TestPattern.org

Forgive my cynicism about your doubts

noreply@blogger.com (Voltaire's Child) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:30:00 +0000

As I recall, the infamous 16 words in Bush's 2003 SOTUA, providing the most substantial basis of justification for invading Iraq, were based on planted forged documents supposedly written on letterhead from the Niger embassy in Rome. Forge the evidence, plant it, discover it, reveal it, and then use it as rationale for what you were planning to do all along. True patriots don't ask questions.

Now we have a British institution whose email system was recently hacked, supposedly thereby revealing political bias in the scientific community against critics or criticism of climate change research. So, that suddenly means Al Gore was Cassandra and Inhofe was a friggin' oracle? http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/11/30/hacked-e-mails-give-inhofe-fuel-for-climate-change-debate.html

Please indulge a personal anecdote. In 2002, I did a week-long training exercise with a certain high-testosterone Army unit at Fort Hood. My group was providing IO (Information Operations) support, primarily serving as coordination for the efforts of other groups which previously tended to conflict with one another (in other words, this was before IO went offensive). One member of our group was a young energetic Capt. Smith from Arizona, who was serving as our Intel liaison officer. Capt. Smith was running back and forth between the secure Intel space and the other part of the training facility where the rest of us were. He had brought a laptop with him, but had the mistake of taking it into the secured Intel space, which meant he couldn't take it back out. I was able to lend him one of the extra laptops we had, and he used that to communicate via email.

Since I was bored, and since we had extra laptops, and since I had my little "security" toolbox handy, I "searched" the user accounts database for an account that had been created but never used. Knowing the default password for new accounts, I was able to "acquire" and use this "extra" account for some "extracurricular activity". It just so happened that the account I thus obtained had been created for an Intel officer. When I accessed the email Inbox for this account, I found a bunch of messages from our Capt. Smith. He had been emailing the Intel group trying to get the information he needed, but they had never answered him. Since I was bored, and since I had gone to the trouble of accessing an account that noone else had thought to use, I decided to start replying to Capt. Smith's messages. For two days, I had this guy running back and forth between the secured Intel space and the non-secured area where the laptop was. He was sitting right next to me sending messages to this account that I would turn around and answer.

After a while, I just started totally jerking his chain in the messages and eventually told him the truth. By then he was so fried he didn't care anymore.

An email system in England gets hacked, so that means that everything we know about climate change has to be thrown out? Just like when the British Government learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, so we had to invade Iraq. Well, if the British Government says it, it must be right...

Max Keiser: �Goldman Sachs Are Scum�

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:50:00 +0000

Via Matt Taibbi:

"They are literally stealing a hundred million dollars a day. Goldman Sachs is stealing every day on the floor of the exchange. They should be in the Hague, they should be taken on financial terrorism charges. They should all be thrown in jail."

If you haven't read Taibbi's recent article in Rolling Stone, I highly recommend it: "The Great American Bubble Machine: From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they're about to do it again."

Cheney Says Torture Works

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:38:00 +0000

... never mind that torture is a war crime.

The AP headline from Tuesday reads, "Cheney: US gained information from interrogations."

Cheney said Monday that what hasn't been revealed publicly is what the U.S. gained as a result of these actions.

"I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," Cheney said.

Cheney said he has formally asked the CIA to declassify the memos.

However, a senior intelligence official said Tuesday the CIA has received no such requests from the former vice president. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose it publicly.

Why would Cheney try to justify war crimes by claiming that committing them created desirable "consequences?" If I understand his reasoning, he doesn't care whether waterboarding or other means constitute torture because the ends justify the means. It's as simple as that. (Oh, and why would Cheney claim that he requested declassification of the memos if he did not? Because Dick Cheney is a pathological liar.)

It doesn't take a legal scholar to explain the dangers of heading down this slippery slope. Still, Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley did so smartly back in December on Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

Whether Dick Cheney thinks torture works or not is irrelevant. Torture is a war crime. The law is not in question. The question is whether we will continue to stand silently and watch men break our laws without question, without prosecution.

Life Imitates Art

noreply@blogger.com (James Stroud) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:12:00 +0000

In some circles Muntazer al-Zaidi, the Shi'ite TV reporter who threw his shoe at former President George Bush is a barbarian. In other circles, he is a hero. But no matter your opinion of al-Zaidi, it is hard to argue his indelible impact on modern culture. Writes Bappa Majumdar for Reuters, "India's politicians contesting in the general election, fearful of shoes hurled at them by disgruntled voters, have asked for more security and are erecting metal nets at rallies." [Emphasis added.]

The idea of showing your disapproval (or in some cases approval) by hurling objects is by no means a novel idea. Made in 1980, the following video stands as evidence that al-Zaidi has simply redefined an age-old tradition:

F*ck Cornyn!

noreply@blogger.com (Voltaire's Child) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 02:25:00 +0000

I realize I haven't contributed to this site in a LONG time, but this item compelled me to say something.

If the president releases the Bush torture memos, Republicans are promising to �go nuclear� and filibuster his legal appointments. Scott Horton reports on a serious threat to Obama�s transparency.

