Commenters: There is now an individual post-based comment feed. I hope it becomes a standard thing on blogs. It’s far superior to follow up notification by email.
Archives for March 2008
This is 100% down the line spot on, I think. It is definitely worth a read, all of it.
Obama’s denunciation of Wright’s bigotry amounts to too little too late. The time to stand up to him wasn’t now, when his association with Wright is sinking his hopes for the White House. The time to have stood up to Wright was when Obama was just another member of his church. If he truly believes in what he says he believes, he should have walked out of Wright’s church or grabbed Wright’s microphone and told his fellow churchgoers that Wright was wrong and that they mustn’t hate. In twenty years of attending Wright’s church, why didn’t Obama once stand before his fellow church members and tell them that they mustn’t hate their country and their fellow Americans?
The fact that he didn’t, and the fact that he upheld this man until just a few months ago as his spiritual mentor and still refuses to condemn him and his deeply flawed character tells me everything I need to know about Barack Obama. I think that he is an opportunistic, weak man. I hope and pray that he doesn’t become President.
There’s a silver lining to all of this in my view. It’s exposing something right out there in the open for all to see: perhaps the bigger racial bigotry problem in America is minority bigotry against whites. Or, at least, they have been getting a pass on it for four decades. Maybe not so much, anymore?
Want an example, right up in your face almost every day? How about this bit of pretentious nonsense: "people of color." I, for one, have never missed the implications and overtones in that — what amounts to — racial smear of
colorless white people.
A great many of the ordinary racial bigots I’ve ever known have been black people. That may not be your experience, but it has been mine.
The idea of liberty, the whole of it, was confirmed: That a people have a right to self-government, one of their own making.
…It is simple and elegantly simple. It doesn’t mean it in the broad sense. It means it in the most narrow of sense and that is more powerful than anything ever thought of before.
"The most narrow of sense." The most narrow of sense. So, ‘naturally’:
And they got that. They got that people have a right to form their own government. They formed that government…
Who’s "they," and who are "they" to transgress upon "the most narrow of sense?"
"Heavy lifting" indeed, Kim.
Obama expressed understanding of the passions on both sides in what he called "a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years."
"But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races," he said in a speech at the National Constitution Center, not far from where the Declaration of Independence was adopted.
Obama rarely talks so openly about his race in such a prominent way, but his speech covered divisions from slavery to the O.J. Simpson trial to the recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. He also recognized his race has been a major issue in the campaign that has taken a "particularly divisive turn" in the last few weeks as video of his longtime pastor spread around the Internet and on television.
Oh, I think he’s far, far, faaaaar from where "the Declaration of Independence was adopted."
Later: My friend Chris rings in via email with a VDH piece.
The notion that Obama never heard any such nonsense is, well, nonsense—given that he frequented the church for 20 years, laughed off some of the Wright hyperbole in his own memoirs, and has a wife whose invective about America as not worthy of her pride, mean, etc dovetails with his pastor’s sermons.
What we have here is a bright, eloquent, and utterly insular candidate, incredibly naïve, with terrible judgment who is absolutely clueless about America. He seems an improved model of Howard Dean—opinionated, snazzy, faddish, riding on popular insanity—and then in one fell swoop (“Yeaaahhhhhhh”) ridiculous.
Take a moment to begin reading through this. I say begin, because you really don’t need to read the whole thing.
Brenda Harris/Ticketed driver “I absolutely positively stopped at that stop sign.”
Nicole Barksdale/Ticket driver: “I was angry, honestly, I was angry because I knew I stopped.”
Pam Smith/Ticketed Driver: “I’m positive I stopped. I am positive.”
…And so on and so on. Here’s what sense I think you ought to begin to form, to understand, and to get used to: there’s a presumption at work, and its unfounded.
Hint: you have absolutely no rational basis to assume that any cop will be honest. You count on it, just as you sorta count on all the other myriad people you come into contact with to behave with some reasonable, predictable, countable semblance of stock-human behavior. The difference is that those people don’t come wrapped in the trappings of state authority.
They also don’t get paid (with your money) to steal from you, and then lie about it.
Ahw, what the hell; twice already, today, so why not make it thrice?
I have this all figured out. A "liquidity crisis" like this is what happens when motherfuckers don’t pay their bills. Other motherfuckers run out of money that they would have had, otherwise.
Good. Now the parental filters can work overtime.
…Anyway, it certainly sounds distilled and to the essence, but I think it’s actually worse (i.e., more alarming) than that. Any sound business should have no problem at all with some measure of defaulted obligations (under 5% ought to be a cake walk).
