Turns out Joseph Schmitz, COO & general counsel of the Prince Group, Blackwater's parent company, is married to one Lucila Garnica Gallo, Colomba Bush's sister (Jeb Bush's wife).
More about Joseph Schmitz here.
mardi 2 octobre 2007
America the Bush Fiefdom
As far back as 1988, I was saying that the Bush family regards the entire country as a fiefdom for their family and friends to enrich themselves. I was right all along. Take a gander at this little tidbit:
More about Joseph Schmitz here.
More about Joseph Schmitz here.
If they won't do the people's bidding, the people need to vote them out
We already know who the Republicans in Congress represent, and it isn't the majority of the American people. But whom do the Democrats represent? Methinks it's not the American people either.
In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, Captain Codpiece is sitting with a 33% approval rating and only 27% of Americans (presumably the hardest-core kool-aid drinkers who wouldn't let go of the George Bush is Jesus notion even if he were caught sodomizing and exterminating small children and enjoying them with fava beans and a nice chianti) favor full funding of the Iraq occupation. 55% of Americans want Congressional Democrats to more forcefully challenge Bush's Iraq policies. Only about a quarter want Congress to fully fund Bush's latest request for an additional $190 billion for the war.
So what do the Democrats do? Authorize another $150 billion in funding. The vote: 92-3.
The three who voted against the funding? Robert Byrd (D-VA), Tom Coburn, of all people (R-OK), and the always reliable Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Weaseling out of the vote entirely, and therefore unworthy of being taken seriously the next time they get up on a podium and talk about ending the war:
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Chris Dodd
Joe Biden
John McCain
Last Friday night on Real Time with Bill Maher, Rahm Emmanuel all but said that if the war isn't funded, George W. Bush will leave the troops in Iraq without it (about six minutes into this video segment:
So what Emmanuel is saying is that the funding is to provide better protection for the troops because if we don't, their commander-in-chief will leave them there indefinitely without it. When he says that what we need is a new president, he all but seals the deal.
So if in fact the truth is that House and Senate Democrats know, or even fear, that this sociopath of a president is so tied to his Iraq policy that he will allow 130,000 Americans to be sitting ducks without food, clothing, or armor, unless his war is funded, then let them come out and say so. If this president has essentially kidnapped his own military and is holding them hostage to his narcissism -- funding or no funding, then Democrats in Congress have an OBLIGATION to let the American people know that this is what the President of the United States is doing.
In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, Captain Codpiece is sitting with a 33% approval rating and only 27% of Americans (presumably the hardest-core kool-aid drinkers who wouldn't let go of the George Bush is Jesus notion even if he were caught sodomizing and exterminating small children and enjoying them with fava beans and a nice chianti) favor full funding of the Iraq occupation. 55% of Americans want Congressional Democrats to more forcefully challenge Bush's Iraq policies. Only about a quarter want Congress to fully fund Bush's latest request for an additional $190 billion for the war.
So what do the Democrats do? Authorize another $150 billion in funding. The vote: 92-3.
The three who voted against the funding? Robert Byrd (D-VA), Tom Coburn, of all people (R-OK), and the always reliable Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Weaseling out of the vote entirely, and therefore unworthy of being taken seriously the next time they get up on a podium and talk about ending the war:
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Chris Dodd
Joe Biden
John McCain
Last Friday night on Real Time with Bill Maher, Rahm Emmanuel all but said that if the war isn't funded, George W. Bush will leave the troops in Iraq without it (about six minutes into this video segment:
Maher: So why don't you just not bring up a finding bill? You're the only ones who can bring up the bill. Why don't you just do that?
Emmanuel: Well, if the question is why don't we just not bring up the funding, first of all, that's not the way to get the kids out of there. Bill, that might sound good and be a good sound bite, but the fact is...I have constituents there. Let me tell you what's part of this. OK? And this is a very tough call for a lot of members of Congress; at least the number of us who oppose this war. $48 billion of the recent request is for the best humvee now to protect kids. We made .. a real argument when this war started that we had kids go over there with no kevlar vests; parents were buying their own kevlar vests for the United States Army. Humvees that were not protected. These are the best humvees. You have constituents over there, their kids are over there, they're serving....
