Kristol,
Palin's assertion (and your concurrence) that only John McCain “has truly fought for America” is telling. It highlights the fundamental flaws of neo-cons like yourself who believe mistakenly that all American 'wars' are foreign and not domestic. Blind to the needs of homeland's citizenry you confuse military service, albeit noble, with patriotism.
Indeed, they are many fronts in the battle for the preservation of the nation today and some choose to fight on the fields at home, in the inner cities, and yes as community organizers. Their commitment to the war on inequality and poverty at home, to the war against upper class entitlements are no less important. Heroes come in all shapes and colours and, despite your assertions to the contrary, John McCain is far from the only 'hero' this season who is standing before the American people and pledging to fight for them.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Health Reform But a Dream?
October 24th, 2008 2:55 am
Gentleman,
A noble article, But fraught with folly. The only way to improve US health care, lower costs and maximize outcomes is to break the back of the 'for-profit' insurers and their Big-Pharma brethren. The greatest impediment to meaningful health reform is the hegemonic hold of the above mentioned parties. Any attempt to 'reform' the existing system is doomed unless it addresses the current power imbalance between the 'providers for profit' and the patient.
Gentleman,
A noble article, But fraught with folly. The only way to improve US health care, lower costs and maximize outcomes is to break the back of the 'for-profit' insurers and their Big-Pharma brethren. The greatest impediment to meaningful health reform is the hegemonic hold of the above mentioned parties. Any attempt to 'reform' the existing system is doomed unless it addresses the current power imbalance between the 'providers for profit' and the patient.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Kristol's Vulgus - a Crack in need of a viel.
October 20th, 2008 1:30 am
Kristol, so your joining Joe the Plumber in his crusade? Good luck. The only problem is you share little with this unaccredited plumber beyond your hatred for Obama. However, like plumbers the world over, you too have a stereotypical crack that requires covering up - unfortunately though your duplicitous crack has teeth and has a place of prominence on your visage - vulgus indeed!
Kristol, so your joining Joe the Plumber in his crusade? Good luck. The only problem is you share little with this unaccredited plumber beyond your hatred for Obama. However, like plumbers the world over, you too have a stereotypical crack that requires covering up - unfortunately though your duplicitous crack has teeth and has a place of prominence on your visage - vulgus indeed!
Friday, October 17, 2008
Obama dull? Hardly Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks,
Your fear that Obama may turn out to be "an observer" rather than a "leader" is unfounded. Evidence suggests Obama will be anything but a passive president. Criticized early on by people like you on the right for his soaring rhetoric, Obama was forced to dial down his passionate pleas to the electorate in order to mitigate baseless attacks that tried to pigeonhole him as an empty lofty dreamer. Yet, once the election is over Obama will be free to reengage the voters on an emotional level, to reengage the issues on a personal level, to speak once again in the language of a purposeful poet with a heartfelt vision for the future.
If anything, Obama post election will be free to shed the yolk of blandness his strategists rationalized he needed to project net votes from the heartland. He will be free, once again, to be 'himself'.
Far from a remote and 'dull' figure, in office, one should anticipate that with his passion unfettered by cold electoral calculations, he will yet again bring an engagement and driven approach to the issues. I believe there is little danger he will manifest decision-making paralysis - if anything his administration will one of activist compassionate pragmatism borne of a purpose not witnessed in decades.
Far from a 'celebrity', Obama is, in every sense of the word, a national politician. And at this juncture in American history that is exactly what is needed. Blind ideologues like Bush, and me-firster's like Clinton have had their chance. The country is ready to embrace a true politician.
Your fear that Obama may turn out to be "an observer" rather than a "leader" is unfounded. Evidence suggests Obama will be anything but a passive president. Criticized early on by people like you on the right for his soaring rhetoric, Obama was forced to dial down his passionate pleas to the electorate in order to mitigate baseless attacks that tried to pigeonhole him as an empty lofty dreamer. Yet, once the election is over Obama will be free to reengage the voters on an emotional level, to reengage the issues on a personal level, to speak once again in the language of a purposeful poet with a heartfelt vision for the future.
If anything, Obama post election will be free to shed the yolk of blandness his strategists rationalized he needed to project net votes from the heartland. He will be free, once again, to be 'himself'.
Far from a remote and 'dull' figure, in office, one should anticipate that with his passion unfettered by cold electoral calculations, he will yet again bring an engagement and driven approach to the issues. I believe there is little danger he will manifest decision-making paralysis - if anything his administration will one of activist compassionate pragmatism borne of a purpose not witnessed in decades.
Far from a 'celebrity', Obama is, in every sense of the word, a national politician. And at this juncture in American history that is exactly what is needed. Blind ideologues like Bush, and me-firster's like Clinton have had their chance. The country is ready to embrace a true politician.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The last debate? Not so fast.
Well, at least that's over, and by and large, it must be admitted the three debates were more redeeming than originally anticipated. At least the candidates made an effort to keep the discourse civil, if not always accurate. And while things will now take their inevitable course, nobody should think that last night marked the end to debates this silly season. After Nov. 4th there needs to be a real debate between the Executive Branch and Congress to streamline the process and minimize legislative dysfunction in 2009 and beyond.
In the coming debate the new President will have clearly lay out all aspects of his agenda and demand more of his party, more of his allies, more of his Congress. Only then can he rightfully turn to the American people to demand more. Without this debate Congress will continue to wallow in mediocrity and substitute partisanship for governance. This must not be allowed to stand. A debate surrounding a renewal of the federal government is long overdue. American goals must be clearly defined and agreed to - otherwise all we can expect is more inane parochial infighting. More than three men around a table, this debate will have to involve all those who dwell around the shining house on the hill before it is foreclosed upon.
In the coming debate the new President will have clearly lay out all aspects of his agenda and demand more of his party, more of his allies, more of his Congress. Only then can he rightfully turn to the American people to demand more. Without this debate Congress will continue to wallow in mediocrity and substitute partisanship for governance. This must not be allowed to stand. A debate surrounding a renewal of the federal government is long overdue. American goals must be clearly defined and agreed to - otherwise all we can expect is more inane parochial infighting. More than three men around a table, this debate will have to involve all those who dwell around the shining house on the hill before it is foreclosed upon.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Amusing Absurdities: Falling thru Failing.
October 14th, 2008 9:30 am
Today, here in Northern Mexico (aka Canada) we head to the polls. Like our equally dysfunctional southern neighbour, our federal campaign was largely devoid of any serious discussion surrounding the country's general apathy towards our withering school system. All recent debates surrounding the current 'state of education' were framed around the same old ideological positions of our right and left wing parties. More funding vs. less taxes. No one was willing to engage in seriously engage the real problem. Illiteracy. No one was willing to highlight how continuing our presently flawed pedagogical policies was going to adversely effect our ability to graduate students able to innovate and compete on a global scale. In short, nobody was willing to state the obvious: that we are rearing yet another generation of marginal thinkers doomed to become marginal workers.
