Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
John McCain: Harlem Globetrotter
In the last few days we have come to learn a lot about the John McCain Playbook. It features chapters like "How to Really Tick Off the National Press Corps," "Getting Talk Show Hosts to Loathe You," "Quarantining Your Running Mate From any Form of Meaningful Interaction with the Media," and the ever important "National Presidential Debates: How to Hold them Hostage to Your Awesome Maverick-y Whims."
The McCain campaign is fast becoming a gimmick machine, the Harlem Globetrotters of modern presidential campaigning (Look! There goes Steve Schmidt spraying water in the University of Mississippi's face, a la Meadowlark Lemon). For those who prefer football metaphors, the campaign is starting to resemble a team that runs nothing but trick plays (and, in an effort to achieve balance, lobs a couple of Hail Marys, as well).
Looking back, this does shed light on some of McCain forays into religious politicking. Cue the Globetrotters theme song, and consider the following: McCain's shocking announcement that he was a Baptist, not an Episcopalian. His out-of-the-blue insistence that this was a "Christian Nation." His attempt to bring Pastors Hagee and Parsley on board (even though he knew next to nothing about them). His release of The One ad. His release of The One Ad (part II). What emerges in hindsight is an image of a candidate who loves himself the gadgetry.
Looking forward, this raises the question of what is coming our way. If McCain's slide in the polls continues into October, what type of last-resort machinations can we expect in the field of Faith and Values campaigning? Lord knows I have been critical of Senator Obama, but one thing he has demonstrated is a refusal to go negative in the sphere of religious outreach. McCain has no such compunction and I am starting to wonder if religiously themed trick plays of the most distressing order await us in the coming weeks.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
September 26, 2008; 8:47 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: The Christian Right and the IRS |
Next: "A Mass Violation of Federal Tax Law"
Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2008 5:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Both the VP candidates were equally well coached for the debate. But the usual partisan line that only Gov Palin got help is already making the rounds.
Could a greater effort be made to be little less partisan by those who claim to be religious and those supposedly offering non-partisan analysis?
In politics there is only gray. One chooses the shade of gray that one feels benefits one's own values or interests.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2008 1:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anyone wondering why Governor Palin seems to wink, it is because of light falling on her glasses stupid. No other candidate wears glasses.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2008 1:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Don't focus on personalities. Politics is not a one-man or one-woman show. Every candidate represents the sum total of a team working behind the scenes.
Compare their politics in the past, their policies for the future and then VOTE.
Let the best team win.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 11:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Here an observation:
Until Governor Palin came on the scene, religion was considered an important aspect of political campaigning and Senator Obama's religious credentials, despite his membership and mentoring for twenty years by a controversial pastor. His ability to talk religion in a sophisticated way became an important asset.
Now Governor Palin's religion suddenly has become a liability, despite the fact that Alaskans have not had to bother themselves with her personal religion. If she discusses her political concerns in her church and asks for prayers, so what? Isn't that what a church is supposed to be for, to ask for God's guidance in one's life and have others pray that God's will be done? It would be a different matter if she had forced her religious practice at strictly political meetings.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 11:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
She is dressed like the power woman that she is, but for me her hairstyle seems a contradiction, only the straggly part that seems to cover her eyes.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A humble suggestion for Gov Palin's hairstyle
The hair falling over her eyes distract and makes it difficult to look at her eyes, which are highlighted by her stylish glasses. Hair falling all over the eyes gives a somewhat unprofessional look. My opinion.
Just because Palin has sported a particular hairstyle until the age of 44 does not mean she cannot get a hairdressing expert to give her another *more appealing* (not that the present one isn't good)look, without coming across as a Hollywood filmstar who changes hairstyles every week. The hair falling all over her eyes looks somewhat less professional.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What education would help:
The poor woman who resorts to abortion as her choice?
The underage girl who chooses abortion?
The single/divorced woman?
The employed woman who does not want to give up her job?
The career woman?
The woman who has had enough children?
The woman in the wrong relationship? (Why is she in the relationship?)
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 7:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Since both Senator Biden and Governor Palin know that all human life begins at conception, what would they do to protect life in the womb? Policies? Social support?
Western European countries have good social supports, yet the rate of abortion is not as low as one would expect, in countries which have very little restriction in their abortion laws. The rates show a strong correlation to the legal restriction.
Considering only TWO PERCENT of abortions in the US fulfill the criteria of "hard cases" (rape, incest, illness in mother, fetal deformities...) what would be the appropriate measure to restrict abortions of mere convenience by women who can afford to keep their children?
For world statistics on abortion:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html#ST
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 7:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I would be more concerned about partisan politically power hungry teachers/representatives of religions.
Being an independent moral voice and trying to influence policies for the better in a non-partisan way is one thing, but being blatantly partisan political stooges is another.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 7:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz, how did anon slander you? I keep seeing references to it- but am not sure where it happened.
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 2, 2008 1:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anon,
You have returned! In the psalms, David wrote extensively on slander, gossip. (He might be your ancestor, too, if you're not a Muffinist or Idolator.)
Posted by: Farnaz | October 2, 2008 1:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz, Adam and Eve are my ancestors.
How exactly is that supposed to be relevant to the discussion?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 12:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Conservative Jews are against abortion. That is
why the rate of abortion is Israel is extremely low."
Anon, incorrect, which isn't to say that Conservative Jews are "for abortion." In Israel, the rate of abortion among Jews, Christians, Bahai, Muslims, etc., is low. There are different reasons, some concerned with religious belief, others not.
Posted by: Farnaz | October 2, 2008 12:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"CCNL is a closet Jew, who is not allowed to call himself a Jew because he is not Middle Eastern and born into Jewish family going back two thousand years or more."
Anon, you poor Idolator. You posted the same nonsense on Prof. SA's site, and I responded there. If he's Jewish, I'm a Muffinist like him.
"Moses the Tablet-Man"? Like many Muffinists, he's absolutely clueless as to how to interpret the tablets, etc., but not all are so ignorant and offensive. Further, I like to think that we Jews know when hyphens are superfluous.
As I told you on Prof. SA's thread, if he wished to convert, he could begin tomorrow, but Jews are not Conversionists. We believe the Lord has a covenant with all peoples. However, if anyone wishes to convert, we will surely help her/him and welcome him/her, as we did with Ruth. Once a person has converted to Judaism, it is forbidden to speak of him/her as a convert.
Again, see Paul on gossip, etc. Another good source on this is my ancestor, David.
Why must you leave this blog? Why can't you simply use your moniker? Or come up with a new one? You are the only blogger who has taken such an interest in me!
Posted by: Farnaz | October 2, 2008 12:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spreading the faith is not about converting by force at the point of a sword or by any other force. It is possible Muslims have some unconscious associations with such conversions.
It is perfectly legitimate to present one's beliefs in a way that appeals to other human beings, leaving the other human being freedom to make up their own mind. That is what true spreading of the faith means.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 12:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Those claiming that not being allowed to practice any religion is what separation of Church and State is all about, might consider whether they are referring to the former Soviet Union, China and North Korea.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 12:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Daisy Khan:
1. Will your religious views of non-Christians affect your governance of them? From a theological perspective, are you enjoined to actively proselytize to non-Christians, to prevent their communities from achieving equal footing? Or, does your faith compel you to love, serve, and respect them? How will you separate these religious commitments - if at all - from your obligation to effectively govern Americans of diverse persuasions?
2. (Related to question 1) There are 5-6 million Muslims living in America today. Do you consider Islam a legitimate American religion, just like Christianity or Judaism? What steps would you take to prevent the alienation and marginalization of the American Muslim community? Do you believe that the United States is a Christian country and if so, how will this affect your policies towards Muslims and other non-Christians?
3. For Sarah Palin in particular: What impact will your Evangelical understanding of abortion have on your policy-making? Do you consider your own faith position on when life begins - which differs from Islamic and Jewish interpretations - so true, that it should define American law and govern all Americans? Is this a violation of church-state separation?
________________________________________
An American Vice President is not a Vice-Paster in Chief. Pastors will continue to pastor as they always have. President Kennedy did not function like a Catholic Cardinal.
There is freedom to practice religion. The Pastors who wish to spread their faith are free to do so. Any legal constraint on that amounts to restricting their right to practice their religion.
Freedom to practice any religion is what separation of State and Church guarantees. There has been no Muslim persecution by the state nor has any Muslim been forbidden to practice their faith freely. The prejudice against Muslims post 9/11 by a *few,* is the direct result of trauma, and it is not enshrined in any law. Freedom of speech for all includes the freedom to criticize any religion, including Islam. It is not possible for American law to prevent its citizens from exercising their constitutional right to express their opinions freely.
Non-Christians have enjoyed as much freedom in the US as Christians. So the question whether they would be allowed to continue to enjoy such freedom is redundant.
Abortion is a human rights issue, the right of an unborn child to its life. The unalienable right granted by God for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness includes the unborn child, who should first be granted its right to life before it can consider liberty and pursuit of happiness. There is hard core medical science to support the fact that all human life begins as a single celled zygote. For comparison, the legal case against abortion made by the Constitutional Court of Germany in 1975 is based on its article: The dignity of a human being shall not be violated. The German Government is fully conscious of the violation of human rights during the Nazi era and seeks to protect human dignity in every way possible as a result of lessons learned.
Conservative Jews are against abortion. That is
why the rate of abortion is Israel is extremely low.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 11:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It should be noted that the traditional black American style of worship is very emotionally charged, with lots of body movements, trembling, shouting, dancing, singing, rocking, swaying etc.
That is natural to their culture, so that is normal for them. Who is to say that they shouldn't worship in a way that suits them?
King David is supposed to have danced before God.
Hindu religious festivals are also emotion ridden and there is singing and dancing on the streets. Goddesses Durga and Kali are represented in somewhat scary forms and worshiped with hyper emotional symbols.
Witches and wizards and magic is part of paganism, not Pentacostalism.
So anyone eager to condemn the prayer style of the Pentacostal church should do their homework about religious practices in other religions first, including their own (since many are only cultural members of their religions and know very little about their own religions as it is really practiced).
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 11:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Persiflage,
Is this the end of Pseudo? Say no, please.
Farnaz
Posted by: Farnaz | October 1, 2008 10:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
In India, where ever Christianity has flourished, the literacy rates are much higher and there is gender and much more social equality. Christians have done much towards upliftment of social outcastes living in remote areas of the country completely out of touch with the progressive India and the better aspects of Hindu culture, and would do much more if they were not harassed by some militant, fascist Hindus.
------------------------------------
Anon, you miss the point. I don't like to use words like "militant, fascist." We don't disagree, not at all. Rather than cut and paste, why not go back to the thread from which you got this and see what I just wrote.
Also, use your moniker. After this, like Arminius, et al, I'm not going to respond to Anonymi.
