Posts
Robert's Rules of Haka
22 hours ago
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The next 100 days
I'm grateful to a reader for restarting the political discussion we had last fall on this blog. I don't know if we can muster again the same passion, but much has happened since--and much has stayed the same. Obama continues to be hugely popular, the GOP continues to be clueless, and Washington proves incredibly difficult to change, no matter which party is given the task. But Obama has been a disappointment for a segment of his liberal base, and a huge disappointment for some. So, there's lots to talk about.
·
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Hi Ulrich -- Congrats again on your beautiful slide show -- what an amazing voyage! I don't have another topic to propose at the moment, though I was impressed with your heartfelt plea on Rex's blog today re the horrible WW2 massacre.
I'm folllowing the Sen. Arlen Specter brouhaha tonight, hearing that the Democrats have opted to strip their newest recruit of his seniority for now, due to his continuing promotion of Norm Coleman over Al Franken, his saying he didn't plan to be a loyal Democrat, etc. If Specter thought he'd have no chance in the next Republican primary, he may now be overlooking the possibility of a strong challenge in his first Democratic contest!
Also noted that Maine has become the fifth state to legalize gay marriage -- New York is going to have to catch up soon, as Gov. Patterson has been demanding!
Finally, Marie Cocco had an interesting column in the Washington Post today, promoting a NY Latina judge named Sotomayor for the next nomination to the Supreme Court. She sounds highly qualified, but I have an as yet unanswered question as to whether she would take a traditional Roman Catholic view against Roe v. Wade. Cocco wrote me that the second circuit doesn't deal with the issue, but I'm highly concerned that there are already five of the remaining Justices who are R.C. stalwarts (including Thomas because of his schooling), and a sixth at this point would be a significant misrepresentation of the country as a whole! G W Bush's cavalier neglect lingers on...
@artlvr: As I said in the intro, I'm grateful that you restarted a political discussion. Let me respond off the bat to one of your points: I do not understand this Specter business at all. There were apparently extended discussions between him and Democrats, including the VP, about his switch. It seems incredible to me that such important issues like the Coleman/Franken contest have not been resolved beforehand, one way or other, so that there wouldn't be any surprises so soon. It all looks amateurish to me, on both sides.
And what you say Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court is an eye-opener to me. I didn't know that there were so many, and it's scary. Mind, I'm saying this as a former Catholic; i.e. I know what I'm talking about. Case in point: A while ago, Scalia explained in a speech that in his support for the death penalty he is not worried by the possibility that innocent people may get executed: As a Roman Catholic, he believes in an afterlife where innocent victims will be rewarded. Unfortunately, I did not make a note of the source, which I regret b/c I find this argument truly outrageous. BTW It's the same point Muslim fanatics make when asked about the possibility that their terror attacks may kill innocent people.
Between the two of you you have brought up so many things that I find outrageous that I don't know where to begin!
Specter: I have watched him over the years hemming and hawing, sort of disagreeing with the Republican view on an issue, but in the end mostly voting with them. Words don't count. His statement that he isn't going to be a loyal Democrat is not going to help him muster support from the local party people. Goodbye. That's been the fate of most party-switchers anyway. Look at our boy Lieberman!
I have no interest in deciding for anyone whether they can get married or not. Let them be happy, be protected, and raise healthy kids.
This RC business is really startling to me, and my husband was surprised to hear of it, too! This is a big issue, which I hope will get more attention. On the other hand, what are we talking about? Not choosing someone because of his religion? I personally know many very practical and not very dogmatic Catholics. Scalia is a scary guy, my least favorite judge after Thomas, no matter what.
@mac: I agree with you about non-dogmatic Roman Catholics--what I wrote comes off as too one-sided. I suddenly saw Scalias all over the place, and he IS scary--we're agreed on that.
@artlvr: As an expert, can you explain the Chrysler hedge fund story i.t. of the technicalities involved? What happened and why right-wingers are up in arms about it.
@ Ulrich -- you've stumped me, for now. It's not something I've followed. I've seen a bit of a pick-up in the art market, and have totally missed out on the rebound in many stocks -- expecting it to be a shorter "bear market bounce". I'll keep my ears open and report back if I get any info for you.
I didn't want to offend anyone with my comment on the religious imbalance on the Supreme Court, and I still use the married name of Moynihan which leads to some awkward and/or amusing situations at times! This is just something like the elephant or 600-pound gorilla in the room that nobody wants to mention -- It was a tradition for quite a while to take broad representation into account, a Jewish seat for years, and Thurgood Marshall's seat -- great!, a woman, etc. But the GOP and Bush family came up with nominees nowhere on the ABA list of highly qualified candidates -- Thomas, Harriet Miers, egads. All serious criteria were abandoned for politics, and W got the nod for the disputed Presidency in 2000 because so many of the Justices were beholden. What next? We all have so much riding on the Court, it needs much more attention from all of us...
@artlvr: I'm interested in how the Chrysler hedge fund works-- the Salon article assumes too much knowledge on the part of a reader like me.
