TampaYankee

I'm not quite sure what your point is other than there are several reasons one can choose to slime the UN. I'm certainly not going to argue the contrary, in general. For the most part it is an ineffectual organiization. On rare occsasions it causes trouble or allows itself to be used for the same by some. That is part of the fabric of the UN. We cannot expect a collection of banana republics, tin pot dictatorships, totalitarian regimes and some countries who view us in a adversarial relationship to really see things our way all the time. Even our allies don't always share our views and goals. My argument is not that the UN is an efficient effective organization day in and day out. Only that it can be useful in certain circumstances and that it is beneficial to use it in those circumstances. If you find fault with the outcomes of my three examples of successful utilization of the UN, then the fault lies not with the UN but with the USA. We, the USA, shaped the outcomes of all three of those episodes. Whatever credit or blame for the outcome of those episodes is not the doing of the UN mettling. The UN acted effectively in all three of those instances in terms of what the US wanted. In each case the UN authorized action and then got out of the way. The UN is not an international goverment with an armed force. It is an international NGO with primary purpose to provide a platform for discussion of international problems and hopefully to achieve a consensus of action or resolution that might be undertaken by parties involved or barrng that by member states, if there is consensus. Unfortunately, such consensus is rarely achieved. Haiti is one case where it is. For Haiti we need the UN to codify the international consensus that action needs to be taken to aid Haiti. and more importantly, an international authorization for member states to volunteer their efforts in reconstruction. Importantly, this authorization provides a limitation of authority by any member state to guard against potential abuse. Will it insure success or that no abuse will take place? No, it cannot do that. However, it can deny 'legitamacy' to any such abuse. For this to be done right we need the legitmacy of the UN to put an international face on this, to bless all help that is given, and to put limits on that help so that any overreaching is clearly demarcated. Sure we could do it unilaterally but as we all know, we would be pillaried for usurping Haiti for our own purposes. We have been down that road before and the charges then were not without merit. Beyond that the UN should step out of the way unless abuses are uncovered.

I think it makes the PP Committee look a little shabby, looking for a technicality not to make an award. They ought to judge the story reporting and not the institution, if that is their usual and customary standard. Would it be a bizarre award based on the history of the Enquirer? Yes, quite. Would it turn a sow's ear into a silk purse? Probably not. Nevertheless if that story would have been chosen for an ward had it been submitted by a reporter at another journalistic outlet then it is just as deserved by the reporter at the Enquirer, IMO. To do otherwise casts a shadow over the Impartiality of the Prize Award.

I think this highlights how very important it is to keep Supreme Court appointments in Democratic hands for the next 7 years at least.

I appreciate and share your skepticism about the UN. For the most part it is a feckless institution suffering from paralysis as a rule and from its own corruption. However, on certain occasions it has been effective. Those instances are when there has been an overwhelming since of need, when international politics did not override the issue at hand, and when it was clear that nothing more than authorization of action would be asked of the UN members. Three cases come to mind: The Korean Conflict, The First Gulf War and The Second Gulf War. There may be others but if so then I don't recall them at the moment. Nevertheless, those three incidents offer a pretty good precedent for this action.

We have dealt with this before. It just takes resolve and determination. I think it not a stretch to label the Nazi and Japanese governments at the end of WWII as broken and corrupt at the time, with the countries as disaster areas, if man made. Clearly, Haiti is an disaster zone without effective self-government and without any need as far as I can see to pretend otherwise. Ideally, Haiti should be declared a Human Disaster and Emergency Protectorate by the UN, desingated as a temporary protectorate with a charter not to exceed ten years. (If not the UN then maybe the OAS although that is more problematic politically I suspect.) A Protectorate Governor needs to appointed with the power of Marshall Law, secured by UN forces, to oversee the appointment of local governing authority, police, and schools along with the reconstruction effort and coordination of NGO efforts. Over the reconstruction period, power would be ceded in phases to local governments and a National Congress. Eventually, a presidential election would be held. His role would be to act as Chief Administrator subject to the Protectorate Governor, ultimately leading to a transition to full self-government after ten years. That's the general idea anyway. Did I mention, we have done this before? The idea is expressly not to rely on, participate with, or provide support to past corrupt institutions, community segments, and individuals. Rather, to the contrary, these segments are to be cut out of the reconstruction effort. This won't succeed otherwise. As reconstruction would just strengthen and empower them to maintain their corrupt stranglehold on the country.

