Linda...I am OK, am running on a generator, still no electricity, can access sporadically. Ike kicked our a**, I am 12 miles from the coast, it was a wild ride. Even though my town had a mandatory evac, I chose to stay. The aftermath is horrific. Rosemary might be without elec. still, parts of Houston are still being worked on.

Summer, don't make us open a new thread called discussions without borders.  You have Alaska on your NW boarder, and the rest of US on the south.  A slice of ham may not get to a vote on what type of bread it's on, but it does have a vested interest in the choice.  Inteligent fact based opinions are rare, don't deprive us of your thought process.

Now, where is the outrage.  Obama proposed legislation to cut world poverty in half, this at an estimated cost of over 800 billion dollars to US taxpayers.  That is more than the Morgage bailout.  He now wants to give 50 billion dollars to the UN poverty program.  His advisor Volker spent over a year investigating the Oil for Food steal by the UN.  He found  billions in fraud and was blocked in the investigation.   His other advisor Rubin, tried to get A pass on the Enron investigation and get the FED to shore up Enron's bond ratings just days before the colapse and indictments, and this is not even getting to Johnson and Raines who made 150 million dollars from Freddie, Fannie and Leamans Bros.  People on the other threads say vote for Obama because he has a plan on the morgage meltdown, his plan per his own mouth was I will not state a plan at this time.  I am confused, what are other people hearing in the words of this man that I don't.  We want change, is not a plan, it is the slogan of every out of party candidate since elections began.  

spelling a word the same way twice shows lack of creativity

Good article, Susie.  I sent it to my dd. 

Linda, next time I talk to my dd I'm going to ask her why she's voting for Obama.  Remember, she was on the fence ALTHOUGH she's liberal.  Next time I talk to her I'm going to ask her to give me reasons why she's voting for Obama.  She said she wouldn't vote for McCain AFTER he chose Palin.  All she knows about Palin is what she gets in her emails or her liberal friends tell her.  First of all I have to say LOUD AND CLEAR I have NOTHING against gays.  The weekend dd was here she stayed with her gay friends.  When she came over here that's when she said she wouldn't vote for McCain/PALIN.  I need to remind her that Obama thinks marriage is between a man and a woman.  Of course, he could change his mind.  

Summer, why are you leaving?  Did I miss something?  I enjoyed your posts.  Please stay.

Shirley

This woman is a hate promoter.

Heather Mallick went on a vicious rant aiming her sights on Governor Sarah Palin for an opinion piece published by CBC on September 5th.  Filled in the article were personal attacks on the governor and her family.  Can you say "envy?"

Although it's been around for some time, awareness of this article appeared to surge recently, and I figure it's fair enough to comment on it now along with everyone else.  It's a little late to give Ms. Mallick fair warning that her articles have made her look - to put it mildly - bad.  No, it's far too late for that.  There is no compelling reason at present to write this article in the hopes of saving her.  Indeed, I'm not even sure many on the right would even want someone like her, who demonstrates such hatred against a woman that is so much more accomplished than she, to switch sides.

Instead, the reason for writing this is to provide an opposing view, a voice of reason and sanity, but this time with sights aimed at the hunter who delights in unfair targeting of her quarry.  Turnaround is fair play, and if the people of the fringe left-wing like Ms. Mallick want to play a game of attacking someone because of how they look, dress, and the fact they stand for family values, then guess what; there are those of us on the right that have no qualms about criticizing our left-wing opponents.  The main difference is that this attempt will not be based on disgusting prejudice so often used by Ms. Mallick.

So let's have at it.

Of the latest things Ms. Mallick has written is a reference to Governor Palin's look as that of a "porn actress."  How quaint.  We all know Ms. Mallick is the chaste, family values woman, don't we?  Actually I have no idea if she is, but I won't question, at this point, why Ms. Mallick feels she is so familiar with the attire of a porn actress.  I suggest the readers draw their own respective conclusions on this one.

She criticized Levi, the fiance of Governor Palin's daughter, Bristol Palin, for being a "redneck," and Todd Palin as being a "roughneck."  Track is characterized as being "terrified" at the prospect of his going off to war.  She suggested that Mr. Palin, were he a good father, would not have wanted Levi anywhere around his daughter.  Perhaps so, but it's hard to imagine any man that could gain Ms. Mallick's approval.  After all, this is the woman that reportedly said of her husband, "I married him because he is the only man I know who's smarter than I am."  One might wonder about the context of that remark, but it sounds rather egotistical and more like a quote one might possibly expect from a misandrist.

