By Michael J.W. Stickings
(Am I spending too much time on Palin? Maybe. But it's important for voters to keep in mind not just what a joke she is but what it says about McCain that he picked such as joke as his running mate. Plus, you know, there's the debate on Thursday.)
My "Painful Palin" series -- for the first two installments, see here and here -- looks at the Palin-Couric interview, parts of which are still being aired on CBS.
Here's the deal with the clip below: In her stump speech, Palin mocks Biden for being in Washington for so long. Needless to say, she doesn't mention his accomplishments, nor his expertise. But she does claim that she's been "hearing about his Senate speeches since [she] was in, like, second grade," which was, like, 1972.
This is ridiculously stupid on so many levels:
1) Was Palin really paying attention Biden in second grade? If so, what does that say about her? -- that she was some sort of crazed political junkie even at a young age. This seems unlikely. More likely, she's lying.
2) How can someone with next to no experience or expertise, someone who is so utterly unprepared for national politics and so applingly unqualified for the vice presidency, mock someone like Biden, who has not just expertise in areas like foreign policy and national security but an impressive legislative record and a long career of engaging with the issues that matter to Americans? Well, obviously Palin can, and does, but does so without even a hint of irony or self-awareness.
3) Biden has been in Washington a long time -- while living the whole time in Delaware, remember -- but so has, of course, McCain. Shouldn't Palin be mocking McCain? If she was listening to Biden's speeches in 1972, surely she was listening to McCain's speeches from as early as 1982, when he was elected to the House? No, because she's clearly lying.
4) Keep in mind that Biden was elected in 1972. Which means that he didn't actually enter the Senate until 1973. Was she really paying attention to Biden's candidacy for the Senate in 1972? No, because she's clearly lying.
5) Thankfully, Katie Couric asked her about this -- actually, challenged her on this. Given that she has a 72-year old running mate, is it not "a risky thing to say"? In response, Palin denies her comment was meant as a joke, that, in fact, she meant it as a compliment, referring to Biden's "lot of experience," "tremendous amount of experience." "Oh, no," she claims, "it's nothing negative at all." But of course it was. Watch the clip. Listen to the tone, the final inflection. She's obviously making, or trying to make, a joke. And Cindy McCain, right behind her, laughs, like it's funny to mock Biden's Senate career. (She's apparently as unironic and un-self-aware as Palin is.)
6) She claims that, in contrast to Biden, she's "the new energy, the new face, the new ideas" (and that "voters are going to have a choice"). She has some energy, I'll give her that, but it's hardly any more energy than Biden has. I give her her new face, too. But new ideas? What new ideas? Other than spewing empty promises of cleaning up Washington -- like she knows anything about Washington -- she just repeats Republican talking points, including, in her one and only Q&A with the press, agreeing with Bush's approach to terrorism, supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while tying the Iraq War to 9/11, and buying into, obviously without understanding, the warped agenda and worldview of the neocons. She may present herself as an outsider and reformer, but there's actually nothing new about her "ideas" at all.
Once again, though, she's clearly lying -- right to Couric's face, right to the American people, right to all of us.
And so it's just more of the same from Sarah Palin.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Is she smarter than a 5th grader?
By Capt. Fogg
During these last few days, it's been hard to find some humor in the ongoing demise of the United States of America. A laugh or two can be a good thing on the way to the gallows.
So it's been good to have Sarah Palin around; not so much that her idiocy reminds me of the class screwup trying to bullshit his way out of being totally unprepared to answer the teacher's questions, but I'm amused on a daily basis by the desperate contortions of reality Republicans are forced into when attempting to justify her appointment. She's confident, she's a fighter, she will stand up to the good old boys, she has attitude; never mind that she shares all these things and more with a host of people from Che Guevara to Leon Trotsky. That bit of humor will of course be unobserved by those who share the belief that she's better off for not having graduated Summa cum Laude from Harvard.
The "gotcha journalism" gambit may work on an incident or two, like advocating the invasion of Pakistan or having no clue as to what the Bush Doctrine might be, but it's a bit flimsy when applied to her complete inability to name one Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade from more than 200 years of American history. Even that other class screwup, George Bush, was able to cite Dred Scott, albeit in a very inarticulate and somewhat inapposite way. That yet to be aired clip would be high comedy were it not so illustrative of her real mission: to spread the fundamentalist gospel and help bring on the destruction of most of mankind by Jesus in war mode. That's why it doesn't matter that she's an uninformed mediocrity: these are the last days.
A candidate for the second highest office in the US; a candidate who may well become the next president, nuclear codes and all, who thinks The Flinstones is historically accurate is so funny that it borders on horror. I suppose the hard and irrefutable proof that such is not the case could also fall under the umbrella of the Gotcha Journalism Defense, but then the American public, particularly the public that pretends she's fit for office, is far less discriminating than any elementary school teacher I can recall. Indeed most middle school teachers can expect their students to answer questions Sarah has never heard before. Perhaps the Palinists will put on serious faces and nod when Sarah tells us that the dog ate her homework this Thursday. I can't wait. I need a good laugh and I'm ready to embrace the horror.
During these last few days, it's been hard to find some humor in the ongoing demise of the United States of America. A laugh or two can be a good thing on the way to the gallows.
So it's been good to have Sarah Palin around; not so much that her idiocy reminds me of the class screwup trying to bullshit his way out of being totally unprepared to answer the teacher's questions, but I'm amused on a daily basis by the desperate contortions of reality Republicans are forced into when attempting to justify her appointment. She's confident, she's a fighter, she will stand up to the good old boys, she has attitude; never mind that she shares all these things and more with a host of people from Che Guevara to Leon Trotsky. That bit of humor will of course be unobserved by those who share the belief that she's better off for not having graduated Summa cum Laude from Harvard.
