Friday, June 5, 2009


Been incommunicado for two days, away at an overnight camp with my youngest son and his fifth grade class as a chaperone in a cabin with nine boys and two other dads.

There was no news from the outside, no cell phone calls, etc. Kind of a relief in many ways. But before I left early yesterday morning I posted on Obama's Egypt speech which I caught most of before we left, figuring the comments on the post would keep those of you who check into the blog regularly pretty amused until I got back.

I'm exhausted (being a light sleeper in a cabin full of males half of which snored didn't help), chilled to the bone and feeling damp if not wet from standing around or hiking through the woods in at least drizzle all day if not outright downpours.

And I have over half a hundred emails to respond to as well as a few dozen phone messages, a meeting to run to, my son to care for, etc. so this will be a brief post (for me) just saying I wasn't disappointed in the amusing quotient in the comments on Obama.

But I must admit, if I were younger and not as experienced or mellowed, I'd resent not only the outrageous and silly comments of my old rightwing friend Jim, who seems to be unable to do not parrot the rightwing line of the day no matter the contradictions inherent in the line or resonating from the line's origins or from comparison to other day's lines (Cheney for years expounding on the definiteness, the total reality of, the inarguable truth of his contention that Iraq was involved in 9/11 recently admitting there's no proof for that, etc.), but others' insistence that somehow anyone who defends Obama is either some kind of Liberal ideolgoue or just a sucker for Obama's "smooth talk" etc.

If anyone reading this blog or any of my books or essays or reviews or hearing any talks I've given or panels I've been on over the last almost five decades sees me as either a "liberal" ideologue, or as someone who's a sucker for "smooth talkinbg" polticians, they don't read or hear very well.

Obama is a pragmatist, who inherited either the worst circumstances in terms of real world problems of any president since Roosevelt or since Lincoln, depending on which historian you agree with. He is addressing them all as best he can with what he has to work with (i.e. the actual politicians, resources, willingness of others, etc.).

If you dont like the way he's doing that, you can argue for what you believe is a better way. But your argument will be seen, at least by me, as just plain silly if your contention is that things would be a lot better if Obama just repeated the failed conservative policies of the past eight years that created all the problems he inherited.

Or if your argument is that he hasn't done enough to reverse those policies and the results they caused (i.e. unemployment, which by the way goes like this, close to a million jobs lost the last month Bush/Cheney were on duty, and that number has DECREASED every month since, to the point that the latest statistics have many economists saying the recession is either over or close to being over) or hasn't done enough fast enough.

Either you are living in fantasy land, where if only every congress person and every interest group and every voter and every citizen and everyone in the world, basically, agreed one hundred percent with your solution we'd have Paradise on Earth and Obama's at fault for not creating that paradise immediately, or you actually believe the righwingers and think Obama does have the power to snap his fingers and get all kinds of institutions and government agencies to immediately change drastically without resistance or some kind of payback that will cause his plans to backfire (ever hear of Carter, one of the smartest and best intentioned presidents of the past half century, nonetheless...etc.).


I believe he's doing a better job than anyone else has in decades if not in my lifetime, and that some of what he's doing is guess work based on the best thinking he and his advisors can come up with and how easy those solutions are to apply and carry out. I trust the guy. I don't think he's anything more than he presents himself as, a thoughtful, intelligent, calm thinker who approaches problems from a humble point of view that there are no perfect solutions but best case ones and that half the battle is approaching the problems with an honest expression of what they really are and what the possibilities for solving them really are.

If any of my commentors want to present a case for any leader throughout history who did everything perfectly, please, let them make the case. If they want to cede that all humans are imperfect, and all human solutions therefore imperfect as well, than let's do some comparisons. If we use real data for that, Obama will come out ahead of most in almost every circumstance he has faced so far.


JIm said...

