A special treat for my 100th post – 30 seconds worth of 16mm video footage from 1969. Sit back and enjoy:
Apollo 11 Saturn V Launch (HD) Camera E-8 from Mark Gray on Vimeo.
Posts published during April, 2010
Oh the humanity! If ever there was a threat to one’s sanity it is the hyperbolic world in which the mere mention of a name, and the audacity to pair that name with some image, some representation, spurns death threats.
If I were to have been on some other planet for the last decade and encountered the (islamo-manufactured) controversy surrounding the creators of South Park for airing this episode (that as far as I can tell will never be shown again), I would think it was a joke. I would think first to check my calender and make sure it wasn’t the first of April. I would check the news to see if some coup d’etat has unseated our Constitutional government and replaced it with some sort of theocracy. In fact, if I had viewed the episode un-edited (which now seems like it will never ever happen), not having known about what happened in Denmark and the ill-fated winds that swept into that country, I never would have considered it to be edgy, controversial or even pointed. I mean the cartoon featured a u-haul, a bear suit and the eight letter word Muhammad. Meanwhile, Krishna is railing lines of coke and Moses is portrayed as a sci-fi fetish, a disembodied voice and a floating head.
To quote the dastardly duo behind what is becoming one of the most dangerous ways to express a Constitutionally enshrined right, “I mean really, come on.”
So, the only option becomes either acquiesce (like Comedy Central has) to the demands of would-be terrorists, or to push back on the inanity of this bullshit controversy and refuse to allow the conversation to be control by an irrational few. Religious freedom is not the freedom in which one can impress their beliefs on another, nor the freedom to demand by threat of force to be respected in those beliefs, it is the freedom to know that your beliefs will not bring down any wrath from the authorities above you (governments, not gods). The freedom to practice, not the right to force your beliefs into another person’s life.
Indeed, the only reason freedom of religion is relevant in this world today is because it falls gracefully under the umbrella of rights provided by the enlightenment notion of freedom of expression. We, in America, have that freedom (at least on paper), though it is becoming painfully clear that said freedom of expression does not go hand-in-hand with a freedom of movement. Protesters are being relegated to pre-approved “protest zones”; street performers, artists and musicians are being forced off public grounds and forced to find and compete for areas that actually allow for their freedom of expression; Universities are silencing free speech on campuses, in favor of free speech contained to one demarcated zone; and now religions of old are being used to justify the basic renunciation of a word within our consciousness, saying that that word cannot be paired with an image. Lo and behold, people’s first reaction to this is to shit their pants. If not the police attempting to coerce using force, asking for permits to protest, relocating homeless people, telling others that their particular form of self-expression does not belong here, then it is these psuedo-authoritarians who think that just because they subscribe to something’s sacred value, that the entire fucking world must abide lest they feel the wrath of a self-conscious, radicalized few.
Above all, the difference is that this is America, and we take our personal/individual freedoms very seriously. But that does not mean that every individual expression, in public, on the street corner, or on TV, is serious. It is because it is. We express because we can, and this tendency comes to define our very humanity.
What follows is another completely legal, completely constitutional and completely human form of expression. It encourages expression. It does not stifle it. And the (grossly mis-) perceived danger of such a free expression is not owned solely by the fundamentalists who would threaten violence on cartoonists, but it is also endorsed by those who urge the censoring of our airwaves, those who burn books and ban books, those who snicker and ridicule and castigate at the mere sight of difference, and ultimately by those governments (local, state and federal) who put up barriers to free citizen’s self-expression.
This conversation need not be dominated by those who manifest their will in the most extreme ways, but rather it needs to focus more upon the less noticed, more accepted abridgments of our freedom of expression. Our public schools, universities, media and municipalities have institutionalized the slow disintegration of true freedom of expression in favor of an engineered society that minimizes conflicts and accepts authority. So lets not succumb to the intimations of the least rational, most radical among us. Their impulses to silence and censor pervade many different aspects of our lives, with or without some cartoons depicting Muhammad to stir the controversy.
