"Oh, so filibusters are bad now?"

The Washington Post printed my letter to the editor today, under the headline above, commenting on columnist E.J. Dionne's new-found disdain for the Senate filibuster. As luck would have it, Dionne has another column today criticizing Republican "obstructionism," although he liked those tactics when employed by Democrats. Here's my letter:

E.J. Dionne Jr. ["Democratic fratricide," op-ed, Dec. 17] views the Senate as a "dysfunctional and undemocratic partisan hothouse," presumably because of the ability of 41 senators to prevent a bill from coming to a final vote.

Mr. Dionne has not always taken such a dim view of undemocratic procedures, however.

In 2003, he heartily approved of Democratic obstruction of two judicial nominations by President Bush: "The filibuster is the only way to prevent the president from creating a federal judiciary dominated by ideologues of his own persuasion, appointed to satisfy his political base" ["Order and the Courts," op-ed, May 9].

If a filibuster was justified merely to keep two conservatives off the bench, why should it not be used by senators who believe that the health-care bill would be a disaster for the country?

Richard L. Lobb, Fairfax

WHY IS THIS MAN BOWING?

What is it with the bowing? Why cannot this man stop bowing? First it was the king of Saudi Arabia and then the emporer of Japan. At least those guys are royalty, and the White House could claim that protocol demanded the obeisance. But this picture was taken in China, which, being a communist one-party state, has no royalty. The man to whom our president is bowing is the premier, Wen Jiabao. He is not even the head of state; that would be Hu Jintao. Wen is head of government, like the prime minister in Britain. Surely protocol cannot demand that the president, who is both head of state and head of government, should bow to a head of government. Or does Mr. Obama plan to bow to Gordon Brown next time he sees him?

It seems that to get the president to bow to you, you should either occupy the throne of a country we defeated sixty years ago, sell us lots of oil, or hold billions of dollars in U.S. debt. The pope, I suppose, would get a fist bump.

WILL U.S. LOSE ITS INVESTMENT IN GENERAL MOTORS?

A few months ago, I wrote in a letter to the Washington Post that General Motors would never be able to repay its bailout loans from the federal government and could end up as a heavily subsidized "Amtrak of the highways." A commenter said no, the taxpayers would get their money back by selling the stock the government received in exchange for its stake. A nice thought.

Unfortunately, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ran the numbers, and it doesn't look good for Uncle Sam as a stock picker. Before the federal stake will equal its investment, the company will have to be worth $69 billion, according to GAO. Unfortunately, GM was worth only $56 billion back in the glory days in 2000 and a measly $7 billion in 2008. As GAO puts it in its report on GM and Chrysler: "Currently, the value of the companies would have to grow tremendously for Treasury to approach breaking even on its investment, requiring that Treasury temper any desire to exit as quickly as possible with the need to maintain its ownership interest long enough for the companies to demonstrate sufficient financial progress."

Fat chance of that. Good luck, Uncle Sucker.

"FOOD INC." GOT FUNDING FROM SODA POP FORTUNE

KANSAS CITY -- The film documentary "Food, Inc.," which bashes soda pop and other products using high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and other corn derivatives, was financed in large measure by a family fortune derived in part from bottling HFCS-laden Pepsi products, producer and director Robert Kenner said here Tuesday.

The film is highly critical of the mainstream food industry, accusing it of marketing products that allegedly make consumers fat, sick, or both. The film zeroes in on the versatility of corn, which provides a host of products including the widely used sweetener.

Kenner said at a conference sponsored by the Center for Food Integrity (CFI) that part of the financing for his film was provided by Bill Pohlad, owner of River Road Entertainment and a member of a multi-millionaire Minneapolis family that owns, among many other thing, baseball's Minnesota Twins and PepsiAmericas, “the world’s second-largest manufacturer, seller and distributor of PepsiCo beverages," according to a holding company web site. Many PepsiCo products are sweetened with HFCS.

Also contributing to the film's creation was Jeff Skoll, owner of Participant Media and the first president of internet auction firm eBay, Kenner said. Skoll reportedly netted $2 billion when he cashed out of eBay. Pohlad and Skoll brankrolled the film, he said.

