And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it is our turn. Now, it is our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for — the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it. (taken from the transcripts on CNN)

It almost seems like he couldn’t work on the economy because of the distractions of the war. Surely this is not so. He repeatedly spoke in the election that a President (or at least him as President) can do more than one thing at once. Maybe, he found out he can’t do it all.

Related posts

• Healthcare for illegals (0)
• You want change – you can have change (0)
• Will Clinton take over as VP? (0)
• Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama? (1)
• Too politically correct (0)

I think this is logical. By challenging the journalists that hurt the Freedom of Press right or cause it to be abused, the journalists of the world are self-policing themselves. They are saying that with a Right comes a Responsibility. Abuse of the responsibility for fair reporting risks the rights of all journalists and, by extension, the rights of all US citizens.

Evidently, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal doesn’t agree with me (unless I am misunderstanding his argument). He recently wrote in his daily column that Ms. Shirley Sherrod was planning on suing Mr. Andrew Breitbart due to his highly edited video of her. This video ultimately forced her to be fired from her government job and she is upset about that. In my opinion, she should be upset. I think that Mr. Taranto even thinks she has the right to be upset. What he is arguing is that she may not want to sue (I don’t have an opinion on that) and that the journalists that heard her speak of the suit shouldn’t be encouraging her.

I disagree with Mr. Taranto’s opinion. While I read his column daily and agree with a large portion of what he writes, his statements here are incorrect, in my opinion. Journalists should be the first to condemn Breitbart – not the last. While I am just a simple blogger, I hereby condemn Mr. Breitbart for publishing a video that intentionally leads a viewer to an knowingly incorrect conclusion. If Mr. Breitbart would have stated that this video was only his opinion and not the actual facts of the full length video, I would feel differently.

I am not sure if Mr. Taranto’s column is externally exposed for all to read so here are the paragraphs that I have issue with.

But one aspect of this story strikes us as passing strange: The venue in which she issued this threat was a convention of journalists. What’s more, someone who was there tells us that when she said she planned to sue, the audience applauded. Our source was careful to note that there were nonjournalists in the audience too (PR men and corporate sponsors). Still, we have to ask: What kind of journalist would applaud the threat of a defamation lawsuit?

Journalists have an institutional interest in maximizing the scope of First Amendment protections, and that means keeping it as hard as possible for plaintiffs to sue for defamation. Even meritless defamation suits against journalists and news organizations are a nuisance. Thus one would expect journalists to have a general antipathy to the idea of defamation lawsuits, even when sympathetic to a particular prospective plaintiff.

We have noted that Breitbart is not a traditional journalist, and it follows from this that he has no special claim on the sympathy of those who are. Our point, however, is that the interests of defamation plaintiffs run counter to those of journalists, regardless of whether the defendants are journalists or are doing journalism.

New York Times v. Sullivan is itself a case in point. Although the defendant was a newspaper, the published material at issue was not news but a political ad–an open letter from the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South, which criticized officials in Jim Crow-era Alabama for their treatment of civil rights demonstrators.

Journalists depend more on the First Amendment than just about anyone else, but we more than anyone should be cognizant that the protections we enjoy as we do our work apply to everyone, including civil rights advocates–and Andrew Breitbart.

Related posts

• Why we shouldn’t regulate venture capitalists (0)
• RANT! How dumb are the oil companies? (0)
• I agree until I disagree – Senator John Kerry (0)
• Healthcare for illegals (0)

Related posts

• You want change – you can have change (0)
• Will Clinton take over as VP? (0)
• Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama? (1)
• Too politically correct (0)
• Tom Daschle on taxes (1)

Related posts

• RANT! How dumb are the oil companies? (0)
• RANT! Drugs and bad conduct in professional sports (again) (1)
• Newt’s list is awesome! (0)
• My comments on New Rule: Not Everything in America Has to Make a Profit (0)
• Least qualified President in decades/century?/ever? (1)

This is truly disgusting, regardless of Mr. Etheridge’s apology.

Mr. Etheridge should immediately resign his position.

