Category: Politics

Categories
Politics The Media The Opinionsphere

A suggestion for Glenn Beck

Since we’re on the subject of Glenn Beck, Eric Boehlert over at Media Matters has a good suggestion for the television host:

Why doesn’t Beck go on TV every day and simply defend his “racist” claim? Why doesn’t Beck stand up for the racist remark and stake his reputation on it? Because right now, the pathetic, squishy approach he’s taking where he limply lashes back while pretending the ad boycott sprang from some mysterious place — where Beck plays the victim and pretends he never made the “racist” smear — is just too lame for words.

The host has never apologized, so it seems logical that he stands behind the claim. (And that’s what he claimed one month ago.) And if he stands behind it, why doesn’t he set aside a few minutes on each program to detail how Obama is a racist? Why doesn’t he educate his viewers? In fact, I’m sure even folks who don’t regularly tune into Beck would be fascinated to know how Obama, whose mother was white and who was raised by his white grandparents, suffers from an abiding hatred of white people and “white culture,” as Beck claimed.

Categories
Politics The Opinionsphere

Fighting Glenn Beck for a Better World

[digg-reddit-me]For me, Glenn Beck is clearly making the world a worse place. He rants, raves, weeps, goes into hysterics, and spouts lies. He undermines our civil discourse and makes it harder for our society to tackle any serious issues. He polarizes. He provides a platform for such outlandish notions as concentration camps for conservatives to health care as a scam to institute reparations for slavery to the nuclear decimation of an American city as the only means to “save” America from terrorism. He is a fundamentally ridiculous figure – but he is riding some zeitgeist and tapping into and encouraging something real: the worst fears of the far right wing.

I am not exceptional in my desire to try to make the world a better place – and in seeking to stop those people I feel are making the world worse. As stated in such generic terms, that is what most of us do. Yet we are not willing to do so “by any means necessary” – instead seeing a value in the freedom of speech, for example. We see a value in permitting even lies and hysterical attempts to polarize as a matter of right, while at the same time opposing the substance or style of the communication.

The distinction here is crucial to keep in mind as we talk about stopping Glenn Beck from making the world a worse place.

I oppose government intervention to stop Glenn Beck from misleading his viewers; I oppose government regulations that would require Beck to air opposing views (as in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine); though even unrelated to this, I even oppose certain forms of campaign finance reform election-related material. I would oppose any attempt by any government agency to intimidate Glenn Beck or otherwise silence him.

But I do believe it is the responsibility of our society to impose some constraints to allow for civil discourse, and of each of us as individuals to take personal responsibility for even the indirect consequences of our actions. The problem with the right wing backlash against the boycott of Glenn Beck by major corporate sponsors is that it is often so uninformed – confusing the freedom of speech and the sponsorship of speech. Right wingers have every right to defend Glenn Beck, no matter the excrement he flings about, simian-like.

But our society suffers from an apathetic failure to take responsibility for systems on which we do not have direct control. As citizens and as consumers, we should take responsibility – and actions such as the boycott of Glenn Beck highlight how effective such action can be.

The debate over health care has highlighted how fundamentally broken our national conversation is – how citizens are less knowledgeable about the health care bills being considered now than they were before the smearing campaign – at how our debate is unhinged from the issues at stake. One goal that conservatives and liberals, progressives and libertarians, right and left wingers should be able to unite around is encouraging a more fair national conversation, less diluted by hype, scandal, and lies. We should encourage – rather than a government-imposed Fairness Doctrine, a citizen-consumer-driven “Fair Shake.”

[Image by The Rocketeer licensed under Creative Commons.]

Categories
National Security Politics The Opinionsphere The War on Terrorism

A World Where 24 Is “Believable” and Orwell Is Misquoted

[digg-reddit-me]I know that defending torture is difficult as well as unconscionable – but just because an editor will publish such trash doesn’t necessary mean they are bad at their job. However, if the evidence from this past weekend is any indication, it seems they are. Pat Buchanan began his piece with a quote that has been famously and erroneously attributed to George Orwell:

Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Buchanan tries to use this quote to defend the Orwellian abuse of language that John Yoo and other Bush administration members used to legally justify the proposition that torture wasn’t “torture.” I have the feeling that Orwell would have appreciated the irony. But more importantly, wouldn’t any editor take a moment to check if the quote was actually by Orwell? A Google search will quickly turn up the fact that it has been misattributed to him. Maybe I’m naive, but I would presume an editor – or someone – would take a moment to double check a citation.