Both River Road and Participant Media specialize in socially conscious films. Participant produced Al Gore's doomsday documentary on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as anti-oil "Syriana," "North Country," which attacked workplace sexual harassment, and "Fast Food Nation," a theatrical based on the non-fiction book by Eric Schlosser, whose observations are a major element in "Food, Inc."

Pohlad's River Road had a hit with the gay drama "Brokeback Mountain" and will soon unreel "Fair Game," based on the naming of CIA employee Valerie Plame.

Kenner said the highly successful publicity campaign for the film cost less than $300,000. He said the film was greatly aided by reams of positive publicity and favorable reviews.

In a discussion after Kenner's remarks to the CFI Food System Summit, CFI chief Charles Arnot asked why the film identified numerous alleged problems but offered little in the way of solutions.

"As a filmmaker, all I can do is ask questions," Kenner said. "I wanted people to think about there their food is coming from. I am not here with solutions to this problem."

While most of the criticism of the film has come from the point of view of conventional production, some criticism has come from other points of the compass, he said.

"The film has been attacked by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) for not urging people to be vegan," Kenner said.

AUTO BAILOUTS NOT RECOVERABLE, OVERSIGHT PANEL FINDS

In a letter printed in The Washingotn Post May 31, I predicted that GM would have difficulty paying back its federal loans and would become the "Amtrak of the highways. " Now it seems a Congressional oversight committees agrees. Today's news:

"Taxpayers Likely to Lose on GM, Chrysler Bailouts, Panel Finds

"LANSING, Mich.—The U.S. government is not likely to recoup all of the $85 billion it lent to General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Congressional Oversight Panel said in a Sept. 9 report.

“Although taxpayers may recover some portion of their investment in Chrysler and GM, it is unlikely they will recover the entire amount,” the report said. It said it is “highly unlikely” that about $5.4 billion of the loans extended to the old Chrysler LLC will be recovered, though estimates of the losses vary. The Treasury Department estimates about $23 billion of the government loans extended to the companies “will be subject to `much lower recoveries,’” the report said. "

"Much lower recoveries" as in zero, I suppose.

I wonder if this will get the coverage it deserves, or if we will continue to obsess on Obamacare.

NEW "END OF LIFE" CHALLENGE FOR OBAMA

When Congress and the Obama Administration agreed to pump $3 billion into the "cash for clunkers" program, the 535 automotive engineers in Congress and all those smart people at the White House forgot something -- old cars contain mercury, which is supposed to be kept out of landfills. Before old cars are shredded, switches containing mercury are supposed to be removed, and somebody has to be paid to do it. The work was financed in part by the auto companies. But the "new" GM points out that it doesn't put mercury into auto components anymore and therefore has no obligation to help pay for yanking the switches out of old cars. But the "old" GM, now a mere shell devoted to dumping various once-prized assets, doesn't want to chip into the fund, either. Outraged recyclers are grumbling that "GM" stands for "Government Motors" and the company should be forced to pay into the fund. We'll see if Obama meant it when he said that the federal government doesn't want to run GM, or his "green" instincts prevail and he forces the company to cough up the mere $1 million it would otherwise owe.

The entity running the mercury switch removal program is called "End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corp." Seems like challenges at the end of life continue to dog the Obama team.

WASHINGTON POST DELIVERS THE COMICS -- TWICE

The Washington Post, one of the country's great newspapers, seems to have a problem in the production and printing department. The Sunday comics dated June 7 (which are delivered with the Saturday paper in my area) were the same as the comics delivered the previous weekend. My son noticed this as soon as he picked up the comics section, and I looked to confirm that my favorites -- Flashbacks, Zits, Doonesbury, Pickles, and others -- were indeed repeats. This comes on top of the mixup April 11-12 (see below), in which the Sunday opinion columns were printed Saturday -- and then again Sunday.

No explanation of the comics mishap was included in the Sunday paper, but a check on the Washington Post web site shows that the today's comics are correct, but were distributed a week early -- and then distributed again. Readers missed the May 31 comics unless they checked the web site, and not all of the Sunday comics are posted there.

Many will ask, of course, so what? Who cares about the comics? But in fact, many people do. When the Post (or any other paper) changes its comics lineup, it gets more letters from the public than if it changes editorial columnists -- a lot more. I shot off a letter to the editor, and I am sure many readers wrote or called to complain. (I would not expect my letter to be printed because I just had one in the paper -- see below -- but I had to tell someone.)

