nancynall.com » The Roman way.

The Roman way.

Sarah Palin neol­o­gism of the day: alike­ness, n. the qual­ity of, so to speak, shar­ing a char­ac­ter­is­tic or, I don’t know, maybe, trait with another. SYN: sim­i­lar­ity. USAGE: “I would think we all tear up dur­ing the national anthem at the begin­ning of a base­ball game, don’t we? That’s an alike­ness between Alaskans and New Yorkers.”

If this lady keeps giv­ing inter­views, we might be able to make this a reg­u­lar feature.

Cur­rent tem­per­a­ture: 9 Fahren­heit. Fore­cast: Light snow, fol­lowed by colder tem­per­a­tures, with an overnight range of 4 above to –2. Just a warn­ing: Mommy’s in a bad mood.

When you’re feel­ing this way, it’s inter­est­ing how every­thing you read in the papers seems to under­line it. It’s really inter­est­ing to me how many of these Wall Street scum­bags are opt­ing for the Frankie Pen­tan­geli exit, although, com­i­cally, some screw it up. There was an inter­view on NPR a few days ago with a finan­cial his­to­rian who said the infa­mous sui­cides of 1929 are an urban myth, that close exam­i­na­tion of news­pa­per reports and other con­tem­po­rary records show no change in the sui­cide rate around the time of the stock-market crash, and the whole myth seems to have been based on a sin­gle report, later retracted.

Doesn’t sur­prise me. Bra-burning was the same way.

Any­way, this year it seems the fallen “wealth man­agers” of the Tar­nished Age are con­vinced it hurts a lot less to fall on your own sword than to fall on some guy’s wand in the prison shower, I guess. Mar­cus Schrencker, the Indi­ana wussy­pants, crashed a per­fectly good air­plane before he was found try­ing to die in the igno­min­ious venue of a KOA camp­ground. He has one foot in the club of the suc­cess­ful sui­cides we dis­cussed a few days ago and my guess is he’ll some­day come to see he’s bet­ter off alive, but you never know. Just once I want to see one of these shit­heads take a more medieval view of per­ma­nent redemp­tion, cover his head with sack­cloth and ashes and spend the rest of his mis­er­able life in repen­tance, maybe dish­ing up beans in a soup kitchen.

I mean, Michael Milken gave up his toupees. Now there’s a sacrifice.

A bit o’ bloggage:

Ryan Seacrest tries to high-five a blind guy.

Some­one asked the other day if I read that Albom thing in Sports Illus­trated. Answer: Some of it. My eyes crossed when I reached the line, “(Detroi­ters) cel­e­brate Sweet­est Day” and I couldn’t go on. So no comment.

Leads that do not inspire confidence:

Tim­o­thy F. Gei­th­ner, the man tapped to lead the nation out of the great­est eco­nomic cri­sis in decades — and who would over­see the Inter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice — trekked to Capi­tol Hill yes­ter­day to explain to sen­a­tors how he made almost $43,000 worth of mis­takes on his own tax returns.

These peo­ple can­not leave Wash­ing­ton fast enough for me. If only they were pur­sued by pitchfork-wielding mobs. More here, if you can stand it.

And now out into the cold and snow and too-much-to-do. At least I feel for­ti­fied with bitterness!

46 responses to
“The Roman way.”

  1. Best Of New Orleans Blog » Blog Archive » “Leads that do not inspire confidence” said on January 14th, 2009 at 11:01 am

    […] of my favorite online colum­nists and a.m. must-reads, had this Wash­ing­ton Post story flagged under “Leads that do not inspire con­fi­dence”: Tim­o­thy F. Gei­th­ner, the man tapped to lead the nation out of the great­est eco­nomic cri­sis in […]

  2. moe99 said on January 14th, 2009 at 11:05 am

    I had a law school class­mate, Andrew Thorn­ton, who had been a Lex­ing­ton blue­blood, but got into police work, specif­i­cally the drug trade before he went to law school. In law school, he went from bust­ing drug pur­vey­ors to pur­vey­ing him­self, a lucra­tive career that he expanded upon grad­u­a­tion. He got into fly­ing up large kilos of cocaine from Mex­ico or Cen­tral Amer­ica, and throw­ing them out the air­plane with para­chutes attached to them in the Great Smoky Moun­tains with transpon­ders attached. But his plans went awry when he jumped out of the plane (which was set on auto­matic pilot and crashed into Smok­ies fur­ther up) car­ry­ing a bale of cocaine and his weight and the bale were too heavy for his para­chute. He bought the ranch, so to speak, in the dri­ve­way of some really sur­prised Ten­nessee home­owner as I recall. There was an exe­crable book writ­ten about it titled The Blue­grass Con­spir­acy. He was some­one I stayed way far away from in law school because he was a real asshole.

    ps. when the police went to track down the cocaine bales in the moun­tains, they found one very dead bear next to one. Seems the bear had sam­pled lib­er­ally of the con­tents. Nice way to go.

  3. Hank Stuever said on January 14th, 2009 at 11:10 am

    Along with Wall Street sui­cides and bra burn­ers, I add Viet­nam vets who were “spat on” when they got home. As if there was some sort of rit­ual hip­pie expec­to­ra­tion team wait­ing at all air­ports and bus stations.