Then of course Amanda Bowman in the Wall Street Journal explains the reason Americans watch 24:

[T]he Obama Administration is going to pay a big political price for indulging the civil libertarians of their party. The American television show 24 is in its 7th season because its portrayal of a life-and-death fight against terrorism in the face of political meddling appears to most Americans—and I would add Britons—both believable and justified. [my emphasis]

I like 24; I still watch it – one of a slowly dwindling number of Americans who still does. But anyone who calls it “believable” clearly isn’t familiar with the show. When Jack Bauer wanted to stop a terrorist in a van, he jumped in front of the van. Jack Bauer once died multiple times in a single episode – and was running around the next. Jack Bauer extracts the truth from his prisoners with surgical precision – whether by shooting them in the leg, electrocuting them, or whatever other means are necessary. (Bauer’s techniques were so ineffective and so unrealistic that the U.S. military actually sent a team to talk to the show’s producers a few years back.) To get people to talk – some of them innocent – Bauer has threatened babies and kidnapped and mock executed children. Every terrorist attack is financed and controlled by some convoluted plot involving nefarious American corporations seeking profits. Bauer manages to never eat or go to the bathroom in the 24-hour period covered by the show. Perhaps most unrealistically, Bauer lives in a world where nuclear weapons have gone off several times on American soil and spectacular terrorists attacks are common – yet the Congress in Bauer’s world insists on holding hearings that are more onerous than any held to this day by our Congresses, despite the respite from attacks in real life.

24 may be many things, but “believable” isn’t one of them.

Categories
Humor Libertarianism Politics The Bush Legacy The Opinionsphere

Are You A Libertarian If…

DarkSyde at the Daily Kos lists the “Top 10 Signs You Might Not Be A Libertarian.” It captures the silliness of the claims some people make – especially those who only fled the label “Republican” as George W. Bush became less popular:

[I]f you think government should stay the hell out of people’s private business — except when kidnapping citizens and rendering them to secret overseas torture prisons, snooping around the bedrooms of consenting adults, policing a woman’s uterus, or conducting warrantless wire taps, you are no Libertarian.

Check it out. Funny, yet true – the best combination.

Categories
Health care Politics

Health Care Lie #494: Health Insurance Companies and Their Allies Are Blocking Reform

[digg-reddit-me]I’ve come to see it as a sign of dishonesty – of political manipulation – to portray the insurance companies as the primary villains in the problems with health care. As for example in this editorial in the Washington Post from the weekend:

[T]he campaign must focus attention on the insurance companies that are primarily responsible for the health-care mess. This means organizing public events across the country that can articulate Americans’ frustrations with the current health insurance system and polarize public opinion against the insurance companies and their allies. [my emphasis]

Of course – as those paying attention to the fight over reform know – the insurance companies stand to benefit from many of the provisions in the plan – if not from others such as the public option – and they seem to have realized in advance that they needed to get behind reform so they could shape it. Perhaps behind the scenes, they are trying to block it – but I haven’t actually seen any indication of it. (And neither has Ezra Klein who has been following this more closely and for much longer than I have.)

Health insurance companies are such an easy target though – as they seem to add little real value. Their secondary purpose – aside from spreading the impact of health risks – is to restrain costs – and in this they have failed miserably. Their aggressive culling from their rolls of all those who actually need the service they provide have undermined their primary purpose. They have adopted horrendous practices and seem to treat their customers in bad faith as a matter of course. They are such easy targets that they knew they needed to get behind reform early – and remain behind it though they are being made the public villain by the reformers. In a lot of ways, they should be: they are profiting from a faulty system that is hurting many Americans and is unsustainable; as prices skyrocket, their profits do as well. Statistics such as the medical loss ratio demonstrate that these companies are trying to do everything possible to avoid providing the service they are in business to provide. But I’m not sure you can make the case that spiraling health care costs are the fault of health insurance companies (though they have contributed in various ways.) And health insurance companies aren’t behind the various lies – from the allegations of a government takeover of the economy to death panels. They may be trying to scuttle the public option, but they stand to benefit from much of the plan – and it’s better for them to reduce the uncertainty and deal with legislation passed than to continue with an unsustainable system.

