Tuesday Open Thread
I've been out of the news cycle this weekend and now come back to the fun Obama controversy. Has the gleam faded a bit or is everyone clapping louder? :) Just checking.
Happy Tuesday!
Submitted by Ender on Tue, 2008-03-18 10:27
Tags:

Comments :
Excellent point from SadlyNo!
"While surveying the wreckage of the American economy,
the Iraq war and just about everything else that’s happened under Bush’s watch over the past seven-plus years today, I remembered something remarkable:
The Republicans actually impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a hummer.
How in God’s name are we going to explain this s**t to our children?"
Virtual Stock Market Game
Be sure to check out my diary
and "RSVP" for the game. I think we should start next Monday. We can do rolling admissions, but it'd probably be fairer if we start at the same time.
So far I, skymutt, and Brendan are in with more sure to come.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
is there a Game ID set up? n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Here you go:
Game ID: swordscrossed
Game Name: Swords Crossed
Password: bernankerulez
The game starts on the 24th. Try to be signed up by then.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
The Supreme Court hears Arguments on the DC handgun case.
Washington DC put through a law limiting residents from owning hand guns.
This is what the Supreme Court heard aruments on today.
GoRight will be pleased to learn that Chief Justice Roberts is quoted as saying:
"What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?"
The law, as it is written is going to go down in flames.
With the current make up of the Supreme Court, progressives have to be careful about what they want this bunch to rule on.
My own take? DC should have done a couple different things. They could have required trigger locks. They could have required guns be stored w/o ammo. They went whole hog and now they are gonna lose. Honestly, I think they should lose.
Got Audio?
If anyone can provide a link to the audio of the hearing, I'd be very thankful. Apparently, the audio feed will be expedited due to the controversial nature of the case.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
CNN has a live audio link
on the front page.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Audio and transcript ...
The NRA has both an audio link and a transcript up at:
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10767
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Thanks Ender
I sure hope the Supremes rule in favor of Heller. I don't think the decision will be as far reaching as do most. Many state constitutions protect the right to defend oneself in no uncertain terms.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
This is GoRight! :)
Both the NRA site (which points to CSPAN) and the CSPAN front page use RTSP which for whatever reason isn't working for me. I am probably missing a plugin or something.
The transcript is there though.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Sorry!
I just saw two red bars and Ender's name.
MPlayer does a nice job of grabbing the file. I know MPlayer has a windows port, but I don't know if it works as well:
stinerman@stine-1:/audio$ mplayer rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc031808_2amendment.rm -dumpstream
Downloads and saves to disk. (that's all on one line, obviously)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I just followed the instructions on the cspan site.
For some reason they prefer RealPlayer. After installing it it seems to be working fine. You don't have to wait for the entire download to start listening.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I don't get them
I have no idea why they can't just post an http or ftp link to a file. Streaming via RealPlayer (or Windows Media for that matter) is very last century.
The audio has no copyright attachment, so I don't understand why they think they need to make a half-assed attempt at copy protection by making it an rtsp stream...
*sigh*
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
SC Meeting in SL Wednesday night
Come help me maintain my blood pressure.
It was a seriously far left representation last time. Only the timely arrival of Catlett kept me from losing it with everyone there.
Here's Catlett. Ex-career Navy officer, ex-Annapolis instructor, currently a corporate lawyer. Types amazingly fast. Very poor dresser. Audrey is posed behind him.
Even an attempt to lighten the mood with Groucho Marx attire (a play on Audrey's screen name) failed. Love BackHome's shirt though ("If we quit voting will they all go away?")
And just for fun, my latest look. I'm playing a MMOG within SL set in medieval times. It's just an excuse for long dresses and tiaras.
Yes, it's silly, but without the visuals and a 3D world to move around it, it would just be a chat room ;}
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Did you see that Philip Rosedale
said Friday that he will step down, sending the company that created the virtual world Second Life on a hunt for a CEO.
Rosedale will become chairman of the board once the new CEO is found and plans to devote himself full time to "vision, strategy and design" at Linden Lab, he wrote in his blog.
"Second Life is my life's work, and I am not going anywhere!" he wrote. "As a community member, you will probably see more of me in-world."
E. J. Dionne on welfare for Capitalists
exactly
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
heh, interesting... any libertarian response? n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What's there to respond to?
It's just emoting...there's no specific criticism to defend because there's not a specific criticism levied (unless one is to believe that Libertarians are in favor of the Fed sponsored bailout.)"
The libertarians on the board have had very specific suggestions which would have averted the housing bubble in the first place and thus nipped the securitized financial crisis in the bud (ie the uber-easy credit via easy Federal Reserve policy under Greenspan and Bernanke.) Alas, the Fed is now cleaning up the mess it's made. I've asked specifically what solutions should be pursued from the other side...it would be nice to hear them so I could respond, but I just hear "more regulation".... whatever it means.
Again, I believe we need to figure out if we want the Federal Reserve to manage Wall Street or do the task that it's reasonably able to do...manage the money supply.
This was Ron Paul from the House Financial Committee floor...I don't think you have to be a gold bug to see his point. We're ignoring fundamental flaws.
That was good.
It makes me begin to imagine an Obama-Paul ticket. I think that would be quite interesting!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I think the term is pretty clear, personally.
The problem occurred in large part because nobody was minding the store. Instead we let the lending industry manage itself (the definition of deregulation) and, surprise surprise, they couldn't do it worth a damn.
Hopefully we don't make that mistake again. Just as hopefully the chaos of deregulation of the California power utilities has taught us not to do that again either.
So yeah "more regulation." As well as strict enforcement. That means third party audits. It means not letting them almost crash the economy because they never thought to include in their computer models that the bubble might burst (and frankly that fact blows even me away, and you know I have terribly little regard for the uber-capitalists). It means not letting them play the sleight of hand accounting games.
In short it means forcing them to be marginally &^%$ing professional.
Because they won't do it on their own.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
3rd party audits
Good. Done. All independently verified. Reporting requirements have actually increased over the past few years.
http://www.secinfo.com/$/Search.asp?Find=Bear+stearns
Next?
_____________________________________
So I'm not seeing a suggestion here unless it's to use state-owned computer models which will surely foresee all of these potential problems.
______________________________________________
Again, I find myself without much to respond to.
Aren't you the same person who tried to equate a companies' value to its price per share? Are you sure you're the best person to be giving advice on this matter?
Obviously not enough
Apparently they haven't increased enough. So... more then?
Again, i thought it obvious- don't allow large corporations with the ability to crash the economy to base their business off of half assed computer models apparently put together by middle schoolers.
Whether that means writing models for them, or sending them back to school, or forcing them to actually think instead of relying entirely on a number spit of a black box.... eh, take your pick.
I've noticed the yellow bars get awfully testy when their ideology completely falls apart in real life.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I suggest you two settle this the only way possible
Join stinerman's Stock Market
game and may the better understanding of the market win =P
(Yes, I know this has nothing to do with your discussion, I'm just trying to drum up participation.)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I have no interest
in giving even a shred more credence to the delusional system of the stock market.
I'd rather join a fantasy football game.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No need to get grumpy
I'm treating it as nothing more than a game of poker among friends. There isn't any reason you can't either.
And I'll be sure to start a fantasy football game for everyone come football season. :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I tried
last season, but no one accepted (except Brendan). I won the superbowl in both of my leagues, so I'm looking forward to some new competition.
I don't think Tlaloc will take you up in your offer. Just a perception I get from his previous comments on sports in general. He used the example to show his complete contempt with the market, I think. :-)
I came in second in my league
but I bet I can beat you anyway =P
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Speaking of fantasy sports, the Forvm is running an NCAA pool
which I imagine they'd be fine with SC posters joining -- details here
if anyone is interested. Maybe put a comment in that post explaining who you are if you join.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
hey man
get in on the market thingie!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Bingo
When I hate something more than sports, I *really* hate it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Look at it the other way
I think you're going about it the wrong way.
If a corporation is too big to fail, then it needs to be broken up via antitrust actions. If a single company fails, and that is enough to push us into recession ... that's a big problem because that company will know that they can make bad decisions and always get a bailout from the government if the going gets tough. If we're going to let them continue to exist, I'd agree that extra regulation is necessary.
I'd rather just see these institutions fail and then begin to climb ourselves out of the hole we made. Absent that, increased regulation is my 2nd choice. It's got to be one or the other. This state capitalism/socialism for the rich is ridiculous.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I'm amenable to that
I think walmart should be broken up into smaller companies because the sheer size of the company poses a national security threat. That's pretty similar to what you are saying here.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
More nothings.....
Don't allow them. Ok. Excellent suggestion. I'll pass it along to the SEC.