BTW Conway, I have missed your contributions to the discussion. Good to hear from you.

From what I have read very little lending is going on with the big banks. Most of their gargantuan revenues are coming from proprietary transactions using free Fed money. Whatever is being lent is a fraction of the bonus payouts as a comparison. You make a reasoned and on the surface a reasonable argument. I cannot take exception with any facts as you have presented them. I cannot say the some banks may be unfairly assessed based on their own individual behavior and practice. On the otherhand, because a bank did not fail doesn't mean that they were not contributors to bad mortgages they underwrote and may have sold off or even eaten. Bad mortgages sold to, and contributing to, the failure of other institutions or retained bad mortgages of individuals who went under causing blight and cost to the communities. Consequently, where the line should be drawn is not so clear. Simply because they did not need taxpayer funds to survive does not mean that they were not contributors to the meltdown. But there are also other arguments to be made. The damage done by high risk banking behavior affected the economy far beyond the damage they did to their own particular institutions. One can argue that GM and Chrysler were unwell companies before the crash. No one can deny that the banking crash killed financing and consumer confidence, both which sent them into a coma accompanied by a death rattle and emergency surgery that wacked off limbs without benefit of any anesthesia. Tens of thousands of unemployed were created essentially overnight and local business went belly up like goldfish in a drano bath. Fear and more, lack of financing, spread to the entire consumer and business sectors causing retrenchment that threw millions more out of work causing tens and hundreds of millions of tax payer safety net dollars. Not to mention the stimulas package to stem the total crash of commerce, government services and jobs in the country. Consider that the big banks are like a couple of foundation cornerstones of a building. Their construction was risky resulting in failed support to the overlying building. While they got funding to repair their flaws and reestablish strength, their fault damaged the whole building. Their liability is not ended with the payback of their own repair loans. Clearly, not all banks should be painted with this brush. However, more banks pissed in the well than received cash bailouts. Where to draw the line is somewhat arbitrary with respect to individual banks but a line needs to be drawn. I'm not sure that position was widely held at the time or is now. I seem to recall the thinking that AIG's fall would make Bear Stearns/Lehman Bros. look like tea party with respect to a crisis of confidence. It would have led directly to the failure of addtional companies and who knows how many more indirectly. I don't doubt saving AIG was necessary but I do think it was done badly, in an unncessarily costly way that screwed the taxpayer. I attribute that poor chapter to panic by the decision makers -- not their best moment IMO. No, we cannot levy on the banks the true cost to the nation of their irresponbile behavior in pursuit of their greed. They simply are nowhere big enough to repay the damage they have done. And in fairness, they are not soley to blame for all that has happened. However, one can make the argument that Obama's tax is not unfair, or even that it does not go nearly far enough based on the fact that it represents only a fraction of the bonuses the banks are paying out. Ultimately, I'm less concerned about taxing the banks than I am about instituting financial reforms to guarantee this will not happen again. The latter is up in the air. Our laughing bankers are paying big bucks to lobbyists to defeat that effort. As far as the tax, I'll take it as long as bank bonuses outstrip or even remain a significant fraction of lending. I'm even for bigger taxes if effective reform fails, for a rainy day crash fund. I'm fundamentally against the rape of the taxpayer by bankers laughing all the way to the bank. And there is no denying their culpability and their laughing.

I think you are right on point here. This process was not the change that people voted for. I don't read or listen to Lanny Davis. IMO he is a practitioner of all that is bad with the Clintons and none of the good. I guess this must be one of those instances when a broken clock gives the right time.

