Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktAnyone who didn’t follow Tao’s link to Critical Massachusetts blog documenting the protests, apparently, of parental injustices by his children (and dog) must do so now.
Finally, the true story of the founding of our country can be told:
I’d totally go see that movie.
Corporate Zombies are a bigger problem than perhaps some believe. Re: Your Brains:
And, speaking of work ethics (as we were earlier), this is pretty much the story of my life:
— KW
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Apparently everyone is all tired out from the record setting number of comments earlier today.
LikeLike
Which, again, I missed.
LikeLike
I was just over at PL for the first time in a week or so; had to patch in via Citrix. Poor lms had to hold down the Left Coast Bureau all day under serious attack from we righties.
LikeLike
She's a worthy adversary, though she's got to be frustrated about now. We need more commie/libs it appears! 😉
LikeLike
Did cao ask about me? (crosses fingers)
LikeLike
I bet he asked about me too, and liam probably misses me like crazy.I can handle it you guys, I'm wearing my Supermom shirt and cape.
LikeLike
No cao in sight, believe it or not.It's funny, though. All I have to do is show up, and the same people start shooting (and complaining that I'm there). It does make me feel like the life of the party, Troll. Heh.
LikeLike
No, lms, no mentions, sorry to say. I did wonder whether Liam would attack me for being part of the rump group, and so attack you by association, but he just attacked me for being a conservative on a liberal blog (millionth time). And BM hijacked it into an argument about PL's supposedly being a centrist and not a liberal blog. Talked with shrink about Keynes.
LikeLike
Actually, I'm pretty sure they all think I took one for team by luring you guys away, lol.I still miss a few people over there and throw in an FDL link every now and then because no one else will. I think I'll pay all of you back tomorrow with a bunch of quotes from that Vanity Fair piece about Liz Warren, love that woman.
LikeLike
There is a critical mass of excellent people here, from various fields and backgrounds. Very interesting.You need to get your lefties fired up, though. ; ) An inspirational locker room talk, maybe.
LikeLike
"There is a critical mass of excellent people here, from various fields and backgrounds."I agree qb. We can go off on tangents and no one to remind us to stay on topic or if we want to change the topic we just start our own post. I did stay away from the legal post today though, but I read it. 🙂
LikeLike
Plus we have Kevin to keep you and I from tearing each other apart.
LikeLike
I remember some time ago Greg said that if any of his readers had a blog, they should let him know and he would advertise it for them. Think, he will advertise ours?
LikeLike
I need to get better at making legal stuff more understandable and accessible. I am a total non-elitist as to legal subject matter and think there is no reason why smart people can't understand and discuss it if they want to. That's why I often link court opinions. But it is not easy to ratchet down the assumed knowledge and legal jargon. It can be done, though. After all, people learn law basically by reading it.
LikeLike
He did say that, Scott. Good question though about this one. I have my doubts. We might not be competition, but we are something of a rebellion/desertion (for darned good reasons).
LikeLike
qb:I actually like to read legal opinions, especially Scalia's. He's written some very amusing opinions. I was disappointed no one but you picked up my SC reference earlier today.
LikeLike
I don't mind reading legal opinions and I even waded through the torture memos 1 1/2 times. After reading them I can generally form a non-legal opinion. Where I get lost is when lawyers start a discussion between each other who have so much historical knowledge that I simply don't possess. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, I just don't feel confident to contribute, other than asking questions. I'm not trying to discourage you guys from discussing legal issues between yourselves in the least. I'm learning more here than I ever learned at the plumline because we're not so wrapped up in being right all the time, even though I usually am, much to Scott's chagrin. :>)
LikeLike
Not sure about over-pimping just yet. But, I'll leave that to the room. Been missing Suekazoo (she has posting problems, I know) and Taroya (I hope she hasn't deserted–I also know people get busy). Tried to invite Bernie and Jzap. Lmsinca says BGinChi is coming. I have faith.
LikeLike
No comments on 1776? Apparently I'm the only 300 fan?
LikeLike
I still would prefer we don't link over at the plumline, too much history to try to control it I think. And I'm not remotely interested in making Greg unhappy, I think he has a great blog. We're just trying something different and I for one am enjoying it. All I can do is participate myself and hope others will participate when they can. I'm not going to beg but I will still try to lure a few people over here, whether liam and cao like it or not. And the moderates here come to my rescue on occasion whether I want them to or not, lol. You guys don't need to worry, I won't let you become an echo chamber of conservative thought.
