Tuesday, September 30, 2008
PSoftheD
From Daily Kos:
John McCain's hypocrisy has reached a level that when he says anything about any subject, your automatic reaction should be to go back and see what he was saying the day before. And when it comes to blaming others for his failure of leadership on the bailout bill, McCain has raised the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth to an art form.
Yesterday he managed, in the time it took to get the words out, to blame Barack Obama and the Democratic Party while saying it wasn't time to point fingers:
Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to affix the blame. It’s time to fix the problem.
And today, McCain said:
I am disappointed at the lack of resolve and bipartisan good will among members of both parties to fix this problem...I call on everyone in Washington to come together in a bipartisan way to address this crisis.
...and sixteen minutes later, McCain's campaign released an ad that blamed Obama and the Democrats for the financial meltdown. Sixteen minutes. Apparently McCain was calling on everyone except himself.
John McCain's hypocrisy has reached a level that when he says anything about any subject, your automatic reaction should be to go back and see what he was saying the day before. And when it comes to blaming others for his failure of leadership on the bailout bill, McCain has raised the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth to an art form.
Yesterday he managed, in the time it took to get the words out, to blame Barack Obama and the Democratic Party while saying it wasn't time to point fingers:
Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to affix the blame. It’s time to fix the problem.
And today, McCain said:
I am disappointed at the lack of resolve and bipartisan good will among members of both parties to fix this problem...I call on everyone in Washington to come together in a bipartisan way to address this crisis.
...and sixteen minutes later, McCain's campaign released an ad that blamed Obama and the Democrats for the financial meltdown. Sixteen minutes. Apparently McCain was calling on everyone except himself.
Grumpy Old Man
The Debate: The All-Important Grumpiness Factor
Here’s the politically incorrect way of phrasing one of the central questions about tonight’s presidential debate: Did John McCain come across as too much of a grumpy old man?
That might not be a nice question, but it’s an important one. Americans like to vote for the nice guy, not the grumbling prophet of doom. Throughout the 90-minute debate, McCain seemed contemptuous of Obama. He wouldn’t look at him. He tried to belittle him whenever possible -- how many times did he work “Senator Obama just doesn’t understand” into his answers? His body language was closed, defensive, tense. McCain certainly succeeded in proving that he can be aggressive, but the aggression came with a smirk and a sneer.
In terms of substance, there were no knockout blows. (I hate using the prizefight metaphor, which is the oldest cliché in the world, but unfortunately it’s the only metaphor approved for journalistic use in connection with a presidential debate. I don’t write the rules.) Both candidates got in numerous good lines and a couple of real zingers. McCain managed to cross the dangerous terrain of economic policy without suffering grievous harm, and Obama managed to surmount the foreign-policy toughness threshold. Voters who were leaning toward one or the other but wanted reassurance probably found it.
But we in the commentariat tend to forget that the electorate always, and I mean always, sees a presidential debate very differently from the way we see it. If you read the papers in the fall of 2000, for example, you learned that Al Gore wiped the floor with George Bush in their encounters -- but voters thought otherwise. Demeanor and body language have been important in every debate I can think of, so I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t be important in this one.
The candidate who projects affability and optimism is usually seen to have bettered the candidate who projects resentment and gloom. If that is the case with tonight’s debate, Obama won and McCain lost.
Here’s the politically incorrect way of phrasing one of the central questions about tonight’s presidential debate: Did John McCain come across as too much of a grumpy old man?
That might not be a nice question, but it’s an important one. Americans like to vote for the nice guy, not the grumbling prophet of doom. Throughout the 90-minute debate, McCain seemed contemptuous of Obama. He wouldn’t look at him. He tried to belittle him whenever possible -- how many times did he work “Senator Obama just doesn’t understand” into his answers? His body language was closed, defensive, tense. McCain certainly succeeded in proving that he can be aggressive, but the aggression came with a smirk and a sneer.
In terms of substance, there were no knockout blows. (I hate using the prizefight metaphor, which is the oldest cliché in the world, but unfortunately it’s the only metaphor approved for journalistic use in connection with a presidential debate. I don’t write the rules.) Both candidates got in numerous good lines and a couple of real zingers. McCain managed to cross the dangerous terrain of economic policy without suffering grievous harm, and Obama managed to surmount the foreign-policy toughness threshold. Voters who were leaning toward one or the other but wanted reassurance probably found it.
But we in the commentariat tend to forget that the electorate always, and I mean always, sees a presidential debate very differently from the way we see it. If you read the papers in the fall of 2000, for example, you learned that Al Gore wiped the floor with George Bush in their encounters -- but voters thought otherwise. Demeanor and body language have been important in every debate I can think of, so I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t be important in this one.
The candidate who projects affability and optimism is usually seen to have bettered the candidate who projects resentment and gloom. If that is the case with tonight’s debate, Obama won and McCain lost.
Heroes - TWO
Okay, episode dos of the season was on last night.
I wanted to sleep through it, but forced myself to stay awake. (let me tell you, having to get up at 5:30 am makes me want to go to bed at 7:00 pm)...
Anyways...yeah. So, now that I have 2 of these bad boys under my belt, I'm pretty sure I don't like it...but, nevertheless...
1. Niki/Tracy/Jessica (? what was the dead twin's name??): clones. that's right; not twins...clones. why she saw her in a mirror is a mystery that I am pretty positive will never be explained.
2. Again, where the FUCK is Kensei? I'm getting screwed over here...bastards.
3. They are trying to portray Hiro as "cute" -- he's not. He's just a bumbling moron. I know they're trying to juxtapose future Hiro and NOW Hiro...but he was smarter at the end of LAST season. Why is he regressing?? I want him deleted from the show ASAP.
4. Question: Why can't Peter, even though he's trapped in someone else's body, use his powers? I mean, he has like ALL of them...he can't figure this shit out?
5. Claire + her mother = dumb. I mean, let's be real here. We all liked Claire better when she was like the tortured teen. Her as the angry blonde isn't fitting for me. And the whole: I'm her REAL mom thing -- save it for Jerry Springer.
6. Sylar being Peter/Nathan's brother!?!?!? The crazy mom gave him up for adoption!?!?!?!?!? WHAT??????????? Oh my god....stop this now before it gets worse.
7. Micah is still butt-ugly. Just let your soooouuuuuulllllllll gloooooooowwwwww....
I wanted to sleep through it, but forced myself to stay awake. (let me tell you, having to get up at 5:30 am makes me want to go to bed at 7:00 pm)...
Anyways...yeah. So, now that I have 2 of these bad boys under my belt, I'm pretty sure I don't like it...but, nevertheless...
1. Niki/Tracy/Jessica (? what was the dead twin's name??): clones. that's right; not twins...clones. why she saw her in a mirror is a mystery that I am pretty positive will never be explained.
2. Again, where the FUCK is Kensei? I'm getting screwed over here...bastards.
3. They are trying to portray Hiro as "cute" -- he's not. He's just a bumbling moron. I know they're trying to juxtapose future Hiro and NOW Hiro...but he was smarter at the end of LAST season. Why is he regressing?? I want him deleted from the show ASAP.
4. Question: Why can't Peter, even though he's trapped in someone else's body, use his powers? I mean, he has like ALL of them...he can't figure this shit out?
5. Claire + her mother = dumb. I mean, let's be real here. We all liked Claire better when she was like the tortured teen. Her as the angry blonde isn't fitting for me. And the whole: I'm her REAL mom thing -- save it for Jerry Springer.
6. Sylar being Peter/Nathan's brother!?!?!? The crazy mom gave him up for adoption!?!?!?!?!? WHAT??????????? Oh my god....stop this now before it gets worse.
7. Micah is still butt-ugly. Just let your soooouuuuuulllllllll gloooooooowwwwww....
Monday, September 29, 2008
PSoftheD
By an ordinary citizen:
Dwaine Pope of Longview, Texas, said he is more concerned that the people involved in forging the solution are not up to the job and are too partisan too be trusted.
“The political structure of the U.S. government is too divided to provide an unselfish solution to the economic crisis,” he wrote. “(The parties) have a Hatfield vs. McCoy mentality. We need a true ‘non-partisan,’ ‘non-political’ group of citizens to find a cure.”
In closing, he sounded another theme that surfaced in many responses: “We are honest, hard working people and deserve better,” he wrote.
Dwaine Pope of Longview, Texas, said he is more concerned that the people involved in forging the solution are not up to the job and are too partisan too be trusted.
“The political structure of the U.S. government is too divided to provide an unselfish solution to the economic crisis,” he wrote. “(The parties) have a Hatfield vs. McCoy mentality. We need a true ‘non-partisan,’ ‘non-political’ group of citizens to find a cure.”
In closing, he sounded another theme that surfaced in many responses: “We are honest, hard working people and deserve better,” he wrote.
I thought McCain was Mr. Fix-it
The Bailout Bill That Nobody Likes
By Jay Newton-Small / Washington
Wanted: someone who will claim credit for saving the U.S. economy. With little fanfare and all the enthusiasm of a hangover, congressional leaders from both parties on Sunday unveiled a detailed agreement on legislation to bail out Wall Street. But no Presidential candidates were in sight, and few in Congress were doing much bragging about their handiwork.
Last week, jockeying for the title 'savior of the economy' seemed intense, with both candidates flying into Washington and overeager negotiators coming out with a premature victory announcement. But after dramatically suspending his campaign and asking to postpone last Friday's debate in order to deal with the financial crisis, John McCain kept a decidedly low profile in the final days of negotiations. His staff said McCain kept track of events by phone, keeping in touch with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and House Minority Leader John Boehner, and calling members on both sides of the aisle, urging them to support the deal. "I'm proud that we were able to get this done, and I'll give the credit to everybody else," McCain insisted on ABC's This Week Sunday morning.
Yet on Sunday it was hard to find anyone willing to take credit for the agreement. "This is the Administration's problem," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "They sent us their bill. We did the best we can to improve it."
"The American people are angry about the situation they find themselves in," said Rep. John Boehner, the conservative Republican whose objections sent negotiators back to the drawing board on Thursday, but who endorsed the agreement announced Sunday. "I've got to tell you my colleagues are angry about the situation they find themselves in. Nobody wants to have to support this bill."
Barack Obama seemed at least a little more upbeat. In a statement, he noted that all four principles he laid out last week — increased oversight, taxpayer protections, a provision limiting golden parachutes and measures to help homeowners — were included in the bill. But he added: "When taxpayers are asked to take such an extraordinary step because of the irresponsibility of a relative few, it is not a cause for celebration."
The 106-page bill gives Paulson the $700 billion he requested in a three-page proposal 10 days ago but divvies the money up: $250 billion immediately, another $100 billion upon request of the President; the rest, if and when it is needed, will require the approval of Congress. And the money comes with strings. Paulson must report back to Congress more often and transactions must be posted online within two days. The House is expected to take up the bill on Monday and the Senate aims to pass it by Wednesday.
Once the bill is signed into law, Paulson has many options open to him on how unclog the credit markets, which Senator Judd Gregg, the top negotiator on the bill for Senate Republicans, described as a massive car accident in the middle of the highway. The government must clear the accident away by buying the toxic debt so that normal traffic can flow freely. One avenue will be to do a reverse auction, where banks compete to sell the Treasury their bad paper, with the Treasury choosing the lowest offers. The Treasury may also directly negotiate with companies, though no one knows exactly how that will work.
After their McCain-backed White House rebellion last week, House Republicans won a few concessions in the compromise: they had funding for a controversial housing program taken out and a bankruptcy provision that they argued was a giveaway to trial lawyers removed. They also got the Treasury Department to establish a federally backed insurance program for the debt — an alternative solution that is easier on the taxpayers but more expensive for the already cash-strapped banks — though the Treasury would not be required to actually use the program and Paulson has expressed opposition to such a route.
The issue of executive compensation nearly blew up the bill in the final talks that for some staff went well past 3:30 a.m. Sunday morning. But a compromise was reached that places a tax on executive salaries and bonuses of $500,000 or more at companies where the Treasury has bought more than $300 million in assets at auction. For companies where the Treasury intervenes directly, a 20% surcharge on "golden parachutes" is instituted.
Ultimately, negotiators said, everyone left the table unhappy. "This is a classic 'orphan bill,'" said Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "A week after the vote, no one will claim parentage, and fingers will be pointed every which way. 'I held my nose and voted for it, lacking a good alternative,' will be the best anybody offers."
Certainly, the timing couldn't be much worse, with just 36 days to go before the elections. House Republicans are particularly exposed, with 29 retiring members, many of them in swing districts. House Republicans are also $50 million behind the Democrats in fundraising, and the Dems are already running commercials criticizing G.O.P. deregulation of the markets and efforts to privatize Social Security in six vulnerable districts, with many more coming.
But the candidate with the most riding on Monday's vote is McCain, who backed the concerns of conservatives in the House over the initial agreement. "John McCain stood up for House Republicans," said Rep. Spencer Bachus, an Alabama Republican who was involved in early negotiations. "He stood up to the Administration. John McCain vastly improved this bill."
But if a majority of the House Republicans don't vote for the measure, McCain could lose political face. "If McCain cannot persuade them, it is hard to portray him as a leader," said Clyde Wilcox, a political science professor at Georgetown University.
When asked if McCain would be hurt if the bill did not win a majority, Boehner Sunday night snapped, 'That's irrelevant." Since McCain "suspended" his campaign, the polls have been swinging Obama's way. McCain tied Obama in the Gallup and Rasmussen Daily tracking polls early last week, but Obama has since opened up his widest leads of the race in both surveys, ahead by 8 and 6 percentage points respectively. But even if most House Republicans wind up supporting the bill, the legislation is beginning to feel like the White Elephant every one is looking to give away.
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1845325,00.html
By Jay Newton-Small / Washington
Wanted: someone who will claim credit for saving the U.S. economy. With little fanfare and all the enthusiasm of a hangover, congressional leaders from both parties on Sunday unveiled a detailed agreement on legislation to bail out Wall Street. But no Presidential candidates were in sight, and few in Congress were doing much bragging about their handiwork.
Last week, jockeying for the title 'savior of the economy' seemed intense, with both candidates flying into Washington and overeager negotiators coming out with a premature victory announcement. But after dramatically suspending his campaign and asking to postpone last Friday's debate in order to deal with the financial crisis, John McCain kept a decidedly low profile in the final days of negotiations. His staff said McCain kept track of events by phone, keeping in touch with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and House Minority Leader John Boehner, and calling members on both sides of the aisle, urging them to support the deal. "I'm proud that we were able to get this done, and I'll give the credit to everybody else," McCain insisted on ABC's This Week Sunday morning.
Yet on Sunday it was hard to find anyone willing to take credit for the agreement. "This is the Administration's problem," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "They sent us their bill. We did the best we can to improve it."
"The American people are angry about the situation they find themselves in," said Rep. John Boehner, the conservative Republican whose objections sent negotiators back to the drawing board on Thursday, but who endorsed the agreement announced Sunday. "I've got to tell you my colleagues are angry about the situation they find themselves in. Nobody wants to have to support this bill."
Barack Obama seemed at least a little more upbeat. In a statement, he noted that all four principles he laid out last week — increased oversight, taxpayer protections, a provision limiting golden parachutes and measures to help homeowners — were included in the bill. But he added: "When taxpayers are asked to take such an extraordinary step because of the irresponsibility of a relative few, it is not a cause for celebration."
The 106-page bill gives Paulson the $700 billion he requested in a three-page proposal 10 days ago but divvies the money up: $250 billion immediately, another $100 billion upon request of the President; the rest, if and when it is needed, will require the approval of Congress. And the money comes with strings. Paulson must report back to Congress more often and transactions must be posted online within two days. The House is expected to take up the bill on Monday and the Senate aims to pass it by Wednesday.
Once the bill is signed into law, Paulson has many options open to him on how unclog the credit markets, which Senator Judd Gregg, the top negotiator on the bill for Senate Republicans, described as a massive car accident in the middle of the highway. The government must clear the accident away by buying the toxic debt so that normal traffic can flow freely. One avenue will be to do a reverse auction, where banks compete to sell the Treasury their bad paper, with the Treasury choosing the lowest offers. The Treasury may also directly negotiate with companies, though no one knows exactly how that will work.
After their McCain-backed White House rebellion last week, House Republicans won a few concessions in the compromise: they had funding for a controversial housing program taken out and a bankruptcy provision that they argued was a giveaway to trial lawyers removed. They also got the Treasury Department to establish a federally backed insurance program for the debt — an alternative solution that is easier on the taxpayers but more expensive for the already cash-strapped banks — though the Treasury would not be required to actually use the program and Paulson has expressed opposition to such a route.
The issue of executive compensation nearly blew up the bill in the final talks that for some staff went well past 3:30 a.m. Sunday morning. But a compromise was reached that places a tax on executive salaries and bonuses of $500,000 or more at companies where the Treasury has bought more than $300 million in assets at auction. For companies where the Treasury intervenes directly, a 20% surcharge on "golden parachutes" is instituted.
Ultimately, negotiators said, everyone left the table unhappy. "This is a classic 'orphan bill,'" said Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "A week after the vote, no one will claim parentage, and fingers will be pointed every which way. 'I held my nose and voted for it, lacking a good alternative,' will be the best anybody offers."
Certainly, the timing couldn't be much worse, with just 36 days to go before the elections. House Republicans are particularly exposed, with 29 retiring members, many of them in swing districts. House Republicans are also $50 million behind the Democrats in fundraising, and the Dems are already running commercials criticizing G.O.P. deregulation of the markets and efforts to privatize Social Security in six vulnerable districts, with many more coming.
