WSJ.com - Opinion: The Obama Economy

Link

Okay - so emailing it from wsj.com didn't work so well. Try this out.

Ditto Ditto

WOW - at 8:46 on 3/4/09, the WashingtonPost.com frontpage has three headline articles, two with pictures, about Rush Limbaugh. Seriously - two different pictures of his head on the frontpage.

As was discussed on Morning Joe this a.m., Rush is simply brilliant. This has brought him back into the spotlight. He is a true marketeer - forget what this means for "conservatives" or the Republican party. He needs, craves attention - and boy has he got it!

Ditto

I am no ditto-head. Honestly. I listened to Rush back in my high school days when Dad was driving us in the car. But I don't listen to him now nor really keep up much with him. But I saw a couple short clips from his CPAC speech and couldn't have agreed with him more. Here's from the FoxNews transcript:

As I say, we want the best: Happiness for everybody. Now, about my still-to-me mysteriously controversial comment that I hope President Obama fails. I was watching the Super Bowl. And as you know, I love the Pittsburgh Steelers. [Cheers and Applause] So they have this miraculous scoring drive that puts them up by four, 15 seconds left. Kurt Warner on the field for the Cardinals. And I sure as heck want you to know I hope he failed. I did not want the Cardinals to win. I wanted Warner to make the biggest fool of himself possible. I wanted a sack, I wanted anything. I wanted the Steelers to win. I wanted to win. I wanted the Cardinals to fail. This notion that I want the President to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we've got. That's nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it, why in the world do I want what we just described, rampant government growth indebtedness, wealth that's not even being created yet that is being spent, what is in this? What possibly is in this that anybody of us wants to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail!

CROWD: Yes!

RUSH: They certainly did. They not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. There's Dingy Harry Reid waiving a white flag: [doing Harry Reid impression] "This war is lost. This war is" --

[Cheers and Applause]

They called General Petraeus a liar before he even testified. Mrs. Clinton -- [Crowd Booing] -- said she had to, willingly suspend disbelief in order to listen to Petraeus. We're in the process of winning the war. The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed? [Applause]

"Why would I want that to succeed?" Exactly. Exactly. Never does Rush say he wants harm to the President. Never does he call him a bad man (in fact, I think he grants him a "very good politician" moniker). But if we don't agree with the President's politics, direction for the country, or spending frenzy - why would we want that to succeed? And if the opposite of success is failure - well, you do the math.

We need his policies to fail so that the country doesn't fall for this gig again. We need his spending frenzy to not work so that tax cuts, fiscal restraint, business investment, and less government is valued. On this count - I'm with Rush.

Things I've Learned from 24 - Part V

As a recompense for having made all you faithful readers wait more than 12 hours for my 24 comments, I thought I'd pass along a bonus feature.

Part V - It's Okay to Hand the President Over to Terrorists

This one is actually a little difficult. But I don't think I can agree whatsoever with Jack Bauer at the end of the 7pm hour (or whatever time it is in 24-world). He yelled at the President and told her his job was to protect her. She yelled back and said she IS the President and therefore he must obey her. Which he did.

I don't think a Secret Service Agent's job is to obey the President. I think his/her job is to protect the President. And sometimes that means protecting him/her against his/her best judgment. Do I want the Pres' daughter to die by mutilation? No. But do I want to leave the safety and security of the lockdown room and jeopardize the President's well-being. Absolutely not.

I don't see how in real life an Agent would have actually done that. But I haven't read the handbook, so maybe there's an asterisk at the end:

" *If confronted with a situation where the President insists on you taking an action that would compromise his/her safety, only comply when the life of an immediately family member is at stake."

ps - I actually didn't see much of 24 last night - I don't think I caught any of the first hour, and maybe only 40 minutes of the second. So if I missed a killer "TILF24" - post it as a comment!

Things I've Learned From 24 - Part IV

Rachelle, Rachelle. I know I'm slacking. I actually almost took my iPhone up to bed so I could tap one out - but I was wiped from 2 hours of non-stop action. So, here it is:

Part IV - Secret Service Agents are Easily Duped.

Seriously, the dialogue went something like this:

General "I've got a freaky, stupid stare thing going on" Juma: "If you do not move your men out, I will kill the President."
Secret Service Agent Stupidity: "I need proof that you have her."
Juma: "The only proof I will give you is that if you don't do what I say, her death will be on your head."
Estupido: "MOVE OUT, MEN!"

