www.nationalview.org and Note From a Madman brought to you by
for your Information Technology needs
owned and operated by Noah "The Madman" Greenberg
This Is What Democracy Looks Like
www.NationalView.org's Note From a Madman
December 17, 2008
Q:
What was the Secret Service's response to the Bush shoe-thrower?
A: We could have stopped him if he weren't wearing loafers...
-NG
No Interest
The Federal Reserve Bank lowered the Prime Rate to 0.25 percent.
The vote was unanimous.
This means that the money we - the US taxpayer - allow to our various lending
institutions to use in order to make more money is virtually free.
In short, we - the American people - are the worst loan sharks ever!
At 0.25 percent, banks can borrow money from the Fed without the encumbrance of
nearly any interest payment. This is yet another gift to Big Finance at a time
when Big Finance was one of the (if not the main) culprit in the collapse of our
economy.
So far, we have lent/awarded Big Finance $335 billion with another $15 billion
promised by the time President Bush leaves office. There is another $350 billion
promised to them waiting on presidential approval.
Then there's the money we "lent" to the likes of AIG (American Insurance Group)
which totaled an additional $150-plus billion. This money, combined with the $45
billion "lent" to Citigroup ($20 billion of which comes from the TARP fund- The
$700 billion Troubled Assets and Relief fund) comes out to an almost
unbelievable $845 billion. The total effort to save Big Finance from itself is
expected to cost somewhere around $1.5 trillion, or about half of what we spend
on our entire budget, less discretionary spending (like the Iraq War and
occupation) per year. (The 2009 budget is approximately $2.9 trillion.)
As I take a look at the various sources for bank loans and interest rates, I
notice something funny: banks and lending institutions are barely loaning the
money which we are fronting them to loan. And when they are loaning to those
people they're certain aren't going to go "belly-up", they aren't lowering the
interest rate.
And that's supposed to be one of the reasons the Fed is loaning them the money
in the first place!
Back a few years ago when every bank was loaning money at a record pace, I
refinanced my mortgage. I pay 4.75 percent on a 15 year fixed-rate mortgage to
Amboy Bank of New Jersey. I received that rate a time when the prime lending
rate was in excess of two percent. Today when I checked the web site
bankrate.com, I saw that the available fixed rate mortgages range from 5.25
percent (HSBC and Sovereign Bank) to Bank of America's whopping 7.25 percent.
But they will let you "keep the change".
The idea of the Big Finance bailout bill was to make dollars available for
lending. That idea appears to have fallen by the wayside and in its place is the
alternate plan to keep Big Finance BIG. The cost to them is minimal - the cost
to us is great.
What many of us who approved of the bailout deal originally feared has come to
fruition: Big Finance now views the $700-plus billion as their own, and they
have the perfect fund distributor in Secretary Hank Paulson. The oversight is
now a joke as is any judicial review. They were good ideas that no longer have
any meaning or merit.
Today we hear that Chrysler is going to close their assembly plants for an
extended Christmas vacation. Due to close this Friday until January 5, 2009, CEO
Robert Nardelli's company is going to close its doors until late January
instead...
And they may even keep them closed longer.
Economically speaking, what I fear most over these next four weeks of the Bush
administration, is this: What's to stop President Bush, a huge backer of Big
Finance, from extorting the balance of the $700 billion from the week pockets
Congress with a promise of $14 billion for the Big Three US auto makers? The US
auto bailout plan is a Democratic plan which has Presidential support... kind
of. And although Bush has stated his preference to "do something" to keep
Detroit viable and in operation, he has done nothing to that end so far.
Just what is President Bush waiting for? I'm afraid we all might find out all
too soon enough. And when we do, will it be too late?
-Noah Greenberg
Q on the Tube: Wedding Bell Blues
by Victoria A. Brownworth
copyright c 2008 PGN, Inc.
There’s been surprisingly little discourse by the TV news media–Keith Olbermann
and Jon Stewart being merely pundits, if totally supportive of same-sex marriage
rights–about Prop 8 and its aftermath.