But the candidate with the most riding on Monday's vote is McCain, who backed the concerns of conservatives in the House over the initial agreement. "John McCain stood up for House Republicans," said Rep. Spencer Bachus, an Alabama Republican who was involved in early negotiations. "He stood up to the Administration. John McCain vastly improved this bill."
But if a majority of the House Republicans don't vote for the measure, McCain could lose political face. "If McCain cannot persuade them, it is hard to portray him as a leader," said Clyde Wilcox, a political science professor at Georgetown University.
When asked if McCain would be hurt if the bill did not win a majority, Boehner Sunday night snapped, 'That's irrelevant." Since McCain "suspended" his campaign, the polls have been swinging Obama's way. McCain tied Obama in the Gallup and Rasmussen Daily tracking polls early last week, but Obama has since opened up his widest leads of the race in both surveys, ahead by 8 and 6 percentage points respectively. But even if most House Republicans wind up supporting the bill, the legislation is beginning to feel like the White Elephant every one is looking to give away.
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1845325,00.html
Bad Economy = Good Obamaness
Fineman: Bailout ushers in the era of Obama
OK, maybe he won’t win, but the country is moving to his economic view
By Howard Fineman
WASHINGTON - The Obama Administration began at midnight Sunday.
Okay, I exaggerate.
But I am trying to make a point.
Which is this: Even if Sen. Barack Obama loses the presidential election — and of course he may — the playing field of our politics now has shifted seismically in his philosophical direction.
The era of cowboy capitalism has died, largely of self-inflicted wounds. Who knows what’s coming now? I do: A new era of tight business regulation and government intervention in the markets.
For now, and perhaps for many years, there will be no going back.
The Rubicon was crossed this weekend, when the deal was struck for a $700 billion federal takeover of the carcass of Wall Street.
At that moment, the conservative era in America, which began with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, ended. It did so not with a bang, but with a whimper — a cry of help from erstwhile Masters of the Universe who suddenly feared for their platinum-level lives.
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson could hear those cries because, until two years ago, he was a Master himself.
For decades, conservatives had fought — in very good conscience — to unshackle free enterprise from the grip of statist thinking, the kind of thinking represented at its most suffocating by communism. It was a worthy fight; Hayek was right: the “road to serfdom” lies in the idea that The State is the answer to everything.
But Wall Street and Washington (especially the hacks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) produced, in addition to colossal profits, a farrago of greed unseen since the Roaring Twenties, which was the last time, by the way, that the gulf between the rich and poor was as wide as it is today.
That party is over.
If Obama does win, it will be because of the economic crisis now upon us, of which the bailout it the capstone and political symbol.
The crisis has had two pro-Obama effects.
For one, it yanked the national consciousness away from security and terrorism, Sen. John McCain’s two strongest areas of expertise and appeal.
Second, the crisis underscored and amplified the yearning in the country for something — and someone — new. Voters have been saying for more than a year that they change before. Now they REALLY want it.
Suddenly, “experience” and purported expertise mean next to nothing. After all, Dick Cheney was “experienced,” and what did that get us? And George W. Bush had an MBA for Harvard! And what did that get us?
Cheney and Bush have given credentials a bad name. If that is the case, why not go for a fellow who by virtue of his very being represents change: a new generation, a new demographic, a new outlook?
And Obama does represent something new — or, rather, something old that is new again. He believes it is the role of government to help people and regulate the markets. He is a lawyer by training, and believes in the use of the law (and the courts) for the common good. He doesn’t, frankly, know much about economics or the profits — those were not his specialties in law or life.
He’s a law professor and community organizer! Those are two categories it has been fashionable for conservatives to revile for decades. Well, perhaps the wheel turns.
It’s no coincidence that Obama now has his biggest lead in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll. Watch and see what happens now.
In fairness, Democrats (the “soft money” hedge-fund crowd of the Clinton 90s and the party hacks who got rich at Fannie and Freddie) are as guilty as the Bush-era Republicans (who argued against ANY regulation of anything).
But, as the Kennedys liked to say, life isn’t fair — and neither is politics.
McCain is desperately trying to show that he, too, is willing to blame Republicans, but the more he does so the deeper he digs himself into a hole. The senator was right when he labeled Chris Cox, the chairman of the SEC, one of the culprits. Cox should have had the decency to resign. But the fact that McCain was right about Cox just proves the point. It was Bush, who nominated all three horsemen of the apocalypse — Cox, Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Politics is like baseball. If your team loses, you remember who struck out in the ninth inning, not who struck out in the fourth.
And we’re in the ninth.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26933982/
OK, maybe he won’t win, but the country is moving to his economic view
By Howard Fineman
WASHINGTON - The Obama Administration began at midnight Sunday.
Okay, I exaggerate.
But I am trying to make a point.
Which is this: Even if Sen. Barack Obama loses the presidential election — and of course he may — the playing field of our politics now has shifted seismically in his philosophical direction.
The era of cowboy capitalism has died, largely of self-inflicted wounds. Who knows what’s coming now? I do: A new era of tight business regulation and government intervention in the markets.
For now, and perhaps for many years, there will be no going back.
The Rubicon was crossed this weekend, when the deal was struck for a $700 billion federal takeover of the carcass of Wall Street.
At that moment, the conservative era in America, which began with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, ended. It did so not with a bang, but with a whimper — a cry of help from erstwhile Masters of the Universe who suddenly feared for their platinum-level lives.
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson could hear those cries because, until two years ago, he was a Master himself.
For decades, conservatives had fought — in very good conscience — to unshackle free enterprise from the grip of statist thinking, the kind of thinking represented at its most suffocating by communism. It was a worthy fight; Hayek was right: the “road to serfdom” lies in the idea that The State is the answer to everything.
But Wall Street and Washington (especially the hacks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) produced, in addition to colossal profits, a farrago of greed unseen since the Roaring Twenties, which was the last time, by the way, that the gulf between the rich and poor was as wide as it is today.
That party is over.
If Obama does win, it will be because of the economic crisis now upon us, of which the bailout it the capstone and political symbol.
The crisis has had two pro-Obama effects.
For one, it yanked the national consciousness away from security and terrorism, Sen. John McCain’s two strongest areas of expertise and appeal.
Second, the crisis underscored and amplified the yearning in the country for something — and someone — new. Voters have been saying for more than a year that they change before. Now they REALLY want it.
Suddenly, “experience” and purported expertise mean next to nothing. After all, Dick Cheney was “experienced,” and what did that get us? And George W. Bush had an MBA for Harvard! And what did that get us?
Cheney and Bush have given credentials a bad name. If that is the case, why not go for a fellow who by virtue of his very being represents change: a new generation, a new demographic, a new outlook?
And Obama does represent something new — or, rather, something old that is new again. He believes it is the role of government to help people and regulate the markets. He is a lawyer by training, and believes in the use of the law (and the courts) for the common good. He doesn’t, frankly, know much about economics or the profits — those were not his specialties in law or life.
He’s a law professor and community organizer! Those are two categories it has been fashionable for conservatives to revile for decades. Well, perhaps the wheel turns.
It’s no coincidence that Obama now has his biggest lead in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll. Watch and see what happens now.
In fairness, Democrats (the “soft money” hedge-fund crowd of the Clinton 90s and the party hacks who got rich at Fannie and Freddie) are as guilty as the Bush-era Republicans (who argued against ANY regulation of anything).
But, as the Kennedys liked to say, life isn’t fair — and neither is politics.
McCain is desperately trying to show that he, too, is willing to blame Republicans, but the more he does so the deeper he digs himself into a hole. The senator was right when he labeled Chris Cox, the chairman of the SEC, one of the culprits. Cox should have had the decency to resign. But the fact that McCain was right about Cox just proves the point. It was Bush, who nominated all three horsemen of the apocalypse — Cox, Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Politics is like baseball. If your team loses, you remember who struck out in the ninth inning, not who struck out in the fourth.
And we’re in the ninth.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26933982/
Who thought this would work???
Consumer spending slows as stimulus fades
August report was weakest in six months, shows threat to economy
WASHINGTON - Consumer spending in August turned in the weakest performance in six months, underscoring the threat the economy faces as the government's stimulus program fades into the past.
The Commerce Department reported Monday that consumer spending was unchanged in August, even worse than the small 0.2 percent gain economists had expected. It was the weakest showing since spending was also flat in February.
Personal incomes were up a better-than-expected 0.5 percent, a rebound after a 0.6 percent drop in July. After-tax incomes, which felt the impact of the stimulus program to a greater extent, dropped by 0.9 percent, however.
The data were released as the House prepared to vote on a $700 billion bailout of the financial system. The compromise packaged, hashed out in marathon meetings by lawmakers over the weekend, would be the largest financial system rescue since the Great Depression. It is aimed at buying up soured mortgage-related assets from banks in the hope that would pry open credit markets, get lending flowing again and jump-start the economy.
The government pumped out the bulk of $92 billion in stimulus payments from late April through mid-July. Another $1 billion in payments were made in August but this was far below the monthly peak of $48.1 billion in payments made in May.
Analysts are concerned the economy could falter now that the government's stimulus payments have ended. Democrats have pushed for a second stimulus program. The Bush administration, worried about the impact of the stimulus on the budget deficit, has resisted that effort.
The overall economy grew at an annual rate of 2.8 percent in the April-June quarter, bolstered by the stimulus payments.
But economists noted that consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of total economic activity, has slowed markedly in the current July-September quarter. Some analysts believe consumer spending will decline for the entire quarter, the first time that has occurred since 1991.
Many analysts believe the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will slow to growth of around 1.5 percent in the current quarter and will turn negative in the final three months of this year and the first quarter of 2009, meeting the classic definition of a recession.
There is a growing expectation that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at its next meeting on Oct. 28-29, in an effort to prop up the economy as spending sags.
In addition to the winding down of the stimulus program, consumers have been hurt by the huge upheavals that are occurring as Wall Street undergoes its biggest restructuring since the 1930s. In the latest move, Citigroup Inc. announced Monday it was acquiring the banking operations of Wachovia Corp. in a deal facilitated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
The report on personal spending and incomes showed that a price gauge tied to consumer spending was unchanged in August while prices, excluding energy and food, rose by 0.2 percent.
Excluding energy and food, core prices are up by 2.6 percent over the past year, the biggest increase since a similar 2.6 percent rise in the 12 months ending in January 1995.
Economists believe that the Fed will discount this jump in inflation when they meet at the end of October to debate their next move on interest rates, given that most signs indicate that inflation pressures are peaking and starting to abate.
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26940695/
August report was weakest in six months, shows threat to economy
WASHINGTON - Consumer spending in August turned in the weakest performance in six months, underscoring the threat the economy faces as the government's stimulus program fades into the past.
The Commerce Department reported Monday that consumer spending was unchanged in August, even worse than the small 0.2 percent gain economists had expected. It was the weakest showing since spending was also flat in February.
Personal incomes were up a better-than-expected 0.5 percent, a rebound after a 0.6 percent drop in July. After-tax incomes, which felt the impact of the stimulus program to a greater extent, dropped by 0.9 percent, however.
The data were released as the House prepared to vote on a $700 billion bailout of the financial system. The compromise packaged, hashed out in marathon meetings by lawmakers over the weekend, would be the largest financial system rescue since the Great Depression. It is aimed at buying up soured mortgage-related assets from banks in the hope that would pry open credit markets, get lending flowing again and jump-start the economy.
The government pumped out the bulk of $92 billion in stimulus payments from late April through mid-July. Another $1 billion in payments were made in August but this was far below the monthly peak of $48.1 billion in payments made in May.
Analysts are concerned the economy could falter now that the government's stimulus payments have ended. Democrats have pushed for a second stimulus program. The Bush administration, worried about the impact of the stimulus on the budget deficit, has resisted that effort.
The overall economy grew at an annual rate of 2.8 percent in the April-June quarter, bolstered by the stimulus payments.
But economists noted that consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of total economic activity, has slowed markedly in the current July-September quarter. Some analysts believe consumer spending will decline for the entire quarter, the first time that has occurred since 1991.
Many analysts believe the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will slow to growth of around 1.5 percent in the current quarter and will turn negative in the final three months of this year and the first quarter of 2009, meeting the classic definition of a recession.
There is a growing expectation that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at its next meeting on Oct. 28-29, in an effort to prop up the economy as spending sags.
In addition to the winding down of the stimulus program, consumers have been hurt by the huge upheavals that are occurring as Wall Street undergoes its biggest restructuring since the 1930s. In the latest move, Citigroup Inc. announced Monday it was acquiring the banking operations of Wachovia Corp. in a deal facilitated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
The report on personal spending and incomes showed that a price gauge tied to consumer spending was unchanged in August while prices, excluding energy and food, rose by 0.2 percent.
Excluding energy and food, core prices are up by 2.6 percent over the past year, the biggest increase since a similar 2.6 percent rise in the 12 months ending in January 1995.
Economists believe that the Fed will discount this jump in inflation when they meet at the end of October to debate their next move on interest rates, given that most signs indicate that inflation pressures are peaking and starting to abate.
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26940695/
Pic(k) of the Day
also courtesy of jessica, from the obama rally in detroit yesterday; our vantage point.
Best line of the night...
"What's the difference between Friday's campaign and the one next week? ... LIPSTICK." -- Jessica (amazing...)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Fiesty...
5 feisty presidential daughters
President Harding's illegitimate daughter was conceived on couch in Senate office
Review of Harry Truman's daughter prompted presidential threat against reporter
President Taylor's daughter married future president of an enemy power
Woodrow Wilson's daughter followed a guru to India
There have been presidential daughters almost as long as there have been presidents. (George Washington had no children.)
What these women did -- both under the influence of and independent from their influential fathers -- make fascinating stories. Here are five you might not have heard:
1. Sarah Knox Taylor Davis
She packed a lot of drama into her 21 years. The second daughter of future U.S. President Zachary Taylor, Sarah also was the first wife of future Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
Her parents gave her the middle name Knox after Fort Knox, in pre-state Indiana, where her military father was stationed and where she was born in 1813 or 1814. Sarah was often called Knox or Knoxie.
The life of an army brat was certainly more dangerous in the early 19th century. During Taylor's posting in Louisiana, Sarah and her two sisters came down with "bilious fever," now thought to be malaria. Sarah survived, but her older and younger sisters died.
The Taylors were stationed at Fort Crawford (now Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin) in 1832, when Sarah met and fell in love with a young officer named Jefferson Davis. Zachary Taylor opposed the relationship, and accounts vary as to why --because he didn't want his daughter to continue to be exposed to the hardships of army life, or because he and Davis didn't get along. Or both.
Davis was transferred, so he and Sarah conducted a long-distance relationship for two years. They even planned their wedding by mail. The ceremony took place in June 1835, in Louisville, Kentucky. Sarah's parents did not attend. Once again there is disagreement over why they were absent.
The newlyweds immediately headed south, and they visited Davis's relatives in Louisiana. Sarah, mindful of the family tragedy the last time the Taylors traveled those parts, wrote home, "Do not make yourself uneasy about me, the country is quite healthy."
But while staying with Davis's oldest sister at "Locust Grove" in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, the couple fell ill with malaria. Jefferson Davis recovered, but Sarah died, barely three months into her marriage.
2. Elizabeth Harrison Walker
Her life straddled the Gilded Age of her father, President Benjamin Harrison, and the Television Age, when accomplished women were just beginning to enter in numbers into the mainstream of public life.
Elizabeth was born in 1897, four years after her father left office. A widower with two children by his first wife, Harrison had married Mary Scott Lord Dimmick, and Elizabeth was the couple's only child. She was just 4 when her father, the last of the bearded presidents, passed away.
If Elizabeth's dynastic 1921 marriage to James Blaine Walker -- grandnephew of her father's secretary of state and onetime Republican presidential nominee James G. Blaine -- was conventional, much of the rest of her life was not. By the time of her wedding, she had received several academic degrees, including a law degree from New York University Law School, and was admitted to the bar in New York and Indiana at age 22.
After her marriage, she began publishing a monthly newsletter, "Cues on the News." Geared toward women, it offered economic and investment tips, and was distributed nationally by banks. Her expertise led to appearances on radio and, later, television, where she spoke on economic issues pertaining to women. She died in 1955, at the age of 58.
3. Margaret Woodrow Wilson
Thirty years before the Beatles went to India to sample and popularize its spiritual wonders, another musician and political activist, Margaret Woodrow Wilson, had already been. It was the final chapter in the peripatetic life of the eldest of President Woodrow Wilson's three daughters.
Margaret was born in 1886, in Gainesville, Georgia. During her father's presidency, both of Margaret's sisters had White House weddings. So when their mother died in 1914, it fell to the unmarried eldest Wilson sister to become White House hostess. The president's remarriage a year later allowed Margaret to pursue her passion -- music.
She studied piano and voice at the Peabody Institute of Music in Baltimore. In 1915, she made her singing debut with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, in Syracuse, New York. During World War I, she gave recitals that benefited the Red Cross and performed at Army camps. In 1918, she began nearly a year's stay in France, singing before Allied troops. The experience led to a breakdown, the loss of her singing voice, and the end of her musical career.
With the war over and women gaining the right to vote, Margaret became an advocate of a style of local participatory democracy in which neighborhood schools would become community centers. The annual $2,500 stipend bequeathed by her father upon his death in 1924 was not enough for her live on, so Margaret entered the advertising business. A speculation in oil stocks went sour, and as the 1920s ended, she ceased being a public figure.