The guy is a Socialist who is leading American down a Socialist path. Socialism is very hard to recover from and or reverse. He has more power than any president in recent history and he absolutely believes he is God's gift to America to lead us to Obamatopia.
I believe he is leading us on a disastrous path. I am not alone. Confidence in the US dollar has plummeted since he came to power with his huge spending and socialism. The leaders of China, Germany, and France have doubted out loud America's economic path. Hugo Chavez is jealous because Obama is to left of him. Fed Chairman Bernanke warns of Government spending. Hell, even Obama and Geitner have said the government has and is spending too much money and yet they continue to spend and lead us to Socialism. There has never been a good end to governments that attempt to spend themselves out of recession, depression and or socialism. But what do I know? Maybe you can give some historical examples where good has come from run away government spending and socialism.

There is good news from an investment standpoint. When we suffered through the Nixon, Ford Carter years of the 70's there were few alternatives to US investments. The world has changed. It has become easy for jobs and capital to go to more friendly lands. We as investors can invest in those places and in anti inflation assets very easily. Unfortunately that does not help American recover her economic strength in an increasingly competitive world.

Butch in Waukegn said...

Michael writes:
“If any of my commentors want to present a case for any leader throughout history who did everything perfectly, please, let them make the case.”

Huge straw man, one of many in this post, and really not worthy of you.

Michael continues:
“If they [commentators] want to cede that all humans are imperfect, and all human solutions therefore imperfect as well, than let's do some comparisons. If we use real data for that, Obama will come out ahead of most in almost every circumstance he has faced so far.”

In the Obama in Egypt thread I responded to your assertion that any Obama “misteps” have been “very few and very minor”. I presented several areas where, in my opinion, this is not true. In other words I used “real data.”

You don’t address, or defend Obama on, any of these points.

Let’s get specific. What do you think of Obama’s Afghanistan policies? Are they an “honest expression” of what the real problem is or just a continuation of war and empire?

Data points:
CIA drone attacks have increased under Obama, killing hundreds of innocents. Obama has increased US troop levels in Afghanistan by 17,000 and there are indications he will sign off on the military’s escalation requests. Obama appointed General Stanley McChrystal, who reportedly ran Cheney’s assassination team, as the commander in Afghanistan. Obama agrees with Bush, the military, and the rest of the national security elite that we will stay in Afghanistan until we win, never defining what winning is.

In April, 1961 retired General Douglas MacArthur told JFK that anyone who advocated the US committing land troops to a war in Asia should have their head examined. This remark supposedly had a big impact on Kennedy, and yet he continued to aquiess to the military’s demands: more troops, more money, less restrictions.

It seems to me Obama is in an analogous situation. It doesn’t matter what Obama “knows”, how erudite and articulate he is, I am afraid he is heading down the same road and we’re in for years of escalation and carnage in Afghanistan.

Is this the best of all possible worlds, doctor?

Lally said...

