Video Blog: Obama’s “Katrina Moment”
Is Frank Rich overstating it when he says dealing with the economic deluge is Barack Obama's "Katrina Moment?"
Hardly.
Please subscribe to my Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/marc_cooper
Watch my regular Video Blogs by subscribing at http://www.youtube.com/McooperTube
or at http://www.vimeo.com/channels/35484
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Interesting.
Question: If you’re willing to allow that Obama may not have chosen the best economic team, who would you select instead? Reportedly (because I gave up on the teevee over 10 years ago), Obama went on 60 Minutes and defended Geithner; said he’d refuse Geithner’s resignation should he offer it. So, it’s likely a wanker’s folly to imagine who else could serve better. Still, I’ll ask you to speculate who might do a better job.
Assertion: I think Obama has made it plain what he intends to do. He’s shoveling cash into the firebox of the banks’ engines as fast as he can and appears willing to bypass the fiduciary oversight of Congress to continue to do so. Apparently, he has canvassers out drumming up support for his budget, and he did his own whistle stops for his stimulus, but when it comes to the banks and the investment houses he’s got the printing presses smoking at the Fed.
Yes, the so-called plan that Geithner (or someone else) “leaked” is being trashed all over the blogosphere. Because it’s the same plan that’s been promoted any number of times before and found wanting. Here we go again.
At base level, Obama/Bernake/Geithner want us to believe that the banks are experiencing a liquidity problem. And, their plan addresses a liquidity problem nicely. If only it were a liquidity problem. It’s not.
There is a $600T global derivatives market of which the CDOs and CDSs are but one type. That’s what makes this economic crisis NOT like the crisis of the 30s. While it was prudent to shovel money at the banks when the crisis first emerged as a form of ‘life support’ until an assessment could be made, it makes no sense now that the issues are better understood.
Question: Does the Obama team have him so insulated that he honestly believes he has the answer in spite of all reasonable argument to the contrary? Are no outside voices getting through?
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:06 pm
I love your new video Dissonances. Very cool!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Katrina, a thunderstorm?
President Obama has to go for it and let the American people know what his administration is going to do for us, and you’ve spot on, Marc. Great post!
be well
bev
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:22 am
No, Frank Rich ain’t overstating it. You got suckered into being a pom-pom majorette for a disgusting bourgeois politician. No, let me take that back. You did not get suckered. Your politics and his are identical.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:52 am
Celeste, Marc’s videos, while nice, lack the writings and drawings that you put on your pictures.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:56 am
On 60 Minutes O just wanked when he spoke about the economy and his “belief” in the current system.
Seems I remember getting trounced for thumbing my nose at the “change” dog and pony show before it became official. Now each blog is an apologists wank squeezing out the last drop of belief in O’s governance. I voted for the guy. But not without a Steve Martin/Lily Tomlin All of Me battle…one part KNOWING I should have cast an honest vote for Kucinich or Nader. They are still the only guys who actually talked about real change, solutions and just how oversight should actually work.
That Obama has not cracked the whip on oversight for the packages he has been touting pretty much says it all.
Or does it?
I exchanged emails with Chalmers Johnson back in 08. He said there is little Obama– or anyone elected can do–at this juncture– to effect domestic policy because of the entrenched interests. He felt an Obama win was important psychologically for the country and to restore some respect internationally.
That’s about it. Its not Obama or whomever he appoints that is at issue. The problem was like an abscess that finally burst. The cure is waiting for enough people to go eeeooooooooowwwwwhhhhhh and do something to clean it up.
No one was going to get into office who actually would do all the things everyone keeps whining about should be done.
And that is what no one— even on this blog filled with so called progressives will have a real discussion about.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:45 am
The discussion you allude to would be about as short as the constituencies of Mssrs. Nader & Kucinich.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Well, if you can say that Obama inherited Bush’s figuratvie Katrina, then Bush inherited Clinton’s defective New Orleans levees.
Obama doesn’t need to talk more. Talk is cheap. He needs to perform.
I said it long ago…Obama is in way over his head..or, words to that effect. You asked for it.
