This is really shaping up to be the worst election year in memory. The Republicans are falling apart as a political organization. They've been cultivating anti-government sentiment for so long they now are controlled by a majority that both thinks that they have some divine right to rule the country and that they should try to do their best to keep the government from doing anything. Well, that's a bit oversimplistic, but the point remains that they've adopted a scorched Earth attitude towards the debt ceiling, towards foreign relations, towards keeping the government open, and, most recently, towards the process of keeping SCOTUS nominations going forward.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Shootings in Connecticut
Well, in this past week we've seen a gunman go nuts and shoot people at a mall in Portland, Oregon, and then a few days later a gunman went nuts and shot his wife, a kindergarten teacher at a school in Newtown, Connecticut. And then shot 20 kids.
Monday, November 05, 2012
Election time
OK, might as well sum up my thoughts about tomorrow's election. It's no secret by now that I'm deeply disappointed in President Obama, especially his continuation and expansion of the worst of the War On Terror(TM) policies of President Bush. But I have no reason to think Mitt Romney would be any better. And I'm quite sure that he'd be far more beholden to the odious right wing theocrats that seem to have captured control of today's Republican party. So I can't vote for him.
On the other hand, if I vote for a person who is governing with a policy that denies basic rights of due process, I feel that some of that responsibility for this abuse of power would be validated by my vote. So I don't want to do that.
Luckily, as a resident of Maryland, I can vote my conscience without feeling that I'm helping Mitt Romney. I'll probably vote Green, as I think that's the best way of expressing my preferred direction for the country. At least for the Presidential race.
For Congress, I remember a couple years ago telling Chris Van Hollen that if he went with the tax cut deal of the lame duck Congress last time, I would oppose him. He has foiled my intent by redistricting me so I cannot vote against him. Damn you, Chris Van Hollen! My only possible retaliation will be to vote against the re-districting map with the hope that I can vote against him in the future.
On question 7, the motion to allow gambling at the National Harbor, I'm going to vote against it. Why? Because I'm morally opposed to gambling? No, not really. Because I don't care about a new revenue stream for schools? Well, here's my attitude about that. Money is fungible. So, every time the state wants to do something new to please some private special interest, all they need to do is hold education hostage to the promise of more dollars to spend. If the state wants to spend money on schools, they have the power to do so. It's not immediately clear to me that opening casinos will lead to a net gain in tax revenue to the state, or to educational revenue. I really strongly dislike this practice of holding the schools hostage. I suspect the measure will pass easily, even though I haven't seen any polling on it.
Oh wait, just checked. Polling says this is a close call. Also, I'm not saying I would boycott the casino if it opened. I'd be more likely to visit it than I am to go to Charlestown, WV.
Appalachia scares me.
The question about gay marriage rights is a no-brainer for me. I'll always support gay rights on this issue. My Ph.D. advisor is gay man. He and his partner are raising two young boys and are, to all appearances, doing as good as or a better job than most hetero couples that I know. The presumption of hetero superiority has no basis in fact.
Finally, there is the dispute about union powers in the police force. I don't exactly understand the issue. The pro- and anti-sides aren't exactly doing a favor with how they explain it. It seems basically to be this: the union has more power than the county government wants them to have.
I'm inclined to go pro-union here, for a number of reasons
- in general, I support public sector unions
- I strongly dislike Ike Leggett's usage of county funds to support a ballot measure
- PoD lobbies for the union involved.
Aside from that, on other races I'll look for the Apple Ballot and go with that. #mindlessdrone
Monday, November 07, 2011
a new attitude towards liberal thought
Just something I'm thinking about, looking at the nearly-defunct DCDL list.
These are dark days for liberal idealists. After enduring 8 years of incompetent warmongering conservatism, many hopes were raised when Barack Obama was elected. After all, Tea Partiers told us he was ultra-liberal. He promised to close Gitmo! Maybe he would enforce laws!
Well, that didn't really work out, did it? The party establishment has, by now, made it clear that they are far more interested in the desires of their wealthy donors than the desires of their rank-and-file. Liberals are repeatedly patronized and told that certain political strategies are "unrealistic," or that the US is a "center-right" nation, or that everybody loves conservatives. Meanwhile, not only are conservative policies driving the country into a ditch, they are wildly unpopular!
So, what's the solution? A "SUPER-committee" to ensure that odious policies that everybody hates are forced through Congress with little debate, and in a manner such that each party will be able to blame the other.
Seriously? This is the opposite of democracy.
Well, the US of A is in the midst of a creeping type of global class warfare, as the drumbeats of austerity economics beat on, flying in the face of their repeated failures internationally. Because - god forbid somebody be a Keynesian! God forbid somebody show some kind of tolerance for inflation!
