John McCain is too old. He can't use email. And he is not very smart. He can't say hello to a crowd without 3 x 5 cards.
Aside from being shot down as a Navy pilot, and surviving, and marrying rich after cheating on his first wife, he has not done much. He wears that Navy hat everywhere, it goes on just after he brushes his teeth in the morning, just to remind you that decades ago he was a prisoner of war.
Was being captured really that heroic? John Kerry was four times the hero John McCain ever was.
The hat should also remind you his father was an admiral in charge of the Pacific at the time and that may have been part of the reason McCain got into Annapolis and why the North Vietnamese didn't just kill him.
McCain has spent a large portion of his life trying to be as good as his father. Just like Bush. And we know where that got us. He can't be as good because he doesn't deserve it. Never did and never will. But he will always try to seem tough. If he was really tough he would have become a Marine. Trying to seem tough is why Bush got us into Iraq.
John McCain doesn't know what it is like to buy a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread. He is so rich he doesn't know how many houses he has. You think he can relate to you guys working in the auto parts store, managing the Safeway, driving truck? He doesn't really even like you. He just wants you to be afraid so he can use you to seize power. He is a tool of the Bush Cheney machine. He wants to make a tool out of you.
McCain believes in tax cuts for the rich because he is rich. He believes in drilling for oil off the U.S. coast because he is supported by companies that want to maintain our addiction to oil. They are giving your money to oil companies and big insurance companies and drug companies, some of which aren't even American, in exchange for campaign contributions and Republican trips to Scotland.
The Bush administration did not create jobs. McCain is just like them. The Bush administration saw wages fall. McCain is just like them. The Bush administration allowed lead-tainted toys to poison our children, allowed credit card companies to charge 25% interest, and allowed handsomely paid bankers to create havoc in our economy. McCain is just like them. Under the Republicans, not only did government not protects us, it turned against us.
Are you better off now than when Bush took office? Blame Bush/Cheney. John McCain is just like them.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Father’s Day letters
On Father’s Day I decided to send a couple of letters to each of my daughters. They will be dated on the twins 15th birthday, 2008.
They are to be opened in 2018, and 2028. I don’t know yet how to hold and send, but there is time to figure that out.
I want the girls to remember, then, the details of today that will otherwise fade. Through their father’s eyes, his joy and worry winding like rivulets down through time, contained within the banks of their lives.
A recall of their wonder and laughter at the smooth-skinned tiny rubber boa snake that was wrapped around a stick, thinking it was hidden because it had stuck its head in a crack. My hope that there was a life lesson there. When I showed them that he thought he was safe in a cave, with most of him outside, they laughed out loud.
When the girls open those letters decades from now, I want to give them a fresher memory about who they were. Hopefully this will give them a better understanding of who they have become.
Will they remember the effort to carry a mattress from one room to the other when their best friend came for a sleep-over? That effort may be important in a future when they think they are too tired to get off the couch.
If we are all at any moment the summation of who we have been, today is a too thin slice of time. We stack these slices, our fears and our joys, days and nights banding like alternating colors, and after a while the pile becomes so high that we can’t go back and see with clarity this day, a day that was unremarkable except for the fact that it was the present then, with fewer bumps and scars and tools and certificates pasted to the outside.
At some point in their future I want the past to come alive. I want to count the number of holes we put in the wall playing darts when we missed the whole board. I want them to remember that some dart holes in the wall were absolutely fine at one point in their lives, that fear of consequence was not the only principal of living.
I imagine them opening the envelopes like they were letters from a friend. But instead of some far away place, the letters were posted from a far away hour, not distant in miles or memory but enveloping them now, whenever that is, tying us together in the timelessness of love.
They are to be opened in 2018, and 2028. I don’t know yet how to hold and send, but there is time to figure that out.
I want the girls to remember, then, the details of today that will otherwise fade. Through their father’s eyes, his joy and worry winding like rivulets down through time, contained within the banks of their lives.