A hard message to for sure, no candidate had the fortitude to tell us parents/voters that our precious children are in danger of being raised stupid, illiterate, and ignorant. As such, Canada is seemingly doomed to join the US, hand in hand, as this entire continent slides into economic and social turmoil... and ultimately into insignificance. Pity.
Honesty and vision from our politicians may have been able to reverse this situation. But, of course, that would require those who aspire to power to actually challenge voters to demand more of their children, their schools, and most of all of themselves. Unfortunately, that is not a vote getter! Thus, we will continue to counter scholastic mediocrity until, one day, it will simply be too late.
One can only hope in their third debate that either Obama or McCain will take it upon themselves to address this issue; otherwise, by avoiding the failing's of the present - you, like we Canadians- will continue to undercut the promise of your future.
You know, there's a reason the 'fall of Rome' was so poorly chronicled by its citizenry. In the end, they were so utterly uneducated that it fell to others to write their history.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Winnipeg, Canada
Today, here in Northern Mexico (aka Canada) we head to the polls. Like our equally dysfunctional southern neighbour, our federal campaign was largely devoid of any serious discussion surrounding the country's general apathy towards our withering school system. All recent debates surrounding the current 'state of education' were framed around the same old ideological positions of our right and left wing parties. More funding vs. less taxes. No one was willing to engage in seriously engage the real problem. Illiteracy. No one was willing to highlight how continuing our presently flawed pedagogical policies was going to adversely effect our ability to graduate students able to innovate and compete on a global scale. In short, nobody was willing to state the obvious: that we are rearing yet another generation of marginal thinkers doomed to become marginal workers.
A hard message to for sure, no candidate had the fortitude to tell us parents/voters that our precious children are in danger of being raised stupid, illiterate, and ignorant. As such, Canada is seemingly doomed to join the US, hand in hand, as this entire continent slides into economic and social turmoil... and ultimately into insignificance. Pity.
Honesty and vision from our politicians may have been able to reverse this situation. But, of course, that would require those who aspire to power to actually challenge voters to demand more of their children, their schools, and most of all of themselves. Unfortunately, that is not a vote getter! Thus, we will continue to counter scholastic mediocrity until, one day, it will simply be too late.
One can only hope in their third debate that either Obama or McCain will take it upon themselves to address this issue; otherwise, by avoiding the failing's of the present - you, like we Canadians- will continue to undercut the promise of your future.
You know, there's a reason the 'fall of Rome' was so poorly chronicled by its citizenry. In the end, they were so utterly uneducated that it fell to others to write their history.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Winnipeg, Canada
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Brooks- "The Testing Time"
fr: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/opinion/07brooks.html
October 7th, 2008 7:57 am
Brooks,
While it is true that a realignment of the world trading system is in order, the one thing missing from your piece is a prescription for how the middle classes in all Western Industrialized nations will be protected from the future global capital flow that cares little for domestic circumstances until it interferes with its ability to profit seek offshore. Perhaps it is time a mechanism was introduced to slow the flow of funds between the world's stock-exchanges? Unfettered securities and stock trading in times of crisis does little to shore-up confidence. All it does is lead to panic selling - which, as you point out, is erratic and irrational at best. Why should we rely on the same traders who got us here in the first place to somehow sort out the morass? Clearly, from Iceland to Denmark, from London to Paris, from Shanghai to New York - more oversight is needed.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Winnipeg, Canada
October 7th, 2008 7:57 am
Brooks,
While it is true that a realignment of the world trading system is in order, the one thing missing from your piece is a prescription for how the middle classes in all Western Industrialized nations will be protected from the future global capital flow that cares little for domestic circumstances until it interferes with its ability to profit seek offshore. Perhaps it is time a mechanism was introduced to slow the flow of funds between the world's stock-exchanges? Unfettered securities and stock trading in times of crisis does little to shore-up confidence. All it does is lead to panic selling - which, as you point out, is erratic and irrational at best. Why should we rely on the same traders who got us here in the first place to somehow sort out the morass? Clearly, from Iceland to Denmark, from London to Paris, from Shanghai to New York - more oversight is needed.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Winnipeg, Canada
NYT's "The Crisis Agenda"
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/07/opinion/07tue1.html
October 7th, 2008 7:16 am
What Obama must highlight in the debate are the untapped assets of the American economy. He must frame the debate over the future as a choice between a status-quo under McCain, or, as an opportunity for both the federal government and the financial sector to fundamentally adjust and retool its approach to the new economic reality.
If he can justify the imperatives for his social agenda and demonstrate he will marry them to a fiscally responsible budgetary approach he will go a long way in giving the voters what they need - peace of mind that the old order will not prevail. That the needs of the middle class will come before the needs of Wall St., that Main St. is not going to be relegated to the policy back-burner.
In essence, all he has to do is convey that his administration would commit itself to bring forth a form of 'compassionate pragmatism' to the challenges of governance.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Winnipeg, Canada
October 7th, 2008 7:16 am
What Obama must highlight in the debate are the untapped assets of the American economy. He must frame the debate over the future as a choice between a status-quo under McCain, or, as an opportunity for both the federal government and the financial sector to fundamentally adjust and retool its approach to the new economic reality.
If he can justify the imperatives for his social agenda and demonstrate he will marry them to a fiscally responsible budgetary approach he will go a long way in giving the voters what they need - peace of mind that the old order will not prevail. That the needs of the middle class will come before the needs of Wall St., that Main St. is not going to be relegated to the policy back-burner.
In essence, all he has to do is convey that his administration would commit itself to bring forth a form of 'compassionate pragmatism' to the challenges of governance.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Winnipeg, Canada
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Kristol's "The Wright Stuff" - I pity the petty.
fr: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/opinion/06kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Mr. Kristol,
Orchestration of orchestration! Wow, Ayers, Wright, and an unspecified open ended allegations that Obama is not being "wholly truthful" - all in one column! Sir, like your twisted-twin amigos, Krautcrazy and Gerson over at the WaPo, you are nothing more than a discourse distortionist.
With this column your standing as a shameless 'agent provacateur' for the McCain/Palin ticket is confirmed. Obviously they needed a messenger to formally announce the launch of their renewed "culture war" strategy. Well at least they didn't have to look too hard to find you under that rock of hyper-partisanship and divisiveness you call an ideology. The perfect lapdog, one can well imagine your delight at being picked as the messenger in this sad attempt by McCain/Palin to buttress their sagging electoral fortunes.
