During last year's campaign, I asked questions about Alaska's prison operating and construction budgets. I speculated about what Palin had to do to get the gas pipeline extended to Wasilla and wondered whether the results of clean water tests in Wasilla were covered up in the late '90s.
Those are my three picks for the real reason why Palin suddenly resigned late Friday before a holiday. And yours?
]]>I'm listening now to her absurd, ridiculous speech while I keystroke this. What the Hell is she saying?? And how utterly, completely, stupid does John McCain look now? The words "politics of personal destruction" should have burned her mouth as she said them.
I can't write fast enough, I can't think fast enough to keep up with the GOP's self-destruction. She's talking like an employee that a manager really wanted to fire, but she wasn't quite bad enough, and then she quits because she's all pouty over how the lunch breaks were assigned.
Oh, yeah, there it is, "Support for our troops" -- had to be in there somewhere.
Can David Letterman take his apology back now?
Should someone have told her that she was babbling? Good Gawd what a blithering idiot. "Some governors have fun as lame ducks." I don't know about the "duck" part, but ...
Funny thing is, I'm going to miss her.
No I'm not.
What a prize weenie. Maybe she's another-other (another Nutter Butter?) woman in the Sanford affair.
]]>
Bill writes excellent analysis on economic issues and trends
in general, mortgages, foreclosures in particular with great clarity. Now that
I praised Bill's clarity, under the odd title "Another Involuntary
Landlord and Summary"...Bill covers unemployment with his usual insight and
links to his previous top notch posts on the subject.
Another Involuntary Landlord and Summary
Known for is ironic wit, the picture of the "Another Involuntary Landlord" with for lease sign in front is? Click on his photo and read the plaque:
The National Association of Homebuilders, National Housing Center in Washington DC.
But I thought sentiment among homebuilders was up on
increasing month over month new home sales??
As Bill has taught me... Real Estate is cyclical on an annual basis. Sales always go up in April through August. People always try to buy and get moved in before school starts for their kids and/or the holiday season. These trends have repeated in the US, year after year, decade after decade. Believe the trend line.
Never pay attention to month over month, always pay
attention to year over year... this month last year. Month over month is used to
mislead... like the National Association of Realtors and Homebuilders.
Bill on unemployment:
Click on the 1st chart. Nice perspective on where this recession stands historically to the 9 post World War II recessions.
Unknown to the American public, historical perspective is
important because so much of what happens today, is path dependent on past
political and economic decisions. Path Dependency is real. We will look at good
ol' Glass-Steagall here shortly...
I think it was Gore Vidal who coined the phrase "Citizens of the United States of Amnesia" for their unfailing lack of forgetting what happened yesterday. Those who defraud the American public count on that.
In one of the links below the chart, Bill gives a good break
down on how unemployment is spread among different industries in the US economy:
Unemployment:
Stress Test Scenarios, Diffusion Index, Weekly Claims
Here is a look at how "widespread" the job losses are using the employment diffusion index from the BLS...
Before September, the all industries employment diffusion index was close to 40, suggesting that job losses were limited to a few industries. However starting in September the diffusion index plummeted. In December, the index hit 20.5, suggesting job losses were very widespread. The index has recovered since then, but declined slightly in June to 28.6, suggesting job losses are still widespread.
However job losses have really picked up over the last 9 months (4.4 million jobs lost, red line cliff diving on the graph), and the current recession is now the 2nd worst recession since WWII in percentage terms - and also in terms of the unemployment rate (only early '80s recession was worse).
On unemployment insurance: Notice a nice chart showing both
initial and continuing unemployment insurance claims since 1971.
Employment-Population Ratio, Part Time Workers, Hours Worked
In this post, Bill analyzes hours worked and those forced to work part time, either because they are full time employees who have been cut to part time or were hired part time because that was all that was available. Why should part time workers be an issue in the unemployment numbers? Have you ever tried paying your rent or more importantly in this foreclosure environment, your mortgage with part time wages? Part time employment might just affect economic conditions after all...
