Weird Wally Already Knows Who Barack Obama is, But Who is David Sirota?
Fall 2008: Purple America
Seeing Red, Feeling Blue in Purple America
by David Sirota
Print this articleEmail this article to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Dispatches from the Nation's Populist Uprising
Book cover of David Sirota's The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington
This article was adapted from The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington. Copyright © 2008 by David Sirota. Published by Crown Publishers, a division of Random House, Inc.
By all measures, those of us Americans not in the top 1 percent of income earners are under enormous economic pressure and most of us feel powerless to influence those who act in our name. Public attitudes toward Washington are reaching record levels of animosity. A Scripps Howard News Service poll in 2006 found a majority of Americans saying they “personally are more angry” at the government than they used to be. And there’s a growing backlash against the hostile takeover of our government by Big Money interests.
It’s the natural reaction from a country that is watching its pocket get picked. Wages are stagnating, health-care costs are skyrocketing, pensions are being looted, personal debt climbs—all as corporate profits keep rising, politicians pass more tax breaks for the superwealthy, and CEOs pay themselves tens of millions of dollars a year.
“There’s class warfare, all right,” billionaire Warren Buffet recently told the New York Times. “It’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
But that may not be true for much longer.
In a year of travel to report for my new book, The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington, I found those who are fighting back: shareholders running resolutions against corporate boards, third parties shattering the two-party duopoly, legislators kicking down lobbyists in state capitals, bloggers orchestrating primary challenges to entrenched lawmakers, or—on the darker side—armed, enraged suburbanites forming vigilante bands at our southern border. What connects these disparate uprisings is both the sense that America is out of control, and an anger at the government for creating the crises we now face.
In Helena, Montana, I watched Kirk Hammerquist testify before the state legislature in opposition to a tax measure designed to give more breaks to wealthy, out-of-state property owners. Hammerquist owns a construction company in Kalispell, and has got the whole cowboy look going—jeans, boots, and a mustache.
“I was driving down last night on an ice skating rink,” he says, recounting his journey through the snowstorm that just hit. “And I said, ‘why the heck am I doing this?’
“This state is really becoming a playground of the wealthy—we know it, we can’t deny it,” he says. “And don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against wealthy people—I’m trying my hardest to be one. … But to sit there and work on a three- to five-million-dollar home for an owner that is going to be there for a couple of months in the summer … and to think the guy that’s working with me [putting] all this pride and sweat into that house is going to get less [of a tax refund] than that person who is going to come play here for a few months—I tell ya, it made me drive all night. I speak for a lot of people, the guys that work with their hands. I had to come down and represent them.”
This is a populist uprising—a “politics that champions issues that have a broad base of popular support but receive short shrift from the political elite… It explains why today’s uprising defies the clichéd red and blue states that flash across our television screens every night.”
In Seattle, I talked to the founder of an unlikely high-tech labor union about the way a fundamental sense of unfairness is driving a growing number of high-tech workers to put aside the libertarianism that has in the past led them to vote Republican and dislike unions, as issues like wages and health care pull them in a populist direction. They are reacting to working conditions that keep them on a permanent “temporary” employment status. They have watched as 221,000 American tech jobs were eliminated by offshore outsourcing between 2000 and 2004. As one Microsoft employee told me, every tech worker now fears coming in to work to find their entire division outsourced to India.
In New York, I met with the grassroots organizers and campaign volunteers of the Working Families Party, which has used the state’s fusion voting laws to bring together voters across the political spectrum under the banner of higher wages, fair taxes, affordable housing, civil rights, and campaign finance reform—issues too often ignored in modern politics.
This is a populist uprising—a “politics that champions issues that have a broad base of popular support but receive short shrift from the political elite,” as the Atlantic Monthly’s Ross Douthat says. “This explains why you can have left-populists and right-populists,” he adds. And it explains why today’s uprising defies the clichéd red and blue states that flash across our television screens every night.
Those in the uprising are sick and tired of a political system that ignores them. Without inspiration, whatever uprising sympathies people may have are easily quashed under a sense of helplessness. But as the stories in my book show, when that inspiration exists, the uprising intensifies.
More than any time in recent history, people are ready to take action in response to the emergency that is the state of the world today.
Fear, Frustration, and Simple Answers
The Minutemen are gun-toting guys who patrol border areas looking for people trying to sneak into the United States from Mexico. They’ve been labeled everything from patriots, to vigilantes, to racists. Though they see different enemies and are plagued by paranoia, they too exhibit the pure, unadulterated frustration prevalent throughout the rest of the uprising.
As the world has gotten increasingly complex over the last thirty years, America’s public discussion about the world has gotten simpler. Issues like foreign policy, globalization, and immigration have added all sorts of gray shades to the political landscape. But with so much complexity and so many conduits of propaganda, the only messages that break through are the most crisp sound bites and the most simple explanations.
For someone like Rick, who spent 20 years developing a landscaping business in southern California, this has created a terrifying fog—one that eliminates any sense of security or control. He sees complex demographic shifts make whites a minority in his town. He watches global economic forces stress his business. He got involved with the Minutemen because he got sick and tired of trying to battle it out with other businesses that employ low-wage illegal immigrants.
JUST THE FACTS:
How the Middle Class Got Stuck
Food, Rent, Gas, Health Insurance, College… the price of things we need keeps going up
“They don’t gotta pay workman’s compensation, no liability insurance,” he says. “I just can’t compete with them.”
But he, like all of us, has become addicted to simple answers—so addicted, in fact, that he barely notices when those answers conflict with each other.
When we talk about the environment, he says, “This country is being destroyed from within by its own government.” He says environmental regulations “are running business out of this country faster than you’ll ever know.” Yet he complains that smog is destroying Los Angeles.
When we talk about his time at Douglas, the California defense contractor now owned by Boeing, he says the company moved many of its operations from Long Beach to China.
“We’re losing our jobs, and these are good-paying union jobs,” laments the same guy who was just ripping on unions.
Right after saying it’s time to arrest corporate executives who hire illegal immigrants, he’s railing on “these politicians who’re banging on large industry, saying big business is bad.”
Joining the Minutemen is his way of taking some action in response to the emergency that is the state of the world today.
Right-wing politics has thrived by using fear and resentment to divide socioeconomic classes along racial, cultural, and geographic lines. The big problem for working-class whites, Ronald Reagan basically said, was black “welfare queens” stealing their tax dollars and inner-city gangs threatening mayhem. The big problem for yuppie Midwesterners, George W. Bush says, is middle-class East Coasters who want to legislate secular hedonism and take away their guns. The themes and the villains change, but the story line stays the same: a set of people in the economic class just below you is taking your stuff and threatening your way of life—and if those people are dealt with harshly, your troubles are over.