Related posts

• Who Owns Your Name on Twitter? (0)
• Too politically correct (0)
• RANT! Mexico attacks! (0)
• RANT! I don’t care about Sheryl’s views on politics! (1)
• Is George W. Bush the worst President ever? Part 3 of 5 (0)

I don’t think she will do it.

She will stay Secretary of State for the balance of the first term. If BHO is re-elected, she will resign shortly into the second term and no one will blame her as the SecState job is brutal.  This will allow her to publish one more book and do the money-raising chicken-dinner circuit.  She will then run in 2016 to succeed BHO, taking credit for thegood that she did as SecState but distancing herself from BHO’s screwups.

If BHO would lose in 2012 , she would be even better positioned for ‘16.

Also, dropping Biden in 2012 (unless he is sick) will be seen as intensely disloyal by the American voters.  No President has changed VPs for an election since FDR put Truman on the ticket.  Nixon ran through a couple VPs but that was because Agnew was even more crooked than Tricky Dick and even then it wasn’t for an election – it was mid-term and Agnew had to resign the position.

It would be near political suicide to switch VPs in the 21st century just based on politics. Even George W. Bush didn’t do it with Dick Cheney which would have been a good move for the party. Cheney had terrible numbers and was never a candidate for President in 2008. Putting a fresh face on the ticket would have allowed Bush to weasel out of some of his mistakes and would have setup a successor candidate (rather than the very limp and inadequate McCain).  For that matter, GWB could have put McCain on the ticket and given him a better standing to run for President with fewer competitors in the primary.

If Biden should become very ill, Clinton is the obvious choice for VP. I have nothing against Mr. Biden, so I don’t want anything bad to happen to him, but if for some reason he is faced with a life-threatening illness, Hillary will be the logical and politically-prudent choice for VP.

Biden is here to stay if he is healthy. Look for Clinton on the ticket in 2016.

Related posts

• RANT! Mexico attacks! (0)
• It is no longer someone else’s mess (0)
• Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama? (1)
• Tom Daschle on taxes (1)
• The continuing saga of the Illinois Senator (2)

As he very adequately says, “these are not just Louisiana’s wet lands, they are America’s wet lands”

Related posts

• Video: Fish killing oil comes on shore (0)
• RANT! How dumb are the oil companies? (0)

Let’s face it – there should be no such thing as “too big to fail.” Most of us work for companies that are not in that category. If our employers screw up and the company goes down the tubes then we will individually hurt and perhaps the micro-economy around that company will hurt a bit but for the most part the US GDP won’t even see the speed bump. This is the way that it should be – screw up and fail then just pick yourself up and get on with life.

“Too big to fail” simply stinks of a type of monopoly. I know that monopoly prevention is usually about consumer rights and price gouging, but is this that far from where we are now? Isn’t consumer price gouging exactly what we just went through with the TARP program?  I know that my taxes feel like I am getting gouged! This is especially true when I know that I am paying way too much in taxes and that still doesn’t cover what the US government spends! If it is a choice between taxing me more and the US Government (and the state governments) spending more, than I know the choice that I want to make – cut the damn spending!

So what is my suggestion?

The FDIC was nice enough to give us a list of banks here. The first thing that I see is there are some BIG banks! How can these not be monopolistic when they are that much larger than banks that are ranked just 10 places below them.  We need some sanity here.

1. No bank in the top 100 largest banks can be larger than double the size of the next smallest bank.
2. No bank in the top 100 largest banks can be more than five times larger than a bank that is ranked 10 spots below it.
3. No bank in the top 100 largest banks can be more than ten times larger than a bank that is ranked 20 spots below it.
4. No bank in the top 100 largest banks can be more than twenty times larger than a bank that is ranked 40 spots below it.
5. The top 100 banks combined size cannot exceed double the combined size of the banks ranked 101-500.
6. No FDIC insured bank can have more than 10% of its ownership by a non-US entity.

Yes, I know that the title of this article only says 5 rules but the list has 6 rules. The last rule is simply to reduce our banking exposure to undue influence by foreign nationals. We need to realize that our banking and financial systems is just as much of a strategic US asset as our defense contractors. We want the decisions of our strategic institutions to be governed by good business intentions and not the political aspirations of a foreign body.

