Well just when you think all hope is lost I get this story that comes across Drudge...
Democratic Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona have joined a quiet revolt in the House that could slow some of President Obama's fast-moving priorities.
The two are among 49 Democrats from congressional districts that backed Republican Sen. John McCain 's 2008 presidential race and whose support for the Democratic majority's progressive agenda is increasingly not assured.
A dozen of them were among 20 House Democrats who voted against the $410 billion discretionary fiscal 2009 spending package (HR 1105) on Feb. 25. Another group later forced House leaders to sideline a contentious bill (HR 1106) to allow bankruptcy judges to modify home loans.
Although only a handful of moderate and conservative Democrats abandoned their leaders during party-line votes on the economic stimulus law (PL 111-5), the group of vulnerable Democrats branded the omnibus spending bill as a budget buster and questioned whether the mortgage bill would raise interest rates on average home-owners and cause some struggling homeowners to rush to bankruptcy.
The defections could cause heartburn for Democratic leaders charged with ushering through Obama's three biggest priorities: a health care overhaul, a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions and his fiscal 2010 budget blueprint. The president might also have trouble winning their votes for an anticipated second financial bailout package.
"My job is not to be a rubber stamp for the president or Democratic leadership, but to be a voice for the people that elected me," Giffords said. "I voted for the stimulus, but found I could not vote for the omnibus." She faces a tough 2010 campaign in a state that will be dominated by McCain's expected re-election to his Senate seat.
For his part, Matheson echoed Giffords' concerns about an increase of $31 billion, or 8 percent, in discretionary spending in the nine bills contained in the omnibus measure. Like Giffords, he also has raised concerns about the mortgage bankruptcy bill, which many banks oppose.
"A lot needs to be done to help people keep their homes. But I'm just not sure about this bill," Giffords said.
John B. Larson of Connecticut, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said party leaders would respond to recent defections by trying to slow the pace of bills to allow more time for hearings and debate. "Everything's coming at them fast and furious. The more that people get an opportunity to go back and forth . . . the greater the comfort level they will have," Larson said.
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., acknowledged the defections, saying: "We have a very diverse party, with diverse opinions. We're working on it."
Many of the 49 Democrats in the group have particular concerns about Obama's call for allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy families to expire.
"I don't agree with the administration about letting all those tax cuts expire for upper-income families," said Harry E. Mitchell , D-Ariz. He argues for retaining the current 15 percent rate on capital gains and for permanent reductions in the estate tax.
Republicans are eyeing the group of 49 as prime targets in their party's push to expand the 178-seat minority in the 2010 elections. They are betting on "bailout and stimulus fatigue" and ramping up pressure by launching early attack advertising in their districts and daring them to line up behind Obama's ambitious to-do list.
"All Republicans voted 'no' on the stimulus. Almost all Democrats voted 'yes' on the stimulus. They own it. And before it's over, the public is not going to like the stimulus,'' a senior House GOP aide said.
Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif., who heads recruitment efforts for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said: "We are looking for candidates that fit these districts. We think we have a good chance to win some of them back.''
Matheson could face a special challenge in coming days over his vote on a bill that would give the District of Columbia a full voting member in the House. House Democratic leaders are pushing for fast action on its version (HR 157), which would leave Utah's three existing districts alone and create an at-large seat in Utah.
But the Senate version (S 160), passed Feb. 26, would create a fourth congressional district in Utah, a largely Republican state, and could force Matheson and two home-state GOP colleagues to run in reconfigured districts in 2010.
Regardless of what happens in Utah, GOP strategist Grover Norquist urged loyalists at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference annual convention to step up attacks on the Democrats "in districts that actually want to elect Republicans."
"We need in 2010 to win 40 House seats held by Democrats, some of them masquerading as conservatives but every one of them a [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi liberal in their voting and their impact," he added. Norquist serves as president of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative watchdog group.
GOP leaders are optimistic that Republican Jim Tedisco, minority leader of the New York Assembly, can defeat Democrat Scott Murphy in a March 31 special election to fill the vacancy created by the Senate appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand , D-N.Y. "After the March 31 election in New York, we'll need 39 seats," Norquist predicted.
With the 2010 midterm campaigns off to a fast start, Matheson, Giffords and the other vulnerable Democrats face tough choices.
Still, Democrats gained some leeway last fall by winning what temporarily were 257 seats: They can lose as many as 37 Democrats on a given bill and still see it pass.
Now, there are three House vacancies, created when Gillibrand moved to the Senate, former Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois became Obama's chief of staff and former California Rep. Hilda L. Solis became Labor secretary.
But signs of trouble loom. Just seven Democrats — six from districts carried by McCain plus liberal Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon — voted Feb. 13 against Obama's biggest early priority, the $787.2 billion economic stimulus.
But a day after the 20 Democrats voted against the omnibus spending bill — including 12 from districts carried by McCain — a larger group of conservative Democrats forced party leaders to pull the mortgage bankruptcy measure. In a symbolic protest, a group of 26 dissident Democrats — including 18 from districts carried by McCain — sided with Republicans when the House narrowly adopted, 224-198, a procedural motion (H Res 190) that had the effect of postponing action on the mortgage bankruptcy bill. A modified version of the legislation is likely to go to the House floor this week.
wow, it would be nice to know that some people out there in Democrat land have a conscious. These 49 are damned if they do and damned if they don't. First of all they supported McCain against the messiah in this election and still got the seat, that means at best they live in moderate districts to districts that lean or are heavily Republican, second they are the "blue dogs" so in order to keep their seats they need to have a moderate position overall while this Congress just made a violently hard left turn. Third, if they go moderate (which they may or may not do) they risk pissing off the DK/DU/Moron.org crowd and face a primary challenge in 2010 while the Republican candidate builds up their bankroll. Fourth, if they go hard left, which is the pressure, they will get their asses voted out because if they chose to support McCain in 2008 it means their districts trend to the right. Things are looking good, if we can make it to November 2010. Only 20 months to go...
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
yea, about the stock market, I kinda called it...
ok, for those of you who don't know I had this called back in September, right after Obama took a commanding and insurmountable lead in the polls, here's my post (if your too lazy to read below link is in the title)
Man I could be venturing off into dangerous territory with this one. Economics is not my strongest suit, that being said I usually watch CNBC 1-2 hours a day (mostly Mad Money) and consider myself somewhat knowledgeable about the stock market. I am opening this up to anyone who knows anything about this type of economy. When and where is the bottom for this market? Will it happen tomorrow? Next week? Next month? Sometime in 2009 (god forbid)? What is the bottom for the Dow Jones? 10000? 9000? 8000? 7000? Or maybe even lower? That being said after watching the first few minutes of Cramer I think the Dow will bottom out at around 7,000 sometime around Halloween. I am trying to get some cash available because, and I'll be honest, I have dollar signs in my eyes right now. I'm drooling at the possibility of being able to make an absolute killing right now in the market. Stocks that have good bottom lines and solid "fundamentals" are being sold off in this panic frenzy are way undervalued at this point and they could go lower. As FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Fear causes people to do irrational things, irrational things lead to unintended results. Word to the wise, people who are confident and keep their cool (me and hopefully at least a few of you out there) will see a 100-1000% return on their even short-term investment if you do your research.
Ok maybe I was a LITTLE wrong about the dates but not the numbers, back then I was holding out hope McCain could make a late run but even as doom and gloom as I was less than 4 months ago I didn't think the Dow could go below 7000. And now I am nowhere near as optimistic as I was in this post, I said earlier this week that I thought the Dow will hit 1000 and I stand by that not because I want it to but because logically I see it happening because Obama is so damn stubborn with his retarded economic policy. I shouldn't say that, that's an insult to retarded people, I think if you lock a bunch of retarded people in a room they'd come up with a better economic plan than Obama and his team of dunces. And I'm not the only one saying this, this is from an opinion piece from the WSJ today...
As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.
Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.
The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.
And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.
Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.
So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.
What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.
His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.
AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.
The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.
Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.
Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.
Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.
And check this lovely graph to go along with it...
The Obama Depression has begun.
Man I could be venturing off into dangerous territory with this one. Economics is not my strongest suit, that being said I usually watch CNBC 1-2 hours a day (mostly Mad Money) and consider myself somewhat knowledgeable about the stock market. I am opening this up to anyone who knows anything about this type of economy. When and where is the bottom for this market? Will it happen tomorrow? Next week? Next month? Sometime in 2009 (god forbid)? What is the bottom for the Dow Jones? 10000? 9000? 8000? 7000? Or maybe even lower? That being said after watching the first few minutes of Cramer I think the Dow will bottom out at around 7,000 sometime around Halloween. I am trying to get some cash available because, and I'll be honest, I have dollar signs in my eyes right now. I'm drooling at the possibility of being able to make an absolute killing right now in the market. Stocks that have good bottom lines and solid "fundamentals" are being sold off in this panic frenzy are way undervalued at this point and they could go lower. As FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Fear causes people to do irrational things, irrational things lead to unintended results. Word to the wise, people who are confident and keep their cool (me and hopefully at least a few of you out there) will see a 100-1000% return on their even short-term investment if you do your research.
Ok maybe I was a LITTLE wrong about the dates but not the numbers, back then I was holding out hope McCain could make a late run but even as doom and gloom as I was less than 4 months ago I didn't think the Dow could go below 7000. And now I am nowhere near as optimistic as I was in this post, I said earlier this week that I thought the Dow will hit 1000 and I stand by that not because I want it to but because logically I see it happening because Obama is so damn stubborn with his retarded economic policy. I shouldn't say that, that's an insult to retarded people, I think if you lock a bunch of retarded people in a room they'd come up with a better economic plan than Obama and his team of dunces. And I'm not the only one saying this, this is from an opinion piece from the WSJ today...
As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.
Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.
The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.
And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.
Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.
So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.
What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.
His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.
AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.
The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.
Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.
Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.
Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.
And check this lovely graph to go along with it...
The Obama Depression has begun.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Bye, bye EU, hello USSR (again)
Is it just me or does it seem like any article from an overseas sorce seem insanely depressing and/or negative lately. Which reminds me, by this time tommorow I should have a new link section up called "World News", it will be a collection of what I think are the best sources of news outside this country. Anyway, read the article, if you dare...
The leaders of the European Union gathered Sunday in Brussels for an emergency summit meeting designed to tamp down the centrifugal forces unleashed by the global economic crisis that threaten to spin the bloc - and its single currency - apart.
In a statement afterward, the leaders tried to reassure their publics, promising to hold to the single market, promote growth and reject protectionism.
A call from Hungary for a large bailout for newer, eastern members of the union was rejected by Germany, the richest EU nation, and received little support from other countries.
Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany of Hungary warned of "a new Iron Curtain" dividing Europe, even if the metal today was gold. He called for a special EU fund of up to €190 billion, or $241 billion, to protect the bloc's weakest members.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, however, facing European elections this summer and national elections in September, said that countries must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but without explaining how. The Czech prime minister, Mirek Topolanek, meanwhile, insisted that no member would be left "in the lurch."
Europe may now be "whole and free" after the collapse of communism. But the European Union is not a country, and the deep global contraction is stimulating nationalism, not consensus.
With uncertain leadership and few powerful collective institutions, the union is struggling with the strains this economic crisis has inevitably produced among 27 different countries with different economic histories. The traditional concept of "solidarity," of one for all, is being undermined by protectionist pressures from political leaders with national constituencies and agendas.
It is a sharp contrast with the meltdown's effects on the U.S. government. President Barack Obama has just announced a radical budget that will send the United States more deeply into debt, but that also makes an effort to redistribute income and lay the foundations for significant changes in health care, education and the environment.
Whether Europe can reach across constituencies to create consensus has been an open, and suddenly urgent, question.
"The European Union will now have to prove whether it is just a fair-weather union or has a real joint political destiny," said Stefan Kornelius, the foreign news editor of Süddeutsche Zeitung in Germany. "The whole project of a joint currency is being tested for the first time. We always said you can't really have a currency union without a political union, and we don't have one. There is no joint fiscal policy, no joint tax policy, no joint policy on which industries to subsidize or not. And none of the leaders is strong enough to pull the others out of the mud."
Karel Lanoo, chief executive of the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels, said that "the lack of leadership in Europe is becoming dramatic," while Thomas Klau, Paris director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, said: "This crisis affects the political union that backs the euro and of course the EU as a whole, and solidarity is at the heart of the debate."
The crisis has implications for Washington, too, which wants a European Union that can promote allied interests in places like Afghanistan and the Middle East with financial and, increasingly, military help. "All of that is in doubt if the cornerstone of the EU - its internal market, economic union and solidarity - is in question," said Ronald Asmus, a former State Department official who runs the Brussels office of the German Marshall Fund.
The problems are basically twofold, one within the euro zone, which itself has an economy roughly the size of the United States, and one within the larger European Union. The 16 nations that use the euro - introduced in 1999 and one of the most significant political accomplishments of the last decade - are trying to keep the severe economic troubles of some members, like Ireland, Spain, Italy and Greece, from turning into national defaults that could force them to abandon the currency.
While Germany vowed never to bail out weaker members in return for giving up its strong national currency, the Deutsche mark, German leaders, with elections on the horizon, are now faced with the unpalatable prospect of having to do precisely that: put German money at risk to bail out weaker, less responsible partners.
Within the larger European Union, fissures are growing between older members and newer ones, especially those that lived under the stifling yoke of Soviet socialism only 20 years ago. Some countries of Central Europe, like the Czech Republic and Poland, are doing relatively well. Others, like Hungary, Romania and the Baltic states, are in a state of near-meltdown. But only two newer members - tiny Slovenia and Slovakia - are protected by being inside the euro zone, and there was little support Sunday for changing the rules to allow more to join quickly.
The other new members - even those doing relatively well, and whose banks did not engage in the subprime mortgage frenzy or indulge in toxic derivatives - have seen their currencies plummet against the euro, causing enormous problems of debt repayment, while the recession in their partners to the west has meant a radical drop in orders for the factories set up in the lower-cost eastern countries to satisfy consumers to the west.
Some countries are asking for aid, both from their partners and in some cases from the International Monetary Fund, to prop up their currencies and banks. While Western European countries are reluctant, with their own problems at home and within the euro zone itself, there is a deep interconnectedness in any case. Much of the debt at risk in Eastern Europe is on the books of euro zone banks - especially in Austria and Italy. The same is true for the mess farther afield, in Ukraine, which talks of joining the union.
Having watched the Soviet model fail, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe embraced the liberal, capitalist model as the price of integration with the west. Now that model, too, seems to be faltering, and the newer members feel adrift. Before the larger summit meeting Sunday, the Poles called an unprecedented meeting of nine of the new member states.
Afterward, Topolanek, who has been bickering with an impatient France, said: "We do not want any dividing lines, we do not want a Europe divided along a north-south or east-west line, pursuing a beggar-thy-neighbor policy."
