Sean Hannity, under extreme mental pressure , inadvertantly stumbled across the most obvious reason information obtained by torture can't be taken at face value.
HANNITY: Forget about it. If we capture Usama bin Laden, you don't want to take his head, dunk it in water and find out what he may know about pending attacks against innocent people?
MENIN: Evidence has shown that those types of torture tactics, unfortunately, do not work.
HANNITY: According to what academic research are you looking at? Because let me tell you something. If you dunk my head in the water, I'm going to tell you whatever I need to tell you to get -- if it's true, to get out of this.
Sean, you crazy guy! Even you know your full of it!
I thought that the only purpose of these threat levels was to needlessly scare the American people. Now that Obama is in why hasn't he lowered the threat level to put people at ease? I know I wouldn't mind the convenience of lower security at the airports. Those lines are so long sometimes. Better to just drop the threat level and forget about all those needless x-ray machines and metal detectors.
In fact, why hasn't Obama abolished the threat level all together since its only purpose is to frighten people and scam the American public. Does this mean that he is on board with the whole scare and scam philosphy of governing?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
It probably should be abolished. All it means now is:
Green: doesn't exist
Blue: doesn't exist
Yellow: everyday life - sit and be complacent
Orange: everyday life, with a reminder to go out and vote
Red: everyday life, with decreased tourism to New York City
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That's not everyday life in the US, that's government scare mongering. How is this any different than what Bush was doing? I thought we were going to move past this mode of panic and fear mongoring. I guess Obama is just like Bush.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I'd totally forgotten about the color coded security levels. Who knows, maybe the policy is under review. Doesn't really matter much one way or another, since the public pretty much ignores the warning.
As for metal detectors and x-ray machines in airports, they were already around before 9/11, were they not? I'm curious as to who in the "democrat" party has suggested that we get rid of x-ray machines and metal detecctors in airports that has prompted this from you.
I'd totally forgotten about the color coded security levels.
Sure, NOW you have forgotten them. Because all the Democrats have finally STFU about them. Funny how they stopped being the sign of the devil just around the time Obama took office. But, the die has been cast. The threat levels were invented to scare people needlessly and they serve no purpose other than to stir up hysteria. That is the (paraphrased) message the Democrats put into play so now I get to play it too. Unless and until Obama abolishes this, he is just like Bush.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
there were x-rays and metal detectors before the color-coded piece of crap was introduced, remember? Are you equating criticism of ineffective fearmongering and beaurocracy with a movement to abolish all security measures? Brillant reasoning.
Keep the basic protections for vulnerable locations (airplanes, esp. cockpits), avoid stoking irrational fears and trust the citizenry to act responsibly and report suspicious activity. Not that I'm aware of the level of human intelligence we have on Al-Qaida, but it seems we could put a little more effort into infiltrating them and a little less into making each passenger take off their shoes. God help us if the next Richard Reid puts C-4 in his underwear.
Despite continuing to spend tens of billions a year the missile defense program still fails to work as promised.
Those promises by the way were made two and a half decades ago now.
WASHINGTON — After 24 years and more than $100 billion spent to develop a U.S. missile defense, an American-operated system proposed for Europe would cost billions more to deploy and still may fail, a series of independent reports concludes.
...
The type of ground-based interceptors that would be deployed in Europe failed to hit targets in five of 13 tests, according to the Pentagon. They have not demonstrated an ability to detect decoys, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) says.
...
The system, planned as a potential defense should Iran develop a nuclear capability, would cost $9 billion to $13 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and would leave parts of Europe unprotected from an Iranian missile. All told, the government has spent $144 billion on missile defense since 1985, according to the CBO.
In the most recent test of the U.S.-based system, an interceptor launched in December from California destroyed a warhead launched from Alaska. But a goal of the test was to see if the interceptor could distinguish a live warhead from decoys, and the decoys failed to deploy.
Independent technical analysis has shown that Iran and North Korea, which has a nuclear program, could fool the system using simple countermeasures such as balloons, says critic David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Missile defense is one of many programs designed to funnel taxpayer money to a handful of aerospace companies with no ROI expected or ever delivered. It should have been killed a long time ago. Here's hoping Obama will drive the stake at long last.
Didn't Keynes say something to the effect that you could pay people to dig ditches and fill them back in during a recession and it would be stimulative to the economy? I suppose if you want to put a happy face on spending $150 billion on inert piles of hardware that don't do the job, you could look at it that way...
But a goal of the test was to see if the interceptor could distinguish a live warhead from decoys, and the decoys failed to deploy.
Yeah that sounds real fishy... not buying it. They either 1.) rigged the decoys not to work because they new they would fool the system, or 2.) They aren't even competent enough to get a lousy decoy to work after getting almost $150 billion. I'm not happy about all the wasted money either way. The Chinese could probably make a missile shield that actually works for 1/10th the cost.
"ICRC Report on the Treatment of 14 "High Value Detainees" in CIA Custody, by the International Committee of the Red Cross, February 2007"
Apparently Darth & dubya ordered torturing prisoners starting in 2002, before we were at war. This is also prior to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which claims that it's OK to order torture, even though that's contrary to every Geneva Convention Accord & the US signed all the Geneva Convention Accords.
So when those twits Rick Klein, Chip Reid & Co start bitching & moaning about honor & dignity because Press Secretary Gibbs comparison of Darth to Rush, I don't have much compassion for their points of view. Particularly because Darth had been on the tube proclaiming to one and all that Obama has made the nation less safe.
I think that those who directed the US undertake torture should be handed over to the International tribunal, be charged and tried for acts against signed treaties. We killed a bunch of Germans & Japanese for doing the very same thing with those courts. We need to do it again. I for one, would not shed a sorrowful tear if they were declared guilty, as they surely are. I would not hope for their death either. Just justice, that's all.
seriously. This incoherent babbling is painful to read. No Erick, there is no remaining question and Olbermann wasn't defending the list (which, in the way he presented it, doesn't even exist), he was mocking you for amplifying wild accusations without verifying a single part of it.
Leon, who used to post here, occasionnally had relevant and considerate things to say. And Josh Trevino, one of the original founders, could be thought provoking. I guess redstate.com left them and they pulled a Jeffors.
By the way, if any of you red bars still post there, please Erick know he'd be welcome to defend his story outside of the sad echo chamber that redstate has become. I wonder how long he's going to persue this coordinated-smear listserv story.
I remember being mad as hell and making (even more) inflammatory posts when I started commenting on blogs in 2005. But geez, once you start learning the ropes it seems you should settle down and try to avoid the hysteria.
I do remember being mocked on redstate about their "cleaning our clock" in 2004 when they got tired of defending the swiftboaters. I suppose this was inevitable since all they had were their electoral victories.
There have been death threats sent to the building in lower Manhattan to the rank and filers, and people are calling in, scared to report to work. Shoot, if I worked down there, I'd telecommute too.
and it is screwed up big time..... the worst business model ever in the world. They used toxic assets as insurance capital, so they have no cash to pay their counterparties.
Still the unpleasant and ungodly truth, is that the folks that wound up the Credit Default Swaps and blew up trillions of dollars owe money to all kinds of companies and to pension funds, auto insurance claims around the frickin world.
What they are doing is using govt money to speculate in a hedge fundy way to make money to pay off their bills. That's my guess.
Kind of like asking Bernie to get to work, with govt funds to make money to pay of the people he ripped off, and then giving him a bonus of a few million to undue the damage he did.
But so far the financial division as unwound about one Trillion worth of junk.
The company itself has a budget bigger than the Homeland Security Dept, maybe even bigger than the Defense Dept. Spooky. It almost seems like a shadow government corporation if you put on your tin foil hat.
When the government approves your operating budget, which clearly outlined the bonus policy, it's pretty clear why they (AIG) moved forward thinking they were okay as is. It's not like this information was secret or was just released. When public outrage lit up, The One has had to backtrack on his decision that this kind of bonus payout was acceptable. The problem lies with our government, not AIG, with regard to bonus-gate. And unless you've got rose colored glasses on with regard to government intervention actually being successful or well managed, this is a pretty shiny example of the "regulation" we can look forward to coming out of this congress and administration.
Read about the whole thing here . Or divert from the topic at hand to point out that AIG has been poorly managed rather than discuss the failure of our current government to properly execute their own plan. I suppose I already know who's going to do what, anyway.
You disagree with what? The fact that the stimulus bill provided for the honoring of these contracts which was agreed upon by The One when he signed it? How can you disagree with a fact?
The right has been lying their heads off over this. I just listened to Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes and have never heard such a concentration of lies in such a short span of time.
AIG screwed up royally, and Rush says Obama planned this as a screw big business plot. What a load of crap.
First the wingnuts opposed pay caps (last week), and now (this week) they are for them.
Liddy himself said, in November of 08. I guess that makes Liddy a liar too, or is that what it takes to me a good businessman in the cut thoat world of competition.
"AIG is mindful that it must act prudently and, as such, must impose curbs on executive compensation. … To meet these objectives, AIG’s top seven executives (Leadership Group) will receive no annual bonuses for 2008. In addition, the top roughly 60 executives (Senior Partners) including the seven most senior AIG executives, will forego any salary increase through 2009 and their 2008 and 2009 bonuses will be restricted. […]"
"Finally, AIG is developing a funding structure to ensure that no taxpayer dollars are used for annual bonus or future cash performance awards for the top 60 members of management."
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/11-25-08liddyletter.pdf This is a letter he wrote to Andrew Cuomo.
Further the TARP program has a specific provision that any terms can be renegotiated at any time, if the Congress decides to change it. The provision that limited pay caps was pulled out by someone, or else we wouldn't have to be going through this fire breathing exorcism.
(I don't know what the hell is up with my computer, but I am working on it. It's making me nuts.I think I have been invaded by an illegal host. RW is that you?)
AIG may have lied about how they would use the money butI don't care. That's not my point. My point was that the provisions to make these payouts are in the stimulus bill and were approved by Obama and Congress. They may have left themselves the provision to renegotiate, but to go on record stating your are appaled at the compensation when they had full opportunity to stop it legally is simply dishonest. Geithner approved the payouts and gave them the money. If you want to be mad at anyone at least place the blame logically. I know you'll never blame a Democrat for anything but at least you can recognize that what AIG did was:
1. legal
2. paid for after asking for permission from the person providing the money
What AIG said in a press release is meaningless when they have proven, unquestionably, that they can't be trusted. So who are the real fools? You, for believing AIG would follow through (otherwise you wouldn't be outraged, you'd be vindicated), and our government, for letting this one slip by.
You can blame it on Rush or the Conservative media or whomever you'd like. But you're wrong. And the facts prove it.
there are provisions written in the TARP specifically that deal with these types of problems.
But this is really a stupid side issue. The real issue that AIG blew up twice the amount of money of US GDP with leveraged Credit Default Swaps in just a few short years.
All this bonus retention crap is just a side show to the massive theft that occured in the financial sector at AIG, because Alan Greenspan thought that the CDS's were protected by market forces and didn't need to be regulated.
I am not blaming Rush for anything but being a liar. But that's nothing new.
Obama waits patiently to let events take their natural course and just casually mentions what idiots they are.
Obama just sat there and waited for them to screw up, in your opinion. Which means you'd rather have a vindictive President than a responsible one. I can't even begin with how childish that attitude really is.
The issue is that the Stimulus Bill allowed for this. The post I linked to even had a reference link to the New York Times which, as I understand it, is a news source that Democratic appologists are incapable of ignoring.
You can't wiggle out of this one by saying that TARP kept this from happening (which was passed under Bush, by the way). Post some hard evidence or admit you're wrong. This is a prime example of how government control simply doesn't work like in your fairy tale progressive land says it should.
This is a prime example of how ruthless unethical arrogant corporations hold the country hostage. What these corporate heads did is pure BS. In most circles it's called blackmail or extortion.
Obama personally guarantees that these bonuses should be paid when he signed the bill containing the Amendment that specifically and directly protected them, and now he is trying to claim he and his minions had no idea ... when it was his minion (i.e. Dodd) that put the language in there. What a lying bastard.