I recommend that we all start carrying legit, permanent markers around, the kind that KRINK makes, that will draw on literally every surface under the sun, rain or snow. And whenever any urge to express oneself comes to the surface, regardless of its controversy or propensity to offend, the marker will be ready to find the appropriate canvas. That simple adjustment to our considerations of how we are able to express ourselves, and when, would do more within this country than a sensationalized cartoon on cable TV ever could.
So lets drop that pretense that expression is for some, and take back what is fundamentally yours – your voice!
In the midst of the Gulf of Mexico, 52 miles southeast of the Louisiana port of Venice on Tuesday, a semi-submersible oil rig carrying out exploratory drilling exploded and sank into the sea.
Concerns are floating amongst the coastguard with the possibility that the rig could be leaking 8,000 barrels of oil into the sea each day.
Never fear though – dealing with the oil rig disaster is Obama’s #1 priority!
Pardon my sarcastic tone, but disasters such as this are apparently the collateral Obama is willing to pay in order to advance some sort of Buy American, Drill American campaign for oil. The sad truth though, is that even though we may be less prone to catastrophic spills and accidents on oil rigs, there are many other examples of how shit still happens that we can’t control. If ever there was something that trickles-down in this country, its pollution.
But I shouldn’t look at Obama’s energy policy proposals through such a narrow lens, as being limited to the least common denominator, should I?
There was actually some good stuff in there, not to mention the bargaining chip this presents when Obama’s climate bill (Kerry, Graham and Lieberman’s climate bill now) comes back to the table.
Take for example Obama’s tacit acknowledgment of what a self-defeating game we all play in this country when it comes to politics and (environmental) activism:
…Today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources. Under the leadership of Secretary Salazar, we’ll employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration. We’ll protect areas that are vital to tourism, the environment, and our national security. And we’ll be guided not by political ideology, but by scientific evidence…
…there will be those who strongly disagree with this decision, including those who say we should not open any new areas to drilling. But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and the long run. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.
On the other side, there are going to be some who argue that we don’t go nearly far enough; who suggest we should open all our waters to energy exploration without any restriction or regard for the broader environmental and economic impact. And to those folks I’ve got to say this: We have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves; we consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil. And what that means is that drilling alone can’t come close to meeting our long-term energy needs. And for the sake of our planet and our energy independence, we need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now.
So the answer is not drilling everywhere all the time. But the answer is not, also, for us to ignore the fact that we are going to need vital energy sources to maintain our economic growth and our security. Ultimately, we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure all and those who would claim it has no place. Because this issue is just too important to allow our progress to languish while we fight the same old battles over and over again.
For decades we’ve talked about how our dependence on foreign oil threatens our economy -– yet our will to act rises and falls with the price of a barrel of oil. When gas gets expensive at the pump, suddenly everybody is an energy expert. And when it goes back down, everybody is back to their old habits.
For decades we’ve talked about the threat to future generations posed by our current system of energy –- even as we can see the mounting evidence of climate change from the Arctic Circle to the Gulf Coast. And this is particularly relevant to all of you who are serving in uniform: For decades, we’ve talked about the risks to our security created by dependence on foreign oil, but that dependence has actually grown year after year after year after year.
And while our politics has remained entrenched along these worn divides, the ground has shifted beneath our feet. Around the world, countries are seeking an edge in the global marketplace by investing in new ways of producing and saving energy. From China to Germany, these nations recognize that the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the country that leads the global economy. And meanwhile, here at home, as politicians in Washington debate endlessly about whether to act, our own military has determined that we can no longer afford not to…(3/31/10 BHO) [emphasis added]
When it comes to bringing this clean energy economy full circle, and not just focusing on the politically vibrant issues of today, we have to begin to earnestly tackle the way we build our homes, workplaces, parking lots, suburbs and cities. I say this because immediately before the lead-in to that quote, Obama was waxing on about how he is doubling the number of hybrid vehicles in the federal fleet – which sounds great for its outwardly eco-friendly, economically stimulating image, but nevertheless acts as an admission of how much of this conversation is perversely focused on the automobile.
Energy consumption from transportation reflects only 15% of overall consumption. If we want to save energy in a meaningful way, we have to focus on the larger, harder to resolve aspects of energy consumption. Specifically our building/construction industry accounts for (at a conservative estimate, and trust me, this is the conservative estimate of those that exist) 40% of overall energy consumption including energy use associated with operating a building (heating, cooling, ventilation, etc).