  4. alex said on January 14th, 2009 at 11:44 am

    Ah, the bra burn­ers. I seem to recall some really crap-ass made-for-TV movie in the early ‘70s fea­tur­ing a bra-burning rally. It had Far­rah Faw­cett in it.

    Just looked it up. It was called “The Fem­i­nist and the Fuzz.” (For those of you young ‘uns here, the Fuzz in the title wasn’t a ref­er­ence to body hair.)

  5. lou gravity said on January 14th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    To debunk the debunkers: 3, 4, or 20 high pro­file sui­cides are cer­tainly not going to change the over­all sui­cide rate. That’s a disin­gen­u­ous approach.

  6. nancy said on January 14th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    Link to the orig­i­nal NPR story. Note the com­menter who agrees with you.

    Moe, one of my favorite Dave Barry sto­ries was about a case in Miami that got a bit of national press at the time. A small plane sus­pected of car­ry­ing drugs was being chased by the DEA, and was jet­ti­son­ing cargo as the pilot flew very low over res­i­den­tial areas. Barry said there was an orga­ni­za­tional meet­ing for a Crimestop­pers chap­ter going on in Home­stead, and every­one was out­side on the back patio, lis­ten­ing to a local police offi­cer brief them on how you could detect drug activ­ity in your neigh­bor­hood. Only the offi­cer was drowned out by this plane engine, and every­one looks up just in time to see a bale of pot come hurtling down into the pool.

    He swears it’s true, and given the state of Miami at the time, I believe him.

  7. beb said on January 14th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Lou Grav­ity writes: To debunk the debunkers: 3, 4, or 20 high pro­file sui­cides are cer­tainly not going to change the over­all sui­cide rate. That’s a disin­gen­u­ous approach.

    But where there 3, 4 — 20 high pro­file sui­cides? Were there any? And who would con­sti­tute a high-profile sui­cide? A Rock­afeller, a Van­der­bilt, Carnegie? Debunk­ing debunker’s is a skill that requires more than sim­ply con­trary accertions.

    My sym­pa­thies to the bear who had unwit­tingly sam­pled civilization’s rot.

  8. Gasman said on January 14th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    Bradley Schloz­man is an unre­mark­ably odi­ous turd on the shit sand­wich that is the Bush admin­is­tra­tion. That he is fairly aver­age in his men­dac­ity and arro­gance amongst this present man­i­fes­ta­tion of con­ser­vatism which has infected our nation for the last eight years speaks vol­umes as to the depths of Repub­li­can deprav­ity. How many Repub­li­cans nation­ally have decried such behav­ior? A deaf­en­ing silence from their ranks. And they won­der why they lost the elec­tion so decisively.

    Schlozman’s fate is of spe­cial inter­est to me because his activ­i­ties are directly related to the fir­ing of for­mer U.S. Attor­ney David Igle­sias. Igle­sias, for­mer U.S. Attor­ney for New Mex­ico, chron­i­cled the improper and ille­gal activ­i­ties of Bush’s Jus­tice Depart­ment that led to his (Igle­sias’) dis­missal for refus­ing to engage in overtly polit­i­cal pros­e­cu­tions of Democ­rats right before the 2006 elec­tions. It was Igle­sias’ sworn tes­ti­mony before Con­gress that led to the res­ig­na­tion of vet­eran Sen. Pete Domenici, the ulti­mate defeat of for­mer Rep. Heather Wil­son ® in her run for Domenici’s sen­ate seat, and led to the entire New Mex­ico con­gres­sional del­e­ga­tion being Demo­c­ra­tic for the first time in 40 years.

    I hope that the Obama admin­is­tra­tion will begin a rig­or­ous course of pros­e­cu­tions of ille­gal activ­i­ties com­mit­ted dur­ing the last eight years, espe­cially those orig­i­nat­ing in the Jus­tice Depart­ment and the White House. The rea­son that these arro­gant bas­tards feel that they are above the law is because, until they are pros­e­cuted for what they have done, they are above the law. A few well place heads on pikes would serve remark­ably well as deter­rents for future appointees that feel that they are not bound by the rule of law.

    This type of con­duct is why I am so dis­gusted with con­ser­v­a­tives. This is the legacy of con­ser­vatism; lying, rank hypocrisy, and drip­ping, con­de­scend­ing arro­gance that holds all oth­ers in contempt.

    Let’s send Bradley Schloz­man to the prison cell where he belongs. I’m sure that we could find plenty of other “right-thinking Amer­i­cans” to keep him com­pany dur­ing his stay.

  9. Catherine said on January 14th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    As some­one who is essen­tially self-employed, and has attempted to be respon­si­ble in pay­ing taxes on var­i­ous nan­nies and a clean­ing lady, I look at Tim Geithner’s sit­u­a­tion and say, “There, but for the grace of God (and well, lack of nom­i­na­tion to fed­eral office) go I.” Until you have tried to do the quar­terly state and fed­eral employer tax forms your­self, I sug­gest that you go easy on Tim. Instead of Tim being the one who has some ’splainin’ to do, I frankly think the sen­a­tors should be explain­ing to him why they have made doing the right thing so eff­ing difficult.

