A country of massive economic and strategic significance could be headed for disaster.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/21/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A fellow in the 12-20-2008 Washington Post said Obama should give his speech to the Moslem world from Turkey or Indonesian because they were successful democracies.
This is what the media considers 'breaking news' nowadays. Nevermind the drug use of the actual presidential candidate which the media totally ignored for 2 years. This is the mother of the boyfriend of the daughter of someone who used to be a VP caldidate!
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - More details are emerging about the arrest of the mother of Bristol Palin's boyfriend on drug charges. In case you missed it: Sherry Johnston - Levi Johnston - Bristol Palin - Sara Palin
Sherry Johnston was arrested Thursday after Alaska State Troopers served a search warrant on a Wasilla home. She's been charged with six felony drug counts and freed on $5,000 bail. Alaska State troopers! That means that Sara is using her influence again to protect... oh wait... nevermind....
Troopers did not identify the drug involved in a brief mention on the agency's Web site. But a police spokeswoman says in a statement released late Friday that the charges are in connection to the drug OxyContin, a strong prescription painkiller.
Johnston is the mother of 18-year-old Levi Johnston. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who was the GOP nominee for vice president, announced in September that her 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant and that Johnston is the father. Ok just in case you missed it: Sherry - Levi - Bristol - Sara
And a gentile reminder: Barak Obama himself used drugs. Not a mother of a boyfriend of a relative - himself. Yet the media totally ignored it for 2 years.
I'm curious how many of Barak's and Michelle's relatives (or mothers of friends of relatives) use drugs. I guess we'll never know.
Sometimes I wonder if we need a 'Ceespool Media' to go along with 'Seedy Politicans'..
Vice President Cheney had a little fun at his successor-to-be's expense today, telling Fox News Sunday that he didn't take Joe Biden's criticism of his tenure too seriously because Joe Biden doesn't know the Constitution from a hole in the ground. Bill Sammon reports that Cheney said: "Joe's been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can't keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature and which provides for the executive. So I think I'd write that off as campaign rhetoric. I don't take it seriously." Cheney was referring to Biden's VP debate gaffe (discussed here), in which he confused Articles of the Constitution addressing the authority of the Legislative Branch (Article I) and the Executive Branch (Article II).
Biden "bit back," according to Sammon, but unfortunately, he seems to have bitten himself. According to Biden, Cheney's "notion of a unitary executive, meaning that, in time of war, essentially all power, you know, goes to the executive, I think is dead wrong." Well, once again, Mr. Biden, that's no one's notion of the unitary executive except confused Democrats. The unitary executive is simply a recognition, from the first sentence of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, that the "executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." For the umpteenth time, it is not a theory that the president's power is somehow enhanced, at the expense of Congress, during wartime. It is merely a recognition that there is only one (i.e., uni-tary) executive and that any efforts by Congress to give executive authority to someone other than the President is unconstitutional. It is not a theory about the balance of power between the branches, but a statement about the authority of the president within the Executive Branch. The "notion" that a "unitary executive" means that "in time of war, essentially all power, goes to the executive," is indeed dead wrong. But it's Biden's misconception of that theory that is wrong, not Cheney's.
Keep it up, Joe. At this rate, you'll know more about the Constitution than your non-lawyer predecessor in, well, never.
#1
Patton almost defines the expression "loose cannon".
Several times he forced his higher command to act before they were prepared, using his trick of "reconnaissance in force", to start fights with far superior enemy units, then screaming for backup before his force was annihilated.
His soldiers personally hated him, because he would use them as cannon fodder, and was very clear that they were expendable as he saw fit.
That being said, I have no doubts that Donovan would hesitate for a minute to have him killed, and that Patton probably threatened to expose any number of US leaders, such as Eisenhower, who was *not* somebody to threaten.
#2
There's no doubt there were plenty of screw-ups in the prosecution of WWII. Everything always looks different in hindsight, so we convince ourselves that we could have avoided problems x, y and z if only we had done 1, 2, and 3 differently. BUT it is certain that had we actually followed a different path we would have discovered different, and possibly worse, problems. Such is war. Such is life.