Posted by: Farnaz | October 1, 2008 10:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Roe vs Wade is the darker side of feminism made into law: the right of a woman to her convenience overriding the right of an unborn child to its very life.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 11:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
That will be all from me for now.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 10:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
From the website of the Guest Voice, Dorinda Brodlee:
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 10:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz wrote:
iamweaver:
I don't know how to be any clearer. Religious institutions are inherently oppressive in many countries. It could be argued that converting the Dalit is a good thing, since it could enable them to move into the business class. That is, those who aren't enslaved. ON the other hand, in time it would raise the ire of the Hindus if it occurred on a large scale and would be viewed as imperialism. Wonder why.
If you cast your eyes beyond the borders of this country, outside of Europe to the African continent to Asia you will find first the missionaries, then the anthropologists, then the imperialists. The order is rough, since occasionally there was overlap.
Christianization is the first step in imperialism.
Always was, Speak to anyone from a developing nation.
The best solution is well-planned, well-coordinated, nonsectarian aid, drawing on local knowledge.
October 1, 2008 6:35 AM
_________________________________
You are not rightly informed about realities on the ground in India.
Christians in India are a minority and they have NEVER been oppressive. They run the best educational institutions, hospitals and charities in the country without expecting anyone to convert. Much of the elite Hindus study at such institutions, even if they would like to keep the lower castes trapped in a caste system without being converted to Christianity.
In India, where ever Christianity has flourished, the literacy rates are much higher and there is gender and much more social equality. Christians have done much towards upliftment of social outcastes living in remote areas of the country completely out of touch with the progressive India and the better aspects of Hindu culture, and would do much more if they were not harassed by some militant, fascist Hindus.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 9:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The advance in science since Roe vs Wade in 1973 is not the knowledge that all human life begins as a single celled zygote (that was already known at the time), but ultrasound made it possible to view the living, growing child within the womb and Fetology developed as a medical specialty as a result which went hand in hand with advance in surgical techniques. Today's science makes it possible for pediatric surgeons to treat/operate on fetuses and return them to the womb to continue growth until birth. Advances in neonatal pediatrics also makes it possible for younger and younger prematurely born babies to survive outside the womb.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 9:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Persiflage sez -
Christians that would be knowledgeable about their faith owe it to themselves to seek out the Gospel of Thomas (Didymus) in contrast to what the writers passing as John and Paul have to say.
These alternative interpretations of the message and meaning of Jesus are thought to be from about the same era as John (who very probably wrote in defense of the singular divinity of Jesus because of the contrasting (threatening?) views of Thomas Christians).
The writings of Thomas, Mary Magdelene and other alternate 'gnostic gospelers' can of course be found in the Nag Hammadi Library and as separate publications. These documents represent early Christian views and theology that were considered 'heretical' by other early theologians and Church founders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, & Athanasius. Origen of Alexandria was more sympathetic to the Gnostic viewpoint.
Clearly, the concept of Jesus as God in human form is nowhere found more clearly than in the gospel of John (along with the letters of Paul). Matthew, Mark and Luke are far more equivical in this regard.
The (4) synoptic gospels were selected as the official credo of Christianity because they reinforced a particular view, not becaue they necessarily represented a more accurate spiritual reality - it was merely the preferred perception of a select group of early and influential Christians.
Thomas tells us that all men are filled with the light of God and made in His image and likeness, as was Jesus himself. Only a few discover this inner reality - which is exactly the message that Jesus tried to convey throughout the days of his ministry. This makes Jesus an ultimate spiritual role model, rather than the Savior and Avatar that we find in Paul.
Recommend reading 'Beyond Belief' & 'The Gnostic Gospels' by Elaine Pagels for an enlightening coverage of this early Christian era.
Posted by: Persiflage | October 1, 2008 9:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Christie2
Both candidates say they are Christian. Jesus did not get involved in politics in his day and even refused when others tried to make him king (John 6:10, 14, 15). Jesus always did things God's way. Instead of choosing an independent course and trying to prop up or improve the existing system of things by political means, he worked hard to advance the interests of God's Kingdom, the only solution to the world's ills.
I would like them both to answer this: In light of Jesus’ example and teachings, how can you justify a Christian running for public office, leading a nation, and being commander and chief of an army?
September 30, 2008 11:56 AM
_______________________________________________
Only Islam was instituted as a theocracy. So only a Muslim should run for political office, eh?
OK. Maybe priests and evangelists shouldn't run for public office and neither should politicians try to play the priest or evangelist.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 9:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ALL religions believe in evil, so a Christian denomination like Pentacostalism didn't invent it.
In the days of Jesus, He and His disciples fasted and prayed. Jesus drove away demons and gave power to His disciples to do the same with the power of the Holy Spirit. The Pentacostal church tries to practice the earliest form of Christianity as practiced by the disciples and early followers.
Nobody needs to follow the same practice, but it is wrong to claim that it has no Biblical basis. As long as Governor Palin does not impose her religious belief on anyone, it is nobody's business how she practices her Christianity. Since not all in Alaska are Pentacostals and she was hugely popular as a Mayor and Governor, it can be safely assumed that she did not impose her religion on anyone and she would do the same in case she should be elected. But to say she has no right to practice her religion as she pleases, be prayed for or prayed over or whatever, is direct violation of her basic human rights.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 9:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Senator Biden and Governor Palin who are going to grilled on their conviction regarding abortion (read: that life begins at conception).
It is not a religious question.
There is empirical scientific proof that the life of all human beings begins as a single celled zygote (commonly known as fertilized ovum). A standard textbook of human embryology: The Developing Human by Moore and Persaud is NOT a religious book.
The German Constitutional Court declared that the right of the developing human deserves protection in accordance with the article of the German Constitution: The dignity of a human being shall not be violated. They built their *legal case* in 1975, two years after Roe vs Wade came into effect in the US. Yet abortion in Germany is possible legally as a non-punishable offense when certain criteria is fulfilled. The rate of abortion in Germany is much lower than in the US. No woman with a genuine reason for abortion is denied the opportunity to have one; there is even enough room for some less hard cases.
In the US, only TWO PERCENT of abortions can be termed "hard cases." Ninety eight percent of abortions are for convenience.
Abortion has been considered a crime through much of human history. It is laws permitting abortion that is more recent in human history.
Medical science vindicates religionists who have always objected to abortion. All folks in contact with natural law similarly know that abortion is killing an unborn. Even in the most primitive cultures abortions were done secretly, with the knowledge it was wrong. In cultures were sex outside marriage is rare, because it is not permitted by society and customs prevail where marriage for all is early, the need for abortion is much less.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 9:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
How did a Hindu-Buddhist country like Indonesia become almost 100% Islamic?
In India after 300 years of Muslim rule less than 30% of the Hindu population (which includes the current Muslim populations of Pakistan and Bangladesh) could be converted to Islam and much of it in the beginning was by force.
By contrast, 200 years of British rule did not indulge in conversions at all. The 2.3% Christians in India existed long before the British came.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 8:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
iamweaver:
I don't know how to be any clearer. Religious institutions are inherently oppressive in many countries. It could be argued that converting the Dalit is a good thing, since it could enable them to move into the business class. That is, those who aren't enslaved. ON the other hand, in time it would raise the ire of the Hindus if it occurred on a large scale and would be viewed as imperialism. Wonder why.
If you cast your eyes beyond the borders of this country, outside of Europe to the African continent to Asia you will find first the missionaries, then the anthropologists, then the imperialists. The order is rough, since occasionally there was overlap.
Christianization is the first step in imperialism.
Always was, Speak to anyone from a developing nation.
The best solution is well-planned, well-coordinated, nonsectarian aid, drawing on local knowledge.
October 1, 2008 6:35 AM
_____________________________________________
Are you referring to Islamic rule?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 8:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Bye, bye Farnaz. Gotta go. But do keep up the good work with Confused Croissant of Fluff the Magic Muffin Church.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 8:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz, calling CCNL, the Confused Croissant who is the sole member of Fluff the Magic Muffin is cute and so appropriate. -:) It does take some imagination to find the name of the right box for him.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 7:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
From Concerned the Christian now Liberated:
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Old Testament (for the benefit of the prophet of gloom and doom i.e. Farnaz), John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. www. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
October 1, 2008 7:09 AM
__________________________________________________
CCNL is a closet Jew, who is not allowed to call himself a Jew because he is not Middle Eastern and born into Jewish family going back two thousand years or more.
Notice how he never has a bad thing to say about Judaism in his compulsive lists yet constantly attacks and belittles Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism?
He attacks Christianity and Islam most.
In referring to the teachings of Jesus, he is eager to say that Jesus "borrowed" "the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Old Testament, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics," but he NEVER says that about any OT prophet.
The mystery is why he continues to attend Catholic Mass every Sunday. Kind of outrageously hypocritical IMHO.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 7:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz: "While you are out and about on this thread slandering and gossiping, you might want to read Paul. I find it difficult to believe you are a Christian, since if you were you would know that your behavior is forbidden by both the Tanakh and the New Testament."
Since my days on this thread are numbered (and btw did you notice that the clever idea to get everyone to register has led to the amusing consequence almost everyone is turning up as Anonymous, no matter what moniker they use?) I might as well make hay while the thread shines.
First define what you mean by slandering and gossiping.
Please quote the verses in the OT and NT which forbids me to express my knowledge about Christianity and correct what I perceive as a misconception on your part.
Freedom of speech was never forbidden in the Bible, at least not in the one I read.
What exactly is Paul supposed to tell me, that the four Gospels which describes the life and teachings of Jesus by four eye witnesses, and letters of other Apostles in the NT doesn't?
I suggest you read the Gospel and letter of John, including the letters of James and Peter. Peter was the disciple Jesus chose as the leader of the group, John was supposed to be His favorite disciple, and James was also one among the special ones.
If it consoles you to think I'm not a Christian, for whatever reason, then please yourself.
O yes, my days are numbered I know. I doubt if I'm going to miss anything seriously though, since I can continue to read.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 7:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Gather ye gossip while ye may, Anon/JAC. Soon, you will have to use your moniker. Don't waste a special minute. INdulge your curiosity de Farnaz.
Speculate onward!
Posted by: Farnaz | October 1, 2008 7:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anon/JAC:
While you are out and about on this thread slandering and gossiping, you might want to read Paul. I find it difficult to believe you are a Christian, since if you were you would know that your behavior is forbidden by both the Tanakh and the New Testament.
My guess is that you are a Muffinist, but more on that later.
If you are going to follow me about from thread to thread, at least direct readers to the sites from which you take my posts out of context, in this case Rabbi Sarna's.
No, you are no Christian. Christians know that Jews do not call themselves "the chosen poeple" and Christians know why. Christians know where the phrase comes from.
Either you are a Muffinist or an idolator of some sort.
Either way your days are numbered. You will have to post under your moniker, not under anon. Hence we don't see much of you around. Soon the new process will come to this thread.
Well, my idolator friend, do persist with your interest in me. Speculate away...!
Posted by: Farnaz | October 1, 2008 7:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anon/JAC,
Still speculating about me? Oh, well, speculate away.
Posted by: Farnaz | October 1, 2008 6:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Terra,
Yes, I know all about Foreclosure Phil. I pasted an article from Mother Jones on said McCain buddy. Dereg started in 1978 with Carter and the airlines, but it didn't amount to much. It accelerated greatly under Reagan, then under Clinton, and now with the Disastrous Bush Jr.
