QuaziMoto

With the recent collapse of companies that participated in high risk mortgage lending both republicans and democrats have been fairly united in picking up the task of bailing out companies that participated in these risky transactions.   I’m fairly perplexed by the near universal agreement on both sides of the aisle to bail out companies that make bad decisions while effectively ignoring Americans that made bad decisions by taking on these loans.

When an individual makes a catastrophic financial mistake when and where does the government step in to bail them out?    In fact legislators and credit card companies took on the effort to pass bankruptcy laws that further hold individuals responsible for their bad debts by making it harder to disavow themselves of their loans.   Where is the justice for Americans?

Bad businesses get bailouts while bad Americans get the finger?   How long will Americans continue to stand for this abject favoritism?

If I were to go bankrupt and lose billions would the government turn around and lend you or me MORE money?   Up is down and down is up but nary a peep from congress or the american people.

and almost always defers judgment when it comes to Republicans.

Theres nothing people and the media appreciate more than a rise than a fall. Its what sells advertising and the only time you’re going to see monolithic style reporting is when someone like George W. Bush pulls out the “us against them” nationalism that puts the fear of tyranny in our hearts. We can already see the media skeptical and nuanced tone when it comes to reporting on Barack Obama.

When the republicans put the price tag out there for the war in Iraq the media barely scratched its head.  Every time a democrat proposes a change to health care you get a ‘behind the numbers’ look at just how americans are going to pay for it!

Everyone loved the underdog story when Barack was up against Bill and Hillary Clinton but now you can see they’re already struggling to create a horse race kind of drama out of the election with McCain.

Its sad that the media doesn’t have a Prime Directive like they do on Star Trek or a “Do No Harm” oath like physicians have because if they did I think the “news” product would be far more informative and less National Enquirer.

Can the media help itself but to raise doubts about someone like Barack Obama? The temptation must be palpable. Will they use their unconditional support for George Bush’s war against Iraq as “the lesson” they learned to apply more skepticism to Barack Obama?

Heres and example of the AP’s “hard hitting” reporting on Barack Obama while ‘non” reporting on George Dubya.

These are the things I fear from such a fickle system.

Long story short - Barack Obama is going to win in 2008 but the question is, how hard will the media make it for him and how much of a dramatic horse race will the media require to peddle their pathetic wares are questions that scare me.

In the final months and years of Clintons presidency all we heard about was how Lame Duck his presidency was and how inneffective he was going to be. Have we heard a single thing about GW’s uselessness?

The media has clearly forgotten what its role is within a functioning democracy and thrown its girth in with the ranks of The National Enquirer in order to sell advertising.

Talk about regime change. Regime change begins at home! How long are we going to listen to George and his table of “expert” cronies? I’d like to hear some YOUNGER perspective on political issues. I don’t mind listening to Sam Donaldson say a few words, but the fact that they sit around like a couple of elderly statesman attempting to speak for young, old, liberal, conservative, blacks, whites, hispanics and everyone else is a joke.

Does 20, 30 ..40 years of experience make this a group of “experts”? or does it just make them a group of jaded, partisan one-trick ponies?

George Will - 67 years old, began writing for a conservative newspaper in 1972. Thats 36 years of the same old rubbish. We get it. Move on.

Cokie Roberts - 65 years old. You’re a woman and you work for NPR. We get it. Move on.

Last but not least, Sam Donaldson, 74 years old with his fake-ass tupee/combover. Time to go.

Its great that every Sunday morning I get the perspective of the AARP, but I’m interest in some truly new ideas and opinions. We’ve been hearing from these clowns for my entire life and whether its seniority, loyalty or some kind of perceived trust or expertise its time for them to go. This group has been living off its celebrity for way too long. Maybe its just me but this cast of characters come off as overconfident and arrogant in their views and perspectives and the idea that they bring the political spectrum of opinion to This Week’s audience is laughable.

If ABC and George Stephanopoulos are going to maintain this format then they should at least do us the courtesy of renaming the program The Same Old Views From The Same Old Dudes or This Century with George Stephanopolous.

Yer damn right I’m mad.

I think Obama should tap John McCain as his running mate in 2008 so we can quickly (perhaps even without an election) move a united country forward. What would be so wrong with that? Based upon John McCains performance last night on The Daily Show he seems either resigned to losing the race or unconcerned by his amount of joking around so either way - what would be the harm?

