Thursday, February 26, 2009
Are you (we) crazy?
"Are you crazy? Are you outta your mind? Take you franks and beans and..."...that was the late great Walter Matthau as Oscar Madison in Neil Simon's "The Odd Couple," as he incredulously questioned the poor timing of Felix Unger (the equally late, great Jack Lemmon) after Unger called the ball park to advise Oscar not to eat any hot dogs because he was "making franks and beans for dinner." Of course, just as Oscar turns to reluctantly take the call, he misses an amazing (almost unheard of) triple play...
Speaking of triple plays and other rarities, I'm left to wonder just how the hell are we (the good old US of A) supposed to get out of the "Bush recession," by creating an equally debilitating "Obama Depression?" Man, $250B for banking, $634B for health care, $410B for "domestic programs," $75B for "homeowners" (read, folks who bought homes they either couldn't afford or shouldn't have qualified for)...and speaking of shouldn'ts...
I received an e-mail from another reader (well, a reader in that, hey, I forward him a copy of my post on occasion)...anyway, the e-mail referred to a 1999 article in the NY Times, relating to "Fannie Mae easing credit to aid mortgage lending." Well, being the naysayer I am, I went to Snopes.com and checked it out...IT'S LEGIT!!! Yes, that's right...the Sept. 30 article reported that under pressure from the (trumpet sound please) Clinton Administration...and yes, also unscrupulous lenders attempting to cater to their quote-unquote stockholders, etc...Fannie Mae would now, "encourage banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans." Hmmm...
But wait...it gets better...I mean, better for all you Bush haters and/or Clinton lovers out there. The Snopes report referenced another article from the New York Times (hardly a bastion of conservatism) from Sept. 11, 2003 which additionally referenced the Bush Administration's attempts to "REGULATE" (i.e. have Treasury assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and/or assure they maintain "capital reserve requirements," etc. Not quite what the mainstream media has been reporting, eh?
But hey, "whahappend?" Well, the whole thing was shot down by "The National Association of HomeBuilders (eek, big business?) " and Congressional Democrats (I submit to you that they were assisted in this counter productive endeavor by equally unscrupulous Congressional Republicans)...who feared that "tighter regulations of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing."
Where am I going with this? Well, we're ALL responsible...this "last eight years" crap won't cut it much longer (it NEVER did, in my opinion)...YES, Bush blew it...he deserves his share of blame. But, just watching Bill Clinton whine and snivel that, "I didn't have anything to do with the crisis we're facing," well, I don't know how he could look us in the eye and offer up such a blatant...oh, ah, never mind...go to http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easecredit.asp
Speaking of triple plays and other rarities, I'm left to wonder just how the hell are we (the good old US of A) supposed to get out of the "Bush recession," by creating an equally debilitating "Obama Depression?" Man, $250B for banking, $634B for health care, $410B for "domestic programs," $75B for "homeowners" (read, folks who bought homes they either couldn't afford or shouldn't have qualified for)...and speaking of shouldn'ts...
I received an e-mail from another reader (well, a reader in that, hey, I forward him a copy of my post on occasion)...anyway, the e-mail referred to a 1999 article in the NY Times, relating to "Fannie Mae easing credit to aid mortgage lending." Well, being the naysayer I am, I went to Snopes.com and checked it out...IT'S LEGIT!!! Yes, that's right...the Sept. 30 article reported that under pressure from the (trumpet sound please) Clinton Administration...and yes, also unscrupulous lenders attempting to cater to their quote-unquote stockholders, etc...Fannie Mae would now, "encourage banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans." Hmmm...
But wait...it gets better...I mean, better for all you Bush haters and/or Clinton lovers out there. The Snopes report referenced another article from the New York Times (hardly a bastion of conservatism) from Sept. 11, 2003 which additionally referenced the Bush Administration's attempts to "REGULATE" (i.e. have Treasury assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and/or assure they maintain "capital reserve requirements," etc. Not quite what the mainstream media has been reporting, eh?
But hey, "whahappend?" Well, the whole thing was shot down by "The National Association of HomeBuilders (eek, big business?) " and Congressional Democrats (I submit to you that they were assisted in this counter productive endeavor by equally unscrupulous Congressional Republicans)...who feared that "tighter regulations of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing."
Where am I going with this? Well, we're ALL responsible...this "last eight years" crap won't cut it much longer (it NEVER did, in my opinion)...YES, Bush blew it...he deserves his share of blame. But, just watching Bill Clinton whine and snivel that, "I didn't have anything to do with the crisis we're facing," well, I don't know how he could look us in the eye and offer up such a blatant...oh, ah, never mind...go to http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easecredit.asp
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Hello? Darrell? Arnold? Karen? Anybody?
Man, this is getting old...okay, one more time...HERE it is...