The "gotcha journalism" gambit may work on an incident or two, like advocating the invasion of Pakistan or having no clue as to what the Bush Doctrine might be, but it's a bit flimsy when applied to her complete inability to name one Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade from more than 200 years of American history. Even that other class screwup, George Bush, was able to cite Dred Scott, albeit in a very inarticulate and somewhat inapposite way. That yet to be aired clip would be high comedy were it not so illustrative of her real mission: to spread the fundamentalist gospel and help bring on the destruction of most of mankind by Jesus in war mode. That's why it doesn't matter that she's an uninformed mediocrity: these are the last days.
A candidate for the second highest office in the US; a candidate who may well become the next president, nuclear codes and all, who thinks The Flinstones is historically accurate is so funny that it borders on horror. I suppose the hard and irrefutable proof that such is not the case could also fall under the umbrella of the Gotcha Journalism Defense, but then the American public, particularly the public that pretends she's fit for office, is far less discriminating than any elementary school teacher I can recall. Indeed most middle school teachers can expect their students to answer questions Sarah has never heard before. Perhaps the Palinists will put on serious faces and nod when Sarah tells us that the dog ate her homework this Thursday. I can't wait. I need a good laugh and I'm ready to embrace the horror.
Sarah Palin 2.0 (?)
By Michael J.W. Stickings
According to the Politico's Jonathan Martin, Sarah Palin is about to be re-introduced, "tak[ing] a more forward-leaning approach and do[ing] additional interviews in the weeks ahead."
First, though, she's spending some quality time at "McCain's cabin in Arizona" prepping for Thursday night's veep debate.
And "do[ing] a round of conservative talk radio interviews." After all, since she can't quite cut it with Gibson and Couric, and won't even try with Brokaw and Stephanopoulos, nor even Blitzer and Cooper, she requires a more friendly environment. So, no doubt, her interviews will, post-re-introduction, be more like the Hannity infomercial than serious exchanges with serious newspeople.
But, before all that, there's still the not-so-little matter of more Couric tape to consider. Martin explains:
Now there's a clip I'm looking foward to watching. Perhaps Marbury slipped her mind -- you know, because conservatives don't seem to care much for judicial review these days. And perhaps she just doesn't care much for, oh, say, Griswold and Brown and Miranda and Lawrence -- you know, for obvious reasons.
Couldn't she at least have mentioned Bush v. Gore? I'm sure she's a big fan.
**********
UPDATE: Atrios has "some sympathy for Palin," and Benen agrees that she "probably knows about as much as plenty of lawmakers on the Hill." Still, "it's a reminder that Palin is struggling on two parallel levels: she's painfully ignorant and she hasn't learned how to hide her painful ignorance."
For the record, I have no sympathy for her. She's what I would call, as I have called others before, a dangerous idiot -- dangerous because she's such an ignorant ideological extremist.
According to the Politico's Jonathan Martin, Sarah Palin is about to be re-introduced, "tak[ing] a more forward-leaning approach and do[ing] additional interviews in the weeks ahead."
First, though, she's spending some quality time at "McCain's cabin in Arizona" prepping for Thursday night's veep debate.
And "do[ing] a round of conservative talk radio interviews." After all, since she can't quite cut it with Gibson and Couric, and won't even try with Brokaw and Stephanopoulos, nor even Blitzer and Cooper, she requires a more friendly environment. So, no doubt, her interviews will, post-re-introduction, be more like the Hannity infomercial than serious exchanges with serious newspeople.
But, before all that, there's still the not-so-little matter of more Couric tape to consider. Martin explains:
Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.
The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.
After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.
There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.
Now there's a clip I'm looking foward to watching. Perhaps Marbury slipped her mind -- you know, because conservatives don't seem to care much for judicial review these days. And perhaps she just doesn't care much for, oh, say, Griswold and Brown and Miranda and Lawrence -- you know, for obvious reasons.
Couldn't she at least have mentioned Bush v. Gore? I'm sure she's a big fan.
**********
UPDATE: Atrios has "some sympathy for Palin," and Benen agrees that she "probably knows about as much as plenty of lawmakers on the Hill." Still, "it's a reminder that Palin is struggling on two parallel levels: she's painfully ignorant and she hasn't learned how to hide her painful ignorance."
For the record, I have no sympathy for her. She's what I would call, as I have called others before, a dangerous idiot -- dangerous because she's such an ignorant ideological extremist.
False truths
By Carl
My good friend, Britisher, makes a very cogent observation in comments from yesterday's post:
Yes, Virginia, there was a Santa Claus.
I'm going to get financially technical for a moment, but bear with me. I think I can make it understandable.
All investments are speculations. When you purchase an investment, any investment, from your house to a 1952 Mickey Mantle baseball card to a diamond ring, you are placing a bet.
See, factored into the price you pay for your house/card/diamond/stock is what are called "future cash flows". These can either be income, like a dividend or an interest payment, or capital gains, meaning your purchase is going to go up in value.
This future income or profit is discounted and added to the cost of the investment (what it physically costs to create). In most investments, that cost is minimal (it is not in the purchase of a house).
As Michael Kinsley points out in Time:
And he's right, of course. Land is a fixed commodity, but there is plenty of land in the country, believe it or not, since half the population lives within 150 miles of a coastline. Yes, you want to be close to your job, but on the other hand, the way the economy is trending and the way workforces are being distributed and outsourced, you might want to live away from a city and telecommute now.
Land prices should probably fall back further, based on this alone.
But I digress. Kinsley's larger point, that buying a home is betting that you can get a sucker to pay even more for it after you've lived in it and aged it, is valid. Not only valid, but has been the basis of real estate sales since postwar America in the 50s.
Too, the perception that, by mortgaging nearly 100% of the cost to purchase you are in effect playing with house money, feeds into this conceit. You are gambling with money you have little responsibility for, because if you walk away from the mortgage, hey, the bank will foreclose, sell your house, pay off your mortgage and you still have a little left over, if the system works "the way its supposed to".
That's not to trivialize foreclosures: they are painful processes and usually occur because of some other trauma to the family/owner: job loss, medical expenses, or divorce. But if you know the bank will be "taken care of", you have one less worry on your plate while dealing with the primary problem in your life.
