Pseudo Populists, Politics and Legitimized Immorality
I try never to engage in conversations that have anything to do with morals. The biggest reason is that these exchanges usually wind up not being conversations at all, but highly opinionated and animated harangues, defiant, judgmental outbursts which preclude logic, ignore history and insist that God has had something definitive to say about it. Trust me, here, God did not invent or create the concept of morality: man did it, and he probably did it in order to get the upper hand in some awkward situation. He/she wanted to put something over on his/her brother/sister-in-law, to save some money, to get out of an obligation or to justify why he/she slept with his/her bother/sister-in-law/neighbor’s wife/husband and should not be prosecuted. But God had nothing to do with any of it and should be left out of the discussion. God has bigger fish to fry, or to create, depending upon your perspective. And please do not try in any way claim that any of the above reasoning had anything to do with intelligent design. Creative marketing? Maybe. And if morality was not treated so irrationally, we would not have racism, sexism or homo-phobia. You can tune in later, for that.
But the current political milieu in America is trying my patience. As much as I would rather not talk about morals, I am finding it much more difficult right now to avoid the issue. In order to continue this exercise, I need to ask you to agree with me on just one definition: Any acts, or deeds, or the thoughts that may precede them, are immoral if the end result is that another human being is hurt, harmed or suffers. Now I know that this can describe a wide range of both hurt and suffering: you may just get your feelings hurt or you may suffer financial loss. Or you may wind up being unjustly imprisoned. Or worse. Perhaps you might get blown up by a terrorist, or some “maverick” in an F-16 could napalm your village? Or perhaps it is a lesser crime, like having a drunk driver total your car or some foul degenerate rapes your daughter? Or a priest fondles your son or a right wing fundamentalist blows up an abortion clinic( killing three doctors and two nurses in order to “save a life”… it is amazing what people can talk themselves into). Immorality comes in all shapes, sizes and disguises, to be certain, but some of it we can stop, some it we can prevent and some it we can eliminate in it’s infancy before too many more people get hurt or suffer. Generally, we refer to that as a process of education. Generally that requires the dissemination of information.
Let me give you now, three elements of contemporary life to consider, both together and separately. These are 1.) the concept of “talking points”(one form of information dissemination), which has become 2.) the art of lying and deliberate deception, and then 3.)the acceptable parameters of mental illness in our society. Before you ask me how in the world I managed to hook these three items together, let me just say that if it were not for the electronic media and the challenges and intellectual fire alarms that were set off for me by two close friends, I would never have managed this conflagration on my own.
I have become increasingly annoyed and nauseated by the incessant, droning use of talking points to further the ends of political campaigns. I was recently reminded that this repetitive practice was originated by a man named Frank Luntz, and it has been a round since the 1960’s. While indeed everyone seems to employ the strategy, it is most commonly used by the non-thinking, regurgitative sect of the conservatives. These I call “pseudo populists” and are usually Republican office seekers and their surrogates. This strategy involves repeating two or three points over and over again, whether they have a grain of truth or not, in complete concert with your fellows (or girls), in the hope that if they are heard often enough, someone will accept them to be true. On Sunday, Oct. 5, Gov. Pawlenty (R-MN) and Rep. Mel Martinez (R-FL) appeared on a panel on the ABC weekly program, hosted by George Stephanopolous, and gave (almost) the best demonstration of talking point technique I have seen lately. Speaking from separate locations, speaking almost word for word, they both repeated the same mantra about John McCain: He is 1) a maverick (he is not, and everyone knows it now), 2) a populist (he is not: he is an erratic opportunist who owns too many houses and cars and has lost touch with anything down to earth), and 3) he is a “straight-talker”: that might be the case if you can figure out which side of his mouth he is talking from at any one time. He may have been once, but he has zigged and zagged and flipped and flopped so often that nothing is straight, any longer. Dare I say, the man lies?