  10. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on January 14th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    Ditto Cather­ine. Quar­terly esti­mated for self is hard enough (although i get tired every four years of being asked to feel sorry for peo­ple who hire low wage for­eign nation­als to run their lives).

    The “house­keeper vet­ting” seems to be an issue they ought to offer a class on at the Whar­ton or Kennedy School of Gov’t or Har­vard Biz, for any­one plan­ning a career in pub­lic service.

  11. Gasman said on January 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    Dan Froomkin of WaPo has an apro­pos sum­ma­tion of the eight year dis­as­ter that will be Bush’s legacy:

    http://​www​.wash​ing​ton​post​.com/​w​p​-​d​y​n​/​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​b​l​o​g​/​2​0​0​9​/​0​1​/​1​3​/​B​L​2​0​0​9​0​1​1​3​0​1​5​0​9​.​h​t​m​l​?​w​p​i​s​r​c​=​n​e​w​s​l​e​t​t​e​r​&​a​m​p​;​w​p​i​s​r​c​=​n​e​w​s​letter

    And to think that there are plenty of peo­ple that would have been con­tent to see a per­pet­u­a­tion of this kind of governance.

    Less than a week before the crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tions and pros­e­cu­tions can begin in earnest.

  12. jcburns said on January 14th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    And since nn.c is the site to turn to for cov­er­age of break­ing news:

    BREAKING NEWS: Apple chief Steve Jobs tak­ing med­ical leave until June

  13. Rana said on January 14th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    This is prob­a­bly a stu­pid ques­tion, but since we’re on the topic, aren’t nan­nies and the like self-employed? If so, shouldn’t they be the ones pay­ing their taxes, not their clients? It seems odd to me that they’d be con­sid­ered as employ­ees of a house­hold, rather than as inde­pen­dent contractors.

  14. moe99 said on January 14th, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    Gei­th­ner employed a house­keeper who was legally in the U.S. and mar­ried to a cit­i­zen when she was hired, and who was in com­pli­ance with immi­gra­tion laws until about three months before she stopped work­ing for the Gei­th­n­ers. He is being crit­i­cized for not catch­ing the change in her sta­tus dur­ing that three month period while she was still employed by them. To which I say — are you kid­ding me? In those cir­cum­stances, unless some­body showed me that he had actual knowl­edge of the change in her sta­tus and didn’t do or say any­thing about it, that ought to be a com­plete non-issue.

  15. MarkH said on January 14th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

  16. harrison said on January 14th, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    nancy, it’s cold here in cen­tral indi­ana. with luck, i won’t have to leave my place until sat­ur­day at the earliest.

    then you said about that rat bas­tard schrencker:

    Just once I want to see one of these shit­heads take a more medieval view of per­ma­nent redemp­tion, cover his head with sack­cloth and ashes and spend the rest of his mis­er­able life in repen­tance, maybe dish­ing up beans in a soup kitchen.

    unfor­tu­nately, peo­ple like that rat bas­tard usu­ally don’t repent. they’re some­what socio­pathic — and that helps their suc­cess in their fields.

    and the indy star today had the angle of “this man had two sides” — devoted dad and dark dealer, to para­phrase the head­line on the front page.

    i’m not sur­prised. if a per­son has a front that seems a lit­tle too per­fect to me, most of the time it means he (or she) har­bors and hides a nasty secret.

  17. MarkH said on January 14th, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    Jeff, Cather­ine and moe, why are you giv­ing this guy a pass? He was high up in the IMF and ascended to the top of the New Yok Fed, fer cryin’ out loud. And, it was more than a three-month issue because he failed to pay FICA and Medicare for four years. There is no excuse for a man of his stature not to have an accoun­tant that knows what he’s doing. I have no axe to grind with Gei­th­ner, but this is pretty sim­ple stuff for some­one like him.

  18. joodyb said on January 14th, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    Wikipedia says in the 80s Gei­th­ner worked for a Ford Fdn microloan pro­gram in Indone­sia that Obama’s mother had a hand in. He grew up mostly out­side the US. Wikipedia lists him as the engi­neer of the March 08 Bear Stearns sale and many bailout domi­noes that fell after. he will replace Hank Paul­son, of the GOP (born and bred, staff assis­tant to Nixon) it’s-my-turn pedi­gree. Dis­turb­ing that at least on the sur­face, Geither’s per­sonal under­stand­ing of the IRS and atten­dant respon­si­bil­i­ties does not paint him as a guy who cares about his own minu­tia. if he really wanted a White House job, esp. com­ing from NY Fed, why wasn’t he more dili­gent? then again, his accoun­tants weren’t com­pelled to raise flags. Sev­eral noted today that tax­pay­ers deserve at least a detail man. otoh, even the Pow­er­Line guys say this is not big deal. I wash my hands and i’m sure every­one applauds.

  19. joodyb said on January 14th, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    oh, chatty cathy for­got to say: when i left at 315p my car said 6F. when i got to work, it read –4F. we are headed for
    –20 tonight at MSP, where it was –24 Mon­day night.

