Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Maybe Some Day They Will Come Up With Fresh Smears
TW: An interesting fact and confirmation that the Republicans have feared us socialist Dems for a long time...
From Chris Matthews:
"When was the last time Republicans won the White House without a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket? You have got to go back to 1928 to find a year the Republicans won the White House without a Nixon or a Bush on the ticket. I owe James Carville for that gigantic detail. 80 years of nothing but Bushes and Nixons in winning Republican tickets...
-Ben Barnes, who is lieutenant governor of Texas, sent me a letter. It was a letter sent by Barry Goldwater back in 1960, the day after Lyndon Johnson got the vice presidential nomination. Here's what Barry Goldwater, another senator from Arizona, said: "it is difficult to imagine a person like you running in a second spot to a weaker man" -- that would be Kennedy -- "but it is even more incredible to try to understand how you are going to try to embrace the socialist platform of your party."
From Chris Matthews:
"When was the last time Republicans won the White House without a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket? You have got to go back to 1928 to find a year the Republicans won the White House without a Nixon or a Bush on the ticket. I owe James Carville for that gigantic detail. 80 years of nothing but Bushes and Nixons in winning Republican tickets...
-Ben Barnes, who is lieutenant governor of Texas, sent me a letter. It was a letter sent by Barry Goldwater back in 1960, the day after Lyndon Johnson got the vice presidential nomination. Here's what Barry Goldwater, another senator from Arizona, said: "it is difficult to imagine a person like you running in a second spot to a weaker man" -- that would be Kennedy -- "but it is even more incredible to try to understand how you are going to try to embrace the socialist platform of your party."
Brokaw and Stewart
TW: This is not a particularly profound interview but I found it interesting nonetheless if you are into how the debates might improve and how a middle of the road journalist approaches elections
TW: I know not everyone feels Brokaw is middle of the road but they are wrong, but if u want real fair and balance go watch Fox, these folks did such a fine job of really getting underneath the Fembot clothing story, seeing all sides, taking a nuanced utterly unbiased yet critical view of the story.
TW: And yes media covers female dress differently than men but in case anyone truly believes Fox gives a rats ass about sexism
TW: I know not everyone feels Brokaw is middle of the road but they are wrong, but if u want real fair and balance go watch Fox, these folks did such a fine job of really getting underneath the Fembot clothing story, seeing all sides, taking a nuanced utterly unbiased yet critical view of the story.
TW: And yes media covers female dress differently than men but in case anyone truly believes Fox gives a rats ass about sexism
Looming Problems (cont.): Mexico Drug Violence
TW: Joining Pakistan on the emerging problems list is Mexico. It has received limited coverage but the drug related violence in Mexico and its associated corruption of the Mexican security forces is on a scary upward trajectory. Given our common border and shared social and economic interests, any serious problems in Mexico are our problems. Some of the violence has spilled over into the border states already and one must assume the related corruption as well.
From Bloomberg:
"As cartels gain power and the death toll mounts to a record 3,800 this year, Mexico increasingly blames the U.S. for the carnage, which is having a negative impact on the economy...critics say the U.S. has done little to stop the flow of arms into Mexico and to curtail demand for drugs at home...Mexican cartels sell $13.8 billion a year worth of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and amphetamines to U.S. drug users, according to White House figures. Mexico is the corridor for about 90 percent of the cocaine consumed in the U.S...The Bush administration proposed cutting spending on drug treatment and prevention programs by $73 million, or 1.5 percent, in the 2009 budget...More than 90 percent of weapons used in violent crimes in Mexico are brought in illegally from the U.S...`The danger in Mexico is that the drug organizations become so powerful they can challenge the federal government'...''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akDCw.fUKYOc&refer=home
From Bloomberg:
"As cartels gain power and the death toll mounts to a record 3,800 this year, Mexico increasingly blames the U.S. for the carnage, which is having a negative impact on the economy...critics say the U.S. has done little to stop the flow of arms into Mexico and to curtail demand for drugs at home...Mexican cartels sell $13.8 billion a year worth of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and amphetamines to U.S. drug users, according to White House figures. Mexico is the corridor for about 90 percent of the cocaine consumed in the U.S...The Bush administration proposed cutting spending on drug treatment and prevention programs by $73 million, or 1.5 percent, in the 2009 budget...More than 90 percent of weapons used in violent crimes in Mexico are brought in illegally from the U.S...`The danger in Mexico is that the drug organizations become so powerful they can challenge the federal government'...''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akDCw.fUKYOc&refer=home
Repairing the Damage: America Needs To Be Strong But Wiser
TW: Continuing with the theme of how we as a nation emerge from this present crisis to be stronger, we turn to a piece by Francis Fukuyama. He speaks to the pivotal point at which we find ourselves currently yet with tremendous opportunity. I grabbed several cuts from the article but you really need to read it for yourself.
