knuckleheads

Congress was unable to vote this dog into law. I am vaguely surprised. But not too shocked. Congressional Reps have to answer to voters back home in an election year. Too much support for this hugely unpopular bailout, and your opponent suddenly has you by the unmentionables. Instant election loss.

You see, the media have been too good at blaming all evil on the "Fat Cats" of Wall Street. And Wall Street types have been too good at flaunting their wealth in the faces of people who work just as hard as they do, just without the unbelievable rewards. So any legislation that is seen as bailing out Wall Street cannot be good ... and it is ironic that this bailout is supported by the Democrats, who have spent so long in trying to smear the finance world -- while taking the lion's share of the PAC funds from Wall Street execs. It smacks of reaping what you sow.

But a bailout is consistent with Democratic tenets: big government is good, and the they want to be the ones pulling the levers. The self-mutilating vote of the Republicans is also true to form: keep government out of it. And as stated before, Republicans repeated tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie -- exercising a regulatory role, and Democrats squashed such attempts. It is all so topsy-turvey.

So where do we go from here? Asia and Europe will poop the bed as their markets open and the impact of this failure is felt. The U.S. will likely further soil itself tomorrow -- Happy New Year to those of the Tribe -- and.... Who knows? My guess is that the whole mess will be put to a vote again on Thursday (perhaps Weds.) and will pass: the holdouts will be able to point and say that they resisted, but the risk of doing the "right thing" was too great.

What is also clear is that the hits to the global equity markets are also providing excellent buying opportunities -- "once in a lifetime" deals -- for many of the cash rich banks out there. As stock prices drop, watch for a slew of hostile takeovers. Bet on it. Want someplace safe to stash some money? Banco Santander and Barclays still look good. French banks just scare me.

I have got to say that on one level, I really feel bad for those who are trying to keep their houses, working two jobs to pay the mortgage and watching the whole mess slip away through no fault of their own. Those people are crazy mad at the banks that lent them the money ... ignoring that they asked for it in the first place ... and don't want to see them benefit. What is simply too arcane for most people in the streets of the US of A is that the bailout isn't what it seems, and that the failure to do so -- help the Fat Cats -- is going to cost them their houses and likely their jobs.

European sink hole.

I am struck at how foolish the Europeans sound ... the U.S. is the root of all financial evil, and had we followed their model of regulation all this never would have happened. Hmmm. Right. And Spain was not even more overbuilt and hyped than Southern California. And Fortis was not just bailed out to the tune of Eu. 11 billion.

And how Bradford and Bingley in not a Stg. 150 billion hole. That's right, about $300 billion for one messy UK equivalent of an S&L. The Brits are considering merging B&B with Northern Rock, itself a more-than-100 billion sink hole, added to the Leicester and HBOS. This puts the average British taxpayer on the hook for slight above Stg. 5,500 ($10,500) ... that is in contrast to the U.S. taxpayer who is shafted to the tune of about Stg. 2,750 ($5000) each. That's more than double, friends and neighbors. Double. And we were reckless?

Why did Fortis suddenly poop the bed? First of all, it is important to note that US GAAP is vastly different from IAS and Euro standards. Fortis, similar to many other European financial institutions is not required to mark their loans and other "assets" to market. If they state that they will hold the toxic sludge to maturity, then it does not matter what the current value is. Except that Fortis shareholders thought that a great deal of the Fortis asset base was comprimised ... or flatly fraudulent in overstating capital and coverage. Hence they sold the crap out of it.

Fortis was a co-purchaser of ABN-Amro and suddenly a short while later, they are on the block. This event is shocking to the Europeans ... about 50% of Belgian households ahve exposure to Fortis in the form of deposits, securities or insurance. The Belgian government has pledged safety of deposits ... but little else. The Dutch have huge insurance exposure to Fortis ... so the Dutch government has stepped in to buy up some distressed junk. Banco Santander, Rabobank and BNP Parisbas have all stepped aside. I surmise that once under the hood they found more truly nasty stuff than they could find government patsies for.

I don't believe for an istant that UBS in free and clear ... too much is known about their appetite for CDOs. And those wonderful paragons of fiscal sanity, the Germans? Do you seriously think that they haven't made some highly dubious loans to various former East Bloc nations?