LikeLike
Earlier today I think it was lms who said that it wasn't just Wall Street which was being blamed for the economic woes of the nation. Yet consider this question, posed by one of the journalist panelists from last night's Republican debate: "Congresswoman Bachmann, three years after the financial meltdown, Main Street continues to suffer. People have lost their jobs, they've lost their homes, they've lost their faith in the future. But Wall Street is thriving. The banks not only got bailed out by the government: They made huge profits; they paid themselves huge bonuses. Do you think it's right that no Wall Street executives have gone to jail for the damage they did to the economy?"Newt Gingrich went on to suggest that perhaps Barney Frank and Chris Dodd ought to go to jail first. Debate moderator Charlie Rose responded to this suggestion with disbelief:"Clearly you're not saying they should go to jail."So to these allegedly objective journalists, it is simply a matter of uncontested fact that Wall Street damaged the economy and thus perfectly reasonable to wonder why Wall Street executives have not gone to jail, but the notion that politicians might go to jail for the damage they did to the economy is too crazy to take seriously. Perhaps you can understand now why I think that the idea that Wall Street was singularly responsible for our economic woes continues to be the primary theme presented for public consumption by the media.
LikeLike
Great Scott! (In both senses of the phrase–what a thread you created today, Scott, and as Doc uses it in BTTF). I get busy for a day and all hell breaks loose on ATiM. You guys had an interesting day!I lack the ability to rail at you Conservatives as coherently as lms, but you know I've got your back, girl! It would be nice to see more of the other XX folk, though–like okie dropping in last night.And I agree with jnc (?? I think it was)–it would have been interesting to see the commentary on Scott's piece on OWS over on PL. Poor Greg; he writes a great blog but his commenters are being run off by a shoddy platform. Similar to what's happened to Benen since they redesigned the WaMo site and made it prohibitively (for me, at least) difficult to comment. He used to get comment strings as long as Greg's, now a long one is less than 20.Well, if NoVA can get us that appropriations money. . .;-P
LikeLike
Oh, and Code Monkey is adorable. I'd go out with him!
LikeLike
Kevin:Not sure about over-pimping just yet.Who's talking about over-pimping? I was thinking about just the right amount of pimping.Regarding Bernie, he's already been invited, and he has even established contributor status. He obviously has no interest in actually contributing. I for one don't see any reason to keep chasing him. I know he and I have a history, but in all honesty I don't think he would fit in very well here, which he probably knows and is why he has stayed away.
LikeLike
michi, I don't sound all that coherent when I read back and see what I've written. And I promised scott and qb a really long post on Liz Warren tomorrow so I'm working on that now. I know you've got my back, I'm not worried. scott, is Charlie Rose the opposite of Chris Wallace? If Chris Dodd or Barney Frank broke the law I say go ahead, along with all the other crooks. I'd like to see the case against them first though. I'm telling you that people are mad at Republicans, Democrats, the government, the banks and other huge corporate entities that are buying our politicians. I don't know why you don't believe me. The middle class is being crushed and no one seems to care. The first person to harness that anger and actually accomplishes a net positive for them wins, and that means jobs.
LikeLike
kevin, I just read your last comment on Scott's really, really long thread. You have a very devious mind and I would be very interested in that, just for the sociological aspect, of course.Night all.
LikeLike
"So to these allegedly objective journalists, it is simply a matter of uncontested fact that Wall Street damaged the economy and thus perfectly reasonable to wonder why Wall Street executives have not gone to jail, but the notion that politicians might go to jail for the damage they did to the economy is too crazy to take seriously. "It's almost as if there's a double standard. Scott, I think you might be on to something.I'm not sure a tragic lack of foresight and restraint is a crime, either in government or Wall Street.Sociology, lms. I'm all for it. I
LikeLike
And Michigoose, glad to see you back! Yay!
LikeLike
Thanks, KW!
LikeLike
I love the protest pic that started this thread. Always good to have a laugh before turning in for some insomnia. Good day, though. I posted an original Civil war letter on my site–one from Pittsburgh Landing right before the battle of Shiloh. Maybe I'm easy to thrill, but that did it for me.I think Bernie is loyal to Greg, and I sympathize with that because I am, too.