Step #1: Legalize (and tax heavily) marijuana (psst...it's already legal)
Step #2: Legalize (select areas) prostitution (hello? massage parlors...it's "legal")
Step #3: Legalize gambling (Have no fear BIA...we're talking sports/race books, etc)
Step #4: Legalize (neigh, encourage) gay marriage (i.e. MORE responsible CA citizens)
Step #5: CA ID (resident) cards...surcharges on select items/services for non-citizens
Step #6: Part time "branches" of government/i.e. no perks (hey guys, this is negotiable)
That's it...close the budget gap without "new" taxes, or cuts to services, or additional taxes on top of taxes...stop doing the "SAME THINGS" every "SAME BUDGET CRISIS" and then expect DIFFERENT results...let's (please) stop the insanity...
MediaCopp
Step #1: Legalize (and tax heavily) marijuana (psst...it's already legal)
Step #2: Legalize (select areas) prostitution (hello? massage parlors...it's "legal")
Step #3: Legalize gambling (Have no fear BIA...we're talking sports/race books, etc)
Step #4: Legalize (neigh, encourage) gay marriage (i.e. MORE responsible CA citizens)
Step #5: CA ID (resident) cards...surcharges on select items/services for non-citizens
Step #6: Part time "branches" of government/i.e. no perks (hey guys, this is negotiable)
That's it...close the budget gap without "new" taxes, or cuts to services, or additional taxes on top of taxes...stop doing the "SAME THINGS" every "SAME BUDGET CRISIS" and then expect DIFFERENT results...let's (please) stop the insanity...
MediaCopp
Friday, February 13, 2009
Doh!! Friday (the 13th) already?
Whoa...sorry I missed you yesterday (Thursday)...being Lincoln's birthday and all, we had the day off work here in Scab-ramento County...therefore, I begin anew.
I had planned on writing about the Fairness Doctrine...or about my obsession with the media (after flipping between CNN and ESPN during my Tuesday/Thursday morning workouts at the 24 Hour Fitness center in my neighborhood)...or even about the State Budget (again?) here in California...
But I've been getting requests to shorten these things (posts)...a very good point...I have many, MANY opinions and shorter, quicker, more timely posts might increase readership (what? from two to three?)...
Still, here's the point...I'M IN THIS FOR THE LONG HAUL...yes, there will come a time when I will take stock of this whole venture and fine tune it...I will add and subtract...and modify and amend...and bolster and enhance...okay, put Roget away...
I WILL pen an "author's bio." I will advertise and promote. I'll sell my soul (well, my pseudo soul) if I have to...but, you get the point...I heard a discussion on the Scott Van Pelt radio show (ESPN) yesterday...it was about bloggers and their (our) "right" to print opinion just because we have a computer...
Van Pelt was speaking with a well read (and successful) blogger (I believe his name is Chris Mottram) from the Sporting News...and they were talking about a previous interview on the show which featured Mitch Albom, a sportswriter with the Detroit Free Press (also, from "Tuesdays with Morrie" fame)...
Albom's point during the interview in essence was that he held a Master's Degree in Journalism from Columbia University, had trained, written and traveled extensively plying his craft, and to paraphrase, "had paid his dues" to get where he was...bloggers on the other hand, apparently need (just) fingers and a computer...
Oh well, I've been called worse...on MY BEST days...but I WILL, I promise, attempt to make this endeavor more relevant with each passing day...stay tuned if you would like to be on the ground floor of MediaCopp in the 21st Century...I guarantee it'll be worth it...
I had planned on writing about the Fairness Doctrine...or about my obsession with the media (after flipping between CNN and ESPN during my Tuesday/Thursday morning workouts at the 24 Hour Fitness center in my neighborhood)...or even about the State Budget (again?) here in California...
But I've been getting requests to shorten these things (posts)...a very good point...I have many, MANY opinions and shorter, quicker, more timely posts might increase readership (what? from two to three?)...
Still, here's the point...I'M IN THIS FOR THE LONG HAUL...yes, there will come a time when I will take stock of this whole venture and fine tune it...I will add and subtract...and modify and amend...and bolster and enhance...okay, put Roget away...
I WILL pen an "author's bio." I will advertise and promote. I'll sell my soul (well, my pseudo soul) if I have to...but, you get the point...I heard a discussion on the Scott Van Pelt radio show (ESPN) yesterday...it was about bloggers and their (our) "right" to print opinion just because we have a computer...
Van Pelt was speaking with a well read (and successful) blogger (I believe his name is Chris Mottram) from the Sporting News...and they were talking about a previous interview on the show which featured Mitch Albom, a sportswriter with the Detroit Free Press (also, from "Tuesdays with Morrie" fame)...
Albom's point during the interview in essence was that he held a Master's Degree in Journalism from Columbia University, had trained, written and traveled extensively plying his craft, and to paraphrase, "had paid his dues" to get where he was...bloggers on the other hand, apparently need (just) fingers and a computer...
Oh well, I've been called worse...on MY BEST days...but I WILL, I promise, attempt to make this endeavor more relevant with each passing day...stay tuned if you would like to be on the ground floor of MediaCopp in the 21st Century...I guarantee it'll be worth it...