In the 1930s she discovered the writings of Sri Aurobindo, a contemporary of Mahatma Gandhi's, whose philosophy for ending foreign rule in India was grounded in yoga and meditation. Eventually she followed her guru east. When a New York Times reporter found Margaret in Aurobindo's ashram in Pondicherry, India, in 1943, she had been living there four years. At the ashram she was known as Dishta. She died there in 1944 at the age of 57 of uremic poisoning.
4. Elizabeth Ann Christian Blaesing
Probably the only advantage to being the child of one of America's worst presidents was not having his last name. Warren G. Harding had no children with his wife, but a married man with two mistresses is bound to leave a legacy.
Elizabeth Ann was the daughter of Nan Britton, who as a teenager began a six-year affair with Harding, which lasted until his death in 1923. Elizabeth Ann was conceived on a couch in Harding's Senate office and was born in 1919. On the birth certificate, Britton wrote Christian as the baby's last name.
Until his inauguration in 1921, Harding made child-care payments to Britton in person, but always refused to meet Elizabeth Ann. After he entered the White House, Secret Service agents delivered the payments. But when Harding died, the money stopped.
In 1927, after Harding's widow refused to continue child support, Britton published The President's Daughter. The tell-all book became a bestseller. As the years passed, the story of Nan Britton and the president's "love child" faded, along with memories of Harding's inept presidency.
As an infant, Elizabeth Ann was adopted by Britton's sister and brother-in-law for the sake of appearances. As an adult, she married Henry Blaesing. They lived quietly in Glendale, California, and raised three sons.
Elizabeth Ann gave one of her first interviews, to The New York Times, in 1964. In it she revealed that her mother was living secretly nearby. Nan Britton died in 1991, "evidently so forgotten by history that no obituary was published," the Los Angeles Times later wrote. Elizabeth Ann died in 2005.
5. Margaret Truman Daniel
The helicopter parent is nothing new. But that pesky parental hovering can whip up a lot of dust when Dad is straight-talking President Harry S Truman.
Born in 1924, Margaret was Harry and Bess Truman's only child. Like Margaret Wilson, she began her career as a singer. She was studying history and international relations at George Washington University when her father became vice president in January 1945. Less than three months later, Franklin Roosevelt died and Harry Truman became the 33rd president.
After intensive musical training, Margaret made her singing debut in 1947 with the Detroit Symphony Orchestra on a nationally broadcast radio program. She began touring the country, appeared on radio and television, and signed a recording contract.
Then came her infamous 1950 concert in Washington, D.C.'s Constitution Hall, in which her father played a role perhaps larger than hers.
"Paul Hume, the music critic of The Washington Post, while praising her personality, said that 'she cannot sing very well,' added that 'she is flat a good deal of the time' and concluded that she had no 'professional finish,' " The New York Times recalled at the time of Margaret's death last January.
"Incensed, President Truman dispatched a combative note to Mr. Hume, who released it to the press... It said, in part, 'I have just read your lousy review . . . I have never met you, but if I do, you'll need a new nose.'"
The episode didn't seem to impact her career, but her professional singing days were numbered anyway. Margaret would become a radio and television personality, co-hosting the 1950s radio program, "Weekday," with Mike Wallace. She acted in summer stock. And in 1956 she married New York Times editor Clifton Daniel, with whom she had three sons.
But Margaret still had other media to conquer. She became a prolific author, writing several non-fiction books, including biographies of her parents. And she penned 13 mystery novels, beginning with "Murder in the White House."
Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/09/25/mf.presidential.daughters/index.html
President Harding's illegitimate daughter was conceived on couch in Senate office
Review of Harry Truman's daughter prompted presidential threat against reporter
President Taylor's daughter married future president of an enemy power
Woodrow Wilson's daughter followed a guru to India
There have been presidential daughters almost as long as there have been presidents. (George Washington had no children.)
What these women did -- both under the influence of and independent from their influential fathers -- make fascinating stories. Here are five you might not have heard:
1. Sarah Knox Taylor Davis
She packed a lot of drama into her 21 years. The second daughter of future U.S. President Zachary Taylor, Sarah also was the first wife of future Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
Her parents gave her the middle name Knox after Fort Knox, in pre-state Indiana, where her military father was stationed and where she was born in 1813 or 1814. Sarah was often called Knox or Knoxie.
The life of an army brat was certainly more dangerous in the early 19th century. During Taylor's posting in Louisiana, Sarah and her two sisters came down with "bilious fever," now thought to be malaria. Sarah survived, but her older and younger sisters died.
The Taylors were stationed at Fort Crawford (now Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin) in 1832, when Sarah met and fell in love with a young officer named Jefferson Davis. Zachary Taylor opposed the relationship, and accounts vary as to why --because he didn't want his daughter to continue to be exposed to the hardships of army life, or because he and Davis didn't get along. Or both.
Davis was transferred, so he and Sarah conducted a long-distance relationship for two years. They even planned their wedding by mail. The ceremony took place in June 1835, in Louisville, Kentucky. Sarah's parents did not attend. Once again there is disagreement over why they were absent.
The newlyweds immediately headed south, and they visited Davis's relatives in Louisiana. Sarah, mindful of the family tragedy the last time the Taylors traveled those parts, wrote home, "Do not make yourself uneasy about me, the country is quite healthy."
But while staying with Davis's oldest sister at "Locust Grove" in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, the couple fell ill with malaria. Jefferson Davis recovered, but Sarah died, barely three months into her marriage.
2. Elizabeth Harrison Walker
Her life straddled the Gilded Age of her father, President Benjamin Harrison, and the Television Age, when accomplished women were just beginning to enter in numbers into the mainstream of public life.
Elizabeth was born in 1897, four years after her father left office. A widower with two children by his first wife, Harrison had married Mary Scott Lord Dimmick, and Elizabeth was the couple's only child. She was just 4 when her father, the last of the bearded presidents, passed away.
If Elizabeth's dynastic 1921 marriage to James Blaine Walker -- grandnephew of her father's secretary of state and onetime Republican presidential nominee James G. Blaine -- was conventional, much of the rest of her life was not. By the time of her wedding, she had received several academic degrees, including a law degree from New York University Law School, and was admitted to the bar in New York and Indiana at age 22.
After her marriage, she began publishing a monthly newsletter, "Cues on the News." Geared toward women, it offered economic and investment tips, and was distributed nationally by banks. Her expertise led to appearances on radio and, later, television, where she spoke on economic issues pertaining to women. She died in 1955, at the age of 58.
3. Margaret Woodrow Wilson
Thirty years before the Beatles went to India to sample and popularize its spiritual wonders, another musician and political activist, Margaret Woodrow Wilson, had already been. It was the final chapter in the peripatetic life of the eldest of President Woodrow Wilson's three daughters.
Margaret was born in 1886, in Gainesville, Georgia. During her father's presidency, both of Margaret's sisters had White House weddings. So when their mother died in 1914, it fell to the unmarried eldest Wilson sister to become White House hostess. The president's remarriage a year later allowed Margaret to pursue her passion -- music.
She studied piano and voice at the Peabody Institute of Music in Baltimore. In 1915, she made her singing debut with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, in Syracuse, New York. During World War I, she gave recitals that benefited the Red Cross and performed at Army camps. In 1918, she began nearly a year's stay in France, singing before Allied troops. The experience led to a breakdown, the loss of her singing voice, and the end of her musical career.
With the war over and women gaining the right to vote, Margaret became an advocate of a style of local participatory democracy in which neighborhood schools would become community centers. The annual $2,500 stipend bequeathed by her father upon his death in 1924 was not enough for her live on, so Margaret entered the advertising business. A speculation in oil stocks went sour, and as the 1920s ended, she ceased being a public figure.
In the 1930s she discovered the writings of Sri Aurobindo, a contemporary of Mahatma Gandhi's, whose philosophy for ending foreign rule in India was grounded in yoga and meditation. Eventually she followed her guru east. When a New York Times reporter found Margaret in Aurobindo's ashram in Pondicherry, India, in 1943, she had been living there four years. At the ashram she was known as Dishta. She died there in 1944 at the age of 57 of uremic poisoning.
4. Elizabeth Ann Christian Blaesing
Probably the only advantage to being the child of one of America's worst presidents was not having his last name. Warren G. Harding had no children with his wife, but a married man with two mistresses is bound to leave a legacy.
Elizabeth Ann was the daughter of Nan Britton, who as a teenager began a six-year affair with Harding, which lasted until his death in 1923. Elizabeth Ann was conceived on a couch in Harding's Senate office and was born in 1919. On the birth certificate, Britton wrote Christian as the baby's last name.
Until his inauguration in 1921, Harding made child-care payments to Britton in person, but always refused to meet Elizabeth Ann. After he entered the White House, Secret Service agents delivered the payments. But when Harding died, the money stopped.
In 1927, after Harding's widow refused to continue child support, Britton published The President's Daughter. The tell-all book became a bestseller. As the years passed, the story of Nan Britton and the president's "love child" faded, along with memories of Harding's inept presidency.
As an infant, Elizabeth Ann was adopted by Britton's sister and brother-in-law for the sake of appearances. As an adult, she married Henry Blaesing. They lived quietly in Glendale, California, and raised three sons.
Elizabeth Ann gave one of her first interviews, to The New York Times, in 1964. In it she revealed that her mother was living secretly nearby. Nan Britton died in 1991, "evidently so forgotten by history that no obituary was published," the Los Angeles Times later wrote. Elizabeth Ann died in 2005.
5. Margaret Truman Daniel
The helicopter parent is nothing new. But that pesky parental hovering can whip up a lot of dust when Dad is straight-talking President Harry S Truman.
Born in 1924, Margaret was Harry and Bess Truman's only child. Like Margaret Wilson, she began her career as a singer. She was studying history and international relations at George Washington University when her father became vice president in January 1945. Less than three months later, Franklin Roosevelt died and Harry Truman became the 33rd president.
After intensive musical training, Margaret made her singing debut in 1947 with the Detroit Symphony Orchestra on a nationally broadcast radio program. She began touring the country, appeared on radio and television, and signed a recording contract.
Then came her infamous 1950 concert in Washington, D.C.'s Constitution Hall, in which her father played a role perhaps larger than hers.
"Paul Hume, the music critic of The Washington Post, while praising her personality, said that 'she cannot sing very well,' added that 'she is flat a good deal of the time' and concluded that she had no 'professional finish,' " The New York Times recalled at the time of Margaret's death last January.
"Incensed, President Truman dispatched a combative note to Mr. Hume, who released it to the press... It said, in part, 'I have just read your lousy review . . . I have never met you, but if I do, you'll need a new nose.'"
The episode didn't seem to impact her career, but her professional singing days were numbered anyway. Margaret would become a radio and television personality, co-hosting the 1950s radio program, "Weekday," with Mike Wallace. She acted in summer stock. And in 1956 she married New York Times editor Clifton Daniel, with whom she had three sons.
But Margaret still had other media to conquer. She became a prolific author, writing several non-fiction books, including biographies of her parents. And she penned 13 mystery novels, beginning with "Murder in the White House."
Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/09/25/mf.presidential.daughters/index.html
DejaVu (courtesy of DailyKos)
McCain Avoiding The Debate? It's Happened Before
Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:25:02 PM PDT
With his poll numbers tanking, John McCain wants to pull out of the presidential debate. No, I'm not talking about tomorrow's debate with Barack Obama.
With new polls showing his campaign dead in the water among California Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain has pulled out of a long-scheduled debate with Texas Gov. George Bush, set for Thursday in Los Angeles.
McCain campaign officials tried desperately yesterday to put the best face on their withdrawal, even as a new Field Poll showed Bush far ahead among likely Republican voters in the winner-take-all race for the state's 162 GOP delegates. [...]
The bait and switch on the debate left the Arizona senator -- whose favorite campaign line is "I'll always tell you the truth'' -- wide open to blistering criticism from his rivals.
"Clearly, this is more double-talk from the McCain campaign,'' said Alixe Mattingly, a spokeswoman for Bush. "Pulling out of this debate at the last minute is an indication that they're pulling out of California, where McCain's antagonistic message clearly isn't working.''
And clearly, John McCain has a habit of trying to cut and run when things aren't going his way.
Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:25:02 PM PDT
With his poll numbers tanking, John McCain wants to pull out of the presidential debate. No, I'm not talking about tomorrow's debate with Barack Obama.
With new polls showing his campaign dead in the water among California Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain has pulled out of a long-scheduled debate with Texas Gov. George Bush, set for Thursday in Los Angeles.
McCain campaign officials tried desperately yesterday to put the best face on their withdrawal, even as a new Field Poll showed Bush far ahead among likely Republican voters in the winner-take-all race for the state's 162 GOP delegates. [...]
The bait and switch on the debate left the Arizona senator -- whose favorite campaign line is "I'll always tell you the truth'' -- wide open to blistering criticism from his rivals.
"Clearly, this is more double-talk from the McCain campaign,'' said Alixe Mattingly, a spokeswoman for Bush. "Pulling out of this debate at the last minute is an indication that they're pulling out of California, where McCain's antagonistic message clearly isn't working.''
And clearly, John McCain has a habit of trying to cut and run when things aren't going his way.
Voting at 16??? Makes sense to me.
Austria allowing 16-year-olds to vote
First EU member to give voice to teens this young in national elections
The Associated Press
VIENNA, Austria - For her birthday, Nina Stanke gets 16 candles — and one vote.
Austria makes history in the European Union on Sunday by becoming the first member of the 27-nation bloc to give 16-year-olds a voice in national elections. And Stanke, one of up to 200,000 eligible Austrian teenagers, isn't about to pass up this opportunity.
"Yes, I'm going to vote," Stanke, who turned 16 just this week, said on a recent afternoon as she chatted with friends outside her school in central Vienna.
Stanke has a slew of choices.
Following the collapse in July of the governing coalition between the center-left Social Democrats and the center-right People's Party, 10 parties have said they want to take a stab at ruling the Alpine republic. But only about half have a realistic chance of actually making it into parliament, where 183 seats are up for grabs.
The latest polls, without specifying a margin of error, show the Social Democrats clinging to a three point lead over the People's Party in their quest for the top spot. The far-right Freedom Party is expected to come in a resounding third. The Greens and the far-right Alliance for the Future of Austria are also expected to make it.
Candidate: 'Change the world'
With a tight race predicted at the top, the two main parties are flirting with first-time voters and — to some extent — making an effort to cater to a younger crowd.
For the Social Democrats, 27-year-old Laura Rudas — who is ranked fourth on the party's list of candidates — is doing most of the reaching out.
"During this election, it could be decisive ... every vote counts," she said.
Rudas, who has held a seat in parliament since January 2007, says she considers it her role to show young people that "politics can change the world."
With her trendy leather jacket and tight jeans, Rudas doesn't quite fit the picture of a politician.
Neither does her same-aged counterpart at the People's Party, Silvia Fuhrmann.
"How this clientele votes won't be decisive but is still important," Fuhrmann said.
Little impact
Fuhrmann, also a member of parliament, said the People's Party agreed to lower the voting change for demographic reasons, noting that Austrian society, like others in Europe, is growing older.
Experts say that's exactly why teenagers won't have much of an impact on Sunday.
"The 2008 parliamentary elections are predominantly going to be decided by people over the age of 50," said Ferdinand Karlhofer, head of the University of Innsbruck's political science department.
Christoph Hofinger, co-director of the Vienna-based SORA Institute for Social Research and Analysis, agrees.
"They will be about two and a half to three percent of the entire electorate and so their influence on the results is going to be small," Hofinger said.
Giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote is helping to maintain the balance between the generations but the core of the messages from the parties focuses more on middle aged and elderly voters, he said.
Still, it seems unlikely that Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of the far-right Freedom Party, came up with a rap song — Viva HC — to sell his anti-foreigner message to seniors.
Who benefits?
Lowering the voting age came about as a political compromise between the Social Democrats and the People's Party, who wanted to give citizens living in the country the option to vote by absentee ballot. In the end, both became law.
Other nations that allow voting at 16 include Brazil, Cuba, Nicaragua and the Isle of Man, a British dependency in the Irish Sea.
Peter Filzmaier, one of Austria's most respected political commentators, said the Greens would likely benefit most from the young, first-time voters.
Austrian 16-year-olds have already been able to vote in some local elections. The same is true in other places, including neighboring Germany.
Walter Holub, director of a high school in Vienna, says interest in politics varies widely among the teenagers he supervises.
"A large majority still appears to be rather indifferent," Holub said.
First EU member to give voice to teens this young in national elections
The Associated Press
VIENNA, Austria - For her birthday, Nina Stanke gets 16 candles — and one vote.
Austria makes history in the European Union on Sunday by becoming the first member of the 27-nation bloc to give 16-year-olds a voice in national elections. And Stanke, one of up to 200,000 eligible Austrian teenagers, isn't about to pass up this opportunity.
"Yes, I'm going to vote," Stanke, who turned 16 just this week, said on a recent afternoon as she chatted with friends outside her school in central Vienna.
Stanke has a slew of choices.
Following the collapse in July of the governing coalition between the center-left Social Democrats and the center-right People's Party, 10 parties have said they want to take a stab at ruling the Alpine republic. But only about half have a realistic chance of actually making it into parliament, where 183 seats are up for grabs.
The latest polls, without specifying a margin of error, show the Social Democrats clinging to a three point lead over the People's Party in their quest for the top spot. The far-right Freedom Party is expected to come in a resounding third. The Greens and the far-right Alliance for the Future of Austria are also expected to make it.
Candidate: 'Change the world'
With a tight race predicted at the top, the two main parties are flirting with first-time voters and — to some extent — making an effort to cater to a younger crowd.
For the Social Democrats, 27-year-old Laura Rudas — who is ranked fourth on the party's list of candidates — is doing most of the reaching out.