A recall of their wonder and laughter at the smooth-skinned tiny rubber boa snake that was wrapped around a stick, thinking it was hidden because it had stuck its head in a crack. My hope that there was a life lesson there. When I showed them that he thought he was safe in a cave, with most of him outside, they laughed out loud.
When the girls open those letters decades from now, I want to give them a fresher memory about who they were. Hopefully this will give them a better understanding of who they have become.
Will they remember the effort to carry a mattress from one room to the other when their best friend came for a sleep-over? That effort may be important in a future when they think they are too tired to get off the couch.
If we are all at any moment the summation of who we have been, today is a too thin slice of time. We stack these slices, our fears and our joys, days and nights banding like alternating colors, and after a while the pile becomes so high that we can’t go back and see with clarity this day, a day that was unremarkable except for the fact that it was the present then, with fewer bumps and scars and tools and certificates pasted to the outside.
At some point in their future I want the past to come alive. I want to count the number of holes we put in the wall playing darts when we missed the whole board. I want them to remember that some dart holes in the wall were absolutely fine at one point in their lives, that fear of consequence was not the only principal of living.
I imagine them opening the envelopes like they were letters from a friend. But instead of some far away place, the letters were posted from a far away hour, not distant in miles or memory but enveloping them now, whenever that is, tying us together in the timelessness of love.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Seduction of life without consequences
A while back we noted that the current financial and economic upheaval might have long term impact on how we live. Eye wrote about it in August of 2007, and referred to it again in March of this year, and again in May.
David Brooks has just done a far better job than Eye in an outstanding piece on why and how the current downturn affects us socially. (Read it here.) Brooks calls the current situation "The Great Seduction" and notes how our country's prosperity was built on "hard work, temperance and frugality."
Because he is an honest writer, Brooks offers a few solutions, then concludes:
This is not just human nature, it is biology at its most basic. Why would we not do what we evolved to do, if there is no reason not to do it? That is why Franklin's message was so well regarded. He was offering a suggestion on how to improve life when the consequences of not doing so were dire.
The unpleasant side of this today is that there will be suffering that we are not used to seeing in America for the last couple of generations. And we will want to prevent the worst of this. But to be effective, we need to realize that every effort to reduce hardship above a "hit bottom" level will prolong it, or postpone it and make it worse when eventually the bills have to be paid.
David Brooks has just done a far better job than Eye in an outstanding piece on why and how the current downturn affects us socially. (Read it here.) Brooks calls the current situation "The Great Seduction" and notes how our country's prosperity was built on "hard work, temperance and frugality."
Because he is an honest writer, Brooks offers a few solutions, then concludes:
"There are dozens of things that could be done. But the most important is to shift values. Franklin made it prestigious to embrace certain bourgeois virtues. Now it’s socially acceptable to undermine those virtues. It’s considered normal to play the debt game and imagine that decisions made today will have no consequences for the future."Brooks misses one very important point. It may be necessary to allow greater hardship i.e., consequences, as a result of profligacy. This is the only way to modify behavior. The extent to which society, or government, mitigates consequences is the extent to which the problem will persist.
This is not just human nature, it is biology at its most basic. Why would we not do what we evolved to do, if there is no reason not to do it? That is why Franklin's message was so well regarded. He was offering a suggestion on how to improve life when the consequences of not doing so were dire.
The unpleasant side of this today is that there will be suffering that we are not used to seeing in America for the last couple of generations. And we will want to prevent the worst of this. But to be effective, we need to realize that every effort to reduce hardship above a "hit bottom" level will prolong it, or postpone it and make it worse when eventually the bills have to be paid.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Clintons lie and show disrespect
Bill and Hillary Clinton’s desperation has become repulsive. Their dishonesty shameful. They are now the source of bright light on why the nation needs Obama.
No Bill jokes, here. We all know his history. But the Clintons have now increased the shrillness of their spin, their slant, their denials and their lies. They do it as they breathe. It is time to push back.
