, up front Bush administration circles around the highly scrutinized budget process and, instead, finances this war through emergency appropriations, which are watched over with less intensity. Recently, in an interview on the Today Show, Bush denied that it is the war that has so hurt our economy. Instead he claimed that "this economy is down because we built too many houses."

Okay! You got Professor Stiglitz on one side and George W. Bush on the other. They've offered opinions on what the war has done to our economy. Who are you going with?

Oh yes, Senator McCain has his hand up! Did I hear you correctly, Senator? You're siding with the President on this one?

White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, explained these economic fine points to the White House press corp.

"People like Joe Stiglitz [he calls him Joe because they're great drinking buddies] lack the courage [oops, they are probably not buddies anymore] to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can't even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9/11."

There you have it. The well reasoned economic theory of the White House. Makes 'Joe' look sort of 'bush' league, doesn't it? Well, Tony, here's a little na, na, na-na na for you from your buddy, Joe.

"Well, I think the White House lacks the courage to engage in a national debate about the cost of the Iraq war. The Joint Economic Committee has asked the White House to come down and discuss the numbers; they've refused. Security is important, and we don't deny that. The question is whether this war has been the best way of obtaining the security. And no matter what you're going to do—you know, what you think about security, you still have to look at the cost."

When the TV journalist, Amy Goodman, asked Stiglitz how he came up with the 3 trillion dollar price tag, Stiglitz got complicated.

"Well, the way you approach this problem is basically adding."

Okay, Joe! Right! But, you see, that's complicated for this President, who runs out of fingers and toes at twenty.

From there, Joe wandered into deeper water.

"There are a whole set of macroeconomic costs, which have depressed the economy. What's happened is, to offset those costs, the Federal Reserve has flooded the economy with liquidity, looked the other way when you needed tighter regulation, and that's what led to the housing bubble, the consumption boom. And we were living off of borrowed money. The war was totally financed by deficits. And eventually, a day of reckoning had to come, and now it's come."

There you have it, Mr. President, and it's very simple: "We built too many houses!"

Is anyone talking about the cost of oil? It was about $25 per barrel before the war and now it is going beyond $100 for each little ole' barrel. What do you say to that, Joe? Last night I filled my daughter's car up at the middle-level pump and it was $3.13 per gallon. Analysts everywhere are predicting that'll we'll soon need to pay in excess of $4.

Who said that?" The President asked a reporter. He was dumb-struck – you know, that usual lost look he has! "I'm not hearing that," the President said.

What about these oil prices Joe?

"But if you look back, in 2003, futures markets, which take into account increases in demand, increases in supply—they knew that China was going to have increased demand, but they thought there would be increases in supply from the Middle East—they thought the price would remain at $25 for the next ten years or more. What changed that equation was the Iraq war. They couldn't elicit the increase of supply in the Middle East because of the turmoil that we brought there. So we think, actually, the true numbers, not the $5 or $10 that we used, because we didn't want to get in a quibble, but really a much larger fraction of the difference between $25 that it was at the time in 2003 and the $100 we face today."

Then there's the whole question of rebuilding Iraq. But don't worry; the administration is guarantying us that this won't be expensive. It positively won't cost any more than 1.7 billion dollars. Andrew Natsios, the former administrator of USAID has put his kiss upon this guaranty. On the TV show Nightline, Ted Koppel got this absolute guaranty out of Nantos.

Joe, what do you think? Oh, excuse me! Ms. Bilmes wants to respond to this stupidity.

"…the amount that we have spent in trying to rebuild Iraq has far eclipsed what Andrew Natsios had said, obviously."

You don't say! Well, you see, this gets back to what I was saying earlier about fingers and toes! Nevertheless, let's move on. Ms. Bilmes, What about this cost to us for all these serious injuries to our troops?

"And this is one of the really outrageous situations about trying to get information about this war, because even today, if you go to the official DOD website, what you will find is a number around 30,000 wounded, but that is only the wounded in combat. Now, the number of fatalities, which is approaching 4,000, is wounded in combat and non-combat. But if you want to find the non-combat wounded—and that includes, for example, soldiers who are injured when they're driving their vehicles at night, because it's unsafe to drive during the day; soldiers who are wounded when they are being transported between one place and another, who never would have been there otherwise—it's much larger. It's more than double. And that is a number which is very hard to get. We had to use the Freedom of Information Act to get access to that number. It is impossible to sort of underestimate how difficult it is to get hold of information that should be completely in the public domain."