Anyway, I was going to riff on the topic of the defeated liberals. Many liberals suffer from a delusion of living in an Enlightened State. By this I mean that they thing they have achieved some sort of Perfect Understanding of Human Nature and that all they need to do is Educate the Masses. Part of my inspiration here was from seeing the abandonment of DCDL, but part of it was from watching this:
MP@HB
(Yeah, Terry Gilliam is a wee bit un-PC there, isn't he.)
Anyway, if you approach liberal philosophy as an educational task to be conducted in earnest, you're probably going to burn out at a young age. The problem is that, a basic level, people suck. So trying to educate people to stop sucking so much is not something that's going to work.
And by "people suck" I mean, namely, that trying to convince the population of the virtues of an altruistic pursuit is hopeless. This kind of goal is a bad way to sell liberalism, as conservatives will smirk, and patronize, and lecture you about how young people with big hearts are liberals while wiser, older people become conservatives.
Liberal institutions and thought exist not because they satisfy some masturbatory need for people to feel good about themselves. They exist because they have fitness in an evolutionary sense. Keynesian economics exists because it was the only system that worked when free market capitalism brought the world economy to a screeching halt.
So, the key to selling liberal policies are that they work. Also, they are fair. And they have appeal to a broad base. Indeed, even the Republicans will pursue these kinds of policies when they need a boost in the polls. That's why the SUPER-DUPER-committee has been constructed in a way such that Obama will take the blame even as the government enacts right-wing policies.
That's enough for now.
These are dark days for liberal idealists. After enduring 8 years of incompetent warmongering conservatism, many hopes were raised when Barack Obama was elected. After all, Tea Partiers told us he was ultra-liberal. He promised to close Gitmo! Maybe he would enforce laws!
Well, that didn't really work out, did it? The party establishment has, by now, made it clear that they are far more interested in the desires of their wealthy donors than the desires of their rank-and-file. Liberals are repeatedly patronized and told that certain political strategies are "unrealistic," or that the US is a "center-right" nation, or that everybody loves conservatives. Meanwhile, not only are conservative policies driving the country into a ditch, they are wildly unpopular!
So, what's the solution? A "SUPER-committee" to ensure that odious policies that everybody hates are forced through Congress with little debate, and in a manner such that each party will be able to blame the other.
Seriously? This is the opposite of democracy.
Well, the US of A is in the midst of a creeping type of global class warfare, as the drumbeats of austerity economics beat on, flying in the face of their repeated failures internationally. Because - god forbid somebody be a Keynesian! God forbid somebody show some kind of tolerance for inflation!
Anyway, I was going to riff on the topic of the defeated liberals. Many liberals suffer from a delusion of living in an Enlightened State. By this I mean that they thing they have achieved some sort of Perfect Understanding of Human Nature and that all they need to do is Educate the Masses. Part of my inspiration here was from seeing the abandonment of DCDL, but part of it was from watching this:
MP@HB
(Yeah, Terry Gilliam is a wee bit un-PC there, isn't he.)
Anyway, if you approach liberal philosophy as an educational task to be conducted in earnest, you're probably going to burn out at a young age. The problem is that, a basic level, people suck. So trying to educate people to stop sucking so much is not something that's going to work.
And by "people suck" I mean, namely, that trying to convince the population of the virtues of an altruistic pursuit is hopeless. This kind of goal is a bad way to sell liberalism, as conservatives will smirk, and patronize, and lecture you about how young people with big hearts are liberals while wiser, older people become conservatives.
Liberal institutions and thought exist not because they satisfy some masturbatory need for people to feel good about themselves. They exist because they have fitness in an evolutionary sense. Keynesian economics exists because it was the only system that worked when free market capitalism brought the world economy to a screeching halt.
So, the key to selling liberal policies are that they work. Also, they are fair. And they have appeal to a broad base. Indeed, even the Republicans will pursue these kinds of policies when they need a boost in the polls. That's why the SUPER-DUPER-committee has been constructed in a way such that Obama will take the blame even as the government enacts right-wing policies.
That's enough for now.
Monday, August 10, 2009
today's anti-health care idiocy
From the Investor's Business Daily:
As Jay Bookman points out,
He's far too kind. They are simply soulless atavistic liars.
They really are sociopaths.
People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
As Jay Bookman points out,
Of course, that same Stephen Hawking who wouldn’t have a chance in the United Kingdom was in fact born in the United Kingdom, has lived his entire life in the United Kingdom and lives there still today, at the ripe old age of 67. (He was in fact hospitalized earlier this month.) Hawking is, you might say, living, breathing proof that these people are first-class fools.
He's far too kind. They are simply soulless atavistic liars.
They really are sociopaths.