In our lavish thrashings and twistings at the end of the market rope might be our salvation: transparency. The Fed and Treasury will cut the financial industry down and they in turn will provide the foundation for growth. But in Europe, they look down on transparency as a peculiarly American form of childishness. I reckon we may well have the last laugh.

Rainy Sunday Blog

Why can't those knuckleheads in Washington come up with a plan? Damn good question, if I say so myself.

The Democrats do not need Republican help -- they control the House and the Senate and Bush will bend over backwards to see and agree with any plan at all. So what is the hold-up? Surely, if they were so gung-ho to pass a bill and squeeze the $700 billion out of us taxpayers, they could just pull the trigger and "let fly?" Pelosi -- queen of disinformation and political misrepresentation -- stated that it "... is not me blowing this up. It is the Republicans." Nancy, you lying POS.

I suspect that the real problem is that the plans they have come up with are dogs. Larded to the third standard deviation with pork and handouts for every entitlement and lunatic-left cause known. And they don't want to place themselves "on the hook" for it. Far better to be able to point the finger at a later date, claiming that it was Republican influences that derailed such a good plan. This might be why the GOP looks at this proposition with something akin to skank-eye. That and the fact that about 80% of the American public don't think that the banks should be bailed out that lightly, and ever-aware of the need to pander to voters, the Democrats simply don't have the guts to pass this legislation on their own.

If the Democrats were sure that their plans would succeed, then they would jump into the limelight faster than Bill Clinton hunting for loose women. But they probably have a sneaking suspicion that when this all plays out -- and the lefties start handing out forgiven mortgages/houses to indolent and unproductive -- the vast unwashed between the Coasts may have had enough of Pelosian income redistribution / socialism.

So while it is curious/ironic that the Dems are pointing their fingers at the GOP as the root of all this evil, their reticence to "cure" these ills shows some comprehension of some of the true root causes for this fiasco ... their own redistribution policies that caused Fannie and Freddie to metastasize into the cancers they represent to our economy. And that more of the same won't help and may ultimately cause a disaster to the economy ... or worse, cause the GOP to regain control of Congress.

Let's be clear, no political party, qua party, "did" this to the economy. Rather it was good old-fashioned American greed -- and greed has no particular party affiliation, no matter how much Democrats wish it to be otherwise. Americans were and are greedy for more goods, better houses, more savings, power, a better car, ... and why not? It is greed in the form of personal ambition and lust for goods that has moved our society from mud huts to the moon. It is also greed that created various financial panics since we figured out how to use money or to barter to corner markets. It is part of the natural cycle of things.

Americans saw the opportunity to "hit the jackpot" with the housing bubble: buy that which you cannot afford and sell it on to someone else who is just as greedy as you -- and unable to afford the house too. A classic Ponzi scheme. Everyone who is paid out is happy, and those holding the house at any given time are nervous as cats ... gotta flip it quickly! And Big Business (read GOP aligned interests) was only too happy to earn fees writing mortgages, with real estate brokers working with loan originators in a massive feeding frenzy. Pigs at the trough. And we turn out to be the guarantors.

Fannie and Freddie were the the largest source of trough-manna out there: they'd buy anything, no matter how flimsy and unlikely to get repaid. While ostensibly private, everyone knew that the Federal Government had to stand behind them -- and Congress did absolutely nothing to dissuade the "People" from those beliefs. As I have written a few blogs ago, Barney Frank is one of the arch co-conspirators in this Ponzi scheme: he actively prevented the clean up of this mess three years ago. Had we done so in 2005, it is likely that Bear Stearns, Lehman and AIG would still be with us ... the CDO disaster is post 2005, with the worst "securities" issued with the most toxic subprime debt issued in 2006 and early 2007.

Frank is now "charged" with orchestrating (along with co-conspirator Dodd) the bail out? It is like telling the fox to clean up the hen house after eating the chickens. Meanwhile, the fox is blaming the GOP farmer for liking the eggs that the chickens laid.