Since reg loves Paul Krugman…(I mean reeeeally loves him), let’s see what Krugman recently had to say about Obama’s performance on the economy.
(Paul Krugman must be a racist…I mean an f’n racist.)
Isn’t it about time that Obama helped “Main Street” rather than Wall Street and quit campaigning (after all, the election is over) and started managing?
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 am
A song for reg: Hey Paul Krugman (A song, A plea)
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:30 am
“No one was going to get into office who actually would do all the things everyone keeps whining about should be done.
“And that is what no one— even on this blog filled with so called progressives will have a real discussion about.”
Actually, one of the reasons I supported Obama is because he told a crowd of supporters essentially that back in ’07. He said it would require social movements to force the change that would be needed, even if he was elected President. And guess what – a bunch of whining about AIG bonuses from all corners isn’t a social movement and Obama would be nuts to govern according to the whine du jour.
I have no idea whether Geithner’s plan will will work sufficiently or why they don’t “go Sweden”, but overall the economic package Obama delivered is far beyond anything we would have gotten as an alternative from a GOP Pres and a GOP congress. And Geithner/Summers is a better econ team than we had. There’s no doubt about that. As far as Frank Rich is concerned, I’m glad he’s out there sounding alarms, but even Rich joined the “too much on Obama’s plate” crowd in a recent column. EJ Dionne explains why this is nuts here:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45f9beca-37fe-48f4-9748-1595bd4091ee
Obama has done more in 60 days than I would have expected. I have serious concerns about this bank strategy – partly because the supposedly “populist” AIG rage is being grandstanded by every slithery politician who can command a camera, with little or no sense of a larger picture of reform going forward. I don’t believe there is anything Obama could do to deal with the toxic assets that doesn’t in some degree reward the wrong people and put tax money in jeopardy without making moves for which there is absolutely no coherent political constitutency he could rely on to back him up and hold fast. Geithner’s plan – which is essentially a way of creating a market for assets that no one has much faith in – might work with a minimum of loss and the possibility of some gain for the government. I don’t know and I don’t thing anyone does. It’s really a matter of whether confidence is re-established over the next year in “the real economy”, in which cases real estate market values that are tied to these assets will stabilize and, in some places, rise. The modern economy is a “confidence game” (in more ways than one) and I’m betting Obama will largely pull it off. The irony of uber-kritik Krugman, who might well be right, is he was lampooning Obama’s attempt to build a movement around his candidacy as a “cult” and his only electoral alternative was Hillary. Frankly I’d rather have Larry Summers reporting to Barack than to Hillary. Of course, if we had a Clinton White House the same level of expectations wouldn’t have been raised, so Maureen Dowd would be writing about Bill stalking the corridors instead of Michelle’s arms as the source of strength in the White House. I’m a faithful reader of the New York Times, but I don’t share the approach of week-to-week columnist’s report cards on the new administration that being a Times junkie engenders. It’s as often a distraction as a bell-weather.
For what it’s worth, here’s Brad DeLong’s piece on the Treasury plan for toxic assets:
http://www.google.com/2009/03/the-geithner-plan-faq.html
Also, more comment from Dionne here, on “the straddle”, which is what this administration is going to be about:
“Obama needs to do two things at the same time. The administration will have to spend piles of money to unwind the financial mess. A share of the largesse, as (Cong. Barney) Frank acknowledges, may indirectly benefit some of the malefactors in this saga. Yet if the public sees this spending primarily as a reward to those who got us into this fix, and not as necessary to solving a problem that affects us all, it will revolt.
“So the administration also needs to argue that the new economy it will create on the ashes of the old will be more equitable, based on fair reward for capital and labor alike, not on an ethic of greed and excess.”
One more thing – DJ Slim is the mirror image of Rush Limbaugh, wanting Obama to fail in order to confirm his ideological predilictions – except without the big bank account, or anybody listening to him on a daily basis except a few friends (and because I’m making an observatin and not just being an asshole, hopefully DJ’s not obese and has a life outside of his political obsessions, unlike Rush.)