Writing the models for them....I suppose if I wanted more bubbles, that would be an excellent way to perpetrate them.
LOL....There's no shortage of Ivy league Phd's or MBAs on Wall Street. It doesn't guarantee anything. Additionally, the SEC has a licensing process for investment professionals.
In addition to licensing, I have to also notify the SEC of any changes of address, criminal activity, personal trading activity, and submit to annual compliance reviews. I have my fingerprints on file with them. It would not seem that there is an absence of government activity on professional development. Heck, the focus on credentials probably limits the candidate pool to an extent.
Got it....government sponsored programs on thinking.
Nah...it's just funny to me that someone with so little expertise of the area has assessed the problem found our solution. There's not much meat on those solutions, but oh well. We'll have to take your word that whatever more regulation means, it will fix whatever our ills may be.
But seriously, the average passerby might believe that there's not much regulatory scrutiny on Wall Street or that scrutiny has decreased over the past 5 or 10 years (especially given the original article.) The exact opposite is true.
*shrug*
forgive me if I find your protests unconvincing. See when I do offer up solutions you claim there is no meat to them and yet your solution is to continue to do the exact thing that failed and has failed time and again.
Your supposed expertise seems to be an impediment to learning from events. It makes a certain sense that the experts agree on the current course, seeing as we are on that course. My scorn for them is based in no small part on the fact that the course is proven to fail and yet they insist on it anyways.
If they are incapable of learning, the solution is not to give them another chance but to get new experts.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yeah....
I suppose that whole solution I laid out in my initial response which would have prevented the crisis wasn't all that compelling. Shrug indeed.
______________________________
Let me give you a real world example of why you're really missing the boat on blaming something like a model.
First...just a lay of the land for you......
In the distressed mortgage sector there are some senior tranches in subprime mortgages that can withstand 100% foreclosure rates and still deliver a full market rate of return from current pricing levels. Fitch is the most conservative estimate on the street as far as eventual foreclosures. Their estimate is 24% subprime foreclosures in a worst case scenario.
At a spread of almost 200 basis points, the investment grade index of US companies implies a 12% default rate over the next 5 years. The historical default rate has been closer to 2%.
The real yield on TIPs bonds is currently below 0.
These are all things, to me, that signal that the market isn't running on fundamentals. Irrational decisions are not something you can possibly model.
____________________________
Well, "how in the world is the market not operating on fundamentals" you might ask.
It's a combination of draconian "Marking to Market" rules and required capital ratios. I'm not saying that required capital ratios are a bad thing, but their combination with "Marking to Market" has been a bad one.
When the market first recognized that housing a negative equity was going to cause a significant problem for subprime securities, the ensuing panic caused many of the securities head downward. The street had to mark their securities down even though the securities had realized no losses. Some of the mark downs....to say a low quality Home Equity subprime tranche are perfectly justified-- but that's not what the banks and brokerage houses had. They had High Quality AAA subprimes and standard mortgages. The one's mentioned in paragraph 3. Basically, these things can stand Great Depression type scenarios and like I mentioned, at their current prices some AAA tranches would fully withstand 100% foreclosures and pay you in full.
So basically, the initial panic cascades into a wave of selling pressure because capital ratios must be met. The cycle repeats. Others have to mark their securities to market. Margin calls are made. More selling causes further downward pressure, etc.
The same feedback loops that caused housing prices to rise past fundamentals are causing the securitized market (well, various markets) to shoot too low on the downside. Fed policy on both the up and down side have much to do with this at its roots.
But back to the topic.....The crisis would have been much more contained had we decided to suspend the mark-to-market rule. Instead, allow financial institutions to keep the troubled securities at book value, or 85-90% of book value, until a market forms that can sort out values, and allow financial institutions to write down the subprime mortgages and other troubled instruments over time. In that way, you would have a market that is running on fundamentals instead of inducing a full-scale panic.
*sigh*
you're so clueless.
blinded by ideology.
The underlying cause ultimately was the bust in house prices
Investment banks for some time had been selling short term paper to invest in higher-yielding CDOs to profit from the yield spread. On the seller side, banks often had a "liquidity put" or some form of a buy-back agreement when bundling these asset-based securities(some form of a buy-back agreement extended up and down the mortgage food chain all the way down to the lowly mortgage broker, who could be forced to buy back the mortgage if it didn't perform over an initial period).