Joining the Minutemen allows participants to immediately behold the illusion of results in a society whose problems are so seemingly immense and immovable that activism can feel like a waste of time. It also locks them into warfare against their natural socioeconomic allies.
In May, Working Families Party executive director Dan Cantor endorsed Maryland state Senator Gloria Gary Lawlah’s landmark Fair Share Health Care bill. The Working Families Party’s endorsement has become the most influential in the state of New York, and the mobilization of volunteers and votes is making the difference in key races. Photo: Drum Major Institute
In May, Working Families Party executive director Dan Cantor endorsed Maryland state Senator Gloria Gary Lawlah’s landmark Fair Share Health Care bill. The Working Families Party’s endorsement has become the most influential in the state of New York, and the mobilization of volunteers and votes is making the difference in key races.
Photo: Drum Major Institute
The Working Families Party
But in most places the uprising takes a positive form. In the bustling streets beneath New York’s skyscrapers, and in upstate towns far away from Manhattan, the Working Families Party (WFP) has become the uprising model with the most potential to convert all the populist anger and frustration into functioning political and legislative authority.
When I was reporting on the WFP, the party was channeling that anger into Craig Johnson’s state senate challenge in heavily Republican Nassau County, a key race in a strategy to create the first Democratic-majority senate in New York state’s recent history. When I visited the Johnson headquarters, it had the energy of a presidential campaign, and was the entire rainbow of races, colors, and ages. Though a Sunday, the office was packed with people running around making phone calls, preparing for door-knocking runs, and doing all the unglamorous tasks of local organizing. They were there because the WFP promises to champion their issues—and it delivers.
That scene is the WFP at its core: a somewhat chaotic, somewhat ragtag squad of political ground troops in the uprising. Need a crowd for a rally? Call the WFP. Need an expert field staff to help increase turnout in a contested election? Call the WFP. You ask Democratic politicians in New York what the WFP truly brings them, and they’ll all say one thing: people.
The WFP has created a space on every New York ballot for working people to organize around. It does this by taking advantage of New York’s election laws, which allow a minor party to cross-endorse another party’s candidate and effectively “fuse” with that party on the ballot.
On New York general election ballots in 2006, for instance, you could vote for Hillary Clinton on the Democratic Party line or the Working Families Party line, and either way your vote counted for Clinton.
Fusion’s benefits revolve around its ability to bring together culturally disparate constituencies under a unifying economic agenda, without risking a self-defeating spoiler phenomenon where a stand-alone third party candidate like Nader or Perot throws an election to the very candidates they most oppose.
A century ago, the culturally conservative, sometimes anti-immigrant Populist Party (or People’s Party) would often use its ballot line to cross-endorse Democratic candidates. The Democratic Party tended to be more urban-based and immigrant-dominated. But both parties were progressive on core economic issues like jobs and wages. Fusion voting helped make class solidarity more important than cultural division at the ballot box.
In a presidential election, a farmer could support progressive economic issues by voting for a Democratic candidate on the Populist line and not feel like he was betraying his feelings on, say, temperance. Meanwhile, an urban immigrant could vote for the same candidate on the Democratic line and not feel like he was endorsing the anti-immigrant views of rural America. By fusing their votes, they were more likely to get people elected who would serve their shared interest.
Fast forward to 1998, when New Party organizers—including Dan Cantor—joined with New York’s big labor unions and grassroots groups to try to use New York’s fusion laws to secure a ballot line for a new third party—one with a very narrow platform focusing on higher wages, fair taxes, affordable housing, civil rights, and campaign finance reform. The calculation was that the narrower and more populist the agenda, the more sharply the Working Families Party could define itself in voters’ minds, and the more clout it could have on its chosen issues.
“We want to stand for issues that often don’t get heard over the din of money,” Cantor told Long Island’s largest newspaper. Newsday reported that Cantor said he wanted residents to hear the name “Working Families Party” and remember: “That’s the party that thinks wages should be higher.”
The party began delivering the votes. In 2000, 102,000 WFP members voted for Hillary Clinton, including a significant number from demographics where support for Clinton was otherwise low. In 2001, the WFP provided the margin of victory for a Democrat in a tight race for a seat in the Republican-controlled Suffolk County legislature.
These and other victories have led to the WFP establishing a unique public image. A 2005 Pace University poll showed that the single most influential endorsement in New York City mayoral elections is the WFP’s—more important than the state’s major newspapers, current or former officeholders, or other advocacy groups.
The WFP’s work for Craig Johnson paid off. WFP canvassers knocked on 45,000 doors and roughly half of the 3,600 votes that provided Johnson his margin of victory were cast on the WFP’s ballot line. The New York press credited the WFP with playing a decisive role in the election.
The Future
The belief that people—not dictators, not elites, not a group of gurus—should be empowered to organize and decide their destiny for themselves seems so simple, and yet is far and away the most radical idea in human history. “Denial of the opportunity for participation is the denial of human dignity and democracy,” legendary organizer Saul Alinsky wrote.
Putting that principle into action requires genuine courage and selflessness, because participants in the uprising must make their own personal power a lower priority than popular control.
The activism and energy frothing today is disconnected and atomized. The odds against connecting it all into a true populist movement are daunting, but these stories and the others in my book show the opportunity. If more people become part of this uprising, we will not only transcend the partisan divide that gridlocks our politics, but reshape the very concept of what is possible.
Dan Cantor told me, “We have to go to people where they are on the issues they care about.” For the first time in many years, they are ready to put aside partisanship and work for shared goals. The question is whether or not we seize this fleeting moment and make it one of exponential change.
David Sirota wrote this article as part of Purple America, the Fall 2008 issue of YES! Magazine. David is a political organizer, nationally syndicated columnist, a senior fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future, and founder of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan research institutions.
www.davidsirota.com
This article was adapted from The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington. Copyright © 2008 by David Sirota. Published by Crown Publishers, a division of Random House, Inc.
Buy The Uprising।
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Could Weird Wally Actually Vote for John McCain?
First off, Weird Wally (WW) is convinced that Barack Obama is way better than John McCain.
But were John McCain running against Clarence Thomas, WW would vote for John McCain.
On the other hand, were John McCain up against Ron Paul, Mr. Paul would get WW’s vote.
The funny thing is, if it were Ralph Nader vs. Dick Cheney, WW would have to stop and think.
Just for the fun of it; Ralph Nader and The Obama Girl!
TTYL,
Weird Wally
First off, Weird Wally (WW) is convinced that Barack Obama is way better than John McCain.
But were John McCain running against Clarence Thomas, WW would vote for John McCain.
