Treasury’s man on horseback Geithner promises “an aggressive two-front battle against the worst financial crisis in seven decades,” AP reports.
Dems do like that war language. Historically, they have yearned for the crisis situation that calls (they say) for government interference.
Does this mean they are going after tax cheats, beginning with Geithner?
Chicago’s own Loyola and DePaul are among 15 RC colleges still showing “The Vagina Monologues,” reports Catholic Citizens of Illinois, citing Catholic News Service (but oddly not linking to it).
“The play is sexually explicit and favorably describes lesbian activity, group self-abuse, and the lesbian seduction and rape of a teenage girl,” says Catholic Citizens (Catholic News Service? Story can’t be found there).
“CNS encourages protesters to be charitable and respectful, with the understanding that most Monologues productions are not officially sponsored by the colleges and universities but should nevertheless be prevented by policies consistent with Catholic education.”
Also among the 15 are four other Jesuit schools — Holy Cross, Fordham, Georgetown, and U. of San Francisco, according to Catholic News Agency — not to be confused with Catholic News Service, sponsored by American Catholic bishops.
Reader Bonnie asks, in the matter of Milton Friedman on free enterprise (state vs. individual), “i don’t think it’s too much to ask for the government to protect the public from sociopaths like madoff and all the other creeps who have been let loose to take advantage of people through the years…….”
I asked in response, “Quis custodiet custodes?” and refer her to this from Wikipedia:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a Latin phrase from the Roman poet Juvenal [worth perusing, by the way; his satires ring true for us, allowing for adjustments], which literally translates to “Who will guard the guards themselves,” and is variously translated . . . as “Who watches the watchmen?”, “Who watches the watchers?”, “Who will guard the guards?”, “Who shall watch the watchers?” or other similar translations.
That is to say, we do have a problem with governmental protectors, do we not? Take Congr. Barney Frank, in bed with the Fannie May boy friend and telling us not to worry, and Sen. Chris Dodd, apparently on the take (Chris won’t show the long-promised records) from Countrywide, over whom he was supposed to exercise oversight.
Plato had an ideal solution to the problem, one worthy of J. Swift if not intended that way. This is also from Wikipedia, with apologies for not doing my own research into The Republic.
We must tell the guardians a “noble lie.” The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is therefore their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege; they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it.
That’s about right for and about statists — in this context read easily discovered members of the so-called Democratic party.
Meanwhile, the rest of us should doff our naive belief in government as problem-solver, rembering R. Reagan’ words, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
Want to see and hear the late Milton Friedman as he “takes Phil Donahue to school on the value of free markets”? Here ‘tis.
Mark Brown is miffed at Paul Vallas’ turning Republican to run for county board president. He concedes that V. might reform county government, as he says he would, and that there’s “nothing wrong with dumping Stroger,” which I call an odd way to put it. I would have said there’s nothing right about keeping him.
But after quoting V. extensively (to good effect for V’s cause) and conceding that it’s “tough” for a Dem reformer to get nominated, he still wishes V. hadn’t switched. For one thing, and I thought at first it’s the main thing, it’s to oust a black.
Astute readers will have already picked out [I didn’t] the key common denominator among these three Democrats-turned-Republicans [whom Brown cites as losers], and I’m not talking about their short-lived tenures with the GOP.
In each case, they made the switch to outflank an African-American politician, trying to gain some advantage in Chicago’s race-based politics.
That’s bad on its face, Brown implies, his knee jerking as it has in the past, especially in the matter a few months back of Dems not voting for Obama in the primary.
However, Patrick Hickey Hickey [sic] cites another root cause for Brown’s adversary position, a sometime-back dustup with the irate father of a 19th ward candidate opposing Brown’s main man (source) Mike Quigley of the county board. The father “had words for Mark Brown,” and it got “ugly – for Mark Brown,” says Hickey.
Don’t know what that’s about, but the Quigley connection is something to keep in mind, and I thank Hickey for alerting me.
WASHINGTON — In announcing executive pay limits on Wednesday, President Obama is trying to hold the financial industry accountable to taxpayers while aiming to change an entrenched corporate culture that endorses outsize bonuses and perks that often bear little relationship to corporate performance.
Hey, he’s providing the capital, he calls the shots.
TV newsman Warner Saunders, who is black, after blasting retired Sun-Times radio and TV writer Robert Feder, who is white, for race prejudice:
“I simply wanted to confront him, face to face,” Saunders said. “I just spoke my truth in front of a person who I felt has been unfair to me and to black journalists in this city. … Very few people who are not in our skin can understand this.” [Italics added]
So he can’t blame Feder, and most whites won’t get it? What is it, some kind of freemasonry? If most whites can’t understand, why bring it up?
Here’s a site dedicated to Obama as promise-keeper or not:
PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in politics.
Every day, reporters and researchers from the Times examine statements by members of Congress, the president, cabinet secretaries, lobbyists, people who testify before Congress and anyone else who speaks up in Washington. We research their statements and then rate the accuracy on our Truth-O-Meter – True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True and False. The most ridiculous falsehoods get our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.
All right. Not just Obama.
Rush Limbaugh’s “bipartisan stimulus”:
Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%.
As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.
It’s a way to find out what works:
Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people’s wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.
Time to stop being narrowly partisan.
Blithe Spirit 