Saturday, April 18, 2009

Namecalling 101, for Conservatives.

This is country was founded on debate. And even though the debate's gotten a touch bit nasty over the last couple of days, I wholeheartedly support the principle.

So, Conservatives, particularly of the Teabagging/Anti-Tax/Herbert Hoover/24 Percent crowd, say what you want to say. You've got that right. Think what you wanna think. You don't have to like the President. You can even call him names. Lord knows, I've done it to former President Bush. Fair's fair.

But if you're going to call the President names, please dear God, know what the hell you're talking about.

That scene of the CNN Reporter getting in the face (Oh, Lord forgive me) of that Tea-Bagger who was calling the President a Fascist, was embarrassing. Not just for the Tea-Bagger, but for the Reporter as well.



Don't tell him how offensive calling the President a Fascist is. Ask the moron if he even knows what the hell Fascist means?!? Because, clearly, he doesn't.

What, was he Sarah Palin all the sudden?

Does he understand the words that are coming out of his mouth?? (Chris Tucker, 1998)

Lord knows, y'all didn't understand what the hell Tea-bag meant, so let's start by--

Oh, wait--

--and I'm being told that this is a Family site, and no one wants to read that.

--and I'm being told that while some people to read that, there are sites that'll better serve those needs.

And no, I'm not linking to any of them.

Let's start with our word of the day: Fascist.

This from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. (I'm using this Dictionary, because it is the first one I thought of. There's also Dictionary.com and Wikipedia you can use as well. I figured any Dictionary would provide the simplest definition.)

Fascism: A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

I'd like to ask that tool from the CNN Video, if he really thinks he's living in a centralized autocratic government, with the dictatorial leader, and the forcible suppression of opposition???

He does realize that he was just on TV, right? Going out to a national audience calling the President of the United States, the alleged dictator in this scenario, names??

Kinda eliminates the whole forcible suppression thing.

Again...confusing tyranny...with losing.

Next, we move on to our second definition, also from Merriam-Webster.

Socialism: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

You do know that the Bailout of the Big Banks was started by George W. Bush right? Your guy? So, if anyone's the Socialist in this scenario, it's your guy, not mine.

Secondly, has the President seized the means of production (as Hugo Chavez actually did in March) anytime anywhere, and we all just missed it?

No. He's continued the program Bush started, and built some roads. (This is a massive simplification of the President's Agenda. The American Investment and Recovery Act is more than building roads. So, no, I haven't forgotten the High Speed Rail, the electronic medical records, or any of the other stuff.)

Third, because it has been used so often as an example of Bank Nationalization, it has been getting folks confused. Thus, let me remind everyone that the land of IKEA, Sweden, IS NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY!!!

Yes, they have Socialized some things in Sweden (Health care being at the top of that list), but they are a Capitalist Economy. There is Private Enterprise in Sweden. It is a Constitutional Monarchy, something I can personally verify to since I lived there when I was four. I still have the postcard they issued when King Carl Gustav XVI was crowned.


See???

Finally, I'd define Communism, but there's barely any difference between it and Marxism as far as I'm concerned. Though I think Communism is far more totalitarian than Socialism, and advocates that there is no private property at all.

Ain't no way Obama's takin' my Blu-Ray Player.

So, to sum up.

Teabaggers of the world, we get it, you don't like President's policies. You don't like the fact he was elected, and frankly, more than a few of you don't like the fact that he's black.

I'm sorry. I've seen the signs. Some of y'all are racists. Deal.

But just because you don't like the President, it doesn't mean you get to make asses of yourselves in the process. And repeatedly misusing and abusing the English language definitely counts as making asses of yourselves!!

Making a Photoshop picture of Obama as Hitler? C'mon. Do I really need to explain, historically, how stupid that is??

You do know that Fascism stands at the extreme of your own Conservative Values, right? (After all, you're the crowd that keeps saying Barack Obama is a liberal). Whereas Socialism stands at the extreme of Left Wing Values (something frankly we know Barack Obama isn't anywhere near).

