Disqus - Latest Comments for michaelD

Re: TSA hired priest accused of molesting girls to do pat downs

michaelD — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:33:17 -0000

i'm not entirely clear as to your point, ma'am.

airlines traditionally installed flimsy, lightweight doors at the cockpit. heavier, stronger, doors detract from the useful load of the aircraft. weight is money, its so simple as that. as i understand it they have since retrofitted them; 'hardening' access to the cockpit.

the FAA issued the mandate in 2002 [almost certainly they issued ADs [airworthiness directives]], requiring the retrofits be completed a year or so later. there are two, and exactly two ways to interfere with an aircraft in flight. you can 'storm' the cockpit in order to assume command and control of the plane; or you can carry a device [explosive, electronic package, other weapon] onboard which in some fashion interrupts the safe operation of the the systems. in other words you can try to blow it up or use a weapon to take hostages in order to issue commands to the flight crew, etc. with the AD, the cockpit is hardened; thats it. terrorists should no longer be able to directly interfere with the flight crew, unless one or more of them are involved in the event [inside man]. i don't think the outer doors of most airliners can even be opened in flight due to the pressure differentials and mechanical safeties [would need verification though], so its not like they can [easily] engineer a catastrophic decompression event.

the security theater played out countless times per day achieves little in the way of actual security. instead it offers the opportunity to sexually molest each and every passenger boarding a flight in the US and, more importantly, establishes that the population is willing to be treated this way; in effect conditioning them to follow the orders they're given. president obama not only signed the NDAA but repeatedly appealed the injunction against; he seems perfectly content with DHS and looks forward to making things worse, not better.

oh, it also makes the manufacturers of the scanners [and people like chertoff] filthy stinking rich. cheers.

Re: TSA hired priest accused of molesting girls to do pat downs

michaelD — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:03:05 -0000

really? allow me to argue some facts, arguethefacts:

1) DHS is a cabinet-level organization which answers to-
2) the sec'y of homeland security [napolitano] who-
3) is a cabinet-level official in the executive branch of gov't-
4) answering directly to the president of the united states

could he disband DHS or TSA with the stroke of a pen? probably not. but as POTUS he certainly 'owns' the responsibilities for the organization[s] and has immense influence over how they conduct their affairs. in short, if by way of an executive order he can direct customs and immigration, along with DoJ, to align their ops w/ the DREAM act [for right or wrong] he can certainly issue orders directing a change in how airport security is handled.
BTW, while napolitano was a terrible mistake, i think geithner, bernanke, and summers [all whilst listening to rubin] were just as big if not bigger mistakes.
with the stroke of a pen he could also put a stop to NSAs warrantless eavesdropping and vacuuming up of every piece of electronic communication but i haven't seen him make any moves in that direction either [despite campaign commentary to the contrary]

Re: Philadelphia cop sucker punches woman celebrating Latino heritage

michaelD — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:30:32 -0000

and the PA is ... where? the charges for assault and battery under color of authority happens ... when?

this isn't merely a firing offense. the officer should be charged and prosecuted. hopefully he'll be added to the roles of warehoused people that the for-profit prison industry finds so profitable.

Re: TSA hired priest accused of molesting girls to do pat downs

michaelD — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:25:46 -0000

sure, bush '43 built it.
who could have curtailed their crimes with the stroke of a pen?
obushma owns this now. and the GOP, who's self-avowed prime-directive is to unseat this 'terrible' president, hasn't made this an issue.
why not? and which is worse? i sure don't know the answer to the latter.

Re: Samuel L. Jackson videos tells voters to ‘wake the f*ck up’ in rhyme

michaelD — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:34:36 -0000

president obama inherited a deep, deep economic hole, to be sure. alas, his solution, in keeping with his two immediate predecessors, was to dig faster. geithner? summers? bernanke? rubin? please ... its a who's who of "who fouled up the economy beyond all recognition." let's not forget ... "no crimes were committed ..." i call big BS on that one.

Re: In nabbing bank robber, Aurora cops set off constitutional alarms

michaelD — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:38:50 -0000

[i'm partially cross-posting from my original response on the aurora sentinal opinion page at: http://www.aurorasentinel.c... ]

chief oates' employment should be immediately terminated for cause; the
officers involved who violated the rights of each of those handcuffed
innocent citizens, who weren't even suspected of committing any crimes,
should be immediately suspended and prosecuted for any number of crimes
to include violation of constitutional civil rights [rights, not privileges] on a massive scale, and for false arrest.

the ends absolutely do not justify the means.

this is nothing less than a case of domestic terrorism under color of
authority. indiana recently passed legislation which would have
justified even lethal force by the citizenry against these perpetrators
in uniform and quite legitimately so. alas, that would have likely
resulted in a sizable bloodbath when the uniformed officers of aurora
returned [massive] fire.

market ticker: http://tinyurl.com/6rgzrvh

bloomberg: http://tinyurl.com/83lkdev

• halting traffic while in pursuit of an armed bank robber; understandable

• pulling people out of their vehicles at gunpoint; not at all ok

• handcuffing motorists while searching for their perpetrator ... far beyond not ok at all. felonious, in point of fact.