As to the relighting the Wright issue, nary a finer passage of a disingenuous 'interview' has ever been written. First you bring the issue up. Then she expounds. But then, she invokes a perverse form of reverse logic by saying, wholly unconvincingly, that it will really be up to McCain if it is to become an official part of the GOP strategy (or is that tactic?). Of course, by having expounded on it - she has, knowingly, just made the "appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country" again a focal point of their strategy!
As to your offer to 'volunteer' to 'moderate' a second Biden-Palin, the premise is unsound (and laughable) you wouldn't know how to "moderate" if the terms denotative definition slapped you upside your toxic cranium. You are about as equipped to serve as a debate moderator as Palin is to serve as the Vice-President.
By the way, of course, Gov, Palin seemed "confident and upbeat" despite the "strain and stress" a normal person would be feeling under the circumstances. Easy explanation there: People without a clue are often are completely ignorant of their lived context prior to their downfall. "Let them eat cake" anyone?
Mr. Kristol, I trust you are delighted by the new dark turn the McCain campaign is taking - and this fact, rather than making me angry, simply makes me pity the petty even more.
Mr. Kristol,
Orchestration of orchestration! Wow, Ayers, Wright, and an unspecified open ended allegations that Obama is not being "wholly truthful" - all in one column! Sir, like your twisted-twin amigos, Krautcrazy and Gerson over at the WaPo, you are nothing more than a discourse distortionist.
With this column your standing as a shameless 'agent provacateur' for the McCain/Palin ticket is confirmed. Obviously they needed a messenger to formally announce the launch of their renewed "culture war" strategy. Well at least they didn't have to look too hard to find you under that rock of hyper-partisanship and divisiveness you call an ideology. The perfect lapdog, one can well imagine your delight at being picked as the messenger in this sad attempt by McCain/Palin to buttress their sagging electoral fortunes.
As to the relighting the Wright issue, nary a finer passage of a disingenuous 'interview' has ever been written. First you bring the issue up. Then she expounds. But then, she invokes a perverse form of reverse logic by saying, wholly unconvincingly, that it will really be up to McCain if it is to become an official part of the GOP strategy (or is that tactic?). Of course, by having expounded on it - she has, knowingly, just made the "appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country" again a focal point of their strategy!
As to your offer to 'volunteer' to 'moderate' a second Biden-Palin, the premise is unsound (and laughable) you wouldn't know how to "moderate" if the terms denotative definition slapped you upside your toxic cranium. You are about as equipped to serve as a debate moderator as Palin is to serve as the Vice-President.
By the way, of course, Gov, Palin seemed "confident and upbeat" despite the "strain and stress" a normal person would be feeling under the circumstances. Easy explanation there: People without a clue are often are completely ignorant of their lived context prior to their downfall. "Let them eat cake" anyone?
Mr. Kristol, I trust you are delighted by the new dark turn the McCain campaign is taking - and this fact, rather than making me angry, simply makes me pity the petty even more.
NYT's "Pitbull Palin Mauls McCain"
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/05/opinion/05rich.html
October 5th, 2008 5:40 am
Mr. Rich,
While McCain's medical history may, or, may not be germane to the election at hand, one thing is certain, the man's campaign is sick.
Exhibiting all the hallmarks of chronic epidemiology there is no doubt that this reactionary Republican illness runs deep. Chief among its symptoms are the current series of baseless attacks he is launching on Obama. Yesterday's accusation by Palin that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" is but the latest manifestation. Simply more proof that a sick cornered animal will resort to anything to save its skin.
Aside from Palin's perverse cache, the fundamental problem for McCain, is that he is politically incoherent. Railing against the usury practice of embedded earmarks in congressional bills, he nevertheless, voted 90% in favour of Bush's legislative agenda. Who did he think he was supporting? A 'Maverick' like him? Did he not realize that Bush was instrumental in aiding and abetting the biggest earmark of all - Wall Street's deregulation and escape from accountability?
Curious, when a Representative lobbies for a 'bridge to nowhere' it is deplorable; yet, when an entire class is given Carte Blanche to destroy the integrity of the American economy it is okay? I guess its hard for a multimillionaire to reconcile the two. McCain's inability to convey empathy that resonates is his biggest political health problem.
As for his erratic mannerisms - well, the answer may well lie in his medical history. But really, if that is where the answer resides - is there any question as to who is fittest to be the next President of the United States?
I think not.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
October 5th, 2008 5:40 am
Mr. Rich,
While McCain's medical history may, or, may not be germane to the election at hand, one thing is certain, the man's campaign is sick.
Exhibiting all the hallmarks of chronic epidemiology there is no doubt that this reactionary Republican illness runs deep. Chief among its symptoms are the current series of baseless attacks he is launching on Obama. Yesterday's accusation by Palin that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" is but the latest manifestation. Simply more proof that a sick cornered animal will resort to anything to save its skin.
Aside from Palin's perverse cache, the fundamental problem for McCain, is that he is politically incoherent. Railing against the usury practice of embedded earmarks in congressional bills, he nevertheless, voted 90% in favour of Bush's legislative agenda. Who did he think he was supporting? A 'Maverick' like him? Did he not realize that Bush was instrumental in aiding and abetting the biggest earmark of all - Wall Street's deregulation and escape from accountability?
Curious, when a Representative lobbies for a 'bridge to nowhere' it is deplorable; yet, when an entire class is given Carte Blanche to destroy the integrity of the American economy it is okay? I guess its hard for a multimillionaire to reconcile the two. McCain's inability to convey empathy that resonates is his biggest political health problem.
As for his erratic mannerisms - well, the answer may well lie in his medical history. But really, if that is where the answer resides - is there any question as to who is fittest to be the next President of the United States?
I think not.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
TNR's "Historical Manglings" - a clear choice nevertheless.
fr: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=89fa8a91-b671-4e56-8666-017b0722e93a
Mr. Chafetz,
While it may be true that neither candidate demonstrated an absolute and firm grasp of the inherent powers associated with the role of a Vice-President. One has to ask themselves, would they rather have Palin who seemingly believes the Cheney template is desirable, or, would they prefer to have Biden who recognizes that the said template is fraught with unconstitutional danger? Admittedly, the mangling of an answer is one thing, however, the abuse power is an entirely different beast.