Maher: [starts to interrupt]
Emmanuel: No, wait a second. Do you not get that humvee there that can save a life?
[Audience member shouts out; pandemonium]
Emmanuel: No, wait a second. I'm all for bringing 'em home. You know how you bring 'em home? We need a new president because this president will not [unintelligible].
So what Emmanuel is saying is that the funding is to provide better protection for the troops because if we don't, their commander-in-chief will leave them there indefinitely without it. When he says that what we need is a new president, he all but seals the deal.
So if in fact the truth is that House and Senate Democrats know, or even fear, that this sociopath of a president is so tied to his Iraq policy that he will allow 130,000 Americans to be sitting ducks without food, clothing, or armor, unless his war is funded, then let them come out and say so. If this president has essentially kidnapped his own military and is holding them hostage to his narcissism -- funding or no funding, then Democrats in Congress have an OBLIGATION to let the American people know that this is what the President of the United States is doing.
Enron has risen from the grave
Well, not literally. But if you thought corporate governance was back in style after the Enron debacle and trials, guess again.
If you watch cable TV at night, you already know that despite the mortgage mess, Countrywide is still advertising refinance loans with the ferocity of 2005. On Sunday the New York Times business section ran an article on how Countrywide's ruthless business practices are forcing people from their homes. Today Paul Krugman explains how Countrywide's CEO largely cashed out right before the company began to go south:
If like me, you're the kind of homeowner who did the research and read the fine print, refused to succumb to the siren song of mortgage companies telling you that you qualified for a far bigger loan than you were asking to take, did the calculations and only bought what you could afford on a monthly basis even in the event of a temporary financial setback, and bought at the bottom of the market, it may be difficult to sympathize with people who ought to have known that you can't afford a $600,000 house on a $40,000 salary, no matter what the mortgage company is telling you. But in this country, the yearning for homeownership is strong, and as prices skyrocketed from 2000 to 2005, it's equally difficult to blame homebuyers for wanting to believe the man on the other side of the desk (or on the other side of the internet) who said that by taking a option interest-only ARM, you could actually afford that house of which you've dreamt for so long. After all, most of us don't do the math, don't read the fine print, and often don't understand everything about what we're signing -- and aren't encouraged to. After all, the people who handle the transaction are the experts, right? Why not believe them; they know more than we do, right?
So once again, we have the privatization of reward and the socialization of risk, with executives at best skirting the edges of legality and plunging right into the Pool of Corporate Scumbaggery™, with working- and middle-class Americans as the collateral damage.
I wonder how long it's going to take Americans to realize that Corporations Are Not Your Friend.
(UPDATED to correct Krugman link.)
If you watch cable TV at night, you already know that despite the mortgage mess, Countrywide is still advertising refinance loans with the ferocity of 2005. On Sunday the New York Times business section ran an article on how Countrywide's ruthless business practices are forcing people from their homes. Today Paul Krugman explains how Countrywide's CEO largely cashed out right before the company began to go south:
You can’t especially single out Countrywide for the failure of investors to realize how much risk they were taking on — that’s a failure with many fathers, including everyone from Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, which were far too free with their AAA ratings, to Alan Greenspan, who assured us that while there might be a bit of “froth,” there was no national housing bubble.
But Countrywide made more questionable loans than anyone else — and its postbubble behavior does stand out. As Ms. Morgenson reported in yesterday’s Times, Countrywide seems peculiarly unwilling to work out deals that might let borrowers hold on to their homes — even when such a deal, by avoiding the costs of foreclosure, would actually work to the benefit of both sides.
Why block mutually beneficial deals? As the article points out, Countrywide can make money from the fees it charges on foreclosures, while the losses from mortgages that could have been saved, but weren’t, are borne by others.
