Thursday, December 8, 2011
The Priviliged Spew
To anybody out there who still doesn't see the importance of a free and independent press, you obviously didn't see that recent "60 Minutes" piece on insider trading and Congress/the aftermath. For those of you who didn't witness it, Steve Croft did an amazing segment on how it's apparently still legal for elected officials in Washington to capitalize on knowledge derived from pending legislation to trade on various stock opportunities (I.P.O.s especially). He specifically focused in on those who've presided in leadership positions; former Speakers Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi and current Speaker John Boehner. It was a totally eye-opening expose' and, I'm telling you, folks, if you weren't exceedingly jaded before it, you sure as hell would have been after it..........................................................................................................Thankfully (and, yes, precisely because of this segment), Congress has responded quickly. Congressman Tim Walz (one of the good guys), who, when he previously put forth legislation to stop this lunacy, couldn't himself get arrested, this time got over a hundred co-sponsors and it appears that Congresspersons will eventually be subject to the same laws that ended up putting Martha Stewart in prison. In the words of the inimitable Howard Cosell, "It's been long overdue!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
It is for this very reason that the Press is vilified by many of those in power.
Nancy Pelosi (one of the good gals) also supports the legislation. She also denies the allegations by the discredited liar Peter Schweizer that she was involved in any insider trading. Personally, I'd believe Nancy Pelosi over hardcore Conservative scum like Peter Schweizer any day of the week. This isn't the first time Schweizer has lied about/slandered Mrs. Pelosi.
I don't know what Steve Croft said because I didn't see the 60 minutes report in question, so Will can stuff any allegation against me that I'm impugning the reputation of a "broadcasting legend".
As for Tim Walz being "one of the good guys"... I don't know how Will can say this. First of all, he's pro-labor, receiving a 93 percent rating from the AFL-CIO. That has to be a mark against him in the anti-union Will Hart's book.
Secondly, he released a statement after the passage of TARP, saying (in part) that he believed the bill did not provide sufficient oversight of Wall Street!
This flies in the face of Will's belief in the (highly discredited) theory that TOO MUCH government regulation (Fanny and Freddie "forcing" banks to make bad loans) caused the economic downturn. (or perhaps it is just dmarks who wholly believes this nonsense, although it appeared to me that Will largely agrees with dmarks).
Tim Walz also supported Dennis Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Wouldn't this, in Will Hart's mind, make Tim Walz some sort of crank? I mean, WHAT "high crimes"? In Will Hart's mind there were none.
Pelosi supports the legislation because she got caught with her pants down. She lined her pockets via insider information on impending legislation. Steve Croft and Mr. Schweizer nailed her on it and the woman is flailing.............As for Mr. Schweizer specifically, he left out one mildly mitigating factor on Pelosi but his overall assertion is correct; Pelosi avoids unions like the plague except when she wants their money. And his book is a million times more accurate than the totally discredited Mr. Sick's fictional piece or basically any Michael Moore movie.............As for anybody being a good guy, I, unlike you, don't judge people based solely on their political views. If they're coming from a good place, that, to me, is sometimes enough.............As for the financial crisis, I see it as yet another complicated issue that you've so unfortunately reduced to sound-bites. Me, if I had to pick the most defining aspect to it, I would probably have to say that it was the Fed's (yes, under the tutelage of Mr. Greenspan) artificial lowering of interest rates, their printing of money as if it were going out of style, and their creation of a bailout culture that were most egregiously to blame. Yeah, the bankers engaged in a lot of reckless behavior (including Fannie and Freddie who, under the auspices of one Franklin Raines purchased tens of billions of these toxic loans), but if you know that the taxpayer is going to more than likely bail you out, why in the hell not? Me, I would personally tar and feather Mr. Greenspan.
Pelosi one of the good gals? wd you're delusional. She got her "take" before supporting it.
But it is about time regardless of our disagreement on the facts of pElosi'S hypocrisy.
Les, did you see Steve Croft grill her at the press conference? It was like a deer in the headlights of a Hummer. And Mr. Schweizer in fact was NOT a partisan on this issue. He nailed guys like Boehner and Hastert just as hard as he did frigging Pelosi. Compare that to Olbermann who NEVER, EVER, goes after progressives.
Olbermann is a partisan. He is not a straight news reporter. He makes no bones about it. His job is to go after republicans. And that he does with vigor. There are plenty of others to attack Democrats.
Sometimes partisanship goes a tinge too far, Jerry (and, yes, I woyld definitely include Hannity and guys like that on the right, too).
Olbermann "went after" President Obama on the topic of the Keystone pipeline, and he's "gone after" Democrats like Max Baucus on the issue of the Affordable Care Act.
If Olbermann is any kind of "partisan" he is a partisan progressive (as opposed to a partisan Democrat). But he doesn't lie like the partisan Conservative Schweizer.
I might have thought Will was joking when he said Schweizer isn't a partisan, but I'm all to familiar with Will's Moderate extremism... which explains why he'd make such a laughably ridiculous claim.
Schweizer, in addition to the book where he lies and spins regarding Liberal "hypocrisy", also wrote a book declaring people who identify as Conservative to be awesome and people who identify as Liberal to be morally bankrupt* TERRIBLE, terrible people (not even I would say this... or the reverse of it).
A real moderate wouldn't take this kook seriously. That Steve Croft teamed up with the scummy Schweizer makes Croft suspect in my book... "broadcasting legend" or not.
*Will has levied similar charges against me, so it's no surprise that he identifies with the serial liar/scumbucket Schweizer.