Jim's bogus "socialism" charge has been refuted before on this blog and in so many other places it's too tiring to go through all that again. If the government taking a stake in a private enterprise or "nationalizing" (that is completely owning an industry or enterprise) is "socialism" than Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. and now Obama are all socialists. And if Jim wants examples of when and where "socialism" worked he can go back and read all the comments by me and others on this blog, but one relevant example for right now would be what the right calls "socialized" or "nationalized" medicine (guaranteed health care for all citizens in other words). When most Western industrialized nations were establishing universal health care for their citizens, it was proposed here as well, but the major corporations all fought it, especially the biggest, GM being one of the leaders in this fight, saying that they could take care of the health care needs of their workers better than the federal government. At that time (Truman presidency) medical care was relatively cheap, so GM guaranteed it for all its workers, leading to, dum da dum dum, their current bankruptcy (blamed on workers though it was GM corporate management that insisted on their healthcare plans). Meanwhile, the nations that instituted universal healthcare plans have longer life expectancies than we do, better infant mortality rates, less disease, etc. (all statistically proven, unlike the anecdotal evidence the right always throws out that people from these countries are fighting to get in to use our healthcare system, my daughter-in-law is from Canada as is her whole extended family and clan and they all swear by their healthcare and pity us down here for ours).
As for Butch, I thought I articulated my position pretty well, but let's try again very simply. Obama inherited the war in Afghanistan. If he were to try and end it immediately, just withdraw all troops and let it fall apart and find its own way (ala the Soviets in their war there) the vacuum might very well make it easier for attacks on the USA directly (ala 9/11) but even more importantly, the military establishment here as well as major factions in the intelligence agencies and "corporate America" (or "the military-industrial complex" as Eisenhower named it) would do all in their power (which is vast) to destroy Obama and his administration (ala Carter, maybe Kennedy, the verdict is still out on that one, etc.) or even worse (anybody else notice that Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were speaking everywhere loud and clear about race for many many years without harm, but the instant, and I do mean the instant—i.e. within weeks if not days) they began saying this country's problems weren't race based but class based and began speaking out against those who control most of the wealth and the institutions in this country, i.e. King's "Poor People's Campaign" and Malcolm's similar intentions, they were dead).
Obama is no good to anyone if he can't do anything. But if he can achieve some major things (he's already done that quicker than most presidents) in the course of his tenure, it will have to be carefully and pragmatically. It is a shame that innocent people are dying in Afghanistan. Innocent people are dying in Palestine and Israel, Somalia and Darfur, Congo and Columbia, Mexico and, oh yeah, the USA. Obama is incapable of stopping all that (my "perfect" argument) but he can help change the circumstances under which those problems developed. I believe all the actions he has taken so far are heading in that direction.

Butch in Waukegan said...

We still don’t know what you think about Obama’s policy towards Afghanistan.

Keeping it simple. Drone attacks on civilian populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan have increased under Obama. Surely you don’t believe this is OK because innocents are dying in lots of other places in the world.

These attacks would not happen without specific presidential approval. Obama could stop them with one signature. You can’t argue the too-much-on-his-plate defense.

Why can’t you say this dreadful policy is wrong?

Butch in Waukegan said...

We still don’t know what you think about Obama’s policy towards Afghanistan.

Keeping it simple. Drone attacks on civilian populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan have increased under Obama. Surely you don’t believe this is OK because innocents are dying in lots of other places in the world.

These attacks would not happen without specific presidential approval. Obama could stop them with one signature. You can’t argue the too-much-on-his-plate defense.

Why can’t you say this dreadful policy is wrong?

Lally said...

Butch, I would love to see no more war period anywhere. Hasn't happened yet. Meanwhile, in the real world, wars happen and I'd love to see our country not be involved in any of them, except, oh wait, those in which there seems to be a side that is truly evil and needs to be defeated or the rest of us will be (Hitler's Germany, etc.). So Obama inherits two wars and in one of them, the one in Afghanistan and Pakistan (though until Obama was elected the latter was never included in the labeling) the Talibam—hosts to and now allies with Al Queda—are turning the tide in their favor. Attacks on Pakistan soil have caused problems with getting the help of the Pakistani government, and more importantly, the Pakistani military in this war, but attacks by drones on targeted Taliban or Al Qudea hideouts are secretly approved by Pakistan, both gov and military. Obama is not tageting civilians. I do not believe the military commanders in charge are deliberately targeting civilians. But civilians are being killed, and I don't like it, condone it, or accept it in my philosophy of life, of live and let live, of hatred for war, etc. But in the real word Obama is dealing with, and if you or I were president would be dealing with as well, the choice is, don't do anything about the Taliban and Al Queda, use ground troops to try and capture or kill them (which would probably require reinstating the draft, spending even more money, much much more, alienating the civilian population even more and end up killing even more civilians, Iraq or Viet Nam anyone?) or use conventional bombers and end up killing even more civilians than the drones, which have a much more pinpoint accuracy as opposed to bombers flying much higher and carrying much bigger loads (anyone remember the "carpet bombing" in Viet Nam and Cambodia which led to nothing but pain for the Vietnamese and Cambodians?). Or, as you say, Obama can just call off the whole military engagement and pack up the troops and equipment and come home and leave a corrupt government (created not under Obama's watch but under Bush/Cheney) to deal with people who are bent on causing even more damage to the USA than what occurred on 9/11. That's not what a president is elected to do. Obama is doing the best he can with the situation he's been handed. If the drones fail, and the new commander can't get our Afghan allies to stand up to the plate better, then he will have a better hand in dealing with our entrenched military and intelligence and corporate forces that have a stake in these wars. he won't be in the weak position Carter was, who made all the right moves, bringing peace to the Middle east in ways no one before him could, and addressing the dependence on foreign oil with more moral fortitude than any president until Obama, but was still undercut by rogue elements he fired from the CIA but who still had all their contacts and partners around the world etc. etc. etc. I stand by what I have written and believe to be true about Obama's tactics. Np major blunders so far.