As the Clinton machine squabbles and threatens over the votes of Michigan and Florida, more of us need to talk about the fact that last year Clinton, along with other candidates, agreed that disputed delegates should not have full representation if they violated party rules. Obama even took his name off the Michigan ballot. Clinton did not. Maybe because she didn’t mean it.
Now that they are losing, the Clintons want to “move the goal posts,” change the rules in the middle of the game, pretend that it is about the integrity of the process instead of about winning. The lousiest of Kindergarten behavior.
But this is quite typical of Bill and Hillary. Again we are confronted with the incredible arrogance that drove the right wing nearly insane in the late 1990s: It is not just the lies, but the clear belief that lies don’t matter, that the truth does not matter.
They will fan class warfare to get to the White House, by portraying Obama as the elite. By saying critics of Hillary are the elite, saying economists who dismiss her stupid plan to eliminate gas taxes as “elite opinion,” when it becomes clear her policies would make the nation worse off (read it here).
What unmitigated horse crap. What amazing cynicism. The bold, calculating manipulating arrogance of it is simply breathtaking. They are willing to damage the country to get to the White House.
Bill Clinton says those urging his wife to get out of the race don’t worry about jobs or health insurance. (Read it here). Hillary claims she ducked under sniper fire, then says she misspoke when video showed otherwise. Bill pretends to champion the poor while lying to the poor, misleading while pretending to be a friend, having made $100 million since leaving the White House.
At this point it is obvious they would offer help to a blind man to get proper change, then slip a $1 bill in place of the $5. Anything goes if it is for a good cause, and they get to decide what that might be.
They use the uneducated because the educated favor Obama. Does education matter? Yes, it does. It does not make one right, but it matters. The Clintons say the opposite, that education somehow makes one’s opinion less meaningful. This is an odd stance for a Rhodes Scholar married to a Yale Law graduate. But the Clintons will say anything, use anybody.
Clinton is of the old order: Lie when you have to, change the rules when you can, do whatever it takes, dirty politics. Nobody really wants that. A woman in the White House? Sure. That woman? No.
We don’t want people who will do anything to get power to have power. It really is that simple.
It is time for change. Obama in ‘08.
No Bill jokes, here. We all know his history. But the Clintons have now increased the shrillness of their spin, their slant, their denials and their lies. They do it as they breathe. It is time to push back.
As the Clinton machine squabbles and threatens over the votes of Michigan and Florida, more of us need to talk about the fact that last year Clinton, along with other candidates, agreed that disputed delegates should not have full representation if they violated party rules. Obama even took his name off the Michigan ballot. Clinton did not. Maybe because she didn’t mean it.
Now that they are losing, the Clintons want to “move the goal posts,” change the rules in the middle of the game, pretend that it is about the integrity of the process instead of about winning. The lousiest of Kindergarten behavior.
But this is quite typical of Bill and Hillary. Again we are confronted with the incredible arrogance that drove the right wing nearly insane in the late 1990s: It is not just the lies, but the clear belief that lies don’t matter, that the truth does not matter.
They will fan class warfare to get to the White House, by portraying Obama as the elite. By saying critics of Hillary are the elite, saying economists who dismiss her stupid plan to eliminate gas taxes as “elite opinion,” when it becomes clear her policies would make the nation worse off (read it here).
What unmitigated horse crap. What amazing cynicism. The bold, calculating manipulating arrogance of it is simply breathtaking. They are willing to damage the country to get to the White House.
Bill Clinton says those urging his wife to get out of the race don’t worry about jobs or health insurance. (Read it here). Hillary claims she ducked under sniper fire, then says she misspoke when video showed otherwise. Bill pretends to champion the poor while lying to the poor, misleading while pretending to be a friend, having made $100 million since leaving the White House.
At this point it is obvious they would offer help to a blind man to get proper change, then slip a $1 bill in place of the $5. Anything goes if it is for a good cause, and they get to decide what that might be.
