About Me

Name: m0t0r1zed
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

the bailout thing ...

i prefer the treasury selling insurance to banks instead of buying up all of the bad loans.  also, all of the talking heads going on about how we lost a trillion dollars on the market ... so if it goes back up 777 pts, then did we just make a trillion?  gimmie a break .... =P
 
excerpt of article in forbes ...
 
link to article: How to Pass the Bailout

House Republicans negotiated a section into the bill that would establish an insurance program for toxic assets. Instead of selling troubled mortgage-backed securities to the Treasury, banks could instead purchase insurance from the Treasury on the assets.

Eric Cantor, R-Va., the chief deputy whip for House Republican, told Forbes.com the insurance program was a "terrific alternative," but the program was not strong enough in the legislation. "That sort of cost us some votes, the fact that there wasn't more teeth in that," said Cantor, who was one of the originators of the insurance scheme.

In the legislation that failed Monday, the secretary of the Treasury was given the option to decide whether to buys the assets or apply the insurance program. Cantor is pushing a more muscular version of the insurance program that would require affected firms to pay insurance premiums on mortgage-backed securities rather than have the Treasury Department buy them directly.

Cantor said that under the failed bill, firms would probably be subject to one option or the other, since the government wants to prevent businesses from gaming the system by unloading their troubled assets on taxpayers, then buying insurance for the good assets, which presumably could eventually be re-sold at a higher rate.

 edit: hmm, then again, the gov't will just end up taking the premiums that they collect and spend it instead of actually setting it aside. -_-
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

nukes - the answer to all things

after watching another splendiferous political debate and the subsequent wonderfully stimulating commentary, i have lost my mind - again.  i'm sick and tired of partisan bickering, punditry, and faloofalafawafalolalooba.

i've given up on my pathetic attempts at faulty, mis-dis-un-tris-fun-gun-bun-reasoned analysis.  i've decided to simplify my world view beyond even "good guys vs. bad guys."  my answer to any political problem is now very simple.

nuke it.

investment bank goes belly up?  nuke it.
russians invade georgia? nuke it.
immigrants sneaking across the border?  nuke it.
hurricane tearing through the gulf?  nuke it.
axis of evil?  nuke it.
social security?  nuke it.
the arctic national wildlife refuge?  nuke it.
global warming?  nuke it.
housing glut?  nuke it.
spike in oil?  nuke it.
weak dollar?  nuke it.
rich people? kaboom.
poor people? yeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaarrrrrrggggggggnnnnnnnn. baboom.
middle class?  pa-pa-pa kablammo boom boom ba boom.
world opinion of america?  five. four. three. two. one. BOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

my fellow americans, we can, and we WILL, nuke our way out of every problem.  we have a robust, but neglected, stockpile just waiting to be used - my pretty, pretty arsenal.  that's why we also urgently need missile defense, so they can't nuke us back.

and to those who doubt whether my solution will work, well ... we'll never know until we try.  the logic is irrefutable.  it worked in ending wwii.  it can work in reducing our oil demand.  and dammit, it will work in solving the credit crisis!  the iranians understand this.  why do you think they are trying so hard to get some of their own?  it's the universal answer to everything!

in closing, just ask yourself, if god didn't want us to nuke things, then why would he have blessed us with so many?  thank you.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

investment banks getting tanked by short sellers ...

i wonder who made out big on the recent collapses. and the russian stock market blew up. hmm. and oil suddenly spiked along with gold.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin "hacked" by anon tldnr

meh. there were already news stories about people using security questions to get into e-mail accounts. u must be pretty stupid to put accurate info for those questions - especially if u're a public figure. duh.
 
funny how malkin describes her reader as "tech-savvy." heheheh. lurk moar.
 