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
Incidentally, I also think Barack’s appearance on 60 Minutes was great and is addressing one aspect of the “Katrina” problem, which is public perception. Other than that, to suggest that Obama’s approach to rescuing the economy from free-fall has parallels in Bush’s flying over New Orleans and handing the job of dealing with disaster to a guy with expertise in raising throroughbred horses doesn’t make much sense.
Far more people will be starting the week having seen Obama address many of these questions first-hand on TV than will be hand-wringing with Rich. Rich has a great platform to keep prodding, but it’s not like he’s on to something that Obama is ignoring and can’t handle.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 am
Here’s the deal: this is not a “Katrina moment”. Why? Because the crisis of the global economy is immense and unprecedented. It makes Katrina look like a mosquito bite–there is simple no comparison. No one has an answer that will work in a way we understand; this is a crisis of capitalism, of debt addiction (on micro and macro scales), and has been a long time in coming–the Reaganomics of the ’80′s is probably the clearest starting point.
What Obama does, does not do, is in the end is a moot question: there is huge pain ahead, cleaning out the global economy of trillions of dollars worth of toxic loans. It will not happen fast, because banks (and consumers, but mostly banks) don’t want the true value of these toxic loans to surface, and don’t want a quick and painful solution. So we have a long and painful solution: U.S. taxpayer bailouts, artificially low interest rates, eventual inflation, and a stagnant housing market until about 2032. Is this the best solution? I don’t think so, but for the reasons stated above it’s probably the only medicine the big players will be willing to take.
One more point: during the first signs of recession in 2001, had Greenspan (and the Bush Administration, indirectly) not continued to keep interest rates artificially low, and allowed the normal course of recession, we wouldn’t be having this conversation today. But there’s no changing history.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Rob I think you better rescind your monumentally stupid, smug, pointless remarks about the “constituencies” of Mssrs. Nader and Kucinich.
K, for one, took a bold stand against a major utillity trying to fuck his Ohio constituents. He was voted out. Proved he was right and voted back in. That is the price being a visionary pays. And he is in office. What have you accomplished, lately?
Nader. I don’t need to defend Nader and the monumental contributions he has made.
Its prick mouthed stupidities like yours, Rob, that dismiss the work of people like them because why? Yeah. Andswer that question and you will find out why we are in the mess we are currently in.
Your smarmy, egregiously American, materialist point of view makes me puke. Truman Capote noted the same sort of treacheous stupdity when people were dissing Tennessee Williams for and end of life mediocre play. Its his body of work that matters. Americans piss on anything and anyone of value unless its the latest new thing.
Name ONE thing that Nader and Kucinich are wrong about in their addressing the current economic issues. Nader has always been prescient about what brought us to this meltdown– you dumb fuck. And Kucinich, too has been, all along, suggesting concrete policy solutions– you dumb fuck.
Go find Nader’s anti wall street bail out speech made before the election. If that had been given network airing he would have one the election. If it were played now there might even be a person or two at a barricade.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
The entrenched interests are entrenched because people who think they are clever and progressive, like Rob, fall for any anti progressive sound byte just like reactionaries are always looking for anything that reinforces their limited world view.
Go back on educate yourselves about what happened in Ohio with Kucinich and the utililty company he fought against for the good of his constituents who voted him out then realized he was right…
Duh uh.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Anna – you’d be further along if you spent less time with the string of adjectives at me and simply made a real argument. It’s not a matter of whether Nader and Kucinich have or haven’t made contributions or policy, it’s whether they bring anyone with them. Politics 101. Sure Dennis wins a Congressional seat in Ohio time after time (because he’s in a district of like-minded voters) but how does he do on the national scene? He and Nader poll less than Steven Colbert when Colbert pulls a stunt and throws himself in a primary.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 am
DeLong’s article seems to be about as good a defense as there is for Geithner’s plan. I’m mixed on this. This plan seems very risky but we may not have any better options. Still, Geithner seems like he’s fast approaching an ‘Alamo’ moment. The clock is not in his favor.
