Open Polls Thread
by Joy
I named this "Open Polls" because I had to come up with a unique Open Thread title, and because America is positively swimming in good news today, for a change! Though polls here in my neighborhood close in just an hour. They're still open out west!!!
Posts here can be about anything, but voting stories, inspirational political encounters, and expressions of hope or fear for the future based on this election are encouraged! Even in the context of the bad ol' Culture War…
November 4th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Despite some problems in some cities – in states that didn't get a chance to de-bug their systems with weeks' worth of early voting – things have been going smoothly in most areas of the country today. A full third of voters in early voting states (30 of 'em) had cast their ballots, and in many states the turnout was higher. In Colorado more than 66% of voters cast their ballots early. Here in North Carolina, more votes were cast early this year than all votes cast in the last Presidential election!
Lines are two to three hours long in some precincts in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Texas (and here in Raleigh and Charlotte, where weather is nasty), but so far people have been entertaining themselves and each other just fine, no reports of violence. In Ohio, Florida and Michigan there have been some heavy-handed attempts to interfere with the process, but some vigilant Secretaries of State had cut these Republican efforts at the knees weeks ago. Obama's "Legal Eagles" have been handling issues here and there, none quite as bad as expected. In Michigan where some poll workers were being intimidated by Republican challengers trying to cross-reference voters with foreclosure lists, the Legal Eagles have been highly successful in scaring them off – one was last seen running down the block at top speed, his 'list' flapping in the wind behind him.
Some precincts in cities in South Florida, Georgia, eastern NC and Dallas are reporting they hit a full 80% of turnout by noon today, and ABC News is projecting a solid 80+% nationwide! New Jersey is looking at 90+%, officials in Virginia have already filed for injunctions to keep the polls open late due to early machine issues and long lines. This historic election will boast highest voter participation of any election in this nation's history. Which means, when the votes are all in and counted, no one can claim We The People haven't spoken loud and clear!
Meanwhile, new polls show George W. Bush's approval rating is now down to 20%, the lowest of any President in history at any time during his administration. Still, he can console himself with the fact that he's at least 4% above Cheney's approval rating, which has been down in the teens for years. Looks like the people are serious this time, will be heard loud and clear.
Rain isn't stopping them, snow isn't stopping them, Republican poll challengers aren't stopping them. No matter which candidates you supported up to this day, I hope everyone here is as pleased and amazed as I am with the sheer exhuberance of citizen participation in this election, and the hope that comes with a truly participatory democracy in action. Good, good for us!
Comment by Joy — November 4, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
To the contrary: this is a sad and worrisome day for this country, when the least qualified person ever in the history of American electoral politics is about to become President. We survived Carter, let's hope we can survive this.
Comment by Anton — November 4, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Anton:
We all worry on election night, Anton. Hottest horse race anywhere. But I've been explaining about why any one President can't do that much damage, and it would probably have a lot more credibility if we weren't coming off 8 years of Bush-Cheney. Change is needed, in many areas (not the least of them economic). Why not hope?
I've been voting Dem ever since I moved to NC in 1992. We hardly ever win anything outside the state. Our last Congressman was known as "Chainsaw Charlie," and my property is surrounded by National Forest. We've had Jesse Helms and the Pig Farmer (Lauch Faircloth). And, until tonight, Liz Dole (who doesn't even pretend to live here). We're going Obama too. That's sort of new to me.
So I'm guessing a lot of people out there want to hope, and have opted for it over the same old McSame. It doesn't matter what disappointment you feel if your party loses power for awhile, the next POTUS is the executive leader for us all. And as such deserves our hope and our prayers for the wisdom necessary for the World's Most Difficult Job.
We will survive, and be better for it. In spite of the present administration's considerable efforts otherwise.
Comment by Joy — November 4, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Not to rub it in, but maybe there is a God after all and he has blessed America for a change! You betcha.
Comment by Raevmo — November 5, 2008 @ 1:34 am
November 5th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Thank god that crazy creationist won't be one cancer ridden heart beat away from forcing me to move to Europe. Now I just pray that the turmoil in the Republican party will create a schism between the religious right and the sane conservatives. Perhaps the sane conservatives will return to their small government roots while also adopting a more centrist social agenda. Could this be the last presidential election where the evangelicals play a significant political role? Now I'm just day dreaming. In addition, it will also be fun listening to the crazies talk about how all this is a sign of end times.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — November 5, 2008 @ 2:17 am
November 5th, 2008 at 6:40 am
I wish you the best in this world! Relax and enjoy Obama!
Comment by neddy — November 5, 2008 @ 6:40 am
November 5th, 2008 at 8:44 am
The whole world was holding its breath and is now celebrating. America, people are going to start loving you again. I'm happy for you.
Comment by Alan Fox — November 5, 2008 @ 8:44 am
November 5th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Joy
I find it amazing that people are queuing for hours to vote – amazing that the system is so slow that they have to, and amazing that they still want to vote. That is an impressive turnout you have there. I am also surprised at your reports of intimidation in a country that prides itself on ther strength of its democracy. All three just goes to show the difference between the UK and the US, I guess
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 5, 2008 @ 9:35 am
November 5th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Yup, the finger-pointers (democrats) are now in total control.
Now they have to actually do something other than point fingers.
And that is going to cause problems, which is why the rest of the world is celebrating. They are celebrating the beginning of th end of the USA…
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2008 @ 10:39 am
November 5th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I have to admit that throughout this whole campaign (U.S.) that I have ridden a rollercoaster of possible consequences. Now that the campaign is mercifully over, I wonder what an Obama presidency means for myself, a Canadian, and more locally, an Albertan.
I predict Obama will reinstate the drilling ban off U.S. coasts. This will drive up oil prices – I predict $100/barrell – thus making the oil sands more profitable to extract. Projects temporarily shelved will be re-started. Bottom line for Alberta: we will be ecomonically secure for a good period of time.
As for the rest of Obama's presidency, I think he'll be reigned in by the economic situation. No universal medicare, his "income redistribution" won't be as widespread as he wants it, etc. etc.
So buckle up everyone! You bring the popcorn and chips, I'll bring the beer. It'll be an interesting show either way!
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — November 5, 2008 @ 11:30 am
November 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Pixie:
Turnout was very, very impressive – approaching 90% overall and 100% in some places. That is completely unprecedented and no, our system was never designed to easily accommodate that many voters. So that particular system will be one of the first to be re-designed, hopefully before the '10 midterms.
Questions about Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 were just the "trickle-up" of Republican attempts to keep people from voting – they do better when turnout is low, and traditionally have a problem with universal enfranchisement. After Diebold's crooked voting machines flipped so many ballots in my heavily split-ticket state in 2004, they got kicked flat out of the state for messing up our state races hopelessly. Took months to sort one of 'em out. Now we have three full weeks of early voting, and nearly half of voters used it. That left not too many to vote on election day. The problems in the cities were the result of corrupt elections officials who shorted Democratic precincts on machines, ballots and scanners (the 'burbs usually have too many). I'm hoping that by 2010 all 50 states will have early voting and optical scan paper ballots.
But this time it wasn't close enough to steal, even though there were 'the usual' efforts to disenfranchise minority voters and Democrats generally. In Virginia scam letters went out telling Dems they had to vote today, only Republicans could vote Tuesday. In Michigan voters were forced to 'check in' at Republican-manned tables where their addresses were matched with the foreclosed homes list – something Michigan's SoS had already nixed via Supreme Court ruling. I'm very glad voters stuck it out. This is how Democracy is supposed to work!
There was dancing in the streets from DC through the heartland and in California last night. Obama doesn't have an easy row to hoe, there's still a great deal of hard work to be done to clean up the messes made over the past decade and more. But things have really changed – now we have hope!
Comment by Joy — November 5, 2008 @ 11:37 am
November 5th, 2008 at 11:53 am
JJS P.Eng.:
I don't think Obama has to reinstate the drilling ban, nor do I think he wants to (he voted to open them up). US oil companies already hold offshore leases on tens of thousands of sites, have held them for decades and never bothered to drill. They know we won't be drilling our way out of past-peak oil, that's just Palin's rosy dream. OPEC has dropped the price drastically on less demand, but petroleum really needs to be $100 a barrel so that we have the incentive to develop alternatives. Something we should have done back in the 1970s, but didn't.
I think we'll get a beginning on universal health care via extending the government single-payer option and imposing serious regulation on the greedy insurers who routinely refuse all treatment for no good reason. I predict most of the big players will get out of the health insurance scam altogether, and American business will find itself more competitive if health care isn't their sole responsibility. Even better, workers will find they aren't chained in servitude just to get health insurance!
Have popcorn, will travel! §;o)
Comment by Joy — November 5, 2008 @ 11:53 am
November 5th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
ID guy:
Mister 20% and the cyborg had 'total control' for six years, essentially all 8 due to Dem leadership being complete wimps. It's all okay, you and I both still have our bitching rights – we earned 'em.
Oh, give us a break! Bush has come much closer to ending the USA than any President in history. Yet here we are still.
You guys can handle a period of opposition rule, just like we handled opposition rule for 8 years even when we were furious that our rights had been abrogated and we were lied into war. The peaceful transition of executive power every 4 or 8 years is written-in, it's the way the country's political system works. You can live with that just like the rest of us.
Todd Berkebile:
Evangelicals have the very same right to vote as any of the rest of us, they will not be disenfranchised. But I'm hoping an Obama Justice Department will begin actually enforcing the laws of the land. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change? Churches that violate their tax exempt status should lose their tax exemption. Then they can electioneer all they like, just like any other group.
The demographic in this election marks a large change – the Old Guard (those my age and older, even though we went strongly for Obama too) has finally given way to the younger generations. That's a natural thing, and I expect that Obama's calm, deliberative temperament will prevent any too-rash policies.
Don't forget that he's an evangelical too. Simply believing – and conducting your life according to Jesus' teachings – doesn't disqualify anyone from holding office or having his/her conscience inform their politics. What I do not expect from Obama is any attempt to impose his personal faith-based positions on the nation against our will. That makes him different from the theocrats so recently of note.
Comment by Joy — November 5, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Hey JJS P. Eng.
Greetings from capital city, wild rose country.
Comment by Pez — November 5, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I’ve felt strongly about the ID debate — not so much about the merits of anti-materialism — but about the way the materialists are able to distort the ID position. Materialists have so far succeeded in promoting the fallacy that any criticism of “natural selection” doing something to “random mutations“ as the recognized mechanism of evolution equates with “creationism”. Such a distortion offends my sense of justice, but the election has made me realize it is small potatoes compared to other distortions in our society.
1. For example, the distortion that a progressive income tax is “socialism”,
2. that health care for profit is superior to any national health care system (you don’t see any country with nationalized health care trying to return to healthcare for profit),
3. That there is no way to prevent CEO’s from robbing public corporations by voting themselves golden parachutes and multi-million dollar bonuses.
4. that any regulation of “private enterprise” should be against our religion.
5. That the way to stimulate the economy is to cut taxes for the wealthy and eliminating capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes.
6. that we must continue to kill Iraqis because we are too proud to be seen as loosing a war.
The Republicans are obviously committed to maintaining all of the above distortions. I think (hope?) Obama would like to address them.
Comment by Bert — November 5, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
For those seriously worried about Democratic dominance in DC, here are a few things to remember…
1. Unlike Republicans, who have moved steadily ever more to the right wing due to its 'base' being certifiably authoritarian-theocratic, Democrats have picked up most of the center-right and center-left that used to be welcome in the GOP. That means we've got a range of political ideologies from right to left, and you can bet your bippy the full range is represented in our seats in Congress. Don't expect them to march in lockstep, anywhere.
2. Barack Obama is clearly a centrist at heart, well to the right of the Progressives who worked so hard to get him elected. Once upon a time your own party would have been proud to have him as an up-and-comer, so you don't really have reason to fear.
3. Barack Obama is an evangelical Christian who lives his beliefs humbly and gladly. Don't give in to the temptation to pretend that African-American churches are any 'less' Christian than any other Christian church, or that angry, sin-denouncing sermons from fire-and-brimstone types aren't just as common in black churches as they are in white churches. Again, you have nothing to fear unless you really do plan to start a culture war in your own religion. It's a war you will lose badly.
4. Y'all honestly need to give up the hate, it's killing you. Stop letting creeps and crazies like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Boortz, et al. tell you what to think, how to believe, who to hate, etc., etc., while they laugh at you all the way to the bank (or to the Dominican Republic with Viagra and opiates to buy some child prostitutes). How these sort of people managed to take over your lives and hearts is a complete mystery to me. As Paul Krugman said today, they're "Monsters." It's time to Name That Evil and turn your backs on it. You might find the view from this side of daybreak to be quite hopeful.
Comment by Joy — November 5, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Hiya, Bert! I am hoping the dancing in the streets signals at long last the death of "Greed Is Good." We're going to see some changes in the way we participate in our national life, and it will do us good.
When I was growing up, the idea of 'Community Service' was carefully instilled. My family was well-to-do, so when we turned 16 we were expected to volunteer instead of getting a paid job. I worked at the Veteran's hospital, at the county hospital and at a nursing home. My hubby went to Indonesia when he was 16 for the World Council of Churches, on a mission to JFK's Peace Corps. Obama wants to bring back the notion of national service, for which young people will earn college tuition. He'll be asking us to sacrifice here and there for the good of all, and most of us will gladly do so.
As the depression deepens, we'll have to go back to some of FDR's public works projects, which will finally get us the modernized infrastructure we've needed for too long. No more collapsing bridges and levees! No more potholes the size of SUVs. A modern, efficient electricity grid that doesn't lose more than 40% of the power we generate (from any source). Conversion of earthen CoE dams out west to produce decentralized hydroelectricity. Wind farms, solar roofs, more food grown by sustainable methods, cleaner air and water… there is much to do. Much we CAN do.
We'll most of us live through it and be better for the effort and the realignment of our priorities. China probably won't be too happy if Obama does what I think it is immediately necessary for him to do – halt ALL imports of human or animal foodstuffs produced in China. Let them kill their own babies and workers and livestock with melamine, added just to fool the protein content tests. They must no longer be allowed to kill us for profit. Same goes for health insurers. No more Death by Spreadsheet – we need health care, not useless health insurance.
It's all good. The greed-heads won't like it, but who cares about them? They surely don't care a whit about us.
Comment by Joy — November 5, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Howdy Pez! Good to see a fellow Albertan @ TT
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — November 5, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Joy,
I hope the democrats will do a good job. However when they had the power under Clinton, it took a power change and Newt to bring the USA around. Clinton gets the credit just because he was the president at the time.