Friday, April 24, 2009
stupidity lacking self-awareness
Watch Joe Barton, R-Texas, think he's posed a stumper to Nobel Prize Winner and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu.
What is shocking here is not just that Barton's question is so idiotic, but that he thinks he's stumped Dr. Chu! Indeed, Barton is the one who posted this to YouTube!
And that's the kind of ignorant arrogance that science has to deal with.
What is shocking here is not just that Barton's question is so idiotic, but that he thinks he's stumped Dr. Chu! Indeed, Barton is the one who posted this to YouTube!
And that's the kind of ignorant arrogance that science has to deal with.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Whee!!!
Look at this graph I purloined from Swampland:
I wonder when it will be considered "conventional wisdom" that this generation of Republican leaders is just a bunch of self-serving idiots?
Poor Hunter S. Thompson. He saw all of this clearly over twenty years ago, but despaired at the lack of justice in the world.
I wonder when it will be considered "conventional wisdom" that this generation of Republican leaders is just a bunch of self-serving idiots?
Poor Hunter S. Thompson. He saw all of this clearly over twenty years ago, but despaired at the lack of justice in the world.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
media death and the importance of blogging
Was pointed by Atrios to this article by Jay Rosen about the way the mass media frames the boundaries of consensus and "legitimate debate". It's pretty good. I won't repeat what he says since you can just click through. But basically it's about the cognitive shortcomings of the press when they decide certain issues are part of the "consensus" mindset while other opinions are "extremist". This model explains how Howard Dean is portrayed as a lunatic extremist in 2004 for putting forth the same ideas about withdrawal from Iraq that are part of the national consensus (outside the corridors of power, of course) by 2008.
I also heard last night that the Christian Science Monitor is going to stop killing as many trees, and only go with a print edition once per week. My mom subscribed to this paper when I was a kid, and I always thought it did a decent job. They seemed to do a better job with foreign policy than almost every major newspaper did. While listening to the story of their demise, it occurred to me that the death of the daily newspaper is inevitable. I'm sure this is not a new idea, but it had never been made so clear to me.
Finally, I'll add a note about Mickey Edwards. I heard him on NPR last night and I was impressed. He's a Republican and former Bush supporter who, curiously, is one of the few people who is willing to talk about the constant and egregious violations of the law and Constitution that Bush has engaged in over the past 8 years. For some reason, the world of debate that the media has created simply refuses to allow for the idea that Bush has been consistently violating the law and abusing power for the past 8 years. From my standpoint, it's the most obvious thing to see, but the media don't even allow discussion along these lines to ever be aired.
And that is part of why the mainstream media are held in such contempt by so many people these days.
I also heard last night that the Christian Science Monitor is going to stop killing as many trees, and only go with a print edition once per week. My mom subscribed to this paper when I was a kid, and I always thought it did a decent job. They seemed to do a better job with foreign policy than almost every major newspaper did. While listening to the story of their demise, it occurred to me that the death of the daily newspaper is inevitable. I'm sure this is not a new idea, but it had never been made so clear to me.
Finally, I'll add a note about Mickey Edwards. I heard him on NPR last night and I was impressed. He's a Republican and former Bush supporter who, curiously, is one of the few people who is willing to talk about the constant and egregious violations of the law and Constitution that Bush has engaged in over the past 8 years. For some reason, the world of debate that the media has created simply refuses to allow for the idea that Bush has been consistently violating the law and abusing power for the past 8 years. From my standpoint, it's the most obvious thing to see, but the media don't even allow discussion along these lines to ever be aired.
And that is part of why the mainstream media are held in such contempt by so many people these days.
Monday, November 03, 2008
election predictions
Well, it has become the fashion to publish predictions for the election. I just follow the news, but what the heck, seeing as I pick football games every weekend, why not do so for the election?
PRESIDENTIAL
Well, of course Obama wins. He's well ahead in many of the polls.
As to the State-by-State particulars...
for starters, Obama will probably win every Kerry state. The only one that might flip is New Hampshire. McCain has been putting a lot of effort into trying to make a dent in Pennsylvania, but it will be for naught. I even think that he might know that, but feels that he has to make the effort, or else it will be obvious that he's given up.
For poll details, I suggest FiveThirtyEight.com.
The Bush states where Obama has been leading in polls include
Iowa (+>10%), New Mexico (+8-17%), Colorado (+4-10%), Virginia (+4-9%), Ohio (-2-+9%), Nevada (+4-10%). These have been leads of a reasonably consistent margin.
Other possibilities include Florida and North Carolina, where Nate Silver's simulations tend to favor Obama. Next in line is Missouri, which is the nearest thing to a true toss-up we see.
Red states that might flip in a true landslide include Indiana, Georgia, Montana, and North Dakota.