Then again, "egotistical" is how her articles sound, and a touch of misandry appears to be there, too.   Apparently Ms. Mallick is the judge, jury, and executioner for the entire Palin family, labelling most of them in her harsh manner as having some defect in life.  She was not happy to simply criticize the family, however; she wanted to take on Alaska, too.  In another opinion piece published by The Guardian, Ms. Mallick blasted the 49th State of the Union.  Referring to it as "a frontier state full of drunks and crazy people," she attempted to speak for all Canadians before translating her view to non-Alaskan Americans.  "Alaskans are a bunch of Ted Stevens," she opined, going over his non-technical description of the Internet as if such a narrative is the best Alaska has to offer for a view of technology.

In the CBC article, however, she spoke of "the white trash vote" that she believes the Republicans are winning.  She defined "white trash" as being different from "trailer trash," but rather, "rural, loud, proudly unlettered (like [President George W.] Bush himself), suspicious of the urban, frankly disbelieving of the foreign, and a fan of the American cliché of authenticity."  She also throws out the possiblity of racism against Senator Barack Obama affecting the election, although she concludes that greed is probably the driving force behind the Republicans.

Sorry to break it to you, Ms. Mallick, but Senator Obama's socialism, among many other things, is what is costing him this election thus far.  If we wanted to accept the conclusion of racism, however, we could similarly apply this to the other side and say that there are people that are refusing to vote for the Republican ticket because they won't vote for one with a woman on it.  So we have a situation where you're either racist or sexist depending on which ticket you vote for.  Wonderful.  Oh, but Ms. Mallick so eloquently corrects this fallacy by pointing out, "[Governor Palin] isn't even female really.  She's a type, and she comes in male form too."  So then you can't be sexist if you vote against Governor Palin, because she isn't a woman.

That's right.  To be a real woman, you must be liberal in your political ideology.  So much for the left-wing advocating freedom of ideas, at least for the extreme left.  Apparently a woman gives up her femininity if she decides to be conservative.  The governor is successful, both with a family life and a very compelling political career with lots of promise, with many believing she can one day be a future President of the United States.  By balancing both family and career, she has the appearance in some ways of a feminist, but to the left-wing feminists such as Ms. Mallick, such women are not feminists - or even women - because of their stance on social issues.  Oh well.

In my view, Ms. Mallick is a representation of blind prejudice, envy, and hate.  While she may attempt to speak for various elements of Britain, Canada, and the United States, I know darn well she does not speak for me.