"During this election, it could be decisive ... every vote counts," she said.
Rudas, who has held a seat in parliament since January 2007, says she considers it her role to show young people that "politics can change the world."
With her trendy leather jacket and tight jeans, Rudas doesn't quite fit the picture of a politician.
Neither does her same-aged counterpart at the People's Party, Silvia Fuhrmann.
"How this clientele votes won't be decisive but is still important," Fuhrmann said.
Little impact
Fuhrmann, also a member of parliament, said the People's Party agreed to lower the voting change for demographic reasons, noting that Austrian society, like others in Europe, is growing older.
Experts say that's exactly why teenagers won't have much of an impact on Sunday.
"The 2008 parliamentary elections are predominantly going to be decided by people over the age of 50," said Ferdinand Karlhofer, head of the University of Innsbruck's political science department.
Christoph Hofinger, co-director of the Vienna-based SORA Institute for Social Research and Analysis, agrees.
"They will be about two and a half to three percent of the entire electorate and so their influence on the results is going to be small," Hofinger said.
Giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote is helping to maintain the balance between the generations but the core of the messages from the parties focuses more on middle aged and elderly voters, he said.
Still, it seems unlikely that Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of the far-right Freedom Party, came up with a rap song — Viva HC — to sell his anti-foreigner message to seniors.
Who benefits?
Lowering the voting age came about as a political compromise between the Social Democrats and the People's Party, who wanted to give citizens living in the country the option to vote by absentee ballot. In the end, both became law.
Other nations that allow voting at 16 include Brazil, Cuba, Nicaragua and the Isle of Man, a British dependency in the Irish Sea.
Peter Filzmaier, one of Austria's most respected political commentators, said the Greens would likely benefit most from the young, first-time voters.
Austrian 16-year-olds have already been able to vote in some local elections. The same is true in other places, including neighboring Germany.
Walter Holub, director of a high school in Vienna, says interest in politics varies widely among the teenagers he supervises.
"A large majority still appears to be rather indifferent," Holub said.
McCain disses Letterman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E
I was watching Keith Olbermann last night (as a good little liberal would do), and heard about what Letterman said and how pissed he was that McCain didn't show up. Marvelous...just keep screwing up, Johnny boy.
Surprise, Surprise
McCain camp to propose postponing VP debate
Biden and Palin are set to debate October 2.
(CNN) — McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there's no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.
In this scenario, the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be rescheduled for a date yet to be determined, and take place in Oxford, Mississippi, currently slated to be the site of the first presidential faceoff this Friday.
Graham says the McCain camp is well aware of the position of the Obama campaign and the debate commission that the debate should go on as planned — but both he and another senior McCain adviser insist the Republican nominee will not go to the debate Friday if there's no deal on the bailout.
Biden and Palin are set to debate October 2.
(CNN) — McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there's no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.
In this scenario, the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be rescheduled for a date yet to be determined, and take place in Oxford, Mississippi, currently slated to be the site of the first presidential faceoff this Friday.
Graham says the McCain camp is well aware of the position of the Obama campaign and the debate commission that the debate should go on as planned — but both he and another senior McCain adviser insist the Republican nominee will not go to the debate Friday if there's no deal on the bailout.
PSoftheD
But McCain’s camp said Obama never reached McCain in the morning call because McCain was meeting with economic advisers and talking to leaders in Congress. Afterward, McCain phoned Obama and expressed deep concern that the plan on the table would not pass as it currently stands. He asked Obama to join him in returning to Washington to lead a bipartisan effort to solve this problem.
Both campaigns later issued the joint statement, which urged Democrats and Republicans to work together, and “rise above politics for the good of the country.”
Click here to read the joint statement.
McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer said McCain is just following his belief in putting the country first. She noted that he suspended the Republican National Convention when Hurricane Gustav hit the Gulf Coast and supported the unpopular troop surge in Iraq by saying he would rather win a war than win an election.
“We all watched the [Senate] hearings yesterday. … The bottom line is he did not think we would reach a conclusion and it’s absolutely imperative that we do so. This is vintage John McCain. He is going to put the country first and suspend the campaign,” Pfotenhauer told FOX News.
what a joke; what good is he going to do? don't deny me my party!
Both campaigns later issued the joint statement, which urged Democrats and Republicans to work together, and “rise above politics for the good of the country.”
Click here to read the joint statement.
McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer said McCain is just following his belief in putting the country first. She noted that he suspended the Republican National Convention when Hurricane Gustav hit the Gulf Coast and supported the unpopular troop surge in Iraq by saying he would rather win a war than win an election.
“We all watched the [Senate] hearings yesterday. … The bottom line is he did not think we would reach a conclusion and it’s absolutely imperative that we do so. This is vintage John McCain. He is going to put the country first and suspend the campaign,” Pfotenhauer told FOX News.
what a joke; what good is he going to do? don't deny me my party!
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
How can anyone take this broad seriously??? wait...they're not.
NEW YORK (CNN) – Sarah Palin and the foreign leaders she has met with in New York have said very little to reporters over the last two days, but the press happened to be in the room on Wednesday for one eyebrow-raising exchange, as the new president of Pakistan lavished praise on Palin's looks.
On entering a room filled with several Pakistani officials this afternoon, Palin was immediately greeted by Sherry Rehman, the country's Information Minister.
"And how does one keep looking that good when one is that busy?," Rehman asked, drawing friendly laughter from the room when she complimented Palin.
"Oh, thank you," Palin said.
Pakistan's recently-elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, entered the room seconds later. Palin rose to shake his hand, saying she was “honored” to meet him.
Zardari then called her "gorgeous" and said: "Now I know why the whole of America is crazy about you."
"You are so nice," Palin said, smiling. "Thank you."
A handler from Zardari's entourage then told the two politicians to keep shaking hands for the cameras.
"If he's insisting, I might hug," Zardari said. Palin smiled politely.
The Alaska governor did not answer questions from reporters at her first two appearances on Wednesday, when she joined McCain in meetings with Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili and Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko, and then traveled downtown to meet with Iraqi president Jalal Talabani.
On entering a room filled with several Pakistani officials this afternoon, Palin was immediately greeted by Sherry Rehman, the country's Information Minister.
"And how does one keep looking that good when one is that busy?," Rehman asked, drawing friendly laughter from the room when she complimented Palin.
"Oh, thank you," Palin said.
Pakistan's recently-elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, entered the room seconds later. Palin rose to shake his hand, saying she was “honored” to meet him.
Zardari then called her "gorgeous" and said: "Now I know why the whole of America is crazy about you."
"You are so nice," Palin said, smiling. "Thank you."
A handler from Zardari's entourage then told the two politicians to keep shaking hands for the cameras.
"If he's insisting, I might hug," Zardari said. Palin smiled politely.
The Alaska governor did not answer questions from reporters at her first two appearances on Wednesday, when she joined McCain in meetings with Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili and Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko, and then traveled downtown to meet with Iraqi president Jalal Talabani.
OH MY GOD, McCain you obvious political posturer
This is insane. So, McCain wants to "suspend" the campaigns and postpone the debates (no shit)...because of the financial crisis.
I hate him. He is doing this to SEEM as if he is the man with the plan on the economy. He's NOT.
And everyone will fall for this crap because we're stupid.
He's messed up my party plans, he's messing up my election, and he's obviously, SOOOOOOOO obviously trying to seem like he's in charge.
ARGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!
I hate him. He is doing this to SEEM as if he is the man with the plan on the economy. He's NOT.
And everyone will fall for this crap because we're stupid.
He's messed up my party plans, he's messing up my election, and he's obviously, SOOOOOOOO obviously trying to seem like he's in charge.
ARGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!
I TOTALLY told YOU he wasn't a god damn magician
From Perez Hilton (who is also a douche): Assumptions probably got the better of us, y'all.
David Blaine's 'hanging upside down for 60 hours' stunt is sprinkled with lots of right side up breaks!
We've received tons of angry notes from people who've made an effort to see Blaine in Central Park only to catch him during one of these 'breaks'.
A representative for the 'magician' has spoken up to diffuse the anger people are feeling. She said Blaine never intended to stay upside down for 60 consecutive hours:
"About once an hour he has to come down for a medical check, to stretch, and to relieve himself, because even David Blaine can't do that upside down. He has said all along that there will be times when he must get his head above his heart. The doctors told him if he doesn't do that, he will die." (I SOOOOOOOO wish...)
However, a new report claims that Blaine took 3 breaks during the hour they were observing him.
This newest Blaine spectacle is set to conclude in an ABC television special Wednesday night when Blaine takes what he calls the "Dive of Death" and falls 44 feet to the ground.
Perezcious reader Rob sent us video of Blaine on one of his 'breaks'.
Click here to check it out!
David Blaine's 'hanging upside down for 60 hours' stunt is sprinkled with lots of right side up breaks!
We've received tons of angry notes from people who've made an effort to see Blaine in Central Park only to catch him during one of these 'breaks'.
A representative for the 'magician' has spoken up to diffuse the anger people are feeling. She said Blaine never intended to stay upside down for 60 consecutive hours:
"About once an hour he has to come down for a medical check, to stretch, and to relieve himself, because even David Blaine can't do that upside down. He has said all along that there will be times when he must get his head above his heart. The doctors told him if he doesn't do that, he will die." (I SOOOOOOOO wish...)
However, a new report claims that Blaine took 3 breaks during the hour they were observing him.
This newest Blaine spectacle is set to conclude in an ABC television special Wednesday night when Blaine takes what he calls the "Dive of Death" and falls 44 feet to the ground.
Perezcious reader Rob sent us video of Blaine on one of his 'breaks'.
Click here to check it out!
Bridge to Nowhere Comeback
The bridge failed, but the 'Road to Nowhere' was built
Road on Alaskan island was built with some of $223 million in taxpayer money
KETCHIKAN, Alaska (CNN) -- The "Bridge to Nowhere" may have been shelved. But the "Road to Nowhere" is alive and well.
The proposed $400 million span that would have connected the coastal city of Ketchikan to its airport on Gravina Island died after it became a symbol of congressional excess.
But the three-mile access road that was built on the island is ready for residents to take a drive to nowhere. It was paid for by some of the $223 million in federal funding that sparked ridicule among opponents of congressional "pork-barrel" spending.
In stump speeches, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has touted her eventual decision to abandon the Gravina Island bridge, which she initially supported. But Palin, now the Republican vice presidential candidate, let the access road go ahead because the contract to build it had been signed, a campaign aide said. iReport.com: Are you in a battleground state? Share your stories
Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein calls the road, which was paid for by federal tax dollars, a waste of money that could have been used to fix his city's roads and sidewalks.
"Gov. Palin could have stopped construction of this road," said Weinstein, who wore his "Nowhere, Alaska" T-shirt to an interview with CNN. Watch where road ends »
The island is connected to the city by a ferry that runs to the airport, well past the point where the bridge was to have been built. But some locals said they'll find some way to use the road, such as running or bicycle riding.
"It'd be nice to see them put something over here now they have a road: park, picnic benches, something to get people out here," said P.J. Murphy, who works on the island. "I mean, it's pretty here." Read Abbie Boudreau's "backstory" blog on "Road to nowhere"
Campaign spokeswoman Meg Stapleton said Palin would not have allowed the road project to go forward under normal circumstances. But the deal had been signed just before she took office in December 2006, Stapleton said.
"The governor was left no viable alternative," Stapleton said.
For the first two weeks of her campaign, Palin routinely told audiences in her stump speech that she told Congress "thanks, but no thanks" for the bridge, which was backed by the leaders of Alaska's congressional delegation. But Weinstein, a Democrat, said Palin instead spent $26 million to build a road "that will not go to a bridge."
Palin has been heavily criticized for repeating the stock line about killing the "Bridge to Nowhere" without noting that she supported the project as a candidate for governor.
She has dropped the line from her stump speech in the past week, but a McCain-Palin aide said that her prepared remarks are being tweaked as needed to reflect current events, and it could come back again.
Road on Alaskan island was built with some of $223 million in taxpayer money
KETCHIKAN, Alaska (CNN) -- The "Bridge to Nowhere" may have been shelved. But the "Road to Nowhere" is alive and well.
The proposed $400 million span that would have connected the coastal city of Ketchikan to its airport on Gravina Island died after it became a symbol of congressional excess.
But the three-mile access road that was built on the island is ready for residents to take a drive to nowhere. It was paid for by some of the $223 million in federal funding that sparked ridicule among opponents of congressional "pork-barrel" spending.
In stump speeches, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has touted her eventual decision to abandon the Gravina Island bridge, which she initially supported. But Palin, now the Republican vice presidential candidate, let the access road go ahead because the contract to build it had been signed, a campaign aide said. iReport.com: Are you in a battleground state? Share your stories
Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein calls the road, which was paid for by federal tax dollars, a waste of money that could have been used to fix his city's roads and sidewalks.
"Gov. Palin could have stopped construction of this road," said Weinstein, who wore his "Nowhere, Alaska" T-shirt to an interview with CNN. Watch where road ends »
The island is connected to the city by a ferry that runs to the airport, well past the point where the bridge was to have been built. But some locals said they'll find some way to use the road, such as running or bicycle riding.
"It'd be nice to see them put something over here now they have a road: park, picnic benches, something to get people out here," said P.J. Murphy, who works on the island. "I mean, it's pretty here." Read Abbie Boudreau's "backstory" blog on "Road to nowhere"
Campaign spokeswoman Meg Stapleton said Palin would not have allowed the road project to go forward under normal circumstances. But the deal had been signed just before she took office in December 2006, Stapleton said.
"The governor was left no viable alternative," Stapleton said.
For the first two weeks of her campaign, Palin routinely told audiences in her stump speech that she told Congress "thanks, but no thanks" for the bridge, which was backed by the leaders of Alaska's congressional delegation. But Weinstein, a Democrat, said Palin instead spent $26 million to build a road "that will not go to a bridge."
Palin has been heavily criticized for repeating the stock line about killing the "Bridge to Nowhere" without noting that she supported the project as a candidate for governor.
She has dropped the line from her stump speech in the past week, but a McCain-Palin aide said that her prepared remarks are being tweaked as needed to reflect current events, and it could come back again.
Millen Fired (reportedly)
I don't really care, but since I posted an article yesterday about what a douche he is, I felt obligated to follow it up with an I-guess-the-boys-at-the-top-agree post.
PSoftheD
Campbell Brown, CNN: Frankly I have had it, and I know a lot of other women out there who are with me on this. I have had enough of the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin. It has to end.
She was in New York on Tuesday meeting with world leaders at the U.N. And what did the McCain campaign do?
They tried to ban reporters from covering those meetings. And they did ban reporters from asking Gov. Palin any questions.
I call upon the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower who will wilt at any moment.
This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong, she is tough, she is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff.
Allow her to face down those pesky reporters just like Barack Obama did today, just like John McCain did today. Just like Joe Biden has done on numerous occasions. Let her have a real news conference with real questions.
By treating Sarah Palin differently from other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves.
Free Sarah Palin.
Free her from the chauvinistic chains you are binding her with.
Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do.
So let her act like one.
She was in New York on Tuesday meeting with world leaders at the U.N. And what did the McCain campaign do?
They tried to ban reporters from covering those meetings. And they did ban reporters from asking Gov. Palin any questions.
I call upon the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower who will wilt at any moment.
This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong, she is tough, she is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff.
Allow her to face down those pesky reporters just like Barack Obama did today, just like John McCain did today. Just like Joe Biden has done on numerous occasions. Let her have a real news conference with real questions.
By treating Sarah Palin differently from other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves.
Free Sarah Palin.
Free her from the chauvinistic chains you are binding her with.
Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do.
So let her act like one.
CNN is REALLY on the cusp of breaking news today...
Lohan confirms she's dated woman 'a very long time'
Actress casually tells the co-host of radio show that she's dating Samantha Ronson
Ronson is a 31-year-old DJ; Lohan is 22
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Lindsay Lohan has confirmed what the world has guessed: She's been dating Samantha Ronson "a very long time."
The 22-year-old actress casually told the co-host of the syndicated radio program "Loveline" on Monday that she's been dating the 31-year-old DJ. The pair have appeared in public and been photographed together, but have never publicly commented about the extent of their relationship.
"You guys, you and Samantha, have been going out for how long now?" DJ Ted Stryker asked. "Like two years, one year, five months, two months?"
"For a very long time," Lohan said after laughing.
Stryker interviewed Ronson while she took a break from DJing at TV Guide's Emmy afterparty Monday night in Los Angeles. Ronson had been discussing her friendship with DJ AM and Travis Barker, who are recovering from severe burns following a plane crash in South Carolina last weekend, before putting Lohan on the phone.
Lohan's publicist, Leslie Sloane-Zelnik, told The Associated Press on Monday that Lohan is not engaged to be married.
Actress casually tells the co-host of radio show that she's dating Samantha Ronson
Ronson is a 31-year-old DJ; Lohan is 22
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Lindsay Lohan has confirmed what the world has guessed: She's been dating Samantha Ronson "a very long time."
The 22-year-old actress casually told the co-host of the syndicated radio program "Loveline" on Monday that she's been dating the 31-year-old DJ. The pair have appeared in public and been photographed together, but have never publicly commented about the extent of their relationship.
"You guys, you and Samantha, have been going out for how long now?" DJ Ted Stryker asked. "Like two years, one year, five months, two months?"
"For a very long time," Lohan said after laughing.
Stryker interviewed Ronson while she took a break from DJing at TV Guide's Emmy afterparty Monday night in Los Angeles. Ronson had been discussing her friendship with DJ AM and Travis Barker, who are recovering from severe burns following a plane crash in South Carolina last weekend, before putting Lohan on the phone.