When I add the states in the first group to Obama's column, his total rises to 311. If I put all the states in the last group into McCain's column, he's at 174.
I'm going to put NC in McCain's column, and FL and MO in Obama's column. The last two are a bit dicey, as both states are notorious for voter suppression. But, what the heck, eh?
If all of this happens, Obama will win 349-189.
PoD says Obama will get 326. He flips NC, FL, and MO from my picks.
Landru says the exact same, but informs me "I said so first".
OK, so now I've changed my mind and switched NC and MO. That would make it 353 for Obama, 185 for McCain.
I have nothing to add about the House or Senate races.
PRESIDENTIAL
Well, of course Obama wins. He's well ahead in many of the polls.
As to the State-by-State particulars...
for starters, Obama will probably win every Kerry state. The only one that might flip is New Hampshire. McCain has been putting a lot of effort into trying to make a dent in Pennsylvania, but it will be for naught. I even think that he might know that, but feels that he has to make the effort, or else it will be obvious that he's given up.
For poll details, I suggest FiveThirtyEight.com.
The Bush states where Obama has been leading in polls include
Iowa (+>10%), New Mexico (+8-17%), Colorado (+4-10%), Virginia (+4-9%), Ohio (-2-+9%), Nevada (+4-10%). These have been leads of a reasonably consistent margin.
Other possibilities include Florida and North Carolina, where Nate Silver's simulations tend to favor Obama. Next in line is Missouri, which is the nearest thing to a true toss-up we see.
Red states that might flip in a true landslide include Indiana, Georgia, Montana, and North Dakota.
When I add the states in the first group to Obama's column, his total rises to 311. If I put all the states in the last group into McCain's column, he's at 174.
I'm going to put NC in McCain's column, and FL and MO in Obama's column. The last two are a bit dicey, as both states are notorious for voter suppression. But, what the heck, eh?
If all of this happens, Obama will win 349-189.
PoD says Obama will get 326. He flips NC, FL, and MO from my picks.
Landru says the exact same, but informs me "I said so first".
OK, so now I've changed my mind and switched NC and MO. That would make it 353 for Obama, 185 for McCain.
I have nothing to add about the House or Senate races.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
debate review
Well, this one is easy. One candidate had a flag lapel pin. The other one didn't.
Makes it easy to decide who I'm voting for.
Makes it easy to decide who I'm voting for.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
the delicious SS
Check out Sarah Silverman's new ad.
For some reason, Ilse refuses to use her connections to make an introduction. Jimmy's out of the picture! SS would adore me!
For some reason, Ilse refuses to use her connections to make an introduction. Jimmy's out of the picture! SS would adore me!
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Other People's Money
or.. How The Oligarchy Threw Away Free Market Capitalism in Favor of Corporate Welfare
Something has been going on this week. Well, more correctly, something has been going on the past year or so. Ever since the real estate market (predictably!) went south, all sorts of lending institutions have had to deal with bad loans. First, there were the banks themselves. But since the banks had bundled their risky loans and sold them off to investment houses, the bad debts also hit the big investment houses. But that wasn't the end of it. The banks investment houses had gotten the loans insured and so some big insurance companies were in trouble to.
I don't want to rehash all the details here. There are better places to follow the story.
Anyhow, what's happening now? It appears that a lot of rich and powerful people who thought that it was fine and dandy to let people see their houses foreclosed are much less willing to let a bank fail, much less an insurance giant. So, the rich and powerful have decided that the only way out is for the American taxpayer bail them out.
To the tune of $700 billion.
What is shocking is not that Yet Another Bailout of Irresponsible Corporate Leaders has proposed. What is shocking is the instant consensus that This Must Be Done.
Fuck the rich. I get sick of their bullshit.
Anybody who supports this bailout should be required to never again talk about the virtues of "small government" or the need for tax cuts to "stimulate the economy", or any of that right-wing bullshit that has grabbed hold of the Baby Boomer mindset for the past two decades. More than anything else, I'm sick and tired of half-educated twits pretending to understand economics, and then whining about how "unexpected circumstances" led to their decisions to completely fuck over the American taxpayer.
Going back to the beginning: bundling high-risk loans never served to reduce the risk. Not really. One of the basic motivating ideas behind diversifying investments is that, when many high-risk investments are bundled together, the total risk is decreased. However, this theory depends on mutual independence of the risk involved. In the case of high-risk mortgages, it should have been patently obvious that the notion of independent risks was a facade. Indeed, all of the mortgage values depended on the state of the (bubbling!) real estate market, and when the market went down, all of the mortgages became bad debt.
But the really disappointing thing here is the complete acquiescence to the oligarchic view that it is the duty of American taxpayers to hand over $700 billion to the Treasury secretary, for him to use as he sees fit.