So lets keep our eyes and ear open for when the administration begins to administer the hard truth to much of the ingrained-in-the-old-ways builders/developers. I’d be willing to wager that the issue I’ve raised of how the built environment has been left out of the national energy dialog is not new to anyone significant in the administration, but that they will patiently wait until after the construction industry recovers a bit from the banking/housing crash. How long will that take though?
For those of you who dig all that wide angle angle photography has to offer, but don’t want to go out and drop a few hundred dollars on a new lens (and maybe those of you with some extra time on your hands) – check out this <20$ homemade fisheye lens from Bhautik Joshi.
Or, perhaps you are slightly less inclined to fabricate a lens from a peephole, soda can, and packing foam – never worry, for about twice as much as the do-it-yourself-ers you can grab yourself a 170 degree, fixed focus, 35 mm camera made by Lomography:
Fisheyes are great for any occasion, especially while traveling. Though with the Lomo fisheye 1 (above), beware low lighting (if you want that extra versatility there are slightly higher priced, but still less than fisheye lens, Lomos with an external flash). The results are always unexpected and show you things you’d never see otherwise.
Apparently financial reform is in vogue and in full swing. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) just proposed what is being panned as two “radical” fees levied upon banks. These fees, basically a flat rate coupled with additional taxes on pay and profit, are intended to create a fund that would be reserved for future use in mitigating large firm collapses (re: bailouts). These funds specifically support the notion that banks, not tax payers, should bear the burden that their risky activities carry.
Does this sound familiar?
That’s because this is the exact scheme, which is included in Sen. Dodd’s Financial Regulatory Reform bill, that has been drawing so much heat from Republicans (re: Wall St. Lobbyists) in the USA. The point of this tenet of the Dodd bill is to shift any future burdens inherent in our now normal “too big too fail” capitalist America away from the tax-payer and onto the banks/hedge funds/insurers themselves.
In my personal opinion, I would think this is a great compromise for the issue. Obviously, government regulation weary Republicans would throw up barricades were the Obama administration or the Democratic Congress to try and outright prohibit the risky activities (securities bundling, derivative swaps, etc) that are simultaneously so profitable for banks and so dangerous for the economy. But instead, the administration seems to be creating incentives for banks to not partake in risky activities or to cook their books – by creating a direct relationship between fees/taxes levied upon the banks and what happens if a large institution collapses.
Of worth is also the fact that the IMF’s proposals were being received in two ways by our political allies and friends in Britain (who are in the middle of a very contentious, interesting electoral season). One, as vindication of Labour’s assertion that efforts to reform the financial institutions should be multi-national and therefore a damning of the Tories’s approach which would have privileged unilateral regulatory action over seeking an international arrangement. Two, both parties are arguing solely over the scope of reform as a matter of practicality (which scope will ensure reform gets enacted) and not over the meat and bones of reform – every party involved is urging some new form of bank taxes for this exact purpose.
Along with that, the only people who are expected to be perturbed by these proposals are the big banks who the fees target and the bailouts benefited.
Stunning sometimes the contrast between European political priorities and American.
Why is it that the White House is the only source bold enough to categorically disprove the muck coming from Republicans?
Ah, but a fine day to consider the naught but contentious issue of gun control/gun rights.
This topic arose for my consideration after my steadfast refusal to pay service to its controversy because of two recent stories that marked headlines. I have been obstinate in considering this issue in earnest primarily because every ounce of controversy leveled in regards to gun control/gun rights are grossly disproportionate to the effects in real life. When tea partiers and militia members become paranoid “black helicopter” fanatics, and espouse conspiracy theories as their “rational” basis for protest, I am not compelled. When progressive views on the matter, including specifically things like the former handgun bans in DC and Chicago, are painted in the media with broad strokes, I am not compelled. But often a dichotomy that exists on an issue will present itself and thus compels an answer, or at least an opinion.
