It appears that the stream of "sternly worded letters" directed at Executive from Legislature is no longer enough for some people.


Is the Independent Counsel going to return? Democrats, played for fools in the aftermath of the Clinton impeachment, seem to be waking up to a dazed recognition that the sternly worded letter is not going to force an Executive Branch official  answer to a Congressional subpoena; and that a more potent instrument may be needed, the very one Democrats imprudently allowed to lapse a decade ago, as Rep. Jerrold Nadler confided to Glenn Greenwald on Wednesday:

GG: A hearing today. Okay, last question, because I know you're very pressed for time, which is this: when I talked to Congressman Holt a few weeks ago, he said that he would favor the creation of an independent commission, like the 9/11 Commission endowed with real subpoena power to investigate the anthrax case, and subject all of the FBI's investigation--

JN: I would favor that too, but their subpoena power would be no more enforceable than our subpoena power. I mean, if the administration chooses to procrastinate. I think there ought to be an independent commission. I think to explore the issue, we're going to have to re-establish some form of the old special prosecutor statute, that went out after Ken Starr, because you can't let an administration control the prosecutions.

On my blog,I generously gave it a C-minus before reading either one. Besides, Mallaby's column, while it has some better alternatives on the bailout side, ignores what I blogged about — namely, that Dems have a golden opportunity to insist not only on new regulatory standards, but beyond that, on new regulatory requirements.

Beyond that, I note that 2 years is wayyy too short a period for a bad-assets auction framework, McCain pulls a Palin in calling for a federal authority that already pretty much exists, and that ...

There's about a 5 percent chance Reid and Pelosi will stand up to Paulson and Bernanke in a game of brinkmanship.

In other words, you're going to get screwed not just royally but bipartisanly. Welcome to the duopoly.

Here is tonight's aggregate post from Raider99 who is off lollygagging around somewhere!

Use this space to post diaries that flew by too fast and are worthy of another look. Please write a short description along w/ the link.

Anyone can add a link here!

Don't forget to rec this post so it reaches reader rec and all these posts will be availible for longer.

Hi there, come on in.  This is my virtual living room, in my virtual world full of virtual friends.  Welcome. 

Some things are real.  Some things are not.  Some things exist in the shadows between the two worlds.  One of the things that has existed in that shadowy hemisphere is my dog.  Sox.  In reality, she has not lived in my living room, or with me, since June of 2006.  At that time my own reality changed, I was thrown into a place in which she could not fit.  So she was left behind with another who loved her, cared for her and made it possible for her reality to remain peaceful.  I have seen her, regularly, since that time.  In another's living room.  Reality.  But in my heart, in my head and, yes, in my virtual living room she has remained by my side.  Snoring in her bed.  Jumping on friends.  The same friends who have become a part of my reality.  Shadows.  Please forgive me for pretending that a piece of my heart hadn't been broken.  That the piece named Sox still remained.

It seems now that in reality she is no longer in the other living room, either.  The other half of me that is the past decided to send her to another home.  I don't know where, but he says it's a good one.  I have to believe that.  In my virtual mind she's playing with children and having a ball.  She's snoring in her bed and dreaming of puppy days long gone in reality - but this is virtual, after all.

The other half of me that is the past decided, upon discovering these simple words that I express each night, that she should be lost to my reality.  Because I have loved her so often virtually.  So have you all.  I'm so sorry for not being entirely realistic in this fantasy world of mine ... feeling her with me just made me a bit more whole.

Can you forgive me?

I can't defend the bailout plan submitted by the Fed to Congress. It is loosely constructed, giving broad discretionary powers and a purse equal to a third of the 2008 budget to the Executive branch. And it will dump up to $700 billion more atop the $600 billion in private debt the Fed already has levied on taxpayers. What the details of the final legislation will look like, no one can say at this moment.

What I can say is that our nation cannot be allowed to suffer a second Great Depression. Whether the credit megacrisis blindsided our government, happened more rapidly than expected or was somehow planned for nefarious purposes is irrelevant to the basic truth that a total collapse of the U.S. banking system would have repercussions far beyond our economy and our shores.

If, as economists such as Paul Krugman have said, we are faced with a return to 1931, then let us remember what those days gave the world: not just terrible hardships at home, but hardships beyond reckoning abroad. And those hardships in countries less stable than ours gave rise to totalitarian ideologies that required a horrific world war to halt.

We have no trouble understanding that poverty lends itself to crime in our streets. Imagine what nationwide poverty would look like today in the hot spots of the world. How many Kim Jung Ils would rise across the globe? How many Mussolinis and Hitlers would we face in the next few years? And what would a world war look like today?

The question is not whether to avert global economic collapse. The only reasonable question to ask now is: How best to avert it and preserve our democracy?

U.S. President George W. Bush signed an executive order during his term in office which restricts federally-funded stem cell research on embryonic stem cells to the already derived cell lines. He supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on the already existing lines of approximately $100 million and $250 million for research on adult and animal stem cell.

Has anybody ever asked President Bush, Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama how they would feel if while using those already derived cell lines of embryonic stem cells, researchers were to find a cure for say, cancer, kidney disease or blindness?

If it's proven that using embryonic stem cells can cure millions of kids that are dying of leukemia -- would the right to life folks change their tune and insist on federal funding for more research and development?

If it's their child that's dying would they change their minds and allow funding?

It's kind of like the famous question put to Governor Dukakis about what he would do if his wife were raped and murdered:

"Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis replied coolly, "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life,"

Remember that?  Which if any candidate or Party would change their mind about embryonic stem cell research -- if it's found that it can save lives?

Though it is hard for Democrats to swallow, we have to step up to the bailout. And if the bill is written well, it won't be as bad as you think.

This crisis does confirm that Bush is the Worst President Ever, and it might not be a bad name for the legislation. But Democrats do have to show they can govern in a crisis. Taxpayers won't be much hurt, and fatcat bankers won't be much enriched, as long as the legislation is written so that the government buys mortgage bonds for value.

Let's say a car dealer is in financial trouble and needs to get rid of his inventory. It's your job to go there and make an offer. He has a few current models in pretty good shape, so you offer 85 cents on the dollar for the wholesale price. He has a Hummer that has been on the lot for a year and a half, so you offer 35 cents on the dollar. You give him $200 each for two 10-year-old Toyotas, and you don't buy the cars that don't run or don't have good title.

The car dealer is neither enriched or empoverished by accepting your offer. He is more liquid. He can take the money and pay one of his bills. You are not enriched or empoverished by the deal. If you bought right, you can sell your carss for a little profit.

In a similar way, we have to make sure the bailout legislation buys mortgage bonds for value. That way, it won't enrich the banker, or empoverish the taxpayers.

First, let's look at what the taxpayers will be buying. Let's say that within a brief period about two years ago, 1,000 people closed on new houses, taking out $200 million in mortgages. Someone bundled the mortgages and sold the interest payments to one group of buyers and the principal payments to another.

Let's say Goldman has bought $10 million of the principal bonds. Since then, things haven't been good for this group of homeowners. A few have been transferred, repaid their loans, and Goldman already received its share of that principal. Another 20% of the houses are in foreclosure. Prices have dropped, and some homes are not worth what is owed on the mortgage. Goldman would like to sell its bonds at a steep discount, but nobody wants to buy.

So the federal government steps in and says it will buy $10 billion of mortgage bonds on Friday, and asks for offers. Goldman offers its bonds in this series at 32 cents on the dollar. Merrill, which originally bought $25 million, offers its bonds at 39 cents on the dollar. Citibank, which bought $5 million, offers its bonds at 53 cents on the dollar.

The government decides to accept all offers on this bond below 35 cents. For other bonds, the government might not know enough yet to accept any offers.

The government sets up another auction and goes through the process again, as long as bonds are offered at a price at which the government wants to buy. When there are no more good offers, the government stops the auctions.

Just like the car dealer, the bankers are not financially enriched or empoverished by the transactions. They are more liquid. If they have enough money to pay their bills, they can operate. If not, they can close.

As long as the government has not overpaid, it won't lose much money. The key is to make sure the government gets value for what it pays. An auction format would help to do that.

This could be sweetened by offering stimulus cash to Americans, and offering incentives for fuel efficient cars built in America.

Though the Republicans are totally discredited, the Democrats will have to demonstrate they are ready to govern. It should be clear to everyone that Bush/McCain made this mess and the Democrats are cleaning up after the worst president ever.

Please don't be mad at Obama and the other Democrats when they step up to lead the country through this Republican-made crisis.

<a href="http://s150.photobucket.com/albums/s85/pikkonoloidlee/?action=view&current=100_1770.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s85/pikkonoloidlee/100_1770.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://s150.photobucket.com/albums/s85/pikkonoloidlee/?action=view&current=100_1764.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s85/pikkonoloidlee/100_1764.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://s150.photobucket.com/albums/s85/pikkonoloidlee/?action=view&current=100_1761.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s85/pikkonoloidlee/100_1761.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

This afternoon I thought that lines at the gas pumps was another sign of we are slipping into becoming like those emerging countries we used to laugh at - shortages. But apparently there's not shortage, just an example of mob mentality.

Kroger had cars snaked around through its parking lot. The police were parked on the main thoroughfare west because one BP station had gas. They were only allowing people to purchase $20 worth (a pretty small amount these days).

Of course, at both Kroger's and the BP, people were sitting in line with their motors running. I can only wonder how much gas was wasted. My niece told me she waited in line yesterday and six cars had to be pushed to the pumps.

Sadly, Nashville doesn't have a very good mass transit system, and Prevention magazine named it the worst major city for walking in the state. I chose to walk to my sister's house (about a half a mile), passing by the BP station. Only a short part of the way was there a sidewalk, and much of the way there's wasn't much of space to walk.

they've got us.  is this bail out the right thing to do in seriously troubling times, or is this another fleecing?  i don't have the foggiest idea.  i've got a better than even-money-hunch that most of you don't either.  the fair assumption is that we've been burned so much by these crooks the past seven-plus years that this must be just another hold up.  the conventional wisdom being don't rush to judgement this time 'round, we've seen this play before.  

but what if these thieves aren't full to the brim with their usual con this time?  what if they're not crying wolf, and debate and thoughtfulness and reason--all of the values so pitifully absent the past seven-plus years--actually hurt our chances of helping out this national emergency?  like i said before, i don't  know the answer.  but i do know enough to know a tight spot when i see one.

jesus, we need a new president.  at this point, the bar is low.  if you were able to internalize a few universal parables as a child, please apply.     

One trillion dollars. The current population of the United States is estimated at 305 million, and the average household size, as of the last census, is about three. Give or take, that means that each person in the United States is about to kick in about $3,300 for the current bailout plan. Each household will on average be kicking in about $7,500, and the average family about $10,000. The median household income in the US is around $50,000 (before taxes). Just a thought.

Obama's expanded his lead in Gallup Daily Tracking poll 50%-44%, matching his previous high of 50% reached after the democratic convention. Obama's lead 49%-42% post convention lead was obliterated 4 days after Palin and McCain's convention speeches after which McCain took the a lead of 49%-44%. McCain began to lose his lead as news of McCain & Palin's exaggerations and lying began to spread. The lead reverted to Obama a day after AIG, Lehman's Brothers and Merrill Lynch's financial problems were reported.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama with 48% of the vote and John McCain with 47%. It is the first time he has lead the poll in a week-and-a-half.

DON'T FIGHT FOR A BAILOUT, FIGHT FOR A SAFETY NET!

 

I don't know what TPM's policy on profanity is, so I'm just going to provide the link for this one.

Driving around Nashville you wouldn't know an election campaign was going on, or that McCain had been declared the winner in Tennessee. Each day you see several Obama bumper stickers, but McCain stickers are rare. You usually see a Bush-Cheney sticker or two daily, but no McCain.

But in a seedy strip mall just north of downtown (other tenants are a liquor store, an independent market and a Dollar General Store), nearly every car has a bumper sticker. Hundreds of people collect each Saturday and go in squads to register voters. A dozen or so people are making calls for local candidates and to get out the Obama supporters.

They are pretty much out of t-shirts, out of yard signs, out of bumper stickers. On the other hand volunteers are busily printing and assembling buttons.

My fellow volunteer and I breezed through our assigned canvassing, registering three new voters. I returned to the office and spent the rest of the afternoon cleaning and tidying the kitchen area (there's no cleaning service).

I finished by taking the recycles to the center near my home. I picked out the cans, but I only got 16 cents from the aluminum can center.

Two years ago Harold Ford, Jr., got very close to winning a statewide Senate race. (I personally believe his bonehead move of crashing his opponent's press conference changed the momentum.) His good numbers came despite having his uncle, who had been an embarrassment for 20 years, investigated and arrested shortly before the election season began. But I suppose he was one of ours, and easier to vote for than Obama.

This campaign is gloriously successful in one way. Two years ago when we visited low-income African-American communities, all too many people refused to register to vote, saying their one vote wouldn't matter. It's a hard argument to counter, and I am not sure telling them that when a demographic group fails to vote regularly, their wishes don't get considered when laws are made (crack possession sentences are a good example). I don't know if the people registering today really expect Obama to win, but if we can get them to vote and keep them voting, I can see the potential for improving the well-being of children and families.

A power-volunteer, whom I know from the 2000, 2004 and 2006 campaigns, assured me this is the most organized we have been in Tennessee.

An internal government document has been obtained by ABC News which directly contradicts Sarah Palin's most recent explanation for why she fired her public safety commissioner Walt Monegan, the move which prompted the contested state probe into what has come to be known as "Troopergate." Fighting allegations that she may have fired Monegan for refusing to go along with a personal vendetta against her former brother-in-law, state trooper Mike Wooten, Palin claimed that she fired Monegan because he had a "rogue mentality" and planned an unauthorized trip to Washington DC to seek federal funds for an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program. According to an Alaska Department of Public Safety travel document released Friday, however, the governor's office did authorized the trip. Signed by Palin's chief of staff, the document authorizes Monegan to travel to Washington "to attend meeting with Senator Murkowski" at state expense (see also CBS News). Even as the McCain/Palin campaign attempts to adjust their explanation for Monegan's dismissal, it seems obvious that Palin's lies are catching up with her.

