Eat that, Glenn Beck (VIDEO)

Watch the joy.

"Scared for my country?" Not when I see this.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Queen is Dead / Meat is Murder

 
The Queen, as in Elizabeth whatever her number, is apparently un-touchable. However, if one should be so lucky that she extend her hand in a friendly gesture, one is expected to take it, but not shake it hard...as obviously she is made of some kind of rare porcelain. Or just flabby, unstable gelatinous head cheese-type mass. In which case, one should always wear gloves when meeting The Queen, is what I propose. But onward o' Defender of the Faith carrying your lousy handbag and your bloody Yorkshires. The Pope and the Vatican say so. Well?

Imagine the collective, flatulence-like gasp released from her loyal subjects yesterday when Michelle Obama commited the unforgivable faux pas of lightly tapping Lizzy's back, in response to The Queen's own amicable tactile act before the world. Hey man, the monarch started it! The press went crazy. 10 Downing Street sent out no less than 4 Tweets on this monstruous infraction. Hundreds of years of protocol were violated in the span of maybe 2 seconds. The Queen herself seemed taken by surprise, and even retreated physically from this abominable act of...human contact.

Blogger, please!

You and I know fully well what was going through the old hag's mind. We don't need to go there. The Monarchy is one of the most racist institutions this side of the Klan, despite its philanthropic work and "modern" facade. These maggots have been brainwashed for centuries into thinking they're some sort of divine entities. I mean, seriously...are you not a laughable swine if you expect, no...demand a curtsy from your loyal subjects? What century are we in? That pre- and post-match shit that goes down on Centre Court at Wimbledon every June drives me insane. Bow before the Royal Box my white, pimply arse. I got yer Royal Box right here, eh? Right here, gagootz!

Dear readers, do you see what this subject reduces me to? Bad Joisey impressions are the sign of the Apocalypse and a last resort for a lousy, struggling writer. Next thing I'll be axing you which exit you live at.

And that's it. You know when you publish sentences ending with dangling modifiers it's time to quit the biz and head down to the pub for a few refreshing pints.

Hard elbows...

There’s something of a pattern emerging in our collective quest to deal with the seeming imminent collapse of Western Civilization, a.k.a. the 2008-9 Recession.

Something happens. Something’s done about it. And then lots of people freak out.

That's not what I would have done...or...what I would have done was better...or you're not going far enough. Yadda-yadda-yadda...

Of course, it’s happening, again.

My fellow Liberals are indeed freaking out over what the President said today in regards his plan to deal with the American Auto Industry. Double standard is the term I keep hearing over and over again.

But to folks like Robert Kuttner, David Sirota (and basically all the Liberals that even I, another Liberal can’t stand), I have to ask the question…do you even read this stuff??

I hate to resort to a Basketball metaphor, but the Commander in Chief is a fan, and this one story seems particularly apt in for the occasion.

Bill Russell as a young Celtics star was, of course, talented…but also prone to having the snot beaten out of him in games because he didn’t have it in him to throw an elbow.

So one day, Red Auerbach comes up to him, and asks him to throw an elbow…but just one elbow…during a nationally televised game. He guaranteed that once you throw that one elbow, you’ll never have to throw another one again.

Russell did…and eleven championships later, the rest is history.

What we all saw today was our President delivering a nationally-television hard elbow to GM’s Bondholders, the rich bastages holding GM’s debt. Turns out they’re about the only party in this mess who has refused to sacrifice anything at the table. GM owes them a lot of money, and they want protection. They want to be first at the trough. Damn the consequences.

Well, the President just fired the CEO of GM. (He'll be fine, from what I understand he's walking away with 20 Million dollars in Retirement.)

The President also let the Boldholders know, in no uncertain terms, that GM’s plan is not complete, and that they have sixty days to fix it. So until then, no money.

Therefore, [President Obama] said, he is offering GM and Chrysler "a limited period of time to work with creditors, unions and other stakeholders to fundamentally restructure in a way that would justify an investment of additional tax dollars."

He expressed confidence that "this restructuring, as painful as it will be in the short-term, will mark not an end, but a new beginning for a great American industry."

He said he was "absolutely confident that GM can rise again, providing that it undergoes a fundamental restructuring." He stressed that the U.S. government "has no intention of running GM."

If GM is unable to restructure and Chrysler cannot strike a deal with Fiat, they might need to use the bankruptcy code "as a mechanism to help them restructure quickly and emerge stronger," Obama said. He said that could enable the companies to "quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down," even as their workers remain on the job.

"What I am not talking about is a process where a company is simply broken up, sold off and no longer exists," he said. "And what I am not talking about is having a company stuck in court for years, unable to get out."