Tags: Palin   hacking  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama & Biden - Professional ambulance chasing services

Perhaps in a sign of desperation, Obama and Biden appear less like presidential candidates and more like professional ambulance-chasing lawyers.  The Democratic campaign and its media cohorts have been running to-and-fro around the country hoping for disaster and tragedy at every corner and trying to find a way to pin it to Bush-McCain-Palin-Herbert Hoover.  Rather than sobriety, they seem to exhibit the kind of glee you find in kids at an Easter egg hunt.
"Hey, look what I found on the White House lawn!"
"Another present from Barney?"
"No, it's better than that!  I found Ebola!"
"Oh, joy!  Let's hope it's airborne, and Bush smirks inappropriately while he's announcing the deaths of thousands!"
 
Hurricanes, Iraq, Afghanistan, Wall Street, stinky cats, icy pavements.  Every mishap can be classified as one degree of separation away from McCain, two degrees of separation (Bush - McCain), or at most three degrees (Bush - Kevin Bacon - McCain). 
 
Commercial break:  If you've been injured in an accident or suffered from mental anguish during the past 8 years under George Bush, then Obama & Biden is here to represent you!
 
I suppose this is standard operating procedure for the party trying to regain the Presidency.  Of course, we must now dismiss both Obama-Biden-Bubba Hornblower-Carter-LBJ-Johnson's and Bush-McCain-Palin-Nixon-Hoover-Harding's promises to elevate the discourse and run truthful campaigns.  Hah!  If anyone actually believed them, then they must never have paid attention to politics.  Unfortunately, I never paid attention to politics, so I actually believed them.  Boy, am I stupid!

Seriously, it's about time that we got serious about serious campaign reform.  Hundreds of millions of devalued, but recently strengthening, dollars have been wasted on useless ads.  Is this the way to run a democracy or choose our candidates?  Is this the way to solve the institutionalized problem of stinky cats?  No!  I believe the proper way to resolve political debates is through pie fights, but sadly, I haven't really seen any traction for this idea.

All we can do is hope for change and put our country first during such desperate, fundamentally sound times of relatively tepid, potential semi-catastrophe.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oil falls, Japan's economy shrinks

no point in talking about it since i pretty much said everything in my earlier posts. meh, just hope there's a quick turnaround and oil keeps dropping fast.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I don't trust Biden ...

The one thing people tout about Biden is his foreign policy cred, but there's something about him that bugs me.  There are some people that know a lot of facts and can repeat ideas that other people have formulated.  Then there are people that can actually think critically and analyze facts on their own.

Biden has always struck me as the first type and not the second.  This is Biden's plan for partitioning Iraq in 2006 in a NY Times op-ed piece.

Unity Through Autonomy in Iraq
 
Personally, I thought partitioning might have been a good idea - if that was our strategy from the start of the war.  I was worried before the war about sectarian violence and my fears ended up becoming a reality.  However, since Bush pushed a plan for a stronger central gov't, the idea of falling back to partitioning didn't make sense to me.  To do so would have been perceived as an act of desperation - and their perception would have been correct. 
 
Also, it'd be difficult to impose a partition if the Iraqis didn't want it, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Kurds would have just said, "Screw this" and declared independence.  Bye bye, central gov't.  Hello, chaos. 
 
Iraq may still eventually fragment in the future, but trying to partition Iraq would have greatly accelerated the process.  His op-ed felt more like theorycrafting, than sound policy.
 
To me, Biden seems to mouth words and policies, but they lack proper sensibility.
 
Furthermore, Biden's strident stance on shifting troops to Afghanistan while the war in Iraq was going poorly would have undercut the efforts in Iraq.  It's sort of like someone saying, "Hey, I think your toast is burning" while the kitchen is on fire.
 
Dunno.  I'm not a foreign policy expert or anything, but that's my impression about Biden.  He never seems to be ahead of the curve, and he only seems to say things after other people have already said it.  Biden also didn't seem to be clued into Petraeus' strategy, or the fact that the Sunni movement against al-Qaeda had become significant enough to turn the tide in the war.
 
Now, I'm not saying that it's an easy task to predict world events, but given his position as chairman of Foreign Relations and his access to information and analysts ... I tend to expect more insight.
 