  20. april glaspie said on January 14th, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    Gei­th­ner paid his taxes. Does any­body that wants to find such fault with this fuy want to ask Cheney about Iraq con­tract­ing and Halliburton/Blacjwell prof­i­teerubg and whether he made a bun­dle on tainted water and those slow-boat fuel ship­ments? Didn’t think so. It’s fairly obscene that the military-petroleum com­plex is get­ting reli­gion at this point and don’t want to ques­tion Cheney about his energy luncheon-mates.

    One obvi­ous thing is that they don’t want to open up Raygun’s and HW’s records to scrutiny. That cash from Pineap­ple­face might look bad, par­tic­u­larly when Noriega’s got the goods on Bush.

  21. april glaspie said on January 14th, 2009 at 8:24 pm

    They’re all just look­ing to get out of Wash­ing­ton with­out get­ting caught. When the Pret­zeldent thinks he has to admit to tor­ture but claim it was jus­ti­fied, you’d have to be an idiot not to won­der what sort of war crim­i­nals these ass­holes are. They sid, quite ungram­mat­i­cally, ‘We don’t tor­ture’. Well, yeah they did. And you can posit the shib­bo­leth hypo­thet­i­cal, if lives were at stake, but that was never remotely true, and these bas­tards were so drunk with extra-Constitutional power, they just did it any way.

    Shrub said he was assured it was all legal, but his coun­sel and his jus­tice depart­ment were under dire pres­sure from the stovepipe gang to say it was legal before­hand. So the ques­tion is, didn’t they just want to do it in the first place? Because they thought they could get away with it?

    Are they sadis­tic whack-jobs? Cheney’s try­ing to clim that the CIA con­vinced his fat ass that Sad­dam was con­nected to the bomb­ing of the world trade cen­ter. This is just patent bull­shit. Fact is, the biggest Con­sti­tu­tional ter­riss that ever lived were run­ning the gov­ern­ment on the basis of two stolen pres­i­den­tial elections.

  22. brian stouder said on January 14th, 2009 at 8:26 pm

    It’s fairly obscene that the military-petroleum com­plex is get­ting reli­gion at this point

    Amen to that, Sis­ter April (or brother Caliban)

  23. Catherine said on January 14th, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    Rana, the IRS is unfor­tu­nately crys­tal clear about nan­nies and house­hold clean­ers. The choices for doing their taxes are hire thru an agency, pay a pay­roll firm or DIY. DH does it him­self for our every-other-week clean­ing lady, because we are too cheap to part with ~$200/quarter for a firm. We want to do the right thing, and she wants to pay in to SS. But boy, is it a headache, and the penal­i­ties for screw­ing up even by a nickel add up really fast.

    MarkH, to clar­ify, there are 2 issues with Gei­th­ner: The 3-month issue is the house­hold employee issue. Moe makes an excel­lent case on that one — the employee’s sta­tus changed while she was in his employ, and he didn’t think to ask about it. The other issue is back taxes on income he made while self-employed. Yes, a decent accoun­tant would have insisted on him pay­ing the self-employment taxes. But, the big­ger ques­tion here is, why is the tax code so puni­tive to the self-employed? We pay dou­ble on cer­tain taxes, and unlike other work­ers, have heinous quar­terly tax paper­work. Imag­ine doing your taxes 4x/year instead of once! Have you ever had to file quar­terly self-employment tax forms? I thought not. The respon­si­bil­ity for the fail­ure is at least in part Congress’s, and I think they should be as much embarassed as self-righteous.

  24. april glaspie said on January 14th, 2009 at 8:38 pm

    I wasn’t around for the plum­met­ing Wall Street guys, but I’d bet they opened their para­chutes to float down unscathed with bib buvcks in the Cay­mans while pen­sion funds cra­hed. Mean­while, Cheney’s Hal­libur­ton stock increased in value by 3000%, mainly because he lied his ass off after cre­at­ing the inva­sion and occupation.

  25. Dorothy said on January 14th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    It’s always so nice when Sybil … errrr… cal­iban stops by for a chat.

  26. april glaspie said on January 14th, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    Brian,

    I don’t know how my name changed. I do use the april­glaspie name some­times. April Glaspie was the Dtate Dept. employee that was sent by HW to tell Sad­dam the US didn’t give a shit if he invaded Kuwait when those noto­ri­ous liars were slant drilling oil out of Iraq. She was an unwit­ting pawn in an obvi­ous setup for launch­ing Desert Storm. Far as I can tell, April Glaspie has dis­ap­peared. This is how these bas­tards do business.

    April Claspie is sort of a hero of mine, because she went pub­lic at exactly the same time as the Kuwaitis squealed like lit­tle pigs and the world was treated to thee story of Iraqi sol­diers rip­ping kids from incu­ba­tors. Wjich was totally invented by her dad, who made up another famous story about Iraqi rock­ets land­ing in Kuwait City.

    So, she lies her ass off because her dad lies his ass off. , two gen­er­a­tions of Bushes apart.

    HW assured April she was telling the truth to Sad­dam The ram­i­fi­ca­tions of inten­tions gone bad is spec­tac­u­lar. When Bush I was deal­ing with Sad­dam before he became per­sona non grata, he was an ally against the Ayatollah.