Lohan's publicist, Leslie Sloane-Zelnik, told The Associated Press on Monday that Lohan is not engaged to be married.
Pic(k) of the Day
CNN's number one news story today...as it should be...who cares about trillion dollar bailouts when we have THIS to deal with...
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
I don't even care about football, and I hate this guy...
ALLEN PARK - Lions Football
Frustration is growing and bubbling, from furious fans to the owner's family. The Lions are careening toward historic humiliation -- sure, 0-16 is possible -- and there's no visible way to stop it. In fact, there's only one way to slow it.
Lions President and General Manager Matt Millen should do the honorable thing and walk away, today, tomorrow, soon. We can rant all we want about the coach and the quarterback and the defensive coordinator, but Millen delivered the bulk of this garbage. Owner William Clay Ford Sr. has been too loyal (or gutless) to fire him, so Millen should resign, for the good of all involved.
The owner's son, Bill Ford Jr., made precisely that suggestion Monday after speaking at the Detroit Economic Club. I echo the plea, and I guarantee almost every Lions fan does as well.
"It's embarrassing," Ford Jr. said. "The fans deserve better, and if I had the authority, I'd fire the general manager."
Asked again if he thought Millen should leave, Ford Jr. said, "Yes I do."
It's painfully, brutally obvious.
It's also clear there's an unfortunate disconnect between the owner and his son, which doesn't help.
Millen must be accountable
Nothing can move forward with this team until the main guy is held accountable. The Lions are paralyzed and poisoned by Millen's presence, by his stunning incompetence, and he has to know it. How can he demand accountability of anyone when Rod Marinelli is the fourth head coach he has appointed, when the Lions' 31-84 record since 2001 is all on Millen?
I have no idea why Millen feels compelled to keep trying, to keep putting the franchise and fans through this. I have no idea why he puts himself through this. A no-quit attitude might be noble -- and it keeps the $5-million salary coming -- but it's astonishing Ford Sr. allows it to continue.
Is there no common sense or simple shame? Millen is an affable guy who came here with good intentions, but this is a national joke that keeps repeating itself, one of the saddest, most-baffling situations in Detroit sports history.
The Lions are 0-3, have been outscored 113-59, and yet we know it can get worse. This is not a young team that needs time to improve. According to NFL rosters, the Lions are the fourth-oldest team in the league, directed by a 36-year-old quarterback, Jon Kitna, who looks lost.
There are precious few stars and little hope. The defense is horrible and the offense can't take advantage of good receivers who aren't consistent. Nothing is working, and the schedule only gets tougher.
The truth is, I don't even know if player or coach demotions would help because the roster is barren. Marinelli said Monday he wouldn't make any changes to his staff and he'd use the bye week to evaluate personnel.
Frustration is growing and bubbling, from furious fans to the owner's family. The Lions are careening toward historic humiliation -- sure, 0-16 is possible -- and there's no visible way to stop it. In fact, there's only one way to slow it.
Lions President and General Manager Matt Millen should do the honorable thing and walk away, today, tomorrow, soon. We can rant all we want about the coach and the quarterback and the defensive coordinator, but Millen delivered the bulk of this garbage. Owner William Clay Ford Sr. has been too loyal (or gutless) to fire him, so Millen should resign, for the good of all involved.
The owner's son, Bill Ford Jr., made precisely that suggestion Monday after speaking at the Detroit Economic Club. I echo the plea, and I guarantee almost every Lions fan does as well.
"It's embarrassing," Ford Jr. said. "The fans deserve better, and if I had the authority, I'd fire the general manager."
Asked again if he thought Millen should leave, Ford Jr. said, "Yes I do."
It's painfully, brutally obvious.
It's also clear there's an unfortunate disconnect between the owner and his son, which doesn't help.
Millen must be accountable
Nothing can move forward with this team until the main guy is held accountable. The Lions are paralyzed and poisoned by Millen's presence, by his stunning incompetence, and he has to know it. How can he demand accountability of anyone when Rod Marinelli is the fourth head coach he has appointed, when the Lions' 31-84 record since 2001 is all on Millen?
I have no idea why Millen feels compelled to keep trying, to keep putting the franchise and fans through this. I have no idea why he puts himself through this. A no-quit attitude might be noble -- and it keeps the $5-million salary coming -- but it's astonishing Ford Sr. allows it to continue.
Is there no common sense or simple shame? Millen is an affable guy who came here with good intentions, but this is a national joke that keeps repeating itself, one of the saddest, most-baffling situations in Detroit sports history.
The Lions are 0-3, have been outscored 113-59, and yet we know it can get worse. This is not a young team that needs time to improve. According to NFL rosters, the Lions are the fourth-oldest team in the league, directed by a 36-year-old quarterback, Jon Kitna, who looks lost.
There are precious few stars and little hope. The defense is horrible and the offense can't take advantage of good receivers who aren't consistent. Nothing is working, and the schedule only gets tougher.
The truth is, I don't even know if player or coach demotions would help because the roster is barren. Marinelli said Monday he wouldn't make any changes to his staff and he'd use the bye week to evaluate personnel.
Heroes Season 3 - Episode 1 - A Diatribe
So, last night was the 3 hour mega ‘Heroes’ special.
I sat down to watch at 8 o’clock, only to find that the pre-show was this like bizarre, I-should-not-be-here-right-now voyeuristic party, with characters acting like real people. This is not how I want my TV to be; I like to imagine that they’re NOT real people…so, let’s stick with that. If I wanted to watch real people, I'd watch crap like "Biggest Loser" or "Big Brother".
Then, they kept showing all this footage of how popular the show is; um – look, I’m already watching, which means I like the show. Stop trying to convince me to watch the show.
So, the show starts, FINALLY, at 9:00, following a plethora of annoying car commercials. And goes until 11, which is way past my bedtime, but I managed to stay awake.
I like to enumerate, if you haven’t noticed…
1. Watching Mohinder do it with the annoying Hispanic chick nearly made me vomit. His character has serious bipolar issues: one minute he’s: “yay! Heroes! Genetic mutation!” the next he’s like: “fuck it. This is stupid. I’m moving back to India.” Then, he’s like: “adrenalin! Yay! I want to be a Hero too!”. Then, he’s all: “whoops. I’m a mutant with flesh dripping off me.” Pick a side, dude.
2. I like the future Peter/Peter trapped in another body thing. That’s pretty sweet. What I didn’t like was that they just like sprung this one us, no doubt thinking: Our fans like intrigue. Yes, I do. But I don’t like nonsense. And this was borderline.
3. This episode is JUST like X-Men 3, which I liked but many people didn’t. Why? Because there were too many mutants. That seems to be Heroes “hook” to keep us watching; they kept talking about a DOZEN of those dudes escaping the prison, thanks to Elle. So, I guess in this season we’ll see a DOZEN bad guys, and there’s the whole good-guy, bad-guy thing fleshing itself out. Snooze alert – this doesn’t do it for me. I liked it better when they were just developing characters. I don’t want to watch an episode of Dukes of Hazzard every week.
4. Nathan Petrelli is boring. And what the hell happened to his wife and kids? Shouldn’t we, um…address this?
5. Who cares about the lovers spat between Hiro and Ando? Not me…
6. Where’s Kensei? He was my fav…
7. I guess when you die on Heroes, you don’t really die. Just like on Days of Our Lives…when Roman died, then John Black came BACK as Roman, then the real Roman returned to the show, so they had to make it seem like John Black WASN'T Roman and he had brainwashed everyone into thinking he was Roman when really he was just John Black all along... Sound familiar?
I hope it gets better. Because all I kept thinking about was Fonzie water-skiing…
I sat down to watch at 8 o’clock, only to find that the pre-show was this like bizarre, I-should-not-be-here-right-now voyeuristic party, with characters acting like real people. This is not how I want my TV to be; I like to imagine that they’re NOT real people…so, let’s stick with that. If I wanted to watch real people, I'd watch crap like "Biggest Loser" or "Big Brother".
Then, they kept showing all this footage of how popular the show is; um – look, I’m already watching, which means I like the show. Stop trying to convince me to watch the show.
So, the show starts, FINALLY, at 9:00, following a plethora of annoying car commercials. And goes until 11, which is way past my bedtime, but I managed to stay awake.
I like to enumerate, if you haven’t noticed…
1. Watching Mohinder do it with the annoying Hispanic chick nearly made me vomit. His character has serious bipolar issues: one minute he’s: “yay! Heroes! Genetic mutation!” the next he’s like: “fuck it. This is stupid. I’m moving back to India.” Then, he’s like: “adrenalin! Yay! I want to be a Hero too!”. Then, he’s all: “whoops. I’m a mutant with flesh dripping off me.” Pick a side, dude.
2. I like the future Peter/Peter trapped in another body thing. That’s pretty sweet. What I didn’t like was that they just like sprung this one us, no doubt thinking: Our fans like intrigue. Yes, I do. But I don’t like nonsense. And this was borderline.
3. This episode is JUST like X-Men 3, which I liked but many people didn’t. Why? Because there were too many mutants. That seems to be Heroes “hook” to keep us watching; they kept talking about a DOZEN of those dudes escaping the prison, thanks to Elle. So, I guess in this season we’ll see a DOZEN bad guys, and there’s the whole good-guy, bad-guy thing fleshing itself out. Snooze alert – this doesn’t do it for me. I liked it better when they were just developing characters. I don’t want to watch an episode of Dukes of Hazzard every week.
4. Nathan Petrelli is boring. And what the hell happened to his wife and kids? Shouldn’t we, um…address this?
5. Who cares about the lovers spat between Hiro and Ando? Not me…
6. Where’s Kensei? He was my fav…
7. I guess when you die on Heroes, you don’t really die. Just like on Days of Our Lives…when Roman died, then John Black came BACK as Roman, then the real Roman returned to the show, so they had to make it seem like John Black WASN'T Roman and he had brainwashed everyone into thinking he was Roman when really he was just John Black all along... Sound familiar?
I hope it gets better. Because all I kept thinking about was Fonzie water-skiing…
PSoftheD
Surprisingly, from Ron Paul:
I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.
Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.
Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.
The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.
It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.
The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.
Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.
I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.
Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.
Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.
The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.
It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.
The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.
Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.
Follow the $$$
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26833397/
Good article from MSNBC, with lots of interactive graphs (which I why I didn't post it). Interesting to see how the money shakes out, where it comes from and whose on top. (that's what she said).
Good article from MSNBC, with lots of interactive graphs (which I why I didn't post it). Interesting to see how the money shakes out, where it comes from and whose on top. (that's what she said).
Bristol Palin aside....
The Changing Face of Abortion
Teen abortion rates have plummeted in the past 30 years. Why aren't we seeing the same decreases for older women?
Sarah Kliff, Newsweek
Abortion rates have dropped steadily since the 1980s, from a peak of 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in 1981 to 19.4 in 2005. But behind this general decrease are striking changes in the demographics of abortion. Compared to 30 years ago, women having abortions today are older and more likely to be mothers and minorities, according to a study released Tuesday by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute.
The study looked at trends in abortion since 1974, the year after the Supreme Court passed Roe v. Wade, legalizing abortion in the United States. What researchers found is contrary to what pop culture phenoms, from "Juno" to Jamie Lynn Spears, might suggest: Teenagers are not the most likely to confront this issue, twenty-somethings are. "We're aware that, today, most of the women having abortions are moms struggling to take care of the children they already have," says Rachel Jones, senior research associate at the institute.
In fact, teens saw a bigger drop in abortion rate than any other demographic over the past 30 years. From 1974 to 1989, women aged 18-19 had the highest abortion rate among all age groups, varying from 32 to 62 per 1,000 women. In 2004, the latest year for which data is available, the abortion rate was 20.5. "We've done a great job educating kids about the risks of sexual behavior and proper contraceptive use," says Jones. So it's not the kids that researchers are most worried about--it's the age groups above them.
But the news isn't all good. While the teen abortion rate has declined by nearly 30 percent, the rate for women ages 20-24 is almost 10 points higher than it was in 1974. (In that group, rates hit 30.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 1974, spiking to 53.8 in 1989 and declining to 39.9 in 2004.) Women in the next age group, ages 25-29, follow a similar pattern, with a spike in the '80s and a decline in recent years. So while it's encouraging that abortion rates among 20- to 29-year-olds have been steadily declining since the late 1980s, those decreases have been much smaller than those among teenagers, and they still have not brought the abortion rate down to low levels of the 1970s.
Researchers cannot fully explain the reasons behind this trend. Some think it indicates a kind of oversight: Public health initiatives have focused on reducing pregnancy and abortions among teenagers but haven't put as much thought into how to educate older groups. Teenagers, after all, do seem like the most vulnerable group. Millions of dollars have been poured into programs to educate teenagers about safe sex and contraceptives. By most accounts, those efforts have been fairly successful in targeting and changing the sexual health habits of teens. Centers for Disease Control statistics show teenage contraceptive use to have gone up noticeably between 1995 and 2005. The decline in abortion rates among teens mirrors a decline in teen pregnancies--from 107 for every 1,000 teenagers ages 15-19 in 1982, to 75 per 1,000 teenagers in 2002 (the most recent year for which data is available).
But once they're out of high school and on their own, many women don't have an adequate support system when it comes to reproductive health. "We've done a lot for adolescents and teens but need to expand those efforts to reach adult women," says Jones. "We haven't taken care of women in their 20s." Experts say a lack of health insurance, more common among adults than teens, and access to affordable contraceptives are significant factors in causing abortion rates to stay at a level higher than that of the 1970s among older women. "You could full-well know that the pill or IUDs are effective [birth control], but if you don't have health insurance or don't have access to affordable family planning, that's not going to help you much," says Jones.
Financial barriers seem to be one of the most persistent obstacles in the fight to reduce socioeconomic disparities in abortion rates, say experts. Medicaid coverage of birth control varies by state, and the bureaucracy can be difficult to navigate. The current Guttmacher study did not look at the socioeconomic status of women having abortions, but the institute's previous research has shown the abortion rates for women below the federal poverty line to be much higher than for more economically advantaged women. "When you don't have access to affordable birth control, rates of unintended pregnancy are going to be higher. That's a sad and real-life consequence of the health insurance gap," says Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood's vice president of public policy.
Other shifts in demographics bolster Rubiner's claim that the women having abortions today are increasingly under economic duress: Compared with 1974, they are much more likely to already have children, as well as to be unmarried. "Women are making a decision, 'Can I feed another mouth,'" says Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization of Women. "'Did my husband leave me with three other kids? Is this going to mean that I can't feed my kids?' There is a real life decision that a woman has to make." Many women, she thinks, are asking whether they can afford to have another child.
Another trend uncovered by the study that Planned Parenthood's Rubiner finds troubling is the consistently higher rate of abortion among minority women. While the abortion rates among African Americans and Hispanics have decreased since 1994 (the first year for which ethnic data is available), they are still dramatically higher than those of Caucasian women. The abortion rate for black women is 49.7 per 1,000 women, nearly five times that of non-Hispanic white women.
These sobering numbers leave reproductive health experts looking ahead to a whole new set of challenges even as they celebrate the significant strides they've made in the past 30 years. Closing a socioeconomic health-care gap decades in the making won't be easy.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/160401
Teen abortion rates have plummeted in the past 30 years. Why aren't we seeing the same decreases for older women?
Sarah Kliff, Newsweek
Abortion rates have dropped steadily since the 1980s, from a peak of 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in 1981 to 19.4 in 2005. But behind this general decrease are striking changes in the demographics of abortion. Compared to 30 years ago, women having abortions today are older and more likely to be mothers and minorities, according to a study released Tuesday by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute.
The study looked at trends in abortion since 1974, the year after the Supreme Court passed Roe v. Wade, legalizing abortion in the United States. What researchers found is contrary to what pop culture phenoms, from "Juno" to Jamie Lynn Spears, might suggest: Teenagers are not the most likely to confront this issue, twenty-somethings are. "We're aware that, today, most of the women having abortions are moms struggling to take care of the children they already have," says Rachel Jones, senior research associate at the institute.
In fact, teens saw a bigger drop in abortion rate than any other demographic over the past 30 years. From 1974 to 1989, women aged 18-19 had the highest abortion rate among all age groups, varying from 32 to 62 per 1,000 women. In 2004, the latest year for which data is available, the abortion rate was 20.5. "We've done a great job educating kids about the risks of sexual behavior and proper contraceptive use," says Jones. So it's not the kids that researchers are most worried about--it's the age groups above them.
But the news isn't all good. While the teen abortion rate has declined by nearly 30 percent, the rate for women ages 20-24 is almost 10 points higher than it was in 1974. (In that group, rates hit 30.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 1974, spiking to 53.8 in 1989 and declining to 39.9 in 2004.) Women in the next age group, ages 25-29, follow a similar pattern, with a spike in the '80s and a decline in recent years. So while it's encouraging that abortion rates among 20- to 29-year-olds have been steadily declining since the late 1980s, those decreases have been much smaller than those among teenagers, and they still have not brought the abortion rate down to low levels of the 1970s.
Researchers cannot fully explain the reasons behind this trend. Some think it indicates a kind of oversight: Public health initiatives have focused on reducing pregnancy and abortions among teenagers but haven't put as much thought into how to educate older groups. Teenagers, after all, do seem like the most vulnerable group. Millions of dollars have been poured into programs to educate teenagers about safe sex and contraceptives. By most accounts, those efforts have been fairly successful in targeting and changing the sexual health habits of teens. Centers for Disease Control statistics show teenage contraceptive use to have gone up noticeably between 1995 and 2005. The decline in abortion rates among teens mirrors a decline in teen pregnancies--from 107 for every 1,000 teenagers ages 15-19 in 1982, to 75 per 1,000 teenagers in 2002 (the most recent year for which data is available).