So making this kind of a blunder, and not explaining it, shows that either the people in charge down on 15th Street are not really aware of what's hitting the driveways and doorsteps, in my circulation area at least, or don't care enough to correct an egregious error. Either explanation points to some real problems in the management of a major Washington enterprise.

The Washington Post printed my letter about General Motors today (Sunday, May 31, 2009), and put it at the top of the letters column. I'm sure the punch line intrigued the editors:

Detroit's Answer to Amtrak?
Sunday, May 31, 2009

The federal government obviously can't make up its mind about General Motors.

On the one hand, it is lending the company huge sums -- up to $70 billion under one scenario. The only way the company will be able to pay back such loans is to make profits. But GM's last profitable year was 2004, when it made a modest $2.7 billion. Even if GM returned to its glory days and made $6 billion or $7 billion a year, not all of the profit could be devoted to debt repayment, so it could take 20 years or more to pay off the government debt.

In the meantime, the government would basically own the company and would have to run it, which the Obama administration has said it doesn't intend to do. But if the owners don't run the company, who will?

On top of that, the administration has announced mileage standards [front page, May 19] that will add at least $1,300 to the price of a car and will, inevitably, favor the building of small cars, which historically lose money compared with trucks, SUVs and luxury cars. So how will GM ever get back to profitability and repay the federal government? Or is the government simply going to have a captive car company that sells cars at a loss? GM would be the Amtrak of the highways.

RICHARD L. LOBB


Fairfax

WASHINGTON POST READERS SEE DOUBLE

I did a double-take when I opened my Washington Post this Easter morning and saw the very same Tom Toles cartoon that was in the Saturday paper. And the same George Will column, and the same David Broder column, and the same Jim Hoagland column. And the same letters to the editor on the main editorial page. Only the newspaper's own editorials were new. The Washington Post had printed some of its best-read articles on the wrong day.

A little note on the main editorial page said: "Because of an error that occurred during the final production of the Saturday newspaper, the majority of the material that appears on these two pages was printed in some of those editions. The three editorials were not affected by the problem." The note said the Saturday items are on the web site www.washingtonpost.com.

And that was it. No further explanation was offered. The web site Washingtonpost.com, as far as I can tell, ignored the whole thing.

So did other media outlets and blogs. The collective modern media politely averted its eyes from an astoundingly embarrassing episode.

Mistakes occur in production all the time. I have seen headlines that read, "MAIN SPACER HED GOES HERE," and things of that nature. Back during the Vietnam War, the Post ran a famous headline that read, 'B-52's BOMB BUTSKIRTS ON QUANGTRI OUNKERS," leading to jokes about the crueltry of depriving the peaceful Ounkers of Quangri of their modest clothing. The occasional headline goof is one thing. But to print the wrong page in the paper's most-read section, and deliver to thousands of homes, is truly astounding.

Perhaps even more amazing is that no one seems to think the error is worthy of note. It reminds me of the story of a radio station in Richmond that played automated programming in the overnight period. One night, the entire night's program was played backwards -- and no one complained. Either no one was listening or no one took it seriously enough to mention it.

The Post and many other papers worry about their future. But if one of the biggest papers in the United States commits a gaffe like this and doesn't explain it, and no one comments on it, then you have to wonder how many people are reading anymore.

OBAMA BOWS TO SAUDI KING

Here we have the president of the United States bowing from the waist to the king of Saudi Arabia. One wonders if he bowed to the Queen of England, or if the First Lady curtsied. If Obama meets the Pope, perhaps he will kiss his ring. All the better to show that the USA is not so proud anymore, not so touchy about its status as a great republic, where every man and woman is equal, where the national flag is never dipped in respect to anyone, where a firm and manly handshake is quite enough greeting for any foreign potentate. We live in the world now, where kings can name their countries after their families (it was just Arabia before the House of Saud came along), and we do whatever we have to do to stay in the good graces of friendly princes who happen to have a lot of oil.