From Fukuyama from John Hopkins and Newsweek:
"Ideas are one of our most important exports, and two fundamentally American ideas have dominated global thinking since the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was elected president. The first was a certain vision of capitalism—one that argued low taxes, light regulation and a pared-back government would be the engine for economic growth. Reaganism reversed a century-long trend toward ever-larger government. Deregulation became the order of the day not just in the United States but around the world. The second big idea was America as a promoter of liberal democracy around the world, which was seen as the best path to a more prosperous and open international order. America's power and influence rested not just on our tanks and dollars, but on the fact that most people found the American form of self-government attractive and wanted to reshape their societies along the same lines—what political scientist Joseph Nye has labeled our "soft power."
It's hard to fathom just how badly these signature features of the American brand have been discredited...Worse, the culprit is the American model itself: under the mantra of less government, Washington failed to adequately regulate the financial sector and allowed it to do tremendous harm to the rest of the society...To many people around the world, America's rhetoric about democracy sounds a lot like an excuse for furthering U.S. hegemony...
The choice we face now goes well beyond the bailout, or the presidential campaign. The American brand is being sorely tested at a time when other models—whether China's or Russia's—are looking more and more attractive. Restoring our good name and reviving the appeal of our brand is in many ways as great a challenge as stabilizing the financial sector. Barack Obama and John McCain would each bring different strengths to the task. But for either it will be an uphill, years-long struggle. And we cannot even begin until we clearly understand what went wrong—which aspects of the American model are sound, which were poorly implemented, and which need to be discarded altogether...
Like all transformative movements, the Reagan revolution lost its way because for many followers it became an unimpeachable ideology, not a pragmatic response to the excesses of the welfare state. Two concepts were sacrosanct: first, that tax cuts would be self-financing, and second, that financial markets could be self-regulating.
Prior to the 1980s, conservatives were fiscally conservative— that is, they were unwilling to spend more than they took in in taxes. But Reaganomics introduced the idea that virtually any tax cut would so stimulate growth that the government would end up taking in more revenue in the end (the so-called Laffer curve). In fact, the traditional view was correct: if you cut taxes without cutting spending, you end up with a damaging deficit.
Promoting democracy—through diplomacy, aid to civil society groups, free media and the like—has never been controversial. The problem now is that by using democracy to justify the Iraq War, the Bush administration suggested to many that "democracy" was a code word for military intervention and regime change
The American model has also been seriously tarnished by the Bush administration's use of torture. After 9/11 Americans proved distressingly ready to give up constitutional protections for the sake of security.
American influence can and will eventually be restored. Since the world as a whole is likely to suffer an economic downturn, it is not clear that the Chinese or Russian models will fare appreciably better than the American version. The United States has come back from serious setbacks during the 1930s and 1970s, due to the adaptability of our system and the resilience of our people.
Still, another comeback rests on our ability to make some fundamental changes. First, we must break out of the Reagan-era straitjacket concerning taxes and regulation. Tax cuts feel good but do not necessarily stimulate growth or pay for themselves; given our long-term fiscal situation Americans are going to have to be told honestly that they will have to pay their own way in the future. Deregulation, or the failure of regulators to keep up with fast-moving markets, can become unbelievably costly, as we have seen. The entire American public sector—underfunded, deprofessionalized and demoralized—needs to be rebuilt and be given a new sense of pride. There are certain jobs that only the government can fulfill.
