PoliBlog (TM): A Rough Draft of my Thoughts

By Dr. Steven Taylor

I agree with Alex Knapp, this is funny.

Filed under: The Economy, US Politics | Comments/Trackbacks (0) |

At Least Some Things are Consistent (Palin and the Press Edition)

By Dr. Steven Taylor

In these difficult and unpredictable times, it is comforting to know that some things remain consistent, like the fact that McCain campaign wants to heavily control press access to their veep nominee. Via the AP: Palin bans reporters from meetings with leaders

The campaign told the TV producer, print and wire reporters in the press pool that follows the Alaska governor that they would not be admitted with the photographers and camera crew taken in to photograph the meetings. At least two news organizations, including The Associated Press, objected and were told that the decision was not subject to discussion.

In other words, the campaign wants the publicity of photos of Palin with world leaders, but not any threat of any actual pesky press write-ups. I am not sure what it is that they are afraid of.

As I continue to note, the notion that someone who aspires to be Vice President, and therefore be in line for the presidency, needs to be protected from the press is utterly insane (and disturbing).

Further, it strikes me it is an odd notion that simply meeting foreign leaders equals “foreign policy experience.” By this logic, perhaps I should have applied for the job of veep, as I have had actual sit-down interviews¹ with three presidents of Colombia (although one of the interviews was before one of them became president): Misael Pastrana (1970-1974), Alfosnso López (1974-1978) and Andrés Pastrana (1998-2002). I interviewed Pastrana in 1995, so he wasn’t a “world leader” at the time (he had run for the presidency and lost in 1994 and had been mayor of Bogotá and Senator, however). Granted, I have never met a sitting world leader, so perhaps that’s why the McCain camp didn’t put me on the short list…

Update: Andrew Sullivan points to this report that states that the campaign has capitulated to at least allow a CNN producer to attend the meeting.

Sphere: Related Content

Which is even better than just meeting them, I would think! [↩]

Filed under: 2008 Campaign, The Press, US Politics | Comments/Trackbacks (14) | | Show Comments here

Hide Comments | Add your comment

This field trip to the UN sounds like the speed-dating version of foreign policy.

Comment by Sheri — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 11:57 am
Granted, I have never met a sitting world leader, so perhaps that’s why the McCain camp didn’t put me on the short list…

Yes, but from Alabama, you can SEE Florida and Florida is–in turn–pretty close to Cuba, so I think you’ve got what it takes.

Comment by Ratoe — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 12:00 pm
Ah, well I drank raki with the sitting president of Albania and vodka with the sitting PM of Estonia, so there!

On Palin, apparently any resident of Alaska wanting certain state-government information (even some rather routine) gets referred to McCain HQ (LA Times a day or two ago).

Comment by MSS — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 12:06 pm
I can see the moon from my backyard so I have the experience to run NASA.

Comment by Mike — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 12:28 pm
I don’t think this is an attempt to avoid “press write ups.” The photographs will be released and the reporters will be able to sue those photos when they write their stories.

Instead I think this is simply payback. The AP especially has been annoying the campaign (refusing to cooperate with the FBI’s investigation of the Yahoo email hack — if their response had been “we don’t identify our sources, and this would identify a source” that would be one thing, instead their response was highly “we’ve repeatedly accused Palin of misusing personal email accounts, and while we have no evidence of that, it’s Palin’s fault for being accused — she has only herself to blame”), and McCain is using his most trusty anti-media weapon ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/23cnd-mccain.html ).

The only other reason that makes sense to be is to avoid minor photo problems ( http://images.google.com/images?q=bush+bathroom+un+photo ).

Comment by Max Lybbert — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 1:34 pm
Didn’t Team McCain heavily criticize Obama for meeting with world leaders back in July when he traveled to the Middle East and Europe? Doesn’t this make the Republicans a wee bit hypocritical on this issue?