There is an interesting book, "The Imperial Presidency." I've read a couple of reviews, and I think it may shed some light on the declining effectiveness of Congress, not merely with respect to the current crisis.
Posted by: Farnaz | October 1, 2008 6:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz, Christians use the same Old Testament that Jews do. It is just interpreted according to the teachings of Jesus, the Christ.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 4:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz, you invent a rivalry between Jews and Christians that does not exist.
Christianity is a respectable two thousand years old and has amassed a huge mountain of spiritual wealth of their own in that time, which adds to the Old and New Testaments.
Christians are anything but insecure about their religion. If you need to invent such a theory to satisfy your own needs of superiority about whatever that happens to be, go right ahead. But be sure that Christians don't have any reason whatsoever to be bothered about it.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 4:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
? By Farnaz who has "baptized" CCNL as "confused croissant" (see Catholic America thread: Are Catholics Christians):
Christians, Catholics, and others of CC descent, who remain cultural CCs appropriated another person's text, which, in translation, states that Hashem, chose those people with whom to make a particular covenant. That is all.
The centuries old "crises" for your CCs, obersvant or cultural, is that THEY wish to be "chosen," for what (salvation??), is unclear. In this struggle, they've tried everything, from writing their own "Testament" which is supposed to be "New," a "replacement," as it were, of the other people's book, developed theories of typology, etc.
In desperation, your CCs have literally ripped their "New" Testament from the Jewish people's book since it challenged the CC's typological self-aggrandizement. Your CC's have tried everything else they could find to create a self-legitimation myth, including discrediting the entirety of the Jewish people's book.
But the CC's will always be shadowed by the people who have not been damned to hell as the CC's man-god promised. They will always be insecure, always struggling to tell themselves they are the "chosen people," in their services, prayers, etc.
Funny thing. Guess how often the phrase comes up in Judaism?
Confused croissant, worshiping Yehoshua, a figment of Muffinist imagination
Really? Look at Washington and Wall Street.
___________________________________________
Christians do NOT call themselves the "chosen" people. That is a term used by Jews.
Christians call themselves "children of God" born of the Holy Spirit, not of human flesh, by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Christians call themselves, "a people of God, a royal priesthood and a holy nation."
Christians become children of God by the grace of God granted us through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, the Christ/Messiah.
Such grace is open to anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as Savior. That is the teaching of Jesus, the Christ.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 4:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
On Faith tactics in Senator Obama's election campaign
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 3:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
More on Senator Obama's Faith Based Initiatives
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 3:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
On Senator Obama's Faith Based Initiatives
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 3:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Note:
Early non-native American settlers were Christians, and they did have a bit of religious agenda when they began.
The founding fathers of the nation framed a constitution based on Judeo-Christian values, and did refer to God, although Church and State was to remain separate.
Up to 80% of the US population still call themselves Christians, be they nominal or practicing Christians.
Every US dollar bill says: "In God we trust." There weren't many non-Christians in the US when that was first printed.
Maybe the "out-of-the-blue" comment by Senator McCain has something to with such a history?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 3:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jesus did "convert" many in a Samaritan village too, thus offering salvation to non-Jews during His physical lifetime on earth. His disciples were commanded by the Risen Jesus to spread the good news of salvation to all the world. Hence the unending efforts of Christians to spread their faith.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 3:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Since Jesus Himself and ALL His disciples were Jews, it is more than ridiculous to claim (Farnaz always comes up with that one) that they "appropriated" the Old Testament.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 3:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Only Muslims continue to tout the line that Jews and Christians have got their own Scripture wrong and the Quran is the authentic version of the Bible, whatever that means.
REAL Jews have no doubt that Jesus existed and that He was a Jew, even if they don't accept Him as Messiah. It is sometimes forgotten that ALL of Jesus' disciples were Jews as were most of the earliest converts in Israel. Christians were known initially as a Jewish sect who in the early days of Christianity continued to worship in the Synagogues. The Jewish sect were first named Christians in Antioch.
The Jews are not happy that Christians interpret the Old Testament in the light of the life and teachings of Rabbi Jesus, whom Christians worship as Son of God and the Christ/Messiah. But there is an increasing group of Jewish theologians and scholars who consider the teachings of Rabbi Jesus worth deep study and are happy that it is a Jewish Rabbi, which is what Jesus is in Judaism, is worshiped as the Messiah, and not a non-Jew.
Jesus taught only in Jewish Synagogues and in the Jewish temple of His day, with the permission of the Jewish religious leaders of His day. This fact is not denied by the Jews themselves.
Farnaz's views reflect a Muslim oriented position.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 3:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
FARNAZ THE ATHEIST PRAYS FOR OUR BIGOTED SOULS
Christians, Catholics, and others of CC descent, who remain cultural CCs appropriated another person's text, which, in translation, states that Hashem, chose those people with whom to make a particular covenant. That is all.
The centuries old "crises" for your CCs, obersvant or cultural, is that THEY wish to be "chosen," for what (salvation??), is unclear. In this struggle, they've tried everything, from writing their own "Testament" which is supposed to be "New," a "replacement," as it were, of the other people's book, developed theories of typology, etc.
In desperation, your CCs have literally ripped their "New" Testament from the Jewish people's book since it challenged the CC's typological self-aggrandizement. Your CC's have tried everything else they could find to create a self-legitimation myth, including discrediting the entirety of the Jewish people's book.
But the CC's will always be shadowed by the people who have not been damned to hell as the CC's man-god promised. They will always be insecure, always struggling to tell themselves they are the "chosen people," in their services, prayers, etc.
Funny thing. Guess how often the phrase comes up in Judaism?
Confused croissant, worshiping Yehoshua, a figment of Muffinist imagination
Really? Look at Washington and Wall Street.
---------------------------------------------------
Okay, I'm looking. What do I see? Born again Bush, Born once (and that may have been too much) Cheney, Born again Poulson, etc., Protestant House, majority Catholic Congress. Christian Supreme Court.
Now, on to Wall Street. Chrstian AIG, Christian Wachovia, Christian Washington Mutual, Christian Lehmann Bros. (not always thus, but now is/was)
Moving right along, we come to Exxon and BP, two of the greatest human rights violators of our time, everywhere including here. Whatever do we see? Christians and some Muslims.
And guess what? I'm not impressed. I'm depressed. As depressed by them as I am by your very bigoted self.
That should have been Catholic Senate, which btw., no one can explain. Forgot a few things. Christian Chase and Christian Citigroup.
I shall pray for your bigoted soul.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 2:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria said,
"
Anyone remember the 'real' maverick, Ralph Nader?
Protecting consumers from big money was his cause- and he has served us well- ringing alarms and whistleblowing to the detriment of his own career-"
Yeah, and that ego-tripping SOB gave us George W. Bush in 2000. I'd like to meet Nader in person and break his damn jaw.
Posted by: Arminius | September 30, 2008 9:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Lord knows I have been critical of Senator Obama..."
When????????????????????????
Posted by: Anonymous | September 30, 2008 7:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anyone else disappointed that non-partisan political analysis is absent here?
Posted by: Anonymous | September 30, 2008 3:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
In my days as a student at the university, academics who were political sycophants were considered second class and it didn't matter which political party they supported.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 30, 2008 3:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
In my days as a student at the university, academics who were political sycophants were considered second class.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 30, 2008 3:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria, Jihadist studied economics and makes her money at the stock exchange.
Hope that helps.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 30, 2008 2:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The NYT Op-Eds are the last place one should look for a borrowed insight into political history- they are, after all- just opinions- and peculiarly narrowly scoped ones at that.
I read them for amusement, at the extreme views and skewed memories people have- but rarely as a source of actual information.
No, it is interesting that one would even imagine that a president signing a bill makes him, and his party responsible for the content of said bill.
Originally the purpose of the Glass-Steagall Act(1933) was to protect consumers from risks taken by speculators by separating the commercial investors from the private citizens small savings and checking accounts-
The weakewning and eventual repealment of this act started long before Clinton.
Actually, if we are honest little democrats- Clinton rode in on an upsurging economy- and while he managed to parlay it into 8 years of prosperity-
In 1978, banks were given the right ot make loans in other states-rushing to weakly consumer protected states to set up business- In 1980- Sen. Garn crushes mortgage usury caps- (remeber, there used to be usury caps???)becomes chair of Senate Banking and Housing in '81- and in '82 co-authors the Garn-St.Germain Depository Institutions Act- effectively deregulating S&L industry- '87- McCain is investigated along with mentor Charles Keating, and we are treated to our first confusing gove bailout.
A series of acts and their authors bring us collateralized debt obligations- basically bundling loans and bonds with different risk levels- continued laws that make it impossible to sue or prosecute lenders- Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) secotr pushes for repeals of Glass Steagal- and big mergers follow-
Gramm writes Gramm-Leach-Billey Act-(1999) megamergers follow- Gramm attaches 262 page amendment to appropriations bill deregualting trade- Enron followa- followed by series of more bills- more lobbies- more tightening of the noose around america's throats by insurance,and lending-
any laws proposed that protect conumers against predatory lending practices- sbuffed out by big business and powerful lobbies and contributions to a certain idiot in chief-
In his admin- we have seen personal bankruptcy laws eliminated (but not for businesses)
It is a concerted and series of events that have been authored and designed by - no other way to say it- republican lawmakers.
And i cannot help but notice how the GOP congress is stepping far away from the current bll-
because people don't remember what they are not aware of in the first place- the causal actions that create a situation- they only remember the resultant effect-
I can see the future rationale- whoever inherits this problem will take the fall- no one will remember the previous 8 years that enabled its construction-
I wonder whatever happened to Jihadist's answer about my qiuestion on setting caps for interest rates- the only things in my portfolio are oil paintings- and their value is entirely subjective-
there's a few 20's in my 'cash basket'- but I doubt that is what she meant by keeping it diverse- maybe I'll throw a few 10's in there to mix it up :)
Anyone remember the 'real' maverick, Ralph Nader?
Protecting consumers from big money was his cause- and he has served us well- ringing alarms and whistleblowing to the detriment of his own career-
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 30, 2008 2:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz,
It was not just the administration that repealed Glas-Steagle..it was McCain's economic advisor, and the man that would be Treasury Secretary....Phil Gramm Loomk him up, an interesting crook). He created the ENRON loop hole that caused the mess of ENRON and World Com. The bill was voted on by party line...the Republicans won the veto proof bill. Clinton was forced to sign. That Glas-Steagle bill was created in 1930's to keep the Great Depression from happening again. Well it was repealed..and here we are. Gramm and McCain...BTW ever hear of the Keating Five? Five senators that caused the Savings and Loan bailouts that caused us billions..who was one of them..McCain. The Son and Grandson of Admirals and a "hero"..he was a POW dontyaknow.He was brought before the ethics board and was not aquited, just kind of had his wrist slapped...he got 112,000.00 from Keating and some lovely trips. Anyway...McCain is an old man who wants to be prez. He will do all he can to achieve that...from useing tactics that were used on him by the same people. He is a dirt ball...
terra
Posted by: Terra Gazelle | September 29, 2008 11:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
How is this for "trusted information"??