The trouble is, as Brit points out, it's all a fucking illusion. All of it. Rather explicity, I might also point out.
When you purchase a house, you should be paying what you think it is worth now to you, to live in, to spend some time in, to establish a domicile. We're not talking about buying a stock. Stocks are like going to a casino: you shouldn't do it unless and until you can afford to lose all of the money you invest.
This is why brokers are formally referred to as "broker-dealers" because they're dealing cards at a blackjack table, and they hold all the aces. The investment game is rigged in their favor and so any bets you might make have to be carefully picked for you to beat the house.
A house is different. A house is real money for a real necessity. If it goes up in value, then that's a bonus. But that shouldn't be the reason you go out and buy a house. You should buy a house because you need a house.
Now, you're sitting there thinking I'm kicking the American homeowner while he's down. I am, but I'm also not, because I don't blame people for wanting to believe what they want to believe, or for believing that house prices would always go up.
That's what we've all been told. And there's where the blame lies. Who told us? The bankers, brokers and developers who right now stand to be bailed out. The people who marketed "zero money down, interest only loans" without warning us that in five years, you'd have to start paying down principal AND that interest rates would like double or even triple! There is no way in the world your income can triple in five years, unless you are extremely fortunate.
The difference here is, while those banks and you gambled that you might earn enough money in five years to actually pay down your loan, or that your house might accumulate enough new value to pay off the mortgage on a sale, you couldn't have known better, while they should have!
They are financially savvy and you are not. Or at least they are supposed to be, which is why they are supposed to be licensed mortgage broker-dealers. But past history dictates that even the "experts" are not expert when things get complicated enough.
Hell, even I couldn't have foreseen the depth of this crisis, altho I had an inkling and indeed let my "inner pessimist" run amok on this blog about the coming collapse of the American economy.
There's a bitter lesson to be learned from all this: nothing, no part of your life, is without risk, is not a gamble of one sort or other. Houses were supposed to be the safest investment you could make. Indeed, they were the single largest investment you could make.
You have to start thinking about what you buy and how much you pay for it in terms of purchasing a car (the second largest purchase most people will make in their lifetimes, and an object lesson): what can the actually asset you are buying do for you?
See, cars only lose value when you drive them off the lot, at least for the first twenty years, and even then, you have to have taken immaculate care of them for them to earn back your original purchase price, even. The rational decision with a car is to buy one you can drive into the ground, making it cost as little as possible for the value attained from it (hauling groceries, taking vacations, commuting). You want to drive the car so much that the cost to own per mile is as small as possible.
So it should be with your house. You ought to buy a house that means something to you in twenty years, that makes it worth the purchase price, and forget that it *might* increase in value enough for you to retire on.
And screw the economic royalists and their attempts to shove down your throat some illusion. You're better than that!
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
My good friend, Britisher, makes a very cogent observation in comments from yesterday's post:
Im a technical ignoramus when it comes to high finance but...isn't this while mess ALL about debt? Debt incurred by gambling on future profits based not on tangibles but on "prospects"?.
It seems to me that for years now trade has not been based on identifiable tangible need ( barter as it were) so much as on desire.
I mean a lot of the money at stake is surely imaginary. A lot of the wealth accumulated was imaginary. Investments were made without any supporting collateral and then more investments were made on those investments that weren't supported by anything so everyone shuffling money got rich by pure accumulation.
In short investment banks started 'printing' money and trading that money for other money and more money which was also 'printed'.
This mess is actually a market adjustment.
Am I right? Or partly right?
Yes, Virginia, there was a Santa Claus.
I'm going to get financially technical for a moment, but bear with me. I think I can make it understandable.
All investments are speculations. When you purchase an investment, any investment, from your house to a 1952 Mickey Mantle baseball card to a diamond ring, you are placing a bet.
See, factored into the price you pay for your house/card/diamond/stock is what are called "future cash flows". These can either be income, like a dividend or an interest payment, or capital gains, meaning your purchase is going to go up in value.
This future income or profit is discounted and added to the cost of the investment (what it physically costs to create). In most investments, that cost is minimal (it is not in the purchase of a house).
As Michael Kinsley points out in Time:
How is the country any richer if the exact same stock of existing housing is suddenly worth, say, 20% more? Other markets produce things. They sell what they produce. When prices go up, they produce more. Not so with real estate, for the most part. This market consists primarily of trading the same thing again and again. And you know the old saw about land: They're not making any more of it. Real estate is the only major consumer market in which how much you'll pay someone depends on your belief about how much someone else will pay you. In this market, prices go up when people believe they will continue to go up. To restore confidence would mean restoring belief in the greater fool.
And he's right, of course. Land is a fixed commodity, but there is plenty of land in the country, believe it or not, since half the population lives within 150 miles of a coastline. Yes, you want to be close to your job, but on the other hand, the way the economy is trending and the way workforces are being distributed and outsourced, you might want to live away from a city and telecommute now.
Land prices should probably fall back further, based on this alone.
But I digress. Kinsley's larger point, that buying a home is betting that you can get a sucker to pay even more for it after you've lived in it and aged it, is valid. Not only valid, but has been the basis of real estate sales since postwar America in the 50s.
Too, the perception that, by mortgaging nearly 100% of the cost to purchase you are in effect playing with house money, feeds into this conceit. You are gambling with money you have little responsibility for, because if you walk away from the mortgage, hey, the bank will foreclose, sell your house, pay off your mortgage and you still have a little left over, if the system works "the way its supposed to".
That's not to trivialize foreclosures: they are painful processes and usually occur because of some other trauma to the family/owner: job loss, medical expenses, or divorce. But if you know the bank will be "taken care of", you have one less worry on your plate while dealing with the primary problem in your life.
The trouble is, as Brit points out, it's all a fucking illusion. All of it. Rather explicity, I might also point out.