LikeLike
Once again, Scott and I have scarily similar thought patterns. I was going to try to remember to post on that debate question this morning. It was so vacuous and irresponsible. It had no meaningful intellectual content but was just a recitation of standard, unfocused, left-wing anger and resentment. She might as well have been reading an OWS talking point.My immediate thought was that would have cut through the bs with this answer:We have rules in this country about charging and convicting people of crimes. We have to prove that someone violated a specific criminal statute. It has to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's conduct met each element a crime specified in a particular criminal statute.If you are aware of someone who committed a crime and can provide the details including the facts that satisfy each element of a specific crime, I'd be happy to discuss it, and we can discuss why the Obama Administration has not tried and convicted this person. Otherwise, I think it would be more productive to discuss what we need to do to get our economy healthy.
LikeLike
Ditto Scott re Bernie as well. I don't think anyone should go chasing him. There's a truth about it that I'm going to be presumptuous and say that most of the liberals might not see as clearly as we righties do, and that is that B really is not interested in discussion and exchanging views or seeking understanding. Which is fine and not a criticism; it's just not what he is interested in doing. If he contributed here, it would be awkward not to engage with the Right Coast Bureau. It's just not what everyone wants to do. He thinks that righties like scott, Troll and me are inherently dishonest and ill intentioned. There are others who have a similar outlook; they are not interested participating in a forum where the other side is treated as legitimate or worth engaging. It's all good. To each his own.
LikeLike
Btw, I thought Newt's unsolicited response to Tumulty's absurd question was one of the greatest debate answers ever. Charlie's dumbfounded "Clearly you aren't suggesting …" reaction was priceless. I mean, clearly no civilized person could imagine that Frank and Dodd are to blame or did something wrong! Why it's unthinkable. They are good Democrats, the people's champions! All three moderators should have received paychecks from the DNC.Newt has no chance, but with each debate I more appreciate the role he is playing in scolding the media, beating the theme that any of the Rs is a good choice compared to Obama, and saying the unthinkable to aghast establishmentarians like Charlie Rose.
LikeLike
lms:I'm telling you that people are mad at Republicans, Democrats, the government, the banks and other huge corporate entities that are buying our politicians.This mostly simply reinforces my point, lms. Your anger at the government, it seems, derives from its apparent failure to do something about what you perceive as the true villains, banks and corporate entities, which you think are "buying" politicians. This is hardly contrary to the standard media narrative that Wall Street is the bad guy who must be punished.
LikeLike
Not sure if you'll see this, ABC, but I've started to dig into Suite Harmonic and am really enjoying it even if it's led to less sleep each night since I started reading it. QB- I think it's less that he doesn't want you righties treated as legitimate so much as he thinks you need to be called out and if that comes across as a personal he doesn't really care. Like you said, to each his own. I just do my best to ignore the part of your comments that drive me nuts and focus on the thought provoking aspect (even if I often disagree with them).
LikeLike
Scott: "I was disappointed no one but you picked up my SC reference earlier today."You mean penumbras and emanations? Oh, we got it, and it was dead on. That line from Roe is possibly the worst bit of legal "reasoning" in any SCOTUS opinion. The metaphor is absurd.
LikeLike
qb:Once again, Scott and I have scarily similar thought patterns.Separated at birth, perhaps.
LikeLike
"I just do my best to ignore the part of your comments that drive me nuts…"I seem to be good at driving people nuts. It's like that uncontrollable mojo power Kramer once had, if you are a Seinfeld fan. On a serious note, I find it to be a powerful tool in litigation. It eventually makes the other side start doing crazy things and self destructing. Mainly, it's just doggedness and not letting someone divert from the point; but I don't want to start giving up too many trade secrets.I've had a lot of PL experience with B; it's probably not kosher to go on debating what his MO is, but I strongly disagree with your take, based on many, many exchanges with him.
LikeLike
qb:Isn't it from Griswald v Connecticut (which is of course the foundation of Roe)?BTW, speaking of SC opinions, one of my favorite Scalia opinions was his dissent in I think it was Casey v US PGA (don't quote me on that, but I think it is right.) It was the case of a golfer who had some kind of disability and wasn't able to walk a full 18 holes of golf, and so sued the PGA for not allowing him to use a cart. Unbelievably, he won the suit, but Scalia's acerbic dissent was fantastic. Particularly memorable was his dissection of the majority's reasoning that walking was not "essential" to the rules of golf. It's an invented game…none of the rules are "essential"!
LikeLike
"Once again, Scott and I have scarily similar thought patterns.Separated at birth, perhaps."As my very wise grandfather always said, "fools seldom disagree."
LikeLike
Scott, yes, of course, you are right. Griswold, like many unhinged critics of Roe, I tend to conflate the main precedent cited for it.