Last but not least, since it may be the key to the whole story, is the victimization of Countrywide’s own stockholders.
Last year Mr. Mozilo’s huge compensation drew a protest from a group of shareholders including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Pension Plan. But the worst was yet to come.
In late 2006, even as Countrywide began using shareholders’ money to buy back its own stock at more than $40 a share — it’s now worth only $19 — Mr. Mozilo was selling. Between November 2006 and August 2007 — that is, during the months before investors fully realized the extent to which his company would be hurt by the subprime mortgage crisis — he unloaded $138 million worth of Countrywide’s stock.
Again, unless the stock sales lead to insider-trading charges, there’s nothing in this story that involves illegality. Still, how can it be that so soon after Enron, WorldCom and other scandals rocked the business world, we’re once again hearing about executives cashing in just before their companies are revealed as less successful than advertised? The answer, of course, is that we never dealt properly with those scandals.
If like me, you're the kind of homeowner who did the research and read the fine print, refused to succumb to the siren song of mortgage companies telling you that you qualified for a far bigger loan than you were asking to take, did the calculations and only bought what you could afford on a monthly basis even in the event of a temporary financial setback, and bought at the bottom of the market, it may be difficult to sympathize with people who ought to have known that you can't afford a $600,000 house on a $40,000 salary, no matter what the mortgage company is telling you. But in this country, the yearning for homeownership is strong, and as prices skyrocketed from 2000 to 2005, it's equally difficult to blame homebuyers for wanting to believe the man on the other side of the desk (or on the other side of the internet) who said that by taking a option interest-only ARM, you could actually afford that house of which you've dreamt for so long. After all, most of us don't do the math, don't read the fine print, and often don't understand everything about what we're signing -- and aren't encouraged to. After all, the people who handle the transaction are the experts, right? Why not believe them; they know more than we do, right?
So once again, we have the privatization of reward and the socialization of risk, with executives at best skirting the edges of legality and plunging right into the Pool of Corporate Scumbaggery™, with working- and middle-class Americans as the collateral damage.
I wonder how long it's going to take Americans to realize that Corporations Are Not Your Friend.
(UPDATED to correct Krugman link.)
lundi 1 octobre 2007
The disappeared
We all now know that the ever-changing rationale for the Iraq war has now settled on a loose hybrid of the "establishing democracy" rationale and the "liberating the
Iraq people from a tyrant" rationale.
Now we're hearing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being elevated in status to that of "the new Hitler", and the Administration is gearing up for "regime change" in Iran.
Funny how the only tyrants the Bush Administration cares about are in countries awash with petroleum.
In Darfur, the genocide and violence has been going on for years, with over 200,000 dead and over a million homeless at the hands of the Janjaweed and their backers in the Sudanese government. And the U.S. sits by, giving lip service to sanctions and disapproval. Last Saturday ten African Union peacekeepers were massacred at their camp. And a State Department spokesman calls for sanctions.
Today we found out that the rebellion in Burma has been squelched through mass killing of those who opposed the ruling regime, with thousands dead, including hundred of Buddhist monks executed. And again what we hear from the U.S. is a call for sanctions.
I'm not saying the U.S. should get involved militarily in every country's conflict. But with the Iraq occupation now being painted by the Administration as, depending on the day, a humanitarian mission to implement democracy and rebuild the country we shattered, or a fight to the death against terrorists; and George Bush's stubborn clinging to the notion that it was necessary to depose the tyrant ruling Iraq, the fact that we leave people in countries not awash in oil to fend for themselves makes the American president's view of himself as the architect of freedom everywhere in the world seem to be just a wee bit disingenuous.
Iraq people from a tyrant" rationale.
Now we're hearing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being elevated in status to that of "the new Hitler", and the Administration is gearing up for "regime change" in Iran.
Funny how the only tyrants the Bush Administration cares about are in countries awash with petroleum.