Since I am now a resident of the great state of Texas, the respectable senator from Texas is MY representative in the Senate. Ya know what I say!? Fuck John Cornyn! Call their mother fucking bluff! If the Republicans want to have their entire agenda based on protecting a failed - whatever you want to call the last 8 years - then LET THEM! They want to shoot their wad for W's sake - LET THEM! In fact - MAKE THEM put their money where their mouths are! Call their bluff and make them go on the record (Officially) as supporting the continued suppresion and denial of Bush ero defiance of international and human law.

Don't back down. Do not compromise. Do not strive for bipartisan cooperation. Do not adjust policy to avoid the filibuster. Let them go on the record as officially condoning and supporting the suppression and denial of a failed adminstration's defiance of international law. In the end, what do they have to lose?!

"AIG is chump change -- let's find corporate America's hidden billions"

noreply@blogger.com (jieister) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:59:00 +0000

Joe Conason writes in Salon.com ("AIG is chump change") that, "it's time to reform offshore banking, and see what untaxed wealth big business is hiding in overseas tax shelters."

According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly all of America's top 100 corporations maintain subsidiaries in countries identified as tax havens. As the GAO notes, there could be reasons other than avoiding the IRS to set up branches in places such as Singapore, Luxembourg and Switzerland, where taxes are light or nonexistent and keeping clients' illicit secrets is considered a matter of national pride.

But what reason other than evasion could there be for Goldman Sachs Group to set up three subsidiaries in Bermuda, five in Mauritius, and 15 in the Cayman Islands? Why did Countrywide Financial need two subsidiaries in Guernsey? Why did Wachovia need 18 subsidiaries in Bermuda, three in the British Virgin Islands, and 16 in the Caymans? Why did Lehman Brothers need 31 subsidiaries in the Caymans? What do Bank of America's 59 subsidiaries in the Caymans actually do? Why does Citigroup need 427 separate subsidiaries in tax havens, including 12 in the Channel Islands, 21 in Jersey, 91 in Luxembourg, 19 in Bermuda and 90 in the Caymans? What exactly is going on at Morgan Stanley's 19 subs in Jersey, 29 subs in Luxembourg, 14 subs in the Marshall Islands, and its amazing 158 subs in the Caymans? And speaking of AIG, why does it have 18 subs in tax-haven countries? (Don't expect to find out from Fox News Channel or the New York Post, because News Corp. has its own constellation of strange subsidiaries, including 33 in the Caymans alone.)

When the cost of these shenanigans was last estimated two years ago, the U.S. government's annual loss in revenue due to tax avoidance by major corporations and super-rich individuals was pegged at about $100 billion -- considerably more than a rounding error, even today. But of course that is only a rough assessment, as is the estimate of $12 trillion in untaxed assets hidden around the world. Nobody will know for certain until the books are opened and transparency is established.

"Are We Home Alone?"

noreply@blogger.com (jieister) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:55:00 +0000

Thomas Friedman writes in today's New York Times ("Are We Home Alone?"):

I ran into an Indian businessman friend last week and he said something to me that really struck a chord: �This is the first time I�ve ever visited the United States when I feel like you�re acting like an immature democracy.�

You know what he meant: We�re in a once-a-century financial crisis, and yet we�ve actually descended into politics worse than usual. There don�t seem to be any adults at the top � nobody acting larger than the moment, nobody being impelled by anything deeper than the last news cycle. Instead, Congress is slapping together punitive tax laws overnight like some Banana Republic, our president is getting in trouble cracking jokes on Jay Leno comparing his bowling skills to a Special Olympian, and the opposition party is behaving as if its only priority is to deflate President Obama�s popularity.

I saw Eric Cantor, a Republican House leader, on CNBC the other day, and the entire interview consisted of him trying to exploit the A.I.G. situation for partisan gain without one constructive thought. I just kept staring at him and thinking: �Do you not have kids? Do you not have a pension that you�re worried about? Do you live in some gated community where all the banks will be O.K., even if our biggest banks go under? Do you think your party automatically wins if the country loses? What are you thinking?�

Obama Takes the Offensive

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:56:00 +0000

In today's New York Times ("On the Edge") Nobel Economist Paul Krugman criticizes Republicans for stalling and prods President Obama to move forward on the stimulus package, before it's too late.

Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clich�s about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.

It�s as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened � yet Democrats have, incredibly, been on the defensive. Even if a major stimulus bill does pass the Senate, there�s a real risk that important parts of the original plan, especially aid to state and local governments, will have been emasculated.

Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what�s at stake � of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.

Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won�t have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that�s why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective � to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts � are so destructive.

It�s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation�s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.

I'm hopeful that President Obama is now taking the offensive, based on comments he made earlier this week:

"Now, in the past few days, I�ve heard criticisms that this plan is somehow wanting, and these criticisms echo the very same failed economic theories that led us to this crisis in the first place�the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems. I reject those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."

There are other indications that Obama is losing his patience with the Republicans.

In an off-the-cuff moment during his speech to House Democrats at a retreat in Virginia, the president ribbed Republicans, including former rival John McCain, who call the recovery package a "spending bill."

"So then you get the argument, 'well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.' What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point," Obama said to laughter.