only armed thugs would feel comfortable acting in such a
reprehensible fashion. peace officers don't conduct themselves this
way; gang members do. i don't live in aurora but i do pass through the
area on occasion. unless and until these thugs are removed from the
streets and prosecuted i for one will spend so little time as possible
in the seemingly lawless frontier town of aurora, and i won't spend so
much as one dime there [no more trips to town center / aurora mall, or
to cinema grill].

acceptance of this is yet another benchmark on the path from the US
being a free, democratic, constitutional society, to one which accepts
fascism. the progress is slow but inexorable and there seems to be some
measure of determination in reaching that destination. a population
gets the government they deserve and this reflects on us as a people so
much as it does the perpetrators.

michaelD

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

-- Thomas Jefferson, Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin, (1818)

Re: PERRY: Even in a gray world, Aurora cops must abide by unreasonable search and seizure laws

michaelD — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:30:35 -0000

with respect, you are incorrect, sir. each of us, including uniformed peace officers, is responsible for our actions. "i was under orders" is no excuse.

you wouldn't be applying that standard had they hauled these unfortunate victims off to city/county lock-up until everything was sorted out.

breaking into your home and cuffing you and your partner while 'dragnetting' your apartment building or subdivision would be no more or less offensive and illegal; yet i doubt you would be so forgiving in that instance.

the proper response for each and every law-abiding/enforcing officer [who should be held to an even higher standard than a civilian] would be to refuse the order; its so simple as that. following a criminal order is a criminal act.

they were acting like gang members with no regard for the law or civil rights; not like uniformed keepers of the peace.

Re: PERRY: Even in a gray world, Aurora cops must abide by unreasonable search and seizure laws

michaelD — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:23:23 -0000

"This mornings letter to the editor by Bill Anderson is more to the point that I was trying to make."

thank you for pointing that out; i hadn't seen it

"... isn't it up to us the citizens to temper the actions of our city officials. As a community our apathy is the real crime here.

Somehow we have come to believe that monetary damages from lawsuits
is the way to communicate our disapproval. This approach only seems to
sting their ego's since they seem to have unlimited supplies of our
money.
"

correct on all counts. alas the elected and appointed officials at all levels appear to have disconnected from their constituencies. and rather than bearing any personal responsibility they simply pay out taxpayer dollars in civil suits. but we put them there. its up to us to get them out of there. the proper tack to take is indictment, prosecution, and incarceration; not likely since those responsible to us for such actions have refused to perform their duties and seem to be 'in cahoots' with the transgressors.

Re: PERRY: Even in a gray world, Aurora cops must abide by unreasonable search and seizure laws

michaelD — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:39:43 -0000

mr. perry is at least taking on the issue and appears to be taking the correct stance. while aurora sentinal isn't a small privately-owned publication [aurora media group] they might avoid the serious flaws and transgressions of the large corporatized media houses like msnbc, cnn, abc, cbs, or [the bottom of the barrel] fox.

i think we should at least give him credit for going that far. it will be telling if he simply lets this issue fade instead of raising the stakes and keeping it in the forefront of the public awareness; or at least what passes for awareness these days.

Re: PERRY: Even in a gray world, Aurora cops must abide by unreasonable search and seizure laws

michaelD — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:27:29 -0000

mr. ladehoff ... you may be right. my concern over statements such as "No, from what we’ve learned, police handled the situation as expertly as a seat-of-the-pants caper like this can be carried out." may have skewed my perception of his [imho] poorly-worded title. if anything APD's alleged professionalism should raise our level of concern, not garner any appreciation or approval; unless of course the observer is a mercenary who drills regularly to better execute the same sort of nefarious acts.

thanx

Re: PERRY: Even in a gray world, Aurora cops must abide by unreasonable search and seizure laws

michaelD — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:10:50 -0000

http://www.press.uchicago.e...

Re: PERRY: Even in a gray world, Aurora cops must abide by unreasonable search and seizure laws

michaelD — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:00:52 -0000

chief oates' employment should be immediately terminated for cause; the officers involved who violated the rights of each of those handcuffed innocent citizens, who weren't even suspected of committing any crimes, should be immediately suspended and prosecuted for any number of crimes to include violation of constitutional civil rights [rights, not privileges] on a massive scale, and for false arrest.

the ends absolutely do not justify the means.

this is nothing less than a case of domestic terrorism under color of authority. indiana recently passed legislation which would have justified even lethal force by the citizenry against these perpetrators in uniform and quite legitimately so. alas, that would have likely resulted in a sizable bloodbath when the uniformed officers of aurora returned [massive] fire.

market ticker: http://tinyurl.com/6rgzrvh

bloomberg: http://tinyurl.com/83lkdev

• halting traffic while in pursuit of an armed bank robber; understandable

• pulling people out of their vehicles at gunpoint; not at all ok

• handcuffing motorists while searching for their perpetrator ... far beyond not ok at all. felonious, in point of fact.

only armed thugs would feel comfortable acting in such a reprehensible fashion. peace officers don't conduct themselves this way; gang members do. i don't live in aurora but i do pass through the area on occasion. unless and until these thugs are removed from the streets and prosecuted i for one will spend so little time as possible in the seemingly lawless frontier town of aurora, and i won't spend so much as one dime there [no more trips to town center / aurora mall, or to cinema grill].