    When Hamas was a rival of Fatah, the Israeli gov­ern­ment built them with Amer­i­can cash. Now we have Hamas elected demo­c­ra­t­i­cally and the Israelis pur­su­ing apartheid in Gaza, and we have the Tal­iban resur­gent think­ing about Amer­i­cans like the sec­ond com­ing of the Sovi­ets. And Afghanistan is poppy cen­tral. Just say yo.

  27. mark said on January 14th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    I thought it was exces­sive poilti­cal cor­rect­ness when Zoe Baird and oth­ers were dis­qual­i­fied over nanny taxes and sim­i­lar issues. I’m not going to change my opin­ion now over Gei­th­ner. If the IRS is sat­is­fied, penal­ties paid and no crime, move on.

    I dis­agree with the sug­ges­tion that self-employed fil­ing require­ments are too dif­fi­cult for even the sup­pos­edly bril­liant to be expected to com­ply. I’ve done it that way for the last 15 years. It’s a pain in the ass and more com­pli­cated. What is not com­pli­cated is under­stand­ing that you have to do it. The 1099 should have been a nice reminder.

    It’s now being reported that the IMF gave report­ing instruc­tions to its con­trac­tors and even made a year-end “gross up” pay­ment to them to com­pen­sate for the taxes they would owe. If, as reported, Gei­th­ner filled out a form for this gross up pay­ment each year, and cer­ti­fied he under­stood he had to and was pay­ing the taxes on his IMF income, then I think he has to answer a ques­tion or two.

    But if there was no crime, let Obama have his guy.

  28. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on January 14th, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    Why is my son danc­ing and scream­ing and laugh­ing around and around the liv­ing room? Oh. Curse those auto-calls from the school super­in­ten­dent — what hap­pened to crouch­ing anx­iously around the radio in the pre-dawn morn­ing like mem­bers of the French Resis­tance, lis­ten­ing for the secret code phrase from the BBC on short­wave: “School is can­celled tomorrow.”

  29. caliban said on January 14th, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    Peo­ple believe they can game Amer­i­can rep­re­sen­ta­tive democ­racy. Cheney’s made a bun­dle, and he’s laugh­ing at every­body that thinks a vote mat­ters. It doesn’t, if you have the Supreme Court sewed up.

    You can shoot a guy when you’re under the influ­ence. He was, or why did the Secret Ser­vice keep him from the cops so long, He believes hes sup­posed to get away with any­thing. He knows what heinous war crime he wants to com­mit, so he bul­lies a bunch of polit­i­cal appointee turds that are scared shit­less of him into back­ing his ludi­crous story, while he retreats to his bunker.

    Ever read Scerw­tape? That’s Cheney and W, Worm­wood lick­ing Scretape’s ass.

    If you’re com­fort­able with treat­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion like toi­let paper, Cheney is your boy, but why not steal an elec­tion for Kom­mis­sar Karl. These peo­ple, to use that term loosely, think the Con­sti­tu­tion is a joke. But you nitwits vote for them. Not this time.

  30. caliban said on January 14th, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Geithner’s alleged fail­ure to file had to do with the IMF. Did Wol­fowitz meet all of the inter­na­tional require­ments while he was attempt­ing a John Bolton on the organ­i­tar­ion?? No. Ask the comb.

    Here’s the deal. If Repub­li­cans want to raise pro­ce­dural and idi­otic road­blocks, who had lunch with Cheney when he was mak­ing energy pol­icy?. Might seem silly, but if it was some Enron type, that’s obstruc­tionof jusice, no doubt. Cheney believes he’s cov­ered his trail, but bunker or no, this guy is a crim­i­nal. He’s a war crim­i­nal, but he’s a crim­i­nal in the US Jus­tice sys­tem, too. Actu­ally, he aget­ted Karl Rove in evis­cer­at­ing the Jus­tice Depart­ment and turn­ing it into an RNC cam­paign tool.. These two ass­holes pulled this shit and they’re going to get away with it? These two are crooks Nixon only dreamed of.

    The Bush admin­is­tra­tion, right up to W are guilty of war crimes that are embar­rass­ingly obvi­ous, You get right down to it, every sign­ing state­ment by W ws a crime. W? Moron or cocon­spir­a­tor? Lying your ass off to Con­gress, under oath or not, you broke the law.

  31. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on January 14th, 2009 at 11:05 pm

  32. Catherine said on January 15th, 2009 at 12:10 am

    I just found a good arti­cle about the Gei­th­ner tax issues in the WSJ. The IMF reim­burse­ment pay­ments cover US income taxes but not Social Secu­rity and Medicare. So, I still think it’s under­stand­able that he didn’t know he needed to pay self-employment tax. And, I think we can still all agree that the tax sys­tem for free­lancers is puni­tive and overly complex.