The Hungarian government circulated a paper Sunday suggesting that the refinancing needs of Central Europe needs this year - including the nonmembers Croatia and Ukraine - could total $380 billion. "Failure to act," the paper said, "could cause a second round of systemic meltdowns that would mainly hit the euro zone economies."
Merkel, however, put her foot down against an undifferentiated package, though she suggested last week that targeted help to specific countries might be on offer, mentioning Ireland.
EU governments have already spent $380 billion in bank recapitalizations and put up $3.17 trillion to guarantee loans of banks and to try to get credit moving again.
The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, the European Investment Bank and the World Bank said Friday they would jointly provide $31.1 billion to support East European nations, but more will be needed.
Klau of the European Council on Foreign Relations sees a worrying loss of faith in a certain brand of capitalism. "It's politically dangerous there since they've just emerged from an ultra-regulated and stifling system, were confronted with shock therapy that created great hardship, and are just beginning to recover and stabilize," Klau said. "Now they're thrown back into an economic and political cauldron."
And they are finding that their European partners are putting their own national interests ahead of "collective and necessary solidarity," Klau said.
Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, is more sanguine. "My expectation is that the euro zone countries, out of pure self interest, will bail each other out," he said. "For Central and Eastern Europe, it is too early to say there won't be solidarity. But non-EU countries in the east, particularly Ukraine, seem to be the No. 1 worry."
Well ironically it looks like the EU is going the way the USSR did in the late 80's early 90's and the Soviet Union is coming back with Vladimir Putin as its Chairman. The Soviet Union never really died, it just went broke and dormant. Putin will wake it up and God help us all. The next few years could be ugly people, both nationally and worldwide.
The leaders of the European Union gathered Sunday in Brussels for an emergency summit meeting designed to tamp down the centrifugal forces unleashed by the global economic crisis that threaten to spin the bloc - and its single currency - apart.
In a statement afterward, the leaders tried to reassure their publics, promising to hold to the single market, promote growth and reject protectionism.
A call from Hungary for a large bailout for newer, eastern members of the union was rejected by Germany, the richest EU nation, and received little support from other countries.
Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany of Hungary warned of "a new Iron Curtain" dividing Europe, even if the metal today was gold. He called for a special EU fund of up to €190 billion, or $241 billion, to protect the bloc's weakest members.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, however, facing European elections this summer and national elections in September, said that countries must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but without explaining how. The Czech prime minister, Mirek Topolanek, meanwhile, insisted that no member would be left "in the lurch."
Europe may now be "whole and free" after the collapse of communism. But the European Union is not a country, and the deep global contraction is stimulating nationalism, not consensus.
With uncertain leadership and few powerful collective institutions, the union is struggling with the strains this economic crisis has inevitably produced among 27 different countries with different economic histories. The traditional concept of "solidarity," of one for all, is being undermined by protectionist pressures from political leaders with national constituencies and agendas.
It is a sharp contrast with the meltdown's effects on the U.S. government. President Barack Obama has just announced a radical budget that will send the United States more deeply into debt, but that also makes an effort to redistribute income and lay the foundations for significant changes in health care, education and the environment.
Whether Europe can reach across constituencies to create consensus has been an open, and suddenly urgent, question.
"The European Union will now have to prove whether it is just a fair-weather union or has a real joint political destiny," said Stefan Kornelius, the foreign news editor of Süddeutsche Zeitung in Germany. "The whole project of a joint currency is being tested for the first time. We always said you can't really have a currency union without a political union, and we don't have one. There is no joint fiscal policy, no joint tax policy, no joint policy on which industries to subsidize or not. And none of the leaders is strong enough to pull the others out of the mud."
Karel Lanoo, chief executive of the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels, said that "the lack of leadership in Europe is becoming dramatic," while Thomas Klau, Paris director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, said: "This crisis affects the political union that backs the euro and of course the EU as a whole, and solidarity is at the heart of the debate."
The crisis has implications for Washington, too, which wants a European Union that can promote allied interests in places like Afghanistan and the Middle East with financial and, increasingly, military help. "All of that is in doubt if the cornerstone of the EU - its internal market, economic union and solidarity - is in question," said Ronald Asmus, a former State Department official who runs the Brussels office of the German Marshall Fund.
The problems are basically twofold, one within the euro zone, which itself has an economy roughly the size of the United States, and one within the larger European Union. The 16 nations that use the euro - introduced in 1999 and one of the most significant political accomplishments of the last decade - are trying to keep the severe economic troubles of some members, like Ireland, Spain, Italy and Greece, from turning into national defaults that could force them to abandon the currency.
While Germany vowed never to bail out weaker members in return for giving up its strong national currency, the Deutsche mark, German leaders, with elections on the horizon, are now faced with the unpalatable prospect of having to do precisely that: put German money at risk to bail out weaker, less responsible partners.
Within the larger European Union, fissures are growing between older members and newer ones, especially those that lived under the stifling yoke of Soviet socialism only 20 years ago. Some countries of Central Europe, like the Czech Republic and Poland, are doing relatively well. Others, like Hungary, Romania and the Baltic states, are in a state of near-meltdown. But only two newer members - tiny Slovenia and Slovakia - are protected by being inside the euro zone, and there was little support Sunday for changing the rules to allow more to join quickly.
The other new members - even those doing relatively well, and whose banks did not engage in the subprime mortgage frenzy or indulge in toxic derivatives - have seen their currencies plummet against the euro, causing enormous problems of debt repayment, while the recession in their partners to the west has meant a radical drop in orders for the factories set up in the lower-cost eastern countries to satisfy consumers to the west.
Some countries are asking for aid, both from their partners and in some cases from the International Monetary Fund, to prop up their currencies and banks. While Western European countries are reluctant, with their own problems at home and within the euro zone itself, there is a deep interconnectedness in any case. Much of the debt at risk in Eastern Europe is on the books of euro zone banks - especially in Austria and Italy. The same is true for the mess farther afield, in Ukraine, which talks of joining the union.
Having watched the Soviet model fail, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe embraced the liberal, capitalist model as the price of integration with the west. Now that model, too, seems to be faltering, and the newer members feel adrift. Before the larger summit meeting Sunday, the Poles called an unprecedented meeting of nine of the new member states.
Afterward, Topolanek, who has been bickering with an impatient France, said: "We do not want any dividing lines, we do not want a Europe divided along a north-south or east-west line, pursuing a beggar-thy-neighbor policy."
The Hungarian government circulated a paper Sunday suggesting that the refinancing needs of Central Europe needs this year - including the nonmembers Croatia and Ukraine - could total $380 billion. "Failure to act," the paper said, "could cause a second round of systemic meltdowns that would mainly hit the euro zone economies."
Merkel, however, put her foot down against an undifferentiated package, though she suggested last week that targeted help to specific countries might be on offer, mentioning Ireland.
EU governments have already spent $380 billion in bank recapitalizations and put up $3.17 trillion to guarantee loans of banks and to try to get credit moving again.
The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, the European Investment Bank and the World Bank said Friday they would jointly provide $31.1 billion to support East European nations, but more will be needed.
Klau of the European Council on Foreign Relations sees a worrying loss of faith in a certain brand of capitalism. "It's politically dangerous there since they've just emerged from an ultra-regulated and stifling system, were confronted with shock therapy that created great hardship, and are just beginning to recover and stabilize," Klau said. "Now they're thrown back into an economic and political cauldron."
And they are finding that their European partners are putting their own national interests ahead of "collective and necessary solidarity," Klau said.
Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, is more sanguine. "My expectation is that the euro zone countries, out of pure self interest, will bail each other out," he said. "For Central and Eastern Europe, it is too early to say there won't be solidarity. But non-EU countries in the east, particularly Ukraine, seem to be the No. 1 worry."
Well ironically it looks like the EU is going the way the USSR did in the late 80's early 90's and the Soviet Union is coming back with Vladimir Putin as its Chairman. The Soviet Union never really died, it just went broke and dormant. Putin will wake it up and God help us all. The next few years could be ugly people, both nationally and worldwide.
The Hopey Changitude bus claims PepsiCo. as its latest victim
Ok, if your wondering about the title no I didn't come up with it. I believe the first person to use it was Sequel of Anti-Strib during march or april of this year. We coined the term because it seemed like for awhile the Hope and Change rhetoric of the Obama camp was getting sick and he was using people (like rev. Wright) for political use then throwing them under the perverbial bus once he had exhausted all use of them or they became a political liability to him. Anyway, if you have noticed recently the latest Pepsi ad campaign push uses something strikingly similar to the "classic" Obama campaign logo that was plastered across every cult member, er I mean "follower of the Chosen One", this campaign season.
The logo on the left is Pepsi's new logo, now boys and girls lets compare that with the Obama campaign's logo...
yea... no big difference there. Heck I'm surprised the National Lawyers Guild (see: new name for Trial Lawyers & Co.) hasn't been called upon by Obama the most Merciful to sue their asses for copyright infringement. And if there really was any dobut here's the Time "article".
In an apparent homage to the new President, PepsiCo has plastered the sides of buses and bus stops in the nation's capital with slogans like "Yes You Can," "Optimismmmm" and "Hope." In each poster, the letter O is inscribed with the redesigned Pepsi logo, a red, white and blue sphere that echoes the rising-sun image used by the Obama campaign.
It is not hard to interpret the message. Since 1984, Pepsi has been marketing itself as the hip, happening beverage of youth — "The choice of a new generation," as its longtime slogan went. And Barack Obama, one of the youngest men to serve as President, is nothing if not hip, especially among young consumers who supported him by wide margins. Pepsi says the campaign is not a political endorsement. "We're not interested in following political tailwinds," says Nicole Bradley, a Pepsi spokeswoman. "But we are interested in cultural change."
That said, the marketing campaign, which includes TV and print ads as well, does raise a question: Is Pepsi actually the choice of the Obama Administration?
My reporting at the White House suggests the answer is a resounding no. Several senior Administration officials are committed cola drinkers, and without fail they spend their days sipping from a can of Diet Coke, a product of Pepsi's chief competitor, Coca-Cola. On Monday, as members of Congress and key lobbyists filed into a briefing room for the final event of a daylong fiscal summit, they were greeted with an ice chest full of complimentary Diet Coke, not Diet Pepsi. (Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus was one of many to grab a can.) Hours earlier, at a breakout session with members of Congress in the Indian Treaty Room, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag handled not one, but two cans of Diet Coke during the nearly two-hour session. Larry Summers, Obama's top economic adviser, rarely walks anywhere in the White House complex without a can of Diet Coke in his hand. He is well known for interrupting conversations to take another swig.
But these examples do not even constitute the most damning evidence against Pepsi. Late last year, Obama's nascent Administration worked out of transition offices in a downtown government building, which was serviced by only Pepsi-brand vending machines, according to three people who worked in the building. Two Administration officials have told me that a group of Obama aides, frustrated by having to run the security gauntlet to go to the corner store, stocked a refrigerator with Diet Coke in open rebellion against the available options. The pattern has continued at the White House. In his West Wing office, as in his previous office at Harvard University, Summers has a refrigerator stocked with cans of the decidedly non-Pepsi beverage.
Though Pepsi is available in the West Wing mess, it is rarely, if ever, seen out in the open. On Thursday, the recycling bin outside White House spokesman Robert Gibbs' office contained six cans of Diet Coke and one can of Sprite Zero, which is also a Coca-Cola product. In another part of the building, I asked a White House official, who had a can of Diet Coke sitting on his desk, if the Obama Administration had a clear bias for Coke over Pepsi. "I think that's true," the official responded, with a smile. "Don't most Americans?"
To a certain degree, yes. Nationwide, Coke is more popular than Pepsi, but not by the same margin seen among White House staff. Beverage Digest, a trade publication, reported that Coke and Diet Coke had a 27.2% share of the carbonated-beverage market in 2007, compared with a 16.7% share for Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.
As an official matter, the U.S. government is usually nonpartisan in the cola wars. In congressional office buildings, both Coke and Pepsi products are sold at vending machines, as they are in the waiting room at Andrews Air Force Base, where reporters wait to board Air Force One. In the air, the President's personal flight crew offers either cola to passengers. Nor is soda the only option for officials working in the White House. Several members of the press operation keep going with a steady diet of coffee, while one younger member of the White House Web team was spotted recently walking to work with a case of kombucha, a fermented tea drink sold at health food stores.
The health-conscious President is not known to have a strong preference for either Coke or Pepsi — though he was spotted at one debate sipping from a bottle of Aquafina water, which is made by PepsiCo. Obama is, however, a well-known fan of Honest Tea, a drink made by a company that is 40% owned by Coca-Cola.
Excuse me, but I need to laugh for a minute, HAHAHAHAHAHA. Pepsi you fools, not have you made yourselves look like a complete tool but then you get the cold shoulder and have probably turned off a lot of people. I am an avid pop drinker and I will avoid Pepsi until they change their creepy logo and get onto a new ad campaign.
The logo on the left is Pepsi's new logo, now boys and girls lets compare that with the Obama campaign's logo...
yea... no big difference there. Heck I'm surprised the National Lawyers Guild (see: new name for Trial Lawyers & Co.) hasn't been called upon by Obama the most Merciful to sue their asses for copyright infringement. And if there really was any dobut here's the Time "article".
In an apparent homage to the new President, PepsiCo has plastered the sides of buses and bus stops in the nation's capital with slogans like "Yes You Can," "Optimismmmm" and "Hope." In each poster, the letter O is inscribed with the redesigned Pepsi logo, a red, white and blue sphere that echoes the rising-sun image used by the Obama campaign.
It is not hard to interpret the message. Since 1984, Pepsi has been marketing itself as the hip, happening beverage of youth — "The choice of a new generation," as its longtime slogan went. And Barack Obama, one of the youngest men to serve as President, is nothing if not hip, especially among young consumers who supported him by wide margins. Pepsi says the campaign is not a political endorsement. "We're not interested in following political tailwinds," says Nicole Bradley, a Pepsi spokeswoman. "But we are interested in cultural change."
That said, the marketing campaign, which includes TV and print ads as well, does raise a question: Is Pepsi actually the choice of the Obama Administration?
My reporting at the White House suggests the answer is a resounding no. Several senior Administration officials are committed cola drinkers, and without fail they spend their days sipping from a can of Diet Coke, a product of Pepsi's chief competitor, Coca-Cola. On Monday, as members of Congress and key lobbyists filed into a briefing room for the final event of a daylong fiscal summit, they were greeted with an ice chest full of complimentary Diet Coke, not Diet Pepsi. (Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus was one of many to grab a can.) Hours earlier, at a breakout session with members of Congress in the Indian Treaty Room, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag handled not one, but two cans of Diet Coke during the nearly two-hour session. Larry Summers, Obama's top economic adviser, rarely walks anywhere in the White House complex without a can of Diet Coke in his hand. He is well known for interrupting conversations to take another swig.
