It appears that this has the Teabaggers threatening violence…………Again…………
They find this disrespectful to Sarah Palin.
I think that it is funny.
Category: Politics
Sounds Awfully Familiar
So, Allee Bautsch, a fundraiser for Bobby Jindal, the Governor, and Village Idiot, of Louisiana gets mugged in New Orleans, and “source close to Bautsch tells Yahoo! News that they were politically motivated.”
Note that official sources have made no such claims, but a conservative blogger seems to have put words in the mouth of a NOPD spokesman.
In any case, the Times Picayune has some decent coverage which appears to make it clear that no political epithets were involved, it was a bunch of drunken assholes.
As an FYI to those living under rocks in the past year, the pic is not of Ms. Bautsch,* but of Ashley Todd.
*Whose name, for some reason, I keep spelling Bat-sh%$.
I want smaller government and my Social Security
It’s not that government is too big, it’s that you are giving money to n*****s:
“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”
Their problem is that a black man is President.
Zimbabwe Update (Meta)
I have been following the comings and goings in Zimbabwe since Tsvangirai’s election, subsequently stolen, as President in 2008.
At first, I did so because I thought that we could see a real game change and a peaceful transition from one of the nastier pieces of work on the African continent, Robert Mugabe.
This has not happened, largely because Mugabe does not care, but additionally because the surrounding community, in particular South Africa and its former President Thabo Mbeki, have been most accommodating to Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party.
I don’t see this changing, and I have been posting about once a month because I feel guilty about not caring any more, which is a silly reason to post.
I have little knowledge of the area, nor of the complex social and political dynamics of the region, and honestly, little interest, just some guilt, so I’m throwing the towel in.
I would suggest the BBC and the Guardian for updates if you want them.
If This is Your Thing, Feel Free…
The Poor Don’t Pay Taxes………My Ass!
Click for full size
Yeah, right, only the rich pay all the taxes
The latest right wing meme is that 47% of the population pay no taxes.
Of course, it’s not true, though it is true that that number owe no federal income tax, but the do owe significant amounts of Social Security, Medicare, and state and local taxes.
As this handy, dandy chart shows, it’s simply not true, and my guess would be that if this were broken up into deciles, as opposed to quintiles, that the top 10% would pay even less, since they are above the social security cutoff, and get far more of their income in capital gains and dividends.
Warren Buffet once noted that his receptionist paid a greater percentage of her wages in taxes than he did, and that still holds true.
A Corollary to Saroff’s Rule
Sex, Lies, and Videotape?
You know Saroff’s Rule:
If a financial transaction is complex enough to require that a news organization use a cartoon to explain it, its purpose is to deceive.
Well, now I have to come up with a corollary for puppet shows, because the always entertaining Dylan Ratigan has added this to the mix.
[on edit]If anyone can give me suggestions, it would be appreciated.
It’s kind of like School House Rock, on a bad acid trip.
Lincoln Follows the Poll Numbers, Goes Hard on Banks
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), as head of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has significant input on derivatives legislation, because one of the oldest of the derivatives are commodity futures, things like pork belly futures, which is why it manages the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
The word has been that Lincoln would be almost as much of a road block ad the Republicans on meaningful reform, seeing as how her record is one of doing the bidding of insurance companies and bank.
It turns out that the word is wrong. Lincoln is requiring that derivatives trading be walled off from banking, as well as requiring the trades be done on open exchanges:
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and their biggest rivals would be forced to wall off derivatives trading operations from their commercial banks under a measure to be introduced by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln, a congressional aide said.
Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, will propose a “no-bailout provision” as part of an overhaul of derivatives regulation she plans to unveil today, according to the aide, who declined to be identified because the plan isn’t public. The measure aims to ensure banks don’t endanger depositors’ money with risky trading of over-the-counter derivatives, the aide said.
…………
Lincoln’s provision would bar swaps dealers from taking advantage of the Federal Reserve’s discount lending window, emergency liquidity functions and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s deposit guarantee. “It eliminates all of the advantages with the affiliation with an insured depository institution, which are profound,” said Karen Petrou, managing partner of Washington-based research firm Federal Financial Analytics Inc.
…………
It would also increase protections for clients by requiring swaps dealers to treat them as a fiduciary — obligating them to put customers’ interests ahead of the company’s, the aide said.