As Joe Biden would say, “Let me say that again”: both Pawlenty and Martinez repeated the same three point message, nearly word for word TWICE. These three statements were all lies, and if accepted as fact, they will all surely hurt someone or cause suffering, somewhere. At issue for me is whether or not they actually believe what they said, and as lies, do the statements themselves constitute immorality? And what does it all have to do with what we will accept as permissible and acceptable levels of moral human behavior? More on that, later.
Putting aside, for just a moment, at least, the fact the DJ average is down 539 points as I write, and America’s financial crisis (which seems to have been brought on by copious lying and deception on Wall Street, which was seemingly enabled by copious lying and deception in the halls of government) is spreading to markets around the world at an alarming rate, let’s talk about Sarah Palin for a moment. Hell, the rest of the world is.
Sarah Palin came from relative obscurity and exploded onto the national scene largely because, lacking any substance, poise, intellectual acumen or inherent skills, she could read and memorize talking points. She can lie well and consistently. Pundits, critics and analysts have dissected her (somebody’s) every word for days. And they have worked hardest (especially on SNL) to cull (without result) any important and salient points from her debate performance. Everyone seems to agree that Ms. Palin can fluently repeat that she and McCain are both mavericks, she can display herself and speak (if crudely) as a populist, and has no trouble repeating the claim that John McCain is a straight-talker. Now does all that sound familiar? And the RNC expects us to accept her as legitimate. Be serious.
Clearly the use of talking points has reached a new peak. And clearly those using the points mentioned here are counting on the success of repetitive lies and then the deception that they hope will result. Which brings me to the subject of mental illness.
Also very clear is the fact that these pseudo populists will say virtually anything to get elected, and will say it over and over again. I am still mulling over what this may say about in what manner of regard they hold their fellow man (Palin speaks of Eskimos as “Arctic Arabs”?). But these talkers are like a Greek chorus in a tragedy that is playing out before us. In all the instances I have cited here, Pawlenty, Martinez and Palin have all fallen exactly in lock step with the party line, in an amazing uniformity. Ms. Ptof-whatever-her-name- is, as a McCain surrogate and spokesperson (and another pseudo populist) even showed enough boldness to appear on the Rachel Maddow show this week, and perform exactly in the same manner. I.e., she repeated the same claims with as much bald-faced-ness as Pawlenty, et.al. (What I find curious, as do many others, is that McCain himself, as the party standard bearer, has not been so consistent: indeed, from day to day he seems unable to remember what he claimed, as chapter and verse, from the gospel of the day before. That really inspires confidence.)
While it was the urging of one friend that I was forced to remember that not only pseudo populist Republicans utilize the talk point strategy (Democrats can and do employ it, as well), it was another friend that urged me to acquaint myself with the concept of “anti-social personality disorder”. Much to my surprise, this is the point at which my thoughts about immorality and mental illness (or health) came together.
Among the other information I gathered from reading Wikipedia entries about anti-social personality disorder, I learned that persons so afflicted have a blatant or “high disregard for the welfare of others”. This would seem to imply, at least to my way of thinking, that this disregard for the welfare of others is a kind of immorality, just as is lying, if it leads to the harm, hurt or suffering of others (has Ms. Palin shown us that she holds any other human being in high regard except John McCain? I know she doesn’t care about polar bears, but…). Now I would be loathe to make any broad, sweeping generalizations about either all Republicans, or even all pseudo populist Republicans, BUT….and I know I already have the nations mental health practitioners seething…
What is it that you say about a group of Republican (or Democratic) lawmakers (and aspirants to the same positions) who deny extending unemployment benefits to the 159,000 newly unemployed in the American work force, when you must think about this as a possible disregard for the welfare of fellow humans? What might you say about this group, when they blindly give $700BN to bail out Wall Street CEO’s and do nothing to stave off the home foreclosures for millions of the rank and file and the middle class? What do you say about this group who stand so firmly behind a President who authorizes the deaths of hundred and thousands (in fact hundreds OF thousands) of military and civilian people around the world for oil? What do you say and surmise about this group of people who deny health care to millions of Americans who have none and then offer subsidies to big pharmaceutical companies? What do you say about this group when they send thousands off to war and then deny them health care when they come home without limbs and afflicted by PTSD? Does it make you wonder if they have managed some form of collective denial? Or have they in some way become affected by serious anti-social tendencies?