Clearly the parties would be in turmoil, that much would be certain because it would put the entire ‘us versus them’ competition in question but i’m not clear what the other implications would be.

Knowing McCain would probably lose wouldn’t he be in a better position to accept the role of VP than no role at all?

Would Democrats be so upset? On one hand they lost a foreign policy hawk in Hillary and they win one back with McCain which doubles to appease centrist republicans.

Ok, maybe its crazy but I thought it was worth considering if for no other reason than to be efficient.

I watched two episodes of Carrier last night on PBS which I found very entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Not to be sidetracked however, in the final episode when one of the commanders of the Nimitz battle ship sums up the accomplishments of the mission he describes the Nimitz as operating in the “Arabian Gulf”. This struck me as odd. The Arabian Gulf? Where the heck is that?

Turns out in a concerted effort rewrite history and geography of the region.

Clearly this is an effort to respect and reinforce Arab world views over the interests of Iran but who exactly benefits from such an alliance? One could argue that Arab nationalism and the expansion of Arab and Islamic fundamentalism that is born and bred in the heart of the Arab world is exactly the reason we’re in the Middle East fighting multiple wars to begin with. Further pandering to the Arab world while antagonizing Iran seems to continue this downward spiral.

What if Russia or China began referring to the United States as Northern Mexico or Southern Canada for that matter. What impact would that have on the psyche of average Americans? This is truly insulting and not just to 65 million Iranians but to the world at large that continues to see examples of U.S. foreign policy sending a big F.U. in its direction.

Well those weren’t exactly the words that Clinton used to describe her response to any theoretical attack by Iran upon Israel but it does, nonetheless, raise some interesting questions like:

Why would Israel need the to U.S. to respond to any theoretical attack by Iran? Last I heard, Israel was more than capable of defending itself and delivering swift justice to the extent that it can pretty much kick all of the Middle Easts ass in one fell swoop if it chooses to.

Perhaps she assumes that at the stage where the U.S. would respond that Israel along with its Syrian, Palestinian and Jordanian neighbors are already destroyed or devastated in which case what would be the purpose of a retaliatory attack be? Punishment?

Why would Iran nuke Israel when the same strike would destroy not only the holy land but the people and surrounding communities that it agitates should populate it? It just doesn’t make any sense and to suggest that Iranians are suicidal, ignorant or illogical. That thesis just wouldn’t be supported by any historical rendering of the facts. Theres almost unanimous concent that Iran has been very shrewd and calculating in its activities from the get go.

Here you have a situation where the U.S (and the world) complains about inflammatory comments by Iran’s powerless figurehead of a president to “Wipe Israel off the map” and an American presidential candidate (who could actually have that power) making the same type of comments to her internal audience.

I don’t think I’m alone in seeing the irony in this one.

Lets also not forget that Hamas makes similar comments about Israel and Israel makes the same kinds of comments about ‘the terrorists’ and on and on.

The U.S wages low level proxy wars in many countries around the world. Funding, training, arming our allies who share our interests to fight against those that have their own self-interest in mind. Iran, Russia, China and many other countries do the same but for some reason this is unacceptable when others do it and in turn Hillary ratchets up the stakes by threatening to kill 47 million Iranians should these proxy wars escalate!

I wonder how much support Hamas receives from Iran compared to say…how much Columbia gets from the U.S. to fight Columbian nationalists? Or how about Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and on and on..

I guess everyone has spent their supply of outrage on Jimmy Carters visit to Hamas.

History doesn’t support the world view forwarded by candidates and politicians like Hillary Clinton. Iran has not attacked any country that I am aware but instead participates in these low grade proxy wars against countries that dont share its interests (just like everyone else). There is no reason to believe that Iran has the interest or desire to attack Israel in what would be a suicide mission.

No one needs Hillary Clinton escalating tensions beyond the levels they are already at. In fact we need to promote politicians that find constructive solutions in order to de-escalate existing animosities and tension.

Recently the CIA World Factbook on national account balances was dugg up and after reading this recent article about China’s accomplishments with regards to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. It really struck home how nations with great wealth have the resources to ‘do’ things while nations with great debt (like many African nations) are strangled by their debtors.

To be sure, China is no shining example of freedom or the magnificent use of such resources but if they will it, they can achieve it. Surely having almost 1/2 trillion ‘in the bank’ cant be a bad thing.

Top 10 Account Balances:

Bottom 10 Account Balances: