Tuesday, September 30, 2008
BLAMING SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NACY PELOSI FOR FAILURE OF BAILOUT BILL = STANDARD REPUBLICAN HYPOCRITICAL SPIN
Although I am not an ardent supporter of the so-called "bailout plan", I feel that something should be done to prevent a meltdown of the economy that will take us - OFFICIALLY - into a recession, a word that George Bush and the White House have been avoiding, similar in fashion to Ronald Reagan refusing to acknowledge the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s.
Not all Republicans NOR DEMOCRATS were in favor of the bill. A lot of congressmen/women from both parties were angry at being railroaded into voting on a escape plan for greedy Wall Street leeches. But, according to consensus over the past week it seemed that the correct thing to do - for the good of the country - would be to vote to pass an amended version of the bill to prevent a run on the stock market.
Democrats delivered - as promised - their end of the bargain with over two-thirds of their voting power IN FAVOR of the bill.
Republicans - for reasons being discussed ad nauseam on news networks - decided NOT to back the bill, and votes two-thirds AGAINST the bill, leading to the defeat of the bill.
The Dow Jones fell by 777 points - the largest one-day fall in the history of the stock market.
The estimated value of the loss is a staggering $1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS.
Although this is only paper worth, it translates into pain for the various 401K plans and other such retirement instruments heavily invested in the stock market.
When the effect that the defeat of the bill had on stocks became known, House Republican began pointing fingers to a speech that House Majority Leader, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- California), made earlier that morning that harshly criticized the Bush administration for wanton deregulation without supervision.
Quote:
"[W]hen was the last time someone asked you for $700bn? It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies — policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system."
She continued:
"Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street. The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardise the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilisation bill."
According to House Republicans, these were some of the words that changed their minds in support of the bill.
HORSESHIT.
The Republican Party endorsed presidential candidate himself has expressed the same sentiments. As late as September 15 during a rally in Florida McCain lashed out at[sic] "the current administration's regulation of Wall Street as ''out-dated'' and ''tax burden-built'' vowed to "end the old boys network" that is crippling America's financial markets."
Same message, just a different messenger.
Partisan statements on the floor of the House is NOT irregular, but commonplace. House Republicans, sticking to their party's cowardly policies of taking no blame - cried "Fowl!" and used Pelosi's speech as a distraction for their true motive: voting against the bill only for political gains.
NOT because they thought it was wrong - or they would have been more vocal and have delayed voting until Wednesday (an option not exercised).
NOT because they thought that voting NO was in the best interests of the county.
They voted to save their political asses.
The current analysis of those - both Democrats and Republicans - who voted against the bill showed (not so surprising) that those who voted against the bill were up for heavily-contested seats back in their home states. They took the safe road and voted against the bill in line with the angry feedback of their constituents.
The next few weeks will see if their gamble pays off.
And they are playing with very high stakes.
Monday, September 29, 2008
THE BAILOUT BILL FAILED TO PASS - SO WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THIS MESS? "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE.
In the early afternoon hours of Monday September 29, 2008 the much bally-hooed bailout bill failed to pass in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Now, according to a speech given mid last week by failed U.S. president George W. Bush, the end of the world is near. Financial Armageddon is on hand!
Or is it?
As I've blogged before, a large percentage of economists from esteemed institutions nationwide were against this bill, saying that is was not needed, and any reaction on the stock market would be a much needed correction for the mis-managed financial markets.
Today, I think the correct step was taken: rather than being bullied into passing a bill based on scare tactics touted by a president with questionable judgment, the decision has been made to wait and see the reaction of the stock and financial market, then formulate a plan based on that reaction.
Will this delay hurt the U.S. economy?
In the short term - yes. But it is probably a much needed hurt that needs to be felt.
In the interim, we need to look at exactly who is to blame for all of this - and realize that "We the People' are primary responsible for this mess.
Why?
We're the ones who were enablers for predatory lenders. If you search the internet for the description and penalties of actions performed by unscrupulous lenders you will see that they are guilty of crimes such as processing loans without any income verification, proof of employment disregarded, large loans given to persons with really bad credit, etc. In other words, lenders literally gave away money with no guarantee of repayment just so they could collect their commissions for closing deals.
BUT, IT IS ALSO THE GREED OF THE BORROWERS that got us into this mess.
A lot of those currently in foreclosure bought houses they couldn't afford on the assumption that they could sell their house at an profit. While this practice - called "flipping" here in the U.S. is not new, inexperienced speculators took flipping to new heights. They thought that because of demand at the time that if they got a house by any means they could sell that house quickly at a HUGE profit due to the intoxicating appeal the hectic pace the housing bubble gave at the time.
To achieve this they took out "sub-prime loans" whereas they made fixed payments on interest only (for example, on a 20 year loan), within a the first three years of the loan, then focused on paying the principle at a much higher rate for the remainder of the life of the loan. The plan was that at the end of the three years, persons would be able to refinance the remaining loan at a lower fixed rate mortgage.
Lenders, in the meanwhile, got greedy with the demand for loans and rather than risk money to buy one home with one loan amount, somehow figured a way to finance thirty (yes, you read right - THIRTY) homes on the value of one home loan.