So why exclude part time from the U3 unemployment numbers? Why exclude people who have run out of unemployment insurance? Why invent job creation (Birth/Death Ratio) that your payroll data and 60k a month household survey has allegedly missed? Add 1.3 million jobs in a single year (Bush Jr. 2007) ?
Two great charts:
Employment-Population Ratio
The general upward trend from the early '60s was mostly due to women entering the workforce. As an example, in 1964 women were about 32% of the workforce, today the percentage is close to 50%.
This measure is at the lowest level since the early '80s and shows the weak recovery following the 2001 recession - and the current cliff diving!
And:
Part Time for Economic Reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers)
Not only has the unemployment rate risen sharply to 9.5%, but the number of workers only able to find part time jobs (or have had their hours cut for economic reasons) is at 9.0 million.
You can find analysis on increasing year over year personal bankruptcies in June, up 40%...
Then move on to "Naught for the Naughts" Just an observation ..."
On the '00s (the "Naughts") ...
Employment Dec 1999: 130.53 million
Employment Jun 2009: 131.69 million
A gain of just 1.16 million. What are the odds that the economy loses another 1.16 million jobs over the next 6 months? Pretty high. That would mean no net jobs added to the economy for the naughts:
Naught for the Naughts!
Mr. Bill on education: Really his blog is to inform the
public on economic issues. In that regard if you click:
You will find some very informative subject postings by his
former writing partner.
From December 2006, until she passed away from ovarian cancer on Nov 30, 2008, Tanta was my co-blogger. Tanta worked as a mortgage banker for 20 years, and we started chatting in early 2005 about the housing bubble and the changes in lending practices.
In Memoriam: Doris "Tanta" Dungey
The UberNerd Collection:
Mortgage
Servicing
Negative
Amortization
Private
Mortgage Insurance I
Private
Mortgage Insurance II
Foreclosure
and REO
MBS
I
MBS
II
MBS
III
Delinquency
and Default
Reverse
Mortgages
Leverage,
Ratings, and Forced Unwind
Mortgage
Origination Channels
These are all worth taking the time to read to better
understand this "once in century" economic calamity that no one could
see coming"... fraudsters never want to see a good thing coming, huh Wall
Street?
For a little foreclosure lunacy and sarcastic comments with
facts and figures, click on "Jim The Realtor" on the right margin.
Note: Jim's link seems to move. The Calculated Risk list of
Jim's postings:
Calculated Risk list of Jim the Realtor videos
Jim works in San Diego
handling a lot of banked owned foreclosures. While Jim video tapes, he gives a
run down on the property, the facts, figures and assessment of what is going
on. His commentary is both hilarious and truly astounding. He critiques banks
that are too cheap to paint or repair foreclosures so they can sell, to the
original purchase prices, how may refinances and how each particular
foreclosure ended up where it did.
His latest video documents a rash of foreclosures and NOD's
on upper end homes in the over $1 million price range.(Excellent content, probably his poorest video work though...):
Jim TV SD Pre-Foreclosure Tour
If you watch the series of Jim's video's as a whole they are
quite educational. From the low end and investor rental end of the market, to
the upper end 4k square footers and unscrupulous new home development deals...
with brand new houses foreclosing less than a year after they sold... it gives
you a whole new perspective on the foreclosure problem, the lack of regulation at
all levels and top down securitization greed from Wall Street that got us into
this fine mess.
All of Jim's videos:
Got to love Jim the Realtor... and Mr. Bill the Brain at Calculated Risk.
]]>
I think she very much wanted to play on her terms. When that didn't work out she said screw this. Alaska is a very small stage in relative terms. Stepping onto the national stage and getting pretty well battered around could easily sour anybody's love of the game. Only very special people have what it takes to play at that level.
]]>
She wants to affect change "outside government". The national press is "picking apart a good point guard", and it's time to "pass the ball".
More to come, no doubt. Any early thoughts?
]]>
Despite President Barack Obama and Congress attempts to create a culture of dependency, Americans still believe in the basic premise of human liberty.