In other words, in this reform effort – which is mostly about health insurance reform – health insurers aren’t the primary obstacle.

[Image by Steve Rhodes licensed under Creative Commons.]

Categories
Health care Politics The Opinionsphere

Health Care Lie #493: Rationing

[digg-reddit-me]Ezra Klein does a pretty good job taking down the rhetorical slights of hand Republicans are using on this issue. His approach might not be the most effective politically – but it has the virtue of being honest. Rather than proclaiming there will be no rationing – he points out that we already do ration.

We prioritize botox for the rich over cancer treatments for the poor. This is the status quo that we have that is so incredibly expensive. The debate over health care should be focusing on two questions:

  1. How much of our national wealth are we going to choose to spend on health care?
  2. How do we want to allocate our limited health care technology and services?

We can agree to spend a lot of our national wealth on health care. After all, we need to spend it on something. The rate of growth is too much now – but we don’t need to reduce our levels of health care spending to that of Great Britain. (They spend 41 cents on the dollar that we spend for better overall results as measured by life expectancy, infant mortality, as well as overall patient satisfaction.)

Then – to the second question – how do we allocate access? Right now, we provide emergency treatment to everyone; those with the most money get any treatment they like without significant waits; the rest of us wait, but at least are treated if we have insurance coverage. There’s a reason why rich people from around the world travel to America – and it’s not just because we have great doctors. It’s because they get to cut the line and get treated ahead of those with less financial status because our system rations by money.

For the rest of us, the health care reforms being discussed now won’t reverse this privileged position for the rich. What Obama is proposing is not anything so radical. But rather he seeks to accomplish several things, to moderately improve our current system:

  • it will eliminate the fear that your insurance company will drop your coverage once you get sick – putting you on the fast road to being poor and at the bottom rung of our society and in our health care system at the same time;
  • it will – through incentives, tax breaks, and mandates – ensure that everyone has a base level of coverage;
  • for the many who already do have coverage, it will provide a sense of security – a peace of mind – that even if you lose your job, you will still be able to get affordable health insurance; and
  • finally, for a small number of Americans to start, and then perhaps for a larger portion if the program is successful, it will provide a choice of health insurance plans in a functioning and transparent market for individuals which our current mish-mash of Wall Street-run health insurance companies and hodge-podge of regulations isn’t able to provide.

This moderate plan bears little resemblance to the “government takeover of health care” that critics are directing their fire at. It isn’t about “rationing.” In fact, what it seeks to do is address the rationing our system already does. In this way, the attacks on the plan are Rovian in the most diabolical sense – they take the strength of the plan, and try to turn it into a weakness.

[Image by Aaron Edwards licensed under Creative Commons.]

Categories
Politics The Opinionsphere

Yglesias: “Progressive politics at its best isn’t about bigger government but about attacking privilege and power.”

[digg-reddit-me]Matt Yglesias tells the story of “Ted Kennedy: Deregulator” – and takes away about the conclusion I expected:

The moral of the story isn’t that “regulation is bad” but that progressive politics at its best isn’t about bigger government but about attacking privilege and power. At times that requires more government and more regulation (right now we badly need more regulation of polluters whose carbon dioxide emissions are threatening the viability of the planet) but at times the forces of privilege and power are using existing regulatory structures to re-enforce their own position. Kennedy, rightly, saw no contradiction between his record as a deregulator and his record as a champion of the little guy. [my emphasis]

Yglesias has made the point – and I think he’s right – that right wingers since Reagan have been more ideological than any left wing equivalent. Yglesias – echoing an influential article by Jonathan Chait from a few years ago – attributes this right wing tendendcy towards ideological thinking to the fact that right wingers see government as an inherently bad thing – and oppose many government interventions simply because they are government interventions. Liberals, progressives, and leftists of various sorts also oppose many government interventions; and they support some government interventions; and they believe it oftentimes is worth trying a program to see if it will work rather than sullenly tell everyone that, “The world is as it is,” and there’s nothing to do about it. In this way, they are pragmatists.  (Not all of them – Communists for example believe the state must control the economy and thus are the ideological equivalent of the far right wing. But Communists have little to no role in the leftist movements in America, except in the imagination of the right wing.)