They use the uneducated because the educated favor Obama. Does education matter? Yes, it does. It does not make one right, but it matters. The Clintons say the opposite, that education somehow makes one’s opinion less meaningful. This is an odd stance for a Rhodes Scholar married to a Yale Law graduate. But the Clintons will say anything, use anybody.
Clinton is of the old order: Lie when you have to, change the rules when you can, do whatever it takes, dirty politics. Nobody really wants that. A woman in the White House? Sure. That woman? No.
We don’t want people who will do anything to get power to have power. It really is that simple.
It is time for change. Obama in ‘08.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Excessive Force
Portland cops are up in arms over a new "use of force rule." (Read it here.)
The policy is for supervisors to meet with those officers who have used force more frequently than most to determine if there are "... training gaps...issues... or other concerns..."
The policy hit police officers "like a ton of bricks," and caused them to be "upset, distraught and discouraged, to say the least."
Are we sure we want to put such delicate sensibilities on the street, carrying guns?
Aside from standard union posturing, ratcheting up rhetoric and portraying cops as victims, there is little news here, and little will happen.
Here's a study we would like to see: Every cop on the city's payroll should take a blood test once a year on a random basis for steroids. Any "use of force incident" should result in a blood test. If steroids are present, or any psychoactive drug, the cop looks for another job. Period. Zero tolerance. No disability pay, either.
Steroid use is well known in the macho culture of weight rooms, and "Roid rage" is well documented. Many reported "use of force" incidents by cops in Portland simply beg for a blood test for steroids.
It won't happen, of course. The unions are too powerful, the citizens too weak. They have the guns and poorly worded laws on their side, we have a free press and damn little else. We have made a trade-off, whether we like it or not.
The policy is for supervisors to meet with those officers who have used force more frequently than most to determine if there are "... training gaps...issues... or other concerns..."
The policy hit police officers "like a ton of bricks," and caused them to be "upset, distraught and discouraged, to say the least."
Are we sure we want to put such delicate sensibilities on the street, carrying guns?
Aside from standard union posturing, ratcheting up rhetoric and portraying cops as victims, there is little news here, and little will happen.
Here's a study we would like to see: Every cop on the city's payroll should take a blood test once a year on a random basis for steroids. Any "use of force incident" should result in a blood test. If steroids are present, or any psychoactive drug, the cop looks for another job. Period. Zero tolerance. No disability pay, either.
Steroid use is well known in the macho culture of weight rooms, and "Roid rage" is well documented. Many reported "use of force" incidents by cops in Portland simply beg for a blood test for steroids.
It won't happen, of course. The unions are too powerful, the citizens too weak. They have the guns and poorly worded laws on their side, we have a free press and damn little else. We have made a trade-off, whether we like it or not.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Saving money by the gallon
If I am gentle with the throttle and shift into neutral on the way down long hills I can get more than 25 miles a gallon from my car. It is a "sports" car, capable of extreme performance, but mileage is not its strong point. It’s far better than my truck, though, and with gas close to $4 a gallon and diesel at $4.50, I think about it.
One friend, a teacher, has a large V-twin motorcycle. He loves it and rides nearly every day. Another, a professional pilot, rides his BMW motorcycle to work. He gets 50 miles per gallon. But his job is about 50 miles away, he has always ridden motorcycles, and he enjoys it, too.
I asked each of them a lot of questions. Then I sat down and thought about whether I should get a motorcycle.
One day, on his way home from work at more than 60 miles per hour, the pilot hit a deer. He was OK after tumbling and skidding down the highway because he always, always wears the full suit that kept him alive, at least not abraded to the bone, leaving flesh on the pavement, seriously and permanently disabled.
He got another bike and still rides. In truth, that deer could have killed him if he was driving his Honda sedan. But he does not ride at night. Period. Can't ride in winter when there is ice and snow on the road. The suit can be hot, or cold, and things get a little dicey, and miserable, in the rain.
But he gets about double the mileage as I do in my car.