But these examples do not even constitute the most damning evidence against Pepsi. Late last year, Obama's nascent Administration worked out of transition offices in a downtown government building, which was serviced by only Pepsi-brand vending machines, according to three people who worked in the building. Two Administration officials have told me that a group of Obama aides, frustrated by having to run the security gauntlet to go to the corner store, stocked a refrigerator with Diet Coke in open rebellion against the available options. The pattern has continued at the White House. In his West Wing office, as in his previous office at Harvard University, Summers has a refrigerator stocked with cans of the decidedly non-Pepsi beverage.
Though Pepsi is available in the West Wing mess, it is rarely, if ever, seen out in the open. On Thursday, the recycling bin outside White House spokesman Robert Gibbs' office contained six cans of Diet Coke and one can of Sprite Zero, which is also a Coca-Cola product. In another part of the building, I asked a White House official, who had a can of Diet Coke sitting on his desk, if the Obama Administration had a clear bias for Coke over Pepsi. "I think that's true," the official responded, with a smile. "Don't most Americans?"
To a certain degree, yes. Nationwide, Coke is more popular than Pepsi, but not by the same margin seen among White House staff. Beverage Digest, a trade publication, reported that Coke and Diet Coke had a 27.2% share of the carbonated-beverage market in 2007, compared with a 16.7% share for Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.
As an official matter, the U.S. government is usually nonpartisan in the cola wars. In congressional office buildings, both Coke and Pepsi products are sold at vending machines, as they are in the waiting room at Andrews Air Force Base, where reporters wait to board Air Force One. In the air, the President's personal flight crew offers either cola to passengers. Nor is soda the only option for officials working in the White House. Several members of the press operation keep going with a steady diet of coffee, while one younger member of the White House Web team was spotted recently walking to work with a case of kombucha, a fermented tea drink sold at health food stores.
The health-conscious President is not known to have a strong preference for either Coke or Pepsi — though he was spotted at one debate sipping from a bottle of Aquafina water, which is made by PepsiCo. Obama is, however, a well-known fan of Honest Tea, a drink made by a company that is 40% owned by Coca-Cola.
Excuse me, but I need to laugh for a minute, HAHAHAHAHAHA. Pepsi you fools, not have you made yourselves look like a complete tool but then you get the cold shoulder and have probably turned off a lot of people. I am an avid pop drinker and I will avoid Pepsi until they change their creepy logo and get onto a new ad campaign.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
California to legalize weed? Why not?
Ok I know this may stun some of you but when it comes to issues such as drug legislation I lean libertarian, some would say even (gasp) liberal but I perfer libertarian. It's the only thing out there that I think should be taxed massively and no I'm NOT talking about prescription drugs I'm talking the street stuff. I would be all for legalization of marijuana and possibly looking into some other hard drugs. Here's the beauty of CA's legislation, they would just put on I believe a $50 per ounce tax per unit sold, of course regulating this could be a bitch and cause more government but I figure the DEA's pot arm can go from busting people to regulating them, not to mention all the sentences that would be commuted. To think in the future the only way a pot dealer gets dragged in front of a judge is for tax evasion not ownership with intent to sell an illegal substance. Talk about irony. And I didn't even know this but apparently dope is CA's #1 cash crop as pointed out below
Marijuana is California's largest cash crop. It's valued at $14 billion annually, or nearly twice the value of the state's grape and vegetable crops combined, according to government statistics. Indeed, a recent report pegged marijuana as two-thirds of the economy of Mendocino County, a ganja hotbed north of San Francisco. That's not surprising—it costs $400 to grow a pound of pot that can sell for $6,000 on the street.
you can find the rest of that article here and all you have to do is google "California to try to legalize pot in 2009" and you'll get about 928,000 hits. People we have a national debt that for all practical purposes is anywhere between $10-30 trillion depending on what numbers you want to believe. Tobacco and alcohol are legal and marijuana was until 1937. Alcohol was banned in 1920 (I think?) and then that act was repealed about 15 years later. 72 years after marijuana was made illegal by the feds has the problem gotten better or worse? For all you D.A.R.E turds out there get a fucking clue, kids will smoke drink and do weed if they REALLY want to, the best thing to do is inform them so they know how to deal with it and the long-term consequences. But just like with sex, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO SOME KIDS WILL TRY IT, YOU CANNOT STOP THE CURIOSITY OF PRETEENS AND TEENS IN THIS COUNTRY (and world for that matter). This goes as much to MADD as it does to the idiots on my side who still believe the "war on drugs" is worth fighting. Face it people we lost, and if you can't beat em join em. Lord knows we need the tax revenue, and whose to say we can't add another 100% tax on to the stuff every 2-3 years. By then there could be huge companies maunfacturing the stuff and it could be sold in stores right along side those evil, evil, tobacco products. I know there is a slippery slope arguement to be made here but I don't give a fuck. Besides what happened to personal responsibilty? Governments job is not to protect you from yourself despite what some politicians may tell you.
We could balance the budget by 2035-2040 if this passes and is put to good use. The Obama administration even took the first step today by stopping federal drug raids of known pot houses, they are leaving it up to the states. After fucking our economy over along with me and my kids its nice to see them do SOMETHING right for once.
Marijuana is California's largest cash crop. It's valued at $14 billion annually, or nearly twice the value of the state's grape and vegetable crops combined, according to government statistics. Indeed, a recent report pegged marijuana as two-thirds of the economy of Mendocino County, a ganja hotbed north of San Francisco. That's not surprising—it costs $400 to grow a pound of pot that can sell for $6,000 on the street.
you can find the rest of that article here and all you have to do is google "California to try to legalize pot in 2009" and you'll get about 928,000 hits. People we have a national debt that for all practical purposes is anywhere between $10-30 trillion depending on what numbers you want to believe. Tobacco and alcohol are legal and marijuana was until 1937. Alcohol was banned in 1920 (I think?) and then that act was repealed about 15 years later. 72 years after marijuana was made illegal by the feds has the problem gotten better or worse? For all you D.A.R.E turds out there get a fucking clue, kids will smoke drink and do weed if they REALLY want to, the best thing to do is inform them so they know how to deal with it and the long-term consequences. But just like with sex, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO SOME KIDS WILL TRY IT, YOU CANNOT STOP THE CURIOSITY OF PRETEENS AND TEENS IN THIS COUNTRY (and world for that matter). This goes as much to MADD as it does to the idiots on my side who still believe the "war on drugs" is worth fighting. Face it people we lost, and if you can't beat em join em. Lord knows we need the tax revenue, and whose to say we can't add another 100% tax on to the stuff every 2-3 years. By then there could be huge companies maunfacturing the stuff and it could be sold in stores right along side those evil, evil, tobacco products. I know there is a slippery slope arguement to be made here but I don't give a fuck. Besides what happened to personal responsibilty? Governments job is not to protect you from yourself despite what some politicians may tell you.
We could balance the budget by 2035-2040 if this passes and is put to good use. The Obama administration even took the first step today by stopping federal drug raids of known pot houses, they are leaving it up to the states. After fucking our economy over along with me and my kids its nice to see them do SOMETHING right for once.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Rock The Casbah... it hits home today like it did back then
listen to the lyrics of this song and tell me it doesn't apply to the middle east bullshit today as much, maybe even more, now as back then.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
how dumb is Obama, 1 FUCKING trillion in new taxes?
Ok normally I wouldn't swear in a post title and I've tried to censor myself as much as possible in a hope to get more readers but drastic times call for drastic measures. 1 TRILLION IN NEW TAXES. Ok let me see if I have Obama's logic right. We have insane new government programs that are being created everyday taking us one step closer to a socialist dictatorship in this country (some would argue were already there, I'm not, yet...) and were in a deep recession that could turn into a depression. Scratch that, it WILL turn into a depression if this becomes law. And you heard it here on my blog first (maybe) at the rate were going by 2011 the dow could be at or below 1000. Yeah I said 1000, during the Great Depression the dow lost 89% of its value over a 3 year period, it didn't all happen on the crash date. Once (or more appropriately if) I get a job I am putting all my money in precious metals as a hedge against inflation. At this rate I'm going to milk this college thing as long as I can. Frankly I'm glad that I'm not like most of my old high school friends who are going into the job market this summer. Good luck guys, your REALLY going to need it. People remember 1968 for its left-wing violence and at the rate were going the summer of 2009 will be a right-wing equivalent with the tea parties that are going on during 4th of July preperations. I will be joining people in the streets, this is insane. We are tettering on the edge of financial disaster and with this fucking retarded proposal Obama didn't just push us off the cliff he got a running start and tackled us over the cliff because he's going to fall just like the economy. I only hope that when a new administration takes over in 2012-13 that there will be something left worth saving. Here are some predictions I have for the rest of the Obamanation Administration (I'm not a fortune teller but if I am right I would like to be able to have actual proof, not just I told you so. I'm already sick of saying that)
rest of 2009:
March: Dow hits 5000, panic selling, foreclosure rates skyrocket causing the devlopment of a new position in the administration, like a housing czaar or something (I think that might have already happened). Civil unrest starts slowly breaking out, there could be a Kazyncki or OKC type attack on a federal reserve office somewhere in the US (I AM NOT ADVOCATING THIS OK FBI!! I AM JUST WARNING YOU THIS COULD HAPPEN AND PREPARE YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY)
April: April 15th will be a gigantic mass protest day in all major US cities. People may start burning effiges of Obama and the government that got us into the mess, probably along with a few pictures of CEO's. This will cause a overreach by Obama and he will sign the assault weapons ban and urge Congress to pass a law requiring all handgun owners to register their weapons
May: Congress will debate and pass this (barely, fights may break out on the floor of the House like they do in Parliment sometimes). There will be great public outcry, a massive run on guns and soon Obama may think about confiscating guns from the people that were stupid enough to register.
June-August: People will start violently revolting in the streets, with some states broke the police may join in since they aren't getting paid. The National Guard will be called up and Martial Law could be instituted and if there really are those FEMA workcamps are for real they will start being used. In the meantime the US economy tanks and by August were at 10.5% unemployment with no signs of it letting up.
September-December: people begin hoarding food and start to become very isolationistic, militas start popping up all over the place
2010-2011
People are sick of unrest but are unsure to trust government especially since they are broke because China isn't funing our debt anymore. Our bonds become as toxic as sub-prime loans and the US government becomes insolvent. Unemployment may be as high as 20-30% now and people are thinking seriously about blockading DC. Many politicians walk everywhere with armed bodyguards now and elections are still managed to be held in november 2010 and either the republicans will win or a newly formed "teaparty" takes enough seats to have them play kingmaker for either party. They go along with possible impeachment proceedings but before that Obama suspends the constitution saying there will be no elections in 2012 for the "good of the people". By 2011 we are in a second revolutionary war, the only problem is one side has nukes now...
I can't speculate beyond that and I hope and pray to God that none of this happens but if it does I will say I told you so, while cleaning my double barrled shotgun that has already done a few people in.
rest of 2009:
March: Dow hits 5000, panic selling, foreclosure rates skyrocket causing the devlopment of a new position in the administration, like a housing czaar or something (I think that might have already happened). Civil unrest starts slowly breaking out, there could be a Kazyncki or OKC type attack on a federal reserve office somewhere in the US (I AM NOT ADVOCATING THIS OK FBI!! I AM JUST WARNING YOU THIS COULD HAPPEN AND PREPARE YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY)
April: April 15th will be a gigantic mass protest day in all major US cities. People may start burning effiges of Obama and the government that got us into the mess, probably along with a few pictures of CEO's. This will cause a overreach by Obama and he will sign the assault weapons ban and urge Congress to pass a law requiring all handgun owners to register their weapons
May: Congress will debate and pass this (barely, fights may break out on the floor of the House like they do in Parliment sometimes). There will be great public outcry, a massive run on guns and soon Obama may think about confiscating guns from the people that were stupid enough to register.
June-August: People will start violently revolting in the streets, with some states broke the police may join in since they aren't getting paid. The National Guard will be called up and Martial Law could be instituted and if there really are those FEMA workcamps are for real they will start being used. In the meantime the US economy tanks and by August were at 10.5% unemployment with no signs of it letting up.
September-December: people begin hoarding food and start to become very isolationistic, militas start popping up all over the place
2010-2011
People are sick of unrest but are unsure to trust government especially since they are broke because China isn't funing our debt anymore. Our bonds become as toxic as sub-prime loans and the US government becomes insolvent. Unemployment may be as high as 20-30% now and people are thinking seriously about blockading DC. Many politicians walk everywhere with armed bodyguards now and elections are still managed to be held in november 2010 and either the republicans will win or a newly formed "teaparty" takes enough seats to have them play kingmaker for either party. They go along with possible impeachment proceedings but before that Obama suspends the constitution saying there will be no elections in 2012 for the "good of the people". By 2011 we are in a second revolutionary war, the only problem is one side has nukes now...
I can't speculate beyond that and I hope and pray to God that none of this happens but if it does I will say I told you so, while cleaning my double barrled shotgun that has already done a few people in.
Monday, February 23, 2009
coming soon to a city near you
Tends seem like they for the most part go west (except for the shit that comes out of California, but there is an exception to every rule) especially bad trends. Japan had a lost decade in the 1990's and the Nikkei is almost as low as the dow in pure numbers (let's not forget that the Yen has about 1/10 the value of the dollar). It took 15+ years but now we are facing the same prospect for the 2010's. Terrorism started in the Middle East and it was unthinkable that we could be attacked by radical Islamic nutjobs, until 9/11 of course. Golda Meir was PM of Israel in the 1970's, Margaret Thatcher was PM of Britian in the 1980's and lets face it, Hillary controlled BJ Bill in the White House in the 1990's. Now we have civil unrest. From the Guardian via Drudge:
Police are preparing for a "summer of rage" as victims of the economic downturn take to the streets to demonstrate against financial institutions, the Guardian has learned.
Britain's most senior police officer with responsibility for public order raised the spectre of a return of the riots of the 1980s, with people who have lost their jobs, homes or savings becoming "footsoldiers" in a wave of potentially violent mass protests.
Superintendent David Hartshorn, who heads the Metropolitan police's public order branch, told the Guardian that middle-class individuals who would never have considered joining demonstrations may now seek to vent their anger through protests this year.
He said that banks, particularly those that still pay large bonuses despite receiving billions in taxpayer money, had become "viable targets". So too had the headquarters of multinational companies and other financial institutions in the City which are being blamed for the financial crisis.
Hartshorn, who receives regular intelligence briefings on potential causes of civil unrest, said the mood at some demonstrations had changed recently, with activists increasingly "intent on coming on to the streets to create public disorder".
The warning comes in the wake of often violent protests against the handling of the economy across Europe. In recent weeks Greek farmers have blocked roads over falling agricultural prices, a million workers in France joined demonstrations to demand greater protection for jobs and wages and Icelandic demonstrators have clashed with police in Reykjavik.