LikeLike
Yes, I also think the Casey dissent was one of Scalia's high points. "The imperial judiciary lives!"But the plurality opinion is the worst of modern times. I think everyone should read those two decisions and be forced to confront the reasoning of Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter that said they had to uphold Roe because it was so divisive and controversial, and the public (disobedient children) would not accept it. If ever the reasoning of a decision was perverse and contrary to the principles of our constitutional system, that was it.
LikeLike
should have said "those two opinions"must slow down
LikeLike
scottThere might actually be people on the left or middle that suspect Chris Dodd's association with Countrywide influenced some of his decisions during the housing boom, or Obama's stacking his Administration with GS types may have held back the recovery for Main Street. Congressional approval is at an all time low for a reason and I don't think it's a left right issue. My point is people down here are mad at everyone and one of the issues is the amount of money that appears to us to be influencing political decisions on both sides of the aisle.I think Republicans have more to fear from the OWS protests because they don't typically stand up to the Chamber, the banks, or the big oil companies in defense of the middle class. I mean that's always been the basis of differences between the parties but the lines have blurred over the last few decades so people aren't sure who's in their corner anymore.
LikeLike
QB- I always go back and forth on whether or not to change my tactics when facing someone who "drives me nuts." I've only been practicing for a few years so I don't have that much interaction with opposing counsel, I'm usually researching and writing briefs. In the past I have ignored such shenanigans but my current "mentor", so to speak, seems to fight fire with fire when necessary. Scott- On limsinca's comment, I think it's less about blaming Wall Street for causing the problem than it is "unfairness" about a lack of equal treatment. Whether Wall Street caused the mess is secondary to the fact that they were bailed out and Main Street was not. Of course, the "buying" politicians comment makes it harder to dodge the accusation (there is probably a better word available) that we're just blaming Wall Street. I see it as a separate issue to some extent and an an indictment on the politicians who can be "bought." Also, are you disputing that they are "buying" politicians or at least "buying" influence?
LikeLike
Have any of you noticed the amount of money being filtered into the coffers of the members of the "Super Committee"? Like a lot of things, it's not illegal but does it affect the outcome? Change the word buying if you want, I'm just expressing what I'm hearing on the ground so to speak. The middle class is essential to a thriving economy and the Beltway in general appears to have forgotten them until now. Most liberals are more than happy to express frustration with both political parties, ie the government and "Wall Street". And campaign finance reform, which might limit some of the monetary influence used to be another one of those bi-partisan issues. There used to be a lot of bi-partisan agreement on certain issues. Hell, I used to be a moderate.
LikeLike
"There's a truth about it that I'm going to be presumptuous and say that most of the liberals might not see as clearly as we righties do"Yay, us! There's also the indisputable truth that conservatives are all much better looking. And taller. And have better taste in food and wine. And, of course, there's our superpowers. But I'm not supposed to talk about that.Let's not bait on the ATiM. 😉
LikeLike
Ashot,I don't want to give the wrong impression. When I say that I seem to be able to drive opponents nuts, it isn't because I use Rambo tactics or any other shenanigans or unprofessional tactics. Quite the opposite. It is mainly when I have an opponent who does these things that, just by not being deterred and doggedly sticking to the point, pursuing the objective, and holding their feet to the fire, I have seen the pattern that they eventually begin to hang themselves.I had a classic case a few years ago in which my client was sued by another large company represented by a large NY firm. They were arrogant beyond belief. They stonewalled, they lied, they personalized everything, told me I didn't know what I was doing, etc. Two years later, the federal judge had granted my second motion for sanctions, we had proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the plaintiffs' CEO had lied undre oath, and that they had hidden the key documents in the case. All I ever did was keep pressing my case without being deterred. Since they were changing positions all the time, I got to file brief after brief showing that they were hiding the ball and were dishonest. All this time the lawyers got more and more furious and unhinged at me. All I ever did was not give up. When they would change positions on an issue, I would calmly hold their feet to the fire. Ultimately, they they were demanding a settlement of tens of millions. I offered them zero plus stopping our sanctions proceedings. They sent a letter to the judge improperly attaching my letter (which secretly delighted me, since it gave me the opportunity to submit their unhinged letter) and demanding another conference with clients present — the premise being that my client's presence would shame me into giving up. Of course, they were completely deluded. The judge heard us and agreed 100% with me. They accepted my offer of zero the next morning. Sorry for the war story, but I didn't want you to have the wrong impression. I love having Rambo nutjobs on the other side. Let them oversell, overreach, start making personal attacks. More often than not, once they go down that road they are toast.