Comment by Black Political Analysis — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 1:38 pm
My favorite Veep moment of the day came from the experienced guy with a much higher IQ — Senator Biden

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed,” Biden told Couric. “He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”

Can you imagine the pieces of Andrew Sullivan (and indeed Dr. ST) being scraped off the virtual ceiling if Palin had said something this moronic? Dan Quayle, call your office.

Comment by Buckland — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 4:30 pm
I really don’t know what I would have said, as it didn’t play out that way, although I really don’t think I would’ve made a big deal about it. Not surprisingly, I don’t think I’ve been unreasonable or even especially hyper about Palin. All I want, as a citizen in a democracy, is to hear from the candidate. Radical me, I know.

How one can defend 2 interviews in a month, one of which was with an ideological and partisan fellow-traveler is beyond me. Indeed, please do call Quayle, as I am missing him at the moment.

Part of why I am not paying that much attention to Biden is because I am quite familiar with him, while Palin remains a blank slate.

And yes, I get it that a) there were no TVs in 1929 and b) that Hoover was president at the time.

Although was Biden analogizing FDR as Bush in this problematic quip, or is FDR supposed to represent McCain? (Didn’t McCain say something about greed recently? Did Bush?)

Regardless, it is hardly my job to defend or explain Biden.

Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 4:55 pm
[...] believes this was a good idea; Doctor Steven Taylor of PoliBlog (a fellow Alabamian blogger) says the whole idea of hiding the “Number Two” of a ticket from the Press is INSANE; Last but not least — Michelle Malkin writes about the actual Sarah Palin look-alike Michael [...]

Pingback by Señor J. Sidney McCain Pulls The Ole’ “Bait And Switch” On Mainstream Media — Cheats CBS Into Taking Pictures Of Face-To-Face Discussion Between Sarah Palin And Afghan President Hamid Karzai | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™ — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 6:50 pm
That obviously touched a nerve.

But it does show why she’s not giving interviews. As a new conservative face she doesn’t get the leeway that the other 3 campaign participants get. Small misstatements get magnified into airhead comments. She can’t afford that right now.

Defending 2 interviews in a month is easy. The risk/reward ratio is way too high. Most people wanting more interviews are wanting to see her make a mistake, especially one that can be laughed at. I’m not feeling a groundswell from the overall voting populace for more.

Speaking contemporaneously in public is a difficult thing. Getting the grammar right (let alone obscure facts) can be a problem if each sentence is going to be dissected. Obama repeatedly says “uh” for time to think. McCain slows down his sentences until his words are almost painful coming out for the same reason. Biden invents “just so” stories when in doubt.

Palin doesn’t have the luxury of any of these. Lots of people want her to have a Quayle-in-the-headlights moment, many wanting it enough to magnify small speaking traits or errors into proof of airheadedness. This happened to some degree with her comment of seeing Russia from Alaska and moreso when she answered carefully about the Bush Doctrine.

So I’ll take you at your word that you don’t think you’d make a big deal out of it (though that was the surprise of your response to me), and even apologize for lumping you with “Excitable Andy” (don’t know who coined that, but it’s good…), but you have to see why the interviews will come slowly and in a structured manner…The risk of twisted comments is way too high, and nobody who doesn’t troll political sites even cares.

Comment by Buckland — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 6:55 pm
And now I hear that Palin talked with Karzai about his child and commented that the baby has a “nice” name. She probably told Kissinger her hockey mom/pit bull joke. And I noticed that when leaving the building, she hugged and kissed Kissinger. Come on, a girl would do that, not a professional woman who says she’s ready to be V.P., excuse me, Prez.

Somebody make her go away.

cw

Comment by Carolyn Watson — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 7:00 pm
Oh, I just figured if I didn’t respond, it would be interpreted as conceding the point.

The Palin thing is a raw nerve, I suppose, as I do find her selection and especially her sequestration from serious questioning to be troubling.