JIm said...

I am happy that the Canadian health care system works for your inlaws. They are apparently healthy people who have not needed immediate care. The Canadian system is notorious for its slowness and rationing. When Ted Kennedy, socialized medicine advocate, needed tricky brain surgery he did not fly to Canada. He stayed in the US of A. Even a sick socialist likes the best and quikest medicine in the world, rather than queue up for their turn which in Kennedy’s case might come after he was dead. (see note below)
Obama and the Democrats are pushing the US deeper and deeper into socialism. I note that you have never been able to site a historic example of a successful outcome for socialism.

Winnipeg vs Minneapolis: A Comparison
(Information supplied on this topic is from experience only, and in no way reflects policies, regulations, or laws from either Canada, USA, Manitoba, or Minnesota)

Both are very close. However, there is one important factor which is unfortunately not included in these rankings - the ability to receive health care services in a timely manner. We believe Winnipeg (and many other Canadian cities) are failing miserably in this area. Example: One may wait anywhere from 3 to 4 months to get a CT scan in Winnipeg - or next day in Minneapolis.
I am not going to pretend to be a health care specialists but from the Winnipegers that I have spoken to, plus my own first hand experiences, the health care provided in Minneapolis is like night and day compared to Canada - services are immediate, and completed with the latest technology. Health care, as most Canadians know, is a provided government service (for the most part) in Canada. Good health care is private in the USA. It would probably be an accurate statement to say that for any employment position that a Canadian is considering in the USA, that company will have a health plans that should meet or exceed any and all of your health care needs. The chart below represents ratings at of 1996.

Lally said...

Okay, last comment for Jim for a while because as usual he puts up straw men to knock down etc. I noted in my comments that going back over this blog he can find many many many many many (I didn't count them but I'd guess several dozen) comments pointing out where and in what ways what he's calling "socialism" can be found (Ted Kennedy is a liberal Democrat who has done more for this country and its people than probably every rightwing politician in the Senate for the past half century put together.

JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tom said...

Michael - Good post - I agree. I see the conservative, anti-Obama talking points daily at Fox and hear them on Rush. Sound bytes taken out of context, leaps of meaning, and so on. The same discounted conspiracy theories. On Fox it starts with that sad joke of a show the Friends and is repeat all day long. Obama's speech in Egypt said what has needed to be said for a long time. They (they, ha) praised Reagan for is "talks" to/with Gorbachev, but condemn Obama for doing the same with the Middle East. Much more could be said -but you have said it better.

Butch in Waukegan said...

Shorter Michael Lally, on drone attacks:
Afghanistan is our Good War, and Obama is intelligent and moral, and the US news media has proven how necessary and accurate drones are and innocent death is minimal and worth it, so I support their use.

Michael, I know you will think this is an unfair synopsis because you believe Obama and the military don’t consciously target civilians. But they are not ignorant of the costs of the “collateral damage” and have made a conscious cost-benefit analysis. Think Agent Orange and Operation Phoenix.

The true cost of this policy is known throughout the world, and particularly by the audience Obama addressed in his Cairo speech. Liberal Americans think the speech is a breakthrough but if this policy continues all the fine words will come to nothing.