Thursday, February 5, 2009
I want my...I want my ther-a-py...
I've always said we are a Bi-Polar society...and no amount of Lithium or Depakote can even begin to remotely stabilize the roller coaster nation in which we live...the ups and (more often these days) downs are beginning to take their toll...
I heard President Obama on CNN this morning say that he "rejected the notion" that (in effect) what he was doing (by promoting the $800, and now $900 billion pork-filled stimulus package) was contrary to "the people's" wishes because, "the American people went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."
Yes, we fired Bush...he was an ineffective president, the lamest of lame ducks. He did everything half-assed...he couldn't/wouldn't win (the war), but wouldn't get out...he wanted to "be a uniter, not a divider," and then became the essence of division. He bemoaned the fringe elements of politics, but too often catered to his own "fringe" base...
But, does the "change" we requested equate to business as usual? Congress is (basically) the same. The "new" administration is "bubbling" with leftover Bushies-Clintonites. Granted, the Republicans fumbled so badly, even I wanted a Democratic Congress...well, I thought I did, at least until Herr Harry and Frau Nancy took the reins...
But, do we really want to go down this road? I mean, become Europe Lite? When we take money from one group and give it to a second, is that really where we want to go? If so, please speak up, so I can get in the second line. Okay, I get it...WE voted for change...WE rejected all things "supply side, capitalistic, trickle down, whatever you want to call it," right?
WRONG! We only fired Bush (in my opinion). I don't think we wanted more federal intrusion in matters involving our individual freedoms. I don't believe we wanted "job growth" to be, for instance, referees in midnight basketball leagues...and no, I'm not saying that ALL programs are bad...
Recently, an article was published in our local rag, the Scab-ramento Bee, hailing projects built during the 30's as part of the New Deal spending spree under FDR...the piece mentioned some bridges, water towers, even sewers and other infrastructure projects...and also controversial "projects" (just as in today's stimulus bill) like gardens, flower beds, and painted murals...
And naturally, there were conflicting thoughts regarding effectiveness of such "stimulus." They were from the same "bi-polar" crowds as today...one side reporting the "stimulus" (projects) didn't really help and the economy didn't recover until the war (World War II) and the other side maintaining that "with the exception of a brief recession in 1937-38, the 'spending spree' was helping the economy climb out of the abyss created by the Republicans."
What to do, what to do...well, I do know one thing...we'll do what we always do...and then wonder why we aren't getting different results. We'll eschew our mood stabilizers and instead veer far left (because that is the current mandate) until we veer right again...oh well, at least we'll get another Tower Bridge (over the Sacramento River) out of it...
I heard President Obama on CNN this morning say that he "rejected the notion" that (in effect) what he was doing (by promoting the $800, and now $900 billion pork-filled stimulus package) was contrary to "the people's" wishes because, "the American people went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."
Yes, we fired Bush...he was an ineffective president, the lamest of lame ducks. He did everything half-assed...he couldn't/wouldn't win (the war), but wouldn't get out...he wanted to "be a uniter, not a divider," and then became the essence of division. He bemoaned the fringe elements of politics, but too often catered to his own "fringe" base...
But, does the "change" we requested equate to business as usual? Congress is (basically) the same. The "new" administration is "bubbling" with leftover Bushies-Clintonites. Granted, the Republicans fumbled so badly, even I wanted a Democratic Congress...well, I thought I did, at least until Herr Harry and Frau Nancy took the reins...
But, do we really want to go down this road? I mean, become Europe Lite? When we take money from one group and give it to a second, is that really where we want to go? If so, please speak up, so I can get in the second line. Okay, I get it...WE voted for change...WE rejected all things "supply side, capitalistic, trickle down, whatever you want to call it," right?
WRONG! We only fired Bush (in my opinion). I don't think we wanted more federal intrusion in matters involving our individual freedoms. I don't believe we wanted "job growth" to be, for instance, referees in midnight basketball leagues...and no, I'm not saying that ALL programs are bad...
Recently, an article was published in our local rag, the Scab-ramento Bee, hailing projects built during the 30's as part of the New Deal spending spree under FDR...the piece mentioned some bridges, water towers, even sewers and other infrastructure projects...and also controversial "projects" (just as in today's stimulus bill) like gardens, flower beds, and painted murals...
And naturally, there were conflicting thoughts regarding effectiveness of such "stimulus." They were from the same "bi-polar" crowds as today...one side reporting the "stimulus" (projects) didn't really help and the economy didn't recover until the war (World War II) and the other side maintaining that "with the exception of a brief recession in 1937-38, the 'spending spree' was helping the economy climb out of the abyss created by the Republicans."
What to do, what to do...well, I do know one thing...we'll do what we always do...and then wonder why we aren't getting different results. We'll eschew our mood stabilizers and instead veer far left (because that is the current mandate) until we veer right again...oh well, at least we'll get another Tower Bridge (over the Sacramento River) out of it...
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