Let's see. Ten miles to town and back for the mail. That is actually about a "20 miles-per-gallon" trip because of the stops and starts. So let's say I'd use half a gallon. A couple of bucks. And to be lazy with the math, let's say it is a buck in gas for the motorcycle.
If someone stood in my garage with a crisp dollar bill as I headed for my car and said, "... give you a buck if you take another five minutes to put on your gear, ride extra carefully a half mile down your gravel driveway, into town to the post office, take off your helmet but leave on the rest of your hot Kevlar suit, get the mail, put on your helmet, go to the store, take off your helmet, buy a dozen eggs to fit into the saddle packs, come home, up that gravel drive and take off all your gear."
My answer would be, um, no. Not that much fun.
And one reason I gave up motorcycles years ago is that I nearly killed myself three times on bikes in the 70s. Even if bikes are faster and better now, I am not.
So I have come to the conclusion that for me, at least, a motorcycle is not the answer to $4 per gallon gas. Not even $10 per gallon. Too much hassle, I don't love it enough, and I won't take my daughters on a bike.
As it is, driving less has cut my consumption way down, and kept my fuel cost to about what it was before the recent run up in prices. I make far fewer spontaneous 40 mile round trips to Bend, planning a little better. I don't make unnecessary "boredom runs" into Sisters for a newspaper or a chat with the local editor. And that leads to my reading more books and to less air pollution.
By 2010 I want a small, enclosed cockpit vehicle that will give me 100 miles per tank of compressed air that I can fill with the compressor in my garage or one under the seat. Three wheels would be fine if two are in front, but full crash cage is required, because I don't want to hassle with a suit or helmet, and I want it to seat three, though two of those can be cramped.
The day has arrived in America when our addiction to oil has driven us to choose between fuel or health care, fuel or food, or roads, or schools. But one of the strengths of this nation has been its ability to innovate our way out of crisis and into the future. It was only 20 years ago we gave the world the personal computer.
It will be interesting to see if we have the will and the brains to do something like that again.
One friend, a teacher, has a large V-twin motorcycle. He loves it and rides nearly every day. Another, a professional pilot, rides his BMW motorcycle to work. He gets 50 miles per gallon. But his job is about 50 miles away, he has always ridden motorcycles, and he enjoys it, too.
I asked each of them a lot of questions. Then I sat down and thought about whether I should get a motorcycle.
One day, on his way home from work at more than 60 miles per hour, the pilot hit a deer. He was OK after tumbling and skidding down the highway because he always, always wears the full suit that kept him alive, at least not abraded to the bone, leaving flesh on the pavement, seriously and permanently disabled.
He got another bike and still rides. In truth, that deer could have killed him if he was driving his Honda sedan. But he does not ride at night. Period. Can't ride in winter when there is ice and snow on the road. The suit can be hot, or cold, and things get a little dicey, and miserable, in the rain.
But he gets about double the mileage as I do in my car.
Let's see. Ten miles to town and back for the mail. That is actually about a "20 miles-per-gallon" trip because of the stops and starts. So let's say I'd use half a gallon. A couple of bucks. And to be lazy with the math, let's say it is a buck in gas for the motorcycle.
If someone stood in my garage with a crisp dollar bill as I headed for my car and said, "... give you a buck if you take another five minutes to put on your gear, ride extra carefully a half mile down your gravel driveway, into town to the post office, take off your helmet but leave on the rest of your hot Kevlar suit, get the mail, put on your helmet, go to the store, take off your helmet, buy a dozen eggs to fit into the saddle packs, come home, up that gravel drive and take off all your gear."
My answer would be, um, no. Not that much fun.
And one reason I gave up motorcycles years ago is that I nearly killed myself three times on bikes in the 70s. Even if bikes are faster and better now, I am not.
So I have come to the conclusion that for me, at least, a motorcycle is not the answer to $4 per gallon gas. Not even $10 per gallon. Too much hassle, I don't love it enough, and I won't take my daughters on a bike.
