Rrrandy’s Pre-Post Bush Era “Bad Governors Quiz”
By Rrrandy Wurst | December 13, 2008
This is a test of your gubernatorial (an odd locution which actually means governorly) knowledge. A perfect score of 15 makes you eligible for the governorship of whichever state you choose. If you get fewer than 10 correct, go straight to jail, no impeachment necessary.
1. What states have or had the two strongest governors? (Talking muscles, not governing ability.)
2. What state has twice elected a professional actor (Grade B-) to the governorship?
3. Who was “Governor Moonbeam?”
4. What governor had a major rock star as his “First Partner” while in office?
5. What state elected a professional wrestler to the governorship?
6. What state elected a “Robber Baron” to the governorship?
7. What state elected as governor the most far-sighted person in human history?
8. What state elected a governor who was assassinated in its State Capitol Building?
9. What state elected a governor whose name became, as a result of his behavior, an ambitransitive verb?
10. What state elected a governor whose name became an adverb synonymous with stupidity, greed, and arrogance?
11. What state elected a governor who armed his black employees with ax handles to keep black protesters out of his restaurant?
12. What other states elected openly racist governors?
13. Which state had a governor whose reputation was stained by a blue dress after he left office?
14. What state’s governor was forced to resign over hiring prostitutes after being elected for having broken up prostitute rings?
15. What state is said to be adding a “Governors’ Wing” to its state prison?
“FREE” BONUS QUESTION (as the answer is open for discussion and opinion):
Which public office is more prone to corruption, stupidity, self-aggrandizement, greed, arrogance, and general dirty-dealing? State governorship, U. S. Senator, U. S. Representative, or President of the United States?
+++++++++++++THE ANSWERS (but don’t peek!)++++++++++++++++
1. California (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Minnesota (wrestler Jesse Ventura)
2. California (R. Reagan and Arnie S.)
3. California [again?] (Jerry Brown)
4. Governor Moonbeam (Linda Ronstadt)
5. Minnesota (Jesse Ventura, again)
6. CA (broken record) electing Leland Stanford, or maybe NY or WV with their Rockefellers.
7. Alaska, of course. Sarah Palin claimed she could see Vladdy Putin’s belly-button from her back porch.
8. Louisiana (Huey P. Long, the Kingfish)
9. Illinois (to Blagojevich, as in “Go Blagojevich yourself!” [tr.] or “Oh, Blagojevich!” [intr.])
10. Ditto Illinois. (As in, “She governed Blagojevichly.”)
11. Georgia (Good Ol’ Boy Lester Maddox at his Pickrick Restaurant)
12. Let’s start with Alabama (George Wallace) and Arkansas (Orville Faubus). Add your own.
13. Arkansas (Grinnin’ Bill Clinton)
14. New York (Salivatin’ Elliott Spitzer)
15. Illinois (Blagoyevich could be the 4th of the last 8 Illinois governors to find a home in prison.)
BONUS Q: We did not include federal judgeships on this list as the answer then would be obvious, given the life-time tenure of federal judgeships.
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: Political Corruption, homo (un)sapiens | No Comments »
Pardon my presidential pardon
By Rrrandy Wurst | December 1, 2008
The United States is supposed to be a nation of laws. This standard began to fray at the highest level when, with overblown self-regard, Richard Nixon saw himself, as president, an exception to and above the law.
Now we have a president in his waning days of power who is likely to pardon law-breakers in his administration and perhaps try to pardon even himself. If this happens, we should not expect future elected or appointed officials or their associates to obey our laws.
Senator Feinstein has stated that George Bush and his cronies should not be legally pursued because, this would be partisan politics. America has come to a sad state when the pursuit of illegal and unethical behavior is considered partisan and thus is forgiven.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states: “The President … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This is the last and only vestige in United States law of kingly power.
In support of and justification for this piece of the Constitution Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 74) wrote that,
“… in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth.”
And further,
“… a single man of prudence and good sense is better fitted… to balance the motives which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body [i.e., Congress].”