On the other hand, were John McCain up against Ron Paul, Mr. Paul would get WW’s vote.
The funny thing is, if it were Ralph Nader vs. Dick Cheney, WW would have to stop and think.
Just for the fun of it; Ralph Nader and The Obama Girl!
TTYL,
Weird Wally
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
What is Obama’s Arts Project?
Weird Wally (WW) has heard of it but is not sure he understands.
It sounds like a good thing, but please contact Cassandra Cole for more info.
Meanwhile, the Stranger gives his view.
One more thing, is John McCain “Lost in Space and Time?”
Weird Wally Approves this Message.
Weird Wally
Weird Wally (WW) has heard of it but is not sure he understands.
It sounds like a good thing, but please contact Cassandra Cole for more info.
Meanwhile, the Stranger gives his view.
One more thing, is John McCain “Lost in Space and Time?”
Weird Wally Approves this Message.
Weird Wally
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
The Definition of “Crisis.”
Weird Wally (WW) once saw the perfect definition of “Crisis.” on the office wall of his very good friend and Mentor. It looked something like this...
“Crisis...
Opportunity Riding a Dangerous Wind!”
The Wall Street “Rescue” might bring our leaders to their senses and with luck we’ll rediscover a little bit about “Economic Oneness” (call it Spiritual Economics) and, John Maynard Keynes.
But maybe that’s a little to much to hope for, even from Barack.
On the other hand, consider the possibility of building roads, schools, hospitals, bridges, universities and a ton of other things. Putting people to work so that they are able to afford stuff is not such a bad idea. Or, we can give the money to Wall Street and Corporations and they will do the very same thing for a huge profit while shipping the jobs overseas.
Keynesian Economics According to Wise Geek:
Keynesian economics is an economic theory named after John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946), a British economist. It was his simple explanation for the cause of the Great Depression for which he is most well-known.
His ideas spawned a slew of interventionist economic policies during the Great Depression. Keynes' economic theory was based on an circular flow of money. One person's spendings goes towards anothers earnings, and when that person spends her earnings she is, in effect, supporting anothers earnings. This circle continues on and helps support a normal functioning economy. When the Great Depression hit, people's natural reaction was to hoard their money. However, under Keynes' theory this stopped the circular flow of money, keeping the economy at a standstill.
Keynes' solution to this poor economic state was to prime the pump. By prime the pump, Keynes argued that the government should step in to increase spending, either by increasing the money supply or by actually buying things on the market itself. In the times of the Great Depression, however, this was an understandably unpopular solution. It is said, however, that the massive defense spending that United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt initiated helped cure the US economy.
Since Keynesian economics advocates for the public sector to step in to assist the economy generally, it is a significant departure from popular economic thought which preceded it — laissez-fair capitalism. Laissez-fair capitalism supported the exclusion of the public sector in the market. The belief was that an unfettered market would achieve balance on its own. Proponents of free-market capitalism include the Austrian School of economic thought, of which one of its earliest founders, Friedrich von Hayek, also lived in England alongside Keynes. The two had a public rivalry for many years because of their opposing thoughts on the role of the state in the economic lives of individuals.
Keynesian economics warns against the practice of too much saving (underconsumption) and not enough consumption (spending) in the economy, and it also supports considerable redistribution of wealth, when needed. Keynesian economics further concludes that there is a pragmatic reason for the massive redistribution of wealth: if the poorer segments of society are given sums of money, they will likely spend it, rather than save it, thus promoting economic growth. Another central idea of Keynesian economics is that trends in the macroeconomic level can disproportionately influence consumer behavior at the micro-level. Keynesian economics, also called macroeconomics for it's macro look at the economy, remains one of the important schools in economic thought today.
Weird Wally (WW) once saw the perfect definition of “Crisis.” on the office wall of his very good friend and Mentor. It looked something like this...
“Crisis...
Opportunity Riding a Dangerous Wind!”
The Wall Street “Rescue” might bring our leaders to their senses and with luck we’ll rediscover a little bit about “Economic Oneness” (call it Spiritual Economics) and, John Maynard Keynes.
But maybe that’s a little to much to hope for, even from Barack.
On the other hand, consider the possibility of building roads, schools, hospitals, bridges, universities and a ton of other things. Putting people to work so that they are able to afford stuff is not such a bad idea. Or, we can give the money to Wall Street and Corporations and they will do the very same thing for a huge profit while shipping the jobs overseas.
Keynesian Economics According to Wise Geek:
Keynesian economics is an economic theory named after John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946), a British economist. It was his simple explanation for the cause of the Great Depression for which he is most well-known.
His ideas spawned a slew of interventionist economic policies during the Great Depression. Keynes' economic theory was based on an circular flow of money. One person's spendings goes towards anothers earnings, and when that person spends her earnings she is, in effect, supporting anothers earnings. This circle continues on and helps support a normal functioning economy. When the Great Depression hit, people's natural reaction was to hoard their money. However, under Keynes' theory this stopped the circular flow of money, keeping the economy at a standstill.
Keynes' solution to this poor economic state was to prime the pump. By prime the pump, Keynes argued that the government should step in to increase spending, either by increasing the money supply or by actually buying things on the market itself. In the times of the Great Depression, however, this was an understandably unpopular solution. It is said, however, that the massive defense spending that United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt initiated helped cure the US economy.
Since Keynesian economics advocates for the public sector to step in to assist the economy generally, it is a significant departure from popular economic thought which preceded it — laissez-fair capitalism. Laissez-fair capitalism supported the exclusion of the public sector in the market. The belief was that an unfettered market would achieve balance on its own. Proponents of free-market capitalism include the Austrian School of economic thought, of which one of its earliest founders, Friedrich von Hayek, also lived in England alongside Keynes. The two had a public rivalry for many years because of their opposing thoughts on the role of the state in the economic lives of individuals.
Keynesian economics warns against the practice of too much saving (underconsumption) and not enough consumption (spending) in the economy, and it also supports considerable redistribution of wealth, when needed. Keynesian economics further concludes that there is a pragmatic reason for the massive redistribution of wealth: if the poorer segments of society are given sums of money, they will likely spend it, rather than save it, thus promoting economic growth. Another central idea of Keynesian economics is that trends in the macroeconomic level can disproportionately influence consumer behavior at the micro-level. Keynesian economics, also called macroeconomics for it's macro look at the economy, remains one of the important schools in economic thought today.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
John McCain: Economic Disaster
JOHN McCAIN is the CANDIDATE of CHANGE!
After all, he changes his mind, positions and beliefs several times a day.
Or, is change for him just another way of saying “severe mood swings?”
Weird Wally Wants to know...
Do you?
