Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktAnother on-set report from the Hobbit. Can’t wait for this film, yet I will be waiting–for another year. But maybe there will be teaser trailer soon?
 |
| Martin Freeman as the young Bilbo Baggins, standing with director Peter Jackson who, after having lost a tremendous amount of weight, is packing the pounds back on. Man, have I been there. |
I’m not sure if any of the theaters in my town will be able to do the 48-frames per second the film is being shot in. 48 frames makes a difference, though—especially with 3D.
Democrats and Republicans can come together and get along and work together in tandem toward a common goal. If that goal is lining their own personal pockets .
Why did Nancy “Republicans don’t believe in public safety” Pelosi block credit card reform? Might have something to do with all that Visa stock she was sitting on. How did Pelosi get in on this sweet deal? We’re not sure, but Big Government is suspicious.
Why is this all coming up now? Peter Schweizer wrote a book. He should be our era’s Upton Sinclair, and his book should be like a non-fiction The Jungle, prompting real and significant long term reforms. However, given that Upton Sinclair was dealing with meat-packers who did not write the laws that governed them, and Peter Schweizer is writing about the folks who write laws with their own convenience often in mind, I’m not holding my breath.
That’s it for tonight, for me. Peace, homeys! — KW
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
I think that trying to eliminate insider trading is a bit like trying to win the War on Drugs. With that in mind, I would propose the following:A safe harbor provision for insider trading where you can trade based on information you acquire that no one else knows, provided that you disclose the information at the same time as you make the trade, thus getting it into the public domain as soon as possible.
LikeLike
McWing (in case you drop by this evening):Officers suck.Oh, c'mon, dude! All of us??? Maybe you should have gone Army and worked for me! 🙂
LikeLike
David Dayen has an interesting critique of the 60 Minutes story which I assume is generating a lot of the discussion today regarding insider trading.60 Minutes clearly wanted to go after the big fish, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi, so Kroft could confront them at their weekly press conferences. But the evidence they had just didn’t scan, as Ryan Grim points out. Boehner bought health insurance stocks before the public option died. But they were purchased by his financial advisor without his knowledge. And Boehner didn’t have much to do with the public option’s demise – that was reserved for Blue Dogs and Joe Lieberman.The Pelosi hit was even worse. The story claims that Pelosi bought 5,000 shares of Visa in an IPO while legislation on credit card reform was before the House. I’ll give this one to Ryan: “Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies began making its way through the House. Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest, the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of 44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House,” CBS reports. But CBS leaves out that fact that the bill passed out of committee at the very end of the legislative session, as Congress was dealing with the Wall Street implosion and bailout, and that the chamber then adjourned until the election. More importantly, Democrats didn’t have the votes for it in the Senate and the notion that President Bush would have signed it if they did is far-fetched. CBS goes on to report: “Congresswoman Pelosi pointed out that the tough credit card legislation eventually passed, but it was two years later and was initiated in the Senate.” The implication is, apparently, that the Senate forced Pelosi’s hand. Throughout 2009 and 2010, the House consistently passed stronger and more progressive legislation than the Senate, but in the scenario laid down by CBS, it was the other way around when it came to credit card reform. But in 2008, before the stock transaction, the House had already passed the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights over the objections of industry lobbyists."The idea that the Senate were the real crusaders and fatcat Pelosi dragged her feet on the bill makes no sense at all, especially because the credit card reform didn’t have a chance to pass into law until George W. Bush left the White House.The fact that Eric Cantor, who made lots of dodgy trades, including a short on US Treasuries during the debt limit debate, wasn’t mentioned at all in the piece, and that 60 Minutes is planning a profile of Cantor, tells you a lot about the story.None of this means that insider trading isn’t a problem in Congress that needs to stop. But I’d rather hear what Jack Abramoff has to say about it over 60 Minutes.
LikeLike
Mich:I noticed you mentioned Bo Shembechler on an earlier thread. Are you aware that he always used to order a cup of soup when he went to restaurants? He couldn't handle a Bowl. (cue rimshot)
LikeLike
Nice one, Scott.
LikeLike
jnc:There have been arguments made for legalizing insider trading.
LikeLike
Michi,Weel, not all officers, just 3/4's of them. In all honesty, I cannot think of why the ilitary has so many of them. The officers corps could be cut back by 3/4's and the result would be an increase in efficiency. Further, the status that officers crave, for example the required idiotic salute and use of either "sir" or "ma'am" when addressing said individual is a holdover from feudal times and serves no useful purpose in the U.S. Military.In all honesty, I don't know what the function of an officer is and it has never been explained to me adequately. As a result, I am mystified as to why anyone would desire to become an officer other than it pays better. Considering how little value the officer's corps brings to the military, it is, to me, an easy way to save literally hundreds of billions of dollars by eliminating most of them. Can you explain what function an officer can perform that cannot be performed by enlisted personnel?
LikeLike
ashot:The old ones are always the best ones.
LikeLike
Low, Scott. Very, very low. But funny, I'll give you that. :-)McWing: Officers can be held responsible for the whole monetary value of replacing a piece of equipment they break; enlisted folks top out at a couple of paychecks if I remember right. In all seriousness, an honest answer would take an entire post, so I'm assuming that you're exercising your usual trenchant sense of humor, and I'll just order you to drop and give me ten. 🙂
LikeLike
Not really Michi, I'm completely serious. And all it would take to make an enlisted person financially liable for a piece of broken equipment is a change in regulations. How many officers have you ever heard of who were made financially responsible for the destruction of, say, an F-18 or a C-130? Or even a M-1 tank? I'm not trying to denigrate your service, please don't interprete it that way, I'm arguing that the distinction between enlisted and officer is artificial, based on class distinction not merit, and unnecessary.