It's like trying to buy thirty 99 cent burgers for one dollar.
While such risks may have worked in the beginning due to market manipulation with fancy derivatives by Wall Street, the nature of subprime mortgages for quick profit had a the time limit that expired. This is what began the slump in the housing market and the current foreclosure crisis.
Now while a lot of the blame still rests on predatory lenders, "We the People" need to remind ourselves that we, also, are the greedy ones thinking we could make huge profits in short time.
We willingly took out credit cards we couldn't afford at high interest rates to buy the plasma TVs, Playstations and sound systems we couldn't afford.
We ALL, were living on borrowed time.
And now that time is up.
Question is - what happens next?
To quote the infamous Betty Davis, "Hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride!"
Now, according to a speech given mid last week by failed U.S. president George W. Bush, the end of the world is near. Financial Armageddon is on hand!
Or is it?
As I've blogged before, a large percentage of economists from esteemed institutions nationwide were against this bill, saying that is was not needed, and any reaction on the stock market would be a much needed correction for the mis-managed financial markets.
Today, I think the correct step was taken: rather than being bullied into passing a bill based on scare tactics touted by a president with questionable judgment, the decision has been made to wait and see the reaction of the stock and financial market, then formulate a plan based on that reaction.
Will this delay hurt the U.S. economy?
In the short term - yes. But it is probably a much needed hurt that needs to be felt.
In the interim, we need to look at exactly who is to blame for all of this - and realize that "We the People' are primary responsible for this mess.
Why?
We're the ones who were enablers for predatory lenders. If you search the internet for the description and penalties of actions performed by unscrupulous lenders you will see that they are guilty of crimes such as processing loans without any income verification, proof of employment disregarded, large loans given to persons with really bad credit, etc. In other words, lenders literally gave away money with no guarantee of repayment just so they could collect their commissions for closing deals.
BUT, IT IS ALSO THE GREED OF THE BORROWERS that got us into this mess.
A lot of those currently in foreclosure bought houses they couldn't afford on the assumption that they could sell their house at an profit. While this practice - called "flipping" here in the U.S. is not new, inexperienced speculators took flipping to new heights. They thought that because of demand at the time that if they got a house by any means they could sell that house quickly at a HUGE profit due to the intoxicating appeal the hectic pace the housing bubble gave at the time.
To achieve this they took out "sub-prime loans" whereas they made fixed payments on interest only (for example, on a 20 year loan), within a the first three years of the loan, then focused on paying the principle at a much higher rate for the remainder of the life of the loan. The plan was that at the end of the three years, persons would be able to refinance the remaining loan at a lower fixed rate mortgage.
Lenders, in the meanwhile, got greedy with the demand for loans and rather than risk money to buy one home with one loan amount, somehow figured a way to finance thirty (yes, you read right - THIRTY) homes on the value of one home loan.
It's like trying to buy thirty 99 cent burgers for one dollar.
While such risks may have worked in the beginning due to market manipulation with fancy derivatives by Wall Street, the nature of subprime mortgages for quick profit had a the time limit that expired. This is what began the slump in the housing market and the current foreclosure crisis.
Now while a lot of the blame still rests on predatory lenders, "We the People" need to remind ourselves that we, also, are the greedy ones thinking we could make huge profits in short time.
We willingly took out credit cards we couldn't afford at high interest rates to buy the plasma TVs, Playstations and sound systems we couldn't afford.
We ALL, were living on borrowed time.
And now that time is up.
Question is - what happens next?
To quote the infamous Betty Davis, "Hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride!"
Sunday, September 28, 2008
TINA FEY DOES IT AGAIN!! OPENING SKIT OF THIS WEEK'S SNL EPISODE
The sad thing is that - the did NOT stray far from the original CBS interview script....(we're soooooooo screwed!)
And here is the actual interview by Katie Couric of Sarah Pale-in-Comparison...scarily, not much different.....
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
A VERY BAD DISNEY MOVIE?
Too funny not to share: a parody on what COULD happen if Sarah Palin DID become president!
Say "NO" to proposed economic bailout plan
Initially, when the news broke late last week that the Treasury wanted $700 billion to shore up financial institutions to prevent a breakdown on Wall Street, I thought that this was a scary scenario for an already weak economy.
Over the past weekend a lot of discussions went on - ad nauseam I might add - on the proposition and the supposed 'end-of-the-world' scenario. The American people then began a slow, angry simmer on what was being forced on them.
Think about it: why should we - the taxpayers - foot the bill for crooked deals that Wall Street brokers have already been paid million-dollar commissions for? Personally, I think that we should persecute those who practiced predatory lending, and let those companies who brokered those creative financial transaction go bankrupt. That way other companies will think twice before trying extreme risky deals that will fail.
Who is responsible for this mess?
Whoever reduced oversight and regulation of the financial industry (and Senator John McCain has been one of the strongest proponent for this).