HE CAN'T BE BOTH OF THESE EXTREME WINGS AT THE SAME TIME!!

I hope you've found this discussion helpful. But, let's be honest, you're not going to listen, and you're going wind up doing is driving more and more Independents and Obamacans our way ayway, so keep it up...please.

You could try to engage the Democratic Majority to at least try and get some of the things on your wish list, but all know you won't.

Just don't come crying to me when you lose again.

And if you do call me a name, at least use the right word.

Here's one you've been proven fond of; six letters, starting with N.

It's offensive, yeah. But you've proven that you know what it means.

The Fireside chat for April 18, 2009

“All across America, families are making hard choices, and it’s time their government did the same."

Cuts to Government programs are coming. And according to the President, "there will be no sacred cows."


4/18/09: Your Weekly Address from White House on Vimeo.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Keith with James Risen: Busy Night Part 3 (VIDEO)

Still more work to do on Warantless Wiretapping.

Keith's Special Comment: Busy Night Part 2 (VIDEO)

As much as it pains me...

Keith with John Dean: Busy Night Part 1 (VIDEO)

This was a busy damn night. Lots of stories to cover, plus the Special Comment.

Keith's Interview with my personal legal fave, John Dean. (He too, sees some wiggle room for the President to go after John Yoo.)

Sen. Roland Burris REMAINS Toast...

According to the Chicago Tribune, he's raised...$845 so far.

That's...Eight Hundred and forty-five dollars, in total...so far...for his campaign.

Couple that with $110,000 some odd bucks in debt. (I have no idea if this includes his legal fees or not.)

Good luck, sparky!

Did Holder just leave himself some Wiggle Room?

I got this from reading Andrew Sullivan (who was reading Marc Ambinder), so this is hardly a thought I can take credit for, but listen to what Ambinder has to say about Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement on the late and lamented Torture Prosecutions:

Here's what Attorney General Holder said today in his statement: "Holder also stressed that intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct."

The emphasis is Ambinder's.

Now, I work around Lawyers. I work around them every day. My Dad’s new wife is, in fact, a Lawyer herself.

I’m just saying, I know how these guys sound, and I know when they leave themselves wiggle room.

Folks, that ain’t wiggle room, that’s more like a tunnel in which large eighteen wheels can pass.

Sullivan puts it better than I can:

If evidence emerges of bad faith in torture sessions, then those staffers may well face legal consequences. Ditto if the legal advice was given in bad faith, along Nuremberg lines, Yoo and Bybee should start sweating. That's why the internal OPR report on the legal professionalism of the torture lawyers is so crucial and why it is being fought over so fiercely. If Yoo and Bybee's memos were so below legal standards that they can be objectively shown to be a means to get away with torture rather than good faith effort to apply the law to proposed torture techniques, then they too acted in bad faith. And they too are war criminals.

Now, all that said “wiggle room” isn’t a substitute for action (which I think we, the ACLU, Senator Russ Feingold, and civil libertarians would prefer). But it is something, especially when you couple this with action from the Congress. Either Chamber will do.

I think, in the wake of our most recent NSA Spying Story, the Congress might find itself a little more willing to act.

Granted, it has an air of “It’s one thing to have the mob get wiretapped, but now that it’s one of us…” but again, it'll do.

Oh, and in case your fingers were crossed, uncross 'em. Spain isn't going to help:

Despite recent reports to the contrary, Spain’s attorney general has now reportedly decided not to prosecute the Bush Six — the top legal officials in the Bush administration who allegedly approved the torture of terror suspects. Attorney General Candido Conde-Pumpio said that the United States would be the proper forum for such a case.

We can only hope.

Mark Kirk advocates violence to keep Taxes low?!?

This is a quote from Congressman Mark Kirk, currently considering a run for Governor of Illinois or for the Senate. When he makes up his mind, I'm sure we'll be the first to know, but...