Part of the problem, too, in how different persons will be treated by the press depends on the basic narrative surrounding. People expect Biden to say off the wall things, so he gets ignored. And, to be fair, McCain had had his share of verbal gaffes as well.

Quayle couldn’t say stupid things that others could. Gore couldn’t exaggerate and get away with it, etc. McCain can talk about Czechoslovakia and confuse the Sunni and Shi’a,. cuz after all, we all know he knows foreign policy, so it must be a harmless mistake, but if Palin did the same thing, she’d be roasted. The standard are never 100% fair.

The more Palin stays away, the more her gaffes will matter.

Defending 2 interviews in a month is easy. The risk/reward ratio is way too high. Most people wanting more interviews are wanting to see her make a mistake, especially one that can be laughed at. I’m not feeling a groundswell from the overall voting populace for more.

It can easily be defended on strategic political grounds, and I have stated such on more than one occasion. It cannot be justified on democratic grounds, as it is a wholly inadequate way to interview for the job, so to speak.

That there isn’t a clamor for her to be interviewed may well be true, but it doesn’t speak well of persons willing to support her for a very important job just because she gave one good speech and may, or may not, otherwise be prepared for the job for which she aspires.

I fully understand my view is in the minority (at least of people who have historically voted Republican). I also fully understand that I am not going to get what I want from her, but that doesn’t stop me from finding it problematic.

Beyond all of that: don’t you find it at least a tad problematic that they have to so protect their vp nominee? What does that say about the selection and the selector?

Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 7:11 pm
Max,

I have to admit, I just don’t buy into this whole “payback” narrative that has been a popular defense of the Palin Press Blackout. First, the issue wasn’t just the AP. And second, even if one says that the McCain camp is taking it to the press, aren’t we ultimately the ones who lose out?

Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 7:13 pm
I’ll agree that we lose out when the press and the candidates get into spitting matches. I don’t know a solution to the problem. From what I remember, the press and politicians haven’t ever gotten along — or at least in the cases they have gotten along things have been pretty bad (yellow journalism comes to mind).

Comment by Max Lybbert — Wednesday, September 24, 2024 @ 1:56 am

Hide Comments | Add your comment

Another FARC Leader is Killed

By Dr. Steven Taylor

Nuevo golpe a las Farc, cayó alias el “paisa”:

Cayó uno de los más bárbaros jefes guerrilleros. Se trata de Aicardo de Jesús Agudelo, alias “el paisa”, quién murió durante un bombardeo de la Fuerza Aérea a su campamento, ubicado en el departamento del Chocó.

Translation: “New Blow to the FARC, “El Paisa” Falls”:

One of the most barabaric of the guerrilla chiefs has fallen. Aicardo de Jesús Agudelo, alias “El Paisa” died during an air Force bombing against his camp in the Department of Chocó.

El Paisa was not a member of the FARC’s Secretariat, but he was considered a “high value” target by the Colombian government. Among other actions, El Paisa was responsible for ordering the kidnapping (in 2024) and eventual murder (in 2024) of Antioquia’s Governor, Guillermo Gaviria, ex-Minster of Defense Gilberto Echeverri eight others who had undertaken a peace mission to the FARC.

El Tiempo’s write-up is here: Muerte de ‘el Paisa’, autor de la masacre de Urrao, octavo gran golpe a las Farc en 15 meses.

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: Colombia, Latin America | Comments/Trackbacks (1) | | Show Comments here

Will on McCain’s Temperament and the Bailout (and Some Thoughts by me)

By Dr. Steven Taylor

In his WaPo column (McCain Loses His Head) takes McCain to task for one of his early responses to the financial crisis last week, his calling for SEC Chairman Chris Cox’s firing:

Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that “McCain untethered” — disconnected from knowledge and principle — had made a “false and deeply unfair” attack on Cox that was “unpresidential” and demonstrated that McCain “doesn’t understand what’s happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does.”