From FAIR:
“It would not have been difficult [for CBS 60 Minutes] to find critics of the reliance on drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq--even among those close to the military. As the Los Angeles Times reported a week before the CBS segment aired (5/3/09), the House Armed Services Committee had recently heard testimony from David Kilcullen--a former adviser to General David Petraeus--who believes the drone attacks take too many civilian lives. Kilcullen testified that while drone attacks are suspected to have killed 14 Al-Qaeda leaders since 2006 in Pakistan, at the same time the weapons have killed about 700 civilians--a 50:1 ratio of innocent victims to targeted enemies.”

Gareth Porter: Predator Blowback
“. . .the Pakistani government leaked data last week to The News in Lahore showing that only 10 drone attacks out of 60 carried out from Jan. 29, 2009 to Apr. 8, 2009 actually hit al Qaeda leaders, while 50 other strikes were based on faulty intelligence and killed a total of 537 civilians but no al Qaeda leaders

“The drone strikes have been even less accurate in their targeting in 2009 than they had been from 2006 through 2008, according to the detailed data from Pakistani authorities. Of 14 drone strikes carried out in those 99 days, only one was successful, killing a senior al Qaeda commander in North Waziristan and its external operations chief. The other 13 strikes had killed 152 people without netting a single al Qaeda leader.”

Re Jim, I think he is a classic example of a troll - he hijacks threads with off topic comments. For example, there were 33 comments to your Sotomayer post . . . 17 were by Jim. He refused answer contradictions in his assertions and in the end was having a conversation with himself about abortion.

JIm said...

Gee whizz, was it using the words Kennedy, drink, Mary Jo and blowhard in one paragraph or was it asking if you could give us the name of a successfull socialist country?

JIm said...

Just in case you wanted to ignore it.

Merkel, Sarkozy Win EU Vote, Easing Stimulus Pressure (Update1)
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By James G. Neuger

June 7 (Bloomberg) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy led pro-business parties in defeating socialists in European Parliament elections, lessening the pressure for more stimulus measures to fight the deepest recession since World War II.

JIm said...

Global Warming Update-Obama and the Demovrats Pet Fear

Global warming and a tale of two planets
Kofi Annan claims that global warming is already "killing 300,000 people a year". The situation looks a little different in the real world, says Christopher Booker.

"Now for the other planet, the one the rest of us live on. Here all the accepted measures of global temperatures show that their trend has been downwards since 2002, declining at a rate that averages to about 0.25 degree per decade. Yet such a fall was predicted by none of those 25 computer models on which the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the rest of the Great and the Good rely for their theory of runaway global warming. Their computers are programmed to assume that as CO2 goes up, temperatures inevitably follow. But the graph below, where the variation of global temperatures from a 30-year mean is plotted against CO2 levels, shows the two lines clearly diverging, contrary to the theory. In this century, temperatures have fallen as CO2 has risen.
Furthermore, the Arctic ice has failed to disappear, as can be seen from the Crysophere Today website: it is now not far off its 30-year mean. Al Gore's polar bears have failed to drown. The ice in the Antarctic is actually way above its 30-year average. Except in the minds of Kofi Annan, Lord Stern and Prince Charles's assembled worthies, the threatened catastrophe seems not to be happening.
Meanwhile, on the planet where the rest of us live, the prospects for a new treaty in December, which according to an estimate by the International Energy Agency would cost us all $45 trillion, are not looking too hot. The Chinese and the Indians insist that, since all this global warming is the fault of the developed world, they will only sign the treaty if we agree to pay them $300 billion a year. The Africans and South Americans make similar demands.
But herein lies a mystery. Our own wonderfully sensible and honest MPs, it will be recalled, have already passed the Climate Change Act, committing us to restrict our CO2 emissions within 40 years to a level only 20 per cent of where they were in 1990. President Obama has committed the US to the same. Since these targets could only be met by closing down our economies, it is hard to know where we will find the money to pay the rest of the world what it is demanding. The real question we must decide in the years ahead is which of these two planets we are actually living on.
Catch them if you can
Several times in the past year I have reported on the way fishermen found guilty of making false claims over their catches now face, in addition to crippling fines, having all their assets seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act. This is on the assumption that everything they own, including their houses and boats, can be lumped in as the rewards of a “criminal lifestyle”.
A letter to Fishing News from a solicitor asks why this same principle should not be applied to those MPs who have made false claims under their additional cost allowance, such as the former fisheries minister Elliott Morley who claimed £16,000 for a mortgage which didn’t exist. The answer, of course, is that everything the MPs did was “within the rules”.
No Hutton, no lights
Last year, in his final months as our energy minister, the now-resigned John Hutton stood out as the only politician to realise that, within seven years, Britain faces a terrifying energy crisis. As 17 of our nuclear and coal-fired power stations are forced to close, we will lose 40 per cent of our generating capacity. As Mr Hutton put it, “no nuclear, no coal, no power”. No sooner had he tried to impress this truth on his colleagues than he was moved to become Defence Secretary. We are now left with a bunch of windmill-obsessed fanatics, headed by Ed Miliband and supported by the Tories, who will be responsible for Britain’s lights going out. "