Though conservatives and right wingers like to suggest that Obama or other liberals simply want to have the government controlling everything – and see this as his hidden agenda – they make the mistake of imputing on liberals and other leftists the opposite of their ideology rather than the more subtle goals of liberalism – which are inherently pragmatic and moderate.

Categories
Politics The Opinionsphere

TownHall.com Considers Its Readers Gullible Idiots

[digg-reddit-me]I suppose it’s pretty clear from some of my posts that I subscribe to TownHall.com’s email updates. One thing that puzzles me is the sheer number and seeming shady-ness of the “investment opportunities” that TownHall sends out. You have to wonder what they think of their audience as they send out these quasi-scamming get-rich schemes every week. It makes you look at their political posts – which likewise seem to be geared towards gullible idiots – a bit differently. I mean – if you’re willing to mislead your readers, who have trusted you with their email address, with shady get-rich quick schemes offering “exclusive information” (sent out to millions no doubt) – and your readers put up with it – it creates a rather odd dynamic. I can’t imagine a liberal site getting away with any similar.

To see what I’m talking about, here’s an email I got this morning. (All links have been diluted with a rel=”nofollow” tag to make sure I don’t give this site a boost.)

Having trouble viewing this? Click here

Attention Investor,

I just received a phone call about an hour ago that changed my perspective on some little-known market news on gold stocks. That’s why I’m writing you…I want you to be the first to know that gold stocks are outperforming stocks in other sectors…and let you know why they are headed up.

The call was from Dr. Willem Fuchter. He’s the renowned mining consultant who’s currently the CEO of Constitution Mining Corp. (CMIN.OB). He told me about a promising new development plan for their massive Gold Sands project…and it’s groundbreaking news that I thought you needed to know about before it hits the press.

Initial estimates from the already large discovery suggested that the property potentially held upwards of50 million ounces of gold…worth an amazing $46 billion.

But the most recent tests now indicate that there could be even more.

In fact, Constitution Mining could be looking at 100 million ounces of gold…which would make this the largest gold strike in modern history. This is an impressive bit of news for investors!

It could potentially turn a $10,000 investment into $431,000.

As you may know, I am a former executive in various departments, including foreign exchange and derivative settlement markets, with the legendary Switzerland-based investment giant Credit Suisse.

For more than 30 years, I’ve been privy to the closely guarded fortune-building and asset-protection secrets in the highest levels of Swiss investment banking. These strategies have helped the world’s wealthiest people grow even wealthier.

And that’s why when Dr. Fuchter called me, I wanted to immediately notify you about our conversation, because…

I think Constitution Mining Corp. (CMIN.OB) could skyrocket!

Dr. Fuchter revealed that the company received permits to proceed with the Gold Sands drill program, indicating the exceptional economic potential of the company…

Potential that could turn $10,000 into a 6-figure fortune within 12 to 24 months.

Read that again: A potential 6-figure fortune within 12 to 24 months

Analysts now estimate that, because of a breakthrough technology, Constitution Mining may actually be able to pull a mind-boggling 100 million ounces of gold—worth $92 billion—from the deposit. In other words, this isn’t potentially just one of the largest gold deposits ever discovered in South America—it could be one of the largest in the world!

Thanks to high-tech mining dredgers, Constitution Mining can now extract billions of dollars worth of gold for just $185 per ounce. And when gold is selling for around $900 that makes mining this site very profitable indeed!

Once in place, these dredgers should allow Constitution Mining to extract an astonishing 2.26 million ounces of gold worth $1.616 billion from the Marañón River in just 6 months.

And right now, this company’s market cap is a mere $50 million. Just imagine what’s going to happen to its stock once word gets out. Even if Constitution Mining is only able to mine half as much gold as I expect, its share price could still soar in a matter of months.

Just how high? Well…

Thanks to billions and billions in bailout money that have been pumped into the economy…plus Obama’s $1.845 trillion deficit…and his $3.5 trillion budget…we’re heading for double-digit inflation.