Meanwhile, John McCain's tendency to confuse things has aired itself once again in a gaffe caught by political blogger David Hulen at the Anchorage Daily News (see also Huffington Post), It seems McCain confused the Army and the National Guard at a town hall event in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on Wednesday, as Hulen observes:

Candidates spend a lot of time talking, and they all misspeak sometimes. But did anyone else notice this, from Wednesday's much-covered McCain-Palin Town Hall event in Grand Rapids, Mich., where Palin answered questions from people in the audience? McCain said this near the end of the clip below, as he's talking up Palin's foreign policy/national security credentials:

 "I also know, if I might remind you, that she is commander of the Alaska National Guard. In fact, you may know that on Sept. 11 a large contingent of the Alaska Guard deployed to Iraq and her son happened to be one of them. So I think she understands our national security challenges..."

The ceremony Palin attended at Fort Wainwright last week didn't involve the Alaska National Guard. Palin's son is in the Army, and his unit - 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division - deployed to Iraq.

Oops....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/welcome-to-the-final-stag_b_127990.html

Haven't seen a new post since 8:30ish this AM.

Is it just me?

I’m probably going to catch some heck for suggesting this but do the recent suicide attacks in Pakistan and Yemen make anybody else think of an October surprise?

We’ve had two terrorist attacks in the last week.  Today was in Pakistan’s Marriott Hotel and earlier this on Wednesday militants disguised as soldiers detonated two car bombs outside the United States Embassy compound in Sana, Yemen.

After each attack, President George W Bush came on television condemning the terrorist attacks and saying something to the effect of,

“this serves as a reminder of the terrorists threats we are all under.”

He warned that the United States was

“at war with extremists who will murder innocent people to achieve their ideological objectives”.

Even General Petraeus came out and said,

“that one of those objectives was to try to cause the United States to lose our nerve and to withdraw from regions of the world.”

You get the feeling you’re being REMINDED of TERROR and 9/11 again?  I get the feeling they are saying, “Are you SURE you want a Democrat to run things?”

I’ve got one thing to point out and I’ll let you make your own assumptions.

Remember when Bush and Cheney use to accuse Saddam Hussein of paying the Palestinians $25,000 to commit suicide in Israel?  Keep in mind that these people are dirt poor.  $25,000 would support their whole families for years to come.

Now for the big question.  How hard would it be for the U.S. or an allie of ours to go to Yemen or Pakistan and offer up that same deal to some poor man or woman?  $25,000 is a petty cash to some people in the U.S.

If you thought it might convince voters to vote Republican again — would you be willing to pay somebody to set off a bomb?  I’m betting there are hundreds out there that would be.

In other words folks, the timing of these bombs are perfect — Election Day just 44 days away.

General Petreaus’s comment, “that one of those objectives was to try to cause the United States to lose our nerve and to withdraw from regions of the world.” — could be reversed.  If the terrorists really wanted us to LEAVE — and if it’s true what McCain and the Republicans are saying that Democrats will immediately pull out (which we all know they won’t) of Iraq — don’t you think the terrorist would just go underground till ‘after’ the election?

Wouldn’t they just wait till Obama became President?  Why would they ‘help’ John McCain get elected by scaring voters to vote for him by bombing places again — knowing ‘he’ plans on ’staying’ in Iraq indefinitely?

Does not compute folks.

LPACTV: Jeff Steinberg and John Hoefle Weekly Update
This is the LaRouchePAC weekly update for September 18, 2008

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/09/18/lpactv-jeff-steinberg-and-john-hoefle-weekly-update.html

No Grounds for Panic: LaRouche Was and Is Right!

Now, even the worst ignoramuses can see what Lyndon LaRouche warned of in his webcast of July 25, 2007, i.e. that the system had already collapsed, and that what we would experience from then on, would merely be the different aspects of that collapse as they surfaced. We warned about it. Why was nothing done? We warned that the whole thing was happening, back in our international webcast of July 2007. And we defined the precautions that should be taken all the way through. Why was nothing done about it?

There is a front page post right now on dkos with people bemoaning the lack of availability of yard signs.  But you don't have to buy one someplace, you can download pdf files directly from Obama's website and print your own.  Print the sign the size you want and rubber cement it to some poster board for a window sign.  To make it waterproof for a yard sign cover it with clear contact paper that you can buy at your local hardware or drug store.  Don't wait to find a sign somewhere else - print your own today.

In the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

Not  even  in  your wildest dreams!

QUICK run and get you brothers and sisters WE HAVE PRESENTS TO OPEN

This is from Sept./Oct. 2008 issue of Contingencies, an article by McCain titled "Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American." 

McCain SAYS THE FOLLOWING  "I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

REMEMBER THIS IS IN THE SEPTEMBE/ OCTOBER 2008 Issue of the magazine.

It's a 4 page article you can read HERE  but what is above is the important part all I got for now.

THANK YOU Paul Krugman . His full Blog HERE

The title says it all.  Charles Blow used it in his NYT column today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/opinion/20blow.html?ref=opinion

I literally shot my coffee out my nose (no, it was NOT pleasant).

Everyone's had a pretty intense week, so in the interest of completely inane therapeutic goofitoffity, would any of you all like to populate the rest of SnowJobs world?  Keep it clean please, it's a family show.

I got a little over-excited last night, and posted the word 'landslide' in the same sentence as 'Obama'. So I better try and stand it up.

Okay, the polls have returned to pretty much where they were before the conventions, but actually everything has changed. Elections are built on strategy - you get that wrong, in a battle as tight as this one, you're going to lose big time.

McCain had one reasonable game plan -  to play the sheriff, the steady hand etc. etc. And he's completely, irrevocably blown it. If this is a game of chess, McCain has done the equivalent of giving away his queen. The moose gambit was a dreadful move, and would probably have lost him the election anyway. But in the context of a Wall Street meltdown, it's nothing less than catastrophic.

I'm not talking mass conversions among the McCain crowd - how much convincing do these people need?! - but I do think there's a real chance that an awful lot of them might oversleep on election day. And maybe that's all it will take?

I have been pretty outraged to watch the Republican efforts at obstruction of justice up in Alaska. It's particularly galling to hear the McCain campaign spokesman explain how an Alaska issue is being politicized by the Obama campaign - truly the death of irony.

The news today that the report from the independent investigator will be released on time introduces the possibility that the stonewalling may backfire. It seems to me that there is a fair amount of evidence in the pubic domain that will allow the report to implicate Palin in a number of politically unsavory if not illegal acts.

The multiple -on record- statements explaining Walt Monegan's firing are contradictory and have been largely excluded by facts. A close aid is on tape acting on Palin's behalf to inappropriately ask why Michael Wooten hadn't been fired. A judge in a court decision calling Palin's harassment of Wooten "child abuse." And now a report in the Anchorage Daily News http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/531723.html (h/t Andrew Sullivan) that the real reason for Monegan's firing was to make room for Chuck Kopp a "a rising star in Alaska's Christian conservative movement." The ADN suggests that Palin was put on McCain's radar by Franklin Graham (Billy Graham's son) as a way to get right with the Republican base. Palin, not deemed adequately orthodox by the movement herself, wanted to elevate Kopp to prove her owm Conservative bona fides. Two birds with one stone by firing Monegan. Also, evidence that Palin was actively campaigning for the VP nomination some time ago.

 If the Independent Investigator's report is complete in reporting on the evidence available to the public it could actually hurt Palin and McCain that that evidence goes unchallenged by her aides, husband and herself. It may be that testimony in defense of Palin might run the risk of perjury but it would be a lot to pursue those charges and they would certainly not be an issue until after the election.

It is true that McCain and Palin will attack any harmful revelations as a politicized witch hunt but the Alaska state legislature has been surprisingly supportive of the Troopergate investigation, despite the political implications, as witnessed by their willingness to issue subpoenas. It is probable that the Alaskan's will accept the report's findings (Alaska's the one place she hasn't repeated the Bridge to No Where lie because they know the truth about her) and provide coverage for the report. McCain will also have to explain why his campaign has become so deeply involved in challenging the investigation and resisting subpoenas which is ya'know illegal.

I don't have my hopes up too high that I will ultimately get the juicy satisfaction from the Troopergate investigation that I feel I deserve but I've been pleasantly surprised before in this election.

Right now, the proposal gives the Treasury Secretary $700 billion to spend any way he sees fit. You can be damn sure every penny will be spent before January 20, 2009. Oversight? None. Checks & balances? None.

Who's going to price these assets? Well, these assets are "illiquid" so you can't just pay market price. But no one in the industry, let alone government, knows how much this toxic debt is worth. so what will Wall St. insider Paulson do? I'm betting he'll pay his buddies at Goldman Sachs a few billion dollars to develop pricing models-- which will certainly overvalue the debt.

Now, who do Paulson & Bush have to check with before wasting $700 billion? Nobody. See it for yourselves, don't rely on the media or your "leaders" to simplify it for you. It's a 2-page bill. It gives the Administration the ability to buy $700 billion in bad debt, no questions asked.

It's a disaster. These are the folks who brought you the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and Warrantless Wiretapping, and you are going to give them $700 billion t spend with nothing more than a trust me? If you do that, you truly are naive fools.

If the Feds really need to get the credit markets moving, loan GE & Berkshire Hathaway $175 billion each for the express purpose of buying impaired debt at an amount no greater than 80 cents on the dollar. I trust them more than Paulson & Bush. They won't overpay, and won't spend the whole amount if there is no value there.  That's a better solution. But remember, kids.

No way, no how, no bailout.

No way, no how, no bailout.

BENEATH THE SPIN ERIC L. WATTREE, SR.

BENEATH THE SPIN ERIC L. WATTREE, SR.

Remember the wars, everyone? I know, it's easy to get distracted with all of this talk about pigs and lipstick, but in Iraq and Afghanistan, the killing continues. Hell, it's practically legal now!

Belmor Ramos, a US soldier who admitted to involvement in the shooting of Iraqi prisoners, has been sentenced to a puny seven months in prison for his internationally-condemned actions.

Inside an army base in Germany, Ramos finally faced the consequences of his actions last year in Baghdad when he stood by as four Iraqi prisoners were handcuffed, blindfolded, and then executed before him.

While Ramos didn't pull the trigger, he did nothing to stop the killings. Ramos explained his actions to a military judge:  "I wanted them dead. I had no legal justification or excuse to do this."

Seven months, along with a dishonorable discharge, are the only punishments Ramos will receive. Seven other troops face charges. His supervising officers will likely avoid messy trials.

Meanwhile, Robin Long, the first US war resister was sentenced to 15 months in jail following his deportation from Canada. He too was dishonorably discharged, but Long received over twice the sentence of Ramos.

His only crime was going AWOL because he opposed the conflict in Iraq on legal and moral grounds.

In Iraq, murder is pretty much legal for Americans as long as you're killing Iraqis, and conscientious objections are worse than murder in the US army. You may get a little slap on the wrist if you kill a bunch of Iraqis when they're tied up. Ramos's only miscalculation was when he failed to cut the buggers loose before he gunned them down, so he couldn't claim they were charging him.

Back in 2005, the Pentagon reported that over 5,500 soldiers had gone AWOL in Iraq.

Another 5,000 deserted in 2007, alone.

The longer the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan go on, the more we will see brave men and women choose to discharge themselves. A soldier vows to uphold the Constitution, not to protect the unfettered greed of an authoritarian regime. First and foremost, soldiers defend the people of the United States, and part of that defense means refusing to obey insane orders like executing hooded and bound prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The point is that no soldier can serve honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are not there to defend a greater good. They're there as occupying forces that can do nothing except perpetuate violence. Astute troops are beginning to understand their dire situations, and they're looking for ways out.

When our soldiers decide enough is enough, they shouldn't be treated worse than murderers. They should be embraced and welcomed home without fear of negative retribution for obeying their moral duties.

We have so much power to help our cause it is unbelievable. There are so many people that pass by this site and the many other left leaning and right leaning sites that if we SPREAD THE WORD on  some of these ad's we can definitely get our narrative through. Look at the ad that was rec'd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJThPjvscFs.  That ad is POWERFUL and it should be on national TV. You know how it gets covered? EXPOSURE, let's get to the other progressive sites and the conservative sites and post this link and have them spread it to other sites and other people they know. We can get our narrative into the media just like we have countless times before. I have sent this to everyone on my email list and some conservative sites. I ask you all to get to the huffpo's the open left's the dailykos' and even the fox news' and other sites  and SPREAD THE WORD. We can control our own future this election and once that ad is shown on one of these news channels, we will know we have been heard. SPREAD THE WORD.

This is the saddest article coming out in the October 6th edition of The Nation, written by the Pulitizer Prize-willing author of "The Killing Fields."  It would make you view Senator McCain in a whole new light.

http://www.nationinstitute.org/p/schanberg09182008pt1

Yes, Americans are fed up with the high price of gas. But to think drilling for more oil in the US will have any effect on the price of gas is utter ignorance.

Oil is a worldwide commodity.  It's price is the same whether it is drilled in Alaska or Saudi Arabia.  The price is based on supply and demand.  American oil will be sold at the world price. Period. The fact that it is drilled in the US will not lower the cost to consumers. 

 In 10 years, the time it takes for new oil wells to start producing, the world demand will have increased grossly more than there is oil in the ground (or offshore) to supply it.  By 2025 the US Department of Energy predicts world demand will have increased by 50%.  That means the price will increase by 50% as well, unless that much more oil is produced worldwide.

No matter who is analyzing the potential of additional domestic drilling, there is no one that makes the claim that the amount of oil beneath our soil, or off our shores, is of sufficient quantity to meet the increased oil appetite of the developing world, considering China and India's huge and growing demand.  Our own domestic consumption of oil continues to grow as well, and will continue to do so.