Study Finds 'Extensive' Fraud at Fannie Mae
Bonuses Allegedly Drove the Scheme
Fannie Mae engaged in "extensive financial fraud" over six years by doctoring earnings so executives could collect hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses, federal officials said yesterday in a report that portrayed a company determined to play by its own rules.
Regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, in announcing a settlement with Fannie Mae that includes $400 million in penalties, provided the most detailed picture yet of what went wrong at the congressionally chartered firm.
(more at link)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052300184.html
Be sure to watch this utube of our government at work:
Posted by: JUST SAYING | September 29, 2008 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2, there's no need to do either when there's a multitude of genuine, trusted sources of factual information out there. Besides, common sense can and *should* be used here.
Palin achieved a few good things here and there. Great. These few accomplishments do NOT translate to Executive material though. As VP, she needs to make up for what the President lacks. McCain lacks in economic know-how and she doesn't really bring anything to the table either. Do I need to mention her perceived credentials on foreign policy (i.e. somehow neighboring a foreign country makes one an expert on it)?
There are fewer and fewer supporters of Palin, even among Conservatives. You have to ask yourself why is that. Why does McCain bar the media from almost any interview she's in? Why do Gibson and Couric have to rephrase their questions and then rephrase them again? Why aren't the majority of female voters rushing to her defense? Why aren't the number of Hillary die-hards getting on the Palin bandwagon?
Why? Confidence. They ALL lack confidence in Sarah Palin being an effective Vice-President and possibly, God forbid, the President, if need be. After all, this isn't a popularity contest, a pageant, or a bake sale we're talking about here. This is the Big Show. This is the Executive Office and our nation's well-being is at stake. Charm, good looks and snappy answers aren't sufficient qualifications for the White House.
Posted by: Irischermann | September 29, 2008 11:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Irischermann, if you don't believe it, make your own investigation. Or better yet, make your own survey.
Posted by: spiderman2 | September 29, 2008 11:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh, yes. Wikipedia.
Truly, the most trusted source of "factual information." Indeed.
*snicker*
Posted by: Irischermann | September 29, 2008 10:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Learn reading confirmed news and not just false accusations wrapped as "news". Here are confirmed facts from wikipedia.
"Palin served two terms (1996–2002) as mayor of Wasilla. She created the position of city administrator, and reduced her own $68,000 salary by 10%. Despite a turbulent first year in office, Palin gained broad favor with Wasilla voters. She kept a jar with the names of Wasilla residents on her desk, and once a week she pulled a name from it and picked up the phone; she would ask: "How's the city doing?"
Using income generated by a 2% sales tax that was enacted before she was on the city council, Palin cut property taxes by 75% and eliminated personal property and business inventory taxes. Tapping municipal bonds, she made improvements to the roads and sewers and increased funding to the Police Department. She also oversaw new bike paths and procured funding for storm-water treatment to protect freshwater resources.
Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999 and won, with a majority of 74%.Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. Term limits prevented Palin from running for a third term as mayor in 2002.
Polls taken in 2007 early in her govenorship term showed her with a 93% and 89% popularity among all voters. "
Posted by: spiderman2 | September 29, 2008 9:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I think many of us are in agreement that McCain doesn't have what it takes to get our economy back on track and then keep it there. We can keep throwing around facts, figures and quotes but it all keeps coming back to the same conclusion we're already at now. That being said, there's something else to consider.
If McCain becomes incapacitated for any reason, Palin will need to step in as the leader of this nation. Do we, the American people, have confidence in Sarah Palin to handle a crisis like this?
If McCain is this incompetent with economic and financial matters, in such critical matters like this no less, then we have to weigh in just how much, or how little, knowledge Palin is bringing to the table. Critics berated Obama for lacking in foreign policy experience. OK, no problem. He picked Biden who's record on foreign policy is exemplary. So, McCain admitted himself he lacks know-how with economics. And then he picks Sarah Palin? Clearly, in matters like this (and sooo many others), she does NOT have what it takes to take over as President of the United States.
Please, for the sake of our nation's future, think about all this.
Posted by: Irischermann | September 29, 2008 9:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 29, 2008 3:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Merits or otherwise of policies should be discussed in a non-partisan manner. That is how religions can serve as a positive force.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 29, 2008 1:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
One doesn't need to look any further than this On Faith forum. It should have remained non-partisan according to its unstated purpose, if religion is to remain an independent entity, as a moral and ethical compass for politics and society.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 29, 2008 1:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Please explain:
Any priest, pastor, Imam, Rabbi, who openly supports Senator Obama is not considered to be flouting the tax exemption law. But the minute any priest or pastor (all Imams and Rabbis support Obama) criticizes any policy of Sen Obama, they are immediately guilty of violating the tax exemption status.
Fee Fye Fo Fum, even as a strong anti-abortionist but one who sees the merit of Obama team policies, I smell the blood of double standard here.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 29, 2008 1:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This election is about judgment: Obama has it; McCain doesn't.
Posted by: Charles | September 29, 2008 12:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A Democrat, who used to think highly enough of John McCain to consider voting for him at one time, I feel
disgusted by the change in this man. All politicians
follow expediency -- it is almost a requirement of our system. It seems, however, that for McCain there is no limit to how far he will sink to gain the prize. Pitiful. How do such people look at themselves in the mirror!
Posted by: waqnis | September 29, 2008 12:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If you want to know what really happened, and how conservative econonic policies brought it on, see this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092602836.html
Posted by: Pam | September 28, 2008 11:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Alexp1, thanks for the illuminating update on Letterman and McCain.
I've also heard McCain has offended Mississippians by canceling on them and asking Obama to do the same, only to then show up when he had "nothing better to do" - a slight some report has made them much less enthusiastic for the McCain ticket.
It's just such callous indifference to human feelings that initially doomed our occupation policies in Iraq - policies McCain supported.
He boasts that, unlike Obama, he knows how to win wars. NOT! McCain's experience in failed wars has taught hims lessons he ought to unlearn for our sake. Having never been in a winning war, he's picked up dangerous associations that ill-serve America.
Posted by: jhbyer | September 28, 2008 11:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A most interesting speculation. Many pundits have noted McCain's penchant for stunts, but Jacques is the first to predict that driven to desperation, he'll not likely resist exploiting the natural gimmickry of religion.
It's telling that Romney, who ought to have been viewed as ideal was passed over, presumably because the GOP base rejects his version of Christianity. Stayed tuned.
Posted by: jhbyer | September 28, 2008 10:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Newsweek says it began during the Clinton years:
ECONOMY
The Monster That Ate Wall Street
How 'credit default swaps'—an insurance against bad loans—turned from a smart bet into a killer.
"They're called "Off-Site Weekends"—rituals of the high-finance world in which teams of bankers gather someplace sunny to blow off steam and celebrate their successes as Masters of the Universe. Think yacht parties, bikini models, $1,000 bottles of Cristal. One 1994 trip by a group of JPMorgan bankers to the tony Boca Raton Resort & Club in Florida has become the stuff of Wall Street legend—though not for the raucous partying (although there was plenty of that, too). Holed up for most of the weekend in a conference room at the pink, Spanish-style resort, the JPMorgan bankers were trying to get their heads around a question as old as banking itself: how do you mitigate your risk when you loan money to someone? By the mid-'90s, JPMorgan's books were loaded with tens of billions of dollars in loans to corporations and foreign governments, and by federal law it had to keep huge amounts of capital in reserve in case any of them went bad. But what if JPMorgan could create a device that would protect it if those loans defaulted, and free up that capital?"
Posted by: Anonymous | September 28, 2008 9:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A brief summary of how we got wherever it is that we now are. Thirty years in the making....It is correct to say "People failed." It always is, in fact. The problem is how do we, THE people, hold those who fail us accountable, or more importantly, let them know they will be held accountable.
New York Times September 28, 2008
Editorial
Don’t Blame the New Deal
This year’s serial bailouts are proof of a colossal regulatory failure. But it is not “the system” that failed, as President Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and others who are complicit in the calamity would like Americans to believe. People failed.
For decades now, antiregulation disciples of the Reagan Revolution have eliminated vital laws, blocked the enactment of much-needed new regulations, or simply refused to exercise their legal authority.
The regulatory system for banks, securities, commodities and insurance is unwieldy and in need of modernization. The system has gaps, like the absence of regulation for “innovations” such as credit default swaps, the insurance-like contracts now valued at $62 trillion whose destructive potential prompted the bailouts of Bear Stearns and the American International Group.
But the failures that have landed us in the mess we are in today are not mainly structural. To assert that they are masks deeper failings and sets false terms for the upcoming debate on regulatory reform.
Under a law passed in 1994, for example, the Federal Reserve was obligated to regulate banks and nonbank lenders to curb unfair, deceptive and predatory lending. Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, ignored his responsibility, even as junk mortgage lending proliferated in plain sight.
Mr. Greenspan later said the law defined “unfair” and “deceptive” too vaguely. If so, he should have asked Congress for clarification. Instead, he did nothing — and the Republican-led Congress did not question him. When Ben Bernanke took over as Fed chairman in early 2006, the negligence continued. It was not until mid-2007, after the housing bubble had begun to burst, that federal regulators offered guidelines for subprime lending.
The systematic dismantling of laws that called for regulation also contributed to the current crisis.
In 1995, Congress passed a law that restricted the ability of investors to sue companies, securities firms and accounting firms for misstatements and pie-in-the-sky projections. That helped inflate the dot-com bubble and contributed to the Enron debacle. It also engendered a sense of impunity that helped to foster the excessive risk-taking so prevalent in the mortgage mess.
Then, in 1999, Congress dismantled the Glass- Steagall Act, a pillar of the New Deal, which separated commercial and investment banking. That enormous change was undertaken with no thought or effort — or desire — to regulate the world that it would help to create. Now we know that an entire “shadow banking system” has grown up, without rules or transparency, but with the ability to topple the financial system itself.
But perhaps no deregulatory effort had more catastrophic effect than the 2000 law that explicitly excluded derivatives, including those credit default swaps, from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936.
And there is probably no greater missed opportunity than the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac passed by the House in 2005. If the law had been enacted, the takeover of those companies may have been avoided. It failed in large part because President Bush wanted to fully privatize them and feared that if they were adequately reformed, privatization would lose steam.
Indeed, it was in the Bush years that antiregulation and deregulation found full expression, fueled by an ideology that markets know best, government hampers markets, and problems will magically fix themselves.
The nation is now painfully relearning that the opposite is true. Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, admitted on Friday that his agency’s “voluntary regulation” of investment banks was a failure that contributed to the current crisis.
That is a good starting point for a debate about how to get back on the road to sensible, responsible government regulation.