Obama, who cultivated the image of a post-partisan leader, has been hitting campaign themes in recent days, accusing Republicans in media interviews, an op-ed in The Washington Post and public speeches of reverting to the failed policies of tax cuts. He referenced his own political capital Thursday night and Friday.

"They did not choose more of the same in November," Obama said Friday. "They sent us here to make change."

He dismissed what he called "phony arguments and petty politics" Thursday.

"You can nit and you can pick and, you know, that's the game we all play here. We know how to play that game. What I'm saying is now we can't afford to play that game. We've got to pull together," Obama said.

On Monday, President Obama, in his first formal press conference as president in prime-time, will make his case directly to the American people. Let's hope that they're listening.

"Is President Obama losing the stimulus battle?"

noreply@blogger.com (jieister) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:54:00 +0000

I thought that I could relax for just a bit, maybe catch my breath after Obama was elected...but it's not possible. Republican politicians are beyond self-reflection and logic.

Joan Walsh writes in Salon ("The new Great Communicator ... isn't"):

Obama is the Democrats' Great Communicator, our Ronald Reagan. It's fitting that his highest priority will be reversing the tax and spending priorities Reagan enshrined as a new American compact almost 30 years ago, and reviving the notion of government as an engine of capitalist growth -- not merely the safety net provider, but the catalyst for organizing our public resources around what makes the economy strong. We've been arguing at the margins during these last two years of pain: Government should regulate more, or less. Tax rates should be higher, or lower. But there's a dangerous civic illiteracy in our country about what the larger role of government in a modern economy is, or should be, and I don't think Obama will ultimately prevail if he doesn't start to take it on.

Obama is the most remarkable Democratic communicator of my lifetime, I think, and even he's not rising to the task, yet. He needs to lay out his priorities, clearly; he needs to simplify his pitch, yet he also needs to add some depth to his and our understanding of how we got here. This economic crisis is not just about bad mortgages and/or the housing bubble bursting, and it won't be solved by reinflating that bubble, the Republicans' latest dumb idea.

I'm not sure how President Obama makes this point, roughly hourly, for the next four (and I hope eight) years. But this point has to be made, as often as possible, by anyone with an audience. We've had a deliberate shift of resources from middle- and working-class Americans and the poor, to the very rich, supported by our tax codes, twisted political values and the "winner-take-all" ethic that's prevailed at the highest levels of business and government for the last 30 years. Now, unbelievably, Republicans are saying we need even more tax cuts. (What part of tax-cutter George W. Bush's economic catastrophe, and his 22 percent approval rating, do they not understand?) They also back measures to reinflate the housing bubble that let Americans ignore their stagnating wages, as long as they worked more hours as a family and could also use their homes as an ATM. Their plans to reinflate the housing bubble seem as delusional, frankly, as their backing tax cuts, and even more irresponsible. Tax cuts won't work, but reinflating the housing bubble might work -- to encourage more consumption and less savings, and roll this problem a few more years down the road.

Democrats know the Republicans are wrong. Little children know they're wrong. Cats and dogs know they're wrong. But somehow this week, unbelievably, Obama and the Democrats seem to be losing the spin war. There are the worrying poll numbers. And there is the Washington Post report that Senate Democrats don't have the votes to pass a stimulus bill yet, at least not with the 60 votes that would rule out a filibuster. In this economic crisis, with 2.6 million jobs lost last year and thousands more lost in every news cycle, what does it take to create the urgency and responsibility to get this done?

"Add Up the Damage"

noreply@blogger.com (jieister) — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:10:00 +0000

Bob Herbert writes in yesterday's New York Times ("Add Up the Damage"):

When Mr. Bush officially takes his leave in three weeks (in reality, he checked out long ago), most Americans will be content to sigh good riddance. I disagree. I don�t think he should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry � a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches � over the damage he�s done to this country.

This is the man who gave us the war in Iraq and Guant�namo and torture and rendition; who turned the Clinton economy and the budget surplus into fool�s gold; who dithered while New Orleans drowned; who trampled our civil liberties at home and ruined our reputation abroad; who let Dick Cheney run hog wild and thought Brownie was doing a heckuva job.

The Bush administration specialized in deceit. How else could you get the public (and a feckless Congress) to go along with an invasion of Iraq as an absolutely essential response to the Sept. 11 attacks, when Iraq had had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?

Exploiting the public�s understandable fears, Mr. Bush made it sound as if Iraq was about to nuke us: �We cannot wait,� he said, �for the final proof � the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.�

He then set the blaze that has continued to rage for nearly six years, consuming more than 4,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. (A car bomb over the weekend killed two dozen more Iraqis, many of them religious pilgrims.) The financial cost to the U.S. will eventually reach $3 trillion or more, according to the Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz.

Who is Timothy Geithner?

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:08:00 +0000

I got my hair cut at a place near Union Square today during lunchtime. I told the girl who cuts my hair that I planned to head over to San Francisco Centre afterwards, to eat lunch and check out the pre-holiday shoppers. She said, "It's going to be interesting to see what Black Friday is like around here."

Black Friday is next week. Biggest shopping day of the year. Union Square is one of America's top shopping destinations. This Black Friday will likely be one of the worst in decades, if not in several generations. It should come as a surprise to no one, as consumer spending has been on the decline since the beginning of the year.