It goes without saying (yet I say it anyway), that no elected official in a democracy, especially no official who straddles both the executive and legislative branches should be allowed to operate outside the constitutional parameters of the law of the land. In Cheney's case, the evidence since 2001 indicates that the absolute lack of Vice-Presidential accountability in both the Executive and Legislative spheres has irreparably damaged American interests, both domestic and foreign. So really the question should be, is a continuation of this pathology in the interests of the American people? If the answer is no - then the choice could not be clearer.
Ideology and partisanship aside, no sane individual can believe Palin's tacit acceptance of the Cheney example as being worthy of replication could possibly see this as being in America's best interests? I mean, there must be a limit to the allowances of the absurdities that will be countered this silly season - doesn't there?
Mr. Chafetz,
While it may be true that neither candidate demonstrated an absolute and firm grasp of the inherent powers associated with the role of a Vice-President. One has to ask themselves, would they rather have Palin who seemingly believes the Cheney template is desirable, or, would they prefer to have Biden who recognizes that the said template is fraught with unconstitutional danger? Admittedly, the mangling of an answer is one thing, however, the abuse power is an entirely different beast.
It goes without saying (yet I say it anyway), that no elected official in a democracy, especially no official who straddles both the executive and legislative branches should be allowed to operate outside the constitutional parameters of the law of the land. In Cheney's case, the evidence since 2001 indicates that the absolute lack of Vice-Presidential accountability in both the Executive and Legislative spheres has irreparably damaged American interests, both domestic and foreign. So really the question should be, is a continuation of this pathology in the interests of the American people? If the answer is no - then the choice could not be clearer.
Ideology and partisanship aside, no sane individual can believe Palin's tacit acceptance of the Cheney example as being worthy of replication could possibly see this as being in America's best interests? I mean, there must be a limit to the allowances of the absurdities that will be countered this silly season - doesn't there?
NYT's "Sarah's Pompom Palaver"
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/05/opinion/05dowd.html
October 05, 2008 3:00 am
Palin-plain-speak has arrived! How could it be otherwise? I mean what better captures the 'dumbing down' of America than the Governor's silly and under-stylized syntax?
Sad fact is, eloquence has always been looked down upon by a significant segment of the American public. Of course, few wish to acknowledge it is so because a great many voters are simply too uneducated and not equipped to discern the import of the complex ideas that often accompany eloquence.
In today's fast-food culture it should surprise no one that Palin's jingoistic, mangled jargon has become the pablum of the right. As a 'maverick' no different than many a generic homespun American, Palin's abject absurdities resonate precisely because they lack complexity. Easy digestible tortured tidbits and psycho-babble sound-bytes have a long history on late-night US television. So, again, it should come as no surprise that those familiar with the lexicon of the infomercial should gravitate to this pablum.
That being said, one simpleton a century in the White House is enough. In this case, twice would be a disaster.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
October 05, 2008 3:00 am
Palin-plain-speak has arrived! How could it be otherwise? I mean what better captures the 'dumbing down' of America than the Governor's silly and under-stylized syntax?
Sad fact is, eloquence has always been looked down upon by a significant segment of the American public. Of course, few wish to acknowledge it is so because a great many voters are simply too uneducated and not equipped to discern the import of the complex ideas that often accompany eloquence.
In today's fast-food culture it should surprise no one that Palin's jingoistic, mangled jargon has become the pablum of the right. As a 'maverick' no different than many a generic homespun American, Palin's abject absurdities resonate precisely because they lack complexity. Easy digestible tortured tidbits and psycho-babble sound-bytes have a long history on late-night US television. So, again, it should come as no surprise that those familiar with the lexicon of the infomercial should gravitate to this pablum.
That being said, one simpleton a century in the White House is enough. In this case, twice would be a disaster.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Saturday, October 4, 2008
NYT's "Talking in Points"
fr: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04collins.html
October 4th, 2008 0:59 am
"Palin is,... a genuine heir to the women’s liberation movement of the 1970s, which tried to make sure ... American women would grow up feeling they had every right to compete with men for all the best rewards and adventures the world had to offer." You have got to be kidding! The genuine heirs of the 70s Feminine Movement should string you up for demeaning their hard fought accomplishments. I do not believe anyone serious predisposed to gender equality ever asserted a woman deserved to 'get ahead' politically simply because they were female? Equal treatment for equal merit was the goal - and in light of Gov. Palin's intellectual and analytical deficiencies - I cannot believe there are many 'true' feminists who would argue these should be overlooked by virtue of one's plumbing.
Shame on you for the false characterization of what a 'genuine heir' is - I am teaching my girls it is competence and brains that matter - not entitlement based on their gender.
While, Palin may be 'mission driven' and have learned 'how' the Alaskan political game is played - it still does not excuse her ineptness. Heiress my arse!
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
October 4th, 2008 0:59 am
"Palin is,... a genuine heir to the women’s liberation movement of the 1970s, which tried to make sure ... American women would grow up feeling they had every right to compete with men for all the best rewards and adventures the world had to offer." You have got to be kidding! The genuine heirs of the 70s Feminine Movement should string you up for demeaning their hard fought accomplishments. I do not believe anyone serious predisposed to gender equality ever asserted a woman deserved to 'get ahead' politically simply because they were female? Equal treatment for equal merit was the goal - and in light of Gov. Palin's intellectual and analytical deficiencies - I cannot believe there are many 'true' feminists who would argue these should be overlooked by virtue of one's plumbing.
Shame on you for the false characterization of what a 'genuine heir' is - I am teaching my girls it is competence and brains that matter - not entitlement based on their gender.
While, Palin may be 'mission driven' and have learned 'how' the Alaskan political game is played - it still does not excuse her ineptness. Heiress my arse!
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
NYT's Herbert - "Palin's Alternative Universe"? The Fall of Rome?
fr: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04herbert.html?ref=opinion
October 4th, 2008 0:38 am
Mr. Herbert,
With respects, regarding - "it’s hard to believe that someone with Ms. Palin’s limited skills could possibly be playing a leadership role"? Well, actually sir, it is not that big a reach for some of us.
Most of the rest of the world has been nothing less than awed and dumbstruck these past eight years by who you picked the last two times. So in a way, it's not really a question of will you, or won't you. It's a question of please-be-to-God NOT AGAIN!
The vibrancy, dynamism and hallmarks of democracy that used to represent America have been damaged enough. Once your society was renowned for its ingenuity and know-how; increasingly though it is being recognized for its electoral absurdities.
Surely the time has come for moose hunting 'Joe Six-Pack' to realize he can't keep knocking up Hockey-Mom in a society without universal health insurance, without an decent school system, without an environmental plan, and without protection for the middle and lower classes. Of course, there were probably observers north of the Roman Empire 1500 years ago like me who said the same thing as that declining polity kept picking in-bred, myopic, and syphilitic Cesar's on its road to oblivion. But, hey what did they know?