#3
I think the writer (or his not-too-imaginative storyteller) took their scenario straight from "Brass Target", 1978, with Robert Vaughn, Sofia Loren, and an all-star cast. I call a phony, and a plagiaristic phony to boot.
#8
Patton was the best American General in WW2. 3rd Army advanced more than any other and no unit where a commander is "hated" can do that.
His changing from
Now this news smells the usual conspiracy theories.
But Patton at end of war had reason on his side and Eisenhower and other idiots made Soviet Union the Major winner of War while Allies got a Tie at most in Europe.
This whole Caroline Kenneday for Senator episode is a portent of things to come democratic. Rollicking funny albeit unintentionally so.
I watched news reports of this individual going on a listening tour and the idea I came away with was Caroline's only qualification was she is a Kennedy.
I watched a PBS report on Kennedy's tour of upstate New York and a subsequent interview by a reporter who covered the event. The reporter, whose name escapes me at the moment, was so gushingly in favor of the "new generation" of Kennedys taking their rightful place in a US Senate, I worried I may become ill from listening to it.
Oh yeah, from TFA:
She gets the seat, of course. Her main opponent is the state attorney general, scion of a lesser political dynasty. Andrew Cuomo happens to be the ex-husband of Caroline's cousin, Kerry Kennedy. In a nice twist, Kerry has been making the case for her cousin on TV: "She's a mother and a woman!" And you thought Caroline had no qualifications.
"We live in a country where one out of every five girls is sexually assaulted by the time she's 21."
Is this a good talking point for any Kennedy, male or female?
#2
can kinda see why Andrew dumped Kerry. Whatta twit
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2008 10:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"...all she wants is a crummy Senate seat." So says Kerry [Kennedy}. Why is it that people with experience in government with the name Kerry (either first or last name) are dipwads?
Maybe they are kind of crummy seats.
I'm just looking around. Congress approval ratings are pretty low. Do you think there might be good reasons?
$500,000 might get you a Senate seat in Illinois. Those are probably in the nosebleed section.
#4
Steyn: "Hey, and who needs to make it there when you can just get appointed there? Gov. Paterson is said to be considering appointing Princess Caroline of Kennedy to Hillary Clinton's vacant Senate seat. After two and a third centuries of republican experiment, America has finally worked its way back to the House of Lords.
"Friends Say Kennedy Has Long Wanted Public Role," Anne Kornblut assured readers in an in-depth Washington Post tongue-bath. She hasn't "long wanted" it to the extent of, you know, running for dog catcher in Lackawanna and getting what's the word? "elected," but, if you have a spare Senate seat, she's graciously indicated that she'd be prepared to consider accepting it. As lady-in-waiting Anne Kornblut pointed out, Caroline is highly qualified, being "the author of several books." It's true! She's an experienced poetry editor. She edited "The Best-Loved Poems Of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis." Jackie Kennedy wrote poems? Of course! She wrote so many poems that some are better loved than others."
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2008 13:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
All of you villains who don't see the cosmic righteousness of this appointment are just low-life rabble jealous of your betters. You'd best keep your ill-bred mouths shut if you don't want to find yourselves on the receiving end of a well-deserved horsewhipping.
Damned peasants that don't know their rightful place, you lot are. Repeat after me: "Bless the Squire and all his relations; and keep us all in our proper stations."
"And on that cheery note let me wish you a very Hopey Changemas."
ROFLMAO. That's a keeper. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/21/2008 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
....What has struck me as extraordinarily funny is that the MSM keeps referring to the Kennedy 'dynasty'. A dynasty is a family where a son (or what the hell in these PC days, a daughter) succeeds a parent in the same office. There have been TWO VERY SHORT DYNASTYS in US Presidential history. The first were the Adams, John and John Quincy.
The second were the Bushes, George H.W. and George W.