We NEED rules and regulations when it comes to financial and economic issues. If we didn't, and subscribed to a "full free-market" ideology, we might as well borrow our money from "Guido the Loan shark" and keep our money under our mattresses. Rules and regulations is NOT big government - they are instruments for protecting the rights and investments of hard-working Americans.
Most Americans are against the bailout and are furious are finding the country in this situation. You can argue that because the average American are not familiar with economic principles and understand verbatim what is happening on Wall Street they do not understand the impact no bailout may have, but economists from around the country and also unanimously AGAINST the plan.
(from Kevin G Hall, McClatchy Newspapers)
"It's more hype than real risk," said James K. Galbraith, a University of Texas economist and son of the late economic historian John Kenneth Galbraith. "A nasty recession is possible, but the bailout will not cure that. So it's mainly relevant to the financial industry."
The Paulson plan will get some bad assets off the balance sheets of troubled Wall Street institutions and commercial banks. That may help thaw the lending freeze.
But it wouldn't reduce the crush of homes in or near foreclosure, said Simon Johnson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That's a problem that will surely grow worse if the U.S. economy enters recession, leading to greater job losses, which feed a vicious downward spiral of even more foreclosures and defaults on car loans and credit-card debt.
Coming out of the White House on Thursday, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, Alabama's Richard Shelby, held up what he said was a five-page list of economists opposing the rescue plan.
"This is not me. This is economists at Harvard, Yale, MIT, University of Chicago, our leading universities," an exasperated Shelby told reporters. He called the administration plan "flawed from the beginning."
Johnson, a former assistant director of research for the International Monetary Fund, said: "I think the main problem is what they have on the table is not truly comprehensive, and I think it's probably not decisive for that reason."
Few economists, including Galbraith, are willing to discount completely the chance of a financial collapse, given the turmoil in credit markets and banking.
"My sense is it will delay a disaster, given that you only have three months left in this administration. But it will not cure the problem in the (financial) industry or prevent the shakeout and downsizing of the industry," Galbraith said.
Sure, some intervention is needed but not this rush for a blank check to bail out willful fat-cat misuse of public trust.
My view is that President Bush is trying to scare Washington into backing a rushed plan that will prevent the demise of the Republican Party. Think about it - if a Democrat-lead congress and senate refuse to vote on this deal and the economy goes belly up - the Republican Party will always be tarnished by the following financial market meltdown.
If Bush gets both houses to pass the bill and it delays any recession - until next year anyway - the party will come through and might even win the presidential election.
Some have even begin to call this bailout plan, and the doom-and gloom speech by President Bush on Wednesday, an "Economic Shock and Awe Campaign" by the Bush administration, and have drawn striking similarities between this appeal to congress and one made five years ago to back the Iraqi War.
My message to lawmakers: slow down and really examine what it being pushed on you. The markets will stabilize if they feel that a solid long-term plan is being put in place, NOT a hastily contrived one.
Let's not make another costly mistake.
Over the past weekend a lot of discussions went on - ad nauseam I might add - on the proposition and the supposed 'end-of-the-world' scenario. The American people then began a slow, angry simmer on what was being forced on them.
Think about it: why should we - the taxpayers - foot the bill for crooked deals that Wall Street brokers have already been paid million-dollar commissions for? Personally, I think that we should persecute those who practiced predatory lending, and let those companies who brokered those creative financial transaction go bankrupt. That way other companies will think twice before trying extreme risky deals that will fail.
Who is responsible for this mess?
Whoever reduced oversight and regulation of the financial industry (and Senator John McCain has been one of the strongest proponent for this).
We NEED rules and regulations when it comes to financial and economic issues. If we didn't, and subscribed to a "full free-market" ideology, we might as well borrow our money from "Guido the Loan shark" and keep our money under our mattresses. Rules and regulations is NOT big government - they are instruments for protecting the rights and investments of hard-working Americans.
Most Americans are against the bailout and are furious are finding the country in this situation. You can argue that because the average American are not familiar with economic principles and understand verbatim what is happening on Wall Street they do not understand the impact no bailout may have, but economists from around the country and also unanimously AGAINST the plan.
(from Kevin G Hall, McClatchy Newspapers)
"It's more hype than real risk," said James K. Galbraith, a University of Texas economist and son of the late economic historian John Kenneth Galbraith. "A nasty recession is possible, but the bailout will not cure that. So it's mainly relevant to the financial industry."
The Paulson plan will get some bad assets off the balance sheets of troubled Wall Street institutions and commercial banks. That may help thaw the lending freeze.
But it wouldn't reduce the crush of homes in or near foreclosure, said Simon Johnson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That's a problem that will surely grow worse if the U.S. economy enters recession, leading to greater job losses, which feed a vicious downward spiral of even more foreclosures and defaults on car loans and credit-card debt.
Coming out of the White House on Thursday, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, Alabama's Richard Shelby, held up what he said was a five-page list of economists opposing the rescue plan.
"This is not me. This is economists at Harvard, Yale, MIT, University of Chicago, our leading universities," an exasperated Shelby told reporters. He called the administration plan "flawed from the beginning."
Johnson, a former assistant director of research for the International Monetary Fund, said: "I think the main problem is what they have on the table is not truly comprehensive, and I think it's probably not decisive for that reason."