Which brings me to this: what are we to say and think about the Pawlentys, Mertinezes, Palins, Rices, Cheneys and the Bushes when they lie so uniformly and consistently and without pause or hesitation? Have they succumbed to habitual lying? Is their notion of morality diametrically opposed to that of the rest of us? Do they really believe what they lie about so consistently, or are they simply delusional in their approach to life? Do they want power and control so badly that they are willing to skew completely their view of humanity and disregard its’ values? Are they basically immoral?
Pseudo populists of any ilk are seeking to legitimize immorality. Such abundant, consistent and pervasive lying will surely lead to the hurt, pain, harm and suffering of the many that will fall victim to it. Do I need to say that again, or shall I call Joe Biden?
And don’t give me any crap about that Ayres guy, in Chicago.
Life goes on in Texas
Monday, October 6, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Mud Slings and Wooden Arrows
This is October 2, 2008. The United States is on the precipice of, well, something. Nobody seems to know exactly what it is, but that is nothing new in American culture and politics. But I am sure that today you, like many others, are either transfixed by the prospect of the upcoming VEEP debate and/or scared to death about what happens next with the financial crisis. All I really know is this:
Re: the VEEP debate. Either Palin will finally and completely reveal herself as the single most unqualified person in the history of the country to hold high office, thereby irreversibly dooming the Republican campaign, or she will turn on her feminine charm (snake oil?) and seduce America once again (here, have an apple), thereby throwing the entire race into another cocked hat between now and the election. (Perhaps she will give everyone in America a sugar-laden sno-cone, to stave off the hunger pangs of the financial crisis) After reading everything I can get my hands on (I guess like the way Sarah reads newspapers: "All of um"), that is the best summarization I can manage about the nature of the debate , right now. Mostly, I just want her to GO AWAY! I have no more energy molecules to waste on her. Please, someone make it STOP! In the meantime, "I'll just hafta git back to ya." Gawd help us.
Re: The financial crisis. I am completely convinced the politicians (who are not economists) know absolutely nothing about what it is wrong or how to fix it. And with Dubya and Paulson leading the fray, it is clearly a case of the blind leading the blind ( Two MBA's in the same room is never a good thing: look at Wall Street). And the economists (who do what is going on and how to fix it) are largely being ignored by the politicians (who don't know...never mind. You know how that sentence ends). And these economists say that the bail-out/rescue/buy-in/relief effort bill is all wrong and misses the boat. In fact, in terms what America needs, long term, as well as any real for real help to come to Main Street (have you ever met a politician OR an economist on Main Street? I haven't), this bill not only misses the boat, it misses the dock, the shore and even the north American continent (parts of it do reach China, however).
Last night, the Senate (you elected 'em!) passed a version of this non-helpful legislation by a whopping 75% margin ( this just two days after the House rejected something like it by a similar margin: we are politically schizoid) . To no one's surprise, even in the midst of our darkest hour, it is packed chock full of earmarks and pork. The media pundits have said that these add-ons and taxation rule changes and FDIC modifications "sweeten" the bill enough for it to be passed by the House. The economists (whom the politicians don't listen to) say that despite all of this bombast and rhetoric (from the politicians who don't know what's wrong or how to fix it...there I said it again), that the Congress is saddling each American with an additional debt of around $2200.00. According to the politicians (who don't know..oops, sorry), we will get this back some day. Well, probably never in my (your) lifetime. Trust them. They are your friends. However, when you do get it back, it will be in Chinese currency.
This morning, that silly and irrelevant man pretending to be the President of the United States, met with some "business advisors" (Wall St. guys?) and then went on television to plead rather pathetically that the Congress should act quickly (that would be novel) because, "London Bridge is falling down, falling down". The only thing missing was the music. If you missed it, you missed nothing, because his oratory was simply "naw-some". That is to say. it was a combination of nauseous and awesomely bad. He didn't help. He should have been out walking Barney or riding his bike: either activity would have been as useful (he probably thinks he was offering his "contributoriness"). Lame ducks should never quack in public.