Because of all of this re-arrangement, we would have to do this with plenty of warning. I would suggest that the law wouldn’t take effect for 5 years after signing to give the banks time to adjust. Also, in the first 5 years after the law is in effect (years 6-10 after signing), the penalty should simply be a 1% fine for the amount of out of compliance the bank was in e.g. if a bank was too large by $1B than the fine would by $10M. After the first decade, a bank would be taken over by a government agency to accelerate their divestitures, existing management and board of directors would be fired (and forbidden to run a bank for 10 years), and then new management would be installed by the shareholders.

There would also need to be a grace period of perhaps 3 years if banks ranked lower than the bank in violation decreased their size by more than 10% in a year and that caused the non-compliance. We cannot punish one institution due to the acts of another. However, we can require them to adapt to the current situation within a reasonable time, I suggest 3 years.

What would this do for the financial institutions?

The first thing that would likely happen is that the banks below 500 would likely start to get bought up pretty rapidly by the banks that are 101-500.Also, the top 100 banks would start to divest portions of their business to other banks (or create new entities) so that they could balance out. It definitely would mean that the top 10 banks would get smaller relative to the next 20 banks. That is the point, they would no longer be too big to fail. While we wouldn’t want them to fail, we also wouldn’t be on the hook as taxpayers to fix their screw-ups.

With the built-in delays and grace periods, it would probably take 20 years to get to a better balance. That is okay. In the words of some great philosopher: haste makes waste. It took us several decades to get the current mess that we are in and if we try to adjust too quickly, we will screw it up.

I know that there will be a lot of nay-sayers that think this won’t work or some other way will work better. I am sure there are good ideas out there but any idea that still concentrates wealth in the hands of a dozen corporations is simply not a solution to the core problem. Those suggestions are only to take care of a problem that presented itself already – in other words they are a band-aid to an existing cut. My suggestion is that we know that injuries and mistakes will happen in the future (banks will always fail) but let’s not get in trouble as a nation because of the problem.

Related posts

• Companies say health care costs hard to swallow (0)

I don’t have a huge problem with Mr. Specter on his voting record. He typically was a pain in the ass for everyone and it appeared that over the years, no one controlled him. My problem is the game that he played to avoid the voters in Pennsylvania. About a year ago, Senator Specter realized that his Republican base had dwindled considerably and he would probably not win a primary contest. Not wanting to put his career at the stake of these voters, Sen. Specter switched parties and said he was a Democrat. Yesterday, the Democrat Party voters rejected Mr. Specter as their candidate to run for the Senate seat.

Of course, Mr. Specter could still run for Senate. He could say that all parties are bad and run as an independent. He does not appear to have the ambition to do that based on this video clip.

Let this be a lesson to all public officials. Don’t play games with us anymore. We are tired of the half-truths and back-room deals. We want our elected officials to do what we want them to do. If you don’t do it, you are going to have to find another job.

In general, if they are serving today – don’t vote for them! Throw the bums out!

Related posts

• Does a party even mean anything? (0)

I am so happy that I live in the USA where the pursuit of one’s religious belief is supposed to be accepted. I acknowledge that even in the US, it is not always easy to pursue one’s beliefs. I also acknowledge that there is still bigotry and racism, but in general, we are much more free than most places in the world.

Shame on the Belgium Parliament for passing this bill.

From FOXNews:

Belgium is set to become the first ever country in Europe to ban the burqa being worn in public places.

The vote in Parliament for a nationwide ban on Islamic clothes or veils that do not allow the wearer to be fully identified was almost unanimous.

The full-face niqab and burqa worn by some Muslim women are not a mandatory requirements of Islam, but a personal choice.

People found flouting the new law could be given a fine of more than $30 or even be faced with a week in jail.

Vice president of the Muslim Executive of Belgium, Isabelle Praile, warned that the new law could be the start of a slippery slope.

“Today it’s the full-face veil, tomorrow the veil, the day after it will be Sikh turbans and then perhaps it will be mini-skirts.”

She went on to say that “the wearing of a full-face veil is part of the individual freedoms” protected by Belgian, European and international rights laws.

Related posts

• No related posts.