When you purchase a house, you should be paying what you think it is worth now to you, to live in, to spend some time in, to establish a domicile. We're not talking about buying a stock. Stocks are like going to a casino: you shouldn't do it unless and until you can afford to lose all of the money you invest.
This is why brokers are formally referred to as "broker-dealers" because they're dealing cards at a blackjack table, and they hold all the aces. The investment game is rigged in their favor and so any bets you might make have to be carefully picked for you to beat the house.
A house is different. A house is real money for a real necessity. If it goes up in value, then that's a bonus. But that shouldn't be the reason you go out and buy a house. You should buy a house because you need a house.
Now, you're sitting there thinking I'm kicking the American homeowner while he's down. I am, but I'm also not, because I don't blame people for wanting to believe what they want to believe, or for believing that house prices would always go up.
That's what we've all been told. And there's where the blame lies. Who told us? The bankers, brokers and developers who right now stand to be bailed out. The people who marketed "zero money down, interest only loans" without warning us that in five years, you'd have to start paying down principal AND that interest rates would like double or even triple! There is no way in the world your income can triple in five years, unless you are extremely fortunate.
The difference here is, while those banks and you gambled that you might earn enough money in five years to actually pay down your loan, or that your house might accumulate enough new value to pay off the mortgage on a sale, you couldn't have known better, while they should have!
They are financially savvy and you are not. Or at least they are supposed to be, which is why they are supposed to be licensed mortgage broker-dealers. But past history dictates that even the "experts" are not expert when things get complicated enough.
Hell, even I couldn't have foreseen the depth of this crisis, altho I had an inkling and indeed let my "inner pessimist" run amok on this blog about the coming collapse of the American economy.
There's a bitter lesson to be learned from all this: nothing, no part of your life, is without risk, is not a gamble of one sort or other. Houses were supposed to be the safest investment you could make. Indeed, they were the single largest investment you could make.
You have to start thinking about what you buy and how much you pay for it in terms of purchasing a car (the second largest purchase most people will make in their lifetimes, and an object lesson): what can the actually asset you are buying do for you?
See, cars only lose value when you drive them off the lot, at least for the first twenty years, and even then, you have to have taken immaculate care of them for them to earn back your original purchase price, even. The rational decision with a car is to buy one you can drive into the ground, making it cost as little as possible for the value attained from it (hauling groceries, taking vacations, commuting). You want to drive the car so much that the cost to own per mile is as small as possible.
So it should be with your house. You ought to buy a house that means something to you in twenty years, that makes it worth the purchase price, and forget that it *might* increase in value enough for you to retire on.
And screw the economic royalists and their attempts to shove down your throat some illusion. You're better than that!
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
"This is a crisis of leadership"
By Carol Gee
As "vulnerable GOP members reject[ed the] bailout," pundits, experts, officials and citizens alike chalked the bill's defeat up to failed Republican leadership or failed Democratic leadership. Depending on whose side they favored, opinion makers have spent the time on casting blame since the result emerged. Today's post will be another in my "leadership" series examining what makes a good leader, and hoping to maintain a bit of objectivity, rather than partisanship.
Faulty information is an enemy of good leadership. Leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives has been widely blamed for the defeat of the so-called Wall Street bail-out bill yesterday. There was a good amount of finger-pointing both from within and between the Democratic and Republican parties. Bipartisanship disappeared rapidly after the vote count was tallied. The blame for the Iraq war is now well placed because we now know that the administration's rationale for the invasion of Iraq was based on faulty information. We see that good leaders work from credible information. Just as a small example, the leaders of both parties were not working from trustworthy estimates of what the final vote could be, even though their overall goal was bipartisanship. Patrick O'Connor and John Bresnahan, from Politico.com. conclude what actually happened in, "Boehner's gamble: Could it cost him his job?" To quote:
. . . Blunt said he had come to the floor thinking 75 Republicans would support the plan. He was off by 10 — just short of the 12 that were needed to turn defeat into victory.
But Boehner told a different story. He said that the GOP leaders never thought they’d get more than 68 Republicans to support the bill — and that he sent Blunt to tell Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) as much nearly two hours before the vote.
“I sent [Blunt] down to talk to Hoyer, 11:30, quarter to 12, somewhere in that time frame,” Boehner said. “We had a pretty good idea where we were, where we thought we could get to. And Hoyer knew.”
Boehner added: “I did not talk to [Hoyer], so I don’t know what their conversation was. [Blunt] and I had that conversation. We talked about ‘Should we just rise [walk out]?’ It wouldn’t have been good, but I thought it would have been better than this. It really doesn’t make any difference.”
Democrats, for their part, said they assumed Blunt was lowballing his whip count to force Pelosi and the Democrats to line up more votes from their members.
In the end, as Pelosi and her team tried to flip votes in favor of the proposal, there was little Boehner or his Republican leadership team could do to entice those who voted “no” to switch their tally in support of the controversial measure.
“Given the unpopularity of this whole concept, it’s amazing that we got as many votes as we did,” Boehner said.
Information is power and rank and file citizens took some leadership power unto themselves this past week, directly contacting their Representatives in Congress. Callers were objecting in high percentages to the idea of bailing out those on Wall Street. With the election just weeks away, many vulnerable candidates were influenced by their constituents' points of view about the nature of the crisis. A few Reps exercised good leadership and voted from what their consciences dictated, going against expressed public opinion. No matter which side we would take regarding the current crisis, we are better served if leaders are willing to lose an election for principle.