Meh.  I dunno.  I could be wrong, of course.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Woodward's secret is out?

So ... Woodward mentioned a secret technology that was instrumental to the successes in Iraq.  I figured it was some sort of surveillance tech.  Looks like the secret is out.

Higher-tech Predators targeting Pakistan
 
I think this is the future of warfare, but taken to another level.  Automated swarmbots.  Humans are more intelligent, but this advantage can be simply overwhelmed by semi-autonomous swarm behavior.  Large numbers of cheap, agile, disposable attack vehicles can be created that do not have to devote weight and resources to protecting human occupants.  You would also not have to spend a lot of time and money training pilots or soldiers.
 
Flying attack drones would easily outmaneuver human-piloted jets, being able to turn more g's, carry less weight and armor, have numerical superiority, and communicate with each other like a single mind.  Ground units would be similar, or be miniaturized, or even disguised to blend into its surroundings and would probably coordinate movements with flying surveillance drones.
 
Of course, the result of this will paradoxically be more human deaths as war becomes relatively cheap and easy for hi-tech nations, and they will slaughter and conquer weaker nations with their robotic minions.  Eventually, the Terminators will rise up against us when Skynet becomes self-aware.
 
I'm only half-joking.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin and the 'Bush Doctrine' question

meh, i've been out of the loop on reading foreign policy junk, so i dunno if the "bush doctrine" is as formalized as some are claiming. i think it's probably often used among liberals as a pejorative that is critical of preemption and "cowboy diplomacy." some definitions of the "bush doctrine" also include democratization, so it was correct of her to ask for more specificity.

of course, palin's foreign policy credentials are weak. there is nothing in her background or her statements that show a deeper understanding. however, for a veep, she's good enough. i'd rather have her than that idiot blowhard biden who thinks he's smarter than he really is.

and bubba clinton's foreign policy misadventures were the epitome of amateur hour. i remember we almost got into stupid military engagements with n.korea and friggin haiti???? until carter jumped in and bailed bubba's crew out on both occasions. i think they muzzled carter during kosovo - which is partly responsible for russia's anger and decision to invade georgia.

clinton's abysmal foreign policy legacy - the horrible gift that keeps on giving.

obama also exhibits a paucity of foreign policy knowledge, and he seems like a vacillatory person who gives out mixed signals instead of a clear position - which is just a disaster waiting to happen when it comes to foreign affairs. if obama had someone i trusted as veep, i wouldn't mind as much, but he had to pick biden of all people. well, at least he didn't pick wesley clark. praise jebus, that would have been the worst.

also, some are trying to say that the 'bush doctrine' was all the buzz before the war and that she should have been aware of it.  no.  mostly the pre-invasion talk consisted of "no blood for oil," wmds, tenuous al-qaeda links, "rape rooms," and sanctions. on very rare occasions, a pointy-headed foreign policy wonk might mention preemption and people would be like, "Wuh? Saddam blew up the WTC!!! Bush drinks human blood!!!" anyhoo, she's just a veep with little foreign policy experience. her strength is the domestic side. did anyone really expect her to be henry flippin kissinger? she answered the questions with evasive tact (annoying, but politically the astute thing), and did better than obama on the pakistan question. she passed. not great, but if she had suddenly gone into a riff about deterrence and offense dominance or the peloponnesian war, i would have had an orgasm.
 
edit: for someone who doesn't use proper punctuation, i sure mouth off a lot.
edit2: in case some might find the last statement sexist or offensive, don't worry. i ran it by joe biden, and he gave it the thumbs up.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

wtf is wrong with ABC, CNN?

Just went to the ABC News site and they're spinning Palin's answer on honoring NATO treaty obligations as "hard-line."  And CNN's Campbell Brown also is mouthing the same thing.
 