The measure requires most over-the-counter derivatives to be traded on exchanges or through clearinghouses. Companies that use swaps to hedge the cost of materials or other non-investment purposes would be exempted from the requirements, the aide said. Like the Volcker rule, which would ban commercial banks from proprietary trading, the wall-off provision would separate derivatives trading from traditional banking activities such as taking deposits and making loans.
Let’s be clear, this is very tough stuff, at least by the standards of the Congress, particularly the Senate.
She actually lambasted the administration for being too soft on banks:
“Proposals that I have seen from the administration have not gone far enough to prevent bailouts of ‘too big to fail institutions’ and could contain loopholes,” Lincoln said. “If we pass reform, it needs to be real reform. My proposal will go further than any other congressional or administration proposal to prevent future bailouts.”
I’m with David Dayen, this all happened within days of her primary challenger, Bill Halter (Reminder, he’s on My Act Blue Page) releasing ads saying that she was too close to the banking industry.
Everyone on Capitol hill know that her proposals will never go beyond a press release, and that behind the scenes, she will continue to do the big banks’ bidding.
This is just electoral politics, and a full court press from her Congressional Colleagues and the White House.
White House/Supreme Court Kremlinology
So, John Paul Stevens announces his retirement at almost the same time that Dawn Johnsen withdraws her name from consideration as head of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.
I wonder, is he considering nominating her?
My guess is no, but my heart says, “Yes.”
Justice Stevens to Retire
Obviously, the question now is who Obama will nominate to succeed him.
My predictions:
- They will be Protestant
- Stevens is the only Protestant on the court, the rest are Catholic or Jewish.
- They will be a woman and/or a minority.
- Because it will be his way to pander to the base when he chooses a basically conservative nominee.
- They will be tepid, at best, on Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose in general.
- Since Barack Obama has always been tepid, at best, on Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose in general.
- They will generally favor a very expansive definition of the powers of the Presidency.
- Since Barack Obama has aggressively asserted a very expansive definition of the powers of the Presidency.
- They will generally be rather pro corporate, though not as much as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy.
- Since Barack Obama is ……… You get the picture.
- They will not be particularly pro organized labor.
- Obama has clearly been tepid on labor issues, as shown by his efforts to soft pedal the EFCA (Card Check).
What I would like to see, beyond ideology, is that:
- They not have worked as a prosecutor, which tends to set people off on a legal path that is hostile to the rights of the accused.
- That they not, and have not been, a sitting Federal Judge, which is increasingly the norm, and we need more diversity of experience in there.
- Nominating someone who is publicly an atheist.
Things that could make this amusing, but will not happen:
- Nominating Bill Clinton, just to make the ‘Phant’s heads explode.
- Nominating a Muslim.
- Nominating Hillary Clinton, just to make the ‘Phant’s heads explode.
But these will not happen.
A Bit Late on This But………
Robert “Bad Hair” Ehrlich, who lost his bid for reelection against Martin O’Malley 4 years ago, has announced his intention to run for governor again.
Ehrlich seems to think that anti-incumbency gives him a leg up, but he has lost the advantages of incumbency, he cannot run against former Maryland Governor Paris Glendenning, as he did when he ran against Glendenning’s Lt. Governor, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend,* and O’Malley got his signature issue from 8 years ago, slots as a source of revenue, done.
And then there is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, which is that Ehrlich still speaks very positively of his former Lt. Governor, Michael Steele, which may harm him more among Republicans than Democrats.
On the plus side for him is the fact that he is keeping his radio show on WBAL until he formally files his paperwork in June, which gives him a very big megaphone to toot his own horn.
Still, I Ehrlich has to run the table, and O’Malley has to have a major stumble for him to be competitive in this thoroughly blue state.
*She’s a smart lady, she kicked Ehrlich’s butt during the debate in 2002, but she is the worst campaigner in the history of the Kennedy clan, and perhaps the worst candidate in the history of history.
I Wholeheartedly Approve
Someone on DU related their experience with reporting someone threatening violence against Obama to the Secret Service: (Click for full size screen shot)
I called the Secret Service on a wingnut threatening Obama
Edited on Fri Apr-09-10 12:13 AM by Jack_Dawson
on his Facebook. “We need to take him OUT! BY ANY MEANS!” he said Friday night at 10:30 (one can only speculate whether alcohol played a factor).