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
October 4th, 2008 0:38 am
Mr. Herbert,
With respects, regarding - "it’s hard to believe that someone with Ms. Palin’s limited skills could possibly be playing a leadership role"? Well, actually sir, it is not that big a reach for some of us.
Most of the rest of the world has been nothing less than awed and dumbstruck these past eight years by who you picked the last two times. So in a way, it's not really a question of will you, or won't you. It's a question of please-be-to-God NOT AGAIN!
The vibrancy, dynamism and hallmarks of democracy that used to represent America have been damaged enough. Once your society was renowned for its ingenuity and know-how; increasingly though it is being recognized for its electoral absurdities.
Surely the time has come for moose hunting 'Joe Six-Pack' to realize he can't keep knocking up Hockey-Mom in a society without universal health insurance, without an decent school system, without an environmental plan, and without protection for the middle and lower classes. Of course, there were probably observers north of the Roman Empire 1500 years ago like me who said the same thing as that declining polity kept picking in-bred, myopic, and syphilitic Cesar's on its road to oblivion. But, hey what did they know?
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Friday, October 3, 2008
Rex Murphy-
fr: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081003.wcomurph04/BNStory/politics/home
Dearest Delusional Rex,
Oddities of oddities, so you care not for the current debate format! Be still my beating heart! Why do you insist on regurgitating the same point you just made with Mansbridge 24 hours ago? Surely you are not just a 'one-note wonder'?
From now on, do us all a favour, end your clips with Peter on CBC by saying: "Viewers, if you're too thick or cranially challenged to see my point tonight - you can read it all again in Saturday's G&M."
At least we would all know you have nothing new to offer in the weekend column.
Despite your wish to portray this election as a done deal - it is not. the campaign still has dynamism and an unappreciated organic aspect that needs to be examined. How 'bout trying to come up with more than one original thought a week..., my nine year old can do it - surely you can too.
As for your claim you care not who wins - poppycock - you want Harper back in.
As for your idea that we should have more debates (some in a one-on-one format) I'm all for it. But who do you think would oppose this idea? The opposition? No. Harper. it is Harper who would never consent to one-on-one debates. Moreover, he would never consent to more than ONE debate in each language. His platform is absent, his contempt is palpable, his arrogance is latent. Given the choice, he would prefer to remain mute until Oct. 14th.
Our current PM exudes an authoritarian ooze that belies his utter distaste for having to lower himself to answering serious questions. More debates indeed! Better chance Harper would actually deign to provide us with a platform, a 'vision' rather than his tired Bush I "stay the course" mantra.
Rex, get some new ideas. Or quit!
Dearest Delusional Rex,
Oddities of oddities, so you care not for the current debate format! Be still my beating heart! Why do you insist on regurgitating the same point you just made with Mansbridge 24 hours ago? Surely you are not just a 'one-note wonder'?
From now on, do us all a favour, end your clips with Peter on CBC by saying: "Viewers, if you're too thick or cranially challenged to see my point tonight - you can read it all again in Saturday's G&M."
At least we would all know you have nothing new to offer in the weekend column.
Despite your wish to portray this election as a done deal - it is not. the campaign still has dynamism and an unappreciated organic aspect that needs to be examined. How 'bout trying to come up with more than one original thought a week..., my nine year old can do it - surely you can too.
As for your claim you care not who wins - poppycock - you want Harper back in.
As for your idea that we should have more debates (some in a one-on-one format) I'm all for it. But who do you think would oppose this idea? The opposition? No. Harper. it is Harper who would never consent to one-on-one debates. Moreover, he would never consent to more than ONE debate in each language. His platform is absent, his contempt is palpable, his arrogance is latent. Given the choice, he would prefer to remain mute until Oct. 14th.
Our current PM exudes an authoritarian ooze that belies his utter distaste for having to lower himself to answering serious questions. More debates indeed! Better chance Harper would actually deign to provide us with a platform, a 'vision' rather than his tired Bush I "stay the course" mantra.
Rex, get some new ideas. Or quit!
Gerson- Crack Addict & Ideological Whore
fr: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203045.html
re: "The Leader Who Stood the Tallest"
Gerson,
Not only is your pickle limp, your mind is shot!
Swiss-cheese in the cranium!
Obviously, there's no cure yet for ideological syphilis.
How else does one explain your man-crush on Bush?
Perhaps, Crack? Are you smoking Crack?
When all is said and done you're gonna have to start taking the pills Krautcrazy is on. See his column today? At least he's trying to rehabilitate his mind! You on the other hand are beyond the pale. Surely it cannot be healthy to speak out the same orifice you wipe! Gerson, fix your affliction now; get thee to an arsehole doctor.
My God, "Bush's economic ideology... seems well suited to the current crisis"??? Are you crazy, his lax administrative tenure, morally bankrupt economic ideology, and his playing to the elites is what wrecked America's fiscal boat on the rocks! Did you also defend the Captain of the Exxon Valdez?
Indeed, what the "strobe light on a dark dance floor" that catches "all involved in characteristic, sometimes embarrassing poses" is revealing to me is that you are a petty apologist, on your knees, amid the disco, mouth open willing to service thy master no matter what the cost.
Gerson, you are clearly a closeted freak on Crack! Get some help you pathetic discourse distortionist. Get some help now. Before the music stops and you have lockjaw.
re: "The Leader Who Stood the Tallest"
Gerson,
Not only is your pickle limp, your mind is shot!
Swiss-cheese in the cranium!
Obviously, there's no cure yet for ideological syphilis.
How else does one explain your man-crush on Bush?
Perhaps, Crack? Are you smoking Crack?
When all is said and done you're gonna have to start taking the pills Krautcrazy is on. See his column today? At least he's trying to rehabilitate his mind! You on the other hand are beyond the pale. Surely it cannot be healthy to speak out the same orifice you wipe! Gerson, fix your affliction now; get thee to an arsehole doctor.
My God, "Bush's economic ideology... seems well suited to the current crisis"??? Are you crazy, his lax administrative tenure, morally bankrupt economic ideology, and his playing to the elites is what wrecked America's fiscal boat on the rocks! Did you also defend the Captain of the Exxon Valdez?
Indeed, what the "strobe light on a dark dance floor" that catches "all involved in characteristic, sometimes embarrassing poses" is revealing to me is that you are a petty apologist, on your knees, amid the disco, mouth open willing to service thy master no matter what the cost.
Gerson, you are clearly a closeted freak on Crack! Get some help you pathetic discourse distortionist. Get some help now. Before the music stops and you have lockjaw.