In the UK hundreds of oil refinery workers mounted wildcat strikes last month over the use of foreign workers.
Intelligence reports suggest that "known activists" are also returning to the streets, and police claim they will foment unrest. "Those people would be good at motivating people, but they haven't had the 'footsoldiers' to actually carry out [protests]," Hartshorn said. "Obviously the downturn in the economy, unemployment, repossessions, changes that. Suddenly there is the opportunity for people to mass protest.
"It means that where we would possibly look at certain events and say, 'yes there'll be a lot of people there, there'll be a lot of banner waving, but generally it will be peaceful', [now] we have to make sure these elements don't come out and hijack that event and turn that into disorder."
Hartshorn identified April's G20 meeting of the group of leading and developing nations in London as an event that could kick-start a challenging summer. "We've got G20 coming and I think that is being advertised on some of the sites as the highlight of what they see as a 'summer of rage'," he said.
His comments are likely to be met with disappointment by protest groups, who in recent weeks have complained that police are adopting a more confrontational approach at demonstrations. Officers have been accused of exaggerating the threat posed by activists to justify the use of resources spent on them.
Police were said to have been heavy-handed at Greek solidarity marches in London in December and, last month, at protests against Israel's invasion of Gaza. In August 1,000 officers, helicopters and riot horses were drafted to Kent from 26 UK police forces to oversee the climate camp demonstration against the Kingsnorth power station. The massive operation to monitor the protesters cost £5.9m and resulted in 100 arrests. But in December the government was forced to apologise to parliament after the Guardian revealed that its claims that 70 officers had been hurt in violent clashes were wrong.
However, Hartshorn insisted: "Potentially there will be more industrial actions ... History shows that some of those disputes - Wapping, the miners' strike - have caused great tensions in the community and the police have had difficult times policing and maintaining law and order."
Both "extreme rightwing and extreme leftwing" elements are looking to "use the fact that people are out of jobs" to galvanise support, he said.
A particularly worrying development was the re-emergence of individuals involved in the violent fascist organisation Combat 18, he said. "They are using the fact that there's been lots of talk about eastern European people coming in and taking jobs on the Olympic sites," he said. "They're using those type of arguments to look at getting support."
Hartshorn said he also expected large-scale demonstrations this year on environmental issues, with hardcore green activists "joining forces" with middle-class campaigners over issues such as airport expansion at Heathrow and Stansted. With the prospect of angry demonstrations against the economy, that could open the door to powerful coalitions.
"All you've got to do then is link in with the environmentalists, and look at the oil companies. They're seen to be turning over billions of pounds profit in issues that are seen to be against the environment."
Police are preparing for a "summer of rage" as victims of the economic downturn take to the streets to demonstrate against financial institutions, the Guardian has learned.
Britain's most senior police officer with responsibility for public order raised the spectre of a return of the riots of the 1980s, with people who have lost their jobs, homes or savings becoming "footsoldiers" in a wave of potentially violent mass protests.
Superintendent David Hartshorn, who heads the Metropolitan police's public order branch, told the Guardian that middle-class individuals who would never have considered joining demonstrations may now seek to vent their anger through protests this year.
He said that banks, particularly those that still pay large bonuses despite receiving billions in taxpayer money, had become "viable targets". So too had the headquarters of multinational companies and other financial institutions in the City which are being blamed for the financial crisis.
Hartshorn, who receives regular intelligence briefings on potential causes of civil unrest, said the mood at some demonstrations had changed recently, with activists increasingly "intent on coming on to the streets to create public disorder".
The warning comes in the wake of often violent protests against the handling of the economy across Europe. In recent weeks Greek farmers have blocked roads over falling agricultural prices, a million workers in France joined demonstrations to demand greater protection for jobs and wages and Icelandic demonstrators have clashed with police in Reykjavik.
In the UK hundreds of oil refinery workers mounted wildcat strikes last month over the use of foreign workers.
Intelligence reports suggest that "known activists" are also returning to the streets, and police claim they will foment unrest. "Those people would be good at motivating people, but they haven't had the 'footsoldiers' to actually carry out [protests]," Hartshorn said. "Obviously the downturn in the economy, unemployment, repossessions, changes that. Suddenly there is the opportunity for people to mass protest.
"It means that where we would possibly look at certain events and say, 'yes there'll be a lot of people there, there'll be a lot of banner waving, but generally it will be peaceful', [now] we have to make sure these elements don't come out and hijack that event and turn that into disorder."
Hartshorn identified April's G20 meeting of the group of leading and developing nations in London as an event that could kick-start a challenging summer. "We've got G20 coming and I think that is being advertised on some of the sites as the highlight of what they see as a 'summer of rage'," he said.
His comments are likely to be met with disappointment by protest groups, who in recent weeks have complained that police are adopting a more confrontational approach at demonstrations. Officers have been accused of exaggerating the threat posed by activists to justify the use of resources spent on them.
Police were said to have been heavy-handed at Greek solidarity marches in London in December and, last month, at protests against Israel's invasion of Gaza. In August 1,000 officers, helicopters and riot horses were drafted to Kent from 26 UK police forces to oversee the climate camp demonstration against the Kingsnorth power station. The massive operation to monitor the protesters cost £5.9m and resulted in 100 arrests. But in December the government was forced to apologise to parliament after the Guardian revealed that its claims that 70 officers had been hurt in violent clashes were wrong.
However, Hartshorn insisted: "Potentially there will be more industrial actions ... History shows that some of those disputes - Wapping, the miners' strike - have caused great tensions in the community and the police have had difficult times policing and maintaining law and order."
Both "extreme rightwing and extreme leftwing" elements are looking to "use the fact that people are out of jobs" to galvanise support, he said.
A particularly worrying development was the re-emergence of individuals involved in the violent fascist organisation Combat 18, he said. "They are using the fact that there's been lots of talk about eastern European people coming in and taking jobs on the Olympic sites," he said. "They're using those type of arguments to look at getting support."
Hartshorn said he also expected large-scale demonstrations this year on environmental issues, with hardcore green activists "joining forces" with middle-class campaigners over issues such as airport expansion at Heathrow and Stansted. With the prospect of angry demonstrations against the economy, that could open the door to powerful coalitions.
"All you've got to do then is link in with the environmentalists, and look at the oil companies. They're seen to be turning over billions of pounds profit in issues that are seen to be against the environment."
Sunday, February 22, 2009
2009 Oscar results...
As you can tell by my predictions going in I thought Slumdog Millionaire would clean up and boy did it ever. Out of 10 nominations it won 8 and the two it didn't win for were minor technical awards, it scored (in order of importance) Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Original Song, Best Film Editing, Best Cinematography, and Best Sound Mixing, and it "lost" for Best Sound Editing and one other I can't find at the moment. Most importantly The Curious Case of Benjamin Button got nearly blanked. It only won Best Makeup (which was a given) and a minor Best Art Direction win, after that 0/11 thank freaking god. And for my predictions I got 12 out of the 22 categories I guessed on right. Not too bad for a first time predictor huh?
2009 Oscar predictions...
I really can't believe I'm doing this but why not? I am a big movie fan and I have sat down and watched like the last 5-6 Oscars with my parents. Predictions by me are in bold:
Best Picture
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
'Frost/Nixon'
'Milk'
'The Reader'
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Best Director
Danny Boyle 'Slumdog Millionaire'
Stephen Daldry 'The Reader'
David Fincher 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Ron Howard 'Frost/Nixon'
Gus Van Sant 'Milk'
Best Actor
Richard Jenkins 'The Visitor'
Frank Langella 'Frost/Nixon'
Sean Penn 'Milk'
Brad Pitt 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Mickey Rourke 'The Wrestler'
Best Actress
Anne Hathaway 'Rachel Getting Married'
Angelina Jolie 'Changeling'
Melissa Leo 'Frozen River'
Meryl Streep 'Doubt'
Kate Winslet 'The Reader'
Best Supporting Actor
Josh Brolin 'Milk'
Robert Downey Jr. 'Tropic Thunder'
Philip Seymour Hoffman 'Doubt'
Heath Ledger 'The Dark Knight'
Michael Shannon 'Revolutionary Road'
Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams 'Doubt'
Penelope Cruz 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'
Viola Davis 'Doubt'
Taraji P. Henson 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Marisa Tomei 'The Wrestler'
Best Animated Feature Film
'Bolt'
'Kung Fu Panda'
'Wall-E'
Best Foreign Film
'The Baader Meinhof Complex'
Germany
'The Class'
France
'Departures'
Japan
'Revanche'
Austria
'Waltz With Bashir'
Israel
Best Original Screenplay
'Milk'
Dustin Lance Black
'Frozen River'
Courtney Hunt
'Happy Go Lucky'
Mike Leigh
'In Bruges'
Martin McDonagh
'Wall-E'
Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon, Pete Docter
Best Adapted Screenplay
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Eric Roth, Robin Swicord
'Doubt'
John Patrick Shanley
'Frost/ Nixon'
Peter Morgan
'The Reader'
David Hare
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Simon Beaufoy
Best Documentary Feature
The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)'
'Encounters at the End of the World'
'The Garden'
'Man on Wire'
'Trouble the Water'
Best Original Score
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
'Defiance'
'Milk'
'Slumdog Millionaire'
'WALL-E'
Best Original Song
'Down to Earth''WALL-E'
'Jai Ho''Slumdog Millionaire'
'O Saya''Slumdog Millionaire'
Best Film Editing
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall
'The Dark Knight'
Lee Smith
'Frost/Nixon'
Mike Hill, Dan Hanley
'Milk'
Elliot Graham
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Best Documentary - Short Subject
'The Conscience of Nhem En'
'The Final Inch'
'Smile Pinki'
'The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306'
Best Cinematography
'Changeling'
Tom Stern
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Claudio Miranda
'The Dark Knight'
Wally Pfister
'The Reader'
Chris Menges, Roger Deakins
'Slumdog Millionaire
Anthony Dod Mantle
Best Costume Design
'Australia'
Catherine Martin
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Jacqueline West
'The Duchess'
Michael O'Connor
'Milk'
Danny Glicker
'Revolutionary Road'
Best Sound Mixing
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce, Mark Weingarten
'The Dark Knight'
Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo, Ed Novick
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Ian Tapp, Richard Pryke, Resul Pookutty
'WALL-E'
Tom Myers, Michael Semanick, Ben Burtt
'Wanted'
Chris Jenkins, Frank A. Montaño, Petr Forejt
Best Sound Editing
'The Dark Knight'
Richard King
'Iron Man'
Frank Eulner, Christopher Boyes
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Tom Sayers
'WALL-E'
Ben Burtt, Matthew Wood
'Wanted'
Wylie Stateman
Best Makeup
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Greg Cannom
'The Dark Knight'
John Caglione, Jr., Conor O'Sullivan
'Hellboy II: The Golden Army'
Mike Elizalde, Thom Flout
Best Art Direction
'Changeling'
James J. Murakami, Gary Fettis
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Donald Graham Burt, Victor J. Zolfo
'The Dark Knight'
Nathan Crowley, Peter Lando
'The Duchess'
Michael Carlin, Rebecca Alleway
'Revolutionary Road'
Kristi Zea, Debra Schutt
Best Visual Effects
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton, Craig Barron
'The Dark Knight'
Nick Davis, Chris Corbould, Tim Webber, Paul Franklin
'Iron Man'
John Nelson, Ben Snow, Dan Sudick, Shane Mahan
Those are my picks, hope I do well...
Best Picture
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
'Frost/Nixon'
'Milk'
'The Reader'
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Best Director
Danny Boyle 'Slumdog Millionaire'
Stephen Daldry 'The Reader'
David Fincher 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Ron Howard 'Frost/Nixon'
Gus Van Sant 'Milk'
Best Actor
Richard Jenkins 'The Visitor'
Frank Langella 'Frost/Nixon'
Sean Penn 'Milk'
Brad Pitt 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Mickey Rourke 'The Wrestler'
Best Actress
Anne Hathaway 'Rachel Getting Married'
Angelina Jolie 'Changeling'
Melissa Leo 'Frozen River'
Meryl Streep 'Doubt'
Kate Winslet 'The Reader'
Best Supporting Actor
Josh Brolin 'Milk'
Robert Downey Jr. 'Tropic Thunder'
Philip Seymour Hoffman 'Doubt'
Heath Ledger 'The Dark Knight'
Michael Shannon 'Revolutionary Road'
Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams 'Doubt'
Penelope Cruz 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'
Viola Davis 'Doubt'
Taraji P. Henson 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Marisa Tomei 'The Wrestler'
Best Animated Feature Film
'Bolt'
'Kung Fu Panda'
'Wall-E'
Best Foreign Film
'The Baader Meinhof Complex'
Germany
'The Class'
France
'Departures'
Japan
'Revanche'
Austria
'Waltz With Bashir'
Israel
Best Original Screenplay
'Milk'
Dustin Lance Black
'Frozen River'
Courtney Hunt
'Happy Go Lucky'
Mike Leigh
'In Bruges'
Martin McDonagh
'Wall-E'
Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon, Pete Docter
Best Adapted Screenplay
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Eric Roth, Robin Swicord
'Doubt'
John Patrick Shanley
'Frost/ Nixon'
Peter Morgan
'The Reader'
David Hare
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Simon Beaufoy
Best Documentary Feature
The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)'
'Encounters at the End of the World'
'The Garden'
'Man on Wire'
'Trouble the Water'
Best Original Score
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
'Defiance'
'Milk'
'Slumdog Millionaire'
'WALL-E'
Best Original Song
'Down to Earth''WALL-E'
'Jai Ho''Slumdog Millionaire'
'O Saya''Slumdog Millionaire'
Best Film Editing
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall
'The Dark Knight'
Lee Smith
'Frost/Nixon'
Mike Hill, Dan Hanley
'Milk'
Elliot Graham
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Best Documentary - Short Subject
'The Conscience of Nhem En'
'The Final Inch'
'Smile Pinki'
'The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306'
Best Cinematography
'Changeling'
Tom Stern
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Claudio Miranda
'The Dark Knight'
Wally Pfister
'The Reader'
Chris Menges, Roger Deakins
'Slumdog Millionaire
Anthony Dod Mantle
Best Costume Design
'Australia'
Catherine Martin
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Jacqueline West
'The Duchess'
Michael O'Connor
'Milk'
Danny Glicker
'Revolutionary Road'
Best Sound Mixing
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce, Mark Weingarten
'The Dark Knight'
Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo, Ed Novick
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Ian Tapp, Richard Pryke, Resul Pookutty
'WALL-E'
Tom Myers, Michael Semanick, Ben Burtt
'Wanted'
Chris Jenkins, Frank A. Montaño, Petr Forejt
Best Sound Editing
'The Dark Knight'
Richard King
'Iron Man'
Frank Eulner, Christopher Boyes
'Slumdog Millionaire'
Tom Sayers
'WALL-E'
Ben Burtt, Matthew Wood
'Wanted'
Wylie Stateman
Best Makeup
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Greg Cannom
'The Dark Knight'
John Caglione, Jr., Conor O'Sullivan
'Hellboy II: The Golden Army'
Mike Elizalde, Thom Flout
Best Art Direction
'Changeling'
James J. Murakami, Gary Fettis
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Donald Graham Burt, Victor J. Zolfo
'The Dark Knight'
Nathan Crowley, Peter Lando
'The Duchess'
Michael Carlin, Rebecca Alleway
'Revolutionary Road'
Kristi Zea, Debra Schutt
Best Visual Effects
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton, Craig Barron
'The Dark Knight'
Nick Davis, Chris Corbould, Tim Webber, Paul Franklin
'Iron Man'
John Nelson, Ben Snow, Dan Sudick, Shane Mahan
Those are my picks, hope I do well...