Now this is What Weird Wally is Talking About...
Weird Wally lifted this post from Randi Rhode’s (the Goddess of Talk Radio) site and he hopes she doesn’t mind. But her site today is too good not to share.
TRILLION
It wasn't that long ago that using the number 'one trillion' truly was like saying 'a gagillion bazillion'. Well it’s time we learn how many zeroes are involved in that number. It's 12. We have a Trillion Dollars to offer and The Bankers want it. Who knew?
Do NOT make that deal. NO NO NO NO NO.
The unchecked right wing Free Market, No Regulations, No Oversight, No Adult Supervision ORGY of spending and lending over the past 8 years is OVER. Of course it failed because it had to. You can’t take money out of people’s pockets and steal their assets. We are the Economy. Doh.
But the pain of ignoring or worse, agreeing with the solution cooked up by the people who robbed us is ridiculous.
We have a “money shortage”. The only question is how do we put money back INTO the credit market. We get people paying for their homes again and give them a little extra cash to spend. That’s how.
What to do now? THIS IS A FORECLOSURE CRISIS. Deal with FORECLOSURES. Or put another way, IT’S THE FORECLOSURES STUPID.
Anything that is presented to you that doesn’t include at its core, foreclosure relief should be ignored. Any piece of legislation that does not include an immediate Foreclosure Freeze should not be taken seriously. Any piece of legislation that does not give people in foreclosure, or who have missed 3 payments in one year the ability to renegotiate their home loans should be dismissed instantly. Any piece of legislation that doesn’t include oversight by the GAO should not be taken seriously. Any piece of legislation that doesn’t force this down the throats of the giant Banks and Investment Banks who played with your loan going in and coming out is the wrong solution. Any legislation that hands over all the money to one guy at once is a HEIST.
We do have to put money back into the credit market. Allowing people to pay SOMETHING on their homes NOW puts money IN. Add a little stimulus check for us to spend and we’re BACK from the abyss. PERIOD.
Their solution is to put money in the hands of one guy who knows exactly where to put it. That’s WRONG and SILLY on it’s face.
Yesterday you think you saw 1.2 Tillion lost. It wasn’t lost! It was a negotiation. What happened in the Stock Market yesterday was a “dead cat bounce”. People were selling but no one was buying so prices went down. This wasn’t a sell off. It was the exact opposite. NO selling. I predict today there will be lots of buying at new lower prices.
John McCain gave us nearly a week of slapstick, melodrama and photo-ops....and ended up as useless as his theater was. First he said The Fundamentals of the Economy are strong. Then he said the workers are the Fundamentals, Then he declared a Depression-like crisis. Then he said he was suspending his campaign to forge a deal, and then he announced he saved the day by forging a deal. Then when the deal failed? He blamed Obama for all of it??? What?
This is a serious problem and we need serious people to solve it. Anyone who takes John McCain seriously should not be taken seriously. Seriously!
Meanwhile Obama understands it’s a Foreclosure Crisis not an opportunity to leave a Trillion Dollar tip on the table for the gruel we’ve been served for 8 years. He also knows not to panic!
And Congress? Oh Dear God. Literally minutes after 'The Rescue' failed and the Big Board numbers were heading south in double digits every time they refreshed, we got John Boehner, Roy Blunt and a collection of Right Wing Enablers who blame the whole thing on a Floor Speech that hurt their feelings? So let me understand this. You would allow a Great Depression to take root in this country because you had problems with a speech? That is LOW. Even for Republicans.
Let's be clear. We saw a lot of dramatics on Monday from The Republican “Leadership” None of it helpful. The economy took a massive hit yesterday and that is not in dispute. But the Democrats didn’t do much better. Their plan is a non starter and they know it so they went looking for cover. Republican cover. When they didn’t get it, they went home. UNBELIEVABLE.
What should we be doing now? Screaming for a Foreclosure Freeze and legislating so that people can renegotiate their home loans and get a stimulus check sooner rather than later.
We finally get to have that conversation that has been put off for way too long. What about the Middle Class??? We keep saving the day every day we go to work, and buy lunch, and put gas in our cars and pay our bills. We deserve to be at the table here. If we get our money we will put it into the Economy and save the day once again. We will pay our mortgages, and buy cars, and make payrolls. FDR knew that, and you know it whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. The Middle Class is the backbone of this country. The only way to fix this mess is to get the money in the hands of those who built this country. Money in anyone else’s hands is just stupid and more greed run amok.
Jerry McGuire was correct! SHOW ME THE MONEY!
Weird Wally lifted this post from Randi Rhode’s (the Goddess of Talk Radio) site and he hopes she doesn’t mind. But her site today is too good not to share.
TRILLION
It wasn't that long ago that using the number 'one trillion' truly was like saying 'a gagillion bazillion'. Well it’s time we learn how many zeroes are involved in that number. It's 12. We have a Trillion Dollars to offer and The Bankers want it. Who knew?
Do NOT make that deal. NO NO NO NO NO.
The unchecked right wing Free Market, No Regulations, No Oversight, No Adult Supervision ORGY of spending and lending over the past 8 years is OVER. Of course it failed because it had to. You can’t take money out of people’s pockets and steal their assets. We are the Economy. Doh.
But the pain of ignoring or worse, agreeing with the solution cooked up by the people who robbed us is ridiculous.
We have a “money shortage”. The only question is how do we put money back INTO the credit market. We get people paying for their homes again and give them a little extra cash to spend. That’s how.
What to do now? THIS IS A FORECLOSURE CRISIS. Deal with FORECLOSURES. Or put another way, IT’S THE FORECLOSURES STUPID.
Anything that is presented to you that doesn’t include at its core, foreclosure relief should be ignored. Any piece of legislation that does not include an immediate Foreclosure Freeze should not be taken seriously. Any piece of legislation that does not give people in foreclosure, or who have missed 3 payments in one year the ability to renegotiate their home loans should be dismissed instantly. Any piece of legislation that doesn’t include oversight by the GAO should not be taken seriously. Any piece of legislation that doesn’t force this down the throats of the giant Banks and Investment Banks who played with your loan going in and coming out is the wrong solution. Any legislation that hands over all the money to one guy at once is a HEIST.
We do have to put money back into the credit market. Allowing people to pay SOMETHING on their homes NOW puts money IN. Add a little stimulus check for us to spend and we’re BACK from the abyss. PERIOD.
Their solution is to put money in the hands of one guy who knows exactly where to put it. That’s WRONG and SILLY on it’s face.
Yesterday you think you saw 1.2 Tillion lost. It wasn’t lost! It was a negotiation. What happened in the Stock Market yesterday was a “dead cat bounce”. People were selling but no one was buying so prices went down. This wasn’t a sell off. It was the exact opposite. NO selling. I predict today there will be lots of buying at new lower prices.