Government is supposed to be in the business of exercising good leadership. As citizens we elect people to look out after our best interests, to protect us from harm, and to seek justice through lawmaking. At this time in history the economy is seriously out of whack because of a power-grabbing oligarchy and a Congress marked by weakness and lack of leadership. If any U.S. Representatives read the following analysis, it would go a long way to explain why the bail-out bill failed: "Grand Theft America#" by Stephen Lendman at Global Research is probably one of the very best articles one could read to truly understand what this crisis is about. (As an aside, it revealed the genesis of Paulson's moved to grab unreviewable powers). The author explores "the current dilemma that world leaders and financial experts are scrambling to figure out. . . . . . A global asset bubble. . . . Begun after Chicago School economics took hold under Ronald Reagan. Continued under GHW Bush. Became religion under Bill Clinton, and ultimately fundamentalism under GW Bush. . . . At 19%, George Bush scored lowest [rating] ever for a US president . . ." For your own information, I quote a few key paragraphs:
The crime of the century. The greatest one ever. Author Danny Schechter calls it "Plunder." The title of his important new book on the subprime and overall financial crisis. Economist Michael Hudson and others refer to a kleptocracy. A Ponzi scheme writ large. Maybe an out-of-control Andromeda Strain. An economic one. Deadly. Unrecallable. Science fiction now real life. Potentially catastrophic. World governments trying to contain it. Trying everything but not sure what can work. Maybe only able to paper it over for short-term relief. Buy time but in the end vindicate the maxim that things that can't go on forever, won't.
. . . The result of unfettered capitalism's fatal flaw - unbridled greed in a rigged system that rewards the few at the expense of most others. First an explanation of how it works. Free-wheeling, "free market" Chicago School fundamentalism the way economist Milton Friedman championed it in his 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom" and taught it to students for decades. He believed that government's sole function is "to protect our freedom both from (outside) enemies....and from our fellow-citizens." Preserve law and order. Enforce private contracts. Protect private property and "foster competitive (unregulated) markets." Everything else in public hands is "socialism....blasphemy." Not to be tolerated.
. . . Yet Bush concluded that "democratic capitalism (is the) best system the world has ever devised" in spite of clear evidence that it's broken and corrupted. Exploits people for profit. Enriches the few at the expense of the many. Rewards criminals for their crimes. Protects the rich from beneficial social change.
In other words, unchallengeable czarist powers. In contrast to the 1930s Reconstruction Finance Corporation's (RFC) closely supervised operations. That era's Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) that refinanced homes to prevent foreclosures. And the 1980s Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) mandate to liquidate assets from failed S & Ls. Not dispense free money for bad investments unchecked. The above authorities subject to judicial review. Not governed by a financial boss to run as he pleased.
. . . Given the bipartisan blame for today's crisis. The post-9/11 willingness to give the administration near-carte blanche authority across the board. Eight years of indifference to social needs and public welfare. Who now believes that policy going forward will change and that the agreed-on scheme will protect people or curb the secretary's authority. On his own initiative, George Bush usurped supreme power post-9/11 while few in Congress blanched. None in leadership positions. Little today has changed.
Leadership capacity rests on differing traits in different people. As examples, strengths such as being mutually respectful, "tough as a boot," calm in a storm, experienced, and incredibly articulate or intelligent, all come to my mind. Everyone in both parties has his or her own list. The story of John Boehner's easy-handed leadership style, one that respects the principles of his followers and lets them do what they want, is an interesting one. To further quote from the previous story:
The bruising tally — coming on the heels of a weeklong revolt — had some GOP members asking privately whether Boehner can hold on to his leadership post. He said he did everything he could.
“You can’t break their arms, you can’t put your whole relationship on the line, ask them to do something that they do not want to do and have that member regret that vote for the rest of their life,” Boehner said. “Twenty years from now, nobody will care how anyone voted except those members. You can’t do that. You just can’t.”
. . . Boehner has [told] Republicans he would not lean on them as his predecessor, former Texas Rep. Tom DeLay, was wont to do. On some level, the problem was a lack of discipline. House Republicans lack the clear leadership chain that characterized their tenure in the majority under DeLay. The member-to-member relationships were much closer, so the whips typically had a better sense where votes stood before heading to the floor.
Boehner lacks the heft of former Speaker Dennis Hastert, who could always flip a few core votes in the final days before a tough roll call, and his party lacks any other heavy now that President Bush has only a few months left in office.
As the House prepared to vote Monday, Boehner delivered an astonishingly nonpartisan speech, telling the members who had already assembled on the House floor: “I don’t know that they get much tougher than this. No one wants to vote for this.”
When he finished, Boehner got more applause from Democrats than Republicans. . .
As a leader nation, the United States must now exercise good governance for the sake of the entire world. Whether we like it or not, we are an example of representative government that listens to its people, respects the rule of law, and looks out for the most vulnerable among us. Our top leaders had better be very careful about next steps. That means that the executive and legislative branches had must seek cooperative solutions that make sense to our own people, and not just to the oligarchs. Other nations are depending on that. So what are the next steps? The New York Times reports, Treasury and the Fed Looking at Options." To quote the article's conclusion:
. . . Mr. Rogoff cautioned that the real limitation for American policy makers is whether they can maintain the government’s long-term credibility. “The real constraint is not a bookkeeping one,” he said. “It is a sense of faith on the part of foreigners that the U.S. government will repay its debt. Our most precious asset is that credibility.”
The current crisis of leadership is partly our fault. We put these people in office without knowing the qualities of good leadership. My post's goal today has been to lay out a few of those key qualities, such as confronting reality, valuing the truth, exhibiting outstanding interpersonal skills, standing on principle, understanding compromise and conciliation, and being able to occasionally set aside ego. We will change a lot of leaders in the next few weeks; be careful about the qualities you look at when deciding.
Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo*" and Jon#.