This reminds me of Steve Bainbridge (a McCain supporter) who stated at the time in regards to McCain’s rant against Cox: “There’s so much stupidity here, it’s hard to know where to begin.”

Will connects the statements about Cox to broader McCain modes of behavior:

McCain’s smear — that Cox “betrayed the public’s trust” — is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are “corrupt” or “betray the public’s trust,” two categories that seem to be exhaustive — there are no other people. McCain’s Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law’s restrictions on campaigning.

Not exactly soothing words given current events.

He concludes:

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

A legitimate question. Neither scenario is especially comforting, to be sure. Still, I think that as the financial crisis settles into the mind of Americans it will reshuffle the way the candidates are viewed.

On the bailout specifically, Will writes:

The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain’s party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?

These are all rather serious questions. Further, it strikes me that we seem to be heading into socialism sans the benefits, i.e., without the social programs.

One of the odd legacies (at least for an alleged fiscal conservative) of the Bush tenure in office has been a remarkable increase in the size and power of the federal government. Even before the current situation, which is, at least, the result of an acute crisis, we had the expansion of Medicare, massive spending on a war of choice in Iraq and the expansion of the government’s police powers under aegis of the War on Terror.

The financial implications of these policies are pretty clear, but there are certainly political ones as well. For example, I do wonder if the combination of understandable feelings of insecurity in the population, the serious weakness of the GOP for the foreseeable future, and the clear demonstration of late that it at least appears that money can be found if we really want it, that we will not see an increased demand by the population for new social programs, most specifically for health care. In terms of very simplistic approaches to politics (and sometimes, that is the best way to understand why things happen), I can certainly see large swaths of the population no longer being willing to accept the argument that “we can’t afford it.” Further, the need to bailout the financial sector damages arguments about the virtues of the private sector vice government. Beyond that, I think that the bailout of the financial sector will stoke class resentment, as many will perceive this entire situation as nothing more than saving a bunch of rich white guys. As such, the argue will emerge along the lines of: if the feds can find piles of cash to help the wealthy, surely it can find the cash to help the rest of us.

Of course, having ~~spent~~ borrowed the money to do all of these things, the political will for such reforms may emerge, but getting the cash is a whole other matter. A clear legacy of the last eight years will be a severely hampered federal government (raising serious questions, btw, of the policy programs being proffered by both candidates).

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: 2008 Campaign, The Economy, US Politics | Comments/Trackbacks (11) | | Show Comments here

Hide Comments | Add your comment

Conservative Columnist George Will Calls McCain “A Flustered Rookie Playing in a League Too High” …

by Damozel | Specifically, he compares McCain to the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, whose only anger management technique was to screech, Off with his head!Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving li…

Trackback by Buck Naked Politics — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 9:48 am
Further, it strikes me that we seem to be heading into socialism sans the benefits, i.e., without the social programs.

To reiterate the comment I made a couple of days ago–I don’t think it is really appropriate to even invoke “socialism” to describe Bush’s proposal.

The bailout is more along the lines of an oligopolic capitalism since the proposal apparently is only concerned with the government acquisition of the devalued liabilities of elite financial institutions.

People revert to the “socialism” tag when they see government get involved in the economy–[notwithstanding the fact that all modern capitalist economies are essentially Keynesian anyway.]

But just because the government assumes a more activist stance vis a vis the financial markets, this does not mean we are somehow becoming more “socialist.” It is just a different form of capitalist interventionism.

As an aside, who/what in the world is Will taking about when he says that “The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics”???

The modern bureaucratic state is inherently concerned with economic regulation–aside from radical libertarians and anarchists, ALL of modern politics is concerned–at its most fundamental level–with how to deal with market failure.

And Will’s comment about the “political left” is

Comment by Ratoe — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 9:59 am
I could easily live with “statist.”

Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 10:19 am
Of course, Will clearly does not like McCain’s “signature legislative achievement” even though it was actually fairly significant and the sort of thing a “reformer” reputation my be built around. Then again, McCain can’t invoke it as a reason for voting for him, because of people like Will who don’t like it. How strange.

(There is perhaps one other “signature accomplishment” in the Senate that could be mentioned: finessing torture–something that might also be hard to build one’s reputation as a torture victim around.)

Comment by MSS — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 12:11 pm
Sorry, one more…

I don’t think there is any “odd legacy” here. I don’t see how anyone who looked objectively at either the Nixon, Reagan, or Bush I legacies could say that the GOP, as a governing party, was a party of small government, free markets, or fiscal responsibility.

It has always been about massive subsidies to large corporations (especially, but by no means only, those in the euphemistically named ‘defense’ sector) and–since Reagan (other than the brief outbreak of sanity that cost Bush I a second term)–the transfer of wealth from future generations to the most privileged of the current one.

Given that Bush II represented the first case of unified GOP government since the essentially nonpartisan and non-ideological Eisenhower years, there is nothing at all “odd” about what is occurring.

And as I noted the other day, much of what is going on currently (and not only on the financial risk-shifting) is about an authoritarian government tying the hands of its successor. Nothing odd there. I think a course in Regime Change would give one the tools to predict it!

Comment by MSS — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 12:25 pm
Certainly I cannot argue with the notion that we lack a viable party dedicated to small government, fiscal responsibility and fiscal responsibility. Certainly the years of unified government under the GOP proved that.

However, I still maintain that the legacy is a odd one, as this is hardly where most, even the biggest of Bush critics early on, would have expected. The combo of war debt, medicare expansion and financial bailout is quite the trifecta. But beyond that, I really do think that the whole situation could cause a perceptual about the government. If anything, it isn’t the expected legacy–and certainly not on this scale.

I take the point on hand-tying, and while we share much in our critiques of this admin, we do differ on issue of whether it is appropriate to label it an “authoritarian regime” or whether we can call the move from one administration to another as “regime change” (and I know that part of that is our differing classification of the events of 2024). I will not argue that this administration hasn’t acted in an authoritarian manner at times–and I have said so, although clearly more cautiously than you would :). It is all quite disquieting, to put it mildly.

Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 1:00 pm
McCain has a temper and Palin has a quick-temper. She has said that she will not blink in an emergency. She will push that red button in a hurry. That to me is scary in itself. These are two hot-heads who should never get anywhere near the Oval Office. If there are people who do not want a black president, I think they should leave the country and not take the rest of us down with them by electing these two.

Comment by CodeSense — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 1:59 pm
WHAT’S THE BIG RUSH???
The consequences of a bailout
will affect us negatively for decades.
Why not follow Newt’s advice, and
take the time to explore other options.
Bring in the experts who helped Reagan
turn our economy around. Measure twice,
cut once !!!

Comment by Howard — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 2:54 pm
As someone who was raised with the the privileges of upper middle class and who has now become lower middle class due to a family health crisis (and yes, we were covered), it’s clear that you’re right–the lower classes will resent this, the resentment already runs deep at the current time. Why? Because in reality, the government is insuring the wealth of the wealthy and the five-year stagnant job market and freeze on salaries for the middle incomes has put nearly everyone in debt or forced people to sell homes, go without health care, or have their children take out astronomical loans for college. We are no different than India, we have a more defined caste system that ever before.

And I would appreciate it if someone could tell me why or how the Merrill Lynch CEO can walk away with 121 million retirement package? Why does he feel entitled to this money? Why is this kind of inequity allowed? He hasn’t worked harder and is no smarter than a high school math teacher…so in essence, I’m helping to pay his 121 million send off package. How does that make any kind of sense? Or the 22 mil to the Lehman’s CEO?