LikeLike
ashot:Whether Wall Street caused the mess is secondary to the fact that they were bailed out and Main Street was not.But it is not a fact, it is a myth. Wall Street was bailed out in order to bail out Main Street. The notion that there exists two opposing sides, Main Street vs Wall Street (a notion highly visible also in lms's most recent comment) is simply false. The financial sector of the economy is an integral part of the economy. Main Street relies on it. It is great populist rhetoric to claim that the financial sector was provided government assistance for its own sake, but that is entirely false. It was provided assistance out of fear about what would happen to the rest of the economy if such assistance was not provided.This us vs them mentality, carefully cultured by politicians in general but especially by Obama the alleged "uniter", is very, very destructive. And untrue.Also, are you disputing that they are "buying" politicians or at least "buying" influence?No, but it is not entirely unreasonable of them to do so. This opens up a whole new can of worms that can probably be the subject of its own post, but this is the conundrum of allowing, indeed desiring, the active participation of government in business to achieve particular outcomes. When that happens, it not only becomes attractive, it becomes necessary for businesses to influence government in order to protect themselves and their interests.
LikeLike
"Yay, us! There's also the indisputable truth that conservatives are all much better looking. And taller. And have better taste in food and wine. And, of course, there's our superpowers. But I'm not supposed to talk about that."This is all common knowledge, however.All I meant by my presumptuous statement was that several of us have a lot of experience trying to engage in discussion with the fellow (see what I did there) from the other side and thus have a unique perspective.
LikeLike
Btw, I drew up a 12-point, "how to destroy your own case" teaching from that case alone.Stuff like: OverreachUnderestimateDo not cooperateMake personal attacksMake categorical representationsDo not do a thorough searchAccuse the lawyers of bad faithDon't worry about consistency between your case theory and your discovery position.etc
LikeLike
"…..it becomes necessary for businesses to influence government in order to protect themselves and their interests."I might have a little something to say on that issue.
LikeLike
Wall Street was bailed out in order to bail out Main Street.Yep, that was the party line, both parties. And Obama/Geithner/Summers/Bernanke were instrumental in making sure one half of the bargain worked. How'd that work out for Main Street? That's the issue isn't it? Some of us don't believe Main Street received much bang for their buck.
LikeLike
NoVA:I imagine you would have a lot to say about that. 😉
LikeLike
QB- I didn't picture you as some yelling, screaming, tirading nut job, but thanks for the clarification. I had a simlar experience recently where we moved for sanctions (that was a really fun brief to write) and while we ended up paying a little money, the settlement came quickly after we filed our motion and was for significantly less than what the other side was demanding. Scott- I tend to agree that this us vs. them paradigm is false. I also see why the Wall Street bailout was needed in order to help Main Street, but I'm just having trouble seeing how that has actually been how things played out in the end.There is, of course, nothing wrong with businesses seeking influence and it probably is necessary given our economic and political structure. However, the problem arises when the winner is picked, so to speak, based on how much money they'll give a politician as opposed to other criteria. That mostly supports your point about it being problematic when the government picks winners, but I just wanted to clarify my perspective.
LikeLike
lms:How'd that work out for Main Street? You tell me…which is better for Main Street, 9% unemployment or 20% unemployment? Home values that have dropped 30%, or home values that have dropped 60%? Retirement funds that have lost 25% of their value, or retirement funds that have lost 65% of their value?
LikeLike
QB- I love war stories, so don't hesitate in sharing. I totally agree on the overreaching point in particular. The plaintiff brought in another defendant and included several completely frivolous claims. They just wanted to add another deep pocket to increase the eventual settlement, but it had the opposit effect. Their frivolous claim against the third defendant poisoned the entire case, destroyed their credibility with the judge and would have made for some interesting depositions. So they settled for far less than they would have never added that defendant.
LikeLike
QB, my daughter's a lawyer and you're reminding me of two two things about methodology. When she was getting married and we were zeroing in on the venue for the reception and found a place we both loved but doubted we could afford, we sat down with the person who we needed to talk with. My daughter took out her pad and pen, asked a question and then just sat there waiting for an answer. The other woman panicked every time there was a silence a d immediately started talking and offering better prices on things. We ended up with a super reception place.The other thing I remember is closer to what you're saying. My daughter had this big case involving employment discrimination. She kept calmly returning to the same issue with the main witness until that witness had given completely contradictory answers. It was decisive in the case.Of course I don't try to win arguments with my daughter. (Fortunately, there are few.)Hi, ashot. Nice to hear that.