Saturday, February 21, 2009
I thought this was pretty good,
Top 11 Reasons why BHO removed Winston Churchill's bust from the White House.
11. Every time Joe Biden walked into the oval office he shrieked, “Oh my God! The terrorists have beheaded Alfred Hitchcock!”
10. Having a bust of Churchill is so George W. Bush
9. Roland Burris keeps asking the bust to donate to Blago’s legal defense fund
8. Worried that visiting Germans might be offended
7. Geithner keeps recommending that he claim the bust as a dependent on his taxes
6. Refuses to honor a war-monger who should have insisted on talks with Hitler instead of unilateral resistance.
5. The "change" mentioned in his campaign speeches was actually referring to interior decoration in the White House.
4. Michelle's loving gazes were becoming emasculating
3. Looking at Churchill made him want to light up a smoke
2. Stimulus bill allotted $2.5 billion for shipping back busts of European Prime Ministers via two man kayak
1. Preferred the Neville Chamberlain bust instead.
11. Every time Joe Biden walked into the oval office he shrieked, “Oh my God! The terrorists have beheaded Alfred Hitchcock!”
10. Having a bust of Churchill is so George W. Bush
9. Roland Burris keeps asking the bust to donate to Blago’s legal defense fund
8. Worried that visiting Germans might be offended
7. Geithner keeps recommending that he claim the bust as a dependent on his taxes
6. Refuses to honor a war-monger who should have insisted on talks with Hitler instead of unilateral resistance.
5. The "change" mentioned in his campaign speeches was actually referring to interior decoration in the White House.
4. Michelle's loving gazes were becoming emasculating
3. Looking at Churchill made him want to light up a smoke
2. Stimulus bill allotted $2.5 billion for shipping back busts of European Prime Ministers via two man kayak
1. Preferred the Neville Chamberlain bust instead.
update...
I will be retooling this site over the next one to two weeks in hope that I might be accepted into the MOB (Minnesota Organization of Bloggers). This site is too plain and needs some jazzing up. Please bear with me on this...
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Is this the beginning of a revolution?
I say yes, this is amazing. I thought this would take until summer at least, I was hoping we could avoid this. Were not, this is almost (not quite but almost) a call to arms. Frankly I'd show up to Chicago in July for this, people are pissed. I haven't got there yet but I am getting very close. If the Obamanation administration does something to fuck up my dad's small company I will join the hordes.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853
God save the Queen, er I mean Government?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853
God save the Queen, er I mean Government?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
1984 anyone?
Ok, this shit is truly scary and only a microcosm of what I will (hopefully) be dealing with next semester at the U of M. I really wish this wasn't true, I really do...
A student is suing Los Angeles City College over an incident in which a professor refused to let him finish a speech against gay marriage, according to the Los Angeles Times. (LA Times)
Student Jonathan Lopez told the Times that the professor, John Matteson, called him a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish his speech during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved Proposition 8 banning gay marriage.
Lopez also said the teacher threatened to have him expelled when he complained to college authorities.
Lopez is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., and co-founded by evangelical leader James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Alliance staff counsel David J. Hacker told The Times Lopez was a victim of religious discrimination.
"He was expressing his faith during an open-ended assignment, but when the professor disagreed with some minor things he mentioned, the professor shut him down," Hacker said. "Basically, colleges and universities should give Christian students the same rights to free expression as other students."
Ugh... liberals preaching tolerance and acceptance is the most hypocritical bullshit that is out there. What I find even scarier is reading the comments.
This person was too chickenshit to even put his name on his comment...
To all of you self pitying conservatives I just have one thing to say: Where is the speech? You are ranting and raving in favor a students right to make a speech that you yourselves have not as yet read. If it turns out that his speech is filled with hateful offensive remarks then maybe you will quietly move one to your next crusade.To all of you self pitying conservatives I just have one thing to say: Where is the speech? You are ranting and raving in favor a students right to make a speech that you yourselves have not as yet read. If it turns out that his speech is filled with hateful offensive remarks then maybe you will quietly move one to your next crusade.
Newsflash to liberal moron, hateful and offensive speech is STILL PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND 1ST AMENDMENT LIKE IT OR NOT. Oh but it gets worse...
Poor right-wingers! Getting some of their own medicine, and they don't like it? Too bad. Get used to it. For years we've been listening to the neo-cons whining about the "liberal media". Now, it's payback time. If you don't want to be attacked for spreading your hate, then stop spreading it. And if you don't stop, we'll stop you, by any means possible.Poor right-wingers! Getting some of their own medicine, and they don't like it? Too bad. Get used to it. For years we've been listening to the neo-cons whining about the "liberal media". Now, it's payback time. If you don't want to be attacked for spreading your hate, then stop spreading it. And if you don't stop, we'll stop you, by any means possible.
wow, and to think this guy is allowed to vote, scary thought ain't it folks?
The student is clearly a moron. Why should other students have to listen to his idiocy? I am confident he will roast in hell.The student is clearly a moron. Why should other students have to listen to his idiocy? I am confident he will roast in hell.
What has happened to education in this country? Seriously folks I fear for my generation because they either get brainwashed or are too preoccupied with The Bachelor, American Idol, or some other BS to care about things that actually matter in today's world.
To be fair there were intelligent comments, like this one.
People should look up the definition of fascism: Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence. Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation, a race or even a social class. Fascist movements promote violent conflict between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist view that conflict between these groups is natural and a part of evolution. Which party is looking to: - curb free speech (Fairness Doctrine) - promotes hate between social groups (class envy - evil rich! big oil! big tobacco!) - trying to establish a single party (moving the census into the White House) - are led by a dictator (look up photos of Hitler's rallies in the 1930s and compare them to Obama's rallies of the last election....) The gap between socialism and fascism is less than people realize, and certainly both go against individual freedoms and rights. All those lefties with cute bumperstickers about their civil rights should realize that America is about to give up much more of its soul (I believe our civil liberties are the soul of this country) than ever before. If the government can dictate what people earn, we are a step beyond socialism and a step closer to fascism. If the government can shut down Rush Limbaugh, et al., that is fascism. For all the complaining about Rush, Hannity, etc., the dems still managed to get congress and the White House, so what's the problem? Aaah! Dissending voices are not allowed! What regimes don't allow those voices either? In colleges leftist professors brainwash the majority of students and bully the few who dare to stand up (I speak from experience). They perform the taks of the brownshirts. America is becoming a fascist state.
I couldn't have said it better, now back to the idiots.
anyone who thinks there is a magical invisible god floating around, and this magical invisible god hates gay people probably shouldnt be in collegeanyone who thinks there is a magical invisible god floating around, and this magical invisible god hates gay people probably shouldnt be in college
You don't agree with me therefore your an idiot. Typical liberal debate tactic. To quote a classic liberal bumpersticker over the last 8 years. "I love my country but I fear the government", I love this great land, but I fear it is really being destroyed a little more each day
A student is suing Los Angeles City College over an incident in which a professor refused to let him finish a speech against gay marriage, according to the Los Angeles Times. (LA Times)
Student Jonathan Lopez told the Times that the professor, John Matteson, called him a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish his speech during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved Proposition 8 banning gay marriage.
Lopez also said the teacher threatened to have him expelled when he complained to college authorities.
Lopez is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., and co-founded by evangelical leader James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Alliance staff counsel David J. Hacker told The Times Lopez was a victim of religious discrimination.
"He was expressing his faith during an open-ended assignment, but when the professor disagreed with some minor things he mentioned, the professor shut him down," Hacker said. "Basically, colleges and universities should give Christian students the same rights to free expression as other students."
Ugh... liberals preaching tolerance and acceptance is the most hypocritical bullshit that is out there. What I find even scarier is reading the comments.
This person was too chickenshit to even put his name on his comment...
To all of you self pitying conservatives I just have one thing to say: Where is the speech? You are ranting and raving in favor a students right to make a speech that you yourselves have not as yet read. If it turns out that his speech is filled with hateful offensive remarks then maybe you will quietly move one to your next crusade.To all of you self pitying conservatives I just have one thing to say: Where is the speech? You are ranting and raving in favor a students right to make a speech that you yourselves have not as yet read. If it turns out that his speech is filled with hateful offensive remarks then maybe you will quietly move one to your next crusade.
Newsflash to liberal moron, hateful and offensive speech is STILL PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND 1ST AMENDMENT LIKE IT OR NOT. Oh but it gets worse...
Poor right-wingers! Getting some of their own medicine, and they don't like it? Too bad. Get used to it. For years we've been listening to the neo-cons whining about the "liberal media". Now, it's payback time. If you don't want to be attacked for spreading your hate, then stop spreading it. And if you don't stop, we'll stop you, by any means possible.Poor right-wingers! Getting some of their own medicine, and they don't like it? Too bad. Get used to it. For years we've been listening to the neo-cons whining about the "liberal media". Now, it's payback time. If you don't want to be attacked for spreading your hate, then stop spreading it. And if you don't stop, we'll stop you, by any means possible.
wow, and to think this guy is allowed to vote, scary thought ain't it folks?
The student is clearly a moron. Why should other students have to listen to his idiocy? I am confident he will roast in hell.The student is clearly a moron. Why should other students have to listen to his idiocy? I am confident he will roast in hell.
What has happened to education in this country? Seriously folks I fear for my generation because they either get brainwashed or are too preoccupied with The Bachelor, American Idol, or some other BS to care about things that actually matter in today's world.
To be fair there were intelligent comments, like this one.
People should look up the definition of fascism: Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence. Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation, a race or even a social class. Fascist movements promote violent conflict between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist view that conflict between these groups is natural and a part of evolution. Which party is looking to: - curb free speech (Fairness Doctrine) - promotes hate between social groups (class envy - evil rich! big oil! big tobacco!) - trying to establish a single party (moving the census into the White House) - are led by a dictator (look up photos of Hitler's rallies in the 1930s and compare them to Obama's rallies of the last election....) The gap between socialism and fascism is less than people realize, and certainly both go against individual freedoms and rights. All those lefties with cute bumperstickers about their civil rights should realize that America is about to give up much more of its soul (I believe our civil liberties are the soul of this country) than ever before. If the government can dictate what people earn, we are a step beyond socialism and a step closer to fascism. If the government can shut down Rush Limbaugh, et al., that is fascism. For all the complaining about Rush, Hannity, etc., the dems still managed to get congress and the White House, so what's the problem? Aaah! Dissending voices are not allowed! What regimes don't allow those voices either? In colleges leftist professors brainwash the majority of students and bully the few who dare to stand up (I speak from experience). They perform the taks of the brownshirts. America is becoming a fascist state.
I couldn't have said it better, now back to the idiots.
anyone who thinks there is a magical invisible god floating around, and this magical invisible god hates gay people probably shouldnt be in collegeanyone who thinks there is a magical invisible god floating around, and this magical invisible god hates gay people probably shouldnt be in college
You don't agree with me therefore your an idiot. Typical liberal debate tactic. To quote a classic liberal bumpersticker over the last 8 years. "I love my country but I fear the government", I love this great land, but I fear it is really being destroyed a little more each day
Review: Idocracy...
I saw the movie last night and I have to say I was kind of dissapointed after the review on IMDB that talked it up a lot. That being said it is a disturbing look into a possible future and my favorite part was when Terry Crews (Dad from Everybody Hates Chris) gets up as president of the US in front of the House of Representin' (yes you read that right) and gives a speech about how Not Sure (Luke Wilson) will save them. It is a scary look into our future, I give it a 6.5/10. While good it could have been much better given Mike Judge's history. If you do see it, try and rent it from Netflixx or something, it is crude but seeing it edited doesn't really do it justice. It's almost as creepy as this next story I'm going to post about.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Stimulus...
Ok this will be my last political post (hopefully) for a day or two. I'm not just a one trick pony and I will prove that over my next few posts. Anyway, my final thing on the "stimulus bill" that I grabbed off of (don't judge me here people) foxnews.com. I know its a partisan site but I see no reason on why they would lie on this list, it would only come back to hurt them, so here it is.
-- $100 million for the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program
-- $200 million to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program
-- $300 million for "Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs"
-- $900 million for the IRS for the "Limitation on Administrative Expenses"
-- $1 million for the Railroad Retirement Board for administrative costs
-- $2 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Act
-- $50 million for Health and Human Services to carry out injury prevention programs
-- $1.1 billion for studies on the effectiveness of different medical treatments -- $200 million to upgrade labs and facilities for the Department of Agriculture "to improve workplace safety and mission-area efficiencies"
-- $10 million for urban canal inspection
-- $16 billion to pay for student financial aid
-- $1 billion to pay for the U.S. Census
-- $600 million to pay for a fuel-efficient federal auto fleet
-- $650 million for the Digital Converter Box Program to help the constantly delayed transition from analog television
-- $485 million to the Forest Service for "hazardous fuels reduction and hazard mitigation activities in areas at high risk of catastrophic wildfire"
-- Up to $1 billion for "summer activities" for youths as old as 24
-- $40 million for the occupational research agenda
-- $3 billion for the Centers for Disease Control wellness programs and vaccinations
-- $410 million for Indian health facilities
-- $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstrations
ok, so granted thats only $31.38 Billion out of a $789 Billion ( package but there is a bunch of stuff in there that is just waiting to be uncovered. Well I'm off to draft a letter to Obama about how he is fucking me, my kids and my grandkids (it will be up by the end of next week, I promise). Review on the movie Idocracy should be up either tonight or tomorrow.