Then we find out that they knew about these payments for month yet they kept sending money to AIG anyway. What a bunch of incompletent morons we have running the show. These guys are the Keystone Cops of DC.
This only goes to show how utterly incompetent these people are and why letting them be in control of $787B of tax payer money is the worst idea possible. I can't say that I am surprised, though, given who we have in office ... a typical Chicago schyster.
In a few short month Obama has managed to turn things around to the point where we are worse off now than we ever were under Bush. Go ahead. Ask yourself. Are you better off today than you were when Obama took office?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I note you fail to counter any of the substance on the topic at hand. That speaks volumes about your ability to do so. Misdirection is the sign of a weak hand.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
when it came to acting Presidential in the face of criticism. He never belittled his opponents. he had nothing but good words for John Murtha and others. We all know that there has been a tradition of ex-Presidents not commenting on a current President's decisions. This is a tradition that he evidently intends to uphold even though the spineless Jimmy Carter doesn't have the good grace to STFU. Hell, even Clinton has been better about this than Carter.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
he had nothing but good words for John Murtha and others.
Yeah, but Murtha is a crook! Typical of Bush to single out a corrupt Democrat for praise. Maybe he had good words for Bill Jefferson too!
This is a tradition that he evidently intends to uphold even though the spineless Jimmy Carter doesn't have the good grace to STFU.
Well, when Bush proved to be utterly derelict in his duties as the chief steward of our nation and its institutions, in ways that had never happened before in our history, all bets were off, and Carter chose to speak up.
I didn't know it was the Presidents responsibility to manage every business incorporated in the U.S. That sound like what someone might believe nowadays after all that's happened. But anyone who has done a bit of reading knows better than to make that assertion.
I never said that it is the "Presidents responsibility to manage every business incorporated in the U.S.". But it is the president's responsibility to manage government institutions responsible for regulation and oversight of those institutions, as well as all other government institutions.
Institutions such as the SEC, which declined to an utterly toothless and near-useless institution under Bush and his political flunky appointees like Christopher Cox.
Institutions like FEMA, which turned from a credible disaster-response institution under Bush to a moribund, impotent bureaucracy under Bush and his man Brownie.
Institutions like the Department of Justice, where Bush put loyal cronies in charge and then politicized the department by rewarding party hacks and firing independent U.S. Attorneys when they failed to cave to political strongarm tactics.
Institutions like the Armed Forces, which Bush sent into an unnecessary war without the proper armor and equipment, and then "supported" them by putting loyal, fresh-faced, totally out of their depth young Republicans in charge of the reconstruction effort.
Institutions like the FHA, where the Bush Administration "modernized" and "innovated" the underwriting standards into oblivion, seeking to eliminate stuff like downpayment requirements to "compete" in the subprime market.
Funny how you never do the same for foks on the Republican side of the aisle... except RINOs, and then it's only because they haven't toed the Republican party line, not because of their ethical failings.
While Americans are "rightly outraged" by the AIG bonuses, "just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of," Obama said, "a situation where excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking have all made us vulnerable and left us holding the bag." He reiterated his call to move beyond "a constant bubble-bust mentality" and build a foundation for sustainable economic growth.
"I hope that Wall Street and the marketplace don't think that we can return to business as usual," Obama said. "The business models that created a lot of paper wealth but not real wealth in the country and have now resulted in crisis can't be the model for economic growth going forward."
You give these guys enough rope and they hang themselves. Obama waits patiently to let events take their natural course and just casually mentions what idiots they are.
The compensation of big whig CEO's has grown out of all proportion to reality, when a CEO on his first day can make more money before lunch than a worker can make all year. It's obvious that the higher pay has no correlation to competence or performance of the company as we see with AIG.
the specific provisions that safeguarded these bonuses. In doing so he put is personal seal of approval on it. And don't try to claim that there is no way he knew because the government has been aware of this for months, maybe even a year.
Now it is blowing up in his face so he is lying through his teeth with his famous silver tipped forked tongue and trying to turn the situation to his advantage. Well America sees him for what he is, a liar and a pedophile.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Here are two timelines of the actual events if you are interested in the facts. The right seems thrilled to blame Dodd for all things AIG. He only withdrew his original amendment that would have harshly limited compensation under pressure from Treasury and the White House.
It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed. The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption.
The most stringent pay restriction bars any company receiving funds from paying top earners bonuses equal to more than one-third of their total annual compensation. That could severely crimp pay packages at big banks, where top officials commonly get relatively modest salaries but often huge bonuses.
As word spread Friday about the new and retroactive limit -- inserted by Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut -- so did consternation on Wall Street and in the Obama administration, which opposed it.
It was in the bill. The bill Obama signed. Signing implies approval of the contents. The bill stated that companies would be allowed to pay out their legal obligations. Those bonus contracts might stink to high heaven, but the fact is that they were/are legal documents, enforceable by law, stipulating bonuses which AIG was legally required to pay. The bill did not make those illegal; in fact, the bill provided additional legal support for them. And the Treasury Department allegedly agreed with AIG that such contracts had to be followed and the bonuses paid.
gets the idea that I am outraged by the bonuses, I don't know.
What I am outraged about is AIG. They had no capital and they are an international insurance company. They considered CDS's capital? Wha........?
IN the world of the big dawgs, big powerful international business interests, it isn't exactly a game of hopscotch and lemonade. These guys play rough.
Obama signed the bill. He gave AIG what they wanted, which was to keep the guys in place to unwind the hysterically stupid positions they hedged as insurance around the world with no capital to back up any of it.
Did AIG bully the Feds. Likely. Did AIG say that it was absolutely necessary to keep these people that made the mess to unmake it. Likely. Did AIG say there was no way they could get these folks to do so without pay. Sure. That is what the Wall Street Journal is talking about. Dodd was pressured by the White HOuse and the Treasury to back off.
AIG created this mess, begged for help, bullied people for aid, bullied people to not cut bonuses. They got what the wanted to 'save the world from blowing up', and now they pay a price for their hubris and the outrage it has generated.
If you want to blame Obama for what AIG did go ahead.
It doesn't change the fact that AIG created this mess and using the leverage that only they can fix it, to blackmail everyone around them to get what they want because they still have 1.7 Trillion $$$ worth of bad positions to unwind. Unfortunately.
AIG got what it wanted, pushing the bonus compensation package and it blew up in their faces, since it has fueled a massive populist backlash.
magilson: You disagree with what? The fact that the stimulus bill provided for the honoring of these contracts which was agreed upon by The One when he signed it? How can you disagree with a fact?
missliberties: That's a flat out lie. The right has been lying their heads off over this. I just listened to Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes and have never heard such a concentration of lies in such a short span of time.
Um, no, it's not a lie. It's the truth. And you are wrong about it.
As far as AIG goes, your statements such as
What I am outraged about is AIG. They had no capital and they are an international insurance company
show your ignorance about how companies are structured. It's the highly specialized AIG Financial Products subsidiary that was the reinsurer of this mess o' weird investments. AIG's other divisions, the "international insurance company" parts, are appropriately segregated and capitalized. In fact, these healthy companies are being prepped for sale as part of the strategy for repaying the federal government for its bailing out of the AIG Financial Products division.
And, just because you're full of third-party from-the-sidelines righteous outrage, that doesn't mean that I am as emotional as you are about this. I'm not blaming anybody; I'm simply pointing out your factual errors with regards to what has been said upthread.
And again, I am struck by your statements that imply that AIG "made" the federal government do this bailout. I guess our elected officials are just blank dummies, who cannot think for themselves nor make their own decisions, nor evaluate alternatives, etc. You seem to frame a lot of situations that way. I just don't grok that worldview.
AIG is a stand up company, except for that little trillions dollar error.
Thanks for that clarification.
I am in full flat line mode now. No peaks, no valleys, no passion. That's the way I want to live my life. Not!
You are right, you don't grok my world view, and I don't really grok yours. We clearly see things from a different perspective. But I don't think I called you ignorant.
(BTW I am fully aware that it was a small division inside AIG that took down the whole company.)
It never ceases to amaze me that you prefered John Edwards in the primaries because he would take the fight to the big corporate bosses and fight for the little guy. You know the two Americas speil. I wonder what he would have to say about AIG?
There are many things I'm ignorant about. And I intend to continue decreasing my ignorance until I die. One way that works for me is to listen to people and try to understand their point, perspective, and POV.
Just sayin'
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
because I doubt anyone would bother talking to you there.
I know you are trying to contribute to this site. But you fail to make your points clearly, fail to acknowledge blatant errors, and never seem to listen to or retain anything that people say in response to your posts.
But you have nastiness down pat. Kudos.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I have sincerely always been baffled by your support for John Edwards on the one hand, and the substance of many of your posts. It seems inconsistent to me on many levels. I was just wondering how you think he would have handled 'the big crises' differently. Is it unrealistic to speculate on alternative solutions.
Yes, I think it is. Because we aren't him, he's not here, and we don't know. It would be pure idle speculation, and one that leads nowhere, IMHO. YMMV. What does it matter what Edwards might or might not have done had he been in office?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
IF AIG had thought for themselves, made better decisions, and evaluated alternatives, then they wouldn't have to worry about all the dummies in Congress.
If you want responsibility and accountability, then how about holding AIG responsible for their own failure, even IF it was only in the highly specialized (does that mean extra sophisticated and smart) financial division.
As far as the healthy parts of the company being prepped for sale, well one can ask, who's buying?
It doesn't help that the credit markets are frozen.
The auctions of Hong Kong-based AIA and other AIG assets have been hampered by AIG's worsening financial state and a drop in markets globally, which has limited the number of potential buyers.
Bank of China (601988.SS) dropped out of the process last month, dealing a big blow to the auction. AIG had hoped the cash-rich bank would submit an attractive offer and become a front-runner, according to sources.
Global banking group HSBC (HSBA.L) (0005.HK) considered making a bid but decided not to, the sources said.
While I don't disagree with what you are trying to say, this really has nothing to do with the fact that your extremely partisan reaction to the truth was uncalled for. This was not Rush Limbaugh. This was not Fox News. This was signed into law by a President you continue to be incapable of criticizing. (quick! Insert some criticism of Obama! Maybe something about how he's not liberal enough for you!)
on both sides. The government and Wall Street. Who needs who more?
If Obama says he didn't know about the bonus thing and still signed the bill, we can call him a liar.
But when Ed Liddy says, in Nov. 08, ""Finally, AIG is developing a funding structure to ensure that no taxpayer dollars are used for annual bonus or future cash performance awards for the top 60 members of management."
can we call Liddy a liar too? So who is finessing who and who needs who more?
When smart people claim that folks are gonna get beat up for taking government money and then say that it will slow down the recovery, it's hard to miss the distinction without a difference, which is that 'they' want government money and see it as necessary for an economic recovery.
When smart people claim that folks are gonna get beat up for taking government money and then say that it will slow down the recovery, it's hard to miss the distinction without a difference, which is that 'they' want government money and see it as necessary for an economic recovery.
The one does not follow the other. You have continually asserted that you believe AIG to be greedy, heartless bastards. So I don't see how you can, while being honest, say that because they want government money they must believe that it will expedite recovery or is the only way to recover. It could be that they simply want the money. Nor do I see how, even if you are unwilling to admit that wanting the money does not imply belief in it's healing power, you would look to AIG, who you believe to be greedy, heartless bastards, as proof that creating all this debt is the best way to fix our problem.
You continue to be incredibly inconsistent on these kinds of things...
I arrived at "coming out" as a libertarian from a more liberal position. Some get there from a conservative position.
I would notice the inconsistencies in what I wanted to be the case and what I saw to be the case. I would see myself struggling to support certain liberal priors while asserting facts that didn't fit with it. The twisting and the winding grew wearisome. I stepped back and examined my faith-based priors and matched it what I knew and what I learned that challenged my priors.
It was hard. I was uncomfortable. I saw that everything didn't quite look the same after I just dropped my guard.
SInce that time, I've gone back and read some of the stuff I used to write. The glaring holes and logic inconsistencies in my own words and assertions make me cringe a little.