The unedifying response to the Wall Street crisis shows that the biggest change we need to make is in our politics. The Reagan revolution broke the 50-year dominance of liberals and Democrats in American politics and opened up room for different approaches to the problems of the time. But as the years have passed, what were once fresh ideas have hardened into hoary dogmas. The quality of political debate has been coarsened by partisans who question not just the ideas but the motives of their opponents. All this makes it harder to adjust to the new and difficult reality we face. So the ultimate test for the American model will be its capacity to reinvent itself once again. Good branding is not, to quote a presidential candidate, a matter of putting lipstick on a pig. It's about having the right product to sell in the first place. American democracy has its work cut out for it.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162401
From Fukuyama from John Hopkins and Newsweek:
"Ideas are one of our most important exports, and two fundamentally American ideas have dominated global thinking since the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was elected president. The first was a certain vision of capitalism—one that argued low taxes, light regulation and a pared-back government would be the engine for economic growth. Reaganism reversed a century-long trend toward ever-larger government. Deregulation became the order of the day not just in the United States but around the world. The second big idea was America as a promoter of liberal democracy around the world, which was seen as the best path to a more prosperous and open international order. America's power and influence rested not just on our tanks and dollars, but on the fact that most people found the American form of self-government attractive and wanted to reshape their societies along the same lines—what political scientist Joseph Nye has labeled our "soft power."
It's hard to fathom just how badly these signature features of the American brand have been discredited...Worse, the culprit is the American model itself: under the mantra of less government, Washington failed to adequately regulate the financial sector and allowed it to do tremendous harm to the rest of the society...To many people around the world, America's rhetoric about democracy sounds a lot like an excuse for furthering U.S. hegemony...
The choice we face now goes well beyond the bailout, or the presidential campaign. The American brand is being sorely tested at a time when other models—whether China's or Russia's—are looking more and more attractive. Restoring our good name and reviving the appeal of our brand is in many ways as great a challenge as stabilizing the financial sector. Barack Obama and John McCain would each bring different strengths to the task. But for either it will be an uphill, years-long struggle. And we cannot even begin until we clearly understand what went wrong—which aspects of the American model are sound, which were poorly implemented, and which need to be discarded altogether...
Like all transformative movements, the Reagan revolution lost its way because for many followers it became an unimpeachable ideology, not a pragmatic response to the excesses of the welfare state. Two concepts were sacrosanct: first, that tax cuts would be self-financing, and second, that financial markets could be self-regulating.
Prior to the 1980s, conservatives were fiscally conservative— that is, they were unwilling to spend more than they took in in taxes. But Reaganomics introduced the idea that virtually any tax cut would so stimulate growth that the government would end up taking in more revenue in the end (the so-called Laffer curve). In fact, the traditional view was correct: if you cut taxes without cutting spending, you end up with a damaging deficit.
Promoting democracy—through diplomacy, aid to civil society groups, free media and the like—has never been controversial. The problem now is that by using democracy to justify the Iraq War, the Bush administration suggested to many that "democracy" was a code word for military intervention and regime change
The American model has also been seriously tarnished by the Bush administration's use of torture. After 9/11 Americans proved distressingly ready to give up constitutional protections for the sake of security.
American influence can and will eventually be restored. Since the world as a whole is likely to suffer an economic downturn, it is not clear that the Chinese or Russian models will fare appreciably better than the American version. The United States has come back from serious setbacks during the 1930s and 1970s, due to the adaptability of our system and the resilience of our people.
Still, another comeback rests on our ability to make some fundamental changes. First, we must break out of the Reagan-era straitjacket concerning taxes and regulation. Tax cuts feel good but do not necessarily stimulate growth or pay for themselves; given our long-term fiscal situation Americans are going to have to be told honestly that they will have to pay their own way in the future. Deregulation, or the failure of regulators to keep up with fast-moving markets, can become unbelievably costly, as we have seen. The entire American public sector—underfunded, deprofessionalized and demoralized—needs to be rebuilt and be given a new sense of pride. There are certain jobs that only the government can fulfill.
The unedifying response to the Wall Street crisis shows that the biggest change we need to make is in our politics. The Reagan revolution broke the 50-year dominance of liberals and Democrats in American politics and opened up room for different approaches to the problems of the time. But as the years have passed, what were once fresh ideas have hardened into hoary dogmas. The quality of political debate has been coarsened by partisans who question not just the ideas but the motives of their opponents. All this makes it harder to adjust to the new and difficult reality we face. So the ultimate test for the American model will be its capacity to reinvent itself once again. Good branding is not, to quote a presidential candidate, a matter of putting lipstick on a pig. It's about having the right product to sell in the first place. American democracy has its work cut out for it.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162401
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
What If McCain Had Taken a Different Path?