With W, well we got hit hard and forced into war. The people we are at war with see diplomacy as a weakness to be exploited. And I bet the democrats are eager to start diplomatic relationships with them.
I am moving away from big cities…
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Do you have evidence of this? You're really starting to sound like a kook.
As for the rest of the dupes who think either party will "change things" for the better, there will always be differences when it comes to domestic policy and issues, but no matter what party is in power the march toward globalism continues. Just do a little research on who the foreign policy advisors were/are to both Obama and McCain. Can you spell ZBig? (And his sons.) I, for one, don't like. I'm an independent with a strong libertarian, Constitutional, America-first mind.
Change you say? That's a laff. Maybe you're happy with the march toward globalism. Well then, be even more happy, business as usual.
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 5, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
And by the way, there will be more global fiddling, interference, and war during the Obama presidency. (This would have happen no matter who got elected.)
Mark my words.
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 5, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Hey all,
I would like to congratulate the liberals for their win and express the hope that now that there is no hope for a theocracy that maybe we could have an honest discussion about things like ID with out your being fearful of the big bad fundies.
I would also like to console those of you on my side with the fact that in our country we can vote again in four years (2 for the congress) and remind you the guy who is really in charge does not submit to popular election.
aint democracy great
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 5, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
ID guy:
Well, I've lived through a grand total of 11 different presidents, both Republicans and Democrats. Come January it'll be an even dozen. I have also been privileged to observe entire careers – 30 years and more – that people I've known spent serving their country. Warriors, diplomats, and a politician or two or three. All agree that talk-talk is better than war-war. A civilized world will seek diplomatic compromise before it seeks war. An uncivilized world is… well, uncivilized.
We did that years ago. §;o)
Comment by Joy — November 5, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
kornbelt888:
LOL!!! You mean that whole little episode managed to skate right past your awareness? You probably don't know why a middle-aged stinker like Limbaugh would need Viagra for a vacation in Thailand or the Dominican Republic, either. Meh. I guess I'm not surprised that the irony slid past your radar.
Good for you. Globalism is going to be reeled in significantly in the wake of global economic collapse. Nations will need to attend to their internal issues before they can get too much involved in other nations' internal issues. Relations still need development and upkeep, but the economy we now must rebuild from the ground up isn't going to look just like the 'trickle-down' end game one. There will be new players, new instruments, new regulations and new blood. Hopefully it can be stabler, last longer and return more societal benefits than the last system did.
That seems like a good thing to me, since we let them rob us blind and all.
I hope not. That's why we have a diplomatic corps. But the bad ol' Military-Industrial Complex loves its toys, and they need war to justify themselves. I'd say this one will depend on what happens economically both here and abroad. Once people start starving, all bets are off.
But I am of the opinion that if we don't need the Middle East's oil, we won't have to fight their wars. We have been asked to leave Iraq by the puppet government we installed. We will do that. Bush is already negotiating per Afghanistan, where we should be able to count on more allied help in an Obama administration.
Iran's a sticky wicket, but no stickier than Pakistan and North Korea have been. But we shouldn't be fighting Israel's wars either. There are reasonable alternatives to war and more war, I'm pretty sure the Obama administration will consider them.
Comment by Joy — November 5, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I see no mention of "Thailand" (a common destination for perverts, to be sure) in the article you cite. At any rate, Rush Limbaugh has Viagra, and that is makes him out to be a child molester? Do you have any evidence that was his intent? Moreover, you threw that little pile of poop at several talk radio hosts. Do you have any evidence that "Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Boortz, [use] Viagra and opiates to buy some child prostitutes"? Even if all of them were (which there's no evidence they are), that would hardly constitute an argument against their views. Throwing poop is not an argument. Even chimps can do that.
I was a Constitution toting, independent thinking, libertarian long before any of those were broadcasting. So, OK, Joy, I get it. You're a statist lefty. That's your business. Some of us aren't. Some of us believe in minimum government and maximum liberty just this side of plundering others. Just like the Founders of the USA. (Slavery excepted.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 5, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I guess you haven't been listening to Gordon Brown, Koehler, and Sarkozy.
"A new financial architecture [Bretton Woods] for the years ahead". "We also need measures to reshape the global financial system to make it fit for purpose for the future."
You can bet your last rusty button the US Dollar won't be the reserve currency. A new Bretton Woods based on a new reserve currency. The essence of internationalism.
There are no "internal issues" any more more fundamental than those dealing with international money and trade.
Welcome to the next ratchet point.
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 5, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
kornbelt:
A "statist lefty?" Hmmm… there are things I think the governments who take my money should return for the investment. Roads, sewer systems, water systems, public education, public health and welfare, agricultural policy, police and fire protection, foreign affairs and trade, military forces, etc. But I don't mind if you're a libertarian. How's that working out for you?
…and why would you except slavery? Or women's suffrage?
If that is so, then what will be will be. I don't run the government, I just get one vote that I use as often as they allow to express my wishes on who fills the roles this season. Things will work out fine. Or not. I'm not too worried about it.
Comment by Joy — November 5, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
As far as the polls, it'll just be nice to have a reality-based government in charge again. 6 years of a government that had fantasy-based GOP approaches to economics, science, and foreign policy has really brought us low.
Anyway, what's going on at Dembski's site UncommonlyDense? 1) the banner has been changed. It no longer mentions Denyse O'Leary. 2) Over at the sister site OverwhelmingEvidence, which was little more than another plot in O'Leary's link farm, new moderator Patrick says Denyse's contract expired and isn't being renewed. He didn't mention if the contract was just for OE or both. 3) vicious science illiterate Davescot, the supposed moderator at UD, hasn't made a comment there in 5 days.
Given the slow decline in traffic experienced by ID blogs over the last year or so, the absence of any ID research, the failure of PCID, the failure of ISCID, the failure of YoungCosmos, I'm not surprised changes are afoot. Are we finally witnessing the end of ID? If IDers can't successfully blog, what can they do? Unlike scientists they don't do experiments or write papers. If they can't blog what's left?
I would ask these questions over there, of course, but non-sycophantic comments are rarely tolerated by Dembski.
Comment by steve — November 5, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Another question. The Discovery Institute's new book "Explore Evolution", written by 5 DI fellows who signed the 'Dissent from Darwinism' list, doesn't mention Intelligent Design even once. Is the Discovery Institute abandoning Intelligent Design? Who will fund the ID researchers (bloggers) if not the DI?
Comment by steve — November 5, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
BTW, what's the decline been here? We estimate that over at UD, since the same time last year, the contributor posts have gone down about 75%, the comments about 90%. What's it been here?
Comment by steve — November 5, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Here's another datum for the "Has ID died?" thread: Cornell's IDEA Club, once the focus of intense media attention, has completely vanished, along with almost every other IDEA club in the country. If you take a little time to click on the links at http://www.ideacenter.org/clubs/locations.php, you will find that almost all of them have either not updated their web pages in about two years, or have vanished into 404 Page Not Found oblivion.
Personally, I am somewhat dismayed by this turn of events. True, the IDEA clubs were never much more than a political public relations gimmick of the Discovery Institute. However, the Cornell IDEA club actually stimulated some very interesting debate, most of which led to some Cornell students becoming much better informed about science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. And while it's true that this all generally weakened the ideological position of ID at Cornell, the fact that there was free and open public debate and that such weakening happened as a result was and is a good thing IMHO.
All forms of intellectual inquiry progress when "a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend" (and yes, I do know who popularized that phrase – does that invalidate its spirit?). If that means that ID loses its ideological force, then that's the way the cookie crumbles…
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 5, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
You're naive if you think ID has a copyrite on ideology.
Comment by Bradford — November 5, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
fmm:
Why, thanks! We were quite shocked to find in 2002 that pretty much the entirety of the Democratic 'base' machinery was dismantled during Clinton's administrations. The Obama machine was a thing of beauty – predicated on Dean's 50-State Strategy – and the 'base' was more than ready to rebuild. It worked amazingly well, NC hasn't gone Democratic for President since the 1960s!
I've been listening to a right-wing talk radio station out of Charlotte this evening, just because I'd heard they were freaking out all over the airwaves today. Some lady is on berating "centrist" Republicans who deserted their party when it counted. The callers are even funnier. They're calling for even more purges, and I'd love nothing better than for the Republican Party to shrink itself down completely to the radical religious right and exclude everybody else. That's more for the Dems to pick up without hardly trying. At some point the Democrats will split the broad center from the Progressives (a lot of us at this end see the corruption and greed), at which point we can have a competitive Progressive Party. Reps will be as competitive as the Greens and Libertarians.
The big bad fundies were never a scientific issue, though they have been a considerable political issue. Evolutionary theory is already morphing into something that increasingly resembles certain naturalistic versions of ID. Darwin is certifiably dead, science carries on.
This is all just the Culture War playing itself hoarse on the intertubes. It's not a shooting war, it's talk-talk, dueling metaphysics. Getting nowhere, but it does keep the combatants off the field. That has its certain value.
Comment by Joy — November 5, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
I just came back from there. Two entries on the 4th and one on the 3rd.
Shocking.
A good start for a shtick on reality based reporting. Fodder for an exchange of gossip among the girls.
Comment by Bradford — November 5, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Allen:
People who look at life and see intelligent design don't stop seeing it just because angry evangelicals tell 'em it's not there. The 'Movement' was a political construction, and politics has shifted significantly. There will continue to be biological scientists who see design in life, and discoveries that help us understand it. The dueling metaphysics doesn't determine or construct mundane reality. Science's job is to quantify mundane reality.
I guess that as someone who accepts and advocates ID for non-ideological reasons, I see no particular ideology needing to be attached to the idea itself. In that if life were intelligently designed, atheists would still be atheists and Christians would still be Christians and they'd still fight with each other about what it means.
I just don't see metaphysics (either way) as the root issue.
Comment by Joy — November 5, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am
ID has crippled Darwinian Evolution to a point where any continued investigation will render it completely disabled. The next phase will probably be the last for Darwinian Evolution. We know exactly what to look for now and there will be no excuses for DE magicians this time around.
Comment by computerist — November 6, 2008 @ 12:06 am
November 6th, 2008 at 12:34 am
computerist:
Critics will no doubt disagree with that statement but when I read an Allen MacNeill comment linking ID and ideology and stating elsewhere in the same comment that he is dismayed by signs of IDs death because (I think this is an accurate restatement of his position) of a consequent decreasing exchange of ideas then I wonder why it is that issues alluded to by this blog entry do not get more attention. I suspect it is because the critics of mainstream ideas are not IDists or creationists. IOW, it is the identity of the critic that counts. But if the association between the critic and his perceived metaphysics is really the motivating factor behind opposition to criticism of mainstream evolution then what does this say about the scientific interest in criticism of "Darwinism." It tells me that ideology motivates both sides.
Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 12:34 am
November 6th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Joy talks a lot of political sense.
As this seems to be a place for predictions, I am with Steve and Allen MacNiell in suspecting ID is in terminal decline. All we have to do is wait and see. Lets all rendezvous 1 year from now and compare results!
Comment by Alan Fox — November 6, 2008 @ 6:10 am
November 6th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Sorry, but ID is quite an old idea being discussed since the old Greek pagan philosophers, and its death has been proclaimed for quite a long time by seers like Steve, Allen MacNeil and Alan Fox, and like the Phoenix myth, ID "resurrects" whenever these "seers" predict its death.
Wait and see, ID like a Phoenix will raise from the ashes…
Comment by neddy — November 6, 2008 @ 7:08 am
November 6th, 2008 at 11:03 am
That is false. The more we learn about biology the more ID is the better explanation.
However you guys could put ID down once and for all- just start deonstrating the power of genetic accidents.
IOW demonstrate that an accumulation of genetic accidents can do what you think they can.
That is what you opponents of ID should be doing. However it is obvious that you cannot and therefore have to attack ID with red-herrings and strawmen.
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2008 @ 11:03 am
November 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I think they are referring to ID in its current pseudo-scientific garb. The concept of teleology is still a force in religion and theology.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Hi Joy,
I am glad you were right and I was wrong. I had thought the last minute fear tactics were going to have a lot more effect than they did.
It looks like the pendulum definitely swung back. It's hard to imagine that these are the same people who backed (via high approval ratings) a president hell-bent on pre-emptively invading a sovereign country only five years ago.
Here is a link to a news article at the time…
"U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war."
"After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night.
Iraq rejected the Bush ultimatum… But Saddam made a last-minute bid to avert war, admitting that Iraq had once possessed weapons of mass destruction to defend itself from Iran and Israel – but insisting that it no longer has them.
"We are not weapons collectors," the official Iraqi News Agency quoted him as saying. "When Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, he means what he says."
I suspect most are tired of being fearful as there has been too much manufactured fear for too long. So, for the time being, we can be happy and hopeful. Like you, Obama wasn't my first choice, but I like what I have seen so far. His choice for chief of staff appears to be perfect. It all but eliminated any international doubts about America’s future support of Israel and also let political opponents know his administration isn't going to be a pushover. First Biden and now Emanuel, this administration is starting to look like it will be an effective one (not a repeat of Carter).
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 6, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
At the risk of repeating myself, natural selection doesn't "produce" anything. As Darwin himself wrote to his friend Charles Lyell, natural selection preserves certain forms and eliminates others. The real "engine" of change in biology is not natural selection, but rather the "engines of variation" that produce the blizzard of new forms, a few of whom survive and reproduce.
IMO, what both evolutionary biologists and ID supporters should be investigating is precisely how these "engines of variation" produce new forms. Evo-devo (as practiced by Sean Carrol) is one approach to this, as is the work of epigeneticists like Eva Jablonka, developmental biologists like Mary Jane West-Eberhard, and field biologists such as Lynn Margulis. In what Darwin called the "true Baconian tradition", they look to nature itself for hints as to how it works, and let observation and inference be their guide.
Why is ID dying? Michael Behe and William Dembski have built their careers on arguments about what is supposedly impossible in biology. This approach is pointless, counter-productive, and ultimately self-defeating. If ID supporters are interested in revolutionizing evolutionary biology, I think they would get a lot more mileage out of investigating the full parameters of what is possible in biological systems. Until we know this, arguments about what is possible or impossible in nature are just exercises in ideological metaphysics, not science.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 6, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Hi TP,
Why wouldn't they? They supported his predecessor who had the same policy and acted unilaterally in a relentless bombing campaign against Iraq and they have now elected a successor who will invade Pakistan if he thinks bin Laden is there and whose VP-elect would put boots on the ground in Darfur and also called for bombing the Serbs. American policy is American policy.