Winking Palin does Trick For Brooks
fr: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03brooks.html
re; "The Palin Rebound"
October 3rd, 2008 4:10 am
David,
Nice try, but your take is little more than vexatious pandering obviously aided by a dose of ideological Viagara.
Last night, my twelve year daughter, Quinn, sat with me throughout the last 45 minutes of the debate. Below is the transcript of our discussion. It speaks for itself:
Quinn: Dad, whatchwatching?
Me: American debate.
Quinn: Why, isn't the Canadian one on?
Me: Yeah, I'm taping it - I'll watch after you guys are in bed.
Quinn: But, Dad why do you watch the American one.
Me: Because it matters what they decide.
Quinn: Hey, is that lady ... Is that that Palin lady?
Me: Yes.
[Minutes pass, Ifill asks Palin another direct question.]
Quinn: Dad, is she s'pposed to answer the question asked?
Me: Well, in a debate, sometimes people try to avoid questions.
Quinn: Oh, ... but the other guy, the old one, he's answering the questions.
Me: Yeah, he's trying to show he's up to the job.
Quinn: But, her, Palin she just keeps talking about herself ... she's not answering the questions.
Me: No, she's not - that's their strategy.
Quinn: Yeah, but she keeps saying the same thing, 'Me and McCain' - she just keeps saying the same thing.
Me: Yeah, sometimes politics is like that.
Quinn: That's silly... hey, did you see that. She just winked at us? She just winked?
Me: [sigh] Yes, I'm trying to hear what she's saying...
Quinn: But dad she just WINKED at us!
Me: shhh...
Quinn: I don't know why your listening... she's just saying the same thing over and over... I can't believe she winked at us! Weird! I'm going to bed.
Me: G'night... [Quick hug and kiss]
And as Buddha is my witness, when I turn back to the screen Palin is winking at me again... "Weird" indeed?
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
re; "The Palin Rebound"
October 3rd, 2008 4:10 am
David,
Nice try, but your take is little more than vexatious pandering obviously aided by a dose of ideological Viagara.
Last night, my twelve year daughter, Quinn, sat with me throughout the last 45 minutes of the debate. Below is the transcript of our discussion. It speaks for itself:
Quinn: Dad, whatchwatching?
Me: American debate.
Quinn: Why, isn't the Canadian one on?
Me: Yeah, I'm taping it - I'll watch after you guys are in bed.
Quinn: But, Dad why do you watch the American one.
Me: Because it matters what they decide.
Quinn: Hey, is that lady ... Is that that Palin lady?
Me: Yes.
[Minutes pass, Ifill asks Palin another direct question.]
Quinn: Dad, is she s'pposed to answer the question asked?
Me: Well, in a debate, sometimes people try to avoid questions.
Quinn: Oh, ... but the other guy, the old one, he's answering the questions.
Me: Yeah, he's trying to show he's up to the job.
Quinn: But, her, Palin she just keeps talking about herself ... she's not answering the questions.
Me: No, she's not - that's their strategy.
Quinn: Yeah, but she keeps saying the same thing, 'Me and McCain' - she just keeps saying the same thing.
Me: Yeah, sometimes politics is like that.
Quinn: That's silly... hey, did you see that. She just winked at us? She just winked?
Me: [sigh] Yes, I'm trying to hear what she's saying...
Quinn: But dad she just WINKED at us!
Me: shhh...
Quinn: I don't know why your listening... she's just saying the same thing over and over... I can't believe she winked at us! Weird! I'm going to bed.
Me: G'night... [Quick hug and kiss]
And as Buddha is my witness, when I turn back to the screen Palin is winking at me again... "Weird" indeed?
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
NYT's "The Vice-Presidential Debate" - Send in the Clowns
fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/03/opinion/03fri1.html
October 3rd, 2008 3:30 am
Time for McCain to 'Send in the Clowns'?
While it may be true that Palin's debate performance was not a debacle - it's nevertheless clear that talking points do not a Veep make. There was only one person on stage last night worthy of the challenge. And it was not the one in a skirt.
But fear not, McCain's not done yet. Alas, he is at this moment, conjuring a new strategy. Maybe one with a Broadway angle? Glass in hand, ruefully humming, occasionally slurring, he's probably echoing Sondheim:
Isn't it rich?
Aren't we a pair?
Me here at the end,
You nothing but flair.
Send in the clowns.
Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who is desperate,
missing his grove.
One who is clueless,
her straight-talk a joke.
Set'em up Joe,
I need a toke.
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Just when I'd thought I could win,
You turn out to be,
No better than spin.
Send in the clowns.
Making my entrance with my usual glare,
Sure of my lines,
But no one is there.
All eyes on you,
Empty words and fluff,
Good God what's happened - this is tough.
Don't you love farce?
It's a kick in the arse.
My fault I fear.
Thought you'd do okay.
Sorry, my dear, your no Hillary...
not today.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.
Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing my mind this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Well, maybe next year...
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
October 3rd, 2008 3:30 am
Time for McCain to 'Send in the Clowns'?
While it may be true that Palin's debate performance was not a debacle - it's nevertheless clear that talking points do not a Veep make. There was only one person on stage last night worthy of the challenge. And it was not the one in a skirt.
But fear not, McCain's not done yet. Alas, he is at this moment, conjuring a new strategy. Maybe one with a Broadway angle? Glass in hand, ruefully humming, occasionally slurring, he's probably echoing Sondheim:
Isn't it rich?
Aren't we a pair?
Me here at the end,
You nothing but flair.
Send in the clowns.
Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who is desperate,
missing his grove.
One who is clueless,
her straight-talk a joke.
Set'em up Joe,
I need a toke.
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Just when I'd thought I could win,
You turn out to be,
No better than spin.
Send in the clowns.
Making my entrance with my usual glare,
Sure of my lines,
But no one is there.
All eyes on you,
Empty words and fluff,
Good God what's happened - this is tough.
Don't you love farce?
It's a kick in the arse.
My fault I fear.
Thought you'd do okay.
Sorry, my dear, your no Hillary...
not today.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.
Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing my mind this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Well, maybe next year...
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
McCain - "Send in the Clowns"
fr: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203043.html - "Hail mary vs. Cool Barry"
Time for McCain to 'Send in the Clowns'?
Dear Krautcrazy,
Again, reflecting on the new found reason you are exhibiting, again I say kudos on your rehab. May full recovery not be far behind.
In light of Palin's debate performance it's clear that talking points do not a Veep make. There was only one person on stage last night worthy of the challenge. And it was not the one in a skirt.
Hail Mary's for sure, take solace Krautcrazy, McCain's probably not done yet?