And you know what that means: Investors are going to be flocking to gold and gold stocks, and both could move to record highs in the next 12 to 24 months.

It’s even more serious than the inflation we suffered under the Carter administration…and the profits could be even greater than what smart investors made in the 1980 gold spike.

No wonder Merrill Lynch is predicting that gold will jump another 50% to $1,500 in the next 12 to 15 months. Citigroup is predicting $2,000 gold and USB is forecasting $2,500.

But the word from my sources in Zurich is that gold could rise to an incredible $3,000…and that’s why the world’s investment elite are buying it hand over fist right now.

When this amazing spike happens, “Dr. Fuchter” and “Constitution Mining” are two names you’re going to be glad you heard about today.

So your next question is probably about how much money, exactly, you could make in profits. I’m telling you this…

I see Constitution Mining’s epic gold discovery as having great potential to helping you make back everything you may have lost in the past 17 months.

I’ve seen it happen before with Seabridge Gold (AMEX: SA), which my inner circle recommended and invested in at $0.50 a share…only to see it soar to $39.50 over the next 4 years. That was enough to turn every $10,000 invested into $790,000!

And now Constitution Mining’s promising gold strike has the potential to double your wealth in a matter of months.

Let me tell you about the 3 most likely scenarios and how much money we’re talking about…

Scenario #1 could turn $10,000 into $269,400

Results from 500 holes drilled at the Constitution Mining site indicate a discovery that could be in the range of 100 million ounces. But even if it turns out to be just 1.4 million ounces—or 1.4% of the projected total—you could still make more than 25 times your money.

With gold selling at $900 an ounce, a 1.4 million-ounce discovery could generate $1.26 billion in revenue. Subtract the cost of extracting the gold—$185 per ounce, or about $259 million—and Constitution Mining would still be left with an amazing $1.001 billion.

Divide that by the 75 million outstanding shares and the share price could equal $13.47 per share!

That’s a 2,594% return…enough to potentially turn your $10,000 investment into $269,400! Best of all, we could see this kind of price explosion within 12 months.

You may be thinking that sounds impossible, I know. But recall, early investors in Kinross Gold, before its 1984 Fort Knox discovery, made 20 times their money as the stock soared 2,075% once the discovery became public knowledge.

And that wasn’t even the most profitable of the big gold strikes. After Barrick Gold discovered its famous 15-million-ounce mine in 1987…early-bird investors made an unbelievable 12,440% on their money,turning $10,000 into $1,254,000.

Now it could be your turn.

Take a look at Scenario #2, and a surprise revelation
that could turn $10,000 into $431,000…

The exploratory drilling on the site went down 32 meters, and the gold grades got richer every step of the way.

But in this case, the drills never reached the bedrock that underlies all gold sands deposits—and nobody knew for sure just how far the gold sands could go.

Well all that’s changed. You see, during my extensive research, I met a contractor named Hugo Romero who had done some relocation contract work for Petrex S.A., a Peruvian oil company, back in the early 2000s.

Mr. Romero was part of a crew whose job it was to bury a pipeline running through a portion of the Gold Sands district that crosses under the Marañón River.

The pipe was laid at a depth of 54 meters—almost twice as deep as the drill sites—and it was still in the Gold Sands, with no bedrock in sight.

This revelation makes it highly likely that Constitution Mining will be able to pull gold from much deeper than previously thought. And it gives me the confidence I need to consider it likely that the find will expand to at least 2.26 million ounces worth a whopping $2,034,000,000.

Subtract the $418,100,000 cost of extracting the gold…and that leaves Constitution Mining with a potential profit of $1.616 billion worth of gold!

Divide that $1.616 billion by 75 million shares and you could be looking at $21.55 per share—an astonishing gain of 4,210%!

That’s good enough to turn $10,000 into a potentially eye-popping $431,000! And again, it could happen in a matter of months.

When the time comes that the share price hits $13 or $14, I recommend pulling some of your profits off the table—but it also makes good sense to leave a portion of your money in play whenever the odds of success are so high.

But let’s look at my worst-case scenario for a moment. You’ll be glad to know it’s still enough to make more than 10 times your money!