The first story is not exactly a new one, but a new chapter (for that matter the second story isn’t a new one either). The BBC reports that Somali pirates have hijacked 3 Thai fishing vessels with 77 crew members aboard. In this new chapter, the pirates have pushed their operations farther east of Somalia than in recent history. Piracy on the open seas has a long and entrenched history in our world, so it isn’t like these Somalis are particularly inventive or original, and nor is it true that this threat is new. As such, it appears prudent that self-defense should be encouraged among those wishing to venture upon and make a living off of the sea.
As the hijacking involving US vessels last year highlighted, many of these vessels are sitting ducks (literally) for piracy. So the common sense answer should be one that encourages self-defense, in this case, vessels carrying valuable bounties should arm themselves so as to at the least discourage the act of and increase the dangers of piracy. I know I am not alone in this perception, and I know that this alone won’t make piracy vanish.
Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge the history of US military/naval interventions that were necessary results of piracy, with most recently the much publicized attack on the Maerck Alabama. Of the hundreds of military interventions that the US pursued before the 20th century, many were the result of American ships (aka American goods) being hijacked. Remember the whole “shores of Tripoli” line? That was piracy again, as the fledgling independent America endeavored to stave off the threat of piracy that was previously controlled through bribes to pirate states. To put it another way – we have a history with piracy.
Simply enough, considering the lawless nature of open sea travel even to this day, the right to defend oneself from pirates falls under the umbrella of causes for endorsing the second amendment.
Now onto the second story. This too has a history within America (albeit more contained within the landmass of our nation). And it similarly revolves around perceived threats and contrived scenarios which amplify those threats.
ABC News ran a story Saturday April 17th highlighting the fact that any schmuck can show up to a gun show, which infamously showcase every sort of mechanized assault weapon outside the military, and purchase their weapons of choice without being subject to a background check, permitting or any other public safety measures. This, mind you, was the precise route taken by the mentally ill Virginia Tech student who murdered his brethren in cold blood in 2007.
Without fail, every time a politician attempts to add a layer of control to the way people purchase arms or the amount of arms a person can purchase, gun rights fanatics portray it as an affront to the very foundation of our liberty. Undoubtedly, these folks conjure up images of federal agents barging in their door one day, and them left defenseless because of a liberal gun control law.
But that delusion is precisely that – delusional. Not one single person that I can recall in recent history, at least not a single person who actually has the means to do so (thus worth taking seriously), has ever proposed abolishing the second amendment. But based on the tone and incendiary rhetoric used by gun rights activists and militia members, you’d think that Barack Obama had proposed such action. But he hasn’t.
More to the point though, legislating things like background checks, permitting processes and other public safety measures before one can legally own a firearm does not preclude one from being able to defend themselves or engage in the sport as they so chose. Legislating things like an assault weapons ban does not preclude one from being able to defend themselves, it just precludes them from engaging in the delusion that they are a one-man army.
From a March 26, 2010 federal court ruling on the matter of public safety measures for gun ownership, District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina opined:
“While the (Supreme) Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects a natural right of an individual to keep and bear arms in the home in defense of self, family and property, it cautioned that that right is not unlimited,”
But as is typical in our self-interested lawsuit frivolous nation, the plaintiffs who brought this case before Judge Urbina will continue to tie up the appeals system and will continue to argue that the city of Washington DC requiring permitting, fingerprinting and background checks prior to gun ownership is “too burdensome”.
So we’re talking about deadly weapons here. Things that when one is not careful can take another life. A gun weighs a few pounds, made of metal, relies upon a combustion mechanism to make it effective and many people consider it essential to their concept of freedom. Let me make an analogy here, because this isn’t frontier world where savage natives attack and the redcoats are coming, this is 2010 and societies rely upon an indispensable amount of social cohesion and order for them to function.
Many Americans live in an area where they cannot walk or bike or take a bus to accomplish all of the day’s necessary tasks. Thus, they drive. A car for many is an undeniable source of freedom, and in our government’s tacit acknowledgment of this, they even built roads for us to drive on! Without a car, many would be stuck within a small radius of their domicile and their lives would not function precisely the same as they did before. But the right to drive a car is not featured in the bill of rights, one may say, so how does this relate to gun ownership? Good question.