A REALISTIC VIEW OF THE MISSILE LAUNCH

A welcome dissent from the media's generally dismissive treatment of North Korea's missile launch comes from Blaine Harden, the Washington Post's Tokyo correspondent. While others write off the launch as a dismal failure, Harden wrote:

"The massive first stage of the Taepodong-2 missile functioned well, propelling the upper two stages high over Japan and far out into the Pacific. That marked a major advance over the first test of the missile, in 2006, which failed in less than a minute. The rocket launched Sunday also traveled twice as far as any missile the country has launched before."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040600896.html

Harden notes the north's absurd propaganda about launching a communications satellite, but he clearly has no illusions about the ultimate goal -- to build a credible ICBM.

OBAMA ON NORTH KOREAN LAUNCH: I'LL HUFF AND I'LL PUFF . . .

North Korea conducted a ballistic missile test over the weekend, with results that were probably satisfactory to the regime if not all that it hoped for. The three-stage rocket reached well into the Pacific, although not as far as North Korea had said when it issued the usual warning to any mariners who might be in the impact zone. Whether the third stage was packed with its solid fuel, and what was actually in the payload, are among the things not known.

The payload might actually have been a small communications satellite. It could also have been a concrete block the same weight as the nuclear warhead the north hopes to loft one day.

It is almost certain, however, is that this was not primarily an attempt to place a communications satellite in low-earth orbit -- a virtually useless accomplishment anyway. The north's claim that it was, and further claim that the satellite actually got into orbit and began broadcasting patriotic songs, is merely an entertaining cover story. No one could object to placing a satellite in orbit. A ballistic missile test, however, would be against the express wishes of the United Nations. Hence the cover story. A regime that lies about everything had no problem lying about the purpose of its launch.

So it is rather surprising that so many outlets in the Western media took the satellite claim seriously and proclaimed the shot a failure because the vehicle went down in the ocean. The New York Times smugly assured its readers: "North Korea failed in its highly vaunted effort to fire a satellite into orbit, military and private experts said Sunday after reviewing detailed tracking data that showed the missile and payload fell into the sea."

The "military experts" cited consisted of a terse statement from the U.S. military's Northern Command which provided the barest statement of the facts and did not go into the intent of the launch. The civilians were the usual sort of intellectuals rather noticeably lacking in real-world experience that tend to be favored as sources by The New York Times.

The missile might have malfunctioned and crashed, or it might simply have run out of fuel. Either way, it established a new distance record for North Korean missiles. When the north's technicians get the third stage working, they will have a true ICBM -- intercontinental ballistic missile -- capable of reaching the United States.

And that is what the north and its unpredictable ruler, Kim Jong Il, really want -- the ability to threaten the U.S., world superpower and protector of South Korea. The north wants the chance to say, in some future crisis, back off, Uncle Sam, or Los Angeles is toast.

The north has a long way to go. The missile has to be perfected. Most of all, a nuclear bomb small enough to fit into the missile's payload area has to be developed. That could take years. But the path followed by the north is clear enough, and it hasn't backtracked one bit since it first fired a Taepondong missile in 1998. There is really nothing to prevent it from developing a working system over time.

Nothing, that is, except punishment for its misbehavior. “Rules must be binding,” President Obama said. “Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”

Okay . . . and what is Mr. Obama going to do about it? Why, he is going to demand that the United States ratify a nuclear test ban treaty! That will show the North Koreans. Then, when they test their nuclear warhead, they will claim it just a really big fireworks display for King Jong Il's birthday. They may even broadcast some patriotic tunes.

NOTES FROM A WORLD GONE MAD: The American Trabant?

The president of the United States has fired the head of General Motors, taking a giant step towards the transformation of a once-great industrial enterprise into a state-controlled captive company that will provide jobs for unionized workers and produce cars that few people will want to buy. No doubt they will be sensible, fuel-efficient vehicles, many of them hybrids or electric cars. Only heavy subsidies will make the Obamamobiles attractive to buyers otherwise beguiled by horsepower, size, capacity, and styling.