TW: John McCain, previous to the past six months (since gaining the Republican nomination), was known with some (although certainly not complete) validity as a maverick who bucked his own party at times in deference to "doing the right thing" as opposed to bowing to mere political realities. This maverick brand has been deeply sullied with his strong tack to the right including his reckless appointment of the Fembot as his VP nominee. Certainly McCain tacked right in order to secure his right-wing nut base but what if he had instead tacked to the center, embracing a true maverick mentality chasing independents and shaky Democrats while dragging his right-wing nut base along with him kicking and screaming.
From Alter at Newsweek:
"In a season of ironies, the greatest of all might be that John McCain lacks the toughness to get elected president. During the summer, when he had his best chance, he wasn't tough enough to remake the Republican Party in his own image; instead, he surrendered to a cynical assortment of lobbyists and right-wingers who insisted on a strategic blunder that McCain would recognize from his reading of military history—fighting the last war. In 2004 President Bush won by rallying the base and destroying the Democrat as unpatriotic. They would try to do it again...But the free-market party of Reagan is dead (thanks to the financial crisis) and the resentment party of Nixon (in the form of the ugly attacks unleashed by McCain and Sarah Palin) may find that its best days are behind it. Where is the party of McCain?
If McCain were truly the independent hard-ass he claims to be, he would have courted the GOP conservative base right up to the moment he clinched the nomination, then galloped to the middle, which is where most American voters live..."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/163457
From Alter at Newsweek:
"In a season of ironies, the greatest of all might be that John McCain lacks the toughness to get elected president. During the summer, when he had his best chance, he wasn't tough enough to remake the Republican Party in his own image; instead, he surrendered to a cynical assortment of lobbyists and right-wingers who insisted on a strategic blunder that McCain would recognize from his reading of military history—fighting the last war. In 2004 President Bush won by rallying the base and destroying the Democrat as unpatriotic. They would try to do it again...But the free-market party of Reagan is dead (thanks to the financial crisis) and the resentment party of Nixon (in the form of the ugly attacks unleashed by McCain and Sarah Palin) may find that its best days are behind it. Where is the party of McCain?
If McCain were truly the independent hard-ass he claims to be, he would have courted the GOP conservative base right up to the moment he clinched the nomination, then galloped to the middle, which is where most American voters live..."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/163457
This Says All You Need To Know About McCain's Judgment, Intelligence and Hold On Reality
"I think she's the most qualified of anyone recently who has run for vice president to tell you the truth" John McCain October 22, 2008 on the Don Imus show
I Think David Brooks Believes Obama Has Potential To Make a Great President
TW: David Brooks, moderately conservative columnist for the NYT, has been flirting with Obama since he announced his candidacy. This column is one of his more convoluted partially because Brooks fancies himself an amateur psychologist. He is also, like Peggy Noonan, David Frum, Kathleen Parker and other conservative pundits, struggling to retain his membership in the right wing pundit class while being critical of their 2008 candidates. Ultimately, however, he strongly implies that Obama demonstrates the temperament to be not only and effective but an extraordinary POTUS, something we could probably use about now.