Posted by: Farnaz | September 28, 2008 5:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria,
Asalaamu alaikum, a blessed Ramadan and an early greeting of Eid Mubarak to you and yours. Eid will be on next Wednesday for us. It is quite presposterous to follow Saudi Arabia on the sighting on the new moon. We simply go by hijab. One fast for the whole of Ramadan and that is it. The moon sighting is a mere formality. The moon is always there. Besides, More than 800 Muslims in Asia, from China to Iran, are ahead of the time zone of Saudi Arabia. So....we saw the moon first always never mind theirs moon sighting is clouded and marred by cloudiness. Cloudiness in Saudi Arabia?
A crash course on economics, the dismal science? Numbers are sexy, never mind a wag said there are three kinds of lies ~ lies, damn lies and statistics. I assure you we do not lie about numbers, but politicians do spin, fold, spindle, mutilate and manipulate statistics. And especially those in financial institutions, the worst kind of liars, to make their books look good and cover massive losses of other peoples money due to their greed, recklessness and lack of monitoring of their go getting and profit at any cost subordinates.
I would like to make some comments on the economic situation in America, but quite a number of Americans already have, including here in On Faith. Who could not be aware on the cost and consequence and the fumbling solutions sough?
You do not really have to take a crash course in economics, only to diversify your portfolio and personal currency basket. Being dependent on and having a choice of only one product is not good obviously, be it on Microsoft or the US dollar.
An American 17 trillion dollar debt is worrying the world too. The East Asian states such as China, Japan, Taiwan hold quite a significant amount of it. They have billions upon billions of foreign reserve in US dollars too. No one is really abandoning the US economic ship. You go, we all go down too in some way. Globalisation tied by trade and the US is the major trading partner of most countries in the world and is transacted in dollars.
US financial institutions do invest, do loan, do speculate in the global markets on a massive scale. No other way to put it, but the macho honchos of Wall Street cost everyone, not just American taxpayers, because the current finacial system puts all the risks on depositors and borrowers. At least the Fed Reserve and government is doing something about it, a remedy or measure used to be taken by third world governments to protect and get the economy back on.
The financial market correction, painful as it is, is going on and most foreign goovernments are taking preventive and protective measures they can to shield fromt the impact of the US financial and economic situation. This is quite a challenge as the world is still quite tied to US finance and trade. It is also inevitable with the rise of the Euro and more and more countries weighting their currency baskets by trade ~ yen, Euro, renmenbi etc.
The Middle Eastern financial system, be it conventional banking or Islamic banking, is feeling the pinch earlier than we are as they do put most of it in dollars and they do have quite a substantial investments in the US/west. We spread it around in trade, in investment, in currency baskets. We are seeing, for lack of better word, the birth pangs of the multilateral financial systems. Or rather, parallel financial systems coming into being that do allow for prudent and pragmatic convergence and divergence where necessary.
It is the new reality of EU, and the BRIC countries ~ Brazil, Russia, India and China, with increasing economic might and muscle, hunger for greater share of the world markets for resources, for consumer goods, and more foreign reserves in the currency of their choice. Or into gold and silver, most of which are at Fort Knox and under the pillows or on the person of Asians as jewellery.
No doubt the fundamental principles of Islamic banking and financial services of sharing risks make us more prudent in where we put our money, but the splintering of parts of the US financial markets did make me spend time to move liquid funds and portfolios around and around fast and furious in the last two years in the currency markets, especially in Euros.
As for Shariah based banking and financial system, yes, it is still being finetuned and there are differences of views among Shariah experts. It would seem that the ijtihad with regard to Islamic banking and financial services is still wide open. The Malaysian Shariah authorities are more flexible and adaptable then those of the Gulf states whose judgement on some forms of sukuk, or Islamic bonds, as being non Shariah compliant, did rattle the market for it, but did not affect the Malaysian market.
Muslims treat it as one school of thought on Shariah compliant Islamic banking and financial services an as they do for four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, you know, Hambali, Maliki, Shafie and Hanafi. There are ongoing moves to standardise Shariah compliant Islamic banking and financial services, but I like choices for Muslims too on this.
No one is saying Muslims cannot continue with using conventional banking, much less which Shariah compliant judgement on Islamic banking and financial services they are to avail themself of. The Muslim consumers make their own choice and non Muslims too who chose it. They just like the idea their banker shares equal risks with them and for a more consistent set repayment rather than variable interests on loans. Makes for better financial planning on their part. With the option of currencies rather than over dependence on one, it is possible to be consistent on this.
You stated, "I guess I'm actually a socialist at heart- the french model seems to work well for them".
We all are socialist at heart if we care for collective social wellbeing, social justice and justness in human affairs. I must admit that most of us who pursue investment banking, LBOs, become arbs, traders of commodities, currencies or stocks go into this profession to make lots of money from other peoples money and sweat just by pushing around papers and or upping and downing points in the markets. Easy money in little time and effort.
It does irks you if a collleague makes more than you on the same stuff and the same time. You want to get more more and have more. Greed and hubris and forgetting you are handling other peoples money. They are just numbers on the computers, even if billions.
It does take a Rhodes scholar to understand that he or she is part of the greed machine, a rapacious crowd, and to get out of it and try to do something more productive and equitable for all in one way or another. But then again, not for some Rhodes scholar, eh? But I cannot remember which one.
Salam as ever.
J
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello Farnaz,
On the bailouts, it used to be the IMF/IBRD putting up bailout packages for third countries that have financial mismanagement. Argentina, Brazil and Mexico etc comes to mind. With mostly US funds from its financial institutions of course. Not that the financial institutions did not loan so much to these countries, assuming a government will always be able to pay its debts. Now, irony of irony, the bailouts in the US will also be funded, in one way or another, by other countries, including third world countries such as China.
I have no comment about vultures being already after failing banks. We like to think we are saving the system and eventually, being rewarded for it in gains when the economy is healthy again. That was what happened in Thailand when they agreed to the IMF prescription during the Asian Economic Crisis of 1997/98. Quite a number of affected Thai banks and other businesses fell to foreign ownwership at very low prices. The current Thai political situation is a consequent of Thai pride and anger on this. It does not help that Thaksin decided to sell one of his flagship companies to a Singapore sovereign fund and not paying taxes on it. Now, that is a double no no. The Thais will find their own way in this.
I can understand your Thai friends and acquaintances being angered and upset. But Thailand and Thais are very resilient. After all, they had the most military coups in Asia and at least 18 changes on their Constitution. In spite of it all, they are one of the tigers of the Asian economies. I do worry more for my Thai friends in the chosen course of action. They have more street demonstrations than we do, and they do get physically hurt.
My friend made a necessary sacrifice for freedom and pursuit of truth in being detained under the Internal Security Act. It woke Malaysians up on its abuse by the government. More blogs turns up consequently. For a country of 27 million people and with already over 500,000 blogs, we are on the right path of breaking the monopoly of government on information and discussion on issues.
Malaysians now tend to do their battles in the blogs. A street demonstrations is risky for when things get ugly between demonstrators and the Federal Reserve Unit, the demonstration control forces called "for rough use" by Malaysians as a play on the acronym FRU, and violence incidentally spill into shops and businesses owned by Chinese and Indians and becomes conflated as racial violence. A very good reason and excuse for the government to curtail rights and freedoms in the name of national security and stability.
Besides, it is also Ramadan, and no one, even non Muslim Chinese and Indians wants to be fighting with one another as fellow citizens, but to fight against the excessess and incompetence of the government. We all realise we sink or swim together in this time of economic flux and politicised nonsense with inflation at 8.5% being the highest in 27 years, the employment stagnating and such.
Scary times? No. Challenging times. To challenge them and ourself to do what we must for all of us and not in the self interest of a few or one group.
Regards
J
Posted by: Jihadist | September 28, 2008 3:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Stay tuned. There's no bottom for these people.
Posted by: Bruce | September 28, 2008 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anon, but the Catholic Church have gone overboard. They don't want to allow abortion even if it endangers the life of the mother.
Also most catholics are democrats who are rooting for liberalism. It's a false religion. It's way of increasing its flock is thru population explosion. For them family planning is a bad word. MOst poor countries are worshippers of false religions and that includes catholic countries.
Posted by: spiderman2 | September 28, 2008 11:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Religious groups that value the sanctity of life in the womb due to the spiritual wisdom of their interpretation of Scripture and therefore oppose abortion:
Orthodox Jews
Roman Catholics
Orthodox Christians
Conservative Evangelicals
Posted by: Anonymous | September 28, 2008 10:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist- A salaamu alaikum and Ramadan Mubarak-
I've been hoping you'd make some comments on the economic situation here in America-
Like other Americans, I'm taking a crash course on economics- fast and furious-
We used to have regulations and laws against usurious interest rates here- it seems to be that it is the rates themselves which have us sinking- even the US gov is not even touching the pinciple on our own national debt- and paid 230 billion in interest alone last year-
It seems we have been terrified into accepting exorbitant rates- along with out own gluttonous and bottomless greed- and are in a dysfunctional relationship with creditors-
(I admit I view with some suspicion for sharia based mortgages- from the math I've done- it seems one ends uppaying 100% interest eventually- but that's another story- could be I just don't know how it works- but I can do math)
I guess I'm actually a socialist at heart- the french model seems to work well for them- no money in the bank to cover - no purchase on credit- 20% down payment saved cash on a home- 30% (of one's income)gov guaranteed loan.
Deconstruct for me- if you will- what would be wrong with regulating and putting into law and enforcing- reasonable interest rates-
If one steals $1,000. dollars- one goes to jail.
I don't quite get why one can take such immense capital risks- fail, and still walk away with one's assets and stay out of prison.
I'm a simple person- lived many decades witout availing myself of credit- still don't,and am downright shocked that no one seems to be claiming the same.
It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to understand that alot of people have been living way beyond their means- never thinking a day of reckoning would come.
It seems really counterintuitve to give money to the greed addicts who mismanaged their own finances- (not so much mismanaged- they seem to be fine- just tirckier and trickier ways to justify their skimming-
Trickle down voodoo economics don't work.
Trickle up seems like the only sensible course.
peace- let me know if you read this and your thoughts.
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 28, 2008 8:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A must-read statistics on abortions:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
Posted by: Anonymous | September 28, 2008 3:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
"a headless chicken in leadership, focus and direction."
Truthfully, that is what I see here. It is true that neither Obama nor McCain had anything intelligible, let alone intelligent, to say about the economy and "bailout," of which I'm very suspicious. Several alternatives have been proposed, including one detailed in the New York Times editorial (9/23). In the meantime, vultures are already after failing banks.
I don't think most folks here recognize the seriousness of what is happening here; noteworthy among the clueless is CCNL, whom Arminius has renamed "Confused Croissant."
Something New Dealish may ultimately be attempted, if Dems win, but how, in this economy that would work, I can't quite fathom. Few seem to understand that what's occurring here is being felt abroad.
I'm very sorry about your friend. My Thai friends and acquaintances here are beside themselves with anger and upset. They're also very worried about your country. My closest friend (a Pakistani) lives a few blocks from the Marriot in Islamabad. Scary times.
Be well.