11 Comments » I am a Canadian living in Colorado and am very embarassed reading the Heather Mallick article on Palin. This a sad day for Canada when a Government funded station allows such filth. I might expect such an article from cuba but not Canada. Freedom of speech can sometimes go too far. I would hope the CBC would apologize but that is not likely. If the same article was written in the US about one of your leaders it would start world war three/Comment by Larry - September 18, 2008 @ 16:44 pm Typical CBC......... makes being Canadian and having no choice in supporting this sad excuse for a communication vehicle with this hateful jounalist sad and embarassing.Comment by Gail Bird - September 18, 2008 @ 18:35 pm There is no one more deserving of the derogatory description of "white trash" than Heather Mallick. Anyone with that little of intelligence to spew such vitriol with no basis is, in fact, TRASH...NEVER MIND WHITE TRASH. PATHETIC. ALL I CAN SAY TO THIS ‘PERSON' IS-DO NOT LET THE SUN SET ON YOUR WHITE TRASH ASS IN OUR COUNTRY...THE GREAT USA! PATEWY!Comment by Gina - September 18, 2008 @ 19:56 pm Wow, what a great education Heather has! Advanced English literature degree, her alma mater should really be proud, eh? Her dob is listed as 1959......you're kidding us Heather, really? You have the look of an "ole school marm", yes indeed, jealousy is the name of that green eyed monster. I can't believe that you are only 4 years older than Gov. Palin........you look like you could be her mothers age.Comment by Linda - September 18, 2008 @ 19:58 pm This woman is so disgusting it's hard to comment without sounding as vicious as she sounds. I think "Greta" has it right. Heather Mallick sounds like a "PIG". (And, that's her good point) It may come as a surprise, but we, in the US, don't really care what other countries think about our politicians, but we do care about some pseudo intellectual twit taking apart the family of one of our governors. She sounds like a miserable person striking out just because she can.Comment by Ann Ching - September 18, 2008 @ 20:12 pm Thank you Canadian living in Colorado! She is also an insult to women! Heather Mallick has no class! White Trash? Can she define that term? Honest people who play by the rules, survive on modest means, pay taxes, and possess moral values are considered white trash? Some people are not as fortunate to be dealt such a sweet hand, and have an easy life. Is there a silver spoon hanging out somewhere gal? It is amazing what a venomous hateful individual Heather Mallick is! Evidently, she has yet to realize hate will devour her. P.S. Heather you have the freedom to voice your twisted, hateful, miserable mindset because, "White Trash" Americans have defended, and many died for the freedoms available in their country, as well as yours! Hey Heather, go live in Afghanistan, Jordan, or Syria. Woman, you will have something to REALLY WHINE about then!Comment by Doreen Glennan - September 18, 2008 @ 20:27 pm what a dumb ass thing to say coming from a so called educated woman. she looks more like white trash than any other person i have ever saw. she needs to crawl back in her hole and be a good little canadian skank. if we need her advise we will be sure not to ask for it. got to hell heather!!!Comment by patriot man says - September 18, 2008 @ 20:59 pm Heather Mallick, no one cares what a canadian thunder**** thinks. By the way, get out of our country you stupid ****. Its obvious you are lashing out at a successful woman because you are a fat and ugly canadian.Comment by Shane - September 18, 2008 @ 21:11 pm Given the appearent familiarity of Ms. Mallick with pornography and the paleness of her photo, I guess it would be safe to assume that she has a very personal connection with "White Trash". Such wit from another fanatic liberal hate monger. I'm just so impressed. NOT!Comment by Bob - September 18, 2008 @ 23:07 pm As a Canadian, I'm not particularly proud of the fact that I stopped voting years ago. It's not that I'm too lazy or don't care, it's just that I finally just gave up on the never-ending supply of self-serving politicians who seem to appear with increasing regularity on the landscape of what I think is one of the greatest countries in the world. We as a people deserve better. We deserve the best. We deserve leaders who actually care about us and who mean what they say and who have the interests of the individual citizen at heart. As our great American neighbors to the South, you deserve no less, and I believe you have that opportunity staring you in the face in the person of Governor Sarah Palin. Sarah should be the next president of the United States and all of North America, and probably the world, would be the better for it. You know it, I know it, McCain knows it, and yes, even Obama knows it.I just happened to be channel surfing when I saw Governor Palin speak for the first time. My first thought was, "where has this woman been hiding? Who is she?" I was mesmerized not so much by her obvious beauty, but more by her confidence, her poise, the heart with which she spoke, and the common sense behind her words. What a gem. What a national treasure you have there.I prefer to not even discuss the reporter who is the subject of this forum. Suffice it to say that the world has people in it who seek attention and acceptance from others in severely misguided ways. She may have been beat about the head to much a child. One never knows. The best way to deal with this lack of class and professional demeanor is to ignore it and it will have no choice but to disappear and die a quiet death. It makes more sense to champion the cause of the person picked as a target. That would be taking the "high road."I just hope with all my heart that you don't feel for a minute this journalist is a representation of what most Canadians feel about Sarah Palin. I hope you realize the respect and love most Canadians have for the bond between out countries. Doreen put it into context in her statement, Americans have defended, and many died for the freedoms available in their country, as well as yours!" That's true Doreen and yesterday our city buried another of our young men who died defending that same freedom. Another vibrant, gallant young man who died on some dusty road in a far-off desert in the name of freedom for all of us.We feel your pain, our brothers and sisters to the South. We really do. Don't think for a moment you are in this battle alone. Don't judge us by the actions of the few. I suppose the best thing I could possibly say about Sarah Palin is that if she were running for the leadership of Canada, I would break my 20 year hiatus from voting and be first in line on election morning to cast my vote and ensure that this remarkable woman was speaking for me from the highest post in the country.I hope you do the same. Forget about man-woman, forget about Republican-Democrat. Instead vote with your heart for the future of all you hold sacred in your great country.I believe Governor Palin is destined for great things. Get her party into office and destiny will soon ensure that she will become your leader. Don't ask me how, but I believe it may already be written. Now make it happen....RAY-A PROUD CANADIANComment by RAY..Proud Canadian - September 20, 2008 @ 6:37 am Thanks to Ray the proud Canadian What a nice article from you. I am sure many agree with you and I know it would take much more than Mallick to destroy the bond between Canada and the Us.Comment by Larry - September 20, 2008 @ 17:35 pm RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Name (required)Mail (will not be published) (required)WebsiteContributorsDavidC99 jake98

Summer, how good of you to come back to our forum with this great post! I had tried to read Mallick's article and stopped after "proudly unlettered"~~~sheesh, would that more of us had Ivy League educations, from top prep school to MBA! And, no, you can't "buy" those degrees; many have tried and failed. Mallick needs to research the origins of the label "white trash"; she might be surprised.