The only way to lower our energy costs is to get off oil, and develop home-grown alternatives. Anyone who claims otherwise is not only pandering for votes, but is seriously steering us towards an energy policy that only benefits Big Oil and the citizens of Alaska who get oil royalties.  The rest of us will pay higher and higher prices to fill up our cars and to heat our homes. This is not an American solution to a truly crushing economic problem of the high cost of oil. And it's a shame that the press or Obama have not stepped up to the plate to expose this shameful distortion of truth. 

I don't know if this guy is a crook or not, but if he isn't, he's certainly making it easy for the Republicans to paint him as one.

Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats should do the right thing and remove him from his chairmanship. It would send a message that the Democrats are different when it comes to possible corruption.

Even if Rep. Rangel is only guilty of making multiple honest mistakes, that kind of inattention to detail is not the image that the Democrats should be projecting for their leadership.

dear american "common" people... i am sorry but , you cannot trust most people that think they are smarter than you... in my 58 years of business, i have found, so many educated derilicks, that i only listen to "we", or is it (us) common men & women!!! I believe that hank paulson, should never try to be a credit manager.. There are three C.C.C .to credit... Credit is man's trust in man!!!  The custodians of other peoples money,  first duty of  these TRUSTORS  IS TO REPAY THEIR TRUSTEES, their principal, + plus their  prommissed interest... If the smart lenders cannot repay their  trusted depositers, their principal &  interest, then they should/must dip into their own pockets, & repay the people that they  advised their  clients was the best for them... NEVER AGAIN DEPOSIT A NICKEL, WITH A  BANKER/LENDER/ADVISOR , THAT WILL NOT GIVE YOU BACK YOUR MONEY, (PERSONALLY)IF THEIR WRONG... all the congress man & women have to do , is not guarantee/pay these next  loans, until after the "SMART" LENDERS,  are all BROKE, from repaying their debts, & turning over their great real estate holdings, that they made from using the american & other countries money... these "SMART PEOPLE MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS... THEY MUST BE TAUGHT, THAT YOU CANNOT CHANGE HISTORY< UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO SUFFER< IF YOU ARE WRONG!!! let's live up to the stantards of our fore fathers,  IN GOD WE TRUST, ALL OTHERS PAY CASH... IN THE 1920s, you hade to pay cash for a home & cars... A.P> giannia was the dirst banker, that loaned on automibles, with his daring 30 %down, & 30 months to pay... all the other banks said, the "dago, has finally gone crazy & will soon be broke...  I believe a.p. gianinni, of the Bank of America, was one of the fairest, trusted, banker that i have read about, & saw how he trusted the common man & not the pollished finger nails of the con men on wall street...  For  the last 8 years the congress, the white house, the exectives of freddie mae, fannie mae, sallie mae,ginnie mae, nellie mae, & all the other mae's. ( it must be that every man & woman that were involved in all the mae,s NEVER MADE A LOAN WHERE IF THE BORROWER DID NOT PAY ON TIME & EVENTUALTY THESE (OUR TRUSTED LEADERS) HAD TO FORECLOSE, REPO,  & THEN TRY TO RESALE THE LOAN, THEN THESE SO CALLED LENDERS, WOULD LOSE THEIR "OWN MONEY", or FILE FOR B.K. THE only way i personally would do this deal, is to value the bad mortgages at 10% of the loan amount left on the books, & for every dollar i (the goverment) , (we the people), & all  THESE "SMART WALL COMPANIES HEADS<  .. ie & INSURANCE companies, & all investment banks that got any profit out of selling the awful loans, HAVE TO PERSONALLY SIGN & HAVE THEIR "WIVES" AS WELL...(IT IS MY BELIEF,  THAT MOST WOMEN),  KNOW MORE ABOUT WHO YOU CAN TRUST,  THAN "PROFIT MOVTIATED BUSINESSMEN, THAT ARE OUT FOR A FAST BUCK... I WILL BET YOU MY SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS, THAT THERE IS NOT ONE OF OUR GREAT LEADERS/LENDERS WILL EVER PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR BIG MOUTHS ARE!!! FOLKS PLEASE, PLEASE ASK YOUR CONGRESS MEN & WOMEN YOUR FRIENDS & RELATIVES TO CALL YOUR CONGRESS MEN & WOMEN, YOUR PRESIDENT, TO NOT LET CONGRESS BAIL OUT THE "SMATRT CRY BABIES CALLED "INVESTMENT  LOSERS".. i am 81 , but i can still count, & would love to have a debate with Hank PAULSON  & GEORGE BUSH... thank you & GOD blessed the common man, not greedy LORDS & MASTERS!!! bob varner

Not like the Must-See TV trailer trash, With karmic limbs outstretched to right his wrong; Behind red ink-washed Wall Street firms stands strong A mighty banker with a plan, whose stash Is the taxpaying public's, and his cash Mother of Exhales. From his Fed Chair bong Curls smoke and mirrors; his magic hands belong In market glovies that twin ledgers frame. "Keep ancient lords, your stored-up wealth!" cries he With curling lips. "Give me your debts, your junk, Your huddled brokers yearning to trade free, The wretched refuse of your assets shrunk. Send these, your sub-prime home mortgages, to me, I'll stuff the lot inside my Uncle's trunk!"

Remember the wars, everyone? I know, it's easy to get distracted with all of this talk about pigs and lipstick, but in Iraq and Afghanistan, the killing continues. Hell, it's practically legal now!

Victoria Ramos, a US soldier who admitted to involvement in the shooting of Iraqi prisoners, has been sentenced to a puny seven months in prison for his internationally-condemned actions.

Inside an army base in Germany, Ramos finally faced the consequences of his actions last year in Baghdad when he stood by as four Iraqi prisoners were handcuffed, blindfolded, and then executed before him.

While Ramos didn't pull the trigger, he did nothing to stop the killings. Ramos explained his actions to a military judge:  "I wanted them dead. I had no legal justification or excuse to do this."

Seven months, along with a dishonorable discharge, are the only punishments Ramos will receive. Seven other troops face charges. His supervising officers will likely avoid messy trials.

Meanwhile, Robin Long, the first US war resister was sentenced to 15 months in jail following his deportation from Canada. He too was dishonorably discharged, but Long received over twice the sentence of Ramos.

His only crime was going AWOL because he opposed the conflict in Iraq on legal and moral grounds.

In Iraq, murder is pretty much legal for Americans as long as you're killing Iraqis, and conscientious objections are worse than murder in the US army. You may get a little slap on the wrist if you kill a bunch of Iraqis when they're tied up. Ramos's only miscalculation was when he failed to cut the buggers loose before he gunned them down, so he couldn't claim they were charging him.

Back in 2005, the Pentagon reported that over 5,500 soldiers had gone AWOL in Iraq.

Another 5,000 deserted in 2007, alone.

The longer the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan go on, the more we will see brave men and women choose to discharge themselves. A soldier vows to uphold the Constitution, not to protect the unfettered greed of an authoritarian regime. First and foremost, soldiers defend the people of the United States, and part of that defense means refusing to obey insane orders like executing hooded and bound prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The point is that no soldier can serve honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are not there to defend a greater good. They're there as occupying forces that can do nothing except perpetuate violence. Astute troops are beginning to understand their dire situations, and they're looking for ways out.

When our soldiers decide enough is enough, they shouldn't be treated worse than murderers. They should be embraced and welcomed home without fear of negative retribution for obeying their moral duties.

The recent CBS/Times poll has some interesting internals.  The least reported/commented on are women voters, and it got me thinking.  Obama has a 16 point lead with women voters.  Wow!  My internal response to this was a response to Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles: Here are the White Women.  I was wrong.  Obama only has a two point lead among white women according to that poll.  What that means is that minorities, ALL minorties, make up that difference.

It got me to thinking (something I'm prone to do), that we keep hearing over and over about the young vote and how Obama has energized them.  Very true, I work on a college campus and this is definitely the case.  But the one overlooked factor, I think implicitly suggested in these polls, is the minority vote.

I think all minorities in America, not just African American, but Asian, Disability, European, GBLT, Hispanic, American Indian, etc. voters will vote in overwhelming numbers for Obama.  And as the above poll numbers with women suggest, it is a very influential demographic.

Second.  The I-35 bridge in Minneapolis was completed this week: THREE WEEKS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE AND UNDER BUDGET.  I cannont stress how wonderful this news is.  Simply put, it is a clear example of all that America has been and all that it still is.  In an age of corruption and graft and cronyism, there are still some segments of our society that cling firmly to the American ideal.

I can remember when I was somewhere between 10-12 yrs. old (this was in the mid-80's) and my parents took thier children on a trip to the West (I lived in MI).  One of the stops we took was at the Hoover Dam.  I remember the tour guide stating that it was built on schedule and under budget.  I remember thinking at that young age that this could never happen in America today.  It boggled my mind that someone wouldn't abuse the government trust and steal money.  It happened again this year and it boggled my mind.  All of those workers who worked 24/7 on that bridge made me proud to be an American.  Hopefully they make you proud too.

The latest story about Walt Monegen's firing was a "rogue mentatlity" and taking a trip that was not authorized.Thanks to ABC we know the trip was authorized and for good reason.

Most importantly goingto talk about sexual abuse funding was timely. Monegen listed on his trip request meeting with Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Why would he go in late July? Seems like he timely and excellent reasons to go to DC and meet with his Sen. about her new legislation aimed at ...you got it sexual abuse against Native women.....

Take a look at the press release below

Amnesty Intl Applauds Legislation Seeking to Combat Violence Against Native Women
Legislation is a 'Tremendous Step Forward' for Native Rights in the United States; Should be Further Strengthened in Collaboration With Tribal Leaders

WASHINGTON - July 23 - Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) applauded today's introduction of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2008, a groundbreaking attempt to tackle the complex jurisdictional maze that allows violent crime against American Indians to go unabated. The legislation, introduced by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, includes a section that specifically addresses disturbing rates of sexual violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women, a subject that Amnesty International drew attention to in its 2007 report, Maze of Injustice: the failure to protect Indigenous women from sexual violence in the USA. The legislation is also co-sponsored by Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Joseph Biden (D-DE), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Jon Tester (D-MT) and John Thune (R-SD).

So the trip to talk about sexual abuse funding was both appropriate and timely.

In a one-year update to the original Maze of Injustice report, AI noted that throughout the year lawmakers have taken other notable steps to address the injustices perpetrated against Native women. For example, the U.S. Senate passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act in February 2008, with an amendment by Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) that would seeks to mandate that the IHS develop standardized sexual assault policies and protocols in cooperation with tribes. AI also noted promising initiatives on the local level:

In fact the following was 1 of 3 referenced programs that the legislation would help:

The Alaska Senate established a task force to review the Village Police Safety Officer Program. The task force published a report in February 2008 recommending enhanced efforts to recruit and retain officers, thereby increasing staffing.  ( I assume Monegen was involved w/ this)

In keeping with his strong record on women Joe Biden was one of the co-sponsors of the bill.

Now that this latest lie has not only been debunked but shown to be ridiculous what will he next defense be??

I got a little over-excited last night, and posted the word 'landslide' in the same sentence as 'Obama'. So I better try and stand it up.

Okay, the polls have returned to pretty much where they were before the conventions, but actually everything has changed. Elections are built on strategy - you get that wrong, in a battle as tight as this one, you're going to lose big time.

McCain had one reasonable game plan -  to play the sheriff, the steady hand etc. etc. And he's completely, irrevocably blown it. If this is a game of chess, McCain has done the equivalent of giving away his queen. The moose gambit was a dreadful move, and would probably have lost him the election anyway. But in the context of a Wall Street meltdown, it's nothing less than catastrophic.

I'm not expecting mass conversions among the McCain crowd - how much convincing do these people need?! - but I do think there's a real chance that an awful lot of them might oversleep on election day. And maybe that's all it will take?

I replied to a poster who had written about Obama's possible support for preemptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, and the author of the post criticized my use of the word "obsession" to describe our own, and Israel's, fear of Iranian nukes.
Well, let's consider some items from reputable sources I have stumbled across today:

<snip>

In May 2003, with pressure for regime change intensifying within the US, Iran made efforts to negotiate a peaceful resolution with the United States. According to Lawrence Wilkerson, then-Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, these efforts were sabotaged by Vice President Cheney.

"The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with Tehran," Wilkerson said.

The US was already looking increasingly to rogue methodology, including support for the Iranian terrorist group MEK. Before the US invasion, MEK forces within Iraq had supported Saddam Hussein in exchange for safe harbor. Despite this, when they were captured by the US military, they were disarmed of only their major weapons and are allowed to keep their smaller arms. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld hoped to use them as a special ops team in Iran, while then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and State Department officials argued against it. By 2005, the MEK would begin training with US forces in Iraq and carrying out bombings and assassinations in Iran, although it is unclear if the bombings were in any way approved by the US military.

<snip>
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Iran_The_Road_to_Confrontation_0123.html

MEK is a terrorist organization (it is on the State Dept. list). I find that quite damning for us, since it reveals that the Bush Doctrine, which gave Sarah Palin such trouble,  would in fact justify an attack on ourselves, by ourselves. Better to scrap it, I think. And with it, the policy that would justify preemptive attacks. (And we would have to be complicit in any Israeli preemptive attack.)

More:

<snip>

 Nazila Fathi at the NYT again today attributed to Ahmadinejad the phrase "wipe Israel off the face of the map." He didn't say it, and spoke of the regime. He quoted Khomeini saying, "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." (Een rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az safhih-i ruzgar mahv shavad; the verb construction mahv shodan is intransitive). (Khomeini had said 'vanish from the arena of time.') He has explained that he meant that the Zionist regime would collapse just as the Soviet one did. He didn't threaten to wipe anything off anything.

Fathi and her editors know all this.

Fathi is either a liar or was forced into this falsification by an editor who is a liar. [This issue of liars constantly arises when examining any subject matter that Dick Cheney has gotten his paws on, and the charges have proved to be all too credible.]


<snip>
http://juancole.com/

I am not multilinguial, so I have to defer to experts here. I find Cole a reputable source, but I would love to hear alternate takes on this by those with the requisite knowledge.

And my final thought:

Has Cheney trained his daughter's, or any other, black ops program on Israel itself, to feed its fears and make it more amenable to his purposes?