Few economists, including Galbraith, are willing to discount completely the chance of a financial collapse, given the turmoil in credit markets and banking.
"My sense is it will delay a disaster, given that you only have three months left in this administration. But it will not cure the problem in the (financial) industry or prevent the shakeout and downsizing of the industry," Galbraith said.
Sure, some intervention is needed but not this rush for a blank check to bail out willful fat-cat misuse of public trust.
My view is that President Bush is trying to scare Washington into backing a rushed plan that will prevent the demise of the Republican Party. Think about it - if a Democrat-lead congress and senate refuse to vote on this deal and the economy goes belly up - the Republican Party will always be tarnished by the following financial market meltdown.
If Bush gets both houses to pass the bill and it delays any recession - until next year anyway - the party will come through and might even win the presidential election.
Some have even begin to call this bailout plan, and the doom-and gloom speech by President Bush on Wednesday, an "Economic Shock and Awe Campaign" by the Bush administration, and have drawn striking similarities between this appeal to congress and one made five years ago to back the Iraqi War.
My message to lawmakers: slow down and really examine what it being pushed on you. The markets will stabilize if they feel that a solid long-term plan is being put in place, NOT a hastily contrived one.
Let's not make another costly mistake.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
CONFESSIONS
While sitting at home with NOTHING TO DO while I wait for the end of the world I have to admit that I am absolutely RIVETED by the events of the past week-and-a-half.
Although the financial crisis is not good news for those trying to find work (this winter I'll be pan-handling at the corner of Michigan and Chicago Streets in front of Ralph Lauren - I may be homeless but I'll always have my sense of style, although I'd rather beg in front of Hermes but that spot has already been staked out by a foreclosed homeowner) it has provided the various news channels with a FODDER of events to cover, analyze, debunk, speculate, salivate, etc.
And I am so hooked on this. NOW I know how those persons addicted to the OJ trial in in the '90s felt!
This year has been a bonanza of political and newsworthy events - first with the primaries featuring the contentious fight between Hillary and Barack, then the Summer Olympics and the strong showing of Jamaica athletes in track-and-field,
THEN the party conventions...but they saved the best for last:
About today's events - WHAT THE FUCK?! Are he and Pale-in-Comparison snorting some of Columbia's finest before making statements? I swear, the McSame/Pale-in-Comparison campaign is the gift that keeps on giving!!
Did anyone see Katie Couric's interview of Pale-in-Comparison on the CBS Evening News today? The overall interview seemed contrived from programmed and rehearsed Rethuglican potshots, but Pale-in-Comparison's answer to the last question from Ms Couric had me howling with laughter.
(See transcript below or click on this link to watch the interview: . Trust me, this is GREAT TV!!! )
Couric: But he’s been in Congress for 26 years. He’s been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
Palin: He’s also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he’s been talking about - the need to reform government.
Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you’ve said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?
Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.
Couric: I’m just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Palin: I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring them to ya.
I'll try to find you some and bring them to ya?! Where the hell does she think she is - talking with a PTA president or principal?!
And don't get me started on McSame's so-called cancelling of his campaign to fly to Washington to "do what he can".....oh yeah, I shared my frustration on that earlier today. But seriously, first agreeing to issue a bi-partisan joint statement, then stating to stop campaigning to "rescue" the bailout bill in Washington? THEN saying that he may not participate in the presidential debate?
And NOW, the press has dug up video of Pale-in-Comparison at her home church being blessed by her Kenyan preacher for protection from WITCHCRAFT?
That'll sit well with the right-nuts.....sorry.... right-wing base of the Rethuglican party!
Trust me - the networks have been creaming their panties over all of this. BUT.....I am sensing a growing air of frustration and irritation from reporters and anchors at the antics of the MCSame/Pale-in-Comparison campaign....which is not good. If they're not careful they may turn off the public with only negative reporting on the McSame/Pale-in-Comparison ticket.
Okay, I am now going to make my soul-cleansing confession on behalf of all Democrats:
The MSNBC News Channel is to the Democrats what Fox News Channel is to Rethuglicans.
There!
My burden has been lifted.
Now if you'll excuse me...there's a rabid left-wing lesbian (Rachel Maddow - The Rachel Maddow Show, love her!) on MSNBC now barely containing her glee over the trip-ups of today's events by the McSame/Pale-in-Comparison.
Sleep - what the F**k is that?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
WHY McCAIN MIGHT JUST WIN THIS ELECTION
Contrary to popular belief some Democrats are preparing for the worst - a McCain win of this November's presidential election. "What?!" ask Democrat die-hards in disbelief, "that's not possible after last week...!" Oh yes it is. It's time Democrats wake up and sniff the sobering smell of reality coffee .
"But," cry others with indignation, "because of the current Republican administration the state of the union is in disarray: we're in an unpopular war, the economy is a mess, cost of living is rising daily, petrol is expensive, people are losing their homes!!!! Have you gone mad?!"
No, but this is America we are dealing with - ANYTHING is possible!