Because Scenario #3 could still turn $10,000 into $133,466!

So for this worst-case projection, let’s assume for a moment that I’m wrong about the size of Constitution Mining’s discovery, and that it’s actually less than 1% of the 100 million ounces that are projected.

That would be 700,000 ounces of gold in all. And with gold selling for $900 an ounce, a 700,000-ounce discovery will generate $630 million in revenue. Subtract the $185 per-ounce cost of extraction ($129.5 million) and Constitution Mining could get $550 million.

Divide that $550 million by 75 million shares outstanding, and Constitution Mining’s share price could climb to $6.67 per share…for a potential gain of $1,234%!

And that’s how your $10,000 could turn into an astonishing $133,466.

Then, if gold goes to $2,000…that will more than double my estimates…and the amount of profits you could take away.

My calculations assume a gold price of $900 an ounce. For example, with $2,000 gold in Scenario #2, the share price could skyrocket to $54.69—which could potentially turn your $10,000 into $1,093,800.

That means you could become a millionaire practically overnight.

Are you beginning to see why I consider Constitution Mining to be my #1 gold stock for 2009–2010…and why I’ve recommended it to our wealthiest clients across the globe?

Now it’s your turn.

To profit with Constitution Mining, you need to get in now

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be sharing the results of my research with my extensive network of Swiss investment bankers who are all hungry for a great gold stock.

And they will be getting their own clients into this stock. Because these investment bankers are looking for real value backed up with real numbers.

And once word gets out that big money is moving into Constitution Mining, the stock price will start to move.

Now, let me tell you that when I first got wind of Constitution Mining, my natural skepticism kicked in. Why? Because my philosophy from years in Swiss banking is “Never trust, but verify.”

I’ve heard plenty of hot air from emerging companies before, and I wasn’t about to be seduced by a sales pitch.

But then I took a closer look at the information…and that’s why I form independent teams and only recommend stocks periodically because of the extensive research I do. We’re looking for the grand slam and that makes everyone involved feel like standing up and clapping.

Even better, my team, made up of independent geologists, including Dr. Vicente Méndez, made several trips to the mining site itself to check things out firsthand.

We’ve done our homework.

I have a stack of paper on my desk right now that’s 2 feet tall—and it’s all the research I’ve done on Constitution Mining…

Notes on the dozens of conversations I’ve had with mining engineers, geologists and even a one-on-one interview with Peru’s ambassador to Switzerland, Elizabeth Astete Rodriguez (excerpts of which appear in the pages of my Swiss Confidential newsletter that I’ll tell you more about in a moment).

In addition, I have the results of the 500 exploration holes that were drilled on the site…and a report from Sojuzkarta, the independent consulting firm based in Russia that audited and confirmed these results…

Plus, I have legal documents confirming that Constitution Mining has ownership of the site and the required permits to move forward with their development project…

You need to know about all of this. That’s why I’ve posted more free information and in-depth analysis on my website. Just go to www.SwissCrisisKit.com to review it now.

I’ve also prepared a Special Report that hits all the highlights from my research and reveals all the key reasons why I’m so high on this company. It’s titled Constitution Mining: My #1 Gold Stock for 2009–2010 (a $19.95 value) and it’s yours free when you subscribe for 1 year to my monthly Swiss Confidential newsletter. In addition, you’ll receive the 2009–2010 Obama Crisis Kit that I’m giving away to introduce you to my service.

My new 2009–2010 Obama Crisis Kit—a $98.85 value—will bring you the peace of mind that comes with protecting and growing your wealth in the months and years ahead. I’ll send it to you absolutely FREE when you subscribe to my online monthly newsletter Swiss Confidential for just $77 for 12 issues—that’s 50% off the regular subscription price of $154. This is a total value of $252.85 for just $77. Find out more on my website, www.SwissCrisisKit.com.

Because now is not the time to sit on the sidelines…or waste your money on the wrong sector of stocks.

With the global financial turmoil that’s in full swing, you need sound analysis and investment advice you can count on. That’s why I’ve published the 2009–2010 Obama Crisis Kit in the first place.