From Brooks/NYT:
"Through the debate, he was reassuring and self-composed. McCain, an experienced old hand, would blink furiously over the tension of the moment, but Obama didn’t reveal even unconscious signs of nervousness. There was no hint of an unwanted feeling...He doesn’t have F.D.R.’s joyful nature or Reagan’s happy outlook, but he is analytical. That’s why this William Ayers business doesn’t stick. He may be liberal, but he is never wild...it is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather — already has gathered — some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem...Obama has clearly worn well with voters. Far from a celebrity fad, he is self-contained, self-controlled and maybe even a little dull."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17brooks.html
From Brooks/NYT:
"Through the debate, he was reassuring and self-composed. McCain, an experienced old hand, would blink furiously over the tension of the moment, but Obama didn’t reveal even unconscious signs of nervousness. There was no hint of an unwanted feeling...He doesn’t have F.D.R.’s joyful nature or Reagan’s happy outlook, but he is analytical. That’s why this William Ayers business doesn’t stick. He may be liberal, but he is never wild...it is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather — already has gathered — some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem...Obama has clearly worn well with voters. Far from a celebrity fad, he is self-contained, self-controlled and maybe even a little dull."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17brooks.html
Stimulus Plan Part Two: Investing In Infrastructure
TW: There is increasing chatter about a 2nd stimulus plan. Personally rather than sending folks checks for a few hundred bucks like last time I would prefer to see a plan to stimulate based on investment rather than consumption. Government accounting unlike private accounting counts all spending the same regardless of its use, this systematically encourages consumption type expenditures at the expense of investment type expenditures. Furthermore market economics has a huge flaw in that externalities (either positive or negative) are not fully incorporated into markets prices. Governments have a role in stimulating investments with positive externalities (e.g. parks, alternative energy). I believe few would argue that our infrastructure of bridges, roads, ports, airports etc. is over-invested. The markets have answered resoundingly that the housing market was over-invested. As the article points out civil engineers have a vested interest in encouraging infrastructure spending but it is time to address an under-funded (arguably embarrassingly under-funded) sector of our economy while stimulating job creation.
From Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:
"Public officials, engineers and policy experts have been warning for years that crumbling infrastructure is a ticking time bomb....A third of the nation's major highways are in poor shape, according to the Department of Transportation. The list of unsafe dams is growing. Mass-transit systems, water-treatment plants, hazardous-waste sites and more are falling apart...The civil engineers association gave the country a "D" on its 2005 infrastructure Report Card. It called for a $1.6 trillion five-year improvement program...The usual argument against infrastructure projects as fiscal stimulus is that they take too long: you have to identify projects and draw up plans first, and only then do you put people to work building stuff. By the time the projects get started, the recession is over...But not this time. The recession we're going into now promises to be deep and long"
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/10/infrastructure.html
From Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:
"Public officials, engineers and policy experts have been warning for years that crumbling infrastructure is a ticking time bomb....A third of the nation's major highways are in poor shape, according to the Department of Transportation. The list of unsafe dams is growing. Mass-transit systems, water-treatment plants, hazardous-waste sites and more are falling apart...The civil engineers association gave the country a "D" on its 2005 infrastructure Report Card. It called for a $1.6 trillion five-year improvement program...The usual argument against infrastructure projects as fiscal stimulus is that they take too long: you have to identify projects and draw up plans first, and only then do you put people to work building stuff. By the time the projects get started, the recession is over...But not this time. The recession we're going into now promises to be deep and long"
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/10/infrastructure.html
Indiana: A Toss-Up? The View from Martinsville
TW: If you read the Economist, you know every four years they do a series of articles on key swing states. Last week's was on Indiana, the fact that Indiana is competitive is in and of itself news since the last Dem they voted for was LBJ and before that FDR in '36. I post this article though because one I grew up there and several readers did as well and two the article focuses in on Martinsville where I went to high school. There are a lot of great folks in M-ville but for those of us familiar with M-ville the irony of Barack Obama opening a field office there will be obvious. I did not have the heart to highlight below the "Susie" quote, you will have to open the link.
From the Economist:
"...Indiana is next door to Illinois...and the two states share media markets. He can count on lots of support among the steel foundries and blighted minority communities in the state’s north-west, which is close to Chicago and has sizeable union rolls. Indianapolis, a city of 790,000 with its own large black population, is also Democratic territory, as is Bloomington, home to the University of Indiana’s flagship campus. But Democrats always do pretty well in these areas. In order to carry the state, Mr Obama will have to win elsewhere, too...South of Indianapolis, the state feels more like Kentucky and the old South, its hilly landscape dotted with livestock, roadside churches and small rural towns such as Martinsville, where, one could reasonably estimate, tattoos outnumber people...Mr Obama, indeed, probably won’t swing Martinsville’s Morgan County, which voted for Mr Bush by 48 points in 2004. His Indiana campaign nevertheless opened its 40th office there on October 6th."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12376911
From the Economist:
"...Indiana is next door to Illinois...and the two states share media markets. He can count on lots of support among the steel foundries and blighted minority communities in the state’s north-west, which is close to Chicago and has sizeable union rolls. Indianapolis, a city of 790,000 with its own large black population, is also Democratic territory, as is Bloomington, home to the University of Indiana’s flagship campus. But Democrats always do pretty well in these areas. In order to carry the state, Mr Obama will have to win elsewhere, too...South of Indianapolis, the state feels more like Kentucky and the old South, its hilly landscape dotted with livestock, roadside churches and small rural towns such as Martinsville, where, one could reasonably estimate, tattoos outnumber people...Mr Obama, indeed, probably won’t swing Martinsville’s Morgan County, which voted for Mr Bush by 48 points in 2004. His Indiana campaign nevertheless opened its 40th office there on October 6th."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12376911
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Truth Comes Out
TW: The Obama surge in the polls has nothing to do with the plunging economy, McCain's schizo campaigning or a Fembot mindlessly meandering through our polity. It is the result of Obama's Kenyan relatives putting the hex on poor McPalin.