I'm not saying that any such transformation automatically leads one to be a libertarian. It doesn't. But what it will do is get you to stop fitting square pegs into circular holes. It gets you to be honest with yourself. One can do this is and still be a Democrat or a Republican. But it changes you nonetheless. You become less wedded to talking points and some sort of allegiance to a certain POV.
Yeah I said over and over that AIG was a bunch of greedy heartless bastards and 'the one' (as you kindly refer to him in non-partisan fashion) is my messiah. And you call me partisan? Give me a break.
Wouldn't it be better to let Bernie Maddoff's accountant hedge up some money for the people he ripped off before putting him in prison. Makes sense to me. Same thing with AIG.
That's right. Our savior in the White House is even worse that Bush. The topic? Domestic spying. The reason? Because he seeks to block a judicial ruling that could lead to a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of the domestic spying program. *
One of the worst abuses of the Bush administration was its endless reliance on vast claims of secrecy to ensure that no court could ever rule on the legality of the President's actions. They would insist that "secrecy" prevented a judicial ruling even when the President's actions were (a) already publicly disclosed in detail and (b) were blatantly criminal -- as is the case with the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program, which The New York Times described on its front page more than three years ago and which a federal statute explicitly criminalized. Secrecy claims of that sort -- to block judicial review of the President's conduct, i.e., to immunize the President from the rule of law -- provoked endless howls of outrage from Bush critics.
Yet now, the Obama administration is doing exactly the same thing. Hence, it is accurately deemed "a blow to the Obamaadministration" that a court might rule on whether George Bush broke the law when eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. Why is the Obama administration so vested in preventing that from happening, and -- worse still -- in ensuring that Presidents continue to have the power to invoke extremely broad secrecy claims in order to block courts from ruling on allegations that a President has violated the law?
[...]
Yet here we have the Obama DOJ doing exactly this -- not merely trying desperately to keep the Bush administration's spying activities secret, and not merely devoting itself with full force to preventing disclosure of relevant documents concerning this illegal program, but far worse, doing everything in its power even to prevent any judicial adjudication as to whether the Bush administration broke the law by spying on Americans without warrants.
So, what right-wing hack dredged up this POS excuse for an argument you ask? Check here to see .
* Why would Obama defend this program unless he, himself, was still using it? Why would Obama seek to block a legal precedent being set that says the President is NOT above the law? Once again, Obama is just like Bush ... no wait ... he's worse!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
It seems likely that the Obama DOJ was just trying to run out the clock on the al Haramain case:
Judge Walker's decision --According to emptywheel (written on 3/10/09), the statute of limitations on former President George W. Bush's March 11, 2004 illegal wiretapping expires today. This means that the alleged illegal government (al Haramain case) wiretap charges, now in contention in a set of consolidated cases in Judge Vaughn Walker's 9th Circuit court, may be moot.
Obama has made it pretty clear all along that he has no particular interest in messy Bush Administration prosecutions. This is more of a "Ford pardoning Nixon", getting on with the business of governing thing than a sinister move to protect Obama's domestic spying powers. This kind of stuff might get the civil liberties and war crimes trials crowd up in a lather, but it's not that concerning to me, because in my mind, Obama is looking at forests and you're looking at trees.
As for the rest, I don't really see what there is to dispute. You're surmising that Obama wants to keep Bush's domestic spy program rolling, I'm surmising that he just wants to sweep the mess from the previous administration under the rug and save the country the divisive effect of trials of high Bush Administration officials. It's all just speculation on both of our parts. And since you're being disingenuous to begin with-- we know you have no particular concern over the domestic surveillance program, since you never complained about it under Bush-- there's really no point in pulling together the documentation that leads me towards the conclusion I've drawn.
that the rhetoric from the left has suddenly changed. When Bush did something he was the devil. When Obama does something even worse (according to the left) well it's no big deal. Take your response, for example. You're now playing the role of Obama apologist over things that you were supposedly outraged over from Bush.
And who's being disengenuous? Me? Not at all. I expect Obama to be held to the same standards that Bush was held to. So I'll be more than happy to point out that Obama is acting and governing exactly like Bush was and now the liberals are all fine with it. (Although to his credit Greenwald is remaining consistent as are some here.)
BTW, is this what Obama meant by transparency? Seems like he is guarding just as many secrets as Bush did. Hmmm. :)
My goal is to give Obama exactly what Bush got since that is obviously what the liberals truly believe in.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Some on the left are not grooving with the President at all because he hasn't done everything yesterday, he likes Tim Geitner, he is not partisan enough, he hasn't closed Gitmo, he is too corporate friendly, etc. etc. etc.
The list of greivances from 'the left' goes on and on. I am sure this doesn't surprise you.
Those on the "left" like Greenwald for whom stuff like the "illegal wiretapping program" has always been paramount, they are already criticizing Obama that he has not already fixed everything, made everything transparent, and brought Bush to justice over his law-breaking in the matter. For people like me who think that Obama needs to be concentrating on the economy and in particular our financial system, and also our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan, as well as shoring up American credibility around the world, I understand perfectly why Obama is not interested in war crimes trials of the past administration, nor criminal trials over "illegal domestic wiretapping".
You're now playing the role of Obama apologist over things that you were supposedly outraged over from Bush.
Really? Which things are those? What specific outrage are you talking about on my part? This FISA thing outrage was never my beat. Here's a sampling of past skymutt wisdom on domestic wiretapping:
No way that FISA = Iraq War
the FISA vote, while important, is blown way out of proportion around here. Maybe a 6/10 for FISA. The Iraq War, on the other hand, is undeniably a 10/10 in importance.
....they would be doing it, with or without this change in the law. If they are doing it, then it will eventually come to light, and they will be destroyed by it.
...on elections. The public is just not that into politics to even care about it. I assume that's what you're referring to when you're talking about 4th amendment rights.
People are blowing this FISA thing out of proportion. It's not a well-crafted law, but it will be back up for debate over the winter.
I was actually more outraged by the business-as-usual near-unanimous passage by the house of the bloated $470 Defense Appropriations bill later on Saturday night. It was a FULL $3 billion less than the president requested! Wow, what fiscal responsibility! And Jack Murtha's defense of various ridiculous earmarks was scandalously pathetic. He at one point said that earmarks were competitively bid, which is an outright lie. And he stood shoulder to shoulder with known crook Jerry Lewis in stonewalling the earmarks.
If you want to measure on pure effect on your life and my life, out of control defense spending is way more significant than the new FISA law, JMHO. The defense spending is crowding out other government spending on infrastructure and other needs, and adding to our debt which we finance thru the generosity of strangers like Saudi Arabia and China.
Skymutt = totally consistent. Crooks are crooks, even if they are Democrats, and skymutt will say so. GoRight = not consistent, has a blind spot toward the foibles of Republicans if he likes their policy stances.
...but some folks try to be objective, and then other folks don't . Take Greenwald for example-- he's on the left, but he's consistent, and if he thinks that a Democrat is out of line, he goes after them in the same way the he would go after a Republican, even if it is the President. That's not uncommon on the left, but I would argue that it is far less common on the right. I respect Greenwald for that, even if I don't necessarily agree with his take on the issue.
"There are several dimensions to the debate over the U.S. prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay , Cuba that the media have largely missed and, thus, of which the American people are almost completely unaware....The first of these is the utter incompetence of the battlefield vetting in Afghanistan during the early stages of the U.S. operations there. Simply stated, no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation....The second dimension that is largely unreported is that several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released...They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces...The fourth unknown is the ad hoc intelligence philosophy that was developed to justify keeping many of these people, called the mosaic philosophy. Simply stated, this philosophy held that it did not matter if a detainee were innocent.."
He names Secretary of Defense & VP Cheney as the prime culprits who wanted to keep innocents jailed to support their own war efforts. The whole article is mind blowing. If we don't end up sending those evil bastards to prison for life, we are all complicit. I know you like to defend these folks, but really, no one has come closer to completely shredding the Constitution and our form of government.
In fact they specifically requested it through the Treasury Department. So, again, when Obama sign this into law he was putting his seal of approval onto the loophole that was inserted at his request (through his Treasury Secretaries). If he didn't know about it since his administration requested it then this only points to his total and utter incompetence to be Commander In Chief.
How do we start a recall?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
....If he didn't know about it since his administration requested it then this only points to his total and utter incompetence to be Commander In Chief.
Next thing you know, he'll be funding right wing Death Squads in Nicaragua by way of funds created by escalating an armed conflict in which thousands of civilians died.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
...which is clearly not your modus operandi lately, but anyway - in all seriousness, how is this even remotely worth a recall? Those of you of conservative and/or libertarian philosophies would be screaming bloody murder if Obama tried to impose dictatorial bonus caps on contracts agreed to prior to government money going out. Heck, it seems like most of the libertarians don't think any kind of caps are proper even after government bailout money is accepted.
So, it seems like the story is this: the Obama administration requested this loophole because it was the proper, constitutional thing to do. Now you so-called conservatives and libertarians are pouncing on this populist outrage for what - to try to make Obama less popular? Are you really abandoning your libertarian principles just to score a political point? How disappointing.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You're readng way too much into what I'm saying (at I can say that for me and with much confidence for a lot of...if not most...libertarians).
libertarians are pouncing on this populist outrage for what - to try to make Obama less popular? Are you really abandoning your libertarian principles just to score a political point? How disappointing.
There's no outrage on my part. The only reason I'm pointing this all out is because the Left of Center perspective here seems quite upset about the bonuses but doesn't seem to have acknowledged the anatomy of the bonuses and how they came about.
You extrapolate far too much from what I've said and it's waaaaay off base.
Personally, I find the whole thing laughable and typical for a variety of reasons and I haven't really given it much thought. No outrage here. None at all.
Moreover....and this I also say with much confidence...had it been a Republican president and senator and treasury secretary that was responsible for this legislation and the reality that has followed, the tone would be very, very different from the Left of Center side. And there's no point in denying it, I know it would.
Perhaps you should look around the libertarian blogesphere and tell me where you find the outrage. What you'll find is a very matter-of-fact account of what has happened with very little to nothing in the way of outrage.
If anything, I get a little bit of satisfaction in all of this. We libertarians are often wrongly called conservatives and republicans by the Left...funny, the Right and the GOP doesn't see us that way...and had this happened under GOP rule, every non-damning post by libertarian on the matter would be "proof positive" that we are just like Republicans and that for the GOP, this would be just another example of them coddling their corporate overlords with libertarians going along.
But now that it's the Dems doing it, it's just another moment to feel vindicated and be amused by the rationalizing of the matter by the Left. Personally, I don't feel any different about it either way. It is what it is. I'm rather indifferent. I see the sense in allowing the bonuses and I see the reason for people to be disgusted with it.
Maybe the reason it is hard to separate libertarians from Republicans is because they chose to support folks like Mark Sanford, the Republican Governor of So. Carolina, just because refusing stimulus money from the Feds, is a populist libertarian cause.
Even worse, Rush was defending libertarians of the tea party persuasion on his radio show yesterday. There is a warning to police officers if you stop a car with a Ron Paul bumper sticker you might encounter one of the revolutionary para-military types with a hostile attitude who is packing heat in the defense of 'liberty'.
edit: SL has a point in that you have corrected some of us in the past for mentioning political figures when advancing our arguments. You seem to think that highlighting Dodd's words is somehow important enough to post a video and twelve links as if that is proof of 'something'. (?!)
Maybe the reason it is hard to separate libertarians from Republicans is because they chose to support folks like Mark Sanford, the Republican Governor of So. Carolina, just because refusing stimulus money from the Feds, is a populist libertarian cause.
Remind me not to post anything for discussion and to never venture a first impression opinion of someone....lest you say things like this.
Even worse, Rush was defending libertarians of the tea party persuasion on his radio show yesterday.
So? I can't control what Rush does. What's the point? really.
I only posted those links when I in response to what you were saying about AIG and the bonuses. I found your stance against GR a little bit funny in light of what happened.
