The Light: Hillary

As January goes, so goes the year.

Does this adage hold water? The market direction for the year is correlated approximately 70% of the time with January’s move. I certainly would not make investment decisions based purely upon that rule of thumb. The rule did not hold in 2009 as major equity averages were down 8% last January. That said, 2009 was anything but a normal year given the massive economic and market supports implemented by Uncle Sam.

What rule of thumb would I recommend? Read and review Sense on Cents regularly to most effectively navigate the economic landscape. On that note, let’s review the market moves for January. The figures provided are month end statistics for the respective markets, then month-to-date and year-to-date returns.

CURRENCIES

The U.S. dollar had a very solid month with the overall index gaining 2.1% on the month. The dollar did weaken versus the Japanese Yen while strengthening versus the Euro. Please be aware the Euro/dollar quote above looks at the currency swap from the perspective of the Euro. Why? Most market participants quote it in that format so it becomes the standard. Red ink there means our greenback strengthened versus the Euro.

Are we witnessing the unwind of dollar carry trades (that is, sell dollars because they can be borrowed so cheaply given the 0-.25% Fed Funds rate and use the proceeds to buy risk-based assets, including commodities, equities, and bonds) that were so prevalent in 2009? I believe we are. Why might these trades be unwound? The expectation that global governments and central banks, including our own, are withdrawing supports for their economies and markets. Why? Fears of asset bubbles and incipient inflation. This dynamic is playing out most prominently now in China where banks are curtailing lending. What impact has this had? Let’s move on to our review of . . .

COMMODITIES

This sea of red ink is not indicative of expectations of strong future economic growth. The losses here are widely due to the unwind of trades as highlighted above. Within the commodity space, copper specifically got hammered and was down 10% on the month. That base metal is used in both residential and industrial production. Given this move in commodities, no surprise that equities in general and especially within the emerging economies were down on the month. Moving right along . . .

EQUITIES

The equity markets were up approximately 2% the first week of the year, but then came off hard. In my opinion, the selloff was a function of the points highlighted previously (withdrawal of government and central bank supports) but also the realization of the following:

1. Global economy remains challenged. Greece is on the edge of a sovereign default.
2. Our domestic economy, especially within the labor and housing sectors, continues to face an uphill climb. State and municipal finances are a mess.
3. Washington is also a political and fiscal mess. You already knew this.
4. Obama’s slamming Wall Street and promoting the Volcker Rule to remodel banks is not exactly leaving Wall Street with a warm and fuzzy feeling.
5. The prices of stocks look quite full relative to earnings generated and earnings projected.

So where are investors putting cash? Moving right along . . .

BONDS

Interest rates on government debt came down (remember rates down, bond prices up) and other sectors of the bond market held up quite well as investors look for a bit of a safe haven while trying to generate some sort of yield. In my opinion, the bond market looks overpriced given the ongoing risk of defaults (corporate and consumer) but also given the massive deficits at the federal, municipal, and consumer levels. Each of these sectors of our economy have enormous funding needs. As Uncle Sam lessens his ability to provide that funding, I believe interest rates have to move higher.

Risks remain abundant. Navigate accordingly.

LD

Nobody told you

I don’t know how you were diverted.   You were perverted too

I don’t know how you were inverted.   No one alerted you

Is Congress learning yet?

When one party controls everything then we are up a creek without a paddle. It is time for us to balance everything again.

Whoever is in, vote them out. That is a quote from the great Illinois politician that some company named some logs after – Lincoln.

The idea that someone is making signs like these below is telling.

Real Stars:

(h/t Pat for the bumper stickers) Open thread.

4th quarter 2009 GDP came in at 5.7%. November’s employment report showed a gain in jobs. Consumer confidence increased in January. Are these readings to be believed? Will the positive trend continue?

On the flip side of the coin, new home sales in January came in much less than expected. Durable goods orders also disappointed. Jobless claims remain stubbornly high.

What is really going on in the economy? Where can you go to make sense of it all and most effectively navigate the economic landscape in the process? You have come to the right place as this Sunday evening from 8-9pm No Quarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle Welcomes John Ryding of RDQ Economics. What can we learn about about RDQ and John Ryding?

RDQ Economics provides global macroeconomic research with an emphasis on U.S. economic fundamentals and monetary policy.