In the old days, a "liquidity crisis" meant that as a business, you have too many assets in a form not easy or quick to get to ("liquidate") like capital plant & equipment, versus more liquid assets like cash (king), short-term receivables, securities, and perhaps even an operating line of credit.
Today, "liquidity crisis" means that virtually everything including the kitchen sink is mortgaged, and even still, it isn’t enough.
Regina Wilshire is absolutely right.
Would you willingly sit your child down, offer him/her a bowl filled with 1/2 cup of sugar and a spoon to dig in?
It's like I often say when people try to insist to me how great fruit juices are: would you sit down and eat a dozen or two dozen oranges in a single sitting? Think your body was designed to do that?
And sure, we can handle it (infrequently). I'm quite certain that primitive man gorged on sweet stuff opportunistically, like on honey when he came across it, or some sweet fruits (though primitive fruits were largely fibrous and tart — not like today's selectively bread stuff). More likely, they gorged on berries when they could, seasonally and very intermittently — not a daily thing.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
And make sure you watch — if you can stand it — the YouTube Billy links to.
For me, this really rises to the level of pet peeve on the mundane level of daily nonsense that parades past my eyes and ears; but the political, social and cultural overtones are just horrifying (the deepest implications of such you need look no further than Nazi Germany or the USSR and see how children, as tools of State, were ultimately pitted against their own parents).
It’s largely a problem created by parents and grandparents. There is a fine line between encouragement of children and their steps in developing their minds to become rational (which is about keeping them challenged), and outright poisoning their minds by brainwashing them into believing they’re some sort of daily savant, or something. It does then no good whatsoever.
Either Obama is too stupid to see how "deep" this country’s problems are — a goodly portion of which are manifest in fulminant barking like the right Rev. Wright’s — or he knows exactly how deep they are and he likes the look from the bottom, all while he’s confident that he can convince you of his vista from the sunny uplands of racial harmony.
Yep. There’s very good reasons why Obama was and in a member of that congregation. Even if you buy the notion — though I don’t — that he sincerely would like to end racial divisiveness as a deep-rooted problem in America, he’s plenty happy to use it as a springboard, pivot, or catapult in the meantime.
In the end he, just like everyone else who’s ever talked "harmony," has and will find the political mileage delivered by such politics too tempting to give up.
I haven’t even seen what may be the take around the various blogs this morning, but here’s the chart over the last year. It traded up around $157 nearly a year ago, and upwards of $170 at its all time high just over a year ago. As of the print on this chart: $3.81; and it’s being sold to JP Morgan for $2, 1.2% of its all-time high value as judged by its owners holding its securities
That little orphan candle, coming down, as it were, to kiss the volume spike on its way up over the last couple of trading sessions, is today’s action. It opened on a gap from around $30 per share to just over $3 per share, a 90% loss in value in an instant, and that, off of a loss of 80% of the value over the last year. Yep: that’s a collapse and it’s a very good illustration of why it’s never a good idea to have all one’s eggs in one basket.
My take? Beautiful. Yea, I know a lot of people have lost a lot of money and I take no pleasure in that, but this simply isn’t child’s play and this is precisely what ought to happen. What you see, above, is that in spite of all the state’s wrangling in the economy and with the money supply, you simply can’t force investors and traders to hold securities they’ve lost confidence in. You can bring out the smoke & mirrors, but the very thinest pretense of the concept "free market" that gets tossed around is that a seller is generally not prohibited from selling. And so, in spite of all the talk of the "government stepping in on Friday," well, see for yourself.
Now, the only question remaining is why people think that government regulation and stimulus is going to save their asses when investors aren’t willing to hold. And anyway, what was the implicit purpose in the government’s "stepping in?" Was it not, at the most fundamental level, to give investors confidence so they’d hold and not flood the market with sell orders? So, in reality, the government is impotent. It can only steal from some people and give it to others in hopes everyone holds pat long enough for the ripples to die down. Well, it didn’t work here, and BSC got what was coming to it.
Of course, how it got to here in the first place is an altogether different discussion, but in the end, the same thing. It got to here because, fundamentally, it thought it could escape the just consequences of bad financial decisions, and it thought that because of the continual meddling of the State in the first place.
Now you’ll get to enjoy the spectacle the the State coming in to save the day by conducting complete investigations, issuing indictments, a white-collar perp walk or two, a prosecution or two and potentially some jail time — and all to mask to very true and real nature of what the problem is and what is at the root of it.