Alas, he is probably, at this moment, conjuring a new 4th quarter play. Probably it's something as bold as taking his show to Broadway, for undoubtedly, McCain is now with glass in hand, ruefully humming, occasionally slurring and then belting out a rip-off of Sondheim:
Isn't it rich?
Aren't we a pair?
Me here at the end,
You nothing but flair.
Send in the clowns.
Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who is desperate,
missing his grove.
One who is clueless,
her straight-talk a joke.
Set'em up Joe,
I need a toke.
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Just when I'd thought I could win,
You turn out to be,
No better than spin.
Send in the clowns.
Making my entrance with my usual glare,
Sure of my lines,
But no one is there.
All eyes on you,
Empty words and fluff,
Good God what's happened - this is tough.
Don't you love farce?
It's a kick in the arse.
My fault I fear.
Thought you'd do okay.
Sorry, my dear, your no Hillary...
not today.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.
Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing my mind this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Well, maybe next year...
Time for McCain to 'Send in the Clowns'?
Dear Krautcrazy,
Again, reflecting on the new found reason you are exhibiting, again I say kudos on your rehab. May full recovery not be far behind.
In light of Palin's debate performance it's clear that talking points do not a Veep make. There was only one person on stage last night worthy of the challenge. And it was not the one in a skirt.
Hail Mary's for sure, take solace Krautcrazy, McCain's probably not done yet?
Alas, he is probably, at this moment, conjuring a new 4th quarter play. Probably it's something as bold as taking his show to Broadway, for undoubtedly, McCain is now with glass in hand, ruefully humming, occasionally slurring and then belting out a rip-off of Sondheim:
Isn't it rich?
Aren't we a pair?
Me here at the end,
You nothing but flair.
Send in the clowns.
Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who is desperate,
missing his grove.
One who is clueless,
her straight-talk a joke.
Set'em up Joe,
I need a toke.
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Just when I'd thought I could win,
You turn out to be,
No better than spin.
Send in the clowns.
Making my entrance with my usual glare,
Sure of my lines,
But no one is there.
All eyes on you,
Empty words and fluff,
Good God what's happened - this is tough.
Don't you love farce?
It's a kick in the arse.
My fault I fear.
Thought you'd do okay.
Sorry, my dear, your no Hillary...
not today.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.
Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing my mind this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Well, maybe next year...
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Cohen's "Nixon, Bush, Palin" - time for a course correction.
fr: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/opinion/02Cohen.html
October 02, 2008 7:03 am
The most redeeming thing about a democracy is that it periodically affords a country's citizens the opportunity to correct course.
One can only hope that American voters recognize November 4th for what it is - a watershed event in the country's history. Failure to change course now will break America.
The election is not about Palin, it is not about McCain, it is not, and cannot be about, Guns, God, and vacuous Patriotism - it must be about progress - a new path. Otherwise, 'Rome will burn' and there will not be enough water on either Wall or Main Street to put the blaze out.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
October 02, 2008 7:03 am
The most redeeming thing about a democracy is that it periodically affords a country's citizens the opportunity to correct course.
One can only hope that American voters recognize November 4th for what it is - a watershed event in the country's history. Failure to change course now will break America.
The election is not about Palin, it is not about McCain, it is not, and cannot be about, Guns, God, and vacuous Patriotism - it must be about progress - a new path. Otherwise, 'Rome will burn' and there will not be enough water on either Wall or Main Street to put the blaze out.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
NYT's "Rescue the Rescue" - Regulation needed.
fr: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01friedman.html
136.
October 01, 2008 8:47 am
Link
Mr. Friedman,
The empty group-think demonstrated by consumers these past two decades has contributed to a demonizing of the notions of thrift and savings, is only rivaled by the failure of Congress to act with reasoned purpose this past week. Neither group is blameless.
By buying into a myth hitherto the purview of the truly wealthy, conspicuous consumption, the middle class not only overextended itself - but limited its chances of consolidating and paying down household debt to shield itself in the eventuality of an economic downturn. Ergo, today's middle class finds itself vulnerable to the tightening of credit in the marketplace and, in a very real sense, in peril of fading away. That being said, it does mean that today's middle class is deserving of government protection. This protection need not be founded on socialist principles, but rather upon a strong regulatory framework that will protect it from creditors as it begins its long term reorientation towards a new ethos of prudent consumption. Yes, a 'liberal' framework is needed.
Those like George Will who cling to the notion that "regulation" is akin to socialism are misguided. If a bailout is to come, let it come with regulatory safeguards. Otherwise, today's problems will persist. If no constraints are placed upon predatory creditors and Wall Street's amoral speculators the country will simply be revisited by another debacle in the years to come. Unfettered profit-seeking must be bound by rules designed not just to protect the individual, but to defend the viability of the national economy as well. Indeed, there is probably no greater threat today to US homeland security than the danger of an abject economic collapse borne of lax governance in the face of predatory market speculation.
Anyone who argues, as George Will does, that accepting regulatory reform in the final package is akin to selling one's soul to partisan Democrats intent on desecrating the principles of the founding fathers is simply wrong. Apparently, they do not understand the organic nature of American political history. Simple fact is, and has always been, that periodic increases in the size of government are often required to see the nation through; a la Roosevelt's NRA. In time, the pendulum swings back; a la G.W. Bush's tax cuts.
Today America's motto should be: Government only if necessary, but not necessarily Big Government.
As George Will admitted in today's WaPo, no matter where one stands on the regulatory question, the public still needs "protection against obliteration of the financial system". But, even more importantly, it needs this protection to come with a government guarantee that the financial system will have imposed upon it a little "protection" from itself - no matter what bill is finally passed.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
136.
October 01, 2008 8:47 am
Link
Mr. Friedman,
The empty group-think demonstrated by consumers these past two decades has contributed to a demonizing of the notions of thrift and savings, is only rivaled by the failure of Congress to act with reasoned purpose this past week. Neither group is blameless.
By buying into a myth hitherto the purview of the truly wealthy, conspicuous consumption, the middle class not only overextended itself - but limited its chances of consolidating and paying down household debt to shield itself in the eventuality of an economic downturn. Ergo, today's middle class finds itself vulnerable to the tightening of credit in the marketplace and, in a very real sense, in peril of fading away. That being said, it does mean that today's middle class is deserving of government protection. This protection need not be founded on socialist principles, but rather upon a strong regulatory framework that will protect it from creditors as it begins its long term reorientation towards a new ethos of prudent consumption. Yes, a 'liberal' framework is needed.