LikeLike
"You mean penumbras and emanations? Oh, we got it, and it was dead on. That line from Roe is possibly the worst bit of legal "reasoning" in any SCOTUS opinion. The metaphor is absurd."I must disagree. I love the metaphor. Roe may be bad law, I'll leave that to more erudite legal minds than my own. But "penumbras and emanations"? That's poetry, dude. "All I meant by my presumptuous statement was that several of us have a lot of experience trying to engage in discussion with the fellow (see what I did there) from the other side and thus have a unique perspective."I had some pretty good conversations with a certain fellow, as long as I don't challenge him on anything significant. But like anybody participating in a common forum, he has rhetorical strategies for winning engagements to his satisfaction that are not necessarily conducive to open dialog. Still, I was open to his participation, even though I thought it might end up with more discussions about tone and responding to bait (in this case, a certain fellow's) and not baiting and so on . . . but this is not his cup of tea, I understand that. ashot: "QB- I didn't picture you as some yelling, screaming, tirading nut job, but thanks for the clarification. "Then you've never seen him when the barista gets his order wrong at Starbucks. He brings down armageddon .lmsinca: "Some of us don't believe Main Street received much bang for their buck."I don't think we got any bang for our buck, nor do I believe it was fundamentally about doing anything for main street. There was a bonus structure to maintain for Friends of Bernanke and Geithner . . . and that bonus structure was maintained. Blessed be. Disaster averted. 😉
LikeLike
"based on how much money they'll give a politician as opposed to other criteria"if only it were that easy. $$ gets you in the door sometimes. but it's kind of a vicious cycle. we give to the same people — R and D — who are on the authorizing committees. and people don't like to give to challengers. and then you target folks for a specific concern. hey, member X has this business in his district that's going to be impacted by Y. let's spend $1000 and get someone over to the breakfast fundraiser next week. i personally don't make donations for a couple of reasons. my messages are always policy focused and the disclosure requirements are pretty strict. that said, eventually, if i advance at the firm, I'll be expected to make donations to the firm's PAC. but i also do more regulatory than legislative work.
LikeLike
Can't really edit when posting from my iPad. Sorry for goofs.
LikeLike
Scott: "You tell me…which is better for Main Street, 9% unemployment or 20% unemployment? Home values that have dropped 30%, or home values that have dropped 60%? Retirement funds that have lost 25% of their value, or retirement funds that have lost 65% of their value?"How do you prove a negative? That sounds a whole heckuva a lot like Obama's "jobs created or saved" (how do you quantify, really, saved jobs, or even identify jobs that would have been created anyway as opposed to meaningful jobs created by economic stimulus?_).And there's something to be said for the cleansing power of purgatives. I hate to sound like a liberal, here, but I haven't yet heard a good argument for socializing risk yet privatizing, essentially, rewards. If banks are too big to fail without taking down the American economy, and they aren't going to redress that themselves, I think lots of folks–independents and liberals, especially–are going to support government action to limit their size, and the danger they represent to the economy when a few bad apples can risk collapsing the economy without a trillion dollars of tax payer money.
LikeLike
I don't donate to politicians, ever. They get enough of my money directly from my paycheck, and I've never seen one that makes me think that it's worth my donating a dollar to this guy to give him a better chance over his competitor. I have faith in the free market of ideas. But, I donate very little cash, period. I donate used clothing and furniture and toys, and participate in school fundraising drives. But most private charities compete for top fundraisers in key posts, and they do that with money, and I'm not going to donate to the American Cancer Society if they're paying their top people hundreds-upon-hundreds of thousands of dollars per year than I have ever made or ever will make. If the CEO of the ACS can make $600k or $800k or more, I don't need to donate anything to them. Most politicians are well to do already. Those who aren't will generally leave Washington much wealthier than they arrived. They don't need my money, my kids do.
LikeLike
"Most liberals are more than happy to express frustration with both political parties"And so are most conservatives. Indeed, this is what led directly to the Tea Party and the current crop of GOP congressmen. They expressed their frustration with RINOs and compromisers and milque-toast conservatives, big time.
LikeLike
Nova: ""…..it becomes necessary for businesses to influence government in order to protect themselves and their interests."I might have a little something to say on that issue."Then say it! BTW, I often advance the Ayn Randian position that monopolies only exist in collusion with government. AT&T was a monopoly in need of a breakup because they had the laws written to favor their monopoly control of the marketplace. Satellite radio challenges this position, but I suppose that's just because certain things are so expensive and difficult–such as launching satellites–that it allows for a monopoly without government collusion.