You’ll get all the tools you need right now to begin rebuilding your wealth over the next 12 to 24 months…in spite of this economic crisis and the outrageous double-digit inflation that lies ahead.

When it comes to Constitution Mining, you don’t want to miss a single critical news alert—and as a subscriber to my newsletter, you won’t. Just go to www.SwissCrisisKit.com to learn more.

I urge you to take a closer look at Constitution Mining Corp. (CMIN.OB) and make your investment early, while there’s still time to get in on the ground floor. Then follow my buy, sell and hold recommendations for the stock, which will appear in my publication.

In the meantime, be sure to examine the in-depth information about the stock posted on my website atwww.SwissCrisisKit.com.

Then what you should consider is going online or calling your discount broker to invest in Constitution Mining Corp. (CMIN.OB).

Because as soon as gold starts pouring out of that mine, the game is going to change and the herd will be stampeding to get in on the action.

There’s no time to lose. Don’t miss out on the sky-high profit potential that Constitution Mining presents…because it’s your best opportunity now to potentially turn your $10,000 investment into a 6-figure fortune.

Sending you my best from Switzerland,

Scott Smith
Scott Smith
Editor, Scott Smith’s Swiss Confidential

P.S. To learn more about Constitution Mining and get your FREE 2009–2010 Obama Crisis Kit, log on to www.SwissCrisisKit.com now.

Disclaimer

Categories
Politics Roundup The Opinionsphere

Remembering Ted Kennedy: “He lived his own large life and the ledger of it shows a substantial positive balance.”

The tributes have obviously been coming in. The conclusion seems to be the same one I would have come to before: that Ted Kennedy was a great, but flawed man – and like all men and women, he should be celebrated, without tears for the good he did in his life.

Here’s a few articles worth reading:

In Timothy Noah’s Slate piece he declares Ted Kennedy, “The Kennedy who most changed America.”

George F. Will argues much the same thing in a piece that reminds me of his greatness as a columnist, despite all of his bitter distortions on climate change:

Let us pay the Kennedys tributes unblurred by tears. Although a great American family, they are not even Massachusetts’ greatest family: The Adamses provided two presidents, John and John Quincy, and Charles Francis, who was ambassador to Britain during the Civil War, and the unclassifiable Henry. Never mind. It diminishes Ted to assess him as a fragment of a family. He lived his own large life and the ledger of it shows a substantial positive balance.

Joe Klein meanwhile explains “how Ted Kennedy found himself” in a personal remembrance of the man he knew for many years.

Michael Tomasky writes in the Guardian in his moving piece:

One would be hard pressed to argue that Ted Kennedy’s death was a more bitter pill for the country than the deaths of his brothers before him – John, the young president whose assassination gave Americans a hard warning about the violent age they were about to enter, or Robert, the presidential aspirant who was thought at the time to be the last leader in America who might have been able to help the nation transcend that violence.

Nevertheless, the heavens have somehow conspired to make this Kennedy death, however expected it might have been, nearly as heartbreaking as those of his vigorous younger brothers.

Charles P. Pierce writes in a long piece about Ted Kennedy’s life and career about how the events in Chappaquiddick shortly before the first man landed on the moon affected the rest of Senator Ted Kennedy’s career:

She’s always there. Even if she doesn’t fit in the narrative line, she is so much of the dark energy behind it. She denies to him forever the moral credibility that lay behind not merely all those rhetorical thunderclaps that came so easily in the New Frontier but also Robert Kennedy’s anguished appeals to the country’s better angels. He was forced from the rhetoric of moral outrage and into the incremental nitty-gritty of social justice. He learned to plod, because soaring made him look ridiculous…

And if his name were Edward Moore, he would have done time.

[Image not subject to copyright.]

Categories
Barack Obama Criticism Health care Politics The Opinionsphere Videos

John McCain’s Cowardly Politics

[digg-reddit-me]Senator John McCain established his reputation as a “maverick” in a large part for the bold positions he staked out in the 2000 campaign on long-term problems affecting our nation. That was his trademarked, “Straight Talk.” He was one of the few politicians out there who would tell you how much trouble Social Security and Medicare were in. But under the Obama administration and to a lesser extent throughout his career, McCain has gained great credibility and popularity by taking very strong, responsible positions on long-term issues – while finding some minor excuse to oppose any attempts at reform that cost him politically.