After canning the CEO, the government will apparently move on to replacing the board of directors with nominees more to its liking, drawing perhaps from Obama's automotive task force. This group is led by three investment bankers and a political hotshot, none of whom have any expertise in automobiles. Nevertheless, the task force is letting it be known that its strategy is to take GM into bankruptcy (with Uncle Sugar providing DIP financing), dump Saturn, Hummer, and other dogs, stiff the bondholders, and re-emerge with Chevrolet and Cadillac as the car brands and a big fat debt to the federal government on the balance sheet. The big question is what will become of the UAW and the company's incredibly expensive health-care burden.

Chrysler, meanwhile, will be thrown to the wolves. Why Fiat thinks it can succeed where Daimler failed is one of the mysteries of the Italian mind.

Restructuring could have been acccomplished in bankruptcy court without the federal intervention and without the commitment of taxpayer funds that may never be repaid. GM will have to sell an awful lot of cars to pay off its debt. It will be especially difficult since the "new GM" will probably move away from its big but profitable trucks and SUVs and focus on small, fuel-efficent vehicles -- very nice but not very profitable, and not very attractive. (Just look at the size of the vehicles in the average suburban shopping center parking lot -- huge and huger.) So the government will have to sink more money into purchase incentives so that GM can make some money and pay the government back for the rescue package. This cycle could go on forever.

What GM really needs is relief from CAFE standards, relief from the health-care burden it foolishly took on when times were good, and the ability to furlough workers and close plants when times are tough. The United States automotive market is still enormous; GM makes some excellent vehicles; the recession will end some day, and GM will thrive again. But not if it becomes a captive making politically accceptable cars. East Germany did that for years with the "Trabant," a little plastic-bodied people's car; production ended when East Germany did. Amazing to think the United States might go in the same direction.

OBAMA'S SPEECH: ALL THE RIGHT NOTES . . . BUT . . .

Barack Obama hit all the right notes in an eloquent and graceful inaugural address. He rooted his administration firmly in America’s best traditions and ideals while making it clear that pragmatism would be more important to him than ideology. He called on the nation to get over a period of lazy self-indulgence and get to work on building a better future. He sent some very specific signals, making it plain, for example, that torture ( a.k.a. “enhanced interrogation”) is no longer allowed, when he said, “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”

The theme of growing up and getting serious was a favorite. Time to put aside “childish things,” he said, quoting St. Paul. The blame for the financial mess lies not only on those who acted from “greed and irresponsibility” but on all of us who failed to make “hard choices.” Pundits said the speech was “serious and sober,” and indeed it was.

Fine. Obama can ban torture, stop the tribunals at Guantanamo, tell the military to prepare to pull out of Iraq, sign a stimulus bill, and shake up Wall Street. All that is within his power as President with a majority in Congress.

But what happens if even those easy decisions turn out to be tough ones? What will we really do with all the hard-case terrorists locked up at Guantanamo Bay? Most have committed no crimes against the United States and can’t be tried in civilian courts. We can’t ship them home because their home countries know very well they are terrorist bad guys and won’t take them. The only thing left to do is parole them into the United States. When that becomes the only choice left, will Mr. Obama rethink his decision to close the camp?

Mr. Obama sought to distinguish himself from former presidents by taking the rhetorical tack opposite of theirs. Bill Clinton, for example, proclaimed in 1996, "the era of big government is over.” Obama said:

“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.”

It will be interesting to see if, two years from now, any government programs of any size have ended. Democrats are not famous for cutting government programs.

The new leader of the free world, or at least of the United States, fired a rhetorical shot across the bows of the likes of Vladimir Putin, the increasingly autocratic strong man of Russia: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” Since it is extremely unlikely that Putin (or Venezuela’s Chavez) will ever unclench his fist, the real question is how Obama treats him in the meantime. On that subject, he gave no clue.

To govern is to choose. Barack Obama has not had to make many hard choices so far in his extraordinary rise to power. Before long, his inbox will be full of tough decisions. General Motors says it will go broke by the end of March. Obama himself will have to make that call. He airily called for a “hard-earned peace” in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Bin Laden’s gang may have something to say about that. Obama will have to decide how to respond and secure something that looks like peace and stability.

Tuesday was Barack’s Obama’s day, full of pomp and ceremony in the peaceful handover that we like to tell ourselves is so uniquely American. He gave an excellent speech that lacked only a memorable line like JFK’s “Ask not . . .” Today the real work starts, and Obama will begin to try to earn a place in history as something other than a first.