In Darfur, the genocide and violence has been going on for years, with over 200,000 dead and over a million homeless at the hands of the Janjaweed and their backers in the Sudanese government. And the U.S. sits by, giving lip service to sanctions and disapproval. Last Saturday ten African Union peacekeepers were massacred at their camp. And a State Department spokesman calls for sanctions.
Today we found out that the rebellion in Burma has been squelched through mass killing of those who opposed the ruling regime, with thousands dead, including hundred of Buddhist monks executed. And again what we hear from the U.S. is a call for sanctions.
I'm not saying the U.S. should get involved militarily in every country's conflict. But with the Iraq occupation now being painted by the Administration as, depending on the day, a humanitarian mission to implement democracy and rebuild the country we shattered, or a fight to the death against terrorists; and George Bush's stubborn clinging to the notion that it was necessary to depose the tyrant ruling Iraq, the fact that we leave people in countries not awash in oil to fend for themselves makes the American president's view of himself as the architect of freedom everywhere in the world seem to be just a wee bit disingenuous.
Blogger Guilt Trips
At some point in every blogger's life, someone is going to ask you why you do it. For some bloggers, particularly the proprietors of the larger blogs, it's a career. They make a living (such as it is) from advertising, or donations, or other revenue streams. Those are the lucky ones who, because they aren't sitting at a desk in an office building someplace, can cover all the important stories. For the rest of us, we have to pick and choose. And what we pick and choose depends on why we blog.
Like most political bloggers, I also dream of blogging being a second career (especially since my first career is so dependent on grant funding and my skill set tends to be ignored in anyone over the age of 40). But since at this point, that's a dream, I can't aspire to the kind of comprehensive coverage of every story that some other bloggers do. And because B@B is primarily a political blog, but also has elements of "Whatever The Hell I Feel Like Writing", sometimes there are Big Stories that I don't cover.
Another aspect of Big Stories is that they require a fair amount of analysis and understanding -- and sometimes we just don't have enough time during the hour in the morning we have free to read the news, look at other blogs, and try to write something coherent, to get every important story.
For a "serious" blogger, there are two big stories which warrant more coverage and which I admit to having neglected, and those are the Jena 6 case and the demonstrations in Burma/Myanmar. Pam has castigated the white blogger community for being missing in action on the Jena 6 story, and Jon Swift smacks down the progressive blogger community for falling down on the Myanmar story.
On these I plead guilty on both counts. It's logical that these stories would have warranted some attention here, certainly as much as the Mets' collapse, or musings on whether New Jersey's dependence on the pharmaceutical industry makes it the Michigan of tomorrow, or a cute ad from Honda. But one of the problems my co-bloggers have had is in determining what fits and what doesn't, because my tendency is to Potter Stewart the question: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. Certainly an uprising involving Buddhist monks and one of the ugliest racial cases in this country in recent years should have warranted some attention here. But I'll be honest about why I haven't covered these: because I came into the story right in the middle.
When I sit down to write in the morning, I'm not a newspaper editor considering what the most newsworthy stories of the day might be. When I started this blog three years ago, it was for two reasons: one was because if I didn't find another outlet for my ranting, I was going to drive Mr. Brilliant out of his mind; and the other was to call the attention of family and friends to stories that I thought they might miss elsewhere, stories I thought were important.
I have a friend who doesn't follow politics. She is aware that things are very wrong in this country and she worries about her children's and grandchild's future, but doesn't get involved in politics. Last week she forwarded me a variation on the "Don't buy Petro Express gasoline because they're selling Citgo products and Citgo is owned by Hugo Chavez who hates our military, hates our president, and hates America. e-mail. I'm not sure why she does this; she knows I don't go for this kind of jingoistic crap. I'm not convinced she reads them before she sends them. She's one of the reasons I write.