Farnaz
Posted by: Farnaz | September 28, 2008 2:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
FArnaz- you don't have to beg my pardon-
Welfare was gutted by Reagan. Nefore Clinton came with the Welfare to Work Program.
"A gutted welfare isn't identical to no welfare."
Actually- that is exactly what gutted means. Many people in many states cannot access it at all-
Welfare is not availabe to most now- and when it is- a single person gets about $200. a month to live on.
And waiting on housing lists can take as many as 8-10 years.
With the collapse of the finance industry- and housing market- we need all the safety nets we can get for the poor in America.
And you are suggesting further burdening our present budget with more social programs that have been cut already?
DO you really imagine- that if all the churches paid all the taxes- any of that money would be marked for the poor?????
That is a supercold reaction to poverty stricken people.
How far removed from the poor here that you actually believe it is 'taken care of'.
You really believe $200. a month (and that is if one is eligible- meaning no assets whatsoever- that includes ones computer- sell it and get back to the social worker)
means the government has programs????
"Are there no jails, or workhouses?"
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 28, 2008 2:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
As an atheist and as a non-American living outside America but who has occasionally visited the US I continue to be bemused by the importance (and relevance) of the candidates sprituality and religious affiliation to the American electorate at large.
America is surely the only western democracy which tolerates and encourages religion as a fundamental condition of political success. Adopting such an approach has done your country an enormous disservice as evidenced by the Bush Administration - high on religious certainty and low on christian values.
McCain is just another incarnation of this and he will play the religion card for all it's worth - honestly or otherwise.
At the end of the day the American people have got the government they deserve - unfortunately the rest of the world also suffers because of it.
Posted by: Blair | September 27, 2008 11:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Farnaz,
I did not watch the McCain Obama debate, but a Malaysian who did and posted his impression on CheDet.com is as follows. Make of it what you will....
By samuraimelayu on September 27, 2008 11:19 AM
SALAM AYAHANDA RAKYAT TUN, IZINKAN,
(Translation ~ Peace father of the people, and with consent)
AFTER WATCHING INTENSELY THE JUST CONCLUDED USA PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 1ST PRSIDENTIAL DEBATE, THIS 'COFFEE SHOP' ANALYST COMES OUT WITH THIS SIMPLE OBSERVATION.
AN 'EMOTIONAL' JOHN MC CAIN
A 'PRAGMATIC' BARRACK OBAMA
AFTER 90 MINUTES BOTH COULDNT COME OUT WITH SOLUTION ON THE BIGGEST CRISIS OF THE MOMENT.. THE AMERICAN ECONOMY!
THE ONLY DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC BETWEEN BOTH OF THEM.
SENATOR MC CAIN ... YOU DONT UNDERSTAND OR YOU DON'T KNOW
SENATOR OBAMA ..... JOHN IS RIGHT
LOOKS LIKE SEN. MC CAIN HAD TUTORIAL WITH OUR PM
AND PERHAPS SENATOR OBAMA HAD BEEN READING CHEDET.COM ARTICLES?
BUT MY HEART GOES TO SENATOR MC CAIN TO BE PRESIDENT.
NOT BECAUSE OF HIS LEADERSHIP QUALITIES BUT HIS 'WHITE' SKIN.
HOWEVER, THEY STILL LACK THE 'SWORD' BUCKLING SKILLS OF OUR AYAHANDA 'SHOGUN'
THANK YOU ALLAH SWT FOR GIFTING MALAYSIA THIS PRODIGAL SON.
ALFATIHAH. AMIN.
Cheers
J
Posted by: Jihadist | September 27, 2008 10:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Paganplace,
It is a fact that some readers/posters do get really viled up and piled on the bile on some panelistss, including Sally Quinn and Susan Jacoby on their essays. To to the point of personal attacks.
We cannot avoid the spam here, and On Faith has quite a high frequency of spam by some posters. One particular poster has to be a world record breaker for the length of posts in any blog that I know of.
I see what you mean about free speech and freedom to abuse blogsites, but, all the On Faith editors have to do was to take off the lenghty, lenghty spams and the abusive or offensive posts by their own criteria.
For one who is pushing for free speech in my own country, and do not seek to impose conditionalities on the blogs here I supported, it does seem what On Faith is doing a wee exclusionary in discussions. One can never exclude the notions and ideas of people one do not agree with in real life.
I enjoy the posts of all as varied as from Spiderman2 to Candide to Maurie Beck to Tonio to Mr. Mark to Duckphup to Ryan Haber to Mary Cunningham to Speed123 to Canyon Shearer to Yoyo to Thomas Baum to Chris Everett etc. And we do not see some of them here anymore.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello Farnaz,
It is the right of WaPo to insist on people to register. My aversion to registering is also because I have no way of knowing if the personal details of our ICT addresses and questionnaire profiling etc can be used to spam us back with this and that promotional or commercial stuff even if they stated they are protecting our privacy and only want to know the demographic or sociology of their readers.
Over here, the government let off all those detained under the despised Internal Security Act recently, save one. My freind got a two year detention without trial for what he wrote in his blog. Very reprehensible and a curtailment of freedom of speech. They did come around to ask those who gave financial contributions to blogs, only to take to task those who wrote things unconfortable to them in the blogs.
There is currently a Mexican or Malaysian political standoff between the current prime minister, Abdullah Badawi, and the former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, now opposition leader braying for his resignation and to take over the government by several interesting but in the end, rather unethical and unConstitutional means even as he advocated rule of rule, administration of justice, transperency, good governance, no corruption etc. This is a classic Malaysian politic shadow play.
There is no doubt most Malaysians, including members of the ruling coalition, and even ministers in his own Cabinet, wants Abdullah Badawi out as prime minister. And he is refusing to do so thus far.
As for the Obama-McCain debate, admittedly, I skipped that being more interested in proposals to save the US financial system and economy. Figures and estimates stating it is going to cost every man, woman and child in the US at least US 2,300 is not comforting to taxpayers. The amount proposed to save the financial institutions is more that total amount loaned to developing countries by the IMF since its inception is not giving some any comfort too.
Some of the proposals by both McCain and Obama in addressing the state of the financial system and the economy are slighty off in terms of consequences and costs for specific sectors of US economy and population. You know which ones already.
I am also having hoot reading the blog called Che Det by a former and very controversial prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad ~for what he wrote, in both English and Malay, and for what the readers/posters wrote back in reaction in both English and Malay and Manglish.
If you are so inclined, look up the Che Det blog for a wee taste of how and what Malaysians. It is a mix of English and Malay. Malaysians do write in a mix of English and Malay, or purely in English or Malay, or in that Malaysianised English called Manglish. There are some not very flattering comments on the state of the US financial predicaments, even if many are scared on the economic and political situation over here.
And, quite terrifyingly and yet telling, there are those who urged him to come back and offer political and economic remedies to cure Malaysia of its economic malaiise political poison. He was a medical doctor by training and he may either cure us or kill us. If he do not kill himself first with his history of three coronary bypasses and at his age.
That is how desperate some Malaysians are for a leader whom they see have clarity and assertiveness in these times of uncertainty and the country seemingly like a headless chicken in leadership, focus and direction.
Regards,
J
Posted by: Jihadist | September 27, 2008 9:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, on the signin thing, J, (and hi, btw) it doesn't seem to apply to all threads yet, but it seems to be keeping away the total spam that a few problem posters were just bogging down every thread with. ...it was really at the point where one notable problem child was just posting pages and pages of blocks of letters, despite being repeatedly banned for abusing the site, not to mention the usual repetitive drivel.
It's unfortunately just not about free speech when it gets to that point.
Posted by: Paganplace | September 27, 2008 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi Jihadist,
Yes, I agree with you about registering. It doesn't seem to have done much with respect to bigotry. I guess you're right. We bloggers have to take care of hateful remarks on our own.
How are you? How are things in your country? Did you see the Obama-McCain debate? If so, what did you think?
Regards,
Farnaz
Posted by: Farnaz | September 27, 2008 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Farnaz- I'm glad you have realized that the government does not actually provide social services now."
I beg your pardon? Indeed it does, although they have been gutted in recent years, with Bill Clinton's adoption of the Republican agenda. A gutted welfare isn't identical to no welfare.
"In 1996, President Bill Clinton negotiated with the Republican-controlled Congress to pass the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act which drastically remade the program. Among other changes, a lifetime limit of five years was imposed for the receipt of benefits, and the newly-limited nature of the replacement program was reinforced by calling AFDC's successor Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Many Americans continue to refer to TANF as "welfare" or AFDC."
The tax benefits accruing to clergy should be redirected to local nonsectarian community based social service agencies with ongoing oversight.
Posted by: Farnaz | September 27, 2008 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain is displaying very short term vision in the running of his campaign. And a dangerously impulsive approach to every issue he tackles.
I'm glad Pamsm brought up the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act- aithored by Phil Gramm- McCain's conspiculously absent top advisor.
Farnaz- I'm glad you have realized that the government does not actually provide social services now.
It was actually Reagan who slashed Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
As well as a plethora of various social services- (I remeber 3,000 people being released from the State Mental Asylum where my mother worked- just let out- naturally they became homeless)
He did it all with a mythical story he made up abput a welfare queen who drove a welfare cadillac and had $150,000.00 in the bank, and 80 fraudulent cases under pseudonyms-
Of course the story was a lie and complete fabrication- but it didn't matter by then- the damage was already done.
I am very had pressed to not blame the current situation on the present republican admin with it's GOP majority congress and senate.
Anyone remember Neil Bush's S&L scandal?
C-SPAN C-SPAN C-SPAN during the day-
you can see congress at work-
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 27, 2008 2:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Last Small Bite and A Wee Hail Mary on WaPo New Comments Policy....
Dear Readers: We now require commenters to register at washingtonpost.com and sign in before posting.
~ Duly noted, but it will not improve the form and content of posts by readers.
Your MyPost User ID, which you'll be asked to choose if you haven't done so already, will be displayed with your comment.
~ Sounds too much like the Malaysian MyKad ID. But, at least, it is our own chosen name, and we can change the name too, but not selected by the government if we have not done so.
We hope this will encourage more topical, spam-free, and respectful discussions. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions, and click here to comment.
~ Look at any thread and the posts are not always topical or focussed on the question or the essays by the panelists. Rather, a dialogue or slinging match between readers.
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
~ We tried, but spent more time venting against one another.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site.
~ And when was that ever done?
Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed.
~ There are many Anonymi and Anonymouses.
Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site.
~ Is there a posting standard actually implemented?
Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
~ Done that.
You must be signed in to washingtonpost.com to comment. Please sign in.
~ Did not do that.
But, it is your blog. Do what you must and have fun learning bigotry is everywhere.
And kudos to Susan Jacoby for getting what she wanted. That is, to get readers to register before they can post. But, I do miss the raw, uncensored human reactions on any given questions posed by On Faith. It is boring to censor what people really think.
Cheers
J
Posted by: Jihadist | September 27, 2008 2:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Farnaz,
How do you like the new registeration requirement by On Faith editors?
I did not register. Frankly, I see no difference in the posts by readers pre or post registeration requirements by WaPo On Faith editors. There are still some posts that are, well, non and semi substantive.