The car weighs hundreds if not thousands of pounds, made of metal mostly, relies upon a combustion mechanism to make it effective and many people consider it essential to their concept of freedom. A car is a deadly weapon, it speeds along a narrow passage at high speeds, and if one is not careful when operating it it can take another life. Thus, there are necessary procedures put in place to ensure that proper use of this dangerous product of modern technology is at least put in check. We have to go through a permitting process, take tests, exhibit our ability to safely operate the machine under the keen eye of a government employee, and in adopting/accepting this as necessary to overall public safety we enter our names, pictures, addresses, mother’s maiden name and identifying information into a government database.
But in doing so are we abrogating our freedom?
Hardly, and any who wish to argue so would quickly realize the foolishness of their logic.
Yet somehow, this common sense logic applied to motor vehicles (in acknowledgment of their propensity to cause great injury, death, havoc and prdoperty damage), does not translate to armed weaponry? Somehow the government’s attempts to privilege public safety over a fool’s right to an unlimited supply of weaponry is endangering our freedom?
Thus the distinction is made, between the zealous pursuits of gun rights fundamentalists and those who earnestly recognize the role of arms within our modern society. As such, it is appalling to see the casual disregard for other people’s sense of safety wielded by those paranoid sorts who form militias, stockpile arms and attempt to subvert the government. Whose interests are really being protected by the media fight to insure that unabated gun ownership and freedom are synonymous? Whose interests are at stake if gun dealers were required to adhere to the same laws that govern the rest of the deadly weapon market? Whose freedoms are abridged when one has to substantiate their identity and prove that they can safely brandish a weapon before purchasing one? Whose fundamental freedoms are in danger when unlimited pursuit of more, bigger, faster, better weapons is not part of our Second Amendment vocabulary?
What is that old saying – follow the money?
Ewww….
With the announcement of a new cable network called “Right Network”, I think it is fair to say that cable TV is about to get tea-bagged. This network’s audience?
“…people who work for a living, people who break their backs paying more than their fair share of taxes,” a network representative said at a tea party rally in Searchlight, Nevada recently. “For people who believe in this country and believe that we do not have to apologize to anyone. Right Network is for people who live in what they call flyover country and what we call America. Right Network, because what you’ve been seeing on TV isn’t all of America…”
And the programming content’s purpose?
“…to entertain, engage, and enlighten Americans who are looking for content that reflects and reinforces their perspective and worldview,”
Excuse me for a second if I find it fallacious that the reflecting and reinforcing of one’s already adopted worldview counts as enlightenment. But nevertheless, this is what these folks thinks is necessary – another echo chamber espousing Republican/conservative/what-the-fuck-ever anti-liberal views are in fashion.
So now, finally, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Tom Tancredo, Rick Perry, Steve King and Kelsey Grammar (?) have an outlet for their voices to be heard! (*cue the patriotic music and montage of tax day protesters)
Back to sanity though, why in the world is this Right Network necessary? For one, it is on cable, and FOX already has 24 hours worth of conservative worldview enforcing programming lined up everyday for cable enthusiasts. Secondly, unless Kelsey Grammar is going to be playing Frasier, I don’t think anyone is going to watch. Well, he does have a mildly pleasant voice, so maybe he’ll be doing Sigourney Weaver-esque voice overs for Tea Party documentaries about how the Federal Reserve is trying to take your guns away.
In all, this is the entirety of my concern which will be levied against this Tea Bagging, Market Loving, Gun Toting, City Hating, Tax Dodging, Repub-fest. For when it comes down to it, cable tv doesn’t mean shit. Just add Right Network to the long list of sub-par television programming that inundates the airwaves, right alongside Spike TV and E!. (I’m cringing already though, thinking about the advertisements these folks are going to come up with).
A final aside: I view this new network as trivially contentious. There is no “Left Network” nor is it likely that one will be created. But one thing is for sure, Discovery Channel is at the bottom of the barrel right now. Why would a network who risked millions and millions of dollars to get exclusive footage of the earth’s most rare and sensitive ecosystems/inhabitants be simultaneously supporting the propagandist efforts of one half-term former governor that enjoys shooting wolfs from an aircraft? (Hint, it has nothing to do with integrity…and everything to do with money)
Hah! Gibbs just accused Fox’s Major Garrett of not reading the memo authored by Secretary Gates and thus mis-characterizing it as a result of ignorance. Very well played Gibbs, just call them out as being shorthanded with their objective research, then continue that dig by challenging them to show you the classified memo of which the article speaks and from which their criticism is drawn.
