Sunday, 28 September 2008
can't sleep tonight. my mind is just racing around too fast, for no particular reason. sometimes when i'm just lying there i feel as though i can see thousands of paintings into the future, and i know i'll never live that long. i can make tiny drawings and sketches to fill every page of every book on every shelf in this room, but you can only make a finite amount of well-thought out fully-realized finished projects that speak clearly for you before your body dies.
i get ideas a lot, ideas come to me very easily. when my creativity is at peak level i can dream up lots of things. i usually think to myself "someday perhaps that will get done." but there are so many of these thoughts, even if one pushes hard and is privledged enough to be able to work at realizing them, they will not all come to fruition.
the daily struggle is getting these things to pop out from under the soil. the soil is rich, but growing things is not at all easy. the dream is an endless forest, thick and thriving, bursting at its boundaries. the reality is a rich bed of soil filled with seeds, patches of a three-inch tall canopy of sprouts turn black to green.
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
"A critical - and radical - component of the bailout package proposed by the Bush administration has thus far failed to garner the serious attention of anyone in the press. Section 8 (which ironically reminds one of the popular name of the portion of the 1937 Housing Act that paved the way for subsidized affordable housing ) of this legislation is just a single sentence of thirty-two words, but it represents a significant consolidation of power and an abdication of oversight authority that's so flat-out astounding that it ought to set one's hair on fire. It reads, in its entirety:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
In short, the so-called "mother of all bailouts," which will transfer $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase the distressed assets of several failed financial institutions, will be conducted in a manner unchallengeable by courts and ungovernable by the People's duly sworn representatives. All decision-making power will be consolidated into the Executive Branch - who, we remind you, will have the incentive to act upon this privilege as quickly as possible, before they leave office. The measure will run up the budget deficit by a significant amount, with no guarantee of recouping the outlay, and no fundamental means of holding those who fail to do so accountable.
Is this starting to sound familiar? Robert Kuttner cuts through much of the gloss in an article in today's American Prospect:
The deal proposed by Paulson is nothing short of outrageous. It includes no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gives congressional blessing and funding to what he has already been doing, ad hoc. He plans to retain Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street's dubious paper. There are to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that get relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital. Both Obama and McCain have opposed the provision denying any judicial review of decisions made by Paulson -- a provision that evokes the Bush administration's suspension of normal constitutional safeguards in its conduct of foreign policy and national security. [...]
The differences between this proposed bailout and the three closest historical equivalents are immense. When the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of the 1930s pumped a total of $35 billion into U.S. corporations and financial institutions, there was close government supervision and quid pro quos at every step of the way. Much of the time, the RFC became a preferred shareholder, and often appointed board members. The Home Owners Loan Corporation, which eventually refinanced one in five mortgage loans, did not operate to bail out banks but to save homeowners. And the Resolution Trust Corporation of the 1980s, created to mop up the damage of the first speculative mortgage meltdown, the S&L collapse, did not pump in money to rescue bad investments; it sorted out good assets from bad after the fact, and made sure to purge bad executives as well as bad loans. And all three of these historic cases of public recapitalization were done without suspending judicial review.
Kuttner's opposition here is perhaps the strongest language I've seen used, pushing back on this piece of legislation, in any publication of repute, and even here, Section 8 is not cited by name or by content. McClatchy Newspapers also alludes to Section 8 with concern, citing the "unfettered authority" that Paulson would be granted, and noting that the "law also would preclude court review of steps Paulson might take, something Joshua Rosner, managing director of economic researcher Graham Fisher & Co. in New York, said could be used to mask previous illegal activity." Jack Balkin also gives the matter the sort of attention it deserves on his blog, Balkinization.
But elsewhere, the conversation is muted. The debate over whether Congress is going to pass the Paulson bailout package, or pass the Paulson bailout package really hard seems to have boiled down to a discussion of time and concessions. The White House has made it clear that they want this package passed yesterday. Congressional Democrats seem to be of different minds on the matter, with some pushing back hard, and others content to demand a small dollop of turd polish to make the package seem more aesthetically pleasing, at which point, they'll likely roll over and pass the bill. Neither candidate, John McCain or Barack Obama, seem all that amenable toward the bailout, but neither have either demonstrated that they are willing to risk their candidacies to do much more than exploit the issue for electoral purposes.
Sunday morning came and went, with Paulson traipsing dutifully from studio to studio, facing nary a question on Section 8. Front page articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal detail the wranglings, but make no mention of this section of the legislation. On TV, cable news networks are stuck in the fog of the ongoing presidential campaign.
