Beauty Pageants, the Culture Wars, Alinsky, and the Irony of it All

By now, we all know the story. Celebrity gay blogger Perez Hilton asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, what her thoughts were on gay marriage. Prejean said that she believed that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The after math has set off a firestorm that merges pop culture and culture wars in a perfect fusion of absurdity and political correctness and debate.

I, personally, would not be upset if Prejean lost as a result of this. (of course we don't know that she did since we don't have any deep analysis of the scores) Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. Beauty pageants are in the eye of the judges, and so if a judge finds a contestant "ugly" because they support traditional marriage so be it. My only problem with her answer was that she indicated that she meant to offend no one. Why would a deeply held belief ever be offensive to anyone? She need not apologize to anyone for her heartfelt beliefs.

What is truly despicable is the reaction of both Hilton and her supposed support staff, Keith Lewis and Shannon Moakler (who run Miss California), who said that they were shocked that any representative of California would take such a position. (they were both virulent opponents of Prop 8 in California) Once again, the purported supporter of so called tolerance show that often those that support "tolerance" are only tolerant of opinions they agree with. Since her answer, this beauty pageant contestant has now been demonized much like a criminal.

This is yet another example of Alinsky rule #13.

identify, isolate, freeze and escalate.

Almost immediately, Hilton went onto his blog and began to demonize Prejean. By doing so, he not only identified her as a threat but tried to isolate her by demonizing her. This demonization was further moved by both Lewis and Moakler who both indicated that beauty pageant contestants shouldn't hold such a "bigoted belief". In fact, O'Reilly had another gay activist on last night who also said that in his opinion believing that marriage should stay traditional would, in his opinion, disqualify anyone from being a beauty pageant winner. All of this is meant to escalate the attacks on the target. This is all meant to stop or freeze the opponent.

The irony here is this. Alinsky created his rules for those of little power to take on more powerful forces. In this case, powerful forces are attempting to use it against a "mere beauty pageant contestant". The real irony is how miserably all of this has failed. Prejean has become a media star and with ever insult and demonization she winds up in yet another media venue to showcase her opinion. More than that, these bullying tactics make their side look vicious and mean spirited. Meanwhile, she merely looks like a young lady expressing her honest opinion. It is of great interest and irony that by doing everything they can to demonize Prejean, all these folks have done is allowed her to continue to express the same opinion over and over.

The Continued Endless Fascination With Sarah Palin

Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say for whatever reason the field for 2012 on the Democratic side didn't include President Obama. Let's say that I wrote a column that said that not only does Chris Dodd not have a chance to win but nominating him would be the worst thing the Democratic party could do. I think the reaction would go something like this. Next you will tell us that it's a good idea for race car drivers to wear seat belts. My point is that generally when a politician really is toxic you need not say it because it's obvious.

A couple days ago, Jeffrey Mayer tried to make this sort of a case against Sarah Palin. Now, like I just said, the way I think about it, if you have to say it, then the whole notion is dicey. Frankly, no one knows what will happen in four years. So, the idea that anyone can predict the future presidency prospects of anyone is a bit ridiculous. Yet, this piece is another in a long line of media scrutiny on everything Sarah Palin. We are now more than six months since the election and so far at least, everyone's fascination with the governor has not waned one bit.

So, my question is why is there so much fascination, both supporters and detractors alike, with the presidency prospects of Sarah Palin. Never has a failed Vice Presidential pick been the subject of so much fascination, speculation, and endless analysis.

Now, I continue to find Governor Palin to be endlessly fascinating but my fascination continues to revolve around the same set of unique qualities (winning a state championship on a bad ankle, going from PTA mom to governor, hunting wild game, etc.) So, unless I want to write the same post over and over, I have said all I can about her fascinating persona.

So, now, I much more fascinated in the media's endless fascination with her. Nearly four years out, she is already the subject of endless scrutiny and speculation about her chances at the presidency. Now think about that for a second. Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal are all just as legitimate a candidates. Yet, none of their potential candidacies have received one tenth the scrutiny that Palin's has. That's because they aren't nearly the fascinating persona that Governor Palin is.

So, what is the fascination? In my opinion, it's because Governor Palin goes against almost all general types. She is unlike almost all politicos to ever come on the scene. First, she only recently gained any political ambition. Her entire career is mostly the result of accidents and happenstance. She didn't gain her political power through any connections. She comes from a faraway place that most people know little about. Her husband isn't merely a champion athlete but in "snow machine racing". Her political resume and list of accomplishment is the envy of most, and that's something that her opponents would rather not admit. Finally, she is comfortable in her political philosophy and she makes no excuses or equivocations for her belief system.