Unknown said...

I think it's important that we support Obama, even if it's only to give him room to do his work. We Democrats tend to support our leaders despite our politics. Bush enjoyed great bipartisan support until his incompetence was clearly manifested.

The wingers are already picking at everything that Obama does. Right now they're making stuff up, like his birth certificate, his upbringing, and his choice of mustard on his hamburgers. But as soon as they possibly can, they're going to "Paula Jones" him. The Blue Dog Democrats will pile on, and they'll take away everything we voted for. We can't allow that to happen again.

JIm said...

Socialism is unamerican. Obama is a socialist. It is patriotic to work to stop his programs. One can only hope the Blue Dogs pile on.

Anonymous said...

Lal--Mustard on a hamburger? That's not a character flaw. It's just a midwestern cultural practice. Some midwesterners put both catsup and mustard on their hamburgers,and some even put both mustard and catsup on their hot dogs, none of which says anything about President Obama's statesmanship or political skills or lack of same.
De gustibus,
Bob Berner

Unknown said...


I'm still living in my own home, paying my mortgage, and operating my own business. My wife works for a privately owned insurance company, and my daughter goes to a religious based, privately operated daycare. We own our own cars.

We have yet to be relocated to collectively owned apartments. The churches in our neighborhoods still hold services. No one has come to my door in attempts to grab weapons. I'm still able to access the internet and I get a jillion channels on my cable TV.

The stock markets are still open, and you can buy or sell stocks on the market. If you wanted to, you could even buy shares in GM or AIG. My income taxes haven't gone up. I haven't been conscripted into military service. No one has issued me any uniform.

May Day has come and gone without much fanfare.

If this is the socialism that you warned us about, I'm not that worried. My life isn't much different than under Bush, Clinton, Bush or Reagan.

By the way, socialism isn't all that unamerican. Not if you're talking about
--Wage and hour laws
--Child Labor Laws
--Workers' Compensation
--Social Security and Welfare
--Public Education
--Public Roads and Interstate
--Food and Drug Regulation
--Mutual Insurance
--Public Parks
--Public Libraries and community centers
--Community outreach programs
--Medical clinics.

JIm said...

10th Amendment Summary- Granted, it has been violated under Republicans and Democrats.

“If a particular power was not assigned to the federal government by the Constitution itself, then the states may exercise the power, unless the Constitution also prohibits the states from exercising it. The Tenth Amendment also states that people are free to act, without permission of the federal government, in areas outside the scope of the federal government's powers.”

The takeover of the banks, autos and the proposed takeover of national health care are a clear violation. Life goes on as you have noticed, but not necessarily for the better. Interest on the 10and 30 year treasuries have almost doubled in three months which is imperiling the housing recovery, which had shown signs of life. The US dollar has declined 10% since early March which is a reflection of international confidence in the US. There are concerns that US credit rating will be downgraded because of our out of control public spending and quadrupling of the deficit. The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire which will put another burden on the economy. The Democrats are in power and are anti business, which is driving business off shore.