But the Obama administration apparently still continues to hope to meet the McCain who was often invoked, though rarely seen, in the 2008 campaign – the “maverick” with an interest in “bipartisanship” who “puts country first.”*

McCain’s 11th Sunday morning talk show appearance this year occurred this Sunday, as he  appeared on This Week With George Stephanopoulos. Chris Cilizza of theWashington Post said he expected the interview to be “Must Watch TV” – and in fact, it was – as McCain demonstrated a phenomenon I call “the politics of irresponsible responsibility.”

In his interview with Stephanopoulos, McCain talked like a moderate on domestic policy issues – but managed to find a single or dual objection that allowed him to obstruct Obama’s agenda on every issue. The two-step would go like this: “Yes, [fill-in-the-blank] is a serious issue. I am in favor of reform. We need to do something right away. But Obama’s plan is missing [fill-in-another-blank] so I will fight to stop this effort at reform.”

  • On Guantanamo Bay, McCain agrees that the prison should be closed – and soon – but opposes the Obama administration’s attempts to do so because he doesn’t think they “have an overall policy developed.”
  • On the stimulus package, he does not deny that there was a need for government spending to stimulate the economy, but nevertheless opposed it because there was pork spending in it.
  • On cap and trade, he agrees that climate change is real and serious and the government must act – but opposes every action proposed because they don’t include support for nuclear energy (and beyond that, he presumes that the bill must contain large amounts of pork spending).
  • And then on health care, he supports reform – and knows we need it – but he opposes every reform on the table because of the public option.
  • He believes we need to “reform Medicare” to cut trillions in costs, but he demagogues Obama’s proposal to create a board that studies the effectiveness of treatments as a common-sense measure to restrain spending as “not quote death panels” exactly – but certainly something scary.

As George Stephanopoulos pointed out, John McCain – despite his rhetoric – has hewed more closely to partisan positions this year than at any point in his career – even after he called on his supporters to support Obama in his concession speech:

McCain had an explanation for his increasingly partisan record: “It’s been some of the issues.” Though he claims to see the need for reform and take the issues seriously, he’s not willing to pay the political cost of getting serious. In this McCain represents – perhaps better than any politician – the politics of irresponsible responsibility. Like another “respected,” “serious,” “moderate” Republican, Senator Chuck Grassley, McCain will work to get his ideas into legislation, but will demagogue and oppose even a bill he agrees with if he believes if will cost him support among the Republican base.  He talks about serious issues affecting our nation – and boldly states the problems in stark terms. But his boldness evaporates when he is asked to take an immediate position. Guantanamo should be closed, he agrees; but take a step towards doing so, and his long-term conviction does not restrain him from attacking what is being done to close it. Climate change is real and serious – on this he agrees with the Obama administration; but he will oppose any steps towards reform if they don’t include his pet ideas of nuclear energy and pork barrel spending. It’s a low cost way to kneecap reform while maintaining the mantle of a reformer.

This is not a courageous position. And it demonstrates the inadequacy of our current political conversation. When the most powerful people in the Republican Party blatantly lie about issues – and those who are “responsible” and “moderate” find any excuse to avoid dealing with the issues they say are essential, any attempts to deal with the systematic problems facing our nation will falter. And we face no shortage of problems – built up over decades of avoiding them – climate change; economic growth dependent on bubbles; our deteriorating health insurance and transportation  systems; our long-term deficit and the looming entitlement crisis; our economic imbalance with Japan and China – the list goes on.

A courageous politician, a maverick would take a stand in favor of responsible reform – and not seek to obstruct every effort as Senator McCain has done. His actions are not that of a maverick or reformer – but of a coward.

*On one set of issues, McCain has lived up to his reputation. Like most public officials are, McCain is treated as an expert on any policy matter before the Senate – but his interviews and various statements in the past demonstrate that McCain is no expert on foreign policy or domestic policy issues. The area where McCain has shown expertise is the military components of national security. On everything else, he seems a bit lost – jumping from one talking point to another – like a more seasoned version of Sarah Palin.

[Image by marcn licensed under Creative Commons.]