"I think that the decision to raise taxes by 50 percent in Illinois is political suicide," Kirk said of Quinn's proposal to raise the tax rate to 4.5 percent from 3 percent, coupled with an increase in the personal deduction. "I think the people of Illinois are ready to shoot anyone who is going to raise taxes by that degree."

This may be hyperbole, but in the current climate, with Texas Governors (and to a lesser degree Chuck Norris) advocating for the secession of their miserable state from the Union, with Right Wing Extremism on the rise, Gun sales up, and a constant drumbeat of threats against the President and his Family, this doesn't strike me as funny.

And then we have perennial douchebag Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a Senator, a representative of Oklahoma, a member of the (allegedly) world's greatest deliberative body, saying this:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) said this week that the administration will try “all sorts of things” to chip away at the individual right to own a gun, warning of gun control policies aimed at “disarming us.”

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Cushing, Oklahoma, Coburn warned that Attorney General Eric Holder “doesn’t believe in the second amendment” and “doesn’t even know what an assault weapon is.”

“He doesn’t believe in our right to own and hold a gun,” Coburn said of Holder, whose nomination he vigorously opposed. “He doesn’t believe the Second Amendment means it’s a right for me to have a gun to protect myself.”

You tell me. Is this the party of Lincoln??

Elizabeth Warren on the Daily Show (VIDEO)

For the record, Part 2 was waaay better than Part, and is the part that made Jon Stewart "feel" better.

Part 1:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c
Elizabeth Warren Pt. 1
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic CrisisPolitical Humor


Part 2:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c
Elizabeth Warren Pt. 2
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic CrisisPolitical Humor

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

This is who they are...

The following is intentional. I have collected a small smattering of images from today's Teabaggin' Parties from the Washington Independents' Aaron Weiner and David Weigel, as well as some stuff from Daily Kos.

These images, of course, show the worst of the worst. Protestors advocating violence, or racism, or toeing that fine line.

These images do not show all protesters. There were those who merely wanted to protest taxation and the deficit. I merely find these people deluded, not dangerous. And it is danger of which we speak here.


Yeah, let's link our deadly enemy, the one we might have to go to war with, with the duly elected President of the United States.

And yes, the sign says "While Some Kenyan tries to Destroy America". Forget the "In Living Color" quote.


Anything to make the President look alien and foreign.

And of course, my "favorite" for the day...

Apparently, it was from Chicago.


Are you sure you want to go there?

Courtesy Chuck Todd...

From the First Read site (you may have to scroll down a tad):

Franken’s discipline: By the way, and it's a point we've made before, but it's been pretty impressive how Franken has been so disciplined during this recount period. Indeed, until last night, when had we heard from him. Clearly, the GOP thought they were dealing with the stereotype that was Al Franken -- not the guy who proved to be a candidate who, well, got more votes than Norm Coleman. In fact, this has been a problem for the GOP in general the last few years when it comes to dealing with Democrats: They believe their own stereotypes about their opponents, rather than actually dealing with their opponents at face value.

"Mental Gymnastics..."

Even when I disagree with him, Taibbi is always fun.

And, right now, I certainly don't disagree with him.

It requires serious mental gymnastics to describe the Obama administration — particularly the Obama administration of recent weeks, which has given away billions to Wall Street and bent over backwards to avoid nationalization and pursue a policy that preserves the private for-profit status of the bailed-out banks — as a militaristic dictatorship of anti-wealth, anti-private property forces. You have to somehow explain the Geithner/Paulson decisions to hand over trillions of taxpayer dollars to the rich bankers as the formal policy expression of progressive rage against the rich. Not easy. In order to pull off this argument, in fact, you have to grease the wheels with a lot of apocalyptic language and imagery, invoking as Beck did massive pictures of Stalin and Orwell and Mussolini (side by side with shots of Geithner, Obama and Bernanke), scenes of workers storming the Winter Palace interspersed with anti-AIG protests, etc. — and then maybe you have to add a crazy new twist, like switching from complaints of “socialism” to warnings of “fascism.” Rhetorically, this is the equivalent of trying to paint a picture by hurling huge handfuls of paint at the canvas. It’s desperate, last-ditch-ish behavior.