Note: This is my second attempt to post this. I waited over half an hour after posting the first and it still hasn't come through, so I'm assuming it didn't go through... Despite the fact that I DIDN'T get an error. Aanyway, here we go?

Just some random thoughts. There's no real rhyme or reason to them, and they don't really have a point. Free association writing? Hah.

So... I leave for a few days, and I come back, and we have an economic crisis on our hands. Hoo boy.

When I left, Obama was down in the polls both nationally and electorally. I get back, and he's completely reversed McCain's gains. Wow. I guess all the nay-sayers and concern trolls look pretty stupid now.

And yeah, how about that economic crisis? The biggest since the great depression? That's what some people are saying. Completely frakked, if you ask me. But the way many of these Wall St. firms and banks had been operating, on top of the policies of recent years, it was a disaster waiting to happen.

It kind of depresses me to think about the political implications of an economic crisis/depression, but in these times, it's absolutely impossible not to. The economy is going to be (as it should) the focal point of the election from here on out. Though I wish we had gotten there without a crisis on our hands.

Still, in the political realm, at least McCain's idiocy with the economy will be (and to some degree has been) exposed. Obama is only doing better in this whole thing because he's not making reckless and shoot-from-the-hip statements concerning everything as McCain is. But I guess we'll just see what happens. If anyone actually believes either Obama or McCain has a sound answer or solution to this problem, they're idiots. Even our own government is fiddling with its thumbs, and a $1 trillion bailout, to put it mildly, puts a damper on a number of other things for the foreseeable future (can we say health care, education, taxes, etc?).

But, on the bright side of things, Obama is now ahead, significantly as I see it. It was bound to happen, but this turn of events pushed things along some. I guess, though, thinking about the next President... I would hate to be them. But it would be like Bush to leave the next President with a war and an economic crisis, wouldn't it? Thanks, Dubya!

Oh, and as for my last post... a) some people need to lighten up and not take everything so seriously, b) some people need to get a sense of humor, and c) some people need to just chill the frak out. It was never meant as a serious, thought-provoking post, or an attempt to dig up dirt on Palin, or make some larger point (she's the real elitist!). If I wanted to do that I would have analyzed the story for its "deeper meanings". (note: if you read this and got upset, annoyed, frustrated or otherwise, read it again and take the advice)

As for me, I made it across the country in three days (give or take a couple hours), and traveled across basically the entire Midwest. I believe the route was Vermont -> Massachusetts -> New York -> New Jersey -> Pennsylvania -> Ohio -> Indiana -> Illinois -> Wisconsin -> Minnesota -> North Dakota -> Montana -> Idaho -> Washington

I guess the tone of this post is a little somber. Perhaps it's just that Washington rain. One thing I will say that's absolutely, completely positive: I'm glad to be back!

You have got to read Halperin's piece on the "Buddy Act" on the road."The old senator and young governor stay unswervingly on message":

Barnstorming through battleground states together, John McCain and Sarah Palin have developed a buddy act that brings an energy and focus not present when McCain campaigns alone. Before he added Palin to a ticket encumbered with the now-unpopular Republican brand, McCain's events were sparsely attended and sometimes listless. That has all changed.

McCain's team has the running mates appear together far more often than is the norm, forfeiting the mathematical advantage of covering two states at a time in order to keep them side by side, resulting in seemingly quadruple the effect, excitement and.....Read it all Here

Regis and Kathy Lee running the country ....what do you think Ronald Reagan is thinking from his perch "high up on the hill"?

I saw a prior blog post which said (and I am purposely misunderparaphrasin' here): "I can see the moon from my backyard, I am qualified to be an astronaut!" and it made me think that everyone has an area of expertise.

My friend (crassly) says that he has seen a vagina, so he can be a gynecologist.

Me, I have seen an $18,000 purse, so that makes me an expert in high-end fashion.

How about YOU?  What is YOUR area of expertise?

Let's have some fun out there!  And come on down to TheZoo for more fun and facts about life and politics.

Is the Democratic Congress really about to create the biggest peacetime transfers of power from Congress to the Administration in history? Can that possibly be a good idea?

Read the article. It's an absolute trainwreck piece of legislation, giving BushCo. a $700 billion slush fund to spend however they like with no oversight. This is preposterous.

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN AND CONGRESSWOMEN NOW and oppose this. Do you really want to give President Bush a $700 billion blank check? You really think Paulson, Bush, et. al. will be looking out for anyone but themselves and their cronies?

I can not believe any Democrat can possibly support giving any president, let alone THIS PRESIDENT, that kind of unchecked power. Stop this legislation, now.

No way, no how, no bailout.

As we go into the final stretch of this campaign season, right now is the best time to see for yourself the difference between a president and a pretender.

Yesterday, Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, gave a concise, four-point response to the economic crises that threatens to bankrupt our nation:

http://www.truthout.org/article/obama-a-time-resolve

This link that I'm giving you not only reproduces the response in full, but it also has the video, which lasts about six minutes. 

In it, Obama explains that, due to the gravity of the situation, and based on talks he's had with Treasury Secretary Paulson and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bernanke, that he will refrain from presenting a detailed blueprint for what his administration would do. 

For one thing, he says, you can't put together such an important plan in one day, and right now, this is too important for partisan political wrangling.  ("Wrangling" is his word.)  And for another, he wants to wait and see what the specifics are for their own plan, so that he can respond to that.

It must be pointed out here that, although CNN showed his remarks in full, the only one of the three major broadcast networks to even include a soundbite was CBS evening news, and the correspondent actually pointed out that Obama had been mentioning these same reforms for at least six months.

"For too long," said Obama, "this administration has been willing to hit the fast-forward button in helping distressed Wall Street firms while pressing pause when it comes to saving jobs and helping people in their homes."

So his first and most important point is that Main Street needs to be included on any sort of comprehensive economic reform package, who, as he stated, have been in crises for "months and months."

Secondly, he calls out the industry practice of rewarding poor CEO's who caused the problem in the first place by giving them multi-million dollar golden parachutes, and said that any money that goes to rescue their businesses should not also go to reward them in anyway.  "Just as support is not designed to pay off egregious executive compensation, it should not reward those who are relentlessly foreclosing on American families."

Third, he states that this bail-out should be temporary, with a plan in place to wind down government support while at the same time, instituting "tough new oversight and regulations of our financial institutions."

Fourth, he calls on the global community to be part of a coordinated effort to stabilize credit markets:  "We should ask other nations, who share in this crises, to be part of the solution as well."

Then, he lays blame where blame belongs:


"One last point. We did not arrive at this crisis by some accident of history. What led us to this point was years and years of a philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that viewed even common-sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. CEOs and executives got reckless. Lobbyists got what they wanted. Politicians in both parties looked the other way until it was too late. And it is the American people who have paid the price. The events of this week have rendered a final verdict on that failed philosophy, and it will end if I am President of the United States. We must build upon the ideas I have laid out over the last several years about how to modernize our financial regulation in this country, and establish commonsense rules of the road for our financial system to help restore confidence in our financial system."


And finally, Obama channels Franklin Roosevelt, who knew, even as he entered office as a new president, that the biggest problem facing America was not the Great Depression, but the fear of its people.  He calmed them, and let them know that help was at hand. 

Obama is mindful of this as well:


"I know these are difficult days. And I know there are a lot of families out there right now who are feeling anxiety - about their jobs, about their homes, about their retirement savings. But here's what I also know. This isn't a time for fear or panic. This is a time for resolve and for leadership. I know we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. That's who we are. That's what we've always done as Americans. Our nation has faced difficult times before. And at each of those moments, we've risen to meet the challenges as one people, and one nation. That is the America we need to be and can be today."


This reaction to the economic catastrophe that has struck our nation--aided and abetted not just by George W. Bush and his right-wing cronies, but by John McCain, who as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee for six years, directly contributed to the deregulation that has caused this--was measured, pragmatic, and inspirational.

Presidential.

Contrast that to McCain's.  And I'm not just talking about his flip-flops on "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," or even on his threat to fire the chairman of the Federal Reserve--which an outraged Wall Street Journal editorial pointed out was not within the purvue of the presidency and that, furthermore, such rash and irrational blurt-outs would do nothing to calm the crises--I'm talking about how his campaign chose to respond.

While Obama was releasing a two-minute sit-down condensed version of his plan in an ad buy designed to reassure the American people that he was aware of the problem and had ideas to fix it--McCain was releasing a spate of nasty, lying attack ads about Obama. 

So egregious was this reaction that the Washington Post's, lead political writer, Dan Baltz, called him on it in his piece:  "On Economy, Obama Offers Ideas, McCain Blames Rival:"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903823_pf.html


"But while (McCain) too, said  both parties must work together to solve the crises, he mostly spent the day going after Obama in highly personal terms, saying the senator from Illinois had been 'gaming' the system rather than trying to restore it."


And McCain, apparently, either flat-out lies about taxpayer burdens, or does not understand the complexities:

"McCain has aired and prepared, respectively, two ads that link Obama to former Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae chief executives Jim Johnson and Franklin D. Raines. McCain told a large, loud audience in Blaine, Minn., that Johnson had walked away from the mortgage giants with $21 million "of your money" in severance pay, while Raines received $25 million.

"'Let's tell them to give it back,' McCain said, and the crowd obliged, chanting "Give it back. Give it back."

"While Fannie and Freddie have held favored statuses with the federal government that have contributed to their profits, the severance packages were paid by company shareholders, not taxpayers."


And then, with unimaginable hubris, coming from someone who has not only been in congress and the senate for close to 30 years, but has been directly responsible for policies that have provoked this crises, McCain actually blames OBAMA for the misery:

"'We've heard a lot of words from Senator Obama over the course of this campaign,' McCain said. "But maybe just this once he could spare us the lectures, and admit to his own poor judgment in contributing to these problems. The crisis on Wall Street started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling, and he was right square in the middle of it.

"He added: 'That's not country first. That's Obama first.'"


Those of you out there who are still undecided on who to vote for, or who are still smarting from Hillary's loss in the primaries and are considering casting a protest-vote, need to understand that what we are seeing right here, right now, is the difference between a PRESIDENT and a PRETENDER.

But don't take it from me.

Take it from a man named Wick Allison, a very conservative Republican who was hand-picked by right-wing guru William F. Buckley to sit as editor-in-chief of the conservative Bible, the National Review.

Allison, who is now editor of "D" Magazine in his home-town of Dallas, Texas, just penned a powerful, thoughtful, and courageous essay on why he was supporting Barack Obama for the presidency.  In it, he made the following point:


"Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

"Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

"'Every great cause,' Eric Hoffer wrote, 'begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.' As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama. "


When Allison is using the word "conservative" in this passage, he is referring to a mindset, not a political philosophy; a measured, thoughtful, intelligent approach to problem-solving that our nation is in desperate need of at this moment.

If you want to elect a true president, in every good sense of the word, to face the staggering problems our nation confronts, I beg of you:

Cast your vote for Barack Obama on November 4.

This week on CNBC and other business news places they discussed the over $1T buyout of the financial markets. Let us see Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, AIG and now the entire defunct mortgage portfolio. Basically much of the paper represents most of the US home market, the largest business insurer and a lot of Wall Street and US Banks and they called that Socialism.

Well that might be the common phrase but in reality what brand of Socialism, can you say National Socialism as in the German Fascists....errr....NAZI's who actually invented propaganda spin even in their name. In reality the Fascists are a right-wing form of government where Authoritarians are partnered with BIG BUSINESS and BIG BANKS and the military to operate the state.

Let me review. The government now owns most of America's private property. The government is controlled by the authoritarians in Washington. The military is engaged in a perpetual war of consquests for land and resourcs. Sound familar----yes it does.

As we go into the final stretch of this campaign season, right now is the best time to see for yourself the difference between a president and a pretender.

Yesterday, Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, gave a concise, four-point response to the economic crises that threatens to bankrupt our nation:

http://www.truthout.org/article/obama-a-time-resolve

This link that I'm giving you not only reproduces the response in full, but it also has the video, which lasts about six minutes. 

In it, Obama explains that, due to the gravity of the situation, and based on talks he's had with Treasury Secretary Paulson and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bernanke, that he will refrain from presenting a detailed blueprint for what his administration would do. 

For one thing, he says, you can't put together such an important plan in one day, and right now, this is too important for partisan political wrangling.  ("Wrangling" is his word.)  And for another, he wants to wait and see what the specifics are for their own plan, so that he can respond to that.

It must be pointed out here that, although CNN showed his remarks in full, the only one of the three major broadcast networks to even include a soundbite was CBS evening news, and the correspondent actually pointed out that Obama had been mentioning these same reforms for at least six months.

"For too long," said Obama, "this administration has been willing to hit the fast-forward button in helping distressed Wall Street firms while pressing pause when it comes to saving jobs and helping people in their homes."

So his first and most important point is that Main Street needs to be included on any sort of comprehensive economic reform package, who, as he stated, have been in crises for "months and months."

Secondly, he calls out the industry practice of rewarding poor CEO's who caused the problem in the first place by giving them multi-million dollar golden parachutes, and said that any money that goes to rescue their businesses should not also go to reward them in anyway.  "Just as support is not designed to pay off egregious executive compensation, it should not reward those who are relentlessly foreclosing on American families."

Third, he states that this bail-out should be temporary, with a plan in place to wind down government support while at the same time, instituting "tough new oversight and regulations of our financial institutions."

Fourth, he calls on the global community to be part of a coordinated effort to stabilize credit markets:  "We should ask other nations, who share in this crises, to be part of the solution as well."

Then, he lays blame where blame belongs:


"One last point. We did not arrive at this crisis by some accident of history. What led us to this point was years and years of a philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that viewed even common-sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. CEOs and executives got reckless. Lobbyists got what they wanted. Politicians in both parties looked the other way until it was too late. And it is the American people who have paid the price. The events of this week have rendered a final verdict on that failed philosophy, and it will end if I am President of the United States. We must build upon the ideas I have laid out over the last several years about how to modernize our financial regulation in this country, and establish commonsense rules of the road for our financial system to help restore confidence in our financial system."