True, Obama is inexperienced, which is why Hillary should have been the nominee–I think she may be the only one who could pull the country out of this. Obama is empathetic, smart, a good orator, a great thinker..Hillary is a workhorse and has been her whole life. As for McCain, I wouldn’t vote for him due to his temper, his seeming mental instability and his words mean nothing. While I admire him for serving our country and feel compassionate about the torture he endured, he clearly has psychological issues. He is Nixonian in word, deed and manner. And yes, he can use the Internet–people without arms use it every day. He takes a Checkers approach to everything. American will explode with him at the helm.

Comment by Gloria — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 3:26 pm
DEMOCRATS should read all the stories circulating today about how former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan warned congress back in April that legislation was needed to prevent the melt down we’re now experiencing … but, the democrats blocked it. These are the same democrats who want us to elect them in November.

Comment by Howard — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 5:27 pm
It will be hilarious to see Obama win by 90%. Hillary does not know how many people hate her, that’s why she lost the primaries. Obama will win on the economy, because Sarah Palin’s glory days are through. The Republicans are losing their base, because no one wants to be incriminated and issued a subpeona. In this country, you are innocent until issued a subpeona.

Comment by Daniel — Tuesday, September 23, 2024 @ 10:36 pm

Hide Comments | Add your comment

Monday, September 22, 2024

The Secretary of the Treasury Empowerment Act of 2024

By Dr. Steven Taylor

Well, that ought to be the title, anyway. Or, perhaps, The Ginormous Blank Check Act of 2024.

CNN Money has the text: Treasury’s 3-page bailout proposal.

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: The Economy, US Politics | Comments/Trackbacks (0) |

Sunday, September 21, 2024

Thinking about the Financial Crisis

By Dr. Steven Taylor

Like a lot of people, I am not sure what to make of the current financial crisis the commensurate ~$1 trillion bailout/nationalization of much of the country’s financial sector.

Beyond the question of whether what it is that is being done and whether it is the right thing to do, I continue to wonder as to where are the actors in question getting the authority to do what they are doing? At such, I am with James Joyner:

do we really want such fundamental decisions being made by obscure, unaccountable men like Bernanke, Paulson, and SEC chair Chris Cox? Shouldn’t Congress and the president be more than bit players?

Indeed.

I must say, I am not surprised by the lack of transparency in the behavior of the Bush administration, as we have seen this movie before, i.e., in war on terror policy. The Bush administration has never been all that fond of explaining to the American public the what and why of its policies, but rather it is fond of telling us that it is doing the right thing to help us all, but that we should trust them. They have also never much cared for involving the Congress.

Right now the process of Paulson and Bernanke going behind closed doors to negotiate these moves with Wall Street executives and then announcing multiple hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts is unnerving and since it is our money ultimately, I would like to see a bit more public deliberation.

In regards to the process, I am with Paul Krugman:

Treasury needs to explain why this is supposed to work — not try to panic Congress into giving it a blank check.

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: The Economy, US Politics | Comments/Trackbacks (5) | | Show Comments here

Hide Comments | Add your comment

Congress could be a part of this any time they choose. Throughout this entire episode they’ve voted present and prayed that the executive branch took the heat.

No plan from congress has yet been forthcoming, despite the fact they’ve stayed in the loop. The only thing yet to emerge is the silliness such as cutting of finance execs and other populist measures that mean nothing to the actual crisis.

Comment by Buckland — Sunday, September 21, 2024 @ 1:06 pm
The answer to Joyner’s question is clearly no. On the other hand, we have been having lots of “fundamental decisions” made by “unaccountable men” (and sometimes women) since at least 12 Dec., 2024.

And I find myself asking how much of recent decisions–the financial nationalizations (yes, I think that is the right word) and the Iraq troop status deals–are really about tying the hands of a successor. This would not be the first authoritarian government in history to do such a thing as its tenure wound down.