But once they're out of high school and on their own, many women don't have an adequate support system when it comes to reproductive health. "We've done a lot for adolescents and teens but need to expand those efforts to reach adult women," says Jones. "We haven't taken care of women in their 20s." Experts say a lack of health insurance, more common among adults than teens, and access to affordable contraceptives are significant factors in causing abortion rates to stay at a level higher than that of the 1970s among older women. "You could full-well know that the pill or IUDs are effective [birth control], but if you don't have health insurance or don't have access to affordable family planning, that's not going to help you much," says Jones.
Financial barriers seem to be one of the most persistent obstacles in the fight to reduce socioeconomic disparities in abortion rates, say experts. Medicaid coverage of birth control varies by state, and the bureaucracy can be difficult to navigate. The current Guttmacher study did not look at the socioeconomic status of women having abortions, but the institute's previous research has shown the abortion rates for women below the federal poverty line to be much higher than for more economically advantaged women. "When you don't have access to affordable birth control, rates of unintended pregnancy are going to be higher. That's a sad and real-life consequence of the health insurance gap," says Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood's vice president of public policy.
Other shifts in demographics bolster Rubiner's claim that the women having abortions today are increasingly under economic duress: Compared with 1974, they are much more likely to already have children, as well as to be unmarried. "Women are making a decision, 'Can I feed another mouth,'" says Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization of Women. "'Did my husband leave me with three other kids? Is this going to mean that I can't feed my kids?' There is a real life decision that a woman has to make." Many women, she thinks, are asking whether they can afford to have another child.
Another trend uncovered by the study that Planned Parenthood's Rubiner finds troubling is the consistently higher rate of abortion among minority women. While the abortion rates among African Americans and Hispanics have decreased since 1994 (the first year for which ethnic data is available), they are still dramatically higher than those of Caucasian women. The abortion rate for black women is 49.7 per 1,000 women, nearly five times that of non-Hispanic white women.
These sobering numbers leave reproductive health experts looking ahead to a whole new set of challenges even as they celebrate the significant strides they've made in the past 30 years. Closing a socioeconomic health-care gap decades in the making won't be easy.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/160401
Monday, September 22, 2008
Another great article...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/21/9322/74248/245/602838
Its too long to post, but it basically explains how we got to this mortgage/wall street meltdown and how, TWICE before, privately held companies have duped the american people and forced the government to bail them out.
Its funny, Republicans always talk about less government...but when the market fails, they don't lean on each other to get them out of the hole, they ask the government to.
Its too long to post, but it basically explains how we got to this mortgage/wall street meltdown and how, TWICE before, privately held companies have duped the american people and forced the government to bail them out.
Its funny, Republicans always talk about less government...but when the market fails, they don't lean on each other to get them out of the hole, they ask the government to.
Twitter...
What the F is this and why is Rick Sanchez (the devil incarnate at CNN) always telling me to twitter something? It sounds disgusting...
Cindy McCain - stick to buying expensive clothes.
"One reason I'm glad Sarah Palin is on the ticket: I'm a huge Deadliest Catch fan, and [the Palins] know them! I can't wait to meet them!" —Cindy McCain, appearing with husband John on The Rachael Ray Show.
Why I Hate David Blaine -- A Manifesto by Me
I hate David Blaine. I always have. For several reasons:
1. He's not a MAGICIAN, so stop calling him that. A magician can pick your card out of a deck or turn a hankerchief into a bird. What this asshole does is not "magic" -- its stupidity.
2. I have never in my life seen a man so in love with himself. And, considering the douche bags I've dated, I've been privy to alot of self-admiration. But this guy takes the cake. If you ever watch him being interviewed, count the number of times he compliments himself. Its nauseating.
3. He can't even do his stunts right. Like, that bizarre underwater fiasco he planned for prime-time TV last year? Yeah, he BLEW it. And someone (or someones) actually put this yo-yo on NETWORK TELEVISION. Atrocious. I don't know who I want shot first: the execs who put this on the air, the people who went to the event to watch or all the yahoos who flipped it on their TVs. I hate all of you.
4. He's going to be hanging upside down for 60 hours next week. Um, isn't this what our parents warned us not to do when we were children, for fear that it would cause permanent brain injury (I can only hope, Mr. Blaine)? Does this even make any sense? Seriously...does it? I mean, when was the last time you were sitting at home watching 'Mr. Wizard' and thinking: Gosh, I wonder what would happen to someone if they hung upsidedown for 60 hours. NO. No one was thinking this, and if you were, I hate you even more than I hate everyone from number 4.
5. I hope he contracts a deblitating disease and dies a long and painful death. Because everytime this guy gets any press, I die a little inside. Its about time we share that burden.
1. He's not a MAGICIAN, so stop calling him that. A magician can pick your card out of a deck or turn a hankerchief into a bird. What this asshole does is not "magic" -- its stupidity.
2. I have never in my life seen a man so in love with himself. And, considering the douche bags I've dated, I've been privy to alot of self-admiration. But this guy takes the cake. If you ever watch him being interviewed, count the number of times he compliments himself. Its nauseating.
3. He can't even do his stunts right. Like, that bizarre underwater fiasco he planned for prime-time TV last year? Yeah, he BLEW it. And someone (or someones) actually put this yo-yo on NETWORK TELEVISION. Atrocious. I don't know who I want shot first: the execs who put this on the air, the people who went to the event to watch or all the yahoos who flipped it on their TVs. I hate all of you.
4. He's going to be hanging upside down for 60 hours next week. Um, isn't this what our parents warned us not to do when we were children, for fear that it would cause permanent brain injury (I can only hope, Mr. Blaine)? Does this even make any sense? Seriously...does it? I mean, when was the last time you were sitting at home watching 'Mr. Wizard' and thinking: Gosh, I wonder what would happen to someone if they hung upsidedown for 60 hours. NO. No one was thinking this, and if you were, I hate you even more than I hate everyone from number 4.
5. I hope he contracts a deblitating disease and dies a long and painful death. Because everytime this guy gets any press, I die a little inside. Its about time we share that burden.
PSoftheD
UAW President Ron Gettelfinger says he believes presidential candidates should be able to buy any car brand they want -- domestic or foreign -- but he just hopes they're up front with American workers about what they drive.
For Gettelfinger, the honesty of Republican presidential candidate John McCain came into question Sunday when Newsweek magazine reported that McCain's family owns 13 cars, including a Lexus, Honda and Volkswagen convertible.
The report contradicts what McCain told a local TV station earlier this month -- that he's bought American vehicles "literally all my life."
"It's a nice campaign line, but he's not being straight with the people of Michigan," Gettelfinger said Sunday in a conference call with reporters. "People are free to buy any kind of car they want, but 'Buy American' can't be a slogan that he just rolls out when he's in Michigan."
Dude -- THIRTEEN CARS AND SEVEN HOUSES! Do not tell me that this guy is fighting for the "common man" -- that's complete BS. How can he make decisions that are best for the majority of Americans when he is nowhere near the majority?? I'm not saying Barack Obama is Mr. All American, but come on...I don't think McCain is the best person to make decisions when he doesn't have to make the types of decisions I do.
For Gettelfinger, the honesty of Republican presidential candidate John McCain came into question Sunday when Newsweek magazine reported that McCain's family owns 13 cars, including a Lexus, Honda and Volkswagen convertible.
The report contradicts what McCain told a local TV station earlier this month -- that he's bought American vehicles "literally all my life."
"It's a nice campaign line, but he's not being straight with the people of Michigan," Gettelfinger said Sunday in a conference call with reporters. "People are free to buy any kind of car they want, but 'Buy American' can't be a slogan that he just rolls out when he's in Michigan."
Dude -- THIRTEEN CARS AND SEVEN HOUSES! Do not tell me that this guy is fighting for the "common man" -- that's complete BS. How can he make decisions that are best for the majority of Americans when he is nowhere near the majority?? I'm not saying Barack Obama is Mr. All American, but come on...I don't think McCain is the best person to make decisions when he doesn't have to make the types of decisions I do.
Great Article from TIME
How We Became the United States of France
By Bill Saporito
This is the state of our great republic: We've nationalized the financial system, taking control from Wall Street bankers we no longer trust. We're about to quasi-nationalize the Detroit auto companies via massive loans because they're a source of American pride, and too many jobs — and votes — are at stake. Our Social Security system is going broke as we head for a future where too many retirees will be supported by too few workers. How long before we have national healthcare? Put it all together, and the America that emerges is a cartoonish version of the country most despised by red-meat red-state patriots: France. Only with worse food.
Admit it, mes amis, the rugged individualism and cutthroat capitalism that made America the land of unlimited opportunity has been shrink-wrapped by a half dozen short sellers in Greenwich, Conn. and FedExed to Washington D.C. to be spoon-fed back to life by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. We're now no different from any of those Western European semi-socialist welfare states that we love to deride. Italy? Sure, it's had four governments since last Thursday, but none of them would have allowed this to go on; the Italians know how to rig an economy.
You just know the Frogs have only increased their disdain for us, if that is indeed possible. And why shouldn't they? The average American is working two and half jobs, gets two weeks off, and has all the employment security of a one-armed trapeze artist. The Bush Administration has preached the "ownership society" to America: own your house, own your retirement account; you don't need the government in your way. So Americans mortgaged themselves to the hilt to buy overpriced houses they can no longer afford and signed up for 401k programs that put money where, exactly? In the stock market! Where rich Republicans fleeced them.
Now our laissez-faire (hey, a French word) regulation-averse Administration has made France's only Socialist president, Francois Mitterand, look like Adam Smith by comparison. All Mitterand did was nationalize France's big banks and insurance companies in 1982; he didn't have to deal with bankers who didn't want to lend money, as Paulson does. When the state runs the banks, they are merely cows to be milked in the service of la patrie. France doesn't have the mortgage crisis that we do, either. In bailing out mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our government has basically turned America into the largest subsidized housing project in the world. Sure, France has its banlieus, where it likes to warehouse people who aren't French enough (meaning, immigrants orAlgerians) in huge apartment blocks. But the bulk of French homeowners are curiously free of subprime mortgages foisted on them by fellow citizens, and they aren't over their heads in personal debt.
We've always dismissed the French as exquisitely fed wards of their welfare state. They work, what, 27 hours in a good week, have 19 holidays a month, go on strike for two days and enjoy a glass of wine every day with lunch — except for the 25% of the population that works for the government, who have an even sweeter deal. They retire before their kids finish high school, and they don't have to save for a $45,000-a-year college tuition because college is free. For this, they pay a tax rate of about 103%, and their labor laws are so restrictive that they haven't had a net gain in jobs since Napoleon. There is no way that the French government can pay for this lifestyle forever, except that it somehow does.
Mitterand tried to create both job-growth and wage-growth by nationalizing huge swaths of the economy, including some big industries, including automaker Renault, for instance. You haven't driven a Renault lately because Renault couldn't sell them here. Imagine that. An auto company that couldn't compete with a Dodge Colt. But the Renault takeover ultimately proved successful and Renault became a private company again in 1996, although the government retains about 15% of the shares.
Now the U.S. is faced with the same prospect in the auto industry. GM and Ford need money to develop greener cars that can compete with Toyota and Honda. And they're looking to Uncle Sam for investment — an investment that could have been avoided had Washington imposed more stringent mileage standards years earlier. But we don't want to interfere with market forces like the French do — until we do.
Mitterand's nationalization program and other economic reforms failed, as the development of the European Market made a centrally planned economy obsolete. The Rothschilds got their bank back, a little worse for wear. These days, France sashays around the issue of protectionism in a supposedly unfettered EU by proclaiming some industries to be national champions worthy of extra consideration — you know, special needs kids. And we're not talking about pastry chefs, but the likes of GDF Suez, a major utility. I never thought of the stocks and junk securities sold by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as unique, but clearly Washington does. Morgan's John Mack calls SEC boss Chris Cox to whine about short sellers and bingo, the government obliges. The elite serve the elite. How French is that?
Even in the strongest sectors in the U.S., there's no getting away from the French influence. Nothing is more sacred to France than its farmers. They get whatever they demand, and they demand a lot. And if there are any issues about price supports, or feed costs being too high, or actual competition from other countries, French farmers simply shut down the country by marching their livestock up the Champs Elysee and piling up wheat on the highways. U.S. farmers would never resort to such behavior. They don't have to: they're the most coddled special interest group in U.S. history, lavished with $180 billion in subsidies by both parties, even when their products are fetching record prices. One consequence: U.S. consumers pay twice what the French pay for sugar, because of price guarantees. We're more French than France.
So yes, while we're still willing to work ourselves to death for the privilege of paying off our usurious credit cards, we can no longer look contemptuously at the land of 246 cheeses. Kraft Foods has replaced American International Group in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the insurance company having been added to Paulson's nationalized portfolio. Macaroni and cheese has supplanted credit default swaps at the fulcrum of capitalism. And one more thing: the food snob French love McDonalds, which does a fantastic business there. They know a good freedom fry when they taste one.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html
By Bill Saporito
This is the state of our great republic: We've nationalized the financial system, taking control from Wall Street bankers we no longer trust. We're about to quasi-nationalize the Detroit auto companies via massive loans because they're a source of American pride, and too many jobs — and votes — are at stake. Our Social Security system is going broke as we head for a future where too many retirees will be supported by too few workers. How long before we have national healthcare? Put it all together, and the America that emerges is a cartoonish version of the country most despised by red-meat red-state patriots: France. Only with worse food.
Admit it, mes amis, the rugged individualism and cutthroat capitalism that made America the land of unlimited opportunity has been shrink-wrapped by a half dozen short sellers in Greenwich, Conn. and FedExed to Washington D.C. to be spoon-fed back to life by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. We're now no different from any of those Western European semi-socialist welfare states that we love to deride. Italy? Sure, it's had four governments since last Thursday, but none of them would have allowed this to go on; the Italians know how to rig an economy.
You just know the Frogs have only increased their disdain for us, if that is indeed possible. And why shouldn't they? The average American is working two and half jobs, gets two weeks off, and has all the employment security of a one-armed trapeze artist. The Bush Administration has preached the "ownership society" to America: own your house, own your retirement account; you don't need the government in your way. So Americans mortgaged themselves to the hilt to buy overpriced houses they can no longer afford and signed up for 401k programs that put money where, exactly? In the stock market! Where rich Republicans fleeced them.
Now our laissez-faire (hey, a French word) regulation-averse Administration has made France's only Socialist president, Francois Mitterand, look like Adam Smith by comparison. All Mitterand did was nationalize France's big banks and insurance companies in 1982; he didn't have to deal with bankers who didn't want to lend money, as Paulson does. When the state runs the banks, they are merely cows to be milked in the service of la patrie. France doesn't have the mortgage crisis that we do, either. In bailing out mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our government has basically turned America into the largest subsidized housing project in the world. Sure, France has its banlieus, where it likes to warehouse people who aren't French enough (meaning, immigrants orAlgerians) in huge apartment blocks. But the bulk of French homeowners are curiously free of subprime mortgages foisted on them by fellow citizens, and they aren't over their heads in personal debt.
We've always dismissed the French as exquisitely fed wards of their welfare state. They work, what, 27 hours in a good week, have 19 holidays a month, go on strike for two days and enjoy a glass of wine every day with lunch — except for the 25% of the population that works for the government, who have an even sweeter deal. They retire before their kids finish high school, and they don't have to save for a $45,000-a-year college tuition because college is free. For this, they pay a tax rate of about 103%, and their labor laws are so restrictive that they haven't had a net gain in jobs since Napoleon. There is no way that the French government can pay for this lifestyle forever, except that it somehow does.
Mitterand tried to create both job-growth and wage-growth by nationalizing huge swaths of the economy, including some big industries, including automaker Renault, for instance. You haven't driven a Renault lately because Renault couldn't sell them here. Imagine that. An auto company that couldn't compete with a Dodge Colt. But the Renault takeover ultimately proved successful and Renault became a private company again in 1996, although the government retains about 15% of the shares.
Now the U.S. is faced with the same prospect in the auto industry. GM and Ford need money to develop greener cars that can compete with Toyota and Honda. And they're looking to Uncle Sam for investment — an investment that could have been avoided had Washington imposed more stringent mileage standards years earlier. But we don't want to interfere with market forces like the French do — until we do.
Mitterand's nationalization program and other economic reforms failed, as the development of the European Market made a centrally planned economy obsolete. The Rothschilds got their bank back, a little worse for wear. These days, France sashays around the issue of protectionism in a supposedly unfettered EU by proclaiming some industries to be national champions worthy of extra consideration — you know, special needs kids. And we're not talking about pastry chefs, but the likes of GDF Suez, a major utility. I never thought of the stocks and junk securities sold by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as unique, but clearly Washington does. Morgan's John Mack calls SEC boss Chris Cox to whine about short sellers and bingo, the government obliges. The elite serve the elite. How French is that?
Even in the strongest sectors in the U.S., there's no getting away from the French influence. Nothing is more sacred to France than its farmers. They get whatever they demand, and they demand a lot. And if there are any issues about price supports, or feed costs being too high, or actual competition from other countries, French farmers simply shut down the country by marching their livestock up the Champs Elysee and piling up wheat on the highways. U.S. farmers would never resort to such behavior. They don't have to: they're the most coddled special interest group in U.S. history, lavished with $180 billion in subsidies by both parties, even when their products are fetching record prices. One consequence: U.S. consumers pay twice what the French pay for sugar, because of price guarantees. We're more French than France.