    How­ever, the arti­cle goes into a bunch of other smaller tax infrac­tions, includ­ing improper small busi­ness deduc­tion, inel­i­gi­ble char­i­ta­ble con­tri­bu­tions, expens­ing of util­ity costs that were per­sonal, and my per­sonal favorite, using depen­dent care tax cred­its for overnight camps (it’s super-clear that only day camps qual­ify). At some point, it starts to look like a pat­tern. Whose, I don’t know. Maybe an overly aggres­sive accoun­tant? But why would some­one in Geithner’s posi­tion (or any­one who’s try­ing to be hon­est) hire some­one who plays so close to the lines? I’m start­ing to think that a mod­est coal-raking might be called for after all.

    Ugh, must stop obsess­ing about taxes. Start­ing to feel like Ross Perot.

    Jeff, con­grat­u­la­tions and con­do­lences on the snow day. Every­one in the weather, take care.

  33. Dexter said on January 15th, 2009 at 1:19 am

    Hank Stuever said:

    “Along with Wall Street sui­cides and bra burn­ers, I add Viet­nam vets who were “spat on” when they got home. As if there was some sort of rit­ual hip­pie expec­to­ra­tion team wait­ing at all air­ports and bus stations.”

    Many Viet-vets were spat upon, Hank. I have two close friends who were . I was told I “stunk” merely because I had a mil­i­tary hair­cut. I wrote before here at NN of a cou­ple expe­ri­ences in bars when women found out I was a Vvet.
    I sup­pose you don’t believe we were called “baby-killers!!” either? How about yes, we were, in my case by a chant­ing large group of anti­war pro­test­ers out­side the gates of Oak­land Army Base, the jumping-off point for Viet­nam.
    Maybe your point was it wasn’t as wide­spread as you were led to believe, but many vets were indeed cursed and berated and spat upon…people just plain fuck­ing hated us, and let that be known. As if we WANTED to go to that god­dam place.

  34. caliban said on January 15th, 2009 at 1:19 am

    What pisses me off is that the biggest liars in the his­tory of, pos­si­bly, the world, are get­ting away with ques­tion­ing good peo­ple about nig­gling bull­shit, These bas­tards and their lack­eys in the Sen­ate and House are strut­ting when they rugger-stamped every foul trash­ing of the Con­sti­tu­tion that’s gone on for eight inter­minable years.

    Don Vit­ter sit­ting there and rais­ing ques­tions of per­sonal ntegrity is almost hilar­i­ous, but there are peo­ple that despise Hillary Clin­ton that are too dense to get the irony.

    Peo­ple are so god­damned stu­pid, they don’t see there’s some­thing par­o­dic about Joe Wur­zle­what­ever get­ting paid by Repub­li­can Pro­pa­ganda Inc. to report on another egre­gious inva­sion and occu­pa­tion and say media shouldn’t be allowed to report on inva­sions and occu­pa­tions while he’s allegedly report­ing on an obvi­ous invasion.

    Rich peo­ple ought to admit they got rich with no effort, for the most part, and just pay up. The cash the Bush brethren got from Prescott, that was from Naxis, so give it to Israel, but make them turn over the nukes. The mid­dle east lives in the shadow of Israel’s nuclear weapons, Iran is sssssss­some­thing like ten years from nuclear capa­bil­ity. So who’s a nuclear threat. Given Israeli pol­i­tics, I’d say the Israelis.

    The world’s not safe when any­body has these weapons. But expect­ing Iran to live with Israels capa­bil­ity of nuk­ing the entire Mid­dle East is ridicu­lous. Worst comes to worset, wouldn’t it be like Pak­istan and India? And worst comes to the unthink­able. wouldn’t we get Israeli politi­cians act­ing tough in a par­lia­men­tary run-up and just blow­ing up Iran? That sort of impe­ri­al­is­tic aggres­sion is the way Israeli democ­racy works, isn’t it?

    But they’re cute. Bibi and Tzipi, you know. It’s like the Marx Broth­ers. I think her name must be Tzip­po­rah, and the abject criminal’s name is Bin­jamin. Is it a require­ment of Israeli gov­ern­ment that you be indicted and con­victed of fraud and lar­ceny? Used to be you only had to prove you had once been a mem­ber of Gush Emmum or Hagan­nah or the Stern Group or Irgun (now they could teach Hamas some­thing about ter­ror­ism). Motto: mur­der­ing Pales­tini­ans since 1948.

    So as long as there are chop­pers and $4bil annu­ally of Amer­i­can cash, this whole threat­ened vic­tim thing is kinda ludi­crous, espe­cially wityh the nukes and effec­tive deliv­ery sys­tems sour­tesy of the USA. The entire region lives in dan­ger, and it’s not from unguided home-made Hamas missiles.

    W was enam­ored of democ­racy in Legananon Israel blew that to smithereens. No roads, no water, no fuel. That’s what’s been done to Gaza, and now they’tr just blow­inh up kids.

    I cab’t believe Amer­i­cans buy thi bullshit.Gaza needs med­ical sup­plies and access to docotrs. Three hours a day is tea. Israel has imposed a debil­i­tat­ing aparthei­dem­bargo for 18 months and now they’re blow­ing the place up, and killing emer­gency per­son­nel. Sounds likee geno­cide. But, hav­ing had that done, Israelis aren’t capa­ble of that sort of behav­ior. Are they?