Comment by Pez — November 6, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Hi Pez,
I'm not that interested in overly arguing the point. I think the application of the Bush Doctrine of unilateral, preemptive warmaking in Iraq was shockingly bad for America and the world, you don't. So be it.
However, I understand the world's opinion of America has risen significantly as a result of the choice we made this week. My opinion of the American public has also risen. While still cautious the pendulum will swing once again, for now I am hopeful.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 6, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Yes. In the end it's about whether or not the policy is successful. If Obama sent troops into Pakistan and came back with bin Laden's head he would be hailed. If casualties mounted and bin Laden could not be found well then we could requote TP's comment in the future. From now on TP, it's about performance with regard to Obama.
Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
The people in my department come from all over the world (every continent except Antarctica; Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists), and everybody is very happy about the outcome of the election. Not because America is now seen as weaker, as some wingnuts have suggested, even in this thread, but as more in touch with the rest of the world.
It's great to finally have an atheist in the White House. Did they start building the gulags for Christians in Alaska yet?
Comment by Raevmo — November 6, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
That's nice Raevmo. I imagine that will create a lot of jobs.
Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Hi Bradford,
Is that reality-based performance or claims of "Mission Accomplished" banners performance?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 6, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Hi Raevmo,
I understand Obama is very much a Christian.
It will take a while longer before a self-proclaimed Atheist would be elected president of the United States.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 6, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Bradford:
I guess you are being sarcastic, but you might be right. If America is once again seen as a force for good, it might just attract more well-educated people to boost the knowledge economy that is crucial for America's future, seeing as it can't compete with the low-wage economies.
Comment by Raevmo — November 6, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
TP:
I was just kidding. I have no idea how religious Obama is, seeing as it is crucial for any US politician's survival to be seen as – and if necessary pretend to be – a believer. I suspect that quite a few politicians are atheists, but they won't admit it (like the numerous homosexual Republican politicians).
Comment by Raevmo — November 6, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Raevmo:
I love it when you shoot from the hip Raevmo. Gives me a chance to educate you about America. The USA already attracts talented people from other countries. So much so that the immigration categories reserved for skilled workers are badly backlogged, much to the chagrin of businesses who could use the talent. That's something Barack might want to work on. He'll have to oppose a major interest group within his own party if he takes this issue on though. Organized labor would oppose the liberalization of number quotas. Life isn't as easy once you leave the campaign trail behind.
Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Good question TP. Now we get to see just how real the reality crowd is. The frills are OK when the economy is purring. If it tanks then the reality based critics will have to either own up to a problem or put the lie to their self-proclaimed moniker.
Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Bradford:
Thank you for the education. It was my impression (mostly from personal experience) that fewer foreign scientists are willing to go to the US these days.
Comment by Raevmo — November 6, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Fewer Europeans, yes. The answer is readily apparent. Life is good in western Europe and getting noticably better in the eastern half since full fledged socialism was jettisoned. OTOH, there is a long line of scientists from India, China and other countries who would love to come here but must wait due to our outmoded laws. Fix them Obama.
Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Raevmo:
No, we can't compete with India or China or Central America for low-end jobs. We've whole generations of trained-to-be factory workers (since Kindergarten!) suddenly without work, without corporate or union benefits, out in the cold and way too old to go back to school. They're trying, very hard. They've not had much luck recently.
If the "whole world" is looking to us for wisdom and magic tricks, it is in worse shape than it should be. If your economy bet that 1% of our mortgages were worth 4-7 trillion dollars, you got just what you deserved. As did we.
We can do better, but we won't be doing it for you. We'll be doing it for us. We'll have our people get back to you on that, you betcha and also!
Comment by Joy — November 6, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Hi Bradford,
Well, things like the poor economy, the expensive Iraq War and the shameful Guantanamo Bay are real.
Even Bush said…
"I very much would like to end Guantanamo; I very much would like to get people to a court…we're waiting for our Supreme Court to give us a decision as to whether the people need to have a fair trial in a civilian court or in a military court," link
The Supreme Court ruled but Guantanamo Bay is still open.
Any bets on whether or not the ex constitutional professor and new president will actually bring an end to this American shame?
Will that be REAL enough for you?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 6, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
What would you do with the detainees at Guantanamo TP?
Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
Give them speedy and fair trials.
Of course the "speedy" part will be relative considering the years they have been incarcarated already.
I would think an ex constitutional professor will understand the appropriate and legal options available to the President.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 6, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Let's hope he does. Putting battlefield combatents on trial in the US is not an attractive precedent.
Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
TP,
I'd like to point out that Iraq was not unilaterally invaded. It was invaded by a multilateral coalition of some 40 countries.
Look,
if we overlook the obvious fact that war is horrible, as well as the emotional investments on both sides, the Iraq War has been fairly successful in many of it's objectives, and the final objective is finally appearing on the horizon. Comparing to the conflict with which it is most often compared, Vietnam, it is more successful at much lower cost of US lives (4500 deaths in 5 years vs. 60000 in 16 years.)
Or maybe you meant "shockingly bad" in the sense that all war is shocking and bad, in which case you would be correct.
Comment by chunkdz — November 6, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Hi Bradford,
I can't imagine a more destructive precedent than the illegal imprisonment and torture carried out over the last 7 years.
Ending the shameful activities occurring in Guantanamo Bay is a real and tangible accomplishment. At least it is for those with reality-based worldviews.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 6, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I'm old enough to remember "forever-war," TP. Guys in my neighborhood I went to Jr. High and High School with were killed or injured regularly. They lost. And not because there was any real way we could win…
I'm a VietNam era veteran too, so is my hubby. Bad time to be workin' for the gub'ment, that. But some of us had more cover than others. It was thought of as merely a hot-spot in a perennial "Cold War." There never was a way to win, for any of us.
I'd like to try something new. I think we might be ready to try something new. Or not, and we'll just blow each other's wives and kids to kingdom come. So I will hope. Because right now, at this particular moment along the creaking crux of history, I can.
Obama's way centrist for my taste. But I'm hoping he'll be the President I suspect strongly he can be. We need it. Regardless of my personal wishes and wants.
Comment by Joy — November 6, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Hi Joy,
While I am young enough to have just missed the draft I was very much influenced by how the Vietnam War affected the United States.
As I have mentioned before, I grew up in the shadow of Kent State University and vividly remember when the National Guard fired on and killed KSU students.
I found it an interesting idea the change Obama may represent is an end to the "forever-war" our generation has been fighting with each other.
It is obvious you and I can never trust people we think are capable of callously napalming and carpet bombing villages. Pictures of crying, naked children are burned into our mind (link).
We know firsthand what fighting an unjust war does to the bodies, and especially the minds, of those forced to fight it.
And it matters little if people are forced to fight because of a draft or because they can't get a job otherwise.
On the other hand, there are others our age still bitter over the flag-burning, hate-America-first crowd and desperately desire to vindicate their attitudes and actions.
I hope we haven't irrevocably infected the following generations with our past ghosts. I hope Obama's election is a sign that the younger generation is rejecting our old ways.
It is a hope but old habits die hard. I need to be convinced.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 6, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
"They've all gone to look for America…" I'm listening to that old Simon & Garfunkle song right now. If I had my turntable up here and not down in the Shed, I'd be playing "Volunteers." An all-time fave.
It's still OUR America, always was. We could have just all stayed home if they'd thrown this election into utter turmoil. Brought it to a screeching halt, and not feel the least bit guilty for it after they took us for everything we had…
It is sad, what they've done to us. It is inspiring and not sad at all that so many of us are still willing to fight for what's right. What must need be. We can do so much better! We have the talent. Barack is just the vanguard. There's more in the wings…
Comment by Joy — November 6, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Funny how the left doesn't have a problem when imprisonment and torture are meted out by others (read that NV). I don't know about how prevalent torture is in Guantanamo. I know what the blogs are saying. But that's predictable. You might consider that many or most of those imprisoned would kill American civilians at the drop of a mullah's hat as unPC as that thought is.
Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Hey Bradford,
You wrote…
Over all these years have you yet to understand that the left LOVES AMERICA too much to stand silent.
Here is the song, They all went to look for America, Joy was listening to.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 6, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I never thought the left was silent. Do you think those imprisoned in Guantanamo are innocent victims of George Bush? Speaking out is useless unless you are after the truth.
Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Hi TP,
I'm not that fond of arguing either – I just like when the record is straight.
You don't know whether or not I think the war in Iraq was good or bad.
But if it was bad policy it was just as bad when Clinton was doing it.
And it was just as bad every other time America bombed or put troops into countries that had not attacked it (the list is not quite endless, but very long) and were not likely to. This didn't start with Bush and it won't end with Bush.
Hi Bradford,
Very nicely put.
Comment by Pez — November 7, 2008 @ 12:02 am
November 7th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Hi Bradford,
Do you understand that we love America?
Do you understand that we cry for America?
We cry when we see America imprison torture and kill human beings.
We cry as if we, ourselves, are doing it.
Because we are America.
Sometimes it is necessary, but that doesn't stop us from mourning in sadness.
You can't ask us to trust our government, the scars are too deep from the last time and the evidence of malfeasance is plain for all to see.
Both allies and enemies around to world see it.
We insist this abomination must not continue.
It is our hope and expectation the new president will finally right these wrongs.
We hope this because we love America.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 12:08 am
November 7th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Hi Joy,
Here is the best link I could find for Volunteers (it isn't that good).
This was one of those songs that has to be played very loud to sound right.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 12:41 am
November 7th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Hey All,
I don't know if this is a trick or not. But on FreeRepublic they noticed the following on this Wikipedia link.
"On November 7, 2008, Sunstein was nominated for the position of White House Counsel by President-elect Barack Obama."
The internet is fascinating.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 12:48 am
November 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Bradford:
Actually, most of those imprisoned at Guantanamo are entirely innocent, don't even have real charges pending against them. The baddest of the bad guys are in Pakistan, and Saddam Hussein got hanged. We LIKE all the warlords, all sides, give them tons of cash every month not to target our troops. That sometimes works, too.
Maybe they're better off at Gitmo than in some hell-hole in-country (like Abu Ghraib) where it's junior enlistees thinking up the tortures. At Gitmo it's mostly CIA and senior DoD staff.
TP:
Thanks for the links. It's way too beautiful today to stay indoors, I'll be cranking up the stereo in the shed (much bigger speakers!) and play the whole peanut butter and jelly album at max, I'll be able to hear it great in the garden…
Don't expect too much from Obama. Not only is his first term seriously crippled by the 'Pugs economic end-game, he really is a centrist they'd have loved to claim if they hadn't followed their wingnuts into oblivion. But he is a good start on rebuilding the nation, I think the Republican Party is going the way of the Whigs. Dems will be claiming the real conservatives, they're gonna end up loving Obama. So I'm hoping for a nascient Progressive Party come 2016.
Comment by Joy — November 7, 2008 @ 10:56 am
November 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Joy:
Not having been charged would not make them innocent. How would you know before the trials take place that they are innocent?
Comment by Bradford — November 7, 2008 @ 11:03 am
November 7th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Hi Bradford,
It looks like Joy is outside today. Since I am stuck inside today (not feeling well) allow me to respond.
Hopefully, even you can see how the original "arrests" were sweeping and arbitrary. Most were captured by people other than US troops and turned over for bounty. Pretrial processing, or even checking out who these people were, wasn't a priority other than to check to see if they had any relevant information that was immediately useful.
We now know that the "worst of the worst" were NOT sent to Guantánamo Bay but, instead, were put into holes that even the host countries didn't know about (or at least denied they did) and tortured.
At one time Guantánamo Bay had over 600 prisoners. The Bush Administration has been quietly releasing them or the years to the point they are now down to 225. There have been a handful of trials. Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver was one of them. He was sentenced to five and a half years with five years already being served.
Then there is the case of the 17 Uighurs. They are clearly not enemies of the United States. However, the Chinese label them terrorists then again, the Chinese labels the Dalai Lama a terrorist (link). The Uighurs were simply one of many caught in the sweeping dragnet of arrest-first-ask-questions-later.
From someone who speaks more elequently than I…
"This makes it all the more important for President Obama to take US policy in a demonstrably different direction in the areas he can control, starting with the fight against al-Qaida. President Obama must follow through on his pledges to close Guantánamo Bay and renounce torture, and carry forward these changes by also shutting down the secret CIA prisons, ceasing extraordinary rendition and ensuring that all electronic surveillance is within the law and with necessary safeguards to protect against eavesdropping on innocent Americans.
Obama will close Guantánamo Bay as one of his first actions as president. He will not be able to simply wave his hand and empty the prison, however, as any responsible policy will take time to implement. I have recommended a five-step plan that will close Guantánamo in 18-months; other experts have said it can be done in as little as one year. Whatever timeline President Obama chooses, the first step is to announce the prison will be closed by a fixed date. Then the real work begins.
Two early and relatively easy decisions will signal to the United States and the world that Obama will chart a very different course than Bush: President Obama should order the release of Salim Hamdan and the remaining Guantánamo Uighurs. Hamdan was the first detainee convicted in a military commission trial, but the Bush administration will not release him even after his sentence expires at the end of the year. The 17 Guantánamo Uighurs are among the greatest tragedies of this sad saga, the Bush administration is fighting a US court decision ordering their release even though it has already determined that they are not enemy combatants.
Announcing the closure of Guantánamo Bay and releasing Hamdan and the Uighurs would change the dynamic surrounding the detention camp and enable the international cooperation required to ultimately empty the prison of the remaining 225 detainees."
link
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
How would you know they are guilty?
Comment by Bert — November 7, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Bert, I do not know if they are guilty or innocent. If they are to be put on trial why not await the verdicts? I thought Bush critics were in favor of having the courts decide these things or does your personal opinion obviate the need for a judicial review?
Comment by Bradford — November 7, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Bradford:
I'm wondering if you're reading what you write. I didn't say they're innocent because they haven't been charged, I said they cannot be tried – for anything, since they've not been charged with anything, and their status remains entirely undecided. Even though most are innocent of whatever charges the government might try to invent. They are POWs, not criminals (even if you consider every citizen of Afghanistan and Iraq to be 'criminals' because our Army invaded their countries, that's a legal status these prisoners don't have). Some aren't even combatants.
In mid-June of 2004 the New York Times reported that of the 595 "detainees" then at Gitmo, dozens of high-level military, intel and law enforcement officials admitted that NONE were leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda. And that only a dozen or two were even members of Al Qaeda or other militant operatives – wannabe "terrorists." The military could provide prosecution cases for a grand total of 15 prisoners.
In late 2006 the Washington Post reported that 33 detainees were "sent home," released with no charges at all. Between those reports many others either died or were sent home, since by December of '06 that burgeoning "terrorist" population of POWs numbered just 395, down by 200.