Let me put forth my arguments why people may vote McCain/Palin on November 2nd:
AMERICA IS IN AN UNPOPULAR WAR. Sure, but there's that nagging issue of experience that dogs Obama. To counter this he picked Sen Joe Biden as his running mate primarily because of his expertise in this foreign policy, but American voters want an experienced number one with all the executive powers to make snap decisions on international matters, not for him to wait on the advice of the ceremonial number two who's just a stand-by waiting to give his input. This is where McCain can convince some voters not to "take a chance on a fresh face with fresh ideas" when the lives of their sons and daughters are in peril.
GAS PRICES ARE INCREASING; OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL IS GROWING. And the everyday common man/woman in America can relate to only one solution - "DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!" It doesn't matter that it could take anywhere from five to ten years for any benefits of off-shore drilling to hit the marketplace and that by then it may not make a difference as our appetite -and the world's - has increased making any gains intangible. Voters relate drilling now to lower gas prices, they can NOT relate to Obama's message of "tightening our belts as we transition to renewable energy". We're an instant-gratification nation: instant food, instant TV, instant satisfaction, etc. And to voters instant fix minds off-shore drilling equates to lower gas prices. Again, another brownie point for McCain.
OUR FINANCIAL MARKETS ARE IN PERIL OF COLLAPSING, and everyone will feel the pinch. Sure, voters will admit that it was the policies of the current Republican administration in cooperation with the (1995 to 2004) Republican-controlled houses of congress and senate that implemented the rules of deregulation of the financial industry that lead to this mess, but again it comes to the instant fix solution: the Republicans created the problem, and they're the one's who came up with a quick fix plan to solve it - why not let them oversee the solution for the next four years?
After all, if the $700 billion proposal is approved banks will have money to lend, taxpayers may be able to negotiate lower payments on their house, auto and credit card loans, and STILL have money left over to buy even more stuff they can not afford! Who wants Democrats in power with their cold-water reality argument that the companies should NOT be bailed out as it would provide absolution for the fuck-ups of greedy corporate companies and their executives?! Why SHOULD we suffer for years because of Wall Street mistakes that consumers enabled with their greed for easy credit? Nah, let's go the easy way - borrow, borrow, BORROW OUR WAY OUT OF THIS MESS SO WE CAN SPEND MORE , MORE, MORE!!!! Again, one more reason to go McCain and the Republicans!
And last, but not least - RACISM AND SOCIAL CHANGE. As much as Americans like to delude themselves that theirs is a forward thinking society, 66% of the population is comprised of Caucasians - the majority of whom are socially reserved, cautious, conservatives. They do not like quick social change: while slavery was abolished in most of the world in 1838, it took a Civil War to end slavery in America in 1865. When British imperialists were giving their territories independence in the 1950s and 60s AS A CONDITION LAID OUT BY THE AMERICANS to helping the British with World World II, those same Americans kept racial segregation legal until the Civil Rights Act of 1968. While the rest of the world has made strides with birth control, abortion and gay rights issues - America struggles to adapt. Today, women's rights are rallied around the world - the USA still has yet to make any formal legislation on this issue.
Are most Americans ready for a black president only 40 years after segregation was made illegal? No - the ugly truth is that racism is still rampant in rural areas and in private and public administrative practices of the union. Up to March of this year the United Nations criticized the U.S. on their policies regarding racial profiling according to a report by The Human Rights Watch (click here).
So why, you may ask, does the writer of this article still fight for the Obama/Biden ticket?
Because although these elements are in place for a possible McCain/Palin win, there is also a strong undercurrent in this country for change in the way America thinks, reacts and is perceived by the world.
To us, the slogan CHANGE WE NEED means something more than a n
ew president.To us, Obama means hope of a better America:
HOPE is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all,
And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.
I've heard it in the chillest land,
And on the strangest sea,
Yet, never, in extremity,
It asked a crumb of me.
- Emily Dickinson
Thursday, September 18, 2008
COMING SOON - HISTORY AND COMPARISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY VERSUS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
And I promise it will be a 'fair and balanced' analysis - but I need to spend time on it to make a report that's accurate, concise and and interesting read. MEANWHILE, just to clarify - I've made statements in the past saying I don't hate the Republican Party - just George W. Bush and his administration.
I need to change my stance - I NOW OFFICIALLY HATE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND WHAT IT STANDS FOR because they endorse this fallacy of a campaign that is adding to their reputation of being an organization of greedy, untrustworthy bigots.
The blatant lies and mis-truths being spread by the McSame/Pale-in-Comparison ticket nauseates me NOT because they are trying to lie their way into the White House, but because they know better and are abusing their base's faith and trust in the party way to get there.
Sarah Pale-in-Comparison stands for EVERYTHING I loathe in a woman - loud, obnoxious, grating accent, lying without blinking, religious zealot, back-stabbing bitch, use-her-tits-for-advancement then accuse men of sexism....ARRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
(Thank God/Allah/Yahweh/Krishna/Buddha that I am surrounded by special, loving, strong, independent, no-nonsense women who although are pushy with me, do it for my own good; otherwise I'd be scarred for life and turn gay. Oh, wait........)