After my haircut, while I was eating lunch at Panda Express in what is essentially an upscale mall, I read the top Yahoo stories on my Palm Treo. I learned that Timothy Geithner would be President-elect Obama's Treasury Secretary.

Who? I'd never heard of Timothy Geithner until this afternoon. I've been following bread crumbs about the man ever since...

Geithner worked for Kissinger and Associates in Washington, D.C., for three years.
Geithner served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.
Geithner is President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Geithner is a member of the Group of Thirty, which includes Paul Volcker and Paul Krugman, among other noteworthy financial experts.
Geithner has been referred to by the New York Times as "center-right... the ultimate pragmatist.. neutral... no liberal... keeps his ego well in check. He asks a lot of questions."
Geithner is the "seasoned public servant" who, along with Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, has made "all the key decisions" regarding recent government actions taken with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG.
Geithner is credited for having "engineered the rescue of failing investment bank Bear Stearns." He supposedly "strongly disagreed" with Paulson's proposal to move "day-to-day bank supervision out of the Fed."
The stock market rose after Obama's selection of Geithner to be Treasury Secretary was announced.

So here is an interesting paragraph in tomorrow's Washington Post regarding Geithner:

Geithner's nomination injects some certainty into the markets, analysts said. Wall Street was concerned that additional financial rescue efforts would be on hold until the new administration was in place. The appointment of Geithner could speed the process, said Christopher Low, chief economist at Memphis-based FTN Financial. "It is not just that Geithner is solid and qualified," Low said. "The market has lost faith in [Treasury Secretary] Henry Paulson. The fact that there is finally someone else we can turn to in this crisis is a godsend."

Someone else we can turn to? Does this so-called expert whom the Post cites not realize that Paulson and Geithner, with Bernanke, have been working, and some would say failing, together? If the market has lost faith in Paulson, why would they feel any differently about one of his colleagues?

In fact, this appeared in today's New York Times:

Along with Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke, Mr. Geithner has come under criticism for the original construction of the $700 billion bailout plan, which had to be overhauled and has so far failed to remedy the financial crisis.

Associates say Mr. Geithner is an independent, though he was a Republican when he first was a staff member at the Treasury Department in the late 1980s under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

A former Republican... a protege of Robert Rubin... a former employee of Henry Kissinger... a central-right economist who has been at the helm with Paulson and Bernanke, steering the ship of state into unchartered territory...

Is this the kind of change that Barack Obama promised us?

Why Free-Marketers Oppose US Auto Bailout

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:26:00 +0000

I've been following the story about the auto industry's request for a $25 billion loan package with great interest. While I'm concerned about the potential consequences of their bankruptcies, it's hard for me to feel sorry for American car companies, especially when the CEOs of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford show up to Congressional hearings in their private jets.

Here in San Francisco, some of my liberal friends oppose the bailout because they (rightly) blame American automakers for continuing to build gas-guzzling, greenhouse gas-spewing SUVs, and using their leverage with BushCo to make sure that: 1) higher fuel economy standards would not apply to SUVs, minivans and trucks or negligibly so, 2) higher emission and mileage standards in blue states would be struck down as illegal, and 3) their customers would be able to deduct from their taxes up to $75,000 for buying said gas guzzlers.

It's not like no one saw this crisis coming. Back in March 2006, Roland Hwang of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) warned:

"The Big Three automakers are in trouble today precisely because management bet the farm on gas guzzlers. When oil prices soared, the bottom fell out of their market and sent thousands of workers out the factory gates. Those prices aren't coming down soon. In fact most experts say that they will go higher.

"The administration is calling for baby steps at a time when the country needs bold action. By setting the bar low once again, the administration is setting the industry up for a continuing disaster. Engineering better fuel economy performance is the key to survival in today's intensely competitive auto market.

"Simply by raising the fuel economy standard for SUVs and other light trucks by just one mile per gallon per year over the next five years -- to 27.2 mpg by model year 2012 -- we could save one million barrels of oil per day by 2020. That's twice as much oil as we buy from Iraq, and three-quarters of our daily imports from Saudi Arabia."

It's interesting that support and opposition for the auto bailout has played out mostly along partisan lines. Most Democrats support a loan package, if only grudgingly, while most Republicans oppose the bailout.

Paul Krugman makes the case for Democrats:

We are in the middle of a very - you know, the economy is in a nose dive. And this is something that will greatly accelerate the nose dive.

If GM goes under, which looks like a real possibility, then that's a huge blow to huge anti-stimulus program at exactly the wrong moment. If this was 1999 and we had four percent unemployment and the credit markets were working, I would say, let it fail. Let bankruptcy do its work. But this is not a good time to be having a really major industry just turn belly-up.

These [Big Three CEOs] are not good guys. And they took corporate jets to plead for money in Washington, right? They are idiots. This is the theatrics. It was really stupid, right?

But nonetheless, that's not the point. The point is that there are - you know, estimates run from one million to three million jobs lost if GM goes under. And so there's probably 12 guys out of those one million to three million people who are really bad guys and fly corporate jets and really don't deserve any bailout.

But the other 999,000 - I can't do the subtraction right here - all those other people are, you know, people making a living, people who will lose their jobs, and lose their health insurance. That's where you should be putting the priority.