Personally, I would rather us than WaPo On Faith editors deal with all the bigotry and bile here in On Faith and cyberspace. Just as in real life.
Regards and all the best as always
J
Posted by: Jihadist | September 27, 2008 1:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Pamsm:
Re: Your post
Yes, but Carter supported deregulation and as for Clinton, the reason the Republicans so loathed him is that he co-opted their agenda. I had meant to write Globalization, but wrote deregulation in error.
Clinton pushed us into globalization, led a Congress into it, which would have gone anyway. Remember NAFTA? He ended "welfare as we know it," if you recall, and quiet as it's kept, this has caused a great deal of suffering. I don't think there's much disagreement on Clinton's status as a Neoliberal. In fact I don't think there's any, but will be happy to look at that which shows me to be in error.
Now, Hillary Clinton is and was a traditional liberal, to the left of both her husband and Obama.
Terms like liberal and conservative are relative, I'm sure you'll agree. Think of Tricky Dick, who wanted to federalize welfare, a leftist move is there ever could be one and who strongly supported Job Core.
Posted by: Farnaz | September 26, 2008 7:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
SPEAKING OF CORE writes
"Since you appear to have a problem doing your own research"
You made the assertion silly, I'm just asking that you back it up - AND YOU CAN'T!
You make the claim that Democrats blocked poor John McCain from passing legislation that would have prevented the finincial meltdown.
However now it appears:
- You've no idea what McCain was proposing.
- You don't understand what McCain was proposing.
- You can't list one thing that McCain proposed that would have changed anything
- you don't even know if he was calling for more regulation
Ya know, if you post an article, you ought to READ it first and UNDERSTAND it, because otherwise you come across as a parrot.
LOL
Better luck next time!!!
LOL
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 26, 2008 6:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2008 6:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz, you're laying everything on the men who were president at the various times. You should look a little deeper at who held the congressional majority at the time, and who proposed the legislation.
It wasn't Carter's idea to deregulate the airlines.
Glass-Steagall was overturned by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act - note that all of those names are Republicans, and that they were members of a veto-proof Republican congress. Sure, Clinton signed. To have vetoes overturned just highlights weakness.
Posted by: Pamsm | September 26, 2008 5:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It would be difficult to know how and where to begin the blame fest for the current financial disaster. Should we start with Nixon who took us off the gold standard? Carter who began deregulation of the airlines? Regan (I'd start here) who deregulated banking, Bush Sr. who didn't do much, Clinton who co-opted the Republican economic agenda, futher deregularized and brought us "deregulation"?
Clinton, who signed the repeal of the Glass Stiegel act passed after the Great Depression to protect us from what we now have? Bush who brought us all the way home?
Interesting but counter-productive. The thing to focus on is the bailout which will bring us directly to the end of anything resembling prosperity. That would be the bailout that the prez is endlessly pushing for. There are alternatives published in many places, notably the New York Times.
How hard would it be to look at the New York Times editorial on September 23rd? To write your Congressman and Senators in support of the Times proposal if, in fact, you do support it?
Don't look to McCain and don't look to Obama, a Bill Clinton neo-liberal. Take charge. Or take a tour withing a 60 mile radius of where you live. Notice any for sale signs? For rent signs?
Posted by: Farnaz | September 26, 2008 5:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Since you appear to have a problem doing your own research.
Go here to get started:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190
Maybe other readers here will go to the links to read and learn.
Posted by: SPEAKING OF CORE | September 26, 2008 3:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
SPEAKING OF CORE writes
'"You can pretend Republican haven't held congress for most of the last 14 years and the WH for the last 8"
ALL the Democrats voted against John McCain's bill in 2005'
LOL
Hey, and what was McCain's bill? What would it have done? I asked this before but you somehow must have missed it! I know you wouldn't be crowing about such an important bill without knowing it's contents and how it would have prevented the current meltdown.
Here, I'll make it easy.
McCain's bill would have regulated the mortgage industry in the following ways.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hope that helps!
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 26, 2008 2:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"You can pretend Republican haven't held congress for most of the last 14 years and the WH for the last 8"
ALL the Democrats voted against John McCain's bill in 2005- so the Republicans had to take it off the floor because they needed 2\3 to pass it.
Posted by: SPEAKING OF CORE | September 26, 2008 1:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
SPEAKING OF CORE writes
"Don't worry, Anon, books will be written to document this debacle."
The causes have been well known and documented for a while.
You need to read more news and less propaganda. You can pretend Republican haven't held congress for most of the last 14 years and the WH for the last 8, but it's not much of an argument.
BTW, as you present yourself as well informed, what was McCain's "reform plan"?
What were these White House warnings? Why didn't the WH actually do something?
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 26, 2008 1:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Don't worry, Anon, books will be written to document this debacle.
Wise men are currently covering their backs:
Bill Clinton Defends McCain Request to Delay Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g-uX1Nmj1s
Listen three minutes in when Bill C says that during his presidency the Dems "resisted" the Republicans and him in trying to restrict Fanny/Freddy.
Posted by: SPEAKING OF CORE | September 26, 2008 1:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Speaking of Core writes
"Based on articles in Fortune magazine and The Post Chronicle, it is very clear that the housing debacle that caused foreclosures on thousands of homeowners, particularly blacks, were initiated, instigated, and exacerbated by Democrats."
You don't know what you're talking about.
The widespread selling of mortgages to people who were not in any way qualified to get loans occured under Bush. The bundling of bad loans with good loans and calling them 'safe as treasury bonds' occured under Bush.
Your empty article fails to even detail what Bush's 'meaningful reforms' are, nor does it detail what McCain's proposal was, probably because your article is a piece of gray propaganda designed to misdirect. However the gaps in the article, the lack of important details reveals to a careful reader it's a load of crap.
Better luck next time.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2008 1:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Clearly Jacques Berlinerblau was prescient in his mispelling of CORE/CORPS.
This from Barbara Howard- president of Barbara Howard & Associates and the Florida state chair for C.O.R.E. (the Congress of Racial Equality).
THE POLITICS OF BLACKNESS: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Do you want the truth or the Kool-Aid?
"Fannie Mae, the Federal National Mortgage Association and Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, own about half of America’s $12 trillion mortgage market.
Even though Fannie Mae goes back to President Roosevelt’s New Deal, it is commonly known that the present focus of both Fannie and Freddie are “creations of the congressional Democrats (particularly the Congressional Black Caucus) and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people,” meaning minorities.
Jesse Jackson, according to the National Legal and Policy Center, has had a cozy relationship with Fannie and Freddie since 1998, when he accused Freddie of racial discrimination, encouraging major shareholders to sell their stock.
His criticisms stopped when he signed a $1 million contract with Freddie Mac for his Rainbow/PUSH “Economic Literacy” program. Since then, Fannie and Freddie have been major contributors to the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Citizenship Education Fund Annual Conference, dropping a combined $250,000 even this year as they were in the midst of a financial meltdown.
Based on articles in Fortune magazine and The Post Chronicle, it is very clear that the housing debacle that caused foreclosures on thousands of homeowners, particularly blacks, were initiated, instigated, and exacerbated by Democrats. These include Fannie Mae Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Franklin Delano Raines, known as “the first black man to head a Fortune 500 company.”
Raines, a former Clinton White House budget director, took “early retirement” as the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) sued him for $50 million in payments he received from “accounting irregularities” of overstated earnings from an estimated $6.3 billion.
There are several million-dollar players in this meltdown, all Democrats, including James A. Johnson, another former Fannie Mae CEO, who resigned as the head of Barack Obama’s vice presidential vetting team after news that he received questionable loans from Countrywide Financial, also a part of the financial political loan scandal.
Raines and Johnson are part of Obama’s inner circle. High-ranking Democrats like Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), chairman of the
Senate Banking Committee, and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, also received favorable financing from Countrywide as well as huge amounts from Fannie and Freddie as they pretended to provide oversight.
Obama spits fire at John McCain for having lobbyists around him, but it was Obama who, in his 143 days in the Senate, got $126,349 from Fannie and Freddie, just a little less than Dodd’s $165, 400 and more than John Kerry’s $111,000, making him number two on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians.
As Obama blames McCain and President Bush for Fannie and Freddie, the facts show that both Republicans called for oversight but were thwarted by congressional Democrats. And when Obama claims to have warned about Fannie and Freddie, those watching Congress ask when Obama even spoke out, calling him an “unusually good liar.”
On Sept. 19, 2008, The White House issued a press release, “Just the Facts: The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the System Risk Posed by the GSEs,” detailing that since April 2001, “the President and his Administration have not only warned (17 times in 2008 alone) of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at (Fannie and Freddie), but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either would encounter such difficulties.”
McCain is also on record on May 25, 2006 speaking in support of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, predicting “not only the entire collapse that has forced the government to assume obligations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but also Bear Stearns and AIG.”
So as Vincent Gioia, independent columnist for the Post Chronicle, writes “For those interested in the truth about who understands and tried to do something about the financial mess caused by the Democrat piggy banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the foregoing should be enlightening. For all others, continue to drink the Kool-Aid and press the lever for messiah Barack Obama on November 4th.”
But don’t blame us."
http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1961&Itemid=188
Posted by: SPEAKING OF CORE | September 26, 2008 12:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous writes '"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac known as Govt sponsored entities or GSEs & the sheer magnitude of these companies & the role they play in the housing market. The report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."
John McCain, Senate Floor, 5/25/2006'
So what reforms was he proposing? Seems meaningless without knowing what he was proposing - more regulation, less regulation or what?
FRS writes
"How refreshing! A commander-in-chief who is a tactician."
Obama is a stratigist and a tactician as well. Problem is McCain is a BAD tactician. His strategy seems to be 'winning news cycles' by saying anything that will get attention. Sometimes these tactics have bad consequences, like his choice of Palin and his (false) declaration that he was suspending his campaign. A bad tactician is worse than none.
"McCain will shock our our allies into action and keep our enemies guessing our next move."
More likely keep our allies from guessing our next move. McCain doesn't know who are allies are (like Spain) nor does he know who are enemies are (Sunni vs. Shiia
"Sounds exactly what this country needs to move forward. Still, under all McCain is a pragmatist, he just uses military methodology to get his points across."
McCain has proven that he's too old and confused to be running a candy store, let alone the country. After November he ought to retire to one of his many homes.
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 26, 2008 12:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous writes
"Anyone wondering-
What Caused Our Economic Crisis?"
One doesn't have to wonder if one reads the news.
Fact is that in the 1990s the worldwide supply of money doubled, and there were a lot of folks looking where to invest. By the time Bush took office the US government was in surplus, so US treasury bonds were offering 1%. Some bright person got the idea of buying up home mortgages, bundling them together and selling them as investments. It was a great idea, as the pay off was decent, and home mortgages have less than 1% failure rate. However after a year or so all the good mortgages had been snapped up, but there was demand for more. That's when the bad lending started, but it made a kind of sense because no matter how many questionable mortgages you handed out, there were buyers on Wall Street (some of these brokers made $75K/month!). Of course at some point it got so bad that people were defaulting on their mortgages at their first payment - there just weren't any more responsible people to lend to! Than came the day when the guys selling this crap were holding bad loans they could no longer sell and the house of cards started to collapse.