And finally, Obama channels Franklin Roosevelt, who knew, even as he entered office as a new president, that the biggest problem facing America was not the Great Depression, but the fear of its people.  He calmed them, and let them know that help was at hand. 

Obama is mindful of this as well:


"I know these are difficult days. And I know there are a lot of families out there right now who are feeling anxiety - about their jobs, about their homes, about their retirement savings. But here's what I also know. This isn't a time for fear or panic. This is a time for resolve and for leadership. I know we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. That's who we are. That's what we've always done as Americans. Our nation has faced difficult times before. And at each of those moments, we've risen to meet the challenges as one people, and one nation. That is the America we need to be and can be today."


This reaction to the economic catastrophe that has struck our nation--aided and abetted not just by George W. Bush and his right-wing cronies, but by John McCain, who as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee for six years, directly contributed to the deregulation that has caused this--was measured, pragmatic, and inspirational.

Presidential.

Contrast that to McCain's.  And I'm not just talking about his flip-flops on "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," or even on his threat to fire the chairman of the Federal Reserve--which an outraged Wall Street Journal editorial pointed out was not within the purvue of the presidency and that, furthermore, such rash and irrational blurt-outs would do nothing to calm the crises--I'm talking about how his campaign chose to respond.

While Obama was releasing a two-minute sit-down condensed version of his plan in an ad buy designed to reassure the American people that he was aware of the problem and had ideas to fix it--McCain was releasing a spate of nasty, lying attack ads about Obama. 

So egregious was this reaction that the Washington Post's, lead political writer, Dan Baltz, called him on it in his piece:  "On Economy, Obama Offers Ideas, McCain Blames Rival:"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903823_pf.html


"But while (McCain) too, said  both parties must work together to solve the crises, he mostly spent the day going after Obama in highly personal terms, saying the senator from Illinois had been 'gaming' the system rather than trying to restore it."


And McCain, apparently, either flat-out lies about taxpayer burdens, or does not understand the complexities:

"McCain has aired and prepared, respectively, two ads that link Obama to former Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae chief executives Jim Johnson and Franklin D. Raines. McCain told a large, loud audience in Blaine, Minn., that Johnson had walked away from the mortgage giants with $21 million "of your money" in severance pay, while Raines received $25 million.

"'Let's tell them to give it back,' McCain said, and the crowd obliged, chanting "Give it back. Give it back."

"While Fannie and Freddie have held favored statuses with the federal government that have contributed to their profits, the severance packages were paid by company shareholders, not taxpayers."


And then, with unimaginable hubris, coming from someone who has not only been in congress and the senate for close to 30 years, but has been directly responsible for policies that have provoked this crises, McCain actually blames OBAMA for the misery:

"'We've heard a lot of words from Senator Obama over the course of this campaign,' McCain said. "But maybe just this once he could spare us the lectures, and admit to his own poor judgment in contributing to these problems. The crisis on Wall Street started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling, and he was right square in the middle of it.

"He added: 'That's not country first. That's Obama first.'"


Those of you out there who are still undecided on who to vote for, or who are still smarting from Hillary's loss in the primaries and are considering casting a protest-vote, need to understand that what we are seeing right here, right now, is the difference between a PRESIDENT and a PRETENDER.

But don't take it from me.

Take it from a man named Wick Allison, a very conservative Republican who was hand-picked by right-wing guru William F. Buckley to sit as editor-in-chief of the conservative Bible, the National Review.

Allison, who is now editor of "D" Magazine in his home-town of Dallas, Texas, just penned a powerful, thoughtful, and courageous essay on why he was supporting Barack Obama for the presidency.  In it, he made the following point:


"Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

"Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

"'Every great cause,' Eric Hoffer wrote, 'begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.' As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama. "


When Allison is using the word "conservative" in this passage, he is referring to a mindset, not a political philosophy; a measured, thoughtful, intelligent approach to problem-solving that our nation is in desperate need of at this moment.

If you want to elect a true president, in every good sense of the word, to face the staggering problems our nation confronts, I beg of you:

Cast your vote for Barack Obama on November 4.

One of the major problems with the foreclosures is the loss of property taxes to the municipalities and the maintenance of the deserted properties.Right now the people who hold the note on these distressed properties are on the hook for the taxes and maintenance. This means that the Banks, mortgage co.'s can be held responsible for these costs.Granted they are not always paid but the municipalities do have some recourse if they chose to pursue it.If the feds buy out these mortgages who is then responsible for these associated costs??

We've seen the sinking numbers on Palin who now has a net drop of 24 points in her net favorability rating in the last 9 days. As of today she is at 40% positive, the lowest of the 4 candidates. McCain now too is 44/45 Fav/Unfav.

While she draws big partisan crowds in the battleground states she is actually a drag on the ticket and not because of all her "Gates" and true record coming to light.

Why then you ask? Lack of leverage.

With her having to campaign with McCain, they can only cover so much ground in a day since she can't on her own, and his even numbers are dismal without her.

So lets say they do 2 events a day together and McCain does 2 local media interviews. The media coverage is the mother's milk and leverage of the events and your local ads. That is 4 opportunities to touch voters. They are out preaching to the converted as McCain has lost female support since adding Palin, but strengthened his base.

Lets look at Obama and Biden. Say they each do 2-3 events per day in different states or media markets PLUS Michelle is doing 1-2 events plus local interviews they are getting 12-16 opportunities to touch voters. This does not include 3-4 national touches  where Palin is doing none and McCain 1-2. They are reaching out to the fence sitters and less enthusiastic and looking to pick off the voters getting wise the the lies and negative campaigining.

Once the Clintons start campaigning you simply add to that daily number.

So in simplest terms as long as Palin/McCain, I mean McCain/Palin, are on the buddy show together, and Sarah is inside the "cone of silence" they are losing the most important aspect of the campaign - voter touches and local media - by a factor of 3 tor 4 to 1!

• McCain/Palin do 4 touches a day for 50 days that is 200, 6 is only 300.
• Obama/Biden/Michelle do 12 it is 600, 16 is 800, 18 is 900! Jill Biden is out there too.

This gap also leverages the superb ground game and GOTV efforts in the close states which are echo chambers for voter turnout and excitement.

The magnifying effect of all this in the age of the 24 hour newscycle and the web abd blogosphere is ahrd to measure but we do not that good news has always traveled fast and  that bad news travels faster and that impact on a lying and decitful campaign with its VP candidate being truly vetted daily makes the challenge for McCain all that much harder...he might even have to work weekends...

Share this...

Can we take a break from worrying about what's going to happen in November and think about something that's happening right now?  I like to think I'm well-informed and I had no idea this was going on until I read this op-ed from Hillary Clinton:

LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women’s rights and women’s health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.

Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception ...

The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified “other medical procedures” that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception ...

Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of “other medical procedures.” Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?

... The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/opinion/19clinton.html?em

Forget what might happen if McCain gets elected, dies and leaves us with Sarah Palin.  By then, it'll be too late. 

I just finished watching a segment on MSNBC where once again there was a McCain surrogate and an Obama surrogate.  This happens on all the major cable networks through out the day and a familiar theme happens EVERY SINGLE TIME.  The Obama surrogates are always respectful and they allow the McCain surrogates to finish what they have to say while they are talking.  The McCain surrogates on the other hand consistently interrupt the Obama folks while they are talking and then overtalk them to try to dispute the point.  Now there are some Obama surrogates who do not allow this to happen like James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Wexler.  But for the most part and especially on FAUX NEWS the Obama surrogates when interrupted just clam up and allow the McCain surrogate to continue talking as if they are just going to wait and then make their point when the McCain person gets done.  Well thats BULLSHIT!!!  First of all the amount of time that the two people are on the show usually is limited and for that reason there is usually a concerted effort to make sure each spokesperson gets equal time to answer questions.  When the McCain people rudely take over then they are suppressing the free speech of the Obama people and in my honest opinion they need to stop rolling over for this kind of crap.  Hell if they interrupt you TALK OVER THEM.  Or you can do like James Carville and make them feel about 5 inches tall by pointing out their rude behavior LOUDLY. Better yet interrupt THEM when they are spreading all of their lies.  Most of them in typical bully fashion can dish it out but can not take it.  In the segment I just saw the Obama spokesman came pretty close to telling the McCain spokesman to shut the hell up while he is talking and I almost jumped up out of my chair to cheer him on!!! And guess what, when he did it she got the sad face and started pouting.  Guess what she also did, SHUT HER DAMN MOUTH AND LET HIM SPEAK! We need more forceful advocates for Obama who will let these people know we will not be pushed around and will not have our voices silenced. 

On Sept 12, 2008 In the DailyKOS/Research 2000 Poll Obama/Biden led by a single point, 47/46

• McCain had a 56 / 43 (+13) spread on his Favorable/Unfavorable very close to Obama 57/41 (+16)
• Klondike Barbie was 51/37 (+14).

Fast forward to today, 9/20/2008 and Obama/Biden lead 50-42.

• Obama - 57/36 (+21)
• McCain- 44/45 (-1)
• Palin - 40/47 (-7)

So in 7 days since they met in NY at Ground Zero Obama has gained 5 points, McCain has lost 14 and Palin has lost 21.

A net swing in favorability between the two of 19% and a huge gap in a poll that shows both Barr and Nader at 2 each...

Keep up the good work and great campaign of "hope and change", mavericks and reform Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin!!! The voters sure are buying it.

share this...

Here's Obama, speaking yesterday about the financial crisis (before details of the bailout were publicly announced):
Part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTl6l5Xuu6g

Part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1rSuG8RWFE

Part 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HxIKLRPjKg

He gives a great speech, and takes a few questions from reporters.  Haven't seen this clip posted anywhere, except cnn.com  Watch and pass it along.

I'm probably going to catch some heck for suggesting this but do the recent suicide attacks in Pakistan and Yemen make anybody else think of an October surprise?

We've had two terrorist attacks in the last week.  Today was in Pakistan's Marriott Hotel and earlier this on Wednesday militants disguised as soldiers detonated two car bombs outside the United States Embassy compound in Sana, Yemen.

After each attack, President George W Bush came on television condemning the terrorist attacks and saying something to the effect of,

"this serves as a reminder of the terrorists threats we are all under."

He warned that the United States was

“at war with extremists who will murder innocent people to achieve their ideological objectives".

Even General Petraeus came out and said,

 "that one of those objectives was to try to cause the United States to lose our nerve and to withdraw from regions of the world.”

You get the feeling you're being REMINDED of TERROR and 9/11 again?  I get the feeling they are saying, "Are you SURE you want a Democrat to run things?"

I've got one thing to point out and I'll let you make your own assumptions.

Remember when Bush and Cheney use to accuse Saddam Hussein of paying the Palestinians $25,000 to commit suicide in Israel?  Keep in mind that these people are dirt poor.  $25,000 would support their whole families for years to come.

Now for the big question.  How hard would it be for the U.S. or an allie of ours to go to Yemen or Pakistan and offer up that same deal to some poor man or woman?  $25,000 is a petty cash to some people in the U.S.

If you thought it might convince voters to vote Republican again --- would you be willing to pay somebody to set off a bomb?  I'm betting there are hundreds out there that would be.

In other words folks, the timing of these bombs are perfect -- Election Day just 44 days away.

General Petreaus's comment, "that one of those objectives was to try to cause the United States to lose our nerve and to withdraw from regions of the world.” -- could be reversed.  If the terrorists really wanted us to LEAVE -- and if it's true what McCain and the Republicans are saying that Democrats will immediately pull out (which we all know they won't) of Iraq -- don't you think the terrorist would just go underground till 'after' the election? 

Wouldn't they just wait till Obama became President?  Why would they 'help' John McCain get elected by scaring voters to vote for him by bombing places again -- knowing 'he' plans on 'staying' in Iraq indefinitely?

Does not compute folks.

Can you just see the anger-holics shouting at their TVs.  All of this news about the meltdown is coming from Democrats.  "Democrats nearly destroyed our economy!!!", they will scream.  Not because it is the fault of the Democrats, but because they have that whisper thin majority.   It is why they're being pushed up front to explain the the American people what just happened.

Democrats cannot let any opportunity slip past, in the media or on Main Street, to remind people who will not see this, that the Democrats have a majority of one.  Democrats need to repeat the exact number of filibusters that have been thrown in their way as they've been given the title, "Do Nothing Congress".

The battle rages in the teeny-tiny minds of the Zom-Bushes, who are jumping up about Palin being their God-given savior.  All facing in one direction, not blinking, not thinking not seeing.  It is up to the Democrats and Independents to explain at every turn, how the meltdown was brought to us by the Republicans, putting personal profits before the people. 

Follow the Money

Just some random thoughts. There's no real rhyme or reason to them, and they don't really have a point. Free association writing? Hah.

So... I leave for a few days, and I come back, and we have an economic crisis on our hands. Hoo boy.

When I left, Obama was down in the polls both nationally and electorally. I get back, and he's completely reversed McCain's gains. Wow. I guess all the nay-sayers and concern trolls look pretty stupid now.

And yeah, how about that economic crisis? The biggest since the great depression? That's what some people are saying. Completely frakked, if you ask me. But the way many of these Wall St. firms and banks had been operating, on top of the policies of recent years, it was a disaster waiting to happen.

It kind of depresses me to think about the political implications of an economic crisis/depression, but in these times, it's absolutely impossible not to. The economy is going to be (as it should) the focal point of the election from here on out. Though I wish we had gotten there without a crisis on our hands.

Still, in the political realm, at least McCain's idiocy with the economy will be (and to some degree has been) exposed. Obama is only doing better in this whole thing because he's not making reckless and shoot-from-the-hip statements concerning everything as McCain is. But I guess we'll just see what happens. If anyone actually believes either Obama or McCain has a sound answer or solution to this problem, they're idiots. Even our own government is fiddling with its thumbs, and a $1 trillion bailout, to put it mildly, puts a damper on a number of other things for the foreseeable future (can we say health care, education, taxes, etc?).