one wonders about this scourge of society they were looking for. why no mention as to his identity, the amount of money taken from WFC, or amount recovered [if any?].

acceptance of this is yet another benchmark on the path from the US being a free, democratic, constitutional society, to one which accepts fascism. the progress is slow but inexorable and there seems to be some measure of determination in reaching that destination. a population gets the government they deserve and this reflects on us as a people so much as it does the perpetrators.

finally, mr. perry, you seem to be on both sides of this issue. you appear to contend that the APD acted professionally and properly whilst violating the law; indeed your title cites 'unreasonable' search and seizure laws [?!?!?]. please clarify your position.

michaelD

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
-- Thomas Jefferson, Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin, (1818)

Re: Don't Drink the 'Fantasy Jobs' Punch

michaelD — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:40:07 -0000

i agree with your sentiments but you are misrepresenting the facts [in some instances you're flat out wrong] which gives you every bit so much credibility as the BLS. i don't know if you're partisan or if you're simply too lazy to research a topic you heard about over cocktails, but when you fail to properly present the facts you do a disservice to your readers and delegitimize the entirety of your composition. you may be right but you can't be taken at face value now.

• the birth / death adjustment has nothing to do with the population [individuals being born or dying]; rather it [claims to] attempt [to] judge the birth / death of businesses.

"To account for this net birth/death portion of total employment, BLS uses an estimation procedure with two components: the first component excludes employment losses from business deaths from sample-based estimation in order to offset the missing employment gains from business births. This is incorporated into the sample-based estimate procedure by simply not reflecting sample units going out of business, but imputing to them the same trend as the other firms in the sample. This step accounts for most of the net birth/death employment. snip The second component is an ARIMA time series model designed to estimate the residual net birth/death employment not accounted for by the imputation. The historical time series used to create and test the ARIMA model was derived from the UI universe micro level database, and reflects the actual residual net of births and deaths over the past five years."

http://www.bls.gov/web/emps...

• you can't subtract the birth / death adjustment from the seasonal numbers as they are not seasonally adjusted themselves. one must subtract them from the NSAs [non-seasonally adjusted] in order to arrive at something more representative of reality

• seasonal adjustment is not the nefarious exercise you paint it to be. its a smoothing mechanism which attempts to provide a more realistic assessment vs known, regularly occurring swings [seasonal ones] which themselves distort the data. if one were to base one's assessment of hiring on the NSA december numbers [for november] one would conclude that things were hunky dory given all the season holiday hiring. that seasonal adjustments are abused by BLS statisticians, as is every other tool, is noteworthy but unremarkable [there are lies, damn lies, and statistics].

• you left out the most significant issues regarding BLS numbers: sampling size and margin of error. for the household survey, easily the more reliable and useful of the two surveys, the BLS contacts 60k households and attempts to derive something useful regarding the entirety of the more than 150mm workers in the US; and they themselves admit that the margin of error is on the order of 100k! a +100k print can technically be characterized as somewhere between 0 and +200k.

"For example, the confidence interval for the monthly change in
total nonfarm employment from the establishment survey is on the order
of plus or minus 100,000. Suppose the estimate of nonfarm employment
increases by 50,000 from one month to the next. The 90-percent confidence
interval on the monthly change would range from -50,000 to +150,000
(50,000 +/- 100,000)."

• after all of this misinformation is presented, its then subject to wild swings in either direction when its revised during subsequent monthly NFP reports.

http://www.bls.gov/news.rel...

you're welcome. do your homework next time.

michaelD

Re: Microsoft seized two U.S. hacker ‘command’ servers

michaelD — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:46:17 -0000

i would be more interested in just how MSFT managed to 'seize' these computers.

Re: New rule would make it easier for immigrants to apply for legal status

michaelD — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 14:06:48 -0000

THANKS TO MOSTLY LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS HAVE BEEN SUCKING ON THE WELFARE NIPPLE FOR DECADES.

yes, exactly; liberals and democrats like ... what was his name? the guy who granted amnesty to some 3mm undocumented aliens? oh right ... it was ...

... ronald reagan

i don't disagree w/ your position on illegal immigrants, and i have to wonder if its too early to start campaigning against polis' re-election since he seems to be concerned only about helping those who enter the country illegally instead of those who are actual citizens, but [respectfully] you need to drop the pro-CONservative / anti-liberal hyperbole.

its called "divide and conquer". the two parties find it far easier to wrestle votes from 5% of the undecided and voting electorate than to put forward a legitimate platform and stand on its merits. hence the very successful campaign to massively polarize the constituency [gays, gods, guns ... sound familiar?].

the only real difference betwixt the rethugnicans and the dumocrats is like the difference between hannibal lector and someone who wants to be just like hannibal lector; either way, we take a trip through someone's bowel.