Comment by MSS — Sunday, September 21, 2024 @ 1:20 pm
Oh, and of course, if Joyner really thinks the President is a “bit player” he is missing who it is that these “unaccountable men” are, in fact, accountable to. Not the public, for sure. But there is someone who is responsible for their decisions. And it is not Congress. Of course, a lame-duck President is also unaccountable.

Still, I agree that Congress is being supine, but there’s nothing especially new about that for this current Congress.

Comment by MSS — Sunday, September 21, 2024 @ 1:24 pm
Like a lot of people, I am not sure what to make of the current financial crisis the commensurate ~$1 trillion bailout/nationalization of much of the country’s financial sector.

I would disagree with your (and Shug’s) characterization of Bush’s plan as one that would “nationalize much of the financial sector.”

My understanding of the plan is that the Feds will just assume the bad loans and NOT gain any valuable assets.

It seems more like nationalizing liabilities while privatizing assets–which seems quite a bit different than a serious “nationalization” (i.e. the feds take EVERYTHING).

Robert Reich has a good rundown of what any bill should look like over at his blog.

Comment by Ratoe — Sunday, September 21, 2024 @ 11:15 pm
Ratoe:

I have been thinking about that, as it hasn’t appeared to be a pure nationalization, as the feds don’t appear to be taking over the financial institutions themselves. As I say, not only is this outside my area of expertise, I have not had as much time as I would like to digest the situation (as indicated by my scant blogging yesterday and today).

Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, September 22, 2024 @ 8:02 am

Hide Comments | Add your comment

Saturday, September 20, 2024

Cuba Sacks Khan!

By Dr. Steven Taylor

Via AFP: Khan sacks Cuban trainer.

To which I can only point to this.

I find this to be highly amusing at the moment.

(Have I mentioned that I have been editing my manuscript for most of the day?)

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: Latin America | Comments/Trackbacks (1) | | Show Comments here

That Didn’t Last Very Long…

By Dr. Steven Taylor

Via the BBC: Hadron Collider halted for months.

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: Not politics | Comments/Trackbacks (1) | | Show Comments here

Shining Path Leader Seeks General Amnesty

By Dr. Steven Taylor

Via the BBC: Peru rebel rejects surrender call:

Comrade Artemio, whose real name is Filomeno Cerron Cardoso, leads what is left of the group.

In his first apparent interview in almost two years, he told a local radio station near the rebel stronghold, Radio La Luz in Aucayacu in Huanuco region, that the rebels completely rejected an ultimatum issued by Peru’s national police chief to surrender.

“We still insist that what is needed is a political solution, what is needed is a general amnesty and national reconciliation,” he said.

It wouldn’t be a surprise if one’s first reaction was “the Shining Who?” depending on one’s age and predisposition to pay attention to Latin American politics. The Shining Path was once one of the most fearsome and violent guerrilla groups in the history of Latin America and they created a great of havoc in their day. However, they are now less than a shadow of a shell of their former selves:

The Shining Path nowadays is just a fraction of its former size, reports the BBC’s Dan Collyns from Lima, but its fighters still control remote coca-growing areas of Peru’s central jungle and are heavily involved in the drugs trade.

Experts say there are no more than 150 fighters and they no longer present a threat to national security.

The group has killed dozens of policemen and anti drugs workers in recent years, but it is a far cry from the Maoist-inspired organisation of the 1980s and 1990s which tried to impose a communist regime and in the process saw almost 70,000 people killed, our reporter adds.

This is not a group in a position to demand much of anything from the government. Indeed, save for the legacy of the name,¹ they would appear to be little more than petty criminals at the moment.

Sphere: Related Content

To range into the silly for a moment, I have always thought the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso in Spanish) had ones of the best all time guerrilla group names–although nothing can top this one. [↩]

Filed under: Latin America | Comments/Trackbacks (0) |

Vote Early, Vote Often

By Dr. Steven Taylor

If you have ever read and enjoyed the blog Arms and influence, please go read the linked post and vote.

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: Blogging | Comments/Trackbacks (0) |