Other than that, things in Obama’s America are just peachy .

PS John, what kind of business are you in.

Unknown said...

Your summary of the 10th Amendment is longer than the actual Amendment, though I'm not sure whether the extra verbiage makes a difference.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Much of the great expansion of Federal Power has come in under the guise of regulation of "Interstate Commerce". Congress has the sole authority to regulate interstate commerce. The states cannot regulate so as to discriminate against interstate commerce. In this day and age, there is very little in our economy that does not in some way involve interstate commerce. When you're talking about the banking industry or GM, you are certainly talking about interstate (and international) commerce.

JIm said...

You are correct. However, I believe the original meaning of the word regulate, was to make commerce regular or facilitate. Unfortunatly, in the view of many, they far exceeded the original intent. There is a movement, begun in Montana, to challenge that assumed right of congress. I believe the country would be better off if it succeeded.

Unknown said...

I strongly suspect that the Interstate Commerce genie will be difficult to put back into the bottle. The lifeblood of any politician is the power that comes with spending trillions of dollars. It would be hard to imagine our elected officials giving up that kind of power.

JIm said...

Your assesment is probably correct. But I think the effort is valiant and who knows, anything can happen. Good news, the Supreme Court has issued on stay on the Chrysler deal, which road rough shod over bankruptcy laws and bond holders rights in favor of the UAW. It looks like there will be a full hearing by the court.

Unknown said...

I don't know the nature of the objection. Normally, employees get priority for some unpaid wages and benefits. If I have time, I'll read up on it.

JIm said...

I looked at your biography. What kind of law do you practice?

Unknown said...

General practice. Right now, a lot of consumer bankruptcy, divorce, collection of accounts, probate. Generally whatever comes in the door.

JIm said...

Obama, is obviously just another dishonest Chicago politician in spades. He breaks the budget way beyond even shat W. did who was a Republican but not a conservative. Now, after idiot socialistic extravagant spending, he says we have to become fiscally responsible. One has to be a complete idiot to believe this socialist jerk.

Unknown said...

Economic health depends on liquidity of the market. Nobody else is spending, and nobody else is lending.

epaminondas said...

just felt copelled to add that when folks talk negatively about gov't motors and that the gov't never ran anything effectively, how about NASSAR. We gave them certain goals and they have by any standard done a great job at achieving them

JIm said...

What is NASSAR?

Unknown said...

It was reported today that a white supremicist killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC.

This is just a couple of weeks after an abortion doctor was killed in his church. And a few months after a Knoxville right-winger shot up a church.

Do you still think that Janet Napolitano was wrong for releasing a report warning about the rise of violence by right wing extremists? It seems to me that the report was spot on.

JIm said...

I believe the guy served in World War Two. I think all veterns of World War ll should be targeted by Napalatono's Homeland Security. The pool of suspects is shrinking so they should get right to it and start tossing retirement homes. The guy already served five years for targeting Fed members and he was a member of some white supremicist group. You would think that would have demanded some attention. The next time a US citizen killer is arrested you should be comforted that he will Mirandaized just like any enenmy combatant out of uniform in Iraq or Afganistan. Obama and Holder must be scaring the hell out of US enemies abroad.

PS There are also plenty of crazies on the left. ElF, PETA and Greenie extremists come to mind.

Unknown said...

The guy already served five years for targeting Fed members and he was a member of some white supremicist group. You would think that would have demanded some attention.

Maybe in some kind of DHS report?

JIm said...

Maybe the killer was inspired by Obama's Cairo speech, when he said the killing of 6 million Jews was the equivilent of Israel's action in dealing with Palestinians.

“On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”

What is this on the otherhand stuff? The Holocost is equal to the Palestinian fight to eliminate Jews in Israel?

Maybe Napalatono should keep Obama in check.

Note: Reworded from Newsmax observations.