Re: New Economic Perspectives

michaelD — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:40:45 -0000

dr. black
i agree w/ you that there is no actual inflation right now [in the US] ... the federal reserve corporation is the one and only source of inflation right now ... and they're obviously very effective at creating it. ordinarily i would see your point and agree with your assessment regarding deflation. since the current deflationary environment is a direct consequence of the massive inflation we've experienced over the last thirty years or so, and that so much of the excess has been siphoned off by the 'haves' [c-suite, board of directors, etc members] isn't it entirely reasonable for us to expect deflation? additionally shouldn't said deflation be extracted from the very people who drove the disastrously fraudulent and phony decisions which created our current recessionary / depressionary environment?

thanks in advance

Re: Polis leads Colorado delegation in net worth

michaelD — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:45:16 -0000

before i proceed ... this is not the best venue for this discussion. disqus is fairly good for brief comments about articles; its not well-suited for long, drawn-out discussions. so naturally i'm now going to proceed with my long, drawn-out response!

i prefer that my representatives work on things that can happen in reality. what effing good will it do polis to sign on to a dead bill, beating his head on the desk over it for nothing?

what good would it do if he signed-on, and he told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on? the point isn't that he hasn't. the point rather is that he won't even try or consider it. its something that badly needs to happen. the 2008/09 events were a warm-up. nothing that was wrong has been fixed; indeed some things are even worse than they were. in fact we may already be past the point where we can prevent the next bigger, worser implosion. he dismissed it out of hand with no reasoning behind his decision. if he had said that won't work because issues x, y, and z wouldn't be addressed then he'd have a leg to stand on. he didn't do that. he blew it off.

i don't know exactly what you expect - immediate reaction from one question and an email?

i expect him to either do what i said above and explain why reinstatement wouldn't be effective or, better still, to say, "you're right and i will co-sponsor." i do not expect to be blown-off and ignored. i asked him questions directly to his face that he did not want to answer; i gave a hard-copy to one of his staffers; i emailed the questions to him. they're serious questions. the US congress is filled with individuals with a vested interest in NOT changing any of the things that are wrong.

so let me ask you, what's your solution? what would you have polis, or the president do? what are the biggest issues facing them in governing this country right now?

the first thing obama should do is fire daley, geithner, and holder. he should appoint a prosecutor to serve as AG and instruct him/her to ferret out fraud [the sitting AG for the state of NV might be a good selection]. he should disband TSA and tell homeland security and the FBI to immediately cease any and all assistance to every police department harassing OWS. he should come out and admit that his health-care [non-]reform is nothing of the kind and start campaigning hard for a public option. he should speak directly and publicly to the constituents of every senator and rep who opposes; name names and shame them. he should call for congress to immediately halve the DoD budget, taking it back to where it was when the shrub took office in 2001. he should call on congress to legislate the federal reserve corporation out of existence, confiscate their treasury holdings, and return congress to the business of printing our money as the constitution directs. he should renege on NAFTA and every other unfair trade agreement, withdraw china's most-favored status, and impose taxes & tariffs on every product coming into the country. he should sponsor and campaign for a WPA-style program to restore the economy and revive our disintegrating infrastructure. he should appoint a new NASA administrator directing him/her to get a replacement for shuttle operating ASAP and not cede space to the russians and chinese [have you any idea how much positive economic and technological fallout we've enjoyed courtesy of manned spaceflight?]. he should announce a manhattan-project style program to get us OFF of petroleum/coal/nat-gas and back the construction of thorium-salt nuclear plants to fill our energy needs for the next couple/three decades. get a nation-wide network of electrically-powered high-speed rail systems up and running. not only would it be cleaner to power them with nuclear than burning all that jet-A, but its not as easy to crash a train into a skyscraper as it is a wide-body passenger plane. and while he's at it, he needs to push really really hard to reinstate the media ownership laws that were in place prior to reagan and clinton opening the floodgates. if he has time he needs to get rid of both gramm-leach-bliley and the CFMA, and instruct FASB to reinstate mark-to-market accounting. lastly, instead of congress reaffirming our commitment to 'in god we trust' he needs to get a commitment to honoring and adhering to the constitution and the bill of rights. backing dylan ratigan's constitutional amendment to get money out of politics [or even one of the others being floated] would be a good start.how's that for a short-list?

and jared polis should be standing right behind him, cheering him on, every step of the way.

had republicans not taken the house in 2010, things might be different. again, reality is a bitch.

things indeed might have been different. why weren't they? why did the dems fare so badly in '10? i've no problem with sweeping out the trash but some actually useful ones were caught up in the purge [feingold for example]. they were ditched because voters didn't like what they had. some saw the writing on the wall and bowed-out in favor of lucrative lobbying jobs [judd greg, chris dodd]. the dems had majorities in the house and the senate ... what good did they do with it? how was it really that different from when bush '43 had the same arrangement during his first term?

i supported obama because of what he campaigned on. i still support him because i think that he has tried to do what he can with the horrible messes that were handed to him, given what constitutional powers he has and the realistic limitations he has with ideologues opposed against him in congress. if everything were easy, it would be done already. but he cannot dictate that things get done the way he wants them. he doesn't make the laws, congress does. he can direct congress, give it nudges, and put pressure on it, but not much beyond that.