Let’s take a closer look at key phrases:
- “In seasons of insurrection or rebellion”: What insurrection or rebellion? Is that why Ford pardoned Nixon, or Reagan pardoned Mark Felt and George Steinbrenner, or Poppy Bush pardoned three Iran-Contra bozos, or Clinton pardoned his brother and major financial scum-sucker Marc Rich? What insurrection or rebellion did I miss?
- “pardon to the insurgents or rebels”: What did George Steinbrenner (owner of the New York Yankees baseball team) ever rebel against? Which would make him a Rebel Without a Cause. Ditto the others.
- “Critical moments”: The only critical moment regarding these presidential pardons is that they’re done at the president’s last moments in office.
- “restore the tranquility of the commonwealth”: Whoo, boy! What tranquility? All these pardons do is piss off that portion of the citizenry who believe in justice and law.
And how about:
- “man of prudence and good sense”: Er, umm, ahh, would that be George W. Bush we’re talking about?
- “balance[d] motives”: Let’s face it. At least in modern times, the motives of these pardons have been anything but balanced. They have been personal and partisan, as in partisan politics.
Is it just me, Rrrandy Wurst, a poor Nebraska-bred porker, or do you see that the reasons for the existence of the presidential pardon have withered, warped, and otherwise cancerously mal-formed to the point where it amounts to a “Get Out (or Stay Out) of Jail Free” card issued to cronies and back-room cohorts in crime? Except for that old Nixonian Standard: “Well, of course, if the president does it, it’s not illegal.”
Congress can’t alter the Constitution without a Constitutional Convention, throwing the whole document open to revision. But our elected representatives in the House could start impeachment proceedings against the law-defyers of G. W. Bush’s administration, which is the only way to halt his power of pardoning and would have the great and necessary benefit of putting on record for the future that the Bush brand of self-serving, law-defying activities will not be tolerated. In the long run it’s less important that Bush, etc. get convicted than that an official statement be made by our lawmakers that “We ain’ta gonna take it anymore.”
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Parents gone wild: Sports & Science
By Rrrandy Wurst | November 30, 2008
“Joshua, you WILL play soccer. Your genetic profile shows that this is your best chance of ultimate success, which means that soccer is YOUR sport. Daddy and I don’t care what you want. Put down that basketball, put on your shinguards, and shut up!”
“Amanda, stop your whining and jump into that pool. Your genetic profile says that you are a natural-born swimmer. Amanda!, you come right back here this instant or no dinner for you!”
Isn’t science wonderful? Now some company in Colorado is selling a DNA test–just a Q-tip swipe inside the little one’s mouth–that tells Mumsie and Dad which particular sport they should shove their kids into. One Colorado Mom, Donna Campiglia (no relation to this piglia), said knowing what her two-and-a-half year old kid’s best sport will be is very important because, “I think it would prevent a lot of parental frustration.”
Right, lady, that’s what it’s all about, saving your frustration. No matter what the kid wants. Because a kid “properly directed” with “no wrong turns” or “wasted effort” and using “utmost scientific efficiency” might some day make you famous, save you from having to pay for a college education (maybe get that lakeside cabin, instead). The kid might even turn professional some day or at least make the Olympic team to give you bragging rights on the golf course and at dinner parties. If all goes well, of course. Because there might be an injury. Or a dumb coach who couldn’t see talent if it was poking him/her in the eye. But at least you gave the kid a good start with the DNA test and then shoving the kid in the direction that good old Gene# ACTN-3 said to shove.
Humans have 20,000 genes. (I don’t know how many pigs have, and I don’t want to know. I’d rather read all of Heidegger under water.) ACTN-3 is the specific gene which these scientists in Boulder, Colorado, believe determines a kid’s particular sport-related strengths. Ain’t knowledge grand. Albert Einstein thought so. Later in life he also learned that it’s more important what you do with knowledge than that you “discovered” it. Something to do with consequences.
One researcher from Maryland isn’t so hot for the ACTN-3 test. “It seems to be important at very elite levels of competition,” Dr. Stephen M. Roth said. “But is it going to affect little Johnny when he participates in soccer, or Suzy’s ability to perform sixth grade track and field? There’s very little evidence to suggest that.” Which isn’t likely to stop the Boulder folks from peddling their test at $149 a pop.