As it is, driving less has cut my consumption way down, and kept my fuel cost to about what it was before the recent run up in prices. I make far fewer spontaneous 40 mile round trips to Bend, planning a little better. I don't make unnecessary "boredom runs" into Sisters for a newspaper or a chat with the local editor. And that leads to my reading more books and to less air pollution.
By 2010 I want a small, enclosed cockpit vehicle that will give me 100 miles per tank of compressed air that I can fill with the compressor in my garage or one under the seat. Three wheels would be fine if two are in front, but full crash cage is required, because I don't want to hassle with a suit or helmet, and I want it to seat three, though two of those can be cramped.
The day has arrived in America when our addiction to oil has driven us to choose between fuel or health care, fuel or food, or roads, or schools. But one of the strengths of this nation has been its ability to innovate our way out of crisis and into the future. It was only 20 years ago we gave the world the personal computer.
It will be interesting to see if we have the will and the brains to do something like that again.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Past her shelf life
Yesterday while one of the twins was at violin lesson I ran into the county clerk's office to vote. Moving to the hilltop meant I had to change the address on my registration.
There is something about Hillary at this point that is just a little rancid. Maybe it's the lies (sniper fire), maybe the pandering (gas tax), maybe the do-whatever-it-takes-to-win (the racist card).
But it is hard to look at her now and not have the same sensation that one has in sniffing the carton of milk of expired date in the fridge. You know it's not fresh, you can't tell if it's sour, and wonder if a taste will ruin your day. Or the off-color burger. It doesn't seem too bad, but you know it isn't good.
It's one thing when it is the only food in the house, the temptation to hold your nose and cook it up and serve it up and deal with it. Kinda like the last few presidential elections, in fact. Politics as usual.
But now there is someone fresh, a natural leader, a very smart man who, though beat up a little by the process, doesn't seem tainted. With that available, why would we vote for Clinton?
Obama '08.
There is something about Hillary at this point that is just a little rancid. Maybe it's the lies (sniper fire), maybe the pandering (gas tax), maybe the do-whatever-it-takes-to-win (the racist card).
But it is hard to look at her now and not have the same sensation that one has in sniffing the carton of milk of expired date in the fridge. You know it's not fresh, you can't tell if it's sour, and wonder if a taste will ruin your day. Or the off-color burger. It doesn't seem too bad, but you know it isn't good.
It's one thing when it is the only food in the house, the temptation to hold your nose and cook it up and serve it up and deal with it. Kinda like the last few presidential elections, in fact. Politics as usual.
But now there is someone fresh, a natural leader, a very smart man who, though beat up a little by the process, doesn't seem tainted. With that available, why would we vote for Clinton?
Obama '08.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Perfect storms
Yesterday my twin middle school daughters were astounded at the nightly news as the three of us ate dinner. Earthquakes in China, cyclones in Burma, fires in Florida, tornadoes in Oklahoma. "It feels like the world is falling apart," said one.
When all these things threaten us at once, we want to see a larger hand at work, that global warming is ruining our world for human habitation. And it may be.
Or it may just be that many things happen at the same time. Always. Even items that are intertwined can have separate causes, and different solutions.
In a month we have had the home mortgage mess, a banking crisis, recession howling on the horizon, oil price inflation, and the threat of currency collapse.
Bernake said today that the banking system credit crunch, while far from over, may be easing. He may have saved the day, though longer term fixes probably need to be developed that will improve transparency and moderate leverage.
The mortgage mess, while related, is separate in the way it impacts individuals, a resolution may also be working its way through the system. That starts with, "Don't borrow more than you can pay back."
Be wary of quick fixes here from politicians that would reduce the ability of people to aspire to home ownership.
Yes, there is the recession. It is here, and it will be long lasting. The entire baby boom generation has been living beyond their means. The bills will be paid.
But there are many assets lying around, and it is not a bad thing for this group, especially, to learn to live with less. There is a certain joy in finding economies.
And it may be that it is in crisis that empathies sprout, perhaps, for those whose lives have been ravaged by storms beyond their control, those impacted by tectonic shifts in the gloabal economy, those treading water whose standard of living sinks as the price of everything climbs.