And you know? I don't think that I would be too keen on signing my name to the Democrat plans laid out so far. One of these bastards included a 20% rake off of the top to local community initiatives like "Acorn." Google Acorn for giggles. Make sure that you have a vomit bucket close at hand when you realize that we would be funding these cretins to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Paid first ... before taxpayer received any relief. Of course Nancy Pelosi was behind that .... Of course. And there is similarly no doubt how this organization and its adherents vote, either. Which Republican would vote for a relief package that sends the equivalent of the total GDP of large nations to low income and minority activists? Don't you remember? We OWE it to the terminally jobless to buy them a house. We probably owe it to them to provide maintenance and utilities too.

Bill "gets" it.

Bill Clinton -- while of dubious moral standing -- is a brilliant politician. And in this little exchange, he shows why.

By KAREN MATTHEWS

Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK —

Bill Clinton said Monday he understands why Sarah Palin is popular in the heartland: because people relate to her.

"I come from Arkansas, I get why she's hot out there," Clinton said. "Why she's doing well."

Speaking to reporters before his Clinton Global Initiative meeting, the former president described Palin's appeal by adding, "People look at her, and they say, 'All those kids. Something that happens in everybody's family. I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. Glad that girl's going around with her boyfriend. Glad they're going to get married.'"

Clinton said voters would think, "I like that little Down syndrome kid. One of them lives down the street. They're wonderful children. They're wonderful people. And I like the idea that this guy does those long-distance races. Stayed in the race for 500 miles with a broken arm. My kind of guy."

Palin, the governor of Alaska, became an overnight star when Republican presidential candidate John McCain tapped her for his running mate. Her family, including her Down syndrome baby, Trig, her pregnant 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, and her husband, Todd, four-time winner of the 2,000-mile Iron Dog snowmobile race, have garnered intense media interest.

"I get this," Clinton said. "My view is ... why say, ever, anything bad about a person? Why don't we like them and celebrate them and be happy for her elevation to the ticket? And just say that she was a good choice for him and we disagree with them?"

___________

Bill, contrary to his fellow Dems, understands that negative attack ads only work to the extent that people identify with the attack. Essentially, he indicates that the vast majority of rural, non-coastal Americans are more like Palin than Obama and Biden -- and to scorn Palin, you scorn the potential voter in these areas. The attack is seen as an attack on the very voters you want to curry favor with ... not too smart. Better, according to Bill, to show them courtesy, and then show why you disagree with their political beliefs.

Which puts me in a quandry, I can't stand the Dems political beliefs and can't stand the GOP's socio-theological beliefs. Both want to impose those on the voting public and I can't decide which poses the greater threat to my best interests. For now it may be the economic hypocrisy and lunacy of the Dems ... but "intelligent creation" in the White House is anything but "intelligent." So am I to trade neo-Trotskyite income redistribution and confiscation for the risk that people will be speaking in "tongues" in the White House?

I am tending to think that serious theological craziness will be hard to get through a Democrat Congress, so that may be a more attenuated risk. But Pelosi and her clan of drooling Bolshies just could effect economic changes so startling, that we might not recover for a generation. Or more.

Are we French?

Time just published an article as to why we are like the French -- based on our economic plight, the greed of Republicans on Wall Street, nationalization of industries -- probability of automobile meltdown, a social security system that is going broke, etc. Actually a funny article but ... sadly too far from reality, as ugly as it is. The gist of the article is that we are hypocrites and the Bushies, the worst of the lot, pushing "ownership society" -- owning your house and your retirement account. As a result -- according to the article -- Americans mortgaged themselves to the hilt to buy overpriced houses they could not afford and signed onto 401(k)s that put money in the stock market where rich Republicans swiped it.

The Time article conveniently forgets that it was Congress that passed legislation enforcing "affordable housing." Both Fannie and Freddie have given $200 million (no joke) to politicians from both sides ... BUT, Senators Dodd, Obama and Clinton were the top recipients in the last three years. The top 12 were 9 Dems and 3 Reps. Housing -- owning your own house -- has been a Democratic mantra ever since the New Deal. Returning G.I.s from WW2 got cheap loans to buy and build from a Democrat-controlled Congress. Ever since, the goal of Democrats was to remove their constituents from mean Republican landlords -- get them housed free of charge or nearly so, and they will vote for us.