The Christian Science Monitor reported about known-to-be-innocent foreign non-combatants held at Gitmo for years faced years more in custody because the US can't figure out to do about falsely imprisoning not-even-POWs sans legal status.
The fact that we have been holding innocent people in military prison(s) for years has been well known for awhile. I'm surprised you're surprised by it.
Comment by Joy — November 7, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Hahaha! Even gardeners have to eat lunch, TP!
Comment by Joy — November 7, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Obviously a charge is made prior to trial. They will either be charged or released. Noone believes some will not be charged.
Do you have enough data to make a wide sweeping claim about all the detainees. None are members of Al Quada or the Taliban willing and able to make war on civilian populations? Where is the hard evidence supporting a yes answer to that question?
Comment by Bradford — November 7, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
The thing about the detainees is that they haven't even been accused, much less convicted. Obama can remedy that. Can Obama get us out of the war in Iraq? He seems the best hope at the moment. Certainly Bush shows no interest, and McCain made it clear his only concern is for “victory”. If Obama turns out to be a centrist whose main interest is supporting Israel against the Palestinians, if most people’s mortgage becomes less than the value of their house while CEO’s are still plundering corporations with multimillion dollar bonuses — if Obama is unable to address these problems — in four years we will try again. I have absolute faith that there are enough people of good will that we will keep trying.
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — November 7, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Could you clarify this? The bulk of the 600+ Guantánamo Bay have already been released without ever being charged.
A few have already been charged and tried.
Our country, America, has imprisoned people for years without having ever charged them of a crime.
Expectations are that most of the 200+ that are left will also ultimately be released with only known reason for they being there is that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
TP and Bert, We know no charges were filed. What you do not know is whether or not all are innocent. The evidence and your ideological predilections are separete entities.
Comment by Bradford — November 7, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
What does that have to do with anything?
Some have already been tried and found guilty. No one has suggested they ALL are innocent.
I suggest for our country's sake we need to show the world we live by our own principles.
Those left in Guantánamo Bay need to be either charged immediately or released.
I suspect the ex constitutional professor and new president will do just that for the good of the country.
At least I hope he will.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
What you do not know is whether or not all are innocent.
What this has to do with is reality. If some are guilty and some are terrorists it is in the interests of all of us to keep them confined. It is also in our interests to release those not guilty. See TP, reasonable accomodations between different POVs are possible when group think is avoided. Just provoking thought.
Comment by Bradford — November 7, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Hi Bradford,
So do you agree that we, America, should accommodate the immediate release of the 17 Guantánamo Uighurs we mistakenly imprisoned for six years?
Do you also agree that Salim Hamdan should be released after he has served his time (at the end of this year)?
Finally, would you agree that we, America, need to release all Guantánamo prisoners for which we have absolutely no credible evidence by which to charge much less go to trial with?
And if Obama does that before the end of next year, would you also agree that it is a REAL accomplishment?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Hi Bradford,
Here is another possible Obama accomplishment for you to comment on prior to it happening.
During the Carter administration the Iranians purposely stalled the release of the 52 American hostages until after Ronald Reagan was sworn in.
Contrary to popular belief Iranians and Al-Qaeda are enemies.
It is very possible that the Iranians keep track of where Osama bin Laden is hiding (along with other Arab countries) but would have little interest in helping the Bush administration.
However, the Iranians have shown an interest in Obama's willingness to engage in talks.
So, what would your reaction be to Obama's administration being able to capture or kill Osama bin Laden suspiciously soon after taking power?
Would you consider that a REAL accomplishment?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Bradford:
Don't start that deliberate misrepresentation crap with me, Bradford. I'm not playing that stupid game. You've got the facts right at your fingertips, along with what I wrote and TP wrote. There is a reason that the words "most" and "many" and "some" are not the same word as "all."
15 of 595 prisoners charged. Most have been released. Some have died in custody, not in peaceful ways. A few may be held for life despite no charges or prosecutions. But not in Gitmo, because Gitmo is going to be closed. Bush is negotiating a return of power with the Taliban right now, bin Laden's either dead or in Pakistan, the warlords are the same incurable barbarians they've always been, and poppies are the #1 cash crop again this year.
Comment by Joy — November 7, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
You have facts available now that were not available on the battlefield. It's really not necessary to demonzie those who do not share your political views.
Comment by Bradford — November 7, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Hi Bradford,
Where the heck did you get "demonize"?!?!?
We didn't even suggest the troops in the field did anything illegal much less evil.
It is my presumption that the troops had little interest in dealing with all these prisoners and simply shuffled them to the back lines for someone else to separate the guilty from the innocent. How were they to know that their country would ship them off in mass to rot in jail for years without ever being charged?
It is my hope and expectation that Obama will quickly show the world that America, once again, will stand by its own basic legal principles for all people.
I would consider that a REAL accomplishment, would you?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
If it were just George Bush well… but it is not. Review some comments about McCain, Palin et. al. in this thread. Then recall the lyrics to this song. Remember, you can be older and still be an angry young man.
There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He's always at home with his back to the wall.
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost,
And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.
Give a moment or two to the angry young man,
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand.
He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood,
It's a comfort to know his intentions are good.
And he sits in a room with a lock on the door,
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.
I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
I once believed in causes too,
I had my pointless point of view,
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.
And there's always a place for the angry young man,
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand.
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes,
So he can't understand why his heart always breaks.
But his honor is pure and his courage as well,
And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell-
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man.
There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He's always at home with his back to the wall.
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost,
And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.
Comment by Bradford — November 7, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Bert:
We gave the Congress significant gains in 2006 to do that very thing. And Congress actually calls the shots on things like this. Expect Pelosi, Reid and others of our lame 'leadership' to face serious primary challenge in 2010. Now that we've got working majorities in both houses (if you count some centrists among the 'other' contingent in the Senate) we can begin to whittle the ranks to people who will do the jobs we send them to Washington to do.
And I don't mind if a few of these creeps go to jail, either. Our 'side' has hosted some who are every bit as corrupt as any on the Republican side of the aisle, for way too long. Now we will get rid of them. Thus by January of 2011, Obama may have no choice but to carry through on his mandate. If not, he'll be back to community organizing by January of 2013.
Comment by Joy — November 7, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Here is Billy Joel singing it on You Tube.
So, do you think a singer who is the product of the sixties was talking about someone like me who believes it is preferrable to "make Love, not War" or someone who is angry we might be "demonizing" those who support going to war?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Bradford:
Most of these prisoners weren't taken on battlefields, they were kidnapped off roads or at their jobs and handed over by those barbarian warlords in exchange for shipping cartons stuffed with cash. Many of the rest were taken in house-to-house raids. At least one of 'em was a child. Bush says they're criminals – not POWs – thus don't need to be treated humanely, can be held forever without charge or trial, and can be tortured at will.
You're the one who decided to substitute terms in order to support your Fox-bot "talking point," Bradford. Calling you on it is not demonization. Demonization is what you are attempting to do to hundreds of unfortunate POWs who got shipped halfway around the world to be chained in dark holes for years, not even dignified by determination of legal status so they could be charged or released. That's why they're now just "detainees." What a nice, polite word to use for their extended, years-long vacations in sunny Cuba.
The only thing Bush-Cheney did right was to let their rich backers loot the US economy into long-planned bankruptcy on behalf of the IMF. Don't you remember when Bush decided the Geneva Convention didn't apply to his POWs if he just called them "Unlawful Enemy Combatants" instead? Remember back when ex-POW John McCain was horrified and tried hard to stop it?
Honestly, I don't know why anyone would bother to try and defend Bush or Cheney at this point, for anything.
Comment by Joy — November 7, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Hi Bradford,
Since you brought up angry. Let me reiterate the point of our conversation.
If Obama does repatriate 200 Muslims held at Guantánamo back to Saudi Arabia because of lack of evidence, will you object?
If so, why?
Will you be angry because we didn't sufficiently punish those you fear?
As I said, if Obama manages to do it, I will consider it a REAL accomplishment.
If Obama captures bin Laden alive and decides to give him a fair trial will you object? If so, why?
Will you be angry because we dare to treat another human being with respect no matter what he has done?
If Obama manages to do this, I would consider it not only a REAL accomplishment, but something to be proud of.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
TP, I've said it before in this thread. From now on it's all about performance. If Obama does well he'll get all the credit he deserves.
Comment by Bradford — November 7, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Is O'Reilly stealing my lines again? But there is a much better example of demonization. Don't anyone tell Fox News about this though. Remember that Bridge to Nowhere? Oh, the ridicule heaped on Palin for one bridge. Imagine how that offended the sensibilities of all those critics in congress? They were so rattled by this extravagance that a mere three weeks after the taunting began congress voted a 100 billion pork add on to the corporate bailout bill. What happended to the demonization? One little bridge merits toasting over coals but 100 billion dollars worth of them gets ignored. Shameless hypocrisy! Ah, but let's put the past behind us and toast the new messiah: Let live forever in the people's memory the unparalleled achievement of Barack Obama, the glorious Democrat strategists, and all those who fought against Republican terror and repression!
Comment by Bradford — November 7, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Sure, but you haven't defined what "does well" means even though I have asked you multiple times.
Clinton did very well, especially in economic terms.
I doubt history will have kind things to say about G. W. Bush's administration.
Would you agree that Obama will be "doing well" if he successfully ends the abuses in Guantánamo and brings bin Laden to justice?
Or are you going to continue to ignore the questions with more irrelevant links to lyrics or faux web sites?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
With respect to those items of course. IMO, the two most important issues on any president's plate are domestic prosperity and the safety and security of US citizens. Carter got into trouble on both counts- stagflation coupled with impotence before the Ayatollah Khomeini. Bin Laden's capture relates to safety and security and would be a definite feather in Obama's cap.
Comment by Bradford — November 7, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Hi Bradford,
Thank You, now we have the beginning of a measuring stick for future use.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 7, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 9:35 am
As for stagflation, that was a consequence of Volker's anti-inflation policy, a problem caused by huge deficits due to Nixon's expansion of the Vietnam War and unfunded social programs. The policy kept inflation at bay for a generation. Only now does the United States again face the prospect of an inflationary spiral.
As for Iran. For reasons rooted in previous U.S. interference in the internal politics of Iran, the Iranians reasonably suspected continued CIA involvement and arrested what they thought might be spies. Though the Iranians acted illegally, Carter was right to avoid a war, and the issue was resolved peaceably.
And as for the root cause of America's troubles. Carter advocated for energy independence based on conservation and the development of new energy sources. Reagan said it was "Morning in America", meaning the use of military force to maintain oil supplies, and the support of U.S.-friendly non-democratic regimes (including in Iraq). This resulted in deferring important changes in the use and production of energy, and continued U.S. vulnerability to the inevitable shortage of oil.
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 9:35 am
November 8th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Zachriel:
That's being way too charitable. They invaded an embassy and held everyone captive.
After a botched rescue mission. I also did not mention the Cuban boat lift of 100,000 refugees, many it was later discovered, criminals freed from jails and sent here. Carter did have some bad luck but as that great Democrat Harry Truman once said: "The buck stops here."
Our energy troubles go deeper than this. Our foreign dependence was an inevitable consequence of a no drill policy that has been in effect for more than 15 years. Many drilling projects were prohibited based on dubious environmental grounds. Average income Americans have been left holding the bag in the form of unnecessarily expensive energy.
Comment by Bradford — November 8, 2008 @ 10:42 am
November 8th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Hi mods,
It's not an important point but could someone free one of my two (identical) links on voter turnout from the filter?
Thanks.
Comment by Pez — November 8, 2008 @ 11:24 am
November 8th, 2008 at 11:30 am
They broke international law, to their own long-term detriment. However, you do realize the U.S. and British were implicated in the overthrow of the Iranian government in a 1953 coup d'état because they were going to nationalize their oil industry. Who is being charitable?
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 11:30 am
November 8th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Pez, I just checked the spam queue and it is empty.
Comment by Bradford — November 8, 2008 @ 11:32 am
November 8th, 2008 at 11:40 am
The military planned and executed the rescue mission. The alternative was war. I suppose it's worth being ridiculed to avoid an unnecessary war.
Carter wasn't in office 15 years ago. More importantly, the U.S. has 3% of the world's oil reserves, but consumes 25% of the oil supplies. There is not enough oil in the United States to meet long-term demand. Accessible oil will inevitably be depleted. This is all predictable. Carter issued the warning. Americans failed to heed the warning. Carter's failing was political, but the people failed too. This policy has restricted American options so that they continue to be pressured to fight wars to protect their oil supplies.
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 11:40 am
November 8th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Zachriel:
This is instructive. There are lingering grudges occasioned by past events. So what does a president do when an illegal act against US interests is justified by reference to past US actions? One thing he can do is acknowledge the problem if the complaint is legitimate. Make amends if possible. But a president cannot allow that to become the focus when American lives are at risk. It's an imperfect world with plenty of blame to go around. Iranians have enough wrongful acts of their own to be concerned about.
Comment by Bradford — November 8, 2008 @ 11:40 am
November 8th, 2008 at 11:45 am
And contributes more than 3% of the world's output.
It's no a panacea but this misses the point. We could be recirculating money within our own economy and employing Americans in the process. Instead we send the money overseas, exacerbate our trade deficit and increase our dependence. And in the end the carbon emitted is the same as the carbon that would have been emitted by US produced oil.
Comment by Bradford — November 8, 2008 @ 11:45 am
November 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Yes. Quit shooting yourself in the foot.
Right. And a dependent, prideful superpower is inherently dangerous.
There's not enough oil in the United States to meet long term demand. Only alternative energy sources will solve the problem. And it can take decades to restructure an economy. Perhaps by starting in
197519872008 something can be done about it so America won't feel so threatened.Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I know that but in the interim between fossil and green fuel dominance we would be better off burning our own fossil fuels rather than the fuels of other nations.
Zachriel, you as much as anyone at this blog should know that technical obstacles are not overcome by political complaints. I'm all in favor of alternative fuels. Perhaps a blog entry or two on some related research papers would help separate reality from sloganeering.
Comment by Bradford — November 8, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Bradford:
Yeah. There seems to be a lot of that going around these days. But just to clue you in, all those many skeletons in the Palin family closet were just the 'meat' of the silly reality-TV show that put her front and center for her 15 minutes of dubious fame.