Thus when Alan and Denny got married on ABC’s “Boston Legal” in last week’s
series finale, much of the Prop 8 debate was addressed better on the drama than
it has been in the actual news. The issues raised by Denny and Alan’s
marriage–they are, despite their deep love for each other, heterosexual–were
definitive. Marriage is, in the eyes of the law, a contact. “Boston Legal” has
always been a show to take on the complexities of the law vis a vis the society
and politics and same-sex marriage was no exception.
That contract, intimate though it may be, is fundamentally about protection of
the bond of the married couple. When Denny asked Alan to marry him (same-sex
marriage being legal in Massachusetts), he explained why: As someone with
Alzheimer’s disease, Denny was concerned about having someone to make medical
decisions for him when he no longer could with no interference. He also wanted
someone to protect him legally against any actions caused by his Alzheimer’s
that might get him into legal trouble. And he wanted to be able to leave his
money to Alan, who had expressed the desire to do solely public interest law.
(Unlike other relatives and friends, spouses do not pay taxes on money left to
them by a spouse.)
A gay group took Denny and Alan to court, arguing that since they weren’t
actually gay, they were harming the case for same-sex marriage. Alan defended
the couple, noting that the arguments being used against their marriage were
actually the same arguments that had been used all along to prevent same-sex
marriage.
TV has a mixed history in its presentation of same-sex couples. The vast
majority of queer characters on the tube have been solo characters with no
on-screen partner. More recently, the issue of long-term gay and lesbian
relationships has been raised; several characters have either married or
broached the subject of marriage. Among the wed-ees, Scotty and Kevin got
married on ABC’s “Brothers & Sisters” and Bianca and Reese are engaged on ABC’s
“All My Children.” Bree’s son, Andrew, on ABC’s “Desperate Housewives” is
considering marrying his doctor boyfriend.
It was January 18, 1996 that the episode of “Friends” in which Candace Gingrich
officiated as the minister to a lesbian wedding first aired. Ross’s lesbian
ex-wife, Carol, was marrying her life-partner, Susan. But same-sex marriage was
not legal in America in 1996 and although a few stations refused to air the
episode, the controversy over the wedding was minor and ratings actually soared
for the episode of the already top-rated sit-com.
Now that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut and was
legal in California until Prop 8, the question of married queers on the tube was
bound to be raised. But the issue is controversial today in a way it was not
when the “Friends” wedding occurred for precisely the reasons delineated in the
“Boston Legal” finale.
What constitutes a marriage? Why do people choose to marry rather than merely
co-habitate? Those were some of the questions raised on “Boston Legal” and the
answers were rather declarative and spoke directly to why Prop 8 is such an
issue.
Married couples get benefits from the state and society that no one else does.
It’s really that simple. Marriage grants privilege. That was why Denny was so
insistent on marrying Alan, rather than just making him his power of attorney.
It is also why “Boston Legal” creator David E. Kelley, who has always addressed
current legal and political issues on the show, raised the question.
Shirley and Carl also got married in the final episode. Shirley had been married
six previous times. The juxtaposition was intentional and apparent: straight
people can marry whenever and as often as they like as every wedding chapel in
Las Vegas attests. But committed lesbian and gay couples cannot. Why not?
The arguments presented by “Boston Legal” made clear why the civil rights of a
good ten percent of the population shouldn’t be ignored. Marriage grants a level
of safety–legal and societal–for the couple that nothing else does.
On “All My Children,” Bianca and Reese have a daughter together and Bianca has
another daughter, as well. Reese’s parents are highly homophobic and won’t even
say Bianca’s name. They do, however, want Reese and their granddaughter to come
visit–sans Bianca. The implication is that they want to wrest both from the
lesbian grasp of their daughter’s fiancé.
On “Brothers & Sisters,” Scotty’s parents are also intensely homophobic and have
had real issues with their son’s marriage to another man. (No doubt they were
thrilled at Prop 8, but the show has not yet dealt with that issue.)
Conversely, on “As the World Turns,” Brian just got married a second time, to a
woman much older than himself. Brian clearly has at the very least bisexual
urges, as he has already kissed Luke once and tried to kiss him a second time.
So for Brian, heterosexual marriage is a way to protect himself from both his
own gay feelings and from society’s disapproval.