Its a clever chess move no doubt. But there are multiple ways of interpreting the Ideals from the Declaration of Independence. In fact huge amounts of paper has been created by political theoriests who have debated (and rebated, and redebated) what the original ideals were--and what their reasoning and intentions were. [side note: is redebated a word? I'm not even going to check] [side note part deux, does anyone else hear Richard Strauss - Also Sprach Zarathustra when you read the words "Ideals from the Declaration of Independence"]
But lets skip the Ivory Tower and move back to what real people think (which is far more useful in my opinion) [side note: did I just claim that Academics aren't real people? I'm not going to answer that or I might reason myself out of existence...errr the future self at any rate]
For example:
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has always been a, interpret as you please, concept. Go ask anyone if they like liberty and believe its fundamentally good. Who is opposed to Liberty? Aside from guys like this. It all depends on what is or isn't liberty.89% of American adults agree that "we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Only seven percent (7%) disagree on that founding premise.
How about the pursuit of happiness... that ones a doozy! Take that one for a ride as you please.
Seventy-four percent (74%) agree with the assertion that "all men are created equal" while just 23% disagree.
Again, Red, Blue, Green, and whatever color the libertarians are; who doesn't believe all men are created equal?
What a culture of dependency is i'm not really sure... (I mean I have an intuitive feel for it and could make my case, but i'm not sure what others meaning of a culture of dependency is and i'm not making the claim so I'd have to leave it to them to make the case) But what if the consent of the governed empowers the government to create a culture of dependency? [side question: How can a government create a culture? Is there a specific law that was enacted or a number of things that in of themselves wouldn't do so? Wow so many questions are created from this one...]Fifty-six percent (56%) agree with the view that governments derive their only just authority from the "consent of the governed." Interestingly, one-in-four Americans (25%) disagree.
Other survey data shows that voters nationwide overwhelming trust the American people to make key decisions more than they trust political leaders. Those who disagree and hold a Political Class perspective represent a small minority of the population.
out of the Sullivan's Island homestead but holed up somewhere,
in the room over someone's garage, perhaps, making a treacly
music mix CD for paramour Maria.
First track? Kenny Chesney's classic,"it's not you, it's me" tune -
BETTER AS A MEMORY THAN AS YOUR MAN.
Then I realized that the crotchety dude (McConnell) next in line
to the young foolish dude (Bauer) in line for the statehouse made
it clear that the Guv's indiscretions are immaterial to governing
and there's no way that he (McConnell) will relinquish his powerful
post (Senate President pro tem) for a part-time go-fer job as
lieutenant governor which involves herding cats and handling
some aging agency duties.
Prediction? State Republicans will hustle Sanford off to rehab
and keep him in place, chastened and somewhat repentant, to kick
around until 2010.
Keep Sanford around as a placeholder for state attorney general Henry
McMaster?
]]>So I am sitting home watching the hearings on CSPAN. It is two years ago, almost to the day. I had no internet or even a computer that worked. So, it was my only entertainment at the time besides NYT crosswords I copied at the library and my books. Besides, the good guys had taken over Congress again, and I had been looking forward to some real ass kicking.
The 2006 elections were like Christmas to me as a child. I mean, there would be presents every day for the next year. So I would settle down to a good day of hearings.
Next up, Sara Taylor: Sara Marie Taylor (born September 15, 1974 in Dubuque, Iowa) was Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs at the White House, making her one of George W. Bush's top political aides until her resignation in 2007. She reported directly to Karl Rove.
I remember watching Senator Leahy discussing things with Sara Taylor at one of those hearings. Sara said something and I stood up, losing the crossword, the book and my coffee from my lap, along with my composure. (Not that anyone was watching my composure anyway) Did I hear this right?
Sara Taylor had said that she had taken an oath to her President of the United States quite seriously.
Leahy: And then you said, I took an oath to the President, and I take that oath very seriously. Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?
Taylor: Uh, I, uh, yes, you're correct, I took an oath to the Constitution. Uh, but, what--
Leahy: Did you take a second oath to the President?
Taylor: I did not. I--
Leahy: So the answer was incorrect.