major point of uber-disagreement. yes, obama was handed a mess. who created it? the list is long and the narrative complex. a couple of very pertinent figures were bob rubin and larry summers. there are lots of names on the list of those who contributed to the crafting of the crisis; but these two clowns are on the short list of those who caused it. and what does obama do? he taps rubin to help him form his economic team. he taps larry summers to head up his council of economic advisors. perhaps he should have resurrected and consulted butch cassidy and the sundance kid wrt bank vault security?? then he promotes turbo-tax timmy geither from being president of the new york federal reserve bank, where he helped steer the economy over the cliff, to being the t.sec! seriously?!?!!? let's not leave out reappointing ben bernanke to a second term as president of the FOMC. let's see, for his next act, he chose not to prosecute members of the bush administration for war crimes or lying us into a war in the first place; he didn't want to end up with rethugnican grid-lock when they rebelled you see [way to go guy, things are running so smoothly; you sure avoided that problem neatly]. then, instead of focusing on fixing the economy he chose to make healthcare worse. instead of pushing for a public option, which he claims wasn't supported [no more than 70% of those polled approved] he instituted the medicine cabinet tax and forced through a bill requiring us to do business with the very health insurers who have wrecked so many lives, killed so many people, bankrupted so many families, and helped crash the economy. i'm missing the part where its a good idea to force anyone to trade with any business in a free democracy, much less with those businesses. let's see, what else did he campaign on? oh right ... warrantless eavesdropping and transparency in gov't; in both instances he could fix much of what's wrong with an executive order. type it up, sign it; bam, its done. in both instances, rather than fixing things, he's made them worse. we can't get on an airplane now without being groped or being [potentially] irradiated in one of their millimeter wave contraptions whilst they look at [virtually] nudie pictures of everyone. TSA stands for 'thousands sexually assaulted' and, again, executive order puts a stop to it. he lies through his teeth claiming no laws were broken leading up to this depression [let's call it what it is], and claims its not appropriate for the POTUS to become involved by having his AG investigate such things. but he seems to feel its ok for the the 4th amendment to be stricken from the constitution and order the assassination of US citizens with no due process whatsoever. the executive branch executes the laws. thats what its there for. that was a long-running paragraph and i'm going to stop now ... but there is so more to be covered and said.

i voted -for- obama too; i was wrong. i believed his schtick. in '04 i held my nose, casting in favor of kerry just to vote against bush. this time around i'll likely throw away my vote by casting for bill still. or i may not vote at all.

he didn't bail out the banks and then tell their CEOs to take home huge bonuses.

no ... but he fully supports and continues the actions and the massive bailouts which have continued to this day. he appointed jeff immelt [china! china! china!] to head up his little council on unemployment ... immelt of GE which ... ding-ding-ding ... took massive gov't bailouts because GE is largely a bank! approx 45% of GEs business is finance! think they didn't jump on the milk-the-country-for-all-its-worth-whilst-offshoring-every-job-in-sight-except-the-c-suite bandwagon?

i believe economists who say had it not been for the stimulus, we would be in much, much, much worse shape.

then, with respect, you need to re-evaluate. i offer up the improvements in iceland [which did the opposite of everyone else] vs all the bad things happening in portugal, ireland, italy, greece, spain, germany, france, the united states, and china as a counter-point in favor the of the counterfactual. the icelandic gov't tried it this way; their people revolted. they literally showed up with torches [and pitchforks?] outside the capital building. the gov't was ousted because the icelandic people said there was no way they were footing the bill for banksters' frauds. they're even prosecuting their former heads of state. they nationalized their banks, made domestic depositors whole, and told everyone else, including bondholders, that next time they should manage their risk better. it briefly crashed their economy and now they're on the way UP instead of DOWN like the rest of us. those grand economists you cite are the ones who got us here in the first place. had it not been for the stimulus, the taxpayer wouldn't be on the hook for trillions of dollars in gambling losses. and, again, WE HAVEN'T FIXED ANYTHING. things are more broken than they were before. this will keep happening. it will keep getting worse. there are no longer any good solutions. there was a time we could have fixed this and moved on; then we could have fixed it, though it would have been painful; then we could have fixed things and it would have hurt like hell. now i'm afraid we don't have such palatable options. but if we don't do what we can now, embracing the consequences, then next up will be even more pain and dislocation. we've kicked and kicked and kicked the can down the road. when the can kicks back, and the can WILL kick back, we're going to find that we've bitten off more than we will ever be able to chew.

what do you think caused all of this? do you believe the bs that its a 'housing crisis'? do you buy the CRA/fannie/freddie meme embraced by the GOP? the housing crisis is the result, its not the cause.

paulson and bernanke warned that if they didn't get their three-page appoint-paulson-king-for-a-day bailout then 'next monday' we wouldn't even have an economy. ATMs wouldn't work. what happened? how long did it take to get congress to vote on TARP the first time? when it failed, what happened? do you remember the world coming to an end? some banksters worlds shuddered, for sure. and i'm not saying there wouldn't have been any economic consequences. but what should have happened is that each of those massive institutions should have been resolved. they should NOT have been allowed to become bank holding companies over night just to open the fed's window to them. THAT was how they gained access to bailouts. pension funds [insolvent anyway] would have taken hits. insurance plans would have been destroyed. but depositors would have been just fine. it would have hurt. it would have hurt a lot. and by now we would be well on the way to a booming recovery. instead we poured the entirety of the national wealth we don't have in the first place into rescuing fraudulent, over-levered institutions that created this mess in the first place. they weren't rescued because they're so important. they were rescued because they literally own the federal reserve [you didn't believe it was a gov't agency, did you?].