There is certainly an argument to be made that both the Jena 6 case and the Burmese conflict warrant more attention than they've been given in the blogosphere. But I'm not sure that laying guilt trips on bloggers who haven't given them the attention they deserve is going to accomplish anything. None of us can cover everything. If there's a story you think I should cover, e-mail me -- especially if it's a story you've been covering in-depth. I'd be happy to link to your coverage. It makes a lot more sense to do that than do a half-assed job that re-invents the wheel and doesn't inform as well as someone who's put the time and effort into covering a story in depth. The notion of "blogwhoring" is viewed with much disfavor in Blogtopia (™ Skippy), but doesn't it make sense to not only promote your work, but ensure that the news you feel is important gets seen by more people?
Like most political bloggers, I also dream of blogging being a second career (especially since my first career is so dependent on grant funding and my skill set tends to be ignored in anyone over the age of 40). But since at this point, that's a dream, I can't aspire to the kind of comprehensive coverage of every story that some other bloggers do. And because B@B is primarily a political blog, but also has elements of "Whatever The Hell I Feel Like Writing", sometimes there are Big Stories that I don't cover.
Another aspect of Big Stories is that they require a fair amount of analysis and understanding -- and sometimes we just don't have enough time during the hour in the morning we have free to read the news, look at other blogs, and try to write something coherent, to get every important story.
For a "serious" blogger, there are two big stories which warrant more coverage and which I admit to having neglected, and those are the Jena 6 case and the demonstrations in Burma/Myanmar. Pam has castigated the white blogger community for being missing in action on the Jena 6 story, and Jon Swift smacks down the progressive blogger community for falling down on the Myanmar story.
On these I plead guilty on both counts. It's logical that these stories would have warranted some attention here, certainly as much as the Mets' collapse, or musings on whether New Jersey's dependence on the pharmaceutical industry makes it the Michigan of tomorrow, or a cute ad from Honda. But one of the problems my co-bloggers have had is in determining what fits and what doesn't, because my tendency is to Potter Stewart the question: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. Certainly an uprising involving Buddhist monks and one of the ugliest racial cases in this country in recent years should have warranted some attention here. But I'll be honest about why I haven't covered these: because I came into the story right in the middle.
When I sit down to write in the morning, I'm not a newspaper editor considering what the most newsworthy stories of the day might be. When I started this blog three years ago, it was for two reasons: one was because if I didn't find another outlet for my ranting, I was going to drive Mr. Brilliant out of his mind; and the other was to call the attention of family and friends to stories that I thought they might miss elsewhere, stories I thought were important.
I have a friend who doesn't follow politics. She is aware that things are very wrong in this country and she worries about her children's and grandchild's future, but doesn't get involved in politics. Last week she forwarded me a variation on the "Don't buy Petro Express gasoline because they're selling Citgo products and Citgo is owned by Hugo Chavez who hates our military, hates our president, and hates America. e-mail. I'm not sure why she does this; she knows I don't go for this kind of jingoistic crap. I'm not convinced she reads them before she sends them. She's one of the reasons I write.
There is certainly an argument to be made that both the Jena 6 case and the Burmese conflict warrant more attention than they've been given in the blogosphere. But I'm not sure that laying guilt trips on bloggers who haven't given them the attention they deserve is going to accomplish anything. None of us can cover everything. If there's a story you think I should cover, e-mail me -- especially if it's a story you've been covering in-depth. I'd be happy to link to your coverage. It makes a lot more sense to do that than do a half-assed job that re-invents the wheel and doesn't inform as well as someone who's put the time and effort into covering a story in depth. The notion of "blogwhoring" is viewed with much disfavor in Blogtopia (™ Skippy), but doesn't it make sense to not only promote your work, but ensure that the news you feel is important gets seen by more people?
Le Metropolitain, Wellington
Okay I promise this is the final post on Wellington. Sure my trip to New Zealand was bordering on two months ago, but this meal, the last hurrah before my taxi to the airport, was so delicious and good, I remember it like yesterday.Besides look at the photo above. Plump Toulouse sausages, how they glisten so! This meal, long since digested, deserves to be shared.Le Metropolitain was a cute little
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)