What the hell?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auhzcUg60VZA&refer=home

The specifics:

About 400 workers at New York-based AIG’s financial products unit may get $450 million in two installments, said two people familiar with the situation who declined to be identified because the plan is confidential. That is in addition to about $619 million in retention pay going to 4,200 executives and employees at subsidiaries including life insurance.

Seriously?  These are the people that the government has bailed out not once but twice, and has seen a significant percentage of the financial sector bailout money - something like a hundred billion dollars of taxpayer money.

This is just wrong.

Retention bonuses?  They really feel like they need to keep those people that drove the company into the ground? FIRE THEM ALL.

I sure wish I got a million dollar bonus.

Let's say you're a republican congressperson.  Why would you support the economic stimulus package proposed by the Democrats and President Obama?

I mean, really?

Let's pretend for a minute that you think it does have some good things in it, and you know the economy needs something.  You know damn well it's going to pass, so why not support it, knowing there's not a damn thing you can do to stop it?

And that's exactly why none of them supported it.  Even those that would've otherwise voted for it in a truly bipartisan effort, their votes were simply not needed, and rather than support the President, the Republicans suddenly decided to tow the party line.

The fact is, their votes were irrelevant, and supporting the measure would only embolden the Democrats and President Obama.

F'ing politicians, all of them.

To his credit, I think Obama did do what he could to get bipartisan support.  But it's a lot harder to get the support of people whose votes are irrelevant, as the republicans votes were in this case.

At least Obama had them take out the millions of dollars for condoms. 

God I f'ing hate Nancy Pelosi.  Can't Obama tell the dems in congress to make someone else speaker of the house?  Yes, I know he can't.  But c'mon.  Get her outta here and put someone sane in charge.

Saw this on CNN ....

Inaugural parade tickets to go on sale

Posted: 10:46 AM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

The Presidential Inauguration Committee announced Friday that five thousand tickets for the bleachers along the inauguration parade route will go on sale Friday at 1 p.m. ET on Ticketmaster.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Presidential Inaugural Committee is releasing tickets Friday for bleacher seats along President-elect Obama's inaugural parade route, but they likely won't last long.

After all, some estimates of the crowd gathering around the National Mall are as high as 3 million people and the committee is only releasing 5,000 tickets.

Still, those parade-goers who feel especially lucky can log on to Ticketmaster.com at 1 p.m. ET to try to score the coveted tickets. They cost $25 each and individuals can purchase a maximum of 4.

"We are very pleased to make these tickets available to the public as part of our commitment to holding the most open and accessible inauguration in history," said Presidential Inaugural Committee Executive Director Emmett S. Beliveau. "The Inaugural Parade is a celebration of America, and we are working to make sure that as many citizens as possible can take part in this historic tradition."

Of course, those who don't get tickets can still line up along the parade route — they just won't have a place to sit.

Elizabeth Dole should be ashamed of herself.

She's losing the senate race in North Carolina, and she's resorting to the worst kind of negative campaign ads.

Her opponent Kay Hagan, is a weekly-church-going woman, and a regular sunday school teacher.

Watch this campaign add, then go give $25 or so to Kay Hagen at www.kayhagan.com.  Tell Elizabeth Dole to take her slimeball campaigning and find something else to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lf2vDk-4Ag

Get out and vote.

I voted Saturday afternoon while Emily was at a birthday party.  Went down to the one stop voting location in Holly Springs.  There was no line, and I was in and out in no time.

IF you want information on early voting... even if you're NOT a Barack Obama Supporter, you can get the information you need by going to XX.barackobama.com where XX is your state abbreviation.  Ie, I went to http://nc.barackobama.com/ and clicked on the "North Carolina One Stop Early Voting" link.

I voted for THREE different parties in this year's election.

I mentioned a week or so ago that candidate Pat Smathers spammed me, and I hate spammers.

Add Fred Aikens to that list, a candidate for NC State Auditor.  Mr. Aikens spammed me today.

If you don't like spam, don't vote for spammers like Fred Aikens.

I hate spammers.

And now, you can add Pat Smathers to that list.  I've never heard of him before and I don't know why he emailed me but somehow I'm on his spam list.  Smathers is a candidate for the Lt. Governor of North Carolina.

If you hate spam, don't vote for spammers.  Don't vote for Pat Smathers.

I'm happy to see that Hillary Clinton slipped in the polls this week as the Iowa Caucuses approached.  She's got too many skeletons I think.  I like John Edwards - I think it'd be cool to have a North Carolina man in the White House, and I like his "populist" views.

It'll be interesting to see how it turns out this evening with the democratic race so close in Iowa.

This is just typical of Hillary.  She says what she wants you to hear, when she says it.  And here's some lovely examples of her double-talk.

I can understand changing one's position from time to time.  I think it's okay to have voted for the Iraq War way back when and to admit now that it was a mistake.

But Hillary changes her opinions from day to day, from hour to hour, and from sentence to sentence!

Take a look.

xxx

Apparently, John Edwards has launched his first major TV advertisement in Iowa.

Check it out here:

http://johnedwards.com/watch/heroes/

Check out the new poll results showing John Edwards leading republican opponents in a head-to-head matchup by an average of 9% - greater than Hillary Clinton's 6% lead and Barack Obama's 5% lead.

While Hillary does beat all republican opponents, she barely beats McCain (46-45%) while Edwards beats McCain 45-41%).  Edwards shows a 9% lead over Giuliani, a 13% lead over Huckabee, an 11% lead over Romney, and a 10% lead over Thompson.  Compare that to Hillary's leads of 5%, 8%, 9%, and 8% against those same opponents.

I wonder, will people learn that Edwards is simply the best candidate?  Hopefully they'll figure out early, because Edwards has to win the early primaries if he wants to make it through the primary season.  Because he's elected to accept public financing, he'll be limited on spending to $50 million until the democratic national convention in early September.  The federal government will match all contributions up to $250.

Maybe you could help out as I have ...

This isn't my opinion, although I share it after finishing watching the debate last night.  Edwards clearly won the debate.

So says reviewers from the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, MSNBC, live news bloggers from numerous other organizations, and many others... see for yourself!

National polls are pretty meaningless.  Does it matter if a democratic candidate does better in New York than another democratic candidate?  No.  The dems are going to win New York, whether it be 55-45, 60-40, or 70-30.  It simply does not matter.  Of course, if Giuliana runs, can he carry New York?  That'd be a huge blow for the dems.

Anyway, what matters are how individual candidates will perform in swing states like Ohio.

Take a look at the results of this SurveyUSA poll regarding electability in one specific swing state (Ohio).

http://url.rickroot.com/u/2c

It pits Clinton, Edwards, and Obama against Thompson, Guiliani, and Romney.

Giuliani beats both Clinton and Edwards by a very slim margin (48-47%) but holds a significant advantage over Obama (52-39%).

Clinton beats Thompson (48-47%) and Romney (52-42%)... Obama LOSES to Thompson (42-50%) and Romney (45-46%).  Edwards defeats Thompson (52-43%) and Romney (56-36%)

So it's worth noting that of these three candidates, Edwards fares the best against all three republican opponents.

It also supports my belief that Obama is unelectable, as he loses by significant margins to all three republican candidates - two of which lose to Edwards and Clinton.

So stop wasting your money supporting a losing candidate.  We dems need to get on the bandwagons that can win the general election. 

Watch this video.  If you're on the fence about who to support in the upcoming democratic primaries, maybe this will help sway you to the Edwards campaign.

I think Edwards would make a great President.  He's personable, intelligent, and a fantastic public speaker.  I believe that he would be a President for all of us, not just the rich.  I also believe he would be more likely to win a general election than the other presidential wannabes, Clinton and Obama.

Just watch the video.  It's long, but worth while.

Is he overqualified for this job?

I'm not a huge fan of MoveOn.org.  I may be a liberal, but I don't like the wacko-liberals, and I think MoveOn.org is a bit radical left for my tastes.

That doesn't mean they don't do some good things, and one of those good things is hosting a national "town hall" meeting with Governor Bill Richardson tonight about the Iraq War.

You can attend a local MoveOn.org event in your area tonight, just use the following link to find one.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/page/m/10pWlZ9WV74/1LzEuI

Here's the full text of the email I got today from the Richardson Campaign.

I found the following image here.

This is practically the facial equivalent of the Howard Dean scream!

I'm Rick Root, and I approved this message!

It recently came to my attention that there is a bill being considered in the State of Michigan that would send MORE state funding to the 3 largest universities (the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University).  As I understand it, right now each university gets a certain amount of state funding based on enrollment.  Everyone gets the same amount per student.

The three largest universities which already get more funding by virtue of being larger, would like to get *MORE* per student than the other 9 state universities.

This strikes me as a bad idea.  These three universities already have an advantage in their ability to raise funds for themselves because of their larger alumni base, and in the case of Michigan and MSU, prominent athletic programs that build alumni loyalty and even bring in money from non-alumni (my friend Steve is a supporter of UofM athletics, and he never attended Michigan).

I work in the fundraising office of a major university, and you can be sure that the smaller schools have no hope of raising the kind of cash that Michigan and Michigan State can bring in.

Here is an interesting article in the WMU News.  WMU's President Deither Haenicke (whom some of us referred to as "Detour" Haenicke in the early 90s because of the amount of construction on campus) recently spoke at a hearing of the House Appropriations Subcomittee on the topic.  It's worth a read.

The following article from the Independent Weekly I found to be pretty interesting... It talks about how former Senator John Edwards is the only candidate currently actually discussing and taking a stance on ISSUES. In the long run, that may or may not be good for his candidacy, but I think it's somewhat refreshing in an era where most politicians would rather not talk about "issues"... taking a stance on anything can turn potential voters against you - especially a divisive issue.

I like John Edwards. I like Obama too but I don't think there's any way he OR hillary can win the general election. The problem is, they probably COULD win the democratic nomination, and we'd be stuck with another "can't win candidate".  When it comes to Hillary, I know way to many Democrats who've already said they simply will not vote for her.

Anyway, here's the article link.... and follows is the first few paragraphs of the article if you're too lazy to click =)

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A44330

About this time in the last presidential campaign cycle, a year before the '04 Iowa cau-cuses and New Hampshire primary, I remember hearing then-U.S. Sen. John Edwards speak in Raleigh—and con-cluding that his candidacy was issue-free.

What a difference four years makes.

This time, a year before the 2008 vote starts, Edwards is the issues candidate. Not Hillary Clinton, who must see "issues" as the only way she can lose. And not Barack Obama either, since his election, like Hillary's, would be plenty of "issue" all by itself.

Ironically, therefore, in a field featuring a possible first woman president and a possible first African American, white-guy Edwards' campaign remains afloat for the simple reason that he is the one offering the most concrete set of policy changes.

Normally I'm not a huge fan of Penn & Teller, but they recently did a really good episode on PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that I found to be really enjoyable.

The most important points - PETA supports terrorism, and KILLS ANIMALS.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7562800910863882593&q=penn+and+teller+bullshit

Watch it, you'll see what I mean.

Here's what Hermann Goering, the Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief, had to say about war.

His comments made to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail.

They got around to the subject of war again and Gilbert said that, contrary to his attitude, he did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," Gilbert pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Editorial comment:  Goodness that last paragraph seems to apply an awful lot to the war in Iraq and the Republican Party, doesn't it?