Our research is driven by consistent application of classical economic and monetary principles and has generated superior anticipation of changes in the stance of monetary policy and of movements in economic growth and inflation.

The founders of RDQ Economics, John Ryding and Conrad DeQuadros, have a combined experience of 26 years on Wall Street and 12 years of experience in central banking at the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. John and Conrad have worked closely with fixed income, foreign exchange, and equity traders and portfolio managers, which has enabled their research to be tailored to a clientele that is focused on trading and investment decisions.

More specifically we learn:

John Ryding is the Chief Economist and a founding partner of RDQ Economics.

John was at Bear Stearns from 1991 to 2008—-most recently as the Chief U.S. Economist–where he was responsible for analyzing and forecasting U.S. economic trends and monetary policy. Prior to joining Bear Stearns, he was a Senior Economist at the New York Fed from 1989 to 1991 and an Economic Advisor to the Bank of England, where he worked from 1980 to 1989.

John graduated Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, England in 1980. John is a frequent commentator on Bloomberg, CNBC, CNN, Fox Business News and the BBC.

John is widely regarded as one of the top economists on Wall Street today. I am honored to have him on the show and help us navigate the economic landscape.

Please join our conversation by dialing (347) 677-0792 or join the always energized chat room.

LD

I am not sure who angers me more–the Republicans who insist that Barack Obama is criminalizing terrorism or the Democrats–Obama in particular–for being so inept in defending themselves from this bogus lie. The latest to push this nonsense is ditzy Senator from Maine, Susan Collins. Collins did the Republican radio address today and leveled this outrageous charge (transcript here):

President Obama recently used the phrase that ‘we are at war’ with terrorists. But unfortunately his rhetoric does not match the actions of his administration.

The Obama administration appears to have a blind spot when it comes to the War on Terrorism.

And, because of that blindness, this administration cannot see a foreign terrorist even when he stands right in front of them, fresh from an attempt to blow a plane out of the sky on Christmas Day.

There’s no other way to explain the irresponsible, indeed dangerous, decision on Abdulmutallab’s interrogation. There’s no other way to explain the inconceivable treatment of him as if he were a common criminal.

This charade must stop. Foreign terrorists are enemy combatants and they must be treated as such. The safety of the American people depends on it.

Actually Senator, there is another explanation and it is based in fact and history–Barack Obama was acting like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

The policy of treating terrorists as criminals originated with Ronald Reagan. It is that simple. In 1986 the issue of terrorism was hot and heavy because of the events of 1983-1985. During that period the United States was under attack worldwide. Terrorists of all stripes–radical islamists, communists, nationalists, etc.–carried out attacks in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Asia. Here’s the intro to the State Department report on International Terrorism in 1984:

The Year in Review (1984)
The pace of international terrorist activity around the world continued unabated during 1984. We recorded nearly 600 international terrorist attacks involving personal injury or property damage, representing an increase over each of the previous four years. Deaths in 1984 exceeded 300. These numbers, when viewed in the context of the past 15 years, suggest that the overall threat may again be increasing.

US citizens and interests remained a prime target of foreign terrorists around the world, followed by those of France and Israel. More than 20 percent of international terrorist incidents in 1984 involved US targets. This notwithstanding, in 1984 the United States was the victim of fewer attacks than in each of the four preceding years and suffered substantially fewer casualties than in 1983. The year 1983 was anomalous, however, because of the extraordinarily high death toll of 241 in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in October.

The major trend apparent in 1984 was the growing dominance of the Middle East as the crucible of terrorism. In 1984, nearly half of all international terrorist attacks either occurred in the Middle East or were committed elsewhere by Middle Easterners. Indeed, of the eight incidents that resulted in US fatalities last year, four occurred in the Middle East, and a fifth had a Middle Eastern connection. Among the major incidents were the truck bombing of the US Embassy Annex in East Beirut, which killed two US citizens in September, and the hijacking of a Kuwaiti Airlines flight from Kuwait to Tehran in December. Two US AID employees were murdered by the radical Lebanese Shia hijackers before the latter incident ended.

Do you understand? We had more major terrorist attacks in more countries in 1984 than in 2008. Things got worse in 1985:

The Year in Review (1985)
International terrorists had a banner year in 1985.

