pkarnig’s posthaven

Justin Elliot of Salon is reading a new book by General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during parts of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. And apparently Shelton describes how in 1997, someone in the Clinton cabinet--from the way it's written, probably Madeleine Albright--suggested that the U.S. let a plane get shot down in order to provide a pretext to invade Iraq:

It's the Granfalloon of the 00's - How to get misinformed Americans to believe that we should rightfully invade IRAQ. It worked! Let's be on the look out for the next redherring!

True to form, the Obama administration’s response has been to oppose any action that might upset the banks, like a temporary moratorium on foreclosures while some of the issues are resolved. Instead, it is asking the banks, very nicely, to behave better and clean up their act. I mean, that’s worked so well in the past, right?

The response from the right is, however, even worse. Republicans in Congress are lying low, but conservative commentators like those at The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page have come out dismissing the lack of proper documents as a triviality. In effect, they’re saying that if a bank says it owns your house, we should just take its word. To me, this evokes the days when noblemen felt free to take whatever they wanted, knowing that peasants had no standing in the courts. But then, I suspect that some people regard those as the good old days.

What should be happening? The excesses of the bubble years have created a legal morass, in which property rights are ill defined because nobody has proper documentation. And where no clear property rights exist, it’s the government’s job to create them.

That won’t be easy, but there are good ideas out there. For example, the Center for American Progress has proposed giving mortgage counselors and other public entities the power to modify troubled loans directly, with their judgment standing unless appealed by the mortgage servicer. This would do a lot to clarify matters and help extract us from the morass.

One thing is for sure: What we’re doing now isn’t working. And pretending that things are O.K. won’t convince anyone.

Finally, someone in big media speaks the truth and is not afraid to tell it like it is. We are in a horrible mess and neither the Dems nor the GOP have it right. We need the CHANGE THAT OBAMA PROMISED IN 2008 AND WE NEED IT FAST.

We finally found out the real problem with the mainstream media: They're agnostic on sanity.

That's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the refusal of mainstream-media organizations to allow their employees to attend Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity on Oct. 30 in Washington, D.C. That's right, in a showdown between nonpartisan sanity and partisan madness, the traditional media have boldly decided to... not take a stand.

I agree with Arianna! Why shouldn't mainstream media cover Stewart's
Stand for Sanity meet up? I am particularly disappointed that NPR has joined the ranks of Big Media here. What do you think?

A day after a federal judge in California ordered the Pentagon to cease enforcing the law, Gates told reporters traveling with him in Europe that repeal should be a question for Congress — and only after the Pentagon completes a study of the impact of lifting the ban, which is due Dec. 1.

Allowing gays to serve openly "is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training," Gates said. "It has enormous consequences for our troops."

For goodness sake, do we really think that the military will collapse if gay members of the military are allowed to represent themselves for who they are? And, if the worry is that there will be some kind of retaliation against open gays in the military perpetrated by our own troops, then in those cases, the offending personnel should be prosecuted, just as they would in a civil or criminal court. After all, it's equal rights under the law for all.

Mr. Dodd, speaking at New York University Law School’s fourth annual Global Economic Policy Forum, said he would support Elizabeth Warren, above, the Harvard law professor who is setting up the new consumer bureau, if the White House nominates her to be its director. But he reiterated his view that Ms. Warren, a strong consumer advocate, would have trouble being confirmed because of opposition from Republicans and the financial industry.

Listen to this B*S*! from congress: "We support Warren, she is great, but because Wall St. and The Big Banks won't let us confirm her, I am afraid she may be the wrong pick."

I don't know about you, fellow citizens but I for one am outraged by this clear sign that Congress is NOT answering to the people, it is clearly answering to Big Business. This is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind. Please tell your representatives you want Warren to head the CFPB.