Well, this was primarily in response to GR, so don't take too much offense, John. Am I reading too much into the phrase "his total and utter incompetence" or the question of how to start a recall?
And if I am conflating conservative and libertarian viewpoints, I think that is largely because, on the issue of government involvement in business contracts, they are pretty much the same. (And I am not in any way disagreeing with that viewpoint, by the way.)
Also, I am not claiming that conservatives and libertarians are outraged themselves, but that they are using the populist outrage to score political points, when in fact they should be the ones explaining why we shouldn't be outraged at all. I look at the link that magilson provided to the Liberty Papers article , and it doesn't say anything to me about why I shouldn't be pissed off, it simply attempts to channel my rage towards Obama and away from AIG. In other words, it fits in perfectly with the stereotype of libertarians being corporate apologists.
I personally don't have any problem whatsoever with the existence of the "loophole." I think it probably should be there. But I am not happy with the fact that AIG chose to exploit the loophole. It is perfectly legal, but it is not good. So in my opinion, any outrage should absolutely be directed at AIG for doing the deed, not the government for allowing it to occur. And to suggest otherwise, which the Liberty Papers article is doing, is blatantly non-libertarian.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I only stepped in with comments to point out the root of these bonuses. That's it. And I did this because I sensed a sense of denial by many of those those upset about these bonuses.
And funny, I don't see outrage in that Liberty Papers article.
I simply see them pointing out where all this is coming from.
Of course, I read them differently than you do.
I would be willing to say that the writer of that article is not himself outraged.
If understand the nuance correctly in what Doug at the LP is saying, I think he's simply going out of his way to demonstrate that "anti-coprorate angels" in the Democratic Party went out of their way to let this happen.
You need to appreciate the prior disposition of libertarians who get tired of getting accused of being corporate shills by people who generally associate with Democrats. So any chance they get to show that those wonderful Democrats are doing the shilling (by the Left's own standards...not mine), they like to point it out...if anything...for the simple purpose of giving these partisans a little bit of pause to reconsider their perceptions.
Whether or not, these libertarians ACTUALLY HAVE an opposing opinion is beside the point.
That's the point.
And I'll say again and I don't think I'm being presumptuous when you say that:
So in my opinion, any outrage should absolutely be directed at AIG for doing the deed, not the government for allowing it to occur.
...that the stance on the Left would be a little different if the GOP had been doing the "allowing". Yes, I genuinely believe that. And I don't say that to defend the GOP but rather to point out partisan double standard. I'm not taking sides. I'm simply pointing something out to the Tea Pot with regard to the Kettle. Why:? Because one of my biggestr priors is that neither party is worth supporting unless you like hypocrisy.
BTW, I'm not quite I follow in the logic in your last sentence.
Again, I 'm not saying that you, or Doug at LP , or any libertarian, is actually outraged. We agree on that point.
And yes, I also agree that the stance on the Left would be different if it was a Republican administration. But that is precisely why libertarians should be using this as an opportunity to explain that the government did right by not forcing AIG to curtail bonuses. You might get a few Obama-loving Dems to understand why Obama did this, and move a bit closer to your point of view. Instead, the LP article does precisely the opposite: it tells us that we should be angry at Obama and the administration. It tells us we should be angry at Obama because he did something that is fundamentally libertarian, allowing private contractual agreements to remain uninfluenced by the government. That is what I mean by my last sentence.
And by fanning this outrage and directing it towards the government, libertarians and conservatives are pretty much guaranteeing that now the government will in fact step in and do something anti-libertarian and anti-conservative about those bonuses. How ironic is that?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Again, I 'm not saying that you, or Doug at LP , or any libertarian, is actually outraged. We agree on that point.
Great. we agree that we agree. Keep that in mind as I proceed.
And yes, I also agree that the stance on the Left would be different if it was a Republican administration.
Again, we agree that we agree.
But that is precisely why libertarians should be using this as an opportunity to explain that the government did right by not forcing AIG to curtail bonuses.
Ah yes, another example of those libertarians never passing up an opportunity to be "corporate shills". (Mind you, being seen as a corporate shill can happen for very libertarian as well as un-libertarian reasons. This of course is differently from **actually being a corporate shill**....which we are NOT.
ya see, SL, it goes like this:
When the GOP does something like this and we libertarians agree or at least are tacitly silent with nothing monumental to say, we libertarians are "corporate shills" (as usual) as seen from the Left who are just republicans without the label.
But when the Dems do something like this and we libertarians agree or at least are tacitly silent with nothing monumental to say, we are wrong for not shouting our exact stance from rooftops and even more wrong for going out of our way to show the Left that they are emotionally outraged over something that they would be outraged about in senses and at all parties involved...especially in PARTISAN terms.
So, by taking this as an excercise in showing how stupid and hypocritical partisan blindness can be, we run of the risk of sounding contrarian about the actual issue even though our point really lies with how it selectively strikes the eye of the partisan and ideological beholder who would be making a partisan "coporate shill" argument about this affair had it been a Republican implicated in the deal.
Instead, the LP article does precisely the opposite: it tells us that we should be angry at Obama and the administration.
Yes, **IF** you want to be outraged about it. Please see my explanation in the previous paragraph and it all makes sense.
And by fanning this outrage and directing it towards the government, libertarians and conservatives are pretty much guaranteeing that now the government will in fact step in and do something anti-libertarian and anti-conservative about those bonuses. How ironic is that?
Well, I would say that milque toast center-left media is actually doing that. You see, from my perspective, the media would be doing this regardless of who was president and they would still be taking the populist angle and going after the administration. I have seen it before with Bush. The fact that the GOP partisan media is also doing it shows that they are being partisan (big suprise) and fanning the flames of the populist wing of their base. They will do that no matter what just like the partisan Dem media would be doing the same thing in a vice-versa circumstance.
And the irony that the Dem Congress will react and do something populist and stupid has nothing to do with Right-Wing Media. That has to do with populist tendency across party lines and across the country. They are also reacting to their BASE and seeking retribution. Let's not forget that. It's Public Choice Theory 101. They are thinking about how they look....and that matters especially with their likely voters.
I can accept your way of looking at this in all ways but one:
Instead, the LP article does precisely the opposite: it tells us that we should be angry at Obama and the administration.
Yes, **IF** you want to be outraged about it. Please see my explanation in the previous paragraph and it all makes sense.
Here I disagree. It is not at all unreasonable to be outraged over this. But the outrageous part is absolutely not that the government allowed a legal but shameful act to occur, but that a corporation chose to do this legal but shameful act. It only makes sense to be outraged at the government if you believe that the government should legislate morality, or if you are (by the real definition) a Socialist.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
the outrageous part is absolutely not that the government allowed a legal but shameful act to occur, but that a corporation chose to do this legal but shameful act.
Well, that's all fine and good. I personally find it a little sleazy as well but this "shame on AIG" line of argument doesn't really have much teeth and rather impotent in terms of public policy.
Moreover, the real lesson I think should be obvious from all this is that we should avoid mixing private business with politics and government as much as possible. As soon as taxpayers have a reason to have opinion and fancy themselves as having the right to say something as a member of the board, this is the kind of stuff that happens.
It only makes sense to be outraged at the government if you believe that the government should legislate morality, or if you are (by the real definition) a Socialist.
And there's much much more. Reading through all that, however, you see that the small sample size of a couple of liberty papers articles and my bit of snark (within the context of this thread...I've otherwise been rather silent) in pointing out where this came from, you see that the instant coupling of "political conservatives and libertarians" is...as is often the case...rather inaccurate. It also shows you where some of the snark at the LP comes from....meaning we know we get lumped in with the GOP far too often. On other occasions, when the GOP does some equivilent of the "correct" and "libertarianish" thing to do, we get blasted as corporate shills for agreeing.
don't give two hoots about the so called 'loophole', or the bonuses that were paid,
The folks that are on the march with pitchforks to burn folks at the stake is insanity.
AIG we know exploded 45 Trillion of unpaid credit around the world with their 'positions'. This is twice the US GDP and almost 2/3 of the GDP of the world. As I have ranted about previously the whole affair AIG is criminally evil. AIG has branches all over the world. Thus the threat of a global economic meltdown. That is why HanK Paulson humiliated himself in front of the world to beg for money from Congress. That injection of cash prevented an essentially instantaneous credit freeze and an instant Depression.
Yet in order to unwind these positions, and the investments they represent is the A number One top priority in salvaging the global economy. The people involved in unwinding these positions should be paid and the pay structure is essentially called a 'bonus'. Whether they deserve 6 million or 1 million I don't know and I don't really care. It is much more important that the positions be unwound so as not to blow up the economy. Especially because the monies that are recovered are in things such as pension funds, insurance claims, etc. that would hurt millions of people.
I don't think the contracts of union workers should be busted up and I don't think the contracts of the folks hired to unwind billions of dollars worth of hedged bets in CDS/s should be broken.
That was the conservative talking point against unions. 'We have to break these union contracts or the company will go under." Well I don't think these contracts should be broken either.
The issue is pay scale, that is out of all proportion to performance, but that can be addressed at a later time.
It is like paying Bernie Madoff's accountant to recover some of the money his investors lost by paying him to find the foreign banks the money is hidden in. Yeah it is a bit distasteful to have to pay the guy that worked the scam, but it is much better to be able to recover and repay the money.
It is like the CIA hiring and paying a crook in prison to crack the code so the world doesn't blow up.
I am much more concerned about the IDIOTS with torches behind this witch hunt than I am with paying AIG workers a bonus to unwind and recover the trillions they lost.
And for the record, it was liberals that started this witch hunt against bonuses, that amount to .01% of the effort to put the US economy back on track. The conservatives just jumped on the populist bandwagon.
TheDopp writes "The United Nations hosted the cast and crew of Battlestar Galactica Tuesday evening in New York. Clips of the show were shown as discussion points during the event, touching on the morality of Suicide Bombers in war, Abortion and the use of torture on enemies of the state. At one point during the event an attendee mentions 'the "Old Man" launched into a passionate speech about casting off the idea of race as a cultural determinant, and said we were one race, the human race. His voice echoed throughout the chamber growing louder until — I kid you not — he was yelling, "So Say We All," ...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Turns out the Israeli's committed greivous human rights abuses in their latest game of "kill the arabs."
GENEVA (Reuters) - A United Nations human rights investigator said on Thursday that Israel's massive military assault on densely populated Gaza appeared to constitute a grave war crime.
Richard Falk, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, said the Geneva Conventions required warring forces to distinguish between military targets and surrounding civilians.
"If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law," Falk said.
"On the basis of the preliminary evidence available, there is reason to reach this conclusion," he wrote in an annual report submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council.
Falk gave the same death toll from Israel's offensive -- 1,434 Palestinians, including 960 civilians -- as the Palestinian human rights center.
Israel, which lost 13 people during the war, disputes the figures and has accused Hamas militants in Gaza of using civilians as human shields during the conflict.
What is actually different is that some in the Israeli military are breaking the usual code of silence to tell about the rampant bigotry and intent to kill palestinian citizens among their fellow soldiers.
JERUSALEM, March 19 (Reuters) - Israel's military was rocked on Thursday by Gaza war veterans' accounts of soldiers' killings of civilians and allegations that deep contempt for Palestinians pervaded its ranks.
The soldiers, alumni of a military academy, gathered last month to discuss their experiences in the 22-day Israeli offensive that ended in January, a campaign that Palestinians and human rights groups have said warranted war crimes probes.
Disclosing details of the session, the institution's director said the soldiers pointed to an atmosphere within the military of "unbridled contempt for, and forcefulness against, the Palestinians".
"They talked about unwarranted fire on Palestinian civilians. There was also talk of vandalism to property," Danny Zamir, head of the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military programme, told Israel Radio.
Defence Minister Ehud Barak responded to the accusations by repeating Israel's description of its armed forces as the most moral in the world. The military said its judge advocate-general had ordered an investigation of the alleged incidents.
Comments :
Hannity should stop talking.
Sean Hannity, under extreme mental pressure
, inadvertantly stumbled across the most obvious reason information obtained by torture can't be taken at face value.