They carried out more attacks than in any year since the decade began; caused more casualties-especially fatalities-over that same period (329 alone occurred when an Air India jetliner was blown up in June) ; conducted a host of spectacular, publicity-grabbing events that ultimately ended in coldblooded murder; increasingly turned to business and more accessible public targets as security at official and military installations was strengthened against terrorism, and, in so doing, counted among their victims a record number of innocent bystanders; and finally, gave pause to international travelers worldwide who feared the increasingly indiscriminate nature of international terrorism.

in 1985, 782 international terrorist incidents occurred, a 30-percent increase over 1984. One-third of these incidents resulted in casualties; more than 800 persons were killed and over 1,200 were wounded.

Many of you probably do not remember what happened that year. Just imagine what would be happening today in Washington if the events of 1985 were taking place today. Here is are just seven of the 782 attacks recorded that year:

On 12 April the El Descanso restaurant outside Madrid was bombed, killing 18 Spaniards and wounding another 82 persons, including 15 Americans. Individuals claiming to represent several terrorist groups-including some West European ones-claimed responsibility, but Middle Eastern terrorists are among the prime suspects.

On 14 June Lebanese Shi’a gunmen hijacked TWA flight 847 flying from Athens to Rome and forced it to land in Beirut. The hijackers released the hostages 17 days later but killed US Navy diver Robert Stethem during the early stages of the incident.

On 3 September two grenades were thrown into the lobby of a Greek hotel in Glyfada, wounding 19 Britons. A caller to an Athens newspaper stated that the Palestinian Black September organization-a name used by the Abu Nidal Group-would stage numerous attacks in Athens if Greek authorities did not release one of its imprisoned members.

On 16 September terrorists lobbed grenades into the Cafe de Paris restaurant in Rome, wounding 38 tourists, including nine Americans. The Revolutionary Organizationof Socialist Muslims, a covername used by the Abu Nidal Group, claimed responsibility.
Mediterranean Sea.

On 7 October the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro was seized by the PLF as it departed Alexandria, Egypt, for Port Said. Before surrendering to Egyptian authorities on 9 October, the terrorists killed US tourist Leon Klinghoffer.

On 23 November an Egyptian jetliner was hijacked from Athens to Malta. The terrorists murdered several persons, including American Scarlett Rogencamp, and wounded the other Americans aboard before Egyptian commandos stormed the plane, killing some 60 remaining persons. The Arab Revolutionary Brigades, another covername used by the Abu Nidal Group, claimed responsibilityfor the hijacking jointly with the Egyptian Revolution.

On 27 December near-simultaneous machinegun and grenade attacks at the Rome and Vienna airports left more than 20 persons dead, including five Americans, and some 120 wounded, including 20 Americans. The Abu Nidal Group carried out both attacks.

1986 was a watershed year in U.S. Counter Terrorism policy. Because of a brawl on board a U.S. Government plane carrying representatives of the CIA, State Department and the FBI to Italy to assist with the operation to capture the terrorists responsible for hijacking the Achille Lauro–there was an argument over who was “in charge” of the operation–President Reagan issued a National Security Decision Direction that gave State Department the lead for international terrorism and the FBI the lead for domestic terrorism. In addition, the CIA set up the Counter Terrorism Center in February 1986 and the State Department appointed an Ambassador to be in charge of combating terrorism who reported directly to the Secretary of State. Who was that man? L. Paul Bremer aka Jerry Bremer.

Here is a speech Jerry Bremer gave in the fall of 1987, when he articulated the policy of Ronald Reagan:

Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get socieity to see them for what they are–criminals–and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against them.

Got it? According to Ronald Reagan’s point man for counter terrorism, TERRORISTS ARE CRIMINALS. Not my opinion. It is a fact.

Here is the complete statement of the U.S. policy (this was published in Patterns of Global Terrorism 1989, and yes, I know George H.W. Bush was President then, but this was simply a repeat of established policy):

US Counterterrorism Policy
The US Government has developed a comprehensive strategy to respond to the problem of international terrorism. The first element of our counterterrorism policy is that we do not make concessions of any kind to terrorists. We do not pay ransom, release convicted terrorists from prison, or change our policies to accommodate terrorist de- mands-such actions would only lead to more terrorism. And we vigorously encourage other countries to be firm with terrorists, for a solid in- ternational front is essential to overall success.