There is nothing to terribly exotic about any of this and it can carries a reasonable risk profile as long as the underlying securities(mortgage debt instruments in this case) perform within the expected variability of risk.
But as AT QB writes, you can't model panic and the type of illiquidity we are seeing can't really be justified by default rates of sub-prime mortgages but rather from revised expectations as a result of the bubble pop of malinvested real estate speculation. That's my take at least.
Of course, it is my contention that the Fed is a culprit in creating the type of excess liquidity in the first place that got redirected into real estate speculation. Ever since the tech sector bubble pop and with 2 simultaneous wars going on, the Housing sector was the one sector for 6 years or so that was humming. Granted, in the aftermath of 9-11, I have no quarrel with the injection of liquidity, but it is clear to me that Greenspan accomodated a "Guns-and-Butter" approach in allowing Bush to pursue a very questionable foreign policy without having to largely bear the brunt of the economic consequences, at least until now.
I am not happy at all about the Fed's role as a bail out agent. I have lost all faith in the Fed reserve system. A lender of last resort in situations of credit stickiness is one thing, but when that fails, extending it's role as bail out agent to create an intolerable condition of moral hazard is unacceptable from my libertarian perspective. This is state capitalism at it's worst. Plenty of people on wall street made a pretty penny off SIVs when the real estate market was humming. If Bear Stearns of Meriil Lynch get taken out by not properly hedging before the liuidity panic or if Citi is stuck with multi-billions in CDOs they had to buy back, so be it. Let them die.
you too?
you just don't get it.
;)
the underlying cause was the bubble
in housing prices, which is now bursting.
You can't build a house on a foundation that is air, by making 'money' or credit easy to get. It wasn't just sincere first time buyers that were eagerly fooled, greedy speculaters using the housing market like they would poker chips is another factor.
What was Greenspan thinking? He forgot that men are human.
To think that injustice can be solved by allowing unhindered free markets is so naive. It might work if we were all robots, yet human nature has two sides.
To think that free markets will bring out only the good side is utter foolishness.
It is the economy, stupid.
how do you agree in content and then disagree in verbage?
you say the bubble is in the underlying and then give an underlying cause for the bubble. What gives?
Free markets don't appeal to our sense of fairness
I don't think anyone has ever said that free markets bring out the best in people. The standard line is that free markets play into our baser instincts to screw the other guy a little faster and a little harder than he's going to screw us. Then, automagically, everyone is better off for being a ruthless businessman.
Personally, I think laissez-faire capitalism would work as advertised if all of the preconditions were true. People aren't rational, for one. Unfettered markets would do quite well for people who aren't bothered by being the ruthless businessman.
The flip-side of this is that socialism/collectivism works better for people who have a more collectivist personality. I prefer a cooperative environment rather than a competitive one as I'm sure do others.
In the same general vein, I'm almost ashamed to charge people for doing what I consider to be easy computer work. I'm sure everyone here who knows anything about computers has had a family member ask them for purchasing advice or to come over and "fix their computer". I attempt to turn away any compensation because (and now we're getting back to that labor theory of value idea) the work isn't hard, and I don't deserve that amount of money for doing it.
The general point is that us collectivists are in a competitive economic environment, so it's no surprise that we aren't happy with the outcomes. The market requires us to become more competitive lest we stay on low end of the economic ladder, which amplifies the effect of the market on day-to-day life.
Meh?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Socialism/Collectivism..
The only problem I can see in this one is that I don't think socialism and collectivism (sharing, basically) is inherent in human beings. Sometimes it may be so--I'm intrigued at how toddlers like to "share" their sippy-cups or encourage you to feed yourself while feeding them. I think its mostly learned though.
I think the "it's mine!" philosophy is probably more inherent. The free-market/socialist hybrid we have here in the U.S. is clunky, but it's worked so far. I don't think we'll be taken to either extreme anytime in the near future. Politicians may talk about instating the flat tax or universal healthcare, but strong chances are that it won't be happening. It's like those people who've been dangling hydrogen-powered vehicles in front of us for the past 30 years. Exciting to talk about, very difficult to implement.
I place myself close to the free-market guys, but I still think that helping my community will help me ultimately by costing me less in the future. So I think a hybrid system works best.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
You may be right
I can't really say since I don't have numbers in front of me and any numbers would be colored by the fact that we're pushed to be competitive due to the nature of our economy. I wouldn't be surprised to find that more people are competitive by nature, though.