Let's analyze this: 1. Demand from terrorist. 2. Show me proof. 3. Terrorist shows no additional proof. 4. "Good enough for me! We're outta here!"

What? And again I say: WHAT? It's a veiled threat. It's completely unverifiable. It's a blasted terrorist in the White House and you're just going to walk away. Jimminy Cricket!

Okay - so enough with the recap. What can we learn from this??

Say you're walking through DC. You're tired of making that round-about bypass like 6 blocks around the White House instead of just walking straight down E St. So you mosey on up to the guardhouse and say: "Let me through, or I'm going to bomb the White House." "What kind of idiot are you," should be the reply (while guards begin to scurry around). "Seriously, if you don't let me take this shortcut, the bombing of the White House will be on your head." "Oh, that changes the situation. Have a nice day, sir."

And there you go. Try it out next time. Really. And if things don't go so well for you, don't blame it on me. Blame it on 24, Kiefer Sutherland, FOX, and Agent Dingbat. I'm sure they'll find a way to break you out of Leavenworth....

Today's Lunch

Fish eyes and seaweed.

Actually, is Quinoa and spinach with feta cheese and sauteed onions!
Yum...

Quote of the Day

"Freedom has a scent, like the top of a newborn baby's head."

[-- U2, "Miracle Drug," How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb]

Part of me wonders, with giving up so many freedoms for the "greater good," and with government stepping in to take over so much of the FREE market, how long will it be until we aren't able to catch a whiff of that beautiful, innocent, unblemished scent of freedom.

For now, I'll cherish Addysen's little baby head. It's starting to become a little girl's head, and nothing beats holding your little one in your lap and just sniffing her head. =D

Unfathomable

I usually don't comment on macabre subjects, especially plane crashes. But the commuter turboprop accident in Buffalo is one that has captured my interest. Partly because of general curiosity. Partly because I've taken (a few) flying lessons and know enough about the physics of flight to understand stalls and losing lift.

It seems pretty obvious, from a common sense review of the situation, that the pilot stalled the airplane. Maybe it had already stalled itself, because of the icing. In fact, that seems to be the indication based on the actions that the auto-pilot undertook - pushing the nose down to regain airspeed, with the intent to regain lift. But the pilot pulled up - they say likely an instinctive reaction due to: 1) because of his low altitude, he didn't want to be going down too quickly; but probably more importantly 2) the plane he flew previously tended to go tail up in icing conditions, and he likely reacted based on that prior experience.

It really is sad, regardless of what happened. The most amazing thing to me is that it landed in a suburban neighborhood, not unlike the one we live in, and only destroyed one house. Neighboring homes were no more than 15-20 feet away, and the only damage was based on the resultant fire. It's just unheard of, what with a plane falling from the sky.

The NY Times has an intriguing interactive graphic about the flight. Slide 4 of the graphic shows the home that was hit, and it's the only way to appreciate how miraculous it is that no one else on the ground was killed.

Link here.

Too hot to touch?

I've debated whether to even comment on this. I'm sure there's a much deeper plane of thought and knowledge that went into the writing of this than I can appreciate. But yet something just keeps nagging at me.

It's from a Post columnist about Tyler Perry's new movie. He plays a fat, old grandma. And this is the columnist's reaction:

"And there I sat, silently ranting: There is nothing funny about this black man in pantyhose. And where is all of this cross-dressing-black-man stuff coming from, anyway? First, comedians Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence star in high-grossing movies as the fattest, ugliest black women that Hollywood makeup artists can conjure up, and now here's Perry with his gussied-up version of the same butt of the joke.

By the way, I don't want to hear diddly about Robin Williams as Mrs. Doubtfire or Milton Berle in high heels. Having a black man play super mammy is not the same thing. Perhaps it would be were it not for America's perverse, systemic and centuries-long efforts to humiliate African men and women and turn them into slaves."

I think possibly my fear is that my ignorance, or my simple comment on the situation, will sound racist or bigoted. Maybe it's that I'm too afraid to touch something so sensitive, and since I don't believe myself to be racist, that I'll end up being insensitive (unknowingly).

But here it is (anyway): For the last 2 years, all we could hear is "It doesn't matter your skin color." "We've broken the color barrier for the highest elected official in America." "We are a nation united." Etc etc etc. Which is great.