The new model for American crony capitalism is: risk whatever the hell you want. If the market bears the risk, you win big time. If it doesn't, and it looks like the industry is in trouble, well, you can just pass on the losses to the American taxpayer.
This isn't capitalism. It is a theory of economic structure that has taken the basic notion of "limited liability" to its obscene logical conclusion.
As usual, it seems the Glenn Greenwald is one of the only people who captures the obscenity of the practice adequately.
Final thought: $700 billion is a hell of a lot of money. Let me put this in perspective....usually I compare any spending proposal to the budget of the NIH, an organization I know well. In this case, we're off by an order of magnitude (or two).
How do I place $700 billion? Well....this is more than the defense budget of the United States of America for 2009.
This is highway robbery. Where is this money coming from? Of course, the government is simply increasing its debt ceiling.
Updated 9/25
Apparently a deal is in the works. Pelosi is quite content to fork over $700 billion to the Bush administration to bail out the reckless bank leaders.
This proposal has the support of something like 8-10% of the country! Why on earth are representatives going along with it? And the big concessions that Pelosi is trumpeting are
(a) she didn't go along with the original language, which would have allowed Paulson to write himself a check for $509 billion with no legal recourse whatsoever (duh!)
(b) There is going to be some provision to limit executive pay.
As a taxpayer, I could care less about (b). What I care about is the massive burden being placed on the taxpayer!
I am fairly certain that this is a simple "stick-up" by arrogant bankers with a wish list. "Give us $700 billion or...the world will blow up!"
I cannot support this step. I'm strongly considering re-registering as an Independent again.
Something has been going on this week. Well, more correctly, something has been going on the past year or so. Ever since the real estate market (predictably!) went south, all sorts of lending institutions have had to deal with bad loans. First, there were the banks themselves. But since the banks had bundled their risky loans and sold them off to investment houses, the bad debts also hit the big investment houses. But that wasn't the end of it. The banks investment houses had gotten the loans insured and so some big insurance companies were in trouble to.
I don't want to rehash all the details here. There are better places to follow the story.
Anyhow, what's happening now? It appears that a lot of rich and powerful people who thought that it was fine and dandy to let people see their houses foreclosed are much less willing to let a bank fail, much less an insurance giant. So, the rich and powerful have decided that the only way out is for the American taxpayer bail them out.
To the tune of $700 billion.
What is shocking is not that Yet Another Bailout of Irresponsible Corporate Leaders has proposed. What is shocking is the instant consensus that This Must Be Done.
Fuck the rich. I get sick of their bullshit.
Anybody who supports this bailout should be required to never again talk about the virtues of "small government" or the need for tax cuts to "stimulate the economy", or any of that right-wing bullshit that has grabbed hold of the Baby Boomer mindset for the past two decades. More than anything else, I'm sick and tired of half-educated twits pretending to understand economics, and then whining about how "unexpected circumstances" led to their decisions to completely fuck over the American taxpayer.
Going back to the beginning: bundling high-risk loans never served to reduce the risk. Not really. One of the basic motivating ideas behind diversifying investments is that, when many high-risk investments are bundled together, the total risk is decreased. However, this theory depends on mutual independence of the risk involved. In the case of high-risk mortgages, it should have been patently obvious that the notion of independent risks was a facade. Indeed, all of the mortgage values depended on the state of the (bubbling!) real estate market, and when the market went down, all of the mortgages became bad debt.
But the really disappointing thing here is the complete acquiescence to the oligarchic view that it is the duty of American taxpayers to hand over $700 billion to the Treasury secretary, for him to use as he sees fit.
The new model for American crony capitalism is: risk whatever the hell you want. If the market bears the risk, you win big time. If it doesn't, and it looks like the industry is in trouble, well, you can just pass on the losses to the American taxpayer.
This isn't capitalism. It is a theory of economic structure that has taken the basic notion of "limited liability" to its obscene logical conclusion.
As usual, it seems the Glenn Greenwald is one of the only people who captures the obscenity of the practice adequately.
...whatever else is true, the events of the last week are the most momentous events of the Bush era in terms of defining what kind of country we are and how we function -- and before this week, the last eight years have been quite momentous, so that is saying a lot. Again, regardless of whether this nationalization/bailout scheme is "necessary" or makes utilitarian sense, it is a crime of the highest order -- not a "crime" in the legal sense but in a more meaningful sense.
What is more intrinsically corrupt than allowing people to engage in high-reward/no-risk capitalism -- where they reap tens of millions of dollars and more every year while their reckless gambles are paying off only to then have the Government shift their losses to the citizenry at large once their schemes collapse? We've retroactively created a win-only system where the wealthiest corporations and their shareholders are free to gamble for as long as they win and then force others who have no upside to pay for their losses. Watching Wall St. erupt with an orgy of celebration on Friday after it became clear the Government (i.e., you) would pay for their disaster was literally nauseating, as the very people who wreaked this havoc are now being rewarded.