So when Americans mortgaged themselves to the hilt, it was a permissive society that allowed this to happen, a society that always expected big government to save them from their own stupidity, a federal safety net for all. Greed, you see, is not solely a Republican vice (though Republicans sure seem greedy as a rule), and when the Great Unwashed tried to cash in on the investment that could not go down, it was not some great Right Wing Plot to enfranchise the predominantly left-leaning poor and minorities. It was lotto, pure and simple. Any notion of property being overpriced is purely an instance of what greedy people were willing to pay to cash in: nobody priced the real estate "so they will have to go bankrupt."

Now Fannie and Freddie hold potentially hundreds of billions of dollars worth of lotto tickets, scratched and with no match.

Why look at Fannie and Freddie? They hold $5.2 trillion of the nation's $12 trillion in outstanding mortgages and almost no capital (as opposed to banks that have to back their lending). If you are looking at the subprime mess and the American fiasco, you must look at the largest player. Come to think of it, how deep underwater are they? $500 billion? More? And who is going to oversee the bailout? Are there any acceptable "neutrals" with enough chops to do it? Bloomberg? Romney? Buffet?

And who is going to foreclose on the now-federal properties? Or are we about to witness the greatest give-away ever: a hand-out of property (for political reasons) of the vast stock of millions of houses and apartments to the very people who, through (an understandable) greed took out the unpayable mortgages? And who will in fact be paying those mortgages? You and me ... the taxpayers, the people who didn't borrow more than they could afford. Punishment of the prudent by the grasping. Priceless.

Yes, there were mortgage industry people trying to sell mortgages. They made fees. And Wall Street banks that repackaged crap using fancy financial mechanics into supposedly "investment quality securities." But nothing can occlude the fact that a vast number of these mortgages should never have been written -- they could never, ever be paid, even with the surreal assumption that property prices would continue to rise. These were simple gambles that prices would rise fast enough to permit a "flip" before payment would crush the borrower. But someone, some organization needed to take these on the books.

Before you look at the organizations that created the securities (CDOs) that facilitated the subprime mess and think "bloody Republicans," think again. According to the NY Times (hardly a McCain booster squad), Obama outraised McCain by more than 3:1 ($9.9 million to $3 million) from individuals associated with the securities industry. From failed Lehman Bros, the top recipients were, in order, Clinton, Obama, Schumer, Dodd, Lieberman, Kerry, McCain, Lugar, Reed, Lautenberg, Biden and Feinstein. This reflects broadly, and intensively, the political donations made by the Managing Directors, CEOs and SVPs of Wall Street firms. The "evil" Republican Wall Street firms which, according to the Time article, raped the investors and public, overwhelmingly have given more to Democrats and the Democratic Party than to the GOP. Some firms have produced Democrat politicians -- John Corzine is a Goldman Sachs alum.

But clearly, F&F needed some oversight and got none, ever. Bush (who IS, in fact, a moron) DID try to reform and regulate Fannie and Freddie -- but was shot down by the Dems in the House. Again, from the New York Times:

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

”The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,” Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ”We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,” the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

”These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,” he added.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Right on, Barney. No crisis. And the fact is, the Democrat-controlled House and Senate followed up on Clinton's push for "affordable housing" and prompted Fannie and Freddie to churn out loans to those simply unable to repay them. So who was running F&F? Democrats.

Franklin Raines -- Clinton's budget director -- was paid $90 million for 5 years at Fannie and below market mortgages (though with that paycheck, why use debt?). Raines had to resign due to accounting fraud overstating earnings by ... $6 billion ... and which served to justify the pay package. Johnson, from 1991 to 1998 -- a Mondale aide -- was paid $21 million in last year at Fannie. Gorelick, Vice Chair at Fannie was deputy Attorney General for Bill Clinton. Gorelick got $26 million for his work at Fannie. This was all brought to light in 2006 when regulators filed suit for fraud to recover $115 million against Fannie Execs ... it was settled for $3 million plus surrender of stock options in Fannie -- now worthless. Johnson also chaired Obama's VP selection committee -- and was a Managing Director at ... Lehman Bros.