The controversy over same-sex marriage is fundamentally about civil rights and
about making same-sex coupling “real” to straight people. Like it or not, a
majority of Americans get their news and societal cues from TV, which means how
TV presents issues like same-sex marriage is defining. Breaking ground on TV is
often the first step in breaking down taboos. Same-sex marriage is now a part of
American society. How TV addresses the issue–acknowledging the reality of
same-sex marriage and how “normal” it is for gay and lesbian couples want to
marry by putting a human face on controversy–will be an important step in
educating non-queer Americans about same-sex marriage.
In response to Caroline Kennedy's bid to replace Senator Hillary Clinton,
Victoria Brownworth writes:
I'm so sorry to see that somehow the Kennedy dynastic mystique has overwhelmed
the good sense of Madman on the issue of an interim appointment for Hillary
Clinton's (not Robert Kennedy's) Senate seat. New York is in serious trouble.
Caroline Kennedy is not running against a Republican--she would be APPOINTED to
the seat that everyone else has had to run for and fight for--including both her
late uncle and Hillary Clinton. In fact if that seat was anyone's it was Daniel
Patrick Moynihan's who was in the position for 24 years, as opposed to RFK who
was in it for only half a term--three years. Sen. Clinton filled Moynihan's seat
and he held the post longer than anyone else. And she has followed in his
footsteps as well as RFK's. New Yorkers are overwhelmingly against Caroline
Kennedy being appointed to the post, as well they should be. She has absolutely
no credentials for the position and unlike Sen. Clinton who ran for and won the
position the old fashioned way, in a hard-fought election, beating out GOP
heavyweights like Rudy Giuliani for the post, Caroline Kennedy has done nothing
to earn it. Endorsing Barack Obama does not make you worthy of a Senate
appointment in the worst economic times in the past 50 years. New York deserves
more than revisiting dynasties. Putting Caroline Kennedy against Peter King in
your commentary is a false imperative. This would be an appointment--not an
election--so King enters into it not a whit. There are scores of exceptional
Democrats who should be considered for the position who have actual experience
and gravitas and can help the people of New York with their acumen. Caroline
Kennedy is trying to force Gov. Patterson into a quid pro quo for 2010. That
looks a lot like Blagojevich trying to sell Obama's seat to the highest bidder.
If Caroline Kennedy is appointed based on her name and arm-twisting, that would
be a sad day for New Yorkers, indeed. They deserve a skilled person of which
there are many, not a rich wannabe.
And in response to, "And personally, I like the idea of having a trained
attorney, author, activist and mother - yes, mother - in that seat," Pat
Thompson writes:
Me too! She's written a lot of books, has gone to law school, and has raised
millions of dollars for the New York City schools. I guess you can't say she
"deserves" the seat, but losing her father at age 6, and her uncle five years
later, and perhaps her brother on "Wellstone Airlines", does give her something.
I would love to see her in the Senate. She sort of woke up politically, after a
lifetime of not being involved, with her endorsement of Obama. Her children are
raised, and she has a lot to contribute. She's not looking for money from
lobbyists, that's for sure. I prefer already rich politicians, like our Gov.
Corzine, Mayor Bloomberg, and the Kennedys. They aren't using politics as a
means to get rich. They want to contribute to society.
In response to, ""Kennedy (her full name is Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg)..."
John Lynn points writes:
From Wikipedia: "Although she is often incorrectly referred to as 'Caroline
Kennedy Schlossberg,' she did not change her name when she married."
Also, you never even mentioned Liz Holtzman, who is also considered a top
contender for the NY Senate seat:
http://www.democrats.com/liz-holtzman-for-senate As much as I like Caroline
Kennedy, I think Liz Holtzman is the most qualified.
In response to, "Senator Paul Wellstone (DEMOCRAT-MN) was a teacher and a fine
Senator not in the usual mode. One wonders what he might have done had he not
had been killed just before the 2002 election," Pat Thompson writes:
Yes, but his death handed the majority back to the Republicans. Very strange
that the most liberal member of the Senate was the one who had to go.
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com
-Noah Greenberg