So, since most can't write about how they are fascinated with her, they make up topics mostly as an excuse to simply write about her. That's why there is an "analysis" that says she not only can't be president FOUR YEARS FROM NOW, but would be the worst idea any Republican could make in 2012 as the piece by Mayer does. Most of this pseudo analysis four years out is really nothing more than an excuse to write endlessly about a persona that most of the media and public find as endlessly fascinating as I do.

The Hubris of Humility

In last night's talking points memo, O'Reilly did a fine job of describing President Obama's strategy so far in foreign policy.

In Europe, Mr. Obama went out of his way to tell the world how he is going to correct what he believes were the mistakes of the Bush administration

...

The Obama strategy is to clear the decks of any anti-Bush hostility and present a new day dawning. He wants to make the nations of the world our partners in problem solving, and if he has to eat a little crow to do that, he'll butter up the bird.

Of course, while former President Bush is the biggest recipient of his ire, the current president is in fact criticizing our modern day foreign policy in general. After all, as he once said

too often we dictate the terms of the debate

and

we speak when we should listen

He will turn the page not only the wrongs of President Bush, but on all the wrongs of America. He will listen. Listen he did. He listened for nearly an hour while Marxist Daniel Ortegan went into an anti American diatrobe and said nothing. Later on, he only mused that he was glad that Ortega didn't blame him (President Obama) for things that happened when he was very young. That was rather revealing. The president wasn't terribly concerned if Ortega blamed his country, just not him personally.

President Obama will have a new sort of a foreign policy philosophy. This starts with a whirlwind tour in which he apologizes for every previous American wrong, real and imagined, all over the globe. It started in Europe, move to Mexico, and hat its latest stop in Trinidad and Tobago. What is the effect? Well, his advisor, David Axelrod, summed it up.

What’s happened is anti-Americanism isn’t cool anymore,” Mr. Axelrod said, speaking to an audience of a few hundred at a conference in Washington sponsored by the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

“This president has not only engaged the leaders of the world, he’s engaged the people of the world,” Mr. Axelrod said, arguing that Mr. Obama’s approach to foreign policy has restored “a sense of humility” that “was missing” in the past.

He's right. It isn't cool to bash America anymore. After all, why bash America, when its leader beats you to it. It is an old trick. Beat your critics to the punch. Before they have a chance to bash you, you bash yourself. It's the best part of self deprecating humor.

There's a bit of irony in all of this. President Obama is convinced that America has been doing it wrong all this time. America has been far too arrogant. It's time for more humility and he's just the one to do it. In fact, the only real arrogance is his own. He isn't merely bashing President Bush's foreign policy but America's in general in our recent history, all the way back to JFK. This nation, which brought freedom and democracy to millions in multiple continents, is the one that has been getting it wrong all this time. It's his job to fix it all. Job one is telling the rest of the world about each and every mistake. Job two is taking seriously the views of each and every tyrant and despot that has a beef with us.

Of course, so far at least, all of this "humility" has given us absolutely nothing tangible. We got no troops in Afghanistan. We got nothing of substance on North Korea. Iran put an American in prison for years on trumped up charges. His supporters continue to say that these things take time. That's true. His presidency has a lot more days left than days past. Maybe, we, critics, are wrong. Maybe after some more buttering up soon everyone will come to work with him constructively. They just haven't yet. I'd just like to know how much time he needs. At what point will he see that maybe, just maybe, his approach is wrong.

For me, it's rather simple. What sort of arrogance can be behind a belief that hundreds of years of history is wrong while your own view point is right. If America is so wrong, why are we more often than not on the right side of history? if we are on the right side of history more often than not, maybe that's what you tell the rest of the world rather than focusing on each and every mistake. That's what I would have told Ortega, but then again, my view of foreign policy isn't nearly is humble as the president's.

A Great Way to Ruin a Great Movement

So far, the media response has been better than expected to the tea parties. The only poll out so far is from Rasmussen. It has a sizeable margin of approval to the movement. Now, everyone is asking what's next. I still see great potential which is why I was rather dismayed to find that the first cause following the tax day tea parties the movement is taking on CNN.

We'll be launching a new national campaign targeting CNN's hateful and offensive coverage of the Tea Party Movement sometime over the coming weekend. This effort will be located at CNNoffensive.com. If you're on Facebook, please get plugged into the group and invite everyone you know.

This effort will require a lot of work, and we're going to need each of you to join in to help us make a national statement.Stay tuned for more information.