The second element of our strategy is to make state sponsors of ter- rorism pay a price for their actions. This policy was most graphically demonstrated by the April 1986 bombing raids on terrorist support fa- cilities in Libya. But there are also political, diplomatic and economic actions, public diplomacy and sanctions that can be employed-that is, peaceful measures that can be crafted to discourage states from persisting in their support of terrorism.

Third, the US Government has developed a program of action based on practical measures. It is designed to bring terrorists to justice, to disrupt their operations, and to destroy their networks. The program includes aggressive measures, working with our friends and allies, to identify, track, apprehend, prosecute, and punish terrorists by using the rule of law. It also includes measures designed to protect US citizens abroad by strengthening security and research toward developing equipment to prevent terrorist incidents.

The final element of our counterterrorism policy is the Department of State’s Anti-Terrorism Training Assistance Program (A T A) , which gives training in antiterrorism techniques to law enforcement officials around the world. Given our country’s strong commitment to human rights, ATA promotes a thorough understanding of the importance of human rights in all aspects of law enforcement. More than 7,000 police and security personnel from nearly 60 countries have participated in this program since its inception.

Now let’s jump ahead to December 2001. It is more than three months since the terrorist attacks of 9-11. Richard Reid, someone trained by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, tries but fails to ignite a bomb on board a commercial airliner. According to the NY Times:

The man was subdued by passengers and crew members, and two doctors on board sedated him with drugs from the plane’s medical kit, the officials said.

The plane, a Boeing 767, was escorted to Logan International Airport here by two F-15 fighter jets. All 185 passengers and 12 crew members on Flight 63 were escorted safely off the plane after it landed at 12:55 p.m.

The man, who officials said is 28, was taken into custody by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He was traveling under the name of Richard Reid, and was using a falsified British passport that was issued in Belgium three weeks ago, said Thomas Kinton, interim executive director of the Massachusetts Port Authority, which runs the airport. . . .

So let me see if I understand? When George W. Bush allows the FBI to arrest a terrorist caught in the act of trying to blow up a jetliner and allows the FBI to investigate the matter and to bring the case to court, that is okay. George Bush standing tall against terrorists? Right?

But when the government headed by Barack Obama does the SAME GODDAMN THING then Barack Obama is a surrender monkey?

Sorry, but that is just pure horseshit. So I conclude where I started, why have Republicans like Susan Collins, Peter King, Rudy Giuliani and L. Paul Bremer, just to name a few, completely forgotten and rejected the policy of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and, come to think of it, George W. Bush.

When did Republicans decide the Constitution no longer applies? When did they decide to eschew all international law, especially conventions on War, Human Rights, and Torture? Collins is certainly entitled to her opinion, but she is displaying an unconscionable ignorance of what has been the longstanding policy of the United States in dealing with terrorists. Makes me long for the days when Republicans were so committed to the sanctity of the law that they impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blow job.

Tom Bevan posted Obama’s Stunning Admission on Real Clear Politics, discussing the President’s appearance at the House Republican retreat yesterday. He points out that no matter how much coverage has been dedicated to this “exchange of ideas,” or exercise in Presidential bullying, depending on your perspective, no one mentioned this rather shocking tidbit about the contents of Obamacare (Video) Barack Obama said the following:

The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

Bevan goes on to state:

If we take this statement at face value, President Obama is admitting the the health care bills passed by either the House or Senate (or both) contained provisions which were “snuck in” – presumably by Democratic members and perhaps on behalf of certain lobbyists – that would have in fact prevented people from keeping their current insurance and/or choosing the doctor they want.

This was one of the core debates on health care throughout last year: Would President Obama and the Democrats’ legislation allow government to come between citizens and their choice of doctors and insurers? Obama promised it wouldn’t. Republicans said it would, and this was one of the aspects of the legislation that led them to characterize it as a government takeover of health care – the same characterization that Obama chastized the GOP for today.

So even the President is admitting to this. Anyone protesting this debacle was called the dirtiest of names by the likes of the arrogant Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer because we dared to question their 2,000 page health care monstrosity. The Dems may have snuck it in? Why would they try to do that? Don’t they have our best interests at heart.

I do not recognize this party anymore. Even Dianne Feinstein made the comment that we just couldn’t understand the depth and breadth of this legislation. Apparently, we understood it a lot better than certain folks would have liked us to.