In 2005, Mc Cain introduced the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, a bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage enterprises. It was shot down in a display of partisan politics ... by the Dems. Mc Cain said on the floor of the Senate:

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." This was in 2005, remember that.

Remember that Fannie and Freddie holds how much of the outstanding national debt? Just under 50%? And they are the only two Fortune 500 companies that are not required to inform the public about any financial difficulties that they may have? F&F bought 18% of all CDOs issued in 2006 and 2007. What's so special about that? Well, if the banks can't find someone to lay their mortgages off onto, then they can't lend -- so preventing the run up on housing prices made by cheap and easy money. And if Wall Street can't find a customer for the CDOs, they won't create them. F&F, under pressure from all sides to produce profits, snagged the extra few basis points that the securities provided.

Where does Boosh fit it? Well , his administration didn't push anywhere near hard enough for regulatory reform of those two entities -- and then in 2005 the Dept of Housing and Urban Development pushed F&F to increase financing for low income areas and regions with high minority populations. Congress pushed that along with some urgency -- the Dem controlled house has those players as its largest constituents -- thanks, Mr. Frank. Those sectors rose to 39% of new F&F business in 2007. No doubt that various banks sold the loans and took the fees, but someone had to buy the debt. And the largest player was a pair of unregulated quasi Federal
entities.

Did F&F create this mess? No. Clearly not. Should they -- and the US taxpayer -- have been part of this? Maybe they would not have been, had they been adequately regulated and fraud-free. And with 20% of the market cut out, it may have served to slow he growth of this disaster.

What is clear to me is that both Republicans and Democrats have their fingers in it up to their elbows. No party should be laying blame on other party. It is, however, "affordable housing" and the chimera that it represents that is somewhere near the root of this mess. If you lend to people that can't pay, you should expect to write off those loans. Duh.

And in France, mortgage payments are NOT tax deductible. And banks have highly regulated lending / capitalization standards. They just formalized the subsidized nature of the (ware)housing of its minority population -- we hid behind "affordable housing."

And now?

I will not write about the demise of Lehman or the purchase of Merrill Lynch. At least not more than the following: it is truly astounding that a handful of people could have brought down some of Wall Street's most storied investment banks. Old, respected firms ... gone. The total number of people responsible in each firm may be less than half a dozen -- the total on the street less than 50. Just remarkable.

Even more remarkable is Barack's statement this morning that all this just goes to show that banking regulation needs modernization. Modernization? Is that what you call it? The mere fact that he would choose to use those words, that glib sound bite, makes it clear to me that he understands not a single thing that has happened over the last 18 months. What about property speculation? What about risk management? What about the threats of global contamination through the use of derivative instruments? What about unbridled greed that permits a few to do so much that risks all of our financial health? What about hundreds of thousand of people who will lose their jobs? Does he think that financial services implosion will not have a lasting effect? Does he think that global banking consolidation is something easily addressed by regulation modernization? Does he understand that you need to make money to have something to tax and then spend? Hello?

To drive that nail in, I also refer to his plans to raise taxes on investment returns. Great idea, that. Just the thing to stimulate investment in our economy, to finance retirement for the baby boomers, to restore our economy to health. It is bad enough to look at a bottomless pit for social security and no cap to contributions, but his plans for investment income taxation are clueless.

And that is what is scaring me about Barack. It has become absolutely clear to me that he does not understand economics, and even worse perhaps, nobody on his staff does either. The alternative is even more frightening: he does understand and seriously intends on installing a socialist system in the United States. And not just socialist, but something far beyond that which already exisits in the "socialist" states of Europe. The United States would have a level of taxation unseen since the failed social experiments in Europe of the 1970's: failed because under any measure, the economies virtually collapsed (some went though a form of revolution such as Portugal). The U.K. fell to its knees with a three day week and because of marginal taxation rates of almost 90%, factories fell into disrepair, industry lost all competitiveness -- remember British Leyland? Only Germany, with strict financial discipline managed to struggle through -- because Germans work hard and save. Can we say that about 2000's America? No, I didn't think so.