From Injesus (whatever the fug that is):
"THIS IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS.
Minutes ago I spoke with friend Dr. Norman G. Marvin, M.D. and he is so concerned at what he has learned about Barack Obama's family in Kenya that he is calling a special prayer meeting in his home to pray against the witchcraft curses attempted by them against John McCain and Sarah Palin...Dr. Marvin sent me the below e-mail from Flo Ellers. Flo is credentialed with the International Fellowship of Ministries which is based in Washington State. She is also a member of EndTime Handmaidens and Servants of Jasper, Arkansas.
IF YOU KNOW HOW TO DO SPIRITUAL WARFARE, PLEASE PRAY TODAY AND CONTINUALLY THAT ALL SUCH CURSES BE BROKEN AND SATAN'S PLAN FOR AMERICA BE DEFEATED, IN JESUS' NAME. PRAY AND COVER MCCAIN AND PALIN WITH THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO SPIRITUAL WARFARE, IT IS TIME YOU LEARN!!!"
http://www.injesus.com/index.php?module=message&task=view&MID=CB007FA2&GroupID=2A004N9G&label=&paging=all
From Injesus (whatever the fug that is):
"THIS IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS.
Minutes ago I spoke with friend Dr. Norman G. Marvin, M.D. and he is so concerned at what he has learned about Barack Obama's family in Kenya that he is calling a special prayer meeting in his home to pray against the witchcraft curses attempted by them against John McCain and Sarah Palin...Dr. Marvin sent me the below e-mail from Flo Ellers. Flo is credentialed with the International Fellowship of Ministries which is based in Washington State. She is also a member of EndTime Handmaidens and Servants of Jasper, Arkansas.
IF YOU KNOW HOW TO DO SPIRITUAL WARFARE, PLEASE PRAY TODAY AND CONTINUALLY THAT ALL SUCH CURSES BE BROKEN AND SATAN'S PLAN FOR AMERICA BE DEFEATED, IN JESUS' NAME. PRAY AND COVER MCCAIN AND PALIN WITH THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO SPIRITUAL WARFARE, IT IS TIME YOU LEARN!!!"
http://www.injesus.com/index.php?module=message&task=view&MID=CB007FA2&GroupID=2A004N9G&label=&paging=all
A 3rd Grader Asks the Question And Gets a 3rd Grade Level Response
"Sarah Palin truly is not a Washington insider. Per Think Progress, she told a local television station in Colorado (in response to a question from a third grader), that the Vice President is "in charge of the U.S. Senate, so if they want to they, can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes."
TW: Thankfully she will never occupy the office but she might want to brush up on what a VP actually does relative to the Senate (presiding being somewhat different than "in charge of")
TW: Thankfully she will never occupy the office but she might want to brush up on what a VP actually does relative to the Senate (presiding being somewhat different than "in charge of")
If You Can Carry the Cats You Will Carry the Nation
TW: As those of you who know us realize, we are cat people at the White House. Therefore with great pride we post the results for the cat poll:
"The people want Barack Obama, a Bombay cat, to lead them in a purr-fect presidency.
The winner beat Renegade the Republicat, a British Shorthair, by 65 percent in the "vote for your favorite DemoCat or RepubliCat" competition at the Cat Fanciers' Association-Iams Championship at Madison Square Garden on Sunday night."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27277520/
"The people want Barack Obama, a Bombay cat, to lead them in a purr-fect presidency.