A liberal who goes after other liberals for not being liberal enough is hardly a sign of nonpartisanship, wd. It's more of a sign of true-believership and depravity run amok.............You've never read a single chapter by Peter Schweizer (who in fact DID go after Republicans in this latest book and did so with intensity) and you've never put forth a single lie that he's ever told. The only pathetic thing that you have is what some Pelosi radio apologist drummed up.............And Steve Croft is a national treasure. The guy has done an extraordinary amount of courageous reporting throughout his career and in this instance he's absolutely put a stake through the heart of the despicable and hypocritical Pelosi (making money on insider information and doing it frigging repeatedly). You should be applauding him for speaking powerfully to the powerful and taking a powder on protecting jack-asses like Pelosi.
Let's see, Mr. Schweizer has a Master's in philosophy from Oxford and has written for such diverse publications as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, USA Today, the National Review, and Foreign Affairs. Mr. Olbermann, he, on the other hand, has written mainly for the beastly Daily Kos. Oh, yeah, wd, this is a real close one - not.
Nancy Pelosi is one of the bad gals. She loves to amass personal wealth, privilege, and power, and can rarely be counted on to act in the public interest.
As for "Fanny and Freddie forcing" banks to make bad loans", this was a bad thing, and it caused the economic meltdown.
Name me a bank that had to make one loan it did not want to make.
dmarks: Nancy Pelosi is one of the bad gals. She loves to amass personal wealth... and can rarely be counted on to act in the public interest.
Nancy Pelosi one of the "bad gals"? I guess that makes sense, when you look at it from dmarks perspective. The "public interest", in his mind, is what benefits the wealthy elites. As for "amassing personal wealth", you'd think dmarks would be applauding that...
..but undoubtly he believes the scummy Schweizer's lies about the former (and hopefully future) Speaker... that she benefited from insider trading.
Me, I find it HIGHLY unlikely. Mrs. Pelosi is an excellent champiom of the people, and not a discredited lying hack like the scummy Schweizer.
dmarks: As for "Fanny and Freddie forcing" banks to make bad loans", this was a bad thing, and it caused the economic meltdown.
The banks were never forced to make bad loans, so dmarks is talking about regulations (the ones that did the forcing) and loans that never existed. It's a Rightwing myth... one that dmarks gullibly buys into, because it reinforces his conservative free market ideology.
(Unsurprisingly, Will, the guy who said I oversimplify what happened, never has a thing to say about dmarks' oversimplification of what caused the housing bubble).
Will: Let's see, Mr. Schweizer has a Master's in philosophy from Oxford [blah, blah, blah... more nonsene about the scummy Schweizer being highly accomplished, as if that proves he isn't a liar]...
Let's see, Mr. Sick earned a BA from Kansas University in 1957 and a Master of Science from George Washington University in 1970, and a PhD from Columbia in 1973. Mr. Sick is a retired captain in the U.S. Navy, with service in the Persian Gulf, North Africa and the Mediterranean. He served on the National Security Council staff under Presidents Gerald R. Ford, James Earl Carter, Jr. and Ronald Reagan, and was the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. Currently Mr. Sick is Adjunct Professor of International Affairs and Acting Director of the Middle East Institute at the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University.
Very impressive. Yet, because he told the truth about what he found out about Reagan (and he was in a position to find out), Will labels him some kind of pervert (regardless of the fact that there is ZERO evidence to support these outrageous allegations).
Obviously Will has no shame. If you disagree with his moderate worldview he'll come after you using the most ridiculous and unfounded allegations possible. Personally, I find it laughable.
Will: A liberal who goes after other liberals for not being liberal enough...
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you? My examples were of Olbermann (the liberal) going after the president (a moderate Democrat) and Max Baucus (a Conservative Democrat). I cited zero examples of a Liberal going after another Liberal for not being Liberal enough.
Will: You should be applauding him for speaking powerfully to the powerful and taking a powder on protecting jack-asses like Pelosi.
I loudly boo the scummy Schweizer for lying about Nancy Pelosi. My fingers are crossed that the Democrats will retake the House in 2012 and Nancy Pelosi will be elected Speaker again.
Mr. Sick did not tell the truth, wd. He put forth one of the most discredited conspiracy theories in the history of modern reporting, one that has been debunked by both Houses of Congress (Lee Hamilton, specifically), the "New Republic", "Newsweek", the "Village Voice", and the "Washington Post". He repeatedly used heresay, unreliable sources (many of who he didn't even interview LOL), and has put forth such a cockamamie story that not even Oliver Stone will lay a finger on it. Face it, dude, you're dealing with fantasy.............And I'm still waiting to hear all of these lies that Mr. Schweizer has told us; lies that apparently, Steve Croft, one of the greatest reporters of the past half century apparently agrees with.
Let's review here. Peter Schweizer has written for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, USA Today, the National Review, and Foreign Affairs. Keith Olbermann has written for the Daily Kos. Peter Schweizer has written a book that was just as critical of conservatives as it was of liberals. Keith Olbermann has never criticized a fellow progressive. Frank Snepp has won a Peabody Award. Gary Sick has written a book that not even a conspiracy theorist the caliber of Oliver Stone thinks is credible. Peter Schweizer's book has been authenticated by one of the greatest reporters of the last half century (Steve Croft). Gary Sick's book has been discredited by both House of Congress, the "New Republic", "Newsweek", the "Village Voice", and the "Washington Post". I mean, come here, wd.
Post a Comment