I hope that your percieved shortcomings of McCain-Feingold are not being put forth as a justification of this sweepting SCOTUS opinion? Mc-F was flawed and while I appreciate what it tried to do it I think it missed the heart of the problem and created the all too often encountered 'unintended consequences'. IMO, the heart of the problem is the nonconstitutional and nonstatutory Doctrine of Coporate Personhood and the very undue leverage that provides to distort our political process. I have much less problem with PACs as they are real associations of real people with common interests funded by individual contributors. IMO that is a consitutionally grounded measure for free speech with right of assembly. The power of the PACs is rooted in the number of like-minded individual contributors rather than the number of world-wide customers buying soap or a gallon of gasoline who have no consensus viewpoint on specific policy issues.

IMO Haiti needs a 5 to 7 year Gov't/Private funded Marshall Plan, possible as long as ten years. It needs to be rebuilt from the ground up -- infrastructure, housing, business facilities, government facilities. There is no reason that Haitian Labor should not particpate in the forefront of that rebuilding effort, This can result in rebuilding not only the physical facilities but the workplace social culture as well. Such a sustained rebuilding effort will contribute to a working economy which itself can foster an improvement in educational standards over that decade. The totality of this activity will lead to more businesses locating there to take advantage of an affordable reliable labor pool waiting to be tapped which in turn contributes to sustaing the economy over the long term. At least it sounds like a plan. According to others who have looked at the numbers it is actually cheaper than dealing with the long term costs of illegal immigration from the island and benefits the entire community as well Sounds like a win-win. .

Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Finance Restrictions First Posted: 01-21-10 10:19 AM | Updated: 01-21-10 03:48 PM By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back restrictions on corporate spending on federal campaigns. The decision could unleash a torrent of corporate-funded attack ads in upcoming elections. "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy -- it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people -- political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of judicial activism and attacked the use of corporate personhood in the case: "The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case." For the remainder of the article... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rolls-back_n_431227.html The Doctrine of Corporate Personhood puts the lie to those Originalists and Strict Constructionists that somehow manage to line up behind this decision in the name of Free Speach. Nowhere does the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or any other Constitutional Ammendment call out Corporate Personhood as a fundamental principle of the Constitution or any enacted Ammendment. This is clearly a victory for the power of Commerce at the crushing expense of the individual. Thank you Bush Supreme Court. May the SCOTUS majority in the decision be cursed with bloated and bleeding hemmorhoids for the remainder of their days. I see little recourse to this decision other than a future SCOTUS overturning this travesty or better yet the Doctrine of Corporate Personhood or the passage of a Constitutional Ammendment overturning either this decision or better, the Doctrine of Corporate Personhood. The latter is preferred but probably impossible. For more on the Doctrine of Coporate Personhood see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate and for a more entertaining exposition see: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/18472