  35. Dexter said on January 15th, 2009 at 1:59 am

    what else can you call it, cal­iban? “self defense?”…the videos of the wounded dying kids in Gaza makes me sick. I am hard pressed to recall such hor­ror as this caused by Israeli bombs. It’s no Shock and Awe, but Bush is in a class by him­self on that issue. We will never know how many thou­sands of inno­cent civil­ians were oblit­er­ated by Bush , just in the first round of Bagh­dad bomb­ings. Now the war-focus moves to Afghanistan, where Obama is going to dou­ble US ground forces imme­di­ately or as soon as he pos­si­bly can. That first seg on CBS 60 Min­utes was most inter­est­ing last Sunday.

  36. moe99 said on January 15th, 2009 at 2:24 am

    wrt whether Viet­nam Vets were spit on, I offer this piece by Jack Shafer in Slate:

    http://​www​.slate​.com/​i​d​/​1​0​05224/

    And I offer that as some­one who was a friend of Lou Puller, Jr., Chesty’s son.

  37. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on January 15th, 2009 at 8:30 am

    Camille Paglia in Salon​.com on Sarah Palin –
    “Ideology-driven attacks on Palin became clot­ted lib­eral clichés within 24 hours of her intro­duc­tion as John McCain’s run­ning mate. What a bunch of tit­ter­ing lem­mings the urban elite have become in this coun­try. From Couric’s vicious manip­u­la­tions of video clips to Cavett’s bour­geois plat­i­tudes, the pre­emp­tive strike on Palin as a poten­tial pres­i­den­tial can­di­date has grossly mis­fired. What­ever legit­i­mate objec­tions may be raised to Palin on polit­i­cal grounds (explored, for exam­ple, by David Tal­bot in Salon) have been lost in the amoral overkill that has defamed a self-made woman of con­crete achieve­ment in the pub­lic realm.”

    Then she went on to say a bit more about Katie … which even i thought was a bit over the top, but she does rep­re­sent an inter­est­ing pov.

  38. nancy said on January 15th, 2009 at 8:41 am

    Palia is “inter­est­ing” inso­far as it’s “inter­est­ing” that an aca­d­e­mic with the atten­tion span of a flea and the intel­lec­tual depth of a late-night chan­nel surfer has some­how con­vinced a lib­eral web­site to carry her col­umn. She’s the Coul­ter of the acad­emy, Jeff, and I’m sur­prised you pay any atten­tion to her.

    A long time ago I real­ized there’s always a buck to be made in “con­trar­i­an­ism.” Be a woman who denounces fem­i­nism, or a Demo­c­rat who rejects polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness, or any X who might be expected to believe Y — but doesn’t! — and just wait for your op-ed slot. Kath­leen Parker built her early career on being the first kind (fem­i­nist who rejects fem­i­nism) and recently switched to the other kind (Repub­li­can who rejects Palin). SInce then, she can reg­u­larly be found in the Wash­ing­ton Post. It’s like pulling a rab­bit out of a hat, an act that never gets old.

  39. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on January 15th, 2009 at 9:26 am

    So, i could posi­tion myself as a preacher who rejects God, i could get a nation­ally read col­umn gig?

    No, that wouldn’t work, because it’s been done to death. Maybe i could be a geek who despises geek­dom, or a hous­ing advo­cate who hates the home­less (i’ll bet Paja­mas­Me­dia would hire me for that gig!).

    Truly, i was inter­ested last spring in the kind of gov­er­nor Palin rep­re­sented, along with Jin­dal and Crist, although i can hap­pily hear cri­tiques of any of the three. This last elec­tion, on both sides, was a self-reinforcing aber­ra­tion of Sen­a­to­r­ial Grav­i­tas — no mat­ter how well Pres­i­dent Obama does, i think his suc­ces­sors of what­ever party are going to be state gov­er­nors again, because gov­er­nance choices are clearer and bet­ter mea­sured out of that posi­tion than from the rel­a­tively neg­a­tive stance of the Sen­ate (not a slam, that’s their Con­sti­tu­tional job, to mainly vote stuff down).

    For ’08, the Sen­a­to­r­ial snow­ball just built steam, and it was not a good time for Gov. Palin to stick her head up out of an Alaskan snow­drift. We’ll see if some of her choices as gov­er­nor hold up in a tight­en­ing econ­omy, ditto Jin­dal, or how they will shift to respond to them; here in Ohio, i think Ted Strick­land (D) will be heard from on the national scene in a few years, but very depen­dent on whether his attempts to reform the edu­ca­tion fund­ing and tax struc­ture work out, along with neigh­bor Granholm up your way, even if nei­ther runs for president.

    Plus, we have a huge unseen cri­sis in MR/DD issues & fund­ing nation­wide, which autism is a tip o’ the ice­berg angle only. It’s what’s break­ing school dis­trict bud­gets, and as we reform that side of the pub­lic fund­ing equa­tion, we’re going to have to put back out on the mid­dle of the table who/how/when kids with spe­cial needs are han­dled. Palin, Strick­land, and other gov­er­nors are up to speed on that in a way few in Wash­ing­ton since Jim Jef­fords even comprehend.