i think that he has moved many things in the right direction.

i'm trying to think of a single [significant] thing he's moved in the right direction. in point of fact, i'm at a loss as to how to describe how things would have been much different under mccain/palin than obama/biden. now, maybe you can list one or two positive things he's done; and perhaps i'll even relent and agree. but on the whole, he is a failure, plain and simple. at least, he's a failure for the 99%; the 1% can have few if any complaints.

finally, take good hard look at the loons running to obama's right. i think that we have made some corrective steps in the right direction, but throwing obama under the bus for one of these nutjobs would put us back into that spiral around the toilet bowl. be careful what you wish for.

i've half-jokingly told friends that i was pulling for a palin/bachmann ticket. i viewed them as the biggest buffoons on the political stage and the absolute worst examples the GOP had to offer from a stable of awful candidates. let them in, let them tear down what little is left, and we can start rebuilding.

oh, and while you may not be looking for a date, it's good to remember that these are people and most people respond positively to positive criticism.

your point is well-taken and not without considerable merit. my issue in this instance is that public servants have ceased to act as servants of the public interest; rather their focus is on their own self-interest at the expense of the public.

anyway, we agree on most of the problems and solutions, we just disagree on who to blame for not fixing them. enjoy your weekend.

i think we agree on many of the symptoms, few of the solutions, and even fewer of the actual problems. but i sincerely hope you enjoy your weekend as well.

in closing ... keep an eye on the MF global fallout. this could very easily end up being the next inflection point, just as the failure of two hedge funds turned out to be in the the summer of 2007. a mere seven months later the company that housed them was back-stopped by the US gov't; JPM purchased the remains of bear-sterns at fire-sale prices with no worry of taking any losses because the federal reserve corporation and US treasury guaranteed them against losses.

Re: Polis leads Colorado delegation in net worth

michaelD — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:47:49 -0000

> "...his support for the bill at this time would be pointless except in perception only."

that is an argument in favor of doing nothing, ultimately supportive of self-fulfilling prophecies. "its not worth your time to support this since it won't go anywhere." how can it if it has no support?

> "... only saying that anything even remotely resembling regulation will not see the light of day in this congress. yes, he should support the bill and put his name on it because it's the right thing to do. push him to do so. but remember that there are many battles to be fought and some are more time sensitive than others"

thats the point ... he doesn't support it at all in spite of the fact that it worked for decades; fiscal crises stopped. then when we fiddled with it they came back with a vengeance. why wouldn't he support this? who has a vested interest in gramm-leach-bliley not being overturned? so then who exactly is he siding with? i don't expect him to put all of his time and energy into it. i don't expect him to campaign relentlessly for it. i DO expect him to answer my questions and it support it by, if nothing else, adding his name as a co-sponsor, and committing that he would vote in favor. then he can get back to ... whatever else he's doing with his time. perhaps he found HR 11 to be more pressing [and maybe not; i haven't looked].

> "people are suffering through 9% unemployment and republicans are stopping any meaningful change to that status quo, just so they can try to oust the president."

U-3 unemployment is 9.0%; U-6, which is as close as the current incarnation of the BLS's bs gets to reality, is at 16.2%. a pretty good case can be made that in reality its closer to 20%

http://www.bls.gov/news.rel... ...

all because of things like NAFTA, other 'free trade' agreements like the three he just supported, gramm-leach-bliley, the commodities futures modernization act, devaluation of our currency, wage growth that isn't growing, and garbage like granting places such as china 'most-favored-trading-nation' status.

and frankly, the president should be ousted. the one word that comes to mind regarding him is "abject failure in every dimension wrt everything he campaigned on and who's made things worse". ok, thats a little more than one word.

> "if the OWS movement could get its shit together and focus on this (though it seems more focused on the wealth disparity) ..."

i don't think OWS is focused strictly on the disparity ... rather its the causes of the disparity and the choke-hold that moneyed interests have over our gov't.

> "i think what you mean to say is that you consider polis part of the 1% due to his inaction, and i disagree with you there, still. i support ows but haven't actively protested with them. does my inaction shift me into the group of 1%ers?"

no ... he's chosen to take actions which qualify him as such. i don't see that he's benefitting anyone except illegal aliens really. he can't be bothered to answer the sincere and serious questions from a constituent. he doesn't want to commit to fixing what is broken by putting back in force that which worked before. thats why i'm qualifying him as such. no, i don't think you or i are part of the 1% by virtue of not participating. but he is in a position to do something about the very very many things that are very very wrong. he needs to be fighting the good fight. he obviously can't do it single-handedly but right now he's not even interested in showing up for the fight. if not now, when??