But the capper, here, may well be this: in his daily NYT op ed, Professor Krugman (Princeton and all that, one of those economists that politicians don't listen to) declared that this was not a good bill but it was the only one we had and we should do it...but he didn't like it. He then pointed out that one of the earmark/pork barrel/bill stuffers was a section that addressed special tax efforts on behalf of the makers of "certain kinds of wooden arrows, made for children".
If you can find something, anything more irrelevant or more absurd to attach to this landmark (boat-sinking?) legislation (which the economists say isn't going to work, anyway), then please tell me what it is. If the House has the gall, in the face of the huge public outcry against such an action, to pass this bill, then I submit to you that it simply won't matter whether Sarah Palin ends the evening looking like a pile of moose droppings on the snow, or comes off like the second coming of Mary Magdelene, speaking in tongues. We will all only have big government bags full of wooden nickels...er arrows... to show for it all. Somehow, I don't think that was what anybody had thought of as the perfect "rapture". Have a nice day and be careful what you do with your arrows.
Life goes on in Texas
Re: the VEEP debate. Either Palin will finally and completely reveal herself as the single most unqualified person in the history of the country to hold high office, thereby irreversibly dooming the Republican campaign, or she will turn on her feminine charm (snake oil?) and seduce America once again (here, have an apple), thereby throwing the entire race into another cocked hat between now and the election. (Perhaps she will give everyone in America a sugar-laden sno-cone, to stave off the hunger pangs of the financial crisis) After reading everything I can get my hands on (I guess like the way Sarah reads newspapers: "All of um"), that is the best summarization I can manage about the nature of the debate , right now. Mostly, I just want her to GO AWAY! I have no more energy molecules to waste on her. Please, someone make it STOP! In the meantime, "I'll just hafta git back to ya." Gawd help us.
Re: The financial crisis. I am completely convinced the politicians (who are not economists) know absolutely nothing about what it is wrong or how to fix it. And with Dubya and Paulson leading the fray, it is clearly a case of the blind leading the blind ( Two MBA's in the same room is never a good thing: look at Wall Street). And the economists (who do what is going on and how to fix it) are largely being ignored by the politicians (who don't know...never mind. You know how that sentence ends). And these economists say that the bail-out/rescue/buy-in/relief effort bill is all wrong and misses the boat. In fact, in terms what America needs, long term, as well as any real for real help to come to Main Street (have you ever met a politician OR an economist on Main Street? I haven't), this bill not only misses the boat, it misses the dock, the shore and even the north American continent (parts of it do reach China, however).
Last night, the Senate (you elected 'em!) passed a version of this non-helpful legislation by a whopping 75% margin ( this just two days after the House rejected something like it by a similar margin: we are politically schizoid) . To no one's surprise, even in the midst of our darkest hour, it is packed chock full of earmarks and pork. The media pundits have said that these add-ons and taxation rule changes and FDIC modifications "sweeten" the bill enough for it to be passed by the House. The economists (whom the politicians don't listen to) say that despite all of this bombast and rhetoric (from the politicians who don't know what's wrong or how to fix it...there I said it again), that the Congress is saddling each American with an additional debt of around $2200.00. According to the politicians (who don't know..oops, sorry), we will get this back some day. Well, probably never in my (your) lifetime. Trust them. They are your friends. However, when you do get it back, it will be in Chinese currency.
This morning, that silly and irrelevant man pretending to be the President of the United States, met with some "business advisors" (Wall St. guys?) and then went on television to plead rather pathetically that the Congress should act quickly (that would be novel) because, "London Bridge is falling down, falling down". The only thing missing was the music. If you missed it, you missed nothing, because his oratory was simply "naw-some". That is to say. it was a combination of nauseous and awesomely bad. He didn't help. He should have been out walking Barney or riding his bike: either activity would have been as useful (he probably thinks he was offering his "contributoriness"). Lame ducks should never quack in public.