I'm not totally up to speed, but I believe it's plural, i.e. hedge funds who were/are major holders of Chrysler bonds. The complaint seems to be that major holders of GM bonds were persuaded to agree to a revaluing of those bonds -- thus reducing the amount legally due them (full 100%) before share holders saw any value attached to their shares. On the other hand, major holders of Chrysler bonds cleaerly refused to have their bonds cut in value through negotiated agreement out of court.
This refusal precluded the government from making an investment in Chrysler shares which could protect taxpayers' money to any extent. Thus the current "managed bankruptcy" was the only legal route to changing the playing field...
I'm not a lawyer, but was taught that legally bonds and debentures are to be paid off before common shares get to benefit from any remaining part of a company's assets when the business is not a going concern. Chapter 11 is the form in which a court appoints a trustee to oversee a workout with altered terms in the intention of giving a troubled concern the time and means to refocus and revive. A Chapter 4 bankuptcy is filed in cases where there is no attempt at continued business survival, just an ordered wrap-up in which creditors are paid off proportionally as much as possible -- and if not 100%, then there is nothing left for owners.
The common share is a piece of ownership, with sharing of future profits in view. The bond is just a debt, a loan to the company on agreed terms which involve interest payment only. (Bonds may be backed by specified assets, while debentures are usually unsecured and rate second to bonds.) There are refinements for both -- preferred shares having standing before common shares, and also convertibles which may become common shares under certain conditions, plus zero-interest bonds which sell initially at a discount to par value but accumulate the delayed interest over time, just to name a few...
The "managed bankruptcy" being undertaken now sounds like a Chapter 11 procedure, with pressure on the court to expedite the legal restructuring of Chrysler as quickly as possible. Hope that helps!
@artlvr: Yes, it helps--thx.
The huge news, to me, today is the firing of McKiernan (famously called McClellan by Sarah Palin in her debate with Joe Biden)--an extremely rare event so soon after a general takes command. All reports call this the sole decision of Gates--I haven't seen any coordination with the White House mentioned yet. Does the Secretary of Defense really have that much power when it comes to decisions of momentous impact? It makes me nervous, given that Gates is a holdover from Bush.
Ulrich, I agree about that firing -- and there seems to be a total blackout on explanations! Weird...
I'm glad if that long-winded take on the legal rights of bond-holders was helpful. Why any hedge funds were interested in owning Chrysler bonds is another question altogether -- unless the bonds were bought well below par, which can happen if a company has suspended interest payments, and held for gain in principle when a bankruptcy was finally declared or accrued interest began to be repaid.
It was probably a strategy deemed to be potentially much more profitable than merely shorting the common stock, and safer too in the not-so-long run! The IRS doesn't let you take a loss on common stock which has become worthless just on your say-so -- you must find a specialist who will actuallly buy your shares at whatever piddling amount plus commission so that there is paper confirmation of your loss!
Interesting what you say about worthless stock and how to take a loss on it--I didn't know that, especially not that there are specialists ready to help you out--as I understand it, their commission is way less than the tax savings you're getting by having a confirmed loss, right?
A bigger story though right now, to me, is the continuing concentrated efforts of the Cheneys to smear Obama's policies and to insist on the effectiveness of torture. The rationale seems obvious--Cheney wants to make it as unlikely as possible that he will be prosecuted--they may also be working on a new Dolchstoßlegende, and I'm not upset about that--it's totally in character. What I'm upset about is that the media play along so readily--this morning he was granted yet another interview to spout his lies, on NPR, no less (at least that's what they announced last night--I couldn't bring myself to listen and spoil the rest of my day).
@ Ulrich -- The repeated appearances of Cheney, in the hope that lies told often will end up being believed, are highly annoying... but polls seem to show that Republicans are rejecting this ploy as he gets more airtime. Embellishments like praising Limbaugh, dissing Gen. Colin Powell and saying Dems like Pelosi were complicit in torture policies are hurting the GOP too. I think he's ensuring that investigations move forward, however slowly!
As to market speculation, I haven't been active for ages but was interested to see 10% gains today in some bonds like one called GMS, a General Motors bond which is supposed to pay 7 3/8% annually. It's still in "junk bond" territory, but who knows?
More interesting from my point of view is a "penny stock" like Vanda Pharmaceutcals which sold as low as $0.45 per share earlier this year and closed today at year's high of $12.96 -- it saw a gain of 1000% since receiving FDA approval May 6 for a new drug to treat schizophrenia. It will drop back from here, but wow -- it has a future, later on!
p.s. just announced -- Bill Seidman died today, age 88, the highly respected SEC chairman under Gerald Ford. He was also the key architect of the Resolution Trust which saved the day when the Savings and Loan's crisis hit in the '70's. I've often wished Obama had done something along those lines in face of the current problems!
@Ulrich, happy birthday! Please confirm that your date is May 12th and I will put you on my birthday calendar.
I am also very perturbed by the Cheney clan spouting the most ridiculous things. I actually saw daughter Liz stating that this administration supports terrorists! We all know Lynne is a battle axe...