> "i just believe that if you want support for something like this in congress, you should back and support those who might actually do something about it rather than ostracise them. point out to him that even sen. mccain supported something similar not too long ago. as the idiom goes, you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar."

honey and vinegar? i'm not looking for a date or an investor; i'm not trying to get a job with him. i understand your sentiment but my position is this: he is my duly represented officer in the US house of representatives. he is responsible to ME and to everyone else in his district. he needs to be actively working to fix that which is badly broken and he needs to respond to constituents who ask him serious, if unpopular, questions. his responsibility is not to the president of the united states, to the democratic caucus, or to the other democratic members of the house. he needs to be doing what is needed for the legal residents of his district. no less. and if he can't or won't see that then its time for him to be re-denominated as "one-term-jared." we no longer have the time or resources for this nonsense. compared to where we are and where we're headed rock-and-a-hard-place would be comparable to vacationing in the bahamas. and he should know that so well or better than i do.

Re: Polis leads Colorado delegation in net worth

michaelD — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:38:16 -0000

> did he elaborate on his answer at all, and did you explain why you thought it would make a difference?

he didn't elaborate and gave the impression he didn't want to. he 'moved on' to the next question/comment without giving me the opportunity to elaborate. in short, he cut me off.

> unfortunately, he's probably right.

he is, in fact, completely wrong. we had fifty years of relative financial system stability after glass-steagal was enacted, until the 'reagan revolution' ushered in the era of "gov't is the problem" along with the likes of alan greenspan. they watered down enforcement, and then eliminated glass-steagall entirely. it not only precluded "too big to fail" but also pre-empted depository funds from being placed at risk.

> unless we can get these regulation hating, bank-protectionist republicans out of congress, it's not likely that glass-steagall would ever be resurrected. until that happens, it's dead and in the house, any likeness of it will never make the floor for debate.

i agree that restoring glass-steagall is a non-starter, esp in a GOP-dominated house; and i agree that by and large the behavior of the GOP is shameful, but frankly the democrats are no better. gramm-leach-bliley was signed into law by a democratic president [clinton]; the commodities futures modernization act, also implemented by clinton, precluded the regulation of derivatives such as the credit default swaps which brought down AIG and nearly brought down GS, the currency swaps which allowed the greek gov't to lie their way into the euro [with the profitable help of GS of course], and the hundreds of trillions of dollars [not a typo] of unregulated, uncleared, unmargined swaps which almost certainly will bring down JPM, GS, and others. dodd-frank was spearheaded by democratic congressmen with both a house and senate under control of the dems; its the biggest piece of loop-hole ridden and worthless legislation they could concoct. with the exception of the heavily watered-down consumer financial protection bureau it seemingly causes more problems than it solves. the single-line "repeals gramm-leach-bliley" would have sufficed, been far more effective, and would have reinstated all eighteen pages of glass-steagall. the only significant difference between the GOP and the dems is like the difference between hannibal lector and someone who wants to be hannibal lector; either way i take a trip through someone's bowel.

> with respect to attorney general holder, here is more information on how he's not doing what i think he should to hold those responsible for this mess accountable, and to possibly help prevent it from happening again:

thank you for the article, but the SEC, which only conducts civil investigations, has proven itself to be totally captured by those it regulates, and worse than worthless. the details are more than i'm going to begin to go into here but they should be remanding cases over to states' AGs and to AG holder for criminal prosecution, instead of shredding documents that might demonstrate guilt on the part of the primary dealers and big banks. for christ's sake ... we have under-oath testimony from banking execs that something like 80% of the MBSs they issued were fraudulent. the FBI issued warning so far back as 2004 that the building bubble of mortgage fraud would cause a crisis if not contained. we have upwards of one hundred thousand instances of documented perjury in the state of FL wrt the robo-signing fraudclosure scandal. and the POTUS has the gall to stand up on live TV at white house presser and [repeatedly] claim that what the banksters did was wrong but not illegal?!?! and what i've cited isn't even the short list. how is it that john corzine is walking around as free man right now? how is it that city/county public employees were prosecuted in jefferson county, AL over taking bribes, but that nobody at JPM has gone down for issuing the bribes?

> still, polis's fortunes are unrelated to these problems plaguing our financial system and harping about it seems misdirected.

i admittedly mentioned his wealth; but only as a metaphor for him being able to "afford the time" to respond to a constituent. i'm candidly indifferent to his wealth [so long as it was accumulated legally and not fraudulently -- i have no idea where he got his money]. i'm not suggesting that he, like the so-called banksters, accumulated his bankroll by making a killing on MBSs or anything. what i'm saying is that his responses, lack of responses, and attitude, paint him as part of the problem rather than the solution. i don't think he has any interest in pushing any agendas which aren't approved by the party and/or the administration. in OWS terms he is part of the 1%; not because of his account balance, but because of his actions.

here is a blog entry that perfectly sums up our situation and my feelings;
http://www.ritholtz.com/blo...

here is bill black's most recent offering; http://neweconomicperspecti...
if you're not familiar with him you should take the time to become so. don't judge the book by its cover in this instance. you can find lengthy interviews with him on FORA.tv, dylan ratigan's show, charlie rhoads [sp?], and others.

thank you kindly for the well-considered responses and questions.

cheers

Re: Polis leads Colorado delegation in net worth

michaelD — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:37:34 -0000

i met representative polis at his northglenn town hall in august.