But, on the bright side of things, Obama is now ahead, significantly as I see it. It was bound to happen, but this turn of events pushed things along some. I guess, though, thinking about the next President... I would hate to be them. But it would be like Bush to leave the next President with a war and an economic crisis, wouldn't it? Thanks, Dubya!

Oh, and as for my last post... a) some people need to lighten up and not take everything so seriously, b) some people need to get a sense of humor, and c) some people need to just chill the frak out. (note: if you read this and got upset, annoyed, frustrated or otherwise, read it again and take the advice)

As for me, I made it across the country in three days (give or take a couple hours), and traveled across basically the entire Midwest. I believe the route was Vermont -> Massachusetts -> New York -> New Jersey -> Pennsylvania -> Ohio -> Indiana -> Illinois -> Wisconsin -> Minnesota -> North Dakota -> Montana -> Idaho -> Washington

I guess the tone of this post is a little somber. Perhaps it's just that Washington rain. One thing I will say that's absolutely, completely positive: I'm glad to be back!

Obama hits 50% again in the Gallup.

Stick a fork in McBush?

Mitt Romney at the Republican Convention: "The right course is the one championed by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago and by John McCain today. It is to rein in government spending and to lower taxes, for taking a weed whacker to excessive regulation and mandates, for putting a stop to tort windfalls and to stand up to the tyrannosaurus appetite of government unions!" Yes, that was Mitt Romeny and his very accurate portrayal of John McCain' economic theories. How McCain can now stand before the American public and claim to be the champion of regulation and blame the current state of the economy on Barak Obama or anyone other than Reaganites is...just...amazing. The man is lying...dare I say it...more than George Bush. I could asking questions about how does he sleep at night, does he have any conscience, is he pure evil? The better question to ask is how could anyone vote for this guy?

...watch out.  Read the text of the Administration's proposal, and be very afraid as to who is going to get a free ride.
If Democrats concentrate on "making sure the proposal extends relief to Main Street," they will be ignoring the limitless authority that the bill would grant the Treasury Secretary.

The bill as written is all "trust us," with no effective oversight, and judicial oversight specifically foreclosed.

Here are some key questions that Senator Obama and the Democrats should be asking:
How do we know that we won't be paying too much for the toxic assets?
How do we know that Paulson will identify some assets as too toxic to take on?
How do we know that the firms that got us into this mess will have to pay for the privilege of being bailed out, either in the form of the government taking an equity interest in the "good stuff" that is left, or in the imposition of controls on compensation?

With all due respect to Sen. McCain, based on his class rank of 794/799 in the clas of 1958 at the Naval Academy, his self proclaimed reputation as a hellion and trouble maker a comparison to a fictional senator is fair. Senator John Blutarsky!

Remember at the end of Animal House? John Belushi, Bluto, drives away in the convertible and we see he becomes "Senator John Blutarsky" - go figure. And he got the hot girl - Mandy Pepperidge  (Cindy McCain?) as well.

Son and grandson of Admirals you skated into and thru Annapolis and got away with murder that normal guys would not have. You got jet pilot status even with your abysmal undergraduate performance thanks to the family but crashed 3 airplanes BEFORE ever getting to fly off carriers, when again one crash would have disqualified non legacy Naval officers.

You endured things none of us can imagine and we salute your bravery but on your return to the US the wild streak returned and you had an affair on your severely injured wife and left her for the wealthy Cindy McCain, alienating most of your friends including the Reagan's.

Senator we honor your service to this country but with all due respect sir the idea of a true "Bluto" for President at this crucial time in our history is something that we cannot afford.

Something tells me that if John Blutarsky were here to day even he would remember how many houses he had accumulated.

As the financial industry collapses McCain takes the route so loved and used by Republicans: personal attacks.  Trembling with indignation he accuses Wall Street of being driven by greed and self-interest, and he tries to show is leader-cahones  by saying he'd fire SEC Chairman Cox (although as president he couldn't do that, and, by all accounts Cox has been a pretty decent chairman).  McCain is going to clean up Wall Street.

What, Mr. McCain are you doing to do -- take greed and self-interest out of Wall Street?  Make the financial industry into a charitable organization?  Someone should really press McCain about what he thinks the problem is and how he plans to clean it up.  He self-righteousness could hardly ring hollower. That just days ago McCain was using the banking industry as an example for health care makes his self-righteousness ring hollow.

That's because McCain's rage about people is clearly a head fake to avert public attention from the real problem, which is not people or their 'morals,' but the deregulated rules of the game.  And McCain fingerprints are all over the philosophy and initiatives of deregulation.  How may thousands of video clips must there be of McCain advocating getting government and its regulations out of the way? 

The public should be inundated with them.

What they are thinking

I guess they just really, really trust Henry.

All hail, Caesar!!

Are we trading a chance for universal health care, infrastructure improvements, tax cuts for the middle class, etc. for socializing the U.S. financial system? In other words, do Senator Obama's plans now go down the tubes because we will be spending most of a trillion dollars to bailout Wall Street? Do the Republicans now win no matter who wins the presidential election because there will be no money for progressive initiatives?

I have a real bad feeling about all this.

Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones had courage and conviction in her beliefs. It is a sad day in American when she was threatened before her death because of one - her belief in Hillary Clinton. She took the Obama threats very seriously and even increased her security.

This is our tax money, just where is it really "going?"  It should help the defaulted family homeowners first and the CEO's and micro-managers of those failed corporations last.

We see talk of almost a trillion taxpayer bucks going towards correcting this correction, so here's a few logical questions:

...where is it going?
To the homeowners who got ripped in the first place?
Or to some layer of corporate bullies who mismanaged us into this mess in the first place? 
And how did they manage to manuever the value of our very homes into such vulnerability?
How does this bailout affect middle-class equity, which is taking the big hit at it's fundamental roots?
Seriously, just where is this "bailout" going?

I just came across this video on YouTube posted by OpenSourcePundits.  
All clips from Obama, McCain, RNC, DNC youtube channels. Also using an ad by Senate candidate Scott Kleeb, and a photo taken by Jill Greenburg.

Music by Straylight Run, "First of this Century" on the album "The Needles the Space".

Straylight Obama - First of the Centuryhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lba1HyuLZgQ

Additional plug: check out the WBEZ radio program "This American Life" for the program "The Enforcer."
Enjoy, o weary Change Agents!

From this morning's speech in Daytona Beach, FL:

There's only one candidate who's called himself "fundamentally a deregulator" when deregulation is part of the problem. My opponent actually wrote in the current issue of a health care magazine - the current issue - quote - "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

So let me get this straight - he wants to run health care like they've been running Wall Street. Well, Senator, I know some folks on Main Street who aren't going to think that's a good idea.

Excellent speech, hard-hitting, tough and still clearly focused on policy and what Obama will do for the country. Let's hope the MSM pick up on it.

More here.

"People are beginning to doubt our system," President Bush said.  "People were losing confidence and I understand it's important to have confidence in our financial system."

Who are these "people" who were losing confidence?  Simply put, they are the people who invest in the U.S. financial market and create the liquidity lenders need to make loans.  Some of them are wealthy individuals, some are money managers for mutual funds and other funds, some are even foreign governments.

Last week, these wealthy and insured investors decided that the only safe investments were gold and U.S. Treasury bills.  The money supply began to dry up, threatening to shut off the flow of capital to businesses and to deal another blow to the staggering U.S. economy.

The root cause of the problem?  Billions of dollars in bad loans that never should have been made in the first place.

Now, the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress have crafted a "rescue" package that transfers the risk of those bad loans to the American taxpayer and sends a signal to wealthy investors and money managers that investing in the U.S. financial market is risk free.  Money will flow into the financial system, and the same people who made the bad loans that crashed the system will be able to lend money again, earn more bonuses, and buy their classic six on the Upper East Side or its equivalent somewhere in America.

The cost of the bail out is expected to approach a trillion dollars.

Make no mistake about it.  This is a game changing event for this election and for the first administration of the candidate who gets elected in November.

Every proposal made by either campaign has to be re-evaluated in light of this additional trillion dollar debt.  Every issue has to be rethought, every stump speech rewritten.  The bail out effects everything from universal health insurance to the war on terrorism.

And, once again, it will be the social programs that suffer.

Ronald Reagan used the Cold War to sabotage social programs and to destroy the lives of millions of disadvantaged Democrats.  Now, every social program on the Democratic agenda will be undermined by the argument that we just can't afford it now.

Instead of this bail out being argued in the context of issues like universal health insurance, issues like universal health insurance will be argued in the context of this bail out.

We have to find a way to put this bail out in the context of our programs.  It's time that people understood that kids are going to go without health care while the greedy bastards who brought our financial system down are walking away with millions of dollars.

Is it possible that power has corrupted neocons so absolutely that they're willing to do or cause anything to get the conversation back to national security and the supposed war on terror?
Al Qaeda has slowly been creeping up in the administration's dialogue again--the explosion at the U.S. embassy in Yemen last week, and the Pakistan hotel bombed this week(today)--both being tied to Al qaeda.
After eight years of lies, anyone thing this is mere coincidence? 

In another TPM reader post, Gregg Dunn asks, "Christians, why do you vote Republican?"

Gregg's question got me thinking a bit and prompted me to broaden his question in to the following post:

Why do we see the Christian right so concerned with legislating morality when one of the key biblical tenets is having the freedom of choice to do right or wrong? It's only in the exercising of that freedom that human souls are  judged by God. Why, then, are Christian conservatives so fixated on taking that freedom away, on subverting God's plan for judgement?

I think it may be because they are actually concerned only about how THEY will be judged by God, not how anyone else will be judged. I suspect that they want to be able to stand before God on Judgement Day and say, "I did everything I could to stop abortion, and to stop gay activity, or to stop whatever". It's completely about THEM. They are driven by fear and self-interest (surprise). Not by love for their neighbor. 

If the religious right were truly interested in preventing abortions, they would also support all forms of birth control, but they don't. If they were truly concerned about the sanctity of life they would not support the Iraq war, or the death penalty, but they aren't. They would also be just as interested in the health and life of the child after it is born as they are before it is born. All of these contradictions reveal the true motivations of Christian conservatives that would use police power to force their own personal morality on others. 

Whether on foreign policy (neocons) or, economic policy (supply-siders) or, social policy (Christian right), conservatism is characterized by zealotry. They are the true-believers. They don't question their beliefs, they assume them to be fact. Evidence to the contrary is rejected, which marks them as irrational not stupid. 

So, we see the neocons pushing for a war with Iran, having learned nothing from the Iraq debacle. We see supply-siders, such as Larry Kudlow, trying to blame the financial crisis on liberals and poor people. What do they all have in common? Actually, nothing, except that they are all unquestioning true-believers, they are zealots.

The Republican party is the party of zealots.

I'm getting whiplash from trying to reconcile the reality of the radical, emergency US Government intervention in financial markets, and the news media's fixation on the DJIA and other snapshot market indicators.  Of course, this is perfectly captured by Drudge's huge font banner "DOW Ends Week Down 34!!! "

(By the way... I'd like to know how much of the Friday bounce was a one-time move driven by desperate short-sale covering after the SEC banned investors from short-selling 799 financial companies, which drove other short traders to cover positions in non-finacial stocks as well.)

Bush is asking for $700 billion for the bailout of worthless mortgages and other bad debt held by tottering institutions--a jaw-dropping figure that does not include the hundreds of billions already spent to prop up FannyMay/FreddyMac, take over AIG, and pump Fed money into markets.

Whether or not you agree that the US Government ultimately had no choice for the actions it took this past week, there should be no doubt that this crisis is far from over, and the implications for the US economy, financial markets, job, and the US taxpayers are far from clear.  The price tag for this crisis is likely to top $2 trillion over the next five years--dwarfing the $160 billion cost of the last major crisis in financial markets, the S&L debacle of 1986-91.  It will likely mean a net 2% decline in GDP growth over the coming year, with broad implications for state and local tax revenues.

I view the USG's actions as a financial version of the "surge" in Iraq--a necessary move to avert imminent disaster that does little to change the underlying fundamentals of the crisis.  And like the war in Iraq, I'm loath to give them credit for grabbing the steering wheel to avert the fall off a cliff when the focus should be on why they travelled this rutted, misguided course in the first place. 

I'd like to see politicans, government officials, and financial experts answer a few questions:

<b>Why did the Fed and Treasury department wait for a year before decisive action in the mortgage crisis?</b>  I'd wager a lot that early relief for home owners facing foreclosure would have cost a lot less than the trillions of dollars we are about to spend--and keep in mind that the intervention of the past week does nothing to slow the rate of foreclosures and decline in home values. By the end of August, 9.2 percent of all US home mortgages were either seriously deliquent or in foreclosure--that is a mind-boggling statistic.  Nationally, new foreclosure filings during in August increased 12 percent from the previous month and a 27 percent increase from August of 2007--a record.  It's not getting better--it's getting worse.

<b>Did Fannie, Freddie, and Wall Street mix subprime mortgages with high-quality "regular" mortgages in collateral debt obligations (CDOs), aka "Mortgage-backed Securities," despite the vastly different risk profiles? </b>  It certainly seems they did, and if that is the case, why isn't illegal?  One of the FIRST new regulations I'd like to see are some requiring that future CDOs only bundle mortgages with the same risk ratings--and to do that, the regulators have to have the budgets and staff to review and enforce credit-worthiness criterion for loan evaluation across the entire industry.

With all due respect to Sen. McCain, based on his class rank of 794/799 in the class of 1958 at the Naval Academy, his self proclaimed reputation as a hellion and trouble maker a comparison to a fictional senator is fair. Senator John Blutarsky!

Remember at the end of Animal House? John Belushi, Bluto, drives away in the convertible and we see he becomes "Senator John Blutarsky" - go figure. And he got the hot girl - Mandy Pepperidge  (Cindy McCain?) as well.

Son and grandson of Admirals you skated into and thru Annapolis and got away with murder that normal guys would not have. You got jet pilot status even with your abysmal undergraduate performance thanks to the familybut crashed 3 airplanes BEFORE ever getting to fly off carriers, when again one crash would have disqualified non legacy Naval officers.