The Kennedys have only gotten close to the White House ONCE, and historical revelations have shown us since that had it not been for massive vote fraud John F. wouldn't have even made it that far. That's not a dynasty - that's a clan (in the worst sense of the word, BTW) that decided long long ago that they were entitled to rule this nation, and they're not going to let little things like voters stand in their way.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
12/21/2008 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Mike, what about the Harrisons? Dad and Granson, but still a dynasty. At least they skipped George.
The fact that Kashmiris are turning out to vote does not mean that they have embraced Indian rule, as massive demonstrations this summer have shown, according to a report in the New York Times on Saturday.
The report says that Kashmiris continue to chafe under the restrictions of the Indian security forces, and are voting to demand ordinary things: roads, electricity and jobs.
Overall turnout figures have soared above 60 percent and, by Kashmiri standards, the voting has been notably free of violence and coercion. This time, 'freedom fighters' -- in what apparently was a concession to Kashmiri fatigue -- did not threaten those who took part in the vote. "The main problem here is unemployment," said 18-year-old Shafqat Shabir, a first-time voter, on the day he cast his ballot. He and his friends had taken part in anti-Indian demonstrations, shouting 'Azadi' or freedom from Indian rule, which Afaq Hussain Mir said is 'our birthright'.
The report says that as India-Pakistan peace talks progressed in recent years, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba sharply decreased its attacks in Kashmir. At the same time, it moved on to bigger, higher-profile targets across India. Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi, who once served as a Lashkar commander in Indian-held Kashmir, lost his son in an encounter with Indian forces.
When Lashkar fighters first came to the valley, residents bought provisions for them, and Lashkar cadres were well-behaved guests. They did not interfere in village disputes, as members of some of the other guerrilla groups did, they did not harass women. They never ordered the men and women of one particular village named Bothoo to stop praying at the shrine of a female Sufi saint, as other 'radical Islamist groups' did. As the Lashkar established itself there, Indian security forces fought back, turning this remote village into a war zone. Women lost their husbands. Men lost limbs. For years, no one was safe.
Many people still fear that without a political solution soon to the conflict, Kashmiris, especially the young, would grow impatient and support an insurgency once again. The village has been quiet lately, but the Lashkar fighters still come to the woods, villagers say. They carry satellite phones and are never without a full magazine of ammunition. They are fearless to the point of recklessness. "The problem will not go away," said villager Manzoor Reshi. "Unless there is a political solution, it will diminish; it will not go away."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/21/2008 09:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
So just pick up & move to the Land of the Pure.
#1
Not sure I agree with the premise: yes, people with money may not be inclined to go into the markets, particularly on exotic forms of investment (e.g., derivatives, credit default swaps) but standard stocks with good P/E ratios will still attract money. Banks that are clearly solid will attract money though people will spread their bank investments.
What I see happening is perhaps modest deflation for a while as we work out bad debts and commodity prices come down, but at some point people with money will invest.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/21/2008 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
For one, the author proposing raising rates. We did that during a recession once and turned it into a depression.
2) He presumes that anyone 'sitting on a pile of cash' will be inclined to sit on it and not put it in a bank. I'd be more inclined to say that the 'wait and see' period for money is getting nearer to an end as we get a better idea of what's going to happen and banks look to be in less trouble.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
12/21/2008 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"For one, the author proposing raising rates. We did that during a recession once and turned it into a depression."
That was the last straw that triggered the perfect storm of economic conditions which resulted in the Great Depression. The same straw that Obama wishes to add again, now.
Dr. White, normally I'd agree that serious deflation would be the result of all this. What may limit deflation is the fact that money will still be coming into the U.S. from foreign investment, due to the fact that despite our problems we're still a better palce to invest (and our currency will lose less value) than their own.
Time will tell.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/21/2008 16:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
In reply to a commenter's question (paraphrasing), "What do you do with your money, if banks and stocks are out?" The reply was, he's spreading it around in several small banks, some in the mattress, and even some in gold. Another poster declared he was investing his in "dirt and lead".