Srsly ... wtf is wrong with these people?  Did they replace all of the serious journalists with interns and bloggers?  Didn't they ever hear of deterrence?  Palin gave the right answer.  If she had given a mealy-mouthed answer, then it would have made war MORE likely, not less.  Didn't ABC run their story and headline by people with actual understanding of foreign policy or are they merrily rowing their boat into MSNBC waters?
 
Then again, these are probably the same people that thought deterrence meant unilateral nuclear disarmament, since the Soviets would have been deterred by our gosh jolly niceness.  Right ... meanwhile the nice-nice Russians are assassinating former agents with polonium-210.  Are these people living on the same planet?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin - ABC interview

Just watched the interview.
 
Well, she appears to have mastered the political art of not answering a question directly.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, such as the question of military incursions into Pakistan.  It is better to tactfully and diplomatically say, as she did, to leave all options on the table.  Obama botched that question when he was asked something similar to it.  Still, it is a pity watching her begin to sound like every other politician.  Of course, the important thing is whether she behaves like every other politician.
 
Also, I think she answered the foreign policy experience question correctly, but it would have been stronger if she had reversed her two main responses.  She should have started her answer by saying that her foreign policy experience is of a comparable level to many vice-presidential candidates, state governors, and even presidential candidates, then she should have transitioned into talking about how one of the important national security / foreign policy issues is energy independence.
 
Some of the questions asked were a bit inane - such as how many foreign heads of state she had met.  She should have just thrown it back in Gibson's face along the lines of - "It's not really part of my official duties as governor of Alaska to jaunt around the world or hobnob with the President of Kazakhstan, although I would embrace the opportunity as Vice-President.  If I had been doing so, I would have been neglecting my job at home to serve the people of Alaska." etc. etc.
 
The 'Bush doctrine' question was interesting - the doctrine of preemption.  However, she avoided it by answering that we would respond to all imminent threats.  That's probably the best answer, since preemption is a really, really sticky issue.  I think preemption has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.  Generally, you should respond only to imminent threats, but preemption might be valid if the potential threat is too dangerous to wait until it is deemed to be 'imminent.'  Ex. nuclear Iraq or Iran (also, you have to distinguish between preemptive strikes and preemptive invasions).
 
I really liked Gibson's direct grilling, and most of the questions were good.  It would be nice if ALL candidates went through this basic level of scrutiny, but we all know about the selective bias in the media.  Overall, Palin didn't make any mistakes, although she needs to look a bit more relaxed, blah blah blah.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush the Idiot

Bush the Idiot

People have talked about peace in the Middle East forever.  Talk talk talk.  Oh, it's so sad.  Talk talk talk. Finally, somebody actually did something about it, and what was the reaction?

Bush the Idiot, the uncultured Neanderthal, shows his stupidity by trying to establish peace in the Middle East by killing tyrants and blowing up terrorists!

What a simpleton!

Everyone knows that the way to peace is by talking. A lot. That's the way it's been done in the past and will be in the future.  Speechify in the UN.  Get all the world leaders together.  Have heartfelt conversations.  Reach mutual understandings.  Get a big rock concert for peace.  Everyone around the world will hold their hands in a great symbol of unity.  Design a neat logo for a pin that people can wear.

That is the way to achieve peace.

You're not supposed to establish peace by pummelling the dictators and terrorists! Haven't you considered the weighty issue of ethical and moral equivalency? You're doing it wrong, foo!

Violence begets violence.  You can't put a fire out with fire (unless it's a giant explosion that snuffs it out, but don't let facts interfere with a good stream of cliches and old adages). War! What is it good for? Uh! Absolutely nuthin! Say it again!

There is supposed to be spontaneous, non-violent protests.  Grassroots movements.  Woodstock.  Massive media coverage.  And then the dictators seeing the power of the people and shamed by the error of their ways will yield power. Just like in China.  Err, ok.  That didn't quite work out, but you get the idea.

bzzt. channel change.

War is nasty and horrible, but it changes things really quickly.  Bush didn't want to wait for democracy and love to spontaneously bloom in the Middle East.  He saw the direction that the Middle East was heading, and if you payed attention, you'd realize that Bush was sure that it would end in a mushroom cloud.