But the capper, here, may well be this: in his daily NYT op ed, Professor Krugman (Princeton and all that, one of those economists that politicians don't listen to) declared that this was not a good bill but it was the only one we had and we should do it...but he didn't like it. He then pointed out that one of the earmark/pork barrel/bill stuffers was a section that addressed special tax efforts on behalf of the makers of "certain kinds of wooden arrows, made for children".
If you can find something, anything more irrelevant or more absurd to attach to this landmark (boat-sinking?) legislation (which the economists say isn't going to work, anyway), then please tell me what it is. If the House has the gall, in the face of the huge public outcry against such an action, to pass this bill, then I submit to you that it simply won't matter whether Sarah Palin ends the evening looking like a pile of moose droppings on the snow, or comes off like the second coming of Mary Magdelene, speaking in tongues. We will all only have big government bags full of wooden nickels...er arrows... to show for it all. Somehow, I don't think that was what anybody had thought of as the perfect "rapture". Have a nice day and be careful what you do with your arrows.
Life goes on in Texas
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Financial Black Ops for Main Street
Today, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of (but not for) the House of Representatives (a group who obviously represents someone other than you and I), said that this gigantic, enormous, emergency (hurry up and pass this, before somebody notices) $700B Congressional bailout plan was:
"not a bailout. It's a buy-in".
If so, before I (we) start to feel better about this, I have a few questions (and so should you!). But before you even stop to consider the fact that the Congress has NEVER, EVER moved this fast, at any time in our history, you might review the following:
If it's not a "bail out", why is everyone carrying water buckets to and from Wall Street, and why are they filled with tax money?
If it's not a "bail out", why are the people carrying the buckets all taxpayers, while the people on Wall Street are looking smilingly out the windows, waiting for the buckets?
If it's not a "bail out", why are all the buckets coming back empty for the next five years?
If it is a "buy-in", who asked me (you) if I (we) wanted to buy in in the first place? Did I miss something?
If you were offered a chance to "buy-in", would you buy-in without a contract and some safeguards? "What's in your wallet?"
If you were offered a chance to buy in, would you do it with the Federal government as your partner? With George Bush as the CFO? With a contract written by government lawyers?(Put another way, how far are you prepared to bend over?)
If you were offered a chance to buy in, would you let Bernanke and Paulson be the brokers of record ?(remember that their lawyer was Roberto Gonzales...and he got fired)
Just in case someone might ask, would you like to have the option NOT to buy in? I don't hear Ms. Pelosi or the "Representatives" offering that one. (I thought I voted for these people. YOU?)
If this is not a "bail out", why are we so worried about the ship sinking? And if it is sinking, why hasn't someone looked for the leaks? Can anyone spell "Cause and Effect"? There must be"fault" lines here, somewhere.
And whether or not it is a "bail out" or a "buy in", why are the Chinese all smiling?
I think Ms. Pelosi is neglecting to tell us (lying through her teeth, maybe?) that this "buy-in" of Wall Street Real Estate is really like having us "buy-in" to beachfront property in Arizona. But that would explain two things:
It's probably why John McCain has awoken and is suddenly so keenly interested, as well as why we always talk about Wall Street as "swimming" in money.
WTF!?
Life goes on in Texas.
"not a bailout. It's a buy-in".
If so, before I (we) start to feel better about this, I have a few questions (and so should you!). But before you even stop to consider the fact that the Congress has NEVER, EVER moved this fast, at any time in our history, you might review the following:
If it's not a "bail out", why is everyone carrying water buckets to and from Wall Street, and why are they filled with tax money?
If it's not a "bail out", why are the people carrying the buckets all taxpayers, while the people on Wall Street are looking smilingly out the windows, waiting for the buckets?
If it's not a "bail out", why are all the buckets coming back empty for the next five years?