So where is this leaving me...? I am SCARED about the concept of Palin in the White House. She would be just a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. But what is the downside of her possible ascendancy? Not much, really. You see, she is indeed smarter than Bush and we managed to survive 8 years of Bush. She would not be able to push through any neo-Christian nonsense through Congress or the Senate, both of which are and will be Democrat controlled. She would be scary for our enemies ... and by extension, us too, but maybe I can live with that.

By contrast, Barack might plunge this country, and by knock-on effect, the world into economic depression. Which is scarier? And we are only looking at Palin as a potential threat -- Barack would have a free ride to do his evil in that Pelosi is in charge in the House. There would be no road block to economic armageddon. None.

What about the Supreme Court ... Barack might try to put Bill or Hillary on it. Scary thought. And you could be sure that the candidates proposed by the left will make Souter look like Ghengis Khan. Loony left will take on a new dimension -- look for an attempt to replicate the 9th Circuit on the big bench. McCain? Probably something to the left of Alito or Roberts, but to the right of Ginsburg and Souter. That is where he is politically -- although not where Palin is. But Palin will not be selecting anyone, and if she did find herself in the position to try, there is no way that anybody she selected would make it through the Senate. None.

From my point of view ... right now ... taking all the known risks into perspective, I think I will have to bet that McCain does not croak during his tenure. Time to remove the Obama sticker.

Press lies

John McCain is being attacked by Obama's campaign for his inability to send an e-mail. If that were true in the abstract ... it would be pathetic, a neo-trog running for President. But this accusation neatly misses the truth: he can't because he has trouble physically achieving the motions required by fingers, wrists and arms. Why might that be?

Because the Vietnamese broke them. Multiple times and without any form of medical assistance.

Randi Rhodes, a liberal talk show host, claims that McCain was well treated ... they called him the Prince." She claims that he traded propaganda interviews for good treatment. Right. We know. as absolute fact confirmed by the individuals who actually tortured him, that he was systematically tortured until he broke. McCain admits it, admits that he broke. But he was tortured because he refused to go home under the "code" which mandated that prisoners go home in the order that they arrived. If being crippled for life equates to receiving preferential treatment, I'd hate to see the results for normal treatment.

Being unable to type is not a reason why someone should be disqualified as President -- should FDR have been precluded because he couldn't hike a mountain, or climb the Capitol building steps?

Trash talking

Jimmy Myers on 96.9 wtkk tonight ... was engaged in the sort of talk that could only have come from an adherent of Rev. Wright. I could not believe the garbage that was broadcast on the radio.

"You know that if Barack Obama was a white man, he would be leading by at least 10 points." Jimmy, if Barack was white, Hillary would be the nominee, not Barack. In fact Barack would still be a state legislator in Illinois.

Myers stated something to the tune that white people are running these wars for their oil company gain, heedless of the fact that black boys are coming back from those wars in coffins ... hence they were engaged in racist war mongering. Jimmy, nobody in the United States has to join the military. Nobody. And overwhelmingly, it is white boys that are coming home in coffins. Accordingly to icasualties.org, the actual statistic is about 10% black as opposed to 75% white. That is, as actual percentages of the U.S. population, white are more likely to be killed in Iraq than blacks. This is not a racist war in which blacks are singled out to die.

Myers then started to lay some sort of crap about Palin being caught out in a tissues of lies on every issue ... and claimed that the ABC interview proved that, as well as Palin's ignorance of foreign affairs. However, other media sources have slammed the ABC interview as not revealing at all, but a determined effort to trap Palin: she did not appear to understand the Bush doctrine ... but then outside of the Beltway, nobody really does. Myers cited Palin's lack of experience in greeting foreign dignitaries and diplomats are evidence that Palin was unready for the job -- but failed to point out that prior to joining the US senate less than one Presidential term ago, Barack had at best grown up in part in Indonesia, and visited his brother in his mud hut in Kenya.

If you really want to stretch it, Barack's latest European tour gave him some exposure ... but nothing at all in the way of real diplomacy. If that is the measure, then you have to look to McCain and Biden.... They have the requisite experience -- but only McCain is actually running for president.