So why not now? Why isn't Tyler Perry similar to Robin Williams? Why do we have to keep going back to the "America's perverse, systemic and centuries-long efforts to humiliate African men and women and turn them into slaves." Can we no longer laugh at Chris Rock, for fear that our laughter will be confused as derision?

I realize there's this whole caveat in our view of racism that black people can say things to each other and about each other that we never can do as white folks. I don't really care (although if you ever listen to rap it's amazing the words they use). But I thought we're moving forward in race relations. Not backwards. We can never forget the atrocities of the past and we must vow to never let that happen again. But I also don't think it must cloud our every days lives, nor do I think it prevents us from laughing together, black and white.

Maybe Mr. Milloy just wants to keep bringing it up and continue to point out the sins of our forefathers. Maybe he can't laugh at it and wants to find a reason why. I don't know, and I shouldn't try to figure it out. I just can't seem to get it out my head that there's some kind of double-standard going on. In my opinion, articles of this sort only continue to feed the fire of racism and serve as a roadblock to American becoming colorblind.

[Full column is here. As of the time of this posting, this article was one of the top headlines on washingtonpost.com - which I think shows they think this deserves extra attention.]

The Best Northern Cod You've Ever Had (*)

[*From a fast food restaurant]

I fell for the advertisements. Not sure why. But I had to have Wendy's fish sandwich on the way home tonight.

Let's set the stage: I'm a big Filet O' Fish fan. (Ang thinks I'm nuts. "How can you eat fish from a hamburger place!? Me: "How can you eat yogurt - bad milk - berries and granola from a hamburger place! HAH!) Where were we: yes, Filet O' Fish. And now Wendy's has decided to jump in on the act.

My verdict: I'd say Wendy's wins hands down. Bigger, more substantive. More crunchy. Then again, maybe it had to do with the fact that my only dinner up to 9:30 was a cup of tomato soup at 5. It was really good and filling. I'll definitely try it again.

What I've Learned from "24" - Part 3

If you enter a server room, and there are people shot on the floor, and your servers have just been wiped clean, and you're in the middle of a terrorist attack where there might be moles in your organization - don't take the word of the only guy left alive in the server room!!! Of course he's going to blame it on the dead chick. Of course he shot himself. DUH!!

But NOOOO, dumm-o "Agent Moss" was like, "Hey dude (read: terrorist mole), we're down a man and really need your help. Never mind that you're shot in the arm, you killed another agent, and you were the only witness to her supposed treasonous activity. Get back in the saddle. OH, and by the way, why don't we tell you every important classified piece of information while we're at it."

Can you tell I'm disillusioned by this show. Even so, I had to tear myself out of the chair to go check on our screaming 7-month old. Poor thing - she was probably just in pain over the poor acting, writing, and helpless future of this "thriller."

"Women are Dumb"

WAIT - before you flame me...it was just a way to get you to read on. (did it work?)

What I was trying to say is that this episode of 24 (hour 5-6pm) should be entitled: "Women are Dumb." For instance:

In the first twelve minutes, one woman ignores the FBI and agrees to stay with the proven terrorist. DUMB! A second woman, this one an FBI agent, pulls a gun on JB while a car is on fire because he's trying to get her away from a burning car. WHAT??

THEN, a different dumb woman thinks she's all cool for being treasonous. Yeah, got her killed.

AND THEN, the second dumb woman was SUPER-dumb and slapped Jack twice. He laid the smack down with a "Don't ever pull your gun on my again" and she said something really dumb that just doesn't even make sense.

Goodness only knows what will happen in the last ten minutes!!

That's IT!?!?

From the WashPost Editorial Board:

"From the moment that Mr. Burris was selected, he strove to portray himself as a blameless public servant. The sad pictures of Mr. Burris being cast out into the rain by the Democratic leadership of the Senate, which initially refused to seat him, turned public opinion in his favor. Mr. Burris got his seat. But this latest revelation makes a mockery of his professions of no quid pro quo. It is a violation of the public trust. The people of Illinois have suffered enough. Mr. Burris should resign."

It's nice that they come out with this opinion. What strikes me a little strange, though, is that they nowhere blame the Democrat Senators for allowing Mr. Burris to be seated in the Senate. In fact, that should be the real story.

The Senate initially refused to seat him. Surely he'd be tainted, was the cry. Oh, but the public opinion came raining down. "How can you forbid him the opportunity?" Instead of sticking by their guns, the Democrats caved. And now look where it got them.