But even that offering of common sense misses an important point, more important certainly than a parent’s frustration or not “maximizing one’s potential. What about the kid? Is he a machine? Is she the source of parents’ financial and psychic well-being? Well, regarding that question, a lot of people seem to think that’s the proper way to “conceive” of and raise a child. Which may be why we’ve raised so many Henry Paulsons and other highly self-regarded executives who believe that maximization of profit is what life is all about. ALL about. It’s the mind-set that leads to sports perfection in China (and the former East Germany if you can remember back that far), to Barry Bonds-type arrogance and the general current state of overblown self-regard.
There must be a better way to help our kids find stuff to do not seated in front of an electronic screen. How about, say, er, lemme see, the way WE and our own folks got into things. Either that or just forget the whole child-bearing thing and go down to the local robot store. It’ll be located at former General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler dealerships.
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Truth and slander
By Rrrandy Wurst | November 6, 2008
Barack Obama, last night, said a great deal in his victory speech as President Elect of the United States, all of it good to the minds of Americans who believe in the original national dream. I believe that the heart of his message is in two statements: “It’s been a long time coming,” and in the mantra of his campaign, “Yes we can.” The former sentence reflects on the past, while the latter looks to the future. The space between them is immense, and that is the space he and we need to focus on and begin to work in. To say that it’s a big job grossly understates the task. Barack Obama, himself, pointed out that we should not expect the needed changes to happen in the span of a single presidential term.
Today I sit back on my haunch, look up at the blue autumn sky, and wonder why it should take so long. Why can’t good stuff be accomplished quickly in an America that has promised for 240 years such good stuff as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens? In an America that was founded on such ideals and principles that, though we are not a “Christian nation,” were espoused by Christ and adopted into our Constitution. (Someday I’ll get my choppers into the topic of the chasm between Christ’s words and the beliefs of many of today’s Christian fundamentalists. But not today.)
Actually, there is a solid, if not good, reason why we can’t expect America to become America within four years, much less on this glorious and promising day, or even next January 21 when Barack Obama settles into the Oval Office. Things are not going to just get better. That’s because a lot of people in America, some of them exceedingly powerful, do not want America to become America. As Right Wing guru Paul Weyrich said (I may be paraphrasing), “Government is too important to be left to ordinary Americans.”
Echoing this are the Rush Limbaugh’s and Bill O’Reilly’s, and Michael Savage’s, and the less vocal but infinitely more dangerous Neocons who can be found at the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Project for the New American Century ( the infamous PNAC), the American Enterprise Institute, and other Right Wing think tanks, big money pits, and enclaves. They remain populated by people who hate giving up power, the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Yoo, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Elliott Abrams, John Poindexter, “Scooter” Libby, William Kristol, Daniel Pipes, Bill Bennett Norman Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Midge Decter, and even that fount of deep wisdom, J. Danforth Quayle, former Vice-President of these United States, upon whose narrow shoulders Sarah Palin would have stood had she somehow jived her way into the Veepency. And this is only a short-list of the architects of the last eight years, during which the ideals of America were hijacked, with the world to follow.
Do not expect these people to give up their hold on power lightly from a mere landslide election against them. Expect a four-year blizzard of the following, all in the service of keeping the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress from doing business efficiently…or at all:
Besides that old quasi-legal stand-by, Senatorial Filibuster, you will see a Right Wing-generated rash of
- Fear-mongering
- Smearing
- Spreading of lies and innuendo
- Hindering legitimate change irrespective of its reasonableness or benefits
- Threats of impeachment and other forestalling tactics
Why? Because [repeat] “government is too important to be left to ordinary Americans.”
Who then should government be left to, according to these folks? To the large stake-holders, of course… To the “insiders.” Those with the “long-term view.” Those who “understand” the critical importance of American Empire. That America is meant (by God) to rule the world… That the “white race” was meant to dominate people of color (all the more galling that these ordinary Americans elected a person of color)… That men were meant to dominate women… That Christians (and a few like-minded and malleable Jews) were meant to dominate the false religions… And (most galling to yours truly, Rrrandy Wurst) their fundamental belief that “Two legs good; four legs bad.”