John McCain gave us nearly a week of slapstick, melodrama and photo-ops....and ended up as useless as his theater was. First he said The Fundamentals of the Economy are strong. Then he said the workers are the Fundamentals, Then he declared a Depression-like crisis. Then he said he was suspending his campaign to forge a deal, and then he announced he saved the day by forging a deal. Then when the deal failed? He blamed Obama for all of it??? What?
This is a serious problem and we need serious people to solve it. Anyone who takes John McCain seriously should not be taken seriously. Seriously!
Meanwhile Obama understands it’s a Foreclosure Crisis not an opportunity to leave a Trillion Dollar tip on the table for the gruel we’ve been served for 8 years. He also knows not to panic!
And Congress? Oh Dear God. Literally minutes after 'The Rescue' failed and the Big Board numbers were heading south in double digits every time they refreshed, we got John Boehner, Roy Blunt and a collection of Right Wing Enablers who blame the whole thing on a Floor Speech that hurt their feelings? So let me understand this. You would allow a Great Depression to take root in this country because you had problems with a speech? That is LOW. Even for Republicans.
Let's be clear. We saw a lot of dramatics on Monday from The Republican “Leadership” None of it helpful. The economy took a massive hit yesterday and that is not in dispute. But the Democrats didn’t do much better. Their plan is a non starter and they know it so they went looking for cover. Republican cover. When they didn’t get it, they went home. UNBELIEVABLE.
What should we be doing now? Screaming for a Foreclosure Freeze and legislating so that people can renegotiate their home loans and get a stimulus check sooner rather than later.
We finally get to have that conversation that has been put off for way too long. What about the Middle Class??? We keep saving the day every day we go to work, and buy lunch, and put gas in our cars and pay our bills. We deserve to be at the table here. If we get our money we will put it into the Economy and save the day once again. We will pay our mortgages, and buy cars, and make payrolls. FDR knew that, and you know it whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. The Middle Class is the backbone of this country. The only way to fix this mess is to get the money in the hands of those who built this country. Money in anyone else’s hands is just stupid and more greed run amok.
Jerry McGuire was correct! SHOW ME THE MONEY!
Sunday, September 28, 2008
White Privilege in America
Since Weird Wally cannot even imagine what it must be like to be borne white in America, he never thought much about it. “When you’re black stand back, because, when you’re white you’re right!”
So, why did it take a white dude like Tim Wise to tell WW about “white privilege?”
Silly folks; WW isn’t white, so how could he have known?
September 13, 2008, 2:01 pm
By Tim Wise
For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), you're a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to safeguard American institutions.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.
White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto is “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives near Russia, you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still be viewed as a great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose "next door neighbor" qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you're a black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you're irresponsibly exploiting them.
White privilege is being able to give a 36-minute speech in which you talk about lipstick and make fun of your opponent, while laying out no substantive policy positions on any issue at all, and still manage to be considered a legitimate candidate, while a black person who gives an hour speech the week before, in which he lays out specific policy proposals on several issues, is still criticized for being too vague about what he would do if elected.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and Harvard Business School (George W. Bush), and still be seen as an "average guy," while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then Harvard Law, makes you "uppity" and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks.
White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.), and that's OK, and you're still cut out to be president, but if you're black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make good decisions in office.
White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she's disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you then go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you're black and married for nearly 20 years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each other are called "terrorist fist bumps."
White privilege is when you can develop a pain-killer addiction, having obtained your drug of choice illegally like Cindy McCain, go on to beat that addiction, and everyone praises you for being so strong, while being a black guy who smoked pot a few times in college and never became an addict means people will wonder if perhaps you still get high, and even ask whether or not you may have sold drugs at some point.
White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have disagreements with them, makes you dangerously naive and immature.
White privilege is being able to say that you hate "gooks" and "will always hate them," and yet, you aren't a racist because, ya know, you were a POW, so you're entitled to your hatred, while being black and noting that black anger about racism is understandable, given the history of your country, makes you a dangerous bigot.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the "lesser adversities" faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her convention speech.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…
White privilege is, in short, the problem.
(Red Room Editor's Note: This online community of writers welcomes all the new members who have found us by way of Tim Wise's thought-provoking entries and who have taken the time to comment. We encourage you to read Tim's follow-up here, and to discover all the other great writing on other Red Room blogs and original articles.)
Since Weird Wally cannot even imagine what it must be like to be borne white in America, he never thought much about it. “When you’re black stand back, because, when you’re white you’re right!”
So, why did it take a white dude like Tim Wise to tell WW about “white privilege?”
Silly folks; WW isn’t white, so how could he have known?
September 13, 2008, 2:01 pm
By Tim Wise
For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), you're a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to safeguard American institutions.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.
White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto is “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives near Russia, you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still be viewed as a great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose "next door neighbor" qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you're a black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you're irresponsibly exploiting them.
White privilege is being able to give a 36-minute speech in which you talk about lipstick and make fun of your opponent, while laying out no substantive policy positions on any issue at all, and still manage to be considered a legitimate candidate, while a black person who gives an hour speech the week before, in which he lays out specific policy proposals on several issues, is still criticized for being too vague about what he would do if elected.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and Harvard Business School (George W. Bush), and still be seen as an "average guy," while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then Harvard Law, makes you "uppity" and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks.
White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.), and that's OK, and you're still cut out to be president, but if you're black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make good decisions in office.
White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she's disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you then go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you're black and married for nearly 20 years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each other are called "terrorist fist bumps."
White privilege is when you can develop a pain-killer addiction, having obtained your drug of choice illegally like Cindy McCain, go on to beat that addiction, and everyone praises you for being so strong, while being a black guy who smoked pot a few times in college and never became an addict means people will wonder if perhaps you still get high, and even ask whether or not you may have sold drugs at some point.
White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have disagreements with them, makes you dangerously naive and immature.
White privilege is being able to say that you hate "gooks" and "will always hate them," and yet, you aren't a racist because, ya know, you were a POW, so you're entitled to your hatred, while being black and noting that black anger about racism is understandable, given the history of your country, makes you a dangerous bigot.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the "lesser adversities" faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her convention speech.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…
White privilege is, in short, the problem.
(Red Room Editor's Note: This online community of writers welcomes all the new members who have found us by way of Tim Wise's thought-provoking entries and who have taken the time to comment. We encourage you to read Tim's follow-up here, and to discover all the other great writing on other Red Room blogs and original articles.)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Weird Wally’s Problem With Michael Moore...