@artlvr: If I knew how to become aware of these things, I would dabble, but I've no idea. In any case, given how little money I have to play around with, it wouldn't amount to anything anyway, except for the thrill--which would be its own reward, of course.
@mac: Yes, it's May 12--and thx. I'm now officially 68! And when's your birthday?
Here's a very plausible take on the Cheneys.
Happy B-day, Ulrich! Mine is 14 November, if people are taking notes ∑;)
re "Cheney, the Diva of Doomsday"-- don't miss Ms. Maureen Dowd's colorful column! Language lovers' classic... It's in the Times-Union today, May 14, and probably in the NYT today as well.
p.s. Great article in your link above, Ulrich... Personally, I think Cheney has a severe mental problem, just getting worse, -- and family will probably put him away, quietly or not, before this year's out.
My birthday is January 22. I keep a very Dutch birthday calendar, you're on in too, now, Cornelia!
Thanks very much, Marion -- I'm not counting the years, though!
Any comments on Dick Cheney's speech today, ArtLvr? I watched a little while, then had to turn him off.... Such a silly attack on the NYT! I'm sure the talking heads will have fun this evening.
Here's my two cents: I absolutely cannot listen to this guy for even a minute if I don't want to ruin the rest of my day. I read transcripts, partially, and can only say that nothing has changed: He knows the danger he is in if there is any non-partisan investigation, and he tries by hook and by crook to prevent it by trying to manipulate public opinion and the media (he has an easier time with the latter as the former gets its information increasingly from other sources).
Michael Tomasky's take on Obama's second hundred days makes a lot of sense to me (excerpt from New York magazine):
Obama’s first actions—the stimulus bill, Timothy Geithner’s bank plan, the stabilization of GM and Chrysler—were all about the forced agenda: de-jitter the markets... and restore some measure of public confidence...
Now comes the hard part, what he’s been saving his ammunition for. Obama’s second hundred days are much more important than the first. Now the president is pushing his agenda. And push is the word. Almost every day, there’s something: the credit-card bill, the call to overhaul regulation of derivatives, the deal on auto emissions ... in normal times, any one of these ... would have been thought a huge deal...
@artlvr: Any new insights on Sotomayor, now that she has been nominated?
Hi Ulrich -- I think her nomination was one that Obama thinks he can't lose -- since she was first nominated for a judicial position by Gerald Ford, and there are many Republicans still in the Senate who voted for her. Also, the GOP will be shooting themselves in both feet if they object to a seat for one representing the fastest growing minority, not to mention the women's vote!
That said, I feel that she is very highly qualified... My one reservation remains on the Roman Catholic overweighting in general. I also hope that Obama's choosing someone with historical Republican backing won't backfire down the road! In 2000, if so many Justices hadn't been beholden to the Bush family, W might not ever have become President. Gore's loss was the doing of the Supreme Court.
I'm one of those who is afraid Obama is being too cautious, not bold enough in fulfilling promises and expectations. If I, a genereation older, can see the point of making marriage available to all rather than a "separate but equal" civil union for some, then I'm disappointed in Obama's public line. I also think he could have put a hold on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military, has been out-manouevred as to the closing of Gitmo, and is in other ways going along with Bush left-over stuff in war and in lack of separation of church and state.
i don't see women in the military getting access to medical advice and procedures banned by Bush -- or removal of ultraright restrictions on foreign aid.
Did you ever find the source of the outrageous Scalia statement? I'd love to have that!
∑;)
@ArtLvr: great that you are back here, you've given me several things to think about and check up on! Always so stimulating to read your comments.
I said it at the other blog, but I think your "you name it - coin" idea was fantastic!
@Artlvr: No, I don't. I don't even know how to go about it. My memory isn't accurate enough to provide keywords for a search that wouldn't lead to gazillion articles. I vaguely remember that the quote was in an article on the Supreme Court in the New York Review of Books--the emphasis here is on "vague". I'm kicking myself for not making a note at the time.
Thanks, Mac and Ulrich! I'm watching Rachel's show now, grateful that she's focusing on the murder of the OB Dr. Tiller, the problem of the right-wing extremism in promoting terrorism, and the many states which have unfair non-medical restrictions preventing women from access to abortion, insurance companies who refuse to pay for them, etc.
On a lighter note, please send me a link for the words of "Lili Marlene" in German? I used to know a couple of verses, but I'm not sure I remember them correctly at this point! (it's been a long time.)
Ulrich -- Thank you for the link to the lyrics!
Here's another book we all need to read -- Aaron Glantz' "The War Comes Home" -- on Bush era treatment (abuse) of Iraq war soldiers: the over-deployments, the mental damage denied or deemed to have been a pre-enlistment condition, the claims' paperwork so impossibly horrendous, the denial of all benefits through dishonorable discharge when they begin to self-medicate or go off the rails otherwise, etc. The worse the evident disability, the more the system has rejected them.
Here's a take on the Palin resignation that makes a lot of sense to me.
Post a Comment