If it is a "buy-in", who asked me (you) if I (we) wanted to buy in in the first place? Did I miss something?
If you were offered a chance to "buy-in", would you buy-in without a contract and some safeguards? "What's in your wallet?"
If you were offered a chance to buy in, would you do it with the Federal government as your partner? With George Bush as the CFO? With a contract written by government lawyers?(Put another way, how far are you prepared to bend over?)
If you were offered a chance to buy in, would you let Bernanke and Paulson be the brokers of record ?(remember that their lawyer was Roberto Gonzales...and he got fired)
Just in case someone might ask, would you like to have the option NOT to buy in? I don't hear Ms. Pelosi or the "Representatives" offering that one. (I thought I voted for these people. YOU?)
If this is not a "bail out", why are we so worried about the ship sinking? And if it is sinking, why hasn't someone looked for the leaks? Can anyone spell "Cause and Effect"? There must be"fault" lines here, somewhere.
And whether or not it is a "bail out" or a "buy in", why are the Chinese all smiling?
I think Ms. Pelosi is neglecting to tell us (lying through her teeth, maybe?) that this "buy-in" of Wall Street Real Estate is really like having us "buy-in" to beachfront property in Arizona. But that would explain two things:
It's probably why John McCain has awoken and is suddenly so keenly interested, as well as why we always talk about Wall Street as "swimming" in money.
WTF!?
Life goes on in Texas.
Friday, September 26, 2008
A Sporting Event
I tuned in tonight, armed with a glass of Gatorade and a handful of fig newtons, to watch the debate, the one referenced in the subject line, above. I must have had the tuner on the wrong station, because instead of the fire that I expected to break out, with flames shooting at me in high def, instead of claims and counter claims, accusations and blame-gaming, I saw two people in boring suits, with boring ties ( and one guy in a puke-green shirt) starring in a replay of a ping-pong match.
The guy on the left kept saying the guy on the right was inexperienced and naive. He said that about seven times. The guy on the right kept saying, "You're right, John". He said that about eight times. When both guys were asked (by the only guy who was really "on topic") what they would both do without (as President) because there would be no money in the bank, they ignored him and played more ping-pong. They did that three times. Back and forth. Back and forth.
Afterwards, some other guy on TV said the guy on the left was "contentious". I just thought he was being old and gnarly. Then someone said the guy on the right was "too nice" and "missed a few openings". I just thought he was showing respect for his elders. You have to go easy on old people, especially when they work for the government and crashed planes for a living.
There was some chit-chat about oil drilling and alternative energy sources and resurgent surges of terrorists, and the guy on the left denied ever being Miss Congeniality but said he and his newgirlfriend were both Mavericks. At that point I thought maybe the guy on the right would start a real argument over how to pronounce the name of the president of whatsitstan, but instead he talked about tax loopholes for the drilling people who already had more money than the alternative energy people who needed tax breaks to pay for health insurance for the people installing the alternative energy equipment. And for a moment I wondered if while that was going on, the guy on the left was thinking about drilling his girlfriend.
It was all very exciting. It was something like the thrill I experience when I watch my instant oatmeal heat up in the microwave every morning. Then Keith Olberman made some jokes, and Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan yelled at the microphone about who went 15 rounds without a knockout, and I had some ice cream and went to bed.
Nobody ever did tell me what the hell they plan to do with that $700 billion. Maybe it's not important in ping-pong.
Life Goes On In Texas.
The guy on the left kept saying the guy on the right was inexperienced and naive. He said that about seven times. The guy on the right kept saying, "You're right, John". He said that about eight times. When both guys were asked (by the only guy who was really "on topic") what they would both do without (as President) because there would be no money in the bank, they ignored him and played more ping-pong. They did that three times. Back and forth. Back and forth.
Afterwards, some other guy on TV said the guy on the left was "contentious". I just thought he was being old and gnarly. Then someone said the guy on the right was "too nice" and "missed a few openings". I just thought he was showing respect for his elders. You have to go easy on old people, especially when they work for the government and crashed planes for a living.