So it comes to Myers attacking Palin -- the left attacking the female on the right. Myers claiming that because McCain is a one termer, Palin is the threat, or that McCain might not make though his term. Barack might not make it through his, either and then the better qualified part of the ticket would be in office. Apart from the fact that Biden in office means Barack is dead or seriously ill -- I'd be for it. Of all the candidates and running mates, Biden is the best of the lot.

This Myers guy is racist, anti-women, anti-christian and a flat liar. And on the radio. Literally, it was like listening to a black liberation theology sermon, "they (whitey) are lying to us and we don't have to listen anymore." That message parses as 'don't listen to anything anyone says that does not fit into our political view. Listen only to authorized hate monger. Disregard all else.

If Pelosi gets her way and every station has to provide equal air time for the left and the right, does it also include time for extremists? Does it mean that racists of both black and white varieties should have equal time? Would that mean that the Nazi party and the KKK should get air time too? I, for one, don't want ANY racists on the air, or any hate mongers -- but if you let one on, then you have to let them all on: that is freedom of speech. Of course, Pelosi does not mean equal and fair airtime: she would eliminate hate speech ... and anything considered conservative would, by definition, be hate speech for her.

And let's get another thing straight ... I am an American. NOT a "European-American." And if you are a citizen of this country, you are an American, plain and simple. It is by the continued use of these Euro, Afro or Hispanic monikers that we continue to stratify and segregate the country. Yesterday I heard two black people on the air call white Americans "European Americans." As a person who just happens to be white, I object. I do not care to be called European American ... I am simply American, just like you. I could be ethnically from black Jamaican parents who immigrated to the U.K., and then on to the U.S. What would I be then? Afro-Euro-American? What if my ancestors were of moorish stock, who lived 500 years in the South of Spain, then onto Mexico in the 1890's, but I moved to the U.S. and became a citizen?

I do not care about sex, race, ethnicity or origin: every person is a human being and should be treated exactly the same, with the same dignity, respect and care. Equal pay, equal rights ... equality.

Flee or die

That was the official word of the national weather service to residents along the Texas coast. I just do not understand what was ambiguous about that ... "flee or die."Or, those to remaining "face certain death." Or, in one and story houses, you will face certain death if you try to ride this hurricane out.

And yet, the Coast Guard has been busy all day snatching people off of roofs, from trucks, from churches. This, after the mandatory evacuation notice. I feel bad for the people who are about to lose their houses, their vacation homes, their trucks, cars and possessions ... but what the hell do you expect? You chose to live and build in a zone -- like New Orleans -- that is bound to get hit sooner or later. Galveston was wiped off of the face of the map in 1900. They built a sea wall to protect it ... 15-17 feet high. Trouble is, the storm surge of Ike is over 20 feet. If Ike was stronger -- Cat 3 to 5, then the surge would be higher, coupled with 40-50 foot waves. Not much can withstand that. The tide is meant to be low when the eye hits ... thank God.

Why ANYONE would try to ride out this event is beyond comprehension. Stupid, really. Beyond belief. Yet, the news shows people having a Hurricane party at the "Poop Deck" bar overlooking the Galveston sea wall. They will die.

On the news I see pictures of BMWs parked in a flooded roadway .... flashers on. Sorry, Charlie ... but why did you not evacuate? Why? Did you people learn nothing at all from Katrina, and a whole string of devastating hurricanes over the last 100 years?

And the taxpayers of the United States will pay for this. Pay for the privilege of others to taunt nature. I don't wish victims any harm ... but equally, others should not be placed in danger or financially burdened through crass stupidity.

Sorry. And God keep those affected.

A pig...

"You know, you can put lipstick on a pig ... and it is still a pig."

Given the Palin comment on lipstick during her speech at the Republican Convention, this cannot be a coincidence. But say for a moment that it was ... a mistake. That by itself would show a spectacular lack of control and folly. This was scripted. This was not offhand. I have heard the clip: Obama waits for the laugh ... and then delivers the punchline. There is simply no way that he or bis campaign accidentally used this old turn of phrase -- but it is just possible that they failed to see how this would relate back to Palin's speech. If so, then they are too stupid to be allowed into office and engage in international politics.