[Okay, I go too far here in reversing George Orwell’s eternal verity (from Animal Farm), but it is true that the Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian doctrine of Dominionism holds mankind dominant over “lower” animals, which is rather conveniently self-serving.]
Fear-mongering. Smearing. Lies and innuendo, etc. Why do Right Wingers use these emotion-laden tactics? Because they work. Because emotion can be appealed to among those who don’t have knowledge, those who distrust knowledge because it comes from smart people, intellectuals, college professors, and “such like. ” Truth as seen through the eyes of manipulative politics is far less effective, and thus infinitely less important, than negatively-charged psych-tactics. Hell, truth is not important at all, because most people not only don’t know what’s true, they distrust those who try to tell them. (Unless, of course, it comes from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh, who, when faced with his lies, weasels into his standard defense that, Hey, I’m just an entertainer.) Most people don’t have the tools even to question the “truth” that is shoved at them. So why even bother, because if you do engage in the battle of “my truth” versus “your truth,” “the people” won’t believe either. Much better, the Right Wing has learned, to slander the other side, because people are very willing to believe their “gut,” their feelings.
Having figured this out, and using it as their primary weapon against anyone who believes differently than they do, is the “genius” of the Right Wing, as perpetrated by Karl Rove, including media hit-men like Steve Schmidt, Scott Howell, and Dan Bartlett. Some of them go all the way back to Nixon’s prime henchman, Lee Atwater. (Who died at the age of 40 regretful of the Pandora’s Box of personal propaganda that he had opened.) For these operatives, sowing fear and doubt is their modus operandi. Truth does not even enter the conversation.
Problem is, these truth-defying tactics work because people don’t know what truth to believe. So they resort to believing what they feel. Our nation’s leadership has changed, but that hasn’t changed. The Right Wing will continue to use their tactics, maybe even ramp them up now that they’re out of power, especially to tap into whatever residual racism Americans may harbor. Rattle the little corner of the brain that might think, “I wonder whether a black man is smart enough for the job.” While ignoring, forgetting, or ever caring to know the things that Barack Obama has accomplished, which prove his over-whelming brain-power. (Harvard Law Review, graduating at the top of his class, ….Oh, forget it! That stuff is mere truth, which to the average Joe or Jane gets swamped in the tide of slander.)
Which, ironically, lends some truth to those Right Wing Neocons’ belief that government is too important to be left to ordinary Americans. If voters can be fooled by personal attack so easily, why even let them vote for their leaders? That’s a hard one to deal with if you believe in democracy. I guess the answer is to fall back on the “truth” that you can’t fool all the people all the time, and hope that that’s enough to keep the self-serving corporatists and militarists and religionists and smiling fascists in check. Smack down their fear-mongering slander tactics. Figure them out for what they are: Domestic and Foreign Imperialists. Hope that an election such as we made happen yesterday is enough to keep The Good Ship Democracy afloat and aimed in the right direction.
Forewarned is fore-armed. (Or maybe that should be four-armed.)
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
HUZZAH!
By Rrrandy Wurst | November 4, 2008
GOOD ON YOU, AMERICA!
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Would the last person who knows why we’re fighting please…?
By Rrrandy Wurst | October 27, 2008
Bill Moyers on his Oct. 24, 2008, PBS Journal, said, “The last person who knew why we are fighting died a long time ago.” Moyers didn’t know the author of the statement and a quick Google by Steve, my right and left hand man, didn’t yield an answer, which doesn’t really matter, because the wisdom inherent in the statement seems to shout loudly enough on its own.
But imagine this. Throughout American history, if there had been no “standing army” (as Thomas Jefferson wanted) to be whipped up and driven to war by the generals and politicians and yellow journalism newspapers, how many wars would the good ol’ U. S. of A. have missed out on?
How many “good wars” have there actually been? Versus how many battles have American citizens been sent to bleed and die in to “protect American interests?” We all know what “protect American interests” means. It means to protect American corporate property and profits. To protect American business property plunked down in foreign lands for the benefit of stockholders. The Marines have been doing that for over 150 years from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. In China (remember that Steve McQueen movie?). In South and Central America to defend Dole (not Bob, the fruit company) and the corporate octopus called United Fruit which dominated Latin American economies and politics for more than forty years. (For a chilly read, look at a 1982 book called Bitter Fruit.)