There is a big drawback in being ambiguous...................

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/09/baracks-interfe.html

Susie - good article. When I heard Obama say that, I thought the only thing I heard McCain say was that everything would be on the table. I do think young people should have the CHOICE. At the rate Social Security is going now - they may have NOTHING when they reach retirement age. My dh is an economist and when we were younger whenever we had a little extra money he would put it in stocks or mutual funds - while the stock market has had its ups and downs - we are still a lot further ahead then we would have been if we had put that money in the bank or worse spent it. What is so wrong with investing in America????? My kids know a few of the stocks that we have and like to point it out when we are in the store. They will remind me to buy certain things because we have an investment in the company that makes them.

How annoying that Hollyweird just HAS to insert their views so cleverly into every appearance!

Emmys were a drag, except for lovely Christina Applegate's turn at the podium. Same winners, year after year~~~and movie and mini-series I never heard of, although some references to John Adams were rather astute.

From Bloomberg.com

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org
Last Updated: September 22, 2008 00:04 EDT

 

Thank you, Susie, for printing those very good articles.  All of this is getting downright nauseating.  I swear, I don't know how much more of these lies I can take.  I want to stand on my roof top (two stories) with a bull horn and yell....DON'T FALL FOR THE DEMOCRAT'S $HI+ 

I hope you posted these on the "undecided."

I was listening to Fox while getting ready to take my cat to the vet.  I heard that Biden won't release his earmarks.  And that Obama has asked for millions.  And McCain has asked for $0.00!  Remember, Fox IS fair and balanced!  I am so angry right now!  I'm TRYING to educate my liberal dd who WAS on the fence before her liberal friends talked her into voting for Obama.  Doesn't she know her mom knows best!  As an attorney and a young woman of the almost age of 39 she STILL comes to me for advice.  Why in the heck doesn't she listen to me!

Sorry, just venting.

I'm going to try to find some links about this housing crap.  I heard that Bush has been warning about this mess since 2001!  I need to find some truths.  I'm getting sick of hearing how horrible the republicans are...SICK, SICK SICK!

Pansy, thanks.  I've been checking it out this morning.  However, I'm sure my dd won't listen.  she responded to the two emails I sent her, "They're all a bunch of near-liars... your  candidate is no different..." 

I haven't heard anything about Biden resigning.  However, a funny nightmare.  LOL

My brother called me one morning about a week ago...after the statement by Biden..Hillary would have been a better vp candidate..something like that.  I know you've heard about it.  My brother said he woke up about 4:30 AM and had an epiphany.  He said that he kept thinking about what Biden said..Hillary better pick.  He said he thought that Biden would back out and Hillary would be the vp candidate.  He said he COULD NOT get back to sleep.  LOL

Who knows what's going to happen.  It wouldn't surprise me.  Remember Guiliani saying in his RNC speech..Biden better get in writing that he was Obama's VP.  Obama's definitely in favor of change -- changing his mind!  LOL

Shirley

Well, Suzfive, don't go over to the thread for the "undecideds."  I hijacked it!  LOL  I posted that piece about McCain sponsoring that bill TWICE and said I'd continue to do so until someone responded. LOL  Well, I think Beesie sort of responded, but no LIBERAL Americans.  Seems like the poster thinks I hijack a lot of threads.  WTH?    I'm only trying to get the word out amongst those who are undecided.  I guess I'll keep my mouth shut (hands tied) when it comes to that thread.

SherriM - Obama did not put Hillary on the ticket because she might take away some of his thunder. Everything with Obama is about himself. He chose Joe Biden who plagiarized twice and got away with it. This year the media would not have touched Hillary if she was on the Dems ticket. Heck, Obama has not been vetted! The media wants Obama to win so badly and that scares me - what is in it for them?