Meanwhile, if Geithner is about to be Col. Travis, imho, I think a lot of these big banks have their own Colonel problem – a Col. Jessop problem where they’re refusing to face the reality that they’re not solvent. The path to receivership/nationalization is a ‘truth’ they can’t handle. http://tinyurl.com/d3pnso
Let’s just hope the US economy doesn’t end up as no better than Col. Sanders chickens.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
I wish Frank Rich would stop stealing ideas for articles from Marc’s blog, Re: my comments, left two threads down starting at 6:47AM on the 21St, expressing my AIG outrage and comparing governments inability to do what we pay them for, including handling ‘natural disasters’, ie, Katrina. Excellent article Frank!
Marc is to be credited for an active and politically open blog that Frank would naturally want to read before deciding what would be a good topic to write on for the day.
Good comment on this thread Reg, and also want to thank Rob Grocholski for running interference for me, taking Anna’s rath…..with class.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:57 am
Rob. Jesus was nailed to a cross. Do ya get the point, yet? Or do we have to give you a crash course on the history of the world. Bruno was burned at the stake for suggesting there are infinite worlds. Theoretical physics now have proven him wrong.
You are a flat earther. Rachel Carson produced Silent Spring in what, the 60′s or late 50′s? We are still poisoning the earth and our food, but its now mainstream knowledge that this stupidity needs to change.
Your point that K and N don’t have the same audience as a reality TV program or attract the same numbers that Hitler did is the most specious of arguments.
Its so called progressives like you that are like a millstone around the neck of “change”
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
OOPs. theoretical physics have proven Bruno RIGHT. Well that took wind out of that little bit of wit. heh heh.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
areyoukidding is Anna. Must have had another log in at some point. go figure. just wanted to straighten that out.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
is areyoukidding kidding about being Anna? Or is “Anna” kidding about being areyoukidding? I think all bloggers should have to use their real names…
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
On a more serious note, Nancy and Harry’s latest Bizarre Burlesque Show featured Mr. Rent-Support-for-Profit Tax-Dodging Charlie for a round of AIG ethical outrage skits on Sunday news programs.
The poor comedy was palpable. I predict the hook for all three in 2010……gnaw, not Charlie.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Obama has done more in 60 days than I would have expected.
Hear hear! And double that.
He’s not perfect, but if we take a moment and take stock of the changes that have happened and been put in motion, it’s remarkable, and not even the ever dour and sour DJ Slim can pretend otherwise.
Sorry it’s not yet Brook Farm, but one can only do so much.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Balter I corrected the error. Find another distraction.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Obama got elected cause people like Soros dumped a fortune into a sort of Dem attack machine to counter the Right wing juggernaut. People like Soros and Buffet knew that the Bush regime would bring down the economy and was costing people like them big bucks. They wanted things to go back to “normal” not to essentially change anything.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Go find Nader’s anti wall street bail out speech made before the election. If that had been given network airing he would have one the election.
I always suspected you were delusional. Now I know. I will refrain from calling you a dumb fuck, mainly because Rob is demonstrably not one and you have sufficiently self-indicted.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
kinda like the German generals understanding Hitler had to go.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
DanO. Have you heard the speech? Tell me one word out of it that is delusional. You guys are chewing your fur trying to figure out why Obama and his minions havent done the same thing.
He was saying everything everyone was whinging about. If he had been given the air time to say those things without the likes of all you traitors sniping we might actually be on the threshold of change.
But I am not delusional and have a pretty firm grasp on the the slog it will take for people to get a clue.
All of you skipping about saying how much O has done or apologizing for his having not done what your ga ga minds were sure he would are delusional. To think he could even have been elected if her were the change agent is delusional. He has just been elected shepherd of the change that is organically happening…the breaking down of the old sytem and the need to rethink how things need to be done.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Your suggesting that on the basis of that, or any other speech, that Nader would have been elected is the part that is delusional. I like Nader, even though I recognize that he has become a parody of his former self.