IOW, Palin didn't lose because of her blatant hypocrisy (that's SOP in politics), but because of her prideful ignorance. This is the big leagues, and Palin just doesn't cut it. Throw in the witch-hunting preacher, the high school dropout shotgun wedding, the serious mean streak, a healthy dose of nepotism and a certain… um, flippant attitude towards the law. Add a flirtatious wink in a Vice-Presidential debate, a dollop of geographic cluelessness and a full cup of 6-year stint by First Dude as as registered secessionist in an organization with leadership ties to Iran and back-alley plastic explosives dealing. Voila! Mooseburger Pie and a quarter million dollars' worth of new wardrobe for the whole family! The whole ridiculous caper was disgusting.
Since nobody vetted her before pulling her out of the hat, she got vetted by people who have internet access and can use Google. It wasn't difficult to get the goods, she was under ethics investigation by her own legislature at the time, and AIP is well documented (as is the Palins' involvement).
Jimmy Carter threw a good deal into domestic exploration and drilling, Ronald Reagan ordered the wells capped as one of his first actions in early 1981. Led to serious depression in rural Texas and Oklahoma, led our oil companies to sit on the thousands of off-shore sites they'd purchased drilling rights on. Ever heard the adage "We Are The Arabs?" There's a reason the Bush clan calls Prince Bandar bin Sultan "Bandar Bush."
We can't drill our way out of past-peak oil, and the pollution load from fossil fuels is shameful anyway. There are alternatives to develop, and the will to develop them.
I'm sorry if you've lost wealth in this end game, you've got a lot of company. But stubbornly insisting we go backwards instead of forward won't work. Too many of us know there aren't any "Good Old Days" to go back to. We've got serious work to do. Either roll up your sleeves or get out of the way.
Comment by Joy — November 8, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Huh? "Dependence" in both statements.
I agree that creating a strong U.S. economy is important for global stability. Sending money overseas to dangerous adversaries is not.
Because of poor planning, the U.S. may be forced to quickly use up their last remaining reserves.
As I said, Carter was right about the most important long term issue for American security. I'm sure you heeded his warning and fought against the policies that have led to increased American dependence.
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Exactly. It is typical of politics in America that a gross display of pork barrel politics, obviously intended to induce votes for the bailout package, was ignored by the drive by media while the ever so sophisticated psuedo- intellectuals harped on a meaningless bridge some of them voted to fund anyway. 100 billion in pork is reality. Ignoring it speaks volumes about one's intellectual integrity to say nothing of financial.
Yes, develop them and in the meantime burn our own oil as much as possible. It is the preferred option. Keeps our money here.
That's not what I want. I read research papers to keep tabs on the progress and obstacles we face in developing biofuels. We do not have viable economic options allowing for a transformation presently. It will take some breakthroughs. They're coming.
Comment by Bradford — November 8, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Because, Heaven Forbid, we save anything for future generations.
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Future generations should be as green as Kermit the Frog.
Comment by Bradford — November 8, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Bradford:
All they have to do is uncap the wells. Our refinery capacity is also meager, we should plan some outside Tornado Alley and Hurricane Zone to deal with inland oil. The only reason they're on the coast is because most of the crude comes in by sea – from way elsewhere. Truth is, we get most of our petroleum from Canada. #1 supplier currently, 2, 455,000 barrels a day. Why aren't there refineries in Minnesota and North Dakota and Montana?
And why do we EXPORT 1,433,000 barrels a day of our own production, eh? We *are* the Arabs – our oil companies sell to the highest bidder just like everybody else – it's a world market. They get more for it in Europe than here at home. Petroleum should be going for $100 a barrel everywhere in that market. That's an incentive to conserve and develop alternatives.
Did you know you can make fine plastics out of cellulose? Did you know that industrial hemp produces more cellulose per acre than any other crop? It grows in a variety of climates north and south, wet and dry. It needs no chemical fertilizers, just out-crop it with clover, and this eliminates the need for both herbicides and deep-plowing. Hempseed oil burns brighter and hotter than any other biological-based oil source, can be used for mass and commercial transportation as well as home heating. The fiber content is 2-3 times that of cotton, and leaves/stems provide fine mash for ethanol brewing. This is why Canada legalized the crop and is happy it did.
Yes, we do have viable economic options. Legalize hemp, I guarantee thousands of small farmers and landholders will have a fine crop in by fall of 2009. There are processors in Canada, and we can convert some already-built facilities here. Factory-scale processing machinery is readily available from Indian manufacturers. Hemp can be grown on marginal land, won't cut into the food supply at all.
GM and the EPA are sitting on a joint-patent passenger-car/truck level 50-100 biodiesel engine right now, a federal bailout of GM should include implementing that re-tooling as requisite (Ford and Chrysler's should include EVs). Biodiesel isn't difficult to refine (just filter the crumbs out of the fast food frying oil), and any diesel engine can run fine on it at 80-20 without retrofit, 50-100% with an extra pre-heater. Every filling station in the country that sells diesel has a tank that'll hold biodiesel. Most city buses, delivery trucks, farm equipment, construction equipment, semis, trains, ships and a lot of power generators are diesel – that's our goods-and-people transportation system and a chunk of our generation capacity. Between hempseed, canola, soybean, palm, peanut and used/rendered fats, we could dilute our petroleum diesel by a lot and cut our consumption of petroleum by just that much. Within just a few seasons – we could cut our dependence by 50% in 5 years if we really wanted to.
We could go ahead and install turbines in those hundreds of lakes the CCC built in the last Great Depression – water and power "reserves," for when we needed 'em. We need them now. Decentralize and let counties and regions develop wind and solar and hydro and geothermal. Modernize the grid – that'll save 40% of generated 'trons right there, and allow capacity to be shared. A new CCC is needed for this new Great Depression.
The moaners and groaners, the Chicken Littles, and the war-mongers have been whining since it became obvious Change was necessary, way back in the 1970s. Consequently, we're right back where we were, a lot worse for wear and tear. This time we need to just go ahead and do it. Since we (and the rest of the world) have been effectively robbed as blind as we can get by the "Trickle-Down" crowd, it's high time we went ahead and Changed. "Yes We Can" is more fun and much more hopeful than "No We Can't."
Comment by Joy — November 8, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
A last note for you on the petroleum thing…
I noticed throughout the election season that the incumbent Party resorted to scare tactics about "Mideast Oil" almost every other argument. The world market response puts that silly hype into realistic perspective.
Take a look. Your 401k and possibly your pension after a lifetime of work have been decimated over the past two and a half months. Trillions of dollars' worth of bits and bytes disappeared into the cyber-ether, never to be seen or heard from (in this country, anyway) again. Who's doing spectacularly well?
Answer: Oil companies. Record profits, across the board. As usual.
Oil/fuel isn't our problem, isn't what caused the collapse of the world's financial markets system. Or, not entirely (I expect there was quite a bit of 'insider' bubble-inflating going on). More oil wars, or artificially restricting what is in fact a GLOBAL market, won't dig us out of this mess. If this is what you believe because it's what your (decidedly strange, given your links) sources led you to believe, grow a brain cell and look at the evidence for yourself.
We *are* the Arabs. If Carlyle Group (and other such financial/arms dealing/mercenary fronts) weren't making billions off oil wars, we wouldn't be fighting any oil wars. There's way more money trading off-the-table in Iraq and Afghanistan than on the domestic futures (alt.fuel) markets these days. There's a reason for that, you know.
Comment by Joy — November 8, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Behind the scenes on election night with the Obamas and Bidens…
David Katz/Obama for America
CAPTION:
O to Joe: "I'm scared."
Joe to O: "Never let 'em see you sweat."
Comment by Joy — November 8, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Hi Bradford, thanks for checking.
Here is a different link to that information on the turnout.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/11/06/pdf.gansre08turnout.au.pdf
Comment by Pez — November 8, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Hi Pez,
It is fascinating how a few percentage points can make all the difference in how things are spun. The Freepers where complaining about the republicans who didn't vote. Even your own link points out that…
"A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout. The percentage of eligible citizens voting Republican declined to 28.7 percent down 1.3 percentage points from 2004."
Had the Republicans voted there would be no question that the percentage voting in 2008 would have been the highest since 1964 and would have been spun as a "significantly" high turnout.
I don't know about you, but I didn't expect anything near a 100% turnout or even an 80% turnout. I would have wished for a higher turnout than what happened but I didn't expect it. Unfortunately, the American public is predictable that way.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 8, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Hi TP,
You guys did a lot better than us. Less than 50% vote here.
Too bad there isn't some non-partisan organization which receives government funds to register and facilitate voters.
Comment by Pez — November 9, 2008 @ 12:19 am
November 9th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Don't be too hasty, TP. They just called my state yesterday. Georgia and Minnesota are in play. Count the votes…
They're young. They're restless. They're looking for action…
What a hoot!
Comment by Joy — November 9, 2008 @ 1:01 am
November 9th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Why has the government gone into the business of bailing out corporations?
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2008 @ 6:25 am
November 9th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Change, new covenants, the annointing and the magnitude of victory.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/11/05/it-s-deja-vu-all-over-again-media-declare-end-reagan-era
Comment by Pez — November 9, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
TP:
Beware of dilution of statistics from out west. Turnout in my county topped 80%, 3/4 of them in early voting. In Kissell's district it was closer to 90%. In New Hampshire, Maine and one of those other ones turnout was close enough to 100% to count. In VA it was somewhere between 75 and 80, more in some districts.
I'm not surprised turnout in Republican strongholds was low, and Oklahoma was the only state that didn't have a single blue county, out of the whole country. Looks to me like it was the Dems there that didn't turn out, that state (when I was growing up) was solid, yellow-dog 'machine' blue. They really never did come out of the Reagan depression, it was Penn Square bank that was the first domino to fall in the Savings & Loan collapse.
Bradford:
Since the supply-siders decided to cash out and whined that some concerns are "too big to fail." Some free market you've got going there, guys. That's just the back end of the union-busting they've been laboring over for a decade. The fact that they wouldn't tool up and deploy the cars and trucks America needed (nobody ever 'needed' a Hummer) simply sent us across the street to the Honda or Toyota dealer instead. All the dealerships in my county have closed down in the last couple of months (Ike was a big hit, they couldn't hold on, couldn't pay GM for any of the new lines).
I worked for awhile for Consumer Guide as an auto advisor for people looking for the best deal and vehicle. Got to know the markets (new and used), the dealers, the manufacturers and the union members pretty well. This was after I spent a year being roadside assistance emergency operator for Allstate's motor club (and getting to know the towing and repair folks pretty well, all over the country). It might surprise you to realize just how much of our economic system is bound up in the automobile and general transportation industries one way or another. The general meltdown and price of fuel are seriously hurting all the players, if they go under we're in for a long ride through hell. My CG auto advisor advice? …tune up that bike and consider a horse.
There should be brisk trade in Amish country soon for new and used buggies.
Comment by Joy — November 9, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Add to that economic impact of the transportation sector, those same filthy rich "We Are The Arabs" oil companies. If the Big 3 fall (taking out much of the economy all the way down to small town dealerships/gas stations/repair shops), the oil companies will lose a huge chunk of their market and influence. Which, after all is said and done, might not be that bad a thing.
Comment by Joy — November 9, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Wrong answer. Free markets allow businesses to fail. The question is why are Pelosi, Reid Inc. in alliance with George Bush contemplating another huge bailout a short time after the most recent corporate dole out?
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Hi Bradford,
Here is the letter from Pelosi and Reid to Paulson…
"We are writing to request that you review the feasibility of invoking the authority Congress provided you under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) for the purpose of providing temporary assistance to the automobile industry during the current financial crisis. Under EESA, Congress granted you broad discretion to purchase, or make commitments to purchase, financial instruments you determine necessary to restore financial market stability. A healthy automobile manufacturing sector is essential to the restoration of financial market stability, the overall health of our economy, and the livelihood of the automobile sector’s workforce."
I suggest we (Joy, you, I and others) strongly question the wisdom of the $700 Billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act". However, the last time I looked, Paulson, Bush and the minority house and senate leaders who requested and supported it are all Republicans.
This call is ultimately in the hands of a Republican administration. You seem all too eager to blame a Democratic administation who isn't even in power yet.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 9, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Paulson is a Democrat appointed by Bush. It was primarily Democratics who, together with the Bush administration, pushed for the 700 billion bailout which took two attempts to pass. The second vote was sweetened with pork to induce fence sitters. This is an opportunity to be non-partisan.
I never mentioned Obama. I mentioned the Democratic leadership in Congress. Why are they now pushing to bail out US car manufacturers TP? Take a stab at this.
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Hi Bradford,
You stated…
Are you letting the Freepers and O'Reilly do your thinking again?
From Paulson's bio…
"Prior to joining Goldman Sachs, Paulson was a member of the White House Domestic Council, serving as Staff Assistant to the President from 1972 to 1973, and as Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon from 1970 to 1972."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/paulson-bio.html
Any guesses who was president from 1970 to 1974?
It's bad enough that you are trying to tell us that an ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs is a liberal, but to suggest Nixon was inclined to accommodate liberal Democrats in his administration is all but comical.
You asked…
Sure, right after you take a stab at finding Boehner's and McConnell's republican leadership position on this and explain why the Republican administration is considering it.
Leadership means making tough choices. Sometimes these choices are unpopular.
I think the Democratic leadership is doing what they think is best for the country. I think the Republican leadership is hiding and trying to get people to blame Democrats (while quickly disowning their own administration).
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 9, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Henry Paulson is a Republican.
Comment by Zachriel — November 9, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Looks like you're right Zach. I had been verbally informed otherwise but I should have double checked. Now for the more important issue. Why is the federal government sponsoring corporate welfare? Anyone want to venture a guess on this? (Don't worry about ideological implications.)
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Why can't you answer a simple question? Are you such an ideologue that you must weigh the fallout before venturing a response?
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
If it is so simple and non-partisan then why can't you answer it?
As I indicated, I believe those supporting the measures (both Democrats and Republicans) are motivated by trying to do the best for the country.
We (Joy, you, I and others) strongly question the wisdom of their actions.
I, personally, think our generation should suffer the consequences of our own actions and inactions over the last 8 years instead of borrowing from the future.
So, try answering your own "simple" question, why do you think they (Republicans and Democrats) are doing what they are doing?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 9, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
You're frightfully naive. The primary motivation is to ensure their continuance in office. Congressmen and women are deeply indebted to lobbyists who finance them. The situation has worsened in recent years with the practice of farming out your own adult children to become lobbyists themselves. It's about money and power and encouraging voters like you to persist in your good guy/bad guy perceptions of the world.
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Hi Bradford,
I suggest it is you who is trapped into false black and white thinking. People can be wrongheaded but still be motivated for the right reasons.
I disagree with what a lot of people do but that doesn't mean their motivations are evil or, even, selfish.