Taylor: The answer was incorrect. What I should have said is that, I took an oath, I took that oath seriously. And I believe that taking that oath means that I need to respect, and do respect, my service to the President.
Leahy: No, the oath says that you take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. That is your paramount duty. I know that the President refers to the government being his government -- it's not. It's the government of the people of America. Your oath is not to uphold the President, nor is mine to uphold the Senate. My oath, like your oath, is to uphold the Constitution.
And TPM was right there and you can see this idiot lose all face in her confrontation with Leahy right here. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003656.php
LOYALTY OATH. The reason these words ring so much for me, is that I recall when I first began hearing about them. When George Bush first took office. If w or cheney were going to speak in front of some audience, you could not get into the auditorium unless you took a loyalty oath. You were screened so that 'they' had the opportunity to discover if you were the kind of person 'they' wanted to witness the grandeur of their presence.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, I had never heard of this in my life. But I digress...
Monica Goodling was a lot of fun to listen to during her cross examinations:
MS. GOODLING: I chose them because I had a faith system, and in some cases -- I went to American University for my first year of law school and then I transferred. And I enjoyed studying with people that shared the similar belief system that I did. It didn't mean that there wasn't a lot of diversity of discussion, because in some cases I actually found that the debate at Regent was much more vigorous than it was at American University my first year of law school. But I enjoyed being surrounded by people that had the same belief system.31
REP. COHEN: The mission of the law school you attended, Regent, is to bring bear -- "is to bring to bear upon legal education and the legal profession the will of Almighty God, our Creator." What is "the will of Almighty God, our Creator" on the legal profession?31
Earlier Ms. Goodling had been cross examined by Representative Jackson Lee:
I noticed that you were described as a loyal person or with extreme loyalty or deep loyalty to the president, President Bush. And certainly we welcome young people into this system of government, of public service, as you've indicated. But you might have been better served if you were loyal to the American people, and I give you counsel whether you're willing to accept it or not. You have been described by Bruce Fein, a former senior Justice official during the Reagan administration, both you and Mr. Goodling -- excuse me, you and Mr. Sampson, that you knew politics and not the law. And I think that's the challenge that we face here today.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/us/24mfulltext.html p24
So we have loyalty oaths to God, to our religion and to our president. After those oaths are taken, well we are on our way.
Jason Linkins at Huffpo caught this gem from rover:
ROVE: This White House has carried prepackaged, organized, controlled, scripted events to a new height, and they're getting away with things that in any previous White House, the media would have eviscerated the press secretary and the White House for it.
Rover is referring to the town meeting Our President just attended regarding health care. Rover. The king of loyalty oaths. Nobody and I mean nobody, had carried a more prepackaged, organized, controlled and scripted event than w. and it was all set up by rover.
Linkins just picks a few examples of prepackaging in w's administration:
- In April 2005,
Bush's security detail threw three people out of an event in Colorado, citing a bumper sticker on their car that
read "No More Blood For Oil." White House spokesman Trent Duffy said
that if there's any evidence people might "disrupt the president,"
they "have the right to exclude those people from those events.
- In early 2005, North Dakota residents were refused entry to a Bush event after their names appeared on a "blacklist" of people banned from the event.
- In March 2005, people seeking tickets to a Social Security event were quizzed about their support of Bush and his Social Security plan ahead of time.
Boston.Com reported on Aug 9, 2004 that -- A Republican National Committee practice of having people sign a form endorsing President Bush or pledging to vote for him in November before being issued tickets for RNC-sponsored rallies is raising concern among voters.
When Vice President Dick Cheney spoke July 31 to a crowd of 2,000 in Rio Rancho, a city of 45,000 near Albuquerque, several people who showed up at the event complained about being asked to sign endorsement forms in order to receive a ticket to hear Cheney.
''Whose vice president is he?" said 72-year-old retiree John Wade of Albuquerque, who was asked to sign the form when he picked up his tickets. ''I just wanted to hear what my vice president had to say, and they make me sign a loyalty oath."