Throughout the coverage, one catches a whiff of what seems like substantive pushback on this power grab, but it largely amounts to a facsimile of journalistic diligence. Most note, in general terms, that the bailout represents a set of "broad powers" that will be granted to the Department of the Treasury. Yet the coverage offsets these concerns through the constant hyping of the White House's overall message of "urgency."
But one cannot overstate this: Section 8 is a singularly transformative sentence of economic policy. It transfers a significant amount of power to the Executive Branch, while walling off any avenue for oversight, and offering no guarantees in return. And if the Democrats end up content with winning a few slight concessions, they risk not putting a stop-payment on the real "blank check" - the one in which they allow the erosion of their own powers.
Over in the Senate, Christopher Dodd has proposed a bailout legislation of his own, which critically calls for "an oversight board that not only includes the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the SEC, but congressionally appointed, non-governmental officials" and would require the President to appoint an "independent inspector general to investigate the Treasury asset program." In Dodd's legislation, Section 8 is effectively stripped from the bill.
Nevertheless, the fact that Section 8 of the Paulson plan seems to strike few as a de facto dealbreaker can and should astound. The failure of Congress to hold the line on this point would be truly embarrassing. But if we make it through this week with nobody in the press specifically informing the public about the implications of this single sentence - in the middle of a complicated bill, in the middle of a complicated time - then right there, you have the single largest media failure of this year."
The Bush Administration is going out in a blaze of glory, eh?
Thursday, 18 September 2008
|From Los Angeles|
|From Los Angeles|
Photos from the whole trip can be viewed here:
Wednesday, 10 September 2008
Republicans are up in arms defending Sarah Palin & family against Democrat's attacks on her private family business, namely her daughter, daughter's daughter daughter-daughter and ditter dotter.
Their line of defense is to argue in favor of choice, while making additional remarks to the tune of ♪♫ the government & others have no business telling a woman what they can/should be doing with her own life.
Sounds familiar, you foolz!!!!
I also get a kick out of why interviewees think Sarah is qualified!
"she makes americans feel like anyone can be president"
...what?! are you fucking serious!?
She likes this idea because she can feel more "on par" with the prez. Like, one of her friends got in therr. Like how Bush was a good ol' boy and didn't seem so "stuffy and inta-lekshul". It is this VERY distance, darlin', the distance between you and those who you deem "stuffy" and "over your head", that qualifies not only leadership, but the necessity for a feeble brain such as your own to be led. You're lucky I am not your president, or else I'd lead you and all of your friends right off a cliff. I am personally not a big leader person, and my politics are quite loopy and anarchistic. But I also fancy a good game, and in the game of contemporary politics,
I do not wish to share a nation with dimly lit brains who either wish to be president or like the idea of anyone being able to take office.
Our leaders were once talented, creative, noble and exceptional human beings. Scientists, Composers, Artists, Scholars, & Humanitarians once graced these halls (said in rambling old-man voice). Since when did being a filthy rich businessman, focused primarily on monetary self-expansion, replace attributes that really contribute to the magic and love that defines what it is to be human when considering our "leaders"?
I offer this explanation : Rednecks and Idiots reproduce very rapidly, because they are inferior and unintelligent. Thus, they have created a population that dominates the television viewing audience. Naturally, the broadcasting companies, in a fit of greed, respond by filling their broadcasts with rot to feed the hungry beasts. This further unifies the Rednecks and Idiots by giving them a national identity and common ground, which further perpetuates their growth. Now, they are a voting body, gullible and easily swayed by another breed of monster who is both more intelligent and evil - the political Right. Now cowboys, wealthy coke heads, and beauty pagent winners can be president.
= the American Dream
The Right, which in reality despises the Redneck/Idiot (Rediot) contingient and would sooner pop them off like cans at a firing range if they didn't require voters to empower them, easily takes advantage of our darlin's by feeding them propoganda such as :
"The earth is our oyster, our everlasting oyster"
"polar bears are not a currently threatened species"
"God is on our side"
"The Rich are on our side (give them tax breaks and privatize the world, better that we own air and sell it to you than to let it just float away)"
"the World community needs U-S-A! as a sort-of global police force. See, you can live the ultimate redneck fantasy and shoot big guns at evil-doers in the name of our great nation (actually, this is all just to further private business ventures and to squash any foreign nation's attempt at giving Right-Wing privateers a choke hold.... oh, never-you-mind! it's a gaiiiiime!!!)"
i have to go, i'm busy.