John Amato of C&L:Matthews: ....all these diversions they've used. The fact that he might be anti-American...this whole thing about socialist. Joe the plumber. What's that got to do with the security issue you say?
Hunter: I think John is wrong in that case. I think he has been tested. He was tested on Iraq. And here was a guy with great teeth, great speaking style, excellent politician and a superb debater, but when it came to the major issues...
Matthews:...we just heard from Congressman Hunter that the winning piece of this man's vocabulary, the winning piece of his resume is that he has a nice smile, he has good teeth. Is that your assessment of Barack Obama, he's the first African American with a real shot to be President of the United States and is 13 points ahead of his Republican rival, that he has good teeth?
Hunter: Also a good debater and very eloquent.
Sounds like Duncan Hunter is describing an award winning horse. Even Matthews caught on and when he called Hunter on the "teeth" remark, Hunter didn't try to say he misspoke, only that Obama is a good debater and very eloquent.
At first, they were going to buy the mortgage-backed securities... with the Congress's encouragement to rework the mortgages to keep people in their homes.
But of course that was too complicated, so the government instead decided to just buy stock in the banks. Of course, this does nothing for people stuck in adjustable or balloon mortgages with falling home prices.
But at least that money would get the banks to start lending again, so the economy could get unstuck. Unless, of course, the banks decided to just hang on to the cash. They did.
So on what are the banks spending money?
NOTE FROM PAM: Are we surprised that the greed that was responsible for this mess has not been purged from the executive set at these institutions? The homeowners, the public are still on the hook. Look at this NYT report, "So When Will Banks Give Loans?" --
“Chase recently received $25 billion in federal funding. What effect will that have on the business side and will it change our strategic lending policy?”
It was Oct. 17, just four days after JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, agreed to take a $25 billion capital injection courtesy of the United States government, when a JPMorgan employee asked that question. It came toward the end of an employee-only conference call that had been largely devoted to meshing certain divisions of JPMorgan with its new acquisition, Washington Mutual.
Which, of course, it also got thanks to the federal government. Christmas came early at JPMorgan Chase.
In point of fact, the dirty little secret of the banking industry is that it has no intention of using the money to make new loans. But this executive was the first insider who’s been indiscreet enough to say it within earshot of a journalist.
(He didn’t mean to, of course, but I obtained the call-in number and listened to a recording.)
“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.”
Read that answer as many times as you want — you are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy. On the contrary: at another point in the conference call, the same executive (who I’m not naming because he didn’t know I would be listening in) explained that “loan dollars are down significantly.” He added, “We would think that loan volume will continue to go down as we continue to tighten credit to fully reflect the high cost of pricing on the loan side.” In other words JPMorgan has no intention of turning on the lending spigot.
Autumn covered the great news here. And Apple has not only donated $100K to fight hate, the California-based company is currently featuring a message to oppose Prop 8 on its web site.
Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.
The Philadelphia Gay News has a story up on how there is a case where the plaintiff is claiming that he experienced sex discrimination, but that the court is saying he experienced sexual-orientation discrimination.
Brian Prowel says he was discriminated against as a factory worker because of gender stereotyping, and he wants his day in court. But his sexual orientation may prevent him from achieving that goal.
Prowel, 39, of Penn Hills in Allegheny County, worked at Wise Business Forms Inc. in Butler from 1992-2004, where he helped produce a variety of business forms.
In court papers, he stated that pervasive gender stereotyping plagued his days at the factory and that, when he complained about it, he was ultimately dismissed from his job.
Alleged acts of workplace harassment included being nicknamed "Rosebud" and "Princess" and being ridiculed for the way he walked, spoke and sat - with his legs crossed and foot swinging.
In addition, coworkers allegedly placed a feathered tiara at Prowel's workstation and wrote graffiti about Prowel and AIDS on bathroom walls.
In 2006, Prowel filed a federal lawsuit under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex...
Prowel is gay. Did he experience sex discrimination because of his gender expression related to how he behaved as a gay man, or did he experience discrimination exclusively because of his sexual orientation without regard to his gender expression?
When the courts try to differentiate between the two types of harassment I believe they're trying to spilt hairs.
Functionally, I don't see much of a difference between if discrimination or harassment occurring because of gender identity or expression or because of sexual orientation because those who harass for those reasons don't really see much of a difference between transsexuals, crossdressers, drag queens and effeminate gay men. Discrimination cases like Prowel's are why I believe we need as fully inclusive an ENDA as possible.
Frankly, I believe we need to plug as many legal holes as possible to minimize discrimination and sexual harassment.
~~~~~
Related:
* HRC's Scorecard On 110th Congress Released
At least these people are honest. That's more that we can say about the McCain/Palin team, which has worked overtime to stoke these feelings while trying to keep their hands clean. (Progress Action Now):
Take special note of the children acting like monkeys and calling Obama the "monkey president". The cursing man with the baby was also a special treat:
Family is chanting NoBama over and over.
Man #1: he ain't no real American.Another man is shown punching a cardboard Obama in the head.
Man #2: eight years of terrorists!
Man #3: (sarcastically) Hussein...that's cool!
Woman to Obama supporter: Are you sick? Are you a socialist?
Woman #2: He's a fraud...he's Osama!
Man #3: He's a Muslim Communist!
(the videographer asks this man if he really believes that) The response:
Man #3: Yeah, absolutely. His wife made him say he is a Christian so he could get elected.
Man #4: Socialist...communist! He's a communist!
Man #5: You need to read the Communist Manifesto 'cause that's what you're all about.
Man #6: Lookit -- the important thing is, God may not be on my side, but Satan is on your side.
Man #7: I don't want to be a communist, I don't want to be a socialist. I want to be an American.
Woman #3 holding a McCain/Palin sign: Communist! Communist!
Man # 8: He's a stupid bum.
Man #9, holding a baby: He's bullshit and a piece of crap he is.
No comments:
Post a Comment