This comes not but 10 minutes after the press pool continued to air their grievances with the administration, wondering if their access will be restricted. Gibbs rebutted with the fact that this is the most transparent administration in history, citing the example of Obama’s willingness to publish unedited visitor logs to the WH. Somehow I don’t think that calmed the self-preservationist concerns of the press pool.
It may come as a surprise for some, but these press briefings typically are comprised of reporters who ask the most tangential of questions. One about a Pennsylvania Democratic candidate’s ad, some about trying to get every single little bit of information about potential SC justice candidates (specifically she seems incredibly concerned about how many people are on Obama’s list of potential justices), some about the volcanic ash and specifically whether the US will do like Britain and try to load up stranded Americans on US Naval ships and sail them back to the states (the answer was no), and more and more and more. The kicker is that most of these questions don’t seek to answer any real pressing concerns, especially not concerns or answers that only Robert Gibbs can provide.
On top of all of that, when asked to answer to or respond to the bigoted pandering of Tea-baggers like Tom Tancredo, Gibbs simply declines to respond, saying he could waste an entire press briefing trying to comment on ridiculous claims such as that of Tancredo. Again, well done Gibbs – Tancredo has gotten enough press for making a comment that you’d expect to hear on an elementary school playground, so why give him any more credence or credibility by answering his bigoted remarks?
My favorite part of watching a press briefing though? When Gibbs wraps up an answer loaded with oft-heard administration talking points and simply says “Okay, thanks guys”, waves, and walks off.
Gibbs has his moments, but ultimately he waffles too much. Says too many words where few should suffice, and isn’t that good at deflected despite how often he does so.
So the question becomes, when will Obama pick Gibbs’s replacement?
This morning, 2nd place presidential candidate & Senator John McCain decided to run with a juicy story published by the NYTimes and declare:
“I didn’t need a secret memo to know we didn’t have a coherent policy,” McCain told Fox News’s Chris Wallace. “That’s pretty obvious.” (4/18/10)
As is the standard in our mainstream media, he was issued a severe tongue-lashing by talking heads and analysts alike. Wait, strike that.
By tongue-lashing I mean he was offered a willing audience and well-connected microphone.
“We have to be willing to pull the trigger on significant sanctions,” Senator McCain said. “And then we have to make plans for whatever contingencies follow if those sanctions are not effective.”
Those are some pretty strong words coming from a Senator, though he seems to be more reserved than usual on this subject. Need I bring up again the infamous “Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”?
Nevertheless, military brass refused to play to McCain’s coy presumption of the military’s and the administration’s ineptitude (even if the media wasn’t going lift a finger to do so).
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates both offered their professional opinions regarding Senator McCain’s contentions following the NYTimes article. In short, they reaffirmed the pressing reality that when people like John McCain speak about “contingencies” regarding Iran, they can only mean one thing, and that such actions would do more harm than good. As well, both men took the opportunity to dispel the erroneous notions that the US doesn’t have oodles and oodles of contingency plans for every possible situation and that such a lack of planning was the direct result of the Obama administration taking the helm.
“What the mainstream of that article talked about… is that we have no policy and that the implication is that we’re not working on it. I assure you, this is as complex a problem as there is in our country. And we have expended extraordinary amounts of time and effort to figure that out — to get that right,” Mullen said. “This has a focus. The focus of the President of the United States. I am his principal military adviser, and it has from the moment I have spent any time with him — even before he has sworn in,” Mullen said… Keep Reading »
In the fiery storm engulfing Congress that is Financial Reform (aka Wall St. Reform), we’ve seen 41 GOP Senators callously side with big banks and threaten to filibuster debate of reform (well, that’s the media’s binary coded version of events). In a letter written to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell writes:
“We understand that you intend to bring financial regulation reform legislation to the Senate floor this work period. We encourage you to take a bipartisan and inclusive approach, rather than the partisan path you chose on health care…
…We are united in our opposition to the partisan legislation reported by the Senate Banking Committee. As currently constructed, this bill allows for endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and establishes new and unlimited regulatory powers that will stifle small businesses and community banks.”