There was some chit-chat about oil drilling and alternative energy sources and resurgent surges of terrorists, and the guy on the left denied ever being Miss Congeniality but said he and his newgirlfriend were both Mavericks. At that point I thought maybe the guy on the right would start a real argument over how to pronounce the name of the president of whatsitstan, but instead he talked about tax loopholes for the drilling people who already had more money than the alternative energy people who needed tax breaks to pay for health insurance for the people installing the alternative energy equipment. And for a moment I wondered if while that was going on, the guy on the left was thinking about drilling his girlfriend.
It was all very exciting. It was something like the thrill I experience when I watch my instant oatmeal heat up in the microwave every morning. Then Keith Olberman made some jokes, and Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan yelled at the microphone about who went 15 rounds without a knockout, and I had some ice cream and went to bed.
Nobody ever did tell me what the hell they plan to do with that $700 billion. Maybe it's not important in ping-pong.
Life Goes On In Texas.
Klugman...er, Krugman on our money
I will just keep sending Krugman along to everyone until he stops making such good sense. HE should go to Washington and McCain should go somewhere else. Far away.
And FactCheck.org reports this morning that the police chief of Wassilla ordered rape victims to pay for their rape kits, not necessarily Palin, although she may have had something to do with it. And it turns out that they shoot grey wolves in Alaska because they are largely a menace, like rats in NYC. Of course we have menaces walking the halls of the capitol in DC and we don't shoot them...curious.
----- Original Message -----
From: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
To: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 9:20 AM
Subject: NYTimes.com: Where Are the Grown-Ups?
OPINION September 26, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist: Where Are the Grown-Ups? By PAUL KRUGMAN The grown-up thing to do is to rescue the financial system. If Henry Paulson isn’t the grown-up we need, are Congressional leaders able to fill the role?
Life Goes ON in Texas.
And FactCheck.org reports this morning that the police chief of Wassilla ordered rape victims to pay for their rape kits, not necessarily Palin, although she may have had something to do with it. And it turns out that they shoot grey wolves in Alaska because they are largely a menace, like rats in NYC. Of course we have menaces walking the halls of the capitol in DC and we don't shoot them...curious.
----- Original Message -----
From: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
To: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 9:20 AM
Subject: NYTimes.com: Where Are the Grown-Ups?
OPINION September 26, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist: Where Are the Grown-Ups? By PAUL KRUGMAN The grown-up thing to do is to rescue the financial system. If Henry Paulson isn’t the grown-up we need, are Congressional leaders able to fill the role?
Life Goes ON in Texas.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Say what?
This is amazing!
George Will, bless his perfectly coiffed and conservative Republican head, slipped up (oops!) and said about 20 words this week that were both almost nice and complimentary about Barack Obama. He also let it slip (oops!) that John McCain, among other nasty and personally objectionable habits, may have a problem with his temper! Wow! And George (no, not that one) even had the (gasp) audacity (remember that elitist phrase?) to suggest that this little character flaw might prevent plane-crash Johnny from being able to be a good commander in chief. (This all has something to do with little red buttons, 3 A.M. phone calls and a tolerance for 21rst century technology...but you figure it out).
But what has happened (and I'm sure Mrs. Will and George's best friends are completely flummoxed by this) is that in so doing, my new best friend, GEORGE (no, not THAT one!) has infused several thousand volts of energy into the Obama campaign. And the polls show it.
Of course, as far as government finances go, the fact that we have all been only recently reminded of the Keating Five debacle (Johnny says it was difficult time in his life), the $15,000/mo. Mr. Davis has been (not?)collecting from Fannie and/or Freddie, the fact that McCain has no idea what Wall Street does or what a "debit-buy-back-repurchase refund bail-out" is (I don't either, neither do you and neither does Henry Paulson...don't BS me on this), and the skies over Arizona don't look very good, right now (Maybe Cindy needs a new dress or Sarah needs to dress another moose. Whatever).