...

But actual rich people can’t ever be the target. It’s a classic peasant mentality: going into fits of groveling and bowing whenever the master’s carriage rides by, then fuming against the Turks in Crimea or the Jews in the Pale or whoever after spending fifteen hard hours in the fields. You know you’re a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and taking your shit. Whatever the master does, you’re on board. When you get frisky, he sticks a big cross in the middle of your village, and you spend the rest of your life praying to it with big googly eyes. Or he puts out newspapers full of innuendo about this or that faraway group and you immediately salute and rush off to join the hate squad. A good peasant is loyal, simpleminded, and full of misdirected anger. And that’s what we’ve got now, a lot of misdirected anger searching around for a non-target to mis-punish… can’t be mad at AIG, can’t be mad at Citi or Goldman Sachs. The real villains have to be the anti-AIG protesters! After all, those people earned those bonuses! If ever there was a textbook case of peasant thinking, it’s struggling middle-class Americans burned up in defense of taxpayer-funded bonuses to millionaires. It’s really weird stuff. And bound to get weirder, I imagine, as this crisis gets worse and more complicated.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Are The Tea Parties Racist??

I was flipping around Daily Kos today, and they posted a question that’s been on my mind for the last couple of days.

These…Tea Parties (I’m going to avoid calling these people Teabaggers)…

are they for white people only?

‘Cause I’m looking at the photos, and…I ain’t seein' no people of color

Anywhere.

Jim Crow Protest Rallies?

Really?

Are you kidding me?

Fortunately, I am not the first to have this thought. It turns out that a site called Jack & Jill Politics has been on this way before I was.

I'm not 100% percent convinced in the arguments they present in their piece. Still, I think they're onto something.

Are these the same people who were yelling "Terrorist" and maybe even "Kill Him" at some McCain-Palin Rallies not than long ago? To paraphrase the Governor of Alaska, you betcha.

Did we expect these people to simply engage in the debate and suddenly accept the fact that Barack Obama legitimately won the election? If Norm Coleman is any measure...

Does anyone…anywhere see any people of color in any of these photos in a participatory capacity, and not acting as Security Guards, Cameramen...or worse, picking up after these people?

Couple this with a report from DHS says Right Wing Extremism is on the rise thanks to the Economy (and blaming the Black President for it), there is always reason to be concerned.

Whatever reservations I have about their particular arguments, they did offer a handy guide to sniffing out an undercover racist attack on the President. It goes as follows (with corrections for grammar):

1) Is [said attack] unique to Obama. Is it a phrase we’ve never heard before applied to any other president or is it something we haven’t heard in recent memory?

For example: he’s not an American citizen or he’s a socialist who’s planning re-education camps for young people.

2) Is [said attack] illogical or impossible. Does the assertion plainly contradict the facts?

For example: not an American citizen, socialist, tax raiser, re-education camps for young people.

3) Is [said attack] repeated, over and over, by a desperate person whose team lost badly in the last election and who adopts a wide-eyed, credulous, nodding stare pronouncing the lie slowly, precisely, with a watchful eye to see if the listeners are buying it.

For example: not an American citizen, socialist, elitist, drug seller, tax raiser or terrorist. (aka, the entirety of the Glenn Beck Show)

Optional: Does the assertion cause nervousness, embarrassment or confusion among non-blacks (who are listening to said attack)? When other white people such as Tom Brokaw or John Stewart sense something wrong and start to ask questions like "Do you really believe that?," you know for sure you’re in the racist attack zone.

UPDATE 4:49PM Pacific: Michelle Malkin does not count. She started these damn things, and besides, I'd put her personal racially sensitivity quotient at about zero.

Bo's Debut

The President's Economics Speech at Georgetown University (VIDEO)

Monday, March 30, 2009

Hard elbows...

There’s something of a pattern emerging in our collective quest to deal with the seeming imminent collapse of Western Civilization, a.k.a. the 2008-9 Recession.