Is that right? You guys had to use the Freedom of Information Act to get the information you wanted. It seems amazing to me that the White House wouldn't be more helpful. Yes, Joe, you want to say something.

"That's right. I mean, one of the very disturbing things is that we went to war for democracy, and yet democracy is more than just having periodic elections. It really involves informed citizens being able to have perspectives on the important decisions. But to be informed, you have to know what is really going on. And that's why it was, you know, so upsetting that we had to used the Freedom of Information Act to find out this or to find out, for instance, that while the government was saying, the President was saying, we'll supply all the equipment that the military needs, back in early 2005 there were urgent requests for MRAPs, these vehicles that will resist the IEDs, these explosive devices, and protect our soldiers, but because of wanting to keep the apparent cost down, they refused to order them.

"And, of course, the total cost—and this is one of the important points we make in our book—the total cost is not just the upfront cost, but the cost that you have to face for decades later in terms of the injuries and, of course, the cost to the families. So, being penny-wise and pound-foolish means our country is suffering because of that kind of economic decision."

That's all good and fine, Joe, but we must repeat that the President is assuring us that all of this is not pushing us into recession. Why just the other day he said: "I don't think we're headed to a recession. But, no question, we're in a slowdown."

What do you think of that, Joe?

"Well, first of all, the economy is almost surely heading into a recession. I was at the American Economic Association meetings. In the past, the probability of going into recession was fifty-fifty. The general consensus is now 75 percent probability of going into recession. But whether we go into recession or not, the real fact is that it is a major slowdown. It's going to be one of the—I think clearly the deepest downturn in the last quarter-century. The loss of output, the difference between the actual output and our potential output, will be at least one-and-a-half trillion dollars, and that's not money we're talking about in this Three Trillion Dollar War. This is a serious problem. And I think at the core of this is the war. You know, in the election campaign, people said there are two big issues: the economy and the war. I think there's one big issue, and that's the war, because the war has been directly and indirectly having a very negative effect on the economy."

Well, Joe, I have a feeling that John McCain is not going to touch that one with a ten foot pole, but let's move on. With all these huge amounts of dough President Bush expended and spread around, someone must be profiting by this war. What do you think?

"Well, actually, there are two big gainers in this war and only two: the oil companies and the defense contractors. And you see that's where the pools of wealth are being created. One of the big pools of wealth are in the Middle East, the countries that are the oil exporters. We are transferring hundreds of billions of dollars from American consumers, businesses, to the oil exporters. You can look at it as simple as that."

Joe, what countries are we talking about here, which are benefiting so from this war?

"Well, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Venezuela. You know, if you asked who were the countries that we would not want to help, many of them would be on the list that we have been helping."

Wow! Joe, this is getting complex and we've moved way beyond fingers and toes into a whole realm of complex language. I don't think our President could understand that sentence, sir. Let me try to rephrase it for him.

"Mr. President, we are actually helping a couple of the points of the Axis of Evil – Venezuela and Iran. Holy cow, Joe!"

"Exactly. And one of the things that—you know, as economists, we talk about 0pportunity cost, what you could have done with $3 trillion to win the hearts and minds, to advance security. One of the aspects of this—everybody talks about security. While we were focusing on weapons of mass destruction that did not exist in Iraq, another country joined the nuclear club: North Korea. And so, it shows you, you know, there's limited resources, time and effort, and we were focusing on the wrong problem. While we were focusing on Iraq, the problems in Afghanistan got worse, and the problem of security in Afghanistan is much worse than it was five years ago. So there's not only an economic opportunity cost; there's a security opportunity cost."

Joe, this is mind blowing, but do you think the President can really get his brain to grasp something like this?

"Well, this was one of the big points that came up in the joint committee hearing that we were in yesterday."

Joe, you've said it all. We built too many houses! It's that simple.