I sent Obama some money the other day. At the same time I offered to send McCain a voucher for dinner for two at a Viet Namese restaurant. After I was mildly chastised for considering this gesture (it was too good for him?), I just casually mentioned that the restaurant I had in mind was in the basement of the Hanoi Hilton. With any luck the dinner would take another five years, and this whole freaking disaster could be averted. I bet George Will never thought of that one!
In the meantime, thank you George (no, not THAT one) for showing America that miracles can take place, and let's all hope that all roads don't lead to Hooverville. Despite Condi Rice's fundamentals. Heard THAT one yet?
Life Goes On In Texas.
George Will, bless his perfectly coiffed and conservative Republican head, slipped up (oops!) and said about 20 words this week that were both almost nice and complimentary about Barack Obama. He also let it slip (oops!) that John McCain, among other nasty and personally objectionable habits, may have a problem with his temper! Wow! And George (no, not that one) even had the (gasp) audacity (remember that elitist phrase?) to suggest that this little character flaw might prevent plane-crash Johnny from being able to be a good commander in chief. (This all has something to do with little red buttons, 3 A.M. phone calls and a tolerance for 21rst century technology...but you figure it out).
But what has happened (and I'm sure Mrs. Will and George's best friends are completely flummoxed by this) is that in so doing, my new best friend, GEORGE (no, not THAT one!) has infused several thousand volts of energy into the Obama campaign. And the polls show it.
Of course, as far as government finances go, the fact that we have all been only recently reminded of the Keating Five debacle (Johnny says it was difficult time in his life), the $15,000/mo. Mr. Davis has been (not?)collecting from Fannie and/or Freddie, the fact that McCain has no idea what Wall Street does or what a "debit-buy-back-repurchase refund bail-out" is (I don't either, neither do you and neither does Henry Paulson...don't BS me on this), and the skies over Arizona don't look very good, right now (Maybe Cindy needs a new dress or Sarah needs to dress another moose. Whatever).
I sent Obama some money the other day. At the same time I offered to send McCain a voucher for dinner for two at a Viet Namese restaurant. After I was mildly chastised for considering this gesture (it was too good for him?), I just casually mentioned that the restaurant I had in mind was in the basement of the Hanoi Hilton. With any luck the dinner would take another five years, and this whole freaking disaster could be averted. I bet George Will never thought of that one!
In the meantime, thank you George (no, not THAT one) for showing America that miracles can take place, and let's all hope that all roads don't lead to Hooverville. Despite Condi Rice's fundamentals. Heard THAT one yet?
Life Goes On In Texas.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Money Matters
Foxes and Hen Houses
I’ve been waiting several days for someone to say this, but no one has (just like this, anyway), so I will:
The Fox is not only IN the henhouse, he holds the mortgage on it…and it is an ARM, sub-prime. The Fox controls the water supply to the henhouse. The Fox controls the electricity to the henhouse. The Fox has the henhouse’ checkbook. The Fox won’t let the roosters in and can’t understand why there are no fresh eggs. The Fox wants more eggs to sell to buy guns to protect the henhouse.
Any of the chickens in the henhouse that the Fox doesn’t eat, he screws. Paulsen wants to be a Fox and a Rooster and we will all be chickens if we don’t make Congress skin the bastard and make him into a fox stole. Even PETA would like that.
Life Goes on in Texas
I’ve been waiting several days for someone to say this, but no one has (just like this, anyway), so I will:
The Fox is not only IN the henhouse, he holds the mortgage on it…and it is an ARM, sub-prime. The Fox controls the water supply to the henhouse. The Fox controls the electricity to the henhouse. The Fox has the henhouse’ checkbook. The Fox won’t let the roosters in and can’t understand why there are no fresh eggs. The Fox wants more eggs to sell to buy guns to protect the henhouse.
Any of the chickens in the henhouse that the Fox doesn’t eat, he screws. Paulsen wants to be a Fox and a Rooster and we will all be chickens if we don’t make Congress skin the bastard and make him into a fox stole. Even PETA would like that.
Life Goes on in Texas
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
