Justin Boots with Hearts: $250
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Commenteria: Obama's Big Plans
From the LA Times:
Since Obama wants to send federal dollars to people who took out unwise mortgages, can't he send a few bucks to my family members who made unwise decisions with their credit cards?
Perhaps he could just explain the difference in unwise borrowing in each case.
Clearly none of the kneejerk commentors above has actually read or heard the speech. It's on the NYT website here
The brief story by Baltz doesn't do the speech justice-- the richness and specificity of the speech doesn't translate well into soundbites. So if you want to have in informed opinion of Obama's view of the free market tempered by government oversight, read the speech.
I consider myself a strong Obama supporter, but I disagree with his $30 Billion rescue (but agree with need for more regulation). This is following what Hillary proposed while he is on vacation, which politically is wise to insure she doesn't gain a policy position advantage she can exploit. But, bailing people out seems extreme to me (so did the Bears-Stern buy out).
This smells a lot like offering to buy votes in hard-hit states (especially PA). I thought this was an ugly move by Hillary, and I'm disappointed in Barack following her here.
By the time he gets into office, a stimulus plan will probably be too late, by which I mean unnecessary.
Nobody should bail out anything or anybody who engaged in speculation or fraud (for which read lenders AND borrowers of money under false pretenses) whose failure would not bring down the whole economy.
Financial institutions need enough regulation to make speculative bubbles a once in a lifetime (or less frequent) occurrence rather than a yearly one.
As an Obama supporter and a loan officer, I don't believe in a $30 billion rescue. I think there should be some help. NOT a bail-out. There has to be some responsibilty. There does need to be extentions of unemployment benefits to get. There are other ways to save both homeowners and companies. Major govenment intervention is not a help.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Another reaction (mine) to the Obama Speech
Has a presidential candidate ever spoken this way about race before? It surprised me how well suited Obama is to speak to both sides of the racial divide. He comes from both houses so to speak, and so he has spoken with great eloquence about the gravity of the state of race relations in this country. FINALLY!
A cold, hard look at race in this country has generally been ignored until it explodes in violence, or from some miscarriage of justice, or until an Imus tries to be Dave Chappelle. These are not productive ways to broach this topic, because any potential gains from discourse are overshadowed by the ugliness of the events that put race in the spotlight.
Obama did much more than defend himself in this speech. He acknowledged the frustration many whites feel over affirmative action. We are told to not judge people by the color of their skin, but we must abide when people of color are advanced by their race. At the same time, he smoothly chided whites for being offended by statements like Rev. Jeremiah Wright's. Black people have a right to be angry, and whites have to respect that. And in recognizing both sides, he has helped coax all our grievances towards a resolution.
Commenteria: The Obama Speech
USA Today:
Even more impressive for me, is that after 8 years with a slack-jawed dufus in the Whitehouse, we can look forward to not only a President that can string a 6 word sentence together without drooling on himself, but he can actually WRITE such an elequent speech.
Obama tried to use the ol' bait-and-switch in his speech - tried to turn the spotlight on race relations instead of on his own lousy judgement and the fact that he's been proven a liar. Nice try, bud, but this issue isn't going away, and all the pretty words in the world won't make it so.
Barack used his grandmother as an example that he views Wright more as family than anything. Just as he wouldn't denounce his very own grandmother, he feels he can't denounce his pastor as well. Stay off the Fox News soapbox a little.
Guardian UK
If people would take the time to read Barack Obama's speech or even better read his book, they would see that he could never and would never agree with the alarming statements reverand Wright made in his sermons. In fact if you look in the videos of Reverand Wright you see that the majority of the people in the pews don't agree with the statements either.
I'm not American so this just conjecture on my part but I would guess that Obama has been hurt badly in PA by this kerfuffle for three reasons:
1) Jeremiah Wright's comments about 9/11 have upset a lot of people, given that Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania.
2) Wright's comments have raised questions about Obama's credibility as a potential CinC.
3) Obama has already had problems with the perception that he is a candidate more in tune with upscale, rather than 'blue collar', voters. Wright's comments attacking the US will only reinforce the 'values gap'.