Sean, you crazy guy! Even you know your full of it!
Why is the Homeland Security threat level Yellow?
I thought that the only purpose of these threat levels was to needlessly scare the American people. Now that Obama is in why hasn't he lowered the threat level to put people at ease? I know I wouldn't mind the convenience of lower security at the airports. Those lines are so long sometimes. Better to just drop the threat level and forget about all those needless x-ray machines and metal detectors.
In fact, why hasn't Obama abolished the threat level all together since its only purpose is to frighten people and scam the American public. Does this mean that he is on board with the whole scare and scam philosphy of governing?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yellow is as low as it goes, isn't it? :)
It probably should be abolished. All it means now is:
Green: doesn't exist
Blue: doesn't exist
Yellow: everyday life - sit and be complacent
Orange: everyday life, with a reminder to go out and vote
Red: everyday life, with decreased tourism to New York City
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Typical liberal, let's redefine the meanings of the terms.
Yellow: Significant risk of terrorist attacks.
That's not everyday life in the US, that's government scare mongering. How is this any different than what Bush was doing? I thought we were going to move past this mode of panic and fear mongoring. I guess Obama is just like Bush.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I say we adjust the threat level
..to Blackwatch Plaid
!
And why we're at it, when is the mainstream media going to give credit for the market's rally to Bush?
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
The red bars think of the darndest things from the sidelines
I'd totally forgotten about the color coded security levels. Who knows, maybe the policy is under review. Doesn't really matter much one way or another, since the public pretty much ignores the warning.
As for metal detectors and x-ray machines in airports, they were already around before 9/11, were they not? I'm curious as to who in the "democrat" party has suggested that we get rid of x-ray machines and metal detecctors in airports that has prompted this from you.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Ha, you're proving the point.
Sure, NOW you have forgotten them. Because all the Democrats have finally STFU about them. Funny how they stopped being the sign of the devil just around the time Obama took office. But, the die has been cast. The threat levels were invented to scare people needlessly and they serve no purpose other than to stir up hysteria. That is the (paraphrased) message the Democrats put into play so now I get to play it too. Unless and until Obama abolishes this, he is just like Bush.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, I guess the lesson to be learned...
...is that some stuff that is worthy of ridicule when a moron is in charge is rahter benign when someone competent is in charge ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Is he being competent ...
in this case
?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes, I think so.
Already got a reply in down there :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Sadly you would be wrong but you don't even know it.
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh c'mon
there were x-rays and metal detectors before the color-coded piece of crap was introduced, remember? Are you equating criticism of ineffective fearmongering and beaurocracy with a movement to abolish all security measures? Brillant reasoning.
Keep the basic protections for vulnerable locations (airplanes, esp. cockpits), avoid stoking irrational fears and trust the citizenry to act responsibly and report suspicious activity. Not that I'm aware of the level of human intelligence we have on Al-Qaida, but it seems we could put a little more effort into infiltrating them and a little less into making each passenger take off their shoes. God help us if the next Richard Reid puts C-4 in his underwear.
The Space Station just flew over my house
Very bright. Very fast. Very cool!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Some things never change
Despite continuing to spend tens of billions a year the missile defense program still fails to work as promised.
Those promises by the way were made two and a half decades ago now.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-03-15-missile_N.htm
Missile defense is one of many programs designed to funnel taxpayer money to a handful of aerospace companies with no ROI expected or ever delivered. It should have been killed a long time ago. Here's hoping Obama will drive the stake at long last.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ugh @ wasted money
Didn't Keynes say something to the effect that you could pay people to dig ditches and fill them back in during a recession and it would be stimulative to the economy? I suppose if you want to put a happy face on spending $150 billion on inert piles of hardware that don't do the job, you could look at it that way...
Yeah that sounds real fishy... not buying it. They either 1.) rigged the decoys not to work because they new they would fool the system, or 2.) They aren't even competent enough to get a lousy decoy to work after getting almost $150 billion. I'm not happy about all the wasted money either way. The Chinese could probably make a missile shield that actually works for 1/10th the cost.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well, it's official. The US used torture as per the Red Cross
report leaked:
www.nybooks.com/articles/22530
"ICRC Report on the Treatment of 14 "High Value Detainees" in CIA Custody, by the International Committee of the Red Cross, February 2007"
Apparently Darth & dubya ordered torturing prisoners starting in 2002, before we were at war. This is also prior to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which claims that it's OK to order torture, even though that's contrary to every Geneva Convention Accord & the US signed all the Geneva Convention Accords.
So when those twits Rick Klein, Chip Reid & Co start bitching & moaning about honor & dignity because Press Secretary Gibbs comparison of Darth to Rush, I don't have much compassion for their points of view. Particularly because Darth had been on the tube proclaiming to one and all that Obama has made the nation less safe.
I think that those who directed the US undertake torture should be handed over to the International tribunal, be charged and tried for acts against signed treaties. We killed a bunch of Germans & Japanese for doing the very same thing with those courts. We need to do it again. I for one, would not shed a sorrowful tear if they were declared guilty, as they surely are. I would not hope for their death either. Just justice, that's all.
I'm pretty sure
they gave themselves enough legal cover in case prosecution was ever threatened.
You blew it, 110th Congress. You had to impeach him.
I can't believe I use to take Redstate
seriously. This incoherent babbling
is painful to read. No Erick, there is no remaining question and Olbermann wasn't defending the list (which, in the way he presented it, doesn't even exist), he was mocking you for amplifying wild accusations without verifying a single part of it.
Leon, who used to post here, occasionnally had relevant and considerate things to say. And Josh Trevino, one of the original founders, could be thought provoking. I guess redstate.com left them and they pulled a Jeffors.
By the way, if any of you red bars still post there, please Erick know he'd be welcome to defend his story outside of the sad echo chamber that redstate has become. I wonder how long he's going to persue this coordinated-smear listserv story.
Losing does not become them
it has enflamed their worst habits.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I guess.
I remember being mad as hell and making (even more) inflammatory posts when I started commenting on blogs in 2005. But geez, once you start learning the ropes it seems you should settle down and try to avoid the hysteria.
I do remember being mocked on redstate about their "cleaning our clock" in 2004 when they got tired of defending the swiftboaters. I suppose this was inevitable since all they had were their electoral victories.
There is a volcano
of white hot populist outrage boiling over against AIG. I don't think this is good.
The emotional well of anger being tapped into is a little frightening.
This whole thing is very disturbing. I am not at all happy that Liddy, the head of AIG, used to work for Donald Rumsfeld either.
I'm only half stupid
I don't like it either...
There have been death threats sent to the building in lower Manhattan to the rank and filers, and people are calling in, scared to report to work. Shoot, if I worked down there, I'd telecommute too.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
No matter how screwed up AIG is
and it is screwed up big time..... the worst business model ever in the world. They used toxic assets as insurance capital, so they have no cash to pay their counterparties.
Still the unpleasant and ungodly truth, is that the folks that wound up the Credit Default Swaps and blew up trillions of dollars owe money to all kinds of companies and to pension funds, auto insurance claims around the frickin world.
What they are doing is using govt money to speculate in a hedge fundy way to make money to pay off their bills. That's my guess.
Kind of like asking Bernie to get to work, with govt funds to make money to pay of the people he ripped off, and then giving him a bonus of a few million to undue the damage he did.
But so far the financial division as unwound about one Trillion worth of junk.
The company itself has a budget bigger than the Homeland Security Dept, maybe even bigger than the Defense Dept. Spooky. It almost seems like a shadow government corporation if you put on your tin foil hat.
I'm only half stupid
..
..
I'm only half stupid
The recent bonus-gate is laughable
When the government approves your operating budget, which clearly outlined the bonus policy, it's pretty clear why they (AIG) moved forward thinking they were okay as is. It's not like this information was secret or was just released. When public outrage lit up, The One has had to backtrack on his decision that this kind of bonus payout was acceptable. The problem lies with our government, not AIG, with regard to bonus-gate. And unless you've got rose colored glasses on with regard to government intervention actually being successful or well managed, this is a pretty shiny example of the "regulation" we can look forward to coming out of this congress and administration.
Read about the whole thing here
. Or divert from the topic at hand to point out that AIG has been poorly managed rather than discuss the failure of our current government to properly execute their own plan. I suppose I already know who's going to do what, anyway.
Totally disagree
but there is no surprise there.
Placing blame all over the place doesn't really solve much does it.
I'm only half stupid
You disagree with what? The
You disagree with what? The fact that the stimulus bill provided for the honoring of these contracts which was agreed upon by The One when he signed it? How can you disagree with a fact?
That's a flat out lie
The right has been lying their heads off over this. I just listened to Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes and have never heard such a concentration of lies in such a short span of time.
AIG screwed up royally, and Rush says Obama planned this as a screw big business plot. What a load of crap.
First the wingnuts opposed pay caps (last week), and now (this week) they are for them.
Liddy himself said, in November of 08. I guess that makes Liddy a liar too, or is that what it takes to me a good businessman in the cut thoat world of competition.
"AIG is mindful that it must act prudently and, as such, must impose curbs on executive compensation. … To meet these objectives, AIG’s top seven executives (Leadership Group) will receive no annual bonuses for 2008. In addition, the top roughly 60 executives (Senior Partners) including the seven most senior AIG executives, will forego any salary increase through 2009 and their 2008 and 2009 bonuses will be restricted. […]"
"Finally, AIG is developing a funding structure to ensure that no taxpayer dollars are used for annual bonus or future cash performance awards for the top 60 members of management."
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/11-25-08liddyletter.pdf This is a letter he wrote to Andrew Cuomo.
Further the TARP program has a specific provision that any terms can be renegotiated at any time, if the Congress decides to change it. The provision that limited pay caps was pulled out by someone, or else we wouldn't have to be going through this fire breathing exorcism.
(I don't know what the hell is up with my computer, but I am working on it. It's making me nuts.I think I have been invaded by an illegal host. RW is that you?)
I'm only half stupid
cherry picking extraordinaire
AIG may have lied about how they would use the money butI don't care. That's not my point. My point was that the provisions to make these payouts are in the stimulus bill and were approved by Obama and Congress. They may have left themselves the provision to renegotiate, but to go on record stating your are appaled at the compensation when they had full opportunity to stop it legally is simply dishonest. Geithner approved the payouts and gave them the money. If you want to be mad at anyone at least place the blame logically. I know you'll never blame a Democrat for anything but at least you can recognize that what AIG did was:
1. legal
2. paid for after asking for permission from the person providing the money
What AIG said in a press release is meaningless when they have proven, unquestionably, that they can't be trusted. So who are the real fools? You, for believing AIG would follow through (otherwise you wouldn't be outraged, you'd be vindicated), and our government, for letting this one slip by.
You can blame it on Rush or the Conservative media or whomever you'd like. But you're wrong. And the facts prove it.
Nope
there are provisions written in the TARP specifically that deal with these types of problems.
But this is really a stupid side issue. The real issue that AIG blew up twice the amount of money of US GDP with leveraged Credit Default Swaps in just a few short years.
All this bonus retention crap is just a side show to the massive theft that occured in the financial sector at AIG, because Alan Greenspan thought that the CDS's were protected by market forces and didn't need to be regulated.
I am not blaming Rush for anything but being a liar. But that's nothing new.
I'm only half stupid
not, you're ignoring the issue.
You said it yourself
.
Obama just sat there and waited for them to screw up, in your opinion. Which means you'd rather have a vindictive President than a responsible one. I can't even begin with how childish that attitude really is.
The issue is that the Stimulus Bill allowed for this. The post I linked to even had a reference link to the New York Times which, as I understand it, is a news source that Democratic appologists are incapable of ignoring.
You can't wiggle out of this one by saying that TARP kept this from happening (which was passed under Bush, by the way). Post some hard evidence or admit you're wrong. This is a prime example of how government control simply doesn't work like in your fairy tale progressive land says it should.
Nope
This is a prime example of how ruthless unethical arrogant corporations hold the country hostage. What these corporate heads did is pure BS. In most circles it's called blackmail or extortion.