This is troubling to say the least. First, we all know that CNN along with MSNBC were terribly biased, but in fact, their bias was the best gift given to the tea parties. There's a larger point. The movement is about bloated government, runaway spending, and runaway taxes. It is NOT about media bias. There a plenty of groups that dedicate themselves to media bias, and many of them have taken CNN to task for their bias.

To understand why this transition could be so corrosive we need to look at this not from a political view point but from a marketing viewpoint. Think of this as branding.

the application of marketing techniques to a specific product, product line, or brand. It seeks to increase the product's perceived value to the customer and thereby increase brand franchise and brand equity. Marketers see a brand as an implied promise that the level of quality people have come to expect from a brand will continue with future purchases of the same product.

Branding is essentially how the public views your product, in this case the movement itself. On tax day, the movement defined itself as taking on big and bloated government with runaway spending. That's how it defined itself. That's its brand. So, one would expect the movement to take on causes of small government. Instead, the movement wants to take on media bias. That's not its brand, and by doing so, the brand gets diluted. You dilute the brand in a cause and the cause fizzles away.

The tea party brand is built on a grassroots movement dedicated to standing up to bloated government, runaway spending, and taxes. So, why is the movement suddenly taking on media bias? That's a great way to dilute the brand. If you try and be all things to all people, you wind up, usually, having a muddled message.

The movement is in its infancy in taking on big government and before they've done anything tangible, but holding a massive set of rallies, they are now taking on media bias. The movement could promote a small government bill, small government candidate, but instead, it will start a massive campaign to take on CNN.

Worse yet, who cares? CNN has made itself irrelevant through its own bias. Hundreds of thousands of people will get an email about holding CNN responsible and many of them will say "this isn't what I signed up for". They signed up to take on bloated government not media bias. If they wanted to take on media bias, they would have signed up with the Media Research Center.

Now, after coming out for hundreds of rallies to protest big and bloated government, the first cause they are told to champion takes on media bias. When a brand is in its infancy, as this is, that is when it is most vulnerable. When it gets diluted, as this campaign does, it also loses purpose. The so called foot soldiers will get confused about its purposes. Are they taking on media bias or are they taking on bloated government? Right now that isn't clear because the first cause following a series of successful anti bloated government rallies is media bias. When exactly are they going to taken on bloated government? No one knows because the most immediate order of the day appears to be taking on CNN.

This is exactly how movements fizzle out and it's also, usually, a sign of hubris at the top. Those at the top aren't happy just to champion the cause it was intended for, so they branch out. They don't realize that branching out only dilutes the brand. They don't realize that confronting every wrong isn't what they were created for. This movement was created in response to runaway spending and that's what it should focus on. By taking on CNN, it loses focus. Soon, people will wonder what the purpose is. It's simple marketing 101, and by pivoting so quickly the movement fails it.

I'm Still Bearish and Here's Why

The numbers tell a story. We are entering this week following six straight weeks with every major average moving up. Most averages have gained about 20% or more from their lows six weeks ago. Furthermore, these moves haven't happened all on their own. They have been responses to not only better than expected earnings but all sorts of better than expected economic data. So, now the question is asked. Are we at the beginning of a sustained rally or is this still a bear market rally? I continue to remain bearish and here's why.

First, while we have seen a rally it has also been very volatile. Significant volatility, like what we continue to have, is a sign that the market is driven by traders not investors. Traders are in it for the short term. Investors are in it for the long term. If this is driven by short term traders, then it's also driven by technical rather than fundamentals. That's a sign of short term up not long term.

Second, while the numbers have been good, in reality they have merely been better than expectations. It isn't as though people are happy with the economic data per se. Rather, they are happy because it isn't as bad as they expected. That's how markets work. We have expectations and then the market responds depending on whether or not things are better or worse than expectations. Well, now we've had a six week run. Now, people expect more of the economy. Now that the expectations are higher there is a bigger likelihood that we won't meet expectations.

Third, the bank earnings are mostly smoke and mirrors. Almost each and every bank that made money, made it through accounting for one time activities like buyouts. That's what happened today to Bank of America. They crushed earnings but deep inside the numbers we find out that most of their earnings occurred by the way their buyout of Merrill Lynch occurred. Remember, they received a whole bunch of TARP funds and so in fact the tax payers funded those earnings.

One analysis has near $5 trillion in so called "toxic assets" that remain on the books of the banks. That's no minor problem and it isn't going away. I have little confidence in the Geithner plan to deal with them, and so in my view, the banks continue to have significant long term structural problems.