Something happens. Something’s done about it. And then lots of people freak out.

That's not what I would have done...or...what I would have done was better...or you're not going far enough. Yadda-yadda-yadda...

Of course, it’s happening, again.

My fellow Liberals are indeed freaking out over what the President said today in regards his plan to deal with the American Auto Industry. Double standard is the term I keep hearing over and over again.

But to folks like Robert Kuttner, David Sirota (and basically all the Liberals that even I, another Liberal can’t stand), I have to ask the question…do you even read this stuff??

I hate to resort to a Basketball metaphor, but the Commander in Chief is a fan, and this one story seems particularly apt in for the occasion.

Bill Russell as a young Celtics star was, of course, talented…but also prone to having the snot beaten out of him in games because he didn’t have it in him to throw an elbow.

So one day, Red Auerbach comes up to him, and asks him to throw an elbow…but just one elbow…during a nationally televised game. He guaranteed that once you throw that one elbow, you’ll never have to throw another one again.

Russell did…and eleven championships later, the rest is history.

What we all saw today was our President delivering a nationally-television hard elbow to GM’s Bondholders, the rich bastages holding GM’s debt. Turns out they’re about the only party in this mess who has refused to sacrifice anything at the table. GM owes them a lot of money, and they want protection. They want to be first at the trough. Damn the consequences.

Well, the President just fired the CEO of GM. (He'll be fine, from what I understand he's walking away with 20 Million dollars in Retirement.)

The President also let the Boldholders know, in no uncertain terms, that GM’s plan is not complete, and that they have sixty days to fix it. So until then, no money.

Therefore, [President Obama] said, he is offering GM and Chrysler "a limited period of time to work with creditors, unions and other stakeholders to fundamentally restructure in a way that would justify an investment of additional tax dollars."

He expressed confidence that "this restructuring, as painful as it will be in the short-term, will mark not an end, but a new beginning for a great American industry."

He said he was "absolutely confident that GM can rise again, providing that it undergoes a fundamental restructuring." He stressed that the U.S. government "has no intention of running GM."

If GM is unable to restructure and Chrysler cannot strike a deal with Fiat, they might need to use the bankruptcy code "as a mechanism to help them restructure quickly and emerge stronger," Obama said. He said that could enable the companies to "quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down," even as their workers remain on the job.

"What I am not talking about is a process where a company is simply broken up, sold off and no longer exists," he said. "And what I am not talking about is having a company stuck in court for years, unable to get out."

I wish Kuttner and Sirota would spend as much time finding out what happened, rather than flapping their gums. Their slavish devotion to Ideology-First is every bit as bad as all the Conservative scumbags we routinely bash on this site, and many others. It’s all there. They just have to keep reading. But I think in both their cases, they are more interested in cornering the market in Liberal Obama opposition than finding out what the hell is going on.

So, in summary: Obama’s message wasn’t so much to GM, but these Bondholders. You have sixty days to give up something, or face a structured Bankruptcy where you lose everything.

Their response?

“Our strong preference is to complete this restructuring out of court,” GM said in a statement issued after Obama’s speech on the U.S. auto industry. “However, GM will take whatever steps are necessary to successfully restructure the company, which could include a court-supervised process.”

Translation? GM is ready to go Bankrupt, if necessary.

We look forward to working with the company and the task force to configure an exchange that will maximize the chances of a successful out-of-court restructuring,advisers to the committee of GM bondholders negotiating with the company to restructure the automaker’s debt said in a statement. “All parties seem to agree that an out-of-court restructuring would be the preferred path to viability.”

Translation? Whooooaaa, slow down there, cowpoke. No need to get all hostile. Let's talk!

Also, it should be mentioned that Obama said Chrysler had 30 days to cut a deal with Fiat, or get nothing.

They cut a deal a few hours later. At least it was the framework for a pact.

Hard elbows in the paint. Seems they're the way of the world.