There is nothing he could have done that would have gotten him elected. You can’t seriously think there was.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Frank Rich is wrong. Obama is right. Be patient, and you will see. And I can read faster than you can talk. Please bring back the printed Dissonance.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Dan O don’t be so literal. I was making a point. And I just happened to find a summary of all we have been arguing about by a professional point maker.
http://counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html
What Do They Have to Do to Lose Your Vote?
The Trail of Broken Promises
By MATT GONZALEZ
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I especially recommend Rob G read the Eugene V Debs parable re his imbecilic logic that Nader musn’t be any good cause the herd wouldn’t follow him. And all the other spoiler/vote wasting rot
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
“the likes of all you traitors sniping”
Hear, hear!!!
“Shoot these rabid dogs. Death to this gang who hide their ferocious teeth, their eagle claws, from the people!… Down with these abject animals! Let’s put an end once and for all to these miserable hybrids of foxes and pigs, these stinking corpses! Let’s exterminate the mad dogs of capitalism… Let’s push the bestial hatred they bear our leaders back down their own throats!” Andrei Vishinsky
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Go Vishinsky!! LOL
I’ve read Debs widely. He was a role model to one of my favorites — Walter Reuther. But I’m having a hard time thinking either would have a lot to say about financial instruments circa 2008 i.e. sub-prime loans & credit-default swaps.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
We could have had a V-8 (McCain/Palin)
*forehead palm smack*
The Nader stuff is cracking me up!
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Incidentally, I’m going to go out on a limb here and NOT cheer that the Dow apparently jumped, what 500 points? Can’t help but feel a little uneasy in the gut that the folks on Wall Street are overreacting this much to the Treasury’s plan. Talk about bubble-headed herd thinking. There’s gotta be some rough patches ahead.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I’ll state forthrightly that I – assuming my current views as part of the hypothetical – would have voted for William Jennings Bryan in most of the elections that Debs ran in. There’s a lot of irony in that, given that Bryan is mostly remembered as an anti-evolutionist and caved to the southern Dems, but his national economic program was very progressive. He also represented the anti-imperialist wing of the Democratic party and opposed the annexation of the Phillippines and our entry into WW I.
The Dow Cheer is a hoot – presumably the pack at CNBC will start gushing…I’m with Rob that it doesn’t mean much over the long term and its the wrong metric to judge Obama’s overall economic plan by – although if the Dow DOESN’T recover to a significant degree over the next two-three years Obama will be crucified by guardians of the public trust like Erin Burnett.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Dan O don’t be so literal. I was making a point.
Apologies for being pedantic, but what was the point? Either your words mean something or they don’t. You said he would have won the election, which is false, so I’m having trouble wringing the point out of that dirty dishrag.
Also, coming back and accusing me of either being too literal, or your other favorite, lacking irony, isn’t a universal get of jail free card with respect to what you said.
The uber left as represented by Anna is only happy with the quixotic moral warrior who makes no peace of any kind with the status quo. I like Kucinich a lot, and I think he plays an important role. I just don’t get why the uber left sees the world in such Manichean terms, and how they think we’re going to get a Congress full Denis Kucinichs.
It’s important to remember, as much as you disagree with them, there are people who feel they are as right as you feel you are; right-wingers, libertarians, Chritsian fundies. They think you are as fucked as you think they are, and they get to participate in the process too.
The upshot is we’re never going to have a Congress full of Wellstones or Naders. If that’s your goal, you’ve chosen to be on the outside forever. That’s OK too I guess.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I think it’s best, as a general principle, to avoid the common hysteria that infects our media culture, old and new …
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
DanO, I am uber alright. Uber into reality and common sense and uber anti stupidity.
Your whacked out logic is that I am an extremist because I don’t run with the herd and morally compromise. Well, that puts me in pretty good company– historically speaking.
Why shouldn’t we expect a Congress full of Kucinich’s?
The evil liberal stance has been to vote for the lesser of two evils. I thought Clinton was a creep from day one. I was right. He irreparably damaged the Democratic party. Most Democrats aren’t. The fucker gutted the party which is what he set out to do.