Fourth, we continue to lose north of five hundred thousand jobs monthly. What kind of an economic recovery includes half a million in lost jobs monthly. Yes, we've all heard that jobs are a lagging indicator. In other words, the rest of the economy recovers first and then jobs come back. Also, during 2002-2003, the economy began to gear up while we lost jobs. This happened mostly because productivity improved dramatically and so we didn't need more jobs. That's not happening now, not on the scale it was. If half a million people are losing their jobs monthly, I don't see what kind of a recovery we are having.

Finally, from my perch in the mortgage industry, I can tell you that credit continues to be frozen. In my seven years, this is by far the most difficult period to get a loan done. There are long waits. Banks routinely go out of wholesale mortgages. Programs are changing daily, and the guidelines continue to get more and more restrictive. If credit is still frozen, then what recovery do we have? I don't see how we can have any sort of sustained recovery if credit is frozen. That's what we have now, and it is getting worse not better.

I still continue to be more bearish than most. I made the prediction that the Dow would reach 5000 and I am holding to that.

Back Door Bank Nationalization

Largely unnoticed by anyone but the markets (which have tanked on the news) is this announcement.

Investors were also troubled by a report that the government is converting its interest in bailed out financial institutions from preferred into common shares. The move is seen as a political maneuver that will enable the White House to avoid asking
Congress for more money, but also constitutes a de facto nationalization of the
businesses that will give the government ownership stakes.

So, what is the practical effect? Well, here is what preferred stock is.

Preferred stock usually carries no voting rights,[1][2] but may carry superior priority over common stock in the payment of dividends and upon liquidation. Preferred stock may carry a dividend that is paid out prior to any dividends being paid to common stock holders. Preferred stock may have a convertibility feature into common stock. Preferred stockholders will be paid out in assets before common stockholders and after debt holders in bankruptcy. Terms of the preferred stock are stated in a "Certificate of Designation".

Common shares have ownership interest. As such, by converting preferred stock into common stock, the government then immediately takes an ownership stake in each and every bank they have given money to. Since they give nearly one trillion dollars in TARP money, they have enough preferred stock to convert to significant shares of common stock.

The federal government will now have enough common stock to be able to make significant decisions as far as who sits on the board of directors. The board of course is the final arbitor of who is the CEO, CFO, etc. As such, the government, if this winds up happening, will take a back door step to nationalization. It will have enough voting power to be a rainmaker in board decisions. By being a rainmaker in board decisions, it ultimately is a rainmaker in executive decisions. By being a rainmaker in executive decisions, it ultimately becomes a significant player in all decisions. As such, we have back door bank nationalization.

The President Pays Lip Service to Fiscal Responsibility

Throughout the never ending stream of endless new spending both proposed and enacted by the president, we continue to hear that he also plans on getting our fiscal house in order. Many of us have been very skeptical of this promise. After all, it's hard to square someone that proposed a near $1 trillion stimulus, $250 billion for a mortgage bailout, an omnibus with nearly 8000 earmarks, and finally a budget that's worth nearly $4 trillion with someone that will get our fiscal house in order.

Yet, over and over, we have heard that the president will go "line by line" and cut "waste without prejudice". Well, this morning we saw just how "serious" he is about all of this.

From going paperless to eliminating multimillion-dollar contracts for companies that create logos, Cabinet agencies are laying out a number of ways they can meet President Obama's call to slash $100 million from the federal budget.

The president held his first Cabinet meeting Monday morning and ordered his department heads to draft ways to trim the federal fat.

The $100 million figure represents a drop in the bucket of the president's $3.5 trillion budget proposal, and would do little to erase the more than $1.2 trillion deficit that has become the rallying cry of fiscal conservatives.

But the White House released a list of cost-cutting measures Monday that marked a start to what Obama pledges will be long-term fiscal responsibility.

To add insult to injury to the lip service the president is paying to fiscal responsibility, he added this.

If we're going to rebuild our economy on a solid foundation, we need to change the way we do business in Washington. We need to restore the American people's confidence in their government -- that it is on their side, spending their money wisely, to meet their families' needs,

The president has proposed nearly $10 trillion in new spending and now he thinks he is the model of fiscal responsibility because he has proposed cuts equal to $100 million. Frankly, that's sort of like a school teacher buying a Ferrari on credit while maintaining that they were fiscally responsible because they decided against the upgraded stereo system.

For the president to make these cuts news is the height of insult and patronizing nonsense. First, he proposes $10 trillion in new spending, then he cuts $100 million, and he has the nerve to say the federal government is sacrificing like the rest of us. He has just run an assault to increase the federal government exponentially, and he thinks by proposing $100 million in cuts, he is "sacrificing like the rest of us". That's just plain insulting.