LikeLike
Actually, McWing, the distinction is functional–strategy vs tactics. Officers field grade and above are tasked with thinking strategically while NCOs at all levels are tasked with turning strategy into tactics. Enlisted and company grade officers are basically in training (mostly, in both cases, by NCOs).I had too many enlisted men work for me who were smarter and/or better educated than me to think that there is a class distinction. And I never met an NCO who wanted to be an officer, while I knew several officers who would have liked to have been NCOs. Heck, if I could have leapfrogged to gunney/SFC from basic training I would've done that in a heartbeat. As it was, becoming an officer was my path due to my wanting to be a leader.
LikeLike
Michi, but why is there a need for such status distinction between offic and enlisted. Thats what I'm getting at. That status distinction is corrosive and does not help, I'd even argue that it hinders, the military's mission of winning wars with minimum loss of American lives.
LikeLike
McWing, are you telling me you're looking for an egalitarian military??? How un-Libertarian/Tea Party of you! Almost a, well, liberal notion. The reason for the functional distinction is one of training. Officers have, on average, four years of training in military history, tactics and strategy before being commissioned. NCOs get their training after enlisting, and then it's a different focus. Same reason why PhDs and MDs make more money than laboratory technicians with the same amount of time in the lab, or why lawyers make more than paralegals. I'm sure there's an equivalent example in your line of work.If your argument is that you don't want to salute officers and call them ma'am, then you're going to have to swim upstream against hundreds of years of tradition. Personally, I always thought it was a useful distinction for work purposes, just like I don't expect my boss, who is an MD, to be an expert in what I do or what her nurse does. I'm not an expert in diagnostics like she is.BTW, my ex was enlisted. Professional distinctions don't necessarily mean personal ones.
LikeLike
Those status distinctions have traditionally been based on social class, I.e. precieved societal status based on birth versus actual ability. We've just substituted birth status for "education." In other words, credentialism. We're still trying to use social status in place of ability. That is deeply corrosive.
LikeLike
You're absolutely right in your statements about status. Where we disagree is whether or not it's corrosive. I won't argue that there aren't bad officers, and officers that abuse their power. But I don't agree that it's corrosive; on the contrary, I would say that in the vast majority of cases it's an effective chain of command and one that has served the US military well.Why, specifically do you see it as corrosive?And we may have to continue this tomorrow; I'm starting to get sleepy out here.
LikeLike
FYI…OWS protestors in New York evicted from Zucotti Park. Apparently the police moved in at 1am.Finally, Mayor Bloomberg doing his job.
LikeLike
Coverage from The NYT
LikeLike
Scott, I support the OWS movement but do agree that it is time for the camp-out to end. They can still be "day protesters." And perhaps this is a blessing in disguise for OWS. How were they otherwise ever going to end the camp-out without it appearing that they were abandoning their principles? This may actually save face for them.
LikeLike
okie:This may actually save face for them.That could be true. Although since they don't really seem to have a coherent message or purpose outside of the "occupation" itself, the ending of the occupation would seem likely to put an end to the "movement".What is it exactly that you support?
LikeLike
Scott, I do not look to OWS to have the "coherent message" you seem to expect, nor do I look to it for specific solutions. I think its value is in redirecting the public discussion in general. And I think it is helpful for people to feel more empowered and less disenfranchised, even if it does turn out to be chimera.
LikeLike
okie:I think its value is in redirecting the public discussion in general.From what to what?
LikeLike
From austerity cutbacks only to protecting and/or increasing assistance for lower and middle income citizens even if that is via tax increases . . . for one.It directs attention to the fact that huge numbers of people in this country are still very, very angry about the perceived complicity of "Wall Street" in our economic situation, not only without any perceived penalty but also by being rewarded with huge amounts of public dollars. Public dollars that are now expected to be reimbursed by cuts to the safety net.
LikeLike
For clarification, should read "expected by Republican politicians . . . ."
LikeLike
okie:Public dollars that are now expected to be reimbursed by cuts to the safety net.But that is quite simply wrong. The vast majority of public money lent (very explicitly not "rewarded" to) to banks has been paid back with interest.If this is the narrative OWS is attempting to move the discussion to, I'm not sure why you would support it. It is manifestly false.
LikeLike
Scott, you are quite simply wrong.
LikeLike
okie:Scott, you are quite simply wrong.About what?
LikeLike
Scott, sorry but the way you phrased that ruffled my feathers. Let's continue this another time if you are interested.
LikeLike
okie:Scott, sorry but the way you phrased that ruffled my feathers.I didn't intend to, but what you said is in fact wrong, and it needs to be pointed out. The attempt to rein in government spending is absolutely not an attempt to recoup money given to banks. That money has largely been paid back by the banks themselves, and what hasn't been paid back is still legally owed by them.Let's continue this another time if you are interested.I am extremely interested.
LikeLike
Scott, please consider it a date. Later . . . .
LikeLike
Morning report is up…
LikeLike