Let’s face it, Michael Moore looks like he just stumbled out of his trailer park and into a KKK meeting. So, when Mr. Moore first stumbled upon Weird Wally’s (WW’s) radar screen, WW ignored him.
In other words, WW fucked up because he didn’t recognize a kindred spirit and all WW can do now is to give Mr. Moore a “High-Five” and, advise him to keep on fucking with people’s sterotypes.
After all, sterotypes are what we are all about and, with major sterotypes we will reach niether bliss nor, even understanding.
So, what is Mr. Moore up to now?
-30-
Let’s face it, Michael Moore looks like he just stumbled out of his trailer park and into a KKK meeting. So, when Mr. Moore first stumbled upon Weird Wally’s (WW’s) radar screen, WW ignored him.
In other words, WW fucked up because he didn’t recognize a kindred spirit and all WW can do now is to give Mr. Moore a “High-Five” and, advise him to keep on fucking with people’s sterotypes.
After all, sterotypes are what we are all about and, with major sterotypes we will reach niether bliss nor, even understanding.
So, what is Mr. Moore up to now?
-30-
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Who Are the Money Changers in the “Temple of Right Now”, and Where Are they Hiding?
Look, Touch, Feel, Smell the shit and follow the money.
They are a tricky bunch.
And will try and convince you that white is black and black is white...
And all the while, denying that a different shade of gray is as real as anything they say that the colors are!
-30-
Look, Touch, Feel, Smell the shit and follow the money.
They are a tricky bunch.
And will try and convince you that white is black and black is white...
And all the while, denying that a different shade of gray is as real as anything they say that the colors are!
-30-
Google Phil Graham...
John McCaine is a maverick for new times and is talking the talk about throwing money changers out of the Temple.
But who does McCaine listen to when it comes to throwing them out?
And how will John McCaine and Phil Graham clean the Temple together?
-30-
John McCaine is a maverick for new times and is talking the talk about throwing money changers out of the Temple.
But who does McCaine listen to when it comes to throwing them out?
And how will John McCaine and Phil Graham clean the Temple together?
-30-
Friday, September 19, 2008
Remember the Keating Five
For all of John McCain’s rants against Wall Street and corruption, his role in the Lincoln Savings and Loan scheme never came clear.
Was he a crook, or just plain stupid?
Weird Wally wants to know...
***
Slate Magazine
explainer
Is John McCain a Crook?
Chris Suellentrop
Posted Friday, Feb. 18, 2000, at 2:35 PM ET
The controversial George W. Bush-sponsored poll in South Carolina mentioned John McCain's role in the so-called Keating Five scandal, and McCain says his involvement in the scandal "will probably be on my tombstone." What exactly did McCain do?
In early 1987, at the beginning of his first Senate term, McCain attended two meetings with federal banking regulators to discuss an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan, an Irvine, Calif., thrift owned by Arizona developer Charles Keating. Federal auditors were investigating Keating's banking practices, and Keating, fearful that the government would seize his S&L, sought intervention from a number of U.S. senators.
At Keating's behest, four senators--McCain and Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California, and John Glenn of Ohio--met with Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, on April 2. Those four senators and Sen. Don Riegle, D-Mich., attended a second meeting at Keating's behest on April 9 with bank regulators in San Francisco.
Regulators did not seize Lincoln Savings and Loan until two years later. The Lincoln bailout cost taxpayers $2.6 billion, making it the biggest of the S&L scandals. In addition, 17,000 Lincoln investors lost $190 million.
In November 1990, the Senate Ethics Committee launched an investigation into the meetings between the senators and the regulators. McCain, Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, and Riegle became known as the Keating Five.
(Keating himself was convicted in January 1993 of 73 counts of wire and bankruptcy fraud and served more than four years in prison before his conviction was overturned. Last year, he pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud and was sentenced to time served.)
McCain defended his attendance at the meetings by saying Keating was a constituent and that Keating's development company, American Continental Corporation, was a major Arizona employer. McCain said he wanted to know only whether Keating was being treated fairly and that he had not tried to influence the regulators. At the second meeting, McCain told the regulators, "I wouldn't want any special favors for them," and "I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper."
But Keating was more than a constituent to McCain--he was a longtime friend and associate. McCain met Keating in 1981 at a Navy League dinner in Arizona where McCain was the speaker. Keating was a former naval aviator himself, and the two men became friends. Keating raised money for McCain's two congressional campaigns in 1982 and 1984, and for McCain's 1986 Senate bid. By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees--the most received by any of the Keating Five. (Keating raised a total of $300,000 for the five senators.)
After McCain's election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, three of which were to Keating's Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights.
And in April 1986, one year before the meeting with the regulators, McCain's wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating strip mall.
The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. They were not. McCain believes Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because he was the lone Keating Five Republican.
In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence." McCain considered the committee's judgment to be "full exoneration," and he contributed $112,000 (the amount raised for him by Keating) to the U.S. Treasury.
Next question?
Chris Suellentrop, a former Slate staffer, writes "The Opinionator" for the New York Times.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
For all of John McCain’s rants against Wall Street and corruption, his role in the Lincoln Savings and Loan scheme never came clear.
Was he a crook, or just plain stupid?
Weird Wally wants to know...
***
Slate Magazine
explainer
Is John McCain a Crook?
Chris Suellentrop
Posted Friday, Feb. 18, 2000, at 2:35 PM ET
The controversial George W. Bush-sponsored poll in South Carolina mentioned John McCain's role in the so-called Keating Five scandal, and McCain says his involvement in the scandal "will probably be on my tombstone." What exactly did McCain do?
In early 1987, at the beginning of his first Senate term, McCain attended two meetings with federal banking regulators to discuss an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan, an Irvine, Calif., thrift owned by Arizona developer Charles Keating. Federal auditors were investigating Keating's banking practices, and Keating, fearful that the government would seize his S&L, sought intervention from a number of U.S. senators.
At Keating's behest, four senators--McCain and Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California, and John Glenn of Ohio--met with Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, on April 2. Those four senators and Sen. Don Riegle, D-Mich., attended a second meeting at Keating's behest on April 9 with bank regulators in San Francisco.
Regulators did not seize Lincoln Savings and Loan until two years later. The Lincoln bailout cost taxpayers $2.6 billion, making it the biggest of the S&L scandals. In addition, 17,000 Lincoln investors lost $190 million.
In November 1990, the Senate Ethics Committee launched an investigation into the meetings between the senators and the regulators. McCain, Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, and Riegle became known as the Keating Five.
(Keating himself was convicted in January 1993 of 73 counts of wire and bankruptcy fraud and served more than four years in prison before his conviction was overturned. Last year, he pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud and was sentenced to time served.)
