FTN wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Again with the Geithner bashing, it's perplexing to say the least. The Economist liked the pick.

Incredible to think someone might have an opinion different than yours, or that of the Economist. Amazing really.

The point is that you can't possibly really be disappointed on a pick of a civil servant you know very little about. I know you go for the whole renaissance man thing, I know that type. It's cool. But you don't have to have an opinion on everything.

jeff2sf wrote:The point is that you can't possibly really be disappointed on a pick of a civil servant you know very little about. I know you go for the whole renaissance man thing, I know that type. It's cool. But you don't have to have an opinion on everything.

It's not hard to get an opinion on someone who seems to have been around as long as geithner. Just a question of plugging his name into google and going back a couple of years on articles. It seems sensible to have such an opinion, when he's going to be put in charge of one of the worlds biggest economies.

Hee Hee. From an interview in Feb 2007

That has been amply illustrated in how he has persuaded Wall Street to take ownership of the issues surrounding credit derivatives: from the plumbing that makes the system function to more aggressive and creative stress-testing to the relationship between hedge funds and banks. His approach has aimed at helping them believe that they are masters of their own destiny rather than miscreants who need to be punished, while extracting improvements in the financial system along the way.

“The fact that the banks are stronger and risk is spread more broadly should make the system more stable,” Mr. Geithner said. “We can’t know that with certainty though. We’ll have a test of that when things next threaten to fall apart.”

I can't have an opinion on him, because I'm not capable of reading, and I have zero understanding of anything that isn't related to music or baseball.

I know you go for the whole renaissance man thing, I know that type. It's cool. But you don't have to have an opinion on everything.

What the hell are you talking about?

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

WilliamC wrote:There are some good preachers out there that aren't lunatics and are not complete religious Nazi's.

He needs to find himself one.

I'll go ahead and say it--our own Rev. Beezer would be great.

So long as you put him on a delay, sure. Though, like I think most Americans, I do enjoy clergymen who cuss like sailors.

& what other clergy are so deft with MSFT Paint as our own?

which reminds me is it in order to propose a chaplain for this place, because well y'know

On the Warren thing, I don't like him anymore than you guys, but I think Obama is going after something with the pick. He gives up little in practical terms. Warren won't be making policy or leading any part of Obama's cabinet. What he WILL do is send a signal to the average Joe in the religious right that Obama is willing to include them in his thinking. That will be more valuable than any loss he'll get by having this guy speak at the Inauguration. I mean, who will remember who spoke at the inauguration 10 years from now? If it helps bring people together a bit without sacrificing any policy, then I think it's a good choice. As the older generation dies off (hate to put it that way, but you get my drift), gay marriage and other homophobia issues with go with them. It's a battle for another day. We desperately need to come together right now if we're going to get things turned around and Warren might help bring a contentious group into the fold.

I don't like the Vilsack pick though. Big agra business is one of the areas we need to save money, IMO, and Vilsack isn't likely to help there.

Monkeyboy wrote:On the Warren thing, I don't like him anymore than you guys, but I think Obama is going after something with the pick. He gives up little in practical terms. Warren won't be making policy or leading any part of Obama's cabinet. What he WILL do is send a signal to the average Joe in the religious right that Obama is willing to include them in his thinking. That will be more valuable than any loss he'll get by having this guy speak at the Inauguration. I mean, who will remember who spoke at the inauguration 10 years from now? If it helps bring people together a bit without sacrificing any policy, then I think it's a good choice. As the older generation dies off (hate to put it that way, but you get my drift), gay marriage and other homophobia issues with go with them. It's a battle for another day. We desperately need to come together right now if we're going to get things turned around and Warren might help bring a contentious group into the fold.

I don't like the Vilsack pick though. Big agra business is one of the areas we need to save money, IMO, and Vilsack isn't likely to help there.

if there's still time for a recount, consider signing a petition for a non-Big-Farma-Ag-Secy:

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/

Michael Pollan's on board, so why not

Monkeyboy wrote:On the Warren thing, I don't like him anymore than you guys, but I think Obama is going after something with the pick. He gives up little in practical terms. Warren won't be making policy or leading any part of Obama's cabinet. What he WILL do is send a signal to the average Joe in the religious right that Obama is willing to include them in his thinking. That will be more valuable than any loss he'll get by having this guy speak at the Inauguration. I mean, who will remember who spoke at the inauguration 10 years from now? If it helps bring people together a bit without sacrificing any policy, then I think it's a good choice. As the older generation dies off (hate to put it that way, but you get my drift), gay marriage and other homophobia issues with go with them. It's a battle for another day. We desperately need to come together right now if we're going to get things turned around and Warren might help bring a contentious group into the fold.

I see your reasoning, but I just disagree. To me, the only difference between having Warren and having Farrakhan is that hateful Christianist homophobia has a wider audience in this country than hateful Islamist anti-Semitism. That fact might represent a political justification... but nonetheless the move reeks of Clinton-style triangulation, or worse.

edit: this isn't to say that Obama is a homophobe, or that he'll be a disappointment on civil rights issues. Just that this one thing really stinks. But anyone with any sense knew that there would be episodes like this.