Obama has passed some very significant important legislation in his first year. However, IMO he has come up short in some important ways too, most notably Wall St and Bank reform. Also, he has permitted a three ring circus with Health Care Reform, supported and even undertaken back room deals with special interests contrary to his campaigning against such practices. He has stood by while Congress has exhibited it's crassest characteristic of selling out to special interests -- again Banking and Wall St and also Big Pharma come to mind. I'm sure some of this was done for the sake of getting an end product. I understand practical realities but this hasn't been an example of changing the way to do business in the Beltway. Rather, it has been more of the same and in the bright glare of 24/7 coverage. The electorate is not happy about the lack of reform or the way it has gone about IMO. The Massachusetts voter bitch-slap has made that clear to me and now inlight of the Massachusetts election result it seems clear to Obama too. After a year of ignoring Paul Volcker and his ideas about breaking up Too Big Too Fail Banks, with Geitner and Summers freezing him out of the action, Obama seems to have done a 180, essentially overnight, it seems to get on the right side of Main Street. All this since the Massachusetts election, any other explanations nothwithstanding. It is high time IMO. I'm not for killing Big Banks and Wall St Corps, we really do need them. I'm just for cutting them down to size so that they can be allowed to die from their own mistakes without taking the rest of us with them. Obama seems to be starting down that road in earnest. At least I hope so. Ii suspect the afterburners just got turned on for the jobs creation effort too. Simon Johnson Posted: January 21, 2010 12:58 AM Paul Volcker Prevails http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-johnson/paul-volcker-prevails_b_430869.html Paul Volcker, legendary central banker turned radical reformer of our financial system, has won an important round. The WSJ is now reporting: President Barack Obama on Thursday is expected to propose new limits on the size and risk taken by the country's biggest banks, marking the administration's latest assault on Wall Street in what could mark a return -- at least in spirit -- to some of the curbs on finance put in place during the Great Depression. This is an important change of course that, while still far from complete, represents a major victory for Volcker - who has been pushing firmly for exactly this. Thursday's announcement should be assessed on three issues. Does the president provide a clear statement of why we need these new limits on banks? The administration's narrative on what caused the crisis of 2008-09 has been lame and completely unconvincing so far. The president must take it to the banks directly - tracing the origins of our "too big to fail" vulnerabilities to the excessive deregulation of banks following the Reagan Revolution and emphasizing how much worse these problems became during the Bush years. Are the proposed limits on the total size (e.g., assets) of banks, or just on part of their operations - such as proprietary trading? The limits need to be on everything that banks do, if they are to be meaningful at all. This is not a moment for technocratic niceties; the banks must be reined in, simply and directly. Is there a clear strategy for (a) taking concrete workable proposals directly to Congress, and ( b ) win, lose, or draw in the Senate, running hard with this issue to the midterm elections? Push every Republican to take a public stand on this question, and you will be amazed at what you hear (if they stick to what they have been saying behind closed doors on Capitol Hill.) The spin from the White House is that the president and his advisers have been discussing this move for months. The less time spent on such nonsense tomorrow the better. The record speaks for itself, including public statements and private briefings as recently as last week - this is a major policy change and a good idea. The major question now is - will the White House have the courage of its convictions and really fight the big banks on this issue? If the White House goes into this fight half-hearted or without really understanding (or explaining) the underlying problem of unfettered banks that are too big to fail, they will not win. See the referenced WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704320104575015910344117800.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTWhatsNews

The Democrats reap what they sew -- both locally and nationally. Unfortunately, I suspect everyone will draw the wrong conclusions from this fiasco. Given the ineptitude in all political sectors it is hard to imagine that they won't. My question for the locals is: Long after the message has been sent how long will they lie comfortably in this bed? They signed on for a six year stint with no early out.

So it seems. Can't say I'm surprised. Even so, it represents a step forward IMO. Anytime something like this gives the Chinese a black eye but doesn't cause them to completely bury the cause just adds one more embarassment that causes loss of face abroad. That won't bother them if they really feel it causes them harm, but in this case I doubt that they view this at that level. If so then they will bury any openness of gay life. But they would have to go back on past positive legal decisions about sodomy and removal of homosexuality as a mental disease. Eventually they have to weigh the accumulalting embarassments against the benign costs of permitting the behavior. Time is on our side.

Haven't kept of with this latest wrinkle other than to take note that Comcast is probably stirring up trouble. I hope to catch up to this in a day or two or three. Generally, I am down on all things Comcast, being an involuntary subscriber.