So yes, while we're still willing to work ourselves to death for the privilege of paying off our usurious credit cards, we can no longer look contemptuously at the land of 246 cheeses. Kraft Foods has replaced American International Group in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the insurance company having been added to Paulson's nationalized portfolio. Macaroni and cheese has supplanted credit default swaps at the fulcrum of capitalism. And one more thing: the food snob French love McDonalds, which does a fantastic business there. They know a good freedom fry when they taste one.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html
Best Dress Website Ever...
I have loved their dresses (and own quite a few) for YEARS now...an old friend turned me onto it. We're not friends anymore...at least she was good for something...
http://www.daddyos.com/
http://www.daddyos.com/
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Now I will never be able to open my paycheck without crying.
Commentary: Blame boards of directors for financial mess
Nell Minow: Wall Street directors ultimately to blame for financial crisis
As big Wall Street firms topple like dominoes, there is plenty of blame to go around.
Failure this broad and deep takes a village, and regulators, lawyers, compensation consultants, auditors, executives, shareholders, and the press all played a part. But the people who are most responsible for the massive meltdowns of these institutions are the boards of directors.
Their sole responsibility is to act as fiduciaries for the shareholders in managing risk. They not only failed to perform this task but indeed, in their approval of outrageous pay plans with perverse incentives, they all but guaranteed the current disaster.
I am a capitalist. I love it when executives earn boatloads of money. But it infuriates me when they get it without earning it.
If the executives' compensation is tied to the volume of business rather than the quality of business, we should expect dealmakers to be more attentive to the number of transactions than the value they create. This is the basis for much of the sub-prime mess, whose collateral damage is taking down the biggest firms on Wall Street.
At Merrill Lynch, former CEO Stanley O'Neal received total compensation of more than $91 million for 2006, according to The Corporate Library's calculations. He was given that package based on performance numbers that came out before nearly $23 billion in write-downs by the company.
O'Neal received more than $160 million in stock and retirement benefits while shareholders lost more than 41 percent of their investment value over the year. Three executives brought in to Merrill less than a year ago will share a $200 million payment as they turn over the company to Bank of America in a last-minute deal to help it survive.
American International Group (AIG) replaced CEO Martin Sullivan after the company posted losses for two consecutive quarters totaling $13 billion. Sullivan's contract entitled him to about $68 million. His replacement, a board member who served as CEO for three months before the company was taken over by the government, will get as much as $7 million.
The boards of directors approved pay that was completely disconnected to performance. This, after all, is the world of the ultimate oxymoron: the "guaranteed bonus." So we should not be surprised that executives took the money and ran.
Fewer than 13 percent of public companies have claw-back policies requiring executives to return bonuses based on inflated numbers. All of the incentives are for them to inflate the numbers, take the money, and run.
And that is why companies whose names used to be synonymous with stability and trustworthiness will live on through history and business school case studies as discredited, greedy and corrupt.
The people who insisted that government regulation interfered with the perfect efficiency of the markets are now getting bailed out by taxpayers with some walloping welfare checks.
I just hope that this time the government does a better job of protecting itself than it did with its bail-out of Chrysler almost 30 years ago and this time insists on a piece of the upside rather than a fixed repayment. If the government is going to run a business, it has to act like a business and make sure its interests are aligned with the executives.
Despite the post-Enron adoption of the most extensive protections since the New Deal, a survey released this week by Kroll and the Economist Intelligence Unit found that corporate fraud rose 22 percent since last year.
The option back-dating and sub-prime messes show that even the post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley reform law and expanded enforcement and oversight cannot eliminate the severest threats to our markets and our economy.
This proves that there are limits to structural solutions. Ultimately, markets are smarter and more efficient than regulation. What the government needs to do now is insist on removing obstacles to the efficient operation of market oversight.
Shareholders must be able to replace directors who make bad decisions and they should have a non-binding "say on pay" vote on executive compensation as they do in the UK and several other countries.
Our current system of executive compensation does not tie pay to performance, it does not provide an effective incentive to create long-term shareholder value, and it does not meet any possible market test.
Executive compensation must be looked at as any other asset allocation. The return on investment for the expenditures on CEO pay is by any measure inadequate.
Some have argued that the amounts at issue are so small in proportion to the assets being managed that they do not have any material impact. On the contrary, the CEO compensation in America's public companies is a leading indicator of serious problems -- and one reason my firm has consistently given most financial services companies "high-risk" ratings.
And it is more than a symptom of the pervasive problem that is toppling our most respected financial services companies. It is a perversion of the market that imposes enormous and growing costs on America's working families -- as shareholders, customers, employees, and members of the community.
These outrageous pay packages juxtaposed with losses in share value and jobs diminishes our credibility and increases our cost of capital. In today's global economy this is an expense we clearly can no longer afford.
Nell Minow: Wall Street directors ultimately to blame for financial crisis
As big Wall Street firms topple like dominoes, there is plenty of blame to go around.
Failure this broad and deep takes a village, and regulators, lawyers, compensation consultants, auditors, executives, shareholders, and the press all played a part. But the people who are most responsible for the massive meltdowns of these institutions are the boards of directors.
Their sole responsibility is to act as fiduciaries for the shareholders in managing risk. They not only failed to perform this task but indeed, in their approval of outrageous pay plans with perverse incentives, they all but guaranteed the current disaster.
I am a capitalist. I love it when executives earn boatloads of money. But it infuriates me when they get it without earning it.
If the executives' compensation is tied to the volume of business rather than the quality of business, we should expect dealmakers to be more attentive to the number of transactions than the value they create. This is the basis for much of the sub-prime mess, whose collateral damage is taking down the biggest firms on Wall Street.
At Merrill Lynch, former CEO Stanley O'Neal received total compensation of more than $91 million for 2006, according to The Corporate Library's calculations. He was given that package based on performance numbers that came out before nearly $23 billion in write-downs by the company.
O'Neal received more than $160 million in stock and retirement benefits while shareholders lost more than 41 percent of their investment value over the year. Three executives brought in to Merrill less than a year ago will share a $200 million payment as they turn over the company to Bank of America in a last-minute deal to help it survive.
American International Group (AIG) replaced CEO Martin Sullivan after the company posted losses for two consecutive quarters totaling $13 billion. Sullivan's contract entitled him to about $68 million. His replacement, a board member who served as CEO for three months before the company was taken over by the government, will get as much as $7 million.
The boards of directors approved pay that was completely disconnected to performance. This, after all, is the world of the ultimate oxymoron: the "guaranteed bonus." So we should not be surprised that executives took the money and ran.
Fewer than 13 percent of public companies have claw-back policies requiring executives to return bonuses based on inflated numbers. All of the incentives are for them to inflate the numbers, take the money, and run.
And that is why companies whose names used to be synonymous with stability and trustworthiness will live on through history and business school case studies as discredited, greedy and corrupt.
The people who insisted that government regulation interfered with the perfect efficiency of the markets are now getting bailed out by taxpayers with some walloping welfare checks.
I just hope that this time the government does a better job of protecting itself than it did with its bail-out of Chrysler almost 30 years ago and this time insists on a piece of the upside rather than a fixed repayment. If the government is going to run a business, it has to act like a business and make sure its interests are aligned with the executives.
Despite the post-Enron adoption of the most extensive protections since the New Deal, a survey released this week by Kroll and the Economist Intelligence Unit found that corporate fraud rose 22 percent since last year.
The option back-dating and sub-prime messes show that even the post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley reform law and expanded enforcement and oversight cannot eliminate the severest threats to our markets and our economy.
This proves that there are limits to structural solutions. Ultimately, markets are smarter and more efficient than regulation. What the government needs to do now is insist on removing obstacles to the efficient operation of market oversight.
Shareholders must be able to replace directors who make bad decisions and they should have a non-binding "say on pay" vote on executive compensation as they do in the UK and several other countries.
Our current system of executive compensation does not tie pay to performance, it does not provide an effective incentive to create long-term shareholder value, and it does not meet any possible market test.
Executive compensation must be looked at as any other asset allocation. The return on investment for the expenditures on CEO pay is by any measure inadequate.
Some have argued that the amounts at issue are so small in proportion to the assets being managed that they do not have any material impact. On the contrary, the CEO compensation in America's public companies is a leading indicator of serious problems -- and one reason my firm has consistently given most financial services companies "high-risk" ratings.
And it is more than a symptom of the pervasive problem that is toppling our most respected financial services companies. It is a perversion of the market that imposes enormous and growing costs on America's working families -- as shareholders, customers, employees, and members of the community.
These outrageous pay packages juxtaposed with losses in share value and jobs diminishes our credibility and increases our cost of capital. In today's global economy this is an expense we clearly can no longer afford.
Can you imagine the nagging x's 86?
Man arrested for having 86 wives
Muslim preacher allegedly breaks Islamic law — four wives is the limit
ABUJA, Nigeria - Police in northern Nigeria have arrested a Muslim preacher who has 86 wives and 107 children for breaking Islamic marriage laws.
Niger state police spokesman Richard Oguche says Mohammed Bello Masaba, 84, was detained Monday.
It was unclear when he would appear in court, or what the potential punishment could be. Muslim principles forbid men from taking more than four wives.
Almost half of Nigeria's 140 million people are Muslim and Niger is one of twelve states in the country where Islamic Sharia law holds sway.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26735448/
Muslim preacher allegedly breaks Islamic law — four wives is the limit
ABUJA, Nigeria - Police in northern Nigeria have arrested a Muslim preacher who has 86 wives and 107 children for breaking Islamic marriage laws.
Niger state police spokesman Richard Oguche says Mohammed Bello Masaba, 84, was detained Monday.
It was unclear when he would appear in court, or what the potential punishment could be. Muslim principles forbid men from taking more than four wives.
Almost half of Nigeria's 140 million people are Muslim and Niger is one of twelve states in the country where Islamic Sharia law holds sway.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26735448/
PSoftheD
LOS ANGELES — Lindsay Lohan's efforts to stump for Barack Obama were reportedly thrown back in her face by the Democratic candidate's campaign ... and her father is none too happy about it.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, LiLo wanted to promote Obama but was turned away by his camp due to her wild ways. Now daddy Michael Lohan is biting back.
"For Barack Obama to condemn my daughter for past indiscretions when he admitted to the exact same himself is indicative of what kind of president he would be," Michael Lohan told Pop Tarts via e-mail on Wednesday night.
"His visions of a positive future for this country should be representative of a positive future for people as well. It is looking beyond the difficult times and letting go of the past," Michael said. "Obviously, Obama can do this for himself and not others, when in fact a good president should have hope for all."
Michael and his famous daughter have had a rocky relationship in recent weeks, but he had nothing but nice words for his little one in his e-mail.
"Lindsay is gifted — she has a wonderful heart and she can and will affect millions of people in a very positive way. She is here to stay," he said. "Obama might have eight years, and then he will be giving lectures. Who knows, maybe Lindsay will give him a part in one of her movies."
hahahahah...like anyone gives a shit who lindsay lohan and her dad support. I actually like Obama MORE for telling her to f off.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, LiLo wanted to promote Obama but was turned away by his camp due to her wild ways. Now daddy Michael Lohan is biting back.
"For Barack Obama to condemn my daughter for past indiscretions when he admitted to the exact same himself is indicative of what kind of president he would be," Michael Lohan told Pop Tarts via e-mail on Wednesday night.
"His visions of a positive future for this country should be representative of a positive future for people as well. It is looking beyond the difficult times and letting go of the past," Michael said. "Obviously, Obama can do this for himself and not others, when in fact a good president should have hope for all."
Michael and his famous daughter have had a rocky relationship in recent weeks, but he had nothing but nice words for his little one in his e-mail.
"Lindsay is gifted — she has a wonderful heart and she can and will affect millions of people in a very positive way. She is here to stay," he said. "Obama might have eight years, and then he will be giving lectures. Who knows, maybe Lindsay will give him a part in one of her movies."
hahahahah...like anyone gives a shit who lindsay lohan and her dad support. I actually like Obama MORE for telling her to f off.
Palin Drops Trow
In the three days after Palin joined Team McCain--Aug. 29-31--32 percent of voters told the pollsters at Diageo/Hotline that they had a favorable opinion of her; most (48 percent) didn't know enough to say.
By Sept. 4, however, 43 percent of Diageo/Hotline respondents approved of Palin with only 25 percent disapproving--an 18-point split. Apparently, voters were liking what they were hearing.
Four days later, Palin's approval rating had climbed to 47 percent (+17), and by Sept. 13 it had hit 52 percent. The gap at that point between her favorable and unfavorable numbers--22 percent--was larger than either McCain's (+20) or Obama's (+13).
But then a funny thing happened: Palin seems to have lost some of her luster. Since Sept. 13, Palin's unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That's a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll tied for the smallest favorability split (+12)** of any of the Final Four.
The Sept. 17 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll shows Palin at 47 percent favorable and 37 percent unfavorable--an even narrower +10 split.
Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.
By Sept. 4, however, 43 percent of Diageo/Hotline respondents approved of Palin with only 25 percent disapproving--an 18-point split. Apparently, voters were liking what they were hearing.
Four days later, Palin's approval rating had climbed to 47 percent (+17), and by Sept. 13 it had hit 52 percent. The gap at that point between her favorable and unfavorable numbers--22 percent--was larger than either McCain's (+20) or Obama's (+13).
But then a funny thing happened: Palin seems to have lost some of her luster. Since Sept. 13, Palin's unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That's a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll tied for the smallest favorability split (+12)** of any of the Final Four.
The Sept. 17 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll shows Palin at 47 percent favorable and 37 percent unfavorable--an even narrower +10 split.
Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.
So, um...just repeat everything you've ever said before. helpful...
Bush: Markets adjusting to economic action
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Thursday said he shared Americans' concerns about the economy and his administration is ready to act to prevent severe market disruptions.
The U.S. economy still faces "serious challenges," Bush said. "My administration is focused on meeting these challenges."
The president said the government had taken "extraordinary measures" to help stabilize the markets, including the takeover of insurance giant American International Group Inc. on Tuesday.
Bush said the AIG takeover was necessary to prevent "a severe disruption in our financial markets and threatened other sectors of the economy."
He also said the federal takeover of two mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were necessary to "help promote market stability and to ensure they can continue to play a role in helping our housing market recover."
The Federal Reserve on Wednesday night also took steps, in coordination with central banks around the world, to provide additional liquidity to U.S. markets, Bush said.
"These actions are necessary and important, and the markets are adjusting to them," Bush said.
Despite the government's takeover of AIG, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 449 points Wednesday in its second worst session of the year. The market has bounced back somewhat Thursday morning, with the Dow up more than 100 points.
Bush made his comments after meeting with economic advisers, including Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Bush said he would confer again with Paulson later Thursday.
The president canceled a fundraising trip to Alabama and Florida to meet with his advisers, the White House said.
The White House has defended the Federal Reserve's decision to bail out AIG. The Fed announced Tuesday it would provide an $85 billion emergency loan in exchange for a nearly 80 percent stake in the company, the most far-reaching intervention into the private sector ever for the Federal Reserve.
"While no one would have liked to have ended up in this situation, you have a government that is willing to lead," White House press secretary Dana Perino said.
Bush has not fielded questions about the economic upheaval this week and even canceled a statement Tuesday. Reporters have tried each day. When one tried to press Bush in the Oval Office on Wednesday, he said he could not hear the question, then made light of the moment by saying, "I'm old."
Congressional Democrats, along with key Republicans, voiced their displeasure with the recent bailout. Some Republicans said they were not aware of the White House's plans to rescue AIG.
"Once again the Fed has put the taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars to bail out an institution that put greed ahead of responsibility and used their good name to take risky bets that did not pay off," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, a member of the Senate Banking Committee.
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, said House Republicans are struggling to "understand a coherent strategy" about which firms get rescued and which ones don't.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, placed the blame for the nation's economic woes squarely on the Bush administration, arguing it failed to regulate the financial industry aggressively.
"The most recent bailout initiated by the Bush administration -- that of AIG -- is just another example that George Bush is a failed manager," she said Wednesday. "Because of the inattention, or a decision on their part to have crony capitalism in our country, Americans across the country are feeling the pain of this."
Perino countered, saying lawmakers could have done more to head off the crisis.
"I think that Congress needs to take -- before they start throwing arrows -- take a little bit of time for some self-reflection," she said. "But also, why don't we just set that aside for a minute and focus on the fact that we have a crisis that we're trying to manage."
Vice President Dick Cheney will fill in for Bush at Thursday's fundraiser scheduled in Huntsville, Alabama. Another Alabama event, a tour of the Huntsville Waste-to-Energy Facility, has been canceled.
Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/18/bush.economy/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Thursday said he shared Americans' concerns about the economy and his administration is ready to act to prevent severe market disruptions.
The U.S. economy still faces "serious challenges," Bush said. "My administration is focused on meeting these challenges."
The president said the government had taken "extraordinary measures" to help stabilize the markets, including the takeover of insurance giant American International Group Inc. on Tuesday.
Bush said the AIG takeover was necessary to prevent "a severe disruption in our financial markets and threatened other sectors of the economy."
He also said the federal takeover of two mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were necessary to "help promote market stability and to ensure they can continue to play a role in helping our housing market recover."
The Federal Reserve on Wednesday night also took steps, in coordination with central banks around the world, to provide additional liquidity to U.S. markets, Bush said.
"These actions are necessary and important, and the markets are adjusting to them," Bush said.
Despite the government's takeover of AIG, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 449 points Wednesday in its second worst session of the year. The market has bounced back somewhat Thursday morning, with the Dow up more than 100 points.
