|
Homeless: Streets of Santa Barbara
Saturday March 22, 2008
Thursday March 20, 2008
It's been 5 years since Bush sent our sons, daughters, mothers, father, and so many other Americans, to fight a 'war' in Iraq. So far, close to 4,000 Americans have died there.
Approximately 100,000 Americans have been injured or killed. The Administration gives lower figures because of their ways of classification of injuries, how they were received, where they died.
The majority of Americans want to end the 'war' and occupation. The lack of planning and background knowledge by the architects of the war have created a volatile situation which will affect generations to come.
How much has it cost?
Do you feel safer?
The media isn't mentioning much about the Iraq war these days. Afghanistan is much worse off than it was in 2002 and Osama Bin Laden has not been captured or killed, as far as we know. The administration is trying to make Iraq look good until after November's elections. Experts estimate the situation could fall into chaos, perhaps this summer. Because a certain amount of ethnic cleansing has been performed, some say violence is way down although it has increased greatly in the past week. Whether America leaves today or 100 years from now, chaos will most likely take over as many ethnic groups, religious factions, and those with their own agenda try to accomplish that which they are determined to see through to the finish.
We can't stay; but we can't leave.
What's the solution?
| | Posted by Lulublue at 3:04 PM - | |
|
|
Saturday March 15, 2008
| | Posted by Lulublue at 3:07 PM - | |
|
|
Friday March 14, 2008
Global Research, March 14, 2008
Washington Post - 2008-02-14
The following oped by Eliot Spitzer was published barely a month prior to the unfolding scandal and his demise as Governor of the State of New York.
Does the scandal bear any relationship to Spitzer's intent to reveal the criminal nature of the subprime mortgage scam and the role of the Bush adminstration. Was the scandal intended to silence Eliot Spitzer?
(M. C. Global Research, 14 March 2008)
"When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers."
(Eliot Spitzer, former Governor of the State of New York)
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer is governor of New York.
| | Posted by Lulublue at 8:39 PM - | |
|
|
Monday March 3, 2008
Supreme Court to Reopen Debate on Indecent Broadcasts
By
David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times
/
March 3, 2008
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court this week may reopen
for the first time in more than 30 years the debate over what qualifies
as an "indecent" broadcast. The
media environment has changed dramatically since the court last ruled
on this issue in 1978: Viewers and listeners today are exposed to the
more freewheeling cable television, Internet, and "shock jocks" on
satellite radio. The issue before the court now is delicately
described as the problem of "fleeting expletives" in over-the-air
broadcasts, which are still regulated. Television viewers who watch
some of the entertainment industry's award shows may be familiar with
the phenomenon. Rock singer Bono uttered an expletive on a live
NBC show when accepting a Golden Globe Award in 2003 for best original
song. So did Cher after receiving a Billboard Music Award for career
achievement on Fox TV a year earlier. After receiving complaints
from angry viewers, the Federal Communications Commission moved to
crack down on broadcasters who air "isolated or fleeting expletives"
during daytime and early-evening hours. Last year, Fox and the other networks sued to block the new policy and an appeals court in New York put it on hold. Now,
the FCC is asking the Supreme Court to clear the way so the new
crackdown can be enforced. The justices may act on the agency's appeal
as soon as today. If they vote to hear the case, arguments would be
heard in the fall. The appellate judges in New York who blocked
the new policy said it was arbitrary and vague. It does not, for
example, say that all expletives will trigger fines from the FCC
regardless of the circumstances. News program and movies such as
"Saving Private Ryan" were given exemptions. Including profanity from
soldiers on the D-day beaches was not intended to shock or titillate
but conveyed the horror of war, the FCC said. At the same time,
the appellate judges hinted that a true ban on all broadcast expletives
would violate the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Solicitor
General Paul D. Clement asked the Supreme Court to intervene and to
revive the FCC's new rule. Unless the court acts, he said, the
television industry will have compete freedom to air expletives during
the hours children and families are watching. If the justices do
take on this dispute, they will be obliged to ponder the many meanings
of vulgar words. Federal law itself does not provide much guidance. It
forbids the broadcasting of "any obscene, indecent, or profane
language." Congress has left it to the FCC to decide what that means. In
1978, the court agreed with the FCC that comedian George Carlin's
"seven dirty words" monologue, when broadcast on the radio at
midafternoon, was indecent. But the 5-to-4 decision was narrow. Afterward,
the FCC adopted this distinction. It described "indecency" as words or
pictures that focus on "sexual or excretory organs" and "dwell on or
repeat at length" the descriptions. That rule seemed to leave a
loophole for the occasional vulgar word that slipped into a broadcast. The
FCC changed course after it was flooded with complaints from grass-root
groups after the vulgarities on the Hollywood awards shows. Broadcasters
say they have no desire to air expletives. They are simply trying to
make sure that when an unscripted expletive is used it does not result
in a large fine.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company. I have been planning to do some posting about the Supreme Court since I began reading "Broken Government" by John W. Dean. I ran across this article today and it brings up the point I want to make. Today's Supreme Court is VERY different from that of 1978. With the appointments of Bush of the past 7 years, we have a very conservative-leaning court. Two (possibly 3) of the current Supreme Court Justices will most likely be retiring in the next president's term of office. Our next president will have a major role in once again bringing balance to the highest court of our land or in contributing to the return of America to the 'dark ages' - the times before equal rights, child labor protections, a woman's right to make appropriate choices, and workers' safety laws. It would take years to bring back the compassion, wisdom and justice of our land which prevailed before Nixon, Reagan, and Bush (II).
Additionally, the next Supreme Court may very well be deciding upon issues brought up during this administration (Bush/Cheney) such as eavesdropping on Americans, torture, and just how much (or little) power a president has to act independently. Bush/Cheney have pushed this power way beyond reason, historically and legally.
This is, in my opinion, one of the most important considerations when it comes to this presidential election. The results will be felt for decades - by you, your children, their children, and who knows how much longer.
More to come...
| | Posted by Lulublue at 11:13 PM - | |
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
| |
Have you checked out the
new Blogstream site,
Question Stream.com?
Many Blogstream members are there
already! Quotes from members: "It's like blog lite!" -- "I like the instant
gratification!" -- "Stop spectating, get in the game!"
If you have not joined in, you are really missing out!
|
|
3745 Visitors
|