More amazingly, they're free to walk away without having to disgorge their gains; at worst, they're just "forced" to walk away without any further stake in the gamble. How can these bailouts not at least be categorically conditioned on the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from those who are responsible? The mere fact that shareholders might lose their stake going forward doesn't resolve that concern; why should those who so fantastically profited from these schemes they couldn't support walk away with their gains? This is "redistribution of wealth" and "government takeover of industry" on the grandest scale imaginable -- the buzzphrases that have been thrown around for decades to represent all that is evil and bad in the world. That's all this is; it's not an "investment" by the Government in any real sense but just a magical transfer of losses away from those who are responsible for these losses to those who aren't.
And all of this was both foreseeable as well as foreseen -- see the 2002 grave warnings from Warren Buffett on pages 14-15 of his shareholders letter (.pdf), among many other things -- and it's also happened before, when the Federal Government bailed out the S&L industry that (with John McCain's help) was able to gamble recklessly and then force the country to protect them from their losses. The people who did this have no fear of anything -- they completely lack the kind of healthy fear that impedes reckless behavior -- because they know how our Government works and that they control it and thus believe that their capacity to suffer is limited in the extreme. And they're right about that.
What's most vital to underscore is that the beneficiaries of this week's extraordinary Government schemes aren't just the coincidental recipients of largesse due to some random stroke of good luck. The people on whose behalf these schemes are being implemented -- the true beneficiaries -- are the very same people who have been running and owning our Government -- both parties -- for decades, which is why they have been able to do what they've been doing without interference. They were able to gamble without limit because they control the Government, and now they're having others bear the brunt of their collapse for the same reason -- because the Government is largely run for their benefit.
If there is any "pitchfork moment" -- an episode that understandably would send people into the streets in mass outrage -- it would be this. Nobody really even seems to know how much of these losses "the Government" -- meaning working people who had no part in the profits from these transactions -- is undertaking virtually overnight but it's at least a trillion dollars, an amount so vast it's hard to comprehend, let alone analyze in terms of consequences. The transactions are way too complex even for the most sophisticated financial analysts to understand, let alone value. Whatever else is true, generations of Americans are almost certainly going to be severely burdened in untold ways by the events of the last week -- ones that have been carried out largely without any debate and mostly in secret.
Final thought: $700 billion is a hell of a lot of money. Let me put this in perspective....usually I compare any spending proposal to the budget of the NIH, an organization I know well. In this case, we're off by an order of magnitude (or two).
How do I place $700 billion? Well....this is more than the defense budget of the United States of America for 2009.
This is highway robbery. Where is this money coming from? Of course, the government is simply increasing its debt ceiling.
Updated 9/25
Apparently a deal is in the works. Pelosi is quite content to fork over $700 billion to the Bush administration to bail out the reckless bank leaders.
This proposal has the support of something like 8-10% of the country! Why on earth are representatives going along with it? And the big concessions that Pelosi is trumpeting are
(a) she didn't go along with the original language, which would have allowed Paulson to write himself a check for $509 billion with no legal recourse whatsoever (duh!)
(b) There is going to be some provision to limit executive pay.
As a taxpayer, I could care less about (b). What I care about is the massive burden being placed on the taxpayer!
I am fairly certain that this is a simple "stick-up" by arrogant bankers with a wish list. "Give us $700 billion or...the world will blow up!"
I cannot support this step. I'm strongly considering re-registering as an Independent again.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
VP Palin?
No, not this guy.
The word is that McCain is selecting Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, to be his running mate. Here she is:
She was a local politician until 2006, when she was elected Governor.
Given McCain's age, this is the person supposed to be a heartbeat from the Presidency?
And this is why, Landru's pessimism notwithstanding, I remain convinced Obama will win in November. Not because the Democrats are particularly well-organized. But McCain? He's a dopey candidate. He's low on funds, pisses off conservatives, and makes blunders like this one.
Well, at least Gov. Palin isn't pro-choice! Is that what the Republican party is saying? Mitt Romney would be far more qualified (even though he is a sleazeball) and if McCain wanted to pick a female governor, Jodi Rell of Connecticut is far more experienced and well-liked by people of both parties.
But the powers of the GOP won't allow that.
The word is that McCain is selecting Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, to be his running mate. Here she is:
She was a local politician until 2006, when she was elected Governor.
Given McCain's age, this is the person supposed to be a heartbeat from the Presidency?
