Brainwashing Propaganda, or Morality Lesson?

[Vandiablo]

Ah, ok. Good for Jester. He was correct in that Bush enjoyed a brief sunshine period until about a month after 9/11, when the tech bubble burst, and then the blame game started.

Okay, let's assume what you say is true. Then the "sunshine period" that Bush got was over a month longer than Obama's time so far. So you cannot say Obama got a pass that Bush did not, until a month and a week from now. Which you will. But now we know you say it whether it's true or not.

Now, the ridiculousness of your original statement comes from the fact that Bush never had questions from the press. Unless, the questioner was first screened for "loyalty". Bush hid out in the members-only town halls his entire presidency. The kind that the GOP is still doing. As for the Democrats, you can see from the questions they get, many of the Democrats are not doing such vetting.

Anyway, so maybe Bush didn't receive a break from the MSM, but his handlers made sure he never came in contact with them.

History is best when you invent it yourself.

We've seen some of that recently -- someone makes up a narrative then posts links that seem to back up the narrative, although the fine print counteracts the narrative. I think Jester was pointing this out recently.

The unregulated market artifact that was the genesis of the current crisis was the Credit Default Swap. <blockquote>"Forms of Credit Default Swaps had been in existence from at least the early 1990s, but the modern Credit Default Swaps were invented in 1997 by a team working for JPMorgan Chase. They were designed to shift the risk of default to a third party, and were therefore less punitive in terms of regulatory capital. The first CDS involved JPMorgan selling the credit risk of Exxon to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development. Credit Default Swaps became largely exempt from regulation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which was also responsible for the Enron loophole."</blockquote>

Durn, you made me look up the names. I was talking about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which basically removed the restriction between investment banking and commercial banking. Perhaps this led to the ability for CDS, I dunno, so maybe we are agreeing more than disagreeing.

I recall that Bill Clinton was the President during the passage of that legislation that resulted in the Enron debacle, and now this one. But, to be fair, it was a Republican controlled congress and a bi-partisan cluster flock.

Yep, I remember the 1994-and-beyond GOPers saying it was Congress that ran the country, not the White House. That's the opposite of what they said from 1981 to 1992, but don't call them flip-floppers, that's those other people.

So whose idea was this deregulation? Was it Clinton's? No. He should have vetoed it, in retrospect. But I think he actually bought into deregulation of financial stuff. Remember, he felt himself to be a centrist. Also, to veto would make it look like he was retaliating for the pizza girl investigation.

My my, that was back in the days where there was some bipartisanship.

So... unless you can do better, I am keeping my blame of GOP leadership in the late 1990's, as this was the force that was pushing this deregulation.

Let them be on the bottom, serving us.

Excuse me, I'd prefer nobody on my bottom, whatever they're serving.

I just don't think you can force businesses to be nice, or be fair. The unscrupulous will find ways around it, or outright break the laws (e.g. sweat shops in LA), and the law abiding businesses who have to compete for good labor are crushed under the yoke of regulations. I think there is a reasonable middle ground. Product awareness through the internet is growing, and will be even more critical in the future as RFID and mobile computing allow shoppers instant assessments of their buying choices. I might not be so quick to grab that Nestles Quick if I knew it was made by African children kept as slaves.

Well, we are seeing just how truthful a lot of the stuff on the internet is -- death panels for example. The internet seems to be best at propagating paranoia based on misinformation authored by blind political hatred.

I'm tired of novelty items being sold as ecologically friendly. Naw, mostly they are just another waste of resources marketed to people who want to feel green.

Our household buys dishwasher detergent that purports to be green. Is it really green? Probably not really. But somebody will come along with a competing brand. Then someone will do research on which one is actually greener, and then down the road a product that is actually green may eventually emerge. So we are in the market group, but be aware that it is optimism, not stupidity, that is driving our decision.

But to some extent I hear you. I'm not as gung-ho on quick changes as I used to be, because I've been around long enough to know about Unintended Consequences, or Unexpected Costs. For instance, that huge array of solar power hardware that is being proposed in the southwest, well, turns out it will cost a lot of water to do that. Hrm. Where is the water going to come from? (still, it beats using oil, esp. foreign oil)

-V