-- $100 million for the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program
-- $200 million to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program
-- $300 million for "Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs"
-- $900 million for the IRS for the "Limitation on Administrative Expenses"
-- $1 million for the Railroad Retirement Board for administrative costs
-- $2 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Act
-- $50 million for Health and Human Services to carry out injury prevention programs
-- $1.1 billion for studies on the effectiveness of different medical treatments -- $200 million to upgrade labs and facilities for the Department of Agriculture "to improve workplace safety and mission-area efficiencies"
-- $10 million for urban canal inspection
-- $16 billion to pay for student financial aid
-- $1 billion to pay for the U.S. Census
-- $600 million to pay for a fuel-efficient federal auto fleet
-- $650 million for the Digital Converter Box Program to help the constantly delayed transition from analog television
-- $485 million to the Forest Service for "hazardous fuels reduction and hazard mitigation activities in areas at high risk of catastrophic wildfire"
-- Up to $1 billion for "summer activities" for youths as old as 24
-- $40 million for the occupational research agenda
-- $3 billion for the Centers for Disease Control wellness programs and vaccinations
-- $410 million for Indian health facilities
-- $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstrations
ok, so granted thats only $31.38 Billion out of a $789 Billion ( package but there is a bunch of stuff in there that is just waiting to be uncovered. Well I'm off to draft a letter to Obama about how he is fucking me, my kids and my grandkids (it will be up by the end of next week, I promise). Review on the movie Idocracy should be up either tonight or tomorrow.
Friday, February 13, 2009
because if you can't laugh your going to cry...
And now for something completley different (sort of). We all need a little humor people and who else but the Onion to provide it for us. They may tilt left but as you can see with this list Obama is more than fair game to them which in today's world is quite refreshing.
Obama's first 100 days, through day 23...
DAY 23: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano awkwardly enters the Oval Office while President Obama is doing his Napolitano impersonation.
DAY 22: President Obama asks aides to alert him immediately if the Mutant Registration Act is introduced in Congress.
DAY 21: For the third time, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ask President Obama not to leave fantasy miniatures on war map.
DAY 20: Joe Biden clears his schedule to oversee the installation of four video poker machines in the Naval Observatory.
DAY 19: After a tense afternoon holed up in the Situation Room, President Obama finally locates that old pack of Lyndon Johnson's Benson & Hedges.
DAY 18: In one of many historic firsts, Barack Obama becomes the first black president to TiVo MythBusters.
DAY 17: Hillary Clinton meets with Haitian president René Préval, who demands U.S. provide Haiti a sandwich by 2010.
DAY 16: Obama's "First 100 Days Dilbert Desk Calendar" still on day five.
DAY 15: Eighty-eight-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens informs Obama administration of decision to die in office, effective Mar. 1.
DAY 14: Taco Tuesday
DAY 13: President Obama meets with Vermont governor Jim Douglas and is saddened to find that he is not the creator of Garfield.
DAY 12: A nice little lazy Sunday for the president. Maybe read a book, watch a movie, whatever.
DAY 11: Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget reads former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget's memoirs.
DAY 10: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Donovan wonders if they mean "urban" like "city" or "urban" like "black."
DAY 9: Impressionist Rich Little sits in a bathrobe on the floor of his one-bedroom apartment trying to figure out how to say "I am not a crook" like Barack Obama.
DAY 8: Rahm Emanuel's "open door" policy is severely tested by political director Patrick Gaspard's repeated claims that someone is taking Splenda packets from the jar on his desk.
DAY 7: After figuring out a comprehensive solution for the economic crisis in a dream, President Obama issues an executive order requisitioning a fleet of freight liners and 147,000 tons of eggplant.
DAY 6: Joe Biden spends the day sitting on a couch in the Oval Office, saying he "just wants to watch."
DAY 5: Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack spends another day worried that his unanimous confirmation means people have forgotten what a hell-raiser he was as mayor of Mount Pleasant, IA.
DAY 4: Former treasury secretary Henry Paulson is discovered sleeping next to the boiler in the White House basement.
DAY 3: Obama takes a few minutes to fill out the change of address card for his Popular Mechanics subscription.
DAY 2: Suddenly everyone in the Roosevelt Room looks around and realizes: yes, this will be the seating arrangement for the next four years.
DAY 1: In one of his first acts as president, Obama begins the process of closing down the CIA prisons that he knows about.
Gotta love satire, if we ever lose the ability to make fun of our "leaders" in this country were fucked.
Obama's first 100 days, through day 23...
DAY 23: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano awkwardly enters the Oval Office while President Obama is doing his Napolitano impersonation.
DAY 22: President Obama asks aides to alert him immediately if the Mutant Registration Act is introduced in Congress.
DAY 21: For the third time, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ask President Obama not to leave fantasy miniatures on war map.
DAY 20: Joe Biden clears his schedule to oversee the installation of four video poker machines in the Naval Observatory.
DAY 19: After a tense afternoon holed up in the Situation Room, President Obama finally locates that old pack of Lyndon Johnson's Benson & Hedges.
DAY 18: In one of many historic firsts, Barack Obama becomes the first black president to TiVo MythBusters.
DAY 17: Hillary Clinton meets with Haitian president René Préval, who demands U.S. provide Haiti a sandwich by 2010.
DAY 16: Obama's "First 100 Days Dilbert Desk Calendar" still on day five.
DAY 15: Eighty-eight-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens informs Obama administration of decision to die in office, effective Mar. 1.
DAY 14: Taco Tuesday
DAY 13: President Obama meets with Vermont governor Jim Douglas and is saddened to find that he is not the creator of Garfield.
DAY 12: A nice little lazy Sunday for the president. Maybe read a book, watch a movie, whatever.
DAY 11: Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget reads former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget's memoirs.
DAY 10: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Donovan wonders if they mean "urban" like "city" or "urban" like "black."
DAY 9: Impressionist Rich Little sits in a bathrobe on the floor of his one-bedroom apartment trying to figure out how to say "I am not a crook" like Barack Obama.
DAY 8: Rahm Emanuel's "open door" policy is severely tested by political director Patrick Gaspard's repeated claims that someone is taking Splenda packets from the jar on his desk.
DAY 7: After figuring out a comprehensive solution for the economic crisis in a dream, President Obama issues an executive order requisitioning a fleet of freight liners and 147,000 tons of eggplant.
DAY 6: Joe Biden spends the day sitting on a couch in the Oval Office, saying he "just wants to watch."
DAY 5: Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack spends another day worried that his unanimous confirmation means people have forgotten what a hell-raiser he was as mayor of Mount Pleasant, IA.
DAY 4: Former treasury secretary Henry Paulson is discovered sleeping next to the boiler in the White House basement.
DAY 3: Obama takes a few minutes to fill out the change of address card for his Popular Mechanics subscription.
DAY 2: Suddenly everyone in the Roosevelt Room looks around and realizes: yes, this will be the seating arrangement for the next four years.
DAY 1: In one of his first acts as president, Obama begins the process of closing down the CIA prisons that he knows about.
Gotta love satire, if we ever lose the ability to make fun of our "leaders" in this country were fucked.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
afternoon thoughts...
Well I have had a lot on my mind lately and if I can concentrate enough I will TRY to read through the "stimulus" bill sometime today or tomorrow (yes all 7-800 pages of it) and give my amatuer analysis. I looked at the Star Tribune this morning and it said and I quote:
2 Trillion?
yes folks, even the strib is turning on the Obamamessiah. Maybe journalism isn't dead after all.
Now to a much more significant issue, the Fairness Doctrine. Remember how during the election the left was like, "The right-wing talkshow hosts are trying to scare their listeners into voting Republican because they say we will bring the Fairness Doctrine back, we wouldn't dream of that."
Clearly that message did not get to href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Harkin_We_need_the_Fairness_Doctrine_back_.html">Sens. Debbie Stabinow and Tom Harkin. I will not go into detail about the hypocricy but part of me hopes that they do try and push this because I really think that there will be a massive public backlash on this. The left is drunk with power and they are nowhere near sobering up; some Obama supporters are but the DC elitest crowd hasn't even left the bar yet. My message to anyone who is opposed to this is to flood those two senators offices with emails, calls and letters and ask them, nicely please, why they don't like freedom of speech and free markets. Just that, because the "Fairness Doctrine" is the anthesis of both of those principles. Folks, the road to Liberal Fascism has begun.
2 Trillion?
yes folks, even the strib is turning on the Obamamessiah. Maybe journalism isn't dead after all.
Now to a much more significant issue, the Fairness Doctrine. Remember how during the election the left was like, "The right-wing talkshow hosts are trying to scare their listeners into voting Republican because they say we will bring the Fairness Doctrine back, we wouldn't dream of that."
Clearly that message did not get to href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Harkin_We_need_the_Fairness_Doctrine_back_.html">Sens. Debbie Stabinow and Tom Harkin. I will not go into detail about the hypocricy but part of me hopes that they do try and push this because I really think that there will be a massive public backlash on this. The left is drunk with power and they are nowhere near sobering up; some Obama supporters are but the DC elitest crowd hasn't even left the bar yet. My message to anyone who is opposed to this is to flood those two senators offices with emails, calls and letters and ask them, nicely please, why they don't like freedom of speech and free markets. Just that, because the "Fairness Doctrine" is the anthesis of both of those principles. Folks, the road to Liberal Fascism has begun.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Fox News rules under Obama
Fox News ratings aren't just up a little bit, they are freaking DESTROYING CNN/MSOBAMANBC in the ratings. Article in the title, here are some excerpts even I found stunning:
So far during prime time (through Wednesday's ratings), FNC is averaging 2,495,000 Total Viewers, well ahead of CNN's 1,254,000 and MSNBC's 984,000 combined. In the A25-54 demo, FNC is #1 with 539,000 compared to CNN's 388,000 and MSNBC's 357,000.
FNC is up 23% Total Viewers and 28% in the A25-54 demo in prime time from the two weeks prior to the Inauguration of Obama to the two weeks since. CNN is up 5% in Total Viewers and 4% in the demo and MSNBC is down 1% in Total Viewers and 1% in the demo.
So basically all the dicksucking going on at MSNBC is intolerable to even their core audiences. Really I can't watch Matthews/Olbermann/Maddow for more than 5 minutes without wanting to chuck my remote at the tv. Its not that they spout propoganda for Obama, it's that they do it in the guise that its fact and cannot be debated. Rip FNC all you want but I can't remember the last time MSNBC's primetime duo (Olbermann/Maddow) put on people they disagree with. Glenn Beck was a major coup for Fox also, his show is hilarous and serious all at the same time. It's the one outlet I have to know journalism isn't totally dead in this country, granted it's on life support now but without the Fox News Channel to balance things out it would have been 6 feet under on election night.
Oh and here's a fun little graph that shows O'Reilly (not my favorite mind you) vs. Olbermann since 1/20/09
So far during prime time (through Wednesday's ratings), FNC is averaging 2,495,000 Total Viewers, well ahead of CNN's 1,254,000 and MSNBC's 984,000 combined. In the A25-54 demo, FNC is #1 with 539,000 compared to CNN's 388,000 and MSNBC's 357,000.
FNC is up 23% Total Viewers and 28% in the A25-54 demo in prime time from the two weeks prior to the Inauguration of Obama to the two weeks since. CNN is up 5% in Total Viewers and 4% in the demo and MSNBC is down 1% in Total Viewers and 1% in the demo.
So basically all the dicksucking going on at MSNBC is intolerable to even their core audiences. Really I can't watch Matthews/Olbermann/Maddow for more than 5 minutes without wanting to chuck my remote at the tv. Its not that they spout propoganda for Obama, it's that they do it in the guise that its fact and cannot be debated. Rip FNC all you want but I can't remember the last time MSNBC's primetime duo (Olbermann/Maddow) put on people they disagree with. Glenn Beck was a major coup for Fox also, his show is hilarous and serious all at the same time. It's the one outlet I have to know journalism isn't totally dead in this country, granted it's on life support now but without the Fox News Channel to balance things out it would have been 6 feet under on election night.
Oh and here's a fun little graph that shows O'Reilly (not my favorite mind you) vs. Olbermann since 1/20/09
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Give Obama a break? Not a chance for me...
You just gotta love the left. After 8 years of BDS and blaming Bush for EVERYTHING THAT WENT WRONG HERE IN THE US, they are now telling us to give Obama a pass because he said he, "screwed up". Yeah he said it, I am mildly surprised considering the God complex he has about himself but saying I screwed up does not mean I'm giving him a break for nominating a HHS secretary that was grossly incompetent at best and borderline criminal at worse when it came to paying back taxes. Shit he OWED more in taxes than 90-95% of the people in this country MAKE in a year (last figure I heard was somewhere between 100-150K, and these people claim to be for the middle class, ha). Dashle is a crook and got booted from the Senate in 2004 with good reason. Oh and our SecTreas is also a tax cheat, I forgot to mention that yesterday but if you read this blog I assumed you knew already because I like to think that my readers are more well informed than the average citizen that cares more about Hollywood than current events going on in the world. Anyway here's the video I got off cnn.com, hopefully it works, and by the way looking at this guy it's hard to imagine he hasn't spent most of his adult life stoned out of his mind. Yet he makes it on cnn.com's home page. Well he's still probably better than 70-80% of the journalists in this country; not that its saying much anymore.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Should we laugh or cry?
Wow, I mean should we even be surprised anymore? ANOTHER one of Obama's cabinet nominees has got a run in with the IRS. I don't know which is scarier, tax cheats running the government or that the "free press" is choosing to be willfully ignorant about this. You can bet your ass if this wasn't The Messiah doing this they would be on each of these stories like flies on shit. At least she had some dignity and removed her name from consideration, its kind of a shame though I would have loved to see the confirmation hearings because this was for a new position in the government that Obama had created. It was, and I'm not kidding you sadly, chief performance officer for the federal government. Does that not strike you as a little ironic. She's making sure that the government doesn't waste money by monitoring the way it is spent? Liberal "logic" really hurts the brain sometime; I can only imagine what the back and forth would have been like:
Senator: Mrs.Killefer your supposed to be the federal "watchdog" of money spent by the government correct?
Mrs. Killefer: yes...
Senator: And this is a new position?
Mrs. Killefer: Yes senator that is correct.
Senator: Isn't that supposed to be done by our legislators? Why do you feel the need for this clearly unnecessary position?
Mrs. Killefer: Because they are wasting too much of taxpayers dollars.
Senator: Then using that logic shouldn't you do you job for free?
Mrs. Killefer: But my position is necessary, we need change.
Senator: That's the best you can do?
The next 4 years are going to be fun. If I'm not crying in the corner for what is being done to my country that is.
Senator: Mrs.Killefer your supposed to be the federal "watchdog" of money spent by the government correct?
Mrs. Killefer: yes...
Senator: And this is a new position?
Mrs. Killefer: Yes senator that is correct.
Senator: Isn't that supposed to be done by our legislators? Why do you feel the need for this clearly unnecessary position?
Mrs. Killefer: Because they are wasting too much of taxpayers dollars.
Senator: Then using that logic shouldn't you do you job for free?
Mrs. Killefer: But my position is necessary, we need change.
Senator: That's the best you can do?
The next 4 years are going to be fun. If I'm not crying in the corner for what is being done to my country that is.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals
Here are 12 of Saul Alinksy's rules for radicals, full list is available if you click on the title...
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
money and people, $600 million rasied during the campaign and 2+ million people registered online not counting moveon.org and dailykos kooks. All the more reason to go to grassfire.org and sign up people.