So why would Republicans oppose helping people keep their jobs and their health insurance? I think I know why: it's all about the unions.

Some conservatives suggest the best course would be to allow General Motors and other automakers to head into bankruptcy, which would void their union contracts and allow them to slash the size of their operations and cut costs. A bailout "would hinder the long-overdue restructuring" of the industry, said Dan Mitchell, an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Steven Jonas presents two more reasons why Republicans oppose the bailout ("Why the Republicans Want to Kill GM"):

Two are ideological and one is political... bankruptcy would permit the companies to break their union contracts, both for current employees and for their "legacy" beneficiaries who depend on the U.S. automakers for their pensions and health care coverage.

Modern Republicans, having had their hands on the many or all of major levers of governmental power since the election of Reagan, are closely associated with finance capitalism, much less with industrial capitalism. Thus their strong interest in helping out the former while being perfectly willing to let the latter die on the vine, especially if that death can bring down one of the few remaining major unions.

The Republicans in their gut realize that if Obama even half-succeeds in bringing the country through the recession/Depression, especially if it is identified in peoples' minds as Limbaugh would everso falsely have it be, as the "Obama Recession," they will be in the political wilderness for a long time.

McCain's Brother Calls 911 About Traffic

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:06:00 +0000

Have you heard the 911 call that John McCain's brother Joe made because he was stuck in traffic?

Operator: 911 state your emergency

Caller: It's not an emergency, but do you know why on one side at the damn drawbridge of 95 traffic is stopped for 15 minutes and yet traffic's coming the other way?

Operator: Sir, are you calling 911 to complain about traffic? (pause)

Caller: "(Expletive) you." (caller hangs up)

I asked my wife, what kind of idiot would call 911 about traffic? A prince, she said. Or a spoiled brat, I said, which would make Joe McCain just like his brother.

For what it's worth...

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:56:00 +0000

... the McCain-Palin campaign spent more than $30,000 these past two weeks on Sarah Palin's hair and makeup. This is in addition to the $150,000 they spent on outfitting the hockey Mom Alaska Governor in fashion from Neiman Marcus and the like.

I'd be willing to bet that both of these amounts exceed what Joe the "plumber" made last year in wages.

Who was the highest paid individual in Senator John McCain�s presidential campaign during the first half of October as it headed down the homestretch?

Not Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain�s chief foreign policy adviser; not Nicolle Wallace, his senior communications staffer. It was Amy Strozzi, Gov. Sarah Palin�s traveling makeup artist, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night.

Ms. Strozzi, who was nominated for an Emmy award for her makeup work on the television show �So You Think You Can Dance?�, was paid $22,800 for the first two weeks of October alone, according to the records. The campaign categorized Ms. Strozzi�s payment as �Personnel Svc/Equipment.�

In addition, Angela Lew, who is Ms. Palin�s traveling hair stylist, got $10,000 for �Communications Consulting� in the first half of October.

Ron Howard, Andy Griffith & Henry Walker Endorse Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:21:00 +0000

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

A Good Time for Deficit Spending

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 00:20:00 +0000

In the coming weeks and months you're going to hear free market ideologues tell us why, in the midst of our current free market-induced crisis, we can't afford to spend money on health care, alternative energy, education, etc. But as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman writes in today's New York Times ("Let's Get Fiscal"), we can't afford not to.

In other words, there�s not much Ben Bernanke can do for the economy. He can and should cut interest rates even more � but nobody expects this to do more than provide a slight economic boost.

On the other hand, there�s a lot the federal government can do for the economy. It can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren�t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages (but not at face value, as John McCain has proposed) and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.

And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn�t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let�s get those projects rolling.

Will the next administration do what�s needed to deal with the economic slump? Not if Mr. McCain pulls off an upset. What we need right now is more government spending � but when Mr. McCain was asked in one of the debates how he would deal with the economic crisis, he answered: �Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control.�

If Barack Obama becomes president, he won�t have the same knee-jerk opposition to spending. But he will face a chorus of inside-the-Beltway types telling him that he has to be responsible, that the big deficits the government will run next year if it does the right thing are unacceptable.

He should ignore that chorus. The responsible thing, right now, is to give the economy the help it needs. Now is not the time to worry about the deficit.

I'll Take $288,938, Thank You Very Much

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:06:00 +0000

Tommy McCall writes for the New York Times ("Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants"):

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover�s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.

Troopergate Dumb Arguments

noreply@blogger.com (James Stroud) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:58:00 +0000

Below are some rebuttals to some common arguments that you can cut-and-paste when discussing Troopergate with your friends and family. Except for Rebuttals 0-a and 0-b, Rebuttals consist of text from the bipartisan report released Friday. I have included my own Editorial Comments to clarify the meaning of the rebuttals.

[Dumb Argument 0] "This has been political from the start."

[Rebuttal 0-a] Ten Republicans and four Democrats voted for an investigation. The same Council approved the findings. The same council approved disclosure of the findings. Though perhaps political (see Rebuttal 0-b), it was not partisan.

[Rebuttal 0-b] Sarah Palin is a politician. Just like the merits of a restauranteur comes from her ability to manage a restaurant, the merits of a politician comes from her ability to manage politics. If Sarah Palin can't manage politics, she will succumb easily to a slew of political problems including but not limited to ethics violations.

[Dumb Argument 1] "Obama is responsible for this."

[Rebuttal 1] On July 28, 2008, approximately one month before Sarah Palin was named John McCain's Vice Presidential candidate, "a contract for legal services was entered into between the [bipartisan Alaska Legislative Council] and [Stephen Branchflower] to provide legal services." To this end, Stephen Branchflower agreed to "provide legal services to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch."

[James's Editorial Comments 1] It is highly unlikely that Obama could have had the foresight to engineer this investigation months in advance of Sarah Palin's nomination. To provide evidence of such foresight would probably be grounds for a Pulitzer prize in investigative journalism. Speculation doesn't count as evidence.

[Dumb Argument 2] "The report said Palin engaged in 'official action' by her inaction." How could she be guilty of anything if she didn't do anything?

[Rebuttal 2] Sarah Palin "permitted [her husband] Todd Palin to use the resources of the Governor's office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."

"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired. She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act."

"As defined in AS 39.52.960(14), the term 'official action' means 'advice participation, or assistance, including, for example a recommendation, decision, approval, disapproval, vote, or other similar action, including inaction, by a public officer.'" (Emphasis added.)

[James's Editorial Comments 2] Palin's inaction is similar to allowing one's spouse access to an open cash register and not preventing theft of the cash. One is guilty by inaction. In other words, one would be an accessory to the crime by allowing it to happen.

[Dumb Argument 3] "Governor Palin was scared of Trooper Wooten. She did what she had to do to protect her family."

[Rebuttal 3] "Governor Palin has stated publicly that she and her family feared Trooper Wooten. Yet the evidence presented has been inconsistent with such claims of fear. The testimony from Trooper Wheeler, who was part of her security detail from the start [of her term as Governor], was that shortly after elected to office, she ordered a substantial reduction in manpower in her personal protection detail in both Anchorage and Juneau, an act that is inconsistent with a desire to avoid harm from Trooper Wooten or others. Moreover, assuming that Trooper Wooten was ever inclined to attack Governor Palin or a family member, logic dictates that getting him fired would accomplish nothing to eliminate the potential for harm to her or her family. On the contrary, it might just precipitate some retaliatory conduct on his part. Causing Wooten to loose his job would not have de-escalated the situation, or provided her or her family with greater security.

"Finally it is noteworthy that in almost every contact with subordinate employees, Mr. Palins's comments were couched in terms of his desire to see Trooper Wooten fired for reasons that had nothing to do with fear. His comments were always couched in terms that he was a bad Trooper, that he was not a good recruiting image for AST, that his discipline amounted to nothing more than a slap on the wrist, that nothing had happened to him following the administrative investigation, and so forth. Mr. Palin even sought to obtain information about Trooper Wooten that was confidential by law ["T. Palin asked for Wooten's file," "wanted Grimes report," "refused to give it to him"] The words selected by Mr. Palin, and his actions, give insight into his motivation and that of his wife, Governor Palin"

[James's Editorial Comments 3] If you are afraid of someone, you don't piss them off by trying to get them fired from their job. If you are afraid of someone, your words and actions will actually reflect that fear motivates you. If you are not afraid and are just being a maverick, don't lie and say you are afraid--that would be unethical.

[Dumb Argument 4] "Sarah Palin was never given a chance to defend herself."

[Rebuttal] "The Attorney General's office failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 written request to Governor Sarah Palin for information about the case in the form of emails." The report also states: "it does seem there has been an unusual delay in material that was requested by [Stephen Branchflower] in writing two months ago. No satisfactory reason or explanation has been given"

"While it is true that in the absence of an interview with either Governor Palin or Todd Palin, the specific answers to questions such as these are left unanswered, it is likewise true that their apparent motives can be inferred from the circumstances, their actions and their comments."

[James's Editorial Comments 4] Sarah Palin, or her immediate subordinate, the Attorney General, has never complied "substantially" with information requests. Not only has she been given every opportunity to defend herself in this matter, her participation has been specifically requested by the investigator. If she really wanted to defend herself and really had nothing to hide, she would have complied with the investigation. Her evasive behavior towards this investigation suggests otherwise.

[Dumb Argument 5] Palin didn't really do anything wrong. AS 39.52.110(a) from the Alaskan Ethics Act is simply a statute, its not a real law.

[Rebuttal 5] "Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional. It is an individual responsibility imposed by law, and any effort to benefit a personal interest through official action is a violation of that trust. As explained [elsewhere in the report], the term "benefit" is very broadly defined and includes anything that is to the person's advantage or personal self-interest. The term "personal interest" as used in the Ethics Act means any interest held by the public officer or the public officer's immediate family, including a sibling such as Governor Palin's sister Molly, Molly's children, her father Mr. Heath or any other family member. AS 39.52.960(11)."

[James's Editorial Comments 5] First, Alaskan Statutes are indeed real laws. They are actually statutory laws. Second, ethics exists as a formal framework for establishing how actions may be considered right and wrong. Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional. The Alaskan Legislature decided to enact this ethics code into law to provide a lawful means to enforce compliance with the ethics code. Palin is bound to comply with the code as Governor.

"The End Of American Capitalism?"

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:19:00 +0000

It's time we faced the truth. The American economy has not, nor should it ever be, a "free" market, at least not as the disciples of Milton Friedman have long advocated. Some goods and services are better provided by the private sector (capitalism) while others are better provided by the government, whether federal, state or local (socialism).

What we're living in now is the worst of both worlds, call it socialist capitalism. During the good times, the rich get richer and the free market is revered. During the bad times, the rich get bailed out by the middle class and the poor.

Anthony Faiola writes in today's Washington Post:

But the hands-off brand of capitalism in the United States is now being blamed for the easy credit that sickened the housing market and allowed a freewheeling Wall Street to create a pool of toxic investments that has infected the global financial system. Heavy intervention by the government, critics say, is further robbing Washington of the moral authority to spread the gospel of laissez-faire capitalism.

"People around the world once admired us for our economy, and we told them if you wanted to be like us, here's what you have to do -- hand over power to the market," said Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University. "The point now is that no one has respect for that kind of model anymore given this crisis. And of course it raises questions about our credibility. Everyone feels they are suffering now because of us."

In Seoul, many see American excess as a warning. At the same time, anger is mounting over the global spillover effect of the U.S. crisis. The Korean currency, the won, has fallen sharply in recent days as corporations there struggle to find dollars in the heat of a global credit crunch.

"Derivatives and hedge funds are like casino gambling," said South Korean Finance Minister Kang Man-soo. "A lot of Koreans are asking, how can the United States be so weak?"

Other than a few fringe heads of state and quixotic headlines, no one is talking about the death of capitalism. The embrace of free-market theories, particularly in Asia, has helped lift hundreds of millions out of poverty in recent decades. But resentment is growing over America's brand of capitalism, which in contrast to, say, Germany's, spurns regulations and venerates risk.

"Obviously the crisis comes from an important regulatory and supervisory failure in advanced countries . . . and a failure in market discipline mechanisms," Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF's managing director, said yesterday before the fund's annual meeting in Washington.

In a slideshow presentation, Strauss-Kahn illustrated the global impact of the financial crisis. Countries in Africa, including many of those with some of the lowest levels of market and financial integration and openness, are now set to weather the crisis with the least amount of turbulence.

Shortly afterward, World Bank President Robert Zoellick was questioned by reporters about the "confusion" in the developing world over whether to continue embracing the free-market model. He replied, "I think people have been confused not only in developing countries, but in developed countries, by these shocking events."

In much of the developing world, financial systems still remain far more governed by the state, despite pressure from the United States for those countries to shift power to the private sector and create freer financial markets. They may stay that way for some time.

"Sleaziest Four Days in Modern American Political History"

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:26:00 +0000

So said Keith Olbermann, and who would disagree?

Taken together what could well be the sleaziest four days in modern American political history -- four days in which it is easy to see where Senator McCain or Governor Palin might have induced in an embittered or unintelligent individual, the premise that Senator Obama either associates with terrorists or might be even one himself.

Domestic terrorist? Was Bill Ayers, 40 years ago, a domestic terrorist or a radical activist? While the mainstream media has decided he was the former, he appears to be neither now.

Is it justified for the McCain campaign to link Obama to Ayers? Would it be any less justified for the Obama campaign to link McCain to Charles Keating or G. Gordon Liddy?

In unrelated news, McCain recently referred to his audience as "my fellow prisoners." Prisoners? Are we all experiencing Stockholm Syndrome now?

"The GOP Peddles Economic Snake Oil"

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:15:00 +0000

Thomas Frank's latest op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal ("The GOP Peddles Economic Snake Oil") reminds me of a quote that is often attributed to Bill Maher: "Republicans always run on the idea government is ineffective and then they get elected and prove it." And that's the gist of Frank's article.

OK, let me get this straight: The central axiom of conservative Republicanism is that government is inherently corrupt and can't do anything right.

Over many years of ascendancy, conservative Republicans have filled government agencies with conservative Republicans and proceeded to enact the conservative Republican policy wish list -- tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, outsourcing federal work, and so on.

And as a consequence of these policies our conservative Republican government has bungled most of the big tasks that have fallen to it. The rescue and recovery of the Gulf Coast was a disaster. The reconstruction of Iraq was a disaster. The regulatory agencies became so dumb they didn't even see the disasters they were set up to prevent. And each disaster was attributable to the conservative philosophy of government.

Yet now we are supposed to vote for more conservative Republicans because we learned from the last bunch of conservative Republicans that government just doesn't work.

That is the advice of Sarah Palin, Republican vice-presidential nominee, in last week's debate with her Democratic counterpart, discussing the dread prospect of universal health care: "Unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds."

Conservative misrule, prompted by conservative disdain for government, proves that government cannot be trusted -- and that the only answer is to elect another round of government-denouncing conservatives.

"Cynicism" seems too small a word for this circular kind of political fraud. One reaches instead for images of grosser malevolence. It's like suggesting that the best way to recover from pneumonia is to stand in the rain for three hours. It's like arguing that the way to solve nuclear proliferation is by handing out weapons-grade plutonium to everyone who asks for it.