Were Democrats phased, though?
The President is now throwing his entire weight behind the regulatory reform movement, as evidenced by his threat to veto any legislation that doesn’t “bring the derivatives market under control.” Whether this threat comes as a motivating factor for Republicans to back up the majority’s legislation, or rather as motivation for Democrats to look more critically at their prevailing legislation is yet to be seen.
From TPM:
“I want to see what emerges, but I will veto legislation that does not bring the derivatives market under control and some sort of regulatory framework that assures that we don’t have the same kind of crises that we’ve seen in the past,” he said before meeting with the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
“We can’t allow history to repeat itself. Never again should American taxpayers be forced to step in and pay the price for the responsibility of speculators on Wall Street who made risky bets with the expectation that taxpayers would be there to break their fall,” he said. (4/16/10)
Republicans ultimately have the cards in their hands by which this discussion can turn into something that will produce fruitful results, but so do the Democrat to an extent (whether they change Dodd’s bill to balance partisan concerns or adopt another committee’s bill). It seems so often that this is an issue around which both party’s values coalesce, but then some political skirmish emerges and it gets painted as some big war in Congress.
Any party that stops financial regulatory reform (Wall St. reform) from happening will surely pay a dire price at the voting booth in November. In all honesty though, I don’t see much of a benefit for either party to be the ones to possess this bill.
If Democrats pass Dodd’s bill, with all of its flaws now becoming amplified after the news of Goldman Sach’s federal fraud charges, Republicans will obviously paint Democrats as allowing “Too Big too Fail” to persist. If Republicans filibuster the Democrat’s current bill, the talking points for November are easy to foresee – that Republicans are in bed with Wall St.
Basically a political dead end. Another route becomes the obvious choice for the conscientious Congress.
In a surprising turn of events though, the conservative tending Blanche Lincoln has taken a hard-line approach to financial regulatory reform and seems to be taking the important role of pushing the Congress to create better legislation. Her bill, as emerged from the Agriculture Committee, may become a bargaining chip from which to carve more effective, meaningful reform out of Dodd’s bill.
Again, if ownership of the legislation subsides, progress will more likely be made. What the fuck do Democrats care if the bill is Dodd’s or Lincoln’s? And for that matter, why should Republicans care if the bill is Dodd’s? This comes down to dispelling the political fantasy that a one-sided legislative victory on Wall St. reform is good for either party in November and realizing that Congress has a much better chance of closing in on the perfect than it did with Health Care reform.
And I think we’d all be better off with a more sincere legislating effort here. Both side’s constituents agree that this reform effort needs to be made. So the question becomes, who will be responsible for creating the loopholes that will cause this bill to fail?
While President Obama’s recent announcements about NASA have stirred up controversy (namely between Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong), one big detail that moves beyond squabbling astronauts has caught my eye.
We’re going to land on an ASTEROID!
Fuck the moon, NASA. That’s right, fuck the moon – it hasn’t done anything new in quite some time, hasn’t even been anywhere interesting. But an asteroid? Who know where those things have been?
It seems to be a goal that has great potential for new discoveries, and none with the dubious intent of moon colonies (for those of us who absolutely love artificial ozone and hate that pesky blue sky and those menacing white, fluffy clouds).
But more to the point: With approaching realities such as landing humans on Mars and exploring an asteroid, we are living in the future.
Don’t believe me? Don’t take my word for it, just listen to my man Barry:
“Now, the challenges facing our space program are different, and our imperatives for this program are different than in decades past,” the president said. “But while the measure of our achievements has changed a great deal over the past fifty years, what we do — or fail to do — in seeking new frontiers is no less consequential for our future in space and here on Earth…
…Fifty years after the creation of NASA, our goal is no longer just a destination to reach,” Obama said. “Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn, and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite. And in fulfilling this task, we will not only extend humanity’s reach in space — we will strengthen America’s leadership here on Earth.”
News To (Me)dia
…and everything in between
Stay on point :