I called my local SS field office on Saturday. Sent them screenshots. They followed up with him, and he mysteriously removed the OP. But that wasn’t good enough for the Secret Service. They called me again today to send them more screenshots – to see if he had redacted his comment. He had not.
Then about an hour ago, he posted this:
“I suggest REMOVING Obama from office through legal, lawful and Constitutional methods ONLY! I DO NOT AND WOULD NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE!
If you see / hear something similar, I suggest contacting your district office. They do follow up.
Indeed. There has been a lot of violent eliminationist rhetoric, and when it devolves to the point of being a specific threat, reporting it to the authorities is a civic duty.
I am not suggesting the sort of reaction that got Richard Humphreys 37 months in the clink for making “Burning Bush” jokes, but when speech becomes explicit threats, or an exhortation to specific violent action, it’s a problem.
I Call This a Good Start
The labor union the SEIU is starting a 3rd party named North Carolina First in that state.
They are collecting signatures to get qualified as a state party, and the implication is that they will be running candidates in the general against the Blue Dogs Heath Shuler and Mike McIntyre, as well as conservative Larry Kissell.
My attitude is that this is a good thing.
To quote James “I hate that smarmy bastard” Baker, “F%$# them, they didn’t vote for us.”*
I don’t have a problem with this. There is a difference between a conservative Democrat, and particularly in a conservative district, I understand the difference.
Shuler, McIntyre, and Kissell are disloyal democrats, and they can reliably be counted on to vote against healthcare, financial reform, and fair labor rights.
Truth be told, if they want to go after just one of them, I would suggest going after Shuler.
He’s the whip of the Blue Dogs, and taking him down would make the rest of those guys think twice about playing to Fox News as a political strategy
I would note that my hostility towards Shuler might be a function of his tenure as a Washington Redskins over-priced first round draft pick washout.
*Yes, I am aware that Baker said this about Jews and the Republican party while serving in the Poppie Bush administration.
Our Man in Kabul
It appears that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is mad enough to say to members of parliament that if things don’t go his way, he might join the Taliban:
At one point, Mr. Karzai suggested that he himself would be compelled to join the other side —that is, the Taliban—if the parliament didn’t back his controversial attempt to take control of the country’s electoral watchdog from the United Nations, according to three people who attended the meeting, including an ally of the president.
Mr. Karzai blamed the lawmakers’ resistance to his move on a foreign conspiracy, they said. The Afghan president’s latest remarks came less than 24 hours after he assured U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that he was committed to working with the U.S. That phone call was precipitated by a similar—but less vitriolic–anti-Western diatribe Mr. Karzai delivered earlier last week.
So he’s complaining that the Electoral Complaints Commission is appointed by independent judges and the UN, and that parliament is refusing to reorganize it so that he can appoint its members, and stack future elections.
It should be noted that the commission invalidated almost a million votes during his reelection bid, and found pervasive fraud by him and his allies, so I guess that he does not want a repeat of this.
Still, his statements make him both part of the problem, and probably completely f%$#ing nuts.
When juxtaposed with his ruinously corrupt drug running brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, the head of Kandahar’s provincial council, whose actions are so suspect that US forces have threatened to kill him the next time he is seen meeting with a Taliban representative, it’s really a heady brew.
Another Fox News Viewer Arrested for Threatening a Congressman
Yesterday, it was Patty Murry, today it’s Nancy Pelosi.
Anyone see a pattern?
Cute Slide Show
It’s called, “A History of Obama Feigning Interest in Mundane Things,” and it’s amusing, though, just to be fair, every politician has these sorts of photo-ops.
Rats ……… Ship ……… Any Questions?
It appears that there has been a flood of resumes from Republican National Committee (RNC) staffers following revelations of waste, corruption, and mismanagement under Michael Steele’s watch.
It appears that they think that continued association with Mr. Steele would be bad for their future career trajectory.
Well, duh.
Hoocoodaode?
Michael Burry, who made millions from the collapse of housing bubble, talks about how it was all perfectly obvious that we were heading at 95 miles per hour into a brick wall:
Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, proclaimed last month that no one could have predicted the housing bubble. “Everybody missed it,” he said, “academia, the Federal Reserve, all regulators.”