(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)
Monday, September 29, 2008
Rita Faltoyano - Picture Gallery
Rita Faltoyano
------------------------------------------------
DOWNLOAD PIC COLLECTION 1
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
DOWNLOAD PIC COLLECTION 2
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
DOWNLOAD PIC COLLECTION 3
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
>DOWNLOAD PIC COLLECTION 4
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
DOWNLOAD PIC COLLECTION 4
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
DOWNLOAD PIC COLLECTION 5
------------------------------------------------
Rita Faltoyano
Rita Faltoyano
Performer AKA | Rita Faltoiano, Rita F., Rita Ga'cs, Rita Fox, Daniella, Rita Faltiano, Rita Twain, Rita Faltojano, Rita |
Birthday | |
Astrology | |
Birthplace | Budapest, Hungary |
Years Active | 2000-2008 (Started around 22 years old) |
Ethnicity | Caucasian |
Nationality/Heritage | Hungarian |
Hair Color | Brown |
Measurements | 36D-24-36 |
Height | 5 feet, 5 inches (166 cm) |
Weight | 125 lbs (57 kg) |
Tattoos | None |
Non-Ear Piercings | None |
Website |
BLACK FUN
---------------------------------------------------
Download NOW
---------------------------------------------------
Download NOW
---------------------------------------------------
Fun ON
---------------------------------------------------
Download NOW
File.....01
File.....02
File.....03
---------------------------------------------------
Upper Class
---------------------------------------------------
Download Now
---------------------------------------------------
Big Tits
---------------------------------------------------
Download NOW
---------------------------------------------------
Suzy Sweet
Suzy Sweet
Performer AKA | Agnes B., Suzy Sweet, Susie Sweet, Agnes, Agnes Leira, Dora, Sandra, Suzy, Mimi, Carla, Annie |
Birthday | |
Astrology | |
Birthplace | Hungary |
Years Active | 2000-2004 (Started around 23 years old) |
Ethnicity | Caucasian |
Nationality/Heritage | Hungarian |
Hair Colors | Brown/Blond |
Measurements | 35D-24-35 |
Height | 5 feet, 6 inches (167 cm) |
Weight | 107 lbs (49 kg) |
Tattoos | None |
Profession: Porn Star
Born and raised in Hungary, Suzy Sweet has gone through a good number of name changes during the brief course of her carnal career. She started out in 2000 as 'Agnes,' taking part in a passionate 'casting session' in 'Superf**kers 2.' She next showed up as 'Dora' in 'Dangerous Things 2,' before switching to 'Sandra' for a series of flicks including 'Euro Hardball 11.' Throughout her career, she used the name 'Agnes Leira' for her French, Italian and German productions. It was European porn impresario Christophe Clark who finally had her settle on Suzy Sweet, and we couldn't think of a more fitting moniker. Suzy Sweet exudes a certain wholesome, natural allure, despite her willingness to engage in all manner of sexual mayhem.
Born and raised in Hungary, Suzy Sweet has gone through a good number of name changes during the brief course of her carnal career. She started out in 2000 as 'Agnes,' taking part in a passionate 'casting session' in 'Superf**kers 2.' She next showed up as 'Dora' in 'Dangerous Things 2,' before switching to 'Sandra' for a series of flicks including 'Euro Hardball 11.' Throughout her career, she used the name 'Agnes Leira' for her French, Italian and German productions. It was European porn impresario Christophe Clark who finally had her settle on Suzy Sweet, and we couldn't think of a more fitting moniker. Suzy Sweet exudes a certain wholesome, natural allure, despite her willingness to engage in all manner of sexual mayhem.
-----------------------------
Download NOW
-----------------------------
Garage Fuck
-----------------------------
Download NOW
-----------------------------
Medieval Mischief-1
-----------------------------
Download NOW
File.....01
File.....02
File.....03
-----------------------------
Medieval Mischief-2
-----------------------------
Download NOW
File.....01
File.....02
File.....03
-----------------------------
Dangerous Curves
-----------------------------
Download NOW
File.....01
File.....02
File.....03
-----------------------------
Bathroom Fuck
-----------------------------
Download NOW
File.....01
File.....02
-----------------------------
Bed Fuck
-----------------------------
Download NOW
File.....01
File.....02
-----------------------------
Download NOW
-----------------------------
Garage Fuck
-----------------------------
Download NOW
-----------------------------
Medieval Mischief-1
-----------------------------
Download NOW
File.....01
File.....02
File.....03
-----------------------------
Medieval Mischief-2
-----------------------------
Download NOW
File.....01
File.....02
File.....03
-----------------------------
Dangerous Curves
-----------------------------
Download NOW
File.....01
File.....02
File.....03
-----------------------------
Bathroom Fuck
-----------------------------
Download NOW
File.....01
File.....02
-----------------------------
Bed Fuck
-----------------------------
Download NOW
File.....01
File.....02
-----------------------------
Dangerous Things 2
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Una Vita In Vendita
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
In Toilet
File.....02
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Forced by Boss
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Download NOW
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
File.....02
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Nasty, brutish, and short: The bullshit of John McCain
By Michael J.W. Stickings
He was the Hobbesian candidate during the debate -- nasty, brutish, and short, small and mean -- and he's been that way throughout the entire campaign. His "Hail Marys" -- picking Palin, "suspending" his campaign to go back to Washington last week -- get the attention, but what is characteristic of his campaign is negativity, coming in the form of lies and smears, bitterness and sarcasm. With nothing in the way of substance, other than his overwrought enthusiasm for the Iraq War, that's all he's got.
Last Friday, during the debate, he couldn't even look Obama in the face. And it was much the same today, as he took the opportunity of the lead-up to the House vote on the bailout bill to attack Obama, partisanizing the crisis, and the vote, as much as anyone in Congress, trying to score political points by going negative. Country first? No. As usual, it's McCain first, everything else somewhere in the distance. He attacked Obama again his his statement after the vote, and there will no doubt be much more negativity to come.
But what was truly amazing today was that he actually took credit for the bill... before the House rejected it. The Politico has the story:
First, bullshit. McCain has been partisanizing the issue all along. And his phony "suspension" of his campaign was just a desperate, arrogant, and self-serving stunt. He ended up going to Washington, but he didn't do anything to move the process along. He apparently made a bunch of phone calls. What he was really doing was meddling in a process that others were leading, on both sides of the aisle. And his interference contributed to the failure of the bill.
Second, Obama understood what was needed of him -- meet with Bush, talk to congressional leaders, comment when appropriate, participate constructively in bipartisan talks. He didn't force himself into the process and didn't install himself as leader. What he showed was good judgement.