But if it was not a usage mistake ... then it is far worse. A deliberate slur on a woman running for Vice President of the United States -- by the other side -- a low, clumsy, stupid assault on her femininity, a playground taunt ... infantile. And yet, the liberal, democrat-controlled press seems to want to let this slip away. If a Republican had said that to a Democrat female candidate, then we would not be able to imagine the media hoopla that would seek to bring down the sexist that uttered those remarks. But Barack ... cannot be sexist or racist, can he. He is the Messiah.

As the Messiah, a Democrat congressman, Steve Ira Cohen of Tennessee, said on the floor of the House today: "Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor." What? Is Palin to be likened to the Pilate? Steven Ira Cohen is casting that allusion? Steve Cohen elected after 24 years in the Tenn. State Senate, only lately (in 2006) to Congress? A career liberal?

But things that are taboo in the Liberal lexicon are all fair game to use against Palin. The Liberal press say that it would be silly for McCain to go after Obama for this, and that attack ads are beneath the Presidential race. But it is OK for liberal Obama supporters to do so against their hated Republican foes. I guess that is it: Liberals HATE Republicans with such fervor, that they are simply unable to see when they are also alienating huge swaths of the American public.

This stinks.

Been on vacation -- to Palin's State

Yes, I went to Alaska. And you know? I understand teen pregnancy a little better: what the heck else are you going to do during those winters?

Sarah Palin is a royal pain in the collective Democratic ass. Pun intended. She is even worse for femi-nazis. She is everything that they have collectively aspired to put on a presidential ticket for 40 years ... except that she is a god-fearing Republican.

Do you think for one second that there would be all this hoopla about her qualifications as a mother if she was from the left? It is clearly OK for leftie moms to seek any form of employment or advancement, but right wing moms should stay at home? Is that the message? And the greater bullshit about the Down's syndrome baby ... if she was left wing, then the Chris Matthews (and other liberal dorks) of this world would be shouting how this is evidence of the need for greater government assistance for working mothers, and how a Federal Agency should be set up to help parents of autistic children. Instead, the Palins just say that they'll manage.

And in Alaska (and throughout most of Red State America), people "manage." They have families, they have relatives ... and their church families (or synagogues/temples) ... to support them. They don't look to the Federal Government for a handout. They don't whine and complain about historical inequities and how the Government "owes" them. They look to their own resources and move on (THAT should be what "move on" is about, not the moaning hand wringing of a bunch of professional leftie babies). America was built by people that "managed." America fought wars with people that "managed." America became great by managing. It was only when people ceased managing, that America lost its vitality, became a slave to income redistribution, Federal spending, and the great forest of Agency handouts.

Sarah Palin opposes all of that burden encumbering the US of A ... and that scares the daylights out of the liberals. Here is a woman, smart and ambitious ... and not one of them. She hunts (oh lordy, lordy, preserve us!!), fishes, rides snowmobiles, kicks corrupt Republican politicians in the nuts, plays sports, cuts spending, goes to church .... Eeekk!!! And she probably doesn't eat granola, listen to NPR, drive a Prius, speechify Green -- and then take private jets. She is everything that will cause Barbra Streisand to leave the country ... and I am still waiting for her to leave from the last time.

Sarah Palin went to a Pentecostal Church for a while ... and the Liberal press are all over her for that. "She went to a church where people speak in tongues!" "She cannot be trusted!" "She must be crazy!" Excuse me for observing, but those same people -- while silly for believing the Bible to be the exact terms of creation -- did not yell "GOD Damn America." Did not claim that AIDs was a white man's trick to kill the blacks. Did not advocate the overthrow of the America, civil disobedience, murder or any other form of mayhem. Obama went to a church for 20 years where THAT was the diet. Give me tongues any day. Democrats and Liberal BETTER not go much further down that track in their quest to discredit her.

Duval "the Worthless" Patrick, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and staunch Obama friend and supporter has been cagey about Palin.... Note that Doofus has not ever visited Massachusetts National Guard personnel during their posting in places where he might get shot at. Palin has visited her troops multiple times -- in her role as Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. She knows how to shoot an M-14, too. According to an instructor, her burst was "pretty much dead center" of the target. Obama can shoot hoops and Doofus ... well, not much.

And Palin is NOT running for President, McCain is.