McCain defended his attendance at the meetings by saying Keating was a constituent and that Keating's development company, American Continental Corporation, was a major Arizona employer. McCain said he wanted to know only whether Keating was being treated fairly and that he had not tried to influence the regulators. At the second meeting, McCain told the regulators, "I wouldn't want any special favors for them," and "I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper."
But Keating was more than a constituent to McCain--he was a longtime friend and associate. McCain met Keating in 1981 at a Navy League dinner in Arizona where McCain was the speaker. Keating was a former naval aviator himself, and the two men became friends. Keating raised money for McCain's two congressional campaigns in 1982 and 1984, and for McCain's 1986 Senate bid. By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees--the most received by any of the Keating Five. (Keating raised a total of $300,000 for the five senators.)
After McCain's election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, three of which were to Keating's Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights.
And in April 1986, one year before the meeting with the regulators, McCain's wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating strip mall.
The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. They were not. McCain believes Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because he was the lone Keating Five Republican.
In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence." McCain considered the committee's judgment to be "full exoneration," and he contributed $112,000 (the amount raised for him by Keating) to the U.S. Treasury.
Next question?
Chris Suellentrop, a former Slate staffer, writes "The Opinionator" for the New York Times.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
Thursday, September 18, 2008
How Wall Street Ripped off Your Street
This link is said to have been sent to Weird Wally (WW) by one of his best friends from high school. And although one might have to stretch one’s imagination and assume that WW actually got as far as high school, according to the McCain/Palin Campaign and FOX News, WW wants to thank EB for sending this insightful link.
The how and why of it all.
TTYL,
WW
This link is said to have been sent to Weird Wally (WW) by one of his best friends from high school. And although one might have to stretch one’s imagination and assume that WW actually got as far as high school, according to the McCain/Palin Campaign and FOX News, WW wants to thank EB for sending this insightful link.
The how and why of it all.
TTYL,
WW
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
If You’re retired and depending on Social Security, Why Would You Vote for McCain?
Why do so many of us seniors think McCain is so cool that we would vote for him and cut off our noses to spite our faces.
Well, it’s probably because McCain hasn’t told us about his plans to “rescue Social Security.”
In short, McCain believes that if we give our money to an unregulated Wall Street, the money changers now currently occupying the Temple (Washington and Wall Street), will honestly look out for the rest of us.
Now that is the dumbest shit Weird Wally (WW) says he has ever heard.
See for yourself...
Published on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
McCain Would Privatize Social Security
by Dean Baker
The Republicans have already turned to sick sexual innuendo and nonsense about their vice-presidential candidate, pigs and lipstick in order to distract the public from the real issues in this campaign. One of the items that should be on top of the list of real issues is Senator McCain's plans to privatize and cut Social Security.
McCain has repeatedly expressed interest in privatizing Social Security along the lines proposed by President Bush. For those who have forgotten that nightmare, Bush's plan would have reduced benefits by approximately one percent a year for many workers.
Workers who retired 10 years after the plan was put in place would see a 10 percent reduction in benefits compared with the currently projected levels. Workers who retired 20 years after the plan was implemented would see approximately a 20 percent cut in benefits and workers who retired 40 years after the plan started would see their benefits cut by close to 40 percent.
This schedule of cuts would apply to workers who earn $100,000 a year. Workers who earn $60,000 a year would see cuts of about half this size.
The losses to retired workers could mean big benefits for the financial industry. Under some versions of the plan, the financial industry would rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in fees and commissions over the next 40 years.
According to a recent World Bank analysis, the financial industry pocketed 15-20 percent of the money paid into the privatized Social Security system in Chile, which has often been held up as a model by privatizers in the United States. Given the losses that the millionaire Wall Street bozos have incurred with the housing crash, it is understandable that Senator McCain would want to help the very rich needy.
Privatization would be especially painful coming now, in the wake of the collapse of the housing bubble. The huge baby boom cohort that is just now reaching retirement age has seen most of their wealth wiped out by the housing crash.
A recent analysis that I did with David Rosnick, my colleague at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, showed that a typical late-baby-boomer household (between the ages of 45 and 54) will have less than $100,000 in wealth in 2009 [1]. This figure includes 401(k)s, IRAs and other retirement accounts, personal savings and home equity.
A relatively small share of these late baby boomers has traditional defined-benefit pensions. In other words, these families are going to have very little to support themselves in retirement other than the Social Security that Senator McCain is so anxious to cut.
While the Bush-McCain crew has long been trying to whip up fears about Social Security's finances, the reality is that the program is financially solid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently updated its analysis of the program's finances [2].
The analysis projects that Social Security will be able to pay all scheduled benefits through the year 2049 with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2049, when the program is first projected to face a shortfall, the payable benefit is projected to be more than 30 percent higher than what the average retiree gets today, and the payable amount would continue to rise from that level every year.
The privatizers have worked hard to convince the public that Social Security is on its last legs, but this is simply a lie. We are going to face many problems that dwarf the dimensions of the projected Social Security shortfall. For example, the annual costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are approximately three times as large as the annual revenue that would be needed to eliminate the projected Social Security shortfall.
The 2049 date when Social Security is first projected to face a shortfall is more than three decades after the latest date when the next president can leave office. John McCain will be 113 when Social Security is first projected to be unable to pay full benefits. In a country where millions of families are struggling to hang onto their homes, and tens of millions are struggling to pay for health care and child care, a distant and relatively minor problem like the projected Social Security shortfall hardly warrants center stage.
The public should know that Social Security is fundamentally sound today and is projected to be sound far into the future. The line about Social Security going bankrupt is just a scare tactic pushed by the privatizers.
The presidential debate must return to Social Security and other issues that affect people's lives. The sleaze that Senator McCain and his vice-presidential candidate throw out as a distraction should be left to the pigs.
Dean Baker [3] is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research [4] (CEPR). He is the author of "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer [5]." He also has a blog, "Beat the Press [6]," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues.
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/16
Why do so many of us seniors think McCain is so cool that we would vote for him and cut off our noses to spite our faces.
Well, it’s probably because McCain hasn’t told us about his plans to “rescue Social Security.”
In short, McCain believes that if we give our money to an unregulated Wall Street, the money changers now currently occupying the Temple (Washington and Wall Street), will honestly look out for the rest of us.
Now that is the dumbest shit Weird Wally (WW) says he has ever heard.
See for yourself...
Published on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
McCain Would Privatize Social Security
by Dean Baker
The Republicans have already turned to sick sexual innuendo and nonsense about their vice-presidential candidate, pigs and lipstick in order to distract the public from the real issues in this campaign. One of the items that should be on top of the list of real issues is Senator McCain's plans to privatize and cut Social Security.