I'm only half stupid
sen. dodd
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?&entry_id=37174
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7110145&page=1
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52I08X20090319
..
.
I'm only half stupid
fix your computer already.
fix your computer already.
This is absolutely priceless.
Obama personally guarantees that these bonuses should be paid when he signed the bill containing the Amendment that specifically and directly protected them, and now he is trying to claim he and his minions had no idea ... when it was his minion (i.e. Dodd) that put the language in there. What a lying bastard.
Then we find out that they knew about these payments for month yet they kept sending money to AIG anyway. What a bunch of incompletent morons we have running the show. These guys are the Keystone Cops of DC.
This only goes to show how utterly incompetent these people are and why letting them be in control of $787B of tax payer money is the worst idea possible. I can't say that I am surprised, though, given who we have in office ... a typical Chicago schyster.
In a few short month Obama has managed to turn things around to the point where we are worse off now than we ever were under Bush. Go ahead. Ask yourself. Are you better off today than you were when Obama took office?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Obama= pedophile
I wouldn't believe a word from anyone how puts out such ridiculous crap as truth.
I'm only half stupid
Obama = Pedophile - It's a fact!
I note you fail to counter any of the substance on the topic at hand. That speaks volumes about your ability to do so. Misdirection is the sign of a weak hand.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You expect us to take you seriously?
I would never pretend to engage your thousand strawman arguments, considering your skills at twisting the facts.
Even your pal Bush is rooting for Obama and refuses to criticize him, because he knows that Obama wants to improve the country.
Why not follow your heroes lead. Unless maybe your real hero is Dick Cheney!
;-)
I'm only half stupid
Bush has always been a class act ...
when it came to acting Presidential in the face of criticism. He never belittled his opponents. he had nothing but good words for John Murtha and others. We all know that there has been a tradition of ex-Presidents not commenting on a current President's decisions. This is a tradition that he evidently intends to uphold even though the spineless Jimmy Carter doesn't have the good grace to STFU. Hell, even Clinton has been better about this than Carter.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4he had nothing but good
Yeah, but Murtha is a crook! Typical of Bush to single out a corrupt Democrat for praise. Maybe he had good words for Bill Jefferson too!
Well, when Bush proved to be utterly derelict in his duties as the chief steward of our nation and its institutions, in ways that had never happened before in our history, all bets were off, and Carter chose to speak up.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
really?
I didn't know it was the Presidents responsibility to manage every business incorporated in the U.S. That sound like what someone might believe nowadays after all that's happened. But anyone who has done a bit of reading knows better than to make that assertion.
Of course I never said that.
I never said that it is the "Presidents responsibility to manage every business incorporated in the U.S.". But it is the president's responsibility to manage government institutions responsible for regulation and oversight of those institutions, as well as all other government institutions.
Institutions such as the SEC, which declined to an utterly toothless and near-useless institution under Bush and his political flunky appointees like Christopher Cox.
Institutions like FEMA, which turned from a credible disaster-response institution under Bush to a moribund, impotent bureaucracy under Bush and his man Brownie.
Institutions like the Department of Justice, where Bush put loyal cronies in charge and then politicized the department by rewarding party hacks and firing independent U.S. Attorneys when they failed to cave to political strongarm tactics.
Institutions like the Armed Forces, which Bush sent into an unnecessary war without the proper armor and equipment, and then "supported" them by putting loyal, fresh-faced, totally out of their depth young Republicans in charge of the reconstruction effort.
Institutions like the FHA, where the Bush Administration "modernized" and "innovated" the underwriting standards into oblivion, seeking to eliminate stuff like downpayment requirements to "compete" in the subprime market.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You forgot the MSHA,
EPA, NASA, and the FDA. And that's just off the top of my head.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Irony anyone?
A self-professed liberal throwing a man who served his country under the bus like that. Shameful. Simply shameful. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I've thrown Murtha under the bus a long time ago
Funny how you never do the same for foks on the Republican side of the aisle... except RINOs, and then it's only because they haven't toed the Republican party line, not because of their ethical failings.
Skymutt throwing Murtha under the bus in 2007
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Typical conservative, let's redefine the meanings of the terms.
:P
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
of course
Only liberals have managed to keep from doing that. What's with the hyperpartisan explosion all of a sudden?
It was a joke
Based on GoRight's earlier post
(which I assumed was also a joke).
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
dodd
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52I08X20090319
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKgUWs9LDVRU&refer=home
LoL
What are you trying to say. ........ ;-)
I'm only half stupid
Me? Not much
I figured the articles said enough.
I like where this is going
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR200903...
This sounds like Obama is using the AIG bonus issue to put controls on executive compensation. Nice.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Lovin it
You give these guys enough rope and they hang themselves. Obama waits patiently to let events take their natural course and just casually mentions what idiots they are.
The compensation of big whig CEO's has grown out of all proportion to reality, when a CEO on his first day can make more money before lunch than a worker can make all year. It's obvious that the higher pay has no correlation to competence or performance of the company as we see with AIG.
I'm only half stupid
Obama signed into law ...
the specific provisions that safeguarded these bonuses. In doing so he put is personal seal of approval on it. And don't try to claim that there is no way he knew because the government has been aware of this for months, maybe even a year.
Now it is blowing up in his face so he is lying through his teeth with his famous silver tipped forked tongue and trying to turn the situation to his advantage. Well America sees him for what he is, a liar and a pedophile.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4sez you
and rush and his good pal Glenn Beck. No credibility there at all.
I'm only half stupid
This is what you are reduced to?
A whiny claim of no credibility? Please. Refute the facts as they have been stated ... if you can.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You can win your silly battle
Claim victory and have a parade for all I care. ;-)
I am more interested in winning the war.
I smell change in the air!
I'm only half stupid
Yea ...
but it smells like my daughter's poopy diaper when I'm changing that. :-P
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4http://www.bloomberg.com/apps
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKgUWs9LDVRU&refer=home
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/who_asked_dodd_to_defa...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/dodd-treasury-officials-i_n_176...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i7jvL_2dcRy7XsHQ1kuml6...
Crickets
.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I got your crickets
there missy! ;-ll
Good to see you posting again!
Here are two timelines of the actual events if you are interested in the facts. The right seems thrilled to blame Dodd for all things AIG. He only withdrew his original amendment that would have harshly limited compensation under pressure from Treasury and the White House.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/index.html
(Here Glenn Greenwald blames Obama and claims it was the White House that threw Dodd under the bus. Clearly Greenwald is no fan of the Obama administration, Tim Geitner, or Larry Summers.)
http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/17/treasury-attempts-to-blame-dodd-for-ai...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457165806186405.html?mod=testMod
I'm only half stupid
You miss the point
It was in the bill. The bill Obama signed. Signing implies approval of the contents. The bill stated that companies would be allowed to pay out their legal obligations. Those bonus contracts might stink to high heaven, but the fact is that they were/are legal documents, enforceable by law, stipulating bonuses which AIG was legally required to pay. The bill did not make those illegal; in fact, the bill provided additional legal support for them. And the Treasury Department allegedly agreed with AIG that such contracts had to be followed and the bonuses paid.
Magilson's counterpoint
stands.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Where you or mags
gets the idea that I am outraged by the bonuses, I don't know.
What I am outraged about is AIG. They had no capital and they are an international insurance company. They considered CDS's capital? Wha........?
IN the world of the big dawgs, big powerful international business interests, it isn't exactly a game of hopscotch and lemonade. These guys play rough.
Obama signed the bill. He gave AIG what they wanted, which was to keep the guys in place to unwind the hysterically stupid positions they hedged as insurance around the world with no capital to back up any of it.
Did AIG bully the Feds. Likely. Did AIG say that it was absolutely necessary to keep these people that made the mess to unmake it. Likely. Did AIG say there was no way they could get these folks to do so without pay. Sure. That is what the Wall Street Journal is talking about. Dodd was pressured by the White HOuse and the Treasury to back off.
AIG created this mess, begged for help, bullied people for aid, bullied people to not cut bonuses. They got what the wanted to 'save the world from blowing up', and now they pay a price for their hubris and the outrage it has generated.
If you want to blame Obama for what AIG did go ahead.
It doesn't change the fact that AIG created this mess and using the leverage that only they can fix it, to blackmail everyone around them to get what they want because they still have 1.7 Trillion $$$ worth of bad positions to unwind. Unfortunately.
AIG got what it wanted, pushing the bonus compensation package and it blew up in their faces, since it has fueled a massive populist backlash.
I'm only half stupid
Chill and focus
I was replying to your rather blunt post here
Um, no, it's not a lie. It's the truth. And you are wrong about it.
As far as AIG goes, your statements such as
show your ignorance about how companies are structured. It's the highly specialized AIG Financial Products subsidiary that was the reinsurer of this mess o' weird investments. AIG's other divisions, the "international insurance company" parts, are appropriately segregated and capitalized. In fact, these healthy companies are being prepped for sale as part of the strategy for repaying the federal government for its bailing out of the AIG Financial Products division.
And, just because you're full of third-party from-the-sidelines righteous outrage, that doesn't mean that I am as emotional as you are about this. I'm not blaming anybody; I'm simply pointing out your factual errors with regards to what has been said upthread.
And again, I am struck by your statements that imply that AIG "made" the federal government do this bailout. I guess our elected officials are just blank dummies, who cannot think for themselves nor make their own decisions, nor evaluate alternatives, etc. You seem to frame a lot of situations that way. I just don't grok that worldview.
Edit: By the way, you do know that Freddie and Fannie are paying bonuses
too? With taxpayer dollars!
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
You are right....
I am ignorant.
I stand corrected.
AIG is a stand up company, except for that little trillions dollar error.
Thanks for that clarification.
I am in full flat line mode now. No peaks, no valleys, no passion. That's the way I want to live my life. Not!
You are right, you don't grok my world view, and I don't really grok yours. We clearly see things from a different perspective. But I don't think I called you ignorant.
(BTW I am fully aware that it was a small division inside AIG that took down the whole company.)
It never ceases to amaze me that you prefered John Edwards in the primaries because he would take the fight to the big corporate bosses and fight for the little guy. You know the two Americas speil. I wonder what he would have to say about AIG?
I'm only half stupid
too much inertia
Man, it's just one extreme to the other with you.
Magilson to you: You got the facts wrong about AIG and bonuses.
You to Magilson: Liar!
I showed you the facts, then PF reiterated. You were wrong.
Big Deal.
No need to shove the debate to another extreme. Nobody said AIG was a totally stand-up company.
Now, I do realize that you know that PF wasn't saying AIG was a stand-up company but I don't see what good it does to vent like that.
Seriously. Relax, MissL. Smile.
Butt out
There's some more inertia for ya,
Oh yeah, I said that with a smile.
I'm only half stupid
wow
You can call me ignorant
There are many things I'm ignorant about. And I intend to continue decreasing my ignorance until I die. One way that works for me is to listen to people and try to understand their point, perspective, and POV.
Just sayin'
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Deal
.
I'm only half stupid
So.....
how do you think John Edwards, pretending that he was President, would have handled the economic crises and the bonuses at AIG?
I'm only half stupid
Playing "what if"
is one of my least favorite games. It's boring and pointless.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Is it.....?
Second life isn't boring and pointless is it, but it is playing 'what if', no?
Just sayin'
I'm only half stupid
It would be for you
because I doubt anyone would bother talking to you there.
I know you are trying to contribute to this site. But you fail to make your points clearly, fail to acknowledge blatant errors, and never seem to listen to or retain anything that people say in response to your posts.
But you have nastiness down pat. Kudos.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
That could be true
but at least I have been enthusiastic!
I have sincerely always been baffled by your support for John Edwards on the one hand, and the substance of many of your posts. It seems inconsistent to me on many levels. I was just wondering how you think he would have handled 'the big crises' differently. Is it unrealistic to speculate on alternative solutions.
I'm only half stupid
Is it unrealistic?
Yes, I think it is. Because we aren't him, he's not here, and we don't know. It would be pure idle speculation, and one that leads nowhere, IMHO. YMMV. What does it matter what Edwards might or might not have done had he been in office?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Because no one else will
allow me.