Most of the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay were doing what they thought was right and just. The National Guardsmen who shot and killed KSU students in 1970 were doing what they thought was right and just.
The economic mess is easy by comparison. Sure there is politics but, for the most part, the leaders are scared of doing nothing. Doing nothing would cause a lot of pain for the country. As much as I distrust President Bush, I think he is doing what he thinks is best for the country. I disagree with him and think he is fooling himself, but I find it difficult to believe he is intentionally and knowingly doing harm.
Do you think Bush and Paulson are knowingly trying to harm the country?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 9, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Bradford:
I know that's how a free market is supposed to work, that's why there was serious snark in my statement. The problem with our erstwhile "leadership" being in Bush-Cheney's back pocket is the same problem we had in '06 when we elected working majorities in both houses for the specific purpose of pushing an end to the Iraq war. They're as corrupt as Stevens and DeLay and the rest of 'em. They now have to go, plans are in the works.
Um… because the "socialism" rearing its ugly head in our nation right now is government-by-corporation, a.k.a. "National Socialism." Up to just this recent election season, corporations have been buying politicians at wholesale prices, and on this the Clinton administration was among the worst. But not THE worst. That honor will go (historically speaking) to Bush-Cheney.
Comment by Joy — November 9, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I'll tell you what TP. If motivation is so pure why would a leading Senator have three of his own children employed as lobbyists? You think they got those jobs based on their qualifications or on dad's connections? If an average American took money like that and arranged for obvious conflicts of interest people would not be so tolerant. Might even land the poor sucker in jail. The rich and powerful who govern us live by a different and more indulgent standard.
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Stevens is corrupt indeed. So is this guy Harry Reid is a disgrace.
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Why a sudden change in the subject back to Democrat bashing?
I thought you were all fired up and focused on the $700 Billion bailout.
Do you think Bush and Paulson (along with other supporters) are "simply" corrupt or is it possible that they might think that doing something for the nation's economy is a good thing?
We (You, Joy, I and others) disagree with the package but are you prepared to repudiate Bush, Paulson and other Republicans in your sweeping determination to throw-the-bums-out?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 9, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Hi Bradford,
As it happens, I think Senator Stevens was at least partially set up. While he was technically guilty, I am unimpressed with the usual Republican tactic of trying to discard liabilities with faux outrage.
If you want to change the subject to the practice of lobbyists who are relatives of congressmen and congresswomen, here is a 2006 USA Today article on it.
This is not a new problem. I understand that it isn't even technically a violation of any ethic rules because there are no rules on it.
It is premature to start convicting individuals. If this is REALLY a concern of yours than you should be pushing for broad changes in the rules.
Does this mean you aren't going to answer the "simple" question of what is motivating Bush and Paulson. I already know what you think is motivating Reid and Pelosi.
BTW, have you been able to discern Boehner's and McConnell's position on this yet, or do they get a pass by hiding from responsibility?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 9, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
TP, my outrage is real. I don't take cues. Doesn't matter what others do. You wrote:
This only shows how serious the problem is. The fact that family members can lobby Congress without incurring ethical violations speaks loudly of the lack of morality connected with ethical standards.
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Well this thread has grown too long for me to follow, but I'd like to add a note to Bradford's last post -
We're sadly accustomed to "Crooked Politicians" in this country, as most other countries are accustomed to their own "Crooked Politicians." The brilliance of our system is that it doesn't allow the whole "Dictator for Life" thing that our neighbors to the south are so fond of. We all know the adage about power – it corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What strikes me most odd about the most recent regime change (not even a done deal until January 20) is that the Republican base of self-professed holier than you or me religios had nobody more honest than Sarah Palin to field in the end game. It strongly appears that the so-called "religious right" is no more moral, no less corruptible, and no better as leadership than the commie pinko hippies out here on the fringe. Heck, us commie pinko hippies might have more going morally than any of 'em, but nobody would ever know that because we're mostly too busy growing dreads, smoking pot and playing bongos to bother to even bathe our kids. Go figure.
Most average citizens are a lot more honest in their day-to-day dealings than any lawyer, and certainly any politician. Either party or any outlier, none are excepted. But most average citizens don't wield a whole lot of power. This is why we hear a lot of lip-flapping about "praying for our President" and/or leadership in times of woe, despite the fact that half or more of the people whose lives are controlled by their decisions couldn't care less about them or even what god they believe in.
I haven't seen a single IDer here besides me mention even once in all this week's grand political drama that Obama is now President for all of us, and that we should pray for him, his team, his family and our nation that everything works out fine. If John McCain and Sarah Palin had won, would you be asking for our prayers? Or is praying for our leaders now passe if they're not Pentacostals or A0Gs?
You've expressed not one single dollop of hope in this thread, Bradford. We all know that politics is a dirty game full of dirty players. Been that way for millennia. But the simple fact is that our lives are largely controlled by politicians, and I for one am not joining the militia or emigrating to Canada just because my favorites didn't win. So I am hoping things will work out fine, and I am praying for our leaders – both the ones who got us into this unholy Capitalistic greed-fest and subsequent heist, and those I'm hoping can bail us out without crippling my great-grandchildren's future.
Comment by Joy — November 9, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Hi Bradford,
You proclaimed…
I would be curious as to your primary source of information since you don't provide many links (other than to faux web sites). Here are things you said in this thread alone…
I would encourage you to attempt the same with what I wrote. Please note I was careful to try to include full sentences and not take things out of context.
Responses…
1. Here is a link to the very leftist group called "Human Rights Watch".
As you can see, they are very much concerned about human rights around the world. Here is a link to their recomendations to the US. The first bullet is "Close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility".
2. The "Bridge to Nowhere" was fought by Palin's own party. Senator Coburn, a REPUBLICAN, made it a big deal by introducing an amendment to kill the bridge (link). What got Palin in trouble was her attempt of claiming fiscal responsibility by being someone who had always opposed wasting money on the bridge when it is clear she had not (link).
3. As noted before, here is the link to Paulson's bio showing that he is a Republican. Did you actually "hear" he was a Democrat in verbal conversion or did you read it? I would be curious as to the actual source. Since Paulson, a Republican, was the one pushing the plan and is the one administrating the plan it is hardly realistic to call it "primarily Democratics" who is doing this.
4. This one has the problem of the vague and dangerous sounding reference to a THEY. Obviously, Bush isn't motivated by a "continuance in office" and I doubt Paulson is motivated by that either. Hopefully, I don't need to provide links to explain that. So, are you going to continue to duck answering your own "simple" question as to why Bush and Paulson are doing what they are doing?
I have given you my "frightfully naive" answer that they think they are trying to do what is right for the county (even though I disagree with them). It's your turn to "take a shot".
5. Here is a link to the Stevens' trial. It was a close one. Had a more friendly jury found "Not Guilty" would that mean Stevens wasn't "indeed" corrupt? There were a lot of errors made at the trial and Stevens may get a new trial. What are you going to do if he is cleared after the fact?
6. We have already talked about this but, again, I am interested in hearing where you got your information about Harry Reid. Could you provide a link?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 9, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
As long as this nation retains the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment and its people recognize that their self-interests are subordinate to overriding moral values I have hope. The very fact that we are able to express our own differing viewpoints at Telic Thoughts and thousands of other public forums throughout this nation is a sign of hope. Obama starts his term with a clean slate and my hope is that he governs wisely and effectively. Among the entire human population on earth less than half of us live in nations where we can vote for those holding public office. The continuance of that tradition is another reason for hope. The USA faces severe problems in the near future. It has been in that position before and come through well. That's what I'm hoping will occur again. Those of us who take Biblical values seriously know that being good citizens and respecting the law are requirements, not options. So too is prayer for those in positions of authority.
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 12:01 am
TP, there is a link to a blog comment about Reid in this thread. I believe I first heard about Reid from Dick Morris although that is just my memory. Pelosi also has a son who is a lobbyist. The point of raising these issues is to take corrective action. Ethical reforms are badly needed. Even more important is the need to attract people of good character to serve in our government. That should not be a partisan issue. If you are really concerned about pork barrel spending then go after it big time. It is billions of dollars more expensive than a bridge in Alaska.
Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2008 @ 12:01 am
November 10th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Hi Bradford,
"good character" = "ethical" or "moral"?
I think Clinton was an ethical president who was respected around the world.
I think Bush thought himself to be a moral president who wasn't very ethical and, therefore, wasn't as respected.
I suggest the biggest reform needed is to get the American public to start thinking for themselves. They have little excuse since the information is too readily available on the internet. It shouldn't matter which way the media is slanted. People should be able to form their own opinions.
I suggest, it is a copout to simply pick a "character" to feel comfortable with. Joe the Plumber may have a good heart and appeals to a large segment of society, but do you really think it wise to elect him president?
Hopefully, I have managed to get you to rethink your sources of information and presumptions. I will drop all but one of my requests…
You directly asked me (multiple times) to "take a shot" at explaining why people were supporting the $700 Billion bailout plan. I did and you belittled my explaination. I would think it would be more than reasonable for you to "take a shot" at explaining Bush's and Paulson's motivations.
I suggest Bush and Paulson are trying to be moral and of "good character".
Is it that hard for you to admit that they may honestly think they are doing the right thing even if you, Joy, I and others think they are not?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 10, 2008 @ 12:30 am
November 10th, 2008 at 1:08 am
There is nothing to rethink. Lobbyists have legal requirements regarding registration and more. There are a number of Congressmen and women with immediate family members employed as lobbyists. The interest groups that pay them attempt to sway votes of their parents and others.
Some genuinely believe what they say. Others believe but hide the role they played in bringing about the mess in the first place. Others had their votes influenced by lobbyists and others by pork authorized in the same bill.
Their own perceptions of what they did are irrelevant. Even Nazis from the Third Reich argued for the rightousness of their cause. It's more important that voters recognize that those representing them need to be held accountable when they violate the public trust.
Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2008 @ 1:08 am
November 10th, 2008 at 11:27 am
TP:
Well, this page managed to load this morning, so I'll just mention that I don't think Bush, Paulson or anybody else involved in this massive heist either in government or Wall Street (or the Fed, which is blatantly violating the terms of the recently-passed law as we speak) are trying to be moral and of "good character." They're trying to loot as much of the nation's wealth as they possibly can before the jet off to Paraguay (or some other ex-pat mecca), leaving us destitute and incapacitated.
IOW, I believe they're criminals. These Neocons follow a criminal philosophy, engage in criminal acts, and laugh at silly notions of "ethics" or "morality" just like they laugh at the stupid religion of the 'base' that brought them to power and looked away as the crime syndicate went to work dismantling the Constitution and our entire system of checks and balances.
By the way, they've still got a bit over 2 months left to finish looting, and the Fed is helping them as best it can…
Fed Refuses Transparency, Lending Surpasses 2 Trillion
It's nothing less than the Greatest Heist of All Time, and there's not much we (or Obama) can do about it. Obama does have a division of his transition team right now reviewing every last "Executive Order" and "Signing Statement" Bush-Cheney used to subvert the law over the past 8 years, though it won't stop Bush from issuing himself and all his buddies blanket amnesty for this bank job before January 20.
This is what comes of mass propagandizing religious nutters to enable your syndicate's absolute power, distracting them with "God, Guns and Gays" plus the right of abortion. 6 years' worth of absolute, single-party power in all three branches of government plus not one but two SCOTUS appointments. Is abortion still legal? Did 'abstinence only' help Sarah Palin's teenage daughter? Ah, well. At least the Mormons managed to prevent California gays from keeping the judicially established right to marry, probably the single most bizarre outcome of last week's elections considering it was not that long ago the Mormons' marriage rights that drove them west.
And the looting continues, the pace ever faster as the end approaches. This isn't a situation where "ethics" or "morality" determine the outcome – these people display neither. Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. They're evil, they intend to destroy the United States of America before they leave. They are entirely likely to succeed.
Comment by Joy — November 10, 2008 @ 11:27 am
November 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Yet you asked, not just once, but multiple times…
"Why has the government gone into the business of bailing out corporations?"
"The question is why are Pelosi, Reid Inc. in alliance with George Bush contemplating another huge bailout a short time after the most recent corporate dole out?"
"Why are they now pushing to bail out US car manufacturers TP? Take a stab at this."
"Why can't you answer a simple question?"
The answer to why people do what they do is inherently tied to their own perceptions. Why did you push this question so hard? I suggest it was because it was your perception that you could make a political point with it.
Joy is having no problems with saying everyone (Republicans and Democrats) involved are crooked. That may be, but I still think they have convinced themselves that they are doing what is best for the country.
You seem to be having problems repudiating the Bush/Republican policy. First you were ready to believe an ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs was a Democrat to the point that you actually used it as an argument. Why? I suggest this wasn't a casual slip and you let Group Think change your perception of reality.
Bush's outlook and methodology hasn't changed since 2000. He has consistently shown a willingness to bend and break rules to achieve his moral agenda. He has been more than willing to believe that strong corporations equate to a strong America.
There is no mystery as to why Bush's administration pushed for a corporate bailout. He has been changing rules to help corporations since day one.
Are you having difficulty facing this reality?
For what it is worth, I agree with you that Reid and Pelosi are probably motivated by political expediency. It would be political suicide to do nothing or, worse, be an obstructionist while the nation is suffering. Boehner and McConnell have the luxury of being in the minority position so they can try to keep their heads down on this (which it appears they are doing).
I disagree with what Reid, Pelosi, Paulson and Bush are doing. I hope that Obama will be less inclined to engage in the corporations-first policy that has been in place for the last 8 years.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 10, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
You seem to have reading comprehension problems. I have criticized Bush many times but no matter how many times I do it you ignore it and go into auto-mode alleging that I have problems with repudiation. I am able to critique both sides precisely because I don't engage in group think. Your knee jerk charges in this regard may be projecting on your part.
He has been the one? You mean as opposed to congressional acts inspired by lobbyists?
You're the one having dificulty with reality. When I point out a grotesque legislative practice which compromises our system in favor of corporations supported by their lobbyists and congressional friends you get defensive and accuse me of criticizing Obama who is not even on the radar. Based on your corporation comments I take it you are opposed to the bailout of GM. We do have common ground here do we not?
Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
It is ironic that we do have some common ground.
However, this has gone past politics. In this thread you have pushed and pushed and then belittled my "frightfully naive" positions.
It truly amazes me that you can't see the bias detacted from reality in someone who can and did say…
But as I indicated, I would boil it down to having you answer your own "simple" question.
Why did the Bush Administration (a REPUBLICAN Administration) propose and push for a corporate bailout?
So far your answers are a hodge-podge of…
"The primary motivation is to ensure their continuance in office.”