Its been the chicken shit politics of liberals that has refused to stand up for what they believe in…and then revel in an orgy of whinging and blog writing when their candidates let them down.
And you guys are worse than the gaga meisters who swoon over any new demagogue like a Palin. Liberals fall for bullshit harder than anyone.
“The upshot is we’re never going to have a Congress full of Wellstones or Naders. If that’s your goal, you’ve chosen to be on the outside forever. That’s OK too I guess.”
You need to read your Rimbaud, again, Dan O. There is a difference between believing in the possibility of “Christmas on Earth” and falling for someone who hawks “hope and change”.
What you don’t understand about yourself(ves) is that none of you actually believe change is possible. Which leads me to wonder why you rattle on so.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I was recently attending a symposium at the 92nd Street Y titled “The Future of Conservatism.” The three panelists were Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol and Peggy Noonan.
The opening statement by Kristol stunned me. He said “I used to be a dedicated conservative, but I always want to know what the other side is saying, so I was reading the blog of Marc Cooper.
“I must tell you I was impressed with the comments of a woman named Anna Churchill. When a self-proclaimed conservative commenter named Woody made a comment that annoyed her, her measured response was ‘Bend over and take it like a man, Woody!’ She followed this with frequent comments that ‘Woody,’ who hails from the South is a ‘cracker.’ I cannot imagine how this man could resist her wit and wisdom. I have little doubt that he has since changed his political beliefs to match hers.
Krauthammer chimed in “What’s also impressive is how she wins over those namby-pamby liberals with her strident tone. Why just today she called on Rob Grocholski to ‘rescind [his] monumentally stupid, smug, pointless remarks’ and labeled his comments ‘prick-mouthed stupidities.’ I have little doubt that Mr. Grocholski is wracked with a strong sense of self-abnegation about his politic beliefs and will surely impale himself on her sword of sagaciousness, simply for having the temerityto disagree with her.
“Peggy, what about you,?” Kristol asked.
“I have nothing to add, except my writing career is over. I can only bow to Anna’s wisdom. I am now a proud liberal and will start work shortly in a dolphin sanctuary. What about you, Bill?”
“I’m going to have lunch with Muammar Qaddafi and benjamin Netanyahu. I have seen the light. The Iraq invasion was a monumental mistake. it is only through Anna’s wisdom that I have seen the light. Charlie, are you still going to write for the Post?”
Krauthammer replied, “No, I’m going to work to bring President Obama closer to Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro.”
Kristol ended the evening by commenting, “I know you expected to hear an analysis of the future of conservatism. Sorry, but don’t expect your money to be refunded, you prick-mouthed crackers. If you have any complainst, bend over and take it like a man!”
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I also find it fascinating that your points of reference are so limited. Reg quotes some rabid old red and I quote Rimbaud and somehow he and the rest of you think there is a similarity. And you guys wonder why nothing changes.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Hey you guys… stop wishing the remnant of my retirement funds such a grim future. After today’s rise of 6% I figure I’ll be a zilliionaire by summer (especially if I move to Zimbabwe).
Anna, send me ur address and I will send you some of my cool-down meds.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Whats your point, Randy Paul? That you are comprehension challenged? I don’t recall EVER talking in terms of left or right except to denigrate the limitations of seeing politics from those two atavistic points of view. I don’t EVER recall making a point about Raul Castro about anything and the only time I weighed in about Chavez was to point out that Latin American politics have to be considered through the lens of all the forces that have shaped and imprisoned and stunted it— the cultural idiosynchrocies–particularly the role religion has influenced the collective psychology etc etc etc.
Your reductionist little tale says more about YOU than me.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Take Marc’s advice Anna.
If you can’t see my point then I urge you to sepnd a little more time working on your self-awareness and don’t be quite so literal in your interpretation of things.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
I repeat Randy: your reductive riff says more about you than me.
