This is a problem. Anyone who can't see where it's going isn't paying attention. Government is worried because of changing public perceptions relative to government use of authority. A great many people are concerned that government has crossed over the line when it comes to issues of privacy and the general state of freedom. The gross transgressions of the Bush presidency and the harm those transgressions have wrought to the nation have played a significant role in this changing public perception. This will end with a condition that no matter what government does or has done the military will be called upon to intervene. This means government can do whatever it wants and in spite of a constitutional prohibition against it the government will use the military to quell any disturbance - justified or not. Government will call all such instances domestic terrorism no matter what it really is.

What do you think will be the reaction of citizens when in the coming years citizens demonstrate and there are armed troops all over the place? This will have a negative effect on the right of assembly at the very least. People will feel threatened by their own government. For that reason alone this should not be done. Stating this as being a response to the terrorist threat is bullshit. The dumb bastards in our government just don't see the relationship between citizens feeling threatened and the inevitable response to that threat. The worst possible thing a government can do is  act in a way that will be perceived as taking away freedom. We already have the DOD operating as a major participant in domestic intelligence. This is the next logical step in the infringement upon our freedoms. Here comes the police state. Very fucked up.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/ 

Framing the question this way is precisely the issue.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/245658.php 

We are ingnorant of so much of the internal workings of what has happened that we are ambivalent of how to proceed. And I mean we in a very involved sense.

Citibank and others need to come before congress and be required to give the nation a complete rundown of their balance sheet so we can get a handle on this. We need to know what pieces of their portfolios are the ones causing the heartburn to precisely identify what went wrong. The necessity of fixing this is obvious but we need also to address the causes and make sure congress follows up with appropriate regulatory action to prevent a reoccurrence. Fixing something that is broken implies you know precisely why it broke. The why question may be troublesome for some people but if management in the banking sector messed up we need to know the why and how. The country rightly has to have these answers before and as a condition of forking over trillions of dollars.

Josh questions how is the public interest served by maintaining shareholder equity. I suspect it is served because there are an awful lot of institutional investors managing the 401Ks and IRAs of citizens or just plain citizens holding Citibank stock.

Man the phones. Call. Call. Call. Your senators and representatives.

Demand unconditional transparency or forget it.

Over the course of the last several years I hope voters learned it's up to us to keep an eye on government because government sure as hell isn't up to the task. And sure as hell they'll screw up unless somebody is watching. And keep in mind this money is being borrowed. Interest on that borrowing makes the real cost way higher.

Mark Halperin states with certainty a media bias having influenced the outcome of the presidential election.

True? I don't think so.

I would argue the reporting accurately reflected the mood of the country. If the media, particularly in editorial commentary, reflects that mood then is it properly called bias or is it merely accurate reporting? Bias carries with it an implication of being at least somewhat false, contrary to facts or misleading. It is hard to make that case in this instance. Polling has indicated for quite some time that the country has been on the wrong track etc. In a comparative sense we also saw the media eventually having gotten to the point where they called out McCain and Palin on their outrageously over the top claims about Obama.

I just don't see where Halperin has this correct at all. At least not in the medias portrayal of the mood of voters.

I read the piece Josh posted from John Hinderacker. Hinderacker makes what is without a doubt one of the most ridiculous assertions of all time. Easily in the top ten.

Hinderacker isn't even on the same planet as the rest of us. It just isn't possible to make this assertion except as a joke or as satire. The comments are SNL material for sure.

The way this mimics a view that is so apart from reality is the precise reason conservatives get so much wrong and so little right. Insights such as Hinderackers pretty much explain why things are such a mess.

I had called for Paulson to be fired in the wake of the financial meltdown and this is why. His department slipped in a provision to the financial bailout that gave banks an unprecedented $140B tax break. Now that this has become public maybe congress will call for his resignation. He and Bernanke should have both been fired.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27635885/ 

 

PUHLEEEEZ!!

After eight years of an exceedingly partisan WH, republicans have no credibility whatsoever in throwing partisan stones at Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff.

The Republican Party is already a joke and in not recognizing how ridiculous they look assures they'll continue their nosedive into insignificance. Having already rewritten the record book for screwups they insist upon making sure their record will forever remain unbroken.

This is the headline from The Hill

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) declared Tuesday night that the GOP is facing a tougher political environment than it did during the so-called Watergate Election of 1974, when Democrats scored major gains in Congress.

I don't agree with the assessment of Senator Ensign. He has postulated all manner of reasons for why republican losses were as dramatic as they were.

I think it has everything to do with the fact that republicans had chosen time and again to defend their indefensible choices and to continue to support members of their party who quite obviously transgressed eiher the law or ethical conduct or both.

They left voters with little choice except to hold republicans accountable where republicans themselves failed to do so. 

 

Isn't it peculiar that convicted felons aren't allowed to vote yet can occupy a seat in the U.S. Senate? I have heard on MSNBC today that there is no law that restricts a felon from serving in the U.S. Senate. I can't see where this makes any sense at all.

I read Josh's Darker and Darker piece and the fact that the woman was apparently surprised by learning directly from John McCain that Obama is neither a Muslim nor a terrorist tells us a lot. Mostly though it tells us a lot of people are stuck in a place from where they will never escape.

I'm left with one obvious question from the debate last night. Senator McCain was unable to refer to Senator Obama in a proper way. He displyed a lack of equality of respect for his fellow senator. Does anyone really think Senator McCain has any more respect for other Americans who he obviously views as not his equal? We cannot have a president who is unable to attribute equality of respect to every American without regard to who they are.

How is it unemployment remains at 6.1 % in spite of 159,000 job losses reported this week. This year alone job lossses are at 759,000. I happen to think the numbers are being played with.

Just watched CNN do a fact check, live and on air, of the charges Palin made about Obama hanging with terrorists.

CNN refuted it completely and also referred to Palin's use of the plural form, 'terrorists'. CNN said they requested from the McCain campaign information about the use of the plural form asking what other 'terrorists' they meant. CNN said the McCain campaign declined to respond.

This is my first recollection of any network doing a direct fact check about such a charge by examining the past and present excapades of Bill Ayers, who Palin has alleged is a terrorist.

If this is any indication of how the cable networks might react to the sleaze the McCain campaign is launching they might want to rethink their tactics.

The U.S. taxpayer is being swindled into buying the garbage of banks and investment firms while they'll keep the cream and make a ton of money as a result.

The government, you and me, should demand a piece of each of those banks or investment firms which get some of the money from the bailout. We will be on the hook for all the non-performing or bad loans that we could very well lose a ton of money on. We, as taxpayers, need a hedge against those potential losses. We are shouldering a lot of risk and we need to be paid for that risk. There is no upside for taxpayers in this deal. Even if government modifies the mortgages, to try and make it so people keep their homes, that will cost us because it means we have to devalue the mortgages more than they already are.

We need some assurance of a return on this. Apparently nobody is going to be fired or jailed in this, so if the end game, as established by the major players, is to make money then the taxpayer has to be part of that.

McCain is so stuck when the bailout comes up for a vote in the senate.

He can't not vote.

If the plan sucks for regular citizens he is in trouble with them.

If it sucks for Wall Street he is in trouble with them.

Obama has an easy choice in relative terms.

The reason McCain is stuck is because he's a flip-flopper deluxe. He has played both sides of things so much, now he has no safe haven.