American troops and arms, my friends, are bought with your tax-dollars and the blood of those troops, not to mention the blood of the people our troops bombard and invade. (And why don’t we mention that very much?)
Imagine, instead, American citizens getting to vote on whether our government should send Americans out to kill and die in foreign lands for American corporate profits. How many of those “little wars” or skirmishes or “police actions” would we have fought? How many of the big ones? Vietnam? Iraq- #1? Iraq-#2? What about that Korean War (officially a “police action”)? The Spanish-American War pushed by William Randolph Hearst? (Whose name is uncomfortably close to yours truly’s.)
To sell war to America following the Vietnam fiasco, our government has felt the need to decorate war with Hollywood-inspired monikers: “Desert Storm!” “Enduring Freedom!!” “Iraqi Freedom!!!” Gee, maybe that’s a good sign. Maybe Americans now need the full, wide-screen P.R. push in order to go along with war. Without, of course, our government letting us see the consequences. The caskets. (Again ignoring the caskets of the other side and the dead civilians whom we are there to “liberate.”) The lost limbs. Discounting the psychological damage, because, hey, it’s just in your mind, soldier.
Imagine how much more oil would be available if we hadn’t burned so much of it doing war, how much more we’d have for our cars, trucks, planes, and furnaces. Ol’ Faithful Steve tells me he was in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago during Fleet Week, a high-testosterone celebration of Naval might. On Thursday and Friday the Blue Angels precision flying jets—the ones who screech across the sky wing-tip to wing-tip— flew low over the city every fifteen minutes practicing for the one time they’d do it “for real” on the weekend. Think of the wasted fuel, not to mention the pollution raining down on The City’s citizens.
Yeah, let’s mention it. The pollution of warfare. The volumes of spent fuel. The exploding bombs. The burning buildings. Clouds of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, CO2, and other lovely poisons roiling into our atmosphere, vile and destructive. Modern war alone might account for a whole degree Fahrenheit of global warming, especially when you consider all the practice that must be conducted in order to accomplish wholesale efficient killing and demolition.
Whoo, boy! Ain’t we got fun!
So, Mr. Bill Moyers, it’s a cute thought, but it’s not really true that “the last person who knew why we were fighting died a long time ago.” We know why we fight. It’s because our government and generals and corporations tell us to fight, that it’s a good thing to fight and waste and pollute and die for whatever reason they come up with. That’s reason enough… Isn’t it? Besides, do these people, our leaders, give us a choice?
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: Corporations, War, iraq war | No Comments »
Which of these men inspires Presidential confidence?
By Rrrandy Wurst | October 18, 2008
The embarrassing tongue-flash pictured below actually happened as the two presidential candidates came onto the stage at Hofstra for their final debate before the Nov. 4 election (found at Buzzflash). It is not the result of alteration or Photoshop manipulation. It is one of those instantaneous moments of truth at a time when each candidate knows the spotlight is on him to, at the very least, present himself presidentially. It is a picture of an awkward adolescent mind climbing the stage at a high school assembly.
Was McCain trying to “lighten the moment?” Maybe the way that George W. Bush has done so often? Such as W giving “the finger” to the camera before a televised speech. Such as W saying, “Things would be a lot easier if I was dictator,” in a similar situation. Such as W’s frequent snarky, head-pumping laughter at his own “jokes.” If so, then McCain is a bad, even less funny imitation of Bush.
Put this picture together with McCain’s frequent smirking, eye-batting during debates (even during his own party’s primaries, notably while Mitt Romney spoke), and famous history of anger and cursing even while on the job during his Senate duties, and ask yourself—policy positions and everything else aside— “Which of these men inspires Presidential confidence?”