Maybe Obama should just give the invocation himself.

dajafi wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:On the Warren thing, I don't like him anymore than you guys, but I think Obama is going after something with the pick. He gives up little in practical terms. Warren won't be making policy or leading any part of Obama's cabinet. What he WILL do is send a signal to the average Joe in the religious right that Obama is willing to include them in his thinking. That will be more valuable than any loss he'll get by having this guy speak at the Inauguration. I mean, who will remember who spoke at the inauguration 10 years from now? If it helps bring people together a bit without sacrificing any policy, then I think it's a good choice. As the older generation dies off (hate to put it that way, but you get my drift), gay marriage and other homophobia issues with go with them. It's a battle for another day. We desperately need to come together right now if we're going to get things turned around and Warren might help bring a contentious group into the fold.

I see your reasoning, but I just disagree. To me, the only difference between having Warren and having Farrakhan is that hateful Christianist homophobia has a wider audience in this country than hateful Islamist anti-Semitism. That fact might represent a political justification... but nonetheless the move reeks of Clinton-style triangulation, or worse.

edit: this isn't to say that Obama is a homophobe, or that he'll be a disappointment on civil rights issues. Just that this one thing really stinks. But anyone with any sense knew that there would be episodes like this.

I see our point,, and I definitely don't like the pick on a gut level. I'm just looking at a possible reasoning for it. If it helps bring people together and helps him get some things done without sacrificing policy, then I'll look back on it and feel ok with it. If, on the other hand, it emboldens the homophobes, then I'll probably look back on it very differently.

It's probably worth mentioning that this isn't the first time Obama has angered the gay community, so it may be more than just a blip.

I know something freakin' weird is going on when I agree so strongly with Heather MacDonald.

this guy is such a douchebag.

TenuredVulture wrote:People suck.

true dat.

steagles wrote:this guy is such a douchebag.

you know, i don't even care that he might beat the charge. i'd be okay with that. but he has no business remaining in office, and if i were f. scott, i'd make a one time offer. all charges drop in exchange for him disappearing, and admitting guilt in a way that he could never again run for public office.

short of that, i'd go after his money. i'd go after his wife. i'd go after his kids. i would make life so fucking painful for this guy that a 5 year sentence in federal 'pound me in the ass' prison would be a godsend.

i want this guy got.

steagles wrote:

steagles wrote:this guy is such a douchebag.

you know, i don't even care that he might beat the charge. i'd be okay with that. but he has no business remaining in office, and if i were f. scott, i'd make a one time offer. all charges drop in exchange for him disappearing, and admitting guilt in a way that he could never again run for public office.

short of that, i'd go after his money. i'd go after his wife. i'd go after his kids. i would make life so $#@! painful for this guy that a 5 year sentence in federal 'pound me in the ass' prison would be a godsend.

i want this guy got.

but neither of your posts say who that guy is. It's probably obvious, but I'm missing it. Who do you want got?

edit: I guess you're talking bout the governor of IL, eh.

TenuredVulture wrote:People suck.

Must be nice to just redo a very old experiment that's been replicated many times and then receive national attention for it. I guess abu graib made it relevant again, but this is old news to anyone in the psych field, or anyone who's taken a psych 101 class for that matter (not criticizing your post, just the fact that this is garnering national attention as if it's new or shocking).

Maybe I'll replicate the bobo doll experiments and get my PhD.

Monkeyboy wrote:

steagles wrote:

steagles wrote:this guy is such a douchebag.

you know, i don't even care that he might beat the charge. i'd be okay with that. but he has no business remaining in office, and if i were f. scott, i'd make a one time offer. all charges drop in exchange for him disappearing, and admitting guilt in a way that he could never again run for public office.

short of that, i'd go after his money. i'd go after his wife. i'd go after his kids. i would make life so $#@! painful for this guy that a 5 year sentence in federal 'pound me in the ass' prison would be a godsend.

i want this guy got.

but neither of your posts say who that guy is. It's probably obvious, but I'm missing it. Who do you want got?

edit: I guess you're talking bout the governor of IL, eh.

that;s the one.

steagles wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

steagles wrote:

steagles wrote:this guy is such a douchebag.

you know, i don't even care that he might beat the charge. i'd be okay with that. but he has no business remaining in office, and if i were f. scott, i'd make a one time offer. all charges drop in exchange for him disappearing, and admitting guilt in a way that he could never again run for public office.

short of that, i'd go after his money. i'd go after his wife. i'd go after his kids. i would make life so $#@! painful for this guy that a 5 year sentence in federal 'pound me in the ass' prison would be a godsend.

i want this guy got.

but neither of your posts say who that guy is. It's probably obvious, but I'm missing it. Who do you want got?

edit: I guess you're talking bout the governor of IL, eh.

that;s the one.

But he had something that was worth something. He wasn't just going to give it away.