LikeLike
KW — I owe lms and Mike a MedPAC post. I'll add one on lobbying and influence to the to do list.
LikeLike
Monopolies, too. I meant that to be a request. Government collusion with monopolies. BTW, back to 1776–another reason that Robot Chicken segment is funny to me is that my youngest daughter has a George Washington doll (we have since lost his official 1776 clothes, so he's often in a pair of colorful swim trunks)–but, sure enough, that George Washington doll is ripped. That's one muscular George Washington. Not sure if it's the same doll in the 1776 video–I think the one we have is actually more muscular."This . . . is . . . Virginia!"
LikeLike
Since we are discussing posts and requests for posts, I wanted suggest maybe an email or dialogue type post between a conservative and liberal would be interesting. One of my favorite sports columnists, Bill Simmons, uses the format. It does not necessarily have to be a debate per se, the two people could even agree but have different perspectives. Just a thought.
LikeLike
Kevin:There was a bonus structure to maintain for Friends of Bernanke and Geithner . . . and that bonus structure was maintained.Sorry Kevin, but that is pure populist hogwash. Go back and revisit the panic going on in September and October 2008. It wasn't narrow panic on Wall Street that bonuses weren't going to be paid. It was widespread panic throughout the country that the entire economy was going to implode. Hank Paulson wasn't excusing himself from meetings with Bernanke and the president to go throw up in the bathroom over the fact that his ex-colleagues at Goldman might not get paid. He was physically ill at the prospects that the entire economy was on the brink of collapse under his watch. You may disagree that such a collapse was imminent, or that the bailout was necessary at all to help save the wider economy. But that doesn't mean it was all just a ruse to save Wall Street bonuses. And I can assure you that the bonus structure has not been maintained. Yes, plenty of people are still getting paid lots of money. But lots…lots…of previously highly paid people in finance are and have been without jobs, and lots more who are left are getting paid less than ever before. Frankly I am sick and tired of this cynical, populist demagoguery. How do you prove a negative?You don't, but it wasn't me who posed the question that required it. You can't assess what Main Street "got" out of the bailouts without considering what Main Street would have had without it. I haven't yet heard a good argument for socializing risk yet privatizing, essentially, rewards.I agree. …when a few bad apples can risk collapsing the economy…As I have been saying, that is a false narrative designed by politicians to avert attention from their own culpability.
LikeLike
ABC,Interesting. I know exactly what you mean. I am the same way with sales people and the like. I also have no patience for sales pitches and schmoozing efforts, or especially pressure tactics. Sometimes, what are ordinary conversational dynamics also frustrate me, because people don't stay on point or to an orderly progression. I say things like, "that made no sense" way too often. We get it from the Socratic method, cross examination, and other aspects of legal training and experience, although I believe that self-selection is a factor.It's the only way I know how to be, but I have commented before at PL that I'm aware at some level that people find it disconcerting in a forum like this. Aside from the disconcerting lawyer's approach to dialogue, however, the kinds of principles I listed above can be good ones in many contexts in life.
LikeLike
ashot, as long as one of them isn't a lawyer, we know your tricks now………jkalso, as long as the other one isn't me………seriously
LikeLike
"Sorry Kevin, but that is pure populist hogwash."No truth to it all, then? Not even a smidgen? "But that doesn't mean it was all just a ruse to save Wall Street bonuses."That's not what Rush Limbaugh thinks! ;)"Frankly I am sick and tired of this cynical, populist demagoguery."It's hard to be The Lorax for commercial bankers, Scott. But somebody has to do it. And that somebody is you. 😉 "As I have been saying, that is a false narrative designed by politicians to avert attention from their own culpability."Well, certainly, bad apples can be on the House Finance committee. They aren't all in banks.
LikeLike
lmsinca- Actually I would think it would be hilarious to send rapid fire emails during the next republican debate. The parties could be two liberals, two conservatives, one of each..whatever. Jokes could be made, outfits commented on, actualy policy discussed, yells of "you lie." Sort of like this exchange between yankees fans when the Tigers eliminated them.
LikeLike
That would be fun ashot, I was just giving you a hard time. But we wouldn't actually do it via email and then post later would we? Wouldn't the two or four just own the thread here and the rest of us just watch?