UPDATE 4:37pm Pacific: Slate's Daniel Gross (Senior Editor at Newseek, and frequent Slate.com contributor) agrees...and best of all has...umm...what do you call them again? Those things, little squiggly lines that didn't appear in the first draft of the GOP Budget Proposal?!?!?

Numbers! That's right, they're called numbers.

[GM] has loads of debt. The most recent quarterly results indicate long-term debt of more than $29 billion. And since the firm's credit ratings have been pushed deep into junk territory, that means most of the holders of this debt are hedge funds, private-equity firms, and other investment vehicles. (Many mutual funds and institutional investors like pensions or insurance companies eschew junk debt.)

GM's debt is trading at what is euphemistically called "distressed levels." As indicated here, bonds due in less than two years are trading at 20 cents on the dollar.

Many of those who bought GM's bonds did so because they hoped to 1) convert the debt into ownership in the case of bankruptcy filing or 2) see the bonds rise in value should the government step in and formally guarantee GM's corporate debt.

Obama made clear today what they suspected: No such guarantee would be forthcoming. While GM had tried to restructure, Obama noted, it hasn't yet done enough. "I'm absolutely confident that GM can rise again, providing that it undergoes a fundamental restructuring. Have they cleaned up their balance sheets, or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can't make future investments?" (If you answered this double question with a no and a yes, you're right!) The upshot: Holders of GM's debt, like other entities to whom GM has made financial commitments—dealers, the auto unions—are going to have to cut a deal, sooner rather than later, and accept less than they think they're entitled to. None of that AIG-creditor treatment for you.

Herbert Hoover for 2009

Who's the real Herbert Hoover in our current financial catastrophe? Is it George Bush...or is it Angela Merkel??

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, an avowed friend of the United States and the leader of the European Union’s biggest economy, is diplomatic about the coming visit by President Obama. But she is clear that she is not about to give ground on new stimulus spending, stressing the need to maintain fiscal discipline even as she professes to want to work closely with the new American president.

The moment in Roosevelt's Presidency I bet he wishes he had back was 1937, when:

F.D.R. wasn’t just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion — he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy. After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections.

So what's Merkel, Amity Shlaes, and other worthless Conservative Ideology-Before-Country types suggesting? The exact same thing for 2009.

To again quote Krugman (and even though I'm pissed at him because he's overdoing it about his Bank-plan complaints, he knows his stuff, and I'll always listen to him):

Like many other economists, I’ve been revisiting the Great Depression, looking for lessons that might help us avoid a repeat performance. And one thing that stands out from the history of the early 1930s is the extent to which the world’s response to crisis was crippled by the inability of the world’s major economies to cooperate.

The details of our current crisis are very different, but the need for cooperation is no less. President Obama got it exactly right last week when he declared: “All of us are going to have to take steps in order to lift the economy. We don’t want a situation in which some countries are making extraordinary efforts and other countries aren’t.”

Yet that is exactly the situation we’re in. I don’t believe that even America’s economic efforts are adequate, but they’re far more than most other wealthy countries have been willing to undertake. And by rights this week’s G-20 summit ought to be an occasion for Mr. Obama to chide and chivy European leaders, in particular, into pulling their weight.

But these days foreign leaders are in no mood to be lectured by American officials, even when — as in this case — the Americans are right.

The financial crisis has had many costs. And one of those costs is the damage to America’s reputation, an asset we’ve lost just when we, and the world, need it most.

If Germany wants to fail, let 'em...but they should sink on their own.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Barack Oblogger: Of Geither's Plan...

Full props to the Barack Oblogger, for a thought-out, and well-defended take on Geithner's plan.

The President's Press Conference 3/24/2009 (VIDEO)

Monday, March 23, 2009

This is why I hate on the media...

It’s a nothing story, but it shows how the media bends over backwards to twist things into whatever shape they want to, or care to.

The Hill has a story on its website today: McCain creams Obama — in NCAA picks.

McCain’s bracket has 14 teams picked correctly headed into the Sweet Sixteen, placing him in the 94th percentile after the first weekend of play.