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
Just look at his cabinet, enough said...
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
can you say terrorist attack? People were concerned about "flase-flag" terrorism under Bush... I'm not saying Obama is even that competant to pull shit like that off but if he just lets a terrorist attack happen is that not just as bad? Also, kiss the 2nd amendment goodbye if his people have their way, and once that happens expect the 1st to go soon after.
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
Ok now this is just getting creepy. Remember the election cycle?
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
Does he carry a copy of this book around like some people carry the Bible? I'm starting to think he does...
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
...
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
again, really? Why has no one in the MSM analyzed this? Oh right their too busy sucking on his cock...
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
He doesn't even have to do this, he's got his mindless supporters to do it for him
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
Ok one where he's not really following it, to our knowledge that is.
RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
see: Inaguration speech
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
He's got people already doing this. But this could be a problem for him, he doesn't have many solutions
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Wait, didn't this just happen like yesterday? Yeah it did, and no one outside of Michael Savage noticed. Great, people we need an opposition. Messages to all conservatives out there GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND START CALLING DC, YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD EVEN IF YOUR CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR IS A DEM, LET THEM KNOW WERE NOT GOING TO ROLL OVER LIKE THE "REPUBLICANS" IN DC ARE. STAND UP AND FIGHT PEOPLE!!!!
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
money and people, $600 million rasied during the campaign and 2+ million people registered online not counting moveon.org and dailykos kooks. All the more reason to go to grassfire.org and sign up people.
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
Just look at his cabinet, enough said...
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
can you say terrorist attack? People were concerned about "flase-flag" terrorism under Bush... I'm not saying Obama is even that competant to pull shit like that off but if he just lets a terrorist attack happen is that not just as bad? Also, kiss the 2nd amendment goodbye if his people have their way, and once that happens expect the 1st to go soon after.
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
Ok now this is just getting creepy. Remember the election cycle?
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
Does he carry a copy of this book around like some people carry the Bible? I'm starting to think he does...
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
...
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
again, really? Why has no one in the MSM analyzed this? Oh right their too busy sucking on his cock...
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
He doesn't even have to do this, he's got his mindless supporters to do it for him
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
Ok one where he's not really following it, to our knowledge that is.
RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
see: Inaguration speech
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
He's got people already doing this. But this could be a problem for him, he doesn't have many solutions
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Wait, didn't this just happen like yesterday? Yeah it did, and no one outside of Michael Savage noticed. Great, people we need an opposition. Messages to all conservatives out there GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND START CALLING DC, YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD EVEN IF YOUR CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR IS A DEM, LET THEM KNOW WERE NOT GOING TO ROLL OVER LIKE THE "REPUBLICANS" IN DC ARE. STAND UP AND FIGHT PEOPLE!!!!
Barack Obama... America you elected this man, you reap what you sow
I think I posted this during the primares when there was still hope that Hillary would be the nominee, and honestly I can say this now; I would have pulled the lever for Hillary over McCain. Yeah I know, but I believe that Hillary actually wants whats best for this country. Now he says that "you can’t just listen Rush Limbaugh and expect things to get done”. that's a word for word quote yesterday, in a minute I will do an informative post about Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals and how Obama has already started to implement some of them in his first week in office.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
There may be justice after all
With Franken's blatent attempt to steal this Senate election the only thing we may be able to do in this state is a simple (but probably very painful) re-vote. It can (and hopefully will) happen. I got this from the RCP website and its from the Wall Street Journal. If you haven't been following events lately in the recount you can get a brief synopsis from the article here. This could also prove valuable for my next book if/when I get around to doing it.
You would think people would learn. The recount in the contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken for a seat in the U.S. Senate isn't just embarrassing. It is unconstitutional.This is Florida 2000 all over again, but with colder weather. Like that fiasco, Minnesota's muck of a process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the controlling Supreme Court decision is none other than Bush v. Gore.
Remember Florida? Local officials conducting recounts could not decide what counted as a legal vote. Hanging chads? Dimpled chads? Should "undervotes" count (where a machine failed to read an incompletely-punched card)? What about "overvotes" (where voters punched more than one hole)? Different counties used different standards; different precincts within counties were inconsistent.
The Florida Supreme Court intervened and made things worse, ordering a statewide recount of some types of rejected ballots but not others. It specified no standards for what should count as a valid vote, leaving the judgment to each county. And it ordered partial recounts already conducted in some counties (but not others) included in the final tabulation. The result was chaos.
By a vote of 7-2, Bush v. Gore (2000) ruled that Florida's recount violated the principle that all votes must be treated uniformly. Applying precedents dating to the 1960s, the Court found that the Equal Protection Clause meant that ballots must be treated so as to give every vote equal weight. A state may not, by "arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Florida's lack of standards produced "unequal evaluation of ballots in several respects." The state's supreme court "ratified this uneven treatment" and created more of its own, and was unconstitutional.
Bush v. Gore is rightly regarded as controversial -- but not because of its holding regarding the Equal Protection Clause, which commanded broad agreement among the justices. The controversy arose because of the remedy the Court chose for Florida's violation, which was to end the recount entirely. The majority thought that time was up under Florida law requiring that its results be submitted in time to be included in the Electoral College count. That aspect of Bush v. Gore commanded only five votes. Two justices thought Florida should get more time and another chance.
The problem with the remedy was that it arguably violated the same principle that led the Court to invalidate the recount: the need to treat all votes equally. It had the practical effect of awarding the election to Bush (though subsequent media counts confirmed that Bush won anyway, under any uniform standard). This has led to enduring partisan criticism of the case, some fair and some unfair.
But no matter: Bush v. Gore is the law of the land. On the question of how the Equal Protection Clause applies to state recounts, the ruling, which reflected a 7-2 majority, controls.
Minnesota is Bush v. Gore reloaded. The details differ, but not in terms of arbitrariness, lack of uniform standards, inconsistency in how local recounts were conducted and counted, and strange state court decisions.
Consider the inconsistencies: One county "found" 100 new votes for Mr. Franken, due to an asserted clerical error. Decision? Add them. Ramsey County (St. Paul) ended up with 177 more votes than were recorded election day. Decision? Count them. Hennepin County (Minneapolis, where I voted -- once, to my knowledge) came up with 133 fewer votes than were recorded by the machines. Decision? Go with the machines' tally. All told, the recount in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.
Then there's Minnesota's (first, so far) state Supreme Court decision, Coleman v. Ritchie, decided by a vote of 3-2 on Dec. 18. (Two justices recused themselves because they were members of the state canvassing board.) While not as bad as Florida's interventions, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered local boards to count some previously excluded absentee ballots but not others. Astonishingly, the court left the decision as to which votes to count to the two competing campaigns and forbade local election officials to correct errors on their own.
If Messrs. Franken and Coleman agreed, an absentee ballot could be counted. Either campaign could veto a vote. Dean Barkley of the Independence Party, who ran third, was not included in this process.
Thus, citizens' right to vote -- the right to vote! -- was made subject to political parties' gaming strategies. Insiders agree that Mr. Franken's team played a far more savvy game than Mr. Coleman's. The margin of Mr. Franken's current lead is partly the product of a successful what's-mine-is-mine-what's-yours-is-vetoed strategy, and of the Coleman team's failure to counter it.
The process is not over yet, since the state court decision in effect kicked the can down the road. The candidates can revisit these issues by contesting the legal validity of the election under state law -- which Mr. Coleman's team did last week.
But as matters stand now, the Minnesota recount is a legal train wreck. The result, a narrow Franken lead, is plainly invalid. Just as in Bush v. Gore, the recount has involved "unequal evaluation of ballots in several respect" and failed to provide "minimal procedural safeguards" of equal treatment of all ballots. Legally, it does not matter which candidate benefited from all these differences in treatment. (Mr. Franken did.) The different treatment makes the results not only unreliable (and suspicious), but unconstitutional.
What is the remedy? Unlike Bush v. Gore, there is no looming national deadline. Minnesota can take its time and do things right.
This means two things: First, the process must conform to Minnesota election law. Second, it must conform to Bush v. Gore. Whatever standards Minnesota uses must be applied uniformly, consistently, and under clear standards not admitting of local variation. Discrepancies between machine counts and hand recounts, and between numbers of recorded votes and signed-in voters, however resolved, must be resolved the same way throughout the state.
The standards for evaluating rejected absentee ballots likewise must be uniform, with decisions made according to legal standards, not by partisan campaigns. If the Minnesota Supreme Court fails to assure these things, the matter could go right up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And what if there is no reliable way to determine in a recount who won, consistent with Bush v. Gore's requirements?
The Constitution's answer is a do-over. The 17th Amendment provides: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."
In a sense, a vacancy has already "happened." The U.S. Senate convened on Jan. 6 with only one senator from Minnesota. Still, the seat is perhaps not "vacant," just unfilled. But if the contest proceeding does not produce a clear winner that passes constitutional muster, a special election -- and a temporary appointment by Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- may be the only answer.
For now, the only thing certain is that the present "certified" result -- which is that Mr. Franken won by 225 votes out of more than 2.9 million cast -- is an obvious, embarrassing violation of the Constitution.
Mr. Paulsen is professor of law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minn. He is formerly associate dean of the University of Minnesota Law School.
Dang I need to talk to some of my St.Thomas friends, they may have had this guy as a teacher.
You would think people would learn. The recount in the contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken for a seat in the U.S. Senate isn't just embarrassing. It is unconstitutional.This is Florida 2000 all over again, but with colder weather. Like that fiasco, Minnesota's muck of a process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the controlling Supreme Court decision is none other than Bush v. Gore.
Remember Florida? Local officials conducting recounts could not decide what counted as a legal vote. Hanging chads? Dimpled chads? Should "undervotes" count (where a machine failed to read an incompletely-punched card)? What about "overvotes" (where voters punched more than one hole)? Different counties used different standards; different precincts within counties were inconsistent.
The Florida Supreme Court intervened and made things worse, ordering a statewide recount of some types of rejected ballots but not others. It specified no standards for what should count as a valid vote, leaving the judgment to each county. And it ordered partial recounts already conducted in some counties (but not others) included in the final tabulation. The result was chaos.
By a vote of 7-2, Bush v. Gore (2000) ruled that Florida's recount violated the principle that all votes must be treated uniformly. Applying precedents dating to the 1960s, the Court found that the Equal Protection Clause meant that ballots must be treated so as to give every vote equal weight. A state may not, by "arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Florida's lack of standards produced "unequal evaluation of ballots in several respects." The state's supreme court "ratified this uneven treatment" and created more of its own, and was unconstitutional.
Bush v. Gore is rightly regarded as controversial -- but not because of its holding regarding the Equal Protection Clause, which commanded broad agreement among the justices. The controversy arose because of the remedy the Court chose for Florida's violation, which was to end the recount entirely. The majority thought that time was up under Florida law requiring that its results be submitted in time to be included in the Electoral College count. That aspect of Bush v. Gore commanded only five votes. Two justices thought Florida should get more time and another chance.
The problem with the remedy was that it arguably violated the same principle that led the Court to invalidate the recount: the need to treat all votes equally. It had the practical effect of awarding the election to Bush (though subsequent media counts confirmed that Bush won anyway, under any uniform standard). This has led to enduring partisan criticism of the case, some fair and some unfair.
But no matter: Bush v. Gore is the law of the land. On the question of how the Equal Protection Clause applies to state recounts, the ruling, which reflected a 7-2 majority, controls.
Minnesota is Bush v. Gore reloaded. The details differ, but not in terms of arbitrariness, lack of uniform standards, inconsistency in how local recounts were conducted and counted, and strange state court decisions.
Consider the inconsistencies: One county "found" 100 new votes for Mr. Franken, due to an asserted clerical error. Decision? Add them. Ramsey County (St. Paul) ended up with 177 more votes than were recorded election day. Decision? Count them. Hennepin County (Minneapolis, where I voted -- once, to my knowledge) came up with 133 fewer votes than were recorded by the machines. Decision? Go with the machines' tally. All told, the recount in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.
Then there's Minnesota's (first, so far) state Supreme Court decision, Coleman v. Ritchie, decided by a vote of 3-2 on Dec. 18. (Two justices recused themselves because they were members of the state canvassing board.) While not as bad as Florida's interventions, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered local boards to count some previously excluded absentee ballots but not others. Astonishingly, the court left the decision as to which votes to count to the two competing campaigns and forbade local election officials to correct errors on their own.
If Messrs. Franken and Coleman agreed, an absentee ballot could be counted. Either campaign could veto a vote. Dean Barkley of the Independence Party, who ran third, was not included in this process.
Thus, citizens' right to vote -- the right to vote! -- was made subject to political parties' gaming strategies. Insiders agree that Mr. Franken's team played a far more savvy game than Mr. Coleman's. The margin of Mr. Franken's current lead is partly the product of a successful what's-mine-is-mine-what's-yours-is-vetoed strategy, and of the Coleman team's failure to counter it.
The process is not over yet, since the state court decision in effect kicked the can down the road. The candidates can revisit these issues by contesting the legal validity of the election under state law -- which Mr. Coleman's team did last week.
But as matters stand now, the Minnesota recount is a legal train wreck. The result, a narrow Franken lead, is plainly invalid. Just as in Bush v. Gore, the recount has involved "unequal evaluation of ballots in several respect" and failed to provide "minimal procedural safeguards" of equal treatment of all ballots. Legally, it does not matter which candidate benefited from all these differences in treatment. (Mr. Franken did.) The different treatment makes the results not only unreliable (and suspicious), but unconstitutional.
What is the remedy? Unlike Bush v. Gore, there is no looming national deadline. Minnesota can take its time and do things right.
This means two things: First, the process must conform to Minnesota election law. Second, it must conform to Bush v. Gore. Whatever standards Minnesota uses must be applied uniformly, consistently, and under clear standards not admitting of local variation. Discrepancies between machine counts and hand recounts, and between numbers of recorded votes and signed-in voters, however resolved, must be resolved the same way throughout the state.
The standards for evaluating rejected absentee ballots likewise must be uniform, with decisions made according to legal standards, not by partisan campaigns. If the Minnesota Supreme Court fails to assure these things, the matter could go right up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And what if there is no reliable way to determine in a recount who won, consistent with Bush v. Gore's requirements?
The Constitution's answer is a do-over. The 17th Amendment provides: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."
In a sense, a vacancy has already "happened." The U.S. Senate convened on Jan. 6 with only one senator from Minnesota. Still, the seat is perhaps not "vacant," just unfilled. But if the contest proceeding does not produce a clear winner that passes constitutional muster, a special election -- and a temporary appointment by Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- may be the only answer.
For now, the only thing certain is that the present "certified" result -- which is that Mr. Franken won by 225 votes out of more than 2.9 million cast -- is an obvious, embarrassing violation of the Constitution.
Mr. Paulsen is professor of law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minn. He is formerly associate dean of the University of Minnesota Law School.