Bush made his comments after meeting with economic advisers, including Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Bush said he would confer again with Paulson later Thursday.
The president canceled a fundraising trip to Alabama and Florida to meet with his advisers, the White House said.
The White House has defended the Federal Reserve's decision to bail out AIG. The Fed announced Tuesday it would provide an $85 billion emergency loan in exchange for a nearly 80 percent stake in the company, the most far-reaching intervention into the private sector ever for the Federal Reserve.
"While no one would have liked to have ended up in this situation, you have a government that is willing to lead," White House press secretary Dana Perino said.
Bush has not fielded questions about the economic upheaval this week and even canceled a statement Tuesday. Reporters have tried each day. When one tried to press Bush in the Oval Office on Wednesday, he said he could not hear the question, then made light of the moment by saying, "I'm old."
Congressional Democrats, along with key Republicans, voiced their displeasure with the recent bailout. Some Republicans said they were not aware of the White House's plans to rescue AIG.
"Once again the Fed has put the taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars to bail out an institution that put greed ahead of responsibility and used their good name to take risky bets that did not pay off," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, a member of the Senate Banking Committee.
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, said House Republicans are struggling to "understand a coherent strategy" about which firms get rescued and which ones don't.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, placed the blame for the nation's economic woes squarely on the Bush administration, arguing it failed to regulate the financial industry aggressively.
"The most recent bailout initiated by the Bush administration -- that of AIG -- is just another example that George Bush is a failed manager," she said Wednesday. "Because of the inattention, or a decision on their part to have crony capitalism in our country, Americans across the country are feeling the pain of this."
Perino countered, saying lawmakers could have done more to head off the crisis.
"I think that Congress needs to take -- before they start throwing arrows -- take a little bit of time for some self-reflection," she said. "But also, why don't we just set that aside for a minute and focus on the fact that we have a crisis that we're trying to manage."
Vice President Dick Cheney will fill in for Bush at Thursday's fundraiser scheduled in Huntsville, Alabama. Another Alabama event, a tour of the Huntsville Waste-to-Energy Facility, has been canceled.
Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/18/bush.economy/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
He Can Drive?!?!
Gary Coleman Formally Charged With Reckless Driving, Disorderly Conduct
By Ken Lee
Gary Coleman was formally charged Wednesday with reckless driving and disorderly conduct following an altercation at a bowling alley in Utah. "Mr. Coleman was notified today of the charges through his attorney," said Lt. Bill Wright of the Payson, Utah, Police Department.
"(Coleman) never spoke to us about what happened, but we gathered evidence after speaking to witnesses and the other party involved." Both charges are misdemeanors. Coleman, 40, was backing out of a bowling alley around midnight on Sept. 6 when his truck hit Colt Rushton, 24, as well as another car. Rushton was taken to a local hospital and treated for minor injuries.Witnesses said Coleman became irritated after Rushton photographed him.
The two argued in the bowling alley and then moved outside, Lt. Wright said. Rushton's attorney, Dustin Lance, said in a statement: "This wasn't a situation of paparazzi or stalker-razzi, this was a fan snapping two photographs with a cell phone." Rushton has since filed a lawsuit against Coleman, seeking damages for medical bills, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. A rep for Coleman wasn't immediately available for comment.
By Ken Lee
Gary Coleman was formally charged Wednesday with reckless driving and disorderly conduct following an altercation at a bowling alley in Utah. "Mr. Coleman was notified today of the charges through his attorney," said Lt. Bill Wright of the Payson, Utah, Police Department.
"(Coleman) never spoke to us about what happened, but we gathered evidence after speaking to witnesses and the other party involved." Both charges are misdemeanors. Coleman, 40, was backing out of a bowling alley around midnight on Sept. 6 when his truck hit Colt Rushton, 24, as well as another car. Rushton was taken to a local hospital and treated for minor injuries.Witnesses said Coleman became irritated after Rushton photographed him.
The two argued in the bowling alley and then moved outside, Lt. Wright said. Rushton's attorney, Dustin Lance, said in a statement: "This wasn't a situation of paparazzi or stalker-razzi, this was a fan snapping two photographs with a cell phone." Rushton has since filed a lawsuit against Coleman, seeking damages for medical bills, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. A rep for Coleman wasn't immediately available for comment.
Be Very Afraid...
Election day could be a mess
Worries over registration surge, failure-prone equipment, new procedures
By Mary Pat Flaherty, The Washington Post
Faced with a surge in voter registrations leading up to Nov. 4, election officials across the country are bracing for long lines, equipment failures and confusion over polling procedures that could cost thousands the chance to cast a ballot.
The crush of voters will strain a system already in the midst of transformation, with jurisdictions introducing new machines and rules to avoid the catastrophe of the deadlocked 2000 election and the lingering controversy over the 2004 outcome. Even within the past few months, cities and counties have revamped their processes: Nine million voters, including many in the battleground states of Ohio, Florida and Colorado, will use equipment that has changed since March.
But the widespread changes meant to reassure the public have also increased the potential for trouble.
"You change systems and throw in lots of new voters, and you can plan to be up the proverbial creek," said Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services, a consulting firm that has tracked the voting changes.
$3 billion overhaul
Since Congress passed the Help America Vote Act six years ago, $3 billion in federal funds has been spent to overhaul voting operations, much of it for new equipment. With touchscreen machines falling out of favor, an increasing number of the nation's voters -- just over half -- will use paper ballots, which will be read by optical scanners. That will produce a paper trail that can serve as a backup if questions arise over tallies.
For more than half of the states, this will be the first presidential election using statewide databases required by the 2002 law to improve the accuracy of voter rolls. When voters arrive at the polls, their information must match the list in order for them to receive a regular ballot. That could trigger contentious questions in places with particularly rigid rules on what constitutes a match.
Both campaigns have lined up teams of lawyers to challenge any irregularities, from registrations to polling place problems to vote counts.
And experts say the problems ahead will be formidable, even if they don't rise to the level of the Supreme Court challenge over the 2000 results.
"The voting process is going to be tested in a way it has not been in recent history," said Tova Wang, vice president for research at Common Cause, a government watchdog group.
Warning signsRecent local primaries have offered warning signs.
In the District last week, initial tallies were inflated by thousands of votes, causing chaos that night, and officials have yet to explain the problem.
In Palm Beach County, Fla., more than 3,500 ballots went missing in an August primary, forcing workers to hunt through bins and leaving a judicial election still undecided.
That same day, equipment problems in two other Florida jurisdictions delayed results for hours.
Premier Election Solutions, the company that makes many of the nation's voting machines, last month acknowledged that software used in 34 states, including Virginia and Maryland, could cause votes to be dropped. The company, formerly called Diebold, said it has no fix for the problem now, but election officials can catch the errors and recover the votes through a routine process of double-checking electronic memory cards.
Any weak spots in the process in November, whether poorly trained poll workers, a confusing ballot design or faulty equipment, will be further stressed by turnout, including many first-time voters.
During this year's presidential primaries, the number of voters hit an eight-year high in 36 states, according to Electionline.org, which monitors electoral reforms as part of the Pew Center on the States.
Maryland election officials said Tuesday that they expect 250,000 new voters to register by next month's deadline. More than 280,000 Virginians have registered to vote since the beginning of the year.
In the battleground state of Nevada, there are 400,000 more voters registered than four years ago. More than 500,000 have registered in Indiana since the beginning of the year, prompting Secretary of State Todd Rokita to say this could be "the biggest Election Day in our nation's history in terms of turnout."
2 million poll workers needed
Federal officials estimate that 2 million poll workers will be needed to handle the turnout, twice 2004's number and a goal states are scrambling to meet.
New York City had hoped to muster more than its usual 30,000 poll workers, particularly to help voters with disabilities, but extra funds were not available, said Marcus Cederqvist, executive director of the city's Board of Elections. "We will have waits -- I'd guess an hour or maybe two -- but we like to see high turnouts," he said. "It's what we are here for, and let's hope voters keep it in perspective. It won't be like waiting for an iPhone overnight."
Because elections are managed at the local level -- more than 10,000 jurisdictions run voting operations -- there is plenty of opportunity for foul-ups, which can resound nationally.
"Nobody wants to be that county," said Rosemary Rodriguez, chairwoman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, created in 2002 to oversee and enforce nationwide election reform. But, she added, "the biggest fear I have is that elections officials don't heed what they saw in the primary and plan."
Long lines
After a spate of Election Day problems in Ohio in 2004, when some voters waited in line more than five hours, Franklin County, which includes Columbus, has added poll workers, increased the number of voting machines by 50 percent and commissioned a study on where the machines should go.
Other jurisdictions, including elsewhere in Ohio and several counties in Virginia, are requiring more training of poll workers, from greeters who will walk lines to make sure voters are at the right site to supervisors who must be able to set up and test voting machines.
In Worcester, Mass., local election officials are trying to prepare for the bigger turnout by locating some polling places in four supermarkets, which have plenty of parking and are accessible to disabled voters.
But David Moon, program director for FairVote, a voting advocacy group that is surveying local operations, said that "very few county officials" in swing states "are creating rational plans" to put machines where they are most needed. As a result, he said, frustrated voters stuck in long lines could give up and go home without casting ballots -- the same thing that happened four years ago in many states.
The process could be complicated by the statewide registration databases, which have been coming online one by one since 2004. For 31 states, Nov. 4 will be the first test of the systems with the bigger turnout of a presidential election.
States have taken a variety of positions on what should be considered a match when it comes to nicknames, hyphenated names and married names. If the information doesn't match, voters can cast provisional ballots, but whether those will count in final tallies depends on local rules, which vary widely.
"If you have small glitches multiplied by thousands of voters, that means big problems that cost eligible voters their voice," said Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law specialist at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law. The problems could be more acute with hyphenated Hispanic names or transposed Asian surnames, he said, "leaving certain groups disproportionately affected."
Registration rules have prompted bitter complaints and lawsuits in Missouri, New Mexico and other states, and could lead to challenges after the votes are counted. Voting rights advocates have protested an Arizona requirement that residents show proof of citizenship to register, which has been upheld by a federal judge.
Advocates also worry that the back-and-forth of legislative debates and court rulings on voter identification in numerous states could further confound poll workers, disenfranchising some voters.
'Two lessons learned'As they approach November, some local officials say they have addressed problems that surfaced in this year's presidential primaries.
Touchscreen machines still will be in place in Horry County, S.C., which includes Myrtle Beach, but elections director Sandy Martin said she will avoid the programming error that forced the county to use backup paper ballots -- some votes were cast on yellow legal pads -- and delayed results for a day.
"Oh, my gosh, it was awful," Martin said.
In Contra Costa County, east of San Francisco, registrar Stephen Weir said he too learned from the primary. A fold in the absentee ballots forced him to spend nearly two weeks ironing, by hand, about 16,000 ballots to make them flat enough to feed into vote-counting machines.
"There were two lessons learned," he said. "Dump the fold. And the silk setting worked great."
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26767481/
Worries over registration surge, failure-prone equipment, new procedures
By Mary Pat Flaherty, The Washington Post
Faced with a surge in voter registrations leading up to Nov. 4, election officials across the country are bracing for long lines, equipment failures and confusion over polling procedures that could cost thousands the chance to cast a ballot.
The crush of voters will strain a system already in the midst of transformation, with jurisdictions introducing new machines and rules to avoid the catastrophe of the deadlocked 2000 election and the lingering controversy over the 2004 outcome. Even within the past few months, cities and counties have revamped their processes: Nine million voters, including many in the battleground states of Ohio, Florida and Colorado, will use equipment that has changed since March.
But the widespread changes meant to reassure the public have also increased the potential for trouble.
"You change systems and throw in lots of new voters, and you can plan to be up the proverbial creek," said Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services, a consulting firm that has tracked the voting changes.
$3 billion overhaul
Since Congress passed the Help America Vote Act six years ago, $3 billion in federal funds has been spent to overhaul voting operations, much of it for new equipment. With touchscreen machines falling out of favor, an increasing number of the nation's voters -- just over half -- will use paper ballots, which will be read by optical scanners. That will produce a paper trail that can serve as a backup if questions arise over tallies.
For more than half of the states, this will be the first presidential election using statewide databases required by the 2002 law to improve the accuracy of voter rolls. When voters arrive at the polls, their information must match the list in order for them to receive a regular ballot. That could trigger contentious questions in places with particularly rigid rules on what constitutes a match.
Both campaigns have lined up teams of lawyers to challenge any irregularities, from registrations to polling place problems to vote counts.
And experts say the problems ahead will be formidable, even if they don't rise to the level of the Supreme Court challenge over the 2000 results.
"The voting process is going to be tested in a way it has not been in recent history," said Tova Wang, vice president for research at Common Cause, a government watchdog group.
Warning signsRecent local primaries have offered warning signs.
In the District last week, initial tallies were inflated by thousands of votes, causing chaos that night, and officials have yet to explain the problem.
In Palm Beach County, Fla., more than 3,500 ballots went missing in an August primary, forcing workers to hunt through bins and leaving a judicial election still undecided.
That same day, equipment problems in two other Florida jurisdictions delayed results for hours.
Premier Election Solutions, the company that makes many of the nation's voting machines, last month acknowledged that software used in 34 states, including Virginia and Maryland, could cause votes to be dropped. The company, formerly called Diebold, said it has no fix for the problem now, but election officials can catch the errors and recover the votes through a routine process of double-checking electronic memory cards.
Any weak spots in the process in November, whether poorly trained poll workers, a confusing ballot design or faulty equipment, will be further stressed by turnout, including many first-time voters.
During this year's presidential primaries, the number of voters hit an eight-year high in 36 states, according to Electionline.org, which monitors electoral reforms as part of the Pew Center on the States.
Maryland election officials said Tuesday that they expect 250,000 new voters to register by next month's deadline. More than 280,000 Virginians have registered to vote since the beginning of the year.
In the battleground state of Nevada, there are 400,000 more voters registered than four years ago. More than 500,000 have registered in Indiana since the beginning of the year, prompting Secretary of State Todd Rokita to say this could be "the biggest Election Day in our nation's history in terms of turnout."
2 million poll workers needed
Federal officials estimate that 2 million poll workers will be needed to handle the turnout, twice 2004's number and a goal states are scrambling to meet.
New York City had hoped to muster more than its usual 30,000 poll workers, particularly to help voters with disabilities, but extra funds were not available, said Marcus Cederqvist, executive director of the city's Board of Elections. "We will have waits -- I'd guess an hour or maybe two -- but we like to see high turnouts," he said. "It's what we are here for, and let's hope voters keep it in perspective. It won't be like waiting for an iPhone overnight."
Because elections are managed at the local level -- more than 10,000 jurisdictions run voting operations -- there is plenty of opportunity for foul-ups, which can resound nationally.
"Nobody wants to be that county," said Rosemary Rodriguez, chairwoman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, created in 2002 to oversee and enforce nationwide election reform. But, she added, "the biggest fear I have is that elections officials don't heed what they saw in the primary and plan."
Long lines
After a spate of Election Day problems in Ohio in 2004, when some voters waited in line more than five hours, Franklin County, which includes Columbus, has added poll workers, increased the number of voting machines by 50 percent and commissioned a study on where the machines should go.
Other jurisdictions, including elsewhere in Ohio and several counties in Virginia, are requiring more training of poll workers, from greeters who will walk lines to make sure voters are at the right site to supervisors who must be able to set up and test voting machines.
In Worcester, Mass., local election officials are trying to prepare for the bigger turnout by locating some polling places in four supermarkets, which have plenty of parking and are accessible to disabled voters.
But David Moon, program director for FairVote, a voting advocacy group that is surveying local operations, said that "very few county officials" in swing states "are creating rational plans" to put machines where they are most needed. As a result, he said, frustrated voters stuck in long lines could give up and go home without casting ballots -- the same thing that happened four years ago in many states.
The process could be complicated by the statewide registration databases, which have been coming online one by one since 2004. For 31 states, Nov. 4 will be the first test of the systems with the bigger turnout of a presidential election.
States have taken a variety of positions on what should be considered a match when it comes to nicknames, hyphenated names and married names. If the information doesn't match, voters can cast provisional ballots, but whether those will count in final tallies depends on local rules, which vary widely.
"If you have small glitches multiplied by thousands of voters, that means big problems that cost eligible voters their voice," said Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law specialist at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law. The problems could be more acute with hyphenated Hispanic names or transposed Asian surnames, he said, "leaving certain groups disproportionately affected."
Registration rules have prompted bitter complaints and lawsuits in Missouri, New Mexico and other states, and could lead to challenges after the votes are counted. Voting rights advocates have protested an Arizona requirement that residents show proof of citizenship to register, which has been upheld by a federal judge.
Advocates also worry that the back-and-forth of legislative debates and court rulings on voter identification in numerous states could further confound poll workers, disenfranchising some voters.
'Two lessons learned'As they approach November, some local officials say they have addressed problems that surfaced in this year's presidential primaries.
Touchscreen machines still will be in place in Horry County, S.C., which includes Myrtle Beach, but elections director Sandy Martin said she will avoid the programming error that forced the county to use backup paper ballots -- some votes were cast on yellow legal pads -- and delayed results for a day.
"Oh, my gosh, it was awful," Martin said.
In Contra Costa County, east of San Francisco, registrar Stephen Weir said he too learned from the primary. A fold in the absentee ballots forced him to spend nearly two weeks ironing, by hand, about 16,000 ballots to make them flat enough to feed into vote-counting machines.
"There were two lessons learned," he said. "Dump the fold. And the silk setting worked great."
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26767481/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