Consider also the perverse incentives that such a logic would establish. If we validate Mrs. Palin's thoughts on federal bungling by electing her to the high office she seeks, we are encouraging her to bungle everything that comes her way. After all, by her thinking, such bungling will not discredit her doctrines but rather confirm them, demonstrate the need for more Sarah Palins down the road. We will be asking for it, and it's not much of a stretch to predict that we will get it...

What I Learned Today About McCain & Palin

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:08:00 +0000

1. Gov. Palin and her husband owe tens of thousands of dollars in taxes

2. Gov. Palin isn't backing down from her comment that Sen. Obama "pals around with terrorists," even though the mainstream media knows she's lying.

But while Ayers and Obama are acquainted, the charge that they "pal around" is a stretch of any reading of the public record. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts. Obama was 8 years old at the time the Weather Underground claimed credit for numerous bombings and was blamed for a pipe bomb that killed a San Francisco policeman.

3. I'm not the only one who thinks that Sarah Palin is a stupid, conniving bitch

4. John McCain's career has been distinguished by its recklessness and dishonesty. Sounds oddly familiar to the career of the current occupant of the White House, doesn't it?

John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.

Charlie Rose: An exclusive conversation with Warren Buffett

noreply@blogger.com (jieister) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:52:00 +0000

Stockholm Syndrome & Wall Street Bailout

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:58:00 +0000

There has been a lot of discussion and gnashing of teeth here at testpattern about the Wall Street bailout, and in case you hadn't already heard, it just passed the House of Representatives.

James writes:

Its a dark day.

We just allowed Congress to pass a bill that yet again gives unprecedented authority to the Executive branch. We just increased our national debt by 10%. We have no plan but to borrow money on the government's good credit just to give it to banks that make bad investments. Start working extra hard because we are going to have to pay for this at some point.

A few days ago I heard economist Paul Krugman say that he was beginning to experience Stockholm Syndrome around this issue. I guess the same could be said about our elected officials in Washington.

If it's any consolation, here is what Krugman wrote about the bailout in yesterday's Times:

... the Paulson plan, then the Paulson-Dodd-Frank plan, and now, I guess, the Paulson-Dodd-Frank-Pork plan (it�s been larded up since the House rejected it on Monday). I hope that it passes, simply because we�re in the middle of a financial panic, and another no vote would make the panic even worse. But that�s just another way of saying that the economy is now hostage to the Treasury Department�s blunders.

For the fact is that the plan on offer is a stinker � and inexcusably so. The financial system has been under severe stress for more than a year, and there should have been carefully thought-out contingency plans ready to roll out in case the markets melted down. Obviously, there weren�t: the Paulson plan was clearly drawn up in haste and confusion. And Treasury officials have yet to offer any clear explanation of how the plan is supposed to work, probably because they themselves have no idea what they�re doing.

Despite this, as I said, I hope the plan passes, because otherwise we�ll probably see even worse panic in the markets. But at best, the plan will buy some time to seek a real solution to the crisis.

One thing�s for sure: The next administration�s economic team had better be ready to hit the ground running, because from day one it will find itself dealing with the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression.

"Don�t Make Working People Bail Out Wall Street"

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:11:00 +0000

Last night I caught a glimpse of Barack Obama speaking on the Senate floor in support of the 700-billion-dollar Wall Street bailout and could see Sen. Bernie Sanders sitting behind him. He didn't look happy.

The fact that both Obama and McCain support the bailout should give every American pause. Maybe Ralph Nader and Jim Hightower are right? We think we have a two-party democracy, but in fact "both national parties now exist as wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America, selling two brands of the same corporate agenda."

Although he is an Independent and self-described democratic socialist, Sanders usually votes with the Democrats. Yesterday's vote was not one of those occasions. Here is why:

This country faces many serious problems in the financial market, in the stock market, in our economy. We must act, but we must act in a way that improves the situation. We can do better than the legislation now before Congress.

This bill does not effectively address the issue of what the taxpayers of our country will actually own after they invest hundreds of billions of dollars in toxic assets. This bill does not effectively address the issue of oversight because the oversight board members have all been hand picked by the Bush administration. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of foreclosures and addressing that very serious issue, which is impacting millions of low- and moderate-income Americans in the aggressive, effective way that we should be. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of executive compensation and golden parachutes. Under this bill, the CEOs and the Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, continue to make out like bandits.

This bill does not deal at all with how we got into this crisis in the first place and the need to undo the deregulatory fervor which created trillions of dollars in complicated and unregulated financial instruments such as credit default swaps and hedge funds. This bill does not address the issue that has taken us to where we are today, the concept of too big to fail. In fact, within the last several weeks we have sat idly by and watched gigantic financial institutions like the Bank of America swallow up other gigantic financial institutions like Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. Well, who is going to bail out the Bank of America if it begins to fail? There is not one word about the issue of too big to fail in this legislation at a time when that problem is in fact becoming even more serious.

This bill does not deal with the absurdity of having the fox guarding the hen house. Maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks so, but I have a hard time understanding why we are giving $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who along with other financial institutions, actually got us into this problem. Now, maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks that's a little bit weird, but that is what I think.

This bill does not address the major economic crisis we face: growing unemployment, low wages, the need to create decent-paying jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure and moving us to energy efficiency and sustainable energy...