Though the President brazenly behaves as though the American people trust his every utterance, the latest Rasmussen Reports polling on the President’s SOTU speech show just how deep that trust deficit has become.

The president in the speech declared that his administration has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He even chided Republicans for not applauding on that point. However, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that taxes have been cut for 95% of Americans. Most (53%) say it has not happened, and 26% are not sure. Other polling shows that nearly half the nation’s voters expect their own taxes to go up during the Obama years.

The president also asserted that “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.” Just 35% of voters believe that statement is true, while 50% say it is false.

Obama claimed that steps taken by his team are responsible for putting two million people to work “who would otherwise be unemployed.” Just 27% of voters say that statement is true. Fifty-one percent (51%) say it’s false.

Perhaps trust might be reclaimed by realizing one basic principle. The time for transparency is before and during negotations on important legislation — not after the fact, when someone has spent the better part of a year trying to shove it down the American gullet, while denying the very thing they now admit to be true. Further, what assurances do the American people have that as health care legislation continues to morph in Congress, more of these types of dangerous provisions won’t be “sneaking in.”

Health care reform is necessary. Congress first needs to prove they can be trusted to repair and improve the current system before we hand them the reins to gut it altogether.

Here’s a hot flash, Mr. President. I like my doctors. I like my health care plan. I don’t want anyone messing with it, especially if what they are offering will degrade the level of care my family and I now receive.

Because Obama doesn’t seem to know the difference between the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in his SOTU:

It is hard to believe the above isn’t a skit from SNL, too. Holy smokes.Huh, I guess not being able to see those transcripts and stuff is kind of important AFTER all.

And just for the hell of it, I have to share this little story with you about the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Taxpayers Pay $101,000 for Pelosi’s In-Flight ‘Food, Booze’ . I’m sure that’s in the Constitution, or the Declaration, or somewhere, that we should be shelling $1,000 a WEEK for food and booze for the Speaker:

It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for “in-flight services” – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That’s almost $1,000 per week.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time.

“Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said today. “And these documents suggest the Speaker’s congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else.”

Holy freakin’ frijoles, really?? And Obama gets up there mouthing crapola about cutting back? Please. The article continues:

Pelosi, D-Calif., recently joined President Obama on a Judicial Watch list of Top 10 corrupt politicians because of her “sense of entitlement,” the group said.

“Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline,” the evaluation said.

And WND reported almost a year ago that Pelosi was shown to have been erratically canceling and rescheduling flights, as one would with an on-call taxi service.

Do the tone-deaf lawmakers in D.C. make your blood boil? Read all about Washington and its politics of corruption in “Breach of Trust.”

“We have … folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc,” said one Department of Defense e-mail then.

Another official sent an e-mail questioning a series of Pelosi’s requests for aircraft.

“Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?” it stated. “[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case’…”

The e-mail noted that the speaker’s office had “a history of canceling many of their past requests.”

Just in case you were wondering, it is not FREE to prep these jets for possible use. Um, did Obama proclaim her Queen of the United States or something when we weren’t looking?? How full of herself can she possibly be?? Oh, wait, there’s more:

Yet another e-mail exchange at that time revealed Pelosi’s demand that jets pick her up at Travis Air Force Base rather than San Francisco’s airport.

“She lives about 1.5 hours from SFO and much closer to Travis. … Whether it is the best use of assets is not the question. But instead is it worth upsetting the speaker. …”

Said another, “This is a battle that we are bound to lose if we tell the speaker(’s) office. In the end, this is what will happen. I wish that I could say this is a one-time request, but we know it will probably happen again in the future.”

Yet another indicated a deep level of frustration:

“Here is the laydown: there are five G5s. Two are broke. Two off on CODELS. One slated for priority White House… we should keep on G-III for now for Tuesday afternoon and start sacrificing goats and chickens.”

Judicial Watch said the newly obtained 2,000 pages of documentation show Pelosi’s military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

HOLY SHIT. That is just obscene. Can you see the smoke coming out of my ears? Oh, but wait, there is still more:

Among the newest highlights revealed:

* Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. Of 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House speaker’s family.

* One CODEL traveling from Washington, D.C., through Tel Aviv, Israel, to Baghdad, Iraq, May 15-20, 2008, “to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders” included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. This flight included the purchase of the long list of alcoholic drinks.