The hybrid system, I argue "works" only for very odd values of "works". I've been drawn to federalism because I think the one-size-fits-all nature of the economy (and political process to some extent) leaves out a sizable minority that isn't getting any attention.
In a more decentralized government, states would be free to implement any number of "extreme" ideas like a flat tax, no tax, universal health care, etc. The free marketers would flock to libertarian states while the collectivists would move to the less-than-libertarian states. This works not just for the economy, but for any sort of political issue. Kansas can have fun teaching their children that supernatural explanations of the nature of the universe count as science, etc.
Now you can't make all the people happy all the time, but we can do better than what we've got right now.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Some quick thoughts
very, very briefly:
competitive vs. cooperative is actually a false paradigm in your context here.
In economics, people are rational actors. economic rationality is about acting in self-interest to fulfill one's wants.
You shouldn't feel ashamed. People value your service more than the money they pay you, otherwise they wouldn't do it...and they do it voluntarily.
The problem
is your solution you claim would fix everything would in fact fix nothing. Changing the interest rate would do nothing to prevent the rolling together of a mass of junk mortgages into something claimed to be valuable. It doesn't matter if the interest rate is 1% or 50%, if people want to cheat the system in ways that can make them some money or lose them enormous amounts of money and the system lets them then the system will cause a collapse.
The rest of your post was just more of the same- pretending the problem is too much regulation when it is painfully obviously the opposite. This mess was NOT caused by regulation but by idiot investors and greedy companies (and that is such a shock, I tell you). That is the behavior that has to be controlled or eliminated in order to prevent a reoccurance. Removing regulation only encourages the greedy and the stupid to wreck things.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Playing devil's advocate...
I think these greedy companies and idiot investors know they're going to get bailed out when worse comes to worse. I'd call that being smart rather than stupid.
If the major players on Wall Street knew that they didn't have a pliant Fed and Congress on which to fall back, they'd have been a bit smarter and less risky with their investments. I find myself saying this more and more:
People aren't careful with other people's money.
If I knew that I could always rely on a bailout from the government, I'd never worry about paying any of my debts. I'd be out stimulating the economy to no end with borrowed money I'd never have to pay back.
Now I wouldn't call a bailout "regulation" but perhaps a libertarian might. But on that point, you're right. This had very little to do with too much government regulation, but I'm not so sure that we can't get an agreeable outcome without resorting to more traditional regulation.
I think we can narrow this crisis down to a few key factors:
1) "Creative" selling of SIVs (i think that's what they're called -- the rolling up of junk mortgages into something that is supposed to be valuable)
2) The buyer not knowing what they were buying
3) Incredibly loose monetary policy by the Fed.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
What striking paradoxes
Thumbs up. BRAVO. Spoken like a true free marketeer.
And then this
??
Perhaps you gloss over the contradictions, you should read a little closer.
I'm going to have to start
I'm going to have to start using tags to describe my apparent schizophrenia on these issues. After reading my posts, I'm sure it has to be tough for many of you to try and follow me.
There is no apparent contradiction because in one tense I'm talking about government policy, but the other I'm speaking of personal beliefs and philosophy.
Government policy should be colored only by what works, and does so in the most efficient manner*. If we can truly raise more tax revenue to pay off our debt by lowering taxes on the rich, then I'll be right there to vote Republican in the next election.
My beliefs are more of an exercise in academic thinking and theory rather than an attempt at trying to advocate a government policy.
Hope that helps.
*subject to a few general standards; ie, it may be more efficient to restrict freedom of speech, but that isn't something government has the right to do
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
It is '29 repeating itself.
The problem then is the bigee now....buying stuff on margin.
I've been hearing referances to companies using the same securities as collateral for multiple purchases. This coupled with the aspect that the "collateral" is actually worth significantly less than they said it was, hence the multiple margin calls.
You'd have thunk that after what my parents and grandparents had to go through, that some crusty old salt in a boardroom might tell them why they don't do things like that. Apparently not. Give some whiz kid a computer & let him dazzle them with derivatives and hedge bs & here we are back in the same boat we were 80 years ago.
Greedy bastards. Let them fail. I'm sick of them getting all the perks and we the people having to bail their skanky asses out.
+1
I'll be glad to come to Wall Street to help anyone plunge to their deaths. Pro bono even! Give me a call...
On a slightly more serious note, bailing out these failing enterprises only teaches them that Uncle Sam will always be there to help so long as they have the proper political connections and only so long as everyone else screws up as bad as they do.