"Their own perceptions of what they did are irrelevant."
and now….
"…congressional acts inspired by lobbyists"
I don't care how many times you criticize Bush, Stevens or a host of other individuals. It is way too easy to criticize. The "simple" question you asked is "why?".
Can you answer your own question?
Why did the current administration (not the congress) propose and push for the $700 Billion corporate bailout?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 10, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Your question has a false premise. Congressinonal leadership pushed very hard to get the bailout bill passed. Responsibility for the bailout belongs to all who voted for it as well as Bush. I've already addressed this in a previous comment but to repeat, there were some who actually believe corporate bailouts are a good idea. It's part of the government plays Santa Claus syndrome. There were others who responded to corporate goading- a payback for campaign contributions and lobbying. Others were motivated by the considerable pork provided for them to get their votes. And some (McCain, Obama and Biden) probably had campaign objectives in mind.
Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Hi Bradford,
"Hank Paulson, the US treasury secretary and a man with a personal fortune estimated at $700m (£380m), had got down on one knee before the most powerful woman in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, and begged her to save his plan to rescue Wall Street."(link)
Why are you having so much trouble forming a simple answer to your "simple" question?
Even though we disagree with it, the Bush Administration (with the cooperation of the Democratic and Republican leadership) pushed the $700 Billion corporate bailout through because they thought it was the right thing to do.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 10, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I'm glad your science explanations are not this simplistic. Jails are full of people who contend they thought they were doing the right thing. Very few convicts admit to their crimes. If they do they add rationalizations. In the end it's about whether or not buying votes is appropriate and whether or not the government should be the refuge of last resort for corporations.
Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Hi Bradford,
If you don't like my answer to your "simple" question then by all means enlighten us. Why did the Bush Administration (not the congress, not the lobbyists) push for the $700 Billion corporate bailout package?
Remember, you were the one suggesting this was a "SIMPLE" question.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 10, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
You're not going to like this TP, but Bush is not a fiscal conservative or one who implements policies based on a conservative distrust of government. In short his conservative credentials are weak. Corporate bailouts are antithetical to free markets and I'm an advocate of keeping markets as free as possible. Bush is not. In that respect he has more in common with Bill Clinton than with Ronald Reagan or Maggie Thatcher. IOW, the perspective he brings to this is fundamentally flawed.
Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Hi Bradford,
My conservative friends have been complaining about Bush for eight years. That didn't stop them from electing him, twice.
You still didn't answer your own "simple" question.
The answer shouldn't be affected by whether or not Bush appropriately applied Reagan's trickle-down economics, or what the congress or lobbyists did.
Why did the Bush Administration push for the $700 Billion corporate bailout package?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 10, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
It's the Santa Claus approach to government that is inevitable whenever one puts his faith in government. You look to Uncle Sam to solve problems. It's natural this would inevitably lead liberals and apostate conservatives to support corporate welfare.
Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Hi Bradford,
Thank you for your response.
A*pos"tate, n. [L. apostata, Gr. ?, fr. ?. See Apostasy.]
1. One who has forsaken the faith, principles, or party, to which he before adhered; esp., one who has forsaken his religion for another; a pervert; a renegade.
2. (R. C. Ch.) One who, after having received sacred orders, renounces his clerical profession.
So did Bush Administration become apostate right away in 2001 when they reneged on Bush's Social Security Lock Box pledge and added $1.5 Trillion dollars to the national debt, or did it come later as the Bush Administration pushed for even more special Corporate Tax breaks while engaging in two expensive wars (pushing us deeper into debt) and making changes to bankruptcy laws that encouraged sub-prime lending?
The Bush Administration's actions have been plain to see and predict for a very long time. They feel that strong corporations make for a strong America and keeping America strong is a moral imperative.
Besides, Bush is a devote Christian with good character and that is what is important, right?
The Bush Administration focused on doing what they thought was moral as opposed to ethical, and that is the major reason for why we are in the situation we are today.
It is “why” in both the sense of motivation and causation.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 10, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
TP, no morals or ethics involved in this Bush/Paulson/Bernanke heist. They'd run the entire economy into hell (well below ground), the $700 billion was to prevent catastrophic, overnight collapse. Now it's up to $2 Trillion, the Fed's printing like crazy, the AIG guys are back on vacation, and the automakers now want their share of the loot too.
There may be some sort of weird "honor among thieves," but it's no kind of honor we'd recognize. Paraguay has no extradition treaty, you know.
Comment by Joy — November 10, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Human language tends to be very imprecise in the political realm. For example, I could believe that strong corporations make for a strong America and still be in total opposition to corporate bailouts. Bailouts can be viewed as subsidies for corporations that underperform. Forced subsidies at that. The money comes from taxpaying individuals and businesses. Businesses that are forced to subsidize their competition. How's that for an ethical system. I could believe that strong healthy businesses lead to prosperity and find someone else who believes that too but differs with me about what constitutes appropriate government policies.
I'm not aware of universal ethical standards that could be used to distinguish one office holder from another.
Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
And the Congress? They were called in and scared to death, promised Paulson's oversight-free $700 billion would fix the problem or the whole thing would crash by tomorrow.
Now that it's clear it was just a heist, put the blame where it belongs. 8 too-long years of the "Unitary Executive" …that would be George W. Bush. Best we can hope for now is that come January the Congress will act to cauterize the wound, call in the chips we've been buying for what they did authorize – with interest. What was not authorized is called right now.
Comment by Joy — November 10, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Joy,
That's the spin. Here's the facts:
Oops.
Comment by chunkdz — November 10, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 12:24 am
T.P.
That's the spin. Here's the facts.
Comment by chunkdz — November 11, 2008 @ 12:24 am
November 11th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
How about defending instead of circumventing the U.S. Constitution and respecting international agreements like the Geneva Convention?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 11, 2008 @ 12:39 am
November 11th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Hi Chunkdz,
Maybe the Shelby/Oxley efforts of 2003 and 2005 would have gone better if the Republicans controlled congress at the time….
…but wait…
…the Republicans WERE in control at the time.
Could you find a link where the measure(s) came up for a vote?
Bradford and I were discussing motivations. Do you question that Barney Frank was actually concerned about what he said he was concerned about?
Freedom and democracy is about having differing opinions and points of view. For example, I think one of the root causes of the sub-prime loan problem was the bankruptcy reform act. It all but encouraged commercial lenders to lend money to those who couldn't afford it. I doubt you would agree with me, but that is ok, I won't question your motives if you do.
Quoting Barney Frank is usually good for political theater, but this issue is much bigger than Barney Frank wanting government subsidized housing for the poor and minorities. Simply having the government cover Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac loans would be a whole lot cheaper than what we are doing.
P.S. As far as you second comment concerning the international respect Clinton had because of his ethical policies… I'm comfortable with your response since it didn't counterdict what I had stated.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 11, 2008 @ 12:59 am
November 11th, 2008 at 1:13 am
TP, I can honestly say I want housing for everyone. But invoking government involvement in that effort is counterproductive and in the end put the very people who were targeted for help in even greater jeopordy. For Barney Frank and others to hide their failed policies behind a huge taxpayer bailout reveals the man's lack of integrity. He cannot plead ignorance. He should follow George Bush into retirement.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2008 @ 1:13 am
November 11th, 2008 at 10:54 am
chunkdz:
??? Who the heck cares about Barney Frank outside Massachusetts-04? His constituents elected him, and he must be doing a fair job of representing their interests or they'd elect someone else.
Fannie and Freddy are NOT the heist – they're "cleanup on aisle 3." Only 1% of mortgages were/are in default, it's the ARMs that threw it up to nearly 5%. FHA and its subs don't do ARMs (that I am aware of, if they do then THAT is a significant deregulatory change that should never have happened).
Investment banks and Big Insurance with serious gambling problems are who got the $2 Trillion. Wall Street – stock market speculators who inflated every possible bubble they could blow. The 'money' they supposedly 'lost' to collapse the world economy never existed. It was all in the margin – the difference between real value and the wall of the inflated bubble. Imaginary, until the Fed and Treasury magically made it real via this Great Robbery that our great-grandchildren will still be paying for if it's ever over.
Comment by Joy — November 11, 2008 @ 10:54 am
November 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Ah, I think I see your problem. America is not the world. About 95½% of people are not, in fact, Americans. It's a common misunderstanding among the other 4½%.
Comment by Zachriel — November 11, 2008 @ 11:44 am
November 11th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Valid point about the percentages Zach but our officeholders are elected by US citizens for obvious reasons. Does this line of reasoning flow in both directions? If most Americans have a poor opinion about the leader of Russia, does that have any real significance if the Russian people like him?
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2008 @ 11:53 am
November 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Sure it does. Especially if the nation has international relationships or exerts international power. In particular, world leaders considered Clinton an honest broker, an important asset for any country in negotiations, or when marshalling international force.
At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the United States needed France's help, Kennedy sent evidence to DeGaulle of the Russian installations on Cuba. DeGaulle said it wasn't necessary to see the evidence because Kennedy's word was good enough.
Comment by Zachriel — November 11, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Zach, your example is of a leader while the previous exchange hints at a significance to public opinion. During the Falklands War Maggie Thatcher was villified in Argentina. In the end it was the effectiveness of British power that had to be respected.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Joy,
What do you think they were gambling with, Joy? They were gambling with risky mortgage based securities that never could have been bundled and sold were it not for the complicity of Fannie and Fred.
Well, I just thought that a political watchdog like yourself would be more outraged about a corporate scandal like Fannie and Freddie that is nearly 20 times as large as Enron. Franklin Raines was cooking the books to trigger his own massive executive bonuses, then handing out chunks of it to guys like Chris Dobbs and Barack Obama (#1 and #2 on the kickback list, respectively. Frank was #4), the very guys who were on the Finance and Urban Development committees that should have been overseeing them in the first place. Obama was so grateful he hired Raines to advise his campaign. Barney Frank was so grateful he dated one of the Board members. It was fun while it lasted, I guess.
Fannie and Freddie were at the root of this whole mortagage mess, and we know exactly who the players were and how much they were getting. Rebublicans and Democrats alike were on the take, and it really does nobody any good to slap a "Blame Bush" sticker over the whole mess.
Were you outraged over Enron? Where's the outrage over Enron X 20?
Comment by chunkdz — November 11, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
You asked a question, "If most Americans have a poor opinion about the leader of Russia, does that have any real significance if the Russian people like him?" The answer is yes. It does matter. It matters to other nations because what Russia does affects other nations. And it matters to Russians, because their interactions with the world depend in part on how their leader is viewed by other world leaders and other peoples.
Comment by Zachriel — November 11, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
And you proceed to support that claim with a historic example involving Kennedy and de Gaulle- men not the public.
It depends on much more than that as the Falklands example illustrates. Reality is not so one dimensional as what do foreigners think of your leader?
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
America and France are democratic republics. It does matter that the French people and their elected leaders respect and trust the American government. It matters to the French. And it should matter to the Americans.
Who said there weren't other factors? You're arguing that if it doesn't matter in every case then it has no "real significance". That is incorrect. (By the way, it did matter to the U.K. what other nations thought of the Falklands War, which was fought under the auspices of U.N. resolution 502.)
Comment by Zachriel — November 11, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Not at all. I'm arguing that the popularity factor, often cited by the "Reality based crowd," is overplayed and often assumes a childishly petulant attitude. Pursuing the right policies is more important and productive than pursuing popular ones. Popular need not be confused with correct. Bailing out GM may be popular with GM stockholders and it will go over in Michigan too. The courage to take a contrary position is what is needed.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
TP,
Ahh, so the goalpost has shifted from "Clinton was an ethical president", to the idea that Clinton was respected "because of his ethical policies".
Very good, because the idea of Clinton being "ethical" is demonstrably false.
Sorry, I couldn't care less.
Comment by chunkdz — November 11, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Zach,
Even if 95% of the world thought Clinton was "ethical", they would be demonstrably wrong. The poll I cited shows that those who knew him best got it right. He was a popular scoundrel.
I've never actually met someone who thought that Bill Clinton actually WAS ethical. But I suppose there must be a small percentage of folks out there who think you can be impeached, perjure yourself before a grand jury, cheat on your wife, have your law license suspended for lying, stare boldfaced into the eyes of 300 million Americans and lie to them, and use your secretary as a humidor – and still be called "ethical".
I've just never met any.
Comment by chunkdz — November 11, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
You are focusing on the fuse and not on the bomb. Bad mortgages at least have an underlying value (the property that the mortgage lien applies to). The credit default swaps that the financial institutions wrote to one another to cover their bets are backed by nothing more than a kiss and a promise. If the MBS/CDO market is Enron x20, then the CDS market is Enron x200 (and the larger derivatives market is more like Enron x1000).
Comment by Tom MH — November 11, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
My hyperlink didn't work – rats! Try:
credit defautt swaps
Comment by Tom MH — November 11, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Tom MH
I said Fannie and Freddie were the root, not that they were the whole tree.
But while it is possible to have a bomb without a fuse, one cannot have a tree without a root. And you cannot have a CDS crisis without massive credit default brought to you by your friends at Fannie and Freddie who underwrote it under pressure from Washington fat cats.
Comment by chunkdz — November 11, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Hi Chunkdz,
You wrote…
You used the words "never could have" as opposed to "never would have".
Could you please explain to our eagerly listening audience how a private bank (sans Fannie and Fred) was inherently incapable of selling an ARM to a customer with a low credit score and then bundling and selling those mortgages to other institutions and used as collateral to leverage other loans thus building the giant house of cards which is still in the process of collapsing?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 11, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Santa Claus is coming early this year. Gotta corporation you know of that does not compete well in the free market? No problem. Just line up at the public trough. There are still taxpayers that can be coerced into supporting you.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Bradford:
You still don't get it. Neither does chunk. We could refinance every in-arrears mortgage in the country for less than $30 billion. At the deflated price. We could cover the difference between current mortgage and current value for another $20 billion. Absorb the liquidation. By simply refinancing the mortgages – all of 'em that need it.
We could have covered losses in the banking system to depositors at the extended $250K level for about $10 billion. These are all ACTUAL losses of ACTUAL money or value in this grand confidence game. All – plus $40 billion in emergency surplus to help ACTUALLY important industries here and there get through the slump. $100 billion dollars, not $2+ trillion. Heck, a simple switch to single payer health care would SAVE us $300 billion a year!
But instead, what we have done is purchase all the NONEXISTENT, unreal, beyond reasonable extrapolation overvaluation of everything, based on crooked insurers and fake securities and… a decade's worth of setting us up for a gigantic fall. We're bailing out the players, not the victims. That's obscene.