* According to a “Memo for Record” from a March 29-April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, “CODEL could only bring kosher items into the hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. bourbon, whiskey, scotch, vodka, gin, triple sec, tequila, etc.

Pelosi’s office could not be reached for comment. The answering machine said the office would be closed until Monday, and the mailbox was full, so no messages could be left.

Judicial Watch Inc. describes itself as a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Maybe Judicial Watch could give Obama some tips on what exactly is in that Constitution, at least so this “scholar” knows the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Sounds like Pelosi better sit in, too…

As a lifelong Democrat (currently in recovery towards thinking entirely for myself), I can empathize with how great it must feel to be in charge again. Gloat, revel, wallow, rejoice–for a little while. But Democrats appear to have forgotten a couple of things. And for that there are no excuses.

Democrats have had more than enough time to enjoy their power sweep. People are hurting out here. We need some cooperation among our elected leaders. Obama’s presidency was going to be about bipartisanship, but I cannot recall a time when the divide has been deeper.

It won’t hurt to listen to what the Republicans have to say instead of insisting that they have not put forth any ideas. The truth appears to be that they have not been invited to put forth any of their many ideas. Maybe they have merit. Maybe they are crap. We don’t really know.

OK, OK, I understand. It’s turnabout time. It’s sweet revenge. The Republicans were just as bad about ignoring Democrats. But wasn’t this supposed to be about a different Washington? Don’t we need leaders fighting for us instead of this incessant bickering amongst themselves?

Yes, I heard Obama just say that he would meet (for how long was left unspecified) with Republican leaders once a month—that’s 36 times over a three year period. That could be 36 hours or even less.

So, look. The elephant is in the room. It wouldn’t hurt to see it and feed it more than a peanut or two.

Wow, Jon Stewart is really taking it to the Democrats, albeit in a state of disbelief. He cannot believe the way the Democrats are backing down. Already. After a year of having a super-majority. The best part, though, is the new Democratic logo at the very end (H/t to Pat):

Isn’t that hilarious? I know, I know, it is disparaging of Republicans in a way, while making clear the Republicans hold the power. How do they do that with a minority?? Interesting indeed.

Personally, I think an Ass is a perfect image for the DNC, especially given their behavior toward Hillary Clinton, and the incessant whining (braying?) they are doing. I am sure you can come up with some other possible images for the DNC.

And this is an Open Thread. Let’s hear what’s on your minds!

Reprinted from The Daily Beast with the express permission of the author.

The female CIA officers killed in December were a testament to the progress made in a historically paternalistic agency. Former CIA officer Valerie Wilson on the cracks in the spy world’s ceiling.

The shocking massacre in Khost, Afghanistan, on December 30th left seven CIA officers dead by an al Qaeda suicide bomber at their base. Among the fallen: two women, one the chief of base and reportedly a mother of three. She was no cardboard airhead figure toting an AK-47, but rather a highly trained intelligence professional who was doing her job when she and her colleagues paid the ultimate sacrifice. It is time to recognize that women play a vital role in ensuring our national security and that they are very much on the frontlines, taking all the same risks but recognized and credited much less than their male counterparts.

As a former covert CIA operations officer, I have always been nonplussed by the portrayal of female CIA officers in the popular media. The girl (and it’s always a girl) is usually nothing more substantial than a one-dimensional cartoon character, always stunningly sexy without much in the way of intellect to balance a heavy reliance on sheer physicality. For decades, the message has been drummed into the public mind that female CIA officers must rely on their good looks and clever ways with a weapon to be successful. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been asked by seemingly reasonable people whether I had to sleep with sources to get the intelligence, and did I carry a gun and have I ever killed anyone? The answer to each of those questions: no.

The female pioneers at the CIA were tough as nails—they had to be. I met some of these women during my time at the CIA and they could intimidate me like nobody else.

The CIA was the epitome of the “old boys club” for years. The World War II precursor to the CIA, the Office of Strategic Services, was often jokingly, but quite accurately, referred to as “Oh, So Social.” CIA’s premier spy cadre was carefully recruited from the male, moneyed, white, establishment crowd that went to the Ivies. For the first four decades of the CIA’s existence, the very few females that got into operations were usually drawn from the secretarial or support staffs. These smart, persistent, and gutsy women tired of seeing the men have all the fun and back-doored themselves into case-officer jobs—meeting and recruiting assets, planning ops, and in some rare cases in the 1970s, managing operations overseas. These women were tough as nails—they had to be—and they poured everything into their careers, often at the expense of their personal lives. I met some of these women during my time at the CIA and they could intimidate me like nobody else. My female colleagues and I owe them a deep debt of gratitude for their groundbreaking careers.