McCain has repeatedly expressed interest in privatizing Social Security along the lines proposed by President Bush. For those who have forgotten that nightmare, Bush's plan would have reduced benefits by approximately one percent a year for many workers.
Workers who retired 10 years after the plan was put in place would see a 10 percent reduction in benefits compared with the currently projected levels. Workers who retired 20 years after the plan was implemented would see approximately a 20 percent cut in benefits and workers who retired 40 years after the plan started would see their benefits cut by close to 40 percent.
This schedule of cuts would apply to workers who earn $100,000 a year. Workers who earn $60,000 a year would see cuts of about half this size.
The losses to retired workers could mean big benefits for the financial industry. Under some versions of the plan, the financial industry would rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in fees and commissions over the next 40 years.
According to a recent World Bank analysis, the financial industry pocketed 15-20 percent of the money paid into the privatized Social Security system in Chile, which has often been held up as a model by privatizers in the United States. Given the losses that the millionaire Wall Street bozos have incurred with the housing crash, it is understandable that Senator McCain would want to help the very rich needy.
Privatization would be especially painful coming now, in the wake of the collapse of the housing bubble. The huge baby boom cohort that is just now reaching retirement age has seen most of their wealth wiped out by the housing crash.
A recent analysis that I did with David Rosnick, my colleague at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, showed that a typical late-baby-boomer household (between the ages of 45 and 54) will have less than $100,000 in wealth in 2009 [1]. This figure includes 401(k)s, IRAs and other retirement accounts, personal savings and home equity.
A relatively small share of these late baby boomers has traditional defined-benefit pensions. In other words, these families are going to have very little to support themselves in retirement other than the Social Security that Senator McCain is so anxious to cut.
While the Bush-McCain crew has long been trying to whip up fears about Social Security's finances, the reality is that the program is financially solid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently updated its analysis of the program's finances [2].
The analysis projects that Social Security will be able to pay all scheduled benefits through the year 2049 with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2049, when the program is first projected to face a shortfall, the payable benefit is projected to be more than 30 percent higher than what the average retiree gets today, and the payable amount would continue to rise from that level every year.
The privatizers have worked hard to convince the public that Social Security is on its last legs, but this is simply a lie. We are going to face many problems that dwarf the dimensions of the projected Social Security shortfall. For example, the annual costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are approximately three times as large as the annual revenue that would be needed to eliminate the projected Social Security shortfall.
The 2049 date when Social Security is first projected to face a shortfall is more than three decades after the latest date when the next president can leave office. John McCain will be 113 when Social Security is first projected to be unable to pay full benefits. In a country where millions of families are struggling to hang onto their homes, and tens of millions are struggling to pay for health care and child care, a distant and relatively minor problem like the projected Social Security shortfall hardly warrants center stage.
The public should know that Social Security is fundamentally sound today and is projected to be sound far into the future. The line about Social Security going bankrupt is just a scare tactic pushed by the privatizers.
The presidential debate must return to Social Security and other issues that affect people's lives. The sleaze that Senator McCain and his vice-presidential candidate throw out as a distraction should be left to the pigs.
Dean Baker [3] is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research [4] (CEPR). He is the author of "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer [5]." He also has a blog, "Beat the Press [6]," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues.
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/16
Nothing Else Need be Said
After assessing the two mentioned articles below, all Weird Wally can say is, “vote for McCain/Palin at your own Peril!” And although Palin doesn’t have a clue, McCain did a lot to help make this happen.
Bush flees questions and the press
A very long weekend for the rich and powerful
Trust me on this...
better yet, trust yourself.
Weird Wally
09-16-2008
After assessing the two mentioned articles below, all Weird Wally can say is, “vote for McCain/Palin at your own Peril!” And although Palin doesn’t have a clue, McCain did a lot to help make this happen.
Bush flees questions and the press
A very long weekend for the rich and powerful
Trust me on this...
better yet, trust yourself.
Weird Wally
09-16-2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
DNA vs. Parenting Skills
Weird Wally (WW) doesn’t know what to think about this। But suppose it is DNA and not parenting that makes all the difference in the world. No matter what you do right or what you do wrong, your children are and, will become what their DNA dictates, “parenting,” be damned.
Weird Wally has mixed feelings on the upcoming “Parenting vs। DNA Wars,” but it’s something we are all going to have to deal with in the near future and, maybe, in this lifetime.
What Weird Wally is trying to figure out is, “does our DNA have an affect/effect on our temporal/spiritual lessons and choices or not?”
And how do we know we are right?
Let’s start with an article from Sharon Begley for Newsweek and go from there.
This might just be our first inkling...
But I Did Everything Right!
DNA discoveries are revealing why even the best parenting doesn’t have the effects that experts promise and why we are all .
Trust me on this...
Weird Wally
Weird Wally (WW) doesn’t know what to think about this। But suppose it is DNA and not parenting that makes all the difference in the world. No matter what you do right or what you do wrong, your children are and, will become what their DNA dictates, “parenting,” be damned.
Weird Wally has mixed feelings on the upcoming “Parenting vs। DNA Wars,” but it’s something we are all going to have to deal with in the near future and, maybe, in this lifetime.
What Weird Wally is trying to figure out is, “does our DNA have an affect/effect on our temporal/spiritual lessons and choices or not?”
And how do we know we are right?
Let’s start with an article from Sharon Begley for Newsweek and go from there.
This might just be our first inkling...
But I Did Everything Right!
DNA discoveries are revealing why even the best parenting doesn’t have the effects that experts promise and why we are all .
Trust me on this...
Weird Wally
Friday, July 04, 2008
Sign of the Times
Over the past few months Weird Wally has gotten turned off to politics. Even to the point that WW has found nothing worth blogging about.
Instead, WW choose to get into some really cool DVDs and escape from the political blessings and curses of these “interesting times.”
Star Trek: The Next Generation: was my first excursion, and it was good.
Star Trek: Deep Space 9: my second excursion and even better then my first.
Star Trek: Voyager: hard to beat Deep Space 9, but worth the trip.
Star Trek: Enterprise: wake me when it’s over.
Trust me on this,
Weird Wally
Over the past few months Weird Wally has gotten turned off to politics. Even to the point that WW has found nothing worth blogging about.
Instead, WW choose to get into some really cool DVDs and escape from the political blessings and curses of these “interesting times.”
Star Trek: The Next Generation: was my first excursion, and it was good.
Star Trek: Deep Space 9: my second excursion and even better then my first.
Star Trek: Voyager: hard to beat Deep Space 9, but worth the trip.
Star Trek: Enterprise: wake me when it’s over.
Trust me on this,
Weird Wally
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)