And John McSame's deer-in-the-headlights indifference of the lies being spread by his campaign and his running mate has made me lose all respect for him.
AND THEY (Republicans) WILL NOT OWN UP TO THE FACT THAT THEIR PARTY-BACKED ADMINISTRATION IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT FINANCIAL WOES OF WALL STREET.
"Oh yeah, we believe that a free market with minimum regulation is best", but when that same minimum regulated market - funded with the blood,sweat and tears of faithfull hard working Americans - is ruined by corporate greed due to poor administration and said implemented under-regulation that THEY pushed during their 15-odd years in control of Congress and the Senate, they are silent on the issue.
Assholes.
I hope they choke on their champagne and caviar while snorting coke as the male whore they hired is blowing them in one of their 5-plus multi-million dollar houses.
(And THIS is the guy that's going to write a 'fair and balanced' comparison of the RNC and the DNC?!)
Monday, September 15, 2008
DO YOU KNOW WHO THIS IS?
It's model-turn-one-time-actor Peter Hinwood who played the part of 'Rocky - the Creation' in the cult hit 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show'. Hinwood, a native of the UK, was a professional model prior to his stint on 'Rocky', and retired from the spotlight shortly after the success of the film.
All I can say is DAMN! They sure don't make 'em like they used to........or do they?
LITTLE BRITAIN COMES TO THE GOOD 'OLE U.S.A....AND I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE READY FOR IT!!!!
One of the most popular British comedies in recent history - "Little Britain" - is coming to the shores of the U.S.A., and I'm not sure if America is ready for it!
I was first introduced to the "Little Britain" series in 2005 by my English cousins Richard and Jenita. These are the same cousins who got me addicted to the 1980s "Spitting Image" series (whose vinyl characters are featured in the Phil Collins/Genesis 'Land of Confusion' music video), and first introduced me to Dr Frankenfurter of the 'Rocky Horror Picture Show', thus leading to the creation of my drag alter ego 'Bubbles' and her infamous Hedonism 'Sweet Transvestite' performances.
"Little Britain" is a episode of comedy skits acted out by Matt Lucas and David Williams. The skits includes memorable recurring characters such as London white trash Vicky Pollard, the cross dressing Emily Howard, the obese and (nearly) always naked Bubbles de Vere (and she shows all), to name a few.
The series has been adapted with a slight American flair and is being broadcast on HBO starting September 28 as "Little Britain: America". I thought they might try to tone it down so as not to offend American sensibilities, but thankfully it seems that Lucas and Williams stuck to their ideals and kept to the original offensive obnoxious, politically incorrect tones of the original series.
Although David Williams is excellent in his performances my hat is always off the the incredible talent of Matt Lucas. His method acting raises the bar for other comedic actors.
For a preview of this series watch the clip included in this posting:
I was first introduced to the "Little Britain" series in 2005 by my English cousins Richard and Jenita. These are the same cousins who got me addicted to the 1980s "Spitting Image" series (whose vinyl characters are featured in the Phil Collins/Genesis 'Land of Confusion' music video), and first introduced me to Dr Frankenfurter of the 'Rocky Horror Picture Show', thus leading to the creation of my drag alter ego 'Bubbles' and her infamous Hedonism 'Sweet Transvestite' performances.
"Little Britain" is a episode of comedy skits acted out by Matt Lucas and David Williams. The skits includes memorable recurring characters such as London white trash Vicky Pollard, the cross dressing Emily Howard, the obese and (nearly) always naked Bubbles de Vere (and she shows all), to name a few.
The series has been adapted with a slight American flair and is being broadcast on HBO starting September 28 as "Little Britain: America". I thought they might try to tone it down so as not to offend American sensibilities, but thankfully it seems that Lucas and Williams stuck to their ideals and kept to the original offensive obnoxious, politically incorrect tones of the original series.
Although David Williams is excellent in his performances my hat is always off the the incredible talent of Matt Lucas. His method acting raises the bar for other comedic actors.
For a preview of this series watch the clip included in this posting:
Sunday, September 14, 2008
JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT - SNL SEASON OPENER: BRILLIANT!!!!
Tina Fey and Amy Pohler (who were also fabulous in the movie 'Baby Mama') with their take on Sarah Pale-in-Comparison and Hillary Clinton:
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
SOME DAYS YOU FEEL LIKE THIS...?
Christina Aguilera - REFLECTION (from the Disney motion picture 'Mulan')
Look at me
You may think you see
Who I really am
But you’ll never know me
Every day, is as if I play a part
Now I see
If I wear a mask
I can fool the world
But I can not fool
My heart
Who is that girl I see
Staring straight back at me?
When will my reflection show
Who I am inside?
I am now
In a world where I have to
Hide my heart
And what I believe in
But somehow
I will show the world
What’s inside my heart
And be loved for who I am
Who is that girl I see
Staring straight back at me?
Why is my reflection
Someone I don’t know?
Must I pretend that i’m
Someone else for all time?
When will my reflection show
Who I am inside?
There’s a heart that must
Be free to fly
That burns with a need
To know the reason why
Why must we all conceal
What we think
How we feel
Must there be a secret me
I’m forced to hide?
