New Developments III

[Greg]

Here's an hysterical clip from Rachel Maddow about the newest big thing for conservative Republicans, teabagging:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mSKdvE0o5Q

[OscarGuy]

As a bit of an aside, in addition to my other duties at my place of employment, they started me working on doing mail in the afternoons. Not that I really want to do it, but there you go.

So, today was the first day I had to process something I was morally opposed to. Included were four "empty" envelopes to President Obama. They were sent to represent the lives of the thousands of aborted fetuses that are aborted every however many months/weeks/days/whatever. It took all in me not to toss them all in the trash. But, I decided it wasn't any of my business despite being an entirely inappropriate thing to be sent out from a professional business even if sent by an individual and not a company. I hope I did the right thing. I'm sure the administration will probably toss them all anyway, but damned if I'm not very angry about having to contribute even if I didn't actually put the envelopes together, stamp them or do anything more than put them in the bucket to go out...

[Greg]

An amusing song about the current financial implosion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOYAuk809fY

[Sonic Youth]

Memo to AIG employees: For your safety, do not wear any AIG apparel.

Remember the term we used to describe what got us in this trouble in the first place? It was called Irrational Exuberance.

It looks like we've swung headlong into the other end of the spectrum.

[OscarGuy]

He finally does something for gay rights...

Sources: US to sign UN gay rights declaration

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 43 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," said one official.

"As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora," the official said.

The official added that the United States was concerned about "violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals" and was also "troubled by the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries."

"In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation 'has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom'," the official said.

Gay rights and other groups had criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration when it was presented at the United Nations on Dec. 19. U.S. officials said then that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

According to negotiators, the Bush team had concerns that those parts could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

It was not immediately clear on Tuesday how the Obama administration had come to a different conclusion.

When it was voted on in December, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with anti-gay discrimination.

But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality — and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution. More than 50 nations, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, opposed the declaration.

Some Islamic countries said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.

[Sonic Youth]

LOL! Good idea.

Grassley says he didn't mean it.

[Big Magilla]

I have a better idea. Grassley and his fellow Republicans in Congress commit mass hari-kari, or if they prefer, hara-kiri.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1237316791

[Sonic Youth]

How's this for a solution, Greg?

Senetor Grassley suggests AIG executives commit suicide

[Greg]

Conservative talk-show host and former Republican Florida U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough has called for nationalizing AIG.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_qvwIBjnBo

[anonymous1980]

An amusing Republican party cartoon.

[Heksagon]

A.F.L.-C.I.O. to Support Nationalizing Banks

I'm not sure what this fuss about bank nationalization is about; it looks a lot like the Democratic party is just trying to pass the buck to the banks. The blunt fact is that those banks like Citigroup which would be bankrupt without goverment money, are de facto under govermental control, regardless of whether they are formally nationalized or not.

So far the only definite policy that the Democratic party have given the banks is TARP (see Magilla's post), which speaks volumes of the shallowness of their economic policy. Democrats are pretty good at throwing money around, but beyond that there isn't much content in their policy (And by saying that, I am not implying that the Republican party's policy is any better, on the contrary, Republicans are even worse). It is true that the banks have been passive in restructuring, but the reason to that is that their de facto owner, the goverment of the United States, has not given them the leadership which they have been expecting; just look at the (very disappointed) market reaction when the Geithner Plan was announced. A lot of money, not much content.

It would be short-sighted of the Democratic party to formally nationalize the banks. The situation with the banks is not going to get any better any time soon, and the Democratic party does not have the means to change that. It is therefore not wise to take full political responsibility for the banks; it is better to have the private bank managers around to take the blame when the economic situation does not suddenly improve. Furthermore, if the Democrats feel that they need the short-term popularity boost that they would get from formally nationalizing the banks, it's better to save that until election year.

[Big Magilla]

So-called is right. The guy is a total jerk. I want to throw something at the TV every time I see his stupid face.

[Greg]

John Stewart bitch slaps so-called financial expert Jim Cramer on his show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/videos.jhtml

[Sonic Youth]

Here's hoping this backfires on them. I think they should have put requirements on all of the funds that it's "all or nothing". If you don't want to help the unemployed, you don't get more jobs to give them. I know it's a bit mean-spirited, but I don't think states should be allowed to reject any of the funds they are given.

It's not so cut-and-dried. When the Federal government gives money to fund unemployment insurance, that money is expected to be paid back. It's a loan. Once the state accepts it, it's expected to pay the federal government back in full, and with interest. And unlike the federal government, state governments are expected to balance their yearly budgets. Theoretically, a state can be in such dire economic straits that accepting the money for unemployment could financially hurt a state over the long run. I assume Perry would be against this so-called "redefining unemployment" issue anyway. It's an issue that empowers unions, and I'm sure he wouldn't want that. But if this recession goes on much longer, don't be suprised to find some Democratic governors rejecting bailout money to extend unemployment benefits.

[OscarGuy]

Here's hoping this backfires on them. I think they should have put requirements on all of the funds that it's "all or nothing". If you don't want to help the unemployed, you don't get more jobs to give them. I know it's a bit mean-spirited, but I don't think states should be allowed to reject any of the funds they are given.




Texas gov. rejects stimulus money for unemployment
By MONICA RHOR, Associated Press Writer Monica Rhor, Associated Press Writer – 52 mins ago

HOUSTON – Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday rejected $555 million in federal stimulus money that would expand state unemployment benefits, saying the money would have required the state to keep funding the expanded benefits after the stimulus money ran out.

Perry, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill, did accept most of the roughly $17 billion slated for Texas in the plan.

But he said the requirements attached to the federal stimulus money would require a change in the state's definition of unemployment, expanding coverage to more people and placing more of the state's tax burden on employers.

"During these tough times, Texas employers are working harder than ever to move products to market, make payroll and create jobs," Perry said at a news conference. "The last thing they need is government burdening them with higher taxes and expanded obligations."

Perry said such an expansion would counteract the package's objective of job creation by leading companies to limit hiring and raise prices.

To receive the full amount of stimulus money available, lawmakers would need to adjust the time period used to determine whether people are eligible for benefits.

Texas also is being asked to expand eligibility to include thousands of low-wage workers. Lawmakers have said the change would help part-time employees like single mothers, college students and senior citizens.

Perry's decision comes despite warnings from Texas Workforce Commission Chairman Tom Pauken that the state's unemployment compensation trust fund could be operating at a deficit by October. Pauken told lawmakers recently that insolvency might not be not far behind.