The book does seem chock full of juicy tidbits. However, I give author Mark Halperin zero credibility based on a long poor track record for the common sense, fair play, truth and objectivity. I frankly don't see how he keeps his job, as a purported journalist, at Time Magazine. The other author, John Heilemann, has a very credible track record, thus if he his willing to stand behind Halperin's work then I have to hope that all has been vetted to Heilemann's standard. I look forward to the pillow talk.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/10/china-gay-pageant China's first gay pageant gives glimpse of new acceptance Contest aims to boost community's confidence in country where homosexuality was classed as illness until 2001 Tania Branigan in Beijing guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 January 2010 19.17 GMT Eight men competing in Mr Gay China, which organisers say is a striking sign of how far attitudes to homosexuality have changed Link to this video There's a swimwear round and a talent section where contestants can show off their singing and dancing. But organisers insist the contest to be held this Friday is a serious business. It is China's first gay pageant. The event is a striking sign of how far attitudes in China have changed and of gay people's increasing confidence. Gay sex was illegal until 1997. Homosexuality was classed as a mental illness for four years after that. Now an emerging gay community is busting stereotypes. "We are intelligent, we're professionals, we're gorgeous – and we're gay," said contestant Emilio Liu, from Inner Mongolia. "I want the audience to know there are a whole bunch of people like us living in China. It's a wonderful life and it's not hidden any more." These days there are gay support groups and websites helping people to explore their sexuality and meet potential partners. There are gay venues in most major cities; last year, the first government-backed bar opened in Kunming, in south-western Yunnan. Shanghai held the first Gay Pride week and in Beijing, campaigners called for same-sex marriages. Now comes Mr Gay China, reported in approving terms in English-language state media. Eight finalists will take to the stage of a Beijing nightclub to strut their stuff in casual clothes and swimwear, exhibit their talents and answer questions. The winner – picked for his ability to represent gay issues as well as his skills, personality and looks – will head to Norway for next month's finals of Worldwide Mr Gay. "I don't think people were ready before," said Ben Zhang, one of the organisers, recalling the "long and painful" process of discovering and accepting his sexuality, less than a decade ago. It would be easy to overstate progress since then. Few of the participants are willing to give their full names and several complain about the stereotyping of gay men as weak or HIV-carriers. Strikingly, all are white collar workers and most have studied or worked abroad. Zhang acknowledges that life is tougher outside the big cities, but says that is why the event is needed: "If this gets seen by some country boy in Ningxia, maybe he will realise 'It's not horrible to be gay and I'm not alone.'" For many, the biggest issue is invisibility. "People want to stay out of trouble so they stay away from anything different ... It's not necessarily that they're afraid of it or think it's bad. They just don't want to know," said Liu, adding that a handful of friends cut him off after finding out that he was gay. He said the pressures on gay men in China are different from those elsewhere, not greater, pointing out that there is no religious condemnation and that anti-gay violence is rare. But although Liu,26, says that most friends and family accept his sexuality, he has not come out to his father or grandparents. "China is a very traditional society," explained Steve Zhang, 30, who works in sales. Relatives have pestered him for years about finding a girl to marry. "When I finally told my uncle I had a boyfriend he wasn't surprised but said, 'Well, that's not a long term thing,'" Zhang added. "They think having fun with boys doesn't mean you love them; you will still get married in the end." The pressure to marry is one reason why some campaigners see gay marriage as a goal, along with legal protection against discrimination. But few expect such changes soon. Official tolerance is highly variable. Activists and grassroots organisers complain of harassment by the authorities. Websites and publications have been shut down. And although Shanghai Pride organisers deliberately kept it low key, with no banners or parade, the authorities forced the cancellation of some events. Despite signs of growing confidence in challenging such actions – last year, gay men faced down police conducting a sweep of a Guangzhou park – most opt for a non-confrontational approach. Organisers hope to avoid problems by keeping Mr Gay China low-key and did not invite mainstream Chinese-language media. "Officials could show up and say 'your fire hydrant is in the wrong place," said Zhang. "It is still a sensitive issue."

[quote name='TotallyOz' date='08 January 2010 - 01:34 AM' I guess I have a lot to learn of the Brazilian Banking system. lol... the first thing is not to give your real phone number out.

Here is what happens to principled Conservatives that break ranks with the conservative right wingnut agenda. Charles Johnson Got Threats After Breaking With Right, Relocated http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/charles-johnson-got-threa_n_416145.html Prominent blogger Charles Johnson announced last month on his blog, Little Green Footballs, that he had "parted ways with the right." He gave a list of reasons, including "support for fascists ... support for bigotry ... hatred, and white supremacism ... support for anti-science bad craziness" and "support for conspiracy theories and hate speech. Some conservative readers were apparently not pleased with Johnson's critique. In a profile of Johnson, the LA Times reports that the blogger moved into a gated community partly due to violent right-wing threats. As I talked to Johnson in his office, an alert flashed on one of his two giant computer monitors. An angry screed targeting him on another website concluded: "I think a visit to Mr. Johnson's home might be warranted. Anybody got his address?" Such veiled threats are at least one reason why Johnson, 56, relocated not long ago. He remains in the Los Angeles area, but now is in a gated community.