You endured things none of us can imagine and we salute your bravery but on your return to the US the widl streak returned and you had an affair on your severely injured wife and left her for the wealthy Cindy McCain, alienating most of your friends including the Reagans.

Senator we honor your service to this country but with all due respect sir the idea of a true "Bluto" for President at this crucial time in our history is something that we cannot afford.

Something tells me that if John Blutarsky were here to day even he would remember how many houses he had accumulated by his own work, not that of his rich wife.

share this...

1.  Obviously it is an abuse of the political system to select someone so manifestly unqualified, potentially for U.S. President.  A shocking abuse.

2. It frankly is cruel to her, as well.  She is a viciously mean person herself and she doesn't deserver our sympathy, but objectively, it is still cruel to ask her to make such an utter fool of herself, just as it would be cruel to torture any viciously mean person.

3. I live abroad so I don't know how much this has been said, but it is deeply unpatriotic, obviously.  Vice-Presidents can't be recalled.  If they should somehow get elected, she's got this job.  And if anything should happen to him, she's President.  There's no second chance, that's the deal.  Now, how could you pass yourself off as a patriot, parade around these unspeakably arrogant signs about "Country First," and then willfully put your country at such grave risk?  You gotta wanna win pretty bad, and care very little indeed for the interests of your country. 

I've followed the financial news as everyone else has this week. I'm not a financial genius and I don't know much about the stock market beyond the basics.

 I'd nevr heard the expression "short selling" used before, except in relation to selling real estate for less than the debt owed on it.

It seems to me that what happened on Friday was just the first chapter in a mystery whose conclusion is far from certain. The headline for this post is a sentence that appears in an article in today's NYT.  Here is the quote, in context:

Computers that automatically buy and sell for big investors hit snags because they were not programmed for such a restriction. Securities firms and money managers that routinely sell short to hedge against possible losses wondered how they would cope. In certain stocks and funds traded on New York Stock Exchange, some prices and trades were “erroneous,” a spokesman said.

The surge in financial shares was driven at least in part by traders who were forced to buy those stocks to cover earlier short sales, raising doubts about whether the rally will last.

Hedge fund managers who made vast profits betting against the nation’s financial titans called the ban unfair, and said the move would only prolong the financial crisis. Some traders said they were no longer betting on the intrinsic health of companies, but rather on what the government might do next. Others simply withdrew from the market.

And here is a link to the full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/business/worldbusiness/20markets.html?th&emc=th

I may not be an expert, but I'd be willing to bet that the fat lady has not yet sung, which I guess would be, technically, a form of short selling.  

this bailout is scary, folks.  They will have to raise the debt ceiling to 11.5 trillion dollars.  We're getting close to owing as much money as a nation as we produce on an annual basis and a debt that is 5X our annual tax receipts.

This issue has bounced around in the comments, esp. recently with the "State of the Race" posts. So here is analysis from our friend Nate at 538.com Estimating the Cellphone Effect: 2.2 Points

Mark Blumenthal has a rundown of the pollsters that are including cellphone numbers in their samples. Apparently, Pew, Gallup, USA Today/Gallup (which I consider a separate survey), CBS/NYT and Time/SRBI have been polling cellphones all year. NBC/WSJ, ABC/Washington Post and the AP/GfK poll have also recently initiated the practice. So too does the Field Poll in California, PPIC, also based in California, and Ann Selzer. There may be some others too but those are the ones that I am aware of.

FULL STORY HERE

share this...

Kevin Madden's earlier post says it best:
"This bailout isn't a plan.  It's what you do when you don't have a plan.  It's what a country does when the speed and trajectory of cronyism and corporate interests approaches a singularity beyond what it can do to sustain itself.  It eats itself alive." 

McCain and Florida Republicans are determined to steal it even better next time, thanks to two new state voting laws that aim to perfect voter suppression--the real whopper is a law that allows anyone to challenge any voter for any reason and puts the burden on the voter to prove they have a right to cast a ballot.

If you live in a very blue state, are a lawyer, and can take some time off around 4 November, you might want to contact the Florida Democratic Lawyers Council about being a poll watcher.

It is time to really take Sen. McCain's cognitive issues seriously. When are we finally going to admit McCain is losing it? He hasn't spoken with the press in over a month to "gaffe proof" the campaign. He picks Palin essentially unvetted and now 3 Major gaffes in 3 days.

• Thursday it was Zapatero and Spain
  
• Friday it was SEC and FEC
  
• From Wed. here's a brand-new gem on a stunning, overlooked McCain gaffe from David Hulen at the Alaska Politics blog from Wed. in the MI town hall w/ Palin:
  

Candidates spend a lot of time talking, and they all misspeak sometimes. But did anyone else notice this, from Wednesday's much-covered McCain-Palin Town Hall event in Grand Rapids, Mich., where Palin answered questions from people in the audience? McCain said this near the end of the clip below, as he's talking up Palin's foreign policy/national security credentials:

"I also know, if I might remind you, that she is commander of the Alaska National Guard. In fact, you may know that on Sept. 11 a large contingent of the Alaska Guard deployed to Iraq and her son happened to be one of them. So I think she understands our national security challenges..."

The ceremony Palin attended at Fort Wainwright last week didn't involve the Alaska National Guard. Palin's son is in the Army, and his unit - 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division - deployed to Iraq.

I really would not like to be right here but I think his "confusion" is early Alzheimers. I've seen it before. We all have.

Somehow the public needs to really know what is going on here. We need full medical records including mental health and we need them NOW!

This financial crises will put down the dog of Republican Dogma that says Gov't is bad or that Gov't is too big. I would hope that Barack uses this to bash McCain over the head , day in and day out.

I think that argument now has been exposed for what it is. A BIG LIE.

With Wall Street collapsing, John McCain takes the route favored by Republicans: personal attacks.  McCain attacks the movers and shakers of Wall Street for being "greedy," for putting their self-interest before the country.  Trembling with indignation he says he would fire Chairman Cox for not doing his job.

Wipe out greed and self-interest from Wall Street?  Ha!  As laughable as that is, is it possible that no one could ask him how he would do that?  Maybe turn Wall Street into a charitable organization? 

As preposterous as McCain is, his move is strategic: keep people's attention on the personalities involved and off the deregulated rules of the game. Changeling McCain will try to become whatever he thinks he needs to become to win the election.  But with regard to corporate regulation he is and always has been a 100% non-maverick Republican.  How many times has he, his wife, Palin, Gramm and all his spokespeople said we need to get government and its regulations off our backs? 

There's a ton of video out there with McCain singing the deregulation song.  It should be replayed, repeatedly.

Sorry for repost- I hit the submit button by mistake
In response to the new Repub/finanical sector crisis W has been using the old "inaction is worse than action" meme. After the proven  results of the of this meme turned into "action" by this administration, I would prefer to let Wall Street figure its own way out of this without burdening the taxpayer further (wasn't the Iraq War enough?).
W just now in his press conference started talking about protecting the working man from further harm. That really hit my BS meter hard. 
How about our government leaders, especially the Democratic Congress,  act just this one time like true conservatives for a change and do nothing. I prefer this risk/benefit analysis.

In response to the new Repub/finanical sector crisis W has been using the old "inaction is worse than action" meme. After the proven  results of the of this meme turned into "action" by this administration, I would prefer to let Wall Street figure its own way out of this without burdening the taxpayer further (wasn't the Iraq War enough?).
W just now in his press conference started talking about protecting the working man from further harm. That really hit my BS meter hard. 
How about are government leaders, especially the Democratic Congress act like true conservatives for and do nothing. I prefer this risk/benefit analysis.   

A few years ago, some of us here suggested we would eventually be able to draw down troop levels in Iraq, since with enough ethnic cleansing there would be little sectarian strife left to fuel violent attacks. A study by UCLA has evidence for this in the amount of light observed in areas of Baghdad, before and after the troop increase:

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn14768-satellite-images-cast-doubt-on-success-of-iraq-surge-.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news7_head_dn14768

They say that images from the Defense Meteorological Satellite, which have been used before for large-scale light-mapping, show that Sunni neighborhoods are now darker, and were that way before the surge, as compared to before the main invasion.

In contrast, lights in other Iraqi cities remained at pre-surge levels or increased.

I was right to feel the invasion would be a bad move, but wrong to think Baghdad might be like Berlin, 1945. Turns out to have been Yugoslavia.

Ascaris lumbricoides (intestinal roundworms of humans and pigs) is an interesting animal model of Republican parasitism.

Ascaris lumbricoides [...] is one of the largest and most common parasites found in humans. The adult females of this species can measure up to 18 inches long (males are generally shorter), and it is estimated that 25% of the world's population is infected with this nematode.

The Republican parasite is similar, but that malady seems to infect a slightly larger fraction of society - about 30-35%. The males of this species of parasite are also often on the short side.

The adult worms live in the small intestine and eggs are passed in the feces. A single female can produce up to 200,000 eggs each day! About two weeks after passage in the feces the eggs contain an infective larval or juvenile stage, and humans are infected when they ingest such infective eggs.

Adult Republicans also spew out about 200,000 lies each day, and those who swallow them are at extreme risk of infection.

The eggs hatch in the small intestine, the juvenile penetrates the small intestine and enters the circulatory system, and eventually the juvenile worm enters the lungs. In the lungs the juvenile worm leaves the circulatory system and enters the air passages of the lungs. The juvenile worm then migrates up the air passages into the pharynx where it is swallowed, and once in the small intestine the juvenile grows into an adult worm.

Yuk! Why do we keep swallowing it. Spit it out!

Why Ascaris undergoes such a migration through the body to only end up where it started is unknown.

Republican parasites also make circuitous journeys through policy causing a great deal of pain and harm as they do.

Ascaris infections in humans can cause significant pathology. The migration of the larvae through the lungs causes the blood vessels of the lungs to hemorrhage, and there is an inflammatory response accompanied by edema. The resulting accumulation of fluids in the lungs results in "ascaris pneumonia," and this can be fatal.

Republican parasites migrate into the halls of power inflaming the economy with swelling debt and causing widespread hemorrhage of our resources. This, too, can be fatal.

The large size of the adult worms also presents problems, especially if the worms physically block the gastrointestinal tract. Ascaris is notorious for its reputation to migrate within the small intestine, and when a large worm begins to migrate there is not much that can stop it. Instances have been reported in which Ascaris have migrated into and blocked the bile or pancreatic duct or in which the worms have penetrated the small intestine resulting in acute (and fatal) peritonitis.

Republican worms (especially the larger ones) are always obstructing something which is why the body politic has become so ill.

Ascaris seems to be especially sensitive to anesthetics, and numerous cases have been documented where patients in surgical recovery rooms have had worms migrate from the small intestine, through the stomach, and out the patient's nose or mouth.

As we now witness in Republican John McCainworm and Republican Sarah Palinworm.

As promised here is Pastor Muthee Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsDfkAnCvKY

Here is the section you'll see Palin in:

“As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he’s so bold. And he was praying “Lord make a way, Lord make a way.”

“And I’m thinking, this guy’s really bold, he doesn’t even know what I’m going to do, he doesn’t know what my plans are. And he’s praying not “oh Lord if it be your will may she become governor,” no, he just prayed for it. He said “Lord make a way and let her do this next step. And that’s exactly what happened.”

“So, again, very very powerful, coming from this church."

I was startled at first when news came out that Mayor Sarah Palin's town of Wasilla (pop. 4600 in 1996) charged rape victims for the cost of the rape kits used in examinations while she was mayor, until the practice was outlawed by the state in 2000. But, then news reports and the campaign explained it away, saying that it was the policy of the Police Department and that perhaps Sarah Palin wasn't really aware of it.

However, this week Alaska political commentator and blogger Shannyn Moore reported that the former Police Chief had included the cost of the rape kits in a budget request. As we now know, Chief Irl Stambaugh was soon fired after Palin took office and replaced by a new chief who, according to Moore, didn't include rape kits in the budget.

Hmmm. Perhaps this helps to explain Palin's comment in a dismissal letter to Stambaugh stating, "I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla."

Recent reports also note that McCain voted against a bill that required cities and states to pay for rape kits if they received money from the federal government (cities like Wasilla that received millions for its 4,000+ residents). The bill was sponsored by Joe Biden. Similarly, Barack Obama, co-sponsored a bill as a State Senator in Illinois that improved on the law that provided benefits to crime victims, including rape victims.

Was the cost of rape kits too much for a small town like Wasilla to handle? The Police Chief at the time said that the kits could have cost the city up to $14,000 a year. The chief, who was selected to support the mayor's efforts "to govern the city of Wasilla," even protested the effects on the city's budget.

So, Palin was being a the friend to the tax payer? But how does that fiscal prudence jive with the fact that "fiscal conservative" Sarah Palin has also been reported to have spent:

More than $50,000 remodeling her office after taking office in 1996 (without city council approval) and,

Purchased a Chevy Suburban for use by the mayor (of a town of 4,600 residents).

Meanwhile, rape victims had to pay for their own rape examinations. But, surely there were not so many rapes or sexual assaults in a small town like Wasilla. While Alaska lead the nation in 2007 in forcible rapes per capita at .85 per 1,000 residents, nearly triple the per capita national rate of .30 per 1,000. The rate for small cities, with populations under 10,000, was even lower at .285 per 1,000. 

Unfortunately the data available for Wasilla doesn't provide for a direct comparison, as the local police report crime for the broader range of sexual assault than the FBI's narrower category of forcible rape.

According to Wasilla police reports there were 84 sexual assaults (includes all associated sex crimes) reported in the city during the Palin years (1996-2002). In 1996 there were 11 sexual assaults and 15 in 2002, with 1997 recording the highest total of 18.

Given this data, Wasilla comes up with a surprisingly high number of 2.39 sexual assaults per 1,000 in 1996 (4,600 residents, 11 cases). Unfortunately, as noted above, the FBI data do not provide similar data for the broader category of sexual assault (ranging from inappropriate touching to rape), but it does seem that Wasilla, like Alaska, does have a problem with rape and sexual assault. The state's Sex Offender/Child Kidnapper database lists 62 offenders currently living in Wasilla, which compares with 36 offenders living in the nearby and similarly sized town of Palmer.