And this is why, Landru's pessimism notwithstanding, I remain convinced Obama will win in November. Not because the Democrats are particularly well-organized. But McCain? He's a dopey candidate. He's low on funds, pisses off conservatives, and makes blunders like this one.
Well, at least Gov. Palin isn't pro-choice! Is that what the Republican party is saying? Mitt Romney would be far more qualified (even though he is a sleazeball) and if McCain wanted to pick a female governor, Jodi Rell of Connecticut is far more experienced and well-liked by people of both parties.
But the powers of the GOP won't allow that.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
living in America
Have we achieved the idiocracy yet?
I raise this question because crack reporter Amy Chozick of the Wall Street Journal, generally considered to be one of the most reputable print journals in the United States, if not the world, has asked the important and timely question: Is Barack Obama Too Fit to Be President?
Sadly No! has the best take on this absurdity here and here.
I raise this question because crack reporter Amy Chozick of the Wall Street Journal, generally considered to be one of the most reputable print journals in the United States, if not the world, has asked the important and timely question: Is Barack Obama Too Fit to Be President?
Sadly No! has the best take on this absurdity here and here.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
defending those who have done wrong
The events of the past few days have underscored in my mind the need for defense attorneys, even for people who are clearly guilty of something. It also reminds me of the Clinton impeachment.
With Bill Clinton and Bill Belichick, in both cases we had people who had clearly done something wrong. But the problem is that, once the wrongdoing is exposed, it's easy for more accusations to arise which may or may not be founded. In Clinton's case, the wrongdoing was the affair with Lewinsky. The evidence of dishonesty, however, has led to oodles of conspiracy theories as absurd as that he was behind the deaths of Vince Foster and/or Ron Brown.
In Belichick's case, the wrongdoing was illicitly taping signals of opposing coaches during games. The pile-on was the accusation that he had also taped the Rams' walk-through practice before the Super Bowl in 2001.
It is difficult to stand up and defend somebody who has already been exposed as a cheater. Indeed, it is much easier to pile on, since anybody who defended BB in the past few months was derided as a loyalist kool-aid drinker. But when I saw Belichick dismiss as absurd the notion that they taped the walk-through, it seemed true to me. Not because he seemed particularly honest at the time, but because the explanation was so mundane and dismissive. He said, basically, that it would be pointless to tape a walk-through because you would get no information out of it.
The fact that the original story in the Herald was unsourced and never was verified, and that the entire Patriots organization was so vehement about its falsity, convinced me that there was no tape out there. I wasn't convinced that there never had been a tape, but I figured BB was smart enough not to allow Bob Kraft to be so explicit if there was any chance he'd be exposed as a liar.
I figured in the worst case, Walsh would say that there had been a tape, but he didn't have a copy. But the news is even more favorable for the Pats: not only is there no tape, but everybody involved agrees that there never was a tape.
Shame on the Boston Herald for ruining the Super Bowl experience for all Patriots' fans. Publishing an unverified story two days before the Super Bowl was inexcusable. I know that the Patriots won't use this as an excuse, but I have to think that bit of hullaballoo hurt their ability to focus on the football that day.
With Bill Clinton and Bill Belichick, in both cases we had people who had clearly done something wrong. But the problem is that, once the wrongdoing is exposed, it's easy for more accusations to arise which may or may not be founded. In Clinton's case, the wrongdoing was the affair with Lewinsky. The evidence of dishonesty, however, has led to oodles of conspiracy theories as absurd as that he was behind the deaths of Vince Foster and/or Ron Brown.
In Belichick's case, the wrongdoing was illicitly taping signals of opposing coaches during games. The pile-on was the accusation that he had also taped the Rams' walk-through practice before the Super Bowl in 2001.
It is difficult to stand up and defend somebody who has already been exposed as a cheater. Indeed, it is much easier to pile on, since anybody who defended BB in the past few months was derided as a loyalist kool-aid drinker. But when I saw Belichick dismiss as absurd the notion that they taped the walk-through, it seemed true to me. Not because he seemed particularly honest at the time, but because the explanation was so mundane and dismissive. He said, basically, that it would be pointless to tape a walk-through because you would get no information out of it.
The fact that the original story in the Herald was unsourced and never was verified, and that the entire Patriots organization was so vehement about its falsity, convinced me that there was no tape out there. I wasn't convinced that there never had been a tape, but I figured BB was smart enough not to allow Bob Kraft to be so explicit if there was any chance he'd be exposed as a liar.
I figured in the worst case, Walsh would say that there had been a tape, but he didn't have a copy. But the news is even more favorable for the Pats: not only is there no tape, but everybody involved agrees that there never was a tape.
Shame on the Boston Herald for ruining the Super Bowl experience for all Patriots' fans. Publishing an unverified story two days before the Super Bowl was inexcusable. I know that the Patriots won't use this as an excuse, but I have to think that bit of hullaballoo hurt their ability to focus on the football that day.