Okay. Fine. Congratulations to the Senior (and I mean, Senior) Senator from Arizona.

One problem. There's this little piece in the Politico, an article called Obama's bracket looking up, which says:

The president's NCAA tournament bracket looked a lot better Sunday when he correctly picked 14 of the 16 teams to reach the regional semifinals.

So…ummm…you want to run this by me again?!?

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

"The buck stops with me"... (VIDEO)

The President on the White House lawn as he prepares to go to California...

The best part about his statement today was the fact that the President gave a wonderfully easy-to-understand explanation of why saving AIG is as important as it is.  (About 11:32 into the video).

If you ever hear a Conservative say that we should just let AIG fail, remember this quote.

Last year when the Federal Reserve decided to step in, again, that wasn’t a decision that we made but I actually think it was the right decision. AIG had insured a whole bunch of losses for a whole bunch of banks that had made bad bets on subprime loans and mortgages that had been packaged and bundled up and made into securities. These were massive insurance policies. Unfortunately, because of a lack of regulation, they were able to issue far more insurance policies than they could pay out on these various instruments that these banks had issued.

And had AIG been allowed to simply liquidate and go bankrupt, all those banks who were counterparties with AIG would have experienced such big losses that it would have threatened the entire financial system.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Ben Shalom Bernanke (VIDEO)

The President sooo told him to do this.

A year in the making? Humanizing the Fed Chair? He's from Dillon, freakin' South Carolina?? His family business was once located on Main Street in Dillon? How, if you're our President, do you not promote that??

By the way, that's not a joke, or a dig. That's the man's name, Benjamin Shalom Bernanke.

Couple this with Geithner's recent (and I think successful) appearance on Charlie Rose, and this appears to be a coordinated effort by the Federal Government to tell America, "Hey, we hear you. You're pissed. We get it. We got this."

Here's Part 1:



And Part 2:

The Fireside chat for March 14, 2009

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Jon Stewart's Finest Hour (VIDEO)

This was possibly, the most amazing thing Jon Stewart has ever done.

I mean, Stewart kicked the @#$% out of him.

Not that he gave Jim Cramer much of a chance to answer for himself, that really wasn't the point. What Jon did here was give voice to the public's anger, rage and frustration. He finally got one of the b@#%ds in his cross-hairs, and didn't let up on him.

Of course the truly, truly sad part is...after a week of this controversy, after the very public dressing down a comedian gave to one of their own, the chances that Wall Street is going to listen and change their ways is damn close to zero.

That means the President is going to have to change their ways for them.


The Intro



Part 1 (Unedited)



Part 2 (Unedited)



Part 3 (Unedited)

President Obama's Speech before the Business Roundtable (VIDEO)

This is the President's complete speech before top executives of the Business Roundtable.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Timothy Geithner with Charlie Rose (VIDEO)

This the complete interview, in case you missed it (like I did), or forgot to TiVo it (like I did).

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Chicken Littles...

Ahhh, Krugman back to his normal self...

What he warns of is a possibility, but I would like to at least get to 2009 before the panic sets in.

"Your Bank has failed"... (VIDEO)

...now what do you do?

It's time to highlight the importance of regulation; the effort to keep markets healthy and the financial system working. This was an effort largely abandoned by the previous Administration, due to a slavish devotion to an ideology based on unrestricted markets, and laissez faire capitalism.

We see where this has gotten us.

In the coming months, there is a possibility that your bank, whereever you may live, no matter how big or strong you think it may be, may fail. What do you do then?

If it's FDIC Insured...you do nothing.  You don't have to.  If you have under $250,000 in deposits, your money is safe.

Here's last night's 60 Minutes piece to show you why.


Watch CBS Videos Online

The Fireside chat for March 7, 2009

The first time using the White House's new Video system.  Sorry I'm late, and fingers crossed.

UPDATE (March 9, 2009.  7:50pm, Pacific): Because of my own (and Dad's) complaints about the speed of the video feed, we are goin' back to YouTube, privacy issues be damned.  It's all about the speed, baby.