Yes, even monkeys dream. And I suspect that Smirky the Chimp did have dreams after 9-11.  The kind of dreams that when we wake up from, we eventually forget, but for a President ...

Meh, maybe I give the guy too much slack.  He made a lot of mistakes, but I think he did a lot of important work.  Most importantly, he managed to turn around a war that had been going badly.  But enough about Bush, let's talk about ...


Obama the Plastic Man

People try to paint Obama as a leftist extremist.  Now, he is definitely a leftist, but I would say that he is a pragmatist first - much like the Clintons.  His shifting views show that he is not so much flexible, as pliable.  If he is pushed, he bends.  He strikes me as a consensus-minded person who wants to get along and be accepted by the majority view, so I don't think he will be able to ram through any radical ideas that the general public will not like.

Unfortunately, this is the same reason why most of the world seems to prefer him over McCain.  He's seen as a pushover.  The conservative pitbulls instinctively sniff the scent of 'Carter' all over him.  Of course, Carter helped facilitate peace between Israel and Egypt, so there are some pro's and con's to this type of person.

Anyhoo, there are many examples of Obama and his camp evincing this behavior over and over again.  They ceded their convention to the Clintons.  Obama shifted his position on taxes.  Obama muddled his opinions on drilling.  Obama picked Biden because everyone wanted experience.

Actually, one might think that a notable exception was not putting Hillary in as VP.  There was enormous pressure to choose her, but some say that Michelle was adamantly opposed to Hillary.  So Obama was balancing angry wife vs. angry Hillaristas.  Wife wins.

Obama is like one of those Mr. Stretch toys that you can pull the arms and legs (his ears got stretched too much and won't snap back QQ) and twist him around into a pretzel. McCain seems to be a different story.


McCain the Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Old Guy

McCain is old.  And old people scare me.  Not because they might suddenly die, since that actually solves the problem by replacing the old guy with a younger person.

The problem is that old people's brains start to suck with age.  I guess I'm an ageist or whatever it's called, but it's a biological fact.

I know that some of the ravages of decrepitude can be forestalled by maintaining an active mind.  True, true.

However, McCain pulled the old, "There's a lot of good ideas in Washington ..." line.  Now, I can excuse a callow neophyte like Obama saying that, but I can't excuse an old geezer like McCain.

The reality is that there's a lot of crappy ideas in Washington that sound good, but when actually implemented won't do jack in solving the problem, or the problem will just shift and eventually adapt around it (cough, cough, McCain-Feingold), and you essentially end up back to square one, but with a lot of wasted time and new regulations.

Now, I want an experienced guy who knows how to pull the right levers, shake the required hands, twist the proper arms, yank the requisite legs, and kick the necessary butts to get things done.  However, I also want someone who is smart enough to know how to sort out the crap ideas from the honest-to-goodness, bona fide, decent ideas that actually work when implemented (I'm sure welfare sounded like a noble idea at first, but it also created a horrible societal mess).

Ah well.  A lot of what I wrote is snarky and tongue-in-cheek. This isn't always obvious on the Interwebs.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oil speculators linked to price spike

duh.
 
Big oil price swings caused by investors, report says
 
 i'm not against speculation, but too much is too much.  aspirin is neato, but don't swallow the whole bottle, k? a slice of cake is yummy yummy goodness, but don't woof down the entire thing.  if you can only see this issue in manichean terms, then whatever ... go support privatizing nuclear arms sales since an unregulated free market makes everything turn into sunshine and rainbows.
 
meh, so boring. it's not hard to see the overall picture and how things will unfold. the small technical details elude me since i don't have the training, but c'mon ... cause and effect.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Media Bias in Pretty Colors

I clicked on Yahoo's "Election '08" link to read up a little. I know Yahoo! slants left, but just to make it more obvious to those who can't see it, I used pretty colors. (meh, too lazy to resize and crop)
 
media bias in pretty colors
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive