CatherineRhodes.com

Lipstick on a pig?

When the Wall Street Journal was purchased by Rupert Murdoch years ago, faithful readers were afraid it would lose cred by too heavily reflecting the biases of its owner. The beauty of the WSJ historically is that it reflected “Conservative” opinion, in the classic sense of the word, not necessarily partisan politics. However, apparently this beacon of journalistic integrity has become a media outlet for the Republican wing — Fox News in print.

Consider this from the New York Times by way of Kos:

The editorial page of the Journal recently praised Palin for her transparently ghost-written critique of the Federal Reserve’s use of quantitative easing. “Mrs. Palin is way ahead of her potential presidential competitors on this policy point,” The Journal wrote, and “shows a talent for putting a technical subject in language that average Americans can understand.”

Gimme a break.

At least these people didn't crash the economy

The problem with immigration is that there are factions for it and factions against it within each party. The Dems support diversity and civil rights so they are accepting of Latino immigrants, but they also support unions and know cheap labor undercuts bargaining power. The Repubs have a similar conflict. The Tea Party types want to preserve the dominant culture and feel threatened by the onslaught of Spanish-speakers. Then there’s the business wing of the party that knows low-wage workers add to the bottom line.

“This Week” had a spirited debate during the Roundtable discussion, in which Bill Maher smugly insinuated the Arizona law is motivated by racism. George Will asked which provisions of the federal immigration law Maher actually agreed with, and Maher said, “I’ll take a pass.” Which is one thing I hate — when people speak passionately against a problem without having any possible solutions. If you have a better way, go ahead and advocate as strongly as possible. But if you don’t, shut up.

The left talks about the need for “comprehensive immigration reform,” but what exactly does that mean? No one has specifics. The right talks about “securing the borders” — as if that’s even possible.

I loved a snippet from Peggy Noonan’s column in the Wall Street Journal on Sunday:

In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running. They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys.

Let’s remember who the real criminals are, the pigs in wingtips at AIG recklessly betting your retirement savings like so many casino chips.

There’s a buzz surrounding Ms Elizabeth Warren as a possible Supreme Court nominee, to which I emphatically say, NO! We need the smartest woman in the country managing the communal bankbook.

Meanwhile, over in the “real America” Caribou Barbie just won’t shut up. She uses her folksy charm as a way to hide the fact that she knows NOTHING. Here’s what she said to Hannity regarding nukes in Iran.

No administration in America’s history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out  President Obama is supporting today. It’s kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, ‘Go ahead, punch me in the face and I’m not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.’

Striking the perfect note, POTUS responded in the media with a smash to the net that was witty yet classy. Here is President Obama in an interview with ABC News:

The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues …  if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it, I’m probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin.

This was the same week that POTUS signed a nuclear ban with Russia. Meanwhile, back in wingnut land, Ms. Palin has found her soulmate.  From the Wall Street Journal, on meeting Rep. Michele Bachmann, part of the lunatic fringe from Minnesota.

I knew that we’d be buddies when I met her when she said, ‘Drill here, drill now.’ And then I replied, ‘Drill, baby, drill’ and then we both said, ‘You betcha!’

They stand no chance against the wall of campaign money

Jon Stewart got it right, again. On his Jan 12, 2010 show, he said, “the only people who have recovered from the financial meltdown are those who caused the financial meltdown.” How is this possible?

Major U.S. banks and securities firms are on pace to pay their people about $145 billion for 2009, a record sum that indicates how compensation is climbing despite fury over Wall Street’s pay culture. An analysis by The Wall Street Journal shows that executives, traders, investment bankers, money managers and others at 38 top financial companies can expect to earn nearly 18% more than they did in 2008—and slightly more than in the record year of 2007.

POTUS doesn’t seem to be able to do much. His comment on 60 Minutes denouncing “the fat cats on Wall Street,” was like a squirtgun against a forest fire. Last week he lined up with his economic advisors for a press conference announcing a risk tax on the five top banks, which the bankers will absolutely, positively outfox. Overarching banking reform is in jeopardy. Even a prez as charmismatic as Obama can’t seem to fight the wall of campaign contributions, especially in an election year.

There’s an invincibility to these bankers, a let-them-eat-cake quality to their excess. Our nation is seeming less like a democracy and more like a monarchy where the masses of starving paupers gaze at the bejeweled royals in the distance and there’s just nothing to be done. Notice how coverage on the obscene banking profits was front page news for a couple of days, and was starting to pick up traction from populists groups, even the tea baggers? But then notice how those reports were knocked from the headlines by the earthquake in Haiti.

What, do these fat cats even control the teutonic plates?!