The winner beat Renegade the Republicat, a British Shorthair, by 65 percent in the "vote for your favorite DemoCat or RepubliCat" competition at the Cat Fanciers' Association-Iams Championship at Madison Square Garden on Sunday night."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27277520/
A Butterfly Twitches In Iceland And Then What
TW: As you may have heard Iceland's financial system has essentially imploded (not kinda imploded like ours, really imploded as in no one will trade with them for now, which btw is a real problem if you are an island of 300K folks with very limited agricultural and industrial resources). When we were in the UK a couple of weeks ago, the locking up of the Icelandic financial markets was big news. Apparently numerous local governments throughout the UK in search of higher yields had placed significant public funds (pension money etc.) in Icelandic banks. The local entities were squealing like stuck pigs bemoaning their potential exposure (i.e. wanting the UK or Icelandic govt's to bail them out, no one seemed to be asking why in the hell they put their money there in the first place). Friedman frames the Icelandic issue within the broader context of globalization.
Again as for the US, we can pout, stomp our feet and shriek say "country first" or we can dig in and embrace change with all its commensurate risks and opportunities.
From Friedman/NYT:
"...And therein lies the central truth of globalization today: We’re all connected and nobody is in charge...Globalization giveth — it was this democratization of finance that helped to power the global growth that lifted so many in India, China and Brazil out of poverty in recent decades. Globalization now taketh away — it was this democratization of finance that enabled the U.S. to infect the rest of the world with its toxic mortgages. And now, we have to hope, that globalization will saveth.
The real and sustained bailout from the crisis will happen when the strong companies buy the weak ones — on a global basis. It’s starting. Last week, Credit Suisse declined a Swiss government bailout and instead raised fresh capital from Qatar, the Olayan family of Saudi Arabia and Israel’s Koor Industries. Japan’s Mitsubishi bank bought a stake in Morgan Stanley, possibly rescuing it from bankruptcy and preventing an even steeper decline in the Dow. And Spain’s Banco Santander, which was spared from the worst of this credit crisis by Spain’s conservative banking regulations, is purchasing America’s Sovereign Bankcorp.
I suspect we will soon see the same happening in industry. And, once the smoke clears, I suspect we will find ourselves living in a world of globalization on steroids — a world in which key global economies are more intimately tied together than ever before.
It will be a world in which America will not be able to scratch its ear, let alone roll over in bed, without thinking about the impact on other countries and economies. And it will be a world in which multilateral diplomacy and regulation will no longer be a choice. It will be a reality and a necessity. We are all partners now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/opinion/19friedman.html
Again as for the US, we can pout, stomp our feet and shriek say "country first" or we can dig in and embrace change with all its commensurate risks and opportunities.
From Friedman/NYT:
"...And therein lies the central truth of globalization today: We’re all connected and nobody is in charge...Globalization giveth — it was this democratization of finance that helped to power the global growth that lifted so many in India, China and Brazil out of poverty in recent decades. Globalization now taketh away — it was this democratization of finance that enabled the U.S. to infect the rest of the world with its toxic mortgages. And now, we have to hope, that globalization will saveth.
The real and sustained bailout from the crisis will happen when the strong companies buy the weak ones — on a global basis. It’s starting. Last week, Credit Suisse declined a Swiss government bailout and instead raised fresh capital from Qatar, the Olayan family of Saudi Arabia and Israel’s Koor Industries. Japan’s Mitsubishi bank bought a stake in Morgan Stanley, possibly rescuing it from bankruptcy and preventing an even steeper decline in the Dow. And Spain’s Banco Santander, which was spared from the worst of this credit crisis by Spain’s conservative banking regulations, is purchasing America’s Sovereign Bankcorp.
I suspect we will soon see the same happening in industry. And, once the smoke clears, I suspect we will find ourselves living in a world of globalization on steroids — a world in which key global economies are more intimately tied together than ever before.
It will be a world in which America will not be able to scratch its ear, let alone roll over in bed, without thinking about the impact on other countries and economies. And it will be a world in which multilateral diplomacy and regulation will no longer be a choice. It will be a reality and a necessity. We are all partners now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/opinion/19friedman.html
Taking Your Medicine And Getting Better
TW: This crisis is deeper than most, the resulting change will likely and better be deeper as well. As I have said before pouting about diminished American prestige and power is not the answer, the answer is aggressive American innovation to address the debt flab and arrogance that has dominated American policy in various forms for the past 20 plus years.