IF AIG had thought for themselves, made better decisions, and evaluated alternatives, then they wouldn't have to worry about all the dummies in Congress.
If you want responsibility and accountability, then how about holding AIG responsible for their own failure, even IF it was only in the highly specialized (does that mean extra sophisticated and smart) financial division.
As far as the healthy parts of the company being prepped for sale, well one can ask, who's buying?
It doesn't help that the credit markets are frozen.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090225/bs_nm/us_aig_aia
I'm only half stupid
that's nice
While I don't disagree with what you are trying to say, this really has nothing to do with the fact that your extremely partisan reaction to the truth was uncalled for. This was not Rush Limbaugh. This was not Fox News. This was signed into law by a President you continue to be incapable of criticizing. (quick! Insert some criticism of Obama! Maybe something about how he's not liberal enough for you!)
You were wrong. Period.
I don't think you get
where I am coming from, which of course is my fault for being inconsistent, over-emotional, and partisan.
That still does not excuse the unethical excess of AIG. No matter what.
I'm only half stupid
I've never tried to justify it. Nor will I ever.
n/t
Nevermind.
.
I'm only half stupid
There is a fundamental lack of trust
on both sides. The government and Wall Street. Who needs who more?
If Obama says he didn't know about the bonus thing and still signed the bill, we can call him a liar.
But when Ed Liddy says, in Nov. 08, ""Finally, AIG is developing a funding structure to ensure that no taxpayer dollars are used for annual bonus or future cash performance awards for the top 60 members of management."
can we call Liddy a liar too? So who is finessing who and who needs who more?
When smart people claim that folks are gonna get beat up for taking government money and then say that it will slow down the recovery, it's hard to miss the distinction without a difference, which is that 'they' want government money and see it as necessary for an economic recovery.
I'm only half stupid
that doesn't follow
The one does not follow the other. You have continually asserted that you believe AIG to be greedy, heartless bastards. So I don't see how you can, while being honest, say that because they want government money they must believe that it will expedite recovery or is the only way to recover. It could be that they simply want the money. Nor do I see how, even if you are unwilling to admit that wanting the money does not imply belief in it's healing power, you would look to AIG, who you believe to be greedy, heartless bastards, as proof that creating all this debt is the best way to fix our problem.
You continue to be incredibly inconsistent on these kinds of things...
I was there for a short while.
I arrived at "coming out" as a libertarian from a more liberal position. Some get there from a conservative position.
I would notice the inconsistencies in what I wanted to be the case and what I saw to be the case. I would see myself struggling to support certain liberal priors while asserting facts that didn't fit with it. The twisting and the winding grew wearisome. I stepped back and examined my faith-based priors and matched it what I knew and what I learned that challenged my priors.
It was hard. I was uncomfortable. I saw that everything didn't quite look the same after I just dropped my guard.
SInce that time, I've gone back and read some of the stuff I used to write. The glaring holes and logic inconsistencies in my own words and assertions make me cringe a little.
I'm not saying that any such transformation automatically leads one to be a libertarian. It doesn't. But what it will do is get you to stop fitting square pegs into circular holes. It gets you to be honest with yourself. One can do this is and still be a Democrat or a Republican. But it changes you nonetheless. You become less wedded to talking points and some sort of allegiance to a certain POV.
It was very liberating.
Why do you insist on putting words
in my mouth?
Yeah I said over and over that AIG was a bunch of greedy heartless bastards and 'the one' (as you kindly refer to him in non-partisan fashion) is my messiah. And you call me partisan? Give me a break.
Wouldn't it be better to let Bernie Maddoff's accountant hedge up some money for the people he ripped off before putting him in prison. Makes sense to me. Same thing with AIG.
I'm only half stupid
Obama's conduct even WORSE than Bush's in domestic spy case.
That's right. Our savior in the White House is even worse that Bush. The topic? Domestic spying. The reason? Because he seeks to block a judicial ruling that could lead to a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of the domestic spying program. *
So, what right-wing hack dredged up this POS excuse for an argument you ask? Check here to see
.
----------------------------------------------------------
* Why would Obama defend this program unless he, himself, was still using it? Why would Obama seek to block a legal precedent being set that says the President is NOT above the law? Once again, Obama is just like Bush ... no wait ... he's worse!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Would it be unpatriotic...
...to say that, in this case, I hope the Obama administration fails? This crap really ticks me off.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
According to your liberal compatriats ...
not only is it unpatriotic but you are actually a traitor! Disclaimer: it's their claim, not mine, I would never say such a thing about you. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meh, more likely just a favor to Bush
It seems likely that the Obama DOJ was just trying to run out the clock on the al Haramain case:
Obama has made it pretty clear all along that he has no particular interest in messy Bush Administration prosecutions. This is more of a "Ford pardoning Nixon", getting on with the business of governing thing than a sinister move to protect Obama's domestic spying powers. This kind of stuff might get the civil liberties and war crimes trials crowd up in a lather, but it's not that concerning to me, because in my mind, Obama is looking at forests and you're looking at trees.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Shredding the constitution more than Bush ever did ...
is looking at trees? As for the rest of that screed, some sources to back it up please?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4screed?
How is my post long, monotonous, or a harangue?
As for the rest, I don't really see what there is to dispute. You're surmising that Obama wants to keep Bush's domestic spy program rolling, I'm surmising that he just wants to sweep the mess from the previous administration under the rug and save the country the divisive effect of trials of high Bush Administration officials. It's all just speculation on both of our parts. And since you're being disingenuous to begin with-- we know you have no particular concern over the domestic surveillance program, since you never complained about it under Bush-- there's really no point in pulling together the documentation that leads me towards the conclusion I've drawn.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The point is ...
that the rhetoric from the left has suddenly changed. When Bush did something he was the devil. When Obama does something even worse (according to the left) well it's no big deal. Take your response, for example. You're now playing the role of Obama apologist over things that you were supposedly outraged over from Bush.
And who's being disengenuous? Me? Not at all. I expect Obama to be held to the same standards that Bush was held to. So I'll be more than happy to point out that Obama is acting and governing exactly like Bush was and now the liberals are all fine with it. (Although to his credit Greenwald is remaining consistent as are some here.)
BTW, is this what Obama meant by transparency? Seems like he is guarding just as many secrets as Bush did. Hmmm. :)
My goal is to give Obama exactly what Bush got since that is obviously what the liberals truly believe in.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You are kidding right....
Some on the left are not grooving with the President at all because he hasn't done everything yesterday, he likes Tim Geitner, he is not partisan enough, he hasn't closed Gitmo, he is too corporate friendly, etc. etc. etc.
The list of greivances from 'the left' goes on and on. I am sure this doesn't surprise you.
I'm only half stupid
Right
Those on the "left" like Greenwald for whom stuff like the "illegal wiretapping program" has always been paramount, they are already criticizing Obama that he has not already fixed everything, made everything transparent, and brought Bush to justice over his law-breaking in the matter. For people like me who think that Obama needs to be concentrating on the economy and in particular our financial system, and also our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan, as well as shoring up American credibility around the world, I understand perfectly why Obama is not interested in war crimes trials of the past administration, nor criminal trials over "illegal domestic wiretapping".
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
But of course.
And I am loving it. And I'll do whatever I can to stir that pot. Just implementing the Golden Rule given the way Bush was treated.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You're now playing the role
Really? Which things are those? What specific outrage are you talking about on my part? This FISA thing outrage was never my beat. Here's a sampling of past skymutt wisdom on domestic wiretapping:
Totally consistent, this guy.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
My comment was more of a general one ...
so this topic may not be the best example for you personally. But you get my drift.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4For good measure, notice another example of me throwing Murtha
...under the bus in 2007 in that last comment :-)
Skymutt = totally consistent. Crooks are crooks, even if they are Democrats, and skymutt will say so. GoRight = not consistent, has a blind spot toward the foibles of Republicans if he likes their policy stances.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
hehehe
Well then, skymutt,....
how many consistent people are there here, then?
By your standard, I can count them on one hand while smoking a cigarette (with the same hand).
Perhaps
...but some folks try to be objective, and then other folks don't . Take Greenwald for example-- he's on the left, but he's consistent, and if he thinks that a Democrat is out of line, he goes after them in the same way the he would go after a Republican, even if it is the President. That's not uncommon on the left, but I would argue that it is far less common on the right. I respect Greenwald for that, even if I don't necessarily agree with his take on the issue.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You didn't read Col Wilkerson's article from yesterday, did you?
You remember the good Col? Here's his wiki page:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson
He was General Powell's Chief of Staff. Here's what he wrote:
www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/
He said:
"There are several dimensions to the debate over the U.S. prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay
, Cuba that the media have largely missed and, thus, of which the American people are almost completely unaware....The first of these is the utter incompetence of the battlefield vetting in Afghanistan during the early stages of the U.S. operations there. Simply stated, no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation....The second dimension that is largely unreported is that several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released...They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces...The fourth unknown is the ad hoc intelligence philosophy that was developed to justify keeping many of these people, called the mosaic philosophy. Simply stated, this philosophy held that it did not matter if a detainee were innocent.."
He names Secretary of Defense & VP Cheney as the prime culprits who wanted to keep innocents jailed to support their own war efforts. The whole article is mind blowing. If we don't end up sending those evil bastards to prison for life, we are all complicit. I know you like to defend these folks, but really, no one has come closer to completely shredding the Constitution and our form of government.
Dodd explains himself
sorta
from the Forvm
Confirmed: The Obama Administration knew about the loophole.
In fact they specifically requested it through the Treasury Department. So, again, when Obama sign this into law he was putting his seal of approval onto the loophole that was inserted at his request (through his Treasury Secretaries). If he didn't know about it since his administration requested it then this only points to his total and utter incompetence to be Commander In Chief.
How do we start a recall?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4....If he didn't know about
Next thing you know, he'll be funding right wing Death Squads in Nicaragua by way of funds created by escalating an armed conflict in which thousands of civilians died.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
In all seriousness
...which is clearly not your modus operandi lately, but anyway - in all seriousness, how is this even remotely worth a recall? Those of you of conservative and/or libertarian philosophies would be screaming bloody murder if Obama tried to impose dictatorial bonus caps on contracts agreed to prior to government money going out. Heck, it seems like most of the libertarians don't think any kind of caps are proper even after government bailout money is accepted.
So, it seems like the story is this: the Obama administration requested this loophole because it was the proper, constitutional thing to do. Now you so-called conservatives and libertarians are pouncing on this populist outrage for what - to try to make Obama less popular? Are you really abandoning your libertarian principles just to score a political point? How disappointing.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Slow down, SL
You're readng way too much into what I'm saying (at I can say that for me and with much confidence for a lot of...if not most...libertarians).
There's no outrage on my part. The only reason I'm pointing this all out is because the Left of Center perspective here seems quite upset about the bonuses but doesn't seem to have acknowledged the anatomy of the bonuses and how they came about.
You extrapolate far too much from what I've said and it's waaaaay off base.
Personally, I find the whole thing laughable and typical for a variety of reasons and I haven't really given it much thought. No outrage here. None at all.
Moreover....and this I also say with much confidence...had it been a Republican president and senator and treasury secretary that was responsible for this legislation and the reality that has followed, the tone would be very, very different from the Left of Center side. And there's no point in denying it, I know it would.
Perhaps you should look around the libertarian blogesphere and tell me where you find the outrage. What you'll find is a very matter-of-fact account of what has happened with very little to nothing in the way of outrage.
If anything, I get a little bit of satisfaction in all of this. We libertarians are often wrongly called conservatives and republicans by the Left...funny, the Right and the GOP doesn't see us that way...and had this happened under GOP rule, every non-damning post by libertarian on the matter would be "proof positive" that we are just like Republicans and that for the GOP, this would be just another example of them coddling their corporate overlords with libertarians going along.
But now that it's the Dems doing it, it's just another moment to feel vindicated and be amused by the rationalizing of the matter by the Left. Personally, I don't feel any different about it either way. It is what it is. I'm rather indifferent. I see the sense in allowing the bonuses and I see the reason for people to be disgusted with it.