When all these things threaten us at once, we want to see a larger hand at work, that global warming is ruining our world for human habitation. And it may be.
Or it may just be that many things happen at the same time. Always. Even items that are intertwined can have separate causes, and different solutions.
In a month we have had the home mortgage mess, a banking crisis, recession howling on the horizon, oil price inflation, and the threat of currency collapse.
Bernake said today that the banking system credit crunch, while far from over, may be easing. He may have saved the day, though longer term fixes probably need to be developed that will improve transparency and moderate leverage.
The mortgage mess, while related, is separate in the way it impacts individuals, a resolution may also be working its way through the system. That starts with, "Don't borrow more than you can pay back."
Be wary of quick fixes here from politicians that would reduce the ability of people to aspire to home ownership.
Yes, there is the recession. It is here, and it will be long lasting. The entire baby boom generation has been living beyond their means. The bills will be paid.
But there are many assets lying around, and it is not a bad thing for this group, especially, to learn to live with less. There is a certain joy in finding economies.
And it may be that it is in crisis that empathies sprout, perhaps, for those whose lives have been ravaged by storms beyond their control, those impacted by tectonic shifts in the gloabal economy, those treading water whose standard of living sinks as the price of everything climbs.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Shut up, Peter
Oregon's Peter DeFazio has always been a loose canon, to be sure, and often off target. But he threatens the interests of those who agree with him when he gets it as wrong as he did yesterday.
Introducing Barak Obama, Defazio said of John McCain: "He says we need less regulation," said DeFazio in his introduction of Obama. "Hello! Wall Street mortgage meltdown, Bear Stearns taxpayer bailout, Enron, but, you know, I guess maybe for a guy who was up to his neck in the Keating Five and savings and loan scandal less regulation is better."
Defazio's ignorance of economics is striking. Especially for a member of congress who was in office during each of these issues, even if in the minority party.
Let's deal with Bear Stearns. The Fed did not "bail out" Bear Stearns, which was sold to another company for what, $10 per share and ceased to exist. Investors and employees of Bear Stearns got creamed. That's not a bail out.
By facilitating the sale for pennies on the dollar, the fed did make sure that those who had dealt with Bear Stearns were able to have contracts honored. This in turn helped others know that contracts would be honored. This probably kept the entire banking system from freezing up at a time when there were some serious concerns.
That's the problem with liberals Like DeFazio who are ignorant of economics: They are willing to destroy a system and ruin lives for the sake of their ideology.
Enron? A company run amuck. But as any cop or District Attorney will tell you, sometimes you can't prevent crime, you have to punish it. Especially true when the laws are gray, the economy is changing. There will always be bad guys willing to scam the system.
The American people voted in a president and especially a vice president willing to collude with Enron. Enron too, blew up, evaporated, died. The company got caught, ceased to exist (corporate capial punishment?) accounting standards improved, federal laws were passed.
Pre-regulation may have helped, but it may also have come at a cost even greater than that finally paid. It would have been even worse if great minds in economics like Peter Defazio were in charge.
The mortgage mess? Mr. Defazio, we need transcripts of all the speeches you made identifying the problems with mortgage backed securities and other derivatives when the asset bubble began in real estate. Thank you.
In the mean time, others will be analyzing the actual issues and crafting the minimum laws, probably reserve requirements for investment banks and greater disclosure, needed to deal with it.
Defazio helps no one when he shoots off his mouth, and his tendency toward self-righteousness makes him one of the less effective members of Congress. But right now, it could hurt the best candidate for president the left has had in a generation.
Shut up, Peter.
Obama in '08.
Introducing Barak Obama, Defazio said of John McCain: "He says we need less regulation," said DeFazio in his introduction of Obama. "Hello! Wall Street mortgage meltdown, Bear Stearns taxpayer bailout, Enron, but, you know, I guess maybe for a guy who was up to his neck in the Keating Five and savings and loan scandal less regulation is better."
