MattZ

Definitely. But at this point, it's all he can do until he is in office. Better that he be doing a good job at that now than not. Who knows what would be happening if Obama was apppointing cronies? Or if he wasn't being transparent about his plans (as he has every right to do until Jan 20)? Seems to me that he is going above and beyond because he knows how fragile the situation is. And it may not be hard to project a nice image, but at this point, with all the proverbial sh*t hitting the fan, I think it would be pretty easy to make a misstep (which he may make but so far hasn't).

I know it's sort of ridiculous to be analyzing how Obama is "handling" something given that he isn't in power yet (and I assume that's what you are laughing at). But the truth is, the market is very fragile right now, and his appointments have been very reasonable, and he went on Meet the Press to give a full roadmap to recovery -- with much more detail than (I think) any President-elect has given prior to taking office. By being smart, sensible, and transparent, he has done a fantastic job of projecting an image of calm during chaos, and I think that deserves to be lauded, no? He has also

Because: 1. Life is too short. 2. I want to be like groovingdan (and Jeff).

Haha, this is awesome.

Yeah, but my point was that there are strings that come attached to being a bank holding company. And if Amex or Goldman go that route, they are stuck with those strings. Reserve requirements, etc. So, even if they continue their "businesses" they are still subject to the same restrictions. Which means the rules weren't really changed for them. Right back atcha.

Well, I wasn't trying to be disingenuous, for sure. And let's just say that I will certainly meet you halfway on the "I know next to nothing about banking" point. But that being said, I dont think any rules were changed for Morgan and Godman. I think Morgan and Goldman were faced with a crisis of confidence in the market that caused a run that forced them to convert to traditional banks. So far as I know, by converting to a traditional bank, both Morgan and Goldman are required to comply with more stringent reserve requirements (as well as other requirements) to limit their profitability (

I'm as much of a critic of campaign finance issues as anyone, but I dont think this is why the banks got bailed out. Imagine what would happen in this country if you went to the bank and they didn't have your money? Or banks stopped lending? It sounds hyperbolic, and it is, but I think the Paulsons/Bernankes of the world viewed this as a real possibility. EDIT: not to mention, I bolded your reference to investment banks above -- there are no more investment banks. Lehman went under. Bear went under. Morgan and Goldman converted to mortar and brick banks. In other words, if investment

The vast and interconnected nature of the financial industry, and the fallout that would result in places unimaginable if it were to implode, are not understood by anyone. Certainly not Bernanke and Paulson. So, I think, to be safe, the folks that took Paulson and Bernanke at their word did so in a tip of the cap to our collective ignorance. Anything and everything that could be done needed to be done. I think there should also be a careful and well-planned (and limited) bailout of the auto industry. But the collateral damage from the Big 3 going under would be very very painful, but we'

The industries are being treated differently because: 1. The implosion of the finanical system would have brought down everything else with it -- including the Big 3 and everyone else. In the world. 2. The financial system is more complicated and intertwined, and frankly, harder to understand by laymen (including pols). When those in the know advise on a bailout, those not in the know, listen. You think the distinguished Rep from the 12th district of [insert state] knows what a credit default swap is? No, but he knows what "the entire economy will crumble" means. That's what Bernanke

I never read his blog. It appears to be stream of consciousness poetry. I am no expert on poetry, but sometimes I feel like there's a verrrrry fine line between stream of consciousness poetry and bad poetry.

Yeah, I got it too (a signed copy). So far as I can tell, the signature on the 2nd page is the highlight. I keed, I keed. You are right though. I will give it another shot, but man, on first read, this is not my cup o tea. Reads as completely self-indulgent (and not all that good).

Happy birthday MB! Thanks for helping to make this place what it is. Best, Matt

Let me preface this by saying that I don't know anything about this topic specifically and I happen to think that this country's support of Israel is appropriate. That all being said, I have to think every country utilizes torture in one form or another. I dont agree with it, but I just think it's reality. I am not one of these anti-torture advocates who seems to think that torture started in this country with Bush. I firmly believe we've been doing it for a long time. We just hid it better (I think).

I can live with this, I guess. I live a good life and treat people well. If you want to tell me that this is following "Jesus" even without explicitly believing in him specifically, ok, I guess. But to be honest, it sounds like my hebrew school teacher telling me that the 6 days that God took to create the world didn't REALLY have to be 6 days. Who knows how long 6 days were back then.

I half-assume that this is directed at my comment about being jewish and spending eternity in hell as a result (although maybe I am wrong). Look, I understand that I am being hyperbolic, but I am trying to be good natured about it and I say it with tongue planted firmly in cheek. But the fact remains that I fall into the atheist category, and I am trying to answer jakobnicholas's question honestly. Part of my biggest gripe about religion is the fact that different provisions appear to be up for debate after awhile if people decide they don't sit well with them. I know that Man has done a p

I find it amusing that the Yanks' offer to CC topped Johan Santana's deal in both total and avg per year, and they offered it on the first day of the free agency period, and apparently, it's been complete radio silence from the Sabathia camp. I know this is a Boras-managed project so who knows what the reason is. I just love that the Yanks strut their way into the process, put up an insane offer, and are forced to sit and wait.

Good point. MrRain- I agree with you on this torture thing, but there are plenty of things that terrorists hate about this country other than the fact that we torture people. Don't forget that we invaded Iraq, we propped up a regime in Iran, we are in bed with the Saudis, etc. This country has a long history of meddling in the middle east... EDIT: you beat me to it -- I see you backed off of the statment a bit.

Well, maybe not by definition they (jews, muslims, etc) aren't going to hell. But don't people have to accept Jesus as the saviour to be saved? Isn't that basically the crux of the matter? Espiscopalians and Catholics don't believe this any more? Oh, now I get it. Thanks.

But what situations would you be willing to look the other way? As I mentioned above, and bjorn illustrated more artfully, I just don't think that those certain situations exist. I think they are fictions used to justify torture in far different situations. There just never is (to my knowledge) a ticking bomb scenario where tens/hundreds/thousands will perish if we don't get that one last bit of information about whether to cut the blue wire or red wire. And any other scenario that's close, but isn't quite a ticking bomb, gets you further and further away from the "iminent harm" that propo

from another country? or in another country?

Whenever I invariably end up in a discussion about torture the discussion always seems to turn to the proponent asking me if I'd be willing to lose my life as the result of a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if torture had been used. To which I always respond, yes. I will put my money where my mouth is for the exact reason that MrRain gives -- on the whole it's unreliable and hurts our country. Also because there are some things that I believe are worth living and dying for. And due process of law is one of those things (IMO). Not that I am looking to jinx myself or anythi

I think most people can argee that there are certain instances. But for me, those certain instances are more theoretical than actual. The ticking bomb scenario is a myth. That is held up as an example every time and it just doesnt happen like that. But its an easy way to rationalize ripping up our constitution. EDIT: also, "coercive measures"? That's a cute euphemism.

Thanks man. I appreciate it. Really not trying to start another round of this debate, just trying to answer your question honestly since you asked. Apparently, different Catholics that I have met have different opinions on this issue.

Because people who believe in Jesus, by definition, believe I am going to hell for being Jewish. And I can't help who my parents are. You can tell me that you don't believe this to be the case, but you are deviating from the teachings of your religion. So, I am not sure what you are basing that opinion on. EDIT: (way to go, gary)