So dispassionate
How reasonable! ;-
Maybe the reason it is hard to separate libertarians from Republicans is because they chose to support folks like Mark Sanford, the Republican Governor of So. Carolina, just because refusing stimulus money from the Feds, is a populist libertarian cause.
Even worse, Rush was defending libertarians of the tea party persuasion on his radio show yesterday. There is a warning to police officers if you stop a car with a Ron Paul bumper sticker you might encounter one of the revolutionary para-military types with a hostile attitude who is packing heat in the defense of 'liberty'.
edit: SL has a point in that you have corrected some of us in the past for mentioning political figures when advancing our arguments. You seem to think that highlighting Dodd's words is somehow important enough to post a video and twelve links as if that is proof of 'something'. (?!)
I'm only half stupid
Always looking for something to argue about.
Remind me not to post anything for discussion and to never venture a first impression opinion of someone....lest you say things like this.
So? I can't control what Rush does. What's the point? really.
I only posted those links when I in response to what you were saying about AIG and the bonuses. I found your stance against GR a little bit funny in light of what happened.
Take this response to magilson:
http://swordscrossed.org/story/20090316/mondaytuesday-open-thread#commen...
You said he was lying about something that was very easy to verify. So posted links.
Same thing down thread with the other link posts.
hm.....
Isn't that why we are here, to discuss/argue?
Or am I under the false impression?
I'm only half stupid
That's not what I mean.
I mean you look for it where it doesn't seem warranted...seemingly for the some sake of role play.
That's what I mean.
Libertarians and the loophole
Well, this was primarily in response to GR, so don't take too much offense, John. Am I reading too much into the phrase "his total and utter incompetence" or the question of how to start a recall?
And if I am conflating conservative and libertarian viewpoints, I think that is largely because, on the issue of government involvement in business contracts, they are pretty much the same. (And I am not in any way disagreeing with that viewpoint, by the way.)
Also, I am not claiming that conservatives and libertarians are outraged themselves, but that they are using the populist outrage to score political points, when in fact they should be the ones explaining why we shouldn't be outraged at all. I look at the link that magilson provided to the Liberty Papers article
, and it doesn't say anything to me about why I shouldn't be pissed off, it simply attempts to channel my rage towards Obama and away from AIG. In other words, it fits in perfectly with the stereotype of libertarians being corporate apologists.
I personally don't have any problem whatsoever with the existence of the "loophole." I think it probably should be there. But I am not happy with the fact that AIG chose to exploit the loophole. It is perfectly legal, but it is not good. So in my opinion, any outrage should absolutely be directed at AIG for doing the deed, not the government for allowing it to occur. And to suggest otherwise, which the Liberty Papers article is doing, is blatantly non-libertarian.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
BTW, SL
I only stepped in with comments to point out the root of these bonuses. That's it. And I did this because I sensed a sense of denial by many of those those upset about these bonuses.
And funny, I don't see outrage in that Liberty Papers article.
I simply see them pointing out where all this is coming from.
Of course, I read them differently than you do.
I would be willing to say that the writer of that article is not himself outraged.
If understand the nuance correctly in what Doug at the LP is saying, I think he's simply going out of his way to demonstrate that "anti-coprorate angels" in the Democratic Party went out of their way to let this happen.
You need to appreciate the prior disposition of libertarians who get tired of getting accused of being corporate shills by people who generally associate with Democrats. So any chance they get to show that those wonderful Democrats are doing the shilling (by the Left's own standards...not mine), they like to point it out...if anything...for the simple purpose of giving these partisans a little bit of pause to reconsider their perceptions.
Whether or not, these libertarians ACTUALLY HAVE an opposing opinion is beside the point.
That's the point.
And I'll say again and I don't think I'm being presumptuous when you say that:
...that the stance on the Left would be a little different if the GOP had been doing the "allowing". Yes, I genuinely believe that. And I don't say that to defend the GOP but rather to point out partisan double standard. I'm not taking sides. I'm simply pointing something out to the Tea Pot with regard to the Kettle. Why:? Because one of my biggestr priors is that neither party is worth supporting unless you like hypocrisy.
BTW, I'm not quite I follow in the logic in your last sentence.
Oh the irony.
Again, I 'm not saying that you, or Doug at LP , or any libertarian, is actually outraged. We agree on that point.
And yes, I also agree that the stance on the Left would be different if it was a Republican administration. But that is precisely why libertarians should be using this as an opportunity to explain that the government did right by not forcing AIG to curtail bonuses. You might get a few Obama-loving Dems to understand why Obama did this, and move a bit closer to your point of view. Instead, the LP article does precisely the opposite: it tells us that we should be angry at Obama and the administration. It tells us we should be angry at Obama because he did something that is fundamentally libertarian, allowing private contractual agreements to remain uninfluenced by the government. That is what I mean by my last sentence.
And by fanning this outrage and directing it towards the government, libertarians and conservatives are pretty much guaranteeing that now the government will in fact step in and do something anti-libertarian and anti-conservative about those bonuses. How ironic is that?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I get your point
Though I do not see any irony.
Great. we agree that we agree. Keep that in mind as I proceed.
Again, we agree that we agree.
Ah yes, another example of those libertarians never passing up an opportunity to be "corporate shills".
(Mind you, being seen as a corporate shill can happen for very libertarian as well as un-libertarian reasons. This of course is differently from **actually being a corporate shill**....which we are NOT.
ya see, SL, it goes like this:
When the GOP does something like this and we libertarians agree or at least are tacitly silent with nothing monumental to say, we libertarians are "corporate shills" (as usual) as seen from the Left who are just republicans without the label.
But when the Dems do something like this and we libertarians agree or at least are tacitly silent with nothing monumental to say, we are wrong for not shouting our exact stance from rooftops and even more wrong for going out of our way to show the Left that they are emotionally outraged over something that they would be outraged about in senses and at all parties involved...especially in PARTISAN terms.
So, by taking this as an excercise in showing how stupid and hypocritical partisan blindness can be, we run of the risk of sounding contrarian about the actual issue even though our point really lies with how it selectively strikes the eye of the partisan and ideological beholder who would be making a partisan "coporate shill" argument about this affair had it been a Republican implicated in the deal.
Yes, **IF** you want to be outraged about it. Please see my explanation in the previous paragraph and it all makes sense.
Well, I would say that milque toast center-left media is actually doing that. You see, from my perspective, the media would be doing this regardless of who was president and they would still be taking the populist angle and going after the administration. I have seen it before with Bush. The fact that the GOP partisan media is also doing it shows that they are being partisan (big suprise) and fanning the flames of the populist wing of their base. They will do that no matter what just like the partisan Dem media would be doing the same thing in a vice-versa circumstance.
And the irony that the Dem Congress will react and do something populist and stupid has nothing to do with Right-Wing Media. That has to do with populist tendency across party lines and across the country. They are also reacting to their BASE and seeking retribution. Let's not forget that. It's Public Choice Theory 101. They are thinking about how they look....and that matters especially with their likely voters.
OK
I can accept your way of looking at this in all ways but one:
Here I disagree. It is not at all unreasonable to be outraged over this. But the outrageous part is absolutely not that the government allowed a legal but shameful act to occur, but that a corporation chose to do this legal but shameful act. It only makes sense to be outraged at the government if you believe that the government should legislate morality, or if you are (by the real definition) a Socialist.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
zing....
;-)
I'm only half stupid
SL,
Well, that's all fine and good. I personally find it a little sleazy as well but this "shame on AIG" line of argument doesn't really have much teeth and rather impotent in terms of public policy.
Moreover, the real lesson I think should be obvious from all this is that we should avoid mixing private business with politics and government as much as possible. As soon as taxpayers have a reason to have opinion and fancy themselves as having the right to say something as a member of the board, this is the kind of stuff that happens.
Teeth
Regarding public policy, perhaps not much teeth. But were it not for the "shame on AIG" argument, would something like this ever happen: A.I.G. Chief Asks Bonus Recipients to Give Back Half
Fortunately, the court of public opinion holds some power over the corporate world, even if both political parties are corporatist at heart.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That's good.
I hadn't seen that yet.
That's all good to me. Honestly. Plus, in the end, I wish none of this were our business. And I think you get my meaning there.
Indeed.
Indeed. Keep that in mind for future reference.
BTW, SL
If we could back a little, I'd like to get back to that whole "libertarians and conservatives" line.
Truth be told and in all honesty (I should have said this before):
the Liberty papers is not really an broad and accurate sample of libertarian opinion. They chose to take the route I described above.
But aside from them, all the informed Libertarian opinion has been quite different.
Consider:
Peter Klein at the Independent Institute:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=1609
Tyler Cowen:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/03/aig-bonuses...
and his follow up:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/03/sentences-t...
Megan McArdle:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/money_matters.php
Arnold Kling:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/03/regulatory_arbi_1.html
Reason Magazine (mocking the GOP in all this):
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132327.html
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132308.html
on the bonuses (see last few paragraphs):
http://www.reason.com/news/show/132317.html
And there's much much more. Reading through all that, however, you see that the small sample size of a couple of liberty papers articles and my bit of snark (within the context of this thread...I've otherwise been rather silent) in pointing out where this came from, you see that the instant coupling of "political conservatives and libertarians" is...as is often the case...rather inaccurate. It also shows you where some of the snark at the LP comes from....meaning we know we get lumped in with the GOP far too often. On other occasions, when the GOP does some equivilent of the "correct" and "libertarianish" thing to do, we get blasted as corporate shills for agreeing.
Peace.
To be perfectly clear
don't give two hoots about the so called 'loophole', or the bonuses that were paid,
The folks that are on the march with pitchforks to burn folks at the stake is insanity.
AIG we know exploded 45 Trillion of unpaid credit around the world with their 'positions'. This is twice the US GDP and almost 2/3 of the GDP of the world. As I have ranted about previously the whole affair AIG is criminally evil. AIG has branches all over the world. Thus the threat of a global economic meltdown. That is why HanK Paulson humiliated himself in front of the world to beg for money from Congress. That injection of cash prevented an essentially instantaneous credit freeze and an instant Depression.
Yet in order to unwind these positions, and the investments they represent is the A number One top priority in salvaging the global economy. The people involved in unwinding these positions should be paid and the pay structure is essentially called a 'bonus'. Whether they deserve 6 million or 1 million I don't know and I don't really care. It is much more important that the positions be unwound so as not to blow up the economy. Especially because the monies that are recovered are in things such as pension funds, insurance claims, etc. that would hurt millions of people.
I don't think the contracts of union workers should be busted up and I don't think the contracts of the folks hired to unwind billions of dollars worth of hedged bets in CDS/s should be broken.
That was the conservative talking point against unions. 'We have to break these union contracts or the company will go under." Well I don't think these contracts should be broken either.
The issue is pay scale, that is out of all proportion to performance, but that can be addressed at a later time.
It is like paying Bernie Madoff's accountant to recover some of the money his investors lost by paying him to find the foreign banks the money is hidden in. Yeah it is a bit distasteful to have to pay the guy that worked the scam, but it is much better to be able to recover and repay the money.
It is like the CIA hiring and paying a crook in prison to crack the code so the world doesn't blow up.
I am much more concerned about the IDIOTS with torches behind this witch hunt than I am with paying AIG workers a bonus to unwind and recover the trillions they lost.
And for the record, it was liberals that started this witch hunt against bonuses, that amount to .01% of the effort to put the US economy back on track. The conservatives just jumped on the populist bandwagon.
I'm only half stupid
So yeah
I don't care about these stupid bonuses.
I'm only half stupid
So say we all
Battlestar Galactica Hosted At the UN
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Another thing that never changes
Turns out the Israeli's committed greivous human rights abuses in their latest game of "kill the arabs."
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52I67M20090319
What is actually different is that some in the Israeli military are breaking the usual code of silence to tell about the rampant bigotry and intent to kill palestinian citizens among their fellow soldiers.
http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSLJ974036
Why do we continue to spend $2 billion a year to facilitate genocide?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Pesky Geneva Convention
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,