Those like George Will who cling to the notion that "regulation" is akin to socialism are misguided. If a bailout is to come, let it come with regulatory safeguards. Otherwise, today's problems will persist. If no constraints are placed upon predatory creditors and Wall Street's amoral speculators the country will simply be revisited by another debacle in the years to come. Unfettered profit-seeking must be bound by rules designed not just to protect the individual, but to defend the viability of the national economy as well. Indeed, there is probably no greater threat today to US homeland security than the danger of an abject economic collapse borne of lax governance in the face of predatory market speculation.
Anyone who argues, as George Will does, that accepting regulatory reform in the final package is akin to selling one's soul to partisan Democrats intent on desecrating the principles of the founding fathers is simply wrong. Apparently, they do not understand the organic nature of American political history. Simple fact is, and has always been, that periodic increases in the size of government are often required to see the nation through; a la Roosevelt's NRA. In time, the pendulum swings back; a la G.W. Bush's tax cuts.
Today America's motto should be: Government only if necessary, but not necessarily Big Government.
As George Will admitted in today's WaPo, no matter where one stands on the regulatory question, the public still needs "protection against obliteration of the financial system". But, even more importantly, it needs this protection to come with a government guarantee that the financial system will have imposed upon it a little "protection" from itself - no matter what bill is finally passed.
— BeerBellyBuddah, Wpg., Canada
George Will - Maybe He Needs Regulation?
fr: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002320.html
Georgie Boy,
Reading this column "was easy, but not necessarily" fruitful. At times, it was just nausea inducing.
Okay Georgie Boy, let us "talk sense about the cultural roots of the financial crisis". Firstly, and I say this grudgingly, you are actually correct on at least one count - the public is not blameless.
The empty group-think demonstrated by consumers these past two decades has contributed to a demonizing of the notions of thrift and savings. By buying into a myth hitherto the purview of the truly wealthy, conspicuous consumption, the middle class not only overextended itself - but limited its chances of consolidating and paying down household debt to shield itself in the eventuality of an economic downturn. Ergo, today's middle class finds itself vulnerable to the tightening of credit in the marketplace and, in a very real sense, in peril of fading away. That being said, it does not preclude the fact that today's middle class is deserving of government protection. This protection need not be founded on socialist principles, but rather upon a strong regulatory framework that will protect it from creditors as it begins its long term reorientation towards a new ethos of prudent consumption. Yes, Georgie, a 'liberal' framework is needed.
Apparently Georgie you cling to the notion that "regulation" is akin to socialism. Pity, one would think your prominent spectacles would allow you to see farther into the future. If a bailout is to come, let it come with regulatory safeguards. Otherwise, today's problems will persist. If no constraints are placed upon predatory creditors and Wall Street's amoral speculators the country will simply be revisited by another debacle in the years to come. Unfettered profit-seeking must be bound by rules designed not just to protect the individual, but to defend the viability of the national economy as well. Indeed, there is probably no greater threat today to US homeland security than the danger of an abject economic collapse borne of lax governance in the face of predatory market speculation. Anyone who argues, as you do, that accepting regulatory reform in the final package is akin to selling one's soul to partisan Democrats intent on desecrating the principles of the founding fathers is simply wrong. Apparently, you do not understand the organic nature of your own country. Periodic increases in the size of government are sometimes required to see it through; a la Roosevelt's NRA. In time, the pendulum swings back; a la G.W. Bush's tax cuts.
Georgie Boy, America's motto should be: Government only if necessary, but not necessarily Big Government.
As you said Georgie, the public still needs "protection against obliteration of the financial system". But, even more importantly, it needs this protection to come with a government guarantee that the financial system will have imposed upon it a little "protection" from itself - no matter what bill is finally passed.
FIN
p.s. Georgie, re: your intriguing 'cultural roots' paradigm introduced at the beginning of column, it had potential. But true to form you choose to use it as 'device' rather than tool. Yet again, you meandered, dragging us up and down, and all around pundit-dung valley without ever coming to your point. What was your point about the role of culture? Too bad... I must have missed it amid your sniping at Democrats. Again, pity, would have loved to see you flesh it out.
Georgie Boy,
Reading this column "was easy, but not necessarily" fruitful. At times, it was just nausea inducing.
Okay Georgie Boy, let us "talk sense about the cultural roots of the financial crisis". Firstly, and I say this grudgingly, you are actually correct on at least one count - the public is not blameless.
The empty group-think demonstrated by consumers these past two decades has contributed to a demonizing of the notions of thrift and savings. By buying into a myth hitherto the purview of the truly wealthy, conspicuous consumption, the middle class not only overextended itself - but limited its chances of consolidating and paying down household debt to shield itself in the eventuality of an economic downturn. Ergo, today's middle class finds itself vulnerable to the tightening of credit in the marketplace and, in a very real sense, in peril of fading away. That being said, it does not preclude the fact that today's middle class is deserving of government protection. This protection need not be founded on socialist principles, but rather upon a strong regulatory framework that will protect it from creditors as it begins its long term reorientation towards a new ethos of prudent consumption. Yes, Georgie, a 'liberal' framework is needed.
Apparently Georgie you cling to the notion that "regulation" is akin to socialism. Pity, one would think your prominent spectacles would allow you to see farther into the future. If a bailout is to come, let it come with regulatory safeguards. Otherwise, today's problems will persist. If no constraints are placed upon predatory creditors and Wall Street's amoral speculators the country will simply be revisited by another debacle in the years to come. Unfettered profit-seeking must be bound by rules designed not just to protect the individual, but to defend the viability of the national economy as well. Indeed, there is probably no greater threat today to US homeland security than the danger of an abject economic collapse borne of lax governance in the face of predatory market speculation. Anyone who argues, as you do, that accepting regulatory reform in the final package is akin to selling one's soul to partisan Democrats intent on desecrating the principles of the founding fathers is simply wrong. Apparently, you do not understand the organic nature of your own country. Periodic increases in the size of government are sometimes required to see it through; a la Roosevelt's NRA. In time, the pendulum swings back; a la G.W. Bush's tax cuts.
Georgie Boy, America's motto should be: Government only if necessary, but not necessarily Big Government.
As you said Georgie, the public still needs "protection against obliteration of the financial system". But, even more importantly, it needs this protection to come with a government guarantee that the financial system will have imposed upon it a little "protection" from itself - no matter what bill is finally passed.
FIN
p.s. Georgie, re: your intriguing 'cultural roots' paradigm introduced at the beginning of column, it had potential. But true to form you choose to use it as 'device' rather than tool. Yet again, you meandered, dragging us up and down, and all around pundit-dung valley without ever coming to your point. What was your point about the role of culture? Too bad... I must have missed it amid your sniping at Democrats. Again, pity, would have loved to see you flesh it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