Personally I blame the rating agencies which examined these investments and rated them as safe as buying treasure bonds or dollars, when they were not safe at all.
Hope that helps a bit more than a snippet from youtube!
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 26, 2008 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes we know John McCain, is a war hero. This has been consistently stated.
My neighbor was a war hero. He received just as brutal treatment and maybe even worse than John McCain.
Did anyone in our neighborhood know this "no" and why not...because this was a very humble man who looked upon his years as a prisoner of war as serving his country.
When did our community learn of this man's imprisonment, about 50+ years later when he was given an honor for the work he did in his community.
The latest stunt by McCain, of herding in his troops to go to Washington to correct the horrific financial position this country is in, shows not understanding or strength to help, it shows a man who will grandstand to get the vote.
Canceling his Friday time for a debate...what a joke.
May God bless our country and we pray the person who is chosen does not give us more years of the Bush syndrome or lack of service that McCain has given over the years to the people as a senator.
Posted by: mimi | September 26, 2008 12:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Remember This??
"When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a "California-style energy crisis" if the rate increase wasn't approved—but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. "It's corporate money trying to hoodwink the public," the state's Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then—but may soon get more scrutiny—is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama."
Posted by: SPEAKING OF CORE | September 26, 2008 12:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain is vain, deceitful, self-righteous, untrustworthy, ambitious, and often ignorant. Just because he was shot down over North Vietnam and imprisoned and mistreated does not compensate for his many faults and failings. He needs to go home to Arizona and retire.
Posted by: candide | September 26, 2008 11:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Replying to FRS (below):
McCain would be a commander-in-chief who is a tactician rather than a strategist. He sees only small fragmented pieces of the field of action and rushes in for the sake of his own personal heroism. He's Custer about to embark on four years' worth of Little Big Horns--should he live so long. McCain will shock our enemies into action and keep our allies guessing our next move.
Sounds exactly like what this country needs to move even further backward.
Posted by: Gary L1 | September 26, 2008 11:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac known as Govt sponsored entities or GSEs & the sheer magnitude of these companies & the role they play in the housing market. The report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."
John McCain, Senate Floor, 5/25/2006
DEMOCRATS including Obama - Silent / AGAINST
Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2008 11:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Americans begin to feeled shamed when one week your saying that "the fundementals of our economy are strong" and then the next week you make an impulsive move by suspending your campaign to save the country from financial disaster. Meanwhile, the young and inexperienced Obama has remained cool and steadfast.
These are the twilight days for John McCain's campaign. What's really sad is that had McCain stayed true to his former authentic "Straight Talk" self- I believe he would have whethered the financial storm much better, and may be in a much better political position today.
Posted by: Seriously | September 26, 2008 11:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain pretty much promised an increasingly negative campaign in his speech in Blaine, Minnesota on September 19 when he said, "My friends, my friends, you know this is a tough campaign and it's probably going to get a lot tougher in the next 46 days. And I regret and sometimes I'm offended by some of the negative aspects of this campaign. And it's tough and its hard. And sometimes you think well, you know, this is really tough."
I think McCain's ambition to be president is white hot, and he is determined to win this election. How far he will go is the question, but certainly he's going to "get tougher." There's a lot that can be done in the next 30-odd days, and if he doesn't care about appearing coherent or consistent --and he doesn't seem to-- he'll have enough opportunity to sling whatever he feels he needs to become president because, well, you know, my friends, it's tough and it's going to get a lot tougher.
Posted by: Gary L1 | September 26, 2008 11:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain no doubt will suffer us with the delusion that he charged to Washington as our white knight in shinning armer to save the economy when it was his anti-regulation policy that got us into the mess anyway.
Posted by: Paul | September 26, 2008 11:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
John McCaint has suddenly gotten quite concerned about the crisis on Wall Street.
Just more lies....
So much so that he has announced he’s suspending his campaign and rushing back to Washington so he can work with Congress on solving the problem and he wants Obama to do the same which will mean putting off that pesky debate they were supposed to have on Friday.
The situation was so urgent in fact that McCaint called up David Letterman personally to cancel his appearance on his show so he wouldn’t waste any time tackling the problem.
Except that he apparently had time to stick around long enough to film an interview with Katie Couric, to "expalin" the pathetic interview with peeeuuu Palin whereas she fumbles and get confused on such a simple subject....and literally self destructs on CBS.....
So while McCaint was at the West 57th street CBS News Location.....at same point in time he would have been on Letterman.
Needless to say, Dave wasn’t impressed. In fact Dave had some pretty good points to make during the course of the show.
David Letterman was absolutely furious at Senator John McCain for snubbing him and instead making an appearance on a CBS News interview with Katie Couric.
According to Letterman, McCaint personally called him and apologized for bailing out at the last minute.
He said he was suspending his campaign to rush to Washington and help fight America’s biggest economic crisis since the great depression.
Letterman understood the urgency of this issue and said it was ok.
Boy, Was he mad when he knew that McCaint did not actually go to Washington to solve the ‘Crisis’ and fix the ‘Crater’ in the economy?
Letterman stopped his interview with Keith Olbermann midway to show a live TV feed of McCaint getting makeup for his interview with Katie Couric.
Letterman said something is terribly wrong with McCain’s campaign ..and it smells....(peeeuuu Palin anyone)and that he was just playing a political game by saying that he was suspending his campaign.
And when Dave saw McCaint with Couric having makeup applied to his cancer ridden head he yelled out and said: "Hey John, do you need a ride to the airport??????.
He felt this a political gimmick to stop his sliding poll numbers from sliding further. He repeatedly asked the same question - ‘Where is your running mate, Sarah Palin?’.
You do not suspend a campaign a month before elections, you get your second in command to run the show instead.
A total of 10 minutes was used up by Dave Letterman to shred McCain and his publicity stunt into pieces.
View David's Anger @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E
After the Walter Cronkite moment of 1968 now 40 years later for McCaint on David Letterman......I don’t think McCain will be scheduling a follow-up appearance anytime soon.
Thanks Again Dave.... for showing us the truth..yet again......McCaint can't multi-task.....
Its the end of the peeeuuu Palin bubble and McCaints lies.......
"Thanks but no thanks for more of the lies that bridge America to nowhere......"
Posted by: AlexP1 | September 26, 2008 10:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What I see here is McCain crashing and burning, and his VP pick is crashing and burning right along with him. "My Country Needs Me"....ala superman McCain to the rescue, yeah he helped alright. And Palin, "YESSERIE, I DO HAVE FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE, I live next door to Russia and I can see Putan's airplanes flying over our airspace and sometimes even Canada's." Well, now I feel a lot better about her being the #2 in charge. She is George Bush with a nice feminine suit on. Way too scary for me. McCain and his "maverick" ways are pure drama, and poor taste drama. He is afraid to debate Obama, he's afraid to have Palin debate Biden. He's plum afraid he's losing so he is pulling yet another drama, he's making himself look ridiculous.
Posted by: Nanci | September 26, 2008 10:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Wonderful metaphors, even if they are from sports. If McCain's polls continue to erode, what political circuses can we expect in the next 40 days?
Posted by: Dave Southern | September 26, 2008 10:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What I see here is McCain crashing and burning, and his VP pick is crashing and burning right along with him. "My Country Needs Me"....ala superman McCain to the rescue, yeah he helped alright. And Palin, "YESSERIE, I DO HAVE FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE, I live next door to Russia and I can see Putan's airplanes flying over our airspace and sometimes even Canada's." Well, now I feel a lot better about her being the #2 in charge. She is George Bush with a nice feminine suit on. Way too scary for me. McCain and his "maverick" ways are pure drama, and poor taste drama. He is afraid to debate Obama, he's afraid to have Palin debate Biden. He's plum afraid he's losing so he is pulling yet another drama, he's making himself look ridiculous.
Posted by: Nanci | September 26, 2008 10:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
How refreshing! A commander-in-chief who is a tactician. McCain will shock our our allies into action and keep our enemies guessing our next move. Sounds exactly what this country needs to move forward. Still, under all McCain is a pragmatist, he just uses military methodology to get his points across.
Posted by: FRS | September 26, 2008 10:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Can one imagine how a President McCain would handle a territorial confrontation with Russia in the High Arctic or perhaps a maritime dispute between China and Taiwan ... the guns of August..
Posted by: Mickey O'Neill | September 26, 2008 10:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The true McCain's colors are flying. How many people will actually see them. He is an opportunist. His selection of Palin reflects his judgment in the highest order of business. He trumps his reputation when he works with people like Feingold and one or the other democrat, but he doesn't work with members of his own party. I bet he doesn't listen to his on campaign counsel. This is man is dangerous and reckless.
Mike
Posted by: Mike | September 26, 2008 10:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2008 10:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Maybe John McCain is trying to show us how well he does "crisis management."
Maybe he thinks it's his best selling point.
Of course to show off your crisis management skills in a 24 hour news cycle you need a supply of crises to manage, even if you have to cause them yourself, even if you have to exacerbate crises which are in the process of resolution.
Then again, maybe he's just reached the point of panic.
This whole affair has the slime of Karl Rove all over it. Look at the contenders here: Bush vs congress, Democrats in congress vs Republicans in congress ... there's an attempt being made to vilify Bush and Paulsen (as if that needed doing), and to show McCain leading the republican faithful as the last bulwark we have against Bush and his wall street buddies and the democrats.
It's imaginative slime, you have to give him credit for that.
Posted by: narcissist | September 26, 2008 10:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"How to Really Tick Off the National Press Core"
Jacques,
That would be "Press Corps."
No No No Magpie
Jacques was right. He meant National Press CORE as in ROTTEN TO THE...
Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2008 10:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
According to an article in the New Yorker magazine, John McCain has never been baptized. That means, gasp, he is not a Christian. When is the religious right going to give this some notice?
Posted by: LJC in NH | September 26, 2008 10:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"How to Really Tick Off the National Press Core"
Jacques,
That would be "Press Corps."
Posted by: magpie | September 26, 2008 10:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I finally get it. It was just harder for me to recognize it in men as compared with women, so it took me longer.
We all have friends who are drama queens.
Everything has to be about them.
Even the smallest mole hill is a mountain.
I finally realized that McCain is a DRAMA QUEEN.
He must have a crisis du jour.
That is his method.
Posted by: Gareth Harris | September 26, 2008 9:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain is beginning to rival Gimmick Gilmore of Virginia in his use of political gimmicks to divert attention from the fact that Obama comes across as presidential whereas McCain comes across as a George Bush type shot from the hip reactionary.
Posted by: Dave | September 26, 2008 9:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Just like Governor Palin in her way, Senator Biden is an authentic charmer. He knows his stuff well and nobody should have any concern about his ability to be VP and President if such an unfortunate necessity should arise during the term of Obama as President.
It is the opinion that both VP candidates did equally well in the debate.