Defazio's ignorance of economics is striking. Especially for a member of congress who was in office during each of these issues, even if in the minority party.
Let's deal with Bear Stearns. The Fed did not "bail out" Bear Stearns, which was sold to another company for what, $10 per share and ceased to exist. Investors and employees of Bear Stearns got creamed. That's not a bail out.
By facilitating the sale for pennies on the dollar, the fed did make sure that those who had dealt with Bear Stearns were able to have contracts honored. This in turn helped others know that contracts would be honored. This probably kept the entire banking system from freezing up at a time when there were some serious concerns.
That's the problem with liberals Like DeFazio who are ignorant of economics: They are willing to destroy a system and ruin lives for the sake of their ideology.
Enron? A company run amuck. But as any cop or District Attorney will tell you, sometimes you can't prevent crime, you have to punish it. Especially true when the laws are gray, the economy is changing. There will always be bad guys willing to scam the system.
The American people voted in a president and especially a vice president willing to collude with Enron. Enron too, blew up, evaporated, died. The company got caught, ceased to exist (corporate capial punishment?) accounting standards improved, federal laws were passed.
Pre-regulation may have helped, but it may also have come at a cost even greater than that finally paid. It would have been even worse if great minds in economics like Peter Defazio were in charge.
The mortgage mess? Mr. Defazio, we need transcripts of all the speeches you made identifying the problems with mortgage backed securities and other derivatives when the asset bubble began in real estate. Thank you.
In the mean time, others will be analyzing the actual issues and crafting the minimum laws, probably reserve requirements for investment banks and greater disclosure, needed to deal with it.
Defazio helps no one when he shoots off his mouth, and his tendency toward self-righteousness makes him one of the less effective members of Congress. But right now, it could hurt the best candidate for president the left has had in a generation.
Shut up, Peter.
Obama in '08.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Hillary -- Go home
Hillary Clinton committed two more significant misrepresentations and panderings in the last week. Let's not forget sniper fire.
Recently, she fibbed about a company called Magnaquench, indicating that George Bush was responsible for the loss of those jobs, that industry. Actually, Magnaquench was sold to the Chinese under the watch of her husband, Bill Clinton.
The other foolishness has to do with the repeal of the gas tax. It is bad economics, and it is pandering, and finally we have a significant enough difference between Clinton and Obama so that it is obvious on a policy basis that he deserves the vote and she does not.
When confronted about the fact that not a single significant economist thought the idea a good one, she said she didn't listen to economists. How stupid.
Frankly, we are sick of the excuse "that's just politics." (Better said here). And we are sick of her claim to competence based upon the fact that her husband was president. That qualifies Laura Bush. And if Clinton does want to claim that mantle, then she does not get to avoid credit for the failures.
Go home, Hillary. Your lust for power has twisted your judgment, clouded your bright mind. You have told too many lies, you have tried to become too many people. Get off the stage, and let the others get on with some important business.
Obama in 08.
Recently, she fibbed about a company called Magnaquench, indicating that George Bush was responsible for the loss of those jobs, that industry. Actually, Magnaquench was sold to the Chinese under the watch of her husband, Bill Clinton.
The other foolishness has to do with the repeal of the gas tax. It is bad economics, and it is pandering, and finally we have a significant enough difference between Clinton and Obama so that it is obvious on a policy basis that he deserves the vote and she does not.
When confronted about the fact that not a single significant economist thought the idea a good one, she said she didn't listen to economists. How stupid.
Frankly, we are sick of the excuse "that's just politics." (Better said here). And we are sick of her claim to competence based upon the fact that her husband was president. That qualifies Laura Bush. And if Clinton does want to claim that mantle, then she does not get to avoid credit for the failures.
Go home, Hillary. Your lust for power has twisted your judgment, clouded your bright mind. You have told too many lies, you have tried to become too many people. Get off the stage, and let the others get on with some important business.
Obama in 08.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)