Sure, Burris is the culprit, and he's the story. But I just have this feeling that if something like this had happened in the previous administration, or with a Republican majority, the WP would be calling for the Senate Majority Leader's head and harping on how corrupt the Republican Party is.

Let's remember that our legislators don't govern by public opinion. Once they do, it all begins to unravel.

Only at an Antique Store

...in West Virginia!!

Check out the critical information disclosed in the second picture.

Old Picture

"Old" is relative, but as I was looking through some pics, I ran across this. I was thinking of throwing Ang over the ledge, but the sign dissuaded me. Amazing what a red placard can do to alter the course of history. =)

7-Month Video

It's been a while, so here's the latest: Link Here

Tutti Frutti Lovesong

Amelia LOVES this poem! It's a must-read every time we open up her 20th Century Children's Poetry Treasury book. When we read it together she cackles and grins and begs, "Read it to Daddy! Read it to Daddy!" So I thought it would be fun to post it here in honor of Valentine's Day (though a day late). Hope you get a laugh! :-)

Tutti Frutti Lovesong
by Mary Grace Dembeck

You are my darling CUMQUAT,
Oh, you're my PEACHy pie,
I think you are the BERRIES,
The APPLE of my eye.

Don't make me MELON-choly,
Please be my HONEY DEW,
'Cause oh, my sweet PAPAYA,
I'm BANANAS over you!

I would be oh, so GRAPEful
If you'd just say you care,
For it takes two to MANGO,
And we're a PEACHy PEAR.

Oh, ORANGE you a little
COCONUTS for me too?
Please say you'll be mon CHERRY,
I'm so GUAVA over you.


~Posted by Ang

Love, Love, Love

Ang is going to post some mushy love poem later today. *gag* =) But here's what I love about her:

Thurs (2/12)
Ang: "If you were wanting to get me flowers or anything, you can just get me some potted flowers, like tulips or hydrangea."
Me: "Hmmm..ok"

Friday (2/13)

Instead of $50+ for roses, I spent less than $10 for beautifully potted tulips. To use an over-used phrase as of late, in this economy, that's a big win!!

Sox Switch

It's almost enough to make me change teams. But, I did say "almost." Hey, if it brings another WS, then I guess who cares!?

Link - Obama, White Sox Fan

More foreclosure moratoria

Seriously, can I stop paying my mortgage now? What makes others "troubled" and not me, when I struggle each month to shell out a mortgage payment? Do I get rewarded for actually paying my bills?

 

If nothing else, news like this just gives people more incentive to stop being responsible. Isn't that when the government has to stop stepping in the way, or else it will end up taking over it all? If there's no consequence to being irresponsible, then let's go for broke!

--------------------------------

 

Citigroup, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley Halt Foreclosures (Update1)

 

By Margaret Chadbourn

Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley agreed to suspend foreclosures until next month and signaled a readiness to help the Obama administration craft a housing plan to modify mortgages for troubled borrowers.

Citigroup halted foreclosures through March 12, or when a plan is completed, the company said today in a statement. Morgan Stanley imposed a moratorium for three weeks on loans from Saxon Mortgage Services Inc., a spokeswoman said. JPMorgan stopped foreclosures until March 6, Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon wrote to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank in a letter released today in Washington.

Frank asked bank executives at a committee hearing Feb. 11 to freeze foreclosures until Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner can set up a program. Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit committed to halt actions. The Office of Thrift Supervision has urged savings- and-loans to suspend their legal actions until a plan is ready.

"Three weeks is adequate time for the Treasury to announce -- and for us to implement -- a new plan," Dimon wrote to Frank. "We stand ready to work with you to put the appropriate process in place, including a national modification standard."

"Citi is taking the necessary steps to help American homeowners keep their homes," according to the statement. The company said it worked with about 440,000 borrowers to stop foreclosures since the start of the housing crisis in 2007.

U.S. bank regulators in December said 55 percent of loans modified during the first quarter of 2008 were 30 or more days delinquent after six months. "Re-default rates increased each month and showed no signs of leveling off after six months," Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan said in a statement.

The Obama administration outlined a plan this week that would provide housing relief, help remove illiquid assets clogging banks' balance sheets and spur lending. Geithner pledged to buy and modify troubled homeowner mortgages, and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said the aid could be as much as $100 billion.