  40. brian stouder said on January 15th, 2009 at 9:41 am

    along with neigh­bor Granholm up your way, even if nei­ther runs for president.

    Granholm really IS dis­qual­i­fied from being pres­i­dent for not being ‘native born’; but one won­ders what mech­a­nism would stop her if she said “What the hell” and ran for it any­way. (the airy dis­missal of all the bogus claims against President-elect Obama’s natural-born cit­i­zen­ship based on a ‘lack of stand­ing’ by the plain­tiffs gave me pause. There is prob­a­bly a com­pelling short story that could be writ­ten, with a Granholm/Schwarzenegger-like can­di­date mak­ing a run at the pres­i­dency. Who has legal stand­ing to com­plain? What if that per­son won’t?)

    As for the supe­ri­or­ity (or bet­ter qual­i­fi­ca­tions) of gov­er­nor to be pres­i­dent, an inter­est­ing point to pon­der, indeed.

    Recently on C-SPAN, a very enter­tain­ing hour and a half (or so) show with Fritz Hollings recently aired. I remem­bered him as a Cen­tral Casting-type south­ern sen­a­tor (from SC), but he was also the gov­er­nor of South Car­olina before that.

    He vig­or­ously advanced the argu­ment that no one should get to be a Sen­a­tor before serv­ing a term or two as a governor.

    His point was that gov­er­nors all have to live within a bud­get; they all have to make hard deci­sions and choices, and if the dol­lars run out, things get very much harder– and vot­ers will give you hell!

    But Sen­a­tors who have never had to deal with a state bud­get, on the other hand, reside in a fis­cal lala land.…it was an inter­est­ing the­sis, but­tressed with many colo­ful anecdotes

  41. nancy said on January 15th, 2009 at 9:45 am

    I wouldn’t vote for Jen­nifer Granholm for mayor of Grosse Pointe Woods. She’s got a lot more work­ing against her than her birthplace.

  42. MichaelG said on January 15th, 2009 at 10:01 am

    I did two tours in Viet­nam dur­ing the war and spent three very enjoy­able weeks there in 2000. It’s a beau­ti­ful coun­try pop­u­lated by friendly, hard work­ing peo­ple. I love the place. While in the army I passed through numer­ous air­ports and never got spit on, never had any con­flicts with any­body. I’m inclined to believe that such inci­dents prob­a­bly hap­pened, but were rare and over reported.

  43. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on January 15th, 2009 at 10:05 am

    Huh. I’ve heard pro-lifers pretty harshly con­demn Granholm on abor­tion, but i really hadn’t heard any other cri­tiques about her work — she’s fairly well spo­ken of, and Ohio doesn’t tend to say nice things about Michi­gan­ders, you may have heard. What’s she not doing well?

    (And i promise that the moment Palin isn’t whacked at as a pinata any­more, i have absolutely no inter­est in bring­ing her up. She just keeps lead­ing posts and com­ments here, i like to help main­tain a 1 to 10 ratio for her at NN.C. Should she have talked to John What­sis with his “Why Obama Won” pseudo-film-docu-thing? Prob­a­bly not.)

    But i am curi­ous about Granholm. CNN sure likes her, she’s on every other day — or is that the beef? More national media time than work on the front lines of Michigan?

  44. nancy said on January 15th, 2009 at 10:18 am

    I’d say my prob­lems with Jenny come down to sheer inef­fec­tive­ness. A lot of what’s wrong with MIchi­gan — most of it — is out of her con­trol, but events in Lans­ing aren’t, and I haven’t seen her do much other than look good on TV. The state bud­get short­falls are car­toon­ishly large, and she can’t seem to guide the party in any direc­tion other than “let’s increase taxes.” I’m not knee-jerk against tax increases, but at a time when the state is on life sup­port and hem­or­rhag­ing pop­u­la­tion, it’s not a help­ful solu­tion. Last year they finally amended a hated busi­ness tax and insti­tuted a “ser­vice tax” which was even worse, because it was Swiss cheesey with holes depend­ing on which indus­try had more effec­tive lob­by­ists. (Skiing=taxed. Golf=not taxed.) It was repealed less than 24 hours after tak­ing effect, and replaced with a sur­charge on? Yes, the busi­ness tax. Where is lead­er­ship? On CNN, look­ing pretty.

  45. coozledad said on January 15th, 2009 at 10:41 am

    Paglia always seems to find some­one who is sim­i­larly desexed to puff up into an avatar of what­ever the fuck it is she feels like going on about at the moment. First, there was Madonna, who appar­ently was told by her han­dlers that she’d have to put in six­teen hour days to con­vince the world she had a twat. Madonna’s high school act­ing skills were appar­ently enough to con­vince Paglia she was the sec­ond com­ing.
    http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​w​m​v​H​u​H3r7ok

    Sarah’s just another coa­track on whom Paglia can hang her master’s the­sis “The sub­li­ma­tion of inter­course into the oblique harangue”.

  46. MichaelG said on January 16th, 2009 at 9:13 am

    A while back there was talk among the Rs about killing the cit­i­zen­ship require­ment so Arnold could run for POTUS. Haven’t heard any of that stuff lately. He’s hid­ing from lynch mobs now. At least in this town.