Dang I need to talk to some of my St.Thomas friends, they may have had this guy as a teacher.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
movies...
For those of you who don't know I'm a big movie geek (along with being a huge sports geek, book geek, videogame geek, music geek, well just basically an all around geek I guess) there are some movies that I cannot wait for this year. The two on the top of the list would be Terminator: Salvation (aka Terminator 4, they don't know when to give up but at least they dumped Ahhnold) and Transformers 2. The only sad part about T2 is that its probably going to pull a PG-13 which means no Megan Fox goodies (If you don't know who I'm talking about and were friends, were not anymore). Here is an old post from nearly a year ago from the appropriately named Den of the Geek. I will give it a 1-5 tongue rating on how excited I am to see it (1 maybe on video/DVD 5 I'm either buying tickets to the midnight show or will be in line to buy tickets for the midnight show an hour or two before the first showing)
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/56182/the_big_blockbusters_of_2009.html
If you think summer of 2008 is jam-packed with blockbuster movies, just you wait to see what's queuing up next year already: starring Transformers, Wolverine, The A-Team and a whole lot more...
The summer blockbuster season may already be under way, with Iron Man currently the leading critical and commercial champion, but that doesn’t mean we can’t look even further ahead. Because while you may be planning your trip to Indiana Jones, The Dark Knight or The Incredible Hulk, there’s still this lot coming next year to make sure you won’t go without in twelve months’ time…
This is what’s currently scheduled (and these are UK timescales – occasionally the US version comes out first)…
April
THE WOLF MAN
Joe Johnston (Jumanji, Jurassic Park 3) gathers Anthony Hopkins, Benicio Del Toro, Hugo Weaving and Emily Blunt to revisit a cinematic monster of old. As long as it avoids the Van Helsing problems, it might be half decent, too. I have to say I haven't even heard of this until I pulled up the article so I give it 2.5 tongues.
May
X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE
We’ve got high hopes for this one. The choice of Gavin (Tsotsi) Hood to direct seems inspired, and it’ll be great to have an X-men film without them somehow trying to shoehorn Halle Berry in. This is the Hugh Jackman-focussed tale that we’ve been looking forward to since the first X-men film hit big, and it could be one of 2009’s biggest. The Magneto movie will then follow. I LOVED the first 2 X-Men movies (III I could have done without) and I did see a preview for it when I saw The Day The Earth Stood Still (please, save your money and don't go to that one) and it looks interesting. I'm not totally sold, yet, that being said 3 tongues.
STAR TREK XI
Or whatever the title turns out to be. Perhaps the most eagerly awaited reboot on the planet, JJ Abrams’ new Star Trek has been shunted back to next summer, which can only heighten the anticipation surrounding it. It’s been a long time since a really, really good Trek film (First Contact, probably), and this is one of Geek’s 2009 big hopes. Here's the thing before you say, "Oh brother, not another Star Trek movie, haven't they already beat that franchise into the ground?" Yes they have, but they got Gene Rodenberry (sp?) to sign off on it, a major coup on JJ Abrams part. This gives me hope for the movie but being a geek and yet not a Trekkie (yeah, I know one in the same, but were not damnit!) I give it 2.75 tongues.
THE HANNAH MONTANA MOVIE
We never want to see this ever in our lives. Or our next life. Or the one after that. Next year’s equivalent of the Sex & The City movie for any self-respecting geek. Couldn't get me in there on a bet, maybe if a girl dragged me there and I got to make out with her half of the movie but even then it would be a tough sale.
-100 tongues
NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2
Hmmm, we weren’t really that impressed with the first one, but it sure did help pay Ben Stiller’s mortgage for him. He’s back for the sequel, which moves from the original’s winter release slot to prime blockbuster time. It will make lots of money, too. See above review
June
TERMINATOR SALVATION
The risk. A Terminator film with no Arnie. A Terminator film where they’ve allowed McG to play with the cameras, seemingly without watching, well, his earlier films. On the plus side, Christian Bale is good casting, but playing for a PG-13 rating in the States is very bad news indeed. Sigh. What next? Die Hard Disney? As a side commentary T3 was PG-13 (it did kinda suck though) and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles have done a good job without the gruesome bloodletting and nasty language. Rumor also has it that TS will have a story line thats based off of what the Terminator TSCC is doing right now for the show. Enough babbling, 5 tongues baby I can't wait!
THE A-TEAM
John Singleton is behind the camera for the big screen version of the 80s’ most iconic television show. Rumours persist that Bruce Willis may sign on to play Hannibal, and Ice Cube to be BA. But, er, as it’s out in a year, they may want to get a crack on… yeah, no... 0 tongues
THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS 4
Featuring cars that go really, really FAST! Even FASTER than before! Paul Walker and Vin Diesel both return to the franchise that helped make them both, both once more in search of a career. Interesting, haven't seen the last 2 so my mind hasn't been wrecked by the franchise. Now that Vin is back I'm at least interested, 4 tongues.
TRANSFORMERS 2
Our early bet for the biggest hit of the year, even if Transformers 1 was still a bit messy. That said, letting Michael Bay play with his computer graphics sure does guarantee bangs for your buck, and the fighting starts again on June 26th 2009. I am almost literally counting down the days, were close to 120, I think. 5 tongues of course.
NOWHERELAND
2009’s crap Eddie Murphy comedy. nope...
July
ICE AGE III
Fox can’t make enough of these now, seeing as Ice Age is the first non-Disney or Dreamworks animated franchise that consistently delivers the cash. Oblivious to the fact that the second one wasn’t much cop, this will no doubt make enough money to warrant Ice Age 4. And 5. And 6. Etc. Why must Fox, Diz-nee, and anyone else who gets a succesfull franchise going not know to quit when they're ahead. 3? Really? The first one was ok and I thought they were pushing it with 2 but apparently I was wrong. 0 tongues...
YEAR ONE
A new Harold Ramis comedy, starring one of the men-of-the-moment Michael Cera, with man looking for a hit Jack Black. Judd Apatow produces. Need to hear more about this first before I have an opinion, Tongues TBD.
LAND OF THE LOST
From the director of Casper, a family-esque movie with Will Ferrell. It’s a mix of comedy, sci-fi and adventure, apparently, and could prove to be a bit of a sleeper. Will Ferrell is the ultimate hit or miss actor, just like he was on SNL. When he's on he's freaking on (Think George W. Bush, Elf, Rickey Bobby, Ron Burgundy ), but when he's off look out box office bomb (almost any other SNL sketch he was in, Kicking & Screaming, Bewitched, Semi-Pro) and I do remember the original TV show, sort of. I think I was like 6 or 7 when it went off the air. 2 tongues
UP 3D
This is the 2009 Pixar release. That’s pretty much all you need to know. 3 tongues, Pixar is gold.
August
PRINCE OF PERSIA
Mike Newell is helming the big screen version of the videogame of the same name. It’s got potential, too, and if done properly could be an Indiana Jones-lite of sorts, and certainly better than the ropey Tomb Raider films. A movie based on a videogame, yeah that hasn't been tried before... (Tomb Riader, Doom, Mortal Kombat, and many, many others) I smell a turd, or possibly bomb (great now the FBI is going to be tracking this blog.) .5 tongues.
G I JOE
We’re guessing this is the reason why Stephen Sommers didn’t helm the third Mummy film, as instead he’s brought together The Rock, Sienna Miller, Dennis Quaid, Christopher Eccleston and possibly even Brendan Fraser for his G.I. Joe movie. Time will tell if that’s a good choice. I don't know, I'm skeptical at best, like the possible concept though. 3 tongues.
That's all for now folks, be back later for preview postings from youtube and the all important reviews that will be posted ASAP once I'm out of the theater.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/56182/the_big_blockbusters_of_2009.html
If you think summer of 2008 is jam-packed with blockbuster movies, just you wait to see what's queuing up next year already: starring Transformers, Wolverine, The A-Team and a whole lot more...
The summer blockbuster season may already be under way, with Iron Man currently the leading critical and commercial champion, but that doesn’t mean we can’t look even further ahead. Because while you may be planning your trip to Indiana Jones, The Dark Knight or The Incredible Hulk, there’s still this lot coming next year to make sure you won’t go without in twelve months’ time…
This is what’s currently scheduled (and these are UK timescales – occasionally the US version comes out first)…
April
THE WOLF MAN
Joe Johnston (Jumanji, Jurassic Park 3) gathers Anthony Hopkins, Benicio Del Toro, Hugo Weaving and Emily Blunt to revisit a cinematic monster of old. As long as it avoids the Van Helsing problems, it might be half decent, too. I have to say I haven't even heard of this until I pulled up the article so I give it 2.5 tongues.
May
X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE
We’ve got high hopes for this one. The choice of Gavin (Tsotsi) Hood to direct seems inspired, and it’ll be great to have an X-men film without them somehow trying to shoehorn Halle Berry in. This is the Hugh Jackman-focussed tale that we’ve been looking forward to since the first X-men film hit big, and it could be one of 2009’s biggest. The Magneto movie will then follow. I LOVED the first 2 X-Men movies (III I could have done without) and I did see a preview for it when I saw The Day The Earth Stood Still (please, save your money and don't go to that one) and it looks interesting. I'm not totally sold, yet, that being said 3 tongues.
STAR TREK XI
Or whatever the title turns out to be. Perhaps the most eagerly awaited reboot on the planet, JJ Abrams’ new Star Trek has been shunted back to next summer, which can only heighten the anticipation surrounding it. It’s been a long time since a really, really good Trek film (First Contact, probably), and this is one of Geek’s 2009 big hopes. Here's the thing before you say, "Oh brother, not another Star Trek movie, haven't they already beat that franchise into the ground?" Yes they have, but they got Gene Rodenberry (sp?) to sign off on it, a major coup on JJ Abrams part. This gives me hope for the movie but being a geek and yet not a Trekkie (yeah, I know one in the same, but were not damnit!) I give it 2.75 tongues.
THE HANNAH MONTANA MOVIE
We never want to see this ever in our lives. Or our next life. Or the one after that. Next year’s equivalent of the Sex & The City movie for any self-respecting geek. Couldn't get me in there on a bet, maybe if a girl dragged me there and I got to make out with her half of the movie but even then it would be a tough sale.
-100 tongues
NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2
Hmmm, we weren’t really that impressed with the first one, but it sure did help pay Ben Stiller’s mortgage for him. He’s back for the sequel, which moves from the original’s winter release slot to prime blockbuster time. It will make lots of money, too. See above review
June
TERMINATOR SALVATION
The risk. A Terminator film with no Arnie. A Terminator film where they’ve allowed McG to play with the cameras, seemingly without watching, well, his earlier films. On the plus side, Christian Bale is good casting, but playing for a PG-13 rating in the States is very bad news indeed. Sigh. What next? Die Hard Disney? As a side commentary T3 was PG-13 (it did kinda suck though) and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles have done a good job without the gruesome bloodletting and nasty language. Rumor also has it that TS will have a story line thats based off of what the Terminator TSCC is doing right now for the show. Enough babbling, 5 tongues baby I can't wait!
THE A-TEAM
John Singleton is behind the camera for the big screen version of the 80s’ most iconic television show. Rumours persist that Bruce Willis may sign on to play Hannibal, and Ice Cube to be BA. But, er, as it’s out in a year, they may want to get a crack on… yeah, no... 0 tongues
THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS 4
Featuring cars that go really, really FAST! Even FASTER than before! Paul Walker and Vin Diesel both return to the franchise that helped make them both, both once more in search of a career. Interesting, haven't seen the last 2 so my mind hasn't been wrecked by the franchise. Now that Vin is back I'm at least interested, 4 tongues.
TRANSFORMERS 2
Our early bet for the biggest hit of the year, even if Transformers 1 was still a bit messy. That said, letting Michael Bay play with his computer graphics sure does guarantee bangs for your buck, and the fighting starts again on June 26th 2009. I am almost literally counting down the days, were close to 120, I think. 5 tongues of course.
NOWHERELAND
2009’s crap Eddie Murphy comedy. nope...
July
ICE AGE III
Fox can’t make enough of these now, seeing as Ice Age is the first non-Disney or Dreamworks animated franchise that consistently delivers the cash. Oblivious to the fact that the second one wasn’t much cop, this will no doubt make enough money to warrant Ice Age 4. And 5. And 6. Etc. Why must Fox, Diz-nee, and anyone else who gets a succesfull franchise going not know to quit when they're ahead. 3? Really? The first one was ok and I thought they were pushing it with 2 but apparently I was wrong. 0 tongues...
YEAR ONE
A new Harold Ramis comedy, starring one of the men-of-the-moment Michael Cera, with man looking for a hit Jack Black. Judd Apatow produces. Need to hear more about this first before I have an opinion, Tongues TBD.
LAND OF THE LOST
From the director of Casper, a family-esque movie with Will Ferrell. It’s a mix of comedy, sci-fi and adventure, apparently, and could prove to be a bit of a sleeper. Will Ferrell is the ultimate hit or miss actor, just like he was on SNL. When he's on he's freaking on (Think George W. Bush, Elf, Rickey Bobby, Ron Burgundy ), but when he's off look out box office bomb (almost any other SNL sketch he was in, Kicking & Screaming, Bewitched, Semi-Pro) and I do remember the original TV show, sort of. I think I was like 6 or 7 when it went off the air. 2 tongues
UP 3D
This is the 2009 Pixar release. That’s pretty much all you need to know. 3 tongues, Pixar is gold.
August
PRINCE OF PERSIA
Mike Newell is helming the big screen version of the videogame of the same name. It’s got potential, too, and if done properly could be an Indiana Jones-lite of sorts, and certainly better than the ropey Tomb Raider films. A movie based on a videogame, yeah that hasn't been tried before... (Tomb Riader, Doom, Mortal Kombat, and many, many others) I smell a turd, or possibly bomb (great now the FBI is going to be tracking this blog.) .5 tongues.
G I JOE
We’re guessing this is the reason why Stephen Sommers didn’t helm the third Mummy film, as instead he’s brought together The Rock, Sienna Miller, Dennis Quaid, Christopher Eccleston and possibly even Brendan Fraser for his G.I. Joe movie. Time will tell if that’s a good choice. I don't know, I'm skeptical at best, like the possible concept though. 3 tongues.
That's all for now folks, be back later for preview postings from youtube and the all important reviews that will be posted ASAP once I'm out of the theater.
update...
Sorry I haven't been updating my blog lately but I have been busy lately with my writings and school. Not only that but I might even start writing for something called Parcbench popculture. You can check them out at http://www.parcbench.com/. Apparently they haven't launched yet but I sent them an e-mail letting them know I'm interested in offering my services as a writer. If you want to see my comments and such lately I usually do it 3-5 times a day over at Anti-Strib. Well that's all for now readers (if I even have any left at this point). I should be on later in the week with some posts about the Senate race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