''They want to make sure people can hear the president and vice president's vision for the next four years," he said. ''There are thousands of volunteers who sacrifice and work hard on the campaign and who deserve to see and hear their president without being disrupted and disrespected."
Dana Milbank at WashPo (2004-8/1) added this gem:
The Albuquerque Journal reported on Friday that people seeking tickets to the Cheney event who could not be identified as GOP partisans -- contributors or volunteers -- were told they could not receive tickets unless they signed an endorsement form saying "I, (full name) . . . do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States." The form warns that signers "are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush."
The paper quoted a Republican official saying a "Democrat operative group" was trying to infiltrate the limited-seating event -- although the party apparently turned away uncommitted voters who simply wanted to hear Cheney speak. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31019-2004Jul31.html
Extenz at Dayly Kos showed us how much w respected our men and women in
uniform, citing this loyalty form you had to fill out in order to have
Thanksgiving Dinner with w in 2004:
What did you think about President Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Iraq?
I was there when President Bush came to the [Baghdad] airport. The day before, you had to fill out a questionnaire and answer questions, that would determine whether they would allow you in the room with the President.
What was on the questionnaire?
"Do you support the president?"
Really!
Yes.
Members of the military were asked whether they support the president politically?
Yes. And if the answer was not a gung-ho, A-1, 100 percent yes, then you were not allowed into the cafeteria. You were not allowed to eat the Thanksgiving meal that day. You had an MRE. . http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/15/145147/184
Friday, Oct. 29, 2004,
at 1:44 AM ET Slate--Chris Suellentrop gave us even
a better example of oaths:
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla.--"I want you to stand, raise your right hands," and recite "the Bush Pledge," said Florida state Sen. Ken Pruitt. The assembled mass of about 2,000 in this Treasure Coast town about an hour north of West Palm Beach dutifully rose, arms aloft, and repeated after Pruitt: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."
I know the Bush-Cheney campaign occasionally requires the people who attend its events to sign loyalty oaths, but this was the first time I have ever seen an audience actually stand and utter one. Maybe they've replaced the written oath with a verbal one. http://www.slate.com/id/2108852 (Oh and a certain Mark Foley figures in this article back in 04 and it is hilarious)
If you wanted a job in the DOJ or any other Federal agency, you had to take a number of oaths. You had to be for w, for repubs, against abortion, for guns, for biblical literalists.....
At least we do not have to pledge allegiance to our elected officials
anymore before we can attend their functions.
Dear NBC/Universal corp.,ps. I sent this over Capus' head cuz I peg him as the MJ 'fanboy'.
I admit I am an MSNBCaholic. I am powerless over MSNBC. It became a seemingly harmless habit when I made the transition into unemployment. You know, at first it was very casual, harmless ... fun, even. Just a little Morning Joe... That was just the gateway program, though (I quickly outgrew the weak content and analysis level of the candy apple former Congressman). I was ready for the bigger scores of 'It's the Economy', which just became a bridge into the harder commentary of Schulz & Maddow.
I don't even remember the day that I switched to Olbermann. Though I had flirted with the lighter and less addictive sports reporting form the days before his commentary had been refined and made far stronger ...
It kinda sneaks up on you, you know? I wouldn't have even realized how addicted I was. Thank god Michael Jackson died.
I might never have known how addicted I was if he hadn't sacrificed himself to show me my sins.
The days are getting a little better as my body starts to accept the CNN replacement therapy.
Thank you, GE, for switching to all Michael Jackson coverage, otherwise I might have wasted my life staring into the gourd of MSNBCtv ...
'The classified NSA system, known as Tutelage, has the ability to decide how to handle malicious intrusions -- to block them or watch them closely to better assess the threat, sources said. It is currently used to defend military networks.
The database for the program would also contain feeds from commercial firms and DHS's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team, administration officials said.
"We're looking for malicious content, not a love note to someone with a dot-gov e-mail address," a senior Bush administration official said. "What we're interested in is finding the code, the thing that will do the network harm, not reading the e-mail itself."'
Don't you feel better now?
]]>