Marc: finally I get you to say something to me. I have asked you politley on a few occasions if you would send me the bit you wrote in the LA WEEKLY right after Katrina. I think it was yours. A hilarious bit in the first paragraph something about us being reverted back to stone age status. I just can’t remember to frame it better other than a sort of charades it sounds like…
Can you please produce that column. It must have been yours.
And Marc, if you need information on Ayurvedic remedies rather than taking meds let me know. You are kapha-pitta. Eat alkaline foods and not the hot spicy, salty stuff I bet you love.
Also, you just made one of the most chauvinist remarks telling a woman to calm down and take meds. I told you –you guys don;t believe in change and wouldn’t know where to begin to effect it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
And Randy…if you think Woody deserves to be called anything less than a pricked mouth cracker I’d like to hear your reasons.
Woody is a monster and you are too dumb to have been able to understand the implications of what he actually wrote but to also be able to read between the lines. I actually pay attention to what people write. What part of his saying he made friends with the father of one of the children killed in the Birmingham bombings don’t you get?
Eh? Its like a serial killer who filters into the crowd of the crime scene when one of his latest victims has been discovered.
Do you have any idea of the racist filth that has come out of his mouth— and then for him to brag he…
Do you have children Randy? A daughter, maybe?
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Cough, I don’t have much time, sagaciously wounded and all, but I think, cough,
that I can leave you, beloved reader, with this sound financial analyst of Geithner’s Plan and the, cough
reaction by the troubled financiers.
Remember, it’s about finding the proper price, cough
of all those toxic assets and like, just saying
http://tinyurl.com/6c4648
Marc, take my 401 k, cough
There’s still a drop in there.
Buy some gulf tees.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Name n Shame
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/23/news/companies/aig_bonuses/index.htm?postversion=2009032320
It worked. $50 million paid back.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:59 am
And Randy…if you think Woody deserves to be called anything less than a pricked mouth cracker I’d like to hear your reasons.
Probably because I don’t want to jump in the sewer with you and him.
Which brings me to the larger issue: you and Woody are port and starboard sides, respectively, of the same boat. The larger issue for both of you is this: we don’t really pay much attention to what the two of you say, but how you say it.
You don’t persuade people by calling them names and isnulting them. That lesson is apparently lost on you and Woody.
Warm regards,
Randy
March 24th, 2009 at 6:33 am
(Uh, oh. Marc’s filter has screeened my comment. So, here it goes in stages.)
- – -
Anus Churchill: …read between the lines. I actually pay attention to what people write. What part of his saying he made friends with the father of one of the children killed in the Birmingham bombings don’t you get?
A.C., you read things into the lines rather than read between them.
When I and others express our views and experiences, you can either skip our comments, try to shut us up with political correctness or insults (which doesn’t work with me), try to put false words into our mouths, or listen and learn. Try the latter for a change.
- – -
Randy, I have to give props for the symposium recap. It gave me a laugh. You created a good combination of making a point and humor, even if the humor was lost on A.C. Why haven’t I seen more that Randy?
March 24th, 2009 at 6:33 am
U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
This is dangerous. It isn’t about protecting our economy. It’s a power grab…a shift from private enterprise to government control.
If Obama wants to seize companies and act dangerously, why didn’t he run for President of Venezuela? He would have given Hugo Chavez a run for who could be the biggest socialist. I don’t think that it would have mattered that Obama isn’t a citizen of that country. It didn’t here.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:35 am
Remember when our liberal media would try “100 questions” on conservatives to see if they could list and correctly pronounce the names of foreign leaders? How in the world did they miss this?
Does Barack Obama know who the President of France is?
March 24th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Woody, I don’t have to read the between the lines to get who you are.
What I have read between the lines I haven’t posted as even I have my limits about what can be posted for public consumption without absolute proof.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Hey, Anna. Have a Zippity-doo-dah Day! …and, I mean that in the nicest way.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Nice post!!! http://www.revistapresei.net
October 29th, 2010 at 12:09 am
Hello! Download the last electronic music releases at http://groovear.net
House, tech-house, techno, deep house, minimal and more!
New music every day!!
(this is not spam). help us to stay online!
January 31st, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Hi, great post to read, keep up