I wish Kuttner and Sirota would spend as much time finding out what happened, rather than flapping their gums. Their slavish devotion to Ideology-First is every bit as bad as all the Conservative scumbags we routinely bash on this site, and many others. It’s all there. They just have to keep reading. But I think in both their cases, they are more interested in cornering the market in Liberal Obama opposition than finding out what the hell is going on.

So, in summary: Obama’s message wasn’t so much to GM, but these Bondholders. You have sixty days to give up something, or face a structured Bankruptcy where you lose everything.

Their response?

“Our strong preference is to complete this restructuring out of court,” GM said in a statement issued after Obama’s speech on the U.S. auto industry. “However, GM will take whatever steps are necessary to successfully restructure the company, which could include a court-supervised process.”

Translation? GM is ready to go Bankrupt, if necessary.

“We look forward to working with the company and the task force to configure an exchange that will maximize the chances of a successful out-of-court restructuring,” advisers to the committee of GM bondholders negotiating with the company to restructure the automaker’s debt said in a statement. “All parties seem to agree that an out-of-court restructuring would be the preferred path to viability.”

Translation? Whooooaaa, slow down there, cowpoke. No need to get all hostile. Let's talk!

Also, it should be mentioned that Obama said Chrysler had 30 days to cut a deal with Fiat, or get nothing.

They cut a deal a few hours later. At least it was the framework for a pact.

Hard elbows in the paint. Seems they're the way of the world.

UPDATE 4:37pm Pacific: Slate's Daniel Gross (Senior Editor at Newseek, and frequent Slate.com contributor) agrees...and best of all has...umm...what do you call them again? Those things, little squiggly lines that didn't appear in the first draft of the GOP Budget Proposal?!?!?

Numbers! That's right, they're called numbers.

[GM] has loads of debt. The most recent quarterly results indicate long-term debt of more than $29 billion. And since the firm's credit ratings have been pushed deep into junk territory, that means most of the holders of this debt are hedge funds, private-equity firms, and other investment vehicles. (Many mutual funds and institutional investors like pensions or insurance companies eschew junk debt.)

GM's debt is trading at what is euphemistically called "distressed levels." As indicated here, bonds due in less than two years are trading at 20 cents on the dollar.

Many of those who bought GM's bonds did so because they hoped to 1) convert the debt into ownership in the case of bankruptcy filing or 2) see the bonds rise in value should the government step in and formally guarantee GM's corporate debt.

Obama made clear today what they suspected: No such guarantee would be forthcoming. While GM had tried to restructure, Obama noted, it hasn't yet done enough. "I'm absolutely confident that GM can rise again, providing that it undergoes a fundamental restructuring. Have they cleaned up their balance sheets, or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can't make future investments?" (If you answered this double question with a no and a yes, you're right!) The upshot: Holders of GM's debt, like other entities to whom GM has made financial commitments—dealers, the auto unions—are going to have to cut a deal, sooner rather than later, and accept less than they think they're entitled to. None of that AIG-creditor treatment for you.

It's been a busy day. Originally posted at Fort McHenry.

Oxymoronic Language

 
Really, the entire piece written by Andrew Breitbart for the Washington Times' OpEd page fits that description, but some passages retain that flavor stronger than others. As an example, try this paragraph on for size:

The right, for the most part, embraces basic Judeo-Christian ideals and would not promote nor defend the propaganda techniques that were perfected in godless communist and socialist regimes. The current political and media environment crafted by supposedly idealistic Mr. Obama resembles Hugo Chavez's Venezuela more than John F. Kennedy's America.

Herbert Hoover for 2009

Who's the real Herbert Hoover in our current financial catastrophe? Is it George Bush...or is it Angela Merkel??

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, an avowed friend of the United States and the leader of the European Union’s biggest economy, is diplomatic about the coming visit by President Obama. But she is clear that she is not about to give ground on new stimulus spending, stressing the need to maintain fiscal discipline even as she professes to want to work closely with the new American president.

The moment in Roosevelt's Presidency I bet he wishes he had back was 1937, when:

F.D.R. wasn’t just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion — he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy. After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections.

So what's Merkel, Amity Shlaes, and other worthless Conservative Ideology-Before-Country types suggesting? The exact same thing for 2009.

To again quote Krugman (and even though I'm pissed at him because he's overdoing it about his Bank-plan complaints, he knows his stuff, and I'll always listen to him):

Like many other economists, I’ve been revisiting the Great Depression, looking for lessons that might help us avoid a repeat performance. And one thing that stands out from the history of the early 1930s is the extent to which the world’s response to crisis was crippled by the inability of the world’s major economies to cooperate.