Here in the UK, that speech could never have been made. While racism certainly exists here, it is never acknowledged in the way that Barack Obama just did in his speech. I am heartened by seeing such an honest and heartfelt examination of the issue, and have never been as proud of my country as I was today, watching from abroad.
Who was Obama talking to? Who was listening? Would any working class white person change their mind after listening to this speech? Would anyone who had decided that Obama has been tainted by Wright now be swayed to vote for him?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
What the world thinks of Spitzer
I pulled these comments from articles on the Eliot Spitzer scandal, made by everyday folks from around the english-speaking world. My two cents: DC area prostitutes should be feeling pretty good: DC is to prostitution what Hollywood is to acting...
Times UK
I suppose there is no hope we will ever learn the nature of the services provided for $5,500 an hour?
It is wrong on at least two other levels, 1st: the guy has broken trust with his wife, to whom he has sworn solemn vows. If he can't keep those then there is no way he should be in public office as technical ability is not what public office demands: rather a strong will/self-control. 2nd: he opened himself to blackmail, which considering the job he was doing is unforgivable.
The comments from 'it's just harmless sex and hooker fun' brigade (males I might add) show their total lack of common sense when it comes to the implications of the actions of this man but then that's a failing of some the male species who mostly think below the waist. Had any of you thought past your navel to realise that this man who had not only dishonoured and cheated on his family and those that elected him and put trust in him but had left himslef wide open to blackmail politically?
Wall Street Journal
Go get him, guys!!! I cannot think of anyone more deserving of this public humiliation. This was a bad man who abused his power for years.
Well, well, well the arrogant pillar of morality falls to disgrace…How fitting!!! You’re cronies can’t save you now!
What I like best is that his banks turned him in via Suspicious Activity Reports when he transferred large amounts of money in excess of $3,000. That’s the Patriot Act!!! No wonder crooked and corrupt Democrats want it repealed so badly!
He cites his failure to live up to standards he sets for himself. Since when do we set standards for ourselves in matters legal and moral? I thought institutions outside ourselves such as government, society, and even our creator are the instruments through which moral standards are constructed and given. His statement only highlights his grandiose view of himself as the individual endowed with the right and the power to judge and punish everyone—-including himself!
Guardian UK
Hot damn that Democratic Parties been on a roll all spring.
Bill Clinton gets all red faced and the press tells him to go away.
Hillary and Obama are just starting to throw trash at each other.
Elliot Spitzer finally gets his due.
There are different levels and variety of sleaze. Spitzer's actions and motives are one kind. The revolting glee in his disgrace and bilious tone of this article represent another.
What's wrong with Eliot Spitzer is not so much that he praised good things and did bad ones. Most of the items he championed in his various moral campaigns were, when you looked behind the rhetoric, of dubious value. Really, he was a power-hungry, regulation-crazed functionary whose chief sin was to harness the power of the state to destroy his enemies and aggrandize himself.
As the saying goes "those who live in glass houses shall not throw stones."! In addition, it is pertinent to mention that Hillary Clinton might be willing to throw lot of dirt at Barack Obama but the spectacular fall of E S, Bill and Monica affairs is now being recalled in the public mind and she has lost at least one SD in the process.
Money Web South Africa
He needs some relief from taking on the baddies. And his wife was probably not up to satisfying his sexual needs and desires. At least he was paying for the professional services rendered as opposed to a previous president who charmed his intern to go down on him. His only error was the size of the fee paid. No one can be that good.
BIGOTS,LIARS,HYPOCRITES,PARANOIDS,OIL THIEVES,RAIDERS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES,SPREADERS OF ECONOMIC ILLS TO THE REST OF THE WORLD,EXPORTERS OF JUNK FOOD TO THE REST OF THE WORLD,TRASHY MOVIES ETC ETC ..............So no big deal when a SCUMBAG like ELIOT SPITZER goes on the tare
What a hypocrite. Resign and go to jail, you destroy your family and all your past good works when you cant keep your zip up. No sympathy for you pal.Hypocrite- a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