But that is not how I remember it. Back in 2005 and 2006, I argued as forcefully as I could, in letters to clients of my investment firm, Scion Capital, that the mortgage market would melt down in the second half of 2007, causing substantial damage to the economy. My prediction was based on my research into the residential mortgage market and mortgage-backed securities. After studying the regulatory filings related to those securities, I waited for the lenders to offer the most risky mortgages conceivable to the least qualified buyers. I knew that would mark the beginning of the end of the housing bubble; it would mean that prices had risen — with the expansion of easy mortgage lending — as high as they could go.
I had begun to worry about the housing market back in 2003, when lenders first resurrected interest-only mortgages, loosening their credit standards to generate a greater volume of loans. Throughout 2004, I had watched as these mortgages were offered to more and more subprime borrowers — those with the weakest credit. The lenders generally then sold these risky loans to Wall Street to be packaged into mortgage-backed securities, thus passing along most of the risk. Increasingly, lenders concerned themselves more with the quantity of mortgages they sold than with their quality.
He is one of many people who began to worry about an over-inflated housing market,* though he has the distinction of being one of perhaps a dozen people who actually researched it thoroughly enough to risk his, and his clients’ money at Scion Capital.
And he made a killing, to the tune of about $¾ billion.
Of course, Alan “Bubbles” Greenspan take on all this is that he was just lucky:
Since then, I have often wondered why nobody in Washington showed any interest in hearing exactly how I arrived at my conclusions that the housing bubble would burst when it did and that it could cripple the big financial institutions. A week ago I learned the answer when Al Hunt of Bloomberg Television, who had read Michael Lewis’s book, “The Big Short,” which includes the story of my predictions, asked Mr. Greenspan directly. The former Fed chairman responded that my insights had been a “statistical illusion.” Perhaps, he suggested, I was just a supremely lucky flipper of coins.
Mr. Greenspan said that he sat through innumerable meetings at the Fed with crack economists, and not one of them warned of the problems that were to come. By Mr. Greenspan’s logic, anyone who might have foreseen the housing bubble would have been invited into the ivory tower, so if all those who were there did not hear it, then no one could have said it.
If Greenspan had no naysayers talking to him, it was because, as Paul Krugman so ably notes, it was, “Because Greenspan insulated himself from people who told him what he didn’t want to hear.”
Krugman notes a number of people, Dean Baker, Robert Shiller, himself, etc., and notes that Greenspan’s alibis are an artifact of his lack of menschlichkeit (integrity).
I would actually go further: He actually had a political and electoral purpose to his policies, which was that he held, and kept rates low, and encouraged things like exotic mortgages, because he wanted the Republicans in general, and George W. Bush in particular, to implement policies that he supported, such as the dismantling of Social Security, and by propping up the economy, he put the wind at their backs.
The independent Federal Reserve is largely a myth, and treating it as such leaves us with people like Alan Greenspan running the show to the detriment of everyone else.
*Hell, I was issuing dire warnings on the by invitation only Stellar Parthenon BBS regarding what I thought was, and is, an over valued US dollar and increasing interest rates KOing the housing market in 2004, so I was right about there being a housing bubble, and the effects of low interest rates, but wrong, at least so far, as to the mechanism for the collapse of it all.
The Latest Faux Conservative Outrage
Do you think he’s maybe compensating for something?
It appears that the right wing media is having a hissy fit over the size of Nancy Pelosi’s gavel:
- Beck asks if Nancy Pelosi was “inciting” tea partiers with House gavel — “a big hammer.”
- Limbaugh: Pelosi tried to “provoke” tea partiers by “carrying that big gavel” with “excrement-eating grin on her face.”
- Michael Graham: Pelosi was “asking for” response by carrying gavel.
- Tea Party blogger: “It would have been more symbolic had she had a whip.”
Gee, the Republicans see something big, and it makes them feel insecure.
Imagine that.
Conservatives Feel Entitled to Their Own Facts
As evidenced by the recent assault on history by conservatives.
Cases in point, arguing that:
- Alexander Hamilton, the most vociferous supporter of a strong government and against the powers of the states amongst the Federalists, who themselves supported a strong central government, opposed a strong central government.
- Texas text books rewriting history.
- That the deaths at Jamestown in its first years were because it was a socialist endeavor.
- The truth is that, “The Jamestown settlement was a capitalist venture financed by the Virginia Company of London — a joint stock corporation — to make a profit.
- Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist.
We could go on and on, but the lesson to be learned is that when talking to conservatives, you need to confirm if they say that milk is white.