I'm all for letting Bear-Stearns, AIG, every bank that played along, Henry Paulson, Carlyle, Blackwater, China and the Federal Reserve go bankrupt on this scheme. But there are things – going concerns – we're going to need in order to rebuild, even at local/regional levels. I explained what this has to do with the transportation industry overall (including OPEC). If you don't want your family to literally starve to death, you should be paying more attention.
We've been had. Obama and the Congress can undo a lot of it next year if they choose to, but we'll never see that few trillion dollars again. We've been robbed, it's going to be a hard climb out of the abyss. The very same situation would prevail if John McCain were the president-elect right now. It's a done deal.
I'd love to see a lot of rich white guys go to prison over the next 4 years, but they won't. Heck, most of 'em will be living (well) in Switzerland or South America by then. Coercion is already done. Was done a couple of months ago. All the candidates who could vote voted FOR what was sold to everyone as our "Last Best Hope" in a situation of absolute desperation. Only now are we finding out the situation is not and never actually was desperate. It's becoming more desperate as we speak. Every day.
We really don't have anything to say about it. Or, we can say a lot, we just can't DO anything about it. What will be will be. I thought you fundamentalists were all about God's will. Do you think Bush/Paulson/Bernanke & Co. are powerful enough to thwart it?
Comment by Joy — November 11, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
What does this have to do with bailing out GM and other troubled car makers? We get it. Corporate welfare is in vogue and those assuming power in January are into this expaned role for government.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Bradford:
Bradford, do you think it would be different if John McCain were President-elect right now? If so, how so?
If not, then there you have it. Events move us, we don't move them. I am not Wall Street, I am not either the Republican or Democratic party, I am not a Senator or Representative, I am not a President, I am not a lawyer, and I am not even School Board Representative in my county.
Looks to me like what will be will be. If you see it differently, please explain. As if "for dummies."
Comment by Joy — November 11, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
TP,
Inherently incapable? There's little stopping a bank from making a risky loan, but if they can't sell that loan to Freddie, Fannie, or Ginnie so that they can bundle it as a Mortgage Backed Security, then they'll be less likely to do so. Unfortunately, Fred, Fannie and Ginnie were eating up risky loans and begging for more under the assumption that the Fed would bail them out if they went bust. That was about the only thing they were right about.
Comment by chunkdz — November 11, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
The circumstances would be the same. What to do about them is the question before us.
The old guard U.S. car manufacturers are not competitive. They are being outdone by Japanese and Korean manufacturers, not only in Japan and Korea but in subsidiary plants here in North America. Japanese subsidiaries do beter than their GM counterparts. So do we reward GM for their failures? No. Let economic forces take their course. If that means GM files for bankruptcy so be it. Trying to salvage economic failures through the federal treasury is a non-starter. It is wrong on many levels. Democrats don't need to go there. If they do they are making a huge mistake. We have industrial sectors that are healthy. Don't drain them (and us) to support business failures. Our resources are finite.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Joy,
If this were all there was to it, then the Fed would not have had to bailout Freddie and Fannie to the tune of up to 100 Billion each. Yeah I know – we got stock shares in return. I don't plan on ever seeing any of that.
Look, I understand that guys like Lehman Bros. were leveraging a lot more than just the value of the mortgages. A LOT more. The MBS's that they got from Freddie and Fannie were just markers from the pit boss while they played the credit default swap and derivitive game.
I also understand your anger about the folks who got away with it.
What I'm having trouble getting my mind around is why you are downplaying the role of Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie were the primary impetus behind mortgage backed securities. The failure of these securities is what generally is accepted to have triggered the economic collapse of 2008.
The scandal has all the elements of the Enron debacle – fake bookkeeping, greedy executive bonuses, kickbacks to government officials and regulators, conflicts of interest, risky investments, coverups, etc. And now we are into our own pockets for up to 200 Billion to bail out the both of them.
Forgive me, but I just disagree with your characterization of the Fannie Freddie scandal as just some spilled fabric softener on aisle 3. This is huge. This is scandalous. It makes Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling look like petty theives by it's sheer magnitude and open hubris. And it did a hell of a lot more damage.
It deserves more from you than a tepid dismissal. Where's that fire and outrage that you and every other reform minded citizen should be aiming at Fannies and Freddie's greedy executives, and the greedy congressmen, senators, and regulators who encouraged it and were compensated with kickbacks?
You seem ready to grill and eat the livers of George Bush and Henry Paulsen, yet you are remarkably generous and forgiving to Franklin Raines and Barney Frank. What gives?
Comment by chunkdz — November 11, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 12:34 am
You are so naive, Bradford. GM is sitting not only on biodiesel capability, it's sitting on considerable hydrogen battery tech. Patents and all, with various DoD and EPA subs.
There's no "real" panic here, no "real" sky to fall. They've cashed in your BELIEF, nothing more.
It is always at such clay-cruxes of history that "real" change takes place. Honest. It's all only worth what we agree that it's worth.
Comment by Joy — November 12, 2008 @ 12:34 am
November 12th, 2008 at 12:37 am
They have not cashed in on my belief. It is Obama and Pelosi calling for federal aid for GM. Why would they do that if GM is sitting on all these advantages?
Comment by Bradford — November 12, 2008 @ 12:37 am
November 12th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Hi chunkdz,
You wrote…
It looks like we are getting a more accurate picture. Bringing in Ginnie Mae (Government National Mortgage Association) was a subtle move. But Ginnie has always been Government backed. Are you going to start blaming the FDIC for the crisis next?
It is your "less likely to do so" that starts to tell the tail. If all residential mortgage-backed securities were from Ginnie Mae then there wouldn't be a crisis. These securities would be government-backed. Fanny and Freddy have always been seen as quasi government-backed.
This situation has been in place for decades (since 1970). So what recently changed to embolden the banks to take risks in people with sub-prime credit histories?
Well, it used to be that if a person declared bankrupcy the laws made it difficult for banks to foreclose on their homes. This made Sub-prime lending a big risk and made banks "…less likely to do so." Well, that got changed shortly after the Republicans took over the congress and the presidency in 2001.
I suggest we are experiencing the direct result of a misguided change in our country's bankruptcy laws coupled with stock and security valuations that had little or no correlation to actual worth.
Most of the stock market "crash" was a long overdue correction.
The sub-prime "crisis" is the overleveraging demons coming to roost.
One of the college professors I had a long time ago would explain to his classes that everyone loves UPSIDE volatility but leveraging amplifies the downside volatility just as much as the upside.
Future historians aren't going to have any problems explaining how we got into the mess we are in.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 12, 2008 @ 2:28 am
November 12th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Damn Republicans. They just don't care enough about big corporations.
Pelosi's Auto-Rescue Plan Sets Up Clash With Bush, Republicans
Comment by Bradford — November 12, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Bradford:
Gee whiz! Two people are calling for a GM bailout? I can get four people in my house to call for a bailout – pay off my mortgages, give me unlimited credit cards I never have to pay on, pay for my grandson to go to college, give my daughter ample disability checks, let me and my hubby retire in style… but somehow I doubt we'd get it.
Bush opened the doors to the US Treasury vaults, Paulson and Benanke are passing out the loot just as fast as they can, and now that what was covered in the law has already been covered, every business and their grandmothers are lining up for their share of the ill-gotten gain. Credit card companies magically turn themselves into banks, GM, Ford and Chrysler want to keep making SUVs nobody wants to buy, Circuit City is counting on YOU to bail them out by Christmas shopping, Walmart says it's all about Main Street's Mom-and-Pops they've been driving into bankruptcy for decades, and the crooks have announced they don't have to even tell us who's getting the money or how much they're giving away.
They should all go to prison, we should attached all their funds onshore and offshore immediately. I couldn't care less if GM goes down. It's just another few million union workers and overpaid execs out of work. Someone else will produce and market the engines and batteries of the future. And the cars, trucks, buses, trains, ships and planes too.
Oh… and because this long thread is hard to load, let me go ahead and say this one more time, because you haven't seen the worst of it yet…
The airlines – all of 'em – are the next domino, they'll fall before Christmas. We've been undone, no politician can bail US out. Not even the ones who truly wish there were still a nation to govern.
Comment by Joy — November 12, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
And while I know it's difficult to recall what's been said in this long thread, I have called for Pelosi to be sent into deserved retirement in 2010, since she is the primary roadblock to everything Democrats elected a majority in 2006 to do.
But I can imagine that she's hearing from the herds in the House representing those millions of union workers and overpaid execs who are soon to join the ranks of unemployed, so has crafted a plan to try and prevent that. I think we should take it all back, let them all fall down, and use the Treasury to rebuild when the smoke clears.
Comment by Joy — November 12, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
November 12th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Two signs that something is seriously wrong
International Trade Seizing Up Due to Banking Crisis
Baltic Dry Index Drops Below 1,000 for First Time in Six Years
Grain piles up in ports -
Comment by Joy — November 12, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
November 13th, 2008 at 12:02 am
I said in this post -
They should all go to prison, we should attached all their funds onshore and offshore immediately.
A series of preliminary steps are leading in just this direction, and with an incoming administration that promises to enforce the law (as opposed to subverting it with EOs and "signing statements"), just might prosecute the culprits. The bankers, speculators, bubble-inflaters and insurance frauds who have brought the entire world's economy down are turning on each other because they can no longer trust each other. We can reclaim the wealth they've looted, including the wealth they're currently wheeling out of the U.S. Treasury in wheelbarrows.
You do remember what finally undid notorious gangster Al Capone, don't you? To whit…
Swiss banker charged in huge U.S. tax evasion scheme
Comment by Joy — November 13, 2008 @ 12:02 am
November 14th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
There's news over at Uncommon Descent. William Dembski is following in Mike Gene's footsteps and abandoning his blog to a right-winger with no understanding of science.
Along with the abandonment of ISCID, PCID, Brainstorms, OverwhelmingEvidence, and the Discovery Institute's latest book not mentioning Intelligent Design even once, I'd say the writing is on the wall.
Comment by steve — November 14, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
November 14th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
steve:
Like most closet wedgies steve has no problem with left wingers who have no understanding of science. This from Dembski's blog:
I believe Barry is an attorney and would be qualified to make the necessary legal arrangements conferring non-profit status. In addition he'll have managerial responsibilities which do not require technical expertise. It is common to appoint CEOs not familiar with many technical details of the corporations they head. Obama knows nothing about commanding armies but will have commander-in-chief responsibilities. Working associates fill in the technical knowledge gap. That's no secret to anyone but the willfully ignorant steve. This also from Dembski:
So Dembski is prioritizing his time and spending it working with Marks on research. Dembski was criticized for not doing research. Don't wait for applause from the swamp.
Comment by Bradford — November 14, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
November 14th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Oh, yes, all that ID research. I bet his lab'll be down the hall from Mike Behe's. Why just yesterday my postal carrier asked me to stop subscribing to the ID journal because it was so full of research it was giving him back problems. Oh wait that didn't happen because the ID journal hasn't put out an issue in years*. Buy that excuse if you want, but clear-eyed observers remember the first time Dembski abandoned his blog. Dec 2005, right after ID lost bigtime in court. He was persuaded to reopen it in a month later but handed the aggressive banning over to a lackey.
This second time Dembski's giving it up comes a week after the GOP was run out of Washington, meaning no chance of a creationism-friendly supreme court for years. What a coincidence. Yeah, Dembski's leaving to "spend more time with his research." Do you also believe them when people who've been whipped resign to "spend more time with their family"? I guess you take them at their word too. But people who've been around a little more don't.
PS I don't know what piddly little search function paper he and Marks are working on, but if you think it'll spell out a theory of ID, you're gonna be disappointed. The YEC guys still blog and it's now 20 years after their legal defeat. We're only 3 years away from Dover, so enjoy the next 17 years of pointless blogging.
* (the Young Earth Creationists, on the other hand, do a much better job pretending to do science. Their 'technical journal' comes out several times a year, every year. The ID journal published around 8 anemic issues and then folded several years ago. Meaning that the ID people have performed distinctly worse than the YECs, which is really hard to imagine. But very funny to people who know a bit about science.)
Comment by steve — November 14, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
November 14th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Why are you so obsessed with ID steve? Did you notice that Mike still writes at his own website? It seems to me he does not wish to waste time arguing with those who are more concerned with their socio-political agendas. And I have no reason to doubt his claim that he was spending too much time blogging and not enough with his kids. If our blogging is pointless why are you spending your time reading it?
Comment by Bradford — November 14, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 4:24 am
I don't presume to speak for Steve, but I find the unintentional humour quite amusing. Also Joy (when not talking about ID) makes some interesting points. TP does a good job in keeping some of your more fanciful contributors in line. Zachriel and Raevmo are on hand to correct the most egregious scientific errors and strawmen. The political, religious and psychological elements are also fascinating.
I guess I do have to accept your assessment that it is a waste of time though, but there are less harmless ways of wasting it!
Comment by Alan Fox — November 15, 2008 @ 4:24 am
November 15th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Bradford quoting UD:
Non-profit, eh? I guess that's why they installed a new Donate option (all major credit cards accepted). Let's be honest here: UD has degenerated long ago into a device to clean out the dumb rubes, what with the constant advertisement of the "learned" creationist, sorry ID, books of WAD and O'Leary et al., and the banning of all contrary voices lest the rubes don't get confused.
Comment by Raevmo — November 15, 2008 @ 7:35 am
November 15th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Raevmo
I can see why you’d think that. After all it’s a scientific fact that your Atheism has hindered your ability to quickly see the world as it is. I guess us Christians will have to make allowances.
After all, making allowances for the handicapped is the Christian thing to do.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 15, 2008 @ 8:17 am
November 15th, 2008 at 8:45 am
From fmm's link:
Damn. Dutch atheists are even more stupid than their Calvinist countrymen. I wonder if it outweighs my genetic background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi#Intelligence
Comment by Raevmo — November 15, 2008 @ 8:45 am
November 17th, 2008 at 3:18 am
The drama continues. Dembski put up a post at Uncommon Descent, and Davescot deleted it! Said it wasn't suitable for the blog. So the new leader, Barry, told Davescot he couldn't put up any global warming denial, because that wasn't suitable either. A short while later Barry announcedannounced that Davescot has now 'resigned', presumably to spend more time with his family (a claim Bradford finds compelling). Did he really resign? Here's a hint: Barry, in the announcement, used the same phrase "___ is no longer with us." that Davescot always used when he banned someone.
Intelligent Design is like the Three Stooges in labcoats. (figurative labcoats of course. They never actually do experiments)
Comment by steve — November 17, 2008 @ 3:18 am