From Zakaria/Newsweek:
"This crisis has—dramatically, vengefully—forced the United States to confront the bad habits it has developed over the past few decades...Since the 1980s, Americans have consumed more than they produced—and they have made up the difference by borrowing...'We've wanted lots of government, but we haven't wanted to pay for it.' So we've borrowed our way out of the problem. In 1990, the national debt stood at $3 trillion. (That sounds high, but keep reading.) By 2000, it had almost doubled, to $5.75 trillion. It is currently $10.2 trillion...
Households, for instance, should save more. Governments should put incentives in place that make such savings more likely. The U.S. government offers enormous incentives to consume (the deduction of mortgage interest being the best example), and it works. We have the biggest houses in the world, the thinnest flat-screen TVs and the most cars. If we were to tax consumption and encourage savings, that would also work...
For 20 years, the DNA of nearly every financial institution had morphed dangerously. Each time someone at the table pressed for more leverage and more risk, the next few years proved them 'right.' These people were emboldened, they were promoted and they gained control of ever more capital. Meanwhile, anyone in power who hesitated, who argued for caution, was proved 'wrong.' The cautious types were increasingly intimidated, passed over for promotion. They lost their hold on capital...
The fear on Wall Street is that a Democratic administration would overregulate. But look at who is advising Barack Obama—Buffett, Volcker, former Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. It is more likely that what will come from their efforts will be a better-regulated financial system that, while producing less-extravagant profits, will be more stable and secure...
Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has operated in the world with no constraints or checks on its power. This has not been good for its foreign policy. It has made Washington arrogant, lazy and careless...
We cannot noisily denounce Chinese and Arab foreign investments in America one day and then hope that they will keep buying $4 billion worth of T-bills another day. We cannot keep preaching to the world about democracy and capitalism while our own house is so wildly out of order.
It's a fundamental American belief that competition is good—in business, athletics and life. Checks and balances are James Madison's crucial mechanisms, exposing and countering abuse and arrogance and forcing discipline on people. This discipline will be painful for a country that has gotten used to having it all."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/163449
From Zakaria/Newsweek:
"This crisis has—dramatically, vengefully—forced the United States to confront the bad habits it has developed over the past few decades...Since the 1980s, Americans have consumed more than they produced—and they have made up the difference by borrowing...'We've wanted lots of government, but we haven't wanted to pay for it.' So we've borrowed our way out of the problem. In 1990, the national debt stood at $3 trillion. (That sounds high, but keep reading.) By 2000, it had almost doubled, to $5.75 trillion. It is currently $10.2 trillion...
Households, for instance, should save more. Governments should put incentives in place that make such savings more likely. The U.S. government offers enormous incentives to consume (the deduction of mortgage interest being the best example), and it works. We have the biggest houses in the world, the thinnest flat-screen TVs and the most cars. If we were to tax consumption and encourage savings, that would also work...
For 20 years, the DNA of nearly every financial institution had morphed dangerously. Each time someone at the table pressed for more leverage and more risk, the next few years proved them 'right.' These people were emboldened, they were promoted and they gained control of ever more capital. Meanwhile, anyone in power who hesitated, who argued for caution, was proved 'wrong.' The cautious types were increasingly intimidated, passed over for promotion. They lost their hold on capital...
The fear on Wall Street is that a Democratic administration would overregulate. But look at who is advising Barack Obama—Buffett, Volcker, former Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. It is more likely that what will come from their efforts will be a better-regulated financial system that, while producing less-extravagant profits, will be more stable and secure...
Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has operated in the world with no constraints or checks on its power. This has not been good for its foreign policy. It has made Washington arrogant, lazy and careless...
We cannot noisily denounce Chinese and Arab foreign investments in America one day and then hope that they will keep buying $4 billion worth of T-bills another day. We cannot keep preaching to the world about democracy and capitalism while our own house is so wildly out of order.
It's a fundamental American belief that competition is good—in business, athletics and life. Checks and balances are James Madison's crucial mechanisms, exposing and countering abuse and arrogance and forcing discipline on people. This discipline will be painful for a country that has gotten used to having it all."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/163449
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)