True "They have royally screwed this up." and true "that it will be politics as usual in DC." But I wouldn't write 'them Senate Dems' all off. Senators are like cats, impossible to herd. It's a fact, sometimes a very undesirable one. The Senate Leader cannot impose strict discipline. Only the Senate party caucuses can. Neither can the President. Seems odd but it is a fact. These guys are elected by the States. There are not that many of them and they need each other's help to get things done. Alienate one or ten and a senator screws himself with regard to his pet projects. Payback is a bitch that bites the payer too. Some Senators are worth supporting, some are worthy of being cut loose. Target your contrubtions to the good guys up for re-election. I won't miss Blanche. All the others seem preferable to the alternatives. So maybe a contribution to the Senate Electoral Campaign Committee is not out of line in 2010. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas Barbara Boxer of California Michael Bennet of Colorado Christopher Dodd of Connecticut Daniel Inouye of Hawaii Roland Burris of Illinois Evan Bayh of Indiana Barbara Mikulski of Maryland Harry Reid of Nevada Kirsten Gillibrand of New York Chuck Schumer of New York Byron Dorgan of North Dakota Ron Wyden of Oregon Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania Patrick Leahy of Vermont Patty Murray of Washington Russ Feingold of Wisconsin Some of the above are retiring. My presumption is that their party replacement is better than the alterantive as I wouldn't vote even for Abe Lincoln if he ran again as a Republican. No disrespect to him but anyone that lends organizational strength to the POG and the wingnut crazies is automatically disqualified IMO. Not too worried though as I'm confident he couldnt meet the new ten point wingnut litmus test for GOP support. I wouldn't mind Sestak replacing Spectre even if he is a bit of a staff--driving-maniac. The same would be true for replacing Bayh if I thought there was a winning Dem replacement. IN the best of all possible worlds I would dump a handful of others but I must await that circumstance.

Yes, we did post an announcement on the Home Page that emails intended for escort distribution were inadvertently emailed to all members. I believe this happened more than once. Our email software had been imbued with that unfortunate feature and we thought we had it fixed. Rest assured that we will never, ever, intentionally ask regular members to upload photos or submit a profile. Please construe any such notice in the future as a screw up in software. I cannot promise that we won't have future software screw-ups. I can promise that we will never intentionally seek to harass regular members to submit photos or profiles. I'm a bit suprised that as many long-term members here and at HooBoy's took that as a legitimate, intended request as it goes against the basic tenet of annonymity associated with these sites since forever. I appreciate that more recent particpants were confused. Nevertheless, it was our screw up and we hope never to repeat it. As an aside, it is interesting how many members overlooked the Home Page announcement. I have to conclude that it is not a very reliable messaging instrument.

All escorts not having logged in within the last 90 days have been deleted from active listings. Deactivated escorts will be reactivated upon login.

I only had the opportunity to visit Stella's four or five times -- three in the day time. The days were busy but the nights were much better, :0 Had I been a local I would have been a fixture at Stella's. A real loss to the Big Apple. Much more interesting than the Gaeity for my taste although the G had some great talent. There was also a Latino Club several blocks south of your place. Name started with an E. ONly there once after a party at your place but it had lots of potential. Sorry I never got back. As for my first, a Cuban hottie in Orlando. He didnt know as much as I did and I was a novice. Never bottomed but was willing to try. I had to explain the hygiene preparation... lol. Did I say he was game. Next day, Alec Martinez, porn star with 9 in. What an experience. I had a shit eating grin the entire flight home.

I'm happy to see that Scott has a new opportunity to turn things around and wish him well.

We know that the delays were prosecutor inspired? Your thoughts on how we might do that?