I won’t pretend that I’m
Someone else
For all time
When will my reflections show
Who I am inside?
When will my reflections show
Who I am inside?
You may think you see
Who I really am
But you’ll never know me
Every day, is as if I play a part
Now I see
If I wear a mask
I can fool the world
But I can not fool
My heart
Who is that girl I see
Staring straight back at me?
When will my reflection show
Who I am inside?
I am now
In a world where I have to
Hide my heart
And what I believe in
But somehow
I will show the world
What’s inside my heart
And be loved for who I am
Who is that girl I see
Staring straight back at me?
Why is my reflection
Someone I don’t know?
Must I pretend that i’m
Someone else for all time?
When will my reflection show
Who I am inside?
There’s a heart that must
Be free to fly
That burns with a need
To know the reason why
Why must we all conceal
What we think
How we feel
Must there be a secret me
I’m forced to hide?
I won’t pretend that I’m
Someone else
For all time
When will my reflections show
Who I am inside?
When will my reflections show
Who I am inside?
!!!SUPPORT THE FIGHT AGAINS BREAST CANCER!!!
Please click on the link below each day to provide a free mammogram to women who cannot afford it:
Bookmark the below website and try to make it a daily task to click on the link; who knows - the life you save may be someone you love.....
ABOUT THE BREAST CANCER SITE:
Bookmark the below website and try to make it a daily task to click on the link; who knows - the life you save may be someone you love.....
ABOUT THE BREAST CANCER SITE:
Your click on the "Click Here to Give - it's FREE" button helps fund free mammograms for women in need — low-income, inner-city and minority women whose awareness of breast cancer and opportunity for help is often limited. Your click is paid for by site sponsors, and mammogram funding is provided to clinics throughout the U.S. through the efforts of the National Breast Cancer Foundation .
Support this cause - it's important to all of us!
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Evaluation of RNC vice-presidential nominee Sarah Pale-in-comparison acceptance speech at the RNC convention
See below article written by AP writer Jim Kuhnhenn:
Attacks, praise stretch truth
ST. PAUL, Minn. – John McCain supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.
Some examples:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where McCain called Alaska the largest state in America, he could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
FORMER NEW YORK MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI: "Then he ran for the state legislature and he got elected — and nearly 130 times he couldn't make a decision. He couldn't figure out whether to vote yes or no. It was too tough. He voted, he voted 'present.' I didn't know about this vote 'present' when I was mayor of New York City. Sarah Palin didn't have this vote present when she was mayor or governor. You don't get present, it doesn't work in an executive job."
THE FACTS: It's true that Obama voted "present" dozens of times, among the thousands of votes he cast in an eight-year span as a member of the Illinois Senate. Illinois lawmakers commonly vote that way on a variety of issues for technical, legal or strategic reasons. Obama, for instance, voted "present" on some abortion measures to encourage wavering legislators to do the same instead of voting "yes." Their "present" votes had the same effect as "no" votes and helped defeat the bills. Voting this way also can be a way to duck a difficult issue, although that's difficult to prove.
Associated Press Writer Jim Drinkard in Washington contributed to this report.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
DNC (OR AT LEAST MY) PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE
Tonight I watched (after a few necessary mind-numbing drinks) the speech of RNC vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.After all, no one - not even, it seems, John McSame - knew exactly who this person was. The only way to know the competition is to listen to their side of the story.
Firstly, I had to endure the low-blow jabs of former (and much over-hyped and over-rated) mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani. Blow after below-the-groin blow he laid into the DNC and it's candidates. That was to be expected. He has been reduced from former RNC presidential hopeful (with 0 votes in the primaries) to RNC grunt. Where he stepped over the line was a direct attack on the city of Chicago. His statement that serving as a "community leader in the suburbs of the third largest city in the nation was somehow inconsequential" (sic) was an outright declaration of war to the residents of Chicago. I mean, the McSame campaign probably figured, "Hey! We won't get any votes there so why not level one at them...", but did they not think ahead that the 10 million residents of the Chicagoland area who might take offense at that remark have relatives in other states that they would share their ire with?
(Remember that '70s ad for Faberge shampoo? "They'll tell two friends..and THEY'LL tell two friends....and so on...and so on...").
Kudos to Giuliani though - he mentioned 9/11 only ONCE this time..........
Then came the main act herself - Sarah Palin.
What would she be like? Will she come across as a strong confident woman? Will she somehow prove the naysayers wrong and put forth strong arguments?
No, in my opinion - she came across as her true self: a narrow-minded, back-woods, back-stabbing bitch. T
HIS is the person who McSame thinks will be able to fill the role of president if something should happen to him (if he is elected as president)? This redneck hate-spewing religious zealot?
God/Yahweh/Allah/Krishna/Buddha help us.
She made reference to the fact that persons expressed concern that she should be spending more time with her children - why didn't they make the same claims to the male candidates of this campaign?
BECAUSE, STUPID, IF GOD/YAHWEH/ALLAH/KRISHNA/BUDDHA INTENDED FOR MEN TO BEAR AND NURTURE CHILDREN HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN US VAGINAS AND LACTATING BREASTS!!!!!!!