Friday, March 21, 2008
and Andrew Sullivan, to boot
His explanation as to why he was wrong on href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/what-i-got-wron.html">Iraq.
Well, do you think that, before you start talking about invading a country, you might learn something about the country you are proposing to invade? Let's keep in mind that, before pretty much every invasion in history, the jingoists think that the war will be quick and easy. In some cases, like the American Civil War, both sides feel that way!
American foreign policy discussions are really conducted on a frighteningly childish level.
I was distracted by the internal American debate to the occlusion of the reality of Iraq.
Well, do you think that, before you start talking about invading a country, you might learn something about the country you are proposing to invade? Let's keep in mind that, before pretty much every invasion in history, the jingoists think that the war will be quick and easy. In some cases, like the American Civil War, both sides feel that way!
American foreign policy discussions are really conducted on a frighteningly childish level.
Condi Rice
Well, we now see that after her disastrous tenure as National Security Advisor, which included the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil as well as horrible advice which led to the Iraq war, the costliest foreign policy debacle in American history, that she cannot even run the State Department in a way that keeps people from occasionally rifling through the files of Presidential candidates.
And people still talk about her reverentially? This is a woman who told bold-faced lies to Congress under oath.
Moral of the story: the Republicans are so desperate to have a token black woman they'll let Rice get away with incompetence time and time again.
And people still talk about her reverentially? This is a woman who told bold-faced lies to Congress under oath.
Moral of the story: the Republicans are so desperate to have a token black woman they'll let Rice get away with incompetence time and time again.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
politicization of DoJ
A quick hit:
back in 2000, I repeatedly ran into Bush supporters who argued with a straight face that there was nothing wrong with what Katherine Harris was doing in Florida. After all, she had won the election to be the Secretary of State, so she had the power to do what she wished, even if that meant putting all of her energies into making sure George W. Bush was elected.
This argument was advanced in all sincerity! When I tried to argue that she was supposed to serve the interests of the citizens of Florida and maintain fair elections, that criticism was laughed away as being hopelessly naive. "The Democrats would do the same thing" I was told, and numerous people made vague references to JFK's triumph in 1960 as if that were the only proof they needed.
I guess they skipped the "Two wrongs don't make a right" part of ethics instruction.
Anyway, what is going on now at DoJ is directly analogous to what Harris did in Florida in 2000. Harris then, and Gonzales now, have been using the power of the state to directly advance the interests of the Republican party instead of the interests of justice. At DoJ, this is most dramatically seen with the various USAs who were fired either for refusing to investigate Democrats or for having the gall to investigate Republicans. But a lot more of this kind of "party first!" thinking has been going on.
What's my point? Anybody who is surprised at all the scandals that have arisen with Bush wasn't really paying attention during the Florida recount, when it become perfectly clear that Bush had no respect for the rule of law and was utterly focused solely on advancing his own interests at every step. As usual with this kind of thing, Republican projection launched the identical complaint at Al Gore, and the GOP-friendly media lapped it up.
*sigh*
I think it's naive to assume this problem will go away once W. and his family move to extradition-safe Paraguay after he leaves office.
back in 2000, I repeatedly ran into Bush supporters who argued with a straight face that there was nothing wrong with what Katherine Harris was doing in Florida. After all, she had won the election to be the Secretary of State, so she had the power to do what she wished, even if that meant putting all of her energies into making sure George W. Bush was elected.
This argument was advanced in all sincerity! When I tried to argue that she was supposed to serve the interests of the citizens of Florida and maintain fair elections, that criticism was laughed away as being hopelessly naive. "The Democrats would do the same thing" I was told, and numerous people made vague references to JFK's triumph in 1960 as if that were the only proof they needed.
I guess they skipped the "Two wrongs don't make a right" part of ethics instruction.
Anyway, what is going on now at DoJ is directly analogous to what Harris did in Florida in 2000. Harris then, and Gonzales now, have been using the power of the state to directly advance the interests of the Republican party instead of the interests of justice. At DoJ, this is most dramatically seen with the various USAs who were fired either for refusing to investigate Democrats or for having the gall to investigate Republicans. But a lot more of this kind of "party first!" thinking has been going on.
What's my point? Anybody who is surprised at all the scandals that have arisen with Bush wasn't really paying attention during the Florida recount, when it become perfectly clear that Bush had no respect for the rule of law and was utterly focused solely on advancing his own interests at every step. As usual with this kind of thing, Republican projection launched the identical complaint at Al Gore, and the GOP-friendly media lapped it up.
*sigh*
I think it's naive to assume this problem will go away once W. and his family move to extradition-safe Paraguay after he leaves office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)