The details of our current crisis are very different, but the need for cooperation is no less. President Obama got it exactly right last week when he declared: “All of us are going to have to take steps in order to lift the economy. We don’t want a situation in which some countries are making extraordinary efforts and other countries aren’t.”

Yet that is exactly the situation we’re in. I don’t believe that even America’s economic efforts are adequate, but they’re far more than most other wealthy countries have been willing to undertake. And by rights this week’s G-20 summit ought to be an occasion for Mr. Obama to chide and chivy European leaders, in particular, into pulling their weight.

But these days foreign leaders are in no mood to be lectured by American officials, even when — as in this case — the Americans are right.

The financial crisis has had many costs. And one of those costs is the damage to America’s reputation, an asset we’ve lost just when we, and the world, need it most.

If Germany wants to fail, let 'em...but they should sink on their own.


Originally posted at Fort McHenry.

This Is Why I Hate On The Media (A Remix to Beige's Remix)

 
Beige raises a couple very good points about the President's lack of Honeymoon. We shouldn't be surprised. The Media is driven now not by...you know...what's it called again?? Oh yeah, news. It's driven by News cycles, things that dominate coverage for a period of time, so the NewsMedia can devote its already scant resources to pounding the living @#$% out of it.

What are you laughing at? It sells papers, and well...someone out there's buyin'.

As far as the Newspapers are concerned, however, I'm not sure it's the Liberal Papers that are buying it in particular.

A couple of years ago, the New York Times decided to make you pay for the privilege of reading some (note, not all) of their online content. If you wanted to read Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, and Paul Krugman, you had to be a part of their premium access club.

The experiment lasted all of a year. You'll notice that the content is free again.

Weren't makin' no money.

So...it makes you wonder what exactly it is the Newspapers are complaining about? After all, most of them...at least the ones going out of business...are saying that it's the internet that's responsible.

Well, yes and no.

We've lost the Rocky Mountain News. We're about to lose the Seattle Post Intelligencer. Part of the problem is the fact that the Rocky Mountain News used to compete just against the other paper in town, the Denver Post.

Now they're competing against all of them.

I mean, across the planet...every single paper ever published, every day.

If you're a reader, and you want the latest Political News, or latest Foreign Policy News...and you're living in the Denver Area...are you really going to tell me your first choice is the Rocky Mountain News, when the BBC, Washington Post or New York Times is out there?

This happened with the auto industry back in the day. When it first started, there were hundreds of companies trying to make cars. You'll notice that only three survived (and barely that). The Marketplace found its water level. It could support three auto companies, nothing more.

If you lived in Denver and 5000 Newspapers opened up ...chances are 90% of them would fail.

Denver's Newspapers were only competing with each other one second, then Planet Earth the next.

Funny thing is, the Rocky Mountain News should've concentrated on local news, one area the BBC and Washington Post can't touch. They should have cut their budget a little bit, and--

--oh what was that?

They've already done that...all while sacrificing national and international coverage they used to do on their own??

Ugh.

This is going to be an ugly process. It's not the Newspapers' fault...although cutting back on newsgathering couldn't have been a smart move. The Marketplace expanded. The playing field changed. A lot of Newspapers are going to fail, including ones you like and depend on.

Pro-Life Myopia

 
Used to be that there was one thing the pro-choicers and the pro-lifers would agree upon (at least among the moderates on both sides): The life of the mother was sacrosanct.

Of course that was before extreme fundamentalist thought became more mainstream; what I like to call the Jesus Campening of the US.

Proof of how far things have progressed (regressed?) lay in the movement to bestow "personhood" upon the fetus; a movement that has found sympathetic minds in the legislatures of various states in conservative frontierlands, specifically the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho and Oregon. In essence, what these states are trying to do is to give the fetus the same inalienable rights as a person, thereby making abortion the same as murder; what isn't said is that this also allows the state to make decisions regarding a woman's pregnancy, regardless of any possible health risks to the mother.

Exaggeration? A bit of hullaballoo to rile up the left? Not so; check out this quote from a video created by the National Advocates for Pregnant Women:

Angela Carder, a Clarksville, Md., woman featured in the video, became critically ill at 25 weeks pregnant. Her family and physician all agreed to carry out her wishes and keep her alive as long as possible -- but her hospital called an emergency hearing to determine the rights of the fetus. A court held that the fetus' right to life outweighed its mother's, and ordered a C-section despite the fact that the surgery could kill Carder. The operation was performed, and neither one survived.

(For more about the video, the NAPW, and further issues relating to "personhood," check out this item from Salon's Broadsheet; the bit about the woman from Florida who wanted a VBAC is just about as scary.)

Meanwhile, I am forced to wonder what's possible on the opposite end of the political spectrum: RU486 in the water? Sterilization at birth? The mind boggles.