LikeLike
"I also have no patience for sales pitches and schmoozing efforts, or especially pressure tactics."This, I agree with. I politely kicked some people out that we had called to get a price on a screen porch because of the high-pressure, sales-seminar system they used to try to get us to spend $20k on a $6k purchase. And that was after kind of being dicks to us, in general. But I got irritated very quickly, and eventually told them that, look, I had other things to do, and I had not pencilled in 2 hours to have you go through your sales pitch. That's not what we talked about, and, had we known that's what you were going to do, I never would have agreed to it. We called another company, they looked at the job, took about 10 minutes or so. Called back with a price, got the job, did it, did a great job, and for a lot less money.I hate high-pressure. The older I get, the more they piss me off. When a car sales person asks me to sign a piece of paper they wrote a price on (a tactic to make you feel committed), I whip out my own piece of paper and ask them to sign it. "This just says you agree that you know high pressure sales tactics piss me off, and make it highly unlikely I will buy your car, even if you are by and far the best price, if you keep doing it." I participated in numerous sales pitches. I've been through a dozen sales seminars. I recognize all the strategies. I *hate* having them used on me. They make me very, very rude."Sometimes, what are ordinary conversational dynamics also frustrate me, because people don't stay on point or to an orderly progression."Yeah, I understand that, of course, I constantly veer of point. Orderly progression in conversation is not a strength of mine. Sorry!" "that made no sense""I would argue that you could say that about someone speaking in a foreign language, and that would be true–for you. They could actually be making a lot more sense than you are, only doing it in French. Thus, it's usually beneficial to clarify that: "This doesn't make sense to me." Or, "I'm not following how x leads to y in your description. Am I missing something?" It encourages explanation rather than confrontation. We may feel that "this makes no sense" implies "you make no sense to me", but the listener tends to infer that you're saying that you're smart, they are dumb, and they don't know how to talk. Or, something close to that–which is why people find that disconcerting. But encouraging people to explain their poorly thought out positions (I know, this has been done to me a lot) helps them recognize the weaknesses in their argument for themselves. If not immediately, then eventually. "That makes no sense" tends to be translated by the listener as "you're an idiot". Introspection on the part of the person who is making the nonsensical argument rarely follows. 😉 The above is just an observation, based on experience, and not a criticism. I've said "that makes no sense" without clarification on more than one occasion.
LikeLike
Kevin:No truth to it all, then?No, I don't think so. I think what the government did, both under Bush and Obama, was a good faith attempt to avoid even greater economic distress. Whether it was wise or effective or necessary is certainly debateable, but I am not so cynical as to believe it was done to help a few "friends" on Wall Street.That's not what Rush Limbaugh thinks! Rush can demagogue as well as anyone.Well, certainly, bad apples can be on the House Finance committee.Sure, but that wasn't who you were talking about.
LikeLike
lmsinca- I think we should try both. We could use instant messaging then copy and paste the exchange. I just think making the exchange it's own post would lead to a robust debate in the comment section whereas it's harder to comment on a comment in the comment section.
LikeLike
"When a car sales person asks me to sign a piece of paper they wrote a price on (a tactic to make you feel committed), I whip out my own piece of paper and ask them to sign it."Those don't make me mad, they make me laugh (they know it doesn't actually mean anything right?) and then leave. I bought a used car a few months ago and the first place used the old "let me see if I can get a bottom line price from my manager" line. Of course, while he was talking with his manager, I went to the dealership's website and looked at the online price which was lower than what was on the sticker. The salesman came back and quoted me the price from the webpage and I left.
LikeLike
ashotIM is a good idea. I like it. I'll let you set it up. Sue and Okie did a great commentary on the first Republican debate over at Plumline. They've had trouble duplicating it because of the comment system and too much intrusion from others but I thought the first one was hysterical.
LikeLike
I don't get mad at high pressure salespeople, either, unless it is a situation in which they won't leave me alone and I can't escape. But as soon as someone says it's my only chance or today only or the like, it's over, whether or not I want what they are selling. The officious store salesman is dead to me. This is one reason I like Nordstrom; somehow they train their people with the right balance. I always marvel at how foolish the high pressure people are not to realize that many of us will not deal with them.
LikeLike
"Sure, but that wasn't who you were talking about."At that moment, but I certainly have before. I can't read the entire encyclopedia in every comment (although sometimes I do try). : )
LikeLike
"unless it is a situation in which they won't leave me alone and I can't escape."This is why my wife no longer shops at the White and Black store (or whatever its called). You are hounded constantly in that store.
LikeLike