Monetary and economic policy that tries to prop up stock prices at the expense of all else is the problem here. Let's throw a tax on stock transactions and increase the short-term capital gains tax to a point where speculation no longer drives stock prices and maybe, just maybe we'll get to a point when corporate boards think past next quarter's earnings report and start investing wisely. The other answer is to just let the chips fall where they may. If the market is indeed self-correcting, we'll have a gay time learning that the American consumer doesn't make enough to buy the goods and services that American workers make.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Not exactly, exactly
I think Dionne doesn't get it completely right.
The capitalists have to pick: either you get regulations on both sides of the ledger or you get nothing.
If Democrats are going to push regulations, then they'd better be prepared to bail out the odd company when the time comes. If Republicans are going to extol the virtues of the free market, then they'd better take their lumps when the economy takes a nosedive.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I think that's what he meant when he said this:
He's for a bailout, he just believes (correctly) that die hard capitalists get to STFU about regulation when they come begging the government to save them from their own idiocy.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Pejman, as usual,
showcases his own ignorance and inability to read.
Yeah, the fed extending 30 BILLION dollars to the huge JP Morgan firm so that it can acquire Bear Srearns at absolutely no risk and for a pittance thus preventing Stearns, another huge company, from collapsing- there's just no way to see that as a bail out benefiting the wealthy. No sir!
He didn't refute the argument because, you know, he was AGREEING with it. Be kind of silly for him to refute an argument he himself put forward. Almost as silly as Pejman calling him out for sneering at an argument he himself agreed with.
Oh, yeah.
Pejman goes on but I'll spare you the rest. Let's just say the rest of his piece is as vapid as the beginning. For bonus irony points he calls Dionne a "Bloviator".
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
RIP Arthur C. Clarke
Sad news - Sci-fi guru Arthur Clarke dies at 90
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That's a shame.... nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
2001 Space Oddesy was the first realistic futureistic drama
to get me psyched. 2010 was good but not as good.
Smackdown of the day
is here
. Enjoy!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
When I read that post earlier, I wasn't sure what to make of it.
I wan't sure if it was snark, sarcasm or just plain cynicism. I'm still not sure but I do appreciate the guy.
On a more serious vein, I was listening to NPR on my ride home and they had Joe Klein & some other guy criticing the speech. They were both pretty fair. The other guy said he had been on a blog after the speech and several "self identified white men" said they were unhappy with Barack. Apparently in their minds the only thing he could have done to prove his love of country would have been to have disowned Wright in the speech. Somehow I get the feeling that even if Barack had done that, these "self identified white guys" would still be pulling the lever for McCain come November.
I was just glad to see the whole race thing be addressed in an adult manner. There are too many really important things the next Administration will face to let the choice of our leader get bogged down by drivel, and that's where everyone was going.
Yes, it's refreshing to see a politician acknowledge
that there are many shades of gray to such topics, and that two people can both be "right" from their perspective but if they don't understand where the other is coming from no progress gets made.
I certainly understand the distaste for Wright's rhetoric but I'm not sure that Obama disowning him would have sat well with me -- it would have seemed awfully opportunistic. IMHO condemning the statements but putting them in the broader context of Wright's life and career and the whole topic of race in America showed more integrity. Whether it was the best political strategy remains to be seen.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I basically agree with Cole's read on this in terms of
what Obama meant in each statement, meaning the McQ guy is wrong IMHO, but I can see how he might come to and cling to his stated conclusion.
Cole then makes this statement:
which is only partially correct. While Obama is now being honest, it is also clear that he was pulling a Bill (depends on the meaning of "is") Clinton with his previous statement which was being very far from completely honest.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Fair enough (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
agreed
Obama definitely was trying to wiggle on the meaning of "is". It wasn't even in the same universe as "completely honest".
Just shows that when some people sell out, they sell out all the way and become blind fanatics for the other side. To me, someone like John Cole is a prime illustration of someone without a core ideology and principles, swinging on the vine.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
He switched parties
and only registered Dem because he was sick of Republicans. I think his ideology has been reasonably consistent -- he's mostly libertarian.
Didn't you give up on the Republican party yourself at one point there? Where are your principles! ;-)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
eh
Yes, I did give up on the Republican party, and have not rejoined it. But I'd never give up on my Conservative ideology. To go from being a republican to practically supporting socialist ideas is not exactly very libertarian-like.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Check out this rant ...
Check out this rant