But all of this information sheds an odd light on the McCain/Palin campaign claim that the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner was fired for his "rouge" pursuit of "federal funds for an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program."  

A reasonable person might think that a woman like Sarah Palin would be out front leading on this issue, given Alaska's poor record on sexual assault, the high sexual assault rate in Wasilla, and the fact that the number of sexual offenders in her hometown is far beyond the state's per capita average (4.7 per 1,000 for the state, 8.8 per 1,000 for Wasilla, assuming a pop. of 7,000).

But, apparently, Sarah Palin's administration didn't have the establishment of Alaska's first ever major program to tackle sexual assault as one of its priorities. I really hope that Katie Couric asks Palin about these contradictions. (I hope Katie or someone else also interviews Irl Stambaugh to find out about his rape kit policy.) Why would the governor of the state with the highest per capita rate of rape have such an odd record of policies pertaining to rape and sexual assault? Why were a police chief and public safety commissioner that showed initiative and sensitivity on this issue summarily fired?

I don't know how many of you have known someone who was a victim of rape. Given the stigma involved it's not something that normally comes up in conversation. I did know someone, but the only reason I found out about it was that my friend and former colleague was murdered in the process. 

We all know that sexual assault and rape are under-reported crimes. Given this it's really hard to understand why some politicians like Palin and McCain would make these crimes even more difficult for the victims. Let's hope someone asks them about their record on this issue before November.

This week is the foreign policy debate and

My feeling is that the GOP is rushing to pay back ALL their friends and supporters as they IGNORE the "regular folk" in this new gift to ALL the Big Money special interests that support Republicans and their campaign's.

DAMN! There has got to be a better way, a way that benefits EVERYONE, not just the select few.
 
First, take that $500 Bil. and make everybody's mortgage interest rate 3% or 4%. This will help EVERYONE, even those that rent, because the amount of disposable income will increase dramatically. This will push massive amounts of money into the economy benefiting retail and retail's employees.

Second, Once upon a Banks weren't allowed to hook up with  Brokerage Firms and Insurance Companies. It's time to put that Law back on the books, I think it was called Glass/Stiegel.

Third, The Minimum Wage has got to be replaced with an actual Living Wage. You may not know that someone being paid the Minimum Wage trying to live on 30% LESS, than how the feds define as the poverty line. This must change. And NO it won't cause job loss. Remember all those grim predictions before the minimum wage increase in the early 1990's and then those 22MILLION jobs that were created imagine if we actually had a living wage? This too WILL HELP EVERYONE, but for some reason Republicans can't seem to understand that people are going to spend their income, not hide it in a mattress or bury it the back yard.

Fourth, WE MUST DEAL WITH HEALTH CARE not HEALTH "COVERAGE." Profit CAN NOT be involved in matters of life and death, it is immoral.  THE first duty of for profit Health Insurance Companies (HIC) is to make money for their shareholders, NOT providing healthcare. As a matter of fact HICs make a lot of money by literally LETTING PEOPLE DIE, by denying care that would save lives. IT IS JUST WRONG. If you take the worry of Health Care off the backs of  the poor and The Middle Class you will be providing the most effective, long lasting economic stimulus plan in US history.

Finally, we must tie EXECUTIVE salaries and bonuses to the pay of  "Joe and Jane Sixpack." We must prevent the raiding of retirement plans. We can not allow the payment of massive severance packages to those same executives that have run a company into oblivion. And we MUST make sure that before ANYONE grabs their GOLDEN PARACHUTE and jumps, "Joe and Jane" get what they have paid for AND ARE ENTITLED TO.

Everyone should get out their copy of The Great Gatsby and read it, if you don't have a copy go to the Library and check it out. Pay particular attention to Tom and Daisy as they exploit and spend their way through life and leave the clean-up to others.

We might be entering an generation that will become know as Generation Gatsby.

I know all Christians don't vote Republican, however, those who claim they are Christian overwhelmingly vote Republican.  Why is that?  The main answer is to change the Supreme Court about abortion.  But, I think it goes deeper than that.  Part of the answer can be found in Sara Diamond's books on the Christian Right and the Christian Right's leaders' deals with the Republican Party leadership to bring in votes to the Republican Party.

This works very well in the Evangelical Churches, because rightwing political hot button issues are continually inserted in sermons and it will continue to increase until the election is over.

I attend an Evangelical Church and last week we got to hear about--9/11, abortion and homosexuals in that order.  Yet abortion, homosexuals and 9/11 aren't all that convinces many of these individuals to vote Republican.  Sure, we all get Dr. James Dobson inserts (and believe me for many of the people who he says to vote for, that is who they vote for).

One of the underlying issues these individuals vote Republican is they believe Republicans "make us strong," regardless of the evidence whether at home (economy) or abroad (Iraq).  It is a very bizarre thing.

But, as a Christian, what is really confusing is Biblically, we are an empire like Egypt, like Babylon, like Rome, just like all the other empires that came and fell before us.  What these Christians fail to realize is, as Republicans, they have come to love the Empire.  They love the Empire more than they love Jesus.  In their love of Empire, they have selected (been brainwashed) to vote Republican.

I would suggest for you, if you feel so inclined, to attend an Evangelical Church, listen to the sermons, get to know the people.  They are good people, but mostly, totally devoid of any foreign or domestic policy knowledge.  They listen to rightwing Christian radio or rightwing political radio.  In church, at least, they will be kind enough to listen and have a discussion.  I am not sure it would change their opinion, but I have talked with some at length and they didn't really know anything about our foreign policy.

Just a suggestion:  if you are going to do this, make sure you have your facts, because they will check on them.

I advocate a new trade tax. If we invest trillions in these complex Wall Street, banking, debt, schemes without knowing their present equity, or the eventual value of these financial instruments, how do we guarantee a return for our blind, taxpayer, investment? I suggest a new trade tax. Each and every future transaction should be assessed a percentage of the transaction to be paid the federal government by the buyer and seller. This tax should be immediately deposited into a special Treasury fund that can be easily tracked.
This is simple, transparent and more than fair. It's past time for the citizens on main street to get a return too.

Bet the McCain camp wishes that they'd waited a week before they submitted their written answers to questions  posed on science and technology policy.

How do you protect America's position as a world leader in innovation? 

Learn how to do the Google?  Nope.

I am committed to streamlining burdensome regulations and effectively protecting American intellectual property in the United States and around the globe.

Oops. But wait, there's more. 

I am uniquely qualified to lead our nation during this technological revolution. 

Because for five and a half years he didn't have access to technology?  No, but close:

While in the Navy, I depended upon the technologies and information provided by our nation’s scientists and engineers with (sic) during each mission. 

And finally, just for fun, McCain tops it all off by reminding us that he really did invent the Blackberry:

Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park.

All that within the response to a single question.  There are thirteen more. Happy hunting.

Working Americans have seen their relatively meager 401 investments experience zero growth for eight years.

The only people who are being bailed out are the top 5%. The rest of us are not in the game being played by the Bush administration and Wall Street. That is unless you count how much the trillions added to the debt during the Bush years will affect the retirement of working Americans for decades to come. That has already been shot to hell so it doesn't make a bit of difference to us anymore. Our money has already been stolen and it isn't going to come back. No way. No how. The crooks have already absconded with it. And our government, instead of trying to get some back, is taking even more and giving it to the crooks.

I remember that after the 1932 elections and before the inauguration ( in March at that time) Hoover and the rethugs tried to play FDR by getting him to sign on to their idea of a bi-partisan "solution" that would have locked him, and the incoming Democratic Congress, into a "republican" bailout of wall street while leaving main street behind,
FDR wisely "went on vacation" and refused to be played.
Perhaps this should be an object lesson for todays D's and Obama.
Don't get played and locked into a Republican plan that with its failure in a year will reflect on the incoming administration rather then the present administration.

IN GOOD TIMES

 

IN GOOD TIMES

 

IN GOOD TIMES

 

Am I the only one that was stunned this morning to wake up and hear that Wall Street is having all their bad debt bought off with our tax money.  I wept.  I've spent this entire summer being hounded by bill collectors.  I've lived in a state of fear to open my mailbox or answer my phone because I owe so much money to medical bills that I can barely catch a moment before being reminded of how in over my head I am.  It never stops.  Am I the only one who looks at my own financial problems and wonders where the government has been to bail me out?  Did I wake up with a note taped to my forehead that read "Bills paid!"?  Nope.  Another day in financial hell with no life preservers.

And then I think about those who foreclosed on their homes, or whose property value is devastated because their neighbor's foreclosed home is an unkempt lot of wood stripped of copper wire.  I think about those who lost their homes and how incredibly unfair it is that while they couldn't keep up on payments, they're still going to buy that house they lost back.  They'll pay for it vicariously through tax dollars.

This bailout isn't a plan.  It's what you do when you don't have a plan.  It's what a country does when the speed and trajectory of cronyism and corporate interests approaches a singularity beyond what it can do to sustain itself.  It eats itself alive.

John McCain called this mess on Wall Street a 9/11.  It's not 9/11.  If this were 9/11 we would be demanding the heads of those hijackers responsible.  Agencies would be creating lists of the masterminds and creating strategies to smoke them from their holes and force them to stand tall.  Who has demanded that level of accountability?  Both parties proved this week they have only the power to buckle into the same fold.

Let's pretend this is 9/11.  Let's take a look at our collateral damage.  Has either party done that?  Let's pretend that the Twin Towers were made of infrastructure needs and Omar Sheik Magna Cum Dipshit just crashed the plane into the building.  What did these hijackers just destroy?

This took all of three minutes on Google.  It was easy because having spent a trillion dollars on a pointless war there were plenty of resources on what a trillion dollars can buy.  Americans, this is what we just helped the hijackers destroy in the course of a day:

From the New York Times online (WHAT 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS COULD BUY)

"For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign...a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged..."

From ABC NEWS Online (HOW IRAQ TRILLION COULD HAVE BEEN SPENT)

"The Treasury could have used the money to mail a check for more than $3,000 to every man, woman and child in the United States."

But if you prefer simple examples, look no further than Ian Welsh's What We Could Have Done With the Money:

"A solar power build-out big enough to generate enough energy enough for two-thirds of all American homes.

Send 5 years worth of high school students to a University, with fully paid tuition.

Clean up and revitalize 667 rivers.

Pave every highway with 23.5-Karat gold leaf!"

I'm done with both parties.  There's not going to be any Universal Health Care, no rising the poor out of their misery or providing a fair wage.  These are two parties who run to their master's bell and to no one else.  It showed real leadership for Obama to race to the aid of Wall Street.  I'm sure the White Knight will be quick to shell out a trillion when it's your ass on the slab.  Just keep hoping for him to save you.  That's what hope is all about.

I have no idea who made this video, but I sure wish it was on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJThPjvscFs

Although it's way to early what's going to be inside the bailout legislation, I argue that, despite Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's tough-guy "no more bailouts" language less than a full week ago, the speculators likely won.

Tips to watch for:
• Do we do things like a surtax on the rich, or finally getting Chuck Schumer's beloved hedge fund managers taxed as income recipients and not earners of  capital gains? And, other Dems are "on the clock" in my book, too.
• Do we have financial regulation attached to the bill, and not just new authority, but new regulatory mandates? (I run a weekly "Intrade" at my blog and will include the chances of that happening in my Saturday night odds making.

What's this say for the future of capitalism? Across the pond, the Guardian rounds up the take from the best of the Euro-left; I have a summary.

Finally, can somebody tell me where Richard Perle is? The way our economy has crumbled in the past few months, you'd swear the neocons were in charge of it as well as foreign policy.

Somebody has to pay for this screw up. Why shouldn't it be the persons who are the recipients of our sweat and toil?

Both Senators Obama and McCain, like most Americans, were surprised by the intensity and scope of the financial crisis bursting beneath Wall Street and beyond this past week. Variations of petty politicking had distracted them.

By contrast, Ron Paul's campaign had honed in on some dire issues of the American economy well before its recent quakes. He emphasized the unsustainability of borrowing from abroad to buy at home that which is largely manufactured or sourced abroad.

A nation-centered candidate, Paul argued for a government focused on constitutional priorities and guided more strictly by the document's powers and limits. The US Constitution is also clear about who each branch of government serves, and is not only a charter but a fundamental ethics source. By focusing on the US Constitution, Ron Paul enriched the entire campaign.
 
That richness seems to have waned as the problems it would have prevented waved in the wind as Treasury ploughed a 1.5 trillion dollar wake through fragmented US financial firms that lacked the wisdom of Glass-Steagall firewalls while packing the white hot fuel of short selling tactics.

Apparently, without the firewalls and fueled with rumors, the US political economy is now like Sarah Palin's email account.

Paul, although quite different in many ways from H. Ross Perot, seemed to heed his economic warnings of sixteen years ago. In the 1992 election Perot bought time for long TV infomercials in which he taught the public the meaning of the economic and financial data and the premises of the workaday financial system.

What is so strange is that the partisan powerhouses then and now have portrayed these men as eccentric at best. Perot was "crazy" or "imbalanced" and Paul's campaign was "quixotic" (WaPo). It is pretty clear that the MSM marginalized these men and their ideas with help from the party-monopolies that wished them gone. It is why Mr. Perot's billions and Mr. Paul's internet presence helped them make traction around the 'usual MSM suspects'.

Interestingly enough, Obama adopted "Yes we can," rhyming with Perot's "United We Stand," and echoing some of Perot's can-do, 'solutions are already here but unity isn't' messaging. And he also matched and perhaps improved on Ron Paul's powerful internet reach.

Dare we say Perot and Paul were portrayed as eccentrics because Perot used data to educate the voter and Paul did that plus preached the value of the US Constitution as a guide to law, ethics, checks, balances, government size and its requirements?

In the present campaign, however, inpenetrable vagaries are the norm, which reminds me of an intelligent investor's observation: Warren Buffett once said that if he could not understand a company's financial reports, it meant the firm didn't want him to understand. That does not bode well for what our system of government is meant to be.