GoldbergBlog

Master of His Domain

On a talk show, there needs to be a respect between a guest and a host.  It’s the same respect a guest and a host would show each other in a home.  A host implicitly agrees to be cordial and inviting and in turn the guest implicitly agrees not to be a total dickbag.

I will not be inviting former House Majority Leader-cum-lobbyist Dick Armey to my home any time soon.  Armey appeared on last night’s The Daily Show and obviously there were going to be disagreements between him and Jon Stewart.  However, Stewart has shown that he is perfectly happy to have on guests who disagree with him.  Bill Kristol, Mike Huckabee, and (before he sold-out every belief he had), John McCain have all been repeat guests on the show.  The problem comes if there’s a guest who doesn’t respect the forum or Stewart.  The brilliant and gifted comedian does not abide rudeness.

› Continue reading

Special Comment: There Is No “Ground Zero Mosque”

This is a strong special comment except for two things:

1) The rhetorical shortcut of using Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous quote.

2) Not criticizing Obama for his back-peddling on the issue.  Obama first came out and made a strong stance supporting the cultural center.  Then, realizing he had made a strong stance, instantly retreated to a middling position and questioned the wisdom of building the center “near” Ground Zero.  And I would take the Obama Administration’s advice on wisdom like I would take driving tips from Stevie Wonder.

Special Comment: The Amateur Left

Special Comment: “Decisive Action”

This is one of Olbermann’s best to date.

Not for a Romantic Wish

Banks Are Terrifying

I already knew this, but an article from Huffington Post detailing the financial reform bill makes my blood curl.  Here are some examples:

This time around, Congress bailed out Wall Street, protecting the largest firms from collapse, which enabled them to lobby hard against reform, spending over a million dollars a day.

They spent taxpayer money to make sure they would be able to get taxpayer money again in the future.  That’s like buying a victim buying a gun for a mugger.

The effort suffered from the administration’s hesitation to embrace an agenda that would genuinely remake Wall Street.

The Obama Administration took half-measures when they have the ability to go all the way?  I am shocked.  Shocked to my very core, I say.

The bill creates a consumer financial protection entity over the strenuous objections of the GOP and Wall Street…largely bars banks from trading taxpayer money for their own profit and bans many of the deceptive mortgage lending practices that fueled the housing bubble. [Emphasis mine]

So technically banks can still trade taxpayer money for their own profit and some deceptive mortage lending practices are still allowed.  Good to know that we almost fixed problems that had to be fixed.  Who can complain about that?  It’s not like they half-assed it.  It’s more like they 3/4-assed it.

Perhaps most significantly, the law will limit the total amount of derivatives speculation a single bank can engage in, aimed at preventing a run-up in food or energy prices. In 2008, Goldman Sachs and other swaps traders drove the price of wheat to levels that caused starvation around the globe.

I knew Goldman Sachs was evil, but holy shit.  They caused worldwide starvation and made a profit from it.  It’s one thing to create bubbles that crash an economy, but it’s a special kind of evil causes people to starve to death in order to make money.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment for reformers is that the bill leaves in place the major banks that caused the crisis. The largest banks have grown larger under Obama’s watch. Banks will still be able to speculate in the riskiest kinds of derivatives and invest in hedge funds and private equity funds. Depending on what regulators decide, they may not be required to hold much more capital to protect against losses than before the crisis, since neither a number nor a formula was specified in the bill. They may still continue to lever up their investments, imitating a practice of the fraud-inflated housing boom in which some investment firms used $1 to back up every $30 in investments and bets.

1 million Americans are expected to lose their homes this year.

The unemployment rate was at 9.5% in June.  It’s expected to rise as 700,000 census workers are laid off.  The unemployment rate does not include those who have given up looking for work.

The Senate refuses to extend unemployment benefits.  Republicans couch their argument in the falsehoods that the jobless are lazy and that we can’t risk increasing the deficit (unless it’s for tax cuts).  The purpose of ruining the lives of the unemployed is done so voters believe it’s the party in power that’s the culprit.  This tactic is done so Republicans can get back into power and continue ruining people’s lives.

But at least something called “financial reform” is getting passed.  It has a nice ring to it.

Independence Day: A Dramatization

We know from historical documents that this is how the signing of the Declaration of Independence went down:

Special Comment: Keep McChrystal

I could not disagree with Olbermann more on this Special Comment.  His argument is that Obama should decline General McChrystal’s resignation because a) It would avoid more flack from the right; and b) it would force McChrystal’s loyalty.  These arguments are as stupid as McChrystal’s decision to do the interview with Rolling Stone in the first place.

First, if we’ve learned anything from the past 18 months of Obama’s presidency, it’s that there is no respite from the right.  They’d hate him if he chose Corn Pops over Honey Smacks.  He can’t win with that crowd and to keep McChrystal, not to even to please the right but to simply avoid their wrath on this issue, is an exercise in futility.

Furthermore, a soldier’s loyalty to his commanding officer shouldn’t be forced.  Olbermann suggests that Obama should keep McChrystal’s resignation in his desk, as if the President somehow needs that slip of paper to accept the general’s resignation or to remind the general of his impudence.  You don’t get to mouth off about your commanding officer. Otherwise, it sends a signal to every soldier that you can disrespect your commanding officer and he should turn the other cheek.

Olbermann compares McChrystal’s criticism of Obama to that of generals under Bush who disagreed with the former President’s strategies and rational for the Iraq War.  But Olbermann misses a key distinction: the generals under Bush weren’t criticizing the President himself, but his decisions.  McChrystal undermined the Commander-in-Chief as an individual.  This wasn’t to save lives or promote a particular battlefield strategy.  It was a snotty remark just like the ones he made about other members of Obama’s administration.

Olbermann makes another poor argument by comparing this situation to Truman’s firing of General MacArthur.  Except McChrystal isn’t MacArthur.  He’s not considered a national hero.  I imagine that most Americans had never heard his name before today, or if they had they forgot five seconds later.

The choice of a general shouldn’t be a political calculation.  It should be what’s best for the troops on the ground.  Olbermann admits that McChrystal isn’t irreplaceable, so replace him.  Get someone who respects the chain of command.  I don’t care that McChrystal feels that way about people in Obama’s administration.  I care that he was stupid enough to tell it to a reporter.  Do we want a guy this dim-witted running what has become the longest war in our nation’s history?

I think Obama should fire McChrystal and here’s why: because if he doesn’t, it’s yet another capitulation on our President’s part.  It’s the same thing he’s done with Republicans, Wall Street, BP, and everyone else who knows that this President doesn’t do retribution.  Obama’s behavior is almost libertarian in the belief that, as one of my college professors put it, “Everything would be nice if people were just nice.”  Well, yeah. No one gives a shit that Obama has a stern reprimand when there’s no action behind it. You’re a conservative Democrat who doesn’t want to extend jobless benefits because you’re a deficit hawk? Well, I guess our country has no choice but to yield to you, the Senator from fucking Nebraska. So let’s make a deal because why should the President of the United States have any real power?

I find Olbermann’s cynical, empty-headed argument to be a painful disappointment. Watch the Special Comment after the jump and judge for yourself.

› Continue reading

A Great Week for THE DAILY SHOW

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart managed to be even more amazing than usual this week.  Hit the jump for segments that will make you laugh with how clever they are, and cry with how sad the actual news is.

› Continue reading

Maddow 2012