In the mid-1980s, with the Reagan military buildup to counter the perceived Soviet threat, the agency benefited and grew significantly in size. Under Director Bill Casey, the CIA loosened its recruitment policies, involving schools other than the Ivies. Additionally, they began hiring women specifically to go into operations. Of course, attitudes take a long time to change and many a dinosaur who thought women should really just be at home and not running clandestine agents still roamed the halls at headquarters. At one point, someone made an observation to me that I think helps explain the very slow acceptance of women ops officers in the CIA. She noted that white men, used to being on the top of the heap, in power and giving orders, identified most closely with young, white men like themselves. They understood them and felt comfortable being their bosses (“He’s just like me when I was a rookie!”). As a consequence, it was the young men who got the plum assignments and opportunities for advancement that didn’t come nearly as often for the women, despite increasing gender equality in the operational career track. The CIA’s increasing corporate commitment to diversity in the 1990s applied not only to gender, but to race and ethnicity as well. In the agency—as in workplaces across America—it takes time for attitudes and actions to catch up to the broader aspirations espoused at the top.

In 1991, women in the CIA had enough of the blatant discrimination and protested to senior agency officials. In response, the CIA commissioned the “Glass Ceiling Study” to see if artificial barriers against advancement existed. Surprise! They did. Partly as a result of the study, the agency was forced to pay out $1 million in 1995 to more than 400 women in a class-action suit involving sex discrimination. The case cited lack of promotions, harassment on the job, and dead-end assignments. In my opinion, the lawsuit cost women CIA officers some ground because it tended to ossify ingrained attitudes that the girls can’t play like the boys. However, it was necessary and did eventually help level the playing field.

Despite these cultural obstacles, there is a long and storied history of women serving their country loyally. From Julia Child to Virginia Hall (an OSS heroine who worked behind enemy lines in France during World War II), there is no doubt that women played critical roles in maintaining America’s national security. From my admittedly biased point of view, I don’t know why it took so long for the CIA to figure out that in many respects, women can make better operations officers. First of all, women are less threatening and, in many parts of the world, simply blend into the background and are dismissed as of little consequence. This obviously works to a woman’s advantage if she is making a clandestine meeting. Women know how to flatter, are generally more observant, and definitely read body language better. One of the most important skills an ops officer must have is the ability to walk into an unknown and perhaps dangerous environment (and this can’t be taught) to “get it” right away. Finally, there is the simple fact that being female offers the immediately understandable and obvious reason to be in a clandestine meeting with a male.

As I was working my way up the ranks at the CIA, I began to look around for a female mentor—someone who could show me how it was done. Someone who was able to retain her femininity, able to juggle a family, and still be respected for her operational judgment. I’m sorry to say that I never found that role model. All the potential mentors in the ops arena, at least, were either divorced, had no children, or struck me as dysfunctional in some way. It was distressing, but not surprising. That was the legacy of waiting so long to bring women into the ops ranks in a meaningful way. The glass ceiling at the CIA, like most of corporate America, is still in place, but at least it has plenty of cracks.

It is obvious that one doesn’t join the CIA for public glory. You can’t tell anyone where you really work. If you are killed in the line of duty, no one knows your name. What you do get is a star on the wall in the lobby at headquarters. One doesn’t join the CIA for financial gain. If you are lucky, and work really hard, you might retire at a level of GS-15, and make around $100,000 a year. One joins the CIA because it is a unique opportunity to serve your country, and at the risk of sounding too corny, serving something larger than yourself. You are doing something interesting, often overseas. I believe that there is a clear link between how female CIA officers are portrayed in the media and the continuing, if diminishing, discrimination against women in the agency itself. The chief of base who died in Khost deserves to be remembered in history as a woman doing her job in a dangerous part of the world, not some silly cartoon character.

Valerie Wilson is a former CIA operative whose covert identity was revealed in a syndicated newspaper article in 2003. She is the author of Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House.

.