WASHINGTON The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when President Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, scared the hell out of everybody.
It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Mr. Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.
The president listened as Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.
Then his Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., told him that to stave off disaster, he would have to sign off on the biggest government bailout in history.
Mr. Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.
How, he wondered aloud, did we get here?
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of homeownership, Mr. Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, faced with the prospect of a global meltdown with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bushs own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.
He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
Mr. Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Mr. Bush chose to oversee them an old prep school buddy pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.
As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a rough patch.
The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.
There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems, said Al Hubbard, Mr. Bushs former chief economics adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. Had we, we would have attacked them.
Looking back, Keith B. Hennessey, Mr. Bushs current chief economics adviser, says he and his colleagues did the best they could with the information we had at the time. But Mr. Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration did not pay more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices. And both Mr. Paulson and his predecessor, John W. Snow, say the housing push went too far.
The Bush administration took a lot of pride that homeownership had reached historic highs, Mr. Snow said in an interview. But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost.
For much of the Bush presidency, the White House was preoccupied by terrorism and war; on the economic front, its pressing concerns were cutting taxes and privatizing Social Security. The housing market was a bright spot: ever-rising home values kept the economy humming, as owners drew down on their equity to buy consumer goods and pack their children off to college.
Lawrence B. Lindsay, Mr. Bushs first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals.
No one wanted to stop that bubble, Mr. Lindsay said. It would have conflicted with the presidents own policies.
#2
Here's a statement by the "Democratic Policy Committee" titled "The Credit Crisis: The Bush Administration's Record of Denial and Regulatory Neglect." It reaches almost exactly the same conclusions as the NYT, so they must both be right. Right?
Posted by: Matt ||
12/21/2008 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Interesting discussion on the purely economic/financial side, but sadly and predictably silly on geopolitics and its use of now-standard myths (the "neoconservatives" - whatever those might be - got their "comeuppance" in Iraq? Hardly - looks like the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, Al Qaeda, the IGRC, Syria, most of Europe, the Democratic Party, and most of the pathetically mediocre and cowardly Beltway establishment, instead, got THEIR comeuppance). And there really oughta be fines and other penalties for anyone putting in print the bizarre myth that the Coalition was not greeted as liberators in Iraq. For the most part, they were. Uh, we've got videotape. It was, as they used to say, in all the papers.
As a merchant captain of my acquaintance once said when confronted with reliable information disproving one of his long-held beliefs, "Don't confuse me with facts!"
We WERE greeted as liberators in lots of Iraq, there WERE WMDs, the war there WAS justified. The only problem is that the MSM, following and again proving the truth of Goebbels' dictum, lied long enough and strongly enough that we lost the propaganda war. Like Tet, it will take another thirty years for the real truth to finally start to be accepted, and only then by those who make it a point to inform themselves.
The U.S. military is perfectly justified in despising the MSM. It couldn't be more clear that they hate and loathe our soldiers, sailors and Marines. It is a real tribute to the character of our fighting men and women that more MSM traitors didn't "accidentally" catch bullets during combat ops. Most of them certainly deserved a few.
Maybe that's why the vast majority of them did their investigative reporting in the bar of the Palestine Hotel.
#3
A whole lot of schadenfreude with the disappointing, to the authors, conclusion that China probably won't become the world's sole superpower. When even our enemies can't construct a scenario that leads to our downfall, I easily remain confident that things aren't nearly as bad as they wish us to believe.
#4
Things are bad, and well get worse compared to what we are used to. Compared to Zimbabwe, we are living in a fucking paradise. I guess it all depends on where you are coming from.
#5
Jolutch Mussolini7800, you are right but a lot of that could have been changed if Bush had used the Bully Pulpit instead of letting his enemies capture news cycle after news cycle for 7 years.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
I watched news reports of this individual going on a listening tour and the idea I came away with was Caroline's only qualification was she is a Kennedy.
WASHINGTON The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when President Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, scared the hell out of everybody.
As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a rough patch. 