Third -- and here's where it gets funny -- McCain took credit for something that failed. He obviously wasn't able to put together a winning coalition. But he still gave himself a presumptuous pat on the back. And while a majority of the Democrats voted for the bill (about 60 percent), less than a third of Republicans voted for it. So for what, exactly, was McCain patting himself on the back and trying to score political points for his presidential campaign? The overwhelming majority of his own party voted against him! (With some of them childishly blaming Pelosi for turning them against it.) Meanwhile, on the other side, Obama is standing with the leaders of his party, working to get something done.
He can flash his stupid grin, put his thumbs up, and spew sarcasm all he wants. It's all bullshit.
And just what we've come to expect from John McCain.
He was the Hobbesian candidate during the debate -- nasty, brutish, and short, small and mean -- and he's been that way throughout the entire campaign. His "Hail Marys" -- picking Palin, "suspending" his campaign to go back to Washington last week -- get the attention, but what is characteristic of his campaign is negativity, coming in the form of lies and smears, bitterness and sarcasm. With nothing in the way of substance, other than his overwrought enthusiasm for the Iraq War, that's all he's got.
Last Friday, during the debate, he couldn't even look Obama in the face. And it was much the same today, as he took the opportunity of the lead-up to the House vote on the bailout bill to attack Obama, partisanizing the crisis, and the vote, as much as anyone in Congress, trying to score political points by going negative. Country first? No. As usual, it's McCain first, everything else somewhere in the distance. He attacked Obama again his his statement after the vote, and there will no doubt be much more negativity to come.
But what was truly amazing today was that he actually took credit for the bill... before the House rejected it. The Politico has the story:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition – hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked.
Shortly before the vote, McCain had bragged about his involvement and mocked Sen. Barack Obama for staying on the sidelines.
"I've never been afraid of stepping in to solve problems for the American people, and I'm not going to stop now," McCain told a rally in Columbus, Ohio. "Sen. Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first he didn't want to get involved. Then he was monitoring the situation." McCain, grinning, flashed a sarcastic thumbs up.
"That's not leadership. That's watching from the sidelines," he added to cheers and applause.
First, bullshit. McCain has been partisanizing the issue all along. And his phony "suspension" of his campaign was just a desperate, arrogant, and self-serving stunt. He ended up going to Washington, but he didn't do anything to move the process along. He apparently made a bunch of phone calls. What he was really doing was meddling in a process that others were leading, on both sides of the aisle. And his interference contributed to the failure of the bill.
Second, Obama understood what was needed of him -- meet with Bush, talk to congressional leaders, comment when appropriate, participate constructively in bipartisan talks. He didn't force himself into the process and didn't install himself as leader. What he showed was good judgement.
Third -- and here's where it gets funny -- McCain took credit for something that failed. He obviously wasn't able to put together a winning coalition. But he still gave himself a presumptuous pat on the back. And while a majority of the Democrats voted for the bill (about 60 percent), less than a third of Republicans voted for it. So for what, exactly, was McCain patting himself on the back and trying to score political points for his presidential campaign? The overwhelming majority of his own party voted against him! (With some of them childishly blaming Pelosi for turning them against it.) Meanwhile, on the other side, Obama is standing with the leaders of his party, working to get something done.
He can flash his stupid grin, put his thumbs up, and spew sarcasm all he wants. It's all bullshit.
And just what we've come to expect from John McCain.
Democrats will not always be successful
By Carol Gee
. . . in cleaning up Republican messes. There are times when the stinky pile is too high, too wide and too deep. This was the case with the Wall Street Bail-Out Bill, that was defeated today by reluctant Republicans, according to the Memeorandum lead from the NYT. Stocks plunged at the news the WSJ reported: " The Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted 777.68 points, its biggest one-day drop in history." The vote in the House was 205-228. To quote further from Congressional Quarterly,
Despite intensive lobbying by congressional leaders and the White House, the House rejected an unprecedented $700 billion bailout plan for the financial system.
The 205-228 vote torpedoed a bipartisan compromise and sent the U.S. stock market down sharply. But the immediate falloff was not as severe as some had feared; the Dow Jones industrial average was off roughly 500 points about 15 minutes after the vote.
The startling rejection of the financial rescue proposal was a stunning defeat for the White House and congressional leaders from both parties. It was assured when House Republicans dug in their heels, refusing to support the plan.
House Democratic leaders had long insisted that a majority of both parties would be required to pass the bill, and House Republican leaders proved unable to deliver of their caucus’ majority. Instead GOP members voted against it by a 2-to-1 ratio.
There is plenty of blame to go around. Senator McCain gets blame from pundits for his negotiations grand-standing. Senator McCain blames Senator Obama. House Republicans blame Speaker Nancy Pelosi for hurting their feelings in her floor speech before the vote. Our current president said he is "very disappointed." House Democrats blame Republicans for not scuffling up their share of necessary votes. Among the pundits you can find ones of every stripe to side with each one of the blamers, depending on their biases. David Sirota was prescient about the bill's failure.
House members who voted against the bill, speaking on the floor later, largely avoided blaming. Rep. Marcie Kaptur (D-Ohio) credited the people and the Constitution, saying that's how democracy is supposed to work. Many had felt that it was a mistake all along, including Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Several mentioned alternative interventions that the government could take with tools already present in the law. Several said that the SEC should revamp their accounting rules to accomodate the actual value realities of the troubled instruments. Others suggested ways that the taxpayers could be held much less at risk, and still solve the credit freeze.
Almost all those voting "no," the pundits reported, were in very tough political races. For some reason they got the idea that the people of the United States disapproved of the measure with good reason. I was always of two minds on the question. On the one hand the economic arguments were powerful warnings that some things were terribly wrong that would quickly trickle down to all of us. And on the other hand there were several things inherently erroneouswith the Bush administration's approach. Paulson's 3-page package consisted of demands rather than requests; announced terms, rather than consulted; and made assumptions about the amount of money the American public could stomach as a bail-out for "those high-flying rich guys from Manhattan." What Paulson and Bernanke thought would be a decent offer of help to Wall Street, felt like an obscene amount to hurting people on Main Street, to use the cliche.