Topics: 2008 election, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, John McCain | No Comments »
Palin Syrah takes a dive
By Rrrandy Wurst | October 6, 2008
Presidential election harbinger #1: “It was our best-selling wine,” complains the owner of a wine bar in San Francisco, about the recent drop in sales of Palin Syrah, an organic wine from Chile. (from The Economist, 9/27/08).
There are polls and there are polls.
Democracy as a form of government comes with one primary condition, which is also its fatal flaw. It requires the common people to be uncommon, that is, to pay attention to what their government is doing both for and to them. It requires them to pay attention, to learn, to understand, and to vote. None of which the common folk have done very well in recent elections.
So let’s hope that the decline in sales of Palin Syrah wine does serve as a harbinger of the outcome on November 4, as a result of the common folk waking up to their duty and paying attention to Palin (Sarah) and McCain.
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: 2008 election, homo (un)sapiens | No Comments »
The Genius of Ignorance: The Sarah Palin Story
By Rrrandy Wurst | October 1, 2008
Check out this piece by Andrew Halcro, two term Republican member of the Alaska State House of Representatives, who has vast experience debating Sister Sarah:
I’ve debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she’s a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do.
I may need to put some kind of protective netting in front of my TV screen. We know she’s not smart in the ways that smart people tend to conceive of smart, but she is shrewd …and physically attractive… and even possibly a good dancer, which are better qualifications for one of those TV dance competitions than for the White House. Although, Americans tend not to elect smart people (except those who hide their intelligence behind a big smile, like B. Clinton), preferring somebody “we” might want to have some yucks with while watching something like, say, Dancing With the Stars.
So maybe this whole election thing is coming down to a referendum, not on McCain and Palin, but on the American electorate. To wit: After the 8-year horror of the Bush/Cheney Administration, will we go out and elect another, probably less competent but similar, administration because (A) we’ve grown used to our deprivation and (B) they’ve developed slipperiness into a political art form that Americans gobble up?
Or maybe we’ve learned a lesson from Reagan, Clinton, and the Bush fellers. Ain’t life interesting?
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: 2008 election, homo (un)sapiens | No Comments »
Agreeing w/ 2 Cons in one day: shudder! + Bail-out of the Bail-out
By Rrrandy Wurst | September 30, 2008
Here is what conservative Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker said about Sarah Palin:
No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Ms. Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.
Ms. Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage, and there’s not much content there. … If BS were currency, Ms. Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.
And here is what Rod Dreher, who blogs from the adorably-named CrunchyCon: Conservative Politics and Religion, said when Parker was lambasted for dissing Palin by yet another conservative columnist:
One of the least attractive features of the Right is a tribalist impulse to punish anyone who is disloyal to the Cause — the Cause being defined not as any particular set of principles, but Getting Our Team To Power.
Wow! Reasoned self-reflection from the Right. How Refreshing!
******************************
So, I’m sure you’re wondering what is Rrrandy Wurst’s take on the infamous (if it passes) 2008-Pre-Election-October Surprise-Let-the-Poor folks-Bail Out-the-Rich guys-who-Caused-the-Problem-in-the-First-Place proposed legislation. Hmmmm, let me try to make my feelings clear and unambiguous about this issue.
1) Don’t bail out the guys who shot holes in the boat.
2) If money must be given, give it to the ones who were screwed by being suckered into bad loans by those who should have known better.
3) Re-insert the quarter of a percent tax on all securities transactions. That is, let Wall Street bail out Wall Street, instead of you and you and you bailing them out. (Me? I don’t own a home, I only need my one Uncle Sam outfit and not even that back on the farm, and I’m happy eating garbage. They want my garbage? They can bring a truck. Hey, I don’t even like corn anymore with all that genetic engineering.)
4) Limit “margin” (leveraged) securities buying to the 20% —10% would be better—that was instituted by Roosevelt after the 1929 Wall Street Crash to reign in the financial ancestors of today’s Wall Street vultures.
5) Ask Dennis Kucinich what he would do, then do it. (For example, re-establish the Home-Owners Credit Corporation, which would bail out home-owners instead of the big bad bankers.)
This whole bail-out thing? It’s like giving your car keys to a drunken thief, then wishing him well.
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: 2008 election, Congress, Government Oversight, homo (un)sapiens | No Comments »