AND SOME MEN HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TAKE UP THE ROLE OF CARE-GIVERS, BUT YOU HAVE FOUGHT AGAINST GAY ADOPTION YOU STUPID HEIFER!
Sheesh!
In my opinion she also made a HUGE boo-boo: she described the media as weak-kneed lap-dogs.
Big mistake. HUGE.
If you were a well known public figure you could take that chance. When you're a little known public official from a remote state you're only setting yourself up for the ire of investigative journalists. And that is a mean crowd to pick a fight; remember Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein?
Now instead of looking forward to a riveting election campaign I am having flashbacks to the 2004 campaign - one side rooting for change and a new direction; the other side basing they're campaign on ignorance stoked on manufactured patriotism.
Suddenly I feel very afraid......
But one thing was clear: Sarah, you are no Hillary Clinton. You are Pale-in-Comparison.
And let's hope the voting public sees you for what your truly are: a Pale-imitation.
SOMETHING TO SOOTHE ME DURING THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION
...BUT SOMEHOW I'M FEELING EVEN MORE AGITATED........
G W BUSH ADDRESSES REPUBLICAN CONVENTION...
...and spouts his usual rhetoric and bullshit:
"...we live in a dangerous world..."
"..we must remember the events of September 11..."
"..we need someone who will protect us from the dangers of the world..."
Well, DUH!!!! It's written in the U.S. constitution as one of the duties of a sitting president!
Dubya, Americans are not dumb (although this statement might be called into question as they voted you in for a second term in 2004) - they know that these are difficult times and that we need to be on our guard to ensure that our shores are protected.
Your speech last night only reinforced what his presidency has been all about - administering through fear and promoting ignorance rather than understanding.
Your inept administration has squandered any goodwill other nations felt towards the U.S.A. before you came into power.
YOU made the world more dangerous for Americans through arrogance and muscle-flexing: Americans and the U.S.A. are hated now more than ever in modern history by the rest of the world - thanks to your blunders.
Your presentation last night only underscored the glaring fact: your time in the White House is up.
And your reasons endorsing McSame is a rallying cry to all voters NOT to select the GOP ticket this November.
Let's see what the 'hockey mom' from Alaska has to say tonight......and I predict her speech will draw even more numbers than Obama's speech due to curiosity of who this person is.
God/Allah/Yahweh/Krishna/Buddha help us.......
"...we live in a dangerous world..."
"..we must remember the events of September 11..."
"..we need someone who will protect us from the dangers of the world..."
Well, DUH!!!! It's written in the U.S. constitution as one of the duties of a sitting president!
Dubya, Americans are not dumb (although this statement might be called into question as they voted you in for a second term in 2004) - they know that these are difficult times and that we need to be on our guard to ensure that our shores are protected.
Your speech last night only reinforced what his presidency has been all about - administering through fear and promoting ignorance rather than understanding.
Your inept administration has squandered any goodwill other nations felt towards the U.S.A. before you came into power.
YOU made the world more dangerous for Americans through arrogance and muscle-flexing: Americans and the U.S.A. are hated now more than ever in modern history by the rest of the world - thanks to your blunders.
Your presentation last night only underscored the glaring fact: your time in the White House is up.
And your reasons endorsing McSame is a rallying cry to all voters NOT to select the GOP ticket this November.
Let's see what the 'hockey mom' from Alaska has to say tonight......and I predict her speech will draw even more numbers than Obama's speech due to curiosity of who this person is.
God/Allah/Yahweh/Krishna/Buddha help us.......
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
GOP VICE-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE PALIN COMES WITH A LOT OF BAGGAGE
Although selecting Alaska governor Sarah Palin as the vice-president candidate for the Republican party's presidential ticket is seen by some as a savvy move, she comes to the table with a lot of baggage: 1. She has nil foreign experience - she only obtained her US passport in 2007 so she could visit the Alaskan National Guard deployed in Iraq.
2. She has limited experience in political office - only serving a brief stint as mayor for a town of approximately 9,000 before her 18 month stint as governor of Alaska, which with just over 680 thousand residents is ranked 47th of all states with regards to populous.
(Some may say Obama also little or no experience but at least he was selected through due process and not as a strategic political move.)
3. Although (legally) vetted by the McSame campaign, she has not been vetted by the harshest of critics - the press corp and the public. Already, they are out in full force gathering information in this candidate and we KNOW they will dig up something.
4. She recently announced that her unmarried 17 year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant for a 18 year-old high-school hockey player. Great family values promotion there.
5. Palin is under investigation for abuse of powers for attempting to have her ex-brother-in-law fired to settle a personal family score.
6. There are reports she left the town she mayored(?) in debt over frivolous pork-barrel projects that failed to benefit the community she administered.
These and other issues are coming to light less than one week after the VP announcement, and the jury is still out whether they will help of hinder the GOP presidential ticket.
To quote gay icon Betty Davis, "Hang on boys, it's going to be a BUMPY ride! "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
STATCOUNTER