first i asked him if he would support either of the house bills proposing the reinstatement of glass-steagall; or, if you prefer, overturning gramm-leach-bliley. he responded that he couldn't see what good that would do.
i then left the following questions with one of his staffers, and followed-up two weeks later by emailing them to him; no response so far.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

FEDERAL RESERVE CORPORATION The corporation of Federal Reserve Banks are mandated to maintain stable prices. Stable meaning 'unchanging'; with their annual inflation target of 2% prices will double in thirty-five years; given their intentionally flawed CPI model actual annual inflation is upwards of eight percent right now which, if maintained, would lead to a doubling of prices in a mere nine years or less. Their other mandate is for full employment and there can be no argument that in this endeavor too they have failed. What are you doing to relieve the federal reserve corporation of its ruinous control over our economy?
BEN BERNANKE Dr. Ben Bernanke is a 'serial wrongster'; to the point that there is a gag reel on youtube of all of his failed predictions. Leading up to the culmination of the financial crisis he couldn't see the building credit bubble he was inflating or the housing bubble derived from it; he rejected the notion that housing prices could ever fall, and repeatedly stated that the subprime crisis was 'contained'. Worse yet, he has testified repeatedly in front of congress and when directly questioned he stated emphatically that the Federal Reserve would not monetize the US sovereign debt. Quantitative Easing has accomplished exactly that. The fact that they purchase treasury bills and bonds indirectly from the primary dealers does not change that fact; rather it adds money laundering to the mix. What are you doing to remove Dr. Bernanke from his position and prosecute him for perjuring himself before the United States Congress?

TIM GEITHNER Mr. Geithner was previously the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and absolutely failed in his capacity as a regulator of the largest banks, and has fought tooth and nail to protect them from their failures to manage their risk; all at our expense. His most egregious act, aside from not paying his Federal Income Taxes which was revealed during his Senate confirmation hearings, was on December 24th 2009 when, after the news cycle wound down on Christmas Eve, he removed the cap for losses at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae; this in spite of both of their prospectuses stating thatthey are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. This has the effect of transferring banking losses to the US taxpayer. What are you doing to remove him from office as Treasury Secretary?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

i actually wanted to go on and inquire about what he might do about AG eric holder not performing his duty to investigate/prosecute the many massive frauds that led us to where we are today, the obama administration's backing of the horrendous settlement with states' AGs to immunize the banks against their wrongdoings, anything he might be doing about MERS, and what he could do to stop the three [then] pending free trade agreements from going through. but i never got past the first few questions.

each and every one of these issues is [or should be] of paramount concern to every member of polis's district.

you're welcome.

EDIT: that totally lost its original formatting. i cleaned it up a little, post-posting, as it were. sorry for the mess.

Re: Polis leads Colorado delegation in net worth

michaelD — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:37:10 -0000

perhaps since he's so filthy rich he could afford the time and summon up the inclination to answer the serious questions posed repeatedly by a constituent both to his face and after the fact. i'm afraid representative polis is just another member of the political class who is in place to protect the system rather than repair it.

Re: This would never happen where you live

michaelD — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:44:55 -0000

loved the article but its not likely that i will EVER visit your site again

i was copying the text to email your article to about a dozen friends, with attribution of course, when some idiotic fly-over intervened and i had to start over again. then it did the same thing when i logged into disqus to leave this comment.

if i want to register with your site, i will. its so simple as that. nagging fly-overs like that drive traffic away. at least, thats what it did for me.

cheers

Re: Scientists find ‘master switch’ to controlling human fat

michaelD — Mon, 16 May 2011 10:43:41 -0000

NO its NOT.

the 'secret' is that tons of sugar have been added to our diet. HFTC, regular corn syrup, and plain old sugar have been added to offset the fat and fiber that have been removed over the last thirty years. not only does the sugar go almost directly to fat, it suppresses several biochemical signals to the body [both in the gut and in the brain] that tell us we're full and should stop eating.

if you look for it, sugar is now in almost everything. its in places it has no business being included.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth

its an awful lot like the cigarette makers. they found ways to make you crave their despicable product more and more so you would use more and more so their profits skyrocketed. its no different with the 'food' companies. they're churning out lower and lower quality garbage and we're being biochemically compelled to think we need more to eat. on top of that we build even more profitable industries to 'treat' the very problems that are being caused by this trash.

i used to think just like you. people [including me] just needed to eat less and exercise more. it turns out that its not just how much we eat but what we're eating. go make a list of the things in your kitchen that have sugar added that doesn't need to be there. you'll be amazed.

watch the video. and have a good day.

cheers

Re: Study finds large amounts of probable carcinogen in US water supply

michaelD — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:35:29 -0000

yes they are ... but i have to point out that the difference between the republican party and the democratic party is very much like the difference between hannibal lector and someone who wants to be hannibal lector when he grows up.

either way i end up taking the same trip. one might say "same shite, different bowel."

Re: Study finds large amounts of probable carcinogen in US water supply

michaelD — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:30:00 -0000

you're welcome. i'm sure this is another instance where a great many will cry out, "who could have seen this coming?!?!"

as it turns out, those who created the problem likely had some idea.

cheers