Not everybody knows what they will do next, though Ian Welsh at Firedoglake says, "Give Paulson 150 Billion and Come Back In January and Do it RIGHT (And here’s how to do it right)." Makes sense to me. Professor James Petras has a number of good ideas also.
(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)
The woman who wasn't there
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I neglected to post this on Friday, but there was a very funny (and very telling) Wolf Blitzer moment shortly after Biden was on giving his assessment of the debate:
Commented TNR's Michael Crowley: "It's pretty strange when a candidate can't trust his own running mate to be out there spinning on his behalf."
Actually, it's not so strange at all. Obviously, McCain can't trust Palin, and, obviously, Palin isn't in any position to be an effective surrogate and spinner -- witness her disastrous Couric interview.
It isn't "strange" that she's being kept away from the press, it's highly disturbing, a sign of just how unqualified and unprepared she really is.
But the McCain campaign can't keep her "in lockdown" for much longer.
Her lying, deceiving, and misrepresenting, not to mention her abject ignorance and utter incompetence, will be on public display this Thursday in St. Louis. And, presumably, she will exceed expectations just by showing up.
(Which could work to her favour, given how the punditocracy judges according to expectations, not substance. It goes without saying that Biden needs to be really, really careful.)
I neglected to post this on Friday, but there was a very funny (and very telling) Wolf Blitzer moment shortly after Biden was on giving his assessment of the debate:
We've been getting some emails from viewers out there wondering why we spent some time interviewing Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee and not Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee. We would have loved to interview -- we'd still love to interview Sarah Palin. Unfortunately we asked, we didn't get that interview... We're hoping that Sarah Palin will join us at some point down the road.
Commented TNR's Michael Crowley: "It's pretty strange when a candidate can't trust his own running mate to be out there spinning on his behalf."
Actually, it's not so strange at all. Obviously, McCain can't trust Palin, and, obviously, Palin isn't in any position to be an effective surrogate and spinner -- witness her disastrous Couric interview.
It isn't "strange" that she's being kept away from the press, it's highly disturbing, a sign of just how unqualified and unprepared she really is.
But the McCain campaign can't keep her "in lockdown" for much longer.
Her lying, deceiving, and misrepresenting, not to mention her abject ignorance and utter incompetence, will be on public display this Thursday in St. Louis. And, presumably, she will exceed expectations just by showing up.
(Which could work to her favour, given how the punditocracy judges according to expectations, not substance. It goes without saying that Biden needs to be really, really careful.)
BREAKING NEWS: House rejects bailout bill
By Michael J.W. Stickings
The House of Representatives a short while ago voted 228 to 205 against the bailout compromise worked out over the weekend. (It needed 218 votes to pass.). As CNN is reporting, "[a]bout 60% of Democrats voted for the measure, but less than a third of Republicans backed it."
Quick notes:
-- Kucinich was right.
-- Bush is apparently "very disappointed" with the result. Presumably much of his disappointment is directed at the renegades in his own party.
-- Boehner: "If I didn't think we were on the brink of an economic disaster it would be the easiest thing to say no to this."
-- Frank: "If we defeat this bill today, it will be a very bad day for the financial sector of the American economy and the people who will feel the pain are not the top bankers and top corporate executives but average Americans."
-- It's certainly a bad day for the markets. As of 2:55 pm, the Dow is down 552.68 (or 4.95%) and the Nasdaq is down 144.08 (or 6.70%).
-- I still think a bailout bill in some form -- if not this one, after some arm-twisting, then this one with some alterations to appease both sides and to make Congress appear to be more united than it really is -- will be passed sooner rather than later. The leadership of both parties is behind it -- the Democratic leaders more than their Republican counterparts -- and there will be increasing pressure on Congress to do something. (And, right now, this bill is all they've got.) Not least because the markets are tumbling.
-- And tumbling... It's now 3:00 pm. The Dow is down 552.04, the Nasdaq 147.73. At 3:02 pm, the S&P 500 is down 76.26 (or 6.29%).
-- Up here in Toronto, at 3:03 pm, our leading index, the TSX Composite, is down 853.38 (or 7.04%).
Stay tuned.
The House of Representatives a short while ago voted 228 to 205 against the bailout compromise worked out over the weekend. (It needed 218 votes to pass.). As CNN is reporting, "[a]bout 60% of Democrats voted for the measure, but less than a third of Republicans backed it."
Quick notes:
-- Kucinich was right.
-- Bush is apparently "very disappointed" with the result. Presumably much of his disappointment is directed at the renegades in his own party.
-- Boehner: "If I didn't think we were on the brink of an economic disaster it would be the easiest thing to say no to this."
-- Frank: "If we defeat this bill today, it will be a very bad day for the financial sector of the American economy and the people who will feel the pain are not the top bankers and top corporate executives but average Americans."
-- It's certainly a bad day for the markets. As of 2:55 pm, the Dow is down 552.68 (or 4.95%) and the Nasdaq is down 144.08 (or 6.70%).
-- I still think a bailout bill in some form -- if not this one, after some arm-twisting, then this one with some alterations to appease both sides and to make Congress appear to be more united than it really is -- will be passed sooner rather than later. The leadership of both parties is behind it -- the Democratic leaders more than their Republican counterparts -- and there will be increasing pressure on Congress to do something. (And, right now, this bill is all they've got.) Not least because the markets are tumbling.
-- And tumbling... It's now 3:00 pm. The Dow is down 552.04, the Nasdaq 147.73. At 3:02 pm, the S&P 500 is down 76.26 (or 6.29%).
-- Up here in Toronto, at 3:03 pm, our leading index, the TSX Composite, is down 853.38 (or 7.04%).
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
